Debates of May 8th, 2026

Military Justice System Modernization Act

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North—Caledon, ON]

moved that Bill C‑11, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and other Acts, be read the third time and passed.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to open third reading debate on Bill C‑11, the military justice system modernization act.

As Canada's new government makes a generational investment in the Canadian Armed Forces, we know that any work to support our forces starts with our people. This legislation is about the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces, and it is about ensuring their safety here in Canada and around the world.

The people of the Canadian Armed Forces are at the heart of everything we do, whether they are defending our sovereignty at home, supporting our allies abroad or serving at bases and wings across Canada.

As a military parent and as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, I have had the immense privilege of meeting many members of the Canadian Armed Forces and their families across the country and abroad. I have an incredible amount of respect for military members and their families as they serve Canada, and I am deeply grateful for their steadfast dedication to Canadians.

Members of the Canadian Armed Forces keep us safe every day. In turn, it is our responsibility to ensure that they have a work environment where they feel protected, respected and empowered to serve. Our forces deserve a workplace free from all behaviours that harm our people, threaten morale and undermine team cohesion, including the reprehensible act of sexual misconduct.

We know that a strong, diverse, united and capable armed forces is what we need to defend Canada. It is essential that we eradicate any behaviours that run counter to a healthy workplace. Our operational effectiveness, recruitment and retention depend on our ability to create an environment where our forces can grow their careers for decades to come. Bill C-11 proposes a range of important changes to the National Defence Act designed to support this essential work of keeping our forces safe and helping them thrive in a healthy workplace.

Canada's military justice system must not only reflect the values of fairness, accountability and respect, but also uphold the trust that Canadians place in the institutions that serve them. Through Bill C-11, we would fulfill the recommendations of former Supreme Court justices Arbour and Fish, and we are taking decisive steps to rebuild and reinforce trust within the Canadian Armed Forces.

First, this bill would remove CAF jurisdiction over Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada. With this bill, civilian authorities would have the exclusive responsibility to investigate and prosecute these offences.

Second, Bill C‑11 would act on eight key recommendations outlined by former Supreme Court justice Fish in his third independent review. This includes establishing stronger, more transparent appointment processes for senior CAF members who play crucial roles in the military justice system.

We are also modifying the appointment process for the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services by making them Governor in Council appointees, and we are changing the term of those positions to a fixed non-renewable term of up to seven years. We are also modifying the process and authority for the appointment of the Canadian Forces provost marshal, appointed by the Governor in Council, and, finally, changing the title from Canadian Forces provost marshal to provost marshal general to align with the title of other senior designations in the CAF, such as the surgeon general, the chaplain general and the judge advocate general.

Third, Bill C‑11 builds on supports provided under the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights by expanding access to victim liaison officers for individuals acting on behalf of a victim.

Fourth, the bill aligns the military justice system's provisions regarding sex offender information and publication bans with the amendments already made to the Criminal Code in 2023.

These comprehensive recommendations aimed at reforming our military justice system are just one part of a broader transformation of the Canadian Armed Forces. We would make important changes to how we screen new recruits, how we manage Canada's two military colleges, in Kingston and in Saint-Jean, and how we collect, store and use data on workplace harassment, among other things.

These are real, tangible and meaningful changes that would help to get more people in the door more effectively. For example, we would also be instituting a new probationary period for new recruits. This would allow applicants to enrol and to begin their training while the administrative work related to their application file is completed. This is something that multiple external examiners suggested the Canadian Armed Forces implement.

There would be added benefits to the implementation of this recommendation too. For example, during the probationary period, applicants would have to pass the required security clearance check, meet medical standards and show that they live by the Canadian Armed Forces' ethos and values. We need to ensure that our military better reflects the country it serves by drawing from the very best people Canada has to offer, but let me be clear: We will not tolerate bad behaviour.

We are already starting to see positive impacts of the implementation of these recommendations. In fact, our recruitment efforts are already paying off. Last fiscal year, we surpassed our recruitment goals, bringing in over 6,700 new regular force members. That is a 55% increase from the year before. This year, we had the highest enrolment for the Canadian Armed Forces in the past 30 years. Applications more than doubled, to over 45,000. The Canadian Armed Forces enrolled 7,310 regular force members, and 70 of the 97 critical roles are now filled.

