# Canadian military’s template for perfect recruits outdated: Vance



## Halifax Tar (18 Nov 2018)

HALIFAX - The man who leads the Canadian Armed Forces says the military has failed to adequately integrate women and minorities, partly because it has for too long relied on an antiquated template for its recruits.

Gen. Jonathan Vance, the chief of defence staff, told a defence and security conference Saturday that the military has to change because the very nature of warfare is changing, particularly when it comes to cyber-warfare.

More on link
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/amp/canada/article-canadian-militarys-template-for-perfect-recruits-invalid-vance/


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (18 Nov 2018)

It clearly is outdated, 40% of the Navy is so medically unfit they can't sail.


----------



## Stoker (18 Nov 2018)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> It clearly is outdated, 40% of the Navy is so medically unfit they can't sail.



I think the point of the article is that he's looking at lowering the standards for IT tech people and the like to allow more of those people to come in which I don't agree with. As for the 40% of the navy being medically unfit, I don't know the numbers on that but what is your source? If is in fact 40% we do need more people who can sail and a lowering of the standard is not going to serve the RCN well to replace these sea going people.


----------



## brihard (18 Nov 2018)

I wonder if there might be some merit in looking at how the RCMP employs ‘civilian members’ (as opposed to public servants) who are members of the force, are deployable, and who fill roles in operational, technical and investigational support without having to have a badge and a gun. The RCMP is sadly and in the eyes of many misguidedly moving away from this and converting CMs to Public Servants, however it offers a prototype for how skills could be recruited, trained, and career managed without the notion that everybody needs to be able to be a trigger puller.


----------



## Journeyman (18 Nov 2018)

I think that another telling line is, “...everybody else who is not in that template, the antibodies start to gather around them.”  

This suggests that the issue is not only with the recruiting system -- CFRS guidelines and Recruit School behaviours -- but potentially peer 'justice' within the shacks... to include 'old school' (to be kind) Snr NCMs who cannot accept that things are not as per their imagined "back in my day," and the Jr Officers who turn a blind eye to inappropriately taking matters into their own hands.


Note: I'm not advocating eliminating hard, challenging training, which is absolutely necessary in many fields; that isn't remotely the same as targeting individuals for beasting because they're 'different.'

Your interpretation may vary.


----------



## PuckChaser (18 Nov 2018)

The problem is, we have a hard right handrail of number of folks in uniform. We're not getting any bigger. Any increase in people who cannot deploy/bear arms/etc takes up those finite slots and makes the Op tempo higher for those who can. A cycle will just start where people get burned out, pushing them into non-deployable and burn more people out as the deployable pool gets smaller and smaller.

What the CDS seems to be proposing is a culture change from everyone being required to be fit to fight, to only some people need to do that, everyone else can hang out in the back.


----------



## FSTO (18 Nov 2018)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The problem is, we have a hard right handrail of number of folks in uniform. We're not getting any bigger. Any increase in people who cannot deploy/bear arms/etc takes up those finite slots and makes the Op tempo higher for those who can. A cycle will just start where people get burned out, pushing them into non-deployable and burn more people out as the deployable pool gets smaller and smaller.
> 
> What the CDS seems to be proposing is a culture change from everyone being required to be fit to fight, to only some people need to do that, everyone else can hang out in the back.



I sincerely hope not. Not quicker way to ferment resentment and and increase an already toxic us vs them attitude that is rife throughout the CAF.


----------



## Journeyman (18 Nov 2018)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> What the CDS seems to be proposing is a culture change from everyone being required to be fit to fight, to only some people need to do that, everyone else can hang out in the back.



"Fit to fight" is just another catch-phrase that gets tossed around, like "whole of government."  We've always had different standards.  I've never expected the unit clerk, or a photo tech, or the Bde lawyer, etc. to carry the same rucksack and combat load as an Infanteer (who, as we know, in addition to his own kit, carries radio batteries, ammo for support weapons, etc).

