Evidence of meeting #128 for National Defence in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was recruiting.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
That's perfect. Thank you.
I don't see the white flag just yet, Mr. Chair—
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
4:15 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
4:15 p.m.
Julie Dzerowicz Davenport, Lib.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for your excellent presentations.
I've worked only in male-dominated professions. It's very easy for there to be a co-opting there without really realizing it, a co-opting of thinking. It's very subtle. To what extent are senior leaders or any of your diversity recruiters taking unconscious bias courses? Is that something that happens right now?
4:15 p.m.
RAdm Luc Cassivi
We have some courses across our professional development framework that introduce the concept of bias and bias awareness. We do 360° evaluations at certain levels in the leaders' progression. We also are directing a lot more curation of material through our self-development pillar. We've generated a self-development website with recommended readings, and we encourage people to take the tests that are available online, realize and understand their biases and understand how they impact their decision-making and the people around them. We're not as mature as we could be in that, and we need to do that—
4:15 p.m.
Davenport, Lib.
Excuse me. I have less time than my colleagues.
Do you think it would be a good idea if we encouraged everybody above a particular level to do an unconscious bias training session or course? Do you think it would be helpful?
4:15 p.m.
LGen Charles Lamarre
If I can talk about it for just one second, to carry on with what Admiral Cassivi was saying, we don't have it encouraged across all levels or anything like that. What I can tell you, though, is that we're looking at specific aspects where the bias can be dangerous for us.
For example, our Canadian Forces aptitude test, by which we test every single person trying to come and join the Canadian Armed Forces, is being specifically examined for any aspects of bias right now, because we consider that to be a problem we would like to rectify if it exists. The other aspect of it is that we're looking at all our recruiters within the recruiting system to give them, as part of their training, an awareness of bias so that they themselves don't help to select people out through the use of bias.
I am not familiar with an institutionalization of training everybody on the issue of bias.
4:20 p.m.
Davenport, Lib.
Yes. It's just that I wonder whether that would be helpful in actually changing culture as well.
I'm going to move to the next question, as unfortunately I have very little time.
I've also worked within a large organization where we tried to increase diversity, but senior leaders were incented to do so. Is there any incentivization that actually exists to ensure that we are increasing diversity within the Canadian Armed Forces?
4:20 p.m.
LGen Charles Lamarre
It's called orders. I'm not trying to make light of it, but for us, it's specifically that we've been given the mandate to do those, and it's a mission we take very, very seriously.
We have, first of all, the direction to go forward and do it. That's why we're setting all the conditions I was talking about, why we're doing the research to help us to achieve it and why it is that we want to make sure that we make the necessary changes to the culture and everything else to encourage it. That's the first one.
But much more importantly, it brings me to my first piece. It's the whole aspect of talent. When you're looking at bringing in people to operate the complex systems we have, we just have to go out there and get it. If you're not actually going to look at, for example, getting more female recruits to come in, you're cutting yourself off from 52% of the Canadian population. First of all, we're told to do it, but more importantly it's the talent aspect that's driving it. We're not incentivizing individual people to go and do it, but we are indeed saying that you're going to benefit from what is out there.
The only level at which we formally incentivize is the recruiting level. We go to recruiting centres and we say this is what we want to bring in. The recruiting group is actually assessed as to how they're going to meet the requirements we've identified through an annual military occupational review, the system through which we create our strategic intake plan.
4:20 p.m.
Davenport, Lib.
When did the orders start? Did they start a few years ago? Did they start five years ago? Did they start two years ago?
4:20 p.m.
LGen Charles Lamarre
We've seen various efforts along the way. If you remember, there was a time when military colleges did not have any women in them, and all of a sudden, a decision was made in the early 1980s to include women in the classes. There was some hard slogging, but we're at the point now where it's taken place.
This one in particular, though, to reach the specific figure of 25% by 2026, has come as a result of us having a new “Strong, Secure, Engaged” and the targets that were given to us in that.
4:20 p.m.
Davenport, Lib.
I have just a quick comment, because I think my time is up.
I just find that it goes too slowly even with orders. This is my sense about it. I also was very fortunate to be part of the trip to Mali, and 14.3% of those who are serving there are women. Below the logistics officers, human resources administrator, mobile air movement, nursing, and intelligence officer, everybody was one or two, so there are very few. When I asked why more do not actually apply, the answer was that, well, they didn't meet the requirements.
Anyway, I do think there's probably a need for some sort of incentive. I will wait until maybe another opportunity to ask some other questions.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Stephen Fuhr
There might be an opportunity at the end. There might be some time for that.
February 21st, 2019 / 4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As I'm sure you're aware, Justice Marie Deschamps appeared before this committee on February 7, when she gave us her opinion on Operation Honour as it compares to her original 10 recommendations. She said there's a real disconnect between the intention behind the recommendations and the way they were actually implemented. She recommended a centre for accountability with a lot of responsibility. Operation Honour was created to be a response centre with, in her words, “a tiny bit of responsibility”. So why is there the disconnect between her recommendations and the reality of Operation Honour?
4:20 p.m.
Cmdre Rebecca Patterson
As you know, it is a challenge to grow anything. There is no other institution in Canada that's actually tried to approach sexual misconduct as we have, so her recommendations were welcomed and accepted. We admit that our initial attempts weren't quite where they needed to be. The sexual misconduct response centre, once it was stood up, had to grow. It started off dealing with the most critical issue and it was supporting those victims who were affected by sexual misconduct.
However, we've been very fortunate to have gone through the Auditor General's report, and we once again welcome the recommendations that came out there, but it says, okay, you need to really look at this now. So we really are in what I call a shifting moment, where we have hit a critical mass within the sexual misconduct response centre, and the mandate of the SMRC is in the process of going. In fact, as of now, Dr. Preston is the lead of Operation Honour, and I am in the supporting role of creating the products and the pieces for the institution to make us go forward.
We are getting there. We still have work to do, but we welcome her review and her further comments, and we are acting on them now.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
I see that you are in uniform, and Justice Deschamps specifically wanted an independent response centre. So is that aspect of her recommendation unwilling to be honoured?
4:25 p.m.
Cmdre Rebecca Patterson
That is, in fact, the case, because I am not part of the sexual misconduct response centre, and the sexual misconduct response centre is not within the Canadian Armed Forces. It's sitting within the Department of National Defence. Dr. Preston leads her own team. She sets her own priorities and objectives, and I am there to support her and to help facilitate what needs to be done. So yes, she is in fact independent, and the centre is independent from the Canadian Armed Forces.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
That independence, would that mean there is absolutely no osmosis between the Department of National Defence and the chain of command?
4:25 p.m.
Cmdre Rebecca Patterson
I guess it would depend on what we're referring to, but Dr. Preston is the one who makes the decisions on how victims will be supported. She is the expert in her area of expertise, and provides advice, guidance and direction, using this authoritative voice that you've heard about, to the chain of command, and I then make it happen.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
4:25 p.m.
Cmdre Rebecca Patterson
Yes, to the Canadian Armed Forces.
Dr. Preston will come in and she will say a victim support strategy, for example, in supporting victims. We stand by for her expert input on what that looks like, what they need to do and what we need to do to help make this happen.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Is there a way to look at what her recommendations are and what was actually implemented, if given permission by someone who went through the call centre for help?