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.

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

Since your retirement as the DMP, would you characterize the state of our military justice system as being in a worse position than when you left?

[Col (Ret'd) Bruce MacGregor]

Well, I'm very concerned, because I'm well aware of the professionalism of the actors within the military justice system, including prosecutors, defence and the judges.

With the transfer of cases of sexual offences to the civilian system, they are not getting the attention there that they would be getting within our system. That's a fact, and we take it very seriously.

As I said, we have a different purpose from the criminal justice system. Ours is to promote discipline, efficiency, morale and operational effectiveness. The role of the criminal justice system is to put the evidence before the court, see if this is a criminal offence and then deal with it that way.

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

In your observations, do you think the current senior leadership within the CAF is in a better or worse state than when you retired from your position when it comes to combatting military misconduct?

[Col (Ret'd) Bruce MacGregor]

I wouldn't want to comment on that. I'm certainly not in a position to. I haven't followed it nearly as much as I would have while I was in uniform, so I'm really not at liberty to comment on that.

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

Are there any other parts—

Did you just cut me off, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Yes. You have two seconds.

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

Okay. Have you heard of any complaints about the contents of Bill C-11 and its inadequacies in terms of reforming the military justice system? Are you aware of any?

[Col (Ret'd) Bruce MacGregor]

No. All I have done is follow what your committee is doing, and I've listened to other people's input and followed some of the speeches in Parliament. That's about it, and I've formed my own opinions.

It's also based on my extensive knowledge with the heads of prosecution, the International Association of Prosecutors, my former prosecution role, my former defence role and my former role as a federal prosecutor, agent and municipal prosecutor. I've dealt with police for probably about 35 years, so my opinion is based on all of that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Thank you, Colonel.

Thank you, Ms. Gallant.

Viviane Lapointe, you have up to six minutes, and I'll be counting.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Dr. Breeck, regarding the Hill Times op-ed that you mentioned in your opening remarks, you wrote about how women veterans have often been made invisible through gender-blind systems and legacy policies built on the assumption that a soldier is a soldier is a soldier. What helps ensure that women veterans' experiences and needs are genuinely seen and understood when institutions are undergoing major reforms like the one proposed in C-11?

[Karen Breeck]

Thank you for that important question.

I'm also acknowledging that I'm at NDDN today and not at ACVA. I think therein lies part of what—in my now 35 years of being in this field as well—we constantly see as this mother-father separation that consistently tends to cause the slowness in actually moving stuff forward.

One of the questions would be, how can women veterans be seen? Are we part of the defence team, or are we not part of the defence team? It seems like that changes depending on the political wish or needs of the day.

If it were recognized that we're part of the defence team, we would be a regular part of these discussions, especially being aware that we are now not in uniform and are able to speak in a very different way from how we could while we were still in uniform. I think that's part of the motivation for a lot of us to be at these kinds of events, because we know that our peers still in uniform do not have that same privilege to speak truth to power, so it doesn't allow people like women veterans to regularly be viewed as part of these discussions.

Again, the two committees are separate, and for many years we have wondered why, for certain topics like this, which clearly cross boundaries, we cannot have—I don't know the right words for it—a subcommittee that's half NDDN and half ACVA. Then we could actually get to the end of some of these things instead of doing half of the problem at NDDN and then waiting and doing half of the problem at ACVA, so that nothing actually happens.

Until we can actually acknowledge that the problem crosses the two departments, especially for women, I think a lot of our issues aren't necessarily so focused on what percentage of money we're getting for disabilities.

We had injuries related to equipment, and we can fix the equipment. We want it to be better for the women behind us. We want it to be better for the women who are signing up today—the daughters and granddaughters—in that the system has thought of them and has expected them, that they're not the anomaly, and that they're not given male equipment and told to suck it up. When they have injuries, we don't want them to be told that those injuries aren't recognized. We don't want them to be misdiagnosed and told they're not considered service-related injuries when they hit Veterans Affairs. That's still, unfortunately, our state of affairs.

I would challenge, especially.... I'm really excited to see that there are people who have such dedication to these topics, who are part of the bases, who have kids in the military and who have lived experience. This is a very exciting committee group here, to me. We can do better. We can do it differently, and we can actually fix some of these problems instead of handing them off to each other.

Most veterans I know only come back over and over again because we're trying to make it better for those behind us. Empowering us to have that voice, to be heard as part of the defence team on a more regular basis, to me, would be one of the really easy ways.

