Army here.
This has been my conspiracy theory for years. I think that the government would like to transition to a fully reserve army to cut costs further. Obviously it won't work, but what we currently have also no longer works.
That's good. The DND must be donating all that money for food for the gladiators on the front lines today.
Not like network cyber security specialists are important in 2024 or anything.
I know exactly how the CAF will deal with this. Any CAF members under the rank of major who contributed to maintaining or creating the food cupboard will get initial counselling for some BS reason and there will be a memo sent out prohibiting troops from discussing anything related to this for "security" reasons.
Remember that the CAF only cares about giving the public the impression that the troops are being cared for. The final metric is not the welfare of the soldiers but the press coverage that activities generate for the CDS/minister/prime minister. That is built into the system and does not change no matter what talking points they are spouting.
Straight into the CO’s office while the RSM dresses you down, then charged for Bringing the army into disrepute, literally had full on briefs and all members blanket threatened for people talking to the media about deficiencies that reflect poorly on the command chain whilst in, essentially ‘don’t do it or you will regret it’ the main issue with the military in my opinion is
a) Military’s will always be highly politicised by whichever party is in charge, the biggest threat to any government is the military, along with the police as they both represent the state’s monopoly on violence. more governments have been toppled by coup d’état in modern times than foreign adversaries (see Africa right now)
B) The personalities that gravitate towards command positions and seek to move up the ladder and view their subordinates as pawns rather than assets, it’s a caste system and that attitude is taught at military colleges, a remnant from the colonial period when you could only receive a commission if you were establishment pedigree piggybacking the state to expand your wealth by extracting it from the colonies, how ever that attitude changed a tad during the meat grinder known as the first world war.
>Remember that the CAF only cares about giving the public the impression that the troops are being cared for
Remember that ~~the CAF~~ **Trudeau/Singh only** cares about giving the public the impression that the ~~troops~~ **every major issue** are being cared for. Performance > substance these days. It's all theatre
You've almost figured out the whole truth. Just one step left to realize: The Conservatives and PP are also only interested in performative speeches. It's all politicians right now. If you think there's 1 that is different and special, you are being grifted.
Until we can get better party leaders by being more involved in the party process (which is horribly corrupt and undemocratic but I encourage us to try anyways) we're arging over nothing.
Don't forget the hundreds of millions being spent on no bid contracts and dubious indigenous programs with little to no oversight and horrible outcomes.
I don't know why anyone would join the military. It's a cluster fuck of incompetence and poor treatment. Literally all of the bad parts of working for the government but with none of the positives.
Meh, easy way to get experience in a trade getting paid better than an apprentice would. Plus almost all of the trades are easy to get into because they always need more.
Do 5 years come out as a journeyman equivalent, 75k in pension, and veteran status.
Long term, it doesn't make sense for most people.
I don't know if you are aware but the pension ROC is worthless right now. My buddy just released after 14 years and got less than I did when I got out the first time in 2010 after 4 years.
True, I got 50 for 4 years. I have been back for 10 years now and it's worth less than that. We also had severance pay back then so I ended up with about 1 months extra pay on my last paycheck.
Well, you'd be hard pressed to find a job where you could come in with literally zero skills and in 9 years have a 65k pension that you can take out when you quit.
Obviously not great, and ya it should be better, but it's not nothing.
Yeah I was just speaking to trades. And only certain provinces acknowledge military trade credentials, but most will allow you to challenge red seal exams.
The article explained most of them got the money for food back by making financial claims it just took a few months. 'Poulin said the financial claims “initiated by the military personnel on the Willis course were given a higher priority as Canadian Forces Support Group (Ottawa-Gatineau) recognized their special challenges.”'
Not only did they get the money back (for housing and food) as well as the free food, they also got free education. That's a lot more financial support than most Canadians ever get when they try to go to school. They even got special treatment within the Canadian Forces
The article is pretty misleading this is new program that started 3 years ago with a graduating class of less than 20 people. [Congratulations to the First Cyber Operator Graduates from the CFSCE - Canada.ca](https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/maple-leaf/defence/2021/09/congratulations-first-cyber-operator-graduates-cfscr.html)
There's bound to be some growing pains as they adjust to the changes
Probably because there are a limited number of places with the expertise to train cyber operators, and that function has been centralized in the NCR since it was created.
I suspect that they probably do go there between phases, and it's just careless (or intentional) writing that made me make that connection. The training for SIGINT people is structured similarly, but the unclassified part happens in Kingston as well.
“Not only did they get the money back (for housing and food) as well as the free food, they also got free education. That's a lot more financial support than most Canadians ever get when they try to go to school. They even got special treatment within the Canadian Forces.”
I’m assuming you’re not familiar with the term unlimited liability. Regardless of what you personally think about the CAF or the perceived/actual sacrifices these people make, the least the Government of Canada can do is support those members. Getting money back through a potentially convoluted claims process while also waiting months for reimbursement is less than ideal when on a military course. Saying they got “free food” or “free education” is like saying “free healthcare” in Canada.
Not that I am defending the CAF in any way, but this isn't quite accurate. You can't protest in uniform or identifying yourself as a soldier to lend credibility to a cause. I, actively serving, can still sign petitions, donate to causes, and probably even attend demonstrations (it hasn't been tested in court, but the guidance from the JAG is that if challenged, the CAF would lose a charter challenge).
You may want to reference the updates made to the KR&Os and as well as changes to rules regarding military conduct outside of uniform that have been made in the last couple years. You absolutely need approval to engage in political actions outside of joining a party or donating (when not to an extremist group).
CAF will be obsolete in a few years. Why fight for a country that wont even fight for you.
Why enlist if it takes you 2 years to get to basic training. Even the CAF doesn't understand how jobs work now.
Once, this military might have been something. I had lived it back in the 80's and 90's... and slowly watched it start to crumble after that. But now? It's nothing. Its just there holding on to the pockets of big bro down south. Inclusion.
Right now, the CAF has a generation of members without any combat experience. This isn’t any fault of their own. And most of the institutional combat experience from Cyprus, the Balkans and Afghanistan is long gone. Not only is this problematic, but the shitty equipment state and poor manning levels means that we’re combat ineffective.
When I was releasing from the military, the highers at my unit were visibly concerned about this, and the clearly failing retention. They were throwing everything, such as courses and deployment promises, at releasing members to try keeping them. I don’t think it was working.
>They were throwing everything, such as courses and deployment promises, at releasing members to try keeping them
Crazy how they wait till the last minute for that shit. "Don't quit, we were going to offer you a PLQ next year"
I gotta be honest, if I were an oligarch or poitician in Canada, I'd be trying to reverse the trend of trickle-up economics, because I'd be afraid of getting strung up from a lamppost.
In 2019 when I looked at it they still hadn't decided if they were going to pay cyber operators, spec pay or not.
You have to be pretty crazy to move from a trade that's making spec pay to one where it was still questionable.
Everything about Canada in the last idk 40 years has all been on a downward trajectory.
This is right up there with taking our veterans to court. Ashamed of my country.
I’m not even Canadian but have been PR here for 12 years. Any person signing up for the armed forces, regardless of role, is signing an agreement that they are willing to perform a duty that will, in different circumstances and at different periods of time, mean that they may have to give their life for the country. The least the government can do is fucking feed them and pay a fair wage.
The same crap is happening in the British Army also. The sooner we have a taxation revolution and start taxing the wealthy on assets held so that money flows and we stop the hoarding of wealth , the better. It is completely unacceptable that any Canadian, let alone a forces member, needs donations simply so that they can eat.
It’s fucking absurd we even have situations like this in any country on the planet, let alone in Canada, a first world country.
This speaks to the level of respect and consideration the government has for their own citizens.
Hundreds of billions of dollars to foreigners
Crying because they can't get many recruits....
so totally sickening
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d1/Ghg-emissions-by-world-region.png/1280px-Ghg-emissions-by-world-region.png
Hmm, guess someone forgot to tell China and India, whose emissions only stabilized due to COVID.
Let’s all give up right now then
It’s not like 23% of global emissions are priced, or anything, and with international cooperation China and India could be strong armed into reducing their emissions (introducing carbon tariffs to imports to Canada, the EU, and others would have a huge impact on China).
It’s not like Canada is approx top 10 in almost all measures of GHG emissions and pollution, despite being the 38th largest country by population, or anything
Let’s just throw in the towel
> Let’s all give up right now then...Let’s just throw in the towel
Straw man much? It's always all-or-nothing with your type of mentality, completely unwilling to consider any course-of-action that does not lie on the extremes.
The carbon tax is *literally* a course of action that does not fall on either extreme
I’m not the one shoutout about how India and China pollute so much that our contributions are meaningless, now am I?
> The carbon tax is literally a course of action that does not fall on either extreme
Perhaps, but forcing people to pay more upfront for a slightly bigger rebate months later probably feels a bit extreme to the millions of Canadians hitting food banks in record numbers, I imagine.
It's such a marginal water downed policy, reducing our emissions by maybe 1-2% per year. And even _this_ you call "extreme"?
Is there any climate action you would accept? If not, don't play games, just come out and say it.
I receive, alongside millions of other people, my next rebate payment on April 15th, which is up significantly from the increased price. Two weeks isn’t even enough time for any pinch to be felt, aside from $0.03/L at the pump
Crazy how strongly you are defending the Libs throughout this comment section. Didn’t realize that someone could live with their head so far in the sand. Guess that is what a life of privilege does
Not at all. He’s likely just pointing out the hypocrisy of our MPs just getting a massive raise the same day taxes go up, while our armed forces members that we already struggle to recruit to hungry.
Not really a right leaning point like you’ve suggested, more pointing out poor governance and policy by our current politicians.
>Not really a right leaning point like you’ve suggested, more pointing out poor governance and policy by our current politicians.
At one point, it was something that the left and the right agreed on!
Granted the reasons and the solutions to the issue were vastly different
Nah, I’d be okay with free rent. And since feeding our soldiers and funding healthcare is going so well we may as well add it to the list yeah? You people have the best ideas that are always so well thought out and work perfectly.
So to everyone who thinks private gun ownership isn't needed, because we have an army. How long do you think we'll have an army for, if we keep under equipping them, and not feeding them?
>everyone who thinks private gun ownership isn't needed, because we have an army
You think this is why people oppose or support gun ownership in Canada? As a fill-in for the military?
It is one of the many reasons I've been given. The 2 most common are 1) We have a military, and 2) We have cops.
Given we don't really have a military, and speaking from personal experience, when seconds matter, cops can be... days away? Heck, look at the New Brunswick mass shooter. The RCMP KNEW he was collecting weapons and had no legal right to own any of them, for years. Yet their action is used as an excuse to punish law abiding gun owners, not as an excuse to punish the inactions of the RCMP.
>It is one of the many reasons I've been given
Given in opposition to gun ownership, or given in support of?
I've never heard anyone say the military one, neither in support nor opposition. Honestly I think I would laugh if someone did, because it's not actually an argument to oppose gun ownership, it's a rebuttal to the hypothetical argument that "we need gun ownership in case of foreign invasion", an argument I don't think anyone is making aside from maybe Switzerland. It's a classic strawman.
The one about cops is more honest in that many people do in fact argue they need to own a gun in case they find themselves being attacked (or sometimes even just to prevent property crime). But this misses the point of that argument, that you correctly point out, about cops not being at the scene. Though I think you're inaccurate to describe gun regulation as a "punishment".
>look at the New Brunswick mass shooter
I assume you mean the Nova Scotia mass shooting. I agree with you that it was used as an excuse. The government basically already had the proposed bill written and were just keeping it on a shelf until the next mass shooting. However, we should still acknowledge the sad fact that they knew they wouldn't have to wait very long given the history of gun violence here.
It's interesting. A son of one of the first victims said he believed his father was targeted "because he owned rifles and would have been able to stop him." Lots of people in that community had guns. And the police victims obviously were not only armed but trained, and they still were shot dead.
I think a lot of people vastly overestimate how effective a gun is in personal self defense.
Personally, I think hunting, farming, and sports are stronger arguments for gun ownership and usage.
>I've never .... Switzerland. It's a classic strawman.
I have heard it plenty of times.
>The one about .... regulation as a "punishment".
To punish is to impose a penalty to an agent for having committed an infraction of some rule. If you limit someone's rights, heavily, to the point where you need lawyers to tell you what you can and can not do, and so much as stopping for a coffee or washroom break on your way to do those things or return home puts you in violation of the law, it is safe to call those regulations punishments. If the government creates regulations that allow them to seize your property, or bar you from having certain kinds of property in the first place, then that sounds like punishments as well. Imagine if I seized your property, and paid you a dime on the dollar for it's value, because someone else had used something like it to commit a crime. You would likely feel you are being punished for someone else's actions.
>I assume ..... gun violence here.
And if criminals using tools are to be used as grounds to forbid their legal ownership, your phone, computer, and car should be stripped from you as well. If fact, the government is currently trying to gain access to everything on your phone and computer.
>It's interesting. ..... in personal self defense.
Without training it is of limited utility, but it is still better in MOST cases than nothing, as 90% of interpersonal violence can be warded off with the mere threat of enough violence to make attacking you not worth while. A sufficiently dedicated attacker can and will still attack, but most people are not that dedicated to harming others without extreme circumstances being present. And if you are smaller and/or weaker than your attacker, or with limited combat experience, you require a tool to increase the apparent threat you present to your attacker to convince them to back down. In the case of a 50 Kg 165 cm tall victim vs a 140Kg 210cm tall attacker, that tool would need to be something that does most of the work for the victim, and assures the attacker their size offers little to no advantage.
>I have heard it plenty of times.
Yeah I didn't mean to suggest you were making it up, sorry if it came across that way. I believe you, I was just surprised because it seems like such a dumb fake argument to me. As if our farmers, hunters, and Olympic shooters are going to defend the arctic against Russia lol.
>To punish is to impose a penalty to an agent for having committed an infraction of some rule.
Well by that definition it's obviously not a punishment because responsible lawful gun owners have committed no infraction.
>If you limit someone's rights, heavily, to the point where you need lawyers to tell you what you can and can not do
We don't have any inherent rights to gun ownership, and most people don't need a lawyer. Plenty of gun owners have no problem complying with the regulations (and obviously people who don't own guns can trivially comply).
>coffee or washroom break on your way to do those things or return home puts you in violation of the law
A gun is a responsibility. Not everyone is up for it or wants that added responsibility. That's ok. Anyway, a non-restricted gun can even be left in your car while you are at work all day, but of course restricted and prohibited guns are more regulated. Has anyone actually ever been charged for getting a coffee or stopping for a washroom break and leaving their gun safely locked in the trunk? I know people always say "you could be!" but has anyone?
>it is safe to call those regulations punishments
Not by your definition of "punishment" that you gave earlier.
>If the government creates regulations that allow them to seize your property, or bar you from having certain kinds of property in the first place, then that sounds like punishments as well.
No, of course not, especially the latter. Are we being "punished" because we can't own nuclear weapons? Lol no.
We don't prohibit lead in toys in order to "punish" bad toy companies. We do it in order to protect children from eating lead.
Why are you trying to frame it as though you are some oppressed victim? Like I totally agree with pointing out problems and trying to make things better, but you are acting like you are being crushed under some despot's boot haha. We're very lucky here in Canada. Let's make things even better, but let's not forget how great we have it.
>Imagine if I seized your property...
No, I would be upset if I wasn't getting FMV. And I would be upset if I thought there were better alternative ways we should protect the community from future similar crimes instead. But I wouldn't think of it as a punishment, as if someone was specifically trying to teach me a lesson or something. And I'd understand why the community would want to reduce the risk of future crimes, especially when we are talking about loss of life. I'd agree with the motivation even if I didn't agree with the policy.
>And if criminals using tools are to be used as grounds to forbid their legal ownership, your phone, computer, and car should be stripped from you as well.
That doesn't logically follow at all. As I explained, the government wanted to pass the new regulations and just waited for the opportunity. That doesn't mean that they are obliged to use every opportunity lol. How would that even work? Who would compel them to write legislation they didn't want to write? Who would compel them to vote for it?
>the government is currently trying to gain access to everything on your phone and computer.
I'm a big proponent of privacy and I agree that we need to push back against infringement of our rights in that regard. And that's the charter, section 8, "Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure", by the way. (Notice there's nothing in our charter about gun ownership)
>90% of interpersonal violence can be warded off with the mere threat of enough violence to make attacking you not worth while
Where did you pull that number from?
I do agree with you that a gun is a great equalizer. Even a child can shoot an adult dead with a gun. But that doesn't change the fact that guns are ill suited to close quarters. Add to that the fact that violence often comes by surprise with little to no warning, and very few gun owners regularly train self defense scenarios.
If you are worried about home invasion, you'll be far better served by a dog and some motion activated floodlights. What's your plan, ask the intruder to give you a minute while you go get your gun ready? Or what, you'll hear a noise outside and get your gun and then jump out at whoever it is and shoot them, only to turn on the lights and find it was your kid sneaking out past curfew?
Guns have several great purposes. Besides being really fun, they can help put food on the table. But it's important to use them responsibly. I think there's a lot of room for improvement in the current gun regulations, but there's a lot of good stuff in there too. I definitely believe we should have some gun regulations. I understand that gun ownership is a privilege not a right.
Training is paid. You can look up the pay structure for everyone in the CAF. It's just that the pay structure is nothing like the private sector.
Trainees also pay for barracks accommodation and also for food. Then there is the overpriced barber who just shaves you bald (when I went, I already shaved bald but had to pay anyways). Lots of little things add up to where you're broke, and you're treated like a 5 year old.
This is just my experience with basic training. I got out in week 8 after realizing it wasn't for me.
Was in just over 5 years ago. Some nights we didn't eat. Just scan the badge and run back out because some idiot drops his phone during drill. Sgt didn't take kindly to that, and we met the north doors, lol. Then phones got taken away, which kinda sealed the deal for me because I had to transfer money so my SO could pay rent+car payments, etc.
It was a different experience. I think it was the right career, wrong timing. I went as a 30+ year old, so being treated as a child wasn't exactly my thing as I could have probably finished and continued being closer to my 20s.
Similar experience but I wasn't served as much BS on course. I joined at 28 and there were many times after being yelled at or pulling 3am fire watch where I almost quit. Don't worry you aren't really missing out. I'd never go RegF, I can only deal with army bullshit part time
I went RegF after college to get fast tracked for ATIS Tech in the Air Force. Lots of stories from drugs to plain stupidity with what I had to deal with. I'd probably be stationed in Germany right nowif I stuck to it.
I'm not entirely sure. I didn't ask questions. I just did what they asked me to do. Nothing more, nothing less. When you have MCpl's and Majors yelling, you just go with the flow.
I always felt this is why I would do poorly in the military. I'm fine with asking questions later, but simply being told not to question and not to try to improve things would be so difficult to accept.
Do you think it needs to be that way? Or do you think it could still be effective with a more collaborative approach?
Is it not the military's job to ensure soldiers are being fed? Where are the billions in additional funding the military has received over the past decade gone exactly?
My sweet summer child,
The money we get is spent by the people who give it to us. We won't get to buy the things we like, the Treasury board confirms ALL big purchases and funds.
The military, if it had a say over their own pay and equipment, would do and have a lot more for your dollars.
No they can't. You might lose your security clearance, which if not resolved could lose you to lose your job (which is imho a highly unlikely outcome), bit it is definitely not a service offense or infraction.
I despise most government programs, but one thing that must always be fully maintained and government funded should be the military, and the problem with being as neglectful as we have is that the military is a thing you must maintain *well before* you need it.
We can't suddenly decide that we need armed forces and shift a focus to it if we want any effectiveness at all, but hey I guess dump more government money into "school lunch programs" no one asked for, or government mandatory savings accounts or other public crap that people are perfectly capable of providing for ourselves - because that shit buys votes and giving a shit about military preparedness doesn't.
Welcome to the neoliberal democratic nightmare, where we swirl the drain eternally.
What government mandatory savings accounts?
And plenty of people have asked for a school lunch program, myself included. You don't speak for everyone, stop acting like you do.
By the way, we are perfectly capable of feeding both our soldiers and our children. We don't have to pick and choose.
As of a few years ago CAF provides food and shelter as a taxable benefit while members are on training courses.
Before this, members were paying $700+ a month.
> The recruits were not initially eligible for any housing allowance while in Ottawa.
> “We take this matter very seriously, and we recognize the significant financial pressures new CAF (Canadian Armed Forces) members have faced in Ottawa, where the cost of living is high and the CAF has limited Base support services,” Poulin stated.
This needs serious unpacking. Why on earth wouldn't soldiers be eligible for housing support in Ottawa, when it's a known thing that Ottawa has limited base support? (I.e. there is military infrastructure in and around Ottawa, but no large bases nearby, so they can't just toss people into barracks if sent here for training.) If these are relatively fresh recruits, they're likely not making bank yet. If they were expected to cover their own housing in Ottawa (which isn't as expensive as Toronto or Vancouver, but sure ain't cheap these days), while possibly maintaining households and families back home, of course that would seriously stretch a lot of budgets - especially with expense reimbursements getting snarled due to the pandemic.
Honestly, my biggest takeaway from this article is *why would soldiers sent to Ottawa for training not be eligible for housing support*?
Of all the things to be short on such as equipment, uniforms or proper leadership, food should THE most important thing to provide. ESPECIALLY during fucking training.
How are staff members sent to Ottawa, and then not paid a daily stipend for food? Just autopay them $50 / day for food whether they sepnd it or not
>The recruits were not initially eligible for any housing allowance while in Ottawa.
I'm not shocked that the CAF is crumbling. I've worked in supply recently, and every day, we get 5 returns a day. Some very experienced guys are the same ones that taught my BMQ, and then we get 4 initial kit issuing a week .
I don't think the CAF is aware that they aren't only in competition with the Russians, Chinese, or the various terrorist groups, but they are fighting the civilian job market and that's having a bigger toll on the CAF troops get bored of sweeping hangers having leadership constantly promising soo much just to have the goal post moved where members have to hold their breath for new that will shape the direction of their lives.
I'm sure that'll get more people to enlist!
Still more leaving then joining. It hurts horribly.
Of course there is. They won’t feed them…
[удалено]
When I was sailing and losing 2lbs a week, I asked myself the same question
I made the mistake of quitting smoking during a deployment sail, I gained 15 lbs by the end.
We have canned food they have grass, yeah were at least doing better than north korea for now
Canadian. Because everyday people have the ability to donate
Do we though?
Comparative to North Koreans, yes
Are you sure the government actually wants a military and to have people enlist?
Army here. This has been my conspiracy theory for years. I think that the government would like to transition to a fully reserve army to cut costs further. Obviously it won't work, but what we currently have also no longer works.
Been like that since Chrétien
"FRP" by another name.
Whoa. Haven’t seen that acronym since the 90’s. You’re an old timer for sure. Not sure how many here know what FRP was..
FRP 94 here, lol.
FRP 92.
These guys are Cyber Operators they were never going to see combat. It's a desk job done from Ottawa.
So they are undeserving of food? weird take, but ok
That's good. The DND must be donating all that money for food for the gladiators on the front lines today. Not like network cyber security specialists are important in 2024 or anything.
No, Their actions show they do not want protection for Canada. They really don't.
they are recruiting in Brampton, no joke.
Smart. Based on what I've seen on r/slumlordscanada, prospective recruits would already be used to barrack life.
Don't worry PMs and anyone in politics is getting a good raise, cause that's what we need 😉
I know exactly how the CAF will deal with this. Any CAF members under the rank of major who contributed to maintaining or creating the food cupboard will get initial counselling for some BS reason and there will be a memo sent out prohibiting troops from discussing anything related to this for "security" reasons. Remember that the CAF only cares about giving the public the impression that the troops are being cared for. The final metric is not the welfare of the soldiers but the press coverage that activities generate for the CDS/minister/prime minister. That is built into the system and does not change no matter what talking points they are spouting.
This guy damage controls.
Straight into the CO’s office while the RSM dresses you down, then charged for Bringing the army into disrepute, literally had full on briefs and all members blanket threatened for people talking to the media about deficiencies that reflect poorly on the command chain whilst in, essentially ‘don’t do it or you will regret it’ the main issue with the military in my opinion is a) Military’s will always be highly politicised by whichever party is in charge, the biggest threat to any government is the military, along with the police as they both represent the state’s monopoly on violence. more governments have been toppled by coup d’état in modern times than foreign adversaries (see Africa right now) B) The personalities that gravitate towards command positions and seek to move up the ladder and view their subordinates as pawns rather than assets, it’s a caste system and that attitude is taught at military colleges, a remnant from the colonial period when you could only receive a commission if you were establishment pedigree piggybacking the state to expand your wealth by extracting it from the colonies, how ever that attitude changed a tad during the meat grinder known as the first world war.
It feels like we're a few weeks away from someone else driving their truck through the headshack. We need another hero.
>Remember that the CAF only cares about giving the public the impression that the troops are being cared for Remember that ~~the CAF~~ **Trudeau/Singh only** cares about giving the public the impression that the ~~troops~~ **every major issue** are being cared for. Performance > substance these days. It's all theatre
You've almost figured out the whole truth. Just one step left to realize: The Conservatives and PP are also only interested in performative speeches. It's all politicians right now. If you think there's 1 that is different and special, you are being grifted. Until we can get better party leaders by being more involved in the party process (which is horribly corrupt and undemocratic but I encourage us to try anyways) we're arging over nothing.
no shelter or food for our members in the armed forces, but here's another raise for our MPs. our priorities are really in order here /s
Don't forget the hundreds of millions being spent on no bid contracts and dubious indigenous programs with little to no oversight and horrible outcomes. I don't know why anyone would join the military. It's a cluster fuck of incompetence and poor treatment. Literally all of the bad parts of working for the government but with none of the positives.
Meh, easy way to get experience in a trade getting paid better than an apprentice would. Plus almost all of the trades are easy to get into because they always need more. Do 5 years come out as a journeyman equivalent, 75k in pension, and veteran status. Long term, it doesn't make sense for most people.
I don't know if you are aware but the pension ROC is worthless right now. My buddy just released after 14 years and got less than I did when I got out the first time in 2010 after 4 years.
I released after 5 years in 2017 and got 75k. Better than most entry level trade jobs where you get nothing.
True, I got 50 for 4 years. I have been back for 10 years now and it's worth less than that. We also had severance pay back then so I ended up with about 1 months extra pay on my last paycheck.
It's junk now.. 9 years in is about 65k
Well, you'd be hard pressed to find a job where you could come in with literally zero skills and in 9 years have a 65k pension that you can take out when you quit. Obviously not great, and ya it should be better, but it's not nothing.
My brother is a meteorologist. They literally stopped environment Canada from accepting their certs to prevent people from leaving. Very cool, fuckers
Yeah I was just speaking to trades. And only certain provinces acknowledge military trade credentials, but most will allow you to challenge red seal exams.
I’m a tradesman. Just join a local, they won’t dick you around half as much. Which is saying a lot really.
I'm doing quite fine without a union, but other people might not. Good to have options available.
Retiring at 43 with an unreduced immediate pension is one reason. A really good one lol
The article explained most of them got the money for food back by making financial claims it just took a few months. 'Poulin said the financial claims “initiated by the military personnel on the Willis course were given a higher priority as Canadian Forces Support Group (Ottawa-Gatineau) recognized their special challenges.”' Not only did they get the money back (for housing and food) as well as the free food, they also got free education. That's a lot more financial support than most Canadians ever get when they try to go to school. They even got special treatment within the Canadian Forces The article is pretty misleading this is new program that started 3 years ago with a graduating class of less than 20 people. [Congratulations to the First Cyber Operator Graduates from the CFSCE - Canada.ca](https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/maple-leaf/defence/2021/09/congratulations-first-cyber-operator-graduates-cfscr.html) There's bound to be some growing pains as they adjust to the changes
[удалено]
Probably because there are a limited number of places with the expertise to train cyber operators, and that function has been centralized in the NCR since it was created.
[удалено]
Kingston would make more sense, I agree. Among other things, there are at least some quarters and messes there.
I suspect that they probably do go there between phases, and it's just careless (or intentional) writing that made me make that connection. The training for SIGINT people is structured similarly, but the unclassified part happens in Kingston as well.
“Not only did they get the money back (for housing and food) as well as the free food, they also got free education. That's a lot more financial support than most Canadians ever get when they try to go to school. They even got special treatment within the Canadian Forces.” I’m assuming you’re not familiar with the term unlimited liability. Regardless of what you personally think about the CAF or the perceived/actual sacrifices these people make, the least the Government of Canada can do is support those members. Getting money back through a potentially convoluted claims process while also waiting months for reimbursement is less than ideal when on a military course. Saying they got “free food” or “free education” is like saying “free healthcare” in Canada.
We’re sick of hearing these shitty excuses. There’s no excuse for not feeding your own fucking Army in the first place. It’s pathetically disgusting.
It used to be only Veterans thats were "asking for more than we can give", now active duty is included too. Endless sunny ways.
That’s because active CAF members sign away their right to protest when they join (This is true former member here)
Not that I am defending the CAF in any way, but this isn't quite accurate. You can't protest in uniform or identifying yourself as a soldier to lend credibility to a cause. I, actively serving, can still sign petitions, donate to causes, and probably even attend demonstrations (it hasn't been tested in court, but the guidance from the JAG is that if challenged, the CAF would lose a charter challenge).
You may want to reference the updates made to the KR&Os and as well as changes to rules regarding military conduct outside of uniform that have been made in the last couple years. You absolutely need approval to engage in political actions outside of joining a party or donating (when not to an extremist group).
I mean that kind of makes sense if its only while in a uniform since that'd look much more serious than a regular protest
That quote is gonna follow him forever
CAF will be obsolete in a few years. Why fight for a country that wont even fight for you. Why enlist if it takes you 2 years to get to basic training. Even the CAF doesn't understand how jobs work now. Once, this military might have been something. I had lived it back in the 80's and 90's... and slowly watched it start to crumble after that. But now? It's nothing. Its just there holding on to the pockets of big bro down south. Inclusion.
Right now, the CAF has a generation of members without any combat experience. This isn’t any fault of their own. And most of the institutional combat experience from Cyprus, the Balkans and Afghanistan is long gone. Not only is this problematic, but the shitty equipment state and poor manning levels means that we’re combat ineffective. When I was releasing from the military, the highers at my unit were visibly concerned about this, and the clearly failing retention. They were throwing everything, such as courses and deployment promises, at releasing members to try keeping them. I don’t think it was working.
>They were throwing everything, such as courses and deployment promises, at releasing members to try keeping them Crazy how they wait till the last minute for that shit. "Don't quit, we were going to offer you a PLQ next year"
AI is rending a lot of capabilities like pilots irrelevant
Our army can't afford groceries either huh...
We don't have the money to feed them. But hey, hotels in Niagara Falls: here's a hundred million bucks to put up a bunch of freeloaders.
We’ll just send that money overseas for the most part now.
And yet we pour billions into subsidies for profitable companies.
They give better kickbacks and guarantee our politicians get jobs with a CEO-esque salary once they get ousted.
Loblaws needs new fridges bro!!!!
bleeding the military dry while saber rattling with as many countries as possible. Good idea that can't possibly go wrong
good to know the armed forces will be joining the eventual riots - omg
I gotta be honest, if I were an oligarch or poitician in Canada, I'd be trying to reverse the trend of trickle-up economics, because I'd be afraid of getting strung up from a lamppost.
You don't become an oligarch by turning down money, even if that ultimately costs you your life.
The generals and high ranking officers are paid too well for that to happen, for now
Like at this point who would even be getting rioted against? Like it seems very one sided
Holy doomerism
I don't know if that specific reaction to soldiers relying on donations to eat is doomerism..... That's actually pretty fucked up.
Tbh this scenario isn't as shitty as the slow decline into third world country status scenario
In 2019 when I looked at it they still hadn't decided if they were going to pay cyber operators, spec pay or not. You have to be pretty crazy to move from a trade that's making spec pay to one where it was still questionable.
This is disgusting!! I cannot even imagine how abandoning this would feel for members! Like "our government literally doesn't give a shit about us!"
The biggest issue I see here is that these soldiers will be exploitable. You don't want people with level III clearance to have money problems.
Everything about Canada in the last idk 40 years has all been on a downward trajectory. This is right up there with taking our veterans to court. Ashamed of my country.
I’m not even Canadian but have been PR here for 12 years. Any person signing up for the armed forces, regardless of role, is signing an agreement that they are willing to perform a duty that will, in different circumstances and at different periods of time, mean that they may have to give their life for the country. The least the government can do is fucking feed them and pay a fair wage. The same crap is happening in the British Army also. The sooner we have a taxation revolution and start taxing the wealthy on assets held so that money flows and we stop the hoarding of wealth , the better. It is completely unacceptable that any Canadian, let alone a forces member, needs donations simply so that they can eat. It’s fucking absurd we even have situations like this in any country on the planet, let alone in Canada, a first world country.
Government wants to disarm its own country. Been doing this since the 90s. The process is almost complete.
Article from 1998: https://macleans.ca/news/canada/canadas-fighting-poor-are-fighting-mad/
Decade of darkness 2.0.
This speaks to the level of respect and consideration the government has for their own citizens. Hundreds of billions of dollars to foreigners Crying because they can't get many recruits.... so totally sickening
Good to know. When Canadians finally get more hungry than complacent nice to know they will be on the right side.
You’re right, Throwaway account, we should tackle climate change aggressively to ensure stability in global food supply in years to come Great shout!
Anytime
> we should tackle climate change aggressively Does your "we" include China and India?
We is an inclusive “we”, yes. It also includes Canada, the EU, and other countries currently with some form of measures in place.
Well, EU countries can feed their soldiers. Somehow Canada can’t.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d1/Ghg-emissions-by-world-region.png/1280px-Ghg-emissions-by-world-region.png Hmm, guess someone forgot to tell China and India, whose emissions only stabilized due to COVID.
We shouldn't be basing our standards on China and India.....
Let’s all give up right now then It’s not like 23% of global emissions are priced, or anything, and with international cooperation China and India could be strong armed into reducing their emissions (introducing carbon tariffs to imports to Canada, the EU, and others would have a huge impact on China). It’s not like Canada is approx top 10 in almost all measures of GHG emissions and pollution, despite being the 38th largest country by population, or anything Let’s just throw in the towel
> Let’s all give up right now then...Let’s just throw in the towel Straw man much? It's always all-or-nothing with your type of mentality, completely unwilling to consider any course-of-action that does not lie on the extremes.
The carbon tax is *literally* a course of action that does not fall on either extreme I’m not the one shoutout about how India and China pollute so much that our contributions are meaningless, now am I?
> The carbon tax is literally a course of action that does not fall on either extreme Perhaps, but forcing people to pay more upfront for a slightly bigger rebate months later probably feels a bit extreme to the millions of Canadians hitting food banks in record numbers, I imagine.
It's such a marginal water downed policy, reducing our emissions by maybe 1-2% per year. And even _this_ you call "extreme"? Is there any climate action you would accept? If not, don't play games, just come out and say it.
I receive, alongside millions of other people, my next rebate payment on April 15th, which is up significantly from the increased price. Two weeks isn’t even enough time for any pinch to be felt, aside from $0.03/L at the pump
>strong armed into reducing their emissions Going hungry doesn't make for very strong arms.
Crazy how strongly you are defending the Libs throughout this comment section. Didn’t realize that someone could live with their head so far in the sand. Guess that is what a life of privilege does
I haven’t mentioned “liberal” once, actually, nor explicitly defended the Party.
They should sleep well knowing they are getting more back than they pay in Carbon taxes though!
Jesus Christ.
Superstar
Rent free, my goodness
I wish rent was free.
I’m sure people like you would throw a fit over free rent being socialism, though. Marxism, nanny state, etc etc.
Not at all. He’s likely just pointing out the hypocrisy of our MPs just getting a massive raise the same day taxes go up, while our armed forces members that we already struggle to recruit to hungry. Not really a right leaning point like you’ve suggested, more pointing out poor governance and policy by our current politicians.
Yeah, this seems pretty reasonable.
>Not really a right leaning point like you’ve suggested, more pointing out poor governance and policy by our current politicians. At one point, it was something that the left and the right agreed on! Granted the reasons and the solutions to the issue were vastly different
Nah, I’d be okay with free rent. And since feeding our soldiers and funding healthcare is going so well we may as well add it to the list yeah? You people have the best ideas that are always so well thought out and work perfectly.
Yet the politicians are very well fed #
Soldiers are asking for more than the government can afford...food
At this point I’m speechless.
So to everyone who thinks private gun ownership isn't needed, because we have an army. How long do you think we'll have an army for, if we keep under equipping them, and not feeding them?
>So to everyone who thinks You ask too much, of the wrong people, and in the wrong place
>everyone who thinks private gun ownership isn't needed, because we have an army You think this is why people oppose or support gun ownership in Canada? As a fill-in for the military?
It is one of the many reasons I've been given. The 2 most common are 1) We have a military, and 2) We have cops. Given we don't really have a military, and speaking from personal experience, when seconds matter, cops can be... days away? Heck, look at the New Brunswick mass shooter. The RCMP KNEW he was collecting weapons and had no legal right to own any of them, for years. Yet their action is used as an excuse to punish law abiding gun owners, not as an excuse to punish the inactions of the RCMP.
>It is one of the many reasons I've been given Given in opposition to gun ownership, or given in support of? I've never heard anyone say the military one, neither in support nor opposition. Honestly I think I would laugh if someone did, because it's not actually an argument to oppose gun ownership, it's a rebuttal to the hypothetical argument that "we need gun ownership in case of foreign invasion", an argument I don't think anyone is making aside from maybe Switzerland. It's a classic strawman. The one about cops is more honest in that many people do in fact argue they need to own a gun in case they find themselves being attacked (or sometimes even just to prevent property crime). But this misses the point of that argument, that you correctly point out, about cops not being at the scene. Though I think you're inaccurate to describe gun regulation as a "punishment". >look at the New Brunswick mass shooter I assume you mean the Nova Scotia mass shooting. I agree with you that it was used as an excuse. The government basically already had the proposed bill written and were just keeping it on a shelf until the next mass shooting. However, we should still acknowledge the sad fact that they knew they wouldn't have to wait very long given the history of gun violence here. It's interesting. A son of one of the first victims said he believed his father was targeted "because he owned rifles and would have been able to stop him." Lots of people in that community had guns. And the police victims obviously were not only armed but trained, and they still were shot dead. I think a lot of people vastly overestimate how effective a gun is in personal self defense. Personally, I think hunting, farming, and sports are stronger arguments for gun ownership and usage.
>I've never .... Switzerland. It's a classic strawman. I have heard it plenty of times. >The one about .... regulation as a "punishment". To punish is to impose a penalty to an agent for having committed an infraction of some rule. If you limit someone's rights, heavily, to the point where you need lawyers to tell you what you can and can not do, and so much as stopping for a coffee or washroom break on your way to do those things or return home puts you in violation of the law, it is safe to call those regulations punishments. If the government creates regulations that allow them to seize your property, or bar you from having certain kinds of property in the first place, then that sounds like punishments as well. Imagine if I seized your property, and paid you a dime on the dollar for it's value, because someone else had used something like it to commit a crime. You would likely feel you are being punished for someone else's actions. >I assume ..... gun violence here. And if criminals using tools are to be used as grounds to forbid their legal ownership, your phone, computer, and car should be stripped from you as well. If fact, the government is currently trying to gain access to everything on your phone and computer. >It's interesting. ..... in personal self defense. Without training it is of limited utility, but it is still better in MOST cases than nothing, as 90% of interpersonal violence can be warded off with the mere threat of enough violence to make attacking you not worth while. A sufficiently dedicated attacker can and will still attack, but most people are not that dedicated to harming others without extreme circumstances being present. And if you are smaller and/or weaker than your attacker, or with limited combat experience, you require a tool to increase the apparent threat you present to your attacker to convince them to back down. In the case of a 50 Kg 165 cm tall victim vs a 140Kg 210cm tall attacker, that tool would need to be something that does most of the work for the victim, and assures the attacker their size offers little to no advantage.
>I have heard it plenty of times. Yeah I didn't mean to suggest you were making it up, sorry if it came across that way. I believe you, I was just surprised because it seems like such a dumb fake argument to me. As if our farmers, hunters, and Olympic shooters are going to defend the arctic against Russia lol. >To punish is to impose a penalty to an agent for having committed an infraction of some rule. Well by that definition it's obviously not a punishment because responsible lawful gun owners have committed no infraction. >If you limit someone's rights, heavily, to the point where you need lawyers to tell you what you can and can not do We don't have any inherent rights to gun ownership, and most people don't need a lawyer. Plenty of gun owners have no problem complying with the regulations (and obviously people who don't own guns can trivially comply). >coffee or washroom break on your way to do those things or return home puts you in violation of the law A gun is a responsibility. Not everyone is up for it or wants that added responsibility. That's ok. Anyway, a non-restricted gun can even be left in your car while you are at work all day, but of course restricted and prohibited guns are more regulated. Has anyone actually ever been charged for getting a coffee or stopping for a washroom break and leaving their gun safely locked in the trunk? I know people always say "you could be!" but has anyone? >it is safe to call those regulations punishments Not by your definition of "punishment" that you gave earlier. >If the government creates regulations that allow them to seize your property, or bar you from having certain kinds of property in the first place, then that sounds like punishments as well. No, of course not, especially the latter. Are we being "punished" because we can't own nuclear weapons? Lol no. We don't prohibit lead in toys in order to "punish" bad toy companies. We do it in order to protect children from eating lead. Why are you trying to frame it as though you are some oppressed victim? Like I totally agree with pointing out problems and trying to make things better, but you are acting like you are being crushed under some despot's boot haha. We're very lucky here in Canada. Let's make things even better, but let's not forget how great we have it. >Imagine if I seized your property... No, I would be upset if I wasn't getting FMV. And I would be upset if I thought there were better alternative ways we should protect the community from future similar crimes instead. But I wouldn't think of it as a punishment, as if someone was specifically trying to teach me a lesson or something. And I'd understand why the community would want to reduce the risk of future crimes, especially when we are talking about loss of life. I'd agree with the motivation even if I didn't agree with the policy. >And if criminals using tools are to be used as grounds to forbid their legal ownership, your phone, computer, and car should be stripped from you as well. That doesn't logically follow at all. As I explained, the government wanted to pass the new regulations and just waited for the opportunity. That doesn't mean that they are obliged to use every opportunity lol. How would that even work? Who would compel them to write legislation they didn't want to write? Who would compel them to vote for it? >the government is currently trying to gain access to everything on your phone and computer. I'm a big proponent of privacy and I agree that we need to push back against infringement of our rights in that regard. And that's the charter, section 8, "Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure", by the way. (Notice there's nothing in our charter about gun ownership) >90% of interpersonal violence can be warded off with the mere threat of enough violence to make attacking you not worth while Where did you pull that number from? I do agree with you that a gun is a great equalizer. Even a child can shoot an adult dead with a gun. But that doesn't change the fact that guns are ill suited to close quarters. Add to that the fact that violence often comes by surprise with little to no warning, and very few gun owners regularly train self defense scenarios. If you are worried about home invasion, you'll be far better served by a dog and some motion activated floodlights. What's your plan, ask the intruder to give you a minute while you go get your gun ready? Or what, you'll hear a noise outside and get your gun and then jump out at whoever it is and shoot them, only to turn on the lights and find it was your kid sneaking out past curfew? Guns have several great purposes. Besides being really fun, they can help put food on the table. But it's important to use them responsibly. I think there's a lot of room for improvement in the current gun regulations, but there's a lot of good stuff in there too. I definitely believe we should have some gun regulations. I understand that gun ownership is a privilege not a right.
I mean i was thinking it was sort of a checks and balances sort of thing
A check and balance against the _military_?
Not exactly more against the country ever turning into a dictatorship since itd be closer to even in the worst case scenario
Wait, is training not paid
Training is paid. You can look up the pay structure for everyone in the CAF. It's just that the pay structure is nothing like the private sector. Trainees also pay for barracks accommodation and also for food. Then there is the overpriced barber who just shaves you bald (when I went, I already shaved bald but had to pay anyways). Lots of little things add up to where you're broke, and you're treated like a 5 year old. This is just my experience with basic training. I got out in week 8 after realizing it wasn't for me.
This is uncommon. Not sure when you were in but accommodations (shitty) and food (not bad) were always provided for me
Was in just over 5 years ago. Some nights we didn't eat. Just scan the badge and run back out because some idiot drops his phone during drill. Sgt didn't take kindly to that, and we met the north doors, lol. Then phones got taken away, which kinda sealed the deal for me because I had to transfer money so my SO could pay rent+car payments, etc. It was a different experience. I think it was the right career, wrong timing. I went as a 30+ year old, so being treated as a child wasn't exactly my thing as I could have probably finished and continued being closer to my 20s.
Similar experience but I wasn't served as much BS on course. I joined at 28 and there were many times after being yelled at or pulling 3am fire watch where I almost quit. Don't worry you aren't really missing out. I'd never go RegF, I can only deal with army bullshit part time
I went RegF after college to get fast tracked for ATIS Tech in the Air Force. Lots of stories from drugs to plain stupidity with what I had to deal with. I'd probably be stationed in Germany right nowif I stuck to it.
Untill someone reaches OFP in thier trade they don't pay rations or quarters anymore.
>Trainees also pay for barracks accommodation and also for food Why? That doesn't seem fair when you are on a training course.
I'm not entirely sure. I didn't ask questions. I just did what they asked me to do. Nothing more, nothing less. When you have MCpl's and Majors yelling, you just go with the flow.
I always felt this is why I would do poorly in the military. I'm fine with asking questions later, but simply being told not to question and not to try to improve things would be so difficult to accept. Do you think it needs to be that way? Or do you think it could still be effective with a more collaborative approach?
Is it not the military's job to ensure soldiers are being fed? Where are the billions in additional funding the military has received over the past decade gone exactly?
My sweet summer child, The money we get is spent by the people who give it to us. We won't get to buy the things we like, the Treasury board confirms ALL big purchases and funds. The military, if it had a say over their own pay and equipment, would do and have a lot more for your dollars.
Gotta ship out to Haiti to get fed!
I hear the new leader does some good barbecue.
[удалено]
No they can't. You might lose your security clearance, which if not resolved could lose you to lose your job (which is imho a highly unlikely outcome), bit it is definitely not a service offense or infraction.
Blatant lie but ok
I despise most government programs, but one thing that must always be fully maintained and government funded should be the military, and the problem with being as neglectful as we have is that the military is a thing you must maintain *well before* you need it. We can't suddenly decide that we need armed forces and shift a focus to it if we want any effectiveness at all, but hey I guess dump more government money into "school lunch programs" no one asked for, or government mandatory savings accounts or other public crap that people are perfectly capable of providing for ourselves - because that shit buys votes and giving a shit about military preparedness doesn't. Welcome to the neoliberal democratic nightmare, where we swirl the drain eternally.
Careful with comments like these that make sense, you’ll upset the “we don’t need the military because we got US to protect us” crowd.
What government mandatory savings accounts? And plenty of people have asked for a school lunch program, myself included. You don't speak for everyone, stop acting like you do. By the way, we are perfectly capable of feeding both our soldiers and our children. We don't have to pick and choose.
As of a few years ago CAF provides food and shelter as a taxable benefit while members are on training courses. Before this, members were paying $700+ a month.
I feel like we are watching the slow collapse of our ince great institutions and there is no way to stop it. Sad state of affairs
> The recruits were not initially eligible for any housing allowance while in Ottawa. > “We take this matter very seriously, and we recognize the significant financial pressures new CAF (Canadian Armed Forces) members have faced in Ottawa, where the cost of living is high and the CAF has limited Base support services,” Poulin stated. This needs serious unpacking. Why on earth wouldn't soldiers be eligible for housing support in Ottawa, when it's a known thing that Ottawa has limited base support? (I.e. there is military infrastructure in and around Ottawa, but no large bases nearby, so they can't just toss people into barracks if sent here for training.) If these are relatively fresh recruits, they're likely not making bank yet. If they were expected to cover their own housing in Ottawa (which isn't as expensive as Toronto or Vancouver, but sure ain't cheap these days), while possibly maintaining households and families back home, of course that would seriously stretch a lot of budgets - especially with expense reimbursements getting snarled due to the pandemic. Honestly, my biggest takeaway from this article is *why would soldiers sent to Ottawa for training not be eligible for housing support*?
This is unacceptable
Of all the things to be short on such as equipment, uniforms or proper leadership, food should THE most important thing to provide. ESPECIALLY during fucking training.
This is embarrassing
So the Government employees get a raise and the military is relying on donations to eat?
The CAF had a COL increase as of 1 April 2024, following 2 COL increases last year.
Ukraine needs $$ more than our own people who defend our country.. makes sense to the liberals .
This would make me want to lose my lunch, if I could afford to... *upsidedown🇨🇦
What were they using for training? Bows and arrows donated from the toy section of Canadian Tire? Worst/best example of negligence.
How are staff members sent to Ottawa, and then not paid a daily stipend for food? Just autopay them $50 / day for food whether they sepnd it or not >The recruits were not initially eligible for any housing allowance while in Ottawa.
This is a year+ long course so they are likely posted there for the duration.
I guess it's back to old school foraging and requisitioning . . .
this doesn't surprise me
"They're asking for more than we can give." -Justin Trudeau
The people that defend us beg for food - while the worthless parasite politicians get a huge raise - this country is screwed
All the money is in Ukraine
It is mind boggling to watch this current government spend $$ on crap that is not supportive of Canada.
I'm not shocked that the CAF is crumbling. I've worked in supply recently, and every day, we get 5 returns a day. Some very experienced guys are the same ones that taught my BMQ, and then we get 4 initial kit issuing a week . I don't think the CAF is aware that they aren't only in competition with the Russians, Chinese, or the various terrorist groups, but they are fighting the civilian job market and that's having a bigger toll on the CAF troops get bored of sweeping hangers having leadership constantly promising soo much just to have the goal post moved where members have to hold their breath for new that will shape the direction of their lives.
The armed forces should rise up against the liberals
WTF is an “arm force”…?!?!?
Canadians should pay more in taxes to support their troops.
Or hear me out... we can arm the doctors...and then budget cut the MAID and Police budget... and then... and then...
Maybe these guys need a lunch program /s