The Land Operations Temperate Boots (LOTB)

[Arty39]

Back in '99 there was a cobbler shop in the Regent mall and there used to be one in the mall adjacent to the Regent (the one that's not there anymore). One pair at the Regent mall he did for 33 bucks. I went back with my other pair and he was closed, but Cletus the Cobbler in the other mall did them - for free because I was a veteran! Pretty cool.

Yea, that wasn't yesterday. I still have them.

A store on Restigouche in Oromocto does the resole as well, no clue the price.

 

[BinRat55]

A store on Restigouche in Oromocto does the resole as well, no clue the price.

I think if you're talking about the one that was next to Timmies, it's been closed a few years now... I can't think of anything in Oromocto that does it now... closest MAY be the other side of the river...

 

[blacktriangle]

I don't care if we buy crappy Canadian made boots. That's a political problem.

When we try to force our soldiers to all wear a single boot style for the sake of uniformity (despite medical implications and the superior engineering of COTS alternatives) - that's a leadership problem.

 

[armyvern]

I don't care if we buy crappy Canadian made boots. That's a political problem.

When we try to force our soldiers to all wear a single boot style for the sake of uniformity (despite medical implications and the superior engineering of COTS alternatives) - that's a leadership problem.

So, they just attempted to alleviate the above by having Canadian manufacturers make boots based off multiple boot styles from trials by soldiers ... how'd that manufacturer make out?  The CoC is also hampered by the politics of the whole thing.  I can assure you that not a single RSM or CWO that I know (or CO) is happy with the boot dilemma lest you believe they are the cause of this.

 

[blacktriangle]

The politics tell us we have to buy Canadian made boots, but they don't tell us we have to enforce the wearing of said boots. That's where dress policy comes in, no?

I've never seen the boot issue enforced too strictly (considering there are entire units wearing COTS boots) but every so often the topic seems to come up and it makes me shudder.

Edited to add - so I'm not in the know obviously, but just how high does the boot thing go? If you are telling me it's above RSMs and COs, just who up there, so desperately cares which boots we wear?

 

[armyvern]

The politics tell us we have to buy Canadian made boots, but they don't tell us we have to enforce the wearing of said boots. That's where dress policy comes in, no?

And, politics says, "if you don't enforce the wearing of said footwear, then said manufacturer is still being paid by Canadian taxpayers XXX number of dollars per year by contract to provide you with the contracted footwear".  If soldiers aren't using/wearing said footwear, then we still have to pay them even though we require no replenishment from that contractor as we won't have to issue any.  Then, that Canadian manufacturer, who is still being paid, can lay off his staff as he doesn't need them to manufacture footwear that is "paid for", but not being required to be provided as it is not being worn/used by troops.  Those laid-off Canadians then collect UIC paid for by the Canadian taxpayer because they don't have to make boots for troops who aren't wearing them all the while the Company itself remains collecting due to the contract.  So, the taxpayer (the Government) ends up paying twice if we go to your "well, we just won't wear them then" ... quite the domino effect isn't it?

Quite like being ordered to go to historical ranks by the political masters vice the actual CAF serving leadership ...

 

[MilEME09]

The politics tell us we have to buy Canadian made boots, but they don't tell us we have to enforce the wearing of said boots. That's where dress policy comes in, no?

I've never seen the boot issue enforced too strictly (considering there are entire units wearing COTS boots) but every so often the topic seems to come up and it makes me shudder.

Edited to add - so I'm not in the know obviously, but just how high does the boot thing go? If you are telling me it's above RSMs and COs, just who up there, so desperately cares which boots we wear?

Someone under pressure by the politician to make sure these great canadian made boots are seen on canadian troops.

