Would Mandatory National Service make the CF stronger?

[munky99999]

Well, if you spend your entire life with your head two inches from a computer monitor, you really can't fault the CF for not 'getting' to you with their advertising, can you?

No great grandfather at Vimy  Ridge?  No grandfather at Falaise?  No father in Bosnia?

I definitely do no fault anyone for me not seeing any advertising. I have had many of my relatives get into the military, some even forced. I have a 1914-15 medal, victory medal, and British war medal. It’s just in my family the topic of conversation is 99% of the time is about the Canadian Pacific Railway. Never ever speak about anything in relation to the military.

Some may not realize it but we have a labour shortage of qualified individuals here in Ontario also.

This is true. As my brother and I have found very little problem with getting a job. However there are definitely people who are simply impossible to get a job. In fact today a recruiter told me that a dishonourable discharge would make it very impossible to get a job. So again it’s it very stereotypical to suggest everyone on welfare is scum. From my own personal friends, he and his father were on welfare and simply couldn’t find a job. He has a doctorate chemistry, pharmacy-stuff, and biology. Very respectable American universities but since it was slightly after 9/11-WTC. Nobody would hire him as a Muslim Arab. Welfare is the best he could do, despite his massive brain. He eventually found a job under an Asian manager and it made that pharmacy so productive and he helped run it so well that they are now building a new one - a3rd pharmacy. Was my friend’s dad scum? If you say yes you should jump off a bridge.

the bitter comment is that to work even at a lousy job you need to speak 3 languages, have 2 doctorates, at least 7 years experience and be younger than 21.

Jeeese Louise younger then 21 years old and 2 doctorates, I have some pretty smart friends but woowzers none of them even have a bachelors. I know you’re kidding by the way.

Following your free-market thinking, isn't a labour shortage simply a result of the employers not paying enough to attract enough staff?

Or perhaps because there are employers breaking the law… I had a job for a whole week doing excavation. It got pretty bad when a black man walks up to the owner and foreman of the business and asked for a job. The response was. I do not hire N-ers , sp=cs, and other bad racist words. Then I looked around and seen that it was pretty much true. I walked off the job after that without any notice. Just because it’s virtually against the law, doesn’t mean employers don’t do it. If you even look at it; an employer could be breaking every one of the discrimination laws but simply never actually show it, they could get away with it.

 

[Neill McKay]

It could also be a result of the employers having to compete with a government that pays people to sit on their asses.

True enough.  Offering a wage that doesn't compete favourably with the welfare rate is definitely not the way to attract employees.

 

[GO!!!]

Following your free-market thinking, isn't a labour shortage simply a result of the employers not paying enough to attract enough staff?

No, we are not suffering from a national labour shortage, but a regional one here in Alberta.

This has resulted in generations of job seeking Maritimers coming west - and good on them.

I am stating that I have little sympathy for supposedly intelligent and educated individuals who suckle at the government teat in one province while unskilled labourers make 50K/year in another. Employers here pay excellent wages - there are simply not enough workers.

 

[pbi]

GO- I beg to differ. AFAIK, there is a serious national labour shortage, especially in the building and skilled trades areas, but affecting things all across the economy. IIRC, the numbers in the building trades are in the tens of thousands. I have heard a similar figure for long-haul truck drivers. Here in Southern Ontario(for example), employers are pressuring the govt to amend immigration regulations to permit the import of more skilled workers, and to recognize the qualifications of people already here. I know there was a similar situation in Manitoba when I lived there 2002-2005: workers were being imported from Germany for the agri-industries.

I do agree with you that, somewhere along the way in our national history, native-born Canadians seem to have lost the drive to pack up and move to where the jobs are. If you look back into our history, especially in rural Ontario in the later part of the 19th century and early 20th century, you can find dozens of communities (some still on the map today) that became ghost towns as the local economies failed and people pulled up sticks to go elsewhere.

Cheers

 

[Rory]

Just a quick question, when/why did a thread about conscription turn into importing immigrants to cover job spots in the civvie world? Just curious, might of missed the post where the fork in the road began (or atleast the sign that told me where I was going).

