In November 2022, I provided the access to information, privacy and ethics committee with examples of how the Canadian Armed Forces and Department of National Defence abuse the access to information and privacy systems and deny victims of sexual misconduct the critical information they need to seek justice.
I became familiar with DND and CAF abuses of the ATIP system and the reprisals against whistle-blowers through fighting an ongoing five-and-a-half year battle for accountability against the Royal Canadian Navy's chain of command to seek justice against a serial sexual misconduct offender known as Officer X and the leadership who are covering up for him.
For context, here it is. In 2018, instead of supporting victims and witnesses of Officer X's serial sexual misconduct, the chain of command of my former naval reserve unit “interrogated [victims and witnesses] under caution with allegations of mutiny and treason”. These threats of high-order criminal charges were made against those considering reporting Officer X in order to silence and intimidate them—in other words, “mutiny” and “treason” for reporting crimes and inappropriate behaviour.
When the military police found enough evidence to support a charge of sexual assault against Officer X in response to my complaint, the commanding officer decided the appropriate response was “divisional interview and mentorship”. There is no evidence that this substantively inappropriate decision has ever been questioned by anyone in the entire Royal Canadian Navy chain of command.
In response to my raising concerns, the same commanding officer sent defamatory emails to the naval reserve headquarters to discredit my complaint against Officer X, questioning the timing and implying it was false or made in bad faith. The command team then leveraged personal relationships with naval reserve headquarters personnel to create the false narrative that victims and witnesses of Officer X's serious sexual misconduct were “trying to influence a police investigation that was underway at that time by organizing a parallel justice system”. The “influence” and “parallel justice system” referred to were about the encouragement of others to report sexual assault and sexual harassment through the established system.
I provided a summary of the sexual misconduct suspicions against Officer X and forced the naval reserve headquarters to conduct its own internal investigation, which confirmed, “All of the individuals brought forth allegations that...[were] ‘bundled up’ with 14 years of multiple allegations and [Military Police] Investigations against Officer X that had resulted in ‘zero action’.”
My founded harassment complaint of abuse of power against the unit coxswain who interrogated me and others resulted in only minor, private consequences, while he was publicly celebrated. Commodore Pat Montgomery, commander of the naval reserve and Camosun College professor, and navy captain Richard Jean, naval reserve deputy commander, then dismissed complaints against the commanding officer and the then executive officer and staff officer, relying excessively on procedural technicalities and timelines, stating, “there exists no evidence that reprisals would have followed in the event of your submitting harassment complaints against [the CO and XO]”. It is genuinely concerning that Commodore Montgomery and Captain Jean decided no evidence existed without even having conducted an investigation, while each had full knowledge of the defamatory emails.
I raised my concerns about the naval reserve with Rear-Admiral Christopher Robinson, commander of the Maritime Forces Pacific, who in the face of all the foregoing concluded, “you have been treated fairly”.
In October 2023, Vice-Admiral Angus Topshee, commander of the Royal Canadian Navy, was confronted at a public event by a concerned citizen and directly made aware of these issues. Despite his personal assurance and signature on the page promising to investigate, nearly six months later there has not been one single update or follow-up meeting scheduled. It does not seem to concern the navy that the commanding officer who made the “mentorship” decision is listed as an involved person on page 3 of the very same police report for which he acted as a charge-laying authority and failed to recuse himself.
Mr. Chair, I'll take this moment to state that I understand my previous request for extra time was rejected, but I wonder if, in light of what I've said so far, and with the preview that the worst is yet to come, I could have two more minutes to finish my remarks.