# Up to 1,500 military housing units sit empty, auditor general says



## DAA (3 Feb 2016)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/auditor-general-military-houses-1.3430151

Mods, feel free to merge into something more appropriate if necessary.


----------



## runormal (3 Feb 2016)

I really don't like how this article is written as it seems really vague.

Especially this



> But the auditor says National Defence does not routinely look at what is available outside its walls, and the private market could in some cases meet the needs of members, notably in Halifax and Valcartier, Que.
> 
> Also, myriad regulations limit what can be charged, and in some cases rent for base accommodation is cheaper, particularly in Bagotville, Que., Edmonton and Winnipeg — a discrepancy Ferguson calls unfair to soldiers who choose to live off-base.



Because it says in some areas it _suggests _that PMQ's aren't needed. Whereas in other bases it suggests that there are _likely_ excess houses as the price is below market value. 

However It'd be nice to have a summary/spreadsheet showing which areas have excess and which areas are at capacity, that way I could make an educated opinion about the situation.  



> NDP MP David Christopherson was outraged and accused the department of being more concerned about buying bullets and bombs than the more important aspects of billets and bread.


 
I now see why people in the CAF don't take the NDP seriously.


----------



## jollyjacktar (3 Feb 2016)

Why should they be surprised if many PMQ are empty?  When you can get a mortgage in many instances for less than the rent they want to gouge, it's no wonder living on the economy is more attractive.


----------



## dapaterson (3 Feb 2016)

The bigger question is why the CAF should be in the rental business at all.


----------



## Brasidas (3 Feb 2016)

Because no sane person would want to buy a house in Shilo, and likewise there are places we get posted that don't have a whole lot of housing options.


----------



## dapaterson (3 Feb 2016)

Brasidas said:
			
		

> Because no sane person would want to buy a house in Shilo, and likewise there are places we get posted that don't have a whole lot of housing options.



So why housing in Halifax?  Edmonton? Toronto? Winnipeg?  Kingston?  Esquimalt?  Valcartier? That's roughly 4200 housing units.

The CAF needs to break away from some of its "Well, we've always done these things" mentality and ask the "Why?"


(Sort of like why do we need CANEX, which is only profitable because it pays no rent?)


----------



## Occam (3 Feb 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The bigger question is why the CAF should be in the rental business at all.



I dare say anyone posted into Edmonton this APS would love a PMQ, considering the alternative of a real estate market that's plummeting like a rock.


----------



## dapaterson (3 Feb 2016)

Occam said:
			
		

> I dare say anyone posted into Edmonton this APS would love a PMQ, considering the alternative of a real estate market that's plummeting like a rock.



Rent rather than buy.


> ... rental condominium vacancy rates ranged from a high of 5.3 per cent in Edmonton...


http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/corp/nero/nere/2015/2015-11-02-0815.cfm


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (3 Feb 2016)

I've never owned a house since joining mostly because I've never been posted somewhere long enough to really justify it.  

Likewise, I've never lived in the Qs, not even in Petawawa.  Most of the Qs are poor value for money as you can find nicer apartments for a comparable price in most places.  

That being said, this all comes back to having too many bases, most of which are in crappy areas with little to no services outside of what is provided by the military.

Imagine if Petawawa lost all its PMQs?  We are talking an influx of several thousand soldiers plus dependents looking for housing.  The situation would be a disaster.


----------



## PuckChaser (3 Feb 2016)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Imagine if Petawawa lost all its PMQs?  We are talking an influx of several thousand soldiers plus dependents looking for housing.  The situation would be a disaster.



Housing is already a disaster there, the prices are ridiculous. You either get 1940s war homes in deplorable state for $150k, or brand new at over $300k. Or you drive for a half hour just to get to the base.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (4 Feb 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Housing is already a disaster there, the prices are ridiculous. You either get 1940s war homes in deplorable state for $150k, or brand new at over $300k. Or you drive for a half hour just to get to the base.



Yes, lets not even mention that many families in Petawawa are single income families due to the lack of suitable employment for spouses.  The military has a responsibility to look after its members and part of that responsibility involves providing suitable accommodations when it posts members to some of our more illustrious bases.  

We continue to abdicate all responsibility in the name of saving a buck.  Only for every buck we save, we spend three trying to unfudge the problem we created by saving said buck.


----------



## PuckChaser (4 Feb 2016)

Absolutely.

I also wonder what PMQs are empty that are below market rate? CFHA makes sure it gets every dollar out of soldiers by raising rent every year like clockwork. Those 1500 empty PMQs are likely empty because they're 1950s pieces of crap full of asbestos, mold, no basement, 1 bathroom, and miniature bedrooms. 3 Bedroom, 900 sq ft no basement PMQ in Kingston was $950 a month. 3 Bedroom, full basement, 2.5 bath new build home 5 minutes from base was $1300 a month.


----------



## dapaterson (4 Feb 2016)

At what point do we treat military personnel as responsible adults, capable of making their own decisions, and compensated sufficiently to care for themselves?  How much hand-holding is needed?  Pte(3) is over $48K, as is the lowest paid Lt(1).  Those are liveable wages that increase over time.


(For those interested, the full OAG report on military housing is at http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_201602_05_e_41062.html)


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (4 Feb 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> So why housing in Halifax?  Edmonton? Toronto? Winnipeg?  Kingston?  Esquimalt?  Valcartier? That's roughly 4200 housing units.
> 
> The CAF needs to break away from some of its "Well, we've always done these things" mentality and ask the "Why?"
> 
> ...



Why does CANEX need to make money at all?  It provides our soldiers a service and is widely used, good enough for me.

Sorry, but the CAF isn't a for profit organization.  



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> At what point do we treat military personnel as responsible adults, capable of making their own decisions, and compensated sufficiently to care for themselves?  How much hand-holding is needed?  Pte(3) is over $48K, as is the lowest paid Lt(1).  Those are liveable wages that increase over time.
> 
> 
> (For those interested, the full OAG report on military housing is at http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_201602_05_e_41062.html)



I think you need to spend a little time away from FOB Ottawa, it's clearly impacting your views.  More time outside the wire required.


----------



## dapaterson (4 Feb 2016)

What core combat or combat support capability does CANEX provide?  Why should the military be in the business of running a third rate chain of retail stores?  Why should money that could buy boots or clothes or fuel or vehicles or ammo be spent so people can pay the same price as Best Buy for a TV?

The question of military housing is the same: if there is no viable local market, providing housing makes sense (and is aligned with policy).  But Kingston, for example, has a population of over 100000.  Why does the military need to own & maintain 497 housing units there?  Certainly, some SQs for courses are a good use of money (cheaper than sticking people in the Holiday Inn), but why should DND/CAF spend time, effort and money to be a third rate landlord?


----------



## jollyjacktar (4 Feb 2016)

So then what's your solution to do with all these Qs that are within the base proper?  Tear them down?  Then what?  Rent them out to civvies?  

Maybe if they didn't gouge the hell out of us to rent these boxes, folks might make use of them.  It annoys the hell out of me how we've turned into a profit making business.  Those Qs have been paid for time and time again.  Charging way more than their upkeep/upgrade costs and a fair admin mark up beyond that is BS.  Just like the paid parking garbage.


----------



## Halifax Tar (4 Feb 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> What core combat or combat support capability does CANEX provide?  Why should the military be in the business of running a third rate chain of retail stores?  Why should money that could buy boots or clothes or fuel or vehicles or ammo be spent so people can pay the same price as Best Buy for a TV?
> 
> The question of military housing is the same: if there is no viable local market, providing housing makes sense (and is aligned with policy).  But Kingston, for example, has a population of over 100000.  Why does the military need to own & maintain 497 housing units there?  Certainly, some SQs for courses are a good use of money (cheaper than sticking people in the Holiday Inn), but why should DND/CAF spend time, effort and money to be a third rate landlord?



As long as you forcibly and without choice move people, throwing second incomes and standards of living into chaos, you should offer a reasonable residence as an option.  If military members don't require them they will let the GOC, CAF and CFHA know this by not renting them anymore.  

Whats your beef with CANEX ?  You realize its an NPF organization right ?  Other than lost rental revenue, much like SISP, it doesn't cost the CAF anything.  In fact I would argue it provides CAF members a chance to purchase goods with the profits going back into the pot for the betterment of the people as whole.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (4 Feb 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> At what point do we treat military personnel as responsible adults, capable of making their own decisions, and compensated sufficiently to care for themselves?  How much hand-holding is needed?  Pte(3) is over $48K, as is the lowest paid Lt(1).  Those are liveable wages that increase over time.



As a responsible adult capable of making my own decisions, I wouldn't normally decide to move to a place like Victoria on 48K. Likewise I wouldn't sink money into a property and then sell it in 4-7 years to take a loss. We have the unfortunate circumstances of being told where and when to move and for a lot of people (myself included) PMQs allow the flexibility to keep QOL depending on where we are told we're going to live for the next few years.


----------



## dapaterson (4 Feb 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> So then what's your solution to do with all these Qs that are within the base proper?  Tear them down?  Then what?  Rent them out to civvies?



Sell off the portfolio.  Let private industry run it.  They have experience in doing it; we do not.  Again: why should DND/CAF be a third rate residential landlord?



> Maybe if they didn't gouge the hell out of us to rent these boxes, folks might make use of them.  It annoys the hell out of me how we've turned into a profit making business.  Those Qs have been paid for time and time again.  Charging way more than their upkeep/upgrade costs and a fair admin mark up beyond that is BS.  Just like the paid parking garbage.



If prices are so terrible, why not rent elsewhere?  In remote locations, that may not be an option (and would be a sensible place to keep quarters).  But HRM has a viable rental market.  Kingston has a viable rental market. 

As for paid parking: Why are you so special that you deserve free parking, where other workers do not?


----------



## dapaterson (4 Feb 2016)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Whats your beef with CANEX ?  You realize its an NPF organization right ?  Other than lost rental revenue, much like SISP, it doesn't cost the CAF anything.  In fact I would argue it provides CAF members a chance to purchase goods with the profits going back into the pot for the betterment of the people as whole.



CANEX loses money, deters competiton because of those subsidies, and serves no military utility.  It costs PILT; it costs infrastructure investments that could be made elsewhere.

And since the profits are an accounting fiction, it's just consuming O&M that could be used to pay for sea days, field training days, or days in 4 star hotels (depending on your environment).

Again: Why does DND/CAF need to run a third rate chain of retail stores?


(EDIT: fixing the inevitable typos that occur when posting before coffee)


----------



## dapaterson (4 Feb 2016)

rmc_wannabe said:
			
		

> As a responsible adult capable of making my own decisions, I wouldn't normally decide to move to a place like Victoria on 48K. Likewise I wouldn't sink money into a property and then sell it in 4-7 years to take a loss. We have the unfortunate circumstances of being told where and when to move and for a lot of people (myself included) PMQs allow the flexibility to keep QOL depending on where we are told we're going to live for the next few years.



