Front Burner - Defence minister criticized over sexual misconduct ‘inaction’

Episode Date: June 23, 2021

Canada’s military ombudsman Gregory Lick criticizes leaders’ ‘inaction’ on sexual misconduct crisis and demands true independent civilian oversight.

In the Dragon's Den, a simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem. Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization, empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. This is a CBC Podcast. There is a sexual misconduct crisis in the Canadian military. The military knows it. The defence minister knows it. The prime minister knows it. You know it.

And yesterday, the military ombudsman, a key guy in charge of trying to get justice for the victims, well, he tried his best to make sure that everyone knows something has to change. The internal mechanisms that were meant to support those who have suffered misconduct have failed to ensure fair outcomes. They are not just broken. They have collapsed entirely under their own weight. In a blistering news conference and report, he said that the Defence Minister's office tried to, quote,

exert control over his investigations and that independent civilian oversight is needed now. When leaders turn a blind eye to our recommendations and concerns in order to advance political interests and their own self-preservation or career advancement, it is the members of the defence community that suffer these consequences. It is clear that inaction is rewarded far more than action. Today, Canada's military ombudsman Gregory Lick is my guest. Mr. Lick, hello. Thank you so much for making the time to speak with me today.

It's my pleasure, Jamie. Berlich, hello. Thank you so much for making the time to speak with me today. It's my pleasure, Jamie. So this is, of course, a time of immense public and political scrutiny on the military. Over the last four months, we've heard really, really devastating stories about rampant sexual misconduct in the institution. And in your opinion, has the response to this from the very top of the military and the very top of the Department of National Defense been adequate? I think in my opinion, the reason why I was so frustrated this morning during the press conference and during these last four months is that we continue to say we're going to do something. We're going to do another review.

We're going to do another review of a review of a review. We're going to look at, as Justice review of a review. We're going to look at, as Justice Fish has recommended, we want to, we recommend a review of my office and how it can be more independent and the resources and the authorities that might need to do that. And Madame Deschamps recommended an external body in 2015. We continue to say what we're going to do. We don't do what we say we'll do. And that is inappropriate. It's not serving our members. It's not serving the employees of the department very well. It has become a checklist exercise of things we don't do. And when you said today in your press conference that the erratic behavior of leadership defies common sense or reason, is that what you were talking about?

Or are you talking about something else as well? Well, I think that's definitely part of what I'm talking about in terms of and probably the most important part. But we also see that, you know, as different allegations come forward, different processes are used. So we see some people getting moved, we see some people stayed in place, we see it just seems to be inconsistent with the way the due process should work. I want to ask you in particular about the leadership of Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan. You also said in your press conference today that the concept of ministerial accountability has been absent. And why do you say that?

Well, the perfect example was with my predecessor when he brought the allegation forward that's been well reported so far. Minister said, well, I won't look at it. I don't know what it is, but I'll send it off to somebody else to do something about it. Maybe that was appropriate. I don't know. I'm not a military law expert. But what didn't happen, and the reason why everybody is so frustrated and the trust is breaking, is that no action was taken, not even a follow-up, not even a further discussion with my predecessor to say, well, we weren't able to do this, or what else should we do? Nothing happened. It was forgotten about. That is inaction. It is entirely, that is not accountability. That is, and it's not accountability that our members deserve.

And just for our listeners, I'll just note that this allegation that was taken to the minister by the former ombudsman, Gary Walburn, that you're talking about, it was an allegation that was taken to the minister by the former ombudsman Gary Wahlberg that you're talking about, it was an allegation of sexual misconduct against former Chief of Defense Jonathan Vance. And essentially, the minister has been well reported, we've talked about in the show, he said that he didn't, he didn't want to look at it. And it sort of got punted to this very Byzantine bureaucratic process and nothing, nothing came of it. What impact do you believe this kind of response from leadership is having on victims of sexual misconduct who have come forward? Well, I think we're seeing a break in the trust of leadership. And that's happening at all sorts of levels, but particularly with the political and

senior leadership too as well. That trust is breaking. Action needs to be taken now to fix it. I've proposed a part of that action that needs to happen so that we can help rebuild the trust, but the department has a lot to do. We're hearing as we visit bases, we're hearing in our complaint line that since the people are broken in the system, that tells me that the system is not working and the trust is broken. Even the acting chief of defense staff, Lieutenant General Ayers, said the other day, he's seeing cracks in the system. That's telling. That's telling. Although I know that you mentioned today, you were saying that your office and your predecessors have seen these cracks for a very, very long time. That's correct. I want to talk to you a little bit more about the effect that you're seeing on your work and your office's work. So just to be clear here, you report to the Minister of Defense's office.

