EVIDENCE

Standing Committee on National Defence NUMBER 014 1st SESSION 45th PARLIAMENT Thursday, November 20, 2025 Le jeudi 20 novembre 2025 Standing Committee on National Defence CANADA [Recorded by Electronic Apparatus] EVIDENCE November 20, 2025 Committee NUMBER 014 NUMBER 014 NUMÉRO 014 14 20 11 2025 2025/11/20 08:20:00 House Of Commons Comité permanent de la défense nationale Standing Committee on National Defence NDDN Chair Charles Sousa 1 45

(0820) [ English ]

The Chair (Charles Sousa (Mississauga—Lakeshore, Lib.)) :

I call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 14 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. Before we continue, I ask participants to consult the guidelines on the table. These measures are to help prevent audio and feedback incidents and to protect the health and safety of the interpreters. I would like to remind the witnesses and members to please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. If you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For those on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can. For language

interpretation, please use the earpiece and select the desired channel in front of you. For those on Zoom, select the appropriate channel on the screen for floor, English or French. We appreciate your patience and understanding. Before we welcome our witnesses, please note that we may be discussing uncomfortable experiences related to sexual misconduct. This may trigger sensitivities and distress. We recognize that these are difficult discussions, and I'm sure we will all be compassionate in our conversations and questions. If you need help, please advise the clerk. I would now like to welcome our witnesses.

We have with us Elvira Jaszberenyi, a retired corporal; Paula MacDonald; Heather Vanderveer; and Rachelle Smith, founder and host of the Silenced Voices of MST. I'll now invite Ms. Jaszberenyi to make an opening statement. You have up to five minutes.

Elvira Jaszberenyi (Retired Corporal, As an Individual) :

Thank you, Chair. Thank you for inviting me. I'm not supported by any groups nor am I political. I was proud to serve my country as a 50-plus-year-old soldier, but my rape case with forcible confinement in a broom closet on base was botched. The government's obligation is to protect citizens from harm and is the basis of criminal law. My assailant was under investigation for a previous sexual assault, SA, bad conduct, and was a known predator to the NIS. I was also infected with an incurable STD, but NIS ignored his admission and tampered with evidence. My case was dropped after four months.

I was told not to call MPs as I was stalked and exposed on social media and pressured to accept a redacted version of my file. When I handed in a lawyer's letter, COC blamed my own delay. My assailant was charged for his first victim two years later for his conduct, but DOJ is trying to redact her from the file. My ATIPs are being withheld, but the past won't show gossip by COC as retaliation continued after my transfer, resulting in injury. As a weapons tech, I held nine unrelated jobs.

Padres, COC and mental health said to take the victim tag off as I endured retribution and was ordered to return to where the rape occurred as doctors asked for information on my case or prescribed unneeded medications. After switching to intelligence, my career was held back. While under trauma and with health issues, I was ordered back to work. COC, wellness checks and calls now increased. My private prosecution was taken by the Crown, but actus reus and mens rea were overlooked along with evidence. VWAP and ILA coupons were insufficient and demeaning.

CAF, our justice system and our government's handling of crimes and preventing harm is lax. Hockey Canada, Nygard, etc. have angered the public. Insufficient evidence was given to MPCC who labelled my case a shoddy investigation and were baffled by why the accused wasn't charged. I was wrongfully released, CAF signing on my behalf. My application to VAC was lost. My support, Steve Torinor, was threatened legally. They threatened to come to my residence and pressured me for information. He urged government members, with little response. VAC distorted my application, requesting my medical information.

Ignoring my IRB is enough. My human rights lawyer also turned on me with JAG, threatening AWOL. I reported a crime, but suffered consequences for protecting myself and others. Culture change and gender issues are a mask. Gatekeepers who silence victims and crimes, and speak on our behalf, must be removed. CAF must screen soldiers properly, as they reviewed my assailant speaking Russian in our combats about CAF on YouTube, AKA Russian spy guys. Facebook sexualized political posts were ignored. General Eyre wrote that he's only informing Russians. This ridicules my country and our military.

Why did Canada's former spy, who advised you on safety tied to CSIS and the RCMP, get involved in my case and say to record and take pictures? Someone linked to a group that appeared before you said to claim to suicide to get money. I was ordered to report in combats while ill, write memos and call 1-800 numbers. The CO offered me to sit with my assailant, or call if he shows up or...diversion. CAF used NIS and DOJ in court to follow my story. As victims of suicide increase, the system will crumble if you don't act.

As a single-income person fighting for my rights and safety, I have been paying lawyers with no results. My assailant is still working on base. CAF employed a known predator and placed him on course while under investigation. It's clear we are not protected from harm or our enemies. With Bill C-11 , we must implement the previous justice's recommendations. However, the military justice system and police shouldn't overlap.

Victims should have the same rights as the accused to balance the safety of our country and be accountable; bring back loyalty and integrity to our country; give justice and restitution not just to those who were wrongfully accused but to the many victims who have been silenced; and prevent these crimes, which were not in the grey zone. Thank you.

(0825) The Chair :

Thank you. Ms. MacDonald, go ahead.

Paula MacDonald (Master of Social Work, As an Individual) :

My name is Paula MacDonald, and I was a master's educated social worker who served in the Canadian Armed Forces between 2014 and 2016 in both the reserves and regular force. My service was marked by gender discrimination and escalating gender-based violence that ended in retaliatory sexual assault. I'm not talking about workplace conflict; I'm talking about what happens when the chain of command uses powers of the state to control, minimize and bury sexual misconduct inside the Canadian Armed Forces. It's the CAF's sexualized culture that made inappropriate comments and jokes and unwanted touching seem normal.

People in positions of rank use the atmosphere as a tool of control, treating subordinates as objects instead of human beings or soldiers worthy of respect. The CAF is not a private employer. My commanders, harassment advisers, assisting officers and the military police were all exercising public authority under the National Defence Act. They controlled my work, my medical file, my career, my release and my access to complaints. They also influenced how military and civilian police handled my allegations. When they acted, they acted as agents of the state.

This means the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies. When I reported sexual harassment and, later, sexual assaults, my allegations should have been taken seriously. I should have been kept safe and given access to independent, impartial investigations. Instead, everything stayed inside the chain of command. My harassment complaint and grievance threatened to expose senior medical officers who had violated the rights of a social worker who named the hostile culture. Protecting themselves in the institution came first.

My complaints were routed through chain of command-led investigations and internal processes. Harassment advisers and grievance officers reported to the same leaders I was complaining about. Military police opened files, spoke only to my supervisors and then closed the files without ever interviewing me. When I went to the civilian police, I was told more than once to go back to the military system that failed me. At the same time, my leaders reframed my complaints.

Instead of naming sexual harassment and abuse of power that led to sexual assault, they called me emotional, hypersensitive and a mental health problem. They used medical referrals, medical employment limitations and threats of discipline under the National Defence Act, including threats of dishonourable discharge, to pressure and punish me for speaking up. My harassment case became a disciplinary and medical case against me, not against those who engaged and created the hostile sexual environment. From a charter perspective, this matters.

Section 15 ensures equality of rights. As a woman reporting sexual harassment and sexual assault, I did not receive equal protection or equal benefit of the law. My experiences were minimized, my credibility was attacked and supposedly neutral tools, medical labels, career limitations and administrative measures were weaponized against me. This is sex discrimination.

Section 7 deals with liberty and security of the person. The chain of command knew about escalating sexual behaviour, threatened to misuse legal powers and allowed a senior commander to gain power over my future in exchange for sexual access. This caused serious ongoing harm to my psychological security. This is state-driven exposure to risk and abuse of process.

Section 2(

b) ensures freedom of expression. Every time I used my voice—complaining internally, going to the police or speaking to oversight bodies—I faced reprisal. I was labelled as disruptive, threatened with discharge, buried in pointless tasks and ultimately pushed into a so-called voluntary release just to escape their abuse. The release freed the chain of command from having to answer for its membership's violence and violations of the National Defence Act. Chain of command-led investigations are not neutral when members of the chain of command themselves are implicated.

The military provost's office is not independent from the chief of the defence staff or the broader command structure. In my case, the Canadian Armed Forces didn't simply mishandle a file; it used the machinery of the military justice and grievance system to protect its membership, who violated the National Defence Act and silenced me. The misuse of state power that the charter is meant to guard against is what they did.

(0830) It is exactly why the reforms like Bill C‑11 and a real shift to independent civilian jurisdiction over sexual offences is so urgently needed to maintain the rule of law within the Canadian Armed Forces.

The Chair :

Thank you. Ms. Vanderveer, you have five minutes.

Heather Vanderveer (As an Individual) :

Chair and honourable members, I thank you for hearing me today. My name is Heather Vanderveer. I am a veteran. I work with survivors of military sexual trauma, harassment, coercion and abuse: people whose lives have been altered not only by what was done to them, but by what the system failed to do afterwards. I'm here today because Bill C‑11 as drafted does not protect survivors. It risks harming them further. Every week, I work with people who have reported assaults and have waited months, sometimes years, for an update.

I watch their files get passed between military police and civilian police like an unwanted parcel: being told to start over because jurisdiction is unclear, their credibility being questioned more often than the conduct of the accused and being abandoned by institutions that promise to protect them. The trauma does not stop at the assault. It continues every time the system avoids responsibility. Survivors call this “institutional betrayal”. I call it predatorial jurisdictional behaviour, because avoidance like this is never passive. It protects institutions, not survivors.

Civilian judges and Crown prosecutors are rarely trained in rank and power dynamics: coercion tied to postings and deployments; the impossibility of avoiding an abuser in a military environment; delayed reporting by retaliation and career threats; or the structural pressures unique to military life. These gaps shape outcomes. Civilian sexual assault conviction rates in Canada are already extremely low. When military complexity is added, the outcomes worsen. Survivors are not being transferred to a stronger system. They are being transferred to a system unprepared to receive them.

The CAF believes they are modernizing through Bill C‑11 , but their definition of modernization is administrative, not survivor-centred. New oversight bodies may look modern on paper, but without enforceable responsibility, it isn't modernization. Shifting cases to civilian courts without preparing those courts is not modernization. Adding new steps and new hand-off points does not bring clarity. Let me be blunt. If no one is required to act, the system never learns it has to, which means that this isn't random. When the law doesn't assign responsibility, the system doesn't step forward: It steps back.

The longer it persists, the more the system learns to protect itself instead of the survivor. As written, Bill C‑11 creates more steps, more hand-offs and more opportunities for avoidance, yet it does not identify who must take care of the case. Instead of providing clarity, it gives institutions more places to send a survivor rather than help them: more doors to knock on, more forms to submit and more timelines to wait through. Survivors cannot endure another round of bureaucratic ping-pong. Right now, survivors navigate a maze. Bill C‑11 adds more hallways and more locked doors.

