National Defence Committee on May 21st, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you very much, Mr. Spengemann.

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

Madam Chair, on a point of order, I wonder if the Liberal members would do the rest of the members of the committee the courtesy of letting us know how long they intend to carry on this filibuster that is obstructing the work of the committee. If, in fact, they do intend to carry it on for the remainder of this parliamentary session and prevent us from dealing with the question of accountability for how the sexual misconduct complaints about General Vance were dealt with, it would be useful for members of the committee to know that they do intend to continue this obstruction indefinitely.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Go ahead, Ms. Vandenbeld.

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

Madam Chair, if I may, I would encourage that if the opposition were willing to adjourn the debate right now we could go directly to those reports right now. If they adjourned the debate or allowed the chair to adjourn the meeting, the next item of business would be the reports. I think we would all be very, very happy to be able to do that right now.

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

On a point of order, Madam Chair, it's clear that there's no rule of this committee preventing gaslighting, but the parliamentary secretary engages in this all the time. All that's necessary for us to move forward on this—

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Mr. Garrison.

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

—I have the floor—all that's necessary for us to move to a vote on this resolution is for the Liberals to stop filibustering.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Mr. Garrison, we don't call people names or make personal attacks. You can disagree with someone's approach, with their understanding, with what their priorities are, and that's all fine, but I don't agree with the....

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

But Madam Chair—

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Yes.

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

—the Liberal side has continued to question the motives of all other members of the committee. I brought that to your attention in the previous meeting at which I was present. They continue to dismiss our concerns as partisanship. I would say that, really, the concern about calling names and attributing motives starts on the Liberal side. I attributed to the Liberals no motives as to why they are conducting their filibuster. They can answer for that in public.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Garrison.

We are done, then, with Mr. Spengemann.

We move to Mr. Baker.

Go ahead, please.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have to say that Mr. Garrison did attach motives, when he spoke a moment ago to his allegation, when he said that the Liberal members were not willing to ensure accountability. Very clearly, that's implying motive.

As far as the calling of names goes, I think it's really disappointing. Mr. Garrison, unfortunately, missed the last meeting, when members of the government side shared a tremendous amount of important information. Perhaps it's because he missed it that he doesn't have that context and that he feels the way he does in this moment. A tremendous amount of important information was shared by the members on the government side about why we feel the way we do and why we want a process that ensures that a proper report is written that, really, addresses the issue of sexual harassment and sexual assault in the Canadian Armed Forces and does justice for the survivors. I appreciate that maybe that context was something Mr. Garrison missed, and that perhaps explains why he feels the way he does.

That said, I want to continue with—

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

A point of order, Madam Chair.

I would like to know whether we are allowed to refer to a committee member being absent or present during our meetings.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

I would say no. I believe they follow basically the same rules in the House as here in the committee.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Then, Madam Chair, I apologize for breaching that rule. I wasn't aware that I couldn't do that. I know that members' presence is registered in the minutes, and thus I thought it was permissible to refer to it, but I didn't mean to breach the rule. I apologize for doing that.

That said, I just thought that the context from the last meeting is important to consider to understand why the Liberal members are saying what they're saying here today and why we're continuing to debate this motion.

With that said, I want to continue from where I left off when the.... Unfortunately, my Internet connection cut out as I was speaking in the initial intervention, so what I want to do is continue where I left off.

As I think the members will recall, what I was speaking about at that time was.... I was relaying the experience, the testimony, that was shared by Dr. Leah West with our colleagues at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, and she was relaying an experience during her time as a member of the Canadian Armed Forces. She spoke about how she was sexually assaulted and how there was tremendous pressure so that she felt she could not speak up and could not file a complaint about that issue. Then later, she was punished for a rule that she broke—and she acknowledged that she broke that rule—and then subsequently faced various forms of what I would call bullying, abuse and broader mistreatment by a number of members of the Canadian Armed Forces.

She faced punishment for what she had done wrong. She speaks in her testimony about the fact that she understood that she broke the rule and that she admitted to breaking the rule. However, what I think is reprehensible is how she was treated when she wanted to bring forward but couldn't bring forward her complaint about being sexually assaulted while on duty.

