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

[Halifax Tar]

I'd love to know how a non-resident made it through the recruiting process and into basic in THREE MONTHS

I have no idea. I've been to many of the places these folks come from, their record keeping is really non existent. I don't know how you could prove anyone's identity of age at the very least.

 

[WestIsle]

Bullshit on PSOs and TDOs trying to water down the CAF.

Direction to abandon CFAT and other dubious choices were made at rank levels well above them.

No PSOs definitely wanna push people through the recruiting system if it means meeting their targets instead of addressing anything else. Like making MCpls redo the CFAT when attempting to transfer to in demand officer positions.

I have also seen TDOs read through the answer block verbatim as well as let people write those same answers in their notebooks and bring it to their test if it means the right people amount of people are understanding the material.

 

[McG]

I have also seen TDOs …

When, where, and what did you do about it?

 

[Kirkhill]

Federal government selling off federal assets to generate funds to buy federal assets?

Carney government eyes privatizing airports to attract investment, cut travel costs

Minister says they want to make operations and passenger services more efficient.

www.thestar.com

When does the TMX line go "on the market"?
The ports of Vancouver and Halifax?

The Brits have been talking to transatlantic cable operators about the operators providing security.
The Ukrainians have been requiring their weapons manufacturers to provide their own air defence.

How about the Feds sell off all these facilities and get rid of the security liability then require the operators to meet certain security standards under Federal regulation?

CATSA and the Commissionaires get new mandates?

 

[brihard]

Federal government selling off federal assets to generate funds to buy federal assets?

Carney government eyes privatizing airports to attract investment, cut travel costs

Minister says they want to make operations and passenger services more efficient.

www.thestar.com

When does the TMX line go "on the market"?
The ports of Vancouver and Halifax?

The Brits have been talking to transatlantic cable operators about the operators providing security.
The Ukrainians have been requiring their weapons manufacturers to provide their own air defence.

How about the Feds sell off all these facilities and get rid of the security liability then require the operators to meet certain security standards under Federal regulation?

CATSA and the Commissionaires get new mandates?

I don’t know what the current ownership and operations structure of Canadian ports is. I was surprised to learn that Ports America, the largest independent ports operator in the U.S., is 100% owned by… CPP Investments.

It makes sense that the Feds will look to free up federal equity in existing completed infrastructure projects to seed the new fund. Which projects that ends up being? Who knows. TMX would make sense.

EDIT: These couple replies would probably fit better in another threat. The pipelines/infrastructure one would make sense,

 

[daftandbarmy]

Meh PRs and lack of CFATs aren’t the issue. The fact we think we need to pass 100% of recruits is.

I am all for a heavy culling during recruit training for unsuitable candidates, we do a disservice by pushing to pass everyone even when it is obvious they don’t belong.

Most jobs have a 3-6 month probationary period where they can dismiss people for any reason at all. The CAF needs to practice that (if not longer/more aggressively) and weed out those unsuited before they get too far in their careers.

I was part of an organization that failed about 80% of all recruits, most of whom were amongst the highest rated nationally during the intake process.

Stats showed that about 80% of those who didn't make it with us went on to other units and were accepted through other recruit training processes. I met a few of them later and they all had done well in their 'second choice' units. About 20% of those we rejected left the military altogether.

I guess all that to say: we're selecting for the 'whole CAF' so it's a good idea to make sure the quality coming in is the highest possible to avoid wasting everyone's time and resources.

 

[WestIsle]

When, where, and what did you do about it?

Bold Eagle at the battle school in Wainwright. The higher ups knew but who is going to tell some Major from Ottawa what to do.

I mean hell apparently during the 50th or so anniversary before COVID the school was told that everyone must pass.

 

[dapaterson]

No PSOs definitely wanna push people through the recruiting system if it means meeting their targets instead of addressing anything else. Like making MCpls redo the CFAT when attempting to transfer to in demand officer positions.

I have also seen TDOs read through the answer block verbatim as well as let people write those same answers in their notebooks and bring it to their test if it means the right people amount of people are understanding the material.

PSOs and TDOs did not decided to rush PRs through the system.

PSOs and TDOs did not decide to remove the CFAT.

PSOs and TDSOs executed orders from people at much higher ranks.

MCpls whose original CFAT does not qualify for their desired officer occupation being told to redo the test is a feature, not a bug.

