Evidence of meeting #28 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 misconduct.
A video is available from Parliament.
2 p.m.
The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Wassim Bouanani
Yes. If you vote yes, the decision of the chair stands.
The question is, shall the decision of the chair be sustained?
Madam Chair, we have 5 yeas and 5 nays, so it's your decision.
2 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Pardon me, what was the outcome? Did somebody else vote yes?
2 p.m.
The Clerk
There were five yeas and five nays.
2 p.m.
Conservative
2 p.m.
The Clerk
Yes, and in the event of an equality of voices, the chair's decision is sustained.
(Ruling of the chair sustained)
April 30th, 2021 / 2 p.m.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Thank you. I think that is consistent with what happens at most committees. There's certainly leeway for members to express themselves on matters in the context, and the context is that we're discussing something that would extend the meeting to an area where I think it's less productive than dealing with the information that victims have provided on the serious situations they've been through. That is what we should really be discussing for those.... As Mr. Bezan and Madame Romanado said, this is where our focus should be right now.
So I'll just continue where I left off:
...the adequacy of CAF policies, procedures and programs relating to sexual misconduct; the training of CAF members in relation to sexual misconduct; the resources dedicated to the implementation of the policies, procedures and programs in relation to sexual misconduct; the extent to which CAF members report alleged incidents of sexual misconduct or any reasons why reporting may not occur, including the role of military culture and the chain of command;
As I mentioned earlier, some of the huge numbers of incidents have been mentioned in surveys, but there were not challenges or charges put forward. People were afraid to come forward, so that's why it's so important that we should be discussing that.
It continues:
...and any other matter that the ERA considers relevant in assisting the CAF to strengthen the prevention of incidents of sexual misconduct.
As discussed above, sexual assault is included within the definition of misconduct.
Consistent with this mandate, throughout its six-month fact-finding process the ERA conducted interviews with members and civilian employees responsible for the implementation of the CAF policies on sexual misconduct, including members of the JAG office, the CFNIS branch of the military police, the regular military police service, and the military prosecution service. In addition, the CAF shared with the ERA relevant policies, protocols and other documents related to sexual misconduct. With the efficient support of the DMP, representatives of the JAG, and CAF bases and DND coordinators, as much information as possible was gathered in order for the ERA to fulfill the terms of the mandate.
This said, the ERA's mandate contains an express limitation which requires some comment. The mandate states that the ERA shall not review 'any matter related to the Judge Advocate General (JAG) in respect of his or her superintendence of the administration of military justice in the Canadian Forces'. A question arises as to what is captured by the JAG's 'superintendence of the administration of military justice' and therefore falls outside of the scope of this Review. Two interpretations may be offered.
And this is something that could be pursued by this committee.
Under a broad interpretation of the limitation, merely discussing sexual misconduct, the investigation of which falls under both military and civilian jurisdiction, would be excluded by this limitation. The consequence would be that most of the references to 'sexual misconduct' in the mandate would be moot. Such a broad interpretation of the limitation would therefore result in the exclusion of a large and explicit part of the mandate. Not only is such an interpretation at odds with a plain language reading of the mandate, but it also contradicts the way in which the CAF itself interpreted the mandate during the course of the Review. In fact, most of the interviewees involved in the implementation of the policies, procedures and programs on sexual misconduct would not have been made available to the ERA if their role was not relevant to the gist of its mandate.
A narrower interpretation of the limitation is more respectful of the text of the mandate, the respective responsibilities of the JAG and of the Provost Marshal, and the way in which the CAF interpreted the mandate in the course of the Review.
The JAG is a commissioned officer appointed by the Governor in Council to superintend the administration of military justice. To ensure the independence of the military justice system, the JAG reports to the Minister of Defence and not to the CAF. Among the JAG's responsibilities relevant to this Review in relation to the administration of military justice, the JAG is responsible for court martial and summary trials. The effect of the limitation in the ERA's mandate is therefore to exclude from review the JAG's oversight of court martial proceedings and summary trial.
By contrast, responsibility for the military police rests with the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal, who serves as the Commander of the Canadian Forces Military Police Group. Whereas the JAG is independent of the CAF, the Provost Marshal reports to the Vice-Chief of Defense Staff.
As we've heard and as Ms. Arbour will address, hopefully, in her recommendations on the restructuring, it is a huge job and one that I hope to comment on later, but change is very difficult when making major changes such as this, so her expertise will be excellent in proceeding on that.
