David McGuinty Liberal
Report stage (House), as of April 23, 2026
Subscribe to a feed (what's a feed?) of speeches and votes in the House related to Bill C-11.
This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament has also written a full legislative summary of the bill.
This enactment amends provisions of the National Defence Act that relate to the military justice system in response to the Report of the Third Independent Review Authority to the Minister of National Defence and the Report of the Independent External Comprehensive Review of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces.
In response to those reports, the enactment amends that Act to, among other things,
(a) modify the process for appointing the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal, the Director of Military Prosecutions and the Director of Defence Counsel Services with a view to enhancing their independence;
(b) affirm the Judge Advocate General’s respect for the independence of authorities in the military justice system in the exercise of the Judge Advocate General’s superintendence of the administration of military justice;
(c) remove the court martial’s jurisdiction to try a person in relation to an offence under the Criminal Code that is alleged to have been committed in Canada and that is of a sexual nature or committed for a sexual purpose and provide for exceptions;
(d) [ Deleted ]
(d.1) provide for the development of a plan for the establishment of an office of the inspectorgeneral for sexual misconduct in the Canadian Forces;
(e) expand the class of persons who are eligible to be appointed as a military judge;
(f) expand the class of persons who may make an interference complaint and provide that a member of the military police or person performing policing duties or functions under the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal’s supervision must make such a complaint in certain circumstances; and
(g) change the title of the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal to the Provost Marshal General.
In addition, the enactment amends the National Defence Act to remove military judges from the summary hearing system and to provide that, in the context of a service offence, an individual acting on behalf of a victim or an accused may request that a victim’s liaison officer be appointed to assist them.
It further amends that Act to harmonize the sex offender information and publication ban provisions with the amendments made to the Criminal Code in An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act .
Finally, it amends the Criminal Code to, among other things, provide superior courts of criminal jurisdiction with the jurisdiction to hear applications for an exemption in respect of orders to comply with the Sex Offender Information Registration Act made under the National Defence Act and applications to vary the duration of such orders.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-11s:
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON
Mr. Speaker, we saw in Bill C‑11, the military justice system modernization act, that even though the committee had unanimous agreement on amendments, when it came to report stage the amendments were all stripped out.
The government is already all-powerful in here, in what it wants to get done. What other aspects of committees will the government now control, besides amendments and the other things we do in committee, for example, scrutinizing bills?
Jeff Kibble Conservative Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have signalled their intent to remove collaborative amendments to Bill C‑11 dealing with military sexual assault, amendments that survivors asked for and experts supported overwhelmingly. The Liberals are about to single-handedly undo decades of progress in military conduct. They would make things worse than we can imagine.
At the heart of the debate is something very simple: giving survivors the choice between the civilian and the military justice systems. If the government removes these amendments, survivors would have access only to the civilian justice system. The consequences would be immediate and unavoidable. There would be institutional trauma and revictimization among survivors who trusted us to listen. Going forward, a majority of military sexual assault cases would go unaddressed or untried. Civilian police forces would be handed cases they have repeatedly said they cannot absorb, and worse, the majority of cases would not meet the threshold for prosecution by civilian authorities.
The Liberals would be opening the door to predators, abandoning survivors of military sexual assault and deceiving Canadians into believing they care about victims. It is shameful.
Government Business No. 9—Changes to Standing OrdersGovernment Orders
Winnipeg North Manitoba
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and maybe add some value to the discussion we are having this afternoon on a very important motion. I advise members opposite to not necessarily be too fearful from the perspective of being in opposition. In my political career, I have actually spent more time on the opposition benches. I understand the important role members of the opposition play when it comes to debates, motions and all the things that take place, whether it is in a provincial legislature or here in the country's national Parliament. I understand the value of the tools that are provided.
I hope to give a couple of good, tangible examples that would maybe assist people who might be following the debate or the discussion in having an understanding, at least from my perspective, as to why it is so important that we continue to move forward with this motion, which has been presented by the government House leader, and in fact, why every member should ultimately be in support of it. I do not say that lightly, because I suspect there will be many MPs on both sides of the House who would say that they are parliamentarians first and foremost, and that they are very passionate about the country we represent here in the House of Commons and the constituents we are here for.
If we believe in those two issues, or those two agenda items I just put forward, let me expand on it a bit. In the history of our nation, every time there has been a majority government, there has been a majority on our committees. We have not heard the representative from the Bloc or the two members from the Conservatives, one of whom is a former Speaker of the House, provide an example where there was a majority government, a majority in the chamber and a minority in the standing committees. I would pose the question as I did to my friend from the Bloc: Do they support the parliamentary tradition and principle that recognizes that, if a party has a majority of seats in the House, it should continue to have a majority of the seats in the standing committees?
It was interesting listening to a couple of the questions that were posed to the Conservative members when they were asked whether, if at some point in time in the future the Conservative Party across the way or some newly branded Conservative Party was to be in a majority government, it would surrender a majority on the standing committees. We will notice that, on both occasions, they did not even answer the question, because that has been an absolute given.
Then, if we take a look at it, I believe Canadians did get an opportunity to speak. Prior to the by-election night, when we had three by-elections, we did not have a majority. We had 171 seats. In order to have a majority in the House of Commons, we needed 172. Had we not won those by-election seats, we would not have a majority today. We will find that the response Canadians gave the Prime Minister and the government was very encouraging. We won all three of the by-elections. At the end of the day, it put us into the position of having a majority government.
