National Defence Committee on Dec. 13th, 2022

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Thank you.

In the military system, we do find that the evidence goes missing before trial.

We've heard testimony from the former ombudsman for national defence and the Canadian Armed Forces. Because he's not outside the chain of command and because he's beholden, finally, to the minister's office, he experienced reprisals from the minister's department and was unable to carry out his duties effectively. That was Gary Walbourne.

Would you agree that it's an unhealthy power imbalance between the ombudsman and DND, and it's detrimental to all members of CAF who rely on the ombudsman to assist them?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

That, I think, is beyond the scope of what Justice Arbour has been invited here to speak to—

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

Point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

—so I'm going to rule it out of order.

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

You should entertain a point of order, Mr. Chair. I said “point of order” before you were—

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I was completing my idea. If you wish to dispute what the chair is saying—

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

Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

This is a very important report. We're going to stay on the subject. If you have a point of order and you wish to make it, go ahead.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

I'll ask another question, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Hang on. Your colleague wishes to assert his right to make a point of order.

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

Mr. Chair, it's not an assertion. In the report, Madam Arbour actually talked about the issue of whether or not there should be an inspector general, who would replace the ombudsman, so this is relevant to the case.

The ombudsman currently deals with a lot of the complaints around sexual misconduct within the Canadian Armed Forces. This is germane to the discussion. I would like to hear the answer to the question that Mrs. Gallant just asked.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Well, I've already made the decision that it is beyond the scope of the report.

You may disagree with that. You're welcome to challenge the chair. I don't think you're going to. I think Mrs. Gallant wishes to continue her line of questioning.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Do you believe, Justice Arbour, that it could be a concern in some cases where CAF asks a civilian police agency to accept a case and they decline, and others they accept, that this directly impacts an accused person's ability to have their legal defence paid for by CAF? Might this disparity become a legal challenge issue that could threaten to derail some cases?

[Louise Arbour]

First of all, in my recommendation that the civilian authority should have exclusive jurisdiction over criminal sexual offences, it's not a matter of negotiation between the military police and the victims. It's a 911 case. They all are, like everybody else in the country. That's the starting point.

The consequence of that, though, as you've pointed out very accurately, is that currently if the offences are prosecuted in the military system, the accused is represented free of charge by the defence counsel that's part of JAG. I address that in my report. That is an issue.

If somebody is prosecuted in the civilian system, a military...which is possible. In fact, there are some cases that are prosecuted—cases where the offence either took place prior to 1998, for which there has been a recent example, or it took place off the base in a bar somewhere and it doesn't involve a military victim and for some reason the military system declines to move forward—and in those cases the accused has to pay for his own defence. There is a loss of benefit in that sense.

I've addressed that in my report as to how legal aid possibly could be provided to compensate for that, or it could just be the same as for everybody else. The problem is, I think, that even though they're not paid extraordinary amounts, most CAF members make enough money to not be eligible for legal aid assistance under our not very charitable legal aid systems across the country.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mrs. Gallant.

We have Ms. Vandenbeld for the final four minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Justice Arbour.

I wonder if you'd like to answer my previous question about change-makers and making sure that those reformers from within are empowered. Do you have any thoughts on that?

[Louise Arbour]

Yes. I had signalled to you that this is a very difficult question. It's talking about culture change and so on.

There is, in my report, a reference to existing groups—I forget because I haven't looked at it very recently—that represent LGBT groups. I think there are indigenous groups. There are several women's groups. They should be empowered, and not just by decree. Every time there's a high-ranking visit on a site, the commanding officer should be seen with these people. These are real change-makers from the inside—I'm not talking now about oxygen from the outside. The driving forces, the positive forces inside CAF can be enhanced by giving them the floor and giving them visibility, credibility and so on, and then by modernizing the education system and the training system and speaking truly about diversity—not just “diversity and inclusion are a good thing”.

It's a challenge in an organization that is based on uniformity to make space for those who speak in a different voice. It's very challenging.

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

I would dare say that your report has gone a long way in giving oxygen to some of those change-makers and reformers from within.

We know that a lot of the focus has been on sexual violence, sexual assault and sexual misconduct. That is, of course, an incredibly low bar to set when we look at processes that make things more inclusive. It's not just about changing the toxic masculinity; it's also about making sure we create a welcoming environment where everybody can thrive. We know this isn't really about sex; it's about power, and it doesn't just affect women, but it affects men equally.

In your recommendations, what would you point to that would go beyond the treatment of actual offences to look at the processes and institutional change that is needed? That would include, I note, some of the things you said about human resources and who gets promoted on what basis. What would be the most important of your recommendations in going beyond ending the bad behaviour and moving towards good behaviour?

[Louise Arbour]

I would have difficulty in pointing to a single recommendation. One point I made in the report is that they are all interrelated. If I didn't recommend, for instance, the creation of an inspector general, it's on the assumption that criminal sexual offences will be out of the system.

If some things are not implemented, other recommendations may or may not have the same force. I'd have difficulty pointing to a single recommendation that would be critical.

However, there's no question that it starts with recruitment: Whom are we looking for? In the military colleges presently, if you look at the population, they are overwhelmingly white boys from Ontario and Quebec. They are the ones who constitute the majority. To empower under-represented groups, it starts right at the beginning with whom you recruit and the environment they are trained in. It permeates.... I mean, we select people who look like us. This is so well documented that it's trite to mention it.

In terms of performance evaluation, what is valued? What kind of physical training and qualities are stressed? It goes right through the promotion chain to end up with general officers or flag officers. There are now 140 or so of them—with what, 15 women and one Black person? How do we get there? There's not a single recommendation; it feeds right through an organization.

