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

[a_majoor]

While I can sympathise with you WRT dealing with the TB, I hardly think that this is the reason for a reported 27% increase in Administrative costs (while the news article did not break it down, the most costly aspect of virtually every enterprise is wage and salary costs). An example from a few years past is every reserve regiment in 31 Brigade (and I would imagine every brigade) received a full time civilian employee who's sole job is to enter data into HRMS. Considering the number of actual members in a reserve unit, there is no justification for a full time employee to do this (and there are the unit clerks who are supposed to do this anyway). So at least 15 full time civilian employees are doing data entry for however many part time reserve soldiers are in 31 Brigade today.

As well, there have been orders to reduce the size of headquarters dating back to the time of CDS John de Chastelain that I am personally aware of, yet we are still here in 2013 looking at a headquarters complex that eclipses the sun. The effect of divesting 11,000 positions from Ottawa and putting the PYs back into the field force could translate into a better balanced force structure with enough soldiers to man battalions and battlegroups without trying to "plug and play" for each and every ROTO, ships that are not tied up alongside the dock for lack of crews and enough instructors to reduce PAT battalions back to actual platoons, among other things.

This is an effort that simply must be made to remain a relevant and effective force that can actually deploy and carry out the will of the Government.

 

[dapaterson]

Sigh.  There are not 11 000 full-time military personnel in Ottawa/Gatineau; not even that many military personnel if you count the part-time reservists.

As for civilians: You are correct, there are too many Reserve unit HQs; culling those to about 1/3 of the current number would result in 500+ full-time military PYs saved for reinvestment.  Fewer unit HQs would mean fewer civilians; though having civilians for routine admin jobs in units is preferable to military; no courses, no postings, and a set group of duties so the work actually gets done - "MCpl! go do task x, y and Z - that HR stuff can wait 'til later."  In the past, Reserve HR data was horrifically bad - a cross-reference of ranks between the HR system and pay system around 2005 showed approximately 1 in 6 individuals had different ranks in the two systems - one unit had a CWO in the pay system who showed as a Pte in the HR system.

There have been reductions made in HQs; but there have also been deliberate increases.  Gen Hillier took several hundred positions out of the Reg F expansion to create the dot COM headquarters - that's hundreds of positions that were not made into infantrymen, bos'ns or flight engineers, but instead put to work in cubicles in Ottawa.

Is there a need to do a review of all HQ structures across the country, including NDHQ?  Yes.  Is randomly cutting NDHQ alone going to solve things?  No.  The Army has at least 19 level 2 and level 3 formation HQs not part of NDHQ - how many of those are truly needed, and how many can be reduced?

 

[Monsoon]

Is there a need to do a review of all HQ structures across the country, including NDHQ?  Yes.  Is randomly cutting NDHQ alone going to solve things?  No.

But... but... if we eliminated L2 positions in Valcartier, Halifax, Toronto and Edmonton, we might have to put someone in Ottawa to do the work they used to do! And I have some anecdotal evidence backed up by some figures I think I heard but can't be bothered to look up that suggest, when read correctly, that everything that is done by people when they're situated in the Ottawa metropolitan area is wasteful and redundant! Ipso facto roberto luongo, we can't do this.

 

[dapaterson]

Or we may discover that there are people doing make-work in lower HQs.  Culling higher HQs helps reduce the size of lower HQs as well, as fewer stupid questions come down.

Work expands to fill available staff time.  And idle staff create more work, requiring still more staff to respond to their queries, who then have idle time, creating more staff work, etc, ad nauseum.

 

[Monsoon]

Or we may discover that there are people doing make-work in lower HQs.  Culling higher HQs helps reduce the size of lower HQs as well, as fewer stupid questions come down.

Work expands to fill available staff time.  And idle staff create more work, requiring still more staff to respond to their queries, who then have idle time, creating more staff work, etc, ad nauseum.

