National Defence Committee on Feb. 7th, 2019

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

All I was going to add was that, between now and the due date that has been indicated in the amendment, the House has a total of only 14 sitting days, which is two full weeks and one partial week because of the current House calendar. I think that setting this date is the problematic part of this. I'm happy to support the motion, provided that we remove that date. Obviously, I will be voting in favour of the amendment that I put forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Go ahead, Ms. Gallant.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

I would just like to confer with the clerk as to whether or not in our schedule we have an hour that is not filled in these 14 days or in the next.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Given what we're probably going to talk about in camera at the end, that might influence that answer. I'm not sure we can give you an answer right now. We have a very busy schedule, as you know, and there's very little time. I don't see anyone here debating against what you're asking for, but it's tight for timing and it looks like what they're looking to change is to just take that time out to give the committee some flexibility. That's what it looks like to me. I'm going to call the question on Mr. Gerretsen's amendment to remove the date from the motion.

(Amendment agreed to)

Now we'll vote on the motion, as amended.

(Motion as amended agreed to)

Thank you very much for your patience. Madam Deschamps, I would like to give you the floor for your opening remarks. Thank you for being here.

[Marie Deschamps, Former Justice, Supreme Court of Canada, As an Individual]

Good afternoon.

I am pleased to appear before your committee again. I know your current topic is diversity, which is a very broad subject. I was told that I was invited here to provide an update on Operation Honour and sexual misconduct.

Diversity is often viewed as a way to change culture, and cultural change is crucial to fighting sexual misconduct. My second recommendation to the armed forces is to establish a strategy to effect that change. My report includes a section on culture in which I discuss the importance of leadership, with an emphasis on women in leadership.

I have not personally followed up on my recommendations in an official capacity, but I have taken the time to stay informed about what has been happening. After receiving your invitation to participate, I tried to prepare an update on the situation.

As you may know, the CAF has had both external experts and internal people do a lot of research. There have been many reports about the impact of culture on sexual misconduct, the effect of language on that culture, social media, training, Operation Honour, and more. That's just a partial list.

I also know that a fourth report following up on Operation Honour will be coming out shortly, and I know the CAF has implemented a diversity strategy. I'm not sure if you have received a copy. The forces are still drafting their cultural change policy. The Sexual Misconduct Response Centre has also been given added responsibilities.

However, it has been quite a while since I last received communications from the victims themselves. It would be hard for me to tell you what is happening on the ground other than as a member of the public who, like many others and everyone in this room, has taken an interest in data released by Statistics Canada and the Auditor General's report. I know that all raises plenty of questions for the committee.

I also know your committee has been following up, and that, in my opinion, is vital because that kind of pressure is what makes things happen. You have heard from several witnesses, some of whom have shared some very enlightening remarks. It is also clear to me that many members of this committee are well informed about this subject.

Given that my knowledge of this matter is dated and that I am not in a position to provide up-to-date information, I won't waste your precious time with general comments. Instead, I will answer your questions, so over to you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Thank you very much for your comments.

I'll turn the floor over now to Ms. Nash.

[Laura Nash, As an Individual]

Hi, everyone. It's quite an honour to see some faces that I know from TV. Thanks for having me here. I really appreciate it.

As a bit of background on me, I am an ex-professional athlete. I was on Team Canada three times, and I graduated from the University of Victoria. I was a champion wrestler in high school; I was fifth in Canada and second in Ontario. I won two awards at basic training in the military and I was near the top of my class in navy environmental sea training.

However, after my abusive husband left me in the middle of training in the navy, with my one-year-old son at the time, I had no assistance. I couldn't afford a nanny and I had no family within thousands of kilometres of where I was posted on Vancouver Island.

The base in Esquimalt offered only 20 day care spots for 3,000 people, so my son was placed on a two-year waiting list to get regular hours day care, but that did not include the 12 hours of nighttime care, so I had basically no way of sailing.

I let the school know that my husband was violent and that he left me with this problem. That's when I started noticing the senior officers treating me differently.

Three days before my graduation, when I was already posted to HMCS Winnipeg, I was scheduled to get my promotion and a pay raise, which would have very much helped me fly my baby back and forth across the country. It was the only child care plan I had. I would fly him to Ontario and leave him with my mom. My mom took a break from work so that I could sail. It was costing me everything I had. I had no savings, no investments, nothing at the time.

