Liberals party defence review

Army Guy · April 9, 2016

Maybe this is his way of sulking.....normally when he is not doing well in a debate he just stops responding ....but today not sure....Big guy you need a hug.....

Bonam · April 9, 2016

This isn't a referendum, its a stakeholder consultation. If you don't know the difference then some basic management training might be in order.

So where's the "stakeholder consultation" on immigration? Or how about a survey on whether the government should run a budget deficit? Or any other topic of public importance?

The reality is, "stakeholder consultations" would be a great idea if they happened on all topics. That would be democratic. Of course, they aren't happening on all topics. It's just happening on this one, and it is likely being used as a political tool.

waldo · April 9, 2016

So where's the "stakeholder consultation" on immigration? Or how about a survey on whether the government should run a budget deficit? Or any other topic of public importance?

The reality is, "stakeholder consultations" would be a great idea if they happened on all topics. That would be democratic. Of course, they aren't happening on all topics. It's just happening on this one, and it is likely being used as a political tool.

5 months in government... do you expect it "all" (by) now? Notwithstanding the intent to have HOC Committee led public consultation in regards electoral reform.

.

Big Guy · April 9, 2016

Maybe this is his way of sulking.....normally when he is not doing well in a debate he just stops responding ....but today not sure....Big guy you need a hug.....

That is what the military has always done, you just make all that other crap up.

Wilber, you see what you see and I see what I see. What may be "crap" to you are facts to others. You have yet to post any factual, verifiable examples of my "crap". Army Guy, If this was a debate the conditions would be very different. The parameters would be in place and a "winner" and "loser" decided by a third, impartial party.

What I am sensing is that we have a very different attitude towards the military. My perception and experience is that the military world is organized very differently than real life. The command structure permeates and dictates the communications and relationships between the different levels of participation. It works well for a particular kind of individual and not for others. My experience has been the leadership felt it was not responsible to anyone and to question was to disagree. To disagree is not looked upon favorably. I thought I was free of having to deal with those attitudes but those retired from the military still maintain the arrogance (my words) and entitlement to making decisions and responsible to no one - especially the lower ranks.

My involvement now is strictly on the Legion level and have run into that stubborn, elitist attitude again:

For two years the membership has asked for accountability from the members of Command for the funds we have been sending them every year. The reply has been that basically "it is none of your business!"

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/royal-canadian-legion-shoots-down-bid-to-reveal-details-about-executives-salaries-and-travel

I obviously do not share your acceptance and (what I consider blind) support of the military lifestyle and role. Rather than getting personal about what I think of you I will try to stay on topic.

The military requires close civilian oversight and cannot be trusted to make foreign policy decisions. Its role is to implement those policies not create them. That is why this Liberal initiative is a great idea where the civilians will decide what part of the world we will be engaging, under what conditions and for what reasons and with what resources.

That is why the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Defense are only 2 of the 32 Ministries which organize our government. Their influence are relative to the numbers.

dre · April 9, 2016

So where's the "stakeholder consultation" on immigration? Or how about a survey on whether the government should run a budget deficit? Or any other topic of public importance?

The reality is, "stakeholder consultations" would be a great idea if they happened on all topics. That would be democratic. Of course, they aren't happening on all topics. It's just happening on this one, and it is likely being used as a political tool.

The defense survey being discussed here is NOT the only one the government has done. Here's a few more for you on other topics.

Aboriginal Peoples

Agriculture

Beverages

Business, consumer and property services

Business performance and ownership

Construction

Building Permits Survey

Crime and justice

Culture and leisure

Economic accounts

Economic statistics

Education, training and learning

Energy

Environment

Government

Official Languages Demand for Services Survey

Health

Income, pensions, spending and wealth

Information and communications technology

Labour

Manufacturing

Population and demography

Prices and price indexes

Research and Development

Energy Research and Development Expenditures by Area of Technology

Retail and wholesale

Science and technology

Society and community

General Social Survey - Time Use

Transportation

Travel and tourism

Workplace

Federal Jurisdiction Workplace Survey

Wilber · April 9, 2016

I obviously do not share your acceptance and (what I consider blind) support of the military lifestyle and role. Rather than getting personal about what I think of you I will try to stay on topic.

