National Defence Committee on May 27th, 2014

[Col Robert P. Delaney]

The decision in terms of which route this goes, whether it goes through the civilian court system or through the military courts martial system, takes into account several factors.

One of these factors is the subject, the accused; if they are not military, there's no courts martial system for them. A civilian offender on military property would be dealt with through the civilian court system. In other cases we've seen civilian infractions on defence establishments against other civilians. Again, that's something that would be dealt with through the civilian system.

Where we get into a court martial situation is when we have military accused, military victims, occurring on military establishments. That's certainly within the clear confines of the military's judicial system. Of course, the JAG would probably like to expand on this answer, if he so chooses.

There are a number of mechanisms that come into play here in determining which route the charges, if warranted, will be heard.

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

So with two military involvements, both the victim and the offender, when they're in the military, it's not a choice of whether they go to a civilian court. It's automatically handled within the military.

[Col Robert P. Delaney]

It's not necessarily automatically. You could also have military, military, and a civilian jurisdiction, if the offence occurs downtown involving two military people. So you can see how complicated it can become. There are a number of factors that need to be taken into account.

Of course, the prime concern here is to ensure that justice is served, and that justice can be served either in the military justice system or the civilian justice system. There's a dialogue that must occur within the prosecutorial service to determine which route it is going to go.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Norlock]

Thank you very much, Colonel.

Ms. Sgro, for seven minutes.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Thank you very much for being here, and thank you for your contribution to our country.

I have to say, General Lawson and others, about 18 months ago, we sat in this very room with Commissioner Paulson and a group of RCMP officials. Some of your folks testified at a later time.

I listened to Commissioner Paulson and his great intentions, with a box of charts of all of the different ways they were going to be ending the sexual harassment issues and how they were going to make a significant change. And, you know, I believed him. I actually bought his story. He was maybe sincere that day, but it went straight downhill from there.

Bill C-42 clearly put a muzzle on all of the members in the RCMP. As a result of Bill C-42, they are no longer allowed, through a regulatory process, to talk to politicians or the media. They are not allowed to say anything negative that would disparage the RCMP. That put a muzzle on any of the current members. I have a list of several people who have a year or two before they leave, and at that time they are prepared to go public.

You have people in National Defence who have to get permission from the chain of command to talk publicly. How can we possibly have confidence as elected officials who want to make sure we have an organization that attracts women who want a career in it? How can we possibly assure them of anything, when no matter which organization we're talking about, you put a muzzle on them and they can't talk, and you tell them that there are all kinds of things to protect them and all the rest?

It was the exact same thing that I heard from the RCMP. Not one thing has changed in that organization, other than the fact that they can no longer talk at all. Within your organization, you have a chain of command that forbids them from doing that. In order to really get an understanding of where to go forward and how big a problem that is, have you thought of just not punishing people for coming forward with these kinds of complaints? Take off that permission from the chain of command and take off that muzzle, and let's finally find out how big a problem we have and how we're going to fix it.

I know you want to fix it. I think Commissioner Paulson wanted to fix it. But the steps he took were not significant enough to shake up an organization into understanding that no one is going to tolerate sexual harassment in any of these particular military services—none. Until you get a real shakeup at the top, nothing will happen. It gets covered up, and people are victimized and afraid of the reprisals.

Our own DND ombudsman testified at committee in 2012 that there was a fear of reprisals. You're not going to remove that unless you have a complete shakeup in this organization, which is maybe what the external review might show you. It's not a new problem.

I'm sad today to be sitting here. It infuriates me that our daughters and children, the females, aren't necessarily going to want to join National Defence or the RCMP.

What are you going to do to the perpetrators, other than transfer them or promote them, and penalize the women? Sorry for my rant, but it's an issue I care about, and I'm not impressed today whatsoever.

[Gen Thomas Lawson]

Okay, ma'am. Thank you. That means that I probably haven't been successful in expressing my concern as well.

But I also think we should recognize that in the most recent survey, the climate survey we did, 98.5% of the respondents—it's one of the largest surveys we've ever done—reported that they did not suffer sexual harassment of any kind over the reporting period. That still means that 1.5% did, so we still have work to do, but these rates are far below where they were, certainly in 1998 when these articles came out, and continue in a trend that goes downwards.

