|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
In the wake of the 2021 sexual harassment and assault crisis involving allegations against high-ranking officers, including two Chiefs of the Defence Staff, the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) have promised change. The Independent External Comprehensive Review by former Supreme Court Justice Louise Arbour spelled out how it should be done. At the heart of Arbour’s recommendations is a focus on better oversight and accountability, but is public attention waning? Enter the appointment of Jocelyne Therrien, the external monitor tasked with overseeing progress, as set out in recommendation 48 of the Arbour Report. Therrien has now released two monitoring reports, which, combined with the last Statistics Canada Survey of 2022 on Sexual Misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces (released in December 2023), demonstrate that change is visible, yet uneven. The survey revealed a concerning rise in sexual assaults, with only about 20% of affected members reporting their experiences, but it also showed an increase in general awareness tied to culture change, as well as improved trust in leadership. However, there remains a disconnect between new Department of National Defence (DND) and CAF policies and their expected results. We argue that piecemeal change based on individual recommendations from the Arbour Report can undermine effective and comprehensive culture change. Below, we focus on terminology, leadership, and academic engagements, to illustrate the point.
The Term “Sexual Misconduct” Is Useless.
The latest report has shown that the CAF is removing sexual misconduct from its lexicon, to align with the Labour and Criminal Codes’ definitions of sexual harassment and assault. In her report, Arbour had observed that the term “sexual misconduct” lacks coherence and clarity, leading to a lot of confusion. Arbour recommended abolishing this broad term and establishing proper, distinct definitions for sexual harassment, fraternization, and adverse personal relationships. In his recent statement, Minister Bill Blair emphasized the importance of refining and clarifying definitions related to sexual misconduct, stating that “the first two recommendations in Madam Arbour’s report which call for the removal of the term sexual misconduct from our official policies and the use of sexual assault as a standalone item”. The use of the term ‘sexual misconduct’ has been fraught from the get-go, it is vague and poorly understood, therefore not useful in support of specific policies.
Another important recommendation involves refining the concept of ‘adverse personal relationships’. These relationships are characterized by their potential to create power imbalances, particularly when undisclosed. Under the current definition, CAF member are required in accordance with DAOD 5019-1 to disclose personal relationships only when they directly impacts evaluations, postings, and training. However, it’s essential to recognize that undisclosed relationships can foster unseen dynamics that may affect unit cohesion, discipline and morale. For example, consider a scenario in which a superior officer engages in a romantic relationship with a subordinate but chooses not to disclose it. This could not only result in fraught professional dynamics for both members, but can also breed distrust among peers and superiors. For instance, the lack of transparency may lead to suspicions of favoritism or unfair treatment within the unit, ultimately undermining morale and operational effectiveness. Additionally, the reluctance to disclose personal relationships can lead to unintended consequences. A member may fear social stigma or ostracization based on the nature of the relationship that they disclose. For example, individuals in same-sex relationships may hesitate to reveal their status due to concerns about prejudice or discrimination within the military community. The proposed change carries significant consequences and might not lead to the desired shift in behaviour that the recommendation aims to achieve. Requiring members to disclose their relationship before potential adverse complications arise does not eliminate the possibility of a power imbalance, especially when a higher-ranking individual has authority over another member, or when other factors such as gender, race, and class contribute to power imbalances.
While these definition changes are crucial, they will require proper communication by leadership and socialization across the ranks. Meanwhile, many changes to policies, as well as training and education materials, have already been made, which do not reflect these updates.
Overcoming the Leadership Crisis, Through Better Recruitment, Training and Promotion Systems
In terms of leadership, while members note improvements in the way sexual harassment and assault are handled, major systemic change is being undertaken and tangible results will realistically only be felt over the span of several years. For example, the CAF has improved its screening tools for recruitment in areas such as cognitive capacity, judgment, and character, which is in-line with DND’s new approaches of focusing on character more than merit and technique. Another striking example is the implementation of psychometric tests and a 360-degree assessment for candidates being considered for promotion to General and Flag Officer ranks, or the inclusion of external advisors in the promotion process, as recommended by the IECR. In the CDS and CAF CWO end-of-year message to the Canadian Armed Forces, General Eyre addressed the commitment of the CAF toward cultural evolution. However, among Regular Force members, the most frequent reasons for intending to leave the CAF were the direction in which senior leadership is steering the CAF (25%), while 33% reported that the culture is one of ‘negative masculinity’. While there is an overall awareness among CAF members regarding training and policy changes aimed at combating sexual harassment and assault, the Statistic Canada survey outcomes suggest that these efforts have not yet translated into the desired results. Reforms to the personnel management process have not been far-reaching enough and, while a character-driven merit assessments might be an improvement, they only impact a small number of CAF members.
