# Canada must divide its military resources along foreign and domestic lines - G&M



## dimsum (26 May 2020)

This may dovetail with the Army Reserve Restructuring thread, but I felt it was different enough to put separately.



> CHRISTIAN LEUPRECHT
> CONTRIBUTED TO THE GLOBE AND MAIL
> PUBLISHED 1 DAY AGO
> 
> ...



https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-canada-must-divide-its-military-resources-along-foreign-and-domestic/


----------



## MilEME09 (26 May 2020)

> Canadians will not pay for a bigger military. So Canada will need a better-organized military that is actually structured to optimize taxpayers’ return on investment



You would think so, but we all know better that that


----------



## FJAG (26 May 2020)

The article leaves a lot to be desired in that it has various items that aren't factually accurate and show a basic misunderstanding of "mobilization" within the current CAF; the makeup and role of Provincial EMOs. It's hard to believe he's a professor at RMC.  :facepalm:

This article is a particularly surprising in that the he is the co-author of a paper "On the Baltic Watch:The Past, Present and Future of Canada’s Commitment to NATO’s Enhanced Forward Presence in Latvia" which is a fairly good analysis of the Russian threat to the Baltic States and why Canada should continue to play a role in that deterrence operation. https://macdonaldlaurier.ca/files/pdf/20180327_MLI_LATVIA_WebF.pdf  This makes it doubly hard to understand why he's prepared to write-off 20,000 Canadian soldiers to flood control and firefighting.

Some of the comments are more insightful than the article (others not so much)

The basic proposition to turn the Reserves into an at-home EMO is nothing short of silly. Does Canada need a better organized military - absolutely; what it needs, however, is a Reserve Force that can play a better away game next to its Regular Force counterparts. 

 :brickwall:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (26 May 2020)

Funny enough they already tried that with the Reserves doing Civil Defense, that turkey did not fly well. Why do they think it would work better this time around? If doing only domestic emergency ops, I much rather work privately or as part of the Public Service either Provincially or Federal.


----------



## MilEME09 (26 May 2020)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Funny enough they already tried that with the Reserves doing Civil Defense, that turkey did not fly well. Why do they think it would work better this time around? If doing only domestic emergency ops, I much rather work privately or as part of the Public Service either Provincially or Federal.



Ah yes, that Turkey caused my trade to rewrite courses 3 times since 2010. At the end of the day Reserve force or not the primary role of the CAF is not domestic ops, and us having to be called in is a symptom of other problems. We really need to get back to war fighting not saving people annually for having a home on a flood plain.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (26 May 2020)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Funny enough they already tried that with the Reserves doing Civil Defense, that turkey did not fly well. Why do they think it would work better this time around? If doing only domestic emergency ops, I much rather work privately or as part of the Public Service either Provincially or Federal.



It was not so much that doing "National Survival" with the Militia didn't fly well, but that Canada doing "Civil Defence" regardless of the agency didn't generally do it as well as it was done in other countries.  An interesting analysis of it is "Give Me Shelter: The Failure of Canada's Cold War Civil Defence" By Andrew Burtch  https://books.google.ca/books/about/Give_Me_Shelter.html?id=cb4SombaypsC&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

My favourite model for civil disaster response is Germany, probably because I was more familiar with them.  A neighbour in the village where I once lived (back in the days when we were stationed over there) was in the Lahr THW unit.  What I saw of their capabilities and ability to respond quickly (locally, as well as regionally, nationally and internationally - they were also in Rwanda when we went there in '94) impressed me.


----------



## Dale Denton (27 May 2020)

If the primary job of the CF as an institution is to "Defend Canada", and they cannot assist communities of Canadians from floods. Then it is an organisation that is rolling itself into its own grave. 

Canadians don't care about having a well-equipped military force, its well understood on this site and to many defence-minded people. Canadians care about terrible things around the world, but nobody ever cries out for military intervention. Nobody is marching in the streets to send a force to XYZ country because they're terrible. The CF is easy to cut because of its split, and not embracing the HADR job. No provincial gov't is gonna fork up any cash for a fleet of Chinook and LAVs, so that angle is silly IMHO. 

If you say the Defence of Canada is the No1 job and that includes HADR, then people won't mind funding that org that flew me away from the fires, or drove me away from the floods. It simple good-will and positive press for the organisation. When the next flood comes and we couldn't get our trucks in there due to age and disrepair, then which delayed 10 year procurement project is gonna get the spotlight in the news next, the mobility one or the RPAS one?

Do Canadians think Russia is a threat to their everyday life or are they more worried about floods and fires? Easier to sell the idea of an expensive armed logistical force.

Build up a basic capability to get Canadians to safety from harm domestically, then by happenstance you may get equipment that'll be for war.


----------



## tomahawk6 (27 May 2020)

In the US our National Guard is the domestic resource used for national disasters and they also can be mobilized for use overseas. Canada has the ability to do the same with its reserve forces.


----------



## MilEME09 (27 May 2020)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> In the US our National Guard is the domestic resource used for national disasters and they also can be mobilized for use overseas. Canada has the ability to do the same with its reserve forces.



This drips into other threads, but if thats what we want, then reserve units need to be deployable units, not admin units. I think that would be great but we would need strong leadership at the national level to get the job done. The NDA would probably need some tweaks, job protection in all provinces for reservists would need to be altered. I do not think there is the political will to get it done.


----------



## FJAG (27 May 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> This drips into other threads, but if thats what we want, then reserve units need to be deployable units, not admin units. I think that would be great but we would need strong leadership at the national level to get the job done. The NDA would probably need some tweaks, job protection in all provinces for reservists would need to be altered. I do not think there is the political will to get it done.



I think even before you get to the question of political will, you have to get politicians to even know that there is an issue and to understand what it's components are. Most of them have no clue (and for some strange reason that I can't fathom, that includes our incumbent minister who, as far as I can see, has done zero to advance Reserve Force capabilities)

The second prerequisite to understanding the issue is to be able to recognize the inevitable counter arguments (Everything's alright, mate! Oh, and we need more money!) that are going to come from within the system to maintain the status quo for what they really are; rice bowl protection.

Then, and only then, will political will need to kick in.

