Government hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Kirkhill]

Today's dichotomy -

The Armouries as Army Institutions
The Armouries as Community Institutions.

And back to the discussion about The National Guard.

I see the Armouries as a muster point for the local community. A place where the government stores equipment suitable to managing emergencies. A place where people go to learn how to use that equipment effectively.

One form of emergency is repelling invaders. Consequently the citizens learn how to fight.
Another emergency is suppressing riots. Consequently citizens learn to assist the citizen constabulary (all constables are citizens)
Most emergencies do not involve violence.

Sending troops to garrison remote outposts at the ends of empire (Resolute and Goose Bay for example) may be an existential issue but it is not an emergency. It is a cost of doing business. Just like hiring a night watchman or a security guard. If you want those jobs done you are going to have to pay for them.

Sending troops to foreign lands to fight foreigners is not an emergency. It is not an existential issue. It is a discretionary cost that the government of the day perceives as having value, having utility. As with finding security guards for disagreeable locations you are going to have to pay for them. And given the greater risks involved you can expect to pay more for those services. Defrayed by the young and bold who seek excitement.

....

The National Guard fulfills the entire spectrum of responses. From the unpaid volunteer to those cashiered by the government for foreign service.

....

As I said, I see the Armouries as muster point for the community.

Now, the community can be asked to find a rifle company, or a gun battery, or a cavalry squadron. Fair request. They might even be asked to find an entire regiment.

That doesn't prevent the Armouries being a muster point for other tasks and roles.

Mewata used to house the Highlanders and the KOCR. It also housed, under separate command, the Comm Squad, a Field Ambulance and an MP platoon???

....

Get rid of the Army-centric notion of the Armouries and its denizens as a pipeline to the Army. We can start by getting rid of the word Reserves. The Total Force system has not worked for the Army, for the Federal Government, the Provinces or anybody else. Volunteers are not Reserves as the Army wants and needs them.

Volunteers can be a reserve force. They can be useful in some crises. But they are inefficient. They are cheap. You get what you pay for.

Having people available to fill in the blank files on a moment's notice is going to require training them and then paying them to wear a (virtual) pager.

....

In my view there is nothing contradictory in having, in one armoury a combat arms sub-unit, a comms element, a casualty element and a transport element. And perhaps an engineer/pioneer element. Or even an Air Defence element. All elements that are likely to be beneficial to the community surrounding the Armoury of beneficial to their neighbours.

I am also agnostic on the command structure. They could be under the command of a combat arms "regiment" if that is what it takes to assuage dignities. They could equally be under a "purple" command structure.

That structure, in my view, would attract civic minded volunteers. Some of them might even want to put themselves at the service of the Department of National Defence for foreign service.

....

There needs to be a dichotomy between Emergency Preparedness (including war as an Emergency) and National Defence.

Army-centric National Defence is not working for Canada.

We need an Army. We have that. It could be better.

But we also need something that brings us more of the advantages of the National Guard system.

And I can't see the Army being able to deliver that.

It needs to be a client and not the master.

 

[dapaterson]

There's a fat pay raise right there for the CAF generally, tax-free service.

In so doing you'd be disincentivizing deployment.

To say nothing of the huge shock on retirement, when you'd suddenly have a lower gross income and start paying tax on it as well.

 

[PrairieFella]

In so doing you'd be disincentivizing deployment.

Fair enough, although danger and hardship pay are pretty decent bonuses too, maybe a tweak could offset that.

To say nothing of the huge shock on retirement, when you'd suddenly have a lower gross income and start paying tax on it as well.

That's what RRSPs are for and the pension is still quite generous. Going into retirement with more money in the bank would be a perk too. CPP and EI are still deducted too in my line of thinking to ensure CPP contributions are met.

 

[GR66]

Continuous submarine production: up to 12 conventionally armed, nuclear-powered attack submarines through the AUKUS programme.

From the 2 pager:
Is that correct? It can't be, can it? I thought that their Nuke subs carried their nuclear deterrent missiles in them and that 1 was always at sea. Is that not the case?

The RN has two classes of nuclear submarines. The 5 x Astute-class SSN's are their attack subs which they will be replacing with the 12 x new AUKUS-class subs mentioned in the SDR.

They also have their fleet of 4 x Vanguard-class SSBN's which are their nuclear deterrent ballistic missile subs. It was noted in the SDR that the RN is to begin working on the requirements to replace these as well.

 

[Remius]

You get a $6000 tax break for being a volunteer firefighter or search and rescue team member. You get a tax break on income earned while deployed in many cases. So, why not make Res F earnings tax exempt?

Would make tax season much easier for me

 

[Remius]

You get a $6000 tax break for being a volunteer firefighter or search and rescue team member. You get a tax break on income earned while deployed in many cases. So, why not make Res F earnings tax exempt?

Or at least maybe make part of it tax exempt. The Brits as I have posted offer a tax free bounty.

One thing I discussed with someone a while ago was paying Class B types who still parade with their units “pay” for that time they dedicate. Just like any other reservist on class A.

