House of Commons Hansard #36 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was victims.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Ukrainian Heritage Month Act First reading of Bill S-210. The bill declares September as Ukrainian Heritage Month across Canada annually, recognizing the contributions of Ukrainian Canadians and the importance of preserving their heritage, especially given Russia's actions in Ukraine. 200 words.
Military Justice Modernization Act Second reading of Bill C-11. The bill C-11] modernizes the military justice system by [transferring jurisdiction for sexual offences committed in Canada from military to civilian courts. Members support the principle but debate its effectiveness. Concerns include 10 years of government inaction, potential political interference, civilian court capacity, and different treatment for overseas cases. Parties seek further study on cultural change, victim support, and implementation details. 22300 words, 3 hours.
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-11, the military justice modernization act.
The Minister of National Defence has made it clear that Canada's new government is committed to ensuring the members of the Canadian Armed Forces have a workplace where all members feel supported, respected and included. Canadians have watched over the past few years as the Canadian Armed Forces has made significant efforts to organize—
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am not commenting on the presence or absence of anyone, but, given the numbers of us here, it seems we could listen to a speech without the heckling.
The Deputy Speaker Tom Kmiec
I will remind colleagues that, if they want to take separate discussions out of the House, they are welcome to do so.
The member for Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam may resume.
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
Mr. Speaker, Canadians have watched over the past few years as the Canadian Armed Forces has made significant efforts to modernize and evolve as a 21st century workplace. While much has been accomplished toward this goal, there is still much more to do. Proposed Bill C-11 is another critical step towards meaningful and lasting institutional reform.
Bill C-11 focuses on strengthening trust and confidence in the military justice system. This would be the next step in the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces' efforts to address recommendations from independent reviews from former Supreme Court justices Fish and Arbour. These reports, and the more than 100 recommendations that stem from them, remain extremely important to our larger cultural change efforts. Overall, these reviews have helped define how DND and the CAF are undertaking changes to the military justice system and cultural evolution efforts. They have allowed for an impartial evaluation process, highlighting both the efforts that have fallen short and the barriers that still exist, and have made recommendations to improve. That is why today I will provide an overview of these independent external reviews and the progress that the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces have made to address their recommendations to date.
I will begin with the independent external comprehensive review, also known as the Arbour report. This review was launched in April 2021 and led by former Supreme Court justice Louise Arbour to examine harassment and sexual misconduct in the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces, as well as policies, procedures, programs, practices and culture, including in the military justice system itself. The final report was made public on May 30, 2022, and the minister at the time welcomed all 48 recommendations. When the final report was received, there were 17 recommendations for which implementation could be undertaken immediately.
This included the implementation of recommendation number 48, appointing an external monitor to oversee the implementation efforts of the Arbour report's recommendations. The minister at the time appointed Madame Jocelyne Therrien as the external monitor who provides monthly progress reports to the minister on the implementation of the recommendations. She also provides biannual progress reports that are made available publicly.
The minister also announced the implementation of recommendations 7 and 9, changes to the military grievance and harassment processes, in August 2023. With the implementation of these recommendations, any CAF member who has experienced sexual harassment, sexual misconduct or any other form of discrimination based on sex or gender while performing their duties can now choose to bring their complaint directly to the Canadian Human Rights Commission without first exhausting internal grievance and harassment processes.
The Arbour report also outlined improvements for the military college system in recommendations 28 and 29. That is why, in December 2023, the minister announced the seven people appointed to the Canadian Military Colleges Review Board to review Canada's two military colleges. In March 2025, this board released its report, which included 49 recommendations covering a range of areas, including cost, governance and quality of training.
As we see with Bill C-11, which is being debated here today, we would also address the key aspects of recommendation 5 of the Arbour report by removing the CAF's investigative and prosecutorial jurisdiction over Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada. Since December 2021, all new Criminal Code sexual offence charges are now being laid in the civilian criminal justice system and no new Criminal Code sexual offence charges are being adjudicated in the military justice system. The Canadian Forces military police group is also leading a Criminal Code sexual offences operational framework working group with the Ontario solicitor general and Ministry of the Attorney General to develop a framework for the transfer of cases.
