National Defence Committee on Nov. 6th, 2025

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Professor MacKenzie, we know that Bill C-11 separates criminal sexual offence investigations from the chain of command to reinforce independence.

What do you see as the key implementation challenges in making that separation work effectively across both the military and the civilian systems?

[Prof. Megan MacKenzie]

I think we've heard some of those challenges already. Transparency around how quickly these cases are moved to the system and understanding what kinds of supports civilian systems will need immediately to handle these new cases are incredibly important. I also think about having clear data that's very transparent so that those within the internal system understand the process and understand the success rates.

I want to say as a reminder that research from the University of Toronto showed us that it's very hard to know the conviction [Technical difficulty—Editor] compared to the civilian because there's such poor data on both. We have a study at the University of Toronto that showed that between 2015 and 2018, of all the sexual assault cases that were brought within the military system, there were four convictions.

We know from data that at least one in four members of the Canadian Armed Forces experiences sexual violence or sexual harassment. We know that very few of those come forward. To have four convictions within a three-year period shows how limited the internal system is. I think it's an imperfect transition, and there will be challenges to implementation. However, it is a very important move.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

What metrics would you say are important to use to measure whether confidence in reporting rates improve after implementation?

[Prof. Megan MacKenzie]

The two best ways of understanding this problem are anonymous surveys, which the Canadian Armed Forces often gives to its service members to get a sense of how service members are experiencing and if they are experiencing sexual violence, harassment and other forms of discrimination. These surveys are very important because we know that victims often feel nervous or have a barrier to report publicly. We have a better sense of the scope of the problem through these anonymous surveys.

Comparing those anonymous surveys and the rates of reported experience of sexual violence versus the public convictions and the number of cases that are coming forward publicly and looking at that gap is our best way of gauging the success of the internal system, the military justice system or the eventual civilian justice system.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Drapeau, this bill addresses Justice Arbour's recommendation to transfer sexual assault cases to the civilian system.

Could you explain to the committee why this change plays an important role in restoring the trust of service members and survivors?

[Col (Ret'd) Michel Drapeau]

Over the years, I've represented about 60 victims of sexual assault. Every case revealed major shortcomings. These people felt disillusioned at the end of the process. They felt that they had not received justice or been treated with due respect.

I'll give you an example from a court martial trial. In one of the cases that I handled, the victim was a young cadet attending the Royal Military College in Kingston. The trial took place at the college, in front of all the cadets. This young victim had to testify for two, three or four days. I think that it was five days in this case. All she could see from her seat were her future comrades in arms and the people with whom she had served. In terms of respect and support, the organization simply fell short. This person quickly resigned and pursued a career outside the Canadian Armed Forces. She isn't the only one. I could tell you about a number of other similar cases.

Victims often don't file complaints or show up at trials. For example, a victim of sexual assault at the military college was customarily required to report to the chaplain. After listening to the victim's account of the experience, the chaplain would decide whether to call in the military police. The 60 cases that I saw include all kinds of experiences that show a lack of competence and sensitivity on the part of the military police. Even the cases that made it to trial revealed shortcomings. I told you about one case, but there are a number of others.

The current victims, and certainly their fellow women colleagues, see Bill C‑11 as a success in terms of a culture change. It gives them the assurance that, if they ever become victims of assault, they can give their testimony to an independent, experienced and accessible police force. The trial will take place in a civilian court, with a judge and lawyers who have experience in this area. This isn't the case in the military justice system.

Military courts are disciplinary tribunals. Military judges have no experience, unlike judges in higher courts in Canada or abroad. These judges receive special training to preside over sexual assault trials. Military judges don't have that opportunity.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Thank you, Mr. Drapeau.

Monsieur Savard-Tremblay, you have two and a half minutes.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

We also heard about a lack of accountability within the military system. I gather that an inspector position could be created. This person would receive anonymous complaints and report to Parliament.

That said, what about the lack of accountability within the system?

Would it be a good idea to set up a parliamentary body to carry out a mandatory annual follow‑up on the implementation of military justice reforms? I know that this has been done in Australia and the United Kingdom.

If so, could this take the form of a committee, for example?

