Testifying on Bill C-11

When I received the invitation from the House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence to testify as a witness for its study of Bill C-11, I felt the weight of it immediately. Not because I have not spoken publicly about military justice before. I have. But because this legislation has real consequences for survivors in the Canadian Armed Forces, and I have lived those consequences from multiple angles.

I was invited to appear before the Committee on November 27, 2025, either in person or virtually, to speak to Bill C-11, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and other Acts. The Committee’s study includes voices from ministers, senior officials, legal experts, and military leadership. I accepted because survivor voices must be there too. They must be at the table when decisions are made about systems that have failed us.

View Recording

From where I stand, this is not just legislative review. It is about the lived reality of people who have survived violence inside a structure that holds enormous power over their lives. It is about understanding the gaps, the harms, and the consequences that cannot be seen from a policy document alone.

Below is the full statement I delivered to the Committee. Parliamentary Statement –Donna Van Leusden Chair, Honourable Members, Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Donna Van Leusden. I am a Canadian Armed Forces veteran, and the co-founder of a national program that teaches leaders, peers, and communities how to support survivors of sexual violence — regardless of whether there is an investigation, regardless of whether charges are laid, and regardless of the judicial outcome. We teach that a “not guilty” verdict does not mean “it did not happen,” and that survivor support must never hinge on the outcome of a legal process. That context informs everything I am about to say. I want to discuss Bill C-11 from the perspective of someone who has lived inside this system — as a survivor, as an officer, and as someone who has spent years supporting others who carry similar scars. My comments are rooted in both evidence and experience. 1. Bill C-11 removes choice from survivors and reduces flexibility. For many years, survivors in the Canadian Armed Forces had limited or flawed options — but they had options. Under Bill C-11, for Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada, survivors are given none. Everything must go directly to civilian police and civilian courts, regardless of what the survivor needs, prefers, or feels safe with.

This is not trauma-informed.

This is not survivor-centred.

And it may offer less flexibility than the military system ever did.

2. Civilian courts are already overwhelmed — and Jordan applications are rising at an alarming rate. In 2017, about 15% of adult sexual-assault cases exceeded Jordan timelines. By 2023, that number doubled to 30%. Nearly half of those cases were stayed or withdrawn. Two cases involving CAF members — including one high-profile case — have already collapsed under Jordan delays.

3. Charge-laying is decreasing — even as reporting increases. Between 2015 and 2019, the proportion of police-reported sexual-assault cases that resulted in charges dropped from 42% to 36%. This means that fewer survivors receive their day in court, despite increased willingness to report.

4. Conviction rates in civilian court appear higher — but the comparison is misleading. Civilian conviction rates for sexual assault hover around 55%, while military conviction rates may be closer to 28%. But the civilian system filters cases heavily before they reach trial, creating a selective rather than effective system.

5. Civilian courts are not consistently trauma-informed. The London Hockey Canada case is a powerful example. In the 91-page ruling, the judge framed normal trauma responses — fragmented memories, dissociation, delayed reporting — as credibility failures. This reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of trauma science. Survivors’ memories are not linear narratives; they are sensory, fragmented, often disordered. Yet the ruling treated these reactions as evidence against the complainant.

Another example is the Jacob Hoggard case. It took nearly ten years from the initial complaint to the final conclusion. Ten years. For one survivor, that decade represented ten years of emotional paralysis, ten years of re-living the assault, ten years of existing in a judicial limbo with no certainty and no closure. That is not justice. It is slow, grinding institutional harm — and a stark reminder that the civilian system is already overburdened.

If all military sexual-offence cases move into civilian courts, these systemic issues will not disappear — they will multiply.

My Lived Experience

Case One: Summary Trial – I am a survivor of a summary trial. I was questioned by my offender. I relived the assault under his authority. That day, I stood there — alone — still carrying his semen on my body. And I remember thinking: the institution I served, the country I served, has abandoned me.

But he was convicted — in a case that would never have been prosecuted in the civilian system.

Case Two: A Colonel with Multiple Victims – this is another offender — shared by two of us, a year apart. A senior officer. When we finally came forward, he simply declined to speak with the police, and charges were never laid. We know there are other victims out there but have no way to reach them.

Case Three: My Right to Choose – I had a case that went to civilian court. I was asked if I wanted to proceed. I said yes. The case was dismissed before the plea.

People asked if everything involved in reporting him was worth it. It was.

For 25 years, I thought of my rapist every day. I was not the woman, mother, officer, daughter, or sister I should have been.

He stole that from me.

I bet none of that crossed his mind. Not even once. But when he was arrested, when he hired a lawyer, when he had to explain himself — I bet he thought of me then.

That gave me closure.

And it mattered because I had the choice.

Being assaulted removes any sense of agency. We can help give some of that back. Any reform that removes survivor choice is not a reform. Any reform that transfers cases into an under-resourced system is not a solution. Any reform that ignores trauma is not justice.

Survivors deserve options.

Survivors deserve resources.

Survivors deserve trauma-informed systems.

Survivors deserve to be heard.

And above all — survivors deserve choice.

Thank you.