On a point of order....
Evidence of meeting #25 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 recommendations.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #25 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 recommendations.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
We get the little bit of humour. That's fine, but it's not a point of order.
Go ahead, Madam Vandenbeld. Are you almost done?
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
What I will do, though, is stop at a certain point so that other members can speak. Then I'd like to carry on afterwards with some of the others, because, Madam Chair, we've had so many hours of testimony that there are many recommendations.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
On a point of order, Madam Chair, just to clarify, are we still debating Mr. Bezan's motion?
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
I think I have been very clear that Mr. Bezan's motion would suggest that, after the recommendations are in, we still need to hear witnesses.
I am providing evidence that we've heard enough witnesses because I am providing what evidence those witnesses have brought and, frankly, showing that we have had enough recommendations and that we don't need to hear from more witnesses. It's directly related to the motion.
If I may, Madam Chair, I am only on number five, and I have many more, so I'd really like to continue.
Number five—before I was so rudely interrupted—is probably one of the most important ones. It is that we recommend relieving the obligation to report, which places a problematic strain on victims and survivors, and instead reaffirm a survivor's right to control the reporting process.
This obligation to report is something that we've heard from many witnesses is very problematic. We know that when we put forward different proposals—and we've put forward different solutions, like Operation Honour—there can sometimes be unintended consequences. These processes were put in place with good intent, and the obligation to report was to solve a problem that existed, which was that many times people looked the other way. They may have seen something happening, but they didn't report it. Sometimes the person impacted has to have the right to be able to decide if it gets reported.
What this did was force people to report on something that happened to a third person. As a result, that third person lost their control and their power over the process. I think that this duty to report should actually be a duty to respond. I think we heard that from the acting chief of the defence staff himself, that the duty to report needs to be looked at, needs to be changed, and that there needs to be at least a duty to respond, or something like that.
Number six is a recommendation to establish victims' agency by adapting the duty to report principles and introducing new, independent reporting mechanisms for survivors. This is really important because the new reporting mechanisms mean that when somebody goes through something.... It's very rare that they immediately want to.... Some people will decide, but not everyone will say, “I want to go to the police. I want an investigation, and my objective is to make sure that the person is punished.”
That's not always the first thing that a person goes through. Sometimes the first thing they need might be counselling. The first thing they need might be just to be walked through what the options are so that they can envision for themselves what they can do and what the consequences of different mechanisms and different avenues are, and find out what's available to them.
Often what they need is peer support, and I can assure you that the message women have delivered, the message of It's Just 700 and others who have talked to us about peer support and the need to provide that kind of service, has been heard.
Sometimes, yes, they do want a police investigation, and they want the person to be held accountable, so we need different avenues that people can enter into at different times, and when they choose to. Somebody might start with counselling and then become strong enough that they want to report, so that's a very important recommendation.
Number seven is a recommendation to take stock of all existing sexual misconduct reports and assess the timelines, compassion and effectiveness of the report's lifespan. Again, we don't have to reinvent the wheel. There are so many reports. There are so many things that.... We know what needs to be done, so I think what we need to do is recommend, as a committee and as we've heard, that we review all of the reports that have already been done, so that we can look at whether or not they're still relevant.
Number eight recommends reiterating the primacy of re-establishing survivors' trust and confidence in the system. Frankly, Madam Chair, I think that as hard as it is right now, women are courageously coming forward, some of them very publicly. As hard as it is for the Canadian Armed Forces to be seeing senior leaders under various allegations, I think there is a very important thing here, which is holding people accountable.
Once people see that, no matter what your rank is, if you do something wrong you will be held accountable, once people start to see that happen, that's when we'll really see the change. That's when we'll really see people feel that if they come forward, it's going to make a difference.
I have heard people say, “I don't want to come forward because, you know what, nothing is going to happen anyway. Nobody is going to be held accountable.” Putting systems in place that allow for that kind of trust is going to be vitally important.
Number nine recommends establishing professional, trained, investigative bodies to examine allegations of sexual misconduct where the corroboration of witnesses is not available.
