National Defence Committee on Nov. 18th, 2025

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 13 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence.

Pursuant to the motion adopted on October 23, the committee is meeting to resume its consideration of Bill C-11, an act to amend the National Defence Act and other acts.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person, and some are attending remotely using the Zoom application.

Before we continue, I will ask participants to consult the guidelines on the table to help prevent audio and feedback incidents and to protect the health of the interpreters. I would also remind the witnesses and the members to please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking.

For those participating via video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic, and please mute yourself when you're not speaking. For those on Zoom, at the bottom of your screen you can select the appropriate channel for interpretation: floor, English or French. For those in the room, please use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

Again, all comments should be addressed through the chair.

If you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can. We appreciate your patience on that issue.

Before we begin with our witnesses, I'd like to note—and I think you're all aware—that we are discussing, at times, some uncomfortable experiences related to sexual misconduct. This may trigger sensitivities and distress, so it's important to recognize that these are difficult discussions. I'm sure we'll all be compassionate in our conversations and questions. If you feel that you need some help, please advise the clerk.

I'd now like to introduce our witnesses.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

I have a point of order, if I may.

Before you introduce our witnesses, we have three witnesses up for one hour and then one witness in camera in the second hour. I think, in fairness to the three witnesses here in public, it would be good if we could listen to them and meet with them for an hour and a half and then reserve half an hour for in camera.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

With the agreement of the members of the committee, it was our intent to extend the period of time in which the three members would speak and to then provide adequate time for the in camera component, which I was proceeding to do. If that's okay with everyone, we'll provide possibly an additional 20 minutes or so, because then I have to accommodate the transfer into it.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

That's perfect. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

The witnesses before us are Dr. Karen Breeck, a retired major and a medical doctor, and Afton David, senior legal counsel.

Bruce MacGregor, retired colonel and former director of military prosecutions, is joining by video conference.

I'd now like to invite you, Dr. Breeck, to make your opening statement. You have up to five minutes.

[Karen Breeck, Medical Doctor, As an Individual]

Thank you for inviting me.

My name is Dr. Karen Breeck. I'm a retired Canadian Armed Forces medical officer. I've testified before this committee and at veterans affairs, status of women and the Senate on issues related to sexual misconduct and women veterans' health. Please consider my past testimony alongside today's.

As the committee already has my October 23 Hill Times letter, I would like to augment it with nine comments and three recommendations, focused only on the bill's proposed mandatory civilian referral of all sexual offences. My hope today is to keep our discussions focused on the agency, equity and well-being of the humans impacted by these workplace-related events.

First, the military of 2025 is not the military of 2015. Many problems identified in the Deschamps and Arbour reports no longer exist. Today the chain of command has extensive awareness and training. The sexual misconduct support and resource centre is fully operational. Victims' rights legislation is in force. Independent legal and victim supports exist. The duty to report has been removed. What evidence still shows that recommendation five remains the best way forward?

Second, the bill removes choice. Mandating the transfer of all 28 listed sexual offence charges, regardless of severity, is not people-centred. It will reduce reporting. Many would prefer a quick internal military resolution, especially for low-risk cases. I've spoken to many people who fear being labelled disloyal or overreacting if they were to involve civilian police, particularly for the lower-risk sexual assault cases—things like an unwanted pat on someone's fully clothed buttocks.

Third, the research is clear that resolving the lowest-risk, non-violent adult cases—to give another example, an unwanted kiss to the cheek—in a timely and efficient manner is essential to preventing escalations in unwanted workplace behaviours. Keeping the option for these types of low-risk cases to remain within the military discipline system can benefit everybody.

Fourth, accused members receive free legal counsel within the military system, but not if charged in the civilian system. This inequity risks unequal access to justice for the accused through forced self-representation or significant personal debt.

Fifth, potential complainants worry about an already strained civilian police and court system. Access to federal funding, if required, might help police forces be more willing to accept and complete complex military cases.