I can recall the Conservatives make reference to individuals who, for reasons I would suggest are reasons of building a stronger and healthier nation and wanting to be part of a government that is aggressively taking a team Canada approach in dealing with the important issues our nation is having to face today, made a decision to be part of the government caucus.
It used to be the absolute opposite. Stephen Harper, and even other Conservative leaders post-Stephen Harper, did not have a problem with individuals walking over to their political party. I think the Conservatives are trying to diminish the principal argument that I am putting forward, which is that parliamentary tradition and the history of our nation, in fact the Commonwealth, is very clear that a majority of seats in the House dictates a majority of seats in our standing committees. That is exactly what this motion is proposing.
As I indicated, while in opposition and in government in the House of Commons, and I remember standing up when we were the third party, I would talk about the frustrations of a filibuster from opposition because of issues such as concurrence back then. I believe the record would show that I made reference to the need for time allocation as a legislative tool to ensure that legislation was able to pass, but it does not mean that we are going to have a default position, which Stephen Harper had with Peter MacKay. While I sat in my chair, he would bring in a bill, open up his desk and read the closure or time allocation motions with absolutely no discussion or debate, and that happened well over a hundred times.
The Prime Minister and the government have been very clear. We want to be able to produce in a very real and tangible way for Canadians, and we will work co-operatively with opposition when the collaboration is there to do so. The previous speaker, the member from the Bloc, made reference to the supply management issue. I remember the discussion. I was a part of the House leadership team, and we ensured that it happened. We can go back to when it was being discussed, the discussions that were taking place and the concerns, whether it was in the province of Quebec or Manitoba. I am passionate about supply management. I was glad to see the motion. The Prime Minister did not say, “Well, it's a Bloc initiative. We don't want anything to do with it.” At the end of the day, we were able to come together, in a collaborative way, and get the legislation passed, but that is somewhat rare. I hope we will see more collaboration in the future.
The motion before us would not take away any of the fundamental rights that any opposition party has been using for the last 15-plus years I have been here. There would be no effect on things like opposition days. Opposition days provide the official opposition and other political parties the opportunity to bring forward opposition motions on the issues of the day. Now, I disagreed with a lot of the issues, as there were a lot of more relevant issues that they might have brought forward, but that is my opinion. I respect the fact that they often have an opinion that is different from mine.
At the end of the day, we are not looking to ban concurrence of reports with this motion. I am anticipating that we are going to see concurrence of reports. Whether it is a majority in the committee, a majority in the House, or a minority, that is not going to change. I might prefer to see that debate occur the odd time outside of Government Orders so that we can have more debate on government bills, but again, that is a personal preference.
I can assure members that, whether there is a minority or a majority in the chamber or elsewhere, we are still going to see political tactics such as the official opposition standing up to move for someone to speak, which would then cause the bells to ring. I believe we are still going to see members opposite stand up to attempt to move adjournment for the day. There are all sorts of tools.
The only change we would see from today would be to recognize our parliamentary heritage and tradition. That is the only thing that would be affected today. I hope it would ultimately lead to more opportunities to build on relationships between parliamentarians. I have personally found that we often get relationships that develop in a different way in majority situations at standing committees.
Even in a majority situation, we have accepted amendments. Obviously, we have had amendments in minority situations in a standing committee. It is not the party that dictates whether the idea is ultimately going to pass. As the opposition party would say, it should be the majority of the House of Commons, which now passes on to the standing committees.
If it makes sense to bring forward an amendment, and the majority feels that is the way to go, then it will pass. I want to give a specific example. The reason I want to use this example is that we were talking about it earlier today, and it is with regard to Bill C-11.
The government has been working on trying to get sexual assaults out of the military court system and into the civil justice system for a number of years. The Prime Minister made the decision early on that we were going to invest in our Canadian Forces. We have already committed 2% of the GDP to this. We had 7,000 people apply to be members of the Canadian Forces in the last fiscal year. This is not to mention the drive to build an industrial military regime that complements Canada's security.
Part of dealing with the military issue is addressed in Bill C-11. It is why we have brought it forward. What would Bill C-11 do and why is it important to recognize this? It is because, when Bill C-11 went to committee, the opposition made substantial changes to the legislation.
Before Bill C-11 went to committee, things were clear. There was the Justice Arbour report. If someone wants to google Justice Arbour, they will see she has an incredible background in dealing with sexual harassment and all forms of sexual offences. She sat on the Supreme Court and was recognized worldwide, to a certain degree, on issues dealing with human rights. She did a report for the House of Commons after working with and meeting with people publicly, and off the record, no doubt, talking to thousands of individuals. In that report, her recommendation was that we, as a Parliament, establish the changeover from a military justice system to a civil justice system when it came to sexual assaults.
The Conservatives and the Bloc members united as one and told us what they wanted to see, and it goes against what the government believes is important with respect to listening to what Justice Arbour had to say. We have the debate today in the chamber, and they have made it very clear they do not support a change to the civil justice system. Both the Bloc and the Conservative Party have made it very clear.
Here is a flashback to two years ago, when the veterans affairs committee was meeting. Representatives from the Bloc and the Conservative Party sat on that committee and actually came up with a recommendation on the very issue that Bill C‑11 deals with. It said to transfer the jurisdiction for investigating sexual misconduct, and prosecuting its perpetrators, to civilian authorities.
Today, the opposition has changed its opinion, but the government still believes in the inquiry that was done and the 40‑some recommendations, of which I think close to three dozen have been implemented. The key one is this legislation. Because we have a majority situation, we are now in a better position to be able to pass it, as opposed to compromising on it, because we are listening to the victims.
