Well, first of all, I wouldn't encourage more women to join the CAF at this point. I think that's the wrong goal to have. You have to fix the problem. You can't just add women and stir, which has traditionally been the approach.
One, I think CAF is missing this massive opportunity, which is that the forces are changing in many different ways. The idea that it's brute force and that you're in the trenches like back in World War II.... You want smart people to do diplomacy, to do code breaking, to sit at computers, to do IT work. That is the face of the new military.
You could do an overhaul that says, “The Canadian Armed Forces is changing in a lot ways.” That could be targeting diversity, but it could also target the fact that we're looking for smart people, right? That's what the Canadian Armed Forces is looking for: a more educated military. They could rebrand in that way. I think that would take the focus away from just Operation Honour and we need more women, to “The whole thing is changing and let's do that in an exciting way.”
Secondly, they need to have outsider expertise. People need to report to someone who's not in the chain of command. The new sexual assault centre service is great, but not awesome. I mean, it's not there yet. I think overall, the conversation needs to be had that we're having as a nation, which is, should the CAF be investigating sexual assault within the military system? That's a hard no from me. Again, they don't have the expertise, and we keep allowing them to defer to “We'll figure it out.”
It's external support, external advisers, external experts in to train your folks, external people to deal with your complaints, and then also having a massive conversation about how the military is changing. View that as a positive rather than making the men who will want the system to stay the same feel so threatened. That's where the defensiveness comes from.
They feel like we're taking something away from them by having paternal leave. What does that say about that institution?