# Jerry Amernic: The downfall of Canada’s military



## daftandbarmy (12 Jun 2022)

Nailed it...

Jerry Amernic: The downfall of Canada’s military​Over the past 50 years it’s been painfully clear the military has been off the radar in Ottawa


You can’t pin the desecration of our military on one person but over the past 50 years and more it’s painfully clear the military has been off the radar in Ottawa. 

Pledges are made about meeting the NATO requirement of two percent of GDP but those pledges are always a lie no matter who forms government.4 The truth is we are a laggard and remain beholden to the United States to protect us. 

It’s like that old System/360 computer running things at the NORAD base in North Bay. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it. But our armed forces are broken and that is shameful.









						Jerry Amernic: The downfall of Canada's military - The Hub
					

Canada's military is weak from decades of neglect and our national defence is not much better. The truth is we are a laggard and remain beholden to the United States to protect us.




					thehub.ca


----------



## Navy_Pete (13 Jun 2022)

As long as the BGHs continue to overpromise what we can do with the equipment and people we have, why would the GoC change course?

The 2% spending target is a bit arbitrary, but we are already overworking people on the sustainment/procurement side, so unless we get more trained bums in seats there is no 'surge' capacity. I think if we were honest with the GoC we'd park a number of ships etc and focus on rebuilding across the board, vice continuing to run people into the ground while hoping equipment failures don't lead to injuries/loss of life.


----------



## Spencer100 (14 Jun 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> As long as the BGHs continue to overpromise what we can do with the equipment and people we have, why would the GoC change course?
> 
> The 2% spending target is a bit arbitrary, but we are already overworking people on the sustainment/procurement side, so unless we get more trained bums in seats there is no 'surge' capacity. I think if we were honest with the GoC we'd park a number of ships etc and focus on rebuilding across the board, vice continuing to run people into the ground while hoping equipment failures don't lead to injuries/loss of life.


Yes but if the forces park stuff there will very much be no replacements.  Oh look you only using 6 frigates....why are buying 15?  The RCAF is only using 65 planes etc.   I think a better plan would be use them less or for shorter times than reduce numbers.  

Running the navy even taking the ships for a hour run around the harbor everyday or so and count it as an at sea day.  Show the usage.  Don't  power up all the systems.  I think at this point the most important thing is to keep the numbers up. And have the system on paper.  I know 99 percent of you will disagree but its a political game.  I think divesting of equipment without replacement is the dumbest thing we do.  AAD divestment the M109 divestment.  Getting rid the 280s even if they were more than worn out.  The politicians in this country are not embarrassed by lack of capacity of the Forces.  So using the lack any type of AA defence it shows oh you don't need it so why would we buy new systems.  

Better to tell the political master nope can't use that old worn out system on a deployment because you didnt buy the new replacement.  Than to say no we don't have that capability. They just say to the NATO, UN, or the US we don't have that and leave it at that. If you have the capacity but the system is old or wornout you can say yes but we just need a special quick buy IOR of these and we are good to go.


----------



## stoker dave (14 Jun 2022)

One of the barriers is NDHQ.   Politicians hear about shortages at DND but see lots of people in uniform outside standing around smoking, shopping at the mall, going for a liquid lunch and then crowding onto the 3:00 pm bus from downtown to Orleans.  

That is what politicians see every day.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (14 Jun 2022)

stoker dave said:


> One of the barriers is NDHQ.   Politicians hear about shortages at DND but see lots of people in uniform outside standing around smoking, shopping at the mall, going for a liquid lunch and then crowding onto the 3:00 pm bus from downtown to Orleans.
> 
> That is what politicians see every day.


Some politicians in Washington only see uniformed folks from the Pentagon as well. Same goes Whitehall in London. Although I would say having a proper Garrison in London might be a game changer.

Most politicians in both those countries don't have their heads in their...sandbox, quite as much as Canadian ones choose to have.

Our Local MP was formerly the mayor, and has been involved in local politics for at least a decade. In the past decade (when he was Mayor.. then our MP), he has not set foot on base once. He presided over Freedom of the City a couple times, but that was on his terms and on his turf. 

We're one of the largest employers for the riding, but net no political points for his re-election. It's hilarious to think how many other MPs are in similar situations where a CFB is in their riding, bit they treat that as an annoyance, vice something to keep tabs on.

Canadian politicians very wary of defence. It's pandora's box.


----------



## dimsum (14 Jun 2022)

stoker dave said:


> One of the barriers is NDHQ.   Politicians hear about shortages at DND but see lots of people in uniform outside standing around smoking, shopping at the mall, going for a liquid lunch and then crowding onto the 3:00 pm bus from downtown to Orleans.
> 
> That is what politicians see every day.


Not anymore.  101 is practically a ghost town with so many people working from home the last 2 years.

I live downtown and sometimes walk to the office.  On a good day, I'll see 2 people in uniform outside.


----------



## Underway (14 Jun 2022)

dimsum said:


> Not anymore.  101 is practically a ghost town with so many people working from home the last 2 years.
> 
> I live downtown and sometimes walk to the office.  On a good day, I'll see 2 people in uniform outside.


Add to that a lot of the 101 functions have been moved to Carling as well.  Lots more office space at 101.  I wouldn't be surprised to start seeing a consolidation of office space again where places like 400 Cumberland move to 101.

But point taken regarding the perceived work ethic at 101.

Really it comes down to were do we live.  I know I keep beating this drum but if Canada lived in a worse neighborhood our military would be better.  But we live in the sleepiest part of the world (after perhaps New Zealand). Geopolitics (emphasis on the Geo) determines defense policy more than any other factor.


----------



## dimsum (14 Jun 2022)

Underway said:


> Really it comes down to were do we live. I know I keep beating this drum but if Canada lived in a worse neighborhood our military would be better. But we live in the sleepiest part of the world (after perhaps New Zealand). Geopolitics (emphasis on the Geo) determines defense policy more than any other factor.


Exactly, and I've been saying this on here and other places for years.

The main difference between Australian and Canadian defence policies is driven on how fast our friends can help out if needed.


----------



## Underway (14 Jun 2022)

dimsum said:


> Exactly, and I've been saying this on here and other places for years.
> 
> The main difference between Australian and Canadian defence policies is driven on how fast our friends can help out if needed.


Australia has been attacked more than once in recent history and fought the Japanese off of New Guinea.  Their current situation is of concern as China seems intent on Cuba missile crisis-ing them with "economic deals" for small island nations, within their Oceana sphere of influence.  And Indonesia hasn't always been the best most stable neighbor (East Timor crisis as an example).  Rougher neighborhood for sure.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (14 Jun 2022)

dimsum said:


> Exactly, and I've been saying this on here and other places for years.
> 
> The main difference between Australian and Canadian defence policies is driven on how fast our friends can help out if needed.


Australia also has the Indonesian issue to contend with.  The Indonesian Archipelago is to Australia what Mexico/Central America is to the United States.

Indonesia is a pretty bad place, a metric bucket load of criminality, terrorists, etc.  Not to mention they are pretty Militarized in their own right.


----------



## Navy_Pete (14 Jun 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> Yes but if the forces park stuff there will very much be no replacements.  Oh look you only using 6 frigates....why are buying 15?  The RCAF is only using 65 planes etc.   I think a better plan would be use them less or for shorter times than reduce numbers.
> 
> Running the navy even taking the ships for a hour run around the harbor everyday or so and count it as an at sea day.  Show the usage.  Don't  power up all the systems.  I think at this point the most important thing is to keep the numbers up. And have the system on paper.  I know 99 percent of you will disagree but its a political game.  I think divesting of equipment without replacement is the dumbest thing we do.  AAD divestment the M109 divestment.  Getting rid the 280s even if they were more than worn out.  The politicians in this country are not embarrassed by lack of capacity of the Forces.  So using the lack any type of AA defence it shows oh you don't need it so why would we buy new systems.
> 
> Better to tell the political master nope can't use that old worn out system on a deployment because you didnt buy the new replacement.  Than to say no we don't have that capability. They just say to the NATO, UN, or the US we don't have that and leave it at that. If you have the capacity but the system is old or wornout you can say yes but we just need a special quick buy IOR of these and we are good to go.


I've heard that arguement before but I think it's BS; nothing will get heat and light faster than not being able to send a ship to a NATO deployment. Limping a ship out to NATO that has major operational restrictions doesn't even register as the BGHs still see a tweet of a ship deployed, even if the restrictions prevent it from actually doing the NATO mission.

They will only care if that leads to an accident and there is a BOI.


----------



## Halifax Tar (14 Jun 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> Some politicians in Washington only see uniformed folks from the Pentagon as well. Same goes Whitehall in London. Although I would say having a proper Garrison in London might be a game changer.
> 
> Most politicians in both those countries don't have their heads in their...sandbox, quite as much as Canadian ones choose to have.
> 
> ...



Tell me you're posted to Kingston without actually telling me you're posted to Kingston.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (14 Jun 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Tell me you're posted to Kingston without actually telling me you're posted to Kingston.


Is it that obvious....


----------



## Good2Golf (14 Jun 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> Is it that obvious....


----------



## Halifax Tar (14 Jun 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> Is it that obvious....



I was born and raised north of the city.  

Trust me it's better than it was pre 9/11.


----------



## dimsum (14 Jun 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> Is it that obvious....


I mean, if I had to take a guess from the profile pic alone, I'd guess Kingston too.


----------



## tomydoom (14 Jun 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> I was born and raised north of the city.
> 
> Trust me it's better than it was pre 9/11.


My maternal grandmother’s family is from Sydenham. In fact, I have the deed from the crown, for what is now a goodly chunk of Frontenac Provincial Park.


----------



## CBH99 (14 Jun 2022)

Not to sound too negative (perhaps I’m just getting cynical post Covid lockdown nonsense) - but Canadian politicians have to be some of the dumbest on Earth.

It doesn’t matter which candidates are running in our riding, neither of them rarely stand out as someone who will push anything forward.  Sure, they may listen to the citizens in their riding, and many of them can help their local citizens out when dealing with the federal government… but when it comes to big thinkers or long term thinkers, Canadian politicians just are not these things.  

A good example was from rmc_wannabe - a former mayor, and local MP, hasn’t once stepped foot onto the base.  One of the largest local employers, and he can’t be bothered.  

Why?  Is it sheer arrogance?  Is it not knowing how important the military is for employment in their riding?  Is it total apathy, while instead being focused on Starbucks & just getting through the day?


Canadian politicians have allowed the military to wither away because for the most part, they are stupid.  Some in some ways, others in other ways.  They fail to understand that monetary currency isn’t the only currency around.  That, and they are too proud to accept a good deal when offered.  

And I think they are well aware that most Canadians are about as in touch with international affairs as they are - aka they form opinions based on what the media tells them.  


0.02


----------



## stoker dave (15 Jun 2022)

CBH99 makes some good points about politicians.  

I think one additional reason politicians don't like to visit military facilities is the fear of looking silly.  Remember this?  (Not to slag Mr Chretien, but just to point out that when you get into something you don't know anything about, it is easy to make mistakes and look foolish.).


----------



## Good2Golf (15 Jun 2022)

stoker dave said:


> CBH99 makes some good points about politicians.
> 
> I think one additional reason politicians don't like to visit military facilities is the fear of looking silly.  Remember this?  (Not to slag Mr Chretien, but just to point out that when you get into something you don't know anything about, it is easy to make mistakes and look foolish.).


This was an example of the military being shit heads, plain and simple.  The PM was set up by the unit deliberately to put the helmet on backwards and look stupid.  The entire CAF paid for it dearly for the rest of Chretien’s time in office.  People should have been charged.


----------



## CICOPS (15 Jun 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> This was an example of the military being shit heads, plain and simple.  The PM was set up by the unit deliberately to put the helmet on backwards and look stupid.  The entire CAF paid for it dearly for the rest of Chretien’s time in office.  People should have been charged.


I am not a fan of Chretien and his reign of error, however we are part of the Civil Service and it is our job to be non partisan.  Putting on the helmet backwards, someone should have corrected him.


----------



## stoker dave (15 Jun 2022)

Thank you G2G I was unaware of the back story to that photo.

So just to be clear:  (1) politicians should visit military bases to learn more about DND and (2) politicians should not visit military bases because they will be made to look foolish.


----------



## Halifax Tar (15 Jun 2022)

CBH99 said:


> Not to sound too negative (perhaps I’m just getting cynical post Covid lockdown nonsense) - but Canadian politicians have to be some of the dumbest on Earth.
> 
> It doesn’t matter which candidates are running in our riding, neither of them rarely stand out as someone who will push anything forward.  Sure, they may listen to the citizens in their riding, and many of them can help their local citizens out when dealing with the federal government… but when it comes to big thinkers or long term thinkers, Canadian politicians just are not these things.
> 
> ...



Canadian political thought processes move in 4 year cycles.  And it has more to do with getting reelected than leaving Canada in a better state then when they took office.


----------



## Good2Golf (15 Jun 2022)

stoker dave said:


> Thank you G2G I was unaware of the back story to that photo.
> 
> So just to be clear:  (1) politicians should visit military bases to learn more about DND and (2) politicians should not visit military bases because they will be made to look foolish.


(2) should never have happened. It was the height of unprofessionalism.


----------



## lenaitch (15 Jun 2022)

CBH99 said:


> Not to sound too negative (perhaps I’m just getting cynical post Covid lockdown nonsense) - but Canadian politicians have to be some of the dumbest on Earth.
> 
> It doesn’t matter which candidates are running in our riding, neither of them rarely stand out as someone who will push anything forward.  Sure, they may listen to the citizens in their riding, and many of them can help their local citizens out when dealing with the federal government… but when it comes to big thinkers or long term thinkers, Canadian politicians just are not these things.
> 
> ...


Everything is controlled from 'the centre'; even opposition parties, and the centre is largely run by unelected party staff.  Support for anything is determined by the number of votes they determine it will gain (or not lose).  The only time a local politician would really care about the military presence in their riding is if it was threatened with closure - and even then, maybe.

The public, when they notice at all, see pictures of big grey boats, grey planes - some that look at lot like what Maverick is flying so they must be modern - and funny green vehicles.  Almost 74% live in cities; ~35% in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver.  What's the odds of them ever seeing or interacting with a CAF member?


----------



## Spencer100 (15 Jun 2022)

lenaitch said:


> Everything is controlled from 'the centre'; even opposition parties, and the centre is largely run by unelected party staff.  Support for anything is determined by the number of votes they determine it will gain (or not lose).  The only time a local politician would really care about the military presence in their riding is if it was threatened with closure - and even then, maybe.
> 
> The public, when they notice at all, see pictures of big grey boats, grey planes - some that look at lot like what Maverick is flying so they must be modern - and funny green vehicles.  Almost 74% live in cities; ~35% in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver.  What's the odds of them ever seeing or interacting with a CAF member?


Closing bases in the cities was a bad move.  I believe it was done on propose.  Move those weird uniform people to the faraway country side.


----------



## Halifax Tar (15 Jun 2022)

lenaitch said:


> Everything is controlled from 'the centre'; even opposition parties, and the centre is largely run by unelected party staff.  Support for anything is determined by the number of votes they determine it will gain (or not lose).  The only time a local politician would really care about the military presence in their riding is if it was threatened with closure - and even then, maybe.
> 
> The public, when they notice at all, see pictures of big grey boats, grey planes - some that look at lot like what Maverick is flying so they must be modern - and funny green vehicles.  Almost 74% live in cities; ~35% in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver.  What's the odds of them ever seeing or interacting with a CAF member?



You're absolutely correct.  The issue is sometimes our elected officials should be doing what's best instead of what's popular.  

