National Defence Committee on Feb. 26th, 2021

[Dr. Stéfanie von Hlatky]

Yes, this is what I wanted to highlight in my statement. I think there are instances and certain scenarios and situations that haven't been properly embedded in training or how Op Honour has been presented and rolled out.

I think situations of asymmetric professional relationships and consent in those cases are not well understood as a dynamic, and people are often quite uncertain as to how to respond to those types of relationships.

When we're rolling out training, we're presenting some of the very obvious cases of perpetration of sexual misconduct, and we need to show the range of situations in which that occurs, and how questions of consent can manifest themselves across the board.

You practise these scenarios and you think about these scenarios and you have a broader conversation about this so you have a better understanding of the complexity of the issue, but also you then feel more equipped to respond and to speak out.

I wanted to stress this particular dynamic because it's been front and centre in the past few weeks, and when reviewing things like training materials—with the caveat that I do not have access to all training materials as an external expert—and reviewing the academic literature and research reports on this topic, it's a very perpetrator-focused approach. We need to engage with the complexity of sexual misconduct and other themes linked to military culture. I listed them during my statement so I won't repeat them here.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

I need to go to Madam Gallant, please.

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

Thank you Madam Chair.

Through you to Dr. Okros, we now have two successive CDSs who have had allegations made against them, one of whom was in charge of Operation Honour.

Do you believe these events and the way they're being handled will hinder women coming forward with sexual misconduct complaints in the future?

[Dr. Alan Okros]

We all recognize that individuals are certainly watching the processes that are unfolding and are going to be paying attention to the outcome once investigations are completed and cases are deemed to be closed.

Beyond that, I don't have any factual information or sufficient knowledge of either of the cases to make any comments about how people are reacting to them as they're in process.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Dr. von Hlatky.

[Dr. Stéfanie von Hlatky]

I don't have anything to add.

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

Dr. Okros, we heard at this committee on Monday from a military law expert that Minister Sajjan could and should have launched an investigation using his powers under section 45 of the National Defence Act when he received an allegation of sexual misconduct against a former CDS.

Does the minister's failure to act undermine the credibility of Operation Honour and outreach to recruit more women since there is no safe recourse for military members, and they feel perhaps they cannot count on their own minister to investigate?

[Dr. Alan Okros]

My expertise is in military culture and military identity, it's not in military law. I don't know what factual information was reviewed in making any observations on the appropriate use of the NDA.

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

Do any other witnesses have any comment on that question?

In your opinion is Operation Honour salvageable, and I pose that to all three witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Mr. English.

[Dr. Allan English]

I think the first thing we have to do is understand what Operation Honour is. It was a campaign plan. As a campaign plan, it was to be a short, two-year intervention to address Madame Deschamps' report. As a campaign plan, if you read it, the active phase of Operation Honour actually ended on June 30, 2017. The fact that there was no strategy published afterwards really left the Operation Honour group without any direction. That's why I say a lot of their actions were uncoordinated and ineffectual. The campaign ended on June 30. They were in the maintain-and-hold phase starting July 1, 2017.

You see a lot of progress reports, some fragmentary orders—FRAGOs—and this and that, but they contradict each other.

I think what “The Path to Dignity and Respect” strategy attempted to do was put out a new campaign plan. I'll be happy to comment on that later, but for now, let's just say Operation Honour is done.

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

Does the duty to report inappropriate sexual behaviour extend to everyone at the Department of National Defence, be they military, civilian, contractors or political appointees?

Anyone?

Okay.

To make comparisons with the United States in the nineties, there was a crisis of sexual misconduct that was already alluded to in the Navy and the Marines. The events and the culture were captured by that Tailhook scandal. That resulted in some big changes, notably a reporting system outside the chain of command. Can Canada learn some lessons? Should we be looking at what our Five Eyes allies and others are doing effectively?

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Dr. Okros.

[Dr. Alan Okros]

I would certainly say that the Canadian Armed Forces has been engaged in examining what has been done among Five Eyes in particular, as well as in other military contexts. The broader issue with this, of course, is there are many militaries that are recognizing they have some of these issues. There are some national differences across contexts, but based on the comments that the three of us have been making, I think there are some commonalities across many militaries.

