Government hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[KevinB]

Well the CPC has no defense plan except the arctic and with all their cuts etc I doubt DND would see any new funding from them, infact i could see them cutting DND.

I don't think anyone in Canadian politics would be able to sell a decrease - internationally it would be crushing.

The Liberal plan would get us to 2.2% in 2029 (or sooner depending on the economy), and likely approaching 2.5% in the 2030's, NDP say 2030 for 2% as well.

I'm not seeing that anywhere in the liberal platform - I see 2% by 2030.

 

[MilEME09]

I'm not seeing that anywhere in the liberal platform - I see 2% by 2030.

A few people have costed whats known and it would point towards around 2.2, if they get creative accounting and include the coast guard 2.5

 

[KevinB]

A few people have costed whats known and it would point towards around 2.2, if they get creative accounting and include the coast guard 2.5

Canada would have to dramatically alter the role and equipment of the CCG for that to be considered. Something I don’t see the CCG being interested in.

I’m highly skeptical of any Canadian political party promise about the CAF. Decades of disappointment has made me a little cynical.

 

[Underway]

Canada would have to dramatically alter the role and equipment of the CCG for that to be considered. Something I don’t see the CCG being interested in.

The CCG reddit is aflame with "If they make us do this job I'll quit, if I wanted to carry a gun I would have joined the stoopid navy". CCG probably would be better doing undersea infrastructure surviellence given the recent spate of damage in the Baltic for example. Seems right up their alley. Also increase reporting requirements would make them more useful as well.

I’m highly skeptical of any Canadian political party promise about the CAF. Decades of disappointment has made me a little cynical.

There are two things in all the party platforms that surprises me. Actual genuine surprise.

First is that every single party talks about re-arming. All of them, even the Greens (who's defence platform is better than the NDP's, still weird but better).

The second, and this is truly surprising to me. Is that a Canadian Political Party, put in writing, a budgetary commitment for defence (2% spending target) BEFORE THE NEXT ELECTION! What? No one ever commits to spending targets that don't require them to be re-elected another time! This is crazy town!

 

[Kirkhill]

Canadians are dead serious. They truly detest the US and everything it stands for.

Canadian hockey fans conflicted over traveling to U.S. to see their teams in NHL playoffs

TORONTO (AP) — Jack Gurevitch is a Montreal Canadiens superfan and a proud Canadian who says he is upset by President Donald Trump’s tariff plans and threats to annex Canada. Still, he says he won’t let the political situation influence whether he travels to U.S. cities to support his team in...

halifax.citynews.ca

Interstate postcards: At Jays’ spring training, sheepish Canadians at the ballpark

Many of the Canadians at the spring training game had strong feelings about not returning next year and only came because their trips were already booked and paid for

www.theglobeandmail.com

 

[FJAG]

Spain pays the bulk of their troops poverty pay, and Spain is a cheap place to live..

Think either of those things would apply in Canada?

And yet they have sufficient volunteers to join the ranks. A quick look shows that soldiers there earn between 15,400 E to 70,000 E or CAD 24,000 for a private to CAD 110,000 for a general. That's roughly 60% of many of its northern neighbours but roughly 80% of that of France. It's even a higher percentage when calculated with purchasing power parity. Here's a slightly older paper on that.

That's not exactly poverty rates but clearly lower. Albeit it does not explain the full aspect of the level of disparity.

Nonetheless, it leads to a n inevitable conclusion that if we want to bring up the level of equipment in the CAF we need either a) more money; or b) a lower paid workforce or c) a smaller work force. a) and c) are somewhat non starters. b) is equally problematic but can be achieved by adjusting the ratio of full-time to part-time workforce.

 

[FJAG]

Decades of disappointment has made me a little cynical.

Only a decade?

 

[Czech_pivo]

And yet they have sufficient volunteers to join the ranks. A quick look shows that soldiers there earn between 15,400 E to 70,000 E or CAD 24,000 for a private to CAD 110,000 for a general. That's roughly 60% of many of its northern neighbours but roughly 80% of that of France. It's even a higher percentage when calculated with purchasing power parity. Here's a slightly older paper on that.

That's not exactly poverty rates but clearly lower. Albeit it does not explain the full aspect of the level of disparity.

Nonetheless, it leads to a n inevitable conclusion that if we want to bring up the level of equipment in the CAF we need either a) more money; or b) a lower paid workforce or c) a smaller work force. a) and c) are somewhat non starters. b) is equally problematic but can be achieved by adjusting the ratio of full-time to part-time workforce.

Just a question - the pay ratio of private to general in Spain that you posted above is 4.5x. Meaning that a general in Spain (based on the number that you posted above) earns only 4.5times more than a private.

Curious, what is the ratio in the CAF of private to general?

 

[dapaterson]

Just a question - the pay ratio of private to general in Spain that you posted above is 4.5x. Meaning that a general in Spain (based on the number that you posted above) earns only 4.5times more than a private.

Curious, what is the ratio in the CAF of private to general?

Pte (2), so qualified: $52k
LGen (Basic): $296k

So about 5.7x. CDS is set by OiC, so not as immediately available.

