National Defence Committee on May 21st, 2021

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

On a point of order, Madam Chair, I would ask all members of this committee to adhere to the rules of honesty and integrity. When members intervene to say that what other members have said is—

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

That's debate; that's not a point of order.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

It's not a debate.

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

I'm explaining exactly—

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

If you will just let me finish my point of order, you will understand the point of order.

The point of order is that when members say that other members aren't speaking the truth, that's actually against the rules of the House. That is my point of order.

You can have an opinion about what happens in committee, but you cannot say that other members are not speaking truthfully about what happens in the committee.

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

I believe my words were that I don't want anyone to get a wrong impression. That was not any accusation against any member of this committee, and I would like the opportunity to lay out what my understanding is of what has been happening in the committee.

From my understanding, going back over the minutes and evidence of all of the meetings since this began, there haven't been any meetings that were ended before the scheduled time at which the meeting was intended to end. Also, there was only one meeting that one could potentially say was cancelled. It was a meeting that was suspended at the insistence of the opposition because they didn't want the meeting to adjourn. They knew, then, we would come back and be able to put on the agenda the debating of the reports, so instead they insisted on suspending the meeting. Then it was events in the House, in fact, a motion in the House that superseded the very topic that—

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

On a point of order, Madam Chair, the member persists in saying what other members think or what other members do. She is entitled to her opinions. She is not entitled to suggest what other members of this committee had as their motives or what inspired their actions.

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

Madam Chair—

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

She can talk about her opinions and her views of what happened, but she is not entitled to ascribe opinions and views to other members of this committee.

It is dishonourable conduct.

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

Madam Chair, I'm very surprised at the aggression that the member is pointing towards me. I'm simply laying out facts about different meetings that have happened, what time they ended and whether or not a meeting was cancelled. There was a statement made earlier. As I said, I want to ensure that anybody listening doesn't get the wrong impression about what has happened.

The meeting I was just referring to, which one could say was technically a cancelled meeting, was in fact superseded, because there was a motion in the House of Commons where that issue, which the meeting was supposed to address, was debated for eight hours in the House. That superseded the meeting. That meeting was in fact suspended. There was even an attempt at a motion to suspend.

I will just go through the larger issue here. This was a study that was originally intended to be three or four meetings. This study has now gone on for four months. Our committee meets generally when the House is sitting. It meets for two meetings for two hours. That's four hours a week. On this study alone, not only has our committee extended well beyond the number of meetings that were originally intended, but it has actually sat for 26 hours and 40 minutes of additional time, in addition to the time that the meetings were actually scheduled. There have been five emergency meetings that have been called, again, in addition to the regular scheduled time for these meetings.

I do believe it would be logical to say that this particular study has had already more debate, more witnesses, more time than anything that had been anticipated. I don't want to leave the impression for viewers or anybody listening that any meetings have actually been cancelled or cut short.

That's just what I wanted to begin with.

I'd also like to address the amendment and the motion, because whether it's an interim or a full report, the issue of adding more witnesses and hearing more.... I do note that there are witnesses on this list who have already appeared. What has happened, I believe, is that, as we've progressed, each time that we're ready to review the report and in fact have scheduled meetings to review the three reports, there has been yet another motion put on the floor to call yet another witness or another set of witnesses. I think in each case we have brought those witnesses.

When there was an additional witness, Mr. Elder Marques, we did hear from Mr. Marques. Then the chief of staff to the Prime Minister was called, and we did hear from her. We've heard from the minister now for six hours. He came in place of his chief of staff, Zita Astravas. Even Ms. Alleslev, said in her testimony a couple of meetings ago, that was accepted by the committee at the time.

My concern is that there is a narrative being put out there that somehow we're trying to stop witnesses. As we can see, we have accepted all the witnesses that members of the committee have asked for, except for actually a few who were put by the opposition, like Jason Kenney and a couple of others. The fact is that, every time, there's another motion. This particular motion, with or without the amendment that we're discussing, asks for no debate or amendments when we discuss the report. It asks for no response from the government, which is a normal practice and procedure.

What is happening now, I think, is that, because we have accepted all of the witnesses who have been put forward, all the additional ones each time.... I'm not attributing any motives here. The perception could be made that these are poison pills deliberately put into these motions, knowing that members of the committee wouldn't be able to accept them, to not get on with the report.

I would note, Madam Chair, that our next study is on military justice. We do actually have Justice Fish about to table a very important review of the military justice system. I would implore one more time that, if the opposition would like to try to find consensus, perhaps the opposition could withdraw the motion which includes, as I said, things that say, by my calculation, an hour and 45 minutes to debate a report that's over 60 pages. It says right in it that there be no debate and no amendment, which is very undemocratic and a very difficult thing to do in the committee, when we do need to look at the different parts of the report and make amendments. Also, it's not asking for a government response.