Every unanswered email, transfer and “not our jurisdiction” sends the message. You are not worth the effort. Your case is not worth the risk. Your trauma is too inconvenient. Major reviews—Deschamps, Arbour, Fish, the ombudsman, the Auditor General—and class action findings say the same thing: Survivors are falling through the cracks because no one is accountable. Bill C‑11 doesn't fix that. It reorganizes the cracks. True modernization requires accountability, clarity and survivor-centred outcomes. Bill C‑11 delivers none of these.

The greatest harm is not only when cases are dropped but when they sit in procedural limbo. That is cruel in its own right. Closure means certainty, dignity, the ability to heal and knowing that your life matters as much as the institution that failed you. Bill C‑11 as drafted risks denying survivors closure. Survivors are not asking for special treatment. They're asking for the bare minimum any justice system should provide: a clear process, a responsible authority and a real pathway to resolution.

If Bill C‑11 cannot guarantee these three things, it will retraumatize survivors, deepen mistrust and reinforce the failures that brought us here. Thank you.

The Chair :

Thank you. Ms. Smith, you have five minutes.

(0835) Rachelle Smith (Founder and Host, The Silenced Voices MST) :

Thank you for the invitation to appear today. I'm a former United States Air Force officer and a survivor of military sexual assault. My experiences are not unique. The way the system responded to what happened shaped the course of my service and my life. The patterns I experienced appear across the accounts of many survivors with whom I work today. When I arrived at my first duty station, women who had served there before me offered quiet warnings about safety. Two weeks later, I was assaulted. I did not report the full incident, yet retaliation still followed.

That experience made it clear that the system in place did not protect me and that I did not truly have a safe or independent way to come forward. This pattern has been identified by many service members and veterans who described an environment where the chain of command controlled both their daily lives and the responses to their assaults. Through my work with survivors, the same issues come up again and again. Many describe being exposed to further harm by reporting pathways created by military leaders.

There are descriptions of support systems that did not operate independently from the very structures they feared and of long-term consequences to their health, to their careers and ultimately to their abilities to continue serving. These accounts come from individuals across different branches, ranks and backgrounds, reflecting structural weaknesses rather than isolated failures. When independent investigation and external oversight are missing, predictable and well-known outcomes follow. Units lose trust in their leaders.

Survivors avoid reporting, while offenders remain in authority, and the ripple effect touches readiness, retention and national security. From reading Bill C-11 , I believe the measures in it outline and address the core weaknesses that shape whether service members trust the system that governs them. Independent investigative authority, external judicial oversight and protected support mechanisms for victims create conditions where they can ask for help and can report without fear of retaliation or compromised processes. These measures also help restore confidence in the institution as a whole.

Across the survivor accounts that I encounter, one point comes up consistently: the harm does not end with the sexual assault. The way the institution responds has deeper and more lasting effects. A military force cannot be effective when its members doubt the fairness, the independence or the safety of the structures intended to protect them. Accountability requires clear processes, credible oversight and reliable support. Strengthening these areas protects survivors and then strengthens the institutions themselves. Thank you for your time.

The Chair :

Thank you, to all four of you, for your opening remarks. We appreciate your being here, and we appreciate your courage and transparency, giving us information and enlightening us in terms of the issues. What we're going forward with in this bill, as a committee, is to ensure that we protect the rights of victims so that justice prevails. We're going to start our first round with Ms. Gallant. You have six minutes.

Cheryl Gallant (Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, CPC) :

Ms. Jaszberenyi, to whom did you first report the incident?

Elvira Jaszberenyi :

At first, when I reported it, I felt.... Hold on. I can't find my notes.

Cheryl Gallant :

That's okay, Ms. Jaszberenyi. I don't need the name, but was it your commanding officer? What was the relationship?

Elvira Jaszberenyi :

Yes, I have it written down, condensed. I called my COC because I was distressed. They called the MPs to check on me. The COC ordered me to speak with them. Then they called an MP who drove me to NIS, but they said I could leave at any time. Anyway, years later, it looked like it was a police training exercise in Borden. Reporting a crime was one thing, but the COC, the NIS, the lawyers and the gatekeepers in place took this to another level. Each person who tampered, gave away information and interfered is responsible for their actions.

Cheryl Gallant :

I'm going to ask you questions in a certain order so that I can get a clear picture of what happened. Were you on your own base, or were you away training at that time? Where did this occur?

Elvira Jaszberenyi :

I was on base, yes.

Cheryl Gallant :

You were on your base.

Elvira Jaszberenyi :

I was, yes.

Cheryl Gallant :

Were you given the choice of dealing with the OPP versus the military police?

Elvira Jaszberenyi :

I had communications with OPP. I tried every possible avenue, and they said that it was not in their purview to help me.

(0840) Cheryl Gallant :

When you were with the military, did you ask them to be in charge of it instead of the military, the CAF?

Elvira Jaszberenyi :

To be honest, I was still processing everything.

Cheryl Gallant :

Then you didn't ask the MPs for your case to go to the OPP, as opposed to the MPs?

Elvira Jaszberenyi :

That I don't remember, but I do not believe.... I did it on my own.

Cheryl Gallant :

All right. Were you offered a medical visit to gather evidence after the attack?

Elvira Jaszberenyi :

Right after I was interrogated by the MPs, which was over three and a half hours, they had another NIS officer drive me to the hospital for the SA kit. ATIPs later revealed that the chain of command was more worried about media attention and about what was going on. There were a whole bunch of other things that happened, but their concern wasn't me; it was what was going to come out of it.

Cheryl Gallant :

Were you offered any legal representation or a support officer? You were not offered any of this. Okay. Were you provided with a transcript or a recording of the interview that you gave? You said it was three and a half hours.

Elvira Jaszberenyi :

Yes, I was there for over three and a half hours, or possibly four or five hours, because there were breaks in between. Before that, they explained the whole process and everything. I'm sorry; I forgot the other part of your question. Go ahead.

Cheryl Gallant :

Okay. Well, I want to go back to the last one, because you shook your head, but we have to have it on the record. Did you have legal representation or a support or liaison officer provided or offered to you?

Elvira Jaszberenyi :

No, I got my own legal representation, I believe, after the case was dropped, because as soldiers, we all feel that they will take care of us, but I quickly found out that was not the case.

Cheryl Gallant :

Was a member of the clergy brought in or did you—

Elvira Jaszberenyi :

Oh, yes.

Cheryl Gallant :

What did the member of the clergy say to you?

Elvira Jaszberenyi :

To say it in a condensed form, the padres, the COC, mental health all work together, and they all go back to the chain of command. It's all about exchange of information.

Cheryl Gallant :

Okay, but what was his advice to you?

Elvira Jaszberenyi :

At first he was trying to help me and evaluate my trauma. Then finally he turned on me, and he said things to me like.... Some of his quotes were that.... I didn't write those down to have them with me. I could hand them in later. He basically threatened me, saying that you're here to work and that the chain of command is very busy and.... I can't remember his exact words, but they were hostile.

Cheryl Gallant :

Was there any reference to unlimited liability?

Elvira Jaszberenyi :

Yes, thank you. He said something to that effect—that you're on unlimited liability, and that you came here to serve, and that we could always put you back on PAT platoon if you don't like it. I just felt very threatened and I didn't understand why he took this completely different approach. Obviously, that ended my communications with that padre, but they kept bringing in other padres as well.

Cheryl Gallant :

They didn't want you to pursue this. Okay. Did you resume your training right after that in your same stream of training, or what happened instead?

Elvira Jaszberenyi :

No. As a matter of fact, as a weapons tech, I had asked to be placed on a French course, because I am bilingual. When they put me into the French engineering course, they came in and said that I was not qualified in French. I gave them my reply in French. [ Translation ] I take my courses in French. I speak French, and I'm from Quebec. [ English ] I was absolutely astonished that they were pulling me out of the class in front of everybody. Finally, they let me stay in class, but I did have to pass written and spoken French afterwards.

Cheryl Gallant :

And did you?

Elvira Jaszberenyi :

I started to, but then— I'm sorry. I think time is up.

(0845) The Chair :

No, it's okay. I don't want to interrupt. I was going to go to the next witness, but by all means, finish your thought.

Elvira Jaszberenyi :

I'm sorry. What was your last question?

Cheryl Gallant :

I wanted to know whether or not you just resumed your regular course of education, or were you required to do something else?

Elvira Jaszberenyi :

No, they kept telling me they were going to put me back on another course, but they said they didn't have English courses. I said, “Fine, put me on a French course,” but they said that with the francophones, because there are fewer people, it takes longer for them to be on course. Then I asked for an OJE back in Montreal. They kept delaying me and they said that I'm delaying myself because now I have a lawyer. That's when they were throwing all the 1-800 numbers, saying that if I want to be reporting, then call here or do this or write memos.

It's just a whole bunch of hurdles that they try to put in front of you. They actually told me to put apps on my phone to play games—which I usually don't do—and to sit in a canteen and wait while the other people were in classes. I just sat there and waited.

The Chair :

I have to keep time. I apologize for that. We do appreciate your service and you being here expressing something that's very sensitive. I don't want to interrupt, but we do have timelines. Cheryl, thank you for your questions. I'm going to go now to the next member, Sherry Romanado. You have six minutes.

Sherry Romanado (Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, Lib.) :

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Through you, I'd like to thank the witnesses for being here, for your service and for coming and sharing your stories. Everyone here is trying, and I believe you are too, to make sure that this doesn't happen to anyone else and that justice is served. Your testimony today is incredibly important for us to make sure we get this right, so I want to thank you for that. I want to start first with Ms. MacDonald. You said a few things that I'd like to follow up on a little bit.

You mentioned in your testimony that the CAF were using their rank and what we've heard in previous testimony was the CAF shouldn't be investigating itself. The independence is lacking. You mentioned you were never interviewed. You ended up going to the civilian police and they told you to go back to the CAF. Could you elaborate a little bit about what your thoughts are, in terms of Bill C-11 and how that could help provide some clarity, but also some independence?

Paula MacDonald :

Right now, the Canadian Armed Forces, which is struggling with a problem of conduct of its membership, is investigating itself. They're using sexualized violence to control their subordinates or to establish power over colleagues. It's used as a tool of social control and power. It's normal, everyday behaviour. This is what they do. This is how they behave. It needs to be separated because they start with human rights violations and then they move into Criminal Code sexual violations. The Criminal Code part needs to be removed from them, so that there will be consequences for their conduct.

There are no consequences for human rights violations with the chain of command. The part where we're looking at things where the chain of command wants to use the military judicial system to maintain good order and discipline—they could start by addressing human rights violations. What we see from high-ranking members is that they violate human rights and then they get promoted and moved into another position where they have authority to address the hostile, sexualized culture and keep going with their bad behaviour. It needs to be removed, so that there's a consequence.

Sherry Romanado :

Thank you for that. My next question is going to be for Ms. Jaszberenyi. You mentioned that you didn't receive any supports, in terms of what happened to you. The person who assaulted you went on to continue their career in the Canadian Armed Forces even though there had been a previous case you had mentioned. There was a pattern of behaviour here with this person. When you reported, did they not take it seriously?