In case anyone isn't aware, there was a one-year study on the experience of Canadian women veterans done by the ACVA committee. It was tabled, and we actually had our celebration in this room. This is my first time in this room since June 12, 2024, when all parties signed 42 recommendations of things that we can do.

Again, if you look at those recommendations, my count is that about 50% of them cannot be done without CAF and DND. There is a significant overlap, so we need to work together on these issues. That would be my short answer.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Also in your opening comments, you provided some recommendations of changes that you would like to see in Bill C-11. In one of those, you spoke about adding mandatory data collection. Can you expand on that?

[Karen Breeck]

There's a medical phrase that might be appropriate for this time: “The surgery was successful, but the patient died.”

In my lived experience of now over 35 years of watching, for the most part, women doing what they were ordered to do when we still had the duty to report, they had no choice. They were ordered to come forward with certain issues, but following and doing what they were ordered to do over and over again ended their careers. It ended their health. It ended their relationships. Even if two years, three years or four years later, somehow something happens and the justice system says, “Yes, you were correct,” I've yet to see a situation in which they felt like they had won.

Again, the justice system doesn't necessarily provide justice. Even if you did go forward and lay charges, and even if those charges were successful, in my lived experience, for the most part, people still felt like they had lost.

How are we capturing that? It isn't just how many cases go to civilian; it's also how many get carried forward, and then what the results are, but at what price? When we're in the military, it's very different. If I have outstanding legal issues, can I be moved? Can I go on my course? Can I get promoted? My entire career can come to a stop, and there is still sort of that scarlet A that you're doing something on the outside. You're doing something disloyal, because you're outside the family, out doing that civilian lawyer stuff, and nobody knows what's happening.

It still does impact your relationships within the military family. There is an ostracization, and there is social isolation. There is still such a price to be paid, because it is not a good fit with still having a successful career and still feeling like you belong as part of a unit in the military when you still have outstanding legal cases that often are years in the making.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Thank you.

Mr. Savard-Tremblay, you have up to six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for being with us today.

As you know, we are here today to study Bill C‑11 and propose any necessary amendments, so we welcome any suggestions you have. Then we can figure out how to make this bill better.

Ms. Breeck, in a letter published in The Hill Times in October, you said that reservists, rangers and cadets had largely been overlooked in the bill.

Why do you think that is?

[Karen Breeck]

If I understood the question correctly, it was on the bill and how it is impacting the rangers and the cadets.

I will not claim to have expertise on the legal inclusion or non-inclusion of them. I was using it mostly from the statements that were made by Lori Idlout of the NDP as part of the second speech on the documents. Those concerns from the NDP members were documented. It would be a legal issue of where that line is of who's covered and not covered. That's where I got that data from.

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

Does anyone else wish to answer?

[Afton David]

Mr. Chair, I can get back to the committee with a written response. I'm not able to provide an answer right now.

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

That would be very helpful.

[Afton David]

Very good. I'd be happy to.

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

In your letter, Ms. Breeck, you refer to Bill C‑11 as a 2015 solution brought forward in 2025. That's more or less what you said. That means the landscape has changed significantly.

You said earlier that even if the bill does go forward, the burden on those who have experienced these situations is significant. You also said that federal funding could help equip civilian police forces with the tools they need to handle more complex military cases fairly and effectively.

There have been two review commissions, and it's often said that the people who suffered these experiences have been extensively consulted. You don't think it's enough, though. Is that correct?

[Karen Breeck]

If I'm understanding the question correctly, we've already consulted a number of people, and we've had all these reports. Is it not enough?

I'd just like to comment, as someone who's been adjacent to all of those commissions and has been involved, including as a witness to them as well, that sometimes it appears that there's some cherry-picking of what was said and how it was said. Certainly, it's been my lived experience that during that time period especially, when there was a very united concern that we needed the cases moved to civilian.... What I keep hearing not included in that political discussion is the fact that we needed the cases moved to civilian because our rights were not the same at that time. It was only at such time that they were equivalent that it would be better to be coming back.

Again, the problem was duty to report. We had an obligation by law. We were potentially getting charged if we did not report, yet we had no supports when we reported. We had no legal access when we reported. We had no victims' rights when we reported. We didn't have an SMSRC when we reported. Under those circumstances, I think the community was fairly strong that we needed to move. Those were the conversations, in my memory, of what really helped force Deschamps and Arbour to feel so strongly on this.

Again, not knowing if it's possible, I personally would love to hear from those two amazing justices on where they sit under the present situation, because it's not the same military situation.

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

Would you like to add anything, Ms. David?

[Afton David]

Yes, if possible.

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

Of course.

