# Annoucement of New Cabinet Ministers.



## rcr (19 Jul 2004)

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/07/19/martin_cab040719.html

Bill Graham expected to take over Defence, as his position in Foreign Affairs will be taken over by Pierre Pettigrew.


----------



## Infanteer (20 Jul 2004)

> Bill Graham expected to take over Defence



Ah Shit....


----------



## HCA (20 Jul 2004)

I have a feeling from hearing his comments in the past the old Bill already has some firm ideas on what direction he wants the Forces to go in. He also is pushing for a full foreign policy review followed by Defence review. Excellent! More Change!!


----------



## JasonH (20 Jul 2004)

HCA said:
			
		

> I have a feeling from hearing his comments in the past the old Bill already has some firm ideas on what direction he wants the Forces to go in. He also is pushing for a full foreign policy review followed by Defence review. Excellent! More Change!!



I don't know if your being sarcastic or you ment that but with the way things are going in the Canadian Forces, change and I mean big change looks to be needed.  :-\


----------



## Sundborg (20 Jul 2004)

I think Bill will do a great job as the new Minister of Defence; he has done a great job thus far as the Foreign Affairs Minister.


----------



## Lance Wiebe (20 Jul 2004)

Huh?

What great job?

Do you mean all the problems he solved with the US?  You know, solving the softwood, beef, immigration problems and so on?

Or the problems he solved with Saudi Arabia arresting our people?

Or the problems he solved with Iran murdering our people?

Or the fishing disputes?

Or the territorial disputes with Denmark?

He has done nothing as foreign affairs.  And he'll do nothing as MND.  Another position, with the same perks.

I wish that the liberals would do something right for the Armed Forces.  But of course they won't, because they're liberals.


----------



## Freight_Train (20 Jul 2004)

Bill is a big fan of the international criminal court.  I can see it now, Bin Laden will say, "Gee we better not perpetrate any more crimes against humanity because we might be tried in the international criminal court."  This is not really great news for the CF.
Greg


----------



## sdimock (20 Jul 2004)

I'm adopting a wait and see for now, in the past he's been the puppet for Uncle Jean.

We'll see how Martin runs the show.


----------



## AntiArmour Guy (20 Jul 2004)

IMO - Watch and Shoot.  Now as MND his eyes will be opened to many new things, and hopefully he will use his powers for good and the new Defence review and Foreign Policy review will work to Canada's (and the CF's) advantage.

Maybe we should let him in on the whole MGS thing...


----------



## bossi (20 Jul 2004)

1.  Notice the pecking order (i.e. where MND and his ADM are on the PM's website)

2.  Note also the emphasis on official languages in the MND's and ADM's bio's.

C'est domage.  Looks like the CF will become even more politically correct.

PM's list of cabinet

Mr. Graham:
A past president of the Alliance française de Toronto, Mr. Graham has been recognized for his contributions to French language and culture in Ontario by being granted the Prix Jean-Baptiste Rousseaux, the Médaille d'argent de la ville de Paris, the Médaille d'or de l'Alliance française, and the Ordre du mérite de l'Association des juristes de l'Ontario. He has been made Chevalier de la Légion d'honneur and Chevalier de l'Ordre de la Pléiade.

Mr. Belanger:
Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Minister responsible for Official Languages, Minister responsible for Democratic Reform and Associate Minister of National Defence

Mauril Bélanger was first elected to the House of Commons in a by-election in February 1995 and was re-elected in the 1997, 2000 and 2004 general elections. He has served as Chair of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, a member of the Standing Committee on the Library of Parliament and a member of the Prime Minister's Caucus Task Force on Urban Issues. From July 1998 to August 2000, he was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, and in 2003 he was named Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Prior to entering politics, Mr. Bélanger held various positions in the public and private sectors. In the early 1980s, he worked for the Honourable Jean-Luc Pépin, then Minister of Transport. In the mid to late 1980s, he worked as a registered investment advisor. He was Chief of Staff to the Chair of the Regional Council of Ottawa-Carleton prior to his election to the House of Commons.

In 1977, Mr. Bélanger graduated from the University of Ottawa, where he was president of the Students' Federation. He is married to Catherine.