If only we had some method for paying people extra due to the differential costs of living at different posts.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (4 Feb 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> If only we had some method for paying people extra due to the differential costs of living at different posts.



Ah yes, PLD. Those rates are still set from the 2009 assessment. Pay policies move at a glacial pace as opposed to the volatility of inflation and home equity. Such as Cold Lake going from boom to recession within the 7 years people have been hounding Ottawa to change the rates.


----------



## Halifax Tar (4 Feb 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> CANEX loses money, deters competiton because of those subsidies, and serves no military utility.  It costs PILT; it costs infrastructure investments that could be made elsewhere.
> 
> And since the profits are an accounting fiction, it's just consuming O&M that could be used to pay for sea days, field training days, or days in 4 star hotels (depending on your environment).
> 
> ...



I am sorry, this is all I could muster...  :facepalm:

Carry on with your stance, it is a free country after all.


----------



## dapaterson (4 Feb 2016)

I am willing to be persuaded. Why does the CAF need to run a retail chain? How does it contribute to core CAF missions and tasks?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (4 Feb 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> As for paid parking: Why are you so special that you deserve free parking, where other workers do not?



Because my tax dollars 'paid' for the parking lot in the first place??  What next, I have to pay rent on my workstation and chair in the crew room??

Taxpayers PAID for the parking lot already.  Its' not a private lot and shouldn't be able to collect revenues by users [taxpayers]?

Upkeep?  Part of doing business for the government.  Just like a 7/11.  They don't charge customers a 'parking fee' on top of their purchases, right?  Because that upkeep is part of their expense of operating.


----------



## dapaterson (4 Feb 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Because my tax dollars 'paid' for the parking lot in the first place??  What next, I have to pay rent on my workstation and chair in the crew room??



You have choices about how to get to work.  Those choices vary on the location you are posted to.  And in remote / rural areas, there is still free parking.  For duty/shift workers whose hours prevent them from other means of transport, there is free parking.  But in major urban areas, you can drive, bike, walk, take public transit... you are not obliged to drive.  You choose to do so.  Up to what point should your choices be subsidized?



> Taxpayers PAID for the parking lot already.  Its' not a private lot and shouldn't be able to collect revenues by users [taxpayers]?



And so? Government shouldn't be frugal with money?  Shouldn't try to recover costs from users of its services?



> Upkeep?  Part of doing business for the government.  Just like a 7/11.  They don't charge customers a 'parking fee' on top of their purchases, right?  Because that upkeep is part of their expense of operating.



I'm beginning to think that Mike Duffy had nothing on CAF members...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (4 Feb 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> If only we had some method for paying people extra due to the differential costs of living at different posts.



Not exactly a fair and perfect system;  posted to Halifax?  631/month.  Posted to Greenwood next?  No PLD, likely higher property taxes, etc.  Take a look at the geo boundary of Halifax (NW boundary) and Greenwoods SE boundary.  Not much difference.  Having done both of those ones before with mortgages, I will say that the "but housing in HRM is more expensive" is a bit of a farce.

Closing out PMQs in a place like Gagetown would just make the price of buying/renting around there to go FULL RETARD, IMO.  Then what choice would the 48k/year Pte who wants to start a family have?


----------



## Halifax Tar (4 Feb 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I am willing to be persuaded. Why does the CAF need to run a retail chain? How does it contribute to core CAF missions and tasks?



No dpaterson you are not.  I have been on this forum long enough to know that you are entrenched in your views like bedrock.  It does not warrant my time and effort to try to convince you otherwise.  

Please continue your stance, I just hope to god you are never in a position to actually swing decisions around these subjects.


----------



## dapaterson (4 Feb 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Closing out PMQs in a place like Gagetown would just make the price of buying/renting around there to go FULL RETARD, IMO.  Then what choice would the 48k/year Pte who wants to start a family have?



And you'll notice that I've never called to divest those Qs - my focus has been on urban areas where there's a viable rental market.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (4 Feb 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> You have choices about how to get to work.  Those choices vary on the location you are posted to.  And in remote / rural areas, there is still free parking.  For duty/shift workers whose hours prevent them from other means of transport, there is free parking.  But in major urban areas, you can drive, bike, walk, take public transit... you are not obliged to drive.  You choose to do so.  Up to what point should your choices be subsidized?
> 
> And so? Government shouldn't be frugal with money?  Shouldn't try to recover costs from users of its services?
> 
> I'm beginning to think that Mike Duffy had nothing on CAF members...



A person who lives in say, Hammonds Plains, because they can afford it out that far, and works on the dockyard has what options exactly?  

But what of the point I made; tax dollars paid for the parking lot.  It would be like the company that built my house charging me to park on the driveway I've already paid for.  "The government" paid for the parking lot with...ta da!  tax dollars.  From tax payers.  And then is charging them to use the thing they already paid for.  I see THAT as 'double dipping' off CAF members who are also tax payers.

Why not charge CAF members $5/day for the use of computers, desks and chairs then? Want to print that email?  That's 10 cents a page, sir.  Just sign this AR, we can have it come right off your pay.  I know, I know the tax payers, aka "you" already paid for this but...


----------



## dapaterson (4 Feb 2016)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> No dpaterson you are not.  I have been on this forum long enough to know that you are entrenched in your views like bedrock.  It does not warrant my time and effort to try to convince you otherwise.
> 
> Please continue your stance, I just hope to god you are never in a position to actually swing decisions around these subjects.



We will agree to disagree then.


----------



## dapaterson (4 Feb 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> But what of the point I made; tax dollars paid for the parking lot.  It would be like the company that built my house charging me to park on the driveway I've already paid for.  "The government" paid for the parking lot with...ta da!  tax dollars.  From tax payers.  And then is charging them to use the thing they already paid for.
> 
> Why not charge CAF members $5/day for the use of computers, desks and chairs then? Want to print that email?  That's 10 cents a page, sir.  Just sign this AR, we can have it come right off your pay.  I know, I know the tax payers, aka "you" already paid for this but...



And tax payers will pay to repave the parking lot.  And to light the parking lot.  And plow it in the winter. And... and... and... So at what point do you as a taxpayer ask "Why am I still shelling out for this?"


Free parking is not an integral requirement for you to do your job.  Computers, desks, chairs etc are.  (Well, depends on your specific job).


----------



## Jarnhamar (4 Feb 2016)

CF members who live in PMQs have shit wrong with them that doesn't get fixed for months (if at all) and would in all likelihood result in lawsuits had they be renting from actual civilian landlords. 

The chain of command needs to be removed from the equation as well.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (4 Feb 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> And you'll notice that I've never called to divest those Qs - my focus has been on urban areas where there's a viable rental market.



Like Edmonton?  Halifax?  Rental prices went FULL RETARD close to the dockyard area after the ship building deal was announced, from what I heard.  My last "viable" rental in Halifax [which was past the Hfx Airport] was more $ then my mortgage and property taxes are now.  And I still had a 45 min commute.  

Things that look nice and tidy in theory aren't quite so 'perfect' in reality.   :2c:


----------



## Eye In The Sky (4 Feb 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> And tax payers will pay to repave the parking lot.  And to light the parking lot.  And plow it in the winter. And... and... and... So at what point do you as a taxpayer ask "Why am I still shelling out for this?"



They/we have to pay for it in the 'non urban' places.  Are they upset about that?  I have more wasteful things I get pissed off about as a tax payer than parking lots, because I think it is pretty generally accepted the average person travels to work in a car.  I don't think Walmart charges its employees 'fees' to park their cars at work, because that would make them look like cheap assholes.  Its part of doing the business they do.  And they also repave, plow and light their parking lots.  Yet, I don't seem to recall seeing a 'parking fee' on my receipt when I run in for shaving cream and razors...odd.




> Free parking is not an integral requirement for you to do your job.  Computers, desks, chairs etc are.  (Well, depends on your specific job).



That is pretty lame reasoning.   :   Refer to my Walmart example above.

I see more and more of the 'screw the CAF member' attitude from within the CAF than I have before.  I also see more of a lower GAFF from the average CAF member than I have before too.  "Service before self" is the job, but people stop giving a shit when they start to feel no one gives a shit about them and their welfare too.  

For the record, I am not in a PLDA, I don't rent a Q and I am not required to pay for parking.  I have no personal iron in this fire, but I know we are constantly lowering the bar for the majority of our CAF members;  the Pte's and Cpl's who are in Standard pay groups, the younger OCdts, etc.  

I still remember being in 'that' part of my life, trying to make ends meet and get ahead in life.   :2c:


----------



## jollyjacktar (4 Feb 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Sell off the portfolio.  Let private industry run it.  They have experience in doing it; we do not.  Again: why should DND/CAF be a third rate residential landlord?
> 
> OK, we sell them off.  Who are you going to let in, especially where the PMQ are within the confines of the base proper ie: Borden?  Or are you going to now have the said same service family being screwed by a different landlord.  How's that for progress or looking after the welfare of the troops?
> 
> ...


----------



## MAJONES (4 Feb 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> You have choices about how to get to work.  Those choices vary on the location you are posted to.  And in remote / rural areas, there is still free parking.  For duty/shift workers whose hours prevent them from other means of transport, there is free parking.  But in major urban areas, you can drive, bike, walk, take public transit... you are not obliged to drive.  You choose to do so.  Up to what point should your choices be subsidized?
> 
> And so? Government shouldn't be frugal with money?  Shouldn't try to recover costs from users of its services?
> 
> I'm beginning to think that Mike Duffy had nothing on CAF members...



Dapaterson:

You seem to be under the impression that being in the CAF is like any other job.  It is not.  The CAF asks its members to do things and make sacrifices that other employers just don't.  This is a tremendous impediment to recruiting and it shows in number of red trades that we have.  I can attest from personal experience that many qualified potential candidates, (esp for the technical trades), are dissuaded from enrolling by the life styles that the organization forces on them.  Generally, someone who is smart enough to qualify for these trades has other options open to them.  Very few of these potential candidates are willing to subject themselves to the lifestyle the CAF imposes.  Insisting that they pay market rates for PMQs, (which for the most part are horrid), while living someplace not of their choosing and depriving their spouse of employment does not tip the balance in the CAFs favour.  So, you impact on core capabilities is right their in front of you; look at every trade that is red.

Also; if you really think that CAF pers are comparable to Mike Duffy you should get out; You obviously have much to low an opinion of your fellow members for a healthy, trusting working relationship.


----------



## dapaterson (4 Feb 2016)

MAJONES said:
			
		

> Dapaterson:
> 
> You seem to be under the impression that being in the CAF is like any other job.  It is not.  The CAF asks its members to do things and make sacrifices that other employers just don't.  This is a tremendous impediment to recruiting and it shows in number of red trades that we have.  I can attest from personal experience that many qualified potential candidates, (esp for the technical trades), are dissuaded from enrolling by the life styles that the organization forces on them.  Generally, someone who is smart enough to qualify for these trades has other options open to them.  Very few of these potential candidates are willing to subject themselves to the lifestyle the CAF imposes.  Insisting that they pay market rates for PMQs, (which for the most part are horrid), while living someplace not of their choosing and depriving their spouse of employment does not tip the balance in the CAFs favour.  So, you impact on core capabilities is right their in front of you; look at every trade that is red.



