Evidence of meeting #32 for National Defence in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was report.
A video is available from Parliament.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
Thank you, Mr. Bagnell.
Mr. Garrison, did we lose you on a technical issue? You just disappeared.
12:20 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Yes, Madam Chair. I emailed you saying that I was trying to log back in. I suddenly got kicked out.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
Okay. I think it's fair, then, that you take back your position in the line, if it was a technical issue. You can go ahead, and then we'll pick up the list from after where you originally were on that list.
Is that acceptable?
12:20 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I was kicked off while Mr. Barsalou-Duval was speaking, but I want to talk about how serious I think it is for us to be here discussing these motions, given the events over the weekend, because it actually draws a line under what is the important difference between the government and opposition members here.
The original purpose in my mind and as written in the motion for this study was to look at why there was no action at senior levels to combat sexual misconduct, and I probably should qualify that by saying no effective action. No one on the committee can dispute, in a situation while Operation Honour was supposed to be operating, that there were more than 500 sexual assaults, a total of more than 700 sexual assaults and sexual harassment claims filed.
For me, the critical issue here is why there is this lack of action at the senior level. Was this the fault of senior leaders who simply didn't understand this? Was this the fault of a minister or a Prime Minister who didn't want to take responsibility for this? To me, that's the critical question.
I understand if members of the government don't think that's the important question, but it is hard to sit through more than 40 hours of committee time being taken up by reading reports from other jurisdictions and testimony from another committee into the record here.
The government members are pretending that the status of women committee is not about to issue a report that takes into account the survivors' testimony and includes—my understanding is it is expected to include—most of the recommendations that they have been talking about here.
We have this failure at senior levels to fully understand what the issue is here. I think the golf game over the weekend is a serious indication that it persists. It persists at two levels. I cannot believe that the acting chief of the defence staff is still in office this morning. The group that investigates General Vance reports to him, yet he chose to play golf with him over the weekend. No police chief who played golf with someone being investigated by the department would remain in office.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
On a point of order, it was not the acting chief of the defence staff. It was the vice-chief.
12:25 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
I apologize for that error. It was the vice-chief of the defence staff. I misspoke. The fact is that he's still in office and what we have is a statement from the minister saying it's being investigated.
I'm extremely disappointed that we didn't have a statement from the minister demanding his removal or his suspension immediately. The signal this sends to victims throughout the Canadian Armed Forces is that there is a small group of people at the top who simply do not take this seriously and who do not think that victims matter. If you can play golf with a man who is being investigated not only for an email, as one member likes to say, but for a pattern of accusations, which have been made public, of sexual misconduct before and while he was chief of the defence staff, then we have a very serious situation.
Members of the government are taking up the committee's time. They have effectively prevented us from dealing with the study of mental health in the military before Parliament rises for the summer. They have also effectively made sure that we are not dealing with the COVID recommendations before we rise for the summer. This motion is in the form it's in because of the filibuster that has been going on. Why are there suggested time limits? The time limits are there so that the Liberals can't do what they've been doing for the past few weeks, which is talk endlessly and not allow us to get to a vote. If the motions really are counterproductive, then let them come to a vote and vote against them, and then we'll see what happens. However, the Liberals aren't prepared to do that.
They're also talking about recommendations and asking us to proceed with the things we all agree on. Well, we don't all agree on the central purpose of this study. The central purpose is to get at the question of why General Vance was allowed to stay in office as chief of the defence staff for more than three years after the Minister of National Defence was presented with evidence of sexual misconduct, which he refused to look at. Another important question is why General Vance was initially appointed when there were accusations of sexual misconduct at that time. It's these failures to act by senior military and political leaders that allowed this situation to go on and allow it to continue to go on.
Again, what I would have liked to see is the removal of the vice-chief of the defence staff, on a temporary basis at least, to send the signal that this kind of behaviour—sexual misconduct—is understood and is not condoned, and that the government will act. Unfortunately, once again we see a failure to act and a statement simply saying that it's under investigation and will proceed as usual.
I remain bitterly disappointed about the fate of this committee in this Parliament, and bitterly disappointed about the failure of the government to act on sexual misconduct at the highest levels.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Madam Chair, thank you very much.
Thank you for the opportunity for a second intervention.
Following Mr. Garrison, I think it's quite clear that the motion on the floor at the moment is reflective of the fact—or the discussion around it is reflective of the fact—that members have a different view of what the work actually is. It's not a 180-degree opposite view. It's the view that some members think this is really about one or two key cases and solving them and the accountability that flows from that, notably the case against the former chief of the defence staff, and that is important, but, Madam Chair, there are others on the committee who take the view that this is broader.
This is about this case, but also about the systemic problem, the cultural problem, that permits harmful sexual misconduct to continue at a time when it has been an urgent issue for a number of years now. I've made a point that the fact that it exists elsewhere amplifies the importance of the work this committee needs to do, not just to establish accountability on the one case of the former chief of the defence staff, but also to make those kinds of recommendations that in other countries are now precipitating the kinds of changes that we need urgently to implement here in Canada.
