Evidence of meeting #17 for National Defence in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was caf.
A video is available from Parliament.
1:35 p.m.
Liberal
Yves Robillard Liberal Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Good afternoon, everyone.
I know that what we are about to discuss is a sensitive topic. So I would like to thank the witnesses for their presence, their time and their service to the country.
My first question is for you, Stéfanie von Hlatky.
As the founder of Women in International Security Canada, can you tell us more about the work you do?
1:35 p.m.
Associate Professor and Director, Centre for International and Defence Policy, Queen's University, As an Individual
Thank you for the question.
I see that you have done your homework. It is true that I founded Women in International Security Canada, or WIIS-Canada, 10 years ago. The organization is dedicated to diversity and to increasing women's representation and participation in the world of international security.
I think that it must be understood in this context and in these discussions that diversity issues are closely related to the military culture issues we are discussing today. We all know that to be a real source of concern for the Canadian Armed Forces. We have seen this in the defence policy statement and we have seen it in the women's representation targets in the Canadian Armed Forces, including the famous percentage of 25.1%, which will apparently not be reached.
In short, I think it is important in this crisis context to double the efforts to increase the representation and integration of women. This is about representation both within the organization and in command positions, which are two important aspects. There is very reliable data on the impact diversity has on organizational performance, and this applies just as much in an organization like the Canadian Armed Forces. Diversity can only contribute to the achievement of objectives related to changing the culture within the Canadian Armed Forces.
WIIS-Canada is also very invested in mentorship, as it is important to provide the necessary support to the women in the Canadian Armed Forces who are experiencing challenges throughout their career. Those mentorship programs must be adapted, and new ones must be designed for the new generation to be strong and participate in the organization's cultural change, instead of promoting a culture of silence where assimilation is often a survival strategy.
1:40 p.m.
Liberal
Yves Robillard Liberal Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Can you tell us more about women's role in defence to move toward that cultural change, given your experience as the founder of Women in International Security Canada?
1:40 p.m.
Associate Professor and Director, Centre for International and Defence Policy, Queen's University, As an Individual
I will begin by saying that we are really focused on the role of women, but that this should not be the limit. I think that focus must also be placed on other under-represented groups. In terms of diversity, I know that the Canadian Armed Forces have invested a lot in the representation of women, but other groups are also under-represented.
So we must continue to gauge progress on that front, and that progress is becoming encouraging because women's representation is increasing with the new generation. I also think that Canada has an important role to play as an international leader in women's representation in senior ranks. This is a great opportunity to showcase that direction for women within the organization, but also to promote networking that comes from the Canadian Armed Forces.
Professional diversity manifests across the entire defence team. In terms of these questions, we must also think about the cooperation dynamic between the civilian and military worlds. So concerning women's participation in the world of defence, our scope must be broadened a bit to think about women's participation both within the Canadian Armed Forces and on the civilian side of that large defence team, which also includes the entire staff of the Department of Defence.
Representation and participation at all levels, both civilian and military, would really help give women in leadership positions the place and visibility they deserve. Perhaps this should have been done earlier, but the crisis period we are going through suggests that it is even more necessary considering the next steps.
1:40 p.m.
Liberal
Yves Robillard Liberal Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Okay.
I would now like to put my second question to Mr. Okros.
Mr. Okros, what kind of a role should the leaders within the chain of command play when it comes to changing the Canadian Armed Forces culture?
1:40 p.m.
Professor, Canadian Forces College, As an Individual
I will start by saying that I believe there is a very strong commitment to do so.
As I mentioned, it's still not clear exactly what parts of the Canadian Armed Forces culture are to be changed and what parts are to remain the same.
I think that clarity would be helpful. I also would suggest that leaders require an expansion in their leadership tool kit to be able to do this more effectively.
When we look externally to other organizations that have put a focus on diversity, they have adopted inclusive strategies. There are approaches to inclusive leadership.
It's why I made the comment about the narratives that some leaders use when they seek to build teams. They don't necessarily use language or phrases that are going to resonate with all members of the team.
I think more support can be given to leaders so they can do what they know they should be doing.
1:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
Thank you very much.
Over to Monsieur Brunelle-Duceppe, s'il vous plaît.
February 26th, 2021 / 1:45 p.m.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I thank all the witnesses who are with us on this beautiful Friday afternoon. We are discussing a very important topic that affects all of us, especially these days.
Ms. von Hlatky, while concluding that the duty to report leads to the under-reporting of inappropriate sexual behaviour, the Office of the Auditor General recommended that the armed forces establish clear guidelines for their members regarding regulations on reporting to the appropriate authorities.
