A. Overview

As the Committee heard from the Acting Chief Commissioner of the CHRC, of the complaints made to the CHRC from the federal public service, 3% relate to sexual harassment, while 7% of complaints against the RCMP and 8% of all complaints against the CF relate to sexual harassment.[110] He concluded, “[b]ased on the Commission’s experience, sexual harassment is more prevalent in hierarchical, male-dominated cultures.”[111]

This observation is consistent with the domestic and international literature, which describes higher levels of sexual harassment in this type of organization. The higher levels of sexual harassment are generally attributed to the purpose and culture of organizations operating in life-threatening situations in which a chain of command, rather than a simple management structure, is critical to the success of its operations. For example, a New Zealand review of abuses in its military described the higher risks associated with these organizations:

There is a potential for a level of real or perceived [physical, sexual or other] abuse that is higher than in most civilian organisations because of: a demanding training; the emphasis on teamwork and discipline to achieve operational effectiveness and safety (which leads to peer pressure to perform); communal living, sometimes for long periods; and the hierarchical system in which superiors have a high degree of authority over their subordinates.[112]

The Canadian Forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are federally regulated workplaces; however, they share a set of circumstances that differ significantly from those in other federally regulated workplaces. Although each has a civilian workforce that is covered by the more general Treasury Board policy, the non-civilian workforce is governed by legislation specific to each of them: the National Defence Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act respectively. (The legislation and policies governing civilian employees were included in the previous section of this report, and are not addressed here.)

Self-reported incidents of harassment[113] in the Department of National Defence (DND) and the RCMP in Canada are higher than in the public service in general, according to the Public Service Employee Survey (PSES). Greater detail on the incidence of sexual harassment in these two organizations is provided in this section of this report. More general public service-wide results are discussed in a later section of the report.

B. Canadian Forces and Department of National Defence

1. Integration of Women

The history of integration of women into the Canadian Forces[114] in the current context was first triggered by the signing of the Canadian Human Rights Act in 1978. Integration was accelerated by the passage of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and a parliamentary recommendation to remove all barriers to employment for women in the CF in 1987. The complete integration followed a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruling in 1989 that required that exclusion of women from all trades, including combat roles, be discontinued. This ruling resulted in Canada becoming one of the first countries to integrate women into all areas of its military forces.

Studies in the late 1990s demonstrated the need for integration initiatives, indicating “that women in the combat arms still find themselves in an environment in which the dominant culture encourages their non-acceptance.”[115]

In a 2009 report to the Committee for Women in NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) Forces, for example, the CF described progress in implementing that 1989 decision:

In March 2009, the CF held a “Working Group on Gender Integration” to review the original goals and objectives for gender integration dating from the decision of a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in 1989 which first opened all military occupations to women. The group confirmed many successes and identified new areas of concern where proactive measures may be needed to create and sustain an environment that is appealing for attraction and retention of women in the CF.[116]

The Committee also heard that DND and the CF have developed a joint military-civilian advisory group that offers women support and provides advice to both organizations with respect to integrating women.[117]

2. Incidence of Sexual Harassment

While the history cited above describes a largely positive experience with the integration process, other sources suggest that sexual harassment has not been an uncommon experience in the CF. The CF administered its own surveys in 1992 and 1998 that showed a decline in incidents of self-reported sexual harassment within the CF, but a rate much higher for women than for men, at 19.4% and 3% respectively in 1998.[118]

The Director General Military Personnel advised the Committee that a further survey on sexual harassment was carried out in 2012;[119] the results of this survey were not available at the time this report was written.

