# Mandatory Service in Canada (split fm Ukraine - Superthread)



## The Bread Guy (12 Jul 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> ... The shame is we have no Ukrainian plan.


The question also has to be asked, though:  how likely is it we'll need to have (proportionately by population) 830,000 Canadians trained to fight off invaders?  Always good to have more and better when it comes to protecting ourselves, but is this what's needed?


----------



## Skysix (12 Jul 2022)

The Bread Guy said:


> The question also has to be asked, though:  how likely is it we'll need to have (proportionately by population) 830,000 Canadians trained to fight off invaders?  Always good to have more and better when it comes to protecting ourselves, but is this what's needed?


Ask Finland. Israel. Ukraine.

There are other societal benefits of gap-year service, be it military, civil defense  emergency services or community support. If every citizen of every gender was required to do that 14 month (July after grad until August before college, university, work or family begins cohesion is developed that will reduce a lot of the tribalism (ethnic  race or nationality based) present in most multicultural societies.

Nevermind just the Starship Trooper-like franchise (although it has it attractions...) it gives individuals a chance to experience a little bit of real (non academic) life, develop a work ethic, discover their abilities/desires/hates, and provide a whole population entry-level skill pool to call up if needed and refresh/upgrade/specialise.

But no exemptions for the connected etc. EVERYBODY serves in some capacity appropriate to their physical and mental capabilities with an apptitude evaluation based sorting into what type of service done before choice of specific trades etc is allowed.


----------



## KevinB (12 Jul 2022)

Service equals citizenship


----------



## Skysix (12 Jul 2022)

KevinB said:


> Service equals citizenship


And access to social support services. Earned not entitled.

No proof exists (that I am aware of) that there will be a higher % of the population voting or that it will be any more informed, but after having been gifted an education for 14 years by the state (preschool/daycare, K-12) 14 months of payback is not too much to ask in my opinion. 

Hell throw in a population based national needs scholarship program, performance and apptitude based (vocational as well as higher education) that can be applied for 12 months in - to start after service is complete. And a year for year education for additional service program for those who want to upgrade but didn't make the cut while serving.


----------



## Skysix (12 Jul 2022)

KevinB said:


> Service equals citizenship


As many countries do for immigrants who serve a term in their military. (Eligible to apply for)


----------



## rmc_wannabe (12 Jul 2022)

Skysix said:


> As many countries do for immigrants who serve a term in their military. (Eligible to apply for)


I guarantee if you opened recruiting to folks applying to Immigrate to Canada as a "fast track' lane- even if it were a 3 year CE served and your family can be PRs while you're here, I imagine our recruiting problems would disappear overnight. Our ability to screen, train, feed, and house these troop are another entirely different issue though...

As for Ukraine, I'm certain they know what skill sets are needed at the front, because, well... they have a front they're trying to maintain. I doubt their recruits are put through the same paces as our troops, as we recruit with the belief we're going to have this person go the distance to IE25. Ukrainians expect these troops will all go back to civilian life once the Russians are defeated. They want to have their doctors, engineers, service industry workers, teachers, welders, etc. all back on the job to rebuild their society.


----------



## YZT580 (12 Jul 2022)

KevinB said:


> Service equals citizenship


Sparta


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Jul 2022)

Skysix said:


> Ask Finland. Israel. Ukraine.


All of whom have active bad guys right next door who are pulling or have pulled significant shenangians before.  I'm not saying we don't need more bang for the buck we're spending on the military (not to mention mo' bucks), just saying you figure out solutions based on your best prediction of what might happen and might be needed.  SUre, never say never, but Canada's threat environment isn't quite like Finland, Israel or Ukraine.


KevinB said:


> Service equals citizenship


When I was a young, skinny MCpl, the idea appealed to me big time, too.  With age, though, I've come to realize that in more than one situation, I'd rather have the sharpest, most-switched-on-informed-and-aware civilians I know have a say in who to elect than some of the worst blue falcon, shitpump, lazy and unethical folks I've served with.


rmc_wannabe said:


> I guarantee if you opened recruiting to folks applying to Immigrate to Canada as a "fast track' lane- even if it were a 3 year CE served and your family can be PRs while you're here, I imagine our recruiting problems would disappear overnight. Our ability to screen, train, feed, and house these troop are another entirely different issue though...


Yup on both counts.


Skysix said:


> ... There are other societal benefits of gap-year service, be it military, civil defense  emergency services or community support. If every citizen of every gender was required to do that 14 month (July after grad until August before college, university, work or family begins cohesion is developed that will reduce a lot of the tribalism (ethnic  race or nationality based) present in most multicultural societies ... it gives individuals a chance to experience a little bit of real (non academic) life, develop a work ethic, discover their abilities/desires/hates, and provide a whole population entry-level skill pool to call up if needed and refresh/upgrade/specialise ...


I like how Latvia (and a few other countries) deals with the issue, giving folks a range of terms of service, including alternative service (s/he also serves who isn't necessarily cut out to be a soldier/sailor/aviator) ...








						No need to put life on hold for a year. Four options to get through state defence service - Baltic News Network - News from Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia
					

The requirement for Latvian citizens to go through state defence service, which will take one year of life of a young man, does sound slightly scary, because Latvian residents are used to planning their life without entering military service. However, the Ministry of Defence has multiple options...




					bnn-news.com
				





Skysix said:


> But no exemptions for the connected etc. EVERYBODY serves in some capacity appropriate to their physical and mental capabilities with an apptitude evaluation based sorting into what type of service done before choice of specific trades etc is allowed.


In a perfect world, FOR SURE!


----------



## Colin Parkinson (12 Jul 2022)

Skysix said:


> Ask Finland. Israel. Ukraine.
> 
> There are other societal benefits of gap-year service, be it military, civil defense  emergency services or community support. If every citizen of every gender was required to do that 14 month (July after grad until August before college, university, work or family begins cohesion is developed that will reduce a lot of the tribalism (ethnic  race or nationality based) present in most multicultural societies.
> 
> ...


Friends of mine who went through the Singapore mandatory service, enjoyed it and they jostle to get into certain regiments because the network you get out of it is very helpful in business life afterwards. Also helps they have a superbly equipped army for their size.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (12 Jul 2022)

My cousins underwent mandatory service in Italy. The bulk of the conscripts were filling roles that weren't pointy end jobs, but were very much Combat Support or Combat Service Support jobs that had civilian overlap. This was 2 fold in the sense that you were able to develop skills that were marketable in the civilian world, while also having your main bulk of pointy enders come from volunteers that wanted to be there and could be developed and molded in the long term. 

I think having a year of service as a mechanic, HR specialist, medical orderly, communications specialist, etc. would pad the resume nicely, in addition to bulking up some of the shortfalls we have in certain trades.


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Jul 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> I think having a year of service as a mechanic, HR specialist, medical orderly, communications specialist, etc. would pad the resume nicely, in addition to bulking up some of the shortfalls we have in certain trades.


If it's mandatory, beware the don't-wanna-be-here sluggo fixing your truck/pay/comms/ailment, though   That's why I'm a fan of offering alternative service, as they used to do in Italy (which ended mandatory mil svc around 2005).  Son of a cousin of mine ended up doing (IIRC) 14 months with the Red Cross as opposed to 12 months or so in the military.


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Jul 2022)

Since there's lotsa meaty detail to be hashed out here, and I couldn't find a specific other thread to connect this stuff to, here it is as a stand alone.

Please continue ....

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## rmc_wannabe (12 Jul 2022)

The Bread Guy said:


> If it's mandatory, beware the don't-wanna-be-here sluggo fixing your truck/pay/comms/ailment, though   That's why I'm a fan of offering alternative service, as they used to do in Italy (which ended mandatory mil svc around 2005).  Son of a cousin of mine ended up doing (IIRC) 14 months with the Red Cross as opposed to 12 months or so in the military.


K-12 is mandatory, along with a literacy test and 40 hours of community service here in Ontario. Students jump through the hoops in order to move on to Post-Secondary or other things. tack on a year of compulsory service in between, another hoop to jump through that isn't that much of a burden. We move the goal posts on many other things, this could be one of them.

I fully agree that options like policing, EMS, Fire Fighting, ICRC, or other Civilian Service would factor in as well. 

 Like anything else that changes, you will have friction for a couple years, but once its the "done thing" it just becomes normal.


----------



## Underway (12 Jul 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> I guarantee if you opened recruiting to folks applying to Immigrate to Canada as a "fast track' lane- even if it were a 3 year CE served and your family can be PRs while you're here, I imagine our recruiting problems would disappear overnight. Our ability to screen, train, feed, and house these troop are another entirely different issue though...


I've posted on this before.

There are fixes for recruitment issues based on Immigration changes. But it requires a whole of government approach that I don't think the Treasury Board or Immigration are willing to change.

accepting security clearances from Immigration Canada as valid for Basic Training and certain trades, if better security clearances are needed then initiate them at recruiting group and delay their trades training until its valid (Treasury Board Policy)
accepting non-citizens through a "gain your citizenship program" similar to the USMC or French Foreign Legion (Immigration and Treasury Board Policy)
this in particular would require a change in the "points" system to allow people who don't meet the current cream of the crop standards
language training like in the Foreign Legion in an official language as part of their recruitment
this may go back to the security clearance from earlier. Immigration would accept CAF security clearances to make the new members citizens because we have a higher standard than they do.

accepting commonwealth citizens as the UK does. This would immediately increase recruiting because Canada pays waaaaaay more than the UK does. All the folks from the Pacific Islands who join the Hussars in the UK would join the RCD's in Canada instead because they send the money back home to the family. And the bonus is they all speak English already.
That last point is interesting now as there are rumbles that the UK is looking at cutting back their overall troop numbers again.  Time for Canada to swoop in and pick up the best of those who are let go for whatever reason.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (12 Jul 2022)

Do it by lottery, so each year that you are eligible, you may get called up. Then it's a choice between the the Military and Civil Defense Force. Frankly I think that for Canada as a whole, having young people all share a common experience might help the country in the long term. Even if it dilutes  the army professionalism a bit. Going by our current demographic, we have a eligible population of 2 million to draw from. Far more than we can use.