 

[blacktriangle]

And, politics says, "if you don't enforce the wearing of said footwear, then said manufacturer is still being paid by Canadian taxpayers XXX number of dollars per year by contract to provide you with the contracted footwear".  If soldiers aren't using/wearing said footwear, then we still have to pay them even though we require no replenishment from that contractor as we won't have to issue any.  Then, that Canadian manufacturer, who is still being paid, can lay off his staff as he doesn't need them to manufacture footwear that is "paid for", but not being required to be provided as it is not being worn/used by troops.  Those laid-off Canadians then collect UIC paid for by the Canadian taxpayer because they don't have to make boots for troops who aren't wearing them all the while the Company itself remains collecting due to the contract.  So, the taxpayer (the Government) ends up paying twice if we go to your "well, we just won't wear them then" ... quite the domino effect isn't it?

Quite like being ordered to go to historical ranks by the political masters vice the actual CAF serving leadership ...

Fair enough. But let's say the issued boots work fine for half of our people, isn't that enough to sustain long term buys of replacement boots to satisfy the political aspect? There are always going to be people that are happy to wear the issued boots, or too cheap to buy their own. I just don't see why we need to punish the person doing long patrols or working on their feet all day in a warehouse. In the long term, we will be paying them for their injuries (one can hope) and losing our investments in members earlier than if we had supplied them with proper equipment. In turn, we have to train new people sooner, and lose out on experience.

I realize you are well aware of this though. If the politics of the issue are really that bad, it's truly a corrupt system we are forced to work within. I guess I don't envy the leadership one bit.

 

[armyvern]

I realize you are well aware of this though. If the politics of the issue are really that bad, it's truly a corrupt system we are forced to work within. I guess I don't envy the leadership one bit.

Corrupt?? Or just the Federal Canadian Procurement system, by law, that all Federal Departments are subject to work within ... 'tis the way of this nation and the overwhelming majority of Canadian taxpaying citizens seem to prefer it as it keeps employment in Canada.  Unfortunate fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of Canadian citizens do not have to bear the brunt of those items procured --- for if they also had to wear our footwear, fly in our Sea Kings, or man the Border with Canadian Border agents without the proper resources etc, you can bet there would be a massive Canada-wide upcry from citizens in high enough numbers that their votes actually would matter and something would be done to revisit the current law of the land.

 

[RCPalmer]

And, politics says, "if you don't enforce the wearing of said footwear, then said manufacturer is still being paid by Canadian taxpayers XXX number of dollars per year by contract to provide you with the contracted footwear".  If soldiers aren't using/wearing said footwear, then we still have to pay them even though we require no replenishment from that contractor as we won't have to issue any.  Then, that Canadian manufacturer, who is still being paid, can lay off his staff as he doesn't need them to manufacture footwear that is "paid for", but not being required to be provided as it is not being worn/used by troops.  Those laid-off Canadians then collect UIC paid for by the Canadian taxpayer because they don't have to make boots for troops who aren't wearing them all the while the Company itself remains collecting due to the contract.  So, the taxpayer (the Government) ends up paying twice if we go to your "well, we just won't wear them then" ... quite the domino effect isn't it?

Quite like being ordered to go to historical ranks by the political masters vice the actual CAF serving leadership ...

While the knock on effects are disconcerting, it really isn't the CAF's problem.  While we are beholden to DND and TB policies with regards to acquisitions, they do not (at least not yet...) have any say on the lawful orders issued within the CAF.  Our responsibility as leaders in the CAF is to ensure we can deliver on defence capabilities, and that includes getting from A to B without injuring our soldiers. I see no reason why our orders would or should deviate from that imperative. 

The TB has the accountability and efficiency mandate.  If they decide that the contract awarded is not delivering value for money, or has unintended downstream effects, they can adjust their policy to ensure a more intelligent contract is awarded next time.  In fact, warehouses full of un-issued boots would probably serve as a great indicator that the procurement process needs to be fixed. 

 

[armyvern]

In fact, warehouses full of un-issued boots would probably serve as a great indicator that the procurement process needs to be fixed.

