National Defence Committee on May 21st, 2021

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Madam Chair, is it my turn or is it Madame Vandenbeld who goes next?

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

You can give Madame Vandenbeld your turn if you'd like, Mr. Baker. Then you can go after her.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Sure.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

That's very gentlemanly. Thank you very much.

Madame Vandenbeld, go ahead.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Baker.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I know it's a little more difficult when I'm in the room to know exactly where I am in the order, but I appreciate the opportunity to speak.

I note that once again in this motion, as I mentioned about the previous motion, we have limiting the ability of members to one or two minutes, no amendments and an up-down vote on recommendations that have come from witnesses who took the time to come to this committee on what are very complex issues. There are many different solutions that have been proposed by different witnesses on what can be done, not just to improve what we're able to do for survivors, but also to prevent it in the first place.

To be in a situation where, as I've mentioned before, on a report that is over 60 pages long, we won't be able to discuss between us.... This idea of a round of one minute, one minute and one minute and then, boom, we vote, well, that's not a conversation, Madam Chair. We have to be able to go back and forth. We have to be able to come to a compromise. I'll just say again, on that aspect of it, that I think this is a very bad precedent, because we all know, as members, that the real work in Parliament happens in committees. We all know, especially those of us who've been here for a number of years.

We have examples in the committees we've sat on of reports where we were able to get past our political differences, listen to what the witnesses told us and come up with some very good reports in this place. I would hate it if the report-writing part of our job were to be subject to the same kinds of political limitations and considerations that other aspects of our work are. This is where we can actually come together, really listen to Canadians, report to Parliament and then ask the government to respond to that report.

That's probably the most cynical part of this. I know that my colleagues have mentioned it, but the most cynical part of this motion is that not only are there going to be no amendments, with very limited debate and an up-down vote, where a majority can just push through whatever they want, but at the end of the day, to not ask for the government to respond to the report.... This is what accountability is, Madam Chair, to ask the government. Not wanting the government to respond is akin to saying, “We're going to be putting this through, but we don't actually want the government to take action on this and we don't want to have to say either yes or no to the different recommendations and explain why.”

Madam Chair, I would go back to the fact that we've had exceptional witnesses. It is true that at the beginning of the report, it was supposed to be three days and it was supposed to be on a very limited topic, but, as in many other committees, when the witness testimony comes in and we know that nothing can be taken out of context.... As we started looking at the context, as we started hearing from witnesses and as this issue became more and more clear to members and we started calling more witnesses.... I mean, we had Madame Deschamps here—that is significant. We've had multiple academics here and we've had several witnesses who have literally spent their life's work on this topic and who gave us their ideas. To then say that we're just going to take one or two minutes on the recommendations that these witnesses took the time to come here and express to us is a disservice to those witnesses.

I'd just like to go through some of the recommendations we've heard from these witnesses, the recommendations we're talking about that we're just going to an up-down vote on after two minutes of discussion. There are a lot of really difficult, important, complicated, nuanced and complex things here. I'll give you some examples.

Members will recall that I've spoken previously about some of the recommendations we've heard from witnesses, both in this committee and in the status of women committee, and also about recommendations that we've heard as individual members from people who have very thoughtfully come to talk to us—I know that you, Madam Chair, and others here have had some really hard conversations in the last four months—and we have listened. I've mentioned that there have been some conversations and some things I've heard that have kept me awake. It's not easy.

What we need is to give the recommendations that came from our witnesses the same thoughtfulness when we're debating them as they did when they presented them.

I'm going to go through and talk about some of those recommendations. These are not necessarily recommendations that are in the draft report. These are things that we've heard from witnesses through various committees.

I've bundled the recommendations, and this particular section is around culture change in the Canadian Armed Forces. We know that culture change is needed. The things that are valued and the things that are seen as peripheral are really important, the way Canadian Armed Forces members interact with one another and the things they learn. What is something that will be rewarded? What is something they feel they must not speak out on or they need to speak out on? What is the reaction they get when they do so? How do people who are not the normative masculine warrior type experience their time in the Canadian Armed Forces?

I would venture, Madam Chair, that this is just as harmful to men who don't want to participate in this kind of culture. It is just as limiting to men to typecast and accentuate certain characteristics as being a good soldier, a good aviator or a good sailor, and certain characteristics as being weak or not in tune somehow with the Canadian Armed Forces, the culture that is there and the things people learn.

Even this week, we've heard really hard testimony and discussions about the Royal Military College, early on in the career of young people who are joining to serve and to protect their country. I'm not a veteran, but I know we have a veteran in the room and many more listening, and I really believe the motivation for people to join the Canadian Armed Forces, overwhelmingly, is to protect Canadians, to protect other people, to serve our country and to be honourable. These are the values, and when that isn't something they find when they get there, that is not an easy thing. I can only imagine, just from listening—and in the last few months we've been doing a lot of listening—that these are not easy problems.

I have a series of recommendations here that I've picked up over the last four months, and I'd like to read them into the record.

The first is “the appointment of a non-CAF member to conduct inquiries into sexual misconduct in the CAF and make recommendations”. This is something we heard early on. It's exactly the reason we brought in Madam Arbour, but also General Carignan to actually implement this.

With Madam Arbour, for the first time, we have somebody who is outside the chain of command, who is outside the Canadian Armed Forces, and who is going to be looking at the “how”. We know that Madame Deschamps—she testified here—identified very significantly the problem and that this has to be done outside of the Canadian Armed Forces.

We've heard now from the acting chief of the defence staff. We've heard from many very senior members on the departmental side and from the Canadian Armed Forces that Madam Arbour's recommendations.... They are not recommendations in the generic sense. This is a road map. This is the how. They couldn't have come from within the department or the CAF, the “how to do this”. We tried that, and I do think that people made honest attempts to implement things, but it has to come from outside, and that is what Madam Arbour is doing.

I don't think we can underestimate the significance of the acting chief of the defence staff saying that the recommendations of a former Supreme Court justice are not just going to be implemented at the end, but every month. We heard the acting chief say that she is going to be reporting every month. We have now a new institution within that is going to be implementing as the recommendations come in.

With General Carignan, this isn't something where we're just going to wait for another report. This is a road map, and you heard the minister say that it will be binding. This is something that we're going to be implementing as we go, with General Carignan in a position to not only take those recommendations but also look across all of the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence and at unifying all of the different pieces that are out there so that we actually do make a difference.

I'm seeing a significant moment right now when I do believe we have a real opportunity, and this often happens in periods of crisis. Because of those who have spoken out, because of those who have come forward, we are now in a very good position to really make a difference. I think this committee really could be focused on that.

Second, we also have Justice Fish's report coming out, which I'll talk about a little bit later, after we're able to see what Justice Fish actually recommends.

The next one here recommends “approaching the issue of behavioural change in the CAF with a top-to-bottom approach: examining individuals, culture, values, and attitudes”. This may be one of the most important recommendations, because what this recommendation does is talk about the values. When we talk about culture, what we're really talking about are the values and attitudes of individuals. That's not to say that we don't have a responsibility to create an environment where everyone can thrive. It really is about how individual members of the Canadian Armed Forces treat each other, the attitudes they bring, the way in which they interact and the values that the organization shows are the ones that are rewarded. That is what is important.

When the values are such that certain people in the Canadian Armed Forces feel that they can't contribute fully, that they're not really welcome, when there are microaggressions, when there are things that indicate every day, whether it's what is required to be in your kit or the way your uniform fits.... If the message that is being sent—particularly to women but also to other equity-seeking groups—every day in your day-to-day experience is that you're just being accommodated, that you don't really belong here but that they'll kind of try to fit you in, as opposed to values and an attitude and a culture where somebody is completely valued, where that person belongs there, where they know that they belong there and are not just being fit into what already exists, where the contributions of all individuals become part of the whole, part of the unit, part of the forces as a whole, and where there is leadership that isn't just about getting a particular job done but is about looking at the various skills, talents, life experiences and abilities that every member brings and making sure that every single person who joins to serve their country is able to do so completely.... That, I think, is what the witnesses who brought this particular recommendation were talking about.

The next one is recommending “approaching the issue of behavioural change in the CAF with a beginning-to-end approach: examining new CAF members, indoctrination, course-of-career events, leadership development, incentives, and career advancement”. This is core to some of the things we have heard. It's from the beginning, from the very first day that somebody joins the Canadian Armed Forces, all the way through their career. This talks about the course of career events that shape the direction and the culture, the leadership development. What is a leader? I really think the concept of leadership...and this is not just in the Canadian Armed Forces. We've seen this in politics. We've seen this in many different areas.

There's been a lot written about this from a feminist perspective of what is leadership. We've even seen it here in the House of Commons, where if a woman is speaking and she shows emotion that's somehow considered weakness, not a real leader. This idea that leadership has to be aggressive and masculine, as I said previously, doesn't just hurt women; it also hurts men, because not all men are comfortable with that kind of normative, toxic masculinity. Most men aren't. I think this idea that you have to fit a certain mould in order to be included is what we talk about when we talk about culture change.

I like the way this particular recommendation is worded, where it says, “beginning-to-end approach”. The previous recommendation talked about behavioural change from a top-to-bottom approach. That's a lot of what we're talking about here today. But this one talks about a beginning-to-end approach, and I do think this is something that has to continue throughout a person's career.

