Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Good morning, colleagues. It's good to be back for the continuation of our discussion.

I'd like to reinforce the view, which I think is shared by all members of the committee, that the perspective of victims has to be front and centre. Victims have spoken in various fora, including the media and various parliamentary committees, and it is extremely important that their view is what governs our actions. Everything else is secondary. I want to reinforce the comments made by my colleagues in that direction with respect to that point.

Following the testimony of victims was testimony from experts, from policy leaders, from elected officials, from senior managers and our public service, from academics, and I've made the point, Madam Chair, in previous interventions, from other jurisdictions. I'll get back to that in a moment.

Before I do, before I get into some more substance that will be helpful to the committee in its deliberations, I want to take a moment to talk about partisanship. We're approaching the end of the parliamentary term. Partisan winds are blowing a bit more fiercely now than they were earlier in the year. I think it's important that we keep an eye on what the purpose of a parliamentary committee is, in its formulation, its past history and its past achievements. I made reference to the achievements of this particular committee in the last Parliament, on diversity and inclusion in the armed forces and also sexual misconduct in the armed forces in a previous report.

Partisanship is an important part of who we are. As elected officials, we belong to political parties, and, in many respects, it's very valuable to our democratic process to have different ways of looking at different problems and to make partisan points when appropriate.

This particular issue calls for as unified an approach as we can possibly reach because of its long-standing nature. Its harmful impact on current and former serving members of the Canadian Forces, and the Canadian public at large—victimizing and revictimizing—needs to stop. It needs to stop urgently, and it can only stop if we unify ourselves to the greatest possible extent.

In that respect, I have a suggestion for colleagues.

We have the House of Commons, and as Canadians will know when they watch question period, things will get partisan in the House. They historically have been partisan, and they should be. Partisan division is a useful way of highlighting problems, identifying different approaches and giving Canadians a choice in terms of which approach they should follow.

However, perhaps we can arrive at a conclusion that partisan energies are best directed to the House at large, and this committee, and other committees like it, should take a less partisan approach, should try to take the important testimony of victims, of experts, of elected officials, of others, and try to get to the same side of the table, facing the problem, solving the problem. It may not always work out, but to the greatest extent that we can, we should be non-partisan in our orientation. I'm hoping that with the few remaining sessions we have left, maybe this thought may bear fruit and we can get to a place where we can make some progress, in a manner as unified possible.

Madam Chair, I'd like to briefly take a moment of my time this morning to bring the committee to a report that I mentioned. We've had the benefit of the U.K. experience, as I mentioned. Particularly helpful to the committee is the fact that the U.K., in fairly short order, conducted a review of sexual misconduct and other inappropriate behaviour in the U.K. armed forces in 2019. I've referred to it as the Wigston report, conducted by Air Chief Marshall Sir Michael Wigston. Then, within a year, they went through an implementation and review process. That process led to a progress review that is published, entitled “Unacceptable behaviours”.

I want to highlight to members of the committee some elements from that report, and I do that for three reasons, Madam Chair.

The first reason, and I've said this before, is that armed forces like Canada's, which are subject to democratic control and are often working in alliances, be it NATO, UN peace operations, are encountering this problem with the same intensity, the same seriousness and severity, and are taking action right about the same time that we are. There are some cross-references in that work to the Canadian experience, back and forth.

That's reason one. It isn't just a Canadian problem. It's not an international problem but is certainly a multinational problem. It's relevant—not only the moral component—in the sense that sexual misconduct clearly is wrong, no matter where it occurs, but also in that it affects the operational effectiveness of alliances like NATO and UN peace missions and peace operations.

The second point is that I'm raising these experiences in part to encourage the committee to move forward. As my colleague Mr. Baker and others in past interventions have said, it's really time to see if we can come together around some key recommendations.

The message is simply that if other countries can do it, if they can put forward a report and an implementation review in a matter of a year plus, then we should be able to do something similar if we get our collective minds and political energies behind it.

The third reason is the substance of the conclusions, recommendations and insights these other countries and jurisdictions have developed, which in many respects, as I've illustrated, are actually helpful to this committee. It could accelerate our thought process, especially with the tight timeline remaining now, to see what came forward elsewhere, particularly in the U.K., with whom we have close alliances and operational alliances as well. As I'm hoping to submit later on, there is also the case of New Zealand.