To recap: housing provided by the CAF is horrid.  I propose the CAF get out of the business of providing horrid housing wherever feasible.  Where's the issue?



> Also; if you really think that CAF pers are comparable to Mike Duffy you should get out; You obviously have much to low an opinion of your fellow members for a healthy, trusting working relationship.



I should have used David Dingwall instead; I'm not alleging misrepresentation.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (4 Feb 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> To recap: housing provided by the CAF is horrid.  I propose the CAF get out of the business of providing horrid housing wherever feasible.  Where's the issue?



I think the change that should happen is the rental pricing of PMQs be made to reflect 'actual' value not fair market value.  What is the fair market value of a PMQ built in 1950 from aircraft component shipping containers?  $1100/month, really?  

The "who gets a PMQ' criteria is also in need of review.  Priority SHOULD be based on things like (1) posting duration (2) single/dual income household (3) rank/pay level.

"First come first serve" appears fair, but is it really?  Should a IPC 10 Capt Pilot in Shearwater who is getting PLD, SDA and AIRCRA get a PMQ over a Pte?  The 'sense of fair' part of me says "no".

PMQs have been around longer than I have;  I lived in them as a kid and as an adult.  Personally, I decided I would pay a mortgage and own my own home vice do the PMQ thing again.  BUT...I was able to get a mortgage.  Not every Pte and Cpl can qualify.  A PMQ can be a nice starting point; own home, own yard, grass to cut and a yard for the dog and kid(s) to play in.  

How about running it as a cost-neutral entity, vice the 'fair market value' crap which every knows is just that; crap.

Remember, not everyone is in a position to live on the economy as comfortably as others.  $48k income in a place like Halifax doesn't go very far.  Especially if you have to pay for a family car, that you can't afford to pay to park at your place of work, which forces you to now pay for a bus pass on top of your car insurance and monthly payment/lease.

Is it a mess?  I think so.  Is the best answer necessarily the easy one (hand this mess off to someone else!)?  No.

Whatever decision is made will affect 15-20% of CAF members and their QOL.  We've seen benefits eroded and erased over the past several years.  Is this next?


----------



## dapaterson (4 Feb 2016)

I agree that we need a military accommodation strategy that integrates the points you raise (and probably others, such as PLD).  And I see fixing the PMQ price issue best addressed by having someone else do that work.  Bureaucrats and magic formulas from thousands of kilometres away don't work.  Local ownership knows the local market and will say "These houses have bedrooms so small even Gary Coleman would say no, so we'll price them at a discount".


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (4 Feb 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> To recap: housing provided by the CAF is horrid.  I propose the CAF get out of the business of providing horrid housing wherever feasible.  Where's the issue?



Feasibility, as far as the government is concerned, is a synonym for political expediency.  Your thesis probably looks great on a powerpoint slide in Ottawa but doesn't pass the test when it's confronted by the real world.  

We aren't a for-profit organization, PMQs, CANEX, SISP, PSP, etc... are all services that we provide our military members to help improve quality of life  so they are READY to fulfill obligations required by the CAF when called upon.  The fact that PMQs are in such a sorrid state is a testament to the fact that we haven't been doing a good job with the highlighted part above.

That's not on the CAF though, CFHA is an SOA and the uniformed members of the military have ZERO influence over the organization.  It's sort of like the shoddy service given to veterans by the VAC, it's all smoke and mirrors with numerous departments pointing fingers at each other.  The government has successfully, with the help of the civil service, divided and conquered.

YOU'RE part of the problem and you're definitely not providing any actual solutions!


----------



## Flavus101 (4 Feb 2016)

I think EITS is bang on as far as paying for parking is concerned. 

The issue I have with sending things to the private sector is that it will always be for profit. (Even some not for profits seem to be for profit, the recent WoundedWarrior expose comes to mind)


----------



## Eye In The Sky (4 Feb 2016)

Would a private company not also want to do it in a 'for profit' mindset, though?

If changing it over to a 'privately managed' company would result in more pro's than con's, I think most people would be all for it.  I think what is missing are the basic details of what those pro's and con's might be.  I personally think CFHA couldn't organize a fart in a bean factory, so despite all the back-patting language in their annual reports, the AG report doesn't surprise me.

What concerns me is that the Pte's and Cpl's in that 15-20% of CAF members who use military accn's" who can't afford decent housing on the economy will get lost in the shuffle.  If we stop caring about them, regardless of everything else we've done, we have at least partially failed as a military IMO.  I am an NCO; I care about the mission and the men.  I don't really give a shit about CRA policy and policy that makes charging 'fair market value' for a PMQ built before I was even alive seem 'okay' to some tight-ass bean counter and all that other  :blah: bullshit.


----------



## dapaterson (4 Feb 2016)

Humphrey: read the history of CFHA to see why it is what it is.  Hint: because uniformed leaders let it wither.

As for CANEX, why is it a necessary service? What does it bring to the fight? If all CANEX outlets were replaced by Giant Tiger how would things change? Why an imperative for a DND/CAF/NPF store chain?

Because we have always been this way is not a valid explanation.

Flavus: what is wrong with companies making a profit?  Seems like private sector landlords make money and provide better service than CFHA, so why not emulate them?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (4 Feb 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Local ownership knows the local market and will say "These houses have bedrooms so small even Gary Coleman would say no, so we'll price them at a discount".



No, they won't say that, and you know it. They will say: "I have a captive audience. These guys can't get a mortgage approved on their salary and if they want to rent something with this number of room that they can afford, they'll have to live 45 minutes out of town - 1h30 minutes in snow storm, so I'll bill them about 90% of the price of a real house of that many (proper and modern) rooms around here, which is the maximum I can get away with."

I tend to agree with Humphrey Bogart here: Give the responsibility for quarter, and the funding that goes with it, back to the Base Commanders (I seem to recall some Base Commanders complaining when the whole CFHA thing was created that they needed to control their own housing to be able to discharge their duty towards their sailors properly). No "profit" will cut into the revenues and the welfare of the uniformed personnel will be taken into proper account.

As for the CANEX, Dataperson, I don't know what you have against them. You like buying your widescreen TV at BestBuy? Fine, you are in Ottawa and it's your call. It may not be an option for the family posted at Cold Lake or Goose Bay. Having a store that holds such item is not a bad thing in those location. And if no CANEX, where doe we go for things like CF paraphernalia, like T-shirts with logos and unit crests, military uniform items of a different grade or authorized additional such as the windbreaker jacket (for seamen like me, that is the only place we can get CF short sleeve shirts made of cotton instead of the crappy polyester ones, for instance).


----------



## dapaterson (4 Feb 2016)

Cold Lake has a Walmart.  And if cheap tshirts and subsidized tvs is the only reason for CANEX... 

As for PMQs, BComds had them, ran them into the ground, then handed them to CFHA.  That model failed.  This model apparently is failing too.  I am suggesting we do not repeat past failed methods.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Feb 2016)

Can't we put the Syrian refugees in them? 8)


----------



## Jarnhamar (4 Feb 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Can't we put the Syrian refugees in them? 8)



They'd rather go back to Syria then stay in PMQs.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Feb 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> They'd rather go back to Syria then stay in PMQs.


Is there a downside?


----------



## Jarnhamar (4 Feb 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Is there a downside?



Only if you count the abject shame of failing to make them happy; which we can fix by paying for them to fly to a country of their choosing and pay their rent for a year  ;D


----------



## FSTO (4 Feb 2016)

I'm buddies with a former comptroller at Esquimalt. He had put fwd a plan for the "Q's" for their upkeep, dispersal to the pers in need of them and a ongoing recapitalization plan to replace the oldest one. I don't know how far it went but I heard that TB rejected it because the rents were going into an internal fund (for the upkeep and eventual recapitalization) and not into general revenue.

Another thing that I cannot wrap my head around, "fair market value and no undercutting of the local civilian rental properties". Why should that be an issue? The "Qs" have been paid for several times over and so what if DND charges a low rate for accomodations. If Joe Public is pissed that Jack Tar is getting a deal on his living arrangements then Joe Public can bloody well join up to get the deal!
Lets see how many of the civilian complainers take that deal!!!


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (4 Feb 2016)

FSTO said:
			
		

> If Joe Public is pissed that Jack Tar is getting a deal on his living arrangements then Joe Public can bloody well join up to get the deal!
> Lets see how many of the civilian complainers take that deal!!!



Thing is, FSTO, that Joe Public doesn't even know who Jack Tar is, nor care about what his living arrangements are. A bunch of inside K1A politico-accountants anti-military types (mostly disguised as civil servants  ) do and their greatest wish is to turn the uniformed military into just another part of the civil service.


----------



## FSTO (4 Feb 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Thing is, FSTO, that Joe Public doesn't even know who Jack Tar is, nor care about what his living arrangements are. A bunch of inside K1A politico-accountants anti-military types (mostly disguised as civil servants  ) do and their greatest wish is to turn the uniformed military into just another part of the civil service.



Isn't that the truth.


----------



## McG (4 Feb 2016)

FSTO said:
			
		

> Another thing that I cannot wrap my head around, "fair market value and no undercutting of the local civilian rental properties". Why should that be an issue? The "Qs" have been paid for several times over and so what if DND charges a low rate for accomodations. If Joe Public is pissed that Jack Tar is getting a deal on his living arrangements then Joe Public can bloody well join up to get the deal!


Would you advocate paying some service members differently based on a lottery draw?
Is that any different that giving some service members subsidised housing and not to others in the same location?


----------



## DonaldMcL (4 Feb 2016)

MCG said:
			
		

> Would you advocate paying some service members differently based on a lottery draw?
> Is that any different that giving some service members subsidised housing and not to others in the same location?



I believe he's saying that all service members will get subsidized housing... regardless of the fair market value civi-side. So no, it's not the same thing at all.


----------



## FSTO (4 Feb 2016)

MCG said:
			
		

> Would you advocate paying some service members differently based on a lottery draw?
> Is that any different that giving some service members subsidised housing and not to others in the same location?



I'm not saying that at all.
The Qs should be available for jr rates and their families at a reasonable price, not at the price for brand new house with a modern kitchen, bathrooms and bedrooms. The Qs have been paid off for years and by gouging military members for substandard housing, the Gov of Canada is just giving military people one more reason to say screw this and leave


----------



## c_canuk (4 Feb 2016)

I think it's fair that we are being made to pay market value for services and shelter. Quite honestly everyone else does. 

Well... almost everyone else.

I think it's time the Federal Gov starts paying market rates for labour from uniformed members. What's good for the goose is good for the gander right?

DND should drop it's unfair non market value same pay across the board pay scheme that is impacting the local economy in full violation of CRA and TB direction, and pay market rates just like every other organization in Canada.