[Afton David]

All the research I've done is in English, so I'm going to answer in English, if you don't mind.

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

That's fine.

[Afton David]

Just to dovetail on the topic of cherry-picking, Justice Fish's recommendation 68 is a temporary measure, and it reads as that. The idea is that the jurisdiction of those Criminal Code offences of a sexual nature is removed from the military justice system until the declaration of victims' rights is in place. I would submit that the declaration of victims' rights was put in place in, what, 2021? The report came out in 2021. I would further submit that military justice, with those important safeguards, was not given a chance to actually demonstrate how it can handle those Criminal Code offences.

Of course, as we know, history happened, a declaration was made in public, and so on and so forth.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Mr. MacGregor, you have your hand up.

[Col (Ret'd) Bruce MacGregor]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to reiterate that. Afton makes a very important point about recommendation 68 and the follow-on in terms of the victims' rights bill.

The other thing that has to be pointed out is that the SMSRC now has funding to have legal representation in court on certain in-court and pretrial applications. That's not universally provided from province to province and territory to territory. These are things that we can have through the military justice system that would be consistent in all 13 other jurisdictions.

That wasn't considered back in 2015, and it doesn't seem to be considered as a factor in putting this bill forward today. I think there has been a lot of water under the bridge. There's a huge reliance upon the fact that the civilian justice system is still far in advance of the military justice system in victim protection.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Thank you, Mr. MacGregor.

Mr. Anderson, you have up to five minutes.

[Scott Anderson, Conservative, Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC]

Thank you very much.

My first question is for Colonel MacGregor.

You mentioned triaging cases. Triaging is a perfect word for it, I think. I ran into some statistics that say that almost a quarter of the cases that have been transferred to civilian have been thrown out or not carried forward. Is this bill going to exacerbate that problem?

[Col (Ret'd) Bruce MacGregor]

Who knows what's going to happen in the future? As was stated earlier, not all cases of sexual violence are considered a high degree of violent action. That's always a difficult way of characterizing it, but you're not going to get the kiss on the cheek in front of a provincial court judge or a superior court judge in any of the provinces or territories. We will, because there is a heightened problem with doing that within the military justice system and within the military milieu.

From a triage perspective, they don't have the time and they don't have the resources to put that ahead of other cases and what they're dealing with within their own jurisdictions. That is a real problem.

Another real problem that has not been discussed is the triaging. When you have witnesses from all across the country who are scattered all over the place, there is a cost factor to bringing them in to do the trial, and there are prosecutors and police who are maybe unwilling to proceed with certain cases of a more minor nature as a result of those concerns.

[Scott Anderson, Conservative, Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC]

Thank you very much.

Ms. David, right now there's nothing I see in the bill that requires communication between civil and military authorities. That, to me, is a prima facie problem right off the bat.

You suggested a liaison. Do you think a liaison is going to be sufficient for that, or should there be a requirement for reporting? I'm going to reference an actual example from my riding, where an accuser and accused were both sent home on the same bus because the case was transferred to the civilian side but there was no communication back to the military. Situations like that are bound to arise if there's no communication.

In your opinion, is a liaison sufficient, or should there be something in this bill?

[Afton David]

On the sufficiency, I'm not sure. I wish I had a crystal ball so I could figure that out, but what I would suggest is that something in the bill—some sort of provision—would absolutely be necessary. I think it would be a good first step as a liaison officer to have some sort of kind of requirement for communication between the civilian authorities and the military authorities in the chain of command, at the very least.

I would suggest that it would also provide the accused, and the accused's chain of command, the information we need. As you heard, another one of my recommendations is some sort of provision that would forbid statutory decision-makers, but for potential operational requirement issues, from taking irreversible and permanent decisions about the accused's career.

I think that could potentially operationalize that other recommendation in addition to making sure that epic fails like the one you just described don't happen.

[Scott Anderson, Conservative, Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC]

Thank you very much.

Dr. Breeck, thank you very much for appearing today. I have a young daughter who's training to be a pilot, and I applaud your courage in that.

You said that low-risk events should remain in the military; I think we've heard the reasons for that from Colonel MacGregor, but I'd like to, first of all, delve a bit into the culture of the military, because that's very specific. I think there may not be the same understanding; on the civilian side, things are pretty straightforward.

Can you talk a little about the culture in the military and how that may decrease reporting and cause issues when they arise?

[Karen Breeck]

There's a lot there to potentially unpack.

Again, if we assume that the real problem we're here today to solve is to minimize any form of sexual misconduct in the military, knowing that we will never be 100% successful, then it's knowing that we have the right supports in place for when it does happen and that we learn lessons from it so that it doesn't continue.

