Evidence of meeting #126 for National Defence in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was diversity.
A video is available from Parliament.
4 p.m.
Liberal
4 p.m.
LCol (Ret'd) John Selkirk
It's simply because you're going to get more people in.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Stephen Fuhr
Thank you.
I'm going to give the last seven-minute period to MP Dzerowicz.
4 p.m.
Julie Dzerowicz Davenport, Lib.
Thank you.
Thank you for coming in. Thank you for your wonderful presentation and for your advocacy.
I'm going to continue a little bit along the same vein, and maybe even continue along the line of questioning that Mr. Garrison had started.
You mentioned that the way to actually recruit more from different ethnic communities is by word of mouth. How do you actually make that initial dive into those communities? You need a certain group to come in so that word of mouth can actually proliferate. What might be some ideas there?
4 p.m.
LCol (Ret'd) John Selkirk
The fact that the units themselves living in the communities now have much more flexibility is a good start, because the recruiting sergeant or recruiting officer of any unit is going to have a good idea about his community and what the ethnic communities are within that community.
There are many ways it can be done, such as going to churches or mosques or schools and events to celebrate culture and all that sort of thing. They can do that. When it was too centralized, there weren't enough people to really get out and do it.
Right now, because we have put recruiters in every unit, we have probably increased the overall number of recruiters by at least double, probably even more. Right off the bat we have more people doing that job. If they get out there, and they know where those communities are, that's the way to go.
4:05 p.m.
Davenport, Lib.
Okay. Thank you.
I come from the private sector. Before I entered politics I was in the private sector. One of the big ways in which we increased the diversity within our company was by providing incentive to our executives.
Are the right incentives in place at the most senior levels within the Canadian Armed Forces to actually increase diversity?
4:05 p.m.
LCol (Ret'd) John Selkirk
I don't know the answer to that question, because I don't know whether, for example, the commander of the army is given those sorts of goals as one of his objectives for the year or whatever. If we're talking about management by objectives or something like that. I'm afraid, then, I can't answer your question.
Commanding officers—we're now considerably down the chain—certainly have been told to increase the numbers of females and the ethnic diversity of their units. Going back to Mr. Gerretsen's question, however, they're not specific targets. They're not, say, get five more of this group this year or 20 of that.
4:05 p.m.
Davenport, Lib.
Do you think it's a good idea for us to have targets, to have the right incentives for leadership to be motivated to actually meet their targets?
4:05 p.m.
LCol (Ret'd) John Selkirk
If it is a well-thought-out program, yes, I think it could be very helpful. Until the department has more data on what they're working with, however.... They need to know more about those populations out there.
The other thing is that you can't be a blanket: one size does not fit all in this great big nation of ours. For example, a rural unit—and by a rural unit I mean a unit probably in a small town—may not have very many people of different ethnic backgrounds. The battery in Kenora, for example, has a lot of indigenous people because the area has many indigenous people. In the regiment I'm most familiar with, the Brockville Rifles, I think we might have one or two, because there aren't that many around our part of the world. Any of these things has to be geared to the local situation.
4:05 p.m.
Davenport, Lib.
Great.
I don't think the Canadian Armed Forces do exit interviews right now. Do you think they're a good idea?
4:05 p.m.
LCol (Ret'd) John Selkirk
I certainly do. I'm amazed, actually; I don't think it does happen, but I don't know. If it does happen, in the army reserve, at least, I'm not sure it's not just happening in a haphazard fashion. It might be good in some places and not others. I don't know. I have no empirical data on any of this, but certainly I think exit interviews are a great thing to do.
4:05 p.m.
Davenport, Lib.
Okay.
I think I have a little time left.
Mr. Gerretsen, do you want to continue and take the rest of my time? We have about two minutes.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Stephen Fuhr
It rolls right into your subsequent five minutes, so you'll have about six and a half minutes.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Perfect.
Mr. Selkirk, going back to this idea of quotas versus policy statements or direction, I hear what you're saying and I passionately believe that what you believe is accurate, in that quotas are going to create a scenario in which we might actually end up creating disincentives.
Can you expand on any anecdotal information you may have that would support the idea or anything you've experienced that might support it?
4:10 p.m.
LCol (Ret'd) John Selkirk
I can't think of any historical anecdotes, but my feeling and the feeling of a large number Reserves 2000 supporters goes like this: Let's focus on gender. If the unit requires, let's say, 20 new people in a recruiting year and you say, “Okay, half of those recruits have to be female,” and partway through the year, most likely towards the end of the year, you have only three, the chance of perhaps making that up with more males diminishes. Therefore, you can wind up at the end of the period missing the opportunity to enrol people who want to do it.
Also there is a danger that good candidates might be turned away. Let's go on that 50% thing again. If the places for 10 male recruits are all filled and there are a bunch of really good male candidates, and they've only been able to attract three females, the likelihood of good males being turned away is there.
Therefore, you could diminish the overall numbers and you could diminish the quality of an intake of recruits in any given year.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Thank you.
I'll change gears a bit. When we talk about recruitment, and in particular how we're going to diversify that, it still comes back to some of the fundamentals around the recruitment process. I know that in Kingston, as regards the PWOR reserve unit there, I've had some conversations with people who have commented that there has definitely been an improvement in the cycle in terms of how long it takes to recruit, but there is still more work to be done.
Can you comment on that?
4:10 p.m.
LCol (Ret'd) John Selkirk
As I said earlier, the biggest thing that still needs to be improved is the delay caused by the medical process.
I've heard the surgeon general speak about the problems. He actually has been turning some files around in under 20 days, which is tremendous, a great improvement.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
That's incredible considering what it used to be.
4:10 p.m.
LCol (Ret'd) John Selkirk
Yes. However, what stuck in my mind was that this is not 1960 when I walked down to the armouries and within about three days I was signed up and drew a uniform, and so on. There are a number of medical issues that probably weren't even known then, allergies and others. He had a list and it all made sense to me. They have to take these into account.
The good old days will never return. I regret to say they'll never return in so many ways, but certainly the medical issues have to be addressed.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Okay.
The last theme that I have here relates to what we were talking about when I took the rest of Mr. Robillard's time, with respect to how you diversify and how you diversify in terms of attracting. Where I was going with that was in regard to something that has really stuck with me in this study and the various witnesses we've had, and a lot of it goes back into the fall, specifically as it relates to how we might treat different genders or different segments of the population differently when they're in their roles.
One thing I learned that I thought was very interesting, and a lot of people might innocently make this mistake, is by assuming, “Well, I need a woman in this role because of her maternal instincts.” We've been told, and I totally agree, that it is the absolute wrong way to approach the situation. How do we make sure that we don't set ourselves up for the same type of discussion or the same type of scenario in the recruitment process?
That is where I was going when you said we have to diversify and reach out to different areas. I'm curious as to how we reach out but protect ourselves so that we don't end up falling victim, perhaps, to some of the stereotypes that exist.
I don't want to put you on the spot. If you don't have an answer now, you can always feel free to follow up later. However, it's something that's on my mind.
4:15 p.m.
LCol (Ret'd) John Selkirk
It's a pretty complicated question, and I don't have an answer at the moment.
4:15 p.m.
LCol (Ret'd) John Selkirk
As you and I are neighbours, let's have a beer, and I'll tell you, but give me a couple of weeks to think about it.
