• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Gen. Hillier pushes plan to boost army enrolment

If Gen Hillier can apply the same "roto-rooter" to the recruiting bureaucracy as he is doing to the procurement system, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. I speak with the 31 CBG recruiters (especially when they are coming back to the HQ to scrounge needed kit to do recruiting) and their horror stories are just astounding.

I can't imagine the sort of person who will willingly wait so many months or even years to get a job offer, when they could walk around the block near CFRC and probably find 3 or four places hiring right now....
 
From my view, perhaps a Canadian version of the French Foreign Legion? Accept foreigners in a seperate part of the military, and after so many years of service, give them Canadian citizenship? Of course, strong background checks will be required, but it can work. The upper officer corps will consist of Canadians from the regular armed forces, so they will be lead by Canadians, even though the members may not be Canadian citizens.
 
All I see are generic numbers. Anyone seen any specifics about how these numbers break down - even by element? If a lot of numbers are going into hard pressed service trades then perhaps recent immigrants (of those willing to join the CF) would be poorly suited.
 
Rfn said:
This was one of the factors that eventually led to the end of the empire. When the army started to identify more and more with the strong, brave, noble and clean living barbarian peoples hungrily lurking in the dark forests outside the frontier and less with the decadent, corrupt, effete and soft city-dwelling citizens, the Roman empire was in serious trouble.
The problems started when the Senate decided to abolish the conscription/mandatory service in the Roman army. From there onwards, the Romans (hear people) have been more and more disconnected with the army and it's purpose (see links with contemporary situation?). The other thing is that military leadership has been accepted in the Senate, which opposed civil senators with military leaders become senators, the unity was broken. And thereafter, Romans were fighting each others instead of guarding the Empire against extra-Roman Empire ennemies. Kinda lost in the process...

As for the citizenship, it was a privilege to be citizen in the Roman empire: it means that you have not only the right to vote, but also a piece of land that you can live upon. Others had basically no rights and/or were slaves. Thus, when promising citizenship to non-Roman 'national', it meant a piece of land to make a living opposed to be crushed by some legion or years of war/raids.

Rfn said:
Point being, it's sometimes dangerous to get somebody else to fight your battles.

Well, immigration policy in Canada is to mitigate the very low birth rate. Otherwise, the population numbers would sink. So, there's people from around the world in Canada, which is an advantage considering we're a trading country that create its wealth from exportations. Now, when you say 'get somebody else to fight your battles', who are you refering to exactly? In my mind, there's no such thing as 'somebody else' in Canada given the fact we count on immigration to keep growing AND that there's already a significant part of Canada that recently (hear past 20-40 years) came to Canada. I don't remember the percentage of the population, but it's something like 20-25%. So, it's just a matter of time before these immigrants enter the Parliament and really start to be represented politically and in public/media life. Another thing not to forget, ever since Upper Canada and Lower Canada (and even before that), Canada has always accepted people around the world and from 1850 onwards been actually composed from people from around the world. Umm, no such thing as 'somebody else' here.

Get somebody else would be other allies for example (US, UK, etc.). THAT would be a major threat to Canada's sovereignty much more than accepting people in our armed forces. Anyway, they refer themselves as Canadians too.

Now, that's not a reason to throw anybody in. As it has been said, limited access/responsability would be really effective. As I see it, candidates should be able to enter the CF even if the pre-security clearance isn't already finished. They would have only limited access to informations. As an example, I don't think the basic training contains such sensitive informations to have them already cleared. It would be a ladder progression in clearance/responsability/position. Now, yeah you can say that could be a waste of resources, but still I think we would have the person already in in the case the person is cleared and wouldn't lose it to another company/to waiting boredom.
 
MdB said:
The problems started when the Senate decided to abolish the conscription/mandatory service in the Roman army. From there onwards, the Romans (hear people) have been more and more disconnected with the army and it's purpose (see links with contemporary situation?). The other thing is that military leadership has been accepted in the Senate, which opposed civil senators with military leaders become senators, the unity was broken. And thereafter, Romans were fighting each others instead of guarding the Empire against extra-Roman Empire enemies. Kinda lost in the process...

As for the citizenship, it was a privilege to be citizen in the Roman empire: it means that you have not only the right to vote, but also a piece of land that you can live upon. Others had basically no rights and/or were slaves. Thus, when promising citizenship to non-Roman 'national', it meant a piece of land to make a living opposed to be crushed by some legion or years of war/raids.

