# Opposition critical of GD donation to CAF mental health



## McG (12 Dec 2014)

I can see how the optics are bad, but money has to come from somewhere.

Would be interesting to know where the money actually came from.  Was it GD Canada, GDLS Canada, GD-OTS Canada, or some other branch of GD?



> Critics question General Dynamics' $500K contribution to military mental health research centre
> CTVNews.ca Staff
> 11 Dec 2014
> 
> ...


http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/critics-question-general-dynamics-500k-contribution-to-military-mental-health-research-centre-1.2144469


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Dec 2014)

I guess it's not quite as bad as if a pharmaceutical company sponsored it.



			
				MCG said:
			
		

> I can see how the optics are bad, but money has to come from somewhere.


Since it's not enough of a priority for the government, true.  

Maybe we can do like the Ukrainians do, and set up a system where people can text money to the program?  So far, it's raised more than $11 million (links to Ukrainian MoD, in Ukrainian).


----------



## a_majoor (12 Dec 2014)

I would think more of the opposition if they were to sponsor a bill to match these contributions rather than just whining about it. After all, if _they_ were in power do you really think the Young Dauphin or Tom Mulcair would be contributing a penny to CF mental health (or anything related to the CF, for that matter)?


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Dec 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I would think more of the opposition if they were to sponsor a bill to match these contributions rather than just whining about it.


1)  What do you think are the odds of such a bill passing with a Conservative majority, even if both (OK, all three if we count the Greens) other parties agreed?
2)  If you think the government would vote FOR such a bill, based on the need, why doesn't the government sponsor it now?


----------



## TCBF (7 Mar 2015)

Given the fact that the LAV UP program is going to drive a lot of soldiers crazy over the next ten years, I think that their donation is a good idea.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (7 Mar 2015)

TCBF said:
			
		

> Given the fact that the LAV UP program is going to drive a lot of soldiers crazy over the next ten years, I think that their donation is a good idea.



???


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Mar 2015)

GD in London, has a lot of local soldiers working there. They encompass, nearly, all ranks. Many have deployed.

GD cares for each of them. They want what's best for their employees and all soldiers. As was said, "who cares where the money comes from?"

And if you think it's given in hopes of favouritism, every party that has governed has dealt hugely with GD. They are, literally, the only game in town Canada, for what they do.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Mar 2015)

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> ???



New courses for every crew position, maintainer training, new stock numbers and codes. Logistics of having two or more 'similar' vehicles in a Regiment, the list goes on. and trying to fit it all in with Train the Trainers, student load, etc, while operating well under strength and with no cash.

Pretty sure I'd be crazy myself, especially with the unattainable and fantastical timelines some guy in the Puzzle Palace invokes, even though he's never ridden in a green military vehicle in his life.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (7 Mar 2015)

I wasn't aware the vehicles were that different.


----------



## ballz (7 Mar 2015)

On a lighter note, if the LAV UPs remain grounded I'll be pretty stress free as a LAV Capt :facepalm:


----------



## TCBF (7 Mar 2015)

ballz said:
			
		

> On a lighter note, if the LAV UPs remain grounded I'll be pretty stress free as a LAV Capt :facepalm:





- When I was SSM Recce Sqn in Edmonton 2013, we did ten weeks in the field on the "Road to high Readiness" and then five days chasing high water down south ("After years of Southern Albertan aggression and provocation, The Army of Northern Alberta..."). My LAV 3 was great.
When I was posted to 3 CDTC Wainwright summer 13, my replacement ended up with a LAV UP hangar queen.


----------



## Gunner98 (7 Mar 2015)

I think it is important that people (especially the media and politicians) acknowledge that CIMVHR does more than look at mental health issues.  CIMVHR is a unique consortium of over 36 Canadian universities "dedicated to researching the health needs of military personnel, Veterans and their families."


----------



## TCBF (7 Mar 2015)

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> I think it is important that people (especially the media and politicians) acknowledge that CIMVHR does more than look at mental health issues.  CIMVHR is a unique consortium of over 36 Canadian universities "dedicated to researching the health needs of military personnel, Veterans and their families."



- This whole "... and their families." is another scam where the provinces want DND to fund civ health care for dependants in semi-isolated areas where CF base populations provide a large part of the local community.

- Just another way of de-militarizing the defence budget.