----------



## Gunnar (20 Jul 2004)

Politically correct?  Maybe.  Looks like it will become more french-influenced.  This minority government is just an opportunity to campaign while imitating government, after all.  And if you keep the Quebeckers happy, they vote Liberal.

It's about making the BQ look less effective, so that Montreal and Toronto can elect them in again.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (20 Jul 2004)

I suppose this would be the wrong time to petition the DND of going all english.  I realize the chances of have a R22nd section on my flank but wouldn't a one language army (sep. cmbt arms) be more effective?


----------



## RCA (20 Jul 2004)

Foreign Affairs already has too much say in Defence, withtout being a former minister taking over. We don't need a diplomat, we need a warrior. My gut feeling is that he is a disciple of Axworthy's soft power. Therefor you can see  the word combat , and peacekeeping becoming out reason for being.

 Infanteer couldn't have summed it up better.


----------



## AntiArmour Guy (20 Jul 2004)

RCA said:
			
		

> Foreign Affairs already has too much say in Defence, withtout being a former minister taking over. We don't need a diplomat, we need a warrior. My gut feeling is that he is a disciple of Axworthy's soft power. Therefor you can see   the word combat , and peacekeeping becoming out reason for being.
> 
> Infanteer couldn't have summed it up better.



Pfffft.  That is rediculous.  The two are intertwined as they must be.  I agree we need a robust CANADIAN foreign policy, one that is translated into greater support for defence.  But to say it has too much say is foolish.  What needs to be done is more liaison between the two, and to ensure that we are singing a similar (if not the same) song.  We need identifiable foreign policy goals and objectives that are tied to defence.  The Aussies don't go stomping about the world without a robust foreign policy, not the two are tied and mutually supportive.  Ours is not.  We need more interaction, not less.

As for peacekeeping, guess what Guns, ask any average Canadian and THAT is what the CF is to them (if anything at all).  Who totes that image mate?  We do.  We are a soft power...as are the Aussies.  What we should be is a weak power...which is where we are heading.

So I believe this new MND is in for a bit of a surprise coming from DFA and HOPEFULLY he will use his powers for the common, CANADIAN good.

As for combat... wish you were in Iraq do you???

Cheers,
Mike


----------



## dutchie (20 Jul 2004)

I agree with Anti-armour, and would like to expand on one of his points:

Military action on foreign soil (whether that be war, Ops other than War, or whatever other term is used) is the result of CIVILIAN leaders enforcing the Canadian Foreign Policy. With the exception of actual defence of Canada (not within our capabilities anyhow, except an attack from Iceland), the Minister of Foreign Affairs, MND, and the PM must be on the same page philosophically. Love him or hate him (I'm not sure yet), Graham's experience as MFA is a huge asset to his new post. 

As for needing a warrior in the post of MND, I could not disagree more. Our system is set up as a Civie (MND) and a 'Warrior' (CDS). We need an actual Warrior as CDS, not as MND. The MND is supposed to balance the 'Hawk' philosophy of the CDS, and the CDS is to balance the 'Dove' MND, thereby ensuring the military remains a CONTROLLED tool of the elected civie powers. 

But that's just my opinion.


----------



## RCA (20 Jul 2004)

What was meant, and it wasn't clear in my original post, is the word combat will disappear (as in combat capable), and peacekeeping will become or only reason for being. Taken to the nth degree, we might as well be the international section of the RCMP.

Going hand in hand true, but that is not the case these days. Who announces major troop deployments (when the PM doesn't). Its not Defence, its Foreign Affairs. We are a very junior (and often times unheard) member (not partner) in international policy, especially when it comes to decisions on deploying troops.

And by soft power, I mean speak softly and carry no stick. The Military is not an instrument of a nation's foreign policy other then stopping fanatics from killing each other. Defensive with no offensive capabilities required.


----------



## Lance Wiebe (20 Jul 2004)

Ceasar, that may work, if in fact we had a "warrior" as CDS.

Instead, we have a puppet, who was perfect for Chretien, for he never ever would say anything that might actually benefit the troops under his command.  Henault is the perfect CDS for the liberals.  Someone in uniform who is not a leader, who is not a warrior, who would never rock the boat.


