National Defence Committee on Feb. 2nd, 2026

[Col Geneviève Lortie]

Yes, there's already a provision under the National Defence Act that creates the offence of negligence in the performance of duties. It says:

Every person who negligently performs a military duty imposed on that person is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to dismissal with disgrace from Her Majesty's service or to less punishment.

It's an offence that talks about “negligently”. Here we're making the link to this provision by naming section 124—that's the offence—and it's adding an element about “wilfully” that is not covered by the offence itself. It's suggesting to change the way the offence is committed under section 124. That one is a negligence offence, and here we're talking about wilfully doing something.

Also, when we talk about the military duty imposed on someone in court, it's the prosecution that has the duty to transfer the evidence—to give the evidence to defence counsel or to the accused if the accused is not represented. Here the amendment seems to suggest that it's on the military police member, when really the duty imposed in the system is on the prosecution. You cannot lay a charge when there's no duty on someone to do something—that's not an offence—so you need to initially have a military duty to do something for it to become something to be considered under section 124. In this system, it's the prosecution that has it.

If I can add a third element to that, we're talking about disclosing evidence to the counsel representing the accused, and that does not propose to cover a case where the person is not represented. The contrary would be that it seems okay if the disclosure is not given to the accused themselves.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

All right, so there's a provision in place already. We have a system in place, certainly.

In terms of checks and balances within that, can you describe to us what checks are already in place to make sure evidence is handled properly in an investigation?

[Col Geneviève Lortie]

It's when you come to court. When charges have been referred to the military system or a charge has only been laid in a civilian court, it will be on the prosecution to give to the accused person or their lawyer all related evidence they have that proves the offence or proves they have not committed it—to disclose the tape, the statements and everything. A listing is done and everything will be given over. If the defence feels they have not received everything, they can also go to the judge and request more disclosure.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Ms. Romanado.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Based on that, I just want to make sure I'm understanding this. The amendment is to ensure that there's no unreasonable or unwilling delay on behalf of a CAF member handing over evidence to the defence, obviously recognizing the Jordan principle that time is of the essence. We have only 18 months to prosecute a case. However, from what you just said, it's not actually the CAF member who would be sharing evidence with defence counsel. It's the prosecutor who has the duty to share evidence. Is that correct?

[Col Geneviève Lortie]

Yes, you're correct.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

I don't want to say that this doesn't make sense, but procedurally, it would never be a CAF member handing off evidence to a defence attorney. Is that correct?

[Col Geneviève Lortie]

You're right. In this system, the prosecution will get from the military police the file, or the unit of the CAF member that has done the investigation will package everything. It will be listed and passed. Disclosure will be sent to defence counsel if the person is represented, or to the accused, with a listing of evidence to make sure that everything has been given.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Mr. Bezan.

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

Just so there's clarity on this, the first two-thirds of the amendment refers to “subsections (1) to (3)”, which is a transfer of evidence from military police or another investigative body within the CAF to civilian authorities. It's all the stuff that's going on with collaboration and concurrent jurisdiction that we now have. We're returning back through the choice process, but if it's going to be pursued by civilian police agencies, then military police and those on base who have that evidence have to turn it over.

If you want to really remove the chain of command, let's say a local colonel on a base may make a decision and say, “This is a friend. We want to protect them. Let's make sure we slow down this process.” That is wilful, and wilful needs to be punished. It's more than just negligence. That's why the wording is stronger.

The last part is about the transfer of information to those who are victims and turning evidence over to counsel. We have heard over the years that people can't even get access to their files. We heard that from witnesses as well. Elvira Jaszberenyi, when she was here, said that in her file, “a lot of things have disappeared”. She wasn't even getting all information from the military prosecution or the military police.

We want to make sure that if that is done wilfully, there are extra penalties for that. That's the purpose behind new proposed subsection 70.2(5).

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Mr. Malette.

[LCol Matt MacMillan]

I'll be fairly brief.

As my colleague Madame Lapointe mentioned, portions of this are somewhat laudable, but after hearing witness testimony and seeing that some of these cases already exist under section 124 of the National Defence Act, I think it's redundant. We're duplicating existing provisions. There are already provisions in the act that punish anyone for not properly delivering custody of evidence or investigative materials. In the case of Ms. Jaszberenyi, she already has recourse under section 124 of the NDA.

I can't, unfortunately, support this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Ms. Idlout, your hand is up. It's over to you.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Thank you so much, Chair, for recognizing me.

I'm feeling compelled to ask a question of the witnesses, who are experts in this system, as I understand it, about these types of cases. I've heard Mr. Bezan's reasoning for CPC-7. It sounds quite important from the perspective of victims—making sure that victims get the justice they deserve and making sure that there are many avenues for them in order to have a sense of justice without closing doors.

I'm wondering if the witnesses can share with us what training they've taken to be trauma-informed or to understand what the victims' lens is like in undergoing their work. Perhaps they could describe, really, what kind of training they take to make sure that the victims' lens is understood within this system.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

It's over to you, Colonel.

[LCol Matt MacMillan]

One of the big aspects in relation to the office of the judge advocate general is that it took steps to ensure.... It's been a couple of years now, but we had a practitioner come in whose role was to teach trauma-informed lawyering to lawyers. That training was presented by an individual whose name escapes me. The vast majority of personnel in our office took the training at the time, which was about trauma-informed lawyering specifically in the context of criminal matters. That's one major aspect.

Beyond that, we have obligations to take professional training yearly and to continue legal education. Part of that is ethics-related in terms of how you deal with people you support.

Those are the two big aspects in recent times.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

I'm seeing no further hands. Shall CPC-7 carry?

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

Monsieur Savard-Tremblay, do you wish to move BQ-2?

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

Yes, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Now that you've moved it, I have to state that Bill C-11 amends the National Defence Act by removing the Canadian Armed Forces' authority to investigate 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. The amendment seeks to establish a plan to create an office of the inspector general for sexual misconduct in the Canadian Forces. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, fourth edition, states in section 16.74, “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.”

In the opinion of the chair, the office of the inspector general for sexual misconduct in the Canadian Forces is a new concept that is beyond the scope of the bill. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

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

Mr. Chair, I'm happy to challenge your ruling.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Okay. It's over to you, Clerk.

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

BQ-2 is up for debate.

Mr. Savard-Tremblay, do you wish to speak to it, or should we proceed?

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

I'll be brief. The intent of this amendment is to force the government to create “a plan for the establishment of an office of the inspector general for sexual misconduct in the Canadian Forces”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Mr. Bezan.