Government hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I have long said that you could fund the CAF to 4 percent of GDP, but we would still lag behind in NATO and be much the same where we are.

It's never the money, it's politics. It's procedures. It's the pork-barreling in our defence spending that makes us a paper tiger in NATO.

My only hope in all of this for the CAF and the GoC, whatever the political stripe that may be, is that it will rouse them out of the "Peace Dividend" slumber. The world has been unstable since 1945. We have used geography, proximity, and association as a Defence Policy ever since. ICBMs don't care how close to the U.S. or how far from Russia/China we are.

Don't give us a dime more, but let us spend money on defence like it matters. The fact we follow the same rules for purchasing a fighter aircraft as we do for buying office furniture for a Service Canada office is disgraceful. Don't treat defense procurement as a stimulus package for Canadian Industry. There I said it.

We spend so much money, time, and effort trying to get that money to stay in Canada; be it by awarding contracts to companies with no capability to produce items without first "retooling" and"developing the production lines", or by hamstringing perfectly competent and competitive bidders by forcing the project to be made in St. Margaret de Poutain de Champignon, QC because the ruling government either lost the seat in the election, or won it with promises.

We spend so much money and staff hours jumping through TBS regulations that are great for other departments, but are terrible for defence procurement. Some items you have to sole source, because there are technologies and capabilities no one else makes. By doing the bid process, you get companies clamoring for a project they can't deliver on, but because they tick the bright boxes on the score sheet....

I truly and honestly belief we need to split from PSPC and legislate that its not beholden to TBS, only to the PBO/PCO. The guiding principles of this new Defence Procurement department should be "Off the shelf, from somewhere else" if there isn't an industry in Canada.

BOOTFORGEN has demonstrated how well we do when we are able to actually get what we need, instead of lining the pockets of a Canadian company that got lucky.

That, but with tanks, fighters, ships, weapons systems....

 

[Maxman1]

There's an 8x8 10 ton version to replace the HLVW.

 

[ytz]

So no news on the LPC campaigned on promised pay increase and tax cuts ?

Bets on whether we get another pay raise below inflation?

Stay in and watch your buying power erode. Retire and you get an inflation protected pension and can go make even more elsewhere. They must really want every skilled and experienced person to leave.

 

[Underway]

I don't think IDF is commonly used as an abbreviation for Indirect Fires.

I do however think that the paradigm has changed, and that folks who were planning to enjoy a slow, leisurely posting to a project not going anywhere are about to start googling "more hours in the day".

Right. The IDF is more of a direct fires acronym...

 

[Underway]

Bets on whether we get another pay raise below inflation?

We've never gotten a pay raise in a very very long time. We've gotten cost of living adjustments based on union negotiated rates. Union negotiated rates relate to historical inflation (aka inflation from the last 5 years) not current inflation. And the union negotiates for other benifits like work from home that the military doesn't get so those rates are usually lower than just a straigh cash grab.

Either way if you're pretty senior and can collect that pension, you have options. You've been in 25yrs and are 60 years old to get inflation adjustments
(service + age = 85). So you've done your time. Thanks for your service. I don't think those folks are the retention issue.

 

[dapaterson]

Unlike most private sector employers, the CAF (and PS) progress in a range and get more money year over year (pay incentives). There are also pay increases for being promoted.

 

[markppcli]

I don't think IDF is commonly used as an abbreviation for Indirect Fires.

It is

 

[KevinB]

It is

It used to be very common. Now less so.

 

[markppcli]

It used to be very common. Now less so.

I suppose working in an arty unit and the fires world generally I hear it more often that others might.

 

[FJAG]

Of the thirteen uses for the term 'IDF" in Termium Plus, "indirect fire" is NOT one of them. I can't recall it ever being used in my days but there was a several decades gap there.

 

[Underway]

Unlike most private sector employers, the CAF (and PS) progress in a range and get more money year over year (pay incentives). There are also pay increases for being promoted.

I agree. For clarity I was referring to the periodic pay changes due do cost of living adjustments. I wasn't trying to comment on whether that was good or bad, just state the information as I see them.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Unlike most private sector employers, the CAF (and PS) progress in a range and get more money year over year (pay incentives). There are also pay increases for being promoted.

Is this a problem ? And what you propose as the solution ?

Just using my own IPCs as an example there is a 257$ difference between MWO 1 and 4.

Cpl 1 - 4 is a $320 difference.