If the F35s, the ships, and the Sea Kings didn't do it, a warehouse full of boots isn't going to do it.  Like I said, it's the circle of life and I've been dealing with it for 28 years and numerous governments of all political stripes ... your boots are only a meaningless drop in the bucket of procurement policy in Canada ... a policy whereby the impact is felt by only select few who serve or work in federal departments and find themselves hampered by such vice the Canadian taxpayers who, overwhelmingly, have different and higher priorities on their wish-lists for funding than that of the CAF.

Our responsibility as leaders in the CAF is to ensure we can deliver on defence capabilities, and that includes getting from A to B without injuring our soldiers.

A to B without "undue" risk (or by minimizing risk) is more like it.  We are expected to take on risk in carrying out our mandate ergo the "military factor" on our pay and the very existance of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

No military in the world has the "without causing injury" caveat involved in carrying out it's mandate of defence.  And, in the case of footwear, when it does cause an injury to a member ... Health Svcs steps in and can issue both any required MELs and an order to procure COTs footwear for said injured soldier due to the medical reason. 

 

[rmc_wannabe]

A to B without "undue" risk (or by minimizing risk) is more like it.  We are expected to take on risk in carrying out our mandate ergo the "military factor" on our pay and the very existance of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

No military in the world has the "without causing injury" caveat involved in carrying out it's mandate of defence.  And, in the case of footwear, when it does cause an injury to a member ... Health Svcs steps in and can issue both any required MELs and an order to procure COTs footwear for said injured soldier due to the medical reason.

I would say pushing out an inferior product that can cause pain and injury due to political and financial pressure is both undue and unethical.

Gambling the odds that 1/25 CAF members will be injured or have permenant medical injuries rather than fixing the procurement system is akin to Toyota cheaping out on brakes and dealing with the lawsuits after cause its cheaper and easier.

 

[armyvern]

I would say pushing out an inferior product that can cause pain and injury due to political and financial pressure is both undue and unethical.

Gambling the odds that 1/25 CAF members will be injured or have permenant medical injuries rather than fixing the procurement system is akin to Toyota cheaping out on brakes and dealing with the lawsuits after cause its cheaper and easier.

Many of us would agree.  Get the voting public to agree with you and make Federal procurement overhaul THEIR priority.  That's the only thing that's going to effect change to federal procurement.

Good luck!!

 

[RCPalmer]

If the F35s, the ships, and the Sea Kings didn't do it, a warehouse full of boots isn't going to do it.  Like I said, it's the circle of life and I've been dealing with it for 28 years and numerous governments of all political stripes ... your boots are only a meaningless drop in the bucket of procurement policy in Canada ... a policy whereby the impact is felt by only select few who serve or work in federal departments and find themselves hampered by such vice the Canadian taxpayers who, overwhelmingly, have different and higher priorities on their wish-lists for funding than that of the CAF.

Touche...I said it would be a good indicator that change is needed, not that it would actually drive change  .  You are quite correct.  From a spending standpoint, the boots are "small potatoes", and not likely to drive government procurement policy. 

Someone under pressure by the politician to make sure these great canadian made boots are seen on canadian troops.

I don't buy this.  If the MND actually gave any such direction (which I doubt), or if he did, cared about it at all, we would have seen some enforcement by now. 

My point here is that the CAF does have control over 2 things:
1. The orders issued to soldiers. We can authorize the use of non-issue, personally purchased footwear.
2. The tasking of CAF pers.  We can zero man the boot section in DLR (and anyone else in the supply system involved in the process) and throw the "acceptable boot list" task to the RSM net. 

While this would not fix the procurement process, it would save considerable staff effort within the CAF, and allow us to get this issue off of our collective agendas once and for all. 

 

[armyvern]

...

2. The tasking of CAF pers.  We can zero man the boot section in DLR (and anyone else in the supply system involved in the process) and throw the "acceptable boot list" task to the RSM net. 

While this would not fix the procurement process, it would save considerable staff effort within the CAF, and allow us to get this issue off of our collective agendas once and for all.

