• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Sexual Misconduct Allegations in The CAF

ballz

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
247
Points
710
If you own a business, you're on the hook for whatever it costs to develop and retain employees. There's nothing wrong with a right to release anyone for no reason at all; you are responsible for the costs. People released can apply for work elsewhere, including the same kind of work.

Those who don't own a business and have a free hand to impose discipline can create liabilities for those who do own the business. Politicians and government employees fit that description.

Glad we're on the same page so far.

Taxpayers have an arguable claim to being able to seek and retain employment in anything publicly owned.

Here's where you lose me.

The government is no different than a corporation and Canadian citizens are shareholders who get a vote on who leads it. We elect the board (Parliament), and the Board on our behalf selects the C-suite executives (Cabinet). The board and the C-suite runs the corporation as effectively as possible. That includes hiring employees, promoting some, and discarding others who are not of net positive value.

No one, by virtue of being a shareholder, is entitled to employment with that corporation. Sure, they can seek employment there like anyone else, but if they get hired and suck, being a shareholder doesn't protect you from being fired. The government or corporation also owes it to it's shareholders not to keep dead weight or net-negative contributors around.

Professional institutions are a bit different, not being directly an employer but having the power of denying someone a line of employment entirely. People in those institutions have no right of association they may exercise against anyone they please. So there have to be rules to prevent people who don't bear costs from imposing costs on others inappropriately.

Professional bodies are private entities. They are providing a service to their members by ensuring a certain standard of skill and conduct, which gives the member something of marketable value in the private sector. They're also providing a service to the public, but the public pays for that then pay for the services of said members.

If you want to be part of that professional body, you are choosing to meet their standards, join their organization, and adhere their standards, so that you can benefit from that marketable brand. Everyone in that profession is associated with one another. An engineer has lots to lose from being associated with, via their professional body, another engineer who has caused a bridge to collapse due to negligence.

If you are removed from that professional body, that doesn't deny you any "line of employment entirely." There are other professional bodies, and if not, you can go create your own. That some government's have legislated only certain professional bodies can perform certain work is a product of that profession's success. But there is nothing stopping anyone else from starting their own professional body and convincing voters that they, too, can provide an adequate, or the same, or better standard. And there is nothing stopping voters to choose one, some, or no professional organizations that are allowed to do certain work.

So yes, your argument that the professional body doesn't bear the costs of it's member's negligence is just wrong. If you don't like the membership's standards or the way it's governing itself, vote for new executives, or run to be an executive, or leave and start your own designation. But that professional body is governing and maintaining that standard on the membership's behalf because they all stand to lose if the standard slips and the public loses confidence in that profession. It was less than 10 years ago we had three different professional bodies for accountants in Canada, all in competition with one another. If CPA Canada sucks, it can go right back to that.

Of course, the issue the CAF has is there is no other military in Canada to compete with. If there was, the CAF would probably get its shit together and start dumping the dead weight real quick.

Suppose we had a quantitative measure of proof (likelihood of guilt, as a percentage) and could measure all disputes with it. I suspect there are trivial numbers of vexatious or ill-founded complaints that people bring to bear, and few where the evidence is really weak. I guess that plotting many cases would produce a lopsided distribution, leaning strongly towards 100% with a rapid drop off before 50% and a very narrow tail from there down to 0%. If the rapid drop off occurred, say, at 75%, then the burden of proof could be raised from balance of probability to 70/30 (proof/disproof) without materially benefiting most actually guilty persons. But it would provide a lot more protection for not actually guilty persons. It should also reduce false or contrived disputes, allowing more resources to be directed to disputes with substance (or more resources to not be expended at all).

While it'd be great to be able to quantify, we obviously can't. If you want to advocate for a different standard than balance of probabilities for administrative law issues, such as reason I dunno, "any reasonable person would conclude..." or something, still going to have subjectivity.

And then the standard that's being upheld is subjective too. You can raise the burden of proof, but if I have a different standard of what's "professional" than you do, the burden of proof. For example, the CAF's "values and expected behaviors," someone could be put on remedial measures for not meeting this: "1.4 Acting in such a way as to maintain DND’s and the CF’s trust, as well as that of their peers, supervisors and subordinates."

