Veterans Affairs Committee on April 17th, 2023

[Rosemary Park]

If I may say so, what we see in other countries is women veterans acting and organizing to assert themselves not as individuals, as the moral voices that we have here, but as coordinated push-back, so we see in other countries the involvement of women themselves. We had done this with the class action, but they are much more involved, and I would say in the States in particular.

Have the militaries....

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Are any defence departments elsewhere that are proactive in this regard?

[Donna Riguidel]

May I speak for a minute?

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

I'll let you have the floor, Ms. Riguidel.

[Donna Riguidel]

This is not a problem unique to the military, it is a problem unique to humans. Every solution that governments and the military try to provide—

Every time we try to address this with a military solution, we fail, because it's not a military problem. We can't discipline this problem away. We can't punish it away. Every military that's integrated in the world struggles with this. We are all failing at it, and the reason is that we haven't switched to a survivor-centred, trauma-informed approach. We haven't gotten to the point where instead of right away rushing to how we should arrest the perpetrator and charge them in a criminal justice system—which, let's face it, fails and is not set up to do anything really effective—we switch right away to how we should support the survivor to start them on the path to healing, to start them on the path to either returning to service—if that's what they want—mentally healthy or cycling out, again, mentally supported and feeling as though we have their backs. How do we do that?

When we crack on with that, it is going to start to accomplish things. The reason we're failing is that we don't do that, and we also introduce training systems that don't make sense.

The one—

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

I'm sorry to interrupt.

Personally, what concerns me greatly is the issue of culture and culture change. That culture exists all over the planet. I understand that. However, it seems to me that in Quebec and in Canada, we show a certain sensitivity. Canada is a great country. It knows how to show a lot of humanity, and it has the opportunity to do so.

What are your observations on that, Ms. Riguidel?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Blake Richards]

Mr. Desilets' time is up, but you may respond anyway, Ms. Riguidel.

[Donna Riguidel]

Okay. I believe that as a military, as a country, we have an opportunity to become the leader in this to get to the point where other militaries in other countries are coming and asking, “Shoot, how did the Canadians do this?” We have to do that though by having training that makes sense—so it can't be a point and click. You have to get in and engage and discuss and shift people's moral compass, because we have to get to the point where as a military we can continue to do our—let's face it—inappropriate job of being better at war than the enemy is, but do so with professionalism and respect. That's where we've lost it.

The only way to get back to it again is to address the human wearing the uniform, not just the uniform.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Blake Richards]

All right. Thank you.

Our next intervention will be from Ms. Blaney for the next six minutes.

The floor is yours.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank you all so much for being here today. Thank you for your service.

I feel really sad and disappointed that we still live in a country and in a world where we have to ask people to come and bleed in front of us. I want to say that part of our job is to listen, but a bigger part of our job is to believe. I want to say I believe very much what all of you testified today, and I'm very honoured that you took up that space and were here with us today to do that.

What I felt was really impactful was how many times I heard the word “invisible” in the testimony today, and that we have a system that seems to continually make women's realities invisible. That impact is having a particular one in the service of our military.

The first question I'm going to ask is for all of you, and I'll start first with Donna. One of the things I've heard again and again is that when you come to VAC, it's like you have to prove everything that happened to you, so that they will treat you for it on the other side, at VAC. If they don't believe you, which goes back to my original statements, then it's really hard. You're denied, and then you have to appeal and appeal. I'm wondering if you could talk about that experience, what the impact is and any recommendations you have on changing that.

[Donna Riguidel]

I think one of the major changes that happened—and it happened after the class action—was having more dedicated staff specifically managing these files. I don't know about everybody else's experience, but my claim for PTSD sat for about two and a half to three years until they introduced the dedicated system. Then it was more fast-tracked, both because with the class action it was required, but also because they had staff who were trained in what to look for.

Because sexual assault remains something that is really hard for people to come forward and talk about, it remains under-reported. That's for men and women. We know that men are assaulted in great numbers and don't come forward for a lot of very specific reasons. Knowing that they don't come in with proof and knowing that they don't come in, necessarily, having talked to a doctor or even having made a police report.... There needs to be, again, more education, more trauma-informed.... There needs to be an understanding that we're not going to have all the paperwork that we might have if we break a leg or suffer some kind of physical foot injury or something like that. However, it doesn't make our injury any less valid.