(0850) Elvira Jaszberenyi :

CAF was aware of a predator on base after the first victim along with her witness also made a complaint. Soon after, they sent him on training with us to Shilo after being told of abuse reports on that course. My COC was more worried about the quotas he had to meet with HQ, as they tried to convince me that they didn't see the gravity of my rape, which was after the training. During that time, there were five COCs who sat around me. ATIP results showed that the COC was more concerned with the media attention as well, as I said earlier.

Staff from the MIR and mental health were also there to extract the information. When I was in one of the meetings that I was ordered to, these are words that they were using: "They accommodated me", "There is no pleasure in keeping you in Borden", "No one is holding a gun to your head", "There is no policy for someone like you", " We are bending over backwards for your situation", "Memos are not about you.” “It's a sales opportunity, a sales pitch for what you want." Finally, I asked them, "What am I selling?" They were just trying to pressure me to sign things.

I could tell you about the NIS and that the investigator prevented the accused from admitting his guilt, even though he was a known predator and under investigation for another sexual assault. As a matter of fact, he had to leave his interrogation about my case for the other sexual assault interrogation. It's in the file.

Sherry Romanado :

All of you mentioned something about reprisal and that there are probably many cases that don't get reported. We've heard that. We heard in previous testimony that probably even 80% of cases don't get reported. When people do come forward and report it, there's retaliation, as you mentioned, Ms. Smith. There's sidelining of careers. You're pushed out. We're trying to, first of all, provide justice and supports to victims, prevent this from happening but also build back trust in the system. I have children serving in the Canadian Armed Forces.

When I hear stories like yours, I can imagine how other family members feel when their child decides or their family member says, "I want to serve my country". There's a fear that something will happen to them or worse, as you've all mentioned, that they'll be failed by the system. As you mentioned, Ms. Vanderveer, they're almost revictimized. The process of going through the reporting and the investigation is just as traumatic as the assault. With respect to this bill, is there something you would like to recommend to us?

I probably don't have a ton of time, but if ever there's something you want to also submit to this committee as recommendations, I would urge you to do so through the clerk, because this is going to be very helpful for us. I'd like to just open it up to Ms. Smith and Ms. Vanderveer, if there's anything you'd like to add.

Rachelle Smith :

The ultimate prevention is accountability. There are so many movements where...there are classes for new service members about boundaries, psychology and unlawful orders. You can teach all you want but, if there are no consequences, if there's no real justice, if there are people in leadership who have gotten away with crimes, the culture is created. I often say that we all learn in basic training that there's one thing every single military person knows and all of their family members know: Don't walk on the grass. Why are human lives not as important as grass?

The Chair :

Thank you, Ms. Smith. Mr. Savard-Tremblay, you have up to six minutes.

[ Translation ]

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, BQ) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the witnesses for being with us today. I also thank them for their testimony. I'll start with you, Ms. Jaszberenyi. We're from the same city. Your testimony was very poignant and very touching. Your experience shows that the military police accepted the initial version, that is, the chain of command's version, before even talking to you. If you think about it, that's huge. That's my understanding. Is that correct?

(0855) Elvira Jaszberenyi :

I didn't hear the last part of your question.

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay :

During your testimony, you said that the military police retained the high command's version before even hearing yours and before you could even comment.

Elvira Jaszberenyi :

Yes, that's right. I'd like to read something. It's in English. [ English ] After an ATIP, the COC of the RMC school stated that the action taken on my sexual assault case was “discussed with NIS to ensure that investigation was closed”. [ Translation ] As you can see, there were discussions between the chain of command and military police. You can access some of them by making an access to information and privacy, or ATIP, request.

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay :

The bill before us is full of good intentions. We are here to gather testimony in order to improve it and make it even stronger. Your testimony wasn't even heard before they made a decision. How do you think we could avoid this type of situation?

Elvira Jaszberenyi :

I'm going to read what I wrote. [ English ]

Minister McGuinty stated that there was no cover-up or criminal behaviour. All I experienced was a cover-up and interference, which questions this. I was dismissed without warning, with no AR, signed on my behalf in seven places. I asked to work in intelligence until 65, but my career vanished and I'm unemployed without any VAC. Justice Arbour, on page 33, said, “In my view, the continued hostile environment and mistreatment of many female cadets in itself justifies an in-depth examination of the future of military training”.

I asked Parliament to look at the details of my experience, as there is an overlap with proof. Mr. Fowler stated not seeing an overlap. I had this overlap of JAG with NIS and COC, and my witness was linked to my engineering school and later lost his life. As I said, the case was discussed with the COC and JAG, and it was ensured that the investigation was closed. My case and I were studied in person by JAG lawyers at a Timmies six days after my rape and on a civil shooting range between JAG, a club member and a civilian lawyer.

A warrant, who dealt with both victims and happened to be the Crown's witness, claiming he knew nothing of my case, is also a complete overlap. A known lawyer, recommended by a support group, called NIS—this is another lawyer—lied about the information and then proceeded to threaten me, telling me to be very careful in what I say and do from now on. Lawyers, some with CD titles, took my info and money and then said that it was a conflict or a conflict of interest, or that they were unfamiliar with military law. Where do victims find lawyers as their documents disappear?

CAF also seems to be using retired and active members to stifle victims. Some have spoken before your committee. The RMP's decision of insufficient proof was the reason given to NIS, even though the video interview of the accused showed his admission. The abuse of power, JAG ignoring the previous victim, his admission, my STD and tampering with evidence is against the standards of a representative of our government. This is alarming, and we need accountability. [ Translation ] I hope that answers your question.

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay :

Yes, it does. I would like to dig deeper. In your case, we know that the Military Police Complaints Commission of Canada did not have access to the file that was transmitted by the military police to the civilian prosecutor. Bill C‑11 provides for a transfer of powers. They want to prevent the military police from investigating. The investigation is transferred to civilian authorities. However, the bill does not create any mechanisms requiring the military police to provide access to past or current notes, reports and decisions. Should we amend Bill C‑11 to ensure an automatic right of access to relevant records?

(0900) Elvira Jaszberenyi :

To answer your question about the military police, I would say that it doesn't change much, because they're the first to show up to the scene of a crime. In my case, a lot of things have disappeared. I can tell you that much. I don't know how much time you have left, but I would like to read the following. [ English ] If Bill C‑11 is passed, I would suggest recommendations based on my experience, which shows an overlap, and a new system may not be a full resolution. As three former justices' recommendations are under way or in spirit, as Professor MacKenzie stated, as victims, we lost trust in the system.

The government should also be mindful of the system whereby the DOJ is trying to redact another victim from my case. Giving the image that I alone reported is only harming the public. Pushing for an inspector general sounds like a system is already in place with a JAG-like person, as mentioned in a previous meeting. I've had this JAG-like interference already, so I would like to see what is proposed. Bill C‑11 still leaves MPs to be first on the scene with the evidence before police arrive, as Minister McGinty mentioned. It will also not eliminate SA, only the evidence, as in my case.

We were worried about proposed sections 70.1 and 70.2, I believe. However, after Bill C‑77 , Bill C‑66 and now Bill C‑11, it is the duty of the government to make proper legislative changes and to re-examine human rights. More support groups are unnecessary. Please take care of the crimes and remove those who were influenced. A change of policies and personnel is needed, with better recruitment, screening and training; enhanced security; and reduced retaliation with major accountability.

Professor MacKenzie stated that it is merely a “piece of the puzzle”, since she mentioned victims like me who have gone through a long, arduous court process with the accused back on base working. If you put a system in place, as you noted, where victims are failed, past errors will be repeated. Angry families and groups may challenge you, since SAs and suicides are rising. With social media out of control, we need to keep the peace. As someone who worked in intelligence, I say that you need to act as victims rise and justice unbalances.

The root of the problem needs to be dealt with, and preventative measures need to be put in place by removing those who covered up these crimes. Most victim services leave victims rightfully believing that the system is bent in favour of protecting the accused and the system, and not in aiding us and protecting the public from harm, which Justice Arbour also referred to. She also stated that “external input should be a common thread throughout all CAF activities impacted by the issue of sexual misconduct.” In my opinion, the overlap was evident.

The abuse of power by those above, especially on the young, is the reason my experience as an older rape victim is unique. Sexual assault and other criminal offences of a sexual nature are now being referred to civilian authorities, yet my case clearly shows tampering to me. It feels like a smokescreen to prevent victims from further reporting, even with a known predator on base, trying to shame me in court and in public. With the overlap I experienced, has the justice system dropped the scales of justice? [ Translation ] I hope that answers all of your questions.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Thank you. I appreciate your response. I am sensitive to time. I'm not going to cut anybody off, but I do ask you to try to be mindful of the time. Mr. Kibble, you have up to five minutes.

Jeff Kibble (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, CPC) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I thank the panel for their service. I commend your courage for coming here to help us work towards a solution, specifically in Bill C‑11 . I respect that it's a very sensitive topic, so if you're uncomfortable proceeding with my questions, just please let me know. However, I look forward to your answers. Ms. Smith, I appreciate your talking about accountability. We've also heard from other people who have also said that culture change is part of the solution. You said that you were in the U.S. military. Is that correct?

Rachelle Smith :

Yes.

Jeff Kibble :

Have you served in the Canadian Forces?

Rachelle Smith :

No.

Jeff Kibble :

Are you familiar with the Canadian Forces' justice system?

Rachelle Smith :

No. It's similar, but I've seen that there's less infrastructure for survivors than we have in the U.S.

(0905) Jeff Kibble :

That's fair. Okay. So, you do have some familiarity. Thank you. I want to clarify, as well, that when we're using the acronym MP, in your cases that refers to military police and not members of Parliament. I just want to clarify that as we're going forward, and I appreciate that there are a lot of acronyms that are used. Ms. Vanderveer, you said that you've worked with numerous survivors.

Heather Vanderveer :

That is correct.

Jeff Kibble :

In your work with them, have you felt that those survivors—or in your own experience as well—would want a choice between either a civilian or a military prosecution?

Heather Vanderveer :

Absolutely. That's what I have heard: that they would like a choice. However, a concern with going to the civilian courts—which I mentioned in my testimony—is this: How are these judges trained? This is because so many of them don't understand the complexities of the military. It's, you know, very challenging when they're trying to understand why somebody would go off with another uniformed member. Why could they just not walk away? You obviously can't walk away after being raped if you're aboard a ship. So, these are the things that.... How do we get the civilian courts to understand these complexities while trying to solve these and bring justice to these cases?

Jeff Kibble :

Thank you. All of the witnesses have mentioned cover-ups of information or suppression of information. Do you feel that Bill C-11 should have specific regulations for the accountable transfer of evidence from military to civilian police?

