Government hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Equipment is a major issue.
Anyone who sees the state of equipment across the CAF is probably going to question what/how the Government (and country writ large) values them.

Yes there have been some new items acquired, but anyone taking even a cursory look at recent conflicts will quickly come to the conclusion that the CAF is woefully prepared for a shooting war with anyone except perhaps Liechtenstein.

Obviously equipment is an issue. That's the easy notice and fix. It's also the sexy part.

You'd be surprised what people will put up with for good pay and benefits and an employer who is looking out for their best interests.

 

[Remius]

Equipment is a major issue.
Anyone who sees the state of equipment across the CAF is probably going to question what/how the Government (and country writ large) values them.

Yes there have been some new items acquired, but anyone taking even a cursory look at recent conflicts will quickly come to the conclusion that the CAF is woefully prepared for a shooting war with anyone except perhaps Liechtenstein.

Right now I’d love to have just some of the basic stuff to do basic stuff. We can’t even do that.

 

[daftandbarmy]

We can buy all the toys we want, but if we can't entice the people to join and stay all the toys and cool explosions are for naught.

People are the single more important part of the CAF. Pretending we can ignore that and new ships, planes and tanks will fix stuff is simply out of touch.

It's not only pay and benefits that needs increasing, we need a leadership and culture change. A simple perusing of social media give you scores of examples of leaders, both commissioned and non, who have no business leading a one man band let alone Canadians who have vowed to makes the ultimate sacrifice.

Leadership, Pay and Benefits. This is where our problem is; and I would put it in that order.

But the CDS says everything is going great on the recruiting front, even with 'status quo' leadership, pay and benefits ...

Canadian Forces says it’s on track to meet 2025 recruitment goal​

The turnaround follows three years when more people left the military than signed up -- a trend Defence Minister Bill Blair has described as a 'death spiral'

Canadian Forces says it’s on track to meet 2025 recruitment goal

x

nationalpost.com

 

[Halifax Tar]

But the CDS says everything is going great on the recruiting front, even with 'status quo' leadership, pay and benefits ...

Canadian Forces says it’s on track to meet 2025 recruitment goal​

The turnaround follows three years when more people left the military than signed up -- a trend Defence Minister Bill Blair has described as a 'death spiral'

Canadian Forces says it’s on track to meet 2025 recruitment goal

x

nationalpost.com

Remember, my first problem was leadership.

 

[KevinB]

Obviously equipment is an issue. That's the easy notice and fix. It's also the sexy part.

You'd be surprised what people will put up with for good pay and benefits and an employer who is looking out for their best interests.

I think the CAF sells itself short in the actual pay and benefits. Yes it’s easy to sit as a Has Been and make commentary, as so got out in 2004. But the Leave plan is crazy good, and admittedly you need money to enjoy leave - but the system in that way needs tweets to be competitive and fair, rather than knee jerk lump raises.
I do think based on my own squabbling with the VAC, that the CAF would be better served by a better VA system. But quite often young members are not thinking about that and only when the miles they put on their bodies in service to the crown come back to bite them do they wish they had either better documentation done, or a system that understood that very few folks coming off a DZ are going to run to the MIR or Base Hospital etc.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I think the CAF sells itself short in the actual pay and benefits. Yes it’s easy to sit as a Has Been and make commentary, as so got out in 2004. But the Leave plan is crazy good, and admittedly you need money to enjoy leave - but the system in that way needs tweets to be competitive and fair, rather than knee jerk lump raises.
I do think based on my own squabbling with the VAC, that the CAF would be better served by a better VA system. But quite often young members are not thinking about that and only when the miles they put on their bodies in service to the crown come back to bite them do they wish they had either better documentation done, or a system that understood that very few folks coming off a DZ are going to run to the MIR or Base Hospital etc.

Retention retention retention.

Maybe it's just the RCN and the Army and RCAF are happy with their pay and bennies. But I can tell you every kid leaving is saying: Leadership, Pay and Benefits. And it's even more prevalent at the Snr NCM level. The whole CFHD debacle really hit the members of my mess hard. Especially the PO2s.

