Army Reserve taking the budget hit? - National Post

[Colin Parkinson]

I suspect the next year or two will see some changes in attitudes towards Reserve CSS soldiers.  Smart Reg F bases will realize that employing Reserve techs, even in the limited manner that class A permits, will enhance their throughput - and if it's "skills maintenance" funding paying the bill, it's free to the base.

I know in Ottawa, for example, the local Svc Bn can send Sup Techs to the base to assist in kitting out new recruits, and work is under way to get Veh Techs and Wpn techs doing some work as well.  It requires leadership engagement, and abandoning the "us vs them" mentality, but very positive things can be accomplished.

In fact, I recall seeing stats from a few years ago that showed that the two Army Reserve units with the most parading soldiers were the Svc Bns in Quebec City and Montreal - they supported the local CBGs and relieved pressure from the Reg F support units - a win/win for everyone.  All it takes is command engagement and a bit of common sense.  (And a desire to give soldiers more than IBTS, WHMIS and ethics lectures).

As I been saying for a long time, a clear meaningful task, with equipment to complete that task is what will draw people to the Reserves. A wandering ever changing objective/plan for the Reserves and minimal or non-existent equipment is going to kill recruitment.

 

[Smirnoff123]

I would think it would hurt retention more than recruitment.

 

[MilEME09]

In fact, I recall seeing stats from a few years ago that showed that the two Army Reserve units with the most parading soldiers were the Svc Bns in Quebec City and Montreal - they supported the local CBGs and relieved pressure from the Reg F support units - a win/win for everyone.  All it takes is command engagement and a bit of common sense.  (And a desire to give soldiers more than IBTS, WHMIS and ethics lectures).

I heard the same, My unit is doing something similar in Calgary as 41 SVC BN takes over CSS operations for southern Alberta, we hope by actually having work to do our ranks will start showing up more, and will allow us to recruit more. I mean if a new recruit comes in wanting to be a vehicle techbut see's we never do vehicle stuff we aren't going to keep him long. This should be a good move that all reserve service battalions should be doing in my opinion, supporting the reservists in their brigade so long as the will from leadership is there to get us what we need to carry out our jobs. As one of five weapon techs in Calgary I'm sure i'll have plenty of work coming.

 

[ArmyRick]

I have been on both sides of the fence (Regular force and reserve). Its too easy to take pot shots and swipes at the reserves.

One comment being made about how much reservist waste on travel claims, etc. Guess what? A moot point, reg force get same benefits (TD, LDA, travel, etc). Point done.

If we eliminate it for the reserves, then so long reg force, you lose same expense coverage. Ya, I thought so, no one is gonna support that.

Here is my recommendations that I would make to immediately save CF money (I'll hit reserves first)
P RES
1. There is a lot of Class B protection going on and people being employed that the CF does not really need employed, SLASH, time to be ruthless and put the institution first. As far as being people justifying their existence on Class B, stop. The army only needs so many people, end story.
2. Once NCM are clearly not within RSM succession planning (WO and up), there should be a mechanism to say good bye and not let them hang on to the bitter end. This sense of entitlement to serve IMO fails to meet the concept of putting CF first.
3. Ditto with officers and CO succession
4. Make releases a quicker and more expedient process, it is easier to release a Reg F soldier than a P Res soldier. I am talking voluntary not the 5F or 5D or 3B.
5. Terms of service in the P Res seems like a sort of good idea but I can not see it working. There is way too many liability issues and legal issues that come up.
6. Lets gut the reserves and make fewer regiments! Really? I know it seems like a logical step but first off communities are likely to become very upset with losing their local military identification. BTW, most units I know, only have a marginal retention problem, the recruiting problem is bigger. My regiment is receiving 15 new positions this year. Thats after clearing up a boat load of NES and releases off the books. I realize that money is an issue to train and retain reservist, but no worries, I have a solution for that.

Reg F cost savings
1. Same as above. If you have people clearly not in succession plan and serving until the new CRA, stop. How many 58 year old Corporals and 59 year old Captains do we really need? This is not helping regular force recruitment. Spare me the horse shat about loyalty and all that, CF needs comes first.
2. Make new terms of service for untrained members. Fail to finish your DP1 or QL3 in a certain amount of time, good bye. CF comes first.
3. Reduce 3rd Battalions to nil strength and place on supplementary order of battle. If I hear protest, consider this. 12 man platoons tromping through the training area or 2-3 guys dismounting from a LAV section is NO different than the reserve company that deploys with 75 troops. By the money saved with reducing the third battalions to the history pages, we can pay for a expansion of the P Res.

