Senate Committee Report Excerpt: "Creating Real Reserves"

[The Bread Guy]

The report in full:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/defe-e/rep-e/RepOct06-e.pdf

The section on reserves:

"Creating Real Reserves

Canadians pay their military Reserves to parade regularly to train for combat and support roles. Most Canadians probably assume that these Reserves are therefore available for active military service in times of emergency, when for whatever reason regular forces are short of capacity to serve the nation’s needs. 

But all Reservists are not available much of the time. Some cannot get away because of family or employment obligations. Some simply do not want to go.  It is true that the Government of Canada can call up any individual, unit or any other element of the Reserves to active service by means of an Order-in-Council.  However, this mechanism hasn’t been used since the Second World War. 

As a result, Reservists who have gone on active service have done so voluntarily.  But over the past 60 years, many Reservists could not or would not respond to national emergencies to. Which raises the question:  Why are we paying Reserves to train when they may not answer the bell when their country needs them?

The Committee wonders whether it is time to consider some form of compulsory call to active service for Reservists.

It’s a Question of Onus

Should it be the norm that Reservists are able to ignore call-ups if they have other priorities? Shouldn’t Reservists be available for short-term active duty, as individuals or formed units in emergencies, unless there is some compelling reason they cannot be?

In other words, the onus should be on the Reservist to demonstrate why he or she cannot serve. It should not be up to the government to invoke a special Order-in-Council to require service.

Consider that most Canadian citizens are liable to serve on a jury when called.  Such jury duty is compulsory under the law, unless the individual can show cause why they cannot do it. It should be the same for Reservists.  If the Reserve really is part of the Total Force, and if, as the Chief of the Defence Staff has stated, that the aim is to have all members of the CF available for overseas deployment, the Committee believes that fundamental changes must be considered to the way the Reserves function.

Some of those changes might include:
- When on duty, all Reservists should be paid the same amount as regular force personnel (Presently, Class A, and B reservists are paid 85% of the rate of pay of the Regular Force personnel in the same rank. Class C Reservists who serve on operational missions receive the same pay as the Regular Force personnel.);
- All Reservists deployed on an overseas mission should expect to be on active service for up to 18 months – to include sufficient time for theatre specific training; 6-7 months of deployed operations; and 2 or more months of debriefing and reintegration back home;
- All Reserve recruits would be required to reach basic classification qualification (Classification qualification means that the individual has achieved the basic skills required to do his/her job in the Canadian Forces.) status within three years;
- All members of the Reserve would have to be “qualified and deployable” within five years or face separation; and
- If Reservists are required to serve if called out, then some sort of job protection is essential. It would be the task of the Government to ensure job protection for all reservists who are called out to support their country.

The Committee recommends:  That the Government redefine the terms and conditions of service for Reserves taking these views into account."

 

[Meridian]

I think you'd have a lot more qualified people in the reserves at later stages of their life (ie past university), if they were able to have job-protected military leave during the summers to complete their initial training.

I agree, that if you do not pay someone in the reserves a competitive wage (or at least something relatively close to what they are losing out on in civilian life) you get the problem the senate is describing. People who dont really want to go unless they are eagerly volunteering to go.

 

[Dissident]

This seems to imply reservists bail out when it comes time to go on tour. Which from my perspective is not true. Most people I know in the reserve fight to go on tour. Those who do not, typically have other commitments that can not be ignored or changed in the time frame we are usually subjected to.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

NOT FLAME BAIT

Blah blah.

Let's not make the reserves into something that they are not.

They are well intentioned and marginally trained individuals who we are relying on to a somewhat embarrassing degree.

No slag implied - those of you who know me also know the extent to which I am invested in the Reserve experience.  I just imp;lore us, institutionally, not to indulge in wishful thinking here...

Dave

 

[Dissident]

NOT FLAME BAIT

Blah blah.

Let's not make the reserves into something that they are not.

They are well intentioned and marginally trained individuals who we are relying on to a somewhat embarrassing degree.

No slag implied - those of you who know me also know the extent to which I am invested in the Reserve experience.  I just imp;lore us, institutionally, not to indulge in wishful thinking here...

Dave

While I can understand this line of thinking, I feel it is somewhat a self fufilling profecy.

With budget for 20-25 training days a year per troop and a lack of resources, reserve units end up existing  only to administer themselves.

Our company, with 37 training days, plus ex with the reg, class B and an exercise with 2 Iraq veteren US MP unit is showing the kind of potential that can be expected from a reserve unit with proper resources.

But hey, I figured out not to long ago that I had nothing to prove. I am just doing my best and waiting for the inevitable.

