26 Oct 2014
Record of Discussion—Military Family Panel Launch, Cornwall, 26 Oct 2014
Item I – Military Family Panel 101
1.
After Facilitator Marc Rouleau welcomed the diverse group of attendees, he outlined the
purpose and ground rules of the session. He described the evolution of the broad-based Panel
process, intended to capture the collective voice of military families in order to provide tangible
outcomes to families.
2.
Marc summarized the functions and major tasks of the Panel process, which are, briefly:
sharing military family perspectives/experience to inform related policy, benefits and program
framework; contemplate the role of partnerships and community integration; offer advice and
recommendations on key issues and systemic challenges; and contribute to the engagement of
the Canadian public on family issues. He provided an
overview of key partners to be included in the Panel
Of course we’re resilient. What
process, in order to ensure that all internal authorities
and external partners receive and understand
surprised me about the military
feedback from families on family support policies,
lifestyle was the importance of
benefits and programs.
picking your battles and the
amount that I’ve needed to
“suck up”. If we weren’t
resilient, we wouldn’t put
ourselves through it and we’d
leave.
–Family member, Military
Family Panel Launch
3.
Marc ended the introduction by summarizing
the methodology of the Panel process: soliciting family
feedback in predominantly virtual fora, a minimum of
twice per year; preparation of a report which
incorporates all pertinent input; Panel advice and
recommendations flow to Chief of Military Personnel
(CMP); and a Moderator’s Report provides the results
of the Panel’s work, which is publicly posted for the
entire community to access.
Item II – Brief Question Period
4.
Several participants requested a brief question period prior to discussions. The first
question requested clarification on how families are to remain informed of Panel discussions
and developments. Col Mann noted that a variety of communication vehicles will be used to
create and maintain a dynamic conversation with families and partners, including: Military
Family Services (MFS) websites and social media; Family Information Line; the military
distribution network; teleconferences and videoconferences, and national and local media,
including Canadian Military Family Magazine and MFRC newsletters.
5.
Several participants also had questions regarding the status of the National Military
Family Council (NMFC). Col Mann noted his conversation with each member of the Council
regarding the evolution of the NMFC, thanking them for the work on Council. He specified the
difference between the intent of the NMFC, which was to present a family voice to Chief of the
Defence Staff, and that of the broader Panel process, which is to listen to all families and direct
their voice to the appropriate authorities. Col Mann acknowledged the NMFC’s stalwart work
and leadership which enabled the progression to the broad-based dynamic dialogue of the
Military Family Panel. Several attendees were supportive of the Panel concept relieving the 12person volunteer Council from the responsibility of representing the “family voice” and allowing
families themselves to “tell their own stories”. In response to a question about the use of social
media in the Panel, Col Mann encouraged participants to “stay smart and stay connected”,
capitalizing on the personal settings in social media to safeguard their information.
Item III – Discussion 1: Collectively how do we ensure that this new Military Family Panel
initiative functions as well as it can/must?
6.
After discussion in small groups, attendees reconvened and shared their feedback on
three questions. The first question was: How best to communicate the Panel initiative to the
community? Panel attendees all encouraged a broad-based approach, including: word-ofmouth; email; social media (including Facebook, Twitter, WeChat, Flickr, Instagram); military
(Base/Wing/DWAN) and civilian communications; videoconferences and webinars; “snail mail”;
conferences, such as “Military Families Matter”;
development of a CANFORGEN-like communication out to
all families; nurturing community-based partnerships with
I’m not tired of being asked for my
civilian partners to spread the message; and community,
opinion as a military family member
civilian media, including local radio stations, newspapers
on how to make things better. I’m
and television.
tired of wondering what happened
to the answer.
7.
In general, attendees asked that communications
—Family member, Military Family
use multiple, simple, easy-to-access vehicles with no
Panel Launch
waiting lists (i.e.: as many panel discussions organized as
necessary to accommodate interest), with “relevant,
regional, timely and topical” messages that flow from a “clear mission, task and objectives”.
