Author Topic: Suicides  (Read 75898 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline dapaterson

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 347,100
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,185
Re: Suicides
« Reply #200 on: March 07, 2017, 12:49:05 »
When I last looked in detail at such numbers, Reg F attrition spikes were at the end of first or second contracts, and at pension points (20 or 25 years).

But 14 YOS as an average for release sounds right, given an annual attrition rate of 7% (+ or -).
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline mariomike

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 388,150
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,552
    • The job.
Re: Suicides
« Reply #201 on: March 07, 2017, 13:19:13 »
When I last looked in detail at such numbers, Reg F attrition spikes were at the end of first or second contracts, and at pension points (20 or 25 years).

But 14 YOS as an average for release sounds right, given an annual attrition rate of 7% (+ or -).

If not receiving a 70% pension, which is considered the benchmark for working Canadians, unless already well off financially, the retired member will likely need / desire to start a second career.

Which may, or may not, be as satisfying as the rank / position they held when they retired from the CAF.
Especially if promises made by potential employers before retirement go unfulfilled.


« Last Edit: March 07, 2017, 13:47:50 by mariomike »

Offline George Wallace

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *
  • 409,740
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 30,883
  • Crewman
Re: Suicides
« Reply #202 on: March 07, 2017, 13:49:32 »
If not receiving a 70% pension, which is considered the benchmark for working Canadians, unless already well off financially, the retired member will likely need to start a second career.

Which may, or may not, be as satisfying as their original. Especially if promises made by potential employers before retirement go unfulfilled.

The vast number of persons Releasing from the military after their first or second "Engagement" would still be in their Twenties.  They would only have received Severance Pay (Prior to the termination of that practice).  The numbers who now serve 25 years for a pension are small in in comparison; and those who serve the full 32+ years for the 70% pension are even fewer. 

Not making this a MATH GENIUS Thread, I would guestimate that the numbers who Release with less than 10 years of Service will make up well over 60% of all who have enrolled in CAF.  Most of those will have no pension, or a pittance of one, and still be under 30 years of age; well within the category of being able of having a Second Career.
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.

Any postings made by me which are made on behalf of Army.ca will be followed by the statement "George, Milnet.ca Staff".

Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline C17 Tech

  • Guest
  • *
  • 190
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12
  • NO NO NO YES NO
Re: Suicides
« Reply #203 on: March 11, 2017, 11:36:54 »
The memo below was written for a subordinate that was having mental health difficulties. He was being bullied by the chain of command who tried charging him by summary trial. The subordinate confided in me that he was going to kill himself. This occurred one week after another unit member killed himself (unit pilots made him feel personally responsible for doing damage to the stabilizer struts to one of their precious, new shiny C17 Globemasters)

 Anyone in the CAF that feels that there is no way out can submit this memo through their chain of command. Do not kill yourself. Yes, there are ways to bully the bullies. I have heard that this memo is making its rounds around the country and overseas too. Use it. Seek help. Your CO can put you in touch with medical experts that can fix what ails you.
 When you use this memo, explicitly request a posting to the JPSU while you are on TCAT. I cannot emphasize this enough. This decision is solely at the CO's discretion.



UNCLASSIFIED

Memorandum

405 (PERS)

17 Apr 1982

Commanding Officer (thru Chain of Command)

COMMUNICATION WITH THE CO

A82695405 CPL I.M. BLOGGINS

QR&O Chapter 19.12

1.   As a national institution, the CAF must recognize and uphold the constitutional right of all Canadians to Freedom of Association and all CAF members may exercise their individual rights to join an association of their choice provided that relevant orders and instructions are respected. Further to this, all CAF members have ‘unimpeded access’ to their respective COs to discuss ‘any’ matter of a personal, private or confidential matter. Members may choose not to disclose these matters to their respective chain(s) of command owing to a lack of trust and respect in an institutional culture not currently aligned with its ethos.

2.   Personal information is defined at s. 3 of the Privacy Act. Personal information under the control of the CAF shall not, without the consent of the member to whom it relates, be used by the CAF except for the purpose for which the information was obtained or compiled by the CAF or for a use consistent with that purpose. COs have both a positive obligation under law, and an ethical duty to safeguard members’ personal information and protect it from those who do not possess a professional “need to know”. This is clearly outlined in Treasury Board policy WRT government security and privacy protection.

