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

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

Not even remotely close to the SIP. 5800 people is about 1500 less than the entire recruiting targets for this entire year. Are you referring to 5800 short of our approved staffing levels for total members in the CAF?
Yes, it's directly from the article. A journalist doesn't understand the nuance of SIP vs approved staffing levels. The math for CA signalers hitting SIP this FY is worse the last time I checked for January's year to date total.
 
Yes, it's directly from the article. A journalist doesn't understand the nuance of SIP vs approved staffing levels. The math for CA signalers hitting SIP this FY is worse the last time I checked for January's year to date total.
Yah, they increased the SIP. Overall the total number of signalers over last year is higher, but because of the SIP increase the percentage is lower. Its really hard to recruit for signals if it isn't SIG TECH, IS TECH or LINE TECH.
 
Yes, it's directly from the article. A journalist doesn't understand the nuance of SIP vs approved staffing levels. The math for CA signalers hitting SIP this FY is worse the last time I checked for January's year to date total.
Its worse. It looks even worse when you look at the number of pers we have lost.
Yah, they increased the SIP. Overall the total number of signalers over last year is higher, but because of the SIP increase the percentage is lower. Its really hard to recruit for signals if it isn't SIG TECH, IS TECH or LINE TECH.
SIG Tech is unsalvagable at this point, because we are losing techs faster than we can replace them. IS Tech is slowing down, but its an easy sell, because it has a civilian equivalent we can explain to people coming through the door. Line Tech is going to be hurting soon, as we look to transfer more complex tasks from Sig Tech and IS Tech to Line Techs.
 
There is a piece of vital infrastructure here in Vancouver, that is highly exposed and vulnerable and damage to it could have significant effects. A bit of fencing and some other specific add on's would reduce the risk of a successfully sabotage attack. I pointed this vulnerability out to some "experts" during one of our disaster exercises, but other than being uncomfortable discussing it, nothing ever happened. Sadly typical of our head in the sand approach.

There is a lot of other vital infrastructure out there that would benefit from a bit of hardening.
Unless there is a line in someone's budget to cover it, it will not get done and it requires someone fairly high up to get in into one of those lines. Those same people are far removed from the nuts and bolts of security and probably never hear of the deficiencies.
 
Back
Top