Evidence of meeting #14 for National Defence in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was victims.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Charles Sousa
We didn't actually deal with it. He wants to withdraw the motion to adjourn so that we resolve that matter. I need unanimous consent to withdraw the motion to adjourn the meeting.
(Motion withdrawn)
We have a motion up for debate. I'll read Ms. Gallant's motion for context:
That the committee invite the Parliamentary Budget Officer to appear for no less than two hours to discuss their new report, entitled “Planned Capital Spending under Canada's Defence Policy: 2025 Update”.
Is there debate?
Mr. Watchorn, please go ahead.
Liberal
Tim Watchorn Liberal Les Pays-d'en-Haut, QC
Mr. Chair, I'd like to move an amendment to the motion.
I move:
That the committee invite the Parliamentary Budget Officer to appear for one hour to discuss their new report titled “Planned Capital Spending under Canada's Defence Policy: 2025 Update”.
The officials could stay for the second hour of the meeting. We applied the same principle when the minister and department officials visited.
Liberal
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
The Parliamentary Budget Officer appears with his office, not with department officials. If we want department officials, we'd have to invite them as well. This is strictly meant for the PBO.
The PBO, as an officer of Parliament, has always made themselves available to be at committee for the full two hours. I'd hate to start the process of only having them appear for an hour. They are responsible to Parliament, first and foremost.
It is our fiduciary duty to carefully look at the expenditures of government, and the PBO is there to help us in our deliberations as members of Parliament.
I'm completely opposed to the idea of cutting this meeting in half to hear from the PBO about things that are important to NATO spending, Canada's defence policy and the spending around that.
I think we need to have him for the full two hours, so I'm completely opposed to the amendment.
Liberal
Liberal
Tim Watchorn Liberal Les Pays-d'en-Haut, QC
I would like to mention that in the spirit of trying to get through all the studies that we have to do before the end of the session, I think we can absolutely do this work within one hour and have the officials of the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer brief us on the rest of it for the second hour.
That is the objective of the amendment.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON
I agree with Mr. Bezan. This is a dangerous precedent to start, especially for this committee.
We are responsible for watching over billions and billions of dollars of defence spending. I think we can maybe spend more than an hour on that.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Charles Sousa
Is there debate?
You're inviting officials to the second hour. Is that right?
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
That's not in the motion. The motion is to invite the PBO for one hour.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Charles Sousa
Is the amendment...? I want clarity.
Mr. Savard-Tremblay, please go ahead.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC
Mr. Chair, I have a point of clarification.
There has been mention of a precedent. I'd like to know what we're talking about exactly. I haven't actually decided. I will say at the outset that I am undecided in this matter. I shouldn't say that because my vote tips the scale.
How is this a precedent?
I would just like to know what is going on and what the consequences of each option are.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Charles Sousa
That is fair.
I'm trying to understand what we're actually doing. Is the amendment to do the PBO for one hour and then leave the extra hour for other officials for other duties or other studies?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Charles Sousa
So the PBO would be just for one hour. The amendment is to make the PBO come for one hour as opposed to two. Okay.
Mr. Bezan, please go ahead.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
I think it's a dangerous precedent. Cheryl and I have been on this committee for a long time. The PBO has always appeared for two hours. The PBO reports to Parliament. He doesn't report to the department. The department does respond to PBO reports as they do with AG reports. I think that this is short-sighted and it circumvents the study that was undertaken by the PBO and undermines our work as parliamentarians.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Charles Sousa
There is an amendment to the motion asking for the PBO to appear for one hour as opposed to two to enable us time to do other studies. We need to understand if we're in agreement or not, around the table, in regard to this amendment.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
I call for a recorded vote.
(Motion as amended negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Charles Sousa
Pursuant to the motion adopted on October 23, 2025, the committee is meeting to resume its consideration of Bill C-11, an act to amend the National Defence Act and other acts.
I would now like to welcome our witnesses.
