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.
1:15 p.m.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
On that point of order, Ms. Gallant keeps making the same point of order, and it's not a point of order. I suggest we carry on.
1:15 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
To the point of order, Madam Chair, relevance is a point of order. That's what I was calling the speaker at the time on of not doing. He's speaking to something else that does not have to do with the motion before us. The motion is when we're going to have Elder Marques appear, because it's also been voted on by the House for him to appear.
1:15 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
The motion is relevant to the study, yes.
1:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
As long as the topic is relevant to the study, then he's allowed to bring forward whatever issues he wishes to bring forward.
Mr. Baker, are you done, or have you more to add?
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
Yvan Baker Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Okay, I apologize to my colleagues. I will wrap up this point.
If I may, what I wanted to do just quickly here was basically say that.... I'll finish this last point and then I'll turn it over to my colleagues.
I want to finish the point I was making before Madam Gallant's point of order. I think that some of the testimony the Deschamps report speaks to is quite poignant, and it reinforces what we've heard from some of our prior witnesses.
I'm reading from the report:
Swear words and highly degrading expressions that reference women’s bodies are endemic. The use of the word “cunt”, for example, is commonplace, and rape jokes are tolerated. In response, women feel pressure to accept the sexualized environment or risk social exclusion. Many develop informal coping mechanisms to protect themselves from persistent unwanted comments.
I guess I'll pause it there.
All this is to say, I just wanted to underline how the.... What I've been reading from and commenting on is incredibly relevant to our study. We've heard a tremendous amount from our witnesses. I think this ties in with that. It provides additional detail. It helps to understand it better, and it's relevant to our report.
I will leave it there, Madam Chair.
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
Thank you very much, Mr. Baker.
We'll go over to Ms. Vandenbeld, please.
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
At the last meeting, I had gone through a number of recommendations that we heard through the course of the study. I didn't quite complete all those recommendations on Friday, so I would like to do that in order to demonstrate that we don't need any more witnesses and that we have actually had quite a bit of study on this already.
Madam Chair, I would like to continue with a number of recommendations.
First of all, we have the recommendation that we need a strategic review to look at processes from beginning to end with a trauma-informed and survivor-centred and -informed lens. The reason this is so vitally important, and that it has to be trauma-informed and survivor-centred, is that we know that very often there are solutions proposed that are not trauma-informed and they can actually be more harmful. They can actually revictimize and can put the people who have survived and have gone on with their lives in a very bad position, but with good intentions. This is making sure that there is a strategic review and that everything will be looked at with a trauma-informed lens.
The next one is that we need a comprehensive plan for systemic culture change. I know that the “Path to Dignity and Respect” was something that we put out several months ago, because we have been working diligently on this topic, well before the committee's study began. We heard from witnesses who said that it wasn't enough, that the path needs to be broadened and that it needs to refer specifically to the toxic masculinity. We heard this from multiple witnesses. I think that making sure when we talk about culture change.... We heard from witnesses that we have to really make that comprehensive and we have to make it systemic.
We also had recommendations from witnesses about creating options and opportunities for restorative justice when it's wanted by survivors. This is a very important point, because not everybody.... By the way, we are talking about men and women and non-binary and transgender persons. This is something that all genders can suffer from.
Not everybody who suffers sexual misconduct, sexual harassment or sexual violence wants to immediately go the punitive route and say that they want to go through the court system or the military justice system. Sometimes it is a matter—and this is more when it's at the level of sexual harassment, where it isn't something that was clearly criminal—where you have somebody you'd really rather be able to work things out with and be able to have restorative justice. This is also important because there are people who may have said some off-colour jokes many decades ago and are reflecting back now and thinking that they didn't realize it then, but they were being disrespectful. They may want to have a process by which they can actually make amends for some of the attitudes and some of the things that may have happened.
When we talk about restorative justice, it is not the only solution, of course. Accountability is vitally important. I think we have seen that people need to be held to account for their behaviours, but it has to be a decision of the person who has experienced the behaviours and is coming forward to have options, to have choices and to be able to direct that process and have control over that process themselves. I think that's something that is probably a core thing in what our study was. We've heard from many witnesses. I don't think we need more and more witnesses.
