Bill C-11 Before the Senate of Canada

14 June 2026

 

If someone had said, 10 years ago, that I would be defending the Code of Service Discipline against problematic attack by the Minister of National Defence (MND) and the Judge Advocate General of the Canadian Forces (JAG) I would have called them crazy.  Heck, I likely would have replied in an even more colourful manner than that.

But here we are.

And on 8 June 2026, I had the privilege to appear before the Senate Standing Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs (SCED) to discuss Bill C-11.  I had the added privilege of appearing alongside former Puisne Justice of the Supreme Court, Mme Marie Deschamps.  And I found, to my surprise, that much of what we stated was complementary.

I have previously spoken and written about the shortcomings in Bill C-11 (and Bill C-66 before that).[1]  I won’t belabour the present Blog post by reiterating those same observations.  However, if you wish to read the brief that I submitted to SCED prior to 8 June 2026, it can be found here:

Brief by Lieutenant-Colonel Rory Fowler (retired), appearing as an individual

 

And, if you wish to hear my comments (and those of Mme Deschamps, and other witnesses appearing on 8 June 2026, including the MND and the JAG) you can view the recording here:

SECD Meeting No. 23, 8 June 2026

 

The current federal government has decided to push through enactment of Bill C-11, the so called “Modernization of Military Justice Act” (which is a re-boot of Bill C-66, which died on the Order Paper when the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament in advance of the last general election).  And, when doing so, the government decided to reject amendments made in committee (which it could do in light of obtaining a thin majority due principally to “floor crossings” by one Member of Parliament (MP) previously in the caucus of the New Democratic Party of Canada (NDP) and several MPs from the Conservative party of Canada).

The goal is clearly to rush the legislative amendments through before Parliament’s summer recess.  At least, it appears that the goal is to rush the statutory amendments through before the summer recess.  It is not at all clear when the necessary regulatory amendments will be made.  Some of you may recall that it took three years to enact many of the necessary regulatory amendments relating to Bill C-77 to bring significant portions of that legislation into force.

The over-arching questions are: what is driving the government to push through the legislation without amendment, and what’s the rush?

I suggest that the motive is relatively easy to discern, although it stands in marked contrast to similar and related factors.

The motivation is to “answer the mail”.  The current government (or, perhaps more accurately, the current iteration of the government formed by the Liberal Party of Canada) is to demonstrate that they have adopted all of the recommendations from the Report of the Independent External Comprehensive Review (the “Arbour Report”), particularly as they recently selected Mme Arbour to serve as Canada’s 31^st Governor General.  As of 8 June 2025, she is now Her Excellency, the Governor General.

It may be more accurate to describe the actions of the current federal government as “asserting that they have adopted all of the recommendations”, as it is debatable whether all of the recommendations have truly been adopted.  What is clear is that this is a “box-ticking exercise”.  The government wishes to be able to declare that they have taken significant steps to alter the culture of the Canadian Forces (CF) and have done so by adopting all of the recommendations in the Arbour Report.

That orientation by the government stands in marked contrast to the approach adopted for the three Independent Reviews conducted under Bill C-25 and, latterly, s 273.601 of the National Defence Act.[2]

Many of the recommendations offered by the late Chief Justice Antonio Lamer, former Chief Justice of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice Patrick LeSage, and former Puisne Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada Morris Fish have not been implemented.  Many – including recommendations repeated in two, or all three, of the Reviews – have largely been ignored.  Some of those recommendations called for significant reform of remedial mechanisms available to CF personnel.  And, in light of the markedly asymmetric relationship between the Crown (and the chain of command) and members of the armed forces of His Majesty raised by Canada, those remedial mechanisms are often the only means for CF personnel to redress wrongs.  And many of those mechanisms significantly favour the chain of command and can contribute to impunity when senior CF decision-makers are not held accountable for unfair and unreasonable decision-making.

The MND addressed the SCED immediately after Mme Deschamps and I appeared.  I listened intently to what the Minister had to say.  Regrettably, to my ears, much of what he said amounted to platitudes and generalizations.  It’s not debatable that the Canadian Forces must ensure that personnel are not victimized by peers or superiors – whether in terms of sexual misconduct or any form of misconduct.  The question is how this can best be achieved.  And what appeared to be missing from the comments of the MND, the JAG and the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) was meaningful analysis why the legislative changes proposed in Bill C-11 would improve circumstances.

 

Numbers Games

Something that stood out for me, both in the context of the government’s decision to nullify the amendments offered by the Committee process in the House of Commons and in the context of the appearances before the Senate Standing Committee on 8 June 2026, was the disingenuous reliance of impressive sounding numbers.

And that is one of the reasons why I expressly raised that issue in my comments before SCED.

On 23 April 2026, after the government unilaterally undid all of the amendments to Bill C-11 that were proposed by the Standing Committee on National Defence (NDDN), debate was conducted in the House of Commons regarding the government’s decision, and many of those participating in the debate were past or current members of the House of Commons Standing Committee (NDDN).  Opposition MPs criticized the government’s unilateral and heavy-handed approach in abandoning amendments supported by the diverse representatives of opposition parties.  MP Sherry Romanado stated (in response to a query from Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay):

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and also for the work we do together in committee.

