Bill C-16 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Security of Tenure of Military Judges Act
An Act to amend the National Defence Act (military judges)
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedOct. 7, 2011
- Debated in principleNov. 4, 2011
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberNov. 16, 2011
- Passed the second chamberNov. 28, 2011
- Became lawNov. 28, 2011
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
- Daniel LangSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Chris Alexanderstates he rises in support of the bill to ensure the military justice system functions properly.
- Jack Harrisexplains the bill corrects a Charter violation and is needed for that reason.
- George BakerSenate · SenatorSupports the bill to meet the December 2 court deadline despite disagreeing with the mandatory retirement age of 60.
- Claude CarignanSenate · SenatorMoved third reading of the bill.
- André Bellavanceexplicitly states the Bloc Québécois supports this bill.
- Elizabeth Maystates the value of Bill C-16 is uncontested from the Green Party's point of view.
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-16, An Act to amend the National Defence Act (military judges) (Security of Tenure of Military Judges Act), in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. On June 2, 2011 the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada delivered its judgment in the R. v. Leblanc case. In its decision, the appeal court determined that the provisions in the National Defence Act and the Queen’s Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces regarding the appointment and retirement of military judges do not sufficiently respect judicial independence as required by section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In declaring certain National Defence Act provisions constitutionally invalid and inoperative, the Court Martial Appeal Court in R. v. Leblanc suspended the declaration of invalidity for a period of six months to allow remedial legislation to be enacted. The declaration will be effective December 2, 2011. Bill C-16 amends the provisions of the National Defence Act that deal with the tenure of military judges, providing that they serve until the retirement age of 60 years, unless removed for cause on the recomme…
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
How it changed on the way
64% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (481 words introduced, 347 passed).
minor changeintent kept
The bill passed with only formal updates to reflect its status as law. It received royal assent on 29 November 2011 and was published as chapter 22.
- Updated bill header to show assent and chapter number instead of first reading.
Before: “C-16 First Session, Forty-first Parliament, 60 Elizabeth II, 2011 HOUSE OF COMMONS OF CANADA BILL C-16 An Act to amend the National Defence Act (military judges) FIRST READING, OCTOBER 7, 2011”
After: “First Session, Forty-first Parliament, 60 Elizabeth II, 2011 STATUTES OF CANADA 2011 CHAPTER 22 An Act to amend the National Defence Act (military judges) ASSENTED TO 29th NOVEMBER, 2011 BILL C-16”
- Removed explanatory notes showing the old subsections of the National Defence Act.
Before: “EXPLANATORY NOTES National Defence Act Clause 2: (1) Existing text of subsection 165.21(2): (2) A military judge holds office during good behaviour for a term of five years but may be removed by the Governor in Council for cause on the recommendation of an Inquiry Committee established under regulations made by the Governor in Council. (2) Existing text of subsections 165.21(3) and (4): (3) A military judge is eligible to be re-appointed on the expiry of a first or subsequent term of office on the recommendation of a Renewal Committee established under regulations made by the Governor in Council. (4) A military judge ceases to hold office on reaching the retirement age prescribed by the Governor in Council in regulations.”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Hard
The text sets clear numerical endpoints and formal notice rules for when a military judge stops holding office. It leaves the core standards for removal and the entire inquiry process to undefined regulations and subjective phrases.
Open to argument
“for cause”
The term is undefined and invites argument over what reasons qualify as sufficient.
Clear-cut
“on attaining the age of 60 years”
A fixed numerical age supplies an objective, easily verified end date.“by giving notice in writing to the Minister”
The method and recipient of resignation are stated without discretion.
Discretion. The Governor in Council decides both the content of the regulations that create the Inquiry Committee and whether any given set of facts amounts to 'cause' for removal.
Challenging the law itself. A challenge could readily invoke section 11(d) Charter judicial independence because the statute ties removal to an undefined 'cause' standard and regulations controlled by the executive.
Disputing a charge under it. Once the Inquiry Committee is constituted under the regulations, a judge facing removal would have to show that the committee's process or the Governor in Council's decision fell outside the broad statutory language.
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
The Act successfully amended the National Defence Act to grant military judges security of tenure until age 60 (removable only for cause via inquiry committee), directly remedying the constitutional defect identified in R. v. Leblanc (2011 CMAC 2) regarding s. 11(d) Charter judicial independence. Subsequent Supreme Court of Canada confirmation in R. v. Edwards (2024 SCC 15) affirms that these changes, alongside other safeguards, satisfy the hallmarks of judicial independence.
- R. v. Edwards, 2024 SCC 15courtThe NDA amendments (post-Leblanc) provide sufficient security of tenure for military judges by appointment until age 60 or removal for cause only, addressing prior constitutional shortcomings.
- Legislative Summary of Bill C-16 (Library of Parliament)reviewBill C-16 responded to Leblanc by replacing renewable five-year terms with tenure to age 60, subject only to removal for cause, to ensure judicial independence.
- R. v. Leblanc, 2011 CMAC 2courtPre-amendment provisions on five-year renewable terms for military judges breached s. 11(d) Charter; declaration suspended to allow legislative fix.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.