The other thing that has come up through our witnesses is that the abuse of authority and power needs to be core to the increased education and awareness of this issue. We have seen on occasion that people talk about this as if it is about a sexualized environment. What it is, plain and simple, is abuse of power. We heard from many witnesses that this is clearly about abuse of power and that we need to stop saying that this is somehow about sex or about flirting. It has nothing to do with that. It has to do with power.
I know that we have enhanced the education and training. We heard from many witnesses that we need to enhance that even more. The fact is that, when we do that education, we need to do it so it's not about gender relationships, but about power. We need to make sure that people are aware of that as the core issue.
The other recommendation we heard is that respect for the dignity of the individual needs to be reinforced. It says here “individual”. I think this is very important because what we're talking about is something that can poison an entire unit, an entire team, the camaraderie and, in fact, the operational effectiveness of a unit. When you're not treating people who are subordinate or people around you with respect and dignity, these are things that can impact everything that the Canadian Armed Forces do. At the core of this, Madam Chair, we need to make sure we reinforce the respect and dignity of the individual.
I am glad, Madam Chair, that it says “individual” because as I mentioned.... I have had some survivors contact me since Friday, who heard me speaking. I actually want to apologize that I kept saying “women”. While it is very much a majority of women who experience this, we know—we've heard from witnesses—that men experience it, too. Men have an even harder time coming forward. It's difficult for women to come forward, but it's even more difficult for men, non-binary and transgender members of our military. We have to make sure that it is the individual who is respected.
We have also heard a recommendation that the values and attributes of an ideal soldier—or an ideal aviator or sailor—must be updated for the 21st century. No longer do we have a Canadian Armed Forces like in World War I, where it was the trenches and you saw a very masculine vision of what a member of the Canadian Armed Forces was. We have so many occupations in the Canadian Armed Forces and we heard from witnesses that the culture....
As we heard from Mr. Spengemann, it's not just the Canadian Armed Forces that are undergoing a tremendous culture shift. It is all militaries. All of our allies are facing the same thing because we really are moving toward a world where it's not brute strength. It is intelligence, skills, adaptability, the ability to reflect the population, the diversity of our Canadian Armed Forces and the ideas that people with different lived experiences can bring to a mission. That is what gives our Canadian Armed Forces strength.
When we look at the ideal soldier, unfortunately—maybe because of pop culture, history or socialization—we often still think about that brute strength. That is a very masculine kind of concept. While we are going through this change, we really need to understand that it is a culture shift that is happening. There are people who need to be brought along to adapt to the idea that strength is sometimes compromise. Strength and bravery can sometimes mean that you are doing something much more intelligently. That is something we have heard many times from witnesses. Also, when we talk about gender, there is this idea that if you show emotion, you're somehow weak—that you're somehow not strong.
We have all of these things in our psyche. A lot of this comes from war movies that we watch or the socialization when we are little boys and girls.
Madam Chair, I would like to add a small story about what happened to me when I was 12 years old. When I was 12, we went on a field trip. I grew up in Calgary and the Currie Barracks were next to Heritage Park, where we used to go on field trips. After our field trip, my mom was driving and we had three or four other 12-year-old girls in the car. We ended up stopping at the ice cream shop. We saw some military personnel go by. I remember one of the girls saying that if she were a boy, she would join the navy. Another girl said that if she were a boy, she would for sure join the air force. Somebody else said that if she were a boy, she thought she'd join the army. I'm not going to say what I said, because of course as parliamentary secretary, I don't want any of the forces to think I have a preference for one over the other.
At 12 years old, in Calgary, as young girls growing up in the eighties, it never occurred to us that little girls could join the navy, the army or the air force. It never occurred to us because we'd never seen a woman in uniform. I, for one, had never seen one, either on TV or in reality. There were no role models.
