Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to thank Madame Sidhu, who joined us today. I think her subbing in was very timely because, as you pointed out, she was able to share with us some of the comments and some of the learning she and other members have acquired from her parliamentary work on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. I think that is very valuable.
It reminds us of why it's important to get to the report and focus our time on the report at this committee, which is why I believe the motion before us, which we're debating at the moment, needs to be withdrawn, or if it's not withdrawn, it needs to be defeated, to be voted against. I'm still hopeful it will be withdrawn.
I think the focus here should be on victims. One thing that Mr. Spengemann did, I thought, in his intervention, was speak about the Wigston report and some of the findings from that report that we can learn from and that we can apply to our report here.
One person who came before us was Madame Deschamps. She has done a tremendous amount of work on the issue of sexual misconduct in the military and she issued a report several years ago.
One thing she writes about in her report is under-reporting. I want to share with you some of the findings from that. They remind us of the kinds of things we need to include in our report and the kinds of recommendations we need to be prioritizing in our committee's report, as well as why we need to defeat this motion or why it needs to be withdrawn.
She writes in her report:
The CAF has, until now, failed to acknowledge the extent and pervasiveness of the problem of inappropriate sexual conduct. This may be the result of the very low number of complaints that are reported every year. In 2012, for example, a representative of the [Canadian Armed Forces] testified before the Parliamentary Standing Committee on the Status of Women that the [Canadian Armed Forces] Harassment Tracking System had recorded, for the ten-year period beginning in 2002, only 31 complaints of sexual harassment, of which 11 were founded or partially founded. Further, as noted, the JAG reported that only nine charges of sexual assault had been brought before Court Martial in the year 2011-2012. These statistics do not, however, take into account the likelihood of under-reporting, and create a misleading picture of the problem. This, in turn, has had the consequence of shifting attention in the [Canadian Armed Forces] away from the problem of inappropriate sexual conduct and its impact on the organization. Indeed, in releasing the results of the 2012 Canadian Forces Workplace Harassment Survey, the Director General of Military Personnel, Research and Analysis recommended “that attention be placed on addressing personal harassment and abuse of authority in the CAF”, rather than on sexual harassment, given the low rate of sexual harassment reported in the survey.
Here Madame Deschamps is writing about how senior leaders in the CAF have identified other issues, in this case abuse of authority, which they see as a priority over the issue of sexual harassment.
It continues:
Although the ERA was not asked to conduct surveys and obtain comparable data, the consistent evidence of inappropriate sexual conduct heard [through] the consultations strongly suggests that a much higher level of incidents occur, particularly of sexual harassment. The ERA can only conclude that there is a very serious problem of under-reporting in the CAF. Indeed, the problem of under-reporting was itself raised by numerous contributors and, as discussed in greater detail below, the ERA heard repeatedly throughout its consultations that victims of both sexual harassment and sexual assault fail to report such incidents for a variety of reasons.
The failure to report both sexual harassment and sexual assault is not specific to the [Canadian Armed Forces]. ...it is well-documented in other military organizations and more broadly in civilian life. Many of the reasons why CAF members are reluctant to report such incidents, however, appear to be connected to certain cultural norms, some of which have already been described. In particular, participants reported concerns about negative consequences for the complainant's career, loss of privacy and confidentiality, fear of collateral charges, and a deep scepticism that the chain of command would respond sensitively and appropriately to the complaint. Yet without information about what is occurring on the ground, the CAF is unable to make necessary changes to reduce inappropriate sexual conduct. Improving the rate of reporting is therefore crucial if senior leaders are to understand how policies are implemented and where they need to be improved. Under-reporting is a reality that needs to be understood and addressed if a change of culture and reduction of incidents is to be achieved.
In this particular segment, Madame Deschamps obviously is writing about under-reporting. One thing that I want to highlight out of the segment is the reasons that victims don't report. She highlights that when she says the following:
...participants reported concerns about negative consequences for the complainant’s career, loss of privacy and confidentiality, fear of collateral charges, and a deep skepticism that the chain of command would respond sensitively and appropriately to the complaint.
Here we have one of the challenges. This is not the first time we've heard about it at this committee during this study. We have to make sure that there's a process that builds up trust to ensure that victims or complainants can bring forward those allegations and not face some of these negative consequences. I think this is one of the things we've heard about at committee.
I highlight it here because I think it's important. We need to be able to tackle this. This is one of the problems we need to be able to tackle to address sexual harassment and assault in the armed forces. That's why I believe this motion needs to be withdrawn. It focuses our attention on more of the political game-playing instead of tackling some of the problems that need to be tackled to address this problem, like the one that I just highlighted, the under-reporting that Madame Deschamps wrote extensively about in her report.