Well, immigration policy in Canada is to mitigate the very low birth rate. Otherwise, the population numbers would sink. So, there's people from around the world in Canada, which is an advantage considering we're a trading country that create its wealth from exportations. Now, when you say 'get somebody else to fight your battles', who are you refering to exactly? In my mind, there's no such thing as 'somebody else' in Canada given the fact we count on immigration to keep growing AND that there's already a significant part of Canada that recently (hear past 20-40 years) came to Canada. I don't remember the percentage of the population, but it's something like 20-25%. So, it's just a matter of time before these immigrants enter the Parliament and really start to be represented politically and in public/media life. Another thing not to forget, ever since Upper Canada and Lower Canada (and even before that), Canada has always accepted people around the world and from 1850 onwards been actually composed from people from around the world. Umm, no such thing as 'somebody else' here.

That is 100% accurate. You make a valid point. As far as foreigners in military service in histroy goes, all empires that lasted for a long time did. Britain did with the Gurkha's, France with the French Foreign Legion, Alexander the Great did, even the Mongols who used Korean soldiers in the two failed invasions of Japan, and Ottoman Turks with Janissary's. As stated before earlier the U.S.A. are doing it again. (This was done during the Civil War with immigrants mainly from Ireland coming to escape the potato famine) Though the idea of putting foreigner's in a single unit(s) similar to the French Foreign Legion will with Officer who are citizens might not work for Canada, since it seems to exclude people and throughout it's history the French Foreign Legion have always been put in suicidal situations. I know we can't compare Canada to the Empires listed above, however as the States we are a nation of immigrants.
 
The problem with examples of the FFR or immigrants in the US civil war, are that they only really speak to shortages of mainly bayonet and saber roles, while these are probably not where the current shortages are. And if the expansion does increase the number of bayonets and sabers, is there really any expected shortfalls in citizen recruits?

In order to immigrate to Canada you need to achieve a certain point score based on such items as education, language, etc. The recent immigrants I work with (or my family members for that matter) were not sitting around overseas somewhere flipping through CF recruiting brochures and then decided to make the move. Educated landed immigrants in Canada came here to live and work as civilians (as most Canadians do), and do not find the 3 year wait for citizenship arduous. I see no incentive for most of them.

That leaves a few categories open though:

1) Landed immigrants with lower educations (who might possibly have fewer job opportunities).
2) Landed immigrants with unrecognized educational qualifications (who might possibly have fewer job opportunities, especially in the fields they were formerly employed in).
3) Questionable refugee claimants (who might possibly have fewer job opportunities, and may not ever achieve landed immigrant status).

Looking at each:

1) Landed immigrants with lower educations would be less useful in the technical fields we are most lacking in. We would be better off with promises of civilian certification and/or apprenticing for Canadian Youth.
2) Landed immigrants with unrecognized educational qualifications are probably the best bets, but we may not have enough people with Canadian qualification to monitor and recertify them?
3) Questionable refugee claimants… Well that’s just a bad, bad, bad idea.

The French have some - less than ideal - posting assignments that they won't assign conscripts, and the US has real numbers problems when it comes to recruiting (that they continuously must meet). I wonder if the CDS was just thinking out loud when this was put out there. Maybe he doesn't actually think there will be a problem but is just prepping everyone in case one develops (beyond not having enough funds for recruiting and training).
 
What worries me most about bringing in immigrants is the language barrier, already we are a country somewhat divided by language ( french/english) what happens when more and more immigrants start joining the forces. Some immigrants never learn english or french, how are instructors supposed to teach. Are we going to instill rules like the FFL that state that all commands and orders will be in one or the other of the official languages( FFL only work in french, all applicants must learn or take one in the teeth). Yeah that will fly.( in case you missed it, LOADS of sarcasm in the last statement). Just my thoughts, if any one has anything to add please do.
Thanks Marc  :cdn:
 
1)  Landed immigrants with lower educations would be less useful in the technical fields we are most lacking in. We would be better off with promises of civilian certification and/or apprenticing for Canadian Youth.
2)  Landed immigrants with unrecognized educational qualifications are probably the best bets, but we may not have enough people with Canadian qualification to monitor and recertify them?
3)  Questionable refugee claimants… Well that’s just a bad, bad, bad idea.

2) - one of my neighbours is a dentist from Taiwan - took him about a decade to get his credentials recognized.  It seems like people in the point 2 section would already have spent years getting their quals/getting here, and might not be too eager to sign up for a few more years.