I've argued that to do that we need to get to the same side of the table. We all need to be lined up against the problem—focused on the problem, not focused on the politics. For that reason, I took the view earlier today that this committee really should be seen as a vehicle for a much less partisan discussion than what typically takes place—in the minds of many, quite appropriately—in the House of Commons.
I outlined three reasons earlier why I think it is important that we look at what is going on elsewhere in the world, and I'll repeat them just briefly in light of the most recent intervention.
The first reason is that it really shows us the breadth of the problem as a systemic issue, not just in Canada but across a number of militaries, including two militaries I will refer to that we're working extremely closely with. One is the U.K., which I've completed interventions on. The other is New Zealand, which is part of the Five Eyes. We are engaged very closely on matters of security and defence with New Zealand. New Zealand has done some remarkable work that I will introduce to the committee in a few minutes.
The second reason is to encourage members of the committee to move ahead, to get to the same side of the table and to do the work that has been done elsewhere. We can do this in the course of a few minutes by agreeing to let the parliamentary process inside a committee like it's normally structured take its course, and by coming up with recommendations that are actually helpful and will move us forward. This is in the collective hands of the committee to achieve as early as right now.
The third reason, Madam Chair, is that the substance of the conclusions, recommendations and insights from our friends and allies are important. I think colleagues have listened attentively and will realize that the granularity of recommendations, the relevance of recommendations and also the review processes and the tweaking of recommendations inside a very short period are useful to the committee and are most directly relevant to the discussion that's in front of us.
With that, Madam Chair, I will take a few moments, if I could, to introduce the work that has been done in New Zealand.
In New Zealand also, the work started very recently, in 2019. In that year, the Ministry of Defence in New Zealand commissioned an assessment of the New Zealand Defence Force's progress against what they call Operation Respect. We have Operation Honour here in Canada. Operation Respect is a similar program in New Zealand. There's an exercise to measure how effective the recommendations in that operation were.
This was an organization-wide program that was initially introduced to eliminate harmful and inappropriate sexual behaviours in the New Zealand Defence Forces and improve the culture of dignity and respect. You'll see in a moment, Madam Chair, why this is so relevant to the work that has been going on in Canada.
The program review states the following:
The [New Zealand Defence Force] planned to first focus on creating a new system for responding to inappropriate sexual behaviour, before taking a proactive and systematic approach to changing its culture. Launched in March 2016 by the then Chief of Defence Force, Lieutenant-General Tim Keating, the programme was based upon the Canadian Armed Forces' approach to addressing the same issue.
The reference implicitly here is that it's related to the Deschamps report, which was brought forward at that time.
It continues:
It is important to note that other Five Eyes nations, including Canada, continue to grapple with the complex and difficult challenge of eliminating inappropriate and harmful sexual behaviours in their armed forces. They are also inviting independent reviews and face ongoing scrutiny over their cultural reform efforts.
As required by our Terms of Reference, this is a report of both NZDF's progress against its own Action Plan and an assessment of whether the work is positioned for future success. We assessed the outcomes and impacts of the Operation Respect programme through a strong qualitative approach, given the lack of suitably robust quantitative data and baseline measures.
From August 2019 to February 2020, we conducted an extensive documentation and data review, made base and camp visits, conducted one-on-one interviews and focus groups, and received written submissions. We also sought the experiences and views of independent and external experts who have led previous and concurrently running reviews of the NZDF. We spoke to more than 400 past and present members of the NZDF who shared their personal stories and experiences of their lives and careers. NZDF's subject matter experts were consulted throughout the review process.
I will quickly interject here. As I said earlier, when we look at policy recommendations, reports, conclusions and reviews thereof, this sometimes takes the form of rather bureaucratic and not necessarily engaging language. However, behind every one of these recommendations there are conversations with victims and survivors in those two jurisdictions. There's an incredibly important human element there, as there is in Canada, that is really driving the reform efforts among our allies, as much as they're driving our efforts at this committee here at home.
To continue, the report says:
We heard that many enlist for the exciting and interesting careers, travel opportunities, professional and leadership development opportunities on offer. Many told us that they have never worked in any other workplace or profession, have had long and satisfying careers, and are proud to be in service to their country. Unfortunately, some also reported experiencing harmful and inappropriate behaviours, including discrimination, harassment, bullying or sexual violence.
Early in our process it became substantively clear that while some progress is being made, we identified a number of recurring, problematic themes about the real challenges that stand in the way of Operation Respect's success. We identified three fundamental challenges:
1. There is a lack of transparency and accountability of the NZDF's progress in addressing and preventing the harm that continues to be experienced as a result of sexual violence and/or discrimination, bullying and harassment.
2. A 'code of silence' prevails and many personnel will not raise a complaint or report serious issues such as sexual violence because they fear the repercussions and do not trust the NZDF processes and systems.
