Front Burner - Liberals, Bloc silence military sex assault hearing

Episode Date: April 16, 2021

A parliamentary investigation into sexual misconduct in the military has been shut down, despite three high-ranking members of the Canadian Forces having allegations against them. Today on Front Burner, NDP defence critic Randall Garrison on why he thinks this lets the government off the hook.

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. Hi, I'm Jamie Poisson. The former head of the military, General Jonathan Vance, has been accused of sexual misconduct. The guy who replaced him, Admiral Art McDonald, has been accused of sexual misconduct. The former head of human resources,

the guy who would arguably have been in charge of investigating allegations of sexual misconduct in the military, Vice Admiral Hayden Edmondson, he's been accused of sexual assault. Vance and Edmondson have denied any wrongdoing. McDonald has not commented. Do you see a pattern here? Well, so did a parliamentary investigation looking into it. For weeks, the House of Commons Defence Committee

has been hearing testimony on who knew about these allegations and what or wasn't done about them. But now those hearings have been shut down. Earlier this week, the Liberals and the Bloc voted to turn out the lights before everyone even got a chance to testify. We've reached out to the Department of National Defense multiple times requesting an interview with Defense Minister Harjit Sajjan. He has not been made available, but we will keep trying. These latest developments have a lot of people outraged, including members of the Defense Committee. NDP MP and defense critic Randall Garrison is one of them. And today, my conversation with him.

Hi, Mr. Garrison, thank you for being here. Thanks for your interest in this important topic. So the Liberal Parliamentary Secretary for Defence, Anita Vandenbelt, said that the testimony that the committee has already heard is sufficient, and that shutting down the committee was done to make sure that this report and recommendations from it get to the government before summer recess. And I know that you do not agree with this. And briefly, can you tell me why? Well, what the Liberals have done here is shut down our committee before we've heard from key witnesses that will help us decide who's responsible for the fact that the chief of

defence staff who was accused of sexual misconduct had no investigation into those accusations, even though the military ombudsman found them well-founded, and that he was allowed to stay as the chief of defense staff and, in fact, become the longest-serving chief of defense staff after serious allegations of sexual misconduct against him. In 2018, the ombudsman offered the defense minister evidence of sexual misconduct by his chief of defense staff, but he refused it. Last week, he claimed he didn't know it existed, but clearly he did. His own staff flagged it. So did the minister tell the relevant security services that he knew of potentially compromising evidence against his own chief of defense staff? So we need to know who's responsible for the fact there was no investigation

and why he was allowed to stay for three more years. Okay. And I want to get into that in a little more detail with you in just one moment. But first, on this issue of the report and the recommendations, can I just ask you, do you need a committee to be shut down to issue a report? Like, can't you just issue an interim report and keep the committee running? That would have been another option. But I think the point is that we were very close to the end of our hearings here. We had only a few key witnesses left to hear. And the Liberals obviously did not want us to hear from those witnesses. So that's what they're really doing here. It's not about when the report comes out. It's not about any of the other things they've

tried to allege. It's about the fact that two people that we should have heard from, who were able to shed light on why ministers and the prime minister either acted or did not act will not be appearing before the committee. Okay. And so then I guess let's make our way to those witnesses. I want to better understand some of the key questions and concerns that you still have here. And maybe we could just go through some of the key things, the key moments from the testimonies that we've heard so far. So first, Defense Minister Harjit Sajjan has insisted that when he was presented with an allegation of sexual misconduct against General Jonathan Vance, as you mentioned, in 2018 by then military ombudsman Gary Wahlberg, that he could not look at the evidence. He said he couldn't look

at it for fear of interfering with an investigation. He wanted to make sure the investigation was independent. He did not give me any details. I did not allow him to give me any details. Mr. Garrison, I think a lot of people listening right now hear this anecdote, and they may be thinking that this is odd. The defense minister is in charge of the military. And isn't this what bosses are supposed to do? Look at stuff like this. And so what do you make of the fact that he wouldn't look at the allegation in the first place? Well, I asked him directly to explain to the committee why he wouldn't look. And he simply repeated his excuse that it would have been interfering with an investigation. But in fact, there was no investigation at that point. That is exactly what he was responsible for, is to have a look

at what was presented to him and then make sure an investigation was done. He didn't do that. He refused to look at the evidence that the military armament was brought to him. If you were a defense minister, would you have looked at it? Well, I think there's several things he could have done. If he was really serious, he didn't want to look at it, he could have taken that evidence and he could have conveyed it either to the military police for investigation, if he thought that's where it belonged, or he could have passed that evidence along to the Privy Council office so that they could do an investigation. But once the Minister refused to look at it,

he created a dead end here so that nothing happened. Okay, so my understanding of his testimony is that instead of looking at it, he did actually tell his chief of staff about it. And she told the prime minister's office and the Privy Council's office, which is the office that supports the prime minister and cabinet. And Michael Wernick, who was clerk of the Privy Council's office, said there was, quote, no path forward to launch a full investigation into the allegation. He said that the military ombudsman didn't provide details about the alleged victim due to confidentiality and that there was nowhere for them to go here. So what do you make of that argument? Well, I think we need to go back to the principle that the military ombudsman was protecting here, and that is that he does not proceed with complaints without the consent

