Author Topic: Keeping wounded in CF - merged super-thread  (Read 114863 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online PuckChaser

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 879,245
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,230
    • Peacekeeper's Homepage
Re: Keeping wounded in CF - merged super-thread
« Reply #425 on: March 02, 2016, 17:49:09 »
Sure you can.  That's why you need a mix of both currently serving military instructors and former soldiers/sailors.  The current guys teach the current stuff (current tools, procedures, etc).  The older guys teach the stuff that doesn't change (initial principles, background concepts, etc).

So we double the course staff, or employ people who are only capable of instructing half the material? CFSCE tried civilian instructors who only did theory portions, they're gone now.

Offline Teager

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 36,155
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 702
    • Canada For Victory
Re: Keeping wounded in CF - merged super-thread
« Reply #426 on: March 02, 2016, 19:46:29 »
It should be noted that not every injured/ill person would want to stick around.

Offline Pusser

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 73,210
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,539
Re: Keeping wounded in CF - merged super-thread
« Reply #427 on: March 03, 2016, 10:41:35 »
So we double the course staff, or employ people who are only capable of instructing half the material? CFSCE tried civilian instructors who only did theory portions, they're gone now.

We would only double the staff if we planned to double the output of the school.  As for only teaching half of the material, in what school does one instructor teach absolutely everything on a course?  There are possibilities here that really do exist.  We just need to open our institutional eyes to see them.  I've seen it work first hand and it really does work.  Can every single medically released member be employed this way?  Of course not, but to dismiss it out of hand is to miss an opportunity.  Keep in mind also that we habitually have problems finding instructors in some schools because the job is sometimes seen as a career-killer.

I sometimes think that some people are just looking to find problems, yet ignore the possibilities.
Sure, apes read Nietzsche.  They just don't understand it.

Offline Brasidas

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 20,475
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 527
Re: Keeping wounded in CF - merged super-thread
« Reply #428 on: March 03, 2016, 16:56:04 »
We would only double the staff if we planned to double the output of the school.  As for only teaching half of the material, in what school does one instructor teach absolutely everything on a course?  There are possibilities here that really do exist.  We just need to open our institutional eyes to see them.  I've seen it work first hand and it really does work.

I've seen it not work particularly well at CFSCE, and I'm not sorry to hear if its gone.

Some of it was the poor design of course material, but the sheer disconnect between the regular instructors (and students) and the civilian instructors (who were former regforce but had nothing to do with the rest of the course material) was such that I found them ineffective. They might know what's required of a QL3 Sig Op, but the image of one of them holding up a 3.5" floppy and describing the function of a mouse to self-selected army geeks was an apt metaphor for their role there.

Is there a role for pers who don't fit UofS? Maybe. But I've seen one version of this movie, and it wasn't good.

If you can get pers who are excellent instructors who can effectively relate currently needed material to the target audience without otherwise compromising the organization (eg CFSCE?), then great.

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 186,097
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,746
Re: Keeping wounded in CF - merged super-thread
« Reply #429 on: March 03, 2016, 17:33:08 »
We replaced military flying instructors on the Primary Flying Course in Portage with civilians just under twenty-five years ago, and all of the maintainers there as well. The pass rate improved dramatically and immediately and the cost dropped. Several CF aircraft fleets are maintained by civilians.

Yes, this reduces the "rest" postings for people who may otherwise be stuck for longer in high-tempo grinds, but there is ample precedent.

The US Army employs retired Aviators and ATC guys as sim instructors, and also in base ops.

I will be doing my current job for a few more months as a Public Servant for just slightly more than half of the pay rate (but with a decent pension as well, of course), so there would be a cost reduction at a time when we are short of experienced Pilots in cockpits were this position to be converted to a PS one permanently.

Plenty of benefit all around.

Online PuckChaser

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 879,245
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,230
    • Peacekeeper's Homepage
Re: Keeping wounded in CF - merged super-thread
« Reply #430 on: March 03, 2016, 18:58:08 »
I sometimes think that some people are just looking to find problems, yet ignore the possibilities.

