Status of Women Committee on March 25th, 2021

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

We're going now to the Liberals for six minutes.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good morning to everyone and thanks to both the witnesses for their important testimony today.

My first question is for Lieutenant-Colonel Leblanc. I would like to know the process. Can you please clarify the process that begins your unit's involvement in any investigations? Can you provide some details on that? That would be great.

[LCol Eric Leblanc]

Thank you for the question.

On the overall process for coming in, I think I spoke to that. There are a few different avenues where folks can refer a complaint to us. That could come from an individual who's affected—a victim, a witness. It could come from a unit or any member of the chain of command, or anyone who calls us, quite frankly.

It could get passed directly from the Canadian Forces provost marshal as well. I guess a fifth avenue, perhaps, is if an investigator uncovers another crime as part of an ongoing investigation. They may open up an investigation into that.

Once receipt of a complaint occurs, then we need to validate the complaint. Validating the complaint means we need to make sure that what's coming in is criminal or a serious service offence and that it meets our benchmarks for investigation. As we are a major crime unit, that means some lower-level offences might be handed over to another military police unit or perhaps even a unit investigation, if it doesn't meet the threshold for a CFNIS investigation.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Is there a process or protocol in place that would protect the integrity of a proper and thorough investigation as well as all the members involved? Specifically, I would like to know this. While the investigation is ongoing, how can you protect the people involved and ensure that they are not marginalized?

[LCol Eric Leblanc]

I can talk about the technicality of how we preserve.... We have our own policing database that's accessible to most police officers in the Canadian Armed Forces. However, internally, as a major crimes unit, we protect that information from anybody accessing it through access control measures. People have different categories or levels of access to that information while it's ongoing. We're physically housed separately from any other military police units, so our regional offices are in different buildings than other folks and are controlled by us.

Those are some of the ways that we protect the information. When we receive calls, there are certain points in time where information is given out. We give out information to affected victims periodically, as the investigation progresses. That doesn't mean, step by step, it will be laid out. It means that the overall progress and general sense as to where we're headed will be communicated.

A subject's chain of command, typically towards the end, will be advised of the investigation. At times, if there are operational impacts, then they may be apprised of an investigation, but they're limited in information to knowing just that it's ongoing. We don't actually communicate the steps that we're investigating.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I will share my time with my colleague, Ms. Vandenbeld.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Thank you very much, and thank you very much to the witnesses. I'd like to specifically ask Mr. Lick some questions.

It's good to see you again. I know that we previously had a meeting where we talked, and you gave some very concrete suggestions about independence and the structure, and I very much appreciate your giving that advice and continuing those conversations.

I would like to ask specifically about your role versus the sexual misconduct response centre's, the SMRC's. My understanding is that has been in place since 2017. Would you be the primary place somebody would go if they needed support with regard to an allegation of sexual misconduct or would you refer it to the SMRC?

[Gregory Lick]

We can receive a complaint of sexual misconduct and that is the right of every member of the military or the department as well, civilians as well, but in this case, as I said before, we do not have the mandate or authority to investigate or to take forward anything that is a criminal matter such as sexual assault, or a sexual misconduct matter or situation that would fall under the code of service discipline.

I would like to ask Ms. Hynes just to elaborate a bit more on the details of how we do handle a complaint that comes forward to us.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I know that my time is limited, but if she or you could answer this specifically. If something is criminal, though, you would refer that to the CFNIS or to the provost marshal, I would assume, since you don't have that investigative authority. If somebody wanted support, counselling, wanted to know what avenues were open, you would refer them to the SMRC, I would imagine, since those are more specifically tailored to its mandate.

[Gregory Lick]

I certainly must stress, Ms. Vandenbeld, that my office cannot go to any external body without the consent of the complainant. That's the most important part in this whole discussion.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Yes, we've heard that as well.

In terms of consent, though, if you knew that the PCO wanted...would you have told the complainant that there—

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

I'm sorry. You're out of time.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Mr. Barsalou-Duval now has the floor for six minutes.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My first question is for Mr. Lick.

We know that a chief of staff was at the head of the Canadian Forces for two years while under allegations of a sexual nature. We also know that your predecessor contacted the Minister of National Defence, Mr. Sajjan, to call his attention to the situation, but that the minister did not want to take it into account or meet with your predecessor on the issue.

The minister claims to have done so to avoid being accused of meddling with the Canadian Armed Forces, as well as not to undermine the independence of the processes. Do you think that would have been the case?

[Gregory Lick]

We have to remember, in this particular situation, the wishes of the member in this case. I report directly to the Minister of National Defence. My predecessor did as well, obviously. He brought the particular issue—it was still confidential—to the minister and tried to have a conversation, as we understand it.

As I said, I would have done the same thing knowing the circumstances and the wishes of the member at that time. Therefore, in this—

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

What I would like to know more specifically is whether you think the minister would have been interfering had he met with your predecessor and been given the information.

[Gregory Lick]

In this particular case I do not believe that it would be interference. My predecessor, as he has stated, was asking for advice in that regard. I was not aware of the particular discussion that happened, other than what has been stated publicly. In this case, he was asking for advice.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Had the minister decided, for instance, to begin an investigation on the matter in question or on the chief of staff in a more general way, do you think his decision would have been considered as interference or as detrimental to the independence of the Canadian Armed Forces?

[Gregory Lick]

In this particular situation, the member asked for confidentiality, as we understand it.

The member, as we understand it, did not wish to go forward with an investigation, and also the member wanted to see what could be changed. That was the issue of the conversation that happened, as we understand, publicly.

At that particular point, I don't believe that person was asking for an investigation to be started. They were really looking for what could change.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

I understand, but after all, the chief of defence staff is suspected of sexual misconduct. I think this is serious enough for the issue to be considered in depth. As the chief of staff is the highest ranking officer, if he were found guilty of those actions, the entire Canadian Armed Forces could be compromised.

Beyond the will of the person themselves, the minister also has some responsibility in the matter, don't you agree?

[Gregory Lick]

Absolutely, and I certainly agree that it is a very serious matter that needs to be properly investigated. However, at the time the allegations were brought forward, that was not the member's wish.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Leblanc, as far as we understand, the minister refused to review that information. Had he done so and then turned to you to ask you to conduct an investigation, would that have been considered as interference in the army's internal business?

[LCol Eric Leblanc]

In terms of interference as it applies to the CFNIS, if I understand correctly, in order to start an investigation.... Asking me to examine and look at something would not be interference. Interference would be improper conduct during the investigation as it relates to the CFNIS.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. LeBlanc, did the office of the minister, in 2018 or after, ask you to look into this, to obtain information or to see whether it was relevant to do so? I actually don't know whether you were in office at the time, so I am talking about a request that may have been made to you or to your predecessor.