 

[dangerboy]

I taught on several courses at different training centres across Canada and have never seen a TDO interact with any candidates, let alone be there when they write tests. I have seen standards representatives administer tests, or the chain of command be there to assess the instructor, but that is it.

 

[Kilted]

I'm really hoping that those examples are the only ones - that they found all the worst ones and dumped them all in 1 article.

Well, the unfortunate thing is that if enough people (regardless of their citizenship status) join the military with those attitudes, at least some of them are going to finish training and be posted to an actual unit. The really scary part of this is that they are talking about officers, on the NCM side of things, I'm pretty confident that a lot of these issues would be dealt with at the lowest possible level once they actually made it to their units. With officers, especially those who don't like to listen to the advice of SNCO/WO's there are a lot fewer people to actually deal with them, who don't always have a lot of direct contact with them.

 

[Underway]

No PSOs definitely wanna push people through the recruiting system if it means meeting their targets instead of addressing anything else. Like making MCpls redo the CFAT when attempting to transfer to in demand officer positions.

PSO are not responsible for numbers in recruiting. They are only a resources for the Mil Career Counsellors and CO's to use. SME in policy and regulations for recruiting. The implementation of the policy falls to MCC's and the CO's.

 

[lenaitch]

It has been a longstanding opinion of mine that the death of a company is presaged by the promotion of the accountant and the lawyer to CEO. They get lost in rules and process and just do not grasp the value of risk-taking, the very attribute that launched and grew the company in the first place.

'They say' that's what happened at Boeing, when accountants and lawyers replaced engineers.

Litigious lawyers are some of the best known risk takers out there. They search for every possible angle or schtick to gain the advantage over their adversary. A litigious corporate lawyer - a balls to the wall CEO if there ever was one. They can be just as bad as putting in the Accountant/Lawyer types that you are referring to - at the opposite end of the risk adverse group.

I'm not sure I've ever noticed an aggressive, litigious lawyer in corporate practice. Corporate counsel are in place to advise the Board. Most corporations will outsource actual litigation work anyway. in order to obtain independent representation.

 

[lenaitch]

Here's the thing. Canada and its provinces have had fairly broad human rights legislation for many, many decades now. It sets a high bar for what has to be tolerated by society in general and governments and employers in particular. There is a strict standard of what duty every agency has to accommodate. Accommodation is rarely easy but compulsory none the less unless you can establish some bona fide occupational requirement. The CAF finds itself between a rock and a hard place in finding the right balance especially when trying to justify the universality of service concept when only a fraction of the force actually is involved in what we one could consider dangerous jobs.

We went through this whole process back in the 1980s with admitting females to the "combat arms" trades and it wasn't a pretty process. There is a perpetual fear at the top end that the CAF will be brought kicking and screaming into another such process where outsiders - who just don't understand because they are all woke appointees - will make the decision. Risk aversion plays a large part here. One person's "lowered standards" is another person's "appropriate accommodation." The even bigger concern we should have isn't that we need a tighter selection gateway, but that we may have to institute even more demanding processes to accommodate - accept, train and employ - individuals who fail standards that we can't satisfactorily prove to be BFOR.

A friend was released from the RCAF for becoming diabetic (meds needing refrigeration was apparently a key issue regarding deployability). To me, the issue wasn't the illness but the process. He appealed the initial notice and while the process was ongoing, courses and promotions were on hold. He was finally told 'by the right hand' that 'all is good - they're revising the UOS', so he got his courses, promotion, transferred across the country and felt confident enough to start a family. Then got a letter 'from the left hand' with his medical release date. At that point he gave up.

Maybe stop treating the people you have like crap. Sorry. rant off.

 

[MacNav63]

A friend was released from the RCAF for becoming diabetic (meds needing refrigeration was apparently a key issue regarding deployability). To me, the issue wasn't the illness but the process. He appealed the initial notice and while the process was ongoing, courses and promotions were on hold. He was finally told 'by the right hand' that 'all is good - they're revising the UOS', so he got his courses, promotion, transferred across the country and felt confident enough to start a family. Then got a letter 'from the left hand' with his medical release date. At that point he gave up.

Maybe stop treating the people you have like crap. Sorry. rant off.