 

[OldSolduer]

38 CBG has tactically grouped the Sask Infantry, Winnipeg Infantry and the Guns. One LCol  and one CWO per grouping. The Sask Dragons and FGH are still unit commands as is 38 Svc Bn. The Engineers will comeon line in April.

The LSSR because of Geography retain their command as do the Signals dudes.

 

[charlesm]

I think one of the big issues with the reserves is that they are considered discretionary budget. Which means it is one of a few budgets that DND can cut. IE DND has been told to reduce budget by 5%, but it is not laying off Soldiers/sailors or airmen. Thereby other budgets have to make up for that. Also because we still have base costs and there is not a lot of wriggle room in those to reduce budgets.

I also agree that our regimental system needs to be reviewed. We should be reinforcing success and not failure. Those units that are strong should get a larger ARE while others might not.

Also it would be nice to know how many Army Class "B" personnel are not in a Reserve Unit. They are in CBG HQ, Area HQ, Ottawa, Rangers etc. I would guess that less than 25% are in PRES units.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

I think one of the big issues with the reserves is that they are considered discretionary budget. Which means it is one of a few budgets that DND can cut. IE DND has been told to reduce budget by 5%, but it is not laying off Soldiers/sailors or airmen. Thereby other budgets have to make up for that. Also because we still have base costs and there is not a lot of wriggle room in those to reduce budgets.

Not true.  You are in an LFWA unit.  In order to meet the cost reductions for next Fiscal Year, almost all of the cuts were absorbed from 1 CMBG and 1 ASG.  The CBGs were more or less completely protected.

I also agree that our regimental system needs to be reviewed. We should be reinforcing success and not failure. Those units that are strong should get a larger ARE while others might not.

That is not a review.  A review would have one Infantry unit in Vancouver, and one in Victoria.

Also it would be nice to know how many Army Class "B" personnel are not in a Reserve Unit. They are in CBG HQ, Area HQ, Ottawa, Rangers etc. I would guess that less than 25% are in PRES units.

As to Cl Bs, as you well know they have been drastically reduced at Area, but increased at unit and CBG level.  Moreover, as a CWO, you will no doubt recall when units ran quite efficiently with 4-5 x RSS and 1-2 Cl B.  The growth over the last few years has been unwarranted.

 

[daftandbarmy]

38 CBG has tactically grouped the Sask Infantry, Winnipeg Infantry and the Guns. One LCol  and one CWO per grouping. The Sask Dragons and FGH are still unit commands as is 38 Svc Bn. The Engineers will comeon line in April.

The LSSR because of Geography retain their command as do the Signals dudes.

And I understand that the Tac Grouping concept is working quite well.

Just to confirm though, I knew that the Camerons and Rifles were grouped in Winnipeg. Did they group the Sask infantry units too e.g. Reginas and Sask LI?

 

[OldSolduer]

And I understand that the Tac Grouping concept is working quite well.

Just to confirm though, I knew that the Camerons and Rifles were grouped in Winnipeg. Did they group the Sask infantry units too e.g. Reginas and Sask LI?

The N Sask R and the RRR are grouped under one CO.

 

[Harris]

Are the groupings due to unit size, or lack of succession?  Or both?  How are the budgets handled?  Do the CO/RSM have to submit pay/TD claims depending on task?

 

[OldSolduer]

Are the groupings due to unit size, or lack of succession?  Or both?

A bit of both actually.

Our tac gping strength is 260 on paper. Our NES list is  minimal and will be reduced further.

At first it was contentious, now we are all used to it and realize it's the way to go for now, until each Regiment gets large enough to sustain succession and have healthy units.

 

[MilEME09]

If I remember correctly Fort Garry Horse have a tac grouping with Combat engineers until they are large enough to be on their own. Effective way of creating new units in my opinion, but building up that active personal takes time, which seems to be the one thing the reserves have plenty of. I know my unit has been told to get to 80% active strength within 5 years, an impossible goal since it requires us to recuit about 40 people in 5 years, as a service Battalion we just cant those kind of numbers through the door.

 

[Nfld Sapper]

If I remember correctly Fort Garry Horse have a tac grouping with Combat engineers until they are large enough to be on their own.