I said there was a possibility, but there's a time limit on that possibility. There's only so many ways to fly an aircraft, and those civilian instructors are likely not teaching military maneuvers like ground attack or dogfighting.

To continue my Sigs example, we run a course staff of 3 or 4 instructors (all military). For a few years, there is likely a very good opportunity for that member to work as instructional staff and stay in uniform (gee, sounds like the accomodation system we already have). After that, those members are stuck in an "instituational" mode, and are only able to teach theory. Those 3-4 instructors need to be able to go to the field, and mentor young Signallers as they do det setups, and general field craft. They also can't mentor those students if they've been stuck in CFSCE for 10 years, and only know "the CFSCE way". They've lost operational touch, and produce a substandard signaller to the Bdes. We also only cover 1 or 2 weeks on a 3 month course of "theory". You suggest we keep people well past their "best before date" to teach 1-2 weeks every 3 months or so?

There is opportunity for some members, in some trades, to be retained as instructional staff for a limited time. That time would depend on that trade, and how fast TTPs/equipment changes. This isn't ignoring the possibilities, its the reality of the world we live in.

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 189,620
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,460
Re: Keeping wounded in CF - merged super-thread
« Reply #431 on: May 11, 2016, 14:33:55 »
I think the CDS says all the right things here, but I wonder what the public perception will be.  I think it is also unfortunate that there was no answer on the question of guaranteed transfers into the Public Service for medically released service personnel, but I suppose that statement would have to come from a minister not engaged in these interviews - neither DND nor VA own the PS.

Quote
Discharge rule for disabled soldiers must stay in place, general says 
GLORIA GALLOWAY
The Globe and Mail
10 May 2016

The head of the Canadian Forces says he understands it is “gut-wrenching” for some disabled soldiers to be discharged as a result of their injuries, but the military will maintain its rule that all members must be physically and mentally able to deploy anywhere, at any time.

Many military men and women who served in Afghanistan have been forced to return to civilian life because their wounds left them unable to meet a number of fundamental military tasks or to deploy on short notice to any geographical location. It is known as the universality of service rule, and some former soldiers say it caused them more anguish than their actual injuries, and some with mental problems say they suffered in silence out of fear they would be discharged if they came forward.
 
But General Jonathan Vance, the Chief of the Defence Staff, said there are many reasons why the standard cannot be dropped, even for those who were permanently injured in the line of duty yet are capable of performing a job in Canada.

“We are a small armed forces; everybody’s got to be able to pitch in all the way,” Gen. Vance said in a telephone interview on Tuesday with The Globe and Mail.

Veterans Affairs Minister Kent Hehr held a two-day meeting with representatives of veterans associations in Ottawa this week that included a question-and-answer session that was open to the public.

Brian McKenna, a former warrant officer from New Westminster, B.C., asked if there was any way that the universality of service rule could be changed to accommodate people like him who did not want their military careers to end.

“As someone who has been removed from the military – against my own will, essentially – that was actually the hardest day of my career,” said Mr. McKenna, a veteran of multiple deployments who was discharged as a result of a long-standing neck injury, posttraumatic stress disorder and a gastrointestinal issue he picked up in Afghanistan.

“Is there any way that we can review the strictness of the rule of universality of service?” he asked. “Is there not a way we can be retaining more of these people in the Forces, in either civilian jobs that are within [the Defence Department] or in some other way that we get to serve Canada?”

Mr. Hehr did not answer the question directly. When it was posed to him again later during a news conference, he said he is working with Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan to ensure that disabled soldiers get the help they need to stay in the military and, when that is not possible, to make an easier transition to civilian life.

Gen. Vance agreed that the process of humanely discharging disabled soldiers needs improvement. The military, he said, is working diligently with Veterans Affairs Canada on “this whole issue of closing the gaps and seams as one transitions from healthy activity service to transition out to retirement. I think we could do a better job at that.”

But “it’s unlikely that we’ll change the universality of service policy,” Gen. Vance said. “It is gut-wrenching for them to have to leave. But one of the reasons they joined as a soldier in the first place is because they were joining a high-performance organization that gets things done for the country.”

