National Defence Committee on Feb. 2nd, 2026

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Mr. Savard‑Tremblay, you have the floor.

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

Unfortunately, there is no ideal world or perfect scenario when it comes to a bill like this. However, I still believe that it is the least bad option to give civil authorities some leeway to decide whether a case should be transferred. We will also have to find a way to relieve the backlog in the civil courts. Otherwise, it will result in a massive transfer of cases there.

If, for example, a victim were intimidated by the chain of command to have their case transferred to the military system, which can happen, the civil court in question would, of course, have to be able to refuse the transfer.

That is somewhat the idea behind this proposal, namely to give civil courts some leeway and also to avoid the drawbacks that were raised just before regarding the amendment we have just dealt with.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Thank you, Mr. Savard-Tremblay.

We'll go to Mr. Watchorn and then Mr. Bezan.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As we can see, what is happening here is crystal clear. It is very confusing.

For my part, I would say that amendment BQ‑1 runs counter to the spirit of amendment CPC‑5, which we adopted earlier. We based our decision on the argument that it should be possible for either the military or the civilian system to conduct an investigation.

If I understand the proposed amendment correctly, the intention is to remove the possibility that the military justice system could conduct the investigation.

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

I would say that guidelines are needed.

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

Very well, with a few guidelines, but in the first line, it says:

All investigations will be conducted by civilian police, with no exception.

We could also consider certain special cases, although I have a hard time seeing how we could find evidence for them.

That said, I would like to come back to something that was said.

Today, we are talking about clarity. I think that, even within the committee, it is not clear how this will move forward.

In June 2024, the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs tabled a report containing recommendations, one of which, in particular, was accepted by all parties. That is recommendation 40, which I will read.

Recommendation 40 says:

That the Department of National Defence, in accordance with the many recommendations made in the wake of the Deschamps, Fish and Arbour reports, establish a reporting mechanism outside of the military chain of command, provide victims of military sexual trauma with safe and confidential legal resources, and transfer the jurisdiction to investigate sexual misconduct and prosecute its perpetrators to civilian authorities.

I can tell you today that, in my opinion, it would have been simpler to follow recommendation 5 in Ms. Arbour’s report and simply transfer criminal cases of sexual assault to the civil authorities.

Do you agree with this statement?

[Col Geneviève Lortie]

Bill C‑11 was drafted to highlight Justice Arbour’s recommendation, including the method of implementation and the elimination of the possibility of recourse to both jurisdictions, both in terms of investigation and prosecution.

Section 7 has been amended, and there is some possibility of prosecution in court. Section 8 has been amended by the amendment proposed earlier, which opens up the possibility of waiting for the civilian police to arrive.

The provision currently being proposed is located—I am trying to see if it comes before or after the other provision—at the investigation stage. We wait for the civilian police, and at some point, at the end of the process, the victim can request that the case be handled by the military.

So we still have that option, in terms of choosing the court of justice. However, at the investigation stage, we are really at the stage where charges have been laid, we are in a system, jurisdiction has already been established, we are before a civil court and the victim is making a request. In that case, I don’t know who would make the request. I imagine that, through some mechanism, it is the victim who makes the request, since it is not at the request of the prosecution, and not on behalf of someone else. According to the wording, it is a request. The manner in which this is done remains to be determined, but it requires a civil court that has the jurisdiction to hear civil charges but does not have the jurisdiction of a court-martial to determine the jurisdiction of another court.

There are often questions of jurisdiction on appeal as to whether a court has the necessary jurisdiction or not, and this is reviewed by an appellate court. In the case of a court-martial, it will be an appeals court within the military justice system, whereas in the present situation, it will actually be a civil court that decides. We are therefore talking about one jurisdiction transferring a case to another. This raises questions, such as how it would be perceived.

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

It's non-functional.

[Col Geneviève Lortie]

That raises doubts, and every time we have doubts about how the system can move forward, the first case, or one of the first ones, will often lead to a challenge. Then, depending on the decision, it is appealed. We'll be here for a number of years. You can challenge a court decision in the civilian appellate court. It is up to the government to decide.

On the military side, there are some as well. It's not the same court of appeal. The court martial hears only appeal court cases. To be able to clarify everything, we really have to know how to read the provisions as a whole, which can take time.

However, there is a risk that the system will not be used. Some could use other means to ensure that the Canadian Armed Forces knows where we're headed. We also want the discipline, efficiency and morale of the forces to be preserved and the operational side of the forces to be maintained. It's very important. So that's always a risk, at that point.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Thank you.

We have Mr. Bezan and Mr. Malette, and then hopefully we can go to a vote at that point.

Mr. Bezan, you have the floor.

