Status of Women Committee on May 28th, 2019

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Good morning, and welcome to the 146th meeting of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. Today's meeting is in public.

Today we will continue our study of the treatment of women within the Department of National Defence. For this I am pleased to welcome, as an individual, Professor Alan Okras; and from The WPS Group, we have Kristine St-Pierre, director.

I now turn the floor over to Professor Okros.

You have seven minutes for your opening statement.

[Dr. Alan Okros, As an Individual]

Thank you.

Madam Chair and honourable members,

I'll be giving my statement in English.

I thank you for the opportunity to speak on the important topic of the employment of women in the Canadian Armed Forces. As background, my experience with changes in the employment of women in the CAF started in 1978. I have been conducting research, contributing to policy development, monitoring evolutions and teaching on gender in the military at the Canadian Forces College since.

I interpret that the current study is informed by the objectives of the original royal commission to ensure the full participation of women in all aspects of Canadian society. In this case, it is to set the conditions to enable women to make an optimum contribution to delivering defence and security for Canadians.

I'll start with changes in the CAF over time to inform the current context. Faced with the six recommendations for the CAF in the 1970 royal commission report, the 1970s and 1980s was a period of denial and resistance by many, but not all, in uniform. A number of men could not envision women as able to perform core operational roles. A narrative was constructed that accentuated gender differences. All men could leap a tall building in a single bound; no women could climb a flight of stairs.

While no longer widely held, the focus on male supremacy still echoes in parts of the CAF. The 1990s and the early 2000s saw a shift to grudging tolerance and eventual acceptance but with women constantly on trial. Poor performance by a man could be ignored or excused while that by a women could be met with dismissal. We knew she couldn't cut it.

With the intensive operations conducted in Afghanistan, the Horn of Africa and elsewhere, the evolution since 2005 was seen by many as full acceptance. Women have been there, done that and earned the T-shirt and the medals. This has come, however, with a new narrative that replaced the constructed gender differences with the belief that the CAF is gender neutral. A common phrase is, “I don't see gender. I don't hear accents. I don't see colour. I just see soldiers, and they all compete on a level field”. The CAF is not gender neutral, and the field is not level.

Women have demonstrated very capably that they can perform military roles in ways that earn the respect of their male superiors, peers and subordinates, but most do so by adopting highly masculine behaviours and, for some, masculine world views, attitudes and values. This is no surprise as the military engages in very intentional processes to convert the civilian into the soldier, sailor, aviator, leader, commander. The challenge is that what is produced is highly masculinized. The CAF is just now beginning to ask at what cost.

In what ways are women, men and others prevented from making an optimum contribution when they are socialized into one specific way of thinking and acting?

I'll now turn to Operation Honour and harassment of women with two initial comments. First, I cannot see another organization in Canada or the military internationally doing more than the CAF. The challenge is, it's still not enough. Second, it's complicated. There are a number of reasons why women, some men, LGB individuals and non-binary folk are subject to unwanted and unprofessional behaviours. The efforts you have been briefed on by CAF leaders are all necessary actions, but the CAF has yet to really tackle two key factors.

The first is that the military is a very judgmental profession. Individuals judge each other constantly and for good reason. They want to know that those around them will have their back when the brown stuff hits the rotating object, but this becomes problematic when excuses are made for men who trip in mud puddles but, as you have heard, not for women or other non-conforming people.

Second, as part of this process of constantly judging, the military creates very clear social hierarchies indicating who is the most important and who is the least. CAF is not alone here. The order of seating in committee rooms serves the same purpose. The key issue is that this pecking order is established and policed through the use of social power. Research has clearly demonstrated that many, not all, cases of harassment are about power. Labelling actions as sexual misconduct is misleading.

If I hit you with a shovel, you wouldn't call it gardening.

The challenge for CAF members is to thread the needle where all still have confidence in the capability of their peers—everybody has to measure up—and where those who are given power—some still need power—know how to use it properly, while removing the risk that judgmental assessments and constructed power are used to marginalize women or others who don't fit the hyper-masculine norm.

A number of researchers have suggested that the solution is to amend this norm and allow alternate ways of being seen as an effective military member. This would include shifting from the current focus on normative conformity to practising inclusive leadership.

Finally, I'll return to the comments of General Lawson when Madame Deschamps surprised senior military leaders with her findings. He stated that the CAF had been taking actions and things had been improving since the 1994 Maclean's articles. He was right, but he missed a key point. The expectations of women as to what was and was not acceptable had shifted significantly. We've seen this more broadly in the #MeToo movement. Social expectations will continue to evolve and could result in another sharp break, where tolerated practices suddenly become unacceptable.

This is not just restricted to women. A common phase among young Canadians these days is “check your privilege”. An old phrase among military officers is “RHIP”, which means rank has its privileges. There's a culture clash.

I would conclude that the CAF is going to continue to have to find ways to create the individual and group characteristics needed for operations, while also meeting ongoing evolution in how individuals expect to be treated and how they will expect to be able to contribute to mission success.