----------



## KevinB (12 Jul 2022)

FWIW you need a green card or a citizen of a protectorate (which get green cards automatically if they apply) to join any US service. Citizenship is expedited- but can’t be done as a total foreign individual


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Jul 2022)

1.  What lump sum will be due for people who have escaped conscription by virtue of its absence to date, or payable by people who are exempted?

2.  Opportunity cost.  Government will have to fund this thing, which means at the expense of something else.  And universal conscription isn't really filling a need - it's just pouring money down a hole, hoping that some kind of useful work might be done.

3. Compensation for all the people displaced from paid work by conscripts doing "national service".  Add that to the bill.

4. The burden imposed upon all the lifers baby-sitting temporary "national service" workers.

This sh!t just won't die.


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Jul 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> 1.  What lump sum will be due for people who have escaped conscription by virtue of its absence to date, or payable by people who are exempted?


If someone's exempted, I would suspect it would be for health reasons (in which case having them pay because they're too sick/disabled to be accommodated via alternative service wouldn't be seen as fair), essential services reasons (in which case they're already serving doing SOMETHING), or religious/belief reasons (in which case "great - which alternative service box do you want to tick?").  


Brad Sallows said:


> 2.  Opportunity cost.  Government will have to fund this thing, which means at the expense of something else.  And universal conscription isn't really filling a need - it's just pouring money down a hole, hoping that some kind of useful work might be done.


I'll leave "where's the $ coming from?" to those with more experience juggling money, but you're right that this has to be considered.


Brad Sallows said:


> 3. Compensation for all the people displaced from paid work by conscripts doing "national service".  Add that to the bill.


If COVID was any indication, health unions might be a titch upset about conscripts doing their work instead of them - although the private-sector employers might like it  


Brad Sallows said:


> 4. The burden imposed upon all the lifers baby-sitting temporary "national service" workers.





Colin Parkinson said:


> ... Even if it dilutes  the army professionalism a bit. Going by our current demographic, we have a eligible population of 2 million to draw from. Far more than we can use.


Given the uproar about all the appearance changes coming in September, internal friction from "old school" would have to be dealt with, for sure.


----------



## Navy_Pete (12 Jul 2022)

KevinB said:


> FWIW you need a green card or a citizen of a protectorate (which get green cards automatically if they apply) to join any US service. Citizenship is expedited- but can’t be done as a total foreign individual


I know a lot of common wealth countries have options to join their forces as a non-citizen, and basically gives you the right to move there, with a work visa for joining the military. Think it was the UK where you were rank limited, but imagine you would get options to be fast tracked to some kind of landed immigrant/citizenship status.

Part of it is figuring out the equivalent pre-requisites, so it's a lot easier to do when your schooling systems have comparable standards as they were founded on the same basic system.

Not that the 'Common wealth' means anything as a whole, but generally CA/UK/NZ/AUS have pretty comparable baselines at least for recruiting purposes in terms of what a high school, college or university completion means.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (12 Jul 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> I know a lot of common wealth countries have options to join their forces as a non-citizen, and basically gives you the right to move there, with a work visa for joining the military. Think it was the UK where you were rank limited, but imagine you would get options to be fast tracked to some kind of landed immigrant/citizenship status.
> 
> Part of it is figuring out the equivalent pre-requisites, so it's a lot easier to do when your schooling systems have comparable standards as they were founded on the same basic system.
> 
> Not that the 'Common wealth' means anything as a whole, but generally CA/UK/NZ/AUS have pretty comparable baselines at least for recruiting purposes in terms of what a high school, college or university completion means.


We could latch onto the UK Gurkha Program and have a company of Gurkha's with them earning citizenship for themselves and family. I be honoured to have them as neighbours. This way we fill out infantry numbers and don't have to create a new program from scratch.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (12 Jul 2022)

SWITZERLAND

Military service is compulsory for men - starting at the age of 20 - and voluntary for women in Switzerland. The basic military service lasts 21 weeks, but additional training programmes need to be attended through adulthood. When combined, the total service period is a little less than a year. 

In 2013, Switzerland held a referendum which aimed to abolish conscription, but it failed with over 73% of the electorate putting their vote in favour of conscription of men. This was the third time the country had held such a referendum. But now, the discourse has changed to bolstering the military. In the wake of the Russia-Ukraine war, the country is now mulling making military service compulsory for women too by 2024.

SWEDEN

In 2017, Sweden decided to reintroduce military conscription amid Russia's military drills in the region which has now escalated to full blown war with Ukraine. Russia's annexation of Crimea and increased military activity in the region were cited as the reasons for bringing back conscription. The conscripts are expected to serve a period of nine to 12 months. 

Unlike previously when only men were conscripted, compulsory military service is now applicable to both men and women. Sweden had suspended the conscription system in favour of a recruitment system on voluntary terms in 2010.

KOREAS

South Korea and North Korea have technically been at war for the past 72 years. The hostility has resulted in both countries bolstering their military. North Korea pursues a military-first policy also known as 'Songun,' under which all resources are first prioritised for the military. Typically, school graduates are made to join the service at the age of 17-18. In 2003, military service was reduced to 10 years from 13 for men, and seven from 10 for women. Military service was earlier voluntary for women but was reportedly made mandatory in 2015.  

In the neighbouring South Korea, men are supposed to serve either in army (21 months), navy (23 months), or air force (24 months). Police force, coast guard and fire service are also an alternative. Successful sportsmen,  such as those who win gold at Olympics or Asian Games, can avail an exemption from compulsory service.

From : 11 countries where military service is compulsory


----------



## mariomike (12 Jul 2022)

I like the way they used to do it in the states.


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Jul 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> 1.  What lump sum will be due for people who have escaped conscription by virtue of its absence to date, or payable by people who are exempted?



The same amount as they are required to pay in taxes not paid when taxes rise.



Brad Sallows said:


> 2.  Opportunity cost.  Government will have to fund this thing, which means at the expense of something else.  And universal conscription isn't really filling a need - it's just pouring money down a hole, hoping that some kind of useful work might be done.



Just like Government funds additional years of schooling, additional statutory holidays and mandatory paid vacation and leaves.  It reduces the number of people working and keeps them off the street.  Consider it another year of education.

3 weeks of military training and applied service for the rest of the year.



Brad Sallows said:


> 3. Compensation for all the people displaced from paid work by conscripts doing "national service".  Add that to the bill.



More things need done than there are people able and willing to do them.  Otherwise we wouldn't need immigration.  

And as my daughter can attest, work experience is hard to come by.



Brad Sallows said:


> 4. The burden imposed upon all the lifers baby-sitting temporary "national service" workers.



You mean they would actually have to train people.



Brad Sallows said:


> This sh!t just won't die.



Nope.  And there's a reason for that.  It is a valid course of action.


----------



## Ostrozac (12 Jul 2022)

Conscription has a solid track record of building armies for geographically local missions — self-defence or invading your neighbour. It has a decidedly mixed record of building expeditionary armies for global entanglements. The French had an interesting mixed model for many years, with a conscript army for home defence and volunteer units that specialized in overseas conflict.

But it’s undoubtably a tough argument for Canada — we struggled to sell Canadians on conscription during both world wars, and it’s unlikely that their 21st century descendants will be enthusiastic.

But it would change our military culture. And build a more diverse force. So if those are the priorities…

Do we have a legal opinion on conscription? I suspect it would require the notwithstanding clause, which puts it on a 5 year clock, which would make peacetime conscription impossible in practice, but wartime conscription could still be an option.


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Jul 2022)

> The same amount as they are required to pay in taxes not paid when taxes rise.



That won't do.  Imposing a cost on others that we have escaped is basically climbing the ladder and pulling part of it up behind us.  Starting a career or advanced education earlier has compounding advantages over a lifetime.

"Opportunity cost" by definition means something was bought.  It doesn't mean it was a wise purchase.  Noting that something was paid for just affirms the definition.

Low value make-work (underemployment, misemployment) - even during periods of low unemployment - is a hindrance, not an advantage.

Canada doesn't have the luxury of pissing government revenue away on sub-optimal centrally-planned underemployment schemes that delay people from getting on with their lives.  No amount of candy-stripers is going to help people facing delayed treatments for cancer.


----------



## Kilted (12 Jul 2022)

So my thoughts on the matter, as I have thought about this before.  I don't really see the benefit of the short period of service, for example, 1 year.  We also don't need to require everyone to do full-time service, when we already have the mechanisms in place to do longer periods of part-time service.  For example, 3-5 years in the reserves depending on trade with four months every summer devoted to training.  There would need to be significantly more job protection put into place, ut if everyone in said age bracket was involved, it wouldn't be as big of a deal.  We could swear individuals in at about age 17 so that they could do their first summer before grade 12 and most people could finish their service by the time they are about 20.  They would be given the option to stay on when they would be moved out of the conscript category, or they would simply be transferred into the sub-reserves for five years.  Anyone who joined the reg force could complete their service that way, with the same five-year period in the sub reserves added on the end.