When we look at the research that has been done, especially in the U.S., it has shown over and over again that these significant sexual misconduct-related issues don't ever pop up out of nowhere. They always start at the lower end. People find that they are in a permissive environment where either the victim doesn't push back when that first little thing happens or, if the victim does push back and go to the chain of command, the victim is blown off and not believed, so nothing happens. That's a signal for them to keep going up the chain.

This is why those smaller events that may seem minimal—we know over and over again—are the key to helping prevent the larger sexual misconduct cases. It's by not allowing that permissive environment for bad behaviour in the workplace. This is exactly the unwanted kiss or the unwanted touch. The unwanted harassment makes it really the area to be focusing on to probably have the biggest impact on a positive culture and to minimize sexual misconduct moving forward.

In a military culture as well, unlike in a normal job.... I think of so many examples where I could not have done what the mission required without the help of others. If you're doing sea survival, you're in a poopy suit, and you're trying to get into the lifeboat, you ain't getting in on your own. You are grateful that anyone can grab any part of your body that they can grab and get you into the boat. That kind of scenario is not uncommon in the military.

Let's continue it one step further. You're in the plane, and there's turbulence. You're on the ship, and there's turbulence. People bump into each other and touch each other on a frequent basis that you don't see in a normal workspace. We have to be able to trust each other. We have to be able to understand that 99 times it's a normal touch that just happened, but there's that one time when it's not normal.

We need a system in place whereby we can actually identify it and address it without suddenly being told, “Oh, no, no, that's now considered a sexual assault because he accidentally groped a breast, even though he says he tripped and that it was nothing.” Things are not black and white. We have this grey area where the best place to be addressing that is still in terms of professional discipline in the military context. This takes that away from us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Thank you, Dr. Breeck, and thank you, Mr. Anderson.

[Scott Anderson, Conservative, Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Chris Malette, you have up to five minutes.

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

Thank you.

Through you, Chair, I'm going to direct my question to Dr. Breeck.

In testimony before this panel on November 6, Megan MacKenzie made a point of spelling out.... If I'm finding it correctly, Professor MacKenzie said:

I would just reiterate that the idea that having a choice is somehow better for survivors is actually [I would say] 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 [of that] 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 [a] better [system] 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 the same research that she mentioned here, that there needs to be clarity for the victim and a regaining of their trust in the ability of the military system to deal with criminal offences.

Do I take it to understand that you, however, believe that having that choice is fundamentally somehow better for the complainant in these cases?

I don't mean to pit you against another witness.

[Karen Breeck]

Well, I think a really important part is the importance of words and the importance of definitions of words, being really clear about what we're talking about and what we're not talking about, because that's where we get confused.

Megan, of course, has written a book, Good Soldiers Don't Rape. By definition, a lot of the people she will have talked to are.... When we talk about the spectrum of what sexual misconduct could be, that would be a different spectrum.

I would like to suggest that the vast majority of the cases that meet the definition of sexual offences are at the lower end, so what kind of sexual offences are we talking about? Again, because, by the definition, it is any unwanted touching on a sexualized part of our body, it's a very low requirement for it actually to be a sexual offence. Again, I think it's important when we look at this bill. There were 28 different sexual offences. I learned about a whole pile that I didn't even know existed.

Just so we are clear here, we're not talking about children, which again, to me, would be an entire other conversation that is worth having for the issues around cadets, but assuming that we're not talking about cadets and children, and assuming that we're not talking about animals or children or anything—that we're just talking about non-violent, non-injurious sexual events—to me only three out of those 28 fall into that category, which would be at the low end of the sexual assaults, such as voyeurism at the low end, where it's just been opportunistic and there are no recordings or anything of that nature or publication of intimate items.

Those are three areas that, even as a medical officer, we would see routinely in terms of variations of this on deployments, the very common areas that we get involved with in terms of how to address them. Again, we need to be able to address those lower-end ones versus the more significant cases that I think we all agree need to go forward. It's that idea of pushing ourselves to be comfortable in the grey zone, instead of considering everything as black and white, if that's helpful.

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

Thank you.

My next question, then, would be for Ms. David.

What challenges do you foresee in coordinating evidence collection and handover, then, between military investigators and civilian authorities? How can the bill be strengthened, in your estimation, to manage that?

[Afton David]

If I'm being honest, I'm not entirely comfortable answering that question, only because I haven't looked into it or researched it. The last thing I want to do is provide you with incorrect or inaccurate information.