This is good news for Canada, for Canadians and for the Canadian Armed Forces, but we still have work to do to foster a culture within the Canadian Armed Forces that is rooted in dignity, inclusion and respect for everyone who serves. We know we need to keep our foot on the gas to create a modern 21st-century workplace that can foster the next generation of the Canadian Armed Forces. As I have mentioned in previous debate on this legislation, Bill C-11 would fulfill several recommendations put forward in the reviews conducted by former Supreme Court Justices Arbour and Fish.

In addition, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs submitted its 15th report, entitled “Invisible No More. The Experiences of Canadian Women Veterans”, in June 2024. This study was the largest study that the committee had ever undertaken. Almost 100 individuals appeared over the course of 23 meetings, and in that report, passed in the House, the committee's recommendation 40 reads:

That the Department of National Defence, in accordance with the many recommendations made in the wake of the Deschamps, Fish and Arbour reports, establish a reporting mechanism outside of the military chain of command, provide victims of military sexual trauma with safe and confidential legal resources, and transfer the jurisdiction to investigate sexual misconduct and prosecute its perpetrators to civilian authorities.

I would like to note that we are also making important progress on many of the other recommendations as part of our broader cultural evolution efforts. For example, in the independent external comprehensive review, Justice Arbour detailed 48 recommendations on everything from recruitment to training and oversight. I am very proud to share that, to date, we have implemented 47 of those 48 recommendations.

We made progress on Madam Arbour's first and second recommendations, strengthening our approach to addressing sexual misconduct by clarifying the full spectrum of terms and definitions into three categories: conduct deficiencies of a sexual nature, sexual harassment and sexual assault. This would ensure that we are better able to address each form of inappropriate conduct through the proper legal, administrative and disciplinary means.

The Canadian Armed Forces has also adopted the Canada Labour Code definitions of harassment and violence. This change now allows the defence team to take a unified approach to addressing cases of workplace harassment and violence, applicable to both public servants and members of the armed forces. All incidents of harassment and violence within the defence team will be managed through the workplace harassment and violence prevention program. This measure came in response to Ms. Arbour's third recommendation.

We also acted on recommendations seven and nine of Justice Arbour's report by allowing Canadian Armed Forces members who experience sexual misconduct, sexual harassment, sexual crimes or any other form of discrimination based on sex or gender in the course of their duties to contact the Canadian Human Rights Commission directly.

As many members know, the former external monitor, Madam Jocelyne Therrien, provided regular public evaluations of our progress in implementing these recommendations, including releasing six biannual status reports over the course of her term. Madam Therrien's thorough and objective assessment of our progress has been critical in informing how we are implementing these recommendations, and we thank her for her commitment, guidance and dedication.

In April 2021, the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces launched a comprehensive initiative aimed at aligning the culture of the Department of National Defence and the professional conduct of its personnel with the fundamental values and ethical principles we aspire to uphold as a national institution. Since then, we have taken significant steps to evolve our culture and implement concrete changes, including taking measures to eliminate systemic racism and discrimination.

This work encompasses a wide range of responsibilities, such as developing policies and programs that address systemic misconduct, improving mechanisms for monitoring and reporting misconduct, and overseeing the development of a framework for professional conduct and organizational culture that combats discrimination, harmful behaviour, bias and systemic barriers.

To support these efforts, and as we reaffirmed in budget 2024, we are investing nearly $1 billion over 20 years to facilitate these changes within the Canadian Armed Forces, and we are proposing amendments to the National Defence Act to implement key recommendations aimed at transforming the organizational culture.

We have also launched a comprehensive plan designed to guide our efforts to implement the various recommendations. We recognize that cultural change is a gradual process that unfolds step by step and takes time. It requires sustained and ongoing effort. It is essential to the well-being and operational readiness of the Canadian Armed Forces.

I would also like to emphasize that changing the culture and improving the Canadian Armed Forces should be a goal that unites us as parliamentarians, not one that divides us. Improving and strengthening the Canadian Armed Forces is not, and should never be, a partisan issue.

