Status of Women Committee on April 15th, 2021

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

We have great confidence in you and wish you great success.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

I'm sorry, but that's it for your time.

Now we'll go to Ms. Dhillon, for five minutes.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and than you to our witnesses for their very compelling testimony today.

I'll start with Dr. Preston.

The SMRC offers policy recommendations, and one highlighted issue is the duty to report. Recently, the acting chief of the defence staff discussed at committee changing the words “duty to report” to “duty to respond”.

Dr. Preston, based on your research, why do you think think this change is so crucial and why is it being received so well by survivors and advocates? What is the significance of this word change?

[Dr. Denise Preston]

The duty to report has been a significant issue for us at the SMRC, for a variety of expert stakeholders who have provided advice over the years and for survivors themselves. Effectively, the duty to report disempowers victims and survivors because it removes all agency from them in deciding whether they want to report what's happened to them, when they want to report and to whom they want to report. One thing the statistics show is that of all the reports of sexual assault that are made to the chain of command, 40% are made by third parties. That has a really significant impact on survivors, so the duty to report has a significant impact on survivors.

Really what we're looking for in a policy is sufficient latitude to provide exemptions so that certain people are not held to the duty to report. For example, health care providers and the victims should not be subject to the duty to report. What we're also looking for in policy, when third party reports are made, is that it still goes back to the victim: We inform them that this has happened and we do not move forward in responding until the victim chooses that they want this to go forward.

It would be a significant change for the survivor community if the duty to report could be more effectively addressed.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

In your opening statement you spoke about the need for meaningful cultural change. We know there is a very highly sexualized culture, a very toxic environment, in the CAF. To bring about this change do you think it's also important to understand why the perpetrators do what they do? I'm trying to understand this, and I asked the honourable justice who testified before us a few weeks ago what makes somebody behave toward another person in this manner? Somebody whose duty is to swear to protect others is out there harassing and assaulting them. Can you please explain what could compel somebody to do this and what we could do to understand this to bring about meaningful cultural change?

Thank you.

[Dr. Denise Preston]

It's an important question, but I want to preface it by saying that sometimes people react when we talk about perpetrators because they think that in talking about perpetrators we're negating the impact of culture. That is absolutely not the case. This is a very complex problem that requires intervention at multiple levels—at the individual level, but also at the cultural and the organizational level.

If you look at people who commit this kind of behaviour, there are many different risk factors or things that cause them to behave the way they do. There are certainly individual factors in attitudes, values, beliefs, use of alcohol...there's a range of things about the individual. But they commit these behaviours within a culture and within a context, so if there is a sexualized, permissive culture, a culture of silence, it emboldens them and protects them from accountability as well.

We do need to do a better job of understanding who is doing this within the CAF because we do not have a good understanding of who is doing it, why they're doing it, who they're doing it to and under what circumstances. That is critical to being able to design better prevention programs and response programs as well.

It is important to make sure there are effective responses to hold individual perpetrators accountable. If they actually see tangible evidence of individuals being held appropriately accountable, that will go a long way to making people trust in the system, but we also need to ensure that changes are made within the environment so it is no longer a permissive one that enables or promotes this type of behaviour to happen.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Very good.

Now we will go to Madame Larouche.

Ms. Larouche, you have two and a half minutes.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I would like to ask Brigadier-General Atherton my question.

In your opening remarks, you talked about the end of Operation Honour. I'd like to hear from you on that.

How do you see Operation Honour continuing? Do you have any ideas?

[BGen Andrew Atherton]

It is important to understand what we mean by culminating. From a military operation perspective, it means it's got to its logical point and that it doesn't matter how many more resources we put at this, becasue we cannot advance it anymore. We've seen the events of the last number of months. A significant amount of negativity is now associated with that, so it's come to the point that we need to look at something else and need to develop our next approach.

As we look at this, how we close out Operation Honour will be just as important as how we brought it into being. A significant amount of emotion is tied to this, both good and bad. We also need to really look at the successes we've had. We've heard a number of them today. We've made a significant amount of progress in the last number of years. We have a significant amount of education and training programs in place. There is a lot of institutional knowledge about it.

We also have to look at where we didn't do well. We need to look at some of the unintended consequences of these programs. We also need to look at what those barriers were and to talk to the people who were most affected by this to understand what we need to do. Certainly these last number of months and the situation we're in has identified what we don't know. We need to talk to our people, listen to our people, engage with our people to understand how we can move forward and how we can be a much more effective force and be the embodiment of everything that Canadians expect of us.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

That's fine.

Dr. Preston, you talked about trauma and the importance of considering it in the healing process for victims.

So when we talk about post-traumatic stress disorder, could it be more...

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

I'm sorry. You're out of time on this one.

We'll go to Ms. Mathyssen for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you.

General Atherton, you said earlier that between 2015 and 2019 you worked very hard to put forward the changes to meet all of the recommendations listed by the Deschamps report, and yet I find a disconnect—a word I've used a lot—because we heard directly from Madame Deschamps just a few weeks ago, who stated clearly that she didn't feel those recommendations had been met. Could you talk about why that could be or about why there is that disconnect, so I can better understand it?