Heather Vanderveer :

Absolutely. One of my concerns is that there would be such a delay. We've seen within the military system that things move at a glacial speed sometimes when handing over documents, and there are always delays. Yes, it needs to be handed over quickly and efficiently to prevent people from hanging in limbo.

Jeff Kibble :

Thank you. In your case, were you aware that there was a choice between prosecuting these either through military or civilian channels? I'll open that up to all the panellists.

Heather Vanderveer :

In my particular case, I am a class action member. I had no choice at the time I served. We were not given the choice to even report without retaliation, so I cannot speak to that.

Jeff Kibble :

Thank you. Ms. MacDonald, do you want to address that?

Paula MacDonald :

I reported. First I had to mandatorily report through the military system. Everything was dealt with by the military. Whenever the government opened it up to reporting through the civilian system, I moved into the civilian system. I also used the civilian system because the chain of command was refusing to write down allegations because they wanted to mark everything as sexual harassment from the beginning. I gave my allegations to the RCMP and made a statement with them, and then I was interviewed again and I gave another statement to the Canadian Forces national investigation service.

Jeff Kibble :

Okay. Thank you.

Paula MacDonald :

The issue with it was that the civilian police also relied on evidence gathered by the CFNIS that had to do with rape-supportive attitudes regarding consent. Civilian police need to be trained in how to deal with that.

Jeff Kibble :

I wanted to ask Ms. Vanderveer about that as well. You said that Bill C-11 won't fix it, and you mentioned three things, including closure. Specifically on the legal aspect of it, what changes do you think would help fix it?

Heather Vanderveer :

That's a challenging question.

Jeff Kibble :

I respect your opinion. Because you've worked with so many survivors, you could probably provide us with some excellent insight.

Heather Vanderveer :

I'm hoping I can. The hope is that, again, we can educate the civilian court systems on how to accept these survivors; that is the big thing. As to what that looks like, I really don't know. I think back to the case we're all aware of involving the Calgary judge who said to a sexual assault survivor that she should keep her knees together. I do worry when I hear those particular cases going into civilian courts. Are we going to have judges who are trained to deal with this? I'm sorry; what was the rest of it?

Jeff Kibble :

Thank you. I'm probably out of time, but I would like to add that you mentioned some of you have statements beyond your opening remarks that you wished to provide. I'm sure that if you submitted them through the chair, he would accept those statements. Thank you very much for your honest answers.

The Chair :

Thank you. Ms. Lapointe, you have up to five minutes.

Viviane Lapointe (Sudbury, Lib.) :

Ms. MacDonald, I want to thank you for the depth and the clarity of your submission and for the strength it takes to walk through these experiences to ensure that no CAF member should ever have to face this. I also want to express how very grateful we are to all of the witnesses for your courage and your continued engagement with this process so future members may be better protected. Thank you for all of that. Ms. MacDonald, Bill C-11 aims to ensure that sexual offence investigations are independent of the chain of command.

When you first reported harassment and confinement, were any immediate protective measures put in place to separate you from the individuals involved or even to ensure your safety within the unit?

(0910) Paula MacDonald :

No, and the military police investigation verified that the unlawful confinement involving my being locked in a sea can happened. They then used that to send me for a medical examination to discredit me, and that, which was a human rights violation, was supported by the military police officer who wrote the report.

Viviane Lapointe :

Your submission describes a pattern where civilian police redirected you back to military police and then the military police deferred to your chain of command. Bill C-11 seeks to eliminate this kind of jurisdictional back-and-forth. If your sexual offence reports had gone directly and exclusively to civilian police from the outset, do you believe key evidence, timelines and the quality of the investigation would have looked different?

Paula MacDonald :

Yes and I wouldn't have been sexually assaulted as many times as I was. I was raped twice and I had a breast groped in basic training, which was used to scare me for trying to report what was going on in basic training. If I had been allowed access to outside authorities, they wouldn't have been allowed or permitted to use rape and sexual assault as a tool of control.

Viviane Lapointe :

It's so difficult to hear this testimony. I'm going to say thank you again for your courage and your strength to share these experiences with us.

Paula MacDonald :

I also want to mention that because none of my perpetrators or any of the human right violators were ever disciplined, they've moved on to different careers in the public service. The doctor who conducted the mental health investigation now works for the same detachment in Oromocto that did the civilian police investigation, which relied on information that was from the military. That needs to be addressed; it needs to be specialized investigators who understand the chain of command and are willing to do something about it.

The civilian police officer didn't want to lay charges against my perpetrator, who was a high-ranking military member, because he said that it was a chain of command issue. During the CFNIS investigation, military police officers deferred to the chain of command, who would then have been General Wayne Eyre. He chose not to address the sexual assaults by this commanding officer. Then the military provost office blamed me for not re-reporting and asking for the military police, which I did. I asked for them through my chain of command whenever I was serving and they refused to give me access to military police.

They would send me back into the chain of command, where I was assigned an assisting officer who was a direct subordinate of one of the doctors who wanted to have me declared mentally unfit for service for complaining about the hostile sexualized culture. It was all a set-up. They knew what they were doing. They used the machinery and the mechanisms within the military judicial system to get away with sexualized violence and criminal sexual behaviour.

Viviane Lapointe :

I don't have much time. One of the recurring concerns raised by survivors is the difficulty of simply having their allegations received, documented and acted on consistently. Drawing on your experience across multiple reporting attempts, what do you see as the most important characteristics of a reporting environment that makes survivors feel safe, heard and also believed?

Paula MacDonald :

I experienced the military police screaming and yelling at me and telling me to stop trying to make a report. I was persistent because I had been a civilian and worked in the civilian system as a civilian social worker prior to enlisting. I was absolutely shocked and flabbergasted by how this was allowed to occur. I actually even contacted retired Colonel Bruce MacGregor and said I had allegations of sexual misconduct to report, hoping that he would put me into a fair system where I would be allowed to report the allegations.

What happened was a member of the military police called me up and screamed and yelled at me and told me to stop trying to make a report. The interesting thing about that is that the Military Police Complaints Commission has verified that they actually documented that incident, which is a clear charter right violation because they're trying to make me scared and intimidated for reporting. What needs to happen is you need to have professional people who are not going to scream and yell and try to intimidate the victim. They're going to allow the victim to make their statement.

What happens with victims like myself.... Whenever I went in to make a statement, it's like I was being interrogated over and over again. What the system is doing is wearing down the victim. They don't have support because the state is not with them. The whole idea that rape and sexual assault is a crime.... It's not a crime if you're not going to enforce it. We don't have equal benefit of the law because of how the system is set up to process the crimes.

(0915) The Chair :

Thank you. Mr. Savard-Tremblay, you have up to two and a half minutes.

[ Translation ]

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay :

My next question is for Ms. Smith. Ms. Smith, clauses 20 to 22 of Bill C‑11 seek to reform publication bans to better protect victims. At least, that's the goal. Would these safeguards be enough to protect them, prevent them from reliving the trauma or prevent it from re-emerging, particularly in cases where victims would like to testify anonymously or share their story in a therapeutic setting?

[ English ]

Rachelle Smith :

I believe having the protection of being able to report anonymously is huge for victims, because over in the U.S., I believe about 70% of victims are retaliated against. I think just 1% actually get to a conviction. With that knowledge, there's no incentive, really, to come forward. Any avenue that can be taken that insulates them and helps them understand that they will be believed and protected rather than attacked or retraumatized through being interrogated repeatedly is super important.

[ Translation ]

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay :

My question was specifically about the part of the clauses that seek to reform publication bans. Do you think that's a step in the right direction?

[ English ]

Rachelle Smith :

Yes. Having that there is essential to feeling free to speak. In my own assaults—there were numerous—I did not come forward, because I had seen what had happened to other people. My mother was a service member as well. When I called her to say the words that no mother ever wants to hear, she had over 20 years of service at that time, and she didn't know what to do or what to tell me. She was an officer as well. I think having any kind of reinforcement where it keeps people safe and keeps them from feeling like there will be a target on their back or any means of.... In my case, my car got vandalized.

I was completely ostracized from officers' calls. I sat at a table once and everyone got up and moved. Everyone knew what was going on, when no one should have known what was going on.

The Chair :

Thank you, Ms. Smith. Monsieur Savard-Tremblay, thank you. Mr. Anderson, you have up to five minutes.

Scott Anderson (Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, CPC) :

Thank you very much. I'm going to preface this with some new information that came out either yesterday or today. I don't know if you've seen the report by Benjamin Roebuck. He's the ombudsman for victims of crime. He did a 3,000-person study about the civilian system. Using 3,000 people is a fairly robust sample. It examines how victims of sexual violence are treated, including whether they are actually believed. This is in the civilian system. I'll read one of the strongest statements he made in his preface:

The harm is so well recognized that police officers and Crown attorneys regularly caution survivors against reporting or pursuing charges. The administration of justice is in open disrepute.

He presented a number of statistics: 93% of the complainants said they feared police wouldn't believe them; of a random sample of 1,000 self-reported violations, 51% reported the crime, and of that 500, only 102 cases went to trial, resulting in 70 convictions; and 268 cases have been stayed since the Jordan decision. Sexual assault is the most likely to be stayed or withdrawn. Now, I point out those statistics because we had a previous witness, Lieutenant-Colonel Rory Fowler, who said that what has happened....

I am so sorry for your experiences, but his point was that what has happened is a failure of leadership within the CAF rather than a failure of process. We had another previous witness who suggested that the answer to this problem is a cultural thing in the military, and that what needs to happen is a culture change before anything ever gets to the criminal level. Ms. Vanderveer, can you comment on that?

(0920) Heather Vanderveer :

I'm sorry. Can you ask your question again, please?

Scott Anderson :

Sure. I'd like you to comment on the thesis that the answer to the problem.... There's no perfect answer, but to mitigate the circumstances is to change the culture within the CAF to halt the process before it ever gets to a criminal level.

Heather Vanderveer :

Thank you for repeating that for me. Yes, I completely agree with you. I have spoken with survivors. Even in my own experience, survivors can get over the rapes. I have heard that numerous times. If the system just would have handled their cases better, if they would have believed them and would have done the due process in a timely manner, survivors have said that they can get over that, but because they're not believed, because they're questioned about what they were wearing and asked what they did to cause themselves this issue.... You shouldn't have to go through that. Yes, it does need to start culturally.

We need to start believing survivors. We need to start believing the men and the women and not brushing it off as, “Well, what's the matter, can't you take a joke?”, or being told that it's just hazing or whatever the narrative may be. We need to believe them, period. Then the system needs to move forward with charges or whatever that looks like.

Scott Anderson :

Yes. I'm previous military, and you're all previous military as well. What do you think of the argument that it is easier to make culture change within a chain of command in the military than it is in the civilian world in terms of the legal system? Ms. Jaszberenyi, please go ahead.