It continues:
As such, the ERA's mandate encompasses a review of the conduct of military police, including the CFNIS, vis a vis incidents of sexual misconduct. This includes the policies and procedures by which the military police receive complaints of sexual misconduct, communicate with and provide support to victims, and exercise their discretion as to which organization—the [military police], the CFNIS, or civilian police—should or will investigate such allegations.
Given that the CDS did in fact direct that the policies, procedures and programs related to sexual misconduct are to be the subject of meaningful review, the narrower interpretation of the limitation must be favoured. As such, the ERA makes no comment with respect to court martials or summary trials. However, the ERA's mandate clearly encompasses a review of the policies, procedures and programs that have been adopted by the CAF with respect to the investigation of, and laying charges for, sexual misconduct by the military police.
That limitation is something else that the committee and Ms. Arbour, if the committee does not raise it, could look into.
Until recently, complaints related to CAF members that involved sexual assaults, and which occurred in Canada, were normally investigated by civilian police, and all charges for such allegations were prosecuted before the civilian courts. This changed in 1998, however, when Parliament amended the National Defence Act to also allow the military justice system to handle charges of sexual assault. Under the shared jurisdiction, approximately half of the cases investigated by CFNIS are referred to the civilian justice system for a number of reasons, such as they involve cadets who are not subject to the CDS, civilian victims, or incidents of family violence, etc. As a consequence, even if, as a matter of military police policy, the military justice system takes priority over the civilian system, the sharing of jurisdiction is a reality.
Military Police (MP) operate on CAF property and “outside Canada during contingency and expeditionary” circumstances. When the [military police] is informed of an incident involving a sexual assault they notify the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service (CFNIS), which has jurisdiction over all sexual assaults. The CFNIS consists of members of the [military police] who are organized as an independent unit; it has jurisdiction over serious and sensitive offenses, including sexual assault. When CFNIS receives a report of a sexual assault, it determines whether it will exercise its investigative mandate, or whether it will refer jurisdiction back to the reporting [military police] unit. In practice, the CFNIS generally turns sexual assault incidents over to the [military police] where no penetration has occurred.
If the CFNIS determines that it will turn jurisdiction over to the local [military police], the [military police] can exercise their discretion as to whether or not the case will be pursued, following the same procedures as exist for other...charges.
As we heard in some of the victim testimony, there was not confidence in a number of cases that it was or would be pursued.
Notably, in determining whether or not charges should proceed, the [military police] consult with the chain of command.
That is another problem that we should be discussing in great depth right now.
By contrast, if CFNIS has carriage over the matter, it may lay charges without having to consult the chain of command.
According to comments made by Brigadier-General Pitzul several years after the CAF assumed jurisdiction over sexual assaults, the justification for allowing the military to deal with sexual assault is that such offences can have a detrimental impact on cohesion within a unit, and therefore should be treated in a similar manner to other offenses that may have the same effect.
I think all those offences will be looked at in our upcoming study on military justice, which hopefully we will get to soon.
It continues:
General Pitzul's comment is consistent with the purpose of creating a separate system of military justice, as described by Justice Lamer in R. v. Généreux:
The purpose of a separate system of military tribunals is to allow the Armed Forces to deal with matters that pertain directly to the discipline, efficiency and morale of the military.... [T]he military must be in a position to enforce internal discipline effectively and efficiently. Breaches of military discipline must be dealt with speedily and, frequently, punished more severely than would be the case if a civilian is engaged in such conduct.
Again, there has been testimony that it is not necessarily what always happens.
Unfortunately, victims of sexual assault have not reaped the benefits hoped for under the new jurisdiction. Victims criticize the lack of training of the [military police], poor support by the chain of command, and inconsistency with which charges of sexual assault are ultimately sanctioned.
These are the serious types of things on which we should be moving forward quickly and doing a report right now, making recommendations on these serious items that affect hundreds of present members in the military, and of course, the past members who are victims.
While civilian law enforcement, prosecutorial authorities, and courts have also been criticized for their conduct of sexual assault cases, there is a strong perception among members of the CAF that the way in which the military handles such cases is the cause of added prejudice to the victim.
They then go on to discuss the treatment of victims.
Many participants complained about problems in the reporting and investigation process. Criticisms by contributors and interviewees touched on many aspects of the process, starting with failure to call the military police in a timely way when a report of sexual assault was made, to not having been offered immediate medical support, being made to feel, even before providing a statement, at fault for what had occurred, the case held in abeyance because of confusion over jurisdiction, failure to follow up with key witnesses, and poor training with respect to investigating incidents of sexual assault. Participants criticized delays in the investigation process and having to repeatedly provide statements, which required them to relive the events each time.
