Gov't/CF Hospitality: how much? who approves?

[dapaterson]

Marlin spike on a lanyard perhaps?

Halifax Class shooter glasses - a different one for each ship.  Collect all twelve and we'll throw in a free Upholder class submarine (slightly used).

 

[Kirkhill]

Halifax Class shooter glasses - a different one for each ship.  Collect all twelve and we'll throw in a free Upholder class submarine (slightly used).

Methinks I detect irony...

 

[dapaterson]

Methinks I detect irony...

Yes, you're right.  If we're trying to be hospitable, we shouldn't give our guest one of those subs...

 

[MedCorps]

a) Why not? (usually accompanied by an epithet or two)

b) Figure it out and find a way to do this  :rage:. 

They never like the answer to a) and I haven't found a good answer to b) yet, short of manufacturing gifts myself in order to stay within the cost restrictions (and yes, I've done this).

I have seen this technique used more than once.  The CO/RSM finds a junior NCO (often, although I have seen a Sgt/WO once and a Capt once) who is talented in (select your favorite) wood working / metal working / stained glass / painting / sculpting / fabrics and then employs them as such regardless of their MOS in at a rate as frequently as required for the generation of gifts, etc.  Truly amazing things these well paid Crown artisans can make with minimal amounts of materials.  I have seen sword cases, a myriad of hand turned pens/candle stick makers/bowls, leather book marks, book covers, stained glass lamps, stone carvings, daggers, models, etc made over my years in this manner. I even saw a nice alpaca scarf once made and presented as a "regimental gift" to a lady dignitary who was quite impressed.

Does not make it right.  Only makes it possible as a work around given the crazy tight rules on cash expenditures.  Good reason to ask, "So do you have any hobbies?" during your section / platoon / company commanders interviews. 

MC

 

[Pusser]

I have seen this technique used more than once.  The CO/RSM finds a junior NCO (often, although I have seen a Sgt/WO once and a Capt once) who is talented in (select your favorite) wood working / metal working / stained glass / painting / sculpting / fabrics and then employs them as such regardless of their MOS in at a rate as frequently as required for the generation of gifts, etc.  Truly amazing things these well paid Crown artisans can make with minimal amounts of materials.  I have seen sword cases, a myriad of hand turned pens/candle stick makers/bowls, leather book marks, book covers, stained glass lamps, stone carvings, daggers, models, etc made over my years in this manner. I even saw a nice alpaca scarf once made and presented as a "regimental gift" to a lady dignitary who was quite impressed.

Does not make it right.  Only makes it possible as a work around given the crazy tight rules on cash expenditures.  Good reason to ask, "So do you have any hobbies?" during your section / platoon / company commanders interviews. 

MC

Most of the time, I'm happy to do this, especially for friends and unit members, but when I'm working 18 hour days trying to get a ship ready to deploy, I can think of better uses for my time than making up for the "system's" shortfalls.

 

[ekpiper]

I performed at the US Ambassador's Ottawa residence in '09, and they had a great party for many people.  Great entertainment, lots of guests, and well staffed.  Even the band (Canadian) had access to hot dogs, appetizers and Sam Adams, whereas the normal fare for us is maybe a sandwich tray with 1/2 a sandwich per member and bottled water.

On the other hand, representing Canada in Washington about a month before, we had to buy our own dinner at our embassy, even though we were on a travel claim...Ripoff, too.

The point has been made by others already, but it seems to me that while it is necessary to monitor costs to avoid frivolity, national pride is on the line, and whereas many in the public may not see the need for waving the flag, the respect of the international community is needed, and these costs are hardly extravagant.  The OECD conference gave a $50 gift to each delegate, and the article barely notes that the hospitality total was trimmed by $6,000, or ~27%.  The TB maximum for a reception is $46/person, or less than many mess dinners.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Good discussion.

When we consider this, though......

The point has been made by others already, but it seems to me that while it is necessary to monitor costs to avoid frivolity, national pride is on the line, and whereas many in the public may not see the need for waving the flag, the respect of the international community is needed ....

.... how does Canada look to clients/taxpayers when this happens?