Bill C-11 also addresses several recommendations from Justice Fish's third independent review of the National Defence Act. Bill C-11 would address eight recommendations from this review. These amendments seek to, among other things, first, modify the process for the appointment of the Canadian Forces provost marshal, the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services; second, expand the class of persons who are eligible to be appointed as a military judge to include non-commissioned members; and third, affirm the judge advocate general's respect for the independent authorities in the military justice system while exercising its superintendence of the administration of military justice.
These amendments seek to strengthen trust in military justice authorities operating independently from the chain of command and to bolster the trust and confidence of Canadians in the military justice system.
We are taking these recommendations seriously and moving quickly. We know that members of the Canadian Armed Forces are counting on us. As our government makes a generational investment in Canada's national defence, we know that we must invest in our people. The members of the Canadian Armed Forces are the foundation of Canada's national defence. Members have told us time and time again that they want to feel safe, protected and empowered to serve in a modern 21st-century workplace.
External reviews of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces have also told us that we need to modernize the military justice system. That is precisely what we are doing in Bill C-11, the military justice system modernization act. The legislative changes proposed in Bill C-11 would play a critical role in helping us address several important recommendations regarding sexual misconduct and would enhance trust in the military justice system.
I encourage all members of this House to come together to support this important piece of legislation.
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am going to pose the same question to the member that I did to one of his colleagues, because I did not get an answer.
The reality is that sex assault victims, whether they be in civilian court or military court, have a complete lack of trust in the system. They call it a system; they do not call it a justice system. There is under-reporting and there are problems with investigations. Some police services believe them; some police services do not. There are difficulties in obtaining additional evidence. There are difficulties with the Crown chosen to prosecute these files. There are issues with the overcrowding in our courts to begin with. We have to apply the Jordan principle. It is no small wonder that in Ontario alone there is an abysmal record of success in prosecuting sex assaults.
With all of the deficiencies that I just presented, which I presented to one of the member's colleagues, what does Bill C-11 do to address them?
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
Mr. Speaker, while I do not dispute that those deficiencies exist, I think they are problems for another time and another bill. What we are focusing on now is the military justice system modernization act and how we deal with it in the military system. Let us focus on that. As we carry on and move into other areas, let us focus on those areas when we get to them.
Doug Eyolfson Liberal Winnipeg West, MB
Mr. Speaker, there have been numerous comments about our overloaded court system, the lack of Crown attorneys and delayed bail hearings due to the lack of Crown attorneys. Would the member not agree that these things are totally under the jurisdiction of the provinces and that we have to hold our provincial governments to account to improve them so that this bill can be more workable?
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
Mr. Speaker, I 100% agree. We need to allow provincial governments to operate within their jurisdictions and do what they need to do. We can certainly support them to whatever extent we can, but let us focus on what we can do with this bill in the interim.
Patrick Bonin Bloc Repentigny, QC
Mr. Speaker, we have to remember how this bill came into being. Despite the extremely serious sexual allegations involved in this case, the Liberal government's former minister of national defence flatly refused to meet with the military ombudsman 12 times, refused to look at the evidence and even claimed that he wanted to avoid interfering in the investigations.
My question is simple. Why should we expect the Liberals to behave responsibly this time by quickly passing a bill that they failed to pass in the last Parliament?
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
Mr. Speaker, we brought this bill forward to be passed, and we count on the support of all members of the House to do so. It is clear that all members value the importance of this bill and the need for it to pass.
The bill that was introduced in the previous Parliament, as mentioned, was unable to be proceeded with because of the filibuster that went on, which basically brought Parliament to its knees. We intend and wish for this bill to be carried forward to fruition. We want to get it to committee and pass it with the necessary amendments and appropriate improvements.