 :cheers:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (27 May 2020)

We could start National Conscription by Lottery, so if your name is chosen at 18, you can request either the military or Civil Defense battalions. Your request is evaluated against your physical/mental state and numbers required and you end up where based on all of the above. (This is roughly what Malaysia does) If you have a criminal record you automatically go to Civil Defense flagged for labour work.

Civil Defense Battalions:
Basic first Aid
Basic search and rescue
Basic fire fighting
Basic flood control
Basic urban rescue

Military 
Basic training 
Basic infantry training
Basic drivers course
Basic First Aid

After 18 months you go on Supp list till you are 30. At anytime people can apply to the Armed Forces and their courses and performance are brought with them to the professional military.


----------



## blacktriangle (27 May 2020)

Other than the conscription part, it doesn't sound like a bad idea. I wonder if it be better to have a national force, or a mix of different organizations at the municipal/provincial/federal levels? While I'd assume all units would need a similar baseline of training to start, I wonder if it wouldn't be a good idea to have certain teams specialize to an extent. 

Obviously cost would be an issue, but a small full-time cadre of permanent/and or contract personnel who coordinate the training and logistics for a larger pool of adequately trained, but part-time members who can surge as required. Pre-positioned stocks of emergency stores, and a fleet of COTS vehicles. It kind of sounds like the reserves, but I doubt the PRes wants this as their actual role. Also, I feel a lot of people won't join the military, but might volunteer for some kind of civilian EMO.


----------



## FJAG (28 May 2020)

I disagree completely with any move to have any portion of a military force with a primary role of civil disaster work. I think Lieutenant-General Guy Simonds said it best back in 1972:



> “The armed forces should primarily be trained and equipped for the possibility of conflict with a first-class power - the most severe testing they may have to face. It has been proven over and over again, that well trained and well disciplined military forces, trained primarily for major warfare, can easily and effectively adapt to lesser roles of aid to civil power or peacekeeping. The reverse is not the case.”  - . Simonds, Lieutenant-General, G.G. Commentary and Observations, The Canadian Military: A Profile, ed., Hector Massey, Toronto: Copp Clark, 1972. P 267



This was perhaps Gen Simonds last statement on the subject but had in no way been the first as during the fifties and sixties there had been numerous shifts in policy that had given civil defence roles to the Militia off and on.



> By the end of 1954, however, Major-General F. F. Worthington, Civil Defence Coordinator under the Department of National Health and Welfare, called for the Militia to be used in national survival search and rescue operations in the event of nuclear attack. Simonds, who worried that such a specialized role would turn the Militia into a safe haven for those who wished to avoid active service, responded that armed forces maintained and trained primarily for combat could always offer assistance to the civil defence authority.
> ...
> In 1958, at the height of the so-called golden age of deterrent thought that accentuated the worth of forces in-being, newly
> appointed defence minister George Pearkes announced that the primary role of the Militia would henceforth be to restore order and conduct search and rescue re-entry operations into “target areas” in the event of a nuclear attack on Canada
> ...



https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/cdfai/pages/95/attachments/original/1413683498/The_Role_of_the_Militia_in_Today_Canadian_Forces.pdf?1413683498

We are met with two significant challenges: limited resources and a more demanding challenge in preparing for "conflict with a first-class power" than ever before. To prepare for such a conflict will need every resource available. The fact that a properly trained military can easily augment civilian authorities that are already equipped for and knowledgeable in civil disaster work means that we do not need to, nor should we, divert any resources, or even much valuable training time from our primary responsibilities from defending the nation and its national interests.

Quite frankly, IMHO, the proposal made in the Leuprecht article is not only short-sighted but dangerous.

 :cheers:


----------



## MilEME09 (28 May 2020)

Colin P said:
			
		

> We could start National Conscription by Lottery, so if your name is chosen at 18, you can request either the military or Civil Defense battalions. Your request is evaluated against your physical/mental state and numbers required and you end up where based on all of the above. (This is roughly what Malaysia does) If you have a criminal record you automatically go to Civil Defense flagged for labour work.
> 
> Civil Defense Battalions:
> Basic first Aid
> ...



We could go more the Swiss route, because some objected to military service, the tweaked it to a national service program. All able body citizens at age 18 must do 2 years, the military is still and option but so are other fields like Nursing aids, and working in Long term care facilities, after completing government run training. We could cover our bases doing this by putting into towards area's such as forest fire fighting, flood response/recovery, health care aids including in LTC's, farm work, Military, and Coast Guard, possibly other areas as well.

This gives them work experience, a possible career, and the national interest is served, a non military required service option would also likely be more popular in Quebec.


----------



## daftandbarmy (28 May 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> We could go more the Swiss route, because some objected to military service, the tweaked it to a national service program. All able body citizens at age 18 must do 2 years, the military is still and option but so are other fields like Nursing aids, and working in Long term care facilities, after completing government run training. We could cover our bases doing this by putting into towards area's such as forest fire fighting, flood response/recovery, health care aids including in LTC's, farm work, Military, and Coast Guard, possibly other areas as well.
> 
> This gives them work experience, a possible career, and the national interest is served, a non military required service option would also likely be more popular in Quebec.



Offer to pay tuition for those doing  a 3 year stint and you’ll have to fight people off with a club.


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 May 2020)

>This gives them work experience, a possible career

So does a job, and they aren't giving up an important part of their lives and a loss of opportunities.

>the national interest is served

No thanks.  Before we decide to conscript anyone now, everyone in favour should first pay the government the equivalent of those years of indentured service, with interest, since they didn't have to give up those years of their lives.  See how much enthusiasm remains.


----------



## blacktriangle (28 May 2020)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >This gives them work experience, a possible career
> 
> So does a job, and they aren't giving up an important part of their lives and a loss of opportunities.
> 
> ...



Great post, Brad. Let's do a better job of attracting the right talent (that actually wants to serve) and then retaining it. That applies as much to our military/public sector as it does our hospitals and LTC facilities. It's supposed to be a free country, let's let people decide for themselves what they want to be when they grow up. 