That and the fact that they lack the will or the ability to articulate the basic requirement of sovereign nation that is the ability to defend its self.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (15 Jun 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> You're absolutely correct.  The issue is sometimes our elected officials should be doing what's best instead of what's popular.
> 
> That and the fact that they lack the will or the ability to articulate the basic requirement of sovereign nation that is the ability to defend its self.


I don't think anyone in Canadian politics have done what's right in the face of what's popular. Any colour party on this one too. When you turn your political messaging into an image based media product, vice an actual platform with ideas and solutions, don't be surprised when the tough choices give way to "what's going to keep me in 3 piece suits and a Housing Allowance? " decisions.


----------



## Weinie (15 Jun 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> I don't think anyone in Canadian politics have done what's right in the face of what's popular. Any colour party on this one too. When you turn your political messaging into an image based media product, vice an actual platform with ideas and solutions, don't be surprised when the tough choices give way to "what's going to keep me in 3 piece suits and a Housing Allowance? " decisions.


I was in Toronto when the decision was made to close the base. IMO, politics(a large land area, and an expanding city) were more of a deciding factor than military expediency/efficiency.  Then, more strident voices hijacked the decision and converted the lands to a rec park. Sigh.


----------



## CBH99 (15 Jun 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> This was an example of the military being shit heads, plain and simple.  The PM was set up by the unit deliberately to put the helmet on backwards and look stupid.  The entire CAF paid for it dearly for the rest of Chretien’s time in office.  People should have been charged.


In all fairness... even if it was a ruse...

If he had simply looked around at other members, and put his helmet on the same way as they had theirs on, it could have been avoided…

G2G - I think you may be just helped me reinforce my point…


(Not entirely what I meant, I was going more for ‘short sighted’ or ‘dispassionate.’)



Good2Golf said:


> (2) should never have happened. It was the height of unprofessionalism.


Okay, I DO agree with you.

Was it a deliberate attempt to make the PM look stupid in a photo that not many people would see?  

Or was it meant as a bit of a ribbing, and just ended up going further than expected?

🤷🏼‍♂️


(Keep in mind, this was before social media really took off & everything became ‘instant’)


----------



## CBH99 (15 Jun 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> Closing bases in the cities was a bad move.  I believe it was done on propose.  Move those weird uniform people to the faraway country side.


Was the closure of bases in the cities done because of the Cold War?  

“If they fire nukes at our bases, better make sure they are far away from the major population centres!”


Or were they closed moreso to get us heathens away from the public, for one reason or another?


----------



## dimsum (15 Jun 2022)

CBH99 said:


> Was the closure of bases in the cities done because of the Cold War?
> 
> “If they fire nukes at our bases, better make sure they are far away from the major population centres!”
> 
> ...


I'm assuming you're just talking about Army bases?  RCN bases are still in Halifax/Victoria (and a small fleet school in Quebec City), and RCAF HQ is still in Winnipeg.


----------



## RangerRay (15 Jun 2022)

CBH99 said:


> Was the closure of bases in the cities done because of the Cold War?
> 
> “If they fire nukes at our bases, better make sure they are far away from the major population centres!”
> 
> ...


They were closed at the end of the Cold War. They were handy targets when the Liberals got religious about cutting the deficit.


----------



## Spencer100 (15 Jun 2022)

RangerRay said:


> They were closed at the end of the Cold War. They were handy targets when the Liberals got religious about cutting the deficit.


CFB London, Toronto etc. etc.  They were very handy targets.  One liberals dislike the military you know "guns in city streets" .  (I know broad brush) Two many developers, local councils, NIMBs types were eying those properties.   I feel it was a mistake.  A PR mistake as it places the military "over there" and not something people see in there daily lives. Plus would recruiting and retention not be better if the CAF had more big city locations?


----------



## Underway (15 Jun 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> CFB London, Toronto etc. etc.  They were very handy targets.  One liberals dislike the military you know "guns in city streets" .  (I know broad brush) Two many developers, local councils, NIMBs types were eying those properties.   I feel it was a mistake.  A PR mistake as it places the military "over there" and not something people see in there daily lives. Plus would recruiting and retention not be better if the CAF had more big city locations?


Perhaps not.  Try getting an appt in Toronto that a Private could afford on their own. Almost impossible.  But visibility is important and when something is seen then its in the mind as a career option.


----------



## dimsum (15 Jun 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> A PR mistake as it places the military "over there" and not something people see in there daily lives. Plus would recruiting and retention not be better if the CAF had more big city locations?


I think it was a mistake too, but I'm not sure that retention (maybe recruiting) would be better. 

The Australian Army has its bases in cities for the most part, and their retention is abysmal - even worse than us.  Why?  Because they realize that in Brisbane or Adelaide or wherever, they can just quit and look for a job in the city.  This is not to say that our current basing locations are good, it's just that "moving bases to cities" won't necessarily mean people stay in.

Also, having a base in a city doesn't necessarily mean the public will think of it in their daily lives.  I've met people in Winnipeg who didn't realize that 17 Wing was there (on the other side of the Int'l airport, no less).  I'm not too familiar with Edmonton but would folks living and working in the south side really see that many soldiers in uniform?  Would the CAF members be out and about in uniform before or after work, or be like Ottawa and go to/from work in civies?


----------



## OldSolduer (15 Jun 2022)

dimsum said:


> I'm assuming you're just talking about Army bases?  RCN bases are still in Halifax/Victoria (and a small fleet school in Quebec City), and RCAF HQ is still in Winnipeg.


Kapyong Barracks in Winnipeg remained there as long as Lloyd Axeworthy was the sitting Liberal MP and Chretien's right hand man in the West. As soon as Lloyd was gone Kapyong was moved to Shilo.

Politics kept Kapyong in Winnipeg.


----------



## Good2Golf (15 Jun 2022)

CBH99 said:


> Was it a deliberate attempt to make the PM look stupid in a photo that not many people would see?
> 
> Or was it meant as a bit of a ribbing, and just ended up going further than expected?


2nd hand anecdote from someone from the offending regiment that it was deliberate to make him seem foolish and out of touch.


----------



## GR66 (15 Jun 2022)

dimsum said:


> I think it was a mistake too, but I'm not sure that retention (maybe recruiting) would be better.
> 
> The Australian Army has its bases in cities for the most part, and their retention is abysmal - even worse than us.  Why?  Because they realize that in Brisbane or Adelaide or wherever, they can just quit and look for a job in the city.  This is not to say that our current basing locations are good, it's just that "moving bases to cities" won't necessarily mean people stay in.
> 
> Also, having a base in a city doesn't necessarily mean the public will think of it in their daily lives.  I've met people in Winnipeg who didn't realize that 17 Wing was there (on the other side of the Int'l airport, no less).  I'm not too familiar with Edmonton but would folks living and working in the south side really see that many soldiers in uniform?  Would the CAF members be out and about in uniform before or after work, or be like Ottawa and go to/from work in civies?


Urban bases would have been best kept for use by Reserve units.

Edited to add:  Those Reservists are already paying the market price for homes in the area so no additional burden.


----------



## dimsum (15 Jun 2022)

GR66 said:


> Urban bases would have been best kept for use by Reserve units.
> 
> Edited to add:  Those Reservists are already paying the market price for homes in the area so no additional burden.


Yes, but for example, Toronto already has a bunch of armouries (and HMCS York) which the Reserve units already use.  Would it have been better to keep CFB Downsview, move those units there, and get rid of Moss Park, Fort York, etc?


----------



## GR66 (15 Jun 2022)

dimsum said:


> Yes, but for example, Toronto already has a bunch of armouries (and HMCS York) which the Reserve units already use.  Would it have been better to keep CFB Downsview, move those units there, and get rid of Moss Park, Fort York, etc?


Not move the units there, but to provide a centralized facility to house those capabilities that can't easily be managed in the individual armouries.  Shared vehicles and maintenance facilities, indoor ranges and other training facilities (obstacle course, climbing wall, urban warfare training centre, larger classroom facilities, etc.).  The airfield could have housed a Reserve helicopter unit.  It could have been used by the Federal Government as a storage facility for humanitarian aid and disaster response equipment and supplies.


----------



## GK .Dundas (15 Jun 2022)

GR66 said:


> Not move the units there, but to provide a centralized facility to house those capabilities that can't easily be managed in the individual armouries.  Shared vehicles and maintenance facilities, indoor ranges and other training facilities (obstacle course, climbing wall, urban warfare training centre, larger classroom facilities, etc.).  The airfield could have housed a Reserve helicopter unit.  It could have been used by the Federal Government as a storage facility for humanitarian aid and disaster response equipment and supplies.


That would require a Government capable of thinking beyond winning the next election. And currently there really doesn't seem to be a single political leader or would be leader that seems able to do that.
I still think closing down CFB Winnipeg for example was incredibly stupid.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (15 Jun 2022)

GK .Dundas said:


> That would require a Government capable of thinking beyond winning the next election. And currently there really doesn't seem to be a single political leader or would be leader that seems able to do that.
> I still think closing down CFB Winnipeg for example was incredibly stupid.


Same can be said for the Griesbach/Namao/Calgary debacle.


----------



## Spencer100 (15 Jun 2022)

GR66 said:


> Not move the units there, but to provide a centralized facility to house those capabilities that can't easily be managed in the individual armouries.  Shared vehicles and maintenance facilities, indoor ranges and other training facilities (obstacle course, climbing wall, urban warfare training centre, larger classroom facilities, etc.).  The airfield could have housed a Reserve helicopter unit.  It could have been used by the Federal Government as a storage facility for humanitarian aid and disaster response equipment and supplies.


That would have been a great idea.

The military needs PR in Canada.  Forget Tik Tok and social media.  Do the easy stuff first. Start with reservists wearing their uniforms outside of the drill hall.  Be seen.  The military has a built in super app.  The uniform.  Wear and be seen wearing it.  High School kids in the reserves to prom etc.  (if its a kilted reg they will look better than anyone else there   Wear Class A to weddings, galas and fund raisers.   Wearing just to the erg dinner not seen by an one.  

Work with vet orgs and the legion have them wear their metals etc.

Put the cadets back in the high schools.  Spend some money there.  Get them young......  

Use the stone frigates, drill halls etc.  for more out reach in the cities.   Get into the new Canadian communities.  This is the hard one.  One example stand up the 1st Canadian Punjab Regiment.  

As a organization I see a lot of hiding.  Stop the social media and ads trying to be cool. its never going to work. All government organization are just bad at it. The military even more so.  Go with what you have have.  Tradition, history, uniforms, active life.   

Too stop the downfall of the military it must start at the ground level.  

I am sure I will get a lot negative for this.


----------



## CBH99 (15 Jun 2022)

dimsum said:


> I think it was a mistake too, but I'm not sure that retention (maybe recruiting) would be better.
> 
> The Australian Army has its bases in cities for the most part, and their retention is abysmal - even worse than us.  Why?  Because they realize that in Brisbane or Adelaide or wherever, they can just quit and look for a job in the city.  This is not to say that our current basing locations are good, it's just that "moving bases to cities" won't necessarily mean people stay in.
> 
> Also, having a base in a city doesn't necessarily mean the public will think of it in their daily lives.  I've met people in Winnipeg who didn't realize that 17 Wing was there (on the other side of the Int'l airport, no less).  I'm not too familiar with Edmonton but would folks living and working in the south side really see that many soldiers in uniform?  Would the CAF members be out and about in uniform before or after work, or be like Ottawa and go to/from work in civies?


So I live in south Edmonton, and it’s not uncommon to see members in uniform filling up at a gas station or popping into a Timmies around commute times.   

North side/closer to base there are more, sure.  I’m actually always surprised to see how many are in Sherwood Park (very much on the higher/high middle class scale) - the drive to base is about half the distance.  

______

And I’d absolutely believe it when it comes to people not knowing 17 Wing is there.  It blows me away - seriously blows me away - that people don’t pay more attention to what’s going on around them, look up more when planes/helicopters fly over, or are even spatially aware.  

Is there a lot of noticeable military air traffic in Winnipeg?


----------



## CBH99 (15 Jun 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> That would have been a great idea.
> 
> The military needs PR in Canada.  Forget Tik Tok and social media.  Do the easy stuff first. Start with reservists wearing their uniforms outside of the drill hall.  Be seen.  The military has a built in super app.  The uniform.  Wear and be seen wearing it.  High School kids in the reserves to prom etc.  (if its a kilted reg they will look better than anyone else there   Wear Class A to weddings, galas and fund raisers.   Wearing just to the erg dinner not seen by an one.
> 
> ...


I don’t think brainstorming ideas on how to increase recruiting/retention, and be more visible to the public, will/should get you a lot of negative.  

Things won’t change if people don’t brainstorm or throw ideas out there.  I think your ideas are all good ones, personally.  


In terms of getting in front of the Canadian public, I’d take your recommendations & brainstorm.  

-  in Alberta we’ve always worn uniforms to/from work.  I’m sensing that isn’t the case elsewhere?

-  Static displays at the Calgary Stampede or Edmonton K-Days is always busy.  A LAV and a TAPV, a few weapons changed to a table for the kids to play with, maybe a helicopter on static display, etc - helps us be more visible 

-  If the government funds the CBC to the tune of $11B a year, the CBC can damn well do some positive news stories on the CAF.

-  1000 members in Iraq training their security forces.  

-  500 members in Ukraine training their military in the case of a Russian invasion…and look how well they’ve been doing thus far.  

-  Detail what’s included in these large military aid packages we send.  “X Billion in military aid…” is pretty vague.  Emphasize the 3000 Carl G’s donated & how it’s contributed to decimating Russian armoured forces 

-  Training exercises in foreign countries which can result in good things for the local populace.  A positive spin on equipment procurement rather than ONLY focusing on the negative.  

-  DART deployments 

You want us to fund you to the tune of $11B, and you go ahead and generate around $6B from advertising?  You can report the good things too.  


I’d also say DO NOT lower standards, or appear to be doing so.  Keep the standards high, appearance crisp, and let the message be along the lines of “Want to make the world a better place?  Join us.”

Appear to be a caliber above the rest.  Canadians will notice and respect the organization more, and the applicants we get will be more passionate & driven, and I would think of a better quality overall.  

(Think of the US Army - we think of professional, large, very capable, and a force for helping people in need, not just fighting wars.  Now think of the USMC… most people just visually see it as another US Army, but the USMC has a reputation that attracts a certain type of person.)

You know who didn’t have a recruiting issue back when the Afghan War was in full swing?  Us.  I had applications coming in daily.

You know who doesn’t have a recruiting problem now?  Ukraine.  


Why do people of a certain flock go to these organizations when the fight is on?  Because they want to make the world a better place.  The military isn’t supposed to be ‘all accepting & all accommodating’ — if it appears that anybody can succeed, the ones that want something more will look elsewhere.  


I think social media has a place.  But you’re right, it has to be done proper.  

(Look at the Royal Marines for how social media can be used to both inform the public of their importance & relevance, and recruit new members at the same time.)


----------



## SeaKingTacco (15 Jun 2022)

CBH99 said:


> So I live in south Edmonton, and it’s not uncommon to see members in uniform filling up at a gas station or popping into a Timmies around commute times.
> 
> North side/closer to base there are more, sure.  I’m actually always surprised to see how many are in Sherwood Park (very much on the higher/high middle class scale) - the drive to base is about half the distance.
> 
> ...


Not noticeable, no. It usually just kind of blends in with the civil air traffic.


----------



## lenaitch (15 Jun 2022)

Weinie said:


> I was in Toronto when the decision was made to close the base. IMO, politics(a large land area, and an expanding city) were more of a deciding factor than military expediency/efficiency.  Then, more strident voices hijacked the decision and converted the lands to a rec park. Sigh.


