National Defence Committee on March 8th, 2021

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Madam Chair, I'll just briefly circle back to my earlier comments. The Canadian Armed Forces set up institutions specifically to protect the anonymity of victims who want to come forward, and to empower and enable them to do so. An example is the sexual misconduct response centre.

It is individual documents, records, emails and texts—all the things that are mentioned in the motion—that create a risk. The real risk, Madam Chair, is the aggregate effect of all these documents being out there in the public realm. The aggregate effect, to my knowledge, is not being assessed by those people who are checking the confidentiality of this.

Once they're all out there, the cross-linkage of these various documents—even though none of them may have the name of the complainant or victim in them—could still, in fairly clear terms, point in the direction of the complainant. Further, Madam Chair, they could be used by members of the public who will see them to speculate as to who the complainant might be. That is beyond the control of the committee, so the committee, in that sense, will have failed to do its part to protect the wishes and identity of the victim.

I just wanted to stress that once again for the consideration of all members.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Mr. Baker, go ahead, please.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

One of the things we have to think about—we've heard from witnesses not just during the study of this particular issue, but in the study of past issues—is that, in looking at our process, especially now, we need to attract people who have a much broader array of skills than perhaps has been required in the past. Examples of this that we've heard about at this committee are things like expertise in cyber-technology and communications, and so on and so forth, that require us to be able to attract the best and a diversity of people with that array of backgrounds.

Again, I want to come back to this motion. Speaking to this motion, I want to say that I'm a little concerned, and not just about what I've said earlier, which is the chilling impact that this would have on people who want to come forward with allegations in the future. I am, of course, concerned about the impact it could have on the people who have come forward. In at least one of the cases, Mr. Walbourne asked that their identity be protected, and we need to respect that. I'm concerned about those things.

I'm also concerned about what this does to our ability to attract the best and brightest to the forces, with that diverse set of skills that I just talked about. I really think we need to put Canadians and how they're impacted by the armed forces first, and we need to put the people who want to come forward first in our deliberations here, when they want to come forward with allegations of any wrongdoing, including sexual harassment or assault.

When I think about those groups of people, to me, this motion would have the impact of not doing either of those things. That is partly because of what I said earlier in terms of the signal it would send to those who might want to come forward and who have come forward, but also because it sends a signal to others who may be considering joining the forces or who are in the forces and are considering their options. They expect that information to remain confidential and their interests to be looked after and put first. I'm a little nervous that this motion, for the reasons I and others have stated, would not do that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It is clearly stated in the motion that in the documents that will be sent out, it will be impossible to identify anyone—no complainants. The motion is very clear on that.

We've heard the Liberals' arguments and I understand them, but I don't agree with them. I think we've exhausted the subject. We are prepared to put the motion to a vote because these are the same arguments that our Liberal colleagues have been repeating for the last 10 minutes. I think most members of the committee are ready to vote on the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Go ahead, Madame Alleslev, please.

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

First, I would like to agree with my colleague from the Bloc that the same arguments are being repeated, so I think it is probably time to put the question.

However, I would like to just add that the testimony of the ombudsman and the ATIP documents that have been reported on in the public by the media suggest that perhaps senior officials did not follow the rules around protecting confidences and protecting victims and the information they were given.

I think that is a critical aspect that we need to understand more about, because it would show that those who knew the rules were apparently not following those rules, which perhaps compromised the identity of the victims and the process of the investigation. That may in itself be another process that's broken that we need to understand by seeing these documents.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Go ahead, Madam Vandenbeld, and then Mr. Bagnell, please.

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

Once our other colleagues who were ahead of me have a chance to speak, then I may have an amendment, so I don't think we can call the question yet.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

We'll go to Mr. Bagnell, please.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you. I appreciate Madam Alleslev and Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe's responding to my request that they are confident that this would not impinge on people who wanted the information that they submitted to be in confidence. I would just like to hear from anyone else who's in favour of the motion.

It's obvious that some of these documents are related to specific things that, as Mr. Bezan said, were already in the media, so the technical, personal details that someone may not have wanted to be public could now be made public. I just wanted to make sure that committee members don't think that this is really offering the wrong sense to people that they can come forward in confidence if they wish to.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Mr. Spengemann, please.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Madam Chair, thank you. I'll be brief.

I would just reiterate that we're dealing with two things. We're dealing with the investigation of the conduct of two former chiefs of the defence staff. These are important issues and important questions.

