Sexual Misconduct Allegations in The CAF

[brihard]

So someone broke the rules and allowed his Release to avoid a 5F so he could keep his pension? My eyes of suspicion go straight to his boss at this point, and I would go and correct this.

No, CAF pensions, so far as I know, are untouchable. He’s have gotten it regardless if he had enough service. But it seems he was set up for a beautiful double dip. A 5f would have precluded any further government employment.

 

[SupersonicMax]

So someone broke the rules and allowed his Release to avoid a 5F so he could keep his pension? My eyes of suspicion go straight to his boss at this point, and I would go and correct this.

A 5F wouldn’t take your pension away.

 

[MJP]

So someone broke the rules and allowed his Release to avoid a 5F so he could keep his pension? My eyes of suspicion go straight to his boss at this point, and I would go and correct this.

Nothing even being a serial killer stops the pension

 

[Furniture]

So someone broke the rules and allowed his Release to avoid a 5F so he could keep his pension? My eyes of suspicion go straight to his boss at this point, and I would go and correct this.

My understanding is it's more a career shop/DGMC thing... The CMs are overworked, and under appreciated, so I can see how things might slip though. That said, the CAF needs the power to go back, and amend release conditions when things slip through.

 

[MJP]

My understanding is it's more a career shop/DGMC thing... The CMs are overworked, and under appreciated, so I can see how things might slip though. That said, the CAF needs the power to go back, and amend release conditions when things slip through.

A unit can initiate and conclude a AR outside of D Mil C or DGMC control or awareness as they have no control over the day to day disposition of that person.

I've always included the career manager when I deal with DMCA but that is not a guarantee

 

[Halifax Tar]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/danny-croucher-new-civlian-job-misconduct-allegations-1.6205306

Oh FFS.... can we go a week without something new

We will reap what we sow.

 

[Halifax Tar]

JT is the issue here. Playing politics over real life issues, then blaming everyone else for his failings. Harry S Truman had a sign on his desk "the buck stops here" that signified he was responsible for every decision made by the US government.

You need to stop blaming Trudeau for everything. He's not the devil. He's garbage I agree, but he's not responsible for our issues.

 

[OldSolduer]

You need to stop blaming Trudeau for everything. He's not the devil. He's garbage I agree, but he's not responsible for our issues.

I will give you that one but the MND needed to go a long time ago. Who would be responsible for that?

 

[suffolkowner]

I will give you that one but the MND needed to go a long time ago. Who would be responsible for that?

It's obvious the PM and MND have no shame. The volume of GOFO's that are alleged to have commited some kind of sexual misconduct is incredible. To me it points to a real issue in the quality and nature of the promotions.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

It's obvious the PM and MND have no shame. The volume of GOFO's that are alleged to have commited some kind of sexual misconduct is incredible. To me it points to a real issue in the quality and nature of the promotions.

As much as I would like to blame it all on the current PM and MND, this problem existed long before they came along, they have just not helped it.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I will give you that one but the MND needed to go a long time ago. Who would be responsible for that?

See below:

As much as I would like to blame it all on the current PM and MND, this problem existed long before they came along, they have just not helped it.

 

[ballz]

"As this was an administrative action, results and subsequent actions (if any) are protected under the Privacy Act."

Hey look there's that line again. If not for some people in the know going to the press, this all likely would have went unnoticed and the old boys would never have to answer to it.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry anymore.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I wonder if anyone is tracking, and being held accountable for, managing these numbers down as closely as they do for the various virtue signalling reports related to 'mandatory course completion' lists.

It's clear that the current management is failing miserably and, in any self-respecting private sector organization, would get the order of the boot. To date I've never heard of anyone being fired over this type of failure at an organizational level.

When heads start to roll for poor performance in this area you'll start to see some improvements, I'm sure:

The Canadian military has received more than 700 sexual assault reports since 2016: data - National | Globalnews.ca

There have been 726 reports of military sexual assault since 2016, which is nearly a third of the more than 2,000 total military sexual misconduct reports since then.

globalnews.ca

 

[FJAG]

It's obvious the PM and MND have no shame. The volume of GOFO's that are alleged to have commited some kind of sexual misconduct is incredible. To me it points to a real issue in the quality and nature of the promotions.