Elvira Jaszberenyi :

For me, culture change does not address all the issues. Especially in recruiting, there are alcohol and drugs on the base and there's improper security. People need proper instructions. Culture doesn't change. Base procedures and proper morals do. For me, these were just smokescreen words. The confidence and trust words used at committee are a psy-ops tactic to force the public into thinking that changes are being made. What type of culture keeps rapists together on a base with victims? How is that culture?

Scott Anderson :

With respect, would it not be true that it is the culture? Is that not the culture that needs to change?

Elvira Jaszberenyi :

For me, they need to implement more instructions, talk to people and take away or monitor what is happening, because all these young kids are leaving their homes for the first time to serve and they're given a good paycheque. It's the first time they're away from home. As an older individual, I've never seen so many drugs and so much alcohol in my life. I would just like to finish this. CAF must recognize that culture change, gender issues, transparency and these modern terms they're using do not align with reporting a crime or being a victim. To me, it's just a word they're using to hide everything away.

These terms make soldiers uneasy and unafraid...to speak or joke. It's just like on the forms for “he” or “she” or “other”. I saw this personally. I witnessed this. Also, what happened in the past is that it turned into ridicule: for example, “hop on her” for “Op Honour”. That's what they were calling it. This just causes more retaliation, as I saw with my co-workers in the office. Our military needs to concentrate on protecting our country with any gender and culture that is willing to protect our borders, be trained appropriately and work on their military ethos.

On Fridays, our instructors ended our engineering class by saying, “Don't get killed, don't get caught and don't become a statistic.” We were told to call a number. I believe it was for MPs. Was it to cover up from the civilian system? These are things that we see happening continually. What I witnessed as an older individual was quite shocking. As you said, you have your own children serving. It is quite concerning. I believe that we need to go to the root of the problems and look at all of these individually.

(0925) Scott Anderson :

Thank you very much.

The Chair :

Thank you. Mr. Malette, you have up to five minutes.

Chris Malette (Bay of Quinte, Lib.) :

Thank you, Chair. First off, I too want to echo my colleagues in thanking you all for your powerful, impactful and, I'm sure, in some cases, painful recollections and testimonies here today. I'd like to start with Ms. MacDonald. We heard previous testimony in these hearings that choice is important for the survivor or the complainant or the victim, and the terminology has been batted around. There was even the suggestion that lower level or minor cases could be heard in the military system.

We just heard, today, a suggestion that since the civilian courts are in such a shambles as they deals with these sorts of incidents, why bother reporting? This seems to be a common theme, unfortunately. Can you please give me your take on some of those suggestions that the choice is important?

Paula MacDonald :

It is true that the civilian system is in a state of disrepair. On the issue of having a choice, the issue is having skilful administrators of the law responding to the victim and giving equal access to justice. If it's a choice between.... A choice doesn't help. The Government of Canada is responsible for setting up the system, so the actors in the system need to behave skilfully. We see that whenever we leave it with the military, it may be a failure of leadership, but the administrative safeguards are not in place to prevent the CAF leadership from engaging in human rights violations and sexual violence.

The tools of governance are not present in the administrative system, so we need to provide those tools. If a Canadian solution is to move it to the civilian system—and it seems that this is our Canadian solution—where our three Supreme Court justices, who are experts in the delivery of justice, say it should be, then this is what we need to do.

Chris Malette :

Further to your expertise then, what long-term impacts have you observed when survivors cannot access timely or appropriate care, and how can this legislation better address that?

Paula MacDonald :

I am a clinical social worker and a champion of the class action lawsuit from the beginning, in terms of trying to convince other women to come forward. I serve other women as a clinical social worker and try to help them gain access to resources and justice after their abuse. What's happening is horrific. It has more mental health impacts than the actual sexual assaults. They're more traumatized by the system that is being put in place. It's horrific. Women's rights and sexual abuse victims' rights matter just as much as those accused of engaging in sexualized violence, and we need to have it set up so that it supports them.

(0930) Chris Malette :

Thank you. Further to that, and on the issue of coming forward, as you had mentioned, I'd like to ask Ms. Jaszberenyi about this. Based on your experience as a member of the CAF, what were the biggest barriers that prevented survivors from coming forward about the abuse, especially in your case? I'm sorry, but just before you answer that, when was your assault?

Elvira Jaszberenyi :

It was in 2018.

Chris Malette :

Thank you. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to distract you from the question.

Elvira Jaszberenyi :

No, that's okay. Your question was, what prevented...?

Chris Malette :

In your experience, what were the most impactful barriers that prevented you or others, in your estimation, from coming forward?

Elvira Jaszberenyi :

First of all, when you're in the military, you already know that making a report is taking a huge chance with your career. For me personally, if you're asking me personally, being an older individual serving in the military and having a career, of course I didn't want to throw my career away. It was already hard being among young soldiers as somebody so much older. I mean, I was basically the age of the chain of command or the CO. That's one of the biggest hurdles. Also what I experienced was a lot of gossip. To answer part of the other question earlier, my assailant continued his courses.

You know that they will have no hurdles, but when you report, you have to go through all this process. You're inundated with all these 1-800 numbers, acronyms and all kinds of things. For example, one time my sergeant came to me with about 64 pages, I believe, on how to write a memo. My memo kept being refused, because you have to indent it and do the right characters and everything. You're inundated with all these hurdles that are just a waste of time. You know, I was ready to serve, but I was there sitting in a cafeteria waiting with nothing to do.

The Chair :

Thank you for your testimony. Mr. Bezan, you have up to five minutes.

James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the witnesses for being here. I know how incredibly difficult this is, especially looking at you who all signed up to serve your country, and in the very institution that you wanted to be a part of are the ones who, instead of going out there to fight the adversary, had to be fought off, the very men and organization that were supposed to be your comrades in arms. They were supposed to be your friends, your colleagues, and they turned out to be your adversaries. Can you all just quickly tell me what year your sexual assaults took place, just so I have it clear in my mind as well?

Paula MacDonald :

They took place January 2015, March 2015 and January 2016.

Elvira Jaszberenyi :

My date, I believe, was May 13, 2018, and I reported it pretty much right away.

Heather Vanderveer :

For me, it started in recruiting in 1989, and then in 1990, 1991, 1992 and 1993.

Rachelle Smith :

The first one happened while I was a military dependant with a doctor. That was 2001, and I was 12. Then it happened again in 2012 as a senior in college in ROTC and then repeatedly in 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2017. I got out of the military in 2015. Then there was a very close one out of VA Hospital at the end of 2022.

(0935) James Bezan :

That's terrible. I don't even know how to respond to that. It was that systemic. All of you are aware of the Madam Justice Deschamps, Madam Justice Arbour and Mr. Justice Fish reports. Were any of you asked for testimony or interviewed by any of those justices?

Paula MacDonald :

Arbour....

James Bezan :

Did she interview you?

Paula MacDonald :

Yes.

James Bezan :

Were any of the others interviewed?

A voice: No.

James Bezan: I still maintain, Mr. Chair, that we should have Justices Deschamps and Arbour appear at committee so that we can talk about their previous reports and whether they have any extra recommendations they wish to make at this point in time. Ms. Vanderveer, you said that Bill C-11 is going to create more bureaucratic ping-pong. I like that expression. Do you see that Bill C-11 is just an attempt by CAF leadership to pass the buck and now push this all off onto the provincial civilian system using provincial courts and provincial prosecutors, and then they can just wash their hands of it?

Heather Vanderveer :

Yes, that's how I feel. The few people who I've spoken with and the people who I work with feel it's just shifting the blame. Many are not against the civilian court system, but, again, how do we educate these judges to take on these cases?

James Bezan :

As we just heard from Mr. Anderson, Ombudsman Roebuck just did his report, and 3,000 cases were looked at. As he said, police officers and Crown attorneys regularly caution survivors against reporting. You had the Jordan framework as laid out by the Supreme Court of Canada that justice delayed is justice denied, and if you can't do it within 24 months, it's out, so the accused are walking away scot-free. You mentioned that justices provincially aren't trained about how the military operates and how the accused and victims may end up on the same training exercise as long as they're still on base.

How can we deal with the lack of understanding of how the Canadian Armed Forces work when the judges, the prosecutors and the defenders may not fully understand and appreciate the way the Canadian Armed Forces actually operate?

Heather Vanderveer :

If they're going to shift to the civilian courts, there needs to be some sort of education for the judges and for the prosecutors. They can't compare it to civilian sexual assaults and misconduct because our world is very different from the civilian world. We all know that.

James Bezan :

Ms. Jaszberenyi, you mentioned that you're concerned about proposed sections 70.1 and 70.2 as drafted in Bill C-11 . There's also proposed subsection 70.2(4), where there is the transfer of evidence from military police and the national investigation service to civilian authorities, but there's no timeline in there. Do you believe the chain of command could still interfere with the transfer of evidence to the civilian court and that unreasonable delays may cause the Jordan framework to kick in and cause cases to be stayed or thrown out?

Elvira Jaszberenyi :

Yes, I believe that the chain of command, in my case, caused even more delays. Like I said, my file would get thinner and thinner. I would also like to add to that the SMSRC was spoken about a lot, and I believe the last time it was called the “Cadillac” for victims. Well, for me, that Cadillac crashed. They told me to call the ombudsman, and then the ombudsman said that he only deals with admin issues and he refunded my aid.

Then I was told to contact the CCMS, and after two long meetings he just told me, “Good luck.” The other thing I would like to touch upon is the data collection, because most of the hurdles that they cause with victims are only to extract information. The reason the information is extracted is for their own benefit. That's all I experienced. I can't speak for other people, but I'm speaking on my behalf. As well, with my case, what was—

(0940) The Chair :

Thank you, Ms. Jaszberenyi. I'm going to give Mr. Watchorn some time. He may continue with that testimony. Mr. Watchorn, go ahead.

[ Translation ]

Tim Watchorn (Les Pays-d'en-Haut, Lib.) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you all for being with us this morning to share your experience. I find you extremely courageous to come and help us with our study to improve Bill C‑11 . Ms. Jaszberenyi, I'd like to give you the opportunity to provide some final remarks, if you wish.

Elvira Jaszberenyi :

Thank you, Mr. Watchorn. I'd just like to add a few comments. [ English ] Five letters were written to me and they said they were unable to obtain information and they would have to apply to Federal Court since their work was compromised by CAF, even though the defence minister signed off on the MPCC questioning why the accused was not charged. We have all these hurdles if you put this into place, and I'm trying to explain exactly from my story what they were. Go ahead, if you had a question.

[ Translation ]

Tim Watchorn :

That's very kind. Today we're addressing the issue of trust. First, you need to be sure that you are believed. Then you need to trust that the process that will be put in place will handle your case properly. As Madam Justice Arbour said, Bill C‑11 suggests that there is a crisis of confidence within the Canadian Armed Forces. This crisis has to do with the way sexual abuse cases are handled. Ms. MacDonald, witnesses often tell us that they fear there will be repercussions to their career if they report their case in the military system. Do you trust the civilian justice system more than the military justice system?

