Undermining Operation Honour: The Party Flight

In February 2018, news broke concerning rowdy behaviours on a Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) aircraft transporting celebrities to visit the Canadian soldiers deployed in Greece and Latvia as part of a “morale tour.” It was the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS), General Jonathan Vance, who commissioned the flight.

Many breaches of leadership occurred during this flight. Some passengers were heavily inebriated, and a stewardess aboard accused one of the passengers, former NHL player Tiger Williams, of sexual assault. 

The military aircrew allowed passengers to board the plane with alcohol, tobacco or to board inebriated, and tolerated unsafe behaviours such as dancing in the aisles while a rock band played at the back of the plane. 

The Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff (VCDS) Alain Parent and the CAF Chief Warrant Officer (CWO) Kevin West, two of the most senior leaders in the CAF, were present aboard and did not act in the face of such breaches of discipline. To add insult to injury, both leaders CWO are part of the staff behind the design and the implementation of Operation HONOUR, aimed at addressing the issue of sexual misconduct in the Canadian military.

The incident reveals a toxic leadership culture –systemic and systematic behaviours, habits, attitudes of leaders, and the values these conveyed, which followers and subordinates perceived as ineffective, disingenuous, and harmful, regardless of these leaders’ intentions – that remains pervasive in the CAF.

Gen. Vance’s response to the scandal mirrors the then-CDS’s and then-MND’s responses to the 1998 MacLean’s cover issues on rape in the military. Just as CAF senior strategic partially dismissed the frequency of sexual misconduct in 1998, Gen. Vance defended that the heavy inebriation of the passengers and the sexual assault that occurred aboard the flight as an “isolated incident.”

Also, when asked about rock bands playing at the back of planes as typical features of morale tours, despite the presence of speakers and amplifiers in the aisles violating many rules of aircraft safety, the CDS defended it as a crucial team-building tool for the group of celebrities sent to morale tour, as the CAF sends them to “dangerous places” (in this case, Greece and Latvia). 

Gen. Vance’s communications tried to minimize the incident and clearly refuse to acknowledge the issues that contributed to this incident. They also nuanced the CDS’s condemnation of this incident and make his call for a second investigation appear as a public relations strategy to contain the scandal

The incident also reveals the CAF’s culture of inaction in the face of inappropriate behaviour. The aircrew did not act against the setting up of speakers and amplifiers in the aisles. Passengers were chewing tobacco and drinking alcohol aboard the plane, despite constituting important breach of safety regulations and military rules. The complacency and inaction of the VCDS and the CAF CWO appeared to have deterred the aircrew’s actions and exercise of their duties and responsibilities. 

In an internal document, Lt.-Gen. Michael Hood, commander of the Royal Canadian Air Force, said that “our crew members have been placed in an unacceptable situation, in particular in terms of clearer guidelines with respect to civilian VIP passengers, notwithstanding that the large majority of tours/flights are ‘dry.’”

The presence and inaction of the second most senior officer and the most senior NCM of the CAF constitutes an aggravating factor to the incident. The fact that passengers (whether civilian or military) did not behave themselves in the presence of such high ranking servicemembers already shows a certain degree of permissiveness among the military leadership, especially that neither acted to address of the “rowdy behaviours” occurring in front of their eyes.

This constitutes an important blow to the credibility of Operation HONOUR and of the CAF’s leadership. How can subordinates follow the orders of leaders that do not live up to their commitment? As Marie Deschamps wrote in her report that would lead to the implementation of Operation HONOUR, “lower ranking male members need to see senior male clearly acknowledge, through word and conduct that inappropriate sexual behaviour is inacceptable in the CAF.” (emphasis added) The “party flight” incident violates this recommendation, as the behaviour of the leadership during this incident contradicts the principles of good conduct in many ways. 

This “party flight” scandal reflects poorly on a CAF senior strategic leadership who is trying to address and do away with misconduct within its ranks. This incident showed that CAF’s senior strategic leaders did not live by the values they attempt to communicate to their subordinates, which will have great implications for the CAF as a whole. It also constitutes a perfect illustration of the CAF’s leadership doctrine’s comment that “a leader’s precedent setting actions [e.g., being permissive about heavy drinking and rowdy behaviour] may send the wrong message and contribute to the development of dysfunctional group norms.”

This incident, by showing a blatant disregard of Operation Honour at the highest levels of leadership, sends the wrong message.