----------



## Gunner98 (7 Mar 2015)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - This whole "... and their families." is another scam where the provinces want DND to fund civ health care for dependants in semi-isolated areas where CF base populations provide a large part of the local community.
> 
> - Just another way of de-militarizing the defence budget.



I disagree, it is also for DND to research and fund families to attend therapy sessions with their soldiers who are spouses/parents.  I know of no intent to expand funding of civilian health care at semi-isolated bases, that ended for the most part in the 1990s.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Mar 2015)

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> I disagree, it is also for DND to research and fund families to attend therapy sessions with their soldiers who are spouses/parents.  I know of no intent to expand funding of civilian health care at semi-isolated bases, that ended for the most part in the 1990s.



So long as it's identified as having to do with the mental condition of the soldier, that's fair, and typically, part and parcel of the soldiers recovery.

I _think_ what TCBF is saying is don't try push someone who is bipolar (eg) most of their life, into our system, because they are married to a serviceperson with PTSD.


----------



## TCBF (7 Mar 2015)

- Exactly. We fund Veterans care for the veterans. If their dependants then want our funding because the veteran's issues are triggering dependant's psych issues, or just general coping, too bad. That is the responsibility of provincial health care - not VAC or SISIP.


----------



## TCBF (7 Mar 2015)

- By the way, my intro to this was at a Wainwright military 'Town Hall' meeting where some servicemen wanted to discuss the availability of military specialists to see their wives/kids because the Alberta health care system would not provide. My take on it was Too Bad. You pay prov taxes for a reason - get involved in prov politics and get it sorted out. Wainwright isn't CFE.
- What I DID recommend was similar to what we did for CFE: DAG the member AND his/her family. If the special needs of the family cannot be met in Wainwright/Cold Lake/Pembroke/Goose Bay, then he/she does not go. Career results? Attach the promotion to the posting - not vice versa. You don't DAG Green because of family issues then you don't get the posting and the promotion att to that load station.


----------



## Kat Stevens (7 Mar 2015)

Just to clarify, you'd withhold a promotion from a qualified and deserving soldier because he has a special needs child who couldn't live in an isolated posting?  Sounds like the old reserve system, be willing to show up and get promoted, quality of troop be buggered.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (7 Mar 2015)

How can you promote someone if they cannot or will not go to where the job actually is at that rank level?


----------



## Kat Stevens (7 Mar 2015)

I suppose.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (7 Mar 2015)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> How can you promote someone if they cannot or will not go to where the job actually is at that rank level?



If it wasn't for BS accommodating like taking a guy off PCAT for a day so he can be promoted to go back on PCAT, for walking 800m of a 13 km March and being trucked to rest to posted and promoted, you may have a point.


----------



## OldSolduer (7 Mar 2015)

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> If it wasn't for BS accommodating like taking a guy off PCAT for a day so he can be promoted to go back on PCAT, for walking 800m of a 13 km March and being trucked to rest to posted and promoted, you may have a point.



Is this still going on?


----------



## Kat Stevens (7 Mar 2015)

Promoted on posting always seemed a bit of a stupid system to me.  Why not post in a guy at the rank required for the job?  Far fewer chance for fuck ups as an experienced (insert rank here) as opposed to a brand new (insert rank here) posted to a strange location and unit.  The losing unit also gets to promote one of it's own, and keep him in the unit for a while, where both benefit from familiar surroundings.  And now, for my next trick, watch as I fix the PER system.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (7 Mar 2015)

It makes a certain sense to post people as they get promoted. In some units, the jump from MCpl to Sgt(and in to a new mess) can be difficult. You are actually doing the newly promoted member a favour by sending him to a new unit, at his new rank.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (7 Mar 2015)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Is this still going on?



I was there for the second example.


----------



## TCBF (7 Mar 2015)

- My recommendation once was too send the new CO the new soldiers Pers File, the CO's MO gets his Med File and the MP Sgt of the Regt gets to see the 'MP File. The three of them confirm to see if the soldier will be a good fit. This would work in theory, but eventually some bureaucrat will tell his respective chain to approve all postings and we would be back to square one. 