So here's a hypothetical situation: If CAF/DND was given a choice, focus more on domestic operations, or lose a chunk of the budget so that the task could be performed by another organization, what do you think the response to government would be? I feel like I know how it would go, but I'm curious to hear what others might think.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 May 2020)

and we can have a Civil Defense Airforce using Canadian made aircraft like France https://www.facebook.com/bryan.bourgois/videos/3045135602192313/


----------



## daftandbarmy (28 May 2020)

reverse_engineer said:
			
		

> Great post, Brad. Let's do a better job of attracting the right talent (that actually wants to serve) and then retaining it. That applies as much to our military/public sector as it does our hospitals and LTC facilities. It's supposed to be a free country, let's let people decide for themselves what they want to be when they grow up.
> 
> So here's a hypothetical situation: If CAF/DND was given a choice, focus more on domestic operations, or lose a chunk of the budget so that the task could be performed by another organization, what do you think the response to government would be? I feel like I know how it would go, but I'm curious to hear what others might think.



The Provincial Wildfire/ Wild Land Fire fighting programs are already well set up to deal with ‘climate emergencies’. Just give them a broader mandate and more money.


----------



## CBH99 (28 May 2020)

*>This gives them work experience, a possible career

So does a job, and they aren't giving up an important part of their lives and a loss of opportunities.

>the national interest is served

No thanks.  Before we decide to conscript anyone now, everyone in favour should first pay the government the equivalent of those years of indentured service, with interest, since they didn't have to give up those years of their lives.  See how much enthusiasm remains.*



I'm not disagreeing with your post, just throwing in some food for thought from a different perspective

1.  It not only gives them work experience, but it also gives them a respectable form of employment & a decent paycheck.  Not only that, but I'm curious about the positive/negative affects it would have on our society as a whole, since everybody growing up (especially once we all really grow up, out of our early/mid 20's) would have some form of national service.

Perhaps less vandalism?  Less petty/property crime?  A more unified society in some sense, since everybody did some form of service to benefit our society?  


2.  If it is offering folks steady, respectable employment - I don't think people should have to pay the government for those years.

Although there could be exceptions to service, re: someone enrolled in university or some form of post-secondary, employed/learning a trade, etc.

I know a LOT of young people (usually not bad people, but in trouble with the law) who would benefit from some form of national service.  (Not conscription).  It would really help with their social skills & their perhaps skewed view of society and problem solving (low income/rough childhood stuff) - as well as give them something more productive to do, since a lot of the younger folks I've dealt with in the courts tend to have the root of their issues at boredom/lack of opportunities.



Not disagreeing with your post at all Brad.  Just tossing it into the discussion as food for thought.

(I'm married to a girl who served 3 years in the IDF - have a hilarious story for another time where she was snarky to their deputy PM without knowing who it was.  I just suggested the food for thought above after chatting with her about how national service works in Israel...obviously not the same situation as here, but the general concepts were similar)   :2c:


----------



## lenaitch (28 May 2020)

In my humble opinion, if the domestic mandate was severed from the CAF, it would do irreparable harm to whatever would be left behind.  Truth be told, the military is not on the radar of the typical Canadian taxpayer.  Defence matters are relegated to a throwaway line on a platform during an election and never discussed because they know the average voter simply doesn't care.  No Canadian politician will stump that the GST has to go up a point to meet the Strong, Secure Engaged goals, or that they can't do pharmacare because warships need to be built.

Sure, there is great outpouring of respect and sympathy during repatriation ceremonies and the like, but it is usually fleeting and, again, my opinion, more towards the victim as opposed to the institution.  We don't have a history of revolution or empire, and our geographic integrity hasn't been breached since the Fenian Raids of the 1870s.  Many simply think that we made soldiers, sailors and airmen out of farm boys in pretty short order in the past and we could simply do it again if we had to.

How many post-boomers actually know about Afghanistan, the former Yugoslavia or any other hot events involving the CAF in the past few decades?  How many sit down a read a newspaper or take an hour to watch the evening news?  These are some of the places where events are covered in-depth, either reportage, analysis or opinion.  Most consume what little news they absorb via social media or 'news' platforms that feed them stuff they have either indicated they are interested in, algorithms have selected for them or, worse, pushed by online advertising. 

The vast majority of the Canadian population lives in cities within 100km of the US border.  Unless they live in a base town, Ottawa, go to an airshow, perhaps a Remembrance Day ceremony or live near an armoury, many could go their entire lives without seeing a member in uniform or a piece of military equipment.  Heck, our daughter works at a small Base in a small city and often hears from locals that they didn't know it was there.  "Who's going to invade us?' and/or 'the US will protect us' are not uncommon views held by many.

Does anybody think there is a realistic chance of seeing billions for new equipment, let alone keep whatever funding is left over from the divorce, when it would have absolutely no relevance to the majority of the population?  At now, there is sense that the CAF will help when things hit the domestic fan.

Like it or not, a C-130 evacuating a northern community, or members filling sandbags have as much positive marketing impact as the Snowbirds, and public opinion is really the only lobby group the CAF has when it comes to getting a piece of the pie.  There has been an incredible positive public response to the revelations the military made about what they found in LTC facilities; speaking truth to power that even the governments own inspectors couldn't do.  Professional, objective and non-judgmental.  Some of it came from a background in medical knowledge, but a lot of it was simply observations.

I know some feel that anything that detracts from a focus on hard combat is inappropriate, but I feel that narrow view is dangerous to the future of the CAF.  You can 'train high' but still 'respond low', but not the other way around.


----------



## dimsum (28 May 2020)

Great points.  

The one thing I'd say is that I suspect more Canadians know about Afghanistan than you think.  It was on the news and social media throughout the 2000s until 2011 when we left the combat mission.

Now whether they knew someone (or knew someone who knew someone)?  No, not really.


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 May 2020)

[quote author=lenaitch] I know some feel that anything that detracts from a focus on hard combat is inappropriate, but I feel that narrow view is dangerous to the future of the CAF.  You can 'train high' but still 'respond low', but not the other way around.
[/quote]

A future where the caf is treated like and endless pool of cheap labour is dangerous too.


----------



## FJAG (29 May 2020)

lenaitch said:
			
		

> ...
> I know some feel that anything that detracts from a focus on hard combat is inappropriate, but I feel that narrow view is dangerous to the future of the CAF.  You can 'train high' but still 'respond low', but not the other way around.



I've probably argued for the "hard combat" primary mission more than most on this site but I'm also very much in favour of having domestic ops continue as as a secondary task of both the Reg F and Res F. 