The Operation Honour 2025 strategic campaign plan mentions the publication of a document that is part of the defence administrative orders and directives—“DOAD 9005-1, Sexual Misconduct Response”. That was part of an effort to recognize victims' needs while clarifying the process for reporting sexual misconduct incidents.
Here is what concerns me the most: to what extent does the duty to report lead to the under-reporting of inappropriate sexual behaviour within the armed forces?
Other witnesses may want to answer the question, but I would like to hear your comments on the issue, Ms. von Hlatky.
1:45 p.m.
Associate Professor and Director, Centre for International and Defence Policy, Queen's University, As an Individual
As you may know, I am not in favour of that policy because I truly believe that victims of sexual harassment or assault must have absolute control over the process and trust it.
I will use this opportunity to make another comment on informal procedures. Much is being said about formal reporting procedures, but there are also all sorts of procedures to resolve situations amicably or informally at the lowest level of the organization.
As a researcher on issues related to military staff and the armed forces, I think this is a blind spot for us. According to the statistics, this is a popular strategy, but we have to wonder whether victims of harassment are well served by those statistics.
1:45 p.m.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
You have piqued my curiosity by talking about the lowest level of the organization.
What do you mean?
1:45 p.m.
Associate Professor and Director, Centre for International and Defence Policy, Queen's University, As an Individual
I'm talking about hierarchy and relationships. If an incident occurs, there is an option to resolve disputes informally. It's something that would be raised in a discussion. Formal reporting procedures are often brought up, but informal dynamics also exist. It is more difficult for us, as external researchers, to understand those dynamics.
1:45 p.m.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Thank you very much.
I think Mr. Okros would like to say something about this.
1:45 p.m.
Professor, Canadian Forces College, As an Individual
I would offer that there are two principles that are intentioned in this discussion. One of the principles is legal accountability. Of course, formal investigations and legal accountability do not occur if formal reports are not made. On the other hand, the thing we do know is that on many occasions, individuals would prefer to have issues handled at a more interpersonal level, and not go through formal reporting and formal investigations. It's important for us to recognize these are intentioned.
One of the options that is being adopted in other contexts has been a shift more to a duty to respond. If you were aware of circumstances happening, you would have a responsibility to respond. That could be simply speaking to somebody to ensure they have support, to ensure they know they have gotten the right referrals, and potentially, to encourage them to put in a report. There's a range of ways in which individuals can support each other.
The duty to report, basically, creates a really significant dichotomization. If you recognize and acknowledge that something happened, if you wanted to reach out and support somebody, if an individual wanted to confront an individual simply to say, “What you did was inappropriate, I want an apology. Stop”, the duty to report triggers a requirement to make things formal sooner. It can be a barrier that prevents people from doing some of these more interpersonal interventions which Dr. von Hlatky spoke to.
1:50 p.m.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Since we started holding meetings on the matter, we have heard a lot of talk of culture within the Canadian Armed Forces. We realize that there may be a big issue in that regard.
Given that famous culture within the Canadian Armed Forces, what is the right solution? Could one or several solutions lead to more reporting or to cases being reported better?
Am I wrong in saying that the issue comes, in large part, from the culture within the Canadian Armed Forces?
My questions are for all three witnesses.
1:50 p.m.
Professor, Department of History, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Queen's Univeristy, As an Individual
I've read the latest DAOD 9005-1 on sexual misconduct, and frankly, it's very long. I find parts of it contradicts itself. I was discussing with a colleague the other day about duty to report. On one hand, it would say that you report here, disclose here, and it doesn't get reported. You disclose here, and it does get reported. You disclose here, and it doesn't get reported at first, but maybe it will get reported later on, because someone or a profession has a duty to report.
For your average person, it would be quite complex to figure out exactly what's going on. I know why the DAODs are written the way they are. They're written by lawyers and bureaucrats to cover all the bases. For the average member, it would be quite difficult to decipher that.
Going back to the culture question, that really is the substance of my arguments. In the end, it doesn't really matter how good your rules and regulations are, or how open to reporting you are. If people know, within the culture, that anybody who reports will be ostracized, bullied, harassed, have their career ended, then it doesn't really matter how good and clear your regulations are, or how open you say you are. Many times, many organizations, including the CAF, have said this. That's why it goes back to the fundamental problem of changing the culture.
I have to re-emphasize that my colleagues are a little more optimistic than I am about “The Path to Dignity and Respect”. If it calls for cultural realignment, it's assuming that everything is not so bad. I'm afraid most people have said it is pretty bad. It needs more than realignment. It needs comprehensive change. Until that change happens, it doesn't really matter how many rules and regulations are made about reporting, people aren't going to do it. We've had many reports done on that, and have explained why.
1:55 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Thank you very much.