Is that really fair?
The ERA heard many examples of failings in the investigation of sexual assaults, including concerns about the contamination of evidence, and a frequent perception that the [military police] lack in their understanding of the legal concept of consent. One interviewee, referring to procedural problems in the investigation which could potentially be relied upon to undermine a prosecution and secure an acquittal, commented: “Defence attorneys love [CFNIS investigations] because there are always issues”. Such problems have resulted in a serious lack of trust in the ability of the [military police] to properly handle reports of sexual assault.
These problems are particularly unfortunate, given that [military police] are specifically warned about the consequences of sexual assault on victims. For example, [military police] orders state that:
Sexual assault is one of the most traumatic types of criminal victimization.
Further:
Sexual assault is an act of aggression using power and control to dominate and violate an individual. It is not an act of intimacy.
That's why I was saying earlier, when I talked about the directives, that some of the appropriate directives are in place, but why is it not working?
The applicable policies therefore make it clear that, in the context of military life, sexual assault requires heightened attention, particularly when the aggressor is a member of the CAF “family”. As the Sexual Assault [military policy] protocol states:
Sexual assault frequently includes a violation of trust by those who are in a position of perceived or real power or authority.
If the sentiments behind these statements were put into action and the relevant policies were fully implemented, many of the misgivings of the contributors would be resolved. Indeed, the ERA finds that the problem lies not in the policies themselves, but with inadequate training, poor implementation, and members' lack of faith in the ability or interest of the military justice system to respond appropriately to instances of sexual assault. While the ERA met with a number of dedicated and knowledgeable members of the [military police], it also found that others were confused about the process, insensitive to the problem of sexual assault, lacking training on the basic elements of the offence, and unaware of the available resources.
One of the problems appears to be that, although policies and protocols are in place, [as I've mentioned a couple of times] the number of incidents the military police system handles is far fewer than those in the civilian justice system. The various parties in the system are therefore caught in a deteriorating cycle: the way victims feel about their treatment by the military police system feeds underreporting, and underreporting leaves the military police unable to develop and maintain appropriate skills to manage these sensitive and important cases.
The ERA is further concerned that less serious incidents of sexual assault are given inadequate attention and consideration. Participants in the Review commented that when victims have reported less severe assaults, including unwelcome touching of breasts, buttocks, etc., they have been told by MPs that these incidents would not be prosecuted in the civilian justice system. The clear message is that the matter is not serious enough to be pursued. Whether or not such comments about the likelihood of prosecution before a civilian court are accurate, members of the CAF deserve fuller protection by the military justice system. Unless the incident reported is an isolated and benign one where the principle of proportionality dictates restraint, sexual assaults, even those that leave no physical injury, must be taken seriously. If criminal sanctions are inappropriate, the chain of command can resort to administrative or disciplinary action to send a clear signal that the dignity of all members will be protected. Only strong sanctions, through military justice, disciplinary and administrative action, will deter further assaults. Both individual and general deterrence are important.
The ERA further notes that while not all assaults are of the same gravity, different victims will react differently to an assault, depending on their own particular experiences and psychological make-up. While an incident of unwelcome touching may leave no psychological impact on one person, this same conduct may cause serious psychological injury to another. The thin skull principle in Canadian law makes clear that an aggressor does not get to choose his victim; regardless of how severe an assault, the conduct constitutes an offence under the Criminal Code. Discounting incidents of sexual assault where there has been no physical injury is inconsistent with Canadian law, which views psychological harm as seriously as physical harm.
I'm sure all members of the committee are totally on side and understand that and want to do something about it.
Overall, the ERA found that the difficulties met by victims of sexual assault have a damaging effect not only on the individual victims—who do not achieve resolution to serious and traumatic incidents—but on the CAF as a whole. When incidents of sexual assault go unresolved, this negatively impacts the CAF both because individual members have been harmed, and because it perpetuates the perception that the CAF does not take such incidents seriously.
With regard to data collection, as I mentioned earlier, the data is showing very many cases but not very many complaints.
As with sexual harassment, there is very poor collection of data regarding incidents of sexual assault in the CAF. Since sexual assaults go widely unreported, the data does not in any way reflect the actual rate of occurrence. Even where complaints are laid, the fact of a sexual assault will often be buried in the court record. For example, if the accused pleads guilty to an alcohol-related charge, or to conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline, only a careful review of the sentence will, in some cases, indicate that the conduct or underlying issue involved acts of a sexual nature.
