• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Cutting the CF/DND HQ bloat - Excess CF Sr Leadership, Public Servants and Contractors

[quote author=Jim Seggie] How about we cut support to cadet programs instead?  :sarcasm:
[/quote]

I note the sarcasm, but be careful what you wish for:

CBC.ca


Air Cadet glider program may be grounded
Potential cuts to the program could mean cadets' glider days are numbered

CBC News

Posted: Apr 29, 2013 7:17 PM AT
Last Updated: Apr 29, 2013 10:35 PM AT

Potential cuts to the Air Cadet Gliding Program could mean the days of soaring cadets are coming to an end.

In Department of National Defence emails obtained by the CBC, the department proposes cuts to the Air Cadet Gliding Program, saying the “ACGP has become the primary target for cost reductions within the cadet program."

The email says the decision to close the glider program "will come as a complete surprise."

"This is indeed a dark day for the Air Cadet Program," it says. For many young cadets, the gliding program gave them their first taste of flight.

The memos make it clear that the decision to cut the glider program is only being considered at this time, but that the program is viewed as unaffordable by leadership in the Canadian Forces.

The program could be cancelled across the country as early as next year.

In question period Monday, NDP defence critic Jack Harris grilled Defence Minister Peter MacKay on the topic of possible cuts to the glider program.

"Mr. Speaker, what I can assure the honourable member is that we will not be cutting the cadet program, and I can assure the member that we will continue to make increases in the budget of the Department of National Defence," said MacKay.

Harris countered that people who run the gliding program are being told that cuts are possible.

"Is he, or is he not, slashing this important glider training program for young air cadets?" asked Harris.

MacKay said that a decision on the glider program had yet to be made.

"I can assure the House that the cadet program will continue to enjoy this important use of gliders. In fact, we continue to review and assess the effectiveness of programs, but there is no decision with respect to the cadet glider program," he said.

The glider program is a partnership between the Air Cadet League of Canada and the Department of National Defence.

There are five glider schools across Canada, including: Comox, B.C., Gimli, Man., St-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Que., Debert, N.S., and one in Ontario.

After earning glider wings, many cadets go on to fly powered aircraft.

Canadian astronaut Chris Hadfield, who is currently the commander of the International Space Station, was a member of the Air Cadets in the 1970s. At the age of 15, Hadfield earned a glider pilot scholarship. He went on to earn a powered pilot scholarship at 16 years old.
Click to expand...
 
All,
Let's keep posts within the site guidelines.  Specifically in relation to a few recent deletions and this little bit:
Mike Bobbitt said:
Milnet.ca has a zero tolerance policy for personal attacks, whether against another Milnet.ca member or a public figure.
Click to expand...
 
The government, per se, and the military are, it appears to me, at an impasse. See the recent (18 Mar 13) testimony of the CDS at The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence; both Sens Dallaire and Lang mentioned the letter (or memo) the PM sent to the MND suggesting (demanding?) that cuts come from "administration," by which, it appears to me the PM meant HQs and "overhead." Gen Lawson has been pretty clear that he thinks HQs are just fine and the "cuts" that were made (a 25% reduction, he says) are sufficient.

It may be that I am misreading (either or both) the PM and/or the CDS but I'm guessing that the PM was aiming, squarely, at HQs (the C2 superstructure) and, even more narrowly at admirals and generals and captains(N) and colonels. I'm also guessing that the CDS doesn't want to meddle, any further, in the C2 superstructure because he is more concerned with problems of quality (of decision making) rather than quantity (of the decision makers).

I have made no secret of my views: fewer HQs (even though they may be larger) with lower ranked senior officers. Specifically I advocate lowering the ranks of most GOFOs in major HQs and of NDHQ directors ~ the CDS should be a VAdm/LGen (as should several other senior officers (VCDS, DCDS (head of the joint staff) DCINC NORAD, CANMILREPNATO, ec) and directors in NDHQ should be cdrs/lcols, not capts(N)/colonels because the real"first level "executive" in the CF is a ship/unit CO and director is the public service "first level executive." I'm not advocating pay cuts; quite the reverse I want pay raises for senior officers - I just want fewer of them.
 