I don't see the CDS suggesting that he wants differing standards within a trade;  the fitness and medical standards of a Cyber Operator will have absolutely no effect on the op tempo for a combat arms soldier.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (18 Nov 2018)

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> I think the point of the article is that he's looking at lowering the standards for IT tech people and the like to allow more of those people to come in which I don't agree with. As for the 40% of the navy being medically unfit, I don't know the numbers on that but what is your source? If is in fact 40% we do need more people who can sail and a lowering of the standard is not going to serve the RCN well to replace these sea going people.



I don't have access to hard numbers but this number has been thrown around by a number of folks, some quite senior.  To clarify, this number includes staffing shortages as well as medically unfit individuals who cannot go for various reasons.

It is to the point where the same people are deploying over and over again and different platform are robbing from Paul so Peter can sail.  

RCN is allowing MARS IV Officers to skip the normal surface fleet tour without even being NOPQ qualified and heading right to the submarine force after training, that is how short staffed that particular platform is for instance.  And Submarines are supposed to be a D-Level for post NOPQ-qualified Officers, according to official CAF policy.


----------



## PuckChaser (18 Nov 2018)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> "Fit to fight" is just another catch-phrase that gets tossed around, like "whole of government."  We've always had different standards.  I've never expected the unit clerk, or a photo tech, or the Bde lawyer, etc. to carry the same rucksack and combat load as an Infanteer (who, as we know, in addition to his own kit, carries radio batteries, ammo for support weapons, etc).
> 
> I don't see the CDS suggesting that he wants differing standards within a trade;  the fitness and medical standards of a Cyber Operator will have absolutely no effect on the op tempo for a combat arms soldier.



You used a pretty polar opposite example of a clerk compared to a light infantry soldier, I don't think anyone is suggesting that the standard be on the infantry side of the spectrum. There should, however, be a standard where individuals are able to shoot, move, and communicate and function very basically as soldiers in a field environment. If you can't take a rucksack from a truck and hump it 500m into your biv site, or hit a target 100m away while prone, there's an issue.

Its not specifically outlined in this article, however the CDS has said he's pushing to tier our military into folks who want to deploy/get posted, deploy/not get posted, and not deploy/not get posted. This would mean differing standards within all trades, although his intent would be that folks who have no restrictions are the ones that are going to be getting the pay and promotions. We've already seen the start: Folks on TCAT (could be long or short term) can now be promoted, sometimes ahead of their peers who are fit and deployable.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (18 Nov 2018)

What if the nature of warfare is such that only a certain, small percentage of a human population actually wants to consider a career field in it? Then what?

You will note that I am absolutely not singling out any particular gender, racial group or any other discriminator one might care to use.

What i am suggesting is that maybe, just maybe,  the PSEL folks should look objectively at what works in warfare (all areas of warfare) and then design our attraction, recruiting and retention strategies on those personalitiy types.

What I am suggesting is that we design our military to win. And use objective facts to do so.


----------



## Underway (18 Nov 2018)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I don't have access to hard numbers but this number has been thrown around by a number of folks, some quite senior.  To clarify, this number includes staffing shortages as well as medically unfit individuals who cannot go for various reasons.
> 
> It is to the point where the same people are deploying over and over again and different platform are robbing from Paul so Peter can sail.
> 
> RCN is allowing MARS IV Officers to skip the normal surface fleet tour without even being NOPQ qualified and heading right to the submarine force after training, that is how short staffed that particular platform is for instance.  And Submarines are supposed to be a D-Level for post NOPQ-qualified Officers, according to official CAF policy.



I wouldn't use the submarine force as an example.  They are always different and change their policies over time.  What is written down really isn't the way things work in the sub fleet for career progression anymore.  It used to be that you elected for subs right out of MARS IV (when I joined in 2000 all the sub Lt(N) were straight submariners, never sailed on a surface vessel).  Then the switch the the D Level version.  They recently trialed getting engineers to finish their Phase VI on a submarine instead of on a frigate.  Subs do weird things and try different things all the time because by the time someone is getting a D-level they often don't want to go into subs.  They are too established in their surface fleet ways and shore postings with their kids and family.  Get them in and qualified before they have dependants ...


----------



## Journeyman (18 Nov 2018)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You used a pretty polar opposite example of a clerk compared to a light infantry soldier...