We continue to listen and learn from members of the defence team, external stakeholders, communities and partners as we work to create a safer and more inclusive work environment. We are making real, tangible progress, but we recognize that there is still much more work to be done. This is why we also need to ensure that victims and survivors of sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces get the support, the care and the resources they need.

In line with Justice Arbour's recommendation 14 of the independent external comprehensive review, we have worked hard to provide a suite of supports for victims and survivors. Much of that support comes from the sexual misconduct support and resource centre. This centre, which operates independently of the chain of command, provides specialized advice, guidance and recommendations to personnel in the Canadian Armed Forces and National Defence on all matters related to sexual misconduct. It includes a 24‑7 hotline that offers personnel confidential support, information on available options, advice on how to help others and referrals to care and services.

I would also like to point out that the independent legal assistance program is another valuable mechanism for supporting victims. It offers free and confidential legal assistance, including legal information and advice regarding incidents of sexual misconduct that occurred in a context related to DND and the CAF. It also offers legal representation in certain proceedings related to sexual criminal offences or military offences, the victim's safety or their participation in the judicial process. By offering timely, independent and trauma-informed support, the program plays a critical role in expanding access to justice and choice for affected persons.

It is important to note that there have been important progress and tangible changes since 2021. This is precisely because of the interim directive that put Justice Arbour's recommendation number five into place in a temporary manner, until such time as legislation could be passed through Parliament. As Justice Arbour herself acknowledged in her report, removing concurrent jurisdiction by amending the National Defence Act will “take several years to implement.”

Since 2021, work on cultural evolution inside the Canadian Armed Forces has continued, and we have now implemented 47 of Justice Arbour's 48 recommendations. To block Arbour's recommendation number five would be to undo the progress of the past five years.

I want to conclude by reminding members that delivering a culture change is not only the right thing to do, but it is critical for our operational needs. This is not a partisan issue. Our national security is only as strong as our people. Our forces deserve to work in a modern, transparent and trustworthy 21st-century workplace where they can thrive.

That is precisely why we introduced Bill C‑11: to codify in law key recommendations from justices Arbour and Fish. Justice Arbour's fifth recommendation calls for the removal of CAF jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute Criminal Code sexual offences. This is also in line with recommendation 40 of the ACVA committee. After hearing from almost 100 witnesses, parliamentarians on that committee agreed that this is the right thing to do.

In 2021, upon receipt of Justice Arbour's report, we promised Canadians and members of the Canadian Armed Forces that we would implement this critical recommendation. With Bill C-11, a promise made is a promise kept.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the words coming from the parliamentary secretary, and I can agree with some of them. As a woman, I know that women are more predominantly the victims of sexual misconduct and sexual assault, so this bill means something to me.

However, for women and all victims and survivors of sexual assault, the thing that is taken from them is choice at that time. I would suggest that this bill would also remove choice for those folks who want choice in how justice is continued for their case.

In addition, she said that this was non-partisan. It is my understanding that the Conservatives, the NDP and the Bloc put forward amendments that were passed and that the Liberals have rejected. I would like to understand that as well.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the question of choice, victims and survivors deserve legal clarity, transparency and trust in the process. Justice Arbour herself called the victim's choice between military and civilian courts a false choice. This is because we would be placing a burden on the victim in a time of stress and trauma to choose between two unequal options. Asking victims and survivors to choose between two unequal options, one of which has the potential for chain of command interference in a Criminal Code case, does not provide victims with clarity, transparency or certainty.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is quite correct to say that this is not, and must never become, a partisan issue. I would like to ask her a question that touches a bit on the topic discussed by my Conservative colleague earlier.

Can my colleague explain why, after the Liberal government became a majority, it scrapped every amendment proposed by the Bloc Québécois, the Conservative Party and the NDP?

To me, things seem to be taking a partisan turn. In any case, if not partisan, it is strange. Does this mean that the Liberal government has a corner on the truth and does not need to work in collaboration with the opposition parties?

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs submitted a report in 2024 after hearing from more than 100 witnesses. The committee drafted a recommendation to the House to do exactly what we are doing now through Bill C-11.

