Status of Women Committee on April 13th, 2021

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I was very interested in what you said in your remarks about what is a good soldier, a good sailor or a good aviator. What makes a good leader or a good commander? What are the characteristics and traits? That goes to how we define things like strength and bravery.

We hear too often things like, “Well, you know, he's womanizer, but he's a good soldier.” You cannot be both of those things. How do you make a culture where the characteristics that define the good soldier cannot include, are exclusive of, things like the kinds of behaviours we're talking about?

[Dr. Alan Okros]

If I can start with that one, I would point out—and both Dr. English and I are quite familiar with the volume on “Duty with Honour”—that there was a conscious reason why the word “honour” was connected in there. The concept there is that it's not sufficient to get the job done, that it's not sufficient to do your duty. You must do it in a way that earns honour. I think that in some parts of the CAF, unfortunately, that message has been disconnected.

I think the emphasis, the recognition.... The CAF serves Canadians and, at the end of the day, it's Canadians who have to be looking at their military with pride. I think that one of things this committee and Parliament as a whole can do is help to express the will of Canadians in terms of what they are expecting from their military, and I believe Canadians expect their military to earn honour. That is one of the key messages I would want to communicate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Ms. Larouche, you now have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Once again, I want to thank the two witnesses for appearing. It's very interesting to hear the point of view of historians on the issue of assault within the Canadian Armed Forces.

Mr. Okros, you talked about militarized masculinity. Can you elaborate on that phenomenon? What is your opinion of militarized masculinity?

[Dr. Alan Okros]

As we know, masculinities and patriarchy are ways in which many societies operate, and they create systems and structures that privilege men and cause challenges and problems for, and discrimination against, women.

As to the reference to militarized masculinities, this is practised in very significant ways within a military context. Again, it goes to the things we've been talking about: the construction of the prototype ideal soldier, the way in which leadership and command are exercised and the way in which power and privilege are accrued and practised. These things are different and unique in a military context. What the extensive literature in this domain tells us is that we need to challenge them. We need to have fundamental changes, and that starts with making sure those who have been accruing these privileges earn self-insight and self-understanding about who they have become and how that has influenced them and the way they see the world.

My last quick comment is that the military is one of the least self-reflective professions of all. In many other professions—medicine, certainly organized religion and others—practitioners are constantly encouraged to reflect on how their professional practice influences how they see the world. That would be a helpful thing for the military to engage in, in a fairly systematic way.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Okros, in your opening remarks, you talked about equal opportunity and 12 factors that increase the risk of workplace harassment. How do those 12 factors reduce equal opportunities to the detriment of women within the Canadian Armed Forces? Why is it more difficult for a woman to feel protected?

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

We will now go to Ms. Mathyssen for two and a half minutes.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Professor Okros, I didn't have a chance to hear from you on my previous question about the different forms of leadership—the formal versus the informal—and what we need to see. You have done an incredibly wonderful job of outlining the different privileges and the powers. I think it's a bit ironic that an institution of privilege and power like Parliament is trying to investigate on the military, so that it can get better at its responsibilities. Could you talk about the leadership that's required from bottom to top?

I mentioned, as did my colleague Ms. Sahota, the requirement of political leadership as well.

[Dr. Alan Okros]

I will speak to two parts.

When I was in uniform, I was responsible for the team that developed the current leadership doctrine, so I know it quite well. It was developed in 2003-04. At the time, we did seek to inform it using gender perspectives and gender understanding, but I will say it's incomplete.

If we look at the leadership literature these days, work has been done on authentic leadership, inclusive leadership, character-based leadership and understanding the gendered nature of differences in leadership, both in how leadership is enacted and in how diverse people respond to leadership. A lot of work can be done in those domains, and quite honestly, I think this applies to those who occupy senior offices and hold the privilege of serving in public offices. There should be updates and changes. We have traditions that continue to get repeated.

The last quick comment I'll make is that most of us learn how to exercise leadership by watching people do it as we are developing in our careers. When the only role models you can see are men performing highly masculine forms of leadership, it's no surprise that both men and women growing up in that system replicate those models of leadership.

I think the Canadian Armed Forces is working very diligently to develop and promote not only women leaders but those who lead in different ways. I think that's an important thing that needs more attention and more work.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

That's excellent.

Now we'll go to Ms. Shin for five minutes.

[Nelly Shin, Conservative, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to both witnesses for joining us today. As a former English teacher, I really appreciate the way you're approaching this issue.

Throughout the questioning in my committee, and also observing what's been happening with the defence committee.... As you know or you may not know, the Liberals have shut down further discussion in the defence committee, and that is concerning to me.

What I want to address with you both today is that we're having these conversations because there's obviously a cultural problem that is retraumatizing women and others who are vulnerable in these kinds of settings. There has been no shift, and I'm glad you're talking about cultural shift and how that really happens on the unofficial culture side.

When I was speaking to the Minister of National Defence in a previous meeting, I kept coming back to how there can be a cultural shift if there's a lack of honesty and owning up to responsibility. I think there's an opportunity here as we're having these very important discussions. It's like when a person has cancer and they go through surgery and that cancer is removed, that tumour is removed, and they're sewn back up. That cancer is removed so they have a better chance of survival.

When these things are being aired out and exposed, there's no point in having these discussions if that tumour won't be removed and this thing gets sewn back up. That cycle won't be broken, so I think there are many opportunities here for the parties who are responsible for this to own up.

I know that, as historians, you study history so that we don't repeat history. That's part of the value of studying history, I think, so that the culture today doesn't repeat that.

Can you speak about what it might look like for the leadership of this country, whether it's the defence minister or the Prime Minister, on how could they be more responsible in this process to humble themselves to break this cycle and bring that cultural shift right from the top?

That's for both of you. Thank you.