3.   Some officers and members tend to see the word ‘may’ in QR&O 19.12 and think that they have a choice or are excused from complying with this regulation. In this context ‘may’ is imperative and not permissive. This is my notice of intent that I ‘will be’ speaking with my CO. Respectfully expedite it to the extent that the exigencies of service permit.

4.   If not, consider this my formal notice of intent to lawfully release from Her Majesty’s Canadian Armed Forces. Because an ATI request may be initiated, please consider this an IRBV, file it IAW ADM (IM) guidelines, and store it in its appropriate PIB for retrieval at a later date. Disposal action shall be IAW the Library and Archives of Canada Act.






IM Bloggins



QR&O 19.12 - COMMUNICATION WITH THE CO

An officer or non-commissioned member may, upon application, see the member's commanding officer on any personal matter. [C17 Tech Emphasis]
(M)  The “M” stands for Minister who reserves the right to stomp the guts out of commanding officers for not allowing privates and corporals to speak with their COs. Gut stomping goes through the CDS and the appropriate Environmental Chief. In other words, **** rolls downhill. No Colonel will be promoted to General without the Minister’s signature. Respect the dignity of all persons.

personal
Belonging to the person. This adjective is frequently employed in connection with substantives, things, goods, chattels, actions, right, duties, and the like as personal estate, put in opposition to real estate; personal actions, in contradistinction to real actions; personal rights are those which belong to the person; personal duties are those which are to be performed in person.  [C17 Tech emphasis]

A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856

may
v. a choice to act or not, or a promise of a possibility, as distinguished from "shall" which makes it imperative. 2) in statutes, and sometimes in contracts, the word "may" must be read in context to determine if it means an act is optional or mandatory, for it may be an imperative. The same careful analysis must be made of the word "shall." Non lawyers tend to see the word" may" and think they have a choice or are excused from complying with some statutory provision or regulation. [C17 Tech emphasis]

Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved
You are, in such manner and on such occasions as may be prescribed by us, to exercise and well discipline in their duties such officers, men and women as may be placed under your orders from time to time and use your best endeavours to keep them in good order and discipline…in pursuance of the Trust hereby reposed in you.
- Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Let me check my Giveashitometer. Nope, nothing.
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 166,780
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,989
    • Airborne Electronic Sensor Operators - AES OP
Re: Suicides
« Reply #204 on: March 11, 2017, 14:10:16 »
Maybe I am missing the context here or something but...if every junior rank in the CAF wants to get on the wrong side of the line when asking to speak to their CO, I'd say this is the way.  IMO it is written with hostility and, IMO, an inappropriate tone that is unnecessary to achieve the aim; speaking with your CO. So I'll say again...wtf, is this really the advice you'd give a Jnr rank NCM regardless of circumstances? 

The CofC pursuing charges isn't always bulling. 

As for the word *may*, the definition actually comes from the QR & O, not from you (or whoever originated the memo).

QR & O, Vol 1, Art 1.06

1.06 - "MAY", "SHALL" AND "SHOULD"

In QR&O

a."may" shall be construed as being permissive and "shall" as being imperative; and
b."should" shall be construed as being informative only.

(M)

I don't see your additions to Art 19.12 in the QR & Os re: gut stomping etc.  The memo was drafted in 1982, for a member who was a tech on a shiny new C17?  Am I missing something? 

Para's 3 and 4...wha?  End of the day, a mbr can submit any memo they want to, I can't stop them but I'd being recommending a number of changes to the content, and more so, the tone of this particular memo.  To quote my mom "it's not what you say, it's how you say it".  Something like that.

Overall...???
Pilot, RADAR...turn right, heading...3-6-5...

Offline C17 Tech

  • Guest
  • *
  • 190
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12
  • NO NO NO YES NO
Re: Suicides
« Reply #205 on: March 11, 2017, 15:52:17 »
A military with 400 Commanding Officers is a military with 400 standards.

Surely you are not oblivious to the fact that the Canadian Armed Forces, at times, can operate notwithstanding its own policies and procedures. The memo is a template using the date that the Charter was enacted. I would also add that commanding officers often get very helpful legal advice from their respective DJA's; sadly they do not have to accept the legal advice from those finely trained folks at legal. IMO, any CO that does not follow the DJA advice is a genius in law or a proud fool.

