Status of Women Committee on April 20th, 2021

[LCol (Ret'd) Bernie Boland]

Yes, they blamed me. That's what they did. They blamed me.

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

You felt that your reputation had been impugned, and you said, “That's just not true. You can't say this stuff about me that's not true.” Then you moved it up the chain of command for them to fix that statement and to still deal with the harassment complaint that you had submitted. Is that correct?

[LCol (Ret'd) Bernie Boland]

Yes, there was a harassment complaint because of the retaliation when I first reported her harassment and human rights violations. Then when they made me a scapegoat for it, as I said, that was reprehensible and I wasn't going to stand for it, so, yes, I definitely put in a complaint. The more they avoided it...I wasn't going to back down, and I pushed it all the way up, as I said in my testimony.

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

You are all within the processes and procedures as stated in all the Canadian Armed Forces regulations.

[LCol (Ret'd) Bernie Boland]

Yes, that's exactly what I used. I used the process mechanisms that were available to me. Additionally, though, I did have my member of Parliament write a letter to Minister Sajjan three years ago to address it when, fundamentally, DND just said, “It's closed. We're not going to look at this anymore.”

Then I had the opportunity, because of that dismissal by the deputy minister and her human resources staff, to address it internally further.

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

You escalated it to the deputy minister. Then you made the Clerk of the Privy Council aware, and you made the Minister of National Defence aware. Is that correct?

[LCol (Ret'd) Bernie Boland]

Yes, I escalated it to the deputy minister on Mr. Crosby's case. It was brushed off and dismissed by Mr. Choi, as I said. Then I raised that up to the minister. In fact, I sent several letters to the minister on various aspects of my particular case and the woman's case as well. When those weren't addressed, I sent a letter, as I said—a registered letter—to the Prime Minister and an info copy to the Privy Council.

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Did you receive a letter back with the Minister of National Defence's signature?

[LCol (Ret'd) Bernie Boland]

No, the only response I got on my issues related to scapegoating was, as I said, Mr. Choi's outright dismissal of it.

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

He was subordinate to the deputy minister, so essentially he responded on behalf of his boss to absolve his boss of any wrongdoing. Is that correct?

[LCol (Ret'd) Bernie Boland]

That's absolutely correct.

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Is that typically how things would work according to the process and procedures manual?

[LCol (Ret'd) Bernie Boland]

No, but listening to some of the media reports, it seems to be the standard approach when I heard what the navy was doing on their red room issue. They get somebody of lower rank to absolve the boss of their bad behaviour.

It's very convenient for them and very inconvenient for those of us who are looking for justice or supporting those who deserve justice, women in these cases.

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Is it totally against Canadian Forces' policies, procedures and rules?

[LCol (Ret'd) Bernie Boland]

Yes, to my understanding, Mr. Choi, given the policy that he's responsible for.... It says conducting what is called a situational assessment cannot be delegated.

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

That's the end of your time.

I understand that Dr. Maya Eichler, who is an associate professor in political studies and women’s studies, and a Canada research chair in social innovation and community engagement, has joined us.

I think she may be having a little bit of trouble with the sound.

Clerk, can you clarify?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Stephanie Bond]

We'll have to wait a few more moments, yes, but we can continue our questioning.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

I understand that the Liberals have a number of questions for the doctor, so I will go instead to Madam Larouche for six minutes.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd also like to thank both of our witnesses.

You have shown us another perspective on the problem of sexual assault cases in the Canadian Armed Forces. Thank you very much, Lieutenant-Colonel Boland and Colonel Drapeau.

I will begin my questions with Colonel Drapeau.

You said that Mr. Sajjan had been informed of the situation and that he should even resign. Your comments were quite clear.

Could you elaborate further on your views on Mr. Sajjan's role?

[Col (Ret'd) Michel Drapeau]

He is the head of the institution in question and has been in office for five years. The media has been very generous in reporting cases of sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces. Close to him, some of his immediate subordinates are themselves the subject of allegations. I heard the minister testify that because the ombudsman did not disclose the identity of the person who made the complaint, he could do nothing in those circumstances.

What he said goes against all my knowledge and interpretation of the role of a leader, be it military, political or otherwise. Certainly, people of a certain age or profession receive complaints from time to time that are made anonymously. Police officers, courts, and lawyers receive them, as do, certainly, public servants here and there in the public service. An anonymous complaint doesn't mean that it's unfounded. It doesn't mean that we should look the other way and ignore it. There is a certain natural justice that needs to be established, because the person who is the subject of the complaint needs to know about it and perhaps even respond to it. There is something we need to do rather than sit back and do nothing.

It left me wanting more when I heard the minister say that he couldn't do anything about such a complaint. To date, I have yet to hear from the minister, despite the rosary of complaints that we've received against a number of senior members of the Canadian Armed Forces, complaints that are damaging the morale, reputation—both at home and abroad—and the effectiveness of the Canadian Armed Forces.

I haven't heard the minister say what he's going to do to fix the situation and put measures in place to give victims confidence. I've heard absolutely nothing so far. We're waiting to see what will happen, what will be decided, either by him or his government.

I never said I was asking for his dismissal or resignation. I asked him to take note of these complaints, because that's his primary role. By law, he is responsible for the direction and control of the Canadian Armed Forces.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

You said that this dated back to the transfer between Parliament and the military. Then, you spoke at length about the fact that many developed countries have external investigative bodies, in other words, that are not part of the military.

