kEiThZ
Superstar
I was told Canada doesn't need to worry about any military threat.... Things keep moving closer and closer:
|
|
|
- Thread starter kEiThZ
- Start date
kEiThZ
Superstar
lenaitch
Senior Member
And most of their inventory dates from the 1950s.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
We’re on the Aussie’s satirical yet topical radar.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
If you join the CAF I assumed they had a bunk for you someplace on your home base. Otherwise where do they expect you to go?
Richard White
Senior Member
A cot in the corner of an armoury?
Admiral Beez
Superstar
I always assumed that if you were unmarried you lived in a barracks. Married personnel and those with children would reside in on-base housing.
kEiThZ
Superstar
/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/tgam/WADEBZU2VVE2FPIQ3KVQ6V4CSI.jpg)
Opinion: Canada’s Conservatives should resist the urge to politicize the military
By inviting the controversial retired lieutenant-general Michel Maisonneuve to speak at their convention, the CPC is politicizing a non-partisan institution
www.theglobeandmail.com
kEiThZ
Superstar
100% housing hasn't been true for decades. Generally speaking some quarters are available on base. But most families live on the economy. And most singles who aren't Privates and Second Lieutenant also tend to live off base. As housing prices have risen though, we find that Corporals and even junior Captains can't always afford living on the economy. So they ask to live on base. Hence the waiting list. And in major cities like Toronto and Ottawa? There is so little military housing available that upwards of 90-95% personnel live on the economy.
Northern Light
Superstar
Let me bring this one forward for anyone who doesn't get previews and the click-averse:
I couldn't come up w/the info on a quick cursory search, so let me ask @kEiThZ How many personnel are based in GTA or Greater Vancouver?
I wonder what percentage of the 4,500 noted above are in those 2 markets vs others.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Given that there's zero military housing in Vancouver and Toronto, the number is effectively zero on that waiting list. The three biggest problematic markets for the CAF are Ottawa (15-20% of the CAF is in the NCR), Victoria (a quarter of the navy is there) and Comox (main Pacific airbase). These are all high cost housing markets. And it's also places where we'll send lower ranking (therefore lower paid) members because of their occupations. For example, newly trained sailors to Victoria or newly trained intelligence operators to Ottawa. Some of those intelligence operators, for example, are trying to survive on 42k per year in Ottawa while attending 18 months of language school to become fluent in Mandarin or Russian or Arabic. Shelter costs have been cited as a possible compromise risk by our intelligence community.
Military's intelligence command avoids posting staff to Ottawa because of region's high cost of living
The Canadian Forces Intelligence Command tries to accommodate its personnel, when possible, by supporting alternative work arrangements such as working from…
ottawacitizen.com
kEiThZ
Superstar
One of the ideas I advocate for is for the federal government to use military housing to build model communities. Make them high density, net zero and walkable. This accomplishes a number of goals:
1) It helps military members.
2) It reduces pressure on the local housing markets around bases.
3) It can be built quickly and can bypass provincial and local building and zoning codes. For example, they could build point access blocks.
4) It could provide fantastic examples of quality of life in denser communities. And it would do so, in areas that almost never have examples of such.
I would have thought the LPC under pressure to spend more on defence would pursue a win-win like this. Alas.....
1) It helps military members.
2) It reduces pressure on the local housing markets around bases.
3) It can be built quickly and can bypass provincial and local building and zoning codes. For example, they could build point access blocks.
4) It could provide fantastic examples of quality of life in denser communities. And it would do so, in areas that almost never have examples of such.
I would have thought the LPC under pressure to spend more on defence would pursue a win-win like this. Alas.....
lenaitch
Senior Member
Historically, the military (essentially the army) was kept separate and apart from the broader society, likely both as a means to control the soldiers but also to keep the uncouth away from polite society. The spin-off on that was they became a self-contained community unto themselves. In more modern times, that translated into things like housing, schooling, messes, rec facilities, health care, etc. The pay sucked but pretty much everything one could need was nearby and either free or heavily subsidized.