----------



## AntiArmour Guy (20 Jul 2004)

Lance Wiebe said:
			
		

> Ceasar, that may work, if in fact we had a "warrior" as CDS.
> 
> Instead, we have a puppet, who was perfect for Chretien, for he never ever would say anything that might actually benefit the troops under his command.   Henault is the perfect CDS for the liberals.   Someone in uniform who is not a leader, who is not a warrior, who would never rock the boat.



I sorta disagree with you... General Henault has probably been one of the most active (behind the scenes) CDS' we've had in some time.  Remember the DCDS telling a parliamentary comittee that he briefed (then) MND Eggleton on JTF2 activities in A'stan?  There is* no way * the DCDS would have blown off his political masters without a nod from the CDS.  The problem is he wears a uniform, so when his boss states... "that's the end of it".  Well guess what?  Even a General has to follow orders.  I'd take him over any of the others we've had, remember Baril?  Blaming us for the Challenger screw up?  That was a PM fault.

I can't wait to see what happens when a real warfighter and warrior like Leslie becomes CDS...  sadly sometimes he too will probably have to "carry on"...

@ RCS, that is much more clear.  I agree we need to bring defence and defence policy (the new one) to a more equal footing with DFA.


----------



## ags281 (20 Jul 2004)

As with any minister being appointed, all that can really be done is wait and see what happens. At least with Graham there's a higher profile than most others, so there is potential for the forces to get a little more attention if he plays his cards that way. Additionally, due to his previous position, he likely has a much better grasp of where the forces stand in the context of the world than many others would. 



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> > Bill Graham expected to take over Defence
> 
> 
> 
> Ah Shit....



Maybe so Infanteer, but I get the feeling you would be saying that regardless of who was put in the position. Take a look at who's in the house playing for the red team. Who would you prefer?


----------



## Sheerin (20 Jul 2004)

At least its not Jack Layton or Libby Davies, who knows what sort of demands the NDP would have made if they got one more seat away from the Bloc or Alliance.


----------



## Infanteer (20 Jul 2004)

> I can't wait to see what happens when a real warfighter and warrior like Leslie becomes CDS...  sadly sometimes he too will probably have to "carry on"...



As much as I hope for a "Warrior" CDS to come to the fore, I think he would be constrained in his actions.  I think a majority of our problems lie in our military culture and organization, not in our senior leaders, who are merely (like us groundpounders) products of the system.  Any CDS who attempted to really make an impact would find himself constrained by an unhelpful government overhead and an unwilling bureaucracy below him.



> Maybe so Infanteer, but I get the feeling you would be saying that regardless of who was put in the position



If that's what you want to think, go ahead.  But I've never really liked him as our Foreign Minister.  Along with the points RCA and Lance have brought up, I also remember the harsh words he seemed to be throwing towards Israel for taking out a Hamas leader; aren't we supposed to be fighting the terrorists?  Seems like another patsy to me that won't rock the boat.


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Jul 2004)

Well, if Canadians want a peacekeeping CF, then let the people who want to be peacekeepers staff it.  I suppose if it comes to that the warrior-inclined will still have the option to pursue military careers elsewhere in the anglosphere - which, in the long run, may be more satisfactory for some.


----------



## ringo_mountbatten (21 Jul 2004)

I think the thing to keep in mind is that in the end this government will only last two years at the most.  There are not going to be any huge decisions being made that could lose the Liberals the next election.  Probably the only major spending decision that this government will make concerning the CF is the acquisition of new helos to replace the Seakings.  That is hardly a hot button issue as even the NDP was on board about replacing the helos.  The military is basically in a holding pattern until they get their new white paper and that won't happen until foreign affairs get theirs.  the military is a tool for foreign and domestic policy period.  If the powers to be wish their capabilities to be constabulary than so be it.  At least they finally have a clearly defined role something they have been lacking for quite a period now.  I think Graham understands the need for a strong and healthy armed forces in securing soft power objectives, something that Axworthy could never get his head around. Human security requires far more than a guy saying the UN says you can't kill these people. 