This goes to what we were saying earlier about the investigations and making sure that the investigative process is fulsome. That was one of the key things in this study. What happens if it's one person versus another? We need to make sure that we have the ability to investigate with trained investigators when you can't have other witnesses, for instance, when there is no one else there to witness it.
Number 10 recommends analyzing the design principles of sexual violence reporting systems, including the discretion given to examining bodies as to whether they shall or may conduct investigations once a report has been received.
I'm not saying, Madam Chair, that these are things that we have to do. I'm saying that these are recommendations that came through this study. Obviously, we've had so many of them that I don't think we need more witnesses.
Number 11 recommends addressing survivors' lack of confidence in the sexual misconduct reporting system. This is very similar to the one I mentioned earlier, and it is about building trust so that the survivors and those impacted feel that they can trust the system again.
Number 12 recommends addressing and rectifying a key issue in the reporting process, which is lack of information on the reporting process or how to proceed with a sexual misconduct complaint.
Actually, we heard from the minister when he was here and I asked him a question about this. He said that, in fact, there is now a website where it is centralized—the deputy minister provided, actually, the beta version of that website to this committee so that we could look at it—that will say exactly what the available resources are, exactly what the system is and what the process is. Before somebody wants to start an investigation, it is very helpful if they actually know what the different steps are in the process and what to expect at each one of those steps. That, I think, is one of the key things that we have heard from the witnesses, and it is something we are already working on.
Then, Madam Chair, I think I was on number 13. I may have skipped number 12. Number 13 is a recommendation to consolidate reporting structure process information and to make such information public and easily available for access by survivors of sexual misconduct.
Madam Chair, I think I am going to leave it there for now because I see that there are other members with their hands up. I think that some of those members might have some points as well about some of the recommendations we've been hearing, so I'll let them speak on this as well.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
Thank you very much, Madam Vandenbeld.
Next will be Mr. Spengemann and then Madam Larouche.
Go ahead, Mr. Spengemann.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Madam Chair, thank you very much. I really appreciate the focus on the important work the committee is going to do through its report.
I made the point earlier that there are still other options available with respect to a potential invitation to Mr. Marques. We're not at a stage where, as a last resort, we are issuing a summons. I've expressed my reservations about the mechanism of issuing a summons given historical precedence.
With respect to these recommendations, they are now what the current context would basically be confined to given that we had a deadline today for the initial set of recommendations with respect to the draft report, and any additional witnesses we may or may not hear from would be heard through the lens of these recommendations. I think the recommendations really are what will draw the interest of the Canadian public and, in particular, serving, former and aspiring members of the Canadian Forces.
With my thanks to my colleague Ms. Vandenbeld, who has outlined an initial set of recommendations, I would like to build on that and talk about a group of recommendations aimed at bolstering existing services and support structures.
Again, the word “trust” came up a lot in testimony before the committee across our study. It is vitally important to restore trust in the Canadian Forces, and I believe this set of recommendations will do that. I look forward to hearing the views of colleagues on these recommendations as we take the discussion forward.
Recommendation 14 in this respect talks about adjusting, adapting and providing relevant structures and systems that adequately and accurately support sexual violence survivors. Systemic change is really what's front and centre here.
There was talk about culture and the fact that it takes time to change a culture, but there was also a very strong statement from the minister that the time for patience is over. We simply cannot have a project that will extend the subsequent victimization of women in the Canadian Forces or anybody serving in the Canadian Forces. The time for change is now, and this recommendation talks about the systemic change that is required within the Canadian Forces to restore trust, but also to make it an environment that is inclusive, safe and rewarding, as it should be.
Recommendation 15 talks about setting out to improve the experiences of sexual violence survivors who utilize the existing CAF sexual violence support structures, following a user experience satisfaction-style approach. These mechanisms are crucially important on the side of reporting accountability, taking disciplinary action and empowering women and all members of the Canadian Forces to come forward.
The other component of that is recommendations that colleagues and I will talk about later on, which are forward looking with respect to policy changes in the Canadian Forces aimed not at individual incidents but at changing the culture overall.
Recommendation 16 recommends the collection and analysis of sexual misconduct reporting data, facts and figures to enable better organizational understanding, response and accountability. Knowing what the problem is, as the committee has heard extensively over the course of its study, is step number one. Crystalizing that problem into datasets that can be acted upon at the policy level is very important. This recommendation speaks to that.
