Bill C-11

Read Full Bill Text Here

If you read the summary you will have enough knowledge to answer these simple Vote Questions Below.

An Act to Amend the National Defense Act and Other Acts

Short title: Military Justice System Modernization Act

Bill type:  House Government

Bill Sponsor:  Minister of National Defense

BILL C-11 — SUMMARY Military Justice System Modernization Act (Reported to House February 9, 2026)

This bill reforms Canada's military justice system in response to independent reviews addressing sexual misconduct and systemic failures within the Canadian Armed Forces.

WHO GAINS POWER

Independent military justice officials:

  • Provost Marshal General, Director of Military Prosecutions and Director of Defence Counsel Services gain 7-year non-renewable terms
  • Removable only for cause with House of Commons resolution — reducing command influence
  • Judge Advocate General must now formally respect their independence, ending previous interference in charging and trial decisions
  • Appointments must occur within 120 days of vacancy

Civilian courts:

  • Gain jurisdiction over all military sexual offences committed in Canada
  • Removes chain-of-command control over sexual assault, harassment, exploitation and trafficking cases

Victims:

  • Gain the right to choose whether the accused is tried by court martial or civilian court
  • Gain access to liaison officers and trauma-informed investigation protections
  • Civilian courts give victims the voice they were denied in military courts, where prosecution rates were extremely low and institutional culture protected perpetrators
  • Victim-choice provision sunsets after 4 years unless Parliament extends it

Inspector General for Sexual Misconduct:

  • Gains statutory mandate — government must table a plan within 6 months
  • Expanded complaint filing rights for victims and affected persons

WHO LOSES POWER

Military chain of command:

  • Loses jurisdiction over sexual offence cases committed in Canada
  • Loses ability to control prosecution decisions for sexual misconduct
  • Military can still secure evidence and make arrests before civilian authorities arrive

Accused military members:

  • Lose right to military-only trial for sexual offences
  • Face civilian courts with different procedures and potentially different outcomes
  • Gain protection from politically-motivated prosecutions and command manipulation

Military judges:

  • Gain independence from chain of command
  • Lose summary hearing authority
  • Released from Canadian Forces upon appointment

WHO LOSES — CAREER BETRAYAL

  • Service members who volunteered to serve were forced to abandon careers due to sexual misconduct the military failed to address
  • Some were driven out during training, some after field assignment — all believing the system would protect them
  • The military recruited service members into careers while failing to protect them — eliminating wages, benefits, pensions, and advancement
  • The retention crisis of members leaving early in service is measurable proof of systemic failure
  • No one was held accountable for forcing them out

WHO GAINS MONEY

  • Military budget funds new liaison officers, trauma-informed training, and the Inspector General office
  • Taxpayers fund dual-system infrastructure during the 4-year victim-choice transition period

WHO LOSES MONEY

  • Costs shift to civilian court systems for prosecuting military sexual offences
  • Potential compensation liability for service members forced to abandon careers due to unprosecuted misconduct could be massive if systemic scale is formally acknowledged
  • Taxpayers fund both systems simultaneously during the transition

THE CATCH

  • Military justice has been used to remove dissenting officers by prosecuting decades-old allegations — including cases where officers questioned COVID vaccine mandates and were court-martialed for 30-year-old conduct only after challenging current policy
  • This raises the question of whether military justice can be weaponized as a political tool
  • Not all command officers are corrupt — some fear career loss if they don't comply with institutional pressure, some follow questionable orders, and some whistleblow and face retaliation
  • Some officers transition to government positions to secure military funding — creating a revolving door between military command and political power
  • Recruits lack informed consent about sexual misconduct rates before enlisting — the bill does not address this gap
  • The victim-choice provision sunsets in 4 years — Parliament can quietly let it expire