3. The culture of military discipline and command makes it difficult for personnel to raise concerns or speak out against the behaviour or decisions made by their immediate manager or others more senior in the hierarchy.
This report reflects our assessment that unless these [challenges] are addressed, Operation Respect is not well-positioned to succeed in enabling a 'culture of dignity and respect'.
Members of the committee can see how directly relevant these insights and conclusions are, and how much they reinforce the assessment of experts and victims who have come before the committee in the past few weeks and months.
The report continues:
It is clear that this work continues to be critical. The risk or costs of not acting are high for the individuals impacted, the teams in which they work, and to the organisation's effectiveness and reputation. It is imperative that the New Zealand public has trust in the NZDF and a measure of that may be that its people work in an internal environment free from unnecessary harm.
We commend the NZDF for taking the lead to tackle the problem. They have laid the foundations of a positive and ambitious programme of culture change. In 2016, the Sexual Assault Response Team (SART) was stood up along with a two-track disclosure process. This enabled a victim of sexual assault to confidentially access support services, and to do so without notification to command (which would initiate a formal investigation into the incident under the Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971 and the Manual of Armed Forces Law); or without notification to the NZ Police.
These were both significant steps forward, and along with the Sexual Ethics and Responsible Relationships (SERR) training, are the most effective elements of the Operation Respect Programme.
In looking for ways for leadership to build on these important foundations, and to tackle the cultural barriers, we came across the 2010 inquiry by Auditor General Lyn Provost into New Zealand Defence Force payments to officers seconded to the United Nations. It found many of the same cultural issues we evidenced in this report, albeit framed up in a different context (fraud/improperly claiming allowances). The issues around speaking up and its impact on culture was identified as a problem then, meaning this is a legacy issue for leadership.
Culture change within organisations is challenging and takes time. In this context it is essential to hear the voices of the people, even if the messages are hard to hear. Using this knowledge will be vital to the future success of Operation Respect in achieving the kind of organisation to which the NZDF aspires to.
The NZDF itself told us that their traditions, training and lifestyle builds strong allegiances within tight teams. It also said that in no way does this excuse harmful behaviours. It also helps explain why their people may be unwilling to risk team allegiance by reporting harmful behaviours thereby placing the magnitude of the Operation Respect challenge in context. This also indicates a pressing need for safe independent channels for people to use that does not compromise this team allegiance.
We encourage leadership to take the opportunities presented in the recommendations to build greater trust and a stronger system to deal with complaints of harmful behaviours and in particular in dealing with sexual violence.
Our conclusions from this process are that the most significant changes the NZDF could make to build more trust in its organisation and its processes, and make a difference for its people and the victims of harmful behaviours, in particular in dealing with sexual violence are:
1. To be transparent and accountable by engaging independent oversight and monitoring of progress by a trusted body/entity such as the Auditor-General.
2. Provide a trusted external and independent complaints channel (like that offered by the Defence Ombudsman in Australia) to receive, investigate and remedy cases of harmful behaviour and sexual violence.
3. Actively promote the 'Safe to Talk' helpline as an external and independent support channel for victims of sexual harm.
4. Create a comprehensive and integrated data management system to assess progress against clear outcomes measures and report on complaints—
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
I'm sorry, Mr. Spengemann. The bells are ringing and in order to continue, we need unanimous consent.
12:40 p.m.
An hon. member
No.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
We do not have unanimous consent.
The meeting is suspended.
[The meeting was suspended at 12:41 p.m., Monday, June 14.]
[The meeting resumed at 1:03 p.m., Friday, June 18.]
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
I call this meeting back to order.
Good afternoon, everyone.
Welcome.
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 interpretation is lost, please let me know immediately in order for us to ensure that everyone has an opportunity to fully participate in the proceedings. When speaking—as always, I'm saying that to me as much as anyone else—please speak slowly and clearly. When you're not speaking, your mike should be on mute.
With regard to a speaking list, the clerk and I will do the best we can to maintain a consolidated order of speaking for all members, whether they're participating virtually or in person.
We are resuming debate on Mr. Bagnell's amendment to Mr. Bezan's motion.
Mr. Spengemann had the floor.
1 p.m.
Liberal
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Good afternoon, colleagues.
Let me return in a moment to where I left off when we suspended last time. Just to reorient members and our audience, since March 21, I believe, when this meeting first started, we have had fulsome interventions on a number of key components to our study, and then the interpretations of colleagues on the Liberal side.
There are two fundamental elements to the work that this committee is charged with.
One is the accountability around the instances involving the former chiefs of defence staff, most notably the former chief of the defence staff, Jonathan Vance, who was appointed in 2015. Along the way, he was reported to have made the statement that he “owned” the Canadian Forces national investigation service and as subject to complaints.... His tenure continued into the current government. That's one fundamental element of the committee's work and our interpretation.
The second is how to change the culture of the Canadian Forces, how to make recommendations to get us into a space where those kinds of instances, these instances of sexual misconduct, will no longer happen. Equal importance is attached, in my view, to both of these components.