I have a short list of recommendations that I will table for the committee's consideration.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Thank you very much.

We're now going to turn it over to Kristine St-Pierre. You have seven minutes.

[Kristine St-Pierre, Director, The WPS Group]

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the committee, and distinguished guests.

Thank you, Alan.

Thank you for inviting me as part of your study on the treatment of women within the Department of National Defence.

I am here on behalf of my organization but also as a member of the steering committee of the Women, Peace and Security Network—Canada.

A few weeks ago I watched a TVO documentary that first aired in September of 2018, on what remains a little-known part of our Canadian history, a campaign waged against the Canadian LGBTQ+ community in an attempt to remove members of this community from public office. Men and women believed to be homosexuals working in the Canadian public service, including the Canadian Forces and the RCMP, were put under surveillance and interrogated. Their privacy was invaded to the highest degree, with their careers ruined and lives destroyed.

Apart from the incredible injustice that was committed to Canadians in Canada, there was something else that I found very powerful in that documentary. All of those affected recounted their time in the Canadian Armed Forces or the RCMP with much pride, “I was a great soldier” or “I was a great police officer.” All of them had signed up willingly for this type of career, wanting to make a difference, wanting to serve their country. All of them knew the sacrifices it would take, and they were physically and mentally ready. What they weren't ready for and what they hadn't signed up for was the pervasive culture of discrimination and harassment they faced, including bullying and abuse, which ultimately forced them out.

While laws have since changed and important progress has been made, as Alan mentioned, let's be very clear: We're not there yet. Many of your guests in the last few weeks have demonstrated this very clearly, including Sandra Perron, Laura Nash and Julie Lalonde. We are forcing out the very people we say we want, at least on paper.

I'd like to offer today a few tangible steps that I believe are key to addressing the problem.

First, I think we need to rethink the education and the training system overall. One of the objectives of the Canadian Armed Forces diversity strategy is to “Inculcate a Culture of Diversity”, which the strategy says, “is to develop the military's organizational culture to be more inclusive and respectful which will demonstrate to Canadian society that the CAF truly values and embraces diversity.” Cultural change is not going to happen with a one-hour online GBA+ training or a one-hour sexual harassment training. Cultural change will happen by ensuring that the principles of equality, diversity and human rights are at the very core of the education that a soldier receives. That needs to be embedded in everything they do and reinforced at every level. It also needs to be complemented by strict zero tolerance policies for any such behaviour and a process for complaints that are properly investigated.

My second point is that I believe we need an honest conversation on the role of the military in the 21st century starting within the CAF. As mentioned, there has been important progress made within DND and the CAF regarding the treatment of women; however, we know that women and men experience their military careers very differently, as we've heard in the past few weeks. That being the case, there is a very real need to have an honest and frank conversation about what it's like to be in the military from these diverse perspectives. We need to hear these very voices, and then we need to analyze the findings and be ready to meaningfully address them. It's about committing to examine the very structures we bring women and other diverse groups into. It's about changing the way that it has always been done.

This takes effective leadership, which is my third point. Effective leadership is one that drives change from within by empowering others to believe in that change.

This is where I think we've been failing. Transformational change towards gender equality and inclusivity requires everyone in the organization to believe in that change from top officials to students at RMC to cadets. This is far from being easy, but in hierarchical institutions bold statements followed by bold actions should go a long way, and they can't just be one person, but many across the organization who become champions and stand up and challenge the “well, we've always done it this way” and are empowered to do so.

To conclude, I truly believe there is a huge opportunity for the Canadian Forces to change its culture and truly be an inclusive place for everyone.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

That's excellent. Thank you very much.

We will now start with our first round of questioning.

I'm going to pass the floor to Bob Bratina for seven minutes.

[Bob Bratina, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Thank you.

Thank you, both, for your very interesting submissions.

First of all, Alan, I'm interested in your comment that the 1970s were a time of denial and resistance. How much history do they teach the military in terms of women in combat? There's a very profound history of women in combat. It seems women are better snipers generally speaking than men. I almost hate to go into the dark issues of war and behaviours, but women have functioned very well in the worst scenarios.

Is that covered at all in the curriculum?

[Dr. Alan Okros]

Neither the history nor the changes, and particularly the legislative changes, are addressed in a systematic way. Individuals can come across it as a result of studies or courses or, commonly, comments from leaders.

[Bob Bratina, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

I go back to another point that Ms. St-Pierre made about how you can't just have a one-hour session of something. It has to be embedded.

The Soviets had three all-female regiments: the mechanics, the pilots, the bomb aimers. There were a couple of exceptions. You needed a tall guy in the tail gun of one type of aircraft so they needed a couple of tall guys, but the rest were virtually all female with remarkable outcomes. I find it hard to believe. Then there are numerous examples in the war for Israel. We could go on and on.

Is there some virtue in filling out the curriculum when people come into the military?