I think what our study has shown through all the witness testimony we've heard is that this is the kind of thing that still exists, these subliminal ideas that we internalize that we are not even aware of. We need to make sure that, when we look at the ideal soldier, the ideal aviator, the ideal sailor, every little girl, every transgender person, every non-binary person, every racialized person or anyone can look at their Canadian Armed Forces and see themselves and see it as a place where they can contribute and where they are welcome, and not just a place that tolerates or accepts.
We heard many witnesses talk about the little indignities that happen day to day that say you don't really belong here, the things that say we need to accommodate you. It's not about accommodating. It is about making sure that the Canadian Armed Forces are a place where the wide diversity of people in this country can contribute absolutely, fully and be welcome, and where little girls who are 12 years old who see the military driving by can say, “When I grow up, I want to be one of them.” That is what we're looking for. That's why I think that recommendation, which I have here as number 82, is probably one of the most important recommendations.
We also have a recommendation here, and this is something that isn't always looked at, for the health care needs of women to be fulfilled, including research and development and gaps in occupational and operational military medicine for women that need to be identified and addressed. The example here is pregnancy, and we actually had this discussion in the status of women committee the other day with our witnesses. I think this recommendation is very important because, again, it goes back to what I said. Rather than feeling as though they're being accommodated, we need to make sure that people feel they're fully and absolutely participating.
We know that there are gaps. We know that when it comes particularly to women on deployment, in terms of health care needs, the military medical system is primarily focused on trauma medicine, of course, and it's focused on people who are fairly in the prime of their lives. They're fairly fit, they're fairly active, they're younger and they're mostly men. What you have, then, is a military system where.... I've spoken to some veterans who said that when they were on deployment it was very hard to look at things like birth control, to look at anything that had to do with gynecological needs.
There are things that we know are different occupational and environmental hazards that can impact on fertility, and that's not just for women but for men as well. However, it has not been researched. It has not been studied enough to see exactly how those impacts affect women. That's why I think this is a very important recommendation that has come up: the research and development and looking at the gaps in operational military medicine.
We also heard from witnesses that we need money for the full integration of women in traditional male environments and it must be dedicated funding. Today is a very hopeful day because in a few hours we have our budget coming. I know we heard from many women, many veterans and many survivors, that it is very difficult if the money to do the so-called “accommodation”, if you need a special uniform....
I know very well that there is actually a lot of movement to make sure that things like uniforms are coming from a central budget so that it doesn't come out of the unit budget. To make sure that there is funding, very specific funding that would allow for the needs of women and other diverse members of the Canadian Armed Forces, to be able to have that dedicated fund that then doesn't get used for something else, or worse yet, get taken from somewhere else and then the unit says, the reason we can't go on our welfare trip or some other thing is that we had to use the money on somebody's uniform....
We've heard this. I believe that many advancements are being made right now. I've had those conversations, but I do think we have to pay attention to that recommendation that came from our witnesses. Again, this indicates that we don't really need to hear from many more witnesses, because in fact we have heard really, really good recommendations.
I will leave it there, Madam Chair. I see there are some more hands up. I will let my colleagues speak. I just want to indicate that I have many, many more that I still haven't gotten to. I would like to come back later and talk about those.
1:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
All right. Thank you very much, Madam Vandenbeld.
We've been in a public meeting for two hours. Do we want to carry on?
Yes...? Okay. Good.
1:35 p.m.
An hon. member
Could we have a bathroom break, Madam Chair?
1:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
That's actually not a bad idea.
How about a five-minute suspension, then, for a bathroom break?
Okay.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
Thank you, everyone.
We'll call this meeting back to order.
We'll start up again with Mr. Bagnell, please.
1:55 p.m.
Conservative
1:55 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
I know there was some discussion around suspending the meeting from 3:30 to 5:30 today. I know that agreement was made for other committees. It wasn't made for this committee, so I expect that we'll keep sitting. It's only a suspension going forward for votes.
I'd also offer again, Madam Chair, that if you wish to take a comfort break, I am more than happy to assume the chair in your absence.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'm going to pick up where Mr. Baker left off.