I disagree with your premise although I agree that it might look that way and that there clearly are issues that need dealing with.

We'll never come to grips with sexual misconduct issues until we acknowledge that these are issues that permeate all areas of our society where a hierarchical structure exists whether it be high schools, universities, civilian businesses, or the military - anywhere where a person with some power over others can take advantage of the situation. Add to that youth, alcohol and a break down of inhibitions and you end up with situations where people test the line of what is appropriate conduct.

For every individual who one should have known would not measure up to the rank they are being promoted to there are hundreds whose indiscretions or lack of ability are not obvious. I remember once being called out as a duty officer with the MPs to a disturbance at a PMQ that belonged to one of the our most able, immaculately turned out senior NCOs only to find a falling down, violent drunk who lived in a shit pit of a home. Up until the moment I crossed the threshold to his PMQ I never would have suspected it. Some people are good at covering their problems and it would take a much greater effort of digging into their lives than is normal in a society that values freedom and personal privacy.

What bothers me most about this whole sexual misconduct issue with respect to senior leadership is that we are glossing over so many other systemic leadership issues that grip DND. We have been wrestling with various levels of a hollow force for decades. Our procurement system is a moribund. We have capability gaps that have and will result in unnecessary injury and deaths to our troops or will make it impossible to deploy on operations. We can barely maintain the equipment that we do have. Our middle leadership tiers are voting with their feet in droves. All of these issues can be easily traced back to a weak and bureaucratic civilian and military leadership that stretches from the Prime Minister on down yet there has been zero effort to come to grips with it.

There will always be disappointments with respect to the competence or conduct of some of our leadership. That's simply bound to happen. The Peter Principle is a real thing. The point is that the system ought to be self-healing and be able to deal with its mistakes and move forward. DND hasn't been that way for decades. It's in a spiral. The sooner we realize that the sexual misconduct issues, while real, are a deflection that is keeping us from focusing on the wider leadership failings that permeate the defence structure, the sooner we'll be able to deal with all of it.

 

[The Bread Guy]

As much as I would like to blame it all on the current PM and MND, this problem existed long before they came along, they have just not helped it.

Fair is fair - it is the current PM's problem to deal with since it's coming out on his watch, and he is in an ironic/hypocritical space, and he has shown poor leadership re: denouncing faults/pouring blame downwards publicly, but how many promotions happened under how many other governments to get to this place if the top politicians are to be blamed?

 

[ballz]

In general terms, I agree. The sexual misconduct crisis is just a symptom, the disease has been a lack of accountability for Lord knows how long. It was obvious to me as a 2Lt, as it was for most of my peers, although most join and learn through osmosis where "the line" is, and few at such a junior rank are willing to go against the grain and those who are, are skewered.

and you end up with situations where people test the line of what is appropriate conduct.

And leadership has failed to establish a line at all. The only line appears to be the Criminal Code and in many cases we've even failed to hild that line.

For every individual who one should have known would not measure up to the rank they are being promoted to there are hundreds whose indiscretions or lack of ability are not obvious.

This I disagree with, but we're opining withoht any empirical data as an unfortunate caveat. You may have been unable to see it from your specific chair in that case, but I doubt his various immediate supervisors and peers were unaware. The vast majority of "creatures" are fairly visible. Maybe not from a criminal lens but most people who can't keep their house/life in order also can't perform at work. I maintain that if you attack performance issues, most our issues go away. But we are utterly unwilling to attack performance issues, we'd rather hold out until APS.

There will always be disappointments with respect to the competence or conduct of some of our leadership. That's simply bound to happen. The Peter Principle is a real thing. The point is that the system ought to be self-healing and be able to deal with its mistakes and move forward. DND hasn't been that way for decades. It's in a spiral. The sooner we realize that the sexual misconduct issues, while real, are a deflection that is keeping us from focusing on the wider leadership failings that permeate the defence structure, the sooner we'll be able to deal with all of it.

The Peter Principle would suggest someone gets promoted to MCpl/Maj, is recognized as not capable, and then no longer gets promoted since they suck at their current rank. Yes, it sucks that you have someone not capable of performing as expected, but that's not nearly as damaging as continuing to promote them many many ranks beyond their capability. It seems the only thing stopping our members that are incapable of even writing a coherant email from becoming CDS is the compulsory retirement age.

