Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Remius]

It doesn't when you need the people... kit can be bought/borrowed, expertise can't.

We have people that are in uniform that haven’t fired a live round in years if not decades. Not sure how expert they will be if I give them a new C8.

We are likely bleeding experts because we have poor value.

I’m sure you have noticed we need the people and we haven’t been doing that great on that front.

Serious question. Is the CAF in its current state value for the money we spend on it?

 

[dimsum]

It doesn't when you need the people... kit can be bought/borrowed, expertise can't.

Sure it can.

The Aussies have been doing it for decades under “lateral transfer” programs.

 

[Edward Campbell]

We have people that are in uniform that haven’t fired a live round in years if not decades. Not sure how expert they will be if I give them a new C8.

We are likely bleeding experts because we have poor value.

I’m sure you have noticed we need the people and we haven’t been doing that great on that front.

Serious question. Is the CAF in its current state value for the money we spend on it?

Back in the late 1980s and into the 1990s I had one of those directorates. In my first year of what turned out to be a looooomng tour of duty in the same job I booked a range day for my mil staff. Someone in the land staff cancelled us 'cause we were 'joint' and a lower priority than them. Something similar happened in the 2nd and 3rd years. I think we actually made it to the ranges, once, in the 5th or 6th year and only one of us, not me, had ever even seen the then "new" rifle. I had very limited vision in my right eye and fired using my left. I think I got an "attended," sorta like some foreign students on staff courses.

 

[Kirkhill]

Fair.

But that is a bit of a chicken/egg thing. If we don’t pay people enough, they don’t join. We can have all of the gear in the world but it’s pointless if people aren’t there to use them.

So if we have all of the physical (gear) capabilities and not enough people, I’d argue that’s even less value for money. And instead of adding to the budget, we cut bait?

You started off by referencing EMS and Fire services.

A lot of those services focus on acquiring hardware then minimizing personnel costs through the use of unpaid volunteers.

The CAF seems to prioritise people first especially people in offices.

 

[dimsum]

Serious question. Is the CAF in its current state value for the money we spend on it?

No, but not in the way you’re probably thinking.

We need more people, more stuff, and more maintenance (of buildings, stuff, people, etc). If we cut existing capabilities, we then rely on others to provide them In coalition, or we suffer a price when we decide we need them again (see the UK and their Nimrod fleet, now the P-8).

So say we specialize. What will we specialize in? The “easy” answer is “whatever lets us plug and play in our alliances”, right? Well what if the US pulls out of NATO and NORAD - then do we continue specializing or do we incur the cost to do a bit of everything again?

That’s not even touching the egos and “tradition” which has resulted in all sorts of dumb decisions.

 

[dimsum]

You started off by referencing EMS and Fire services.

A lot of those services focus on acquiring hardware then minimizing personnel costs through the use of unpaid volunteers.

The CAF seems to prioritise people first especially people in offices.

Well we can’t really use unpaid volunteers.

Also, being someone who has done the operational stuff and the staff stuff, my perspective is that while the operational folks love to rag on the staff folks for “doing nothing”, they also hate how slow everything goes because surprise surprise, no one wants to be posted to a staff position.

I don’t think anyone will volunteer to be an unpaid staff officer either.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Sure it is. But the earners who are making enough to "benefit" from the higher threshold don't need it, and it forcing a higher match on employers would be a drag on the economy. It's a solution looking for a problem.

Agreed- OAS clawback thresholds (both initial and final) should be lowered significantly. We could save a lot of money by giving welfare to only those retirees that need it.

There should be no OAS period, those that need it should be receiving more aid in terms of a greater GIS (and that should be based on Residency, not Citizenship/Landed Immigrant).
The 68 billion/yr cost of OAS should be zero and a portion of it redirected to GIS.

 

[IKnowNothing]

There should be no OAS period, those that need it should be receiving more aid in terms of a greater GIS (and that should be based on Residency, not Citizenship/Landed Immigrant).
The 68 billion/yr cost of OAS should be zero and a portion of it redirected to GIS.

Potato / Potahtoe

Get rid of OAS and make GIS a bigger payment
Get rid of GIS but restrict a bigger payment OAS to similar thresholds as the now defunct GIS.

Result is the same- better allocation of tax dollars to accomplish a purpose

 

[IKnowNothing]

Does a version of the CAF that delivers "value per dollar" get the Americans off our backs at the current funding level?

No.

So while making good use of the money should be a priority, we still need to find more of it.

 

[Quirky]

Also, being someone who has done the operational stuff and the staff stuff, my perspective is that while the operational folks love to rag on the staff folks for “doing nothing”, they also hate how slow everything goes because surprise surprise, no one wants to be posted to a staff position.

Staff positions also create roadblocks for the pointy ends to function through ever increasing bureaucracy and endless paperwork and policies. They need to pad their own PARs and create never ending changes down to the units. As an example, our maintenance policies have absolutely exploded in rules and regulations in the past 20 years. Only a small portion is related to safety infractions, most of it is just nonsense created by office staff who don’t directly see the negative consequences their polices have. I’m sure there are countless examples across the institution. It’s not about creating efficiency, it’s about creating feedback notes.

 

[Kirkhill]

Well we can’t really use unpaid volunteers.

Also, being someone who has done the operational stuff and the staff stuff, my perspective is that while the operational folks love to rag on the staff folks for “doing nothing”, they also hate how slow everything goes because surprise surprise, no one wants to be posted to a staff position.

I don’t think anyone will volunteer to be an unpaid staff officer either.

I've chased around that mulberry bush too many times already.

Cheers.

