National Defence Committee on April 16th, 2021

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

Madam Chair, thank you very much.

I think it was just before we took our health break that our colleague Mr. Bagnell made reference to the commitment of this committee to the issue. He made reference to the work that colleagues have done in the past and their capability as parliamentarians to really get behind this issue and make progress. We have members of the committee with whom I've had the privilege of serving in the 42nd Parliament. There are members of the committee who have served in uniform. There are members of the committee who have been in the field. There are members of the committee who have served at the executive level in the capacity of parliamentary secretary. There's a lot of passion, commitment and brain power within this group, and if we put that collectively behind the issues and recommendations, I think that we should be able to do some very important and constructive work.

My colleague Ms. Vandenbeld and I were in the process of outlining a number of recommendations that we've heard from witnesses. They're coming as a run-on set of recommendations grouped into some subcategories, but this is really the work, I think, that will help us solve the second issue that's before the committee in addition to the accountability and investigation of the conduct of the former chief of the defence staff: the issue of culture change and progress. As Mr. Garrison has said, we will not let up until this issue is solved, and I really appreciate that commitment.

Madam Chair, let me continue to outline a number of additional recommendations, and these fall under the category of new programs, training and focuses. One of the challenges with government is that when there's a problem, there's often a criticism that it's just easy to throw money at the problem and hope that it will go away.

When we talk about new programs and new training, that has to be looked at carefully to see if it adds value and how it adds value, instead of just replicating existing processes and perhaps not doing the work that needs to be done. Shifting the focus on the right formulation of the problem is equally important. That's where parliamentarians come in. That's why we invite witnesses. That's why we get the expert analyses that we get, including the reports from the Library of Parliament and other experts who have written to us and spoken to us.

With that, Madam Chair, there are a number of recommendations that I would like to put before the committee for consideration under that category of new programs and training and shifting the focus. We received a recommendation on the implementation of alternatives to reporting sexual violence that exist outside of the CAF chain of command, including through the sexual misconduct response centre. That's the recommendation that's been echoed in a number of respects because it is, in the views of many witnesses, the chain of command that is the issue. The ability to report misconduct, harassment, assaults and harmful behaviour outside of the chain of command is something that the committee should look at very seriously and develop recommendations on, in my submission.

We also heard about the importance of the development of a restorative engagement program that will provide opportunities for class members to share experiences of sexual misconduct with senior defence representatives and that will restore the relationship between class members and the Canadian Armed Forces. Again, it goes back to the fundamental issue of trust in the system, trust as an aspirant, a recruit, a junior member, an NCO, an officer, a senior officer or a senior NCO across gender and across ages and ranks.

Witnesses have said we should look at the practice of providing independent legal advice for victims. Madam Chair, this is a very important recommendation that goes back to the overall structure of supporting victims at a human level, at a personal level, but also at a process level with respect to procedures that the victims may or may not choose to follow, that they have the confidence to follow—those procedures available to them. Legal advice is one of those aspects—and that it be independent, that it not be legal advice provided by a Canadian Forces official but be outside of the structure.

There's a recommendation on the establishment of an independent oversight body to defend members' rights or support work-related concerns. That's a recommendation that taps into the broader issue of independence of oversight, and we can take it as such. In addition to that, there's a recommendation on implementing the recommendations of the external review authority, ERA, report of 2015 that we know as the Deschamps report by establishing the recommended long-term, independent, external oversight and accountability centre.

Perhaps one of the aspects to elaborate on briefly is the long-term nature of this, that this be a centre that is not there to temporarily fix a problem, but that it continues into the culture change phase of the transition to make sure that the negative aspects of the culture don't resurge, that there is predictability and certainty in the perception of victims and the practice of the Canadian Forces that will assure that those mechanisms are there in an assisting way and will be available to victims and to all members of the Canadian Forces as they are needed.

I'm going to group the last three into one bracket.

There is a recommendation on addressing the resentment of male Canadian Forces members who feel unfairly targeted by Operation Honour, as it then was, by refocusing training efforts away from the focus on the perpetrator and towards engaging with military culture, militarized masculinity, survivors' needs and bystander empowerment.

There is a recommendation that the Canadian Armed Forces host small interactive training sessions, led by authentic experts—as that witness formulated—on the prevention of sexual violence, using external experts to peer-review training materials.

There is a recommendation that the Canadian Forces host practice intervention scenarios to enable members to become effective, proactive, informed bystanders.

