Public Accounts Committee on Jan. 29th, 2019

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Good morning, colleagues. This is meeting 125 of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts for Tuesday, January 29, 2019. This is our first meeting back after our holiday break over Christmas. Everyone looks so refreshed even though it's the morning. It's good to have you back. We'll see what you look like in about a week, but I'm sure you'll still keep looking good. It's also good to have Angela back after surgery. We have a new analyst as well, Sara, who has worked with the indigenous file before. We wish André all the best in his new ventures at the Auditor General's Office.

We are here today in consideration of report 5, “Inappropriate Sexual Behaviour—Canadian Armed Forces” of the 2018 fall reports of the Auditor General of Canada. We're honoured to have with us from the Office of the Auditor General Mr. Andrew Hayes, deputy auditor general, and Robyn Roy, director. From the Department of National Defence we have Ms. Jody Thomas, deputy minister; Lieutenant-General Paul Wynnyk, vice chief of the defence staff; Lieutenant-General Charles Lamarre, commander, military personnel command; and Ms. Denise Preston, executive director, sexual misconduct response centre.

We'll go to Mr. Hayes first for the opening statement from the Auditor General and then to Ms. Thomas.

Welcome.

[Andrew Hayes, Deputy Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We appreciate this opportunity to discuss our fall 2018 report on inappropriate sexual behaviour in the Canadian Armed Forces. Joining me at the table is Robyn Roy, who was the acting director for this audit. ln July 2014, the chief of the defence staff requested an external independent review of the forces' policies, procedures and programs on inappropriate sexual behaviour. Former Supreme Court of Canada Justice Marie Deschamps carried out the review and reported her findings and recommendations in a March 2015 report.

ln August 2015, the chief of the defence staff launched Operation Honour, a top-down, institution-wide military operation to eliminate inappropriate sexual behaviour. He informed all forces members that he and senior leaders intended to change the culture in the forces and stop this behaviour.

Our audit focused on whether the Canadian Armed Forces adequately responded to inappropriate sexual behaviour through actions to respond to and support victims and to understand and prevent such behaviour.

The goal of the audit was not to conclude on the success of Operation Honour, but to provide an external review of the forces' progress at a point in time, three years into the operation's implementation.

We found that the Canadian Armed Forces offered or referred members affected by inappropriate sexual behaviour to various victim support services, including the sexual misconduct response centre. However, we found gaps in those services. The forces did not design and implement Operation Honour with a primary focus on victim support, and the services were not well coordinated. Therefore, victims did not always have easy access to the right services at the right time.

We also found that not all support service providers had sufficient training to adequately respond to victims.

In addition, we found that the Canadian Armed Forces did not always resolve reported cases on inappropriate sexual behaviour in a timely, consistent and respectful manner. As a result, some victims did not report or they withdrew their complaints, and they had less confidence that the investigations would produce any tangible results.

After the implementation of Operation Honour, the number of reported complaints increased from almost 40 in 2015 to about 300 in 2017. The forces believe the increase was a sign that members trusted the organization and that it would effectively respond to inappropriate sexual behaviour; however, we found that some members still did not feel safe and supported. For example, the duty to report all incidents of inappropriate sexual behaviour had unintended consequences. It forced victims to report when they were not ready or did not want to. This discouraged some victims from coming forward. The “duty to report” requirement provided no balance between the legal responsibility to protect the safety of members and the need to support a victim's wish to not proceed with a formal complaint. It also placed commanding officers in an ethical dilemma. They had to choose between abiding by the duty to report and supporting victims' rights.

We also found that education and training on inappropriate sexual behaviour was not adequate. Although the Canadian Armed Forces increased members' awareness of inappropriate sexual behaviour, it did not provide enough information on the causes and effects of such behaviour or how to respond to and support victims. In April 2018, the forces introduced the Respect in the Canadian Armed Forces workshop, which represents a more complete approach and addresses the shortcomings we identified in other training delivered over the audit period.

Finally, we found that the Canadian Armed Forces did not adequately monitor the effectiveness of Operation Honour in eliminating inappropriate sexual behaviour. The forces had no source of independent, objective information to know how well the operation was working. Also, the information the forces collected on incidents of inappropriate sexual behaviour was of poor quality. Furthermore, the forces did not have a performance measurement framework to measure and monitor the results of the operation across the organization.