Three days before I was about to graduate and all this was about to happen, a man named James Brun lied to the board at my school and said that I had 17 requirements when I had only four left. Karen Bellehumeur, who was head of the department at the school at the time, told me that, effective immediately, they were ceasing my training, that I had too many family matters to deal with.

I was kicked off the ship. I was not allowed to get my personal belongings. I lost my pay raise and my promotion, and I was removed from HMCS Winnipeg's roster.

I submitted a harassment complaint against James Brun and a grievance as well for what happened. Years later—the grievance took years—it was found that Brun did lie. I had papers showing that I had only four requirements to do and I could easily have finished the course. I should have had my promotion and I should have had the pay raise and kept on with my training, but that was actually the beginning of the end of my career in the military.

After I submitted the harassment complaint, I went to the female BPSO, base personnel selection officer. She is basically the human resources of the military, so I thought she would help me. I told her that the cost of flying my baby back and forth for child care was completely unsustainable and I told her that I would take any other job in the forces.

I didn't want to give away my commission. I was very proud of having a commission from the Queen, so I wanted to stay in an officer role, but I would also have taken anything. If they had wanted to put me as a supply tech and I would hand out clothes for the next 25 years of my life, I would be happy to, even though my heart was broken that I couldn't sail anymore because sailing is why I joined.

The BPSO told me that the CAF doesn't recognize having a baby as a reason to switch trades, and that when she deployed, she had admin too, such as changing her cellphone plan and finding a place to store her car. The military was comparing my baby, basically, to a hunk of metal.

I went for help to Karen Bellehumeur, who was my female head of department, and another woman, Kim Chu. I just wanted to switch trades into anything I could do. They brought me into their office and told me that if I didn't get rid of my kid, I would be fired. I couldn't believe that my own Canadian government would force me to give away my baby or terminate my employment, when all I wanted to do was serve my country. I knew that I was capable. I was willing to do any job they wanted me to do, and I had already given my baby away from when he was one until he was two—or I hadn't really given him away but sent him to my parents so that I could go to sea.

I had a family care plan, I could deploy, but I just wanted to do something else where I wasn't forced to give away my son.

I was basically in a catch-22. I didn't want to give him away. I didn't want to lose my job, because then I wouldn't have a way to support him, so I started to think of a third way out, which was suicide.

I volunteered for logistics, and I worked there for a year. I thought it would be a good trade for me to get into that wouldn't deploy as much. My son was two. I went to another female officer, Commander Roberts. She was the CO of base logistics at the time. She told me that I should have had an abortion and that these problems were my own fault for having a baby too early in my career. She also told me that being on the wait-list for the military day care for two years was just the way it is.

I went to mental health and told them that my chain of command was trying to force me to give away my child. The doctor put me on a temporary medical category, which temporarily prevented me from going to sea, so I thought, “Okay, this is my opportunity. I'm going to take this time, fill out my paperwork and switch trades.”

At that time it looked like I was a shoo-in for air traffic control because I have great spatial ability, and I was hoping to get there and be closer to my family: problem solved.

I was ready to switch trades, but Dr. Boylan, another female doctor, told me, “I'm not signing your transfer papers because you've been to mental health three times for three different things.” I was basically stuck in the military without a trade, without belonging to a unit and without any chance of promotion or advancement for four years. I was basically a walking pariah.

The only thing I could do was volunteer to work for public affairs. I think I did a pretty good job there. I was waiting for my medical chit to expire. I'd heard through the grapevine that if you didn't go to mental health, people would just think you were okay, so I didn't go to mental health for six months. I let my chit expire, went back to the doctor and said, “Please sign my forms so I can trade,” and they said no.

At that point I was dealing with suicide and depression, and trying to raise my baby by myself. I applied for leave travel assistance to fly home that Christmas—this was back in 2013—and I found out that because I had given birth, I actually lost that military benefit to fly home. They pay everyone who is single to go home for free, unless you have a baby or get married. While my single friends got two free flights a year, I had to pay for both.

I got an email that Christmas too, saying that because I had a baby, I was bumped down to the second tier for the Airbus flights. While you get LTA every year to go home to visit your next of kin, the Airbuses fly back and forth across the country to help, so people get two flights. I got an email and had to wait a month. When that month came, I applied, but the airplanes were full.