Rhonda Kirkland Conservative Oshawa, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that for the first time, Oshawa residents sent a woman to be their representative in the House of Commons. I am thinking about that a lot as I listen to the folks across the way in the Liberal government say things like “cultural change”, “fairness”, “trust”, “inclusive”, “respectful”, “we hear them”, “support” and “independence”. These words are being used over and over again.
In civilian courts, as it stands, sexual abusers are let out on bail with the least onerous conditions. That would still be the case. How are we protecting women?
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
Mr. Speaker, these are very important considerations that we have to look at seriously right across the board. However, what we are dealing with today is the military justice system modernization act, and I think that is what we should focus on.
Kurt Holman Conservative London—Fanshawe, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured today as the member for London—Fanshawe to rise to give a speech on such an important topic.
As Conservatives, we honour the brave men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces. Their duty is to protect Canada. Our duty is to protect them. Bill C-11 is presented as an effort to do that. It continues the long overdue modernization of the military justice system, and it claims to deliver justice for victims of military sexual misconduct. However, Canadians expect results, not rhetoric. They want to see the bill achieve real progress for victims, for due process and for the discipline and effectiveness of the forces.
The bill would amend the National Defence Act so that most sexual offences alleged to have occurred in Canada move to the civilian system. It would align military law with recent Criminal Code updates, including publication bans and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act. It would create greater distance between the chain of command and three key justice actors by shifting appointments to the Governor in Council and by having them report directly to the minister. It would rename and rank-inflate the provost marshal to provost marshal general. It would set non-uniform terms for the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services.
On paper, some of this reflects previous expert recommendations made by legal scholars and victims' groups. Conservatives have long said that everyone who serves deserves a safe and respectful workplace free of discrimination, racism, abuse of authority and sexual misconduct.
There is no question that we support the goal of this legislation. Unfortunately, we know that the legislation, in its current form, does not address serious concerns with respect to the capacity, consistency or independence necessary to deliver real justice without creating new problems and inviting political interference.
Let us start with capacity.
Bill C-11 does not add a plan to ensure capacity or specialized expertise for military cases entering provincial systems. Since 2021, the government has been sending cases into the civilian stream. Victims and witnesses have waited, and many historical files were never taken up because of stale evidence or flawed investigations.
Civilian police and Crown offices are already stretched. The bill does not provide a clear path for historical files. A promise without a plan is not justice. Victims deserve timelines, trauma-informed supports and real prospects of conviction when warranted by evidence.
My second concern is consistency.
The code of service discipline forms a comprehensive framework that upholds discipline, efficiency and morale. It would still apply to almost everything except sexual offences that occur in Canada. Sexual offences outside of Canada would remain under military jurisdiction. Why should the same allegation be treated differently?
This split risks undermining coherence. It weakens the feedback loop between criminal accountability and service discipline for conduct that can be directly tied to military duties and to unit cohesion. Instead, the bill should ensure that findings in civilian court automatically inform service discipline and career consequences. It should also define how the forces would protect complainants on base while civilian processes run their course.
The government needs to explain how military police would maintain their investigative competence if they lose domestic experience in the very file type where expertise matters most. It does not explain how the forces will coordinate with host-nation authorities in deployments at sea or on allied bases where civilians work alongside our members. If we do not plan for this now, we risk weaker investigations and a two-tier outcome for victims depending on geography.
Next is independence and the risk of political interference.
The bill would have key members of the military court system report directly to the minister. Independence from the chain of command is the stated goal, yet the bill would give the minister power to issue written instructions or guidelines in respect of prosecutions. It would vary term lengths in ways that look arbitrary. It would rank-inflate the provost marshal general. It would remove reappointments for two directors but not for others.
When appointments move to cabinet without clear and uniform safeguards, Canadians see the risk of political interference. They have seen it before. They have seen political interference and a pattern of delay that undermines confidence, leaving victims waiting. If the government wants trust, it should ensure clear, uniform and transparent selection criteria, fixed terms and public disclosure of any ministerial directives.