Forgive my civilian question but as I understand it the rule is everyone has to be deployable, correct? If so, I get that that would be standard that you would want to apply at the recruiting stage, and perhaps during the first few years of service. But it seems to me to be somewhat counter productive to say to someone who the CAF has invested in training and developing and who has built up significant experience that because they now have a medical condition (or maybe a family situation) that means they can't be deployed we're showing them the door. Surely they still have value from which the CAF can benefit? Or is it the case that with so few people the CAF simply can't afford to have anyone on the books who can't be deployed?

 

[Czech_pivo]

I don’t know what the current ownership and operations structure of Canadian ports is. I was surprised to learn that Ports America, the largest independent ports operator in the U.S., is 100% owned by… CPP Investments.

It makes sense that the Feds will look to free up federal equity in existing completed infrastructure projects to seed the new fund. Which projects that ends up being? Who knows. TMX would make sense.

EDIT: These couple replies would probably fit better in another threat. The pipelines/infrastructure one would make sense,

Here's a link to what the CPPIB owns or has a stake in.

https://www.cppinvestments.com/the-fund/investment-programs/investment-real-assets/

Some examples:

Aéroports de Paris (Groupe ADP) - Groupe ADP is an international airport operator based in Paris, and owns and manages Parisian international airports Charles de Gaulle Airport, Orly Airport and Le Bourget Airport as well as interests in a network of 25 airports worldwide, which handled 160 million passengers in 2021.

Anglian Water Group Plc - Anglian Water Group owns 100% of Anglian Water Services, the 4th largest UK water & sewerage business. It supplies 1.2 billion litres of drinking water to 4.4 million customers, addition to wastewater services to 6.1 million customers throughout the east of England.

Arco Norte - Arco Norte is one of the largest federal toll road concessions in Mexico and has a remaining concession length of c. 50 years. It is a 223-kilometre toll road that bypasses Mexico City connecting the states of Mexico, Puebla, Hidalgo, Tlaxcala and Queretaro, providing a critical link with major trade corridors.

Associated British Ports - Associated British Ports is the UK’s leading port operator, with a unique network of 21 ports across England, Scotland and Wales. Ports include Immingham, the UKs busiest port, and Southampton, the nation's second largest and Europe's most efficient container port, as well as the UK’s number one for cars and cruise.

Cellnex Telecom S.A. - Cellnex Telecom S.A. is the leading independent mobile tower owner and operator in Europe, with a portfolio spanning 12 European countries.

National Highways Infra Trust - NHIT is a privately listed Infrastructure Investment Trust sponsored by National Highways Authority of India (“NHAI”), an autonomous authority responsible for developing and managing national highways across India. NHIT owns 26 operating toll roads spanning more than 2,300 kilometers across twelve states in India: Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, Telangana, and West Bengal.

Ports America Group - Ports America is the largest marine terminal operator in North America with operations in 70 locations and 33 ports across the United States.

This is just a small snapshot of what we own, 'we' being those who contribute into the CPP or are collecting CPP.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Forgive my civilian question but as I understand it the rule is everyone has to be deployable, correct? If so, I get that that would be standard that you would want to apply at the recruiting stage, and perhaps during the first few years of service. But it seems to me to be somewhat counter productive to say to someone who the CAF has invested in training and developing and who has built up significant experience that because they now have a medical condition (or maybe a family situation) that means they can't be deployed we're showing them the door. Surely they still have value from which the CAF can benefit? Or is it the case that with so few people the CAF simply can't afford to have anyone on the books who can't be deployed?

There are multitudes of people inhabiting various parts of the CAF on a variety of 'categories' exempting them from deploying on opertions... or even to the 'field' on local exercises.

I recall, for example, a Class B staff Officer who was so grossly obese that he had to wear a 'maternity' uniform.

He served for years, happily collecting Major's pay right up until retirement and full pension.

 

[Czech_pivo]

There are multitudes of people inhabiting various parts of the CAF on a variety of 'categories' exempting them from deploying on opertions... or even to the 'field' on local exercises.

I recall, for example, a Class B staff Officer who was so grossly obese that he had to wear a 'maternity' uniform.

He served for years, happily collecting Major's pay right up until retirement and full pension.

Well, old Winnie himself was known to wear a 'onesie' daily during his senior years.....

 

[Underway]

I want to address this recruiting stuff.

