Sexual Misconduct Allegations in The CAF

[Eye In The Sky]

doh!

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I’m not so sure about that, as a general statement. I joined 3 decades ago,

I am "Cornwallis in '89" vintage...I can only go off my observations, at my rank, from the past....5 years. I understand that encompasses a fairly small cross-section of the CAF.

 

[dapaterson]

The challenge with the CDS is not "who can charge" but "who can preside". Any charge giving rise to a GCM would be impossible, as it would be impossible to form a panel.

For a military judge only trial where there's no right to elect a panel, on paper, the NDA would permit it.

 

[OldSolduer]

I want to point out that you cannot draw a parallel to the civilian world with this.
Honor, Honesty, and Integrity are not requirements in the civilian world - and they don't have a Queen's Commission to go forth and command.

Tons of crap happens elsewhere - that is life -- this issue isn't "well its okay over there" - the issue is certain members and commissioned officers in the CF chose to ignore rules they had sworn to uphold -- some of these personnel where Generals and Admirals - which points to the fact that some have been doing this most likely for quite some time, and at the most senior level it can't currently be addressed via the NDA.

I fully agree with your statements here. Those of you still in are not civilians and you still have an oath to honor. I do care what happens in other organizations ( ie the various churches that have covered their ne'er do wells rapists butts, the hockey organizations that continue to hire pedophiles and the like) but the most concerning to me is that people have dishonored our profession by their behavior.

 

[ballz]

I wonder if anyone dug deep into private business world how many CEOs or higher ranking executives would be gone. Not approving of what has happened or what is happening. But sure hope the up and coming leadership have woken up and realize one bad mistake can lead to a public disaster.

Well that’s one data point.

Another is that CEO-elect of one very large US defense company is caught having an inappropriate relationship with a female subordinate on the corporate jet, fired and becomes….CEO of another very large US defense company. Maybe your previous experience wasn’t at the commercial equivalent of the GOFO/CDS level?

Who cares? For a private business, that is the owner's / shareholder's business.... if they don't care, that's up to them.

We're the CAF, our shareholders are Canadians, and they are demanding better.

 

[MilEME09]

Who cares? For a private business, that is the owner's / shareholder's business.... if they don't care, that's up to them.

We're the CAF, our shareholders are Canadians, and they are demanding better.

They may be demanding better but our board of governors (caninet) ain't on the highest moral ground either. Frankly it will be upto us to push change, IF the A/CDS went to the minister with a giant list of ways to change the NDA to prevent these situations in the future, it would probably get done with credit to the politicians if it worked.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Who cares? For a private business, that is the owner's / shareholder's business.... if they don't care, that's up to them.

We're the CAF, our shareholders are Canadians, and they are demanding better.

Well....

.... you might argue that most Canadians are not in the military so are expecting the CAF to come up to - at least - the standard of their (civilian) workplaces.

 

[mariomike]

.... you might argue that most Canadians are not in the military so are expecting the CAF to come up to - at least - the standard of their (civilian) workplaces.

That would be a YMMV thing.

Outside of the CAF, I was only familiar with one standard regarding "off-duty behavior."

Certain jobs require a high level of skill and a high level of trust from both employers and the public. For employees working in those types of positions, it’s possible that off-duty behaviour can call into question that trust, if it demonstrates poor judgment. And if an employer no longer has confidence that an employee has the judgment to perform a job of high skill and responsibility, the result could be dismissal.

 

[SupersonicMax]

They may be demanding better but our board of governors (caninet) ain't on the highest moral ground either. Frankly it will be upto us to push change, IF the A/CDS went to the minister with a giant list of ways to change the NDA to prevent these situations in the future, it would probably get done with credit to the politicians if it worked.

This is irrelevant. We are asked to do better by our bosses (PM/MND) and the public. Regardless whether they are good leaders or not, it is a legitimate order. We shall do better. It’s not like the CAF has a leg to stand on both legally and optically…

 

[OldSolduer]

This is irrelevant. We are asked to do better by our bosses (PM/MND) and the public. Regardless whether they are good leaders or not, it is a legitimate order. We shall do better. It’s not like the CAF has a leg to stand on both legally and optically…

Your bosses - the PM and Cabinet have no moral high ground, but as you say, the CAF has been told to clean up its act.

In my crayon eater's mind it doesn't matter what the Cabinet does - it's what the CAF does to lead the way out of the dilemma it got itself into.

The herd may need to be culled.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

They may be demanding better but our board of governors (caninet) ain't on the highest moral ground either. Frankly it will be upto us to push change, IF the A/CDS went to the minister with a giant list of ways to change the NDA to prevent these situations in the future, it would probably get done with credit to the politicians if it worked.

I'm curious; aside from "make it so the CDS can be charged under the NDA", what changes?

We have disciplinary and administrative tools NOW to deal with conduct/performance issues, including imprisonment and release (the 2 most severe, IMO). What changes will "prevent these situations in the future" in your mind? Myself, I think "streamline the AR process for targeted conduct/performance deficiencies"... but I also understand that as the jeopardy to a mbr's career increases, so does their right to procedural fairness (that will not change, nor should it change).

I've said this before to posts similar to this of yours; the CAF doesn't need more policy. It needs to properly employ the policy and enforcement tools (discip and/or admin) it has in its' toolbelt. OP HONOUR was policy....how'd that fair out for us?

If possible consequences now include imprisonment and/or release, I'm not seeing how changing something like the NDA is going to act as that deterrent to "prevent these situations in the future". Loss of freedom and/or employment seems about as severe of a deterrent our society is willing to tolerate.

