THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, June 10, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs met this day at 11:15 a.m. [ET] for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-11, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and other Acts; and, in camera, for the consideration of a draft agenda (future business).
[English]
Ericka Paajanen, Clerk of the Committee: Honourable senators, as clerk of your committee, it is my duty to inform you of the unavoidable absence of the chair and the deputy chair and to preside over the election of an acting chair.
I am ready to receive a motion to that effect.
Senator Boehm: I move that Senator Yussuff assume the chair of this meeting.
Ms. Paajanen: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Boehm that the Honourable Senator Yussuff do take the chair of this committee.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Ms. Paajanen: I declare the motion carried, and I invite the Honourable Senator Yussuff to please take the chair.
Senator Hassan Yussuff (Acting Chair) in the chair.
The Acting Chair: Good morning, colleagues. Thank you for entrusting me with this important responsibility.
Colleagues, as you know, we will go in camera. Today, we are dealing with clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-11.
Maybe I can quickly get senators to introduce themselves. I am Hassan Yussuff, senator from Ontario.
Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko, senator from Ontario.
Senator Patterson: Rebecca Patterson, senator from Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Moreau: Pierre Moreau, Laurentides division, Quebec. I’m the government representative in the Senate.
[English]
Senator Ross: Krista Ross, senator from New Brunswick.
Senator Anderson: Dawn Anderson, senator from the Northwest Territories.
Senator Hay: Katherine Hay, Ontario.
Senator McNair: John McNair, New Brunswick.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Claude Carignan, Quebec.
[English]
Senator Boehm: Peter Boehm, Ontario.
The Acting Chair: Today, we will proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-11, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and other Acts. We have officials from the Department of National Defence with us in the room who are available to assist with any technical questions that may arise during this process.
First of all, I want to welcome you here.
Before we proceed, I’d like to remind senators of a number of points. If at any point a senator is not clear as to where we are at in the bill, please ask for clarification.
If a senator is opposed to an entire clause, I remind you that in committee the proper process is not to move a motion to delete the entire clause, but, rather, to vote against the clause as standing as part of the bill.
If the committee members ever have any questions about the process or about the propriety of anything occurring, they can raise a point of order. As chair, I will listen to the arguments, decide when there has been sufficient discussion of a matter or order and make a ruling. The committee is the ultimate master of its business within the bounds established by the Senate, and a ruling can be appealed to the full committee by asking whether or not the ruling shall be sustained.
As chair, I will do my best to ensure that all senators wishing to speak have the opportunity to do so. For this, however, I will depend on your cooperation and ask you all to consider other senators by keeping your remarks as concise as possible.
Finally, if there is ever any uncertainty as to the result of a voice vote or a show of hands, the most effective route is to request a roll-call vote, which provides unambiguous results. Senators are aware that any tie vote negates the motion in question.
Are there any questions?
Colleagues, we are going to go in camera, so I just want colleagues to be aware.
It would be fair to say that the hearing on this bill has not been easy for members of the committee. We’ve heard a lot of testimony from a variety of witnesses in the short time we’ve had to consider the bill. I’m sure, at different times, there were a lot of emotions that we were all struggling with in relation to what we were hearing, how we tried to digest that and, more importantly, consider what we think is the appropriate way forward.
Yesterday, witnesses appeared before the committee who, with great courage and conviction, came to tell us their experiences in regard to the challenges that they face.
Is there agreement to proceed in camera?
(The committee continued in camera.)
(The committee resumed in public.)
The Acting Chair: Colleagues, is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-11, an Act to amend the National Defence Act and other Acts?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Acting Chair: Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Acting Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Acting Chair: Is it agreed, with leave, that the remaining clauses be considered in groups of 10?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Acting Chair: Shall clauses 1 to 10, on pages 1 to 6, carry?
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I have two amendments. I propose:
That Bill C-11 be amended in clause 7,
(a) on page 3, by replacing line 7 with the following:
“7 (1) The portion of section 70 of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:
70 Subject to subsection (2), a court martial does not have jurisdiction to try any person charged with any of the following offences committed in Canada:
(2) Section 70 of the Act is amended by striking out”;
(b) on page 4, by adding the following after line 34:
“(3) Section 70 of the Act is renumbered as subsection 70(1) and is amended by adding the following:
(2) Despite any other provision of this Act and any other law, the victim of an offence referred to in any of paragraphs 1(d) to (h), or an individual acting on their behalf, may choose whether the person charged with the offence is to be tried by a court martial or a civil court.”.
It’s a bit technical in terms of drafting rules, but basically, I propose maintaining the option for victims to choose, as they deem appropriate, between a civilian court and a court martial.
We’ve heard from many witnesses. What struck me in this case were the testimonies from the panel with the Crown prosecutor, the Provost Marshal — who is the chief of police — and the defence lawyer. Normally, these people have opposing positions. They don’t support the same option and, when they do, it’s usually in favour of the government. I’ve never seen the prosecution, the defence, and the police oppose a provision of a government bill. I’ve never seen that. Clearly, there’s an issue if the option is removed and these cases are transferred to the civilian system.
We heard the testimony of Justice Deschamps and those of the victims. The benefit of choosing is that, if the system is bogged down in a province’s civilian courts, the person can decide to go to the military system. Elsewhere, if the civilian system is very efficient, the person can choose to go to the civilian court.
In Quebec, in 2020, a committee of experts examined cases of sexual assault before the courts. The title of the report from the committee is Rebâtir la confiance and it contained 190 recommendations, because victims don’t trust the civilian system. There have been 264 cases of a sexual nature dismissed in Canada under the Jordan ruling — 264. We’re forcing people who were victims in the military to go before civilian courts, even though those courts fail to deliver results. There are problems in there right now, so we are exacerbating the problem. This is likely to become a problem for military victims who have access to it, but it is also likely to cause delays and increase the volume of cases for civilian victims who are already in the system.
The civilian system is not doing well, and we’re telling our military victims to turn to a flawed and defective system that governments are trying to fix. That point alone would be sufficient. In addition, there are also all the testimonies from victims and military personnel who say that at least there is an understanding in the military, which has a very particular culture.
I must say that I learned new words and vocabulary about a culture that I’m not as familiar with. Clearly, military personnel understand that culture and may feel more comfortable in courts martial as victims, knowing that the aggressor, if not found guilty in criminal court, will be dealt with from a disciplinary standpoint and that there will be interventions, whereas if all these cases are transferred to the civilian system, there’s a strong risk that they’ll wash their hands of them by saying that these cases are being handled in the civilian system, and so they don’t deal with them. There’s revictimization because, if the case is transferred to the civilian courts and the person is found guilty, there will also need to be a discussion about disciplinary measures for that person.