[A voice]

Rosemary.

[Rosemary Park]

I'm going to turn it to the unknown. VAC has only approximately 14% of women who are receiving benefits. The invisibility is of women who have served and are not known to VAC or who think, because of the issues, that they don't deserve to be considered as veterans. Dr. Maya Eichler has commented on that, that it's a self-defeating problem where there is an “I don't deserve it” feeling. VAC is trying to reach out, but its methods are.... It's a very difficult task for a government to create a sense of trust that it does care and to please apply, that it's there to listen.

I don't envy that, but I think that.... We have the 14% with the difficulty, as you say, of showing that this is warranted, because there are no examples of precedent. These are new decisions being made. It's an ever-changing landscape, but in particular, one of the problems—for men and women—is that when they have served, they have served under certain policies. The decisions about their release were decided at that point in time. When the policies change, that doesn't affect them. They're stuck with the old one.

[Michelle Douglas]

Thanks for raising that question. I think it's a great one. I'm going to pick up on what others have said.

Veterans Affairs Canada needs to do a lot more outreach, to put out television ads and some social media. We find that we can put things on Twitter all day, but it's just not reaching the purge survivors who were fired in the 1970s and 1980s and who are aging now and aren't as familiar with social media. They don't know even what services might be provided to them.

It's not only that they think they don't deserve the support, but that they probably think in many cases that they don't qualify for support. Many of us who were purged were fired, often very quickly, with a lot of shame and no sense of any community. In fact, the military pushed people very, very far away. Also, people were so ashamed that they didn't seek comfort in family. They may have been rejected there, too, had the reason for their dismissal and their firing been known to some family members. These people are really alone, and trust is hard to build.

For lesbians—also transwomen—who went through this purging, we didn't even know that we were deemed veterans or that the definition had changed, so people haven't come forward, but we have to find these people. I think that's a duty we owe to these kinds of veterans, and then, if they do make that call, to be super trauma-informed, to be survivor-centred, as was said, to tell them how much they're going to be respected, and to make sure that whoever is receiving them is aware of the history. It's not hard to learn this history. We're doing literally thousands of micro-outreach opportunities.

The other thing I would say is that Veterans Affairs Canada could help us by respectfully connecting survivors of the purge to outside organizations that are bringing peers together and directing them to other resources that might be there. It just gives them a sense that they're not alone, that their privacy can still be respected but that other people with common experiences are around.

Most don't even know that exists. We'd love to find them and just tell them how loved they are, how valued they are and how much we respect their service. This is another kind of woman veteran who is so invisible that they're even sometimes ashamed to come out to other veterans in case they have a really bad experience and are pushed away, for probably the last time.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Blake Richards]

Okay. We're well past the time for this round, but I saw that Ms. Wood had her hand up and was wanting to get a chance to respond.

If you can do so briefly, you may.

[Christine Wood]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To be brief, I just connect so much with what you've all said. I think there's a challenge in finding and reaching our legacy veterans, and a more low-tech approach may be needed to find them, with more visits to smaller places and more advertising on television.

Another group that I believe struggles to self-identify as veterans are people like me who were injured early on in their career. There are some people who are injured in basic training. There are people like me who were severely injured 18 months in. I did not start calling myself a veteran for about five years.... I was absolutely embarrassed to say that I had served, because I left after being assaulted. I felt ashamed that I left, that I gave up. I didn't stay in for 20 years and fight it. I gave up.

I've heard Michelle say this before: I've done more outside of the military to better the military than I ever could have in it.

I'll end there, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Blake Richards]

Thank you.

This concludes the first round of questions. We will now move on to the second.

Ms. Wagantall, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Are you guys okay? Okay. That's great.

I'm in my eighth year on this committee. I have to draw some attention to something here: Your testimony should be the key thing in determining what we recommend and what the government does. What I find is that people come here and share. You need to have the experts, the advisory councils and all of those things, but all of those things should wrap around what is heard here. That is not happening. It needs to happen.

Thank you so much. You guys are amazing.

