Mr. Chair and members of the committee, good evening. Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to come before you today.
My name is Louise Siew. I was a regular force logistics officer who joined the Canadian Forces in 1975, served 35 years and retired as a naval captain in 2010. I was also a married service spouse and mother. I have witnessed first-hand how generations of women have been treated in the Canadian Forces. I have chosen to testify today, as I know that important committees such as yours can be a catalyst for change.
I'd like to start my testimony by challenging the premise that the opening of all combat classifications and occupations to women in 1989 was the watershed moment for change for women in the Canadian Forces. It was not. It was the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada in the early 1970s that made the most significant change for women when it opened up the opportunity for them to have a career in the Canadian Forces. Up until that point, the majority of women who enrolled in the Canadian Forces were unlikely to have a career. The average rank was private, and the average time in the military was 18 months. The technical trades and other well-paid trades were not open to them.
All that changed as a result of several key recommendations that flowed from the commission report. It recommended that women be allowed to stay in the military if they got married or had children. It recommended that many of the classifications and occupations previously closed to them be opened. This fundamentally broke down two key barriers to the success of women in the military. They could now have a career and they could now demonstrate their value to the military, as operational support trades and classifications were now open to them. They now had access to positions right across the CF, including in support of operations. It was then only a matter of time before other barriers started falling, as the value of their contributions became more widely recognized.
I would be remiss at this point if I did not note that the commission report also recommended that women be finally allowed to join the RCMP.
The next position that I'd like to dispel is the notion tabled by Lieutenant-General Bourgon to this committee that in relation to women in the CF, the policy had been one of assimilation, in contrast to the aspirational goal of inclusion that they are fostering today. Referring to what happened in the past as “assimilation” is concerning to me, in that it was not the reality that I observed. As someone who enrolled in 1975, I can state that overall the military, forced into this change in the 1970s, did so begrudgingly and with an unwillingness to accommodate women. They maintained this posture for as long as they possibly could. They proactively dismissed, mistreated, humiliated and even hurt us.
Both policy and culturally based barriers set conditions for abuse and harassment—physical, mental and sexual—and negated our voices. They both specified and implied that women could be discounted and abused without recourse, a climate that social scientists now describe as “otherism”. The CF needs to account for the conditions of service that women endured in the past and the resulting health and well-being effects. As well, VAC needs to recognize the impact of this history in their adjudication process for disability claims and in the availability of programs and services to meet the needs of all women veterans.
On a more personal note, I was the first woman in every position I held. I knew how important it was for those who would come after me for me to do well. My last command was of an organization of 5,000 people, which included the responsibility for all the supply and ammunition depots of the Canadian Forces and provided the strategic-level logistics support to the war in Afghanistan.
As well, during the years I served, I was not silent regarding the conditions of service for women. I consistently challenged the status quo and fought for better equipment for women and better opportunities in terms of service. As I saw the barriers to the progress of women, I challenged them. I volunteered to serve on merit boards. When I saw women being mistreated, I spoke up.
I successfully redressed the maternity leave policy. I wore my own version of a maternity uniform when the military offered me no uniform option. I maintained an informal network of hundreds of servicewomen from across the Canadian Forces to whom I would pass on information regarding ongoing issues such as equipment, uniform, maternity benefits, etc. I fended off sexual aggressions and suffered many rebukes for my activism, and I always felt like I was on my own in these fights.
You also need to know that serving women pick their battles. They cannot fight them all, as it is always weighed against the potential damage to their careers, as we've heard about today.
In closing, I believe the CF owes the women who served a full and open accounting for how they were treated in the past, literally generation by generation, up until the recent initiatives, so that their disability claims being submitted to VAC are better supported.
I also believe that VAC has been negligent in their support to women, and they need to significantly address their shortfalls, as I fundamentally believe the strides being made today by the CF for women today are not being matched by VAC.
I'm also concerned that you've heard little from the Canadian Forces to assure you that women in the reserves are receiving the same transition and mental health care, when needed, as their regular force counterparts.
Finally, women should not be fighting these battles alone. I implore you to support them and be the agent of change of this generation, which the Royal Commission on the Status of Women was in the early 1970s.
Thank you for your time. I look forward to responding to your questions.