# MND 2019



## FJAG (15 Nov 2019)

Trudeau is supposedly announcing his new cabinet on Wednesday and Canadians are being told to expect some big changes.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-urged-to-give-freeland-domestic-portfolio-name-her-deputy-pm-1.5361811

What are the guesstimates for Minister of National Defence?

 :stirpot:


----------



## dapaterson (15 Nov 2019)

Either same old, same old; Karen McCrimmon; or somebody else.

That's my 100% guaranteed prediction.


----------



## MilEME09 (15 Nov 2019)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Trudeau is supposedly announcing his new cabinet on Wednesday and Canadians are being told to expect some big changes.
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-urged-to-give-freeland-domestic-portfolio-name-her-deputy-pm-1.5361811
> 
> ...



Someone with little to no experience in relation to the military for 500 bob


----------



## FJAG (15 Nov 2019)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Either same old, same old; Karen McCrimmon; or somebody else.
> 
> That's my 100% guaranteed prediction.



Geez. You'd think that someone who will be a ret'd LCol in an hour and ten minutes could be a little less general. 

 ;D


----------



## observor 69 (16 Nov 2019)

Did a quick check of Karen McCrimmon's bio and she would seem to be a very credible candidate for MND.
Or is my "Sic itur ad astra" showing.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (16 Nov 2019)

Baden Guy said:
			
		

> Did a quick check of Karen McCrimmon's bio and she would seem to be a very credible candidate for MND.
> Or is my "Sic itur ad astra" showing.



How does simply having been in the military make you a credible candidate to be the Minister of National Defence?  Does she have experience with the machinery of government?  Has she been in charge of a large and complex organisation before?  Does she have ties with industry, academia, or Allies that will assist in the conduct of her Ministerial duties?


----------



## tomahawk6 (17 Nov 2019)

Simply MND is a stepping stone to higher office and being female might be a bonus for the Government.


----------



## FSTO (17 Nov 2019)

In some ways I'd rather have a MND with little experience in the military so they wouldn't be tainted by the inherited biases that their time in the service would produce.

My unicorn MND would have experience in international affairs, major project management in remote and/or rugged regions, and a PHD in history. Also this person would be able to stand up to senior bureaucrats (of all ministries), GOFO's, cabinet and the entitled little shytes in the PMO  ;D.

I'm not holding my breath for this type of person to be ever named MND. Their talents would be wasted there.


----------



## Good2Golf (17 Nov 2019)

FSTO said:
			
		

> In some ways I'd rather have a MND with little experience in the military so they wouldn't be tainted by the inherited biases that their time in the service would produce.
> 
> My unicorn MND would have experience in international affairs, major project management in remote and/or rugged regions, and a PHD in history. Also this person would be able to stand up to senior bureaucrats (of all ministries), GOFO's, cabinet and the entitled little shytes in the PMO  ;D.
> 
> I'm not holding my breath for this type of person to be ever named MND. Their talents would be wasted there.



This would require the PM, Cabinet and Caucus to actually believe that Defence is an important portfolio in the GoC.  I’m likely not the only one here to believe this is not the case. It is more of a secondary or even tertiary portfolio, used primarily to dispense a relatively large amount of discretionary Vote 1 and Vote 5 funding across various regions of the country.  True power (beneath PCO and PMO) is managed/effected within the halls of Treasury Board, Finance, Public Works and Foreign Affairs.  

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Haggis (17 Nov 2019)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Does she have experience with the machinery of government?  Has she been in charge of a large and complex organisation before?  Does she have ties with industry, academia, or Allies that will assist in the conduct of her Ministerial duties?



Are those requirements?  Because, y'know, it's 2019.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (17 Nov 2019)

I was wondering too as to the various qualifications PPCLI Guy was looking for in a MND.

Let's see the current MND's quals before he took office:

Experience with machinery of Government: Nope!
In charge of large and complex organizations (unless you count a militia unit as such): Nope!
Ties with industry: Nope!
Ties with Academia: Nope!
Ties with Allies: Nope!