My priority is the women and men in uniform. The chief of the defence staff has had conversations with over 14,000 Canadian Armed Forces members and victims, and they have made it very clear that these cases need to be transferred to the civilian system.[3]

 

Tim Watchorn stated (in response to a similar query from Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay):

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, who sits on the Standing Committee on National Defence with me.

I think that today we are talking about victims. We are talking about the issue of victims’ trust in a justice system. I would like my colleague to talk about the 14,000 victims who testified before Justice Arbour that they did not trust the military system. Since 2022, all sexual abuse cases under the Criminal Code have been tried in civilian court, and that arrangement is working.[4]

 

Mr. Watchorn later stated:

Mr. Speaker, to answer my colleague, Justice Arbour interviewed 14,000 people and most of them did not want these cases to remain in the military system. The trust is not there.

A change in culture is happening slowly. We hear that things are improving at the Department of National Defence, but they have not yet improved enough. Victims still fear retaliation. They fear being reprimanded, and they fear that their case will not be dealt with appropriately.[5]

 

And again stated:

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her work with the military. Coming from a military family, I appreciate the service of her two sons. We did indeed listen to witnesses, and we are aware that the majority of them do not want their cases made public. They do not want to disclose their assault in public. I think it is important to take their opinions into account, along with everything that was said to Justice Arbour. She heard testimony from 14,000 people, and it is important to consider what they said.[6]

 

I have provided citation to Hansard for these statements, and readers of this Blog may consult the debates of 23 April 2026 in Hansard to view the context in which these statements were offered.

There is much that I would dispute in these assertions, including whether referral of charges to civilian courts is “working” – and what “working” actually means.  But my principal focus in this Blog post is on the games being played with numbers.

These assertions are clearly, and fundamentally, incorrect.  Mme Arbour (as she then was), indicated that she spoke with approximately 350 people in the conduct of her inquiry.  And not all of the people she interviewed (and interviews are not the same as sworn testimony) were necessarily victims or survivors.  I was one of the people whom she interviewed in her inquiry, and I made no claim of being a victim or survivor (although I, like many CF personnel, have experienced being on the “receiving end” of unfair, unreasonable, or even malicious decision-making while serving in the CF).

Neither did the CDS interview 14,000 people.

In light of the misrepresentation of the relevant numbers, it is difficult to identify where the number “14,000”, relied upon by Ms Romanado and Mr. Watchorn originated.

It is possible these MPs were conflating the number of people who were claimants in the class actions in Heyder v Canada[7] and Beattie v Canada [which tend to be referred to as the Heyder-Beattie Class Action] with the interviews conducted by Mme Arbour (as the then was).  At one time, there were reports that there were approximately 14,000 claimants.  However, that number has risen to approximately 24,000 approved claims.

The number cited by the MPs may be based upon the number of responses to the “2022 Survey on Sexual Misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces”.  But the number of responses to this survey does not equate to the number of victims/survivors of sexual misconduct in the CF.

They may also be relying on data purportedly collected by the (formerly named) Sexual Misconduct Response Centre (SMRC), subsequently called the Sexual Misconduct Support and Resource Centre (SMSRC), and currently branded as the Defence Community Support and Resource Centre (DCSRC).  However, the summary of ‘numbers’ available in the SMSRC/DCSRC annual reports, don’t tend to align with that number.

The misrepresentations of the origin of “14,000” makes it difficult to discern what, precisely, is the source of these repeated assertions.

My point is that there has been, at the very least, a recklessly vague approach to the assertion of numbers in support of policy change.  Whether it is inadvertent or intentional is unclear.  But it is clear that there has been, and continues to be, an imprecise approach to discussion of such numbers.  And I contend it is being done, at least in part, because such vague imprecision supports a particular narrative.

After all, the Arbour Report sounds more impressive if one asserts that Mme Arbour (as she then was) interviewed 14,000 people.  It sounds even more impressive if one refers to it as “testimony”, even though an interview that is not under oath, which may not have been recorded, which was not subject to any 3^rd party examination, and which is certainly not publicly available or verifiable is not actually “testimony”.

It sounds equally impressive to assert that 14,000 people were interviewed by a senior decision-maker or policy maker, rather than identify that what we are really talking about are anonymous and voluntary surveys, the full data of which is not publicly available.

And, frankly, when the senators on the SCED queried the Minister, the JAG, the CDS, the Chief of Professional Conduct and Culture (CPCC), and the CEO of the DCSRC, it still wasn’t entirely clear where those numbers were coming from.  What is clear is that the comments by select MPs on 23 April 2026 in defence of removing amendments approved in Committee were demonstrably incorrect.

Nor did these numbers address the growing call from various groups, including those representing victims and survivors of sexual misconduct, to roll back the principal policy shift in Bill C-11: the removal of sexual offences, where they arise in Canada, from the jurisdiction of the Code of Service Discipline.

