National Defence Committee on Feb. 4th, 2026

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

On that, when we had victims and survivors here, along with department officials and members from the JAG office, it was still unclear for cases that are being referred to a civilian court whether defence counsel services, as well as liaison officers for the accused, would be provided to them in the civilian system.

Although the National Defence Act may say that under the Victims Bill of Rights there will be the right to equal justice for both the accused and the victim, it was unclear in all the testimony. That's why I think Afton David made the suggestion to start with. We should be making sure there is a balance of justice for both the victim and the accused—

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Thank you—

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

—and that the right information is being shared up and down the chain of command.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Mr. Savard‑Tremblay, you have the floor.

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

I have a simple question for our legislative team. If we want to maintain the intent of the amendment—we just heard that it may not have been inserted in the right place—are there other places where it could be inserted to achieve the same result?

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

It's a question for legislative counsel, and they are not here.

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

I already asked you if, in the event of an inconsistency, the amendment would come back to us here. If there was a problem because the amendment was not inserted in the right place, would that also come back to us and could we resolve the issue, if necessary?

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

It can be resolved at report stage.

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

Lastly, if we were to adopt the amendment now, but it wasn't in the right place, it wouldn't be a big deal, because we could always make adjustments later.

Is that right?

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Yes.

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

Can you say it into the microphone, please?

[Michelle Legault, Legislative Clerk]

In this case, when the report is prepared by the law clerk's office, there is some flexibility when small changes have to be made. If substantive changes had to be made, it would come back at report stage.

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

That's fine, thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Ms. Sherry Romanado.

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

Would it not be easier, then, to put it in the right place, versus voting for something and then having to amend it? I don't know.

Before we agree to something that's in the wrong place, should we not put it in the right place, versus having to amend it?

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

This is a question for the legislative clerk.

Go ahead.

[Michelle Legault]

At this point, because legislative drafters don't draft during the meeting, if it were a question of clarification with the drafters, an option for the committee would be, by unanimous consent, to stand the amendment and the rest of clause 9, essentially, until the end. Then, for example, if the committee doesn't make it that far today, there would be time between now and the next meeting to consult the drafters and come back to it before the bill is complete. That's an option.

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

Okay.

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

Just for clarification, when we were talking with legislative counsel on how to draft this amendment, it was their advisement to place it where it is, as new clause 9.1. It wasn't our choice to put it there. We just wanted to make sure it happened and that we addressed it.

I still trust that if there is an issue around continuity, it'll be fixed for report stage. I don't think we need to be too concerned about it right now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Okay, then we're not going to stand this amendment. We're going to proceed.

Shall CPC-10 carry?

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

(Clause 10 agreed to)

(On clause 11)

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Shall clause 11 carry?

Mr. Bezan.

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

On clause 11, I have a question for our JAG officers, who are at the end of the table.

Has this been a problem? It says that what we're adding is this:

A military judge is not to be charged with having committed a service infraction.

Has there been a problem with judges getting charged for service infractions? Have commanding officers used service infractions against military judges to influence any of the decisions they are hearing in court?

[Lieutenant-Colonel Matt MacMillan, Director, Military Justice Implementation, Office of the Judge Advocate General, Canadian Armed Forces, Department of National Defence]

The short answer is no. There has not been an issue in the past.

Previously, prior to Bill C-77, military judges were not subject to summary trials. Bill C-77 removed the summary trial process and created a summary hearing process. The provision that was related to them—military judges not being subject to summary trials—was removed. The additional provision was not added in at that time. It's ensuring that the chain of command, for whatever reason, cannot take action against a military judge, given their independence, through a summary hearing process.

It hasn't been an issue. It's just ensuring that this is in law and that it's not going to be a problem in the future. We don't anticipate that it would be, but there's a different process for military judges, if there's such conduct, before the military judges complaints commission.

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

Colonel MacMillan, would you suggest, though, that someone reading this might think we're making sure that military judges are above the law?

[LCol Matt MacMillan]

I don't think so. Military judges are not above the law. They are subject to the code of service discipline and the Criminal Code, much like any other judge in the civilian context would be, absent the military specifics.

The summary hearing is administrative in nature. In that instance, it's to ensure that the chief military judge is the only one responsible for the actions of military judges. It ensures that somebody else in the chain of command would not be able to take action against them in relation to that. I wouldn't suspect there would be an issue in respect to that.