National Defence

The House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence met to study Bill C-11, an act to amend the National Defence Act and other acts, hearing from three witnesses appearing as individuals: Dr. Karen Breeck, a retired Canadian Armed Forces medical officer; Afton David, a senior legal counsel and reservist; and Colonel (Retired) Bruce MacGregor, former Director of Military Prosecutions.

Dr. Karen Breeck argued that the military of 2025 is not the military of 2015, noting that many problems identified in the Deschamps and Arbour reports have been addressed through training, the Sexual Misconduct Support and Resource Centre, victims' rights legislation, and the removal of the duty to report. She recommended that the bill exclude low-risk, non-violent adult cases from mandatory civilian referral to preserve complainant choice, add federal funding for defence counsel and complex police processes, and mandate data collection with a two-year review of outcomes before making changes permanent. She disagreed with the premise that removing choice is better for survivors, emphasizing that low-level incidents are key to preventing escalation and that the bill lacks survivor, Indigenous justice, and public health perspectives.

Afton David urged the committee to treat Bill C-11 as one step in a broader reform program, recommending a sunset clause for the removal of military jurisdiction over sexual offences, expanded and independent mental health supports, limits on Governor in Council appointment timelines, and strengthened judicial independence by removing military judges from the code of service discipline. She also called for prohibiting commanders from imposing administrative measures on accused members before court processes conclude, ensuring defence counsel for service members charged in civilian courts and in summary hearings, and appointing an accused liaison officer to coordinate between the accused, chain of command, and civilian processes. She noted that Justice Fish's recommendation 68 was a temporary measure and that the military justice system was not given a chance to demonstrate its capacity after victims' rights were enacted.

Colonel (Retired) Bruce MacGregor emphasized that the Director of Military Prosecutions should have a non-renewable seven-year term, with the annual report tabled before Parliament, and that the power to give instructions on individual cases should be transferred from the Judge Advocate General to the minister and be gazetted. He argued that removing military jurisdiction over sexual offences is inconsistent with prior recommendations from Justices Deschamps and Fish, and that the civilian justice system is overburdened, lacks the military's purpose of promoting discipline and operational effectiveness, and will not guarantee that cases proceed. He stressed that taking choice away from informed victims is paternalistic and that the military justice system, with its specialized resources like the DMP SMART team, offers better victim support and transparency than the civilian system.

During questions, Colonel MacGregor expressed concern that the bill removes the military's ability to investigate and prosecute sexual offences, noting that lower-level cases will not be heard in civilian courts and that the chain of command will lose information needed to protect victims. Afton David supported the amendment excluding military judges from the code of service discipline, arguing that judicial independence requires it, while Colonel MacGregor disagreed, stating that anyone wearing the uniform should be subject to the code. Dr. Breeck reiterated that low-level incidents must remain within the military system to prevent escalation and that the bill's mandatory referral will reduce reporting, as many prefer quick internal resolution over the lengthy civilian process that can end careers.