If we look at why it is important, historically, for Parliaments to have a majority, that is one of the reasons. It is not that we are disregarding opposition ideas and amendments. I would compare amendments we have accepted from opposition in a minority situation. I am not talking about Bill C‑11, so members should not get too excited. I am not talking about Conservative and Bloc amendments, only those in a minority situation. If an amendment adds strength and value to the legislation, by all means it should be brought forward.
I would like to think that parliamentary committees, and I have argued this in the past, can be the backbone of Parliament Hill and the work that many members do. The opposition House leader talked at length about them with respect to the importance of things like legislation, financial matters, policy-related issues and the opportunity to understand and appreciate those issues that are critically important to Canadians. It is a wonderful opportunity.
Personally, I want to look at what is good, sound public policy, as I know every member of the Liberal Party wants to do, and take the actions necessary to support that, whether it is a budgetary measure, of a legislative nature or anything else. Canadians want us to work more co-operatively. Let us collaborate where we can.
The motion we are debating today does not take away the rights of members of Parliament. It reinforces our heritage and parliamentary history within the Commonwealth. I would like to think that there is an opportunity for everyone to see the value of legislation from a government perspective, at the very least, such as the suite of crime bills we have, which is such a high priority for Canadians, and we will be able to deliver on those.
Steven MacKinnon LiberalMinister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I have taken careful note of those questions from my hon. colleague, and perhaps I could offer a challenge in return. If he could work with his colleagues over the weekend so that we get a list, a very precise list, of all of the things that constitute, in their minds, inflationary spending, we would certainly rush to agree to have them table that document and would take a look at it before the Minister of Finance rises next week and gives his spring economic update.
In the meantime, this afternoon, we will move on to consideration of Government Motion No. 9 on the composition of committees. Tomorrow we will continue consideration at second reading of Bill C-25, the strong and free elections act. On Monday, we will resume consideration at report stage of Bill C-11, the military justice system modernization act.
Next Tuesday, we will begin debate at second reading of the very exciting Bill C-28, the Canadian space launch act, followed by the spring economic statement at 4 p.m.
Finally, on Wednesday, we will start second reading debate of Bill S-3, an act to amend the Weights and Measures Act.
Admissibility of Committee Amendments to Bill C-11—Speaker's RulingPoints of OrderRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia
I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on April 17, 2026, by the deputy House leader of the government in the House of Commons regarding the admissibility of amendments adopted by the Standing Committee on National Defence to Bill C-11, an act to amend the National Defence Act and other acts.
The member contended that during clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, six amendments, CPC-1, CPC-10, BQ-2, CPC-16, NDP-4 and BQ-3, were adopted by the committee after having been ruled inadmissible by the chair. The member requested that the Speaker review the content of the bill as amended and determine whether the six amendments in question would exceed the scope and principle of the bill as determined by the House at second reading.
The member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman argued that the six amendments in question are consistent with the principle and scope of the bill. He claimed that CPC-1 would fix an unintended omission from the bill and that the mention of the judge advocate general in the bill's summary demonstrates the importance of the position. With respect to CPC-16, BQ-2 and NDP-4, he argued that these amendments had the support of all committee members.
The member contended that BQ-3 would both increase the pool of potential military judges, something already contemplated in the bill, and result in judges' release from the forces, which he argued is consistent with the principle of enhancing the independence of the military justice system. Finally, he argued that CPC-10, by providing for the appointment of a liaison officer for the accused, would make a change consistent with the bill's proposal concerning a victim's liaison officer.
The member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton also intervened on the matter. He argued that amendments BQ‑2 and BQ‑3 should not have been ruled inadmissible by the chair. Regarding BQ‑2, the member maintained that it merely requires the government to table a plan to study the creation of an inspector general on sexual misconduct, without creating a position or requiring new spending, and was supported by expert testimony and unanimously adopted in committee. As for BQ‑3, the member argued that it was meant to correct an omission from the bill as introduced by the government, namely to strengthen the independence of military judges by ensuring they cease to be members of the Canadian Armed Forces upon appointment.
In light of the arguments made, the Chair has carefully reviewed Bill C‑11 as adopted by the House at second reading and the amendments in question.
The principles or main legislative objectives of the bill appear to be to reform the military justice system with a particular view to enhancing the independence of authorities in the system and removing the military justice system's jurisdiction over crimes of a sexual nature. The amendments in question propose changes to the National Defence Act.
Two of the amendments, CPC‑1 and CPC‑16, were ruled inadmissible by the chair of the committee since they seek to amend a section of the act that is not amended by Bill C‑11. Four further amendments, BQ‑2, NDP‑4, CPC‑10 and BQ‑3, were ruled inadmissible by the chair of the committee on the grounds that they exceed the scope of the bill as adopted by the House at second reading.
The Chair will first address the amendments that were ruled inadmissible due to a violation of the parent act principle. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, fourth edition, explains this principle in section 16.75 as follows:
In the case of a bill referred to a committee after second reading, 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. In certain cases, such amendments can, however, be admissible if they are shown to be directly relevant to the subject matter of the bill being considered, while meeting the criteria of principle and scope.
