Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan.
I rise today to speak to Bill C-11, the military justice system modernization act.
Let me say right from the start that I support the intentions behind this bill. It aims to make our military justice system fairer, protect victims better and increase accountability. These are important goals. I think all of us in the House, especially on the Conservative side, agree that justice and fairness must be part of everything we do, including how we run our armed forces.
That said, we also have a duty to ask tough questions to make sure that while we are fixing one problem we are not creating new ones somewhere else. I want to raise a few concerns. They are not political attacks but honest concerns about how this will work in the real world with real consequences for the men and women in uniform.
One of the biggest changes in this bill is that sexual offences that occur in Canada would now be handled by civilian courts instead of the military. On paper, that makes sense. We want victims to feel safe coming forward, and civilian courts have experience handling these cases. This could lead to better outcomes for victims.
However, here is a question: What happens when something like this happens overseas during a deployment or mission? Our military operates around the world in peacekeeping, training missions and sometimes in combat zones. In many of those places, civilian police and courts are unavailable.
If the military does not have jurisdiction over certain offences, who would handle those cases when they happen abroad? The bill implies that jurisdiction overseas would revert to the National Defence Act and be handled under the code of service discipline. In other words, it would be handled by the military. If military justice is not suitable in Canada, how is it suitable overseas? Would victims feel that justice has been served by a system not deemed good enough at home? This needs to be addressed.
The second thing is command authority. Military discipline is different from civilian life. The military justice system exists to maintain order, morale and operational effectiveness. It gives commanders the tools to act quickly and firmly. This bill would risk taking too much control away from commanders. If issues have to go through a long civilian process with no clear chain of responsibility, our ability to act fast in critical situations is compromised. Commanders should not have unchecked power, but they must be involved, especially during active missions. Let us not weaken their ability to lead and protect their troops.
The third thing is independence versus bureaucracy. This bill would give more independence to roles like provost marshal and director of military prosecutions. In theory, that supports fairness and impartiality. However, we must be careful not to create a system so wrapped up in bureaucracy that it becomes slow or even politicized. Our soldiers deserve a justice system that is efficient, focused and responsive, not one bogged down in red tape.
The fourth thing is communication between systems. Let me give members a real-life example I was told about recently. At a military camp last year, a serious incident of a sexual nature occurred. It was reported by the military to civilian authorities right away and the RCMP took over the case, which is exactly as this bill envisions. However, once the RCMP had the file, there was no communication back to the military. As a result of not knowing what restrictions were to be sent down the chain of command, the military sent both the victim and the accused home on the same bus. That should never happen. That is not a failure of values. It is a failure of process.
Nowhere in this bill is there a formal mechanism for communication between the RCMP and the military. Without one, this kind of situation could happen again and again. If we are going to transfer cases to civilian courts, there must be clear communication every step of the way. The military still has to manage the members involved as long as they are active service members and protect both the rights of the accused and the safety of others.
Finally, this cannot be “set it and forget it”. We need to keep watching this bill as it rolls out. That means oversight, regular reviews and honest discussions about what is working and what is not. Because we overcivilianize the military justice system, we forget that it serves a unique and high-pressure environment, and we risk weakening it. If we weaken military justice, we weaken our ability to maintain order, protect victims and defend this country.
I will say in closing that I support the goals of Bill C-11. I support protecting victims. I support making justice fair and seen to be fair. However, we must think carefully about the real-world impacts of these changes. What happens when offences occur overseas? What happens when communication breaks down? What happens if the military loses the ability to act quickly when it matters most?
These are not hypotheticals; these are real questions that affect the lives of our armed forces members and their families. Let us pass the bill, but let us do it with our eyes open. Let us strengthen military justice, not slow it down. Let us protect victims and protect discipline. We can do both, and we must.