The evidence can be clear cut, it could be on video of someone, I dunno, publicly berating a subordinates behavior to correct it on the spot, in the moment it happened (and perhaps that was necessary), but there is a question of whether it crossed the line into belittling/bullying. You may feel that this is not a behavior undermines trust whereas I feel it does.... you may think it warrants nothing, I think IC, someone else thinks it severe enough to warrant an RW, someone else says C&P.

In any case, if you want to debate what's an appropriate burden of proof for administrative law, sure, that's a worthy debate. But people need to stop bring in nonsense such as human rights, calling things "punishments" and throwing words like "harm" around, or trying to opine that a professional body and it's membership doesn't have a vested interested in the conduct of it's membership.


I can't help but feel all the gripes in this thread and the seemingly defense of Adm McDonald despite no one knowing anything about the case are a knee-jerk reaction to wanting to fight back against cancel culture. I, too, despise cancel culture, but there's an easy solution to fight cancel culture..... a transparent process. Then we can actually judge the fairness of the process. Even if you make it "proof beyond a reasonable doubt," they could still kick out Adm McDonald and we'd still have no idea if it was fair / proper or not. So I don't even know why we're on this tangent.
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
780
Points
910
The government is no different than a corporation and Canadian citizens are shareholders who get a vote on who leads it.

Vast gulf of difference between paying taxes and owning shares. Also, people who pay no taxes but meet other criteria may vote.

So yes, your argument that the professional body doesn't bear the costs of it's member's negligence is just wrong.

I mean the costs imposed by people who get it into their heads that they're doing the right thing by making a judgement against someone else. I remain unconvinced that some people today are not letting their "priors" influence decisions, including about whether to bring the weight of process against someone. People have been using processes to f* over other people for as long as processes have existed.

When someone's employment is screwed over a questionable judgement, that's "harm".

If qualitative thresholds like "preponderance of evidence" might translate quantitatively as 70% or higher, that's a much better starting position than "more likely than not".

So I don't even know why we're on this tangent.

Maybe because people refer to "more likely than not" as the alternative to "beyond reasonable doubt", when really the former yardstick is not in use anywhere and higher standards are customarily in use.

The essential meaning of presumed innocence is that "Avoid harm to the innocent" >> "Ensure sanction of the guilty"; it's a principle important enough to apply everywhere, not just in criminal proceedings.
 

ballz

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
247
Points
710
Vast gulf of difference between paying taxes and owning shares. Also, people who pay no taxes but meet other criteria may vote.

Not in the context of an employer/employee relationship, which is what we're talking about.

I mean the costs imposed by people who get it into their heads that they're doing the right thing by making a judgement against someone else. I remain unconvinced that some people today are not letting their "priors" influence decisions, including about whether to bring the weight of process against someone. People have been using processes to f* over other people for as long as processes have existed.

Oh good, now we've gone from trying to ensure fairness to demonizing the very concept of having a process. We create and improve processes and try and eliminate the opportunity for human bias to enter the equation. No, it doesn't work perfectly, it never will, but it sure is working better than when we had nothing at all. What is your alternative, or are you just yelling at the sky now?

Maybe because people refer to "more likely than not" as the alternative to "beyond reasonable doubt", when really the former yardstick is not in use anywhere and higher standards are customarily in use.

The balance of probabilities is the legal standard used in many places.

The essential meaning of presumed innocence is that "Avoid harm to the innocent" >> "Ensure sanction of the guilty"; it's a principle important enough to apply everywhere, not just in criminal proceedings.

And yet in your previous post you agreed someone should be able to fire someone for any reason. When you figure out what it is you actually think, let me know.

Colorless green ideas sleep furiously - that's for damn sure.
 

Maxman1

Member
Reaction score
87
Points
430
Sigh, but I live in Ottawa, and as satisfying as that approach would be, and likely effective, the thought of being in the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Center and having my kids visit means that my only option is yelling.

Sounds like that guy is a real
jackass.jpg
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
780
Points
910
I agree that the business owner should have that right. Always have. And I argue for more restraints and guiderails for people who make decisions without necessarily bearing the costs of decisions. If you weight those two sets of people equally, then I understand your confusion. But I don't. So I know exactly what I actually think.