I understand why people in the field are asking to maintain the option. The victims have already been victimized. They shouldn’t be victims of the system as well. I’m thinking of the woman yesterday, who testified: “If I face a stay of proceedings with another Jordan case, I’ll be devastated.”
The risk is putting people through that kind of process. That’s why I’m proposing these amendments. I know the texts have already been examined in the House of Commons. In all transparency, my amendment is almost identical to what the NDP, the Bloc Québécois, and the Conservatives proposed in the House. I know the Liberals have already voted against these amendments, but I think we need to make amendments and send it back to the House to tell the government: “Please reconsider your decision; the Senate thinks this may not be the best idea.”
The House of Commons must be given the chance to reconsider its decision. If they decide to insist, they’ll insist and we’ll understand, but at least we’ll have done our job by sharing our concerns, particularly those of the victims and the current military system, including with respect to investigations.
I won’t go over all the testimonies. We all heard them.
I don’t think anyone wasn’t paying attention when we listened to the testimonies. It was so intense that I think everyone clearly remembers the testimonies I am referring to.
Senator Moreau: I will thank Senator Carignan for the amendment he is proposing and the good intentions behind it. However, I’ll raise a point of order. In my opinion, the amendment proposed by Senator Carignan is not in order, for various reasons, but primarily for one reason. Here is what I intend to submit to you. It’s not in order because it goes directly against Bill C-11. Senator Carignan’s amendment would enable two legal systems to coexist. However, clause 7 that he wants to amend and clause 8 of the bill seek to give force of law to recommendation 5 from the Arbour report, published in 2022. I will allow myself to quote the recommendation in question: “Criminal Code offences should be removed from the jurisdiction of the CAF.”
Senator Carignan’s amendment suggests that this jurisdiction be both maintained and removed, meaning that there would be an option. It therefore goes directly against that recommendation. Let me continue the quote. Ms. Arbour added the following: “They should be prosecuted exclusively in civilian criminal courts in all cases.”
There is no room for interpretation.
When an offence occurs in Canada, it should be investigated by civilian police forces as soon as possible.
This applies regardless of the province.
When the offence occurs outside Canada, the military police may initially act to preserve evidence and begin an investigation, but they must work with civilian law enforcement authorities as soon as possible.
The government accepted recommendation 5 from Ms. Arbour, and that is the very objective of Bill C-11, to incorporate recommendation 5 into law.
The amendment is therefore completely at odds with the legislative intent of the bill; in this context, an amendment is not admissible if it runs counter to the fundamental principles of a bill. Senator Carignan stated at the end of his remarks — this was the subject of discussion in the other chamber — that his amendment is based on an amendment proposed by the NDP that was defeated in the House of Commons.
I will also say, without limiting the request and our point of order, on which you will need to rule, that we will have other arguments if you deem the amendment in order, for the reasons I just gave, given that it directly contradicts the objective of the bill being studied. I believe this is sufficient for you to declare the amendment not in order.
Senator Carignan: First, the bill is much broader than that. Secondly, the amendment creates an exception; it doesn’t remove jurisdiction from civilian courts. It grants jurisdiction to civilian courts and courts martial. The victim is given the option and both can have jurisdiction, both the courts martial and the civilian court. This means that it doesn’t go against the bill; it creates a way to exercise that jurisdiction. That’s completely different. I considered not proposing an amendment and simply voting against clause 7 or clause 8, which would have roughly the same effect anyway.
If the amendment is not accepted or is declared out of order, then I will recommend that my colleagues vote against clause 7 and clause 8, which will have exactly the same effect.
If I propose an amendment that creates a way to exercise a right, the amendment clearly doesn’t go against the intent of that right. It creates an option.
Senator Youance: We talked about coexistence. In fact, it has been said that this amendment will bring about coexistence between the military police and civilian justice, but it already exists for sexual abuse cases abroad. The bill maintains military jurisdiction for sexual assaults committed abroad.
[English]
Senator Cardozo: My starting point with this bill, as with many of us, was that we had a sense that the military justice system was rotten and we needed to move these cases out of the military justice system. What we heard yesterday was that, inefficient as it may be, in some cases and in some ways, it is better and fairer and more understanding to victims than the civilian system. I am very hesitant to throw it under the bus at this point when we heard real pleas from victims and people who work with victims that we not proceed in this way.
My thought is to try and combine the two things, both what Senator Carignan has suggested and what Senator Patterson will be introducing. It would be to have the choice of either system continue for a period of three years. The government, before we get to that three-year point, does an examination, with full statistics, to see how the two systems are working. At that time, if it is very clear that the military justice system is wrong and is just not working, and if the civilian system is just working tickety-boo and there are no Jordan problems, then we make the move.
I’m just really hesitant to ignore that whole set of recommendations and the pleas to us, and to say, “Sorry, we know better, and we’re just going ahead with this.”
Clause 60 talks about making the switch in 60 days after the act goes into effect. That’s a very short period of time.
To go to my earlier point that I made before we started, I wonder if there’s a way to combine these two, to talk about the three years but to have a choice for a period of three years.
The Acting Chair: I would like to clarify for colleagues. We are not debating the amendment now. We are debating Senator Moreau’s argument that the amendment is out of order.
I will eventually have to rule on it, but I’m hearing your presentations before I make my ruling.
Senator Cardozo: For those reasons, I feel it is completely within order.
The Acting Chair: Thank you. I just want to make sure that people are following the script.
Senator Hay: I will defer because mine is not about the point of order. Thank you.
Senator Moreau: I will allow Senator Patterson to go first, and then I will go after.
Senator Patterson: As a point of clarification, this bill, while it’s about military justice reform, is specifically related to the recommendations of two independent reviews of the justice system: from Justice Fish, who was part of the statutory review of the entire military justice system, those seven that are directly linked to — as we’re implementing them piece by piece — sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces, plus the independent review that was completed by now our Governor General, Justice Arbour, Recommendation 5.
We’re talking about clauses 7 and 8; they are specifically linked to Madam Arbour and what she said. I have them open here. I have her recommendations open here. The scope of this bill — and the government has committed to the implementation of all 48 — I’m going back to witness, whether it was the minister or even the officials’ panel — well, we’ve done 47 of 48.
