Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Just to recap, Mr. Bagnell proposed an amendment to Mr. Bezan's motion that would require a government response when the committee completes its report on this current study. I think when we left off last meeting, I was speaking about the importance of making sure that we obtain a government response to ensure accountability for the recommendations that are brought forward to the committee.
We know from witness testimony given before us that sexual misconduct and sexual assault are long-standing problems in the Canadian Armed Forces and they've transcended many governments. One thing I'm very passionate about is ensuring that we take the steps today—this government, this committee and others working on this—and every step we possibly can, to set us on the path, no matter which party is elected to government, whether with a majority or minority, and whatever the complexion of our committees happens to be in the future, particularly at this committee and the status of women committee, which are focused on this issue. We should institute the changes, bring in the changes that need to be made to ensure not only that we solve this problem, but also that future governments are held to account for their actions on this issue. I know that everyone on this committee has a different view as to who might be in government next, but regardless of your views on that particular question, I think we should and can all agree that it's important to put in place changes today that are sustained, that address the issue and that ensure future governments are incentivized to continue with that work.
To me, one of the best ways to do that, although not the only way, is to make sure that now, when this pivotal work is taking place and we're undertaking this pivotal study, we generate a report that makes thoughtful recommendations to government about how to tackle this problem and that ensures future governments are held to account, regardless of their political stripe. Having a government response is critical to that because it ensures that the government of today, first off, is clear about its intentions. If those intentions aren't consistent with the views of the members of this committee, survivors, experts or anyone else, then they have a chance to vocalize that and there's an opportunity for the government to adjust its course and plan. That's really important, from a policy perspective, for actually solving the problem.
Getting today's government to issue a response to this report would also set the bar for the next government, the government after that and the government after that. To me, that's why the response is so vitally important for ensuring that we actually solve this problem in the years to come. We need this government, the next government and every government after that to solve the problem and, when it's addressed, to be constantly vigilant to make sure that sexual harassment and sexual misconduct are stamped out of the Canadian Armed Forces.
These are some of the reasons that I think Mr. Bagnell's motion is really constructive and important for tackling the underlying problem that we're trying to tackle today and through this study.
I also want to highlight one of the things I mentioned before that I wanted to come back to. I think there is a tremendous number of steps that need to be taken to eliminate sexual assault and sexual misconduct from the armed forces.
That's because it's a wide-ranging problem; it's a complex problem and there's a tremendous amount of nuance. We've heard from a number of witnesses, experts and members of the armed forces, and members of Parliament like myself and others have shared the voices and the testimony of survivors. We've heard those voices and others, both in this committee and outside this committee. Because this issue has gone unsolved—or not even unsolved, but it hasn't been enough of a priority—in my view, for far too long, it's so important that we do everything we can as a team, as a committee, to put our shoulder to the wheel. We should apply every effort to make a positive difference on this issue.
That's why I feel strongly that we need to issue this report. There was some discussion at our last meeting about the fact that, well, the status of women committee has issued a report. At our committee here, the defence committee, some of the witnesses we heard from were the same, but some of them were different. We heard from them in different amounts and they answered different questions. First off, to the extent that we issue a report that echoes some of the recommendations of the status of women committee, that's great. That means there's consensus and that just puts further advocacy behind the government acting on those recommendations. To the extent there's something different, that too adds value.
Given that we've heard from the witnesses we did, the calibre of the witnesses we did, I think making sure that we, first of all, honour their contributions to this committee is important. That's one of the reasons. However, I also think that until we find something different, because we have different perspectives and different experiences, that's something that's important to do as well.
This is a moment where we need to put our shoulder to the wheel to do everything we can to address this problem and not be like politicians of the past who've not done everything they can. Therefore, I wanted to address that point that had been raised in the debate we had at our last meeting.
One thing that is also critical is that the report be created based on consensus. Why is that? It's not just democratically important. It's not just important to give weight to the report, although in my view those things are true, but it's important because of the complexity and the nuance of this issue that we're trying to solve. That's going to take time. It would take time in discussion between us to lock in on a line on how we articulate the problem, but also really on what recommendations we want to make to government.
I will highlight a few examples of some of that nuance and that perspective that we need to bring into our thinking when we write the report. One example is someone I've spoken about before who is a survivor, who you might recall has presented to the status of women committee and talked about an experience she had when trying to train cadets and how she was mistreated—and continues to be mistreated—when she came to provide training at the Royal Military College. I shared with the members of this committee some of her testimony from the status of women committee.
One of the things I wanted to share with you is more of what she said at the Status of Women committee. These are excerpts from her testimony.
Julie Lalonde says:
I'm an expert on bystander intervention, and what I hear from bystanders all the time is, “I didn't say anything because it was just a comment. If he had touched her, I would have said something, but it was just a comment. It was just a joke. Oh, you know how he is. He's old school,” and so on.