Recommendation 17 is about collating sexual violence data in a consistent way by establishing communications between the several existing sexual violence information collection databases and departments. Making sure this is done in an integral, reliable and trustworthy way is again very important with respect to the collection of data and and a cogent, responsive, efficient and quick response at the policy level.
Recommendation 18 recommends improvements to Operation Honour training by pulling data from Statistics Canada surveys to tailor and personalize content to those receiving the training. Training is one of the components of the forward-looking approach to addressing the problem—training with respect to people who enter the Canadian Forces but equally importantly, as the committee has heard, the fact that there are challenges with respect to senior ranks, as has been described by some witnesses as a generational problem. Really, it is training across the board within the Canadian Forces and also for civilian employees.
Recommendation 19 is about improvements in informal reporting processes and procedures for amicable situation resolutions at low organizational levels. Not everything ends up in the context of a criminal investigation. Culture change needs to be forward looking and integrated, but there are also processes to resolve things at lower levels, again within a constructive culture that is aimed at building and raising trust.
Recommendation 20 is about addressing Operation Honour's culmination through a transition to a deliberate plan that addresses existing identified shortfalls.
There's been much discussion about Operation Honour and its shortfalls. Acknowledging the problem, again, is important, but so is drilling into the details and following the minister's direction, making sure that we take action expeditiously and not let this linger over extensive periods of time. The time for change is now.
In the same vein, recommendation 21 is adjusting Operation Honour's frame of reference to address sexual misconduct in the long term as well as the short term.
Recommendation 22 is about bolstering existing medical supports for women, as well as increasing the spectrum of care provided, such as introducing bereavement leave for miscarriages. This is a comprehensive approach that looks at strengthening support for female members of the Canadian Forces along a number of different axes. Again, trust levels can erode at one front of the challenge, but they need to be acted upon across the system and across issues. Miscarriages and bereavement leave were raised by witnesses as important considerations in this respect.
Recommendation 23 is about proceeding to address this issue through all-party legislation, all-party amendments and the tabling of white papers. That is why this committee's report is so important, and that is why a cross-party discussion of these recommendations is so important. This is very much the crux, in addition to the cases involving the former chief of the defence staff. It's why it is so important for this committee to be engaged actively on these policy recommendations that really will change the culture. We're faced with both challenges. We need to move them forward in parallel.
I'm very appreciative of the attention the investigations have been given in our debate, including this afternoon. Equally important, as we now turn our attention to the report, are these recommendations and the expediency with which we have to approach them and put them forward, with a very open door from the Minister of National Defence.
Finally, recommendation 24 is about refraining from creating more independent bodies and enhancing bureaucracy. The witnesses have said that additional layers of oversight aren't necessarily the solution. Independence, in itself, is a very important consideration, as well as bureaucratic efficiency, data collection, policy response and ultimately accountability across all ranks of the Canadian Forces, irrespective of the gender by which that rank is being held.
Madam Chair, I will leave it there. I look forward to hearing comments from colleagues on these recommendations.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
4:35 p.m.
Bloc
Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
What I am seeing here right now is far from uplifting. Really, I have been holding back from speaking until now, because the motion introduced today should have been voted on long ago. Instead, we are seeing all kinds of attempts to avoid the vote. Really, this is not uplifting, given the importance of this cause to women in the Canadian Armed Forces. The message we want to send is that we are concerned about their situation.
Having more witnesses will not stop us from writing the report. Today, we are trying to come to a proposed compromise between what was decided by the committee on Monday, which was to set a date for us to finally table a report with concrete proposals, and the ability to go out and get additional information so that we don't botch the report.
I repeat: hearing from additional witnesses will not prevent us from writing the report. On the contrary, perhaps it will allow us to add to it. It's not true that we will be unable to include other recommendations. We will be able to start the work by building on what has already been said. We have a very tight schedule before the summer. That's why we can start drafting the report now, but that does not prevent us from continuing to hear witnesses. I have found a compromise between the report completion date and the appearance of a key witness, obviously Mr. Marques, whose appearance was decided on before the motion was introduced earlier this week. If we are to avoid botching the report, we need to hear this key testimony.
