National Defence Committee on Dec. 11th, 2025

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 19 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence. 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.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. Members are attending here in person, and our vice-chair is attending remotely through the Zoom application.

Before we continue, I wish to ask you to please consult the guidelines on your table to prevent audio and feedback incidents and protect the health and safety of our interpreters.

I'd also like to remind the witnesses and the members to please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. If you wish to speak, please raise your hand. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can. For interpretation, please use your earpiece. Select the appropriate channel for floor, English or French. Again, all comments should be addressed through the chair.

I would now like to welcome our witness, the Honourable Sean Fraser, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.

Sir, I invite you to make your opening remarks. You have up to five or seven minutes, however long you will require to make it known how great you are and how great the Government of Canada is in trying to help the witnesses and our most vulnerable victims in the CAF.

Go ahead.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

I'll leave those statements for others to make.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you all.

I am very pleased to be here to discuss Bill C‑11.

I would like to start by saying that public safety is a top priority for our government and for Canadians.

This fall, public safety and criminal justice reform have been major items on Parliament's agenda. You'll have seen, as we move forward, that part of that agenda involves criminal justice reform. We also want to ensure that as we move forward, we're making investments in the front line, whether that's in the RCMP, our border officials or the frontline organizations that support victims. We also want to make upstream investments in affordable housing, mental health and addictions, and programs for at-risk youth to help end crime and violent crime in the long term.

A major part of this strategy is adopting stronger criminal laws. Over the course of the past few months, you have seen several major pieces of criminal justice legislation move forward through the parliamentary process. These include the combatting hate act, which is going through the committee process, and the bail and sentencing reform act, which has a sweeping set of reforms to strengthen the sentencing regime and make it harder for violent repeat offenders to be released on bail.

Most recently, you have seen Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, which addresses a range of different offences and penalties, touching on intimate partner violence, the exploitation of children, sexual offences and the penalties for sexual offences. These include higher maximums and the restoration of mandatory minimum penalties, which have been struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada, in a constitutionally compliant way.

Importantly, the bill addresses delays in the criminal justice system, with a particular focus on those cases that involve sexual assaults. We know these cases have long suffered from challenges as a result of resource shortages at different levels of government and procedural timelines that have unfortunately led to too many cases being rejected—not because someone's been acquitted but because of a delay. We want to address these problems by implementing meaningful reforms that will deal with the delays in the system, but at the same time, do a better job of ensuring that perpetrators are brought to justice at the end of the day.

In a parallel way, at the same time that we've proposed these amendments to Canada's criminal laws in a civilian context, there are certain overlaps that will amend rules in the military justice system. Some of those changes take place not in Bill C-11 but in Bill C-14 and Bill C-16, which I've mentioned, as we try to break down silos within the government to ensure that we're solving the problem more broadly and not just in one department or another.

Other reforms respond directly to the reports commissioned by leading experts in their field, including Supreme Court justices Fish and Arbour, to make changes to the military justice system. There are two main ones that I expect will be the focus of today's conversation, though I'm happy to take questions on other matters.

The first area of reform is moving outside of the military justice system's jurisdiction for complaints involving sexual offences. We have seen real challenges, which were raised in the Arbour report in particular, that demonstrate why it's not well positioned to have the complaint system and the tribunal exist within the chain of command. Though there are challenges in both the civilian and the military systems, this was presented by Justice Arbour as a false choice with the fear of retribution. The potential interference that could happen within the chain of command creates a culture of people not willing to come forward and report sometimes egregious cases of sexual assault or serious sexual offences that deserve to be investigated and prosecuted in a manner that the complainant believes will be taken seriously.

This is not to say that all of the problems in one system are absent in the other; it's only to say that this is the path forward recommended by those who have dug into the issue and who have substantial expertise. They have recommended a particular path forward, which was previously in Bill C-66 and is now making its way to this committee through Bill C-11.

The second area of reform that I expect members may wish to dig into is about the structural changes to have certain actors within the military justice system appointed through the Governor in Council process. Again, this escapes the challenges that exist when you have someone in these positions within the chain of command. This would more closely mirror the process that's used in the civilian system, which allows—notwithstanding the GIC appointment—a certain level of independence in its day-to-day operations.

There are other matters that I'm happy to discuss, but suffice it to say, I hope this is a matter on which we can all work together to find the best path forward to allow victims of sexual violence or sexual assault to have their complaint fully investigated, have an environment where they feel comfortable moving forward with their complaint and, ultimately, when a crime has been committed, have justice prevail.