I want to speak to Donna about the Survivor Perspectives Consulting Group.

I sat up reading it, and going through it and highlighting.... It is remarkable. It is a remarkable approach to dealing specifically with this military sexual trauma issue. I'm going to very quickly read your mission statement. It says, “Social change needs a movement that cannot be mandated with rules and orders. Instead, it needs to be through honest and direct engagement and putting the humanity of our members first.” From what you're saying, you understand the role of the military. It's rules and orders. It's “jump” and “don't jump”. All of a sudden, we are talking about humanity here. You're all assets, in a way.

I loved this comment, which I would like you to respond to: Warrant Officer Carolyn Edwards, who works with you, said, “I liked how the workshop highlights that you can still be a bad-ass warrior and have empathy. Listening with empathy and showing compassion...does not weaken us as soldiers. It strengthens us all to be...better, stronger and a more well-rounded force.”

“Go women”, right? That thinking is totally contrary to that of those who.... As you mention here, you received a CDS commendation for creating this program, then a letter telling you the Canadian Armed Forces leadership “sees no value in institutionalizing [your] training”.

Would you please talk about that?

[Donna Riguidel]

Yes, that was a weird week.

We've continued, obviously. Since I left the military—my last day in uniform was March 30, 2022—we've continued to do training with people who will bring us on board. We've done it for pay and no pay. We're just happy to bring it forward.

It was unfortunate. We were told that because they already have existing CAF training that hits on many of the points, our training wasn't valuable. My response was, “That's the way it was designed.” If it's survivor-centred and trauma-informed, you're going to hit the same messaging. The power of our training is that it's from the perspective of a survivor versus the organization.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

I want to interrupt you for one second; then you can carry on.

You said that none of the leadership from the CPCC's or CDS's offices have taken the training. How do they know what they're talking about?

[Donna Riguidel]

They course-loaded people who have gone back with reports—mostly training development officers. I am not a training development officer. I was a public affairs officer by trade. We created this training with the idea of.... Again, what if being raped didn't have to cost you your career?

When I did my training in this, one of the cases that was obviously being dealt with at the time was the Weinstein scandal in the States. One thing that really hit home for me was this: When they interviewed two reporters from The New York Times, they said the real tragedy regarding people who prey on our young people isn't even the sexual assaults—as bad as they are. It's the fact that those people now feel they've lost their potential. It kills their dreams.

That's what it did for me. It took away my dream of university and everything else. What if it didn't have to cost that? What if we could work on the problem and, hopefully, get it down to be as minimal as we can? The ones we know are out there are better at hiding than we are at finding them. What if that didn't have to mean I'm going to have to hang up my uniform? What if I could be supported, as if I were injured in any other way? I could then return.

We don't have to lose these people. That's what we took it as. That's what we've been doing.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

I appreciate that so much, because I also read in here how, if you deal with things at the beginning and prevent, or at least limit.... However, there are those who need to be weeded out. It's such a rational and reasonable approach.

[Donna Riguidel]

There are, but the beauty of switching it to this is, again...support first. That's what gets more people coming forward, because they don't feel as if everything's going to run without them. They don't feel they're going to lose their position, their course or whatever else. If they feel they have a voice in what's going to happen next, they're more likely to come forward earlier. You don't get 30-year-old legacy cases down the line. You get somebody coming forward early on. We can support them right away and, again, help them come back to full strength.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

You talked about a command-level course. You realized that, depending on where things are in the hierarchy, they need to be programmed differently.

Can I ask what that looks like?

[Donna Riguidel]

The biggest difference between the command level and what we call the baseline training is the scenarios. Other than that, the training is the same.

That was something I ran into, because when I first created a program, I was still in uniform. It was a military-specific program. It was a day long. I was told I needed to create a different one now, for command. I asked why, and they said, “Well, colonels and above, they're not the problem. It's the junior ranks who are the problem. Colonels and above, they can take a half an hour or an hour.” I asked, “Do you want me to tell corporals they've spent eight hours, but a colonel has to spend only an hour?”

I would like to say that response disappeared right around the same time as the CDS, and we had nine other general flag officers fall under allegations. Yes, those complications went away.