"Mr. Hillier, the chief of defence staff" (Split from: New Restructuring Announced)

[Black Watch]

It's interesting to see everyone reading different things into this.  
I am extremely cynical. The more I look at the original article
the more I cringe.

For example I look at and;
and I read less infantry, less everything.   More pretending to be the peace corps and
fire fighters.

Perhaps after years of cut after cut I'm jaded. Or perhaps it's specific words in the article:

I always associate that word streamline with "budget cut" or worse yet: " lost capability ".

Of course, given the makeup of the committee I suspect the recommendations are already
a foregone conclusion.

Time will tell.

Sorry all, just an aside:

<RANT>
When did the Canadian Press change the honourifics for General ranks to Mr.?
</RANT>

To answer your lasr question I would say that the Canadian military is more and more seen as a regular government branch other thant military. So, that menas that Generals are high pubilc sector workers.

 

[old medic]

My rant wasn't really a question, it was more rhetorical.
I put it there because I thought it highlighted the argument
between military or civil servant.

I didn't go into it further because of how badly the article is
written. for example "Mr. Hillier, the chief of defence staff"

chief of defence staff is a title, so it should be Chief of Defence Staff
in capitals.  Mr. is the incorrect honourific no matter how you look at
it. It might as well have said Miss Hillier or Reverend Hillier.

Writers for major newspapers shouldn't be getting that wrong.

That said, it's a shame the press thought computer spell check
could replace the proof read.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

It's likely a "Globeandmailism" (to coin a phrase).  I checked a number of other papers and all use proper ranks.

TR