 

[PhilB]

Several things. First off I take somewhat offense to "marginally trained". First off, at a junior level BIQ reg and BIQ res are very similar, basically the res course is the reg course minus CQC B and heli.  PLQ Infantry is an integrated course with reserves and regs being trained and assesed side by side. Secondly with the tempo of deployments and releases in the regs a lot of reserves have an almost equal amount of operational experience. I just got back from Roto 1, and while over I worked with a reg section for several weeks. The entire time is was operating as a crew commander, and then later as a 2ic because I was the most experienced in the section (the majority of the troops had just completed their BIQ in Aug 05). I see the biggest difference once past the rank of MCpl. Senior NCO's in the regs blow senior NCO's in the reserves away in terms of experience, and in particular, in my opinion, day to day man managment skills. A reserve senior NCO has to deal with the day to day crap of running a section very seldomly, while it is a daily thing for a reg senior NCO.

Being a reservist who commits to tour, taskings, etc I think that all the reserves need to be more viable is a combination of job protection and the rules suggested by the senate in reference to becoming qualified. The only other addition that I would add is some more control on leadership courses. In my regiment at least, we have a lot of very experienced Cpl for life types who for whatever reason cannot, or do not go on their leadership course. In their place brand new inexperienced cpl's are being sent. This just proliferates the ongoing in experienced nco problem.

Just my 2 cents

 

[Trinity]

In 97 we (reserves) got called out for the Red River floods (OP Assistance)

I was put in with 2 Fd Amb and served with them for 3 months.
Their comments to us were the pte/cpl's and some MCpls were good to go.
It was the senior leadership and skills that were lacking.  Now there is a greater
gap in training between reg/res medic training, IMO considerably more than
other trades (hence the recent changes in the medical system to correct that)

But a previous poster stated it was senior leadership differences and I can say
I've heard that exact saying before in an operational context.

 

[GDawg]

NOT FLAME BAIT

Blah blah.

Let's not make the reserves into something that they are not.

They are well intentioned and marginally trained individuals who we are relying on to a somewhat embarrassing degree.

No slag implied - those of you who know me also know the extent to which I am invested in the Reserve experience.  I just imp;lore us, institutionally, not to indulge in wishful thinking here...

Dave

Don't be lumpin' the Comm Res in there  ^-^

AFAIK we've got an excellent relationship with our reg counterparts, particularly through CFJSR, and from what I've heard our QL5 course is now the same as the reg one. We also parade ALOT more than the Army reserve does. Perhaps with some tweaking and liasing the Army reserve can better fill in those empty positions overseas.
That said I admit all branches of the reserves have their members who, for what ever reason should not be made to go overseas.

 

[Garett]

Insane turnover rates at the MCpl/Sgt and Capt level crippled my old reserve unit's effectiveness.  By the time someone moved into the MCpl/Sgt or Capt zone, it was time for them to find a good civie job and there aren't many to find in N.B. so they go to the Regs, move out of the area or go on B Class contracts.  Courses don't make you a good leader, experience does and people just aren't staying in the units long enough to become fully competent to the required levels.

 

[dglad]

NOT FLAME BAIT

Blah blah.

Let's not make the reserves into something that they are not.

They are well intentioned and marginally trained individuals who we are relying on to a somewhat embarrassing degree.

No slag implied - those of you who know me also know the extent to which I am invested in the Reserve experience.  I just imp;lore us, institutionally, not to indulge in wishful thinking here...

Dave

Notwithstanding the fact you've warned us off as this being "flame bait", perhaps you could expand on this with something more substantial?  Are operations failing, or at least suffering, because of reliance on the Reserves?  Is there some systemic problem the use of Reserves has introduced?  What makes you believe that these Senate committee recommendations (which, frankly, I think are fraught with all sorts of implications that need to discussed) are "wishful thinking"?

 

[Gunner]

NOT FLAME BAIT

Blah blah.

Let's not make the reserves into something that they are not.

They are well intentioned and marginally trained individuals who we are relying on to a somewhat embarrassing degree.

No slag implied - those of you who know me also know the extent to which I am invested in the Reserve experience.  I just imp;lore us, institutionally, not to indulge in wishful thinking here...

Dave

I'm not going to defend PPCLI Guy's post, he is more than capable of doing it himself. 

For those of you who consider job protection legislation is a "good thing", don't think it is going to solve all the problems currently faced by the Reserves.  It won't and I don't even consider it a "good start".  If anything, it will have a neutral effect on the Reserves as some will be able to go train for 2 weeks a year, but it will also drive away experienced reservists who need the flexibility of the current reserve system to juggle work, family and a reserve career.  These reservists are capable force generators but they can not deploy overseas.