I was actually contrasting combat arms with pretty much everyone else ('pretty much' because, yes, I am aware that other trades actually ruck up as well).

Whereas I saw the CDS statement as looking particularly towards IT, you went directly to 'op tempo burnout' with, I suspect, an eye solely on your own rice bowl.  With everyone complaining about diminished training funds and wasted effort, I personally can't justify spending a training dime or day on having some Cyber person (or anyone with single-digit odds of being in harms' way) qualify on carrying a rucksack from a truck to a biv site, just so we can chant some "fit to fight" mantra.  Some people/units spend months on pre-deployment training; teach them then, if need be.

Although none of this was the gist of my original post, which apparently got garbled.

Again, "your interpretation may vary."   Enjoy.


----------



## Halifax Tar (18 Nov 2018)

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> I think the point of the article is that he's looking at lowering the standards for IT tech people and the like to allow more of those people to come in which I don't agree with. As for the 40% of the navy being medically unfit, I don't know the numbers on that but what is your source? If is in fact 40% we do need more people who can sail and a lowering of the standard is not going to serve the RCN well to replace these sea going people.



As recently as Sept of this year at a divisions, the Flag officer present frankly pointed out that we are 7-800 people short in the RCN and roughly the same amount is on MELs that restrict employment at sea.  

Not sure what our total numbers are, but I am sure we aren't in good shape. 



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You used a pretty polar opposite example of a clerk compared to a light infantry soldier, I don't think anyone is suggesting that the standard be on the infantry side of the spectrum. There should, however, be a standard where individuals are able to shoot, move, and communicate and function very basically as soldiers in a field environment. If you can't take a rucksack from a truck and hump it 500m into your biv site, or hit a target 100m away while prone, there's an issue.
> 
> Its not specifically outlined in this article, however the CDS has said he's pushing to tier our military into folks who want to deploy/get posted, deploy/not get posted, and not deploy/not get posted. This would mean differing standards within all trades, although his intent would be that folks who have no restrictions are the ones that are going to be getting the pay and promotions. We've already seen the start: Folks on TCAT (could be long or short term) can now be promoted, sometimes ahead of their peers who are fit and deployable.



What are they going to do when the majority choose to be in the dont deploy dont post column ?  Scary thought eh!


----------



## daftandbarmy (18 Nov 2018)

"Truly then, it is killing men with kindness not to insist upon physical standards during training which will give them maximum fitness for the extraordinary stresses of campaigning in war." S.L.A Marshall


----------



## Lumber (18 Nov 2018)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> What are they going to do when the majority choose to be in the dont deploy dont post column ?  Scary thought eh!



I really think, as others have alluded to, that this will primarily affect cyber and IT related trades.

They will lower standards or alter the structure of the trade altogether. These folk will work in HQs, Cyber Ops Centres and IT Centres of excellence with zero possibility of deploying or being posted. But, they won't make as much money as the rest of us... maybe?

There will be a 2nd cadre of these folk who have elected to be able to deploy. They will have higher standards and make more money than the others... again maybe.

Really, only read my first sentence. The rest is all blind conjecture...


----------



## Halifax Tar (18 Nov 2018)

Lumber said:
			
		

> I really think, as others have alluded to, that this will primarily affect cyber and IT related trades.
> 
> They will lower standards or alter the structure of the trade altogether. These folk will work in HQs, Cyber Ops Centres and IT Centres of excellence with zero possibility of deploying or being posted. But, they won't make as much money as the rest of us... maybe?
> 
> ...



I am pretty sure the "journey" program, or policy or whatever it will end up being; is going to be intended and implement across the board.


----------



## RCDtpr (18 Nov 2018)

Lumber said:
			
		

> I really think, as others have alluded to, that this will primarily affect cyber and IT related trades.
> 
> They will lower standards or alter the structure of the trade altogether. These folk will work in HQs, Cyber Ops Centres and IT Centres of excellence with zero possibility of deploying or being posted. But, they won't make as much money as the rest of us... maybe?
> 
> ...



