Evidence of meeting #26 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 harassment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
Stand by. It wasn't you, Madam Alleslev. It was Mr. Bagnell. I thought he was accusing somebody of stalling, and I wasn't on with that. It wasn't you, Madam.
We'll go back to Mr. Bagnell, please.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Thank you, Madam Chair.
All I was saying was that, if the opposition member would withdraw the motion, they wouldn't continue prolonging this when members of the military really need the action we know is necessary at this time.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Leona Alleslev Conservative Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
I have a point of order, Madam Chair.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
It better be a point of order and not more debate.
All of these points of order—none of them have been legitimate points of order—have all been debate. I'm trying to be patient, but it's crying wolf all the time. If every time you cry for a point of order, it's not a point of order, sooner or later people won't take it seriously, and I think a point of order is very serious.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Leona Alleslev Conservative Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair, but the only way to get to a resolution on this is not to remove the motion or withdraw the motion, but rather to have the debate collapse and vote on it.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Thank you.
As I said at the beginning, we have important work to do. There's a report on COVID. We're in a pandemic and it's affecting the military as it is the rest of us. There's a report on mental health. There's this serious report that affects thousands of members of the military that we could make some meaningful change on. That's what I think we should be debating today. That's the summary of what I was saying.
Carrying on where I was, sexual misconduct is elaborated and identified using specific language and definitions in section 2 of 9005, compared with 5019. DAOD 9005 also establishes the various means of conducting sexual misconduct as well as specifically highlighting the Canadian Criminal Code and using it as a framework for definition within the DAOD. DAOD 5019 is broad and only addresses sexual disorder as it is a part of the APA and defines sexual misconduct as acts that are “sexual in nature”. DAOD 5019 does not address harassment, use of technology to cause harm or evaluation as a form of sexual misconduct, whether that's based on sex, sexuality, sexual orientation or gender identity, etc. DAOD 9005 also identifies the workplace and work environment and leaves no room for guesswork as to where SM can occur. DAOD 5019 does not even go near these items or topics.
The general principles for both of the DAODs—section 3 for 5019 and section 4 for 9005—are framed differently. DAOD 5019's language is simple and straightforward and aims to protect the institution, whereas 9005's first point of concern is the claimant and victim. DAOD 5019 states that CAF is committed to investigating and dealing with misconduct as soon as practicable. DAOD 9005 states that CAF is committed to three things, which are preventing sexual misconduct, addressing sexual misconduct “as soon as practical”—I found this language a little off-putting, but that's just an aside—and supporting victims of sexual misconduct.
The language used in section 4 explicitly delves into consent and the potential harm and trauma a victim can face via SM. DAOD 5019's language frames it more so as harming the institution of CAF and how it undermines the institution's values. While that can be true, 5019's objectivity fails to address the needs of the claimant or the victim.
I think all these things should be and are improvements. Why aren't they effective? In 5019, 3.7 and section 4, “Process”, and 9005 section 5, “Reporting”.... DAOD 9005 states “all CAF members have a duty to report”, which is not explicitly stated in 5019. We heard from the witnesses that this has led to some problems and this needs to be certainly part of our debate on the recommendations on what should happen there.
DAOD 9005 breaks down potential conflicts, considerations and duties that the officer has when deciding if they can adequately address the misconduct, and if and how it should be reported. DAOD 5019, in contrast, is very procedural and almost like a flow chart. There is no mention of factors to consider and not consider, which 9005 does in great detail.
Section 5.5, “Reporting Considerations”, to 5.16, which is reprisal and harmful behaviour, is one of the fundamental differences between the two DAODs. I've brought this up. Where's the defence in the code of ethics and in the code of service? Are there strong enough penalties related to reprisals? Because with the hundreds of people who were aware or involved and only a few reports, obviously there's a problem. I think that's what this new directive is trying to focus on.
DAOD 5019 uses language that focuses more on the respondent in section 6, “Treatment and Rehabilitation”. While 9005 does not discourage treatment and help for those who need it, the language focuses on the claimant, the victim, in section 7, “Support”.
The chain of command can help by keeping open lines of communication or providing CAF and non-CAF-related resources as support. The support has to be.... From what we heard from members, victims have to be independent of the chain of command. Mental health and well-being is also stressed, along with discussing the potential workplace difficulties a claimant may face.
The DAOD 5019 makes no mention of what the CO's responsibility toward the victims is, where 9005 does. All members of the committee would agree that this is a very important change, that there be support for the victims, which we've heard is necessary in the testimony provided.