What I would suggest is that, if the opposition withdraws the amended motion, perhaps at that point we could then review the report.

Then we could move to the justice study right at the time that Justice Fish is going to be tabling, which gives us an incredible opportunity. We would be able to call Justice Fish and other witnesses who can speak about an aspect of sexual misconduct that is vitally important and that has been identified by almost every witness we had here and before the status of women committee as a core issue in looking at whether or not there is justice for victims of sexual harassment, sexual assault and sexual misconduct in the military, and that is the military justice system.

That's why I do believe that the comments about that are incredibly relevant and that we have an opportunity as members of Parliament. As I said before, I believe all members of this committee want what's best for the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces.

I would very much hope that we can put partisanship aside and look at the recommendations in this study. Frankly, there are many recommendations that come from important testimony. We have had Madam Deschamps herself come to this committee. We have had experts. We have had academics. We have had people who have come in good faith, testifying before us in the assumption that their testimony would then lead to a report and recommendations.

Again, I very much hope we can still get to that. I do believe that, regardless of whether we pass this motion, there will be another one and another one. We've seen that as a pattern at this point. I do believe that in this motion, deliberately or not, there are things the opposition knows can't be supported, including not having any amendments or debate on a very important report.

I would just really urge, Madam Chair, that members of the committee try to work together to at least still get this report out and to at least get the other two reports.... We may not get a report on military justice before the end of the session, but we could hear some really important testimony. I know that if we could hear from Justice Fish, he will have some very important things to say that I do believe are relevant and vitally important to the survivors.

I want to talk more about military culture. I have a number of recommendations that you'll recall I was speaking of several weeks ago that actually came from the testimony and the survivors. I had a list of 92. I still have 27 left. However, I will set that aside, because I see other people would like to speak. I will come back to those momentarily, as soon as my colleagues have had a chance to speak.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you, Madam Vandenbeld.

Monsieur Spengemann, please.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I'd like to thank my colleagues for their previous intervention, in particular Mr. Bagnell, who outlined the fact that the Government of Canada has taken substantial amounts of action. I'd like to echo Ms. Vandenbeld's call for an effort to transcend partisanship and to see this as perhaps the fundamentally most important report this committee has had the opportunity to issue in its recent history.

I would like to complement Mr. Bagnell's overview of government action with a very short intervention, Madam Chair, that takes us back to June 2019—just about two years ago—when the predecessor committee in the 42nd Parliament issued its report on improving diversity and inclusion in the Canadian Armed Forces. That report was chaired by Stephen Fuhr, who was then the member for Kelowna-Lake Country. A number of members of the current committee also participated in that study, including Mr. Bezan, Mr. Garrison, Ms. Gallant and Mr. Robillard. I think there was a guest appearance by Mr. Erin O'Toole, among others. I also had the privilege of serving on that committee.

That report, Madam Chair, was impactful. Of course, it happened prior to the most recent developments with respect to the former chiefs of the defence staff, but there was a strong recognition by the committee across party lines that there was a fundamental issue with diversity and inclusion. I think all of us were very much engaged. There was no dissenting report issued. It was the committee speaking as a transpartisan committee, which I think in these kinds of cases is extremely important. I would like to use that as an impetus to direct colleagues to the possibility in front of us of coming together and really making an impactful set of recommendations that will move the yardsticks.

With respect to sexual assault, that wasn't a specific topic in the report, but as part of its study of diversity and inclusion, it did make very prominent reference to gender issues. It addressed the Canadian Armed Forces' “sexualized culture”. Colleagues had the opportunity to engage in questions relating to gender-based analysis and the GBA+ framework that's being used in Canada. There were discussions, recommendations and texts on facilitating diversity training and education and on the importance of engaging men as allies. We've had testimony in this study by a male officer serving in the Canadian Forces who is an ally, who has spoken out and who is courageous. That report addressed questions with respect to the accountability of particularly senior leadership cadre, the collection of data and the creation of supporting networks, all of which was done, Madam Chair, in a non-partisan way with very coordinated, directed attention paid, across party lines, to these very pressing issues.

With respect to recommendations, some are particularly salient because in some respects they echo precisely what the minister has told us he is doing and one of the priorities we're seeing reported in the media. I am referring to that committee's recommendation 13, which states, “That the Government of Canada instruct Senior Leadership Team members of the Canadian Armed Forces to implement a program that will ensure the sponsorship of promising female Canadian Armed Forces leaders as they progress through the ranks.” The minister has talked about this policy objective in the form of creating a pipeline that will allow women in significantly larger numbers to serve not only as officers but at senior levels in the Canadian Forces, and ultimately, as chiefs of the defence staff.