A quick look online at what PMCs charge is quite revealing.

I bet that would shut down this fetish for market rates down right quick.


----------



## George Wallace (4 Feb 2016)

c_canuk said:
			
		

> I think it's fair that we are being made to pay market value for services and shelter. Quite honestly everyone else does.



Yes, that thought is just fine, if the services and shelter matched what the local market provided.  If the shelter and services do not match the local market, then charging the same rates for sub-standard service and shelter is outright criminal.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (4 Feb 2016)

MCG said:
			
		

> Would you advocate paying some service members differently based on a lottery draw?
> Is that any different that giving some service members subsidised housing and not to others in the same location?



We do that... it's called PLD/LDA/Flight Crew/etc.... 

Realistically, the housing should be reserved for the lower ranks because they're the ones whose salary indicates they need it the most. After that, it should be situation by situation. With rank comes responsibility.


----------



## Lumber (5 Feb 2016)

c_canuk said:
			
		

> I think it's fair that we are being made to pay market value for services and shelter. Quite honestly everyone else does.





			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Yes, that thought is just fine, if the services and shelter matched what the local market provided.  If the shelter and services do not match the local market, then charging the same rates for sub-standard service and shelter is outright criminal.



I can at least understand the argument that it's not fair to civilian industry to subsidize military housing/parking/whatever, because that could negatively impact the ability of those industries to compete. This is especially true in areas with large populations of military members. 

However, while I understand the argument, I don't agree with it for two reasons. 

First, we're not taking away from civilian industry. Everyone who parked at Dockyard in Halifax is still parking at Dockyard in Halifax despite the new parking costs. Therefore, civilian parking lots didn't have any military parking at their establishments before, and they still aren't parking at them now. Is there a city in Canada somewhere, where some civilian landlord of an apartment building, or a subdivision developper, is crying foul because "I can't rent out/sell any of my places because the base is unfailry offering cheaper rates!"?

Second, whatever happened to competition being the cost of doing business? Why is the government not allowed to be competitive? We were there first! Dockyard was there long before parking garages in downtown Halifax started charging $175 a month. There were PMQs in Shearwater long before there were new subdivisions gobeing built in Eastern passage or Morris Lake. Shouldn't these business have asked themselves "will I still be competitive if the military is providing housing to it's members at half the rate that I can afford?". The answer must have been yes, because these people went and built these things anyhow!

F***ing TB...


----------



## captloadie (5 Feb 2016)

FSTO said:
			
		

> I'm not saying that at all.
> The Qs should be available for jr rates and their families at a reasonable price, not at the price for brand new house with a modern kitchen, bathrooms and bedrooms. The Qs have been paid off for years and by gouging military members for substandard housing, the Gov of Canada is just giving military people one more reason to say screw this and leave


Here is where I have to disagree. A MSC at Cpls Spec pay are making more than a Maj's salary. Why should they be entitled to a Q over them? Or 3 single Ptes are sharing a Q qualify, but an MWO with three kids in high school and on her second family might need the access to a Q as well. I don't think tying access to salary or rank is fair.

The time for BComd being allowed to control their own infrastructure has passed. Now that ADM(IE) is (will be) the landlord for all real property, BComds have become just another tennant. 

I would suggest the following. Get rid of the majority of PMQ's. Then do the following: make PLD an actual flexible and responsive benefit which has three tiers. Tier 1 is for members who have a home and prove they have a mortgage. Tier 2 is members who decide to rent accomodations and have proof of a lease. Tier 3 are members who do not either have a mortgage or rent. I would also bring in a system for renters similar to what outcan members get. You pay a base amount for rent, and anything over and above that, up to a ceiling, is paid as a taxable benefit. This would be dependant on family size, but not salary. In my mind, this would do what everyone wants, equaling the playing field across ranks and across locations, but giving members the choice to manage their own housing and financial needs.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Feb 2016)

captloadie said:
			
		

> Here is where I have to disagree. A MSC at Cpls Spec pay are making more than a Maj's salary. Why should they be entitled to a Q over them? Or 3 single Ptes are sharing a Q qualify, but an MWO with three kids in high school and on her second family might need the access to a Q as well. I don't think tying access to salary or rank is fair.
> 
> The time for BComd being allowed to control their own infrastructure has passed. Now that ADM(IE) is (will be) the landlord for all real property, BComds have become just another tennant.
> 
> I would suggest the following. Get rid of the majority of PMQ's. Then do the following: make PLD an actual flexible and responsive benefit which has three tiers. Tier 1 is for members who have a home and prove they have a mortgage. Tier 2 is members who decide to rent accomodations and have proof of a lease. Tier 3 are members who do not either have a mortgage or rent. I would also bring in a system for renters similar to what outcan members get. You pay a base amount for rent, and anything over and above that, up to a ceiling, is paid as a taxable benefit. This would be dependant on family size, but not salary. In my mind, this would do what everyone wants, equaling the playing field across ranks and across locations, but giving members the choice to manage their own housing and financial needs.




Then why have BComds at all?

               ... And, by the way, I'm serious.

If staff weenies in remote HQs are going to manage things then why do we need "garrison" commanders?

We still need unit COs and _formation_ commanders (MOGs, brigades, wings, etc) but the BComd is redundant, isn't (s)he?

     Or, maybe, high ranking "commanders" in remote HQs _*are the problem*_ and we need to send them all to early retirement, along with the dozens of junior generals and and legions of Navy captains and Army/RCAF
     colonels that attend them all ... I'm happy to have someone in NDHQ responsible for works and quarters: it's a great job for a colonel, but, given that this is the CF where overranking is almost a sexual fetish, I guess a one star is
     required ... anything else is feather-bedding by GOFOs and is indicative of misplaced priorities, perhaps even weak leadership, at the highest levels.


----------



## McG (5 Feb 2016)

FSTO said:
			
		

> MCG said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Okay.  I precieve what you are saying and your meaning are different things.

You object to PMQ prices being based on a total square footage comparison against the local economy while neglecting other less quantifiable qualities that are considered when people are not dealing with a monopoly organization (things like comfort, aesthetics, layout, level of maintenance, etc).  Fair market value, as you see it, is below the level of rent that DND charges.  I believe a case could be made that many locations (maybe all locations) do charge above fair market value.

But, if you do propose charging below market value, then you are providing subsidised housing to some service members while denying others.  Everyone who does not live in the shacks or who does not get into a PMQ does pay market value.


----------



## Brasidas (5 Feb 2016)

MCG said:
			
		

> Would you advocate paying some service members differently based on a lottery draw?
> Is that any different that giving some service members subsidised housing and not to others in the same location?
> I'm not saying that at all.
> The Qs should be available for jr rates and their families at a reasonable price, not at the price for brand new house with a modern kitchen, bathrooms and bedrooms. The Qs have been paid off for years and by gouging military members for substandard housing, the Gov of Canada is just giving military people one more reason to say screw this and leave
> ...



The general population in Victoria chooses to live there. A supply tech Cpl IPC1 in Winnipeg, who's got two kids gets posted to Victoria. His wife has a specialized job and/or credentials that make her less employable in Victoria. I've got no problem with him being first IR'd there, put on a waiting list, and being higher on the queue for base housing than a PO1 with greater means to live on the local economy.

That seems more "fair" to me than both first come, first serve and avoiding anyone having equal access to subsidised housing or a lack thereof.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 Feb 2016)

captloadie said:
			
		

> A MSC at Cpls Spec pay are making more than a Maj's salary.



I am not quite sure what you meant in this statement.  GSO Major starts at 8386/month, Spec 2 IPC 4 Cpl is 6037/month.

I think I am missing something in context related to what MSC is?


----------



## exgunnertdo (6 Feb 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I am not quite sure what you meant in this statement.  GSO Major starts at 8386/month, Spec 2 IPC 4 Cpl is 6037/month.
> 
> I think I am missing something in context related to what MSC is?



Married Service Couple? - meaning two Cpls (a MSC) make more than a Major, but the proposal of tying it to rank would mean the Maj wouldn't be entitled to a PMQ but the Cpls would.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 Feb 2016)

Thanks!  I could not for the life of me make my brain come up with what MSC was...


----------



## DonaldMcL (6 Feb 2016)

c_canuk said:
			
		

> I think it's fair that we are being made to pay market value for services and shelter. Quite honestly everyone else does.
> 
> Well... almost everyone else.


I sure as heck don't. Why should I have less income because I've just left Greenwood (PMQs around ~$500 median) and because someone thought it best for my career, I'm now paying $1300/mth for the same place in Cold Lake? Because local economy? pfft.

I'm not necessarily in charge of my career, as much as the CoC likes to say it, and shouldn't be penalized because of that.


----------



## YZT580 (6 Feb 2016)

Just a thought: Is there really a excess of housing or is it simply a result of not being up to strength?  It is easy for an auditor to comment on 1500 vacancies but if that is compared to the 7 or 8 thousand below strength than addressing the housing issue is no longer the issue  Instead he should be asking why we are unable to fill the roster.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (6 Feb 2016)

captloadie said:
			
		

> I would suggest the following. Get rid of the majority of PMQ's. Then do the following: make PLD an actual flexible and responsive benefit which has three tiers. Tier 1 is for members who have a home and prove they have a mortgage. Tier 2 is members who decide to rent accomodations and have proof of a lease. Tier 3 are members who do not either have a mortgage or rent. I would also bring in a system for renters similar to what outcan members get. You pay a base amount for rent, and anything over and above that, up to a ceiling, is paid as a taxable benefit. This would be dependant on family size, but not salary. In my mind, this would do what everyone wants, equaling the playing field across ranks and across locations, but giving members the choice to manage their own housing and financial needs.



I complete agree.  I do not deny that we need a system to compensate for the often frequent geographic moves - but I also do not think that a bricks and mortar solution is the answer.  We are lousy landlords - so get rid of Qs completely, but devise a system that fairly compensates members.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (6 Feb 2016)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I complete agree.  I do not deny that we need a system to compensate for the often frequent geographic moves - but I also do not think that a bricks and mortar solution is the answer.  We are lousy landlords - so get rid of Qs completely, but devise a system that fairly compensates members.



Do you have any confidence though that such a system would be able to properly implemented by the department?


----------



## PPCLI Guy (6 Feb 2016)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Do you have any confidence though that such a system would be able to properly implemented by the department?



I have zero confidence in our ability to efficiently and effectively manage a stock of 8000 rental homes.  I am willing to look for another way to deliver the support to members....


----------



## PuckChaser (6 Feb 2016)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I complete agree.  I do not deny that we need a system to compensate for the often frequent geographic moves - but I also do not think that a bricks and mortar solution is the answer.  We are lousy landlords - so get rid of Qs completely, but devise a system that fairly compensates members.



PLD, but completely out of the hands of TB and automatically updated annually using national averages as a baseline instead of the NCR.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Feb 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> PLD, but completely out of the hands of TB and automatically updated annually using national averages as a baseline instead of the NCR.