And as so many people are calling for these big systemic changes in the military in response to the sexual misconduct crisis, do you feel that you have been free and empowered to work towards those changes as the military ombudsman? Well, the reason why I called a press conference was to bring to light a solution, or at least part of a solution that will help rebuild that trust for people that are suffering on both sides of the equation, as I said. The reports on governance in the past have been largely ignored. And so, you know, if they're going to be ignored, what's the point of bringing forward another one? This is a report, this is a paper, it's my position paper to Canadians about what is needed. And they are not recommendations. These are must-haves for an

independent civilian oversight mechanism to work. And I want to flesh that out with you in just one more minute about what you're proposing here. But just for our listeners, I wonder if you could explain how has your work been hindered? Well, certainly there's the small, insidious type of administrative issues that affect our office all the time. And I reported on what in the position paper itself just happened last week, where individuals within public affairs and within the Krishna Research Agency came back to us and said, no, you have to have your investigation questions approved by the department. That is entirely inappropriate and interference in our operation.

Those people were educated, though, about that. This happens all the time. We educate them. That's our role, too, as well. And that has been corrected. But we continually have to push back on that. And in fact, I sent a letter to the Deputy Minister and the Acting Chief of Defence Staff to ask for their support, report it and ask for their support and making sure that people are more aware of what our mandate is. Has Minister Harjit Sajjan interfered with your

work as Ombudsman? Has he tried to exert any control over your work? I haven't seen, in essence, the direct interference that Mr. Walburn saw when he brought the allegation forward, that lack of, basically, lack of action and basically not doing anything. But what I've seen, though, and while it's not, I wouldn't call it direct political interference in what normally people think about, but that lack of action. So I gave a report, a systemic investigation report to the minister, as I'm responsible to do back in December. I didn't get a response that they'd even received it until earlier this June. That's entirely inappropriate.

In fact, the response didn't even have an action plan, whether the recommendations were accepted and this is what we're going to do. Not even that. That's inappropriate. That's lack of accountability. And for me, that inaction is just as bad as direct political interference. Okay. Your report describes a risk of retaliation for performing your oversight function in this current system, that there have been subtle and insidious instances that suggest a pattern of reprisal. And why would your office be subject to reprisal? Well, the why is quite simple, because we bring generally negative issues forward that have a

large negative impact on our constituents, and in fact, on the reputation of the institution. But that's my role. That is my job, and I take it very, very seriously. It is stunning to me that you would face reprisal for just doing your job. And I can imagine that it undermines trust in your independence and your ability to do your job. Yeah, and that's exactly why we want to take away even the ability to do that. sure that all of Parliament, not an individual party that has a vested interest or an individual person who may have a vested interest in the narrative around their department, that they, that all Canadians represented by Parliament hear what we've got to say, and then action is taken.

And just to be clear, this is that must have that you were talking about earlier, right? You're calling for far more independence for your office. You want your office to report to Parliament, not the Department of Defense. Yes. In the Dragon's Den, a simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem. Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization. Empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. Hi, it's Ramit Sethi here. You may have seen my money show on Netflix. I've been talking about money for 20 years. I've talked to millions of people and I have some startling numbers to share with you. Did you know that of the people I speak to,

50% of them do not know their own household income. That's not a typo, 50%. That's because money is confusing. In my new book and podcast, Money for Couples, I help you and your partner create a financial vision together. To listen to this podcast, just search for Money for Couples. Just coming back to Minister Sajjan for a moment, do you think he's capable of fulfilling his role as defense minister responsibly, given the complaints of not one, but now two

ombudsman? Frankly, do you think that he needs to go? Well, that question is really for the prime minister. My personal opinion does not matter in that regard. That is a Prime Ministerial decision, but it's also a decision for Canadians in an election period. fact, it's showing huge, I use the word chasms in my speech, huge cracks. And that trust has to be rebuilt at the political and at the leadership level across the organization. Unless we don't do that, failure is only going to continue. What about the Prime Minister who has stood by him through all of this? What does that say to you? Well, I mean, again, that's a question for the Prime Minister. I can't say one way or the other what his view on it is. I don't know what his personal view is on it other than what he said publicly. But ultimately, ministers need to be accountable for the actions or inactions of their department. Are you disappointed by the