Yep - organizations' complexity increase geometrically as their size increases linearly, which is why "little" things like new TB guidelines and new HR databases drive disproportionate increases in wage and salary costs.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I'd just like to grab back that hour and a half per day of PT that all the full timers out there are 'apparently' doing and turn that into a commando brigade worth of infantry and support arms. ;D

 

[ARMY_101]

To be fair, DND/CAF is almost as big as the rest of government put together (bigger in some respects). The opposite case to yours could be made: that it's "too much department" for just one minister with functions that should be broken-out, not merged-up. Don't know where I sit on the issue and I see merit to both points. I gather that in your view, the CAF should exist as a semi-independent government agency like CSIS or the RCMP, and thus entail less public service overhead. But I think that much of what's wrong with DND/CAF is the fact that Treasury Board guidelines and a lot of other policies are designed with much smaller government entities in mind (think Canadian Heritage, with a budget just north of $1B). The sheer scale of DND/CAF in comparison to that design ideal is the problem, and I don't know that making the CAF an agency vice a department would change that - for instance, the same Treasury Board guidelines would apply.

Not sure I agree with the assessment CAF = same size or larger than the rest of the federal government put together.  For rounding sake, let's say we have 100,000 current CF members between RegF, PRes, and rangers.  The federal public service in all departments combined, as of 2010, was 283,000.

I don't think there needs to be a change in the terminology of department vs. agency; just get rid of the civilian-side of the Forces.  If DND is intended to "support" the CAF, and the CAF by definition has the ability to support itself (whether in admin, procurement, vehicle maintenance, int and counter-int, etc), then I have no idea how DND (the civilian side) grew to the size it has.

Amalgamating "Defence" or "Public Safety" into one large department, IMO, would make the bloat and redundancy of DND even more apparent.  The CAF would exist under a ministry to defend Canada and partake in the usual military operations.  Anyone in one of these roles would be a CAF member, thus alleviating the problem of working with unionized employees who have no sense of orders, chain of command, or responsibility.  And perhaps working in this way would also allow the CAF to work closer with CSIS, RCMP, etc. if they were all a part of the same ministry.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Not sure I agree with the assessment CAF = same size or larger than the rest of the federal government put together.  For rounding sake, let's say we have 100,000 current CF members between RegF, PRes, and rangers.  The federal public service in all departments combined, as of 2010, was 283,000.

I don't think there needs to be a change in the terminology of department vs. agency; just get rid of the civilian-side of the Forces.  If DND is intended to "support" the CAF, and the CAF by definition has the ability to support itself (whether in admin, procurement, vehicle maintenance, int and counter-int, etc), then I have no idea how DND (the civilian side) grew to the size it has.

Amalgamating "Defence" or "Public Safety" into one large department, IMO, would make the bloat and redundancy of DND even more apparent.  The CAF would exist under a ministry to defend Canada and partake in the usual military operations.  Anyone in one of these roles would be a CAF member, thus alleviating the problem of working with unionized employees who have no sense of orders, chain of command, or responsibility.  And perhaps working in this way would also allow the CAF to work closer with CSIS, RCMP, etc. if they were all a part of the same ministry.

DND is not there to "support" the CF. The CF is a component of DND. The Department of National Defence is the agency charged, by the sovereign, with defending Canada and its interests at home and abroad. It, the Department, has decided to establish, staff, equip and maintain the CF as one "tool" in its quest to achieve its mission.

One could, equally well, ask: why are there so damned many military people in Ottawa? Many of them, the uniformed folks who wander the streets in decidedly inappropriate (for office work) combat uniforms, are doing jobs that could be and probably should be done by less expensive and at least as well qualified civil servants.

 

[Journeyman]

.....and the CAF by definition has the ability to support itself (whether in admin, procurement, vehicle maintenance, int and counter-int, etc)......

Where did you get your definition?

.... allow the CAF to work closer with CSIS, RCMP, etc. if they were all a part of the same ministry.

You've never been on the periphery of a CSIS-RCMP squabble, have you? 

 

[ARMY_101]

DND is not there to "support" the CF. The CF is a component of DND. The Department of National Defence is the agency charged, by the sovereign, with defending Canada and its interests at home and abroad. It, the Department, has decided to establish, staff, equip and maintain the CF as one "tool" in its quest to achieve its mission.

