# Military Scandals



## Old Sweat (11 Jul 2010)

This story, which is reproduced under the Fair Comment provisions of the Copyright Act, manages to bounce around from subject to subject like a drop of water in a hot pan.

Military scandals: More misconduct or more accountability?

Experts question whether the Forces are being more forthcoming about misdeeds by its members, writes Giuseppe Valiante.

By Giuseppe Valiante., Canwest News Service July 11, 2010 4:04 AM 
  
Experts are wondering if the string of scandals involving high-profile Canadian Forces brass -- including this week's dismissal of the top Canadian military commander in Haiti -- are a result of an unprecedented number of misconducts, or a sign of a more accountable military willing to publicly prosecute its leaders.

"I hope it's the latter," said Jack Granatstein, a military historian who served in the Canadian Forces until 1966.

He said there was a period in the 1990s where there was a sense that "everything was being covered up," referencing events relating to the beating death of a Somali teenager by Canadian soldiers during the military's intervention in the country in 1993.

"I hope we're finding out these things because the military is determined to run a clean ship," he said.

On Friday, it was announced that Canada's most senior-ranking military officer in Haiti has been forced from his command over a number of allegations, including engaging in an inappropriate relationship. Col. Bernard Ouellette, chief of staff to the United Nations Haiti mission, was relieved on June 26 after a yearlong deployment to quake-ravaged Haiti.

Ouellette joins a who's who of high-ranking military officers dismissed over scandal.

The former commander of CFB Trenton, Col. Russell Williams, was arrested and charged in February with two counts of first-degree murder. He has since been charged with 82 more offences relating to break-and-enters and theft.

At the end of May, Brig.-Gen. Daniel Ménard, Canada's top soldier in Afghanistan, was dismissed from his job after he was accused of sexual misconduct with a female subordinate. He has since been reassigned to a desk job in Ottawa.

And last month, 12 current and former soldiers were charged with more than 70 drug-related offences, including some related to producing hallucinogenic drugs in a lab close to their barracks at Alberta's CFB Wainwright.

Michael Byers, an author who holds a Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at University of British Columbia, said he believes the military is taking the no-sex rule more seriously than they have in the past. However, he said the two recent sex scandals might also reflect the increasing number of women in the ranks of the Canadian Forces.

He added that there is no definitive evidence that the events of the past few months reveal a more open military.

For example, Byers said "there certainly hasn't been a whole lot of transparency" with regards to the accusations that Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan knowingly transferred their prisoners to local authorities to be tortured.

Moreover, the military only announced Ouellette's dismissal after a journalist in Haiti noticed he was missing, Byers said.

Lt.-Col. Chris Lemay, spokesman for the Canadian Expeditionary Force Command, said there have been no rule-enforcement policy changes in the Canadian Forces.

"I wouldn't say that the Canadian Forces have been more proactive in their application of the rules," he said. "I would say that whenever the case, whatever the rank, the rule has been applied."


Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Military+scandals+More+misconduct+more+accountability/3263055/story.html#ixzz0tNB1E7B6


----------



## SeanNewman (11 Jul 2010)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> ...Moreover, the military only announced Ouellette's dismissal after a journalist in Haiti noticed he was missing, Byers said...



That is a very stupid finding by the "fellow", as if to imply that the CF should hold a press conference every time we fire someone.  Yes it's understandable when the General in charge of TFK goes down, but now we're talking about a Colonel staff officer.  My point is where does it end?

Do we owe the public a press conference for every platoon commander getting fired for poor performance?  Every C9 gunner getting thrown off work-up training for a DUI?


----------



## Alea (11 Jul 2010)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Michael Byers, an author who holds a Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at University of British Columbia, said he believes the military is taking the no-sex rule more seriously than they have in the past. However, he said the two recent sex scandals might also reflect the increasing number of women in the ranks of the Canadian Forces.
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Military+scandals+More+misconduct+more+accountability/3263055/story.html#ixzz0tNB1E7B6



Ah! Women! It started with Eve... 