Capt 1 - 10 is a $2,226 difference.

 

[Underway]

Is this a problem ? And what you propose as the solution ?

Just using my own IPCs as an example there is a 257$ difference between MWO 1 and 4.

Cpl 1 - 4 is a $320 difference.

Capt 1 - 10 is a $2,226 difference.

So you're comparing a 4 year pay change with a 10 year pay change? Capt 1-4 would probably be a better comparison, but its still much higher than the MWO pay change. I do not disagree that those pay rates probably need to be looked at.

I do understand what @dapaterson is saying. A civilian or most public servants are stuck at the same amount of pay every year unless she gets a raise, gets a promotion or finds a new job. For most of my time in the CAF I've seen a base pay raise almost every year, either due to IPC or promotion. My overal pay has fluctuated though due to sea pay, allowances and other calculations.

 

[Castus]

Unlike most private sector employers, the CAF (and PS) progress in a range and get more money year over year (pay incentives). There are also pay increases for being promoted.

So you're comparing a 4 year pay change with a 10 year pay change? Capt 1-4 would probably be a better comparison, but its still much higher than the MWO pay change. I do not disagree that those pay rates probably need to be looked at.

I do understand what @dapaterson is saying. A civilian or most public servants are stuck at the same amount of pay every year unless she gets a raise, gets a promotion or finds a new job. For most of my time in the CAF I've seen a base pay raise almost every year, either due to IPC or promotion. My overal pay has fluctuated though due to sea pay, allowances and other calculations.

To be honest, I am unsure of what point Mr Patterson is trying to drive forward. Is it that service members ought to be content with their current pay structure? Is it that private sector employees are worse off?

I'm afraid that neither of those is particularly likely to incentivise recruitment or retention. I hardly need to say it here that service has a rather unique set of circumstances, particularly the application of unlimited liability. That is, of course, in addition to the more mundane reality of frequent postings and associated repercussions on family.

In short - if the Government of Canada wishes to retain experienced service members and grow all three services, pay is a key component of it. I personally would like to see taxation exemptions examined by the government , but I expect that the Treasury Board would heavily push back on this.

 

[KevinB]

To be honest, I am unsure of what point Mr Patterson is trying to drive forward. Is it that service members ought to be content with their current pay structure? Is it that private sector employees are worse off?

I think he was simply pointing out that the CAF has annual pay raises baked in

I'm afraid that neither of those is particularly likely to incentivise recruitment or retention. I hardly need to say it here that service has a rather unique set of circumstances, particularly the application of unlimited liability.

The CAF gets hazardous duty pay for deployment that have elevated risk.

That is, of course, in addition to the more mundane reality of frequent postings and associated repercussions on family.

Down here DoD has been directed to cut PCS moves 50% this year in an effort to reduce strain on families (and reduce costs).

I think the CAF should do something similar, admittedly due to the relatively small size some positions do need to move for experience and upward mobility.

In short - if the Government of Canada wishes to retain experienced service members and grow all three services, pay is a key component of it. I personally would like to see taxation exemptions examined by the government , but I expect that the Treasury Board would heavily push back on this.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I think he was simply pointing out that the CAF has annual pay raises baked in

That's only if you have an IPC left to move into, or get promoted. And as I demonstrated the difference between IPCs isn't much. There is $257 between a newly minted MWO and 4 year MWO, for example. Let's not pretend like this is making some class station impact here.

We, the CAF, also routinely have people act in roles and responsibilities above their rank and pay grade without any compensation.

Our embrace of WSE is improving, but we could do more.

Down here DoD has been directed to cut PCS moves 50% this year in an effort to reduce strain on families (and reduce costs).

I think the CAF should do something similar, admittedly due to the relatively small size some positions do need to move for experience and upward mobility.

I think we need to embrace remote work wherever possible instead of geographic moves.

Or make the incentive to uproot ones own and ones familys lives great enough that it compensates for the hardship.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I think the CAF should do something similar, admittedly due to the relatively small size some positions do need to move for experience and upward mobility.

Concentrate more people in fewer locations and put the remainder into caretaker mode.

 

[KevinB]

That's only if you have an IPC left to move into, or get promoted. And as I demonstrated the difference between IPCs isn't much. There is $257 between a newly minted MWO and 4 year MWO, for example. Let's not pretend like this is making some class station impact here.