This last set of three recommendations, Madam Chair, goes to the importance of male allyship. This cannot and must not under any circumstances be seen as an issue that falls onto the shoulders of female Canadian Forces officers, past, present or aspirants. It is an issue that requires male allyship, in large part and the majority part, as does every other issue of gender equality.

Often there is a moral and an instrumental component to that. The moral component manifests and obviously needs little elaboration. It is wrong to condone this kind of behaviour and it is wrong to condone it as a bystander. It is a moral imperative that requires us to achieve change.

The instrumental component of that is that with change we have a better Canadian Forces. We have a healthier, more inclusive work environment. We have greater efficiencies in all the salutary aspects of Canadian Forces culture, be it training, discipline, camaraderie, excellence, reputation in the world. Not only is it the right thing to do, but through male allyship the Canadian Forces will be the better organization and a better place.

That's why it's so important, Madam Chair, that when we focus these recommendations on bystanders—and we've had military officers in uniform testify to us, and in a very courageous way—those male allies need to be supported organizationally. They need to be empowered and encouraged to continue to work in that direction.

We have some recommendations on the last three sets that have some granularity. They have some specificity to them that this committee of parliamentarians can put itself behind and can prioritize with respect to how government, in the months and years to come, can achieve the required change.

I am really grateful to the witnesses for having given us that level of precision, and it's a very useful set of recommendations.

Madam Chair, I'll leave it there for the moment. I may have some additional thoughts, but again, I'm very curious to hear colleagues' views on any of these recommendations. Normally, the committee will meet in camera to discuss the draft report, and we will, but if there are some early indications from colleagues as to whether any of these recommendations should be prioritized in the sense of now providing the setting for the remainder of the committee's work, that would probably be helpful and appreciated by all members.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you, Mr. Spengemann.

We will move on to Mr. Baker, please.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I want to continue along the theme that Mr. Spengemann was speaking to.

I believe the recommendations that have been made by many of the witnesses [Technical difficulty—Editor]. When we hear what those recommendations are, we have a better understanding as to why we don't need to summon Mr. Elder Marques to this committee. What I want to do is speak to some of the recommendations that I think are really important, so I'm going to talk a bit about a few that stood out for me.

One of them is that the Canadian Armed Forced should convey shared responsibility for sexual misconduct and place emphasis on collective responsibility in all sexual violence prevention training materials. They should not only convey shared responsibility, but also place an emphasis on collective responsibility. It's not just about the communications, but about taking on that responsibility. I think that's really important when we think about large organizations, whether they be in government or outside of it.

My background is in business. Prior to coming to elected office, I used to work for a consulting company that advised companies on a range of problems. Many of them were related to culture, leadership and performance management. From my personal experience, I know that when an organization needs to change its culture or change its practices, it's not enough for the leader of that organization, whether that be a CEO, a president, a board or whatever the case may be, to simply direct change. A number of steps need to be taken to make sure there's buy-in and to make sure that people within the organization know that change is a priority to leadership.

The recommendation that the Canadian Armed Forced convey shared responsibility is a big part of that. It's signalling that the forces would be, in my view, conveying that they are taking on responsibility for this problem, for the misconduct, and then placing emphasis on collective responsibility. That really helps to make sure that people on a team in an organization are all pulling in the same direction. One of the ways you can change culture and incent a change of behaviour in an organization is by signalling that everyone together is responsible for outcomes that you want to see, so I thought this recommendation was really important to highlight and underline.

Another important one is establishing a reporting line for victims of sexual violence which exists outside of the chain of command. One thing we heard a tremendous amount about during deliberations at our committee hearings for this study was the fact that victims of sexual violence don't feel comfortable reporting what has happened to them. There was a range of reasons for that. Some [Technical difficulty—Editor]. Some talked about the fear of intimidation or actual intimidation. Some said they were concerned about being penalized in some way in their career progression for doing that. Some talked about the fact that they didn't have confidence—or some victims don't have confidence, I should say—in the processes that would be followed within the chain of command to follow up on their complaint or concerns. This, I think, flows from that.

This reporting line outside of the chain of command would do two things. One is it could ensure greater objectivity. I think that helps a lot in making sure that an investigation and the processes that are followed afterwards are appropriate. What's also important about this—and I think we heard this from some of the folks who presented—is that it also helps to build confidence in the process. That confidence is important if incidents of sexual misconduct are going to be reported.