One thing Madam Justice Arbour did say is that, in terms of “no law changes culture but it contributes to sustaining a system” — and I’m going to quote from Madam Arbour right out of her report. Please keep in mind that this comes from 2022, and things have been progressing since then. She talks about input and oversight. She articulated all the different ways the system had been reviewed, the hundreds and hundreds of recommendations, many in conflict and contradiction as to the route that needed to happen, both justice-wise and also culture-wise.
What she did say, and I reflected back on this when I heard the minister speak, was:
Assuming my recommendations are implemented, I do not see a need to stand up yet another entity —
— she was talking about an inspector general in this case —
— to oversee the fundamental shift in accountability required of leadership.
Her recommendation — your point about the erroneous projection of the military justice system being rotten to the core is, again, not true. We know that. That’s what I think came out in testimony.
The Canadian Armed Forces are in constant evolution. You tell them to do something, and they do it. That is military oversight, and they are action-oriented in what they do.
This bill is very specifically about putting this in place. I’m going to go back to the comments on data. The military, in so many different ways, has been collecting data forever. But then, through political whims, it gets changed. We don’t need that anymore. Do this; do that; do this.
Madam Arbour, from her perspective — I am not Madam Arbour — believes that the way to get some consistency for victims of criminal sexual behaviour is to move it into the civilian system.
The other point I will also point out — and I’m sure our legal advisers here will give me heck later — is that 7 and 8 have to go hand in hand. Victims cannot have a choice into which system they go to if they go to see civilian police first. It is a two-part system when a victim — and we heard this — has been victimized. The first person they see is the police, not the justice system. As part of victim support services — we heard this from Brigadier-General Hanrahan, the Provost Marshal — the first thing they get is they talk about where this can go, civilian or military. That’s the choice right now, so we’re removing that concurrent jurisdiction.
But please understand that victims have not had a choice, with a rare exception domestically in Canada since 2021-22, since the former Minister Anand agreed to accept our recommendations.
So, to go now and say, “No, go right back to where we are,” we have defence — and this came out of the prosecutor, Military Prosecutions and Defence — we had taken out that capability, so to reinsert it now would take a while. So we talked about, “Well, 60 days doesn’t seem like much.” But we’ve already taken out a chunk of this system that has had to — you know, they are not getting the experience. They are not getting the opportunity.
When we talk about what is within scope, to completely remove it, it’s already systematically built in and would be out of scope because, like I said — I’m going to go back to my original point — this is about implementing Madam Justice Arbour’s recommendation, and that was not her recommendation. What it doesn’t mean is, later on, we cannot follow up in a different manner as a Senate. Thanks.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Senator Patterson.
[Translation]
Senator Moreau: I completely agree with what Senator Patterson just said. Thank you for reminding us that we are discussing the point of order to determine whether the amendment is in order.
If the amendment is not in order, Senator Carignan can certainly vote and, if he wants, convince our colleagues to vote against adopting the clause as proposed. However, the question is whether the amendment goes against the very principle of the bill. I would bring my colleagues’ attention to clause 70.1 of the bill, which clearly states the following:
Despite any other provision of this act and any other law, an officer or non-commissioned member does not have authority to investigate, for the purposes of the laying of a charge. . .
The goal of the bill is therefore to remove that authority. At the end of the first page of Senator Carignan’s amendment, the text reads:
(2) Despite any other provision of this act and any other law, the victim of an offence referred to in any of paragraphs [. . .] or an individual acting on their behalf, may choose whether the person charged with the offence is to be tried by a court martial or a civil court.
That’s an absolute contradiction.
I understand that Senator Carignan is saying that he is giving an option, but the option absolutely contradicts the prohibition or the removal of jurisdiction that the bill seeks to establish. There can’t be a clearer contradiction than that.
I’ve clearly heard what Senator Cardozo had to say and, in the context of our Standing Order, an amendment can’t directly contradict the purpose of the bill. As any good lawyer, I would say, “Not to repeat myself, I would add. . . ”
That’s why we raised a point of order, because the amendment is not in order.
[English]
Senator Dasko: My comment is very simple. I understand that they debated this in the other place. It was not out of scope there.
We should have the opportunity to debate this here. I don’t support the ruling that it is out of scope. I think it is not out of scope; it’s something that we should be discussing here.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: That’s exactly the point I wanted to make. These amendments were adopted by the House of Commons defence committee and were deemed in order. If the amendment had been deemed out of order, knowing the other place, they would have rejected it. However, they accepted it.
[English]
Senator Anderson: I’ll speak to the point of order. I also believe it’s in scope.
There has been a lot of discussion about the Arbour and the Fish reports. If I’m correct, in Bill C-11, it contains one recommendation from the Arbour report and eight from the Fish report.
My point is that on reliance on Recommendation 5, Louise Arbour’s recommendation specifically references both inside Canada and outside Canada.
When Senator Moreau speaks to a two-tiered system, when Bill C-11 speaks directly in proposed section 70.1 of crimes that were or are alleged to have been committed in Canada and, in 70.2, are alleged to have been committed in Canada, then the point of order about creating a two-tiered system, Bill C-11 leaves to question what happens outside of Canada. It does not cover outside of Canada. It speaks to situations in Canada.
Louise Arbour’s report specifically speaks to all civil cases in and outside of Canada. I just wanted to bring that up as well.
Senator Hay: I’m not speaking to the point of order. I want to speak to the amendment. Is now the time?
The Acting Chair: We’ll speak to the point of order, and we’ll come back to the amendment. Is there anybody else on the point of order? Have I heard everybody who wishes to speak?
Senator Moreau: I’ve been told that the Speaker of the House ruled it out of order when it came back to the chamber in the House of Commons.
[Translation]
I don’t want to mislead the committee, but according to what I’ve been told. . . We could verify that, but that is not my intent. I would raise another point: If it wasn’t raised in the other place as a point of order, we can’t assume that there’s been a discussion on this amendment to say that it is necessarily in order.
If a point of order isn’t raised, the members of the House of Commons can certainly debate it. We have raised it because we believe the amendment goes against the very intent of the bill.
[English]
The Acting Chair: I want to be clear. If the Speaker did rule on this in the other place, in order to guide me, I’d like to know what that decision is clearly so that it informs the committee and informs me as the chair. I don’t know what the answer is. I’m getting contradictory messages from the Government Representative and Senator Carignan. We need to find out. If we need to pause to get that information, I will do so in order to be absolutely 100% sure as to what the House decision was with regard to how we might be guided in our own direction.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: It was voted on and adopted in committee, so I think —
[English]
The Acting Chair: Senator Moreau, do you wish to inform us of any information that you may have?
