The Fourth External Monitor Report
It's that time of the year!
This took me a tad longer than expected to write this; but between going to Montreal for the NATO Parliamentary Assembly Meeting on Saturday, hosting two events this week, and dealing with some personal shenanigans, I am about a week late.
Oh well. Life happens.
You know the drill. Jocelyne Therrien was appointed External Monitor to oversee the DND/CAF’s progress on the implementation of the Arbour report. She was to submit 2 reports a year – this is the fourth one.
Culture Change, ca. 2024
Mme Therrien, as usual, remains neutral in her tone and analysis. But let’s start with the positive. She observed “positive momentum” on culture change related efforts that “could ultimately create the foundation for true change” (emphasis from CDL). She sees them contained in four central criteria: integration of ethics in professional military education; “a promotion process that is built upon the precepts of character-based leadership;” a stricter selection of instructors'; a probationary period for recruits.
Tampering this optimism is the fact that this momentum needs to turn into long lasting change. She suggests the CAF “consolidate[s], based on what has been showing good results.”
This is the high level overview – now time to dig down.
#1 Findings on the clarification of definitions and policies
In response to criticisms of the definition of sexual misconduct, the CAF circulated a CANFORGEN abrogating the “formal definition” of the term, replacing it with: “conduct deficiencies of a sexual nature,” “harassment of sexual nature,” and “crimes of a sexual nature.” As many of you will note, CANFORGENs are technically messages, not policy – this CANFORGEN is however de facto policy as the Defence Administrative Orders and Directives (DAOD) are being amended.
The CAF is also working on aligning its definition of sexual harassment with that of the Labour Code, which puts a higher emphasis on prevention, and there seems to be new structures and processes in place for investigation (e.g., CPCC can now conduct investigations on behalf of a unit; and the requirements for a victim to file a complaint are now less demanding). Further, the CAF is working on revising the DAOD on personal relationships – it has yet to be put in effect.
#2 Findings on military justice
In March 2024, MND Blair tabled Bill C-66. It is now at second reading in the House of Commons.
Some movement has occurred in terms of transferring jurisdiction from the military police and civilian police. In Ontario, the Provost Marshal and the Solicitor General are “develop[ing] a protocol;” they’re doing as part of a working group composed of several police services, victim services, military police, and the Sexual Misconduct Support and Resource Centre. Ontario is meant to be used as a model. For now, “the military police continue to refer cases to provincial jurisdictions that are prepared to deal with them and taking into consideration the preference of the victim.”
#3 Findings on administrative reviews related to the release of members for misconduct
In order to review the cases of members who have been retained despite recommendations for release over sexual misconduct, the CAF obtained resources and a team of experts. The findings will be provided mid-December to Chief Military Personnel.
#4 Findings on complaints and grievances about sexual harassment and gender-based discrimination
After the Arbour report, DND/CAF stopped objecting to service members complaints to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Since that change, the Commission has received 69 complaints, most of which relating to sexual hatiosment and sex and gender based discrimination.
There has been revisions to the grievance system: CPCC has become the Initial Authority, and cases not resolved at that level are not being sent to the Military Grievances External Review Committee.
#5 Findings on conflict resolution
Efforts on promoting the work of Conflict and Complain Management Services (CCMS) offices on bases have taken place. Mme Therrien has an interesting view on conflict resolution:
While alternative dispute resolution is not necessarily the most appropriate mechanism for cases involving sexual misconduct, it can be a useful too in addressing workplace problems before they escalate and become intractable.
Interestingly enough (and encouragingly!), the CAF has included conflict resolution in its curricula and trainings for members in leadership roles.
#6 Findings on transformation of the CAF’s complaint ecosystem
Information management and data tracking remains a challenge for the CAF. It is to the point that, in spite of efforts, Mme Therrien “believe[s] that non one can determine, with any degree of confidence, either the true scale of the problem or the extent to which the organization has taken the appropriate measures in response.”
This is not a surprise to many, and it is also not a surprise to note that the CAF is dedicating “much energy” to fixing that problem. It decided to take an “incremental approach,” as the task is herculean.
#7 Findings on duty to report
This one has made the news a couple of times over the spring and summer. Duty to report has been de facto repealed by a CANFORGEN. Policies, as well as other documents (e.g. the Chief of Defence Staff Guidance to newly appointed Commanding Officers) have yet to be formally modified.
