National Defence Committee on May 27th, 2014

[Gen Thomas Lawson]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In fact, I remember those articles, as will you and many around the table, and certainly all of us in uniform, when they came out. Since 1998 a tremendous number of policies, programs, and education opportunities have been put in place that have bolstered and nurtured the workplace environment in a way that data points and evidence indicate that the workplace is a far more positive place for women, for minorities, for people of all races and ethnicities to work in. That was one of the reasons these articles were more surprising and shocking to me than even those articles back in 1998.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

General Baril at the time, the CDS, admitted that we had a problem. Are you prepared to go that far and suggest that we have a problem? Your explanation seems to be that all the procedures seem to be in place.

[Gen Thomas Lawson]

No, I believe that any organization like ours that requires men and women to work in close quarters, both in offices and out in operations, will always deal with problems of sexual misconduct. I think that there is more to be done in that area. What I would like to say is that the characterization of very little being done from 1998 through to 2014 would be inaccurate.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

I didn't suggest that, sir. I suggested that we still have a problem.

If I may, to try to see if we can find out what the size of the problem is, we have a suggestion in these articles that perhaps five sexual assaults a day occur within the military, based on extrapolation from reported sexual assaults. And I'm focusing here on sexual assaults as opposed to sexual misconduct in a general way. Sexual assaults, of course, are criminal, and one would expect in a hierarchical organization such as yours, where you are the commanding officer and you tell people when to get up and what to wear and what to do, that you would be able to prevent crime or punish it very easily.

I'm interested in the reporting. I have a report in front of me that was tabled—quietly—on March 19, 2024—well, I couldn't call it tabled, as the House wasn't in session at the time. It's the latest report of the Judge Advocate General for the period ending March 31, 2011. It was tabled on March 19, 2014, three years after the date in question.

First of all, this is contrary to subsection 9.3(3) of the National Defence Act, which requires annual reports to be made and tabled in the House. Does it bother you that we don't have reports for 2012, 2013, 2014 and we're relying on a report that's now three years old?

[Gen Thomas Lawson]

Mr. Harris, you're talking about the general report by the—

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

The Judge Advocate General's report, that's right.

[Gen Thomas Lawson]

In fact, reports have been filed for those years and are in the middle of being processed. The one you were referring to is our most recent report and contains a tremendous amount of data, which helps us improve on the process.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

So are you suggesting that the other three reports are with the Minister and haven't been tabled in the House?

[Gen Thomas Lawson]

I have the Judge Advocate General with me, who can update you—

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

But my question is, does it bother you that we don't have these reports tabled annually in the House as required by the National Defence Act?

[Gen Thomas Lawson]

I have what I require from the reports to move ahead and improve the processes and policies for the Canadian Armed Forces.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

So it's up to the Ministerto see whether the law is enforced. Is that your position?

[Gen Thomas Lawson]

I believe that all laws would be as put forward to us by the House of Commons and the government, yes.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

I guess we'll have to ask the Ministerabout that.

In the most recent report of the Judge Advocate General, one of the things that I find confusing is that sexual assaults, which used to be dealt with separately, are now on the summary conviction side lumped in under a heading called, “Conduct to the Prejudice of Good Order and Discipline”. In 2010-11 there were 691 charges under this conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline, which includes misconduct of a sexual nature and misconduct related to drugs and alcohol. So we can't tell how many of them are actually sexual assaults or other forms of sexual misconduct.

In the previous year, for 2009-10, 68 were identified, and 37 for the year before—showing a significant increase. In cases that went to the court martial, there were 12 charges in 2010-11, and 12 in 2009-10—so it's a very small number of charges. Of the charges—

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Norlock]

Mr. Harris, you'll have to complete that question in the next round.

Ms. Gallant, go ahead for seven minutes.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Thank you.

When a person reports having been sexually assaulted and the perpetrator is known—he or she identifies him—and the assault is of a severe nature, yet there is no physical evidence, and that person who is accused of committing the assault is a superior to the accuser, what happens?

[Gen Thomas Lawson]

I think the best thing to do is to come right to our expert here, who is our provost marshal.

Could I ask you, Colonel Delaney, please to answer Ms. Gallant?

[Col Robert P. Delaney, Canadian Forces Provost Marshal, Department of National Defence]

Certainly, sir.

Good morning, ma'am.

With respect to any complaint of sexual misconduct, whether that be sexual assault or otherwise, and certainly in your scenario of a sexual assault that has occurred, regardless of rank, the military police will investigate that offence to the fullest extent possible. That may include arresting the subject or the accused. That will include collecting all evidence and all witness testimony, and compiling all facts in the matter, and then from that point forward, determining whether or not charges would be warranted.

To get back to your previous point about whether that might potentially impact whether or not these individuals need to be separated, yes, that would be a consideration, certainly, with respect to how we would deal with that situation. On top of that, and of primary importance, is the victim and ensuring that we have immediate victim services support for the victim, and ensuring that we have continued victim support throughout the process, whether that be internal or referring to additional agencies of support that might be in our communities.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

How is it determined who will be separated? You have a person who's higher in a chain of command—they need to be there—yet the accuser has been victimized but still wants to do his or her job. How is the determination made? Who is going to be separated from that workplace?

[Col Robert P. Delaney]

The initial thing is we need to consider the victim's concerns in our determination of which route we're going to take in terms of separating the individuals. It may be that the victim himself or herself wants to be removed from that workplace and relocated to another workplace whilst the investigation takes its course. There have been cases in the past in which commanding officers have been relieved of their command pending the outcome of these investigations. So it is quite possible that the superior—the senior officer or the senior individual—would be removed from the workplace, pending the outcome of that investigation. It really is situationally dependent.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Okay.

In cases where a person is arrested and the case actually reaches the media, we see that afterwards other victims come forth. Why is it that it's only after someone comes out first reporting that they've been assaulted that you see other people coming forth regarding the same person?

[Col Robert P. Delaney]

I certainly can't speculate as to the mindset of the other victims, but what we've experienced in cases in which we've had multiple victims with the same offender is that once information comes to light that this individual has been charged and will be tried for sexual offences, other victims at that time are more comfortable coming forward because they believe their story will potentially have more weight. It's also quite possible that their recollection of events becomes much more solidified after hearing others come forward, as they recall what's occurred to them. They think, “this possibly is an offence and I need to come forward and speak to the authorities about this”.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

When an assault occurs, what distinguishes the process in the military from what would happen under civilian circumstances?

[Col Robert P. Delaney]

I would suggest to you that our processes within the military police system are fundamentally the same as they are in any other jurisdiction across Canada. So from a policing perspective, we handle those complaints in the same manner that any other police agency would.

Now, we have an additional mechanism within the military, of course, which is that chain of command that the Chief of the Defence Staff has spoken of. In those cases—and we've seen a number of examples where the chain of command is the one that comes forward with allegations of sexual misconduct or sexual assault. It's that third-party complaint that the military police will then take and investigate to the fullest extent. That is a mechanism, of course, that doesn't exist within civilian society.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

So is it the case with this sort of misconduct that the offender is given the choice between a trial or court martial?