 

[KevinB]

Staff positions also create roadblocks for the pointy ends to function through ever increasing bureaucracy and endless paperwork and policies. They need to pad their own PARs and create never ending changes down to the units. As an example, our maintenance policies have absolutely exploded in rules and regulations in the past 20 years. Only a small portion is related to safety infractions, most of it is just nonsense created by office staff who don’t directly see the negative consequences their polices have. I’m sure there are countless examples across the institution. It’s not about creating efficiency, it’s about creating feedback notes.

Anything that comes down the pipe that is useless should be send back up and supported by your command to be removed.
That also requires staff work from the coal face...

 

[MJP]

Also, being someone who has done the operational stuff and the staff stuff, my perspective is that while the operational folks love to rag on the staff folks for “doing nothing”, they also hate how slow everything goes because surprise surprise, no one wants to be posted to a staff position.

Staff positions also create roadblocks for the pointy ends to function through ever increasing bureaucracy and endless paperwork and policies. They need to pad their own PARs and create never ending changes down to the units. As an example, our maintenance policies have absolutely exploded in rules and regulations in the past 20 years. Only a small portion is related to safety infractions, most of it is just nonsense created by office staff who don’t directly see the negative consequences their polices have. I’m sure there are countless examples across the institution. It’s not about creating efficiency, it’s about creating feedback notes.

Both are fair points. We have likely all seen the leader who is proud of never going to Ottawa not realizing they could make the most difference there! But folks in the center have to realize that everything they do affects the ends users and optimize it so the impact doesn't fall on them.

 

[Maxman1]

It doesn't when you need the people... kit can be bought/borrowed, expertise can't.

At the same time, not replacing worn out kit because of personnel shortages is a vicious cycle, because most people don't want to join to work with old stuff, especially infamous items like the subs and Sea Kings.

 

[dimsum]

Both are fair points. We have likely all seen the leader who is proud of never going to Ottawa not realizing they could make the most difference there! But folks in the center have to realize that everything they do affects the ends users and optimize it so the impact doesn't fall on them.

@Quirky - yes, your points are also correct. However, if the maintenance org is anything like the aircrew operational org, some of those policies are rooted in good (sometimes legally required) intentions.

I think back to the FAR and the MALA, basically confirming that crews are good to go on mission. When the current (?) version came out in 2018 or so, we aircrew thought it was stupid because why do we need to have a form saying we’re good to fly? But upon further reflection (and I’m happy to be proven wrong by @SeaKingTacco and others still on the line sqns) it might have to do with documentation and records, which the CAF is notoriously bad at keeping. So if something goes wrong, the FAR and MALA can help document what happened and why.

@MJP - That pretty much hits exactly what I was getting at. There are people who think they know better than “nameless Ottawa staff officer” about what needs to be done, but won’t go to Ottawa.

To both - I have a personal example of people who I know blaming “someone in Ottawa” for a change, when I had a significant impact in said change. I tell them, and their eyes go wide a bit before I explain why it came down that way. But had they not spoken to me, they would continue blaming “Ottawa” for something they didn’t have all of the context.

 

[MJP]

="dimsum, post: 1994554, member:
To both - I have a personal example of people who I know blaming “someone in Ottawa” for a change, when I had a significant impact in said change. I tell them, and their eyes go wide a bit before I explain why it came down that way. But had they not spoken to me, they would continue blaming “Ottawa” for something they didn’t have all of the context.

Indeed, I have the same experience from people "thundering" about the center while never working to solved the issues that caused the problems.

The irony is many of those folks are great to work with but ignore the units and the center equally in kind.

 

[Kirkhill]

Does a version of the CAF that delivers "value per dollar" get the Americans off our backs at the current funding level?

No.

So while making good use of the money should be a priority, we still need to find more of it.

So then.... Tax and Spend?

 

[Kirkhill]

Oh Christ! I can't help myself. Once more round the mulberry bush.

Two other options -

@FJAG's equipped National Guard - only paid when they fight or train.

Denmark's Homeguard - raised entirely as unpaid volunteers, trained to BMQ standard and equipped as light infantry.
(Raised after WW2 because the King stood down the Professionals and let Hitler walk in).

And I know that concept goes down like a cup of cold sick.

 

[dimsum]

Oh Christ! I can't help myself. Once more round the mulberry bush.

Two other options -

@FJAG's equipped National Guard - only paid when they fight or train.

That sounds awfully like a Class A Reservist

Denmark's Homeguard - raised entirely as unpaid volunteers, trained to BMQ standard and equipped as light infantry.
(Raised after WW2 because the King stood down the Professionals and let Hitler walk in).

And I know that concept goes down like a cup of cold sick.

Now I’ll admit that I know very little “green” stuff, but BMQ doesn’t seem enough to be competent at being a light infantry force. Also, I’m assuming they get uniforms, weapons (whenever they’re raised), etc.

Besides the whole “conscription-esque” part which would go like a fart in church, the Homeguard concept doesn’t sound very expeditionary (which I suppose it’s not meant to do). So is your plan to have the Homeguard deal with the OP LENTUS while the “expeditionary” CAF deal with everything else? Because we don’t really have the people to do the “everything else” right now.

 

[Quirky]

that comes down the pipe that is useless should be send back up and supported by your command to be removed.
That also requires staff work from the coal face...

These issues usually surface during on-site audits where the Suits tell the Boots they aren’t following policies. When said policies are challenged by units on the premise of usefulness, the Suits don’t budge - because they are the ones who create them.

Im starting to give up trying to fight it, it’s just not worth my energy. Most people with only a few years left are feeling the same thing.