Sixth, the bill relies too heavily on legal lenses. It is missing survivor, indigenous justice, gender-based violence, public health, occupational health and safety perspectives. The 75 recommendations from schedules N and O of the sexual misconduct class action should also have informed this bill. Please add both reports to your considerations.

Seventh, I am saddened by the absence of NDP voices on this committee. They historically have been strong allies on this file. Please include Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen's remarks of September 19, 2024, on Bill C-66 in your considerations.

Eighth, there is no evaluation framework. Without one, how can we measure justice or culture change? I encourage that all government-collected data since 2021 on civilian referrals be included in your review on how to best develop a robust evaluation framework moving forward.

Ninth, the military is set up to train how we fight. If the military justice system is good enough for deployments, it should remain, at least in part, an option in Canada.

In closing, military justice does require reform, but reforms must reflect the realities and the lived experiences of 2025, not 2015. Together, we can make Bill C-11 a landmark bill. I recommend that the bill advance, but with the following changes.

One, in proposed paragraph 70(d), exclude low-risk, non-violent adult cases so as to allow the complainant choice for their jurisdictional management.

Two, add federal funding for defence counsel and for complex police or court processes.

Three, add mandatory data collection and a two-year review of outcomes and satisfactions for complainants and accused before making these changes permanent.

Thank you. I welcome your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Thank you.

Ms. David, you now have the opportunity to make your opening statement. You have up to five minutes as well.

[Afton David, Senior Legal Counsel, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, committee members, for your time.

I come to you today as a lawyer with a keen interest in matters of military justice. My interest stems from my own service as a reservist and from my family's service. I'm a proud military spouse, sister, cousin and soldier. This means that I am also a woman, a lawyer and a soldier. I contend that this provides me with a unique perspective.

I have the benefit of appearing at the third iteration of witness committees—or fourth, perhaps—for this bill. I also have the benefit of several comprehensive reviews of various aspects of the military justice system.

I welcome the bill's efforts to implement important recommendations from independent reviewers, but I urge this committee to treat it as one step in a much broader program of reform required to restore trust, protect victims, safeguard the accused and change culture across the CAF.

Bill C-11 effectively nullifies the code of service discipline's jurisdiction over Criminal Code sexual offences that occur in Canada, rather than transferring jurisdiction. That decision risks passing responsibility to the civilian system without resolving the systemic causes that produce a loss of confidence in military justice in the first place. Culture change and leadership accountability must accompany any legislative change, because courts martial are only the apex of a system in which most matters are handled by unit-level processes.

I will share the key recommendations I make in my written submissions for the benefit of Canadians listening in on this committee. You'll quickly see that I'm not reinventing the wheel. I'm merely reiterating recommendations made by some very intelligent and legally astute Canadians before me.

One, make it clear that authority is not being transferred. Instead, the bill removes the military justice system's power to deal with sexual offences that happen in Canada under the Criminal Code. I further recommend including a sunset clause in this particular amendment.

Two, to echo recommendations made by Madam Justice Arbour, mental health supports must be expanded and made independent of the chain of command for serving members and veterans in order to aid in prevention and early intervention and to reduce recidivism. I also strongly recommend that this government follow through with the commitments it made to explore alternative care for veterans, including research into psychedelic-assisted therapy. CAF leadership needs to be given the tools to guide their subordinates in the right direction. They do not need another 1-800 number.

Three, I agree with my fellow witnesses that there should be a limit on the time taken to fill Governor in Council appointments for key military justice roles. This must be paired with meaningful consequences for prolonged vacancies.

Four, I recommend that this committee strengthen judicial independence by removing military judges from the application of the code of service discipline. I also recommend expanding military judge eligibility to include serving and former members with at least 10 years of service at the bar and bar membership. I strongly support the creation of a permanent court martial to reduce ad hoc inefficiencies and independence issues.

Five, prohibit commanders and statutory decision makers from imposing administrative measures on accused, thereby effectively adjudicating criminal matters before the courts complete the processes.