[Dr. Allan English]

I was going to defer to the behavioural scientist because, as a historian, it sounds like current affairs to me.

The metaphor I would use is, if you have a malaria outbreak, it's fine to treat the victims of malaria, but until you drain the swamp and clear away the mosquitoes, you're going to keep having to deal with the problem. I think this is the problem that's happened with Operation Honour and its predecessors. They haven't gotten rid of the cause of the bad behaviour and, until that's done, not much is going to change.

Thanks.

[Dr. Alan Okros]

The only comment that I think I would make about that is that I've heard a couple of witnesses here and in other committees making assertions or allegations of assuming blame in the middle of something that has yet to be finalized and decided on. I would suggest that it's important for people to be aware of the importance of making sure that, for example, in the present time, investigations are completed.

Realistically, as others have said—and It's Just 700 said, I think, with the communication that they sent out—that what members of the Canadian Armed Forces are looking for is for Parliament to provide some advice and some direction on what Canadians are expecting from their Canadian Armed Forces. I think we're all looking forward to the results in the reports that will be submitted by both committees, because the military can benefit from informed guidance, and hopefully the committee can produce that.

[Nelly Shin, Conservative, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you.

Do I have time for another question?

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

You have 30 seconds.

[Nelly Shin, Conservative, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Very quickly, what would educating those who are engaging in that sort of toxic masculinity culture...? How could they be taught to understand the trauma that a woman goes through so they don't repeat these kinds of offences?

[Dr. Alan Okros]

Very briefly again, there was a reference previously. General Eyre has referred to the listening phase, and I'll disagree with my colleague slightly. It started last summer as the Black Lives Matter movement went forward. I think senior leaders have recognized that they have not been hearing diverse voices and that they've not been hearing the experiences of many members across the military.

I know they are seeking now to reach out and listen to them, including the defence women's advisory organization and others, and I think more work needs to be done to ensure that there's a constant mechanism for voices, so that senior leaders can hear particularly from those who don't have power in the institution. That would be a critical thing to ensure, so that going forward they don't get disconnected from what some people are experiencing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Ms. Vandenbeld, go ahead for the last five minutes.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Thank you very much.

Dr. Okros, I'm very glad you talked about the kinds of conversations that are happening right now—the consultations, the advisory groups and the consultations with survivors and those impacted at the highest levels. I know that, from the beginning, Operation Honour was just a starting point. It's a constantly evolving series of things, including recently “The Path to Dignity and Respect”, on culture change.

We heard earlier today about Bill C-77, which implements a victim's declaration of rights. We also heard about a review of all of the unfounded sexual misconduct cases that have gone forward and a number of different things, not the least of which, of course, is the advisory panel that the minister has just put together to look at racism, discrimination, sexism and any other form of discrimination and bias.

Dr. Okros, how important is it that this is a constantly evolving way of finding solutions? I know we've heard that the minister is completely open to finding other solutions and other processes, and in fact to the recommendations from this committee, from the more than 30 witnesses and 25 hours we had in the study, and the defence committee. How important is it that this is a constantly evolving process?

[Dr. Alan Okros]

I have two comments.

First of all, I definitely agree that it is important, and I definitely agree on the evolving. One of the challenges of Operation Honour was that there was an end state. There is no end state to the way in which Canadian society has continued to evolve and, therefore, to how the Canadian Armed Forces has to continually evolve. I think these will be valuable and required processes going forward.

The other comment I would make is that, while there are efforts to reach out, again, we need to understand the consequences of military sexual trauma. We need to understand that there are still individuals who are not able or willing or in a position to come forward and speak. I think part of this needs to be reaching out to the organizations and to the colleagues they are willing to talk to, in order to have individuals bring their voices forward.

The last quick comment I will make is that we need to be very careful about people speaking for others. I cannot speak for members of the armed forces, and I definitely cannot speak for women. I think we have concerns when people choose to speak for other groups.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

There's a lot of focus right now on the really overt sexual violence, the prominent cases, but how much of this goes down to what you talked about in terms of the signals people give to one another about power and how they diminish using language? I've seen it here in politics as well, where people will refer to me in the media or in public by my first name rather than than by my title.

In what way do we need to address those kinds of signals, those subconscious ways of indicating or diminishing somebody's status, in order to be able to get to the point where we're preventing all of this kind of behaviour in the first place?

[Dr. Alan Okros]

Again, I would make two quick comments.

This is part of self-insight and self-understanding. I think the more we can do to facilitate people.... I will say that I'm the best representative on the screen. Old white men like me in particular need to really open up our eyes and start learning. We also need to look at customs and practices that reinforce these things. A simple example is visible in this committee. The speaking order and length of time for questions signal a power hierarchy. We need to be thinking about what message is sent. Who is the least important person on this screen right now? What are the ways in which we can level or address those or make sure that those who perceive they're the least important are still empowered to speak up and speak out?

It's complex. All organizations, all institutions, practice it. It requires open communications. The most critical thing I would go back to is that it needs those who have the weakest voice to be able to be heard the most.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

That is very profound.

Finally, how urgent is this?

[Dr. Alan Okros]

This is urgent. We have people who are still hurting. We have members internally within the military. It's been stated. They have lost trust. That needs to be rebuilt with urgency. Canadians need to have confidence in their military. They need to have confidence that when particularly young women, young men and people of diverse identities choose to serve Canada in uniform, they will be treated with respect and have good, full, meaningful careers. That needs to be something that is communicated effectively.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

That was well said.

I want to thank both of our witnesses for excellent testimony today, and I want to assure all the members of the committee that you are all very important and you will all get precisely the amount of time you deserve.

Is it the pleasure of the committee to adjourn?

Seeing that it is, this meeting is adjourned. I will see you on Thursday.