Madam Chair, thank you very much. I appreciate the motion. Mr. Bezan has every right to bring it.
I would like to give the committee my reflections in response to that motion, on where I think we are, and what this case is fundamentally all about.
I'd like to echo the comments made by my colleague Mr. Baker a few minutes ago with respect to the importance of the work of this committee and what is ahead of us, and the expectations that Canadians have for this committee to invest itself in the formulation of recommendations that will lead to real change in the culture, which we have heard so much about.
Madam Chair, fundamentally this is about power. Specifically, it is about the abuse of power, primarily against female serving members or former serving members of the Canadian Armed Forces. In a recent article in the Ottawa Citizen, dated April 22, Jonathan Vance is reported to have said—to have boasted—that he was "untouchable" by military police. He bragged about "owning" the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service, or CFNIS.
Jonathan Vance was appointed by former prime minister Harper and his cabinet, which then included the leader of the official opposition, Erin O'Toole, in his capacity at that time of Veterans Affairs minister. We've just heard from my colleague Mr. Baker that General Vance was still under active investigation at the time of his appointment. His tenure then extended into the current government under Prime Minister Trudeau. During that latter part of his tenure, until most recently, in every instance there was no actionable evidence. There were rumours, but nothing that was actionable.
Madam Chair, it's important to note that Jonathan Vance did not create the harmful culture in the Canadian Armed Forces, but he was a beneficiary of it and exploited it. Again, this is about power. It's about the abuse of power and the exercise of power in a way that has greatly harmed each individual victim and, in my submission, the Canadian Armed Forces as a whole.
The solutions, then, will have to be about effective oversight. They will have to be about investigative mechanisms, accountability and, ultimately, culture change.
Oversight, Madam Chair, falls into two components. There is internal oversight and external oversight. In my last submission at the last session we had on this issue, I made reference to the fact that a number of our friends and allies in other countries around the world are going through very similar questions and processes, some of which are helpful and illuminating to our work. With respect to internal oversight, very recently—literally within the last 24 hours—there was a Hill article referring to developments in the U.S., which says that retired admiral Michael Mullen, who is involved in the examination of this issue on the U.S. side, says that he now supports removing commanders from sexual assault prosecutions. He is quoted by Politico as saying, “I'm at a point now where I am ready to support removal, which is a huge step for me because I recognize how serious that issue is," and "We just can't keep doing what we're doing because it hasn't worked."
Mullen's comments come after Senator Gillibrand, a Democrat from New York, on Thursday released a bill with bipartisan support that would take away the power of military commanders to decide if a sexual assault case should be prosecuted. The bill would give specially trained military prosecutors the reins in navigating sexual assault cases. Many lawmakers have changed their minds on this issue and have come to support Gillibrand's proposal, but Mullen's statement is particularly impactful as he is a former chair of the joint chiefs and is the top adviser to the Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin, in the U.S.
Madam Chair, I raise that example because there are ideas and solutions that are coming at us from other jurisdictions. I will hopefully have a chance to make some other submissions later on in the committee's work today.
It's also important to recognize that with respect to internal oversight, we need to support the allies—the serving members of the Canadian Armed Forces, male and female, who are prepared to speak out, who recognize this to be an issue, and who are fighting for change inside the Canadian Armed Forces.
Clearly, internal oversight has not been enough. As we saw, the former chief of the defence staff claimed that he was owning the CFNIS, so internal oversight would fall flat if we take that at face value. With respect to external or civilian oversight, Madam Chair, the committee has learned from witnesses, virtually uniformly across the testimony, that elected officials, including prime ministers and ministers, cannot launch or oversee investigations. It is simply inappropriate to do so in Canada, because we are founded on a system that is supported by the separation of powers.
If the military investigative service in Canada, due to the constellation of internal power structures, can indeed by owned by a particular chief of the defence staff, then external mechanisms need to be explored so that victims can indeed be empowered to come forward.
Minister Sajjan has been very clear across his six hours of testimony before this committee. He said, “The time for patience is over.” That is the call to action for us as members of this particular committee.
The work of this committee fundamentally includes the development of recommendations for urgent structural changes to break down the harmful culture of sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces. Colleagues, Madam Chair, why is this work so critically important? As in many cases involving work on justice and on gender equality, there are two components to that. The first and most important is the moral component and the rights of women. Sexual misconduct is simply wrong. It cannot be sustained. We cannot be accepting of the fact or the idea that there will be more victims going forward.
There's a second component that we've talked about in this Parliament and in the former Parliament when this committee conducted a study with respect to equity, diversity and inclusion. Colleagues who are on the current committee have been part of that study. That's the conclusion, Madam Chair, that the Canadian Forces will be better in the field when we overcome the culture of sexual misconduct.
It is about sexual misconduct today inside the armed forces, but unless we extinguish this culture, there are risk points in the interaction of Canadian Armed Forces members with other militaries in their field work, in their alliances with NATO or inside the UN. There are also risk points vis-à-vis the behaviour of members of the armed forces vis-à-vis civilian populations. There is that second instrumental component. Not only do we need to prevent any form of misconduct, sexual violence or abuse against women, but equally, once we've overcome it, the Canadian Forces will be a stronger, better organization.
Much work has been done on the second point. The Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces, as it was once known—now the Geneva Centre for Security Sector Governance, which I've referred to in the previous session—has done extensive research and reporting. It has a plethora of recommendations that may be helpful to this committee going forward.
Let me just finish with the thought, Madam Chair, that Mr. Bezan has said that he is seeking to respect the timelines. Really what we're looking at now is another session being proposed. Another single witness is being called in the hopes of the Conservatives that this will take them somewhere in their largely political argument.
We're running out of runway to formulate the recommendations that this committee really needs to make and that Canadians need to hear in parallel with the work of Madam Justice Arbour, as my colleague Mr. Baker has outlined. For that reason, in my submission, Madam Chair, we should embark on that work.
I have yet to hear from Mr. Bezan any recommendations or reactions to the recommendations that my colleagues and I have put forward with respect to how we actually change this culture. Let's take that work seriously. Let's prioritize it. Let's achieve the changes that are so urgently needed.
I will leave it there for this submission, but we'll probably come back with more detail afterwards.
Thank you, Madam Chair.