Canadian Veterans Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

ROBERT SMOL

+11
RevForce
Spider
Hammercore
Gridlock
Stealth
Terrarium
Phantom
Lucifer
Kizzer
Masefield
Riverway
15 posters

Go down

ROBERT SMOL	 Empty ROBERT SMOL

Post by Riverway Fri 11 Jan 2019, 9:46 am

Is it time for Canada's military to unionize?


Our Armed Forces serve overseas alongside the unionized militaries of countries such as Germany and France. Isn't it time to explore this option at home?

ROBERT SMOL > January 11, 2019



ROBERT SMOL	 Cda-UN-Mali-20181222


Throughout my military career and beyond, any talk of a military association, or union, as an organized contract-negotiating body representing our military rank and file was dismissed as “absurd” – often prompting dystopian images of out-of-control, pot-smoking, pacifist, insubordinate soldiers defying orders.

Yes, our military may serve next to unionized, professional and sober municipal and provincial police services, the Coast Guard, Canadian Border Service Agency, and the Canadian Communications Security Establishment, to name only a few. But that is beside the point, apparently. Equally irrelevant, it seems to detractors, is the fact that our Armed Forces continue to serve overseas alongside the unionized militaries of countries such as Germany and France.

But is it really beside the point? Are nascent initiatives – such as that of Ottawa lawyer and retired colonel Michel Drapeau to draw up a petition for a Military Professional Association of Canada – a radical step into the unknown? Or are they a long-overdue nod to modern western democratic culture and military reality?

The ultimate decision to create a military professional association will have to come from the rank and file that it would represent. Do the soldiers, sailors and air personnel, the flesh, blood and backbone of the Forces, feel they deserve a collective legal voice over working conditions, rights when disabled, processing of family and spousal benefits, grievances and career progression?


Our Armed Forces continue to serve overseas alongside the unionized militaries of countries such as Germany and France.


Or should we in 2019 and beyond continue to leave ultimate responsibility for caring for the rank and file to the 20-something lieutenant just out of university, or the pedantic staff-officer captain or major focused on promotion and determined not to “upset the colonel”?

Before any informed decision can be made, negative and factually incorrect perceptions of a military professional association need to be identified and shot down.


First and foremost, a professional military association does not, never has, and absolutely never will be about our military having the right to strike. (Critics and skeptics, please read the previous sentence again.) As with our uniformed police fire and border services, a unionized military would have to instead move to mediation and arbitration if contract negotiations reached an impasse.

Second, military unionization is never intended to give military personnel the right to refuse a lawful operational combat order. To imply otherwise would not only be a crime under the National Defence Act but would also defeat the whole purpose of a military union, which is to work within, and not against, the operational objectives of the organization. Unionized firefighters are not opposed to fighting fires. Unionized police are not opposed to fighting crime. Unionized operating room nurses want the patient’s surgery to be a success.


Third, having a professional military association would not turn its members into “pacifists.” By way of comparison, we don’t seem to have any concerns that the aggressive and outspoken unions representing our police officers have rendered them reluctant to draw their weapons. If anything, police unions have sometimes been blamed for protecting and rationalizing the actions of overly aggressive police officers.

Finally, when discussing a military association with serving officers and veterans, the conversation often moves to previous personal encounters with individual and allegedly incompetent unionized European military personnel. I do not doubt for a second that those singled-out, individual cases of incompetence might be true. But was that allegedly incompetent unionized European soldier encountered in 1974 or 1981 a product of their military union or their individual professional shortcomings and that of their commanders? To be even more blunt, is our own staunchly non-unionized uniform military an “incompetence-free zone” when it comes to treatment of the rank and file?

Fellow vets, we know the answer, don’t we?


Nonetheless, perhaps after careful thought, debate and reflection, an empowered and organized rank and file might not be right for Canada. Perhaps our military’s Infantry soldiers, sonar operators, port inspection divers, and communication research operators, to name a few, are not intelligent or mature enough to find a professional balance between any possible collective professional empowerment and their operational combat duties.

Robert Smol served for more than 20 years in the Canadian Armed Forces. He is currently an educator and writer in Toronto. rmsmol@gmail.com




Riverway
Riverway
Benefits Coordinator

Posts : 400
Join date : 2018-02-21

Back to top Go down

ROBERT SMOL	 Empty Re: ROBERT SMOL

Post by Masefield Sun 13 Jan 2019, 4:29 pm


SMOL: Remembering Canada's dangerous foray into nuclear weapons

Postmedia News

Published Jan 14, 2019



During the 1960s and ’70s, the prosperous bedroom community north of Montreal where I lived a carefree childhood had a dirty little secret.

One that, thankfully, never came to haunt me.

Fifty-five years ago — on Dec. 31, 1963 — the Liberal government of Lester Pearson formally acquired American-controlled nuclear weapons for use by the Canadian military.

