Government hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I have long said that you could fund the CAF to 4 percent of GDP, but we would still lag behind in NATO and be much the same where we are.

It's never the money, it's politics. It's procedures. It's the pork-barreling in our defence spending that makes us a paper tiger in NATO.

My only hope in all of this for the CAF and the GoC, whatever the political stripe that may be, is that it will rouse them out of the "Peace Dividend" slumber. The world has been unstable since 1945. We have used geography, proximity, and association as a Defence Policy ever since. ICBMs don't care how close to the U.S. or how far from Russia/China we are.

Don't give us a dime more, but let us spend money on defence like it matters. The fact we follow the same rules for purchasing a fighter aircraft as we do for buying office furniture for a Service Canada office is disgraceful. Don't treat defense procurement as a stimulus package for Canadian Industry. There I said it.

We spend so much money, time, and effort trying to get that money to stay in Canada; be it by awarding contracts to companies with no capability to produce items without first "retooling" and"developing the production lines", or by hamstringing perfectly competent and competitive bidders by forcing the project to be made in St. Margaret de Poutain de Champignon, QC because the ruling government either lost the seat in the election, or won it with promises.

We spend so much money and staff hours jumping through TBS regulations that are great for other departments, but are terrible for defence procurement. Some items you have to sole source, because there are technologies and capabilities no one else makes. By doing the bid process, you get companies clamoring for a project they can't deliver on, but because they tick the bright boxes on the score sheet....

I truly and honestly belief we need to split from PSPC and legislate that its not beholden to TBS, only to the PBO/PCO. The guiding principles of this new Defence Procurement department should be "Off the shelf, from somewhere else" if there isn't an industry in Canada.

BOOTFORGEN has demonstrated how well we do when we are able to actually get what we need, instead of lining the pockets of a Canadian company that got lucky.

That, but with tanks, fighters, ships, weapons systems....

 

[dapaterson]

There's a fat pay raise right there for the CAF generally, tax-free service.

In so doing you'd be disincentivizing deployment.

To say nothing of the huge shock on retirement, when you'd suddenly have a lower gross income and start paying tax on it as well.

 

[PrairieFella]

In so doing you'd be disincentivizing deployment.

Fair enough, although danger and hardship pay are pretty decent bonuses too, maybe a tweak could offset that.

To say nothing of the huge shock on retirement, when you'd suddenly have a lower gross income and start paying tax on it as well.

That's what RRSPs are for and the pension is still quite generous. Going into retirement with more money in the bank would be a perk too. CPP and EI are still deducted too in my line of thinking to ensure CPP contributions are met.

 

[GR66]

Continuous submarine production: up to 12 conventionally armed, nuclear-powered attack submarines through the AUKUS programme.

From the 2 pager:
Is that correct? It can't be, can it? I thought that their Nuke subs carried their nuclear deterrent missiles in them and that 1 was always at sea. Is that not the case?

The RN has two classes of nuclear submarines. The 5 x Astute-class SSN's are their attack subs which they will be replacing with the 12 x new AUKUS-class subs mentioned in the SDR.

They also have their fleet of 4 x Vanguard-class SSBN's which are their nuclear deterrent ballistic missile subs. It was noted in the SDR that the RN is to begin working on the requirements to replace these as well.

 

[Remius]

You get a $6000 tax break for being a volunteer firefighter or search and rescue team member. You get a tax break on income earned while deployed in many cases. So, why not make Res F earnings tax exempt?

Would make tax season much easier for me

 

[Remius]

You get a $6000 tax break for being a volunteer firefighter or search and rescue team member. You get a tax break on income earned while deployed in many cases. So, why not make Res F earnings tax exempt?

Or at least maybe make part of it tax exempt. The Brits as I have posted offer a tax free bounty.

One thing I discussed with someone a while ago was paying Class B types who still parade with their units “pay” for that time they dedicate. Just like any other reservist on class A.

Going further than that, why couldn’t we offer a salary bonus to regular force members to parade with PRes units. Make that tax free. It would incentivize and add a bit more of the integration piece while compensating them for their time.

Class A get a tax free bounty for meeting all mandatory training and DAG requirements including one area concentration per annum.

Class B but still parading with their unit get a tax free bounty for meeting a minimum parade state and DAG green

Reg Force parading extra time with a reserve unit (ie one weekend a month, one night a week) get a tax free bounty.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Reg Force parading extra time with a reserve unit (ie one weekend a month, one night a week) get a tax free bounty.

I did that while I was at 36 CBG. I definitely didn't expect any compensation, but it would have been appreciated.

 

[dapaterson]

Or at least maybe make part of it tax exempt. The Brits as I have posted offer a tax free bounty.

One thing I discussed with someone a while ago was paying Class B types who still parade with their units “pay” for that time they dedicate. Just like any other reservist on class A.