-


----------



## Ostrozac (7 Mar 2015)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - My recommendation once was too send the new CO the new soldiers Pers File, the CO's MO gets his Med File and the MP Sgt of the Regt gets to see the 'MP File. The three of them confirm to see if the soldier will be a good fit. This would work in theory, but eventually some bureaucrat will tell his respective chain to approve all postings and we would be back to square one.
> 
> -



Recommendation 1 already exists for promotion. A CO has to sign off on all promotions. Whether in the case of a posting/promotion that should be gaining unit or losing unit is a philosophical question, and is open to debate, but I think that particular tool for denial of promotion should only be used in exceptional circumstances -- after all, should a CO normally be second-guessing a merit board? If a member is completely and egregiously unsuitable for promotion, didn't the CO have a chance to say so at the bottom of the PER? I accept that if a member has had a complete meltdown of his performance in recent months, then the CO needs that power, since a Promotion Board only sees the past three years.

I have huge issues with proposed recommendation 2 and 3. If a member is physically screwed up, the MO should have him on MEL's, TCAT or PCAT. If he's a criminal, call the NIS, lay charges and let him have his day in court-martial.

Or are you recommending that CO's be able to veto all postings in to a unit? Most of the time, I'm seeing CO's that are way too desperate for manpower to be choosy. Their calls to the Career Managers and Branch Chiefs are more like "get me some more guys" and "all my warrants have retired" and "I just lost more guys to CANSOF". They are not usually in a position to be saying that they need three jump qualified hockey players, two bilingual AOC grads and an MWO with nine medals so he looks really cool on parade.

Although there are a few units that are screening postings in -- OUTCAN, CANSOF, JTFN, 440 Squadron, (and I think that 1 Cdn Div is back to doing screening, it wasn't when I was there) -- it is very much the exception, not the rule.


----------



## TCBF (8 Mar 2015)

- I agree with your observations on our lack of soldiers. It would be interesting to see where our strength sits right now, as compared to our authorised strength.
- One of my frustrations - before I retired - was that the ruggedness of our pers had deteriorated badly over the last few decades. I recall an era where a Regt would deploy to the field with a dozen left in garrison. Now, it would be closer to one hundred - most of whom would have been released with great despatch had their issues presented in earlier times. In that sense, we might have two-thirds of the force that we had in 1990, but probably less than half the effectives.
- Bad enough in the ranks, but broken or mal-adjusted NCOs and officers must be let go. Hard to do, as every year, as I have written before, we seem to be less and less the Canadian Armed Forces and more and more the uniformed branch of the Department of National Defence.


----------



## OldSolduer (8 Mar 2015)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Bad enough in the ranks, but broken or mal-adjusted NCOs and officers must be let go. Hard to do, as every year, as I have written before, we seem to be less and less the Canadian Armed Forces and more and more the uniformed branch of the Department of National Defence.



Some of my "fondest" memories consisted of officers and NCOs who were either incompetent, bullies or a combination of both. I recall more than one at each rank level that acted like lords over the troops.

They are a cancer and must be cut out.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Mar 2015)

Let's try get back on track guys. We've veered way off topic.


----------



## Gunner98 (9 Mar 2015)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - What I DID recommend was similar to what we did for CFE: DAG the member AND his/her family. If the special needs of the family cannot be met in Wainwright/Cold Lake/Pembroke/Goose Bay, then he/she does not go. Career results? Attach the promotion to the posting - not vice versa. You don't DAG Green because of family issues then you don't get the posting and the promotion att to that load station.



I agree with the DAG part for all postings it would certainly cut down on the Contingency Cost and Compassionate Moves as well as Imposed Restrictions  

The issue has always been and will continue to be - why should my career progression be dependent on the status of my dependants.


----------



## TCBF (10 Mar 2015)

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> I agree with the DAG part for all postings it would certainly cut down on the Contingency Cost and Compassionate Moves as well as Imposed Restrictions
> 
> The issue has always been and will continue to be - why should my career progression be dependent on the status of my dependants.



- That has never been the issue before, because previous generations of servicemen understood that they could not expect a forward-deployed military (CFE) to care for every social and medical family situation. It would be uneconomical. 

- Mods, should we cut this to a separate thread? to DAG or Not to DAG?


----------



## dapaterson (10 Mar 2015)

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> I agree with the DAG part for all postings it would certainly cut down on the Contingency Cost and Compassionate Moves as well as Imposed Restrictions



There is already supposed to be a DAG for certain positions due to the lack of support mechanisms available in those locations.



> The issue has always been and will continue to be - why should my career progression be dependent on the status of my dependants.



If you are not available for some positions, then your career may suffer.  That's regardless of the reasons.


----------