It's separating "hard combat" from "domestic ops" and making the latter the "priority" of the Res F or to turning the Res F into some vague "domestic" force that I object to.

One can and should be able to do both.

 :cheers:


----------



## Eaglelord17 (29 May 2020)

I'm dead set against conscription by any means. Having been stuck in a environment I personally chose and hated every minute of it, I can only imagine how miserable you can be if your forced to do it.

Personally I am more of the carrot type of guy. Get rid of all university and college subsidies. Then offer free education for any who volunteer for the Reserves/maybe this civil defence idea. The hard part would be selling the public on it.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (29 May 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> A future where the caf is treated like and endless pool of cheap labour is dangerous too.



Each regiment shall maintain a farm and garden large enough to feed itself and the local HQ
Each regiment shall provide 200 able bodied men for the Harvest season
Each regiment shall provide snow clearing crews for the season
Each regiment shall provide work crews in the spring to beautify the local MP and MLA yards


----------



## Brad Sallows (29 May 2020)

>I know a LOT of young people (usually not bad people, but in trouble with the law) who would benefit from some form of national service.  (Not conscription). 

If there is no conscription, then what is "national service"?


----------



## quadrapiper (29 May 2020)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Each regiment shall maintain a farm and garden large enough to feed itself and the local HQ
> Each regiment shall provide 200 able bodied men for the Harvest season
> Each regiment shall provide snow clearing crews for the season
> Each regiment shall provide work crews in the spring to beautify the local MP and MLA yards


So the Roman Legions, give or take?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (29 May 2020)

quadrapiper said:
			
		

> So the Roman Legions, give or take?



I was think Soviet or NK actually. If we followed the Roman model, our guys would be excellent at building defensive works as well and being gay might be an advantage.....


----------



## Ostrozac (29 May 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> A future where the caf is treated like and endless pool of cheap labour is dangerous too.


It's not so much that the CAF is cheap, is that it is incredibly flexible. In practice, more flexible than either other government agencies or the private sector, which seems counter-intuitive but that's what the record shows. That's how the CAF ended up being employed first as staff and then as an Inspector General capability for Long Term Care homes.

Those LTC staff on minimum wage were the actual cheap labour, but in a crisis situation, they couldn't get the job done. Cabinet and the Premiers seem to like having a swiss army knife on hand, an organization of last resort to deal with the gaps in every other capability.


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 May 2020)

When the caf is deployed to care homes, floods, fires etc.. do the provinces pay for it?


----------



## PuckChaser (29 May 2020)

I really don't think the funding is there, but would a National Guard-type system which is owned by DND but can be called out by the Premiers during states of emergency be the solution here? The US ARNG trains one weekend a month, 2 weeks a year. That's plenty of time to keep up first aid, sandbagging, fire fighting and floor mopping skills. Don't even need to waste money giving them firearms training.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (29 May 2020)

Or we could just.... properly resource and fund the Canadian Armed Forces Reserves.  Consolidate Units, buy them proper equipment, rationalize the recruit create some enrollment bonuses for youth.  

How many Regimental Associations give scholarships to High Schools?  How many do extensive volunteer work or philanthropy in their communities?  How about a signing bonus for High School and College/University Students?

The CAF is a force of good but WE NEED TO DO MORE and WE NEED TO BE CREATIVE.


----------



## FJAG (29 May 2020)

> *The military's pandemic response suggests reservists are still seen as second-class soldiers*
> Author of the article:Robert Smol
> 
> When it comes to Operation Laser, the military response to the COVID-19 pandemic, you might rightfully assume our regular, full-time professional military are front-and-centre.
> ...



https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/smol-the-militarys-pandemic-response-suggests-reservists-are-still-seen-as-second-class-soldiers/wcm/9dbbfd88-7739-47ff-9f69-41b2f5efba6e/

 :cheers:


----------



## YZT580 (29 May 2020)

All kinds of good ideas and all have their minuses as well but the biggest minus to having a domestic organisation is government.  Look at the budget now.  There are insufficient funds to properly equip and transport the forces we have.  We are unable to sustain operations for longer than a few months at a time without burn out.  Given the choice, what area do you think our current government thinking would support with the available dollars?  Great publicity until we actually need an armed force to be an armed force and we discover that all the training has gone on road repair, fire draining and dike construction.  For civilian support I suggest a land based version of the coast guard fully separated from the military.


----------



## Michael OLeary (29 May 2020)

All of this is reminiscent of the 1960s plan to re-role the Reserves into a primary focus on the National Survival/Civil Defence task. IIRC it didn't go over well for recruiting and retention.


----------



## daftandbarmy (29 May 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/smol-the-militarys-pandemic-response-suggests-reservists-are-still-seen-as-second-class-soldiers/wcm/9dbbfd88-7739-47ff-9f69-41b2f5efba6e/
> 
> :cheers:



Genius... pure genius!

Although I don't see our troops as second class in any way, and everyone of them I've spoken to are very keen (and honoured) to have the opportunity to serve Canada in any way they can, especially during DOMOPS like these.


----------



## MilEME09 (29 May 2020)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> All of this is reminiscent of the 1960s plan to re-role the Reserves into a primary focus on the National Survival/Civil Defence task. IIRC it didn't go over well for recruiting and retention.



And multiple times since then it has also failed, when will they learn to read history books? DRC's are fine and dandy, part of the problem is by the time a state of emergency is declared, and the CAF is called in it is usually to little too late to actually mitigate damage, instead we are clean up or damage control well after the fact. Politicians generally do not like to look like they re out of control of a situation, happened in Calgary in 2013, City wanted to look like it had control of the situation in an election year, DRC sat on their hands for most of the disaster. 



> Genius... pure genius!
> 
> Although I don't see our troops as second class in any way, and everyone of them I've spoken to are very keen (and honoured) to have the opportunity to serve Canada in any way they can, especially during DOMOPS like these.



DOMOPs are very thankless tasks in a way but many are proud to do it and help their community out in their time of need. Personally I would like to see a medal for DOMOPs, you spend X days total, doesn't have to be concurrent on domestic operations, you get it. While it isn't much, it would be something other then a pat on the back, and a noble speech from an officer.


