# Shift for the Reserves - National Post



## John Nayduk (8 Jan 2004)

Reservists touted as terrorism fighters  
Canada‘s long-neglected military reserves will be the first line of defence should terrorists mount an attack here like the Sept. 11 strikes, says the senior Liberal MP responsible for reservists. 

 http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/newsletter/story.html?id=30407dfb-d033-49b4-b6b8-221a777754d3


----------



## dano (8 Jan 2004)

Very interesting indeed!
Quite a few number of people probably have already realized that the reserve can do so much more than what it is doing now. 

Though, now it is in "Ink and paper" with the parliamentary secretary to the Defense Minister.
It may give the Militia a broader more extensive resourceful role.


----------



## Gunnar (8 Jan 2004)

Let me get this straight....our primary armed forces is underfunded, has low morale and the government has been ignoring it for years.  Our reserve is second place to the reg force in terms of funding, and in addition does everything part time.  And, in case of terrorist attack, the reserves are going to keep us safe?

Sounds like more money, equipment, and training is necessary first....and if that is the case, why not give it to the regs first?  Or will all this terrorist training fund the reserves to the detriment of the reg force?

Not really knocking the reserves per se...they are an organised and trained force that can be quickly mobilised in situ, are not part of the standard police/fire/ambulance apparat (and thus can operate more quickly, we hope, in case of an emergency)....it‘s just that I haven‘t heard the big announcement of a real increase to the Defence budget...and that would make news.

Broadening the role (and visibility) of the Reserve may help in the long run...I hope.


----------



## onecat (8 Jan 2004)

Maybe it‘s just me, but that has me very nervous as where Martin plans to take the CF.  This could be his way of replacing the Reg Force with the reserve as the primary force.  The Liberals have a long stand hate for anything Military, and this could be the out they are looking for.  Under the cover of terrorist training, Martin can make himself look good to people who vote Liberal, but at the same time make canada a nation of part-time soldiers.

Not sure if this is the direction he is going to take and I sure hope it isn‘t the case, but over the last 10 years one thing I‘ve learned is don‘t trust the Liberals with Nation Defence..


----------



## dano (8 Jan 2004)

That is a good perspective yet interesting to look it.

But for the most part the public will not allow this to happen.

Up but foremost the US will have something to say about this as well. 
As their patriotic selves, they will have indeed something to say, I just hope they do not take advantage of this.


----------



## Roger (8 Jan 2004)

We did at one time have a civil defence force, they where disbanded in the late 60â€™s or 70â€™s, I remember going by the building as a kid and see them practice. The Reserve ended getting there budget and where supposed to take over training and prepare to help us in need like Nova Scotia, BC fires and Ice storms in Quebec and Ontario. But because of the October crisis, they where mainly training for riot and or crowd control.

The one problem I can see is there is no protection for a reservist, if you ever get called you could get fired from you civilian job and be out of work. Even now many of you are in the same position as me, I cannot get the time off in summer to go on courses, hence I will not be promoted, the Reserves is part of my life and I love it but I need to feed myself.

First thing they should do is have a system like most European countryâ€™s and the USA, pass a law that would guarantee us some sort of job protection.


----------



## Devlin (8 Jan 2004)

> Mr. Price wants the reserves to be able to both "back-stop" the regular Canadian Forces and be called out en masse in times of national emergency, such as the recent onslaught of Hurricane Juan on Nova Scotia or the blackout in southern Ontario.


Sure no problem there Mr. Price, lets go hoah and all that sh1t. 

Just one thing big guy how about some job protection like our neighbours south of the 49th paralell.


----------



## Korus (8 Jan 2004)

> Let me get this straight....our primary armed forces is underfunded, has low morale and the government has been ignoring it for years. Our reserve is second place to the reg force in terms of funding, and in addition does everything part time. And, in case of terrorist attack, the reserves are going to keep us safe?


Alrighty. If, for example, Vancouver gets attacked we can just wait for 1 or 3 PPCLI to fly out from Edmonton while the local reservists sit on their arses. 

I think the (a?) point is that the reserves are spread out much more than the regular forces, and thus can be on location quicker for local emergencies. If something happened in Edmonton, as an example, there are both regular and reserve army units, and it‘s obvious that the regs would be able to react quicker, since they don‘t have to call up their troops at school/work.