[Dr. Alan Okros]

There are two aspects of this. One is the history. There are places where it is visible. The Canadian military has drawn on the talents of a broad cross-section of Canadians—first nations, indigenous peoples, Japanese Canadians during the Second World War. There are many examples. Some are aware of the different ways in which the military has drawn on the diversity of Canadian society over time, but I'm not sure those examples are as clear to those who are joining.

The other part is I don't think the vast majority of those who are joining the military are aware of the history. You have been hearing some of the history, and some of this is recent history. Some of this goes to, again, the changes after the 1970 report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women, changes after the charter came into effect. Significant changes were implemented within the military. New people are joining the military and encountering a new status quo, but the issues, the challenges and the requirements for changes aren't necessarily being discussed. The concern with it right now is new people are believing that the military is gender neutral because that's the narrative. I think that's the real barrier at the present time.

[Bob Bratina, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Ms. St-Pierre, could you give me more of the background of your organization Women, Peace and Security.

[Kristine St-Pierre]

Yes. Women, Peace and Security is a network of about 70 individuals and organizations formed in 2012. It's a network of volunteers. However, we just incorporated in a non-governmental organization, but we all remain volunteers.

We advise and monitor the government on the National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security, resolution 1325. We've been very active over the years advising the government on the development of its national action plan, working with Global Affairs, DND, RCMP, Status of Women, and going through the first and the second national action plans.

[Bob Bratina, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

You have a particular interest in peacekeeping.

[Kristine St-Pierre]

Yes, I do.

[Bob Bratina, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

We're not going to flip a switch where everything's good tomorrow, but I think the notion of women in peacekeeping might be an excellent opportunity for women in view of the nature of that versus all-out war. What would you say about the peacekeeping issue?

[Kristine St-Pierre]

I think we're still at the same.... In terms of peacekeeping, it's still 95% male-dominated.

[Bob Bratina, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Yes.

[Kristine St-Pierre]

There's been a tremendous effort to raise the number of women as part of the military and as part of the police, but it remains that in order to raise the number of women in peacekeeping, we need to start at home. A big part of the national action plan in Canada....

In terms of the first national action plan, we were very outward-looking: This is what we're going to do in the world when we deploy in other countries. A big part of our advocacy for the second national action plan was to say that we can't just say we're going to do things outward; we have to look internally. In terms of the RCMP and DND, we have to look at our processes. We have to connect the dots in terms of Operation Honour. We have to look at what we're doing internally to make sure that we can have more women as part of the military and then be able to send more women as part of peacekeeping.

[Bob Bratina, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Thank you.

Alan, can you correlate in terms of women in policing and women in the military? A lot of women have been in policing for a lot longer than they've been in the military. Is there crossover data that's useful there?

[Dr. Alan Okros]

I would suggest two perspectives. One is that the challenges that women in policing have faced are the same as the challenges women are facing internally with the Canadian Armed Forces. I worked with the RCMP when they went through their gender and respect program. The internal issues that Kristine pointed out are common.

I think both organizations are still trying to understand the benefits that women and diverse others bring to their core tasks. Again, both put huge pressures on women to conform to predominantly masculine behaviours and masculine norms. That includes ways of thinking in the decision-making, not just the acting. Both organizations, I think, are still trying to figure out how to capitalize on and optimize what women may bring. I don't think either have recognized it yet.

[Bob Bratina, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

We'll now turn the floor over to Ron Liepert for seven minutes.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Professor, I grew up on a farm in Saskatchewan. When I was growing up, my dad would be at the breakfast table and he'd say, “Helen, I need a cup of coffee.” So Helen would bring him a cup of coffee. This went on consistently. Obviously, that culture has changed pretty significantly. I think if I asked my wife to bring me a cup of coffee today, if she actually did she'd dump it over my head.

How has the change in culture mirrored the change in society, or has it been 20 years behind and slowly creeping up? Using my analogy as a comparison from a cultural standpoint, where was the military when I was growing up and where is it today?

[Dr. Alan Okros]

I guess the comment I would make is that I don't think Canadian society is monolithic. Some individuals are more progressive than others, and the same, I think, applies internally within the military. I think there are some individuals, both men and women, who are being very progressive and who are being very open. They are looking at new ways to work together. Some are resistant.

To go back to your analogy, most of the research in Canadian society still points out that women are doing far more unpaid work in the family than men are. This continues to be one of the challenges. When organizations make assumptions that men do not have to spend time looking after family, it puts pressure on them. For example, internally within the Canadian Armed Forces, both men and women can take parental leave with the arrival of a new child. It's an expectation that women will do so. It can be seen for some men as the organizational loyalty test: Where's your loyalty? The data continues to show that new fathers are not taking as much time off as they could. Some of them, after three days, go to open sporting events in the Netherlands.

There are examples being set in society that are sending signals that I think both men and women are grappling with: What is expected of us? What is the role? How much do I put into my career? How much do I put into my family? I think that's a constant challenge still.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Did you want to make a comment, Ms. St-Pierre?

[Kristine St-Pierre]

I fully agree.

With the work that I've done with the RCMP specifically, this is exactly what I hear: “I didn't take paternity leave because I didn't think I could.”