Evidence of meeting #12 for National Defence in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was forces.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Chris Malette Liberal Bay of Quinte, ON
Further to that, I've heard some comments from those in the forces that there's a concern that victims will lose access to trauma and mental health counselling once the changes to the systems are implemented.
Can you elaborate on this and perhaps in any way ease their concerns? Again, this goes back to trust and confidence in the system.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Charles Sousa
Chris, I apologize. The time is up.
It's a good question. If we can get a response in writing, maybe that will facilitate.
November 6th, 2025 / 9:20 a.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
I want to thank all the witnesses for being here. It's been compelling testimony.
Mr. Fowler, in your commentary, essentially what you're saying is Bill C‑11 deprives victims of choice and deprives the accused of access to justice. It's depriving the military police, the Canadian Forces national investigation service, the defence counsel services, the Canadian Armed Forces prosecutor's office and the JAG of opportunities to expand their skills and get more repetition to get better at what they do, and it fails to improve accountability of leadership.
Is this just an exercise, then, in passing the buck by pushing this problem off onto the civilian courts, so that leadership and the minister himself can just say that it's not their problem anymore?
LCol (Ret'd) Rory Fowler
To a large extent, it is.
Part of the difficulty here is that the Canadian Forces are still going to have jurisdiction in certain circumstances over sexual offences; it's just that they're going to have less experience with it.
I heard, in meeting number 10, various spokespeople for the Canadian Forces say, “Don't worry; we're going to send people on courses.” That's great. They're already being sent on courses like that, but there is no substitute for actually doing the job. Any young lawyer can tell you that they can go on as many courses as they want, but you step into that courtroom and it's a different thing.
It's counterintuitive. We're going to increase accountability and we're going to increase confidence in the leadership of the Canadian Forces by removing from their jurisdiction a key element of maintaining discipline in the Canadian Forces. We're going to remove from the code of service discipline jurisdiction over sexual offences, but we're still going to call upon them from time to time when it arises outside Canada to prosecute such matters before courts martial, and it's going to be okay. That's just counterintuitive.
More importantly, if our concern—and I think it is the concern of everybody here—is that we want the Canadian Forces to be more accountable and we want the leadership of the Canadian Forces to take not just procedurally fair but reasonable, decisive and timely action, by taking tools away from them, that's not going to be the result. We're going to be back here in 20 years or 25 years—well, maybe not all of us—talking about the same thing just like we did back in the 1990s.
I was serving in the 1990s when there was a hue and cry for the Canadian Forces to take responsibility for ensuring that members of the Canadian Forces who were victims of sexual misconduct had their day in court. Remember, we're not just talking about sexual misconduct. What about people who are victims of racism? They're still going to be seeking justice in the code of service discipline. What about other people who are marginalized in the Canadian Forces?
If the goal is to improve leadership and if the goal is to improve accountability, that can only be done by holding those leaders accountable. I'll give you an analogy in a military context. If you have a soldier who is incapable of using their service rifle effectively, do you then take that rifle away and have them use something less efficient, or do you teach them how to use that rifle properly, supervise them to make sure they're using it properly and take action if they don't? If we agree that the latter probably makes more sense, then Bill C-11 doesn't make sense.
If we want the leadership of the Canadian Forces to ensure that everybody in the Canadian Forces is treated fairly, is listened to and has a voice, then you have to give them the tools to do so. When they fail to use those tools, you have to hold them accountable, and that goes all the way up to the Minister of National Defence.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
As you mentioned, in the case of former CDS Vance, the minister refused to accept the evidence that was presented by another subordinate to the minister. Minister Sajjan was responsible for the ombudsman who reported to him as well as the CDS, and when presented with the information, he refused to accept the evidence and instead did a cover-up.
LCol (Ret'd) Rory Fowler
Mr. Bezan, all I know is what's public, and if there was a failure of leadership at that level, then something like Bill C-11 wouldn't fix it.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Charles Sousa
I'm sorry, Mr. Bezan.
Thank you, both.
Ms. Romanado, you have up to five minutes.
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Through you, I'd like to thank the witnesses for being here.