I grew up in the shadow of Downsview, and clearly remember CF-100s, C-119 'Flying Boxcars, etc.  Toronto had hated that base for years.  It's not strictly an anti-military attitude, although there is likely an element to that, it just doesn't like anything that it 'blue collar' within its borders.  Ships in its harbour, freight trains, noisy planes, heavy manufacturing; they should all be close by to serve it - just someplace else.  The only reason the Downsview property wasn't built over years ago was Bombardier.  Admittedly it was manufacturing, but it was such a  large, well paying employer that they didn't dare try to chase it out.

I don't know the historic CAF staffing levels but it is my sense that downsizing in numbers and locations long predates the end of the Cold War.


GR66 said:


> Not move the units there, but to provide a centralized facility to house those capabilities that can't easily be managed in the individual armouries.  Shared vehicles and maintenance facilities, indoor ranges and other training facilities (obstacle course, climbing wall, urban warfare training centre, larger classroom facilities, etc.).  The airfield could have housed a Reserve helicopter unit.  It could have been used by the Federal Government as a storage facility for humanitarian aid and disaster response equipment and supplies.


I think that would have been a sound use, but you do realize that you mention  things like "warfare" and "range" that would make urban heads explode.

If I recall, it had a large, fairly robust supply depot building that is still standing.

Isn't 400 Squadron still called 'City of Toronto', even though it's in Borden?  Anything that involved continued or increased use of the airstrip would have been problematic to the area residents and therefore local counsellors.  Some have made it a life goal to close the airport on the Island and Downsview would have fared no better.


Spencer100 said:


> Put the cadets back in the high schools.  Spend some money there.  Get them young......


Speaking of heads exploding . . . 


dimsum said:


> I think it was a mistake too, but I'm not sure that retention (maybe recruiting) would be better.
> 
> The Australian Army has its bases in cities for the most part, and their retention is abysmal - even worse than us.  Why?  Because they realize that in Brisbane or Adelaide or wherever, they can just quit and look for a job in the city.  This is not to say that our current basing locations are good, it's just that "moving bases to cities" won't necessarily mean people stay in.
> 
> Also, having a base in a city doesn't necessarily mean the public will think of it in their daily lives.  I've met people in Winnipeg who didn't realize that 17 Wing was there (on the other side of the Int'l airport, no less).  I'm not too familiar with Edmonton but would folks living and working in the south side really see that many soldiers in uniform?  Would the CAF members be out and about in uniform before or after work, or be like Ottawa and go to/from work in civies?


Our daughter works at North Bay and regularly hears from local that they didn't know there was a base in the city.


----------



## OldSolduer (15 Jun 2022)

SeaKingTacco said:


> Not noticeable, no. It usually just kind of blends in with the civil air traffic.


17 Wing and the International airport are pretty much co-located. When the big guys fly in we know.


----------



## dimsum (15 Jun 2022)

lenaitch said:


> Isn't 400 Squadron still called 'City of Toronto', even though it's in Borden?


The "City of..." name has no bearing anymore on where it's located.

405 LRP sqn, currently in Greenwood, was called "City of Vancouver"
403 sqn, currently in Gagetown, is "City of Calgary"


----------



## YZT580 (15 Jun 2022)

lenaitch said:


> I grew up in the shadow of Downsview, and clearly remember CF-100s, C-119 'Flying Boxcars, etc.  Toronto had hated that base for years.  It's not strictly an anti-military attitude, although there is likely an element to that, it just doesn't like anything that it 'blue collar' within its borders.  Ships in its harbour, freight trains, noisy planes, heavy manufacturing; they should all be close by to serve it - just someplace else.  The only reason the Downsview property wasn't built over years ago was Bombardier.  Admittedly it was manufacturing, but it was such a  large, well paying employer that they didn't dare try to chase it out.
> 
> I don't know the historic CAF staffing levels but it is my sense that downsizing in numbers and locations long predates the end of the Cold War.
> 
> ...


400 was at Downsview way back when they were flying otters.  It was definitely politics that reduced Downsview's value but not in the way you might think.  That supply depot you mention was moved to Montreal to keep the francophones happy.  They spent literally millions duplicating a facility they already had in the name of appeasement.  Once that was gone, there was no point in keeping the base.


----------



## daftandbarmy (16 Jun 2022)

lenaitch said:


> Our daughter works at North Bay and regularly hears from local that they didn't know there was a base in the city.



CFB Esquimalt runs ship tours.... at the base.

If they were to, oh I don't know, sail 20 minutes down to go alongside in Victoria harbour - wherever you can park a Frigate of MCDV - they might get more attention from people who aren't, mainly, base rats.

I ran that idea past a few RCN people a few years ago and got some interesting looks, as in 'you ain't from around here, are you?'


----------



## Colin Parkinson (16 Jun 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> That would have been a great idea.
> 
> The military needs PR in Canada.  Forget Tik Tok and social media.  Do the easy stuff first. Start with reservists wearing their uniforms outside of the drill hall.  Be seen.  The military has a built in super app.  The uniform.  Wear and be seen wearing it.  High School kids in the reserves to prom etc.  (if its a kilted reg they will look better than anyone else there   Wear Class A to weddings, galas and fund raisers.   Wearing just to the erg dinner not seen by an one.
> 
> ...


I have been pushing for more opportunities for my Cadets to wear their uniform, but our headquarters are nervous nellies. I was offering to have our Colour Guard march in the city councillors and other events, but Covid squashed that. Next Sept I am looking for stuff for them to do in uniform in the community.
But we do have a tendency to eat our own. Many of the Cadet Corps look down on Navy Leagues, many of the Reserves look down on Cadets, Regulars still look down on Reserves. Support, respect and mentoring will draw people in and give a positive way to reach into communities.


----------



## Quirky (16 Jun 2022)

The title could very well be 'The Downfall of Canada'.


----------



## Spencer100 (16 Jun 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> I have been pushing for more opportunities for my Cadets to wear their uniform, but our headquarters are nervous nellies. I was offering to have our Colour Guard march in the city councillors and other events, but Covid squashed that. Next Sept I am looking for stuff for them to do in uniform in the community.
> But we do have a tendency to eat our own. Many of the Cadet Corps look down on Navy Leagues, many of the Reserves look down on Cadets, Regulars still look down on Reserves. Support, respect and mentoring will draw people in and give a positive way to reach into communities.


I just don't understand the not wanting to wear the uniforms.  I say loosen the rules.  I would almost make it an order to wear to big functions.  Especially civilian ones.  (sure you are going to get more walts but really is that big show stopper?)  

Hey maybe there was advantage when officers purchased their commissions. They really really wanted to be seen  

That gets me thinking.  Lets get well off and successful people to adopt a regiment.  How many would give time and money to wear a kilt?  PPCLI was the last privately raised regiment in the Empire.......


----------



## dimsum (16 Jun 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> Lets get well off and successful people to adopt a regiment.


So...HCols and HCapts?  

Or do you mean to start a regt?


----------



## Spencer100 (16 Jun 2022)

dimsum said:


> So...HCols and HCapts?
> 
> Or do you mean to start a regt?


I'm brainstorming!  I probably shouldn't.  I'm coming from real out of the box.

But maybe both.  I did a few post ago think hmmm raise a Sikh/south Asian Regiment. 1st Canadian Punjab or something.  But also more community's engagement.  As things go HCols etc. are supercheap. They can buy their own stuff.  

But how about sponsorship to buy kit?  It was done in the way past.  Old can work again with a twist. 

Doing things currently really doesn't seem to be working great.


----------



## OldSolduer (16 Jun 2022)

dimsum said:


> So...HCols and HCapts?
> 
> Or do you mean to start a regt?


I think the Fort Gary Horse does the HCapt thing.


----------



## markppcli (19 Jun 2022)

dimsum said:


> Yes, but for example, Toronto already has a bunch of armouries (and HMCS York) which the Reserve units already use.  Would it have been better to keep CFB Downsview, move those units there, and get rid of Moss Park, Fort York, etc?


Yes.  Reserve armouries, almost without exception, are very very dated buildings generally build to house more social clubs that training facilities. One could make a strong argument, for example, to shut down both of them in Edmonton and have the reserve regiments use the enormous LTF and TAPV barn. Hell 41 service could do weekend shifts at 1 Svc.


----------



## markppcli (19 Jun 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> I just don't understand the not wanting to wear the uniforms.  I say loosen the rules.  I would almost make it an order to wear to big functions.  Especially civilian ones.  (sure you are going to get more walts but really is that big show stopper?)



Gee what could possibly make us less inclined to wear uniforms out in public ? Was there perhaps a fairly recent violent event ? 



Spencer100 said:


> Hey maybe there was advantage when officers purchased their commissions. They really really wanted to be seen
> 
> That gets me thinking.  Lets get well off and successful people to adopt a regiment.  How many would give time and money to wear a kilt?  PPCLI was the last privately raised regiment in the Empire.......



Bearing in mind that Gault was already a Captain when he did that, it was a massively different world when he did that. Same with Lord Strathconna, paying for imperial adventure isn’t exactly fashionable for the super wealthy. There’s a reason we have seen Musk’s Own Hussars in Ukraine.


----------



## FJAG (20 Jun 2022)

markppcli said:


> Yes.  Reserve armouries, almost without exception, are very very dated buildings generally build to house more social clubs that training facilities. One could make a strong argument, for example, to shut down both of them in Edmonton and have the reserve regiments use the enormous LTF and TAPV barn. Hell 41 service could do weekend shifts at 1 Svc.


Reserve armouries were perfectly suited for the housing of the units that existed when the armories were built. They had all the QM and weapon stores needed, enough space for drill - both ceremonial and battle - all the necessary space for the low level of administration needed by units in those days, maybe even a maintenance facility for the half dozen or so vehicles a battalion had, lecture rooms and yes, a few messes. 

Our use of those spaces over the last half century has changed dramatically and few of the buildings could be adequately upgraded in a way to make them more suitable. 

Moss Park is a bad example because it is a relatively new armoury (1965) but was stressed almost the moment it was built by having to house four battalion sized units and, while it has an underground garage, its adjacent footprint for both military and civilian parking is almost entirely absent. Bad, bad planning caused by too many politicians and senior retired and serving officers in the pie.

I always thought that the divestiture of Downsview was stupid. I have the same opinion about the divestiture of CFB Calgary. I'm a firm follower of John Jacob Astor's:



> Buy on the fringe and wait. Buy land near a growing city! Buy real estate when other people want to sell. Hold what you buy.



You'll never, ever have the opportunity to rebuy land in or very near a city at an economical price. If you don't have a use for it now, turn it into a cow pasture and rent it out to an urban farmer on a year-to-year lease. Someday you'll need a big patch of land in the city. If you already have it - you're golden.

🍻


----------



## GK .Dundas (20 Jun 2022)

It's the thing about real estate and why buying land whenever possible  is advised .
Simply put with the possible exceptions of Iceland and Hawaii. ,they're not making it anymore.


----------



## FJAG (20 Jun 2022)

GK .Dundas said:


> It's the thing about real estate and why buying land whenever possible  is advised .
> Simply put with the possible exceptions of Iceland and Hawaii. ,they're not making it anymore.





> Lōʻihi Seamount - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> ...










😉


----------



## markppcli (20 Jun 2022)

FJAG said:


> Reserve armouries were perfectly suited for the housing of the units that existed when the armories were built. They had all the QM and weapon stores needed, enough space for drill - both ceremonial and battle - all the necessary space for the low level of administration needed by units in those days, maybe even a maintenance facility for the half dozen or so vehicles a battalion had, lecture rooms and yes, a few messes.
> 
> Our use of those spaces over the last half century has changed dramatically and few of the buildings could be adequately upgraded in a way to make them more suitable.



I would say we’re in the operative word here. See my point about them being very dated. Most of my time in the Reserves I thought it was a very weird structure; having armouries built to facilitate drill nights for essentially neighborhood or community regiments is a concept that should have been left in the Victorian era. Weekend trainings are more value to the training audience, and the tax payer. Additionally you can have those reserve soldiers drive a little longer and probably offer them some different career choices ( perhaps some one in Lethbridge isn’t interested in being Artillery?). 


FJAG said:


> Moss Park is a bad example because it is a relatively new armoury (1965) but was stressed almost the moment it was built by having to house four battalion sized units and, while it has an underground garage, its adjacent footprint for both military and civilian parking is almost entirely absent. Bad, bad planning caused by too many politicians and senior retired and serving officers in the pie.
> 
> I always thought that the divestiture of Downsview was stupid. I have the same opinion about the divestiture of CFB Calgary. I'm a firm follower of John Jacob Astor's:



The super bases concept is… difficult I think. I don’t know that the Bdes really need to be co located to work together.


----------



## mariomike (20 Jun 2022)

FJAG said:


> Moss Park is a bad example because it is a relatively new armoury (1965) but was stressed almost the moment it was built by having to house four battalion sized units and,  < snip >
> 
> 🍻



Considering the University armoury was demolished in 1963, they had to replace it with something.

I bet the land value, then and now, at Moss Park was / is pretty cheap compared to University Ave.

Moss Park is a short walk from the subway. Also, well served by TTC streetcars and buses.

Close to the downtown core and financial district.

Post-secondary institutions like the U of T, Ryerson, and George Brown College nearby.

Convenient to the Gardiner Expressway and Don Valley Parkway.



> while it has an underground garage, its adjacent footprint for both military and civilian parking is almost entirely absent.



I guess if the situation ever became too deperate, they would turn the adjacent green space into a parking lot.


----------



## Halifax Tar (20 Jun 2022)

mariomike said:


> Considering the University armoury was demolished in 1963, they had to replace it with something.
> 
> I bet the land value, then and now, at Moss Park was / is pretty cheap compared to University Ave.
> 
> ...



I had no idea there was a university armoury.  I had to google it.  That looks like it was huge, and similar in style to the Halifax Armory. 









						Toronto Armories - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org
				




Interestingly the architect's grandson is this guy: 









						Thomas G. Fuller - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org


----------



## MilEME09 (20 Jun 2022)

markppcli said:


> Yes.  Reserve armouries, almost without exception, are very very dated buildings generally build to house more social clubs that training facilities. One could make a strong argument, for example, to shut down both of them in Edmonton and have the reserve regiments use the enormous LTF and TAPV barn. Hell 41 service could do weekend shifts at 1 Svc.


Debney armoury in Edmonton is actually was of the newest and most modern reserve facilities we have. Proper maintenance facilities, classroom space, a sleeping area for troops on course.

Problem is this is the exception, not the norm, by comparison calgary for example tries to stuff 3 units into the former ASU which is was never designed for.

We are too stuck on history and the regimental mafias will fight tooth and nail to keep their old buildings. If we want a modern army, and a functional reserve, then we need the facilities to properly train, at this point, it would require billions in infrastructure to do.


Your idea though of taking shifts with 1 service isn't far fetched, but I'd argue instead of 1 svc, integrate reserve CSS as an element of base maintenance.


----------



## mariomike (20 Jun 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> I had no idea there was a university armoury.  I had to google it.  That looks like it was huge, and similar in style to the Halifax Armory.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I never saw it, except in pictures. But, my former unit was there.



> The Governor General's Horse Guards and the 5th Column RCASC moved to Denison Armoury at Downsview.


----------



## daftandbarmy (20 Jun 2022)

MilEME09 said:


> Debney armoury in Edmonton is actually was of the newest and most modern reserve facilities we have. Proper maintenance facilities, classroom space, a sleeping area for troops on course.
> 
> Problem is this is the exception, not the norm, by comparison calgary for example tries to stuff 3 units into the former ASU which is was never designed for.
> 
> ...