First, the motion doesn't say that we must stop having witnesses appear before this committee after 4 p.m. today. It seems to me that committees are sovereign. We have every right to ask for and receive a witness after 4 p.m. today, especially since we have been expecting him for six weeks and he still hasn't been heard by the committee.
Second, the committee wants to hear quickly from a witness who has not made himself available, I repeat, for this important study, although he has already been invited. I had simply asked the Liberals to assure me that they would not block this witness from coming. I have received no confirmation that they will not block this witness from appearing.
That's why I simply have not spoken until now. What I would have liked is for us to vote on the motion and agree on the way forward, to send an important message to women in the Canadian Armed Forces that we are willing to see this study through.
My goal today is not to prolong the process. We have a date. I even proposed an amendment to make sure that we stick to what the committee decided at the beginning of the week. I made sure of that. Hearing from a witness who was called before the motion was introduced is the least we can do.
The motion says: “that the committee complete its consideration of the draft report and adopt the report by no later than Friday, May 28, 2021”. That was the wording of the motion on Monday, which I repeated today. I have hammered home the message that it's important to submit the report, but never have we voted in committee to limit ourselves as to what happens next.
As I think about the women in the Canadian Armed Forces, I really don't find it uplifting to see what I am seeing today. We all could have voted much more quickly for the motion to hear this additional witness. It would have allowed us to hear the witnesses who were here today. We wasted time. Fortunately, the Standing Committee on the Status of Women has already heard from Ms. Patterson, but I would have very much liked to hear from her as well, along with the other witnesses who were here today. Instead, we weren't even able to agree on this motion calling for the appearance of a witness as important as Mr. Marques.
That's why I had not spoken until now. I think it's terrible that we could not agree on the motion, that we did not move to a vote earlier, and that we did not get to hear the witnesses today.
I will stop there for now.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
All right.
Thank you very much, Ms. Larouche.
We have Mr. Bagnell, please.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I agree with Ms. Larouche that it would be great to hear from Commander Patterson. I certainly had a number of questions for her.
As you know, there are several senior members under investigation. Those are independent investigations, and they will be taken care of. As the Library of Parliament said, though, there was a survey in 2018 of 55,300 active members, and more than 30,000 had experienced or witnessed inappropriate behaviour. Those are the ones we have to deal with, not the few.
Trust is important—that has been brought up—and I think that if we have a trust to get these changes made, it will be under a minister who has already made a number of changes to try to deal with this. Obviously, more needs to be done. We've heard it. I look forward to hearing from Ms. Vandenbeld later concerning more of those recommendations.
I don't think, however, that any of the serving members would be against the fact that we have to.... The main things we've heard of in these recommendations that we should be discussing are related to the independence of the processes; the role of the chain of command in the process; the culture change, which the witnesses have said will not be done all at once—there's a lot that needs to be done that we could be working on now—and the fear of reporting.
One thing I wanted to ask Commander Patterson is whether there's a reprisal in the code of service discipline related to providing a negative reaction to someone who's reporting, or whether there's an offence in the code of service discipline or the code of values and ethics.
There should certainly be disciplinary measures, when there are more than 30,000 people who are affected or aware. The reporting was only done the next year. Out of 30,000, there were only 84 reports of sexual assault, 34 of harassment and 80 of inappropriate behaviour. Obviously, then, there are things that are inhibiting the reporting. We've heard that from witnesses.
That's the recommendation. It's what we should be talking about at this time. That's what we should be getting on with quickly, so that we can get these changes made while there's time.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I am grateful for my colleague Mr. Bagnell's comments, which I echo. I would like to continue in the vein of the previous intervention by Ms. Vandenbeld and add a few more recommendations for the consideration of my colleagues. I would be grateful if we could have an exchange on these recommendations.
This is the context now, in the sense that they are the recommendations we've heard from witnesses. We leave open the question of whether additional witnesses, within the time frame that the committee has now decided, will or will not appear, and repeat the point that we still have options with respect to Elder Marques before considering a summons.
