National Defence Committee on Feb. 4th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Welcome to meeting number 23 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.

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 our interpreters.

I'd 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. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can.

For interpretation, please use your earpiece and select the appropriate channel: floor, English or French. All comments should be addressed through the chair.

I'd 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, military justice implementation, office of the judge advocate general, Canadian Armed Forces.

Folks, I think we have concurrence among the group that we'll try to expedite clause-by-clause matters rather efficiently today. I know that some have other commitments, so we'll proceed as quickly and respectfully as possible.

We will now resume the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-11.

(On clause 9)

We are starting with the consideration of clause 9 and amendment CPC-9.

To proceed, Mr. Bezan, do you wish to move the amendment?

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

I wish to move CPC-9 as an amendment to clause 9. We're making sure we synchronize the numbers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Is there debate?

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

I will quickly touch on this.

This is about making sure that the victim's liaison officer who is appointed gives the victim the ability to request another one.

We heard over and over again that victims want a liaison officer they can trust, and they should have the right of refusal and to request that somebody else be put in their place. We heard that from Justice Deschamps and Diane Hill Rose.

I won't go into detail unless people want to know more, but it's something that empowers the victim through the process.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Thank you, Mr. Bezan.

Is there any further debate?

Ms. Sherry Romanado.

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

I think this is happening through the new policy, but regardless, we support it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Shall CPC-9 carry?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Next we have NDP-4. It's deemed moved because of the following ruling, Ms. Idlout.

Bill C-11 would amend the National Defence Act by providing that an individual acting on a victim's behalf can request that a victim's liaison officer be appointed. The amendment seeks to ensure, to the extent possible, that every person involved in the investigation or prosecution has training or experience in trauma-informed approaches.

As 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 requirement for trauma-informed training or experience is a new concept that is beyond the scope of the bill. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

Ms. Idlout.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

I want to challenge your decision and hope that I have the support of the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Does anybody wish to move that challenge on her behalf?

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

I would like to move that challenge on her behalf.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Okay. We'll put it to a vote.

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

If we vote yes, does that mean we're in favour of sustaining or overturning?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Jean-Denis Kusion]

No. The question is: Shall the ruling of the chair be sustained?

If you vote yes, the amendment will be defeated; if you vote no, we continue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Is it understood? Okay, we'll proceed.

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

NDP-4 is now up for debate.

Ms. Romanado.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I have a quick question for the experts. I just want to verify, according to them, if there are any issues about the constitutionality of this amendment.

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

This amendment could raise some questions of constitutionality concerning the judicial independence of judges and the separation of powers. It's also likely not binding on most of the persons involved in the investigation and the prosecution of the offence captured by this provision, as many of them would be under civilian jurisdiction. It's written broadly. It could encompass persons who are not under the code of service discipline and over whom we don't have jurisdiction.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Is there further debate?

I'll go to Ms. Lapointe, and then Mr. Kibble afterwards.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

This is along the lines of what my colleague just asked. We're talking about adding this into legislation. Could you tell us what the practical issues are that come up when we add support roles in legislation, as is being suggested here?

[Col Geneviève Lortie]

When we're looking at some kind of training, it's often for things that are better addressed through policy, because things may evolve. You can figure out what the rules are and what needs to be done, and it can be fully described under national defence policy to really explain what is intended.

When you look at terms like “experience”, in someone's mind, they can think they have experience, but it may not be the common understanding. Making sure that everyone has a common understanding is often best left out of legislation and addressed through policy.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Mr. Anderson.

[Scott Anderson, Conservative, Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC]

I just want to read a couple quotes. One is from General Carignan:

As we speak, the military police have been undergoing specialized training to interview victims and deal with sexual assault cases. They have been trained over the past few years, but the question would probably be better answered by the provost marshal. However, they have been undergoing training, and this is part of what they do as they tackle sexual assault cases.

Another quote I'd like to read is this:

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.

That was Minister Sean Fraser.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Ms. Lapointe.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

I certainly support what those witnesses said. The question is whether this is best approached through legislation. They talked about systems. Is it best approached through legislation or policy?

Policy allows you to do regular updates and regular checkpoints. You can determine and measure the rigour of the resources, the programs and the training that is done in a much more regular way. Policy allows us to manage the recommendations that have been brought forward by witnesses, as opposed to doing that in legislation, which we know is not easy to change or update.