He's been there four years now. That's fairly uncommon these days (Since Richardson in 72' to 76', only Art Eagleton and Peter Mackay have had tenures of more than two/three years). Is he a great MND? Nope! Is he a bad one? Neither!

Since the post is not seen as highly important and he hasn't screwed up on protocol/public relations lately, I wouldn't be surprised if he continued in the job.


----------



## FSTO (17 Nov 2019)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I was wondering too as to the various qualifications PPCLI Guy was looking for in a MND.
> 
> Let's see the current MND's quals before he took office:
> 
> ...


I wouldn't be surprised if the PM has forgotten we have a MND.


----------



## daftandbarmy (17 Nov 2019)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I was wondering too as to the various qualifications PPCLI Guy was looking for in a MND.
> 
> Let's see the current MND's quals before he took office:
> 
> ...



Wait a minute, I thought he was an architect?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (17 Nov 2019)

Over at Bourque.org, the rumour is that Pablo Rodriguez is going to be the next MND and that the current MND is going to Fisheries.

That and a Toonie will get you a cup of coffee at Tims....


----------



## daftandbarmy (17 Nov 2019)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Over at Bourque.org, the rumour is that Pablo Rodriguez is going to be the next MND and that the current MND is going to Fisheries.
> 
> That and a Toonie will get you a cup of coffee at Tims....



I didn't know that Brison had stepped down.

Global's predicting only a fairly small shuffle to fill a few key gaps https://globalnews.ca/news/4839994/trudeau-cabinet-shuffle-prediction/


----------



## Journeyman (17 Nov 2019)

I'm more curious who will replace Goodale at Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.   op:


----------



## SeaKingTacco (17 Nov 2019)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I'm more curious who will replace Goodale at Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.   op:



Blair? Or the current MND moves laterally (given he used to be a police officer)?


----------



## Jonezy76 (17 Nov 2019)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I'm more curious who will replace Goodale at Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.   op:



My guess is Mark Holland.....


----------



## dapaterson (17 Nov 2019)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I didn't know that Brison had stepped down.
> 
> Global's predicting only a fairly small shuffle to fill a few key gaps https://globalnews.ca/news/4839994/trudeau-cabinet-shuffle-prediction/



Given that prediction was for a shuffle back in January...


----------



## SeaKingTacco (17 Nov 2019)

Jonezy76 said:
			
		

> My guess is Mark Holland.....



That would make sense, if the Liberals are going to go gun grabbing...


----------



## brihard (17 Nov 2019)

Jonezy76 said:
			
		

> My guess is Mark Holland.....



Why do you say that? His background is nearly completely in politics. I would like to hope that the LPC could bring someone better to the table for that particular portfolio.


----------



## Jonezy76 (17 Nov 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Why do you say that? His background is nearly completely in politics. I would like to hope that the LPC could bring someone better to the table for that particular portfolio.



I would hope so as well. Mark Holland immediately came to mind because he was a member of the Durham Region Police Services Board, was critic for Public Safety and National Security from 2007-2011 and was the most vocal opposition member when trying to save the gun registry. Another that comes to mind is Bill Blair, although he would have to be shuffled out as Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction.

From what I've gathered, backgrounds don't mean much when appointed a Ministry. Use Goodale for example.... In his career, he was Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Minister of Finance, Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Minister of Natural Resources, and Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. Surely he isn't an expert in_ all _ those fields?


----------



## ballz (17 Nov 2019)

Jonezy76 said:
			
		

> Another that comes to mind is Bill Blair, although he would have to be shuffled out as Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction.



That portfolio was only created out of a political play, and is pure bloat, and they were raked over the coals for it accordingly. They should just collapse it back under Public Safety where it always belonged anyway, which would also help them in trying to balance this cabinet out gender-wise as well. They've only got 50 women to pick from, and need 17 Ministers to keep the status quo. That's almost 34%. I'm trying to figure out how many of those 50 are first-time MPs. Not that there haven't been new MPs who became cabinet ministers on their first day (definitely happened in 2015) but that's obviously not ideal.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (17 Nov 2019)

Historical perspective:

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/01/05/fatino-stephen-harper-cabinet_n_6418960.html



> The demotion of embattled Julian Fantino to associate minister of National Defence and the appointment of Erin O’Toole to minister of Veterans Affairs brings the size of the Harper ministry to 40 strong, matching the size of Brian Mulroney's 1984 cabinet.