But you cannot and should not even want to do that. Control of the sovereign's purse is quite fundamental to our system of democracy and it is firmly rooted in 800 years of British history, since the minority of King Henry III.

There is an obvious perception that our Treasury Board is, somehow, unfair or biased, but, in my opinion, it is simply enforcing the will of parliament in a fair and equitable manner.

In my experience, outdated though it is, TB is, generally, staffed with high quality people who really want to do things right. Certainly, my personal experience again/still, when we, DND/NDHQ, got into pissing contests with the TB Secretariat we most often lost because, normally, there were smarter than us and, sometimes, had a better grasp of our business than we did.

Maybe we should look, first, at ourselves ~ in _*what*_ we have proposed and _*how*_ we have proposed it and what we might do to make a better case for a system that meets our needs and those of the taxpayer, too.


----------



## ArmyRick (6 Feb 2016)

I have to agree on certain points
1. We should upgrade or modernize old PMQs;
2. We should not just focus on "profit" and "fair market value" (dapaterson, seriously?), our soldiers are not resort guest to exploit for everything they have and snag their last dollar; and
3. What are most of the reg force troopies looking for these days in terms of a PMQ? Anybody?

The volatile housing market, service before self principle and frequent postings all have to be considered before we just decide to make troops pay for parking/housing/etc. Once you start down the "money making" road (as private businesses seek to do) it will be near impossible to reverse the decision in ten years time or whenever. Sources of income/revenue are like an addictive drug to government agencies.

dapaterson, our soldiers and sailors deserve better than your attitude.


----------



## ModlrMike (6 Feb 2016)

My own questions on the subject:

1. does PMQ rent stay within CFHA or does it go into some other central fund?
2. if the answer to 1 is some other central fund, then why?
3. is it wrong to charge PMQ rents that are consistent with the local market?
4. should the quality of the home be taken into consideration (perhaps a sliding scale)?
5. should the allocation of PMQs be means tested?
6. should the CF be encouraging home ownership?
7. should the CF be in the business of rental administration, or should that fall to a wholly separate entity?

My own response to 3-6 is yes. Question 7 I'm not so certain on.


----------



## PuckChaser (6 Feb 2016)

The answer to 7 would lie with someone who has had experience in the old system with CE providing repairs (and I believe the CF administering) to the new CFHA regime that is run solely by civilians.


----------



## ArmyRick (6 Feb 2016)

As far as CF encouraging home ownership, what happens when a situation arises were a member is posted to X and told for 3-5 yeras and then a year later, unexpectedly they are posted again and lose huge chunk of money on forcing them to re-sell so soon?

This has happened not that long ago.

If we get rid of the PMQs, it has to be for the right reasons (such as troops do not want or need them, far too costly to maintain, etc) not for a revenue generating/profiting reason. IMO.


----------



## PuckChaser (6 Feb 2016)

Goes hand in hand with fixing the HEA program (only government lawsuit the Liberals haven't dropped yet). There should be safeguards to protect equity when the member is forced to move for service reasons.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (6 Feb 2016)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> As far as CF encouraging home ownership, what happens when a situation arises were a member is posted to X and told for 3-5 yeras and then a year later, unexpectedly they are posted again and lose huge chunk of money on forcing them to re-sell so soon?
> 
> This has happened not that long ago.
> 
> If we get rid of the PMQs, it has to be for the right reasons (such as troops do not want or need them, far too costly to maintain, etc) not for a revenue generating/profiting reason. IMO.



I agree. We've seen how well Home Equity Assistance has worked out for some people.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (6 Feb 2016)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> My own questions on the subject:
> 
> 1. does PMQ rent stay within CFHA or does it go into some other central fund?
> 2. if the answer to 1 is some other central fund, then why?
> ...



Some of your questions (the fiscal ones?) could possibly be answered by The Canadian Forces Housing Agency's 2014-2015 Annual Report.

A quick glance through the report indicates (and I could have misread it) that the agency does not turn a profit (or at least not in the 2014/15 fiscal year); in fact, it required additional funding to meet its programme.

But  what do you expect from an organization that is trying to provide a 1940s/50s product to a 21st century customer base.


----------



## c_canuk (11 Feb 2016)

I think it’s funny people got excited at the first line of my previous post and apparently didn't read the rest before they replied.

Allow me to clarify.

Since it's fair on paper for everyone to pay market rates for everything; we should not be arguing to not pay market rates: We should be arguing for the federal gov to PAY US market rates for our skillsets and market rate compensation for the job requirements. 

Currently our pay is standard across the board and, quite frankly, a lot lower than the market pays to hire the same EXACT qualifications and job requirements. 

If the Federal Gov doesn't want to be responsible for supplying a standard set of services to provide a standard level of living, care and access to services; then they cannot ethically provide only a standard rate of pay in different markets ignoring the market rate.

Doubly so if it is important to not affect the local economy.

Paying a vast workforce less or more than market rates has significant effects on the local market. 

If there is concern from TB and CRA that our access to less than market rates is causing a decrease in revenue and has negative effects on the local economy, paying soldiers well below market rates for the specialty services and adverse working conditions and requirements is a much larger problem for exactly the same reasons. 

In a lower cost of living area paying greater than market rates, drives up the cost of labour in those regions, negatively affecting businesses that may not be able to compete. 

In higher cost of living areas paying less than market rate decreases the available revenue cycling through the local economy stunting business opportunities in the community.

I think that paying us market rates would more than compensate us for reduction of subsidization we are suffering. 

If we have to pay market rates, then the federal gov should have to too. Fair's fair after all.


----------



## CountDC (12 Feb 2016)

I will toss in my experience with a move to a large city.  Looking to rent we found that the housing we would need for a our family was limited and the ones we did contact shut us down as soon as they found out we were one family.  Turned out all the landlords advertising the housing we needed at the time were looking for the university crowd and one even pointedly told me it would not be fair to them for him to rent to a family.  The only housing we could find during our HHT turned out to be the PMQ even though we were in a large city that you would normally expect to be able to find housing in.  Even if we had wanted to buy we couldn't have as the financial experts at SISIP advised me that not only couldn't I qualify for a mortage it was impossible for my family to be living off my income (unfortunately that leprechaun gold has run out).


----------



## Colin Parkinson (12 Feb 2016)

No dog in this fight, but I can tell you that Federal government sell off of assets(office buildings) with subsequent leasing back turned into a disaster out here in Vancouver. I suspect every base is going to be a different story. Trying to peg the rent of PMQ’s to the outside is fraught with problems, while the area adjacent to the base might have high property values, the reality is the PMQ area might actually more reflect a older run down area across town. Also the number of services and amenities needs to be factored in as well as the amount of restrictions in what you can do.


----------



## Pusser (18 Feb 2016)

c_canuk said:
			
		

> I think it’s funny people got excited at the first line of my previous post and apparently didn't read the rest before they replied.
> 
> Allow me to clarify.
> 
> ...



There's merit in your argument, but who's going to step up first to have their pay cut?  You see, our pay actually is based on market rates, as negotiated by the Public Service unions.  Pay in the Public Service is occupation based (i.e. a CR and a GT with the same level of responsibility do not necessarily make the same rate of pay) and the Public Service unions definitely bring market rates into the discussion at the bargaining table and their negotiated pay rates take that into account.  However, military pay is, for the most part,* rank based.  Nevertheless, our pay is benchmarked against that of the Public Service.  Essentially, Public Service pay rates are punched into a formula, aggregated and combined with a number of other factors (i.e. our requirement to deploy, their entitlement to acting pay/overtime vs our non-entitlement to those things, the "military factor," etc) and from all of this come the military pay scales.  Although it may be fair to state that some military occupations are getting less than market rate for their skill sets, there are others that are getting more.  Considering though that in addition to our occupational skill sets, we are also required to have military (particularly leadership) skill sets, it is probably more appropriate that our pay be rank based than occupation based.  Keep also in mind that even if we are being paid less than market rates, we also have access to benefits (e.g. defined benefit pension, generous sick leave, generous annual leave, etc) and level of job security unheard of in the private sector and even in the Public Service.  Be careful what you wish for.

*Specialist pay rates for NCMs and Specialist officers bring a small element of occupation based pay into the equation.


----------



## c_canuk (18 Feb 2016)

so essentially, public service rates are also not local market rates.

Sounds like an issue the public service union could bring up.

Also, this is irrelevant. the CRA and the TB requires payment of local market rates. Existing deals and agreements to peg our pay to the PS does not invalidate that fact. The reverse is true. 

Also, if you compare our actual line by line job descriptions good luck filling our positions for what we're paid from the local civy market

-on call 24/7
-unlimited liability
-can be ordered to move now to any location in the world
-no control on where job will be, and will be expected to relocate HG & E with less than 3 months notice on avg every 5 years
-subject to NDA and Military Law including recieving a criminal record for things that are not crimes in civilian law that will become impedments to international travel
-salaried but can be expected to work extended hours for long stretches of time with no expectation of compensation.

you're talking PMC rates at that point and those that work at the same level of proffesionalism we do don't come cheap.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (18 Feb 2016)

c_canuk said:
			
		

> Also, if you compare our actual line by line job descriptions good luck filling our positions for what we're paid from the local civy market



And that's exactly what the CF does in recruiting (along with training and retention).  You seem to have a misconception about the application of "market rates" in business.  There are two sides to every business contract - a buyer and a seller.  In terms of the labour market the CF is the buyer, the applicant is the seller.  The terms of that contract are very simple; the buyer sets all the terms and it is up to the seller to either accept or reject the terms of the contract, there is no negotiation.  In this matter, since the buyer has a monopoly on the type of job (soldiering), he is able to set those terms to his benefit.  The only effect that "market rates" (essentially the average of what similar services have sold for in the past) has on recruiting is making military service more or less attractive to those who do not necessarily want to be soldiers.


----------



## RCPalmer (18 Feb 2016)

c_canuk said:
			
		

> so essentially, public service rates are also not local market rates.
> 
> Sounds like an issue the public service union could bring up.
> 
> ...



While I believe that the CAF compensation packages are for the most part fair, I think we must be cautious about the "greener grass" in the civilian workforce.  The same market forces that can drive up salaries also force businesses to manage their costs and get the most value out of each worker.  We have built up a lot of good will with the Canadian populace in the last decade, and I would hate to see that damaged by serving members being too precious about their entitlements and the unique nature of military service.  There are a lot of people who work very hard in this country who would kill to receive the compensation we do, and if they were aware of all of the benefits CAF members receive they might be a bit less sympathetic in our desires for improvements.