Yeah IPC's on many ranks need a look at, and I am still a firm believer that the CAF needs a Tech WO area - removing the WO ranks from the NCO stream - and placing the Warrants in a totally different area not NCM and Not Commissioned Officer

We, the CAF, also routinely have people act in roles and responsibilities above their rank and pay grade without any compensation.

Our embrace of WSE is improving, but we could do more.

Agreed

I think we need to embrace remote work wherever possible instead of geographic moves.

While some programs and positions can do remote - a lot of positions should be IVO of field/sea/air positions so they aren't out of touch with the coal face.

Or make the incentive to uproot ones own and ones familys lives great enough that it compensates for the hardship.

That is a no brainer.

 

[PrairieFella]

Yeah IPC's on many ranks need a look at, and I am still a firm believer that the CAF needs a Tech WO area - removing the WO ranks from the NCO stream - and placing the Warrants in a totally different area not NCM and Not Commissioned Officer

You're thinking like an American here and applying a meaning of warrant which is different from our meaning of warrant. There is no reason a WO stream can't be split off but there's no reason to remove them from the NCO billet and have to rework our whole rank system and add a bazillion Sgts like the Americans have. It wouldn't really make any sort of tangible difference anyways, there is already a pretty common culture of deferral to WOs and up on technical matters amongst officers, at least amongst the smart ones.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Yeah IPC's on many ranks need a look at, and I am still a firm believer that the CAF needs a Tech WO area - removing the WO ranks from the NCO stream - and placing the Warrants in a totally different area not NCM and Not Commissioned Officer

I think you're thinking like a former CAFCWO. Its rumored that's what they had in mind when they pulled CWOs/CPO1s from their trades and made them their own occupation. There are now rumors that the same thing is being looked at for the CPO2/MWO ranks.

While I agree that we should utilize a Tech WO rank class in the CAF I think our approach is ham-fisted and disjointed.

We often forget that WO/CWO like we see in the US Armed Forces are highly specialized SMEs in a specific occupation; encompassing all echelons of military service. And they exist in some nether region between NCMs and Officers.

Warrant officer (United States) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The prerequisites to be a US Army WO in my field:

https://recruiting.army.mil/ISO/AWOR/920B/

 

[FJAG]

I'm afraid that neither of those is particularly likely to incentivise recruitment or retention. I hardly need to say it here that service has a rather unique set of circumstances, particularly the application of unlimited liability. That is, of course, in addition to the more mundane reality of frequent postings and associated repercussions on family.

In short - if the Government of Canada wishes to retain experienced service members and grow all three services, pay is a key component of it. I personally would like to see taxation exemptions examined by the government , but I expect that the Treasury Board would heavily push back on this.

Recruitment is not just a military issue. It's a problem in the civilian workforce as well. Simply throwing money at the problem is not the solution. Governments look at the bottom line on costs so more pay simply means less equipment or less people down the road.

CAF needs to sort out what its career profiles should be and, quite frankly, its not well served by having old people at high pay rates doing jobs which require only moderate skill levels. Just look at how many folks the CAF has who are restricted from deploying. Yes there are jobs where high skills matter but also many where it does not and where the jobs could and should be done by young, single, moderately skilled folks who have a high turn over rate. The key is retaining just the right amount of long term careerists for those areas where it really matters and having a training system geared to high volume turnover.

You're thinking like an American here and applying a meaning of warrant which is different from our meaning of warrant. There is no reason a WO stream can't be split off but there's no reason to remove them from the NCO billet and have to rework our whole rank system and add a bazillion Sgts like the Americans have. It wouldn't really make any sort of tangible difference anyways, there is already a pretty common culture of deferral to WOs and up on technical matters amongst officers, at least amongst the smart ones.

It only requires three ranks to be renamed: WO back to Staff Sergeant; MWO to e.g. Sergeant Major and CWO to e.g Chief Sergeant Major. You wouldn't even need to change the rank badges. In all respects these positions would keep the existing NCM professional development profile and be recognized for their role as senior NCM leaders.

The point is that this at leaves WO appellation free to be used as an entry level rank for specialized roles. Civilians could join the CAF as WO cadets and be immediately in a higher pay category (roughly equivalent to commissioned ranks). Alternatively, appropriate NCMs could apply to transfer to a WO classification without having to "climb the NCM rank ladder." It's a bit like commissioning from the ranks but from lower levels and based on specialized skills rather than NCM leadership development.

WO ranks would progress from a "skilled specialist" level to a trained "specialist leader/manager" level.