of the complainant. And what he was looking for, and what we have been assured the complainant was looking for, was assurance that once this became public knowledge, that there would be protection for the person making the complaint, and that there would be serious action taken. So the complainant never said, I don't ever want to be public. I don't ever want anyone to know about this. What the complainant was asking was that there'd be assurances that this would be taken seriously at the highest level and there wouldn't be repercussions on the complainant and on their career. And those assurances were never given. their career. And those assurances were never given. What other questions do you have that you would like to get to the bottom of here and that you would have liked this committee to have gotten to the bottom of here? Well, the Liberals lectured the committee on the question of

ministerial responsibility and saying their staff couldn't appear. And so I actually agree with them on the ministerial responsibility question. In the Westminster system, there's always a minister responsible. So there was no investigation and General Vance stayed in office. Who's the minister that's responsible for that outcome? And so if we had heard from the Minister of Defence Chief of Staff, she could have told us what information she conveyed to the Prime Minister's office. could have told us what information she conveyed to the prime minister's office. And if we had heard from the staff in the prime minister's office, not the Privy Council office, but the prime minister's office, then we would know whether the prime minister actually knew about this, at what point he knew, and at what degree of detail he knew. And then we'd be able to assign responsibility

for this failure to act. And so the prime minister has said in public that he was not aware of the allegations against Vance until they showed up in the media, right? Well, he has said two different things, and I think that's why it would be important to hear from staff in his office. He has said at one point that he did know, but not details. And at another point that he didn't know until it became public. And so I'm not exactly clear on when he did or when he didn't know. And that's why I thought it was premature to shut down the committee. My office knew there was allegations that were brought forward. We did not know the substance of those allegations until the Global News reporting. Prime Minister, did you know about any allegations of any concerns of sexual misconduct, regardless of the content, in 2018 or before and when you

extended General Vance's term and gave him a raise? No. I also just want to come back to the Defence Minister, Harjit Sajjan, for a minute. What is your overall assessment of how Minister Sajjan has handled this situation? If the Prime Minister didn't know and didn't have the information, then this falls squarely in the lap of the Defence Minister. It was his responsibility to make sure that something happened. And what this is really about, and I think we need to go back to that larger view, is how can women serve equally in the Canadian forces? If they don't trust that the most senior leaders both understand what sexual misconduct is, and they will take action when they're presented with evidence of that sexual misconduct, then the trust is broken. And I think that that lays squarely at the feet of the minister. Okay. I know that you've said that the concept at the

heart of these hearings, the trust that members have in the senior leadership of the military, is one of the most important issues that you've ever dealt with on the defense committee, correct? one of the most important issues that you've ever dealt with on the Defense Committee, correct? That's right. And it is the subject of this study. This study is not about the total response of the military to sexual misconduct. In fact, that study is going on in the Committee on the Status of Women. This study is looking at that very critical question about did senior military leaders understand what sexual misconduct is and were they prepared to take action even against the most senior members of the military? And I suppose it's fair for me to say that this committee was also looking at what

members of the Liberal government knew or didn't know and when they knew and didn't know. Well, that's what we have to find out in order to answer that question about who's actually responsible here. But in the absence of more information, my conclusion is that it must be the Minister of Defence. There have been calls for the Minister of Defence to resign, including from women in the military, or women who were in the military and have been sexually assaulted. Do you agree with those calls? Well, right now, what I've said is that it seems peculiar to me that no one has taken responsibility for the failure to investigate, and no one has apologized for General Vance staying in office three more years. Now, with hindsight, we know that there are multiple accusations of sexual misconduct against General Vance.

And if action had been taken in 2018, some of that might have been prevented. 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 Cups. You know, Mr. Garrison, as someone who's been defense critic since 2015, I know also you represent a riding that's home to many military members. I wonder,

what goes through your head when you think about the fact that three very high-ranking officers in the military have been accused of sexual misconduct? Well, we heard definitely in testimony and committee, and I've heard multiple times, that with Operation Honour, which was the program to try and root out sexual misconduct, rank-and-file members of the military felt there were two different standards. There was one for everyday officers and all those serving in the military, and another and different and looser standard for the military leaders. And that'll never work. That'll never work. We won't be able to root out sexual misconduct unless everybody's held to the same high standard. And just generally, the issue of sexual misconduct, sexual assault in the military, 4,600 individuals have now filed

claims about facing sexual misconduct or gender discrimination in the Canadian military and the Defense Department. This is over the course of decades. But according to the DND in 2018, the most recent year, about 900 individuals reported that they were victims of sexual assault. And so what goes through your head when you hear numbers like that? Well, after we solve this problem of commitment at the highest level, then there's a lot more work to do in figuring out what measures can be taken to root out sexual misconduct in the military. And everybody likes to talk about culture change because it's clear we have a serious problem. But we need to find those measures which will be effective.