Acknowledging that process can be abused isn't demonizing process. But it's a prerequisite for understanding that process can be improved. I suppose you've never seen people abuse process. I have. "Administrative burden", "problem child". Different names. Same general idea.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
3,620
Points
1,060
If you own a business, you're on the hook for whatever it costs to develop and retain employees. There's nothing wrong with a right to release anyone for no reason at all; you are responsible for the costs. People released can apply for work elsewhere, including the same kind of work.

Those who don't own a business and have a free hand to impose discipline can create liabilities for those who do own the business. Politicians and government employees fit that description.

I own a business.

If any of my employees don't want to get vaccinated, that's fine by me. And I will gladly help them to find employment elsewhere should they need assistance.

Fortunately, so far, everyone (like me) is overjoyed and being able to get a 'double shot'.
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
615
Points
940
I own a business.

If any of my employees don't want to get vaccinated, that's fine by me. And I will gladly help them to find employment elsewhere should they need assistance.

Fortunately, so far, everyone (like me) is overjoyed and being able to get a 'double shot'.
The company I work for, while respecting people's right to choose, also is in a tough spot because our clients are now requesting our specialists going into their facilities are fully vaccinated. Creates a tough spot for the company if someone doesn't want the vaccine.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
3,620
Points
1,060
The company I work for, while respecting people's right to choose, also is in a tough spot because our clients are now requesting our specialists going into their facilities are fully vaccinated. Creates a tough spot for the company if someone doesn't want the vaccine.

Sounds easy to me. Get vaccinated or get out. We've got clients who need us!
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
3,620
Points
1,060
QUOTE="OldSolduer, post: 1677179, member: 28243"]
Thank you Gunnar.

For those of you who studied the old USSR and other oppressive regimes I'm sure you have all heard that to get ahead you had to "denounce" someone else. This is what its coming too.
I denounce the guy who keeps walking his dog by my house and his dog keeps pissing on my lawn. (P.S. I may have also yelled at him)
[/QUOTE]

The Yard Enforcer is available at Walmart.

Just sayin' :)

 

suffolkowner

Sr. Member
Reaction score
99
Points
280
Jon Vance was never a poor performer, nor were several other of the GOFO's who are currently in the doghouse. It is not a question of poor performance, it is a question of morals/ethics, and judgement. Included with that is a sense of entitlement and impunity. There are good GOFO's and bad ones, and good Ptes, and bad ones.
What performance metrics are we using for evaluation? I would not take an individuals promotion up a hierachy as evidence of superior performance. Is there evidence for that anywhere, from any institution? How can one possibly divorce questions of morals/ethics and judgement from a leadership and/or management position? What proportion of the Armed Forces Council has been caught under this cloud of suspicion? Not sexually abusing or harassing someone should be a very low bar and the minimum for membership. It appears to almost be the opposite where one doesn't get to be promoted unless one is an abuser/harasser.
 

suffolkowner

Sr. Member
Reaction score
99
Points
280
Sounds easy to me. Get vaccinated or get out. We've got clients who need us!
Although this is a tangent I don't see how in the private world one can mandate vaccination, particularly of vaccines that only have approval for emergency use. We are talking about the deliberate introduction of a foreign non self biological entity into a persons body
 

ballz

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
247
Points
710
My experience is that DMCA isn't so much the problem as the policies we have are not clear on what the progression of admin measures are and the thresholds. Case in point was a G1 that I greatly admire did not understand that one should not put someone on a RM and ask for a admin review, as the request for AR was the next logical step in the admin measures process not something that is to be done in tandem. Make the policies easier to understand and follow and we have a start.

While it seems pretty clear to me in the DAOD that this is the case, I know of one case where DMCA was asked and concurred, and then the DMCA analyst used that against them in the AR... Member had already been placed on C&P for something, then it came to light after it was over that they had in fact broken the term so of that C&P, so an AR was sent up. The analyst stated that since they didn't put the member on C&P for the latter incident, it showed the CoC obviously didn't think it was that big of a deal.... helloooooo, they initiated a f**king AR for release.