But, Madam Chair, I would like to take the committee through some of the insights from this review of the Wigston report, which was published in 2020, just about a year ago. It was commissioned by the Right Honourable Ben Wallace, MP, Secretary of State for Defence.

Secretary Wallace wrote—and this is in the U.K.:

Today's Armed Forces is very different from the one I served in 30 years ago. It is more diverse, more tolerant and more professional. But, as Air Chief Marshal Wigston's 2019 Review found, Defence still has a long way to go if we're to become a truly diverse and inclusive organisation. So, one year on from the publication of the Wigston Review, I asked Danuta Gray to assess what progress was being made. Her findings show there have been some significant improvements. More people from BAME backgrounds are joining us. Diversity task forces have been set up. Policies to tackle [ignorance] have been tightened. But [the] report also shows some attitudes within Defence remain stubbornly out of step with the values and standards expected of a modern employer. Things must change quickly. We must rid our ranks of any prejudice that besmirches our reputation. We must ensure a zero-tolerance policy towards unacceptable behaviour. And we must improve our training, our education and our communication. Above all, we must make Defence a more welcoming environment to everyone whatever their gender, religion or background. That is why I have accepted [the] excellent recommendations in full.

The top-level message from the U.K. experience, the Wigston report, outlines and summarizes the nature of the problem and gives recommendations. The government committed to an implementation process, and then, immediately on the heels of that, a review process, which we can now benefit from and take note of.

With respect to the U.K.'s approach to implementing its report:

The Wigston Review highlighted that culture change would be necessary requiring authentic leadership, relentless engagement and consistent communication. The recommendations were accepted in full by the then Secretary of State, Rt Hon Penny Mordaunt MP, and published in July 2019. ... Following the acceptance of the recommendations, work began to establish a central team which became known as the Wigston Review Implementation Team (WRIT). Situated in the CDP's area,

—that is Chief of Defence People's area—

under the Civilian HR Director, it used existing resource primarily from the Civilian HR Directorate with one post provided by the [Royal Air Force]. The WRIT team was in place by October 2019.

So there was very quick expeditious action by the United Kingdom to recognize the nature of the problem and to move forward its implementation and a review. The review took account of the COVID impacts. It also referred to “re-energised momentum” with respect to the Black Lives Matter movement, and this may be important for members of this committee to consider.

The U.K. concluded:

The black lives matter movement sparked protests and a national debate in the UK about racism. During this period, one of the regular Defence all-staff calls was dedicated to a discussion on race. This discussion not only enabled personnel with Defence from black and ethnic minority backgrounds to share their lived experience, but it also revealed attitudes, which the Permanent Secretary confirmed, [that] have no place in Defence. The strong sense of feeling about the urgent need for Defence to make further progress, both on improving its diversity as well as changing culture and behaviour, led to additional momentum and energy to bring about change.

The Chiefs' Statement of Commitment issued in July 2020 set out bold changes which built on the Wigston Review and are an important signal of intent by senior leaders to change the culture in Defence. In July 2020, the one-year anniversary of publishing the Wigston Review was used to continue the debate on culture change. A further all-staff dial-in highlighted progress by announcing updated policy, new training opportunities and the launch of a whole-force bullying, harassment and discrimination helpline.

I put this to the committee, Madam Chair: In light of the work on equity, diversity and inclusion that I referred to earlier, which this committee and the 42nd Parliament undertook, the explicit linkage that the U.K. has made between the broader issue of diversity and inclusion and the issue of inappropriate behaviours, primarily directed against women, is an important one and one that is also worthy of our contemplation and potential action

With respect to the complexity of the issue, the U.K. acknowledged that:

Implementation has not been without challenge. The pace at which recommendations were initially implemented...was slower than expected, due to issues with allocation of responsibility and resourcing. Whilst there are a range of explanatory factors to consider, there was a noticeable shift in momentum from Summer 2020.