The QR&O you quote on 'permissive and imperative' is exactly correct 99% of the time. The 'may' is contingent upon the 'application' only. The 'may' in this case does not give the CO a discretion on whether or not to allow or deny the the request.

Every QR&O must be read in its context and IAW statutory interpretation.

You may wish to read the CANFORGEN released in 2000 by GEN MAURICE BARIL "FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION" and another CANFORGEN released in 2015 by GEN TOM LAWSON (Delegated to COL MALO) regarding observations on HARASSMENT GRIEVANCES.

Also, I would like to respectfully remind you that this is a "SUICIDE" thread and not 'correct a memo' thread. I won't question your motives on your post, or attack you out of deference, however, my friend hung himself because pilots were making him feel (his words) that it was his fault that the aircraft was damaged. RIP Corporal Dan Barr 2009.

I am sure that as a CO, you would do the right thing, but your response would suggest otherwise.

The bullying is not occurring by the COs, it's occurring by the 10 people standing in the way of the member and their respective commander.

I suppose that you will interpret QR&O 19.09 as a statutory bar on a military member (PRIVATE CITIZEN) speaking with their MP or Senator.

And in closing, in your utopian military, we would not have a need for QR&O 19.15 either. Everyone in the CAF knows that reprisals, retaliation, repercussions and penalties aren't real. They must be phantoms of a suicidal Corporal's imagination.

The memo saved a soldier's life and I am damn proud of that fact!

FJAG, please chime in.
You are, in such manner and on such occasions as may be prescribed by us, to exercise and well discipline in their duties such officers, men and women as may be placed under your orders from time to time and use your best endeavours to keep them in good order and discipline…in pursuance of the Trust hereby reposed in you.
- Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Let me check my Giveashitometer. Nope, nothing.
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 166,780
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,989
    • Airborne Electronic Sensor Operators - AES OP
Re: Suicides
« Reply #206 on: March 11, 2017, 16:30:22 »
The problem I see in the memo is, it is addressed to the CO, directly the CO what he/she will do.  I also only see a message of "I will speak to you, or I will release".  That in and of itself can be seen as a cry for help;  it may also get other less desired reactions.

I know I'm not understanding the context, or circumstances.  I've dealt with suicidal soldiers, members with serious mental health concerns and other similar situations in the past.  I'm going to suggest if their mental health is that much of an immediate concern to me, I am going to either be escorting them to the Wing Hospital, alerting my immediate CofC, calling the MPs, or all of or a combination of the above.  *First aid first*.

In the situation you know about intimately, this may have been an appropriate COA.  I am saying it may not be in all cases.  I don't know about utopian militaries, I do know the issues with applying the same approach, tone and COA to all situations.  If you were very personally involved in a situation, like you said, it can be hard to be objective and think without bias about others, no?  I've found that with myself and conflicts I've had in the past that went to the highest level of the CAF for resolution and similar situations that I've become aware of since my own...challenging days.  Just a thought.

I'd be interested to know how those with experience at the Adjt, Div O, Sqn Exec, RSM/CPO etc level feel about the content/tone of the memo;  I'm just a SNCO afterall, and don't deal with this sort of stuff routinely.

Lastly...I've never ignored the needs of a soldier or airman/woman in need.  Sometimes that is balancing their needs, and the rules and regs of the institution we serve.  I also have seen, more than once, where a commander applies common sense and judgement in their decision making, considering both the needs of the member and ways of the CAF.  I try, at my level, to do that same. 
« Last Edit: March 11, 2017, 16:33:20 by Eye In The Sky »
Pilot, RADAR...turn right, heading...3-6-5...

Offline PuckChaser

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 862,170
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,836
    • Peacekeeper's Homepage
Re: Suicides
« Reply #207 on: March 12, 2017, 01:12:48 »
For a member needing a write a memo that is that terse and borderline insubordinate to get help, is a failure of leadership at so many levels it makes my head shake.

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 155,960
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,059
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: Suicides
« Reply #208 on: March 12, 2017, 01:59:56 »
For a member needing a write a memo that is that terse and borderline insubordinate to get help, is a failure of leadership at so many levels it makes my head shake.