So I think, ma'am, that there is some heartening news there that suggests women are finding a nurturing workplace. We have with us a champion for women's issues in the military, Rear-Admiral Bennett, who can speak a little more to this later, but I think there are some very heartening things.

One other data point that I think you can take as heartening is that our attrition rate of women out of the Canadian Armed Forces is below the attrition rate for men, which also suggests as a data point that they're finding it to be a nurturing and healthy workplace for them.

I do accept your concern and your anger. I mirror your anger. In fact, it's something I live with every day when I find out that in fact someone believes they have been a victim of sexual misconduct and did not find themselves able or free to come forward, and maybe even worse, when we've had individuals who have come forward who then found a process that wasn't entirely supportive. Those are two areas that I know we can improve.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

If you have this confidence level, why is the military seeking permission to lower the recruiting targets for women?

[Gen Thomas Lawson]

I have the Chief of Military Personnel with me. I'll move on to his ground just momentarily. As you will know, ma'am, the Canadian Armed Forces has kind of been leading our NATO partners through the 1980s, the 1990s, and the 2000s in opening up our various occupations—combat operations—to women. What we've been finding is that we've been quite successful in hitting targets in non-combat occupations but are having difficulty filling our targets in combat occupations.

However, when we do see women move into these areas, we find them doing extremely well and moving into commands of warships, commands of combat units, and commands of flying squadrons, which is also a heartening thing.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

It's not because women aren't capable. It's because it's not desirable for women to join these military-style organizations unless they have a certain kind of personality that is prepared to put up with and cope with whatever they have to do to advance their careers.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Norlock]

Thank you very much, Ms. Sgro.

We'll move on to Mr. Williamson for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Chair.

General Lawson, thanks to you and your team for being here.

I appreciate your coming before us today and, in particular, your statement acknowledging that, from the 2012 survey, there remains more to be done. What struck me in your comments today is that you talked about addressing the problem and about prevention and resolution. You even concluded by saying that you will be treating people with respect, reporting any alleged service offence, and supporting victims of misconduct.

But I think there is also the aspect of justice and punishment. I too am struck by the lack of a focus on ensuring that those who behave improperly, who sexually assault their comrades, are punished, and I do think the accent needs to be put on that. I say that because some people think that in an organization the idea of a “chill” is a bad thing, but in some circumstances it's a very good thing.

If people behave inappropriately, I'm wondering if perhaps you need more concrete policies when it comes to allegations in order to immediately separate people. That's one of the things that struck me both in your conversation and in the Maclean's report that I read. Policies are in place, but they don't necessarily send a signal to the rest of the unit, or the CAF, or the public, a signal that rings right through the organization that this behaviour, while we say it is “unacceptable”, will not be tolerated.

I'd like your comments on that, please, particularly on the aspect of punishing those people, not moving them, not trying to fix it, and not trying to talk through it, but actually dealing with it, which results not only in the individuals knowing that they're going to be punished, but in the rest of the unit and the organization itself knowing.

[Gen Thomas Lawson]

Thank you, Mr. Williamson.

Mr. Chair, I'm in complete agreement with Mr. Williamson in the belief that we need to ensure that when an investigation shows sexual misconduct, it has to be prosecuted. I'll ask the Judge Advocate General to comment, but there is evidence, both among our neighbours to the south and in Canada, that military justice prosecutes these allegations more aggressively than parallel civilian justice systems.

On your other comment about being quicker to act while ensuring that we protect those potential victims or those people who have come forth as victims and make sure they've got all the support they need, I think we also have to be very careful about jumping to conclusions and making sure that the process indicates exactly what happened.

Could I ask the Judge Advocate General to respond to my comment regarding the aggression?

[MGen Blaise Cathcart, Judge Advocate General, Department of National Defence]

Yes, thank you, Chief, and thank you, Chair. It's an honour to be here to address these issues.

To focus on the question of punishment, again, it's a real challenge, particularly as the superintendent of the military justice system, where my role is to ensure that this justice system—if that's the focus of the punishment aspect of your question—is balanced both in terms of the victims of offences and those accused of offences.