Going further than that, why couldn’t we offer a salary bonus to regular force members to parade with PRes units. Make that tax free. It would incentivize and add a bit more of the integration piece while compensating them for their time.

Class A get a tax free bounty for meeting all mandatory training and DAG requirements including one area concentration per annum.

Class B but still parading with their unit get a tax free bounty for meeting a minimum parade state and DAG green

Reg Force parading extra time with a reserve unit (ie one weekend a month, one night a week) get a tax free bounty.

Or - hear me out - stop that bullshit. On full time service? Career managed and no expectation to parade elsewhere.

My simple world would push anyone on a period of full time service exceeding 120 days into a Reg F subcomponent, outside the reach of parent Res F units.

The desire to emulate the Brit model suffers from what I call the Rob Schneider movie fallacy - the fact that something exists means that it's good. No one has provided any evidence that the Brit training bounty is of any use and that it's for purpose. Lacking that data, it's just a Rob Schneider movie.

 

[Remius]

Or - hear me out - stop that bullshit. On full time service? Career managed and no expectation to parade elsewhere.

If the goal is better integration with the reg force why not incentivize that. Right now most are bitter having to lose their free time because the reserves can only work weekends. Create the links, the contacts and the experience benefits.

This reg force pers working could also be that conduit to assessing those guys that would deploy. Create relationships and even

My simple world would push anyone on a period of full time service exceeding 120 days into a Reg F subcomponent, outside the reach of parent Res F units.

Sure. But there doesn’t seem to be a desire for that. I’m not against that model either. But right now anyone on Class B outside the div is being forcefully transferred to whatever PRL. So we lose pers (except those that sign MOUs) and we end up with a pile of unqualified pers qualified for their trade but extremely unfit for their actual trade. I ran into a WO wearing my cap badge who has never been an infantry section commander let alone a WO. He shouldn’t ever go near an infantry section or platoon but I’m sure he’s excellent at managing PERMIS stuff.

The desire to emulate the Brit model suffers from what I call the Rob Schneider movie fallacy - the fact that something exists means that it's good. No one has provided any evidence that the Brit training bounty is of any use and that it's for purpose. Lacking that data, it's just a Rob Schneider movie.

I have no idea what the data on that is. But as a retention tool it seems decent.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Continuous submarine production: up to 12 conventionally armed, nuclear-powered attack submarines through the AUKUS programme.

From the 2 pager:
Is that correct? It can't be, can it? I thought that their Nuke subs carried their nuclear deterrent missiles in them and that 1 was always at sea. Is that not the case?

Answered in part by GR66 above: The RN has six hunter killer subs (SSN), the five Astute alluded to and the youngest Trafalgar class boat. They also have, as indicated, the four Nuclear Ballistic Missile submarines (SSBN) of the Vanguard class, and their replacement program is underway, to produce four Dreadnought class submarines.

Overall, when completed, the RN will grown from 10 nuclear submarines in continual build to 16 nuclear submarines in continual build.

 

[RangerRay]

Disagree. It competes with entry level experiential employment. Not things like a soup kitchen or a scout leader job.

That’s what happened with me. I had to choose between getting paid work experience in the field I was studying in uni, or keep doing army stuff. Army lost. I intended to go back but my career took me too far from a community with a unit until I was too old, too fat and too married.

 

[McG]

Maybe PRes units being short of personal because too many are away on long term full-time PRes employment is a symptom and not the problem. Maybe the problem is too many PRes being employed in continuous full-time service both to circumvent the government’s authorized PY limits and to compensate for PML shortfalls. Maybe if the full time army were compelled to live within its means, then its staffing ambitions would not trickle down as staffing shortfalls of the part time force.

 

[Remius]

My simple world would push anyone on a period of full time service exceeding 120 days into a Reg F subcomponent, outside the reach of parent Res F units.

Or maybe when one becomes vested in the reg force pension plan. Trigger that and you get switched.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Or - hear me out - stop that bullshit. On full time service? Career managed and no expectation to parade elsewhere.

My simple world would push anyone on a period of full time service exceeding 120 days into a Reg F subcomponent, outside the reach of parent Res F units.

The desire to emulate the Brit model suffers from what I call the Rob Schneider movie fallacy - the fact that something exists means that it's good. No one has provided any evidence that the Brit training bounty is of any use and that it's for purpose. Lacking that data, it's just a Rob Schneider movie.

Yeah, the bounty doesn't work.

Consistently good leadership, a proper mission, the right equipment and resources, and relevant, interesting, and challenging training works.

But guess which one they tend to focus on because it's easier?

 

[dapaterson]

Or maybe when one becomes vested in the reg force pension plan. Trigger that and you get switched.

I would shift the parameters for that to preclude the 330 game. Only in the CAF can you be retired and collecting a pension while simultaneously being a full time member.