I have a lot of hope, because I do think there is a lot of culture change happening, especially with the younger and newer members of the Canadian Armed Forces. I do think that kind of leadership is really the kind of leadership that we're going to need. I'll be honest: This applies to politics too. Those of us who are a little bit older and who have been around for a long time all have something to learn from the people coming up who are younger than us.

I can tell you that I have 19- or 20-year-old female staffers and interns who have called out things that I wouldn't have thought to call out. I think it's because at a certain point in your life you get almost desensitized. It's not that you get comfortable with something, but you hear it so much and maybe you try to call it out and then at a certain point it doesn't register anymore. I think a lot of us, those of us who are not in our twenties, let's say, a little bit older, a little more experienced, who have been in careers where very often.... In my career, very often I was the only woman in the room. In fact, that was the norm, more often than not, that I was either the only woman or one of very few women in a room full of men. At a certain point, it's like we learn those strategies that if you want to get things done and you want to move the dial on certain things you just learn to ignore other things.

Those are things we shouldn't ignore. Those are things we have to call out. I had some moments of self-reflection when some of my very young staffers said, we have to call this out; this is wrong. Then I think to myself, why is it that I wouldn't have thought...? As soon as you think about it, you think, yes, you're right. We absolutely have to call that out. Why didn't it register?

I think you have that same kind of self-reflection happening with a lot of the very senior members of the Canadian Armed Forces. I think a lot of people, looking back at their careers—and these are good people who have never participated in the kinds of behaviours that we're talking about—maybe became.... I don't want to use the word “desensitized”; I don't even know what word to use.

I do think there is a major shift happening right now, and that is a good thing. It's happening because of those who called it out. I'm not going to say it's the brave or courageous women, because the ones who don't, it doesn't mean they're not brave or courageous. I think we all need to look at what we do and what we consider to be relevant or not relevant, what we react to or don't react to. That's all part of culture. That's why I'm really pleased when I see here that it is about top-down and beginning-to-end.

The next recommendation I have here that I've put into this category is “setting a goal of consistent, timely, compassionate, and effective sexual misconduct resolution in the CAF in order to achieve culture change”.

There are a lot of people right now.... I don't think this is unique to the Canadian Armed Forces. Certainly, when #MeToo began, if you look at institutions around the world—law enforcement institutions, military, the United Nations—in a lot of institutions that traditionally have had many more men than women, there's a lot of self-reflection happening.

The wording in this recommendation is incredibly important: “consistent, timely, compassionate, and effective sexual misconduct resolution”. It needs to be consistent, because if you apply it in certain cases and not other cases, it lacks legitimacy. It needs to be timely because, obviously, justice delayed is justice denied.

I find it really sad that people phone me, when they've seen me on TV, and say, “I'd like to tell you something that happened to me 40 years ago. I've never told anyone.” How heartbreaking. For somebody to keep something inside for decades and feel that they can't tell anyone, not even the people in their personal lives, that is at the same time heartbreaking but also a huge responsibility.

To the people who have spoken, I really hope we're doing right by you, because by speaking out after 40 years, it is an even greater responsibility on us as politicians, as leaders, to make sure we get it right, to make sure that speaking out now is not going to be for nothing, and that younger people and people who are currently serving never ever have to go through what you went through.

This has to be timely. Nobody should ever again feel they have to be silent for decades. I can't even imagine, 30 years from now, if somebody experiences something now, that they would.... This has to be timely, and we need to deal with it right now.

“Compassionate” is an interesting choice of word. The reason those survivors brought this forward as a recommendation....They also have to understand that people do change, people go through learning curves throughout their lives, and people do become aware. People don't always understand the impact of their silence, or the impact of what their behaviours are, until it's brought to them. Good people, when they realize the impact of things that maybe were normalized for them, are self-reflective and want to make amends. I think this can't just be punitive. It has to be compassionate, so that people can reconcile and make amends.

I'm not talking about sexual assault and sexual violence. I'm talking about the off-colour jokes, looking the other way or laughing because you want to be part of the crowd, or the things that create culture that many people have probably experienced. There has to be a compassionate way to make amends, so that those who experienced it can have closure and move on, and so that this behaviour changes.

Yes, some of that has to be punitive, when people do things to harm and hurt others. There has to be justice, but at the same time, there also needs to be a reckoning about how behaviours have to change, so that people internalize what they've done and are able to then change it, not only for themselves but for people who are coming up behind, people whom they're leading.

Obviously, it has to be effective. That's a given. There have been many attempts. We saw things like the duty to report, which were well-intentioned. Many of us, when we talk about bystanders, talk about those who looked the other way and said, “That's none of my business. I'm not going to talk about it.” The duty to report put that obligation to report it if you see it. The problem with that is that it took the agency away from the person who was experiencing it. It forced that person, often a woman, into a timeline and a set of events that the person may not have been prepared or ready for. Perhaps they might have wanted it at some point, but it took it outside of their control over how and when things got reported and how and when those were pursued.

I think what we've learned, if anything, from the recommendations, from the testimony by the witnesses, from everybody we've heard from, is that it is very important that the victim, the survivor, the person impacted has the agency and decision-making capacity about how it goes forward. That is, I think, a very thoughtful recommendation.

The next recommendation I have here—and this is something we've heard a lot about in the last four months—is about “addressing the failure of Operation HONOUR to link sexual misconduct and military culture, notably the lack of reference to the role of gender and masculinity in the CAF”.

One of the first pieces of testimony we heard here was from the minister, who came here at the very beginning and talked about toxic masculinity. I do believe that was the first time that a Minister of Defence in Canada has, in a public setting before Parliament, used the words “toxic masculinity”. It is, I think, a vitally important milestone to recognize.

It is one thing to recognize it; it's another to eliminate it. The how, that piece on how we eliminate it, Operation Honour didn't do that. Operation Honour—as much as I believe there were some good things that came from it—didn't make that link to culture. It didn't. As we've heard from many witnesses, it didn't achieve the results that it purportedly set out to achieve. There were many reasons for that. We heard a lot of those reasons, and I'm not going to get into those now.

To talk about culture without talking about gender and masculinity is almost impossible. A lot of what we're talking about and a lot of the experiences we've heard are specifically about the concept of masculinity, the concept of gender and the way most people don't conform or fit into those expected gender roles. The idea of masculinity and what masculinity is.... I don't remember which academic we heard from, but it might have been Dr. Okros who told us that, with regard to this idea of a “warrior culture”, this is one of the last places where we have people who may look to join because it's one of the places where “men can be men”.

That's a really toxic thing, if you think about it. Among men and women, there are so many different sets of behaviours. Trying to limit it to this one concept of masculinity is harmful to women and to men. I think that's something we definitely need to include in our report. Something we most certainly need to make sure of is that the witnesses who talked about these things and the recommendations they brought forward are heard.

I think I'll leave it there and let some of my colleagues continue. I certainly have a lot more recommendations here. I really hope we'll have to chance to table these in Parliament.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you, Madame Vandenbeld.

Go ahead, Mr. Bagnell, please.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

I have a few points.

One is that I was actually really buoyed this morning when I saw this motion, although it took a while to read it and everything. It's too bad that, as usual, it came in late, but Mr. Bezan has apologized for it, and I accept that.

I wasn't as much of an objectionist as some others. I thought there was a way forward here. I still think there is a way forward here, and I don't think Mr. Bezan withdrew the motion on more witnesses just because it became obvious that the next witnesses should be Mr. O'Toole, Mr. Fadden, General Lawson, Guy Thibault and the head of military justice who closed the report on Mr. Vance. It was to get a way forward.

He made an interesting point about closure in the House, and I wanted to comment on that a bit.

As you know, the Conservatives used closure a lot of the time when they were in Parliament, but I don't blame them for that, actually, because I think there's a structural problem. This has been brought up at PROC and was never resolved. There's a structural problem in the way the House of Commons works that leads to closure no matter who's in government. This has been solved by other parliaments. I think the Scottish Parliament is one.

The fact is that when you have over 50 departments and agencies, important work that needs to be done in all those areas and a huge agenda, no matter who is in government you need to have a plan that makes sense. Some things are very minor additions and some things are major additions. End of life is a very serious type of debate and discussion, but some minor things—because there's no programming and there's no schedule—take up excessive time. No matter who's in government, if you want to move on for the people of Canada and the many topics that need to be moved forward on, you will need closure.

How other parliaments have dealt with this is that the parties get together and do programming. They decide in advance what is serious and what needs more time, and they come up with a schedule that makes a lot of sense. It reduced, and I think in some sittings actually totally eliminated, the need for closure, because they came up with something that made a lot more sense. The serious issues got the serious time, and the minor amendments got the time they needed. I recommend that to everyone.

As I said before, I think there are things in the report, in either the clauses or the recommendations, where there are members from every party who wouldn't necessarily agree with them right now and would not want to end their debate on them at two minutes. My gut reaction is that not that many are controversial, although one member did suggest earlier in this debate that most of them were. I think all members of all parties who have an objection and want to speak for more than two minutes on a clause or a recommendation should do that during this debate, because if this motion passes, they're not going to have any other time. I look forward to hearing from all the members on what's important to them.

I'll give you an example from my perspective of something that I don't think there's enough attention given to, in either the report or the recommendations, and that is reprisals. As we heard from a lot of the witnesses, either they reported and there were reprisals to their careers, or they didn't report because they feared reprisals by reporting.

In the administrative directive or the code of conduct, I'm not sure if there are strong enough condemnations of inappropriate reprisals, particularly in sexual misconduct, but it could be for anything. That is an example of what I think should be looked at more and should have a lot more than a two-minute discussion, because obviously it is one of the major flaws in the system and we should take more time on recommendations and the paragraphs of the report.