We can offer tap water to our clients. Anything beyond that requires a RDG level approval. Anything involving booze requires an even higher level approval.

Does how Canada look to the world matter more than how we look to the folks we serve?*

Caveat:  I realize this is a devil's advocate question because, as ERC said earlier, the rules are there, in part, because of the not-as-few-as-we'd-like-to-think who skirt/stretch rules otherwise.

 

[dapaterson]

Despite what some may believe, the CF's primary role is not to offer hospitality to international guests.  There's a whole federal department that does that, and they have more generous allowances to do so.  Having been (once) to an informal dinner expensed to the Government of Canada by DFAIT staff, I'll say that I saw nothing frivolous, and a key decision was the outcome of the meeting - well worth the cost of dinner for 9.

While the CF may have need to perform some low-level interactions, the high level stuff (and note that a room full of generals does not constitute high-level relations, despite their own beliefs) is done elsewhere.


Re: receptions:  A reception isn't a dinner.  TB policy permits 2x the rated amount of the meal, so a dinner could be up to $80.60 per person; hardly forcing senior and important folks to eat at McDonalds.  Sorry, but the band don't qualify as senior or important.

 

[Pusser]

Despite what some may believe, the CF's primary role is not to offer hospitality to international guests.   There's a whole federal department that does that, and they have more generous allowances to do so.  Having been (once) to an informal dinner expensed to the Government of Canada by DFAIT staff, I'll say that I saw nothing frivolous, and a key decision was the outcome of the meeting - well worth the cost of dinner for 9.

While the CF may have need to perform some low-level interactions, the high level stuff (and note that a room full of generals does not constitute high-level relations, despite their own beliefs) is done elsewhere.


Re: receptions:  A reception isn't a dinner.  TB policy permits 2x the rated amount of the meal, so a dinner could be up to $80.60 per person; hardly forcing senior and important folks to eat at McDonalds.  Sorry, but the band don't qualify as senior or important.

That's not entirely true at all.  We often find ourselves as the only representatives of Canada in some situations, particularly in operational theatres.  In ships in particular, we often end up hosting foreign dignitaries at DFAIT's request/direction (never truly sure about which it is - that's a Ministerial level bunfight).  In all fairness to DFAIT, whenever they ask to hold a reception onboard, they often chip in a few bucks.  Having said that, this still does not negate some of the unique protocol requirements of port visits (i.e. official calls on port authorities) that have nothing to do with DFAIT.

I remember one reception in particular in Barbados that was attended by most of the local ambassadors and the Canadian Deputy Minister of National Defence (I wonder if Mr Fowler still has my card  ).  The High Commisioner was present (and amazed that I found fresh strawberries), but the ship's Captain was most definitely the host.

 

[Strike]

Sorry, but the band don't qualify as senior or important.

No, but this goes back to good manners by offering those who are attending events, in whatever capacity, the same food you are eating.

I recall helping to organize the mess dinner for my wings grad where, not only did we pay for the guest of honour, but his driver as well.  Even though the young man did not have a seat at the table, we made sure he was well taken care of behind the scenes, including throwing some Tim's gift certificates his way to help with the drive back the next morning.  There was no debate.  We all chipped in a few extra bucks to pay for his meal because it was the PROPER thing to do.

 

[dapaterson]

It is entirely true.  Note the phrase "the CF's primary role".  While we may be tasked to provide some support to such events, it is not the primary role of the CF.  If it was, we'd replace the helo decks with dance floors, replace the missile racks with bars, convert Leo 2s into mobile light shows with a disco ball suspended above the turret (the smoke dischargers we'd keep), and for the Air Force... no change  >


Supporting another government department?  Certainly.  Even providing a ship to host a function.  But again, the CF's primary role is not international liaison and relationship building.

 

[Jed]

Jeez, DAP. That PER must be right justified by now!  ;D

 

[dapaterson]

No, but this goes back to good manners by offering those who are attending events, in whatever capacity, the same food you are eating.