Perhaps you could make enlistment worth x amount of points in the point system so that service time would allow them to get in when they otherwise could not?
 
It’s a nice idea, however, you be may be surprised by how poorly other nations feel about another nation actively doing military recruiting in theirs.
 
Yea..you can post them to all the nice bases miles away from anything good. Shilo..Petawawa..Dundurn...lol...Id feel for them!!!
 
Want to boost enrolment?
Perhaps we should reconsider mandatory military service (as in Switzerland). http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Conscription

"Switzerland has the largest militia army in the world (220,000 including reserves). Military service for Swiss men is obligatory according to the Federal Constitution, and includes 17 weeks of basic training as well as annual 3-week-refresher courses until a number of service days which increases with rank (260 days for privates) is reached. Service for women is voluntary, but identical in all respects. Conscientious objectors can choose 450 days of community service instead of military service. "

Imagine this scenario: kids graduate from highschool.  They join for 1 - 2 years.  In return, they are given the opportunity to go to university or technical college for free.

Benefits:
1. A more highly educated and trained civilian population that has an understanding and appreciation of the role of the military and service to country.
2. Manpower - "For a small country, the only way to raise a sizable army is to put every able-bodied man under arms. This is how Switzerland managed to stay independent despite repeated attacks throughout history."  http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Conscription
 
Iterator said:
1) Landed immigrants with lower educations would be less useful in the technical fields we are most lacking in. We would be better off with promises of civilian certification and/or apprenticing for Canadian Youth.
2) Landed immigrants with unrecognized educational qualifications are probably the best bets, but we may not have enough people with Canadian qualification to monitor and re certify them?
3) Questionable refugee claimants… Well that’s just a bad, bad, bad idea.

I definitely agree with all of these, especially point 1, which links well with point 2. The Canadian Forces needs to be able to accredit it's own technical and medical specialists in order to recruit them. If I'm a respiratory therapist, or some other highly trained medical technologist, I have a damned good civilian career out look, making 60-80,000 a year, and being able to live in some of the best cities in the world, or at least in Canada. If the Forces wants to try and attract these professions, they need to have a benefit, a draw, and something more then just serving your country, your helping your fellow man by just doing your job for those people. The most obvious, and beneficial in my mind, is a system or apprenticeship and certification for medical and technical specialists done through the military. This would build interest in the opportunities available through the military and therefore increase the amount of recruits we have, especially in the CSS department.
 
R031button said:
I definitely agree with all of these, especially point 1, which links well with point 2. The Canadian Forces needs to be able to accredit it's own technical and medical specialists in order to recruit them. If I'm a respiratory therapist, or some other highly trained medical technologist, I have a damned good civilian career out look, making 60-80,000 a year, and being able to live in some of the best cities in the world, or at least in Canada. If the Forces wants to try and attract these professions, they need to have a benefit, a draw, and something more then just serving your country, your helping your fellow man by just doing your job for those people. The most obvious, and beneficial in my mind, is a system or apprenticeship and certification for medical and technical specialists done through the military. This would build interest in the opportunities available through the military and therefore increase the amount of recruits we have, especially in the CSS department.

There is something similar for dentistry I remember... I think was that current dentistry students in university can join the CF in an apprenticeship, and have their education paided by the CF. You then have to obviously be a member of the CF for a certain amount of time before you are allowed to leave.
 
Here's an interesting article from the CBC Viewpoint section.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_robertson/20060228.html
VICKI ROBERTSON:Making a difference
CBC News Viewpoint | Feb. 28, 2006

Vicki Robertson grew up in the Halifax area, with close ties to the military. After traveling for many years, Vicki and her husband Alan settled in Bedford, Nova Scotia. While working full-time in the IT industry, she satisfies her curiosity about life and her love of education by attending Mt. Saint Vincent University as a part-time student.


At a post-election ceremony, the mention in the incoming Conservative platform of a stronger military with new equipment and more troops made Gen. Rick Hillier school-girl giddy. Now, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor has pledged to make good on that promise by increasing the regular forces strength by 20 per cent. However, we need 13,000 volunteers to fill the ranks.

According to Statistics Canada, we have more than four million men and women between the ages of 20 and 29. Sounds promising, but Hillier stopped giggling when he discovered the competition is stiff. He's at a loss to understand why Canadians aren't lining up to join.