Even in domestic deployments, it would be impractical to go through the ranks to figure out which members of the military were capable of actively taking part, the general explained.

And if the Canadian Forces allowed its disabled members to stay on in a less strenuous capacity, people who want to join the military but are incapable of meeting the universality of service standards would argue that they should not be prevented from enlisting. “What would happen,” Gen. Vance asked, “if we were now required to accept people in as brand-new recruits who were also incapable of doing a full range of military tasks?”

In addition, he said, a career in the Canadian Forces would not be satisfying for someone who is constrained by their disability. “You are going to be limited,” he said. “And that’s not fair to them and to those who are relying on them to do the job.”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/discharge-rule-for-disabled-soldiers-must-stay-in-place-general-says/article29970146/

Offline CountDC

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 24,860
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,400
Re: Keeping wounded in CF - merged super-thread
« Reply #432 on: May 11, 2016, 15:57:48 »
I think the CDS says all the right things here, but I wonder what the public perception will be.  I think it is also unfortunate that there was no answer on the question of guaranteed transfers into the Public Service for medically released service personnel, but I suppose that statement would have to come from a minister not engaged in these interviews - neither DND nor VA own the PS.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/discharge-rule-for-disabled-soldiers-must-stay-in-place-general-says/article29970146/

I think that is something nobody wants to do - guarantee transfers.  Once you do that people would expect a job regardless of their quals (or lack of) and expect to be hired even if someone much better suited and qualified applied.    Put all the clauses you want in there it won't matter as some will lock on to the guarantee transfer part and scream bloody murder when they don't get the job.  Stick with a Priority Hire if everything else is equal..... oops that actually opens another kettle of worms as we already have priority hire all over the place.  Everything else equal does the female card take priority or does the vet card?  Does it become who has the most pri-hire cards?   

Ok - lets do the guarantee transfer and provide the training.  Seems to be easier after all.
"When the power of love, overcomes the love of power....the world will know peace" - Jimi Hendrix [1942-1970]

Offline Nudibranch

  • Member
  • ****
  • 4,830
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 120
Re: Keeping wounded in CF - merged super-thread
« Reply #433 on: May 17, 2016, 17:49:30 »
I think the CDS says all the right things here, but I wonder what the public perception will be. 

I agree that the CDS says all the right things - dropping Universality of Service would result, over time (given the size of our military, not too long a time) of creating a pyramid structure with an undeployable shadow-VAC population on the bottom, and a deployable pointy end that would end up breaking down quicker...and move down to join the undeployable base.

As for the public perception, there really does need to be some public education wrt "CAF disabled" (ie, breaching UoS) and what the civ world thinks of as "disabled". Of course some of our 3B released mbrs fit into both definitions - but many, many 3B released mbrs happen to merely breach UoS. They are not what Joe Public would recognize as disabled, they are in many cases not even really ill. They may have medical conditions that cause them to be undeployable, because they need to see a specialist every couple of months for routine follow-ups, or they might not be able to stand the FORCE test; but lots and lost of civies working full time have those issues.

Should a 20 year old who twisted their ankle on a run in Basic be guaranteed lifetime PS employment because it didn't recover to 100% and the doc says they shouldn't be marching with a ruck over uneven ground? Breaches UoS, yeah - but that is not what the public perceives as a "disabled veteran".

Offline stellarpanther

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 1,050
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 57
Re: Keeping wounded in CF - merged super-thread
« Reply #434 on: February 26, 2017, 20:51:59 »
I think they need to take another look at UofS.  Take for example someone who has developed Osteoarthritis and has a hard time doing parades but can do his/her job with no problems and even do the Force test, I don't think someone in that situation should be released.  Basically it should come down to whether or not the person can do their job.  I know several people who have been in for 20+ years and haven't been based on the units they were in.  Don't release someone just because of what MIGHT happen.