I would like to shift gears briefly to the issue of culture change. We've heard a lot about culture change from some witnesses, who have given this a lot of thought over the course of the committee's study. They are recommendations that I think the committee should consider very seriously with respect to doing the heavy lifting of what's required to change the culture within the Canadian Forces.
The numbered recommendations now take us to 25, which is a recommendation on the appointment of non-CAF members to conduct inquiries into sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces and make recommendations. We've heard a lot about the internal culture, about the chain of command and the command culture that's present. We've had a lot of discussion on hypermasculinity and part of the major problem being the command, especially the command of senior members of the Canadian Forces. The recommendation is for non-CAF members to conduct inquiries and to make recommendations.
Recommendation 26 is approaching the issue of behavioural change in the Canadian Forces with a top-to-bottom approach: examining individuals, culture, values and attitudes. Culture, in this context, is not something that's independent of human beings. It's the aggregate behaviour, and in the case of our study the aggregate bad behaviour or blameworthy behaviour, and in many cases harmful behaviour is not removed from the actions of individual human beings. This recommendation talks about being inclusive of individuals, cultural values and attitudes.
Recommendation 27 is approaching the issue of behavioural change in the Canadian Forces with a beginning-to-end approach: examining new Canadian Forces members, indoctrination, course-of-career events, leadership development, incentives and career advancement. We may add to that list even prerecruitment conversations with respect to young women and young men who aspire to become serving members of the Canadian Forces. The Canadian Armed Forces remains a very interesting and, in many respects, attractive option for employment. We want to make sure that it is inclusive and that, reflexively, there are no barriers to consideration by Canadians who wish to serve in uniform.
Recommendation 28 is setting a goal of consistent, timely, compassionate and effective sexual misconduct resolution in the Canadian Forces in order to achieve culture change. There are two components: One is to eradicate still-lingering culture, or misconduct or condoned conduct. The other is to proactively prevent things from happening, at a policy level, so that in time—hopefully in a short frame of time—right through the ranks, there will be no cases because there's no misconduct, not because there's a fear of reporting.
Recommendation 29 is about the failure of Operation Honour to link sexual misconduct and military culture, notably the lack of reference to the role of gender and masculinity in the Canadian Forces. There was a lot of discussion about culture. There was a lot of discussion about about good elements of culture: the culture of service, of discipline, of looking out for one's peers within the Canadian Forces and leaving nobody behind, whether it's on the battlefield or in the halls of defence headquarters. However, there was also discussion about the bad elements, the harmful elements that need to change.
Recommendation 30 is about the unstated, but institutionally assumed white heterosexual male norm culture in the Canadian Forces. This was heard about from witnesses. This is one of those recommendations that I would invite colleagues to discuss and to tackle head-on. That's what it's about. That's where the problems are. It's not necessarily easy to call that out, but witnesses have done it for us and put it into our laps for constructive engagement and formulation in the context of our report.
Recommendation 31 reflects on CAF's history of legally sanctioned sex and gender discrimination against members who do not align with preconceived norms. I think that speaks for itself.
Recommendation 32 is addressing the generalized lack of expertise on sexual misconduct, culture change or gender issues in the CAF. Again, this could be one of those negative feedback loops or reinforcement loops, because when there is no expertise within the system, the system perpetuates itself in a negative sense. This might be one recommendation where colleagues could potentially zoom in and reach an agreement across party lines on very effective and timely change.
Finally, Madam Chair, recommendation 33 is acknowledging that the Canadian Armed Forces' current approach of self-monitoring is too reactive, inconsistent, linear and simplistic to be effective and successful against the complex problem of sexual violence. This is a powerful recommendation that's really zoomed in on some of the very precise reasons for which change has not happened, even after a substantial amount of attention has been directed to the problem from current and former members.
Madam Chair, I'll leave it there.
Again, I look forward to hearing comments and reflections on these recommendations. I'm very happy to have them on the record this afternoon for consideration by the committee, but also to assure Canadians that we are taking this issue seriously. This report will contain recommendations to the Government of Canada to achieve change within the Canadian Forces.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
Thank you very much, Mr. Spengemann.
Mr. Robillard, you have the floor.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Yves Robillard Liberal Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I think we need to respect the victims' wishes. Indeed, if this committee can't find the time to produce a report on this important subject, it seems to me that we won't be able to find solutions to this problem within the Canadian Armed Forces.