Unfortunately you're asking folks to cut off their own heads or the heads of service friends who aren't quite 'there' yet...........it will NEVER happen unless a qualified outside person with no " old gang" ties comes in and does it.

Easier to send a memo down chain.......
 
Bruce Monkhouse said:
it will NEVER happen unless a qualified outside person with no " old gang" ties comes in and does it.
Click to expand...

Isn't that what the minister and Deputy Minister are there for?
 
I hate to get all pedantic and cite history, again, but ... Not true, I don't mind lecturing at all :) .

The notion that admirals and generals are experts on military organization and that their professional views ought to carry the day is quite recent - certainly post 1947 when President Truman forced unification on a US military establishment that was in almost open revolt, and certainly post 1964 when Lester Pearson's government's White Paper proposed something similar for Canada, again in the face of stiff military opposition. In fact, for most of our history the organization and maintenance of naval and military forces was, mainly, a civil function - admirals and generals campaigned with what the politicians, the Council in our (British, mainly English) tradition, gave them.

But, ever since the 1960s we have seen fewer and fewer military men in politics (although the current crop of Conservatives includes a few more than normal) and the working politicians have been increasingly reluctant to intrude in military matters.

In Canada, in the 1990s, the military fought back against an inept and dispirited foreign service and a weak and disinterested PCO, and people like John de Chastelain, Larry Murray, Ray Henault and Rick Hillier fought hard to get meaningful operational, combat roles for the CF. Politicians and most bureaucrats caved - mimicking their American counterparts - and "accepted" that the military knew best. It (the military knows best) is a very, very dubious proposition.

So who should decide how the CF should be organized? The CDS? No, it's not, really his job - advise? yes, decide? no. The DM - Not really his job, either, but he does have a vital advisory role. The MND? Yes. It is his job. He should seek professional military and bureaucratic advice, including from allies, but, in the end he should decide and direct and the CDS and the established must do as he says or resign. Much as I admired RAdm Landymore and LGen Moncel for their principles, they were wrong to oppose the Minister (Paul Hellyer) before they resigned.

Peter MacKay can and should tell the CDS how to organize his C2 superstructure, including hard ceilings on senior ranks, but he must, when the time comes, support the CDS in getting the political/bureaucratic centre (PCO and TB, mainly) to accept the necessary changes when, as they will, there are impacts on other government programmes and policies.
 
But Edward you still have the same problem I brought up.

All those "professional military and bureaucratic advice, including from allies" will consist of folks who will be thinking "Hmmm, if I give advice to cut this then that could be my turn next if it works for them".

I can give you a report on how to fix Corrections but, I'm almost 100% sure before I start, it will state more CO's are required along with cuts to senior management whereas chances are pretty good my bosses report won't see it that way........
 
Ah, but the MND did impose a hard ceiling on GOFOs.  In 1997 the MND report on Leadership & Management of the CF directed no more than 65 (I believe) GOFOs.  That report and its recommendations are still "in force" as it were - but are not enforced.

What may be needed is an MND who wants less to be loved and more to be respected (grudgingly).
 
Bruce Monkhouse said:
But Edward you still have the same problem I brought up.

All those "professional military and bureaucratic advice, including from allies" will consist of folks who will be thinking "Hmmm, if I give advice to cut this then that could be my turn next if it works for them".

I can give you a report on how to fix Corrections but, I'm almost 100% sure before I start, it will state more CO's are required along with cuts to senior management whereas chances are pretty good my bosses report won't see it that way........
Click to expand...


Bruce; I'm not suggesting it's easy - just that the organization of the CF is not the responsibility of the CDS; the MND can, if he wants, impose whatever sort of C2 superstructure suits his fancy and the CDS must either aquiese or resign.

That the MND has not done what I think the PM directed indicates that Peter MacKay has a lot more political clout than many people think - or else it indicates that I have misread the PM's message.

That the MND neglects to enforce his (his predecessor's) direction on GOFOs indicates something else about official Ottawa at large.
 
Maybe the solution will show up in this summer's cabinet shuffle.........bye bye Peter......
 
GAP said:
Maybe the solution will show up in this summer's cabinet shuffle.........bye bye Peter......
Click to expand...


