NDDN meeting 21 · 2026-01-28 — Committee Evidence — LegisWatch

Summary

This House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence meeting, held on January 28, 2026, resumed clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-11, an act to amend the National Defence Act and other acts. Appearing as witnesses were Colonel Geneviève Lortie, Deputy Judge Advocate General for Military Justice Modernization, and Lieutenant-Colonel Matt MacMillan, Director of Military Justice Implementation.

Colonel Lortie testified that imposing a 90-day timeline on Governor in Council appointments, as proposed in a Conservative amendment, is effectively unenforceable and could create legal risks and confusion regarding authorities, particularly if an appointment is not made within that period due to factors like elections or security clearances. She noted that such a timeline could leave the office vacant and create uncertainty about who can exercise its powers.

Lieutenant-Colonel MacMillan testified that a Conservative amendment giving victims the choice to have their case tried by court martial or civilian court is contrary to Justice Arbour's recommendation five and could be unconstitutional, as it purports to fetter prosecutorial discretion. He explained that the civilian police would investigate under this framework, but they cannot lay charges under the code of service discipline, potentially leading to delays and multiple interviews for the victim, which could cause Jordan delay issues and risk proceedings being stayed.

Colonel Lortie added that transferring a case between systems after charges are laid would consume significant time, increasing the risk of unreasonable delay and a stay of proceedings. She also noted that a Bloc Québécois amendment proposing a similar choice would face comparable issues and could raise questions about one court system deciding jurisdiction for another.

The committee debated and voted on several procedural matters, including overturning the chair's ruling that a Conservative amendment was out of scope. After extensive debate on the choice amendment, the committee did not reach a final vote on it before adjourning.

AI-generated summary — may contain errors; verify against the official evidence.

Witnesses · 2

Colonel Geneviève Lortie

Deputy Judge Advocate General, Military Justice Modernization, Canadian Armed Forces, Department of National Defence

Opening remarks

It can take a certain amount of time with the process, verification, qualification, security and everything. With the National Defence Act, there are other appointments that are made by the GIC in which the minister can make an acting appointment. For this one, it's not proposing to amend the appointment of the JAG when the position is vacant. It's really about the acting JAG: The minister could have someone for a certain amount of time, but after 90 days, they need to be confirmed by the GIC. You will have other provisions in the National Defence Act for other systems with the same types of appointments, in which the minister can appoint someone as acting for a period of time and there's no such time frame, but in this one, it aligns with the provost marshal general, which is the same for the acting one, with the director of military prosecutions and with the director of defence counsel services, the three amendments in this bill.

Full testimony ↗

Lieutenant-Colonel Matt MacMillan

Director, Military Justice Implementation, Office of the Judge Advocate General, Canadian Armed Forces, Department of National Defence

Opening remarks

Thank you for the question. In relation to victim choice, we've heard a lot about that at the committee...participation of victims. What it does in relation to this kind of piece.... Madam Justice Arbour indicated that there should be no choice that puts an unfair burden on victims, so it is contrary to Justice Arbour's recommendation five. In essence, it's something of a false choice in relation to a victim. The way the motion is drafted, it says the victim “may choose” where the matter is prosecuted. Ultimately, where something is prosecuted is the prosecutor's determination. It's prosecutorial discretion. They have the fundamental aspect, as a principle of fundamental justice, to make an ultimate determination on where and whether a matter is prosecuted. Even if a victim chose to have a matter proceed at court martial in relation to this matter, ultimately it would be the director of military prosecutions who would have to determine whether that is the proper venue, based on a number of considerations, including what the victim contemplated or what the victim may wish. That's only one aspect of many public interest factors that would have to be determined in relation to…

National Defence

Summary

Witnesses · 2

Bills mentioned