I'm sorry. I think I have the floor, Ms. Alleslev. Thank you for your comments earlier.
My point is that members are free to express their disagreement not necessarily because of one particular aspect or angle that they've taken on the motion but certainly to illustrate in debate what the alternative would be or should be to the committee if it were to follow the motion that's been put on the floor. The motion is to bring a certain witness. The alternative to that might be a more fulsome discussion of the recommendations from other evidence that's already before the committee.
I think any of those arguments, Madam Chair, and I would implore you to take that view, would be as legitimate as the arguments that Ms. Alleslev has just put forward.
Colleagues, I would take you back to the opening comments from my colleague Mr. Bezan. He was very emphatic in his opening remarks that we should have freedom of speech and that we should encourage debate rather than shut down debate. This also applies to the discussion we're having today.
Madam Chair, I want to take the committee back, and other colleagues will want to make comments too, to the Deschamps report. It's one of the cornerstone reports that's out there. It's been around for a number of years now. The external review authority, as it's also known, is from 2015. The most dangerous thing that could happen with the report is that it goes into a physical or virtual drawer at its conclusion, that it is acknowledged at the time it was released but then not discussed, deliberated or applied again. I think that's why it's important that the committee make itself aware of or refresh itself on the recommendations and opinions enunciated in that report and, in fact, in a number of other reports in Canada and around the world.
I want to just take the opportunity, Madam Chair, early on in our discussion this afternoon to bring forward the 10 recommendations in the Deschamps report that really capture what the ERA most wanted to say to Canadians, and then invite colleagues on all sides to reflect on them and to see how we can incorporate them in our way forward.
This is the first recommendation of the Deschamps report:
Acknowledge that inappropriate sexual conduct is a serious problem that exists in the [Canadian Armed Forces] and undertake to address it.
For this committee, it would simply be a point of accepting, acknowledging and applying this first recommendation. There still is, in 2021, very much a serious problem in the Canadian Forces that we have seen, particularly in the instance involving the former chief of the defence staff.
Madam Chair, Madam Deschamps' second recommendation is as follows:
Establish a strategy to effect cultural change to eliminate the sexualized environment and to better integrate women, including by conducting a gender-based analysis of CAF policies.
Gender-based analyses and GBA+, as it's known across the civil service, are cornerstones of the Canadian commitment to gender equality. She is basically calling on this committee to turn its mind to how we implement this kind of approach as a structural change within the Canadian Forces that will allow us to change the culture.
I would like to draw members' attention again to the openness by our current Minister of National Defence to doing that work. He said that we need “complete and total cultural change” and that the “time for patience” is over. We have a door to walk through. We have an ability to apply this recommendation and to recommend the granularity of change that's required to take the Canadian Forces forward. I think members of this committee should and need to do this work in addition to the discussion we had on the appearance of witnesses.
Recommendation three is as follows:
Create an independent center for accountability for sexual assault and harassment outside of the CAF with the responsibility for receiving reports of inappropriate sexual conduct, as well as prevention, coordination and monitoring of training, victim support, monitoring of accountability, and research, and to act as a central authority for the collection of data.
Again, we've heard testimony from witnesses. We have the SMRC, the sexual misconduct response centre, that's been stood up as an organization. Our work as a group of parliamentarians across party lines is now to take these recommendations, apply them to the context of 2021 and take the minister up on his invitation to do whatever it takes to change the culture in the Canadian Forces.
Madam Justice Deschamps' fourth recommendation is as follows:
Allow members to report incidents of sexual harassment and sexual assault to the center for accountability for sexual assault and harassment, or simply to request support services without the obligation to trigger a formal complaint process.
Sensitivity to the will of the victims and survivors has been front and centre in our deliberations. Again, here is a recommendation that goes into exactly that line of argument.
The report recommends, in recommendation five, the following:
With the participation of the center for accountability for sexual assault and harassment:
There are a number of sub-bullets.
Develop a simple, broad definition of sexual harassment that effectively captures all dimensions of the member's relationship with the CAF.
Develop a definition of adverse personal relationship that specifically addresses relationships between members of different rank—
We've heard a lot about the differential in authority and its importance.
—and creates a presumption of an adverse personal relationship where the individuals involved are of different rank, unless the relationship is properly disclosed.
It's extremely relevant, extremely poignant and worthy of the committee's consideration as it's formulating its draft report. It continues:
Define sexual assault in the policy as intentional, non-consensual touching of a sexual nature.
This is a very clear recommendation on the definition that this committee may decide to adopt, moderate or alter as it sees fit. It again continues:
Give guidance on the requirement for consent, including by addressing the impact on genuine consent of a number of factors, including intoxication, differences in rank, and [very importantly] the chain of command.
Recommendation six of the report reads as follows:
With the participation of the center for accountability for sexual assault and harassment, develop a unified policy approach to address inappropriate sexual conduct and include as many aspects as possible of inappropriate sexual conduct in a single policy using plain language.
The latter is going through accessibility of the policy to members of the Canadian Forces of all experience levels and all ranks.
Recommendation seven is to:
Simplify the harassment process by:
Directing formal complaints to COs acting as adjudicators in a grievance.
Reducing emphasis on ADR.
Recommendation eight reads:
Allow victims of sexual assault to request, with the support of the center for accountability for sexual assault and harassment, transfer of the complaint to civilian authorities; provide information explaining the reasons when transfer is not effected.
The provision of reasons is one of the greatest accountability tools. When a certain decision is made that may be questioned or even receive objection, the reasons keep us within the administration of justice, because it'll be clear, through the reasons, why and how that decision has been taken, just like any judge would do in her or his deliberations.
I'll finish up in a second. Recommendation nine reads:
Assign responsibility for providing, coordinating and monitoring victim support to the center for accountability for sexual assault and harassment, including the responsibility for advocating on behalf of victims in the complaint and investigation processes.
Lastly, recommendation 10 reads:
Assign to the center for accountability for sexual assault and harassment, in coordination with other CAF subject matter experts, responsibility for the development of the training curriculum, and the primary responsibility for monitoring training on matters related to inappropriate sexual misconduct.
These are the 10 recommendations that underpin the Deschamps report, or the ERA, the external review authority. Again, colleagues are going to have comments and elaborations at their discretion on parts of that report as elaborated by Madam Justice Deschamps.
I just wanted to put to the committee, again, that heavy lifting has been done here in Canada, elsewhere in the world, and I'm going to, in future interventions, maybe have a chance to draw the committee's attention to some of those.
That work takes us in part to where we need to go, certainly with respect to the granularity of recommendations, the kinds of institutional changes that are being recommended by institutions like NATO, DCAF—the centre for the democratic control of armed forces—and other institutions that have already put significant amounts of energy into these kinds of questions.
The committee's attention needs to be drawn to them fairly expeditiously because we are in the process now of developing a report. This is, all again, with respect to the original motion and my assessment of what the committee could and should do as an alternative to going fishing for additional witnesses.
There really are other things that may fall by the wayside, if we indulge too far the arguments that are being made by colleagues on the Conservative side.
Thank you so much.