As indicated by my point of order at the beginning, I do have a problem today, and I think it's a problem that other members of the committee share. These witnesses have many very good ideas I'd like to discuss with them about how we could make progress on attacking the problem of sexual misconduct in the military, but I have doubts, and I believe that members of the public and more importantly members in the Canadian Forces have doubts, about the understanding of this problem at the highest levels and about the commitment to actually making progress at the highest levels.
I think all of the witnesses have made reference to the importance, in one way or another, of leadership buy-in, so I want to ask them whether they believe it's possible to make progress in the face of serious doubts about senior leaders' commitment to and understanding of this process. I'd like to start with Dr. von Hlatky.
1:55 p.m.
Associate Professor and Director, Centre for International and Defence Policy, Queen's University, As an Individual
I think there is probably some doubt when it comes to the understanding and commitment in moments like these. You're right to highlight that. There has been a lot of defensiveness in the past as well in terms of reacting to problems as they arise, and of course, five years ago, that's where we were as well. However, despite these doubts, I don't think we should wait until the next CDS is appointed to take decisive action. The commander of the army has been asked to step up, and there needs to be an immediate call to action and stress on the importance of this crisis-like situation for the people. There are a lot of people in the Canadian Armed Forces, and right now they need to hear from their leaders. The well-being of the Canadian Armed Forces members, victims and survivors especially is paramount. People need leadership in times of crisis. General Eyre is it right now. This is obviously needed from the PM and the defence minister too, but Canadian Armed Forces members will look to their service commanders and CDS to set the tone.
We spoke to deeper change and cultural change, and that's certainly necessary immediately. Sexual misconduct cannot always be put away as a problem to solve on its own. We've tried, all three of us, to really emphasize the connection between military culture and the prevalence of sexual misconduct. Then there are the more immediate questions that have been raised in the last few weeks, and we need to reverse-engineer this problem. The question that needs to be answered immediately is how officers get to the top of the hierarchy while abusing power. How can the incentive structure within the CAF change so that abuses of power are not explained away or covered up by subordinates, peers and senior leaders alike?
I stressed in my opening statement that, in my opinion, abuses of power have not been adequately addressed as part of the Operation Honour journey, and this circumstance should motivate a series of adjustments across the board—from training approaches to communications to leadership to data collection—and should not distract from the broader effort of culture change, which we've all tried to really underscore today.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
1:55 p.m.
Professor, Canadian Forces College, As an Individual
I would just offer that it's important to make a differentiation between commitment and understanding. I would state that I believe leaders at all levels are committed to addressing the issues. As all three of us have commented and has been observed by women's organizations externally, the gap is in the understanding. As I tried to say, it is at one level easy to see or easier to understand why it's difficult to understand it. Again, one of the phrases people use is that it's hard for fish to discover water. It's difficult for people who are completely immersed in a very strong, dominant culture to really understand what that culture is.
Again, I think this is the reason for some of the calls for the assistance of those who have external academic and professional perspectives to bear, to assist senior leaders in understanding the culture and then helping them to figure out what the culture change initiatives can be.
2 p.m.
Professor, Department of History, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Queen's Univeristy, As an Individual
To follow on from that, one of the issues is exactly about what leaders believe. General Thibault made a very perceptive comment, that his lack of belief in Justice Deschamps' conclusions was based in his own personal experience. He didn't see it, and we know from research that this is true, that we form biases and we tend to favour our own personal experience over, for example, academic studies.
However, it goes back to this key point, which is power. Many of the behaviours that go on—and they're not all related to sexual misconduct, as has been pointed out by a number of speakers—are related to maintaining and keeping power. One of the main things you have to do when you want to make comprehensive culture change is to make significant changes in the leadership, and the Canadian Forces has rarely, if ever, been willing to do that. That comes down to oversight.
I'll make the last point very briefly, because it was brought up, about demographics. Until you change the demographics of the forces, get more women in, get more diversity, the experiences are going to remain within this homogeneous group that doesn't really believe in change. I think the leaders have said that.
2 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
Mr. Garrison, go ahead. Ask another question. I'll let you go a little longer.
2 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Okay.
We had last week the very brave, I guess I'll call it testimony, although it was not formal testimony, but public statements by Major Brennan in which she pointed out, I think, what Dr. English just talked about, that it was both sexual misconduct and abuse of power in her case. However, the most disturbing thing to me was her allegation—and let me stress that I do believe that we should believe victims when they speak up in what are very dangerous circumstances for them—that her case was widely known among senior leaders in the military.
When I hear senior leaders saying they take this seriously and they'll make sure there are consequences, and then we hear from victims who say this was widely known and there were clearly no consequences, I find this is a major problem for trying to tackle this.
I would ask Dr. von Hlatky if she has any response to the testimony of Major Brennan.