National Defence Committee on May 18th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you, Madam Gallant.

Go ahead, Mr. Baker. You can finish.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Before that point of order, I was just summarizing. I was saying that I'm inspired by Christine Wood and people like her. She's suffering. Her colleagues are suffering. They're showing a tremendous amount of courage and they've spoken out about how long they've been waiting. If we can contribute even one ounce toward that solution, toward alleviating that suffering even just a little bit, I think that should be our number one priority. Let's make it our priority. Let's defeat this motion, and let's solve this problem.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you, Mr. Baker.

We'll go on to Mr. Bagnell and then Mr. Spengemann.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

It's always hard to go after Mr. Baker because I think he's saying what many committee members are thinking but can't say as well, and I think all the committee members want to help the members of the CAF with the three main problems that Christine had outlined, the chain of command, the reporting and the culture, and as I said before, that's what we should get on to.

In reply to what Mrs. Gallant said, I agree with her that there were a lot of things in the Deschamps report. The many steps that were taken by the present minister have been outlined in this committee, but there are things that were not done, and so the form that they should take is exactly what we should be discussing now to deal with those particular issues.

As I said, I'd rather we just stopped all this and got on to dealing with those three major issues to help the members in the military, but if there are committee members who still want to do the “who knew what, why and where”, as was said earlier in this meeting, there have been much more serious allegations raised, probably since this motion was written and certainly since the last meetings, related to the appointment of General Vance in the beginning.

Mr. O'Toole, when he was Minister of Veterans Affairs, passed on a potential rumour, a complaint, to Ray Novak, who very nicely came before committee and provided his thoughts on that. He mentioned that he had asked the national security adviser, Richard Fadden, about the Gagetown incident and to look into it, but the media have suggested that Mr. Fadden has said he does not remember investigating that particular complaint or actually receiving it, although he doesn't disagree with Mr. Novak's memory that he may have mentioned it to Mr. Fadden, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence of that investigation or that it was acted upon.

If there was a complaint and it wasn't investigated or it wasn't acted upon, then why was General Vance appointed? On all these things, I think we need more details.

I've just heard from the media. I haven't had time to sort it out. Some of it I just saw this morning and the others I was just reading about on the weekend, but the outgoing chief of staff at the time said he was crystal clear that there was no allegation related to misconduct by Vance at Gagetown that was ever brought to him, and he was helping with the appointment of a new chief of staff. He said he was crystal clear about that in the article, including that when he was helping to find a replacement, he would have remembered any allegation, he said, and he said his mind was not fuzzy at all about that.

There was another investigation related to NATO, and Richard Fadden and I think the outgoing chief of staff mentioned it, but not the Gagetown one, and as I said, I don't want to go into any of this, but I will say to those members of the committee who honestly want to go into this, who want to know “who, what and where”, that this is a much more serious allegation.

Megan Mackenzie, an expert on sexual misconduct in the military at Simon Fraser University, said that no one handled it well, but if the investigation was still open or any investigation was still open, then why did cabinet appoint General Vance? Then the military police recommended an end to an investigation, apparently on July 17, the day that General Vance was sworn in, and then four days later it was closed. How did that process evolve on those dates?

I'm sure that things are still evolving as people are researching this. As I said, if we have to go into how, when, why, and where, these are much more serious allegations and would have to be dealt with. That's not my interest. My interest is in helping the women in the military, going back to recommendations that would change the culture and the fear of reporting.

There are so many incidents. Rather than spending time on these one or two instances and one or two individuals, we should get on with the major, substantial structural problem. Even though there are hundreds and probably thousands of incidents, an incident affects people for the rest of their lives. It's not just a momentary incident.

That's why we have to put all this aside and get down to recommendations to solve those three problems so that people never again fear to choose a great career in the military with the great honour of protecting us as citizens. If they make a report of something inappropriate, they should not worry that it's going to affect the career they've invested their lives in. We should not allow that to occur because of a culture that is accepted and has occurred not only in our military but, as Mr. Spengemann has pointed out, in militaries around the world.

I think there are people on the committee who have the ability to deal with those problems and get on with them and come up with some very good recommendations. That would be my preference at this time, but I'll leave that up to the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bagnell.