Among the RCAF Squadrons stood up specifically for this purpose was RCAF 447 Surface to Air (SAM) Squadron at LaMacaza near Mont Tremblant, a mere hour and change drive from my childhood home.

This and its sister squadron, 446 SAM at North Bay, Ont., combined housed 56 Canadian BOMARC missiles — each carrying a 10-kiloton nuclear warhead maintained, armed and jealously guarded by in-house American servicemen.

Their mission, in layman terms, was to get the BOMARC warhead to detonate in the air close enough to the incoming Soviet bombers so as to destroy, avert or at least delay their further progress on their targets.

But the Canadian and American officers and NCOs who guarded, serviced and stood by ready to launch these U.S manufactured and nuclear-tipped Canadian BOMARCS were by no means alone. RCAF and Army bases, across Canada and into Europe, served as multi-faceted purveyors of U.S nuclear weapons.


The BOMARCS Canadian “delivery-boy” systems for these American nuclear weapons included RCAF Voodoo and Starfighter squadrons in the air and MGR-1 Honest John Tactical Nuclear weapons manned by the Royal Canadian Artillery.

However, a most delectably frightening scenario for Liberal-led Canada in the 1960s and 70s would have been the fact that, had the Avro Arrow proceeded to full production, it could well have become the single most accurate allied fighter interceptor for the delivery of nuclear missiles against Soviet bombers. Imagine that?

Though actual delivery systems were to change and consolidate over time, the Canadian Armed Forces continued to use tactical nuclear weapons until 1984, which, ironically, happened to be the same year Pierre Trudeau finally, left office. To put it another way, only when Conservative Brian Mulroney took office did the Canadian Armed Forces officially become “nuke-free” again.

Upon reflection, our government and military’s shrewdly dual-minded, 20-year in-house nuclear affair with the U.S had all the classic hallmarks of Liberal defence: Dilly-dallying that symbolized the dawn of this country’s slow decline into quasi-colonial U.S defence dependency.

Politically, I must admit that Liberal governments of the 60s and 70s were shrewd!

Knowing that full membership in the “nuclear club” would alienate and anger much of their base, the Pearson-Trudeau political dynasty opted instead for carrier status, officially leaving ultimate responsibility for the detonation of Canadian-carried nuclear weapons to the appropriate U.S authority.

Of course, for what it was worth, nuclear release of Canadian-carried U.S nuclear warheads had to be concurred by Canada, as well. But just how serious would a possible Pearson/Trudeau government “No” have been?

If the U.S chose to act alone, over Canada, against the Soviets would we have had the chutzpah to stand up to both?

So by default, the true genius of Liberal government’s nuclear “affair” with the U.S was that, depending on the perceived outcome, the Canadian government could politically associate, or disassociate itself from the fallout (politically and radioactively) of any Canadian military purveyance of U.S nuclear tipped warheads over Canada.

As much as it suited us, we could say that we were an active part of it. Likewise, as much as it suited us, we could say that it was ultimately not our fault.

Meanwhile, what might have become of any Canadian inhabitants or territory directly underneath the nuclear exchange was to be the problem of the Canadian Militia, which, incidentally, was brought kicking and screaming into the civil defence and evacuation business.

Thankfully, all the arrangements that generated the Canadian in-house affair with U.S nuclear weapons are long over. Dare instead to imagine a “Donald Trump” nuclear head attached to an outdated Justin Trudeau “shaft” fighting for Canada and you can rest assured that the end of the world as we know it has arrived!







Masefield
Masefield
Benefits Coordinator

Posts : 234
Join date : 2018-03-28

Back to top Go down

ROBERT SMOL	 Empty Re: ROBERT SMOL

Post by Kizzer Sun 05 May 2019, 8:37 am

Canada liberated the Netherlands. Now guess who has the better-equipped military today?

The Dutch won't forget the country that came to their aid. That's cause for celebration – but also for possible embarrassment, considering how the state of the Canadian Armed Forces compares to the modern Dutch military.

ROBERT SMOL May 5, 2019

ROBERT SMOL	 A134390-v6
May 9, 1945: Infantrymen of The West Nova Scotia Regiment in a Universal Carrier en route to Rotterdam are surrounded by Dutch civilians celebrating the liberation of the Netherlands.



I’ve always been aware – and have experienced first-hand – how appreciative the Dutch of all generations are towards Canada for liberating their country in the final months of the Second World War. The liberation is customarily observed on May 5. The Dutch will not forget the country that came to their aid.


That’s cause for celebration – but also for possible embarrassment, considering how the state of the Canadian Armed Forces compares to the Dutch military in 2019.

Today’s Royal Netherlands Army, Navy and Air Force possess a capability that, weapon-to-weapon, surpasses Canada on most, if not all, major fronts. Unlike Canada, the Dutch have implemented, or are implementing, military modernization plans that reflect a nation and military that sees itself as an ally, not merely an appendage, of the United States.

