# Canada's Military Among Highest Paid in The World- Article Nov 1/ 2014



## Bruce Monkhouse (1 Nov 2014)

Which I have no problems with,............you pay peanuts you get monkeys.
having said that, the *cough* training and the top-heaviness needs to be fixed RIGHT NOW.



MONTREAL — It's getting heavy at the top of the Canadian military.

Numbers uncovered by QMI Agency show an alarming trend of rising salaries for our top brass that are unmatched by our allies.

The hungry administration is taking a bigger chunk of the Armed Forces' $20-billion budget every year -- at a time when equipment needs continue to make headlines. A quarter of our soldiers are executives, QMI found — a ratio unparalleled in NATO. Their salaries are sometimes double those of similar ranks in other western countries. For instance, the starting salary of a Canadian sergeant is $64,992. A French soldier of the same rank makes only $26,380.

Retired colonel Michel Drapeau, who served 34 years in the Forces, says he's concerned with the current situation.
"Not many countries, even the richest ones, could spend their money like the Canadian military does," Drapeau said.
The problem is not how much money we spend, he said, but rather that the amount is not reflected in the military's effectiveness.
Half of the Forces' budget is spent on salary — soldiers, personnel, and pensions — according to NATO's data. That's 15% more of the total budget than what the Americans and British spend.

There's only 14.7% for equipment spending, at a time when the government is struggling to replace Canada's aging naval fleet and rusting aircraft. Comparatively, the U.S. spends 24.7% of its military budget on equipment, France spends 28.6% and the United Kingdom 23.1%.
Canada's military budget is among the top 20 in the world, and yet there are 70 other countries with more soldiers.

According to numbers obtained by QMI Agency, there were 9,550 military employees working in the nation's capital in 2003. There are now more than 20,000. Even though the Canadian Armed Forces is much smaller than its American counterpart, the number of bureaucrats working at its Ottawa headquarters matches the number at the Pentagon.
Drapeau says Parliament isn't looking closely enough into military spending. He says the American system is much more efficient because Congress keeps a close eye on how the money is spent. "The problem is that we have a tight-knit military that operates in complete secrecy," Drapeau says.

Researcher Aude Fleurant of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute agrees.
Fleurant says he's seen in his own research a trend towards less transparency.
"It's now more difficult to access documents, whereas before they were easily available. The United States is more transparent," Fleurant says.
Besides high spending at the top of the ladder, there are several other spending practices within the Forces that have raised questions over the years.

One is a $5-a-day stipend for soldiers in jail in Canada. The initiative aims to better rehabilitate them for release. Military sources told QMI Agency that many inside the Forces are baffled by the existence of the program.
Canada's military spends about $700 million every year on education and training. But for the past 20 years, about 50 soldiers study abroad each year, racking up bills of tens of thousands of dollars. In one case, taxpayers forked over $246,888 in one year to send a military judge to the prestigious London School of Economics.

Only recently did the federal government adjust a provision that paid moving expenses for retiring military brass, even if they were moving within the same city.


----------



## Infanteer (1 Nov 2014)

One must be careful with salary comparison, as other benefits must be factored in as well.  Sometime dollar to dollar is not a direct translation.

As well, I don't mind that we pay Sergeants $65k annually.  They are for the most part well trained, motivated professionals often with a decade of on the job experience and numerous qualifications.  If we paid them 26K like the French, how many do you think we'd keep?

I do agree, at face value, with the concern with rank inflation and the direct dollar costs.  Our staff inflation means everybody is doing a job that, 20 years ago, someone a rank lower was doing.  We get officers to do things that NCOs/WOs are perfectly suited to do.  The CAF could certainly trim the crowd of six figure salary earners.


----------



## MilEME09 (1 Nov 2014)

One aspect it doesn't seem to look at though is the Cost of Living vs those wages we, the French, Brits and Americans pay. You can't tell me a Sergeant in Cold lake would have the same cost of living as one living in Aldershot (UK), San Diego, or Chaumont-Semoutiers.