With the money these guys can make for cyber warfare skills civvie side.....rest assured they will likely make more than us....not less.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Nov 2018)

Lumber said:
			
		

> I really think, as others have alluded to, that this will primarily affect cyber and IT related trades.
> 
> They will lower standards or alter the structure of the trade altogether. These folk will work in HQs, Cyber Ops Centres and IT Centres of excellence with zero possibility of deploying or being posted. But, they won't make as much money as the rest of us... maybe?
> 
> ...



So does the oath get changed? How do we operate when only some troops are slated for unlimited liability, while others sit in their warm dry cubicles? I mean, we see similar with people on MELs, etc, but that's caused by conditions, which should only be temporary. MELs that become permanent that affect universality, typically end up in release. Do we now allow someone to cross train to IT, that doesn't meet universality of service, so that person can remain in the CAF? 

Do we really want to create two completely different classes of service people? If we want limited liability, no deployments, no harms way, shouldn't we just hire civilians to do those jobs? Of course, getting civies, especially techies, to do their job for military pay, might be a problem.

I'm intrigued by Lumbers scenario, but I think my questions might be just the tip of the iceberg. I really don't think it would be that simple, but I'd like more discussion of it.


----------



## daftandbarmy (18 Nov 2018)

ExRCDcpl said:
			
		

> With the money these guys can make for cyber warfare skills civvie side.....rest assured they will likely make more than us....not less.



The human resource challenges on the supply side will be significant, but perhaps not impossible, as this article suggests:

https://www.itbusiness.ca/blog/the-it-skills-shortage-fact-or-myth/66407


----------



## blacktriangle (18 Nov 2018)

ExRCDcpl said:
			
		

> With the money these guys can make for cyber warfare skills civvie side.....rest assured they will likely make more than us....not less.



Correct. Good luck retaining competent Cyber Ops with Spec 1. Even similar jobs in the public sector pay more with less BS.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (18 Nov 2018)

Am I missing something?  While there has been some previous announcements discussion from CAF leadership about possible changes to service models, this latest article does not report anything new other than quoting Vance while he was discussing "diversity" as the "token" male on one of the panels at the Halifax Security Forum.  It wasn't from a speech or public announcement about any new initiatives, it was only reiterating as part of a panel discussion the realization that the way things worked in the past will likely not work in the future.

Video of the panel is here (go down the page a bit), the bit that was quoted from Vance is near the beginning.
https://halifaxtheforum.org/forum/2018-halifax-international-security-forum/saturday-november-17/#agenda


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Nov 2018)

standingdown said:
			
		

> Correct. Good luck retaining competent Cyber Ops with Spec 1. Even similar jobs in the public sector pay more with less BS.



We could try something radical and stop treating people like shit.


----------



## blacktriangle (19 Nov 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> We could try something radical and stop treating people like crap.


----------



## JesseWZ (19 Nov 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> We could try something radical and stop treating people like crap.



Slow your roll... you know senior officers lurk these boards... 

_They may actually try it... and then where would we be?!_  :tsktsk:


----------



## AbdullahD (19 Nov 2018)

I do not think lowering fitness standards is the correct way to go. I think integrating a "fit-to-fight" model would be best, a person can hire on for a specific role then spend 'x' amount of time of the work week in the gym. Once they are 'fit' they start bmq either how the reserves do it or full time. Now the harsh realization is some people who may really desire to be in the forces, be competent to do a specific job may need a year or more to get fit.. so have an addendum to the contract that time spent not bmq qualified and in the 'fit-to-fight' program only counts as half time.. so if you sign on for say four years.. but take two getting fit your in for 5 or so.

Also looking at pay specs for a lot of trades.. I do think pay raises are in order.. but i could be out to lunch here.

The culture and mentality I cant speak to, so I wont really.. but if it is as bad as some here lead me to believe by their posts.. then asking a person to take a pay cut or deal with drama and bs may not be worth it for them. Heck I'm 32 and I am very curious if I can handle the drama of bmq and military life..  or if it is just not worth it (no i am not looking to apply CN is taking care of me right now quite well and this last year I've been lazy so yeah lol just wanted to put a disclaimer on that).

