Canada moves to 2% GDP end of FY25/26 - PMMC

[dapaterson]

Although, strictly speaking, NDA 130 does explicitly include NDA Part VII, so failure to attend parade could be the basis for a court martial (with maximum fines as laid out in the NDA).

 

[boredtoon]

Thats all very interesting. But I still don't see how it works in relation to how I have always been told Class A service works. How can you be charged for not attending parade when you only serve when you consent to serve? Maybe @FJAG has the answer.

 

[GR66]

Thats all very interesting. But I still don't see how it works in relation to how I have always been told Class A service works. How can you be charged for not attending parade when you only serve when you consent to serve? Maybe @FJAG has the answer.

I think the point of this thought exercise is that it would be a Mobilization drill i.e. the Class A Reservists would be called up to active duty.

Under Section 31 of the NDA:

Placing forces on active service

• 31 (1) The Governor in Council may place the Canadian Forces or any component, unit or other element thereof or any officer or non-commissioned member thereof on active service anywhere in or beyond Canada at any time when it appears advisable to do so
  
  • (a) by reason of an emergency, for the defence of Canada;
  • (b) in consequence of any action undertaken by Canada under the United Nations Charter; or
  • (c) in consequence of any action undertaken by Canada under the North Atlantic Treaty, the North American Aerospace Defence Command Agreement or any other similar instrument to which Canada is a party.

While it makes for an interesting discussion I can't imagine the Government actually implementing Section 31 just for the sake of a "test". I'm sure that 30,000 Reservists, their families and their employers would not look too kindly on such an exercise in absence of a real emergency.

 

[dapaterson]

Thats all very interesting. But I still don't see how it works in relation to how I have always been told Class A service works. How can you be charged for not attending parade when you only serve when you consent to serve? Maybe @FJAG has the answer.

The popular belief that "consent to serve" is universal for Res F members unless placed on active service has no basis in law, regulation or policy.

QR&O volume 1 chapter 9, article 9.04 (2) explicitly grants authority to order members of the Primary Reserve to train a maximum of 60 days Class A per year, and a maximum of 15 days Class B per year.

Failure to obey that order would be sufficient to invoke 294.

 

[FJAG]

I was hoping you were going to jump in on this. How does 294 work with the nature of Class A service? How do you charge a Class A soldier for not attending as ordered when the whole concept of being class A is that you consent to when you serve? Also, would 294 have to go through a civilian court? It says a summary conviction, which to me says the laying of a service infraction charge and conviction at a summary hearing.

The "voluntariness" of reserve service is greatly misunderstood by many people including senior military leadership. I used to give lectures on this to COs of both the reg and res components and for the vast majority what the full impact of the law is was an eye opener for them. It's no surprise that the folks on the parade square don't have the full picture.

Effectively, a reservist, like a regular force member, volunteers only once - when they enlist, are enrolled and take the oath. From that point on they are subject to the Code of Service Discipline in accordance with the terms set out in the NDA and all the provisions of the NDA. That obligation continues until they are released.

There are dozens and dozens of liabilities that come with service. NDA 33(2)(a) is the one on being liable to be ordered to train and QR&O 9.04, as mentioned above, states how much training a CO may order.

IMHO s. 294 is one without teeth if it is not being used, and quite frankly, I encouraged COs to use it as an object lesson pour les autres. IMHO, the "come play when you feel like it" attitude that pervades the reserves is one of the key reasons why, as an organization, it is so ineffective. It's close to impossible to create a unit that has cohesion at the collective level if only a third of the folks show up for training.

The problem, again IMHO, is that no one at the senior command level is prepared to make an issue of it to change the system as long as they get the thousands of Class B's they have become addicted to. For them, Class Bs are a feature. To anyone who realistically looks at the mobilization capability of the Class As, Class Bs are a bug.

 

[CadNav]

The "voluntariness" of reserve service is greatly misunderstood by many people including senior military leadership. I used to give lectures on this to COs of both the reg and res components and for the vast majority what the full impact of the law is was an eye opener for them. It's no surprise that the folks on the parade square don't have the full picture.

Effectively, a reservist, like a regular force member, volunteers only once - when they enlist, are enrolled and take the oath. From that point on they are subject to the Code of Service Discipline in accordance with the terms set out in the NDA and all the provisions of the NDA. That obligation continues until they are released.

There are dozens and dozens of liabilities that come with service. NDA 33(2)(a) is the one on being liable to be ordered to train and QR&O 9.04, as mentioned above, states how much training a CO may order.

IMHO s. 294 is one without teeth if it is not being used, and quite frankly, I encouraged COs to use it as an object lesson pour les autres. IMHO, the "come play when you feel like it" attitude that pervades the reserves is one of the key reasons why, as an organization, it is so ineffective. It's close to impossible to create a unit that has cohesion at the collective level if only a third of the folks show up for training.