Fairness is also essential. Justice must work for both the complainant and the accused so that outcomes are credible, sustainable and trusted by all. A process that is trauma-informed for victims and procedurally fair for those accused produces stronger convictions and more legitimate acquittals.
When prosecutions move to the civilian stream, service members should have clear access to legal assistance so that every case is decided on evidence and law, not on personal means or uncertainty about representation. Ensuring both fairness and consistency is what gives victims true justice and strengthens confidence in the entire system.
Finally, in terms of culture and leadership, reports have described a long-standing culture of silence and a pattern of plea deals for minor service offences. That did not magically end with a new bill title. Trust requires leadership accountability. Trust requires that senior ranks cannot use their position to blunt investigations or to steer outcomes.
This House must make it clear that nobody is above the law. That includes ministers who ignored evidence, chiefs who were protected and senior officers who allowed plea-downs that erased the seriousness of the conduct. Policy language is not enough; implementation and oversight are everything.
As I said, there is no question that Conservatives support the goal of this bill, but we need to take a responsible approach for this important legislation. We will support moving Bill C-11 to committee because victims deserve progress, not more delay.
At committee, we will press for amendments in the following areas, among others: a civilian capacity plan with provinces and territories, including funded training, dedicated contacts for military files, service standards for charging decisions and public reporting on timelines and outcomes; a clear bridge between civilian verdicts and the code of service discipline so that automatic administrative reviews follow criminal findings; real independence safeguards, including uniform non-renewable terms for key directors, transparent merit-based selection criteria and publication of any ministerial directive with reasons; a legal assistance framework for accused members in the civilian stream, with eligibility rules and cost controls so justice is decided on facts, not finances; an overseas investigation plan that sets joint tasking with civilian partners, external reviews of serious cases and clear agreements for ships and allied installations; victim support in practice by expanding the sexual misconduct support and resource centre mandate to provide legal navigation, workplace safety planning and communication with civilian authorities; term and rank discipline that removes unnecessary rank inflation and focuses on capability and accountability rather than titles.
This is how we honour the courage of the people who came forward, including those who were ignored or punished for speaking up. This is how we protect current members who still worry about reprisal on small bases or in tight units. This is how we preserve discipline and effectiveness so that the forces can recruit, train and deploy with confidence.
Victims want justice that is timely and real. Members want a system that is fair and predictable. Canadians want a military that reflects our values and can meet the threats we face. Conservatives will work in good faith to improve this bill. We will insist on independence with accountability. We will insist on capacity with timelines. We will insist on leadership that takes responsibility rather than hiding behind process.
Our men and women in uniform are the best of Canada. They deserve a justice system worthy of their service.
Bill C-11 Military Justice System Modernization ActGovernment Orders
Winnipeg North Manitoba
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, the member said that victims deserve progress. I agree. We have a new Prime Minister, who was elected less than six months ago, and we already have before us Bill C-11. Every member, it would appear, supports this legislation in principle. Allowing it to go to committee does not stop debate; it allows progress, something the member himself is asking for.
Would the member not agree that we should allow the bill to go to committee, continue the debate there and then have it come back for third reading with more debate? Would he not recommend to his House leadership team that progress is important on this legislation, as the Prime Minister has asked for this to get passed?
Kurt Holman Conservative London—Fanshawe, ON
Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned progress; I said justice. The Conservatives are looking for justice for victims.
On another note, the Liberals have had 10 years to tackle sexual misconduct in the military. Instead of reading the report by Justice Deschamps, which was on Minister Sajjan's desk, the Liberals, upon forming government, ignored the problem for five years, asked for another report and then, just to be sure, asked for a third report a year later.
I am not on the defence committee personally, but bringing the bill back to committee is the best way forward for Canadians.
