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

[dapaterson]

Isn't that about double of previous years intakes?

Applications dropped precipitously during the early years of COVID. That has recovered, and the new online application portal is a strong step forward to streamline the application process.

Right now training capacity for BMQ / BMOQ is under review to optimize and look for other options (such as the RCN BMQ).

The other issue is success by occupation in recruiting. Bringing in 100 bottle washers when you really need hip hop dancers doesn't solve your hip hop dancing capacity problem.


My understanding is that last year's recruiting success also improved SIP by occupation over prior years. Still not 100% across the board, but significantly better than prior years.

 

[dapaterson]

I think our more academic trades and occupations may need it, the CFAT. But I suspect most of what we do in the CAF can be learned with some formal training and then an OJT period. Without needing a CFAT level.

CFAT lets you know that Bloggins isn't good at math and has difficulty with patter matching, so probably shouldn't be a MMT.

Remember, most of the folks you have met in the CAF were filtered through the CFAT; the folks who couldn't get through that gate you didn't see.

 

[Halifax Tar]

CFAT lets you know that Bloggins isn't good at math and has difficulty with patter matching, so probably shouldn't be a MMT.

If the bins are empty...

No, but I get it. Also math is overrated. We all have calculators on our hips 24/7 now.

Which incidentally fly's in the face of what I was told in school in the 80s and 90s. lol

Remember, most of the folks you have met in the CAF were filtered through the CFAT; the folks who couldn't get through that gate you didn't see.

I am not sure that's always a glowing endorsement of the CFAT.

 

[dapaterson]

If the bins are empty...

No, but I get it. Also math is overrated. We all have calculators on our hips 24/7 now.

Which incidentally fly's in the face of what I was told in school in the 80s and 90s. lol



I am not sure that's always a glowing endorsement of the CFAT.

The folks who are screened out are "interesting". The CAF has lots of data about what happens when folks who meet the bare minimums are recruited - surprise, it results it lots of pre OFP releases and an above average number of administrative and disciplinary issues. Waiving even that minimum has predictably resulted in those problems.

 

[Czech_pivo]

This year the CFRG recruited ~7002 pers. The total SIP (not MOSID specific) was ~6957. Which means we got 45 more new recruits than was asked.

There are still trades that didn't hit SIP. But by and large most trade numbers were good. CFRG SIP two years ago was ~4500, which we didn't hit.


It does. No more common initial Mar Tech training, you go right into your electrical or mechanical training day one. It will reduce the time to fully trained specialist, and it will relieve some of the burden on the training system.

The entire RCN is going to undergo trade revamp to look more US style in many ways. Most trades are going to be operator maintainers like Mar Techs are. The challenge here is going to be training the operators to be techs. The techs are already operators in many cases. Many of the current operators don't have the education/mindset to be maintainers, which of course is why they are operators. Totally different way of thinking.

Awesome news on the 7k new recruits! Any sense if we had an overall 'net gain' in the CAF yoy? If yes, by how much?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Applications dropped precipitously during the early years of COVID. That has recovered, and the new online application portal is a strong step forward to streamline the application process.

Right now training capacity for BMW / BMOQ is under review to optimize and look for other options (such as the RCN BMQ).

The other issue is success by occupation in recruiting. Bringing in 100 bottle washers when you really need hip hop dancers doesn't solve your hip hop dancing capacity problem.


My understanding is that last year's recruiting success also improved SIP by occupation over prior years. Still not 100% across the board, but significantly better than prior years.

Nice to see a "win" in the recruiting side regardless.

 

[Furniture]

My issue with CFAT is I have met someone who did a trade for a decade successfully (pre CFAT), but got out and when they went to go back in couldn’t get in the same trade because their CFAT score was too low.

It could be leading to good potential troops being kept out of the military.

Same thing civvy side, I saw one apprentice candidate who couldn’t pass their aptitude test but was extremely hands on (and had already passed two years of schooling in the field). He ended up getting a apprenticeship elsewhere, getting his ticket and joining as a ticketed tradesman despite that test saying he was ‘incapable’.