[ English ]

Paula MacDonald :

The big issue I see is that the military system uses the resources that it has within the judicial system to punish the victim. By transferring it away from them, then that removes a tool that they have to interrogate, harass and belittle you for reporting or telling the truth. Yes, the civilian system has issues. The military system has issues. I see it as very difficult in terms of fixing the system where we see the independence of the actors isn't there. It's probably a cultural issue where they say military police were supposed to be separated during the Somalia affair. That didn't happen. I think that it needs to be transferred because it needs to remove the ability to harm victims.

[ Translation ]

Tim Watchorn :

Ms. Jaszberenyi, what are your comments on the same question?

Elvira Jaszberenyi :

As Professor MacKenzie was saying, it's just one piece of the puzzle. In other words, a lot of things have to be done differently. [ English ] I would also like to leave that General Carignan stated that CAF will follow cases and make sure our careers will be intact. CAF followed my story, as I see in my ATIPs, and my career disappeared, and I was released with no VAC but they kept the predator employed among the soldiers. For over a year, I didn't receive my DND pension because my file was lost.

I received a letter months after my release stating I was disabled and unfit for work and should have been released as such, but they released me using my age instead, stating the decision could not be changed. Other avenues were mentioned, which I tried as well, but they were denied. Most officials have not walked in our boots, so it's essential for victims to be part of the decision-making to show you where the system really is lacking. Gatekeepers are taking and giving away our information.

Hard-working military are stifled within CAF by those who mishandle things, create corruption and are rewarded and promoted. When my career was held back as an example, I told my master corporal, I don't feel trained. He replied, I would have helped more if I didn't get written up for trying. The cycle needs to stop because it doesn't equate with the military ethos. I also wanted to add to this that for victims like me we have lost a lot of trust in the system. I guess we need to see what will be proposed. The trust is going to be a long-term process.

(0945) Tim Watchorn :

Thank you. [ Translation ] Ms. Vanderveer, I'd like to make a comment before you answer the same question. You said you were concerned that the civilian justice system wouldn't be able to understand the reality of the military. I would say that specialized courts are being set up, as is the case in Quebec, where there is talk of a court dealing specifically with sexual abuse. Judges and prosecutors are trained to handle these particular cases. Do you think it would be beneficial for sexual abuse cases to be handled by a specialized court, such as the one Quebec is currently setting up?

[ English ]

Heather Vanderveer :

Yes, I think it would be in the best interests to send survivors to courts that are specifically trained to deal with sexual assault and sexual misconduct. Then to answer your question over a lack of trust, the women, who I mostly work with, by the time they get to me have zero trust in the military system and in Veterans Affairs. And even in trying to get them to an OSI clinic...they are not believed. I had one woman where all we had to say to her was that we believed her.

She cried in our office for three hours because that was the first time someone had actually believed her and she had been out of the military for about 12 years and she had never heard that before in her life. It's very hard to gain the trust of people to ask, “Can you put in a VAC claim, can we take you to peer support, what is it you need?” Even trying to present them a quilt of valour.... They just don't even think that they're worthy of that because the trust has been broken within the system.

Again, it's hard because you can't get them to trust the civilian system either at that point because they have just been so beaten down by the systems.

The Chair :

Thank you. Monsieur Savard-Tremblay, you have two and a half minutes.

[ Translation ]

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ms. MacDonald, you're a social worker or have a degree in the field, if I'm not mistaken. If there is anyone who understands mental health issues in all areas of work, it's you. You know that it all interplays. However, you also shared with us the concern that this is often a factor used to harm victims. We could say that this person has problems and that their testimony is probably false or influenced by false perceptions. Knowing that mental health issues really exist and are founded, how can we act on them? You are in a better position than anyone else here to talk about that. How can we ensure that mental health issues aren't used as an excuse to dismiss victims?

[ English ]

Paula MacDonald :

I suffer with post-traumatic stress disorder from what happened to me. I am also a clinical social worker who continues to work part time and treat such mental health issues as PTSD. Let's say the person says, “Oh, you have mental health issues, because you're having a response where you're telling me to stop or you're crying because I just touched you inappropriately.” We need to label that for what it is: It's a diversion tactic that's actually a human rights violation. You're not allowed to discriminate against me because I'm crying or whatever. You need to accommodate me and go from there.

[ Translation ]

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay :

Bill C‑11 aims to improve the situation of victims and, of course, to provide them with more recourse. Should the framework you're talking about be included directly in the National Defence Act? What would that look like?

[ English ]

Paula MacDonald :

I think there needs to be more training for people who work within the legal system and are supposed to be facilitating the legal system. There needs to be more training for police officers and lawyers so that they understand what trauma-informed means. It means they're able to question victims. You can get answers from victims and you can get evidence from humans without using hard-core interrogation tactics. What needs to happen is that there needs to be more training. Perhaps you can come up with a clever way to.... I think you have to input that through policy.

(0950) [ Translation ]

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay :

Your answer is somewhat related to the question my colleague asked about establishing specialized courts. Is that correct?

[ English ]

Paula MacDonald :

Yes. That is what we need. We need specialized courts and we need specialized investigators who are separated from the chain of command.

[ Translation ]

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay :

Ms. Jaszberenyi, do you want to add anything?

Elvira Jaszberenyi :

I've been in court before, and I want to share my experience as a victim. [ English ] I don't know if it's the same in French. It's called VWAP and ILA, where they give coupons for court. These were unhelpful. I have a lot of evidence on this and on contacting these lawyers. They were already working on their own cases. They were overloaded. Sometimes I waited over a month with no results at all. Using coupons especially, as a victim, is very demeaning. Not just that; when I went to court, they were young women. They were immature, they were representing the system and they were trying to help me.

We need a better system in court. I also found out that when I was in court, the video cameras weren't working and the police, from what I believe and what I remember, were not armed. Victims need to feel a lot more security and safety. As for the justice system, I'm not a lawyer, but because of what happened through my case, I believe a lot of things need to be implemented there as well.

The Chair :

Thank you. Mr. Bezan, you have up to five minutes.

James Bezan :

Thank you. I'd like to continue on with the line of questioning around making sure the supports are there for the victims. Is there in your mind, then, a need to ensure that military defence counsel and military defence prosecutors are allowed to go with the victims and the accused in the justice system to argue the cases in civilian court, rather than using civilian prosecutors or civilian lawyers who, as Ms. Jaszberenyi just said, aren't readily available or educated, as Ms. Vanderveer has stated as well?

Paula MacDonald :

There needs to be a separation. Right now what you'll have is the people who are working on the defence of the accused and the protection of the victim sitting beside each other in desks in the same room. The process needs to be fixed so there's a separation and so there are not those inherent conflicts of interest that are there. Right now, victims don't get as much government support as the accused get, where the accused are getting a military defence lawyer. It also trickles into the Department of Justice.

Whenever these cases are moving out into the civilian system, a victim has to go against the Department of Justice lawyers, who are trained litigators. You're a victim struggling with post-traumatic stress disorder with a limited budget. You don't have the budget of the Department of Justice. That has to be looked at as well, where victims don't get the same support. Whenever it moves into the civilian system, they're revictimized moving into the Department of Justice outside the military system, as well as inside the military system.

James Bezan :

Does anyone else want to comment on that? Ms. Jaszberenyi, go ahead, please.

Elvira Jaszberenyi :

I just want to add to that. As I read earlier, this is a great concern that—as a victim, I can't go into a lot of detail, but I've been through more than one lawyer—it is very difficult for victims to find lawyers. A lot of the CD-titled lawyers also do not take our cases.

James Bezan :

Just on that, Bill C-11 says in proposed

section 70.3, “Nothing in

section 70.‍1 prevents an officer or non-commissioned member from initiating or conducting a private prosecution in relation to an offence referred to in any of” the paragraphs that fall under the Criminal Code. Is that even affordable for anyone?

(0955) Paula MacDonald :

It's not attainable. It's not affordable if you're the victim.

James Bezan :

It's a nothingburger within the act itself. Thank you for that. You all have talked about trust. In this scenario now, everything is getting transferred to the civilian courts. We aren't sure yet because all the memorandums of understanding are not in place yet with the provincial governments or with municipal and/or provincial police services. The question becomes then, what happens with the accused? Right now, if they're charged, as you were all saying, nothing seems to be happening with the accused. Is it better or worse if they're charged, convicted and then maybe even jailed through the civilian system?

Do you believe that those individuals should also get court-martialled? Does this bill indicate that anything will happen to them under the military justice system if they've been found guilty in the civilian courts?

Paula MacDonald :

I think that they should be court-martialled under the National Defence Act. If you're engaging in human rights violations and then you're committing sexual assaults, you're also violating good order, discipline and different clauses within the National Defence Act, so they should be also prosecuted under the National Defence Act. It shouldn't be left for them to be prosecuted...with the Criminal Code. Aren't they good at dealing with being drunk and drunk driving? Like, they could prosecute that, but why don't we leave sexual assault for specialized courts?

James Bezan :

Ms. Vanderveer, what's your opinion on that? We don't see anything in here on how those who were accused and then convicted actually face any military charges at all. It's one or the other now. There's no longer a choice.

Heather Vanderveer :

I do agree, the same as Ms. MacDonald, that yes, they should be put through a court martial as well. Too many times we see it, as we've said here this morning, that the perpetrators get away with these acts. We do need to hold them accountable.

James Bezan :

As we heard previously at committee, we also heard about this issue of grey zones that may not fall under something that is sexual misconduct, but doesn't necessarily violate the Criminal Code definition of sexual offences. How do we handle those?

Heather Vanderveer :

Like we've said here, the lesser charges I think should be handled at the military level because again, the civilian courts are overloaded. They can't deal with a minor sexual misconduct. I think there needs to be both. How do we implement both types of things? We don't want to overload the civilian court system, but we do want to see that there is justice and that people are held accountable for their actions.

The Chair :

Thank you. Mrs. Romanado, you have up to five minutes, and then we'll be wrapping up.

Sherry Romanado :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to go to a different area in terms of a recommendation that we received from Professor MacKenzie, who was here at committee. She made a recommendation in terms of data collection. She recommended that we don't have good data on where assaults are happening, the outcomes of justices and cases, and that we need to have better data.

She also mentioned that New Zealand, the U.S. and other jurisdictions actually have the gold standard, I think she said, in terms of data and processes; and while this does not show a decrease in assaults, it at least shows us where they're happening and where we need to provide resources. Ms. Smith, since you're here with us today, I'd like to get your feedback on that. Would you have recommendations or comments for us here in Canada in terms of some of the processes or supports that are in place with our U.S. allies, in terms of these kinds of cases?

Rachelle Smith :

Is that in finding out where they're happening?

Sherry Romanado :

Exactly. She mentioned that we need to collect this kind of information. I'm not sure how the United States is doing that. Could you elaborate?