With respect to unconscious bias training, I made reference in the last session to the U.K. experience on training questions. I've sharpened that lens by putting forward some recommendations that have been helpful to the British government with respect to addressing this issue. In 2019, we also made a recommendation “That the Government of Canada make unconscious bias training available to all members of the Canadian Armed Forces, and that this training be repeated as necessary pursuant to best practices established by knowledgeable experts.”

With respect to accountability of the senior leadership cadres, we recommended “That the Canadian Armed Forces explore options for holding senior leadership accountable for improving the representation of women and diverse groups.” This was a fairly general recommendation that we would probably want to sharpen in light of the evidence we've heard in the current study.

A baseline recommendation was “programs for men and women to learn about gender equity and diversity”. Again, this is something we would probably want to amplify.

This study was submitted, as I said, two years ago in June of 2019. The committee recommended a “standard exit interview”, and also, with respect to data, that “the Canadian Armed Forces, with the assistance of relevant and knowledgeable organizations and academics, identify and maintain data on sexual assaults in all divisions, units and other parts of the military”.

These are just some of them. There were others, Madam Chair, but I'm raising them to remind the committee of what is possible if we transcend a partisan approach. In my view, it's not terribly helpful to come to the table with a presupposition that there is a cover-up, as was said a couple of times.

In fact, it's the opposite. The minister, when he appeared, and the Prime Minister, in the House, have openly acknowledged that we need to do more for women and for all members of the Canadian Forces, that work has to be done, that the door is open, that “the time for patience is over” if I'm quoting the minister correctly, and that complete and total “culture change” is required.

It's really a message of giving the committee the latitude not to cover up but to uncover the challenges, to uncover the systemic challenges, which, in my view, we are doing, but I would like to reinsert the argument that it needs to be proportional. In light of the individual cases that have come forward, the committee has been focused for a number of sessions doing something that is normally done by the subcommittee, which is to discuss the names of additional witnesses.

We're burning our time, and those colleagues on our side who are concerned with the recommendations are making the argument that this time is precious and we need to focus on the substance of the pressing issues to make sure that the next case doesn't pop up. If all we do is put a band-aid on it in terms of acquiring and maybe getting some statements on the record with respect to how a particular case was handled or not handled, that in itself is important, but it doesn't solve the fundamental question of how to prevent the next case or how to create the accountability structures that the Canadian Forces so urgently need.

Also, in light of the significant comparative experience elsewhere.... I've said this again and again. I'm not raising other jurisdictions—including the U.K.—in my interventions because it's interesting to see that something else is going on elsewhere. I'm raising it to highlight the systematic nature of this issue across militaries, and that in itself reflects how deeply entrenched these questions are with respect to sexualized cultures. For generations, gender equality in the military has not been a priority, and we really need to get to a better place urgently, not over the next 10 years but literally in very short order.

On that same note, Madam Chair, let me cite the conclusion from the 2019 report.

Again, I want to thank colleagues who are with us today and who served on that committee in the 42nd Parliament and have done the hard work. We did it very collaboratively, as all of you will remember. The testimony was tough. It took us aback in many ways. All of it preceded the most recent developments, which have further heightened the urgency and the significance of the problem, but I think we were very much engaged and all very much on the same side of the table with respect to solving these questions.

We concluded, Madam Chair, in that report, on its final page—I think it was page 57, so it was a substantial report—the following:

Taken together, the overarching message from witnesses was one of culture change. Their focus was not only the difficulties in achieving and measuring it, but—more so—the urgent requirement for it. The [Canadian Armed Forces] has taken steps to promote inclusion and respect for diversity at home and abroad. In the words of Ms. Perron—

Ms. Perron here is referenced as Captain (Retired) Sandra Perron, the “first female infantry officer” of the Canadian Forces.

—“[t]here is no doubt that the [Canadian Armed Forces] has veered towards making military culture more inclusive, more welcoming and more valuing of diversity, but it's too slow. Veering is not enough. We need a hard right.”

That's where the quote ends. Again, this “hard right” she called for in 2019, some two years before the most recent developments, is even more urgent now, and to make that hard right, we need to go through the recommendations. We need to analyze them. We need to prioritize them, pick the best ones, pick the ones that will achieve the most change most quickly and not simply in one session sort of vote them up or down because we've burnt out the time fishing for witnesses for an additional sentence or two that may substantiate a prejudgment that some of us will have with respect to there being a cover-up.

Again, it's the opposite, in my submission. The door is open for real recommendations, for real change and for a transpartisan approach to show the Canadian public that this committee really is seized with probably the most pressing question, as I've said, in the recent history of the Canadian Forces and is willing and able to come together and make recommendations that will take the country into a very different space in very short order.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you, Mr. Spengemann.