For example, while Canada continues to dither, delay and digress in the procurement of new fighter jets, the Royal Netherlands Air Force is already in the process of replacing its aging F-16s with a fleet of 37 new F-35 Stealth Fighters, the same fighters Canada shied away from procuring. Today, one-time Canadian liberators whose fleets of Lancaster bombers and Spit fighters once filled the Dutch skies, is instead purchasing 18 second-hand F-18 fighters from Australia, another country in the process of acquiring new F-35s.

While Canada has zero capability when it comes to attack helicopters, the Netherlands possesses a fleet of 28 AH-64 Apache helicopters that have seen service in operations around the world. This growing asymmetric relationship between former liberators and liberated was most apparent during Canada’s peacekeeping deployment to Mali last year. Tasked to somehow replace the rapid Dutch multi-weapon attack helicopters, the country whose generals once accepted the German surrender in the Netherlands had to improvise by quickly modifying our small Griffon transport helicopters with mounted machine-guns.

Thankfully for our peacekeepers, the Dutch Special Forces in the region remained for a short time afterwards to help protect the Canadian contingent.

Perhaps the Dutch might also some day come to our aid should our army need ground-based air defence capability. In 2012, the Canadian Armed Forces had to phase out its dated and ineffective ground-based missile defence capability without any replacement. Yet the Dutch Joint Land-Based Air Defence Command operates five modern air-defence batteries, three of which use modern MIM-104 Patriot long-range surface-to-air missiles.

On the ground, Canada might be well advised to check the ownership history of our current fleet of tanks should any of our armoured regiments be invited to take part in the 75th anniversary of liberation next year. Why? Because many of our tiny fleet of Leopard 2 Tanks are second-hand purchases from, wait for it, the Netherlands!

Though smaller in number, the Royal Netherlands Navy maintains a similar advantage over Canada by way of combat capability. The two oldest ships in the Dutch naval fleet are the same age as Canada’s only remaining operational ships, the Halifax Class frigates. Between 2002 and 2005, the Dutch built four new air defence frigates (De Zeven Provincien-class), which have undergone upgrades in recent years. Compared to Canada’s aging ships, they possess an impressive array of missiles, armament and decoy capability.


And the Dutch must have made some impression on Canadian defence planners, since one of the confirmed initial bidders in Canada’s plan to eventually replace our frigates by, yes, 2040, was Alion, which was proposing the Dutch frigate design for Canada.

Elsewhere at sea, the Netherlands have also recently completed and are operating four Offshore Patrol Vessels (Holland Class) built between 2010 and 2013. Though Canada has 448 times the coastline of the Netherlands, we have only recently managed to launch the first of four to maybe six planned Arctic Offshore Patrol Vessels.

So while the Dutch will continue to remember Canada as the main force behind their liberation, we in Canada might be well advised to remember how the status and strength of our nation has changed compared to the country we once freed.


Robert Smol served for more than 20 years in the Canadian Armed Forces. He is currently an educator and writer in Toronto. rmsmol@gmail.com








Kizzer
Kizzer
News Coordinator

Posts : 409
Join date : 2017-10-18

Back to top Go down

ROBERT SMOL	 Empty Re: ROBERT SMOL

Post by Lucifer Mon 19 Aug 2019, 10:32 am


Smol: Why Sweden is leagues ahead of Canada on fighter-jet technology

The Scandinavian nation refuses to allow itself to fall into dependency status vis-à-vis Europe, NATO or any other military power. In contrast, we have a decades-long habit of leaning on the Americans.

Robert Smol

Published Aug 19, 2019



With the election looming, the Liberal government has set in motion, at least on paper, its commitment to consider bids for the purchase of new fighter jets. Of course, how committed the government is to move ahead on its renewed commitment remains to be seen.

Meanwhile, any Canadian truly committed to seeing a modern, well-equipped RCAF, supported by a capable military procurement program, should take special note of one of the top contenders to replace Canada’s aging fleet of fighters: Sweden.

This non-aligned country, approximately the size of Newfoundland and Labrador, with a population only slightly larger than that of Quebec, has not only succeeded in developing generations of fighter jets, but has seen impressive success in exporting them.


Apart from Sweden, Saab’s JAS 39 Gripen, the latest version released in 2016, is being used by the Czech Republic and Hungary within NATO. The governments of Brazil, South Africa and Thailand are also purchasing the aircraft. Other countries such as India, Botswana, Indonesia and the Philippines are seriously considering the Gripen.

But instead of fretting about how much Canada’s aging fighters stand to potentially be outdone by the air forces of the developing world, we should instead look squarely at how Sweden came to be a serious contender to arm and equip this country’s emaciated airforce.


We should instead look squarely at how Sweden came to be a serious contender to arm and equip this country’s emaciated airforce.

