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

[Czech_pivo]

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.

I appreciate the time and effort that you put into this response.

I can only wish that this sort of detailed, factual based response could be put out there for the media to properly disseminate.

 

[ytz]

I appreciate the time and effort that you put into this response.

I can only wish that this sort of detailed, factual based response could be put out there for the media to properly disseminate.

Somebody clearly leaked the report from the DND Sharepoint. And they may well have only leaked the juicy parts. But people in uniform do have access. There's nothing stopping people from educating themselves at the source.

 

[Underway]

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

I know right? We were legit excited when it came out because a lot of us were able to point to it and say "I told you so!". But after we got over our ego, the problem solving started.

What can I do day to day to be part of the solution? For starters if there is even a hint of language difficulty we're sending them to get an evaluation. "Probably ok" is no longer sufficient. there are other things, but the feedback was so valuable to us.

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.

You and I have quibbled on this before so I was looking forward to your response!

But yes, given the data, we need a prescreening test as overall learning ability going down was one of the challenges listed in the report, putting strain on the training staff.

They want a test that can be done online, and will likely be using similar tech to what universities developed during COVID for remote proctoring. I have a kid in university and they have some pretty slick ways of ensuring people don't cheat during those.

 

[Brad Sallows]

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

There are reasons for favouring ownership of foreign assets. Ran across this today (skeptical article at Reason.com about the proposed Canadian SWF).

"...the Norwegian investment fund is financed by the country's oil and gas revenues, only spends the return it makes, and can only make expenditures outside of the country (a measure to prevent corruption and political horse-trading)..."

 

[Czech_pivo]

There are reasons for favouring ownership of foreign assets. Ran across this today (skeptical article at Reason.com about the proposed Canadian SWF).

"...the Norwegian investment fund is financed by the country's oil and gas revenues, only spends the return it makes, and can only make expenditures outside of the country (a measure to prevent corruption and political horse-trading)..."

Valid concerns about investing inside vs outside the country.

Luckily the CPPIB has had these sort of issues over its existence. IF the proposed CDN SWF is structured in the same manner as the CPPIB, it stands to reason that it won't have to address these sort of issues as well.

 

[dapaterson]

My understanding is that an online, remote proctored CFAT was under development when the direction came from on high to cease.

 

[MacNav63]

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.

I seem to recall the phrase "the exception that proves the rule" from my French lessons.

 

[Furniture]

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.

The CAF has clamped down pretty hard on retaining people with PCats that prevent them from functioning at a base level. The era of automatic retention, and indefinite extensions of retention is over.

I'm sure there are still exceptions, but for the most part people are now shown the door if it's not going to improve.

 

[FJAG]

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?

It's a good question and the answer is hard for folks on the outside and also the inside to understand.

"Universality of service," which includes the ability to be deployed anywhere at any time, is the gold standard. Especially in a small force like Canada's. That said, there are positions which must be filled which could easily be filled by people who don't meet the standards. (And you should note that the medical categories for different trades and classifications do vary. Some need better vision or hearing than others - and so on.)

Yes. There are many institutional positions in headquarters and on bases which could easily accommodate someone who can't serve in the field. Unfortunately that means those who can serve in the field may be stuck there forever rather than be rotated around to gain experience (or maybe just be given a temporary break away from the field)

The problem comes in with drawing the line. Especially when you start dealing with the needs of Human Rights legislation and and individuals' unique case situation. An employer's lowering the bar for some cases to make an exception, may soon become the new standard applied to everyone across the board. The corporate position on where those lines are change from time to time and similarly the way that the standards are applied at the lower levels may very from person to person who is required to apply those standards.

The CAF has a very complex mass of orders, regulations, directions and policies and they can be difficult to interpret at any given time even if well written (and many are not).