Military Family Resource Centre Governance Working Group

Summary of Discussion Meeting #1

The first meeting of the Working Group was held 17 October 0915-1200 in Ottawa. In attendance was: Col D. Harris, Director of Military Family Services (MFS) and co-coordinator for the Committee;Mrs. K. Corbould, a currently serving MFRC Board of Directors Chair, military family member and co-coordinator for the Committee; Ms. L. Ogilvie, Director of Family Services from MFS who will serve as secretary; Mrs. K. Vance, a military family representative assigned by the CDS; Ms. M. Blanchet, a francophone currently serving MFRC Board of Directors Chair chosen by the MFRCs; Capt(N) C. Sutherland, RCN representative; Col H. Thorne-Albright, RCAF representative and Mrs. M. Kirby, an observer from the CAF Ombudsman. Regrets were sent from:Col P. Henry, CANSOFCOM representative;Col J.S. Dubois, CA representative; and CWO G. Pelletier, CFMWS Chief Warrant Officer.

The meeting began with an address from Chief Military Personnel Command, LGenWhitecross.

I called for this review. I did so because of the role and impact of families on readiness and our reciprocal responsibility to families for their contributions. I am keenly aware that MFRCs play a central role in delivering structured and tangible support to military families, essentially enabling operational effectiveness at the tactical level, but I am also aware that after 25 years the structure may not have evolved to the needs of today’s family. There have been tremendous changes in the past 25 years - in operations; composition and definition of “family”; deployment tempo and focus; in funding levels, fundraising capacity; and family expectations for service/supportdeliverables. The non-symmetrical workings of MFRCs; changes in how families want to access services; and no adaptation to the MFRC programming infrastructure, are challenging to the outcomes of the Military Family Services Program. That is what led me to call for this review. We need to work with families, hire more spouses, look closely at the inclusion of Veteran families in our program, and assess funding formulas which have not kept up with need. This review represents an excellent opportunity to demonstrate the continued value of the MFRCs. I must reinforce that I have no preconceived views on the outcomes of this review. I am asking you to assess the assumptions and instruments that were first developed based on CRS recommendations for a MFRC governance model and if it is still appropriate in the current not-for-profit environment; if MFRCs are appropriately resourced; and if the MFRC construct addresses the reality of the modern military family. I ask that you consider governance models including an extensive assessment of the implications (positive and negative) to changing the current structure, as well as, assess military family requirements identifying the most appropriate, efficient and legal intersect with MFRC governance. My goal is for you to develop a structure designed to ensure appropriate support to military families, create efficiencies and increase responsiveness.In fact, the right answer may be different for each MFRC.

I have been on MFRC Boards and have experienced the principle of “For Families By Families”. I understand the independent nature of MFRCs and that they are responsive to – but not under the command of – CAF leadership. I also understand the key role the CAF plays in the operations of MFRCs. Did you know the MFRC governance structure was borne out of the efforts of a group of military spouses – from Penhold – who advocated for better support, and a voice, for families in their own right. Remember this review is not about recommending change for change sake; it also not about accepting status quo because it has worked for 25 years. This review is about assessing the needs of military families and determining the best structure to honour and support their contributions to the CAF. Challenge assumptions, look for innovations and reflect on past successes. Most of all listen to what families tell you.

CMPC hosted a short question and answer session. Questions were asked about access to legal support, interest in validating resource allocations, and possibility of considering physical versus virtual service delivery methods; to which CMPC replied favourably and encouraged in-depth and creative exploration. There was discussion on messaging, perceptions on why the review was initiated and skepticism from many MFRCs that there is an already determined solution. CMPC reiterated she has no preconceived outcome for the review and challenged the group to seek opportunities to keep all stakeholders informed of the workings of the group. All in attendance agreed that this review is an excellent opportunity to truly understand the needs of families, and ensure the service delivery mechanism directly aligns with their expectations. All noted that times have changed and this is the momentto put “words into action”.

The next portion of the meeting focused on an overview of the Military Family Services Program and the Working Group Terms of Reference. The Terms of Reference is available at

Following that, the Working Group engaged in an open discussion about challenges, successes, areas of interest, and key experiences that could shape the review. Specifically:

MFRC uniqueness versus service delivery consistency;
MFRC brand identity, first point of contact and virtual / referral support methodology;
Family awareness of MFRCs;
CAF / COC awareness of, and intersect with, MFRCs;
Community/general public awareness of MFRCs;
Past, current and future perceptions of MFRCs and the need to modernize culture.

Each discussion area, and many more, will be explored in much greater detail as part of the review process. The final portion of the meeting focused on the DRAFT workplan posted at

It must be noted that this is a high level draft document that is only a strawman. It will be expanded on; each section assigned a lead from the Working Group; subcommittee participation identified; and a detailed work plan with timelines created. Each of these work plans will be posted at they are developed.

The meeting concluded with the recognition that this is a significant project, with the requirement to include as many stakeholders as possible at different stages throughout the review. The requirements to be agile, responsive, but also change direction as needed, will be essential to the review process.