And Irving, Thales, Lockheed, even the PS are all gobbling them up happily.

It's the whole reason the RCN gave the Stokers 20 days special CDS leave.

 

[Brad Sallows]

The bill for people is going to be high as long as we have a small force relative to the overhead burden we carry at the top.

If we're comparing rates across time, Class A private basic $29.25 in 1983 would be $83.94 in 2025 (BoC inflation calculator). The current private basic rate is $127.22. That's a considerable jump above inflation.

It's always possible to find short intervals over which compensation has stagnated or even fallen. But almost every particular job I've looked at shows that over the past few decades, take-home pay has been outpacing inflation. (I say "almost", but I don't remember any exceptions. And I doubt that benefits and other indirects have fallen.) This is particularly true for public agencies and government, and most particularly for people represented by bargaining units. We are slowly strangling ourselves with a one-way ratchet by compensating people for more than inflation.

Compensation growth above inflation is expected when productivity improves. This obviously does not apply to jobs for which employees don't really produce more today than they did in, say, 1970. For that, I refer again to Baumol effect. Nevertheless, I also suspect that the old "public sector jobs are more secure and pay less than private sector jobs" belief has for years been no longer applicable except to particular niches involving combinations of high education and high aptitude or skills otherwise difficult to acquire. Having gotten most of the protections and benefits they sought long ago, unions turned to (successfully) exerting upward pressure on wages. CAF pay is somewhat coupled to that.

You might be underpaid if you're a math whiz working for government or the CAF instead of running market models for an investment shop or doing IT security for a private company. Otherwise, not necessarily, and in fact probably not.

 

[Remius]

Retention retention retention.

Maybe it's just the RCN and the Army and RCAF are happy with their pay and bennies. But I can tell you every kid leaving is saying: Leadership, Pay and Benefits. And it's even more prevalent at the Snr NCM level. The whole CFHD debacle really hit the members of my mess hard. Especially the PO2s.

And Irving, Thales, Lockheed, even the PS are all gobbling them up happily.

It's the whole reason the RCN gave the Stokers 20 days special CDS leave.

I can’t speak to anything reg force. pay is decent in the PRes. Training is an issue and the most important thing for most is: TIME.

No troop wants to waste their time. They give up weekends, vacation and evenings. No amount of money gives them back their time. If you waste it, they won’t want to waste it again. No matter how much you offer.

And yes, that is linked to proper leadership.

 

[GR66]

The bill for people is going to be high as long as we have a small force relative to the overhead burden we carry at the top.

If we're comparing rates across time, Class A private basic $29.25 in 1983 would be $83.94 in 2025 (BoC inflation calculator). The current private basic rate is $127.22. That's a considerable jump above inflation.

It's always possible to find short intervals over which compensation has stagnated or even fallen. But almost every particular job I've looked at shows that over the past few decades, take-home pay has been outpacing inflation. (I say "almost", but I don't remember any exceptions. And I doubt that benefits and other indirects have fallen.) This is particularly true for public agencies and government, and most particularly for people represented by bargaining units. We are slowly strangling ourselves with a one-way ratchet by compensating people for more than inflation.

Compensation growth above inflation is expected when productivity improves. This obviously does not apply to jobs for which employees don't really produce more today than they did in, say, 1970. For that, I refer again to Baumol effect. Nevertheless, I also suspect that the old "public sector jobs are more secure and pay less than private sector jobs" belief has for years been no longer applicable except to particular niches involving combinations of high education and high aptitude or skills otherwise difficult to acquire. Having gotten most of the protections and benefits they sought long ago, unions turned to (successfully) exerting upward pressure on wages. CAF pay is somewhat coupled to that.

You might be underpaid if you're a math whiz working for government or the CAF instead of running market models for an investment shop or doing IT security for a private company. Otherwise, not necessarily, and in fact probably not.

I don't think the issue with CAF pay is so much pay vs general inflation but rather pay vs housing inflation.