I disagree.  The Queen of Canada has established a Department of National Defence and Her Canadian Armed Forces.

By law, she has charged the Department, headed by the minister, with:

(a) the construction and maintenance of all defence establishments and works for the defence of Canada; and

(b) research relating to the defence of Canada and to the development of and improvements in materiel.

In contrast, and by that same law, she has charged her Canadian Forces, headed by the Chief of Defence Staff, with "the control and administration of the Canadian Forces."

This is where I'm getting the definitions: the CF is intended to defend Canada and her interests; the DND is intended to support the CF by constructing and maintaining defence establishments and conducting research into the defence, and materiel sides of the CF. To me, that's a supportive role.

In fact, DND's own civilian webpage says their relation with the CF "is that of a support system," and furthermore:

DND civilians support Army "efforts by providing operational and administrative support and technical and computer services;"

Support Navy efforts by "making sure the fleet is in top condition for deployment;" and

Support Air Force efforts by supporting "essential air force activities through their roles as policy and program officers, general safety officers, mechanical aircraft technicians, aerospace engineers, instructors and analysts; airfield engineers and flight test control room operators and programmers."

I'd say it's pretty clear the DND-CF relationship is one of the former supporting the latter, or of the tail supporting the tooth.

 

[ARMY_101]

Where did you get your definition?

Assuming your typical ground/air/maritime war, the elements are constructed to be self-supporting, no? Infantry kills the enemy, weapons techs keep the infantry's weapons working, veh techs make sure the infantry get where they need to go, cooks keep the veh and weapons techs fed, RMS clerks make sure the cooks are paid, etc...

 

[Edward Campbell]

I recommend, ARMY_101 that you read the words in the NDA carefully. The CF is optional, ditto the CDS who "may" be appointed if necessary. The MND "has [as his primary duty] the management and direction of the Canadian Forces and of all matters relating to national defence and is responsible for
(a) the construction and maintenance of all defence establishments and works for the defence of Canada; and
(b) research relating to the defence of Canada and to the development of and improvements in materiel."

Now, in fact, by the letters patent of 1947, the GG is the Commander in Chief of whichever armed forces exist and the CDS is his (or her) chief of staff and is responsible for "the control and administration of the Canadian Forces" by which we should assume the forces in being. Please note that the CDS is not responsible for the "management" of the nation's defences which we should also assume includes e.g. defence policy and raising, staffing, equipping and paying the CF: that's part of the minister's job and he is assisted in that by his Associate Minister(s), Deputy Minister other named bureaucrats, including the JAG.

 

[Journeyman]

Assuming your typical ground/air/maritime war, the elements are constructed to be self-supporting, no? Infantry kills the enemy, weapons techs keep the infantry's weapons working, veh techs make sure the infantry get where they need to go, cooks keep the veh and weapons techs fed, RMS clerks make sure the cooks are paid, etc...

At the "war-fighting" end of the spectrum, this is mostly true. 

However, your own examples of "procurement" (does LCol Bloggins go out and purchase the CF-18s his squadron requires?), vehicle maintenance (no DND-oversight for factory rebuilds required, Veh Tech Cpl Snuffy can do that), or counter-int (step aside CSIS, WO Tête de Viande is all over that)...just as examples....show that a military force is not a completely self-contained and -supporting organization.

It can not be, and it should not be.

 

[garb811]

And perhaps working in this way would also allow the CAF to work closer with CSIS, RCMP, etc. if they were all a part of the same ministry.

I would point out this already happens on an almost daily basis at a variety of different levels from local to national.  Just because YOU don't see it doesn't mean it isn't ongoing.

You've never been on the periphery of a CSIS-RCMP squabble, have you? 

Saying they squabble implies they actually talk to each other.  ;D

 

[Kirkhill]

......

The Leslie report is not a credible source either.  He invented his own definitions, and his own financial model, so nothing in his report can be compared to existing baseline data., or to future data.  Convenient way to avoid argument or discussion: invent your own method that has never been used before and will never be used again.
......

