• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

CAF undermanned; budget cuts to recruiting & training

McG

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,078
Points
1,160
Looks like the organization is falling far short of the assigned PY level because budget cuts are preventing recruiting and training from keeping pace with a high attrition.

Early retirement, weak recruitment mean the Canadian military is facing a shortfall of personnel
Lee Berthiaume
National Post
16 Dec 2014

The Canadian Forces is short hundreds of full-time members and thousands of reservists, due in part to an unexpected spike in the number of personnel hanging up their uniforms and difficulties attracting and training new recruits.

The shortfall, expected to last years thanks to recent cuts to military recruitment and training, threatens to undermine the Conservative government’s longstanding promise not to cut the size of the military despite billions of dollars in spending reductions since 2012.

The federal Conservative government has publicly promised to keep 68,000 full-time military members and 27,000 reservists in uniform, even as defence spending has fallen by about $5.5 billion since 2012.

The pledge was part of Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s demand that the Canadian Forces provide “more teeth and less tail,” though some believed the promise was more about politics than protecting the military.

But a Defence Department report recently tabled in the House of Commons showed a shortfall of nearly 900 regular force members and 4,500 part-time reservists at the end of March “due to higher than forecasted attrition and other factors.”

The report doesn’t provide any explanation for why military personnel were leaving at an unexpected rate, but it does note the Canadian Army has been hit particularly hard.

Senior military officers, including former army commander lieutenant-general Peter Devlin, had previously warned that the Afghan mission’s end, as well as deep cuts to training, would prompt many soldiers to head for the exit.

The army’s failure to meet its recruitment goals further contributed to the shortfall. Officials have previously said the military needs more than 4,000 new recruits each year to offset attrition and keep 68,000 full-time troops in uniform.

Meanwhile, the report notes recent changes to the reserve force have contributed to fewer part-time members in uniform. But recruiters for the air and navy reserves also had a hard time getting new recruits through the door for the third year in a row.

The naval reserve only met 21.3 per cent of its recruitment target over the year, and the air reserves met 9.1 per cent, though the air reserve did have some personnel come in from other parts of the military

“Maintaining the personnel capabilities of a large organization such as the Canadian Armed Forces requires a constant balance of recruiting new members and retaining trained personnel,” said Defence Department spokesman Zoltan Csepregi.

“The CAF experiences changes in the rate of attrition, or departures, from one year to the next,” he added. “CAF strength will be closely monitored to ensure that the CAF meets its domestic and international defence commitments as assigned by the Government of Canada.”

The Conservative government has been sensitive to reducing the size of the military after criticizing previous Liberal governments for doing exactly that in the 1990s. (The total number of personnel declined by one-third from a high of 120,000 in 1991 to a low of 80,000 in 2001.)

But as part of its efforts to cut costs, the government ordered 12 military recruiting centres across the country closed last year, which auditors had privately warned would hurt reserve units as well as aboriginal recruitment.

Those warnings appear to have been borne out, as the new report notes that “given recruiting and training capacity, it will take some years to recover” from the current shortfall. It adds that the military will try to “limit voluntary attrition” and address the shortfall “as soon as practical.”

David Perry, a defence analyst with the Conference of Defence Associations Institute, believed defence spending reductions are at the heart of the problem.

Cuts to military training and operations are driving people out faster, he said, while the government has axed the recruiting system so it can’t keep up with higher than expected attrition.

Some have questioned the wisdom of maintaining the military at its current size given budget cuts of up to $2.5 billion and with the last Canadian soldiers due to return home from Afghanistan by the end of March.

One former defence chief, retired general Rick Hillier, warned last year that reducing the size of the military was the only way to ensure the force remained strong and stable. He said the number of full-time members should be reduced from 68,000 to about 50,000.

Meanwhile, the report says the Canadian military is hoping a recent spike in the number of Canadian personnel taken off the job to deal with physical and mental injuries will subside in the next few years.

More than 1,400 Canadian Forces members, or about two per cent of the regular force, had been deemed seriously ill or injured and taken off the job at the end of March. That is about double the number from 2011, but largely the same as last year.

Officials have blamed “lag effects” from the Afghan mission for the increase
Reducing the CAF will only ensure we are not ready for whatever comes next. 
 
Just want to point out that in the "dark days" of the 90s, we had newer equipment and 12000 more regular force members. The party which has continually trots out the "dark days" line has actually been worse then the liberals.
 
Why were the 90s  (or parts of) considered 'dark days' ?
 
I recall when the manning levels were threatening to fall below 50,000 in the early 2000's, and virtually everyone with a pulse and a temperature of 37C was being inducted to compensate.

While senior management could be told that "manning" was moving in the right direction, there was no corresponding allocation of resources for instructors, training material and ammunition, uniforms etc. The situation was getting so bad that I remember seeing a REO for a "PAT Pl NCO" in Borden, where the NCO would be in charge of an improbable number of PATs (I think a team of 4 NCO's would be in charge of 90 PATs or something like that). And of course we have all heard the stories of PATs waiting their entire 3 year contracts in PAT battalions because there were no course openings.