The last thing I would like to do is just throw this out. I just thought about this five minutes ago, but having seen the motion and having thought of a way forward that people might think about, I'm not looking for a quick answer or anything. I'm just thinking as I go and letting people think about this: What if we were to go through the paragraphs and recommendations quickly and agree by unanimous consent which ones could be dealt with in the way Mr. Bezan is proposing, with two minutes per member for discussing them? I think that would deal with....

It's hard to say, but my thought is that a lot of the report could be dealt with really quickly that way, in the way Mr. Bezan says, on particular paragraphs and recommendations that we all agree will be dealt with in that two-minute debate per paragraph and per recommendation. Because obviously the recommendations and paragraphs have evolved from what the witnesses said, they can't be so inaccurate that we wouldn't come to an agreement on a lot of them. Then, for those few where we couldn't agree unanimously that they be dealt with in that process, we would go back to them and deal with them in the regular process for clauses and recommendations.

I'm just throwing that out as an idea for people to think about. I'll turn it over to the next speaker.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bagnell.

We'll go on to Mr. Spengemann, please.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you to my colleagues for their previous remarks.

I want to circle back to a couple of points. One is the government response. I think it's incredibly important that we ask for a government response. Colleagues have outlined why that is. It's a question of accountability. Unless we hear from the government what its reflections are on the recommendations and the tenor of the report that we're going to put forward, we have little way of ascertaining to what extent we're actually impactful and to what extent we're going to help move the yardsticks.

I'll use an example that I cited in previous interventions. The U.K. had its 2019 “Report on Inappropriate Behaviours”, as they called it, issued in July 2019. Fairly shortly, a year later, the Right Honourable Ben Wallace, MP, Secretary of State for Defence in the United Kingdom, issued a report entitled “Unacceptable Behaviours: Progress Review 2020”. Those kinds of things can happen if you ask for a government response.

From that experience, we see that if the right recommendations are made and put forward, positive action can follow in very short order. I think that's really one of the issues here that we've talked about this afternoon and in previous sessions. It's not only the urgency of the issue that's at stake. It's also the importance of making sure that we have recommendations that are actionable, that are impactful, and that aren't going to sit in a drawer or be ineffective if they are implemented. I think the government response is important for this committee to be seized with, and any additional studies that it may undertake, but also for the Canadian public to see what the government's reflections are and what its path forward is in response to our report.

I have two other quick points on Mr. Bezan's motion. I think one of the challenges we've seen is that it's not so much only the two-minute restriction in itself. I mean, for the sake of expediency, one can sort of follow the logic of why you would restrict time. We do this in committee all the time when we have witnesses. We have carefully negotiated allocated time periods. The challenge is if you tell a member they may speak only once, because that prevents any kind of debate building on comments that were made previously by colleagues, specifically with respect to recommendations. If a colleague has an idea of how to amend a particular recommendation and they've already spoken, then she or he will not be able to come back in again to give a reflection. You don't get a cumulative debate that may actually get us to the same side of the issue, if not the same side of the table.

For that reason, I think it's important that we be more flexible. While bearing in mind Mr. Bezan's overall concern that we need to finish this report in short order, to be able to land it, I don't think the two-minute restriction, if it's framed as speaking only once, will be helpful in that respect.

Mr. Bezan also mentioned—I think I'm quoting him correctly here, but he'll tell me otherwise if I'm not—that this was the “easy path forward”. I think by “easy” he did not necessarily mean to take the issue lightly; he meant the most expedient way forward. I just want to be clear here, on the record, that the issues are complex. Testimony after testimony and intervention after intervention that we've heard from colleagues, some very thoughtful across party lines—in some cases, anyway—indicate how complex the issues are and how important they are to Canadians and, most importantly, to the family of the Canadian Forces currently serving and veterans.

For that reason, I think we have to be mindful that the easy answer isn't going to cut it: an expedient answer, yes, but we are entering now into the final stage of our work. There are complex challenges before us, coupled with complex recommendations that need to be thought through. I think it was my colleague Mr. Bagnell who said that complex problems that are responded to with simple answers will often be faced with ultimately the wrong answers. We need to take the time to think this through, but expeditiously.

I'd like to thank my colleague Ms. Vandenbeld for her most recent intervention with respect to recommendations that she put forward. I'd like to complement them briefly with some of the insights that are in the concluding section of the report from the U.K., which I've presented over a number of sessions. They relate to the topics of bystanders, recruits, social media and transparency of action. I'd like to get them on the record again, in light of the fact that if this motion passes, we will basically be truncating our discussion with respect to any additional input that may be made.

The issue of bystanders is incredibly important, not only in the Canadian Forces but in broader society. The elimination of sexual misconduct really is driven by the need to find different behaviour from bystanders, be they civilian or be they serving members of the armed forces.

On this point, again, the U.K. conclusions are illuminating. The report states:

Recent academic research refers widely to the role of bystanders in influencing behaviour in groups. Everyone is a bystander; we witness events unfolding around us constantly. Sometimes we recognise events as being problematic and we might decide to intervene—and become an active bystander; or not—and remain a passive bystander. There are many factors which will influence why we decide to intervene or not but when we do decide to intervene, we are sending a clear message to the wrongdoer that their behaviour is unacceptable.

The U.K. is drawing attention to the need to change bystander behaviour within both the civilian and the military elements of their armed forces.

The report cites a quote from Edmund Burke, who wrote in the mid- to late 1700s. The quote says, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Appreciating when this quote was written will lead to an understanding of the fact that this is not gender-neutral language, but perhaps importantly, with respect to this issue, really it is the behaviour of men in large part that is at question. It is also the question of male allies. Again, the status quo will be maintained if people don't act, and bystanders have a particular role.

The report continues:

In empowering active bystanders, skills development and the creation of supporting challenge and reporting mechanisms is critical to the success of introducing effective intervention programmes. Several valid and reliable proprietary bystander intervention programmes exist but all such programmes require significant investment in training and education at all levels of the organisation. Bystander education equips people with the knowledge, skills and confidence to intervene; to challenge inappropriate behaviour; to call it out; and to report it. The Defence Academy active bystander intervention programme is judged leading practice in this regard.

These are the observations of the United Kingdom report on the question of bystanders. They recommend the investigation, development and implementation of bystander training across defence. That's a recommendation that complements the comments that were made by Ms. Vandenbeld in her previous intervention.

The section goes on to recognize that more data may be required from recruits, and in this respect the U.K. report actually refers to us and the Canadian Armed Forces' work, stating:

The Canadian Armed Forces are considering whether or not to gather additional information on new recruits to have a better idea of the values, attitudes and standards they possess on joining, to assess risk and protective factors and therefore better tailor and focus training. We recommend consideration of the same.

The message back to us here is that as we develop this report, other countries are going to look to us, and in fact are already looking to us, with respect to what we do. There is a heightened attention that is signalled by the U.K on our work or our potential steps with respect to gathering information on new recruits, something I feel the committee should be mindful of as we develop our report.

It is this granularity and this kind of interaction between us and other jurisdictions through the work we do that require some consideration and debate on our behalf, and not just in the sense of having the opportunity to intervene for two minutes without necessarily building on the comments of other members. I think, more systematically, we need the freedom to interact with each other to figure out what the right answers are, especially when it comes to the integration of the work that is already being done in other jurisdictions.

The recommendation by the U.K. is “Consideration should be given to gathering additional values, attitudes and standards information on new recruits to assess the risk and tailor preventative training.”

On social media, the U.K. makes a comment that perhaps requires some consideration on our part, especially considering what Ms. Vandenbeld said earlier about young people and social media:

A widely acknowledged behavioural challenge is the increase in the transmission of social media messages with a sexual content. Whilst efforts should focus on this area, it is recognised that this is part of a broader societal challenge. Although there is an expectation that the more junior cohorts are more familiar with social media and online activity, some focus group feedback has suggested that this cohort, described as “digital natives”, do in fact require some training and education surrounding their conduct online.

This takes us into a broader conversation in the civil sector with respect to online bullying, harassment and misconduct. Perhaps we should turn our minds to this in a more thoughtful manner than the U.K. has had the opportunity to do here. It's a simple one-paragraph statement. We may want to elaborate on this, in light of the work that many of us are engaged in at the parliamentary level, outside of the Canadian Forces, with respect to online harassment, online hate, and the work we're doing in that regard, and feeding that back into the recommendations we're making with respect to social media messages by current or former members of the Canadian Forces.

Finally, there's a heading “Transparency of action”. This is fundamental.

Transparency of action needs to be communicated and evident to all Service personnel and civil servants. This should include greater transparency of the consequences for perpetrators, to bring to life the policy of zero-tolerance, energise values and standards and tackle elements of organisational cynicism that action does not get taken. Culture and behaviours—and the consequences for victims and/or perpetrators—need to feature as a routine conversation in the work place, and throughout training provision; it must be consistent and persistent.

This section of the report concludes there, with a call for “authentic leadership”, “relentless engagement” and “consistent communication” across the U.K. forces.

Bystander training, immersive role-playing training, and social media training are all good examples of programmes we recommend should be implemented across Defence. This will require concerted effort, resource and persistent attention over many years by Defence senior leadership, and leaders and line managers at every level.

