National Defence Committee on May 27th, 2014

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Thank you very much.

Can you tell me how long it takes, on average, for these investigations to go on?

[Col Robert P. Delaney]

Thank you very much for the question.

That's actually a difficult question to answer. It would depend on the complexity of the circumstances.

To give you an appreciation, immediately, if we're talking about an incident of sexual assault, the first order of business is to collect any physical evidence there may be of a assault having taken place. That is obviously done as quickly as possible so that we preserve that evidence and can utilize it later on.

Then comes the point of questioning witnesses who may or may not have seen what occurred. That depends on where those witnesses may be. It depends on the circumstances of where the alleged offence occurred. If it occurred on an operation somewhere abroad, and everybody is now dispersed back to Canada to their home stations, that makes things a little more difficult for us. Certainly, if it occurs on a Friday night and we've collected evidence that night and have got into the stage of interviewing witnesses, that's a case that's going to move a lot more quickly than a historical case would, for example.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Does that mean two years or four years?

[Col Robert P. Delaney]

I would suggest to you, ma'am, that it's likely a lot less than that in a simple circumstance. But we have had cases that span 30 or 40 years, historical sexual assaults that are brought forward. The legwork that's required to look back into addresses and to individuals from 40 years prior is obviously a lot more complex, but we've got great examples of investigations that our folks have really dug into and tried to get the facts of the matter.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

How many convictions have there been? How many firings of senior people in the service have there been in the last five years?

[MGen Blaise Cathcart]

We can get the exact numbers. I don't have them at—

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Give me an idea.

[MGen Blaise Cathcart]

Again, do you mean senior in terms of rank? In the last year we've had some senior people. We had a base commander at Wainwright, for example, who was a major. We had a case with a lot of notoriety, that of petty officer 2nd class James Wilks. That's a high rank for a non-commissioned member. So again, we go year-by-year and there will be a variety of rank levels involved in such offences.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

May I suggest that in the future if you took a couple of really key people as an example and rather than transferring them or slapping their wrists, you gave them really tough penalties it would send a message to an awful lot of people about what's acceptable and what's not acceptable. I appreciate all of the modules and all your fine intentions, but we've heard that before and doesn't give me any level of confidence that it's going to change. I don't know what to suggest to you that's going to change it other than that a shake-up and that message that has to go from the top that we're not going to tolerate any of this. Everybody knows what sexual assault is. Everybody knows that touching a woman or a man.... And we do keep talking about women, but in a recent U.S. study that was done in 2012, yes, there were 12,000 women but there was also 14,000 men who indicated that they were the subject of sexual attention they didn't want. These are very serious issues that you have to find a way to come to terms with. I'm just not sure where we're going with this review. I'm glad we're having it.

There are some pilot projects being done in the U.S. on these issues. Have you been speaking to any of your allies on how they're dealing with this issue?

[MGen David Millar]

Yes, we have. As a matter of fact, we are part of a type of cooperation working group with New Zealand, the U.K., Australia, and the U.S., where we discuss these very issues. Canada, as you know, was one of the first nations to open its combat roles to women back in 1989 and, indeed, is seen as one of the most progressive nations, which others are starting to emulate. Jennifer was just in Mexico recently because our allies recognize what Canada has done in integrating women in the Canadian Armed Forces.

Do you want to speak to that, Jennifer, for a second?

[RAdm Jennifer Bennett, Champion for Women in Defence, Department of National Defence]

I would say that our culture and climate are very different. Our military is set apart from some of our allies. So while there are lessons to be learned from our allies, when making comparisons with them we have to be careful that one size doesn't necessarily fit all. The issue for us in the Canadian Armed Forces is still that the critical mass and sheer numbers of women, the trades in which women can be employed, the method in which they're employed, and our equality is much higher than most of our allies when it comes—

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Norlock]

Thank you very much, rear admiral. We'll have to go over to Mr. Williamson for five minutes.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Thank you very much.

One of the remarks that General Lawson made was that there could be a systemic problem within the forces that prevents people from coming forth. That's quite a statement because it suggests there's something going on that you might not even be aware of. How do you deal with this so that we're not back here in five or ten years with other editions of magazines talking about another round of individuals or people who have been assaulted by their colleagues? I find it quite alarming that that is possible in the forces and I think any other organization would want to root it out, and I'm sure you do as well. But how do you tackle that, because that suggests it's there, that you can't see it, that you can't observe it, that you can't study it, and that you can't find it. So how are you going to root it out?

[MGen David Millar]

I think the Chair, just prior to the end of the last session, characterized it very well as stigma. We've seen it recently on the mental health side, that mental health is characterized by depression, PTSD. A forces member attempts to fix the problem, and when they can't fix it, because we're all type-A personalities, they try harder and harder. They don't want to come forward necessarily because maybe they'll be seen as the weak link in the chain.

As you saw from the recent mental health video, we're changing that. Since that mental health video came out, we're seeing a 10% rise in the number of people coming forward saying, “I do need help and I'm not ashamed to say I do need help.”

I don't think this situation is any different, in that we're all proud and professional. Indeed, in our surveys regarding sexual harassment, including the 2012 survey that's posted, the majority of those who experienced sexual harassment came out and said, “I handled it myself”. The greatest percentage of our cases of harassment are peer on peer. Because it was peer on peer, many of those who were victimized felt they could address it themselves and did so.

Nevertheless, 17% only reported that they would feel comfortable coming forward, or 17% felt uncomfortable coming forward because of fear of reprisal, and concern that there wouldn't be reassurance of the action to be taken.

