Government hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[FJAG]

Yes other Canadians live in the same places for less money, but we shouldn't be shooting for the bottom. If we want motivated young people to join, we need to make it appealing to the motivated, not the equivalent of working as a supervisor at Best Buy.

I don't see it as shooting for the bottom. The last time I looked military pay was tied to the Fed civil service pay with a military factor notching it slightly higher. Some may argue, mut Fed civil service pay is better than competitive with most civil jobs in the same category. That was certainly the case for the legal profession where Federal support staff did considerably better than their private industry peers.

There are already numerous pay allowances in play to compensate specific cases and I certainly do not support any across the board pay raises beyond the usual cost of living ones. If someone finally turns on the tap for more funds than my priorities are for equipment as number one and more part-time people to build mass as number two. I'll support more full-time people once a proper systemic review and reform is done to resolve the inherent "management" inefficiencies of DND, the CAF, the CAF's recruiting and training system, the equipment procurement system and the defence industrial base.

 

[Furniture]

I don't see it as shooting for the bottom. The last time I looked military pay was tied to the Fed civil service pay with a military factor notching it slightly higher. Some may argue, mut Fed civil service pay is better than competitive with most civil jobs in the same category. That was certainly the case for the legal profession where Federal support staff did considerably better than their private industry peers.

There are already numerous pay allowances in play to compensate specific cases and I certainly do not support any across the board pay raises beyond the usual cost of living ones. If someone finally turns on the tap for more funds than my priorities are for equipment as number one and more part-time people to build mass as number two. I'll support more full-time people once a proper systemic review and reform is done to resolve the inherent "management" inefficiencies of DND, the CAF, the CAF's recruiting and training system, the equipment procurement system and the defence industrial base.

Full time critical staff will continue to not be in the CAF until pay and benefits get better.

With my training and experience, my counterparts in ECCC make about 25-50% more... I'm just one of the specialist skills that the CAF is short, and trying to recruit.

Maybe we don't need to pay Gunner Bloggins 25% more, but I suspect the ACIS Tech needs at least that much to keep putting up with CAF BS.

 

[FJAG]

Full time critical staff will continue to not be in the CAF until pay and benefits get better.

With my training and experience, my counterparts in ECCC make about 25-50% more... I'm just one of the specialist skills that the CAF is short, and trying to recruit.

Maybe we don't need to pay Gunner Bloggins 25% more, but I suspect the ACIS Tech needs at least that much to keep putting up with CAF BS.

I'm certainly not in a position to argue as to whether one trade/classification or another should get more or less of the pie. There's a whole machine in government that works on that so that rough equity is maintained.

My concern is the prevalence of thinking that if everyone gets a 25% or 50% pay raise the retention issues will magically disappear. It was thinking like that which created Helyer corporals and captains. As I said. My priority is that money be used to build a credible equipped military with the sufficient mass to deter enemies and actually win a fight if pressed.

 

[eliminator]

Maisonneuve is back in the National Post: ''Canada has far too few soldiers. Here's a radical fix — mandatory service''.

Perhaps I'm wrong but it appears that he is wearing a medal that he shouldn't. Specifically, his CMM neck badge is correct but he shouldn't be sporting a (full-sized) court-mounted OMM.

What do you think?

Not sure when that photo was taken, but when a member is promoted within the ORMM, they are requested to return the lower-level insignia to Rideau Hall. I did find this newer photo which the OMM insignia has been removed.

 

[eliminator]

If not recognized, it should not be worn.

If non-Canadian, it follows the CD once gazetted.

His foreign awards are recorded here: https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/t.../dhh/honours/commonwealth-foreign-honours.pdf

 

[ytz]

The last time I looked military pay was tied to the Fed civil service pay with a military factor notching it slightly higher.

The current problems are revealing how wholly inadequate that military factor is.

If someone finally turns on the tap for more funds than my priorities are for equipment as number one and more part-time people to build mass as number two. I'll support more full-time people once a proper systemic review and reform is done to resolve the inherent "management" inefficiencies of DND, the CAF, the CAF's recruiting and training system, the equipment procurement system and the defence industrial base.

An understandable perspective for somebody who isn't in and is part of one of the wealthiest cohorts in the country. But when we're recruiting and trying to retain from the other side of the spectrum this doesn't work.