Six, remember that both victims and accused are entitled to fundamental rights and safeguards. I recommend ensuring that access to justice is maintained for accused members by providing defence counsel for service members charged in civilian courts. I further recommend that this committee amend the bill to also guarantee the right to counsel in summary hearings.

Seven, appoint an accused liaison officer, akin to a victim liaison officer, to coordinate between the accused, the chain of command and civilian processes.

Bill C-11 contains important and constructive reforms. I appreciate the legislature's and this committee's careful work to implement recommendations from independent reviews.

I offer these additional observations with humility. The bill will be most effective only if paired with sustained culture change, timely and accountable appointments, protections for judicial independence, independent mental health supports, and concrete measures to safeguard both the victim and the accused, including access to counsel and fair process for the accused by virtue of our fair and democratic society.

I recognize that some recommendations will require time, resources and careful drafting. I respectfully urge the committee to consider them as efficiencies, because legislative and regulatory fixes now will certainly be more cost-effective than relying on litigation to correct gaps later.

Thank you for your time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Thank you, Ms. David.

I'll now go to Colonel MacGregor.

You have five minutes.

[Colonel, Retired) Bruce MacGregor (Former Director of Military Prosecutions, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you and to the committee.

You have my bio before you. I won't go over that. I'll get right to my points.

The independence of the director of military prosecutions, as Mr. Justice Fish has noted, is imperative going forward and is in line with the Cawthorne decision in the Supreme Court of Canada, of which I was a part a number of years ago. The appointment for a non-renewable term of seven years is appropriate and is consistent with that of the director of public prosecutions of the PPSC.

A GIC appointment is an appropriate level for the appointment, but the bill should be amended to ensure that the DMP annual report be tabled before Parliament each year, similar to the “JAG Annual Report”. This will ensure that the DMP has transparency and unfettered access to illustrate any encroachment on his or her independence from the chain of command, the JAG or the minister.

The disciplinary committee for the DMP has proposed that if the DMP is found to have acted inappropriately, the committee should recommend removal, not suspension—nothing else. The DMP is a commanding officer in the Canadian Forces. If he has acted outside the professional bounds of his duties, he cannot do that job and must be removed, not suspended.

An acting DMP requires more than 90 days, for various reasons—operational, health, etc.—so the power should be given to the minister to grant an extension with written notice to the GIC for any extended period for an acting DMP.

The power to give instructions to the DMP by the JAG on individual cases should be transferred to the minister and should be gazetted. The minister's prosecutorial role is confirmed in the Cawthorne case, in which I also had a part.

With respect to Justice Arbour's recommendation number five, the removal of jurisdiction on sexual offences, I have to note that Justice Arbour's recommendation is not entirely consistent with the previous recommendations of Justices Deschamps and Fish, in Deschamps recommendation number eight and Fish recommendation number 68.

Bill C-25, back in 1998, provided jurisdiction to prosecute sexual offences in the military, but the power to investigate by the military police was already extant. This recommendation takes away the military police power that has existed for decades. Admittedly, the military justice system has flaws with respect to protecting victims and has been slow to move, but it has made significant strides since the Deschamps report, which is much more consistent with the equally flawed criminal justice system.

The expectation that victims would be completely satisfied with the criminal justice system is aspirational and not realistic. Many allegations of sexual assault—if not most—within the military are what we would characterize not as rape but as what may be considered as a lower level of physical violence. Saying this is in no way an attempt to minimize the impact on victims.

The criminal justice system is overburdened and fraught with delay and lack of funding, which causes civilian police and prosecutors to triage cases, which will not guarantee military cases going forward, no matter how important the case is to the victims and/or to the military discipline.

The criminal justice system has a different purpose from the military justice system. The military justice system's purpose, as recognized by the Supreme Court and in the National Defence Act, is to promote discipline, efficiency and morale in the Canadian Forces and to make it more operationally effective.

