Vanguard Magazine

20 AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 2022 www.vanguardcanada.com POLICY curs in isolation from the CAF's core mis- sion, it would be useful for the defence policy review to look at how the demands for culture change – as currently spear- headed by the Chief Professional Conduct and Culture (CPCC), the Chief of Mili- tary Personnel and the Judge Advocate General will impact the core missions. For example, a review must examine how en- hanced harassment training should fit with other training and how culture change- related work should compare to the objec- tives of the core mission. Second, the defence policy review should examine ways to ensure some continuity with the initiatives outlined in SSE. The latter promises several initiatives in terms of compensation and fair benefits: mod- ernizing the honours and awards system, a "Comprehensive Canadian Armed Forces Retention Strategy" and a "strategy for human resources"), plus continuing to implement an already extant strategy, the Diversity Program and Action Plan. We have yet to see some of those initia- tives come to fruition, i.e., the CAF Re- tention Strategy; others have just come out, such as the Total Health and Well- ness Strategy (launched in April 2022). In the meantime, the Path to Dignity and Respect (the culture change strategy) was released in November 2020, the Declara- tion of Victims' Rights is about to be im- plemented, the report on systemic racism came out on April 25 and the minister of National Defence received the results of the Arbour review on May 20. It is common for the CAF to abandon or rewrite strategies: a new version of the Di- versity Strategy, first initiated in 2018, is in the works. Operation Honour has seen a high turnover of initiatives,1 and the Path to Dignity and Respect, while having been published recently, appears to stand out- side the culture change initiatives current- ly under way. In fact, CPCC announced in a recent briefing that the Path will not be used to implement culture change.2 Those strategies may miss certain aspects of military life that affect personnel, but not implementing them might hinder progress in more substantial ways. Rewrit- ing strategies is not necessarily the best ap- proach if they do not bear the expected results. Monitoring at all levels in order to identify unintended consequences and successes and allow for change of course on a more case-by-case basis will go a long way to ensure progress and change with- out disrupting processes. Third, it is imperative for the defence policy update to communicate that per- sonnel policy is not a series of initiatives that Military Personnel Command and different agencies within environmental (i.e., air force, army, navy) headquarters need to undertake, but rather a complex, ambiguous and interconnected series of is- sues that impact every aspect of military life for service members, their families and the civilians who constitute the defence team. This can be done in several ways. The defence policy review can establish a sys- tem that allows for constant dialogue ver- tically (both top down and bottom up) and horizontally (across units, occupa- tions, environments, regular forces to the reserves and vice-versa). This would help identify problems at the source, foster the sharing of best practices and allow for the fine-tuning of policies to better account for the needs of different occupations, ranks and subcultures in the CAF (and based on the different core missions the CAF is involved in). Working from the ground up, from the objectives to the solution, can also be use- ful. This approach would require the CAF to set objectives that have a clear, measur- able end goal and identify the problems that make these objectives necessary. If some issues overlap, they should be ex- amined for how and why they do. The dynamics that contribute to issues should be looked at based on the plethora of re- search conducted by Defence Research and Development Canada and the Direc- tor General Military Personnel Research and Analysis. This approach would deter- mine if some of those barriers impact cer- tain sections of the CAF differently (based on rank, occupation, environment, gen- der) by conducting a broad gender-based analysis plus, and devise plans accordingly, cognizant of the interconnections estab- buy-in, based on a misunderstanding of the objectives and impact of personnel and di- versity policies on the CAF. Retired general officers have suggested combat readiness needs to be prioritized over culture change, overlooking that putting mechanisms in place to prevent any form of misconduct, as well as to improve job satisfaction and mo- rale, could go a long way toward enhancing the CAF's operational effectiveness. So, how can we get that buy-in and in- stitution-wide prioritization? Rethink what "people first, mission always" means, and make personnel considerations system- atically integral to planning related to the CAF's core missions. For example. the defence policy review is expected to expand the core mission that continental defence includes NORAD modernization – and Budget 2022 reflects this renewed priority. In this case, integrat- ing personnel to this mission means outlin- ing what needs to be done on the person- nel management side for mission success. Considerations should include: • What skills and type of personnel (from non-commissioned to officers, regular force or reserves) are needed in the policy and procurement agencies; • Which people need to be deployed to operations related to North American defence and what they need in terms of equipment and training to fulfil this mis- sion well; • The career progression objectives that re- late to this core mission; • How to ensure continuity as individuals change postings; • How to better support families as they relocate to the U.S. or as a member is deployed on operations, taking into ac- count service couples, recruitment and the burden on the different occupations and environment. The personnel-related requirements will be highly different for other core missions, such as "providing assistance to civil au- thorities and non-governmental partners in responding to international and domestic disasters or major emergencies." The same should go for culture change. Instead of viewing it as a pursuit that oc- Monitoring at all levels in order to identify unintended consequences and successes and allow for change of course on a more case-by-case basis will go a long way to ensure progress and change without disrupting processes. 3rd Annual Conference

• Cover