The reserves' terms of service would need to be updated with a few changes to the NDA to allow for conscripts to be charged for AWOL for missing a parade night.


----------



## JLB50 (12 Jul 2022)

Mandatory service for immigrants would be opening a can of worms, much like conscription for Canadian citizens.  Who would be eligible?  Males only?  Or would it also include women?  If so, would it include only those immigrant women who feel that they could potentially fight?  

Until the issues of conscription and whether both sexes are equally eligible for conscription are settled (most likely by the Supreme Court of Canada), I would be quite surprised if any government would suggest such a thing.  Mind you, I’ve been wrong once or twice in my life…just ask my dear wife.  Or not. 😉


----------



## Ostrozac (12 Jul 2022)

JLB50 said:


> Until the issues of conscription and whether both sexes are equally eligible for conscription are settled (most likely by the Supreme Court of Canada),


The gender question is probably already settled — section 28 of the charter guarantees equality between male and female persons, and section 28 isn’t subject to the notwithstanding clause. So any theoretical Canadian conscription needs to be gender neutral.


----------



## Kilted (12 Jul 2022)

Ostrozac said:


> The gender question is probably already settled — section 28 of the charter guarantees equality between male and female persons, and section 28 isn’t subject to the notwithstanding clause. So any theoretical Canadian conscription needs to be gender neutral.


s. 15(b) would be a possible way to keep women out of conscription, women's only gyms are legal somehow, so there are exceptions to s. 28.  That being said, if women were excluded under 15(b), that could considerably open the flood gates to every possible type of minority being excluded.


----------



## Ostrozac (12 Jul 2022)

Kilted said:


> s. 15(b) would be a possible way to keep women out of conscription, women's only gyms are legal somehow, so there are exceptions to s. 28.  That being said, if women were excluded under 15(b), that could considerably open the flood gates to every possible type of minority being excluded.


That’s an interesting analysis. Actually, by extension, women-only conscription might be legal, even without the notwithstanding clause, if it had as its stated objective increasing the proportion of women in the military, a profession where they were historically underrepresented.

Could keep legal scholars busy for years with this one.


----------



## OldSolduer (12 Jul 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> We could latch onto the UK Gurkha Program and have a company of Gurkha's with them earning citizenship for themselves and family. I be honoured to have them as neighbours. This way we fill out infantry numbers and don't have to create a new program from scratch.


You saw what happened to Afghan interpreters?


----------



## Kilted (12 Jul 2022)

Ostrozac said:


> Conscription has a solid track record of building armies for geographically local missions — self-defence or invading your neighbour. It has a decidedly mixed record of building expeditionary armies for global entanglements. The French had an interesting mixed model for many years, with a conscript army for home defence and volunteer units that specialized in overseas conflict.
> 
> But it’s undoubtably a tough argument for Canada — we struggled to sell Canadians on conscription during both world wars, and it’s unlikely that their 21st century descendants will be enthusiastic.
> 
> ...


It could be done under the emergencies act. I'm not sure if it would be specifically forbidden under the charter. I imagine we would need to use the emergencies act in order to deploy conscripts regardless, or ask for volunteers for smaller deployments. 

I imagine that it would need to be ingrained in some significant legislation in order to try and prevent the next government from getting rid of it. 

I'm guessing that it could probably survive various charter challenges if it allowed the possibility for objectors for specific groups (yay, another way to divide society). 

There would of course have to be consequences for refusing service (which at this point I guess would include refusing to be vaccinated).  Is jail time used as a deterrent in other countries or are people forced into uniform kicking and screaming?


----------



## brihard (13 Jul 2022)

Oh God. This silly fantasy is back? Never mind that it’s simply stupid - the military and emergency services are not a jobs program and have too much real work to do to babysit conscripts - it would also blatantly breach the Charter in probably several ways. Zero chance this could exist outside of a context of necessity for national survival.


----------



## Halifax Tar (13 Jul 2022)

brihard said:


> Oh God. This silly fantasy is back? Never mind that it’s simply stupid - the military and emergency services are not a jobs program and have too much real work to do to babysit conscripts - it would also blatantly breach the Charter in probably several ways. Zero chance this could exist outside of a context of necessity for national survival.



I tend to agree with you.

If we want our youth to mingle and meet different regional people and cultures perhaps this is a better mandatory method.  Maybe with some expansion and added community involvement portions.









						Home – Katimavik
					

We engage with youth from a wide diversity of communities across Canada, including Indigenous youth, newcomer youth, Black youth, white youth, youth of colour, LGBTQ2S+ youth, and youth of different faiths and religions, as well as youth from various socio-economic, linguistic and geographic...




					katimavik.org
				












						Katimavik - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




I've served with a few people who went through it and they were all thoroughly well spoken and intelligent people who I continue to hold in very high regard.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (13 Jul 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> I tend to agree with you.
> 
> If we want our youth to mingle and meet different regional people and cultures perhaps this is a better mandatory method.  Maybe with some expansion and added community involvement portions.
> 
> ...


The same can be said about the Canadian Cadet/Junior Canadian Rangers Organizations. Some of the best people I have met in Canadian society have passed through these youth organizations.


----------



## Halifax Tar (13 Jul 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> The same can be said about the Canadian Cadet/Junior Canadian Rangers Organizations. Some of the best people I have met in Canadian society have passed through these youth organizations.


 Good point.


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Jul 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> You saw what happened to Afghan interpreters?


And ask the Gurkhas about how their pension scheme worked out ....








						Joanna Lumley urges government to meet 'brave and loyal' Gurkhas veterans staging hunger strike opposite Downing Street over pensions
					

The actress, who led a successful campaign to get Gurkhas settlement rights in Britain, says ministers "cannot praise our veterans to the high heavens when it suits them, but ignore them and condemn them to poverty when it doesn't".




					news.sky.com
				





Halifax Tar said:


> ... If we want our youth to mingle and meet different regional people and cultures perhaps this is a better mandatory method.  Maybe with some expansion and added community involvement portions.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This was a good program, from what I've heard from participants and seen of their subsequent achievements.  That said, 1)  I can remember a lot of non-Trudeau fans saying that was an indoctrination program, and 2) those taking the military track (looking from the outside looking in, being in the military myself in those days) were often treated a bit second-class, dilletante-y by the rest of the military, so a culture shift would have to be more than just this ....


Kirkhill said:


> ... (Re:  The burden imposed upon all the lifers baby-sitting temporary "national service" workers.)  You mean they would actually have to train people ...


----------



## GR66 (13 Jul 2022)

Maybe we could effectively organize, train and equip the Class A Reservists we already have (and are here by choice) before we start trying to implement a mandatory service program for people that aren't so committed to military service.


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Jul 2022)

Ostrozac said:


> Conscription has a solid track record of building armies for geographically local missions — self-defence or invading your neighbour. It has a decidedly mixed record of building expeditionary armies for global entanglements. The French had an interesting mixed model for many years, with a conscript army for home defence and volunteer units that specialized in overseas conflict.
> 
> But it’s undoubtably a tough argument for Canada — we struggled to sell Canadians on conscription during both world wars, and it’s unlikely that their 21st century descendants will be enthusiastic.
> 
> ...



Canada didn't have a conscription crisis per se until it started sending conscripts over seas.  Home service conscription was a lot less problematic, even in Quebec.

Sefl-Defence is an easy sell.  We just don't seem to be able to convince ourselves that Self-Defence is necessary.  In fact, I will go farther.  I get the impression that many regulars are adamantly opposed to a Self-Defence Force because 



> It would change our military culture.


----------



## Kilted (13 Jul 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> The same can be said about the Canadian Cadet/Junior Canadian Rangers Organizations. Some of the best people I have met in Canadian society have passed through these youth organizations.


And yet the majority of former Cadets hide the fact that they were Cadets when they join the CAF.


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Jul 2022)

If the answer to "why, really, is conscription/service necessary" is "cultural exposure/indoctrination", proponents have fallen into a deep hole.

So: why, really, is conscription/service necessary?


----------



## Kilted (13 Jul 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> The same can be said about the Canadian Cadet/Junior Canadian Rangers Organizations. Some of the best people I have met in Canadian society have passed through these youth organizations.


And yet the majority of former Cadets hide the fact that they were Cadets when they join the CA


Kirkhill said:


> Canada didn't have a conscription crisis per se until it started sending conscripts over seas.  Home service conscription was a lot less problematic, even in Quebec.
> 
> Sefl-Defence is an easy sell.  We just don't seem to be able to convince ourselves that Self-Defence is necessary.  In fact, I will go farther.  I get the impression that many regulars are adamantly opposed to a Self-Defence Force because


And it would also create a new class of soldier that would not necessarily be treated very well by everyone else. If you think we have harrassment issues now, just wait.


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Jul 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> That won't do.  Imposing a cost on others that we have escaped is basically climbing the ladder and pulling part of it up behind us.  Starting a career or advanced education earlier has compounding advantages over a lifetime.
> 
> "Opportunity cost" by definition means something was bought.  It doesn't mean it was a wise purchase.  Noting that something was paid for just affirms the definition.
> 
> ...