A lot of the educated, skilled people the CAF needs to attract may not be interested due to perception and stereotypes in the CAF. Now a targeted advertising campaign, enforcement of a new culture (possibly) and a realization that north Americans are typically over weight and becoming fit doesnt happen over night needs to happen. Telling someone if they get fit (however long that takes), they can take a 5 grand pay cut and serve their country.. does not seem to be working. 

I'd be in the CAF right now and not at CN if these things were implemented.. but I got the job offer at CN before I was ready for the CAF.. so i chose CN because i couldn't wait. Now i have a career and yea i want to get fit.. but now is it worth it? 

This is my bias from my experience take as you will.
Abdullah

Ps I personally do not care about targeted recruiting regarding minorities, women etc. I think the best person should get the job, regardless of sex, race or religion.. so the minorities thing is a meh point to me but address the other issues and that gets addressed to, to an extent.


----------



## Furniture (19 Nov 2018)

One huge problem with reduced standards is how far do they go? 

I'm a weather guy, but when I was in Afghanistan with D Bty they didn't ask whether I was "ok" when it came time to dig mortar pits, or hump ammo. 

Does Met now qualify because we can't attract enough people? We are shot, and projected short next year. Maybe we need to lower standards, then we can fill trade with even more troops collecting a full salary, yet failing to do the expected jobs. 

There is no good end to this, just damage control.


----------



## dapaterson (19 Nov 2018)

To my mind, the CAF's problem is not entry standards, but excessive training pre employment.  We need a cull to focus training to get pers out of the training system faster.  This means accepting lower initial skills for Ptes, and understanding the need for ongoing PD once in units.

Or, to quote a friend about his recent course, "It was a typical Army course, with two weeks of content crammed into four."


----------



## PuckChaser (19 Nov 2018)

Sigs tried to do that with ACISS. It failed miserably as the line units couldn't dedicate time to teach skills that should have been mastered at a DP1 level. All we did was end up creating troops that had to be babysat at the units instead of being trusted that their training was sufficient to operate independently.


----------



## RCDtpr (19 Nov 2018)

The reality for this new cyber trade is they can lower the fitness, deployment, whatever standards all they want.  Until they start paying their people commensurate to their skill level etc. they will always have issues hiring and retaining people.

Take a look at the MP’s.  They can’t keep up with attrition because a huge number realize getting paid 65-70k as a spec Cpl when they can go get paid 100k as a first class Constable (before overtime) without the military headache is too enticing.  That’s only 30-35k pay gap......in the cyber trades they think they can pay an NCM of any rank well under 100k when those guys can go make 150+ to start, to do private consulting etc and retain people?

I’m no expert and I could be wrong but I think NOTHING the military does short of paying those guys/girls a ton of money will retain them.


----------



## Remius (19 Nov 2018)

We need a more asymmetrical approach to it.  In house VOTs could get a few and create a core.  Sell the cyber stuff as a stepping stone into civy life for others.  Come do a VIE and get valuable real life experience.   Pay may be an issue but it can be mitigated with some creative stuff.  Preferential postings,  optional VOTs and interesting secondments etc

If cyber is that important then put it on par with SOF.


----------



## PuckChaser (19 Nov 2018)

Let's be honest, folks coming right out of school trained in cyber defense are not making 150k to start. Those high paying jobs need experience. 5 years after working in cyber at DND, absolutely. But off the bat spec 1 Cpl is fine. Especially with the job security (ironclad unless you're a rapist), which is worth quite a bit in salary offsets.


----------



## RCDtpr (19 Nov 2018)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Let's be honest, folks coming right out of school trained in cyber defense are not making 150k to start. Those high paying jobs need experience. 5 years after working in cyber at DND, absolutely. But off the bat spec 1 Cpl is fine. Especially with the job security (ironclad unless you're a rapist), which is worth quite a bit in salary offsets.



I agree with you....but the trade will have the same problems as the MP’s.  People join to get experience and courses with zero intention of staying for a career, meaning the CAF lacks experienced leadership in the trade as well as having to constantly pay to train new people.

So like I said, until the CAF makes pay competitive with civvie side opportunities, they will have huge problems retaining people in that trade as the pay gap for experienced cyber warfare specialists is just too massive for for say a Sgt with 10 years experience making less than 80k with spec.