#8 Findings on the Sexual Misconduct Support and Resource Centre
Ad of November 2024, the Department “actioned” all the recommendation related to the SMSRC, e.g.,
CPCC is now responsible for sexual misconduct-related training, prevention, and monitoring (SMSRC remains an expert body CPCC is to consult on those matters)
Establishment of a legal assistance program (in its first phase), revision of the role and terms of reference of the external advisory committee
First review into the SMSRC’s structure and position in the DND organizational chat has been completed in 2023; a “revised structure has just been approved but it has yet to be formalized.”
A remaining issue is stable funding for the Centre – there is an expectation that funding will increase next fiscal year (2025-26).
#8 Findings on shortening the recruitment process and assessing and releasing unsuitable candidates early.
Arbour’s recommendations in terms of recruitment relates to ensuring that candidates to join the CAF emulate the core values and ethics of the institution. The External Monitor focuses on the ability to remove any new recruit who does not align with those values.
The Department and the CAF intend on establishing a probationary period, and recruit will have to sign “an enhanced statement of understanding” that will “[spell] out professional conduct expectations and conditions of employment.” This probationary period is to come to place for new recruits within the next couple of weeks.
Further on the streamlining of recruitment, here are some of the things that were done:
waiving of the Canadian Forces Aptitude Test (CFAT) at first it was for recruits who had graduated high school, but as of last month (ish), it has been completely removed from the recruitment process, although it remains required to complete basic training.
launch of a “mobile-friendly online applicant portal”
“use of digital and scanned signatures to improve the remote processing of applicants;
“the enrolment of members with low-risk foreign implications, with security screening to the required level of security to be deferred until post employment;
“a commitment to fully staff all recruiting positions; and
“the review of medical requirements to make them more reflective of societal norms, along with a risk-based application.”
Arbour had recommended the outsourcing of certain recruiting functions; at this stage, the CAF outsources reference and background checks. The CAF seeks to digitalize the process in order to accelerate it before considering further outsourcing.
#9 Findings on military training and professional education.
CPCC and the Canadian Defence Academy (CDA) have developed a “continuum of training and education related to conduct and culture” that involves different levels and criteria based on developmental periods (i.e., which stage of ones career one is). CDA is integrating it in the “Primary Leadership Program” for some non-commissioned members.
The CAF has also adopted “a more deliberate approach” to staffing instructor positions that includes considerations for “the moral suitability of the individual.” The CAF is also trying to enhance the incentive structure to become an instructor; at this stage being an instructor is not financially attractive to CAF members.
#10 Findings on the royal military colleges.
The External Review Board into the royal military colleges (RMC) is expected to submit its report in early 2024.
On Arbour’s recommendation to expand the CAF exit survey to include cadets experience on sexual misconduct and discrimination, the military went further and created a survey on the matter that is administered to all cadets. The results of the 2023 survey were discussed with student body and staff, and those of the 2024 survey will as well. Mme Therrien writes that the “leadership at the two colleges are responding with initiatives to address some of the survey findings.”
Further, after conducting a gender-based analysis plus review of RMC Kingston physical performance tests, the CDA decided to remove passing the test as a criteria for commission and promotion, replacing is with the FORCE Test (the test all service members ought to pass).
A win for RMC this year: the representation of women in the 2024 cohort is of 26% (it is the example given in the report, it seems that it is not the only target that has been surpassed in terms of employment equity).
#11 Findings on performance appraisals and promotions.
This is the nerf de la guerre for me, and it looks like there is encouraging movement. The CAF issued a form in July that “requires a review of the member’s unit personnel file and conduct sheet by the member’s” Commanding Officer. This form will be used for the promotion to Lieutenant-Colonel/ Commanders and above, as well as for Chief Warrant Officer/ Chief Petty Officer 1st Class. It will “certify the absence or presence of any of the following:
remedial measures where it was determined based on the balance of probability that the CAF member engaged in harassment of a sexual nature, or hateful conduct;
conviction of any Criminal Code offence of a sexual nature, or a hate‑related criminal act;
conviction by a foreign court or tribunal of an offence of a sexual nature, or a hate‑related criminal act; and
conviction of a service offence under the Code of Service Discipline of a sexual nature, or a hate‑related criminal act.”