I want to start with Professor MacKenzie and follow up on what Lieutenant-Colonel Fowler mentioned. In 1998, the investigation and prosecution was moved from the civilian to the military system, yet in your testimony you mentioned that approximately 80% of military sexual trauma victims do not actually report. Is that accurate?
Prof. Megan MacKenzie
Based on the research we have, that's the estimation. It's based on the gap between how many people anonymously report experiencing sexual violence versus how many people come forward. It's almost impossible to know exactly how many service members experience sexual violence and don't come forward, but that's how we estimate that number.
That's very common. That's a consistent rate across western defence forces around the world.
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
On that note, I want to really focus on survivors and victims because there are probably thousands of people who have served in the Canadian Armed Forces and were victims of sexual harassment or sexual assault and never reported.
I'll put it in a different frame. Imagine you're working in another workplace and you are sexually assaulted at work. You bring it to your employer and your employer says that they'll investigate and they'll take care of looking into it, but their own subordinate is the actual perpetrator. Do you honestly think that employee would be getting justice? I don't think so.
I can understand why victims want to have the independence of not worrying about their career progression, not worrying about retaliation and not worrying about having to testify in front of their colleagues about what has happened to them.
I have children serving in the Canadian Armed Forces. I hope they never have to experience this, but the reality is that the current system isn't working. That is why three justices have recommended that we move this from the military system to the civilian system. It's to bring back that independence and to bring the opportunity for victims to come forward, tell their stories and get justice.
Professor Duval-Lantoine, I see your hand up, so I'd like to provide you with the opportunity to chip in here.
Vice-President, Ottawa Operations, Canadian Global Affairs Institute
Thank you.
I'm very flattered, but I am not a professor. I'm a Ph.D. candidate. I'll get there one day maybe, but not yet.
Vice-President, Ottawa Operations, Canadian Global Affairs Institute
Absolutely.
One thing that I would say, which would bring us all together on the disagreement we seem to have with retired Lieutenant-Colonel Fowler, is the fact that even going to the civilian justice system will not necessarily protect victims from retaliation from their chain of command. It will not necessarily protect them from being pushed aside if they come forward because the culture is such that if you speak against one of your teammates, you're betraying the team.
The framework that the military is pursuing on culture change, to go back to Mr. Malette's comments earlier.... They're founding it on character, which means that the “good guy” idea, when someone comes forward with an allegation of sexual misconduct, is still very much there.
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
On that note, I think we can all agree that Bill C-11 is a part of the solution. It is not the panacea. It is not going to solve everything.
Lieutenant-Colonel Fowler, you talked about the failure of leadership. That is something we also have to deal with. Changing culture is something we're trying to deal with.
Bill C-11 is a component of that, which, I think we can all agree, will solve some things. It will bring the ability for survivors to get justice in an independent...and bring some level of confidence back to the system. It's not going to solve everything, we agree, but it is a start. It is a recommendation that we're doing, but there are other things that we can be doing and that we are working on.
Would you agree that is effective?
Mr. Drapeau, do you have any comments on that?
Col (Ret'd) Michel Drapeau
Bill C-11 is a jolt to the justice system. DND simply did not listen. There have been many stories on CBC and elsewhere on sexual assault. Until recently, Canadian Forces victims did not have access to the charter of rights for victim of crimes. They've argued that for a long while. There were just two types of society. The fact that we're moving to this is long overdue. The ship has sailed. Mr. Fowler is still yesterday's....
Now, let me talk about yesterday. In 1998, when Parliament decided to transfer jurisdiction of sexual assault to DND, there was not any discussion at the parliamentary committee levels. It was just done. I did a lot of research as to how and why this happened.
In an article published in a New Zealand law journal, I found that the judge advocate general mentioned that the key element they used to argue for this change was that DND could do it faster. I would agree with them. Most courts martial normally don't take such a long gestation period to see the light of day. In the civilian courts, sometimes it's going to take four, five or six years before it comes to trial.
Hasty justice is not a reason to give jurisdiction to the military.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Charles Sousa
Mr. Drapeau, thank you.
