# Canadian Forces being downsized?



## Drew Grey (17 Apr 2016)

Forgive me if this has been asked too many times but almost all the guys I have been talking to in the infantry have been telling me something to the extent of "good luck man the army is downsizing so hopefully you still get in"

True or partly true or not true?


----------



## Michael OLeary (17 Apr 2016)

Rumour; not based on any known facts.

Ask them to provide proof next time, thousands of serving members would like to see it.


----------



## TCM621 (17 Apr 2016)

We are smaller than we were a few years ago. The last number I saw have us at about 55k trained effective strength and a little over 60 total. I don't know if this is on purpose or some combination of attrition and lack of recruiting. The official number is still 68k though. 

There has also been talk from various political types of a "leaner"  military.  Although if we get much leaner we will have distended bellies and flies on our eyes. 

Anecdotally,  my (sub) unit has contracted almost in half in the last 3-4 years. And I have heard of similar shortages across the military.


----------



## dapaterson (17 Apr 2016)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> We are smaller than we were a few years ago. The last number I saw have us at about 55k trained effective strength and a little over 60 total. I don't know if this is on purpose or some combination of attrition and lack of recruiting. The official number is still 68k though.
> 
> There has also been talk from various political types of a "leaner"  military.  Although if we get much leaner we will have distended bellies and flies on our eyes.
> 
> Anecdotally,  my (sub) unit has contracted almost in half in the last 3-4 years. And I have heard of similar shortages across the military.



Your numbers are wrong.  Current strength numbers are reported in the PARRA report, or can be viewed on the DIN under the HRRS.

There are challenges, in that the SPHL is too small, as is the BTL/SUTL (based on the CAF establishment study last year).  But actual Reg F strength numbers are increasing, and within 3% of the target overall strength.


----------



## mariomike (17 Apr 2016)

Drew Grey said:
			
		

> Forgive me if this has been asked too many times but almost all the guys I have been talking to in the infantry have been telling me something to the extent of "good luck man the army is downsizing so hopefully you still get in"



You can check here to see how long it is taking other Infantry applicants to get in,

Application Process Samples  
https://army.ca/forums/threads/13064.5100.html


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Apr 2016)

Several years ago, there was a Special VOTP set up specifically to move pers out of Inf.  Maybe this is the reason serving Inf mbrs (assuming at the Jnr NCO level) have the notion that 'the army is downsizing'?


----------



## dapaterson (18 Apr 2016)

To be clear, the Reg F target of 68000 is made up of over 100 different occupations.  Thus, it can be very problematic to speak of strength - since one occupation being overstrength can mask others being understrength, all within the 68000.  Occupations range in size from single digits to thousands of people.

Establishment management, which is the foundation for personnel generation, is not always well understood, and the personnel generation system is also complex.  And expertise in pers gen is not all that common; many assume that since they have been recrutied and done some courses they are experts in the field, which is tantamount to declaring oneself to being an expert in civil engineering because you drove on a highway.


----------



## Underway (18 Apr 2016)

There is also the added complication of how retirements and VOT's etc... effect the overall trade status.  Every year Recruiting Group gets new moving targets.  One year we recruited 10 pilots the next over 60.  There are so many variations and things that effect the trade strength its mind boggling.  Your best be go to recruiting and ask what their numbers are for this year.  They should have their new targets to fill right now.  You'll have a good idea of how many spots are available for what you are applying for.


----------



## Baz (18 Apr 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Establishment management, which is the foundation for personnel generation, is not always well understood, and the personnel generation system is also complex.  And expertise in pers gen is not all that common; many assume that since they have been recrutied and done some courses they are experts in the field, which is tantamount to declaring oneself to being an expert in civil engineering because you drove on a highway.



I'll second that...

I don't consider myself an expert; not even close enough to volunteer for the hard jobs, even though I've sat Training Needs Analysis, Training Standards / Training Plans, etc.

However, one of the issues that rears it's ugly head is there is no requirement for the CMs to be experts as well; I know of plenty that were never even in a "pure" FG unit (pure, because every unit does FG).


----------



## dapaterson (18 Apr 2016)

Apparently in France "Career Manager" is a stand alone trade, recognizing the complexity of just that aspect of pers management.


----------



## runormal (18 Apr 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Apparently in France "Career Manager" is a stand alone trade, recognizing the complexity of just that aspect of pers management.



I assume that would be a remuster only trade? Personally I think you'd need to have experienced the the entire trade before you could even become to try and figure out how to manage your suborinates careers.


----------



## Journeyman (18 Apr 2016)

runormal said:
			
		

> Personally I think you'd need to have experienced the the entire trade .....


Wow.  So for a pilot, for example, they'd have to not only qualify on each type of aircraft but be operationally employed in fighters, transport, SAR, maritime helicopter, etc, etc, plus test pilot, instructor, procurement, doctrine, hotel- and sunglasses-selection.....that's a LOT of pre-requisites, just for the CM job.  And with the CM job, you may need to know about Force Generation, the military's current and future requirements, prioritizing, any number of HR issues like languages, education, families' requirements/preferences....

Let's just say, I disagree.  



And I'm not a Pilot, nor have I played one on TV


----------



## runormal (18 Apr 2016)

Fair enough, i'll agree that the was poorly written and I'll wear that.

What I meant was experience various, postings, jobs and taks within. No one will be able to experience every task, and posting because the jobs are too complex. 

Likewise there im well aware that there is a lot to learn on the HR side. Likewise once said member learns all of this, we need to be able to retain said member. 

But I do feel that one some with some (how much can be up for debate) experience within the CF would have a better insight on the realities of a trade. That being said just because someone was in the CF that doesn't mean that they know everything about the trade or life within. There are also times when outside eyes/experiences are needed.

Edit: I realize I've contradicted my self in this post.


----------



## jollyjacktar (18 Apr 2016)

I think it's fair to say that the position of CM is challenging because the incumbent is there for a relatively short time.  Therefore he/she doesn't have the opportunity to become fully comfortable with the job as by the time they do, they're posted.  The endless cycle of change perhaps doesn't serve the troops well.  Maybe the French are onto something.


----------



## George Wallace (18 Apr 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I think it's fair to say that the position of CM is challenging because the incumbent is there for a relatively short time.  Therefore he/she doesn't have the opportunity to become fully comfortable with the job as by the time they do, they're posted.  The endless cycle of change perhaps doesn't serve the troops well.  Maybe the French are onto something.



Perhaps that would alleviate any problems of a CM ever being biased for or against a member......making the position one of an "Honest Broker".


----------



## jollyjacktar (18 Apr 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Perhaps that would alleviate any problems of a CM ever being biased for or against a member......making the position one of an "Honest Broker".



Like a BPSO, not connected to the trade from the standpoint of having possible issues (good or bad) with certain individuals because of a history of serving together in the past.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Apr 2016)

I don't know about your trades, but 'local' Snr pers in the trade talk back and forth with the CM when it comes to career management topics anyways, so it might help to eliminate real or perceived biases but I am not sure we could ever eliminate them without eliminating 'humans' from the equation all together.   :dunno:

My trade shares a CM with SAR Tech and FE , but in reality the CM deals with the SOA and community CWOs.  I spoke to him (CM) this year over the phone (VTC wasn't avail at the location I was at) but he wouldn't know me to see me if he ran me over in his car.  The SCWO would though, so I'd have to assume he was interested in getting rid of me if he did that.   >


----------