We found that the legislative requirement of members of the CAF to report all incidents of misconduct, including inappropriate sexual behaviour, was reinforced through the Operation Honour order, known as the duty to report. This requirement meant the commanding officer and members with knowledge of an incident feared significant consequences if they did not report. Victims were therefore required to report inappropriate sexual behaviour, whether or not they wanted to or were ready. This discouraged some victims from disclosing for fear of being forced into a formal complaint process, which contributed to under-reporting. Finally, it placed a heavy administrative burden on the chain of command and the military police to manage the complaints.
As I mentioned previously, I tried to do some research on this, as to why this duty to report was causing a problem for victims who did not want, for instance, to have an investigation, and could cause even more grief for the victim. That's something we have to look at in the report.
One of the recommendations is that the Canadian Armed Forces should establish clear guidance for members, in the regulations, to report to the proper authority in the context of inappropriate sexual behaviour. The guidance should clarify who's considered the proper authority and under which circumstances. The goal should be to balance the need to protect the organization's safety with the need to support victims by allowing them to disclose and seek support without the obligation to trigger a formal report and complaint process. We have to look at that very carefully.
I will leave it there. There's more information I can bring back later, but the point is, and no one's raised this, that we have DAOD 9005 that replaced the existing order. As I said, I read it about a month ago, because I was interested in what improvements had been made. A number of improvements have been made in the last few years, but some of them, obviously, aren't working to the extent they should. There are some very good changes in this change of orders, but why isn't it working? The recommendations that we come forward with would have to deal with that.
I'll leave it at that for now, but I could add more later.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Yves Robillard Liberal Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
We take allegations of sexual misconduct very seriously and we want to provide survivors with the support they need. As former Supreme Court of Canada Justice Marie Deschamps recommended in her 2015 report, we have established the Sexual Misconduct Response Centre, the SMRC. This centre will feature prominently in our discussions, which is why I feel the need to explain how it operates.
The centre is in fact the designated authority investigating allegations of sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces. The operation of the service has never been explained and I believe that it is important to do so today.
The SMRC provides expert guidance and confidential support, 24 hours a day and seven days a week, to members of the Canadian Armed Forces who have been or who are victims of sexual misconduct. Centre counsellors are ready and able to help and advise victims on the various options available to them.
The goal of the centre is to support victims of sexual misconduct and inappropriate sexual behaviour. At the victims' request, counsellors can facilitate access to military or civilian resources, including services for mental health, physical health, counselling, spiritual support or even administrative assistance.
Since August 2019, members of the Canadian Armed Forces have also had access to the response and support coordination program, which now provides the services of designated coordinators, specifically for members of the Canadian Armed Forces who have been affected by sexual misconduct. This new program will therefore provide personalized support in better navigating survivors through the system and the process. This is a very important feature because, as we all know, the Minister of National Defence has stated that all options are on the table and we can really contribute to improving the situation.
The dealings between the Sexual Misconduct Response Centre and members of the Canadian Armed Forces are confidential and can also be anonymous. [Technical difficulties] can also provide information to leaders or to other members in order to assist members of the Canadian Armed Forces.
I see that other members have their hands up, so I will continue to talk about this important matter later on.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Madam Chair, thank you very much.
Colleagues, you'll recall that during his most recent testimony, Michael Wernick made reference to a report that came out of the United Kingdom, which I believe he referenced as the Wigston report. The actual title is “Report on Inappropriate Behaviours”, and it's dated July 15, 2019, issued by the Ministry of Defence of the U.K.
As colleagues will know, we have a very strong relationship with the United Kingdom, not only on matters of defence but in a number of other respects as well, parliamentary relationships, trade and commercial relationships and cultural connections, the United Kingdom being the mother Parliament, as we occasionally refer to it as, and also the Westminster system. I believe this report is relevant in terms of the tenor and the nature of the recommendations it makes.
If you'll indulge me, I'd like to use the occasion to very briefly extend my condolences to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, the royal family and the people of the United Kingdom on the passing of His Royal Highness, Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, who as many of us will know has been deeply involved in questions of military strategy and management across the Commonwealth.
I would like to put the executive summary of that report to the consideration of colleagues. It's less than two pages in length. I will simply put it forward in its entirety and colleagues will see that this really has some granularity and very direct relevance to what we're discussing today.