Fortunately, we do not live down south....where the mere posting of an actual fact from a left-leaning media outlet would invalidate its innate truthiness...


----------



## daftandbarmy (17 Nov 2019)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> That would make sense, if the Liberals are going to go gun grabbing...



Which plays nicely to their base, which they will need to counter-balance the leftie outrage when they force through the pipeline...


----------



## Cloud Cover (18 Nov 2019)

Pablo would probably really shake things up ...


----------



## FSTO (19 Nov 2019)

New cabinet to be announced tomorrow. Does the current filler remain in DND or go someplace else?


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Nov 2019)

Watching live feed -- Sajjan remains DefMin, McCaulay remains VAC/Associate DefMin.

If you're looking for military experience, there IS going to be a new face in cabinet that (at least according to the official bio) used to be an infantry section commander - just not @ Defence.


----------



## STONEY (22 Nov 2019)

Watched three different networks news coverages before there was a short mention of MND . Kind of shows where defence stands in Federal Gov. right after the department of silly dances.


----------



## Halifax Tar (23 Nov 2019)

STONEY said:
			
		

> Watched three different networks news coverages before there was a short mention of MND . Kind of shows where defence stands in Federal Gov. right after the department of silly dances.



Dont blame the Gov.  Blame the electorate.  They express no/very little want to expand, equip or strengthen the CAF.  Outside what can be done to create jobs of course.


----------



## brihard (23 Nov 2019)

I’m not sanguine that we’ll see much meaningful from either department. I would guess that DND can expect to be tasked to a peacekeeping mission somewhere, but something relatively low impact/small footprint. VAC will probably be told to work on backlogs and otherwise not screw anything up. This will be a mandate of bureaucracy, not of significant new initiatives.


----------



## FJAG (23 Nov 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> I’m not sanguine that we’ll see much meaningful from either department. I would guess that DND can expect to be tasked to a peacekeeping mission somewhere, but something relatively low impact/small footprint. ...



Excellent! That will give us the opportunity to decrease the overall size of the department and allow us to bulk up our seriously depleted headquarters by transferring people from the field force without a guilty conscience. 

 :sarcasm: in case anyone missed it.

 :stirpot:


----------



## Cloud Cover (23 Nov 2019)

... that’s all fine until they realize they don’t have enough Generals to get it done.


----------



## daftandbarmy (24 Nov 2019)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> ... that’s all fine until they realize they don’t have enough Generals to get it done.



... and meanwhile, pressure will continue to mount from the US to spend more on defence:

Canada facing renewed pressure from U.S. to meet NATO defence spending benchmark

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-pressure-us-defence-spending-1.5371352?cmp=newsletter-news-digests-canada-and-world-morning


----------



## Cloud Cover (24 Nov 2019)

“ "You can't just do this overnight," he said. "It's a buildup. And the decisions we've made as a government are building towards that."

- perhaps but there are some key decisions that seem to be intentionally being punted or delayed;
- example is in the above statement- they are building towards a build up?


----------



## dapaterson (24 Nov 2019)

Part of it is learning to count.  

Most other nations include veterans benefits (ie VAC) and Coast Guard within their military expenditures.  Add those in to what Canada spends on DND and we're still not at the 2% goal, but we do get closer.


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Dec 2019)

Bumped with the latest -- even though the Minister's far from new, here's his latest mandate letter/marching orders (*highlights* mine) - text also attached in case link doesn't work ...


> Minister of National Defence Mandate Letter
> Office of the Prime Minister
> 
> Dear Mr. Sajjan:
> ...


----------



## daftandbarmy (13 Dec 2019)

"- Ensure the continued effectiveness of Canadian Armed Forces deployments, including Operation IMPACT in the Middle East, Operation NEON in the Asia-Pacific, NATO’s Enhanced Forward Presence in Latvia, the NATO Mission in Iraq and Operation UNIFIER in Ukraine; and
- Expand Canadian defence cooperation and training assistance, in particular by drawing on the expertise of the Canadian Armed Forces to help other countries at greater risk of disasters due to *climate change*."