Stating this is a scandal to itself, considering that one of the soldier implied in this statement is a rapist and a murderer and that one of his victim was not part of the CF.

Sex is part of nature, part of the world. Nothing will change this. But rape and murder... has nothing to do with the increase of women whether it be in the CF or in any other part of society. It only has to do with a sick person. 

There has always been women in the ranks of the CF and I am pretty sure I won't be mistaken if I say that they all married a soldier/officer most of which were probably in their direct chain of command. I wonder if they were banned/fired at the time.
As well, sexual relations between women and men soldiers are nothing new. This also occurred more than once during the Second War.

Alea


----------



## Burrows (11 Jul 2010)

Alea said:
			
		

> Stating this is a scandal to itself, considering that one of the soldier implied in this statement is a rapist and a murderer and that one of his victim was not part of the CF.



The statement is talking about Ouellette and Menard, not Williams.


----------



## ModlrMike (11 Jul 2010)

You can pretty much ignore everything in this article that comes after the words "Michael Byers".


----------



## armyvern (11 Jul 2010)

Alea said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> There has always been women in the ranks of the CF and I am pretty sure I won't be mistaken if I say that they all married a soldier/officer most of which were probably in their direct chain of command. I wonder if they were banned/fired at the time.
> As well, sexual relations between women and men soldiers are nothing new. This also occurred more than once during the Second War.
> ...


Let's be very clear ... I, and anyone else can date and/or marry whomever I want ... to an extent in the CF.

I would say that you are *very* mistaken if you are stating that most women soldiers/officers date or marry others "probably in their chain of command. I wonder if they were banned/fired at the time".

There is a HUGE difference. I, never dated anyone in my *direct* chain of command: THAT would equal an "inapproapriate relationship." Either above me or below me in that direct chain.

I have dated a co-worker of the same rank, but not while deployed & thus it is not an "inappropriate relationship" because neither of us were subordinate/superior to each other in that CoC and we were not deployed at the time. I have also dated someone well-higher than me in the CoC, but that person was not in my direct CoC --- he had zero influence over my career, my postings, my positions, nor courses and training. Ergo, it was not an "inappropriate relationship". THAT is the case with 99.99% of CF married service couples.

My eventual spouse outranked me when we started dating, but was not a member of my CoC; he continued to outrank me until last year. 

There is nothing inappropraite about CF members dating each other. Inappropriateness occurs when they date fellow soldiers/officers whom can have influence upon their careers etc or those whose careers they can influence.

And, you are right - it has SFA to do with "more chicks being in the CF" ... it's got to do with picking the dating relationship "appropriately" ... or not.


----------



## Alea (13 Jul 2010)

ArmyVern,

You are right and I do agree with everything you wrote. 

Only, my post was referring to "before", "a while ago", during and after WW2.

My knowledge of the military world is really slim  
If I recall properly, this rule of no relationships during missions/no relationship with another member in the same chain of command, was created in the late 90's, after some studies had been done by the military concerning the actions of soldiers while being on missions in Bosnia and Somalia. 
This is a fairly "new" rule considering the CF is much older than 20 years. Before this, there was no question as to who dated who in the army as long as it was done in a rather discreet/respectfull way.

I also like to draw the line between an "innocent" affair and cases of a murderer and drug dealers... all of this is part of the same article which, to me, doesn't sound right. 

Then to conclude the article by stating that the fact there is more women in the CF could be the reason that there is also more affairs, dating etc... is pretty irrelevant.
The army has grown in size and there is an obvious ratio that can be done. I.E.: There was not as many men in the army in the 60's as there is now... therefor, there was not as many women either and the difference between today and before resides in the fact that certain trades (like infantry) are now opened to women which was not the case in 1940. Most women were, then, clerks or in the medical fields.

