Government hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I have long said that you could fund the CAF to 4 percent of GDP, but we would still lag behind in NATO and be much the same where we are.

It's never the money, it's politics. It's procedures. It's the pork-barreling in our defence spending that makes us a paper tiger in NATO.

My only hope in all of this for the CAF and the GoC, whatever the political stripe that may be, is that it will rouse them out of the "Peace Dividend" slumber. The world has been unstable since 1945. We have used geography, proximity, and association as a Defence Policy ever since. ICBMs don't care how close to the U.S. or how far from Russia/China we are.

Don't give us a dime more, but let us spend money on defence like it matters. The fact we follow the same rules for purchasing a fighter aircraft as we do for buying office furniture for a Service Canada office is disgraceful. Don't treat defense procurement as a stimulus package for Canadian Industry. There I said it.

We spend so much money, time, and effort trying to get that money to stay in Canada; be it by awarding contracts to companies with no capability to produce items without first "retooling" and"developing the production lines", or by hamstringing perfectly competent and competitive bidders by forcing the project to be made in St. Margaret de Poutain de Champignon, QC because the ruling government either lost the seat in the election, or won it with promises.

We spend so much money and staff hours jumping through TBS regulations that are great for other departments, but are terrible for defence procurement. Some items you have to sole source, because there are technologies and capabilities no one else makes. By doing the bid process, you get companies clamoring for a project they can't deliver on, but because they tick the bright boxes on the score sheet....

I truly and honestly belief we need to split from PSPC and legislate that its not beholden to TBS, only to the PBO/PCO. The guiding principles of this new Defence Procurement department should be "Off the shelf, from somewhere else" if there isn't an industry in Canada.

BOOTFORGEN has demonstrated how well we do when we are able to actually get what we need, instead of lining the pockets of a Canadian company that got lucky.

That, but with tanks, fighters, ships, weapons systems....

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Post-Somalia culture change for the CAF was the introduction of the Degreed Officer Corps (recommendation #10 of the report to the PM on the Management and Leadership of the CAF from Feb 1997); there was no explicit direction that it should be delivered via ROTP-MilCol.

That said, Ramsey Withers and others saw that recommendation coming, and did their best to situate RMC as a preferred delivery method for the degreed officer corps.

And the Withers Report, like all others, has magically disappeared

 

[dapaterson]

And the Withers Report, like all others, has magically disappeared

Report of the RMC Board of Governors By the Withers' Study Group

Balanced Excellence Leading Canada's Armed Forces In The New Millenium 4500-240 (ADM (HR-Mil)) 24 September 1998 Distribution List Officer Education and Training - Planning for the Future - Lieutenant-General Dallaire References: A. Report to the Prime Minister on the Leadership and Management...

www.rmc-cmr.ca

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Report of the RMC Board of Governors By the Withers' Study Group

Balanced Excellence Leading Canada's Armed Forces In The New Millenium 4500-240 (ADM (HR-Mil)) 24 September 1998 Distribution List Officer Education and Training - Planning for the Future - Lieutenant-General Dallaire References: A. Report to the Prime Minister on the Leadership and Management...

www.rmc-cmr.ca

I take it back, it used to be available on the main page.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Well the stink of being CDS (or not being CDS) hasn't been exclusively draped on the RCN has it? There is enough has-beens, near do wells, and boot lickers from all parts of the CAF to stink up all of Canada. In the end, what CDS has really moved the ball towards anything? We are hostages to the whims of the PMO and always will be.

They have less than 20% of the force, but claim 1/3 of the top billets. Talent dilution is a real thing here. Plus.....RCN is way better at command than at leadership......

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

They have less than 20% of the force, but claim 1/3 of the top billets. Talent dilution is a real thing here. Plus.....RCN is way better at command than at leadership......

It's because leadership, as it's taught in the Army and what is expected of an Officer in, let's say a Regiment, isn't really a thing in the RCN.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

As I have been prone to say - often to senior RCN "leaders" - it is not hard to "lead" when every one is locked in a tin can and you have sole and uncontested authority to force all the souls in that tin can to go wherever you want. No Navy guy or gal (less boarding) has ever said those immortal words that personify in-person leadership: "you three go that way - the rest of you follow me"!