CPC-1 creates a new time limit during which an officer may act on behalf of the judge advocate general with the possibility of extension by approval of the Governor in Council. Similarly, CPC-16 creates a new clause to amend the appointment process for the chief military judge to ensure the position cannot be vacant for more than 120 days. Both amendments seek to amend sections of the act that the bill does not address. While the bill does mention both positions, the version adopted at second reading did not amend the appointment process for the judge advocate general, the process through which others can act on behalf of the judge advocate general, or the appointment process for the chief military judge. In the case of CPC-1 and CPC-16, the Chair agrees that the amendments were inadmissible as they are inconsistent with the parent act principle.
The Chair will now consider the remaining amendments, which were ruled to be inadmissible for exceeding the scope of the bill. As Speaker Milliken noted in a ruling on January 29, 2008, at pages 2312‑2313 of the Debates: The principle refers to the purpose or objective of a bill, while the scope refers to its legislative scheme or the mechanisms that will give effect to the principle, purpose or objective of a bill.
BQ‑2 seeks, in clause 8 of the bill, to add new section 70.4 in the act, which would require the preparation of a plan to create an office of the inspector general for sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces. The deputy government House leader had also suggested in her intervention that this amendment could infringe upon the financial prerogative of the Crown. While the Chair does not find that the preparation of the plan would impose a charge on the public treasury, an office of an inspector general for sexual misconduct does appear to be a new concept that is beyond the scope of the bill as adopted by the House at second reading.
NDP-4 amends clause 9 of the bill by adding new subsections 71.16(4) and 71.16(5) to the act to ensure, to the extent possible, that every person involved in the investigation or prosecution has training or experience in trauma-informed approaches. Bill C-11 amends section 71.16 of the act, but in a very limited matter, only to provide that an individual acting on a person's behalf can request that a victim's liaison officer be appointed. To add a requirement for every person involved in an investigation and prosecution to have this sort of training appears to the Chair to go beyond the scope of the changes proposed in the bill. Furthermore, the bill is silent on training related to trauma-informed approaches, which also appears to the Chair to be a new concept beyond the scope of the bill.
CPC-10 adds a new clause to the bill that adds a new section in the act, which would create a new mechanism for the appointment of a liaison officer to assist the accused. The act already provides for a liaison officer for the victim, but not for the accused. The bill, therefore, is not introducing this concept, but, rather, is simply modifying a matter related to the appointment of a victim's liaison officer. The concept of a liaison officer for the accused appears to be an entirely new concept that was not already contemplated by the bill as adopted at second reading and appears to the Chair to exceed its scope.
Finally, BQ-3 amends clause 18 of the bill by further expanding the class of persons who are eligible to be appointed as a military judge and providing that any officers or non-commissioned members appointed to be military judges are to be released from the Canadian Forces. As stated in paragraph (e) of its summary, the bill already expands the class of persons who are eligible to be appointed as military judges. To amend these provisions to further expand that class of persons appears to the Chair to be consistent with the legislative scheme of the bill; however, the amendment also introduces the new concept of the release from the Canadian Forces of anyone appointed as military judges, and this appears to be beyond the scope of the specific change the bill proposed to make to the act.
In the Chair's view, while these amendments may to varying degrees relate to the principles of Bill C‑11, they nevertheless go beyond the legislative scheme and concepts provided for in the bill and were correctly ruled inadmissible by the Chair of the committee as being outside its scope.
Consequently, I order the aforementioned amendments adding new clauses 2.1, 9.1, and 19.1, as well as those amending clauses 8, 9 and 18 be declared null and void and no longer form part of the bill as reported to the House. In addition, I am ordering a reprint of Bill C-11 with the removal of the inadmissible amendments. This reprinted version will stand as the official version of the bill for consideration at report stage.
I thank members for their attention.
I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded division, the time provided for Government Orders will be extended by 13 minutes.
Scott Anderson Conservative Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-22 is like so many other bills that show good promise and strong potential to be shaped into good policy in committee. It is right here in second reading that the problems with Bill C-22 are initially identified, and that is what my colleagues on this side of the chamber have been doing: probing, asking questions and identifying weak spots that could be eliminated or good points that could be strengthened. If after this debate the House agrees, Bill C-22 would go to committee stage where it would be debate and have amendments introduced, and then the amendments would be voted on.
Committees are an exceptional tool in which all parties can take a mediocre bill and shape it into good policy, or they can take a good bill and make it even better. We conduct witness interviews, and we incorporate the concerns of everyone until we have a bill that works for all parties, and by extension, for all Canadians. Unfortunately, this is what the Liberals have recently taken to calling obstruction, but it is not. This is how our Canadian parliamentary democracy is supposed to work. I want to address this manufactured Liberal claim of obstruction, because with the compliant media out there, if I do not tell Canadians in the House, they are not going to find out.
Contrary to the narrative of obstruction the Liberals are trying to create, we Conservatives truly did hope that the Prime Minister would steal another of our platform promises and build the so-called energy corridor he promised. We believed him when he said he would make Canada an energy superpower. We hoped he would move quickly and decisively to get our clean Canadian energy to an energy-starved world. That is why we Conservatives voted for Bill C-5 early in the Prime Minister's tenure, and with it gave him more power than any previous prime minister has ever had to achieve those goals.
The Prime Minister has more jurisdictional power than Prime Minister John A. Macdonald had when he built thousands of miles of continental railway through some of the most inhospitable terrain imaginable. The Prime Minister has technologies that would leave Macdonald in shock. We can do in a day what it took a year to do in Macdonald's day.