Mr. Chair, those are my comments.

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this discussion today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Thank you, Minister.

I should also mention to the members in the committee that we have Mr. Matthew Taylor, senior general counsel and director general, criminal law policy section, Department of Justice; and Mr. Owen Ripley, senior assistant deputy minister, policy sector, Department of Justice. I see there's also Colonel Geneviève Lortie, deputy judge advocate general, military justice modernization, Canadian Armed Forces.

Mr. Bezan, our vice-chair, is online.

You have up to six minutes, sir.

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

I'll pass my time over to Mr. Caputo.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Thank you.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here.

Through you, Mr. Chair, I direct the following questions to the minister.

Minister, you were asked to appear and you refused, yet you are here today. Why the change of heart?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I'm very happy to be here. I'm glad to discuss this legislation. With the legislative agenda that we've been moving forward with, including engagement with other parliamentary committees and making sure that we had the capacity to appear, informed, to discuss matters, it's not a coincidence that I'm here days after we've tabled Bill C-16, the third piece of criminal justice legislation this fall. There are many priorities that we're trying to pursue simultaneously, and to make time for this committee is something that is a pleasure for me.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

To be clear, you've said it candidly; you blew off the committee until Bill C-16 was tabled.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

No, I have a wildly different characterization. I would never blow off a committee but would ensure that we have the opportunity to appear where my testimony is most relevant and where we have the opportunity to manage the workflow through government. Keeping in mind that this bill is technically the responsibility of one of my colleagues who has already testified at this committee, making sure we can advance multiple priorities at once is really part of the reason for my appearance today.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

The issue is, Minister, you declined to be here and then you accepted. You just said that it coincided with Bill C-16 coming forward. As a minister of the Crown, you should be prepared to be here at any point in time. I don't think it gives Canadians reassurance when the minister can pick and choose when they're coming in.

With that being said, Minister, I'm not sure about you, but I believe you would probably agree with this: that we should be listening to the people on the ground. They're the ones who are going to tell us whether something's working or not, whether something is good or not. We can probably agree on that, such as listening to victims and things like that.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I think it's important that we engage to understand the perspectives of many people who have experience in the system, who've been tasked specifically with identifying solutions to conduct investigations, including people who have lived experience. Bringing those perspectives together to identify the best path forward is part of the role of governing.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

The role of government is to listen. If we are going to listen to groups like victims and like the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the reality is that the testimony that's been heard at this committee has been very clear. It's been unequivocal in fact from what I've been told that victims and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police have said that victims should have the choice. They should have the choice of whether to participate in an overburdened system that has repeatedly let them down or participate in the military justice system, but Bill C-11 denies them that right. Are you prepared to listen to victims, to listen to the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and agree to that amendment?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I want to understand their perspectives, but I also am cognizant of the fact that the former Supreme Court justice who we've had look into this more or less described this as a false choice. We see such a low level of reporting because of one system's existence, which includes the fear of retribution and includes a history of failing victims, including potential interference within the chain of command and including the ability to share info with the military police police throughout the process. A lot of people are making the choice not to come forward at all because of the personal consequences that might exist should they—

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

A lot of people are choosing not to come forward at all because of the last 10 years of failure, when we had so few victims of sexual assault.... I was in the trenches for part of that time, and I can tell you how difficult it is for a victim to navigate the system. Sections 276 through 278 of the Criminal Code are very difficult as it is, and from what I understand, Minister, only one of the three justices said that there should be no choice. Victims want a choice. The police want the choice. The provost marshal general suggests a choice. The director of defence counsel services wants a choice.

Despite all that, Minister, we all want victims to be represented. I have no doubt that you want that, so why aren't we just going to listen to victims in this case and give them the choice?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

This is an important conversation. Listening to victims has to be part of the process, but it's not lost on me that Justice Arbour, in coming up with her recommendation, worked with many victims who have experience as well. Their voices should also be listened to. Trying to figure out the best path forward—informed not only by the lived experiences of some witnesses who very courageously share their perspectives but also by listening to the experts who've talked to a thousand witnesses or victims or more in order to inform the recommendations that they've been tasked to provide—is an important part of the process. I think that's part of the path of getting to the right solution.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Let's get into that, Minister.

I apologize for interrupting you, but I do have limited time.

Justice Arbour said that, but Justice Fish and Justice Deschamps, both of whom sat on the Supreme Court of Canada, said that victims should have the choice.