We'll go to Mr. Spengemann and then Ms. Sidhu.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Madam Chair, thank you very much.

I'd like to thank both my colleagues immediately preceding me, Mr. Baker and Mr. Bagnell, for their interventions.

The human dimension of this is front and centre. It ranks top of mind. It makes this an issue that we simply need to tackle. The expectations could not be higher, and we need to move forward and bring a report that will make a difference, that will change the Canadian Armed Forces structurally.

Mr. Baker made reference to the experience that we see elsewhere in the world. In previous interventions a few weeks ago, I had a chance to introduce some of these considerations and experiences. I introduced them, Madam Chair, because this is really an addition to the substance of these experiences, which is helpful to the committee as we now very rapidly approach the deadline in our time frame for consideration of this report, as proposed by the motion, which in fact is next week. I'm hoping that the committee will take a different path and will allow for more incubation of these issues and more impactful recommendations before we break for the summer recess.

I raise these considerations from other countries—and they include South Africa, the U.K., Sweden, Australia—in addition to institutional work that was done by NATO and by institutions like the Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces, as it was then known in Geneva.

The fact that there's such a great incident rate in so many countries around the world with militaries that are similar to ours in structure, orientation, expertise, vision and training really underscores the structural, systemic nature of the issue that we're facing. It simply isn't limited to the cases, however many we have here in Canada and as disturbing as that is. Unless we change the structure, it is a recipe for the generation of additional cases and additional victims.

That is one part of the consideration for why these comparative experiences from other countries are so important and why we actually should work together with militaries elsewhere and share our expertise and share our story, as the the United Kingdom has done. I raise that as one example that's particularly salient.

The Wigston report, which was put together by Air Chief Marshal Sir Michael Wigston, conducted a thorough review in 2019. The advantage that we have from the U.K. experience is that the very next year, in 2020, they published a progress report on unacceptable behaviour. Therefore, not only did they get out front of the issue in considerable detail and with recommendations that are impactful and, in my submission, to some extent replicable and emulatable here in Canada, but they also did the follow-up work to see if the recommendations worked. It has actually harnessed, in the very short term, the reaction within the British Armed Forces and the British public.

One of the key considerations that's before the committee and in all of the interventions of my colleagues across party lines is the question of trust within the Canadian Armed Forces, trust by serving members and former serving members, and the trust that victims should have in coming forward in voicing concerns and making complaints. On this level, I think the U.K. experience is helpful, and I'm going to put forward to the committee for consideration some of the thoughts that relate to the question of trust, particularly with respect to the chain of command that's been subject to the discussion today and is relevant to the motion.

The chain of command really is a fundamental structural obstacle with respect to the resolution of sexual misconduct cases, and the U.K. really took this issue seriously, acknowledged it and came up with, I believe—

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

I have a point of order.

We heard this in a previous filibuster, this exact same report. I'm wondering what the relevance is with respect to this motion that we're debating. He's putting out more evidence—or repeating, more accurately—the evidence we heard during the filibuster.

Could he speak to the actual motion that is before us, as opposed to debating something that is not before us?

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you, Madam Gallant.

Carry on, Mr. Spengemann.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Madam Chair, thank you very much for the point of order. Let me just respond briefly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Yes, please.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

It's well and good, procedurally, that the Conservatives have put forward what they would like to discuss in the form of a motion. They also seek to shut down debate within this committee on this report within a week and a half, and I believe there are very fundamental considerations.

Other countries have done the work that this committee has not yet done. Therefore, I'm going to take time to put those considerations before this committee in an expedited fashion to make sure that if we don't do the work ourselves, we at least have in front of us the experience of those countries that have done this work and are making progress. I would urge you, Madam Chair, to rule that this is directly relevant to the motion. The Conservatives may wish to discuss their preferred outcome of the motion; I'm going to put to the committee what I believe are the fundamental considerations that we need to engage in within the very short time frame we have.

With that, Madam Chair, Air Chief Marshal Wigston concluded in his findings on the question of trust. Trust, as I said a minute ago, is front and centre in every consideration with respect to this issue. There's a breakdown of trust that's been acknowledged by the minister, by the Prime Minister, by witnesses and, I believe, in large part, by every member of this committee. We're dealing with the fundamental breakdown of trust on the issue of systemic challenges with respect to sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces.