We've highlighted the importance, in fact the primary importance, of the testimonies of victims, through recent interventions by my colleagues, for which I thank them. We've also highlighted the importance of expert testimony and testimony from elected officials, including the Minister of National Defence. He testified at this committee for six hours, with the conclusion that the time for patience is over and that we need a complete and total culture change. He invited recommendations and ideas for solutions.
There were also very senior officials from the Privy Council Office and the Prime Minister’s Office, and in addition to that, academic experts, who testified to us. We have also looked at experiences in other jurisdictions, notably and in some cases, jurisdictions with which we work very closely. They are NATO allies, Five Eyes allies or armed forces with whom we operate in various multilateral and international settings.
These experiences that I've put to the committee are important for a number of reasons. One of them is the systematicity of the issue that we're facing, which extends outside of the borders of Canada. Second, these experiences, to the extent that they have resulted in reports and actually follow-up inquiries and reviews of initiatives that have been undertaken to probe their effectiveness, are illustrative of the kind of thinking this committee should engage in and use its parliamentary mandate, authorities and energies for. Lastly, the actual solutions proposed in other places could be extremely relevant to the Canadian solutions that we are charged with exploring.
In several cases, Madam Chair, there have been references to the Canadian initiatives, most notably the Deschamps report in 2015. When we look at these comparative experiences.... I spent about an afternoon and located a good half-dozen of them. I've presented one in full, which is the U.K. case. I was in the midst of introducing a second one, the experience of New Zealand. What's interesting is that the work started around about the time of the Deschamps report, in 2014 or 2015. A good portion of these inquiries were concluded, and then in some cases they were followed up on last year, in 2020.
Before I get back to the case of New Zealand, I want to briefly draw members' attention to an article on Poland. Poland is a NATO ally of ours, and this article goes back to October 2020. I've said to members, when I talk about experiences elsewhere and the kinds of recommendations other jurisdictions have made, that it often seems bureaucratic. It seems mundane in a way, because the language does not capture the emotion and the testimony, and the injuries, the harm that was inflicted on mostly women in those other jurisdictions who have served or who are serving.
Briefly, then, the experience from Poland is illustrative of the kinds of emotions we have seen here, through victims who have had the courage to come forward and through discussions we have had with colleagues also in other committees, not just ours. This particular article is an English-language Polish publication. It notes:
In a high-profile case from 2017, former Military Gendarmerie officer Karolina Marchlewska accused a fellow soldier of sending her obscene text messages and a senior officer of groping her. When Marchlewska told a superior, he responded by asking her questions about her private life.
The internal investigation into these allegations was later discontinued, and Marchlewska herself lost her job. “I am being made guilty, a perpetrator,” Marchlewska told [the media outlet]. “There was no help, either from the defence ministry, or from the command of the Military Gendarmerie.”
Captain Bozena Szubinska, a former defence ministry representative for women in the military service, told [the media outlet]...that “the military is unable to cope with violence against women”.
“Women do not report [cases] to military law enforcement agencies [because] they are afraid of repercussions, stigmatisation and harassment,” she said. Even when they do make reports, “they often, under pressure, withdraw cases at the prosecution stage”.
“Worse still,” Szubinska added, the method of “solving the problem” is simply to “remove the women who report harassment from the ranks of the military”.
“They leave, they become civilians, and everyone is satisfied; they believe that this is [then] no longer a military problem,” [she added]. “Nothing could be further from the truth. The crime took place in the military and the military should feel responsible.”
That is a very brief excerpt from an article in the Polish press. Again, Poland is a NATO ally and this article was from October of last year. It is the very same problem as ours in a closely allied military, with the same tenor of testimony we've seen here. This reinforces the systematicity of the issue we're facing, and it exceeds our borders.
Let me turn back, if I may, to the introduction of New Zealand's experience. New Zealand had an independent review, dated June 2020, of the progress of its action plan for Operation Respect. Operation Respect, in a very rough analogy, is similar to the former Operation Honour, and it is an initiative launched by the New Zealand Defence Force.
There are five significant recommendations for changes that the New Zealand Defence Force should make, and I think that was the point where I was interrupted when we suspended our last meeting. These five elements are the following:
1. To be transparent and accountable by engaging...oversight and monitoring of progress by a trusted body/entity such as the Auditor-General....
2. Provide a trusted external and independent complaints channel (like that offered by the Defence Ombudsman in Australia) to receive, investigate and remedy cases of harmful behaviour and sexual violence....
3. Actively promote the ‘Safe to Talk’ helpline as an external and independent support channel for victims of sexual harm....
4. Create a comprehensive and integrated data management system to assess progress against clear outcomes measures and report on complaints and outcomes of incidents of harmful behaviour....
5. Engage leaders at all levels to collectively own and lead the management of harmful behaviour, including sexual violence, discrimination, bullying and harassment in the NZDF.
That's the top level set of recommendations by this review. The fundamental element of the insights they have gained is very similar to the tenor of the discussions that we have faced and that we're dealing with.