I think that recommendation is important for those two reasons.

The third recommendation I want to highlight is the recommendation to establish a mechanism for monitoring the retention and application of training around Operation Honour, which goes further than the current monitoring system does.

I think what the folks who recommended this are saying is that we need to make sure we have an ability to measure our performance when it comes to training within, in this case, Operation Honour, but within any program within the armed forces that is designed to train members of the forces on sexual misconduct and how we make sure we stop it.

Some of my colleagues have heard me say this in other contexts. I'm a big believer that you measure what you treasure. One of the things I think we have to treasure here is the appropriate training for members of the forces to prevent sexual misconduct. I think this is a recommendation that would allow us to do that.

Another recommendation is to address asymmetric professional relationships and consent. This is, I think, really important and, obviously, this will vary from situation to situation. Asymmetry is something we have heard about a lot, and it needs to be focused on and addressed.

Then there was a recommendation to adapt and diversify the demographics of the forces by adding more female service members and by adding greater diversity. I think we've heard this before. I think we all probably know that this is a meaningful recommendation, so I hope this is something that we talk about in our report.

There are two things: the armed forces members are Canadians, so we want to make sure, in my view, that it represents Canada as much as possible, but also that we're attracting the best and the brightest.

I'll go back to my time in business when some of the firms that I was working for—I'm thinking specifically of one of the consulting firms I worked for—realized that they were not attracting a representative group of people to the firm, for a range of reasons, cultural and otherwise, and so they invested a tremendous amount of effort in trying to make sure that they were doing that. Some would say that is the right thing to do. I think it was, but I think it was also important because what they were trying to do was to make sure that they were able to attract the best talent to the firm, and if you're not able to attract women, for example, then you don't have the opportunity to attract the best and the brightest, because obviously some of the best and the brightest are women.

That's one of the things. I think this recommendation is important. It would also help to shape and change the culture of the armed forces going forward.

Those are some of the recommendations, I think, that are really important. I am going to leave it there, Chair, because I know that others have things they want to add.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Baker.

We'll go to Madam Vandenbeld and then to Mr. Bagnell.

Go ahead, Madam Vandenbeld.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I'd just like to say that it's really becoming evident to me how these recommendations and how much we've done in this study, how much we've actually done in this committee in these 29 hours that we've had.... It's becoming more and more evident that we really probably don't need to hear from more witnesses, because, as we're going through this, it's really very comprehensive.

I'd like to talk about 10 themes that I think are coming through the recommendations we have as the most important things.

First of all, we've heard a lot from witnesses about culture change. This is going beyond gender integration to gender inclusion, including the pre- and post-Canadian Armed Forces experience in service, acknowledging differences between the sexes as strengths versus weaknesses and working toward respectful, diverse, inclusive work environments for all, with enabled teams. Again, this is about that really core piece, which is the culture change that, as we know, has been the focus and will continue to be.

The other big theme is being survivor-centric and informed. The wants and needs of the survivors should always be paramount. We've heard from witnesses who have really expressed around these themes. “Nothing about us without us” should be the guiding principle for research, policy, programs and services. These consultations need to be respectful, meaningful and representative of the diversity of needs of military sexual trauma survivors. We heard from witnesses that it must include recent victims with experiences in the reporting process for a wide range of sexual misconduct experiences, including sexual assaults from various ranks, gender and language.

I would add here, Madam Chair, that we did hear.... It was more in the FEWO committee, but we did hear in the testimony that sometimes language can be a barrier as well, that francophone women.... By the way, I'd like to acknowledge that many of these strong, brave women who have come forward are francophone women. The services are not always there for francophones, and this is something that I really believe we need to take incredibly seriously, so I think language is another key one.

The other thing we heard from witnesses in the testimony was a theme around independent external oversight mechanisms—this is something that came up over and over, in fact, in the testimony—with responsibilities of quality assurance and accountability to complete both formal and informal complaints in an evidence-based, survivor-centric and trauma-informed way.

We also heard a lot about data from various witnesses. We need to pull data, disaggregated data by gender and rank, from Statistics Canada surveys. We need to make sure that it's intersectional—also the junior and senior ranks—and that feedback mechanisms be in place to analyze the training provided, inclusive of completing a review of the SMRC and its mandate. Further on data, because I do think this was something that we did hear witnesses talk about, is data coordination inclusive of the provision of definitions for military sexual trauma during and after service. It needs to be officially recognized as a full operational stress injury. MST needs to be consistently researched, resourced and funded to other service-related injuries.