My daughter graduated from Nursing school two years ago during the Great Pandemic.

In Washington State - all senior class doctors and graduating nurses were immediately pressed into paid service to man the hospitals.   In my opinion a reasonable course of action.

In Canada - my daughter is in her second year as a barista at Starbucks and contemplating a career in management.   The health budget wont support more nurses or doctors.

There is some hiring going on but only for experienced nurses.... 

And, in the meantime, I am waiting for my sciatica to heal up enough for me to make the trip to see my doctor to get a pain relief programme started.

A year of government subsidized experience as a nurse would likely have gone a long way.  Call it an apprenticeship programme if you like.


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Jul 2022)

Kilted said:


> And yet the majority of former Cadets hide the fact that they were Cadets when they join the CA
> 
> And it would also create a new class of soldier that would not necessarily be treated very well by everyone else. If you think we have harrassment issues now, just wait.



We do have a separate class of soldier.  They are called Reserves.   The Total Force concept seems to be honoured more in the breach than the observance.  

By all means separate the Regs from the Conscripts.  On the other hand there is, IMO, an exploitable opportunity with the Reserves to create a work-experience programme in conjunction with the school years.


----------



## Kilted (13 Jul 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> We do have a separate class of soldier.  They are called Reserves.   The Total Force concept seems to be honoured more in the breach than the observance.
> 
> By all means separate the Regs from the Conscripts.  On the other hand there is, IMO, an exploitable opportunity with the Reserves to create a work-experience programme in conjunction with the school years.


I was suggesting that there would be a volunteer/ conscript divide in both the regular and reserve force.


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Jul 2022)

> A year of government subsidized experience as a nurse



A year of paid work in a profession/occupation a person has trained for and wants to enter isn't particularly comparable to being conscripted into something a person is unwilling to do.


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Jul 2022)

Kilted said:


> I was suggesting that there would be a volunteer/ conscript divide in both the regular and reserve force.



I am suggesting that the "Militia" would just be one possible form of National Service outlet.  That other youngsters might choose other forms of service to the community and benefit from the work experience and the exposure to other people.

That is more in keeping with what National Service has come to mean in Europe.

Everybody shares in National Service and gets to pick their own slot.  Compulsion is well down the list.

In Denmark everyone is liable to conscription but only a few are selected each year consequently there are more "volunteer" conscripts than the ranks need.   At the same time people are volunteering to learn how to soldier on their own time in the upaid Home Guard.

Other people join other organizations that don't require them to train to kill.


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Jul 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> A year of paid work in a profession/occupation a person has trained for and wants to enter isn't particularly comparable to being conscripted into something a person is unwilling to do.



See my response to Kilted - conscription doesn't have to equal compulsion.


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Jul 2022)

If someone wants the job, it's not conscription.  And if someone doesn't want the job and refuses to do it and there's no compulsion...what then?


----------



## Kilted (13 Jul 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> If someone wants the job, it's not conscription.  And if someone doesn't want the job and refuses to do it and there's no compulsion...what then?


Don't some countries put that person in jail for the length of their service?


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Jul 2022)

I count threat of imprisonment as "compulsion".


----------



## OldSolduer (13 Jul 2022)

Kilted said:


> And yet the majority of former Cadets hide the fact that they were Cadets when they join the CAF.



Because they are treated with derision.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (13 Jul 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> Because they are treated with derision.


Exactly this.


----------



## OldSolduer (13 Jul 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> Exactly this.


I should add mainly by course staff on BMQ etc. 

There’s no room for this bullshit when the CAF is crying for soldiers


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Jul 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> We do have a separate class of soldier.  They are called Reserves.   The Total Force concept seems to be honoured more in the breach than the observance.
> 
> By all means separate the Regs from the Conscripts.  On the other hand there is, IMO, an exploitable opportunity with the Reserves to create a work-experience programme in conjunction with the school years.


Ah, so cast the "must be in whether they like it or not" folks in with the Reserves?  Those more cynical than me would say that's a bit of a "let the peasants deal with them" approach - if this is such a critical task, why would the Reg Force not be involved?   

I kid, but a hyperbolic way to show that culture's a pretty sticky thing to unstick.


Brad Sallows said:


> ... why, really, is conscription/service necessary?


This right here.  Before sorting out "how?", need to have a generally-agreed-to "why?"

If it's to beef up Canada's defences, there'd be a certain number of "how" options, depending on what the consensus is re:  what we're defending against.  

If it's to teach work ethic, teamwork & exposing folks to different parts of Canada and different Canadians, different how's (with some overlap with the former).  

If it's to fill essential services not being done now, yet another "how".


----------



## OldSolduer (13 Jul 2022)

Read the history of conscription in Canada during WW 2.

"Not necessarily conscription, conscription if necessary" PM William Lyon McKenzie King uttered those words (or something like that) in Parliament. 

It won't happen here. Ever. Canadians could not care less - unless their homes are being threatened by floods or fires.


----------



## dangerboy (13 Jul 2022)

It would be political suicide for any party that tried to introduce it.


----------



## brihard (13 Jul 2022)

dangerboy said:


> It would be political suicide for any party that tried to introduce it.


It would also be blatantly illegal under the Charter, unless they used the Notwithstanding clause- and even at that there could still be a few ways to leverage s.6 (which cannot be ‘notwithstood’).


----------



## KevinB (13 Jul 2022)

brihard said:


> It would also be blatantly illegal under the Charter, unless they used the Notwithstanding clause- and even at that there could still be a few ways to leverage s.6 (which cannot be ‘notwithstood’).


Arguable If it applies to everyone.


----------



## OldSolduer (13 Jul 2022)

KevinB said:


> Arguable If it applies to everyone.


When Canada conscripted soldiers in WW2 it caused a political nightmare. The conscripted could not be sent on operations - war - overseas. They had to volunteer to be sent. The ones who didn't volunteer were nicknamed "zombies" and were  not very well treated by those on active service. 

I am not for conscription in any way, shape or form.


----------



## KevinB (13 Jul 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> When Canada conscripted soldiers in WW2 it caused a political nightmare. The conscripted could not be sent on operations - war - overseas. They had to volunteer to be sent. The ones who didn't volunteer were nicknamed "zombies" and were  not very well treated by those on active service.
> 
> I am not for conscription in any way, shape or form.


I don’t disagree with you.  
  My point is Universal National Service would  hard to fight in a Charter Challenge for an individual. Especially if it hard specific non combat carve outs for religious or social belief reasons.


----------



## brihard (13 Jul 2022)

KevinB said:


> Arguable If it applies to everyone.


Not at all. You’re hung up on s.15, Equality rights. Also in play would be s.2, freedom of conscience, belief and religion; s.6 mobility rights; s.7 security of the person; s.9 freedom from arbitrary detention or imprisonment. Any of of these would kill it; each in potentially multiple different ways. Only in an extreme case of literal national survival could I see the state succesfully arguing a ‘reasonable limitation’ exception under s.1.

Conscription in Canada, regardless of if it’s military or civil, is an utter non-starter. Nobody’s time will be well spent indulging the fantasy.


----------



## OldSolduer (13 Jul 2022)

brihard said:


> Conscription in Canada, regardless of if it’s military or civil, is an utter non-starter. Nobody’s time will be well spent indulging the fantasy.


This. Maybe this thread needs to be summed up. We have better fantasies to indulge in.


----------



## Weinie (13 Jul 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> This. Maybe this thread needs to be summed up. *We have better fantasies to indulge in.*



floor pie simpsons - Bing video


----------



## RangerRay (13 Jul 2022)

I would think that the American experience during Vietnam would turn most professional military members off of the idea of conscription in a modern country with safe borders.


----------



## Skysix (13 Jul 2022)

I think the baggage of the word "conscription" is clouding the conceptual issue. Which to me is not so much getting military training to a significant portion of the population with the retained ability to force them into combat, but of instilling a common sense of national identity and service over self to a generation (or several) that are very "what's in it for me" and tribal. And to grow them the F up with exposure to the real world

Hence "National Service" not "Conscription". All sorts of service that are of benefit to the nation would suit. Those that remember Katimavik might also remember the moving of participants from their home region elsewhere in the country. A environmental protection track would also be valid (updated CCC?)

I agree that dumping undertrained teens with resentfull attitudes into wildfire yeams, rural ambulances, community patrols etc is not very viable. In a 14 month block realistically only 3 or to 4 months would be done in those tracks that require significant education PCP's or structural firefighters ir technical rescue/USAR.

The first and last months would be collective orientation an movement to the area of the country they will be serving in (the Arctic and northern areas for the lower mainland/401 belt types and vice versa. East to west to central etc. The last month for returning and outprocessing with 2 weeks or so of travel/touring the rest of the country on the way home.

MILITARY service would simply be 3 of the tracks. policing, fire, rescue, EMS, community social support, CCG, wildfire, conservation, community development projects, Habitat for Humanity, the Peace Corps (Canadian approved locations that support national interests), provincial/national park maintenance and development, "candy striping" in old age homes or hospitals etc would be other options.

Admission into a college, vocational school or university would require proof of completion of the National Service payback for the 14 years society has invested in them. Might even guarantee 2 years of post secondary education free ascis done in much of Europe.

