CA MODERNIZATION - OBSERVATIONS AND QUESTIONS

Brief to the Director, Directorate of Army Public Affairs

MODERNIZATION

It is unclear what strategies and tactics will be employed to heal the rift between ARes (PT) and

the RegF (FT). How will this be accomplished to bring about the “holistic” army that is desired?

What stage is the Mobilization Plan at?

What is the mobilization framework for the ARes (PT)?

Is there a Plan as to which Infantry units will have what role concerning external and internal

taskings (example, who will be drone units?)

When will we see clear roles articulated for ARes Units, given the multi-roles the modernization

plan seems to indicate?

What is being done to expedite the recruiting process itself, which is presently a serious

detriment and a barrier to expanding the CA to meet the set goal level?

What role will ARes Units play in the goal of having 300K individuals, as the CDS has stated

will happen?

What is the training plan and, therefore, the competencies required for those 300K individuals?

Where are the well-trained trainers coming from?

How is it being determined and by whom concerning the assignment of ARes Units to what they

are best suited for?

What does the domestic ops training consist of?

ARes Units seem to be triple hatted with a domestic, Defense of Canada (immediate response

Unit(s) ), and expeditionary role. Is that a valid observation? If so, how is that going to work?

How does this impact mobilization?

What is the Reserve role in the JTF HQs, now that JTF Central and West are gone?

It is noted that there will be combined arms ARes Bns. There is confusion on how that will work,

the training for it given what seems a large spectrum for ARes Units to cover.

The documents state that Veterans will be supported. What does that mean/? How?

What are the new benefits programs? It is vague language. What will be different than now?

How will credentials be reconciled between military and civilian?

Several units were very surprised at their “Tactical Groupings”. We need clarification on the

reasoning of the tactical grouping decision. We have heard that this is supposed to be a

temporary realignment, but some units are being grouped that have stable succession plans.

Furthermore, some Infantry units are being partnered with a Unit from another corps, like the

Armoured Corps. It is not clear what their training plan will be.

Why are some existing Command Teams being wasted? An example is 31 Bde. What happens to

those COs and RSMs? All that talent, knowledge and experience being put to pasture.

What is the plan to de-link those units, or is there one? (Given that the previously linked units

have stated they never want to be grouped again!) It is an issue that combining Units won’t work.

It didn’t work when Unification occurred.

There doesn’t seem to be a chronic shortage of LCol? What is the plan to employ them and

RSMs in an expanded Army?

Regardless of statements, with the amalgamation of Orderly Rooms and other unit staff, it

certainly feels like a “quiet amalgamation” when CCA confirmed that “no units would be lost”.

That is not the feeling units are getting. If a Unit is lost, the experience in the past is that

personnel from the lost Unit don’t stay with the new or continuing Unit.

SERVICE DRESS

This is a cultural, morale, attraction to join, and retention matter within the CA. It is a thread that

weaves itself through the entire fabric of the CA and is very popular. There is, in our

observations, a disconnect as to what the Senior leaders think and what is really happening. We

are told that the Dress approved by the Commander of the Army and endorsed by the CDS is

going through as signed off on. After showing it to the National Council of Honoraries, the Dress

Committee last November had a CA Briefing Note (BN) to change the exact design CCA

finalized. This plus questions Units were trying to understand, such as changing of badges,

cancelling other approved items, etc. The Dress Committee was clearly being asked to limit or

reduce Regimental identity and accept Army – standard designs. It became obvious to many that

Units were preparing returns and were suddenly cut off. No reasons given! As a result, Units

gave up, and the questions stopped being asked. Not what one would call is good customer

service”! So, the perception is among many that the Army Identity is being undermined behind

closed doors. We would appreciate proof that the original Service Dres Regs as signed off by the

Army Commander, is what we will get vs a version which has been altered or is in the process of

being altered.

DRESS ISSUES

There is confusion with some ARes Units as to where their Dress Regulations updates are and

getting approvals. While the Units have submitted issues, as they were told to do, some requests

have been waiting 5 years (Maisonneuves) as an example, because files are just sitting there and

not being activated. Why? This is just causing frustration. Who does control this? Who do you go

to when getting conflicting info or when staff refuse to answer?

The question has been proposed: If the Army wants to reduce bureaucracy, why is this new

bureaucracy being added? The feelings out there is that these are just delaying and distracting

tactics and it is turning people off. If you want ‘buy in”; not the way to do it. The feedback is that

they are getting poor or nil feedback from DHH!

We are concerned about dress regulations concerning DHH’s dress policy, where a parade

commander can override Army and Regimental dress anyway they choose. Apparently, no

restrictions. We don’t believe there is a Regulation on this. An example was the embarrassment

when our King and Queen visited, and a QOR Officer was told to wear a white plastic sword

belt. This is an attack on regimental identity. We found out about the draft regulation from the

Navy. Where is the Army on this? Who in the Army approved this?

We have had rumours from ARes several Bdes that tactically grouped/partnered Units. Some Cos

and RSMs are being told they may have to wear the uniform of the Unit they are visiting at the

time. This appears to be the case in 33 Bde as an example and is being wondered in others. What

is the truth about this? According to ARes COs CANFORGEN and Dress Regs, this is not

permitted, so who is ordering this if, in fact, it is being ordered, and it is just supposition? If true,

would a RegF CO of a tactically grouped Unit be forced to wear multiple regiments’ uniforms (

A Service Bn is a tactically grouped unit)? There is a lot of anxiety out there!

NEW ARMY STANDARD CAP BADGE

There is uneasiness in some quarters about the new Army cap badge in that it will be replacing

(feared) or delaying of Regimental hat badges. What is the intent as to the use and wearing of

this cap badge?

BANDS

The feedback is that there is some sort of plan or agenda and distrust in the plan(s). Input is being

ignored or dismissed. The world of military music is small, and they feel vulnerable and at risk.

We hear that a band Order is in existence but not yet promulgated. We are suggesting that the

CAO needs to be addressed.

The perception among the Bands is that they are not respected despite working hard and making

contributions to the Army as ambassadors and the face of Units to their communities. The

National Council of Honoraries were briefed on the band order a couple of years ago. As part of

that staff accused the civilian band members wearing the Regimental band uniforms of “stolen

valour”! Ridiculous! It is hard to find a more offensive accusation against individuals who are

trying to help their local Unit and are taking their personal time to promote the image of the

CAF. Furthermore, many of these civilian band members contribute personal monies so the

bands can operate because of the DND funding cuts to bands. As noted, bands are often the face

of the Regiment in the community and its ambassadors. It is marketing the military to the public!

Not dressing the same makes the CAF look unprofessional. What are bands to do when the CAF

severely limits the authorized strength of bandsmen/pipers and drummers a Regiment can have?

They need the civilian volunteer members.

Our feedback is that there has been no, or at best, limited consultation or collaboration in

developing band policy by HQ staff. It has been limited to DIV G1s and a few friends of friends,

we are told. It would be good to know if they say there was collaboration, who it was, how

extensive, what the feedback was, etc. Was Unit leadership consulted? Our feedback is “NO”.

We would submit that there is no record of leadership in all bands being offered to give feedback

on the Band Order. We suggest that an infantry, brass, reed and pipe and drums conference be

held to compare notes and decide what the next steps should be