Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's my pleasure to provide comments to the committee on the important topic of diversity within the Canadian Armed Forces.
I will make my comments in English.
As background, while serving in the CAF, I started doing research and contributing to policy related to diversity in the early 1980s, and I have continued to conduct diversity research as well as teaching on leadership and diversity at the Canadian Forces College.
Over this period, I have observed the CAF evolve from reluctant implementation of changes in response to external direction to seeking to proactively lead, based on military requirements and social alignment. I see this having occurred through three phases of philosophy and policy.
The first was tolerance and accommodation. The focus was on removing overt barriers and providing individuals with accommodations based on justified needs, and generally, as required under law. This was done, however, with the caveat that it have minimal impact on operational effectiveness. This was best illustrated in the actions taken following the 1989 Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decision on women in combat occupations, to which I contributed.
The second phase was a shift to acceptance and integration. The shift here was the CAF's recognition that those who didn’t fit the dominant norm—specifically women and those from differing cultures, religious beliefs, sexual orientations and gendered identities—deserved the right to serve and the opportunity to progress in a career. These efforts were visible in the evolution of the CAF employment equity plans, updates to military personnel policies and publication of CAF doctrine on the profession of arms and leadership, to which I also contributed.
The challenge in this phase was the fact that efforts to achieve integration were more often experienced by these individuals as assimilation. To fit in and advance, they had to adopt the norms of the dominant group, which was male, straight, Judeo-Christian, culturally white and generally anglophone. Simply put, the others had to adjust to blend in, while the majority did not have to make substantive changes to who they were or how they performed their military duties.
I see the current phase as intended to move to understanding and inclusion. The objective is to enable the CAF to enhance operational effectiveness by drawing on the differing perspectives, world views, cultural knowledge and personal perspectives contained in the rich diversity of Canadian society. I would offer that this intent is admirable and valuable and should be supported. I would also offer that I have not found a private sector organization or a military internationally that is seeking to achieve comparable goals. Amongst NATO nations, Canada serves as the exemplar.
Achieving this objective, however, will not be simple, easy or quick. It represents four significant shifts in military thought and military practice. I’ll describe each with comments on the challenges the CAF faces.
The first is an expansion from the narrow consideration of employment equity-designated groups to a broader recognition of all aspects of diversity. While easy to describe, and supported by Status of Women Canada materials on “GBA+”, or gender-based analysis-plus diversity, it's not easy to live. How do I, as an older, privileged, white male fully understand the perspectives of a young, marginalized woman of colour? Fortunately, there are a host of academics, community organizations and indigenous leaders who are prepared to assist the CAF in coming to fully appreciate what diversity really means and how it is really lived. Efforts to facilitate these dialogues should be encouraged.
The second is to move from an emphasis on conformity to valuing differences. The challenge is that the CAF necessarily engages in formal processes to convert the civilian to the soldier, sailor or aviator. Entry-level socialization is intended to instill the military values, beliefs and identity that the CAF has chosen to impart to all who join, so the question now becomes this: how can diverse Canadians retain the very perspective that the CAF now says it values when they are subject to rather intense pressures to adopt a new military identity and a particular military world view?
The third requires a shift from how the CAF recruits to how the CAF conducts operations. A common statement in the military is the importance of unity of thought, purpose and action. The CAF diversity strategy suggests the retention of unity of purpose—a common end goal that all are committed to achieving—but also to allow different ways of thinking about it and different ways of achieving it. A key issue is consideration of what happens when one of the members of the team says, “Boss, my moral compass is pointing in a different direction.”
The fourth—and, I would suggest, the most important—is the need to shift from a focus on understanding these diverse “others” to understanding “us”. By this, I mean the construction of the ideal service member—the image of the prototype desired and rewarded soldier, sailor, aviator, general, or flag officer. This has implications for military leadership and criteria for promotions, but also requires individuals to reflect on who they are and who they have become.
With these comments on the current context and challenges, I would like to address some specific issues the committee has identified, starting with Operation Honour.
As the committee is aware, General Vance has made his intent very clear, along with his offer to assist those unable to meet CAF standards to find another line of work. His leadership is an essential element of addressing the issues that the CAF—and I would offer, many other organizations across Canada—are facing.
I’ll provide two comments. First, as I discussed with Justice Deschamps when she conducted her review, the fact that those who are on the receiving end of inappropriate behaviour do not formally report it does not mean they do nothing about it. Women in particular have learned how to use CAF informal social systems to send strong messages to others about what is and is not acceptable or welcomed.
Second, I would restate her characterization of the CAF having a sexualized culture to having a masculinist culture. Both men and women can perform their military duties in a masculine manner but, to return to the diversity strategy, the CAF needs to recognize and enable alternate ways of performing military duties and conducting military activities. To be clear, my call is for men in particular to be willing and able to expand their military world view and practices of leadership to embrace what are commonly seen as feminine approaches. This touches on the issue of mission success. Achieving the United Nations' women, peace and security agenda, the Prime Minister’s international assistance policy objectives, the goals under “Strong, Secure, Engaged” and related directives from NATO and the chief of defence staff will require military members to deliver human security at the level of the individual, their family and their community. This starts with empathy and understanding—facets that are typically seen as the strengths of feminists’ perspectives.
This is broader than addressing internal dynamics. The link is that the critical analysis of masculinist practices and perspectives will assist all to be able to better recognize and prevent certain inappropriate behaviours internally within the CAF while also contributing to military mission success when deployed.
I’ll offer three observations on best practices for recruitment and retention.
The first is that we should be talking about belonging and advancement. Those who have been marginalized are not simply asking to be admitted to the military. They're seeking to be recognized as valued members of the team with the opportunity to contribute fully to military success. They wish to advance in rank and responsibility while being recognized for who they are. Doing so requires a comprehensive GBA+ analysis to remove implicit barriers to progression.
The second is that the CAF, along with the public service, needs to shift from a paternalistic approach of deciding to offer a millennial a job, to providing the compelling rationale for why an enthusiastic young Canadian should invest their skills in our enterprise.
Third, drawing on the observations of a talented major who examined this issue, I would offer that the CAF leaders need to shift from speaking about women in the military to talking to women in the military.
Together, these three observations lead to the suggestion that the CAF likely needs to review four key functions.
The first is assessments at recruiting. Of the various factors used to select individuals for enrolment, does the CAF have the right balance?
Second is entry-level socialization: Is the military using the right processes to communicate the right messages to diverse young Canadians about how the profession serves Canada and how they serve in the profession?
Third is leadership. Does the CAF leadership model need to be updated to facilitate more inclusive approaches?
Fourth is education. Is current professional military education delivering the types of learning to achieve understanding and inclusion?
I hope that this important study will assist in enabling the CAF to achieve the desired goals.
Thank you