What I would suggest is that perhaps Mr. MacGregor would be a better person to answer that.

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

I was just going to say that perhaps Colonel MacGregor....

I'll redirect that question, then, to Colonel MacGregor, if I may.

[Col (Ret'd) Bruce MacGregor]

What has to happen is that the evidence has to have proper continuity. The continuity is vital to make sure that it's not tainted, it's not lost and it's documented all the way through. There are computer programs that deal with that. I know that the military police—the national investigation service—have been working on that for years in terms of keeping all of that together.

Then what would have to happen is that there would be probably a liaison officer in each and every province and in each and every major city to deal with the NIS or the MPs as to—the NIS, more than likely—a local prosecution office, but this continuity of evidence is vital, and it has to be strictly documented. Otherwise, you can lose cases right from the get-go.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Your time is up. Thank you, Mr. Malette.

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

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

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

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

One of the things that has come up the most so far is the transfer of appointment power. It makes perfect sense that the military justice system shouldn't regulate itself or decide such matters. General Vance's comments are actually what spurred this study. He said he was untouchable because he controlled the whole process.

However, transferring that power to the Governor in Council does raise questions about whether the process is being politicized. Is the government replacing one bad thing with another? That is the question.

What do you think, Ms. David?

[Afton David]

The definition of insanity is trying the same thing but expecting different results. I see this as trying something new. I don't see it as an issue; I think it's a step in the right direction.

I would again echo my earlier sentiment that, if we're going to have the Governor in Council make appointments or designations—by the way, this goes beyond the ones in the bill, and I would suggest this includes all other appointments or designations, including but not limited to the chief military judge—we include a limitation period. There need to be meaningful consequences to not respecting that limitation period, but it's a good start.

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

Indeed. The bill excludes military judges from the summary hearing system, but it doesn't exclude them entirely from the Code of Service Discipline.

Do you think that's a problem?

[Afton David]

Yes, it is a problem.

I actually wanted to address the issue that Mrs. Gallant raised.

I strongly recommend keeping the amendment that would exclude military judges from the Military Justice at the Unit Level Policy 2.0.

I suggest that, although it could be seen as a great equalizer, no one is above that military justice at the unit level. We have to think about military judges. They preside over courts martial. They have to be sufficiently independent and impartial to provide decisions free of apprehension.

I'm citing the Valente decision, which is a landmark decision in terms of the independence and impartiality of the military judiciary or judges, period.

Thinking about the potential undue influence whereby a judge could now be charged and punished by their non-judicial chain of command, who is a representative of the executive branch, is an obvious and flagrant issue in my mind. I would also suggest that the fact that military judges are still subject to the code of service discipline, on that same line of thinking, is still an issue.

I would provide, hopefully, some reassurance that, if military judges are removed from the code of service discipline, they're still subject to the Criminal Code, as Mr. MacGregor mentioned earlier. There are different mechanisms to remove judges administratively within the judiciary as well, so it would be well covered from a professional regulation perspective as well as a criminal perspective. Contrary to what Justice Fish recommended, I would suggest that, provided they're removed from the jurisdiction of the code of service discipline, they don't need to be relieved of their rank, because their rank would be perfunctory at that point.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Thank you.

Mr. Bezan, you have up to five minutes.

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

Thank you.

First of all, I want to thank all our witnesses for both their military service and their civilian service after serving, or for currently serving as a civilian but as a reserve.

I'd ask that all of you provide your opening comments in writing to the clerk for circulation. You've all made recommendations for changes to the bill. I think we need to have those in writing to make sure we get that right.

Ms. David, you're in favour of clause 11, making sure that military judges can't be fined or charged with having committed a service infraction. Even if a military judge then goes and abuses their position with conduct unbecoming of an officer with some of the subordinates, using language that may not be a criminal offence or even on the verge of a sexual offence, don't you believe that they should be disciplined for that?

[Afton David]

I do agree that they should be disciplined for that. I would suggest that there are mechanisms in place whereby they could still be disciplined for conduct that is unacceptable as a member of the judiciary. As a lawyer, I'm subject to very, I would suggest, rigorous—

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

They still wear the uniform, though.

[Afton David]

They still wear the uniform. I would suggest that at that point, provided, legally speaking, they're not subject to the code of service discipline, the uniform is almost perfunctory, which is the word I used.

I would submit that judges should still have to have, especially in the military judiciary, at least 10 years of service. I think that's an important requirement for a military judge. Their having a rank, I would suggest, is just respect for their career as a soldier and a member of the Canadian Armed Forces. That being said, there are mechanisms in place to discipline judges within the existing framework outside of the code of service discipline.

