National Defence Committee on Nov. 27th, 2025

[Christine Wood]

This touches on a lot. In my mind, having a sunset clause and how that would work is that, if we say there's a five-year sunset clause, at three years we'd start to collect all of the reports and data. That data must include more than the outcome of the trial or whether charges were laid. I think those reports have to include all of our demographic information, including rank, unit and the location of the assault, and that data also has to include a sense of satisfaction or of justice, as reported by the complainant.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

It could be done by sending a questionnaire to victims.

[Donna Van Leusden]

That would be one way. Another way could be to find out if that person is still wearing the uniform of their own free will.

Did their file go to DMCA for review because they've been on three TCats?

There are a couple of different ways to look at it. I agree with her that it can't come down to just conviction rates, because, again, you can have a “not guilty” and still have a survivor who felt really supported and felt like they had their back. That's a healthy outcome.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

In your opinion, who would be responsible for conducting this assessment to ensure that the process is impartial, fair and neutral? Of course, I am not talking here about assessing victim satisfaction but rather assessing, after two or five years, the effectiveness of transferring cases to the civilian justice system.

[Donna Van Leusden]

I think the process needs to be conducted by someone independent of the Canadian Armed Forces.

It has to be somebody who's well outside. They need to have military culture knowledge, but somebody outside of DND and outside of the CAF needs to be able to look at it holistically and critically.

The Canadian Armed Forces is a very small community.

Even when you have military judges who are outside, they are still.... Their roommate from RMC can be the accused, that kind of thing. It needs to be somebody independent, but somebody who can take a thorough look at the outcomes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Thank you.

Mr. Kibble.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We heard a question earlier about Canadian Armed Forces members being—

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

The microphone has to be turned on so that we can hear you clearly.

It's done.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

It's okay. It's resolved.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Could I start the time again, please?

Thank you for your generosity.

Mr. Chisholm, we heard a question about armed forces members' cases being investigated and prosecuted by their supervisor in the immediate chain of command. My understanding is that, of course, it would be reported to their supervisor in the chain of command.

In the 500-plus cases you dealt with, would you say that they were investigated and prosecuted by their chain of command, or was that done by the military police and the DMP, etc., outside of their chain of command?

[William Chisholm]

It's a good question, sir. I think the low-level stuff can be investigated by the chain of command well. I don't like “low-level, high-level”, but generally, most commanding officers, if they feel they can't be independent, will get somebody from outside their unit to do the investigation.

I do believe that for anything that's not criminal—again, I don't like “low-level”—the military police are equipped to do that. I believe the conviction rate—because they do it daily—is quite good. I've been to many summary trials and courts martial where, if it gets to that point, the person has been investigated well and is generally convicted.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you.

Would it be fair to make this comparison? In a police department, if a police officer had committed a crime, while it might be reported internally, it would then be investigated by an independent police body or, in this case, a smaller department, perhaps a different police department. Would that be a similar analogy to convert from civilian to military terms?

[William Chisholm]

I believe that's a good analogy, sir. Most commanding officers mean well. If they feel they couldn't be independent, they would get an external environment.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you.

I want to do a quick round table for everybody. I'll start with Mr. Chisholm.

Dr. MacKenzie refers to making a decision “[i]n the moments following an incident of sexual violence.” In your experience of what you've seen—and for everybody else, the personal experience—did you feel that you had to report immediately in the moment, or was it at a later time when you were removed from a dangerous situation? This is just to speak to “in the moment”, or were you given time? In your case, Mr. Chisholm, it's about the cases that you've seen.

Answer very quickly, so we can get around the table.

[William Chisholm]

I believe that most people are leery to report right away, because they're in a trauma state. I believe once they're informed properly, they would have a better avenue, sir.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

It's a safer and more appropriate time to make such an important decision. Thank you.

Could the rest of the panel comment? We will start with Ms. Wood.

[Christine Wood]

I knew I had been raped for a week. I was drugged and raped. I knew about it for a week. I talked to a medical doctor on base, and he warned me that I should think twice about reporting to the MPs because reprisals often follow you around for the rest of your career. I thought about it for 24 hours, and then I reported.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

This was a week later, plus 24 hours. Did you feel that you were in the moment or that you had had an appropriate opportunity to make such a terrible decision?

[Christine Wood]

I had time by then, yes.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you for that. I'm sorry for what happened.

Ms. Van Leusden, could you answer the same question, please?

[Donna Van Leusden]

Two of my reports ended up being legacy reports, about 20 years after the fact. At the time, I did not have the support I would have needed to report.

In the one instance, in Kingston, on my course, he remained my course warrant. I still reported to him. They actually had us all march into the office one morning. We had to give him reasons why we'd screwed up. The night before that was the night he assaulted me. When I walked into his office, he smirked at me and asked why I wasn't feeling well. That's just an example.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

That was 20 years later, so certainly not in the moment.

[Donna Van Leusden]

Right, but I also did one immediately.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

You did one that was—

[Donna Van Leusden]

Yes. At the time, I reported immediately and called the MPs. They arrested him on scene and took him away.