Patrick Bonin Bloc Repentigny, QC
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear my Conservative colleague speak. We remember that there were very clear allegations of sexual misconduct against Jonathan Vance at the time. However, he was still appointed chief of the defence staff, even though the Canadian Armed Forces had just been criticized for their handling of sexual misconduct and sexist culture. Instead of appointing someone with an unblemished record, the government at the time chose Mr. Vance.
I would like to know why this time would be any different. It is easy to say that the bill does not go far enough, but what exactly are you proposing to strengthen this bill?
The Deputy Speaker Tom Kmiec
I will remind the member to address his comments through the Chair.
The hon. member for London—Fanshawe.
Kurt Holman Conservative London—Fanshawe, ON
My apologies, Mr. Speaker, but I heard only half of the translation.
With regard to Bill C-11 and the Conservatives suggesting moving it back to committee, I just want to remind my Bloc colleague that we support moving Bill C-11 to committee. We will press for amendments, such as a civilian capacity plan with the provinces and territories, including funded training, dedicated contacts for military files, service standards for charging decisions and public reporting on timelines and outcomes, and also victim support in practice by expanding the sexual misconduct support and resource centre mandate to provide legal navigation, workplace safety planning and communication with civilian authorities.
Patrick Bonin Bloc Repentigny, QC
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My hon. colleague seems to be saying that there are problems with the interpretation. He did not hear half of my question.
Is that because he was not wearing his earpiece or because there are problems with the simultaneous interpretation?
The Deputy Speaker Tom Kmiec
It is possible that the member did not hear everything that was said.
The interpretation is working in both languages. Sometimes members do not catch all of what the interpreters say.
As the hon. member is well aware, it can be difficult to interpret all the ideas and words that members use, depending on how quickly someone speaks.
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Oshawa.
Rhonda Kirkland Conservative Oshawa, ON
Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned that victims deserve justice. I wonder if he can comment on whether he feels that they will receive fair justice currently in the civilian courts when they are instructed by Bill C-75 to let people out on bail as early as possible and under the least onerous conditions. Until we fix that, we are not getting them justice.
Kurt Holman Conservative London—Fanshawe, ON
Mr. Speaker, does focusing on fairness for the accused risk undermining victims? Not at all. Fairness protects everyone. A trauma-informed process that is also procedurally sound produces stronger convictions that stand and acquittals that are respected. Victims want justice that lasts, not verdicts overturned because the process was flawed.
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
Uqaqtittiji, I will start by sharing that the NDP supports Bill C-11.
I dedicate this speech to the victims of abuse in the military, who deserve justice.
Canadians who serve and have served in the armed forces and reserves deserve our respect and gratitude. Women, men, members of the 2SLGBTQIA+ community, indigenous people and racialized minorities have all served in our military. Too many of them have been subject to sexual assault. Too many have to endure racism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia in the course of their service.
Members of the Canadian Armed Forces put their lives at risk to defend our sovereignty at home and abroad. They and their families sacrifice so much in order to serve Canada. The NDP is committed to ensuring their health, well-being, safety and protection. We advocate to ensure that they have supports and services while serving and when they leave military service.
The Canadian Armed Forces is important for our security and, indeed, our sovereignty. We are all shocked by the news stories of military sexual trauma, and we all want to see meaningful culture change in our military.
I begin by sharing a historical perspective on why we support the bill. In 2015, Justice Deschamps issued her report, with important recommendations. It took the Liberals years to respond.
In 2022, the Liberals accepted recommendations in a separate report by Justice Arbour. The Liberals told Canadians that they would begin transferring all criminal sexual offence investigations to civilian courts. This is another Liberal broken promise. Three years later, approximately half of the cases remain within the military justice system. Why? We do not know.
There were major problems with the cases that were transferred. Retired corporal Arianna Nolet was one of the first military sexual trauma victims to have her case transferred to civilian courts. Unfortunately, her case was stayed because of time delays in the back-and-forth between military and civilian police.