We listened to the victims and to the recommendations of a number of Supreme Court justices. The chief of the defence staff also spoke with over 14,000 CAF members. I spoke with current CAF members myself and asked them to send me their recommendations. They are concerned that bad habits could resurface if the days when CAF performed the analyses and led the legal proceedings were to return. We told them unequivocally that we were going to implement recommendation five, which is precisely what we are doing.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday here, the member for Ottawa West—Nepean asked a question on Bill C-11 of the Minister of National Defence. It was a Liberal member asking the Liberal minister if the Liberals would include a sunset clause, which they had removed and which we had already agreed to at committee stage.

The parliamentary secretary actually voted for that amendment, to go from a three-year to a four-year anniversary to bring in a review and a sunset clause. Then the Liberal minister, not listening to our committee, with the report we brought forward, and not listening to the survivors of military sexual misconduct and military sexual assault, decided to ram it through and take that out. Now the Liberals are saying, according to the minister, that they would be open to the unelected Senate bringing forward that amendment.

The parliamentary secretary sat on the committee, heard the witnesses say that they wanted a sunset clause, voted for a sunset clause, and then her very own minister gutted the bill and she voted for him to gut the bill of these amendments. Why?

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, actually, I agree with keeping the sunset clause in the bill, and I support the idea of having that put back in. I agreed in committee to put that in, including a four‑year sunset clause with a review of both houses of Parliament. I agree that we hope the Senate, when it does the review of this bill and is going through that process, includes that recommendation and any other recommendations that will strengthen the bill.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my esteemed colleague for her hard work. She has been working on implementing these changes for a long time.

As she explained in her speech, many changes have been made. Almost all of Justice Arbour's recommendations have been implemented. I believe this is an important step for justice and for people who want to work in the armed forces.

I would like to ask my colleague the following question. For racialized people, for women who have been victims of abuse of power, can she explain to us what we can expect regarding these changes aimed at encouraging more women and people of colour to apply to join the armed forces?

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that back in 2021, when we launched the inquiry into what had happened within the Canadian Armed Forces, very few people wanted to enlist. There was a lack of trust. Families did not want their children to join the Canadian Armed Forces. I myself have two children and a daughter-in-law who are currently serving in the Canadian Armed Forces. How could I ask another family to let their children enlist in the CAF knowing that they might become victims?

We have made efforts to change the culture within the Canadian Armed Forces. We have implemented 47 of Justice Arbour's 48 recommendations. Today, we are seeing a significant increase in enrolment. Our plan is working.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I know she is very passionate about this issue. She is standing up for women who have been victims of sexual misconduct while serving in the military. Bill C‑11 addresses many of the recommendations in Louise Arbour's report.

Honestly, what surprises me is that some victims appeared before the committee during its study, and the victims themselves were asking for more protection. As a result, the Bloc Québécois, the Conservatives and the NDP all introduced amendments, which were adopted based on the victims' evidence. However, because of its majority in the House, the government rejected them.

I do not know how the member can face any of those victims, who must be disappointed today.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have always listened to the members of the Canadian Armed Forces and their families, and I always will. I have been listening to them for years now, and I have heard their accounts.

We introduced Bill C-66 in the last Parliament. It was the same as Bill C-11. We introduced this bill in response to the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, as well as those of Justice Arbour, who made it very clear that those powers should be removed from the Canadian Armed Forces. No employer in Canada conducts its own investigations and prosecutions involving its own employees.

[Rebecca Alty, Liberal, Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Justice Arbour for her report, as well as congratulate her on her recent appointment as Governor General.

With the world more and more uncertain and divisive, I would like to ask my colleague if she can speak to the importance of passing this legislation as soon as possible.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my previous response, we brought forward Bill C‑66 in the last Parliament to enact this, to make it permanent into law. Unfortunately, that did not go through. We are bringing it forward. We were very clear in the election that we were going to do this. We made sure everyone knew we were doing this, and we are going to finish it.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always important that I get to participate in these debates. First and foremost, I just want to thank the brave women and men who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces and the Canadian Coast Guard, who are out there every day, risking life and limb to keep us safe here at home, to secure our borders and to protect our security.