[BGen Andrew Atherton]

As we worked through the development of the Path and the policy document, we worked with external stakeholders like Madame Deschamps and others to try to better understand and have a victim-centric approach. As we went through, we released the Path to stakeholders in draft format for them to look at and provide their feedback. For the most part, we had endorsement of what we were doing. There were a number of different recommendations for changes that we have implemented.

Now it comes out to an external organization, our defence audit committee, who will look at that. They will really determine from an external perspective, from an audit perspective, whether in fact we as a department, as an armed forces, have achieved those 10 recommendations. It's our perspective as we release that document that, yes, we have done the 10 recommendations, but to be valid and to be accurate, we need an external piece that will look at it.

I believe that will probably handle, to some extent, some of the disconnect that you're talking about.

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

So you'll definitely take into account the fact that the author of the report doesn't necessarily believe they have been met. I am a bit confused, because I had asked Madame Deschamps directly if she had been consulted directly. She said that she hadn't. You're saying that you did work with her directly since the release of the report. Could you clarify that a little bit as well?

[BGen Andrew Atherton]

As we worked through the process to get the Path up and running and released, it took a number of years. There were a number of different stakeholders involved. Certainly, in the final days, just before release, we worked with Madame Deschamps and gave her a copy of it and went through it with her to explain what it was and everything along those lines.

Again, a lot of that work that happened was previous to my time. Certainly, I can only comment on what we did in the final days to get it out into the public eye.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

All right.

Ms. Shin, you have five minutes.

[Nelly Shin, Conservative, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

I'd like to thank both witnesses for joining us today. These are difficult conversations. I applaud you for showing up and speaking with moral courage.

Dr. Preston, the sexual misconduct response centre's mandate is to provide services to military personnel who have been the victim of sexual assault or misconduct. Are you automatically notified when someone files a complaint, or does the victim need to seek you out?

[Dr. Denise Preston]

We are not automatically notified when a victim makes a complaint. Victims need to reach out to us, to call us. It's therefore very important that we engage in ongoing outreach to raise awareness and to make sure that the people who the victims might actually interact with at the unit level are aware of the SMRC and will refer them to us as sort of a first response.

So no, we're not automatically informed of all complaints. As I mentioned, people very often will call us not because they want to make a complaint but because they want to talk about what happened to them. In some cases, they're not even sure if what happened to them was a form of sexual misconduct. We're there to listen and to validate what happened to them and to provide whatever information, support or referrals they might require.

[Nelly Shin, Conservative, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

It's great that your services are accessible.

On that note, the part about second-guessing about whether something was a reality or not and some of the gaslighting that's in the culture there, what does some of your outreach look like in trying to help women come forward and not feel like they need to second-guess?

[Dr. Denise Preston]

We tend to send teams out. We have a sort of three-year outreach plan whereby we travel to all of the bases and wings across the country in that time frame. We send out a team. That team comprises some of our counsellors, and there is always a member of the management team. As well, we have a military liaison officer who goes on those outreach sessions with us. While we're there, we deliver a number of different group sessions with people. Typically, the sessions are divided by rank. We also meet with all of the command teams to talk about the services we provide.

What I can say to you is that every single time we've gone out and done outreach, we've had at least one person—if not more—hang around and talk to us and actually disclose an incident. Typically after a visit, for the first couple of weeks after we've been at a particular site, we receive an increase in the number of calls from that particular site as well. The outreach definitely pays dividends in putting faces to names for people.

[Nelly Shin, Conservative, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you so much for doing that. That is so valuable.

Recently, the committee heard from Ms. Raymond, whose experience is well known. She told us that one of the challenges she faced as a francophone was the inability to access these services in French.

Canada is a bilingual country where Canadians have the right to expect and receive services in their language of choice, whether that is English or French. Can you please inform us of the steps you take to ensure these obligations are met?

[Dr. Denise Preston]

Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Absolutely, all of the members of my counselling team are fully bilingual. Therefore, for members across the country, and across the world, in fact, because we offer 24-7 services, there are always fully bilingual people who will respond to the calls. Actually, Quebec will be one of the regions that we expand to and provide regional services.

[Nelly Shin, Conservative, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

That's great.

Dr. Preston, in a recent media article, you stated that complaints against senior leaders of the Canadian Armed Forces are a sign of progress, not failure, but the fact that those allegations are being raised in the media, rather than directly to the military, shows there is a lack of trust in the reporting process among the ranks.

You also made mention of your concern that the SMRC isn't truly independent because your budget is still tied to the Department of National Defence and that the military doesn't provide you with all of the necessary information requested.

Do you believe that in order to properly address and handle sexual misconduct and assaults a truly independent body outside of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces is needed to gain the trust of our military personnel and to truly address the culture within the military?

[Dr. Denise Preston]

Regardless of what sort of mechanism is set up, whether it's for support or for reporting and investigation, I think what is of fundamental importance is that it's in the best interests of survivors. That's what we need to take as our starting point in designing—or perhaps redesigning—some of the structures that we already have.

What I can tell you with respect to reporting is that the two biggest complaints we hear from survivors are about the duty to report, which we've already talked about, and all of the negative effects of that on members, but also, the other thing they ask for is an ability to make a report that is outside of the chain of command, specifically outside of their own chain of command. What they're looking for is an independent reporting entity and an independent investigative entity.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Very good.

Now we'll go to Ms. Vandenbeld for the last five minutes.