The military offers the same benefits as most employers. The pay for a first-year private is $29,052, about average for any Canadian starting in a trade. Recruits in the U.S. make much less, but with the perks – housing and university tuition – the incentive is huge. They also get to play with shiny new machines. However, the U.S. military has something else we don't have: a brand.

"Be all that you can be" and "a few good men" are all familiar, even to Canadians. What do we have? "Duty with honour," along with four used subs, two aging supply ships, a handful of destroyers and old helicopters. In the war of public relations, the military is losing the battle: Canadians consider our military a joke.

O'Connor promises that the military is going to get new equipment, but this isn't the kind of gear Wal-Mart keeps on the shelf. It will be a good decade before we see any of it. And there are no guarantees: This is a minority government and already the Liberals are saying the transformation is going to cost more than the Conservatives claim. Meanwhile, recruits will be wondering why the helicopters they're flying in are older than their parents.

Is this our field of dreams? Build it, and they will come?

Maybe not. We need more than oversized Tonka toys and geeky gadgets to rebuild our military. The greatest military assets we have are the men and women who volunteer despite knowing they may end up in Afghanistan or some other war-torn country. For them, military service is no laughing matter. It's deadly serious.

The military of my youth was far different from today's. I grew up in married quarters, where every neighbourhood kid understood what NATO exercises meant – dad was going away in January and we would see him in May. The ships would quietly slip out of port for their months-long voyages, and sail back to private celebrations. Today, we see headlines when a few ships leave for a three-week exercise off the East Coast.

Even though there was little media attention, many of us wanted to sign up as soon as we were of age. It was a way of life – the only one we knew. Military service was respected. The camaraderie on the ships extended to the playground. We were a community. We supported each other. We pitched in wherever we were needed – babysitting, mowing lawns, shovelling driveways. And we learned by example.

I remember a drive over a bridge that spans Halifax harbour with my dad. I was about 10 years old at the time, and I was just grasping the concept of the Cold War. I asked him what would happen if real hostilities broke out. "Would you have to go?" I asked tentatively.

"Yes, I would have to go."

"But what if something happened to you?"

Dad struggled with the words, but he knew he couldn't dodge the question. "Something could happen, but I signed up to protect our country."

"Couldn't you just get out of the Navy instead?"

"No."

I was hurt. Then he added: "Imagine if everyone did that. We wouldn't have much of a military."

I got it. He couldn't be selfish and neither could I. There was an awkward silence in the car as I peered out over the dockyard brimming with warships. But at that moment, I realized that it takes a special person to be in the military – selfless, dedicated and strong.

It wasn't until I was 16 and my father had retired that I discovered how little was known "on the outside" about military life. Apparently, we were called Navy brats – as if we were spoiled. But we did have something other kids didn't – independence and strength, along with enormous pride in our parents who served. They were our heroes. They still are today.

Dartmouth's Shannon Park was my home, but now it's cordoned off like a toxic waste dump and Halifax's military families are scattered.

It seems the concept of military housing is a hard sell these days. And while formal support resources have been put in place for the families, the sense of community is not the same.

Except in Afghanistan. The story of Namatullah, the little boy with terminal cancer, exemplifies the military that I remember, and what it means to be a community. The efforts of some very special people are beyond heart-warming – they're life changing.

In one little boy's very short life, these men and women are doing what they promised – making a difference and being someone's hero. Now that's a brand.

The men and women of the CF are truly the brand of our armed forces. Making a difference should be the main drive of any recruiting campaign.

Many who join the military tought about it since their tender youth. Now for those who hadn't and feel like to promote our values and make a difference where it counts, I think a campaign could stir something up IF they have a glance at the possibilities the CF have to offer.

Misinformation, uninformation, myths are our enemies. The CF have a long way to go to renew his relationship with Canadians.

This testimony is one option and a great one.
 
Very Good article.
Something I picked up on while reading it:
"selfless, dedicated and strong. "
That wouldn't be too bad for a slogan, eh?
 
"Selfless, dedicated, and strong."  That's good!

I can't get this article out of my head.  I was thinking about it while doing a weight workout. 

Isn't it interesting that the American pitch is egocentric - "Be all that you can be" while the Canadian pitch - "Duty with honour," appeals to a military ethos - a belief system somewhat removed from most of the civilian population.

Perhaps that is the disconnect for our youth.  They need the direct sell.  ie. How does this benefit ME?
Although I prefer appealing to people's higher natures, maybe it just doesn't grab their imagination. 
 
Back
Top