The United Kingdom—

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

On a point of order, Madam Chair, this report has already been read out to the committee—

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

It has not, Madam Gallant. It has not.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

They have to put out new information. As for the Wigston report, perhaps he wasn't here that day, but we heard the whole Wigston report. It was recited to us over hours.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

I don't think I did. Maybe—

Go ahead, Mr. Spengemann.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Madam Chair, if I may respond, I've kept very careful tabs on my document in terms of where I left off last time. As I said, this report is extensive but illuminating. There is also a follow-on report that outlines progress in 2020. The Wigston report section that I'm referring to now is with respect to trust and specifically what other stakeholders think of governance structures and concerns within the British Armed Forces. That is information I have not put to the committee in previous interventions, and I will now proceed to do so, with your indulgence, Madam Chair—

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

On a point of order, Madam Chair—

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Go ahead, Madam Gallant.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

This motion before us is requesting that Zita Astravas come before us. Did Zita go before the committee in the U.K. as a witness on the Wigston report?

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

On the—

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Madam Chair, the Conservatives may wish to discuss what's in their motion. I'm going to refer the committee to what I think we should be doing instead of shutting down this process on May 28, as the motion proposes. There are serious gaps and considerations with respect to trust that come from other countries with helpful evidence, helpful research and helpful conclusions that I believe the committee needs to hear.

If we're not having the discussions among ourselves, as we should, I will put some of these considerations forward. They will be helpful to what we should be putting into this report and what Canadian Forces members and the Canadian public really expect us to be doing.

We often look to our friends and allies within the Five Eyes and other jurisdictions. In this case, the United Kingdom has done some very substantial, progressive and quick work on this very issue that is before the committee today.

The report states:

There is a notable perception among external stakeholders that trust in the system [in the United Kingdom] is not as strong as it used to be; over half of the external stakeholders consulted, without prompting, alluded to this sentiment. Some of them considered that units are sweeping issues under the carpet through a 'protect the cap badge' mentality, and for presentational reasons, up to the organisational chain of command.

It requires no further thought to see how relevant these insights are to our considerations here in Canada.

It goes on:

Support organisations suggest more requests for help are being lodged externally rather than through internal support channels, partly due to the association of these organisations with the chain of command, but also as a last resort when the chain of command has failed them. In many cases it was reported to us that victims are afraid to report an issue as they do not believe they will be understood or taken seriously. Cultural differentials play strongly into this space; the chain of command is not normally culturally representative of those under their command, and so people fear—or experience—unconscious bias through issues being considered in a manner which lacks empathy or understanding of the significance of a situation to the person.

Madam Chair, it's a very detailed and human approach by the United Kingdom that's directly relevant to what we should be considering here today.

We've talked at length over sessions of testimony about confidence in the system and the willingness to come forward. In the United Kingdom, the report states:

We heard repeated suggestions of Service people not reporting inappropriate or unacceptable behaviour because of a fear of the consequences of doing so. Similarly, military culture and a rigid hierarchy inhibits bystander intervention and the ability of lower ranks to challenge the behaviours of their seniors. Such fears include the impact on their career prospects; being perceived as a trouble-maker; the issue being placed on their career record; potential consequences on career and home life; the potential that stepping forward would aggravate the situation; a fear of not fitting in; segregation and no longer being treated as a member of the group; not being believed; their concern not being taken seriously; and the chain of command at every level lacking the time to do anything with the issue. Many simply consider that reporting inappropriate behaviour to their chain of command would get them nowhere, a pattern which the Service Complaints Ombudsman has also recognised. The net result suggests a sense of helplessness among some of our people, who either keep quiet or turn to a fully anonymous external service for help.

On the service complaints system in the United Kingdom, the report states:

The 2018 report from the Service Complaints Ombudsman noted the majority of users who did make a Service Complaint were dissatisfied with the time taken to resolve the complaint, and three-quarters considered they had suffered negative consequences as a result of pursuing a formal complaint. Across the Services, only 50% of Service Complaints were closed within the 24-week target, falling significantly short of the 90% target; on average it is currently taking 53 weeks to resolve a bullying, harassment or discrimination Service Complaint

This is in the United Kingdom.