----------



## Remius (19 Nov 2018)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Let's be honest, folks coming right out of school trained in cyber defense are not making 150k to start. Those high paying jobs need experience. 5 years after working in cyber at DND, absolutely. But off the bat spec 1 Cpl is fine. Especially with the job security (ironclad unless you're a rapist), which is worth quite a bit in salary offsets.



Yeah, that number seems to be in the lower range for CISOs (Chief information Security Officers).

Here is a site that shows the average starting salary to be around 42,000$ a year with 87,000 being the average in Canada.  150,000 is at the top end of the spectrum.

https://neuvoo.ca/salary/?job=cyber+security


----------



## daftandbarmy (19 Nov 2018)

ExRCDcpl said:
			
		

> I agree with you....but the trade will have the same problems as the MP’s.  People join to get experience and courses with zero intention of staying for a career, meaning the CAF lacks experienced leadership in the trade as well as having to constantly pay to train new people.
> 
> So like I said, until the CAF makes pay competitive with civvie side opportunities, they will have huge problems retaining people in that trade as the pay gap for experienced cyber warfare specialists is just too massive for for say a Sgt with 10 years experience making less than 80k with spec.



I occasionally work with IT focused departments in government as clients. They know they'll never be able to compete with the private sector on pay. 

However, they know that the millennial generation aren't all about 'working ourselves to death for cash' so are, instead, focusing on the impact that passionate public servants can have on the lives of citizens through designing  and implementing enhanced digital services. A good impact that is.


----------



## Remius (19 Nov 2018)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I occasionally work with IT focused departments in government as clients. They know they'll never be able to compete with the private sector on pay.
> 
> However, they know that the millennial generation aren't all about 'working ourselves to death for cash' so are, instead, focusing on the impact that passionate public servants can have on the lives of citizens through designing  and implementing enhanced digital services. A good impact that is.



Part of that is accepting that the 25-35 year career might be become (unless it hasn't already) the exception rather than the norm. So maybe a new model is needed to deal with that.


----------



## Underway (19 Nov 2018)

ExRCDcpl said:
			
		

> I agree with you....but the trade will have the same problems as the MP’s.  People join to get experience and courses with zero intention of staying for a career, meaning the CAF lacks experienced leadership in the trade as well as having to constantly pay to train new people.
> 
> So like I said, until the CAF makes pay competitive with civvie side opportunities, they will have huge problems retaining people in that trade as the pay gap for experienced cyber warfare specialists is just too massive for for say a Sgt with 10 years experience making less than 80k with spec.



So make a cyber warfare specialist a civilian "contractor" job.  For cyber warfare the military only needs a seat at the table.  Perhaps at the head of the table but cyber is going to require a system that is more akin to the SAR job than with traditional warfare, where all the players sit together at a table.  Cybersecurity might rotate to who takes lead depending on the situation.  CSIS, RCMP, CAF etc...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 Nov 2018)

Furniture said:
			
		

> Does Met now qualify because we can't attract enough people? *We are shot*, and projected short next year. Maybe we need to lower standards, then we can fill trade with even more troops collecting a full salary, yet failing to do the expected jobs.



  Maybe try giving people, like, Remedial Measures to help them correct deficiencies before going right to the firing squad solution?

 ;D


----------



## dapaterson (19 Nov 2018)

ExRCDcpl said:
			
		

> I agree with you....but the trade will have the same problems as the MP’s.  People join to get experience and courses with zero intention of staying for a career, meaning the CAF lacks experienced leadership in the trade as well as having to constantly pay to train new people.
> 
> So like I said, until the CAF makes pay competitive with civvie side opportunities, they will have huge problems retaining people in that trade as the pay gap for experienced cyber warfare specialists is just too massive for for say a Sgt with 10 years experience making less than 80k with spec.



We need some long, hard decisions about what needs to be in a CAF uniform, and what does not.  PW handling and base / wing security (especially when deployed)?  Uniformed.  PMQ patch patrols?  Perhaps not so necessary.  I'd argue that the problem with MPs is that we badged them...