[Col (Ret'd) Michel Drapeau]

We're on the same wavelength, Mr. Savard‑Tremblay.

As I've said many times, Parliament, and this committee in particular, need to be more proactive in holding the military officials to account.

The workforce is expected to double or even quadruple in the months and years to come, so we need this external committee. One way to do this is to create an inspector general position. That doesn't stop this committee from being proactive and holding military officials to account, not just with respect to military justice but in general.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Drapeau.

Mr. Fowler, in an article you published in March 2024, you said that the previous version of Bill C‑11, Bill C‑66, missed the mark. We are currently studying a bill that is virtually identical.

What aspects does the bill ignore? What should we be looking at, improving or monitoring?

[LCol (Ret'd) Rory Fowler]

With your permission, Mr. Savard‑Tremblay, I will answer in English.

You've asked me a question that I'm not going to be able to answer in two minutes, but I will say a couple of things.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

You can start answering it. I'll come back to this in the next round of questions, if necessary.

[LCol (Ret'd) Rory Fowler]

You've asked my colleague Colonel Drapeau about the inspector general. I just want to offer something. The vice-chief of the defence staff has studied this on several occasions, and it dates back 20 years, looking at the possibility of an inspector general. There's been profound study on it. I ought to know, because I was the one who wrote the paper 20 years ago about the inspector general. If you really want more information about the possibility of having an inspector general, you can ask the vice-chief of the defence staff about what they've done about that.

With respect to changes to Bill C-11, my fundamental problem with Bill C-11 is that it's not addressing the core issue that brings us all here today, and that core issue is accountability. At its fundamental nature, all it is doing is deferring accountability; it's shifting accountability.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Thank you, Mr. Fowler.

We have member's time with Ms. Gallant at this point.

Ms. Gallant, you have up to five minutes.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CAF members with whom I've spoken, who tried to seek justice after sexual assault, are not presented with a choice of using the civilian system versus the military system. I can think of a specific case.

Is it the initial reporting to the chain of command or the military police that directs them to the military system versus civilian? I can think of a case in particular where the victim did approach the OPP but was refused. She was told that JAG was in charge and that she had subjectively consented that the case be held through the military.

[LCol (Ret'd) Rory Fowler]

Ms. Gallant, is that for me?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Yes, Mr. Fowler, because you're the one who gave this revelation on their having a choice.

[LCol (Ret'd) Rory Fowler]

They do have a choice, and it was wrong of the OPP—if it was the OPP—to tell the complainant that. That is a problem.

Some complainants also think they have to go to the military police. I suspect that's less the case now because of the notoriety of the discussion over the past several years. I've encountered individuals who thought they had to report it to the military police.

There's a flip side as well. There are people who are now being told that they need to report it to the civilian police, but they insist on reporting it to the military police, because they would rather it go to the military police. There are any number of reasons why a complainant, for good reasons or bad reasons, would want the military police to investigate.

If we have civilian police forces in a circumstance where there is concurrent jurisdiction, as there is now, telling complainants and survivors that they can't bring it to a civilian police force, yes, I absolutely agree that action needs to be taken to ensure that they're not misinforming complainants and survivors. That doesn't mean that Bill C-11 is a solution, because all Bill C-11 is doing is depriving them of the option of going to the military chain of command.

Remember that Bill C-11 will take away the jurisdiction of the code of service discipline. It won't take away the responsibility of the Canadian Forces chain of command to maintain a disciplined force. All it's going to do is remove from them a fundamental tool that they currently use—until recently. Then they're going to turn to other tools that are ill-suited for that, which are probably going to abuse the rights of the respondents in those matters and probably not satisfy the complainants either.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

You mentioned that the ultimate problem is a problem of leadership and a failure to hold the leadership accountable. If we look to the case of General Vance, it was the refusal of the minister to accept the case, and ultimately we learned that it was the executive deniability afforded to the Prime Minister that drew that case to a close.

Given the ultimate responsibility for accountability going to the minister of the government, how could Bill C-11 be changed to encompass that and ensure that the military leadership be held accountable?