Over the course of the interventions I've made so far on just the British experience alone—and I indicated there are experiences from other countries that the committee may wish to consider or at least take note of—there's a granularity here that can catalyze our work.

I know our time is short, but by looking to what was done already elsewhere and what was done successfully, we not only step to the side of our allies around the world that are facing the same problem, but we signal to Canadians that this is an issue that far exceeds our borders, that is systematic in nature, that is based on the way the military has acted generationally for too long, and that the culture change that's required is much more multilateral, if not global, in areas like peacekeeping and deployments around the world that the Canadian Forces is a part of.

I'll leave it there for the moment, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

The meeting is suspended.

[The meeting was suspended at 1:21 p.m., Monday, May 31]

[The meeting resumed at 1:22 p.m., Friday, June 4]

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

I call this meeting back to order. This is a resumption of meeting number 32 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence which started on Friday, May 21, 2021.

If at any time we lose interpretation, please let us know as soon as possible, because it's important that everyone have the opportunity to fully participate in these proceedings.

When speaking, please speak slowly and clearly. If you have very technical information to share, please provide it in advance for the interpreters to use. When you're not speaking, your mike should be on mute.

With regard to a speaking list, the committee clerk and I will do the best we can to maintain a consolidated order for all members whether they're participating virtually or in person.

We'll resume debate on Mr. Bezan's motion.

Mr. Spengemann, you had the floor.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Welcome, colleagues. I hope everybody had a good weekend.

I had a chance to reflect on the work that's ahead of us. It's slow, perhaps, but I think we are making some progress on this particular issue that's been in front of us for some time now. I think members of the committee have characterized it as potentially the most important issue this committee has faced in its recent history. I think it is extremely important that we come up with our vision of a way forward, of recommendations that will solve this issue, both with respect to the accountability that's attached to the cases that have come before the committee, including the former chief of the defence staff, and also the systematicity of this issue and the question of culture change within the Canadian Armed Forces that's so urgently required, and that many witnesses, including the minister himself, have spoken to us about.

Madam Chair, when I had the floor at our last session, I took the committee through a good portion of a July 19 United Kingdom report entitled “Report on Inappropriate Behaviours”. The most recent section that I addressed dealt with the pre-emption of inappropriate behaviours in the British Armed Forces. I will have more to add on that, further on in the discussion, but I thought I would take a moment to take a step back and reflect on where we are as a committee. I realize that we are close to the summer recess. There are partisan winds blowing in various parts of the House and committees. That's understandable as a function of where we are in the process and the issues that are in front of us, which have partisan dimensions.

I believe this issue, Madam Chair, is one that we need to work on expeditiously in the sessions that we still have available to us, to overcome partisanship. I made reference in previous interventions to work that I was part of in the 42nd Parliament, along with a number of colleagues on this committee—Mr. Bezan, Ms. Gallant, Monsieur Robillard and Mr. Garrison—when we did work on diversity and inclusion. The circumstances were different, and it was a different time in political history, with a majority government, but I think there was a very strong view by this committee that we had to move to the same side of the table on “D and I”, as it's called. There were questions at the committee relating to sexual misconduct. They were not as sharply pointed, because we didn't have the evidence in front of us relating to the former chief of the defence staff. It was an experience that really showed Canadians and us as members of this committee what we can do if we are united and are able to overcome partisan reflexes.

In this particular instance of the report in the last Parliament, there was no dissent. I think we were all on the same page. We may have had disagreement and discussion with respect to some of the minutiae of the report, but the issue and its importance were very much alive and in front of us. We were able to come up with some very good recommendations that are impactful. Some of them are in the course of being implemented.

I think we need to find a way, and maybe this afternoon's discussion can be a pathway to that, to overcome to the greatest extent possible the partisan obstacles to this particular report. We may not be able to fully do it. The stakes have gone up. The urgency is greater and the expectations are higher.

Madam Chair, the reason I raise some of the comparative experiences from other countries is to show not only that this shouldn't be a partisan issue inside our borders but also that this is an issue that many other militaries are grappling with for the same reasons—a chain of command and generations of a military culture not conducive to inclusion. The role of women through other work we've done with regard to the Canadian Forces, in women, peace and security, has been at the forefront of our work in many ways, but these other militaries are also facing the very same questions. In some cases, they have gone out front with respect to not only reports, as the United Kingdom has done, but also follow-ups, very expeditious follow-ups, within a year in the British case, that might be illuminating to us as well. I think this issue can be resolved efficiently and expeditiously if we overcome those partisan hurdles. It's incumbent on all of us to try to do that.

Madam Chair, with respect to Mr. Bezan's motion, I think one of the obstacles was the structuring of discussion time. Procedurally, it does limit your own discretion to guide the discussion, as chair of the committee, when we're in camera and dealing with the report, to make sure that members have not only equitable time to intervene but also constructive time to comment on each other's thoughts. If we're only letting each member of the committee speak once for two minutes, yes, we can get our voice in, but we can't really build on each other's thoughts and priorities and reflections.

I think what's most important for us is that we find, among the now relatively lengthy list of important recommendations in front of us, in part those that are most impactful and those that are most implementable in the short term.

If we agree on those across party lines, we should flag them, identify them, approve them and move forward on them in whichever way we choose. There may be others where discussions may be more attractive. Hopefully, there won't be any that are strictly partisan in nature, but those discussions had to happen. They did happen at this committee. Again, it's very natural to have partisan disagreement.

I want to go back to what I've described as the tip of the iceberg, the case of the former chief of the defence staff, Jonathan Vance, who was appointed by the former government in the face of an ongoing investigation. His tenure then continued into the current government with extremely troublesome allegations, evidence and, ultimately, a report that the former chief of the defence staff himself felt so empowered by that he felt he owned the CFNIS, the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service.

This is not a partisan issue. The trajectory of this one particular case extends across governments. With respect to the systematicity of the culture in the Canadian Armed Forces, this even precedes the government that appointed the former chief of the defence staff, Jonathan Vance. At this point, it really is incumbent on us to find a way to get past the partisanship, and get to the same side of the table.

In my assessment, Madam Chair, we do have adequate time.... The time is tight, but we do have adequate time to really get into a discussion that would be fulsome, impactful, and allow us to prioritize those recommendations we agree on. We can find a way to implement them, contextualize them, prioritize them, and signal to our government, through a response requested from government, that we are following this issue closely.

This is an issue of accountability. It's an issue of democratic oversight of the Canadian Armed Forces through this very committee. It's on our shoulders as the democratic element, not the executive but the parliamentary element that's attached to the operations of the Canadian Armed Forces.

I think it's extremely important that we ask for a government response, and that we do so as a committee that is, to the greatest possible extent, non-partisan in its orientation and approach.

I will leave it there for my opening remarks. I have more to say later, as I indicated, to take us through some additional portions of the U.K. experience.

There's also some compelling work that was done in New Zealand that I think the committee would find illuminating and helpful with respect to how we would prioritize the recommendations that are before us, or will come before us, when we proceed to finalizing our report.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you, Mr. Spengemann.

We will now move on to Mr. Baker, please.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'd like to build on what Mr. Spengemann was saying.

I do think that first and foremost in our minds should be the victims, how we're going to address what they've told us, how we're going to address the heinous behaviour that they've had to face and the consequences they've had to deal with. I think anything short of that coming out of this committee would be disappointing and a failure of this committee to do what it should be doing, which is fighting for those victims and fighting to solve the problem of sexual harassment and sexual assault in the Armed Forces.

That's why I have a concern, a great concern, about the motion that we're currently discussing, that Mr. Bezan has proposed, because it doesn't allow us to accomplish that goal. I think the motion calls for a report to be churned out of this committee without the necessary debate and without the necessary consensus-building that is always the approach used to write a report in committees. All of us have been through that in this committee and other committees. We know how important that consensus-building is, especially on a topic that is not just as important but as complex and nuanced as what we're facing here.

Not having the report be built on the consensus of all the members of the committee, as is always done in committees, will not allow us to ensure that the report represents the collection of views that we have heard, whether it be from experts, from survivors, from the minister or from anyone else we've heard from.

I think an important part of debate that happens when a report is being produced by a committee is that the debate, that consensus, forces members to understand, to appreciate each others' points of view and to find a way to collectively come together and issue a report that is the best possible reflection of the joint views of the members of the committee and what they have heard and what they have concluded based on the testimony that's been put before them.

Ramming it through after a couple of minutes of speaking time for each member trivializes that discussion. It eliminates that discussion, frankly, about building consensus, and that lack of consensus means that we won't get the report we need, one that reflects what we've heard, reflects the nuance and the complexity of this issue and ultimately presents recommendations to actually solve the problem we're here to solve, which is sexual harassment and sexual assault in the Canadian Armed Forces.

I really think we need to move to the report in the format that we always do when we're working on reports in this Parliament, in committees, working by consensus, and this motion eliminates that debate, eliminates the consensus. Basically, all this motion would do, if it were passed, would be to make this report a tick-the-box exercise, and that would be an incredible disservice to this issue and an incredible disservice to the survivors and what we've heard them say and what other witnesses have told us here at committee.

You know, one of the survivors, as an example of what we heard and what parliamentarians have heard from survivors.... I know many members on this committee have spoken to the fact that they've met with survivors. Survivors have come and presented in this Parliament and in particular to the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, and I think we need to honour that. We need to honour their courage. We need to honour what they said, the content of what they presented, and we don't honour that by not incorporating it into our knowledge, into the conclusions we draw, and ultimately into the report we write, and this motion would prevent us from doing that.

