• 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

Ostrozac

Sr. Member
Reaction score
110
Points
430
They do - to see how many jobs can be given to Quebec and how much to cut in bad times
That’s not entirely fair. GM and Colt/CZ maintain subsidized factories in Ontario, and the shipbuilding program largely bypassed Quebec’s major shipyard. There is plenty of pork being spread around the country, with uneven effect.

If only we had a national policy of ‘build lots of stuff in Quebec‘ — that would actually be a policy, which would be a nice change.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
927
Points
940
Or how about Cabinet?

It sounds like what's being recommended is a board of advisers. Would the egos of the most senior GOFOs accept anyone giving them advice? They already have staffs, many with expertise the GOFO lacks in specific areas - how would layering over yet another bunch of people to ignore assist in decision making?

Not so much advisors. To be effective a board has to have powers to shape the direction of the entity long term and to fire and hire a faltering executive. Any such board which also had authority over defence procurement and production would be useful. That, of course, presupposes that the board is knowledgeable in and of itself or is given frequent status briefings by the executive and outside advisors to be effective.

The hard thing in forming a board to govern the military executive is to find individuals who are vested enough in the health of the organization to set aside competing interests and to generate broad policy decisions for the future. A second problem with a board in a military context is that the military does not generate income, it simply consumes resources regardless of its capability outputs. While the board might broadly direct the military it would have no control over the government's somewhat arbitrary decisions for funding. There would need to be some stable, or at least predictable, perhaps constitutionally defined, income source (As an example Chile's 1957 Restricted Law on Copper which mandated that fully 10% of the state-owned National Copper Corporation's revenues on copper exports went to military equipment purchases). A given percentage of government revenues could be one answer.

As you indicate, being a board of advisors isn't good enough because the executive will reject advice they do not like and will do it without any fear of consequences.

As to Cabinet: that's in essence the system we do have. How has that been working out for us over the last three or four decades?

🍻
 

rmc_wannabe

Sr. Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
152
Points
680
Except Australia is a grown up country that realizes that their safety and security isn't up for debate. It's a byproduct of being the only western style democracy in a really bad neighborhood.

Canada will never act in this responsible manner because we use geography and proximity and call it a defense policy
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
928
Points
910
Never fear.

The PMO will, in a panic (or deliberately) pick the worst possible governance model to impose upon the CAF and then point fingers when it doesn’t work.

Nothing new to see hear...
 

dimsum

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
691
Points
940
It would help if Canadian parliamentarians had a long-term, non-partisan vision for the Armed Forces....like Australia does.

#notgoingtohappen
Step 1: Be really far from friends
Step 2: Be (relatively) close to potential adversaries
Step 3: Have some former adversaries attack your cities like Darwin and Sydney
 

ballz

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
115
Points
710
Or how about Cabinet?

It sounds like what's being recommended is a board of advisers. Would the egos of the most senior GOFOs accept anyone giving them advice? They already have staffs, many with expertise the GOFO lacks in specific areas - how would layering over yet another bunch of people to ignore assist in decision making?

As FJAG points out, it would have to a Board of Directors in the sense that they give direction, not advice, for exactly the reasons you have both pointed out.

In saying that though, there's a lot of talk about how GOFOs have "experts" to advise them and while I'm sure it's true in some cases, it sure isn't true for finance which is a pretty crucial aspect. I'm skeptical about how "expert" any of our homegrown experts are but jaded by experience in finance.

I think I have something more in mind where the MND employs the CAF but the Board of Directors is responsible for setting the vision, strategy, strategic objectives, strategic procurement / capital budgeting, etc. and the CDS runs the CAF day-to-day to ensure 1) the MND's present-day requirements are met and 2) the Board's vision/strategy is being implemented so that tomorrow's CAF can meet tomorrow's requirements.

The make-up the Board would be particularly important:


Board not full time - check.
Long serving members - check.
Outside perspectives and expertise - check.
Developing things to help steer C-Suite - check, I guess.

I'm not fully aware of this committee's authority but I suspect it has no real authority?

The make-up of that committee is also terrible. They're almost all career "government" people whether it's policing, education, or straight up public service roles.

I think what I have in mind would need some CAF-appointed people, some Cabinet-appointed people, some Parliament-appointed people.

The CAF would be responsible for selecting any uniformed members that sit on the it and how they select them. For example, they might get 6 seats out of an 17 member board. The CAF might decide to make the CDS an ex-officio Board member (not uncommon to have the CEO sit on the Board), and have a nomination/selection process for the others.

Then the rest of the roles should be filled for specific reasons... i.e. we want some proven, private sector C-suite execs.... a CEO, CFO, CHR, etc.

Then we also want some people who "know government" i.e. a retired Parliamentarian, the DND's Deputy Minister.

And no friggin' retired GOFOs and such... the CAF will already have 6 seats and this is about moving the CAF forward, we already have an entire department that is fighting change we don't need to add more dinosaurs.

--------------------------------

The big problem I'm juggling with is the authorities between the MND and the Board....Ideally I'd replace the MND with the Board, and the entire Department is governed by the Board. But that doesn't work for a few huge reasons, not least of which is Cabinet needs to fully own and control the military and be able to give them tasks on a whim, not go ask a Board of 17 people who need to convene a meeting, discuss, vote, and then give direction to the Department.

And there's also some delineation between a lot of what the department does and what a Board traditionally does. For example, the Board normally has an audit committee, who would employ internal auditors... the DND already has internal auditors [ADM(RS)], so do we take ADM(RS) out of the department and have them work for the Board (I don't think this would be a terrible idea, right now ADM(RS) seems to be just ignored despite some valuable reports).