At the same time as implementing the Wigston recommendations, broader transformation programmes are underway within the single Services and within Head Office. These all recognise people as a crucial component and are therefore closely tied to progress on reducing unacceptable behaviour and creating an inclusive environment where everyone can excel. The different programmes have entailed a variety of approaches and timelines linked in to Wigston implementation work.

The report then goes on to review the progress assessment conducted in the U.K. It refers to training, including the importance of external third party training. Bystander training was also raised as a very important point. It refers to policy and makes a number of recommendations. It also refers to management information, communication, and, very importantly, leadership.

On the point of leadership in particular, the report states that:

Immediate steps were taken to appoint a [Ministry of Defence] Senior Responsible Officer (SRO) with CDP fulfilling the role.... The single Services and the [U.K.'s Strategic Command] have also appointed SROs, fulfilled by the Principal Personnel Officers in the Army, [the Royal Air Force] and UKStratcom, and in the Royal Navy by the Director for People and Training. Boards now include culture and behaviours as a standing item owned by single executive owners.... Some single Service/UKStratcom Non-Executive Directors...reflected that further conversations about the Wigston Review and unacceptable behaviours would be welcome. The [Royal Air Force] have created a sub-committee of their board chaired by one of the NEDs to oversee Wigston implementation. Within Head Office, this is considered at the Head Office Management Board and the single executive owner is MOD's Chief Operating Officer.

So there have been some very expeditious structural changes in response to the Wigston report, and the inside scheme from the implementation review is important for us to consider, especially in light of the minister's repeated statement that the time for patience is over and that the door is open for ideas on a complete culture change in the Canadian Armed Forces.

Madam Chair, I won't take the committee through all the recommendations that the implementation review has conducted. There is a section titled, “Looking to the future”. It's important to note that it accepted, as I have stated, the Wigston implementation recommendations in full. That is extremely important in light of the commitment to Madam Justice Arbour's work here. Getting good recommendations is not meaningful if the government does not commit to accepting them and carrying forward the implementation process.

In the U.K. they have done just that. They have implemented and accepted all of the Wigston recommendations, but the review also led to a number of additional ones. It's very important that, when one conducts a review process and finds out that certain recommendations don't quite hit the mark or fail to deliver the result that they were intended to achieve, additional recommendations be put forward and then also accepted.

Some of the recommendations that were made in addition to the ones I have highlighted over previous interventions are, on training and education, for example, to “provide a service readily available to inexperienced leaders to provide advice about dealing with unacceptable behaviours”. This is an issue that, in our estimation, from the testimony we have heard, affects senior ranks.

It's in symmetry with respect to senior officers in the reporting line. To give new leaders, inexperienced leaders, people who are coming up the chain, the resources to deal with unacceptable, inappropriate behaviours is absolutely crucial to making sure that the problem actually is solved.

Other recommendations with respect to the complaints process, new recommendations, are: the embedding of targets and commitments to the defence plan; aligning objectives throughout the organization; tracking progress up to the defence board level; adequate resourcing for this work, including to deliver the recommendations made here; increasing best practices; sharing across the organization; and considering using user-friendly feedback in finalizing changes to the service complaint system. These are also new recommendations.

It's important to note that not only was the U.K. mindful of the time frame required to solve the problem as expeditiously as possible, but it also came out with the report. It committed to implementation of the original recommendations. It then conducted a review within a year and, very importantly, on substance committed to making additional recommendations to fine-tune the first set put forward in the Wigston report. This is an approach that has proven it is working in the U.K. under tight time frames.

I call on my colleagues to consider that we need to do something very similar in Canada, under very similar time frames, to make sure that we solve a problem that is pervasive across so many militaries around the world, with whom we work closely. Again, it is a moral issue. It is simply wrong to have this behaviour continue. It is also an operational issue that reduces the effectiveness of our relationships and the way we operationally conduct exercises and important peacekeeping work, be it through NATO, be it through UN peace operations around the world.

We must get on top of this problem. We have examples telling us how to do it, including a granularity of recommendations that in some cases could be directly emulated here in Canada if the circumstances are similar.

I encourage my colleagues to set partisanship aside to get to the same side of the table in the remaining sessions that we have and to do this really, really important work. Survivors deserve nothing less.

Thank you.

Sven Spengemann

Transcript

Discussions (0)