Status of Women Committee on April 22nd, 2021

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Choi, I'm just asking if people have a fear of reprisal. What do you think about respecting the people who come forward so that there is a sense of respecting their confidentiality?

I only have about 10 seconds here.

[Kin Choi]

Thank you. I'll go very quickly.

I think that in the main that's a natural consequence, that fear, especially in large organizations. I think there's an opportunity to rethink how we do labour relations and provide that trust and support so that privacy, confidentiality and procedural fairness are entrusted within the system.

I apologize for the technical difficulties.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

No problem. Thank you.

Ms. Larouche, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to start by congratulating you, Mr. Choi and Mr. Whelan, on your testimonies and your work in the Canadian Armed Forces.

Mr. Choi, I'll begin by asking you what you know about the Privy Council Office. This is about understanding what steps the Privy Council Office can take, even in cases of sexual assault. Is this part of its mandate? As we know, the ombudsman had the responsibility for the investigation transferred to the Privy Council Office.

Can you tell us more about this organization?

[Kin Choi]

Madam Chair, I'm not an expert with PCO machinery and how it's worked. I've had a relationship with PCO and I've worked with senior personnel, but I would refrain from providing any expert comments on that.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

So you can't tell us what the Privy Council Office or the minister lacked in terms of information to conduct the investigation.

[Kin Choi]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

That's not something I was personally involved with, so I would not have anything to offer.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

My question is for Mr. Whelan or Mr. Choi.

What do you think of “The path to dignity and respect: the Canadian Armed Forces sexual misconduct response strategy” and how much do you trust its effectiveness?

Can you speak briefly about this, Mr. Choi or Mr. Whelan?

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

We're going to start with Mr. Choi, and then we'll go to the general.

[Kin Choi]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm optimistic and I'm hopeful that we are at an inflection point in time in which the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces can make significant changes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

General?

General, you're on mute, or we can't hear you very well.

Shall we suspend briefly while the clerk looks into the technical issues with the general?

[MGen Steven Whelan]

Madam Chair, can you hear me?

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Yes. Now we can hear you.

[MGen Steven Whelan]

I will attempt to answer the question quickly.

How confident am I? Here's why I am confident and encouraged. We're actually having some meaningful discussions on cultural change. We are listening to people at all levels, from the top down, across, and up and down in the Canadian Forces. We have accepted the flaws of Operation Honour and are moving forward with successes.

There's an incredible conversation going on at this point on support to victims. I am encouraged by the defence-wide and the nationally wide conversation that is occurring about how we can make our profession better. I am encouraged. There is a pathway forward.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you.

We learned that Lieutenant-General Wayne D. Eyre, the acting chief of staff, requested an aide-mémoire on how to handle complaints against the leadership of the Canadian Armed Forces.

As an officer, can you tell us about the process for handling complaints against the leadership of the Canadian Armed Forces? You've already touched on this briefly. However, I'd like you to again describe the process for reporting sexual assault or sexual misconduct to the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service.

What do the victims know about this? Perhaps certain things can be improved to ensure that they know more about the process and what steps they can take.

[MGen Steven Whelan]

I am not an expert in the field of military police or sexual misconduct reporting, but to your question in terms of senior leadership allegations, the system is based on a process that is applied evenly to all members of the Canadian Forces, regardless of rank. The issue of the product that General Eyre had asked for was essentially an aide-mémoire or something that he could have in order to ensure that he was very clear on the process. I think it's clear that we haven't seen these kinds of allegations in the past, and therefore we wanted to ensure that there was no sense that there was a special process being applied to senior leaders.

In terms of reporting and victim support, if I receive an allegation, I have a choice to bring it to the military police. I can choose, depending on the severity of the allegation, to make an assessment and assign it to a unit-level investigation. I always have the opportunity to consult with our legal folks. If need be, I can consult with the SMRC and Dr. Preston to assist me through my decision-making process.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Very good.

We'll go to Ms. Mathyssen for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to both witnesses.

I'm really hopeful after hearing from you, Mr. Whelan, and specifically your words that “leadership is a privilege that must be curated.” You're talking about taking that responsibility, taking that on, and really listening. I think this is key.

