Military ends self-harm charge

Summary#

This bill repeals a part of the National Defence Act that made it a service offence to maim or injure yourself or another person to make yourself or that person unfit for military service (Bill amending NDA s.98(c)). It removes criminal liability under military law for self-harm done to avoid duty and ends this specific charge when someone injures another to avoid service. Other military and criminal offences remain in place.

• Repeals the offence in National Defence Act section 98(c) (Bill amending NDA s.98(c)).
• Military police and prosecutors would no longer lay or pursue charges under s.98(c).
• Does not change other offences (e.g., assault) available under the Code of Service Discipline, including offences incorporated from the Criminal Code (NDA s.130).
• No funding, taxes, or fees are created in the bill.
• Takes effect when it receives Royal Assent, as no delayed start date is stated (Bill text).

What it means for you#

• Households (military families):

  • A Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) member could no longer be charged under s.98(c) for self-harm intended to avoid duty once the bill becomes law (Bill amending NDA s.98(c)).
  • If a member injures another person to avoid service, they could not be charged under s.98(c), but other charges (such as assault) would still be available under military law (NDA s.130).

• Workers (CAF members and reservists subject to the Code of Service Discipline):

  • Removal of the s.98(c) offence means self-harm to avoid duty is not a stand‑alone service offence anymore (Bill amending NDA s.98(c)).
  • Conduct that harms others can still be prosecuted under other offences, including Criminal Code offences made into service offences by NDA s.130 (NDA s.130).

• Businesses:

  • No direct impact. The bill only changes a military service offence. No new contracts, compliance duties, or costs are created (Bill text).

• Local governments:

  • No direct impact. Military justice is federal. No mandates or funding changes are included (Bill text).

• Service users (military justice system actors: military police, prosecutors, judges, commanders):

  • You would discontinue use of s.98(c) and rely on other existing offences where applicable (Bill amending NDA s.98(c); NDA s.130).
  • Policies, charge sheets, and training materials would need updates to remove references to s.98(c) (Bill amending NDA s.98(c)).

Expenses#

Estimated net cost: Data unavailable.

• No appropriations, taxes, or fees are included in the bill (Bill text).
• Administrative impacts (policy updates, training) are not costed. Data unavailable.
• No official fiscal note identified. Data unavailable.

Proponents' View#

• Ends criminalization of self-harm within the military justice system, which proponents argue aligns discipline with modern mental health practices (Bill amending NDA s.98(c); Fish Review 2021).
• Reduces fear that members seeking help after self-harm could face service charges, which proponents say supports suicide prevention efforts (Fish Review 2021).
• Keeps tools to address harmful conduct toward others through existing assault and related offences incorporated into service law (NDA s.130).
• Simplifies the Code of Service Discipline by removing a rarely used, motive‑based offence that overlaps with other offences (Fish Review 2021). Data on charge volumes: Data unavailable.

Opponents' View#

• May reduce deterrence against intentional self‑injury to avoid duty, which critics say could affect discipline and readiness (purpose of former NDA s.98(c)). Data on prevalence: Data unavailable.
• Removing a tailored offence could make it harder to address cases where someone injures another specifically to avoid service, since prosecutors must rely on general offences that do not target this motive (Bill amending NDA s.98(c)). Data on case outcomes: Data unavailable.
• Implementation risk: military police and prosecutors must adjust charging practices and training, which could create short‑term inconsistency (Bill amending NDA s.98(c)). Cost and timeline: Data unavailable.
• Does not address broader gaps in mental health services; critics may argue legal change alone will not improve access to care. Evidence of service capacity changes tied to the bill: Data unavailable.