Status of Women Committee on March 25th, 2021

[LCol Eric Leblanc]

It's a good question. It's one that has been asked from time to time. You see me in a uniform today, but my investigators and I don't wear a uniform from day to day. There is no threat to promotion or postings or anything from the work that they do, because the folks we're investigating really have no control over that. That's internal.

Everything we do is protected from influence in that it's all steered through the Canadian Forces provost marshal. We work directly for the provost marshal and not for the chain of command.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond Centre, BC]

That's pretty good to know.

I would like to ask the ombudsman, Mr. Lick, a couple of questions.

I might have told you before, but I might not—

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Alice, I'm sorry, but you're out of time.

Now I believe we're going to Ms. Sidhu for five minutes.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses who are joining us today.

My first questions are for Colonel Leblanc. In your answers, I want you to focus on women and, generally, on survivors.

Can you discuss why it is important for your investigations to remain neutral and independent?

[LCol Eric Leblanc]

Absolutely. There's always a balance. The institution, even through best efforts, wants to support victims. However, at times, victims might not want that. They might not want their unit or folks they're working with to understand it until a public court appearance.

Part of what we're doing to make sure that it's known is following the spirit of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, even though it doesn't apply to defence, and in doing so, being ready to follow the same spirit for Bill C-77 when it comes into force.

My unit specifically over the last two years has been working towards civilianizing our victim service delivery program, bringing in civilians where we can assign them on a certain level of training to be able to deliver that forward.

On top of that, we've added an additional victim services program manager who will be hired in the coming months. That person will work with and seek some secondment training through the SMRC, and in Ontario, through VWAP, which is the provincial court system victim services program, so that we can really leverage the best of what's out there and move towards achieving greater standards of services.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Thank you.

How do you ensure that the process is a trauma-informed approach and encourages members to come forward?

[LCol Eric Leblanc]

That's a good question. There are two parts.

Public discourse such as what's happening right now is very important, because I can tell you, there's certainly an increase in folks coming forward to the CFNIS. To me, although the focus of public discourse is on the problem areas, specific to the CFNIS I can say that it's truly good to see that folks have the confidence in us and are coming forward.

In terms of a trauma-informed approach, when we host our basic indoctrination course for new investigators, we bring them in for about a week every year. We deliver training there. Sometimes it's internal. This year, we brought in Dr. Haskell to deliver the trauma-informed approach, as well as one of the provincial police colleges to bridge the theoretical to the practical.

We also every year send folks on training with the U.S. criminal investigation division, which is a U.S. Army military police civilianized force, to accept FETI training. FETI is forensic experiential trauma-informed interviewing, which is a different way and tool in the tool box when dealing with victims of complex and heinous crimes.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Thank you, Colonel.

Madam Chair, I would like Ms. Vandenbeld to finish the questions she was going to ask earlier.

Thank you.

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

Yes. Thank you very much.

I just want to finish my last question for Mr. Lick.

As we know now, having gone to the minister—and we've even heard from Stephen Harper's chief of staff—the only appropriate thing for the minister to do is to go to PCO, which then has the whole of government and can see where it should go next.

If PCO contacted you, especially on something as serious as the chief of the defence staff, would you have then gone back to the victim, said that PCO wanted an investigation and see if you could get the permission?

[Gregory Lick]

That is generally the approach we take with any complaint coming forward. We will inform them of what can be done. If we then go forward with their permission to proceed with a particular way of doing things, we would always come back to them to tell them what was the approach provided or what happened. Then they can make an informed decision about how to go forward.

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

Presumably, that may have occurred.

If the person then says, no, they don't want to, especially if it's something like an email, would there have been anything more that PCO could have done at that point, given that there was no permission? We know we have to make it better and safer for victims to come forward, but without having that permission, without having that information, could PCO even have investigated further at that point?

[Gregory Lick]

That's a question you would have to ask PCO. That's not a question for me. I can't really comment on their particular process.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Now we're going to go to Monsieur Barsalou-Duval.