We also need to think of today's witnesses. Once before, last Monday, we could not give them the time they deserved. Despite that, they made the effort to come back today. It seems to me that we could at very least have had the courtesy to hear them and therefore make use of their experiences in connection with this important subject.
Again, I feel we need to focus on the victims and the members of the Canadian Armed Forces, because they should be our priority at this time.
Now I would like to continue in the same vein as my colleagues. Since the committee was not willing to hear from the women's champions, I will attempt to echo their words.
Rear Admiral Rebecca Patterson and Major General Jennie Carignan presented recommendations and raised important points, from which our committee could have greatly benefited. But it chose to go in a different direction instead.
I will summarize Brigadier-General Lise Bourgon's presentation to the Standing Committee on the Status of Women yesterday.
She began her military career over 33 years ago as a cadet at the Royal Military College Saint-Jean. Since then, as an officer and helicopter pilot in the Royal Canadian Air Force, she has seen the many obstacles to women in the Royal Canadian Air Force. Nevertheless, she believes in the importance of the Canadian Armed Forces, its missions, and the institution's ability to learn and adapt.
When she joined in the late 1990s, women had to change to enter the all-male environment. As one of the first women on a Royal Canadian Navy ship, she had to force her way in. She was even thrown off a ship because she was a woman.
Attitudes are slowly changing and women are taking their rightful place. They have demonstrated that they have the skills and can make a contribution. Once, women were barely tolerated; now that the Canadian Armed Forces have evolved, they are accepted and welcomed.
Much progress has certainly been made over the past 35 years and many barriers have come down, but many challenges still lie ahead. To this day, sexual misconduct remains an issue for women and men in the Canadian Armed Forces. Any form of sexual misconduct within the ranks is unacceptable.
I will stop there for now and turn the floor over to other members of the committee.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
Thank you very much, Mr. Robillard.
Madam Vandenbeld, you're next. Go ahead.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
As I'm continuing through these recommendations, I'd also like to add some other things we have heard, including something very important that we heard in the status of women committee, and I think it behooves us to put it on the record here.
Military sexual trauma as an occupational stress injury is something that is very important, but we have to define “military sexual trauma”. We heard witnesses say that it's not currently defined. Once it's defined, it means they can get the supports they need. For instance, PTSD that comes from sexual trauma is different from PTSD that comes from combat trauma. We heard a witness say that when she went for support in a peer-support group. She was there to talk about her sexual trauma with nine men who had combat trauma. That can't happen. There needs to be very specific supports, particularly for military sexual trauma, so it's a matter of making that an occupational stress injury but also providing MST-specific group therapy treatments, outpatient programs and in-patient psychiatric care when that is needed. What we need is trauma-informed care.
The second thing is rape as a war crime. This is very important, because we use don't use the term right. We don't use the term “assault”. We don't say “violence”. If we say “misconduct”, that actually whitewashes some of the things we're talking about, and rape is a war crime. Ever since the Yugoslavia tribunal, we know that rape is a war crime. If you're raped in the military, I think that it's very important that it be treated very seriously. Frankly there should be standardized rape kits on all international operations. My understanding is that there are different rape kits, and they don't always hold up in different courts of law and different jurisdictions.
We also need to re-evaluate the code of ethics and values and the oath of service. There are a number of other things that we're hearing, and I'll continue with some of those recommendations.
I'm going to continue where Mr. Spengemann left off, on culture change in the Canadian Armed Forces.
One of the other recommendations we've heard is about addressing the use of sexually and racially coded language that supports and accentuates social hierarchies in the Canadian Armed Forces. We heard this from Professor Okros, who gave us some very tangible examples of how people learn power structures—who is the most important, who is the least important—and how that language is used. There are ways in which these things are indicated, and they really need to end. Finding ways to make sure we identify and call out this kind of coded language is going to be very important.
Number 35 recommends updating “The Path to Dignity and Respect” to identify and reflect factors that increase the risk of workplace harassment. If I may, “The Path to Dignity and Respect” was brought forward some months ago because we understood that Operation Honour and the processes in place could not function if we didn't have culture change. This is an evergreen document that has been brought forward, but I have heard from some survivors and advocates that it doesn't go far enough and it isn't necessarily in the form that we need it to be in to really address these concerns.