Not true, in my experience anyways.

Except for a very few examples, the CAF and GAC have no interest or resources to address the infrastructure upgrade needs to bring the Reserves into the 21st C. Regimental Mafias have little to do with such infrastructure investment decisions.

This means replacing/modernizing armouries, many over 100 years old, that consign their troops to train in environments that have remained largely unchanged since the time of their great grandfathers.


----------



## RangerRay (20 Jun 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> I had no idea there was a university armoury.  I had to google it.  That looks like it was huge, and similar in style to the Halifax Armory.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


While these old armouries serve no practical purpose for today’s Reserve, it does seem like a crime to see those beautiful buildings demolished.  In a perfect world, our Reserve units would have new armouries to meet their needs and old armouries would be repurposed and preserved. 

My unit is in a relatively modern building, but even for a company platoon, it was extremely cramped.


----------



## Spencer100 (20 Jun 2022)

markppcli said:


> Gee what could possibly make us less inclined to wear uniforms out in public ? Was there perhaps a fairly recent violent event ?
> 
> 
> 
> Bearing in mind that Gault was already a Captain when he did that, it was a massively different world when he did that. Same with Lord Strathconna, paying for imperial adventure isn’t exactly fashionable for the super wealthy. There’s a reason we have seen Musk’s Own Hussars in Ukraine.


Yes I understand those points. I get it. But then also understand the need for better PR.  The CAF is not seen by regular Canadians.  I was putting ideas out there.  Plus wearing uniforms to more civilian functions, balls, wedding, proms, galas, fund raisers etc. would not in my mind be a huge increase in risks.  Also it would not have to be mandatory.  Everyone can assess there own risks.  (I wish as a whole society we all did this more and less top down control...that's different topic)  I would like to see more uniforms out there.  I think it would be good for everyone.  Plus you know a man (or woman) in uniform!    And some of them look pretty damn good.  

I was not meaning a regimental to go "imperial adventure" but more of a connect with the larger business and social communities.  I think it would be great for members after leaving the forces too.  Show the talent and skill set of the people in the CAF.  As an aside I had to even tell my HR people not disregard past or current service for hiring and put it at the top.  It was happening and I didn't even know it (shame on me) Just taking the HR profession they have a natural bias against military types.  (don't kill the messenger and may not always be true, but its what I have seen) 

I do think if a Regiment went asked a CEO of Large Firm Inc. to be a HCapt HCo etc.  they would be interested.  Here come on base or Armoury here is a C8 have at it!  OH and here you get to have a nice dress ware.  Damn most would.  I do know that happens now but the individual has to reachout or is a big name IE royalty, pol, or actor etc.   I am meaning at the local level and national for CEO of the MegaCorp Inc.  

But to go off topic.....raising private regiments to go Imperial adventuring....is that really out of fashion?  Wagner, Xe, and other PMC enter the conversation.


----------



## daftandbarmy (20 Jun 2022)

RangerRay said:


> While these old armouries serve no practical purpose for today’s Reserve, it does seem like a crime to see those beautiful buildings demolished.  In a perfect world, our Reserve units would have new armouries to meet their needs and old armouries would be repurposed and preserved.
> 
> My unit is in a relatively modern building, but even for a company platoon, it was extremely cramped.



I'm no expert in facilities, but some of the old armouries I've seen would likely be condemned by any competent civilian authority given half a chance.

Some I served in were continually falling apart with pipes bursting, roofs leaking, electrical systems failing, walls slumping and parking lots subsiding.


----------



## Halifax Tar (20 Jun 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> I'm no expert in facilities, but some of the old armouries I've seen would likely be condemned by any competent civilian authority given half a chance.
> 
> Some I served in were continually falling apart with pipes bursting, roofs leaking, electrical systems failing, walls slumping and parking lots subsiding.



Like the old hangers at Borden or Wellington House in Halifax.  Designated historic buildings, so we cant knock them down.  Instead we abandon them in the hopes the fall on their own accord sooner than later.


----------



## FJAG (20 Jun 2022)

markppcli said:


> I would say we’re in the operative word here. See my point about them being very dated. Most of my time in the Reserves I thought it was a very weird structure; having armouries built to facilitate drill nights for essentially neighborhood or community regiments is a concept that should have been left in the Victorian era. Weekend trainings are more value to the training audience, and the tax payer. Additionally you can have those reserve soldiers drive a little longer and probably offer them some different career choices ( perhaps some one in Lethbridge isn’t interested in being Artillery?).
> 
> 
> The super bases concept is… difficult I think. I don’t know that the Bdes really need to be co located to work together.


I agree fully. In the 1800s and early 1900s when cities were smaller and most folks walked or took a horse drawn street car to the armouries, they worked. That ended in the late 1950s to 1960s.

For the reserve force, I still want their facilities close to your potential recruiting pool. Smaller abandoned malls factories in suburban settings could work. So long as there is a good footprint for facilities available. 


mariomike said:


> I bet the land value, then and now, at Moss Park was / is pretty cheap compared to University Ave.


I joined 7th Toronto in the interval, just after University went down and before Moss Park was finished and while we and the QOR paraded in an old four storey warehouse on Richmond Street. (My battery, me included, still claims to be the first unit to have done drill on Moss Park's parade square several weeks before it opened - others dispute that) In those days Moss Park was surrounded by homeless missions and apartments of ill repute. Queen and Jarvis did not have a good reputation.  There was a lot of horse trading that went on vis a vis those two plots of land. Personally I think the military got screwed but even then costs of maintaining an old facility like University vs having a spanking new structure made the bean counters eyes shine.

🍻


----------



## RangerRay (20 Jun 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Like the old hangers at Borden or Wellington House in Halifax.  Designated historic buildings, so we cant knock them down.  Instead we abandon them in the hopes the fall on their own accord sooner than later.


I guess my use of the word “preserve” may have been poorly chosen.  I lived for a few months on a suite in a heritage house in Victoria. It was well kept, but the landlord was complaining to me one day that being a heritage house, she couldn’t install modern and more efficient fixtures and was quite limited in what she could do to renovate suites to make them appealing to modern renters. 

I am not sure what to do with the old armouries. On one hand I would hate to see them demolished. But I imagine they would cost a fortune to repurpose.


----------



## daftandbarmy (20 Jun 2022)

RangerRay said:


> I guess my use of the word “preserve” may have been poorly chosen.  I lived for a few months on a suite in a heritage house in Victoria. It was well kept, but the landlord was complaining to me one day that being a heritage house, she couldn’t install modern and more efficient fixtures and was quite limited in what she could do to renovate suites to make them appealing to modern renters.
> 
> I am not sure what to do with the old armouries. On one hand I would hate to see them demolished. But I imagine they would cost a fortune to repurpose.



Or renovate... but at least this is a strong hint that the Seaforths won't be 'cancelled' anytime soon 

"The only people making a regular appearance in the building for the last four years were the construction teams that seismically upgraded the armoury, as well as built the Major-General Bert Hoffmeister 39 Brigade facility. Improvements and construction cost $55 million."









						Seaforth Highlanders March Back To New and Improved Armoury — Seaforth Highlanders
					

Rebecca Blissett | Vancouver Courier | September 27, 2016 03:48 PM   There were many different levels of celebration for Rod Hoffmeister during Saturday’s return of the Seaforth Highlanders of Canada to their armoury, and they all had one common thread — pride.  The land on the corner of B




					www.seaforthhighlanders.ca


----------



## MilEME09 (20 Jun 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> Not true, in my experience anyways.
> 
> Except for a very few examples, the CAF and GAC have no interest or resources to address the infrastructure upgrade needs to bring the Reserves into the 21st C. Regimental Mafias have little to do with such infrastructure investment decisions.
> 
> This means replacing/modernizing armouries, many over 100 years old, that consign their troops to train in environments that have remained largely unchanged since the time of their great grandfathers.


I meant the desire to hold onto old facilities not the money to replace them.


----------



## Spencer100 (20 Jun 2022)

MilEME09 said:


> I meant the desire to hold onto old facilities not the money to replace them.


Hey there's a place for my sponsorship idea!  The RCR Wolseley Barracks presented by Canada Life.  The HMCS Star and National Flag Ship Haida by Circle K.    

One comment: the old armoury buildings of 1900's will out last the new ones built today.


----------



## Weinie (20 Jun 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> Hey there's a place for my sponsorship idea!  The RCR Wolseley Barracks presented by Canada Life.  The HMCS Star and National Flag Ship Haida by Circle K.
> 
> *One comment: the old armoury buildings of 1900's will out last the new ones built today.*


Judging on the girth of some of the real wood beams I have seen in some of the Armouries,  and our shitty engineered stuff today, I don't doubt it.


----------



## OldSolduer (22 Jun 2022)

Kapyong Barracks in Winnipeg would have been a decent place for the Winnipeg based Reserve units. 

Thanks to bumbling by DND and others its now torn down.


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Jun 2022)

Couple of factors: ample parking (free, or very inexpensive) and easy transit access.

Nice to have: patch of ground (natural vice landscaped) for low-level dry training - say, 160 acres (1/2 mile a side).


----------



## MilEME09 (28 Jun 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> Couple of factors: ample parking (free, or very inexpensive) and easy transit access.
> 
> Nice to have: patch of ground (natural vice landscaped) for low-level dry training - say, 160 acres (1/2 mile a side).


If DND can expropriate land from a farmer for a now canned project of a training facility to JTF, I bet we can expropriate a bunch of empty commercial or industrial land, demo it and build an armory up to modern standards.


----------



## stoker dave (29 Jun 2022)

I have read some references to a "CAF Reconstituting Plan" promulgated by the CDS.  That plan may address some of the concerns in this thread.   Apparently the plan's focus is:


prioritizing effort and resources on people,
rebuilding strength while making necessary changes to CAF culture on readiness and on modernization to develop the capabilities and
adapt the structure necessary to respond to evolving character of conflict and operations.









						Acting Chief of the Defence Staff promoted to General - Canadian Military Family Magazine
					

On August 13, the Acting Chief of the Defence Staff (ACDS), Wayne Eyre, was promoted from Lieutenant-General to General. The ceremony was presided over by Mary Simon, Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada. “His work has been absolutely critical in helping Canadians from coast to...




					www.cmfmag.ca
				




Is that plan publicly available?  I suspect not as I was unable to locate it.  It may need a thread dedicated to that if/when it becomes available.


----------



## MilEME09 (29 Jun 2022)

stoker dave said:


> I have read some references to a "CAF Reconstituting Plan" promulgated by the CDS.  That plan may address some of the concerns in this thread.   Apparently the plan's focus is:
> 
> 
> prioritizing effort and resources on people,
> ...


That plan is Force 2025 and no it is not public


----------



## Fabius (29 Jun 2022)

Technically F2025 is only Army and is only tangentially related to Reconstitution. 
 CAF Reconstitution is all services, and all the Services and other L1 HQs are working on their plans to support Reconstitution.


----------



## Navy_Pete (29 Jun 2022)

Seems like a lot of empty words in the story that don't mean anything in particular.

On the Navy side, hope this means paying off some ships in the very near future and downsizing to a fleet we can actually crew properly, while trying to build up the training system in a sustainable way to train enough people for the incoming fleet.

What I suspect will actually happen is they will target some arbitrary cuts in some trades to get rid of 'tail', have a bunch of people take buyouts while the going is good, realize they need the tail to get things done (like complex procurements and rebuilding) and then scramble to hire the same people back via contractors at a massive premium.

Nothing rebuilds morale like the feeling of impending doom from vague policy pronouncements!

Hard to get that W when you keep scoring on your own Tendy boys, give your nuts a tug!


----------



## markppcli (30 Jun 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> Hey there's a place for my sponsorship idea!  The RCR Wolseley Barracks presented by Canada Life.  The HMCS Star and National Flag Ship Haida by Circle K.
> 
> One comment: the old armoury buildings of 1900's will out last the new ones built today.


Probably but that doesn’t mean their really fit to task anymore. Not that a parade square isn’t a good multi purpose facility, but they need to be built with class rooms and maintenance facilities as the for front.


----------



## bgc_fan (19 Jul 2022)

MilEME09 said:


> If DND can expropriate land from a farmer for a now canned project of a training facility to JTF, I bet we can expropriate a bunch of empty commercial or industrial land, demo it and build an armory up to modern standards.



It's not that simple. The issue is that there is a lot of sentiment wrapped up with the old armouries. So even if they are unfit for purpose, the current occupants will do their best to fight to remain. You can build the best, modern armoury, but unless you get rid of the old ones, you're not going to get units to move. And getting rid of the old ones is a political decision. You should ask yourself why these old armouries are still around if they don't serve their purpose. It's because you get MPs, MPPs, local politicians, and other prominent businesspeople raising a stink whenever the possibility comes up.


----------



## Remius (19 Jul 2022)

bgc_fan said:


> It's not that simple. The issue is that there is a lot of sentiment wrapped up with the old armouries. So even if they are unfit for purpose, the current occupants will do their best to fight to remain. You can build the best, modern armoury, but unless you get rid of the old ones, you're not going to get units to move. And getting rid of the old ones is a political decision. You should ask yourself why these old armouries are still around if they don't serve their purpose. It's because you get MPs, MPPs, local politicians, and other prominent businesspeople raising a stink whenever the possibility comes up.


I haven’t seen any offers, plans or ideas about building modern armouries anywhere.  As long as the old ones keep standing the CAF will keep using them.  It’s the same mentality that keeps us using WW2 pistols, old planes and cans with wires for comms.


----------



## OldSolduer (19 Jul 2022)

Remius said:


> I haven’t seen any offers, plans or ideas about building modern armouries anywhere.  As long as the old ones keep standing the CAF will keep using them.  It’s the same mentality that keeps us using WW2 pistols, old planes and cans with wires for comms.


This all harkens back to Canada's dependency on a greater power to protect it, therefore why spend the money on military stuff? Add to that "We are peacekeepers"


----------



## rmc_wannabe (19 Jul 2022)

Remius said:


> I haven’t seen any offers, plans or ideas about building modern armouries anywhere.  As long as the old ones keep standing the CAF will keep using them.  It’s the same mentality that keeps us using WW2 pistols, old planes and cans with wires for comms.


Hey now, our comms are somewhat modern.... mostly because we'd be punted from the FVEY community if we didn't...


----------



## Grimey (19 Jul 2022)

At least cans/string are immune to EMP and hacking.   I should work for Rogers....


----------



## Brad Sallows (19 Jul 2022)

> the current occupants will do their best to fight to remain



I imagine a thorough survey of all of the occupants - as in, people who work there - might indicate differently.  Associations and non-serving mess members who meet there shouldn't get a vote.


----------



## bgc_fan (20 Jul 2022)

Remius said:


> I haven’t seen any offers, plans or ideas about building modern armouries anywhere.  As long as the old ones keep standing the CAF will keep using them.  It’s the same mentality that keeps us using WW2 pistols, old planes and cans with wires for comms.



Because it is all behind the scenes. You have it backwards. The units don't want to give up the old armouries so DND is wasting money to try to modernize them. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/halifax-armoury-restoration-progress-overruns-1.6221485 Not to mention as a business case separate armouries for individual units doesn't make sense, i.e. maybe 1 or 2 nights a week you get full utilization. But that is how most of the traditional armouries work. That is quite a bit of money tied up in dead infrastructure. 
There have been some successful new armoury projects like the Hoffmeister Building: B.C.’s army brigade gets new HQ — Seaforth Highlanders which is essentially a big office building but meets the needs of the units that call it home. 35 RGC in Quebec got a recent new armoury: 35 Combat Engineer Regiment Armoury - Québec - Defence Capabilities Blueprint. St-Hubert got a new one as well: Government completes new armoury at Saint-Hubert Garrison

What probably helped is that the units likely weren't housed in 1900s historical buildings , but rather in 1960s buildings that they were happy to leave.