----------



## stellarpanther (19 Nov 2018)

I don't think there is a clear answer to the problems as everything I have read here is accurate and I've heard all of these reasons mentioned when mbr's come in for release appointments.  One of the big reasons I hear is that the CoC treats them like crap, lies to them and has an old school way of thinking.  The CDS can issue all the directives he wants and I like and agree completely with what he is doing but the problem is his Sr NCO's and Lt-Maj's are not always following his directives.  There are other things that people don't like either like all of the secondary duties. Most mbr's work extremely hard and they want to enjoy their time off, not do things like WASF or BDF or whatever you want to call it. Most HRA's, FSA, cooks etc didn't join to guard the base or stand in a field guarding a plane.  The would have applied to be an MP if that was the case.  Also hearing the line "that's what you signed up for" pisses me off to no end.  I know what I signed up for and don't need someone telling me.  Sorry for the rant but this stuff gets me worked up.


----------



## PuckChaser (19 Nov 2018)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> We need some long, hard decisions about what needs to be in a CAF uniform, and what does not.  PW handling and base / wing security (especially when deployed)?  Uniformed.  PMQ patch patrols?  Perhaps not so necessary.  I'd argue that the problem with MPs is that we badged them...


It almost sounds like we needed to do a complete defense review, digging into the empires and sacred cows to see if what they were doing was really needed.


----------



## Kat Stevens (19 Nov 2018)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> It almost sounds like we needed to do a complete defense review, digging into the empires and sacred cows to see if what they were doing was really needed.



Ooo! Ooo! A White Paper! We need a Wite Paper! That’ll sort it all out.  :


----------



## garb811 (19 Nov 2018)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> We need some long, hard decisions about what needs to be in a CAF uniform, and what does not.  PW handling and base / wing security (especially when deployed)?  Uniformed.  PMQ patch patrols?  Perhaps not so necessary.  I'd argue that the problem with MPs is that we badged them...


So...tell me.  When is it you think it was MP were "badged" then?   op:


----------



## Navy_Pete (20 Nov 2018)

Underway said:
			
		

> So make a cyber warfare specialist a civilian "contractor" job.  For cyber warfare the military only needs a seat at the table.  Perhaps at the head of the table but cyber is going to require a system that is more akin to the SAR job than with traditional warfare, where all the players sit together at a table.  Cybersecurity might rotate to who takes lead depending on the situation.  CSIS, RCMP, CAF etc...



Out of curiosity, are there legal considerations to cyber wrt policing actions vs out of country stuff?  Thinking like when we do fisheries patrols, the navy is basically just a carrier for the DFO officers, or other times where we do something similar for the RCMP doing some policing actions in Canadian TTW.

I.E. if someone is engaged in some kind of computer shenanigans inside Canada, that would be a domestic policing issue, but if it's a foreign power messing with Canadian IT, that's something else (with offensive Canadian cyberwarfare against another nation would be clearly in CAF).

Not really sure they exist, but almost need cyber ROE, or just simplify the legislation to consolidate it in one branch. Personally think that this should be best lead by a civilian geek squad that aren't restricted by the general requirements of the universality of service, and can instead get the biggest brains they can find and employ at whatever pay scale is suitable for that area.  No reason their overall direction couldn't fall under something like CEFCOM but if we're too structured it won't work. There are probably lots of people that could never get through basic that would be proud to be given a chance to serve their country in this kind of capacity if given the chance.

As an aside, don't think the CDS really said anything, and was just making the kind of pleasing noises without meaning that comes out of the talking heads at events like this. No disrespect meant, but have been around enough of these events now to know that the key speeches are for show, and if anything meaningful happens, it's at the sidelines over coffee. Unless there is a lot of work done and policies dropping to coincide with it (like the SSE) they are deliberately not saying anything new.


----------



## daftandbarmy (20 Nov 2018)

Underway said:
			
		

> So make a cyber warfare specialist a civilian "contractor" job.  For cyber warfare the military only needs a seat at the table.  Perhaps at the head of the table but cyber is going to require a system that is more akin to the SAR job than with traditional warfare, where all the players sit together at a table.  Cybersecurity might rotate to who takes lead depending on the situation.  CSIS, RCMP, CAF etc...