The answer lies in the national mindset of the two countries. Unlike Canada, and especially when it comes to defence, Sweden refuses to allow itself to fall into dependency status vis-à-vis Europe, NATO or any other military power. In other words, while they actively cooperate with NATO in the defence of Europe, they make it clear that the defence of Sweden is first and foremost a Swedish responsibility. It is why the Swedish army, navy and airforce use high-tech equipment, much of which is built by the Swedes themselves. It is why the Swedes supplement their advanced military technology with elaborate defence-in-depth war plans and civil defence policies. The manual, “If crisis or war comes,” has been recently mailed to every household in Sweden.

By contrast, we Canadians have chosen a quasi-colonial mindset with respect to our defence, clearly reflected in our epically embarrassing procurement shortcomings and failures. For the last 60 years, beginning with the cancellation of the Avro Arrow, Canada has been falling into a pattern of dependency on the United States on all matters related to defence. Sweden, on the other hand, has remained committed to designing and developing much its own military aircraft, ships, submarines and army equipment.


In the mid-1950s, both Canada and Sweden were working independently on their own advanced fighter aircraft. While Canada was working on the Arrow, the Swedish military and engineers were hard at work on the Draken, which came out the same year. The Draken had a similar delta wing design to the Arrow and was the first European-built fighter jet to break the sound barrier.

But that is where the comparison ends; the two countries went on very different paths with respect to their airforces. Canada cancelled and destroyed its Arrow aircraft and took on second-rate Voodoo fighters from the United States. It is what we Canadians wanted, as no successive Conservative or Liberal government has since tried to “bring back the Arrow.”

Sweden aggressively continued development of new fighter technology, replacing the Draken with the Viggen in the 1970s, while Canada continued to try to squeeze more life out of our then-aging fighter jets. In the 1980s, as Canada was finally taking on the U.S built F-18, Sweden was working on the first version of the modern Gripen.

Of course, as had been well documented, the early Gripen had problems. But as with the Draken and Viggen, the Swedes, unlike Canada, stayed with their national fighter jet.

Today, Canada can only dream what our military aircraft industry might have been like in 2019 if then-prime minister John Diefenbaker, with the tacit support of the opposition Liberals, had not cancelled the Arrow, accelerating our descent into military dependency on the United States and national impotence on military procurement.


Robert Smol served for more than 20 years in the Canadian Armed Forces. He is currently an educator and writer in Toronto. rmsmol@gmail.com









Lucifer
Lucifer
Registered User

Posts : 395
Join date : 2018-03-16

Back to top Go down

ROBERT SMOL	 Empty Re: ROBERT SMOL

Post by Phantom Sun 29 Dec 2019, 9:56 pm

Letters to the editor, Dec. 6, 2019

Focus on your mandate

Re: “Iroquois Legion and South Dundas generosity on display once again,” Dec. 4, 2019.

I supposed the majority of non-veterans that now dominate the Royal Canadian Legion might feel good at all the local initiatives of the Legion in helping members of the community.

That is not what the Legion was organized to do when it was founded almost a century ago. The Royal Canadian Legion is supposed to be about veterans first, last and everywhere in between.

When it was founded in the 1920s, the Royal Canadian Legion’s mandate was to advocate for veterans. That is what the battle-scarred First World War veterans wanted the Legion to do.

It is what the battle scarred veterans of today would still wish it to do.

I often hear the Legion lament the lack of interest among my generation of younger veterans to join its ranks. Why should we, if they don’t commit themselves fully and unequivocally to support those among us who need help?

I do not think I am being selfish when I say absolutely all money raised by the Royal Canadian Legion must be directed to disabled veterans and their families. Today, more than ever, we must direct all our efforts in the Legion to its founding principles now that the government is gradually divesting itself of its responsibility to help veterans through the much-maligned New Veterans Charter.


Capt. (Ret.) Robert Smol, CD

Toronto





Phantom
Phantom
Registered User

Posts : 307
Join date : 2018-04-13

Back to top Go down

ROBERT SMOL	 Empty Re: ROBERT SMOL

Post by Terrarium Fri 10 Jan 2020, 9:17 am

ROBERT SMOL	 Hmcs-harry-dewolf-20181005
Shipbuilders, military personnel and others attend the naming ceremony for Canada's lead Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ship, the future HMCS Harry DeWolf, at Halifax Shipyard in 2018.



Smol: On military equipment, Canada lags behind Kuwait (which we once helped free)

ROBERT SMOL ... January 9, 2020

https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/smol-on-military-equipment-canada-lags-behind-kuwait-which-we-once-helped-free
Terrarium
Terrarium
Registered User

Posts : 274
Join date : 2019-01-15

Back to top Go down

ROBERT SMOL	 Empty Re: ROBERT SMOL

Post by Stealth Mon 20 Jan 2020, 1:03 pm

Smol: A veteran of both careers compares teaching with the military

Which type of service, in hindsight, represented the biggest personal challenge?