Could you tell us how such a system is different from ours?

You mentioned Germany in particular. What are the consequences of having a system like ours?

[Col (Ret'd) Michel Drapeau]

In our case, it is a society within a society. We have to tell it like it is. The military organization has its own system of policing, health, justice, and so on. It's completely hidden from scrutiny and accountability. Only two small, powerless committees play a bit of a watchdog role. They are the Military Grievances External Review Committee and the Military Police Complaints Commission.

Otherwise, the Department of National Defence is basically untouchable. Ultimately, it's not accountable to anyone in Parliament. As I said before, the whole situation around sexual misconduct has been going on for 30 years. In 1998, Parliament decided to transfer jurisdiction from the civilian courts to military, and things have gone from bad to worse since then.

A number of countries, including the United States, Germany, the Netherlands, Australia and several others, have established an “inspector general” position, which is a civilian who reports to Parliament and who has investigative powers, oversight and the power to hold the military to account. This person has the necessary staff to conduct investigations, and make judgments and recommendations. The inspector general's primary role is to act as an agent of Parliament, to provide briefings, advice and accountability to parliamentarians who are on these committees.

Right now, it's another way to assure victims that their complaints will be received, investigated, and not interfered with. Retired Lieutenant-Colonel Boland gave an example. This is one way of doing things. It's about increasing accountability and responsibility and, in those circumstances, giving victims confidence. The majority of victims don't report the crime, don't trust the military justice system and fear reprisals.

That's something that we can and should do. It was recommended by Justice Létourneau in 1997, when he wrote his report as part of the Commission of Inquiry into the Deployment of Canadian Forces to Somalia.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Thank you very much.

Now we have with us Dr. Maya Eichler.

We're very glad you're here. If you could raise your microphone between your mouth and nose, I will let you have your five minutes to give opening remarks.

Go ahead.

[Dr. Maya Eichler, Associate Professor in Political Studies and Women’s Studies, Canada Research Chair in Social Innovation and Community Engagement, Mount Saint Vincent University, As an Individual]

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. I apologize for the connectivity issues I've been having today.

My name is Dr. Maya Eichler. I'm an associate professor and Canada research chair at Mount Saint Vincent University in Halifax.

For the past decade my research has focused on gender integration and sexual violence in the Canadian Armed Forces. I take this opportunity today to share with you my two main recommendations for how your committee can best help address military sexual misconduct.

The first is to focus your efforts on developing an inclusive military culture. The second is to focus your efforts on setting up an external oversight mechanism to bring about and sustain this new inclusive military culture.

I recommend a focus on military culture change because it is the only way to address the larger root causes of sexual misconduct in the military workplace. The mere fact that we are still here today talking about these same issues that have been brought before numerous parliamentary committees for many years shows us how much resistance there remains to creating a more inclusive military institution and culture. The present situation is not a new crisis, nor is it solely about sexual misconduct. This crisis is an outcome of the historical institutional design of the military as a quintessential masculinized workplace.

Until 30 years ago, all combat-related roles and positions were open only to men. The very infrastructure and policies of the military were designed for men. Bathrooms, accommodations, equipment, uniform design, vehicle size, airplane cockpits and medical care norms were based on the average male height, weight, strength, shape and physiology. The same is true for military personnel policies that were also designed to support men's lives, needs and leadership styles.

As a result, the military institution and its culture privilege male service members, specifically white, heterosexual male service members, and this has created systemic legacy barriers and inequities for women and for others who fall outside the presumed “ideal” or “norm” such as LGBTQ+ members, racialized and indigenous members, or members with a disability. It is up to them to expend the extra time and energy required to figure out how to fit into a system that was not built with them in mind.

Previous attempts to address military sexual misconduct have focused on superficial and simple solutions, such as lifting legal barriers, increasing the number of female recruits or ordering members to stop engaging in sexual misconduct. To date, there has never been an attempt to develop and apply a comprehensive strategy of military culture change. This would require a redesign of the military workplace to allow for a more inclusive understanding of what it means to be a member of the Canadian Armed Forces.

This brings me to my second point. The past 30 years have shown that the military cannot be expected to achieve the necessary culture change and institutional redesign on its own. I therefore strongly recommend the establishment of a permanent, independent external oversight mechanism not just to ensure the military institutional culture redesigned but also to ensure that that redesign is sustained in the long term.

I have suggested three key principles for what this oversight should look like in a recent Policy Options piece from March 12, which I co-wrote with military veteran Dr. Karen Breeck. We suggested that the new agency should have a broad mandate. Ideally it will look something like the civilian inspector general's office. This new agency needs to report directly to Parliament and should be informed by the voices of lived experience, of those most impacted by the military's problematic culture. Effective oversight is no guarantee that military culture change will happen, but I believe it is its most important precondition.

I would like to see us move beyond quick fixes and investigations, beyond a narrow focus on sexual misconduct in individuals. True, systemic military culture change will require long-term efforts at redesigning the military institution. It will require public and political engagement, and most importantly, it will require an oversight agency with a mandate to report to Parliament. I see no other pathway to ensuring accountability for a military workplace that is safe and inclusive for all, and I see no other pathway to ensuring that we're not here five years from now having these same conversations again.

For the sake of all Canadians, in uniform and not, I urge you to seize this opportunity to bring about true, systemic change in the military.

Thank you.