Also, the military took $700 off my paycheque for day care when my son finally got in and $915 for rent, but a male officer who sat next to me on the same course got his room and board paid for by the military because he had a wife and a house back in New Brunswick, pursuant to a policy called “furniture and effects”. There was basically a $3,000 pay gap just in those benefits.

From 2014 to 2017 I was never medically assessed. I received little treatment. I was still kicked out for medical reasons, without any medical assessment, and it's all because I stood up for my rights when I was treated differently as a mom. With the help of my employment lawyer, Natalie MacDonald, I initiated a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission for discrimination on the basis of sex, which has been purposely stalled by the CAF for one and a half years so far. I recently learned that through an email, through the Privacy Act.

Since being kicked out of the military, I've also felt some injustice too about how veterans are treated. I feel like I'm getting this window into how hard it must be for veterans who, for example, don't have limbs, just to fight to get some help.

I'm here today just to make sure that this doesn't happen, and I'm going to do everything I can to shut those doors that I fell through, because I think there are a lot of policies here that made it absolutely impossible for me to keep serving as a mom. There were many options where I could have stayed in easily. It's just that nobody would help me.

That's the end of my speech. Thank you, everyone, for listening.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Thank you for sharing your difficult story with us. We needed to hear that so that we can make it better.

I'm going to give the first question to Mr. Fisher.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Deschamps, and thank you, Ms. Nash, for being here today. As the chair said, it's very difficult testimony to hear.

Ms. Deschamps, you kind of get credit as the catalyst for Operation Honour. I think we all can agree that it was created with the best of intentions, but we've recently heard testimony from women who explained that maybe they felt singled out by it. Maybe it was putting a target on their backs and hurting camaraderie.

How can Op Honour be tweaked or changed, in your opinion, to address this?

[Marie Deschamps]

You're asking me for an assessment of Op Honour, and I'm not sure I'm the best placed to do that because I can only read.... As I told you, I did my best to find out what was going on. I know that it took years. The last time I had a discussion with the forces, I told them that I couldn't believe the delay it took. Finally they told me that they understand what I mean. That's the way it is. I know it's a big ship to turn around.

How can it be better? There are lots of things that should have been done immediately in 2017. Four years later, there is a risk that the general population loses credibility or loses their confidence in the armed forces if they don't do more than that. I told them so.

What can they do immediately? I suggest that they find a case where they treat that more publicly and are more transparent as to what they are doing. For example, I mentioned that they have drafted a strategy on diversity. Well, I had to find that on page 25 out of 38 in the document that I received. Those things are very good. They should be more transparent on what they are doing, and they should be more transparent on where they missed. I know that they're trying, but there's much that needs to transpire.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

They have the best of intentions.

You've been quoted in The Globe and Mail, stating that a “sexualized culture” within the military is behind an endemic problem with sexual harassment and misconduct. Can you elaborate a bit on that, and maybe tell us how you think this should be addressed?

[Marie Deschamps]

That's a very broad question. On this question of culture, I made a specific recommendation and told them that this should be the object of a specific strategy, because it will take years to change. Unfortunately, they've already taken four years, and we haven't seen the colour of the strategy yet.

When I met the generals immediately before the release of my report—you know how it works with the federal government; you extend your report, and then it's publicly released—I told them this was a huge piece of work that they had to undertake and that it might take a generation to change things.

At least, though, you need to start somewhere. Currently we don't see much of a change. In fact, they've tried, and when they've tried things they don't seem to have understood the consequences.

I read about the duty to report which was applied too drastically. You have to protect the victim. There is a balance that you have to establish between the need to go public and the needs of the victims. I think they tried to do too much internally. They need to rely more on people who are not as much imbued with the military culture.

This is what I now hear they want to do with the centre. I was told that the responsibilities of the centres will be increased in a very important way and that the centre will be able to hire experts. This is something that is very positive, but it comes very late in the day.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

We don't have a ton of time, and you have very little time to get a question and response, so I would appreciate our being able to move on to the next speaker.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

MP Gallant.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Speaking through you to Madam Deschamps, let me say, welcome back. I recall when you issued your report and came before our committee and we were able to question you about it.

I'd like to pick up from there. I'm really pleased that we have this opportunity to go back to look at your recommendations and do a bit of assessment to see what recommendations have, in your opinion, actually been achieved.

