National Defence Committee on Dec. 11th, 2025

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Certainly, and I'll wait for the direction of the House to determine which committee will be studying which bill. I expect fully that I will appear at one committee or another on all of the bills that I have responsibility for, and in this instance, some bills that my colleagues have responsibility for. I'm happy to show up at these things, and I honestly believe Parliament has a role to improve the quality of legislation that's going forward.

I know Mr. Caputo is no longer here, but my experience working on his private member's bill showed that collaboration can help strengthen legislation to, hopefully, get to a point where multiple parties can support changes that are in the best interests of victims of crime.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Chair, I'd like to go back to my time of asking questions of the minister.

Some witnesses highlighted gaps around information sharing, timelines and oversight. Can you tell us how Bill C-16 helps address these issues and how its measures will work alongside Bill C-11 to create a clearer and a more survivor-centred system?

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

We are talking about Bill C-11, not Bill C-16, so I would expect that questions are directed about Bill C-11.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

I did reference Bill C-11 in my question, but thank you, colleague.

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

No, you said Bill C-16.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

I said to “work alongside Bill C-11 to create a clearer..more survivor-centred system.” Perhaps you didn't hear that part of my question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Thank you, Ms. Lapointe. It's your time.

Proceed.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you, Chair.

There are a number of different ways that Bill C-16 and Bill C-11 are tackling similar issues. Typically when I appear, I'm able to take questions on my portfolio more broadly. Bill C-16 actually does have measures that are of direct concern to this committee. Look, for example, at the work that we're doing to combat delays when it comes to records in sexual offending, for example. In a civilian context, we're streamlining and strengthening procedural rules in sexual assault trials—the adducing of evidence, for example; the production of private records of a person's individual medical or psychological records; exchanges between the complainant and the victim that can be adduced to streamline the process to make it go forward.

We have very similar reforms that are included in a military context in Bill C-16. We believe that when we actually have those align well with one another, we're going to be able to ensure that there's some consistency among processes. Importantly, at the end of the day, regardless of which system we're dealing with, people understand that the process will be timely, that it will be fair and that it will be reducing the trauma that people are required to re-experience as they share their story, once again, in the justice system after having lived through it personally.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Thank you, Ms. Lapointe.

Monsieur Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, we go back to you. You have two and a half minutes.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Minister, you just said that consistency in processes is a way to ensure public trust. I would point out, though, that there is a contradiction between what you are saying and the 2023 statement of principles and presumptions for the exercise of concurrent jurisdiction by Canadian prosecuting authorities.

Before determining which court will handle the case, the statement requires that the concurrent jurisdiction assess eight factors, including the victim's preference, geography and public trust.

Why, then, does Bill C‑11 eliminate the flexibility that was provided for by your own prosecutors? Explain that to me.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I am going to give you the same answer I gave in response to another question.

I don't believe there's a real choice. This is not just my opinion; this is a reflection of the arguments that Justice Arbour laid out in coming upon the recommendation to move into a civilian context. It is about the fear of reprisals. It is about the culture of distrust that exists. It is about the potential interference when you're dealing with actors who exist within a chain of command. These are very real concerns that cause me to believe that it's not a real choice that's being put to victims today.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Minister, do you acknowledge that you are renouncing your own principles, which were not adopted 10 years ago, but two years ago in the 2023 statement?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Are we talking about the interim directive? This was put in place to get legislation through a minority Parliament, and we're working hard to implement the permanent fixes now.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Minister, since you are looking at your phone, I understand that you do not have the answer and that people are trying to pass it on to you. It is embarrassing, unfortunately.

The government wants to restore public confidence in a fundamental principle, which is victim reporting. However, you are talking about passing legislation in a minority government. How serious is it?

How can you go back to a principle that your own prosecutors adopted just two years ago?

Explain to me how people can trust your government.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I think there's a real answer that's important here. We wanted to be able to move quickly to offer some relief in the short term while we move forward to implement permanent fixes. The permanent solutions are included in Bill C-11. I think there was value in moving forward expeditiously on an interim basis so we can provide some relief immediately as we work to establish a permanent change to the regime under which these cases are heard.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Minister, your answer confirms that you are once again reacting to a crisis. You have done no planning. You are still lagging behind a crisis.

You have been in government for 10 years. You did nothing and you let it get worse. Right now, you are not even able to explain a contradiction to us in relation to your own prosecutors.

Personally, I would like people to be able to trust the system. However, today, you are not showing us that it is possible.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I have a fundamentally different point of view. We know that there has been a long-standing challenge when it comes to sexual offences in the military for generations. Particularly upon what was Minister Anand's appointment at the time, there was quick action taken to ensure that we had the right information to ground permanent changes, including the generation of reports that were put forward by those who did deep study and who were experts in the field, using their recommendations to ground both a short-term fix in the interim and now the long-term solutions that are going to be found in Bill C-11. I believe this is the right path to move forward.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

What you just said—

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Thank you.

That's it. I'm sorry.

Mr. Kibble, you have up to five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's disappointing we're focusing so much on Bill C-16 and showcasing that before it's being debated and not Bill C-11 and the particular instances of military sexual trauma.

We've heard heartbreaking testimony from many victims and survivors, Minister. Overwhelmingly, they have said they want a choice. We've had the testimony of Justice Deschamps and Justice Fish, who say they support choice between the military and civilian justice systems. You only focus on Justice Arbour's report. I think that everybody's voices should be included. I think that all of those recommendations should be included and not just have cherry-picking. Victims have said overwhelmingly they will not bring many of their cases forward to civilian courts, including the low-level ones. In fact, many of them have reported that their cases have been turned away from the civilian system.

Why will you not hear the voices of everyone and hear the majority of voices? Why do you insist on taking away choice so that victims cannot choose? This is military sexual trauma, which is very different from just sexual trauma. Why do you insist on taking that choice between those two systems away from them?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Very respectfully, I have a sincerely held different view. The choice that I see playing out right now in the military context is that so many people do not come forward at all for the reasons that I have outlined.

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

I appreciate that, but—

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, do I have time to offer a response similar to the length of the question?

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

—this isn't about your view. This is about the view of victims of military sexual trauma.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, do I have an opportunity to offer responses?