----------



## dapaterson (1 Nov 2014)

In the 70s, about 5% of the Regular Force were senior officers.  Today?  Over 8%.  Or, in other words, if we had the same proportion as in the '70s we would have 2000 fewer Majors, LCols, Cols and Generals than we have today.

Anyone have any ideas for what we could do with another 2000 positions in the Regular Force?


----------



## Infanteer (1 Nov 2014)

Buy mortars?


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Nov 2014)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> One aspect it doesn't seem to look at though is the Cost of Living vs those wages we, the French, Brits and Americans pay. You can't tell me a Sergeant in Cold lake would have the same cost of living as one living in Aldershot (UK), San Diego, or Chaumont-Semoutiers.




How about Benning, Biloxi, Bliss and Riley....not much competition for those properties, I would suggest.  The UK is different, agreed.  But all their wages are very low and property values very high.  High population density makes public services more affordable than in Canada, and that offsets  the low wages, but those public services, including Defence, are still not affordable...

With respect to the 64K Sergeant - how many years service does he have compared to the French sergeant?  And do the French tend to bump their long service NCOs up to Adjutant more easily for incorporation in junior staff positions that are handled by Canadian majors?

WRT mortars - to heck with the people - buy mortars anyway and issue them to the people you have.  It would keep them occupied and unavailable for service in Ottawa.


----------



## Monsoon (1 Nov 2014)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> In the 70s, about 5% of the Regular Force were senior officers.  Today?  Over 8%.  Or, in other words, if we had the same proportion as in the '70s we would have 2000 fewer Majors, LCols, Cols and Generals than we have today.


In the 70s we had a total force that was 50% bigger and we enjoyed a slight economy of scale. I'm fairly certain that point has been thrashed to death _ad nauseam_ elsewhere on this site.


----------



## GAP (1 Nov 2014)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> In the 70s we had a total force that was 50% bigger and we enjoyed a slight economy of scale. I'm fairly certain that point has been thrashed to death _ad nauseam_ elsewhere on this site.



And in the 60's & 70's we were considered still to be the Highest Paid in The World.....in concept if not in fact...In 1969 I was earning $200.00/month as a Sgt plus $65.00/month combat pay....what was a Canadian Sgt making?


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Nov 2014)

Something else that occurred to me: Is long service actually part of the problem?  Yes it generates highly skilled individuals.  But it prevents new individuals from entering the system.  And the longer a person is in, the older they get, the higher their wage expectations.

Would it serve to increase the speed at which the mill turns over?  Especially at the lower ranks?  Feed people through faster, possibly pumping out more Reserves? 

It would become a game of balancing experience against numbers. But, in the field, how many fit young privates is a 25 year sergeant worth?


----------



## George Wallace (1 Nov 2014)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Something else that occurred to me: Is long service actually part of the problem?  Yes it generates highly skilled individuals.  But it prevents new individuals from entering the system.  And the longer a person is in, the older they get, the higher their wage expectations.
> 
> Would it serve to increase the speed at which the mill turns over?  Especially at the lower ranks?  Feed people through faster, possibly pumping out more Reserves?
> 
> It would become a game of balancing experience against numbers. But, in the field, how many fit young privates is a 25 year sergeant worth?



Like Communism, it is a great idea on paper, but fails the reality check.  If the military had a absolutely fixed number of pers that it could maintain, unfettered by downsizing, it might work, but reality is that the Government wants to save money cutting the number of troops makes sense to them.  The size of the CAF is constantly being adjusted by the Government.  We have seen the affects of FRP in the early '90's and the degradation of many Trades due to the loss of the most experienced members, and lack of experienced members to run the Schools.  Another point: during years when we are at 'peace' for any length of time and not so much in the public eye, nor their favour, we do not see the numbers to carry out such a turn over.


----------



## Brasidas (1 Nov 2014)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Something else that occurred to me: Is long service actually part of the problem?  Yes it generates highly skilled individuals.  But it prevents new individuals from entering the system.  And the longer a person is in, the older they get, the higher their wage expectations.
> 
> Would it serve to increase the speed at which the mill turns over?  Especially at the lower ranks?  Feed people through faster, possibly pumping out more Reserves?
> 
> It would become a game of balancing experience against numbers. But, in the field, how many fit young privates is a 25 year sergeant worth?