Regular Force pay by rank - Canada.ca

Monthly salary for full-time Regular Force and Reserve Class C service, effective April 1, 2024. Upcoming pay rates for all ranks, pay levels and occupations, including specialist, search and rescue, special forces, pilot, legal, medical and dental.

www.canada.ca

 

[FJAG]

The CCG reddit is aflame with "If they make us do this job I'll quit, if I wanted to carry a gun I would have joined the stoopid navy"

 

[KevinB]

Only a decade?

It was plural, I'm only 55 so can't claim a Century like some of you

 

[Cloud Cover]

Canada would have to dramatically alter the role and equipment of the CCG for that to be considered. Something I don’t see the CCG being interested in.

I’m highly skeptical of any Canadian political party promise about the CAF. Decades of disappointment has made me a little cynical.

The submarine program on its own could very well push the spend over 2% GDP long term if they make the proposed 10-12 buy.

 

[Cloud Cover]

And yet they have sufficient volunteers to join the ranks. A quick look shows that soldiers there earn between 15,400 E to 70,000 E or CAD 24,000 for a private to CAD 110,000 for a general. That's roughly 60% of many of its northern neighbours but roughly 80% of that of France. It's even a higher percentage when calculated with purchasing power parity. Here's a slightly older paper on that.

That's not exactly poverty rates but clearly lower. Albeit it does not explain the full aspect of the level of disparity.

Nonetheless, it leads to a n inevitable conclusion that if we want to bring up the level of equipment in the CAF we need either a) more money; or b) a lower paid workforce or c) a smaller work force. a) and c) are somewhat non starters. b) is equally problematic but can be achieved by adjusting the ratio of full-time to part-time workforce.

I’ll bet their housing is free.

 

[Halifax Tar]

And yet they have sufficient volunteers to join the ranks. A quick look shows that soldiers there earn between 15,400 E to 70,000 E or CAD 24,000 for a private to CAD 110,000 for a general. That's roughly 60% of many of its northern neighbours but roughly 80% of that of France. It's even a higher percentage when calculated with purchasing power parity. Here's a slightly older paper on that.

That's not exactly poverty rates but clearly lower. Albeit it does not explain the full aspect of the level of disparity.

Nonetheless, it leads to a n inevitable conclusion that if we want to bring up the level of equipment in the CAF we need either a) more money; or b) a lower paid workforce or c) a smaller work force. a) and c) are somewhat non starters. b) is equally problematic but can be achieved by adjusting the ratio of full-time to part-time workforce.

I think what need is to have 75% of our enrollees do short contracts, meaning 1 engagement, and be very selective about who we offer a career too.

I also think if you want to shrink the full time force that's going to have to come from the Army as the RCN and RCAF are too technical and operational to rely on part timers for full time commitment.

 

[ueo]

I think what need is to have 75% of our enrollees do short contracts, meaning 1 engagement, and be very selective about who we offer a career too.

I also think if you want to shrink the full time force that's going to have to come from the Army as the RCN and RCAF are too technical and operational to rely on part timers for full time commitment.

'Merican plan, up or out. Hmmmm

 

[McG]

How do we get these conversations where the solution to all CAF problems encompasses both increased retention and accelerated attrition?

 

[lenaitch]

I find it appalling that an election year (months) any government can promise to commit major money for projects. Nothing like buying votes.

Without statements to 'do stuff' by all parties, how else would you run an election campaign? 'Vote for us - we're really nice?'

 

[Underway]

Without statements to 'do stuff' by all parties, how else would you run an election campaign? 'Vote for us - we're really nice?'

NDP try that, look where its gotten them.

 

[KevinB]

How do we get these conversations where the solution to all CAF problems encompasses both increased retention and accelerated attrition?

Well you can massively increase throughput…

If you retain 10,000 more today because you took in 200k, while the percentages aren’t going to be the same as current, you would increase troop numbers.


However for the current reality: Given the CAF doesn’t seem to be able to process the amount of recruits it currently has, a huge intake increase would not work.


Rome wasn’t built in a day, and none of the changes needed in the CAF will occur overnight. But changes do need to be made.

 

[FJAG]

I think what need is to have 75% of our enrollees do short contracts, meaning 1 engagement, and be very selective about who we offer a career too.

When I joined as OCTP that was exactly my understanding. I was on what was called a "Short-Service Commission" which was for nine years, would take me through the ranks of lieutenant and captain and at some point before my time was up be renewed and hopefully promoted. Then about a year in everyone was offered an "indefinite engagement" which meant 25 years. Some time later we went to 20/40.

I also think if you want to shrink the full time force that's going to have to come from the Army as the RCN and RCAF are too technical and operational to rely on part timers for full time commitment.

I have no desire, nor do I see a need to shrink any of the army, navy or air force field force or their training establishments.

I do believe in a major decapitation of the headquarters in Ottawa including GOFOS, Cols, LCols, CWOs and MWOs and civilian equivalents and the multitude of regulations, policies etc that they are managing. Last time I looked we had some 8,000 of those for a total force of roughly 61,000 full timers. We have something like 13,500 commissioned officers for 47,500 NCMs. That just strikes me as too many although every position is undoubtedly completely justifiable to those working in the heart of the beast.