The problem, again IMHO, is that no one at the senior command level is prepared to make an issue of it to change the system as long as they get the thousands of Class B's they have become addicted to. For them, Class Bs are a feature. To anyone who realistically looks at the mobilization capability of the Class As, Class Bs are a bug.

Someone should tell this to the recruiting center

 

[FJAG]

Someone should tell this to the recruiting center

I obviously don't speak for everyone but I do remember myself as that bright-eyed 16-year-old whose buddy dragged him down to the armouries. I knew I was joining but the fact that they gave me a scratchy battle-dress uniform and let me play with rifles, howitzers and trucks far outweighed any comprehension of what I was getting into. I'm not so sure that four years later when I went trucking on down to the recruiting office to become an officer in the regular force that there was a whole lot of difference. - And this was at the height of the Vietnam War when every night Walter Cronkite was showing video from the field and rattling off the body count. You kind of knew what you were getting into.

I think folks either get interested in being in the military or they don't. I think those of us who liked the outdoors and tinkering with stuff and who were given responsibilities far beyond those of most high school students - hell, I was flinging thirty-three pound bricks of high explosives down range while my peers were trying to figure out the hidden meanings in MacBeth. You just get into it regardless of the finer points of the contract.

I think if the recruiter says "If you join you may end up going to war" - well, then he's pretty much covered it. Anything else is just small beer compared to that.

 

[daftandbarmy]

The problem, again IMHO, is that no one at the senior command level is prepared to make an issue of it to change the system as long as they get the thousands of Class B's they have become addicted to. For them, Class Bs are a feature. To anyone who realistically looks at the mobilization capability of the Class As, Class Bs are a bug.

Ah, so that's what the 'B' stands for

 

[Kirkhill]

Ah, so that's what the 'B' stands for

And they are always ready to bug out.

 

[childs56]

The "voluntariness" of reserve service is greatly misunderstood by many people including senior military leadership. I used to give lectures on this to COs of both the reg and res components and for the vast majority what the full impact of the law is was an eye opener for them. It's no surprise that the folks on the parade square don't have the full picture.

Effectively, a reservist, like a regular force member, volunteers only once - when they enlist, are enrolled and take the oath. From that point on they are subject to the Code of Service Discipline in accordance with the terms set out in the NDA and all the provisions of the NDA. That obligation continues until they are released.

There are dozens and dozens of liabilities that come with service. NDA 33(2)(a) is the one on being liable to be ordered to train and QR&O 9.04, as mentioned above, states how much training a CO may order.

IMHO s. 294 is one without teeth if it is not being used, and quite frankly, I encouraged COs to use it as an object lesson pour les autres. IMHO, the "come play when you feel like it" attitude that pervades the reserves is one of the key reasons why, as an organization, it is so ineffective. It's close to impossible to create a unit that has cohesion at the collective level if only a third of the folks show up for training.

The problem, again IMHO, is that no one at the senior command level is prepared to make an issue of it to change the system as long as they get the thousands of Class B's they have become addicted to. For them, Class Bs are a feature. To anyone who realistically looks at the mobilization capability of the Class As, Class Bs are a bug.

Taken in to context the NES policy, along with when a member of the Reserves is subject to the CSD how would one expect to get an actual conviction under the sections you have stated?
How do you interpret NDA 33(3)?
Add to that the previous cancellations where the Military has cancelled training along with budgets that severely limited actual training time allocation to units who were not able to provide the minimum amount of training days required. I wonder how they would enforce any part of the Acts unless it was an actual emergency.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Taken in to context the NES policy, along with when a member of the Reserves is subject to the CSD how would one expect to get an actual conviction under the sections you have stated?
How do you interpret NDA 33(3)?
Add to that the previous cancellations where the Military has cancelled training along with budgets that severely limited actual training time allocation to units who were not able to provide the minimum amount of training days required. I wonder how they would enforce any part of the Acts unless it was an actual emergency.

I remember an amusing incident, many years ago, when a brand new 2Lt decided he didn't want to be on weekend exercise anymore and he contacted his mom to pick him up... directly from the training area.

He just left his rifle with someone and went home.

We tried to charge him with AWL, he signed in on Friday night and bugged out on Saturday so the case was pretty clear, but no joy.

He was released pretty soon after that.

 

[dapaterson]

Taken in to context the NES policy, along with when a member of the Reserves is subject to the CSD how would one expect to get an actual conviction under the sections you have stated?
How do you interpret NDA 33(3)?
Add to that the previous cancellations where the Military has cancelled training along with budgets that severely limited actual training time allocation to units who were not able to provide the minimum amount of training days required. I wonder how they would enforce any part of the Acts unless it was an actual emergency.

NDA 294 is not a part of the CSD.

 

[childs56]

NDA 294 is not a part of the CSD.

Part III of the NDA might disagree