 

[Good2Golf]

I still think an independent investigative function that reports directly to Parliament figures somewhere in the solution.

 

[Haggis]

I still think an independent investigative function that reports directly to Parliament figures somewhere in the solution.

Yes, because reports to Parliament are always acted on in a timely and effective manner.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I'm curious; aside from "make it so the CDS can be charged under the NDA", what changes?

We have disciplinary and administrative tools NOW to deal with conduct/performance issues, including imprisonment and release (the 2 most severe, IMO). What changes will "prevent these situations in the future" in your mind? Myself, I think "streamline the AR process for targeted conduct/performance deficiencies"... but I also understand that as the jeopardy to a mbr's career increases, so does their right to procedural fairness (that will not change, nor should it change).

I've said this before to posts similar to this of yours; the CAF doesn't need more policy. It needs to properly employ the policy and enforcement tools (discip and/or admin) it has in its' toolbelt. OP HONOUR was policy....how'd that fair out for us?

If possible consequences now include imprisonment and/or release, I'm not seeing how changing something like the NDA is going to act as that deterrent to "prevent these situations in the future". Loss of freedom and/or employment seems about as severe of a deterrent our society is willing to tolerate.

Agreed. Like many things, we don't need more laws we need to enforce what we have better.

 

[MilEME09]

Agreed. Like many things, we don't need more laws we need to enforce what we have better.

Okay and how do you propose we solve the fact a CDS can't be prosecuted because no one can preside over such a trial as of now. Just kick them out? Seems like a small price to pay for sexual assault. We do not need more rules, we just need to modify the ones we have. As for enforcement, again who can enforce the rules against a CDS? We have clearly seems it can't be done.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Okay and how do you propose we solve the fact a CDS can't be prosecuted because no one can preside over such a trial as of now. Just kick them out? Seems like a small price to pay for sexual assault. We do not need more rules, we just need to modify the ones we have. As for enforcement, again who can enforce the rules against a CDS? We have clearly seems it can't be done.

Maybe we just need to get better at culling the herd ealier ron so, you know, the psychos don't wind up run the ship?

#peterprinciplefail

 

[captloadie]

Perhaps we also need to relook at the administrative tools and the timelines involved to determine whether there is a need for change there as well. How many organizations, even with strong Unions to represent their members, keep members who steal from the company, can't show up for work on time, assault co-workers, etc? We often use disciplinary measures to punish these individuals, and then say you've paid your penance, life goes back to normal. Yes, there are sometime administrative measures that accompany these disciplinary proceedings, but not normally for individuals who are "good guys" who've breached the code of conduct, or where it isn't mandated by policy.

Maybe the fear of losing one's career, especially among the officer core, would keep individuals on the straight and narrow, more so than the fear of receiving a fine after being judged by a group of your peers, or your CO. And I'm not talking about individuals being booted for making mistakes, because breaching the code of conduct, or not living up to our Values and Ethics, aren't mistakes, their choices.

 

[QV]

Okay and how do you propose we solve the fact a CDS can't be prosecuted because no one can preside over such a trial as of now. Just kick them out? Seems like a small price to pay for sexual assault. We do not need more rules, we just need to modify the ones we have. As for enforcement, again who can enforce the rules against a CDS? We have clearly seems it can't be done.

If the CDS committed a crime he should be charged criminally and brought to trial before a civilian court. If he broke a rule (like a CAF disciplinary matter) then the MND, GG or whomever should fire him (lesser creatures would be disciplined by the mil justice system).

The only major change that need to occur is for the CAF to stop treating discipline matters like crimes and crimes like discipline matters.

 

[Good2Golf]

Yes, because reports to Parliament are always acted on in a timely and effective manner.

While I am equally cynical as you, Haggis, or perhaps even more, we do need to at least have some element of plural, non-partisan oversight. We've seen with "Government" trying to obfuscate and hide the details of firing the two Chinese nationals/Canadian Permanent Residents from the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg a year and a bit ago, including to the degree of the Government attempting to sue Parliament to keep the facts hidden from the public, that the oversight must be at least as transparent as possible...

 

[KevinB]

Okay and how do you propose we solve the fact a CDS can't be prosecuted because no one can preside over such a trial as of now. Just kick them out? Seems like a small price to pay for sexual assault. We do not need more rules, we just need to modify the ones we have. As for enforcement, again who can enforce the rules against a CDS? We have clearly seems it can't be done.

I think the currently on Leave Admiral can get nabbed by the Criminal Code -- just need some Mounties and a Crown

Criminal Code

Federal laws of canada

laws-lois.justice.gc.ca

Offences outside of Canada

477.1 Every person who commits an act or omission that, if it occurred in Canada, would be an offence under a federal law, within the meaning of section 2 of the Oceans Act, is deemed to have committed that act or omission in Canada if it is an act or omission

• (a) in the exclusive economic zone of Canada that
  • (i) is committed by a person who is in the exclusive economic zone of Canada in connection with exploring or exploiting, conserving or managing the natural resources, whether living or non-living, of the exclusive economic zone of Canada, and
  • (ii) is committed by or in relation to a person who is a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act;
• (b) that is committed in a place in or above the continental shelf of Canada and that is an offence in that place by virtue of section 20 of the Oceans Act;
• (c) that is committed outside Canada on board or by means of a ship registered or licensed, or for which an identification number has been issued, pursuant to any Act of Parliament;
• (d) that is committed outside Canada in the course of hot pursuit; or
• (e) that is committed outside the territory of any state by a Canadian citizen.

Oceans Act

Federal laws of canada

laws-lois.justice.gc.ca