 

[Halifax Tar]

As I have been prone to say - often to senior RCN "leaders" - it is not hard to "lead" when every one is locked in a tin can and you have sole and uncontested authority to force all the souls in that tin can to go wherever you want. No Navy guy or gal (less boarding) has ever said those immortal words that personify in-person leadership: "you three go that way - the rest of you follow me"!

I've served in both worlds. Neither holds preeminence on leadership or the creation of leaders. And both could learn from each other.

 

[WLSC]

I've served in both worlds. Neither holds preeminence on leadership or the creation of leaders. And both could learn from each other.

I agree with you, there's no colour in leadership. The basic skill set are the same, the environment differ. No, the navy wont have to take certain call as the army leader do however, no arny unit would have to fight a fire onboard a ship while still having to fight.

Different leadership challenge, same basic skill.

 

[FSTO]

As I have been prone to say - often to senior RCN "leaders" - it is not hard to "lead" when every one is locked in a tin can and you have sole and uncontested authority to force all the souls in that tin can to go wherever you want. No Navy guy or gal (less boarding) has ever said those immortal words that personify in-person leadership: "you three go that way - the rest of you follow me"!

An army officer has to convince their team to take that hill, the naval officer (if they are the ship's Captain) says to their sailors "you're coming with me no matter what", while the air force support team waves good-bye to the officer as the plane takes off. Different environments, different leadership styles.

 

[dimsum]

Snide remarks aside. We as a force suffer so much because of egos and agendas. Like the unwritten rule that you have to a ring knocker to be CDS.

Uh...

Rick Hillier - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[KevinB]

Uh...

Rick Hillier - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The exception to the rule, and an example perhaps of why the rule kind of sucks

 

[PPCLI Guy]

An army officer has to convince their team to take that hill, the naval officer (if they are the ship's Captain) says to their sailors "you're coming with me no matter what", while the air force support team waves good-bye to the officer as the plane takes off. Different environments, different leadership styles.

Except the context of the original discussion was institutional leadership - vis CDS et al. I think that not all "styles" best prepare someone for the strategic roles that we ask people to assume....or that some chase to their detriment...and the institution's.

 

[FSTO]

Uh...

Rick Hillier - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yea, I knew I’d be called out. Figures.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Uh...

Rick Hillier - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Big Rick had his faults too. His obsession with the COMs and HQ bloat was bemoaned on here ad nauseam.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Except the context of the original discussion was institutional leadership - vis CDS et al. I think that not all "styles" best prepare someone for the strategic roles that we ask people to assume....or that some chase to their detriment...and the institution's.

Like Vance or Russell Williams ?

 

[Edward Campbell]

It seems to me that the CF's recent experiences suggest that none of our command "styles" produce a consistent stream of competent, ethical leaders.

Maybe the fault is, at least in some (large?) part, in the nature of the "charm school" (RMC/CMR); I doubt that university degrees, themselves, make people morally weak. But one might wonder if people with science/applied science degrees "fail," ethically, at the same rate as their brethren with degrees in e.g. strategic studies (Vance) and political science (Williams); do all those well publicized crude, but rarely criminal, undergraduate shenanigans for which the "gears" are justifiably infamous make them better adults? Does too much Machiavelli and Clausewitz (and not enough Terman) make one ethically suspect?

One of the recommendations of the Withers Report was to put more stress on the M in RMC. Maybe we have, since the 1970s, when the pressure to have a degreed officer corps began in earnest, put too much emphasis on formal education and not enough on the military ethos.

I served under a few admirals, at least two of whom were qualitatively better "leaders" than the overwhelming majority of Army and Air Force officers who surrouned them. I lived through the Boyle/Labbé era when selected officers were "anointed" by a shadowy civil-military elite, while others were pushed aside, regardless of their superior talent and skill. That was, in my opinion, the command "style" that allowed e.g. Vance, Edmunson et al to thrive.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

It seems to me that the CF's recent experiences suggest that none of our command "styles" produce a consistent stream of competent, ethical leaders.