Offline dapaterson

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 369,305
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,743
Re: Keeping wounded in CF - merged super-thread
« Reply #435 on: February 26, 2017, 22:14:36 »
And, in fact, career reviews do take such things into consideration.
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline Halifax Tar

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 34,428
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,430
  • Ready Aye Ready
Re: Keeping wounded in CF - merged super-thread
« Reply #436 on: February 27, 2017, 10:10:44 »
I think the CDS says all the right things here, but I wonder what the public perception will be.  I think it is also unfortunate that there was no answer on the question of guaranteed transfers into the Public Service for medically released service personnel, but I suppose that statement would have to come from a minister not engaged in these interviews - neither DND nor VA own the PS.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/discharge-rule-for-disabled-soldiers-must-stay-in-place-general-says/article29970146/

Agreed the CDS shows real leadership on this issue.  Its not easy to say but it is 100% needed.

We mush be able to kick people out the door on deployments and tasking's.  While short term issues can be accommodated, long or permanent must be looked at.  We cannot continue to rely on our dwindling numbers of fit and deployable people with out having the redundancy to back them up when they need to breather or start to break down themselves.
Lead me, follow me or get the hell out of my way

Offline Tcm621

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 4,840
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 572
Re: Keeping wounded in CF - merged super-thread
« Reply #437 on: February 28, 2017, 20:42:44 »
I think they need to take another look at UofS.  Take for example someone who has developed Osteoarthritis and has a hard time doing parades but can do his/her job with no problems and even do the Force test, I don't think someone in that situation should be released.  Basically it should come down to whether or not the person can do their job.  I know several people who have been in for 20+ years and haven't been based on the units they were in.  Don't release someone just because of what MIGHT happen.
MELs can be wide ranging and not breach UofS. Can't run every day? You can still be employed. Can't run at all? Probably not.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk


Offline Halifax Tar

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 34,428
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,430
  • Ready Aye Ready
Medically unfit for deployment? We'll try to employ you elsewhere, says Canada's top general

After public and political criticism, Vance signals a cultural sea change for the military

The Canadian military is redesigning itself to make room for troops who may not be "deployable," but are still "employable," the country's top general said.

The remarks by Gen. Jonathan Vance, the chief of the defence staff, represent a social and cultural sea change for an institution that has been accused of discarding injured members who, in some cases, have begged to continue serving.

Since the release of the Liberal government's new defence policy last spring, Vance has telegraphed that he wants to improve the career prospects of the wounded and that he was open to being more flexible.

More on link

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/medically-unfit-soldiers-employed-elsewhere-1.4344464
Lead me, follow me or get the hell out of my way

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 178,940
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,473
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Keeping wounded in CF - merged super-thread
« Reply #439 on: October 09, 2017, 10:55:53 »
I'm on the fence with this whole issue;  I know there are some folks who can still serve, but I don't think the deployable fit folks should have to be the ones doing the heavy lifting while others stay home, enjoy every holiday weekend and work Mon-Fri, 8 to 4.

In a force as small as we are, I don't think we can afford to have any less people able to do the real business when push comes to shove.
"...Pilot, Radar...turn right, heading...3-6-5..."

Online jollyjacktar

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 132,302
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,514
  • My uncle F/Sgt W.H.S. Buckwell KIA 14/05/43 22YOA
Re: Keeping wounded in CF - merged super-thread
« Reply #440 on: October 09, 2017, 11:08:36 »
I too am on the fence to some degree as well.  I know there are folks who can still contribute in a meaningful way to the machine, but if those who can deploy get left holding the bag and burned out with no escape from the treadmill, they'll vote with their feet.  That, is unsustainable in a small military like ours.  It is because of this type of situation in the navy that we're in deep trouble with keeping ships at sea that we are today and it's only going to get worse in the marine engineering world.  All this trade amalgamation has done is added fuel to the fires of discontent that was already there with pier head jumping amongst the Stokers and has now spread to the ET and HT.
I'm just like the CAF, I seem to have retention issues.

