Bingo. Primacy ≠ Commitment…for any mission really.The lack of commitment is not proof that it isn’t one of the primary missions envisioned by the Government. Just look how committed to the defence of Canada (and much required NORAD modernization)... Yet, no one can argue it is not one of our primary mission, arguably the most important one....
Absolutely. However, it is still our guiding document for developing capabilities (as incomplete as SSE is for defining precisely what we need to do). We need to prepare doing what is spelled out within SSE and it includes Peace Keeping.Bingo. Primacy ≠ Commitment…for any mission really.
If we were committed to NORAD, we would have: Repaired PIN-3; replaced TPS-70; stopped arsing around replacing the Hornet; and moved positively on NORAD Renewal/ABMS.
UN participation at all time lows and out of Mali we go, like a spoiled child, when we don’t get the UNSC seat.
Yup, everything’s an important mission, which conveniently in Canada, means we don’t need to be committed to them…
One of the missions. In my mind we have ONE mission - the defence of Canada. Peacekeeping is cool - kind of - and until the government realizes that peacekeeping isn't sitting on an OP in the Buffer Zone on the Green Line in Nicosia in spit shone jungle boots, pressed combats and starched hats.....and yes peacekeeping can get ugly.So, we should bin any new ideas and embrace the status quo? If not, what is the threshold for good enough idea (without the benefit of hindsight)?
FWIW, peace keeping is one of the primary roles of the CAF defined within Strong, Secure, Engaged, our current defence policy along with the protection of Canada and North America, and the participation to NATO operations.
FTFY.One of the missions. In my mind we have ONE mission - the defence of Canada. Peacekeeping is cool - kind of - and until the government realizes that peacekeeping isn't sitting on an OP in the Buffer Zone on the Green Line in Nicosia in spit shone jungle boots, pressed combats and starched hats.....and yes peacekeeping can get ugly.
I am in no way saying the CAF shouldn`t discourage innovation. What I`m saying is stupid industrious people ( we have QUITE a few) need to be curbed.
It may be good that he is fighting back, but it again demonstrates that there are different rules for Senior Officers then there are for all the other ranks.And so he should!
I am certainly not as aware of the circumstances that you describe as you seem to be portraying. Having said that, a MGen, especially one with a high-profile job, will always get more attention, media and otherwise, if things go pear-shaped.It may be good that he is fighting back, but it again demonstrates that there are different rules for Senior Officers then there are for all the other ranks.
First off, he is fighting back before there is a decision whether or not he is guilty of what he has been accused of.
Secondly, what about all the other military members who are not Senior Officers who have been accused of something (guilty or not) and had there lives/careers ruined? Did they have the means or the ability to "fight back"? In some cases the "fight back" over the ruined careers were against the Senior Officers who, it seems, are now considering things to be "unfair" now that it has happened to them (because their "Senior" persons are allegedly screwing them around).
I know of several individuals who have had their careers ruined over allegations that, in the end, turned out to be false or they were found "not guilty", but by that time the damage had already been done. Where is the justice for them? Oh yeah, it was denied by the Senior Officers in the CAF.
I hope he is able to get himself some justice if the allegations prove to be false/vexatious - no one deserves to be put through the wringer for BS.
Maybe one day others members will get to be able to get the same level of justice. And just maybe, the Senior Officers will take note of this and remember it when they have t deal with subordinates on similar matters in the future (somehow in my pessimistic mind, I doubt that will ever happen).
I do hold some hope though on the concept of "equal Justice For All".
I stand to be corrected, but in theory, you could have one, but that presumes:
That’s a product of the efforts to ‘close the seam’ where releasing CAF members would have a really rocky transition to VAC.Currently, the Minister of Veteran's Affairs is double-hatted as Associate Minister of National Defence.
3 There is hereby established a department of the Government of Canada called the Department of National Defence over which the Minister of National Defence appointed by commission under the Great Seal shall preside.
4 The Minister holds office during pleasure, has the management and direction of the Canadian Forces and of all matters relating to national defence and is responsible for
(a) the construction and maintenance of all defence establishments and works for the defence of Canada; and
(b) research relating to the defence of Canada and to the development of and improvements in materiel.
Designation of person to execute Minister’s functions
5 The Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister, may designate any other person in addition to the Minister to exercise any power or perform any duty or function that is vested in or that may be exercised or performed by the Minister under this Act.
6 The Governor General may, by commission under the Great Seal, appoint an Associate Minister of National Defence to hold office during pleasure and to exercise and perform such powers, duties and functions of the Minister as may be assigned to the Associate Minister by the Governor in Council.
The DM "speaks with the Minister's voice" when the minister is unavailable so they are a 2IC who takes over but cant actually be a the minister even in an acting capacity.Technically (i.e., using that title), no. The National Defence Act states
The Associate Minister is not a "2ic" who automatically assumes control of the department in the absence (physically, intellectually or morally) of the Minister unless the Governor in Council (in other words, the PM) has already so assigned such function. And while it would be extremely unusual to designate another individual to perform the duties of the Minister without actually naming another person as the Minister, it could, legally, be done. But what would be the purpose?
Hypothetically speaking could the PM appoint whoever he wanted as the MND - elected or not.Currently, the Minister of Veteran's Affairs is double-hatted as Associate Minister of National Defence.
Yet, no one can argue it is not one of our primary mission, arguably the most important one....
Didn’t I say that the defence of Canada is our most important mission? If you quoted the whole post, you’d see the context.Yes, I can.
The most important one is defence of Canada and our national interests, in conjunction with our allies, and aiding them in their own defence.
Peacekeeping has always been a sideline.
We had more people stationed in Germany during the Cold War than we ever had on peacekeeping missions - as was right and proper.