----------



## quadrapiper (21 Jul 2022)

bgc_fan said:


> It's not that simple. The issue is that there is a lot of sentiment wrapped up with the old armouries. So even if they are unfit for purpose, the current occupants will do their best to fight to remain. You can build the best, modern armoury, but unless you get rid of the old ones, you're not going to get units to move. And getting rid of the old ones is a political decision. You should ask yourself why these old armouries are still around if they don't serve their purpose. It's because you get MPs, MPPs, local politicians, and other prominent businesspeople raising a stink whenever the possibility comes up.


YMMV depending on location, but there may also be a concern from some units about lost capacity. The current facility might be past the century mark, idiosyncratically plumbed, expensive to heat, riddled with messes, feel like a brick cave system, act as a Faraday cage, and be apparently held together by asbestos and black mould, but it's capacious and flexible, _and you saw what happened when B Coy up the road got a new armoury: no more barracks bays or showers, smaller drill shed/covered space, and it looks like a middle school._


----------



## bgc_fan (21 Jul 2022)

quadrapiper said:


> YMMV depending on location, but there may also be a concern from some units about lost capacity. The current facility might be past the century mark, idiosyncratically plumbed, expensive to heat, riddled with messes, feel like a brick cave system, act as a Faraday cage, and be apparently held together by asbestos and black mould, but it's capacious and flexible, _and you saw what happened when B Coy up the road got a new armoury: no more barracks bays or showers, smaller drill shed/covered space, and it looks like a middle school._



No offence, but you realize I have no idea who you are nor what you are talking about. B Coy can be part of any number of units so that doesn't give me anything to understand what you are talking about. Could you be more descriptive of at least the unit and the armoury in question as well as how new it is? The fact is a number of the "historic" armouries that I've seen are basically a large parade square with some offices running alongside them. Sure a parade square is a large/flexible space, but when units start parking vehicles and equipment in them, that space goes away. Plus many that I've seen have 0 showers (or maybe 1) as they were never designed to have them in the first place. As for sleeping areas, I'd say that there are minimal as the most I've seen are the few guard duty type sleeping quarters, but tell me what armoury you are talking about so I have some reference.


----------



## bgc_fan (21 Jul 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> I imagine a thorough survey of all of the occupants - as in, people who work there - might indicate differently.  Associations and non-serving mess members who meet there shouldn't get a vote.



Well, you can speak with the COs and ask them. There are going to be very few who are going to jump at the chance as being known as the last CO who closed the armoury.


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Jul 2022)

> B Coy can be part of any number of units so that doesn't give me anything to understand what you are talking about.



I'd guess he meant it as a generic example.

Most COs are one step away from being a non-serving member; I wouldn't pay much attention to their opinions.


----------



## bgc_fan (22 Jul 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> I'd guess he meant it as a generic example.
> 
> Most COs are one step away from being a non-serving member; I wouldn't pay much attention to their opinions.



Then how about CCA? I am sure there are many GOFOs who would say the same thing. Keep in mind I'm refering mainly to the older armouries, not the ones in the 1970s or so that have no historical attachment that many would gladly leave if they have the opportunity. However, trying to close out the WWII vintage armouries (which are the ones that need to be gone as they really don't meet requirements) is an uphill battle.


----------



## CBH99 (22 Jul 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> This all harkens back to Canada's dependency on a greater power to protect it, therefore why spend the money on military stuff? Add to that "We are peacekeepers"


Oh THAT frustrating myth, perpetuated by literally generations of politicians who clamour on about the ‘glory days of peace keeping!’

If we commit a force of 1200 personnel to an operation, I would much rather contribute those resources to a NATO operation and a UN operation.  The UN couldn’t find its way out of a paper bag, not to mention fight it’s way out.  


Instead of hiding things like Medak, promote it.  

Promote it as a somewhat modern example of a good vs evil story, to show what happens when the world turns a blind eye to the sheer brutality of ethnic conflict.  

Instead of downplaying our operations against ISIS, promote them.  People love the mystery around SOF operations & the government having no comment due to OPSEC.  It again promotes the good vs evil fight that people want to believe in.  

If folks are wishing we’d go back to being ‘peacekeepers’ as a source of national pride, they need to wake up to what modern peacekeeping efforts look like.  I haven’t seen much progress in those theatres. 

0.02


----------



## Kilted (22 Jul 2022)

Well, not every old armoury is loved.  There is the mentaly with some to let it catch on fire, rescue the colours and be done with it.  Reserve Armouries are also a lot busier than some people would think, especially now that summer DP 1's and other training are occurring in Armouries (with whatever can't be done there being done on base). I think this started as a covid measure, but I could see it carrying on.


----------



## Kilted (22 Jul 2022)

FJAG said:


> others dispute that) In those days Moss Park was surrounded by homeless missions and apartments of ill repute. Queen and Jarvis did not have a good reputation.


Not much has changed there.  I know before they put the fences up they had problems with homeless people wondering into the armoury (they aren't the only armoury that has that problem).  Last time I was there someone came up and wrote a bunch of different conspiracy theories on the front door in permanent marker, I guess the gate had been left open.  Leave there after a parade night must be an interesting experience.


----------



## CBH99 (22 Jul 2022)

Kilted said:


> Not much has changed there.  I know before they put the fences up they had problems with homeless people wondering into the armoury (they aren't the only armoury that has that problem).  Last time I was there someone came up and wrote a bunch of different conspiracy theories on the front door in permanent marker, I guess the gate had been left open.  Leave there after a parade night must be an interesting experience.


I remember the unit in Lethbridge, Alta had a pretty slick armoury.  

Just outside of town, plenty of parking, located at regional airport.  

A fairly modern building that was HUGE inside with plenty of classrooms & offices, a SAT system, a large parade square for prepping/maintaining their C3’s, a properly fenced off motor pool in the back with a garage/repair building, etc.  

It was an absolute luxury for the one small reserve unit that used the place.   I was quite jealous when I first saw it & was given the grand tour!


----------



## CBH99 (22 Jul 2022)

bgc_fan said:


> Then how about CCA? I am sure there are many GOFOs who would say the same thing. Keep in mind I'm refering mainly to the older armouries, not the ones in the 1970s or so that have no historical attachment that many would gladly leave if they have the opportunity. However, trying to close out the WWII vintage armouries (which are the ones that need to be gone as they really don't meet requirements) is an uphill battle.


I know military units do dearly value their lineage & heritage, as they should.  

But would it really be as hard to convince a unit to move to a newer/better armoury as we think it is?

Most members now are young enough that they don’t have real personal connection to World War II like we did.  

Having a comfortable modern workspace does feed into the morale factor - we can’t blame people for wanting to eventually go work elsewhere, when some of those old armouries feel heavy & dead inside. 

(Especially if they are in a municipality that has a fetish for everything parking related - looking at you Calgary…)


----------



## OldSolduer (22 Jul 2022)

CBH99 said:


> I remember the unit in Lethbridge, Alta had a pretty slick armoury.
> 
> Just outside of town, plenty of parking, located at regional airport.
> 
> ...


Who was the local MP when it was built? Call me cynical…


----------



## CBH99 (22 Jul 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> Who was the local MP when it was built? Call me cynical…


Not a bloody clue. 

But I swear it be true mister!  I seen it, I seen it with ma’ own two eyes!


----------



## bgc_fan (22 Jul 2022)

CBH99 said:


> I know military units do dearly value their lineage & heritage, as they should.
> 
> But would it really be as hard to convince a unit to move to a newer/better armoury as we think it is?



There's something to be said about conserving heritage. For example, one CoA could be to retain one armoury as a historical museum and move all the other armouries' "museums" into it, while getting rid of the other ones and building a new "mega-armoury" to accommodate. But that leads to a few problems: deciding which armoury to retain, and many units (just like the reg force), don't like sharing. So there would be some time to acclimatise to that sort of change. Also keep in mind, people don't like change, i.e. it's been like this for 70+ years, who are you from Ottawa to dictate how we work?

As I mentioned before, it is a particular problem for occupants of the older historical armouries, and not those who are in "armouries" that date from the 70s or so. As for convincing... there's been a report on "rationalizing" the armouries in a certain city produced for the CCA at least 4 years ago, which would involve closing at least one armoury. The fact that nothing has been done (in fairness I haven't been following lately), would indicate that there is no appetite to do so.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (22 Jul 2022)

bgc_fan said:


> There's something to be said about conserving heritage. For example, one CoA could be to retain one armoury as a historical museum and move all the other armouries' "museums" into it, while getting rid of the other ones and building a new "mega-armoury" to accommodate. But that leads to a few problems: deciding which armoury to retain, and many units (just like the reg force), don't like sharing. So there would be some time to acclimatise to that sort of change. Also keep in mind, people don't like change, i.e. it's been like this for 70+ years, who are you from Ottawa to dictate how we work?
> 
> As I mentioned before, it is a particular problem for occupants of the older historical armouries, and not those who are in "armouries" that date from the 70s or so. As for convincing... there's been a report on "rationalizing" the armouries in a certain city produced for the CCA at least 4 years ago, which would involve closing at least one armoury. The fact that nothing has been done (in fairness I haven't been following lately), would indicate that there is no appetite to do so.


Museums are a lot of money to maintain for very little operational output. The problem is we receive no funding to preserve the heritage buildings and the problem compounds on itself. 

Some buildings on CFB Kingston proper pre-date WWII. The building I run a data centre out of was constructed prior to the development of computers. There are any number of infrastructure and support issues we face to provide the needs of 2022 in a building designed in 1933.

If we were to actually open up other coffers than just O & M, we might be able to upgrade and maintain them so we retain the heritage while increasing function as well. 

Until we get enough money and effort put into both, we continue with kicking the can down the road.


----------



## bgc_fan (22 Jul 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> Museums are a lot of money to maintain for very little operational output. The problem is we receive no funding to preserve the heritage buildings and the problem compounds on itself.
> 
> Some buildings on CFB Kingston proper pre-date WWII. The building I run a data centre out of was constructed prior to the development of computers. There are any number of infrastructure and support issues we face to provide the needs of 2022 in a building designed in 1933.
> 
> ...



I was limiting my responses to just reserve armouries because to discuss all of CAF infrastructure is a whole different set of issues. 

Yes, I was in RP Ops and I'm well aware of the decades of neglect that the infrastructure has had, but things aren't going to be solved overnight with centralization in 2016. We could easily meet our 2.0% GDP spending goal by dumping cash into infrastructure except for a few things: lack of capacity (public thinks that we can just give money and somehow new projects get actioned thinking that workers aren't already overwhelmed), project time (takes time for design/contracting/building), and lack of visibility (all politicians love ribbon cutting ceremonies, no such thing as upgrade/modernization ceremonies unless we're talking about some green initiative).


----------



## foresterab (22 Jul 2022)

One comment on armories and this is not applicable for all as some are definitely best bulldozed and burnt while others are excellent...

They are also a key focal point, in my mind (as a civilian dealing with wildfire situations), to become a spot to organize in the event of disaster.   In rural communities we often use hockey rinks/legions/schools as assembly points when dealing with natural disasters because they are a) known locations and b) have the ability to be used as a command center and c) tend to be in central locations that allow for things such as bathrooms and parking needed to support operations.    Try to grab the high school rather than an elementary though...seats are much better 

Personally if I was king for a day I'd be flagging each Armory and military facility and then working with provincial emergency response centers to have them also flagged in their systems as secondary command post/evacuation check-in/ supply point so that WHEN a major emergency occurs that parade square /hanger/ office space can be utilized for another task.  Folding tables, coffee, bathrooms, and wi-fi internet goes a long ways to getting things going.     Note that there are no staff, no infrastructure, and no usage unless you're dealing with domestic response situations/drills in which case often the units themselves may be involved anyways.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (22 Jul 2022)

bgc_fan said:


> We could easily meet our 2.0% GDP spending goal by dumping cash into infrastructure except for a few things: lack of capacity (public thinks that we can just give money and somehow new projects get actioned thinking that workers aren't already overwhelmed), project time (takes time for design/contracting/building), and lack of visibility (all politicians love ribbon cutting ceremonies, no such thing as upgrade/modernization ceremonies unless we're talking about some green initiative).


Yet another issue we have with burecracy and vanity impeding progress. Procurement, infrastructure, HR policies; I wouldn't invest in DND if it were a private enterprise. A lot of People would be fired, or the company would go under very quickly


----------



## bgc_fan (22 Jul 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> Yet another issue we have with burecracy and vanity impeding progress. Procurement, infrastructure, HR policies; I wouldn't invest in DND if it were a private enterprise. A lot of People would be fired, or the company would go under very quickly



I wouldn't necessarily agree that it is bureaucracy, it all depends on the leadership. If we're willing to take risks and assume slippage, we can definitely spend our allocation. The problem is if you are risk averse, then you can't take advantage of funds due to slippages. It's a fine balance to predict how much you anticipate spending vs going over your budget allocation and subsequently violating the FAA.
Keep in mind a lot of the policies are because the general public will latch onto one instance of a problem (i.e. we paid too much for a particular item, we need to tighten up our finances), or don't understand what the price tag entails (i.e., seeing us pay double COTS prices for an item, without understanding that it includes 20 years of spares, maintenance, services and possible mid-life refit).


----------



## dapaterson (22 Jul 2022)

For infra projects, DND competes with other organizations for the same tradespeople.  In many cases, secure facilities drive increased cost; you don't need a security clearance to build a car dealership, but you do to work on a SCIF.  Those requirements drive increased cost and delays.

In some instances, DND pours money into multiple initiatives in one location at the same time. If local capacity is exceeded, then more expensive, out if town tradespeople are brought in in order to meet timelines.


----------



## bgc_fan (22 Jul 2022)

foresterab said:


> Personally if I was king for a day I'd be flagging each Armory and military facility and then working with provincial emergency response centers to have them also flagged in their systems as secondary command post/evacuation check-in/ supply point so that WHEN a major emergency occurs that parade square /hanger/ office space can be utilized for another task. Folding tables, coffee, bathrooms, and wi-fi internet goes a long ways to getting things going. Note that there are no staff, no infrastructure, and no usage unless you're dealing with domestic response situations/drills in which case often the units themselves may be involved anyways.



Small problem, armouries are federal property. Not a small detail as these types of situations come up often, along with requests to use them as homeless shelters during cold snaps. While you certainly could have MOUs in place to do so, these agreements need to be established ahead of time and trying to do so during an emergency isn't ideal. It's not a bad idea, and I've thought about it, particularly since some HQs would have some sort of TBG HQ established for that usage. One issue would be that the network is all DWAN so useless for anyone not DND.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (22 Jul 2022)

bgc_fan said:


> It's not a bad idea, and I've thought about it, particularly since some HQs would have some sort of TBG HQ established for that usage. *One issue would be that the network is all DWAN so useless for anyone not DND.*


Slight derail, but that is easily reversed with enough planning and sigs voodoo. Inside network is DWAN, but depending on the demarc/bearer network, it's easy enough to turn drops into raw internet.


----------



## bgc_fan (22 Jul 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> Slight derail, but that is easily reversed with enough planning and sigs voodoo. Inside network is DWAN, but depending on the demarc/bearer network, it's easy enough to turn drops into raw internet.



