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.
Conservative
Leona Alleslev Conservative Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
It's to all of the wise witnesses we are so privileged to have today.
Professor, Canadian Forces College, As an Individual
I referred to it briefly. My training is in psychology, and so I have an understanding of those interpersonal levels.
I would suggest, from an academic perspective, there are certainly individuals from sociology who can apply critical feminist theory, critical race theory, analyze and understand. This is from an academic perspective.
There are women's organizations that have been looking at these issues of sexual harassment and sexual assault in the workplace in multiple organizational contexts. They have perspectives, and years of experience working in this domain, which can be useful.
I would also point out there are civil society organizations that are specifically focused on the experiences of women in the Canadian Armed Forces, such as “It's Just 700”. Those views and perspectives should be heard. They're talking to those who have served or are currently serving. They're hearing about lived experiences.
Conservative
Leona Alleslev Conservative Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
If I could just take a dimension on that. Ultimately, because of a National Defence Act, and ultimately because a military actually is the only organization that has the ability to take a life in aggression, so to speak, and is responsible for the management of violence, all of those civilian organizations, while absolutely important, would not necessarily have the background and expertise of why a military needs to be part of a democracy, but somewhat outside of a democracy, because it has rights and privileges that go beyond what most citizens have. It's those two points, as you said, that we need to address.
Who, specifically, can we speak to where those two things in that context meet?
Professor, Canadian Forces College, As an Individual
I recognize that, however, the issue that we are talking about is interpersonal conduct among members of a team. In that context, there are organizations that understand those dynamics, and as I've suggested, to help us understand the multiple views and perspectives that need to be brought together.
Professor, Department of History, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Queen's Univeristy, As an Individual
For me, the key is a multidisciplinary group that includes many different points of view. Ms. Alleslev's point is very well taken, as you need some people who understand the military culture, because to read some of the documents, it has its own bureaucratic language, and there are codes in there and things that are being said. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand what is being said to each other.
The bottom line is, what gets rewarded gets done. General Vance, between lieutenant-colonel to general, was promoted five times in 10 years, or one promotion every two years. What got rewarded was his operational success, and the forces always put priority on operational success. That would be an interesting debate to have.
Conservative
Leona Alleslev Conservative Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Could you comment, though, on conduct—
Liberal
Liberal
Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
I just have one quick question for Dr. Okros and then I'll share my time.
It's something you said in your opening remarks about the daily things that can undermine identity and a sense of belonging.
I know that we're talking about the very overt and very obvious forms of sexual misconduct, or even sexual violence or sexual assault, but it's really those day-to-day interactions that create culture. It's the small things that happen to people as they go through their work lives.
It's things like an off-colour joke that is said in front of other people in an attempt to humiliate and diminish someone. Then if the woman actually files a complaint, she gets attacked. She's told she doesn't have a sense of humour.
It's even just dismissive and patronizing statements such as, “Well, I believe that you believe that”, or other forms of gendered microaggressions and loaded language. From what you said, the things that people experience every day really form the culture, which then enables the other worse forms of sexual misconduct.
Can you talk a bit about the impact on the women, but also on the institution, of these kinds of microaggressions?
Professor, Canadian Forces College, As an Individual
The extension beyond this is the issue of creating social hierarchies. Every workplace, every group, has social hierarchies of who is the most important down to who is the least important. These are the things that are being policed commonly using sexualized or racialized language and references.
As the honourable member has mentioned, when people put in these snide comments, when women make an observation and are ignored and then their male colleagues say exactly the same thing and are applauded, these are the day-to-day practices that send signals about who's important and valued and who's not.
When people seek to create these hierarchies and police them by rewarding certain individuals based on characteristics and attacking others, that's what starts damaging identity and belonging.
It is important for us to be recognizing it. It isn't unique to the military. What I tried to identify are some facets of the military such as the importance given to normative conformity, obedience to authority, the differentiations of rank and the power differences. These things can accentuate those and make it more difficult.
As I said, these things are essential for operational effectiveness, but they're double-edged swords because they get used against people as well.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
February 26th, 2021 / 2:40 p.m.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Thank you.
I thank the witnesses. You've been very helpful. It has been great to hear your input.
I'll just ask a couple of questions, because the time will run out.
Maybe I'll start with Professor von Hlatky and then go to Professor English.
I think you've convinced us all that culture is the major problem. I would just like some more technical steps, like action plans, that on day one you do this and this.
What exactly do we do now to change the culture that you've all said needs to be changed?
That's my most important question.
Professor von Hlatky, I don't know what your work has been, but at the end of that response, can you tell us whether you've noticed this culture in other organizations?
Professor English, I interested that you had done a study on the history of the military. What was it like way back?
Associate Professor and Director, Centre for International and Defence Policy, Queen's University, As an Individual
I can start and be very quick.
I've tried to outline a few paths forward, because I do think culture manifests itself in things such as leadership and what they say in training, and so on. I tried to identify certain paths through which this can happen.
On the broader point about how you change culture, I think you have to cultivate an awareness and mindfulness of the behaviours that to someone outside might seem unacceptable, but within the organization they're routinized in the day-to-day practices to the extent that they become invisible. This is part of what we're getting at with the idea of culture change. It's to cultivate a sense of self-awareness and group awareness about which behaviours and practices are problematic but have been buried under the guise of normalcy through repeated interactions and day-to-day practices. That's what's important to uncover, and that's where external engagement is especially needed and has been advocated for today.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karen McCrimmon
Thank you.
I'm afraid your time is up, Mr. Bagnell.
Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
This will be my last opportunity to speak. So I want to thank the witnesses for their time. We are truly grateful they have taken the time to answer our questions and to share their expertise in our debates.
My last question is for Ms. von Hlatky.
Professor Hlatky, since the beginning of our meetings, we have often been told that potentially negative measures may be associated with the reporting process—in other words, measures associated with Operation Honour may have reduced the number of reported incidents. We know that Mr. Vance was in charge of that operation.
Do you think those measures exist? What are they?
Associate Professor and Director, Centre for International and Defence Policy, Queen's University, As an Individual
I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I understand the question.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
I apologize. Perhaps it was unclear. Perhaps it was poorly worded.
Measures were implemented under Operation Honour. We saw that reporting decreased.
According to you, of the measures associated with Operation Honour, which ones could have influenced the number of reports?
Associate Professor and Director, Centre for International and Defence Policy, Queen's University, As an Individual
I think that certain measures that were implemented surely encouraged some people to come forward and to participate in the reporting process.
At the same time, the obligation to report puts a strain on victims and survivors, which I think is problematic.
I will reiterate that I truly believe the approach to emphasize is the one where victims and survivors would fully control that process and feel safe. Their needs must be a central concern when that kind of a process is being developed.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
As a woman and an expert in this field, what do you think the Canadian Armed Forces should prioritize when it comes to inappropriate sexual behaviours?