----------



## dano (8 Jan 2004)

trap:"First thing they should do is have a system like most European countryâ€™s and the USA, pass a law that would guarantee us some sort of job protection."

That would be a stature worth having, but

It simply can‘t be as easy as passing/changing laws. When is it moral to pass/change laws to fit the needs or wants of others?

In my opinion, passing/changing laws is just another way of exploiting what we have and don‘t have so human life is more ample(speaking generally).

It has become a game, for example Bush

SHIFTING AGENDA: Bush‘s changing priorities since he took office:

2001

â€¢ Across-the-board income-tax cut
â€¢ Overhaul federal education policy to emphasize more-rigorous testing
â€¢ Faith-based initiative to increase church involvement in social services

2002
â€¢ Pursue Osama bin Laden and surviving al Qaeda operatives
â€¢ Extend anti-terror war to address"axis of evil," including Iraq, Iran and North Korea
â€¢ Create federal department of Homeland Security

2003
â€¢ Rally domestic and international support for military action against Iraq
â€¢ Avoid military action, seek United Nations help in stopping North Korean nuclear program
â€¢ Economic-growth package featuring abolition of taxes on stock dividends

These are the starting points of which more will come.

Simply creating, passing and changing laws amply is not what law is about.

No one agrees with all of them, nevertheless, simultaneously no one disagrees with all of them as well.

(I‘m not flaming you Trap. I‘m just making a statement)


----------



## Korus (8 Jan 2004)

Soo... since Bush has had changing policies, Canadian politicians shouldn‘t pass any laws for  job protection for Canadian reservists?

You where saving that, and just waiting for a topic to post it in, wheren‘t you.

On the topic of job legislation, 
 http://www.dnd.ca/site/minister/eng/restructuring/e-p4-c14.html


----------



## kurokaze (8 Jan 2004)

That‘s all well and good, but I‘m not holding my breathe to see job-protection anytime soon...


----------



## Gryphon (8 Jan 2004)

me neither


----------



## dano (8 Jan 2004)

It is a illustrative instance.

I did not imply nor think that we can‘t have Job protection. I used Job protection as an example.

I think that just by changing laws considerably ample in general is not moral.

Bush is just an example of changing laws/procedures to meet his own agenda goals in war time.


----------



## Roger (8 Jan 2004)

Changing a law for us in Canada for job protection is a need.

You can not compare it to passing a law "Extend anti-terror war to address"axis of evil"

If it ever comes to a point in Canada that you are called up for a emergency, get permission from your employer then when you get back you get a pink slip there is nothing you can do and that is not right.

If we tell friends, co-workers, relatives, our member of parliment then maybe the law will change. The new policy of saying we think it would work better for the reserves not to have the law is a copout.

On a last note, if they had the law we could be called to go somewhere and not have a choice and have to go.


----------



## Jungle (8 Jan 2004)

> On a last note, if they had the law we could be called to go somewhere and not have a choice and have to go.


That is the big point: you can‘t have that kind of legislation without a commitment from the part of Reservists.


----------



## Gunnar (8 Jan 2004)

Korus, it‘s not that the reserves are useless, or that there isn‘t a purpose to a reserve army (read the second half of my post which points out the rapidity of deployment argument you make later), but that when the PRIMARY force is underfunded, and the SECONDARY force is by its very nature funded less than the primary:  Where the **** is the coin coming from?

Further, by funding the secondary force in preference to the primary, you demean the primary and leave the reserve open to being commanded not by generals, but by civilian authorities...soon, we have a great big police force.

I too fear what someone else suggested on this thread...that the CF will be made completely into a reserve force to satisfy some Liberal‘s dream of a Utopian world where everybody loves one another, and spends their days singing Sesame Street "cooperation" songs...


----------



## dano (8 Jan 2004)

*Shivers*


----------



## onecat (8 Jan 2004)

"On a last note, if they had the law we could be called to go somewhere and not have a choice and have to go. "

"That is the big point: you can‘t have that kind of legislation without a commitment from the part of Reservists."

What‘s the problem with that.  If you join a force who has the primary goal of defening national interests you going to be sent places you might not like.  If they did past that legislation then you you should be sent: teh commitment is made when you sign on the dotted line.


