Acting Chief of Military Personnel on Diversity, Inclusion, and Culture Change Short-Term Initiatives

[Brad Sallows]

I thought RCAF joint was hotel on the beach with a view of the airport.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Hardly; why would we want a view of the airport??

 

[Quirky]

Hardly; why would we want a view of the airport??

Early start on the pre-flight.

 

[dimsum]

Hardly; why would we want a view of the airport??

To see the aircraft still broken and continue with drinks at the hotel bar, of course.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Early start on the pre-flight.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Early start on the pre-flight.

My pre-flight on the road:

 

[Edward Campbell]

I'd argue at lot of those trades provide a pool for occupational transfers.

Assaulter Bloggins may not be able to kick door, turn left as well as they did 10 years ago - but the experience they have can (and should) be retained - have them work GeoSpacial with UAV ISR teams to give "a guy on the ground perspective". There are also some good SOF roles that are not as physically demanding.

If you let folks go at 15 years - there is a lot of institutional knowledge than would be lost ...

I support this idea. It was in vogue about the time I joined.

Signals, for example, had serious personnel problems in the late 1950s/early 1960s - the Corps was seriously overcommitted and even "contracting out" several Individual Training tasks, including recruit and Jr NCO training, to the combat arms was not filling enough gaps.

Signals "raided" the other arms for people. The Corps got a lot of good people - many were selected for technical training, a disproportionate number became younger than average Sr NCOs, some became officers a few even became became colonels (But we couldn't outdo Signals own Soldier Apprentice programme (the famous "green monsters" who were enrolled at age 16) and produce generals.)

I recall being told by my course officer (a Staff Sergeant) that they (the senior technical people) referred "retreads" from the other arms because we were a bit more mature and, therefore, easier to train to work on our own.

 

[Edward Campbell]

And here's another. "contribution" to the retention debate: Opinion: Religious bigotry won’t solve the Canadian military’s discrimination problem

 

[Quirky]

And here's another. "contribution" to the retention debate: Opinion: Religious bigotry won’t solve the Canadian military’s discrimination problem

Religious bigotry has zero affect on retention. We have 100 other things to solve before this is even a topic. More nonsense to distract people from the real issues like housing, equipment, pay, postings etc etc. Wokism is an easier topic to talk about, because all it takes is talk, not anything that remotely resembles action.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Religious bigotry has zero affect on retention. We have 100 other things to solve before this is even a topic. More nonsense to distract people from the real issues like housing, equipment, pay, postings etc etc. Wokism is an easier topic to talk about, because all it takes is talk, not anything that remotely resembles action.

I agree we have other big issues but it doesn’t absolve our institutional responsibility to address discrimination. I don’t know whether religious bigotry has an effect on retention (though I suspect it does have an effect, perhaps not as visible as housing, equipment, pay, etc), but it certainly has an impact on recruitment. If we can’t attract a portion of the population because they don’t feel welcome, we are shortchanging ourselves from people with skills, talent, ideas, etc. Diversity, in today’s inter-connected world, is a must if we want to thrive.

 

[Furniture]

Religious bigotry has zero affect on retention. We have 100 other things to solve before this is even a topic. More nonsense to distract people from the real issues like housing, equipment, pay, postings etc etc. Wokism is an easier topic to talk about, because all it takes is talk, not anything that remotely resembles action.

While the topics you mention are all likely far more important for recruitment and retention, talk does have an impact as well. If you get the impression from an official report that your religion is no longer considered "acceptable" by the CAF, it could be the final thing that drives you out, or away from the recruiting office.

@Edward Campbell my occupation used to be mostly OTs, but in the late 00's we changed our requirements to G2 O2, which eliminated most OTs from entering. Since then we have struggled to recruit from off the street, and are now in the process of determining if a change to our Geo requirements might help bring the OTs back in. Most of the people who came in from other occupations did quite well in Met because they were mature, and understood how good life was in a climate controlled office talking about weather.

 

[Quirky]

I agree we have other big issues but it doesn’t absolve our institutional responsibility to address discrimination. I don’t know whether religious bigotry has an effect on retention (though I suspect it does have an effect, perhaps not as visible as housing, equipment, pay, etc), but it certainly has an impact on recruitment. If we can’t attract a portion of the population because they don’t feel welcome, we are shortchanging ourselves from people with skills, talent, ideas, etc. Diversity, in today’s inter-connected world, is a must if we want to thrive.

Nit picking all the little issues without looking at the bigger picture isn't going to solve anything. I think religion is all fantasy anyway so this isn't a topic I even remotely care about. How big of a population do we lose because of religious issues? I can count on one hand how many people I've worked with who are really into this "stuff". We can't attract people because the media constantly blasts the military, rightfully so in some cases, for sexual misconduct and how we don't discipline our top leaders, nor do we ever hold anyone accountable. When people do get their foot in the door, it takes over a year in most cases to process an application. Then the training system has its own issues. Young people these days aren't that stupid, they do their research on forums and places like Reddit where all the issues are brought to light. How many people have been turned away because they can read the writing on the wall?

 

[Fabius]

So because a religion may have some believes or values that are not in line with the current leftist thought the CAF an official arm of the Government of Canada should abandon its support to the first fundamental freedom listed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms… Right, that makes sense.

Our Chaplains I believe are trained not to push their specific religion on anyone in the CAF and that has been my experience to date. It seems like our individual chaplains aren’t even the problem identified, merely that some belong to the various Christian denominations, Islam, etc. that have beliefs that are now unacceptable.