To highlight the specific points above with regards to comparing conditions of work:
-on call 24/7
_There are a lot of civilian jobs with an on call requirement, and if you are a salaried (non hourly) employee or a contractor you may not receive compensation for responding to a call. _
-unlimited liability
_This is unique, and is captured in the "military factor" of our salary calculations.  However, keep in mind that CAF service is far from the most dangerous occupation in Canada, and the extent to which those dangers are captured in compensation varies widely. _
-can be ordered to move now to any location in the world
_This is somewhat unique (though it is a possibility in large corporations), and is captured in the "military factor"._
-no control on where job will be, and will be expected to relocate HG & E with less than 3 months notice on avg every 5 years
_The fact that the CF has the ultimate say on your posting is not the same thing as no control.  Career Managers are open to negotiation with the member.  I am aware of many RegF members who threatened release if they were posted away from a given location, and some arrangements are made for service couples, members who do not desire career advancement, etc.  There are also a lot of benefits associated with a posting to soften the blow.  Outside of a few (largely unionized and/or public sector) occupations, most civilians change jobs every 3-5 years (and not always by choice due to layoffs, mergers, etc.), and the circumstances associated with that transition can vary widely.  Sometimes, you will have to re-locate at your own expense to find your next job. _
-subject to NDA and Military Law including receiving a criminal record for things that are not crimes in civilian law that will become impedments to international travel
_The matter of transfering conduct sheet data to CPIC is still very much up for debate, and is not happening currently as far as I know.  I would be very surprised if non-criminal code offences will be transferred.  Another way of looking at this is the CAF retains personnel who commit service and criminal code offences (to include theft, drunkeness, misuse of property, etc.) that would get someone fired in a civilian workplace.  _
-salaried but can be expected to work extended hours for long stretches of time with no expectation of compensation.
_The general expectation for salaried, non unionized employees in the civilian workforce is that you work until your work is done.  Very few salary earners receive overtime pay, and the amount of extra work or time required and compensatory time off varies widely from company to company.  Hourly employees will receive overtime pay, but their hours can also be cut if there isn't enough work.  If you are a contractor (who by definition does not work set hours), your hours are completely driven by the contracted task.  Also, the CAF has mechanisms for compensating for members who work extended hours.  They include short leave, Land Duty Allowance and Sea Duty Allowance, each of which addresses a different type of "non-core" work.  _

you're talking PMC rates at that point and those that work at the same level of professionalism we do don't come cheap.

_This is true, and a key part of the compensation improvements made in the 1990s were associated with keeping quality people in the CAF. However, keep in mind that there is also a level of accountability in the civilian workforce that for the most part does not exist in the CAF.  If a non-unionized civilian employee makes a mistake, they could be fired the same day.  The mechanisms for releasing a member due to performance issues in the CAF are much more complex, lengthy and hard to execute.  I have seen many behaviors in CAF members employed in "front counter" roles that would have gotten them fired in an equivalent civilian workplace. _ 

There may be some equivalent positions in the civilian workforce where the pay is better, but you must consider the CAF pension (which is unmatched in the civilian workforce, and represents a lifetime benefit), the health and dental benefits (which are excellent), the CAF provided training and education (which you are paid to complete instead of working nights or taking out a student loan to pay for), and the job security that the CAF offers when you are making comparisons.  Again, I am not saying that CAF members should not receive competitive benefits, but as a group I think we must be a bit more realistic about what those are.  

If this merits a thread split, please do so.


----------



## Pusser (18 Feb 2016)

c_canuk said:
			
		

> so essentially, public service rates are also not local market rates.
> 
> Sounds like an issue the public service union could bring up.
> 
> ...



Go back and read my post again.  The Public Service unions do negotiate for market rates.  Granted, they end up with a national vice local rate in doing so, but then they never aim for the lowest regional rate.  Furthermore, the public service used to have regional rates, but the unions campaigned to get rid of them.  Our pay comparability formula is still an aggregate of all of this and regional differences in costs and compensation are addressed through PLD.

As for all your other points (24/7, overtime, unlimited liability, etc), all of those things ARE part of the pay comparability formula.  You actually receive a higher base salary than your PS benchmark because it includes a portion for overtime, acting pay, military duties/liabilities, etc.) and you get that higher pay, whether you do any of these things or not.

Finally, not paying market rates for PMQs is unfair to all the other CF members (i.e. the majority) who do NOT live in PMQs.  Why should a PMQ occupant have a lower cost of living than someone living on the economy? If a member doesn't think he's getting good value on his PMQ rent, he always has the option to look elsewhere.


----------



## c_canuk (19 Feb 2016)

My belief is that the CAF is able to find recruits not because it pays market rates, instead I feel recruits sign up because they believe in the job. If there were Canadians clamouring for our compensation package for the exact same work requirements, we wouldn't have several red trades and you know it.

To hire someone off the street to do my job today - with the job requirements and expectations, you would have to pay skilled oil patch worker rates if not higher. The Civilian equivalents that I work beside get paid CS2 and above and those designations do not suffer the work expectations I listed above. I feel you are grossly underestimating the value of what we bring to the table. 

My point about the PMQs was that way back, because we were paid the same across the board regardless of local cost of living, institutions were set up to level the playing field. Those institutions are largely gone now, but we're still paid the same across the board. If the reasons to remove those support mechanisms was to avoid affecting the local economy, the same argument could be to pay us based on estimates to replace the entire CAF with off the street Canadians with the same skill sets for the same job requirements.

PLD is supposed to fix that problem, however it's not managed effectively. It seems quite petty for the federal government to chip away at these pieces of our compensation under the guise of market fairness, while ignoring the largest part of the CAF's effect on the local economy. 

It seems the opinion of some is that we have to tighten our belts so we're fair to the locals, but when it's the federal governments turn to play fair, they just get to keep more money and play dumb.


----------



## Pusser (19 Feb 2016)

c_canuk said:
			
		

> My belief is that the CAF is able to find recruits not because it pays market rates, instead I feel recruits sign up because they believe in the job. If there were Canadians clamouring for our compensation package for the exact same work requirements, we wouldn't have several red trades and you know it.
> 
> To hire someone off the street to do my job today - with the job requirements and expectations, you would have to pay skilled oil patch worker rates if not higher. The Civilian equivalents that I work beside get paid CS2 and above and those designations do not suffer the work expectations I listed above. I feel you are grossly underestimating the value of what we bring to the table.
> 
> ...



Way way way back - long before either you or I joined.  Pay and compensation for the Canadian Forces was drastically overhauled in the 1960s.  Pay went up dramatically, the CFSA was introduced and PMQs ceased to be part of the equation.  DND/CFHA is, and has been for at least 45 years, strictly a landlord offering an option.  PMQs are not a benefit, nor should they be.  Charging market rates for them is not just about protecting the local marketplace, it's also about being fair to those members who do not live in PMQs.  By the way, DND/CFHA has no control over what determines the market rate.  That is set by CMHC.

Yes, there are red occupations, but these tend to be anomalies.  However, the CS occupations in the Public Service are also an anomaly.  To their great fortune, their union has managed to successfully negotiate a fairly high salary, for the moment.  
This is because there is a shortage and they're in high demand.  The marketplace, however, tends to seek equilibrium and in time, there will be more of them and their bargaining power will be reduced, resulting in less growth in their wages (PS pay rates generally don't go down, but their rate of increase can slow down).  What you don't seem to be grasping is that your pay (as well as mine) includes an element of their current good fortune.  The trouble is that boatswains, stewards, RMS clerks and infantry soldiers also reap the same reward.  Here's the kicker though, when CS pay rates begin to decline and some other PS occupation gets a boost because of market demand, we will also reap that benefit while the effect on us of a CS slow down in pay is minimal.  By and large, military compensation is greater than that in the Public Service for the same level of responsibility, notwithstanding that there are exceptions.  At this point in time, one of those exceptions happens to be right in your face, but most of us are doing pretty well.  Finally, don't forget that compensation is not just about salary.  It includes pension benefits, leave policy, job security, etc and even lifestyle and adventure.  Even if our salaries are lower than those available in the private sector or the Public Service, in my mind at least, the other benefits more than make up for it.  

Written while in a chalet overlooking the French Alps where I am currently only because of my membership in the CF...


----------



## Sub_Guy (19 Feb 2016)

Pusser said:
			
		

> Finally, not paying market rates for PMQs is unfair to all the other CF members (i.e. the majority) who do NOT live in PMQs.  Why should a PMQ occupant have a lower cost of living than someone living on the economy? If a member doesn't think he's getting good value on his PMQ rent, he always has the option to look elsewhere.



This fucking statement bothers me.  I have never heard of anyone bitching because someone in a PMQ has a lower cost of living than someone living on the economy.  If they want to live in a much smaller house and pay lower rent, then go for it.   IF the member who decided to buy a house or rent on the economy feels slighted he/she can always get their ass added to the PMQ list.

It is nothing more than an excuse to raise the rent on what is for the most part lower quality housing.  I don't think it is unfair at all.  For the record I do not live in a PMQ but I do care about my troops and this is a weak excuse to take more money out of their pockets.


----------



## McG (19 Feb 2016)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> This fucking statement bothers me.


Then get over yourself.  He is right.  Living in a PMQ should not give the CAF member a higher income than his peers in the same unit and location.  Take your beef where it really belong; the way fair market value is calculated is flawed and it does not account for age and condition of the home.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 Feb 2016)

So it's not right for one Cpl to have an unfair advantage over another Cpl, who makes the same monthly pay, by one having a 'cheaper' PMQ compared to a home owner with a mortgage.

So how the fuck is it 'alright' for all the people my rank who are posted to provinces who pay lower taxes to have 'an advantage' over me??

You can't pick and choose the 'this is unfair' stuff.  If you want to talk 'unfair advantage', then the discussion should be about a baseline fed and prov tax rate that keeps Cpl Bloggins, who is posted to NS, taking the same amount of his pay home as Cpl Smithers, who is posted to Esquimalt.


----------



## DonaldMcL (19 Feb 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> So how the frig is it 'alright' for all the people my rank who are posted to provinces who pay lower taxes to have 'an advantage' over me??
> 
> You can't pick and choose the 'this is unfair' stuff.  If you want to talk 'unfair advantage', then the discussion should be about a baseline fed and prov tax rate that keeps Cpl Bloggins, who is posted to NS, taking the same amount of his pay home as Cpl Smithers, who is posted to Esquimalt.



This has been my biggest sticking point for the longest time. Why should a member be penalized because they lived in Ontario and come July 15th now lives in Nova Scotia... here's your increase in tax and btw you now owe us an extra $2500. Thanks for coming out!

Yes yes, the civilian market is the same, but often those people made that choice. The military members doesn't always have that say. 

A baseline, across the board tax rate would be ideal. Yes, some would lose and some would win but you can't argue it wouldn't be fair.


----------



## jollyjacktar (19 Feb 2016)

MCG said:
			
		

> Then get over yourself.  He is right.  Living in a PMQ should not give the CAF member a higher income than his peers in the same unit and location.  Take your beef where it really belong; the way fair market value is calculated is flawed and it does not account for age and condition of the home.



Well, wait a minute.  The same can be said then for the cost of the PMQ from base to base.  I was paying a far different rent in Calgary than was my counterpart in other parts of the country.  My salary was the same as Cpl "X" in NS, but his rent was substancially cheaper than mine.  Why should members who are living in the same type accomodation with the same salary be penalized across the board?  It's not really any different.