Senator Moreau: I’m not sure I have everything, but I do have the beginning of the decision.
[Translation]
The Speaker stated:
I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on April 17, 2026, by the Deputy 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.
If you want to suspend the meeting to read the decision, we can send it to you.
[English]
The Acting Chair: Colleagues, this is very important in the context of the bill and, more importantly, in the context of the amendment.
I wish to thank members for raising their views and arguments regarding this point. In committee, just as in the Senate, there’s a well-established preference for presuming a matter to be in order unless/until a contrary position is established. This bias is in favour of allowing debate, except where a matter is clearly out of order. This is fundamental in maintaining the Senate’s and this committee’s role as a chamber of discussion and reflection.
That being said, I’ve heard several points of view on this point of order. I will, therefore, take this under advisement and return to the committee with a ruling, pursuant to rule 2-1(1)(b), to inform the best practices and relevant procedure authorities. As in the case with the Speaker’s ruling, a committee chair’s decision may be appealed by committee and will stand only if sustained by the majority vote.
Colleagues, in order for me to make a determination, I want to make sure I have all the relevant information before I make a ruling that will guide us in regard to how we consider the amendment that’s before us.
For clauses 1 through 10, we will pause until we get the relevant information. We will proceed with the other clauses in the bill. Just to be clear, shall clauses 1 through 10 now stand postponed until I can get clarification as to the ruling by the Speaker of the House? Is it agreed?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: You’re going to suspend the meeting, but for how long?
[English]
The Acting Chair: We will come back to it. Right now, we will postpone clauses 1 to 10 until we get the ruling, and then we’ll come back to it at the end.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I won’t propose my next amendment right away, since the session is suspended at the same time.
[English]
The Acting Chair: Yes.
Senator Dasko: I have a question. Is the ruling by the Speaker of the House of Commons determinative of our ruling here?
The Acting Chair: No, but it will help guide me as the chair in my determination.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: If I may, in the Senate, if the Speaker decides that an amendment is not in order, we can challenge that, say that we disagree, and overturn the Speaker’s decision. When it returns to the House, if the point is raised that the Speaker has ruled the amendment out of order, the Speaker could also be challenged, and the House could decide that it is in order.
The Speaker of the House of Commons and the Speaker of the Senate have different roles in this respect. The Senate is sovereign, and if it decides that an amendment falls within the scope of a bill, it’s the Senate that decides.
[English]
The Acting Chair: Let me make your lives a little bit easier because the determination of the point of order will help guide us with regard to the other clauses in the bill. I suggest that we seek clarification, and then I’ll come back to make a determination.
Colleagues, thank you for your patience. Obviously, this is important to all of us with regard to the work we are doing here today on clause by clause. I’ve had an opportunity to review the Speaker’s ruling in the other place and look at the specific amendment on which the ruling was made. The proposed amendment here is not the same amendment that was tabled in the other place. They are very different amendments.
In regard to the point of order raised by Senator Moreau, I would rule the amendment tabled by Senator Carignan is in order. It’s tabled before us today. We can proceed in considering the amendment and how we want to then vote. We will go back to the amendment before we take a vote. Senator Moreau, I don’t know if you wish to intervene again.
[Translation]
Senator Moreau: If we proceed with the amendment, I respect your decision, Mr. Chair. We can proceed to the amendment.
On the substance of the amendment itself, we could confirm this with the departmental officials who are with us today, but giving the choice to the victim, as proposed by Senator Carignan, seems completely dysfunctional to me, since it’s the prosecution that decides the direction a complaint takes. That’s the case in the civilian justice system, but I’d like to have confirmation for the military system. It’s not the victim who decides that a complaint will be dealt with in the criminal justice system; it is the Crown prosecutor or the prosecution who makes that decision.
However, I’d like to have confirmation, if someone can provide us with information on this.
Senator Carignan: I apologize, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to provide some clarification. You said earlier that you agreed to the officials being here to help us, but since we are in camera, they’re only here to help us, not to intervene. I just wanted clarification on that.
[English]
Now we’re in public?
The Acting Chair: Yes.
Senator Carignan: Okay, sorry about that.
The Acting Chair: That’s what I’m here to do: help guide you, just in case.
Could you please give us your title and name, please?
[Translation]
Colonel Geneviève Lortie, Deputy Judge Advocate General, Office of the Judge Advocate General, Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces: Good afternoon. I’m Colonel Geneviève Lortie, Deputy Judge Advocate General, Office of the Judge Advocate General, for the Canadian Armed Forces.
[English]
Lieutenant-Colonel Matt MacMillan, Director of Law, Military Justice Implementation, Office of the Judge Advocate General, Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces: I’m Lieutenant-Colonel Matt MacMillan, Director of Military Justice Implementation in the Office of the Judge Advocate General.
[Translation]
Senator Moreau: Colonel Lortie, my question is probably for you. You can decide whether you or your colleague will answer the question.
You heard my remarks earlier about how complaints work, namely how a complaint or a victim’s situation is dealt with in the criminal justice system. Could you tell us what you know about that?
Col. Lortie: Thank you for the question. In the military justice system, the authority who decides whether there will be a charge and whether the case will proceed to a court martial is the Director of Military Prosecutions, who appeared before your committee the day before yesterday.
Senator Moreau: If given an option, could a victim give instructions to the prosecutor — to the Crown — in this respect?
Col. Lortie: It’s a fundamental principle of justice: the prosecution has discretion. If someone expresses a preference, that’s something that’s taken into account. However, if someone made a choice, as proposed in the current amendment, that would call the process into question. The wording implies that the charge has been laid. A charge has been laid, so a choice has already been made as to the forum that will hear the case. Although an accusation can be withdrawn, the process causes delays in the system.
If civilian proceedings are initiated, if a charge has been laid and if we’re already before the court, the charge would need to be withdrawn, the investigation resumed and the case transferred to the military police. The military police must review the file, decide that there are reasonable grounds to believe an offence has been committed and lay the charge, because civilian police don’t have the authority to lay charges within the military justice system. Once the charge is laid, the case is sent to the Director of Military Prosecutions, who then decides whether to lay charges to send the case to a court martial.
Of course, when choosing a justice system and having to complete the different steps . . . The military justice system is also subject to the Jordan deadlines, so there’s an 18-month period starting from the laying of charges. At that point, even if it’s the other system, the charge has already been laid and the court will likely conclude that that’s the start of the 18-month period, so we’ve just added time to the process.