If having representatives of those religions (padres) in the CAF is not supportive of our new woke agenda and we should not / shall not employ them what is the next step? Is it much of a stretch to imagine a report stating (and I use almost exact wording from the report here only inserting the word “people” vs “representatives”) the CAF cannot justify hiring people belonging to religious organizations who marginalize certain people of categorically refuse them a position of leadership?

How would that match the Charter and the fundamental things I think we are trying to do in terms of inclusivity and diversity lol. Do we hire people of Christian and Islamic faith and then tell them your religion is unacceptable and we will not offer you morale or spiritual support via a Padre or chapel/prayer room etc. That will certainly help our recruitment and retention especially of the 1st gen Canadians from the large urban areas.

I think that entire Chapter is a dumpster fire. Its not the biggest issue the CAF faces but its certainly not helpful.

 

[Remius]

So because a religion may have some believes or values that are not in line with the current leftist thought the CAF an official arm of the Government of Canada should abandon its support to the first fundamental freedom listed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms… Right, that makes sense.

Our Chaplains I believe are trained not to push their specific religion on anyone in the CAF and that has been my experience to date. It seems like our individual chaplains aren’t even the problem identified, merely that some belong to the various Christian denominations, Islam, etc. that have beliefs that are now unacceptable.

If having representatives of those religions (padres) in the CAF is not supportive of our new woke agenda and we should not / shall not employ them what is the next step? Is it much of a stretch to imagine a report stating (and I use almost exact wording from the report here only inserting the word “people” vs “representatives”) the CAF cannot justify hiring people belonging to religious organizations who marginalize certain people of categorically refuse them a position of leadership?

How would that match the Charter and the fundamental things I think we are trying to do in terms of inclusivity and diversity lol. Do we hire people of Christian and Islamic faith and then tell them your religion is unacceptable and we will not offer you morale or spiritual support via a Padre or chapel/prayer room etc. That will certainly help our recruitment and retention especially of the 1st gen Canadians from the large urban areas.

I think that entire Chapter is a dumpster fire. Its not the biggest issue the CAF faces but its certainly not helpful.

I don’t disagree necessarily with your view. And I don’t agree with this report that seems to have come to strange conclusions.

But is there any other government organisation that has a religious component that ministers to its employees? Playing devil’s advocate here. And how does not having any of that infringe one one’s personal right to freedom of religion? I don’t see how getting rid of the Chaplaincy somehow is an infringement on freedom of religion.

 

[Fabius]

Too be clear, if we just deleted the Chaplaincy completely and had nothing the same as any other department then yes I don't see how if would be an infringement on freedom of religion. My issue is with the rationale for the proposed changes and how in my mind at least such rational could be logically expanded in very dangerous directions and applied to anyone declaring a religion of X.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I don’t disagree necessarily with your view. And I don’t agree with this report that seems to have come to strange conclusions.

But is there any other government organisation that has a religious component that ministers to its employees? Playing devil’s advocate here. And how does not having any of that infringe one one’s personal right to freedom of religion? I don’t see how getting rid of the Chaplaincy somehow is an infringement on freedom of religion.

I've noticed that the further a military gets away from real wars, which generally features piles of teenaged bodies (if the bodies can be found that is), the more that people enhance the focus for Special Forces and other 'shooty' jobs while discrediting the importance of the Chaplain's Service.

The same goes for various 'REMF' professions such as medical, vehicle maintenance and recovery, catering etc.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Other government organizations generally don't fight in battle.

A soldier might want absolution before battle. It's meaningless if it isn't done by someone authorized to do so.

Discovering that removing chaplains was a mistake is not one of the "lessons learned" anyone should aspire to.

 

[quadrapiper]

Other government organizations generally don't fight in battle.

A soldier might want absolution before battle. It's meaningless if it isn't done by someone authorized to do so.

Discovering that removing chaplains was a mistake is not one of the "lessons learned" anyone should aspire to.

For a purely functional take, would be interesting to see a comparison between broadly similar militaries with and without chaplains: who fulfills secular roles the CAF currently assigns to chaplains, were they founded with a chaplain branch then removed it, or did they never have one, what sort of society are they drawing from, and have they had any issues readily attributable to not having chaplains.

Also: this would be one capability that might best be governed by a pan-CAF survey, since all the arguments in favour are about filling nonquantifiable, personal/internal needs.

Also: looking at cadets as indicative of broader societal shifts, out of ~700 cadets and CAF pers at the CTC I was at in 2019, there weren't terrible many (maybe 5-10?) showing up for the Sunday morning van to local churches. Even adding in a few Sikhs, assume some practitioners of less visible faiths, and allow for those who weighed sleeping in and attendance and voted for sleep, and the impression is of waning interest in the practice of religion. There was also a youth mental health and counselling cell established IIRC 2017, which seemed to draw much more traffic than the chaplain, who'd previously handled the bulk of that work. Anecdotal, but would be interesting to look at the 16-25 population in a more scientific way as far as relevance of chaplains to their needs and preexisting immediate actions.

 

[OldSolduer]

Other government organizations generally don't fight in battle.

A soldier might want absolution before battle. It's meaningless if it isn't done by someone authorized to do so.

Discovering that removing chaplains was a mistake is not one of the "lessons learned" anyone should aspire to.

Replace “chaplains” with “commissars” to encourage correct political thought.

 

[mariomike]

But is there any other government organisation that has a religious component that ministers to its employees?

My department has had its own official uniformed chaplain for at least the last fifty years. He is also active in connecting with our retired members, and always speaks at our luncheons. And yes, he leads us in prayer.
He provides a sense of hope to our members during difficualt times.