Nailed it  :facepalm:
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline C17 Tech

  • Guest
  • *
  • 190
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12
  • NO NO NO YES NO
Re: Suicides
« Reply #209 on: March 12, 2017, 07:19:27 »
LSUC CYA: This thread contains general information about legal matters.  The information is not advice, and should not be treated as such. The legal information on this forum is provided “as is” without any representations or warranties, express or implied. C17 Tech makes no representations or warranties in relation to the legal information on this forum. Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing paragraph, C17 Tech does not warrant that: the legal information in this forum will be constantly available, or available at all; or the legal information on this forum is complete, true, accurate, up-to-date, or non-misleading. You must not rely on the information on this forum as an alternative to legal advice from your attorney or other professional legal services provider.   If you have any specific questions about any legal matter you should consult your attorney or other professional legal services provider. You should never delay seeking legal advice, disregard legal advice, or commence or discontinue any legal action because of information on this forum. All bolds, underlines and italics are the emphasis of C17 Tech.

For a member needing a write a memo that is that terse and borderline insubordinate to get help, is a failure of leadership at so many levels it makes my head shake.

Failure in Leadership........You Bet, however, this memo is not chargeable under s. 85. Only under 129(2)(b) which requires the CoC to obtain legal advice from the DJA and is electable by Court Martial. And BTW, 129(2) has been found wanting by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. R. v. Korolyk, 2016 CM 1002


Insubordination requires an insubordinate intent. If the guy who submits it, never wrote it. Good luck securing a conviction. If it ever made it to court martial, There are 10 elements to the offence. Three are clearly missing. Directed verdict or no prima facie case. Stay of proceedings.

Humor>Prosecutor gets remustered to MARS and posted to Halifax.<Humor

103.18 - INSUBORDINATE BEHAVIOUR

(1) Section 85 of the National Defence Act provides:

"85. Every person who uses threatening or insulting language to, or behaves with contempt toward, a superior officer is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to dismissal with disgrace from Her Majesty's service or to less punishment."

Notes:

(D) Where a charge is for using threatening or insulting language, the particulars must state the expressions or their substance and the superior officer to whom they were addressed.

(E) In the case of threatening or insulting words, they must have been expressed to a superior officer and with an insubordinate intent, that is to say, they must be, either in themselves, or in the manner or circumstances in which they were spoken, insulting or disrespectful.

(G) Insubordinate language or conduct not falling within Notes (E) or (F) may only be charged under section 129 of the National Defence Act.

R. v. Korolyk, 2016 CM 1002

DECISION RESPECTING AN APPLICATION ASKING FOR THE DECLARA­TION THAT SUBSECTION 129(2) OF THE NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT IS CONTRARY TO SECTION 7 AND 11(d) OF THE CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT:
 
[27]            FINDS that subsection 129(2) of the National Defence Act violates the presumption of innocence protected by section 11(d) and is not saved under section 1 of Charter.
 
[28]            DECLARES, under section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, that subsection 129(2) of the National Defence Act is void insofar as it makes an accused liable to be convicted despite the existence of a reasonable doubt on the essential element of prejudice to good order and discipline and because the presumption created in subsection 129(2) of the National Defence Act requires the trier of fact to convict in spite of a reasonable doubt.
-----------------------
DMP Policy Directive
Directive #: 003/00
Date: 1 March 2000
Updated:  17 May 2016
Subject: Post-Charge Review

Reasonable Prospect of Conviction

19. The threshold test of “reasonable prospect of conviction” is objective.  This standard is higher than a “prima facie” case that merely requires that there is evidence whereby a reasonable jury, properly instructed, could convict.  On the other hand, the standard does not require “a probability of conviction”, that is, a conclusion that a conviction is more likely than not.

20. A prosecution is not legally sustainable unless there is evidence to support the accusation that a person subject to the Code of Service Discipline has committed a service offence. In the assessment of the evidence, an actual and reasonable belief that the offence has been committed is necessary but not sufficient.  The evidence must be evaluated to determine how strong the case is likely to be when presented at court martial and should be made on the assumption that the trier of fact will act impartially and according to law. This will require a proper assessment on whether all of the elements of the alleged offence have been met, and may include the relevancy and admissibility of evidence implicating the accused, as well as the competence and objective credibility of witnesses.

21. Prosecutors are required to consider any defences that are plainly open to or have been indicated by the accused and any other factors that could affect the reasonable prospect of a conviction, for example, the existence of a potential Charter violation that may lead to the exclusion of evidence.