Mr. Robillard, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm all mixed up now. Can you pass to another one and come back, please?

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

I can do that. Thank you.

Mr. Casey, you're up next.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

It's nice to be here to participate in this committee meeting. I'm here as a substitute, of course, for Mr. Baker, and I expect that if Mr. Baker was here you'd have a much more eloquent intervention with someone as knowledgeable as he is. I do bring a bit of an outsider's perspective to the specific topic at hand and some experience in terms of matters of procedure. There are a few things that kind of sink in after 10 years in this place.

I know that Mr. Bezan is quite preoccupied with making sure that we're speaking to the amendment and to the motion and that the bounds of relevance be kept fairly tight, so I'm actually going to start with the amendment that has been proposed.

The amendment indicates that the scope of the study will likely lead to new facts, and in the second subparagraph, it indicates that the committee believes that a report is urgently needed to put an end to the culture that has existed within the Canadian Armed Forces. It then calls for the presentation of an interim report, which will allow for some action to be taken as the more fulsome report is delivered.

The first thing that strikes me on this is the inconsistency, quite frankly, between the amendment and the main motion. The amendment talks about urgency, but the main motion is to prolong the witness list. I would think that if we adopt the amendment and adopt the theory that this is urgent, we wouldn't be extending the witness list four months into a report.

I guess the other thing that I would offer is, again, based on 10 years of experience in parliamentary committees. It has been my experience that at the outset of a study, witnesses are suggested by each of the parties. They're prioritized, and they are then ranked in a manner that is consistent with the parties' standings in the House or in the committee. This is, I think, a tradition that goes across all 22 standing committees of Parliament. It's one that I've certainly seen, observed and respected on the committees I've served on over the years, including the one that I chair now, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons With Disabilities.

There's good logic behind this. If the witnesses can be identified and prioritized at the outset, a work plan can be developed. As they say, you plan the work and then you work the plan. When you're four months into a study and there are additional witnesses demanded who presumably didn't go through that original process, once again it's hard to understand that there is a true appreciation for the urgency of the issue when it continues in this fashion.

The amendment talks about and talks to the culture. Certainly, in recent months, Canadians have heard the heart-wrenching accounts of Canadian Armed Forces members and civilian colleagues who have been the subjects of behaviours and treatment experiences that are completely unacceptable. Also, as the amendment points out, their accounts have been ignored for far too long. For instance, the opposition knew of rumours against General Vance in 2015 but still appointed him.

They appointed him when there was an active Canadian Forces national investigation service investigation into him and appointed him to the most senior position within the Canadian Armed Forces. The current leader of the official opposition says he passed along sexual misconduct rumours about General Vance in 2015 and claimed those were looked into. I think that begs the question: How is it possible that General Vance was appointed at the same time and the investigation was suddenly dropped?

There's no question that what members have endured is wrong. The Canadian Armed Forces is entrusted to keep Canadians safe both at home and abroad. The organization owes survivors more. Every Canadian Armed Forces member makes enormous personal sacrifices to protect Canadians, and regardless of rank or gender identity, they have an undeniable right to serve in safety. The urgency of this issue, the urgency of the need for culture change, is identified in the amendment, and properly so.

The Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces have to live up to this expectation. The minister has always followed the processes put in place. We've heard that repeatedly. He has always followed the processes put in place when allegations were brought to his attention. This is something he has always done and that he will continue to do.

Our government is taking important steps. Unlike the allegation that nothing has been done, that no steps have been taken, to build on the points made by my friend from the Yukon, we're taking important steps to address systemic misconduct within the Canadian Armed Forces and to bring about the culture change that is referenced in the amendment and the culture change that is needed in the organization. The need to change the military's culture is born of the reality that the lived experiences of many defence team members are completely out of line with the values professed by the organization. These are values of integrity, inclusion and accountability. That needs to change, and we, as a government, are committed to bringing about this change.

If we want that change to be significant, meaningful and to last, then we need to reflect honestly on what's been happening. Where we find failings and fault, we must accept responsibility.

Like in the case of the current leader of the official opposition, by the opposition's logic, should he be fired for hearing a rumour of misconduct against General Vance? As we know, just days after the former government appointed General Vance, the investigation was closed. According to the access to information request, the commanding officer said he was under “pressure”. Who do they think applied that pressure?

Where we're able to learn lessons, we must seize the opportunity to build a better organization. Where members of the defence team share their accounts and experiences, we must listen and listen carefully. This also brings me to the main motion and the inconsistency with the urgency of the need to have a culture change.

The main motion calls for the presentation of a report without a request for a response from government. Is this seriously a motion that respects the urgency or that respects the need to ensure there are no further victims when there is no response requested from government, or is it something else?

