Madam Chair, the Conservatives may wish to discuss what's in their motion. I'm going to refer the committee to what I think we should be doing instead of shutting down this process on May 28, as the motion proposes. There are serious gaps and considerations with respect to trust that come from other countries with helpful evidence, helpful research and helpful conclusions that I believe the committee needs to hear.
If we're not having the discussions among ourselves, as we should, I will put some of these considerations forward. They will be helpful to what we should be putting into this report and what Canadian Forces members and the Canadian public really expect us to be doing.
We often look to our friends and allies within the Five Eyes and other jurisdictions. In this case, the United Kingdom has done some very substantial, progressive and quick work on this very issue that is before the committee today.
The report states:
There is a notable perception among external stakeholders that trust in the system [in the United Kingdom] is not as strong as it used to be; over half of the external stakeholders consulted, without prompting, alluded to this sentiment. Some of them considered that units are sweeping issues under the carpet through a 'protect the cap badge' mentality, and for presentational reasons, up to the organisational chain of command.
It requires no further thought to see how relevant these insights are to our considerations here in Canada.
It goes on:
Support organisations suggest more requests for help are being lodged externally rather than through internal support channels, partly due to the association of these organisations with the chain of command, but also as a last resort when the chain of command has failed them. In many cases it was reported to us that victims are afraid to report an issue as they do not believe they will be understood or taken seriously. Cultural differentials play strongly into this space; the chain of command is not normally culturally representative of those under their command, and so people fear—or experience—unconscious bias through issues being considered in a manner which lacks empathy or understanding of the significance of a situation to the person.
Madam Chair, it's a very detailed and human approach by the United Kingdom that's directly relevant to what we should be considering here today.
We've talked at length over sessions of testimony about confidence in the system and the willingness to come forward. In the United Kingdom, the report states:
We heard repeated suggestions of Service people not reporting inappropriate or unacceptable behaviour because of a fear of the consequences of doing so. Similarly, military culture and a rigid hierarchy inhibits bystander intervention and the ability of lower ranks to challenge the behaviours of their seniors. Such fears include the impact on their career prospects; being perceived as a trouble-maker; the issue being placed on their career record; potential consequences on career and home life; the potential that stepping forward would aggravate the situation; a fear of not fitting in; segregation and no longer being treated as a member of the group; not being believed; their concern not being taken seriously; and the chain of command at every level lacking the time to do anything with the issue. Many simply consider that reporting inappropriate behaviour to their chain of command would get them nowhere, a pattern which the Service Complaints Ombudsman has also recognised. The net result suggests a sense of helplessness among some of our people, who either keep quiet or turn to a fully anonymous external service for help.
On the service complaints system in the United Kingdom, the report states:
The 2018 report from the Service Complaints Ombudsman noted the majority of users who did make a Service Complaint were dissatisfied with the time taken to resolve the complaint, and three-quarters considered they had suffered negative consequences as a result of pursuing a formal complaint. Across the Services, only 50% of Service Complaints were closed within the 24-week target, falling significantly short of the 90% target; on average it is currently taking 53 weeks to resolve a bullying, harassment or discrimination Service Complaint
This is in the United Kingdom.
It goes on:
External stakeholders told us our people have lost faith in the Service Complaints system. It is perceived to lack independence from the chain of command at every level, and many of our stakeholders question its ability to be impartial or for people to use it without attracting negative consequences. The Service Complaints Ombudsman has noted in successive annual reports, “…the lack of confidence in the system also continues to be a key issue…and one which requires considerable focus and attention if we are ever to achieve an efficient, effective and fair system.”
The view of the external stakeholder community as reported to us is consistent and clear - the creation of a complaints organisation which allows for anonymous reporting and support for people affected, and external to the Armed Forces would allow people the freedom to make a complaint without the fear of reprisal. We return to this point in Part 3 of the Report.
Sir Michael Wigston goes on. The observation, in this case, was that:
External stakeholders highlight shortcomings in how Defence deals with instances of inappropriate behaviour, the efficacy of the current Service Complaints system especially.
The report then goes to questions of mandatory training within the armed forces. It states the following:
All Services deliver mandated training on diversity, inclusion and values; it is often delivered within a tight timescale and can, in some areas, focus on compliance rather than behaviours and cultural change.
This is directly relevant to Canada, Madam Chair, in the sense that recommendations may well include recommendations for increased training within the Canadian Armed Forces. The British experience tells us what the constraints and shortfalls of such training initiatives may be and how they may be adapted to better serve the purpose of achieving true culture change.
Senior Officers...must attend a one-day course every three years. Feedback from the Defence Academy indicates that the Senior Officer courses are often under subscribed, due to frequent last-minute drop outs and pressure on diaries.
They make a recommendation as follows:
Mandated diversity, inclusion and values training must be prioritised [in the British armed forces], irrespective of rank.
Then, Madam Chair, if you'll indulge me, with respect to additional training in the British Armed Forces, the report says:
...the Armed Forces deliver sessions on behaviours, ethics, culture and inclusion within their command courses, usually during leadership modules. In the best cases, the training becomes more interactive with scenario-based role-play, which carries more impact and is much better received than formal presentations or online training. The Naval Service training approach already reflects significantly greater emphasis on cultural change rather than compliance; the Royal Air Force have similarly implemented behaviours and perceptions workshops for military and civilian personnel. Army analysis also recognises the value of peer-based discursive learning; subject-specific training interventions include: sexual behaviours training by military police; and novel approaches such as ‘Dilemma’ and ‘Respect for Others’ scenario-based training delivered in partnership with trained facilitators. Immersive training approaches such as these are engaging, effective and recognised leading practice. All indications are positive, however there is no established pan-Defence process for measuring the impact of these [training] programmes. There is also a pressing need for training interventions aimed specifically to address the overrepresentation of minority groups, women and junior ranks in the complaints process.
The British Armed Forces report makes three recommendations related to training. They are as follows:
Maximise use of immersive values-based training across Defence.
Defence should investigate causes of overrepresentation of minority groups, women and junior ranks in the complaints process and implement the necessary training interventions as part of an overarching strategy to address the issue.
Defence should develop a process for measuring the impact of culture and behaviours training programmes.
Madam Chair, these are just a few passages from an important section of the report that speaks to trust. Often the reflex on the part of committees such as ours might be to recommend increased training. We need the granularity to figure out what kinds of training programs really are effective in changing the culture, how they are going to be received and how they are going to be evaluated.
In this short intervention, Madam Chair, this is one issue that I wanted to put to the committee for consideration in the recommendations that we hopefully will have the time to elaborate upon in some detail. I'll come back with further thoughts a bit later on, but will leave it there for now.
Thank you, Madam Chair.