----------



## daftandbarmy (29 May 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> DOMOPs are very thankless tasks in a way but many are proud to do it and help their community out in their time of need. Personally I would like to see a medal for DOMOPs, you spend X days total, doesn't have to be concurrent on domestic operations, you get it. While it isn't much, it would be something other then *a pat on the back, and a noble speech from an officer*.



Please send me the time and date you actually observed this happening. In my experience this is a very rare event so, of course, I'm curious


----------



## blacktriangle (29 May 2020)

Some kind of "GSM-DOM" would be nice to see. 

Not only could it apply to LASER, LENTUS but also SAR, and Sovereignty type stuff. Do SAR techs and crews get medals for all the dangerous domestic stuff they stand ready to do 24/7? If not, why the hell not? 

I'd also look at some kind of "GSM-OPS" for the Int/Sigs/Ops (and as things are evolving, Cyber, RPAS etc) types that are providing direct, remote support to combat operations or deployed forces. 

The CAF puts tons of effort into buttons and badges, and yet fails to recognize large groups of personnel doing important operational work 24/7, 365.


----------



## Navy_Pete (29 May 2020)

Wrt the reserve usage, if the care homes are spread out over the place, isn't it just logistically easier to use a local reserve unit then have someone come from further away?

Hadn't really thought of it as a second class thing, but figured it was more because it was faster/simpler then shipping in a lot of people from outside the area.  Being spread across the country in small groups is a massive advantage for a local domestic response compared to getting them from the few bases for something like this (I would think), especially if you can eliminate extra travel and the need to find local accommodations (for the most part).

I don't disagree there are some people that look down on reservists, but not really sure if that's the reason why they are doing the heavy lifting in this tasking. Not that defence commentators normally let facts stand in the way of their opinion pieces.


----------



## FJAG (29 May 2020)

Here's a thought:

For DomOps, the Feds can bill the province for the service provided by the military. Should they in this case and should the two provinces pass the bill on to the care homes involved? Discuss.

For bonus points discuss manslaughter charges.

op:


----------



## Cloud Cover (29 May 2020)

1. Yes with no discount.
2. Yes with a whopping huge COVID surcharge.

Charge? Without a doubt. Not just the facilities managers but the staff who breached their duty. None of this can be left to stand.


----------



## blacktriangle (29 May 2020)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Wrt the reserve usage, if the care homes are spread out over the place, isn't it just logistically easier to use a local reserve unit then have someone come from further away?
> 
> Hadn't really thought of it as a second class thing, but figured it was more because it was faster/simpler then shipping in a lot of people from outside the area.  Being spread across the country in small groups is a massive advantage for a local domestic response compared to getting them from the few bases for something like this (I would think), especially if you can eliminate extra travel and the need to find local accommodations (for the most part).
> 
> I don't disagree there are some people that look down on reservists, but not really sure if that's the reason why they are doing the heavy lifting in this tasking. Not that defence commentators normally let facts stand in the way of their opinion pieces.



The Reg F are getting paid regardless, whereas some Class A reservists might be out of work in their civilian occupations. Class C pays better than CERB or EI. I saw it as a way to help people out, while ensuring a surge in personnel available to cover tasks. Not to mention that certain parts of the Reg F were already tapped out pers wise before COVID even hit. Not everyone in the Reg F was just sitting around waiting for something to do. I get the sense that the author of that article thinks no one in the Reg F actually does anything. Also, aren't a large percentage of the medical personnel on LASER from the Reg F? Isn't the whole point of a reserve to be backup pool of manpower that is uncommitted, so that it can be mobilized or surged as needed? 

The author argues that the work isn't sexy enough for the Reg F, but I get the sense that he simply thinks it's not "worthy" of the reserves. Seems like someone stirring the eternal Reg vs Res debate at a time when there are more important things to be focused on. Just seems petty.  Are there people that look down on PRes? Sure. Just like there are PRes senior leadership that don't view the Reg F as a "real job".


----------



## GR66 (29 May 2020)

So if the Reg force has difficulty deploying without Reserve augmentation as it is and you then make the Reg Force the "go to" force for domestic deployments (to save the Reserves from getting stuck with the "dirty jobs"), then what happens if we need to deploy our military for, you know, like military things?


----------



## Ostrozac (29 May 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Here's a thought:
> 
> For DomOps, the Feds can bill the province for the service provided by the military. Should they in this case and should the two provinces pass the bill on to the care homes involved? Discuss.
> 
> ...



Whether provincial or federal, Defence budget or Public Safety budget, there's still only one taxpayer. Everything else is accounting tricks.

As to manslaughter? I don't think so. The ongoing long term neglect of these care homes actually works against manslaughter charges -- manslaughter requires a heat of passion component that seems absent in this case. This looks more like criminal negligence causing death. 

Note: I am not a lawyer, nor am I available as an assisting officer.


----------



## daftandbarmy (30 May 2020)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> I'm dead set against conscription by any means. Having been stuck in a environment I personally chose and hated every minute of it, I can only imagine how miserable you can be if your forced to do it.
> 
> Personally I am more of the carrot type of guy. Get rid of all university and college subsidies. Then offer free education for any who volunteer for the Reserves/maybe this civil defence idea. The hard part would be selling the public on it building the leadership, training, logistics and administrative infrastructure across the country (mainly in places that have very little of these things) at the cost of hundreds of millions of dollars etc.



There, FTFY


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 May 2020)

I think Canada deserves a military with better representation of Liberal, NDP and Green members. If that means we conscript all male, female and other Canadian 18-22 year olds so be it.


----------



## blacktriangle (30 May 2020)

Conscription would definitely solve the diversity problem. That, and less people in the military would be drinking crappy Tim Hortons coffee.


----------



## FJAG (30 May 2020)

And we could pay them peanuts. 

We'd also have to reconvert all those barrack blocks that we converted to headquarters buildings back to barrack blocks again.

op:


----------



## lenaitch (30 May 2020)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Wrt the reserve usage, if the care homes are spread out over the place, isn't it just logistically easier to use a local reserve unit then have someone come from further away?
> 
> Hadn't really thought of it as a second class thing, but figured it was more because it was faster/simpler then shipping in a lot of people from outside the area.  Being spread across the country in small groups is a massive advantage for a local domestic response compared to getting them from the few bases for something like this (I would think), especially if you can eliminate extra travel and the need to find local accommodations (for the most part).