The military requires close civilian oversight and cannot be trusted to make foreign policy decisions. Its role is to implement those policies not create them. That is why this Liberal initiative is a great idea where the civilians will decide what part of the world we will be engaging, under what conditions and for what reasons and with what resources.

That is why the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Defense are only 2 of the 32 Ministries which organize our government. Their influence are relative to the numbers.

I don't blindly accept anything, but I also don't accept baseless criticism. You made a big deal of whether or not Hillier said our military was capable of the Afghanistan mission when asked by the PM. His answer is irrelevant to this discussion, the question is. Why would a PM even ask such a question in the first place if he wasn't already contemplating military involvement, yet when a soldier is asked whether he can do something by politician and says yes, the soldier becomes the war monger.

The military is not a democracy, it can't be. When it or its members are given a job by the government or their own commanders, they don't get to vote on whether they will do it or not.

Wilber · April 9, 2016

The defense survey being discussed here is NOT the only one the government has done. Here's a few more for you on other topics.

The great majority of these surveys are for selected stakeholders and some are compulsory. The are not asking for information from the general public.

bush_cheney2004 · April 9, 2016

I trust people who I vote for and am able to replace periodically through a democratic vote.

Who I do NOT trust are people who have a job for life in the military and see the world through that small prism of military life which celebrates macho, toughness, brute force and command structure which discourages questioning and encourages following orders without question.

Please reconcile this position for Canadian defence policy with previous references to General Colin Powell's "doctrine", a career military officer (four star general).

dre · April 9, 2016

The great majority of these surveys are for selected stakeholders and some are compulsory. The are not asking for information from the general public.

Actually the "general public" is the first stakeholder group on Stats-Can's list.

Anyways... the outrage over this survey is really just stupid. Its just information being collected from a key stakeholder group, and the public is only one such group. And the government is not bound by any of it, they just want to make sure that they have command of all the data.

Even by MLW standards its pathetic and silly.

Derek 2.0 · April 9, 2016

Actually the "general public" is the first stakeholder group on Stats-Can's list.

Anyways... the outrage over this survey is really just stupid. Its just information being collected from a key stakeholder group, and the public is only one such group. And the government is not bound by any of it, they just want to make sure that they have command of all the data.

What data? When did unfounded opinions become "data"?

For example, how does the opinion of a barista in Toronto or a pig farmer from Manitoba lend guidance to our Government on 21st century Peacekeeping/Peacemaking operations? Are a grade 3 teacher from Halifax and a bus driver from Victoria going to lend a measure of expertise to Government on the subject of shared continental defense with the Americans via NORAD? Let me guess, a long haul truck driver and a visual arts graduate would be your go-to option for seeking advice on recapitalization of modern and near term military equipment? Or do you think an unemployed rig-pig and a single mother on welfare are the best equipped to determine our future role in NATO and the implication of collective defense?I'm sure the pimply faced kid at the McDonalds running the deep fryer has an opinion on the importance of the Arctic in the 21st century.....just as the immigrant cab driver is best suited to help set cyber-defense policy for the DnD.........

........So again, what data? If they are not bound by it, and its of little to no value, why bother collecting it?

dre · April 9, 2016

What data? When did unfounded opinions become "data"?

For example, how does the opinion of a barista in Toronto or a pig farmer from Manitoba lend guidance to our Government on 21st century Peacekeeping/Peacemaking operations?

Survey and polling data almost always comes from groups who's members have varying degrees of knowledge on the subject. You could use this same pathetically flimsy argument to discount every public opinion poll on any subject.

It doesn't matter if respondents are pig farmers, or used car salesmen. Those are the people that have to pay the bills and those are the people that will send governments packing if they pursue policies that are out of line with what Canadians want.