Looking forward to expeditionary operations to be launched against.... against.... climate change?


----------



## Czech_pivo (13 Dec 2019)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> "- Ensure the continued effectiveness of Canadian Armed Forces deployments, including Operation IMPACT in the Middle East, Operation NEON in the Asia-Pacific, NATO’s Enhanced Forward Presence in Latvia, the NATO Mission in Iraq and Operation UNIFIER in Ukraine; and
> - Expand Canadian defence cooperation and training assistance, in particular by drawing on the expertise of the Canadian Armed Forces to help other countries at greater risk of disasters due to *climate change*."
> 
> 
> Looking forward to expeditionary operations to be launched against.... against.... climate change?



So does that mean we'll be sending a Battle Group to fill sandbags along the Bangladeshi coast during the next monsoon season?


----------



## QV (13 Dec 2019)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Looking forward to expeditionary operations to be launched against.... against.... climate change?



I think the Caribbean is particularly at risk... rising tides and such... yeah, send a task force there.  Any volunteers?


----------



## Kat Stevens (13 Dec 2019)

Nobody saw the fine print at the bottom?
"Nah, just kidding. Fuck the troops. have fun."


----------



## OldSolduer (13 Dec 2019)

QV said:
			
		

> I think the Caribbean is particularly at risk... rising tides and such... yeah, send a task force there.  Any volunteers?



I'm on it. As long as Mickey Mouse is running his ships through there I think I can manage that.


----------



## daftandbarmy (13 Dec 2019)

QV said:
			
		

> I think the Caribbean is particularly at risk... rising tides and such... yeah, send a task force there.  Any volunteers?



No. It's the Army. It will be more like counting Polar Bears, unarmed, or something like that


----------



## brihard (13 Dec 2019)

A few interesting tidbits in there...


----------



## Eaglelord17 (14 Dec 2019)

The most interesting part for me was demanding that 25% of the Canadian Forces be female by 2026 when it took us about 40 years to reach 15.6%...

The only way I see them achieving that is though selective releases, its easy to reach 25% female if you just do a force reduction on the males.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (14 Dec 2019)

Boy! You remind me of one of my economics teacher in University:

"If a government asks you to advise on ways to increase GDP per Capita, you must advise it can either raise national output, or reduce the number of capita. It's not up to you to make moral choices."


----------



## PuckChaser (14 Dec 2019)

Or they'll just direct that we stop hiring males.


----------



## Old Sweat (14 Dec 2019)

Don't anybody suggest forced gender reassignments.


----------



## brihard (14 Dec 2019)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Don't anybody suggest forced gender reassignments.



Leading Change, right justified.


----------



## GR66 (14 Dec 2019)

Could you just have a Regiment or two just “self identify” as female?


----------



## brihard (14 Dec 2019)

GR66 said:
			
		

> Could you just have a Regiment or two just “self identify” as female?



They're kilts. Frig off.


----------



## Haggis (14 Dec 2019)

GR66 said:
			
		

> Could you just have a Regiment or two just “self identify” as female?



Highland Regiments are sometimes referred to as "The Ladies from Hell". Problem solved. Goal met, six years early.


----------



## ModlrMike (14 Dec 2019)

Haven't we moved beyond binary definitions?


----------



## daftandbarmy (14 Dec 2019)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Haven't we moved beyond binary definitions?



Up the Gender blind Autarky!

 :rofl:


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 Dec 2019)

25%? That's rookie numbers. Lets see 50%


----------



## dapaterson (14 Dec 2019)

That goal is long-standing, and nothing new.


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Dec 2019)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> That goal is long-standing, and nothing new.


Way to disrupt the bashing narrative, buddy ...


----------



## dapaterson (14 Dec 2019)

Thirty years since SWINTER and CREW.  One might, objectively, suggest that the CAF has been less than serious about this.