The Prime Minister can look down in real time from 100 kilometres above and see right into the earth with lidar. He can view the route. He can model a pipeline. He can even watch it in real time as it is built from the comfort of his airplane seat. He could have a pipeline built in two years if he wanted to, yet a year after Bill C-5, he does not even have a pipeline started. He does not have a plan to build one. He does not have a route, not even a gleam in a surveyor's eye. What would a rational person think about this?
The Prime Minister promised grand projects of great national importance. He promised a deal with the Americans by this time last year. He promised to move at speeds not seen in generations to unleash our Canadian economy. However, he has not landed in Canada long enough to move anything. Instead of an energy corridor, we have silence. Instead of housing, we have an enormously expensive bureaucracy and empty props that are taken down as soon as the photo op is over. Instead of a continental railway from coast to coast, we have a $90-billion boondoggle between two eastern cities that will likely never get built, and even that is mired in scandal and controversy before the land snatch even begins.
Unfortunately, our Prime Minister is usually absent from Ottawa, flitting about the world here and there in no particular direction, at enormous taxpayer expense and with a catering budget that would make Emperor Nero blush, all apparently to avoid hard questions in question period, since nothing much has been produced except an undergrad international relations term paper at Davos.
The reason I bring this up is that there is a problem, and I am troubled by it. If we send Bill C-22 to committee by voting for the legislation, how can we be confident the Liberals will respect the committee process and not try to do an end run around Canadians? Can we be sure that our efforts in committee will be respected by the Liberals? What is supposed to happen is all-party input, all-party witnesses, all-party debate and amendments put forward and voted on, and ultimately the result is a bill modified by the people of Canada through the process of representative democracy. That is what is supposed to happen. It is not what is actually happening, and I want to talk for a minute about what is happening.
I want to talk about a troubling tactic the Liberals are using to subvert that process. I am fearful that what happened to Bill C-11 is going to happen to Bill C-22. I am a member of the national defence committee. We recently studied Bill C-11, a bill whose central purpose is to transfer sexual assault cases from the military to the civilian justice system. I assumed, probably like most of us here, that after listening to the horror stories in the media, this would be a rubber stamp, and we would simply transfer the authority to the civilian system. However, all of us at committee were surprised.
We listened to the defence and the prosecution teams from the military argue that the studies the bill was responding to were a decade old and no longer applied to the current military culture. They argued that they had both the capability and the capacity to address the cases, and that the culture within the CAF had radically changed in those 10 years.
We listened to the civilian police, who told us that, although they had the capability, they no longer had the capacity to absorb yet more work, especially in locations with military bases close by.
Then we listened to victim after victim of sexual assault in the military. It was really the victims who surprised me and I think most of us at committee, the people I thought would have the strongest desire to move out of the military justice system. I thought perhaps one or two might say they would like to have a choice, but it turned out that just about every single witness we talked to wanted a choice between the military justice system and the civilian system.
After numerous victims spoke, it became obvious that the bill needed to be modified, so, with the support of the Bloc member on the committee, we co-operated to amend an outdated Liberal motion into one that every stakeholder, from victim to investigator, wanted. We gave the victims a choice. So far, so good. We took a bill that was okay and made it into a good bill. Late this Friday afternoon, the Minister of National Defence, in defiance of civilian and military lawyers, civilian and military police, and even the victims themselves, came into the House and tabled Bill C-11 at report stage.
He is trying to strip our amendments from the bill. Why are the Liberals doing this? We had a decent bill that we turned into a much better bill. There seems to be no explanation for it at all. Why would the Liberals defy both the military and civilian justice systems and the victims?
There is a reason. The Prime Minister has not, will not and cannot fulfill his campaign promises. The cracks in our economy have become chasms, and he needs an election before Canadians feel the full brunt of his purposeful inaction. He knows Canadians are going to start to notice the growing divide between these grandiose announcements and the cold, grey reality of their pocketbooks, so he needs a majority government, and fast. He trolled the opposition benches and, yes, sure enough, an artificial majority did manage to slither across the aisle, but the Prime Minister is afraid that his majority will unravel, since he now has both far right and far left members in his caucus. He has called this a big tent, but it has become more like a circus tent, so he needs an election.
However, the Prime Minister does not want to be blamed for calling an election, so the Liberals are banging on about obstruction to make it look like the normal processes of Parliament are somehow wrong. If he employs tactics like this now that he has a majority government, he knows it is to create the kinds of division within Parliament that he can point to and claim are obstruction. Bill C-22 may have the potential to be a good bill, if it makes it past second reading and goes to committee. My fear is that it will meet the fate of Bill C-11, be subjected to the scrutiny of experts, be modified into a much clearer, better bill, and then have all the positive changes stripped out once it hits report stage. This is obstruction, to be sure, but not by Conservatives.
Conservatives are doing what we are supposed to be doing for the benefit of Canadians. The Prime Minister and the Liberal Party, on the other hand, are acting on behalf of the Liberal Party. They are attempting to fabricate another election that no one wants by trying to make it look like it is not their fault. This is not order and good government, but devious arrogance by the Liberals. Canadians had better brace themselves.
Scott Anderson Conservative Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Davenport mentioned that this is a better bill than before. In fact, this is the third attempt the Liberals have made to introduce a bill that is similar to this, each one a little less intrusive than the last one. My concern, if we let the bill go to committee, is around whether the Liberals would actually respect the amendments we make in it, because I have just come out of a committee with Bill C-11 where we had made some very important amendments to the bill, and on Friday the Liberal Minister of National Defence simply attempted to strip all the amendments away.
I wonder if the Liberals intend to actually respect the amendments we make in committee.