And yes  a suitable budget and legislation would be required. I leave it to supply management and economic analysists like Perun to determine viability and scope.



			https://youtube.com/channel/UCC3ehuUksTyQ7bbjGntmx3Q


----------



## FJAG (13 Jul 2022)

brihard said:


> Not at all. You’re hung up on s.15, Equality rights. Also in play would be s.2, freedom of conscience, belief and religion; s.6 mobility rights; s.7 security of the person; s.9 freedom from arbitrary detention or imprisonment. Any of of these would kill it; each in potentially multiple different ways. Only in an extreme case of literal national survival could I see the state succesfully arguing a ‘reasonable limitation’ exception under s.1.
> 
> Conscription in Canada, regardless of if it’s military or civil, is an utter non-starter. Nobody’s time will be well spent indulging the fantasy.


I think I'll disagree on that one.

I see s.1 more broadly than that. Don't forget that there are numerous western countries with constitutions as strong as ours which have had conscription as part of their heritage.

In the US, the constitution's authority given to Congress to raise armies was held to permit it to do so through conscription. The USSC  upheld that. Canada's constitution at s 91 7 gives that authority to the Federal government 

The EU has also left the issue to individual countries when it dealt with the issue of limiting compulsory military service to men only.

There is a general reluctance of courts to interfere in the rights of the legislature and executive in general in matters of national security.

Restricting conscription to "periods of extreme literal national survival" is impractical because again it would fetter the executive from deciding when that national survival is at risk. That is a political and not a legal question. Just as an aside remember that not only did the National Resources Mobilization Act of 1940 authorize military conscription but also to register workers and move them into defence related industries. 

Similarly the current Emergencies Act has a provision for an "International Emergency ... that arises from acts of intimidation or coercion or the real or imminent use of serious force or violence and that is so serious as to be a national emergency." and which includes provisions to "the authorization of or direction to any person, or any person of a class of persons, to render essential services of a type that that person, or a person of that class, is competent to provide and the provision of reasonable compensation in respect of services so rendered;"

There is, under that Act also a "War Emergency ... means war or other armed conflict, real or imminent, involving Canada or any of its allies that is so serious as to be a national emergency" which provides broad regulatory powers BUT "(2) The power under subsection (1) to make orders and regulations may not be exercised for the purpose of requiring persons to serve in the Canadian Forces."

Accordingly, while the Emergencies Act can provide for major defence industries and workers in that regard, it cannot, by itself, create conscription. That requires a separate Act of Parliament such as was done in WW1 and WW2.

The final bullet in the issue is s 33 - the "Notwithstanding Clause". I sincerely doubt that the present government would ever use it in this type of circumstance but I would expect in the right type of situation, some government will. IMHO, if the situation is dire enough to require conscription, either during war or under the threat of war, then a government would use s 33 either immediately or if challenged.

🍻


----------



## QV (13 Jul 2022)

Skysix said:


> . but of instilling a common sense of national identity and service over self to a generation (or several) that are very "what's in it for me" and tribal.


Something needs to be done to repair this. There’s been too much “Canada has no identity” over the last 7+ years.


----------



## mariomike (14 Jul 2022)

Skysix said:


> I agree that dumping undertrained teens with resentfull attitudes into wildfire yeams, rural ambulances, community patrols etc is not very viable.



Before any person can apply as a PCP in Ontario - urban, rural or remote,



> In Ontario, any person who would like to become a paramedic must attend a recognized college or university paramedic program. All accredited college and university Primary Care Paramedic programs are 2 years in length.











						Becoming a Paramedic
					

In Ontario, any person who would like to become a paramedic must attend a recognized college or university paramedic program and pass a number of medical exams, provincial exams and physical fitness requirements.   Click here to find out more about becoming a paramedic as well as what you need...




					www.ontarioparamedic.ca
				






Skysix said:


> In a 14 month block realistically only 3 or to 4 months would be done in those tracks that require significant education PCP's or structural firefighters ir technical rescue/USAR.



Only City of Toronto firefighters and paramedics are eligible to join CAN-TF3. That's the only HUSAR unit in Ontario.






						Toronto (CAN-TF3) Heavy Urban Search and Rescue - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## brihard (14 Jul 2022)

FJAG said:


> I think I'll disagree on that one.
> 
> I see s.1 more broadly than that. Don't forget that there are numerous western countries with constitutions as strong as ours which have had conscription as part of their heritage.
> 
> ...



Short of a real threat to the absolute security of our nation, what pressing and substantial objective could the government articulate for which military conscription is a policy response minimally impairing on rights? I don’t think a s. 1 analysis would be as kind to this notion as you think. If the government really wanted to bolster CAF, they could throw enough money at pay and comp to make it a more attractive employer. That alone presents a major challenge to the ‘minimally impairing’ component of _Oakes._



Skysix said:


> I think the baggage of the word "conscription" is clouding the conceptual issue. Which to me is not so much getting military training to a significant portion of the population with the retained ability to force them into combat, but of instilling a common sense of national identity and service over self to a generation (or several) that are very "what's in it for me" and tribal. And to grow them the F up with exposure to the real world
> 
> Hence "National Service" not "Conscription". All sorts of service that are of benefit to the nation would suit. Those that remember Katimavik might also remember the moving of participants from their home region elsewhere in the country. A environmental protection track would also be valid (updated CCC?)
> 
> ...



On the contrary, in extreme enough circumstances, conscription for military service conceivably _can_ become defensible, because of the imperative to protect the existence of the country and safety of its citizens. That, at least, could potentially present an objective critical enough to justify the _Charter_ breach. But any of the other stuff you said? That’s basically just yelling about ‘those damned kids’. The government doesn’t get to just say “ok, we’re going to make you go do this program for a few years so that you’re properly brought onboard with our national identity.” The last time the state _did_ try this, a bunch of indigenous kids got raped by priests.

The government doesn’t get to compel you to take part in any form of service or employment.


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Jul 2022)

> instilling a common sense of national identity and service over self to a generation (or several) that are very "what's in it for me" and tribal.



Each person's sense of national identity and selflessness vs selfishness are none of anyone else's business.  Once again: other people are not a means to your ends.


----------



## KevinB (14 Jul 2022)

brihard said:


> Short of a real threat to the absolute security of our nation, what pressing and substantial objective could the government articulate for which military conscription is a policy response minimally impairing on rights? I don’t think a s. 1 analysis would be as kind to this notion as you think. If the government really wanted to bolster CAF, they could throw enough money at pay and comp to make it a more attractive employer. That alone presents a major challenge to the ‘minimally impairing’ component of _Oakes._


You are inferring Compulsory National Service to be the same as Conscription.  
    If it is drawn up correctly, it isn’t.  

If one really wanted it, one could create a National Construction and Outreach, a Foreign Construction and Outreach Program.  
  Those who didn’t want to join the CAF for a year could opt for either of those.  




brihard said:


> The government doesn’t get to compel you to take part in any form of service or employment.



It could, and not breach the Charter.   
 But I’d argue that the Trudeau Government really doesn’t give a shit about the Charter anyway.  

I honestly don’t see a good value add to Canada for Compulsory National Service, but I think it could be crafted inside the Charter.


----------



## brihard (14 Jul 2022)

KevinB said:


> You are inferring Compulsory National Service to be the same as Conscription.
> If it is drawn up correctly, it isn’t.
> 
> If one really wanted it, one could create a National Construction and Outreach, a Foreign Construction and Outreach Program.
> ...


No, I’m specifically including “compulsory national service” or anything like it. The principle of the state telling you that they will legally compel you to maintain a certain employment and go certain places to do it remains the same. I don’t care if it’s joining the army, the peace corps, being a forest firefighter, working at community health clinics… The state doesn’t get to make you do that, full stop. Blatant Charter breach on several counts, and the onus is on the state to successfully argue for a ‘reasonable limitation’ under Section 1.

The state tells me, “congratulations, you’re 19, you now have one year of compulsory national service. You’re been assigned to work with the National Civil Engineering Corps”.

I come back and say “GFYS, don’t tell me what to do.” The state’s only move now is to use coercive power of law and presumably the leverage of charging me with an offence and potentially detaining or arresting me. That would die in court, fast, at the lowest level. Easiest Charter application ever.


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Jul 2022)

KevinB said:


> You are inferring Compulsory National Service to be the same as Conscription.
> If it is drawn up correctly, it isn’t.
> 
> If one really wanted it, one could create a National Construction and Outreach, a Foreign Construction and Outreach Program.
> Those who didn’t want to join the CAF for a year could opt for either of those ...


Bang on for "national service".

However, let's not forget that the thread was originally broken off starting with a post asking why Canada didn't have a system to generate loads o' *troops* like UKR seems to be using.  Which is also why some have said "gotta decide what you want to achieve before figuring out the how."


brihard said:


> ... The state tells me, “congratulations, you’re 19, you now have one year of compulsory national service. You’re been assigned to work with the National Civil Engineering Corps”.
> 
> I come back and say “GFYS, don’t tell me what to do.” The state’s only move now is to use coercive power of law and presumably the leverage of charging me with an offence and potentially detaining or arresting me. That would die in court, fast, at the lowest level. Easiest Charter application ever.


Which is why it might have to be more Katimavik-y as a "could" than a "must" - unless this is the hill someone in charge wants to die on using "notwithstanding" or some equivalent to push this politically for a population overwhelmingly aching to see this done.