Senator Moreau: You raised the issue of the Jordan decision. So everyone understands clearly, the deadlines set out in Jordan begin when the charge is laid. What you’re explaining is that, at that time, the charge would be laid, and whether to transfer or withdraw a complaint and file a new complaint would likely be taken into account within the deadline imposed by the Supreme Court in Jordan. Is that correct?
Col. Lortie: Yes. That’s our understanding of the system.
Senator Moreau: The Jordan decision ensures that the trial takes place within a specified time from the moment the charge is laid. This means that, if the charge is brought before the civil justice system and, despite the discretion of the prosecutor, they decide to honour the victim’s request and file the complaint with the military system, from the moment they withdraw the prosecution and resume the process with the military police, all these accumulated delays could lead to the complaint being dismissed under the Jordan decision. Have I understood correctly?
Col. Lortie: Yes, you could end up with a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delays.
The other side of the coin is this: If it’s presented as a choice, and if the prosecution continues to establish that they determine whether or not to lay charges, the prosecution, after being in one system, after withdrawing from that system and restarting the whole process . . . The director of military prosecutions — in light of various factors they’re aware of — could ultimately decide not to prosecute an offender and not to proceed to a court martial; that would also end the proceedings.
Senator Moreau: To avoid being subject to the Jordan decision.
Col. Lortie: There could be other considerations as well. Over time, they also need to determine whether there’s a public interest in proceeding and whether there’s a reasonable likelihood of conviction. This must be the case at all times until the file is closed, so another assessment will be made when the decision is reached. We can’t assume, but that is one possibility.
Senator Moreau: While I don’t want to make you repeat yourself, I believe I understand that it’s still up to the prosecutor to decide whether or not to honour the victim’s potential choice?
Col. Lortie: In effect, it’s the director of military prosecutions. In the civilian system, the Crown prosecutor would have the discretion to decide to prosecute. That’s a fundamental principle of justice.
Senator Moreau: Thank you very much.
Senator Carignan: To clarify the question of choice . . . Without the bill we’re studying, if the victim decides or chooses to file a complaint with the Sûreté du Québec, the Sûreté du Québec has the power to investigate, and could the Crown in Quebec decide to prosecute? Is that how it works now?
Col. Lortie: Yes, that’s correct.
Senator Carignan: The choice can therefore be made when the person requests an investigation. If they’re more comfortable going through the civilian system, they go there. If they’re more comfortable going through the military system, they go to the military police to file a complaint.
Col. Lortie: Yes. The victim can choose between the competing jurisdictions and file a complaint before either one. The civilian and military police then decide whether to investigate, or decide whether the other force, civilian or military, might be more appropriate depending on the case in question.
Senator Carignan: The victim, then, chooses at different times but can choose when they actually file a complaint.
Col. Lortie: Yes. That’s the first opportunity to choose; there are other times later on, including when deciding whether there will be an investigation. Some victims just want to report facts, while others want an investigation. A victim can also choose at the prosecution stage, which is the subject of clause 7.
Senator Carignan: That’s how it works now.
Col. Lortie: Yes.
Senator Carignan: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Hay: To be clear, we’re not talking about the point of order; that is done. Third time in, I’m actually going to speak to the amendment. Thank you so much.
We are talking here about the choice for the victim between military court martial versus civil court.
Senator Carignan, thank you so much for what is obvious care from you through here. I do want to say that I am deeply conflicted. I cried when Roe v. Wade was overturned a few years ago, which is all about choice. Yet, I am concerned that the choice of court martial versus civil opens up a lot of grey areas from a legal perspective: two different systems and, therefore, inconsistency in one’s legal rights for the victim survivor, as well as the rights of the alleged perpetrator, which are also real.
Then I think about the victim, who has to make a decision about what system they will have their trauma and their case tried in, neither of which I would suspect she, he or they would have deep knowledge of, whether it’s civil or military, and they are in a state of trauma in having to make that decision. I worry a lot about that. As well, for the alleged perpetrator, it’s not knowing in what legal system, either civil or military, they are going to have to defend their rights, and they are innocent until proven guilty, which came to my mind.
Then I came down to thinking about agency and the choice of the victim survivor and thinking of the security that they should have as they decide their journey, the security of the legal system. I worried about that. Agency and choice come down to being able to go down a journey one wants to go down and have the security of knowing exactly the path.
I really don’t agree with putting choice on the victim in this case. I also think if that is the case, then when you get down to the end, a potential verdict, it will likely open up to different kinds of appeals or victim retraumatization or victim regret. That’s where I stood.
I thank you for the opportunity for this amendment, but I just can’t agree with it from that perspective. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Moreau: I’d like to come back to Colonel Lortie. Yes, the victim can decide to go to the Sûreté du Québec, or, as in Senator Carignan’s example, they can go to the military police, but this is not the time to meet with the police to make a complaint; we’re talking here about the prosecution. Could you make the distinction for the members at the table?
Col. Lortie: In the current system, under the National Defence Act, when charges are laid and the prosecution decides to proceed, some victims may choose to continue with the proceedings, testify, and make a victim’s rights statement, but others may choose not to move forward. Obviously, this influences the file. For some victims, we move forward; for others, that might be the end. It’s the victim’s preference. There’s one that the victim expresses regarding the investigation, the first place where the victim files a complaint; they can then continue this process.
Senator Moreau: What the bill states is that there would be a single path for a victim here, which would be to go directly to civil court, as per Ms. Arbour’s recommendation, which is incorporated into the bill.
Col. Lortie: Indeed, this is Bill C-11, which implements recommendation 5 from Justice Arbour, which is to completely remove the jurisdiction of the military justice system, both for the investigation and the prosecution, and entrust it exclusively to the civilian justice system. It’s about having a single avenue; this is one of the arguments she made in her report, which is to provide some clarity to the victims, with a single system.
Senator Moreau: Senator Carignan cited statistics on the number of lawsuits that were dismissed based on Jordan. To be very clear, when this law was supposed to come into effect, since there is only one system, the deadline to invoke the Jordan decision would be between the time the prosecution is initiated and the time the trial takes place; so, the Crown can delay the filing of proceedings to ensure that the file is complete and to ensure that the deadlines set by Jordan do not begin from the moment the first meeting between the Crown prosecutor and the victim takes place. Is that correct?
Col. Lortie: It’s at the discretion of the prosecution. When the decision is made to move forward, everyone will have a professional responsibility to ensure that when a file is started, it can be seen through to completion. All sorts of unfortunate things can happen. Of course, Jordan provides for delays that are added to or subtracted from the total number of months, which is entirely at the discretion of the court.
However, each prosecutor has a professional responsibility to do everything reasonably possible to advance these cases.