The summary states the following:
On 10 April 2019 in response to repeated instances of inappropriate and allegedly unlawful behaviour by serving members of the U.K. Armed Forces, the Secretary of State for Defence commissioned an urgent report into inappropriate behaviours in the Armed Forces. The report, [then] due in mid-May 2019, was expected to: understand the current evidence regarding inappropriate behaviour across the Services; make recommendations on what can be done to ensure and reassure the Armed Forces are an inclusive and modern employer; and identify areas for further action, including potential improvements to controls, processes or policy.
There are nearly 250,000 people in Defence, military and civil service, and the overwhelming majority serve with great pride collectively protecting the U.K. 24/7. The U.K. Armed Forces are a formidable fighting force and the commitment of all military and the civilians that support them is rightly celebrated. In bleak contrast, however, inappropriate behaviour persists which harms people, the teams they serve in and, ultimately, operational output. There is no single comprehensive picture of inappropriate behaviours in Defence, however the data that does exist points to an unacceptable level of inappropriate behaviour and a sub-optimal system for dealing with it when it does occur. Such behaviour—and its consequences for the people affected by it—damages—
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
Mr. Spengemann, stand by for a moment, please.
Go ahead, Madam Gallant.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
On a point of order, Madam Chair, it's my understanding that this is the executive summary for the study on sexual misconduct. I don't believe the committee members have all received a copy of this to review before it's made public.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Yes, Madam Chair, absolutely. Thank you.
The report is already public. It was referenced briefly. It was actually released in 2019, and there has since been a response in 2020 that is also interesting. The report was referenced by Mr. Wernick in his testimony but only mentioned at the very top level in the sense that it exists. He did not have the opportunity at that time to go into details.
I'm putting forward the executive summary for some initial consideration by colleagues, because of the depth, the granularity and the relevance of the recommendations it makes later on, which will become apparent.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Madam Chair, I have a point of order.
Since he wants this to be part of the discussion on the study that we are going to be discussing in camera, why does he not just table what he's saying instead of wasting valuable time, when I know that everyone is very eager to get on to the vote on the motion that Mr. Bezan has before the committee?
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I will continue where I left off.
Such behaviour—and its consequences for the people affected by it—damages the UK Armed Forces’ hard-won reputation for courage, determination and professionalism, and almost certainly has an impact on attracting, recruiting and retaining the talent that our Armed Forces and Civil Service need. Culture and performance is not a trade-off; tackling inappropriate behaviour is performance-enhancing for Defence, as well as the right thing to do.
Tackling inappropriate behaviours is recognised at the highest levels in Defence, and this report confirmed that policies, governance and training programmes to address the problem are energised across the Naval Service, Army, Royal Air Force and Civil Service. There are further opportunities to share good practice and learn from others—internally as well as our international allies and other external organisations—and we make a number of observations and recommendations in that regard. Ultimately, however, it is about the determination of leaders to change the culture; everything else hangs off that:
It then goes on to make a number of recommendations:
We must do more to stop instances of inappropriate behaviour occurring. This is principally a chain of command issue for the Naval Service, Army and Royal Air Force, and for Civil Service line management. It is about leadership at every level in the organisation, setting the culture and standards, and ensuring people meet those standards consistently. It is also about effective and resourced training, and a focused system of governance which we recommend should include centralised assurance and the compilation of a single set of data and statistics relating to inappropriate behaviour.
We have to do better when instances of inappropriate behaviour have occurred or are alleged to have occurred. Our own surveys and external stakeholders highlight repeatedly the shortcomings of the current system for raising complaints about inappropriate behaviour, with complainants citing a fear of retribution or lack of faith that anything would be done. The Service Complaints Ombudsman judges our Service Complaints system is neither efficient, effective or fair. Furthermore, the disproportionate overrepresentation of women and ethnic minorities—and a lack of data on other minority groups—in the Service Complaints system is of widespread concern. There is a pressing need to reform the Service Complaints system including: anonymous reporting of inappropriate behaviours; a helpline; a parallel channel for raising Service Complaints outwith the chain of command; and a dedicated central Service Complaints team equipped to deal with the most complex allegations of bullying, harassment including sexual harassment, and discrimination.
We should establish a Defence Authority working to the Chief of Defence People as Senior Responsible Owner on behalf of the Chief of the Defence Staff and Permanent Secretary. The Authority would inter alia be responsible for: pan-Defence policy and governance; holding all management information on inappropriate behaviours; conducting assurance activity across the Armed Forces; sharing leading practice across Defence; and housing the central Service Complaints team, operating in support of and with respect to the single Services’ chain of command.
