Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I want to start by thanking our colleague Randall Garrison for his passionate intervention just a few moments ago. He and I served on this committee in the 42nd Parliament. I have a great deal of respect for him. We've done some great work together, including, as I mentioned in previous interventions, the report on diversity and inclusion in the 42nd Parliament, through this committee, which also made reference to sexual misconduct.

With respect to other committees doing their work—he mentioned the work going on in the status of women committee—Madam Chair, I think it's important for us to keep in mind that each committee is the master of its own destiny. Just because one committee is doing a report doesn't necessarily mean that another committee should or should not do a similar report.

In this case, one might well argue that, in fact, if two committees were to come to similar conclusions, this would strengthen the importance of the issue and would further catalyze government action. In fact, it's the systematicity of the issue that's the opportunity for this committee. We have the chance to study the case of the former chief of the defence staff, the behaviour we've been focused on for the past months and also the question of culture change, and to put forward recommendations or a report that addresses this issue in its entirety and really gets to the bottom of what the challenge is.

I want to circle back for a moment to the submissions I had made on New Zealand. I want to put to colleagues that this independent review of their operation in New Zealand, which is called Operation Respect, exposes in a non-partisan way some of the reasons—or the questions, anyway—that Mr. Garrison was pointing to as to why it is so difficult to achieve action, or has been difficult here in Canada since the Deschamps report. Even with a commitment from government, there are structural and systemic barriers that the New Zealand case exposes, which this committee could and should focus on and make recommendations to overcome.

I will outline some of those for the benefit of members. I will conclude with a couple of portions from that report on culture change. I understand that my colleague, Mr. Bagnell, wishes to address that issue later. I think that will connect well with what he will likely say with respect to the importance of culture change.

In New Zealand, the key question before this independent review committee was the following: “What progress has the [New Zealand Defence Force] made in creating a culture of dignity and respect through the implementation of its Operation Respect Action Plan?”

The independent review concludes that:

The initial Operation Respect Action Plan and work was well resourced and commenced quickly, with energy. The successful implementation of the Sexual Assault Response Team (SART) and the two-track disclosure process is a significant step forward. These features, along with the Sexual Ethics and Responsible Relationship (SERR) training, have become the positive face of Operation Respect.

The [New Zealand Defence Force] laid the foundations of a positive programme of culture change, but it has not managed to maintain a consistent and thorough approach to its ongoing strategy or implementation. Momentum, visibility and focus have been lost.

Again, this is a non-political, non-partisan message from New Zealand explaining that, despite this initiative, progress was slow and not optimal. It continues:

Despite the positive efforts, overall there has been insufficient progress since the plan was launched, in 'creating a culture of dignity and respect' generally and in preventing or promptly addressing harmful behaviour, including sexual violence specifically.

We were also asked to assess: Whether the NZDF is well-placed to achieve the key actions and outcomes described in the Action Plan (by assessing whether resource allocation and organisational structures and processes are appropriately configured to achieve success)?

The conclusion is:

It is our view that at this [New Zealand Defence Force] is not currently positioned to drive the change required given the capacity and capability challenges in strategy, planning, resourcing and budget, compounded by three fundamental challenges and a number of other barriers to progress.

The report outlines the following:

We set out below three key reasons why cultural change has been hard to achieve:

1. There is a lack of transparency and accountability of the NZDF's progress in addressing and preventing the harm that continues to be experienced as a result of sexual violence and/or discrimination, bullying and harassment.

2. A 'code of silence' prevails and many personnel will not raise a complaint or report serious issues such as sexual violence because they fear the repercussions and do not trust the NZDF processes and systems.

3. The culture of military discipline and command makes it difficult for personnel to raise concerns or speak out against the behaviour or decisions made by their immediate manager or others more senior in the hierarchy.

Again, the things that we've heard from various sources here in Canada are reinforced by the experience in New Zealand, without any partisan or political or even parliamentary overtones.

Under “Barriers to progress for Operation Respect”, there are 12 barriers outlined in summary format, as follows:

1. The organisation's culture is changing slowly but it is difficult to break the 'code of silence.'

2. The strategy for culture change needs to foster collective ownership.

3. Operation Respect is driven from [headquarters] with varying levels of buy-in at camps and bases.

4. The purpose and scope of the programme is too broad, has lost focus and is not well understood.

5. Communications are not well received and there are 'branding' challenges with the programme.

6. Leaders need more tools, support and incentives to own and drive the change.

7. Leadership structure and reporting lines for Operation Respect have become confused.

8. The budget for the programme is insufficient to drive significant change.

9. The roles and responsibilities of those who manage complaints are unclear.

10. The military justice system creates barriers to reporting harmful behaviour or sexual violence.

I just want to flag here the important intersection, which was outlined by my colleague Ms. Vandenbeld at a previous session, between this work and the work on military justice.

The list goes on:

11. Without good data collection and management, it is not possible to understand the issues, assess and monitor change, or reduce risk.

12. Monitoring and reporting of progress are rudimentary.

Again, there are some insights here that very directly, with the committee's collective will, could be mapped onto our experience here in Canada and move us forward out of the current logjam we find ourselves in. We could actually make some very good progress on the issues.

The review body made some more specific findings on the action plan. The action plan had the mandate of establishing a strategy to change the New Zealand Defence Force's culture. The review found that change was not significant or fast enough and that the prevailing culture continued to be problematic.

The action plan had the mandate to increase training and education. The review found that the sexual ethics and responsible relationships training was well received and opened a difficult dialogue but needed to be embedded in all training. I had made previous recommendations or interventions on the issue of training.