At this point the discussion seems kinda surreal. I don't think your'e a stupid person... and its so incredibly obvious why governments seek this kind of information from the electorate that I cant see anyone with more than about 70IQ having a hard time understand it... never mind trotting out the bizzare arguments being made in this thread.

Are you maybe just kidding around?

Topaz · April 9, 2016

One important item in my view is what the future holds for the Canadian military and the connection to the US military and by that I mean, they have been harmonizing a lot under the Tories and IF and only IF, the North American Union is still on the minds of the two countries governments, then Canada may not have a CANADIAN military because the US will be the boss under the NAU. IF this is NOT to be, then the government has to decide if the military is going to be a military to secure Canada OR go looking for world problems as the US does.

Derek 2.0 · April 9, 2016

Survey and polling data almost always comes from groups who's members have varying degrees of knowledge on the subject. You could use this same pathetically flimsy argument to discount every public opinion poll on any subject.

Huh? Where did I do that? A tool like the census for example versus this survey are two different beasts......

It doesn't matter if respondents are pig farmers, or used car salesmen. Those are the people that have to pay the bills and those are the people that will send governments packing if they pursue policies that are out of line with what Canadians want.

You consider leadership the gauging of opinion polls? :huh:

At this point the discussion seems kinda surreal. I don't think your'e a stupid person... and its so incredibly obvious why governments seek this kind of information from the electorate that I cant see anyone with more than about 70IQ having a hard time understand it... never mind trotting out the bizzare arguments being made in this thread.

Are you maybe just kidding around?

By all means, explain why this Government is seeking the public's opinion on maters that very few Canadians (the spoken to "experts" ) would be equipped to offer anything of substance........

When I go to my Doctor when I'm sick, I don't seek the opinions of the lady at the coffee shop, the janitor in the hallway or the old guy waiting for the handydart......

Now I would hope this Government isn't actually seeking said opinions, and that this is but political window-dressing and fluff.......

Army Guy · April 9, 2016

Big guy;

This is a public forum, the people that use it, use it for many different reasons, to vent and rant, to express or share opinions, to debate topics and learn from those debates, or just to create chaos. there are no winners or losers crowned in this forum.

One of the reason I joined this forum many years ago was their was so much misinformation being spread about topics I had first hand knowledge of, and my goal was to attempt to dispel that misinformation, along the way I have ran into many other posters that I have learned something from or have forced me to take a look at topics from another point of view.
And in doing so I have become more informed...While I may not agree on all their positions, I do respect their opinions, well most of them... and will continue to engage with them because one never knows what or from whom you can learn something from.

One does not do something for 34 years and not have a passion for it, like I have said before it is not just a job it is a completely different way of life...And sometimes I forget to control that passion, and allow emotions into my debate. and am after only human...if you are offended tell me and I will apologize...

I have spent hours upon hours discussing many different topics with you, hoping one day you will see the light, and not judge DND as whole by a few legion members you have meet. But you refuse to, and continue to paint all within DND with the same brush as muscle bound jocks with a Macho attitude.

What I am sensing is that we have a very different attitude towards the military. My perception and experience is that the military world is organized very differently than real life. The command structure permeates and dictates the communications and relationships between the different levels of participation. It works well for a particular kind of individual and not for others. My experience has been the leadership felt it was not responsible to anyone and to question was to disagree. To disagree is not looked upon favorably. I thought I was free of having to deal with those attitudes but those retired from the military still maintain the arrogance (my words) and entitlement to making decisions and responsible to no one - especially the lower ranks.

I won't blow sunshine up your ass, and say your remarks are not true to a certain extent, I have worked under a few of those types of people through out my career. In fact you'll find many different types of leaders within the forces, the micro manger types where everything must be as their plan done according to their plan, there are others that let the subordinates do the thinking and acting while they take the credit, both of these types of people don't normally do well through out their careers....