The questions in the recent PSES do not provide information on sexual harassment specifically, nor do the results include military personnel. The same official told the Committee that “[w]e don't use the public service employment survey because our members are not public servants.”[120] In describing the scope of the survey, Statistics Canada officials told the Committee that some organizations whose members are not public servants chose to participate in the 2011 survey, and gave as examples the non-civilian portion of the RCMP and the Canada Revenue Agency employees.[121]

3. Legislation and Policy

Canada’s focus on countering harassment in the military has not been unique. As described in one comparative study of harassment of women in military organizations, the authors provide the following description:

Harassment is a particularly salient issue within military organizations, as women and minority groups continue to be significantly under-represented; their small numbers and their relative newcomer status make them vulnerable to discrimination and harassment. Consequently, countering harassment has been demanding significant resources and attention as Western military organizations face increased pressure to effectively integrate representative numbers of women and men from national populations that are becoming more diverse.[122]

Within DND and the CF, civilian and military personnel are covered by a single policy with respect to harassment, introduced in 2000.[123] This policy cites both the Canadian Human Rights Act definition of harassment and the 2001 Treasury Board Policy on the Prevention and Resolution of Harassment in the Workplace as sources. According to the policy,

DND and the CF define ‘harassment’ as “any improper conduct by an individual that is directed at and offensive to another person or persons in the workplace and which the individual knew or ought reasonably to have known would cause offence or harm. It comprises any objectionable act, comment or display that demeans, belittles or causes personal humiliation or embarrassment, or any act of intimidation or threat.”[124]

The intent of the policy was to correct a situation in which civilian and military members were covered by different policies and grievance procedures.[125] The emphasis of the policy, according to a backgrounder released by DND in August 2012[126] and testimony before the Committee,[127] is on alternative dispute resolution mechanisms for resolving complaints wherever possible, including through intervention by a supervisor or mediation.

The Committee heard that the CF has a continuum of policies related to sexual behaviour, with regulation of fraternization and personal relationships at one end, and sexual misconduct at the other, and that the sexual harassment policy is in the middle of the spectrum.[128] Officials told the Committee that the sexual misconduct policy “deals with behaviours that are either sexual in nature or committed with the intent to commit an act or acts that are sexual in nature” which could include offences of indecent exposure and voyeurism.[129]

C. Royal Canadian Mounted Police

1. Integration of Women

By its own history,[130] the RCMP first engaged women as matrons and jail guards who dealt with female offenders starting in the 1890s. By the early 1900s, women filled scientific and medical roles within the force.

In its 1970 report, the Royal Commission on the Status of Women noted that 10% of civilian members[131] of the RCMP were women; that maternity leave for the force was less generous than that in the public service, and that women were prohibited from enlisting as non-civilian “peace officers”. The Commission formally recommended “that enlistment in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police be opened to women.”[132]

The first troop of women enlisted members graduated in 1974. That was later hailed as a turning point not only for the RCMP, but also for women’s status in the workforce in general: in marking the 25th anniversary of the hiring of women as regular members, a member of Parliament told the House of Commons that:

The appointment of women police officers not only radically changed the RCMP and other police forces, it also helped radically change the role of women in the workplace and to change public perception of this role and of the police.[133]

One of the women in that first group of regular officers attributed significance to the women’s movement in general in a memoir written years later:

The Force’s decision to assume equality unless proven otherwise was unprecedented at the time. The theory that women could perform “male” roles was put to a true test, providing the experimental data the women’s movement required. The RCMP became a world leader in the women’s movement.[134]

In 1985, the Subcommittee on Equality Rights of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs heard from the then-commissioner of the RCMP, who was questioned as to the number of women at various ranks within the force.[135] At that time, he reported that of fully trained “peace officers”, there were more than 12,000 males and fewer than 500 females. If special constables were added in, the number of males rose to more than 14,000 men and 1,200 women.[136]

Targets for recruiting women have been in place for more than a decade. In 1998, a CHRC report noted that while the RCMP was not then covered by the Employment Equity Act:

The Commission has been monitoring progress in the RCMP based on an agreement arising from a joint voluntary employment equity review completed in 1995. Supported by a firm commitment from senior management to ensure improved equity, the RCMP has initiated significant measures and made good progress, including achieving most of the hiring and promotion goals established for regular members.