I would say kind of, and really need some forethought or planning as you said. For example, if we were to build a new armoury from scratch, and there is a need to have an emergency management center for this type of purpose, you could have a room that is GPNet or equivalent so that inter-operability wouldn't be an issue. But it isn't as simple as just pulling out desks and computers on an as needed basis.


----------



## daftandbarmy (22 Jul 2022)

foresterab said:


> Personally if I was king for a day I'd be flagging each Armory and military facility and then working with provincial emergency response centers to have them also flagged in their systems as secondary command post/evacuation check-in/ supply point so that WHEN a major emergency occurs that parade square /hanger/ office space can be utilized for another task.  Folding tables, coffee, bathrooms, and wi-fi internet goes a long ways to getting things going.     Note that there are no staff, no infrastructure, and no usage unless you're dealing with domestic response situations/drills in which case often the units themselves may be involved anyways.



Do you think that having wifi, or any other communications infrastructure that isn't restricted to DND/DWAN, or resembles anything introduced to the wider civilian marketplace since the 1980s, might be an adavantge in an emergency? If so, you can discount about 80% of those armouries from the get go.

Ironically, all the ones built of brick in the '19 teens' will likely fall down in a moderate earthquake, so that might solve an infrastructure problem or two


----------



## Kilted (22 Jul 2022)

bgc_fan said:


> There's something to be said about conserving heritage. For example, one CoA could be to retain one armoury as a historical museum and move all the other armouries' "museums" into it, while getting rid of the other ones and building a new "mega-armoury" to accommodate. But that leads to a few problems: deciding which armoury to retain, and many units (just like the reg force), don't like sharing. So there would be some time to acclimatise to that sort of change. Also keep in mind, people don't like change, i.e. it's been like this for 70+ years, who are you from Ottawa to dictate how we work?
> 
> As I mentioned before, it is a particular problem for occupants of the older historical armouries, and not those who are in "armouries" that date from the 70s or so. As for convincing... there's been a report on "rationalizing" the armouries in a certain city produced for the CCA at least 4 years ago, which would involve closing at least one armoury. The fact that nothing has been done (in fairness I haven't been following lately), would indicate that there is no appetite to do so.


You have to remember, with the exception of major cities, most armouries are not very close together. There are also a number of Armouries that are new within the last 30 years or so. It feels like we hear of one or two new ones opening somewhere across the country every year.


----------



## foresterab (22 Jul 2022)

bgc_fan said:


> Small problem, armouries are federal property. Not a small detail as these types of situations come up often, along with requests to use them as homeless shelters during cold snaps. While you certainly could have MOUs in place to do so, these agreements need to be established ahead of time and trying to do so during an emergency isn't ideal. It's not a bad idea, and I've thought about it, particularly since some HQs would have some sort of TBG HQ established for that usage. One issue would be that the network is all DWAN so useless for anyone not DND.


100% agree the MOU's need to be established, including both access limitations (I should not have access to weapon systems for example) and cost payment for wear and tear at minimum.   The fact it is federal property can be dealt with, and must be dealt with, in advance but currently we have MOU's to deal with fires at CFB Cold Lake, National Parks (fringe until MOU gets activated or they ask), Indian Reserves (each reserve is separate agreements) and dealing with various sites ranging from meteorological stations to air traffic radars. 

Contracts signed on the fly can be done...but it's a whole level of stress that should not be occurring for both responding agencies, DND, and local populace.   Both the federal gov't and insurance industry have been placing increased pressure on all provinces to have the contingency planning in place in part to have the training and more importantly - timely effective response to a disaster - based upon some hard lessons learned.   While there is no "local" units for me I can see the Armory of the Calgary Highlanders working as a backup ICP if the City of Calgary site is compromised for example under another 2013 High River Flood situation.


----------



## bgc_fan (22 Jul 2022)

Kilted said:


> You have to remember, with the exception of major cities, most armouries are not very close together. There are also a number of Armouries that are new within the last 30 years or so. It feels like we hear of one or two new ones opening somewhere across the country every year.



Again, rationalization doesn't necessarily mean that we close all armouries and only have mega armouries. Though that approach can work for the big cities. However, sometimes it is worth reviewing where armouries are located. Having armouries in places with low population growth and away from good population catchment areas isn't that cost effective. So that armoury that is in some small town with an aging population may not be ideal. Maybe the unit needs to move to a different growing town to get recruits. Or as posted, why are we spending $160M to refurbish an old Halifax armoury (housing 2 units) when we could possibly get a new one for $50M as in St-Hubert (housing 3 units and CBG HQ)? 
I don't think there are that many new armouries openning up, so I'm kind of curious where you get that impression.


----------



## foresterab (22 Jul 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> Do you think that having wifi, or any other communications infrastructure that isn't restricted to DND/DWAN, or resembles anything introduced to the wider civilian marketplace since the 1980s, might be an adavantge in an emergency? If so, you can discount about 80% of those armouries from the get go.
> 
> Ironically, all the ones built of brick in the '19 teens' will likely fall down in a moderate earthquake, so that might solve an infrastructure problem or two


Fully aware there are some pretty sketchy buildings....maintenance issues are not the only found with DND .     That being said if I have a building with somewhat restricted access (i.e. not an open field), that can have enough room to have a comms tower for cell signal/wifi then we're probably rolling.   Beats trying to do it off of truck tailgates via cell phones and laptops exposed to the elements....but you do what you need to do to get the job done the best you can with the resources on hand.    

One of the biggest issues I often see is the ICP is set up on based upon land that can be used and it's not always clear where you are going...sucks to go hours out of the way due checking at the major town...only to be told to go back the way you came to hit the ICP because "no space here".   Anything that you can do to better streamline the communications as to where to mobilize/meet/plan can significantly help....turn at the big rock doesn't always help when you're coming from 3 or 4 different directions. 

Nature of emergency will also drastically change the comms needs and not all jurisdictions can talk to each other easy...but I've also seen major events successfully handled by establishing a meeting point and have two agency leads stay paired at the hip under unified command to pass similar commands via two completely separate radio nets - all resources accounted for and common direction = success.


----------



## bgc_fan (22 Jul 2022)

foresterab said:


> 100% agree the MOU's need to be established, including both access limitations (I should not have access to weapon systems for example) and cost payment for wear and tear at minimum.   The fact it is federal property can be dealt with, and must be dealt with, in advance but currently we have MOU's to deal with fires at CFB Cold Lake, National Parks (fringe until MOU gets activated or they ask), Indian Reserves (each reserve is separate agreements) and dealing with various sites ranging from meteorological stations to air traffic radars.
> 
> Contracts signed on the fly can be done...but it's a whole level of stress that should not be occurring for both responding agencies, DND, and local populace.   Both the federal gov't and insurance industry have been placing increased pressure on all provinces to have the contingency planning in place in part to have the training and more importantly - timely effective response to a disaster - based upon some hard lessons learned.   While there is no "local" units for me I can see the Armory of the Calgary Highlanders working as a backup ICP if the City of Calgary site is compromised for example under another 2013 High River Flood situation.



There are standardized prices and costs for this sort of thing. Like I said, it can be done, but ideally ahead of time and not in the middle of a crisis. But it has to be pointed out it isn't as simple as pulling out desks and computers because most old armouries are so antiquated that they don't have any useful IT infrastructure. If you're just looking for a big empty place, it can work, but you have to be aware of the limitations and this has to be known ahead of time.


----------



## foresterab (22 Jul 2022)

bgc_fan said:


> There are standardized prices and costs for this sort of thing. Like I said, it can be done, but ideally ahead of time and not in the middle of a crisis. But it has to be pointed out it isn't as simple as pulling out desks and computers because most old armouries are so antiquated that they don't have any useful IT infrastructure. If you're just looking for a big empty place, it can work, but you have to be aware of the limitations and this has to be known ahead of time.


Seen, heard and agree 100%.  Last several major incidents I've been on have been run out of a hockey rink (ice out), Royal Canadian Legion common room (bar was off limits ), Rural hall, and a school.   Tons of extension cords running to computers sitting on a folding table/chair and if needed a mobile cell booster/satellite linkage outside to give the comms linkage.     Ideally we'd use a designated well set up with all the gizmo's center and many have been also run from these but they also have limitations on expansion.


----------



## bgc_fan (22 Jul 2022)

foresterab said:


> Seen, heard and agree 100%.  Last several major incidents I've been on have been run out of a hockey rink (ice out), Royal Canadian Legion common room (bar was off limits ), Rural hall, and a school.   Tons of extension cords running to computers sitting on a folding table/chair and if needed a mobile cell booster/satellite linkage outside to give the comms linkage.     Ideally we'd use a designated well set up with all the gizmo's center and many have been also run from these but they also have limitations on expansion.



Actually, you mentioning tons of extension cords just gave me shivers. Many of the old armouries would have limited electrical capacity and you may need to bring in a genset.


----------



## lenaitch (22 Jul 2022)

foresterab said:


> Try to grab the high school rather than an elementary though...seats are much better


Memories of travelling courts held in remote communities come flooding back when someone booked the local public school - junior grades - come flooding back.  Quite a sight to see a bunch of cops, lawyers and the judge jammed into tiny plastic seats.


foresterab said:


> Seen, heard and agree 100%.  Last several major incidents I've been on have been run out of a hockey rink (ice out), Royal Canadian Legion common room (bar was off limits ), Rural hall, and a school.   Tons of extension cords running to computers sitting on a folding table/chair and if needed a mobile cell booster/satellite linkage outside to give the comms linkage.     Ideally we'd use a designated well set up with all the gizmo's center and many have been also run from these but they also have limitations on expansion.


The Canadian Blood Services have gone wireless and connected with their travelling clinics.  Everything deploys from wheeled hard cases and is set up in a very short time, including Internet connection with an external tripod antenna.  It seems to be pretty slick.  Our local one is usually held in the Legion or community centre so seems to get by on typical institutional power set-ups.

In Ontario, lead for emergency preparedness is at the municipal level.  It seems that most small municipalities seem to have identified either the fire hall or municipal offices for their EOC.  I imagine available space can vary.  If nothing else, it's their property so things like agreements, conflict with normal usage, insurance, etc. are avoided.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (22 Jul 2022)

bgc_fan said:


> There are standardized prices and costs for this sort of thing. Like I said, it can be done, but ideally ahead of time and not in the middle of a crisis. But it has to be pointed out it isn't as simple as pulling out desks and computers because most old armouries are so antiquated that they don't have any useful IT infrastructure. If you're just looking for a big empty place, it can work, but you have to be aware of the limitations and this has to be known ahead of time.


Particularly when you neglect to contract for the IT and phone installation, when doing a major reno on a armouries.


----------



## GK .Dundas (22 Jul 2022)

If you do decide to put in an emergency operations centre. For the love of God please make it larger then the glorified broom closet the City of Winnipeg uses.
It sure looked pretty though after the rebuild it went through.
And rather badly thought out  from what I could tell. Did I mention too small as well?


----------



## Furniture (22 Jul 2022)

GK .Dundas said:


> If you do decide to put in an emergency operations centre. For the love of God please make it larger then the glorified broom closet the City of Winnipeg uses.
> It sure looked pretty though after the rebuild it went through.
> And rather badly thought out  from what I could tell. Did I mention too small as well?


The CFB Esquimalt Fire Hall is likely the best model to use. It has dedicated spaces for Emergency Management to muster, and has comms networks to work both Military and Civvy side.


----------



## Grimey (22 Jul 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> Do you think that having wifi, or any other communications infrastructure that isn't restricted to DND/DWAN, or resembles anything introduced to the wider civilian marketplace since the 1980s, might be an adavantge in an emergency? If so, you can discount about 80% of those armouries from the get go.
> 
> Ironically, all the ones built of brick in the '19 teens' will likely fall down in a moderate earthquake, so that might solve an infrastructure problem or two


Providing they have buttresses like your old one, maybe not.  On the other hand, the dairy across the road…..


----------



## Spencer100 (23 Jul 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> Do you think that having wifi, or any other communications infrastructure that isn't restricted to DND/DWAN, or resembles anything introduced to the wider civilian marketplace since the 1980s, might be an adavantge in an emergency? If so, you can discount about 80% of those armouries from the get go.
> 
> Ironically, all the ones built of brick in the '19 teens' will likely fall down in a moderate earthquake, so that might solve an infrastructure problem or two


The old brick armouries will be standing long after the new ones are gone. 

But this is the world we live in.  We can't work in an old building nope we need a new one.  So they put the new in an out of the way place. But with good parking.  But then enlistment is down...hmmmm...wonder why because no one even knows there's a unit in town.   No community engagement.  Yup close close the HMCS stone frigate....put new one in an out of the way place. (Let the old one become an eyesore) look no one's joining up.  No one riding the bus in uniform to the armory. So no kids see them and say that look interesting that guy is doing something interesting in a uniform.  (Workedfor me and some friends) 

Everyone complains about the many little cap badges and tiny regiments in the reserve system. Start using it as a positive not a negative.  Engage with the city and community, the schools etc.  This is the Royal bla bla that did this.  Would you like to be a part of this?  

The public so rarely sees anyone in uniform now they have to put out a news flash that a unit is training in the area the public many see a largish green truck....don't be scared.  Unbelievable.  There was a time a unit ran around the downtown core with arms and everything.  I remember them breaking out the snow shoes when it snowed like 1 to 2 inches and marching around downtown with whites and rifles.


----------



## quadrapiper (23 Jul 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> I'd guess he meant it as a generic example.
> 
> Most COs are one step away from being a non-serving member; I wouldn't pay much attention to their opinions.


I did, thanks - though it was drawing on Vancouver Island circumstances.

Nanaimo Military Camp had, for many years, a ratty collection of IIRC two-story (maybe three?) barracks, a big drill shed/sports space/etc. cube of a building, and some ancillary odds and ends. Quite raggedy, in desperate need of replacement, but in concept a flexible and useful facility. 

The replacement turned out to be a collection of offices and classroom spaces wrapped around a not terribly large drill/vehicle/etc. space: no quarters, few showers, and a building that overall doesn't seem terribly flexible. This site is now hosting a variety of courses: I _think_ Basic and/or initial infantry training; regardless, if I'm understanding the length and intensity correctly, the sort of thing where being able to house trainees might be both convenient and a retention aid.

The halls are, however, lined with lockers: I can't recall the exact size, but if they're individual stowage, that can't help but encourage reservists to be invisible on their way too and from training.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Jul 2022)

bgc_fan said:


> It's not that simple. The issue is that there is a lot of sentiment wrapped up with the old armouries. So even if they are unfit for purpose, the current occupants will do their best to fight to remain. You can build the best, modern armoury, but unless you get rid of the old ones, you're not going to get units to move. And getting rid of the old ones is a political decision. You should ask yourself why these old armouries are still around if they don't serve their purpose. It's because you get MPs, MPPs, local politicians, and other prominent businesspeople raising a stink whenever the possibility comes up.





Spencer100 said:


> The old brick armouries will be standing long after the new ones are gone.
> 
> But this is the world we live in.  We can't work in an old building nope we need a new one.  So they put the new in an out of the way place. But with good parking.  But then enlistment is down...hmmmm...wonder why because no one even knows there's a unit in town.   No community engagement.  Yup close close the HMCS stone frigate....put new one in an out of the way place. (Let the old one become an eyesore) look no one's joining up.  No one riding the bus in uniform to the armory. So no kids see them and say that look interesting that guy is doing something interesting in a uniform.  (Workedfor me and some friends)
> 
> ...



Yeah, don't  know where you guys got that info from. Unless it's  your opinion. It's  more common than you think. We gave our old armouries and did a land swap with the the city. We now have a bigger, better armoury and police training centre, shared facility built by the city. The city sold the armoury to the university, who gutted it and turned it into a concert hall, redeveloped two blocks and added it to the University Arts Program, downtown campus. We moved old to new in 2004. Other cities/ DND, have followed the same sort of deals in the last 18 years. It's not hard if done properly where every one is a winner and doesn't  feel screwed.  Basic sales/negotiation acumen.