Going further than that, why couldn’t we offer a salary bonus to regular force members to parade with PRes units. Make that tax free. It would incentivize and add a bit more of the integration piece while compensating them for their time.

Class A get a tax free bounty for meeting all mandatory training and DAG requirements including one area concentration per annum.

Class B but still parading with their unit get a tax free bounty for meeting a minimum parade state and DAG green

Reg Force parading extra time with a reserve unit (ie one weekend a month, one night a week) get a tax free bounty.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Reg Force parading extra time with a reserve unit (ie one weekend a month, one night a week) get a tax free bounty.

I did that while I was at 36 CBG. I definitely didn't expect any compensation, but it would have been appreciated.

 

[dapaterson]

Or at least maybe make part of it tax exempt. The Brits as I have posted offer a tax free bounty.

One thing I discussed with someone a while ago was paying Class B types who still parade with their units “pay” for that time they dedicate. Just like any other reservist on class A.

Going further than that, why couldn’t we offer a salary bonus to regular force members to parade with PRes units. Make that tax free. It would incentivize and add a bit more of the integration piece while compensating them for their time.

Class A get a tax free bounty for meeting all mandatory training and DAG requirements including one area concentration per annum.

Class B but still parading with their unit get a tax free bounty for meeting a minimum parade state and DAG green

Reg Force parading extra time with a reserve unit (ie one weekend a month, one night a week) get a tax free bounty.

Or - hear me out - stop that bullshit. On full time service? Career managed and no expectation to parade elsewhere.

My simple world would push anyone on a period of full time service exceeding 120 days into a Reg F subcomponent, outside the reach of parent Res F units.

The desire to emulate the Brit model suffers from what I call the Rob Schneider movie fallacy - the fact that something exists means that it's good. No one has provided any evidence that the Brit training bounty is of any use and that it's for purpose. Lacking that data, it's just a Rob Schneider movie.

 

[Remius]

Or - hear me out - stop that bullshit. On full time service? Career managed and no expectation to parade elsewhere.

If the goal is better integration with the reg force why not incentivize that. Right now most are bitter having to lose their free time because the reserves can only work weekends. Create the links, the contacts and the experience benefits.

This reg force pers working could also be that conduit to assessing those guys that would deploy. Create relationships and even

My simple world would push anyone on a period of full time service exceeding 120 days into a Reg F subcomponent, outside the reach of parent Res F units.

Sure. But there doesn’t seem to be a desire for that. I’m not against that model either. But right now anyone on Class B outside the div is being forcefully transferred to whatever PRL. So we lose pers (except those that sign MOUs) and we end up with a pile of unqualified pers qualified for their trade but extremely unfit for their actual trade. I ran into a WO wearing my cap badge who has never been an infantry section commander let alone a WO. He shouldn’t ever go near an infantry section or platoon but I’m sure he’s excellent at managing PERMIS stuff.

The desire to emulate the Brit model suffers from what I call the Rob Schneider movie fallacy - the fact that something exists means that it's good. No one has provided any evidence that the Brit training bounty is of any use and that it's for purpose. Lacking that data, it's just a Rob Schneider movie.

I have no idea what the data on that is. But as a retention tool it seems decent.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Continuous submarine production: up to 12 conventionally armed, nuclear-powered attack submarines through the AUKUS programme.

From the 2 pager:
Is that correct? It can't be, can it? I thought that their Nuke subs carried their nuclear deterrent missiles in them and that 1 was always at sea. Is that not the case?

Answered in part by GR66 above: The RN has six hunter killer subs (SSN), the five Astute alluded to and the youngest Trafalgar class boat. They also have, as indicated, the four Nuclear Ballistic Missile submarines (SSBN) of the Vanguard class, and their replacement program is underway, to produce four Dreadnought class submarines.

Overall, when completed, the RN will grown from 10 nuclear submarines in continual build to 16 nuclear submarines in continual build.

 

[RangerRay]

Disagree. It competes with entry level experiential employment. Not things like a soup kitchen or a scout leader job.

That’s what happened with me. I had to choose between getting paid work experience in the field I was studying in uni, or keep doing army stuff. Army lost. I intended to go back but my career took me too far from a community with a unit until I was too old, too fat and too married.

 

[McG]

Maybe PRes units being short of personal because too many are away on long term full-time PRes employment is a symptom and not the problem. Maybe the problem is too many PRes being employed in continuous full-time service both to circumvent the government’s authorized PY limits and to compensate for PML shortfalls. Maybe if the full time army were compelled to live within its means, then its staffing ambitions would not trickle down as staffing shortfalls of the part time force.

 

[Remius]

My simple world would push anyone on a period of full time service exceeding 120 days into a Reg F subcomponent, outside the reach of parent Res F units.

Or maybe when one becomes vested in the reg force pension plan. Trigger that and you get switched.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Or - hear me out - stop that bullshit. On full time service? Career managed and no expectation to parade elsewhere.

My simple world would push anyone on a period of full time service exceeding 120 days into a Reg F subcomponent, outside the reach of parent Res F units.

