Yes, it's a huge question. I don't think I can entirely do justice to it.
Let me interject a couple of things responding to the exchange with Mr. Lick. Obviously, you have to get things in the right order. The Rideau Hall investigation was in 2020, and was not known or could not have have been known or even imagined in 2018 when we were looking at...but it does represent the ability of the PCO to go and do a fact-finder. They're not comparable, as I said, because in the Rideau Hall case, there were multiple complainants and multiple witnesses to interview, which was not the case with General Vance.
I will go back to your question. I spent three years trying to move the culture of the civilian public service, with mixed results. You've dredged up a reminder that in that very month of May 2018, my friend Michael Ferguson, the Auditor General, tabled a report on the pay system, which was quite scathing about the public service and talked about a culture of obedience to ministers. I went to the public accounts committee and sparred with him about the issue and so on.
I'm very aware that changing the culture of a large organization made up of tens of thousands of human beings is not an easy thing and can take time. I think the legislative foundations are important in terms of the incentives and disincentives, consequences and transparency. You have to do a lot of probing and testing of the workplace, through surveys and other mechanisms, to find out the heat map of where the issues are. You have to appoint the right people to the right positions and lead by example. It goes into the training program, the schools, the Royal Military College and so on, so it's a broad and comprehensive thing. Again, I would point to the Wigston report, because it attempts to lay out an architecture for that, and I think you would need that.
In this case, knowing what we know, that the Deschamps report was not enough, that Operation Honour was not enough and that the system seems to have failed this complainant and this issue, we do need to attack the basic software of the legislation here.