I'd like to ask both of you, though, about the bureaucracy within the Department of National Defence and within the armed forces, the CAF itself, when we talk about the recognition of that leadership and holding people to account at all levels, from the first ranks up to the highest of senior leaders, and that responsibility. Is it also true that in that responsibility we can't turn away from some of these stories, and that not listening and not hearing and refusing to hear causes a lot of the problems as well?

[MGen Steven Whelan]

I will make an attempt to see if I can respond. That's a really complicated question about leadership and how we integrate process into the profession.

The profession is a.... It's hard to put a hand around it, because we operate on values and an ethical framework. Of course, what we have here is seemingly leaders who are supposedly representing this framework and these values and they're not living up to it. Rightly so, the victims are calling out these leaders. The process is fully engaged on holding all leaders accountable to investigate these kinds of allegations. I think in the fullness of time, as these investigations mature, we will see how that process engages itself when we see these allegations occur.

Just from a military personnel command perspective, one of the other processes is the administrative review process, which I am responsible for. That is also another mechanism to determine outcomes of conflicts and people issues. There are multiple mechanisms that the Canadian Forces has at its disposal in order to bring justice to victims who bring forward allegations.

[Kin Choi]

Madam Chair, I'll try to build on General Whelan's comments.

I think throughout the public service and where we find ourselves in 2021, there's a real opportunity to look at how labour relations are constructed. I think it's still very much an industrial relations era model, so it's a bit adversarial. We've been making improvements by working with our unions on this. I think it's time for us to turn things around so that people are at the very core, at the centre, of how we solve issues, and we provide a personalized sense of their well-being throughout the process, versus an adversarial process in which we move up the ladder in terms of grievances.

I think there are opportunities for us to do this so that we can support people no matter what level or part of the organization they may be in.

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

We've certainly heard that hierarchy and command structure often get in the way of people feeling confident enough to challenge and speak out against what's happened. We've also heard in this committee—I've referenced it before—that there's this disconnect between those at the top, who say things are all right or are improving or are moving in a certain direction, versus the stories that we've heard. You've referenced them again. The stories that we heard even two days ago in this committee.... Someone emailed me after we heard from the provost marshal. They said that as long as those investigators hold military rank, they can push in directly messaging and in interference, and the higher the rank of that individual, the more that comes into play.

We've talked a lot about independent structures. Do you believe that those independent structures are key to the investigation for ensuring that people are treated fairly within both the armed forces and overall military?

[MGen Steven Whelan]

Madam Chair, I'll take a shot.

There is value in an independent structure. Whether it's a structure for reporting or a structure for looking at the Canadian Forces, I think all of those options need to be on the table.

In terms of the feeling that perhaps there is an interference by Canadian Forces leadership in the uniform or the chain of command, I think it speaks to something that I will be taking on as a role in trying to bring more of the human attributes into leadership development than the bureaucracy or the technical or theoretical aspects of what we have as our leadership models. We need to actually bring human qualities back into leaders, bring in empathy and have people understand what the other person has gone through as they try to lead people.

I go back to the first rule I learned on my first day, which is that leadership is a privilege. For me in particular, the options are on the table for independent structures, but I think it's about focusing on making better leaders and growing them earlier in their careers so they can be who we want them to be when they become senior leaders.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Now we go to our second round of questions.

Ms. Alleslev, you have five minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Mr. Choi, you said that reprisals are a natural occurrence, yet you need to have procedural fairness in order to ensure that this culture changes. However, it was on your watch that someone in your chain of command made the complaint on behalf of someone who reported to him and then felt reprisals because of it. He submitted his own harassment complaint for those reprisals and was subsequently blamed externally for the harassment of his subordinate when it wasn't him. He has spent five years grieving and trying to make his way through the process.

Is that how you would characterize procedural fairness?

[Kin Choi]

Madam Chair, I wasn't able to hear the first part of the question, just the last part. I assume it was addressed to me. I believe the question is around Mr. Boland, if I picked up all of that.

As I said in my opening remarks, I can't speak to individual cases. From a procedural fairness perspective, I can offer that when we get complaints on the public service, employees are represented by their union. There are clear processes set out that we follow in looking at the nature and severity of the complaint. There are situational assessments that we go through that are done by labour relations. If they meet certain criteria, which are well established by Treasury Board guidelines, then there may be an investigation.