Not completely accurate. I believe that they have said that they are exploring the selling off of some (all?) of the Federal gov't ownership in the airports. A report from CD Howe put Pearson airport, and a number of others across Canada, at 17 billion and that was 11yrs ago.
Sounds like a new aptitude test will happen during BMQ from what i have read. I cant help but feel like we are wasting a lot of time, and money by doing fitness tests, CFATs etc now Basic instead of at recruiting. This isnt alleviating the bottle neck, its just moving it around
Thank you both @FJAG and @daftandbarmy. My question stemmed from the perspective of looking at my father's career which spanned from 1942 to 1987 during the entirety of which he was "deployed" only once, for the first 4 years in the UK. But then most of his career was spent in the JAG and in those days, at least it seems to me looking back, JAG officers rarely if ever deployed (and there were a lot fewer of them).It's a good question and the answer is hard for folks on the outside and also the inside to understand.
"Universality of service," which includes the ability to be deployed anywhere at any time, is the gold standard. Especially in a small force like Canada's. That said, there are positions which must be filled which could easily be filled by people who don't meet the standards. (And you should note that the medical categories for different trades and classifications do vary. Some need better vision or hearing than others - and so on.)
Yes. There are many institutional positions in headquarters and on bases which could easily accommodate someone who can't serve in the field. Unfortunately that means those who can serve in the field may be stuck there forever rather than be rotated around to gain experience (or maybe just be given a temporary break away from the field)
The problem comes in with drawing the line. Especially when you start dealing with the needs of Human Rights legislation and and individuals' unique case situation. An employer's lowering the bar for some cases to make an exception, may soon become the new standard applied to everyone across the board. The corporate position on where those lines are change from time to time and similarly the way that the standards are applied at the lower levels may very from person to person who is required to apply those standards.
The CAF has a very complex mass of orders, regulations, directions and policies and they can be difficult to interpret at any given time even if well written (and many are not).
And creating future liabilities for the Government of Canada, as people who never should have been in the CAF get injured.
The longer you wait to recruit people, the more likely the best candidates will go elsewhere. Risk adverse slow recruiting doesn't necessarily result in the best case for the CAF either.
Alot of private companies refuse to acknowledge that too, mine included. My field demands people skills, and if you cant talk to people it doesnt matter how well you know good safety if you cant communicate that to a client