ROBERT SMOL .. January 20, 2020


ROBERT SMOL	 0121_oped_smol-w
Robert Smol as a full-time reservist at Canadian Forces Base Borden in the 1990s.






Stealth
Stealth
Registered User

Posts : 340
Join date : 2018-11-30

Back to top Go down

ROBERT SMOL	 Empty Re: ROBERT SMOL

Post by Gridlock Mon 02 Mar 2020, 4:48 pm

Gridlock
Gridlock
Registered User

Posts : 242
Join date : 2018-12-30

Back to top Go down

ROBERT SMOL	 Empty Re: ROBERT SMOL

Post by Hammercore Mon 04 May 2020, 8:30 am

Liberators of the Netherlands in 1945, today Canada's Armed Forces are eclipsed by Dutch military

Tide has reversed in terms of military capability for defence, peacekeeping, disaster-relief operations

Robert Smol · for CBC News Opinion · Posted: May 04, 2020


ROBERT SMOL	 Military-extremism-20191118

ROBERT SMOL	 916227195 https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/opinion-canadian-military-preparedness-netherlands-liberation-1.5548372


Hammercore
Hammercore
News Coordinator

Posts : 451
Join date : 2017-10-25

Back to top Go down

ROBERT SMOL	 Empty Re: ROBERT SMOL

Post by Spider Fri 08 May 2020, 8:44 am


Smol: VE-DAY – Modern aging veterans don't have an equivalent symbol of their sacrifice, and that's a problem

May 08. 2020

ROBERT SMOL	 Afghan-memorial-20190620

ROBERT SMOL	 916227195 https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/smol-ve-day-modern-aging-veterans-dont-have-an-equivalent-symbol-of-their-sacrifice-and-thats-a-problem/


Spider
Spider
CF Coordinator

Posts : 382
Join date : 2017-10-08

Back to top Go down

ROBERT SMOL	 Empty Re: ROBERT SMOL

Post by RevForce Sat 30 May 2020, 3:28 pm


Smol: The military's pandemic response suggests reservists are still seen as second-class soldiers

Robert Smol

Published May 29, 2020







RevForce
RevForce
Registered User

Posts : 245
Join date : 2018-08-29

Back to top Go down

ROBERT SMOL	 Empty Re: ROBERT SMOL

Post by Looper Sun 11 Apr 2021, 4:00 pm

Abolish Canada's armed forces? No, NDP needs to grow up

To completely abrogate a nation's military responsibility ignores the sad reality of international politics in an unstable world

Robert Smol
Publishing date: Apr 10, 2021


At this weekend’s convention my fellow social democrats in the NDP will be faced with a resolution to abolish the Canadian Armed Forces.

That’s right, resolution 04-42-20 states “BE IT RESOLVED THAT an NDP government will commit to phasing out the Canadian Armed Forces.”


If he is truly serious about forming the next government, or opposition, Jagmeet Singh will have to, pardon the expression, carefully cite his (political) artillery in order to take out this nascent pacifist movement in his party.

Otherwise, our national NDP leader, who faithfully carries a weapon as part of his religion, and is reputed to be an ardent and skilled grappler and martial artist, will have considerable political spin on his hands garnering respect for a totally demilitarized Canada in an increasingly unstable world and an ever growing, and increasingly belligerent, Russian military presence in our disputed Arctic region.


But the fact that a serious federal party is actually considering eliminating whatever emasculated military capability and pride Canada has left should serve as a clarion call for this country’s primary social democratic party to break out of its insular, hippy-commune mindset, and grow up.


To completely abrogate a nation’s military responsibility ignores the sad reality of international politics in an unstable world where Canada, and its rich and abundant natural resources and potential wealth, is bound to be increasingly coveted by other nations. It ignores the fact that Canada can only benefit as an active and robust member of international alliances where, right or wrong, military force often comes into play.

Nonetheless the same NDP resolution goes on to claim that “militaries and war are an historic institution with no place in modern society.” Maybe I have been living in an alternate universe throughout my military and civilian careers, but exactly where is that “modern society” where a professional military has no place in a nation’s national identity and political framework? Could it be Russia, China, India, Pakistan, the United States, Israel, Saudi Arabia, France, Great Britain, Syria, Turkey, Germany or Iran? Obviously not.


And, most importantly, it neither applies to the defence capability of the majority of Scandinavian countries, namely Norway, Denmark and Sweden, that have championed traditional social democratic policies, such as free university education, generous parental leave, and pharmacare, just as robustly as they sustain modern, well-equipped militaries.


Here are just a few highlights:

While Canada continues to falter in its commitment to purchase new F-35 fighter aircraft, Denmark and Norway are already acquiring this same aircraft. Sweden, under the left-wing Social Democrats, is replacing its fighter jet fleet with the newest version of the country’s own JAS 39 Gripen, which is also standing as a possible choice for Canada once we move on our fighter jet program. But don’t hold your breath!