We're getting recommendations that, I think, will really assist in that sense, but we need to make sure that “The Path to Dignity and Respect” is evergreen and that we are constantly evolving with it. One of the problems with Operation Honour was that it had a finite period. This is not something you can say you will go on an operation for and then it will be finished. It doesn't end. “The Path to Dignity and Respect” is something that really allows for continuous work on culture change. I also think that when we look at culture, we have to look at culture as a system, because system changes will lead to culture changes. If you build it, they will come. That's very important.
Number 36 recommends addressing social factors that inhibit sexual violence reporting and challenging central tenets of the CAF, such as obedience to authority, normative conformity and group loyalty. We did hear from a number of witnesses that the culture of CAF is very important.
I think we need to make it clear. We are not attacking the culture of the military, of the Canadian Armed Forces, in the areas where there are very good aspects. There are aspects that really build team. They build loyalty. They build a sense of service. These things are very important, but we did hear from the professor that this also creates normative conformity—in other words, the thing that causes what you probably would hear in the term “brotherhood”.
The very fact that we call it “brotherhood” suggests that it is within the normative, so it's making sure that we keep the good parts of the culture—of honour, of respect—and that when we're doing the culture change we get rid of the things that sometimes people are blind to and don't even realize they are doing, because they are part of that normative culture and don't even realize that it is excluding others. I think that was, in fact, the testimony from Professor Okros, which was probably some of the most important testimony that we had.
In number 37, we're recommending providing clarity in Operation Honour on which aspects of Canadian Forces culture must change and which are allowed to remain the same. I'd like to clarify this one a bit and say that I think we know that the acting chief of the defence staff has said that Operation Honour “has culminated” and that we need to look at what comes next.
At the same time, there were good things. We need to identify what were the good aspects, continue those and not throw out the baby with the bathwater, making sure that we are identifying those things but also realizing and really assessing why it didn't work. What was it—with all the good intentions—and why is it that Operation Honour did not achieve the results that we wanted it to achieve?
It's only in reflecting on that and reflecting on the failures that we're able to look forward and say, “Here are the things we need to do in order to make it better, and you know what? We will put forward other programs, other institutional changes and process changes, and then we'll probably at some point realize that some of those aren't working. It has to continuously evolve, and we have to be self-reflective all the time and listen to the people who are speaking out, who are impacted by this.
The next thing would be number 38, which is re-engaging military leaders with the Deschamps report. We have heard the Deschamps report. We all know that these answers are there, that the solutions are there. There were many things put in place as a result of the Deschamps report, but I really think that we need to re-engage and make sure that we, at the highest levels, really implement those things, but also, are not frozen in time. I mean, we have learned a lot through this very committee study, which is exactly why it is so important that we get these recommendations, so that we can get the report and so we can table it in the House and make sure that we are in a position to provide these recommendations to government.
Number 39 is about examining how sexual misconduct interacts with consent in asymmetric professional relations. We've heard a lot about chain of command, about the hierarchy. We've heard a lot about how hard it is if you want to report that the person who perpetrated the aggression is a superior. That's something you see everywhere, but it is amplified in the Canadian Armed Forces because of the chain of command, because it's such a hierarchical structure that it becomes very difficult to talk about consent when you have this very hierarchical obedience to authority. I mean, how do you consent when you are junior to somebody who then...? We heard some of the witnesses say that when they decide when you can shower, when they can decide on minute things in your life, it is really hard, then, to even say that consent can exist in that environment.
I would continue, then, with number 41, which is emphasizing that non-reporting does not entail providing consent to sexual misconduct, a sexually unwanted interaction or a sexually asymmetric relationship. I think what the witness was trying to say in this was that just because you don't complain does not mean you are consenting. Just because you don't go to an authority and say, “My superior officer has done this and this and this,” does not mean that you're okay with it. I think that needs to be very well understood.
Number 42 is recommending through “The Path to Dignity and Respect”, that the CAF clarify, redefine and describe the problem at hand, which is sexual misconduct and how it ties to culture and climate within the Canadian Armed Forces.