----------



## RCPalmer (19 Feb 2016)

c_canuk said:
			
		

> My belief is that the CAF is able to find recruits not because it pays market rates, instead I feel recruits sign up because they believe in the job. If there were Canadians clamouring for our compensation package for the exact same work requirements, we wouldn't have several red trades and you know it.
> 
> To hire someone off the street to do my job today - with the job requirements and expectations, you would have to pay skilled oil patch worker rates if not higher. The Civilian equivalents that I work beside get paid CS2 and above and those designations do not suffer the work expectations I listed above. I feel you are grossly underestimating the value of what we bring to the table.



I absolutely that the draw which motivates individuals to join and stay in the CAF is about the job and the lifestyle, not the compensation.  However, apart from the specific discussions regarding the method for calculating the fair market value of PMQs (which I think is very useful), the general tone of this thread has been a call for further entitlements to act as a "buffer" to address the unique conditions of military service.  My point is that there already are a number of buffers in the CAF compensation scheme, and that calling for more is pushing things a bit.

Red trades in the CAF are primarily the result of intake issues (ie recruiting system inefficiencies and capacity issues in the training system), and some broader demographic factors around baby boomers reaching CRA.  In those rare instances where a trade is red for an extended period due to a lack of interest, the signing and retention bonus system has been employed to great effect.  

"Skilled Oil Patch Worker Rates" were a result of result of a very specific set of market conditions, and I question their value as a broadly applicable yardstick.  Changes in those same market conditions have led to massive layoffs in the last year, and exposed significant inefficiencies in that industry which were previously glossed over by the massive profits driven by relatively expensive oil. The industry may be a bit more cautious as it recovers.

Having the benefit of living in both worlds, I think you are grossly underestimating the amount of work the average Canadian knowledge worker puts in for each dollar they earn, and would encourage you to look at the bigger picture (to include the unique benefit and job security points I mentioned in my original post) when making comparisons.


----------



## McG (19 Feb 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> The same can be said then for the cost of the PMQ from base to base.


You are throwing red herrings into this discussion.  That difference is factored into PLD calculations.  If you don't like how PLD works, there are other threads for that.


----------



## Pusser (19 Feb 2016)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> This ******* statement bothers me.  I have never heard of anyone bitching because someone in a PMQ has a lower cost of living than someone living on the economy.  If they want to live in a much smaller house and pay lower rent, then go for it.   IF the member who decided to buy a house or rent on the economy feels slighted he/she can always get their *** added to the PMQ list.
> 
> It is nothing more than an excuse to raise the rent on what is for the most part lower quality housing.  I don't think it is unfair at all.  For the record I do not live in a PMQ but I do care about my troops and this is a weak excuse to take more money out of their pockets.



Then you haven't been paying attention.  I've heard that complaint many times.  When I was on one base, the waiting list for PMQs was miles long and no one was happy.  Those in PMQs complained that their rent was too high and really screamed when there was an increase.  Those who weren't in PMQs complained that they were being denied access to the cheaper rents available in PMQs because notwithstanding that PMQs are supposed to be at market rate, the fact often is that they are still below what is actually available.  

To counter your statement, if members don't want to live in PMQs and pay the posted rent, then they always have the option to move out and live on the economy.  No one should gain an advantage, unavailable to others, simply because his name came to the top of the list.


----------



## jollyjacktar (19 Feb 2016)

MCG said:
			
		

> You are throwing red herrings into this discussion.  That difference is factored into PLD calculations.  If you don't like how PLD works, there are other threads for that.



I disagree from the standpoint of the actual PMQ from base to base are of the same design, size, age and condition (more or less).  The differences between them are not markedly substancial enough where one could reasonably expect to charge for more features or comforts from one to the next.  (My experiences in Q living are from the early 90`s)  And it`s easy enough to fix that issue for you.  Charge the same, reasonable PMQ rent, regardless of location.  If member resides in the Q`s, then the PLD is adjusted for that member while doing so.


----------



## Pusser (19 Feb 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I disagree from the standpoint of the actual PMQ from base to base are of the same design, size, age and condition (more or less).  The differences between them are not markedly substancial enough where one could reasonably expect to charge for more features or comforts from one to the next.  (My experiences in Q living are from the early 90`s)  And it`s easy enough to fix that issue for you.  *Charge the same, reasonable PMQ rent, regardless of location.  If member resides in the Q`s, then the PLD is adjusted for that member while doing so*.



That's just rearranging the deck chairs.  How different is accommodation on the economy different from region to region?  A two bedroom apartment in Halifax is pretty much the same as one in Esquimalt (I having lived in both), but the rental cost can be quite different.  It's all about location, which is why $300K will get you a mansion in some places and a shoebox in others.  Reducing PLD for PMQ dwellers vice others just makes things more complicated and really doesn't change much.  It makes much more sense to charge market rates for PMQs. give everybody the same PLD and then let members choose how they want to arrange things.


----------



## jollyjacktar (19 Feb 2016)

Pusser said:
			
		

> That's just rearranging the deck chairs.  How different is accommodation on the economy different from region to region?  A two bedroom apartment in Halifax is pretty much the same as one in Esquimalt (I having lived in both), but the rental cost can be quite different.  It's all about location, which is why $300K will get you a mansion in some places and a shoebox in others.  Reducing PLD for PMQ dwellers vice others just makes things more complicated and really doesn't change much.  It makes much more sense to charge market rates for PMQs. give everybody the same PLD and then let members choose how they want to arrange things.



It's different in my eyes as the landlord is the same entity and not part of the economy, as in a private, for profit, landlord.  Those PMQ have been paid for time and time again.  

This is the computer age, I don't see how with a few key strokes it is so hard to add or delete one from the PDL roll.  They already do it if you are posted into the area and live outside of the boundries for entitlement.  It would level the playing field for those who live in the Q's regardless of where they are located.  If they want to get the PLD or more PLD then they can go outside with the rest of us.  I'm not saying chagre SFA for the Q's, but you don't need to be gouging either, I used the term a "reasonable" rate.  

It's not like it's being done in other areas or at least was.  In my old trade for instance, those who were posted to the Cdn Embassy in London were provided housing and were paying the PMQ rate for Ottawa regardless of the "going rate" on the street.   A MCpl I worked for lived in a 1.5+ million pound home and paid what he would have in Ottawa as a MCpl in the Q's.  That's fair as it didn't put him at a disadvantage to his peers in Canada.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 Feb 2016)

Pusser said:
			
		

> To counter your statement, if members don't want to live in PMQs and pay the posted rent, then they always have the option to move out and live on the economy.



Not everyone has the same 'options' because not everyone makes the same pay every 2 weeks.  I find those of you in the higher income bracket tend to forget that.  



> No one should gain an advantage, unavailable to others, simply because his name came to the top of the list.



How about when a member is posted from one province where taxes aren't high, to say, Greenwood.  Standard pay group, so no Spec Pay, AIRCRA, or PLD but are still paying the same COL and taxes as someone in the Halifax PLDA and can't get into a PMQ.  Is that not being put 'at a disadvantage'?  Meanwhile, Capt Bloggins, who is a pilot, and in a MSC situation with a ACSO spouse who is a Capt also, they get a PMQ.

Please;  this 'disadvantage' argument is weak and selective.  Some people can afford to buy, some can't, some don't want to because they see the way military people are getting fuckin' raped when they have to sell and take a BIG hit.  Remember the headlines?  Our own government, which gives us no choice but to move, is putting people in situations where they are taking losses on their homes when they are POSTED WITH NO CHOICE.

Disadvantage?  I think the only 'disadvantage' is coming from our employer.  Those of you advocating to get rid of yet another benefit that helps CAF members should have your head shaken for you.  If Pte Bloggins can get an 'advantage' over me, after we've already made him pay for rations while he is on training, even thought he has a mortgage and family left at home, I say give 'er.

The same goes for OCdt, 2Lt Smithers, who also could be in the same situation.  If we prioritized WHO gets into the Qs, and did it RIGHT...there would be no one 'getting an advantage'.  It would be part of the leadership function of looking after our juniors.  Whats the rationale now?  "First come first serve".  Groovy.  In theory, a MSC who are both Majors with 1 kid could get a PMQ over a young family, with 1 child, a stay at home mom, and a young Pte being the only source of income.

Any who thinks _that_ is fair and not 'an advantage' might want to consider their idea of 'leadership' and 'looking after the welfare of subordinations'.  Those perky little duties laid out in QR & O, Vol I...that are slowly becoming a thing of the past.   :2c:

Bottom line; the 'fair market value' of a PMQ built in the 50s is NOT the same as the rates for homes and apartments build in the 90s and above.   Slice it, dice it anyway you want.  PMQs should be based on the actual value of the property and factor in that it was already damn well paid for before most of the current CAF mbr's were likely born.


----------



## blacktriangle (19 Feb 2016)

EITS, pretty much agree with everything you say there especially the tax factor, and the fact that most PMQs are 50+ years old. 

Speaking of not fair - things like IR discriminate against single members. Let's say I were to get posted into the NCR from somewhere like Kingston or Trenton. I have to worry about selling or renting out my home, or face the challenge of paying for both my mortgage and a rental at destination. Or I can quit, and leave a career I've spent the better part of a decade working on. Those are pretty much my options as far as I know. 

My married friend in the same situation gets put up in a nice condo downtown, while still holding onto his home (which may appreciate in that time) and his wife gets to keep her high paying civilian career. 

Sounds like I'd be at a disadvantage in this case, no? So clearly the system is not built to be fair. I certainly haven't heard many advocating for single home owners - so if I choose a PMQ at my next posting, I won't feel too guilty about any slight "advantage" it gives me. It's not like you are building equity in the Q's...


----------



## Pusser (19 Feb 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Not everyone has the same 'options' because not everyone makes the same pay every 2 weeks.  I find those of you in the higher income bracket tend to forget that.
> 
> How about when a member is posted from one province where taxes aren't high, to say, Greenwood.  Standard pay group, no aircrew so no Spec Pay, AIRCRA, or PLD but are still paying the same COL and taxes as someone in the Halifax PLDA and can't get into a PMQ.  Is that not being put 'at a disadvantage'?  Meanwhile, Capt Bloggins, who is a pilot, and in a MSC situation with a ACSO spouse who is a Capt also, they get a PMQ.



I've forgotten nothing.  My pay may be higher now, but it was once much lower and I too have struggled, but frankly, that's irrelevant.

Your statement above actually supports what I've been saying all along.  The two captain MSC should NOT have an advantage over any others and so yes, they should be paying market rates for their PMQ.  Everyone should.  Not everyone in the CF lives in PMQs because there simply aren't enough.  If everyone could be guaranteed a PMQ, then there might be an argument to lower and equalize rents across the board and make it part of our pay and compensation package.  But there aren't enough, so to subsidize some members' living accommodations and not others is fundamentally unfair.

Taxes, local cost of living issues, local rents (including PMQ rents) are addressed by PLD.