And our downtown stone frigate? Closed and given to the city. City gave land on the river for  the new HMCS Hunter, including its  own quay.


----------



## mariomike (23 Jul 2022)

lenaitch said:


> In Ontario, lead for emergency preparedness is at the municipal level.



I imagine most municipalities have an Emergency Plan.


			https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/9593-Emergency-Plan-2021-2022-01-11-FINAL.pdf


----------



## bgc_fan (23 Jul 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Yeah, don't  know where you guys got that info from. Unless it's  your opinion. It's  more common than you think. We gave our old armouries and did a land swap with the the city. We now have a bigger, better armoury and police training centre, shared facility built by the city. The city sold the armoury to the university, who gutted it and turned it into a concert hall, redeveloped two blocks and added it to the University Arts Program, downtown campus. We moved old to new in 2004. Other cities/ DND, have followed the same sort of deals in the last 18 years. It's not hard if done properly where every one is a winner and doesn't  feel screwed.  Basic sales/negotiation acumen.
> 
> And our downtown stone frigate? Closed and given to the city. City gave land on the river for  the new HMCS Hunter, including its  own quay.



You are talking about almost 20 years ago and I am talking about today while working for Directorate of land Infrastructure and ADM(IE), so my information is a little more current than yours.

Edit: and my experience is with army armories not naval.


----------



## Remius (23 Jul 2022)

bgc_fan said:


> You are talking about almost 20 years ago and I am talking about today while working for Directorate of land Infrastructure and ADM(IE), so my information is a little more current than yours.
> 
> Edit: and my experience is with army armories not naval.


So are you saying that there is money for new armouries and drill halls?  Because 33 Fd art has been living in tents, iso trailers and sprung shelters for some time (years) at uplands and would welcome the news.


----------



## bgc_fan (23 Jul 2022)

Remius said:


> So are you saying that there is money for new armouries and drill halls?  Because 33 Fd art has been living in tents, iso trailers and sprung shelters for some time (years) at uplands and would welcome the news.


 
That was a bone of contention, and can't say what happened in the past 2 or 3 years. When I was with DLI, MND made the big announcement about strengthening the army reserve which was supposed to mean cash for the reserves.... what it really meant was that RP Ops would account armoury projects separately to account for reserve spending, so no actual cash. I am aware of 33 Fd Arty, as I did visit to take a look at the time. While the need is there, I don't recall the status of the project if it existed. I remember at the time there was a focus on finding accommodations for the Alta Vista occupants because of the fact that we were divesting that building... ongoing for almost 20 years at the time. 

So briefly, is there money? I can't say that there are current funded projects. However, ADM(IE) is/was working on a armoury rationalization plan as well as establishing a baseline unit entitlement (last standards were 30 years old I think). These were in process when I was working in the DLI. That said, the expectation is that funds would follow those studies, which would examine the major cities. NCR was one of them, so who could say? The intent is there, whether the money will follow is another issue. But even assuming there are approved funds, it will take time to design unless we go with a site adapt, but that can lead to its own issues as what was designed for one unit(s) may not work for another.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Jul 2022)

bgc_fan said:


> You are talking about almost 20 years ago and I am talking about today while working for Directorate of land Infrastructure and ADM(IE), so my information is a little more current than yours.
> 
> Edit: and my experience is with army armories not naval.


What this tells me is that we had a workable and viable plan that allowed us to swap for better facilities, real estate and be community contributing. That, allowed us, to upgrade facilities across Canada.

Then NDHQ showed up to help and we're back to square one because you guys threw a spanner into the works. The Reserve Colonel that negotiated our swap is still alive and frequents Ottawa. Perhaps you should ask him how he took care of all the same problems you're having difficulty with. I'm guessing you still have our file. Perhaps you should have a look at it, while working for Directorate of land Infrastructure and ADM(IE), with your information that is a little more current than mine. Or maybe ask your RCN counterparts the secret of their success, that continues to escape your office.


----------



## bgc_fan (23 Jul 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> What this tells me is that we had a workable and viable plan that allowed us to swap for better facilities, real estate and be community contributing. That, allowed us, to upgrade facilities across Canada.
> 
> Then NDHQ showed up to help and we're back to square one because you guys threw a spanner into the works. The Reserve Colonel that negotiated our swap is still alive and frequents Ottawa. Perhaps you should ask him how he took care of all the same problems you're having difficulty with. I'm guessing you still have our file. Perhaps you should have a look at it, while working for Directorate of land Infrastructure and ADM(IE), with your information that is a little more current than mine. Or maybe ask your RCN counterparts the secret of their success, that continues to escape your office.



Not sure why you need to be so hostile about the whole thing. I don't recall the exact history, but that time period could have coincided with a previous rationalization process which may have made things easier. I see you like to put the blame on Ottawa when what I tell you is my experience with the units in that they don't want to move out of their armories and make all the arguments on saying why they want to stay there without considering other options. So you had a CO that supported moving to new infrastructure. That's great, too bad not everyone is as accommodating. Maybe you can tell me his name and what building you moved from? Which unit?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Jul 2022)

Actually. He wasn't CO at the time. He was working in Ottawa on the project, probably with DLI. The Major FA Tilston Armoury & Police Training Centre - Windsor. If you want his name, DM me. I'm not hostile. You said you're having trouble with: "The issue is that there is a lot of sentiment wrapped up with the old armouries. So even if they are unfit for purpose, the current occupants will do their best to fight to remain. You can build the best, modern armoury, but unless you get rid of the old ones, you're not going to get units to move. And getting rid of the old ones is a political decision. You should ask yourself why these old armouries are still around if they don't serve their purpose. It's because you get MPs, MPPs, local politicians, and other prominent businesspeople raising a stink whenever the possibility comes up."
It sounds like the pressing problem is the inability of the Office to bring mediation and negotiation skills to the table to bring all the actors on board, without feeling they are getting kicked in the teeth. How did we lose that? Do you think that could be easily rectified with the right training and people to think outside of the box? CO's not giving up their armoury? Remind them who they work for. DA holders are not the mortgage holders. Follow orders or get replaced. I don't even know why that is a concern. Again, I'm not hostile, but I am somewhat incredulous at the lack of motion, because there are no trained people to handle the human aspect of the deal. It is such a trivial item to stop progress that it is ridiculous, IMO.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Jul 2022)

bgc_fan. I don't want to derail the Op Centre aspect of the thread, we have the capability here already with our new armoury, so I have no input there. If you wish to continue our discussion further, we can go to DM.

Cheers


----------



## daftandbarmy (23 Jul 2022)

Grimey said:


> Providing they have buttresses like your old one, maybe not.  On the other hand, the dairy across the road…..



Forget the Dairy... I just found out that the Wendy's Drive through across the street has potatoes. Real baked potatoes.

Now that's disaster survival food.

My inner Irishman is keening


----------



## Kilted (23 Jul 2022)

Remius said:


> So are you saying that there is money for new armouries and drill halls?  Because 33 Fd art has been living in tents, iso trailers and sprung shelters for some time (years) at uplands and would welcome the news.


Do you mean 33 Field Ambulance, because 33rd Field Artillery Regiment was placed on the supplementary order of battle in 1965?


----------



## lenaitch (23 Jul 2022)

mariomike said:


> I imagine most municipalities have an Emergency Plan.
> 
> 
> https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/9593-Emergency-Plan-2021-2022-01-11-FINAL.pdf


I suspect they _all_ have one.

Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act (Ontario):

_Municipal emergency management programs_​_*2.1* (1) Every municipality shall develop and implement an emergency management program and the council of the municipality shall by by-law adopt the emergency management program.  2002, c. 14, s. 4._​


----------



## dapaterson (23 Jul 2022)

They're talking about 30Fd Regt RCA, whose home collapsed, and was replaced with a new facility for only HMCS Carleton.

Temporary structure, however, is sometimes viewed as preferable to sharing with another unit.


----------



## Kilted (23 Jul 2022)

dapaterson said:


> They're talking about 30Fd Regt RCA, whose home collapsed, and was replaced with a new facility for only HMCS Carleton.
> 
> Temporary structure, however, is sometimes viewed as preferable to sharing with another unit.


That really depends on the unit that you would be sharing with.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Jul 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> The old brick armouries will be standing long after the new ones are gone.
> 
> But this is the world we live in.  We can't work in an old building nope we need a new one.  So they put the new in an out of the way place. But with good parking.  But then enlistment is down...hmmmm...wonder why because no one even knows there's a unit in town.   No community engagement.  Yup close close the HMCS stone frigate....put new one in an out of the way place. (Let the old one become an eyesore) look no one's joining up.  No one riding the bus in uniform to the armory. So no kids see them and say that look interesting that guy is doing something interesting in a uniform.  (Workedfor me and some friends)
> 
> ...



Armoury. Built 1078.  Still in service.









						White Tower (Tower of London) - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Remius (24 Jul 2022)

dapaterson said:


> They're talking about 30Fd Regt RCA, whose home collapsed, and was replaced with a new facility for only HMCS Carleton.
> 
> Temporary structure, however, is sometimes viewed as preferable to sharing with another unit.


The Nav Res told 30th field at the time to find a new home if I recall at the time.


----------



## Remius (24 Jul 2022)

bgc_fan said:


> That was a bone of contention, and can't say what happened in the past 2 or 3 years. When I was with DLI, MND made the big announcement about strengthening the army reserve which was supposed to mean cash for the reserves.... what it really meant was that RP Ops would account armoury projects separately to account for reserve spending, so no actual cash. I am aware of 33 Fd Arty, as I did visit to take a look at the time. While the need is there, I don't recall the status of the project if it existed. I remember at the time there was a focus on finding accommodations for the Alta Vista occupants because of the fact that we were divesting that building... ongoing for almost 20 years at the time.
> 
> So briefly, is there money? I can't say that there are current funded projects. However, ADM(IE) is/was working on a armoury rationalization plan as well as establishing a baseline unit entitlement (last standards were 30 years old I think). These were in process when I was working in the DLI. That said, the expectation is that funds would follow those studies, which would examine the major cities. NCR was one of them, so who could say? The intent is there, whether the money will follow is another issue. But even assuming there are approved funds, it will take time to design unless we go with a site adapt, but that can lead to its own issues as what was designed for one unit(s) may not work for another.


So this goes back to my point that the CAF isn’t serious about new armouries. I think the « units don’t want to move » is a convieniant excuse.  

No money.  It’s that simple.  30th Fd and 33 CBG are perfect examples of willing units but the money nor the will from higher is there.   And there are more that would be more than happy to have functional infrastructure.


----------



## bgc_fan (24 Jul 2022)

Remius said:


> So this goes back to my point that the CAF isn’t serious about new armouries. I think the « units don’t want to move » is a convieniant excuse.
> 
> No money.  It’s that simple.  30th Fd and 33 CBG are perfect examples of willing units but the money nor the will from higher is there.   And there are more that would be more than happy to have functional infrastructure.



As I said before, the resistance to move is for particular units. Obviously for units like yours which are accommodated in "temporary" infrastructure, money is part of it as well as a desire to find a solution to all the NCR units.


----------



## GK .Dundas (24 Jul 2022)

Remius said:


> So this goes back to my point that the CAF isn’t serious about new armouries. I think the « units don’t want to move » is a convieniant excuse.
> 
> No money.  It’s that simple.  30th Fd and 33 CBG are perfect examples of willing units but the money nor the will from higher is there.   And there are more that would be more than happy to have functional infrastructure.


For the the CAF to get serious about armouries it first have get serious about the Reserves. Come to think of it it would have to get serious about itself .


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Jul 2022)

> the resistance to move is for particular units



When I wrote about asking the people who work there, I meant all of them, right down to the newly joined untrained privates.  If they mostly all say, "Gee, we love these old digs", then the resistance can be blamed on "the unit".  But if it's just the "command team" and a few of the other most senior officer and NCOs, then notice should be taken of people complaining about unsafe/inconvenient/unsuitable workplaces.  I suppose there must be other federal employees who have to put up with sh!t workplaces, but how widespread is that?


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Jul 2022)

We have had a whole society working on-line for a couple of years now.  We have a generation (or 3) who now JFGI as a first course of action.  MMORPGs are played universally by kids from 6 to 66.  Zoom is a thing.  People go to gyms in strip malls in suburbia.  Business development centres and incubators are found in every major city.  There are indoor ranges that don't threaten the longevity of the shooters due to lead poisoning. Parking is nice to have but is often in the vicinity and not on site.

Armouries could be Military Incubators tied into the community.  Places where people can congregate when they have to, a focal point.  A place for the occasional muster and where small teams can assemble and learn and plan together. Places where kit can be safely secured.  Places with gyms and climbing walls.  And all of those things can be done in the existing buildings.

Open ranges in the area would be a better use of dollars as would training in the community.

We don't need new buildings.  We need to effectively invest in what we have.


----------



## lenaitch (24 Jul 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> We have had a whole society working on-line for a couple of years now.  We have a generation (or 3) who now JFGI as a first course of action.  MMORPGs are played universally by kids from 6 to 66.  Zoom is a thing.  People go to gyms in strip malls in suburbia.  Business development centres and incubators are found in every major city.  There are indoor ranges that don't threaten the longevity of the shooters due to lead poisoning. Parking is nice to have but is often in the vicinity and not on site.
> 
> Armouries could be Military Incubators tied into the community.  Places where people can congregate when they have to, a focal point.  A place for the occasional muster and where small teams can assemble and learn and plan together. Places where kit can be safely secured.  Places with gyms and climbing walls.  And all of those things can be done in the existing buildings.
> 
> ...


So, like a federal community centre?

When you say "open ranges", do you mean outdoor, or open to the public?  If the former, for large cities it would be a long drive.  If the latter, I could hear Toronto urban heads exploding from here - and I'm two hours away. 

For large urban downtown armouries, parking would definitely be a problem; although there is usually transit.  Parking for green vehicles would still have to be considered.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (24 Jul 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> We have had a whole society working on-line for a couple of years now.  We have a generation (or 3) who now JFGI as a first course of action.  MMORPGs are played universally by kids from 6 to 66.  Zoom is a thing.  People go to gyms in strip malls in suburbia.  Business development centres and incubators are found in every major city.  There are indoor ranges that don't threaten the longevity of the shooters due to lead poisoning. Parking is nice to have but is often in the vicinity and not on site.
> 
> Armouries could be Military Incubators tied into the community.  Places where people can congregate when they have to, a focal point.  A place for the occasional muster and where small teams can assemble and learn and plan together. Places where kit can be safely secured.  Places with gyms and climbing walls.  And all of those things can be done in the existing buildings.
> 
> ...


Government of Canada security policy has entered the chat…


----------



## daftandbarmy (24 Jul 2022)

SeaKingTacco said:


> Government of Canada security policy has entered the chat…



I recall a joyless discussion with a CO who had invested thousands in gear for a regimental kit store, based in the armoury, and who was angry that we hadn't sold anything.

I asked him if he rememebered the civvy he threw out of the armoury, in a very rude fashion, the week before.

'How did you know about that?" he asked me.

I replied "He's a client of mine and told me about it. He's a retired Deputy Minister, who used to be a regimental UOTP Officer, and was in here looking for a regimental tie when you kicked him out."

The local CANEX now sells our regimental t-shirts etc.