Rachelle Smith :

That comes as a part of the reporting process. There are surveys done every year. I think the RAND Corporation just did one recently where they determined that false allegations are minuscule. In 2024, it was only 1%; and then between 2014 and 2023, it was 1% to 3%. The overall attitude is that victims are still lying. Unfortunately, we've been having hot spots, so to speak, where this is happening frequently, like Fort Hood. That's where Vanessa Guillen was killed. I think the story just broke last week of an army doctor who was taking videos of patients, and he'd been reported multiple times.

It finally just hit the headlines, but it had been going on for years. There's now a hotline for victims to call and report what happened to them. It's taking into consideration that many people in leadership have done this, and their attitude toward it is that it's not serious. In answer to a previous question, my solution has always been accountability, but it needs to be not just the perpetrator, but the leadership involved, where there is a climate in an office where it's okay for these things to happen. The supervisors, everybody within that chain of command, has to go.

(1000) Sherry Romanado :

On that point, I agree. There should be absolutely zero tolerance. Part of Bill C-11 includes recommendations for a probationary period. You all mentioned instances where sexual harassment, inappropriate comments and so on were happening, and these things progressed. If we were able to identify bad behaviour very early in someone's career, we could deal with it immediately with a zero tolerance policy and also send a very clear signal that this is not acceptable.

We don't care who you are in the Canadian Armed Forces or what rank you hold, if you have this bad behaviour...but also we allow it to continue, even though we're aware of it. As you said, we've all said that reporting was happening, and things were not being taken seriously. Do you think that having that probationary period would also allow us to weed out people who should absolutely not be serving in the Canadian Armed Forces? Ms. MacDonald, please go ahead.

Paula MacDonald :

We have a problem with the people who have grown up within the culture of the Canadian Armed Forces when it was appropriate to use your DND email account to create an Ashley Madison account, or it was appropriate to use your work cellphone to look for sexual targets in the community that you were posted in, away from your family. These people are in the chain of command. They have the attitude that this is okay, that they're entitled to this type of behaviour and that this is all right. The problem, as I see it, is having that discipline re-established within the chain of command when it's not there.

Women were used as shields within the chain of command to shield men who were behaving badly from legal consequences. As my colleague beside me mentioned, there were players in the chain of command who went along, did nothing and supported the perpetrators of sexualized violence. We have an issue where we need to have some sort of an evaluation method to address their behaviour. Some of them probably would not have gone along with the hostile sexualized culture if it didn't benefit them. We see how they moved up in their careers and are working in different government offices now.

Anybody who reported is maybe on long-term disability benefits and not able to earn a career living in Canada. There's that issue we have there. That's a barrier.

Sherry Romanado :

Thank you so much.

The Chair :

Thank you all for participating, sharing your stories and being open with us. We know how difficult this is. We recognize that human rights prevail, and they should override everything else that's taken place. Your testimonies and your stories reinforce the need for more than just cultural training but real policy changes for us to prevail over this very sensitive and delicate issue. Go ahead, Mr. Bezan.

(1005) James Bezan :

I just want to thank our witnesses. I just ask that, if there are any further comments or recommendations you want to make on Bill C-11 , then please send those recommendations—the sooner the better—in writing to the clerk. I move that the meeting remain in public for consideration of committee business.

The Chair :

Are you okay to remain in public? I was going to ask the witnesses to leave and suspend to go in camera, but do you wish to have this in public?

James Bezan :

It's quicker in public, but the witnesses are dismissed.

The Chair :

Yes, you may go. Thank you again for being here today.

James Bezan :

You have a motion on the floor. It's dilatory.

The Chair :

Yes, do we need to vote on this motion? Go ahead, Sherry.

Sherry Romanado :

Yes, I was just going to say—

The Chair :

No, I think we have a motion on the floor. We have to vote on this motion. All those in favour of maintaining the meeting in public versus having it in camera? (Motion agreed to)

The Chair: That's fair. I'll suspend for a moment so that witnesses can leave.

(1005) (1010) The Chair :

All right, everyone. We have a number of items to resolve. There are a number of motions that have been put forward. I have Mr. Savard-Tremblay and Mr. Bezan on the list to speak.

[ Translation ]

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay :

I want to start by picking up on something. This is an eminently sensitive subject. The last meeting was held partly in camera for a completely understandable reason. We had a victim who wanted to remain anonymous. However, I'd like to know what the decision to exclude assistants was based on. How is it that the committee wasn't consulted? I might have been in favour of that decision, but we were sort of presented with a fait accompli. Obviously, this was not the time to obstinate ourselves and debate it in front of the victim, who was testifying anonymously. I repeat: I would probably have agreed with that decision. However, I would like to know what it was based on.

[ English ]

The Chair :

I felt it was necessary to provide some respect. I took it upon myself, and I didn't consult at the time. It just felt appropriate for us to have silence in the room and respect for the witness who wanted to be anonymous and who asked to have some of that protection. It was simply my call.

[ Translation ]

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay :

Mr. Chair, let me say that we would have all understood those arguments, if you had shared them with us. We probably would have all agreed on the same thing.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Your point is well taken. I'll take that into consideration going forward.

James Bezan :

On that, again, I'm not aware that the victim requested that staff be removed. It's often required, for us to do our jobs properly, that our staff be with us so that we can properly formulate some of the testimony that we hear, whether it's in camera or public. We need to know that ahead of

schedule when you're making these decisions. I was going to make the argument on it and start reciting the Standing Orders in front of the witness, knowing that this was a sensitive topic. We'll let it slide this time, but I think, in the future, let's make sure we have proper consultation on whether or not we're going in camera.

The Chair :

I appreciate the comments. I did review some of the Standing Orders and the privileges afforded to me to enable that protection for the witness, but I'll take your points into consideration. Listen, folks, we want this committee to operate cordially. I'm trying to make an effort to do that in everything possible. I'm giving a lot of latitude when it comes to statements and questions. I want us to succeed and promote what's in the best interest of the armed forces and the victims. That was my only concern. I appreciate your comments, but I want us to move forward positively. Mr. Bezan, please go ahead.

James Bezan :

With that, let's get on with committee business. I am moving a motion that I had put on notice:

That the committee invite the Minister of National Defence to appear for one hour on the defence and NATO spending implications of Budget 2025 and one hour on the Supplementary Estimates (

B) prior to December 5, 2025.

I'll speak to that motion. December 5 is the cut-off for committees to consider the supplementary estimates and get them back to the House before we vote on supplementary estimates in the House and have those approved. This is, I believe, our greatest responsibility. Our fiduciary duty as parliamentarians is to oversee the spending of public dollars and to ensure from this committee's standpoint that they're being used wisely in the interests of the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence. I believe the minister needs to appear first and foremost on the supplementary estimates for one hour.

The budget opens up a lot of other questions. I don't believe we should cross wires here on what is in the budget versus what is in the supplementary estimates. We need to have him for one hour. If he wants to do that in one meeting, one hour on the budget and one hour on the supplementary estimates (B), I think that would be wise. I would ask that the committee members support the motion.

The Chair :

Ms. Romanado, please go ahead.

Sherry Romanado :

Thank you. I think it's customary for the minister to come when we have the supplementary estimates and so on. Customarily, we have the minister appear with officials for the first hour to answer questions, and then officials stay for the second hour to answer any technical questions and so on. That's what we've normally done in the past. I have no problem with that. I don't know the minister 's schedule, but I'm sure he can make himself available. I'm not the secretary of the minister. That being said, I think we can make sure that it happens before the deadline of December 5.

Normally, we would have the minister for the first hour with officials, and then the officials would stay for the second hour so that they can answer any technical questions.

(1015) The Chair :

Mr. Bezan, please go ahead.

James Bezan :

Yes, but I make the point that if you want to bring the minister for one hour and then officials for one hour on the supplementary estimates, we still need to hear from him on the budget. If you want to do it in one meeting or if you want to do it in two separate meetings, we need to have the minister appear on the budget. We need to have the minister appear on the supplementary estimates (B). I believe they are two separate issues. One is current spending and one is future spending. We need to make sure that we do both. I leave it to the minister and parliamentary secretary and department officials to figure out the schedule. The motion as it stands is one hour for each.

The Chair :

Ms. Romanado, please go ahead.

Sherry Romanado :

Look, given that we have only three weeks left of the sitting, or not even three weeks before December 5—we're talking two weeks—I'd like to move an amendment to have the minister appear for both the budget and the supplementary estimates for an hour with the officials, and have the officials stay for the second hour, prior to December 5.

The Chair :

We have an amendment to the motion.

[ Translation ]

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay :

My questions are simple. How many meetings are left to discuss the sexual misconduct bill? What dates have been set for clause-by-clause consideration of the bill?

[ English ]

The Chair :

How many more do we have left before December 5?

The Clerk of the Committee (Ariane Calvert) :

We have November 25 and 27. Clause-by-clause has been determined for December 2.

The Chair :

We do have two more sessions, and then we were looking for clause-by-clause by December 2.

[ Translation ]

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay :

So it's three meetings, and we have three weeks left. From what I understand, there would theoretically be six meetings left if we don't finish before that. Is that correct?

[ English ]

The Chair :

That's right. Time is of the essence. Go ahead, Mrs. Gallant. Then I'll go to Sherry.

Cheryl Gallant :

I just want to be clear on the amendment, and that is that we're going to have the minister on two separate days. For one, he will be present during the first hour on the estimates or the budget, and then in the second hour, it will just be officials. Then there will be another meeting with the Minister of Defence, and for the first hour, he will be present, and for the second hour, he will not. Is that what is being proposed?

The Chair :

That's not my understanding. Ms. Romanado, please go ahead.

Sherry Romanado :

My amendment was that the committee invite the Minister of National Defence to appear for one hour on the defence and NATO spending and spending implications of budget 2025 and the supplementary estimates prior to December 5. The minister will come. We just heard the next three meetings are still allocated to this study, which then brings us to December 4, which is the last day before December 5, which would be our last meeting. The minister comes for an hour and discusses both the budget and supplementary estimates. The officials are here the whole time for the two-hour slot. The minister leaves, and then the officials can answer some technical questions.

The Chair :

Mrs. Gallant, go ahead.

Cheryl Gallant :

I would speak in opposition to that motion. They are two separate issues. We need him for a full hour separating the budget from the estimates. One hour could be budget, but we need two hours, really, which is fair and is what previous ministers have done, and then another hour for the estimates in a timely fashion so that we can actually vote on it before it's assumed to be voted on in the chamber.

The Chair :

We're talking about Bill C-11 right now, too. We're trying to pass some very serious legislative changes to protect victims. I recognize the understanding to provide for the minister , and he's going to make himself available to us to deal with the matters that are relevant to this, but I am also concerned about clause-by-clause. All of us are sitting around this table recognizing that our priority is to the CAF and to the victims, so let's make sure we stay focused on that item. I think we have until December 2 or 4 to do clause by clause to resolve this important bill.