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

We've been hearing from witnesses, and at the 15th meeting of this committee, Christine Wood said, “I originally completely opposed the transfer of all cases to civilian court, and that was for three reasons: number one, it's broken”. We talked about the Jordan framework. That's one of the reasons not to put it into civilian court. She also said, “number two, it offers victims no choice; and number three, I believe the CAF has to maintain control over its jurisdiction and demonstrate it can be responsible for fixing its own harms.”

We also heard over and over again that...and I think this is what BQ-1 does. It deals with the issue around the minor offences that the civilian court isn't even going to want to pursue. Even if we hadn't been amending this bill and putting choice back in for survivors of military sexual trauma, the lower-level cases—as we heard from Justice Deschamps when she was here—probably won't even be heard in civilian court. They're going to be thrown out, and then there is no recourse within the court martial system to deal with these other cases.

We heard from the director of military prosecutions, Colonel Kerr, who said, “If it wasn't for the tabling of Bill C-11, I would already have rescinded my direction to stop exercising jurisdiction in these cases, and I'm fully prepared to resume accepting appropriate cases in the military justice system now.”

We have to give choice back to the victims, and they should have it at every stage of an investigation and during prosecution. In this case, if the civilian court is looking at a case—and this is what the BQ-1 amendment will do—and saying there's no chance it's going to have the ability to deal with it because it's a low-level sexual offence, they can make that decision and fire it back into the court martial system. I think it is the appropriate process to take.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

I believe, Mr. MacMillan, you have your hand up. Then we will go to Mr. Malette and Mr. Savard-Tremblay.

[LCol Matt MacMillan]

Mr. Chair, I want to provide some clarity.

The civilian court would only have jurisdiction over a matter if charges have been laid in the civilian system. There would have already been a determination from the prosecutor that they were going to proceed and lay charges. They would have made a determination at that point that they have a reasonable prospect of conviction and there is public interest in proceeding. They would lay charges, and the matter would go before the civilian court. That is one clarity in relation to that piece.

There is, as Colonel Lortie said, the question of who would bring the matter before the court. The prosecutors themselves are responsible for the societal interests of pursuing a matter in front of a court. The victim does not in and of themselves have standing before a court. If there were a question about the victim not wanting to proceed in civilian court, ultimately what would likely happen is they would request that of the prosecutor and say they don't want to proceed. It goes back to prosecutorial discretion: Given the new information, do they want to proceed down that path?

If there were an application before the court, there's a question of how that would happen. Ultimately, the defence counsel at that time and the accused would be able to make representations on their own behalf as to whether they want to make that happen. There's a lack of clarity in exactly how that process would unfold, but at the outset, the charges would be laid in the civilian system. Otherwise, there's no determination in relation to that for the court to make, based on how it is drafted.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Thank you, Lieutenant-Colonel.

Mr. Malette.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll withhold my comments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Mr. Savard‑Tremblay, you have the floor.

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

I'm going to touch very briefly on timelines.

First of all, I don't think it would be common sense per se if a civil court transferred a case with the impression that the deadlines would not be met.

Personally, I don't think it will happen, but in any case, it's provided for in amendment BQ‑1. The last sentence of subsection 70.11(1) provides that a civil court may “determine that a court martial should have jurisdiction to try the person charged if it is of the opinion that it would not interfere with the proper administration of justice”.

So the amendment already provides that the civil court could not do that if there were a time limit that would cause the proceedings to fail.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Seeing no more hands, I put the matter back to the committee to determine if it shall be carried.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Mr. Bezan, do you wish to move CPC-7?

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

I'll move CPC-7, and if you want, I can start speaking to it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Yes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The one concern we heard is that if we are going to be moving these investigations into civilian courts and handing them over to civilian police and other authorities, we need to make sure there isn't wilful neglect and negligence on behalf of those who are doing those investigations, possibly slowing down the secured evidence in the transfer of the information, testimonies and other evidence to civilian authorities.

We heard that from a number of different people. Heather Vanderveer, in her written submission, said, “Transfers between CAF, military police, civilian police, and civilian Crown prosecutors must occur within clearly defined timelines and not weeks, months, or years.” She also said, “We've seen within the military system that things move at a glacial speed sometimes when handing over documents, and there are always delays.” If we're concerned about the Jordan principle—that framework—and getting things done within the 18-month time frame, we can't allow the military police, other investigative services and the CAF to drag their feet.

Rory Fowler said, in talking about one particular case, that the prosecution was stayed for delay and that the delay was directly attributable to repeated delays by the military police in providing portions of the investigation file to the civilian prosecutor. We have to put a timeline on that, and that's what we're doing with CPC-7.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Is there any debate?

Ms. Lapointe.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think the intent of this is appropriate and speaks to what we heard, but I'm going to seek clarity from our witnesses.

Can you tell us if a provision already exists that addresses this?