As we continue to look at this issue, for us, for me, that is why the next review will shed light on that, as much as we have on mental health.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

I'll hold there, Mr. Chair, thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Norlock]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Michaud, you have five minutes.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Harris will use the remainder of my time.

I want to come back to you, Major-General Cathcart.

I am still struggling to understand what would justify a simple administrative penalty being imposed. I am not talking about harassment here, but about sexual contact, physical contact. I will give you the gist of an article published in L'actualité, where the unit commander's role throughout the process is discussed:

If he stays out of the police investigations, a commander can still, in some sexual assault cases, get involved in the charges. It all depends on the seriousness of the action.

If the National Investigative Service has determined that it is not its responsibility to prosecute, that responsibility falls to the commander, the accused person's superior. Here is more from the article:

Based on the facts gathered by the police officers, the unit commander decides whether their subordinate will have to answer for his or her actions before military justice or whether simple administrative penalties suffice.

That brings me back to my question.

What is the justification—in the case of sexual touching over clothing—for a unit commander to decide that an administrative penalty applies, while in the civilian world, this is considered a criminal offence?

That is the question I would like you to answer.

[MGen Blaise Cathcart]

Yes, I understand the question perfectly well. Thank you.

Again, it's based on the facts. I'm not in that situation. I personally agree. I can't see how initially, with those set of facts, a commander would simply say, “Well, that's not sexual assault”. If he did, then I would suggest that would be an improper use of his judgment in that case.

That's why in all those cases, we worked very hard both within the military justice system and, as General Millar said, through education and training, so that when those incidents do come to a commanding officer's attention, or anybody else's attention because there's an obligation on all members to report service offences or their belief that a service offence has occurred.... When those facts are then presented to investigators and then, potentially, eventually to prosecutors, I would be very, very surprised if they did not end up in a charge.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Yet, this has happened. A number of cases have been documented in other articles.

What kind of training do unit commanders receive that enables them to make these types of decisions?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Norlock]

The response will have to wait for another time.

Mr. Harris, for three minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would add to General Millar's comments about what's necessary. Both women and men who are sexually assaulted have to have confidence that they will be taken seriously, that they won't be re-victimized or their careers jeopardized, and that the perpetrator will be dealt with properly as well. For them to be able to come forward it's not simply a matter of the stigma, but the question of what happens when you they come forward.

I want to acknowledge, by the way, and thank and recognize the work of Noémi Mercier and Alec Castonguay from L'actualité' for the work they've done in presenting this information to the public. I hope that it will lead to further work by both the military and this committee in trying to address this problem within the military.

I would like, sir, at this time to move the motion for which notice has been given:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on National Defence undertake a study of sexual assault and harassment in the Canadian Armed Forces as soon as possible, and that the Committee report its findings to the House.

I would like to speak to that motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Norlock]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Harris.

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

Yes, sir.

I recognize, of course, that there is ongoing activity by the military. We're going to receive General Millar's internal review very shortly, I'm assuming. We obviously want to have an opportunity to look at that and to see what it leads to.

We haven't seen any terms of reference yet. We don't know who's involved, but I think we've had some very interesting questions today from members on both sides of this committee. I think there's a lot more to explore in both the relationship between the military police on the one hand and the civilian forces on the other, issues having to do with the jurisdiction, the changes that were made in 1998, for example, to bring sexual assault into the military for the purpose of prosecution because it wasn't there before. What has been the result of that, the role of the ombudsman, for example, which was created in 1998 partly as a result of the crisis that was identified at that time?

So I think there's a lot of scope for this committee to be involved in this. I don't think it's going to start immediately. The motion says “as soon as possible”, so we hope to have an opportunity to deal with this further and remain seized with the question because I think it's an important one.The revelations have concerned and angered a lot of people. Some of them are allegations. Some of them are going to be going to trial, etc., so we know ongoing matters are taking place.

I think this committee, as the representative of Parliament on this issue, should be seized with this, should undertake its own study dealing with the things that have been done so far and whatever else comes before us. But we should agree at this time to continue to pursue the kind of questions we've been pursuing today and, hopefully, get fuller answers and perhaps make our own recommendations as to what might need to be done.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Norlock]

Thank you very much, Mr. Harris.

I will note to the committee that generally when we undertake future business we do so after discussion and generally that occurs in camera. Your notice of motion is in order. We can discuss it, but what the committee is seized with is generally done in that fashion.

We'll go to the next speaker, Ms. Sgro, to speak to the notice of motion.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

As you know, I'm not a regular member of this committee, but this particular issue, as I indicated, is of course very important. I'm not sure what your work plan is, but I can say that I think there's nothing more important for this committee than to look further into this issue, as we did with difficulty at the status of women committee. We managed to get some work done on it, but it was really opening the box of a serious issue.

We know that 51% of Canadians are women. We want women to be able to join the military, the RCMP, or any organization they want to, and we want them to feel safe and confident because it's a wonderful career. Why should they be denied those opportunities?

For us not to do something with it, I feel, really lets Canadians down. You've got the military and fine people trying to do the best they can, but this has been going on for years and years, and not only in Canada but elsewhere also.

I think to protect Canada's reputation, but more importantly to protect the integrity of the organization, we should adopt this motion. We should encourage National Defence to remove the muzzle from their members to finally get people talking about this issue, to truly resolve it once and for all. I think we have an obligation to do that. I think this committee would do a fine job of doing some work on this particular issue, as illustrated in the motion.