2:20 p.m.
Conservative
2:20 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
I'd just say that this isn't relevant to our motion at hand of calling Katie Telford. I know the Liberals are more interested in protecting Ms. Telford than protecting our armed forces, but I believe that Mr. Bagnell has gotten ahead of himself.
Our next study will be on military justice systems. We'll be reviewing military justice systems at that point in time. That would be good evidence to present at that time, but the relevance of whether or not Katie Telford should appear as a witness I think is what is at hand today.
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
Well, I think there are some arguments for more witnesses and some arguments that there are enough witnesses and enough testimony and recommendations. This really is the core of the matter.
Please, M. Bagnell, just finish up where you are, and then we'll carry on. Thank you.
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
I don't have too much more, but I don't think any committee member who seriously wants to help the victims thinks that this is inappropriate information or thinks that we should be discussing things as opposed to the witnesses. As I said, there are a whole bunch of witnesses related to the appointment of General Vance and the serious situation while an investigation was under way who could be called, but this doesn't help the victims.
I appreciate Mr. Bezan's comment. Yes, hopefully we can have this testimony put forward to our next study so that it doesn't have to be repeated, because some of it would be very helpful. The information that I'm providing is related to feedback and study on sexual assault, which is related to sexual misconduct in the military, which is the exact subject of our study.
As I said, I don't have too much more to go on this section.
Tracking the occurrence—
2:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
All right, thank you.
Oh, I thought you were finished, Mr. Bagnell.
2:25 p.m.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
No, sorry.
Tracking the occurrence and outcome of incidents of sexual assault is essential to determine if the CAF's policies are functioning to improve the conduct of its members, both on an individual and systemic basis.
I'll just quickly finish off the last bit here:
In any event, even where a case of sexual assault is referred to civilian authorities, the CAF should carry out its own parallel assessment as to whether any administrative sanctions should be imposed (for example, suspension, demotion, release from the CAF, etc.). The ERA was informed that the [military police] maintains a shadow file for all incidents involving CAF members that are processed by civilian authorities. The CAF is therefore in a position to impose administrative measures on a perpetrator. The imposition of administrative sanctions is important in demonstrating to members the seriousness with which the CAF....
To achieve consistency in administrative measures, the CAF should establish guidelines to help guide COs. Factors to be taken into account in determining the appropriate sanction should include not only the personal circumstances of the offender and the nature of the incident, but the organization's over-arching goal of creating a more inclusive organizational culture that is less hostile to women and LGBTQ [2—I added the “2”] members.
As was the motivation for this input and the part A of this that I put at the previous meeting, I don't think there are any members on the committee who do not think these are the serious issues we should be trying to get to the bottom of and make the most effective recommendations on that we can to help the minister, to give him moral authority. He can and will go ahead without us. He's heard this stuff, the various input from the victims, from the Deschamps report.
Ms. Arbour will make the very important recommendations on some of the important things we've heard during the course of this study, particularly on the independent process, but also I think that would have an effect on the repercussions related to reporting, which is one of the three major items, and of course the culture.
As I said, there could be.... We wanted to stay on the investigation of the one General Vance investigation, one of hundreds of potential perpetrators. The seriousness of it has been investigated since 2015, because of his appointment while there were charges. All those witnesses could be called, but the point I've been making since the beginning, and Mr. Baker's point, is that we should get on with solving the serious input we've had from the victims and dealing with structural change.
As I think Ms. Romanado said, this didn't just occur recently. This is a long-time, systemic change both in our military, and as Mr. Spengemann said, in many militaries.
This committee actually could be part of leading the way on solving this systemic problem from decades back if we get on with that right away and give the minister some more moral authority for the direction he has been moving in since he was appointed. I listed at the beginning of my input a number of things he's done, unparalleled things he's done, to address sexual misconduct.
I'll continue to be very happy if we can make the structural changes necessary to deal with the culture and the reporting and the independence. If I can be part of that, I will be very happy. If we don't get it done....
I think all of the committee members I've heard from have mentioned it in their input at some time and really want to do that too.
That's the basis of my input.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
2:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
Thank you, Mr. Bagnell.
We'll go on to Madame Vandenbeld, and then Mr. Spengemann and Mr. Garrison.
2:25 p.m.
Liberal
Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I would like to start in terms of some of the things that are out there that are inaccurate about what is going on in this meeting right now, for those who might be watching.
