New Dress Regs 🤣

[Humphrey Bogart]

Committees make recommendations to commanders who order things. Committees/working groups exists (and need to exist) to inform/advise commanders.

Yep they make "recommendations". Recommendations are made all the time. Commanders are free to disregard recommendations at their pleasure.

But Commanders should own those decisions. It's not the Dress Committee that made that decision.

Commander's also shouldn't be making decisions that violate higher authorities and orders. Like the Navy's recent circumvention of QR&Os to push through a "rank change" for cheap political points.

 

[kratz]

Followed over the cliff.

Yep they make "recommendations". Recommendations are made all the time. Commanders are free to disregard recommendations at their pleasure.

But Commanders should own those decisions. It's not the Dress Committee that made that decision.

Commander's also shouldn't be making decisions that violate higher authorities and orders. Like the Navy's recent circumvention of QR&Os to push through a "rank change" for cheap political points.

I am unapologetic. I own my thoughts and convictions. The internet has a memory that would twist an Mammoth (assuming Elephant predecessor). I am ready to snap this is but one of a handful of silent topics.

"Listen to your troops, when the ranks become quiet, you've stooped leading." - Colin Powell (paraphrase)

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Followed over the cliff.


I am unapologetic. I own my thoughts and convictions. The internet has a memory that would twist an Mammoth (assuming Elephant predecessor). I am ready to snap this is but one of a handful of silent topics.

"Listen to your troops, when the ranks become quiet, you've stooped leading." - Colin Powell (paraphrase)

The best part about being "retired" is you're free to call out all of this nonsense to your hearts content 😎

 

[SupersonicMax]

Yep they make "recommendations". Recommendations are made all the time. Commanders are free to disregard recommendations at their pleasure.

But Commanders should own those decisions. It's not the Dress Committee that made that decision.

Commander's also shouldn't be making decisions that violate higher authorities and orders. Like the Navy's recent circumvention of QR&Os to push through a "rank change" for cheap political points.

Publishing an order with your name on it is owning it.

What makes you believe the rank change wasn’t first discussed with lawyers and politicians?

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Publishing an order with your name on it is owning it.

What makes you believe the rank change wasn’t first discussed with lawyers and politicians?

There is a procedure for making amendments to QR&Os & the NDA. Procedures and Codified Law need to be respected by the Military Chain of Command.

This lack of adherence to very simple due process is exactly why the CAF is in the absolute shit state it is in.

Substitute Rank Change for Sexual Misconduct, different problems, same lack of due process.

It's ok though, with such esteemed Leadership like our Former CDS, who said, and I quote "I own the Military Police", I have come to expect nothing less.

 

[Lumber]

Not as dramatic but I started carrying around the page from the dress manual allowing leather belts with NCDs because it seemed stupid to me to wear a flammable belt in FR clothes (plus the CAF dress belts generally suck and don't stay done up anyway). Had to whip that paper out a few times but was fun stopping a few people before they really got wound up; it was a bit like deflating a balloon.

Making friends and influencing people one day at a time I guess.

Was this on the west coast circa 2012/2013?

 

[Navy_Pete]

Was this on the west coast circa 2012/2013?

No, East coast, around 2009/2010, then again in 2015/16. And occasionally since on TD. I think there are a few similar weirdos though who do the same, but I just find it easier than arguing with someone what the dress manual says.

 

[SupersonicMax]

There is a procedure for making amendments to QR&Os & the NDA. Procedures and Codified Law need to be respected by the Military Chain of Command.

This lack of adherence to very simple due process is exactly why the CAF is in the absolute shit state it is in.

Substitute Rank Change for Sexual Misconduct, different problems, same lack of due process.

It's ok though, with such esteemed Leadership like our Former CDS, who said, and I quote "I own the Military Police", I have come to expect nothing less.

There are also procedures to ammend things quickly, outside of normal cycles. The CDS has that power through the QR&Os and NDA, as long as it is not inconsistent with the NDA (which changing how we call ourselves is not).

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

There are also procedures to ammend things quickly, outside of normal cycles. The CDS has that power through the QR&Os and NDA, as long as it is not inconsistent with the NDA (which changing how we call ourselves is not).

That's not what QR&O Section 1.23 says.

It says the following:



It says the CDS is allowed to issue orders but that those orders are not inconsistent with the National Defence Act.

I don't know what you think the word inconsistent means? It's an interesting interpretation, that much is certain.