I recall helping to organize the mess dinner for my wings grad where, not only did we pay for the guest of honour, but his driver as well.  Even though the young man did not have a seat at the table, we made sure he was well taken care of behind the scenes, including throwing some Tim's gift certificates his way to help with the drive back the next morning.  There was no debate.  We all chipped in a few extra bucks to pay for his meal because it was the PROPER thing to do.

And the mess staff who served you?  Did you give them the same meal and some Timmies cards?  Since they did far more for you than the GoH's driver did.

Support staff are there to support - including the band.  Give them a meal?  yes.  Give them the same meal as the rest of the diners?  No.  There's no need to do so, and the cost may well be prohibitive.  Would your class have sprung for 35 additional plates at the mess dinner for the band?  $40 per head, when take-out chicken would be $10 a head instead?


Egalitarian impluses are fine.  But all animals are not equal.  Some are more equal than other.  So when two ambassadors meet, and bring along staff, the ambassadors may well eat filet mignon while the staff are in another room eating ravioli. 

 

[dapaterson]

Jeez, DAP. That PER must be right justified by now!  ;D

I'm not even in that area of work now.  And I've suffered through getting requests approved.  But the system is what the system is - so learn it, understand it, and work with it.

 

[Jed]

  But the system is what the system is - so learn it, understand it, and work with it.

A lesson I eventually learned after much bashing my head against the brick wall.  8)

 

[Pusser]

It is entirely true.  Note the phrase "the CF's primary role".  While we may be tasked to provide some support to such events, it is not the primary role of the CF.  If it was, we'd replace the helo decks with dance floors, replace the missile racks with bars, convert Leo 2s into mobile light shows with a disco ball suspended above the turret (the smoke dischargers we'd keep), and for the Air Force... no change  >


Supporting another government department?  Certainly.  Even providing a ship to host a function.  But again, the CF's primary role is not international liaison and relationship building.

Whether it's our "official" primary role is irrelevant (although, one could argue that international relations falls under assertion of sovereignty, which is a primary role - admittedly a bit of stretch, but still an argument to be made).  The fact is that we do it and we are ordered to do it; therefore, we must do it properly.

 

[Pusser]

But the system is what the system is - so learn it, understand it, and work with it.

I do know it, understand it and work within it, but my point is that it is inadequate and unnecessarily restrictive.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I do know it, understand it and work within it, but my point is that it is inadequate and unnecessarily restrictive.

But, and despite my distaste for the current system, DAP is correct; and the system would not be so "inadequate and unnecessarily restrictive" if  whole bunch of (relatively senior) civil servants and CF members didn't consistently abuse it.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Supporting another government department?  Certainly.  Even providing a ship to host a function.  But again, the CF's primary role is not international liaison and relationship building.

Actually, whether primary, secondary or whatever ranking, it is and it always has been a duty of the Navies to carry out diplomatic duties and functions abroad.

I realize this is not so for the Armies and Air Forces, but onboard ships, it is par for the course. We do not carry out foreign port visits on a whim and just to provide a fun port of call break for the crew (though it often turns out that way in the end - thankfully).

Similarly, in our waters and to some extent in international ones, ship captains have some law enforcement powers and customs and excise duties that come with the job - not so for C.O.'s of Air or Land units. Navies just are a different breed WRT these types of situations.

Personally (and I think Pusser might appreciate this suggestion), I would like to see an annual global allocation for these duties that would be for use at a captain's discretion - with supporting documents of course. While I know that there are stupid people out there, I suspect that extremely few captains would be so. That's because the way they use this discretionary spending power would likely be scrutinized by their superiors ( I know I would) at P.E.R. time: After all, if you show bad judgement in the exercise of your discretion for the use of hospitality funds, then why on earth should you be entrusted with 225-275 lives, the safety of a 600-800 M$ ship and the management of a few million dollars budget?

 

[Pusser]

But, and despite my distaste for the current system, DAP is correct; and the system would not be so "inadequate and unnecessarily restrictive" if  whole bunch of (relatively senior) civil servants and CF members didn't consistently abuse it.

Would it not be better to punish the idiots who abuse it (that "accountability" thing), rather than introduce even more rules that make everybody else's life even more difficult?