The terms of reference of this particular review process had seven elements. The review was meant to:
1. Establish a strategy to change the NZDF’s culture.
2. Increase training and education.
3. Provide an alternative way to report sexual assault.
4. Create a dedicated, professional sexual assault response team.
5. Address specific risk factors associated with facilities and alcohol.
6. Recruit more women into the armed forces and increase female representation in senior leadership roles.
7. Monitor and further reduce discrimination, harassment and bullying.
I'll briefly reference the sixth element. The minister has spoken frequently about the pipeline we need to build in Canada to have a significantly larger number of women in senior ranks. It has been referred to at this committee as “male toxicity”: the negative and harmful culture that persists primarily in senior ranks. To change that culture, one of the recommendations this committee should turn its mind to with urgency is supporting the creation and maintenance of a talent pipeline that allows female Canadian Forces members to progressively move into senior ranks of the organization.
The New Zealand report is very careful to note that they “were not mandated to investigate or make factual findings about the substance or merit of any specific or individual incidents or allegations”. New Zealand did not suffer the same experience, to my knowledge, that we did with respect to the chief of the defence staff actually being personally subject to complaint while at the helm of an operation that was supposed to achieve the very culture change that we are mandated to address.
They are looking at the second component that I outlined in the beginning: the mechanisms, the recommendations, the pathways to achieving culture change in New Zealand. For that reason, I submit that this experience is directly relevant to what we are doing at this very moment.
The approach that this body took to measuring progress has a number of elements. They discuss the methodology they used and they discuss how they “drew themes from the volume of [different] perspectives”.
On terminology, they make some important observations that would be relevant to consideration of the efforts that are under way before our committee. With respect to “commonly understood terms”, such as “victim”, “target”, “complainant” and “accused” throughout the report, it is a reference to “people who experience, report or are accused of inappropriate or harmful behaviour whether bullying, harassment, discrimination or some form of sexual violence”. They state:
Terms such as rape, sexual assault and sexual violence are frequently used interchangeably and are not intended to align with any legal definitions. In this report we generally use the all-encompassing term 'sexual violence' to describe not just physical violence, like sexual assault, but also acts of sexual intimidation that do not involve physical contact.
Direct references to other documents use terminology as used as in the original, such as the Operation Respect Action Plan that refers to both sexual assault and harmful and inappropriate sexual behaviour.
Again, the definitions are incredibly important not only in scoping the reference of the review exercise that's under way in this case, but also when it comes to the formulation of recommendations and communication with the Canadian public to make sure that we're sufficiently inclusive and also sensitive with respect to experiences of victims involved.
Their report then, in the section “What your people told us”, talks about the feedback they received from members of the armed forces in the review. They state:
Overall, participants shared a wide range of experiences and opinions.... In this report we have tried to provide a balanced account of what we were told during the course of the review.
Many different situations and experiences were described to us. Not all were related to experiencing or witnessing harmful behaviour or sexual violence. But many of the experiences were painful and distressing in the retelling and involved personal cost to those who shared [them] so frankly with us. Many explained [that] they had chosen to share with us as we were independent and were providing them a safe and confidential place. Many thanked us for what they described as a cathartic experience.
We heard from individuals who have experienced verbal, mental, physical and sexual abuse or violence from colleagues. We also heard of domestic and family violence.
We heard about the serious impacts that such experiences have on individuals' health and wellbeing.
We also heard [about] how the [New Zealand Defence Force]'s failure to act or [to] resolve situations in a timely way often compounded the original trauma and resulted in highly stressful situations for all...those concerned, including wider personnel and staff.
Personnel, past and present, including senior personnel who were directly involved in policy development, the initiatives that sit under the areas under review and the implementation of the same, shared openly their views on progress or the lack thereof.
To protect the anonymity of individual participants we cannot share the specific details of individuals or the information, opinions or experiences provided to us. One common refrain was that people do not feel [that] they can safely speak out within the [New Zealand Defence Forces].
It is important to understand [that] we are not reflecting back the voices of just a few, but of many.
We [reviewed] two very clear and consistent messages following most group sessions and individual interviews: People were surprised and grateful that we did not 'just present another Operation Respect briefing' but [that] we asked for opinions and experiences; and they sought our reassurance that we would “tell it like it is” and make their voices heard. In this report we have endeavoured to do that.
Madam Chair, there are some additional extremely relevant elements that I think I will go back to in a second intervention. I wanted to put this forward to the committee as a reflection of the strong similarity between the experience in New Zealand and what this committee is confronted with, to make sure that we put the testimony of victims front and centre, as my colleagues on the Liberal side have done in the past few weeks of interventions in this particular session of the meeting.
I also want to make sure that we develop not only recommendations that help us move forward but a sensitive way of empowering victims of sexual misconduct to come to this committee. In addition, I want to make sure that in the future, mechanisms are built that raise the confidence of those who are still serving and those who have served to come forward, to bring complaints to be heard and to have the assurance that this committee—the parliamentary committee seized with this issue—will take them seriously and will develop recommendations that will expeditiously bring us into a much better space.
