Military Justice System Modernization Bill
Bill to Amend--Sixth Report of National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs Committee Adopted
June 11, 2026
Moved the adoption of the report.
He said: Honourable senators, I rise as a member of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs to speak on the committee’s report on Bill C-11, the military justice system modernization act. Our chair, Senator Marty Deacon, was called away yesterday on a family matter, and I will be delivering these remarks on her behalf:
Briefly, colleagues, Bill C-11 seeks to modernize and reform certain aspects of the military justice system based on recommendations from independent reviews conducted in 2021 and 2022 by former Supreme Court justices Morris Fish and Her Excellency Louise Arbour, respectively.
The most contentious aspects of the bill heard at committee were clauses 7 and 8, which seek to implement Recommendation 5 of the 2022 Arbour report, and they were the focus of amendments at committee and are, thus, the focus of my remarks today.
I note for my colleagues that this bill was in the other place for eight months, from September 2025 to May 2026. The Senate received the bill on May 26, so it was subject to a truncated committee timeline, per the will of the government. We did the best we could in the short time frame we found ourselves with.
This bill was referred for study on May 28. We held three meetings in total, including one for clause-by-clause consideration, and we heard from 19 witnesses. There were also seven written briefs submitted to the committee.
Colleagues, I would be remiss if I did not convey what a challenge it was for the committee to study the consequential measures included in this bill, particularly clauses 7 and 8, which will formally remove the Canadian Armed Forces’ jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada.
We heard a range of opinions from witnesses within and outside the forces. Many witnesses strongly believed that the Canadian Armed Forces has undertaken sufficient reforms to maintain concurrent jurisdiction over these cases with civilian authorities and to leave the choice to the victims themselves. Others believed just as strongly that the military cannot appropriately and fairly handle these cases and that authority must rest solely within civilian jurisdiction.
At clause-by-clause consideration yesterday, Senator Carignan proposed an amendment to clause 7, which sought to allow victims to choose whether their case be heard in civilian or military court. The vote on the amendment was a tie and, thus, defeated. For those colleagues not familiar with the work of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs, I must stress that the closeness of this vote is a rare outcome for our committee.
Pursuant to the outcome of the vote on his amendment to clause 7, Senator Carignan opted not to introduce his consequential amendment to clause 8.
The committee unanimously adopted Senator Patterson’s amendment, which requires the government to review the bill’s transfer of jurisdiction three years after the entry into force of clauses 7 and 8. This review, which will be tabled before Parliament, must be informed by relevant consultations, be data-driven, include information on the cases involving Criminal Code sexual offences prosecuted in the civilian justice system and include the Minister of National Defence’s opinion on whether this transfer should be repealed. If the minister recommends reinstating concurrent military jurisdiction, Parliament may pass resolutions calling on the government to do so.
I would like to thank the witnesses for appearing at committee and submitting written briefs on such a tight timeline. The committee expresses its sincere appreciation to the former members of the Canadian Armed Forces who shared their experiences and testimony during the study of the bill and acknowledges the value of their contributions.
I would also like to thank the committee staff who made this work possible: our clerk, Ericka Paajanen; administrative assistant Debbie Larocque; analysts Anne-Marie Therrien-Tremblay and Andrés León; and law clerk Anne Burgess.
Finally, I would like to thank my colleagues and their staff for their work at committee. Despite the challenge in considering such a consequential bill in such a short time frame, I believe the insightful questioning and consideration at committee reflected the Senate at its best. I want to thank the committee, and thank you for receiving the report.
Honourable senators, I want to speak today on the Canadian Senators Group’s position on leave to skip notice periods in legislation. This was something that our group began discussing over four years ago after growing frustration due to the Senate constantly being pressured to give leave to expedite bills.
Initially, requests for leave were necessary to respond urgently to COVID-related measures, but it became increasingly relied on and expected to deal with other bills, including amendments to the Criminal Code and the Canada Labour Code. The exception became the norm.
Notice periods are important. They are the speed bumps that safeguard the rigour of our deliberations. They ensure that all senators representing the diverse parts of this country have an opportunity to read and reflect on the legislation before them. Yes, there are times when urgency requires that they be skipped, but that should be the exception.
In the pressure cooker days of June, we know that the government wants to get through its agenda expeditiously — that is to be expected — but Parliament is not the same thing as government. We have a distinct role. It should be a collaborative one, yes, but it needs to be an independent one. The government should be clear in its priorities and its expectations of timelines, and senators should act with agility to respond to them. But, ultimately, the lawmaking process is a parliamentary process, and it is the responsibility of parliamentarians to ensure that proper process is respected. When the government asks that we deviate from our rules, we need to respond carefully. We cannot allow it to become perfunctory.
Turning to the bill before us, it should not be routine to skip the notice period to begin consideration of a committee report containing amendments and observations on any law, particularly one as important as the National Defence Act, especially when the committee had finished the report only moments before the Senate began sitting. That is not sound legislative practice.
Our group is comfortable proceeding to third reading debate today. Members have had an opportunity to review the National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs Committee report, and our senators who wish to intervene on debate at third reading are prepared to do so today.
With that, honourable senators, I call the question.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
(Motion agreed to, on division, and report adopted.)
