Government hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[ytz]

I said that I would reduce nothing from the "field force." I'm talking the administrative headquarters above brigade/wing/fleet level. Their proliferation is not based on tactical issues.

Listen to the podcast.

 

[ytz]

I'd also like to point out that the demographic on this site putting down increased pay is older, established/retired members, who are perhaps out of touch with the reality on the shop/hangar floor right now.

I honestly think this lot would be straight up out of touch with LCOL/CDR and below if they walked in to an operational armoury or hangar today.

 

[FJAG]

Listen to the podcast.

Podcast?

 

[ytz]

The dissatisfaction points are likely highly connected. Certainly pay and benefits need to be at a certain level to make the job attractive and cost of housing definitely has to be addresses (as it does with Canadian society as a whole, not just for the CAF).

How much of the dissatisfaction with pay though is related to the general dissatisfaction in other areas. If you hate your job because of poor leadership, lack of direction, crappy kit, etc. then of course you're going to want to get greater compensation for putting up with all of that.

Solve the housing issue and seriously address the other issues and I bet you'd see the dissatisfaction levels over compensation go down as well.

I've said this before. People will put up with a lot more for money. That's basic capitalism. But in a country where housing is a national crisis while also being the primary way of wealth creation, this is not going to be a small matter for a group that moves a lot and often gets a week to buy a house. Don't want to cut cheques? Give the members housing.

 

[ytz]

Listen to the podcast.

The one that was linked in the post you responded to.

 

[FJAG]

The one that was linked in the post you responded to.

I listened to that last year when it first came out. It doesn't address the issue which I raised as to the bloated staff structures above the Canadian CMBG level. King's discussion relates to command at the tactical level at division and below. Canada has no tactical division headquarters (and I'll include 1 Cdn Div in that. It's not one as discussed by King). We have administrative divisional headquarters (and for that matter administrative ResF CBG headquarters). The highest real tactical formation that we have is the CMBG and I have no problems with the CMBG headquarters staffing at all.

King merely traces the history of tactical command and the development of staff functions to one which incorporated diffused staff-led decision making. It's not as new as he makes out if you ever consider the role of a Prussian Chief of Staff in the Napoleonic era. I'll admit that at the tactical level, the processes of command have changed.

But the issue I'm discussing isn't that warfare has changed so that Canadian tactical units need more staff (And quite frankly the size of brigade staffs we employed in Afghanistan are now considered unsustainable and impractical in modern war)

What I'm raising is the issue of the size of higher level administrative staff being utilized to do the basic governance roles of the CAF and its constituent parts. Not tactical command.

My argument is that those higher level headquarters' staff size is dictated in large measure by scores of procedures and policies that are unnecessarily complex and unnecessarily centralized. In effect many decisions that ought to be handled by "diffused staff" subordinates are not and thereby require layers upon layers whose function is to staff issues to the ultimate decision maker rather than handling it at the level of incidence. We seem to be prepared to create another directorate general or policy or process at the drop of a hat and fill it with staff, but rarely consolidate or trim the branches to create greater efficiency. We have far too many senior leaders with authority over a process but no responsibility for its outcomes. There are far too many people in the system who can slow down progress on a given file if they see it as a risk to their own little fiefdom. At the same time they do not bear the ultimate responsibility of not getting a particular capability into the hands of the troops in the field.

As an aside about us old buggers and how we advocated for our troops. We did quite well and so did they. They weren't voting with their feet the way they are now. Maybe that's because we didn't burn our middle leadership out and keep going to the well over and over again. We weren't stupid then and we didn't hand in our brains with our webbing when we hit CRA.

 

[ytz]

My argument is that those higher level headquarters' staff size is dictated in large measure by scores of procedures and policies that are unnecessarily complex and unnecessarily centralized.

And the trend pointed out in the podcast applies to higher HQs too: proliferation of decision-making.

You can wish that work went away. But it won't. It's demanded by voters through the politicians they elect.

As an example, what do you think happens if there's demands for more indigenisation of kit? How and who do you think would execute those policies?

Or for example, Culture Change. Do you remember how and why that command came about?

You're trying to argue that the institution should ignore demands from Canadians. I don't think any officer proposing that would or should remain in their job for long. Civilian control and all....

 

[ytz]

None of those aircraft have air to air refueling AFAIK.

The L3 offering (Global CAEW) should be AAR capable.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

And the trend pointed out in the podcast applies to higher HQs too: proliferation of decision-making.

You can wish that work went away. But it won't. It's demanded by voters through the politicians they elect.

As an example, what do you think happens if there's demands for more indigenisation of kit? How and who do you think would execute those policies?

Or for example, Culture Change. Do you remember how and why that command came about?

You're trying to argue that the institution should ignore demands from Canadians. I don't think any officer proposing that would or should remain in their job for long. Civilian control and all....

Most Canadians don't have a say in the making of those polices, while the option to use indigenous businesses is a nice to have, it's way over done. Thanks to non-thinking pencil pushers who demand that a box is checked. They won't make the effort to research and provide updated lists of said companies, by will get all pissy if you don't make the effort and then check the box. Just one example of TB making life miserable for everyone.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Most Canadians don't have a say in the making of those polices, while the option to use indigenous businesses is a nice to have, it's way over done. Thanks to non-thinking pencil pushers who demand that a box is checked. They won't make the effort to research and provide updated lists of said companies, by will get all pissy if you don't make the effort and then check the box. Just one example of TB making life miserable for everyone.