Prime Minister's response to this? Am I disappointed? I'm disappointed in the lack of action. I'm disappointed in the lack of action in terms of dealing with sexual misconduct and other abuses of authority within the department. And this is not just within this department. This is likely within other departments as well. But the institution of the Canadian Armed Forces, because of the hierarchy and the command and control structure that they have, they need to be better served. There needs to be a change in the culture. And they deserve better than no action at all. Not another review, no more studies, stop doing reviews, take action, because people are suffering now. You know, we talked about you needing more independence in your role. What else do you think needs to happen? Well, I think there's the other element. So we've asked for legislation to

give us permanence and ensure we have the authorities, proper authorities for our organization to be independent, have less control by departments, in this case, the Department of National Defense over our operation. But the two main points in terms of authorities that we think are must-haves in terms of doing our job, the ability to escalate it beyond the minister to the prime minister, if necessary, certainly not every complaint that we get, that would not be appropriate because we want to solve them at the lowest level possible.

And ultimately, if the prime minister is not responding, then to parliament. So that ability to escalate it beyond the minister will make ministerial accountability work, I believe. The other element, though, is in mandating a response to our investigations, whether they are systemic investigation reports or whether they're individual complaint investigations. Having a mandated response time set by our organization, probably negotiated with the department, response time set by our organization, probably negotiated with the department, depending on what the particular issue is, that would avoid the long delays that we see in many, many

complaints that we receive. And certainly I'm seeing now in getting a response on our systemic investigation of last December. You know, there's also this talk for the need for a culture change in the military. And I'd like to get your perspective on this, because we've now seen Jonathan Vance, former chief of defense, accused of sexual misconduct. Then his successor, Art McDonald, stepped down because he was accused of sexual misconduct. Then the guy in charge of handling personnel complaints, including allegations of sexual misconduct, leaves because he's accused of sexual misconduct. The second in command of the armed forces recently left after he, along with the head of the Navy, went golfing with Vance, who is under military police investigation. So even if you do get all of this independence and you're able to sort of escalate complaints in the way that you would like to, do you think this organization is actually willing to change,

let alone able? Well, I'm an optimist. I believe they want to change. And I will continue that belief until I'm proved wrong. But if the institution of the Canadian Armed Forces in particular does not have the will to change, then we have failed. And in fact, if they don't, the institution will fail. That is not a good thing. We will have failed military members, we will have failed their families, and that will guarantee failures in the future. I believe, and I believe personally,

that they want to change. We know that culture change in an institution the size of the Armed Forces is a long-term effort. It's going to take quite a bit of effort. It has to start at every level of leadership in terms of courageous people, courageous leaders taking action when necessary, standing up for those that are hurt, standing up for victims, and hurt. Standing up for victims. And making sure people are treated fairly. Everyone deserves to be treated fairly. Even whether they're a perpetrator, an alleged perpetrator, or a victim.

They still, in Canada, require and deserve due process. If I could ask you, Mr. Lick, when you say they want to change, who do you mean by they? Because I do think that people will listen to that and they will still feel like there are just tons of question marks around the top, around the leadership, right? Like, do they actually want to change? And again, I'll just repeat this one more time. The second in command of the armed forces and the head of the Navy recently went golfing with General Vance, who is under military police investigation for sexual misconduct. Yeah. And I, again, I reiterate, I have to believe that they want to change until I'm proven wrong. That's the only way that I think we can all move forward.

As I said, that culture change will take a long time. But I truly believe they want to change. And I will do everything I can in my role to make sure that they're aware of what needs to change. I make recommendations to them to make sure that they understand what we believe needs to change. I will continue in that role until I retire. Okay. Mr. Lick, thank you very much for your time.

You're welcome, Jamie. Thank you very much. Defense Minister Harjit Sajjan responded to Gregory Lick's report in a statement on Tuesday. He said that there hasn't been political interference with the Ombudsman's office and that, quote, I expect he would have alerted me if he felt there was a problem with the relations between our offices. That never happened, unquote. Sajan also said that he's committed to creating an independent and external reporting system that meets the needs of survivors of sexual misconduct in the military. We have requested the defense minister several times for an interview on the show. We will keep trying. That's it for today, though. Thanks again for listening to FrontBurner, and we'll talk to you tomorrow.