----------



## dapaterson (24 Jul 2022)

With a primarily part-time workforce, dedicating resources to running poor quality retail outlets is a waste of time and effort.  Going from an outlet open one night a week (sometimes) to one available online 24/7 is a material improvement.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (24 Jul 2022)

SeaKingTacco said:


> Government of Canada security policy has entered the chat…


There is no better deterrent for adopting new technologies than applying archaic policies to it.


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Jul 2022)

lenaitch said:


> So, like a federal community centre?
> 
> When you say "open ranges", do you mean outdoor, or open to the public?  If the former, for large cities it would be a long drive.  If the latter, I could hear Toronto urban heads exploding from here - and I'm two hours away.
> 
> For large urban downtown armouries, parking would definitely be a problem; although there is usually transit.  Parking for green vehicles would still have to be considered.



Definitely outdoor ranges.  I've also played around with the notion of "public" ranges - as a training and recruiting tool.

As to transportation - if troops have to take transit into the downtown to get to the armouries does that mean that they live in suburbia - closer to potential ranges and areas where there is a more supportive population?


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Jul 2022)

Iceberg Mansions are very popular in London.  Secure and bombproof.


----------



## Spencer100 (24 Jul 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> Definitely outdoor ranges.  I've also played around with the notion of "public" ranges - as a training and recruiting tool.
> 
> As to transportation - if troops have to take transit into the downtown to get to the armouries does that mean that they live in suburbia - closer to potential ranges and areas where there is a more supportive population?


An 18 year old may not own a car.  Most don't.  Like said earlier I remember seeing members in uniform on the bus going to the downtown armoury.  Thought wow that looks cool.


----------



## GK .Dundas (24 Jul 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> I recall a joyless discussion with a CO who had invested thousands in gear for a regimental kit store, based in the armoury, and who was angry that we hadn't sold anything.
> 
> I asked him if he rememebered the civvy he threw out of the armoury, in a very rude fashion, the week before.
> 
> ...


I


OUCH !!!!!
Chairman Pogo strikes again as in "We have met the enemy and he is us."
 We should also consider in the insanely and unlikely event we ever grow up and actually consider expanding our reserve forces. That it might be an idea to build rural armouries as a well as urban ones.
The answer to a lot of the of our problems is simple ,community .
We have to stop hiding from our fellow citizens. It is time we reached out.


----------



## Furniture (24 Jul 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> An 18 year old may not own a car.  Most don't.  Like said earlier I remember seeing members in uniform on the bus going to the downtown armoury.  Thought wow that looks cool.


It's not so much fun having a bus full of people stare at you because you're in uniform... People go back and forth to work in civies to avoid being a spectacle.


----------



## Spencer100 (24 Jul 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> An 18 year old may not own a car.  Most don't.  Like said earlier I remember seeing members in uniform on the bus going to the downtown armoury.  Thought wow that looks cool.


And to add insult to it.  The newer armoury is not a bus route now.  Wonder why it's hard to get people to join?


----------



## Blackadder1916 (24 Jul 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> Who was the local MP when it was built? Call me cynical…











						John Horne Blackmore - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




He probably didn't have to work too hard convincing the government of the day to build that bog standard RCAF hanger at the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan station in 1942.   🙄

Okay, that was sarcasm.  But sometime after RCAF Station Lethbridge closed in 1945/6, the local Militia units took it over as an armoury (it was known as Kenyon Armoury in the 1960s and 1970s - the Lethbridge airport was called Kenyon Field).   When 18th AD Regt was stood up in Lethbridge as a total force unit, the armoury was expanded and updated in 1993/4 to accommodate the new role and the number of incoming Reg Force pers (including a CO).  When that experiment ended, the facilities remained.


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Jul 2022)

Blackadder1916 said:


> John Horne Blackmore - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> ...





When I moved to Lethbridge the first time, in 1982,  the airfield looked closer to this than it does in Blackadder's picture.  A building like this was the armoury.


----------



## markppcli (24 Jul 2022)

Follow the process | Canadian Army Today
					






					canadianarmytoday.com
				




The Canadian Army Today just posted this with no sense of irony. I asked if it was for the Beaverton.


----------



## markppcli (24 Jul 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> And to add insult to it.  The newer armoury is not a bus route now.  Wonder why it's hard to get people to join?


I had a lot of issues with JR Vicars Armoury but it was very convenient  to have it beside TRU as a student there.


----------



## Kilted (24 Jul 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> An 18 year old may not own a car.  Most don't.  Like said earlier I remember seeing members in uniform on the bus going to the downtown armoury.  Thought wow that looks cool.


I'm not sure how many people still wear uniforms on public transit, I know I don't. I enjoy not being stared at and the constant stupid questions from various people.  I think that some units may still have a policy against it, perhaps left over from the Ottawa shooting. I know one Toronto unit that required (they may still do this) that their soldiers take a cab to and from the armoury any time they have to bring in their rucksack, and from my understanding, they weren't reimbursed for it.


----------



## dapaterson (24 Jul 2022)

Ah, typical Toronto: Issue illegal orders.


----------



## daftandbarmy (24 Jul 2022)

GK .Dundas said:


> I
> 
> 
> OUCH !!!!!
> ...



To be fair to Reserve Units, they have no formal mandate and little capacity, training or skills to 'reach out' apart from limited recruiting efforts, marching in Remembrance Day parades and a few other small scale efforts. I was always impressed at the levels of interest the public had in us, which I usually discovered by accident when bumping into various civilians while wearing DEU at Rememebrance Day for example. We just can't effectively 'leverage the brand' as it were.

Also, increasingly, it seems that the senior ranks of many Reserve units are staffed with people who have few community connections, unlike past years when militia leaders were also leaders in the community in a variety of professions. 'Twice the citizen' is a myth, more often than not, and is now more like 'One and half times the part time soldier'.

Even when we had the mandate to 'Connect with Canadians' a few years ago we fumbled along in a half hearted, inept way with under attended, poorly funded and resourced open houses, and ill planned and executed social events. It's clear that the main medium for communicating with the public these days is via social media platforms, which we continually fail to do consistently or effectively.

As always, if we expect a certain 'effect' we need to invest in the capability.


----------



## dapaterson (24 Jul 2022)

Issuing an order in early August to conduct an Open House in mid September is gross incompetence on the part of multiple HHQs.  Giving units an Army level order and telling them to work it out - ditto.


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Jul 2022)

> it seems that the senior ranks of many Reserve units are staffed with people who have few community connections, unlike past years when militia leaders were also leaders in the community in a variety of professions.



Mostly seem to be a lot of people with public service jobs, thus contracts which provide ample vacation (training) time and/or leave provisions.  It'd be worth finding out what the breakdown of full-time occupations is.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Jul 2022)

We started with this. The Maj F Tilston VC Armoury. In the middle of downtown. Our vehicles were stored outside the city at the airport. The annex floor was pressed, oiled sand. Uninsulated. Hot in the summer, cold in the winter. Extraordinarily expensive. No locker areas, no troop rooms. Inadequate ablution areas. No ranges. I started in this armoury in 1968. When we left in 2004 there had been very little change. A new combined OR. That was it. 

This building ended up with the UofW School of Creative Arts. 








						Windsor Armouries—UW - ERA Architects
					

As part of a long-term planning strategy to rejuvenate downtown Windsor, several heritage buildings have been adapted…




					www.eraarch.ca
				






To this. Major F Tilston, VC, Armoury and Police Training Centre. We have use of the Indoor Police range. They have a 100 yard state of the art outdoor range that DND won't let the military use. They fire up to .50 sniper rifles on that range and DND won't  let us fire 5.56. There is a kill house and a rappel tower we can use. We have a proper vehicle compound. Each unit has its own lines including our band room. Locker room and full kitchen facilities.  It is city owned. All repairs, upgrades, utilities are taken care of by the city. Our lease is way below what it used to cost for the old place. It was nothing but a win


Here you can see the old HMCS Hunter and skip ahead to the new one at 10:50. The old building used to cost over $1.000.000/ year. They are now out of downtown and on the water,where they belong





None of this is rocket science. None of it was a hard sell. Everyone came away satisfied with everyone feeling a winner. The City is happy with the 3,000 new students downtown. The units made out like bandits. The University is happy to have new digs. And Veterans have a nice modern building with access for them. There are no stairs in the building. We have better facilities, training aids and a better location with immediate access to the highway system and just around the corner from the new bridge to the States where the unit goes to train. Their camps are closer and cheaper than any Canadian training centres. A full barracks for a weekend cost $100 bucks. It worked because the negotiators were able to bring everyone to the table and left each other satisfied. It cost DND way less than if they'd tried going it alone. You just need Ottawa to make a decision, agree to it, and honour their position. Almost everything done to accomplish these moves, was done by local entities working together and presenting a united front to Ottawa. It would not have happened if it was all left to NDHQ.


----------



## Good2Golf (25 Jul 2022)

Tim Hortons tears down and rebuilds most outlets every 8-10 years, because it is literally cheaper to demolish and build to new standards in that cycle than to keep older infrastructure limping along.  I watched on in particular torn down and replaced with what looked like a spitting image of the original…but clearly more efficient enough to justify the CAPEX of the new building. 

I predict that DND/IE/RP Ops will never be able to get their head around the business case logic of modern infrastructure management.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (25 Jul 2022)

markppcli said:


> Follow the process | Canadian Army Today
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It really does read like the Beaverton


----------



## lenaitch (25 Jul 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> Definitely outdoor ranges.  I've also played around with the notion of "public" ranges - as a training and recruiting tool.
> 
> As to transportation - if troops have to take transit into the downtown to get to the armouries does that mean that they live in suburbia - closer to potential ranges and areas where there is a more supportive population?


Every municipality would be different.  I have no first hand knowledge of any armoury, just knowing where they are situated in Toronto; two are right downtown.  Without knowing the actual catchment of each of the resident units, I can only suspect that the members would travel a fair distance.  Even if not 'suburbia', the City itself is a big place.

Given the sprawl of the GTA, where they could locate an outdoor range would be quite far afield.  I'm not sure there is a direct line from 'supportive of an armoury '(or supportive of the military) and 'supportive of having a range within earshot'.

I get the concern or discomfort of travelling on public transit in uniform.  It seems like a spiral; the more the military is divorced from large urban areas, the more of a 'novelty' it becomes.  From what little I have seen, members in uniform out and about on the street in Ottawa is not that uncommon.


----------



## FJAG (25 Jul 2022)

lenaitch said:


> Every municipality would be different.  I have no first hand knowledge of any armoury, just knowing where they are situated in Toronto; two are right downtown.  Without knowing the actual catchment of each of the resident units, I can only suspect that the members would travel a fair distance.  Even if not 'suburbia', the City itself is a big place.
> 
> Given the sprawl of the GTA, where they could locate an outdoor range would be quite far afield.  I'm not sure there is a direct line from 'supportive of an armoury '(or supportive of the military) and 'supportive of having a range within earshot'.
> 
> I get the concern or discomfort of travelling on public transit in uniform.  It seems like a spiral; the more the military is divorced from large urban areas, the more of a 'novelty' it becomes.  From what little I have seen, members in uniform out and about on the street in Ottawa is not that uncommon.


Started my career going to and from one of those downtown armouries in Toronto from Scarborough using a bus, a streetcar, a subway and another street car each way in my uniform sitting upright and making sure my battledress blanco'd belt and white lanyard didn't touch the seat and thereby turn black. Ended my career 44 years later taking the No 95 bus to and from work in Ottawa wearing mostly S3Bs. Never felt uncomfortable for a moment. Felt proud from beginning to end.

The problem isn't the civvies attitude; its the soldier's. You need to have pride in what you are and what you do and the uniform you wear.

We do have to look closely at the locations of armouries. I'm not sure where we get our biggest per capita return on personnel; big cities or smaller ones with a more rural community close by. At a guess I'd say the latter probably as big cities seem to be underperformers. We need to aggressively address that. Most big city armouries seem to be hamstrung by lack of real estate and the interior facilities to cater to new training simulation capabilities, vehicle storage and maintenance facilities not to mention proper office and lecture rooms. Having four units cheek to jowl (even undersized ones) is very limiting.

Back in the 1950s when we expanded the RegF we created numerous "model" battalion/regimental facilities; barrack blocks, messes, headquarters, stores, etc. We could use a "model" armoury with a "model" real estate footprint to cater for current needs as well as reasonable space for future expansions (hence a real estate footprint). IMHO most of these should be for separate company level facilities with one in four or five being a company plus a battalion/regimental headquarters cell and widely dispersed around the cities. These could also be used as the pattern for a single armoury in a smaller community. 

🍻


----------



## markppcli (25 Jul 2022)

The solution for travelling in uniform, I personally always avoided it myself, is to have adequate locker facilities in the reserve armouries, similar to a regular force unit lines. I have very little of my equipment at home and see no reason why that should be different for a reserve force soldier. Plus it makes it much easier if they ever got NES…


----------



## daftandbarmy (25 Jul 2022)

markppcli said:


> The solution for travelling in uniform, I personally always avoided it myself, is to have adequate locker facilities in the reserve armouries, similar to a regular force unit lines. I have very little of my equipment at home and see no reason why that should be different for a reserve force soldier. Plus it makes it much easier if they ever got NES…



And if there's an earthquake and your building collapases, or the 1915 era facility (heaven forbid) burns down, your troops can deploy in blue jeans


----------



## lenaitch (25 Jul 2022)

FJAG said:


> Started my career going to and from one of those downtown armouries in Toronto from Scarborough using a bus, a streetcar, a subway and another street car each way in my uniform sitting upright and making sure my battledress blanco'd belt and white lanyard didn't touch the seat and thereby turn black. Ended my career 44 years later taking the No 95 bus to and from work in Ottawa wearing mostly S3Bs. Never felt uncomfortable for a moment. Felt proud from beginning to end.
> 
> The problem isn't the civvies attitude; its the soldier's. You need to have pride in what you are and what you do and the uniform you wear.
> 
> ...


I agree.  People may stare at you.  So what.  It's probably a little different than law enforcement where people tut-tut if you don't sproing into action to take down that heinous miscreant that dropped a gum wrapper.

It's a city thing.  Half of my non-headquarters postings I walked to work; the others I drove, but always in uniform.  Lockers?  We were lucky to get a desk drawer and, if really lucky, one with a lock and they found a key.


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Jul 2022)

Some model examples?

My first armoury was Peterborough (sea cadets).  I got to know Mewata and Elphinstone pretty well (Highlanders and Johns) 


All of those have access to subterranean possibilities

On the other hand Vancouver's armouries are blocked


----------



## markppcli (25 Jul 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> And if there's an earthquake and your building collapases, or the 1915 era facility (heaven forbid) burns down, your troops can deploy in blue jeans


I mean sure but I’ve met a lot more “my kit got stolen out of my truck” guys than Bns who lost all their kit in a random fire in a concrete and steel building.


----------



## daftandbarmy (25 Jul 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> Some model examples?
> 
> My first armoury was Peterborough (sea cadets).  I got to know Mewata and Elphinstone pretty well (Highlanders and Johns)
> View attachment 72183
> ...



Bessborough is probably a death trap, as are the Westies' armoury (built in 1897), the BCR's Beatty Street teardown (built in 1901) and the 6 Fd Sqn armoury (1914), which apparently at least received an upgrade:







						A  Royal Westminster Regiment Museum «  New Westminster Heritage Preservation Society
					






					newwestheritage.org
				












						Beatty Street Drill Hall - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				












						North Vancouver's Fell Armoury to get $1.4M renovation
					

Feds fund heritage building upgrades




					www.nsnews.com


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Jul 2022)

It's too soon to start replacing turn-of-last-century armouries.  The infrastructure deficit is still way too small for the way the Canadian government likes to do these things.


----------