As for the whole CDS needs to be a warrior, they certainly do need to be, but not in the way that you are referring.  Henault has probably been one of the best CDS in the last 10-20 years.  He fights for his people behind the scenes and knows that acting like a "warrior" will get him nowhere quick and might lose him his job.  While at the same time he is not willing to be a scapegoat for the minister so that the government looks good and the military bad.  I think most would be surprised at how hard Henault fights for the CF behind the scenes and then bites his tongue in public, most of the time.


----------



## Lance Wiebe (21 Jul 2004)

If Henault is more than a puppet, then why do we not see him?  When's the last time he visited a Base, and how many has he visited in the last year?

Why did he not denounce the idiotic, short-sighted decision to take personnel from the Schools and Recruiting centers to beef up the Units, knowing that this would cause a crunch in recruiting and training?  Why did NDHQ, under his watch, become even more bloated?  Why did he allow positions for 600 full Colonels to be established, in an Armed Forces of our size?  Why did the officer Corps rise to over 25% of our authorised strength?

I believe Henault is fighting for Henault, and his version of Wally World in Ottawa.  I don't believe that Henault cares one little iota about the troops.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (21 Jul 2004)

Lance could you provide a source for your percentages and numbers?


----------



## Lance Wiebe (21 Jul 2004)

Um, actually, no I can't.

As a civilian I am not privy (officially) to that information, however, if you know one of the people at CFSU(O), they can verify it for you.  Most likely unofficially as well.

The military did admit to the Senate Committee to having a ratio of 4.06 NCM's per Officer in 1999.  They claimed that they did not have more current information available, if you can believe that.  The apparent NATO average for non-conscript forces is around 8 NCM's per Officer.  

At the end of WWII, Canada had a total of 70 Generals/Admirals, and an average of 12.5 NCM's per Officer.  Why the ratio of Officers has climbed so high, I'm not sure.  Also, and I'm not sure if this is common knowledge or not, but I was told that last year a total of 498 Colonels and Generals received bonus pay for doing their jobs so good, I guess.

I know a few Cpl's, MCPL's, Sgt's & WO's that deserved a bonus too, but I think you only qualify if you make over $100,000 a year......


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (21 Jul 2004)

I ask because I am filling out a questionnaire in regards to a CF survey and I want to present as much fact as I can.


----------



## AntiArmour Guy (21 Jul 2004)

Lance Wiebe said:
			
		

> Um, actually, no I can't.



Then don't post them as fact, because while you _might_ be on to something, now your credibility on this matter is blown.



> As a civilian I am not privy (officially) to that information, however, if you know one of the people at CFSU(O), they can verify it for you.  Most likely unofficially as well.



Access to Information.  Use it. We all can, so don't offer up poor excuses for potentially BS information.  Or post hard data here and someone can check them for you.



> The military did admit to the Senate Committee to having a ratio of 4.06 NCM's per Officer in 1999.  They claimed that they did not have more current information available, if you can believe that.  The apparent NATO average for non-conscript forces is around 8 NCM's per Officer.
> 
> At the end of WWII, Canada had a total of 70 Generals/Admirals, and an average of 12.5 NCM's per Officer.  Why the ratio of Officers has climbed so high, I'm not sure.



While I (now) hold your number suspect, It is indeed sad that the ratio has shrunk, especially now as we have so many "time saving" devices like computers and email...lol.



> Also, and I'm not sure if this is common knowledge or not, but I was told that last year a total of 498 Colonels and Generals received bonus pay for doing their jobs so good, I guess.



This is true, they are called Performance Management Agrements (PMA's) and apply to all Civilian Executives (EX's) in the Public Service... because DND is "part" of PSAC and we benefit from any raises they recieve we are also now "forced" to adhere to all Treasury Board Regulations...which also means PMA's.  Now while I don't know of anyone turning it down (lol) I do know that some would rather not have it for many reasosn and not just the obvious perspective problems but this is governmental policy that must be adhered to (ahhh beaurocracy!)... 