 

[geo]

Just a quick question, when/why did a thread about conscription turn into importing immigrants to cover job spots in the civvie world? Just curious, might of missed the post where the fork in the road began (or atleast the sign that told me where I was going).

Conscription puts people to work.  If there is already a labour shortage, initiating conscription pushes everything over the top... if there is a labour shortage - then is it not advantageous to open up immigration and allow people from outside to help fill those openings?

 

[Rory]

Ok, sorry just missed the boat on that one. But if conscription was there wouldn't make that problem go away, I mean not everyone on welfare or out of employment may be meeting certain requirements etc. Though it would help knock off a bit of that.

 

[GO!!!]

Conscription puts people to work.  If there is already a labour shortage, initiating conscription pushes everything over the top... if there is a labour shortage - then is it not advantageous to open up immigration and allow people from outside to help fill those openings?

Very true, but as long as Canada's continues to be a resource based economy, a labour shortage is not a completely bad thing either, despite short term considerations.

None of our natural resources are going anywhere, and they are only getting more valuable. A labour shortage, be it regional or national is really only providing long term stability for these industries.

 

[TCBF]

"None of our natural resources are going anywhere, and they are only getting more valuable. A labour shortage, be it regional or national is really only providing long term stability for these industries."

- Interesting point.  What IS the hurry to get all of the oil out of Alberta, anyhow?

 

[GO!!!]

- Interesting point.  What IS the hurry to get all of the oil out of Alberta, anyhow?

I'm not really sure.

It would seem to me that we could benefit from this resource for a few hundred more years if we exracted it slowly, and took advantage of ever higher commodity prices to make up the difference in lost production.

I suppose any centralised control of this would smack of socialism, but the practice of extracting ALL of the resources immediately would seem to be a bit shortsighted in the face of ever rising commodity prices.

 

[mustialwaysremember]

heavens no.

conscript army is a bane to a professional army unless you're looking for cannon fodders

Yes true..only if many many Canadians civilians die would I support conscription.

 

[pbi]

Yes true..only if many many Canadians civilians die would I support conscription.

What? ???


Cheers

 

[FastEddy]

Yes true..only if many many Canadians civilians die would I support conscription.

If Banned means the inability to post after being Banned, how come this person is posting on (to-day 9 June 2006). Or was he just Banned to-day ?.

 

[TCBF]

"Banned on the run,  Banned on the run..." - P. McCartney

 

[JackD]

Good God TCBF - how old are you? I first heard that one in Egypt.  Nice posting by the way.. went there after 7 months in Alert, came out looking like an emaciated dog...A quick question on World War Two Conscription. Were those conscripted and who did not go overseas (or get involved in testing Chemical weapons) allotted pensions? If so, then what are the pension rights for those who served in Bosnia, Somalia and Afghanistan? Surely these people should have the same pension rights.. or is that why none of these "operations" are considered 'wars"? i think if this aspect is cleared up and those who do serve in such places are allotted full veteran's rights, then conscription is a mute issue. In other words if people see that you get something decent in return, then more people will join up. I'm not saying that people join only for money, (good God I didn't and pay in the 70's was piss-poor) but if it is perceived that people are rewarded for their levels of responsibility and willingness to accept the risk that come with the job, then people will join - the "You worked for us, now we are going to look after you" aspect of a job is what many people look for.

 

[pbi]

Good God TCBF - how old are you? I first heard that one in Egypt.  Nice posting by the way.. went there after 7 months in Alert, came out looking like an emaciated dog...A quick question on World War Two Conscription. Were those conscripted and who did not go overseas (or get involved in testing Chemical weapons) allotted pensions? If so, then what are the pension rights for those who served in Bosnia, Somalia and Afghanistan? Surely these people should have the same pension rights.. or is that why none of these "operations" are considered 'wars"? i think if this aspect is cleared up and those who do serve in such places are allotted full veteran's rights, then conscription is a mute issue. In other words if people see that you get something decent in return, then more people will join up. I'm not saying that people join only for money, (good God I didn't and pay in the 70's was piss-poor) but if it is perceived that people are rewarded for their levels of responsibility and willingness to accept the risk that come with the job, then people will join - the "You worked for us, now we are going to look after you" aspect of a job is what many people look for.