First of all—
2:30 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Madam Chair, I don't know if the sound system was working properly. I heard Mr. Bagnell say that charges were made in 2015 against Vance, and I don't know if he was—
2:30 p.m.
Liberal
2:30 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
There were no charges that I'm aware of. Were there? Did he mean the rumour that we acted upon, as opposed to what the Liberals did, which was not act when an actual act was—
2:30 p.m.
Liberal
2:30 p.m.
Liberal
2:30 p.m.
Liberal
Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
Thank you.
I want to start by talking about some of the things that are out there that are actually not accurate about what's going on here at the committee.
I know that there have been mentions by some of the opposition members of a shutdown of this committee. I think it should be clear to those who are watching that we had a motion, and the motion was simply to get recommendations in on time so that we could actually have a report. Those recommendations have already gone in for this particular study.
I would also note that there are ongoing military police investigations into the subjects of this study. This is not an investigation. We are not shutting down any investigation. That is the job of the military police. It is not the job of politicians to conduct investigations.
This particular study not only has gone well beyond the initially envisaged two to three days but has gone on almost three months at this point, Madam Chair. We have sat the regular hours of this committee. We've also sat 15 hours of extraordinary, extra meetings on this particular study. There has been a tremendous amount.... We've put forward witnesses who have given us very, very good recommendations, recommendations that I very much hope are going to have the possibility of being tabled in the House so that the government can take action on them.
I would also note that on Monday, we had an in camera meeting where we studied a draft report that has been sitting since pretty much right after Christmas. I think it is important that we get some of the important work of this committee done. We all submitted the names of witnesses at the beginning of this study, as is always done, and those witnesses have been heard from. I think that at this point to continue adding by motion, one by one, extra witnesses just to drag on this study is not doing anything for the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces.
I would also point out that in addition to the draft report we were looking at on the CAF and COVID, we also have a draft report sitting on mental health. We heard witnesses who gave incredibly difficult and very compelling testimony about their experiences in mental health. It would not be doing them justice if we end up continuing to drag on this particular study well past the point where we have actually put in the recommendations for this study and not get the study out on mental health, and I know that all members have some very powerful recommendations on that.
Also, Madam Chair, we have our next planned study, which I would very much like to start right away. It is our study on military justice. We've heard from survivors. We have heard from academics and from members of the CAF. We have heard that the military justice system is very much the key to trying to reform the experiences that women and men have when they come forward. We even heard testimony in the status of women committee, which, by the way, also studied this and also heard from all of the witnesses that were put forward by all parties. Frankly, there was some incredibly powerful testimony in that status of women committee, and I hope that this committee will also be putting forward recommendations.
Even Major Kellie Brennan at the status of women committee said in her remarks that her “third truth is that the military justice system needs reform. It needs reform in how we conduct military investigations and how we often revictimize the women who have the courage to come forward. My focus would be on education, and making sure that the person who investigates can lay the charge, can bring that evidence to court and not just refer the charge, meaning that the people who are entrusted with an investigation are the people who can effect the change. We also have to know what that looks like to women. What is justice for women?”
Madam Chair, my feeling at this point is that we really need to get on and start with that vitally important military justice study so that we can get the kind of information, testimony and recommendations that we need to move forward.
I would also note, Madam Chair, that we have now heard in this study from all of the relevant players. We have now heard from the Clerk of the Privy Council, who said that the PCO took carriage of this matter and that everybody acted in good faith. We have heard from Janine Sherman, the secretary to the cabinet, who said that she tried very hard to get the kind of evidence she needed so that she could continue an investigation, but that evidence wasn't there.
I think what we need to do is this. Throughout all of this process, we now know pretty much what has happened here. In 2018, there was an email. We know this now through the media and through other sources, but we know that there was an email in 2018. That email had a sexually suggestive comment and was couched as a joke, but I think the members of our committee and those who are present today understand very well that a sexually suggestive comment that is couched as some kind of a joke is not funny. It is not something that you can just brush off. It is intended to cause harm. It is intended to diminish. It is intended to demean. When it's done in front of others, it is extremely harmful because it is about power and it is not funny. I do believe the members who are present in the committee today understand this very well.
I'm not diminishing the seriousness of that kind of allegation. However, what we know is that the woman who received that email did not want to pursue an investigation. There are members of this committee who have accused me of victim-blaming just because I stood up for the right of the survivor and the person coming forward who's impacted to have the right to give their consent. That is not victim-blaming; that is respect for consent.