Now you seem to be a tad jaded Lance, and that is cool, but I must say that the group of Generals we have now seem much stronger than those of the 90's... these guys tell MND's to piss off when they lie and do their best by their subordinates (for the most part, there are still carreerist schmo's out there).  I've seen the hours the guys work...lemme tell you I wouldn't want to be a general.

I agree that every one should be able to get a bonus, but that is unrealistic, and...ahhh nevermind.  Needless to say some of US don't work as hard as THEM.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (21 Jul 2004)

Not that I don't believe you but what postion did you hold that allowed you to see the daily practises of the generals?  More curious then anything.


----------



## AntiArmour Guy (21 Jul 2004)

CFL said:
			
		

> Not that I don't believe you but what postion did you hold that allowed you to see the daily practises of the generals?   More curious then anything.



I suspect you are talking to me...lol

Well I am in H.E.L.L right now serving my time, keeping my eyes and ears open and hoping to learn things that will make me a better leader.   Most of this information is relatively easy to find once you know how.   As for my insights....I'm close enough to be insightful, lets leave it at that.   

I know it must seem like I'm a big fan of generals, NDHQ etc... that's not the case, I'm a soured RCR Captain who is considering joining the ADF, because I'm so bitter about the way things are going....   I just can't stand people posting BS information or passing of their perception/interpretation of (more often than not, MIS)information as fact.   I want to read something interesting and insightful, not some useless hotblooded and meaningless reply to serious events.

Just tryin' to keep it real, even if that means being a bit of a devils' advocate.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (21 Jul 2004)

Yes it was directed to you.

Have anyone shine something for you lately.  LOL J/K

Hang in there soon you'll be knee deep in Canex shares.  Last J/K

Good to see the someone in the officer corp that isn't a yes man or careerist to the detriment of their subordinates.


----------



## Yard Ape (22 Jul 2004)

Would anyone have cheered if we had gotten John McCallum back?


BTW: What is an Associate Minister of National Defence?  Have we ever had one before?  Why was it given to someone with so many unrelated portfolios (Why not add it to the Minister of Vetrans Affairs)?


----------



## Lance Wiebe (22 Jul 2004)

> Um, actually, no I can't.
> 
> Then don't post them as fact, because while you might be on to something, now your credibility on this matter is blown.
> 
> ...



OK, you do have a point.  But neither you, nor I, or even the VCDS can post accurate numbers.  If you yourself try to get accurate numbers, you will run into the same inanity as everyone else who has tried to use Access to Information.  I admit that i made a mistake, I should have used "best guess" or words to that affect.

The problem is for anyone trying to get accurate numbers of people at NDHQ is that:

1.  Not all of them are employed by DND.  There are those from PWGSC, Treasury and so on.  They are emplayed at DND, not by DND.

2.  Class B reservists, apparently, are accounted for seperately, by different organisations, and it is near impossible to find this out as well.  For example, while a PMO may have some Class B on strength, they get paid for out of his budget, and may or may not be on the paper strength, depending on contract and other issues.

3.  Many of the jobs that were once held by military personnel, are now held by contractors.  Many of the LCMM's, for example, and many of those at DLESS.  While they work at DND, and were hired to do a job for DND, their contracts are not with DND in many cases. 

The way I got my numbers is from a paper phone listing, that was once available in the NCR.  I know that the paper listings are gone, but a check of the phone listings in the NCR may surprise some.  That will not be accurate either, so I promise not to post the numbers as facts again.  OK?

Next, the ratio of officers to NCM's was fact, and is verifiable, I am sure.

Now, mention was made on how hard Generals work.  Well, OK, I know that some Generals do indeed work hard.  The problem I have is thattoo many of them are serving overseas.  Yeah, yeah.  Some, like Gen Hillier and Gen Natynczyk are undoubtedly working their tails right off.  But how many are serving as military attaches?  Too many, given the size of our Forces, and thats part of the problem.  If we have even a dozen Generals overseas, we have to have four times that number as replacements.    The other problem is what are they working so hard at?  No, really.  They are not commanding troops, but they are working long hard hours.  Are they doing what they are trained to do?  Or are they busy working on trying to meet the equality goals, or studying the effects of something on something else?

At any rate, yes, I am jaded.  Sigh.


----------

