Madam Chair, thank you very much.
Thank you for the opportunity for a second intervention.
Following Mr. Garrison, I think it's quite clear that the motion on the floor at the moment is reflective of the fact—or the discussion around it is reflective of the fact—that members have a different view of what the work actually is. It's not a 180-degree opposite view. It's the view that some members think this is really about one or two key cases and solving them and the accountability that flows from that, notably the case against the former chief of the defence staff, and that is important, but, Madam Chair, there are others on the committee who take the view that this is broader.
This is about this case, but also about the systemic problem, the cultural problem, that permits harmful sexual misconduct to continue at a time when it has been an urgent issue for a number of years now. I've made a point that the fact that it exists elsewhere amplifies the importance of the work this committee needs to do, not just to establish accountability on the one case of the former chief of the defence staff, but also to make those kinds of recommendations that in other countries are now precipitating the kinds of changes that we need urgently to implement here in Canada.
I've argued that to do that we need to get to the same side of the table. We all need to be lined up against the problem—focused on the problem, not focused on the politics. For that reason, I took the view earlier today that this committee really should be seen as a vehicle for a much less partisan discussion than what typically takes place—in the minds of many, quite appropriately—in the House of Commons.
I outlined three reasons earlier why I think it is important that we look at what is going on elsewhere in the world, and I'll repeat them just briefly in light of the most recent intervention.
The first reason is that it really shows us the breadth of the problem as a systemic issue, not just in Canada but across a number of militaries, including two militaries I will refer to that we're working extremely closely with. One is the U.K., which I've completed interventions on. The other is New Zealand, which is part of the Five Eyes. We are engaged very closely on matters of security and defence with New Zealand. New Zealand has done some remarkable work that I will introduce to the committee in a few minutes.
The second reason is to encourage members of the committee to move ahead, to get to the same side of the table and to do the work that has been done elsewhere. We can do this in the course of a few minutes by agreeing to let the parliamentary process inside a committee like it's normally structured take its course, and by coming up with recommendations that are actually helpful and will move us forward. This is in the collective hands of the committee to achieve as early as right now.
The third reason, Madam Chair, is that the substance of the conclusions, recommendations and insights from our friends and allies are important. I think colleagues have listened attentively and will realize that the granularity of recommendations, the relevance of recommendations and also the review processes and the tweaking of recommendations inside a very short period are useful to the committee and are most directly relevant to the discussion that's in front of us.
With that, Madam Chair, I will take a few moments, if I could, to introduce the work that has been done in New Zealand.
In New Zealand also, the work started very recently, in 2019. In that year, the Ministry of Defence in New Zealand commissioned an assessment of the New Zealand Defence Force's progress against what they call Operation Respect. We have Operation Honour here in Canada. Operation Respect is a similar program in New Zealand. There's an exercise to measure how effective the recommendations in that operation were.
This was an organization-wide program that was initially introduced to eliminate harmful and inappropriate sexual behaviours in the New Zealand Defence Forces and improve the culture of dignity and respect. You'll see in a moment, Madam Chair, why this is so relevant to the work that has been going on in Canada.
The program review states the following:
The [New Zealand Defence Force] planned to first focus on creating a new system for responding to inappropriate sexual behaviour, before taking a proactive and systematic approach to changing its culture. Launched in March 2016 by the then Chief of Defence Force, Lieutenant-General Tim Keating, the programme was based upon the Canadian Armed Forces' approach to addressing the same issue.
The reference implicitly here is that it's related to the Deschamps report, which was brought forward at that time.
It continues:
It is important to note that other Five Eyes nations, including Canada, continue to grapple with the complex and difficult challenge of eliminating inappropriate and harmful sexual behaviours in their armed forces. They are also inviting independent reviews and face ongoing scrutiny over their cultural reform efforts.
As required by our Terms of Reference, this is a report of both NZDF's progress against its own Action Plan and an assessment of whether the work is positioned for future success. We assessed the outcomes and impacts of the Operation Respect programme through a strong qualitative approach, given the lack of suitably robust quantitative data and baseline measures.
From August 2019 to February 2020, we conducted an extensive documentation and data review, made base and camp visits, conducted one-on-one interviews and focus groups, and received written submissions. We also sought the experiences and views of independent and external experts who have led previous and concurrently running reviews of the NZDF. We spoke to more than 400 past and present members of the NZDF who shared their personal stories and experiences of their lives and careers. NZDF's subject matter experts were consulted throughout the review process.