That was my assumption.  Draw on GTA personnel for a GTA deployment (and similarly for the Montreal area).


----------



## daftandbarmy (30 May 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> And we could pay them peanuts.



If you pay peanuts, you get elephants.

And I've seen some of those elephants stumbling around in conscript forces with other countries' armies. We definitely do not want to go there.


----------



## Kat Stevens (30 May 2020)

We spent a bit of time doing gun camps and demo camps etc on bases full of French conscripts. in every platoon marching down the road there seemed to be 25 or so scrawny little guys, and two or three absolute giants. Not hard to tell who was beating crap out of who for their food.


----------



## FJAG (30 May 2020)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> If you pay peanuts, you get elephants.
> 
> And I've seen some of those elephants stumbling around in conscript forces with other countries' armies. We definitely do not want to go there.



If we use bananas, do we get gorillas?

I've worked with both the German Army and the Italian Army when they had conscripts and I tend to agree with you but a lot of that had to do with the fact that their length of service was quite short and most of them didn't go far beyond what we would consider DP 1 training. 

At the time when they took in conscripts, the Italians even selected a number of the brighter ones and sent them to NCO school where they came back as OR-5/E-5 _sergentes_ although their OR-5 _sergentes_ did the same job as our Canadian OR-6 sergeants, i.e command a gun detachment. My recollection is their rounds went down range the same as ours (although there was more excited shouting on the gun line than I was used to)

 :cheers:


----------



## daftandbarmy (30 May 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> If we use bananas, do we get gorillas?
> 
> I've worked with both the German Army and the Italian Army when they had conscripts and I tend to agree with you but a lot of that had to do with the fact that their length of service was quite short and most of them didn't go far beyond what we would consider DP 1 training.
> 
> ...



Conscript armies are enormously expensive, and a drag o the economy in other ways I barely understand connected with tying up all the 18 year olds....


----------



## Ostrozac (31 May 2020)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Conscript armies are enormously expensive, and a drag o the economy in other ways I barely understand connected with tying up all the 18 year olds....


I’m not so sure that conscription is necessarily a drain on the economy. Singapore, South Korea, Sweden, Finland and Switzerland all seem to be doing fine. 

Conscription is a tool in the tool box. Conscript armies have worked fine for some countries. Professional armies have worked fine sometimes as well, but conscription shouldn’t be discounted out of hand, particularly since some of our declared priorities — specifically diversity — seem to point towards conscription, and the status quo doesn’t seem to be working right now.


----------



## Throwaway987 (31 May 2020)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> ...conscription shouldn%u2019t be discounted out of hand, particularly since some of our declared priorities %u2014 specifically diversity %u2014 seem to point towards conscription, and the status quo doesn%u2019t seem to be working right now.



op:

Oh snap! I love this solution to address diversity. Instead of trying to address the root causes of why certain parts of the population are not interested in a career in the CAF (or choose to leave prematurely), it is easier twist their arm into joining!

It reminds me of the CRA decision to decrease telephone wait times by disconnecting callers after being on hold for a period of time...

Source: para 2.16 from http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_201711_02_e_42667.html


----------



## Blackadder1916 (31 May 2020)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> I’m not so sure that conscription is necessarily a drain on the economy. Singapore, South Korea, Sweden, Finland and Switzerland all seem to be doing fine.
> 
> Conscription is a tool in the tool box. Conscript armies have worked fine for some countries. Professional armies have worked fine sometimes as well, but conscription shouldn’t be discounted out of hand, particularly since some of our declared priorities — specifically diversity — seem to point towards conscription, and the status quo doesn’t seem to be working right now.



If your potential adversary can take a piss standing in their country and have the full stream land in yours then it may be necessary to maintain a large standing army (commensurate with population and threat) or a reserve force available for "immediate" mobilization.  Otherwise, what is the need for conscription, particularly in Canada?  How would forcing every 18 year old into uniform for two years, if it was "universal" conscription, accomplish "diversity" or would it be "selective" national service and then having a quota of diversity selections?  That would surely make career military service attractive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnmOQGOgjzg

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40172-015-0026-4


> The long-term effects of military conscription on educational attainment and wages
> 
> Abstract
> This study investigates the long-term effects of peace-time military conscription on educational attainment and earnings by exploiting a policy change that exempted a complete birth cohort from military service. We find that compulsory military service decreases the proportion of Dutch university graduates by 1.5 percentage points from a baseline of 12.3 per cent. In addition, being a conscript reduces the probability of obtaining a university degree by almost four percentage points. The effect of military service on earnings is also negative and long-lasting. Approximately 18 years after military service, we still find a negative effect of 3 to 4 per cent. The effect of conscription on educational attainment does not fully explain the wage reduction.
> ...


----------



## Brad Sallows (31 May 2020)

"diversity"

Comrade Black/Gay/Female Person! The Army is not diverse enough! You will serve two years before entering medical school!


----------



## FJAG (31 May 2020)

Not a statistician so having troubles following the Dutch analysis but will concede right off the top that it seems obvious that those taken in for national service will have whatever education and/or career retarded by an equivalent period of time as the length of their service.

I'm not a fan of national service mostly because of national reluctance against it but also because it creates a schism between the rank and file and the leadership from the NCOs on up.

I'm much more in favour of a system of voluntary service whereby the enlistment is totally voluntary but some of the elements of training are mandatory (and wherever possible to fit into the educational summer vacation periods) and the periods of initial and subsequent service are fixed at the time of enlistment and re-enlistment to coincide with a unit's annual training cycle with no voluntary releases allowed. 

For example let's make annual unit training cycles from 1 Sep to 31 Aug. An enlisting university student could be hired at any time of the year but his DP1 training would start with a depot training battalion at the beginning of the summer (say 1 May) and continue for four months in year one, and be completed in the summer of year 2 by 31 Aug. At that point the individual is transferred to his unit effect 1 Sep and serves, say, 2 annual training cycles. His enlistment would therefore be for 40 months at which point in time he has the option of releasing or re-enlisting for a further set number of annual unit training cycles (enticed by a re-enlistment bonus). 

