Bill C-60 · 39th Parliament · Stephen Harper
An Act to amend the National Defence Act (court martial) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedJune 6, 2008
- Debated in principleJune 16, 2008
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberJune 17, 2008
- Passed the second chamberJune 16, 2008
- Became lawJune 18, 2008
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Stephen HarperPrime Minister
- Pierre Claude NolinSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Claude Bachandexplains and defends the military justice system as valid and international practice
- Joe Comartinacknowledges the bill addresses problems from the court decision and prior needed reforms
- Bryon Wilfertstates the official opposition supports in principle the bill
- Dawn Blackstates the NDP will support the bill at second reading
- Laurie Hawncalls it an important bill and thanks members for expediting it
- Anthony Rotadescribes the bill as providing a needed legislative solution to align with constitutional standards
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
Where members stand
How it changed on the way
74% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (5,301 words introduced, 3,228 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The bill kept its core amendments to court martial procedures and limitation periods but underwent extensive renumbering, removal of draft artifacts, and minor wording cleanups before assent. Over 70 percent of the introduced text was altered or replaced in the final statute.
- Cleaned up subsection numbering in the limitation period clause.
Before: “5 (1.1) A commanding officer may not try an accused person by summary trial unless the summary trial commences within one year after the day on which the service offence is alleged to have been committed.”
After: “(1.1) A commanding officer may not try an accused person by summary trial unless the summary trial commences within one year after the day on which the service offence is alleged to have been committed.”
- Added royal assent and chapter details to the enacted law.
After: “Second Session, Thirty-ninth Parliament, 56-57 Elizabeth II, 2007-2008 STATUTES OF CANADA 2008 CHAPTER 29 An Act to amend the National Defence Act (court martial) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act ASSENTED TO 18th JUNE, 2008”
How precisely it is written
mostly preciseChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Hard
The bill uses fixed time limits, vote thresholds, offence lists tied to Criminal Code sections, and defined court types for most rules. A few provisions still rely on judicial satisfaction, discretion, or appropriateness.
Open to argument
“If the military judge presiding at a General Court Martial is satisfied that the members of the panel are unable to agree”
Subjective satisfaction test leaves room for argument over when discharge is justified.“whether an inquiry should be held to determine whether a stay of proceedings should be ordered and to hold, as soon as practicable, the inquiry if the court martial determines that it is appropriate”
Uses both 'appropriate' and 'as soon as practicable' without objective criteria.“enter a finding of guilty with respect to the offence for which, in its opinion, the accused person should have been found guilty”
Opinion-based standard invites debate over what the panel should have found.
Clear-cut
“unless the summary trial commences within one year after the day on which the service offence is alleged to have been committed”
Exact one-year deadline measured from a clear starting day.“If the accused person fails to notify the Court Martial Administrator in writing of his or her choice within 14 days after the day on which the accused person is notified”
Fixed 14-day period with written notice requirement.
Discretion. Military judges and the Court Martial Administrator receive limited procedural discretion over convening, panel discharge, and timing of inquiries, but no broad regulatory power is granted to ministers.
Challenging the law itself. Subjective phrases such as 'satisfied' and 'appropriate' could support a vagueness or overbreadth argument under Charter s. 7, though the many bright-line rules weaken the claim.
Disputing a charge under it. Most obligations turn on verifiable dates, offence classifications, and vote counts rather than open-ended standards.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
effective
Bill C-60 promptly addressed the constitutional defects identified in R. v. Trépanier by streamlining courts martial from four to two types, granting accused election rights in specified cases, and requiring unanimous panel decisions on key findings, restoring operational functionality to the military justice system. A 2009 Senate committee review of the Act confirmed full implementation, effective operation of the new election and convening processes, and enhanced fairness and certainty without subsequent invalidation by courts.
- Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Equal Justice: Reforming Canada’s System of Courts Martial (May 2009)reviewThe committee's hearings and evidence from officials established that the amendments had been fully implemented by early 2009, with the new framework working well to determine court martial types and enhancing fairness for accused and the public.
- Judge Advocate General Annual Report 2008-2009, Chapter 6evaluationBill C-60 received royal assent June 18, 2008, came into force July 18, 2008, and successfully responded to the Trépanier decision by reducing court martial types, standardizing jurisdiction, and clarifying convening authority while enabling continued courts martial.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.