National Defence Committee on Nov. 18th, 2025

[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?