Evidence reflected in this report indicates a significant number of our people have experienced bullying, discrimination and harassment, including sexual, but have not felt able or been able to come forward to report it; we recommend consideration of a call for evidence from people affected, coincident with the establishment of the Defence Authority.
This report makes 36 recommendations. Some are about improving the complaints system and processes, and the majority are about preventing instances of inappropriate behaviour occurring in the first place. Encouraging and enabling more complaints—and dealing with them better—should lead to greater trust in the organisation and help signal the leadership’s determination to stamp out inappropriate behaviour. Ultimately, however, the challenge of inappropriate behaviour can only be addressed through a determined effort across the whole force to change the culture, driven persistently from the top and at every level of leadership and line management below that. It requires authentic leadership; relentless engagement; and consistent communication, with everybody playing their part.
The Secretary of State demanded an urgent report which, by its very nature, did not permit the time to conduct deep evidence gathering or expert analysis of the situation. It is acknowledged and accepted that in the future more detailed work and analysis recommended in this report may reinforce or reveal contrasting interpretations of the evidence. The report does, however, offer clear signposting of where further work is now required. Some recommendations should have an immediate impact but, to change embedded cultures and behaviours, a much longer view is necessary; experience among allied armed forces is of a five- to ten-year programme of concerted activity to make a measurable difference and we should be prepared for the same.
The report is signed by Air Chief Marshal M. Wigston, Commander of the Order of the British Empire.
Madam Chair, I will leave it there, just with the message that with other countries having grappled with the same issue and having developed recommendations, it may do two things. It may reinforce our own thinking on the recommendations that this committee would prioritize and put forward. It may also take us to different recommendations and different thoughts that we may not yet have considered.
As a starting point, I wanted to put forward the executive summary in the report, which was referenced by Mr. Wernick. Mr. Wernick also made reference to a number of other international efforts, reports and activities that may well be relevant to the work of this committee. I will leave it there for the moment.
Thank you very much.
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
Thank you very much, Mr. Spengemann.
We'll go on to Mr. Baker, please.
1 p.m.
Liberal
Yvan Baker Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Thanks very much, Chair.
I wanted to weigh in on this. When I spoke the last time, I was speaking about culture and some of the points that were being made in the Deschamps report around culture and its impact. One of the things I was trying to highlight was that, through some of the witnesses we've heard from, they've referenced some of the topics that were highlighted in the Deschamps report. The combination of the witnesses that we've heard from and the Deschamps report, I think, provides an adequate, strong basis for us to write a report on this study. Therefore, I don't believe there's a need to call further witnesses.
I wanted to highlight some of what the Deschamps report highlighted and that I hadn't yet spoken to in my previous intervention.
In the Deschamps report, under the section on culture, there's a subsection, if you will, around organizational culture. It's interesting because the report actually speaks to how they define culture, or at least the way they thought about culture in writing their report, and I think that's important for us to keep in mind as we move forward. It states:
By “culture”, the ERA refers to the ways in which, over time, people who work or live within a particular organizational and institutional setting develop a shared set of understandings, which allow them to interpret and act upon the world around them. As one expert in organizational behaviour has defined it:
“Organizational culture is the pattern of basic assumptions that a given group has invented, discovered, or developed in learning to cope with its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, and that have worked well enough to be considered valid, and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel, in relation to those problems.”
I think this is incredibly relevant to our study and to what we're discussing, because when we think about the problem of sexual harassment and sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces, this explanation of what organizational culture is helps to highlight how important a role culture plays in not only potentially—as we certainly heard from witnesses—contributing to that problem but also resolving it. This ties in, I think really nicely, with what we heard from many of the witnesses who came and spoke at committee about the need for cultural change.
I'll go on:
Organizational cultures are defined both by the values they espouse (for example in public statements of identity such as Duty With Honour and the DAOD policies), and deeper, tacit assumptions that are embedded, taken-for-granted behaviours. These assumptions are usually unconscious, and so well integrated in the organizational dynamic that members of the organizational culture may not even be able to recognize or identify them.
I think that just shows and underlines how influential culture can be and how it would evidently require a tremendous amount of work to change. That's why I think our report is so important in helping to make recommendations as to how to do that. To go on:
The ways in which these shared assumptions are passed on to new members entering the organization, and in which the organization is able to develop a recognizable identity, are through processes of socialization. For example, training practices, social events, and rites of initiation are all means of bringing new members into an established group. Multiple sub-cultures will, of course, exist in any organization, particularly one as large and diverse as the [Canadian Armed Forces]. These sub-cultures co-exist in overlapping, and sometimes conflicting, ways. At the same time, military organizations generally have particularly strong internal cultures because of their nature as “total institutions”; members of the military live, work, train and socialize together within a closely regulated environment, largely set apart from the rest of society. The particular intensity of experience associated with training, combat, and the overall mission of the organization, also lends to the growth of a strong organizational culture.