So if DMCA can't keep its story straight, how can we?
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
1,869
Points
890
Almost like SSE's commitment to have pros doing HR is a good idea (as opposed to the current model of a posting message magically making someone an expert).

"To deliver dedicated professional and personalized support to all Canadian Armed Forces members, including those in transition, the Canadian Armed Forces will re-establish a Personnel Administration Branch of experts in military human resources management."
 

MJP

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
313
Points
980
While it seems pretty clear to me in the DAOD that this is the case, I know of one case where DMCA was asked and concurred, and then the DMCA analyst used that against them in the AR... Member had already been placed on C&P for something, then it came to light after it was over that they had in fact broken the term so of that C&P, so an AR was sent up. The analyst stated that since they didn't put the member on C&P for the latter incident, it showed the CoC obviously didn't think it was that big of a deal.... helloooooo, they initiated a f**king AR for release.

So if DMCA can't keep its story straight, how can we?
Yikes, that would be frustrating from a unit level. Can say that DMCA has been consistent in it messaging for the 2ish years I dealt with them on this regard. My contention is that we can eliminate much of this by aligning all the administrative measures in one omnibus DAOD
 

ballz

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
247
Points
710
Almost like SSE's commitment to have pros doing HR is a good idea (as opposed to the current model of a posting message magically making someone an expert).

"To deliver dedicated professional and personalized support to all Canadian Armed Forces members, including those in transition, the Canadian Armed Forces will re-establish a Personnel Administration Branch of experts in military human resources management."

A posting message... or having them retire and them hiring them back as public servants, putting them permanently in those positions where they can continue being a plague forever. I've got a few names from DCBA in mind that seem to keep popping up in my emails that have been reinventing the English language to suit their mental gymnastics.

I'm sure now that we've now got HRAs we will magically develop HR expertise... just like it's working for the FSAs to develop financial expertise /sarcasm.

Yikes, that would be frustrating from a unit level. Can say that DMCA has been consistent in it messaging for the 2ish years I dealt with them on this regard. My contention is that we can eliminate much of this by aligning all the administrative measures in one omnibus DAOD

Would have been nice if they have some appeal route........
 

MJP

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
313
Points
980
Would have been nice if they have some appeal route........
They do, although it is via grievance which is slow and doesn't help someone that is given a release that is effective in 30/60 days (at least in the short to medium term). It can get overturned at the IA/FA and the mbr be re-instated but that is rare. On the other hand, it is not a fast process and the member gets procedural fairness with the ability to state their case through representation during two stages (NOI to release at unit level & during the disclosure process of the AR process)

TBH though barring huge unit fugdgery (not unknown) most files that get sent that way probably deserve to be released, we hold on to too many people that have continual conduct issues.
 

ballz

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
247
Points
710
They do, although it is via grievance which is slow and doesn't help someone that is given a release that is effective in 30/60 days (at least in the short to medium term). It can get overturned at the IA/FA and the mbr be re-instated but that is rare. On the other hand, it is not a fast process and the member gets procedural fairness with the ability to state their case through representation during two stages (NOI to release at unit level & during the disclosure process of the AR process)

TBH though barring huge unit fugdgery (not unknown) most files that get sent that way probably deserve to be released, we hold on to too many people that have continual conduct issues.

I meant an appeal route for the CoC to appeal DMCA's decision to retain the member, like I was talking about in my recommendations for Madam Arbour. Member had been convicted of numerous service offences plus the remedial measures that resulted.
 

MJP

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
313
Points
980
I meant an appeal route for the CoC to appeal DMCA's decision to retain the member, like I was talking about in my recommendations for Madam Arbour. Member had been convicted of numerous service offences plus the remedial measures that resulted.
Ahh sorry I am slow and maybe overly conditioned to have to defend getting rid of people :)

It would be interesting to see. The funny part is you in many cases you could just add all the transgressions from the time of initial submission (or update to DMCA 2) and likely get rid of many of people that way :) On a more serious note it would mean that DMCA would have to change you adjudicates on a file if the process stays internal to them as from my understanding DMCA proper makes the final decision on each file (at least on the misconduct side). That however is from discussing with the analysts there so there may be shades of nuance to it. Regardless, it is an interesting idea!
 
Last edited:
Top