Are Reservists well intentioned?  Vast majority are and are certainly an integral part of the CF.  But let's call a spade a spade, they are marginally trained due to lack of training time, equipment, experienced leaders, etc, etc.  This is a reflection of the system, not the individual soldier (hopefully we will move away from the bulky, bureaucratic, inefficient, archaic system it has languished in for many decades).  Consider how long (and cost) it takes to train an HLVW dvr with PLS certification or a simple LAV III dvr/gunner let alone a mechanized platoon commander capable of operating in the COE ... We have a problem within the Army with the Regulars going high tech/mechanized and the Reserves stuck in low tech/dismounted role.   

As far as the army relying on the Reserves to a somewhat embarrassing degree.  Anyone involved in force generation knows exactly what this statement means and implies.  I'll leave it there.

 

[old medic]

- All Reserve recruits would be required to reach basic classification qualification (Classification qualification means that the individual has achieved the basic skills required to do his/her job in the Canadian Forces.) status within three years;

That's interesting. The Health Service Reserve has already moved to this, with the Reserve QL3 and QL4 courses
for Med Techs being the Regular QL3 course broken into two parts.

 

[GAP]

As an outsider, looking in, I could never understand why Reserves should be considered anything else but p/t Reg Force and trained up to the level that they can transition in and out seamlessly. I assume it was largely budget constraints that initiated it, and then the mentality  set in, but I am probably wrong on the whys.

What matters now, is "what happens now?"

As an aside, are you aware that Senator Kenny (L) is retiring at age 65 (I think next year), even though he could stay until age 75? What this means is that he no longer (if he ever had to) constrain himself from saying it like it is.

 

[Gunner]

GAP, there are some very good plans being discussed/implemented at the national level that will begin to rationalize what the reserve structure is and this will hopefully have a cascading effect throughout all aspects of the reserves (from IT to CT to overall quality and capability).

 

[GAP]

GAP, there are some very good plans being discussed/implemented at the national level that will begin to rationalize what the reserve structure is and this will hopefully have a cascading effect throughout all aspects of the reserves (from IT to CT to overall quality and capability).

That, I will look forward to. The present mission  and the new higher, highers are really kicking @#s when it comes to cleaning out the cobwebs and dusting everything off with a view to what to keep, what to change and what to throwaway....

 

[dglad]

I'm not going to defend PPCLI Guy's post, he is more than capable of doing it himself. 

For those of you who consider job protection legislation is a "good thing", don't think it is going to solve all the problems currently faced by the Reserves.  It won't and I don't even consider it a "good start".  If anything, it will have a neutral effect on the Reserves as some will be able to go train for 2 weeks a year, but it will also drive away experienced reservists who need the flexibility of the current reserve system to juggle work, family and a reserve career.  These reservists are capable force generators but they can not deploy overseas.

No disagreement.  I think the US experience with job protection legislation is something we need to study very closely.  In solving one set of problems, it creates a whole new set.

Are Reservists well intentioned?  Vast majority are and are certainly an integral part of the CF.  But let's call a spade a spade, they are marginally trained due to lack of training time, equipment, experienced leaders, etc, etc.  This is a reflection of the system, not the individual soldier (hopefully we will move away from the bulky, bureaucratic, inefficient, archaic system it has languished in for many decades).  Consider how long (and cost) it takes to train an HLVW dvr with PLS certification or a simple LAV III dvr/gunner let alone a mechanized platoon commander capable of operating in the COE ... We have a problem within the Army with the Regulars going high tech/mechanized and the Reserves stuck in low tech/dismounted role.

I don't really disagree with this, either.  There is, by fundamental definition, no way a Reservist is going to be trained to the same standard as a Reg F soldier.  Attempting to do so would, well, just turn the Res F into more Reg F (with the attendant cost).  We accept that, in order to have a larger pool of soldiers to draw from, some are going to be at a lower level of "readiness".  This has been the way of it for many, many years; in fact, the "citizen soldier" has been the "standard" type of warrior for most of history.  Professional soldiers have, through most of history, been a luxury affordable only by relatively affluent societies (or those who didn't give an economic damn e.g. the Soviet Union).    The price we pay for the additional man-power is less readiness and a longer lead-time getting them prepared for battle (or higher casualties and less battlefield effectiveness if they get rushed into the fray).

As far as the army relying on the Reserves to a somewhat embarrassing degree.  Anyone involved in force generation knows exactly what this statement means and implies.  I'll leave it there.