One of the people, one of the survivors who came forward, who presented to the Standing Committee on the Status of Women was Dr. Leah West. I want to share with you some of the things that she shared. These are the kinds of things that I think we need to be including in the report. She said:

With the brief time I have, I'll try to do three things: first, introduce myself and how I found myself here today; second, identify what I believe to be the root cause of the CAF sexualized environment identified by Justice Deschamps in 2015; and third, discuss a way forward.

To begin, why am I here? I served in the CAF for 10 years as an armoured officer. I graduated at the top of my class from RMC in 2007 and immediately took command of an armoured recce troop. One Thursday night at the end of my first year with my unit, I was sexually assaulted by a superior at a house party that was well attended by other junior officers in my regiment.

At work the next day, I was ill and passed out on our squadron's bathroom floor. An ambulance and MPs arrived and took me to a civilian hospital. I did not know exactly what had happened to me the night before or why I was so ill. Almost everything after the first drink was poured for me was black, but I did know where and how I woke up.

...I was assaulted at a house party. I don't know exactly what happened to me because everything that evening went black, but I do know where I woke up and the state I was in when I woke up. Standing over my gurney when I was taken to the emergency room were two male MPs who convinced me to have a rape kit done. I agreed, and it revealed intercourse but no evidence of drugs. I never saw or heard from the MPs again.

The following Monday, my commanding officer called me into his office, somewhere I'd been probably only twice in my life prior to that. The MPs had informed him of what happened and he looked at me and asked, “How do you want me to handle this?” I didn't hesitate. I knew what I was expected to say, and I said it, “Nothing, sir.” I told him that because I couldn't remember the exact details of the assault, I would modify my behaviour and who I could trust[.]

I told him not to do anything, because I couldn't remember the precise details of the assault. I said that I would modify my behaviour and who I could trust, as though I had been raped by a superior officer in my unit. He accepted my answer and we never spoke of it again.

I want to pause there for a moment and just let that sink in for a second. This survivor, Dr. Leah West, shared with the Standing Committee on the Status of Women this story of what happened to her, and this moment where she approaches her superior, and after.... I can't imagine what she would be feeling in the moment, but in the moment she knew that she was not to say anything. She was not to act on what had happened to her the night before.

This is part of the culture in the Canadian Armed Forces that we have heard about over and over again, and this is a real example of that. This, we've been told at this committee, happens over and over again, and we're going to ignore that and take two minutes each to say a few things and then ram a report through this committee?

I'm sorry. That's not okay. It doesn't do justice to what's happening in the Canadian Armed Forces right now, and it doesn't do justice and what's been happening for decades, forever.

Here we have a situation where someone has been raped, and not only can they not act on what's happened to them, but they know that the culture, the system prevents them from doing so.

I want to move on with what Dr. West went on to say:

Four years later, while deployed in Afghanistan, I was investigated without my knowledge by military police and my chain of command for having a consensual sexual relationship with a U.S. officer who was not in my unit but of the same rank.

The relationship was discovered when a male officer on my team accessed my email without my permission, found a deleted flirtatious email between me and the American and took it to my superior. They didn't need to investigate me. The day I found out what was going on, I admitted to my boss what I had done.

My relationship violated regulations against fraternization in theatre. I was charged and pleaded guilty, and I was fined, repatriated from theatre and posted out of my unit. All of this I could accept. I had knowingly violated orders, and my repatriation impacted the operational effectiveness of my unit. However, what I no longer accept is that I was also called demeaning names, told I wasn't worthy of leading soldiers, even threatened with violence by my commanding officer and repeatedly chastised by other senior officers.

For several months I worked alone in an office with four workstations managing a single Excel spreadsheet. The message was clear: My career in the regular forces was over. Eventually, when I was released, the position I had been offered with a reserve unit was revoked. The new commanding officer told me that I wasn't the type of leader he wanted in his unit. My experience is an extreme example of the double standard women in uniform face every day.

This service member, who graduated at the top of the class, was raped. Everyone knew that the system forced her, prevented her from bringing that complaint forward, and everyone played along. Everyone who knew about it played along. Then she broke the rules, admitted to breaking the rules and immediately faced incredibly harsh consequences.

This is the culture of the Canadian Armed Forces. Not only was she punished according to the rules, which she accepted, but she was mistreated and belittled and punished again, and offers of positions were withdrawn. She was told that she was not the kind of person they wanted in the Canadian Armed Forces.

If she is not the kind of person who is wanted in the Canadian Armed Forces, what about the man who raped her? What about the men who commit sexual harassment and sexual assault in the Canadian Armed Forces? Are they the type of folks that belong in the Canadian Armed Forces? Obviously not, but the only way we're going to make sure that they are not is if we solve the problem.

It's hard folks, but that's the reality. We have to tackle this. A tick-the-box report that ignores the nuance, ignores these stories and doesn't take into account these stories, to me, betrays that duty that we have. Mr. Spengemann talked about the partisanship. If anything can bring all of us in this committee together, surely we can rally together around this and say that we're going to produce a substantive—

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

I'm afraid I think we—

Oh, are you back Mr. Baker?

No, I don't think so.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Mr. Robillard now has the floor.

[Yves Robillard, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Again, I want us all to remember why we're serving on this committee. We must be accountable to survivors and victims. Our work on this issue must move forward. We must give the committee the opportunity to consider the recommendations.

We found that the Canadian Armed Forces didn't always respond to reports of inappropriate sexual behaviour in a timely, consistent and respectful manner. As a result, some victims chose not to report an incident or to withdraw their complaint. They had little confidence that the investigations would produce any tangible results.

We must live up to the mandate given to us by our constituents and consider the recommendations in the report rather than calling additional witnesses. We must also live up to the courage demonstrated by the survivors and the various witnesses who testified before this committee. This courage must be on our minds at all times and must motivate us to move forward.

Canadian Armed Forces members must report any incident of inappropriate sexual behaviour, whether they experienced it or witnessed it. When a complaint is received, it's investigated. The commanding officer of the relevant unit consults with legal advisers to help determine whether the incident may be a service offence, which can include offences under the Criminal Code.

If it's determined that the incident is a service offence, the commanding officer can investigate and lay charges for breaches of the code of service discipline for unacceptable conduct. If the incident of inappropriate sexual behaviour breaches the Criminal Code, it must be referred to the military police. Any forces member who commits an act of inappropriate sexual behaviour is liable to disciplinary action, administrative action, or both.

In order to better protect our armed forces members, I think that we should consider proposals that are unopposed and therefore common sense. We could save the recommendations that lack consensus for later.

I see that some of my colleagues would also like to speak. I'll leave the floor for now.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

All right. Thank you very much.

Madam Vandenbeld, please.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I'd like to continue where I left off in the last meeting.

I know there are significant recommendations that we've heard from witnesses, from survivors, and I would just like to reiterate my hope that we could still come to a consensus on this committee and that we could move to actually debating. When I say “debating”, I mean really having an in-depth discussion about these incredibly important recommendations so that we can come to a consensus and ensure that we have a report that we can not only table in Parliament and request a government response, but also inform Madam Arbour's review that she is doing because this is a very historic moment here. I would very much hope that these important recommendations would be given the amount of time and attention and debate that they deserve to have.

Just continuing with some of the recommendations that we've heard—and, again, I would emphasize that these are things we've heard from the survivors—I'll continue where I left off last time. For one, there was the recommendation on “addressing the unstated, but institutionally assumed white heterosexual male norm culture in the CAF. I think the wording of this is very significant for the survivors who said, “unstated, but institutionally assumed”.

When we talk about culture, this is really what we're talking about. It's not something that is written in any kind of procedural manual or that people are told outright. It is the things that are just assumed, the things that, when you join....

We heard from Professor Okros and from others about the ways in which groups in society—and not just in the military—are able to determine who belongs, who doesn't belong and who is more important than others, all of which is done through assumptions that we make. It's done through body language. It's done through certain kinds of language that we use about each other. It's done in a way, as it says here, that is “unstated, but...assumed”.

The next part, I think, is really important. It talks about “white heterosexual male norm culture in the CAF”. I think that this is something that is not just in the Canadian Armed Forces. I think we're seeing this across institutions, particularly military or policing institutions around the world, not just here in Canada, where there has been an assumed white, heterosexual male norm culture.

When you include all of those things, it's very important to understand that this isn't just about women and men. This isn't just about gender. This is about what is considered to be the normative, as I mentioned before, of a good soldier, a good sailor, a good aviator. Those things are very much based on what has been seen before as being good and successful and valued, and what a soldier may have looked like a hundred years ago.

I think that when you look at it this way, race is a big part of it; gender identity and sexual identity are a big part of it. We've seen for a very long time the discrimination—and in this case, not just unstated, but overt discrimination—against transgender, gay, lesbian, LGBTQ2+ and other members of the Canadian Armed Forces because of this normative culture.

The best way of describing it is really when we're socialized, even as children—“boys will be boys”—and this idea of how we're socialized. Girls are told to be nice. Girls are told, “Don't be bossy.” Boys are told, “Be assertive.” Then you add to that all of the intersectional layers. If you are not in the normative, whether it's because of your race, whether it's because you're indigenous, it's anything that is different. That's what they mean by “norm” here, I think. It is anything that is different.

When we say “different”, we're talking about “different from something“. The something that it is different from is the toxic masculinity, the normative culture.