Number 43 recommends encouraging representation and participation at all levels, both civilian and military, to give women in leadership positions place and visibility. I think we sometimes forget that this impacts the civilian employees of the Department of National Defence and those who work alongside our women and men in uniform. It's very important that everybody be included in this discussion.
Number 44 recommends addressing the need to change the CAF incentive structure so that abuses of power are not “explained away” or “covered up” by CAF members.
I'll reiterate something that I said yesterday in the status of women committee with regard to the concept of “the good soldier”. You can imagine that people say, “Well, you know, he might be a womanizer, but he's a good soldier” or “a good aviator” or “a good sailor”. Well, you can't be. You can't be a good soldier and be doing these kinds of behaviours. It is exclusive. You cannot be both things.
What this recommendation is getting to is that, when you are doing incentives and rewards and performance evaluations, what is considered relevant and what is not? Someone might say, “Well, you know, that's their personal life; that's not relative to whether they should be promoted.” How you lead and you interact with people—the characteristics and your own character—are not things to be seen as peripheral. These are things that have to be seen as core, particularly when you are advancing through the ranks into leadership positions. This idea that something is considered to be, in the way it says here, just sort of “explained away” has to stop.
Number 45—and I'll end it at this one—is to examine the CAF promotional structure and review career advancement incentive structures in order to create a more supportive environment. Frankly, we have been hearing that in the performance evaluations, there needs to be, as I said, this way of evaluating that is going to be inclusive of this, so that people who perpetrate these things don't get promoted up the ranks. That way you don't end up in the situation we are in now.
Madam Chair, I have more, but I'll leave it there, because I see some other hands up and I want to make sure other committee members have a chance to speak.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
Thank you very much.
Next is Mr. Bagnell, followed by Mr. Spengemann.
Go ahead, Mr. Bagnell.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
I know a number of the recommendations are related to better support for the victims, and certainly that support has to be outside the chain of command. How would anyone feel about reporting inside the chain of command? You would obviously be very hesitant. It adds to my earlier point that it should be a serious offence to have any repercussions from reporting.
More important than support for the victims, for me, is that we shouldn't have victims. We should really take the recommendations seriously to reduce or eliminate the number of victims from, as I said earlier, the 30,000 people who were either aware or actually were victims. That wasn't in their lifetime or in their service in the military, that was in a 12-month period. It's absolutely shocking, and a reason all efforts should be made to make sure that we make changes.
There are suggestions that the evidence from the witness we're talking about is important, but that's a bit of prejudging, because we don't know what the person is going to say. We have had a number of witnesses say there was not enough evidence to proceed with an investigation or the willingness of the person involved. Any independent investigative body needs sufficient evidence, sufficient information, to undertake an investigation. If it wasn't there, I'm not sure what more evidence could be provided.
The last thing is related to recommendations. Obviously, and I don't think anyone refutes this fact, in recent years the government has made a lot of very important changes, including the directive DAOD 9005-1. The problem is that sometimes we can make recommendations and they don't work. I'm sure in the process somewhere along the way there were recommendations related to training, yet I heard input from a member that people took it as a joke and there were no repercussions for not taking it seriously.
The recommendation was followed, but obviously it didn't work. It didn't have the desired effect. I'm hoping there are recommendations on how to make sure the recommendations are taken seriously and that the previous recommendations, which may have been good, are followed up on.
There is a famous saying about complex problems that for every complex problem there's a simple solution, and it's wrong. Obviously, it's going to be complex. I think one of the complexities is to figure out why recommendations and processes that are already in place, which in theory are the right thing to do, are not having the desired effect. We have some very thoughtful people from all parties on the committee, and hopefully they will go into depth on that very intellectual point about how things that are recommended, that are there and are right and are even in place, are not working. I look forward to that part of the report.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
Thank you, Mr. Bagnell.
Mr. Spengemann, I hope you don't mind, but I think we'll suspend now for a few minutes for a health break.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
We're reconvening.
Right now on the speaking list, I have Mr. Spengemann, Mr. Baker and then Ms. Vandenbeld.
Go ahead, Mr. Spengemann.