Admissibility of Committee Amendments to Bill C-11Points of OrderRoutine Proceedings
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC
Mr. Speaker, as my colleague just did, I want to get back to the government's challenge regarding the admissibility of amendments BQ‑2 and BQ‑3, which were moved by the Bloc Québécois—me in this case—in the context of the study of Bill C-11 at the Standing Committee on National Defence. We oppose the government's argument that these amendments should be ruled out of order by the Chair at report stage.
Amendment BQ-2 calls on the government to table in Parliament, within six months of royal assent of Bill C‑11, a plan for the establishment of an office of the inspector general for sexual misconduct. Contrary to the government's assertions, the amendment does not force the government to create such a position or generate any new spending because the amendment does not create any new positions. We believe that, after hearing some of the testimony at the Standing Committee on National Defence, committee members came to realize that Bill C-11 could be improved by asking the government to study the option of creating an office of the inspector general for sexual misconduct.
This amendment was tabled following the testimony of retired colonel Michel Drapeau, who told committee members the following at the November 6, 2025, meeting:
Yes, Canada should appoint an inspector general who can take charge of the situation. This person would listen to victims and would have an open mandate. The person could do whatever seems necessary to investigate. The person would also be mandated to report to various individuals, including members of Parliament, as needed.
A number of countries in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, have a similar position. As Justice Létourneau recommended during the commission of inquiry into the deployment of Canadian Forces to Somalia, specifically with regard to the Canadian Airborne Regiment in Somalia, I believe that an inspector general position should definitely be created.
If it were up to me, I would implement this today.
All members of the committee voted in favour of this amendment, which is directly in line with the intent of the bill, which is to address sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces. We are of the opinion that this amendment does not go beyond the scope of the bill and does not generate any new spending.
Amendment BQ-3 was adopted based on the Barreau du Québec's specific recommendation regarding Bill C-11, which can be found in the brief it submitted to the Standing Committee on National Defence. The Barreau du Québec based its recommendations to the committee directly on recommendation 1 of the Fish report. Here is what the Barreau said in its brief:
The Barreau du Québec welcomes these amendments, which address certain recommendations of the Fish Report aimed at ensuring the impartiality and independence of military judges in relation to the chain of command:
Recommendation #1: Military judges should cease to be members of the Canadian Armed Forces, and therefore become civilian. Members of the Canadian Armed Forces appointed by the Governor in Council as military judges should, at the time of their appointment, be released from the Canadian Armed Forces and renounce their military rank.
The National Defence Act should be amended to provide that military judges are never subject to the Code of Service Discipline, and may never be charged, dealt with and tried under the Code of Service Discipline for service offences allegedly committed by them while formerly subject to the Code of Service Discipline, if applicable....
However, a key passage of the first recommendation of the Fish Report is missing from the bill, namely that military judges cease to be members of the CAF upon appointment....
Therefore, the Barreau du Québec recommends that military judges cease to be members of the CAF at the time of their appointment in order to maintain their institutional independence from the executive and to avoid creating a reasonable apprehension of bias.
In addition, here is what the current Minister of National Defence said in the House of Commons at second reading of the bill:
Second, Bill C-11 would act on eight key recommendations outlined by former Supreme Court justice Fish in his third independent review.
Prior to the amendment, however, contrary to the minister's statements and as shown by the Barreau du Québec, Bill C-11 was missing an important component of the Fish report's recommendation 1. The Bloc Québécois, like all parliamentarians, voted in favour of the bill in principle at second reading without knowing all of the details of the bill, because we thought we were going to study it more exhaustively in committee.
Both officials and the government have presented the bill as being faithful to the recommendations of other reports, including the Fish report. The Bloc Québécois believes that parliamentarians did not have all the details of the bill before it was studied in committee and that, as a result, they had to rely on the statements made by both the minister and officials during the vote at second reading. Amendment BQ‑3 improves the bill by bringing it more in line with Justice Fish's recommendation 1 and the intent of the bill, which was to implement the remaining legislation flowing from the recommendations in reports like the Fish report.
Lastly, the recommendation to expand the pool of veteran candidates comes from the brief submitted by Afton Brooke David, senior legal advisor for the study of Bill C-11. Here is what she said in her brief: That said, I would suggest taking it one step further and including current and former members of the CAF with at least 10 years’ service. An argument could be made that this is a matter of interpretation of the existing proposed language; I nevertheless suggest this subtle change could explicitly expand the talent pool and solicit candidates with well-rounded legal experience in and out of the CAF.
The broadened eligibility pool is perhaps implied, as military judges appointed under amendment BQ‑3 are considered to be released from the CAF. However, amendment BQ‑3 clarifies eligibility to avoid any confusion.
For all these reasons, we believe that the Chair should rule the amendments in order.
Admissibility of Committee Amendments to Bill C-11Points of OrderRoutine Proceedings
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
Mr. Speaker, I am rising to respond to the point of order raised on Friday afternoon by the deputy government House leader concerning certain amendments made by the Standing Committee on National Defence to Bill C-11.
The six amendments contested by the honourable member for London West, almost 10 weeks after they were reported by the committee, have one thing in common: They were originally ruled out of order by the committee's chair. Let me remind the House that a committee chair's ruling on the admissibility of an amendment is not infallible.
Mr. Speaker, in a ruling on November 3, 2025, at page 3327 of the Debates, on an amendment that the committee had made to Bill C-4, you reached a different conclusion from that that the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance had reached concerning the need for a royal recommendation. Similarly, on December 2, 2025, you reached a different conclusion from that of the chair of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security concerning the application of the so-called parent act rule to an amendment to Bill C-12 in a ruling found on page 4435 of the Debates.