We're also dealing with the overriding question, which is how to change the system. Again, the minister was very clear. He called for a complete and total culture change to restore trust in the Canadian Forces. I do not see in the motion as it's reflected even a reference to potential documents within the public service or elsewhere that have explored questions of culture change or how to achieve it within the Canadian Forces in the context of Operation Honour.

We're having a one-sided conversation. We're looking at one side of the problem. It's the side that's riskiest to the victim in this particular case—and to future victims—because of the perception that the minute an allegation is raised, there will be a scramble to score political points. The victim's safety and wishes are subordinated to the wishes of what I perceive to be the Conservative position at least.

We need to keep our eyes on that second, and in my view equally important, question, which is how we achieve culture change in the Canadian Forces. It would be great to have some ideas on how the committee could integrate the current state of knowledge in the civil service on that question and get some information from the witnesses who have been invited to address that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you.

We now go to Mr. Baker, please.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I wanted to respond to what Ms. Alleslev just said and what some other members have also said at this meeting today, which is the big point that appropriate steps weren't followed. We've heard from witnesses who have come forward, including Mr. Walbourne, how important it is that investigations of allegations be handled appropriately and professionally.

Appropriately includes things like protecting the people who have come forward, which might mean protecting their identity and ensuring that they don't face negative consequences, but certainly means respecting their wishes throughout the process.

I don't think we have sought out that consent from the people who have come forward to make allegations in this case. It concerns me that on the one hand we are speaking about how we want to protect victims and those who come forward—to do what's right by them—but at the same time we are willing to make public some documents that pose the risk of not respecting their wishes.

That is not appropriate. It's not fair to those people who come forward. I urge my colleagues to consider this point before voting on this motion.

The other point that has been made—by Ms. Alleslev, I believe, but certainly by others—is that appropriate steps weren't followed. Appropriate steps, I think we have heard from many of our witnesses, are to have that investigation handled in a professional and independent way outside the chain of command.

From what has been presented to us, we know that when the Minister of National Defence was made aware of allegations, he sought out the body whose role it is to lead such investigations in the cases of people such as the Chief of the Defence Staff, because that is a Governor in Council appointment. We have a situation in which that investigation was approached in what appears to be and I believe is the appropriate way, given the circumstances—given the need to make sure that investigation is handled professionally and independently and competently by people who are not within the chain of command. In this case, the minister is within the chain of command.

Those are some of the reasons, Chair, that I think we have.... We have witnesses we have agreed to invite. Those folks can come forward and speak to some of these issues. We don't, however, need to take the risk of exposing victims or people who come forward with allegations.

Let's refocus our energy on fixing the problem rather than on the desire, as Mr. Spengemann highlighted earlier, to find a way to insinuate that there's some sort of cover-up. That's unfair to the victims. Let's put the victims first, and let's not allow politics to put them at risk.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you.

Mr. Robillard, please.

[Yves Robillard, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Here are some of the short- and long-term repercussions of sexual misconduct that are mentioned in the Operation Honour manual:

a) Fear Feeling afraid to leave home or go to work or fearing people in general. The process of restoring self-confidence is particularly difficult if the victim was targeted by someone they trusted, respected, or loved. In this case, their faith and trust in others, in the world and in their own judgment may also be threatened. b)Guilt. Feelings of guilt and self-blame may affect the decision to seek help. Some people may feel that the victim is to blame for being targeted, and that they provoked the incident(s) through their appearance or behaviour. Victims may also feel responsible for “not knowing any better” or not paying attention to “gut instincts” they may have had. They may not even identify what was happening as sexual misconduct. c)Shame.The destruction of self-respect, the deliberate efforts by the attacker to humiliate them, or make them do things against their will, may make the victim feel dirty, disgusted by the assault, and ashamed. That they “allowed” the incident(s) to happen at all may also make them feel ashamed. Feelings of shame may make them reluctant to report the crime to the police or to reach out for help. Because of their own actions [...], they may believe others will blame them. They may also believe their previous sexual experiences will be scrutinized.

So we have to be very careful and protect the anonymity of victims, because such repercussions can be extremely damaging in terms of their mental health. I've presented three of them to you, but there are a lot of them. We absolutely have to make them a priority in our process. They need to be our top priority.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you.

Mr. Bagnell is next, please.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you.

Right at the very beginning of this debate, I asked if this included documents related to General Vance's appointment. My question is, does it? If not, has anyone proposed an amendment to include those?