I want to continue Dr. West's testimony that I started, which relays what I just shared with you. She said the following:

My biggest failure in life, actions for which I was pushed out of the armoured corps and for which I continue to carry immense shame, is, however, allegedly precisely the type of leadership displayed by the man who ultimately served as this country's longest-serving chief of the defence staff. Yet, for me as a female army captain, there was no hesitation to act on an email and remove me from my position, and that was the right call. We cannot turn a blind eye when military leaders put themselves and their interests before the mission. This ethical obligation is the foundation upon which any professional military operates: serve Canada before self.

This brings me to my second point. Where does this double standard come from? Why is sexual misconduct so prolific and even condoned in the [Canadian Armed Forces] when the victims are women but not the wrongdoers?

In my opinion, the sexualized environment identified in the Deschamps report is a symptom of two more fundamental issues at the core of the [Canadian Armed Forces'] culture. First, women and men and their contributions to the [Canadian Armed Forces] are not valued and respected equally. Second, the [Canadian Armed Forces] continues to perpetuate deeply flawed and antiquated expectations about who women and men in the armed forces are supposed to be and, correspondingly, how they ought to behave.

I want to pause there on what Dr. West said and explain to you, the committee, why I've shared it with you.

She talked about this double standard:

Why is sexual misconduct so prolific and even condoned in the [Canadian Armed Forces] when the victims are women but not the wrongdoers?

She talked about the Deschamps report and how the “sexualized environment” is a symptom of the Canadian Armed Forces culture. The first element of that, she said, is that women and men, and their contributions to CAF, are not being valued and respected equally. The second part is that the CAF “continues to perpetuate deeply flawed and antiquated expectations about who women and men in the armed forces are supposed to be and...how they ought to behave”.

I wanted to underline that part of Dr. West's testimony, because these are precisely the types of insights we need as a part of our report. These are the types of insights that wouldn't make it if the current motion were to pass, the one that Mr. Bezan proposed and is being debated right now. This is something that is incredibly nuanced, something that has to be discussed and something that has to be thought about. We have to think as a committee and discuss, and align on, and come to a consensus on, the recommendations that we're going to make to act on these problems, which Dr. West and so many others have raised.

We can't do that in two minutes. I'm sorry, but we can't, and that's what the current motion calls for. Again, I highlight this because it's a problem. Broadly speaking, Dr. West is talking about the broader culture. We don't need to have personal experience in this, although I'm sure many of the members of the committee do. We've heard from many witnesses. We know from the Deschamps report and others who we've heard from that....

My colleague Mr. Bagnell speaks very knowledgeably and regularly at this committee about the importance of culture, the role that culture plays in driving this problem, and how culture has to be addressed to solve it. I don't think there's any debate about that. The question is, how do you do it? That's complex. That's hard. Anyone who has been involved in culture change in any shape or form, whether in driving that culture change or in being part of an organization where a culture change is being undertaken by the organization, knows it's incredibly difficult and incredibly complex.

I just think we really need to take the time to understand what aspects of culture are the problem and then think about and come to a consensus on, in our report, how we will tackle those various components of the problem within the culture change that Dr. West is speaking about in her testimony. Then we have to turn to how we're actually going to tackle each of those. I mean, to me, that's what the report should be doing. That's what this committee needs to be doing. I think if we don't do that, if we don't tackle culture change in our report in this way, identifying the components of the problem and then recommending solutions, then we're failing as a committee. We're failing as MPs. We should be trying to solve this problem and honouring people like Dr. West and others who had the courage to come forward and speak to parliamentarians, speak in public and share their experiences, so that we can solve these problems. The current motion basically wouldn't allow us to do that. I just don't understand how we can allow a motion like that to move forward.

On that train of thought, Dr. West goes on to say the following:

How do we fix it? Given the time, I'll simply identify three recommendations....First, as we all know, we need an independent reporting mechanism. The government, I believe, should make interim policy and legislative changes to expand the mandate of the sexual misconduct response centre to include independent investigations. This can happen concurrently with the review by Justice Arbour.

She's talking about independent reporting mechanisms. I'll continue Dr. West's testimony:

Second, we must improve leadership training and officer cadet mentorship at the Royal Military College. The RMC is the training ground of our future leaders, but it is also where these outdated and degrading perceptions of men and women in the forces take root.