The test for the Speaker's intervention in committee reports concerning bills does not rest simply on whether a committee chair's ruling was overturned, but rather on whether the committee, in adopting the impugned amendment, exceeded its authority.
Bill C-11, as introduced, makes provision for the appointment, when necessary, of an acting provost marshal general, an acting director of military prosecutions and an acting director of defence counsel services. Moreover, Bill C-11 makes provision related to the responsibility of the judge advocate general and the chief military judge.
Amendment CPC-1 would make provision of a similar effect concerning vacancies in the office of the judge advocate general. In these respects, I would argue that the amendment is consistent with the scope and principle of Bill C-11, as the role of the judge advocate general is integral to the scope of the bill. To illustrate the importance, it was included in the summary of the legislation. Additionally, the importance of legislation allowing for acting roles in the Canadian Armed Forces' chains of command were addressed with the provision for an acting provost marshal general, an acting director of military prosecutions and an acting director of defence counsel services. Not only is this within the scope of the study, it fixes an unintended omission of the Liberals in the drafting phase and would ensure accountability for a role that has been vacant for extended periods of time in the past. This amendment would ensure consistency across all leaders within the military justice system.
As the deputy government House leader observed, this would require the amendment of a provision of the National Defence Act, which was not subject to other amendments in Bill C-11. While she argued that that would breach the parent act rule, I would disagree with her on this point and refer the Chair to the ruling of Mr. Speaker Regan, delivered October 24, 2018, where he explained, starting on page 22797 of the Debates:
The Parent Act rule, the idea that an amendment should not amend an act or a section not already amended by a bill, rests on a presumption that such an amendment would not be relevant to the bill. This can be true. Often, such amendments attempt to deal with matters not referenced in the bill, and this is improper.
However, there are also occasions when an amendment is relevant to the subject matter of a bill and in keeping with its scope but can only be accomplished by modifying a section of the parent act not originally touched by the bill or even an entirely different act not originally touched by the bill....
The parent act rule was never intended to be applied blindly as a substitute for proper judgment as to the relevance of an amendment.
Along similar lines, amendment CPC-16 would add a timeline for the designation of a chief military judge when the office becomes vacant. What is interesting here is that the 120-day time frame in amendment CPC-16 is a product of a Liberal subamendment, and that amendment, as amended, was unanimously adopted, including by the Liberal members present voting for it that day.
Elsewhere, Bill C-11 makes provision for the appointment of a victim's liaison officer, who would have the responsibility of, in the words of the chief of the defence staff at committee, “ensuring they have the appropriate support to navigate the justice system”.
Amendment CPC-10 would make similar provision for the appointment of a liaison officer for the accused. This would be consistent with Bill C-11's proposal to ensure that individuals from outside the justice system who find themselves interacting with that system have the appropriate support to navigate it, which the chief of the defence staff testified about herself. As such, I would submit that this amendment is within the scope and principle of Bill C-11.
Next, there is amendment BQ-2, concerning an inspector general for sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces. Not to put too fine a point on it, but Bill C-11 is largely about addressing sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces. Measures such as an inspector general for military sexual misconduct would, I respectfully submit, fall within the scope and principle of a bill that addresses military sexual misconduct. It too was unanimously supported by committee.
With respect to the deputy government House leader's concern that amendment BQ-2 would require a royal recommendation, I would argue that the amendment was carefully drawn up to impose an obligation on the Minister of National Defence to prepare and table a report concerning a plan to establish such an office. To be clear, while this amendment would get the wheels turning in this direction, it would not directly cause the appointment of, or the expenditure involved with, an inspector general. This approach is consistent with any number of private member's bills in recent years concerning frameworks, strategies and plans that have not offended the financial prerogative of the Crown.
Amendment BQ-3, meanwhile, would amend clause 18 with a view to increasing the pool of potential military judges, something that clause 18 of the bill was drafted to do in the first place. Furthermore, the amendment would see a serving officer or non-commissioned member appointed as a military judge released from the forces to enhance their independence. Bill C-11 contains other measures to enhance the independence of military justice system actors and to vouchsafe this independence relative to the judge advocate general. In my view, this amendment is entirely consistent with the spirit, scope and principle of Bill C-11.
Turning to amendment NDP-4, sponsored by someone who now sits in the Liberal caucus, this amendment would ensure that everyone involved in the investigation or prosecution of the offences spelled out in subclause 70(2) of Bill C-11 has training or experience in trauma-informed approaches. I would point the Chair to the committee testimony of the Attorney General of Canada in an answer to a Liberal colleague's question. He stated the following:
We need to make sure that there are systems that are ready with people who are trauma-informed, with people who have appropriate training and with people who have safeguards in place to ensure that people can share their stories, know that they're going to be taken seriously and know that they'll be given whatever testimonial aids may be necessary for them to fully share their perspective.
A now Liberal MP brought forward an amendment voted for by Liberal MPs to give effect to the Liberal minister's views, which were offered in response to a Liberal caucus colleague's concerns, and now we have the deputy House leader of the Liberals trying to throw the whole thing in the recycling bin.
What is actually going on over there? Is the Prime Minister trying to use a stolen majority to force Liberals to swallow whole the very ideas they backed mere months ago? Is this a sign of what Canadians should expect from the Prime Minister, who has shown little regard for Parliament now that he is flexing power? However, I digress.