I will quickly interject here. As I said earlier, when we look at policy recommendations, reports, conclusions and reviews thereof, this sometimes takes the form of rather bureaucratic and not necessarily engaging language. However, behind every one of these recommendations there are conversations with victims and survivors in those two jurisdictions. There's an incredibly important human element there, as there is in Canada, that is really driving the reform efforts among our allies, as much as they're driving our efforts at this committee here at home.
To continue, the report says:
We heard that many enlist for the exciting and interesting careers, travel opportunities, professional and leadership development opportunities on offer. Many told us that they have never worked in any other workplace or profession, have had long and satisfying careers, and are proud to be in service to their country. Unfortunately, some also reported experiencing harmful and inappropriate behaviours, including discrimination, harassment, bullying or sexual violence.
Early in our process it became substantively clear that while some progress is being made, we identified a number of recurring, problematic themes about the real challenges that stand in the way of Operation Respect's success. We identified three fundamental challenges:
1. There is a lack of transparency and accountability of the NZDF's progress in addressing and preventing the harm that continues to be experienced as a result of sexual violence and/or discrimination, bullying and harassment.
2. A 'code of silence' prevails and many personnel will not raise a complaint or report serious issues such as sexual violence because they fear the repercussions and do not trust the NZDF processes and systems.
3. The culture of military discipline and command makes it difficult for personnel to raise concerns or speak out against the behaviour or decisions made by their immediate manager or others more senior in the hierarchy.
This report reflects our assessment that unless these [challenges] are addressed, Operation Respect is not well-positioned to succeed in enabling a 'culture of dignity and respect'.
Members of the committee can see how directly relevant these insights and conclusions are, and how much they reinforce the assessment of experts and victims who have come before the committee in the past few weeks and months.
The report continues:
It is clear that this work continues to be critical. The risk or costs of not acting are high for the individuals impacted, the teams in which they work, and to the organisation's effectiveness and reputation. It is imperative that the New Zealand public has trust in the NZDF and a measure of that may be that its people work in an internal environment free from unnecessary harm.
We commend the NZDF for taking the lead to tackle the problem. They have laid the foundations of a positive and ambitious programme of culture change. In 2016, the Sexual Assault Response Team (SART) was stood up along with a two-track disclosure process. This enabled a victim of sexual assault to confidentially access support services, and to do so without notification to command (which would initiate a formal investigation into the incident under the Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971 and the Manual of Armed Forces Law); or without notification to the NZ Police.
These were both significant steps forward, and along with the Sexual Ethics and Responsible Relationships (SERR) training, are the most effective elements of the Operation Respect Programme.
In looking for ways for leadership to build on these important foundations, and to tackle the cultural barriers, we came across the 2010 inquiry by Auditor General Lyn Provost into New Zealand Defence Force payments to officers seconded to the United Nations. It found many of the same cultural issues we evidenced in this report, albeit framed up in a different context (fraud/improperly claiming allowances). The issues around speaking up and its impact on culture was identified as a problem then, meaning this is a legacy issue for leadership.
Culture change within organisations is challenging and takes time. In this context it is essential to hear the voices of the people, even if the messages are hard to hear. Using this knowledge will be vital to the future success of Operation Respect in achieving the kind of organisation to which the NZDF aspires to.
The NZDF itself told us that their traditions, training and lifestyle builds strong allegiances within tight teams. It also said that in no way does this excuse harmful behaviours. It also helps explain why their people may be unwilling to risk team allegiance by reporting harmful behaviours thereby placing the magnitude of the Operation Respect challenge in context. This also indicates a pressing need for safe independent channels for people to use that does not compromise this team allegiance.
We encourage leadership to take the opportunities presented in the recommendations to build greater trust and a stronger system to deal with complaints of harmful behaviours and in particular in dealing with sexual violence.
Our conclusions from this process are that the most significant changes the NZDF could make to build more trust in its organisation and its processes, and make a difference for its people and the victims of harmful behaviours, in particular in dealing with sexual violence are:
1. To be transparent and accountable by engaging independent oversight and monitoring of progress by a trusted body/entity such as the Auditor-General.
2. Provide a trusted external and independent complaints channel (like that offered by the Defence Ombudsman in Australia) to receive, investigate and remedy cases of harmful behaviour and sexual violence.
3. Actively promote the 'Safe to Talk' helpline as an external and independent support channel for victims of sexual harm.
4. Create a comprehensive and integrated data management system to assess progress against clear outcomes measures and report on complaints—