Bill C-15 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act
An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedOct. 7, 2011
- Debated in principleDec. 12, 2012
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberMay 1, 2013
- Passed the second chamberJune 12, 2013
- Became lawJune 18, 2013
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
- Judy WhiteSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Dany MorinStates the NDP will be supporting this bill at third reading.
- Jack HarrisIndicates support for the bill at third reading after opposing at second reading.
- Chris AlexanderDescribes the bill as absolutely fundamental to the well-being of the Canadian Forces and to the modernization of the military justice system.
- John RaffertyDescribes the bill's provisions for greater flexibility and reforms without objection.
- Randall GarrisonWill support the bill at third reading after committee amendments improved it.
- Laurie Hawndefends the bill's approach to equity and reform in military context without objection.
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.
What it set out to do
On 7 October 2011, the Minister of National Defence introduced Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts (Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act), in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. Bill C-15 amends the National Defence Act to strengthen military justice following the 2003 report of the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Right Honourable Antonio Lamer, and the May 2009 report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Among other things it: • Provides for security of tenure for military judges until their retirement and permits the appointment of part-time military judges. • Specifies the purposes, objectives and principles of the sentencing process. • Provides for additional sentencing options, including absolute discharges, intermittent sentences and restitution. • Modifies the composition of a court martial panel according to the rank of the accused person. • Modifies the limitation period applicable to summary trials and allows an accused person to waive the limitation periods. • Sets out the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal’s duties and f…
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
That this question be now put. · 2012-12-12 · Passed
What the Senate tried to change
- adds safeguardsRoméo Antonius DallaireLimits VCDS instructions on investigations to exceptional operational circumstances with written reasons and public release timelines; eliminates two-tier grievance system for military judges; removes sections 87 and 95 from criminal-record exemptions and adds detention up to 30 days to exemptions.Outcome not recorded in the debate · June 12, 2013 · Senate record
How it changed on the way
72% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (29,226 words introduced, 20,572 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The bill kept its core military justice reforms on judges, sentencing, grievances and the Provost Marshal but Parliament added three new offence-related clauses and made minor wording adjustments before royal assent. Over 70 percent of the introduced text was altered or replaced during passage.
- Extended the bill’s final clauses on reinstatement and pay regulations.
Before: “. Reinstatement 5 10 (5) An officer or non-commissioned member whose release or transfer is cancelled is, except as provided in regulations made by the Governor in Council, deemed for the purpose of this Act or any other Act not to have been released or transferred.”
After: “. Reinstatement (5) An officer or non-commissioned member whose release or transfer is cancelled is, except as provided in regulations made by the Governor in Council, deemed for the purpose of this Act or any other Act not to have been released or transferred.”
How precisely it is written
vagueChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill mixes a few numerical deadlines and listed offences with repeated subjective tests that turn on opinions, necessity, or reasonable grounds. This leaves many questions open to prolonged argument rather than quick yes-or-no answers.
Open to argument
“considers it desirable, in the interests of the safety of an offender or of any other person”
The phrase relies on a judge's subjective view of desirability and safety without an objective standard.“in the opinion of a court martial, a witness whose evidence has been taken on commission should, in the interests of military justice, appear”
Both 'in the opinion' and 'interests of military justice' are undefined and open-ended.“reasonable grounds to believe that the public interest may be satisfied without so arresting the person”
The test mixes 'reasonable grounds' with a discretionary judgment about public interest.“the court martial considers that it would not be in the best interests of the administration of military justice”
The phrase uses an undefined 'best interests' standard that invites case-by-case debate.
Clear-cut
“liable to imprisonment for less than two years or to less punishment”
A specific maximum sentence is stated in plain numbers.
Discretion. Broad discretion remains with commanding officers, military judges, the Minister, and the Governor in Council through phrases such as 'in the opinion of', 'considers appropriate', 'necessary', and numerous regulation-making powers.
Challenging the law itself. Vague standards such as 'best interests of the administration of military justice' and 'public interest' could be challenged under section 7 of the Charter as impermissibly vague or overbroad.
Disputing a charge under it. Accused persons can readily dispute whether 'reasonable grounds', 'necessary', or 'in the interests of military justice' thresholds were met in their case.
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?
partly effective
Bill C-15 implemented key Lamer Report recommendations on military judges' tenure, sentencing principles/options, and related reforms, with many provisions coming into force by 2018, but subsequent official assessments found ongoing inefficiencies in administration and oversight. Later independent reviews and further legislation indicate partial achievement of goals amid persistent delays and the need for additional modernization.
- Office of the Auditor General of Canada, Report 3 – Administration of Justice in the Canadian Armed Forces (2018 Spring Reports)auditThe CAF did not administer the military justice system efficiently and the Office of the JAG did not provide effective oversight, with nine recommendations made (all accepted) shortly after key C-15 provisions took effect.
- Judge Advocate General Annual Report 2018-2019 (Chapter Three)evaluationBill C-15 amendments (including regulatory changes) came into force on 1 September 2018; JAG implemented four of nine AG recommendations within a year and advanced initiatives like JAIMS and performance monitoring to address remaining issues.
- Report of the Third Independent Review Authority (Hon. Morris J. Fish, 2021)reviewWhile referencing C-15 and later reforms, the review identified ongoing challenges such as court martial delays compared to civilian trials and recommended further NDA amendments for efficiency, independence, and alignment with civilian standards.
- Library of Parliament Legislative Summary (41-1, C-15)reviewBill C-15 responded to many Lamer recommendations on sentencing, judges' independence, and due process but did not fully adopt all proposals (e.g., on judicial salaries); subsequent reviews confirm incremental rather than comprehensive resolution of identified problems.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.