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

Colonel MacGregor, do you agree with that?

[Col (Ret'd) Bruce MacGregor]

Respectfully, my view is that as long as they're wearing a uniform, they should be subject to the code of service discipline. Infractions I can see as a no, but service offences, yes. If you're going to wear the uniform, then you should be subject to the code of service discipline, period. We'll deal with the cases in court martial or, if it goes to a civilian system, then we can deal with it that way.

I don't agree with the perfunctory nature of the uniform. When you wear that uniform and you have that rank, that means something.

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

I just want to get back to you, Colonel MacGregor.

You talked about everybody getting appointed now by orders in council or political appointments, with seven-year terms, but that they still should be subject to removal, not suspension.

Should we be adding here that, like other appointments by order in council, you serve at the pleasure of the government? Wouldn't we be able to clean up a lot of this if we just made it so that even the JAG, for their four-year appointment, serves at pleasure, as it's defined under the National Defence Act? Do you agree that they should serve at pleasure?

[Col (Ret'd) Bruce MacGregor]

No, I don't think the DMP or the DDCS should be serving at pleasure. It should be on good behaviour.

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

Dr. Breeck, thank you again for being here.

You talked quite a bit about how this has taken away a choice for victims. How do we fix this bill, which doesn't give that option?

As everybody has said, this is no longer 2015. We should have Madam Deschamps and Madam Arbour back to committee here to talk about their reports and about how things have evolved and how certain mechanisms have been put in place.

How do we ensure that victims are getting what they believe is in their best interest? What happens if they go through the civilian system and it gets thrown out because of either the way evidence is presented or a lack of knowledge of how the military operates, as you clearly detailed?

How do we get it back in, so at least there can be some sort of discipline within the Canadian Armed Forces and some sort of justice for the victim?

[Karen Breeck]

Thank you for that easy question.

I think part of it still always comes back to prevention. If we put as much time and energy into preventing the problems, we'd have fewer problems, and the problems we did have would be less severe.

When you understand military culture, by going into the civilian system, which often can take years, that is years of stress on that person, which almost always impacts their performance in the workplace. It impacts their relationships in the workplace. As soon as you start having chronic stress problems, you usually start manifesting them in some way, mentally or physically. As soon as you get a medical problem, that can end your career.

As a physician, this is part of what I've seen over 35 years. Even when somebody rightly goes forward and does exactly everything that was asked of them, they can lose their health, and they lose their career as a result.

The system as it stands is not working. This is why I think it's so important that we started capturing data. It isn't just how long people have waited and what the outcome is. It is, how did that impact their life? How did that impact their career?

A very important person started up “It's Just 700” many years ago, and I remember always asking what the goal was and what the perfect situation was, because we're always going to have problems. Her comment—and I don't have a better answer—was that when something bad happens and you know it was wrong, you can name what it was, you know what your options are, and you can choose what you want to do and how to do it—maybe you want to wait until you're off deployment and around family to come forward. Whether you report or don't report, your career and your promotion continue either way. When we have those kinds of stats, then we have a system that's working.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Thank you, Dr. Breeck.

Mr. Watchorn, you have up to five minutes

[Tim Watchorn, Liberal, Les Pays-d'en-Haut, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being with us today. I also want to thank them for their service. It's very important to highlight that. We are very proud of those who represent our country.

I had the opportunity to speak with Dr. Breeck at the veterans reception. I quite enjoyed our conversation, and I do want to recognize the great work she's doing with our armed forces veterans.

We are here to talk about Bill C‑11. What we want is to build an environment of trust. We want the people who make up the armed forces to work in an environment of trust, an environment free of sexual or any other type of harassment. We want them to have a healthy workplace and the supports they need.

As I said in another committee, I think the court specializing in sexual violence being established in Quebec is a good model. It makes clear that sexual offences are not the same as other offences. The judges and people who work on those types of cases need to have expertise in the area. As I see it, the purpose of Bill C‑11 is to apply that same expertise to defending our soldiers.

No justice system is perfect. Neither the military justice system nor the civilian justice system will ever be perfect, but the idea is to find the model that works best.

It's worth noting what Justice Arbour said about choosing between a military court and a civilian court under the previous system. This is what she said:

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 with the possible question, did I make the wrong choice here? That creates severe psychological distress for a victim.

Dr. Breeck, you said the opposite was also possible.

Do you have a recommendation to share with us?

I'd also like to hear Ms. David's thoughts.