Online Simian Turner

    is a humbled, curious veteran!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 40,135
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,375
  • Do the right thing; do the thing right!
Re: Keeping wounded in CF - merged super-thread
« Reply #441 on: October 09, 2017, 11:33:48 »
IMHO the CDS is now in legacy mode and he will never have to reap the seeds he is sowing in his final year in the job.  Remember that Gen Hillier left us with the .com HQs.  If you can be retained with injuries does that mean all of those who were medically released can now apply to re-enroll?  Are we going to establish a new set of "slightly less than" universality of service standards.  If it is done on a case by case basis as the CDS has long insisted who is doing the delineation between released, retained and meeting U of S?

The grand essentials of happiness: something to do, something to love, something to hope for.  Allan K. Chalmers

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 33,660
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,444
Re: Keeping wounded in CF - merged super-thread
« Reply #442 on: October 09, 2017, 11:34:29 »
I'm on the fence with this whole issue;  I know there are some folks who can still serve, but I don't think the deployable fit folks should have to be the ones doing the heavy lifting while others stay home, enjoy every holiday weekend and work Mon-Fri, 8 to 4.

In a force as small as we are, I don't think we can afford to have any less people able to do the real business when push comes to shove.

I think what we need to do is gather the data on how many personal as a percentage of the CAF this affects. Let's say the number is about 5% or less, I'd be okay with that amount being left alone to be a training cadre to impart their knowledge and skills to the next generation of troops. If it was say like 17% of the CAF then I'd say sorry some of you have to go, I think there is an acceptable number we can keep but as stated we are a small force, if too many personal cannot be deployed the problems will snow ball on us.
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Online PuckChaser

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 879,245
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,230
    • Peacekeeper's Homepage
Re: Keeping wounded in CF - merged super-thread
« Reply #443 on: October 09, 2017, 11:42:58 »
This is a massive slippery slope. Are you going to stick a Cpl from 3RCR in Range Control for 15 years? Are these folks going to get posted? If you post them to the schools, how long are they going to be retained until their operational experience (leaning more towards Sigs as a rapidly changing field) is no longer valid and the quality of instruction goes down?

We already have folks who are on TCAT/PCAT get promoted (only if they have a valid PT test for some reason) and folks who are not medically able to complete their career courses retain their rank (no issue here IMO). Even a 5% reduction in our deployable force is going to put more of the burden on those who can deploy, increasing the risk of OSI, which increases more folks who cannot deploy. Its a vicious circle.

Offline Rifleman62

    Retired.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 72,240
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,451
Re: Keeping wounded in CF - merged super-thread
« Reply #444 on: October 09, 2017, 12:09:30 »
Possibly there will be a requirement for a positive prognosis within a certain period of time so that member will be deplorable in x years. After that period a limit of one extension of x years.

Pure speculation on my part.

Or, linking back to another thread, posting to Ottawa for ceremonial duties. ;D
Never Congratulate Yourself In Victory, Nor Blame Your Horses In Defeat - Old Cossack Expression

Offline Eagle Eye View

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 13,675
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 296
Re: Keeping wounded in CF - merged super-thread
« Reply #445 on: October 09, 2017, 12:13:51 »
We were briefed on ILP about this. My understanding is there will be major culture change that will need to happen. In a nutshell, they are looking at revamping the system to have a Reg Force without restrictions, Reg Force with restrictions, Res Force without restrictions and Res Force with restrictions. The main difference between with or without restrictions would be deployability and postings. Also, a financial bonus on the salary would be provided to encourage members to be in the "without restrictions" category.
Leadership and learning are indispensable to each other.

John F. Kennedy

Online PuckChaser

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 879,245
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,230
    • Peacekeeper's Homepage
Re: Keeping wounded in CF - merged super-thread
« Reply #446 on: October 09, 2017, 12:32:46 »
We were briefed on ILP about this. My understanding is there will be major culture change that will need to happen. In a nutshell, they are looking at revamping the system to have a Reg Force without restrictions, Reg Force with restrictions, Res Force without restrictions and Res Force with restrictions. The main difference between with or without restrictions would be deployability and postings. Also, a financial bonus on the salary would be provided to encourage members to be in the "without restrictions" category.