Then, the really key thing—and by the way, this, if anything, is probably the most immediate need that we heard from the witnesses in the testimony—is a national bilingual peer support network. Those who testified, particularly the survivors, asked for this. MST survivors of all genders, during and after service, and their support persons must have access across Canada and on deployment, in person and online, to a national military sexual trauma peer support network available in both French and English. The network must be staffed with trauma-informed trained personnel knowledgeable in the unique needs of the CAF members and veterans dealing with MST and able to speak to the needs of MST survivors and their families independently. This support should also provide information about transition, care options and internal and external opportunities for CAF and veterans and their families dealing with MST.

I note that we didn't hear much about veterans, but I know that other committees might be taking that up. Certainly, we've heard for CAF members how important this is.

One thing has come up in FEWO and only really peripherally in this committee, but I'd like to draw from that testimony. Child care access doesn't sound like it's directly related to military sexual trauma, but in fact child care access is one of the key reasons women leave the Canadian Armed Forces.

A safe and bilingual child care option is an equalizer. It needs to be available to all military women and men and their spouses 24-7, including for prolonged periods of time and sudden and inconsistent schedules.

In addition, one of the things we heard in the themes is that there be a single access point for sexual misconduct information and reporting. This is something we have put out now: a single, public-facing web portal for information on all support, care, recourses, processes for sexual misconduct for CAF members, civilians and veterans impacted by sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces.

The final theme we have pulled out of the testimony is to provide CAF the tools for military women's integration, so ensuring an even playing field for women in non-traditional roles from recruitment onward: equitable access to accommodation, equipment, policy, research, health care, health promotion, diagnosis, care and treatment, including for sexual and reproductive health.

Madam Chair, I know we've heard a tremendous amount of testimony and I think they are among the recommendations we urgently need to get the analysts working on so we can then get this tabled in the House, get these recommendations to government, because what people are looking for right now, Madam Chair, is action.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you very much.

It will be Mr. Bagnell, then Mr. Fragiskatos.

Go ahead, Mr. Bagnell.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

A number of committee members have mentioned what potential evidence might come from another witness, but few have spoken yet about the process. That's about the serious ramifications of inviting someone who has not refused to come and, as a number of members have mentioned, what the serious ramifications of abusing that process could be. I look forward to hearing that from members who haven't spoken about that process.

There's a saying in government that there's not much use in doing it if you can't measure the results. I'm hoping that there are certainly ways of measuring the results of the recommendations we're talking about. As we've seen in the past, some things have been done, but they haven't necessarily worked.

First of all, I want to commend all the committee members for taking this so seriously and thinking about these many recommendations that Ms. Vandenbeld has mentioned. Know that everyone is really dedicated to doing what we can to fix this, and as soon as possible.

I've been taking the philosophy that I'm not getting into the details of recommendations but rather talking about the context. However, I'm going to break that for one small point. I heard—and I can't remember if it was in committee or it was directly—that a woman required a piece of equipment that had a different design or that was personally made because she was a woman. The commander told all the people in that division, group or base, whatever it was, that they couldn't do a lot of other things because that woman's piece of equipment took up all the money, which was obviously ridiculous. I'm hoping it's in the recommendations that we've heard so far or are going to hear that anything like that, anything that's to help gender inclusivity, be in a totally different budget. It doesn't detract from someone's budget. It can't be used as an excuse. That's an absolutely ridiculous situation.

To get back to my philosophy of talking about just the overall context, I want people to think about it. Someone chooses a career, and a very honourable career. The military is not just any career. It's very honourable. They put their life at risk for a country they really believe in. They're already investing a lot more than they would normally need to invest in some other careers. Then a situation occurs that could harm them physically or devastate them mentally or emotionally. Under normal circumstances, they would report that and have it dealt with, but if they're in a situation where reporting that could devastate that whole career and could set them back from the reason they were there in the first place and could negate all the years of dedication that they have given and their chance to move forward and make even more contributions, what an awful position to be in.

It's heartbreaking. I'm not sure how many of us could take that, psychologically. That's the thing that I think what we've been discussing this afternoon has to fix. I'm confident with the positive view of all members of the committee that we will certainly make great strides towards that.

I'll leave it at that. Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

All right.

Thank you, Mr. Bagnell.