Attendees clearly supported the democratic, non-hierarchical, “all families”, barrier-free
approach of the Panel. Many attendees voiced concerns with the default strategy of the military
to transmit family messages through the military member, noting that military members are often
expected to be filters of critical information for their families without being trained on how to do
so. Some Panelists suggested that the Panel name be changed to “Military Community Panel”
or some similarly distinctive brand in order to avoid confusion with Military Family Resource
Centres (MFRCs) and to emphasize where they fit in the “military construct”. It was noted that
there still exists the perception of MFRCs as not entirely confidential environments and
accessing MFRCs as a “sign of weakness”.
8.
The second question to Panelists was: How best to encourage broad-based
engagement of the community? Several attendees encouraged a focus on communicating
Panel feedback and discussions versus publicizing the existence of the Panel itself, while others
felt that promotion of the Panel was a necessary first step to engaging more families and
communicating the messages of the Panel. A follow-on discussion revealed that it would be
essential to reassure families that their feedback is confidential and to outline the process by
which families would receive timely responses to their feedback and recommendations, all of
which would be publicly available in a “Frequently Asked Questions” format on the website. It
was noted that any summary document created from panel participants should be careful to
“filter for effect”, ensuring that it accurate portrays what participants are seeking to convey.
Some Panelists noted that it must be made very clear to participants that each person is invited
to share his/her own story, not speak for others (who should be encouraged to participate and
speak for themselves). One suggestion for ensuring a quick feedback-response loop was to
engage local “moderators” to funnel feedback and to respond to community-specific issues that
would best be resolved at the local level. An after-action report was also suggested for the
transparency of each Panel process, outlining “what worked and what didn’t”. Several attendees
asked that Panel questions be framed in an open-ended way that families would like to answer,
such as, “What is your experience of being in a military family?” and ensuring that each question
ends with the question, “Is there anything else that you would like to share with us about your
experience?”
9.
Some family members referred to the need for effective branding and communication of
key programs and services to facilitate awareness among families. Several Panel members
encouraged all attendees to be ambassadors for the Panel process, spreading the word about
the Panel via word of mouth to try to expand participation to those families who have not yet
voiced their feedback due to isolation, lack of understanding and awareness, etc. The need for
all communications to be readily accessible in English and French was underscored.
10.
The third question was: How best to ensure that the Panel provides military leadership
with perspectives that represent the breadth of the community? While some Panel attendees
encouraged an effort to ensure proportional representation of many demographics among
military families (e.g.: Army/ Air Force/Navy, Regular/Reserve Force, various ranks, etc), other
attendees felt that proportionate representation at each Panel was not feasible. These
Panelists advocated for “flexible, fluid and regional” representation, striving for adequate
diversity across several different Panel engagements and opportunities. Many attendees stated
that it would be essential to publicize the “success stories” of Panel feedback leading to tangible
change in order to combat the skepticism among families who believe that their feedback makes
no difference. Several attendees also supported the importance of engaging youth in the family
discussion, with their own tailored messages and communication vehicles. One question that
was suggested by attendees and endorsed by Col Mann as a question for the next round of
virtual consultation is: “What do MFRCs need to do to be relevant to you?”
11.
A key question that was raised by Panel attendees was “Does MFS have the resources
to respond to and address the concerns voiced by families?” Col Mann noted that while DND is
responsible for addressing the impacts of the military lifestyle on families, it is not possible to fix
all issues. As an example, he noted that DND has assisted increased access to healthcare for
relocating military families by having provinces waive the 90-day waiting period for health
insurance. However, DND cannot be responsible for “fixing” healthcare in general for all
families, as that is outside the scope of its mandate and resources. Col Mann noted that while it
will never be possible for everyone to have all their needs addressed through this new process,
the Panel would enable all families to have their voice heard by the military accountability chain
and ensure that stakeholders are aware of, and understand, families’ concerns.
12.
One attendee disagreed with the idea that some problems are outside of DND scope,
noting that it simply takes “will and collaboration between government levels and departments”.