It is often said that having a strong military actually ensures that we have economic prosperity. Having a prosperous country hardens our national security and our national defence. We need to continue to support those in the armed forces in everything that they do.

On Bill C-11, we have worked very hard on the bill for the last year. As the shadow minister of national defence, this is something that is near and dear to my heart, in standing up for those who have served or are serving and who have been dealing with sexual misconduct and sexual assault. Nobody should have to go to work and experience danger that is imposed by their fellow colleagues. When we have to deal with individuals who are being aggressive, individuals who are going to carry out sexual misconduct, that is not a safe work environment.

We look at the brave women and men who serve. They have already decided to step up and do one of the most dangerous things in the world, which is to protect our great nation. Instead of fighting the enemy, they are actually fighting off their fellow soldiers, aviators and sailors who are carrying out sexual misconduct. We have to stop that.

I tell members that I am so disappointed in the Liberal government for not listening to those who serve, not listening to the survivors, not listening to veterans and not listening to police forces across this country, who have all said that we need to ensure that the agency of the victim is protected and that they have the choice to choose which justice system their cases are heard in, whether it is in the military justice system or in the civilian system.

The Liberal government decided to be performative rather than pragmatic. Rather than taking the advice of veterans, rather than taking the advice of those who carry out military justice within the Canadian Armed Forces, rather than listening to police agencies and barristers and military justice experts, the Liberals are ignoring all of that because of the one thing they continue to hide behind, which is the Arbour report.

The government decided to choose political expediency instead of actually bringing in a function within the military that works for everyone, not just those few at the top of the Canadian Armed Forces who are just trying to push this off their table. The Liberals are trying to pass the buck rather than take responsibility.

We heard from so many of the victims at committee, when we studied Bill C-11. The reasoning they brought forward was the inspiration to make the amendments that we proposed at report stage, which were supported by the committee. I fear that, by the Liberals ignoring that advice, that brave and courageous testimony that we heard at committee, the Liberals are retraumatizing these victims.

It just breaks my heart to know that these brave souls stepped up to tell their personal stories of sexual assault and sexual misconduct, sometimes happening many times over their careers. To have that thrown by the wayside at report stage, by the Minister of National Defence, proves that the government is not listening to those who are impacted.

In reality, with what Bill C-11 does, especially here, as we are at third reading, all sexual misconduct and assault is going to be pushed off into the civilian system. There are higher thresholds there before a case will even proceed to prosecution and actually have success within the civilian justice system.

That means that more of these perpetrators, more of these individuals who are committing sexual assault and sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces, are going to walk free. Bill C-11 would remove all accountability, all prosecution and the ability to court-martial and carry out punitive measures against those perpetrators. Whether it is high-level or low-level sexual misconduct, removing that from the military would mean no accountability for those who are accused of carrying out sexual misconduct. That also would mean there would be no justice for those who have experienced sexual assault within the Canadian Armed Forces.

The Liberals decided, now that they have their new-found, stolen majority, to run roughshod over Parliament and run roughshod over committees, and overturn all the hard work we did. We worked across party lines to bring forward very reasonable amendments to Bill C-11 that would make Bill C-11 work for those who are serving and work for those who are having to deal with sexual misconduct. We want to be able to use all the tools that are now available within the Canadian Armed Forces and outside the Canadian Armed Forces.

Instead, the Liberals decided to make the bill narrowcasted and unable to carry out the justice that victims of sexual misconduct are looking for. They are using their stolen majority and are even ignoring the advice of the Liberal members who sat on the national defence committee and helped make many of the amendments that were gutted at report stage.

That is why the Conservatives will not be supporting Bill C-11 at third reading. It is a slap in the face to members of the Canadian Armed Forces. It ignores advice that came from the provost marshal general, the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services, who said that they can do the job and that they have changed because of the implementation of many of the recommendations from the Arbour report. They have upgraded their skills and processes to investigate, to prosecute and to hold those to account within the Canadian Armed Forces.