It goes on:

External stakeholders told us our people have lost faith in the Service Complaints system. It is perceived to lack independence from the chain of command at every level, and many of our stakeholders question its ability to be impartial or for people to use it without attracting negative consequences. The Service Complaints Ombudsman has noted in successive annual reports, “…the lack of confidence in the system also continues to be a key issue…and one which requires considerable focus and attention if we are ever to achieve an efficient, effective and fair system.”

The view of the external stakeholder community as reported to us is consistent and clear - the creation of a complaints organisation which allows for anonymous reporting and support for people affected, and external to the Armed Forces would allow people the freedom to make a complaint without the fear of reprisal. We return to this point in Part 3 of the Report.

Sir Michael Wigston goes on. The observation, in this case, was that:

External stakeholders highlight shortcomings in how Defence deals with instances of inappropriate behaviour, the efficacy of the current Service Complaints system especially.

The report then goes to questions of mandatory training within the armed forces. It states the following:

All Services deliver mandated training on diversity, inclusion and values; it is often delivered within a tight timescale and can, in some areas, focus on compliance rather than behaviours and cultural change.

This is directly relevant to Canada, Madam Chair, in the sense that recommendations may well include recommendations for increased training within the Canadian Armed Forces. The British experience tells us what the constraints and shortfalls of such training initiatives may be and how they may be adapted to better serve the purpose of achieving true culture change.

Senior Officers...must attend a one-day course every three years. Feedback from the Defence Academy indicates that the Senior Officer courses are often under subscribed, due to frequent last-minute drop outs and pressure on diaries.

They make a recommendation as follows:

Mandated diversity, inclusion and values training must be prioritised [in the British armed forces], irrespective of rank.

Then, Madam Chair, if you'll indulge me, with respect to additional training in the British Armed Forces, the report says:

...the Armed Forces deliver sessions on behaviours, ethics, culture and inclusion within their command courses, usually during leadership modules. In the best cases, the training becomes more interactive with scenario-based role-play, which carries more impact and is much better received than formal presentations or online training. The Naval Service training approach already reflects significantly greater emphasis on cultural change rather than compliance; the Royal Air Force have similarly implemented behaviours and perceptions workshops for military and civilian personnel. Army analysis also recognises the value of peer-based discursive learning; subject-specific training interventions include: sexual behaviours training by military police; and novel approaches such as ‘Dilemma’ and ‘Respect for Others’ scenario-based training delivered in partnership with trained facilitators. Immersive training approaches such as these are engaging, effective and recognised leading practice. All indications are positive, however there is no established pan-Defence process for measuring the impact of these [training] programmes. There is also a pressing need for training interventions aimed specifically to address the overrepresentation of minority groups, women and junior ranks in the complaints process.

The British Armed Forces report makes three recommendations related to training. They are as follows:

Maximise use of immersive values-based training across Defence.

Defence should investigate causes of overrepresentation of minority groups, women and junior ranks in the complaints process and implement the necessary training interventions as part of an overarching strategy to address the issue.

Defence should develop a process for measuring the impact of culture and behaviours training programmes.

Madam Chair, these are just a few passages from an important section of the report that speaks to trust. Often the reflex on the part of committees such as ours might be to recommend increased training. We need the granularity to figure out what kinds of training programs really are effective in changing the culture, how they are going to be received and how they are going to be evaluated.

In this short intervention, Madam Chair, this is one issue that I wanted to put to the committee for consideration in the recommendations that we hopefully will have the time to elaborate upon in some detail. I'll come back with further thoughts a bit later on, but will leave it there for now.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you very much, Mr. Spengemann.

We move on to Madam Sidhu, please.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It is important for me to speak today. As a member of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, I know how serious the issue we are discussing here is.

Here's the main point: I believe we have to go above politics here and focus on survivors. I'm disappointed to see the politicization of this issue. It's so hurtful, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Just a minute, please, Madame Sidhu. The interpreters are having a bit of trouble hearing you correctly.

Perhaps you could raise your microphone so that it's beside your nose.

Go ahead and try that again, please.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair, for giving me the opportunity.

