Status of Women Committee on May 14th, 2019

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the 143rd meeting of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. Today's meeting is public.

We're continuing our study of the treatment of women within the Department of National Defence. For this, I am pleased to welcome Sandra Perron, Laura Nash, Natalie MacDonald and Julie Lalonde who are appearing as individuals.

We're going to start with seven minutes of testimony by each individual before we go to our round of questions. We'll begin with Sandra Perron.

You have the floor for seven minutes.

[Sandra Perron, Senior Partner, A New Dynamic Enterprise Inc., As an Individual]

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, distinguished guests. Thank you very much for this invitation.

Recently, I wore the same T-shirt I am wearing now at an event. It says, "you owe me 21 cents". The T-shirt was meant to provoke discussion about the pay gap between men and women. A friend of mine, a veteran whom I served with in service battalion, said, “Luckily, we don't have that problem in the military because of equal pay for equal rank.” I said, “Excuse me?”

Today, I would like to share with you my response to him. I said, first of all, when 15% of service personnel are women and only 10% of those serve as flag officers and general officers, you owe me 21¢. When 90% of deployed troops are men, it means that close to 90% of spouses who stay in the background, hold up the fort, keep the house going—and the children, and often undertake elderly care as well, to the detriment of their own careers—are women, so you owe me 21¢. When less than 38% of men take parental leave, and most of them don't even take those two weeks, again we can conclude that women are holding the fort to the detriment of their careers, so you owe me 21¢.

This is why the issue is so important. I am currently holding retreats across the country with women veterans and women spouses of military members. They have been uprooted and been away from their family and don't have the “tribe”.

These are the general themes they are experiencing. Apart from the harassment and the abuse, these are the general themes.

The first one is that they are tired. They are leaving the military exhausted. They've tried to do it all, and above all, they've tried to juggle children, their home, their career, their womanhood, and they feel exhausted as they transition out of the military into civilian life.

The second is that they are resentful. They are resentful because for all of those years, they have put somebody else's career ahead of themselves. They are also fearful: fearful of being alone, fearful of the next chapter of their lives. Their bodies have changed; many of them are broken; they've moved around a lot; the kids have grown. Now their centre of gravity is no longer existent. They don't have a tribe.

This is what I'm seeing across the country. I just got back from Comox, from my last retreat, and these themes are very present.

This, then, is my opinion on what we need to do. The first thing is, we need to continue supporting and finding ways to support our military families. We're doing amazing things right now in the CAF. We—and I say "we" even many years after leaving the military—need to continue doing this.

We also need to put pressure on men to be more present caregivers, with children but also with elderly care. We need to change the stigma in the military with regard to paternal leave and encourage and recognize and acknowledge those men who are taking parental leave. We need mentoring programs and exit interviews. We need data; we need to measure those who are being mentored—how many exit interviews we are doing of designated group members.

Most of all, we need to stay the course.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Thank you very much.

We're now going to move over to Natalie MacDonald.

You have the floor for seven minutes.

[Natalie MacDonald, As an Individual]

Thank you, Karen.

Good morning, members of the committee and distinguished guests. Thank you very much for inviting me to provide testimony today on this very important issue pertaining to the treatment of women within the Department of National Defence.

I have been practising employment law for over 20 years and have authored a textbook on the subject. One of my specialty areas is in fact employment law and workplace harassment and sexual harassment. It is through this that I have met the distinguished hero here beside me, Laura Nash, whom I have been proud to represent for the last four years.

Ms. Nash chose to dedicate her career to serving our country. In return, within the CAF, Ms. Nash faced a culture of discrimination and harassment on the basis of her sex, marital and family status that was so pronounced it not only caused her to attempt to take her own life, but has now left her in dire economic, social and physical circumstances.

Ms. Nash joined the Canadian Armed Forces in 2010 and was stationed at Naval Officers Training Centre Venture at CFB Esquimalt. That same year, she became pregnant with her son, Ronin, and found herself to be a single parent. Because of her pregnancy, Ms. Nash was immediately removed from the naval environmental training program. She was also denied the opportunity to take the two alternative courses she had applied for because of her removal from the program.