Col Mann noted that, in the case of healthcare, the Minister of National Defence did engage with
the provinces to ask them to waive the 90-day waiting period for military families, but the
Minister had no control over how other provincial authorities respond or if they chose to comply
with the request. However, Col Mann noted that once concerns are backed by the collective
voice of several thousand military families, as is envisioned for the Panel, it dramatically
increases the impact of the message and the likelihood of positive change.
13.
Marc asked a follow-up question of how panelists would suggest managing
expectations of families. He enquired how the Panel could celebrate its strengths without
creating the attendant expectation that the Panel process would “instantly fix their situation and
make all military families’ wishes come true”. Attendees suggested setting realistic timelines to
resolve issues, illustrating the necessary time interval at each stage of resolution.
Item IV – Discussion 2: What do you wish you had known at the outset of your time in a military
family?
14.
The final questions to the Panel were: what are the three things you wish you had known
or better understood about the military lifestyle/service life at the outset of your career /
association with the CAF; how did/has your level of awareness/understanding about this
impacted your family life; if you could change one aspect about that situation/make one change
to the way it unfolded, what would it be. Over half of the 32 attendees noted that they were not
“prepared for what they got into” when they were first associated with the military, describing the
learning process as a “journey”. Several attendees recommended “including families from the
get-go”; better educating families (including parents of enrolling military members) of the
challenges of the military lifestyle and the resources available to them from the day of military
members’ enrollment. Several Panelists noted that while there was a good deal of training and
information for members and spouses to manage the “time apart” during military separations,
there was little and inconsistently advertised resources and services regarding “how to be
together again” following the separation. Additionally, some attendees noted that there needs to
be greater awareness-building among parents of members of the services available to them.
Item V – Final Thoughts
15.
Col Mann offered closing comments, noting the revised definition of military families in
the MFS Operating Plan 2014-2016: “A military family is understood to be all Canadian Armed
Forces’ personnel, Regular and Reserve Force, and their parents, spouses, children and
relatives.” It was well received by attendees. Col Mann thanked attendees for their participation
and for taking time away from their families to help ensure “that the community of military
families is owned by families”.
Annex A: Launch 26 Oct 2014: Representation by Region
Annex B: Launch 26 Oct 2014: Summary of Themes
Annex A: Representation by Region
Region
B.C.
#
2
AB / YT/ NT /NV
3
SK / MB
3
ON
10
QC
2
NB / NF / NS / PE
11
OUTCAN
1
TOTAL
32
Annex B: Summary of Themes
Topic
Feedback Theme
Communicating
Panel Initiative
Broad-based approach with multiple easy-to-access channels, including: wordof-mouth, email; social media; military and civilian communications;
videoconferences and webinars; snail mail; conferences; “family
CANFORGEN”; community partners; civilian media
Clear mission, task and objectives with no waiting lists
Name change to “Military Community Panel”
Preliminary focus on Panel feedback and discussions
Preliminary focus on publicizing existence of Panel
Reassuring families that feedback is confidential
Outline process of feedback and timely response
Encouraging
Broad-Based
Engagement in
Panel
Engage local “moderators” to address local feedback
“After-action” report after each Panel process
Open-ended questions and set of “frequently asked questions”
More effective branding and communication of key programs
Invite participants to share his/her own story, not speak for others
Panel members become ambassadors for Panel process
All communications accessible in English and French
Summary document captures all feedback and intent
Proportional representation (element, Reg/Reserve, ranks)
Panel provides
perspectives
that represent
breadth of
community
Proportionate representation not feasible at every Panel
Flexible, fluid and regional representation
Publicize “success stories” of Panel feedback leading to tangible change
Engaging children and youth in process
Set realistic timelines to resolve issues
One thing you’d
change about
your experience
in military
family
Better educating families of challenges of lifestyle and resources available from
the day of enrollment
Better education on “how to be together again” after separations
Seek to better educate parents of members of services available to them