The desire to emulate the Brit model suffers from what I call the Rob Schneider movie fallacy - the fact that something exists means that it's good. No one has provided any evidence that the Brit training bounty is of any use and that it's for purpose. Lacking that data, it's just a Rob Schneider movie.

Yeah, the bounty doesn't work.

Consistently good leadership, a proper mission, the right equipment and resources, and relevant, interesting, and challenging training works.

But guess which one they tend to focus on because it's easier?

 

[dapaterson]

Or maybe when one becomes vested in the reg force pension plan. Trigger that and you get switched.

I would shift the parameters for that to preclude the 330 game. Only in the CAF can you be retired and collecting a pension while simultaneously being a full time member.

 

[FJAG]

Or - hear me out - stop that bullshit. On full time service? Career managed and no expectation to parade elsewhere.

My simple world would push anyone on a period of full time service exceeding 120 days into a Reg F subcomponent, outside the reach of parent Res F units.

I've already indicated that I'm against Class B and in favour of a form of RegF service where individuals are not liable to be posted but are liable for deployment. You want a full-time career - be prepared for a half year in Latvia with everyone else.

I never like the idea of a days of service limit like 120 days. I could see a reservist going on a lengthy career course over 120 days. I prefer a division based on attending voluntary nut lengthy training v volunteering to warm a chair in a cubicle in Ottawa. The later should be RegF positions.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I've already indicated that I'm against Class B and in favour of a form of RegF service where individuals are not liable to be posted but are liable for deployment. You want a full-time career - be prepared for a half year in Latvia with everyone else.

I never like the idea of a days of service limit like 120 days. I could see a reservist going on a lengthy career course over 120 days. I prefer a division based on attending voluntary nut lengthy training v volunteering to warm a chair in a cubicle in Ottawa. The later should be RegF positions.

Do you think part of our problem is that we insist on pan CAF solutions instead of recognizing that each service has its own quirks and nuances and they may require different HR/Pay solutions ?

 

[calculus]

I've already indicated that I'm against Class B and in favour of a form of RegF service where individuals are not liable to be posted but are liable for deployment. You want a full-time career - be prepared for a half year in Latvia with everyone else.

I never like the idea of a days of service limit like 120 days. I could see a reservist going on a lengthy career course over 120 days. I prefer a division based on attending voluntary nut lengthy training v volunteering to warm a chair in a cubicle in Ottawa. The later should be RegF positions.

Isn't what you are describing Class C service?

 

[Czech_pivo]

Answered in part by GR66 above: The RN has six hunter killer subs (SSN), the five Astute alluded to and the youngest Trafalgar class boat. They also have, as indicated, the four Nuclear Ballistic Missile submarines (SSBN) of the Vanguard class, and their replacement program is underway, to produce four Dreadnought class submarines.

Overall, when completed, the RN will grown from 10 nuclear submarines in continual build to 16 nuclear submarines in continual build.

So competition between us, the Brits and the Aussie's to poach each others submariners over the next 10-12yrs will be fierce as we'll all be rolling out significant numbers of new boats, but with us it won't be apples to apples since ours won't be nuke boats. Maybe we should be considering poaching some French/German/Dutch submariners instead?

 

[FJAG]

Do you think part of our problem is that we insist on pan CAF solutions instead of recognizing that each service has its own quirks and nuances and they may require different HR/Pay solutions ?

Yes, to a large measure. I provided legal advice to a study/project called the Reserve Force Employment Project back around the turn of the century. It was largely driven by the Navy's model of how they wanted the MCDVs employed. It's darkest moment came when a CANFORGEN went out briefly changing Class A, B and C service as "limited liability service" and "unlimited liability service."

OTOH, it's a bit difficult to have bespoke solutions when you have a single legislation at the top to work from. That said one could change things to address each of the issues at the regulatory or policy levels as long as they didn't run counter to the NDA or other legislation. I'm not sure that there is any appetite to confuse things with even more detailed and specific regulations and policies than what already abounds.

Isn't what you are describing Class C service?

No. What I'm suggesting is two classes of RegF service. The first class would be identical what you see now where DND can send you on missions as well as post you depending on the needs of the CAF.

The second class of service has an individual enrol on continuous full, time service but restricted to service in a certain defined geographic area - lets say the GTA or Montreal region or - for the Navy Halifax or Victoria. It ensures that an individual can have a full career in one region staying close to family and allowing their spouse to have a full civilian career of their own. There would be a finite set of positions within the region that can be posted into and around - let's say 1,000 PYs to various units in the GTA such as hybrid RegF/ResF battalions and brigades. People could voluntarily elect to change between one type of service and another depending on vacancies. Promotions and postings within a region would be more limited than outside the regions.

The tricky part is defining the pay, allowance and promotion benefits associated with service outside these regions to make staying generally available for unrestricted postings attractive enough.

Class B reserve service would be highly restricted to true, short-term contracts for such things as back-filling temporary PY vacancies (like maternity/paternity leave)

Both classes of service would be liable for deployments. Incidentally, I'm also much more in favour of placing individual reservists and hybrid units compulsorily on active service for deployments in the nature of the US ARNG and USAR. And yes, there needs to be strong employer/employee legislation for that.