The dangerous thing is we look at CFAT and forget that education requirements also create issues. For several years, and maybe even to this day, I didn't meet the requirements to be in my occupation. The idiots in charge back in the mid-00's decided that grade 12 math was a minimum requirement to be a Met Tech. I stopped at grade 11 because I had zero interest in university. Despite not having grade 12 math, I have managed to be extremely successful in my career. How many other potentially extremely successful people did we turn away because they didn't meet an arbitrary requirement decided upon by a bitter/out of touch MWO/LCol who wanted to make the next generation ______ "better".

 

[McG]

... a bitter/out of touch MWO/LCol ...

Do you really have this much hate and contempt for every person doing their job in NDHQ? You don't know them, you don't know the choices they have nor the decisions they are making, but you need to deride them on a hypothetical to make your point?

 

[FJAG]

Also math is overrated. We all have calculators on our hips 24/7 now.

Math is good in schools to build cognitive functioning in children. In adulthood - who knows, but I know that I haven't used algebra since 1970. Trigonometry - oh yeah. Lots; algebra - never.

How many other potentially extremely successful people did we turn away because they didn't meet an arbitrary requirement decided upon by a bitter/out of touch MWO/LCol who wanted to make the next generation ______ "better".

As an OCTP offr, I'm with you 100%. I decided against university because I was sick and tired of school. Spending 30 days absent in my last term in Grade 13 to go to the armouries to do maintenance on my truck showed that. We need better intake program choices than the either or we have these days. Bring back OCTP and let's adopt a US style warrant officer program for specialists.

At the same time, the recruiting successes and the 32 CBG program results are showing that the CAF is having some clear successes. Talking to a serving battery commander recently, the success at the intake level seems to be creating throughput problems for the school in that to keep up with the basic intakes, intermediate level courses are suffering.

 

[dapaterson]

The dangerous thing is we look at CFAT and forget that education requirements also create issues. For several years, and maybe even to this day, I didn't meet the requirements to be in my occupation. The idiots in charge back in the mid-00's decided that grade 12 math was a minimum requirement to be a Met Tech. I stopped at grade 11 because I had zero interest in university. Despite not having grade 12 math, I have managed to be extremely successful in my career. How many other potentially extremely successful people did we turn away because they didn't meet an arbitrary requirement decided upon by a bitter/out of touch MWO/LCol who wanted to make the next generation ______ "better".

When LGen Lamarre was CMP the Log Branch decided his education did not meet the requirements to be a Log O.

 

[Furniture]

Do you really have this much hate and contempt for every person doing their job in NDHQ? You don't know them, you don't know the choices they have nor the decisions they are making, but you need to deride them on a hypothetical to make your point?

I did in fact know the people who made the decisions, and was directly told by one of those people that the reasoning was so that people like them wouldn't be able to get into the trade.

I happen to have spent the last few years in "NDHQ" working to fix the issues those people created.

I don't hate NDHQ, I hate that a few people who will never have to suffer the consequences of their decisions are able to inflict that much damage on an occupation. In my time in Ottawa we have broadened the consultations when considering changes, to ensure that Jr. pers are able to have input, and that they know their voices are heard/valued. It isn't perfect, but it's a far cry from when I was a Cpl on the DP1 QS board and told that my opinion didn't matter, and I was only there because they had to invite a few token Jr. pers.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Really starting to look like recruiting isnt the issue any more but training is

https://twitter.com/x/status/2039392574192951298

Interestingly further down that thread it emerges that recruits who are to be trained in a trade at Borden, now take BRT at Borden as well. So I’m interested to know how many recruits in the system we now have at any one time. It sounds like thousands.
I’m also pretty sure something is about to get going in Vernon for BRT, in addition to the cadet camps.

 

[ArmyRick]

I did in fact know the people who made the decisions, and was directly told by one of those people that the reasoning was so that people like them wouldn't be able to get into the trade.

I happen to have spent the last few years in "NDHQ" working to fix the issues those people created.