That being said, again, my knowledge of the army is close to zero and I love to learn so please, don't hesitate to correct me if I am wrong.

Alea


----------



## pbi (30 Jul 2010)

In my opinion the "increased" number of "scandals" is a product of two things.

First, the media has a well known tactic of grouping or associating news items that appear, on some level, to be related. This is sometimes used to suggestrest that there is a "crime wave", or that somehow events with no actual connection share a common cause. The Williams, Menard and Ouellette cases are related only by the fact that the individuals in question are senior officers: after that the causes, circumstances and actions aer probably quite different in each case.

Second, the whole approach to misbehaviour by senior types has undergone a sea change since the shameful days of  Somalia and the other revelations of corrupt senior leadership and an "entitlement culture" amongst some General officers. We don't look the other way like we used to. In my opinion, the type of people we have as General Officers (at least in the Army) is significantly different, if for no other reason than that so many of our Army generals have held actual operational positions in a real war, with real life and death decisions to be made. At the same time, I think our overall leadership climate is much improved over what it was, say 20 years ago, when covering up was in many cases (in my opinion) almost a reflex.  We are much more open and forthcoming about things that go wrong (we've learned the hard way that the truth almost always gets out)

These two factors have intersected to cause a "rash" (if three unrelated incidents constitute a "rash") of supposed " scandals. Although, if we expose something and deal with it, I'm not sure it's really a "scandal".

Cheers


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Aug 2010)

Maybe this is the third one; reproduced, without further comment, under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/High+ranking+female+sailor+punished+fraternization/3383166/story.html


> High-ranking female sailor punished for fraternization
> *Third embarrassing incident in recent months involving Forces’ top officers*
> 
> By Tobi Cohen, Postmedia News
> ...


----------



## Nemecek (11 Aug 2010)

These rash of incidents makes me wonder:

Is this mainly due to poor timing on the part of the officers in question, or is the CF more actively pursuing and clamping down on these allegations as of late?

It just seems like these kinds of stories are just coming out of the woodwork. Would it be safer to say that these are isolated incidents, or rather a microcosm of a larger issue that goes largely unnoticed or unreported?


----------



## kratz (11 Aug 2010)

Damn, it's disappointing to hear his name dragged into the news. 

I've worked with both of them.


----------



## pbi (11 Aug 2010)

In my opinion it's the result of  several things:

-we have a much stronger "whistle-blowing" culture in the CF now than we did, say, 20 years ago. In fact, under the "Lamplighter" program we actually encourage it. In "the old days" it was reasonably possible to assume that bad things would stay quiet. That is a very dangerous assumption today. The difference (IMHO) is that whereas 20 years ago the danger was from disgruntled people going the "brown envelope" route, today you are also more likely to see people "outing" things because they think it's the right thing to do. While this can perhaps sometimes be a double-edged sword, it's probably better in the long run;

-unlike many other large organizations, the nature of what we do, and the way we must relate to each other professionally, mean that we can't tolerate some behaviours that other organizations might ignore or deal with in a very minor way. For example, for most people outside the military, telling the boss to f*** themselves normally won't end up with a criminal charge. For us, because we need to reinforce the rank structure that forms a core part of our organization (for very good and proven reasons), we could very likely find ourselves on trial. Fraternization or inappropriate relationships between leaders and subordinates are two things we don't tolerate. We're also very concerned (again because of nasty history and damage to the leadership climate) about any situation that even suggests that a superior is pressuring or taking advantage of a subordinate for sexual purposes;

-the CF has become, by a very large margin, the most open of all arms of the Govt when it comes to dealing with the media, and in releasing information, especially bad information, as early as possible ("Go ugly early"). We had to learn this the hard way through years of being beaten very badly by the media (often through our own stupidity), but I believe we have hoisted aboard this lesson. One of the results of this is that bad stuff gets out from the CF probably alot faster than it would in another Govt organization with a more typical tight media policy. We would rather announce it ourselves first than get "ambushed"; and

-the military (for the last decade or so) has been far more "front-page" than I ever remember it being in the twenty years I served before that. The media tends to cover us far more often than they did pre-Afghanistan, both good and bad. Of course, in order to respond to the chorus of left-wing voices who accuse them of being mindless publicity shills for the military, they like to publish bad things.

