I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on April 17, 2026, by the deputy House leader of the government in the House of Commons regarding the admissibility of amendments adopted by the Standing Committee on National Defence to Bill C-11, an act to amend the National Defence Act and other acts.
The member contended that during clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, six amendments, CPC-1, CPC-10, BQ-2, CPC-16, NDP-4 and BQ-3, were adopted by the committee after having been ruled inadmissible by the chair. The member requested that the Speaker review the content of the bill as amended and determine whether the six amendments in question would exceed the scope and principle of the bill as determined by the House at second reading.
The member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman argued that the six amendments in question are consistent with the principle and scope of the bill. He claimed that CPC-1 would fix an unintended omission from the bill and that the mention of the judge advocate general in the bill's summary demonstrates the importance of the position. With respect to CPC-16, BQ-2 and NDP-4, he argued that these amendments had the support of all committee members.
The member contended that BQ-3 would both increase the pool of potential military judges, something already contemplated in the bill, and result in judges' release from the forces, which he argued is consistent with the principle of enhancing the independence of the military justice system. Finally, he argued that CPC-10, by providing for the appointment of a liaison officer for the accused, would make a change consistent with the bill's proposal concerning a victim's liaison officer.
The member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton also intervened on the matter. He argued that amendments BQ‑2 and BQ‑3 should not have been ruled inadmissible by the chair. Regarding BQ‑2, the member maintained that it merely requires the government to table a plan to study the creation of an inspector general on sexual misconduct, without creating a position or requiring new spending, and was supported by expert testimony and unanimously adopted in committee. As for BQ‑3, the member argued that it was meant to correct an omission from the bill as introduced by the government, namely to strengthen the independence of military judges by ensuring they cease to be members of the Canadian Armed Forces upon appointment.
In light of the arguments made, the Chair has carefully reviewed Bill C‑11 as adopted by the House at second reading and the amendments in question.
The principles or main legislative objectives of the bill appear to be to reform the military justice system with a particular view to enhancing the independence of authorities in the system and removing the military justice system's jurisdiction over crimes of a sexual nature. The amendments in question propose changes to the National Defence Act.
Two of the amendments, CPC‑1 and CPC‑16, were ruled inadmissible by the chair of the committee since they seek to amend a section of the act that is not amended by Bill C‑11. Four further amendments, BQ‑2, NDP‑4, CPC‑10 and BQ‑3, were ruled inadmissible by the chair of the committee on the grounds that they exceed the scope of the bill as adopted by the House at second reading.
The Chair will first address the amendments that were ruled inadmissible due to a violation of the parent act principle. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, fourth edition, explains this principle in section 16.75 as follows:
In the case of a bill referred to a committee after second reading, an amendment is generally inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill. In certain cases, such amendments can, however, be admissible if they are shown to be directly relevant to the subject matter of the bill being considered, while meeting the criteria of principle and scope.
CPC-1 creates a new time limit during which an officer may act on behalf of the judge advocate general with the possibility of extension by approval of the Governor in Council. Similarly, CPC-16 creates a new clause to amend the appointment process for the chief military judge to ensure the position cannot be vacant for more than 120 days. Both amendments seek to amend sections of the act that the bill does not address. While the bill does mention both positions, the version adopted at second reading did not amend the appointment process for the judge advocate general, the process through which others can act on behalf of the judge advocate general, or the appointment process for the chief military judge. In the case of CPC-1 and CPC-16, the Chair agrees that the amendments were inadmissible as they are inconsistent with the parent act principle.
The Chair will now consider the remaining amendments, which were ruled to be inadmissible for exceeding the scope of the bill. As Speaker Milliken noted in a ruling on January 29, 2008, at pages 2312‑2313 of the Debates: The principle refers to the purpose or objective of a bill, while the scope refers to its legislative scheme or the mechanisms that will give effect to the principle, purpose or objective of a bill.
BQ‑2 seeks, in clause 8 of the bill, to add new section 70.4 in the act, which would require the preparation of a plan to create an office of the inspector general for sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces. The deputy government House leader had also suggested in her intervention that this amendment could infringe upon the financial prerogative of the Crown. While the Chair does not find that the preparation of the plan would impose a charge on the public treasury, an office of an inspector general for sexual misconduct does appear to be a new concept that is beyond the scope of the bill as adopted by the House at second reading.
NDP-4 amends clause 9 of the bill by adding new subsections 71.16(4) and 71.16(5) to the act to ensure, to the extent possible, that every person involved in the investigation or prosecution has training or experience in trauma-informed approaches. Bill C-11 amends section 71.16 of the act, but in a very limited matter, only to provide that an individual acting on a person's behalf can request that a victim's liaison officer be appointed. To add a requirement for every person involved in an investigation and prosecution to have this sort of training appears to the Chair to go beyond the scope of the changes proposed in the bill. Furthermore, the bill is silent on training related to trauma-informed approaches, which also appears to the Chair to be a new concept beyond the scope of the bill.
CPC-10 adds a new clause to the bill that adds a new section in the act, which would create a new mechanism for the appointment of a liaison officer to assist the accused. The act already provides for a liaison officer for the victim, but not for the accused. The bill, therefore, is not introducing this concept, but, rather, is simply modifying a matter related to the appointment of a victim's liaison officer. The concept of a liaison officer for the accused appears to be an entirely new concept that was not already contemplated by the bill as adopted at second reading and appears to the Chair to exceed its scope.
Finally, BQ-3 amends clause 18 of the bill by further expanding the class of persons who are eligible to be appointed as a military judge and providing that any officers or non-commissioned members appointed to be military judges are to be released from the Canadian Forces. As stated in paragraph (e) of its summary, the bill already expands the class of persons who are eligible to be appointed as military judges. To amend these provisions to further expand that class of persons appears to the Chair to be consistent with the legislative scheme of the bill; however, the amendment also introduces the new concept of the release from the Canadian Forces of anyone appointed as military judges, and this appears to be beyond the scope of the specific change the bill proposed to make to the act.
In the Chair's view, while these amendments may to varying degrees relate to the principles of Bill C‑11, they nevertheless go beyond the legislative scheme and concepts provided for in the bill and were correctly ruled inadmissible by the Chair of the committee as being outside its scope.
Consequently, I order the aforementioned amendments adding new clauses 2.1, 9.1, and 19.1, as well as those amending clauses 8, 9 and 18 be declared null and void and no longer form part of the bill as reported to the House. In addition, I am ordering a reprint of Bill C-11 with the removal of the inadmissible amendments. This reprinted version will stand as the official version of the bill for consideration at report stage.
I thank members for their attention.
I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded division, the time provided for Government Orders will be extended by 13 minutes.