The end goal should be simple. Where we hope to get to is to ensure that every member of the defence team is valued and respected. Defence culture and professional conduct must reflect the core values and ethical principles our military aspires to uphold as a national institution. That's what Canadian Armed Forces members, veterans, recruits, public servants and Canadians expect and deserve of the organization.

Recently, the Minister of National Defence announced the creation of a new organization to lead us there. We heard Mr. Bagnell refer to this. Among other initiatives, the Department of National Defence appointed Lieutenant-General Jennie Carignan as the Department of National Defence new chief of professional conduct and culture.

It's hard to imagine a better person to lead this important initiative. Under her leadership, the professional conduct and culture organization will unify, integrate and coordinate all of the policies, programs and activities that address systemic misconduct and support culture change within the forces. This new organization will include a new assistant deputy minister, who will directly support her. The team will bring together members from all ranks and classifications, reflecting the diversity that Canadians expect.

Make no mistake: This is not a generic prepackaged solution to a long-standing problem. Before any future steps are taken, those working to bring about change will actively listen to the accounts of people affected—people at every rank, people at every level and people in every installation across all regions of the country.

Members of the professional conduct and culture organization will honour each person's experiences, respect each persons's individuality and will neither judge nor assume. They will listen, so that people's lived experiences guide the road to eliminating discrimination, biases, harmful stereotypes and systemic barriers.

As so many members of the defence team have already shared their experiences and recommendations, we don't need to wait before implementing a number of much-needed changes. Lieutenant-General Carignan will take a number of steps to bring about that change now.

To start, they'll wrap up Operation Honour. Much has already been said about drawing this initiative to a close, but it bears repeating.

Lieutenant-General Carignan and her team will review all of the research conducted under Operation Honour, so that its findings can inform renewed culture change efforts. This new team will develop mechanisms to implement the workplace harassment and violence prevention regulations under Bill C-65, which was also mentioned by Mr. Bagnell, and will support the ongoing efforts to bring the remaining provisions of Bill C-77 into force. That will include bringing the declaration of victims rights into the National Defence Act.

The next order of business will be for the team to establish a framework that will help achieve a number of longer-term goals. They will realign responsibilities, policies and programs that address elements of systemic misconduct across National Defence and the forces. They will also simplify and enhance misconduct reporting mechanisms, including for people outside of the chain of command. They will give greater agency to and strengthen support mechanisms for those who have experienced misconduct. They will enhance tracking mechanisms from initial reports of misconduct to case closures, and they'll integrate additional data points, such as intersectionality, reprisals, member satisfaction and retention. Finally, they will lead institutional efforts to develop a professional conduct and culture framework that tackles all types of harmful behaviour, biases and systemic barriers.

Much work to build healthy, safe and inclusive workplaces is already being done within the department. Many organizations are focused on developing programs and policies that move us in the right direction. Among them, there's the GBA+, the integrated conflict and complaint management program, the anti-racism secretariat, the Canadian Armed Forces diversity strategy, Canada's anti-racism strategy and Canada's national action plan for women, peace and security. The professional conduct and culture team will work with the people leading each of those efforts to further their good work, and they will make the most of ongoing consultations, conversations, external and independent reviews and analysis to inform the way ahead.

The professional conduct and culture organization is being established with the clear understanding that previous culture change efforts have fallen far short of what was needed, and this, of course, is acknowledged in the amendment that is the subject of this discussion today.

As Lieutenant-General Carignan has said, those efforts were fractured, which resulted in segmented efforts and piecemeal changes. With the standing up of this new organization, the defence team is taking a fundamentally different approach. As Lieutenant-General Carignan also said, the new approach will be a more holistic and coherent way to address the complex challenges faced by the Canadian Armed Forces.

I'd like to take a moment to acknowledge Canada's good fortune at having such a decorated leader as Lieutenant-General Carignan leading this vital initiative. With 30 years of military experience, she has served in operations around the world and most recently took on a tremendous leadership role as the commander of the NATO mission in Iraq from November 2019 to November 2020. She's been invested as a Commander of the Order of Military Merit and is a recipient of the Meritorious Service Medal, earned as a result of her exceptional commitment to our Canadian Armed Forces, its missions and our country.

Reading her professional biography is an exercise in humility. In addition to an exceptional work ethic, she brings a profound understanding of military best practices to this role, and she has already shown herself to be a truly gifted leader.

I would like to reiterate our deepest concern for the well-being of every member of the defence team. The standing up of the professional conduct and culture organization is a testament to our government's genuine commitment to the defence team. We have shown that we are dedicated to creating a lasting culture change across the defence team. We will do just that, and I trust that these remarks were of some value to these deliberations.

Thank you for the time, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you very much, Mr. Casey.

Mr. Robillard, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to apologize to my colleagues for this technical issue.