I don't hate NDHQ, I hate that a few people who will never have to suffer the consequences of their decisions are able to inflict that much damage on an occupation. In my time in Ottawa we have broadened the consultations when considering changes, to ensure that Jr. pers are able to have input, and that they know their voices are heard/valued. It isn't perfect, but it's a far cry from when I was a Cpl on the DP1 QS board and told that my opinion didn't matter, and I was only there because they had to invite a few token Jr. pers.

On CFAT issue. There is an interesting situation I observed. There was one gentleman I know of, who failed to qualify for infantry on his CFAT (Thats possible?) and had to enroll as a cook. He reluctantly did, finished basic (did very well) and released as he did not want to be a cook.

This gentleman went on to become an amateur MMA fighter (phenomenal fitness), an excellent butcher (TRUST me, you need brains to be a skilled butcher), a small scale farmer and a good father to his family.

I trained infantry soldiers for years and believe me, this guy was infantry material all the way through but the CFAT said no he wasn't. Yet, all the years I taught basic infantry at Meaford, we always had I would say 1-3 troops totally not capable of being infantry and basically wasted out time. I wonder how often this happens across the full spectrum of recruiting/training?

 

[Eaglelord17]

The real question is what is the CFAT (and other ‘aptitude’ tests) actually based off of?

Seems to me like someone just decided arbitrarily where the line in the sand should be drawn even though I have met people who can do those jobs without said ‘aptitude’. Clearly it isn’t a be all to end all as well as otherwise you wouldn’t be allowed to take the test more than once.

I think it would make more sense to be easier to cull those who can’t make it in training than to use a test to cull potential troops before given the chance.

 

[MilEME09]

Interestingly further down that thread it emerges that recruits who are to be trained in a trade at Borden, now take BRT at Borden as well. So I’m interested to know how many recruits in the system we now have at any one time. It sounds like thousands.
I’m also pretty sure something is about to get going in Vernon for BRT, in addition to the cadet camps.

I have heard that more BRT will pop up in gagetown and wainwright eventually as we are able to scale up. Which suggestions many recruits may spend BRT and RQ Pte all at the same base. Offering some stability to new recruits

 

[Quirky]

I trained infantry soldiers for years and believe me, this guy was infantry material all the way through but the CFAT said no he wasn't. Yet, all the years I taught basic infantry at Meaford, we always had I would say 1-3 troops totally not capable of being infantry and basically wasted out time. I wonder how often this happens across the full spectrum of recruiting/training?

What's really needed is a specific type of CFAT to the trades you're applying.

 

[ArmyRick]

What's really needed is a specific type of CFAT to the trades you're applying.

Think your right but I don't know how that end of recruiting works. Any recruiters here with more direct knowledge care to comment?

 

[McG]

What's really needed is a specific type of CFAT to the trades you're applying.

Why? There once were different aptitude tests. It had the impact of sometimes requiring pers to write multiple tests if they were interested in occupations not covered by the same test, or CAF members writing new aptitude tests to OT or commission. Put all the questions in one test and get a single set of results that identify candidates with statistically significant chances of being successful as a finance administrator but not a maintenance tech, those individuals who are likely to succeed as a maintenance tech but not a finance administrator, those applicants who would probably succeed as either, and those who should not attempt either.

Seems to me like someone just decided arbitrarily where the line in the sand should be drawn even though I have met people who can do those jobs without said ‘aptitude’. Clearly it isn’t a be all to end all as well as otherwise you wouldn’t be allowed to take the test more than once.

Maybe cognitive testing is like fitness testing. You can improve your aptitude with training. CAF fitness tests were once also arbitrary but, as an institution, we kinda learned that gateway testing needs to be statistically defensible. Maybe we also applied those lessons to cognitive testing.

I did in fact know the people who made the decisions, and was directly told by one of those people that …

In that case, I might recommend you write in the specific when referencing a specific, and not use broad brush statement sniping and any and all MWOs in the NCR. I get that there are a lot of military personnel who have spent so much time in Ottawa that they now better understand being PS than being CAF, and a lot of pers have been thrown into jobs for which their only qualification is a posting message, but the vast majority are up there with the best interests of the CAF’s operational forces.