By Military Woman
Question:
Imagine someone you love is joining the military tomorrow. Both Australia and Canada are reviewing new legislation to better address workplace sexual violence in their armed forces. If you had to choose today, which bill would you want protecting that person — Australia’s or Canada’s?
Answer:
Australia’s – and here’s why.
Australia’s Bill: Independent, Accountable, Survivor-Centred
Australia’s Defence Amendment (Sexual Assault Prevention, Intervention and Response Commission) Bill 2025, introduced by Senator Lambie, is built on a trauma- and violence-informed foundation that centres on the needs of serving members.
Australia’s bill would establish a fully independent Commissioner who sits outside the chain of command, reports directly to the Minister, and regularly tables reviews in Parliament. Most importantly, it would impose a positive legal duty on the entire Defence organisation to prevent sexual harassment and assault. Military commanders would be held personally accountable for both their actions and inactions — whether at home or on deployment overseas. This is an example of a bill that would overhaul military culture by making prevention efforts statutory requirements.
Canada’s Bill: Administrative Tweaks Without Real Structural Reforms
Canada’s Bill C-11 Military Justice System Modernization Act was re-tabled by Minister of National Defence David McGuinty on September 26, 2025, after its predecessor Bill C-66 died with prorogation. During the bill’s second reading on October 6, Minister McGuinty told Parliament that “eradicating these behaviours is essential… and above all, it is the right thing to do.” His Parliamentary Secretary added that Bill C-11 “will improve transparency and accountability.”
Yet Bill C-11, as written, is unlikely to achieve any of those political promises.
Bill C-11’s headline measure—sending all sexual offences committed in Canada to civilian police and courts—may sound progressive, but it shifts accountability away from the military and from the political leaders responsible for the military’s oversight. Once cases move into the civilian system, they become far less visible to military leadership and to parliamentarians, making failures by either body easier to avoid acknowledging or addressing. This shift also removes serving members’ opportunity to observe and learn from military processes that could otherwise support meaningful cultural change within the military.
Why Bill C-11 Will Fail Survivors
There is no evidence government conducted a meaningful “people-first” centred review before reintroducing the bill. Survivor concerns were sidelined. Quebec’s specialised sexual-assault court model was not examined. International precedents were not incorporated.
Indeed, Bill C-11 contains none of the many structural reforms experts and those directly impacted have requested including:
• No statutory duty to prevent harm.
• No fully independent oversight body outside the chain of command.
• No explicit protection against institutional career retaliation.
• No requirement for measurable prevention outcomes.
• No continuity in process – with sexual offences committed outside Canada remaining under military jurisdiction, creating a confusing two-tier system.
As a result, survivors continue to shoulder most of the burden instead of the institutions they work for. This fits a longer pattern. In September 2025, Auerswald, Lagassé, and Saideman’s Overseen or Overlooked? ranked Canada near the bottom among 14 peer democracies for legislative oversight of its military. Bill C-11 continues that tradition.
If This Bill Impacted Someone You Loved
If it were your child, sibling, or friend stepping up to serve, wouldn’t you want legislation that:
• Makes prevention of sexual violence in the workplace a legal obligation.
• Places independent oversight beyond the chain of command.
• Holds leaders accountable when they fail to act or support.
• Guarantees transparency and public reporting.
• Shifts the burden off victims and onto the employing institution.
Australia’s bill delivers on all five items. Canada’s bill delivers on none.
The Bottom Line
Australia’s legislation has already shown that bold, “people-first” reform is possible. Canada’s Bill C-11 is not malicious; it is simply inadequate. It focuses on prosecuting individual “bad apples” while leaving the toxic barrel that produced them shielded from change.
Parliament still has time to fix this.
If someone you loved were joining the Canadian military tomorrow, wouldn’t you want them serving under the values in Australia’s legislation? If so — contact your MP, Senator and the Minister of National Defence today. Tell them our troops deserve a better bill.
As written, Bill C-11 protects the institution more than the people who serve it.