Are those "without restrictions" pers going to be the ones posting around every 3 years? I can see this going horribly wrong, quickly, if not implemented in a way that has a lot of incentives to stay "without restrictions".

Offline RocketRichard

  • Donor
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 5,585
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 292
Re: Keeping wounded in CF - merged super-thread
« Reply #447 on: October 09, 2017, 12:39:17 »
Interesting post, thank you.  Ex reg force guy and ex base brat here, my family lived on 5 bases in 6 years.  When I was in the reg force postings were 3-4 years long.  How long are postings normally now?  Thanks for the response.

Offline Halifax Tar

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 34,428
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,430
  • Ready Aye Ready
Re: Keeping wounded in CF - merged super-thread
« Reply #448 on: October 09, 2017, 12:39:58 »
We were briefed on ILP about this. My understanding is there will be major culture change that will need to happen. In a nutshell, they are looking at revamping the system to have a Reg Force without restrictions, Reg Force with restrictions, Res Force without restrictions and Res Force with restrictions. The main difference between with or without restrictions would be deployability and postings. Also, a financial bonus on the salary would be provided to encourage members to be in the "without restrictions" category.

That is going to need to be a serious non taxed financial bonus to keep people from being in the "with restrictions" category.
Lead me, follow me or get the hell out of my way

Online Simian Turner

    is a humbled, curious veteran!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 40,135
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,375
  • Do the right thing; do the thing right!
Re: Keeping wounded in CF - merged super-thread
« Reply #449 on: October 09, 2017, 13:51:23 »
The reality is that the Attorney General of Canada and Canadian Humans Rights Tribunals are going to squash this based on the National Defence Act, since bona fide operational requirement = universality of service = Soldier First.  Without it being universal then you can't prevent the enrolment standards from allowing "with restriction" recruits.

Reference: https://www.cdn-hr-reporter.ca/hr_topics/occupational-health-and-safety/soldier-first-policy-armed-forces-upheld-federal-court-appe

"On the question of the "soldier first" policy, there is a split in the Court's decision. The Canadian Armed Forces argues in this case (and in others) that blanket rules requiring that members be free of specified disabilities are bona fide occupational requirements because any member of the Armed Forces, no matter what his or her trade or position, is a "soldier first" and can be required to engage in combat.

The Tribunal declined to apply the "soldier first" policy because it found that in a number of ways the Canadian Armed Forces contradicted this policy in its practice; by failing to demonstrate that persons in non-combat positions could be called on in a time of combat; and by granting medical waivers to members who would be in combat positions in time of war.

However, the majority of the Court finds that the obligation on members to engage in combat if required is imposed by the National Defence Act. The statute is binding and administrative practice cannot work a modification. Consequently, the majority upholds the right of the Canadian Armed Forces to base its policies regarding disability on a "soldier first" policy."

Reference: https://www.cfmws.com/en/AboutUs/PSP/DFIT/Fitness/Pages/Bona-Fide-Occupational-Requirement.aspx

What is it?
A BFOR is defined by the Government of Canada as:
“A condition of employment that is imposed in the belief that it is necessary for the safe, efficient, and reliable performance of the job and which is objectively, reasonably necessary for such performance”
 
Why?
Fitness screening is necessary for a CF member because of the physically demanding occupation.  Ineffective job performance can result in loss of life or damage to property.  Because the Canadian Human Rights Act prohibits any discriminatory practices, a CF member could say that a fitness screening is discriminatory.
 
Nevertheless, paragraph 15(1a)  of the Canadian Human Rights Act, states that:
 
 “It is not a discriminatory practice if any refusal, exclusion, expulsion, suspension, limitation, specification or preference in relation to employment is established by an employer based on a BFOR” (Government of Canada, 1985a).
 
Therefore, when establishing a occupational/fitness standard, the employer most comply with bona fide occupational requirements and must be related to the essential components of the job.  Also, the employer must be ready to defend it as a BFOR.
The grand essentials of happiness: something to do, something to love, something to hope for.  Allan K. Chalmers