1. If you haven't read the AAR written by the CO of CFLRS you should do so. And read the whole thing, all the data, stats, challenges and recommendations. Aside from a few spelling errors (the man wrote it in English and is French, we'll allow it) it is excellent. Its fair, points out the challenges, makes some solid recommendations and in many cases points out where the data doesn't match anymore because recruiting policy has changes. The final recommendations even discuss how the training system was designed to deal with the old way of recruiting, and that a lot of the solution space may be in changing how basic training is run, if this is the new paradigm going forward. Moving to a quick to hire quick to fire model instead of slow to hire impossible to fire model.

Also the data is in some cases 4 months old, and policies have changed multiple times over the course of the data collection. The LCol does a good job of breaking down apples to apples and calling out data sets that will not match due to policy difference.

2. Some of the stats sound terrible, until you break down the numbers. Pass rates went from ~85% to 77% for example and recourses doubled. They went from 7% to 14%. Increase of 7% isn't good but its not as sensational as "doubled". However numbers in the system increased significantly from previous years. Last two years we went from ~4300 recruits to ~7300 final numbers this year, which is an increase of 70% so if you look at total numbers getting through we still increased. And that's the mission.

3. In relation to the PR challenges, yah, we all knew it raised our concerns and carried on with the mission. We knew from interactions with staff that some recruits would have problems with the culture... but had no tools to deal with it.

4. Med fit changes (Fit with MELS being allowed to join) are potentially more significant in causing problems with failure rates and recourses than testing and PR recruiting. Lot more folks with medication for mental health. Data is unclear at this point as CFLRS can't track that very well due to med privacy.

---

But what you don't know is recruiting has already pivoted to deal with some of those challenges, as we got lots of feedback already:

-5 months ago policy changed to only allow PR's who have been in Canada for 3+ years, from non-high risk countries to be interviewed. That's PR's who at this point in time can likely apply for and get their citizenship as they have enough time in country.

-Also the interview guide changed 9 months ago to catch folks who have difficulty in the official languages, we assign language testing (at their own cost ) to applicants we are unsure about AND have tightend up the standards for foreign transcripts for education (prove that the language of instruction was in english/french) in the last two months. We are much more vigilant on this now, and have tools to deal with the language problem folks.

-The CAF has a probationary period now (9 months old). So before OFP we can just fire you for infractions. This won't change the numbers at CFLRS but it will allow the quick to fire unsuitable cadidates, unlike the "we can never get rid of you" admin burdens that we all wished were cashiered during BMQ. This won't help the numbers BUT it will reduce the burden on training establishments as you can just jettison folks more easily. This goes to the philosophy of if we have lowered standards to an extent we can catch them on the other side.

-CFAT had run its course, it was replaced with the SEAF, and recently they trialed an IQ test. Both are not fit for purpose. I have heard from good sources they are working on a CFAT replacement, as its recognized that we need something there. There was a lot of feedback from CFLRS and other organizations that do prescreening (Aircrew Selection, Mil Police) that this was valuable. MTF on this as its still a rumour.

-someone who was a PR for less than three months being recruited was possible 8 months ago, but so what? Very contingent criticism based on that individuals experience, country they came from (5 eyes for example would be an easy transition and no big deal from a security clearance perspective), and how long they have already resided in Canada. Also though I would say that's pretty impressive as most folks complain that it takes 200 days to join, but getting processed, enrolled and on BMQ in 120 days is a good speed!

---

Overall this feels a bit like the dress policy changes. The pendulum swung to far in one direction all at once and since then had to be pulled back. There were 14 major policy changes in 2024, because it was a crisis. We achieved the mission, started increasing intake, knowing that the solutions were not idea, but again EMERGENCY. Everything was thrown at the problem.

And now we're getting attacked for dealing with the crisis. I don't think anyone can understand how heavy of a lift recruiting has done in the last two years. How soon we forget.

That being said, we have started to pull back particularly as we have data to support those decisions.. A lot of the changes were good and needed to happen, and the negative effects can be managed. A lot of them were shown to be bad and have already been revised. There is still work to do.

 

[ytz]

How dare you actually read the report and form a reasonable nuanced opinion?

 

[dapaterson]

I will quibble that CFAT had run its course. If applicants were terrified of a test, well, then scaring them off was a net positive to the CAF.