We concluded that the Canadian Armed Forces had not yet fully accomplished what it intended through its actions to respond to and support victims and to understand and prevent inappropriate sexual behaviour.

We recommended that the forces make victim support a top priority, provide better education and training on the causes and effects of inappropriate sexual behaviour, and incorporate more independent external advice and review to ensure that the forces can achieve the objectives of Operation Honour.

National Defence agreed with all our recommendations and has prepared a detailed action plan.

This concludes my opening remarks.

We would be pleased to answer any questions the committee may have.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Hayes.

We'll now move to Ms. Thomas.

[Jody Thomas, Deputy Minister, Department of National Defence]

Thank you for the invitation to discuss the Auditor General's findings on inappropriate sexual behaviour in the Canadian Armed Forces.

Joining me, as noted by the chair, are Lieutenant-General Paul Wynnyk, the vice chief of the defence staff; Dr. Denise Preston, executive director of the sexual misconduct reporting centre; and Lieutenant-General Charles Lamarre, chief, military personnel.

As the Auditor General said, the goal of this audit was not to determine the success of Operation Honour; the goal was to make it more effective. We thank the Auditor General and his team for helping us to identify areas we can improve. We agree with all of the recommendations and we know they will help guide the evolution of Operation Honour.

Since the launch of this operation we've seen the defence team, military and civilian alike, pull together to stop inappropriate sexual behaviour and to support anyone affected by it.

As the Auditor General acknowledged in his report, Operation Honour's success depends on achieving significant cultural change over the long term.

We've made progress, but let me be clear: This is an operation that will never end. That is not a reflection of the department or the military; it is a reflection on the society that shapes every one of us. As long as there is inappropriate sexual behaviour in our society, we will remain vigilant against it in National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces, and our approach will continue to evolve as our society evolves.

When Operation Honour was launched in 2015, it was done with the best of intentions: to eliminate sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces. In pursuit of that goal, some of the measures we put in place have had unintended consequences. We are correcting that now.

We're putting our focus on support for people affected by inappropriate sexual behaviour above all else. As the Auditor General recommended, we will put those affected at the centre of our response and ensure their needs guide our actions. Part of that response involves making sure our organization is structured properly and that everyone has a clear understanding of what support is available where.

We are expanding the role and mandate of the sexual misconduct response centre, SMRC, to make it the authoritative voice of victim support and advocacy. The SMRC will lead and coordinate victim support efforts across the Canadian Armed Forces.

Support is accessible 24/7, with one phone call or one email.

However, we recognize that people may also seek support from other avenues and we encourage them to choose the option that best suits their needs.

We will communicate this widely and clearly so that there is no more confusion about sources of support. To make sure everyone understands the roles and responsibilities, we will establish new terms of reference, by the spring, for SMRC and the strategic response team on sexual misconduct. That clarity will be reflected in an integrated national strategy that will guide our support to people affected by inappropriate sexual behaviour.

Lieutenant-General Wynnyk is responsible for the strategy and his work will be closely supported by the SMRC to ensure it considers those affected first.

We are also introducing a case-management service, paired with a performance measurement framework. The information these tools and services provide will help us monitor and improve our support services.

That will help us provide consistent support from the time of first disclosure until such time as those affected no longer require support. Collecting that information is important, but we will always remember that we're gathering it in order to support our people. If someone seeks help outside National Defence or the Canadian Armed Forces, we won't necessarily be able to collect the same level of data, but we will always encourage people to seek support from whichever source best suits their needs.

The well-being of our people will always be more important than the integrity of our data, but do not presume that data is not a vital element of our operation, as noted most critically by the Auditor General. It is and the SMRC is working with the defence data analytics team to improve methodology and data structure to ensure what is collected is useful.

Unfortunately, we have not always been successful in putting people's needs first. Despite our best efforts and good intentions, the Auditor General has identified an important but entirely unintended consequence of the duty to report. We're addressing this issue so that people affected by inappropriate sexual behaviour have more control over the reporting process and the decisions that will impact them. We recognize that our earlier approach prevented some people from reporting experiences of inappropriate sexual behaviour.