And while this country hopelessly continues to stumble and delay in its naval shipbuilding program, Denmark, Sweden and Norway have already modernized, or are close to modernizing, their fleets. Whereas Canada’s sole naval building accomplishment in 25 years has been a small, overpriced, non-combat patrol vessel (HMCS DeWolf), the Scandinavian countries have launched their own array of warships over the last few years. These include, to name only a few, Denmark’s Iver Huitfeldt Air Defence frigates, and the high-tech Visby Stealth Missile corvettes of the Swedish Navy.

And I certainly know where I would place my money should our navy’s newly lumbering single-gun-toting “constabulary” patrol ship come up against any one of the Norwegian Navy’s heavily armed Skjold stealth missile corvettes.


And, of course, there is the fact that all of the social welfare rich Scandinavian countries, minus Iceland, still impose military conscription. In progressive, egalitarian Norway and Sweden that applies to both men and women!

So while Canada’s NDP can only dream of achieving social policies that are already the norm in many Scandinavian countries, they should also dare themselves to start to dream of how an internationally savvy, politically mature social democratic government could one day govern this country, including its military, Scandinavian-style to the benefit of all.

I know, dream on!


— Robert Smol holds a graduate degree from the Royal Military College of Canada and served in the Canadian Armed Forces for over 20 years. He recently retired from teaching and is working as a paralegal.







Looper
Looper
Registered User

Posts : 200
Join date : 2018-02-13

Back to top Go down

ROBERT SMOL	 Empty Re: ROBERT SMOL

Post by Echostar Tue 29 Mar 2022, 7:44 pm


Smol: Joining Canada's military is no longer a 'passport to poverty'

As difficult and dangerous as life sometimes is in the Armed Forces, those who make the commitment are very well compensated.

article:Robert Smol
Publishing date: Mar 29, 2022



Recently, Minister of National Defence Anita Anand said the Canadian Armed Forces has “got to grow” in light of the “clear and present danger” posed by Russia and the war in Europe. Should this be more than just empty talk, it will mean aggressively reaching out to today’s youth and convincing them that a military career — short-term or long-term — is something they should consider.

Recruiting more teens and twenty-somethings into the military will be a challenge. Appeals to Canadian patriotism, for this age group, are largely useless. Additionally, Canada cannot boast any top-of-the-line high-tech equipment (fighter planes, tanks, warships, air defence missile systems) that might convince potential recruits they are joining a well-equipped military.

But there is one reality of Canadian military service that should serve as an incentive to join: military pay.

Surprised? Certainly, using pay as an enticement is a challenge due to the lingering myth that a military career in Canada is a passport to poverty. That is simply not true. As difficult and dangerous as military life sometimes is, those who make the commitment are paid well.


Just how well? Since pay is largely tied to rank, let’s begin at the very bottom of the hierarchy.

Based on the current published pay scales, a newly enrolled private, typically in their late teens with only a high-school education, and little to no work experience, begins basic recruit training at a relatively modest $38,016 annually. Yet when that lowly recruit passes training and continues to serve, that pay goes up sharply. While still a lowly private, this person can make (not including extra allowances) up to $55,800. That is actually more than the basic pay of a beginning teacher at my former school board!

Once promoted to corporal, often in their early-to-mid twenties, basic pay (before allowances and specialist pay) for these Armed Forces members can be between $63,840 and $70, 236. If a corporal or master-corporal gets the designation of “specialist,” that typically young, junior member of the Forces can earn anywhere between $71,508 and $84,624. And these are the lowest-ranking and paid members of the military.


Sergeants can earn a basic pay of anywhere between $73,356 and $76,344. If they are credited as a specialist in their field, then their base pay can be anywhere between $82,236 and $90,300. And so on up the line.

Officers, of course can make even more. For example, if I re-enrolled in the Regular Forces tomorrow at the exact same rank (Captain) and pay scale as when I left the army reserve in 2004, my current pay — not including allowances and a possible signing bonus — would be $107, 436. That’s a full $10,000 more than the “top-of-the-grid” pay I retired on in 2019 after a 27-year career as a teacher. One can imagine what the higher-up majors, colonels and generals rake in.

Why do I use the term “not including allowances”? That’s in recognition that the military is sometimes exposed to hazardous, uncomfortable environments; service members are entitled to an extra allowance if they are assigned any one of, or combination of, serving in the field (land duty), on ship, as aircrew, overseas, or on hazardous duty. The young privates, corporals, sailors and sergeants who are with NATO in Latvia or on our deployed ships are making noticeably more than the basic amounts I listed. There is also generous additional compensation for military members who serve as search-and-rescue technicians, and special forces.


All military members are also entitled to a full pension after 25 years. This means that a private who joins at 18 can retire with a full pension once he or she reaches the still relatively young age of 43.

