(a) by replacing line 5 on page 3 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”

“(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.”

The question was put on the amendment of James Bezan and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Scott Anderson, James Bezan, Cheryl Gallant, Jeff Kibble, Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay — 5;

NAYS: Viviane Lapointe, Chris Malette, Sherry Romanado, Tim Watchorn — 4.

On Clause 8,

(a) by deleting line 36 on page 4 to line 2 on page 5.

“70.‍1 (1) Despite any other provision of this Act and any other law, an officer or non-commissioned member may exercise their powers or perform their duties and functions, before the ar-”

“(2) Despite any other provision of this Act and any other law, an officer or non-commissioned member may secure or preserve any”

“70.‍2 Despite any other provision of this Act and any other law, an officer or non-commissioned member may initiate or conduct a”

Debate arose thereon.

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of James Bezan, as amended, and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Scott Anderson, James Bezan, Cheryl Gallant, Jeff Kibble, Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay — 5;

NAYS: Viviane Lapointe, Chris Malette, Sherry Romanado, Tim Watchorn — 4.

“70.11 (1) Despite sections 70 and 70.1, a civil court may, at the request of a victim of an offence referred to in any of paragraphs 70(d) to (h) or of an individual acting on their behalf, determine that a court martial should have jurisdiction to try the person charged if the court is of the opinion that it would not interfere with the proper administration of justice.

(2) In determining whether a court martial should have jurisdiction to try the person charged, the civil court shall consider the nature of the offence and the circumstances in which it was committed, as well as any other relevant factor, including whether

(a) at the time of the commission of the alleged offence, the person charged was on duty or on a site under the authority of the Canadian Forces;

(b) the victim explicitly expressed the wish to not have the matter transferred to a civil court and was subjected to any form of pressure that might influence a potential transfer to the court martial; and

(c) the victim was informed of their rights and of the potential consequences of the court martial's having jurisdiction in the matter.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Scott Anderson, James Bezan, Cheryl Gallant, Jeff Kibble, Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay — 5;

NAYS: Viviane Lapointe, Chris Malette, Sherry Romanado, Tim Watchorn — 4.

“(5) Every officer or non-commissioned member who wilfully or negligently causes an unreasonable delay in the transfer of evidence secured or preserved under any of subsections (1) to (3) to the custody of the civilian authority having jurisdiction in the matter or in the disclosure of all such evidence to the counsel representing the accused commits an offence under section 124.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of James Bezan and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Scott Anderson, James Bezan, Cheryl Gallant, Jeff Kibble, Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay — 5;

NAYS: Viviane Lapointe, Chris Malette, Sherry Romanado, Tim Watchorn — 4.

“70.4 (1) The Minister shall cause to be tabled in each House of Parliament, within six months after the day on which the Military Justice System Modernization Act receives royal assent or, if a House is not then sitting, on any of the first 10 days of the next sitting of that House, a plan for the establishment of an office of the inspector general for sexual misconduct in the Canadian Forces.

(2) In developing the plan, the Minister shall consult with interested persons and organizations, including representatives of survivors of sexual assault in the Canadian Forces, sexual assault victim support organizations, military personnel management, internal support services and mental health experts.

(3) The plan shall take into account any submissions made by the persons or groups referred to in subsection (2) and shall include measures respecting

(a) the appointment of a civilian to the position of inspector general;

(b) the structure of the office of the inspector general and the employees who would be necessary to carry out the activities of the office;

(c) the term and tenure of the inspector general; and

(d) the mandate and powers, duties and functions of the inspector general, including in relation to support for victims, the identification of systemic problems within the Canadian Forces and recommendations for reform.

70.5 If, within 12 months after the day on which the plan is tabled under subsection 70.4(1), the Minister has not caused to be introduced in either House of Parliament a bill that provides for the establishment of an office of the inspector general for sexual misconduct in the Canadian Forces, the Minister shall, as soon as feasible after the end of that period, cause to be tabled in each House of Parliament a report that sets out the reasons for the delay and the expected timeline for the introduction of the bill.”

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was beyond the scope of the Bill, as provided in section 16.74 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Fourth Edition.

Whereupon, Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay appealed the decision of the Chair.

The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was overturned on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Viviane Lapointe, Chris Malette, Sherry Romanado, Tim Watchorn — 4;

NAYS: Scott Anderson, James Bezan, Cheryl Gallant, Jeff Kibble, Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay — 5.

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Scott Anderson, James Bezan, Cheryl Gallant, Jeff Kibble, Viviane Lapointe, Chris Malette, Sherry Romanado, Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Tim Watchorn — 9;

NAYS: — 0.

“70.4 (1) Paragraphs 70(d) to (h) and sections 70.1 to 70.3 cease to have effect at the end of the third anniversary of the day on which the Military Justice System Modernization Act receives royal assent unless, before the end of that third anniversary, the operation of those provisions is extended by resolution — whose text is established under subsection (4) — passed by both Houses of Parliament in accordance with the rules set out in subsection (5).

(2) A comprehensive review of paragraphs 70(d) to (h) and sections 70.1 to 70.3 and their operation is to be undertaken by the committee of the Senate, of the House of Commons or of both Houses of Parliament that is designated or established by the Senate or the House of Commons, or by both Houses of Parliament, as the case may be, for that purpose.

(3) The committee must, no later than one year before the anniversary referred to in subsection (1), submit a report on the review to the appropriate House of Parliament, or to both Houses, as the case may be, including its recommendation with respect to extending the operation of the provisions referred to in subsection (1).

(4) The Governor in Council may, by order, establish the text of a resolution that provides for the extension of the operation of the provisions referred to in subsection (1) and that specifies the period of the extension, which may not exceed three years from the first day on which the resolution has been passed by both Houses of Parliament.

(5) A motion for the adoption of the resolution may be debated in both Houses of Parliament but may not be amended. At the conclusion of the debate, the Speaker of the House of Parliament must immediately put every question necessary to determine whether or not the motion is concurred in.”

Debate arose thereon.

The question was put on the amendment of James Bezan, as amended, and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Scott Anderson, James Bezan, Cheryl Gallant, Jeff Kibble, Viviane Lapointe, Chris Malette, Sherry Romanado, Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Tim Watchorn — 9;

NAYS: — 0.