Mr. Fragiskatos, go ahead, please.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I appreciate the opportunity to join the committee. I've been following its work closely as an associate member, as I'm substituting tonight.

I want to thank colleagues for the work they've done. This is not an easy issue to address. The recommendations I'm looking at here reflect the testimony all of you have heard over the past many weeks and leave an impression on me for a number of reasons. I have many constituents who are veterans. I've had the chance to get to know their families over the years. We have a large detachment of reservists in land forces, but also with a naval focus here in London.

Madam Chair, I want to read some of these recommendations and comment on their importance. I leave that with you and the committee as context that explains part of my interest in this.

There's obviously a national focus here with this issue as well, with the national debate that's taking place in civil-military relations and how we organize our military going forward.

I see that Ms. Vandenbeld read out the key recommendations from witnesses who appeared, but others will follow.

The key thing that stands out here is a desire to produce a collaborative, all-party-supported approach. A recommendation here is to proceed on addressing this issue through all-party legislation, all-party amendments and the tabling of white papers.

On issues like this I'm really happy to see that phrase “all-party” there. I think it speaks to the need for collaboration and working together.

In terms of removing barriers to reporting sexual violence and sexual misconduct, the first recommendation under this section suggests adjusting the design of existing structures and systems to adequately address barriers to reporting sexual violence, reflecting on past failures.

Let me just break that down, if I could. Existing structures and systems are always difficult to address, because they're so deeply entrenched. Typically, when you're trying to create change...as all of you will know, and I know there are varied career backgrounds on the committee.

I think Mr. Baker talked about his career in business. Madam Chair, I've worked on previous committees with Ms. Vandenbeld, who just spoke. I know she's worked on issues relating to democratization, international development, I believe, and civil-military relations, if I'm not mistaken.

I know Mr. Spengemann has worked with the United Nations, among other international organizations. I know opposition colleagues will have their own backgrounds. Forgive me, I don't know them as well, but I have a lot of respect for what they bring to the table too.

The point I'm making is that all of us know that when we're trying to push for change, existing structures and systems that are deeply entrenched, and as I said have existed for some time, are very difficult to change. Altering them is very hard to move forward, but when change is necessary, change is necessary.

The reality is that needs to be pushed. Of course that needs to move ahead with the memory and the lessons of past failures in mind. I think we need to continue to reflect on that in Canada. This is a truism. This remains with us.

If we're going to do the right thing by future generations, if we're going to create systems and structures that encourage young men and particularly young women to serve their country in the military, then I think that reflecting on those past failures is important.

Perhaps it's not surprising that witnesses would suggest that, but I think every step forward has to be rooted in the fact that we learn from our past. I'm tempted here even to quote the historian Santayana who said, "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it". Certainly we have a lot to learn in Canada.

The second recommendation under this category.... Again, the recommendations I'm speaking to relate to the overall goal of removing barriers to reporting sexual violence and sexual misconduct. In this recommendation, there is a need to reaffirm the sexual violence survivors' control over the reporting process by changing the duty to report to the duty to respond, as mandatory reporting places a problematic strain on victims and survivors, with the possibility to request a case to be handled by civilian authorities and the ability to access their rights and see the failure to provide them with their rights handled in a serious and transparent manner.

The recommendations also suggest the need to create a new independent reporting mechanisms for survivors, including anonymous reporting similar to how flight safety reports can be anonymous, and, when reported, to ensure that this anonymous information is used to help fix broad systemic issues such as problematic reporting processes.

There's a lot there, Madam Chair and colleagues, as you will certainly have seen. What stands out for me is the call to create a new independent reporting mechanism, with emphasis on the word “independent” for obvious reasons. In following the committee's work I've also followed media commentary on this, and the need for independence continues to come up. I'm very interested to see that recommendation.

Furthermore, there is a call for establishing professional, highly trained external investigative bodies with legal expertise in victims' rights and sexual violence, to do two things: to examine allegations of sexual misconduct where a corroboration of witness accounts is not available; and to rereview, with inputs from the SM victims, all existing sexual misconduct reports and assess the timeliness, compassion and freedom from bias, unconscious bias included. There is also a recommendation to analyze the design principles of sexual violence reporting systems, including the discretion given to examining bodies, whether they shall or may conduct investigations once a report has been received.