The specific issues with regard to reporting and reporting mechanisms involve law and legislative requirements. There have been differences, particularly in the cases of the United States, Australia and France. The legal regimes they were working under have allowed them to explore some options that the Canadian Armed Forces has not yet been able to have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you.

I'm going to have to move on to Mr. Baker, please.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you very much to the Chair and to our three witnesses for being here. I'm learning a tremendous amount and I think my colleagues are learning a tremendous amount from your testimony.

You have all spoken about culture, the role that culture plays in this problem and the role that it perhaps plays in the fact that it's not being dealt with appropriately. I have a two-part question. Why does this culture exist in the CAF, and do you think it is unique to the CAF?

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Dr. English, and then Dr. Okros.

[Dr. Allan English]

The culture that exists now in the Canadian Armed Forces is sometimes referred to as a warrior culture. Now, this warrior culture came into the Canadian Armed Forces in the early 2000s when we started co-operating very closely with the United States in Afghanistan, and after 2005 when General Rick Hillier became chief of the defence staff and wanted a warrior culture to replace what he called a bureaucratic culture that existed in the Canadian Forces at the time.

The warrior culture that was chosen because of our close association with the United States was a particular culture that had been created in the U.S. in the eighties and nineties, which was based on a hypermasculine, sexualized military culture that had actually been created to keep LGBTQ people out of the military, and later this was deployed against women.

This was an artificial, foreign, hypersexualized culture that, according to American researchers who have researched this culture, contributed to “creating or sustaining a cultural environment where sexual assaults can occur and thrive.”

By importing this American hypermasculine culture, we've really created a lot of our own problems. I think one of the first things any culture change would have to do would be to go back to what we put into “Duty with Honour”, our profession of arms manual in 2003, which was something called the “warrior's honour”.

This new Canadian warrior culture in response to the Somalia crisis was to be based on the warrior's honour that they would use the minimal amount of force possible to achieve their objectives, and that the warriors had a responsibility both to carry out their mission and also to respect the laws of war. This is quite different from what we have now. I would think that's the first thing that has to change.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Dr. Okros.

[Dr. Alan Okros]

The other comment I would make with this is that there does need to be a unique military culture. Canadians require very specific things from the women and men who are providing security for them. That requires some very specific things. There is no other employer that has the concept of unlimited liability, that expects and requires people to put themselves in harm's way.

To do that, to generate those capabilities and the capacity to endure under what can be really arduous circumstances, does require something unique that most private sector employers don't need.

The issue is, what should that culture be? I think that's the issue that is really up for debate and discussion. Again, what the comments we're providing here...there is a tension in the military as well around evolving over time. One thing that is baked into the military philosophy is that there are really important lessons that have been learned, that were paid for in blood over the centuries, that we will never forget.

That is of importance, but that can hold the military back from trying to envision the future military culture that they need to be building within a 21st-century security context, and with young Canadians who are seeking to serve their country in uniform.

It needs to be a unique culture. The debate, really, is about what should that culture be, what should be retained and what needs to fundamentally change.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you.

I'll take this time to please ask both committee members who are asking questions and our honourable witnesses to keep their answers as short as possible. We only have probably about another half hour of this discussion.

Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe, go ahead.

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

I unfortunately won't have much time. I had a lot of questions to put to the witnesses, who are all experts in their field. Like everyone, they also saw what happened in the news.

I will ask a question I would like the witnesses to answer based on their knowledge and expertise, and I would like them to be completely honest.

I will start again with Professor von Hlatky. The other two witnesses could comment afterwards.

Ms. von Hlatky, do you think the Minister of National Defence has assumed his responsibilities and done his duty in ensuring that sexual misconduct allegations would be dealt with appropriately at the highest level in the Canadian Armed Forces hierarchy?

[Dr. Stéfanie von Hlatky]

We just don't know enough right now to speak to that.

I would like to echo what my colleague, Professor Okros, said earlier. Some information that will come out during the investigation process may help us think through this issue in more depth. Right now, it is still too early.

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

Do you have at least some idea of how this was managed?