Look for more "fun with numbers" as people paper over the issue.
 
cryco said:
Why were the 90s  (or parts of) considered 'dark days' ?
A huge reduction of the budget, troops who could barely afford to live, Training budgets depleted by January. A lot like now.  Except we had new ships, newish planes, and trucks that were still in good shape.
 
Troops could afford to live in 99% of the places they could be posted to. Units still shot plenty.  The We got new trucks, the 16 ton (I think that's what it's rated for), the 8-10 ton for the Reserves, new tanks, and new guns (M777).
 
So would the CAF's current situation be more closer to how we were looking in the 70's? some good equipment, a lot of equipment falling apart, and promises of new kit to come.
 
I see this as no more than the expected post operations ebb and flow. We saw the same phenomenon post Cold War, and post Korea, albeit to a lesser extent because we were a bigger force.

Grow during times of conflict, shrink during times of "peace". Nothing surprising here.
 
Sheep Dog AT said:
Troops could afford to live in 99% of the places they could be posted to. Units still shot plenty.  The We got new trucks, the 16 ton (I think that's what it's rated for), the 8-10 ton for the Reserves, new tanks, and new guns (M777).
Prior to the raise in 98, it was tough to raise a family in some places. I am from Victoria so maybe I saw it a lot more with the Navy.  Army postings may have been better.
 
There are REO's for infantryman positions in 3RCR now, as well as tons of tasks coming down to join 1 or 3 RCR recce for exercises due to MATA/PATA backfills (at least that's the excuse). I've only been in since 2006 but I don't recall ever hearing about stuff like that before now. Was it like that in the 90's?
 
The PATA thing did not exist then, but you could find Cl B pers in battalions.
 
ModlrMike said:
I see this as no more than the expected post operations ebb and flow. We saw the same phenomenon post Cold War, and post Korea, albeit to a lesser extent because we were a bigger force.

Grow during times of conflict, shrink during times of "peace". Nothing surprising here.
Would seem like something that should be better "scaled" and planned for, especially with (I'll throw WWII in as well) three different draw-downs to source lessons from.

Expect, though, that measures likely to mitigate the ebb and flow; "over"-staffed training facilities, "empty" spaces in units/bases, and mothballed current kit, all managed with the notion of meeting "short" term needs (say, Afghanistan); would either be cut by the first government looking to create easy savings, or wouldn't get off the ground.
 
acen said:
There are REO's for infantryman positions in 3RCR now, as well as tons of tasks coming down to join 1 or 3 RCR recce for exercises due to MATA/PATA backfills (at least that's the excuse). I've only been in since 2006 but I don't recall ever hearing about stuff like that before now. Was it like that in the 90's?

Nope.

Back then they regarded the mole-itia as some kind of interesting form of plant life.

Thanks largely to some more visionary thinkers in the Reg F these days, and reservists stepping up to serve on operations and demonstrate their competence over the past 10 years, we have a greater opportunity than ever to do more interesting and meaningful stuff.
 
Used to be a goodly number of FLYOVER spots for Fall Ex IIRC before Germany shut down.

WRT equipment procurement etc, I wonder how "expensive" a new tank, or MPA, or frigate/destroyer was 'then' compared to now.  Inflation, prices are up, all that financial type stuff.

I used to do a paper route as a kid; 75 cents got me a bottle of pop, bag of chips and some double bubble.  75 cents now won't get you a breath of fresh air.

We have received increases in pay, decreases in benefits in some areas...I would be curious to see how it all balances out from 20 years ago to know in terms of "bang for the buck".

And, Merry Christmas, don't forget the slight increase in pension contributions eff 01 Jan.  :subbies:
 
Well if this isn't a indicator of the situation I don't know what it, a one year class be for a vehicle tech corporal to be attached to JTF2 according to the REO.

http://armyapp.forces.gc.ca/reo-oer/details-renseignements.aspx?positionnumber=O-18212&lang=eng

If even our SoF need to call on reservist help is that not a problem if THEY can't fill all their positions?
 
MilEME09 said:
Well if this isn't a indicator of the situation I don't know what it, a one year class be for a vehicle tech corporal to be attached to JTF2 according to the REO.

http://armyapp.forces.gc.ca/reo-oer/details-renseignements.aspx?positionnumber=O-18212&lang=eng

If even our SoF need to call on reservist help is that not a problem if THEY can't fill all their positions?

Look a bit closer...... "Subj: Class C Res Svc opportunity "

A "step up" from a Class B position.......

What the REO doesn't specify, is why?  So this could be a short term manning issue or given that it is a one year contract, could be a MATA/PATA backfill.  Good luck filling that one.......even with the Class C "carrot" being dangled.
 
that is my bad, any way i agree with you, like 90% of the positions posted on that site, it will probably go unfilled
 
I see we're back to the, "Want a job reserve guy?  Well, feel free to pay your own way to get/live here." days.
 
Harris said:
I see we're back to the, "Want a job reserve guy?  Well, feel free to pay your own way to get/live here." days.
Actually we've been there for about a year and a half now. But instead of being up-front about what we're doing (denying people a TB-mandated entitlement, i.e.), we're actually in the, "Want a job reserve guy? Well, sign this false declaration stating that you already live in the local area of the employment," days.
 
Back
Top