In any case, all of this thought experiment for me stemmed from some questions:
1) How do we bring some creativity into the CAF?
2) How do we bring some real expertise, both private sector (financial, operational, etc.) and public (legislative, bureaucratic, etc.) in the CAF?
3) How do we get the CAF a vision and strategy to guide the CDS and GOFOs, instead of just having them all fight over what they think it should be and enacting plans to make their vision come true, even if it's to the detriment of the CAF as a whole?

And my brain just started trying to work out how the CAF could adopt some of the strengths that a Board can provide, and hasn't worked out any of it yet.
 

Good2Golf

Army.ca Legend
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
1,145
Points
1,160
Step 1: Be really far from friends
Step 2: Be (relatively) close to potential adversaries
Step 3: Have some former adversaries attack your cities like Darwin and Sydney
Come on...say it...we're just like New Zealand...letting big brother do the heavy lifting, and we tag along with beautiful landscape and a self-deprecating manner and self-aggrandizing sense of self. ;)
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
1,240
Points
890
Come on...say it...we're just like New Zealand...letting big brother do the heavy lifting, and we tag along with beautiful landscape and a self-deprecating manner and self-aggrandizing sense of self. ;)
#CanadaNeedsMoreSheep
 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
813
Points
910
That’s not entirely fair. GM and Colt/CZ maintain subsidized factories in Ontario, and the shipbuilding program largely bypassed Quebec’s major shipyard. There is plenty of pork being spread around the country, with uneven effect.

If only we had a national policy of ‘build lots of stuff in Quebec‘ — that would actually be a policy, which would be a nice change.
Maybe not but Mulroney did over ride a winning bid and award a maintenance contract to a Quebec company. 1989 or 90.
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
344
Points
910
I can't believe that people are seriously suggesting replacing the MND with a group; things are a shit show at every level we have 'senior advisor boards' because no one can be held accountable. At least with the MND there is a single individual it rolls up to.

Not that anyone is ever necessarily held accountable, but if something needs to go to a group, it already goes to Cabinet, and there are all kinds of outside reports from all kinds of consultants that are used to specifically bring in outside expertise and suggest new ideas. The main problem usually is they try and shoehorn widget making processes onto the CAF, which doesn't work when we hit actual operations, so we end up working around the 'solutions'.

For this specific file, we already have an ombudsman; just make the office independent of DND and add a sexual harrassment wing onto it for an independent oversight onto the process.
 

GR66

Sr. Member
Reaction score
128
Points
510
Or how about the two major parties come to an agreement on the objectives of our defence policy with a general agreement on funding levels and provide a REAL White Paper (not just a glorified shopping list) that the CAF can implement.

Sounds crazy I know, but somehow other countries like the US and Australia seem to be able to take much of the partisan politics out of defence policy (pork barrel aside) in a way that maintains a general focus on what they want/need the military to do regardless of which party is in power.

I don't know that we need a new management structure, just some grown-ups at the head of the table to agree that defence of the realm is a serious matter and should be above party politics in the broad sense. Different governments are of course free to use that military in the way they deem best for the nation, but surely the Liberals and Conservatives at least could come together and agree on the broad strokes.
 

Good2Golf

Army.ca Legend
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
1,145
Points
1,160
GR, that would assume a government want the Armed Forces to be more than an excuse to pork barrel.
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
470
Points
880
A committee! The tried and true way of solving every knotty problem in a timely and efficient manner. How could everyone have overlooked such a solution for so long?

What kind of "vision" and "strategy" does the CAF need that wouldn't be better delivered first to Parliament? Please to replace empty buzzwords with practical examples.

Eventually someone will have to stop dancing around the fact that male sex drive is at the root of all this and that it varies in individuals as does the ability to subordinate it to conscious reason. Acknowledging factors and not assuming any of them away is a necessary prerequisite to solving a problem. Those who have forgotten what it was like to be a pre-middle-age man or who never knew are not well-equipped to weigh in. Some of the other things talked about up-thread are actually on point, not diversions from the topic, to the extent that societies have always had to come up with social structures and rules to help honest men stay honest. Some of those have been weakened, and here we are. So, we'll deliver firm statements to media and as many series of lectures as necessary until the problem is fixed?
 

Weinie

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
773
Points
1,010
Or how about the two major parties come to an agreement on the objectives of our defence policy with a general agreement on funding levels and provide a REAL White Paper (not just a glorified shopping list) that the CAF can implement.

Sounds crazy I know, but somehow other countries like the US and Australia seem to be able to take much of the partisan politics out of defence policy (pork barrel aside) in a way that maintains a general focus on what they want/need the military to do regardless of which party is in power.

I don't know that we need a new management structure, just some grown-ups at the head of the table to agree that defence of the realm is a serious matter and should be above party politics in the broad sense. Different governments are of course free to use that military in the way they deem best for the nation, but surely the Liberals and Conservatives at least could come together and agree on the broad strokes.
The US has had to, as the world's policeman since the early fifties.

Australia has come around to the concept, based on a considerably evolved geopolitical landscape, that places them as a large landmass, rich with resources, and isolated. I can see multiple scenarios evolving, in the 20-25 year horizon, where Australia acquires nukes as a strategic deterrent.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
2,234
Points
1,060
The US has had to, as the world's policeman since the early fifties.

Australia has come around to the concept, based on a considerably evolved geopolitical landscape, that places them as a large landmass, rich with resources, and isolated. I can see multiple scenarios evolving, in the 20-25 year horizon, where Australia acquires nukes as a strategic deterrent.
So, like, Vegemite isn't enough of a deterrent already? :)

season 6 GIF
 
Top