Go ahead for six and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My question is for Mr. Leblanc.

Earlier, a colleague asked you whether your rank of lieutenant-colonel put you in a unique situation if you had to conduct an investigation involving a higher ranking officer. I would like to expand on that.

If your service decided to investigate a general or the chief of staff, what would happen in concrete terms? Would you have the power to go into those people's office, to seize documents and to force them to answer your questions? Would there be barriers to your work?

[LCol Eric Leblanc]

Thank you for the question.

I guess there are a few parts to answer here. One is the unique position the CFNIS is in. Under the Queen's regulations and orders, which is how we operate, and the National Defence Act, there are certain folks who are authorized to pursue charges.

The CFNIS is the only institution that can pursue both criminal and service offence charges. We can investigate under the Criminal Code, but also under the code of service discipline, whereas a unit level can only look at one or the other.

As it applies to general officers—and my unit has quite a few investigations we've done in the past and present on general officers—they don't fall within our chain of command as it relates to policing. There's really no fear of reprisal. Other than advising the provost marshal that we have a complaint, as far as it relates to how we investigate, that doesn't change. We're still gathering the evidence, comparing it against whatever service offence or criminal offence is there, seeing if it meets the elements and seeking advice as required along the way, so that really doesn't change.

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

Okay. That answers my question.

When he was appointed, General Vance had already had allegations levelled against him, or there were at least rumours, and your service was put in charge of investigating the matter. However, it appears that the investigation was inconclusive.

What would have helped that investigation be conclusive?

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

I'm very sorry, but that's the end of your time.

Now we're going to Ms. Mathyssen, for two and a half minutes as well.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just to pick up from where I got cut off before, in terms of that toxic culture, how do you start to really get at it? It is so pervasive. I've even heard that it's not just about sexual harassment. It's about harassment in general, where women are punished in a harder fashion with physical punishment. They have to do more exercises than their male counterparts.

Also, how do you deal with a toxic culture when it's within an organization that is supposed to be independent, like the military police?

[LCol Eric Leblanc]

For us, again, we go back to the reasons we're here. Whenever we receive a report about abuse of authority—I suspect we're talking about a lot of things in the bigger picture, but for that specifically, as it relates to us—it's really a matter of receiving the report, following the evidence as it leads us and determining whether or not it supports a charge.

In terms of the overall Canadian Armed Forces, I would defer to the chief of the defence staff, who has spoken, I believe, on this issue. In terms of institutional change, that's really beyond the scope of what I do. We really just focus on the criminal and service offences.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Maybe, Mr. Lick, you can address this too. If you are the ones in charge of that trust, of that institutional change, but you are also within it, how are we supposed to move that change? What are the answers that you see here? Is it, again, through that education?

I asked the CDS, but it has to be more than half an hour every year or one week per year. It has to be constant.

[Gregory Lick]

That's a very broad question. For me, in my role as ombudsman, with my team, there are two points I would like to make.

One is that there is a lot of internal change within the armed forces—through training, education, everything like that—that needs to go on and continue to go on, and be improved and maybe do it differently. That is what they need to do.

The other part of it is that people who, in the end, suffer a situation such as misconduct or sexual misconduct need to have the confidence to come forward and know that their allegations will be addressed without reprisal and without any career repercussions. Ultimately, given the command and control structure of the military, something like that needs to be external to the department and to the military in order for people to have the comfort level to come forward. That is ultimately what we owe those victims.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

That's your time.

Ms. Alleslev, take us to the end of our time.

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Colonel Leblanc, on the “red room” navy investigation, you have not been engaged in that. It's a navy investigation. Therefore, it is not an independent investigation. Is that correct?

[LCol Eric Leblanc]

I can't speak to the independence—yes or no—of the investigation, because I'm not the one conducting it.

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you.

You also stated in your earlier testimony that no one can direct an investigation except the provost marshal. The chief of the defence staff, the vice-chief of the defence staff and the minister, can none of them direct that an investigation be conducted?