 

Fundamental Contradiction

When I appeared before the SCED, I explained the there was a fundamental contradiction at the core of Bill C-11: partial removal of the jurisdiction of the Code of Service Discipline over sexual offences (i.e., only where the allegations arise in Canada), where we would still expect military judges, military prosecutors, military defence counsel, and military police to exercise jurisdiction when the allegations arise outside Canada, would undermine, rather than improve confidence in the military justice system.  I stated that it was mind-bogglingly counter-intuitive to expect trust, efficiency, and effectiveness to improve when the opportunity for these military justice actors to deal with such matters is reduced by up to 75%.

Senator Claude Carignan paid me a humbling compliment by mentioning my objection in his speech before the Senate on 11 June 2026.  More significantly, he mentioned objections from across a spectrum of witnesses who appeared before the SCED, including the Director of Military Prosecutions, the Director of Defence Counsel Services, and police chief Fiona Wilson, who spoke on behalf of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.

The central premise of Bill C-11 – that the military justice system is not fit for purpose for “sexual offences” arising in Canada – represents a fundamental contradiction with the assertion that it is, and will remain, fit for purpose for such offences when they arise outside Canada.

Attempting to veil this fundamental failing in vague platitudes about meeting the needs of victims and survivors ignores the inherent shortcomings in this problematic policy shift, particularly when victims and survivors have increasingly objected to it.  Such platitudes also ignore the need for efficient and effective maintenance of discipline within the CF and the imperative that all CF personnel must benefit from fair, reasonable, and equitable decision-making.

 

The Actual Problem

The chain of command of the CF, and their political masters, remain myopically fixated on the public relations response to allegations of sexual misconduct.  Their obsession with “answering the mail” from a public relations perspective, regardless of the material merit (or lack thereof) of the policy changes that are being pursued, has blinded them to reasonable objections.  They have lost sight of the broader issue of the need to replace impunity with fair and reasonable decision-making, regardless of the specific type of misconduct being addressed.

The panel that appeared with the MND (the CDS, the JAG, CPCC, and the CEO of the DCSRC) spoke about the need for culture change in the CF.  The problem is that they remain myopically focused on sexual misconduct, as if that is the only example of a matter that requires culture change.  I contend that failings in response to sexual misconduct represent a symptom of a larger problem that the CF repeatedly fails to address: impunity and intransigence by senior CF leaders.

And, as I explained to the SCED, the problem with Bill C-11 is that it represents a withdrawal from accountability.  And it isn’t even a “fighting withdrawal” – it is a panicked rout, driven by fear – fear of negative news coverage, fear of being perceived as not “answering the mail”, fear of not being perceived to have a “grip” on the institution.  And, instead of accountability, we will have a rush to judgment when CF decision-makers employ administrative mechanisms that are ill-suited to the adjudication of evidence.

Worse yet, the chain of command will continue to avoid addressing the larger shortcoming: their unwillingness, on an institutional level, to admit or acknowledge having erred.  And that is the core problem.  This mix of intransigence and impunity lies at the core of ongoing toxic leadership in the CF.  And we will explore this issue further in future Blogs.

 

[1] Rory Fowler “Bill C-11 and the Standing Committee on National Defence” (10 February 2026), online: Law Office of Rory G Fowler/Blog <https://roryfowlerlaw.com/bill-c-11-and-the-standing-committee-on-national-defence/> ; Rory Fowler “Bill C-66 – Initial Observations” (21 March 2024), online: Law Office of Rory G Fowler/Blog <https://roryfowlerlaw.com/bill-c-66-initial-observations/> ; Rory Fowler “Looking back at 2025 … and what’s in store for 2026” (1 January 2026), online: Law Office of Rory G Fowler/Blog <https://roryfowlerlaw.com/looking-back-at-2025-and-whats-in-store-for-2026/>.

[2] Rt Hon Antonio Lamer, “The First Independent Review by the Right Honourable Antonio Lamer P.C., C.C., C.D.  of the provisions and operation of Bill C-25, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts,  as required under section 96 of Statutes of Canada 1998, c.35”, 3 September 2003 [Lamer Report]; The Hon Patrick J. LeSage, “Report of the Second Independent Review Authority to The Honourable Peter G. MacKay Minister of National Defence”, December 2021 [LeSage Report]; The Hon. Morris Fish, “Report of the Third Independent Review Authority to the Minister of National Defence Pursuant to subsection 273.601(1) of the National Defence Act, RSC 1985, c N-5”, 30 April 2021[Fish Report].

[3] Canada, Parliament, House of Commons Debates, 45th Parl, 1^st Sess, Vol 152, No 109 (23 April 2026) at 1040 (Sherry Romanado).

[4] Canada, Parliament, House of Commons Debates, 45th Parl, 1^st Sess, Vol 152, No 109 (23 April 2026) at 1055 (Tim Watchorn).

[5] Canada, Parliament, House of Commons Debates, 45th Parl, 1^st Sess, Vol 152, No 109 (23 April 2026) at 1207 (Tim Watchorn).

[6] Canada, Parliament, House of Commons Debates, 45th Parl, 1^st Sess, Vol 152, No 109 (23 April 2026) at 1211 (Tim Watchorn).

[7] Heyder v Canada (Attorney General), 2019 FC 1477 [Heyder].