I will leave it there for the moment, Madam Chair, but I would like to come back and present some additional elements of this particular review that I think will be very helpful to members of the committee.
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'd like to welcome Mr. Kelly, if he's still here. I hope he finds some interesting information today. My comments aren't related to him on my first intervention today because he hasn't been at the committee.
It really perplexes me as to why the NDP, Conservatives and Bloc would not want to help—
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
Leona Alleslev Conservative Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
I have a point of order, Madam Chair.
Just so you know, Mr. Kelly has left.
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Thank you.
It's really perplexing to me as to why the NDP, Conservatives and Bloc would not want to help the men and women in the military by having the government respond to the recommendations that we come up with. Why would we have gone to all this work over months if the Conservatives, NDP and Bloc do not want the government to respond to our recommendations and improve the lives of the men and women in the forces and to show the victims that they were listened to? That is the purpose of my amendment.
Yvan Baker and I agree on an item: We came to Parliament to accomplish positive change, to improve Canada. MP Baker asked a very good question in a previous meeting: When we have all retired and we look back at this winter-spring session of Parliament of the defence committee, what then can we say we've accomplished?
Did we agree on many recommendations to help the thousands of victims existing or women existing in the military? No.
Did we do a thoughtful, lengthy debate and give recommendations on the complicated challenges of changing the culture? No.
Did we do a thoughtful, lengthy debate and give recommendations on a second major problem involved, the chain of command? No.
Did we do a lengthy debate and agree on recommendations on the third major problem, the fear of reprisals? No.
Did we help our soldiers around the world survive the terrible COVID pandemic that killed so many? Not yet.
Did we help so many of them afflicted with some...internally tortured with mental health afflictions? Not yet.
Did we help the navy procure needed warships? No.
Did our committee help the air force procure the next generation of needed warplanes? No.
Did we help keep our troops around the world safe? Did we help in Lithuania and Ukraine? No.
Did we address the Russian or Chinese military aggression? No.
Did our committee help make the world safer with our recommendations on peacekeeping? No.
Did we take into serious consideration the hundreds of emails and complaints and the hours of witness testimony or potential testimony to come up with the recommendations? No.
Did we modernize NORAD? No.
I'll tell you what the Conservatives, NDP and Bloc have accomplished. We've had week after week of witness after witness to fully investigate one anonymous email that the person didn't want public, so that no one knows what was in it. At one point, they even suggested recalling witnesses on that email. Since they have caused this endless stalling by refusing to co-operate for the good of the troops and by trying to force a motion through that would only allow two minutes of debate—the motion that we're talking about—on the serious topics related to improvement for our military.... In a subsequent submission, I'll go into how that just doesn't make sense.
In answer to Mr. Baker's question on what did we accomplish, the fact that the opposition parties are stalling week after week with their unreasonable motion doesn't mean that every member of the committee has accomplished nothing. In fact, a good researcher could do a chart on each member in the past few weeks, outlining how many times a member brought up valuable input from victims to the committee and got it on the record so that it could lead to improvements in the military, how many times a member brought on record input from experts that would help us design recommendations to help men and women in the military, how many times a member brought valuable input from other militaries that have found some solutions to the problems we are wrestling with, and how many times each member has raised constructive input on perhaps the biggest problem we are wrestling with: culture. How many times over the last few weeks has a member discussed the key major problems related to chain of command? How many times has a member discussed the threat of reprisals if a CAF member actually reports sexual misconduct?
In fact, that researcher could also rate the parties on how many times in the last few weeks they each made a positive contribution to those three major problems leading to sexual misconduct in the military: chain of command, fear of reprisals and culture.
I would be curious about the results of that research, but my gut reaction is that Mr. Spengemann and Mr. Baker have made the greatest number of positive contributions to the study by bringing most of the evidence related to those major issues to our committee.
It's not too late for all committee members to contribute. If the opposition parties would stop stalling the retraction of their unreasonable motion and have the government respond to the committee's work, which is what my amendment today deals with we could use various ways to move forward.
One was my suggestion that we quickly go through the recommendations that we can all agree on. I'm sure there would be a number of them. Then we could go into the more difficult ones that we couldn't agree on.
I'll leave it at that, Madam Chair. In my next intervention, I'll get more into the item of culture.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
Yvan Baker Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Thanks, Madam Chair.
I want to thank Mr. Bagnell for his thoughtful intervention, first of all for his kind words, but most importantly, for really summarizing the cost of the political game-playing that the opposition is leading at this committee, and the cost in terms of the positive impact we could be having on a whole series of issues that matter to so many people in so many different contexts, whether that be equipping the armed forces, whether that be our position in foreign conflicts, whether that be securing our own Arctic, our own future and our own interests, or whether that be sexual harassment and sexual assault in the military.