----------



## Jungle (9 Jan 2004)

The problem is that there is no obligation to serve once a kid joins the Reserves. They can quit anytime they want, and a lot do when it gets too hard or they don‘t get what they want. If job protection legislation is passed, then people should sign a contract when joining the Reserves.


----------



## dano (9 Jan 2004)

Here is an article to support my example.

 http://www.guerrillanews.com/war_on_terrorism/doc3686.html


----------



## Maxpower (9 Jan 2004)

> Originally posted by Dano:
> [qb] That is a good perspective yet interesting to look it.
> 
> But for the most part the public will not allow this to happen.
> ...


Now I find this unfair.  Why would the public not want to allow Reservists, like myself, to be trained in the event of a national emergency?  I think that people would want the country to be as prepared as possible in the event of a Tradgedy.  Why would the US say anything about this? They arn‘t going to ridicule Canada for having actual Trained Reservists.  And if they do, what would they be trying to prove.  I think that we all should have training as a member of the Canadian Forces in case of public Disasters/emergencies, or at least have the option of taking the training.  Then at least we will be Semi-prepared for something that could happen without warning. But then again, it all boils down to the money and resources.


----------



## Recce41 (9 Jan 2004)

Are they for real? I was in TO for the snow BS. We were there in 6-8 hrs. I didn‘t even see a Reservist until the need day. Also the ice storm, flood. You cannot get a full Coy/Sqn out for an Ex. Can you just see them if they had to shot someone. Civil defence takes more training than, camping in the woods. We trained for a month just to go to the Kingston Pen.


----------



## Jeff Boomhouwer (9 Jan 2004)

Finally a mission, some direction. Show me the money and some employment protection.


----------



## Korus (9 Jan 2004)

> The problem is that there is no obligation to serve once a kid joins the Reserves. They can quit anytime they want, and a lot do when it gets too hard or they don‘t get what they want. If job protection legislation is passed, then people should sign a contract when joining the Reserves.


As a reservist myself, I whole-heartedly agree.


----------



## dano (9 Jan 2004)

> Originally posted by Maxpower:
> [qb]
> 
> 
> ...


I have now noticed that I failed to be clear, so in effect you mis-understood my post.

I ment to say that in regards to  



> Maybe it‘s just me, but that has me very nervous as where Martin plans to take the CF. This could be his way of replacing the Reg Force with the reserve as the primary force. The Liberals have a long stand hate for anything Military, and this could be the out they are looking for. Under the cover of terrorist training, Martin can make himself look good to people who vote Liberal, but at the same time make canada a nation of part-time soldiers.
> 
> Not sure if this is the direction he is going to take and I sure hope it isn‘t the case, but over the last 10 years one thing I‘ve learned is don‘t trust the Liberals with Nation Defence..    Originally posted by RadioHead.


The public will not allow this to happen to our forces. Pro or Con to the forces. Allowing the PM to do such a thing, if he we‘re to.


----------



## Maxpower (9 Jan 2004)

Thanks for the clear up   :mg:


----------



## elscotto937 (12 Jan 2004)

I believe that if we want to have our reserves as a credible force that we can use independently of the regular force or in mutually supporting roles. Then things must change, legislation must be brought in that offers job protection, but this job protection must also involve penalty for failure to show up for a call-out. For example, if there is a position that the military needs you to fill or training that you need to attend, you either attend or get out. This would allow the real soliers in the militia to come out and play, and not just the ones who are lucky enough to have jobs with flexible schedules or those who are otherwise unemployed. 
Imagine a terrorist strike where reservists were called out, expecting a regiment and getting 3 people who had nothing better to do.... Reliablity is what I‘m getting at...


----------



## logau (12 Jan 2004)

An excellent post. 

But we should be clear as to what does it mean to be available on short notice? I‘m given to understand that the regular forces are as busy as the reserves - ie: they are on taskings, trg, deployed, on holidays etc. Their office uniform just happens to be CADPAT.

The ready forces are surprisingly small - what is it - a company per LAND FORCES AREA? 

I don‘t think any planner envisions regulars or reserves as in "open another can of soldiers."

What I have seen though recently - is a bonus system that seems quite a powerful enticement where Brit TA soldiers have to get their time sheets signed off and attend certain trg activities throughout the year. Then they get some big $$$$$$. 

