Evidence of meeting #23 for National Defence in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was investigation.
A video is available from Parliament.
1:50 p.m.
Liberal
1:50 p.m.
Liberal
Harjit S. Sajjan Liberal Vancouver South, BC
I take responsibility for the work that we need to do and I take it very seriously, Madam Chair. I made sure that we put in place the right resources when we did and that we changed policies. We have made the progress that we have made, even though right now it is not the progress that we all need and want and that our members deserve. We have a lot more work to do.
1:50 p.m.
Liberal
Harjit S. Sajjan Liberal Vancouver South, BC
I'll be honest with you.
Yes, I take responsibility for the work that's going on in the Canadian Armed Forces. More importantly, this is one of the reasons why we work harder.
1:50 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
Mr. Minister, you talk about trying to take action. Gary Walbourne, the former military ombudsman, was in the media again last week talking about the failure to clear the runway so the complainant could come forward. She withdrew her complaint because you failed to provide a situation in which she could actually come forward without interference from the chain of command.
Do you regret not taking further action to ensure that the complainant's allegations were brought forward in a process that was free and clear of interference by the chief of the defence staff?
1:50 p.m.
Liberal
Harjit S. Sajjan Liberal Vancouver South, BC
Madam Chair, that's exactly what we did. We made sure there was a clear, free and independent process in place.
1:55 p.m.
Conservative
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
Harjit S. Sajjan Liberal Vancouver South, BC
This is exactly what we wanted. Our public officials are independent.
1:55 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
They do inform the Prime Minister. They do inform the cabinet, so they are providing direction to you and to the Prime Minister.
Do you regret that you and the Prime Minister never took further action, especially in light of the fact that General Vance stayed in the position for three more years and you delivered a glowing speech about General Vance at the change of command in January of this year?
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
Harjit S. Sajjan Liberal Vancouver South, BC
Madam Chair, I make my decisions based on the information that I know.
1:55 p.m.
Conservative
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
Harjit S. Sajjan Liberal Vancouver South, BC
Madam Chair, the member was the parliamentary secretary of defence in 2015, at which time there was actually an investigation.
My point is that we could go down this path of what we do. I've explained many times exactly the process that we followed. I've also stated that, yes, I am responsible, and I am going to continue to be responsible and to take greater action towards looking after our people.
Do you know what, Madam Chair? Our government has taken this seriously. We've put the resources where they needed; we've made the policy changes where necessary, and more importantly, we're willing to do more, and we will do more.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
Thank you very much.
We'll move to Mr. Spengemann.
Go ahead, please.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Madam Chair, thank you very much.
Minister, I'd like to give you a chance to clear up what I see as a repeated misconstruction on the part of not just one but multiple opposition parties. That is that there was somehow a substantiated claim, in the course of which no investigation ensued. Even the former ombudsperson, Mr. Walbourne, called the allegations not actionable.
Minister, I want to take you back to the nature of these allegations and clarify for the record your perception of them and their status in terms of actionability, and how important it is that the rights of a complainant are fully and very sensitively respected.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
Harjit S. Sajjan Liberal Vancouver South, BC
Madam Chair, we want everybody who has a complaint to be able to come forward so that we can take the appropriate action and so when somebody does come forward we immediately take action that can have a just outcome.
In this case, sadly, the person did not come forward with the information. We're not here to judge why that did or did not happen. What we're here to do is to provide a proper process so that when somebody does come forward we create every opportunity.
What we want to do so that no one fears reprisals for coming forward is to empower them so that they can come forward. If they do come forward, they will be heard and listened to and supported and given the appropriate advice as to what needs to be done. That's exactly what our focus is.
Right now, even though we've had systems in place for this, we know they're not enough. We are going to be looking at bringing a lot of these systems together so there's only one place for somebody to call, regardless of what the misconduct is.
We need to dig deeper into the independence that all of you have been talking about, to get that right. We want to make sure that when it comes to the independence, people are confident that if they come forward, action will be taken. In this case, Madam Chair, we did take action. Obviously, we wish there had been a different outcome, but in this case we have to protect the process, because ultimately if we somehow inadvertently mess with the independent process, we will undermine a just outcome in our society.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Minister, thank you very much for that.
In the remaining time, I want to take you back one more time.
