Evidence of meeting #21 for National Defence in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was choice.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

Members speaking

Before the committee

Geneviève Lortie  Deputy Judge Advocate General, Military Justice Modernization, Canadian Armed Forces, Department of National Defence
Matt MacMillan  Director, Military Justice Implementation, Office of the Judge Advocate General, Canadian Armed Forces, Department of National Defence

4 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Charles Sousa

I call this meeting to order.

We're going to have a hard stop, folks, at six o'clock. I know a few of you have to leave; we're going to try to expedite things as much as we can so that we proceed only until six. If we need to continue thereafter, we will.

I welcome you to meeting number 21 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Friday, October 10, 2025, and the motion adopted by the committee on Thursday, October 23, 2025, the committee is meeting to resume its consideration of Bill C-11, an act to amend the National Defence Act and other acts.

Members are attending in person. No one is on Zoom.

Before we begin, I ask participants to consult the guidelines on the table. These measures are to help prevent audio and feedback incidents and to protect the health and safety of the interpreters.

Members and witnesses, I'd like to remind you to please wait until you're recognized by name before speaking. If you wish to speak, please raise your hand. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can.

For interpretation, use the earpiece and select the appropriate channel for the floor, English or French.

All comments should be addressed through the chair.

I would now like to welcome our witnesses. We have Colonel Geneviève Lortie, deputy judge advocate general, military justice modernization, Canadian Armed Forces; and Lieutenant-Colonel Matt MacMillan, director of military justice implementation, office of the judge advocate general, Canadian Armed Forces.

Welcome to you both.

I'd now like to provide members of the committee with a few comments on how the committee will proceed today regarding the clause-by-clause consideration of this bill.

As the name indicates, this is an examination of all the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call each clause successively, and each clause is then subject to debate and a vote. If there are amendments to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing the amendment, who may explain it. The amendment will then be open for debate. When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on. Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the package that each member has received from the clerk.

In addition to having to be properly drafted in a legal sense, the amendments must be procedurally admissible. The chair may be called upon to rule amendments inadmissible if they go against the principle of the bill or beyond the scope of the bill, both of which were adopted by the House when it agreed to the bill at second reading, or if they offend the financial prerogative of the Crown.

During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time, and that subamendment cannot be amended.

Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will vote on the title and the bill itself. An order to reprint the bill may be required, if amendments are adopted, so that the House has a proper copy for use at the report stage.

I thank members for their attention, and I wish everyone a very productive clause-by-clause as we consider Bill C-11.

I know that many of you have all the clauses and the amendments to them, so I'll proceed if you're all ready.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1, the short title, is postponed.

The chair now calls clause 2. Shall clause 2 carry?

(Clause 2 agreed to)

I will now proceed to proposed new clause 2.1, which is a Conservative amendment.

Do you wish to move this amendment?

4 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to move CPC-1, which is that Bill C-11 be amended by adding, after line 14 on page 1, the following new clause:

2.1 Section 10 of the Act is replaced by the following:

10 The powers of the Judge Advocate General may be exercised, and the duties and functions of the Judge Advocate General may be performed, by any other officer who has the qualifications set out in subsection 9(1) that the Minister may authorize to act for the Judge Advocate General for that purpose, but that officer may act as the Judge Advocate General for a period of more than 90 days only with the approval of the Governor in Council.

The Chair Liberal Charles Sousa

Before we proceed, I'd like to note that the amendment seeks to amend section 10 of the National Defence Act. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, fourth edition, states in section 16.75, “an amendment is generally inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill.”

Section 10 of the act is not being amended by Bill C-11. Furthermore, the bill does not seek to modify the appointment process for the judge advocate general, which is therefore beyond the scope of the bill. It is the opinion of the chair that the amendment is inadmissible.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

I challenge that ruling by the chair.

The Chair Liberal Charles Sousa

That's fair.

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC

Could my colleague repeat that? It wasn’t recorded because the microphone was turned off.

The Chair Liberal Charles Sousa

Can you repeat that, please? I'm sorry.

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC

No, you just had to use your earpiece, Mr. Chair.

The Chair Liberal Charles Sousa

It's not working. It didn't come through.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

It's very quiet, Mr. Chair. Turn off your microphone and then....

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC

I wanted to know if my colleague could repeat his request, because his microphone was turned off.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

We need the interpreter to crank up the.... I can't hear you.

An hon. member

We're having a hard time hearing.

The Chair Liberal Charles Sousa

The request is for you to repeat the amendment so that he can understand what you're putting forward.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

I am challenging the chair's ruling that amendment CPC-1 is out of scope.

It's not up for debate.

The Chair Liberal Charles Sousa

Okay. Go ahead.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

You have to call the question yourself.

The Chair Liberal Charles Sousa

A challenge has been put forward to...acknowledge my decision on this matter.

The Clerk of the Committee Jean-Denis Kusion

Is the ruling of the chair sustained?

Is the ruling of the chair sustained? If you vote yea, the ruling will be sustained. If you vote nay, the amendment will proceed.

(Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 5; yeas 4)

The Chair Liberal Charles Sousa

All right. The amendment is now back and open for debate.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that. I understand the reasoning on why it was out of scope, but it's also important that we have a chance to make amendments to legislation and to the positions of individuals who are serving, who are named in Bill C-11 and who are going to be responsible for the administration of justice.

In the past, the judge advocate general was absent for 18 months and we were functioning without a JAG, other than an acting JAG. We find that problematic. We know that Justice Fish, in his original report, suggested that these positions be filled within three months.

Also, we'll note that in Bill C-11, the positions of the provost marshal, for example, and the director of defence counsel services would be filled within a three-month time frame—90 days.

We think it's important that we expand this to include other positions as well, including the JAG; for that reason, we are making this amendment.

The Chair Liberal Charles Sousa

Is there any debate?

Tim Watchorn.

Tim Watchorn Liberal Les Pays-d'en-Haut, QC

Thank you, Chair.

I have a question for the experts here. What's the usual time frame for this type of nomination?

Colonel Geneviève Lortie Deputy Judge Advocate General, Military Justice Modernization, Canadian Armed Forces, Department of National Defence

It can take a certain amount of time with the process, verification, qualification, security and everything. With the National Defence Act, there are other appointments that are made by the GIC in which the minister can make an acting appointment. For this one, it's not proposing to amend the appointment of the JAG when the position is vacant. It's really about the acting JAG: The minister could have someone for a certain amount of time, but after 90 days, they need to be confirmed by the GIC.

You will have other provisions in the National Defence Act for other systems with the same types of appointments, in which the minister can appoint someone as acting for a period of time and there's no such time frame, but in this one, it aligns with the provost marshal general, which is the same for the acting one, with the director of military prosecutions and with the director of defence counsel services, the three amendments in this bill.

Tim Watchorn Liberal Les Pays-d'en-Haut, QC

Thank you.