If I am not mistaken 38 CER has been stood up as Lt Col Paul Davies is supposed to have assumed command.....

 

[Shrek1985]

This is a fascinating discussion, but unless I missed it and my reading and comprehension is so poor, can someone explain to me just how the PM can layout in black and white what he wants cut, and it doesn't happen?

Now As I understand it, the CIC for the forces is actually the GG, right? I have no idea what that means vis-a-vis the PM, but the CF absorbed decades of micromanagement from Ottawa according to Granatstien's books and never effectively fought back. For the first time in decades we have a government that SEEMS to me to be interested in empowering the forces, giving us back our names and traditions, ect and now "someone" has grown a spine?

Here is my take; The PM said cut the bloated HQs and massive civilian staff population, something rumoured for some time. That is what I get from the articles I have read.

That got as far as HQ and the civies that infest DND and stopped there.

 

[dapaterson]

Here is my take; The PM said cut the bloated HQs and massive civilian staff population, something rumoured for some time. That is what I get from the articles I have read.

That got as far as HQ and the civies that infest DND and stopped there.

Please.  Your ignorance is showing.  The CF HQs are dominated by the military.  If those HQs are to be cut, and are not, it is the fault of the military leadership.

Do we need the three ECSes, all re-writing policies that reflect the CF policies, but adding environmental slants?  No.  Do we need large standing formation HQs with Ops Rooms and staffs watching screens where nothing happens?  No.  Do we need double-hatted formation HQs that also provide geographic coverage, that conflict with other formations that also provide geographic coverage (LFAA/MARLANT)? No. 

All those needless HQs are preserved out of military desire, not military neccessity.  Military leadership needs to start cutting their HQs to the minimum military requirement.

In 1997 the CF was ordered by the Minister to reduce the CF to no more than 65 General/Flag officers.  The Reg F alone is more than 50% over that target, and there are a number of full-time Res F General/Flag officers as well.  Culling that herd is a needed first step to right-sizing HQs.

Blaming the civilian bogeyman is a convenient excuse for military inaction.


(Or, look at it another way: DND is cutting civilian positions and terminating some employees.  How many military personnel have been released following these cutbacks?  The answer is none.)

 

[MilEME09]

Not to say the CF isn't top heavy (it is) but when the buddget cuts were announced CTV did a little investigating, they found over $2.2 Billion in civilian contracts in the Ottawa area alone, something tells me that there is fat to trim. The greatest problem though is the place that needs to get trimmed is the group who decides what to trim and no one will trim their own job.

 

[Halifax Tar]

The greatest problem though is the place that needs to get trimmed is the group who decides what to trim and no one will trim their own job.

Same reason the CF, PS, RCMP ect ect ect experience budget cuts and "benefit adjustments" while our MPs and Senators share none of the burden!  Its simple self preservation and advancement. 

 

[Halifax Tar]

In 1997 the CF was ordered by the Minister to reduce the CF to no more than 65 General/Flag officers.  The Reg F alone is more than 50% over that target, and there are a number of full-time Res F General/Flag officers as well.  Culling that herd is a needed first step to right-sizing HQs.

113 - Gen/FO/Admirals ect

366 - Col/Capt(N)

Countem up for yourself on the CMP senior appointments site. 

 

[dapaterson]

Not to say the CF isn't top heavy (it is) but when the buddget cuts were announced CTV did a little investigating, they found over $2.2 Billion in civilian contracts in the Ottawa area alone, something tells me that there is fat to trim. The greatest problem though is the place that needs to get trimmed is the group who decides what to trim and no one will trim their own job.

(1) Just because a contract is paid in Ottawa doesn't mean that the services are delivered in Ottawa.  For example, Calian curerntly holds a contract to provide medical professionals at CF clinics nationwide.  That contract is managed out of Ottawa.

(2) Some things are contracts that you may not think of as contracts.  The Military Family Resource Centres, for example, are not part of DND/CF, but rather are independte charitable organizations; the CF funds to support them are paid out... get this... as contracts.  Out of Ottawa.

(3) In other cases,  contracts are used to acquire, on a short-term basis, skills that are not resident in the military or public service (and not economical to develop and maintain).

(4) When members are posted from location to locaiton, we use contracted transportation and contracted administration - paid out of Ottawa.

Not to say that some contracting can't be done away with - but one needs to be very careful.  And "Ottawa" pays a lot of contractors outside the National Capital Region...