----------



## brihard (14 Jul 2022)

The Bread Guy said:


> Bang on for "national service".
> 
> However, let's not forget that the thread was originally broken off starting with a post asking why Canada didn't have a system to generate loads o' *troops* like UKR seems to be using.  Which is also why some have said "gotta decide what you want to achieve before figuring out the how."
> 
> Which is why it might have to be more Katimavik-y as a "could" than a "must" - unless this is the hill someone in charge wants to die on using "notwithstanding" or some equivalent to push this politically for a population overwhelmingly aching to see this done.


Hey, if they want to throw cash at funding extensive opportunities to voluntarily partake in stuff like Katimavik, that would not have the same constitutional barriers. Hell, we already pay for thousands of minds a year to go to summer camps through Cadets.

Anything voluntary is a totally different situation.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (14 Jul 2022)

brihard said:


> Hey, if they want to throw cash at funding extensive opportunities to voluntarily partake in stuff like Katimavik, that would not have the same constitutional barriers. Hell, we already pay for thousands of minds a year to go to summer camps through Cadets.
> 
> Anything voluntary is a totally different situation.


Would it be constitutional if, instead, national service were set up with significant benefits for participating like tax breaks or educational scholarships?


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Jul 2022)

SeaKingTacco said:


> Would it be constitutional if, instead, national service were set up with significant benefits for participating like tax breaks or educational scholarships?


Pull rather than push?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (14 Jul 2022)

The Bread Guy said:


> Pull rather than push?


Yeah, that was what I was thinking…


----------



## Skysix (14 Jul 2022)

mariomike said:


> Before any person can apply as a PCP in Ontario - urban, rural or remote.





mariomike said:


> Only city of Toronto firefighters and paramedics are eligible to join CAN-TF3. That's the only HUSAR unit in Ontario.


Ontario is not all of Canada. 

The didactic phase of PCP in other provinces is 2 to 4 months. There are other USAR teams and others could be stood up. 

Legislation and policies can be changed. With a national level program such as this many would have to be. Insularity and provincial/local protectionism are some of the issues it is meant to address.


----------



## Skysix (14 Jul 2022)

brihard said:


> government doesn’t get to compel you to take part in any form of service or employment.


School is cumpisory (up to a certain grade/age). This could be considered as an extension of that (a 'Life Skills' course if you will) and the leaving age administratively upped. I haven't heard of sny constitutional challenges against the requirement to attend school.


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Jul 2022)

> Would it be constitutional if, instead, national service were set up with significant benefits for participating like tax breaks or educational scholarships?



Forget constitutional.

What's the point of endless discussion about effective military spending here if people are willing to divert money to entirely discretionary la-la objectives?


----------



## brihard (14 Jul 2022)

Skysix said:


> School is cumpisory (up to a certain grade/age). This could be considered as an extension of that (a 'Life Skills' course if you will) and the leaving age administratively upped. I haven't heard of sny constitutional challenges against the requirement to attend school.


Not precisely. First, there’s the homeschooling exemption. Second, there’s having graduated or achieved an equivalent credential. Compulsory school attendance for children and youths is exactly the sort of thing that _is_ a reasonable limitation under s. 1 of the Charter.

More importantly, this all falls under _provincial_ authority. The feds could not rely on provincial constitutional authority to legislate education to force non-consenting adults into some sort of national service program.


----------



## mariomike (14 Jul 2022)

Skysix said:


> Ontario is not all of Canada.
> 
> The didactic phase of PCP in other provinces is 2 to 4 months.



That's nice.  PCP is a four semester Diploma program here.




Skysix said:


> There are other USAR teams and others could be stood up.



There are four HUSAR Task Forces in Canada.

Can-TF1-Vancouver B.C.

Can-TF2-Calgary AB

Can-TF3-Toronto ON

Can-TF4-Brandon, MB



brihard said:


> - the military and emergency services are not a jobs program and have too much real work to do to babysit conscripts -


----------



## Kilted (14 Jul 2022)

SeaKingTacco said:


> Would it be constitutional if, instead, national service were set up with significant benefits for participating like tax breaks or educational scholarships?


We could also put up barriers for those who refuse national service similar to those are 5F'd.  For example, they would not be able to work for any level of government.  We could take it further and restrict certain benefits such as educational assistance (osap, etc), basically whatever we could restrict without infringing on the Charter.  And yes, some of those thongs might require cooperation from the provinces.

Or you know, just completely amend the Charter.


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Jul 2022)

Skysix said:


> School is cumpisory (up to a certain grade/age). This could be considered as an extension of that (a 'Life Skills' course if you will) and the leaving age administratively upped. I haven't heard of sny constitutional challenges against the requirement to attend school.



You could ditch the Home Economics course - my military education included sewing, ironing, laundry, preparing meals, sanitation, keeping quarters clean... polishing boots etc.

And along the way I was taught which way to point a rifle and where the safety was.


----------



## brihard (15 Jul 2022)

Kilted said:


> We could also put up barriers for those who refuse national service similar to those are 5F'd.  For example, they would not be able to work for any level of government.  We could take it further and restrict certain benefits such as educational assistance (osap, etc), basically whatever we could restrict without infringing on the Charter.  And yes, some of those thongs might require cooperation from the provinces.
> 
> Or you know, just completely amend the Charter.


Those would still be likely Charter breaches. The Charter applies more or less to all acts of the state and its agents. You’re trying to create a monstrosity here that our system of law simply does not allow for.

Also, the “5F = no government work” is a myth. Not sure why so many people think that’s true.


----------



## OldSolduer (15 Jul 2022)

brihard said:


> Those would still be likely Charter breaches. The Charter applies more or less to all acts of the state and its agents. You’re trying to create a monstrosity here that our system of law simply does not allow for.
> 
> Also, the “5F = no government work” is a myth. Not sure why so many people think that’s true.


As you and I have stated there will never be conscription in Canada, barring an existential threat and even then it might be a stretch.


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Jul 2022)

Deleted and reposted in the right thread.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (25 Jul 2022)

Was listening to the Chieftain interviewing a ex-Austrian Army Tanker and they talked about how conscription works for them. 25,000 regulars, every year they bring in 25,000 draftees from the pool, they get to select army or some sort of civil defense work. They also have 50,000 Reserves.


----------



## OldSolduer (29 Jul 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Was listening to the Chieftain interviewing a ex-Austrian Army Tanker and they talked about how conscription works for them. 25,000 regulars, every year they bring in 25,000 draftees from the pool, they get to select army or some sort of civil defense work. They also have 50,000 Reserves.


They also have Russia in closer proximity than us. And they do worry about them.

Canada? A few well trained militia will turn back invaders......


----------



## daftandbarmy (29 Jul 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> As you and I have stated there will never be conscription in Canada, barring an existential threat and even then it might be a stretch.



Well, not in part of Canada anyways 








						The Conscription Crisis in Canada During World War Two -  ppt download
					

Background Information By 1942, volunteer rates had dramatically declined. As a result, the Canadian government was worried that Canada would not be able to maintain an effective armed forces. The Solution? Conscription!



					slideplayer.com


----------



## cyber_lass (29 Jul 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> I guarantee if you opened recruiting to folks applying to Immigrate to Canada as a "fast track' lane- even if it were a 3 year CE served and your family can be PRs while you're here, I imagine our recruiting problems would disappear overnight. Our ability to screen, train, feed, and house these troop are another entirely different issue though...
> 
> As for Ukraine, I'm certain they know what skill sets are needed at the front, because, well... they have a front they're trying to maintain. I doubt their recruits are put through the same paces as our troops, as we recruit with the belief we're going to have this person go the distance to IE25. Ukrainians expect these troops will all go back to civilian life once the Russians are defeated. They want to have their doctors, engineers, service industry workers, teachers, welders, etc. all back on the job to rebuild their society.


Bringing in people now is not the problem. It is bringing in the right people. Offer better terms of employment and you would have the same thing. I took a huge pay cut to join, as I wanted something different for bit. But I an guarantee if it doesn't get better I won't renew.  Cool work/interesting work only goes so far when you can make 2 or 3x the money in the private sector.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Jul 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> They also have Russia in closer proximity than us. And they do worry about them.
> 
> Canada? A few well trained militia will turn back invaders......


As long as they are drunk and Irish, but then I repeat myself....


----------



## daftandbarmy (30 Jul 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> As long as they are drunk and Irish, but then I repeat myself....


----------



## OldSolduer (30 Jul 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> As long as they are drunk and Irish, but then I repeat myself....


How about drunk, Russian and ill trained?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Jul 2022)

Well if their invading Canada, it will be Naval Infantry, Spetsnaz or VDV, along with some of these.


----------



## daftandbarmy (30 Jul 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Well if their invading Canada, it will be Naval Infantry, Spetsnaz or VDV, along with some of these.



We totally need a fleet of LCACs...


----------



## ThunderCAT3000 (5 Aug 2022)

Even if you had mandatory service, the bigger challenge is finding people from the population who are fit, willing and able Now added to that all the woke nonsense and finding people who are willing to go along with all that they / them stuff. No thanks. The U.S. is struggling to find recruits because of this, and the demonstrated ineptitude and corruption of their leadership and political class. Sure you could force people in, threaten them with them with jail time or whatever, but most wont want to be there and will be useless to those around them. Most immigrants in Canada are here for themselves and will flee to back to where they came if asked to enroll. Rich people will find clever ways to defer enrollment or be exempted entirely, but as we are in a globalist economy, average people with means will exercise their travel rights and flee as well. Real or perceived, class inequality will rear it's ugly head as this will effetely whittle down the pool to poorer Canadians of fewer means. They'll ask why should they fight for a country in which they've been disenfranchised? The only way to secure a large fighting force to fend off an invasion is to make travel out of the country difficult, create food shortages and mass starvation, and guarantee 3 square meals a day if you join the military, as hunger is a motivator unlike anything else. By the looks of things, the Canadian government is right on track.