Due to the demands of her military training, the lack of accommodation offered to single parents by the CAF and struggling to afford child care for an infant on a junior officer's salary, Ms. Nash made the heartbreaking decision to send her one-year-old son to live with her parents in Ontario and return to sea.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Natalie, if you could slow it down a little for the interpreters, that would be wonderful.

[Natalie MacDonald]

Certainly, Karen. Thank you.

Alone at CFB Esquimalt, Ms. Nash faced a culture of discrimination and harassment because she was a single mother. She was ultimately removed from the six-month long MARS course with only three days remaining because, according to the training review board, she had way too many “family matters to deal with”. This decision was also based on false evidence provided to the board in a grievance that was never corrected.

When Ms. Nash applied to change to another occupation that would not require long stints at sea and allow time for Ronin, this request too was denied and she was told that “everyone” has stuff to worry about “when they deploy”. When I deployed, she was told, I had to worry about changing “my cellphone plan”.

Ms. Nash repeatedly asked to transfer positions within the military so she would not be away from home and her child for extended periods of time; however, these requests were never granted.

As a result of the discrimination, harassment and separation from her child, Ms. Nash's mental health deteriorated to the point that she contemplated taking her own life. Sadly, Ms. Nash's plight was borne out in the 2013 Statistics Canada report, which found that women in the Canadian Armed Forces are 815 times more likely to commit suicide than are women in the general population.

On November 29, 2013, Ms. Nash filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission alleging discrimination on the basis of sex, marital status and family status. However, the Canadian Human Rights Commission declined to hear the complaint until Ms. Nash had exhausted the grievance and review procedures that were available through the CAF. This is despite the fact that those grievances would be heard by the very individuals responsible for perpetrating the harassment and discrimination—with no expertise in human rights.

Laura Nash filed two grievances accordingly. One challenged the decision to remove her from the MARS course on the basis that it was unjust, unfair and based on false information. That was filed on February 11, 2014. The second was on February 28, 2014, when she filed a policy grievance alleging that the policies of the Department of National Defence and the CAF were discriminatory and adversely affected single mothers.

It took over two years to get a final determination of Laura Nash's grievances from the CAF grievance system. Ultimately, neither was successful. The internal CAF grievance process failed to acknowledge that the decision of the TRB was biased and did not find that the policies of the department or CAF were discriminatory.

On June 26, 2016, I wrote to the Canadian Human Rights Commission advising that both of the grievances had concluded and formally requested to have her discrimination complaint heard. The CHRC responded by stating that they needed to assess whether the allegations had been fully determined by the CAF grievance. We later discovered through a Privacy Act request that the CAF had been advising the CHRC that Ms. Nash's grievances had not been finally determined.

On July 31, 2017, Laura Nash was released from the regular force after having been diagnosed with a “service-related condition”, namely, chronic adjustment disorder. This designation meant that the CAF had deemed her medically unfit to serve in active duty because of a chronic failure to adjust to military life.

Because of her pregnancy and choice to be both officer and mother, Laura Nash was forced to give up a bright career in the military and is unable to work due to the severe anxiety and depression that she developed as a result of the deplorable treatment she received in the military.

Currently living with her son, she receives disability benefit payments from Veterans Affairs and SISIP Financial. Despite her diagnosis and her status as a veteran having served our country, over the course of time, Ms. Nash has had to continually fight to receive support, including therapy and medical and dental care. The resources provided to veterans have been shockingly scarce.

The CAF inexplicably failed to respond to the commission's final deadline of January 19, 2019, to provide them with the final authority decision. Instead, the CAF waited until the commission had issued a report with its recommendations before finally producing this long-awaited decision, which has caused years of delay with respect to Ms. Nash's complaint.

The CAF is now taking the position that the CHRC should not hear Ms. Nash's complaint because they have allegedly dealt with it, concluding that Ms. Nash had not been discriminated against. Ms. Nash's claim is for discrimination on the basis of sex, meaning that the comparable group are males in a position similar to Ms. Nash's. She has experienced adversely differential treatment as compared to her male counterparts.

Ms. Nash's claim is also for discrimination on the basis of family and marital status. The policies and programs that the CAF has are clearly designed for military parents who have a partner and are not single parents. CAF policy that provides flights for military members disadvantages single parents. In addition, when it provides monetary assistance to relocate furniture and personal effects, it provides higher compensation to married members, rather than single members with children.

Ms. Nash's case was covered extensively in the media in the summer of 2017 by the CBC. I was interviewed, as was Ms. Nash, and I expressed that this was a despicable situation, after which Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said the following:

It's very simple: The choice Laura had to make is not acceptable. It is not acceptable in Canada.

This is a very difficult situation for Laura, but we also know it's one that has to end. It's not the first time, I can only imagine, in the history of the Canadian military [that] this has happened, but I certainly hope it will be one of the very last times.

Since then, elated with Mr. Justin Trudeau's words, we wrote to Prime Minister Trudeau, yet we have heard absolutely nothing to date.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Thanks very much, Natalie.

We're going to pass the floor over to you, Laura. Thanks very much for sharing your story.

[Laura Nash, As an Individual]

Thank you, everyone, for having me here today and hearing me speak. It's quite an honour to be with everyone here.

My background is that I'm an ex-professional athlete. I was on Team Canada numerous times. I graduated from the University of Victoria. I was a champion wrestler in high school. I won two awards in basic military training, and I was near the top of my class in navy environmental sea training.

I do very much believe that I had a very bright future ahead of me, but in the middle of my navy training, my abusive husband left me and my one-year-old son. I had no assistance. I couldn't afford a nanny. I had no family to help me within thousands of miles. The base out there in Victoria offers only 20 day care spots for a base of about 3,000 people. There are not enough spots. My son was placed on a two-year waiting list, but only for regular hours of day care. That really doesn't help at all for sailing.

In the meantime, I was flying my child across the country for child care with my parents so that I could sail, so I was deployable, but after I let the naval school know what had happened to me, I began to be treated very differently by the senior officers at my school.

Three days before my graduation, after training for a whole year, and when I was already posted to HMCS Winnipeg, I was scheduled to get my promotion and a pay raise that would help me with the cost of child care and the flights, but James Brun, my course training officer—

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

I'm sorry, but could you slow down just a tad? Thank you.

[Laura Nash]

Oh, yes. Sorry about that.

James Brun lied to the school board and said that I had 17 requirements left and not enough time and so they should kick me off the course. That wasn't true. I only had four requirements, and I had a book showing the truth. I put that in my grievance, and they did find that I was telling the truth and he wasn't. But I lost my job. He got away with it.

Karen Belhumeur, at that board meeting, told me that based on that information, effective immediately they were ceasing my training; I had too many family matters to deal with. My son was thousands of miles away at that time. I was kicked off the ship and I lost my pay raise, my promotion, and I was removed from the ship's roster. I submitted a harassment complaint against James Brun, and a grievance, but years ago it was found that they weren't going to do anything about it.

I then went to the BPSO, who was the human resources person who helps us switch trades. I told her that I had an unsustainable cost flying my baby back and forth for day care and that I would like to have any other trade. I would do any other job in the forces. There were a hundred other jobs I could have done, even though it broke my heart that I could no longer sail, because that was what I wanted to do. The BPSO told me that the CAF does not recognize a baby to switch trades and she wouldn't help me.

I went to Karen Belhumeur, the head of the department at my school, and another female superior, Kim Chu, for help. They brought me into their office and told me behind closed doors that if I didn't get rid of my child, I would be fired. I couldn't believe that my own Canadian government would force me to give away my baby, or terminate my employment if I didn't, when all I wanted to do was serve my country.

I was willing to do any job that I could. I had already missed that second whole year of my child's life so that I could serve in the navy and be at sea, and I was threatened with loss of employment if I didn't get rid of him on a more permanent basis. It was a catch-22. I didn't want to live without him, but I didn't know what to do without a job, so I started at that point becoming suicidal.

I volunteered for logistics and I worked there for a year, hoping to get a trade transfer into that trade because it sails much less. I told the female CO of base logistics there, Commander Roberts, that there was a lot of discrimination going on against me. She told me that I should have had an abortion and that these problems were my own fault for having a baby too early in my career. She also told me that being on the wait-list for military day care for two years was just the way it is for everybody and she would not help me.

After asking the padre for help and receiving none, I then went to the mental health unit and told them that my chain of command was trying to force me to give away my child. The doctor put me on a temporary medical category. This prevented me from going to sea. I thought this would be a good opportunity to fill out my paperwork and hopefully get to Cornwall back in Ontario, to train as an air traffic control officer so that I could be close to my family, my support network. I would no longer sail with these erratic schedules that are impossible for a single parent. I was ready to switch trades, but my female doctor, Dr. Boylan, told me that she was not signing my transfer papers because I had been to mental health for three different reasons.

I was stuck in the military without a trade, without belonging to a unit fully, without any chance of promotion or advancement for four years. I was a pariah, and it took a very big toll on my health.

The only thing I could do was volunteer again, so I worked at public affairs. I made much less money than everyone in the office because I was stuck for seven years at the lowest rank possible. I did a really good job there. I waited for my medical chit to expire so that I could transfer to public affairs because I was doing a good job, but Dr. Boylan wouldn't sign my medical papers. I was trapped.

I went to work every day stuck in that lowest officer rank, for seven years. There was just no chance of me developing my career. All around me all of my peers were advancing in their career. They were getting promotions and they were earning more money. I was stuck.

Depressed and trying to push suicide from my mind, I tried to use my leave travel assistance, which Natalie mentioned, to fly home for Christmas to see my family. I found that when I gave birth, I lost that benefit to be flown home to see my family because my son became my next of kin. All of my single friends in the military had two free flights per year, but I had to pay because I gave birth.

I got an email saying that because I had a baby, I was bumped down to a second-tier category to fly on the military Airbuses to go home for Christmas, while everyone else who was single got free rides. I waited. A month later I applied, and then I was denied because all the flights were full.

I was denied the benefits, based on my family status, and the discriminatory policies are still in place today.

The military also took $700 off my paycheque for day care when my son finally got in after the wait list, and $915 for my rent. However, a male officer who sat next to me on the same course got his room and board paid for by the military because he had a wife and a house back in New Brunswick, pursuant to the policy called “furniture and effects”. There was a $3,000 pay gap between me and my married male counterpart who didn't have a child. That was not even including salary.

Suicide became an everyday battle for me as I was surrounded by enemies in the workplace. My training officers ganged up on me. Those whose job it was to help me switch jobs refused, and the medical support basically stabbed me in the back. If I had never gone to the mental health unit for help, I wouldn't have lost my job because they would have switched me into a trade.

Everything I went to the mental health unit for was actually a direct women's issue, and there was no support for any of it.

I knew that I hit rock bottom as I was biking to work because I was crying, and I had tears streaming down my face. I was sobbing and gasping for air while I was biking, so I knew that I was in trouble. At night, I would wake up doing the same thing, in a panic because I was forced to choose between my child or losing my career and my home because the military was providing a home for me and I knew that I was going to lose that, too. The choices were too hard.

The navy was trying to force me to go back to sea, where I had been harassed by James Brun, and I knew that I had to empty my bank account once again to fly my child across the country to say goodbye to him so that I could sail. That was the only way.

At that point, I made up my mind that if I got on a plane one more time to give my child away for the military that was torturing me, I would give my boy to my parents one last time and end my life—

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Just take your time, Laura.

[Laura Nash]

—and I would end my suffering that way.

I couldn't live without my child any longer, and I couldn't live with the harassment and ostracization that I was feeling on a daily basis in the military.

Since being kicked out of the military, I have also felt the burn of how veterans are treated by our government, too.

I was kicked out of the forces medically, but I was given no family doctor or assistance to get one. The waiting list for a family doctor in my city was eight months long, so I was medically released without any medical care. If that's happening to me, I think that it's probably happening to a lot of people.

I had to fight Veterans Affairs for eight months just for help with one of the things I have, which is bruxism. When treatment was finally approved after eight months, it just didn't make any sense: VAC approved only half of the treatment, but the other half was necessary and took only 20 seconds.

It's very clear that the VAC employees are not doctors and are not dentists, and it's clear that they're denying veterans medical care while last year there was $360 million for veterans that sat unused.

The problem with VAC isn't funding. The problem is bad staff who are cruel and unqualified to be making life-threatening medical decisions on behalf of veterans. They are denying us the care that we need.

I had another severe bout of depression last Christmas when VAC case managers told me that I'd be unlikely to qualify for benefits much longer because I have an English degree. Three times I've been threatened by VAC employees to have my benefits terminated, and it's very stressful.

I'm here today to make sure that this never happens to another woman, and I am willing to do whatever I can to change the discriminatory practices and policies that still exist in the CAF. Now that I can clearly identify the problems with VAC, I'd also like to help make positive changes there, too. I think that we need to recognize that veterans can get the help they need and also that female veterans do have different issues—not just me, but all women who have been to war or not. Whatever issues they have might be different from the status quo and the policies that we have in place because, typically, the benefits are for men.

Thank you very much for listening.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Thank you very much, Laura.

As the committee knows, we've gone a little over the time with some of our testimony, but I hope that you have given me the lenience to say, “Yes, just keep on talking.”

Julie, we're now going to move to you for seven minutes, plus or minus.

[Julie S. Lalonde, As an Individual]

Thank you.

Good morning, everyone.

I want to start by saying thank you, Laura and Sandra, for your courage, not just for this morning but for going public with your experiences. What happened to both of you is horrific, and it's preventable. It's preventable, and we need to talk about it in that way.

My name is Julie S. Lalonde. I have spent the last 16 years working to end male violence against women in this country. My father was a proud CAF member, but I have been thrust into this conversation because of my experience in presenting to the Royal Military College in the fall of 2014.

I was engaged by the Royal Military College, because of my expertise, to come to train every cadet at RMC—that's about 1,000 students—and give them training on bystander intervention and sexual violence.

I was quite excited about the opportunity. It feels like a lifetime ago, but 2014 was before the Ghomeshi story broke and before #MeToo. Nobody was talking about sexual violence—not even close to the way they are now—so an institution asking me to come and train every single cadet felt progressive.

Unfortunately, when I arrived, it was clear that not only was this not taken seriously, but they were clearly checking off a box and really setting me up to fail in a number of ways, which I can get into later. That was a institutional failure on the behalf of the institution, then, but the cadets were some of the worst people I have ever had to deal with in my entire life.

They were rude. They were disrespectful. I was catcalled. I was accused of hating men. This is what I was told: “Why did you think we were going to take you seriously? You came here in a dress and you're a civilian.” I had women cadets tell me that they just weren't going to take me seriously because I was a woman, to which I replied: “You're a woman in this institution. That means they're never going to take you seriously either.”

It was a horrific experience. I think what is noteworthy is that the third-years were the worst. These are people who had been in that institution for three years; we're not talking about 18-year-olds off the street. These are people who had been indoctrinated in that institution for three years.

I filed a complaint with the institution. It was clear that the cadets knew that I wasn't going to take it, so they filed a complaint against me. They had access to the chain of command and I did not. Therefore, I was investigated by RMC for five months under allegations that I had called all men “rapists”, something that is laughable, I would hope, but that was taken seriously by RMC. About five months later, they concluded that I had in fact been harassed, and I was issued a written apology by DND.

Shortly afterwards, Justice Deschamps wrote her report and, if folks remember, the CAF was not too pleased with her recommendations. This was under General Lawson at the time. There were crickets. There was nobody in a position to come forward and back up what Justice Deschamps was saying.

Because I'm a civilian and because I had a written apology, I was well positioned to come forward and back up her claims, so I did. The result was that it was a national news story, which was great for starting the conversation, but I was inundated with threats of violence and death threats. In fact, someone was arrested and charged with threatening to kill me, and I'm a civilian with a written apology recognizing that I was harassed by DND.

For me, what I want folks to understand is that as an expert Governor General's award-winning civilian with a written apology, I was absolutely slandered. Also, I wasn't just slandered by random trolls on the Internet. General Lawson was asked directly about my experience by Peter Mansbridge on national television, and he insinuated that I was lying. For the general—who at the time was giving an exit interview to Peter Mansbridge on national television—to insinuate that I was lying is horrific. It's not okay.

Again, I am a civilian. I owe nothing to the military. I could never walk into those institutions ever again and be fine. Unlike the women sitting at this table who have dedicated their lives to that space, I had little to lose and I was treated in that way, so I don't understand how we think we're going to get to the core of this issue when nobody is safe if they call out what's going on.

There are answers, but part of the military institution, which is something I see when I work with campuses as well, is the mistaken belief that unless you are part of the institution, you don't have the answers. The military is a notoriously closed door environment. They are notoriously a non-welcoming environment to outsiders, and there's a real belief that they have the answers. Every time a military institution tells you that they have the answers to sexual violence, they are dunking on themselves by recognizing that they've had the answer for years and years and they've just never implemented it. We need to frame it in that way. They do not have the expertise.

General Lawson was a pilot, so he could go on the news and talk about how to fly a plane, and I could not correct him on that. But he did not have more authority on addressing sexual violence than people who have been doing this for decades. We really need to frame it as “expertise”. If you're building a bridge, you're going to hire an engineer. If you're trying to address sexual violence that is rampant in the institution, then you need to bring experts to the table.

Lastly, I think it's important to recognize that part of the reason I have received so much heinous backlash, which continues to this day, is that we believe the military is the last place where men can be men. I think we need to be bold and say that. There is a real belief from women within the RMC, who are proud cadets, that they are there on borrowed time: “They are letting us be here, and the second we step out of line, they will remind us we are here only because they're allowing us to be here.”

Again, that's in the context of gender, but it's also in terms of race. RMC is a very white institution. The military is very white. It's very straight. Folks who are marginalized in any way, shape or form are constantly reminded, “If you toe the line and you act like us, we will allow you to be here, but fundamentally this is where we let men be men.” For me to challenge that institution was seen as challenging all of masculinity, and that's why I think the response was so heinous.

As a civilian, this is how I have been treated, so I cannot imagine the level of courage it takes to speak out as folks who are current or former members of the CAF. Again, my incredible gratitude to Laura, Sandra and all of the others who have come forward. It takes an immense amount of bravery, and I recognize that.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Thank you very much, Julie.

We're going to begin this round with our course of questioning, and we're going to begin with seven minutes.

I'm going to turn the floor over to Rachel Bendayan.

You have seven minutes.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Thank you.

I want to echo what Madame Lalonde was saying. Thank you very much for coming forward today and with your story generally. It must take incredible courage.

I was especially touched by your story, Ms. Nash. I was elected only two months ago. My baby girl is home, and I commute to Ottawa. It's nothing compared with what you've lived. I do it for one week at a time, and I'm still getting used to it. For you to have been without your son for so long in order to do the work that you love.... It's very difficult, and it's absolutely incredible.

I would like to ask you a bit about how we can address some of these issues for single moms as well as single parents in the CAF.

I will address my question to you, Laura, as well as to you, Ms. MacDonald, as a professional in the field.

[Laura Nash]

There are some policies that I outlined in my second grievance that I think would make a really, really big difference.

One of them is not taking away our flights the moment we give birth, so changing things around the next of kin. I was never asking for my baby's seat to be paid for. I just wanted the same rights as everyone else, so at least my ticket.

The “furniture and effects” policy is tough. If you move your furniture and effects, then you lose all your board—your rent and your food and stuff like that.

There are not enough day care spots.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

But even the day care spots would not help if you're at sea.

[Laura Nash]

They don't at all. Right.

In that case, and in my case, if there were a policy for the BPSO to allow someone who comes to them for help to switch trades.... There are a hundred different trades in the military. There are places for everyone. I just happened to be very ambitious before I had a baby. I really wanted to go to sea. That's what I wanted to do. When my husband left me, I couldn't anymore.... I could if I gave my baby away.

If there were a policy where the BPSO could consider people with special child care needs as a reason to switch trades and go into a different career, I think that would be a very good solution.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Ms. MacDonald, do you have anything to add?

[Natalie MacDonald]

I do, actually. Thank you very much, Rachel. I certainly can tell you that I've thought quite a lot about this. I think there are three ways we can fix the problems, and I welcome the opportunity to advise in terms of what I've seen.

First, I believe we need to overhaul the grievance system within the CAF, because it cannot and should not take five years to reach a decision. To do that, the CAF needs to develop checks and balances so that if a lie is found in the middle of a grievance and is proved to be a lie, it needs to be recognized. That was never corrected in Ms. Nash's case, and that was the start of the worst part of her life. To obtain these checks and balances, I believe that the CAF needs to have an impartial party moving the grievance process along that's not part of the CAF. I say this because the people who are deciding the grievances are the same people who are perpetuating the discrimination and harassment. In criminal law, the decision that the Supreme Court of Canada handed down of Jordan had tremendous impact on moving criminal cases forward quickly and effectively. Why not the same with the CHRC? We need to legislate that, but we need to have a watchdog.

I believe there's a second way to overhaul the grievance process. The CHRC cannot be the last place a griever can go after the grievance is exhausted, because that allows the CHRC to be able to adopt a passive role. Quite frankly, it requires an amendment to the act, to paragraph 41.1(a), to allow anyone in the federal sector to be able to go to the expert tribunal to get an expert decision in place. I think it's something that has to happen, because throughout Ms. Nash's case, she did not have individuals who were actually expert in the matter of human rights.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Just to be clear, that would be an appeals process from decisions of the CHRC?

[Natalie MacDonald]

Honourable member, it would probably be more than that. I would say get rid of paragraph 41.1(a) in its entirety. I would be as blunt as saying that. People could have the choice of whether they wanted to go through the grievance system or whether they wanted to have their case heard by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. I have been doing this awhile, and I have seen this wall that has constantly gone up. Paragraph 41.1(a) is something that prevents human rights cases from moving forward, because they send them back to another grievance process and then they tend to languish. Third, I feel that we cannot allow the same people who perpetuate the discrimination and harassment to decide upon it. It's as simple as that. There is certainly a bias there, and there's every reason to believe that Ms. Nash couldn't possibly have been successful against the individuals she was accusing.

There's a second way that I feel the system needs to be fixed. Policies within CAF that are discriminatory need to be addressed and amended. That starts right away with definitions of sexual harassment and sexual misconduct in current policies, which are too narrow and do not refer to the issue that jokes and innuendo in the workplace can actually be considered within the definition. Additionally, sexual assault is not defined in the same way as it is in the Criminal Code. I also believe that policies are defined for two-parent traditional families....

I'm sorry, Madam Speaker. I have quite a bit to offer; I apologize for going over.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Absolutely. Perhaps we can get some of that in as the questions go around, just for fairness for the entire committee.

[Natalie MacDonald]

Certainly. May I just say the third, and then I can expand upon it?