The second point that Dr. West has raised is something that we heard about from a number of witnesses, especially at the beginning of the study when we heard from witnesses who are really experts in this area. They really spoke to how the culture that needs to be addressed and that permeates the Canadian armed Forces begins not just within the formal organization of Canadian Armed Forces themselves when members start to serve, but at the Royal Military College. It's part of how members or future members of the armed forces are brought into the forces. No wonder it so permeates the forces. It's not just from day one on the forces, but from day one of the education within the Royal Military College, that—and these were Dr. West's words—“these outdated and degrading perception of the men and women in the forces takes root”.

That piece of it, about how we're going to address culture change not just within the forces, but within the Royal Military College and in the training and education that it provides to future members, needs to be addressed in our report.

I want to go on, though, with Dr. West's testimony. She says:

Finally, I believe the notion of zero tolerance for all forms of misconduct is unrealistic and unhelpful. Culture change in the CAF is a massive undertaking. Good people trying to do better will make mistakes. The cost of making those mistakes cannot be so severe that victims and observers hesitate to speak up and take action.

This is a really important new one that Dr. West is talking about. First of all, she reaffirms what I was saying a few moments ago about culture change being a massive undertaking. Two minutes per MP speaking to a report is not going to get us to a report that allows us to undertake this massive undertaking of culture change, obviously.

She also makes another point. She talks about how good people trying to do better will make mistakes. She is talking about a subtle element of this, but I think it's an element that has to be brought into our thinking. It has to be brought into our report. It has to be reflected in our report and in our recommendations.

I'm sorry, but that point—to the extent that members agree with it and perhaps there are members here who don't agree with it—is a discussion that we should have if we don't agree with it. If we do all agree with it, we need to take the time to make sure that it makes it in there. There is no way, in our two minutes, we're going to be able to make the time to get it in there.

That's why I'm so concerned about this motion that's been brought forward. It undermines our ability to ensure that those kinds of insights and points are incorporated. We're here, as MPs, to make a difference for people. Right now on this issue, after the testimony we've heard and after you hear what I've shared today and the testimony I've read to you from Dr. Leah West, how can we allow a report to go out from this committee that doesn't do everything possible to try to address the actual underlying problem of sexual harassment and sexual assault in the armed forces?

I just don't understand how we could allow that to happen. That's why I'm fighting so hard against this motion: It wouldn't allow that to happen. We give two minutes per person. Check the box. We did a report. That's basically what this would be.

I don't know. If Dr. Leah West were here in this committee room, how would we look her in the eye and say, “That was okay. Here is your report, Dr. West.”

Here, after months and months of members on all sides of the aisle on this committee talking about how much they care, how much they want to solve this problem, how awful it is, how it needs to be stopped and how it needs to be dealt with, how could we then hand over a report that's based on two minutes of testimony from each MP on such a complex, substantive and important issue like that? It's impossible.

It's not based on consensus. It doesn't even take up all of the views of the members of the committee, which is always the case when reports are written at committee. How could we do that?

I can't support a motion like that. I can't support a process like that, and then look a survivor in the eye and say, “Hey, this is the best we could do.” This is not the best we can do.

That's why this motion is so concerning. That's why I'm speaking against it. I urge Mr. Bezan to withdraw the motion. That's why I urge members to go forward and write the report like we always do, as members of a committee, committed and thoughtful, committed to the cause of solving the problem and thoughtful about how we go about doing it. We should take into account everything we've heard and everything we've learned from our own experiences, our own points of view and our own understanding of the trade-offs of the various policy measures.

That's what has to be discussed and debated in the process of writing the report. There should not be two minutes of messaging that, frankly, it is not incumbent upon the other members of the committee to understand, because they know that once those two minutes are over, members can no longer speak. Whatever happens to be on the page is going out.

I personally cannot allow us to do that, when we know this problem exists today. Are we just going to kind of walk away from it? Will we just pretend that we issued a report that matters? A report designed and written in a way that it would be dictated or redone by this motion would undermine the effort of us actually tackling the problem.

I really urge Mr. Bezan to withdraw the motion. Let's move on to writing our report. Let's do it right away. Let's sit down and put our politics aside. Let's write the report as we always do. Let's just do something for the good of survivors. Let's do something that we can be proud of. We all ran for office to make a difference for folks. There's an opportunity to do that by writing a strong report. I urge us to reflect on that.