Senator Moreau: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Patterson: In principle, I do have a lot of empathy for this amendment and the next one because the one thing that we do know and have heard through witness statements is that people who have been victimized by sexual violence do best when they have some agency or autonomy within the system and choice. So I will look to Colonel Lortie.
When I listened to this, we use “choice” pretty liberally, but the person who has been victimized from a process perspective, if I hear you correctly, their choice is to make a complaint or not to the system of their choice. As it currently exists, their preference is then taken into account as to which route it should go. In English, “choice” and “preference” have different meanings.
I just want to make sure I’m hearing you correctly, recognizing that by all of this going into the civilian justice system, there is only one choice, and that is whether you complain or not, which is, I do believe, a risk in all of this to receive justice. But once they are in the system, they don’t have a choice. The prosecutor will decide, right? There is no choice.
What they have now is preference, even though we know you have not been putting courts martial in place since 2021 or 2022. So I just want to be really clear on what we are losing and gaining. As I said, there is a lot of compassion for what has been put forward.
Col. Lortie: Right, ma’am. In the system, actually, the choice is really — if we use that word — in which system they want. That’s the way it is right now under the National Defence Act, and after that, it’s their preference that is considered. Because as much as the civilian authority for the police side or the prosecution, they are the ones with the discretion to continue to have an investigation or not or to lay the charges and in which system. Some military police have the jurisdiction to lay charges in both the civilian and the military, but that’s not true for the civilian police. They only have jurisdiction to lay charges in the civilian system.
It’s the same thing for the prosecution. After that, they will consider their views and, effectively, as has been mentioned by the director of military prosecutions, since the interim recommendation of Madam Arbour in the fall of 2021, there have been no new charges that have been preferred under the military justice system to get to the court martial.
The amendment in Bill C-11, in the version that is before the amendment is submitted, would only give one path to go ahead. So if a victim decides to want to come forward with a complaint, that will be exclusively in the civilian justice system.
Senator Patterson: Thank you.
Senator Anderson: You were talking about the path that Bill C-11 puts being in one direction.
Because Bill C-11 states the offences are alleged to have been committed in Canada, how would the military proceed with cases that are alleged to have happened outside of Canada?
Col. Lortie: It means that the Canadian Armed Forces would maintain jurisdiction for the investigation and for the prosecution for any event that happened outside of Canada. It could be investigated outside Canada.
Once charges are laid, in that case, the military police would have the decision to make which system will be better suited for prosecution. They could turn, as is the case right now in some cases, to the civilian jurisdiction for prosecution, or they could maintain the military jurisdiction. It has not been mentioned this week. Recently, there was a case, but it went under the civilian justice system. Under the Criminal Code, they have jurisdiction for offences committed outside of Canada for those cases.
Senator Anderson: Technically, that means you could have victims going through the civilian system and victims going through the military system; is that correct?
Col. Lortie: Yes.
Senator Anderson: Thank you.
The Acting Chair: Are senators ready for the question?
Hon. Senators: Question.
The Acting Chair: Do you want me to read the motion again or could I dispense?
Hon. Senators: Dispense.
The Acting Chair: It’s Motion No. 7-3-7.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Acting Chair: Should we proceed to a roll-call vote?
Honourable senators, there has been a request for a recorded vote. I will first ask the clerk to name all of the senators present and who are entitled to vote at this time.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Yussuff, the Honourable Senator Anderson, the Honourable Senator Boehm, the Honourable Senator Cardozo, the Honourable Senator Carignan, the Honourable Senator Dasko, the Honourable Senator Hay, the Honourable Senator Housakos, the Honourable Senator McNair, the Honourable Senator Moreau, the Honourable Senator Patterson, the Honourable Senator Ross, the Honourable Senator White and the Honourable Senator Youance.
The Acting Chair: If any member present does not wish to vote, you may withdraw from the table now.
The clerk will now call members’ names, beginning with the chair, and followed by the remaining members named in alphabetical order.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Yussuff?
Senator Yussuff: Yes.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Anderson?
Senator Anderson: I support, yes.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Boehm?
Senator Boehm: No.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Cardozo?
Senator Cardozo: Yes.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Carignan?
Senator Carignan: Yes.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Dasko?
Senator Dasko: Yes.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Hay?
Senator Hay: No.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Housakos?
Senator Housakos: Yes.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator McNair?
Senator McNair: No.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Moreau?
Senator Moreau: No.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Patterson?
Senator Patterson: No.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Ross?
Senator Ross: No.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator White?
Senator White: No.
Ms. Paajanen: The Honourable Senator Youance?
Senator Youance: Yes.
Ms. Paajanen: Yeas, 7; nays, 7.
The Acting Chair: The amendment is defeated.
If I may, Senator Carignan, I would assume you’re not moving the next amendment?
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Actually, I think we’ll vote on clause 7 first. I’d suggest voting against the amendment, as the result will be the same. If the count is 7 to 7, technically, the amendment won’t be adopted.
[English]
The Acting Chair: So now we will come back to vote on clause 7. All those in favour of clause 7?
Ms. Paajanen: Because we are doing clauses 1 through 10, I would do them all together. However, if a member wants to do the clauses individually, we can do that as well.
The Acting Chair: We will proceed with doing clause 1 to 10 together, unless there’s any objection; then, we will do individual clauses going forward.
Senator Cardozo: I suggest that because 7 and 8 are the ones we’re discussing, maybe we do 1 to 6, get that out of the way, and then do 7 and 8 individually.
The Acting Chair: Okay, that’s fine.
Ms. Paajanen: Since you have already postponed, it starts at clause 2.
The Acting Chair: Shall clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Acting Chair: Shall clause 3 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Acting Chair: Shall clause 4 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Acting Chair: Shall clause 5 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Acting Chair: Shall clause 6 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Acting Chair: Shall clause 7 carry?
Hon. Senators: No.
The Acting Chair: No? We will do a recorded vote. All those in support of clause 7 put your hand up.
We don’t have to do a roll call. All those against? It’s carried.
Shall clause 8 carry?
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I won’t move my amendment then. Okay. Thank you.
[English]
The Acting Chair: Let me come back to ensure we are clear. Shall clause 8 carry?
Hon. Senators: Carried.