One could lengthen enlistment periods (and increased recruiting) if one offered education enhancements like paying for university tuition or specific civilian trades training and adding on additional annual training cycles as obligatory service.

Annual unit training cycles should have a set number of mandatory collective training days (IMHO, 10 monthly weekends and one three week exercise for a total of 48 mandatory days per year) which would be neither onerous on the individual's family nor employer. All subsequent career progression training would be strictly voluntary and occurring at a time that does not interfere with mandatory unit training which is the system's priority. Similarly additional voluntary employment opportunities would be made available to individuals but again with the proviso that it does not interfere with the individual's attendance at mandatory unit collective training. 

IMHO this type of system helps garner recruiting by offering periods of full summer employment as well as assistance with education (during the early parts of his service) and a mandated and predictable requirement of ongoing service which facilitates unit collective training, family time and very limited civilian employment interference throughout his time of service.

The fact that throughout this system the individual has the ability to carry on with a normal education stream and family life (and for the most part lives at home and doesn't need R&Q and pay while not "on duty") ensures that there is little impact (except maybe a positive one) on his chosen profession and family life and limits the cost burden on the department (we already have some funding for some of these elements save for re-enlistment bonuses)

 :cheers:

 :cheers:


----------



## Jarnhamar (31 May 2020)

Throwaway987 said:
			
		

> Instead of trying to address the root causes of why certain parts of the population are not interested in a career in the CAF (or choose to leave prematurely), it is easier twist their arm into joining!



What are some of the root causes of why certain parts of the population are not interested in a career with the CAF?

What are some ways to change those causes?


----------



## Throwaway987 (31 May 2020)

Okay I will bite on this lazy Sunday. 

This really depends on how much of our diversity issues are due to the CAF (e.g. perceived discrimination) versus issues unrelated to the CAF (i.e. innate characteristics of early immigrant waves). My hunch is that diversity may just take decades or even a generation or two to fix because immigrants are inherently different from the larger Canadian population. 
- This is exacerbated by the time lag with calculating diversity and wage gaps. i.e. intake diversity goal versus diversity goal across the entire CAF 
    - i.e. the first waves of any immigrants are often the highest achieving subsets of their previous populations (the people with the most means, foresight, and ambitions to leave everything behind and start from scratch). There is little connection to Canada and the career expectations are often high because of cultural reasons (e.g. kids directed to high status professional occupations). There are also often negative family beliefs with military service. 
    - Given these unique characteristics, why would we even expect this subset of people to show the same interest in the CAF as the rest of the population? This seems like an apples to oranges comparison. Would we expect the top 5-10% SES of Canada to have the same likelihood of military service as the rest of the Canadian population? 
- If we assume that the innate characteristics of immigrants are a large contribution to our perceived diversity problem, time will likely have the largest long term impact as it directly addresses the root cause.
    - As the average immigrant becomes closer and closer to the average Canadian over time (due regression towards the mean, additional waves of immigrants with lower SES, increased sense of connection to Canada, etc), the percentage of immigrants in the CAF will approach the percentage of the average Canadian.
    - If we make incorrect assessments of the root cause(s), I am worried we will implement ineffective changes that may do more harm than good (e.g. EE recruiting quota debacle from a year ago).

I would question the underlying premise that we have a diversity problem that needs a pressing solution in the sub-generation time scale.


Even if someone (immigrant or not) is interested in the CAF, the ineffectual recruitment process will ensure that only the least capable applicants will be retained. The horror stories from coworkers, this forum, and reddit suggest that hiring took 6-18 months pre-COVID. What kind of first impression does this leave on a potential employee? Anyone worth hiring is long gone to the private sector.


----------



## FJAG (31 May 2020)

I'm with you. This group shows that we are diverse. Perhaps not enough to suit some people but as our society changes, so will we:







 :cheers:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (1 Jun 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Not a statistician so having troubles following the Dutch analysis but will concede right off the top that it seems obvious that those taken in for national service will have whatever education and/or career retarded by an equivalent period of time as the length of their service.



The author is making an assumption that having a university degree is actually profitable in this day and age. That is debatable for sure, likley as it's much harder to measure non-tangibles like learning how to work as team, skills learned in the military, etc. One option is that anyone doing national service gets a grant/tax exemption or some other fiscal help towards fees/costs of going to university/trade school post service, or the national service is counted as credits towards that degree.


----------



## tomahawk6 (1 Jun 2020)

If the economy is doing good with low unemployment the recruiting will be hard unless large bonus' are offered.


----------



## daftandbarmy (1 Jun 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> What are some of the root causes of why certain parts of the population are not interested in a career with the CAF?
> 
> What are some ways to change those causes?



Because they're busy becoming doctors, lawyers etc. 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287039742_Visible_Minorities_Recruitment_and_the_Canadian_Armed_Forces


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 Jun 2020)

Yeah.  There's that little problem that sometimes an identifiable slice of society is underrepresented somewhere because they'd rather be doing something else.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Jun 2020)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Conscript armies are enormously expensive, and a drag o the economy in other ways I barely understand connected with tying up all the 18 year olds....




This is a vitally important point that is too rarely discussed. 

While there are, doubtless, times when having the "nation in arms" is essential, they are rare, not once in a century events, they are more like once in a millennium events.


----------



## FJAG (2 Jun 2020)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> This is a vitally important point that is too rarely discussed.
> 
> While there are, doubtless, times when having the "nation in arms" is essential, they are rare, not once in a century events, they are more like once in a millennium events.



The concept of mass levies has changed from when soldiers had simple firearms and one needed to manoeuvre and engage in mass blocks of people. Advances in, and more importantly, complexity and costs of modern weapon systems have made it difficult to properly arm and sustain massive militaries.

We probably will never see their like again even if we have large scale warfare.

More important perhaps in having a "nation under arms" is being able to ramp up defence production of war materials. Turning out Sherman tanks by the thousands was a much simpler proposition than turning out a few hundred M1s or Leo IIs or even Excalibur rounds.

Before we have that done we'll have recruited and trained their crews.

 :cheers:


----------



## MilEME09 (2 Jun 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> The concept of mass levies has changed from when soldiers had simple firearms and one needed to manoeuvre and engage in mass blocks of people. Advances in, and more importantly, complexity and costs of modern weapon systems have made it difficult to properly arm and sustain massive militaries.
> 
> We probably will never see their like again even if we have large scale warfare.
> 
> ...