22. The role of the Prosecutor in assessing the reasonable prospect of conviction determination is quasi-judicial in nature. The assessment of the evidence requires a fair evaluation of evidence in all the circumstances of the case. Prosecutors must guard against a perception or view of the case simply adopted from the views or enthusiasm of others.  As a case develops and changes during the prosecution process the Prosecutor must guard and maintain the independence and integrity required to fairly reassess the case as it evolves.

23. In addition to the task of pressing a case vigorously and firmly, the Prosecutor must ensure that every prosecution is conducted fairly. A Prosecutor is not obliged to believe without reservation everything that he or she has been told by each prospective prosecution witness. As a matter of fairness, any reservation with respect to material evidence ought to be investigated and addressed in the context of measuring the reasonable prospect of conviction.

Public Interest Criteria

24. Once satisfied that there is a reasonable prospect of conviction to justify the continuation of a prosecution, the Prosecutor must then consider whether, in light of the provable facts and all surrounding circumstances, the public interest requires a prosecution to be pursued. It is not the case that all offences for which there is sufficient evidence must be prosecuted.

25. The criteria that may properly be taken into account when deciding whether the public interest requires a prosecution will vary from case to case. Generally, the more serious the offence, the more likely that public interest will require that a prosecution be pursued. The resources available for prosecution should not be used to pursue inappropriate cases, however the costs associated with the conduct of a court martial will never be the determining factor in deciding whether or not to proceed in a case.

26. Public interest criteria that may arise on the facts of a particular case include:

the effect on the maintenance of good order and discipline in the Canadian Forces, including the likely impact, if any, on military operations;
the seriousness or triviality of the alleged offence;
the views of the victim and any evident impact a decision to prefer a charge may have on him or her;
significant mitigating or aggravating circumstances;
the accused’s background and any extraordinary personal circumstances of the accused;
the degree of staleness of the alleged offence;
the accused’s alleged degree of responsibility for the offence;
the likely effect on public confidence in military discipline or the administration of military justice;
whether preferring a charge would be perceived as counter-productive, for example, by bringing the administration of justice into disrepute;
the availability and appropriateness of alternatives to preferring a charge;
the prevalence of the alleged offence in the unit or military community at large and the need for general and specific deterrence;
whether the consequences of preferring a charge would be disproportionately harsh or oppressive, especially considering how other persons implicated in the offence or previous similar cases have been or likely will be dealt with; and
whether the alleged offence is of considerable public concern.
27. The application of these factors set out above, other relevant factors, and the weight to be given to each will depend on the circumstances of each case.

28. When a referral authority makes an application for disposal to the DMP he or she will usually express his or her views on public interest based on input from the Commanding Officer of the accused. The Commanding Officer of the accused will normally be in the best position to determine how the unit’s disciplinary interests may best be served, and the referral authority will usually be in the best position to determine the broader interests of his or her command.  In the event that the accused and victim do not have the same Commanding Officer, the victim’s commanding officer should be consulted as well.

29. While the views of service authorities and the victim are to be considered by the Prosecutor, the ultimate decision to proceed with a prosecution is made by the Prosecutor. In the proper exercise of prosecutorial discretion, a Prosecutor may deem it necessary to dispose of a charge or charges in a manner inconsistent with the views of military authorities as expressed in accordance with QR&O article 109.03(2)(c) or 109.05(1).

30. Factors that should not be taken in account when determining whether to lay a charge include:

the rank of the accused;
reasoning which constitutes a prohibited ground of discrimination under section 3 of the Canadian Human Rights Act;
the Prosecutor’s personal feelings about the accused or the victim;
possible or perceived political advantage or disadvantage to the Canadian Forces, the Department of National Defence, the government or any political group or party;
the possible effect of the decision on the personal or professional circumstances of those responsible for the investigation or any other member of the Canadian Forces or the Department of National Defence


PS: All bolds, underlines and italics are the emphasis of C17 Tech
You are, in such manner and on such occasions as may be prescribed by us, to exercise and well discipline in their duties such officers, men and women as may be placed under your orders from time to time and use your best endeavours to keep them in good order and discipline…in pursuance of the Trust hereby reposed in you.
- Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Let me check my Giveashitometer. Nope, nothing.
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 166,780
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,989
    • Airborne Electronic Sensor Operators - AES OP
Re: Suicides
« Reply #210 on: March 12, 2017, 07:35:13 »
I think you've misinterpreting what a few of us are saying.  I was trying to think of a way to explain, but after a few attempts I've deleted what I've written;  I will only say that you don't always need to throw rocks to get the CO`s attention.  Sometimes throwing rocks, they can bounce back and hit the sender in the face.   :2c:
Pilot, RADAR...turn right, heading...3-6-5...