Members should never count on environmental allowances as part of their regular income as they can be pulled at any time.  Budget accordingly.

Spec pay may be part of your salary, but it is still finite.  Budget accordingly.

This argument that PMQs have been paid for several times over is ridiculous.  By that token, any property developer who has paid off the mortgages on his buildings should allow people to live in them for free.  In our society, we pay for our accommodation.

Having said all of this, I think DND should get out of the housing business altogether (except in remote locations and for short-term single quarters).  Overall, it's a money loser and the CF does no one any favours by providing it.  Too many folks, even today, are retiring with nothing to show for years of paying rent.  Perhaps if they had been forced to live on the economy sooner, they would have built some equity.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 Feb 2016)

Pusser said:
			
		

> I've forgotten nothing.  My pay may be higher now, but it was once much lower and I too have struggled, but frankly, that's irrelevant.



It's irrelevant if you decide to let it be and take your perspective as a 'businessman'.



> Your statement above actually supports what I've been saying all along



Uhhhhhh...no.  I do not support anything you say about the PMQ issue.  You're trying to take your log of shit, paint it yellow, set it down next to my banana and convince people they are the same, and to take a bite.  No thanks.  



> The two captain MSC should NOT have an advantage over any others who are subordinate in rank and pay and so yes, they should be paying market rates for their  last on the list for a PMQ.  Everyone who is a NCM rank Sgt/PO2 and Capt's/Lt (N) and above  should be lower priority on the waiting list, extenuating circumstances being taken into consideration when needed.  Not everyone in the CF lives in PMQs because there simply aren't enough or people would rather take a chance on home ownership and getting a return on their money someday.  If everyone could be guaranteed a PMQ, then there might be an argument to lower and equalize rents across the board and make it part of our pay and compensation package.  But there aren't enough, so to subsidize some members' living accommodations and not others is fundamentally unfair but that has nothing to do with PMQs, because it isn't subsidizing anything.  If only we would only prioritize the way PMQs are occupied like we are a 'military' instead of the 'civilitary', (by ensuring we look after our Junior NCMs and Officers who might need the services of our PMQs early in their career more than those of use with decades of service...)   But, sadly the CAF has been heading more and more away from being a military and more like a business the past decade +.



There, FTFY.



> Taxes, local cost of living issues, local rents (including PMQ rents) are addressed by PLD.


  OMG, I thought you were SERIOUS when I read that at first.  Great joke!   :rofl:

Halifax PLD, after taxes of almost 50%, barely makes up for the difference in income tax alone between NS and Ont.  PLD helps but it doesn't level the playing field.  BTDT.




> This argument that PMQs have been paid for several times over is ridiculous.  By that token, any property developer who has paid off the mortgages on his buildings should allow people to live in them for free.  In our society, we pay for our accommodation.



BULLSHIT!  What IS ridiculous, is you referring to DND housing as a "property developer".  STOP STOP STOP comparing military shit to fuckin' civilian shit.  Its 'business, civie world' mentalities like YOURS that is turning the military into the civilitary. full of goddamn "mah-vilians"; people who are not really military, but not civilians either but some weird half-half who is military when its convenient, or civilian when its convenient.  

Apparantly, in 'our' society, Canadian Armed Forces members who are also tax payers, pay for shit like parking lots and rental homes 400 fuckin times over.   : : : : : : :  Fuck me senseless.  And all the mah-vilians in the CAF of today do this  :nod: and little by little, more of the 'little things' that were a benefit for decades get taken away.  But meh..it only has the potential to affect the most junior members the most adversely...so no need to fret.  



> Having said all of this, I think DND should get out of the housing business altogether (except in remote locations and for short-term single quarters).  Overall, it's a money loser and the CF does no one any favours by providing it.



There's that business man, mah-vilian talk bullhshit again.   :facepalm:   I know more than a few people who had 'a home of their own' starting off in the Q patch.  At one time, because of a short term posting, I lived in the Qs as a kid while our home was rented.  That was almost 40 years ago...it sure helped my family back then, and it is helping others TODAY.



> Too many folks, even today, are retiring with nothing to show for years of paying rent.  Perhaps if they had been forced to live on the economy sooner, they would have built some equity.



Is that anyone's business other than theirs?  The Adult Day Care stuff isn't required, adults can make their own decisions on renting, buying, whatever.  

Sorry if that is harsh or blunt, but your kind who have dranketh the Magic Kool-Aid and just keep saying 'hell yah!' to cuts of services and any and all things that even have a _HINT_ of 'benefit' to CAF members need to get out of the NCR, the HQs and mingle with the peasants more often.  It's easy to forget the realities of the single income family, living off of Pte's pay.  If we stop caring about the Pte's and 2Lts and their best interest, we are losing it and we've already _lost it _enough.

Oh, quick question.  How much money did the new government just hand off to other countries..how many billions?  If we can hand cash off like we're growin' it on fuckin' trees in this country, we can manage to keep some PMQs habitable and available for our military members who have signed up to serve Canada, whenever Canada calls.  The military is not a 'for profit business', the people who work for us are not 'our employess'.

They are our SUBORDINATES, and we are supposed to give a fuck about their well-being.  If you don't believe that anymore, its time to move on, and take the step from mah-vilian to civilian.  I don't want my tax dollars to pay armed forces members for 'running a business'.  I want that $ to pay armed forces members to run a military.

If some of my tax dollars are used to ensure PMQs are available for military members who are posted against their wishes, or for new members who are trying to start a family like my Dad did back in the 50s and 60s [before he could afford a home of his own], then so be it.  I'd rather see my taxes used for the benefit of Canadians then it being spread all over the world like we shit $100 bills in this country.

Hell, I'll donate my GCCWC annual donation to it;  add PMQ Fund to the donation paperwork and I'll double my annual donation.


----------



## Furniture (19 Feb 2016)

Pusser said:
			
		

> I've forgotten nothing.  My pay may be higher now, but it was once much lower and I too have struggled, but frankly, that's irrelevant.



Every time I hear someone of a senior rank make a comment like that I cringe. It's easy to forget what making $30K was like when the last time you made less than $100K was a decade ago... Sure things don't have to be easy, but advocating for making things harder on Jr members is not on. Want good people, treat them well and fairly.



			
				Pusser said:
			
		

> Taxes, local cost of living issues, local rents (including PMQ rents) are addressed by PLD.



I find the Navy really has a skewed idea about the fairness and effectiveness of PLD. I suppose that is to be expected when the two operational bases just happen to be in high PLD areas and that is all most sailors know apart from Ottawa. PLD is a joke in its current form, and needs a serious overall before it will be anything nearing proper compensation for any of the above differences in postings.

I'll just echo EITS's sentiments that too much emphasis has been placed on making the CAF more of a business like, profit/loss driven organization. We are losing sight of the objective of taking the best care of our people that we can.


----------



## RCPalmer (19 Feb 2016)

Wow.  I think some perspective is required here.

I agree that the "taking care of the troops" imperative of leaders has slipped in recent years, but that is more about leader's diverted time and attention than money.  

The benefit package delivered by the CAF is better today than it has ever been.  Salaries and allowances in particular have grown significantly in the last 20 years. If you discussed the matter with anyone who served in the 60's and 70's, it would be clear to you that the lifestyle of the average CAF member today has improved considerably.

The CAF entry level pay and benefits packages are perfectly reasonable, and if you are a single guy you can live pretty well on them in most jurisdictions if you make smart choices, living on the economy when it suits, and in the Single Quarters when it doesn't.  The reality is that almost everyone who starts a family on a single income in an entry level position will struggle.  That reality is not unique to the CAF, and it is not up to the CAF to "fix" that.  This is the career trajectory that the vast majority of Canadians have to deal with.


----------



## DonaldMcL (19 Feb 2016)

RCPalmer said:
			
		

> Wow.  I think some perspective is required here.
> 
> I agree that the "taking care of the troops" imperative of leaders has slipped in recent years, but that is more about leader's diverted time and attention than money.
> 
> ...



Sorry, it's not the 60s and 70s.


----------



## PuckChaser (19 Feb 2016)




----------



## MJP (19 Feb 2016)

BobSlob said:
			
		

> Sorry, it's not the 60s and 70s.



That is the point of thier whole  post.


----------



## c_canuk (19 Feb 2016)

I just want the "CF Members have to pay market rates for everything" argument thrown out since we are not paid market rates.

It would be nice if PLD was fixed as well.

As for we have better benefits now than any other point, BULLSHIT!

it's only recently that troops have to pay rats even through they are maintaining a home while on course, it is only now that Separation Allowance has been removed from IR, and it is only now that "Double Dipping" has been stopped.

Those are massive reductions to compensation.

1. if a new Pte coming in has to pay rats and quarters while they are maintaining a home, and you don't see a problem with that you are what is wrong with the CF. I would suggest it's time for you to get out.

2. Yes Sep Allowance for IR was way to much, but to take it away completely is BS. 

If you can't sell your home you really have no choice but to go on IR. IRP will only extend benefits to maintain 2 households at the same time for 6 months, they you're on your own jack. On top of that, banks will no longer only charge interest on a mortgage if you are in that situation. So good luck getting a second home mortgage, and good luck finding something other than a card board box to move into in your new location. 

So yes technically it's your own decision to not move into a homeless shelter at the other end until your previous home sells.

So IR is a must for some, it is a horrible pill to swallow that your wife is 14 hour drive away, ready to move but your house won't sell. You don't have enough fat in your budget for a second mortgage payment or rent and technically it was "your choice". 

So no relief for the extra expenses of maintaining 2 grocery budgets, 2 sets of utilities etc.

I get it folks had it too jammy and something had to give, but I'm sure there was a happy middle ground somewhere.

3. Double dipping doesn't make sense to me. If I retire and get a job as a CS-2 I don't get accused of double dipping, so why is a class b position considered the same? The only rational I heard for that is a great many class b positions were manufactured specifically for a person. Seems simple to solve to me. Each CO has to justify all current class b positions in their AOR annually, persons who release cannot take a class b for 2 years, and persons cannot take a class b from their previous unit of employment for 5 years.

Willing to bet a lot of reasons we're having trouble with the recruiting system today is a lot of talent walked rather than get their pension screwed with.


----------



## jollyjacktar (19 Feb 2016)

Oowwie,  prepare for heavy rolls to port and starboard as I'm sure they'll be coming from some quarters.    op:


----------



## McG (19 Feb 2016)

I see lots of posts on this site that lament the “PC crowd” tactic of making certain topics off-limits by questioning the ethics of any persons who do not support their position.  I am sorry to see that not everybody is above using such tactics for their own gain here.  Now that we have called into question the moral competence to lead of any person who does not agree with one particular crowd and brought out the popcorn smilie, it is clearly time to put this thread to rest for a while.

If you want to continue to participate in this thread productively, you can ask a moderator to open it not before Sunday.  If you cannot continue without dragging the discussion into mudslinging, then do not bother coming back when (if) the discussion resumes.

Cheers,
The staff.


----------