As a matter of fact, they would still have to do that for members of the Canadian Armed Forces when they are outside Canada. Sexual misconduct and sexual assault, as defined by the Criminal Code, would still be under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Armed Forces military justice system and under the superintendency of the judge advocate general. It would still be prosecuted if someone is stationed in Latvia, England or Kuwait. Wherever we have our forces stationed, its members would still be subject to military justice, except when they are in Canada. When they are in Canada, that is taken away from the military and from the victims who want choice.

I have to say how important choice is. It is about making sure that those victims maintain agency and franchise over their rights and decide which system is in their best interest. We know things have changed since Justice Arbour had her meetings and hearings with Canadian Armed Forces members. That is going back seven years now and the military has adjusted. New agencies have been put in place.

Let us look at some of the testimony.

Hélène Le Scelleur appeared at committee a couple of times going back several years. She said the following:

Survivors must have the right to choose between civilian and military systems at all times, regardless of location or rank. Choice is not procedural. It is freedom: freedom from our aggressors and freedom from the silence that institutions have imposed upon us. I want to be clear that even with this choice, neither system is sufficient on its own. The military system understands the operational context. The civilian system provides independence and oversight.

We would have balance and what the government wants to do is remove that balance.

In another committee hearing a few weeks ago, we talked about how important it is to have choice in cases where someone was in a jurisdiction where their official language was not spoken. In her case, being from Quebec, a francophone, even though she is bilingual, she said:

... when we're talking about really specific things related to trauma or sensitive issues, I don't think I would be doing it in my second language, because when you're vulnerable, you don't have access to all of the vocabulary you would normally have. I would rather have the option of choosing the military way to make sure that I am going to have services in French, instead of the example you provided of staying in Alberta and having my case dealt with there when I'm from Quebec.

She went on to talk about how she would not be able to get the high-level French support that she would need to go through the civilian justice system within the province of Alberta.

Brigadier-General Hanrahan, who is the Canadian Forces provost marshal general and also the person in charge of the military police and the National Investigative Services, said, “At any point in the process with concurrent jurisdiction”, which means having both the justice system in the military and having access to the civilian justice system, “there's an ability to have a choice change....Concurrent jurisdiction allows us, from an investigative perspective and a prosecutorial perspective, to work with the victim to help them work through those choices at any point along that process.”

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, in its submission to the national defence committee, said when it came to the provisions of Bill C-11:

Bill C-11 would deny victims and survivors the ability to express a preference as to how their complaint might be investigated. This approach departs from the victim-centred and trauma-informed principles that underpin best practices in policing.

The one sad part in all of this is that the government is not providing any extra resources to local police forces, when our military bases are set up to take on these extra cases, that they are going to have to investigate on base now. It is not giving any extra resources to the provincial justice systems, so the courts would not be able to deal with the influx of cases that may be brought in. We know that the Jordan framework kicks in, the clock starts ticking and that justice delayed is justice denied. Therefore, at the end of the day, we know that with the backlog that already exists within the civilian courts across this country in all jurisdictions, because of the lack of judges, prosecutors and court time, a lot of these cases are going to be thrown out.

We know that, with low-level sexual misconduct cases that are dealt with right now within the Canadian Armed Forces, if they were transferred over into the civilian system the prosecutors would not proceed with the case if they did not think they were going to be successful in front of a judge. That is why, again, we need to provide the choice to our victims and our veterans.

Colonel Bruce MacGregor, who is the former director of military prosecutions, said, “Taking the choice away from an informed victim is paternalistic and a further disenfranchisement of a victim who has already been rendered powerless by the perpetrator.”

That is exactly what Bill C‑11 does. It gives the power to the perpetrator, taking it away from the victim. That is disgusting.

I have to say that we heard from a lot of military experts, some of whom are professors, some of whom used to serve in the military, some of whom are doing both; they are professors of law as well as captains within the Canadian Armed Forces, majors or higher. Afton David is one of them. She said:

I would submit that from my perspective, they should all have a choice…considering both the safeguards and entitlements to the accused, but also the safeguards and entitlements to the victims now within the military justice system, I think we should at least give it a chance to deal with all the levels of sexual misconduct.