I bet we could retool all those closing auto plants in Ontario in a few months if needed.


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 Jun 2020)

>Turning out Sherman tanks by the thousands was a much simpler proposition than turning out a few hundred M1s or Leo IIs or even Excalibur rounds.

For certain?  I realize that the equipment was simpler, but so was the technology of assembly.  For example, robotics were not available.  The rate of production depends not on total complexity, but on the duration of the steps which must be done sequentially and the number of active lines.  There haven't been any reasons to try to run wartime production, so how would we know?


----------



## FJAG (2 Jun 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> I bet we could retool all those closing auto plants in Ontario in a few months if needed.





			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >Turning out Sherman tanks by the thousands was a much simpler proposition than turning out a few hundred M1s or Leo IIs or even Excalibur rounds.
> 
> For certain?  I realize that the equipment was simpler, but so was the technology of assembly.  For example, robotics were not available.  The rate of production depends not on total complexity, but on the duration of the steps which must be done sequentially and the number of active lines.  There haven't been any reasons to try to run wartime production, so how would we know?



The trouble is you first need to build the tools that make the weapons and train the operators how to use them. It's one thing to scale up existing production it's another to start it from scratch.

I get your point but I'd feel a bit happier if the government had a defence production policy worth it's salt and certain protected (even coddled) industries for that. We do it for ship building and currently have a pretty decent situation with GDLS-C and a few others but beyond that its pretty skinny out there with most of our advanced weapon system coming from off-shore.

 :cheers:


----------



## Kat Stevens (3 Jun 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> The trouble is you first need to build the tools that make the weapons and train the operators how to use them. It's one thing to scale up existing production it's another to start it from scratch.
> 
> I get your point but I'd feel a bit happier if the government had a defence production policy worth it's salt and certain protected (even coddled) industries for that. We do it for ship building and currently have a pretty decent situation with GDLS-C and a few others but beyond that its pretty skinny out there with most of our advanced weapon system coming from off-shore.
> 
> :cheers:



Plus, we have to buy the steel from China, so there'll be backlogs for a while.


----------



## MilEME09 (3 Jun 2020)

Target Up said:
			
		

> Plus, we have to buy the steel from China, so there'll be backlogs for a while.



Really we need to get that industry back in Canada, subsidize if we have to but domestic steel is a strategic asset.


----------



## FJAG (3 Jun 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Really we need to get that industry back in Canada, subsidize if we have to but domestic steel is a strategic asset.



We produce a little more than million tonnes per month.

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1610005901

 :cheers:


----------



## MilEME09 (3 Jun 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> We produce a little more than million tonnes per month.
> 
> https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1610005901
> 
> :cheers:



https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1610001901
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1610004501

metals, and lumber production as well, resources we have plenty of. However means to refine it and create a finished product we lack domestically


----------



## Colin Parkinson (3 Jun 2020)

Meanwhile our allies are talking about investing in their navy and army https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2020/june/8514-norwegian-defense-ministry-accelerates-investment-plans-for-corvettes-r-d.html


----------



## CountDC (3 Jun 2020)

"But the decision to send mostly reserves into COVID-infested facilities shows there is still an institutional command-level bias towards reservists as temporary, expendable “proles” better suited for the dirty, cumbersome, “fatigue duty” jobs that generate no real operational credit to a well-defined career progression and standard set by senior regular force personnel.

Yet there is a significant difference to Operation Laser that calls out and shames any lingering command prejudice towards the reserves, which is that the service personnel performing emergency personal support worker and other public health and custodial duties are getting wounded — yes, wounded in large numbers. Let’s not for a moment assume that the numerous confirmed COVID-infected soldiers coming out of Operation Laser just have really, really bad colds.

Further, based on the squalid conditions in the homes the military recently divulged, the risk seems quite high that one of these COVID-19 wounded reservists will die in the course of their duties."

As I recall it was not a decision to send mostly reserves in, they all voluntarily signed up for Class C's of around 6 months in order to be available to deal with any government requests including COVID-19.  A large portion of our Regular Force medical staff were deployed from across the country (try to get medical attention at your local med sect, can be quite a feat but they are doing the best they can for stripped down sects).   We lost some Class B members as they opted to go on Op Laser instead of staying here.  Generating a force of 24000 members for a domop is naturally going to lean heavy on reserves.  For anything 24000 is a large number for the military.

Where does he get the information to support his claim the risk is quite high that one will die?  Stats do not support that statement as over half of deaths are the elderly from these homes that we now are supporting and 90% are over 60.    Last count I saw was 20 cases and they were not identified as reserve or regular force.  As far as we know that could be 20 regular force doctors, nurses, medics, etc, etc, etc.  I am reasonably sure that none of our members are over 60.

Sensationalized reporting at best.  Service in the 80s and 90s is not the same as today thankfully (he retired in 2004 as an Int Capt after approximately 20 years).   How about looking at the number of Regular Force members of today that have Reserve time and completed a CT then lets talk about attitudes between the reserves and regulars.  

Perhaps he preferred that regular force members be deployed from their work positions instead of the reserve members hired for this sat in Borden training.

Don't know about everywhere but at some reserve and regular units participation in a domop is a feather in the cap, has influence at merit boards and could make the difference in who gets promoted. Medals are not everything.

In the end I think he is perhaps 16 years out of tune looking to stir the pot.


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Jun 2020)

If we're working with the public I think reservists make better ambassadors of the CAF than reg force do. Guy from the article is just a cry baby.


----------



## Weinie (3 Jun 2020)

Yup, large amount of Reserve folks on "standby." Actual numbers deployed to Long Term Care Facilities in Ontario and Quebec is about 1450 Reg F and about 1403 Reservists


----------



## daftandbarmy (5 Jun 2020)

Weinie said:
			
		

> Yup, large amount of Reserve folks on "standby." Actual numbers deployed to Long Term Care Facilities in Ontario and Quebec is about 1450 Reg F and about 1403 Reservists



Well then, wouldn’t it be fun to stuff that fact down the author’s neck? It might also be a good thing for Canadians to know.


----------