Leadership is always reasonable to someone, and eventually they will atone for bad decisions or failures. I will also tell you there are times when orders can not be discussed, 1/2 way through an assault on a enemies position is not the place to stop and clarify orders or intent....most combat situations would be covered under that....as well as most training for combat situations , there is however a period of time after the event when things are discussed and other solutions talked about for the next time.....one must remember most of this situations we have drills for, drills that have been tested in combat and work successfully....So everyone opinion does matter, and good leadership will listen to most credible ideas on how to solve issues and tasks.

But like any large institute you are going to have good leaders, and bad leaders, the bad ones will get weeded out in time.

Just because your legion has a few bad apples does not mean the entire military must follow suit.....

The military requires close civilian oversight and cannot be trusted to make foreign policy decisions. Its role is to implement those policies not create them. That is why this Liberal initiative is a great idea where the civilians will decide what part of the world we will be engaging, under what conditions and for what reasons and with what resources.

The military does not make foreign policy decisions ever.....it gets consulted and advises one how that might reflect upon the military, but it does not ever make those decisions......So i'm not sure where you picked that info up....

Canadian citizens are not going to decide anything, just like the military does not decide anything, Canadian citizens are being asked for their advise....

Once your advise is captured , that is it, that is all, your voice stops there....the government is under no obligation to follow any of that advise good or bad.

Wilber · April 9, 2016

Actually the "general public" is the first stakeholder group on Stats-Can's list.

Anyways... the outrage over this survey is really just stupid. Its just information being collected from a key stakeholder group, and the public is only one such group. And the government is not bound by any of it, they just want to make sure that they have command of all the data.

Even by MLW standards its pathetic and silly.

It's not outrage, it's mystification.

The government is tasked with determining the country's defence needs based on information much of which only it has access to. Why are they asking the uninformed?

Wilber · April 9, 2016

I won't blow sunshine up your ass, and say your remarks are not true to a certain extent, I have worked under a few of those types of people through out my career. In fact you'll find many different types of leaders within the forces, the micro manger types where everything must be as their plan done according to their plan, there are others that let the subordinates do the thinking and acting while they take the credit, both of these types of people don't normally do well through out their careers....

This type of person and culture isn't unique to the military, I've seen enough of it in civil life.

andromeda · April 9, 2016

con-sen-sus 1 general agreement 2 generally shared decision making: to govern by consensus

majority governments don't turn to consensus for the simple reason they don't have to. however.... giving the impression they actually care about what the public thinks doesn't hurt them either. why spend money on a military when it could be better spent buying off voters for the next election? yes..... why not make the public even more dependent on the goodies liberals love dishing out on a regular basis? of course true and honest consensus could be used in such events that are non interfering in liberal's re-election plans. anyone who thinks true and honest consensus will be used when butts/trudeau attempt to change Canada's electoral system is living in la la land.

dre · April 9, 2016

By all means, explain why this Government is seeking the public's opinion on maters that very few Canadians (the spoken to "experts" ) would be equipped to offer anything of substance........

Its been explained a dozen times to you already. The public is a key stakeholder and the only source of defense funds. Obviously the government is going to want information on where they stand. They would be incredibly stupid not to.

Anyhow, there's no point in me repeating something over and over again that you are so desperate to ignore and not understand.

If you decide you want to move beyond using the survey for boring partisan hackery and you really WANT to understand why the government (or anyone managing anything) collects information like this... Then start with some basic management training.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakeholder_management

Understanding Your Key Stakeholders[edit]
You now need to know more about your key stakeholders. You need to know how they are likely to feel about and react to your project. You also need to know how best to engage them in your project and how best to communicate with them. Key questions that can help you understand your stakeholders are:

What financial or emotional interest do they have in the outcome of your work? Is it positive or negative?

What motivates them most of all?

What information do they want from you?

How do they want to receive information from you? What is the best way of communicating your message to them?

What is their current opinion of your work? Is it based on good information?

Who influences their opinions generally, and who influences their opinion of you? Do some of these influencers therefore become important stakeholders in their own right?