You've spoken extensively about possible options we have for going forward. In addition to looking at the cases of complaints before us, it is really the fundamental challenge of this committee to take the Canadian Forces in a different direction.
Just a few minutes ago you had an exchange with my colleague Mr. Robillard.
What would be the one thing that you would want to change more quickly than perhaps other priorities within that same vein, to really initiate a culture change with depth and direction?
Is there one priority that you would give to the committee for further consideration, potentially, to make some recommendations on?
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
Harjit S. Sajjan Liberal Vancouver South, BC
Actually, it won't be one thing, because we have to look at how people who have allegations are not feeling comfortable to come forward. We need to make sure we give them the confidence, so the immediate piece that we have to react to has to be done well. What systems can we have so that people who have a complaint to be made can come forward without reprisals? We're working on that and would love to hear your recommendations.
The other aspect that is equally important and goes to the longer-term prevention is a culture change. How do we create the inclusive environment, regardless? It might be that you have an environment free from harassment, and if there is a complaint, there is an independent process to be able to give confidence to people that they will be heard and action can be taken.
Ultimately, what I would like to be able to see out of this, Madam Chair, is that when somebody signs on the dotted line to give the unlimited liability—you have done that, members of the committee have done that and I've done that, literally saying that I'm willing to put my life on the line—that they have the opportunity to get everything they need to have an inclusive environment so that they can add value to the Canadian Armed Forces.
These members who have left...and how many have left is what the really concerning thing is out of this. We have lost out as an organization. I have seen the impact of women in combat arms. I've had conversations with many military members who come up and say, hey, what do you think about women in combat? I say, I'm sorry; we had that conversation a long time ago. Look at Afghanistan.
The most recent person who received the Captain Nichola Goddard award.... I served with her in 2006. She was part of the section I served with...Liz. How many times did I witness her and her bravery literally saving our lives? When you see that, and you look.... We talk about toxic masculinity, but it's not your muscle that gets you there, it's how big your heart is. Are you willing to put your life on the line? So everybody did that.
2 p.m.
Liberal
Harjit S. Sajjan Liberal Vancouver South, BC
That's what we need to create.
I'm sorry. I get passionate about that, Madam Chair.
Thank you.
2 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
Thank you.
I'd like to give our thanks, on behalf of the entire committee, to all the witnesses for the testimony you offered today. It has greatly informed our study further.
With that, we are going to suspend for 30 minutes to change out the panels and give everyone a break.
Thank you once again. It was much appreciated.
We will suspend.
2:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
Good afternoon and welcome, everyone.
For those who are just joining us now for the second half of this committee meeting today, I'm calling this meeting back to order.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motions adopted by the committee on Tuesday, February 9, Friday, March 12, and Monday, March 22, the committee is resuming its study of addressing sexual misconduct issues in the Canadian Armed Forces, including the allegations against former chief of the defence staff Jonathan Vance.
With us today by video conference for the next two hours, as an individual, we have Mr. Michael Wernick, former Clerk of the Privy Council and secretary to cabinet. We also have Mr. Gregory Lick, ombudsman for National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces ombudsman.
Up to six minutes will be given for opening remarks. I gather Mr. Lick is giving opening remarks but Mr. Wernick is not. We can move on now.
Mr. Lick, I would invite you to take the floor and make your opening remarks. Thank you.
April 6th, 2021 / 2:30 p.m.
Gregory Lick Ombudsman, Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces
Good afternoon, Madam Chair.
This is my first appearance before this committee on the issue of sexual misconduct in the military, and it follows my appearance of March 25 before the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. I'm here with Robyn Hynes, director general of operations, from my office.
As ombudsman, part of my role is to be a neutral and objective sounding board, a mediator, an investigator and a reporter on matters related to the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces. In keeping with that role, I will make the observation that we are watching the issue of sexual misconduct in the military unfold in the media and in committee testimony with more concern over political and institutional posturing than with fixing the problem, yet the issue continues to play out in the real lives of survivors and witnesses, who find themselves falling through the cracks of a broken system and are fearful of coming forward because of a possible reprisal or career-ending move.
This issue has played out so far with conflicting and sometimes incorrect information. Testimony has changed about who knew what when, who had authority to act, what should have been done and who is accountable. I say “enough”: enough of the self-protectionism and the deflecting and enough political foot-dragging. It is time to focus our collective energy on changing culture and establishing processes that will truly serve the individuals who find themselves the subject of misconduct, whether of a sexual nature or any other abuse of power.