 I don't think this kind of thing happens more in the military than anywhere else. If anything, it probably happens less. Considering the thousands of people who are thrown together under all kinds of circumstances, often at close quarters, I think we probably do pretty well over all. But, it does happen and if deemed serious enough, we take action to deal with it.

Cheers


----------



## Pusser (11 Aug 2010)

Alea said:
			
		

> There has always been women in the ranks of the CF and I am pretty sure* I won't be mistaken if I say that they all married a soldier/officer most of which were probably in their direct chain of command.* I wonder if they were banned/fired at the time.
> As well, sexual relations between women and men soldiers are nothing new. This also occurred more than once during the Second War.



Actually, you would be quite mistaken to say that *all* military women marry or have married men in their chain of command.  Fraternization has never been condoned (not to say it didn't happen) and up until the 1950s or 60s, women were automatically released if they got married or pregnant.  Releases for pregnancy went on longer than those for marriage (I don't know the exact dates).  Women in the CF did not receive equal pay until the 1970s (although we were well ahead of the civilian workforce in that regard).


----------



## pbi (11 Aug 2010)

> There has always been women in the ranks of the CF and I am pretty sure I won't be mistaken if I say that they all married a soldier/officer most of which were probably in their direct chain of command. I wonder if they were banned/fired at the time.



I love bold statements like this. So unhampered by such pedestrian things as facts, or research, or....anything.



> As well, sexual relations between women and men soldiers are nothing new. This also occurred more than once during the Second War.



Yes, no doubt. But what is the relevance of that, unless it's to trot out the tired old rationalization of "well, everybody else does it so why worry?". We've probably done lots of things in our history that we aren't going to do any more, for good reasons, so that argument seems a bit fatuous.

Cheers


----------



## Greymatters (12 Aug 2010)

The military has been fairly open with a lot of major incidents that involve its members over the years.  Its just that you have to ask first, the CF has never been in the habit of giving away information for free, making the CF no different than any other major corporation in Canada or the USA.   

And if the members of the press were really that interested in life inside the CF, it would be fairly simple for them to track down a former serving member (now retired) and ask what their impressions were of their service and how the military has changed.  Of course this doesnt happen very often, as the thinking seems to be that if you want to know something about the military you go ask a university professor or private consultant who has little or no idea what they are talking about. 

The biggest difference I find is that in previous years (say, pre-2001) the news media didnt really care about what the military or its members did unless it made a good news story.  Now military related stories are all the rage, and they'll make a story out of any issue; in this case making a story out of a non-issue...


----------



## Alea (12 Aug 2010)

pbi said:
			
		

> I love bold statements like this. So unhampered by such pedestrian things as facts, or research, or....anything.



Thank you for that statement...

*However, I do agree that I wrote this without "official" searches and in a rather clumsy way.  * 



> Yes, no doubt. But what is the relevance of that, unless it's to trot out the tired old rationalization of "well, everybody else does it so why worry?".



This would be... putting words in my mouth and thoughts in my mind. With all your respect, this is not what I think nor even implied in what I wrote.  

Things change, you're right. The CF has rules that have to be followed. But when those are broken and being "taken care of" by the medias as "military scandals" mixed up with cases of murders and sexual relations... not sure about that. 

The worst is probably to think that some people in the press writting about these subjects, know probably even less than I when it comes to military history or ethics in the military.
This is what I was trying to state in my previous post... along with the fact that my Canadian army history being kind of poor...

Marrying or having a relationship with a soldier (same CoC or not) at that time, was not such a big "scandal".