I would be very cautious, both with Canadians and our allies, to make it too simplistic, that punishments and convictions equal success in dealing with sexual assault. I'm not aware of any empirical data that would support that supposition. As superintendent, at the end of the day what I'm most concerned about is that justice is done, whether that's in terms of punishment and convictions or in terms of acquittals.

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

I take your point, but surely you would agree that this problem as it's been reported now and in the past isn't going to be solved through respect, reporting, and support of victims alone. There is the requirement to root this out, and, frankly, to change the culture. Clearly, there are positive examples.

We can note from the Maclean's article that in one instance where it appeared the process wasn't moving along well, a higher ranking officer heard about it and acted. That's what we want to see.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Norlock]

Mr. Williamson, we'll have to end your question there and have a response later.

The floor now belongs to Ms. Michaud, for five minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for coming here to answer our questions. This issue is extremely unsettling for all of us.

General Lawson, I would just like you to answer with a yes or no. I have several questions to ask and would appreciate it if you kept your answers very brief.

Earlier, you talked about the internal review process. That was not clear for us. Has this process begun, yes or no?

[Gen Thomas Lawson]

Thank you, ma'am.

Mr. Chair, that process has been completed. The chief of military personnel completed it for me, and it was based on those findings, that we've moved forward with the plan to get an external review to look at some of the findings he brought forward.

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

Thank you. I will quickly come back to an issue my colleague, Mr. Harris, brought up.

The latest report of the Judge Advocate General mentions 691 cases of conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline. When I read the article in L'actualité, several questions were raised in my mind.

An incident took place close to where I live in the Quebec City region—more precisely, in Valcartier, which is in my riding. Military police handled the case. A young woman, Stéphanie Raymond, was sexually assaulted during an evening she spent in a mess. She reported the incidents that had occurred. Since no actual penetration had taken place, the investigating police officers decided to reject the complaint and drop the investigation. That is one of the cases.

Another case mentioned in the article is that of a female military member deployed to the Middle East. She was raped by five men. She was given the option to quit, be sent home or stay with the rapists and complete her assignment.

There is no prosecution in these kinds of cases. Are they included in the statistics found in the report?

[Gen Thomas Lawson]

Can I ask you, JAG, to speak to the statistics that appear in your report?

[MGen Blaise Cathcart]

Thank you for the question. This is very important.

I can't get into the specifics. I've read the article, of course—

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

I am not asking you to tell us about specific data. I am giving you some examples of cases where matters were not taken any further. In Ms. Raymond's case, she wanted to lay a charge, but the police officers rejected her complaint. Will a rejected complaint appear in your statistics? Do you feel this is a case of conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline, or does the case end there and is excluded from the statistics in the absence of legal proceedings?

[MGen Blaise Cathcart]

Oui. Well, there are different statistics that we're dealing with.

As the provost marshal indicated, we're dealing with actual complaints of sexual misconduct or sexual assault that are tracked. Those are largely in the sphere of the police, and the provost marshal can address those. Once a charge for an incident is laid, that's where we, as superintendents of the military justice system, track those particular cases until their disposition—

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

The cases mentioned in the article and those we still do not know about will not be part of the picture you will paint of the situation. That is how I understand your comments. I do not have any other questions on the matter.

[MGen Blaise Cathcart]

Okay.

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

I will continue in another vein.

You don't have to respond, but this is confirmation that the figure of five sexual assaults a day is unfortunately plausible. It is difficult to get a real picture of the situation. Honestly, the reporting procedure and the unit commander's power in that regard will further reduce our ability to get a real picture of the situation.

It was said that, if the criminal nature of the actions taken is considered to be less clear, the unit commander can decide to impose administrative penalties on the accused. These actions may include touching over clothing.

General Lawson, do you think it is acceptable for sexual touching, without penetration, to result in simple administrative penalties? In the civilian world, when someone pleads guilty to a lesser offence, they end up with a criminal record, and traces of their actions remain. In the case we are discussing, with an administrative penalty, the accused will not have to suffer any long-term consequences. The unit commander, who does not necessarily have the legal expertise to decide what kind of a charge should be laid, has a great deal of power over what will happen to the offender and over the way the victim will feel in the aftermath.

I would like to hear your thoughts on that. I think this aspect of the system is an aberration.