We also recognize that the early focus on “stop and report” did not achieve the desired effect. I will note that at the time Operation Honour was created the Canadian Armed Forces was in crisis mode. We have learned since then.

We know that some people experienced repercussions as the reporting system launched a process that they did not want. The Canadian Armed Forces is currently examining the application of regulations in this area. They will clarify the processes around the reporting of incidents of inappropriate sexual behaviour so that the victims' concerns are considered and respected first and foremost.

However, we take our responsibility for the safety of our personnel very seriously and the duty to report remains an important aspect of our ability to keep our people safe.

We must act if the reported behaviour could affect the operational effectiveness of the Canadian Armed Forces, or the safety of its members.

As we continue to implement Operation Honour, we know we do not have all the answers. We are learning and improving with the rest of the world as we go along.

Inappropriate sexual behaviour is a widespread societal problem. We are seeking advice and best practices from experts. In fact, we expect to call on external subject matter expertise more and more to help us identify potential unintended consequences before they impact anyone.

The SMRC reports to me and operates outside the military chain of command. It benefits from the expertise of an external advisory council. The SMRC has made important strides in working with the council, which has agreed to meet in person three or four times per year as needed. We have worked together to develop the terms of reference for the council. The members have identified how they can best advise us and on what subjects.

The members of the council have also reviewed three years' worth of documentation on the SMRC and Operation Honour. They understand where we were, where we are now and how we got there. When they meet in March we will brief them on proposed changes to the SMRC mandate and the DND-CAF policy on sexual misconduct. We look forward to their valuable and constructive advice.

The SMRC also hosted the first forum on preventing and addressing sexual misconduct with our Five Eyes partners in December where we shared with and learned from our allies. The more we learn, the better we will be at preventing sexual misconduct and supporting the people affected by it.

We agree with the Auditor General that we have to do a better job of educating our people. Education will help our people develop the understanding that leads to changing attitudes and beliefs. We are reviewing all our existing training to make sure that it supports victims first. The expertise of the SMRC will be key to ensuring appropriate CAF training and education on this subject. That training will be delivered nationally in a coordinated and measured way, including the Respect in the Canadian Armed Forces workshop.

To be clear, everyone who joins the Canadian Armed Forces completes training that introduces them to Operation Honour. That training clearly explains exactly what constitutes inappropriate behaviour and the consequence of engaging in such behaviour, up to and including dismissal, are made clear.

We know that the kind of change we are seeking to foster takes time. But we are making progress, as the Auditor General has recognized.

We have more work to do. There is no one more committed to doing it than the leadership at National Defence and in the Canadian Armed Forces.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much to both our witnesses.

We'll now move into the first round of questioning. We remind members that the first round is a seven-minute round.

We'll begin with Ms. Mendès.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, everyone. Thank you for being here.

We are going to be dealing with an extremely sensitive report that is important for all our military personnel, but also, I imagine, for the staff at the Department of Defence, because it must affect them too.

Am I wrong in saying that Operation Honour covers both staff and military personnel?

[Jody Thomas]

Operation Honour was designed and conceived originally for the Canadian Armed Forces. We are now transitioning all the principles, the teachings and the materials to include the civilian members of the Department of National Defence.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC]

Thank you very much. That is what I thought.

Mr. Hayes, a part of your report leads me to ask about the connection that eventually has to be made with the victims who choose a resolution method outside the forces. What are we to make of that?

First, for the victims, is it actually a way to prevent the chain of command becoming aware of those complaints? Is it because the victims are afraid of using the services provided by the forces?

What did you find when you noticed that people were sometimes choosing resources outside the forces?

[Andrew Hayes]

Thank you for the question. I will ask my colleague to reply.

First, though, I would like to say that there are a number of reasons why victims turn to support services outside the forces. It may be an issue of accessibility. There are also cases where the victims are afraid.

My colleague can give you more details.