----------



## dimsum (14 Dec 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> They're kilts. Frig off.



 :rofl:


----------



## Good2Golf (14 Dec 2019)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Thirty years since SWINTER and CREW.  One might, objectively, suggest that the CAF has been less than serious about this.



...or Canadian women are content being over-represented in professions such as nursing and teaching, and less so for combat, combat support or combat service support roles in the military.

Perhaps Canada should consider conscription of females into under-represented CAF occupations?


----------



## dapaterson (14 Dec 2019)

Or consider getting equipment designed and tested considering female physiques (load carrying and protective devices), vehicles that consider female physiology (civilian side, women in a vehicle accident are about 47% more likely to be injured and 17% more likely to be killed in an accident), career paths that consider that women in the demographic we're trying to recruit are likely to bear and care for children (and care for ageing parents - elder care remains heavily gendered in expectations and execution)...

Mostly, the military's systems assume that you've got a wife back home to care for the family while you do a year-long program of study or take a five month course, or slavishly follow a certain sequence of training and experience.


Or we can not change anything, continue the same way we have for decades, and wonder why, when we don't change the underlying conditions, the outcomes don't change.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (14 Dec 2019)

Or, we could focus and insist on enrolling the most qualified candidates, rather than some % target based on what bathroom you default to.

Crazy idea.


----------



## dapaterson (14 Dec 2019)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Or, we could focus and insist on enrolling the most qualified candidates, rather than some % target based on what bathroom you default to.
> 
> Crazy idea.



When you create systemic barriers to entry / continued service, you don't get the best.  You get the best that cross your arbitrary barriers.


----------



## McG (14 Dec 2019)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Or we can not change anything, continue the same way we have for decades, and wonder why, when we don't change the underlying conditions, the outcomes don't change.


Many of those family quality of life issues that have previously deterred and/or discouraged women are today also driving away men who expect to fill more domestic rolls than a generation before them.  If the system continues as it has for decades, there will be fewer of everybody.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (14 Dec 2019)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> When you create systemic barriers to entry / continued service, you don't get the best.  You get the best that cross your arbitrary barriers.



So, we've been doing it horribly and incorrectly for decades and decades?  And only recruited sub-standard personnel... ???


----------



## FJAG (14 Dec 2019)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> So, we've been doing it horribly and incorrectly for decades and decades?  And only recruited sub-standard personnel... ???



Yes. Everyone recruited after integration etc after 1967 and who has never worn puttees just doesn't measure up.  ;D

op:


----------



## Furniture (15 Dec 2019)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Or consider getting equipment designed and tested considering female physiques (load carrying and protective devices), vehicles that consider female physiology (civilian side, women in a vehicle accident are about 47% more likely to be injured and 17% more likely to be killed in an accident), career paths that consider that women in the demographic we're trying to recruit are likely to bear and care for children (and care for ageing parents - elder care remains heavily gendered in expectations and execution)...
> 
> Mostly, the military's systems assume that you've got a wife back home to care for the family while you do a year-long program of study or take a five month course, or slavishly follow a certain sequence of training and experience.
> 
> ...



So the magic bullet is female designed armour, and more time off for parents/guardians? 

Except for every person we have on some form of "special accommodation" we need at least two that are deployable. Chances are those not on some form of special accommodation are young, and male. 

This isn't because the CAF disadvantages women, but specifically because the CAF disadvantages people that can be deployed with little notice.


----------



## Brad Sallows (15 Dec 2019)

>When you create systemic barriers to entry / continued service, you don't get the best.  You get the best that cross your arbitrary barriers.

Arbitrary?  Are we now denying there has ever been any connection between what soldiering demands on some occasions, and the standards set for various things?


----------



## Ostrozac (15 Dec 2019)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Perhaps Canada should consider conscription of females into under-represented CAF occupations?



If we, as a nation, are in fact actually serious about having a military that reflects the diversity of the Canadian public, then conscription cannot be dismissed out of hand. Especially since the military seems incapable of attracting, recruiting and retaining sufficient volunteers to hit diversity targets despite years of being directed to do so.