We've been in a period of extensive and extended inflation of home values. It makes home ownership extremely difficult for the younger generations because the cost of entry to the market is so high. The situation is amplified for CAF members because even if you're able to enter the housing market you are unable to lock in that investment because you may/will likely be forced to move at a time of the CAF's choosing rather than when it makes economic sense for you personally.

In my opinion if you solve the housing crisis for the younger generation then you solve one of the biggest economic issues facing the country and perhaps the greatest source of personal dissatisfaction among young people. This goes double for members of the CAF.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I don't think the issue with CAF pay is so much pay vs general inflation but rather pay vs housing inflation.

Everyone is in that boat. Consequently, everyone has the same complaint - it's in/on the news daily. The consequence of elevating one group will be to make every other group loudly demand the same thing. The only way to protect public finances is to refuse to play.

 

[Seyek]

The bill for people is going to be high as long as we have a small force relative to the overhead burden we carry at the top.

If we're comparing rates across time, Class A private basic $29.25 in 1983 would be $83.94 in 2025 (BoC inflation calculator). The current private basic rate is $127.22. That's a considerable jump above inflation.

It's always possible to find short intervals over which compensation has stagnated or even fallen. But almost every particular job I've looked at shows that over the past few decades, take-home pay has been outpacing inflation. (I say "almost", but I don't remember any exceptions. And I doubt that benefits and other indirects have fallen.) This is particularly true for public agencies and government, and most particularly for people represented by bargaining units. We are slowly strangling ourselves with a one-way ratchet by compensating people for more than inflation.

Compensation growth above inflation is expected when productivity improves. This obviously does not apply to jobs for which employees don't really produce more today than they did in, say, 1970. For that, I refer again to Baumol effect. Nevertheless, I also suspect that the old "public sector jobs are more secure and pay less than private sector jobs" belief has for years been no longer applicable except to particular niches involving combinations of high education and high aptitude or skills otherwise difficult to acquire. Having gotten most of the protections and benefits they sought long ago, unions turned to (successfully) exerting upward pressure on wages. CAF pay is somewhat coupled to that.

You might be underpaid if you're a math whiz working for government or the CAF instead of running market models for an investment shop or doing IT security for a private company. Otherwise, not necessarily, and in fact probably not.

Pay is good for people who are unskilled/uneducated for sure. Mixed bag depending on individual skill and education levels, but the fact that we keep having retention problems, especially amongst skilled trades, seems to point to their being working conditions for which alternatives are proving a better option to members and pay (among other key elements that have been brought up like leadership, equipment, purpose, etc) are a part of it. Some other benefits have declined, time for pension (20 to 25 years), availability of PMQs though I don't know how costs compare now to historically, not sure about other benefits. And you're absolutely right that public sector compensation has been higher than inflation but the numbers you used are inaccurate as they're using Class B daily rates and while I don't know what changes have occurred over the whole time frame from then till now there was a big change in reg force vs reserve compensation some years back that adjusted the ratio. And like GR66 mentioned after, this doesn't take into account pay adjustment vs housing inflation which official inflation figures don't do a good job adjusting for.

Some meaningful comparison for reg force pay annual salaries:

Rank and IPC	1983	Today equivalent based on Inflation	Today Actual
Private IPC 1	$13,404	$38,465.70	$43,368
Corporal Basic	$22,524	$64,637.54	$72,828
Sergeant Basic	$25,908	$74,348.66	$84,516
Captain Basic	$30,120	$86,435	$94,092

They're higher - but not nearly as higher as the class B rate you posted would indicate. It's about 12.7% vs 51.6%.

I don't think the issue with CAF pay is so much pay vs general inflation but rather pay vs housing inflation.

We've been in a period of extensive and extended inflation of home values. It makes home ownership extremely difficult for the younger generations because the cost of entry to the market is so high. The situation is amplified for CAF members because even if you're able to enter the housing market you are unable to lock in that investment because you may/will likely be forced to move at a time of the CAF's choosing rather than when it makes economic sense for you personally.

In my opinion if you solve the housing crisis for the younger generation then you solve one of the biggest economic issues facing the country and perhaps the greatest source of personal dissatisfaction among young people. This goes double for members of the CAF.