This particular person did not give permission to the ombudsperson to give that email to the appropriate authorities who wanted to investigate. That is in the Privy Council Office. The highest public servant in the land was given carriage of this and concluded that there was not a threshold of evidence.
Again, I would like to quote some testimony that was heard in the status of women committee from Brigadier-General Simon Trudeau, who is the provost marshal of the Canadian Armed Forces. He said that when a complaint is referred to the CFNIS, first they have to determine whether it meets the threshold to trigger a police investigation. There has to be a threshold. Everybody knows that you can want to investigate and you can want to hold people to account, but if there is no threshold....
Let's look at what all of our testimony has shown here: that PCO, which is the authority, should never be a political office. What we've seen throughout is that all of the political staff and the political elected people have, all throughout this, made sure that it was not a political office that actually investigated this situation. That is vitally important, because politicians can make mistakes. We are not investigators.
One mistake I would point to is that one of the opposition members said in question period that somehow they should have gone to General Vance and asked him about this confidential complaint. The last thing you do when you have a victim who wants to remain confidential is go and tip off the person they're complaining about. That person could probably fairly easily figure out who it is, and that opens up the vulnerability for the person who wanted to remain confidential. It's the last thing you do. That's why politicians should not be the ones who conduct these investigations. We might be well intentioned, but we are not trained and we are not the appropriate place.
It went to the Privy Council Office, and at that point there was not a name of a person. They didn't have the name of the person who received the email. They did not have the nature of it. They did not have any evidence. Therefore, at that point, in the words of Mr. Wernick, there was an impasse. That's what we know. We know exactly what happened.
Mr. Wernick said, and I believe this, that everybody acted in good faith. The key issue here is why the person didn't feel safe to come forward. That has been the focus.
That has been what I have been working on, what the minister has been working on, what the government has been working on and what this committee and other committees have been working on. How do we create an environment where women, men, transgender and non-binary serving members, as well as members of the civilian staff of DND, feel they can safely come forward and feel, when they come forward, they will get a just outcome and not face the kind of impunity that we have seen or that many people have said they have experienced?
Our committee is at a crossroads right now. We have some very important work we could do.
By the way, with regard to Mr. Garrison's comment that we could start comparing comparative failures, we could do that. We could. We know that in 2018 there was a confidential complaint. We didn't know exactly what it was. However, we do know that in 2015, when the previous Conservative government was in power, before General Vance was sworn in and the change of command ceremony happened for him to become the chief of the defence staff and while he was being vetted, there was knowledge of different complaints. They had to do with Gagetown and with a relationship he had with a subordinate. We know there were rumours at that time and we know that the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. O'Toole, knew of those rumours and that his chief of staff knew of those rumours. We know this from Mr. Novak's testimony.
They brought this information to the Privy Council Office, which was very similar to the process we followed in 2018. In the testimony we heard from Mr. Novak, he said there was an investigation and that if the investigation had shown there was any wrongdoing, they were prepared to cancel General Vance's appointment as chief of the defence staff. We just found out this week, from a news article—and I find this very disturbing because, remember, this is before he was appointed—that just days after the Conservatives appointed General Vance, the investigation was suddenly dropped. An access to information request came out this week saying that the commanding officer of the military police felt they were under pressure. We don't know who put them under pressure, but we do know that suddenly, on the day of the change of command ceremony for General Vance, there was.... He was under active investigation. It was a CFNIS investigation, a military police investigation. After the change of command ceremony, it took another four days before the investigation was suddenly ended.
I may be incorrect, but I believe that to end a military police investigation by CFNIS, the chief of the defence staff has to sign off on it. I may be incorrect on that, but he was then, at that point, the chief of the defence staff.
I think we could, if we wanted to, bring Mr. Novak back. He said that this was investigated before General Vance was appointed and that he wouldn't have been appointed if there had been any kind of bad outcome in the investigation. However, we know now that it was going on at the time that he was appointed.
There is another thing I find really difficult about this. I've been talking to survivors. Last weekend, on Saturday, I had a conversation with a survivor. I've had a lot of conversations and we've had a lot of round tables, so I've heard from many people over the course of this process. However, this particular conversation has stuck with me. It has shaken me. The person knows who they are, if they're listening to this testimony. One of the worst parts of what this individual told me was that when this person's attacker, the alleged rapist in this case, was under investigation, that person was promoted while the investigation was open, to get them out.
One of the first things that this individual said to me was that there needs to be a blanket policy that if somebody is under current investigation, they can't be promoted.