When we talk about shifting culture, we're not talking about telling people that they're bad people because they have been part of a particular kind of assumption of what is normative, what is good. It is not about attacking individuals for wanting to conform to that, because, as humans, this is what we do. We join a group, and if there is a normative culture in that group, it is a natural human instinct to want to be included, to want to adapt and, in many cases, to change our behaviour and our interactions with people in order not to be an outsider, in order not to be excluded. We have seen that with many people, whether women, members of racialized communities or LGBT people, in order to be included. We, all of us, I think, have been in groups in which we feel as though we are on the outside, in which we don't call things out and we try to fit in.

The question is: What are we fitting in to?

Changing culture is about changing what we are fitting into, and if that thing that is the norm, that represents inclusion, is welcoming to who you are in your identity, and if you can come into a group and feel that the culture of that group is such that those small things that tell you that you belong are there, then you feel as though you are included. When you feel that it is something that you are a part of, then you don't have to adapt; you don't have to self-censor; you don't have to change your behaviour or language, what you say and what you don't say, or what you speak out on or don't speak out on.

If there is an inclusive, welcoming culture, then every identity, every person, regardless of whether they seem to be different from what the majority in that group has been traditionally, will feel as though they have a place in that group, and that will then become a self-fulfilling thing. As you bring in more people who have different backgrounds, assumptions and ideas, and diverse people who do things differently and are welcomed, that will then, of course, cause the culture to become even more inclusive so that the next people who come in will find themselves reflected in the normative.

This is why I don't think we can divorce what's happening with sexual misconduct from what's happening with white supremacy, racism, homophobia, or anything that is causing harm, hatred and exclusion. I don't think that these can be divorced from one another, because we have heard—and we have heard this many times—that this is not about sex; it is about power, and it is about the power of people who want to maintain a culture the way it is to exclude others and to keep that hierarchy the way that it has always been.

When somebody experiences sexual harassment or a sexual joke, or if somebody is experiencing all of the ways in which they can be diminished because of their identity, that's not about sex; it's about abuse of power. What makes it worse in hierarchical structures like the military, like policing services, and like places in which there is a very strong hierarchy of power is that the person who is abusing the power already has significant power over the person who is not as high as they are in the chain of command. That is why when we talk about changing culture, we're not talking about just saying that these people have been bad. Obviously, there are cases in which people need to be punished. Obviously there are cases in which we can't have impunity for really significant abuses of power, but it's also about changing all of those small ways in which people interact day to day.

I think that this particular recommendation that links the intersectionality, that talks about the white, heterosexual, male normative culture, is one of the single most important recommendations. As we discuss these recommendations, I hope we will actually get a chance to really discuss them and not just for two minutes before we have a vote. I really hope that we as parliamentarians get a chance to sit and have a real back-and-forth discussion about what these recommendations mean, why they are important, and what it is that we want Madam Arbour to look into.

I believe parliamentarians have an incredibly important role to play, based on all our testimony, and in some cases very difficult testimony, based on the people who took time out of their lives to come to us on the assumption that we would then be able to take that and put it forward and request a government response.

I have more recommendations, but I will for one moment talk about the cynicism behind a committee—and this is in that motion—putting forward a set of recommendations and a study and all the material that we have in that study and then not asking for a government response. The whole purpose is to make sure that these things are acted on. For a committee to not want the government to respond to our report, I can only assume that the underlying desire is not to have recommendations for the government to act on, to actually implement, but something else. I really hope that it isn't cynical. I really hope that we can actually get to these reports.

I would remind the members of the committee that if we were to even be able to adjourn debate or adjourn this meeting, that would give us a chance to get to the report immediately and be able to actually start to debate these recommendations the way they should be debated.

I'll go through some of the other things we've heard, because we've heard some really compelling testimony. I've been in the role of parliamentary secretary for national defence now for over a year and I can say that I have learned more in this position, in the last year or 16 months that I've been in this role, than I have in any job I've ever had in my life. I have learned more and I want to be clear for those veterans and members of the Canadian Armed Forces who are listening and watching that I see the incredible desire to serve. I see the good. I see members of the military who are willing to sacrifice everything for the good of our country, for the good of our neighbours, for the good of other people, to make sure we live in a world that is better, that is more peaceful and that is more stable, to make sure those who would do us harm are not given the opportunity to do so, people who sacrifice their family.

My husband grew up in a military family. My husband's family were in the air force, and do you want to talk about gender discrimination? My husband's parents, his mother and father, met in the air force. His mother was a meteorologist in the air force. They met, they married and they moved around as many people do. As soon as she got pregnant with my husband, she had to quit the air force because she was pregnant. We're talking about 1962; this is in many of our lifetimes. In 1962, she was not allowed to stay in the air force because she was pregnant with a child.

She left the air force and became a military spouse and spent the rest of her career as the trailing spouse, following her husband's career. My father-in-law stayed in the air force and they moved to Germany and were in Zweibrücken. They lived in Cold Lake. They lived in Comox. It's the same lifestyle.

My husband is very proud of that history. He joined the cadets. He got a gliding scholarship. In fact, after his father died, he had to, of course, return to the Ottawa Valley where the family was from, and I think the sacrifices that are made by military families are not known to a lot of people. I don't think they realize the roots. My husband was 20 years old, returning back to a place, the Ottawa Valley, that he had never really lived in and had grandparents that he only knew on holidays.

When we're talking about this, I think we cannot lose track of the sacrifices that are made by the members of our Canadian Armed Forces so that they can protect us, so that they can do good.

Madam Chair, I'm looking at you and I want to acknowledge here in the committee the 31 years of service that you gave to this country.

I have to say that, for those people who are willing to do that, who are willing to give their lives, who are willing to go into danger to keep us from harm, we owe it to them that their work environment be safe. We owe it to them that when they put that uniform on, when they go to places like Bosnia and Kosovo and Afghanistan....

I've lived in Bosnia and Kosovo. I can tell you that my life was only safe because of the military, the Canadian Armed Forces and the other NATO forces that were there in the corner. When I lived in Sarajevo, there were 20,000 NATO troops in and around Sarajevo at that time. I could not have been there or been safe in the work I was doing to promote democracy and anti-corruption without those NATO troops. At that time, they were under Canadian command.

I don't know that young Canadians know how incredibly grateful the people of the Balkans are. I lived in Kosovo at the time that they declared independence. I can tell you that if you were Canadian, British, or American.... People were walking in the streets, old men with wrinkled faces, tears running down their faces, holding the hand of their young five- or six-year-old grandchild. They would see us as Canadians, and they would start to cry and say that because of us, their grandchild would not know violence, their grandchild would live in freedom. I don't know that Canadians know that. Our Canadian Armed Forces put themselves in harm's way so that people can live in freedom, so we can live in freedom.

My family are from the Netherlands. My father, who passed away just before Christmas, got his first candy from a Canadian soldier in his city in the Netherlands in 1945. He was born in 1940. He lived in a city. He was still afraid of airplanes the day he died because he knew that airplanes meant that the bombs would drop. He knew the word “cellar”, by the way, an English word. He was five years old. He did not know any English, but he and his younger brother were hiding in the cellar when the fighting was going on and the Canadian Armed Forces had gone into the city that he was living in. They were led, by the way, by the scout who was the head of intelligence—and this is one of those wonderful synchronicities in life. He was the first Canadian to cross the river into the city that my dad was living in. His grandfather and great-grandfather and uncles were in the Dutch resistance. They made contact. That was the man we grew up next to. He was our next-door neighbour, and we knew that Ernie—Ernie Dombrowski was his name....

I'll be honest. Ernie was a bit of a curmudgeon. He was an older guy. We were little kids. We probably made lots of noise and played ball, and the ball ended up in his yard and he was a little grumpy. My father said to us, “You show respect to Ernie. You always respect Ernie because he saved us.” He was the first Canadian into Deventer, the city my father and his family were living in, the first Canadian soldier to make contact with his own family who were in the resistance and to pave the way for the liberation.

At that liberation, my dad's family were hiding. My dad was the oldest. They heard silence. Of course, the children didn't want to stay in the small cellar, so they came out. They came out into the street, and there were Canadian soldiers who said, “Cellar. Cellar.” My dad didn't know what the word meant, but he knew that the fighting wasn't over, and it was still dangerous and they had to get back in that cellar. They were finally able to get out of that cellar and go out into the streets, and my dad would talk about this until the day he died. He talked about the fact that when they came out they saw the Canadian soldiers and they saw the tanks. They were throwing cigarettes to the parents—this might not be so good in modern days—and candies to the children.

He would talk about this little candy. I think it must have probably been a Werther's Original, because he said it was a hard candy that was like caramel, with a golden wrapper. He took this candy. In five years, he had never had candy. The Dutch barely had enough to eat. They talked about how, when they would scoop the butter, they would get more and more butter, because they had so many breadcrumbs that they would try to make more butter by keeping the breadcrumbs in the butter. They had nothing. He had never had a candy, and this soldier gave him a candy. He remembered that for the rest of his life.

Madam Chair, if you'll allow me, recently I went to a seniors' home in my riding, and it was a 100th birthday party. To the gentleman, a sharp, sharp man of 100 years old, I said, “Thank you”, because he had been a Canadian soldier, and in the discussion I had with him, he said he had been in Deventer, in the town my dad was from. Almost in tears, I thanked him. I said, “I am here because of you”. I am in Canada, I am here as a member of Parliament, and I'm alive because of those soldiers. This man, this old man, was turning 100 years old, and when we started to talk, I asked, “Did you know Ernie Dombrowski?” He said, “Ernie? Ernie Dombrowski? He was my boss. I worked with him”.