We have to learn from those we failed. We have to listen to them and make changes that really take our people and their needs and diverse backgrounds into account.

Recently, the Minister of National Defence announced the launch of an external, independent and comprehensive review of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces. This is a step in the right direction. I think that we should try to move in that direction and make our contribution by reviewing the recommendations rather than inviting more witnesses. Also, the culture and professional conduct in the defence community must reflect the core values and ethical principles that we aspire to uphold as a national institution.

This is what the military members, veterans, recruits, public service employees and the Canadian public expect and deserve. We all have a personal responsibility to create a workplace free from violence, harassment and discrimination of all forms. The chief, professional conduct and culture group will help us ensure that we meet this standard.

This new group will unify and integrate all associated culture change activities across the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces. It will become the centre of expertise and single functional authority for professional conduct and culture. It will be led by Lieutenant‑General Jennie Carignan, who will be directly supported by an assistant deputy minister.

The initial team will be inclusive of members of all ranks and classifications and will emulate the diversity that Canadians expect. The actions that we undertake to change the culture will incorporate what we hear from those impacted by misconduct.

We will listen to our people at all levels, in all regions of the country.

These lived experiences and suggestions will guide the chief, professional conduct and culture's actions, solutions and decision‑making to eliminate discrimination, biases, harmful stereotypes and systemic barriers.

This team will work in concert with groups across DND and the CAF that are already making progress towards building healthy, safe and inclusive work environments, while also capitalizing on ongoing consultations, conversations, external and independent reviews, and analyses. Research, expertise and complementary strategies and initiatives from which the team can benefit include GBA+; the total health and wellness strategy; integrated conflict and complaint management; the anti‑racism secretariat; the CAF diversity strategy; Canada's anti‑racism strategy; and Canada's national action plan for women, peace and security.

We will incorporate and implement changes recommended by Louise Arbour through the independent external comprehensive review, including interim assessments and recommendations. The sexual misconduct response centre will continue to be an external body, independent from the Canadian Armed Forces chain of command, providing support to affected people, giving expert advice and monitoring progress in addressing sexual misconduct.

Moreover, budget 2021 provides new funding to expand our work to eliminate sexual misconduct and gender‑based violence in the Canadian Armed Forces and to support survivors. We will be announcing more about this in the coming weeks.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you, Mr. Robillard.

We'll go to Mr. Spengemann, please.

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

Madam Chair, thank you very much.

Colleagues, I think a couple of sessions ago I was in the course of bringing you portions of the British experience with respect to two things. One is their approach to getting ahead of inappropriate behaviour in the British Armed Forces, and then also the correction and the approach to dealing with inappropriate behaviour when it has occurred.

I raise the British experience as illustrative of the systematicity across, as I've said, a number of militaries across the world that we work very closely with, be it through NATO or the United Nations or other coalitions. It's also because the British experience in particular that I started with, and there are other countries, has been illuminating. It's not just something that's interesting that's occurring in parallel. It's something that's directly relevant to our work. Some of the recommendations are issues that we have not dealt with or have not looked at.

In the context of the motion and the amendment, the amendment makes specific reference to new facts coming before the committee. New facts can come in the form of witness testimony, but they can also come in the form of documentary evidence and reports. Work that's being done on the very same issue elsewhere in the world is extremely relevant.

The main motion in its original form, I believe, if I have this right, was to cut short our work on the 28th at 2:45 p.m. and thereafter go directly to a vote on the recommendations. I'm struggling a bit, because I think there are some relevant passages in the work that both the U.K. armed forces and other jurisdictions have done. I will try to get some of that on the record over the sessions that we have prior to the formulation of what I hope will be an all-party report—not an interim report, in my view, but a report that is substantive and that has the recommendations that are required to achieve change as early as this summer.

The U.K. armed forces report is entitled “Report on Inappropriate Behaviours”. It was actually released a month after we released our parliamentary report in the 42nd Parliament that I referred to a couple of interventions ago. The committee then did not have the benefit of this experience and its deliberation, but we do now.

Let me get into some of the recommendations. They deal with a number of issues related to training and related to a concept that the British Armed Forces refer to as “reverse mentoring”, which I believe we have not looked at. Very importantly, it also deals with the role of bystanders. We've heard again and again testimony from witnesses in front of this committee that we need to find ways to give serving members of the armed forces or civilian members who are bystanders to sexual misconduct or inappropriate conduct the mechanisms that will give them the confidence to speak out and speak up and become change agents.