I don't want to preclude this issue with the minister. The minister will make himself available, but let's make sure we stay focused on why we're here today. Go ahead, sir.

James Bezan :

I have to disagree with that statement. If we are going to put the CAF and victims first, then we have to make sure we do that study right. That means that we take the time to actually understand what we're hearing and that's reflected when we get to clause-by-clause. I don't think we should rush it, because that's how we're going to deal with the CAF. We just heard again from victims today that this bill does not address their concerns. This is just passing the buck. Let's make sure we do get this right. That means that we have to take the time. Rushing this through just for the sake of having something to hold up and say, “Hey, look what we did,” is the wrong objective.

(1020) The Chair :

Mr. Bezan, we're not rushing it through. We're trying to make sure we get it right.

James Bezan :

You guys took 10 years to get where we are now. You guys had the report since 2015. Let's make sure we get it right.

The Chair :

Mr. Kibble, please go ahead.

Jeff Kibble :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think we all agree at the table here that Bill C-11 is particularly important, especially after the testimony that we heard today, and we are only doing it a disservice by rushing this through. We need to get through all of these meetings. We are making motions to have the justices provide further information so that we can get this right. I think we are doing a complete disservice to the types of victims that we saw today unless we take the time to get it 100% right. Furthermore, on the budget, we are talking about spending billions of dollars.

They're two very separate items, and we should also provide a service to the taxpayers of this country so that we can properly address two very separate issues for billions of dollars. Again, we should not be rushing that through. That's the importance of the work that we do here. If it takes a little bit longer to do it, the taxpayers will support that, and I am shocked that we are not also all supporting that equally around this table. Thank you.

The Chair :

Ms. Romanado, please go ahead.

Sherry Romanado :

I have two points to make. I just got the availability of the minister . He is available on December 4 from 8:15 to 9:15. That is the only time he is available between now and then to appear. He can come on that day, which would be in advance of the December 5 deadline. With respect to the budget, yes, it's an important budget; it's $81.8 billion in defence spending over the next five years that every member across the way voted against on Monday.

The Chair :

Ms. Gallant, please go ahead.

Cheryl Gallant :

We should make sure that we do this correctly. If we defer and if it takes longer to do clause-by-clause, we'll do it in the new year. Again, as Mr. Bezan mentioned, we waited 10 years to do this. If we're going to do it, it has to be done correctly or else we'll be facing this issue again. More importantly, the victims will be facing what they've already gone through and there will be future victims.

The Chair :

Mr. Savard-Tremblay, please go ahead.

[ Translation ]

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay :

I agree that we should do more rather than less, which means having a two-hour meeting to discuss it. That's fine for that question. I want to talk about spending, because that's an important part. However, it's also important to finish the study on Bill C‑11 . I agree that we shouldn't rush things and that we should do our work properly. Still, I want our priority to be to finish the study on the bill. For the clause-by-clause study, we'll take as many meetings as necessary, because it must be done properly. That said, I want us to finish our work on the bill before the minister comes. We're relatively close. Let's keep working on this.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Mr. Malette, please go ahead.

Chris Malette :

Thank you. Further to the point of my colleague, Monsieur Savard-Tremblay, I believe that in the case of Bill C-11 , there's an old saying that justice delayed is justice denied. I think the priority needs to be on Bill C-11 and the clause-by-clause. The inference that we're somehow rushing, ramming things through, might make a nice talking point, but I don't think it's anywhere near the reality. The reality is that the minister has limitations on his availability, and we need to maximize that availability and get the answers we need from him and the staff.

To decide that we need an hour and an hour when we're so close.... The eye on the prize in this case, I think, should be getting Bill C-11 right, for the very reason that we had those witnesses today give that very important and heartfelt testimony.

The Chair :

If there's nothing more, I think we should go to the vote on the amendment. Mr. Savard-Tremblay, please go ahead.

[ Translation ]

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay :

Mr. Chair, I want to be clear. As soon as we finish studying Bill C‑11 , we'll have to invite the minister to appear before us. In addition, the meeting will have to last two hours. Before we go to a vote, I'd like you to remind committee members exactly what the amendment and the subamendment are. I want to make sure we know what we're voting on. I also don't agree with shortening the time for the minister 's appearance. I want that to be clear, again. As soon as we finish studying Bill C‑11, the first thing to do will be to hear from the minister. The budget is a major topic. In such a context and in order to sort everything out, could you remind us what is on the table?

(1025) [ English ]

The Chair :

Sherry, can you repeat that?

[ Translation ]

Sherry Romanado :

Yes, Mr. Chair. Based on the minister 's availability, I move that we invite him to appear on Thursday, December 4. It will be before the deadline set out in the motion. We know that he's available from 8:15 a.m. to 9:15 a.m. My amendment to the motion is that the minister appear for one hour to discuss the supplementary estimates as well as budget 2025. The departmental officials will be with him for the first hour of the meeting and will stay for the second hour to answer our questions.

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay :

You think we should invite him to appear for two hours. Is that correct? I want to unpack that and make sure I understand.

[ English ]

James Bezan :

They're two different meetings. The supplementary estimates are the ones that we have to have done by the 5th.

[ Translation ]

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay :

You say that it absolutely has to be done before December 5.

Sherry Romanado :

As I mentioned, it depends on his availability. He's not available until then.

[ English ]

The Chair :

My impression is—

[ Translation ]

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay :

It's all over the place. Don't forget that, as well, there's a lag on my end. Mr. Chair, can you summarize that?

[ English ]

The Chair :

As I understand it, there was a motion put forward by Mr. Bezan. It was reflected by the ministry. The ministry is looking at opportunities to try to make the minister available. He's available for one hour on the 4th, I believe it is, so that we can accommodate the issues at hand. We're asking for the committee to agree for him to come for an hour on the 4th to address the issues you've been presenting, instead of two hours.

[ Translation ]

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay :

Would we have—

[ English ]

The Chair :

This would then happen on the 4th, so it would still allow us to deal with the issues that are relevant for the budget in the long term, but more importantly, it allows us to proceed effectively with the clause-by-clause so that we can manage Bill C-11 —

An hon. member: And the estimates by the 4th....

The Chair: Yes, and the estimates by the 4th.

[ Translation ]

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay :

Although it's not an absolute fact, we would have been done with clause-by-clause, in all likelihood. Is that correct?

[ English ]

The Chair :

That's a good point. We obviously have to take into consideration that it may take longer than we anticipate, but we should try. Go ahead, Ms. Gallant.

Cheryl Gallant :

Just to be clear, the estimates need to be done before December 5, so we can do the estimates on December 4 and have him back again for the budget afterwards.

The Chair :

You can certainly request that. Right now, I'm just looking at this issue. You're free to request the minister to come back.

[ Translation ]

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay :

I think that would be a good compromise. We could separate that out.

[ English ]

James Bezan :

Just for clarification, my original motion before the amendment is that the minister appear on NATO spending and on the budget 2025 and one hour on the supplementary estimates (

B) prior to December 5. The December 5 guideline is tied to supplementary estimates. It doesn't preclude him from coming at a later date. It could be two different meetings. If you pass it the way it is written, if it comes in two different meetings, it happens in two different meetings. The one that is time sensitive is the supplementary estimates (B), because that's when they have to be reported back to the House. With Ms. Romanado's amendment, what we're talking about is combining the two of them into one meeting, which I'm opposed to.

[ Translation ]

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay :

Could we clarify whether the December 5 deadline applies to only one of the two topics? Such an amendment could work, in my opinion.

[ English ]

James Bezan :

Yes.

The Chair :

I believe that's the case. Go ahead, Mr. Watchorn.

[ Translation ]

Tim Watchorn :

I would like a clarification. We say we want to complete the study of Bill C‑11 as much as possible. On December 4, we'll have a one-hour meeting with the minister to discuss the supplementary estimates (B). Afterwards, we could invite him back to discuss the budget.

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay :

That's my understanding. If that's the way it is, I have a feeling there will be consensus.

[ English ]

James Bezan :

We do have the amendment.

(1030) [ Translation ]

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay :

When I read the motion, December 5 seems to be a deadline for both invitations. The motion is to invite the minister to appear for the first hour of the meeting to discuss the estimates and to invite him to appear for another hour to discuss the supplementary estimates (

B) before December 5. The deadline is at the end of the motion, which suggests that it applies to both invitations. Can we ask for a small amendment so that it applies to a single invitation?

[ English ]

The Chair :

We have to do one at a time. Let's ask Ms. Romanado to step in. Go ahead.

Sherry Romanado :

I think we can find a path here. What if we were to say “that the committee invite the Minister of National Defence to appear for one hour on the supplementary estimate (

B) prior to December 5”? He can do that. Then we can have him come back another time for specifics on the budget. That way, you're getting him before the December 5 to deal with the supplementary estimates. He's already available, we've just heard. What do you think? That way we can satisfy that, and we'll invite him to come for the budget on another date.

The Chair :

Go ahead, Mr. Bezan.

James Bezan :

If you want to horse-trade, for clarification on the motion that I originally proposed, if we're not going to deal with the amendment that was on the floor, you would insert after, “and he appear for one hour on the supplementary estimate (

B) prior to December 5.” You should leave in that he has to appear on the budget on whatever date he's available and that he has to appear for one hour. It would be for greater clarification, and it would read “that the committee invite the Minister of National Defence to appear for one hour on the defence and NATO spending implications on budget 2025, and he appear for one hour on the supplementary estimates (B)”.

The Chair :

Right now, Mr. Bezan, I don't think I can overstep the amendment. We have a motion—

James Bezan :

Okay, let's deal with the amendment.

The Chair :

—and now we have an amendment.

James Bezan :

Which amendment are we dealing with?

The Chair :

Can you read the amendment, and then we'll vote on it?

Sherry Romanado :

I can't subamend my own amendment, but I can withdraw my amendment if it's the will of the committee because of the availability and the short timing of the December 5 deadline. If it's the will of the committee, I can remove the amendment and edit it, or I can ask a colleague here to do a subamendment to remove “spending implications of budget 2025”, and have “the Minister of National Defence to appear for one hour on the supplementary estimates (

B) prior to December 5”. We can have another invitation for the minister for the budget. We know he's available on that date. That's the deadline we have for the supplementary estimates to get them done to report at the House before the end of the December 10 cycle. I'm just trying to find a path forward here.

The Chair :

Is that understood?

Sherry Romanado :

We know he's available. You want him here for an hour on the supplementary estimates. He can come for an hour on the supplementary estimates on December 4, and we can deal with the budget on another date. Is that okay?

The Chair :

That's the amendment that's now being put forward. Is that clear, Mr. Savard-Tremblay?

[ Translation ]

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay :

On December 4, the minister would appear for one hour on supplementary estimates (B). Is that correct?

[ English ]

James Bezan :

Essentially, for clarity, everything after “Minister of Nation