Evidence of meeting #60 for National Defence in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was deschamps.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Élaine Michaud NDP Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
I understand what you are saying very well.
In the beginning of your presentation, you also said you did not view your mandate as including giving the details of the structure this ideal independent centre should take. However, I would imagine that you may have a few ideas and suggestions to make on that. Could you tell us what you feel the essential elements of an independent centre would be?
4:30 p.m.
External Review Authority, As an Individual
I mentioned several in my report.
For instance, it is very important that an independent centre be the central authority for collecting information. In my report, I note that there is not much reliable data on sexual harassment and assault. The independent centre would have to be responsible for collecting data. It would also have to take part in drafting policies and preparing training programs. The objective is for the independent centre to develop expertise that would benefit all of the units of the armed forces, and not only some of them.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Élaine Michaud NDP Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
Thank you very much.
Major-General Whitecross, since 2013, the targets for the recruitment of women in the Canadian Forces have been considerably reduced because they were considered unattainable. We now have this report, the conclusions of which are quite difficult to read, concerning the situation in the Canadian Forces.
In light of the conclusions of the report, how will the Canadian armed forces be able to reach targets for the recruitment of women? Is looking at that a part of your mandate?
4:30 p.m.
Commander, Canadian Armed Forces Strategic Response Team on Sexual Misconduct, Department of National Defence
My mandate is to address the 10 recommendations from Madame Deschamps. I can look into your question later, but right now, my mandate is to actually identify the 10 recommendations.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Peter Kent
Time is up. Thank you, Madame Michaud.
Ms. Gallant, you have five minutes, please.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
As was mentioned earlier, General Whitecross, your strategic response team has visited a number of bases and wings since the report was made public. Can you speak to what type of reception you've had from the Canadian Armed Forces members?
4:35 p.m.
Commander, Canadian Armed Forces Strategic Response Team on Sexual Misconduct, Department of National Defence
Yes. Thank you.
Mr. Chair, so far we've done 16 sessions in, I think, six or seven locations. In every one of them the chain of command is aware of Madame Deschamps' report and is aware of the action plan that has come out. They all want to be engaged in setting the conditions for, as Madame Deschamps has mentioned, better trust in the chain of command. That's fundamentally the biggest thing we're hearing; they want to regain trust in the chain of command.
I have one little anecdote, which I think speaks to some of the discussions that we're having. I had a senior member come to me after one of the meetings. We were talking about the underlying sexualized culture and how we need to talk about it. By talking about it people will realize that words hurt and that what they're doing is creating this environment which can, if not checked, lead to larger or more serious events. When he heard that, it resonated with him and he told me that I was one of those people who did that. I can tell you right now that I will be one of the stronger supporters in ensuring that this does not ever happen under my watch again. I think we're reaching people in many ways.
Thank you.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Was it just the chain of command that you met with, or was it regular members of the forces who might not necessarily be officers?
4:35 p.m.
Commander, Canadian Armed Forces Strategic Response Team on Sexual Misconduct, Department of National Defence
In fact, it's a must attend for all members of the military.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Was your general sense that Madame Deschamps' report and her investigation went far enough and drilled down deep enough?
4:35 p.m.
Commander, Canadian Armed Forces Strategic Response Team on Sexual Misconduct, Department of National Defence
I think the 10 recommendations from Madame Deschamps are going to set us up for success.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
In meeting with members of the armed forces, do they feel that her study was thorough and that it went far enough?
4:35 p.m.
Commander, Canadian Armed Forces Strategic Response Team on Sexual Misconduct, Department of National Defence
I got many comments saying that they're very happy with Madame Deschamps' report and the fact that it's also in the open sphere and fully transparent.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Madame Deschamps, when you visit the different centres in the United States and Australia, how was it that they were able to achieve independence? Were there retired military personnel involved in these independent centres, or how was it achieved?
4:35 p.m.
External Review Authority, As an Individual
I have not visited the centres. I have been in contact by telephone with the director of SAPRO, in the United States. With SeMPRO I received written correspondence from the organization that did the review, which lasted for years, of what I was asked to do, but the organization that did that review led to the creation of the centre. Those are the contacts that I had with SAPRO and SeMPRO. With France and the Netherlands, the two others that I alluded to in my report, I had only written correspondence with them.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
With these centres with which you had written correspondence, how was it that they achieved the independence? Did they still have members of the military or former members of the military involved, or were they completely separate from the military?
4:35 p.m.
External Review Authority, As an Individual
It depends. For example, in France, it is a model that is quite different from what you can still find in the United States, in New Zealand, in Australia and in Canada and the U.K. In France their sexual assault was processed through the civilian justice system for a long time. What is left in the military disciplinary system is sexual harassment. What they did was to create Cellule Thémis under the equivalent of the auditor. It allowed them to pursue a few goals. One of them was to make sure that the reporting was more complete, and also that the victims felt they could get support without these negative consequences.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
May 25th, 2015 / 4:40 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Madame Deschamps, perhaps you could help me with this. You would have learned a lot about military culture. One of things you would have learned about, of course, is the chain of command and how important that is to the military leadership, but also to those at the very bottom. Part of that culture is that you don't go outside the chain of command with your complaints. You deal with them inside.
Yet, as you report, the vast majority of interviewees who did take the step of discussing their complaint—most did not—with their supervisor, the complaint was not taken seriously. Responses ranged from warning the complainant about the negative consequence to their careers if they continued with the complaint, to openly disbelieving the victim. Ironically, warning about the negative consequences to their career may be fairly accurate, given the experience of a lot of the people who have reported publicly on their experience.
I agree with you that a centre fully independent of the chain of command needs to exist. How does a person who wants to complain—and I think you mentioned it in your opening remarks—get help without triggering a formal complaint and without triggering negative consequences for their career or life?
Can you help me with this? If you go to the independent board or centre to make your complaint and say you just need help, that you're not going to make a complaint because you know you might get kicked out of the military, how does that give justice where what you really want is to be able to pursue a complaint and have a guarantee that you're not going to be victimized and kicked out of the military, your career stopped, or you're going to be treated with disdain by your fellow soldiers, or by the chain of command around you? How does that work?
4:40 p.m.
External Review Authority, As an Individual
First of all, there are two segments. The first is the restricted report. Under the restricted report the chain of command is not informed. There are, of course, a few circumstances—
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
You could say that you just want to get help for what happened, that you don't want to get anyone else involved.
4:40 p.m.
External Review Authority, As an Individual
Yes. You're hurt. You have mental health problems, and you need help immediately.
4:40 p.m.
External Review Authority, As an Individual
When the person is ready to make a complaint, because she's had this mental health support, she's supported. I say she but sometimes it is men also. When the victim feels comforted and strong enough, they can move to the unrestricted report, and there kicks in the accountability.
That's why I said it's a centre for accountability, because not only will a chain of command be monitored with their reaction, because the victim is supported and protected by the centre, but also the aggressor will have to be made accountable, because the centre is supposed to follow cases from the moment of the report until the case is closed.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
I think you say in your report that most sexual assault charges within the military are actually charged not as sexual assaults, but as “conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline”, and you can't even see from the statistics what the actual charge is.
Is this something that should change? That's my number one question. I think I'm running out of time so—