> so that argument seems a bit fatuous.



Maybe I am a fatuous woman, who knows...
I guess I should just refrain from posting in such serious threads knowing that English is not my first language and that it's not as easy for me to talk "my mind" in certain subjects. However, if you speak french, I'll be more than happy to exchange ideas with you in my mother tong and by PM. 


Alea


----------



## pbi (12 Aug 2010)

Alea: my post was certainly not meant to reflect on your ability to speak any particular language. In fact, unless you had mentioned it , I wouldn't have thought about it.  I also didn't say that you were "fatuous": I don't even know yuo. I said (and I believe) that your argument was fatuous. If you took that as a personal insult, then please accept my apology.

However, I still don't like your argument. 

What disturbed me about your post was what I interpreted it to mean (and, don't forget, reading e-mails without the sender sitting beside you to explain it is always a matter of interpretation). To me it looks like you are supporting a position that I very much disagree with on principle, and you are supporting it with bad or very weak information. For example:



> There has always been women in the ranks of the CF



There have not always been women in the CF: that didn't start until the First World War (and then only as nursing sisters). Up until the post WWII period, women in the service were generally confined to special female branches such as the Canadian Women's Army Corps: most units (especially Army units, didn't start to have women in them until the period of Unification in the late 1960's.



> and I am pretty sure I won't be mistaken if I say that they all married a soldier/officer most of which were probably in their direct chain of command.



This statement doesn't make much sense: are you saying that all (or most) women who have served in the CF have married somebody above or below them in their chain of command? I'd disagree, for three reasons. First, while it's true that personal relationships definitely do happen in the military, I think you'll find it has historically been most common between people of the same rank, or at least the same rank group. Relationships like that, as long as they don't result in any misconduct (such as fraternization where that isn't permitted), are usually not a problem. Second, the Army (at least) traditionally had very strong social sanctions in place against relationships between rank groups. (That said, women sometimes became sexual targets of senior people, especially at more junior ranks, but there was often nowhere for them to turn if they didn't like it) I can remember very clearly, for example, a time that officers were forbidden to bring any non-commissioned person into the officers' mess for a social event. I would say that this started to change in the late '80s or maybe the early '90s. Finally, having somebody above or below you in your direct chain of command doesn't necessarily encourage romantic relationships: I would say that the opposite is true in most cases.



> As well, sexual relations between women and men soldiers are nothing new. This also occurred more than once during the Second War.



This was the part I _really_ didn't like. As I posted earlier, to me this is the weakest (and worst) form of argument when you are talking about a moral or ethical issue "It's OK because everybody else does it". Maybe that isn't what you meant, but to me that is what it says. For us in the military (especially for leaders like officers, WOs and NCOs) this can't be the way we judge ourselves.

So, here is the issue for me in all of this: leadership.

If you are put in charge of other men and women, especially in a dangerous, stressful situation, every action you take has to be to support and strengthen the organization you are in charge of. One of the strengths of any military organization is the trust people have in those who lead them. Where this trust is strong, military units can do great things. Where the trust is weak, or nonexistent, units will function poorly or, in the worst case, fall apart under pressure. Trust is based, to a great extent, on the belief by subordinates that the leader acts in the best interests of the group, not himself. It is also based on the belief that tasks, duties and risks are assigned on a fair basis, not influenced by personal concerns or favour. Finally, trust is strengthened when all members (but especially the most junior) believe that their superiors will not try to pressure them or take personal advantage of them in an unethical or unfair way.

All of this means that leaders live in a kind of fishbowl, and have to think constantly about the effects of what they are seen to do, and about the example they set. If they introduce sexual relations, or personal favouritism, or unethical influence, into what they do, then they just damage the trust climate and cause stresses that nobody needs.

That is what I believe, and that is why I can't sympathize with leaders who commit these acts, or people who try to rationalize or excuse their behaviour by silly (ie: fatuous) arguments that, in my opinion, have no place in a professional military.