[Karen Breeck]

When we keep trying to simplify things such that there is only one answer required to fix everything, it's part of the problem. All of these are complex, wicked problems that are going to need multipronged answers.

I am personally very interested in the idea of these specialized crime units, and specialized crimes, which is the way the U.S. has gone. Is it working better? I don't know, but again, with stats looking forward, it makes sense to me.

When we talk about the choices of going backwards and forwards, I think it's really important to know what we are talking about here. As someone who has been 35 years in this environment, we all know when there's that one bad person whose touch is too long, when it's just creepy, and we don't want to be on a deployment and sharing a tent with him. We just need to be able to nip that in the bud. We need to be able to say, “There's something not right here. Can we deal with it, and not make it into the civilian police scene?”

If we have a system that allows us to speak, be heard and deal with it, even if by definition it still is a sexual offence, there's still this grey area. We keep trying to make everything black and white, and in the military, it's not. We have this huge grey area where we need different options for dealing with it.

Having specialized resources, a specialized MP section or a specialized civilian section are really interesting things. This brings me back to data. Again, we've asked where the data is for all civilian cases since 2021. There are four years of data, and not just data for civilian military, but what was the success from the perspective of the accused?

I'm all about supporting women, but I know a lot of men. Some of them have had their lives torn apart, and it has been a horrible experience for them. We have to do better on both sides. They also need help and support, and their families need help and support. I know many men who have been suicidal over accusations when they have felt they were 100% innocent, yet they haven't been getting the same help and support either.

We need to do better on both sides in terms of how to address that grey area especially. I am very fascinated to learn more about the Quebec system and how that works. That's an option to look at.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Thank you.

Mr. Kibble, you have five minutes.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our panel for being here and contributing, and for your service.

I really appreciate your comments that this needs to be accompanied by cultural change, and I hope everyone here hears that message. I certainly do.

I'd like to start with Ms. David.

You mentioned that a sunset clause is missing from Bill C-11. Could you expand on that for me, please, and explain?

[Afton David]

Yes, absolutely.

A sunset clause would effectively.... There are many ways to go about it, but ideally one way you could do this is to put in an automatic expiry date for that specific amendment. I'm talking specifically about the removal of jurisdiction from the military justice system for these Criminal Code offences of a sexual nature.

That provision would stop having effect, for example, unless positive action is taken by the legislature. It forces the legislature to do the studies and review the data, etc., to see what the effect of this legislative amendment was. This is one of my examples of meaningful consequences.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you.

Do you have some other examples of where you would want to see that sunset clause applied? Or perhaps you could either expand on that or submit written ones.

[Afton David]

I can certainly noodle it a little longer and come back to you with some written submissions.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Yes, okay. Thank you very much. I would certainly like to know more about that.

Dr. Breeck, based on your experience and your comments, we've discussed the fact that Bill C-11 takes away choice. We've also discussed, although they're tough terms to use, low levels and high levels of offences and, as you've described, grey areas.

Do you support having choice between military and civilian systems at all these different levels—the low, the high and the grey areas—or would you see some structure around that, like low or grey or high?

[Karen Breeck]

I'm the medical doctor here, not the lawyer, but I must say that I have learned a whole pile about law in having to read up on all of this.

It is my understanding—and I'll let my lawyer friends correct me if I'm wrong—that a lot of the sexual offences are recognized as being like a class one, class two and class three, and/or a low, mid or high level, in fairly understandable differentiations.

For me, everything I have been focusing on is strictly and solely at that low level, not the mid-level and not the high, but the low level: no violence, no weapons and no major injuries, just those very little grey areas, such as “You touched my breast as you walked by,” or “You touched my butt.”

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Would you want to see choice there?

[Karen Breeck]

Well, I think that right now, the way the bill is, there is no choice, because you've made it such a high bar for me to report. I cannot imagine a scenario in which anyone is going to report those to a civilian system, so we're—

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

That's fair.

[Karen Breeck]

—not going to report those little ones, which means, we know, that statistically, the people doing that are going to feel empowered to continue on and on until we get into the mid and higher ones, and we're forced, then and only then, preventably, to have to report, because they're at the higher level and because there was nothing to stop them at the lower levels.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you.

Do you feel that if victims had the choice to report it within the military system, they would then make those reports?

[Karen Breeck]

Again, when we're talking about these lower-level issues—and certainly I can speak for myself as well—we just want it stopped. We just want it to go away. We want them to know that we don't like it, we don't want it and it's not welcome.

Sometimes there are mixed wires, especially when you're young, you're in your early twenties. Sometimes there are genuine mixed wires, and you thought it was wanted.