Cases heard in the civilian courts are physically away from the bases or units where the incidents happened and out of view of the Canadian Forces members who need to hear the evidence and the sentence, if applicable. By having them away, it reduces the goals of discipline and transparency. Cases that do not go ahead in the civilian justice system will likely be dealt with administratively versus in public, significantly reducing the minister's goal of transparency.

The stories of victims will not be heard in the environment where the victims wish to return and to be treated with respect, casting a shadow over their return. Taking the choice away from an informed victim is paternalistic and a further disenfranchisement of a victim who has already been rendered powerless by the perpetrator. The DMP and their team of prosecutors are more available to victims throughout the process, as can be seen by the DMP's pre- and post-charge policies and by the DMP's personal history of sharing knowledge and training with the SMSRC and victims' groups.

The SMSRC has been provided significant resources and is a Cadillac support for victims going into the system, both before and in court, which will not be dealt with consistently across all civil courts across the 10 provinces and three territories.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Colonel MacGregor, we need to wrap it up. Your time is up, so I'll let you wrap up for a few seconds.

[Col (Ret'd) Bruce MacGregor]

Protection of the victim and the evidence is enhanced where the chain of command has some information, vetted by the DMP. No information will be available to the chain of command if it's from the civil prosecutor or the civil police. Those will be roadblocks to information, which hurt the ability for the chain of command to protect victims while also conducting operations.

Those are my comments. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Thank you, Colonel MacGregor.

We're going to start our first round of questions. We have up to six minutes for each questioner.

We're starting with Ms. Gallant.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Through you to Colonel MacGregor, in 2020, four charges against Chief Military Judge Mario Dutil were withdrawn. In Bill C-11, we have clause 11, which removes the ability for judges to be charged with having committed a service infraction.

Do you think that makes the military justice system stronger, or should that indeed be removed from the bill?

[Col (Ret'd) Bruce MacGregor]

I don't want to necessarily comment on the specific case, but they are still a military member. The chief military judge is a colonel. I do feel that if there is a Criminal Code offence that they have committed, they should be liable to investigation and prosecution if the evidence warrants.

With respect to a disciplinary offence or a service offence, I would be reticent to say completely that it should be taken away.

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

As the former director of military prosecutions, how confident will you be in the military justice system once National Defence can influence cases done by the JAG?

[Col (Ret'd) Bruce MacGregor]

Do you mean that National Defence or the minister could influence?

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

I mean the minister.

[Col (Ret'd) Bruce MacGregor]

In the Cawthorne case in 2016, the minister is quite properly placed within a prosecution system. In the Cawthorne case, he was properly placed as the person I had to go to in order for us to go ahead with appeals to the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada or the Supreme Court of Canada.

If the minister is acting without partisan political purposes, then the minister is quite properly placed within a military justice system. If he or she acts with political or partisan purposes, then that is totally inappropriate.

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

In your opinion, would the Minister of National Defence then have to be a lawyer?

[Col (Ret'd) Bruce MacGregor]

No.

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

As the former DMP, what concerns do you have, if any, now that the office term has been extended to seven years without eligibility for reappointment? Are you on board with that?

[Col (Ret'd) Bruce MacGregor]

Yes, I am. It's entirely consistent with the DPP.

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

From your assessment of Bill C-11, what shortcomings could you identify to this committee that the government has overlooked, if any?

[Col (Ret'd) Bruce MacGregor]

As I said in my opening comments, I'm concerned with the changeover to the minister's being able to give specific instructions on an individual case. That should be gazetted. That's not in the bill.

Also, there's nothing to reference the DMP's annual report being tabled to Parliament through the minister. As far as I'm concerned, it is mandatory for the DMP to have that ability to make contact with Parliament, now that they will be a GIC appointment, to say whether there have been improper actions or any concerns that they have with the military justice system.

I have a great concern with recommendation number five being fully implemented as it is in taking away the jurisdiction for the military justice system to be able to investigate and prosecute crimes of a sexual offence.