----------



## brihard (5 Aug 2022)

ThunderCAT3000 said:


> Even if you had mandatory service, the bigger challenge is finding people from the population who are fit, willing and able Now added to that all the woke nonsense and finding people who are willing to go along with all that they / them stuff. No thanks. The U.S. is struggling to find recruits because of this, and the demonstrated ineptitude and corruption of their leadership and political class. Sure you could force people in, threaten them with them with jail time or whatever, but most wont want to be there and will be useless to those around them. Most immigrants in Canada are here for themselves and will flee to back to where they came if asked to enroll. Rich people will find clever ways to defer enrollment or be exempted entirely, but as we are in a globalist economy, average people with means will exercise their travel rights and flee as well. Real or perceived, class inequality will rear it's ugly head as this will effetely whittle down the pool to poorer Canadians of fewer means. They'll ask why should they fight for a country in which they've been disenfranchised? The only way to secure a large fighting force to fend off an invasion is to make travel out of the country difficult, create food shortages and mass starvation, and guarantee 3 square meals a day if you join the military, as hunger is a motivator unlike anything else. By the looks of things, the Canadian government is right on track.



That, uh… That’s certainly one take.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (6 Aug 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> Because they are treated with derision.


And because when they show up and say they know what they are doing, when in reality they do not. Just because your cadet corp had some full metal jacket type garbage going on because there wasn't enough supervision, doesn't mean that is how the CAF works. 


Skysix said:


> School is cumpisory (up to a certain grade/age). This could be considered as an extension of that (a 'Life Skills' course if you will) and the leaving age administratively upped. I haven't heard of sny constitutional challenges against the requirement to attend school.


Considering it is illegal to discriminate based on age (which once you hit the age of majority comes into effect), good luck. Once their 18 you can't force them to be in school any longer.

My personal thoughts on conscription is it is inherently wrong. You should never force someone to do something they do not want to do, even if it is a matter of national survival. I know I hated my time in the Navy and I volunteered for that. I can only imagine how miserable it is if you didn't even choose to be there.

I think the way to go for something like this is more of the carrot route. Provide free education for those that go into the Reserves and stay in for 'x' number of years. Provide some sort of tax benefit which is a long term thing (people who qualify for veteran status have a permanently reduced tax rate as a simple example, which would also encourage the wealthy to get their children involved). I am sure other benefits can be found as well.


----------



## ThunderCAT3000 (6 Aug 2022)

Eaglelord17 said:


> My personal thoughts on conscription is it is inherently wrong. You should never force someone to do something they do not want to do, even if it is a matter of national survival. I know I hated my time in the Navy and I volunteered for that. I can only imagine how miserable it is if you didn't even choose to be there.
> 
> I think the way to go for something like this is more of the carrot route. Provide free education for those that go into the Reserves and stay in for 'x' number of years. Provide some sort of tax benefit which is a long term thing (people who qualify for veteran status have a permanently reduced tax rate as a simple example, which would also encourage the wealthy to get their children involved). I am sure other benefits can be found as well.



I remember when I was in cadets, there were always a bunch of kids who didn't want to be there and who were forced in by their parents. Either we were being treating like a baby-sitting service, or the parents thought their kid was the next top-gun. Not unlike hockey parents who think their kid is going to be the next NHL superstar. If it were the latter, the parents themselves would become CIs, and then you'd see the meddling, where their kid is always up for promotion, and getting opportunities that should had gone to the more capable and deserving cadets who had put in the work. In the microcosm of what was my air cadet squadron, I saw how political interference destroys meritocracy. And this was precisely why I didn't join the CAF and instead opted for the private sector. I could only have imagined such nonsense on a larger scale.

Tax incentives to join, free education, while well meaning will not persuade a smart person to join the CAF.

If I want to, I can easily lower my taxes by moving to another country. Thanks to the internet, I can still make my dollars in USD or CAD. But give tax incentives to veterans and then people will inevitably look at the pool of mostly white men receiving this benefit and ask why those benefits also aren't being offered to the indigenous, or people of color? And before you know it, your well meaning tax benefit is whittled down to nothing as its dispersed to a larger cohort of people, or worse, is used as a reason to stifle wages paid to current CAF members.

Education in of itself is overvalued outside of STEM and technical training. In order for something to have value, it has to be scarce and thanks to student loans, higher education is now common place among the population. I'm in a field that has an acute shortage of people with certain technical skills. We'd normally ask for a 2 or 3 year diploma, but now we're simply looking for people with a demonstrated work ethic that we can train up from scratch.  In the current worker shortage, the diploma simply isn't needed, so then what is the value of higher education in such circumstances?

If mandatory service is made law, or simply incentivized with goodies, politics will find it's way into the process somehow. Conscription will never apply equally and uniformly, there will always be voices who think they deserve more, that they deserve special treatment. You can't escape the fact that war is gruesome and ugly. Serving means that you give up part of your sovereignty and personal autonomy, while accepting the risk of suffering heinous injury or even death itself. Wanting to fight for your country is an intrinsic value that comes from within, and in order to raise a large fighting force, the majority of the population needs to feel that their country is worth fighting for.

Right now, to afford rent for a modest 1 bedroom apartment in Canada, you now need to make around 75k a year. Young people, even middle aged and older professionals can barley afford to live in the places in which they work. An entire generation is about to give up on home ownership. Some countries are now floating the idea of 50 and 60 year mortgages which means, your children will pay for the house you bought. In other words, indentured servitude. Compared to other countries our taxes are insanely high, but the trade-off was always that we got better services, and free health care. But with the collapse of hospitals, airports and other services, we're not getting what we pay for. We've been told that the environment is more important than our livelihood and so we've gutted our natural resource industries that previously  supplied Canadians with meaningful, well paying jobs. If we hadn't done this, we'd have a hedge against today's hyper-inflation. And then the mandates, wokeism, etc. Rather than deal with the issues at hand that affect every day Canadians, we're lectured about our internal racism and carbon footprint, and how climate change is the real issue and is somehow directly caused by our inherent internal racism. I can go on about the nonsensory.

My point is that before we have any discussion on conscription or mandatory service, we need to have drastic, top-to-bottom political reform in this country. You want me to fight for Canada? Then convince me that Canada still works for Canadians. Until then, no thanks, I won't do it. I'll move to warmer pastures elsewhere before I ever set foot in a swearing-in ceremony, and I'll advise the young Canadians to do the same.


----------



## daftandbarmy (7 Aug 2022)

ThunderCAT3000 said:


> My point is that before we have any discussion on conscription or mandatory service, we need to have drastic, top-to-bottom political reform in this country. You want me to fight for Canada? Then convince me that Canada still works for Canadians. Until then, no thanks, I won't do it. I'll move to warmer pastures elsewhere before I ever set foot in a swearing-in ceremony, and I'll advise the young Canadians to do the same.



We don't really need conscription because, luckily, teenagers love the military because you get to blow things up and be paid for the privilege...

... feeding the Leopards is fun too


----------



## ThunderCAT3000 (7 Aug 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> We don't really need conscription because, luckily, teenagers love the military because you get to blow things up and be paid for the privilege...
> 
> ... feeding the Leopards is fun too



For their sake, I hope you're correct.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (7 Aug 2022)

ThunderCAT3000 said:


> I remember when I was in cadets, there were always a bunch of kids who didn't want to be there and who were forced in by their parents. Either we were being treating like a baby-sitting service, or the parents thought their kid was the next top-gun. Not unlike hockey parents who think their kid is going to be the next NHL superstar. If it were the latter, the parents themselves would become CIs, and then you'd see the meddling, where their kid is always up for promotion, and getting opportunities that should had gone to the more capable and deserving cadets who had put in the work. In the microcosm of what was my air cadet squadron, I saw how political interference destroys meritocracy. And this was precisely why I didn't join the CAF and instead opted for the private sector. I could only have imagined such nonsense on a larger scale.
> Doesn't really happen like that when you get to the actual CAF. Is there some 'political interference'? Yes. Is it commonplace? No. Certainly less common place than the private sector where I have seen some of the most obvious examples of nepotism, cronyism, and blatant discrimination. Cadets is a completely different animal and it is really going to depend on the unit and the 'leadership'.
> Tax incentives to join, free education, while well meaning will not persuade a smart person to join the CAF.
> I know some smart people who have joined and some smart people who have not. Incentives are simply there to sweeten the pot, not guarantee anyone joins.
> ...


----------



## FJAG (7 Aug 2022)

ThunderCAT3000 said:


> For their sake, I hope you're correct.


We'll run out of equipment and armaments long before we run out of people.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (7 Aug 2022)

Well a number of students in my wife's private high school are there to avoid conscription in their home country. As for the US, I think their big issue is the typical person who wants to join the military is looking at the current leadership and saying "No thanks". If Canada managed to start conscription, Likely they would select from a pool of draftee, who would be given a choice of Civil Defence Force or the military, till both quota's are filled. You could sweeten the pot by paying a bit better for any eligible draftee that volunteers for the military option or paying for post secondary stuff. Let's face it, being conscripted into the Canadian Army would likley not be a bad thing, unlike say the Russian Army.