If we are not serious, and all of this diversity stuff is just posturing that should be given some lip service then ignored, then we will be fine keeping to the status quo.

A compromise might be a hybrid force as used by France during the Cold War — a large conscript force of indifferent quality, coupled with a small professional force for expeditionary warfare. In the Canadian context, the conscript force can be used as a showcase for everything good and proper about Canadian values, the professional force can focus on being lethal to our enemies.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 Dec 2019)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> all of this diversity stuff is just posturing that should be given some lip service then ignored



Best summary of the topic to date, IMO.  The text with the strikethrough is 'optional' as in it has zero bearing on operational capabilities to me.

I remember seeing a FB article or something where the CMP stated "having 25% females increases our operational ability".  Bullshit;  having 100% of our people recruited from the best applicants, trained and kitted out the best we can manage, increases our operational ability.

Anything else is just mumbo-jumbo that is related to the quote above.


----------



## dapaterson (15 Dec 2019)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >When you create systemic barriers to entry / continued service, you don't get the best.  You get the best that cross your arbitrary barriers.
> 
> Arbitrary?  Are we now denying there has ever been any connection between what soldiering demands on some occasions, and the standards set for various things?



Not at all.  Justifiable, demonstrable standards are necessary.  But when arbitrary, "because it's always been this way" or other barriers are introduced / imposed / sustained without deliberate examination and validation, we run into trouble.

When we don't provide proper tools to do the work (eg load bearing vests, rucksacks, body armour) we can't honestly assess whether someone can meet the standard (even if the standard is objective and validated).

When we conduct public activities and deliberately exclude women from participation "because that's the regimental tradition" we are not setting standards, but perpetuating discrimination.

When we have mess functions and exclude female mess members from participating because the invited guest of honour doesn't want them present because back when they served, women weren't allowed in the mess, we are perpetuating discrimination.



When we create unwarranted barriers it means we aren't choosing the best; we're choosing the best who meet our preconceived biases.  Standards are necessary.  But they must be supportable.


----------



## dimsum (15 Dec 2019)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> When we have mess functions and exclude female mess members from participating because the invited guest of honour doesn't want them present because back when they served, women weren't allowed in the mess, we are perpetuating discrimination.



That's still a thing in 2019 (almost 2020)?!


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 Dec 2019)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> When we don't provide proper tools to do the work (eg load bearing vests, rucksacks, body armour) we can't honestly assess whether someone can meet the standard (even if the standard is objective and validated).



The CAF can't do this for the 'majority' of members (the other group outside the 'average' male, including members like very short males, etc.  Why would you think there should be a focus on a 'minority' group of people (in this case, the % of the 16% serving female mbrs who don't fit current issued kit very well)?  If we can't meet the operational needs for kit in the majority of our members, that should be the first goal.  TacVest - horrible failure.  Boots...only recently (sort of) sorted out.  

The RCAF can't seem to manage to keep flight suits, Lightweight Thermal Headgear, flying gloves and survival knives in stock needed to support ops.  Until that is sorted out, I'm not concerned too much if the size Small LPSV doesn't fit a % of 16% of members "as nice as they'd like".  



> When we conduct public activities and deliberately exclude women from participation "because that's the regimental tradition" we are not setting standards, but perpetuating discrimination.
> 
> When we have mess functions and exclude female mess members from participating because the invited guest of honour doesn't want them present because back when they served, women weren't allowed in the mess, we are perpetuating discrimination.



I've been in since summer '89 and I've never witnessed or heard of this type of behaviour.  Can you give specific references/instances?  Not saying it hasn't happened, but I've honestly never seen or heard of it.

If it has happened, when was the last time?  Recently (in the last 5-10 years?)?  Genuinely curious about this...


----------



## Brad Sallows (15 Dec 2019)

The "Old Boys" are just about the least problem, but should be one of the easiest to fix.  So sort out all the minor chaff issues and see whether the real impediments are revealed to be the bona fide standards, for which the others are merely providing camouflage.


----------



## dapaterson (15 Dec 2019)

Re: Equipment: for safety / load bearing equipment, it's not "nice to have" - it's "injure you because it's wrong".  ACK to the need to fix the end-to-end of the clothing / operational equipment supply chain.


