Status of Women Committee on Nov. 27th, 2012

[Karol Wenek]

Madam Chair, I'm not aware of any systemic policy issues. I know the ombudsman has addressed individual complaints and serves as an important neutral third party in assisting us to resolve some of these complaints. I'll ask Tony if he's aware of any policy recommendations.

[Cdr Tony Crewe]

I'm not aware of any either, Madam Chair. We'd have to defer to the ombudsman, who isn't here today, if he has any history of anything that we're not aware of.

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, NDP, Marie-Claude Morin]

You have two minutes left.

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

I just have a further question, gentlemen and ladies.

The committee has heard from experts that the preferred approach to preventing and solving sexual harassment issues in the workplace is to rely as much as possible on alternate dispute resolution, ADR, mechanisms, rather than the more formal grievance and complaints processes. Has the ADR mechanism been widely used within the Canadian Forces?

[Cdr Tony Crewe]

Yes, it has. Since its inception, it has become fairly widely used.

I was just out in the Edmonton area speaking to the army chain of command out there about our integrated conflict management process that we're going through. The army chain of command has fairly well embraced it, to the point where they try to send about 25% of all deploying members on a dispute resolution course prior to deploying. That's not aimed at dispute resolution with the enemy or other international forces that come in, but at dealing with their own folks in a deployed setting.

It has been fairly widely accepted. I can't say that it has been 100% accepted across the board, but there has been good acceptance.

[Karol Wenek]

I would add that conflict resolution is a fundamental leadership and management skill. There are all kinds of conflicts that arise in the workplace, so we see this as an essential basic skill that all leaders must have.

[The Chair, NDP, Marie-Claude Morin]

Thank you, Mr. Wenek.

Ms. Ashton, your time is up. Thank you.

We will now move on to Ms. Sgro, who will have seven minutes.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Welcome to our witnesses. Thank you for coming back.

We all have a few more questions, and we're very pleased to see the kinds of improvements in the armed forces that have come as a result of upheaval that you've all had to face over the years. Significant change has happened, and you're now being referenced as a model for others, so congratulations for the turnaround.

The issue, though, is that I can see all of this working very well within the confines of offices and so on, but when you're in combat zones, I would think that it's a whole different world. As much as you may have all kinds of statements about what's acceptable and what isn't, when you're out in the combat zone areas, which is what most of your service members sign up for, I would suggest, how do you deal with that?

That has to be a much more challenging environment to stay on top of and to ensure that the kinds of things that go on are appropriate in those kinds of atmospheres. How do you deal with those areas?

[Karol Wenek]

Madam Chair, I will provide a general answer, and then I'll defer to my colleagues, who may have had some experience in that kind of environment. I would say that simply because we go into operations or a combat environment doesn't mean that we set aside the rules and regulations that govern the operation of the Canadian Forces.

That's an additional lesson, I think, that we learned in the last 20 years or so, and it's being reinforced with additional training in the law of armed conflict and how we conduct ourselves in operations. Those are mutually supporting orders, directives. Again, they are intended to ensure that the same standards apply at home and abroad, notwithstanding that stresses and pressures might be ratcheted up severalfold.

With that as the sort of general answer, that we apply the same rules and regulations at home and abroad, I'll ask my colleagues if there is anything they can add from their perspectives, either on operations or other dealings.

[Cdr Tony Crewe]

Further to the training that I just mentioned, there was pre-deployment training that some of the staff got before going on deployment to Afghanistan. The comments that were received when troops returned from Afghanistan were that the supervisors who had taken the training were very grateful that they had received the training because, in their words, had they not had that level of training in dealing with their own personnel prior to departure, it would not have allowed them to have achieved their mission as successfully.

When you're in a theatre of operations, the troops have to be able to depend on each other and trust that each one of them is going to do the job they are tasked to do. They must have that reliability, and the supervisors have to be able to make sure that there are no interpersonal tensions. As I said, the comments we got back were that it was very useful training for the supervisors to take for dealing with their own personnel in theatre.

[LCol Mark Gendron, Director of Law Military Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, Department of National Defence]

I would say, having deployed on two tours of Bosnia and nine and a half months in Afghanistan, that the regulations, particularly the Queen's regulations and orders and the code of service discipline, continue to apply, and the expectation is that they will continue to be applied by the chain of command.