Cheers


----------



## xo31@711ret (12 Aug 2010)

I'm confused & I'm not being sarcastic folks.  I joined up as an infanteer in 82. I had platoon WO's who were married to JNR ranks. Not much  that I knew then of officers married to other ranks; this was at a time of no females in the btn's & the base side personnel did not interact much with the btn folks; at least on the bases I was at the time. When I LOTPed in the late 80's to medic I knew NCM's who were married to officers: nurse married to a medic; doctor married to an NCM; LOG O married to NCM, etc. These folks were on the same bases, sometimes in the same unit but never same section. I can't remember any of them ever socializing with each other ref military (eg mess functions, etc) in the late 80's & 90's but I remember after promoted to Sgt that at some SNR NCO functions  some NCO's would get permission of the RMS - CPO to have their spouse attend a snr NCO function. Of course this was from my experience & diminishing memory, a SNR NCO getting permission for his-her JNR NCM spouse to attend. I tried, but I can never remember an officer attending a SNR NCO function as a spouse (Other than an 'at home' function). But I also don't remember any conflicts reference these folks being married & most of these couples met after they put on the uniform.


----------



## armyvern (12 Aug 2010)

xo31@711ret said:
			
		

> I'm confused & I'm not being sarcastic folks.  I joined up as an infanteer in 82. I had platoon WO's who were married to JNR ranks. Not much  that I knew then of officers married to other ranks; this was at a time of no females in the btn's & the base side personnel did not interact much with the btn folks; at least on the bases I was at the time. When I LOTPed in the late 80's to medic I knew NCM's who were married to officers: nurse married to a medic; doctor married to an NCM; LOG O married to NCM, etc. These folks were on the same bases, sometimes in the same unit but never same section. I can't remember any of them ever socializing with each other ref military (eg mess functions, etc) in the late 80's & 90's but I remember after promoted to Sgt that at some SNR NCO functions  some NCO's would get permission of the RMS - CPO to have their spouse attend a snr NCO function. Of course this was from my experience & diminishing memory, a SNR NCO getting permission for his-her JNR NCM spouse to attend. I tried, but I can never remember an officer attending a SNR NCO function as a spouse (Other than an 'at home' function). But I also don't remember any conflicts reference these folks being married & most of these couples met after they put on the uniform.



Not involved in each others CoC. Not fraternizing during work/deployment. No problem. Your previous experience reigns true today. (Except that I have seen Officers in the mess for activities and NCMs in theirs for activities with their comissioned or non-comissioned spouses when permission has been requested and granted [Mother's Day Brunch for example]. Have also seen permission denied. It depends upon the function/activity.)


----------



## pbi (13 Aug 2010)

xo31@711ret said:
			
		

> I'm confused & I'm not being sarcastic folks.  I joined up as an infanteer in 82. I had platoon WO's who were married to JNR ranks. Not much  that I knew then of officers married to other ranks; this was at a time of no females in the btn's & the base side personnel did not interact much with the btn folks; at least on the bases I was at the time. When I LOTPed in the late 80's to medic I knew NCM's who were married to officers: nurse married to a medic; doctor married to an NCM; LOG O married to NCM, etc. These folks were on the same bases, sometimes in the same unit but never same section. I can't remember any of them ever socializing with each other ref military (eg mess functions, etc) in the late 80's & 90's but I remember after promoted to Sgt that at some SNR NCO functions  some NCO's would get permission of the RMS - CPO to have their spouse attend a snr NCO function. Of course this was from my experience & diminishing memory, a SNR NCO getting permission for his-her JNR NCM spouse to attend. I tried, but I can never remember an officer attending a SNR NCO function as a spouse (Other than an 'at home' function). But I also don't remember any conflicts reference these folks being married & most of these couples met after they put on the uniform.



