The House of Commons National Defence committee met to study Bill C-11, which proposes transferring the investigation and prosecution of military sexual offences to the civilian justice system. Five witnesses appeared: Hélène Le Scelleur, a veteran and Ph.D. candidate; William Chisholm, a retired master warrant officer; Christine Wood, a veteran and advocate; Donna Van Leusden, director of Survivor Perspectives Consulting Group; and Diane Hill Rose, a peer support advocate.
Hélène Le Scelleur testified that she was sexually assaulted by a senior officer and never reported it because the system he influenced posed too great a risk, legally, professionally and personally, and because no safe avenue existed during her deployment to Afghanistan. She argued that Bill C-11 does not correct structural gaps in independence, extraterritorial jurisdiction and survivor choice, and recommended codifying the right to choose between civilian and military pathways, creating an independent investigative body for cases involving senior officers, establishing an extraterritorial mechanism for deployed personnel, and developing a joint hybrid civilian-military model.
William Chisholm, who served as a military liaison officer at the Sexual Misconduct Support and Resource Centre (SMSRC), said he personally dealt with over 500 cases and that victims were not always advised of their choice between systems. He stated that the SMSRC decision tree is geared toward conviction of the alleged perpetrator, that the duty to report was removed from the DAOD, and that Bill C-11 will not change conduct and will remove choice from affected members.
Christine Wood said she experienced almost every form of sexual aggression in her first 18 months in uniform and reported a rape to military police, never considering civilian police. She opposed transferring all military sexual offences to the civilian system, arguing it is broken, removes survivor choice, and that civilian actors lack guaranteed training in military culture. She supported creating an independent system of justice for sexual crimes within the military, urged amendments to keep low-level offences under military jurisdiction, and asked for a two- to five-year sunset clause and for victims to have choice of jurisdiction until both systems improve.
Donna Van Leusden said Bill C-11 removes choice and reduces flexibility, and that civilian courts are already overwhelmed, with Jordan delays rising and charge-laying decreasing. She noted that a summary trial in the military system resulted in a conviction that would not have happened in civilian court, and that a civilian case against a colonel with multiple victims never led to charges. She argued that any reform removing survivor choice is not reform, and that trauma-informed training and resources are essential.
Diane Hill Rose said Bill C-11 is a legal solution to a human problem and that culture eats policy for breakfast. She raised concerns about the lack of provisions for OUTCAN deployments, the difficulty victims face in finding the SMSRC, and the risk that victim liaison officer provisions will further fracture support systems. She supported a two- to five-year sunset clause and called for amendments to sections 80 through 90 to re-place survivors at the centre.
During the question period, witnesses consistently told members that survivors must have the right to choose between civilian and military systems, that the civilian system is overburdened and not trauma-informed, and that military cultural awareness training for civilian actors is insufficient without dedicated resources. Several witnesses noted they were not consulted on Bill C-11. The committee briefly discussed procedural matters, including a request to end meetings on time and a notice that unanimous consent would not be given for non-party questions.
AI-generated summary — may contain errors; verify against the official evidence.