How many well-trained privates can our regforce plus reserve churn out during a large, sudden commitment over a couple years versus an army that deliberately encourages attrition? What happens if someone guesses wrong, attrition outpaces training, and experience loss sees a couple trades gutted?

i'd rather see the IPC scale stretched, keep good corporals as corporals, and pay them more as such, and avoid the peter principle. Bring in some rank deflation across the board and targetted where needed. i'm more concerned about someone getting promoted beyond their effectiveness than about the payroll.


----------



## McG (1 Nov 2014)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Anyone have any ideas for what we could do with another 2000 positions in the Regular Force?


Fill out the hollow field force or provide lacking CSS pers?



			
				Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Half of the Forces' budget is spent on salary — soldiers, personnel, and pensions — according to NATO's data. That's 15% more of the total budget than what the Americans and British spend.


Is that a sign we are over paying pers, or is it reflective of our under funding everything else?



			
				Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Canada's military budget is among the top 20 in the world, and yet there are 70 other countries with more soldiers.


The list of world largest armies include those of several poor nations.  We probably should not model our pay after Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, North Korea, etc.


----------



## Tibbson (1 Nov 2014)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Something else that occurred to me: Is long service actually part of the problem?  Yes it generates highly skilled individuals.  But it prevents new individuals from entering the system.  And the longer a person is in, the older they get, the higher their wage expectations.
> 
> Would it serve to increase the speed at which the mill turns over?  Especially at the lower ranks?  Feed people through faster, possibly pumping out more Reserves?
> 
> It would become a game of balancing experience against numbers. But, in the field, how many fit young privates is a 25 year sergeant worth?



I can't help but wonder, when people make this argument, just why they want a turn over so quick.  Personally, I'd rather keep the experience and the corporate knowledge that we have then adopt an "up or out" system.  Of course, provided they are still suitable for the job.  We've all heard the comments over the years directed at someone with experience (usually made in jest but with an underlying level of seriousness)..."Why don't you just retire (insert rank here) so others can get promoted".  Well that individual earned his/her rank and deserves to be there as much as the next person and provided they are able to meet the universality of service requirements and they are committed to the tasks required I have never seen any reason why that person should just make way for others.  For me, those young fit privates are worth their weight in gold...but so is that 25 year Sgt.  They both have their place and they are both as vital to achieving the mission as the next soldier.  

Anyway, I'll quietly don my helmet and wait for the incoming.


----------



## dimsum (1 Nov 2014)

I was going to fire up the outrage bus, but then realized it was a Sun article.  So, I've since tempered it a bit.  

I'd like to know what the rank was for the mil judge who was sent to LSE for $246k though.  If it's a Maj or LCol, factoring in housing, pay, etc. it would have been similar regardless of what school (in Canada or elsewhere).


----------



## dapaterson (1 Nov 2014)

The lawyer was this guy: http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-org-structure/judge-advocate-general-bio.page


----------



## Tibbson (1 Nov 2014)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The lawyer was this guy: http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-org-structure/judge-advocate-general-bio.page



On the face of it the schooling seems appropriate for someone of his rank and position.  Especially given the international and legal focus of his position.  Hes got a pretty impressive list of academic awards too so it would seem the training opportunities have not been wasted on him.

I guess it's just another example of how Drapeau and the Sun don't let a few facts and some common sense get in the way of a story.


----------



## dimsum (1 Nov 2014)

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> On the face of it the schooling seems appropriate for someone of his rank and position.  Especially given the international and legal focus of his position.  Hes got a pretty impressive list of academic awards too so it would seem the training opportunities have not been wasted on him.
> 
> I guess it's just another example of how Drapeau and the Sun don't let a few facts and some common sense get in the way of a story.



Yep.  I'd say a 2-star only costing $250k/yr is actually a good deal.  Imagine the cost in civ street for someone of that rank/position.


----------