The Acting Chair: Shall clause 9 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Acting Chair: Shall clause 10 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Acting Chair: Shall clauses 11 to 20 carry, on pages 6 to 13?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Acting Chair: Colleagues, shall clauses 21 to 30 carry, on pages 13 to 22?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Acting Chair: Shall clauses 31 to 40 carry, on pages 22 to 32?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Acting Chair: Shall clauses 41 to 50, on pages 32 to 38, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Acting Chair: Shall clauses 51 to 60, on pages 38 to 42, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Acting Chair: Shall clauses 61 to 69, on pages 42 to 46, carry?
Senator Patterson: I’m trying to keep up with it. Where are we?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have too many papers, and I do apologize for my lack of organization here. Bear with me.
I wish to propose an amendment for a new clause 65.1. It is quite long. I will give colleagues a chance to grab it, and I will read through it. It is moved by me:
That Bill C-11 be amended on page 44 by adding the following after line 26:
“Review
65.1 (1) Within three years after the day on which sections 7 and 8 come into force, the Minister of National Defence must, in consultation with the Minister of Justice, cause an independent review to be undertaken of paragraphs 70(d) to (h) and sections 70.1 to 70.3 of the National Defence Act and their application.
(2) Within one year after the review is undertaken, the Minister of National Defence must cause a report on the review to be tabled in each House of Parliament.
(3) The report must be informed by consultations with appropriate authorities in the military and civilian justice systems, victims, advocates, scholars and other stakeholders.
(4) The report must include
(a) statistics on the number of cases involving offences that were prosecuted in the civilian justice system as a result of paragraphs 70(d) to (h) of the National Defence Act, the outcomes of those cases and any other relevant information respecting the application of those paragraphs and sections 70.1 to 70.3 of that Act;
(b) an evaluation of the services available for members of the Canadian Armed Forces who are victims of offences that were prosecuted in the civilian justice system as a result of paragraphs 70(d) to (h) of that Act;
(c) an evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of the application of paragraphs 70(d) to (h) and sections 70.1 to 70.3 of that Act for the military justice system and the authorities in the military justice system, and measures that may be taken to address those disadvantages;
(d) measures that may be taken to enhance access to justice for members of the Canadian Armed Forces in relation to offences referred to in paragraphs 70(d) to (h) of that Act; and
(e) the Minister of National Defence’s opinion as to whether paragraphs 70(d) to (h) and sections 70.1 to 70.3 of that Act should be repealed.
(5) The report stands referred to the committee of the Senate, the House of Commons or both Houses of Parliament that may be designated or established for the purpose of reviewing the report.
(6) If the report indicates that the Minister of National Defence is of the opinion that paragraphs 70(d) to (h) and sections 70.1 to 70.3 of the National Defence Act should be repealed, the Minister may cause to be filed with the Speaker of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Commons a motion for the adoption by each House of Parliament of a resolution that that House agrees with the Minister’s opinion and calls on the government to introduce a bill to repeal those paragraphs and sections.”.
I’ll give everybody a chance to review.
This motion attempted to bring in to evidence testimony heard from many witnesses — whether they had been victimized by the system, officials within the system, other witnesses who were academics — to try and address some of the concerns about the lack of true data and collated information on whether the system we are moving to with sections 7 and 8 will, above all else, assist those who have been harmed, ensure justice to those who have been accused, ensure that the Canadian Armed Forces can retain good order and discipline through the military justice system, as well as maintain mobility for the ultimate goal of a military justice system to help serve effectively on operations.
The subsections also took into account the agreement in the other place of the CPC’s amendment on a sunset clause with the subsections that have been added in terms of review. In other words, the intent of this amendment is to ensure a thorough data‑driven review takes place, which helps shape what is expected of the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence in terms of data collection; to ensure all players in the unique system that is the Canadian Armed Forces and within the justice system are taken into consideration in terms of this review; and then, finally, to make sure the voices of victims aren’t just, as one witness stated, “You’ve asked us again, and we’ve told you, and you are not listening.”
And this places accountability squarely at the feet of the minister and us as parliamentarians, and part of oversight, which is consistent with Governor General Arbour’s request that leadership be responsible and accountable for the military justice system.
Secondly, the repeal section versus a sunset clause, which was clearly stated, even amongst ourselves in debate, that we rarely even think of the sunset clause. It’s what we would call “one and done,” and it’s forgotten about.
The other piece that codifies it as a statutory requirement here is that as we push the government to ensure that they are appropriately assessing the impacts of these significant changes to both jurisdiction and the impact on serving members and on good order and discipline in the military, we give a statutory ability to include both houses of Parliament to decide whether this is, in fact, serving the outcome it is intended to achieve, of which — I will be clear — I am not clear. It will also make sure that there is a mechanism in place.
The other thing I would like to add is that you will note that it says three years. I am going to repeat — and I will certainly have our team correct me if I’m wrong — it is very hard legislatively to tie the hands of the next government with a clause that says, “You must, should, would,” et cetera. As it sits right now, why a repeal clause versus a sunset clause exists is because there is a majority government in place, and it is very reasonable that the next election will be right at the three-year mark. It leaves within their hands the accountability and responsibility to commence this review and work towards getting the report on the table, regardless of the government in house and regardless of the next government. It gives them the flexibility in order to decide whether this, above all else, has put people first, supports military justice discipline and operational flexibility and, I would suggest, above all else, does no harm.
That is why this amendment is extensive, focuses on data and options and has been accepted by government as an acceptable way forward. I put it on the table to open it for debate and other opinions and consideration.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Senator Patterson, for a thorough examination of the amendment that you put before us. Do colleagues wish to comment, or are there any questions directly for Senator Patterson with regard to the amendment?
Senator Cardozo: I just have one question, Senator Patterson. Thank you very much for this.
On the second page, paragraph (e) says:
. . . the Minister of National Defence’s opinion as to whether paragraphs 70(d) to (h) and sections 70.1 to 70.3 of that Act should be repealed.
What does that refer to in terms of what can be repealed?
Senator Patterson: I will start, and I will also defer to the experts on this.
It refers specifically, earlier on, to sections 70.1 to 70.3, which is effectively clauses 7 and 8, transferring cases to the civilian sector.
Senator Cardozo: It refers to the ability to repeal 7 and 8?
Senator Patterson: Yes. It addresses the key areas of concern that came out in witness statements and, from a personal perspective, areas where I have had concerns all long. It does put accountability and responsibility where Madam Arbour had said it belongs, which is in senior leadership in the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces but, particularly, with the minister and with us as parliamentarians.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you.
Senator Patterson: You’re welcome.
The Acting Chair: Does anybody else wish to intervene? If not, we’ll go to the question, colleagues.
Are senators ready for the question?
Hon. Senators: Question.
The Acting Chair: Do you wish for me to read the motion again?