If only things were that simple. They're not and were addressed earlier today.

 

[RCPalmer]

If only things were that simple. They're not.

So, what is the variable I am missing? If the elected officials aren't going to stop us (because I'm sure they don't care one way or the other about the boots we physically wear), and the TB is out of the picture (because we aren't spending the queen's shilling), what is there to stop us?

 

[dapaterson]

If you'e proposing a "bring your own" philosophy, then you're imposing a financial burden on CAF members.  What item could we chop next and expect members to pay for?  Rucks?  Fighting rigs?  Vehicles?  Weapons?  Ammunition?

 

[RCPalmer]

If you'e proposing a "bring your own" philosophy, then you're imposing a financial burden on CAF members.  What item could we chop next and expect members to pay for?  Rucks?  Fighting rigs?  Vehicles?  Weapons?  Ammunition?

Those are all items the system is able to supply to the people that need them. 

Am I happy with every aspect of what is delivered with regards to those systems? No.

Are there always enough of the vehicles we need or want? No.  However, the army still figured out a way to get you to the range, and ensure the haybox was delivered.  When critical operational requirements were identified (and I admit that in a few circumstances they were not), the CAF provided us with vehicles with firepower, mobility, and protection as good as or better than our allies. 

However, every soldier needs boots, and because this is Canada, boots for a variety of weather conditions. For the past decade, the system has failed to deliver on that core requirement with any consistency.  I don't see that changing in the immediate future.  The LOTB is our third crack at this, and by all accounts that effort is headed for a reset as well.

I am not a fan of passing the cost on to the individual members either, but that is effectively what is happening already. I would love a boot allowance, or better yet, a supply system stocked with 2-3 designs from suppliers with track records of producing high quality military footwear.  However, the barriers to those to those two options identified in this thread are sufficient to put them out of reach for the foreseeable future.  At some point we need to say uncle and move onto the next issue.  This has consumed far too much money and staff effort already. 

 

[RCPalmer]

A to B without "undue" risk (or by minimizing risk) is more like it.  We are expected to take on risk in carrying out our mandate ergo the "military factor" on our pay and the very existance of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

No military in the world has the "without causing injury" caveat involved in carrying out it's mandate of defence.  And, in the case of footwear, when it does cause an injury to a member ... Health Svcs steps in and can issue both any required MELs and an order to procure COTs footwear for said injured soldier due to the medical reason.

Fair enough, but my original point still stands.  Let's call it an undue and very cost prohibitive risk.  Either way, CAF leaders still have an obligation to do something about it.

Many of us would agree.  Get the voting public to agree with you and make Federal procurement overhaul THEIR priority.  That's the only thing that's going to effect change to federal procurement.

Good luck!!

As you have said, that is highly unlikely, and even if it were to happen I am not sure that the system that will make a good purchasing decision on the next generation fighter (which actually merits some taxpayer attention due to the costs)  will be well suited to a "small" problem like boots.  It might produce a wicked awesome exoskeleton self walking boot after we're all retired, but that doesn't help us.  That is why I proposed an easy to implement solution entirely within the control of the CAF leadership.

 

[armyvern]

... Either way, CAF leaders still have an obligation to do something about it.
...

You make it seem like they haven't even tried to live up to their obligations.  28 years of footwear problems and at least 10 years on the boot allowance to purchase off an approved list (feel free to go back to my posts from 10 years ago on this site when the projects were happening and they were trying).  Tried, tried, tried, tried, tried ... to keep getting the huge resounding no.  You'll also find the exact same suggestions from other projects such as the useless tac vest (troops buying molle or chest rigs off an approved list etc [there's other site threads here dealing with the whys and why nots of "approved lists"]).  Other than a couple rotos where COTS buys were done in Afg ... nyet to that as well.

Just because you are not getting the answer/result that you want does not mean that CAF leadership is not doing it's job or living up to it's obligation.

Anyway, ten years from now ... the exact same thing will still be being discussed here, answered here etc etc etc