National Defence Committee on Feb. 2nd, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 22 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.

Today's meeting is taking place in hybrid format pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person and remotely using the Zoom application. Before we continue, 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 our interpreters.

I would like to remind witnesses and members to please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. If you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can.

For interpretation, use your earpiece and select the appropriate channel: floor, English or French. These are also available on Zoom. All comments should be addressed through the chair.

I would like to welcome our witnesses again: 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.

Folks, we will now resume clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-11. We were debating amendment CPC-3 to clause 7.

(On clause 7)

The two names I have on the list from last time are Tim Watchorn and Viviane Lapointe, to be followed by Monsieur Savard-Tremblay.

Mr. Watchorn, it's over to you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for letting me intervene on clause 7.

Gentlemen, I just want to put something on the record. We've been talking about choice versus non-choice. For the last hour or so, that has been the debate. I want to bring up an observation I made by listening to the witnesses we've heard over the past few weeks and bring something to a head, because I think it's very important. I'm going to do this in both languages to make sure my message is heard.

We've talked about this. We've seen changes in military culture. There has been progress made since 2021, but there's a reason for that. The reason is we ended concurrent jurisdiction in 2021, so all cases were sent to civilian court. Undoing a system that works and reinstating concurrent jurisdiction would be a step backward in my opinion and would not do justice to all the survivors.

We heard from several witnesses that a proposed choice is actually a false choice and that by giving the civilian system exclusive jurisdiction over sexual offences under the Criminal Code, what we're doing is providing legal clarity and certainty to everyone. I think we should remember that.

I will repeat myself for our Quebec friends.

We have seen an improvement in military culture over the past four years. There has indeed been one. Some victims and witnesses have told us so. This is due to the adoption in 2021 of the interim directive that ended concurrent jurisdiction.

Undoing a system that is currently working and re-establishing concurrent jurisdiction would be a step backwards and would not do justice to survivors.

Several witnesses told us that the proposed choice is actually a false choice. By giving the civil system exclusive jurisdiction over sexual offences under the Criminal Code, we will provide all stakeholders with legal clarity and certainty. I would like us to remember that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Thank you.

Ms. Lapointe, it's over to you.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As a committee member, I want to commend the witnesses who came forward to us, arguably to talk about something that they felt put them at their most vulnerable. I think it's important that we listen to all of the voices of the people who've come forward, and that includes the members who met with Justice Arbour.

I'm reminded of the report and the recommendations in the Arbour report, which was tabled only in 2022. We had some debate last week at our committee meeting that it was a 10-year-old report. Actually, it was tabled in 2022. We know that the fundamental cultural shift we need to see in the Canadian Armed Forces can't happen over a 36-month period.

To me, the recommendation about moving away from the military system is about removing pressure and not necessarily the survivor's voice. As we heard in the Arbour report from the people she met with, survivors said they often felt subtle and sometimes explicit pressure to remain within the military system. To me, a default jurisdiction, a civilian jurisdiction system, protects the survivor and not the institution. I think that's very important.

I want to reflect on some of the discussion we had at our last meeting. To me, choice requires real equivalency, and despite some measures of progress, full equivalency doesn't exist today. We need to ensure we're not going backwards. All of the voices that came forward, both at committee and from those who met with Justice Arbour, need to be listened to and weighted in the decision we make.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Thank you, Ms. Lapointe.

Mr. Savard-Tremblay.

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

I would like to ask a rather technical question.

If amendment proposals were adopted and were found to be incompatible following subsequent analysis, should we discuss them again here and make a decision?

[Michelle Legault, Legislative Clerk]

I can answer that question.

If the committee has adopted an amendment and, subsequently, there are inconsistencies or other issues raised when the bill is returned to the House, normally there are amendments at the report stage to make corrections.

For example, if the committee has not completed its clause-by-clause consideration and wants to go back to correct inconsistencies, it can do so to reconsider decisions already made, if there is unanimous consent.

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

If something were to come up, we would not be condemned forever because of the decisions we make today.

Is that correct?

[The Clerk]

That’s right.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Are there any more speakers on this issue?

Yes, Mr. Bezan.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Quickly going back to the technical side, there is nothing like we have right now.... I know there are probably a few amendments that might be called redundant or not necessary because of previous amendments that have been passed. We'd deal with that as we're going through this, with the advice of the technical expertise brought forward by the legislative clerks. The government still has the power, or anyone.... Well, I guess none of the members would be able to bring forward amendments at report stage in the House. It would have to be the government itself.

[Michelle Legault]

Normally, that is what we see, but any member has the opportunity to submit amendments at report stage.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Okay. I thought an agreement had been made and the Standing Orders were adjusted to ensure this, because I know that used to happen frequently. Then, in 2012 or 2013, we decided to allow members who weren't participating as permanent members of a committee to make amendments at committee, as we're doing right now with the NDP. That's how we've been able to get around that.

[Michelle Legault]

Yes, you're right. That is per the routine motions the committee adopted. That being said, in the case of any amendments, report stage is a further opportunity to submit amendments. However, the principle we go by is that anything that could not have been submitted at committee can then be submitted at report stage, but not necessarily selected by the Speaker.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

All right. We're dealing with CPC-3. We've debated it extensively. Should we put it to a vote?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Okay, we'll have a recorded vote.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Given that CPC-3 is moved, NDP-1 cannot be moved, as it is identical.

Now we're back to clause 7 as amended. Should we vote on that?

[An hon. member]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Please put forward the vote.

(Clause 7 as amended agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)

(On clause 8)

Now we're on CPC-4.

Would the member like to move CPC-4?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

I will not be moving CPC-4.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

You will not.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

I'll move CPC-5.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Okay, by all means do so.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

I'll move CPC-5 as circulated. I won't bother reading it. It's there for everyone to see. I'm sure everybody has had a chance to study it. I'll just speak to it.

CPC-5 again comes down to making sure we have choice in the system, especially when it comes to the investigative side. This provides the Canadian Forces National Investigative Service with the ability to give the choice, at the direction of the victim, of pursuing a military prosecution rather than a civilian prosecution.

We've read a lot into the record, but Tanya Couch said:

Removing the CAF's authority to investigate sexual offences would do a disservice to serving members. A more balanced approach is to establish concurrent jurisdiction between the military and civilian systems for reports of sexual assault.

This model would preserve:

Choice: allowing victims to decide whether their case proceeds through military or civilian channels; and

Agency: the ability to make that decision freely, with informed support and respect for victims' autonomy.