There's another thing I want to bring to the committee's attention. That's the further testimony at FEWO, the committee on the status of women, by a witness named Julie Lalonde. She was asked about PTSD among MST survivors. Julie Lalonde said:
I can tell you that the highest rate of post-traumatic stress disorder worldwide is among victims of rape and sexual violence. The second-highest rate is in the military. We urgently need to take this seriously.
Trauma shouldn't be organized into a hierarchy. When their trauma isn't considered equivalent to the trauma caused by war, victims of sexual violence don't receive the support that they deserve. That's unacceptable.
I highlight this because when I hear testimony like this, it's a reminder of how much is at stake in this study. When you hear about the rates of PTSD among victims of rape and sexual violence, how can we not focus our attention on that? There are Canadian members of the armed forces who have served our country and are serving our country who are struggling with this. Some of them, I presume, are following this committee. Some of them may be watching today. How do we defend passing this motion and then spending most of the next five weeks playing further political games—calling witnesses again to answer questions we've already heard the answers to and scoring political points to grab a headline—when this is happening? It's happening on our watch. I think we can contribute to solving it, and I wanted to highlight that testimony as a reminder of what's at stake.
Another piece of testimony that I think is relevant to hear is what we heard from Mr. Okros. Mr. Okros came to this committee, but he also presented to the committee on the status of women. He was asked a question about the urgency of taking action. He said the following:
This is urgent. We have people who are still hurting. We have members internally within the military. It's been stated. They have lost trust. That needs to be rebuilt with urgency. Canadians need to have confidence in their military. They need to have confidence that when particularly young women, young men and people of diverse identities choose to serve Canada in uniform, they will be treated with respect and have good, full, meaningful careers. That needs to be something that is communicated effectively.
Mr. Okros—whom we all heard from during this study, so we all know him and his credentials—says, “We have people who are hurting. We have members internally within the military hurting,” so these folks are hurting. I don't know, to me.... Folks like my colleagues on this committee, people—Canadians—are hurting. Members of the armed forces are hurting. We're hearing this from victims like Christine Wood, whom I spoke about earlier, but we're hearing from experts like Mr. Okros. He's not alone. They're hurting, and we're not going to dedicate our time to relieving that hurt?
I don't know how to even explain to someone how we're not going to do that. Why wouldn't we do what we could? Why wouldn't we contribute to that outcome to help relieve the pain that people are feeling?
He goes on to say, “It's been stated. They have lost trust. That needs to be rebuilt with urgency.” On the issue of trust, we've heard extensively, not just from Mr. Okros but from others, that many have lost trust. I think virtually every member of this committee has spoken to that issue here. Other members of the forces, and certainly those people who are victims and want to bring forward allegations, have lost trust.
Let's start doing things. Let's put in place the processes to rebuild that trust. That's not something that happens overnight, but Mr. Okros was talking about how this has to be done with urgency. We heard that from him. We're hearing that from others. To my colleagues on the committee, why wouldn't we show that urgency? As elected officials in this Parliament, we know more about the issue of sexual harassment and sexual assault in the Canadian Armed Forces than I would suspect most elected officials do. Certainly we're among the most knowledgeable of the elected officials in this Parliament and probably prior parliaments. People are looking to us to show leadership on this. It's urgent to rebuild that trust.
This motion basically says we're going to set solving this problem aside to be able to call witnesses we've called before, ask questions we've asked before and hear answers we've heard before. Really? I mean, let's respond to these calls for urgent action.
I get that this committee isn't going to solve this alone, but this committee is here to contribute. If we can even contribute a little bit, that's worth it. That's worth it.
Anyway, I'll go on to the next portion of what Mr. Okros said:
Canadians need to have confidence...that when particularly young women, young men, and people of diverse identities choose to serve Canada in uniform, they will be treated with respect and have good, full, meaningful careers.
When I think about Canada, one of the things I think is great about Canada is our diversity, with people of different backgrounds, different expertise and different ages. The Canadian Armed Forces, and we've heard this.... I think all members of this committee would agree that ensuring that the Canadian Armed Forces can attract people of diverse backgrounds—men and women of diverse backgrounds, expertise and points of view, from different parts of Canada—is really vital to making sure that we have strong armed forces, because you need to have the best and the brightest. Only by attracting folks from all corners of society can you do that. We've heard that, and I think most members of the committee would agree with that.
What strikes me most about that testimony about the need to be able to attract and retain young women and young men of diverse identities is the fact that Canada is so diverse. It's one of our strengths, but the current situation, the problem we have yet to solve around how members of the forces are treated around sexual assault and sexual misconduct of any kind, is preventing that from happening. By not acting on this, by not acting on these warnings from Mr. Okros and others, by not attracting that diversity, we're not going to have the strongest armed forces we could have.