Academic expertise as a form of external oversight to enhance accountability within the forces
External civilian involvement in CAF processes is another pathway to monitor progress on culture change. To this end, academic researchers provide much needed expertise that complement research efforts and policy development that are conducted within the DND/CAF system. However, as it stands, academics must submit themselves to a DND ethics review processes, in addition to the ones they face in their own institution, something Arbour argued should change. To this end, recommendation 46 of the IECR led to a review of the Social Science Research Review Board (SSRRB) to focus solely on approving technical portions of the proposal, while the ethics review piece could be waived if a researcher’s organization was already approved.
The challenge with the distinction between technical and ethical review however is not clear, something the external monitor should flag. The issue is that one cannot clearly distinguish between technical (falls under CAF/DND) and ethical (academic institution purview). In the end, DND/CAF can still exercise a lot of discretion in terms of the academic research that is or is not allowed to proceed. Academics being denied access to DND/CAF participants would have no appeals process, in addition to suffering important delays or a reorientation of their research, which is problematic. Another key challenge identified in the IECR was the requirement for external researchers to seek Level One (L1) endorsement for their research, which means an organization that either reports to the Deputy Minister of National Defence (DM) or the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS). Essentially, this mounts to not only approval but some form of supervision from a very high-level DND/CAF sponsor for their research. From a capacity standpoint too, it may be best to have a DND/CAF sponsor only if applicable and not a mandatory step within the SSRRB process. Ideally, the SSRRB group could simply match the researcher with an appropriate DND/CAF subject matter expert, whether to provide insight, guidance or potential networks for the researcher.
Additionally, part of the IECR recommendation 45 included capturing an online database from the Chief of Professional Conduct and Culture (CPCC) to ensure that academics and external experts have access to research conducted within DND/CAF on “sexual misconduct, diversity, inclusion and women in the military”. Although the online database is live, several links are not open access, which is delaying signifant improvements on what remains a crucial recommendation of the Arbour Report.
While steps toward bridging the gap of civilian oversight of the military is underway, research effort and policy development need to be clear and simple in order to facilitate the research process within DND/CAF. Once more, clear definitions and procedures are needed in order to execute a streamlined process of conducting research. When it comes to recommendation #45, the database should have open access to all listed material and potentially look at expanding the resources to not only topics aforementioned but research on leadership, training, promotions and more. The scope of research should be comprehensive, not limited to only certain subjects. While the undertaking to digitize these files may take time, it is a necessary effort to improve monitoring and accountability around culture change.
What’s Next?
This second report shows improvement in terms of concrete actions taken in response to the Arbour Report, but the leadership churn at the ministerial level and DND/CAF represents a complicating factor to an already piecemeal approach to culture change. Moreover, all new initiatives require important resources, notably personnel and funds. This strain will worsen with continued underfunding of the CAF, recent budget reduction to the organizations’ travel budgets and spending on professional services starting in 2023-24, and a phased in 3% reduction of eligible spending by departments and agencies starting in 2024-25. Even in a constrained resource environment, there is a need to have a clear strategic plan to avoid having these policies fall into a “graveyard” to quote Arbour. As highlighted in the second external review, Therrien argues that “the organization lacked a multi-year plan to delineate the prioritization and sequencing of activities in the response to the recommendations”.
To enforce culture change, the focus needs to shift toward addressing behaviour and conduct as a guiding principle for the institution, rather than focus solely on sexual harassment and assault as a symptom of a bad culture. For this to happen, a comprehensive approach and clearly articulated vision is needed, rather than viewing the recommendations as a long checklist of individual items.
Comments are closed.