National Defence Committee on Feb. 22nd, 2021

[Col (Ret'd) Michel Drapeau]

Mr. Garrison, as far as I'm concerned, the answer to both your questions is yes.

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

Thank you very much.

I will address my next set of questions to Madam Justice Deschamps.

First of all, let me thank you again for the work you've done, and let me thank you today for bringing some specific proposals forward.

Given the level of allegations that have been made by Major Brennan and others about the failures of Operation Honour, do you believe Operation Honour in its current form can be effective in addressing sexual misconduct within the military?

[Marie Deschamps]

General Vance presented himself as a champion of Operation Honour, and as such it affects the credibility of the operation. However, Operation Honour has been followed by another strategy, which coincided with his departure from the forces. I do believe that what we are hearing and the investigation that's going on will not impair the efforts that are made. Even though I'm not happy with the pace, and even though I'm not happy with the fact that there are not enough concrete steps being taken immediately, there is something that needs to go forward.

Chairman, this amount of effort has been put into this Path to Dignity and Respect, and a lot of people have been enrolled. I think the Canadian Armed Forces should double their efforts to build up or rebuild its credibility. I don't think they should drop the ball now. That would be the worst thing that could happen.

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

We know the channels for investigating complaints against an individual member of the forces are clear and that there is an investigation into the allegations against General Vance. I want to set that aside and ask you whether you believe there should be an investigation into the broader circumstances here and that someone should be given the authority, either through a board of inquiry or through the appointment of an expert such as you, to suggest the changes that are really necessary here to restore the confidence of serving members that sexual misconduct will be treated seriously at the highest level.

[Marie Deschamps]

Certainly having someone who is completely outside the forces helps to inspire trust. Given the fact of the allegation concerning the chief of the defence staff, it would be a positive step if someone from the outside could conduct the inquiry. This said, I'm not looking for a new job. I've done my share, and I'll continue to contribute as much as possible, but I think there are many people who have a lot of credibility who can do that.

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

Thank you very much, Justice Deschamps. I certainly do sincerely thank you for all the efforts you've made, and for today.

I want to ask one last thing. The allegations over the weekend are not just against General Vance; they're against the senior leadership of the Canadian Forces. Major Brennan has said that sexual misconduct, first of all, was widely known among the senior leadership, not just in the case of General Vance. Second, she's made the very serious allegation that no follow-up was made when there was an allegation of sexual assault.

Do we not really need that independent inquiry at this point?

[Marie Deschamps]

Well, I have already mentioned that because of the level of the—

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

I have a point of order, Madam Chair. Sadly, we have an interpretation issue again.

[Marie Deschamps]

I apologize. This reminds me that, even if the question is in English, I can answer in French.

Given that the allegations concern the Chief of Defence Staff, who, as you said, is at the highest level of authority, a fully independent investigation would be in order.

I thought I said it before, but I'll say it again.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you very much, Ms. Deschamps.

We'll go to Madam Alleslev, please.

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

Thank you very much.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here. This is such an incredibly important discussion.

I want to reiterate what my colleagues have said about Major Brennan and her incredible testimony over the weekend, but also how incredibly and fundamentally jarring the spectre and breadth and depth of that commentary was. That's why the work we are doing here is so incredibly important and we will want to revisit, Madam Chair, the possibility of having the two of the witnesses we have here today come back again on another occasion so that we might be able to go into more depth on their testimony.

My question is for Mr. Drapeau.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

I have a point order.

I'm sorry to interrupt my colleague, but I'm having trouble hearing her. I don't know if it's just me, but it's cutting in and out. I don't know if the floor audio is still turned on or not, but it was very tough to hear.

Leona, you might have to put your mike a bit closer to your mouth.

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

Okay, there you go. I'm sorry about that.

Mr. Drapeau, when the minister testified before committee, he said that he had always passed everything to the proper authority.

I just want to clarify from your testimony, in the case of possible allegations, whatever they may be, that the minister was, in fact, himself the proper authority and had not only the duty but the facility to act. The buck stops with him. Is that your testimony?

[Col (Ret'd) Michel Drapeau]

My testimony is, having received a caution from the ombudsman—and the ombudsman had no one else to turn to except the minister.... Now the minister is saddled with these allegations. He had a duty first to investigate and second to report, and he had the tools and the authority to investigate under section 45 of the National Defence Act.

He also had a duty to report, presumably after having investigated the matter summarily or fully, to PCO, given the CDS is a Governor in Council appointment. Along the way he might have elected to suspend—not to remove, to suspend—the CDS while this matter was being investigated. Of course, the removal of a Governor in Council is outside the authority of the minister. That would probably involve cabinet, the Prime Minister or both.

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

Thank you.