Especially when QR&O Vol 1, Chap 3 lays out exactly what the Ranks are in the Canadian Armed Forces:

QR&O: Volume I - Chapter 3 Rank, Seniority, Command and Precedence - Canada.ca

Queen's Regulations and Orders - QR&O - Chapter 3 - Rank, Seniority, Command and Precedence

www.canada.ca

It also uses some other key terminology in that chapter, particularly the word: SHALL

I also find it interesting that the Air Force managed to get Aviator inserted in to the QR&Os but changing Naval ranks to gender neutral naming conventions was apparently just a bridge too far for the Navy apparently 😄


You may think it was the right call to change the rank names. I also think it was the right call, but....

There is a proper way to do it. The CAF isn't doing things properly. It's doing things for political convenience and creating additional problems for itself down the road.

There is a great primer by prominent CAF legal pundit Rory Fowler on this very issue.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Sailor and seaman can be considered synonym. In that sense, it is not inconsistent. Inconsistent doesn’t mean it has to be the exact same…. Just like many things in the military and life, intent is more important. And the intent between the seaman series and the sailor series is pretty much the same.

As I said, there are ways to do things before the process catches up. The process is not the end, the result is and while the process should be used most of the time, when there is a legal/regulatory window, there is nothing wrong with by-passing a process for a more immediate effect. Not sure what problem you foresee happening with this change…. Worst case, GiC says no and we go back to seaman…

Of course the flip side is that the leg work has to be done eventually, something the CAF has been terrible at, with active CANFORGENs from close to 30 years ago still active….

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Sailor and seaman can be considered synonym. In that sense, it is not inconsistent. Inconsistent doesn’t mean it has to be the exact same…

See QR&O Chapter 3, Volume 1 on what ranks, IAW the table to 3.01, are to be used in the Canadian Armed Forces.

The only thing inconsistent here is the dance you're doing around the QR&Os, which are very clear.

I guess it's consistent in so far as the CAF being consistently inconsistent.

 

[SupersonicMax]

See QR&O Chapter 3, Volume 1 on what ranks, IAW the table to 3.01, are to be used in the Canadian Armed Forces.

The only thing inconsistent here is the dance you're doing around the QR&Os, which are very clear.

I guess it's consistent in so far as the CAF being consistently inconsistent.

Explain to me how using Sailor is « not compatible or in keeping with » using Seaman?

Also, please point out where, in the QR&Os, Master Seaman is defined.

It is not a dance. It is using intent vs black and white, something you don’t seem capable of doing.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Sailor and seaman can be considered synonym. In that sense, it is not inconsistent. Inconsistent doesn’t mean it has to be the exact same…. Just like many things in the military and life, intent is more important. And the intent between the seaman series and the sailor series is pretty much the same.

As I said, there are ways to do things before the process catches up. The process is not the end, the result is and while the process should be used most of the time, when there is a legal/regulatory window, there is nothing wrong with by-passing a process for a more immediate effect. Not sure what problem you foresee happening with this change…. Worst case, GiC says no and we go back to seaman…

The issue is with the way this was done. It's actually the Governor-in-Council/Minister who should be making this announcement. It's absolutely within the rights of the Governor-in-Council or Minister to make this change which is what should have happened.

A smart CDS would have endorsed this but not given the order themselves. It's not just about doing the right thing, it's about making sure it's done properly.

That's how you protect the institution, by making sure all the i's are dotted and t's are crossed and that regulations are followed.

Of course the flip side is that the leg work has to be done eventually, something the CAF has been terrible at, with active CANFORGENs from close to 30 years ago still active….

Agreed, see CFAOs which were supposed to be all converted to DAODs about a decade+ ago.

Explain to me how using Sailor is « not compatible or in keeping with » using Seaman?

That's easy to answer. The QR&O's define a few key words which I already alluded to above.

Particularly the word SHALL



Shall is imperative; therefore, when it says:



It's pretty clear those are the only ranks that are to be used.

The job of the CDS isn't to make up his own interpretation of the QR&Os, it's to enforce the QR&Os.

Also, please point out where, in the QR&Os, Master Seaman is defined.

It is not a dance. It is using intent vs black and white, something you don’t seem capable of doing.

That's easy to answer:

Master Seaman and Master Corporal are not ranks, they are appointments. Their rank is Leading Seaman or Corporal, their appointment is Master Seaman or Master Corporal.

A Corporal and Master Corporal actually hold the exact same rank. The Master Corporal holds an appointment though.

 

[SupersonicMax]

The Minister made the announcement (Royal Canadian Navy release new rank designation - Canadian Military Family Magazine).

For Master Seaman, look at QR&Os 3.08. The only appointment possible is to Master Corporal. I am just using this to demonstrate the silliness of the argument you make.

For « shall », yes, we need to use the rank designations in 3.01, until an order, which is NOT inconsistent with but may be different from the QR&Os, is issued by the CDS and supersedes 3.01..