We have Fiona Wilson, Chief Constable Victoria Police Department, via video conferencing.
From the Canadian Armed Forces we have Brigadier-General Vanessa Hanrahan, Canadian Forces provost marshal; Colonel Nooral Ahmed, director of defence counsel services; and Colonel Dylan Kerr, director of military prosecutions.
I'll now like to invite Chief Constable Wilson to make your opening statement.
You have up to five minutes.
Chief Constable Fiona Wilson Victoria Police Department
Thank you, Chair and members of the committee, for the opportunity to speak today.
I want to begin by acknowledging the significant work that has been done across the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence, and by external reviewers to improve how allegations of sexual misconduct are addressed.
Over many years, survivors and stakeholders have brought forward concerns about independence, transparency and trust within the existing system. The reports by justices Deschamps, Fish and Arbour reflect a genuine effort to understand those concerns and to recommend pathways that better meet the needs of survivors, while supporting institutional reform.
Justice Arbour's interim recommendation that Criminal Code sexual offences involving members of the Canadian Armed Forces be transferred to civilian police was rooted in the principle that investigations of this nature must be, and must be seen to be, fully independent.
Bill C-11 reflects that recommendation by bringing these matters into the civilian justice system. I support that direction, and the intent behind this legislation.
Where I must now be direct is on the operational implications for civilian police services, including the Victoria Police Department. Our involvement with this issue began in 2021, when local military police commanders were directed to transfer current and new sexual offence files to civilian agencies.
In Victoria, that request arrived with little notice, limited consultation and very limited data—primarily, that we might expect approximately 11 files per year. From the outset, we advised that VicPD could not assume responsibility for these investigations without additional resources. File counts significantly understate the real workload. A single sexual offence investigation can require hundreds of investigative hours, trauma-informed support for survivors, digital and forensic analysis, and coordination across multiple jurisdictions.
Files related to the Canadian Armed Forces often involve witnesses and evidence located nationally and internationally, and they can expand considerably as additional victims come forward. The multi-agency working session in May 2022, including public safety, the RCMP, the Vancouver police department and VicPD, confirmed this reality. Every agency expressed concern about the complexity of these investigations and the absence of a coordinated framework to support a transfer of this magnitude.
At that time VicPD was already operating beyond sustainable capacity. Taking on these files without additional resources would have required diverting investigators from existing sexual assault cases and other critical public safety responsibilities. We were—and remain—clear that this would not be responsible policing.
Bill C-11 now formalizes this transfer in law. I support the principle behind that change, but I want to be equally clear—VicPD cannot absorb this additional workload without dedicated policing resources. Without that investment, implementation will fall short of what survivors, Parliament and Canadians rightly expect.
To ensure Bill C-11 succeeds, I would offer four recommendations.
First, a dedicated federal funding stream is essential. I cannot make it clearer that we do not have the capacity to take on any additional files without additional funding resources. This must support additional investigators, analysts and victim service resources in communities with a significant CAF presence, specialized training and the investigative expenses associated with national and international files.
Second, implementation must be guided by a coordinated national framework. The earlier rollout demonstrated the challenges of fragmented local arrangements. Consistent MOUs, information-sharing protocols, file transfer standards and procedures for warrants on Department of National Defence property are essential.
Third, Parliament should require national reporting on the number, nature and outcomes of these transferred investigations, along with the resource impacts on affected police services. This transparency will help align resourcing with actual demands.
Finally, there must be national support for historical and complex files. These cases routinely exceed the capacity of small and medium-sized municipal agencies. A federal investigative support function would help ensure thorough and timely outcomes.
In closing, Bill C-11 represents an important step towards strengthening trust and ensuring survivors receive the independent, trauma-informed response they deserve. Civilian police agencies are committed to this, but I must be unequivocal: VicPD cannot take on these additional investigations without additional policing resources. If Parliament intends to transfer responsibility, it must also transfer the capacity to meet that responsibility effectively.
Thank you.