Since this incident, multiple other cases have been stayed because of delays, resulting in a lack of justice for survivors. The causes for the delays were twofold: First, civilian authorities were wary of taking over a case, and because of concurrent jurisdiction, they were not mandated to accept the case. Second, the transfer of case files by the military police was significantly delayed, causing commentators to speculate on whether the military police was unduly stalling the transfer.
New Democrats continue to advocate for better outcomes for survivors of military sexual trauma. My friend and colleague, NDP MP Rachel Blaney, was responsible for the landmark parliamentary study on the experience of women veterans. They gave first-hand accounts of the horrific treatments they endured while serving in Canada's military. The study culminated in a powerful report in 2024 entitled “Invisible No More.” This report was the catalyst that finally pushed the Liberal government to act.
NDP MP Lindsay Matheson undertook a summer of consultations with survivors and subsequently introduced a private member's bill. Bill C-362 would have immediately ended concurrent jurisdiction and ensured that no future cases were caught in the tug-of-war over jurisdiction. Unfortunately, Lindsay's bill, Bill C-362, died on the Order Paper when Trudeau prorogued Parliament.
Given the state of Bill C-11 and the way it was tabled, some questions must be studied at committee. I will name a few. First, the bill does not adequately address incidents in the reserves, the navy, the cadets program or international deployments. Why are they not included? Do they not deserve justice?
Second, survivors feel betrayed by the federal government. Survivors tell us they need more pathways to justice. They say pathways to justice will be taken away. What consultations included victims, and in what way are their voices included in Bill C-11?
Third, the bill may have the unintended consequence of creating a binary between criminal behaviour and lesser forms of harassment, which may become more permissive and have fewer supports. What amendments will be needed to ensure victims of any abuse see the justice they deserve?
Fourth, since the sexual misconduct by senior leadership scandal, the NDP calls to make the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces ombuds an officer of Parliament are amplified. This position must have the power to compel documents and conduct systemic investigations. Will other parties support amendments to ensure greater civilian oversight?
Fifth, amendments are needed in terms of the new victim liaison officer. The commanding officer must not be the one to appoint the officer. Given that many cases directly or indirectly involve the commanding officer, we need to find an alternative to this proposal. The appointment must occur outside the chain of command. Further, parliamentarians need to review legal assistance for survivors and the independence of counselling services for members of the Canadian Armed Forces.
Sixth, the Prime Minister warned of an austerity budget. Expanding the mandate of civilian law enforcement without a corresponding increase to their budget will create problems, and, indeed, potentially cost more. The November budget could include cuts to legal services and law enforcement agencies. This makes no sense. Will the budget further cut funding for the military police?
Seventh, given the composition of the Canadian Armed Forces, investigations may include victims, witnesses and others across multiple jurisdictions, and potentially in secure military locations. A local police unit does not have the resources for these cases. It may be logistically difficult to recruit and deploy civilian law enforcement on an ad hoc basis. How will cases be investigated by civilian police when incidents occur across jurisdictions, especially for incidents that may occur during domestic operations, including routine operations in the north and Arctic naval coastal patrols? What about incidents that happen abroad? What tools will civilian courts have in international deployments, navy ships, etc. that cannot immediately be accessed by civilians?
We need to ensure issues such as custody of evidence are considered to avoid having cases thrown out.
Bill C-11 Military Justice System Modernization ActGovernment Orders
Winnipeg North Manitoba
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, earlier, I referred to the principles of the bill in terms of transferring the process from military courts into the civilian court process. There are many different forms of support, and it seems to me that all members are supporting that particular principle. Discussions have also been taking place with our partners. After all, judicial responsibilities are not only federal; they are provincial, federal and municipal. All three play a very important role.
Does the member not believe, overall, that the transferring of sexual assault cases out of the military courts and into the civilian courts is a positive thing? Does she have confidence in the independence of the judicial system to make sure the victims are, in fact, being treated appropriately?