Government hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[FJAG]

Yes other Canadians live in the same places for less money, but we shouldn't be shooting for the bottom. If we want motivated young people to join, we need to make it appealing to the motivated, not the equivalent of working as a supervisor at Best Buy.

I don't see it as shooting for the bottom. The last time I looked military pay was tied to the Fed civil service pay with a military factor notching it slightly higher. Some may argue, mut Fed civil service pay is better than competitive with most civil jobs in the same category. That was certainly the case for the legal profession where Federal support staff did considerably better than their private industry peers.

There are already numerous pay allowances in play to compensate specific cases and I certainly do not support any across the board pay raises beyond the usual cost of living ones. If someone finally turns on the tap for more funds than my priorities are for equipment as number one and more part-time people to build mass as number two. I'll support more full-time people once a proper systemic review and reform is done to resolve the inherent "management" inefficiencies of DND, the CAF, the CAF's recruiting and training system, the equipment procurement system and the defence industrial base.

 

[Furniture]

I don't see it as shooting for the bottom. The last time I looked military pay was tied to the Fed civil service pay with a military factor notching it slightly higher. Some may argue, mut Fed civil service pay is better than competitive with most civil jobs in the same category. That was certainly the case for the legal profession where Federal support staff did considerably better than their private industry peers.

There are already numerous pay allowances in play to compensate specific cases and I certainly do not support any across the board pay raises beyond the usual cost of living ones. If someone finally turns on the tap for more funds than my priorities are for equipment as number one and more part-time people to build mass as number two. I'll support more full-time people once a proper systemic review and reform is done to resolve the inherent "management" inefficiencies of DND, the CAF, the CAF's recruiting and training system, the equipment procurement system and the defence industrial base.

Full time critical staff will continue to not be in the CAF until pay and benefits get better.

With my training and experience, my counterparts in ECCC make about 25-50% more... I'm just one of the specialist skills that the CAF is short, and trying to recruit.

Maybe we don't need to pay Gunner Bloggins 25% more, but I suspect the ACIS Tech needs at least that much to keep putting up with CAF BS.

 

[FJAG]

Full time critical staff will continue to not be in the CAF until pay and benefits get better.

With my training and experience, my counterparts in ECCC make about 25-50% more... I'm just one of the specialist skills that the CAF is short, and trying to recruit.

Maybe we don't need to pay Gunner Bloggins 25% more, but I suspect the ACIS Tech needs at least that much to keep putting up with CAF BS.

I'm certainly not in a position to argue as to whether one trade/classification or another should get more or less of the pie. There's a whole machine in government that works on that so that rough equity is maintained.

My concern is the prevalence of thinking that if everyone gets a 25% or 50% pay raise the retention issues will magically disappear. It was thinking like that which created Helyer corporals and captains. As I said. My priority is that money be used to build a credible equipped military with the sufficient mass to deter enemies and actually win a fight if pressed.

 

[eliminator]

Maisonneuve is back in the National Post: ''Canada has far too few soldiers. Here's a radical fix — mandatory service''.

Perhaps I'm wrong but it appears that he is wearing a medal that he shouldn't. Specifically, his CMM neck badge is correct but he shouldn't be sporting a (full-sized) court-mounted OMM.

What do you think?

Not sure when that photo was taken, but when a member is promoted within the ORMM, they are requested to return the lower-level insignia to Rideau Hall. I did find this newer photo which the OMM insignia has been removed.

 

[eliminator]

If not recognized, it should not be worn.

If non-Canadian, it follows the CD once gazetted.

His foreign awards are recorded here: https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/t.../dhh/honours/commonwealth-foreign-honours.pdf

 

[ytz]

The last time I looked military pay was tied to the Fed civil service pay with a military factor notching it slightly higher.

The current problems are revealing how wholly inadequate that military factor is.

If someone finally turns on the tap for more funds than my priorities are for equipment as number one and more part-time people to build mass as number two. I'll support more full-time people once a proper systemic review and reform is done to resolve the inherent "management" inefficiencies of DND, the CAF, the CAF's recruiting and training system, the equipment procurement system and the defence industrial base.

An understandable perspective for somebody who isn't in and is part of one of the wealthiest cohorts in the country. But when we're recruiting and trying to retain from the other side of the spectrum this doesn't work.

The CAF has shortages in highly skilled occupations. But the CAF is also short across the board. That definitely speaks to a broader problem.