In summary, the Liberal deputy House leader is seeking your intervention to undo key portions of the national defence committee's good work on Bill C‑11, much of which her own Liberal colleagues have supported, on the premise that the committee chair's ruling has been overturned. However, as I have laid out, a committee chair's rulings are not infallible, and in the present circumstances, the amendments concerned satisfy the necessary procedural requirements.
I would ask you to find the defence committee's third report to be entirely in order and to reject the Liberal government's challenge to usurp the work that was done by committee members in good faith for all survivors of military sexual assault and misconduct.
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning the admissibility of amendments BQ‑2 and BQ‑3, which were introduced by the Bloc Québécois during the Standing Committee on National Defence's study of Bill C‑11.
David McGuinty LiberalMinister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that the opposition day designated for Thursday, April 23, has been undesignated and that the business for that day shall be Bill C-11, an act to amend the National Defence Act and other acts.
Admissibility of Committee Amendments to Bill C-11Points of OrderRoutine Proceedings
Liberal
Arielle Kayabaga Liberal London West, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order respecting six amendments that were adopted in committee during clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-11, an act that would amend the National Defence Act and other acts.
In late January and early February of this year, the Standing Committee on National Defence conducted clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-11. During the course of clause-by-clause consideration, six amendments were proposed that the chair of the committee ruled inadmissible on the grounds that these amendments either exceeded the scope and principle of the bill, as decided at second reading, or infringed on the parent act rule. In each of these cases, the ruling of the chair was challenged and overturned, and each of these amendments was adopted by a majority of members.
On February 9, Bill C-11 was reported to the House with amendments. Now that the bill is before the House, I am rising to challenge the admissibility of the six amendments that were ruled inadmissible in committee and that are now contained in the bill. The six amendments are CPC-1, CPC-10, BQ-2, CPC-16, NDP-4 and BQ-3.
CPC-1 would amend section 10 of the National Defence Act, which was not subject of the content of Bill C-11. In this case, the chair ruled that, pursuant to section 16.75 of the fourth edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, CPC-1 proposed to amend a section of the act that is not before the committee and that the bill did not seek to modify the appointment process of the judge advocate general. Therefore, the chair ruled the amendment was inadmissible on the grounds that it exceeded the scope and principle of the bill.
CPC-10 would have extended the appointment of a victim's liaison officer to assist a victim to the accused. The chair ruled that, pursuant to section 16.74 of the fourth edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, the amendment proposed a new concept that went beyond the scope of the bill.
BQ-3 would have expanded the class of persons who are eligible to be appointed as a military judge. The chair ruled that this concept proposed in BQ-3 went beyond the scope of the bill.
CPC-16 would require the chief military judge to be appointed within 90 days of the position's vacancy, and since Bill C-11 would not modify the appointment process of the chief military judge, this amendment seeks to exceed the scope of the bill. The chair ruled that, while the bill would not modify the appointment process of specific positions, the position of chief military judge was not included and therefore the amendment exceeded the scope of the bill.
NDP-4 seeks to ensure that every person involved in the investigation or prosecution has training or experience in trauma-informed approaches. The chair ruled that this amendment proposed a new concept that exceeded the scope and principle of the bill.
BQ-2 would have required the establishment of an inspector general for sexual misconduct in the Canadian Forces, which would not only exceed the scope and principle of the bill but could also infringe on the Crown's financial initiative. The chair ruled that the establishment of a new inspector general was a new concept beyond the scope of this particular bill.
I submit that the committee, in adopting these six amendments, exceeded the scope of the bill or infringed on the parent act rule. A bill that is referred to a committee after second reading may not exceed the scope and principle of the bill fixed at second reading and would obviate the ability to amend sections of the parent act that are not opened in the bill.
Page 649 of the fourth edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, at section 16.74, sets the limitation of amendments moved in committee to a bill that is adopted after second reading. This limitation, which deals with the scope and principle of the bill, reads, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”
Page 649 of the fourth edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, at section 16.75, provides that an amendment to a bill must always relate to the subject matter of the bill or to the clause under consideration. In respect to the parent act rule, section 16.75 states, “In the case of a bill referred to a committee after second reading, 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”.
In light of the foregoing, I would request that the Speaker review the bill as amended and make a determination if the amendments proposed through CPC-1, CPC-10, BQ-2, CPC-16, NDP-4, and BQ-3 either infringe on the parent act rule or exceed the scope and principle of Bill C-11.
Should this be the case, I would request that the Speaker order that the bill be reprinted without the offending amendments for the House's consideration at report stage.
Melissa Lantsman Conservative Thornhill, ON
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC
Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question, and I thank her for her excellent grasp of the subject. My question may stray from the subject and be more institutional, given that my colleague herself talked about the power of the opposition parties and the constructive work we can do.
I had a similar experience at one of the committees I serve on. We studied Bill C-11 on sexual misconduct in the military, and most of the amendments passed with the joint support of the Conservative Party and the Bloc Québécois. In my view, the point of a parliamentary system is that it is not the government that has the last word, but rather Parliament. However, it was the democratic process that determined there would be more opposition members. It is therefore only natural that the opposition parties' combined positions on a bill should win out.
Does my colleague not find it frustrating when amendments adopted by a majority of members representing the makeup of the House are rejected outright by the Speaker?
National DefenceCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
February 9th, 2026 / 3:25 p.m.
Liberal
Charles Sousa Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on National Defence in relation to Bill C-11, an act to amend the National Defence Act and other acts. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.