The CAF has shortages in highly skilled occupations. But the CAF is also short across the board. That definitely speaks to a broader problem.

Part of the wider issue, of course, is that the mediocre pay, is compounded by poor family services and spousal support in a country with an increasingly aging population where the price/income ratio for housing has doubled over the decades. A young family of four that isn't making over $180k today would struggle maintaining a lifestyle most would consider middle class in most of the country. But every time the member moves that family loses $50k from the spouse starting their career over. How does the CAF compensation structure account for that? And that is all made worse by losing a daycare spot (my wife nearly quit her job when we couldn't find daycare....in Ottawa), not being able to find a family doctor, etc

The maxim that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result, holds. Over the last two decades, CAF shortfalls have gotten worse and worse. And yet nobody wants to listen to members literally telling them in release surveys what the problems are. Expecting things to change because new kit is the definition of insanity. You might retain a few pilots with new F-35s. Good luck retaining the techs and engineers though. And that same challenge is true across other services.

Finally, like I said earlier, a lot of these conversations ignore demographics and needed family income today. A member is much more likely to be older and have dependents today than generations past. That also means they care about family income. If you screw the spouse, the member's pay has to make up for it. The CAF doesn't come close today. And so increasingly, every posting message is a family decision of do we take this or should we end here.

Throwing money at this, won't fix everything, but it will stem the losses and buy time till ab lot of the institutional changes can be made and the missing supports built. Or I guess we can just pray for a severe recession....

 

[Halifax Tar]

The current problems are revealing how wholly inadequate that military factor is.



An understandable perspective for somebody who isn't in and is part of one of the wealthiest cohorts in the country. But when we're recruiting and trying to retain from the other side of the spectrum this doesn't work.

The CAF has shortages in highly skilled occupations. But the CAF is also short across the board. That definitely speaks to a broader problem.

Part of the wider issue, of course, is that the mediocre pay, is compounded by poor family services and spousal support in a country with an increasingly aging population where the price/income ratio for housing has doubled over the decades. A young family of four that isn't making over $180k today would struggle maintaining a lifestyle most would consider middle class in most of the country. But every time the member moves that family loses $50k from the spouse starting their career over. How does the CAF compensation structure account for that? And that is all made worse by losing a daycare spot (my wife nearly quit her job when we couldn't find daycare....in Ottawa), not being able to find a family doctor, etc

The maxim that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result, holds. Over the last two decades, CAF shortfalls have gotten worse and worse. And yet nobody wants to listen to members literally telling them in release surveys what the problems are. Expecting things to change because new kit is the definition of insanity. You might retain a few pilots with new F-35s. Good luck retaining the techs and engineers though. And that same challenge is true across other services.

Finally, like I said earlier, a lot of these conversations ignore demographics and needed family income today. A member is much more likely to be older and have dependents today than generations past. That also means they care about family income. If you screw the spouse, the member's pay has to make up for it. The CAF doesn't come close today. And so increasingly, every posting message is a family decision of do we take this or should we end here.

Throwing money at this, won't fix everything, but it will stem the losses and buy time till ab lot of the institutional changes can be made and the missing supports built. Or I guess we can just pray for a severe recession....

We're more likely to put up the CAF BS if the money and benefits are worth it.

I can tell you this last deployment was my last. Not because I've lost steam or desire it's that the financial benefits are no where near what the CAF needs to offer me to go away for 6 months and live in a tin can. And thats inclusive of all deployment benefits. It's not worth it.

 

[ytz]

Maybe we don't need to pay Gunner Bloggins 25% more, but I suspect the ACIS Tech needs at least that much to keep putting up with CAF BS.

Gunner Bloggins probably doesn't need 25%. But MCpl. Bloggins could well have their spouse saying they are tired of renting and maybe they should stay put and Bloggins should get out and go take an oil patch or city works or policing job. That initial decade as a single Pte/Cpl or Lt/Capt only goes so far. Then they get married and the bills start coming. And that's before we talk about simply not being able to get some family services (at any cost) in certain locations.

Spec trade pay, like you point out, is also rather poor, relative to private sector. But even this problem would at least be reduced by an across the board bump. Going 10% across the board will at least keep some ACIS Techs longer.