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

The Minister made the announcement (Royal Canadian Navy release new rank designation - Canadian Military Family Magazine).

For Master Seaman, look at QR&Os 3.08. The only appointment possible is to Master Corporal. I am just using this to demonstrate the silliness of the argument you make.

For « shall », it is, until an order, which is NOT incompatible with the QR&Os but may be different, is issued by the CDS.

There is nothing silly about the argument. I guarantee you if I made a poll here, the vast majority would find your argument more silly 😉

Because, you're a Senior Officer and you've made the argument that the "highest laws in the land" when it comes to governance of the CAF, don't matter.

They can be changed "cuz we feel like it".

This particular line from the link you posted made me want to barf in my mouth:

Chief of the Defence Staff noted more inclusive CAF​

Chief of the Defence Staff General Jonathan Vance stated, “The Royal Canadian Navy, our senior service, continues to adapt to better reflect Canadian society. Today’s announcement of changes to junior ranks nomenclature is just one example of how we continue to work to remove barriers to a more inclusive Canadian Armed Forces.”

The RCN isn't a service, it's an environment

They haven't changed anything because they didn't bother updating any of the official documentation.

Then there are these zingers:

Vice-Admiral Art McDonald, Commander RCN, says the RCN has profited immensely from the dialogue regarding the rank change initiative this summer.

He continued, “We emerge from it with a greater insight into who we are, including the sobering reality that we all need to do more, individually and collectively, to be diverse, inclusive, and welcoming. More positively, we can now take satisfaction in knowing that through this initiative we have taken another important and far from symbolic incremental step in ensuring that the RCN remains the modern Service that all shipmates deserve – indeed, that our nation deserves.”

"The Navy" drove this, they consulted the members before it had even been authorized. They blunt forced the change and did it improperly, just like everything else they do.

I'm laughing at that entire article though because all three of those bums have been shelved, two of them permanently! Thank god!

 

[SupersonicMax]

They can be changed "cuz we feel like it".

As long as it is not inconsistent with with the National Defence Act or with any regulations made by the Governor in Council, the Treasury Board or the Minister, pretty much, yes. That’s the type of authority that comes wih being the CDS.

I wrote policy and orders for a good portion of my career. I worked in a domain where we bypassed the airworthiness certification process for time savings by weighing risk and comparing it to the « reward ». I understand policy intent, I understand processes but I also understand risk and risk acceptance. In this case, there is no doubt in my mind that while the approved rank titles reside in 3.01 but an interim, legitimate order replaced those for the Navy.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

As long as it is not inconsistent with with the National Defence Act or with any regulations made by the Governor in Council, the Treasury Board or the Minister, pretty much, yes. That’s the type of authority that comes wih being the CDS.

I don't know how to explain to you that issuing an order that contravenes the NDA is "inconsistent with the NDA".

 

[SupersonicMax]

I don't know how to explain to you that issuing an order that contravenes the NDA is "inconsistent with the NDA".

It does not contravene the NDA. The NDA states that rank designations are found in regulations made by the GiC. That regulation is QR&O 3.01. QR&O 1.23, however, gives the power to the CDS to issue orders that are not inconsistent with the National Defence Act or with any regulations made by the Governor in Council, the Treasury Board or the Minister. An interim order directing the use of « sailor » instead of « seaman » while different, is not inconsistent with 3.01.

You can’t possibly tell me that using sailor is contrary to using seaman to the extent that it implies its negation, or that it brings ambiguity.

 

[Maxman1]

But I love the fake informal direction that exists in the RCN. It's made us such a trustworthy and transparent organization that is a desired employer of the masses 🤣

I especially love it because it also demonstrates that our Officer Corps is too cowardly to put their name to anything in writing 🤣

Just who we want leading our fellow citizens in to battle 😄

I've heard some people still think the rain jacket/toque/gloves joke is a real thing.

 

[ArmyRick]

Sailor and seaman can be considered synonym. In that sense, it is not inconsistent. Inconsistent doesn’t mean it has to be the exact same…. Just like many things in the military and life, intent is more important. And the intent between the seaman series and the sailor series is pretty much the same.

As I said, there are ways to do things before the process catches up. The process is not the end, the result is and while the process should be used most of the time, when there is a legal/regulatory window, there is nothing wrong with by-passing a process for a more immediate effect. Not sure what problem you foresee happening with this change…. Worst case, GiC says no and we go back to seaman…

Of course the flip side is that the leg work has to be done eventually, something the CAF has been terrible at, with active CANFORGENs from close to 30 years ago still active….

Nope. Big Nope. That's NOT how its supposed to be done. Are you an "ends justifies the means' kind of guy? That's now the army functioned when I was in. Or wasn't supposed to.