I don't agree that Leslie's methodology is a "convenient way to avoid argument or discussion".    I find that is often appropriate to reduce things to their essence, draw my own conclusions and then challenge others to show me the error of my ways.  It is very easy for my clients to decide not to engage and avoid argument or discussion if they so choose.  On the other hand, by responding to my idiocies, occasionally we both end up learning.  And once in a while change happens.

I find it very easy for people to keep saying you can't do this because of para such and such and clause so and so prevents that.  It becomes necessary , time after time, to keep drilling home the intent of the exercise: This is what we are trying to accomplish - I know how we can't do things - Tell me how we can.

Usually this discussion is held with lawyers, accountants and engineers - people that are charged with supplying advice.  So many of them know enough about the rules and regulations to tell you what you can't do.  So few of them understand them well enough to tell you what you can do.

Back to the cheapseats. 

 

[Journeyman]

Saying they squabble implies they actually talk to each other.  ;D

OK, maybe talk about each other.....

And when they are talking to one another, I'm sure they're saying, "those CF guys are pretty darn swell." 

 

[ARMY_101]

However, your own examples of "procurement" (does LCol Bloggins go out and purchase the CF-18s his squadron requires?), vehicle maintenance (no DND-oversight for factory rebuilds required, Veh Tech Cpl Snuffy can do that), or counter-int (step aside CSIS, WO Tête de Viande is all over that)...just as examples....show that a military force is not a completely self-contained and -supporting organization.

It can not be, and it should not be.

I agree procurement today does not operate that way. But why couldn't Fighter Jet procurement happen under the CAS; LAV procurement under CLS; and so forth? For one, it would bring procurement closer to home by involving the soldiers and commanders actually using that equipment. Secondly, it would, along with the purpose of this thread, eliminate the need for civilian staff to be the middlemen.  Thirdly, if procurement really needed to be done at the national HQ level outside the force-generating L1s, then there's nothing to say the Chief of Military Procurement (an example title) couldn't be an MGen with the same powers and authority of an ADM.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I agree procurement today does not operate that way. But why couldn't Fighter Jet procurement happen under the CAS; LAV procurement under CLS; and so forth? For one, it would bring procurement closer to home by involving the soldiers and commanders actually using that equipment. Secondly, it would, along with the purpose of this thread, eliminate the need for civilians to be the middlemen.

What makes you think that the CNS, CLS or CAS are in any conceivable way qualified to do procurement? It is likely that providing them with a competent - which means civilian - procurement staff would lead to even bigger, even more bloated HQs (after we count the reductions in e.g. PWGSC) and increase costs and provoke even more political interference. Procurement, in government and industry, is a specialized function that takes a combination of skills and knowledge that are gained, primarily, from experience. That's why military people are rarely involved in it: the length of time it takes to learn and then master the business means that it, procurement, is a career in itself. We want people who make their careers in ships, in the field and in the air, not in offices.

 

[McG]

… it would bring procurement closer to home by involving the soldiers and commanders actually using that equipment.

You are either ignorant of the current process or naively optimistic of your solution.  As requirements staff are already internal to the FG Commands, if soldiers and commanders are not currently being involved to an adequate level then that problem is internal to the Army itself.

 

[ARMY_101]

What makes you think that the CNS, CLS or CAS are in any conceivable way qualified to do procurement? It is likely that providing them with a competent - which means civilian - procurement staff would lead to even bigger, even more bloated HQs (after we count the reductions in e.g. PWGSC) and increase costs and provoke even more political interference. Procurement, in government and industry, is a specialized function that takes a combination of skills and knowledge that are gained, primarily, from experience. That's why military people are rarely involved in it: the length of time it takes to learn and then master the business means that it, procurement, is a career in itself. We want people who make their careers in ships, in the field and in the air, not in offices.

"The responsibilities of a Logistics Officers include:

Procurement
Warehousing items and material control
Distribution and disposal of military material, equipment, and ammunition
Coordination of food services, postal services, human resource or financial services"

I won't pretend to understand the procurement system, but why are our LogOs supposedly competent enough to do procurement as part of their trade, but not competent enough to do it without civilian employee oversight?  If procurement is as hard and difficult as we're assuming, then we're either not training LogOs properly or not giving them the support and authority they deserve.