I would also assert that this gives, at one end of the spectrum, the resources necessary to a commander to effect discipline. On the administrative side, there are always administrative entities and structures in place that allow for resolution.

I might assert that formal ADR processes are not always conducive, but certainly the expectations in terms of what is applied—sexual harassment guidelines, all of those things—remain extant and are necessary for effective discipline on any deployment.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Is there still a statement that says when you're in combat you're not allowed to get into a relationship? I think there was something in the newspaper about two years ago about a commander having a relationship with one of his subordinates. I'm talking about a mutual relationship. There was discussion about what the rules were.

[LCol Mark Gendron]

Without getting into the details of any given case—

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Yes, of course.

[LCol Mark Gendron]

—which would not be appropriate, I would assert that every mission has its series of task force standing orders, which have often the regulations or the direction regarding relationships. There are also general provisions outlined within the DAODs as well as the QR&Os. It's very fact driven and it's very circumstantial. My understanding is that those task force standing orders in Afghanistan in particular are still in place.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

It sounds like all of the policies and everything are put in place; it's just that this is human behaviour, and we always have to accept that we are humans. You can put down all the rules—we've been hearing about all kinds of great policies and rules and regulations—but it is human behaviour that is there, without question.

I think a change in the culture, which is what I think we're talking about in the RCMP, is about leadership in so many different areas of establishing what is acceptable and what isn't. I'm pleased to know that you're working on trying to ensure that happens, always recognizing that we are human and that none of us is perfect, any more than any of your men and women who work in your service are.

I had some questions for the ombudsman last week, but we left him, and now he isn't here this week. If I could, I'll ask you. My understanding is he had some recommendations that he felt would strengthen Bill C-15. Is anyone aware of what some of those recommendations might be that would strengthen Bill C-15?

[The Chair, NDP, Marie-Claude Morin]

Very quickly, please.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Maybe someone could inquire and come back to the committee with some suggestions.

[The Chair, NDP, Marie-Claude Morin]

I am sorry, Ms. Sgro, but your time is up.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, NDP, Marie-Claude Morin]

We will now move on to Ms. James.

Ms. James, you have five minutes.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

To our witnesses, welcome back.

I'm actually going to follow up on a question that Ms. Sgro asked you regarding personal relationships. I noticed in your speaking notes words from the last meeting. You talked about “a policy regulating personal relationships and fraternization”. When I hear the word “regulating”, does that mean it's allowed or disallowed, and is it rank specific? Could you define the difference between what you mean by “fraternization” and “a personal relationship”? I think I know the latter, but what does “fraternization” really encompass?

[Karol Wenek]

Yes, Madam Chair.

In fact, I'll quote directly from the policy. The policy is our defence administrative order and directive 5019-1: “Personal Relationships and Fraternization”. Fraternization is defined as follows: “Any relationship between a C[anadian] F[orces] member and a person from an enemy or belligerent force, or a CF member and a local inhabitant within a theatre of operations where CF members are deployed”. It's not internal relationships. A personal relationship is defined as follows: “An emotional, romantic, sexual or family relationship, including marriage or a common-law partnership or civil union, between two C[anadian] F[orces] members, or a CF member and a DND employee or contractor, or member of an allied force”.

Basically what the policy acknowledges is the right of individuals to form personal relationships in the workplace. We don't dispute that. But there are certain operating circumstances in which that might compromise fairness in the workplace. It might compromise the integrity of the chain of command. In those circumstances, we're saying that people who want to enter into that kind of relationship have to declare it so appropriate measures can be taken to ensure that neither of those issues is adversely affected.

For example, we disallow personal relationships between trainers and trainees. It's too easy for a person in a position of authority to exploit, for example, a new recruit and take advantage of him or her in some way. There are no personal relationships permitted in that kind of circumstance.

Similarly, in a theatre of operations, the commander has to determine to what extent—and this is the operational commander—he or she will allow the expression of personal relationships within that theatre of operations. In other words, if there's a risk of compromising the mission and fairness to other members of the organization, his or her judgment will prevail.

Would you like to add to that, Mark?

[LCol Mark Gendron]

No.