A big part of the problem, in my opinion, is this comparison to the public service. For example, with engineers (my field), a Captain is equivalent to between an ENG-3 and ENG-4 supposedly. A maxed out Captain-10 is on par with a maxed out ENG-4 and $13k over a maxed out ENG-3. If you split the difference, that would make this "military factor" maybe $6k? That few thousand will never make up for a spouse resetting their career, ending up on the daycare waiting list, back on the family doctor list, etc. every 3-4 years. The logical financial decision is to get out and get an ENG-4 job, the first chance a person gets, so that they have the same pay as the CAF, but much better family stability. I have no idea how this military factor is calculated, but when it works out to being a Public Service recruiting program, something isn't right here.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Finally, like I said earlier, a lot of these conversations ignore demographics and needed family income today. A member is much more likely to be older and have dependents today than generations past. That also means they care about family income. If you screw the spouse, the member's pay has to make up for it. The CAF doesn't come close today. And so increasingly, every posting message is a family decision of do we take this or should we end here.

Throwing money at this, won't fix everything, but it will stem the losses and buy time till ab lot of the institutional changes can be made and the missing supports built. Or I guess we can just pray for a severe recession....

This issue screams for rigorous and open minded application of the risk management hierarchy, right down to "throwing money" as the short term bandaid PPE analogue

 

[ytz]

We're more likely to put up the CAF BS if the money and benefits are worth it.

I can tell you this last deployment was my last. Not because I've lost steam or desire it's that the financial benefits are no where near what the CAF needs to offer me to go away for 6 months and live in a tin can. And thats inclusive of all deployment benefits. It's not worth it.

The best part these days? There's trades that are upside down. Especially on the officer side. Senior officer ranks > 90%. Captains in the low 80s or worse. This is now reducing promotions (gotta keep those rank ratios), only making the problem worse, as people perceive that there's no reasonable way to make more. Career managers pleading with Captains and giving them anything they can but a promotion (the one thing that will give them more pay).

Gotta just chuckle at some of the discussion here. Soooooo out of touch.

 

[Halifax Tar]

The best part these days? There's trades that are upside down. Especially on the officer side. Senior officer ranks > 90%. Captains in the low 80s or worse. This is now reducing promotions (gotta keep those rank ratios), only making the problem worse, as people perceive that there's no reasonable way to make more. Career managers pleading with Captains and giving them anything they can but a promotion (the one thing that will give them more pay).

Gotta just chuckle at some of the discussion here. Soooooo out of touch.

I think their intentions are noble, I just think their experience no longer aligns with reality.

It's only natural the longer you're removed a organization like the CAF the less and less valuable you're experience becomes as it loses connection with the present reality.

 

[ytz]

I think their intentions are noble, I just think their experience no longer aligns with reality.

It's only natural the longer you're removed a organization like the CAF the less and less valuable you're experience becomes as it loses connection with the present reality.

Partly being out. Partly age. Most people just don't understand how rough young people, and especially young families have it these days. There's a reason that old people rank their happiness substantially higher in Canada than the youth. Every few months I'm surprised at things my LTs and MCPLs tell me about their financial situations and the workarounds being employed. And honestly, there's times I admire their decision to continue serving knowing the hits they take. Partly why I'm so passionate here.

...
Findings for people under the age of 30 showed Canada in 58th place, the U.S. in 62nd place and Mexico in 22nd place. Australia was 19th in the category and New Zealand was 27th.
...
Denmark, meanwhile, is the world's happiest country for those aged 60 and older, followed by Finland, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Canada, Australia and the U.S.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/world-happiness-report-2024-1.7139215

 

[dapaterson]

The overwhelming majority of CAF "engineering" jobs should be civilianized. Their employment profile is materially different from most others; my old joke was "Louis St Laurent is the EME Home Station".

In most areas CAF compensation on an individual level outstrips Canadian average pay; the problem is that that does not translate to household income.

So, the problem space has to be addressed, among other ways, by providing greater geographic stability, which might include as a second order effect a greater reliance on extended TD / IR.

There's also a need to accept that pay rates can (gasp) go down. In the 1970s, an occupation that uses computers was high tech / high demand; today, everyone and their dog uses computers...

 

[Remius]

The overwhelming majority of CAF "engineering" jobs should be civilianized. Their employment profile is materially different from most others; my old joke was "Louis St Laurent is the EME Home Station".