And re: My two examples: Both are things I have witnessed from 1989 onwards, one within the past five years.



I think we all agree in the need for justifiable and supportable standards, and for proper equipment for all CAF members to properly perform their duties.


----------



## Zoomie (15 Dec 2019)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Genuinely curious about this...


Concur - if this has indeed happened in this century there has been a complete failure in leadership somewhere.

FWIW the Pilot trade is heavily lopsided towards the white, male persuasion.  Is this by design or just because that’s what we are churning out of the school?   If you can grab the controls and keep your head in the game, you will succeed at flying any aircraft in the RCAF inventory.


----------



## quadrapiper (15 Dec 2019)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Re: Equipment: for safety / load bearing equipment, it's not "nice to have" - it's "injure you because it's wrong".  ACK to the need to fix the end-to-end of the clothing / operational equipment supply chain.


How's the current stuff as far as the range of male heights and shapes it'll fit?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 Dec 2019)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I think we all agree in the need for justifiable and supportable standards, and for proper equipment for all CAF members to properly perform their duties.



Of course;  where the "dots don't connect" for me is that this affects recruiting and the failure to reach the 25% quota/target for females.

Recruits don't know what CAF kit and equipment fits/does not fit them.  They don't even really know what the kit is, or how to fit it properly until XX days after the go thru the green doors at CFLRS, or X/XX days after they're sworn in to a Reserve unit.

So I don't see this as a "why we can't recruit 25% females" issue.  Retention issue?  Possibly, but I don't know anyone personally who released because their kit was just too sub-standard.


On the issue of the Old Boys Club wanting/attempting to deny females access to Mess Dinners etc in the last 5 years...I will say I hope that person was sorted out, quickly and permanently.


----------



## dapaterson (15 Dec 2019)

Our best marketing is serving CAF members.  If women in the CAF have negative experiences, it acts as a deterrent to future generations to serve.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 Dec 2019)

A good point to consider.

Question;  how much of an issue is 'ill-fitting equipment' given as a reason female decide to release?  Is there any tracking?  Is it the same % as males releasing?


----------



## Good2Golf (15 Dec 2019)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Our best marketing is serving CAF members.  If women in the CAF have negative experiences, it acts as a deterrent to future generations to serve.



Serious question: Is this quantifiably true?


----------



## dapaterson (15 Dec 2019)

Ill fitting equipment leads to increased release rates for injury.

And as I recall ( been a while since I reviewed literature) referral from friends / family remains a principal source of "why I joined the CAF".


----------



## Quirky (15 Dec 2019)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> So I don't see this as a "why we can't recruit 25% females" issue.  Retention issue?



Probably because the CF is seen as a bunch of rapists with OP Operation Honour starting at almost the same time. We all know that it isn't the case but everything makes the news which makes it bad optics.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (15 Dec 2019)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> If we, as a nation, are in fact actually serious about having a military that reflects the diversity of the Canadian public, then conscription cannot be dismissed out of hand. Especially since the military seems incapable of attracting, recruiting and retaining sufficient volunteers to hit diversity targets despite years of being directed to do so.
> 
> If we are not serious, and all of this diversity stuff is just posturing that should be given some lip service then ignored, then we will be fine keeping to the status quo.
> 
> A compromise might be a hybrid force as used by France during the Cold War — a large conscript force of indifferent quality, coupled with a small professional force for expeditionary warfare.In the Canadian context, the conscript force can be used as a showcase for everything good and proper about Canadian values, the professional force can focus on being lethal to our enemies.



We already do this, it's called CANSOFCOM  ;D


----------



## daftandbarmy (15 Dec 2019)

As with Board Gender Quotas, there's a right and wrong way to go about it....


Skirting the issue - How to deal with board gender quotas

And how not to

IT’S LIKE smoking; ultimately only a hard intervention made people change,” says Jochem Overbosch, an executive recruiter in Amsterdam. As with bans on lighting up indoors, he says, so too with mandatory quotas for women on company boards, which the Dutch Parliament voted for this month after softer targets failed to move the needle much. Employers say they approve. Assuming all goes to plan, the Netherlands will join seven European countries (and California) in replacing the carrot of “please” with the stick of “or else” to increase gender diversity.