Again, I suppose it makes sense that this recommendation follows from the one that I focused on earlier, because while independence was the focus there, here we have a call for a highly trained external investigative body. I see how these two recommendations, while not the same, certainly complement one another very well. The call for legal expertise on victims' rights and sexual violence offers another check and balance to the whole issue, and I'm really interested to see that. I think that's very positive.

Number four is dedicated money for full integration and inclusion of women into all traditional male roles. Number five is ensuring that military justice reform is done in collaboration with external legal experts in victims' rights and military victims with recent lived experience with the military justice system, and that includes victim-centric decision-making and supporting victim-informed choices of civil military systems.

It's really intriguing to me that “victim-centric” is given emphasis. It's very welcomed. If we're going to learn from our past, part of that must include taking into account the past experiences that victims have faced, as a way of creating better systems and structures. This is how we create meaningful reform. This is how we move forward in a positive way. This is how we mitigate, as much as possible, the chance for things to happen again that should never have happened in the first place.

Number six calls for provision of an external, independent monitoring system, which takes various forms. There's (a) through (d), if committee members are reviewing this. I think this is important, so I'll read it into the record.

Number one is to provide strategic review to look at formal and informal processes, handling of internal and external SM processes and related processes, such as abuse of power, restorative process, individual and systemic discrimination, reprisal, workplace accommodation, administrative reviews, victim and accused protection from reprisal, confidentiality, recourse and feedback mechanisms and data tracking, and priorities management from beginning to end with meaningful consultation with external legal experts in victims' rights in Canada and the Canadian Armed Forces and veterans victims and others with lived experience related with these matters.

There's a lot to this particular call in 6(a). The fact that we've heard a call here for those with lived experience to express themselves and for those experiences to therefore find expression in the overall approach that is taken, I think is truly an important thing.

In 6(b) it says, in collaboration with experts in culture change and victims and others with lived experience related to SM in the CAF, build a comprehensive plan for systemic cultural change that includes measurable standards with timelines and transparent external reporting and accountability mechanisms.

Two things stand out for me, colleagues. There is the call, certainly, for systemic cultural change, which Mr. Baker earlier spoke about very eloquently, based on his experience in something very different, business. I think he made the point that when you're pushing for systemic change, it's difficult. It's one thing to commit to it, but you also have to commit to the follow-up. Hence, it makes very good sense that there is a call here for measurable standards, external reporting and accountability. I think that is something that really acts as another—I used the phrase before—“check and balance”, and I think it's appropriate.

Finally, well not finally, but close to finally here, number 13 calls for consolidating reporting structure processing information, and then, collecting, analyzing and reporting on sexual misconduct, formal and informal, and reporting data, facts and figures to enable better organizational understanding, response and accountability. I think the point is made there, and I don't have to elaborate on that one.

There is another section, and I'll continue here with recommendations.

The section is on bolstering existing services and support structures. The recommendation here is to track, adjust, adapt and provide relevant structures and systems that adequately and accurately reflect the reality and needs of all SM victims and properly care and support sexual survivors to increase the likelihood of retention or facilitate the transition out of the Canadian Armed Forces.

Number 15 recommends setting out to improve the experience of sexual violence survivors who utilize the existing CAF sexual violence support structures, following a confidential and publicly available user experience-style satisfaction approach and to provide an anonymized public and transparent results of these feedbacks and remedial measures.

Number 19 recommends improving and documenting informal reporting processes and procedures for amicable situation resolutions at low organizational levels.

Number 20 recommends addressing Operation Honour's culmination through a transition to a deliberate plan that addresses existing identified shortfalls.

Number 21 recommends adjusting Operation Honour's frame of reference to address sexual misconduct in the long term as well as the short term.

Number 22 recommends the bolstering of existing medical supports for women, as well as an increase in the spectrum of care provided such as introducing bereavement leave for miscarriages.

That's something that stands out for me, Madam Chair. I remember having a conversation—this goes back a few years—where something along these lines was recommended to me in a meeting that I had with a constituent. I think it speaks to a compassionate approach. I wasn't obviously participating in the meeting where it was suggested by a witness or a group of witnesses—I'm not sure—but I think something like this recommendation going forward would be quite appropriate, on a purely compassionate basis.

I wonder what the experience of other countries is. I'm not sure. I'd have to go back to the blues and read what the committee heard in terms of how other countries have sought to put in place similar recommendations and what that has done to morale. Certainly you'd want to do something like this because it is, in the abstract, the morally right thing to do.