The U.K. proceeds with a premise that is very straightforward: “We must do more to stop instances of inappropriate behaviour occurring.” A lot of the attention that we've given has gone to mechanisms of reporting inappropriate behaviour that has occurred. There may well be inappropriate behaviour that has not been reported yet. In fact, the evidence suggests that this trend is very much there until the culture has changed. The U.K. analysis says, in addition to having proper reporting mechanisms, what else can we do to get ahead of the problem to make sure that ultimately there are no cases that are being reported, not because serving members don't have the confidence to speak out but because no sexual misconduct has occurred? That, of course, is the end state that we all aspire to.

The U.K. report states:

This part of the report considers how we should better prepare the workforce, setting the tone and giving people the skills they need to prevent inappropriate behaviours occurring. It is principally the responsibility of the single Services and Civil Service senior leadership and a significant amount of work is underway already. In compiling the Report, we identified the latest thinking and leading practice from professional bodies, academia and other external organisations including allied Armed Forces.

I made reference a couple of sessions ago to the fact that the U.K. cited us in one of their recommendations. They cited work that had been done by the Canadian Forces. There is a need for collaboration and the exchange of best practices and solutions. It states:

This is about changing the level of tolerance and cultural acceptance of inappropriate behaviour across every part of Defence and at every level. It will require concerted effort and persistent attention; success will be measured in years not weeks.

This is a line with which we may take issue. The minister was very clear. He said the time for patience was over. We want progress quicker, and not measured in years but in weeks, if not months.

In any event, preparing the workforce is a crucial aspect of this, and the workforce includes the entirety of the defence sector. The report states:

“If a team enjoys good leadership, then unacceptable behaviour, such as bullying, harassment and discrimination within the team, will not be tolerated.” Leadership is the turnkey to set the conditions for improvement in behaviour across Defence. It creates an environment in which our people, military and civilian, have faith in the chain of command at every level, share a clear understanding of what is appropriate behaviour and are empowered to call it out when it is not. Leaders set the tone through role modelling; self-awareness of their own attitudes and biases; and in developing cultural intelligence and understanding of the whole force. Realtime feedback to leaders, especially from those more junior personnel within the organisation, is important and can be enabled through the use of reverse mentoring, 360° reporting and focus groups.

Reverse mentoring, by the way, Madam Chair, for those of us who are coming across the concept for the first time, is traditionally mentorship that goes from a more senior member of an organization to a more junior member, whether its in academia, the private sector or the civil service. This is the opposite. This is putting a junior member of the serving forces in a mentorship relationship with a senior member to provide feedback and to provide lived experience of right understanding. The thinking may not be apparent, or the senior member may not have been exposed to the extent that he or she needs to be in order to be a change manager within the organization. It's an innovative concept. I believe this committee may well want to turn its attention to its usefulness in our report.

The report states:

For the last two years, the Royal Navy has operated a diversity and inclusion action group and the Royal Air Force has recently established a diversity and inclusion shadow board. Some Army units have, similarly, adopted this approach through the creation of 'Regimental Inclusion Councils' as a mechanism to capture behaviours and feedback to the Commanding Officer; this inclusive approach is especially effective in reflecting perspectives from junior cohorts.

We've heard again and again, with respect to the Canadian Forces, that there is a generational divide. The problem is one that really differentiates senior ranks within the chain of command from junior and also middle ranks. It goes on to state:

The initiative complements the Army Empowerment Programme which seeks to delegate authority to more junior levels of Command.

And thereby achieves cultural change.

The recommendation that follows this analysis is that:

Services sustain and promote connected leadership in their training and preparation of leaders. Feedback mechanisms such as reverse mentors, focus groups and 360° reporting are leading practice and should be maximised.

The report then makes reference to a concept, and I'm not sure if we've identified the nomenclature within our work, but it's called “referent others”. It states:

Academic research refers to the most visible and influential members of a group or community as ‘Referent Others’; these include leaders, instructors and others in authority. Their behaviour not only has a disproportionate effect on the construction and propagation of the norm but they are also important agents for sustaining the culture of an organisation.

Looking at leaders within defence, not necessarily in the form of the chain of command but looking at trainers, external advisers and instructors as referent others, as people who can perpetuate the norm is a key component to achieving culture change. They are the multipliers. They are the amplifiers of norms. This is the granularity we need to get to in our report. We need to find those spots within the Canadian Forces where these kinds of approaches and models are useful.

The chain of command is one consideration and a very important one. This is a broader concept that the U.K. forces have identified and highlighted in this observation, that the identification, education and preparation of referent others, given their contribution to organizational culture, is a key component.

