Stephen Saideman is the Paterson Chair in International Affairs at Carleton University.
On March 30, after retired general and former chief of the defence staff Jonathan Vance pleaded guilty to one count of obstruction of justice in a sexual-misconduct case, a judge ruled that he should not be criminally convicted; instead, Mr. Vance only needs to complete 80 hours of community service.
But while Mr. Vance failed the Canadian Armed Forces and the Canadian public, these problems go deeper than one person. After a year in which a number of high-profile military leaders were suspended or investigated for sexual misconduct, the conclusion of Mr. Vance’s case only reminded us that Canada’s military has a deeper problem: a system that seems to lack the civilian oversight necessary to deter leaders from abusing their power.
Revelations that Mr. Vance had an affair with a subordinate that went on for 20 years was not the only story that came out in 2021, after all. In February, 2021, Global News reported allegations that Mr. Vance had made an unwanted sexual comment to a junior officer in 2012; she shared details of the alleged incident with the civilian National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces Ombudsman. And in March, 2021, the former military ombudsman told the parliamentary defence committee that in 2018, he shared an allegation against Mr. Vance of inappropriate behaviour with then-minister of national defence, Harjit Sajjan; Mr. Sajjan did not appear to use this information to consider whether to retain Mr. Vance, who ultimately served as the head of Canada’s military for longer than any other chief of the defence staff.
In December, 2021, Vice-Admiral Haydn Edmundson was also charged with sexual assault and committing indecent acts. Mr. Vance had named him to the role of Chief of Personnel in 2019, even though the CBC reported that naval colleagues had given Vice-Adm. Edmundson the moniker “Mulligan Man” in the late 1990s after a military investigation cleared him of claims of unwanted sexual comments and inappropriate conduct with subordinates. Yet Mr. Vance chose to appoint him to the senior role anyway, and perhaps more crucially, no one prevented him from doing so – helping to create a sense that an old boys’ network determined who gets to lead in the military.
Data Dive with Nik Nanos: Canadians are losing faith in the country’s most vital institutions
What the Canadian military’s sexual-misconduct apology means to me
These events raised broader questions about how civilians oversee Canada’s armed forces. Some have suggested that the Ombudsman, which reports to the Minister of National Defence, should report directly to Parliament instead. But unless our Parliament’s sense of its role changes, such a shift would be a mistake.
Other countries do have similar offices report directly to their legislatures. In Germany, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Armed Forces is very much an agent of its parliament, as the individual is appointed by the Bundestag and typically is a former member of the Bundestag’s defence committee. But the members of Germany’s defence committee see their role as overseeing Germany’s armed forces. Meanwhile, in Canada, members both past and present of the House of Commons’ defence committee have consistently told me that they see the committee’s job as holding the Minister of Defence to account, rather than monitoring the military. This is a crucial distinction.
That mandate shaped the course of the hearings last year, as the committee mostly worked to figure out what the Prime Minister knew and when he knew it. While this was important, the committee did not spend much effort trying to figure out if Mr. Vance’s personal misconduct might have been related to institutional problems within the Canadian Armed Forces.
The appointment of Anita Anand as Defence Minister – who sees her job as overseeing the armed forces and affirming civilian control – is an important step, but ministers alone are not enough civilian oversight for the armed forces. Because ministers may have conflicting imperatives and may want to protect their party from embarrassment, other actors need to play roles in ensuring that the armed forces are adequately monitored. Here, that role fell to the media. In other democracies, defence committees serve as key players that can compel military officers to answer tough questions. That’s true in other countries with Westminster parliamentary systems too, such as Britain and Australia, where the committees overseeing the military are not controlled by the government of the day.
Former Supreme Court justice Louise Arbour is currently reviewing the Canadian Armed Forces and its culture, and she may very well focus on promotion processes. But while her remit will not include changing how Parliament does its business, that is something we ought to consider. It is clear that the structures of Canadian civil-military relations must change so that powerful officers do not feel like they can act with impunity. Broadening the focus of Canada’s Parliament so that it considers oversight over the armed forces as part of its responsibilities would help spark the institutional changes needed both inside and outside the military.
Keep your Opinions sharp and informed. Get the Opinion newsletter. Sign up today.