As we now see in the media—and we could spend a lot of time in this committee trying to get to the bottom of this—that is exactly what happened with the Harper government when Jonathan Vance was promoted while an open investigation was ongoing. The people who experienced this kind of misconduct deserve a lot better than that.
I'm hearing what survivors have said, and I'm hearing what Mr. Garrison has said as well about the fact that we all failed. All governments, for many years, have failed the women and men and transgender and non-binary and racialized and LGBTQ2 members of our Canadian Armed Forces. We have failed them, and the last thing I want to do is to have this committee descending into finger-pointing and politics.
I do believe that we have important recommendations to get out. We have two important reports. Mental health is very intricately related to this, and I do think we need to get that mental health report out. I also think that we need to get on to the study on military justice so that we can participate in the other studies that are ongoing.
Justice Fish is working right now on a review of the military justice system, and we have a number of others, including the announcement that we made yesterday about Madam Arbour. Some of her terms of reference include looking at the military justice system—and may I add, Madam Arbour is a personal hero of mine.
I was working over 20 years ago in the former Yugoslavia. I worked in Bosnia for six months. I worked in Kosovo for a year. I did a lot of work travelling back and forth to the region, and I met a lot of the survivors there. It is because of Madam Arbour's work—we all know her as a former Supreme Court Justice in Canada, but in fact, her work at The Hague in the criminal tribunal on the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda was a seminal turning point—that rape was allowed to be defined under international law as a war crime. She is the person who made sure that there was no impunity for the atrocities that occurred in those regions of the world, and that the perpetrators were held to account. Now she is the one we have entrusted to define how we are going to move ahead and get this right.
I know there's been a lot of criticism that, “Well, it's just another review.” I know that Madame Deschamps' report was six years ago and we didn't do enough fast enough to implement that.
We have done many things. We put forward legislation, Bill C-77, which was also in yesterday's announcement. We are now going to be moving ahead on making sure that it will be possible for people to provide their input anonymously on how we can get those regulations right on the declaration of victims' rights, which we passed in the previous Parliament.
We have also established a whole new institution, the SMRCs, the sexual misconduct response centres, and have put that under the Department of Defence. It's not in the chain of command. It's under the department, and yes, there were probably well-intentioned individuals in the department and in ministry who thought that was enough, and we now know that it wasn't. We know now, as we've heard from all of the testimony, that it has to be outside the chain of command.
We assigned the external comprehensive review to Madam Arbour, who is going to be looking into an independent, external reporting system outside of the chain of command. She's going to review policies, procedures, programs, practices and culture. She's going to review systemic issues and culture change, the military justice system and the system of rewards and promotions. Again, this is something that is very important. We saw, when Mr. O'Toole was aware of some rumours on this, that when it went to the NIS, General Vance was promoted while that investigation was still open. This is one thing we need to look at. How do we promote and reward, making sure that people who display these behaviours and do this kind of thing do not get rewarded and promoted?
I would also like to note that Madame Deschamps herself yesterday made a statement. I'd like to read for you the statement she made about the appointment of Madam Arbour. She said: “I welcome the appointment of Madam Arbour. From what I read, her mandate appears to be broader than the one that I was given. This would not be a mere repetition of what I did.”
Yes, we know that all governments, all of us, for 40 years.... I had somebody phone me and tell me about something that had happened to her 40 years ago in the military. This has been decades-long....
I think we need to move on to our study on military justice. I think we need to focus on the mental health study that is already drafted and that we just need to come to a consensus on and table in the House. I think we need to focus on the survivors. I think that after three months, after all of the testimony we've heard, I.... We could continue down this road and we could call witness after witness. We have a list; of course we have one. We could call the person who said in 2015 that he felt he was under “pressure”. We could call all of these people, but you know what? We're rising above it, because it is time that we focus on the survivors. It is time that we move ahead with the good work of this committee. I believe that is exactly what we need to do.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
All right. Thank you very much, Madam Vandenbeld.
Mr. Spengemann, please.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Madam Chair, thank you very much. With your indulgence and the committee's indulgence, I'd like to make a brief intervention on the question of trust.
Going back to what Mr. Garrison said a number of interventions ago, I think trust is front and centre in so many ways. Trust is what drives the effectiveness, the health and the reputation of any organization. Trust takes a long time to build, and it takes a very, very short time to destroy, threaten or erode it. That's what we're facing in the Canadian Armed Forces. That's, as I've alluded to, what a number of other jurisdictions are facing.