Mr. Savard-Tremblay, you have up to two and a half minutes.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC
Mr. Fowler, I don't know if you remember the question I asked you earlier.
You said you would need more than two minutes to answer. I'll give you a chance to finish your answer, if you wish.
LCol (Ret'd) Rory Fowler
Thank you.
What I'd like to do, Mr. Savard-Tremblay, is just build upon what my colleagues have mentioned because I think this will also answer your question. We have to remember that Bill C-25 didn't transfer jurisdiction to the code of service discipline. Bill C-25 created concurrent jurisdiction. Contrary to the perception of some people, in the past several years, the Canadian Forces have demonstrated a great deal of attention to allegations of sexual misconduct. Those allegations are taken extremely seriously, and often the chain of command will not wait for either the code of service discipline or the civilian criminal justice system to proceed before taking administrative action. We're seeing that happen right now, and we will see it happen if Bill C-11 becomes law.
Just this week, I received information from a client where their chain of command—the commander of 2 Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group—has requested an expedited administrative review, notwithstanding that criminal proceedings have not yet been resolved. These are criminal proceedings that the Canadian Forces expressly transferred to the civilian criminal justice system, but the chain of command is not going to wait. They're going to proceed with an administrative review of the very allegations that are still before a criminal court of jurisdiction. I will guarantee you that if Bill C-11 becomes law, we will see that happen significantly, where the respondent will not have access to justice because, first of all, they don't have disclosure, and secondly, the Canadian Forces will be making a significant career decision before the court has even spoken.
I absolutely agree with you that victims and survivors of sexual misconduct must be given a voice. Everybody in the process must be treated fairly, must be treated reasonably and must be given voice. What we're seeing, however, is the pendulum swinging the other way so that victims and survivors of sexual misconduct are rightfully being given a voice, while those people who are respondents, who ought to benefit from the presumption of innocence—because that is how the Canadian criminal justice system functions—are not being given that benefit. They're being treated as guilty until proven innocent.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Charles Sousa
Thank you, Mr. Fowler.
Mr. Bezan, you have up to five minutes and a little extra for our compromise.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
Thank you. I appreciate that. I got cut off prematurely before.
I just want to continue digging in. Lieutenant-Colonel Fowler, you mentioned the situation where former Lieutenant-General Cadieu had his case thrown out because of the situation of military police dragging their feet in sharing evidence with the Crown.
Is there anything in this legislation that will actually compel military police to give disclosure without unreasonable delay? Proposed section 70.1 and proposed subsections 70.2(1) to (4) are almost contradictory. The bill says that they should be handing over evidence at the earliest possible time, but they get to determine when the earliest possible time is. Is that not the case?
LCol (Ret'd) Rory Fowler
If we look at it, in answer to an earlier question that was posed, we have to remember that when military police, particularly the Canadian Forces national investigation service, is investigating allegations, it would be a misnomer and a mis-characterization to suggest that's akin to an employer investigating. Independence of the military police is not an issue and has not been an issue for some time. They are sufficiently independent. The problem with the military police has been incompetence, and I think Colonel Drapeau would agree with me on that. Regarding enforcing competence, we've had a Military Police Complaints Commission for 25-plus years, and we haven't seen much improvement in the competence of the military police.
As you've pointed out, there are several provisions within Bill C-11 that call for certain timelines. Some of those are express and some of those are, as you've mentioned, Mr. Bezan, sort of vague, like “as soon as feasible”. There is no concrete, material consequence for any timeline. As I said before, any limitation period without a concrete and manifest consequence for a failure to meet it isn't in fact a limitation period. It's a suggestion—that's all it is. We've seen delay with respect to disclosure. We've seen delay with respect to presenting reports to Parliament, and we've seen delay in grievances. There is no real limitation period. The oldest grievance in the Canadian Forces is over 19 and a half years old, and I ought to know, because it's mine.
If we do not have actual consequences for failure, then you're not going to have any enforcement, and Bill C-11 doesn't really put in any consequences for any failures.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
Colonel-Maitre Drapeau, you had your hand up.