Part of the wider issue, of course, is that the mediocre pay, is compounded by poor family services and spousal support in a country with an increasingly aging population where the price/income ratio for housing has doubled over the decades. A young family of four that isn't making over $180k today would struggle maintaining a lifestyle most would consider middle class in most of the country. But every time the member moves that family loses $50k from the spouse starting their career over. How does the CAF compensation structure account for that? And that is all made worse by losing a daycare spot (my wife nearly quit her job when we couldn't find daycare....in Ottawa), not being able to find a family doctor, etc

The maxim that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result, holds. Over the last two decades, CAF shortfalls have gotten worse and worse. And yet nobody wants to listen to members literally telling them in release surveys what the problems are. Expecting things to change because new kit is the definition of insanity. You might retain a few pilots with new F-35s. Good luck retaining the techs and engineers though. And that same challenge is true across other services.

Finally, like I said earlier, a lot of these conversations ignore demographics and needed family income today. A member is much more likely to be older and have dependents today than generations past. That also means they care about family income. If you screw the spouse, the member's pay has to make up for it. The CAF doesn't come close today. And so increasingly, every posting message is a family decision of do we take this or should we end here.

Throwing money at this, won't fix everything, but it will stem the losses and buy time till ab lot of the institutional changes can be made and the missing supports built. Or I guess we can just pray for a severe recession....

 

[Halifax Tar]

The current problems are revealing how wholly inadequate that military factor is.



An understandable perspective for somebody who isn't in and is part of one of the wealthiest cohorts in the country. But when we're recruiting and trying to retain from the other side of the spectrum this doesn't work.

The CAF has shortages in highly skilled occupations. But the CAF is also short across the board. That definitely speaks to a broader problem.

Part of the wider issue, of course, is that the mediocre pay, is compounded by poor family services and spousal support in a country with an increasingly aging population where the price/income ratio for housing has doubled over the decades. A young family of four that isn't making over $180k today would struggle maintaining a lifestyle most would consider middle class in most of the country. But every time the member moves that family loses $50k from the spouse starting their career over. How does the CAF compensation structure account for that? And that is all made worse by losing a daycare spot (my wife nearly quit her job when we couldn't find daycare....in Ottawa), not being able to find a family doctor, etc

The maxim that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result, holds. Over the last two decades, CAF shortfalls have gotten worse and worse. And yet nobody wants to listen to members literally telling them in release surveys what the problems are. Expecting things to change because new kit is the definition of insanity. You might retain a few pilots with new F-35s. Good luck retaining the techs and engineers though. And that same challenge is true across other services.

Finally, like I said earlier, a lot of these conversations ignore demographics and needed family income today. A member is much more likely to be older and have dependents today than generations past. That also means they care about family income. If you screw the spouse, the member's pay has to make up for it. The CAF doesn't come close today. And so increasingly, every posting message is a family decision of do we take this or should we end here.

Throwing money at this, won't fix everything, but it will stem the losses and buy time till ab lot of the institutional changes can be made and the missing supports built. Or I guess we can just pray for a severe recession....

We're more likely to put up the CAF BS if the money and benefits are worth it.

I can tell you this last deployment was my last. Not because I've lost steam or desire it's that the financial benefits are no where near what the CAF needs to offer me to go away for 6 months and live in a tin can. And thats inclusive of all deployment benefits. It's not worth it.

 

[ytz]

Maybe we don't need to pay Gunner Bloggins 25% more, but I suspect the ACIS Tech needs at least that much to keep putting up with CAF BS.

Gunner Bloggins probably doesn't need 25%. But MCpl. Bloggins could well have their spouse saying they are tired of renting and maybe they should stay put and Bloggins should get out and go take an oil patch or city works or policing job. That initial decade as a single Pte/Cpl or Lt/Capt only goes so far. Then they get married and the bills start coming. And that's before we talk about simply not being able to get some family services (at any cost) in certain locations.

Spec trade pay, like you point out, is also rather poor, relative to private sector. But even this problem would at least be reduced by an across the board bump. Going 10% across the board will at least keep some ACIS Techs longer.

A big part of the problem, in my opinion, is this comparison to the public service. For example, with engineers (my field), a Captain is equivalent to between an ENG-3 and ENG-4 supposedly. A maxed out Captain-10 is on par with a maxed out ENG-4 and $13k over a maxed out ENG-3. If you split the difference, that would make this "military factor" maybe $6k? That few thousand will never make up for a spouse resetting their career, ending up on the daycare waiting list, back on the family doctor list, etc. every 3-4 years. The logical financial decision is to get out and get an ENG-4 job, the first chance a person gets, so that they have the same pay as the CAF, but much better family stability. I have no idea how this military factor is calculated, but when it works out to being a Public Service recruiting program, something isn't right here.