Thank you for the invitation to speak with you today.
I am a defence scientist, but I'm appearing as an individual. As such, I'm not really able to comment directly on current policy, except as it intersects with my research. I'm also a proud navy wife.
If I could begin with what I feel is the key factor in making recruitment and retention in the CAF so challenging, it is that there is no CAF culture. There is instead a thousand different microcultures within the CAF. Every service, every occupation, has a particular set of traditions, requirements, habits and vocabularies that are specific to it, and they are often at odds with those of other occupations.
A recruiting campaign that attracts someone to a very physical, aggressive and identity-based occupation like infanteer might actively discourage someone who is interested in becoming a search and rescue technician. Figuring out what universal patterns of behaviour are harmful—such as heavy drinking or sexual harassment—is the easy part. Understanding how things such as traditional but untested requirements for upper body strength to access certain occupations, and how those requirements potentially discriminate against women, is more complex and requires sensitive research and unit-level solutions.
This brings me to the second challenge, which is the tension between individuality and universality. In seeking to make the CAF more welcoming for people who don't fit the traditional mould of a rural, old-stock Canadian man with a stay-at-home wife, the CAF has instituted policies around dress and grooming, parental leave, posting, service couples and so on that are designed to support CAF members with different personal and family needs.
Unfortunately, the policies that benefit some members are perceived by others as disadvantaging them or as weakening a foundational aspect of military culture, such as the universality of service, which is sometimes voiced as “a soldier is a soldier is a soldier”. Even when leaders recognize that universality has always been code for white, anglophone and male, there is a very real concern that, beyond a certain point, individual accommodations destroy the esprit de corps that, for some members, is at the core of their military service.
This is seen as a cultural shift, but it is more accurately an economic transition. In previous decades, Canadians joining the CAF accepted a loss of autonomy for the protection of a career that could support a family on one income. This is a career where you move frequently but housing was available and subsidized, and where your kids moved from school to school but would meet old friends on base schools around the world. Now, the situation is dramatically different. Most families are dual income by choice or necessity, and many CAF bases are located in places where it is difficult for spouses to find meaningful and gainful employment. Housing costs have skyrocketed, and CAF members who move frequently are at the mercy of the market, while others who stay in one place are making large profits.
The perks of CAF service no longer outweigh the loss of autonomy and the severe family strain it can create. Policies to support individuality can only go so far when the CAF is facing the structural and economic problems that are rooted in Canadian society writ large.
Finally, the third challenge is evidence. We know from prior research that women and other minorities face a wide range of barriers in mostly white, mostly male institutions such as the CAF. What we don't know is how to fix that in the specific context of the military. For example, if women are perceived as bossy, shrill or unlikable when they are assertive, this can make them a less effective leader. How do you tease the effects of sexism out from the reality that most women in the CAF will lead men for the bulk of their career? How do you distinguish a woman who is a poor leader from a women who's experiencing the corrosive effects of sexism from her subordinates?
Every CAF advancement decision is noticed, discussed and dissected on social media and will be the subject of rumour and grievance, so being transparent about what is happening when people are promoted or not is key. When it comes to culture change, we don't know what best practices look like because war is a very difficult experimental condition to replicate. Every researcher and policy-maker who wants to change the bad aspects of CAF culture—sexism, sexual misconduct, racism, homophobia, groupthink, anti-intellectualism and cronyism—runs into the same argument: “Hey, this is what has worked in the past. How do I know your suggestions aren't going to get people killed?” The truthful answer is, I don't know.
What I do know is that the CAF is desperately short of people. The sexual misconduct scandals have broken Canadians' trust in their military, as well as CAF members' trust in their leadership. As Canadian society becomes more polarized, and as trust in institutions declines even further, the CAF must adapt to survive. One way it can adapt is by careful, evidence-based and transparent changes in culture, training and advancement.
Thank you. I welcome your questions on anything I've presented or on another aspect of recruitment, retention and culture change.