I've previously clarified the role of my office, but let me do so again. The ombudsman cannot look into anything of a criminal nature or that could be a code of service discipline offence. If in the course of dealing with a matter there is evidence of criminal activity, then, with the consent of the constituent, the matter is referred to the provost marshal—not to PCO, not to the JAG, nor to any other body, as has been suggested in previous testimony.
The ombudsman reports directly to the Minister of National Defence. Advising the person to whom you report about problems within that person's organization is generally an expected way of proceeding. In the case brought to the attention of the minister, there was no investigation because the constituent had not consented to one. The office of the ombudsman will not proceed with an investigation without the express consent of the complainant.
I've heard through various sources that there are ongoing discussions within the Canadian Armed Forces and the department regarding reconfiguration of their system to address this matter. I am not involved in these discussions and cannot be, as it would be a conflict of interest to help design processes and then be in a position to review those same processes later. However, I applaud any and all efforts to address this matter, particularly any effort to tackle the enormous task of culture change. Culture change must include assurances that individuals who come forward to call out misconduct or abuse of power in any context, whether sexual, racist or otherwise discriminatory in nature, will not suffer reprisal or career repercussions.
However, I caution that redesigning processes internal to the CAF and the department will not be enough. There must be an organization that is external to the chain of command and the department and is charged with oversight of both CAF and National Defence redress mechanisms. That organization cannot answer to any authority with a vested interest in the outcome of any individual or systemic case.
I've clarified what my office cannot do. Now let me tell me what we will continue to do.
We listen and provide constituents with information that is relevant to their issue. Where appropriate, we refer them to existing support services and/or existing redress mechanisms. Our goal is to help constituents navigate a complex system in order to find support and the most appropriate recourse in their circumstances.
We also have a role in mediating communication breakdowns in a process that is already under way. Where a constituent feels that they have been unfairly treated in a process, we may review the steps in that process to ensure that fairness has been observed and make recommendations to the decision-maker to revisit their decision. My office can intervene in compelling circumstances where access to an existing redress mechanism would cause undo hardship or otherwise harm the interests of the constituent.
In addition to acting as a source of general assistance, mediation and process review, we also have the authority to investigate issues of a systemic nature. Our investigations are evidence-based and result in recommendations aimed at improving the welfare of the defence community.
In recent years, internal mechanisms have been set up within the department and the chain of command that duplicated functions performed by my office. As our mandate requires us to refer constituents to existing mechanisms, this has had the effect of gradually replacing independent functions with internal ones. While there is value to these initiatives, they are not truly independent.
An external body that has the authority to ensure fairness and confidentiality and protect against reprisals is needed. If there is genuine political will for a body that is external to the chain of command in the department, then I say look no further. It would take relatively little retooling for my office to expand its support services to the defence community in order to provide counselling services, provide additional statistical reporting on issues brought forward without the requirement to report on individual cases, and strengthen our existing capacity to ensure all constituents are treated fairly and that our recommendations are implemented by reporting to Parliament without a political filter.
The Canadian Forces are unlike any federal department or agency. Matters affecting the CAF affect national security and impact every member of Parliament, riding and citizen of this country. It is crucial that Parliament be provided with the information needed to ensure that cabinet takes appropriate action in addressing matters that could bring the military institution into disrepute and even affect recruiting and retention.
The office of the ombudsman was created more than 23 years ago to be an independent and neutral investigator of issues brought by members of the defence community who have exhausted existing avenues of redress within the system. This office acts as a safety net where existing internal systems fail. We are part of the solution, not the whole solution. What this office requires, if we are to continue being part of the legislation, is legislation and a permanent existence. Right now, this office exists because of a ministerial directive and a departmental directive signed by the chief of the defence staff and the deputy minister. Our existence could be ended with the removal or change of any one of those instruments.
Other countries such as the United Kingdom, Australia and Germany have set up their military oversight bodies with full independence, legislated mandates and the ability to report to parliament. It could be done in Canada if the political will exists. So far, this has not been the case.
Finally, we are at a crossroads now. I believe that it starts with culture change supported by strong redress mechanisms inside the CAF and the department, with a fully independent and external oversight body to ensure that victims of any type of misconduct or unfairness do not fall through the cracks.
Thank you, Madam Chair.