On the one hand, you're prepared to listen to Justice Arbour's recommendation, and obviously we respect and thank her for the work she's done on human rights and on this. However, two other justices said to give them the choice. This panel has consistently had people come and say to give victims the choice. If you're going to hang your hat on Justice Arbour's position, how can you ignore the position of Justice Fish, the position of Justice Deschamps and the people who've appeared here at this committee? Why are you preferring one to the other, Minister?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

In addition to the extensive engagement that Justice Arbour undertook to land on this particular recommendation, the reasons that she attached to her report are compelling. When I understand that there is the real fear of reprisal within a person's career, when I understand that there's potential for interference within the chain of command, when I understand that very sensitive personal information can be shared outside of that particular justice process, it gives me real cause for concern that, on balance at the end of the day, continuing through this broken system is going to do harm to more people.

There is no perfect solution that will solve overnight the epidemic of gender-based or sexual violence that exists in Canada, but I believe sincerely that this is a path in the right direction to ensure that justice prevails.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Thank you, Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Caputo.

Mr. Watchorn, you have up to six minutes, sir.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would first like to say that we are here to find the best way to support victims of sexual offences, and the work on Bill C‑11 must reflect that.

During this study, I talked about the Quebec model and the specialized court for sexual and domestic violence. A few witnesses have told us that it might be a good idea to do something similar. However, it is essential that the federal government respect provincial jurisdictions. I think my colleague would agree with that.

Minister, can you tell us what jurisdiction such a tribunal would fall under? Second, can you tell us how we could work with the provinces to encourage this kind of initiative?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

When it comes to the criminal justice system, we share some jurisdiction with the provinces. For example, the administration of justice is a provincial responsibility, but the federal government is responsible for making changes to the Criminal Code and appointing superior court judges, among other things.

The decision to create a specialized tribunal rests with the provinces. They have different specialized courts. So this is an opportunity to collaborate and discuss best practices in order to learn from what the provinces have learned.

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

The purpose of my intervention is to say that the people who intervene in sexual offences must be trained. The provinces have trained prosecutors, judges and stakeholders.

How could we promote that?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

If, in an imaginary world, the federal government had the power to create specialized courts in the provinces, but the professionals in those courts were not trained, that would not improve the situation of victims.

We need to make sure that there are systems that are ready with people who are trauma-informed, with people who have appropriate training and with people who have safeguards in place to ensure that people can share their stories, know that they're going to be taken seriously and know that they'll be given whatever testimonial aids may be necessary for them to fully share their perspective.

It is not simple. If the federal government insisted that the provinces create specialized courts, but the training was not adequate, that would not be a good thing. However, if the provinces created such courts with investments to improve the experience of victims, then it would be possible to improve the criminal justice process.

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

That is excellent.

This week, I had the opportunity to attend, with you, the announcement of Bill C‑16. How will the provisions in that bill help improve victims' confidence in the civilian sexual justice process?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

There's actually a lot of overlap between the different criminal bills we put forward in a civilian context that actually amend certain features of the military justice system as well, so this may apply in both contexts.

With Bill C-16 in particular, we're focused on the creation of a new category of offences that would lead to a constructive first-degree charge, which we're grouping together as femicide charges, and there's a new offence of coercive control. Having these offences exist will help give confidence to victims. Similarly, on a range of sexual offences and offences tied to the exploitation of children, the existence of those offences will certainly give confidence. However, we will also have better guidance for stronger penalties, both maximum and minimum, in circumstances involving sexual charges.

Specifically to your question, Bill C-16 does two things that will very directly improve confidence in the system, not just in the law. The first is addressing the problem with delays: Concerns have become exacerbated after the Jordan decision, which has seen almost 10,000 cases thrown out for delay. We can change that, both by shrinking the time by improving the processes, but also by having the courts look at remedies other than a stay of proceedings when there is a delay.

In addition, moving forward with changes to the Victims Bill of Rights will give confidence, so that people know they will receive the information they're entitled to proactively, have access to those testimonial aids and have a voice—victim impact statements. Even on parole, when people are being moved from one level of a security facility to another, making sure that they continue to have a right that's baked into the Victims Bill of Rights will give a higher degree of confidence in the civilian system. To your question, although there are similar changes mirrored in a military context, these will give confidence that they will be able to fully participate in the process and that there will more likely be an outcome based on the evidence adduced at trial, rather than a stay issued as a result of delays.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Thank you.

Mr. Maxime Blanchette‑Joncas, you have the floor for six minutes.