 

[MilEME09]

Part of the issue is we have long since stopped being an organization dedicated to being a lean, efficient fighting force. Instead we have become a bureaucratic bloat like the rest of government, not capable of even deploying a brigade or anything more then a company + for any significant length of time.

As much as this is destroying our Morale, and the institution, we need to utilize this to learn, reorganize, and become a efficient force. This will mean hard choices, and likely more civilian oversight in the coming years.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Part of the issue is we have long since stopped being an organization dedicated to being a lean, efficient fighting force. Instead we have become a bureaucratic bloat like the rest of government, not capable of even deploying a brigade or anything more then a company + for any significant length of time.

As much as this is destroying our Morale, and the institution, we need to utilize this to learn, reorganize, and become a efficient force. This will mean hard choices, and likely more civilian oversight in the coming years.

I dunno.... looks like we have about a thousand folks in Latvia, for starters:


At any time, there can be up to 915 CAF members deployed on Operation REASSURANCE, making it Canada’s largest current international military operation. This includes:

• approximately 240 sailors onboard a frigate, operating with NATO
• 540 soldiers leading a NATO enhanced Forward Presence Battle Group in Latvia
• 135 members of the Royal Canadian Air Force and approximately 5 CF-188 Hornet aircraft participating in NATO enhanced Air Policing

Operation REASSURANCE - Canada.ca

Canadian Armed Forces support to NATO’s assurance and deterrence measures to promote security and stability in Central and Eastern Europe

www.canada.ca

 

[ballz]

I dunno.... looks like we have about a thousand folks in Latvia, for starters:


At any time, there can be up to 915 CAF members deployed on Operation REASSURANCE, making it Canada’s largest current international military operation. This includes:

• approximately 240 sailors onboard a frigate, operating with NATO
• 540 soldiers leading a NATO enhanced Forward Presence Battle Group in Latvia
• 135 members of the Royal Canadian Air Force and approximately 5 CF-188 Hornet aircraft participating in NATO enhanced Air Policing

Operation REASSURANCE - Canada.ca

Canadian Armed Forces support to NATO’s assurance and deterrence measures to promote security and stability in Central and Eastern Europe

www.canada.ca

Of those 540 soldiers that are part of the Army's contribution, I believe its one actual fighting sub-unit, a BG HQ, and the rest are supporters or an L3 HQ (i.e. there is a J8 over there).

Don't get me wrong I think we can deploy a Battalion but Op REASSURANCE is hardly proof of that. To deploy 3 rifle companies, a combat support coy, an admin coy, and a Bn HQ, we'd probably use up all the operational ready pers from 3 Battalions in a Regiment.

When 2 RCR had to deploy for the Syriam refugee crisis, once we had 3x green platoons (a Pl Comd, Pl 2IC, and 3x sections of Sgt, MCpl, 6x Cpl/Ptes) the entire Battalion rear-party could only scrape together 2 more Platoons to be ready for follow-on forces and that included pulling pers from Combat Support and Admin Coys.... and we're in worse shape now than we were in 2015.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Of those 540 soldiers that are part of the Army's contribution, I believe its one actual fighting sub-unit, a BG HQ, and the rest are supporters.

Don't get me wrong I think we can deploy a Battalion but Op REASSURANCE is hardly proof of that. To deploy 3 rifle companies, a combat support coy, an admin coy, and a Bn HQ, we'd probably use up all the operational ready pers from 3 Battalions in a Regiment.

When 2 RCR had to deploy for the Syriam refugee crisis, once we had 3x green platoons (a Pl Comd, Pl 2IC, and 3x sections of Sgt, MCpl, 6x Cpl/Ptes) the entire Battalion rear-party could only scrape together 2 more Platoons to be ready for follow-on forces and that included pulling pers from Combat Support and Admin Coys.... and we're in worse shape now than we were in 2015.

I'm no expert in these matters, apart from a guy who was at the FG end, but it seems this would be a great opportunity to funnel reservists in to beef up a BGp in Latvia.

Class A soldiers would give their eye teeth for a chance to deploy there. Committing enough Reg F leadership to frame out a couple of rifle companies/batteries/squadrons might pay dividends for both our international commitments and increasing reserve capabilities and retention.