Anyone got more to fill out here?

Upshot - there are few troops aval initially but over short periods they will start flowing in. I know that few held back when the mountains were on fire this summer.



> Originally posted by Scott937:
> [QB] I believe that if we want to have our reserves as a credible force that we can use independently of the regular force or in mutually supporting roles. ......


----------



## Roger (12 Jan 2004)

I was asked to go fight the fires in BC. But I just finished doing a course and there was no way I could get the time off, I would have loved to have gone but I need a job and if I went I am sure I would have been let go.


----------



## RCD (14 Jan 2004)

The entire Armed Forces need to be overhaul.

Including new legislation.


----------



## elscotto937 (14 Jan 2004)

Logau, I hadn‘t heard of the incentive program for the TA. Do the British deal with the reserves (TA) in the same manner, as we do in Canada (i.e. no job protection). And you are exactly correct, the teeth to tail ratio is too low....Of our ready forces they can deploy in sufficient numbers for small events, but they are only a small force. In addition effectly, a third of them are currently deployed.


----------



## logau (14 Jan 2004)

There seems to be a very different emphasis. When I was there last Sept the 75th Engr Regt from Manchester had gone to an advance trg camp for possible deployment to Iraq. 

Not sure how far this went but we were excluded from it - as they had tasks they had to get certified on etc. 

I do know they will call you up and you have no choice if you‘re family is healthy and no issues like that. I will explore more and get back to you shortly.

With regard to their bonus - everyone I met took it very seriously, and said they‘ll go as far as lock up their troops in camp or on ex so they get the time in to qualify.

More to follow.




> Originally posted by Scott937:
> [qb] Logau, I hadn‘t heard of the incentive program for the TA. Do the British deal with the reserves (TA) in the same manner, as we do in Canada (i.e. no job protection). And you are exactly correct, the teeth to tail ratio is too low....Of our ready forces they can deploy in sufficient numbers for small events, but they are only a small force. In addition effectly, a third of them are currently deployed. [/qb]


----------



## logau (14 Jan 2004)

FOR ALL - Read this VERY Interesting post carefully

As I said - a very different emphasis - see this link   http://www.ta.mod.uk/general/benefits.html  

Highlights - would you like $2500 a year tax free after you did all your trg and attanded all your exerices? Me too. 

Basic Pay and Annual Bounty 
You will receive army rates of pay for every day you train, amounting to at least Â£28.32 a day if you‘re a private soldier. The exact rate you receive will depend on your rank, your trade and your commitment. You may also be refunded travel costs accruing from travelling to your TA centre for training.

On completion of your minimum yearly training requirement, you will also be eligible for a tax-free bonus known as an annual bounty. Again the precise bounty depends on the nature of service, but it is generally Â£330 for new members, rising to Â£1,290 for those with five satisfactory years behind them.

Rights and Responsibilities of all 

Employers 
The TA could not fulfil the important role it does without the support of its members‘ employers. It is support that most are happy to provide because, far from ‘losing‘ their staff to the Army, employers find that they stand to gain as much from the arrangement as the individual, the TA and the rest of us.

TA trained employees are widely regarded as being more committed, dependable, confident and responsible in the workplace. And while some may require a little extra time off to fulfil their training commitment, they more than pay it back with the additional communication, teamworking, problem solving and managerial skills they gain.

To date, more than 6,000 employers, accounting for over 70% of the UK workforce have recognised these benefits and pledged their support to Britain‘s Reserve Forces. These include such names as Abbey National, Next, Powergen, Unilever and the NHS.

Everything you need to know about the triangular relationship between the TA, its members and their employers - including the rights and responsibilities of all parties under the Reserve Forces Act 1996 - is on the SaBRE website. 

  http://www.sabre.mod.uk/output/Page1.asp  




> Originally posted by logau:
> [QB] There seems to be a very different emphasis....


----------



## elscotto937 (14 Jan 2004)

Very interesting... their programs seem to contain methods I had never considered.


----------



## logau (14 Jan 2004)

Pass the link on to everyone in your email world. The more awareness the better. It seems to me the ultimate self inflicted wound not to lead NATO in reserve regular integration. Unfortunatley we‘re fighting Not Invented Here.... syndrome


----------