The plan was asked to provide an alternative way to report sexual assault. Again, that issue is directly relevant to what we're talking about here. The review did not make a finding on that but did not report any progress.

The action plan was to create a dedicated sexual assault response team. The conclusion was as follows:

a. ‘Two-track’ response to sexual violence is an excellent initiative but the Sexual Assault Response Team...is stretched and fragile.

b. Need an alternative avenue, independent of the [New Zealand Defence Force], for reporting and seeking support for victims of sexual assault.

Again, the tenor and the relevance of these kinds of recommendations, conclusions and insights are undeniable and, directly, are the kinds of things we should be doing here as a committee.

The action plan was asked to address specific risk factors associated with facilities and alcohol. That's an issue that we haven't broached in detail, but there are some insights, including the fact that “Drug usage is an increasing concern” and that “Alcohol consumption may be decreasing, but is still a major problem with issues to address.” Also, initiation and hazing in the New Zealand Defence Force continue.

The action plan was asked to recruit more women or to recommend ways to recruit more women into the armed forces and increase female representation in senior leadership roles. The conclusion there is that “Progress is being made, albeit slowly.” Again, I flag here, for the committee's reference, the minister's commitment to creating a talent pipeline of women who will move into senior ranks expeditiously within the Canadian Armed Forces.

Lastly, Madam Chair, the action plan in New Zealand was asked to monitor and further reduce discrimination, harassment and bullying. The review found that there was slow progress and that “The issue was widespread and systemic, without pathways or processes for support or resolution.”

I raise these issues to indicate the systematicity of the problem that armies are facing around the world, including in New Zealand. This analysis, again, is independent. It's free from any political interference. It should underscore for members of this committee and the Canadian public some of the structural and cultural obstacles we're facing here in Canada. We should turn our minds expeditiously to ways to break that status quo and to get us out of that impasse.

If I may, Madam Chair, there's reference in this report to the fact that the organization, and by that I mean the New Zealand Defence Force, is changing slowly, but it is difficult to break the code of silence.

This will connect us with comments that I think colleagues on our committee will make subsequently on culture change. I'd like to just make reference to some of these conclusions. The report states:

Operation Respect [in New Zealand] is perceived by many as a largely positive initiative that has acknowledged some of the negative issues within the NZDF's culture.

The common view of long-serving military personnel is that the NZDF culture has changed in the past decade or two, mostly for the better. References were made to decreased sexism, racism and drinking.

However, the degree to which Operation Respect may have contributed to this over the past three years is unclear. Progress may be due to longer-term societal and generational changes, along with New Zealand-wide behavioural change strategies such as anti-drink driving and the White Ribbon anti-violence campaigns.

Harmful behaviours continue to impact military and civilian personnel. Numerous disclosures were made during the review including emotional and physical abuse, and sexual violence.

Forms of discrimination, harassment and bullying were shared with us that are unacceptable and do not reflect NZDF core values. These are not limited to any one area of the organisation and include military on military, military on civilian, and civilian on civilian.

These behaviours were frequently in stark contrast to the core values the NZDF expects of all personnel. As an illustration, people do not have the courage to speak out; harmful behaviour towards colleagues compromises commitment and comradeship; and there is no integrity in choosing to do the wrong thing. Others have noted the importance of the NZDF being seen to be living by these values.

Madam Chair, I submit this as an important reference point on the challenges that New Zealand is facing with respect to culture change. They also call for collective ownership. They also call for the importance of this being taken on board at the leadership level, at the highest level within the NZDF.

The report states:

We could not find evidence of a clear change management approach or phased plan to support current and future work in the programme. Many spoken with said that they believe the approach is reactive or tick-box, more about making the NZDF 'look good' rather than changing the culture.

We note that over recent years there has been a number of internal or NZDF commissioned reviews and audits. These have generated extensive 'to do' lists which have perhaps become additional tasks to tick off, before prioritising, implementing and embedding core aspects of the programme.

We identified a strong perception that many projects, including those related to Operation Respect, are introduced but not fully embedded before another initiative is launched.

Again, we've seen similar developments here. The culture change hasn't materialized. The minister, again, has said that the door is open. The time for patience is over. The culture change needs to be total and complete.

Again, Madam Chair, my point has been, from the outset, that unless this committee seizes itself with the question of culture change in parallel to the question of the accountability of the former chief of the defence staff and the investigation surrounding him to the extent that political discussion of that investigation is even appropriate, unless we are invested in the question of culture, we will not create the value for the Canadian Forces that is so urgently needed. I'm very grateful to hear that my colleague Mr. Bagnell will also address the issue of culture change. I just can't understand for one second why that could be or should be sidelined.

I mean, yes, there's an important study going on at the status of women committee. Again, that committee also is the master of its own destiny. There's nothing that restricts it from learning about the defence culture and inviting witnesses from defence.

This, Madam Chair, by virtue of its mandate, is the committee in the House of Commons that is seized with defence questions. If we were to decide that for some reason the question of culture isn't relevant to our work or that we should not make recommendations on it, I think we'll have lost a tremendous opportunity. It isn't just about the case of the former chief of the defence staff. That's the emblem, the symptom of the problem that now has nationwide attention. Again, the real work is the iceberg below.

Once again, I can do nothing else at the moment because we are shackled to a view that we should not use our parliamentary procedure to actually debate these potential recommendations in a meaningful way. I can do nothing more but repeat the argument that we must do this work and that we owe nothing less to the current, future and past serving members of the Canadian Forces and to the Canadian public.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Sven Spengemann

Transcript

Discussions (0)