I want to point out to the committee that trust takes a number of different forms. It's trust among serving members. It's trust across ranks. It's trust across genders. It's trust across the entire spectrum of equity, diversity and inclusion within the Canadian Armed Forces. It's also trust vis-à-vis civilian employees, trust that recruits have by exploring whether or not they would want to join the Canadian Forces. It's trust between militaries. Equally important, it's trust as we talk, as members of this committee, among ourselves. In that respect, I think it is important that we overcome partisanship to the greatest possible extent and start to get to the same side of the table to tackle the problem together. I think the conversation this afternoon is taking us in that direction, so I'm encouraged and optimistic by what I've heard so far, Madam Chair.
Let me start this brief intervention with a quote. I'm going to quote a tweet from Minister Sajjan that was sent literally 24 hours ago, yesterday afternoon. He wrote on Twitter:
Every day our @CanadianForces members risk their lives to support our allies, partners & friends.
But it is clear that we have not lived up to our responsibility to protect members from sexual misconduct.
That is our Minister of National Defence, Harjit Sajjan, who's testified to this committee for a six-hour period.
Prime Minister Trudeau has taken questions on this issue in the House. With respect to the allegations involving the former chief of the defence staff under the tenure of our government, as colleagues have pointed out in previous interventions—I won't repeat all the details—it is clear that the evidentiary threshold that's required has not been reached. It has not been reached because the preference, the strong preference, of the complainant was that she did not trust the system to the extent that she would want to come forward.
Madam Chair, even if it had been reached, we have received strong evidence from witnesses submitted by all members, by all parties, on this committee that it is not appropriate for a minister, for a prime minister, to then take action to launch an investigation, to influence an investigative process, but that the right process is to bring this to the attention of the proper regulatory and investigative authorities. That's the state of evidence as it is before the committee.
A minute ago, my colleague Ms. Vandenbeld mentioned some new information that came to the committee's attention with respect to the former chief of the defence staff. In an article about a week ago, he is reported to have claimed that he was untouchable, that he owned the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service. We then found out that there was an investigation that, subsequent to his appointment, was stopped some four days afterwards.
The appointment of the former chief of the defence staff took place under the Stephen Harper government and members of his cabinet, including Erin O'Toole, who was then minister of veterans affairs. I say this not because it is a partisan conclusion; it's not. It's no more partisan.... It is non-partisan in the same sense that the discussion with respect to the former chief of the defence staff and the allegations of misconduct from 2018 forward are not partisan. They occurred under the Trudeau government, but we heard very emphatically that elected officials do not have a role in the investigative process. To the same effect, that would hold true of Prime Minister Harper and of Erin O'Toole in his then capacity.
However, the trans-partisan interest on the part of every official and every member of this committee should be to find out how and why a chief of the defence staff who claimed to own the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service was then somehow, all of a sudden, let off the hook four days later because, subsequent to his appointment, an investigation was dropped. That is a question that is non-partisan. That is a structural question with respect to the power structures in the Canadian Forces. That is a question that needs to be answered. Recommendations need to be put forward, as my colleague in her previous intervention pointed out, to the effect that a serving member of the Canadian Forces who is under investigation may not or should not be promoted during that investigation. That is one clear recommendation that colleagues could react to, that we could put forward. That's the kind of track that we should move forward on as members of this committee united in our quest to restore trust in the Canadian Armed Forces.
Madam Chair, if you'll permit me, I'll say just a brief closing word on the question of trust. Trust also extends, as was pointed out in previous testimony, to the leadership role that the Canadian Forces play in so many parts of the world, and to the potential for the Canadian Forces to continue to lead on questions of gender equality, diversity and inclusion.
We're out front on the Elsie initiative, on the initiatives around women, peace and security. We have recognized that when we empower women in the Canadian Forces, in peacekeeping operations, in NATO operations, we do the right thing morally because women have a right to serve as much as every other gender, but we also achieve much better peacekeeping and operational outcomes. It is that trust also that we should focus on. It isn't only limited to what the Canadian Forces do within our borders; it is the leadership role that they can and should project around the world. That is really where the committee should and could direct its attention.
I encourage all of us, as we have moved towards in conversation this afternoon, to come to the same side of the table on this problem. It cuts across two governments. It isn't solved yet. We have a very authoritative leading, eminent thinker who has been empowered to write a report and to give us her recommendations. Parallel with that, we can keep pace. We can potentially even move some recommendations out front and achieve some changes out front as she does her work.
With that, I'll turn it back to you and thank you for the time.