Some quick googling shows an average house price of $75,000 in 1983, inflation adjusted would be about $214k, while average home price now is $668k. You're absolutely right - the housing inflation is one of the biggest problems we face.

I'd prefer most new money go to equipment, ammunition, sustainment and infrastructure but we can't ignore pay among other benefits. An overhaul in the pay system to boost pay for more technically demanding trades and retention bonuses perhaps, but it is a factor that can't be ignored.

Everyone is in that boat. Consequently, everyone has the same complaint - it's in/on the news daily. The consequence of elevating one group will be to make every other group loudly demand the same thing. The only way to protect public finances is to refuse to play.

Sure - but we lose critical personnel in the military. We're substantially understrength as is, refusing to compensate people to keep them on won't improve that situation, and F-35s sitting in hangars and new destroyers tied up alongside with no one to operate or support them makes no meaningful contribution to our defence or alliances. If we want people we need to pay them. If the public purse is our primary concern, pull out of NATO, bring all troops overseas home, cut the navy down to sufficient OPVs to handle local security in our waters, cut the RCAF to minimum needed airframes for NORAD, cut the bulk of the army and sell most of our land and other assets. That may have more negative effects to our trade arrangements, particularly with the US, though, so we either pay the cost of having a military, which includes personnel, or we cut the military. Or I suppose we could disband the CAF, cut the US a 2% of GDP cheque and hand our defence to them but I don't think that'll be something supported by the general public.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Pay is good for people who are unskilled/uneducated for sure. Mixed bag depending on individual skill and education levels, but the fact that we keep having retention problems, especially amongst skilled trades, seems to point to their being working conditions for which alternatives are proving a better option to members and pay (among other key elements that have been brought up like leadership, equipment, purpose, etc) are a part of it. Some other benefits have declined, time for pension (20 to 25 years), availability of PMQs though I don't know how costs compare now to historically, not sure about other benefits. And you're absolutely right that public sector compensation has been higher than inflation but the numbers you used are inaccurate as they're using Class B daily rates and while I don't know what changes have occurred over the whole time frame from then till now there was a big change in reg force vs reserve compensation some years back that adjusted the ratio. And like GR66 mentioned after, this doesn't take into account pay adjustment vs housing inflation which official inflation figures don't do a good job adjusting for.

Some meaningful comparison for reg force pay annual salaries:

Rank and IPC	1983	Today equivalent based on Inflation	Today Actual
Private IPC 1	$13,404	$38,465.70	$43,368
Corporal Basic	$22,524	$64,637.54	$72,828
Sergeant Basic	$25,908	$74,348.66	$84,516
Captain Basic	$30,120	$86,435	$94,092

They're higher - but not nearly as higher as the class B rate you posted would indicate. It's about 12.7% vs 51.6%.



Some quick googling shows an average house price of $75,000 in 1983, inflation adjusted would be about $214k, while average home price now is $668k. You're absolutely right - the housing inflation is one of the biggest problems we face.

I'd prefer most new money go to equipment, ammunition, sustainment and infrastructure but we can't ignore pay among other benefits. An overhaul in the pay system to boost pay for more technically demanding trades and retention bonuses perhaps, but it is a factor that can't be ignored.



Sure - but we lose critical personnel in the military. We're substantially understrength as is, refusing to compensate people to keep them on won't improve that situation, and F-35s sitting in hangars and new destroyers tied up alongside with no one to operate or support them makes no meaningful contribution to our defence or alliances. If we want people we need to pay them. If the public purse is our primary concern, pull out of NATO, bring all troops overseas home, cut the navy down to sufficient OPVs to handle local security in our waters, cut the RCAF to minimum needed airframes for NORAD, cut the bulk of the army and sell most of our land and other assets. That may have more negative effects to our trade arrangements, particularly with the US, though, so we either pay the cost of having a military, which includes personnel, or we cut the military. Or I suppose we could disband the CAF, cut the US a 2% of GDP cheque and hand our defence to them but I don't think that'll be something supported by the general public.