[Robyn Roy, Director, Office of the Auditor General]

We didn't examine that specifically in the audit in terms of the reasons that they would choose to perhaps use resources or support services outside the Canadian Armed Forces. We heard during the course of our audit, in terms of disclosing incidents within the forces, that there was fear of reprisal, there was fear or a sense that their complaints may not be taken seriously, or they may not be well supported. There was also confusion about the support services available and the accessibility and availability of those services to all members. Those could be some of the reasons that they may have chosen to go outside, but again we did not explicitly examine the reasons that they chose to perhaps disclose or seek support outside of the forces.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC]

Thank you.

I think that another remark in your report points to an excessive number of processes that a victim may go through in order to file a complaint.

Deputy Minister, I'd like to ask you this, because the Auditor General has noted that there were too many streams for possible victims' reports. Is this part of the problem? They don't actually know who they have to complain to when signalling an incident.

[Jody Thomas]

I would agree that there was confusion in terms of how to report and who to report to. The attempt to make this as broad a field, as broad an opportunity as possible—to go to the military police, your chain of command, clergy within the military, the medical system within the military, or to civilian counterparts—in fact added confusion to the system rather than opportunity. Therefore, clarifying where you can report, how to report and how we will support you once you do report I think is a critical aspect that we will work on. We have already begun to do so as a result of the Auditor General's report.

I think the effort to be broad added confusion, and it was thanks to the Auditor General that we started to see some of the confusion within the system.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC]

Can you talk specifically to the actions that you've taken to address that issue? I think that's quite important.

[Jody Thomas]

I'll ask General Wynnyk to respond to that.

[Lieutenant-General Paul Wynnyk, Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, Department of National Defence]

There's a lot of work under way, and in fact it was under way even as the Auditor General was doing that report. We acknowledge that it has in some instances been confusing. One of the things that I'm responsible for at this time is essentially developing a clear decision tree that we can communicate to the chain of command, and to all members of the Canadian Forces—just simply follow the tree. If you feel that there's been an incident—and I hate to use the word “victim”, because not everybody considers themselves a victim, but somebody who's been affected—it will clarify the way it will go.

We're also in the process of drafting a revised operation manual, essentially how we're going to approach this—a consolidated source document, if you will. That's well under way. A draft has been done, and there have been some revisions with a view to getting that out sometime in the spring. There's also an app available that people can use on their own devices as they go forward.

We're looking for better ways. This is a good start, I think, but we're constantly looking at ways to better communicate a simpler way, a simpler path of reporting incidents of this nature. I will stress, we just want people to report incidents. There are multiple ways to report incidents. Obviously, we have avenues through the Canadian Forces. We want to make sure that people are confident in the chain of command, but above and beyond we want to make sure that those who are affected just feel confident to report an incident in any manner they deem fit.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

You have 15 seconds, so you'll have to come back.

Ms. Harder, please.

[Rachael Harder, Lethbridge, CPC]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you so much for being with us today and, of course, welcome.

My first question is going to the deputy minister. In your opening statement you said that there is of course still misconduct that is taking place within the Canadian Armed Forces. You said that will continue to be there basically for all time until society changes. Your words were that it's a reflection of our society—a direct quote. I'm just wondering if you can reflect then on what those root causes are? It would seem to me that in order to properly address them, we need to first identify them. I'm wondering if you can outline what that looks like.

[Jody Thomas]

That's a very complex question. It's something that we discussed at great length with the Auditor General as we were going through the report. We don't yet know the root causes. We're not sociologists, but we understand that we recruit from society, and there are problems in schools and problems in any number of industries. This problem exists in government. It exists in other parts of uniformed services, and it exists with our allies.

What we have determined is that what we have to do when we do our intake of individuals into the Canadian Armed Forces—and certainly General Lamarre can speak to the efforts we're making to educate—is that the first thing that happens is very intensive training on what the expectations are for members of the Canadian Armed Forces. We accept that we are not alone in combatting this problem, but the consequences of it in the Canadian Armed Forces are more significant. Therefore, we have to have a zero tolerance policy. We cannot accept any behaviour that is inappropriate, because the conduct of the Canadian Armed Forces and the consequences of lack of trust within the chain of command are so severe and so significant that we have to do something about it as people enter.

We are working with defence scientists to look at what things like root causes are. We don't have that answer right now. What we are trying to do is prevent it in our ranks.