If they are not likely to be positive, what will win them around to support your project?^[9]

If you don't think you will be able to win them around, how will you manage their opposition?

Who else might be influenced by their opinions? Do these people become stakeholders in their own right?

Key principles of Stakeholder engagement^[10][edit]
Communicate: To ensure intended message is understood and the desired response achieved.

Consult, early and often: To get the useful information and ideas, ask questions.

Remember, they are human: Operate with an awareness of human feelings.

Plan it: Time investment and careful planning against it, has a significant payoff.

Relationship: Try to engender trust with the stakeholders.

Simple but not easy: Show your care. Be empathetic.Listen to the stakeholders.

Managing risk: Stakeholders can be treated as risk and opportunities that have probabilities and impact.

Compromise: Compromise across a set of stakeholders' diverging priorities.

Understand what is success: Explore the value of the project to the stakeholder.

Take responsibility: Project governance is the key of project success

You consider leadership the gauging of opinion polls?

I dunno, do you consider asking stupid strawman questions even worth your time?

dre · April 9, 2016

It's not outrage, it's mystification.

Yeah.. its weird that somebody could be mystified by something so obvious and easy to understand.

The government is tasked with determining the country's defence needs based on information much of which only it has access to. Why are they asking the uninformed?

Asked and answered... 50 times. Do some basic research or take some basic management training. Subject matter experts are not the only stakeholders that can provide useful feedback. Good ideas and feedback can come from anywhere, and projects fail when key stakeholders are not consulted.

Interestingly enough people that think like you are one of the biggest reasons for management failure in any industry. I learned that the hard way... I used to ignore stakeholders because I didn't consider them knowledgeable too. But theyre called "stakeholders" for a reason.

Edited April 9, 2016 by dre

Derek 2.0 · April 9, 2016

Its been explained a dozen times to you already. The public is a key stakeholder and the only source of defense funds. Obviously the government is going to want information on where they stand. They would be incredibly stupid not to.

But the Government isn't doing that......they are attempting to herd cats.....doing what you suggest would entail presenting concrete policy positions to the public, positions that explained why we need "x" to accomplish "y", and gauge their response..........

This Government's Defense review is akin to a school teacher asking her students what they want to learn and how they want to learn it..............

I dunno, do you consider asking stupid strawman questions even worth your time?

Hold on, weren't you the one saying the Government should base public policy on the uninformed public's opinions.......that's not governance, that's populism......like the crap being shoveled by Trump and Sanders for example.........or the sunshine and unicorns promised by this Government in the run-up to the election

Big Guy · April 9, 2016

I don't blindly accept anything, but I also don't accept baseless criticism. You made a big deal of whether or not Hillier said our military was capable of the Afghanistan mission when asked by the PM. His answer is irrelevant to this discussion, the question is. Why would a PM even ask such a question in the first place if he wasn't already contemplating military involvement, yet when a soldier is asked whether he can do something by politician and says yes, the soldier becomes the war monger.

The military is not a democracy, it can't be. When it or its members are given a job by the government or their own commanders, they don't get to vote on whether they will do it or not.

Hillier was asked just after he was given change of our military. He was supposed to know what was going on. if he did not, then he should have said so. Hillier was not a war monger, just a guy with an inflated ego and inadequate information.

Edit - The leaders of the Legion members to whom I was referring was not my Legion, it is the Canadian Legion, it is your Legion. Command in Ottawa, the overseer of all Canadian Legions, has decided that it is nobody's business what they spend our money on. It is that kind of arrogance that upsets me.

Edited April 9, 2016 by Big Guy

Derek 2.0 · April 9, 2016

Hillier was asked just after he was given change of our military. He was supposed to know what was going on. if he did not, then he should have said so. Hillier was not a war monger, just a guy with an inflated ego and inadequate information.