I want to thank Mr. Bagnell for summarizing the opportunity cost, if you will, of the political game-playing the opposition has undertaken since this study began. It has driven us away from delivering the positive results that we should be delivering for folks and, particularly, for members of the forces.
I want to focus our attention on what I think our report and our committee should be focused on, which is addressing the issue of sexual harassment and sexual assault in the military, the issue of addressing the concerns that survivors and victims have raised, that experts have raised over and over again. As much as I and other of my colleagues on the government side have been criticized by some members of the opposition for trying to share with this committee the perspectives and testimony of victims and survivors, I'm going to keep sharing those. I know my colleagues have continued to share that perspective. To me, that should be our focus, not the political game-playing that has been the focus of the opposition.
In that vein, I want to share with you some thoughts that were shared by a survivor, Ms. Emily Tulloch, at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. When you hear her perspective, I think you'll understand why I'm sharing it. I think it shines a light on what's at stake and why we should be writing a fulsome report with a government response, like Mr. Bagnell has proposed in his amendment, and why I hope that Mr. Bezan will consider withdrawing his motion, which Mr. Bagnell has tried to constructively amend.
I hope Mr. Bezan will withdraw his motion. Mr. Bezan's motion would result in a report that would not allow us to properly and thoughtfully analyze the issues, what we heard, to really identify all the components of the problems that are driving sexual assault and sexual misconduct in the military. It would not allow us to develop and compile the solutions to those problems. It would not allow us, ultimately, to address that problem. Mr. Bezan's motion would not allow us to address the needs of survivors, of victims. They are begging us for that work. They are asking us over and over again to take action. They've been asking us to take action for years. I think this committee should heed their call.
I'm going to repeat one of those calls here today. Ms. Emily Tulloch was testifying to the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. She said:
I joined the Canadian Armed Forces in July of 2018. Since then, I feel like I've experienced a lifetime's worth of sexual assault and misconduct. I'm here today to tell you that I was raped only one month—one month—into my basic training in Saint-Jean. I was also sexually assaulted during my training in Borden. I have been groped and kissed unwillingly at crew parties and mess events. These degrading behaviours are more common than you think.
On top of all that, I have put up with misogynistic and sexist comments all throughout my career. They range from being told that I only got in because I'm a girl to what an instructor in Borden said to me while looking me dead in the eye: If you've had daddy fix everything for you in your cozy little life, let us know so we can give you a hand.
I believe in the importance of the military. I hope to continue my career and to serve my country to the best of my abilities. My experience with our military justice system, however, has been quite negative. It has left me with a lot of questions about how military police should conduct their investigations. I had three interviews with the military police since I first reported misconduct. Two of those interviews were honestly dreadful. These so-called interviews felt more like interrogation.
I want to pause there for a second, because I think it's important to reflect on what Emily Tulloch is sharing. First of all, she talks about the fact that she was raped one month into basic training in Saint-Jean and then sexually assaulted during her training in Borden. That is what we should be stopping. This is the issue that we should be singularly focused on. We should be focused on solving the problem that Emily Tulloch and others have raised and have shared with us, which is that women primarily, but members of the forces, are sexually harassed and sexually assaulted.
In Ms. Tulloch's case, one month into her training she is sexually assaulted by someone who purportedly is a colleague, who purportedly is to serve, who swears the same oath, who supposedly believes in serving our country and who treats a fellow armed forces member this way. This is what we should be focused on, doing everything we can to come together, shed our partisan labels, write a good report and do right by victims who have suffered in ways I can't possibly comprehend.
Mr. Bezan's motion does not allow us to do that. It prevents us from doing that. It took me over two minutes just to share Ms. Tulloch's story, and Mr. Bezan's motion would force us to write a report where each MP gets two minutes to speak and then, boom, we move on to the next clause or the next paragraph. That would not give us enough time, and it would not be based on consensus. As Mr. Bezan's motion indicates, we'd all just vote on each clause, up or down, and move on.
I think survivors deserve much better than that. I don't understand how you can listen to something like this, to what witness Tulloch has shared with our colleagues, and think that this shouldn't be our priority as a committee. I don't understand why we would pass the motion that Mr. Bezan proposed, which would handcuff us and prevent us from addressing what Ms. Tulloch is telling us.
Ms. Tulloch is not alone. We know that. We've all spoken to that. We know this is a widespread problem. Mr. Bezan's motion effectively would force this committee to look the other way. Even worse than look the other way, it would require this committee to write a report that claims to address this issue when it actually wouldn't. It's worse because it's misleading.
Folks, people are suffering. Mr. Bezan's motion is about grabbing headlines and claiming to have done something when nothing has been done. That's why I hope that he'll withdraw it, not because it's politically convenient, but because it's the right thing to do. I don't know a single person who can't help but be touched by this kind of testimony. This kind of testimony is exactly what we should be....
Every time I come to this committee and I share with you some of these stories, this testimony is on my mind for hours afterwards. Hours after our committee meetings, I'm still thinking about what these women have gone through and are going through. I don't know, but somehow there are members on this committee for whom it doesn't have that impact. Maybe the politics are more important to them than this, but this should be our focus.