[Rachael Harder]

Okay. Thank you.

I would draw the committee's attention to the fact that in order to properly address a problem, first the root causes need to be identified in order to be able to put in place the proper protocols, the proper training and the proper response mechanisms with regard to indecency within the Canadian Armed Forces, which brings me to my next question.

That is, in your opinion, do you believe that there's a problem within the Canadian Armed Forces? The Auditor General used this term—a highly “sexualized culture”. Do you agree with that finding? Do you agree with that term? Is there in fact a highly sexualized culture within the Canadian Armed Forces?

[Jody Thomas]

I'll invite General Wynnyk to speak to that as well. I think the auditor, Madam Deschamps, had given us empirical evidence that there was a problem, yes. Our job is to try to rectify it and ensure that we have a safe and healthy workplace for every single member of the Canadian Armed Forces and, in fact, for the civilian members of the defence team as well.

Examining the root causes needs to be done, yes, but at the same time, we have to take action to protect people who work here now, and I don't think we can wait. Operation Honour was launched really as a result of a glaring report that almost put the forces into “crisis mode”—we've used that term—and we had to respond.

We responded in a way that was not always effective, so we are trying to look at how we respond and what the best responses are. The SMRC is critical to that, but I think things have to be done in parallel.

That's a long answer to your question. We can't wait until we understand the root cause before we do something. We have to act now.

[LGen Paul Wynnyk]

If I could just add to the deputy minister's comments, we absolutely recognize that this is a problem in the Canadian Armed Forces. It certainly doesn't apply to the vast majority. We're talking about a very small minority of the Canadian Forces, but it's corrosive, it's poisonous and it has a negative impact on the operational effectiveness of the Canadian Armed Forces.

As the deputy minister said, this is pervasive in society and I think we all know it, but it's particularly important that we get this right in the Canadian Forces because of the negative impact it could have on operational effectiveness. I can absolutely assure the committee that the leadership of the Canadian Forces takes this very, very seriously. It's our number one institutional priority.

[Rachael Harder]

That's really good to hear.

Given that it's your number one institutional priority, I think we would anticipate, then, that our next conversation would be very positive in terms of your outcomes and meeting the findings with regard to the Auditor General's reports and recommendations that have been put forth. We look forward to that discussion later.

With regard to responding to inappropriate sexual behaviour, I'm wondering if you can tell me why you feel this is important within the Canadian Armed Forces.

[Jody Thomas]

Thank you. I'm happy to start, and then certainly my colleagues can jump in.

The conduct of the Canadian Armed Forces in what they do on behalf of this country is critical. If there is a lack of trust in the person you're working beside, and if there is a corrosive and toxic behaviour within the chain of command, it profoundly affects operational effectiveness, as the vice chief of the defence staff just said, so we take this very seriously.

Our armed forces have to be able to operate in any sort of condition anywhere around the world. People have to feel safe within that function so that they can go and do their jobs as we expect them to. While this is a problem in many institutions and in many aspects of society, we feel that the Canadian Armed Forces has to be a healthy and safe workplace. If people are subject to that range of behaviours from inappropriate comments that become degrading and toxic over time to assault, which is a criminal offence, that's not acceptable in the chain of command. It's not acceptable in the workplace. It's not acceptable at National Defence headquarters.

The function of the department and the functioning of the people who work in it are dependent on a safe workplace. Operation Honour is critical to making the workers safe.

[Rachael Harder]

In an interview, Mr. Vance said that “duty to report and a bunch of other ways” have been implemented in order to respond to this crisis. The phrase “a bunch of other ways” poses a question for me. What is that “bunch of other ways”?

[Jody Thomas]

As we said, the duty to report means that an individual who has been affected or is at the centre of an incident has a responsibility to report. That's going to continue, but we are going to manage it in a different way. Bystanders have to report.

The other ways include outside the chain of command to the clergy within the military, to a private sector hospital, to a friend, to any way that the individual wants to report and then manage their response. The sexual misconduct response centre is critical to that response. We're expanding their mandate and their capability to respond so that members of the Canadian Armed Forces know that they are there for anonymous professional support for any incident.