In most areas CAF compensation on an individual level outstrips Canadian average pay; the problem is that that does not translate to household income.

So, the problem space has to be addressed, among other ways, by providing greater geographic stability, which might include as a second order effect a greater reliance on extended TD / IR.

There's also a need to accept that pay rates can (gasp) go down. In the 1970s, an occupation that uses computers was high tech / high demand; today, everyone and their dog uses computers...

I suspect quite a few jobs or number of jobs could be civilianized.

And as we’ve seen with the myriad of Class B types in some positions, pay, benefits etc could be reduced in exchange for more geographic stability and control over their own career.

 

[ytz]

So, the problem space has to be addressed, among other ways, by providing greater geographic stability, which might include as a second order effect a greater reliance on extended TD / IR.

I think most families would actually prefer this. And there's been some moves here. Notably, after COVID, allowing no-move remote work in some positions. There's staff functions that now have fully distributed teams that just work on Teams and meet on TD every month or two. Not sure how scalable a lot of this is, outside staff world.

There's also a need to accept that pay rates can (gasp) go down. In the 1970s, an occupation that uses computers was high tech / high demand; today, everyone and their dog uses computers...

That's what spec pay is for. And I've seen occupations rebaselined down.

Not sure about the other services, but right now the RCAF is going through a massive effort to look at every single air force owned trade, whether it should exist, be scrapped and/or rebaselined.

 

[ytz]

I suspect quite a few jobs or number of jobs could be civilianized.

Yes and no. DND PS is basically set up to take military members. There's no actual training or development program for many of those PS jobs. They need ex-military with a whole bunch of military quals. If a whole lot of those jobs were civilianized, we'd end up with a lot of unqualified people doing jobs they have no experience with.

Not sure how it is in other services either. But the RCAF uses that Ottawa tour for its engineers to have good fleet knowledge and a bit of maturity before they are back in a billet at a line squadron. Breaking this cycle by civilianizing jobs in Ottawa, effectively changes the employment and training model completely.

All of this can be done. But I don't think it's an easy as some here think. And while it's the current model, I don't think it should be an excuse to pay people less.

 

[Remius]

Yes and no. DND PS is basically set up to take military members. There's no actual training or development program for many of those PS jobs. They need ex-military with a whole bunch of military quals. If a whole lot of those jobs were civilianized, we'd end up with a lot of unqualified people doing jobs they have no experience with.

I call a bit of BS on that. DND PS is set up like any other department and follows the same hiring model and processes While a lot of jobs do rely on that experience a heck of a lot of other jobs do not.

DND is very good at using the priority hire system and hiring CAF members yes and military types do have great experience to bring to a civilian job but even a lot of those positions could be filled with Civies.

I worked in an HR hub for ADM Mat and our PG/EG/ENG/EL development program was all civilian. In fact most of our ENG candidates were bridged in students who had a few years doing real work as students.

 

[Kirkhill]

Trust/Complacency
Interlocutors
Nature of the Defence Force

Reviewing this recent discussion these three themes stuck out for me.

In large part we are here in this situation because, like many others, we have done it to ourselves.

Trust/Complacency

Chicken/Egg

We have been given no reason, for the best part of 80 years, not to trust the United States, either its people or its administrators. It became easy to trust them and to keep the faith that tomorrow would be just like yesterday. We became complacent. We convinced ourselves we would never have to defend our country and that war fighting was an optional exercise. Something we could choose to participate in if we felt so inclined, and from which we could withdraw on our own terms.

Defending our own national territory was variously seen as unthinkable and as a fool's errand. Nobody was going to invade us and if they did there was no means of defending ourselves in any case. Prime Ministers have been briefed on those truths since 1867. The best we have been able to do in terms of a defensive for defending Canada was a couple of batteries at Fort Henry and Quebec with 3 miles range and 300 civilians in Redcoats with a 9 pounder gun sent to besiege a whisky traders fort in Indian country. That sense of impossibility has imprinted itself on our thinking ever since.

My opinion is different. My opinion is that technology has radically changed the calculus in terms of situational awareness, in terms of the effects that a single individual can deliver to the battlefield an in terms of the number of Canadians.

Regardless of my personal opinion the general opinion was that there was no need to spend on defence of our territory. The threat wasn't there and we couldn't do anything about it anyway. Far better to save the money and mental energy and spend them on social services.