With respect to the prevention of inappropriate behaviour, and this is really where the rubber hits the road in terms of our work, the U.K. report states:

Our Armed Forces understand the risks faced on operations and the individual judgements we ask of our people, even of life and death. The unique nature of military life introduces risks away from the battlefield too, and the risk of inappropriate behaviour is one. Experience points to risk factors that are a recurring feature of instances of unacceptable behaviour, particularly in cases of bullying and sexual harassment: tight-knit units that perceive themselves as 'elite'; masculine cultures with low gender diversity; rank gradients; age gradients; weak or absent controls, especially after extensive operational periods; and alcohol. Unchecked or unrecognized, the combination of some or all of these risk factors sets the conditions for inappropriate behaviour to occur. To stop this, people in every part of Defence—not just the leaders and line managers—need to recognise the risk and have the good judgement to do something about it.

Madam Chairman, we may add to that, not only the good judgment but also the empowerment and the recognition that if they choose to take that step, their careers and their reputations are protected, if not enhanced, because they took that step.

The report continues:

The judgement we expect of our people on the battlefield must be the same level of judgement that we expect of their behaviour in the barrack block or the bar.

Or defence headquarters or anywhere else. It continues:

Cultures and behaviours training has to bolster that judgement. It has to be relevant for the people involved and offer skills and techniques which people can use to good effect. Current cultures and behaviours training focuses largely on Service values and standards and the Civil Service Code, complemented by diversity and inclusion training. This gives the impression that it is done to maintain organisational compliance with the law and with Service values, standards and codes which, in some areas, has developed a 'tick box' attitude.

Madam Chair, this is incredibly relevant analysis. I think, again, this is the granularity we need to get to. It's easy to recommend training programs. It's easy to put money into training programs. It's also easy to say that we've trained x hundreds of people, but unless we achieve the impact that is described in the level of analysis that we have here from the United Kingdom, these efforts will fall flat and will not lead to the culture change that we need to work for, very actively, very progressively and quickly.

The report continues:

To change cultures and improve behaviours, training needs to be set in context, be well-timed and personally impactful for the participants, with a clear set of outcomes. Key intervention periods are at career inception and subsequent confirmatory command, management and promotion training courses. Training ‘Referent Others’ to exhibit new behaviours and implicitly encourage adoption by their peers has proven effective at changing norms and behaviours in some hard-to-reach groups.

Training must also take a preventative view, to help leaders at every level better understand the early signs and symptoms of a systemic degradation of behaviours.

I'm going to close with the recommendation on this portion of the report, Madam Chair, but I'll come back with additional interventions on this—

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Go ahead, Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Could we ask Mr. Spengemann to slow down? The interpreters are saying that they're having trouble translating his comments because they don't have the report in front of them. Perhaps Mr. Spengemann could give them the report. This would make their job easier.

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

Thank you for letting me know, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval. I'll slow down for the interpretation process.

I was on a point leading to a recommendation in the U.K. report on training. The report just prior to that recommendation states that training needs to take a preventative view and needs to “help leaders at every level better understand the early signs and symptoms of systemic degradation of behaviours.” It's not only delivering training in a top-down fashion, but actually making the training agile enough to pick up the behaviour that it is supposed to address.

The recommendation that the British report makes is that:

All recruits should receive immersive culture and behaviour training at the start of service and continued at regular intervals through their career.

The British Army “has made use of the Garnett Foundation to facilitate 'Respect for Others' training informed by the chain of command. This is scenario based, interactive and highly regarded [training], but has been subjected to funding pressures and remains at risk.”

The run-on recommendation by the U.K. is that:

Use of third-party training expertise is considered leading practice and should be resourced and exploited across [the U.K. defence forces].

Madam Chair, there's another section that I wanted to get to, but I'll leave it here for the moment.

The next issue I wanted to deal with, again with highly relevant recommendations, analyses and insights, is on bystanders. To achieve culture change, we have to address the issue of bystander empowerment. Again, this committee will find segments of this report relevant and may potentially adopt them, in whole or in part.

With respect to training, I think we've seen that the reflex of any government is to say it will train its way out of the problem. Training is an important baseline approach. We've made recommendations on training in the previous report on diversity and inclusion, but it's to make sure that the training has the granularity and the sensitivity to behaviour on the ground. It needs to have the feedback mechanisms to see if it's actually working and then it must insert organizational change agents in key positions.

The U.K. has identified these as “Referent Others”. Regardless of rank, a referent other can be a civilian instructor, an academic who works closely with the armed forces, or a serving member. They are not necessarily of a certain rank, but potentially could be somebody of middle or junior rank who commands respect through a role within the Canadian Forces. It's to empower those women and men to play their roles with respect to training and to empower others in turn to speak out against misconduct.

I think these are really valuable insights and recommendations with respect to the question of eliminating sexual misconduct in the first place. The complement to that, of course, is adequate reporting mechanisms to report instances that are still going on. I'll have more to say on that in future interventions, Madam Chair.

I'll leave it there for now and turn it back to you and to colleagues.

Thank you so much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you, Mr. Spengemann.

We'll move on to Madam Vandenbeld, please.