Promotion and selection boards will then use that information to determine whether the member is worthy of a promotion (also based on the accountability mechanisms engaged, and whether they have been followed by behaviour change).
The CAF introduced another form which will certify that “[c]andidates being considered for promotions to the rank of CWO/CPO1 and LCol/Cdr and above and/or for command appointments, will be required to certify that they are not subject to any administrative or disciplinary action, or have a conviction for a civilian offence.”
The CAF is also looking to expand the psychometric assessment of candidates for promotion beyond the general/ flag officer cadre and Colonel/ Captain (Navy). It will depend on :the contracted capacity to expand further [being] in place.”
#11 Findings on succession planning.
Here, we’re looking at longer term representation in leadership roles. An Employment Equity teams is working on “identifying the barriers that hinder the recruitment, promotion, and retention of women, including unconscious bias.” Each L1 organization (e.g., each group that is commanded by a LGen/ VAdm) will have their own goals for the promotion of women, on which they will be required to report annually. Long-term career planning is also underway, meant to identify the right opportunities and experience.
In December of this year, the CAF will publish a new framework for the “talent management and succession planning activities across the CAF and to promote best practices to reduce barriers that may constrain or negatively impact different groups.”The policy will also require that “concerns about misconduct are brought to the attention of succession planning boards” and that succession boards follow a certain composition.
#12 Findings on medical releases.
The CAF is to publish a policy on universality of service in the spring of 2025, which will focus on offering members the right support to ensure they meet the requirements.
Further, the government agreed to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs’ recommendation to study why women leave the CAF on medical release at higher rate as men.
#13 Findings on input and oversight.
CPCC is to include in its statistics reports to the Minister any Assistant Deputy Minister (Review Services) administrative investigations that involve sexual misconduct in any way.
Assistant Deputy Minister (Review Services) is now submitting annual reports to the Minister of National Defence on administrative investigations – the first one was delivered in August 2023. Assistant Deputy Minister (Review Services) also signed an agreement with the SMSRC on the latter’s ability to request relevant administrative investigations.
#14 Findings on public online database and external research.
A database on “Conduct and Culture Research and Policies” was published last fall, and the CAF has created a Conduct and Culture Data Centre that will become public soon.
A CANFORGEN posted this summer now allows CAF members to “participate in anonymous or confidential social science research,” and the revisions of the relevant DAODs are underway. Further, now there are “now three options for the Social Science Research Review Board (SSRRB) review of external research submissions where another Research Ethics Board (REB) is involved: simultaneous independent reviews by the SSRRB and REB; waiving the ethical component of the SSRRB review where REB approval has already been granted, but maintaining the methodological review; and collaborative reviews with the academic/external REB.“
#15 Findings on institutionalizing the change.
The Culture Evolution Strategy is now in place. It links doctrine to values and associated behaviours, and recommends the creation of culture-related positions (e.g., culture evolution coordinators and intersectional advisors). The Strategy also “directs” that all units have their own professional conduct and culture program so that to make the matter a “core team responsibility.”
CPCC hosts monthly culture meetings and has created an online Culture Resource Centre in order to share lessons and best practices among culture coordinators and advisors. It also created a set of tools “to spark regular team discussions based on methods that use scenarios and guiding questions.” Mme Therrien explicitly mentions the Coaching Program, which “employs certified coaches who, based on individual psychometric results, develop skills in areas such as mobilizing people, promoting innovation, and guiding change. The program is available to senior level leadership, officers and non-commissioned members and civilians”
Mme Therrien’s Conclusion.
She observes a “genuine” “will to change the organizational culture of the DND/CAF.” But she is also concerned with the pacing, offering that the Defence Team should reflect and identify areas where change is more likely to occur and focus resources to these – “while respecting the intent of external recommendations.”
A remaining – and relentless problem for the CAF – is data. Data sets remain spread out throughout the organization and “input of information is neither consistently accurate nor timely.” This will negatively impact monitoring and the ability to conclude that measures taken have had the intended effects.
Another concern is the “excessive” time it takes for policies to be changed.