So, as proud as we should be of those who serve, we shouldn’t worry about their economic well-being. Yet as impressively well-paid as our Forces already are, we may still find that we need to dole out even more in pay, benefits, extra allowances and pension if we hope to get motivated, qualified young people to serve and — most importantly — stay in uniform. As recruiters already know, or will soon realize, the days when the Forces could afford to pick and choose among qualified applicants is long gone.


Robert Smol is a retired military intelligence officer who served in the Canadian Armed Forces for more than 20 years. He is currently working as a paralegal and security professional while completing a PhD in military history. Reach him at: rmsmol@gmail.com







Echostar
Echostar
Registered User

Posts : 293
Join date : 2020-02-15

Back to top Go down

ROBERT SMOL	 Empty Re: ROBERT SMOL

Post by Luxray Sat 07 Jan 2023, 4:28 pm


Smol: Was Pierre Trudeau really the enemy of the Canadian Armed Forces?

Today, the elder Trudeau is still widely considered an anti-military, anti-NATO pacifist who starved the Canadian Armed Forces. But facts and figures tell another story.

Robert Smol

Published Jan 07, 2023



On defence and military procurement, probably no Canadian prime minister in living memory has been, and continues to be, so reviled as Pierre Trudeau.

Today, the elder Trudeau is still widely considered an anti-military, anti-NATO pacifist who starved the Canadian Armed Forces of financial support, personnel and equipment.


But, seven prime ministers later, how valid is that lingering assumption?

It’s true that, under Pierre Trudeau, defence spending never exceeded 2.2 per cent of GDP. But that’s more than subsequent Conservative and Liberal prime ministers spent. Today, we agonize over increasing GDP defence spending to 2 per cent, the level we thought was “way too low” for Pierre Trudeau.

And just how tepid were Pierre Trudeau’s overseas NATO commitments?

When Trudeau left office in 1984, Canada’s commitment to NATO stood at a 6,700 Canadian Forces personnel on two complete, self-contained Canadian military bases in Europe, CFB Lahr and CFB Baden-Soellingen. This NATO commitment housed an entire mechanized army brigade with 59 modern battle tanks and an overseas air group with three complete fighter-jet squadrons.

Back then, we felt that Trudeau was skimping dangerously on defence. Yet those Pierre Trudeau-era overseas bases, mechanized brigade, tanks, fighter squadrons, and naval station vastly overshadow the approximately 1,000 lightly-armed Canadian soldiers in Latvia housed today on a shared base.

When it came to procuring major military equipment, we thought Pierre Trudeau consistently failed to follow through in any substantial way. Yet, wouldn’t Canadians today be awash with martial pride if we managed to design, contract, budget, build, and launch four high-tech missile destroyers within four years? That is what Trudeau did with the Iroquois class of destroyers between 1969 and 1973.

With our navy in the early 1970s largely sailing on 20- to 30-year-old ships, Trudeau’s supposedly “meagre” addition of four missile destroyers seemed ephemeral. This is probably why we thought it was long past due when the Trudeau government finally contracted and set the budget in 1983 for the construction of the first batch of Halifax frigates launched after he left office. Today, these ships are the mainstay of our navy and are expected to last until finally replaced by 2040.

The “enemy of the military” label persisted when the Trudeau government contracted and purchased 138 new F-18 fighter jets in 1980, with the first jet arriving in 1982. Yes, two years is all it took for the so-called “dilettante” Pierre Trudeau to start deliveries of a new fighter aircraft.

But 138 new F-18s fighter jets seemed then like such a small amount for a country the size of Canada. Even though Pierre Trudeau also completed the purchase and acquisition of 18 new CP-140 Aurora surveillance aircraft between 1980 and 1981, versions of which still fly today and are expected to fly as Canada’s sole surveillance aircraft into 2030.

Yes, in 2010, Stephen Harper’s minority Conservative government attempted to purchase 65 F-35s to replace the 70-odd remaining Trudeau-era F-18s. But that failed to launch and remained grounded even when Harper got a majority in 2011.

Ironically, after 12 years, it is Justin Trudeau who will be purchasing 16 F-35s. But, like Harper, even Justin Trudeau, when it comes to defence, seems immune to the malevolent scrutiny we loved, and continue to love, to apply to his father.

We have since failed to match, let alone exceed, military purchases attributed to Pierre Trudeau. Acquisitions like his 114 new C1 Leopard tanks purchased from Germany in 1978. Today the Canadian Army operates an embarrassingly meagre (at least by Pierre Trudeau standards) 82 Leopard C2 tanks bought second-hand from the Netherlands.

So, almost four decades after Pierre Trudeau left office, should the label “enemy of the military” still apply Trudeau? I would say no.

Meanwhile, we have come to accept a level of perennially delayed procurement, reduced military capability, and budgetary reticence that would have been unimaginable, even for “pinko” Pierre Trudeau.