I'm curious, what information has given you this opinion of him? Historic factual evidence would indicate that policy of sending Canadian forces to Afghanistan (poorly equipped I might add) was made by the then elected Government (prior to Hillier being CDS).....further to that, historically, it was yet again the elected Government that decided to up the ante by putting Canadians in a more involved combat role......Hillier didn't decide that, but the Martin Government....

Are you suggesting Hillier lied or made an error? Methinks you're making up things to justify your argument, an argument that poorly defends the bad public policy put forth by this Government with its defense review.

Big Guy · April 9, 2016

I'm curious, what information has given you this opinion of him? Historic factual evidence would indicate that policy of sending Canadian forces to Afghanistan (poorly equipped I might add) was made by the then elected Government (prior to Hillier being CDS).....further to that, historically, it was yet again the elected Government that decided to up the ante by putting Canadians in a more involved combat role......Hillier didn't decide that, but the Martin Government....

Are you suggesting Hillier lied or made an error? Methinks you're making up things to justify your argument, an argument that poorly defends the bad public policy put forth by this Government with its defense review.

You are free to thinks what you thinks. There is a section in "The Unexpected War – Canada in Kandahar" - by Janice Gross Stein and Eugene Lang, which describes Hillier trying to convince Martin et al being a cheerleader for expanding Canadian involvement in Afghanistan and especially Kandahar.

He had been CDS for only one month when he recommended greatly expanding Canadian involvement. "The plan was big and bold. It was quintessential Rick Hillier. He argued with great confidence and clarity that Canadian Forces could meet the challenge, that Ottawa should focus on the opportunity rather than the risk. Not only the United States, but also the United Kingdom, NATO, the UN, and the Afghan government would respect Canada's contribution. Canada would no longer be on the margins."

You can find that and a lot more in that book. Section - "From Kabul to Kandahar", subsection "Go Big or Stay Home". From pages 181 and on.

That was "Gung Ho Hillier" taking our troops into that hell hole.

After the results of that fiasco, do YOU think Hillier lied or made an error?

I make decisions based on verified facts and the opinions of experts in the field. To make up things on an anonymous public access opinion board only to justify an argument, assumes that the individual is dishonest and that he/she cares how he/she is viewed. I fit into neither of those categories.

Edited April 9, 2016 by Big Guy

Derek 2.0 · April 9, 2016

You are free to thinks what you thinks. There is a section in "The Unexpected War – Canada in Kandahar" - by Janice Gross Stein and Eugene Lang, which describes Hillier trying to convince Martin et al being a cheerleader for expanding Canadian involvement in Afghanistan and especially Kandahar.

I assume both authors took part in the discussions between the Government and the military? None the less, it appears that you're attempting to suck and blow here....first you suggest the military is but one of many opinions to be considered by the elected Government when making policy......but now, you're suggesting the head of the military hoodwinked the elected Government.....did not the Government listen to all of your other suggested opinions that you said they have available to them? Likewise, would not the elected Government be to blame for the poor choice, doubly so, since they selected Hillier to head the military themselves?

I make decisions based on verified facts and the opinions of experts in the field. To make up things on an anonymous public access opinion board only to justify an argument, assumes that the individual is dishonest and that he/she cares how he/she is viewed. I fit into neither of those categories.

I thought you just made the case that you've based your opinions on a book? How do you know the authors facts are verified and that either/or author spent time in the field?

I tend to agree that you're not "making things up", for that I'm sorry, is now clear that your opinions are from a book......

waldo · April 9, 2016

By all means, explain why this Government is seeking the public's opinion on maters that very few Canadians (the spoken to "experts" ) would be equipped to offer anything of substance........

Now I would hope this Government isn't actually seeking said opinions, and that this is but political window-dressing and fluff.......

your continued fake outrage has moved away from humourous to now become quite boring! How the public answers those 10 questions will provide a cross-sectional perspective, that as I'm aware, doesn't exist anywhere. Whether you consider the exercise of value, whether you believe the general public input/opinion has no value or relevance is immaterial... the survey is but one facet of the overall described process.

.