Canadians have their say when they vote in and out Governments.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Canadians have their say when they vote in and out Governments.

True, but they often have zero say in how that vison is implemented, or are unaware of how to intercede (or unable to). A big chunk of government day to day stuff is done by policy and that rarely gets into the public limelight. Regulation changes are published in the Gazette, but then how many of those Canadians read or are aware of that publication? Also rare is Canadians reading committee minutes. About the only thing that makes news is a introduction of a Act into Parliament, and few reporters now are up to the task of explaining them in a way that connects to viewers/readers (assuming the editor lets them)

 

[Quirky]

Not well. But normal people aren't in a job that could send them to the other side of the world on a whim.

I hear this a lot, but what percentage, realistically, are going to be deployed in their careers, never mind on a whim? You could say everyoone could be sent technically but that's not realistic.
1. Deployments are part of the game when you signed up. Don't like the terms of employment, don't join. Some positions are "at more risk" when being deployed.
2. I think financially the compensation is very generous on deployments, which is probably why government doesn't like sending the CAF anywhere, it costs too much.
3. Don't like the compensation terms of #2, see #1.

 

[FJAG]

And the trend pointed out in the podcast applies to higher HQs too: proliferation of decision-making.

You're absolutely losing me here. I can't quite see how you take an article discussing the history of the development of the concept of mission command in tactical scenarios within the division and below and use it as the rationale for the procedures and processes that result in bloated administrative headquarters. I'm arguing that 'proliferation of decision making' should devolve downward to the leaders who are closest to the issue that needs resolving while you appear to be advocating for the growth of a staff at the highest level in order to keep decision making at a centralized level.

I'm not arguing the book he has written. I'm arguing your application of it.

You can wish that work went away. But it won't. It's demanded by voters through the politicians they elect.

It's not demanded by voters. If demanded at all it's demanded by the executive of the current elected government. That's not the same thing. Governments are elected for a variety of issues and the mere fact that they may have support in one or many areas does not necessarily mean the majority of the public supports a given policy. That's even before you get to the plurality v majority issue with our form of elections.

I agree "wishing that the work goes away" is a non starter to a solution albeit that seems to be the CAF's approach to meaningful transformation. It takes a concerted and directed effort to make the nonessential work go away.

As an example, what do you think happens if there's demands for more indigenisation of kit? How and who do you think would execute those policies?

The same staff already charged with acquiring the kit.

Or for example, Culture Change. Do you remember how and why that command came about?

That's too broad a topic. There are numerous initiatives of the current government and previous ones that could come under that rubric. Some because the majority of the people support the specific change in culture being advocated, some because they are vanity projects taken on by an executive catering to fringe groups. Save yourself some time, however, and don't try to focus in on a particular aspect. It's been discussed at nauseum in other threads and I won't waste my time on any of them. I'll say this, however, the fact that government has a new priority doesn't mean you need to build a new directorate general to deal with it.

You're trying to argue that the institution should ignore demands from Canadians. I don't think any officer proposing that would or should remain in their job for long. Civilian control and all....

That may be what you have deluded yourself into thinking that I believe that but your conclusion is pure bullshit. I don't know if you are looking for an argument where there is none for the sport of it or if you are simply not understanding what I've said.

At the risk of prolonging this discussion I'll make it clear: my position is that the administrative headquarters which exist above brigade, wing, and fleet levels are bloated with staff for a military the size of Canada's. It's size depletes the number of personnel that can be assigned to the operational and educational/training components of the force. The reason for the bloat is that the CAF is bound up in numerous processes and policies that are self imposed and responds to issues by building new centralized staff rather than properly devolving the authority and responsibility to existing staff or subordinate leadership. Each internal policy and process needs to be examined in order to determine if it actually creates a demonstrative output or is merely churn and if it is decided that it does provide a valuable output then to ensure that the process is applied at the most efficient existing organizational level. If it provides zero or marginal value then it and its supporting staff needs to be eliminated.

I'll add one final point. Almost all attempts at CAF administrative transformation have failed either in whole or in part due to internal friction from existing staff structures that see their work as invaluable and resist change.

 

[Furniture]

I hear this a lot, but what percentage, realistically, are going to be deployed in their careers, never mind on a whim? You could say everyoone could be sent technically but that's not realistic.

This raises a point I think we sometimes forget. Most of us only know our own particular slice of the overall CAF, and many never serve outside their occupation or element. While deployments might be rare for RCAF maintainers that aren't MH, they are a common thing for many purple occupations, as well as many army occupations, and essentially the entire navy.

Things that matter to the infantry don't matter to sailors, and things that don't matter to either of the afore mentioned groups can matter a lot of support trades. Housing, moving, pay compared to equivalent civilian occupations, etc., all matter to some parts of the CAF more than other parts.

All this to say, I think it's worth remembering that each of us comes at things from a very different perspective.