This was his birthday, so there were all kinds of candies on the table. They had these little packages like at weddings, where they have candies and a little ribbon. He takes this candy—100 years old, this man—this little package with the ribbon on it, and hands it to me, and says, “Madam Anita, will you please take this candy and give it to your father?”

That afternoon, an hour later, I went home to my parents, and I walked up to my dad—this was just a year ago, just not long before he died—and I gave him that candy. He had tears in eyes, and he said, “You know, Anita, it's the second time in my life that I have a candy from a Canadian soldier”, and it could even well be the same one.

The point I'd like to make—and I have a lot more recommendations to go through, but I've let my colleagues speak for a little while—is that we owe it to the people who sacrifice as they do. We owe it to them to make sure they are safe. We owe it to them to make sure they have an environment where they can give their all and never for one second feel like they don't belong. Not only do they belong in the military, in the Canadian Armed Forces, but they are the reason we are here.

Madam Chair, I hadn't intended to go off on all of those stories, but it's something I feel very profoundly. I think it is very, very important that our committee realize the gravity, the importance and the seriousness of what we're talking about today.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you, Madam Vandenbeld.

As soon as I get the tears out of my eyes, we'll continue.

We'll go to Mr. Bagnell, please.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I, too, was quite moved by Ms. Vandenbeld's stories. It reminds me of what an honourable career the military is for Canadians—what they have done and what they aspire to do. We should be working to make sure that it remains an honourable career, but safe at the same time.

As I've often done at these meetings, I have to compliment Mr. Baker for bringing us back to the central focus that we should be discussing.

I know all members of the committee want to improve the armed forces. As we're debating bringing in new material that's important for the report, including information from survivors and experts, I'm sure all committee members are thinking about what recommendations should deal with these complex problems.

As I've said—and Mr. Baker said at the beginning of most meetings—the three fundamental problems are: culture change; fear of reporting, partly because of the role of the chain of command; and fear of reprisals for reporting. I talked about the latter at the last meeting. If you've picked such an honourable career, why would you want a reprisal to affect you in that career?

I compliment everyone who his going to speak today. There have been very courageous women in Quebec and the rest of Canada who brought forward these stories. Mr. Baker mentioned one of them. I compliment every committee member today who will speak about how we can deal with these complex issues, the problems that have resulted in thousands of misappropriate actions in the military, and dealing with the three items that I just mentioned.

Later on, I will go through my position on those recommendations that I believe would help with these very complex and serious problems, As I mentioned, obviously, the present members and potential future members of the military, and sometimes DND, really want these issues addressed, as well as solutions that will deal with the thousands of people involved in the military and DND.

I will talk about those recommendations later. My intervention will be short, and I'll save my other information for later.

We've had many experts and editions to help us formulate those recommendations. I'm only going to read a paragraph here, but it's from a report entitled “Unmaking militarized masculinity”. It's a long report, well over 10 fine print pages, which I'm not going to read at this time. I'm going to read the abstract, so that people at least have a reference to it as they think about what recommendations we should make.

It's written by Sarah Bulmer of the University of Exeter at Penryn, UK., and Maya Eichler from the Department of Politics and the Canada research chair in social innovation and community engagement at Mount Saint Vincent University, Halifax, Nova Scotia.

The abstract begins:

Feminist scholarship on war and militarization has typically focussed on the making of militarized masculinity. However, in this article, we shed light on the process of ‘unmaking’ militarized masculinity through the experiences of veterans transitioning from military to civilian life. We argue that in the twenty-first century, veterans’ successful reintegration into civilian society is integral to the legitimacy of armed force in Western polities and is therefore a central concern of policymakers, third-sector service providers, and the media. But militarized masculinity is not easily unmade. We argue that in the twenty-first century, veterans' successful reintegration into civilian society is integral to the legitimacy of armed force in Western polities and is therefore a central concern of policymakers, third-sector service providers, and the media. But the militarized masculinity is not easily unmade.

I think everyone on the committee would agree with that.

The abstract continues:

They may have an ambivalent relationship with the state and the military. Furthermore, militarized masculinity is embodied and experienced, and has a long and contradictory afterlife in veterans themselves. Attempts to unmake militarized masculinity in the figure of the veteran challenge some of the key concepts currently employed by feminist scholars of war and militarization. In practice, embodied veteran identities refuse a totalizing conception of what militarized masculinity might be, and demonstrate the limits of efforts to exceptionalize the military, as opposed to the civilian, aspects of veteran identity. In turn, the very liminality of this 'unmaking' troubles and undoes neat categorizations of military/civilian and their implied masculine/feminine gendering. We suggest that an excessive focus on the making of militarized masculinity has limited our capacity to engage with dynamic, co-constitutive, and contradictory processes which shape veterans' post-military lives.

I won't get into the rest of that report at this time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Mr. Bagnell, we've lost your feed there. Reselect “unmute”.

Try it again. There you go.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

What I want to do before going into a lengthy paper or, as I said, going into all the recommendations I would have is to talk about a way in which we might be able to get some things forward fairly quickly. I'm just thinking off the top of my head.

From the experts and from the victims we've heard from—and I'm looking forward to hearing more from Mr. Baker—obviously the facts are the facts, and the situation is the situation. There are certain things that come up over and over again that obviously should be done, or that have been suggested by the experts and survivors that should be done.

I think that because of our common cause and the common facts that have come up in this way at great length, there should be a number of things that we can all agree on. What reports reflect is what the witnesses said. It's pretty hard to disagree with that in the reports.

Recommendations evolve from what the witnesses and the experts have told us. We should be able to come to an agreement on a lot of that.

I'm just thinking off the top of my head, and I'm looking forward to hearing what other people think of this idea. I'm not sure exactly how to word it yet. If we were to go through recommendations very quickly, one at a time, and just have a vote as to whether they could be dealt with in the way Mr. Bezan has proposed, if there was unanimous consent on each particular motion, on those motions—and I personally think there should be a lot of them that we could all agree on—then we would deal with them in the way that Mr. Bezan has outlined in his motion.

Then we would get through all of those things relatively quickly and have things to show, and then on the difficult ones that we can't all agree to have a quick decision on, we could go into debate.

My assumption—and I might be wrong—is that there are a lot of things we can agree on, but there are obviously, as there always are in committees, a number of items that need some more detailed debate.

I will just leave that idea, that proposal, to go quickly through all of the recommendations, find out what we could unanimously agree on, go through Mr. Bezan's proposal of a couple of minutes per committee member, and take care of those recommendations. Then for what's left, what we couldn't agree on and deal with quickly, we would debate at length.

In that way, we would have some production, some answers for the victims, relatively quickly, and then we would have other things that we would be debating at length.

I'll just leave that suggestion. That's one of the reasons I didn't want to go into all of my suggestions and recommendations or a lengthy report right now. I want to make possible that way for everyone to move forward together to help the victims. I'll leave it at that.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bagnell.

We go to Mr. Spengemann now.

Go ahead, please.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to thank all of my colleagues for their interventions, and in particular Ms. Vandenbeld for very personal reflections on the role of the Canadian Forces and the powerful sentiments that she put behind her illustrations and arguments.

As we come up to the 76th anniversary of D-Day celebrations this weekend, I think it is incredibly important that we all reflect on the contributions of the Canadian Armed Forces—the historic contributions and the current and future ones—including the important peacekeeping operations that we are part of today and operations through NATO.

Maybe I can suggest the argument to the committee that there are two components to the issue of sexual misconduct in the Canadian Forces that we are dealing with.

One is a moral component, in the sense that it is simply wrong. It is flat wrong for this behaviour to be present and to continue. All members of the Canadian Forces have a right to serve in a safe, secure manner that is free from bullying, harassment, assault and any kind of misconduct.

The other consideration—and I will be careful in terms of where to position it, as the moral component is the most important component—is an operational consideration that affects the Canadian Forces in a broader sense, Madam Chair. It affects every army and every force within the set of our allies and friends that are currently working with us across the world. It's the question of trust.

The trust in the Canadian Forces has very quickly and very fundamentally eroded through the ongoing issue of sexual misconduct. It's been amplified by the two prominent case that we are studying. If members of the Canadian Forces can't trust each other, all the cultural components that we consider valuable in terms of the culture of excellence, service, camaraderie and looking out for one's fellow members of the Canadian Forces on the battlefield and in the halls of defence headquarters in Ottawa become eroded very quickly. This mistrust that is driven by the sexual misconduct has wider ripples inside the Canadian Forces. We are all following the news headlines closely and we don't need to look much beyond them to see the impact of this. It also erodes the effectiveness of organizations like NATO, of which many militaries are struggling with the same issue.

There is a defence component and an operational component to this. Ms. Vandenbeld was spot-on when she mentioned that the questions of supremacy, racism, homophobia and other drivers of exclusion and division that manifest themselves here in Canada and elsewhere in the world are incredibly relevant to the work that we're currently doing.

That's why the reference to this committee's previous work in the 42nd Parliament on diversity and inclusion is important. That's why the report of Mr. Justice Fish is important. Questions with respect to military justice are important.

We're facing a large, systemic problem that has a fundamental moral component, but also a very prominent and potentially very worrisome operational component.