When you have these sorts of supports in place, I'm sure it adds to the overall morale in the forces. I'd be very interested to see, if something like this were to go ahead, what that would do to the issue I just mentioned.

Recommendation number 13, which I've already spoken to, is to proceed on addressing this issue through all-party legislation, all-party amendments and the tabling of white papers.

Before I turn it over to either Mr. Baker or Mr. Spengemann, number 14 recommends refraining from creating more independent bodies and enhancing bureaucracy. Certainly, there's a need for oversight. The public service has an enormous role to play. I get where this recommendation is coming from, if I understand it. Layer upon layer of bureaucracy is not the way to address problems. There is a need to make sure that there are monitoring mechanisms and the like, but sometimes that does not happen. Bureaucracy is stacked layer upon layer, and you have agencies and organizations that even work at cross-purposes.

I'm not sure what the committee found with respect to that issue, but just understanding how other countries have sought to address these sorts of problems and challenges, I think the call to have independent bodies.... Overdoing bureaucracy, which is what I take from this recommendation, if I have understood it correctly, can have an effect that is not desired.

Madam Chair, I'll turn it over to another colleague. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to share thoughts on the issue. I very sincerely wish colleagues nothing but the best with respect to the issues discussed.

On a personal level, and this extends to the entire committee, including the analysts who worked on this, and you, Mr. Clerk, I hope your families are healthy and safe.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you, Mr. Fragiskatos.

Mr. Spengemann, please.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I just want to extend a warm welcome to Mr. Fragiskatos and thank him for his appearance today, his thoughtful comments to the committee, and his recognition and acknowledgement of the position that this committee is in across party lines.

There is no bigger change management challenge in Canada at the moment than the issue before the committees: sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces. This parliamentary committee is in a position to achieve change.

We have outlined a large number of recommendations with varying levels of granularity and precision that came to us from witnesses, Madam Chair. These recommendations came as a list. We've grouped them loosely into some categories for digestive purposes this afternoon. However, the real work will happen when we, as a committee, get behind these recommendations, analyze them, and figure out which ones to amplify, which ones to put forward, and in what sequence and in what groupings.

I'll just briefly summarize the categories again. We have recommendations that fall into these areas: barriers to the reporting of sexual violence and misconduct; bolstering existing services and support structures; culture change in the Canadian Armed Forces; and new programs, training and focus.

I want to take just a few moments—with your indulgence, Madam Chair—to outline some recommendations that fall under support for the sexual misconduct response centre, an existing institution that we've heard from before the committee directly and that brings some important recommendations for the committee's consideration.

The first recommendation is to expand the mandate of the sexual misconduct response centre to permit the organization to formally receive reports of sexual violence. That is not the case yet, and I think this is a very important recommendation for us to contemplate and to deliberate as we begin framing and drafting our report.

There's also a recommendation to expand the mandate for the sexual misconduct response centre with respect to accountability and authority over the Canadian Armed Forces, including by facilitating the centre's access to CAF information and databases. There are important discussions there around data sets—their utility, their importance—but also with respect to ownership and privacy.

There's a recommendation to raise awareness, internally and externally, of the sexual misconduct response centre's services and to continue to conduct outreach. Madam Chair, that's very important for, obviously, existing and serving members of the Canadian Armed Forces, but it's equally important for aspirants and for recruits. The presence of the centre suggests that we have not reached a goal yet of eliminating sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces. It's still required. It will be there as a backstop for victims, but they need to be aware of its features, its mandates, its restrictions, its opportunities and the level of trust that victims can have in it. Outreach and communication are critical.

Witnesses also recommend the review of the governance structure of the sexual misconduct response centre to improve independence, accountability and organizational effectiveness. That recommendation, in a way, speaks for itself. If we have an existing organization that can add value, let's make sure that it can actually serve the absolute best that it can.

There's a recommendation to further utilize expert advice on supports of the sexual misconduct response centre to address restricted reports. These are unreported incidents, confidential reports and confidential disclosures. The committee has received a lot of testimony on the sensitivity of confidential disclosures, the rights of victims, and the point that they are paramount and front and centre with respect to all considerations of the committee.

There is expertise in the SMRC, and it is recommended that this expertise be utilized to address restricted reports and their implications.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you very much, Mr. Spengemann.

I understand that there are more discussions on this matter, and we will get back to it, but for health and safety reasons, this meeting is adjourned.