Maybe, but my sense - based on nothing much - is that Peter MacKay still has a power base in Ottawa, which includes the prime minister (who owes him for his essential role in "uniting the right"), and, while he is not "promoteable" to Finance, he can have Defence as long as he wants it, with a possible move to Justice.
 
Why not Finance?  Does he lack the educational background or something?
 
MARS said:
Why not Finance?  Does he lack the educational background or something?
Click to expand...


My sense, again, and with the same minimal basis, is that Finance is "reserved" for someone who shares the prime minister's ideological bent or (consider Paul Martin) who has a HUGE power base in the party. I'm guessing that MacKay doesn't match either.

My guess for Finance, if Jim Flaherty goes, is Tony Clement - a competent manager, a Bay Street favourite and another "Harris Conservative" (like Flaherty and John Baird).
 
ER I would agree with both your opinion of McKay and possible replacement for Finance.

Unfortunately Tony Clement comes with the gazebo baggage. I doubt he will ever be able to rid himself of that stain.
 
WRT MND McKay:

My read of his situation since Minister Ambrose was tossed the procurement file is "good riddance to bad rubbish".

Instead of defending kit and practices he seems happy enough to say "PWGSC". 

F-35 - PWGSC
AOPS - PWGSC
MSVS - PWGSC
NSPS - PWGSC
FWSAR - PWGSC

Next question?
 
Kirkhill said:
WRT MND McKay:

My read of his situation since Minister Ambrose was tossed the procurement file is "good riddance to bad rubbish".

Instead of defending kit and practices he seems happy enough to say "PWGSC". 

F-35 - PWGSC
AOPS - PWGSC
MSVS - PWGSC
NSPS - PWGSC
FWSAR - PWGSC

Next question?
Click to expand...

Not having managed any large capital projects, but having managed some very large budgets, PWGSC has often been the problem.  Let it rest there I say.  I would appreciate hearing the opinion of some project managers of the current situation. 
 
E.R. Campbell said:
The government, per se, and the military are, it appears to me, at an impasse. See the recent (18 Mar 13) testimony of the CDS at The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence; both Sens Dallaire and Lang mentioned the letter (or memo) the PM sent to the MND suggesting (demanding?) that cuts come from "administration," by which, it appears to me the PM meant HQs and "overhead." Gen Lawson has been pretty clear that he thinks HQs are just fine and the "cuts" that were made (a 25% reduction, he says) are sufficient.

It may be that I am misreading (either or both) the PM and/or the CDS but I'm guessing that the PM was aiming, squarely, at HQs (the C2 superstructure) and, even more narrowly at admirals and generals and captains(N) and colonels. I'm also guessing that the CDS doesn't want to meddle, any further, in the C2 superstructure because he is more concerned with problems of quality (of decision making) rather than quantity (of the decision makers).

I have made no secret of my views: fewer HQs (even though they may be larger) with lower ranked senior officers. Specifically I advocate lowering the ranks of most GOFOs in major HQs and of NDHQ directors ~ the CDS should be a VAdm/LGen (as should several other senior officers (VCDS, DCDS (head of the joint staff) DCINC NORAD, CANMILREPNATO, ec) and directors in NDHQ should be cdrs/lcols, not capts(N)/colonels because the real"first level "executive" in the CF is a ship/unit CO and director is the public service "first level executive." I'm not advocating pay cuts; quite the reverse I want pay raises for senior officers - I just want fewer of them.
Click to expand...

You are not wrong, however I don't believe the problem with rank creep is a CF problem.  We dropped the ranks of Bde Comds from BGen to Col, along with a bunch of other reductions years ago, and I don't believe we have had too much rank creep since then.  At the strategic level we are almost always under-ranked in comparison with our US colleagues, but are usually on par with our AUS partners. 

As I understand it, EX level Public Servants have greatly increased during the period of Afghanistan deployments and multiple Federal elections under the current DM.  Is this an NDHQ urban myth or is it factually valid?
 
devil39 said:
Not having managed any large capital projects, but having managed some very large budgets, PWGSC has often been the problem.  Let it rest there I say.  I would appreciate hearing the opinion of some project managers of the current situation.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of fingers that can point many ways in most procurement problems.

Perhaps when we train our senior leaders to operate in joint environments they should apply those lessons to interactions with PWGSC, TB, Industry Canada and others...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top