Military Justice System Modernization Act

Bill C-11, Military Justice System Modernization Act · Third reading · now law Where it stands

What the law does

The law removes the military's authority to investigate or try sexual offences under the Criminal Code that are alleged to have taken place in Canada. It alters appointment processes for military prosecutors, defence counsel, and the provost marshal, who is renamed the Provost Marshal General. The law also expands who can become a military judge, removes those judges from the summary hearing system, and lets people acting for victims request a liaison officer.

Official text (opens in a new tab)

28 statements

John-Paul Danko, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas

Liberal
“I want to ask the member how the government can make sure everyone serving in our military is kept safe and protected.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 37 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke about his time serving in Canada’s Armed Forces. Just recently, I had the opportunity to spend some time at the HMCS Star in Hamilton speaking with recruits, reservists, veterans and cadets, the young men and women in Canada’s military who are so proud of their country and their service. I spoke with the commander who talked about the increase in recruiting and interest in serving in Canada’s military and the new opportunities for an advance presence in Hamilton. I wonder if the member could comment on our role, as the federal government, in making sure that everyone who is serving Canada in our military, in the Armed Forces, is protected and safe in their service.

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

Liberal
“I want the House to pass this bill. It puts 48 important recommendations into place to support our military. I served in the Armed Forces, and I know how much people benefit from their time in service.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I truly appreciate the question because I think it goes two ways. The government has a responsibility. We are living up to that responsibility. Again, I will reinforce that, after this bill passes, the 48 recommendations will in fact be put in place. They are respectful, inclusive and absolutely critical. We need to continue to support our forces in the manner in which we have over the last 12 months. Second to no other Prime Minister in generations, we have a solid commitment. I also want to make reference to this. The member mentioned my time in the Armed Forces. I had the honour to serve for just over three years, which was an absolute privilege. It is the skill sets that are gained by members of the forces that turn out to be such a wonderful asset in the future. Whether one is in the forces for three years or 30 years, there is a great deal of benefit had by all.

Alex Ruff, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound

Conservative
“This bill will not fix how crimes are handled overseas. In the end, military courts will still have to deal with them. I want the member to say if he trusts the military justice system to help these victims.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, I spent 25 and a half years in uniform serving our great nation. I want to get back to the answer to my previous question. The member stated that if one of the members of the CAF commits a heinous crime, a Criminal Code sexual offence, overseas, he has complete faith in our military police to be able to collect the data, but then it needs to be transferred to the civilian courts. Unfortunately, that is not what is going to happen when Bill C-11 passes. The same thing that occurs right now will happen when that bill passes. If the military police can find a police of jurisdiction, if there is some way to make that connection and they are willing to take that charge on, then, yes, but in the end it is going to be the military justice system that is going to do justice for these victims. Does the member have faith that our military justice system can do the job and provide justice for the victims?

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

Liberal

Linked statement

“I support the report's recommendation. Military police should handle cases outside Canada because they know how to collect and protect evidence there. Other countries do not always have the same justice system we do.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 45 of 100

    None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I believe the recommendation is fairly clear. It is recommendation number five from the Arbour report. I recommend that the member opposite read the recommendation. I do believe that military police, in dealing with the issue outside of Canada, have a level of expertise in collecting and protecting the integrity of evidence and securing the situation so that we can ultimately see justice served. Not all communities or theatres in which the Canadian Forces might participate have the same rule of law or the same court system or justice system that would match the Canadian system. I think the way it has been recommended—

Yves Perron, Berthier—Maskinongé

Bloc Québécois
“I want a straight answer to my question. We proposed a change to let victims of sexual assault choose between a civilian court or a military court. Why did the Liberals remove that change from the bill?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat my question, since I still have not received an answer. The parliamentary secretary and I know each other quite well. We all know that he has a way with words, but I want to ask him to refrain from skirting around the issue by talking about other things, like the recommendations from Justice Arbour or anyone else. We developed an amendment in committee that would allow a victim—male or female, since either is possible—who is in fact the most important person in these circumstances, to choose whether their sexual assault case would be handled by the civilian courts or a military court. That can be done. We do not own the truth, contrary to what the government might think. I would like to get an objective and sincere answer. Why was this amendment removed? I understand that the Liberals have a majority and that they can decide, but it was a good amendment. Why did they remove it? I would like to hear a rational explanation.

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

Liberal
“I support using civilian courts for these military offences because an expert report recommended it. The person who wrote that report talked to many people, including victims, and I trust her advice.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I will give it my best shot. It is because of a specific recommendation. Justice Arbour knew, consulted and worked with hundreds if not thousands of people, directly or indirectly, including victims. Her recommendation says that these offences “should be prosecuted exclusively in civilian criminal courts in all cases.” There is an exemption if it takes place outside of Canada. I personally have more confidence in that report today than in what has been brought before me. That is the reason.

Alex Ruff, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound

Conservative
“This bill will not give victims justice. Civilian police do not have the resources to handle all military sexual crimes, so cases will be dropped. The government removed good changes made by the committee, like an expiry date on the law and rules to collect data. The Senate should fix these problems.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, because of the programming motion and the time allocation on this, I am going to be the last individual to speak in this chamber, unless the bill comes back, and there is a very high probability that it may come back, based on the Minister of National Defence’s indication earlier in this chamber. When I spoke to the bill earlier this week, I highlighted the importance that we get it right. This is about the victims. This is about our military justice system. This is about retaining the credibility of our military police and our military prosecutors, but in the end, it is all about a victim-centred, trauma-informed decision within our Canadian Armed Forces. I have highlighted before that ultimately the decision was made in late 2021 by the director of military prosecutions, in light of the report that came out by Justice Arbour, to try to transfer all Criminal Code sexual offences to the civilian authorities. In the last five years, we have learned that the civilian police of jurisdiction do not have the resources or the capacity to deal with all these Criminal Code sexual offences. Part of the reason is that sometimes the cases are historical in nature and the courts do not view that they are in the best interest of public safety here in Canada. However, they are definitely in the best interest of justice within the Canadian Armed Forces, discipline and the necessary requirements that we need of our Canadian Armed Forces members. If all the amendments that were done, in some cases with all-party consensus, get removed and Bill C-11 passes in its current form, the challenge we are going to have is that the victims are not going to get justice. There are two things that I think we are going to see happen at the Senate. Based on the minister’s own commentary here in the chamber, he is open to the sunset clause amendment that did pass at committee, which the government has since removed, to be put back into the bill. The other thing I think needs to be included in the bill is some sort of data collection provision. The biggest challenges we hear all the time, especially as these cases get transferred to civilian authorities, are how many they actually take, how many result in a charge being laid and how many end up with something occurring. These are all very important things that I think we need to do, and I encourage those members in the other place to take this into consideration as the bill goes forward. However, the ultimate disappointment I have with the government’s decision not to respect the victims and the decisions made at committee is that we are not going to get this right. As I said before, I predict that those of us who will have the privilege of still being in this chamber in a few years will be dealing with the next iteration of this bill and, unfortunately, apologizing to the victims who are not going to get the justice they deserve.

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

Liberal
“I want us to agree to end debate early and move on to private members' business.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent at this time to call it 1:30 p.m. so we could begin private member’s hour.

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 120

  1. Government Orders Military Justice System Modernization Act 22 statements
  2. Oral Questions Employment 12 statements
  3. Oral Questions Oil and Gas Industry 6 statements
  4. Oral Questions Youth 4 statements
  5. Oral Questions Finance 2 statements
  6. Oral Questions Justice 4 statements
  7. Oral Questions National Defence 6 statements
  8. Oral Questions Justice 2 statements
  9. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 10 statements
  10. Oral Questions Foreign Affairs 2 statements
  11. Oral Questions Health 6 statements
  12. Oral Questions Public Safety 2 statements
  13. Oral Questions Finance 2 statements
  14. Oral Questions Climate Change 2 statements
  15. Government Orders Military Justice System Modernization Act 28 statements
  16. Oral Questions International Trade 4 statements
  17. Oral Questions Finance 8 statements
  18. Oral Questions Canadian Identity and Culture 2 statements
  19. Private Members' Business Food and Drugs Act 14 statements
  20. Oral Questions Youth 4 statements
  21. Oral Questions Finance 2 statements
  22. Oral Questions Youth 2 statements