In a democracy, the trust and confidence in a standing military is fundamentally dependent on elected civilian oversight, i.e., a minister of national defence. Yet we understand the possibility, as a result of this minister's friendship, working relationship, long history, and possibly other compromising information between Minister Sajjan and former chief of the defence staff Jonathan Vance, that there may in fact be a conflict of interest with the minister hindering his ability to carry out his duties as a minister.

Could you provide some comment? As members of Parliament or Canadian citizens, how do we ensure that a minister of national defence is not compromised, not able to be leveraged or influenced, and is able to carry out his critical oversight as an elected official of a standing military that has the right to bear arms?

[Col (Ret'd) Michel Drapeau]

Ms. Alleslev, permit me to say two comments in response to your questions.

First and foremost, there are two key players who should also have been involved in the decision-making by the minister. First and foremost is the deputy minister. Just by the very nature of her title and rank, she's there to advise the minister on a whole range of issues that the minister could rely upon to receive advice. Second, the minister's immediate subordinate is the judge advocate general, who is schooled and an expert in military law. Both the deputy minister and the judge advocate general should have provided the minister with all of the advice that he required to respond to this.

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

But, Mr. Drapeau, who investigates the minister?

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Time is up. Thank you very much.

We go to Madam Vandenbeld, please.

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

I would just like to caution that this committee needs to be very careful. When we start using words like “compromised” or “leveraged” and innuendo about relationships when referring to a minister, I really think there's a lot being said here that we really need to take a step back from. We need to be careful about things that are being alleged that have absolutely no bearing in fact.

That said, I also think there has been a lot of speculation in the media and there have been a lot of things said here that do not bear out when we look at the actual testimony. There has been nothing here that says there were any allegations in 2018. There's nothing here that says if there was anything raised, it was even the same as what was raised two weeks ago. All we know is that whatever was raised was referred. We have heard PCO say that there was nothing actionable.

I think we need to be very careful. There is a real concern here, which is why is it that if there were women who have experienced this who came forward, these women did not want to make official complaints?

I would like Madam Deschamps and Dr. Preston to talk about the fact that if somebody comes forward and says that something has happened but absolutely does not want that to go through a formal process, does not want that to be repeated and wants it held confidential, what is it that we can do in those circumstances? What is the proper process in those kinds of circumstances, and how can we improve that?

Madam Deschamps, could you please start by perhaps talking about some of the things that have been said in the testimony today about the minister's responsibility and whether you agree with that?

[Marie Deschamps]

First of all, I'm not sufficiently familiar with the statute to comment on what Colonel Drapeau has suggested.

However, as to your point on what someone who has suffered sexual abuse, sexual harassment or sexual misconduct can do, I think the first thing that should be done is to go to the root of why that person does not want to speak out, because not reporting will only compound the problem. This is where the expert advice and expert support of the centre is very important, because if we have too many unreported incidents, what we call in the jargon “restricted reports”, which are reports that are kept confidential, signalling disclosures that are kept confidential, we will not be achieving significant progress.

One of the key roles of the centre is to support the person and walk her or him through the process to ensure that the person, first of all, will not suffer retaliation but become strong enough to speak up.

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

Dr. Preston.

[Dr. Denise Preston]

I'll end up reiterating some of what Madam Deschamps said, but it is true that the safest place for a Canadian Armed Forces member to talk about what has happened to them is to come to the sexual misconduct response centre. I say that for two reasons. One is we are independent of the chain of command, so they are able to speak to us confidentially and the information will not get back to the chain of command. That links to the second point, which is that all of the counsellors at my centre are civilians who do not have a duty to report. Therefore, regardless of what we are told and who they are alleging has committed this behaviour, that information is held confidential. We will provide whatever support, assistance, advocacy or accompaniment members need when they so choose to do it. It needs to be their choice and their timing, and we will provide that for them.

Thank you.

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

Dr. Preston, what could we do to strengthen the SMRC? What could we do to give you even more tools at your disposal to be able to act on this?

[Dr. Denise Preston]

I think a number of things need to be prioritized and certainly have been on our work plan for a period of time. We want to look at reporting in terms of implementing alternatives to reporting that are outside of the chain of command. Another source of support that has been raised on a number of occasions is the provision of independent legal advice for victims. This is provided in other militaries, and it is provided in a number of provinces in Canada. There are certainly a number of priorities related to better supporting Canadian Armed Forces members.

There are other things that could be done as well to facilitate our ability to better monitor the work that CAF is doing. One of those that we've talked about already is access to data and better centralization of the data. I think the organization is seriously challenged by a lack of a full understanding of the depth and breadth of this problem. There needs to be more work on data and some research.

Thank you.

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

Thank you.