So what do we do if we need to order our civvy 'geek squad' to destroy enemy countries and people and things?


----------



## rmc_wannabe (20 Nov 2018)

Underway said:
			
		

> So make a cyber warfare specialist a civilian "contractor" job.  For cyber warfare the military only needs a seat at the table.  Perhaps at the head of the table but cyber is going to require a system that is more akin to the SAR job than with traditional warfare, where all the players sit together at a table.  Cybersecurity might rotate to who takes lead depending on the situation.  CSIS, RCMP, CAF etc...



D Cyber talked about this at last year's Cyber Symposium in Kingston.

We did this for ages in the Blue Force side. Defensive posture can be done by anyone on the Public payroll. Red Force, offensive Cyber is an act of war. Anyone other than a uniformed military member acting on behalf of a state actor would be considered a terrorist or criminal under LOAC.

Thus the needs for uniformed Cyber Operators.


----------



## Underway (20 Nov 2018)

rmc_wannabe said:
			
		

> D Cyber talked about this at last year's Cyber Symposium in Kingston.
> 
> We did this for ages in the Blue Force side. Defensive posture can be done by anyone on the Public payroll. Red Force, offensive Cyber is an act of war. Anyone other than a uniformed military member acting on behalf of a state actor would be considered a terrorist or criminal under LOAC.
> 
> Thus the needs for uniformed Cyber Operators.



I disagree.  Intelligence services can do this as well.  Also define offensive cyber.  Planting a virus?  Phishing? etc... if that's the case we have been at war with China and Russia for years.



			
				daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> So what do we do if we need to order our civvy 'geek squad' to destroy enemy countries and people and things?



You tell them to.  There is no reason they can't be bound by similar standards in the application of cyber force. 

Contractors (aka security companies aka mercenaries) with guns destroy things all the time in enemy countries.  It's not a stretch to do it with civilians.  It's not like the Russians are not contracting out to criminal groups or the Chinese don't have entire buildings full of civilian dressed cyber operators.  Not to mention civilian suited CSIS types can do plenty of damage to stuff should that be required.  There is an entire wing of the NSA who do this stuff.

Its the wild west out there.  The rules are still being written.


----------



## daftandbarmy (20 Nov 2018)

Underway said:
			
		

> You tell them to.  There is no reason they can't be bound by similar standards in the application of cyber force.



But if we can't jack them up for not wearing their berets properly, what's the point


----------



## Underway (20 Nov 2018)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> But if we can't jack them up for not wearing their berets properly, what's the point



More likely their carpal tunnel wrist guard is not proper issue.


----------



## stellarpanther (20 Nov 2018)

This thread seems to have turned to some people thinking that the CDS is mostly looking at cyber when considering making changes however, I've been told by a couple of higher ups that he is considering making changes to several trades.  He is looking at a lot of things that will help with retention.  
If you talk to some of the medical folks, they are already saying that most people are not being medically released in the last year.  The expression I've heard is "employable but not deployable".


----------



## PuckChaser (20 Nov 2018)

Cyber's just the low hanging fruit to use for examples, but I've heard the CDS use the same terminology.


----------



## daftandbarmy (21 Nov 2018)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> The expression I've heard is "employable but not deployable".



And so we begin the process of further dividing those 'outside the wire' from those 'inside the wire.'


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Nov 2018)

[quote author=stellar panther] .  The expression I've heard is "employable but not deployable".
[/quote]

Essentially I can do 2-3 times the amount of work, seeing my family 2-3 times less so that someone else who's being paid to do a job but not actually able to do the job when it counts can keep their job and see their family more.

I like it. Sound sounds like that will fix the retention issues


----------



## Halifax Tar (21 Nov 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Essentially I can do 2-3 times the amount of work, seeing my family 2-3 times less so that someone else who's being paid to do a job but not actually able to do the job when it counts can keep their job and see their family more.
> 
> I like it. Sound sounds like that will fix the retention issues



That's essentially the state the RCN is in now


----------