Hon. Senators: No.
The Acting Chair: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the moment in amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Acting Chair: Carried.
Shall the new clause 65.1, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Acting Chair: Shall clauses 61 to 69, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Acting Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Acting Chair: Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Acting Chair: Shall the bill, as amended, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Acting Chair: Is it agreed that the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel be authorized to make necessary technical, grammatical or other required non-substantive changes resulting from the amendments adopted by the committee, in both official languages, including updating cross-references and renumbering of provisions?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Acting Chair: Does the committee wish to append any observations by members?
Senator Patterson: It was an observation that came out of the Director of Military Prosecutions in terms of appointments. It’s one of the areas that we haven’t looked at, and it is on page 10, clause 16. It specifically looks at the appointment of a Director of Military Prosecutions — an interim one while they’re waiting.
There have been some concerns that haven’t just come from them. We’ve also heard from other legal folks. It would be a note or an observation for the government because we have a history of extremely long periods of time before Governor-in-Council appointments have been made, whether it be the Judge Advocate General or the Director of Military Prosecutions, et cetera. The observation is that the timeline they have, over 90 days in which it must be approved by the Governor-in-Council, is noted.
What also has to be noted is that in the absence of a Director of Military Prosecutions, even unrelated to cases of criminal sexual behaviour, the military justice system will cease to function.
As an observation, I would like to propose that we just put in that there may be consideration given on that time and whether as director of either side — I would like to —
The Acting Chair: Do you have a written version of this?
Senator Patterson: I do. The observation would be:
We stress that an excessive delay in appointing a Director of Military Prosecutions, under article 16, will have a direct impact on the delivery of military justice —
— you can help me with the words if I’m incorrect —
— and requires consideration to ensure that attention is paid to making sure the appointments are timely.
I’m open to other recommendations.
The Acting Chair: May I make a suggestion? Just in the context of timing, we want to conclude this, and we want to have content for colleagues to read.
We will have the clerks assist you in drafting it, and then we’ll come back and present it for consideration to committee members.
Colleagues, I think we have an agreement on the observation that will satisfy everybody, based on the intervention by Senator Patterson. I’ll get the analyst to read the observation so that you all can hear it clearly, and then we will be in agreement; we’ll include it in the report.
Anne-Marie Therrien-Tremblay, Analyst, Library of Parliament: The observation, as expressed by Senator Patterson, would be:
The committee stresses the importance of the timely appointment of the Director of Military Prosecutions; and
The committee encourages the government to give consideration to extending the time limit for the appointment of the acting Director of Military Prosecutions under the National Defence Act.
The Acting Chair: Are there any comments? Is everybody happy?
[Translation]
Ms. Therrien-Tremblay: We can read the French version, which has now been translated and which states the following:
The committee stresses the importance of the timely appointment of the Director of Military Prosecutions and encourages the Government of Canada to consider extending the time limit for the appointment of the acting Director of Military Prosecutions under the National Defence Act .
[English]
The Acting Chair: It speaks to the camaraderie we have on this committee: Even when you’re not here, your position gets represented.
Thank you very much, Senator Boehm, for doing that on behalf of Senator Carignan.
Is there agreement on the appended observation?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Acting Chair: Colleagues, I also want to bring to your attention — this will be included in our report:
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs held three meetings from June 8, 2026, to June 10, 2026, and heard from 17 witnesses on the subject matter of Bill C-11, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and other Acts. The witnesses included: the Minister of Defence; officials from the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces; former Canadian Armed Forces members; a representative from a civilian police association; and lawyers and one researcher appearing as individuals. The committee also received written briefs from organizations and individuals, some of whom did not appear as witnesses before the committee.
Bill C-11 would amend certain provisions of the National Defence Act that relate to Canada’s military justice system.
In addition to that:
The committee expresses its sincere appreciation to former members of the Canadian Armed Forces who shared their experiences and testimony during the study of this bill and acknowledges the value of their contributions.
We’re good?
Senator Cardozo: In the list of people you mentioned, if you could mention we heard from either victims or advocates of victims.
The Acting Chair: I did not name them specifically, but that was the last paragraph that I read.
Senator Cardozo: Is that sufficient?
The Acting Chair: I think we are trying to indicate that’s who testified before the committee.
Senator Patterson: Could I please request, what word did you use? Did you use “victims”?
The Acting Chair: No. Let me read it again:
The committee expresses its sincere appreciation to the former members of the Canadian Armed Forces who shared their experiences and testimony during its study of the bill and acknowledges the value of their contributions.
We didn’t name them specifically, but we’re trying to avoid doing that.
Senator Patterson: Thank you, because they choose their name. Those who have been harmed, it can be — but thank you. I think that would work.
The Acting Chair: Is that satisfactory?
Colleagues, is it agreed that the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be empowered to approve the final version of the observation being appended to the report, in both official languages, taking into consideration today’s discussion and with any necessary editorial, grammatical or translation changes as required?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Acting Chair: Is it agreed that I report this bill, as amended, with observations, to the Senate, in both official languages?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Acting Chair: Agreed.
Colleagues, let me, first of all, thank all of you. This was a heavy set of hearings on a very important piece of legislation about the country. It’s not about us; it’s about the country. The men and women who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces are part of who we are as a nation. They are not separate. In doing our job in responsibility to what Ms. Arbour and other distinguished members of the judiciary have examined, it speaks to the challenge that we all have to respond to how we remedy the system to make it better for those who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces across this country. This is no easy matter. We may have gotten it right; we may not have gotten it right. At the end of the day, I think it was the best of intentions. We’re trying to do what we think can help make the system that much better for the people who serve on behalf of our country.
As we know, for women who serve in our Canadian Armed Forces, they are not the majority in numbers. As such, we have to continue to ensure the environment in which they are operating reflects the reality of our values as a country. They need to be treated fairly and with respect. We know that has not been the case in the past. We’re hoping we can remedy that in the future with the adoption of this bill when it goes before the Senate.
I want to thank the clerk and the analysts, as well as all the witnesses who came before us to testify. They have certainly given us a great deal of understanding of the challenges we face with regard to this piece of legislation. I think your diligence, hard work and dedication speak to the kindness and the generosity we bring to the work we do in the Senate.
I want to thank you on behalf of Senator Marty Deacon, who is not here, for all you have given in regard to this committee’s work.
Thank you, again, colleagues. I look forward to a vigorous debate in the Senate, and hopefully we can do some justice to the work we were asked to do on behalf of Canadians. Thank you so much.
(The committee adjourned.)