I would think that a major issue is the career opportunities for spouses. The individual pay doesn’t look, on first glance, to be a major issue. But the career opportunities for spouses look to be limited based on the geographical location of a lot of the CAF postings, thus leading to limited or outright loss of earning potential to the overall family. Adding to this, I assume, I the fact the CAF members are reassigned periodically across the country, thus forcing the working spouse to quit their employment and quite possibly move to a location where their previous employment doesn’t even exist.
Addressing this issue would solve many problems.

 

[Seyek]

I would think that a major issue is the career opportunities for spouses. The individual pay doesn’t look, on first glance, to be a major issue. But the career opportunities for spouses look to be limited based on the geographical location of a lot of the CAF postings, thus leading to limited or outright loss of earning potential to the overall family. Adding to this, I assume, I the fact the CAF members are reassigned periodically across the country, thus forcing the working spouse to quit their employment and quite possibly move to a location where their previous employment doesn’t even exist.
Addressing this issue would solve many problems.

Absolutely - radical suggestion I know will upset some people, instead of forcing public servants to return to office, there seems to be indication that it's productivity increased with working from home. So make as many PS jobs that can be done from home, able to be done from home. We reduce traffic and fixed office costs. Given preference to hiring military spouses and you now open a huge chunk of PS jobs to military spouses who can be moved around without consequence to their position. In addition to opening up PS jobs to the rest of the country. Enable more remote work opportunities for uniform members too for positions where the physical location doesn't matter so much, so for someone who may have otherwise been posted to Ottawa can stay where they were posted before. Most uniform jobs won't be remote friendly, but there are some that are and could help keep those members geographically stable.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Fix the housing issue on the bases.

Use modern camp style housing to resolve the single/transient issues.

Use mobile homes to quickly add extra PMQ's, while you rebuild and modernize the existing stock.

 

[MilEME09]

Fix the housing issue on the bases.

Use modern camp style housing to resolve the single/transient issues.

Use mobile homes to quickly add extra PMQ's, while you rebuild and modernize the existing stock.

Pre fab homes would help as well, lots of builders out west. Just gotta pour foundation etc at site. I've seen them get built pretty fast once ordered.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

5,000 workers, cafeteria, Starbucks, gym, work stations, lounges, shared kitchen spaces

 

[daftandbarmy]

5,000 workers, cafeteria, Starbucks, gym, work stations, lounges, shared kitchen spaces

And the contractor runs the whole thing like a high quality hotel chain would ...

 

[Colin Parkinson]

And the contractor runs the whole thing like a high quality hotel chain would ...

A contractor that knows they will get the punt and a bad rep if to many issues arises, that is where the government will fall down.

 

[KevinB]

And the contractor runs the whole thing like a high quality hotel chain would ...

A contractor that knows they will get the punt and a bad rep if to many issues arises, that is where the government will fall down.

Contractors should be used for short term projects.

If it becomes a fully time role, the goal should be to transition from contract to internal positions. This should be an upfront discussion with the principal contractor, so either a train the trainer method is used (and build into the costing) or some other method to ensure that the project transitions to .gov run with as little issues as possible.

At the end of the day, while the private sector can be effective for some things, the end result is it is a for profit enterprise, and will run that way, which service levels will drop as funding decreases.

 

[Kirkhill]

Contractors should be used for short term projects.

If it becomes a fully time role, the goal should be to transition from contract to internal positions. This should be an upfront discussion with the principal contractor, so either a train the trainer method is used (and build into the costing) or some other method to ensure that the project transitions to .gov run with as little issues as possible.

At the end of the day, while the private sector can be effective for some things, the end result is it is a for profit enterprise, and will run that way, which service levels will drop as funding decreases.

As opposed to the exemplary way the government maintained the H Blocks and PMQs?

Any system is subject to abuse.

My concern with those camps is what is their shelf-life? For that matter what is the shelf-life of any structure? Any building, like any ship, needs regular refreshing and, ultimately, regular replacing. Nothing stands still.