This committee, therefore, by not acting on that and by prioritizing its time for political game playing, as proposed in this motion—which proposes that we spend all our time on things that lead to politics and finger-pointing rather than on actually writing the report, which is how we make a difference—is taking away an opportunity to strengthen the Canadian Armed Forces, the very armed forces that we laud, that we talk about needing to be strengthened.
I just think it's too bad that this motion before us was introduced. I urge the members of the committee to withdraw this motion. If the member who introduced it, Mr. Bezan, is not going to withdraw it, then I'd urge the members of this committee to vote against it.
Earlier, I read you remarks made by Christine Wood when she appeared before another committee.
Now, I'd like to read another very important statement, survivor Emily Tulloch's. It's not that long. Here goes:
I joined the Canadian Armed Forces in July of 2018. Since then, I feel like I've experienced a lifetime's worth of sexual assault and misconduct. I'm here today to tell you that I was raped only one month—one month—into my basic training in Saint-Jean. I was also sexually assaulted during my training in Borden. I have been groped and kissed unwillingly at crew parties and mess events. These degrading behaviours are more common than you think. On top of all that, I have put up with misogynistic and sexist comments all throughout my career. They range from being told that I only got in because I'm a girl to what an instructor in Borden said to me while looking me dead in the eye: If you've had daddy fix everything for you in your cozy little life, let us know so we can give you a hand. I believe in the importance of the military. I hope to continue my career and to serve my country to the best of my abilities. My experience with our military justice system, however, has been quite negative. It has left me with a lot of questions about how military police should conduct their investigations. I had three interviews with the military police since I first reported misconduct. Two of those interviews were honestly dreadful. These so-called interviews felt more like interrogation. During these interviews, I felt that investigators were not treating me like a human being. I was just another case file to them. There was no empathy or humanity. It was so frustrating that I left early during the second interview. I felt like I wasn't being heard and was being treated like a criminal. No one should be treated like a criminal when they are that vulnerable and in need of help.
The military police need to improve their training for how to conduct interviews of sexual assault victims. There needs to be a specific course made to teach them that victims need understanding and empathy. If there already is a course, then they need to tear it apart and rebuild it from the ground up. I also believe that an officer of the same sex of the victim should conduct the interview. In my situation, it wasn't offered that I could speak to a female officer until halfway through my interview, when I started crying. Even then the military police said they would have to reschedule for the next week, because there was no female officer available. In basic training the leadership tries to ingrain the core values of the military in recruits. These values are duty, loyalty, integrity and courage. These values are taught through PowerPoint and workbooks. However, these values are falling through the cracks. That is how we get this toxic culture that we have been dealing with for so long. It has been abundantly clear that military leadership has not been able to uphold the high ethical standards of integrity. If the leadership can't follow basic core values and set a good example, how are the majority of troops supposed to? In basic training we are shown this cartoon video that oversimplifies the concept of consent. In my view, the video is little more than a joke. It's all fun to watch, but the topic of sexual misconduct isn't fun. It should be uncomfortable enough to realize that this is a real issue that needs to be dealt with.
I read that statement because it really had an impact on me. It reminds us why we have to help people like Ms. Tulloch. She had the courage to come before a parliamentary committee to tell her story and describe just how much she and some of her fellow members were suffering. She begins her statement by saying, “I joined the Canadian Armed Forces in July of 2018. Since then, I feel like I've experienced a lifetime's worth of sexual assault and misconduct.”
Can we not help Ms. Tulloch, or at least try to, instead of spending the next five weeks asking the same questions of witnesses we have already met with, just to hear the same answers, all in an effort to make a political party look bad? Should that really be our priority after hearing a statement like that?
She states, “I'm here today to tell you that I was raped only one month—one month—into my basic training in Saint-Jean.” Is this really how we want to respond to something like that?
It can't be. Let's focus on the problem Emily Tulloch brought to our attention. I read you what she said. She described precisely the problem we should be fixing, and to do that, we need to draft a report.
We have to tell Canadians what we have heard these past four months. I can't remember when exactly we began studying this, but it has been months. That is what we should do. We became members of Parliament to help people, to help our constituents.
What are we going to tell Ms. Tulloch and Ms. Wood? What are we going to say to them five weeks from now? That we spent another chunk of time playing politics and only a bit of time working on a rushed report? Is that our priority?
We should be showing leadership on this issue. In Parliament, we are the ones who know the most about the issue. We have spent four months working on it. It is unbelievable that we are discussing a motion that will not prioritize Ms. Tulloch or Ms. Wood. I can't wrap my head around it.
I beseech the committee members to vote against this motion, to support victims and to address the issue in hand. The issue is not about figuring out what one official told another official or hearing from the same people for the 10th or 20th time. That is not how we will fix the problems Ms. Tulloch and Ms. Wood have described. We will fix them by spending our meeting time working together and writing a report.
I urge you to listen to their testimony, to think about them and to vote against this motion.
