Yesterday, I wrote about the entire report and some themes and questions that arise from it. Today, I want to address the recommendations, suggesting what patterns exist, and what might be missing. A big question is which ones will get implemented, with Minister Anand already agreeing to implement 17 of the recommendations and make progress on several others (green for accepted, yellow for more study according to the link in this sentence). I put all of the recommendations into a table and coded them by the kind of recommendation and the target of the recommendation. The table is here (let me know how I should revise it).
The report's recommendations fall into the following categories:
- Definition--defining or redefining key terms
- Review--recommending that the Minister or another actor review somethign
- Jurisdiction--moving a responsibility from one agency to another
- Legal--changing the legal responsibilities of CAF/DND members and/or agencies
- Structural--altering key CAF/DND structures
- Training--recommending changes in training/education
- Promotion--changing promotion procedures.
This is not a perfect coding scheme, and I am not a great coder. But these different categories highlight key dimensions of the challenge, suggest which ones will be easier and which ones will be harder. Right now, I am having a hard time imagining categories that are entirely excluded except for funding--that is, there are no specific recommendations about moving money around even as many recommendations have $ mplications.
A quick look at the categories shows that some stuff is easier to agree to readily than others. Almost all of the transparency recommendations were accepted immediately with the one exception of reducing the obstacles placed on external researchers. Few of the definitions, except for the SMRC's name change, have been accepted, despite how easy that seemed to me. Suggests that words are complicated and have big effects, which would, of course, be the perspective of the lawyer heading DND. Most of the jurisdiction changes are not yet agreed to, and that is not a surprise as changing jurisdictions is always complicated. Some of the recommendations to do additional reviews were accepted with the most controversial, what to do with the military colleges, getting some thought but not a commitment yet (yellow, not green). The promotion recommendations were mostly accepted, which is not that surprising given that General Eyre and Minister Anand had already made significant changes in the promotion processes of senior leadership.
I coded the recommendations by the target of the reform as well. Some recs were broad, not targeting a specific agency but many were. The SMRC was the big, um, winner, getting more specific recommendations than any other agency, and, as I said yesterday, I am happy to see not become the dumping ground for all responsibility for this stuff. ADM RS, which I discussed in my post yesterday, got several recommendations, and like the SMRC's recs, most of these were immediately accepted. Most of the training recommendations were not immediately picked up. Those recs specifically targeting the Minister were immediately accepted--they were easy since they didn't impinge on any other actor and they are the very least she could do--recommendations for informing parliament and setting up an external monitor to keep her on track.
What other patterns emerge? Well, legal changes were not immediately accepted as that requires either much work by lawyers or legislation. Changes that require outside actors to play a different role will be more difficult to accept and implement--hanging over responsibility for intra-CAF sexual offenses, Canadian Human Rights Commission playing a greater role, etc. We have already learned this from the refusal of a number of police agencies to take on CAF sexual assault cases. While it is one thing to change how GOFO's are promoted and much work has been done there, it will require much more thought/planning/reallocation/effort to change recruitment, to change the incentives for being an excellent trainer, to develop probationary periods for new recruits, etc. One of the big challenges in all of this will be privacy/confidentiality concerns as Arbour recommended in a number of places that those making decisions on promotion and succession should have information about the past misdeeds and current investigations of those under review. I am all for this, but I can imagine that this is complicated. Good thing there is no military union or else much of this stuff would be impossible.
Besides my previously mentioned frustration with the lack of stuff on civilian control of the military, what else is missing? Given Arbour's mandate, we can't expect every reform we might want--just those related to sexual misconduct. I recommend a couple of things (I believe I told Arbour the first two):
- Shift emphasis away from Special Operations as the height of military excellence, as that is the whitest, most male part of the armed forces. The CANSOF folks may actually be among the most open-minded and progressive groups in the CAF, but the idolization of Special Ops creates bad expectations and tendencies for everyone else (including police forces). More emphasis on domestic operations would highlight a more diverse force, one that is more relevant for the public, and one that is less likely to encourage/deepen toxic masculinity (more on that below)
- Make service in the CAF a pathway to citizenship. This is not going to happen, but I like pushing it anyway. We want more recruits, we want more diverse recruits. Well, if you give potential immigrants the chance to come to Canada and become Canadians in exchange for some time in the military, that might achieve multiple objectives. Yes, there are moral challenges (hey, we want to exploit the Global South) and security clearance complexities. But the US managed to do this, so I am not sure why Canada can't. Otherwise, I would recommend finding ways to make it easier for those who have already come to Canada to join the CAF.
- Reduce the percentage of former and active CAF folks in DND. Arbour raises the issue, but does not include anything related to this in her list of recommendations. I would also amend the National Defence Act to ban the appointment to the position of Minister of National Defence anyone who has served a significant amount of time (more than six years?) in the Canadian Armed Forces. I would also shift the attitude that DND's job is to support the CAF (see Arbour's own words in the document) to DND's job is to support the Minister in ensuring civilian control and fostering effectiveness of the CAF.
One of the missing recommendations: how does one reduce toxic masculinity? None, absolutely none, of the recommendations targets this directly. But then again, I have no answer to this. I am guessing others do. Which leads to a big question for those who have read this far:
What would you recommend the Minister/DND/CAF do to reduce abuse of power, entitlement, and sexual assault/harassment in the military and in DND?
No comments:
Post a Comment