When you've clearly said this isn't wanted, you just want it to stop. In a perfect world, maybe they even say “sorry,” but that's it.

We don't want civilian cases. We don't want to be treating them as sexual predators—

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

At the low level....

[Karen Breeck]

Yes.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you.

Do you agree, Ms. David, in terms of the low, medium or high, that they should all have choice or be limited, from your perspective?

[Afton David]

I would submit that from my perspective, they should all have a choice. For the reasons indicated by Colonel MacGregor as well, considering both the safeguards and entitlements to the accused, but also the safeguards and entitlements to the victims now within the military justice system, I think we should at least give it a chance to deal with all the levels of sexual misconduct.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you very much.

My next question is for Mr. MacGregor.

Could you please explain the differences in the process and the standards by which military police versus civilian authorities collect their evidence? Would there be conflict or potential loss of evidence between the two systems?

[Col (Ret'd) Bruce MacGregor]

I think what you'd have to do is talk to the provost marshal, and I think the provost marshal will be talking about that directly.

I do want to say that, in reference to the previous question and statement from Quebec, while I was the director of military prosecutions, we established the DMP SMART. It's a sexual misconduct response team that was led by Lieutenant-Colonel Maureen Pecknold, the reserve prosecutor within my shop. She has been acknowledged nationally for her level of expertise as a top-notch prosecutor out of Toronto in all high-level cases, including serious sexual assault cases. She led our team.

It's those types of things that we did within the military prosecution service that respond to what is being celebrated in Quebec. We did it; we had a small prosecution service, but we had high quality in being able to do that and respond.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Thank you, Mr. MacGregor.

Sherry Romanado, you have up to five minutes.

I think we may be wrapping it up soon.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Through you, I'd like to thank the witnesses for being with us today. I'm actually going to be sharing my time with my colleague, MP Idlout, so I'll make a brief statement, and then I'll turn it over to her, because I think it's important that we have every voice at the table.

Dr. Breeck, you mentioned what the goal is, and I think we all agree on what the goal is: We want this to stop. Despite having a duty to report and despite our repealing it, the question for me is always this: How many never came forward out of fear of reprisal? How many suffered in silence? How many left the Canadian Armed Forces forever traumatized and to this day have not come forward?

My hope is that, with our bringing forward this legislation, those who have suffered can find some resolution, and we can stop this. I want to thank you all for what you're doing, because as a mother of serving members, I think what you're doing is really important.

Thank you.

With that, I'll turn it over to my colleague.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Qujannamiik, Sherry.

To my colleague, I know how important your voice is in this important committee, and I appreciate you for sharing it with me.

Thank you to the women veterans who may be in this room for showing your support, and thank you both for appearing. Very specifically to Dr. Breeck, I really hope that the committee takes the sixth comment in your submission very seriously.

I want to ask you specifically about victims and survivors.

I see that, in this bill, for example, there's going to be a transfer of cases to civilian courts. I think we need to hear specifically what other resources, besides funding, will be needed for provinces and territories to make sure the victims' and survivors' representation is adequate, so that they get the justice they deserve.

Qujannamiik.

[Karen Breeck]

That's a big question.

By definition, hopefully, they're still in uniform. Again, their health services are still the responsibility of health services. I personally still feel that it is our responsibility, as the uniformed health services, to be doing as much as possible.

Obviously, if a health services person was the perpetrator, keeping the confidentiality and all the trust aside but providing full supports—mental, psychological, spiritual.... Again, I'm not highly religious, but I've always used the military chaplain system, and together, as an interdisciplinary team, we could have social workers, psychologists, physicians and chaplains helping to provide support in a more direct manner. When we keep saying it's somebody else's job, then nothing happens, and people fall through the cracks.

Sexual misconduct has largely been dealt with as something outside of the health care system instead of something embraced as a public health issue and an occupational health issue. We haven't been leading the parade in helping and supporting our victims in this area.

I am always humbled, especially when I see indigenous ways of recognizing the importance of looking at people holistically and making sure they're cared for, including peer support, community support and following some of the initiatives already done through an indigenous lens. I think all of the military would benefit from capturing that and bringing that into our world much more.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Thank you.

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to suspend our meeting.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here today and for providing some insight.

To the members, we're going to be going into an in camera meeting for an anonymous witness. I'll also ask everyone except our members to leave the room. Can everyone please vacate and provide some privacy for this next meeting? That includes the staff.

Thank you.

The meeting is suspended.

[Proceedings continue in camera]