Even though all of these changes have happened within the Canadian Armed Forces, the Liberals are throwing it out.

We talked about the civilian system. We heard from lawyers across the country. The Barreau du Québec said it “considers that it would be appropriate to resolve these challenges by amending the bill so as to give victims the choice to decide which system would be best for them, given the circumstances of their situation.”

We should not be going carte blanche and trying to force every case into the civilian system. We need to make sure the lower levels are handled within the military justice system so that appropriate measures can be taken, the code of service discipline is maintained and, at the end of the day, the administration of justice happens, whether it is with respect to a low-level sexual misconduct, inappropriate touching, comments and things like that versus an actual full-on sexual assault.

One thing that came from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police that I think we need to consider is that the CACP “strongly recommends maintaining concurrent jurisdiction.” It says, “The proposed provisions in Bill C-11 would significantly hinder collaboration between civilian police agencies and the Canadian Armed Forces Military Police”.

If we look at how Bill C-11, and clause 7 in particular, is written, it would take away the power of the military to actually do its own investigations. If all the evidence is on base or at a training exercise, that evidence could not be collected by the military police. They would have to wait till the RCMP, the Ontario Provincial Police, the Quebec provincial police or the local municipal police agency showed up to start taking statements from witnesses and making sure it collects all the evidence. What would happen when we are training on Operation Nanook, up in the High Arctic? How would they get there in a timely manner? We always have military police accompanying our forces wherever they are.

We talk about making sure there is ongoing accountability, and I will just touch on some of this quickly. Dr. Karen Breeck is a retired veteran who has worked with members of the veterans community who have experienced military sexual trauma. She says, “The bill removes choice. Mandating the transfer of all 28 listed sexual offence charges, regardless of severity, is not people-centred. It will reduce reporting. Many would prefer a quick internal military resolution, especially for low-risk cases.”

Jessica Miller, who is a survivor, wrote, “Jurisdictional transfer risks reducing accountability, weakening discipline, lowering conviction rates, and failing to deliver justice to survivors—while removing responsibility from the CAF chain of command.”

This is important to note. We have already had the civilian system at play since the minister gave the directive to the director of military prosecutions to start prosecuting all cases of sexual misconduct in the civilian system four years ago. We have four years of data now, and that experience has not been in the best interest of the victims. All we have to do is look at some of the high-profile cases that have gone before the courts and have been thrown out or had the charges stayed because of a lack of evidence or because they did not hit the threshold of actual prosecution.

Afton David also said, “Bill C-11 effectively nullifies the code of service discipline's jurisdiction over Criminal Code sexual offences that occur in Canada, rather than transferring jurisdiction. That decision risks passing responsibility to the civilian system without resolving the systemic causes that produce a loss of confidence in military justice in the first place.”

That is a problem. We are going to lose more confidence. We are going to continue to have a situation where all this is going to be removed from the military. That is going to erode leadership and allow leadership to turn a blind eye to the sexual misconduct happening within the Canadian Armed Forces because it will be expected that the civilian system will be handling it.

There is so much more here if we want to really look at doing what is right. Rory Fowler says, “If we want the leadership of the Canadian Forces to ensure that everybody in the Canadian Forces is treated fairly, is listened to and has a voice, then you have to give them the tools to do so. When they fail to use those tools, you have to hold them accountable, and that goes all the way up to the Minister of National Defence.”

He goes on to say that “you can't legislate good leadership and you can't legislate culture change. What you can do is have legislation that allows you to hold leaders accountable.”

Bill C-11 would do none of that. The leadership would still get to pass the buck.

We have talked about the concern that there might be political interference with this bill, that it has been done with political expediency. I have to say, there was a sunset clause, and I asked the parliamentary secretary about it. It was clause 70.3. We added five paragraphs. It was unanimously accepted at committee. The sunset clause is important, and unfortunately, the government took it out.

Knowing that we are opposing the bill, I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

“Bill C-11, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and other Acts, be not now read a third time, but be referred back to the Standing Committee on National Defence for the purpose of reconsidering Clauses 7 to 9, 15, 17, 40, 60 and 61 with the view to amend the bill so as to better reflect the views expressed by military sexual assault survivors and military justice experts in their testimony before the committee”.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The amendment is in order.