Will it make a difference? Quotas with consequences for firms—such as fines in Italy or delisting in Norway—have increased women’s boardroom presence. Firms with more women seem to work better, with higher attendance and tougher monitoring of management. But no discernible impact on company performance has been identified. And the hoped-for trickle-down effect—whereby more female board members would swell the ranks of female executives—has yet to materialise.

Still, quotas are here to stay. No country has lifted those put in place so far (though the Dutch insist theirs are temporary). Best practice is a work in progress, but some dos and don’ts are becoming clear. Formalising selection processes to avoid a shortlist of chairman’s chums, for example by hiring an external search firm, as most British firms but only two-fifths of those in America do, is a good idea; it helps avoid inadvertent double standards. So is broadening selection criteria away from a multitude of narrow ones, such as years of executive experience or industry expertise. Ensuring that more than one woman makes it onto the shortlist also helps; research has shown that a lonely shortlisted woman (or representative of a minority) has little chance of getting the job.

Firms should avoid seeking a “pink unicorn” who ticks all conceivable boxes, recommends Laura Sanderson of Russell Reynolds, an executive-search firm. Spreading the desired skills over a number of future appointments makes it easier to find female candidates with at least some of them (or male ones, for that matter). Short, fixed terms for board members make renewal easier. This helps explain why in Britain, which has espoused them, boards are 30% female whereas in America, which has not, progress has flagged, despite corporate professions of gender equality.

Critics say boards are the wrong thing to focus on—a symptom of workplace gender inequality, not its cause. A study just published by Zoë Cullen of Harvard and Ricardo Perez-Truglia of the University of California, Los Angeles, highlights this. The authors studied promotion at a large Asian bank and found that men with male superiors rose up the hierarchy faster than those with female ones. Women managers do not appear to be similarly partial to female underlings, which may help explain why female board quotas have no effect on management’s gender mix.

The Dutch quota requires 30% of seats at large listed firms to be occupied by women. This translates to an extra 66 female board members, on top of the 122 who occupy such positions already, estimates Mijntje Lückerath from Tilburg University. Annet Aris, herself a member of several boards, admits the new law is “a lot of noise for a small group of women”. But, she adds, it is “still a very important signal”.

And signals matter, not least to ESG investors, who care about firms’ environmental, social and governance performance as well as their bottom-line. Helpfully, gender diversity on boards is easier to pin down than most ESG metrics. It is becoming ever harder to skirt.
https://www.economist.com/business/2019/12/12/how-to-deal-with-board-gender-quotas


----------



## dapaterson (16 Dec 2019)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> We already do this, it's called CANSOFCOM  ;D



It's not nice to call CANSOFCOM "indifferent quality"


----------



## daftandbarmy (16 Dec 2019)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Serious question: Is this quantifiably true?



This PhD paper may not fully answer your question, but it looked interesting... and scary:

Soldiering in the Canadian Forces: How and Why Gender Counts!

Lynne Gouliquer, Department of Sociology
McGill University, Montreal
2011

"Under the circumstances, the misogynist behaviours and attitudes of male soldiers create an alienating environment and place barriers in the path of female soldiers tying to attain a fundamental quality of good soldiering. In summary, the preceding quotations indicate the presence of a generally unwelcoming and sometimes hostile atmosphere toward women. They reveal a workplace environment underpinned by misogynist undercurrents. Participants also discussed a particular type of harassment that speaks to the heterosexist nature of the hegemony in the military."

https://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/thesescanada/vol2/QMM/TC-QMM-96779.pdf


----------



## BDTyre (16 Dec 2019)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> That's still a thing in 2019 (almost 2020)?!



I can believe it. I was asked by someone who released about 10 years ago how the integration with women is going. And I heard grumblings of angry disbelief at the annual dinner from someone who served in the 70s and 80s when he saw an air force officer wearing a kilt in our regimental tartan.


----------