Offline C17 Tech

  • Guest
  • *
  • 190
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12
  • NO NO NO YES NO
Re: Suicides
« Reply #211 on: March 12, 2017, 08:37:25 »
I think you've misinterpreting what a few of us are saying.  I was trying to think of a way to explain, but after a few attempts I've deleted what I've written;  I will only say that you don't always need to throw rocks to get the CO`s attention.  Sometimes throwing rocks, they can bounce back and hit the sender in the face.   :2c:

Maybe....possibly

I'll assume that, from time to time, you spend 12 hours in the air flying with your CO. He's probably a really solid guy (or girl). My point is: There are hundreds of COs who are not like your CO. They are neither impartial nor objective. They are not legally trained. They are very busy people who don't like to be bothered by trivial matters when they are trying to get rubber on the ramp, completing a Masters Degree in War Studies, or putting out the daily administrative fires in unit lines.

Further, COs do not know that a member's right to see their CO is entrenched in law. It is not discretionary. With 150 (guess) COs in the forces, 75 of them rotating annually, there is no standard. You, more than anyone, should know that an Infantry unit like PPCLI/RCR/VANDOO is much different than a Flying Squadron in Greenwood. The standards of discipline vary widely across the CAF. This boils down to one broadly interconnected theme: Suicides, mental health, and a member's rights under FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION.

All a member has under this proviso is: 1. a RIGHT to ORALLY complain to his CO (dissatisfaction & dissent) 2. RIGHT to speak with his CO on any PERSONAL matter, and 3. The RIGHT to file a grievance directly to his CO IAW QR&O (Communication With Higher Authority) How many soldiers, sailors and aviators know that these are entrenched rights. Is there a perception or climate of fear regarding reporting or complaining in the CAF? YES/NO

In closing, it has been reported directly to Parliament that Commanding Officers have NO JURISDICTION to try members suffering from mental disorders by summary trial. In a perfect world, this would not happen, BUT it does. Every weekday in Canada, (NON STAT holidays) 5-6 members are charged under the CSD.

The suicide reports submitted to Parliament clearly state that some members that took their own lives were subjected to numerous CSD charges, remedial measures and other disciplinary measures. These measures restrict them from being posted to the JPSU to get the administrative (and medical) help they need. COs decide (discretion) if the member gets posted to JPSU, not the MOs or Chaplains.

Members have to know their rights and not be afraid to assert them firmly but respectfully. The Charter is as useless as the Bill of Rights if CAF members are sleeping on those fundamental rights and freedoms. What is the point of defending a constitution that affords no protections to those defending it? Giving a voice to the voiceless is what I like to do. I advocate for those who cannot advocate for themselves. If a forces member dies at by his/her own hands, then I want to ensure that ALL those who either act by commission or omission are held to account.

Bottom Line: COs cannot refuse an application by a member to speak with their CO. The culture of fear inherent in the CAF, makes all CoC members worry about what the member has to say to the CO. They begin to press for reasons when those reasons are personal and Protected B. Let us not forget, the DND/CAF is NOT immune from Torts of Invasion of Privacy and Intrusion upon Seclusion. If Commanding Officers actually possessed genuine empathy for subordinates, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

The three mutinies in 1949 were caused by members feeling that there was NO WAY to properly air their grievances. If they would have had a welfare committee (without a CO vetoing everything) these collective insubordination incidents would not have occurred. If the CO has the power to say no, then he will say no. Suicides and mutinies do not need to occur! END OF PASSIONATE RANT BY ME

[A CO] "who neglects what is done for what ought to be done, sooner effects his ruin than his preservation" - Machiavelli
You are, in such manner and on such occasions as may be prescribed by us, to exercise and well discipline in their duties such officers, men and women as may be placed under your orders from time to time and use your best endeavours to keep them in good order and discipline…in pursuance of the Trust hereby reposed in you.
- Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada