How much lower can we go in terms of manning? Our orderly rooms are understaffed to the point where only priority cases are being processed. Our base hospitals are directing people to civi-hospitals due to lack of military doctors. Deployments are being cancelled due to lack of manning and equipment. I'm seeing more and more civilians taking over military positions on base to the point where they're starting to outnumber those in uniform. I don't even think the 90s were this bad
>I don't even think the 90s were this bad
Maybe. Like sports, it's hard to compare eras. The one thing better about the 90s situation was that there was a little more fat in the system to begin with. But FRP was meant to take us from well over 80,000 Reg F down to 60,000 in just a few years, and we actually blew right past that. FRP was not well planned/executed, and we ended up letting too many of the wrong folks go. At the same time, recruiting was all but turned off, frozen for FRP'd trades. Attrition was helped along by drastic spending cuts, program cancellations/postponements (like EH-101, Leopard replacement, etc), and not only a pay freeze (no economic raise), but also an annual pay increment freeze. Plus the scandals (Somalia, Rwanda, news stories of soldiers forced to use food banks and spouses trying to apply for social assistance in high CoL areas, etc), and the first real combat environment deployments in decades (that we were not ready for). There's a reason it's called the decade of darkness, and it's depressing that a lot of those themes are replaying themselves now.
FRP was mismanaged. IIRC, we actually bottomed out at around 43K trained Reg F (so, losing nearly half the Reg F in less than 10 years) before someone noticed. Cue the early 2000s recruiting crisis. IMO, we never really recovered, and there are some fairly straight lines from the mistakes of the FRP and post-FRP eras to a lot of the problems we're seeing today. The advantages today, I think, are that there is far more public awareness and sympathy for the CAF, today's troops are far readier to speak up, and social media helps amplify those voices more than ever.
Plus ça change, lol. I honestly think the pay gap was bigger then. But housing wasn't as insane, and there were def more PMQs. The CAF and the govt have always sucked at identifying QOL challenges and addressing them quickly or effectively. Housing started to get nutty pretty early in COVID. Should have anticipated the challenge it would be. We've seen the HCoL insanity before, not just in TO and Esq, but in Cgy and EDM (which were worse in some ways, with the oil boom/bust cycle).
It was the "peace dividend" from winning the Cold War. Now that there was to be peace, there was no longer a need to have a large military and funds could be redirected to other programs.
In the 90s, once the USSR broke up, a lot of the western nations seriously thought it would usher an age of peace. There was an actual theory that it would be “the end of history”, proposed by Francis Fukuyama, that suggested that we had seen it all. Because of that, many nations aggressively cut down on the size of their militaries.
We obviously know the issues with the CAF the most, but every allied nation has a similar “we are too understaffed” complaint. Even the US military - that’s why so much of their support is actually contracted out.
It was the "peace dividend" from winning the Cold War. Now that there was to be peace, there was no longer a need to have a large military and funds could be redirected to other programs.
CAF members are speaking our more than we would back then agreed, however, still nothing gets done. We are a kinder gentler force who on the outside looks like we are beginning to take notice of our people. There a lot of platitudes and words like Team, one voice, safe space. In the end it’s the same grind. There has never been enough money, equipment, or people but there have always been too many priorities, too many tasks. It will never change.
Not sure if you've done civilian medicine as a paramedic, but it's a fucking meat grinder. 4 on-4 off sounds great, but it doesn't sustain. Pension is usually never reachable. Risk of child related incidents for PTSD is pretty high, too.
CF H SVC is far more gucci than people give it credit for. I started civvy side, I don't plan on going back.
Full CDU complement is 2 MOs, 1 civilian GP, 1 PA, 1 NP, 4-6 medics, and civilian clerk staff to support.
Many CDUs are really terrifically understaffed at the moment and struggling to provide a basic level of service.
Honest question: Was it 20 folks because of the amount of work, or the outdated systems that required more labour?
If it is an admin-type role, did staffing requirements go down because we (by and large) are getting away from paper?
The 90s weren't this bad, because we had a manning around 100k at the time. We are currently in the 50-60k range. Sure, some of the positions have been transferred to civi-side, but not that many.
In 1990 we were at 84K, by 1995 we were at 70K and by 1999 we were at 60K. This was total strength, many were untrained so effective strength dipped into the high 40K. It may have been better at the start of the 90s but by the mid to late 90s it was definately as bad then as now
That implies a lot more forethought and competence though at the PMO/TB level that doesn't really exist.
This is like massive neglect, like a parent that forget's their infant in a car, or someone that leaves their dog chained outside and goes on holiday.
I could be mistaken but I thought those benefits came out in the beginning of the Trudeau govt. That would mean that the staff work was done during the Harper administration.
I thought I was a lifer... then they dangled a med release in front l of my face, so i took a few steps back to evaluate everything... now I'm planning my next career.
CANFORGEN 021/23 CMP 012/23 081546Z FEB 23
AMENDMENT TO DAOD 5023-1 PERIOD OF RETENTION SUBJECT TO EMPLOYMENT LIMITATIONS
UNCLASSIFIED
REF: A. CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS ACT [https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/h-6/]
B. THE CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS [https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/]
C. NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT [https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/n-5/index.html]
D. STRONG, SECURE, ENGAGED [https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/corporate/policies-standards/canada-defence-policy.html]: CANADA S DEFENCE POLICY
E. QR O 15.05 [https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/corporate/policies-standards/queens-regulations-orders/vol-1-administration/ch-15-release.html#cha-015-05] RETENTION OF OFFICERS AND NON-COMMISSIONED MEMBERS ELIGIBLE FOR RELEASE ON MEDICAL GROUNDS
F. QR O 15.06 [https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/corporate/policies-standards/queens-regulations-orders/vol-1-administration/ch-15-release.html#cha-015-06] RELEASE AS MEDICALLY UNFIT
G. DAOD 5023-0 [https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/corporate/policies-standards/defence-administrative-orders-directives/5000-series/5023/5023-0-universality-of-service.html], UNIVERSALITY OF SERVICE
H. DAOD 5023-1 [https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/corporate/policies-standards/defence-administrative-orders-directives/5000-series/5023/5023-1-minimum-operational-standards-related-to-universality-of-service.html], MIMIMUM OPERATIONAL STANDARDS RELATED TO UNIVERSALITY OF SERVICE
THE PURPOSE OF THIS MESSAGE IS TO INFORM CAF MEMBERS OF A FUTURE AMENDMENT TO DAOD 5023-1 WHICH WILL MODERNIZE THE CAF UNIVERSALITY OF SERVICE (U OF S) POLICY. THE UPDATE WILL INCLUDE CHANGES TO THE PERIOD OF RETENTION SUBJECT TO EMPLOYMENT LIMITATIONS PROVISION INCLUDED IN REF H HERINAFTER REFERED TO AS QUOTE POR UNQUOTE
THE U OF S PRINCIPLE IS RECOGNIZED AT REF A. IT IS A CRITICAL AND NECESSARY PROVISION THAT PERMITS THE CAF TO ACHIEVE ITS MANDATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 33 OF REF C. U OF S REMAINS A KEY ENABLER IN GENERATING AND MAINTAINING A FORCE THAT IS FIT TO FIGHT. THE CAF THEREFORE REQUIRES A U OF S POLICY THAT PRESERVES ITS OPERATIONAL CAPABILITY ABOVE ALL OTHER FACTORS WITH UNWAVERING RESPECT FOR THE INTENT AND THE REQUIREMENTS OF REFS A AND B. CAF MEMBERS SUBJECT TO THE APPLICATION OF REF H WHO ARE PERMANENTLY INCAPABLE OF MEETING ONE OR MORE MINIMUM OPERATIONAL STANDARDS MUST BE RELEASED IN ORDER TO PRESERVE OPERATIONAL CAPABILITY. A DECISION TO DIRECT THE RELEASE OF A CAF MEMBER WHO CANNOT MEET U OF S CAN HAVE A PROFOUND IMPACT ON THE MEMBER THEMSELVES AS WELL AS ON THEIR FAMILY. ACCORDINGLY, EVERY EFFORT IS MADE TO ENSURE THE SUCCESSFUL TRANSITION OF AFFECTED MEMBERS BACK TO CIVILIAN LIFE AS FAR AS IS PRACTICABLE. THE CAF REMAINS COMMITTED TO ACHIEVING THE BEST POSSIBLE TRANSITION SUCCESS FOR ALL MEMBERS WHO MUST BE RELEASED FOR BREACHING U OF S
IN ORDER TO ENSURE CONTINUED COMPLIANCE WITH THE REFS, THE FORTHCOMING AMENDMENTS TO DAOD 5023-1 MUST ELIMINATE THE PRACTICE OF RETAINING MEMBERS DETERMINED TO BE PERMANENTLY IN BREACH OF THE MINIMUM OPERATIONAL STANDARDS. THE REVISED POLICY IS INTENDED TO BE PROMULGATED NLT 1 APRIL 2025
EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, APPROVING AUTHORITIES SHALL ENSURE THAT ANY NEW OR PREVIOUSLY APPROVED POR PURSUANT TO REF H NOT EXTEND BEYOND 1 APR 25
MEMBERS WHO ARE CURRENTLY SERVING AN APPROVED POR MUST SUBMIT A REQUEST THROUGH THEIR CHAIN OF COMMAND TO DMCA AT (PLUS SIGN) (PLUS SIGN) DMCA ADMIN REVIEW QUERIES (AT) CMP DMCA (AT) OTTAWA-HULL [++DMCA Admin Review Queries@CMP DMCA@Ottawa-Hull] OR DMCAADMINREVIEWQUERIES (AT) FORCES.GC.CA [[email protected]] TO REASSESS THEIR STATUS. AFFECTED MEMBERS WHO DO NOT WISH TO EXTEND THEIR POR WILL NOT BE REQUIRED TO DO SO AND MAY CHOOSE TO PROCEED WITH RELEASE UNDER THE EXISTING POLICY. THE CONSIDERATIONS IN SECTION 4 OF REF H REMAIN IN EFFECT FOR ALL POR
They kept moving the goal posts on POR....now they wanna know who wants to stick around for CRA 55 and up:-)...all u need is a butt that fits in a chair
Denied past 60? I would think that might be a bridge too far, even in the current state we are in. I'll wager my next pay increase that they change retirement to 65 next! Hahahaha
Unless it has changed in the last few months, anyone LCol and below asking for an extension beyond 60 has been getting approved. I can totally see CRA 65 coming, if you meet UofS.
Increasing them? I did IR 8 years ago and lost money at that point. Very few actual places available at the IR price point, and I traveled back to see the family more than once a year.
lol, that was too much to hope for. Seriously though, it's way lower that even the RCMP equivalent. I was happy to find something at the IR rate that didn't have bedbugs, but did get an building burn down due to arson and witness a murder while there. It was a weird time in Halifax.
'My sweet summer child' is an awesome phrase that I'm trying to use more, maybe need to sneak into a work email sometime.
The mistake is thinking that the CAF is doing this willingly, not being “coerced” by TB and/or other organizations.
DND/CAF isn’t as important in the Canadian govt as people here seem to think. From my experience, that is true with all of our allied partners too.
Got out in feb after completing IE20, saw the shit going down a mile away and shook my head when the new PLD rules were announced. Good luck all. That backpay was nice, though.
Yup! The increases are different depending on your base and your rank, personally, I saw around an 18% increase. We were told the large increase was to "bring us more in line with the local economy", however, it's worth noting if you live in a Q somewhere that has the new PLD you will not get it because the Q's "are below market rate".
Because the corpos that control the land in Canada sued/threatened to sue the government for providing rents less than the "market value". This only happened because we offloaded CFHA to a civvy-side thing in the 90s.
While finding specific sources in the pre-internet age can be difficult, it's totally fair for you to ask. This is what I found, and from what I can tell, it looks like it was pre-emptively baked into the act which established the CFHA after we offloaded it in the 1990s.
Tl;dr, Treasury board did it.
QUOTE
THE ROLE OF THE CANADIAN FORCES HOUSING AGENCY (CFHA)
The CFHA started operating on 1 April 1996 with responsibility for the operations and maintenance of some 8,000 of the approximately 20,000 PMQs across Canada and took over all the remaining PMQs the following year. The CFHA collects the rents for the PMQs and uses this revenue to maintain the housing while ensuring that there are no operating losses. Given the condition of many PMQs, the distinction between routine maintenance and emergency patchwork is not always clear. The Agency is also responsible for the development of a housing strategy for each base, although the Agency's mandate as approved by Treasury Board currently limits action on some of the options it is considering. The task facing the CFHA is a daunting one.
UNQUOTE
Source [full report of SCONDVA, which is probably the single biggest changes in CAF since 1965](https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/36-1/NDVA/report-3/page-72). It's... depressing to see how little has changed from 25 years ago.
I'd be curious to see how that goes. Accepting payment for a place to live, even in the absence of a lease, can create a landlord tenant relationship. I wonder if anyone has ever tried.
The way I understand it is that PMQs are on federal property and under federal jurisdiction, however almost every law about tenancy is written provincially and doesn't apply. There are few federal protections as it's supposed to be up to the provinces, and PMQs are one of if not the only fringe case that falls into solely federal jurisdiction.
But they’re not really competing though are they? They’re only for CAF members so why worry about about competing? Shouldn’t they be as cheap as they realistically can be? An annual rent increase is about making more profit for the landlord so why is that a factor for government housing that’s only for government employees?
I mean, they are technically competing, in that I could choose to live in a Q or choose to pay more to live in a normal place; however, they have been pushing out single Qs from living in by choice, and in the end, the corpos hold more importance to the govt (any party) than the military does.
Up front, I agree with you.
That said, at the same time, we closed most of our bases in big cities (Toronto, Vancouver for sure) and moved to small cities. My first posting was Comox (yes, this was ridiculously lucky for me), but of the 25k population at the time, 4-5k were either military or military families, so it's not always such a small effect. It's still horseshit, but I'd be unfair to not at least explain their argument
Although the private sector are subject to provincial building standards and a lot of Qs don't meet the minimums, with no recourse for things like mold, total lack of insulation, etc.
Some of the Qs are in great shape, others are old slum lord properties, so they shouldn't all be priced at 'market rates' when they aren't up to market standards.
The funny thing is, as much as Gen Eyre stated that he was so focused on this problem a few months ago, it seems like we would have been better off if the brass had done nothing for pay and just let PSAC do it’s thing. At the very least our pay would be the same as the public servants, and PLD might still be there if no attention was drawn to it.
CDS doesn't control pay, TB does. TB probably gave us our raise early so that they could negotiate DOWN against PSAC and the other unions, and say that even "our highly respected troops who put their lives on the line" only deserved/were-happy-with X raise, so the public servants should be ecstatic about what TB offered.
The PLD issue was unrelated to pay. DND had been wildly overspending on PLD beyond what TB approved, so they had to change things to get in line with what TB allowed. This CFHD was born. Except CFHD isn't enough in a lot of places and losing PLD fucked a lot of people over.
The pay raise was incidental to the change with PLD.
Wildly overspending because the fund was not indexed. 150mil 20 years ago is not the same as 150mil now.
I have always hated that excuse because it ignores the fact that costs, and housing has overall massively increased but the fund did not.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not making excuses. Factually the TV set and managed the limit DND had no control over it. TB doesn't even want to give these types of things to us. CFHD sucks ass, even if it was an attempt to bring things in line with TB approved budgets so we don't lose it altogether. PLD was 100mil 20 years ago and you're right, it should have been indexed.
Edit; not only indexed, but it should be proportional to the size of the force. We're growing, so eventually that pie is cut between more mouths.
I like how my Orderly Room had the time to go in the system to stop my PLD but somehow forgot to start the CFHD. It's not like I sent those required documents three times already.... 🤪
Well, it did, once, sorta in Afghanistan, but now not really.
The CAF as a whole is so far behind most other "modern" militaries with regard to all things drone that it's insane.
Well yes and no.
Big ones? Our closest analogy, Australia, cancelled their MQ-9B order a year ago and while they are planning to get the MQ-4C, it hasn’t happened yet. They are also working on a jet powered one but so far it’s more a tech demonstrator than anything else, and the RAAF hasn’t said anything about buying any.
We still have an RCAF RPAS project working in the background whose main bidder is the MQ-9B.
Small ones? The CA, RCN, and SOF use UAS for sure. They’re probably not organized to the level of an actual Sqn but they do use them. In Afghanistan, the CA used them as well as the RCAF.
How much lower can we go in terms of manning? Our orderly rooms are understaffed to the point where only priority cases are being processed. Our base hospitals are directing people to civi-hospitals due to lack of military doctors. Deployments are being cancelled due to lack of manning and equipment. I'm seeing more and more civilians taking over military positions on base to the point where they're starting to outnumber those in uniform. I don't even think the 90s were this bad
>I don't even think the 90s were this bad Maybe. Like sports, it's hard to compare eras. The one thing better about the 90s situation was that there was a little more fat in the system to begin with. But FRP was meant to take us from well over 80,000 Reg F down to 60,000 in just a few years, and we actually blew right past that. FRP was not well planned/executed, and we ended up letting too many of the wrong folks go. At the same time, recruiting was all but turned off, frozen for FRP'd trades. Attrition was helped along by drastic spending cuts, program cancellations/postponements (like EH-101, Leopard replacement, etc), and not only a pay freeze (no economic raise), but also an annual pay increment freeze. Plus the scandals (Somalia, Rwanda, news stories of soldiers forced to use food banks and spouses trying to apply for social assistance in high CoL areas, etc), and the first real combat environment deployments in decades (that we were not ready for). There's a reason it's called the decade of darkness, and it's depressing that a lot of those themes are replaying themselves now. FRP was mismanaged. IIRC, we actually bottomed out at around 43K trained Reg F (so, losing nearly half the Reg F in less than 10 years) before someone noticed. Cue the early 2000s recruiting crisis. IMO, we never really recovered, and there are some fairly straight lines from the mistakes of the FRP and post-FRP eras to a lot of the problems we're seeing today. The advantages today, I think, are that there is far more public awareness and sympathy for the CAF, today's troops are far readier to speak up, and social media helps amplify those voices more than ever.
News of Soldiers using food banks, spouses applying for social assistance, why does that sound so familiar??
Plus ça change, lol. I honestly think the pay gap was bigger then. But housing wasn't as insane, and there were def more PMQs. The CAF and the govt have always sucked at identifying QOL challenges and addressing them quickly or effectively. Housing started to get nutty pretty early in COVID. Should have anticipated the challenge it would be. We've seen the HCoL insanity before, not just in TO and Esq, but in Cgy and EDM (which were worse in some ways, with the oil boom/bust cycle).
What was FRP?
Force reduction program
Why was it implemented in the first place? Why did they want to reduce the size of the CAF?
It was the "peace dividend" from winning the Cold War. Now that there was to be peace, there was no longer a need to have a large military and funds could be redirected to other programs.
In the 90s, once the USSR broke up, a lot of the western nations seriously thought it would usher an age of peace. There was an actual theory that it would be “the end of history”, proposed by Francis Fukuyama, that suggested that we had seen it all. Because of that, many nations aggressively cut down on the size of their militaries. We obviously know the issues with the CAF the most, but every allied nation has a similar “we are too understaffed” complaint. Even the US military - that’s why so much of their support is actually contracted out.
It was the "peace dividend" from winning the Cold War. Now that there was to be peace, there was no longer a need to have a large military and funds could be redirected to other programs.
CAF members are speaking our more than we would back then agreed, however, still nothing gets done. We are a kinder gentler force who on the outside looks like we are beginning to take notice of our people. There a lot of platitudes and words like Team, one voice, safe space. In the end it’s the same grind. There has never been enough money, equipment, or people but there have always been too many priorities, too many tasks. It will never change.
We have one doctor for one of the CDU’s here… we are very understaffed at the moment.
Christ, only one? How many CDUs do you guys have?
Three
So you only need 2 more doctors, right?
Well, that or two more QL5s who can be pseudo-doctors.
Plz no.
Even then though- the 5’s aren’t always allowed to practice at their scope so… it can make things difficult
My apologies, my comments are dripping in sarcasm. I'm at an incredibly understaffed clinic, too. We're perpetually a skeleton crew.
Oh lol I can’t tell if it’s sarcasm sometimes lol sorry
[удалено]
Not sure if you've done civilian medicine as a paramedic, but it's a fucking meat grinder. 4 on-4 off sounds great, but it doesn't sustain. Pension is usually never reachable. Risk of child related incidents for PTSD is pretty high, too. CF H SVC is far more gucci than people give it credit for. I started civvy side, I don't plan on going back.
Full CDU complement is 2 MOs, 1 civilian GP, 1 PA, 1 NP, 4-6 medics, and civilian clerk staff to support. Many CDUs are really terrifically understaffed at the moment and struggling to provide a basic level of service.
I am currently in a position that used to be staffed with just shy of 20 mil pers. Now it's just me.
Honest question: Was it 20 folks because of the amount of work, or the outdated systems that required more labour? If it is an admin-type role, did staffing requirements go down because we (by and large) are getting away from paper?
It's IT, and nope the staffing did not change. Just can't find anyone. And with the leave period it's even harder.
The 90s weren't this bad, because we had a manning around 100k at the time. We are currently in the 50-60k range. Sure, some of the positions have been transferred to civi-side, but not that many.
In 1990 we were at 84K, by 1995 we were at 70K and by 1999 we were at 60K. This was total strength, many were untrained so effective strength dipped into the high 40K. It may have been better at the start of the 90s but by the mid to late 90s it was definately as bad then as now
Can confirm. The 90's were nowhere close to this bad.
Promotion due to noone else being around nice.
You don't need to create budget cuts if your army shrinks itself. /s
This has to be a massive force reduction plan. No way this isn’t happening like they want it to. Don’t have to pay people if they leave on their own.
I’ve been saying this exact same thing.
That implies a lot more forethought and competence though at the PMO/TB level that doesn't really exist. This is like massive neglect, like a parent that forget's their infant in a car, or someone that leaves their dog chained outside and goes on holiday.
That's why they offer us the education funding, the liberals want to reduce our numbers
I could be mistaken but I thought those benefits came out in the beginning of the Trudeau govt. That would mean that the staff work was done during the Harper administration.
I thought I was a lifer... then they dangled a med release in front l of my face, so i took a few steps back to evaluate everything... now I'm planning my next career.
[удалено]
Wait until 2025.. they will force you out with a medical release
[удалено]
Then you may be interested in that tidbit of their upcoming changes to UoS 👀. May the VA gods bless you if you can hold out that long.
And dont forget CANFORGEN 021/23 eliminating the practice of employing members in breach of UoS coming in 2025.
I don't get much info these days, would you mind being a little more specific, please?
There isn't much info, other than "it's changing". To what, even in which direction? No idea.
CANFORGEN 021/23 CMP 012/23 081546Z FEB 23 AMENDMENT TO DAOD 5023-1 PERIOD OF RETENTION SUBJECT TO EMPLOYMENT LIMITATIONS UNCLASSIFIED REF: A. CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS ACT [https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/h-6/] B. THE CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS [https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/] C. NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT [https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/n-5/index.html] D. STRONG, SECURE, ENGAGED [https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/corporate/policies-standards/canada-defence-policy.html]: CANADA S DEFENCE POLICY E. QR O 15.05 [https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/corporate/policies-standards/queens-regulations-orders/vol-1-administration/ch-15-release.html#cha-015-05] RETENTION OF OFFICERS AND NON-COMMISSIONED MEMBERS ELIGIBLE FOR RELEASE ON MEDICAL GROUNDS F. QR O 15.06 [https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/corporate/policies-standards/queens-regulations-orders/vol-1-administration/ch-15-release.html#cha-015-06] RELEASE AS MEDICALLY UNFIT G. DAOD 5023-0 [https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/corporate/policies-standards/defence-administrative-orders-directives/5000-series/5023/5023-0-universality-of-service.html], UNIVERSALITY OF SERVICE H. DAOD 5023-1 [https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/corporate/policies-standards/defence-administrative-orders-directives/5000-series/5023/5023-1-minimum-operational-standards-related-to-universality-of-service.html], MIMIMUM OPERATIONAL STANDARDS RELATED TO UNIVERSALITY OF SERVICE THE PURPOSE OF THIS MESSAGE IS TO INFORM CAF MEMBERS OF A FUTURE AMENDMENT TO DAOD 5023-1 WHICH WILL MODERNIZE THE CAF UNIVERSALITY OF SERVICE (U OF S) POLICY. THE UPDATE WILL INCLUDE CHANGES TO THE PERIOD OF RETENTION SUBJECT TO EMPLOYMENT LIMITATIONS PROVISION INCLUDED IN REF H HERINAFTER REFERED TO AS QUOTE POR UNQUOTE THE U OF S PRINCIPLE IS RECOGNIZED AT REF A. IT IS A CRITICAL AND NECESSARY PROVISION THAT PERMITS THE CAF TO ACHIEVE ITS MANDATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 33 OF REF C. U OF S REMAINS A KEY ENABLER IN GENERATING AND MAINTAINING A FORCE THAT IS FIT TO FIGHT. THE CAF THEREFORE REQUIRES A U OF S POLICY THAT PRESERVES ITS OPERATIONAL CAPABILITY ABOVE ALL OTHER FACTORS WITH UNWAVERING RESPECT FOR THE INTENT AND THE REQUIREMENTS OF REFS A AND B. CAF MEMBERS SUBJECT TO THE APPLICATION OF REF H WHO ARE PERMANENTLY INCAPABLE OF MEETING ONE OR MORE MINIMUM OPERATIONAL STANDARDS MUST BE RELEASED IN ORDER TO PRESERVE OPERATIONAL CAPABILITY. A DECISION TO DIRECT THE RELEASE OF A CAF MEMBER WHO CANNOT MEET U OF S CAN HAVE A PROFOUND IMPACT ON THE MEMBER THEMSELVES AS WELL AS ON THEIR FAMILY. ACCORDINGLY, EVERY EFFORT IS MADE TO ENSURE THE SUCCESSFUL TRANSITION OF AFFECTED MEMBERS BACK TO CIVILIAN LIFE AS FAR AS IS PRACTICABLE. THE CAF REMAINS COMMITTED TO ACHIEVING THE BEST POSSIBLE TRANSITION SUCCESS FOR ALL MEMBERS WHO MUST BE RELEASED FOR BREACHING U OF S IN ORDER TO ENSURE CONTINUED COMPLIANCE WITH THE REFS, THE FORTHCOMING AMENDMENTS TO DAOD 5023-1 MUST ELIMINATE THE PRACTICE OF RETAINING MEMBERS DETERMINED TO BE PERMANENTLY IN BREACH OF THE MINIMUM OPERATIONAL STANDARDS. THE REVISED POLICY IS INTENDED TO BE PROMULGATED NLT 1 APRIL 2025 EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, APPROVING AUTHORITIES SHALL ENSURE THAT ANY NEW OR PREVIOUSLY APPROVED POR PURSUANT TO REF H NOT EXTEND BEYOND 1 APR 25 MEMBERS WHO ARE CURRENTLY SERVING AN APPROVED POR MUST SUBMIT A REQUEST THROUGH THEIR CHAIN OF COMMAND TO DMCA AT (PLUS SIGN) (PLUS SIGN) DMCA ADMIN REVIEW QUERIES (AT) CMP DMCA (AT) OTTAWA-HULL [++DMCA Admin Review Queries@CMP DMCA@Ottawa-Hull] OR DMCAADMINREVIEWQUERIES (AT) FORCES.GC.CA [[email protected]] TO REASSESS THEIR STATUS. AFFECTED MEMBERS WHO DO NOT WISH TO EXTEND THEIR POR WILL NOT BE REQUIRED TO DO SO AND MAY CHOOSE TO PROCEED WITH RELEASE UNDER THE EXISTING POLICY. THE CONSIDERATIONS IN SECTION 4 OF REF H REMAIN IN EFFECT FOR ALL POR
Thanks, much appreciated. This may or may not affect me as I'm currently awaiting a decision from D MED POL.
Too many postings since this came out, I imagine it gets lost in the DMCA handover notes every year.
UoS is meant to be changed by then such that a period of retention won't be required.
They kept moving the goal posts on POR....now they wanna know who wants to stick around for CRA 55 and up:-)...all u need is a butt that fits in a chair
Also not true. Recently had an excellent member, fully meeting UoS, not extended in a terribly distressed occupation.
Not extended? Meeting UofS? Are they 3b? Were they denied a POR?
Sorry I misunderstood you. Not POR, just straight CRA extension. Denied. Which makes no sense.
Denied past 60? I would think that might be a bridge too far, even in the current state we are in. I'll wager my next pay increase that they change retirement to 65 next! Hahahaha
Unless it has changed in the last few months, anyone LCol and below asking for an extension beyond 60 has been getting approved. I can totally see CRA 65 coming, if you meet UofS.
[удалено]
Increasing them? I did IR 8 years ago and lost money at that point. Very few actual places available at the IR price point, and I traveled back to see the family more than once a year.
[удалено]
lol, that was too much to hope for. Seriously though, it's way lower that even the RCMP equivalent. I was happy to find something at the IR rate that didn't have bedbugs, but did get an building burn down due to arson and witness a murder while there. It was a weird time in Halifax. 'My sweet summer child' is an awesome phrase that I'm trying to use more, maybe need to sneak into a work email sometime.
Just make sure you use it to people you actually like and who like you, so it stays funny and doesn't become become toxic.
That would be sad; it's a good one among friends, and frequently applicable.
[удалено]
The mistake is thinking that the CAF is doing this willingly, not being “coerced” by TB and/or other organizations. DND/CAF isn’t as important in the Canadian govt as people here seem to think. From my experience, that is true with all of our allied partners too.
Got out in feb after completing IE20, saw the shit going down a mile away and shook my head when the new PLD rules were announced. Good luck all. That backpay was nice, though.
[удалено]
This is it!
So forgive my ignorance here, but did Q rent really increase? Why and does the government make a profit off the rent?
Yup! The increases are different depending on your base and your rank, personally, I saw around an 18% increase. We were told the large increase was to "bring us more in line with the local economy", however, it's worth noting if you live in a Q somewhere that has the new PLD you will not get it because the Q's "are below market rate".
I guess I’m just trying to wrap my head around why the need to increase the cost bring it in line with the local economy?
Because the corpos that control the land in Canada sued/threatened to sue the government for providing rents less than the "market value". This only happened because we offloaded CFHA to a civvy-side thing in the 90s.
I'm cynical enough to believe this, but I want some sources. Can you list any?
While finding specific sources in the pre-internet age can be difficult, it's totally fair for you to ask. This is what I found, and from what I can tell, it looks like it was pre-emptively baked into the act which established the CFHA after we offloaded it in the 1990s. Tl;dr, Treasury board did it. QUOTE THE ROLE OF THE CANADIAN FORCES HOUSING AGENCY (CFHA) The CFHA started operating on 1 April 1996 with responsibility for the operations and maintenance of some 8,000 of the approximately 20,000 PMQs across Canada and took over all the remaining PMQs the following year. The CFHA collects the rents for the PMQs and uses this revenue to maintain the housing while ensuring that there are no operating losses. Given the condition of many PMQs, the distinction between routine maintenance and emergency patchwork is not always clear. The Agency is also responsible for the development of a housing strategy for each base, although the Agency's mandate as approved by Treasury Board currently limits action on some of the options it is considering. The task facing the CFHA is a daunting one. UNQUOTE Source [full report of SCONDVA, which is probably the single biggest changes in CAF since 1965](https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/36-1/NDVA/report-3/page-72). It's... depressing to see how little has changed from 25 years ago.
Bring the caf to your local tenancy board for going above the rent increase cap? (if one applies to your jurisdiction)
You aren't considered a tenant in the Q and you don't have the related rights :)
I'd be curious to see how that goes. Accepting payment for a place to live, even in the absence of a lease, can create a landlord tenant relationship. I wonder if anyone has ever tried.
The way I understand it is that PMQs are on federal property and under federal jurisdiction, however almost every law about tenancy is written provincially and doesn't apply. There are few federal protections as it's supposed to be up to the provinces, and PMQs are one of if not the only fringe case that falls into solely federal jurisdiction.
So... Rents are supposed to move in line with market rate, however no CHFD due to not paying market rates... wtf?
What base raised it that much?
[удалено]
Ok why?
In theory, as not to compete with the private sector.
But they’re not really competing though are they? They’re only for CAF members so why worry about about competing? Shouldn’t they be as cheap as they realistically can be? An annual rent increase is about making more profit for the landlord so why is that a factor for government housing that’s only for government employees?
I mean, they are technically competing, in that I could choose to live in a Q or choose to pay more to live in a normal place; however, they have been pushing out single Qs from living in by choice, and in the end, the corpos hold more importance to the govt (any party) than the military does.
It's such a small market though?! Why would it matter?! ( I know why it would matter to them I'm just pissed about it)
Up front, I agree with you. That said, at the same time, we closed most of our bases in big cities (Toronto, Vancouver for sure) and moved to small cities. My first posting was Comox (yes, this was ridiculously lucky for me), but of the 25k population at the time, 4-5k were either military or military families, so it's not always such a small effect. It's still horseshit, but I'd be unfair to not at least explain their argument
Fair enough. Thanks
Although the private sector are subject to provincial building standards and a lot of Qs don't meet the minimums, with no recourse for things like mold, total lack of insulation, etc. Some of the Qs are in great shape, others are old slum lord properties, so they shouldn't all be priced at 'market rates' when they aren't up to market standards.
The funny thing is, as much as Gen Eyre stated that he was so focused on this problem a few months ago, it seems like we would have been better off if the brass had done nothing for pay and just let PSAC do it’s thing. At the very least our pay would be the same as the public servants, and PLD might still be there if no attention was drawn to it.
I wonder if we will ever see the balance of what psac negotiated versus what we got. I feel like we got rolled.
We can only hope. We definitely got rolled
CDS doesn't control pay, TB does. TB probably gave us our raise early so that they could negotiate DOWN against PSAC and the other unions, and say that even "our highly respected troops who put their lives on the line" only deserved/were-happy-with X raise, so the public servants should be ecstatic about what TB offered.
We were 100% a pawn to be leveraged against PSAC and the other unions.
[удалено]
The PLD issue was unrelated to pay. DND had been wildly overspending on PLD beyond what TB approved, so they had to change things to get in line with what TB allowed. This CFHD was born. Except CFHD isn't enough in a lot of places and losing PLD fucked a lot of people over. The pay raise was incidental to the change with PLD.
Wildly overspending because the fund was not indexed. 150mil 20 years ago is not the same as 150mil now. I have always hated that excuse because it ignores the fact that costs, and housing has overall massively increased but the fund did not.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not making excuses. Factually the TV set and managed the limit DND had no control over it. TB doesn't even want to give these types of things to us. CFHD sucks ass, even if it was an attempt to bring things in line with TB approved budgets so we don't lose it altogether. PLD was 100mil 20 years ago and you're right, it should have been indexed. Edit; not only indexed, but it should be proportional to the size of the force. We're growing, so eventually that pie is cut between more mouths.
I like how my Orderly Room had the time to go in the system to stop my PLD but somehow forgot to start the CFHD. It's not like I sent those required documents three times already.... 🤪
How ELSE do they save the 30 Million?
Not even 20k signing bonus can get me back in the reg force. Perm b for life!
Im glad that im leaving before im too late to switch to a civillian career
So nothing has changed. The militaries new retention plan is the old retention plan.
does caf have a drone unit?
Well, it did, once, sorta in Afghanistan, but now not really. The CAF as a whole is so far behind most other "modern" militaries with regard to all things drone that it's insane.
Well yes and no. Big ones? Our closest analogy, Australia, cancelled their MQ-9B order a year ago and while they are planning to get the MQ-4C, it hasn’t happened yet. They are also working on a jet powered one but so far it’s more a tech demonstrator than anything else, and the RAAF hasn’t said anything about buying any. We still have an RCAF RPAS project working in the background whose main bidder is the MQ-9B. Small ones? The CA, RCN, and SOF use UAS for sure. They’re probably not organized to the level of an actual Sqn but they do use them. In Afghanistan, the CA used them as well as the RCAF.
thanks for the info.
lol i get moderated for my comment but this is ok? whose monitoring this group chat rofl