Now, one of the obvious things that could have happened here that I am disappointed didn't happen. And that is while there's been some progress in promoting women to senior ranks in the military, this government twice had the chance to appoint senior women, well-qualified women, to be chief of defense staff. And they passed that chance by and continued to appoint the straight white men who have always occupied those positions. At this point, I really believe that sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces is a national embarrassment. Our collective Canadian conscience has been hit hard

by the recent high-profile allegations of inappropriate sexual behavior by our most senior leaders. It is outrageous that two chiefs of defense have faced allegations within weeks of each other. But it's even more outrageous to accept that 1,600 people report a sexual assault on average every year within the CAF. This isn't friendly fire. It's not an accident or an honest mistake. It's rape and it's abuse of authority.

Speaking of, you know, pushing for change, Christine Wood from It's Just 700, the group that led the class action lawsuit against the federal government over sexual violence in the Army, she says that they're exhausted, they definitely desperately want to see action on this issue you know as you mentioned operation honor the campaign that the army came up with to stamp out sexual misconduct is done and and it's being accused of losing all credibility

what do you think needs to happen right now? What I've been focused on is making sure that people at the very top have an understanding of what sexual misconduct is. And sometimes I honestly don't think they do. And secondly, that they're committed to act when those allegations come forward. If that is established, then we have the trust to make those other necessary reforms. But if we proceed again, like in Operation Honour, without that trust in place, then I think the next set of reforms are also doomed to fail. When you say that you don't think the people in charge understand sexual misconduct, can you tell me a little bit more about what you mean by that?

There are some things I can't say here because of the ongoing multiple investigations into General Vance. And I think when people see what happened, or if they look at the evidence that was presented through the media by Major Brennan about the kind of things that went on at senior levels in the Canadian military, they'll not only be disappointed, they'll be disgusted. I think that it's not just me. I'm not alone. The silence keeps us alone, but I'm not alone. I've seen it. I know of women who have difficulties admitting it to themselves, admitting it to other people,

because there's a culpability that you think that maybe you got yourself into that position. And when you're in that situation, you can't get out. It's your boss. I want to talk a little bit more about the decision to stop this committee. I can't help but think that the Liberal government was criticized by the opposition for proroguing Parliament as a way to stop the hearings and the We Charity scandal this summer. And I remember back in 2010, I'm sure you remember this as well, the Harper government was accused of

muzzling parliamentarians by proroguing government at a time when there were a lot of questions about whether Canada knew about the torture of Afghan detainees. There were protests all across the country at the time. And granted, this is not a proroguing of Parliament, but it seems to me, especially compared to the reaction back in 2010, we're not seeing anywhere near the level of outrage related to the stoppage of this committee looking at sexual misconduct allegations in the military. and why do you think that is? Well, to engage in a bit of parliamentary geekery, the difference is that the government had the support of the Bloc Québécois. So they didn't defy parliament, they had the support of

one of the other opposition parties for shutting down this committee, something which I completely fail to understand, as the Bloc members all the way through asked the same kind of questions that I've been asking and the Conservatives have been asking. And even in the day we voted on whether or not to end the committee study, the bloc seemed to be arguing that it shouldn't end, and then suddenly they voted with the government. So I think it's hard to have the same level of outrage because they didn't really break the rules here. They got the bloc to support them. Mr. Garrison, before we go today, I wonder what you might have to say to women in the military who have experienced sexual trauma, who have been victims of sexual assault, who are exacerbated by all of this, who just want to see real change?

Well, that's my goal. And we have to establish that the senior military leaders, as I said, understand and take seriously sexual misconduct. And when we do with that, when we have that understanding, then we can get going on those reforms that women throughout the Canadian military and also other men in the Canadian military are calling for. And I have to say, I believe that there overall is a commitment in the Canadian forces to see the change we need. And the obstacle right now is the senior leadership. Okay, Mr. Garrison, thank you so much. Okay, thanks. All right. So even though the Defence Committee's hearings have been shut down,

as Mr. Garrison briefly mentioned, the Status of Women Committee will continue work on this broader issue. It's conducting a separate investigation into the impact of the sexual misconduct crisis on women in the military. General Jonathan Vance, Admiral Art McDonald, and Vice Admiral Hayden Edmondson are all currently being investigated by the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service. All right, that is all for this week. Front Burner is brought to you by CBC News and CBC Podcast.

The show is produced this week by Elaine Chao, Katie Toth, Imogen Burchard, Ali Janes, Tatiana Furtado, Shannon Higgins, and Simi Bassi. Our sound design was by Derek Vanderwyk and Mackenzie Cameron. Our music is by Joseph Shabison of Boombox Sound. The executive producer of Frontburner is Nick McCabe-Locos. And I'm Jamie Poisson. Thanks so much for listening. We'll talk to you next week.