I think it is worth simply highlight the last paragraph of this report:
So, there has been a lot of work, and a lot of momentum, but everyone agrees that establishing the structure that will systematically reinforce professional conduct is a long-term project. Once again, I reiterate that, while there is true dedication by many, the DND/CAF is suffering from an overly regimented system of rules. It is questionable at this point whether CAF members are empowered to make the right decisions at the right time.
CDL Thoughts.
I have always found the reports illuminating – beyond the insights they give into the Defence Team’s progress on culture change. They often make me reflect on how I approach my work at CGAI and as a stackie author. This one is no exception.
Obviously, in true CDL fashion, I have thoughts about the way that the DND/CAF is going about change. Here, I want to emphasize that I do not necessarily think it is a question of wrong/ right path to take, but more about: hey, here I have some ideas on how to address what I see as blind spots.
Probationary Period
It’s a fantastic idea, and should apply beyond conduct and professional values. It gives more flexibility in a system that is too rigid. However, there are a few considerations to take into account:
Behind that probationary period is the assumption that issues of culture in the CAF is an individual issue instead of a systemic one. It does not mean that we should let go of this idea; if someone does not leave up to the standards, they should be removed.
What gives me pause is that there is limited investigation into why one might not live up to the stated values of an organization. People’s behaviours do not occur in a vacuum, and in part socialization and reward systems have a role to play in all of this. For more on that, I recommend “Lying to Ourselves” and “Corruption in the Canadian military?”
I am worried that there might be the assumption that once one has passed the probationary period, then they live up to the ethos of the institution. It is not that clear cut, but thankfully there are tools in place that could help with that.
Character-based Leadership
From discussing with the folks from the Defence Team who work on this, it seems to me that it is not just a black and white approach to being a leader, and I would need to dig deeper in this.
But again, sometimes reward systems warp how an individual is behaving, and in toxic environment/ under toxic leaders (which was recognized as a problem for the CAF by Chief Warrant Officer Bob McCann), pushing back is difficult and can bring negative consequences.
Again, there needs to be additional reflection on the why behaviour that seems to oppose the espoused values occur. Also, I hope the tools presented to service members include discussion that right/ wrong in ethics operate on the spectrum, and that sometimes doing what they view as “eight” may bring negative outcomes and consequences. Both service members and their leaders need to understand and embrace that push and pull.
Inclusion of conduct in appraisal forms
YES. I love to see that – as someone who’s doing her PhD on the role personnel management structures have on misconduct, this is fantastic to see.
But it would not be a CDL Stacie without a good CDL caveat.
These are additional forms for superiors to fill, meant to certify one’s misconduct track record (sorry for not having the right vocabulary, it’s 10 pm on a Thursday night). How substantial are those forms? How much tracking do they require the person filling them to do? Are superiors given more time to do that additional work?
It sounds like silly questions, but Mme Therrien and a slew of researchers and Assistant Deputy Minister (Review Services) have highlighted information management and data issues within the CAF. How much time will it take to get the information?
There is no guarantee that all incidents will be marked in one’s file, and that there will be follow up. How misconduct is dealt with can remain at the discretion of a superior or a commanding officer – if it is reported at all. That is a documented issue for the CAF.
In “Lying to Ourselves,” Wong and Gerras underline how dishonesty can occur when (1) leaders are not given the time and the resources to do the job completely, and (2) when the task is seen by the rest of the culture as being of a lesser priority or even unnecessary. In fact, one of the example they give is how harassment training, where soldiers are asked to gather around a radio with their superior telling them to “not touch girls.” How can we assure this does not happen?
Additionally, how will these forms determine promotion or new postings? Will we see folks with documented misconduct issues be fired? Or will they be pushed to a posting viewed as less important with no chance of promotion? Or will they go through a course? Or a probationary period? These are questions that need to be answered.
En Bref
I have more thoughts, but I should go to bed. These comments are very much an expression of my concern to ensure that the work being done so far (1) gets institutionalized, and (2) with the intended effects and outcomes.
Since 2021, we have often heard military leaders say that we had to be careful to not let culture eat strategy for breakfast. This is where I am getting at – consider additional steps to ensure these measures do not get eaten by There, it is very much culture eats strategy for breakfast and the institutionalization will occur, but without the expected outcomes.