National Defence Committee on Feb. 4th, 2026

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

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Shall clause 11 carry?

(Clause 11 agreed to on division)

(On clause 12)

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Shall clause 12 carry?

Mr. Bezan.

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

In clause 12, we are deleting paragraph 162.9(c) of the National Defence Act. It is part of part III, on the code of service discipline, in division 5, which covers summary hearings. Under “Objectives of sanctions”, this is why we do summary hearings:

The imposition of sanctions is intended to achieve one or more of the following objectives:

(a) to promote a habit of obedience to lawful commands and orders;

(b) to maintain public trust in the Canadian Forces as a disciplined armed force;

(c) to denounce indisciplined conduct;

(d) to deter persons from committing service infractions;

(e) to assist in rehabilitating persons who have committed service infractions;

(f) to promote a sense of responsibility in persons who have committed service infractions.

Indisciplined conduct refers to the failure to adhere to established rules, regulations and expected standards of behaviour, often characterized by a lack of self-control, disobedience or disruptive actions.

Why would we want to take that out when we're trying to maintain good order and conduct of our forces to work in a uniform manner, to respect each other and to uphold the warrior ethos?

[LCol Matt MacMillan]

It is not meant to go counter to everything that was just articulated.

The removal of denunciation from the administrative nature of a summary hearing is to ensure that denunciation is a principle that mostly aligns with the criminal process, which is a public accusation and moral blame. While a summary hearing is administrative and non-penal in nature, it's not about the public denunciation of that conduct. It's to address minor deficiencies in conduct of an administrative nature—so non-penal consequences.

When we speak of denunciation in the Canadian criminal justice system, we're really talking about the public denunciation of that conduct. It's not that there's a question about whether the conduct is right or not right. It's about whether denunciation is the appropriate objective for something of an administrative nature. Administrative measures aim at regulation and the correction of conduct at a lower level, whereas denunciation, as I indicated, is about the public denunciation of conduct.

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

Was this in the original National Defence Act when we still had summary trials, or was this added when we changed the system back in...? Was it 2012 when we did Bill C-77, which brought in summary hearings? No, it was 2018.

Was this put in accidentally? If it was under summary trials, then....

[Col Geneviève Lortie]

We had different versions. Between Bill C-71 and Bill C-77, there were some Supreme Court decisions that clarified what true penal consequences were. There were some amendments brought in after Bill C-77. Some were clear, but that one was not caught at the time, and it stayed in Bill C-77. It passed in 2019 and came into force in 2022. Now this is to rectify that point.

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

It's housekeeping. It has nothing to do with sexual misconduct. This is fixing what was—

[Col Geneviève Lortie]

It's really to clarify the administrative nature versus the criminal nature and to differentiate the two systems.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Mr. Bezan, is that good? Okay.

Shall clause 12 carry?

(Clause 12 agreed to on division)

(Clauses 13 and 14 agreed to on division)

(On clause 15)

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

We're at clause 15 now.

Mr. Bezan, do you wish to move CPC-11?

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

I shall move, starting at line 17 on page 7, the amendment we're suggesting, CPC-11.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Is there debate?

I'm sorry. Do you want to speak to it first, Mr. Bezan?

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

Yes.

This again comes down to the appointment timelines. We heard that we can't leave these positions sitting vacant for days, weeks, months and sometimes years on end, so we're suggesting that it be done in 90 days.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Ms. Romanado.

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

For CPC-2, we changed the appointment for a provost marshal general to 120 days. I'm wondering if we shouldn't, for the sake of consistency, make them all 120 days. I'm fine with the timeline, but because we've already moved one of them to 120 days, shouldn't we be doing it for all of them?

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

I'll just say why 90 days was set. We heard this from retired Colonel Bruce MacGregor, the former director of military prosecutions. He said, “An acting DMP requires more than 90 days, for various reasons—operational, health, etc.—so the power should be given to the minister to grant an extension” when they need it.

We also heard from Rory Fowler, who said, “you're making them political appointees who may or may not be appointed in time. That has been a recurring problem.” We also heard that from Afton David and from Charlotte Duval-Lantoine.

We must have a timeline, so if you want to move a subamendment....

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

I move the subamendment to change it from 90 days to 120 days.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Are you all in agreement?

(Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

That brings us back to amended amendment CPC-11. Shall it carry?

(Amendment as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We're on CPC-12.

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

I'll withdraw it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Next is CPC-13.

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

This follows Justice Fish's recommendation. As Colonel Kerr said:

I would propose that if there is any change to the language for what can be done in the case of misconduct—

I believe it was a recommendation of Justice Fish he's referring to.

—was to adopt the model that's found in the DPP act. The language in the DPP act is, “...but may be removed by the Governor in Council at any time for cause with the support of a resolution of the House of Commons to that effect.”

All the other criteria in the act will become irrelevant, because you don't have to serve at the pleasure of the House through the Governor in Council. It maintains the power to remove somebody for misconduct or incompetence.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Is there further debate?

Seeing none, shall CPC-13 carry?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 15 as amended agreed to)

(Clause 16 agreed to on division)

(On clause 17)

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

That brings us to CPC-14.

Mr. Bezan, do you wish to move it?

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

I shall move CPC-14, as circulated.

Essentially, CPC-14 removes the Minister of National Defence from providing direction to the JAG...or away from the JAG, and puts the JAG back in charge of issuing guidelines to the military justice system.