As you know, the three major areas for improvement or for recommendations that victims have given, which are of primacy, are the culture—
1:55 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
This is [Technical difficulty—Editor] serious one.
We're still waiting for the webcast, the video, to start. I'm finding that it still hasn't started. It's just audio. We were told that this was supposed to be visual by now.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
The three major areas for improvement were the culture, the independence of the processes and the repercussions on reporting.
Mr. Baker did a good outline from Deschamps on the culture, information on culture. I'm going to follow up on another major area, which is the independence of processes.
Except where sexual harassment rises to the level of criminal conduct, sexual harassment and sexual assault are treated as distinct and unrelated conduct. In the ERA's review, this strict dichotomy is misplaced and risks allowing some improper sexual conduct to go unpunished, particularly low-level sexual assaults. Moreover, the consultations raised a number of serious concerns with respect to whether the procedures currently in place are appropriate and effective.
Because sexual assault and sexual harassment are treated separately, I will start with how sexual harassment is dealt with and then in my next intervention, I will go on to the processes for sexual assault, although as it was said earlier, they shouldn't necessarily be treated separately, but at the moment they are.
Under the “Current Practices” related to sexual harassment:
The practices and procedures for receiving, investigating and adjudicating a complaint of sexual harassment are set out in a number of different policy documents within the CAF. As noted, DAOD 5012-0 regulates four different types of harassment: personal harassment, abuse of power, sexual harassment, and racism. While the DAOD establishes the broad parameters of the policy—including the delegation of authority to certain individuals to receive, investigate and adjudicate complaints of harassment—more detailed instructions are provided in the Harassment Prevention and Resolution Guidelines.
They then refer to them as the “Guidelines”.
These Guidelines are intended to provide procedural guidance in support of the Harassment Prevention and Resolution Policy. They are issued under the authority of the CDS and have the same compulsory force as the DAOD 5012-0. Both DAOD 5012-0 and the Guidelines flow “directly from and are consistent with the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat Policy on the Prevention and Resolution of Harassment in the Workplace”.
As set out in DAOD 5012-0 and in the Guidelines, COs and other more senior officers may be assigned the responsibility to adjudicate harassment complaints and, in such circumstances, are referred to as ROs. ROs have decision-making authority under the DAOD and the Guidelines. They receive specific instructions from the CDS to discharge their duties. Guidance is also provided to Harassment Advisors—
I'll refer to them as HAs.
—whose role includes advising ROs with respect to processing a complaint of harassment. HAs are designated by COs and will generally be members of a unit who have either volunteered, or been requested, to serve in this role.
The Harassment Advisor Reference Manual identifies two broad approaches to resolving harassment complaints: (1) alternative dispute resolution (ADR), which is “encouraged”; and (2) administrative investigation. Generally speaking, complainants are strongly encouraged to pursue ADR (either through informal ADR techniques used by those in the chain [of] command, or with the assistance of a third party mediator) before laying a formal complaint and requesting an administrative investigation. In either case, the Harassment Advisor Manual establishes that one of the guiding principles for the RO is to attempt to resolve the problem at the lowest possible level utilizing ADR techniques:
“When harassment has occurred and/or a harassment complaint has been submitted, DND employees and CAF members are encouraged to resolve harassment issues at the most appropriate, lowest possible level, through alternative dispute resolution techniques.”
In either case, the harassment adviser manual establishes that one of the guiding principles for the RO is to attempt to resolve the problem at the lowest level.
The report continues as follows:
This focus on low-level resolution and ADR is also reiterated in the RO Guide.
Given these procedural requirements, before a harassment complaint is fully resolved, a harassment victim may be required to go through three separate stages. The first stage (ADR) takes place after the victim reports the improper conduct but before a formal complaint is lodged, the second stage (the Administrative Investigation) is initiated once a complaint is filed, and the third stage (a grievance) occurs if a party seeks to challenge the RO’s decision on the complaint.