In some cases, like cold war radar sites, the 'self-containedness' was of necessity; their locations were dictated by the technology of the day and not always near a community. In others, even where a base or station is in or near an existing community, they tend to be on the outskirts or off to the side, if for no other reason than the footprint they consume.
Once pay started getting improved, the government retreated or reduced a lot of the available services and amenities. I don't know if the military is treated differently but, generally, anything the employer provides that is deemed a subsidy is considered a taxable benefit by the CRA.
I know in the past you have advocated for consolidating our military establishments to larger centres, which might have a positive impact on recruiting, but factors such as land costs and housing cots for those who choose to live on the economy would likely be elevated. Constantly shuttling both personnel and equipment out to training areas where they can do boom-boom stuff would be an added cost.. Obviously, the Navy is rather limited in where it can be.
In some cases, like cold war radar sites, the 'self-containedness' was of necessity; their locations were dictated by the technology of the day and not always near a community. In others, even where a base or station is in or near an existing community, they tend to be on the outskirts or off to the side, if for no other reason than the footprint they consume.
Once pay started getting improved, the government retreated or reduced a lot of the available services and amenities. I don't know if the military is treated differently but, generally, anything the employer provides that is deemed a subsidy is considered a taxable benefit by the CRA.
Beyond the fact that I think the government is and would remain a lousy landlord, in many if not most cases, the walkability would be limited to work, which is not a bad thing. Obviously, employment sites would be located on-base, but access 'to the economy' would still be limited. Not many bases have much in the way of grocery or dry goods shopping beyond the Canex and the proximity to commercial establishments would be more by chance. Schools seem to be a decision of the local board. Transit seems dependent on whether the adjacent community has it and is willing to extend it.
I know in the past you have advocated for consolidating our military establishments to larger centres, which might have a positive impact on recruiting, but factors such as land costs and housing cots for those who choose to live on the economy would likely be elevated. Constantly shuttling both personnel and equipment out to training areas where they can do boom-boom stuff would be an added cost.. Obviously, the Navy is rather limited in where it can be.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Historically, armies were basically slightly organized mobs, raised by nobles. Modern organization and meritocracy didn't really come along till Napoleon and the Prussians (modern NATO staff systems are a variation of Napoleon's staff system). Today, we prefer not to have criminals and organized mobs defending the country.
We don't get anything other than free parking that might be considered taxable benefits. Maybe health and fitness benefits? But that's part of readiness. They did talk about making parking a taxable benefit at one point. But then realized it's moronic because most bases are not in places with decent public transit. And in Ottawa, members pay for parking.
The walkability is a major issue. We have huge problems these days with large bases. And because they aren't walkable, you have privates making less than $50k spending money they can't on cars. Or they struggle with car pooling.
We shuttle stuff anyway. There's no ranges for LAVs to really do manoeuvres in Petawawa, for example. So we ship them to Wainwright or Gagetown when they really need to train. Building basic ranges is not a huge issue in suburban areas. Heck, some European and Asian allies have live fire indoor ranges in cities.
Mostly, though what I advocate for is consolidating into existing facilities in suburban areas. For example, consolidating the fighter force in to Mirabel would be easy. It wouldn't massively raise living costs for personnel compared to Cold Lake or Bagottville. But it would be much better to retain personnel. Those costs also has to be balanced with the costs of losing personnel. A trained fighter pilot has millions of dollars worth of training by the time they are rated combat ready. They get maybe about 5 years in a line squadron before the end of obligated service. Do we really want millions of dollars worth of training walking out the door because their spouse is unhappy about living in Cold Lake? All to avoid an extra $200/mo in pay to live in suburban Montreal? And it's not just pilots. Every engineer and technician in the military has hundreds of thousands in paid training invested in them.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Successive governments have taken Canada's economic security for granted, businesses say
A new report by the Business Council of Canada says Canada needs a new national security policy based on economic security. Read more.
financialpost.com
The most important paragraph:
I've been saying for a while that this country is a bit naive. Good to see the business sector trying to push the government to take these threats more seriously.