Robert Smol is a retired military intelligence officer who served in the Canadian Armed Forces for more than 20 years. He is completing a PhD in military history. Reach him at rmsmol@gmail.com







Luxray
Luxray
News Coordinator

Posts : 381
Join date : 2019-10-11

Back to top Go down

ROBERT SMOL	 Empty Re: ROBERT SMOL

Post by Firefox Mon 11 Dec 2023, 9:38 am




Trudeau government’s beatdown of disabled veterans hits new legal low

Robert Smol, Special to Toronto Sun . Published Dec 10, 2023


Just how low can a Canadian prime minister go when dealing with the needs of military and RCMP veterans?

Certainly, I once thought it was then-prime minister Paul Martin’s decision in 2005 to eliminate disability pensions in favour of meagre lump sum payments. A policy since reversed after much public complaint.

Or maybe Stephen Harper’s choice to continue disallowing disability pensions while closing down Veteran Affairs offices. Perhaps!

Well, there are also Justin Trudeau’s Liberals, the self-styled champions of publicly-funded health care, deciding last year to privatize veteran rehabilitation services to a company owned by Loblaw Companies Ltd.

Already, the Liberal’s veteran health-care privatization experiment is becoming the service delivery disaster that all who truly cared predicted it would be.


But all this pales compared to the Liberal’s latest bureaucratic edition of “disabled veteran beatdown.”

Recently, the Justin Trudeau Liberals chose to go after the one thing that, I’m sure, all veterans hold more precious than any assessed level of disability pension, health care, vocational or rehabilitation services.

That is their Charter Rights as Canadians. Specifically, their right to retain their own legal counsel when appealing their cases before Veteran Affairs.


Yes, you heard me right, it appears that Trudeau and Veteran Affairs Minister Ginette Petitpas Taylor think those who were willing to fight for our freedoms should be denied the corresponding freedom, as private citizens, to hire their own lawyer when dealing with the appeals process at the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Frankly, at first glance, I almost did not believe it myself!

But case
T-2213-23 May Machoun vs Canada (Attorney General) filed on Oct. 20, 2023 makes it shockingly clear where disabled veteran Charter rights may be heading under the prime minister whose father’s government brought in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982.

The question this disabled veteran, May Machoun, through her lawyers, is bringing before the federal court should be a no-brainer “yes” to anyone outside of Trudeau’s cabinet and veteran affairs executive apparatchiks. It reads: “Do disabled veterans, seeking appeal of a disability benefit decision, have the right to act through legal counsel before VAC/Veterans Review and Appeal Board?” The Trudeau government, it would appear, seems to think we veterans don’t have the right.

Say it ain’t so, Trudeau!

The filing, parts of which I will quote verbatim here so that there is no misconception, reads:

“The applicant is a Canadian Armed Forces veteran with a complex medical history. In addition to other physical injuries, the applicant suffers from a serious brain injury resulting from a major concussion she suffered in 2016. At least nine (9) separate service-related injuries have been recognized and compensated by VAC, who are providing benefits to the applicant in her retirement.”

Wanting to stay in her home as long as possible, Machoun is seeking additional “specialist home care services” which had been previously denied at the ministerial level and at the National First Level Appeal. However, when she chose to further appeal, through legal counsel, to the National Second Level Appeal she was informed by an A. Savoie at Veterans Affairs (who would not give their full name or contact information) that “request for review must be made in writing and signed by clients or power of attorney.” Furthermore, the same unidentifiable, unreachable A. Savoie wrote that VAC will not accept a submission from the applicant’s lawyer.

The Department of Justice has recently moved to strike May Machoun‘s application on the grounds that it was not a decision and that the federal court has no power to intervene and decide on the question. That is, does this disabled veteran have the right to legal counsel?

Say it ain’t so, Trudeau!

Before I go any further, I need to point out, for the sake of full disclosure, that I serve on the board of directors for the Veteran Legal Assistance Foundation. This is a registered charity which is helping May Machoun with part of her legal bills.

What would a government win mean in this case?

In my humble opinion, it may further weaponize Veteran Affairs miserly-paternalistic approach to veterans in need.

Perhaps, the government is waking-up, in a most draconian way, to the fact that disabled veterans are increasingly becoming more legally savvy, aware of their Charter rights, and not afraid to assert them. Instead, the government seems to want to make us veterans believe that the politicians and the executive of Veteran Affairs are always working in our best interests.

Why then, would you need independent legal counsel, in applying for and appealing your case?

Say it ain’t so, Trudeau!


– Robert Smol is a retired military intelligence officer who served in the Canadian Armed Forces for more than 20 years. He is currently working as a paralegal and security professional while completing a PhD in history. Reach him at: rmsmol@gmail.com







Firefox
Firefox
Registered User

Posts : 201
Join date : 2020-01-28

Back to top Go down

ROBERT SMOL	 Empty Re: ROBERT SMOL

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum