Status of Women Committee on March 25th, 2021

[Marie Deschamps]

That is a very general question. In fact, it is the main question. Women must absolutely be part of the Armed Forces. They are contributing members of society, and the Armed Forces need them at all levels.

As I suggest in my report, to attract women into the army, they must be made to feel like they have a future there. Very often, women in the army feel that their career tops out at the rank of major. I have spoken to women who were of that opinion. There were practically no models of women ranked higher than major. So we need models proving to women that they have a future in the army and that their career can progress there. I see that women will finally be appointed to command positions, and I find that encouraging.

However, the responsibility does not lie only with senior leaders, but also with non-commissioned officers. All those people must help women climb the ladder, give them responsibilities and think of them when they delegate duties. Women must feel that they have their place in the army, and that responsibility belongs to all members of the Canadian Armed Forces, across all ranks.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Could you tell us a bit about intersectionality? For example, is a woman who is part of the LGBTQ2+ community more exposed to harassment because of her minority status? Did you observe any such situations during your investigation?

[Marie Deschamps]

I heard very little testimony from LGBTQ2+ community members during my review. However, I served for two years as an evaluator during the LGBT purge class action. People may not be as aware of my work in that area. My term is now completed, but I saw during my time that a disproportionate number of women belonging to that community were being treated in an appalling way.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

You say in your report that a toxic and sexualized culture exists within the Canadian Armed Forces.

How can people act in a way so as to create such a toxic environment in an organization where the values of integrity, valour, courage, protection and safeguarding are paramount? What leads to that kind of an environment being created? Were you able to determine that during your review?

I would like you to give us further explanations and tell us what you think about this.

[Marie Deschamps]

I talked about that in my report. There is no mystery to those behaviours; they are widespread in predominantly male and hierarchical environments.

When drafting my report, I was inspired by work done in other workplaces with few women, such as security businesses and mines. A masculine culture with prevailing sexuality dominates those environments. As I said in my report, some rules have been established on this. For example, calendars with photos of nude women are now banned.

Minor actions make an environment sexualized. We may be talking about touches that, seemingly—

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

I'm sorry. That's your time on that question.

Now we're going to move to Madam Larouche.

Go ahead for six minutes.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

A big thank you to former Justice Deschamps for being with us this morning.

Mrs. Deschamps, I join with my colleagues in recognizing all the work you have done in this file to denounce those cases of sexual assault. We were all traumatized by the Noémi Mercier and Alec Castonguay article published in 2015 following your investigation. Even at the time, it gave us chills.

[Marie Deschamps]

They brought the issue to light first.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

In the article I found, Noémi Mercier and Alec Castonguay at the very least mentioned your work, so you were looking into the matter at roughly the same time. You were conducting your investigation when they published their article. It was indeed them who shone a spotlight on the issue; they were behind it all. I applaud them and I applaud you. The article was very compelling and impactful.

It was reported in the paper this morning that the program introduced to stamp out sexual misconduct in the armed forces—Operation Honour—had been scrapped. How do you feel about that? When the chief of the defence staff made the announcement, was he planning to shut down Operation Honour? Does it mean that the program was ineffective, that it failed? Or is the leadership trying to put a lid on the issue?

[Marie Deschamps]

The first thing I should say is that the program's name, Operation Honour, was denigrated. I won't repeat the mocking nickname it was given.

The armed forces launched the plan in 2015. The first step was to devise a strategy to bring about a change in culture. As I said earlier, it was five years before the strategy was developed. Regardless, the overarching plan of 2015 was called Operation Honour, and the strategy that was developed under step one is now called The Path to Dignity and Respect.

I believe the armed forces still wants to follow the steps it laid out at the time. Now, five years later, the organization is still in the first phase of the action plan, in other words, developing a culture change strategy. The strategy is now written and has been given a name. This is just my own take, but I would say the organization is trying to distance itself from the name Operation Honour, given the mockery that was made of the name.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Originally, then, the name was the same. Thank you.

In your report, you recommended creating an independent body to receive reports of inappropriate sexual conduct in the Canadian Armed Forces. When he appeared before the House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence, the Minister of National Defence stated that the Government of Canada would establish an independent reporting structure to look at allegations of sexual misconduct.

How can an independent investigative body improve the process of reporting sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces? How can an independent investigative body ensure that the victims of sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces and their needs are taken into account?

[Marie Deschamps]

There are two parts to your question.

In my report, I did not address the military justice system because that was not part of my mandate, as you know. It's important, however, to distinguish between a body responsible for receiving complaints and one responsible for conducting investigations.

I recommended that the centre responsible for providing support to victims be independent. As for the independent body responsible for prosecution, I did not see the details, but I don't think it should be commingled with the victims support centre. It should be a completely independent body, in my view.

Keep in mind that, in 1998, responsibility for the prosecution of sexual assault cases was transferred from common law courts to military courts. I see the body in charge of investigation and prosecution as completely separate from the victims support centre [Technical difficulty—Editor] where sexual assault complaints could be dealt with. If jurisdiction is not returned to the civilian justice system, an independent body needs to be created. I do worry, though, about simply ending up with a multiplicity of organizations.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

In your view, then—

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

That's your time.

We're now going to Ms. Mathyssen for six minutes.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Deschamps.

Everyone has said how incredibly important your work is, and I certainly agree with that.

Despite the incredible work you did, here we are today. Despite that report, despite the Auditor General's report, despite the work of the status of women committee in 2019, I feel we're a bit stalled and we're not getting to what we need to. I think you alluded to that as well.

After you created the report what follow-up occurred with the Canadian Armed Forces?

[Marie Deschamps]

I remained in contact with Dr. Preston who heads the centre. I tried to maintain communication with her because I wanted to ensure that if she had any questions she had someone to turn to.

I also maintained contact with the chief of the defence staff and with the DM. However, I was not asked to do any follow-up on the implementation of the recommendations. Some kind of follow-up was made by the Auditor General. It may now be time for someone to act as a watchdog more closely.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Despite the fact you are considered such a huge authority on this, you haven't been.... These sound like informal conversations that you are having. You're having great relationships and you're always there for support, but it's not something that is formalized.

Do you think that is something that should be moved forward? Would you recommend that, putting yourself obviously in the centre?

[Marie Deschamps]

I'm sure you know that I'm not looking for a job.

I can give as an example that in Australia they did a huge review. This was conducted by the head of the human rights commission in Australia, Elizabeth Broderick, who did a super job. Then there was a follow-up with Ms. Broderick two years later, because there were issues with the equivalent of their military college. She did another complete review.

I think, yes, when something is put in place, there has to be someone to look over their shoulder to make sure that things are really happening.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Yes, because only a few of the recommendations have actually been implemented to some degree. That full implementation is still necessary.

The government has said as well that they are trying to create a new, independent body. Have you been contacted about that?

In the previous testimony the ombudsman specifically said that he had not.

[Marie Deschamps]

There were very discreet informal contacts, but nothing is on the record so far.

Also, as I mentioned, I don't think I am the one who should do the job. I voiced my concern. I voiced my recommendations. I think someone else needs to make sure that things are happening. Things may have evolved and someone may have to have fresh eyes on it, but someone should look after it.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Okay.

One of the things that the ombudsman also talked about just before was the necessity for independence. Even within his own office, the fact that he reported directly to the Minister of Defence was clearly a problem. He talked about the ability, like that of many other commissioners, to report to Parliament, and about changing that legislation.

Do you think that would be a welcome step forward?

[Marie Deschamps]

The defence ombudsman has very little power.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

In your opinion, would providing that direct access to Parliament help with that situation?

[Marie Deschamps]

I am not commenting on who the ombudsman should report to, but certainly the way this function is structured is not very helpful.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Okay.

Again, we come back to the difference.... I'm trying to determine the difference between held authority and leadership for that responsibility and the fact that even though.... Authority can be used as a weapon, clearly, in so many instances, and women within the armed forces have seen that.

In terms of moving forward with that leadership and seeing that as very different, I've heard stories more about the generally toxic culture of how things move. It's not even just within sexual misconduct. It's that there are punishments. We've heard about punishments just from a physical punishment standpoint, and how they are almost trying to break women to stop them from advancing.

Can you talk about that?

Also, because I know I have limited time, I will squeeze this in. We could talk about the women who are being brought forward. The minister constantly talks about a pipeline for women to be advanced into leadership roles, which is very important, but I asked the acting chief of the defence staff and I'll ask you about the importance of ensuring that there are supports around those women in those leadership roles. Throughout their careers there are constant attempts to break them. It's harder for them. Their authority is questioned more.

How do we support those women? How do we change that?