Mr. Spengemann talked about the partisanship that happens in the House of Commons. I get it. It happens. We all get it. A year from now, two years from now, 10 years from now, when we're no longer elected officials, we're going to look back on this study and we're going to hold it up. I want to be able to hold it up and say, “We made a difference.”

I don't want to hold it up and say, “We ticked a box, so we could write a report. It was political game-playing. The problem of sexual assault and sexual harassment still exists in the Armed Forces, because partisan games trumped getting something done for survivors.”

Come on. We're better than that. This motion doesn't allow us to do that. Let's just do it. Let's do the right thing.

Mr. Bagnell has proposed something that I think is really constructive. He's basically saying that we should at least find the things we agree on and move those things forward. There may be a lot of that; there may be a little bit of that. I actually don't know. We won't know until we have the conversation. What Mr. Bagnell is trying to do, I think, and I don't want to speak for him, is trying to move recommendations forward that help survivors, and help solve the problems. Let's at least do that.

I would love to hear the opposition's thoughts about Mr. Bagnell's proposal. Can we move forward that way, at the very least? That's still a departure from how we normally write reports, but it's a step in the right direction. He's trying.

We're trying to write a constructive report. Please, for one minute, think about how you're going to feel when you look in the eyes of survivors. Think about how you're going to feel 10 years from now, 20 years from now. Maybe some of you will still be here at that time, I don't know. However, 20 years from now, when you're no longer in office and you're talking to your kids or grandkids about what you did as an MP, what's the legacy that we as members of this committee want on this issue?

For me, the legacy I want to have on this issue is that we worked incredibly hard. We got over our partisanship, and we wrote a great report. We did everything we could.

Alone, we can't solve this as members of the committee. I am not naive. We could make a big difference, or we could not make a big difference. That's the fork in the road that we're at.

Passing this motion is choosing not to make that difference, it's choosing to just tick the box and say that we wrote a report, and then 10 or 20 years from now when we're talking to our kids or grandkids and reflecting on it, or whatever, we'll be saying that we won't want to talk about it because we'll have nothing to show for it.

Let's write up that report; let's help fix this problem of sexual assault and sexual harassment in the Canadian Armed Forces.

Let's do right by the survivors.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you, Mr. Baker.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you.

Mr. Robillard has the floor.

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

I thought Mr. Bezan had withdrawn it. He didn't?

I must have misunderstood.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Yes, please.

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Go ahead, Mr. Bezan.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

I know that now we're getting near the end of the time of our meeting and that you have been suspending meetings rather than allowing debate to continue, and I just wanted to let you know that if you need to have a comfort break or anything like that, I'm more than happy to take the chair so that we can allow this filibuster to play itself out.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Thank you very much for your magnanimous offer, Mr. Bezan.

We now go back to Mr. Robillard.

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

If you insist.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

To help us with our decisions about the motion we are studying at the moment, I would like to remind my colleagues about Report 5 on inappropriate sexual behaviour in the Canadian Armed Forces. The report, dated Fall 2018, looked at whether the Canadian Armed Forces had adequately responded to inappropriate sexual behaviour in order to respond to and support victims and to understand and prevent such behaviour. Therefore, I would like to add it to our discussion so that we can remind ourselves of some of its recommendations.

First of all, the researchers noted that the needs of the victims had not always been met. Under military police procedures, in all cases related to inappropriate sexual behaviour, the investigator must provide the victim with information on all local healthcare and victim support services when they first meet. Information must also be provided about the military police's victim services program. A victim services coordinator must update the victim on the progess of the case every 30 days until the case is closed.

We found out that, in the majority of cases in the sample that were submitted to the military police, or 31 out of 46, at least one of those steps was not taken. To fully support victims and to reduce the risk that they withdraw from the process, it is important that all of the steps be taken.

In most of the cases in the sample that were submitted to the military police, or 34 out of 46, the incidents were reported by a third party, not by the victim. In four cases, a commanding officer pressured the victim to come forward when the victim did not want to.

About one quarter of the cases, or 10 out of 46, resulted in charges. However, most of the cases, or 28 out of 46, had insufficient evidence to proceed. Of those 28 cases, we found that the most common causes of insufficient evidence were a victim's unwillingness to provide a statement and a lack of witnesses. This must give us food for thought once more about the place of victims, of survivors, in this process.

I will pause for a moment, Madam Chair.