Ms. Tulloch talks about how she believes in the importance of the military. She hopes to continue her career. I flag that only to say that Ms. Tulloch testified in a public setting at a House of Commons committee and shared what I've shared with you, and still hopes to serve. I applaud her for her courage, not just for sharing this in a public realm, which takes a tremendous amount of courage, but she's done so and still wants to serve in the military. I think that just demonstrates to what degree Ms. Tulloch and others are asking us to act and are asking us for help. I underline that just to say, colleagues, friends, let's respond to that call. We should be responding to that call.
Mr. Bagnell has proposed an amendment that makes a lot of sense. It basically says that the committee's report needs to be responded to by government so the government is held.... In my view the value of and one key reason for Mr. Bagnell's amendment is that it requires government to put on the record what it's going to do in response to this committee's recommendations, to this committee's concerns. I believe it was Mr. Bagnell who, earlier in our discussion today, mentioned that by eliminating that requirement, which is a standard requirement for committee reports, included by committees that are serious about having government act on their recommendations, by proposing the removal of a government response, which is what the opposition has done, it is basically saying it doesn't really care what the government does.
Why are we all here as MPs if we don't care what government does on an issue like this? Why are we here?
I cannot get my head around why the opposition would go out of its way to say we don't want the government to act on what we recommend. Is it because they don't think it's a serious problem? Is it because they don't put a lot of stock in what we're going to recommend?
Anyway, I think the fact that Ms. Tulloch and others, who are active serving members of the armed forces, have had the courage to come forward, we owe it to them. We have to appreciate how much courage that takes, how important this is and, therefore, how important it is that that be our focus.
In the latter part of what I read from Ms. Tulloch's testimony about her experience, she started describing her experience with the military police. I think it's important to hear the perspective of the people who are interacting with the military police. When I read Ms. Tulloch's testimony—I should read some more, to be frank, so that we have the full context, in fairness—the fact that she felt the way she did when interacting with the military police speaks to another component of this problem that this committee needs to be taking on, addressing in our report, recommending solutions for and holding government accountable for solving.
I want to read a little bit more from what Ms. Tulloch had to say. She said:
Two of those interviews were honestly dreadful. These so-called interviews felt more like interrogation. During these interviews, I felt that investigators were not treating me like a human being. I was just another case file to them. There was no empathy or humanity. It was so frustrating that I left early during the second interview. I felt like I wasn't being heard and was being treated like a criminal. No one should be treated like a criminal when they are that vulnerable and in need of help.
I'm going to pause there for a moment. Ms. Tulloch is the victim and is describing treatment that I think we could all agree has to stop. She's talking about the fact that she needs help and is instead being treated like a criminal. I'm not professing to be the expert. In fact, all of us who've heard testimony from experts and from survivors need to sit down, as we write the report, and discuss, debate and figure out how we want to tackle this particular element of this much broader problem. This is just one element of a much broader problem, but we need to address this. Again, Mr. Bezan's motion would prevent us from doing that.
Ms. Tulloch went on to say:
The military police need to improve their training for how to conduct interviews of sexual assault victims. There needs to be a specific course made to teach them that victims need understanding and empathy. If there already is a course, then they need to tear it apart and rebuild it from the ground up.
I'm going to pause there again. Is this something we would recommend as a committee? Is it in our report? Will it be in our report? If we pass Mr. Bezan's motion, members who feel strongly about this wouldn't be able to fight for, debate and discuss it. This could get voted out. It might not even be in there for all I know, but it should be in there, as far as I'm concerned. I'm sure many of my colleagues on all sides of the aisle would agree that recommendations to solve this problem of how military police investigate these allegations has to be in there, but we can't do that if we pass Mr. Bezan's motion. Mr. Bezan's motion doesn't allow us to discuss it except for two minutes. Good luck. I've spent two minutes just sharing what Ms. Tulloch told us. How would we ever come to consensus in two minutes?
This is another example of the issues. I'm conveying what Ms. Tulloch told us because I want us to refocus on what, in my view, we should be focused on here, on how multi-faceted and complex the issue is that we're facing, and on how many components there are likely to be to the solution, if we're serious about solving it.
Therefore, how Mr. Bezan's motion would prevent us from doing that, how Mr. Bagnell has proposed a government response.... At the very least, what Mr. Bagnell has done is constructive. He has tried to say that we should at least find consensus that whatever we do recommend needs to be tackled by the government.
What Ms. Tulloch is talking about is just one of the many elements of this problem, and the opposition parties are basically supporting a motion that allows them to say that we wrote a report on this topic. However, it does nothing to address the issues that face survivors—that survivors have faced and continue to face.
I know that others want to speak, Madam Chair, so I'm going to pause there.
I would just ask us to refocus on survivors and on writing a solid report.
Thanks very much.
1:45 p.m.
Liberal