My second question is this. I don't know if the clerk would be able to answer this, or who would, but is the government allowed to unredact information that has been given to the government in confidence under systems that allow confidential input? Could they actually, in good conscience, redact that information, even though at the time it was given, it was given under a system of confidential information?

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you.

Mr. Spengemann, please.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Madam Chair, thank you very much.

I have just a brief point in addition to my earlier points with respect to what we heard from the former ombudsperson and the wishes of the complainant. The complainant very clearly expressed a wish that this not be brought forward as a complaint, that her identity be protected and that any conversations happen on the basis of strict anonymity.

The ombudsperson also made reference to the fact that he was going to the minister to “obtain top cover” for whatever his next steps would be. Defective as that system may be in retrospect as a whole, in the sense that we have to focus on independent institutions—institutions outside of the chain of command that protect the identity of the victim, such as the sexual misconduct response centre and other institutions that the committee may turn its mind to—it would also be disillusioning to the complainant and to other complainants to know that, in this particular case, even that step of obtaining top cover, as it was intended by the ombudsperson, would not be protected, because any and all emails, texts, reports and correspondence would be brought forward, redacted as they may be.

As I said earlier, the aggregate effect of that exercise could be—and with high risk levels may be—to ultimately lead to the identity of the victim and complainant being exposed, which is not at all what this committee should endorse or stand for.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Mr. Baker, you're next.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to go back to something I was speaking about a few moments ago in the context of the protection of people who have come forward with allegations. One of the things that I think are really important is that we avoid the substance of or the perception of political interference in any kind of process that is meant to be arm's length, whether that be the military justice system or in the case of investigations of allegations like the ones we've heard about.

That speaks a little to why the Privy Council Office is the body that is responsible for initiating investigations of GIC-appointed individuals like the Chief of the Defence Staff, like Mr. Vance. It's important to keep that in mind as we talk a lot about this issue and there are allegations of a cover-up. It's helpful to understand that when allegations are brought forward, there's a reason we have police, investigative bodies, ombudsmen and other bodies that have been created to help address this issue. They help to investigate but also to protect those coming forward with allegations. If you bring it to a political body, you risk politicization, and that speaks to why the Privy Council Office is, currently at least, responsible for investigating those allegations against Governor in Council appointees like General Vance.

In that same spirit, I think what's happening here in this committee on this motion is something similar. The politics are getting in the way of potentially protecting the people coming forward. They are certainly getting in the way of our doing what we're elected to do, which is to fix the problems in the system and to make it better. This motion is more about politics, and it's not so much about the substance. Not only that, but it poses a massive risk to people we need to protect.

I'd urge my colleagues to think about some of the testimony we've heard from the various folks who've come forward. I'd urge us to think about some of the reports that have been written by our former Supreme Court justice and others who have talked about how we need to address allegations, how they can be brought forward in a way that's safe for members of the forces, and what kind of support needs to be provided to them and to their families. We've heard from people who have brought forward allegations themselves and about how important it is that they and their families have support. We've heard about some of the resources that need to be provided to members of CAF, not just to counsel them through this process if they make an allegation, but to help ensure they are protected.

We've heard about a number of other issues as well, and suggestions as to how we can make the system work better. We've talked about culture; my colleague Mr. Bagnell raises that regularly. We heard, I think it was two meetings ago, from a number of witnesses who spoke about the role of culture, particularly in the Canadian Armed Forces, and how that's one of the driving factors of the problem we face today.

Let's do right by the people who are being impacted by this, and let's focus on solving the problem, instead of politicizing this issue. I urge my colleagues to focus on the matter at hand. Let's help those folks; let's fix this problem going forward. That's what we're elected to do. This motion, as I said, doesn't help us to do that, but it does pose great danger to members of the forces.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Madam Gallant, please.

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

Thank you for allowing me to interject during this filibuster.

When the military ombudsman came forward with the allegations, he did so in the greatest of.... He held the confidence of the victims. He did not provide anything to the minister, because the minister pushed it away and didn't want to see it. He kept his confidence as well when the Privy Council officers interrogated him the next day.

It perplexes me as to why the Liberal members of this committee think the names of these victims are being bandied about amongst members of the public service and the Prime Minister's Office and his department. As far as we know, Mr. Walbourne kept the names of the victims confidential, which would lead us to another question if we don't get these documents as requested.

Thank you.