This sense of complacency has made the Trump shock all the more bitter. It is felt as a betrayal.

Which brings me to the next theme.

Interlocutors.

We picked Justin Trudeau as our agent on the world stage. The Americans picked Donald Trump. We are upset because they picked somebody we didn't like and he has acted in ways we don't like. And, again, it feels like betrayal. It has shaken us out of our complacency.

But why is the arrival of Donald Trump as agent for the Americans any different than Putin acting for the Russians or Xi acting for the Chinese? Or any of the 198 nations of the United Nations picking a new interlocutor for themselves. Any one of them could be a disruptive agent. And the Americans have had their fair share of disruptive presidents. Roosevelt comes to mind.

We are upset because we failed to plan for disruption. And disruption is unnerving. And now we find ourselves in a very vulnerable position scrambling for weapons, for money and for friends - many of whom are feeling similar senses of disruption and betrayal.

We failed to anticipate a future that looked different to the past. We failed to prepare a realistic national defence.

And there we have theme three.

The Nature of the Defence Force.

To my knowledge no army, no nation, has fought war effectively without some form of compulsory service. Not even Canada. World Wars 1 and 2 were supposedly voluntary wars but they required conscription both to meet the need to secure the home territory and to keep the ranks of the deployed army filled. And, on home turf, in 1776, 1812, 1866 and 1885, the defensive needs were met by calling out the militia. And the militia was every man and boy fit for service. Some volunteered and some were volunteered.

There is a world of difference between maintaining a peace time army and a war fighting army.

In peace time the greatest need is for technicians to build, service and operate the machines of war. They supply situational awareness and quick reaction forces. There is little need for people to close with and destroy the enemy so infantry, cavalry and artillery can be allowed to atrophy. As they have.

In war time the situation reverses. Technicians are going to be worked hard, and there may not be enough of them but infantry, cavalry and artillery start dying, sometimes in great numbers. Fortunately with a few weeks of training replacements can be sent into the line. If they are lucky then they will have more than a few weeks of training and they will have commanders that have had a chance to learn their jobs. And it is that prep work that necessitates some form of military preparation during peace time. Thus the popularity, around the world, of a few months, sometimes 3 months, sometimes a couple of years, of compulsory military service.

The lads and lassies called to this service, most of them will not be making careers out of being soldiers. They only have to put up with the military bullshit for a short period. It fits into their school life schedule as just another necessary training endeavour that society demands of them, much like learning to read and write, learn history and science and how to drive a vehicle. They do the work. They graduate. Then it is over and they carry on with their civilian lives. And the government has to hand a population that knows how to fire a rifle and which can be slotted into a reg force section as an ammo carrier and watch stander.

And some of them will actually enjoy their experience. Some may become regulars. Some may offer themselves as reserves. And some may be happier as less regimented volunteers.

....

The professionals have to be well managed and well cared for. No doubt. But they have to be made fully aware that their primary function is to prepare to fight a war, in the homeland, and that they will be working alongside, and in command of armed civilians called up for the duration. It is in the professionals best interest to make these people both proficient and willing. Because they will rely on them to win and survive.

...

The needs of the Combat Arms are not the needs of the Technical Corps. The Technical Corps are fully crewed in peace and war. The Combat Arms need only maintain a small QRF and a Command Cadre charged with learning their trade and training their troops.


2 cents.

 

[ytz]

In fact most of our ENG candidates were bridged in students who had a few years doing real work as students.

I've worked with EITs at ADM(MAT) too. They are not, however, the majority of ENG recruits. For example, go look at jobs in the EW, Ammunition and Explosives, etc. You'll find few to none civvies without military experience. Moreover the jobs you're looking at civilianizing do need some military experience and/or specific fleet/system knowledge. These are not jobs occupied by civilians today. So today's civilian employment is not what we're taking about. Also, there are some perspectives that only come from wearing the cloth of the country. As my ex-mil boss at ADM(MAT) used to say to some civvies getting stressed over signing a flight permit with substantially higher risk than they were used to in the civilian world, "We're not f***ing Air Canada."

 

[dapaterson]

Look at the geoloc distribution of the MARE, RCEME, AERE and SIGS communities (talking officers here).

It's not a plurality in th NCR, it's a majority.

That's not a "occasional LCMM posting".