I think this is incredibly relevant to our study as well, because there are a few points here that are worthy of underlining. One is the element that the Canadian Armed Forces operates to a great extent distinctly from civilian society, so the culture that it develops is unique. That's one of the points that's been made here, but another one is that because of that intensity of those interaction—“socialization” is the word that I think was used by the Deschamps report—that culture is even more strongly ingrained and entrenched in the organization.
Again, this underlines, I think, the degree to which culture, when it needs to be changed, requires a tremendous amount of effort, especially in the case of the Canadian Armed Forces, because, as I think what the Deschamps report is arguing here, the culture is more ingrained than it would be in most other organizations and it's more distinct than the cultures of most organizations from the rest of Canadian society.
Going on, it says:
The development of group culture can be a very positive phenomenon. Indeed, it is through shared assumptions and understandings that groups develop organizational cohesion, loyalty, and camaraderie, and are able to act together in efficient and effective ways to achieve their objectives. Throughout its consultations, the ERA observed many powerful and positive manifestations of the organizational culture of the CAF. Participants expressed their deep commitment to, and engagement in, the broader mission of the Canadian Armed Forces. Sparkling eyes, engaged voices and active participation in the interviews conveyed the sense of fulfillment these members experience both in their day-to-day work, and in their participation in the broader community of the armed forces. The ERA met with participants, both men and women, who appeared genuinely happy with their experiences in their unit. Participants indicated that military life allows them not only to contribute to society, but also to exercise their chosen trade or profession and to have an opportunity to move up the social ladder. The CAF provides them with the comfort of a family and the benefits of a rewarding work environment.
At the same time, however, the consultations revealed that there is a sexualized culture in the CAF, particularly among members of lower rank. This sexualized culture is manifested through the pervasive use of language that is demeaning to women, sexual jokes and innuendos, and low-level harassment. While the ERA heard fewer reports of sexual assault, it was clear that the occurrence of sexual harassment and sexual assault are integrally related, and that to some extent both are rooted in cultural norms that permit a degree of discriminatory and harassing conduct within the organization.
I wanted to pause there. I wanted to highlight this for members of the committee, because I think this is really echoing and reinforcing and perhaps going into some detail that we couldn't get into in our hearings with witnesses about the pervasiveness of culture, how the Canadian Armed Forces has a distinct culture and that it is deeply entrenched.
This last part was speaking to the fact, to what we've heard from victims, from people who've studied this issue, that there's this—and I'm quoting from the Deschamps report—“sexualized culture” in the Canadian Armed Forces. Here the Deschamps report talks about how it manifests itself in some of those cases, and I think what's striking as well about this is that this particular paragraph to me was a good reminder of how pervasive sexual harassment and sexual misconduct can be because it can appear in everyday interactions as “language that is demeaning to women, sexual jokes and innuendos”, etc.
I thought this was an important element to highlight, especially around organizational culture and how it's defined, and how it both manifests itself in the Canadian Armed Forces and how that ties in with what we've heard from witnesses.
One of the things that the Deschamps report also looked at was the differences between naval, land and air forces, colleges and reserve units, and that's something I don't know that we had a lot of time to hear from witnesses on in our study. I just want to highlight a few of the findings there.
I'm reading from the report:
Interviewees consistently described cultural differences between the Air Force, the Navy and the Army, and it is clear that different subcultures exist within the three different service areas. For example, participants described members of the Air Forces as more “mature and educated” and the Air Force environment as one in which “skills are more valued”. However, ultimately there were no substantive differences between the three subcultures with respect to the nature, frequency or severity of sexual harassment and assault reported to the ERA. Neither was there any evidence that the responses of the CAF to such conduct were better or more effective in any one particular service. As such, the ERA’s findings and recommendations apply equally to all three branches of the CAF.
That's an important insight to add to what we've heard about culture, but this element of the Deschamps report talks about the fact that when it comes to sexual misconduct, there aren't differences between the different units, or between the air force, the navy and the army.