OK...then you're basically agreeing with most of what I posted. I joined the RegF Infantry in 1983, and until I left Regimental duty in 1997, I very rarely (almost never) saw any overt relationships inside battalions, and certainly not in any direct chain of command. As I pointed out, toward the end of the 80's and in the early 90's that began to change a bit. But, even then, the relationshiops I was aware of were almost all with people in other units. I knew of only one couple within a battalion, but they were in different companies (actually in different physical locations).

I will grant you that the culture in non-Cbt Arms units was probably somewhat different (more females in the CSS units) and of course outside the Army I imagine it was quite different (except possibly the Navy).

In any case, I don't think that in the RegF we ever accepted that chain-of-command relationships were "right" or normal.

Cheers


----------



## xo31@711ret (13 Aug 2010)

Thanks Vern; pbi, not agreeing or disagreeing; hence my confusion. I'm a bit slow on the uptake at times  :blotto: In 28 years I too NEVER saw an NCM in the same COC as her or his spouse. Same unit maybe ( eg Chatham, a small base of about 300 personnel of civvies & military before it closed), but nver same coc. Thanks again.


----------



## kincanucks (13 Aug 2010)

Opinions on this subject, or any other military subject, from people without any or with very little military experience, are just that opinions and should taken with a large block of salt.


----------



## pbi (13 Aug 2010)

kincanucks said:
			
		

> Opinions on this subject, or any other military subject, from people without any or with very little military experience, are just that opinions and should taken with a large block of salt.



True, but unless we just want to "preach to the choir" around here, folks without much military knowledge should still (IMHO) be able to partake as long as they admit their ignorance and identify an opinion as just that: an opinion. If they have something to add, and they can stand up to the give and take here on army.ca, more power to them.

Cheers


----------



## OldSolduer (13 Aug 2010)

Here's one that just came to mind:

1986 - The RSM read a statement to his assembled WOs and Snr NCOs stating that he had never had an affair with the wife of one of his WOs.

Blew us away. Rumours had been abounding.


----------



## kincanucks (13 Aug 2010)

pbi said:
			
		

> True, but unless we just want to "preach to the choir" around here, folks without much military knowledge should still (IMHO) be able to partake as long as they admit their ignorance and identify an opinion as just that: an opinion. If they have something to add, and they can stand up to the give and take here on army.ca, more power to them.
> 
> Cheers



Concur. Cheers.


----------



## cupper (19 Jul 2012)

Col. Ouellette is suing for $6.2 Million.

*Canada's former top soldier in Haiti sues for $6.2M
Allegations of an affair led to removal from command*

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/07/19/pol-haiti-commander-ouellette-sues-national-defence-for-defamation.html



> The former commander of Canada's mission in Haiti is suing the Department of National Defence and four officers for $6.2 million in damages after allegations of an "inappropriate relationship" with a United Nations staffer caused him to be relieved of his duties two years ago.
> 
> Col. Bernard Ouellette denies all the allegations, said his lawyer, retired colonel Michel Drapeau, in an interview with CBC News.
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Oct 2015)

cupper said:
			
		

> Col. Ouellette is suing for $6.2 Million.
> 
> *Canada's former top soldier in Haiti sues for $6.2M
> Allegations of an affair led to removal from command*
> ...


Bumped with the latest re:  said Colonel ....


> Evidence of an affair between Canada’s former top soldier in Haiti and his assistant was always circumstantial — he put her up in his room after the massive 2010 earthquake and there were reports of pink lipstick smudges and frolicking in the pool.
> 
> But it was enough for Col. Bernard Ouellette’s superiors to strip him of his command and accuse him of showing “leadership failure” for not being able to put the infidelity rumours to rest.
> 
> Now, five years later, a federal judge has ruled the grievance Ouellette filed over his dismissal was not handled fairly and ordered a review by the chief of the defence staff ....


Be careful what you wish for ....


----------