With respect to the first stage, although it is not mandatory, the CAF strongly encourages its members to start by using so-called “self-help” techniques whereby the concerned individual should first speak directly to the instigator of the unwelcome conduct....If the immediate supervisor cannot help, or if the supervisor is a party to the incident, the victim may turn to a higher-level supervisor to seek his or her intervention. This approach is part of the CAF’s “open door” policy. If recourse to the chain of command does not produce adequate results, or if it is not appropriate, the member may be offered formal ADR with the help of a third party mediator.
If none of these techniques is successful or appropriate, the victim may lay a formal complaint, which leads to the second stage: an administrative investigation. This is generally initiated by a written complaint and triggers certain procedural obligations, such as that the complainant has the right to receive information about the complaint. A workplace relation advisor (WRA) can also be assigned to the complainant. The WRA provides information about the investigation process, but cannot provide advice on the merits of the complaint. For moral and additional administrative support, both the complainant and the respondent can also receive the help of an “Assistant”. As with Has and WRAs, Assistants are members who have volunteered, or who have been requested, to take on [that] role.
Once a written complaint is received, a situational assessment is conducted. The Guidelines foresee that the investigation process is seldom terminated at this stage, however:
“There may be exceptional circumstances where the RO is completely satisfied that he/she has all the facts.”
In such rare circumstances, the RO will decide, based on the situational assessment, whether the criteria provided in DAOD 5012-0 are met or not. If he or she is not so satisfied, a harassment investigation will be conducted by a harassment investigator (HI). An HI is either a member who has been certified as an investigator through CAF training, or a civilian certified to conduct investigations. Also, if it is found that the facts warrant the continuation of the investigation process, the complainant will again be invited to use ADR. If it is determined that an HI must be appointed, terms of reference (TOR) circumscribing the mandate of the HI are drafted, and the file will be assigned to an HI.
After completing the investigation, the HI must first...draft [a] report, which does not contain any recommendations. The RO reviews the draft report for conformity with the TOR. Once the RO is satisfied that the draft report is consistent with the TOR, the RO forwards it both to the complainant and to the respondent. The RO must ensure that procedural fairness is respected. The RO is then in a position to make a decision as to whether or not administrative action will be taken, and of what kind. In the case of a harassment complaint that is found to be substantiated, the RO can impose remedial measures, which range from counselling to a written warning on the perpetrator’s record or, in the most severe cases, counselling and probation and release from the CAF.
The Guidelines provide that if either party is not satisfied with the decision of the RO, he or she can grieve the decision. Although the grievance process is not used exclusively for harassment complaints, for a harassment [complaint], it is the third and final stage. The grievance is submitted to an Initial Authority, who is usually the CO of the complainant. Upon receipt of the grievance, the CO must first determine if he or she is in a position to offer redress. If the CO has this authority and has no conflict of interest, he or she will make the initial decision on the grievance. If he or she is not in a position to adjudicate, the grievance will be forwarded to an officer who has the appropriate authority. Principles of procedural fairness must be followed, including disclosure to the respondent. If the grievor or the respondent remains unsatisfied with the decision of the Initial Authority, he or she can ask the Final Authority—the CDS—to review the grievance decision. The CDS may ask the Military Grievance External Review Committee (MGERC) to review the matter and present recommendations. The MGERC is an independent body, and it does not have authority to issue a final and binding decision, but only to make recommendations to the CDS.
In addition to the multiplicity of policy documents that apply across the CAF, more explicit or specific orders may also be issued by the COs of the Naval, Land and Air Forces, which apply to the members in the unit. Within each formation or unit, additional orders may be made which may reiterate, or in some cases expand upon, the words of the policy. As a consequence, just as a subordinate member must obey the order of his or her superior unless it is manifestly illegal, in practice members must abide by the lowest level instrument, the CO’s standing orders, which he or she is asked to recognize in writing upon joining the unit—
2:10 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
When this committee finally gets its video, after several hours now, will that icon up there in the corner that has a red line through it be eliminated, so that we know we're on? How will we know when we finally get there?
It says “public with conference”, but it doesn't say “with video”. It just says “public”. I don't know if it shows extra video, because it says that when we're public.