[LCol (Ret'd) Rory Fowler]

The reality is that it's not going to be Bill C-11 that holds ministers accountable. In our parliamentary system of responsible government, the minister is held accountable by Parliament, and the minister's responsibility is to hold the chief of the defence staff and anyone under the minister's responsibility accountable. It falls to the minister.

I don't know the full details of what actually transpired between General Vance and the minister of the day, and I probably never will, but if, in a responsible government, a minister of national defence is informed of alleged wrongdoing by the chief of the defence staff, the minister would then take appropriate action. That falls to the minister, and it's not for Bill C-11 to correct that.

What I would suggest is that we've already seen circumstances of the Minister of National Defence issuing direction to both the Canadian Forces provost marshal and the director of military prosecutions in a manner inconsistent with what the National Defence Act lays out. Direction to the DMP is supposed to flow through the judge advocate general. Direction to the Canadian Forces provost marshal is supposed to flow through the chief of the defence staff and vice-chief of the defence staff.

If we're not holding senior leaders, up to and including the Minister of National Defence, accountable for their actions and decisions, particularly when they are inconsistent with the National Defence Act, then no legislation is going to do that, because ministers are held accountable by Parliament and by the Prime Minister.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Thank you, Mr. Fowler.

Thank you, Ms. Gallant.

Mr. Malette, you have up to five minutes.

[Chris Malette, Liberal, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

My questions are for Professor MacKenzie and Ms. Duval-Lantoine.

I think we could agree that institutionally, things have changed for the better. We did improve the culture change within the institution, but it requires ongoing work.

Recommendation five from Justice Arbour is about getting these types of cases outside the chain of command to increase trust. Before 1998, the prosecution, as we know, was in the civilian system. This is why recommendation five proposes that the civilian justice system should be handling these cases.

Are there any additional policy or oversight mechanisms you would recommend to ensure that victims are not retraumatized when seeking help, and how do we institute them? I think rebuilding trust in the system is fundamental in all of this.

That's to whoever would like to lead.

[Charlotte Duval-Lantoine]

I can.

I think we're forgetting a couple of key facts here. Now, compared to 1998, we have a “Declaration of Victims Rights”. Victims or complainants, whatever we want to call them, now have a right to a victims liaison officer, who can support them in getting the key information necessary as the process goes through the military justice system. It is very important to underline that, because the context in which we find ourselves in 2025 is very different from what it was in 1998 on that front.

In terms of the changes of jurisdiction, I want to emphasize that Criminal Code offences of a sexual nature are not the only offences that can happen within the military on Canadian soil that are being prosecuted by the civilian system only. We're talking about murders, manslaughters and cases related to child abuse as well.

As one last thing, I want to underline what Madam Arbour said about recommendation five, which is that giving the choice to victims to choose the jurisdiction in which they find themselves puts them “in an untenable position.” If the case doesn't go their way, then they find themselves retraumatized and with the possible question, “Did I make the wrong choice here?” That creates severe psychological distress to a victim.

[Chris Malette, Liberal, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Thank you.

Professor MacKenzie, please go ahead on the same point.

[Prof. Megan MacKenzie]

I would agree with those points.

I would just reiterate that the idea that having a choice is somehow better for survivors is actually inaccurate for most of the victims and survivors that I've spoken to. In the moments following an incident of sexual violence, it is very difficult for a victim to understand the consequences and the complexity of that choice. The default position for many survivors is to work within the military justice system, not because they think it's better but because that's the system they're in. It's the institution they trust.

Many survivors, after that process, wished that they had been given a different option and are not satisfied with the choice.

We know from that same research I mentioned that there are examples of plea bargains within the military justice system being used in cases of serious sexual assault. These allow individuals to plead guilty to lesser military-specific disciplinary offences, like disgraceful conduct, to avoid a Criminal Code conviction.

For me, I think this idea that giving victims or survivors a choice is somehow “adding” is a misnomer. It does not enhance their experience.

In terms of other options, I think we've had decades of declarations of zero tolerance for sexual violence within the Canadian Armed Forces. I think an additional measure would be stricter responses to “low-level” sexual violence and sexual harassment behaviour, which are often the behaviours that create a permissive culture for greater incidents of sexual violence. I would like to see an actualization of zero tolerance.