In the colleges the ERA visited—the Collège militaire royal du Canada and the Royal Military College of Canada—participants reported that sexual harassment is considered a “passage obligé”, and sexual assault an ever-present risk. One officer cadet joked that they do not report sexual harassment because it happens all the time.
When I read this, this to me was absolutely striking. We've heard a lot of horrific things about some of the behaviour, but this really struck me. It basically said that sexual harassment is essentially a rite of passage, and harassment is so commonplace that nobody reports it. That's important to highlight.
Experiences in reserve units appear to be more mixed; while members in several units reported a highly respectful environment, other units appear to have adopted a sexualized culture similar to the regular forces. Because of the constraints of the Review, the ERA did not have the opportunity to delve into the causes of the differences between various units. Therefore, no distinction is made in the Report between reserve units or between reserve and regular members.
In general, the ERA found that the locations where incidents of inappropriate sexual conduct occur are diverse. Although a number of interviewees mentioned that sexual assaults are more likely to occur in barracks, incidents of sexual harassment do not appear to be limited to particular locations or hours. As such, the ERA could not conclude that simple changes to physical facilities were likely to reduce the occurrence of inappropriate sexual conduct.
This is an important insight that ties in nicely with what we heard from many of our witnesses. We've heard about organizational culture, and we talked about the need to change culture. We've heard many people and many witnesses speak to some of the steps that need to be taken, and the challenges that are involved in that.
The report spoke to that, as I alluded to earlier in my intervention. This is underlining that further, because it's basically showing that simple changes like the ones to physical facilities didn't appear, according to Deschamps, to be the sorts of things that were likely to reduce the occurrence of inappropriate sexual conduct. That's important to think about as we build our report and recommendations.
The other thing we didn't have a chance to delve into as much as we would like, or at least I would like, but are useful to highlight here is the difference between ranks. The Deschamps report took a look at that. It said:
During the consultations—more particularly during focus group discussions with junior and senior non-commissioned members (NCMs)—the ERA found that there is a prevailing sexualized environment characterized by the frequent use of sexualized language, sexual jokes, innuendos, discriminatory comments with respect to the abilities of female members of the military, and less serious but unwelcome sexual touching, such as touching an individual’s shoulder or back without her consent. While the degree to which this sexualized culture is evident may vary across regular and reserve, Naval, Land and Air Forces, and as between individual units and different ranks, the ERA found that it is widespread, and frequently condoned. Specifically, the ERA found that this sexualized culture creates a climate conducive to more serious incidents of sexual misconduct.
This is also an important insight that I want to highlight. Because this behaviour, according to the Deschamps report, is frequently condoned, it enables more serious incidents of sexual misconduct. Not only are those “less serious”—to use the language in the report—incidents not being dealt with and not being stopped, and people aren't being punished for that. On top of that, that permissiveness allows for more serious incidents of sexual misconduct.
I'll go on.
More specifically, a significant majority of lower rank women who participated in the Review reported being exposed to frequent and demeaning sexualized language. As one interviewee put it, “all women have experienced to a certain extent how men do not want them in the military”.
I think there are so many reasons we need to address this issue of sexual misconduct in the military, but this is one of the.... I think the testimony from this particular woman highlights one of the reasons it's so important. She's basically saying that all women who are in the forces have experienced, to some extent, men not wanting them in the military. It must be incredibly demeaning. It must be incredibly difficult to serve under those circumstances. I think it's another good reminder, which ties in with what we've heard from our witnesses about the importance of addressing this problem.
I'm reading from the report:
Another participant put it more bluntly, referring to the frequency with which women experience inappropriate sexual conduct in the CAF: “There is not a female who has not had a problem”.
That just shows how pervasive it is.
Experiences with sexual harassment and sexual assault begin as early as basic training, where inappropriate language used by trainers appears to go unpunished. The consultations revealed that more serious conduct, such as dubious sexual encounters between trainers and trainees and date rape, is also prevalent.
It's really difficult to read that. It's just difficult.
At the same time, interviewees commented that trainees are reluctant to call the behaviour of their trainers into question for fear of negative repercussions. As a result, many women trainees learn to keep their concerns to themselves early on.
Amongst the NCMs, the use of language that belittles women is commonplace. Interviewees reported regularly being told of orders to “stop being pussies” and to “leave your purses at home”. Swear words and highly degrading expressions that reference women’s bodies are endemic.
1:15 p.m.
Conservative
1:15 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I don't understand what this speech has to do with the motion before us that deals with having Mr. Elder Marques come as a witness before our committee.
Is the member suggesting that we need even more witnesses before closing the study?