Ms. Lalonde goes on to say:
I think it is vitally important that the very philosophy of the path, which is what we're currently calling this discussion, explain that sexual violence exists on a continuum and that comments are directly related to abuses of power and directly related to gang sexual violence, which is happening.
I want to pause there for a moment. Ms. Lalonde is talking here about abuse of power. She refers to “abuses of power”. I think we've heard that not just from Ms. Lalonde but from experts who have presented at this committee. I think we have a responsibility to make sure that we as a committee consider in our deliberations how we would address this abuse of power. This is perhaps part of the culture change that we want to see, but perhaps there's more to it than that. I don't know. That's something we would have to have a discussion about, but I wanted to underline this topic that Ms. Lalonde raises as important to at least part of the problem of sexual assault in the military. I think it's really important that we tackle that. Again, this is an example of how important it is.
In her testimony, Ms. Lalonde also speaks to bystanders and how some bystanders often react when someone makes a comment and they don't intervene or act. She talks about how that has to change, and that's another important component of this that I think we as a committee have a responsibility to tackle in our recommendations. Again, it requires significant thought and it requires a government response. Whether that be how bystanders react or whether that be the issue of abuse of power and so on, it requires the government to say, “We agree with you,” or, “We disagree with you,” or, “Here's how we're thinking of approaching these elements of the problem.”
Going on with what Ms. Lalonde continued to say at committee:
This idea that we have to focus on the serious forms of violence—you cannot just focus on those without pulling back and doing that macro piece. We need to equip bystanders and to say that maybe an intervention for a comment doesn't look the same as it would for someone being cornered, but it's still an intervention that's necessary.
I want to pause there. What's our committee's view on the role of bystanders? What's our view on what the Canadian Armed Forces need to be doing to ensure that bystanders do what needs to be done? What's our solution?
I'm of the view that what we do with people who are.... What we do to address this so that bystanders are not just bystanders, so that they're helping to resolve the problem.... To me, it's critical that we address that. It's so important that this committee create the circumstances where we can really think that through and tackle it and make a recommendation on it and hold the government to account for solving that particular component, amongst others. I wanted to highlight that as an example.
There's another nuance that I wanted to highlight. This is again from Ms. Lalonde's testimony at the status of women committee. This is a segment of her testimony and is actually a response to a question from a member.
She said, “Lastly, this is truly an intersectional conversation. As Christine has said, for adult men in this country—not children, but adult men—the highest rates of sexual assault are if they are incarcerated or if they join the military.”
I'm going to pause there for a second and repeat that about men: “The highest rates of sexual assault are if they are incarcerated or if they join the military.” I think that just underlines how serious this problem is. I underline that because it's a reminder of how bad the situation is and how we really need to focus on solving this problem—not the politics, not the headline-grabbing, but this problem of what's happening to victims in terms of sexual assault and sexual harassment. What is the military doing to prevent it?
Let me go back to what Ms. Lalonde said. She said:
We need to look at this from an intersectional lens.
I would also say an intersectional lens includes the fact that there's a significant amount of racism in the military. The Proud Boys were recently designated a terrorist organization. There were proud members of those groups who were also...[Canadian Armed Forces] members.
You can't talk about power unless you talk about all the ways in which power manifests itself in the military, and that includes racism and homophobia. A huge reason men don't come forward, as Christine said, is shame: shame that's directly tied to the homophobia within the CAF.
She said we have to look at it intersectionally, which means “having all the players at the table”. She went on to talk about Veterans Affairs, Canadian Armed Forces, etc.
I share this to say that in Ms. Lalonde's testimony, she underlines, or she's making a recommendation, at the very least, that this problem should be tackled in a certain way. Certain departments should be brought to the table. It should also be thought about in the context.... She's talking about men here. Julie Lalonde is talking about men and how they're ashamed to come forward. That's linked to the culture of the Canadian Armed Forces. What are we going to do about that?
Yes, we've talked about culture a lot. Many of us have spoken about the need to change the culture. We've heard that from witnesses. We've heard that from experts. Mr. Spengemann and Mr. Bagnell have spoken about the need to change the culture on a number of occasions, and have offered some thoughts as to how that should happen. This is a particular consequence of the culture. This is an element of the culture that Ms. Lalonde is speaking to with regard to the shame that men feel and why it happens. How are we going to tackle that?
I'm raising segments of Ms. Lalonde's testimony to underline how serious the problem is, as a reminder. I know that we all know it's serious, but this is to underline how serious it is and therefore how important it is that the focus of our work be on solving the problem rather than talking about politics. I think the best way to honour survivors is to tackle the problem. The best way to tackle the problem is to take into account what folks like Julie Lalonde and so many others are offering us in terms of suggestions as to how that can be done, and then incorporate those in our report. Then, like Mr. Bagnell has suggested in his amendment, we get the government to respond so that we have greater confidence, certainly the most confidence that we can contribute, that this government and future governments will tackle the problem of sexual assault and sexual harassment in the Canadian Armed Forces.
Madam Chair, I see that others have their hands up. I will end it there for now.
Thanks very much.