In particular, during the last three years for which the Commission has received data (1995 to 1997), women have received more than 30% of appointments.[137]

However, RCMP data in annual federal government reports on employment equity showed that in the three fiscal years from 1 April 2005 to 31 March 2008, the percentage of women among non-civilian RCMP staff ranged from 9% to 12%.[138] Most recently, in its Report on Plans and Priorities for 2011–2012, the target for recruits of police officers was 30% women.[139] The current commitment is for 35% of new recruits to be women.[140] Recruitment advertisements in March 2012 indicated that 22% of “the RCMP workforce” is women.[141]

2. Incidence of Sexual Harassment

In recent months, media reports of sexual harassment within the RCMP have been frequent. A possible trigger has been the coming forward of one high-profile officer (now on leave) who suggested to the media that this harassment has been long-standing. According to a Toronto Star article, more than 1,000 harassment complaints (including gender-based harassment and bullying complaints) had been received by the RCMP between 2005 and the publication of the article in 2011.[142] During testimony in front of the Committee, the RCMP Public Complaints Commission stated that they had reviewed 718 harassment complaints filed between 2005 and 2011, and upon examination, found that the majority of cases were abuse of authority and bullying; however the Commission acknowledged that only formal complaints of harassment were reviewed.[143]

A witness who had settled a sexual harassment complaint against the RCMP told the Committee that she feared that the public attention would mean that harassment will go “underground,” with a “silent kind of shunning.”[144] A participant in a roundtable of former female RCMP members identified that sexual harassment was widespread not only in the force itself, but that there was also “systemic harassment orchestrated by a group” among cadets in training.[145]

The RCMP participated in the PSES for 2011, which included questions related to harassment and discrimination. It should be noted that the results included both civilian and non-civilian employees of the RCMP.

A gender analysis of the results shows that a greater proportion of women than men responded positively to questions related to liking their jobs, getting satisfaction from their work, and receiving recognition for work well done.[146] Women were less likely than their male counterparts to respond positively to questions about the way in which informal complaints were resolved within their work units and whether they had positive working relationships with co-workers.

For questions dealing with harassment, women were more likely to indicate in their responses that they had been harassed in the previous two years, particularly by co-workers; they were less likely than men to have reported being harassed by people with authority over them. Women and men both responded positively that their agency works hard to create a workplace that prevents harassment (72% of male respondents and 70% of women).

The survey questions also asked respondents to identify their experience with specific types of discrimination, with 53% of men indicating they had not experienced sex discrimination in the previous two years, compared to 35% of women, with the percentage of women having experienced sex discrimination more than twice in the previous two years (15%) being double that of men (7%).

The Committee also heard that sexual harassment was perceived to be widespread within the RCMP, both from a former member,[147] and from a report of the results of a survey of “E” Division members.[148] This was also a view expressed by all participants in a roundtable meeting with former members of the RCMP.[149]

As well, Ian McPhail, the Interim Chair of the RCMP Public Complaints Commission, told the Committee that the Commission recommended that “the RCMP develop a comprehensive method to evaluate respectful workplace efforts that is both measurable and quantifiable. The results of such evaluation must be publicly reported.”[150]

3. Policy

Policies with respect to preventing and resolving sexual harassment complaints within the RCMP are complicated by different regimes “for discipline and dismissal” for each of three categories of employees: “regular members, civilian members and public service employees”.[151]

Public Safety Canada issued a news release that described the confusion that could result:

Currently, RCMP managers faced with harassment issues have two different processes they must follow: one under Treasury Board policy and one under the RCMP Act. These processes do not always align, which can lead to confusion about rights, responsibilities and approaches available. Moving forward, the Commissioner will have the authority to establish a single, comprehensive system for investigating and resolving harassment concerns.[152]

Recent changes to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act give the Commissioner “the authority to investigate harassment in the workplace… and the obligation to establish an informal conflict management system.”[153] However, these provisions may apply only to regular and special constables, and not to civilians.

The Committee heard that decisions with respect to sexual harassment within the RCMP can be appealed to the RCMP External Review Committee, which can review decisions related to sexual harassment or sexual misconduct, which involve two separate complaint processes.[154]