 

[FJAG]

Or - hear me out - stop that bullshit. On full time service? Career managed and no expectation to parade elsewhere.

My simple world would push anyone on a period of full time service exceeding 120 days into a Reg F subcomponent, outside the reach of parent Res F units.

I've already indicated that I'm against Class B and in favour of a form of RegF service where individuals are not liable to be posted but are liable for deployment. You want a full-time career - be prepared for a half year in Latvia with everyone else.

I never like the idea of a days of service limit like 120 days. I could see a reservist going on a lengthy career course over 120 days. I prefer a division based on attending voluntary nut lengthy training v volunteering to warm a chair in a cubicle in Ottawa. The later should be RegF positions.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I've already indicated that I'm against Class B and in favour of a form of RegF service where individuals are not liable to be posted but are liable for deployment. You want a full-time career - be prepared for a half year in Latvia with everyone else.

I never like the idea of a days of service limit like 120 days. I could see a reservist going on a lengthy career course over 120 days. I prefer a division based on attending voluntary nut lengthy training v volunteering to warm a chair in a cubicle in Ottawa. The later should be RegF positions.

Do you think part of our problem is that we insist on pan CAF solutions instead of recognizing that each service has its own quirks and nuances and they may require different HR/Pay solutions ?

 

[calculus]

I've already indicated that I'm against Class B and in favour of a form of RegF service where individuals are not liable to be posted but are liable for deployment. You want a full-time career - be prepared for a half year in Latvia with everyone else.

I never like the idea of a days of service limit like 120 days. I could see a reservist going on a lengthy career course over 120 days. I prefer a division based on attending voluntary nut lengthy training v volunteering to warm a chair in a cubicle in Ottawa. The later should be RegF positions.

Isn't what you are describing Class C service?

 

[Czech_pivo]

Answered in part by GR66 above: The RN has six hunter killer subs (SSN), the five Astute alluded to and the youngest Trafalgar class boat. They also have, as indicated, the four Nuclear Ballistic Missile submarines (SSBN) of the Vanguard class, and their replacement program is underway, to produce four Dreadnought class submarines.

Overall, when completed, the RN will grown from 10 nuclear submarines in continual build to 16 nuclear submarines in continual build.

So competition between us, the Brits and the Aussie's to poach each others submariners over the next 10-12yrs will be fierce as we'll all be rolling out significant numbers of new boats, but with us it won't be apples to apples since ours won't be nuke boats. Maybe we should be considering poaching some French/German/Dutch submariners instead?

 

[FJAG]

Do you think part of our problem is that we insist on pan CAF solutions instead of recognizing that each service has its own quirks and nuances and they may require different HR/Pay solutions ?

Yes, to a large measure. I provided legal advice to a study/project called the Reserve Force Employment Project back around the turn of the century. It was largely driven by the Navy's model of how they wanted the MCDVs employed. It's darkest moment came when a CANFORGEN went out briefly changing Class A, B and C service as "limited liability service" and "unlimited liability service."

OTOH, it's a bit difficult to have bespoke solutions when you have a single legislation at the top to work from. That said one could change things to address each of the issues at the regulatory or policy levels as long as they didn't run counter to the NDA or other legislation. I'm not sure that there is any appetite to confuse things with even more detailed and specific regulations and policies than what already abounds.

Isn't what you are describing Class C service?

No. What I'm suggesting is two classes of RegF service. The first class would be identical what you see now where DND can send you on missions as well as post you depending on the needs of the CAF.

The second class of service has an individual enrol on continuous full, time service but restricted to service in a certain defined geographic area - lets say the GTA or Montreal region or - for the Navy Halifax or Victoria. It ensures that an individual can have a full career in one region staying close to family and allowing their spouse to have a full civilian career of their own. There would be a finite set of positions within the region that can be posted into and around - let's say 1,000 PYs to various units in the GTA such as hybrid RegF/ResF battalions and brigades. People could voluntarily elect to change between one type of service and another depending on vacancies. Promotions and postings within a region would be more limited than outside the regions.

The tricky part is defining the pay, allowance and promotion benefits associated with service outside these regions to make staying generally available for unrestricted postings attractive enough.

Class B reserve service would be highly restricted to true, short-term contracts for such things as back-filling temporary PY vacancies (like maternity/paternity leave)

Both classes of service would be liable for deployments. Incidentally, I'm also much more in favour of placing individual reservists and hybrid units compulsorily on active service for deployments in the nature of the US ARNG and USAR. And yes, there needs to be strong employer/employee legislation for that.

 

[Underway]

They also have their fleet of 4 x Vanguard-class SSBN's which are their nuclear deterrent ballistic missile subs. It was noted in the SDR that the RN is to begin working on the requirements to replace these as well.

Dreadnaught class is already being built.