I think maybe it's obvious, but worth keeping in mind, that it's an organization that cannot recruit from the outside into its ranks. If it's short 20 colonels, it cannot recruit from the German army or from Amazon. Everything is homegrown. If any part of the system—from recruitment and training to performance evaluation and promotion—is not constantly upgrading itself with external influences, it's going to fall behind.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Ms. Vandenbeld.

That, Madam Justice Arbour, brings our time with you to an end. I want to thank you, on behalf of the committee, for this much-needed infusion of oxygen into the proceedings of CAF. We particularly appreciate it.

Again, thank you so much for your wisdom, your insights and your oxygen.

With that, we'll suspend and we'll wait for the minister.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I see people in their places with bright shiny faces. We're now back on.

We welcome Minister Anand, the chief of the defence staff and all relevant colleagues to this committee.

Minister, I know you have an opening statement, and I invite you to present it at this point.

[Anita Anand, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Chair and members of the Standing Committee on National Defence, hello.

I would like to acknowledge that I am on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe nation.

On May 20, 2021, former Supreme Court Justice, the Honourable Louise Arbour, was engaged to conduct a review of policies, procedures, programs, practices and culture within the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence, entitled “Independent External Comprehensive Review”, or IECR.

On May 20, 2022, Madame Arbour provided me with her final report and the recommendations of the IECR. On May 30, I welcomed all 48 recommendations in the report and announced that we would move to implement 17 of the recommendations immediately. This morning, I presented to Parliament our path forward for all 48 recommendations made by Madame Louise Arbour earlier this year.

I know you already heard from Madame Arbour this morning. She and I spoke, and I sincerely thanked her for her months of tireless work to produce this report. Madame Arbour has made a significant contribution to our country. For that, we are grateful. As highlighted in my report, none of Madame Arbour's recommendations will be rejected, and I have directed my officials to implement a path forward on all of them.

This is an ambitious road map for reform, developed after months of work and consultation. The following are some of the central tenets that will help ensure meaningful, transformative and survivor-centric culture change.

I expect the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces to implement recommendation 5: that Criminal Code sexual offences be removed from the jurisdiction of the Canadian Armed Forces and be prosecuted exclusively in civilian courts. I have directed officials to present options on how such jurisdictional change can occur, in consultation with federal, provincial and territorial partners, and in a way that addresses challenges such as the capacity of civilian police to investigate historical cases or cases outside Canada, including in conflict zones.

As Madame Arbour acknowledges herself, implementation will take some time, likely years, and her interim recommendation will remain in place in the meantime, as she requests.

Pursuant to recommendations 7 and 9, I have also directed the Canadian Armed Forces to cease filing any objections under paragraph 41(1)(a) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, thus allowing the Canadian Human Rights Commission to investigate complaints for sexual harassment or discrimination.

Earlier today, I also announced our intent to establish a Canadian military college review board in response to recommendation 29. DND and CAF are developing draft terms of reference and ideas for composition of the board, which will focus on the quality of education, socialization and military training at the military colleges. These colleges attract some of the best that Canadian society has to offer. However, let's be clear: The culture at our military colleges must change significantly.

We will ensure that this occurs.

Finally, I will highlight that I have directed the military to establish a system of progressive targets for the promotion of women, to address recommendation 36. This will increase the number of women in each rank, with a view to increasing their representation in the general and flag officer ranks above their level of representation in the military overall.

These are just a few of the measures, Mr. Chair, that I announced today. The remainder are detailed in my report tabled earlier in Parliament.

I will say, to conclude, that we are deeply committed to building progress with honesty, transparency and accountability.

As I announced in October, I have appointed Jocelyne Therrien to the post of external monitor, with the responsibility of overseeing the implementation of Madame Arbour’s recommendations.

I've met with Jocelyne Therrien regularly. She's going to continue to provide me with open, transparent and accountable updates.

The culture change initiatives that I've highlighted today, and the others described in the report, are significant steps forward to making an inclusive and diverse Canadian Armed Forces. We have made progress, but much work lies ahead. A number of the recommendations have already been implemented or are in the process of being implemented. Others will be implemented in the short term and in the coming years.

Moving forward, DND and CAF will continue to offer regular briefings to journalists, stakeholders and others on our progress, so that Canadians can be informed about our work.

We have to recognize that culture change cannot occur from the top down. It will only happen if we move forward together. This team effort will continue to require the involvement and commitment of every DND employee and every CAF member. I invite them to take up this call to arms and pursue this mission with the same commitment and the same vigour for which they are known around the globe. Progress is necessary, possible and achievable. Let us all—parliamentarians, defence team members, and Canadians alike—continue to work toward it together.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Minister.

Mrs. Kramp-Neuman, you have six minutes.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Minister.

First of all, I'd like to acknowledge and thank you for starting the process of getting the job done. There has been inaction over the last number of years. We heard from Justice Arbour that there's a graveyard of recommendations. I'm optimistic that these recommendations won't fall on deaf ears.

As we're all aware, there's a crisis of recruitment and retention. Do you see this as a road map to getting more people to serve?

[Anita Anand, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that question very much.

I think what we need to do, and the purpose of this report, is not only to respond to Madame Arbour's recommendation, but to lay the foundation for the building of an institution where all members who serve can be respected and protected. Why is that important? In direct response to your question, it's because we have to exemplify to Canadians that this is an institution where, if they join and choose to put on a uniform, they will be treated with the respect that they deserve. It is very much a reconstitution issue, as well as a moral issue.

In other words, from an operational perspective, we need the Canadian Armed Forces to grow. We have heard the chief of the defence staff speak about this regularly. In order for the Canadian Armed Forces to grow, we need to embark on these culture change initiatives, and we need to make sure that they are successful.

Very much, the answer to your question is, yes. This is a matter of growth for the Canadian Armed Forces, as well as needing to do what is morally right.