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, I must say I am not surprised, but I am disappointed in the Conservatives for their position on Bill C-11. I think they undervalue the tremendous work that former Justice Arbour did in providing the recommendations that the essence of the legislation is all about. There were 48 recommendations. I believe 36 of them have already been implemented. At the core is the transfer of cases from military authorities to civil justice authorities. That is the very core. Arbour met with hundreds if not, indirectly, thousands of individuals, everyone from victims to advocates. She herself, who is going to be our next governor general, is recognized around the world as someone who has incredible credentials.

Why is the Conservative Party not agreeing with those recommendations and the essence of the Arbour report?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am always disappointed with the member for Winnipeg North. He does not listen to anyone because he is always too busy flapping his lips. If he actually read the testimony we had at the national defence committee, if he had actually heard from victims, they would all have told him that things have changed since Arbour did her report seven years ago. She did all her interviews, she wrote her report, and it was not accepted by the government until five years ago.

The director of military prosecutions within the Canadian Armed Forces even said that he gave the directive to start doing concurrent prosecutions, allowing victims to choose to go into the civilian system. Here we are five years later, and he said that if it was not for Bill C-11, he would have rescinded that order because the Canadian Armed Forces are doing a better job at prosecuting those cases, and victims are telling us that the Canadian Armed Forces are doing a better job of prosecuting those cases than—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Question and comments, the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his meticulousness and excellent work, as well as on his insightful analysis of the work of the parliamentary secretary across the way.

I would like to hear my colleague's comments. I hear him talking about the amendment that was intended to give victims a choice. We hear a lot of talk in Parliament about the need to consider victims and ensure they receive support and care. We had voted to uphold a request from victims, namely to have a choice, and the government unilaterally removed that provision after securing a majority, through backroom deals to boot.

I would like my colleague to respond to that. Does he not think there is a danger or a shift on the part of the Liberal Party, which believes it has a monopoly on the truth?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois, the Conservative Party and the NDP worked very closely together to bring about the amendments that we wanted at committee. Even Liberal members of the national defence committee wanted to see changes brought in. The importance of choice is something that we heard over and over again. It was the only way we could ensure that the victims would be getting the justice that they so rightly deserve. With the changes that have already occurred within the Canadian Armed Forces, there are more and more opportunities for victims to get the help they need and carry through with the prosecution that gives them the justice they deserve.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my hon. colleague just to elaborate a bit more on where the improvements have happened. In fact, ever since that direction to try to move many of the Criminal Code sex offences over to the civilian courts, unfortunately, there have been obstacles that the military police have run into, and lots of these police jurisdictions refuse to accept it because of that higher threshold, so there are victims not getting the justice they need.

However, because this law, Bill C-11, has not passed, the military police are able to do that. Not only have they learned. Not only is the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights there, which has come in within the military. Not only has all of this changed, but we actually have landed on the solution and we do not need to change things. Right now, we have a military police system that will try to move things over to the civilian courts when a case is severe enough, but at the same time, they can ensure that justice is served. Would the member agree?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound for his incredible service to this country as a colonel within the Canadian Armed Forces.

He is right. So much has changed over the last five years. The Victims Bill of Rights has come in. It was adopted by the Canadian Armed Forces. It is in the National Defence Act now. That ensures the rights of the victim are always paramount and ensures that victim-focused lens in how we deal with every single case. We know that the military sexual misconduct resource centres have been set up across the country to provide assistance to those individuals who have experienced sexual misconduct, to make sure they get the counselling they deserve and also to determine which system works best for them based upon their case.

We know that the training within the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service and the Canadian Armed Forces military police, as well as in the prosecution and defence counsel services, those that are within the judge advocate general's purview, have all improved to the point that it is better than the civilian system.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, can the Conservative Party now confirm that it wants us to go back to the old system and not have the civilian justice system involved?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there are some things in Bill C-11 that we did support. The problem is that at report stage, the government removed all of the amendments that actually improved the bill and have gone back to a paternalistic system that would not work for victims. We cannot support it.