It is so important for me to speak today. As a member of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, I know how serious this issue is that we're discussing here today.

Here's the main point: I believe we have to go above politics here and focus on survivors. I'm disappointed to see the politicization of this issue. It is so hurtful, Madam Chair.

Since March we have been conducting our own study on the same issue, following up on another study that we conducted in 2019. So far we have had eight meetings and heard from 36 witnesses, including the Minister of National Defence, Justice Deschamps, senior CF officials, law enforcement and over a dozen survivors of sexual assault in the military.

These stories have been difficult to listen to, and I heartily commend all the survivors for coming forward. Having heard from the witnesses in FEWO, I agree that we need to work with the witnesses and work with the survivors, not play politics. Madam Chair, let me be clear: The survivors need solutions, not politics.

First I want to focus on the solution, Madam Chair. I have been encouraged by the amount of political will shown by the government, including the Prime Minister, the Minister of National Defence, and my friend the parliamentary secretary, who joined us in these meetings in FEWO in their sincere commitment to reform the culture of the armed forces and to better support survivors.

When the minister appeared on March 23, he acknowledged that a great deal of work needs to be done. He said:

Sexual misconduct, harassment and inappropriate behaviour are not acceptable. We must call them out for what they are: an abuse of power. Such behaviour is contrary to our values as Canadians and harmful to the Canadian Forces operational effectiveness. We want to prevent it. We want to be there for survivors and their support networks. We want to ensure that those who come forward feel safe, supported and confident that they will be heard when they report sexual misconduct and harassment.

There is obviously more work to be done, but the government has taken several key steps to ending sexual misconduct in the armed forces as part of Operation Honour. We have passed a declaration of victims' rights, created the sexual misconduct response centre, and the government is implementing the Path to Dignity and Respect, a strategy for long-term culture change to eliminate sexual misconduct within the Canadian Armed Forces.

Following this, the Government of Canada initiated an independent external comprehensive review led by former Supreme Court Justice Louise Arbour. This review will look into harassment and sexual misconduct in the CF and will examine policies, procedures, programs, practices and culture within national defence and make recommendations for improvement.

The minister said:

Eliminating all forms of misconduct and abuse of power and creating a safe work environment for everyone in the defence team has always been a top priority for me as Minister of National Defence. However, recent media reports show that many members of the Canadian Armed Forces still do not feel safe to come forward. We know we must do more to make sure that every Canadian Armed Forces member feels safe to come forward and that we will be ready to support them when they do.

He went on to say:

Beyond the SMRC, members can also reach out to chaplain services, military family resource centres, the employee assistance program and the family information line....

and continued:

These resources are critical to supporting those affected by sexual misconduct, but they are just part of our larger efforts to build a safe and inclusive workplace for all members of our defence team. We're working to eliminate the toxic masculinity that forms part of our military culture and keeps us from moving forward, the outdated and toxic traditions that valorize toughness and aggression over emotional intelligence and co-operation, and any part of our culture that contributes to bullying, harassment and other inappropriate behaviours.

In our committee we made a conscious choice to keep the study survivor-centric. We recognized that we are not investigators, and it is not our place to risk interfering in investigations. The goal was not to look backward and find out who knew what and when, although all of those questions have been repeatedly and clearly answered in this committee. As a legislative committee, the goal was to make recommendations that would improve conditions for women in the Canadian Armed Forces going forward.

It was encouraging to hear that work has already begun on this issue. When I asked Lieutenant-General Wayne Eyre, he said he had spoken directly to survivors in the short time since he became the acting chief of the defence staff. He said that many had reached out to him and that he had carefully listened to their stories. He said the following:

One thing that is apparent to me is that we need to bring in some mechanism whereby survivors can achieve closure, perhaps where they don't necessarily want to follow a legal process. I am very keen to learn more and to see the wider restorative engagement efforts as part of a final settlement coming and perhaps as a learning opportunity to bring in some form of reconciliation process. There's much more to learn here.

Madam Chair, once again, the issue we're discussing is heartbreaking. We have to be asking questions. How can we help the survivors? As I've heard from my colleagues today, these questions are being asked by some members on the committee. I encourage everyone to focus on survivors and culture change in the Canadian Armed Forces.

Thank you, Madam Chair.