----------



## daftandbarmy (8 Aug 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Let's face it, being conscripted into the Canadian Army would likley not be a bad thing, unlike say the Russian Army.



Yes, that would be awesome. I can imagine the lengths to which some of them would go to get out of it


----------



## ThunderCAT3000 (8 Aug 2022)

People who think that their home country is the end all and be all often never travelled anywhere outside of it.  Don't get me wrong, I think Canada is a wonderful country, I just think it's headed downhill and fast. If things don't change, we're projected to have stagflation for 40 years. Our political class has squandered our natural gifts to appease a fringe minority of woke environmentalists and technocrats. Right now, the younger generation is being fleeced and disenfranchised to inflate the assets of the older generation. For a young person who is educated and/or talented, there is simply no good reason for them to stay here. They should go where they'll get a better deal, go where they are treated best. Emerging economies have clued into this and are offering visa programs to attract such individuals. Now I prefaced my previous post by saying that a smart person would not join the CAF. I stand by that statement but I'm also talking in generalities. Smart people will move to where they're allowed to thrive, and will be loyal to where they choose to live.  Canada does not inspire that level of confidence in it's younger / smarter generation. But sure, there will always be people who are easily impressed by big explosions or notions of patriotism. Those people will always be in ample supply. But as long as things continue on this trajectory, Canada will not get the best of the best when it comes to recruiting. Not everyone needs a big organization or company behind them to earn a livelihood, and its easier than ever to strike out on your own and set your own course.  Previous generations got something when they came back from war. A meaningful job, a home in the suburbs etc. That does not exist today. It seems like the last cohort that went off to war, after all that blood and sweat, was expected to shut up and disappear while the government of the day did it's thing. I'm sorry but I don't want to be treated like that. My time is valuable, my health is valuable, as in my life.  Perhaps that's the hardball negotiator in me, I never sign onto a lob sided deal that doesn't benefit me. The CAF does not offer me anything I could not have attained on my own, and in that respect, I find notion of mandatory service is laughable right now. But again, it begins with the politics. Fix that and maybe someone like me, who otherwise would not be interested, would be more open to at least considering the possibility.


----------



## lenaitch (8 Aug 2022)

So . . . everyone who stays in the country, joins the CAF or stays in, is a rube?


----------



## OldSolduer (8 Aug 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> Yes, that would be awesome. I can imagine the lengths to which some of them would go to get out of it


Some of the people in this country - and not just the Gen (whatever) are distinctly anti military. Add the criminal element so yeah that would be fun. 

No conscription please.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Aug 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> ... Add the criminal element so yeah that would be fun.
> 
> No conscription please.


Yup.  Funny how some, once in while, say criminals should be forced to do military training to straighten them out.  Yeah, there may be a (very?) FEW who would benefit, but funny how nobody ever says they should run them through a tough policing recruit program to guard their neighbourhoods.  After all, training folks to be able to (ultimately, as a last resort) apply disciplined, controlled force to protect Canadians in both cases, right? 

Then again, I also remember asking a (now no longer) local politician that question when he brought up the idea, and he said something to the effect of, "no, no, no - you need a brain to be able to be a cop."  No, he'd been neither - and there's a joke from his home country that the federal police patrol in pairs because one knows how to read, and one knows how to write, so .....


----------



## RangerRay (9 Aug 2022)

ThunderCAT3000 said:


> People who think that their home country is the end all and be all often never travelled anywhere outside of it.  Don't get me wrong, I think Canada is a wonderful country, I just think it's headed downhill and fast. If things don't change, we're projected to have stagflation for 40 years. Our political class has squandered our natural gifts to appease a fringe minority of woke environmentalists and technocrats. Right now, the younger generation is being fleeced and disenfranchised to inflate the assets of the older generation. For a young person who is educated and/or talented, there is simply no good reason for them to stay here. They should go where they'll get a better deal, go where they are treated best. Emerging economies have clued into this and are offering visa programs to attract such individuals. Now I prefaced my previous post by saying that a smart person would not join the CAF. I stand by that statement but I'm also talking in generalities. Smart people will move to where they're allowed to thrive, and will be loyal to where they choose to live.  Canada does not inspire that level of confidence in it's younger / smarter generation. But sure, there will always be people who are easily impressed by big explosions or notions of patriotism. Those people will always be in ample supply. But as long as things continue on this trajectory, Canada will not get the best of the best when it comes to recruiting. Not everyone needs a big organization or company behind them to earn a livelihood, and its easier than ever to strike out on your own and set your own course.  Previous generations got something when they came back from war. A meaningful job, a home in the suburbs etc. That does not exist today. It seems like the last cohort that went off to war, after all that blood and sweat, was expected to shut up and disappear while the government of the day did it's thing. I'm sorry but I don't want to be treated like that. My time is valuable, my health is valuable, as in my life.  Perhaps that's the hardball negotiator in me, I never sign onto a lob sided deal that doesn't benefit me. The CAF does not offer me anything I could not have attained on my own, and in that respect, I find notion of mandatory service is laughable right now. But again, it begins with the politics. Fix that and maybe someone like me, who otherwise would not be interested, would be more open to at least considering the possibility.



So you come on to a forum populated by current and former members of the CAF to tell them no smart person would join the CAF based on your limited experience in cadets because…reasons?  🤷‍♂️


----------



## OldSolduer (9 Aug 2022)

The Bread Guy said:


> Yup.  Funny how some, once in while, say criminals should be forced to do military training to straighten them out.  Yeah, there may be a (very?) FEW who would benefit, but funny how nobody ever says they should run them through a tough policing recruit program to guard their neighbourhoods.  After all, training folks to be able to (ultimately, as a last resort) apply disciplined, controlled force to protect Canadians in both cases, right?
> 
> Then again, I also remember asking a (now no longer) local politician that question when he brought up the idea, and he said something to the effect of, "no, no, no - you need a brain to be able to be a cop."  No, he'd been neither - and there's a joke from his home country that the federal police patrol in pairs because one knows how to read, and one knows how to write, so .....


Many years ago some bright spark got the idea that maybe a "Tommy Prince Platoon" would be a good idea. Inner city indigenous kids who had no discipline at all being recruited and put in a special platoon. It did not work.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (9 Aug 2022)

Criminals can make good soldiers, some people just require a bit of discipline and a path forward. One of the root causes of crime is lack of opportunity, and the military can be a opportunity. To be honest if I had a criminal record I likely wouldn't be able to effectively find work, which in turn would mean I would be stuck doing the worst jobs or committing crimes. I see it everyday at work, where one of the industrial cleaning companies locally only hires criminals because they know they can exploit them to do terrible jobs for next to nothing. I imagine those guys would make excellent soldiers as they are committed to working terrible jobs for nothing just to get by.

The militaries advantage is it them away from all their criminal friends (because it posts you across the country) and gives them a good paycheque, expectations, and a even playing field. It doesn't mean it will work for everyone, but it potentially can.


----------



## mariomike (9 Aug 2022)

Eaglelord17 said:


> The militaries advantage is it them away from all their criminal friends (because it posts you across the country) and gives them a good paycheque, expectations, and a even playing field.



Especially when they are enrolled young and "moldable".
More likely to have a crime-free background with a ( relatively ) clean background check.



> gives them a good paycheque, expectations, and a even playing field.



Important for applicants from a disadvantaged backgound.

Like the old saying, "You never had it so good."


----------



## daftandbarmy (9 Aug 2022)

mariomike said:


> Especially when they are enrolled young and "moldable".
> More likely to have a crime-free background with a ( relatively ) clean background check.
> 
> 
> ...



And if Florida wants to do it.... who can resist? 


Florida state Senator wants to bring back ‘join the military or go to jail’ for criminals​You can join the Army, or you can go to jail. It’s an old cliche that’s more fiction than fact, and hasn’t been a common practice for decades. Now, a new proposal in the Florida legislature wants to once again offer military service as an alternative to jail time.

Filed on Dec. 21 by Sen. Darryl Rouson (D-St. Petersburg), SB1356 would allow those who are 25 years old or younger and facing less than four years of jail time for misdemeanor offenses to potentially enlist in the military. There are, of course, some caveats.

The bill would only apply if “the offender has not been convicted of an offense or, if the offender has prior convictions, is not a habitual felony offender, a habitual violent felony offender, or a violent career criminal.”

Additionally, one would have to pass the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) test, complete basic training and successfully serve an initial enlistment. Otherwise, it’s back to court and back to jail.

And the biggest caveat of all is, of course, that the all-volunteer military is under no obligation to accept anyone.









						Florida state Senator wants to bring back ‘join the military or go to jail’ for criminals
					

A new bill proposed in Florida would allow people facing certain minor criminal charges to join the military instead.




					taskandpurpose.com


----------



## Quirky (9 Aug 2022)

ThunderCAT3000 said:


> Snip





ThunderCAT3000 said:


> Snip



Where can I subscribe to your newsletter.



RangerRay said:


> So you come on to a forum populated by current and former members of the CAF to tell them no smart person would join the CAF based on your limited experience in cadets because…reasons?  🤷‍♂️



It's an odd rant. On the one hand this is a thread about mandatory service, yet he/she points out all the aspects about volunteering.


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Aug 2022)

Can you imagine conscription and our medical system?

Calian doctor: Hey fella, tummy ache and you hurt your foot walking, how long off do you need?

Conscript: Oh make it 3 years. And don't forget to send a copy to VAC.


----------