But you can't just "leave it there".  This is an important statement, but I don't know if I'm really getting your intent, and am really interested in pursuing it.  What I'm asking is some clarification around the statement that the "army is relying on the Reserves to an embarrassing degree".  What does this mean, exactly?  Is the implication that the army shouldn't have to rely on the Reserves at all?  Okay, that gives us one structural model.  Or, is there a "non-embarrassing" degree, and if so, what is it (right now, it's about 20%, so I'm assuming this threshold is less than 20%.  But how much less)?  That's another structural model.  I am involved in force generation (intimately), so I know quite well the many challenges of producing the combat power we need, when and where we need it (this goes for Reg F and Res F).  Our combined Res and Reg F TF's generally seem to do well on ops (based only on what I've been observing, at a distance, in Afghanistan, but on my own experience in Bosnia), so I'd be really keen to hear more about this.  Is it something substantive, or more a belief that the Reg F should be able to stand on its own, without Res F augmentation, on expeditionary ops?  And do you believe this same statement would hold true for domestic ops?

 

[axeman]

i agree with what PPCLI GUY says . he and I are former reservists who then went reg and then served with the reserves as cadre. the reserves are good for basic material but in most cases they will still req more training to bringthem up to speed on the latest op tempo . we cfannot blame them as they are generally as good as the system will allow . that is to say with the training days all scattered . attendance at  the spring concenttraion camps are a good way to bring standards up and together.

maybe you might want to PM me or PPCLI GUY and ask what qual we have to say that . its not to flame them . they are hamstrung by basic fact. some over come it and some dont

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Time to expand on my comments I guess - with a silent reminder to myself not to post after Happy Hour. :-X

First, in the Army we have a militia, not a reserve - and all that seemingly pedantic splitting of semantic hairs means.  As such, they respond well and are well suited to domestic / regional based emergencies and form an excellent base for mobilisation (not that I can see a circumstance that would overcome the political penalties of enacting said mobilisation).  A militia force is also well suited to supplementary reinforcement of the Regular Force, which we are doing now with acceptable results.

A Reserve on the other hand would be formed to allow larger scale reinforcement of the Reg Force, both in a supplementary and complementary role.  The US model is based on that approach.  A complementary role (think CIMIC et al) can be usefully assigned to a Reserve if those reserves have the sort of legislative protection that allows them to respond to a "call-out" without penalty.

Seeing as we have a militia, and not a Reserve, I believe that legislative protection is not warranted - and unlikely to come to pass (for various reasons, mostly political).  One could argue that we should separate the supplementary from the complementary and offer them protection, but an equally valid argument would be that we avoid being half pregnant - and not assign complementary roles to the militia.

Well intentioned is a given - and I believe that poorly trained is also a given (although I perhaps could have chosen a slightly less pejorative modifier than "poor").

As to the "embarrassing degree" that we rely on the militia, I simply mean that a) we have too few infantry Battalions (all of which are under-manned to a critical degree) to fulfill our assigned tasks and b) that I believe that some of the complementary roles are too important to be sole sourced from the Reserves.

The wording in my original post was blunt - but hey, so am I.

Dave

 

[Bobbyoreo]

My question it why waste money on the Res then...if you cant just up and use them why have them? If your just talking about quality well I think the Reg F and the Res F have the same quality. There are bad people on either side. Me I hope for job protection. Cause Ive had to quit two jobs to go and serve this country. Just my 2 Cents...

 

[COBRA-6]

I agree with the idea that right now we are not getting enough "value added" for the cost outlaid on the Reserves. The Senate report is moving to address this, and that is a good thing IMHO. The devil of course will be in the details.

If we are going to spend the amount of money that we do on the Reserves, then there should be the expectation that we can use them, and by that I mean being able to rely on them short of a GIC activation. This requires mandatory service ie: you must attend all training events unless you receive prior permission (leave pass?), and the same with callouts. Of course this is not realistic without job/education protection, as it is unfair to expect a student to respond to a callout if he will fail his university semester and loose his tuition money by doing so.

As for the training issues, other posters are correct in the fact that part-time soldiers will not be trained to the same level as their full-time counterparts. Nor, would I suggest, do they need to be. We don't need to have soldiers in Toronto or Montreal, who's primary role is DOMOPS, being able to crew a LAVIII. Chose what tasks are essential for reservists to do, and train to be able to do those tasks to a high standard. I am hopefull that with the release of the Territorial Defence Battalion conops, the left and right of arcs for the Reserve force will be more clear.

I also believe that the way in which the Reserves conduct training currently could be greatly improved. The first step is to eliminate the present structure that has coy(-) and pl(-) sized units. This is easier said than done of course, but it looks like that is the direction in which we are heading, both through growth of the Reserves and the creation of the TDB's. Forming larger units comprised of people who will show up for training will help make the training that much more effective. I completely understand the "why do I bother" sentiment expressed by some RSS staff who spend weeks organizing an exercise, only to have a pl(-) show up out of a supposed company of troops.