Restoring trust takes time. Restoring trust takes an admission that we have an issue. This is an admission that many of our witnesses have openly made, including the minister when he spoke to us for six hours. Acknowledging that we are not meeting the expectations and that we are not protecting women serving in the Canadian Armed Forces is an incredibly important first step. I think that acknowledgement is there across party lines and across levels of service and government.

The follow-up is where the rubber really hits the road and where this committee, in terms of parliamentary accountability, needs to do its work. That's why we need to look closely at the work of Madam Justice Arbour. She is an independent authority who has been given a mandate with great urgency and great scope.

We need to complement that as the mechanism of parliamentary accountability to the Canadian public. We're elected. We're members of this committee. The expectation of the Canadian public is for us to come out and take steps and make recommendations that will heal the trust that has been eroded and broken. That takes time, but, in the minister's words, “the time for patience is over.” We need to act now and we need a complete culture change.

With that in mind, Madam Chair, I would like to take the opportunity to finish an important part of the experience that our British friends and colleagues have identified and reported on with respect to dealing with inappropriate behaviour when it occurs in the armed forces. Their conclusion like ours is that they have to do better. Their report focused on how they could improve the response to incidents when they do occur, judging in particular that they need to build trust and confidence in the complaint system, improve reporting of inappropriate behaviour and the support of those who are affected.

They proposed new governance structures to provide stronger centralized oversight and support, a single point of reference for data on inappropriate behaviour coupled with the ability to identify and share leading practice across the organization and offering alternatives, and potentially anonymous pathways for raising concerns of inappropriate behaviour or service complaints. Very interestingly, the British report says that this is the experience of the Canadian Armed Forces and the Australian Defence Force. In this part of the report, they recommended the establishment of a new central organization in the U.K., which they call the “Defence Authority responsible for cultures and inappropriate behaviours”. They also recommended in parallel a review of the service complaints process.

To the extent that we still have pending cases, cases that have not been reported yet, dealing with inappropriate behaviour when it does occur is of fundamental importance in the U.K. and here in Canada to the restoration of trust. It's only one component, but it's an important one.

The report noted:

a common theme among organisations who had faced endemic behavioural problems was a very low level of reporting initially, often combined with a perception that all was well.

We're far beyond this point in Canada, but that was the insight gained from the British experience. It was only when a significant event prompted further in-depth investigation that the extent of the issue became apparent, and it's clear to us, Madam Chair, as members of this committee what those events were in the recent weeks.

The report continued:

The majority of cases found in the evidence we looked at from Australia, Canada and the private sector, pointed to a general lack of confidence to report inappropriate behaviour for several reasons.

Before I cite them, I want to point out to the committee that the reference to Canada in the British report is footnoted to the ERA and Madame Deschamps' report of 2015.

Those reasons include the following:

fear of adverse consequences on the complainant’s career; fear of not being believed; belief that nothing would be done and a lack of transparency in the outcome of a complaint; inadequate or insufficient consequences or disciplinary action; complaint process not independent of the chain of command or line management; lack of anonymity for the complainant; amount of time taken to achieve a resolution.

The conclusion in the British report is that the number of complaints of inappropriate behaviour is under-reported in the service complaint system for similar or identical reasons. They make the following observation:

The Service Complaints target is to resolve 90% of all complaints within 24 weeks. In 2018, the Service Complaints Ombudsman reported only 50% of complaints were resolved in 24 weeks. We found the average target in the private sector for resolution of complaints of inappropriate sexual behaviour is 40 to 45 days.

There are very important discrepancies, and as you can see, Madam Chair, the U.K. really took a sweeping look at the issue all the way over into the private sector, which is really the parallel that we're concerned about, which will help us in line with efforts that are going on in the private sector to identify those additional constraints that we face within the Canadian Forces with respect to the reporting structure and the chain of command and other factors.

The report continued:

The private sector reports an average number of complaints of inappropriate behaviour equating approximately to 1% of the workforce per year of which 25%-40% is usually reported anonymously. By comparison, the Service Complaints Ombudsman Report in 2018 recorded that the Services received a total of 1,185 complaints of which 763 were deemed admissible and only 190 (25%) were related to bullying, discrimination and harassment. This represents less than 0.1% of the strength of the Services.

This low reporting rate of inappropriate behaviour has been attributed to the issues that we just talked about, the chain of command and others, and the report goes on to take a look at U.S. data from 2016. The report further states:

In 2016, the United States Department of Defence estimated that only 7% of those who experienced a sexual assault came forward to report the incident to the military. In 2018, this rate was approximately 30%. Other common reasons included: concerns that reporting would negatively affect their career; nothing would be done; confidentiality would not be kept; because servicewomen blamed themselves; work environment concerns; would be treated differently by leadership; and would be seen as weak.

All of these factors go to the question of trust. If people cannot trust the complaint system, it is a fundamental driver of the overall implication of mistrust with respect to the Canadian Armed Forces—the U.K. armed forces in this case, but by extension, the Canadian Armed Forces—as an employer, and most importantly, an environment where trust is fundamental to the operational effectiveness and also to the safety of the women and men who serve. If you cannot trust the person next to you, you're not going to be an effective member, and the entire unit, and by extension, the entire forces will be ineffective.

The U.K. report recommended that “Defence should consider a call for evidence on inappropriate behaviours in conjunction with a sexual harassment survey in 2021.” I think it would probably be valuable for us as a committee to have an exchange on that recommendation and the implications here in Canada.

There are also thoughts on anonymous reporting as an essential component to restoring trust. The report continues:

While some people will feel able to report incidents of inappropriate behaviour through their chain of command or line management; many will not. The United States, Australia and New Zealand Armed Forces have utilised a restricted reporting method allowing an individual to seek support for a sexual assault without initiating an investigation, thus remaining anonymous. The United States restricted reporting data is compelling: all victims indicated that they would not have reported if the only means had been through a formal report. In 2017, 24% of those reporting went on to convert to a full report initiating an investigation. Key to this is that the report must be recorded to enable an understanding of the level of incidents. Internal employee support networks provide valuable assistance but are not the answer. The army's sexual harassment survey in 2018 recommended the introduction of a web-based anonymous reporting tool for inappropriate behaviours, so that service personnel can make the army aware of these behaviours without fear of repercussion.

In the U.K., Madam Chair, this initiative is not yet resourced, so the report makes the recommendation to “Resource, develop and implement an anonymous tool for reporting inappropriate behaviours across defence.”

I raise this portion of the report again to highlight the importance of finding a pathway to effectively empower members of the Canadian Armed Forces to report inappropriate behaviour. We're not yet at the stage where we can assume that there will be no further incidents or that there will be no further reports. The fact that we had two cases, back-to-back, directly implicating the former chief of the defence staff shows the systemic entrenchment of the issues. We're not yet at the stage where we can even say there is a particular amount of light at the end of the tunnel. In parallel with that, as I've indicated in previous submissions and as structurally incorporated in the U.K. report, is the importance of finding ways to discourage this kind of behaviour from ever happening in the first place. These were my submissions and recommendations based on the U.K. experience with respect to training, feedback loops and innovative new mechanisms like reverse mentorship.

In short, there's a lot of work to be done on the question of trust. It takes time to restore it. The urgency is incredibly high. It will not be fixed tomorrow, but we have to start tomorrow if not today. I think that's the message we heard from the minister, that the time for patience is over. Again, the issue of trust is an operational component as much as it is a reflection of the moral breakdown that for far too long has been going on in the Canadian Armed Forces and so many other forces across the world. This moral breakdown is the result of a failure to take account of the role of women in the forces and the right of women and all genders to serve in the forces.

The challenge is monumental. The pivot point is trust, both with respect to the moral implications and the operational implications. Thinking forward, Madam Chair, if we look at our friends and allies within NATO who are suffering this issue in various degrees, unless we get on top of this systemically, the operational effectiveness of the alliance can and potentially will be called into question. This is in addition to the fact that we are facing a wrong that we are not righting. That's why I'm so emphatic about the responsibility being on the shoulders of this committee to do this work now, in the few sessions that we have left.

We can do it. I think Mr. Bagnell's proposal is an excellent one. We can find those recommendations that we can get behind. We can have a discussion, focused and short, on how to prioritize them, how to connect them to each other, what kind of sequence we need to set up to make sure those recommendations are mutually reinforcing and that they can cross-leverage, also, the work that Madam Justice Arbour is doing in parallel.

There's a huge amount of work in front of us on the most important issue, in my view, that this committee has faced in recent history. It is a runway to achieving something that will add value to the future of the Canadian Forces.

I will turn it back to you on this thought, Madam Chair. I still have a couple more things to say before I finish my remarks on the Wigston report. If there's time, I will briefly comment on the follow-up report that the U.K. put into place a year later. It's really just a year ago for us now. It led to some very interesting and innovative conclusions as well as additional recommendations that identified some gaps in Wigston that did not work. I think we have to turn our minds to the possibility of doing that here as well. If we put forward some recommendations that get implemented and a year later it turns out that they don't have quite the right emphasis or that they have to be changed, altered or resequenced, what kinds of mechanisms can we propose to the Government of Canada to make sure we have that flexibility, that adaptability, to make sure that whatever gets put in place doesn't just get held out as investment X to say that we've approached the problem? There's also a need to follow up and make sure they actually work and deliver the results in the longer term. The fact that the U.K. was able to do that within a year suggests that a government, a member state of NATO, should have that flexibility and does have that flexibility. That's an additional thought for the committee's deliberation.

With that, Madam Chair, I will turn it back to you. Thank you.