Maybe the fault is, at least in some (large?) part, in the nature of the "charm school" (RMC/CMR); I doubt that university degrees, themselves, make people morally weak. But one might wonder if people with science/applied science degrees "fail," ethically, at the same rate as their brethren with degrees in e.g. strategic studies (Vance) and political science (Williams); do all those well publicized crude, but rarely criminal, undergraduate shenanigans for which the "gears" are justifiably infamous make them better adults? Does too much Machiavelli and Clausewitz (and not enough Terman) make one ethically suspect?

I think the problem stems from trying to use education and credentials as a substitute for character and ethical behaviour. You can require students read as much Nietzsche or Hippocrates as one needs to get a check in the box; has no bearing on if that person is a prick to work for or not. Education is not a panacea for the disease of ignorance; it helps, but its not the be all end all solution.

One of the recommendations of the Withers Report was to put more stress on the M in RMC. Maybe we have, since the 1970s, when the pressure to have a degreed officer corps began in earnest, put too much emphasis on formal education and not enough on the military ethos.

I was a high-school student in the early 2000s. RMC was always sold separately, and to separate groups of people, by the CFRC Staff as an Educational opportunity more than a military career. The unwashed masses of us who weren't stellar at the field of academia received the "cool Army" version of the brief, geared towards NCM professions, as we were expected not to be interested in educational opportunities.

I find it is reflective of a lot of what is wrong within our organization. Academia is very much a personal endeavor and success is weighted heavily on individual factors, choices, and abelites. We use this as the metric for people we want most to be leading team efforts; where the team's success requires everyone doing their very best and helping bring other's up when needed. It a very weird dichotomy to have in an organization that basically builds teams of varying sizes to play the world's toughest contact sport.

I served under a few admirals, at least two of whom were qualitatively better "leaders" than the overwhelming majority of Army and Air Force officers who surrouned them. I lived through the Boyle/Labbé era when selected officers were "anointed" by a shadowy civil-military elite, while others were pushed aside, regardless of their superior talent and skill. That was, in my opinion, the command "style" that allowed e.g. Vance, Edmunson et al to thrive.

Once again, we create an environment where credentialism, and in some cases nepotism, trumps character and ability. It doesn't surprise me one bit.

 

[Remius]

I was in recruiting around that time. RMC a was really pushing the university experience and less the military experience. We did a joint presentation at a student fair with an RMC rep. I then requested never to have to do that ever again. They blantantly stated that the military stuff wasn’t a pillar they put a lot of priority on since they could get all of that after. And don’t get me started on varsity sports…

 

[WLSC]

There’s a lot of « senior leaders » in the forces that never really tried to understand Duty with honour or just don’t care. They do not see the positive impact on the daily operations. I often heard something like « L0/L1 pay lip service to it because it please the GC but it is not really for application » and other variations of that in the last 10 years. Those comment where mostly done from people from the Colleges of influence by them. When you come to believe that you are bigger than the institution you serve/command, it’s only trouble in the making.

Talib, Viêt-cong and all the like believes in their cause and they are successful. If we do not take the time to make sure our troupe believe and live in a professional institution, we are doom to see that « culture change » again and again.

 

[Navy_Pete]

I personally think a lot of the personal ethics gets locked in a lot earlier than joining, so you will get the normal cross section of beliefs when people join. People that already have a strong ethical belief can adapt to the CAF application fairly easily (and will probably do it regardless of what CAF culture is), so it's really more of having guidelines for the majority of 'goodish' people that need some direction/support, and strong, consistently applied penalties to deter the sociopaths or generally greasy characters.

Similarly, I tend to think in terms of "I'm responsible for x number of people" vice 'x number of people work for me', and that was something I learned from my dad early on. Probably contributes to a lot of sleepless nights, but that really influences a lot of things I do as it creates a lot of internal personal accountability. I'm not really sure how you would train something like that institutionally, but try and pass that on to trainees when I can.

I think the days of believing in the institution are probably waning (thanks to the behaviour of the institution) but the idea of serving others (ie being responsible for subordinates) is probably something people can still support, and frankly looking out for other sailors/soldiers/aviators is probably the thing keeping a lot of people from going elsewhere.