I know you have 10 of them, but one I'd like to home in on initially is the recommendation to create an independent centre for accountability for sexual assault and harassment outside the Canadian Armed Forces, with the responsibility of receiving reports of inappropriate sexual conduct. With the way that your recommendation was worded, and given the intent behind it and what you may know about Op Honour, do you feel that the spirit and what you intended to happen with that recommendation has indeed manifested itself?

[Marie Deschamps]

What I see is a disconnect between the intention and the way it was implemented. As you know, I recommended an organism that was supposed to be a very independent entity and that had a lot of responsibility. What they initially created was something with a tiny bit of responsibility. Initially, you may recall, because you've followed the file, it was called a call centre. It was not very well known and it was not properly resourced. What I hear now is that they intend to give it substantive authority whereby they can advise the military on what should be done, both on training and on drafting the policies.

Much had been done, but from the inside. They had created this other entity, the strategic response centre, which in fact had most of the responsibility that the centre was supposed to have. There was a big problem of independence.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Was it your intention that when a victim called that centre they would have a modicum of anonymity? In other words, they could trust in the person at the centre to listen to and note what occurred, but it would not be reported to the unit or the chain of command.

Was that the way it was supposed to be?

[Marie Deschamps]

The way I designed it was that this centre was supposed to be able to receive both formal reports and reports or disclosures from victims who initially only wanted to be supported. The centre was to be able to receive the victims and not be obliged to go to the chain of command.

Both kinds of reports were supposed to be under the responsibility of the centre. Even up to this date, the centre does not yet have the responsibility or the power to receive the reports.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

You know from the surveys you conducted how absolutely important it was that the identities of the people who share their stories with you were not going to get out. The first thing that happens is if they do call, they are asked for their name and unit and they are very concerned that their superiors are going to hear about this, and they worry about all the things we heard from Ms. Nash and those types of ramifications.

That's what goes through their mind when they've read in the news or heard stories or know comrades who've had that type of thing happen to them. From what has been reported from armed forces people to me, that is not occurring the way you intended.

What about reporting on a sexual assault and having the reporting done and the response to it completed outside the chain of command? Was that your intention? You know it's happening. It goes through the military policy.

[Marie Deschamps]

My intention was to have this restricted reporting where the victim was able to get the support and be confident that she was able to start the formal process. Only then would the information be conveyed or shared with anyone else. Other than that, the restricted report should allow, in my view, the victim to be confident that only medical professionals or any other support person would be called in, those about whom she would be confident. I always say “she”, because it is 99% of the time. The intention was that the victim be confident that only the persons who were needed for her support would be informed of her case.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

It appears that when Operation Honour started, the intention was to manifest and exercise all of your recommendations. Over time it just has not occurred. There's not even training going on, recommendations on training and education. That hasn't happened to the non-commissioned officers who we're aware of. In fact, they call Op Honour, we heard in testimony, “hop on her”.

Thank you for your service. We hope to see you in the future. Perhaps we'll have a lot more of your recommendations that have actually been carried out as intended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Thank you.

I'm going to give the floor to MP Garrison.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to both of our witnesses here today.

I want to start by saying to you, Ms. Nash, that I know Mr. Fisher didn't intend it the way it might have sounded. It's not that the testimony is hard to hear, it's the testimony is hard to live in your case. So thank you for being here and being so forthright.

I would like to know if there are any places within the Canadian Forces or DND where you were able to find support through all of this.

[Laura Nash]

No. I even went to the padre at one point and said, “Hey, I don't want to live anymore; I don't know who else to go to.” The padre sort of said, “Oh, I'm so sorry to hear that.” I asked her if there was anything she could do, and the answer was basically no.

The mental health unit basically ended up not signing my forms to switch trades. People told me that was a mistake I'd made and I should never go to mental health. I think that's awful. It's there and we're paying people, so it should be there to help people.

The first reason I went to mental health was for post-partum depression. I had a little bout of it. There was no help there. I cleared it up just fine on my own. There was a B.C. provincial program that was like a little meeting you went to with other women who had it and I thought it was very easy to get over.

The BPSO was supposed to be responsible for switching me into another trade, and to be honest, I feel that she just wouldn't do her job. I don't think my chain of command was really doing their job when they were trying to force me to give away my son.

I would say that I found no help from anyone but my mother, who ended up quitting her job to help me.