JackD: I can't comment on WWII, but any Regular Force person who served in any of those areas you mentioned counts it as normal pensionable time. I am not aware of any special benefits to the normal pension just because of where we have served: I have served in Cyprus, Mozambique, Croatia and Afghanistan and I'm not aware of anything "extra" that I would get, under the normal Superannuation Act pension. However, we do get a number of other quite good non-pension benefits related to duty in such areas, while we are actually on the operation. For Reserve soldiers, it may be somewhat different, as the Reserve pension program is new and still has not been fully sorted out, as far as I know (I stand to be corrected here by a more knowledgeable poster). But even a Res soldier, when on active duty on operations such as Afgh, gets most of those non-pension benefits too.  Overall our total pay and benefits package today is miles beyond where it was in the '70s. All things considered (IMHO) we do much better than most other armies. You can "cherry-pick" certain benefits in other armies, but I think if you take all of the factors that go into "quality of life" (QOL), we do very well.

Cheers

 

[geo]

to continue on pbi's thread..... Reservists are / will be entitled to a pension shortly.  Also,  both Reg & Res who come off a mission with some form of PTSD are being looked after by veteran affairs (so long as it has been well documented while in service).

 

[JackD]

Hi! Thanks for that information. As you know turn-over is high and it is good to know that something is being done for the short-service veteran (for lack of better term). Just from my own experience - getting every injury documented is a good idea - and every posting too (God, I went to Egypt in 1976 and there was no documentation on that..) - as some of us older gents know, effects of injuries and disease show up later in life. Yes, I'm happy about this info... it is only right that the nation returns something to those who actually put something into it - (not just 'celebrities, politicians and their ilk). I do hope that units maintain strong regimental/unit associations for reasons such as this - to identify and inform the veteran who may have a developing problem (effects from the Agent orange spraying in Gagetown for example), not to mention the carrying-over of intergenerational links.

 

[exsemjingo]

Bullshit; just because a country doesn't employ troops it doesn't imply cowardice on a national scale, simply differing priorities. How does one even apply cowardice on a national scale in any event? You just invalidated your entire post with that.

I will tell you what; go ask people on the street of this country what they think of our Afghanistan mission.  I did when I told people of my decision to join up.  You would get responses like "Oh, I wouldn't go... war is bad" and "You'll get killed, I know it."  These aren't just ignorant sentiments; these ideas form political platforms for national parties.  I.E. The recent motion to stay in Afghanistan in Parliament passed by 4 votes only. (!)  That's the kind of thing I am referring too.

Proof's in the pudding.  Nations that do not want to fight, won't.  Afghanistan and Iraq aren't the only places in the world that need attention, but those other places just go on hurting.
Europe used to be the definitive power broker in the world.  The morals of Imperialism (or lack thereof) are another discussion, but for good or bad it's not anymore, and that's why.

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

The days of useful conscription for warm bodies are over.  War is a trade, and a damn complicated one.  The very last thing that we need is warm, untrained, unmotivated bodies.  The ability to draft conscription legislation in an emergency is useful, and the point of that would be to recall to the colours all of those who had prior military training, activate all reserve personnel, and provide legal means for selecting from the civilian population those individuals with key skills that are needed for the crisis at hand.  That could mean military control over medical resources and establishments, or simply personnel if the mission were overseas.  It could see telecommunications personnel (for hardware) or software experts (for viral attacks) to restore communications after terrorist action.  It could mean nationalization of heavy construction companies and equipment and drafting of applicable skilled operators, planners, managers etc to respond to a natural disaster.  It could likewise involve the drafting of select industrial planners, scientists and engineers to pursue crash development of materials deemed necessary to the national interests.
      What I don't see, is the need for 150,000 untrained 18-24year olds.  If all we need is someone to catch bullets that might otherwise hit a usefull soldier, we can still use the Senate!