General Rick Hillier, C.M.M., M.S.C., C.D., Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) arrives with his wife, Joyce Hillier.
Photo Credit: Bruce MacRae
Esprit de Corps Magazine November 2019 // Volume 26 Issue 10
Let's Talk About Women in the Military – Column 9
by Military Woman
Question:
What advice would you offer the incoming government on how to best support military women?
Answer:
There is no one recognized "voice" for military women in Canada (yet...), so here are three pieces of potential advice offered as conversation starters.
One piece of advice to the new government is to communicate clearly with Canadians about the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF). For many, General Hillier, a former Chief of Defence Staff, exemplified a clear communication style in his 2005 explanation to Canadians about what CAF is and does. "We are not the public service of Canada. We are not just another department. We are the Canadian Forces, and our job is to be able to kill people." The Canadian Forces updated its name to the Canadian Armed Forces thereafter.
It's rare to find a politician willing to speak as openly and honestly as General Hillier-which can result in sending mixed messages to Canadians. One example being peacekeeping. Yes, Canadians should be very proud of the significant contributions to peacekeeping that Canada and the CAF (and RCMP/police) have made in the past-but times have changed. What should be the motivation and expectation for a recruit who signs up with CAF today? To be sent overseas as a peacekeeper or more likely as a warfighter, boots on the ground peacemaker?
Or will tomorrow's wars be fought by proxy, projecting Canada's power remotely through drones and cyberwarfare techniques? Or will the next generation of recruits have careers more focused on domestic sovereignty and domestic disaster relief? Each of these quite diverse mission types will attract different segments of the population to the CAF.
What politicians focus on and say shapes the expectations of potential CAF recruits. Recruitment of women (and men) may be improved through enhanced fit attractions if Canadians better understood CAF and its missions. Retention of women (and men) might also be improved if recruits ended up doing the work types, they expected to be doing on signing up – and not feeling disillusioned from erroneous job expectations.
Finally, transition back into civilian society on release or retirement might be easier for women (and men) if the average Canadian really did know and understand what its military did. The fact that Israel has such low military post traumatic stress rates, despite significant operational trauma exposure, is often hypothesized to be related to the strong levels of community understanding and support for their nation's military.
A second piece of advice for the new government is to step-up its Gender-based Analysis Plus (GBA+) resources. GBA+ has proven itself to be a helpful and necessary tool to support workplace inclusivity, diversity, and equity for all, but it needs to go deeper and wider. Everyone, not just designated people, or positions, needs to consider GBA+ for all decisions, policies, programs, and research. GBA+ subject matter experts need further training and a widened mandate to include quality assurance. GBA+ is of extra importance for the military, as it was a workplace initially designed by men, to support men, so quite understandably has legacy systemic biases built into it.
Lest we forget, it's only one generation, or approximately 30 years, since Canadian women were formally allowed into the almost 75% previously male-only military occupations. Burke and Eichler's "Bias Free Framework" was one of the initial roadmaps on the questions required answered if wanting to be a true employer of choice work environment. What needs to be done to achieve a gender harmonious workspace is largely already long known, the ongoing barrier being the actual implementation of that knowledge.
Now is a good time for leaders of all stripes, military, or parliamentarian, to reflect on how they can deepen GBA+ implementation in their own workspaces.
A third piece of advice is to continue to use a "whole-of-government approach" that actively replaces interdepartmental walls and silos with bridges and more horizontal collaboration. The Australian government has had similar thoughts and recently published, "A Better Way to Support Veterans". The report provides a common-sense holistic approach on how to better ensure soldiers are "fit to fight" but as Veterans are still "fit for life".
What Canadian wouldn't like to see our government exploring any possibility to "do more with less" and improve on the health and wellbeing of our military members, veterans, and their loved ones all while costing the taxpayer less?
What advice would you offer the new government?
