Ottawa considering ‘combination of approaches' to 20% military pay hike
OTTAWA - Defence Minister David McGuinty's office says it's considering a 'combination of approaches' to boosting pay for armed service members, including introducing retention bonuses for 'stress trades.'
'This investment represents an almost 20 per cent increase to the overall CAF compensation envelope,' McGuinty's spokesperson Laurent de Casanove said in an email statement to The Canadian Press.
'The Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces are actively working on how best to implement this investment — looking at options that include a combination of approaches such as retention bonuses for stress trades, increased starting salaries for junior members, and a broad-based salary increase.'
While McGuinty's recent public commitment to grant the Canadian Armed Forces a '20 per cent pay increase' won praise within the defence community, it has also led to confusion — and some experts are saying they want to read the fine print.
Military pay scales are complicated and are based on rank, profession, deployment and other conditions. There are many ways to roll out a boost in compensation.
Charlotte Duval-Lantoine, a fellow at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, said she thinks this will not amount to an across-the-board pay hike.
'What is clear to me from this statement is that they are looking at all the options,' she said. 'We're still in that big question about what it looks like because a pay raise versus specialty pay versus an adaptation of the compensation package overall — not in salary — are not the same thing.'
She said the way the pay pledge was communicated initially was 'risky' since the details were not readily available, and that has led to confusion among military members and expectations of a blanket pay hike.
Gary Walbourne, former ombudsman for the Department of National Defence, called McGuinty's promise 'vague at best.'
'There's nothing clear in this message,' he said. 'A 20 per cent increase overall to CAF compensation envelope, what does that mean? Is it coming in benefits? … Is it going be on a cyclical basis? What's the percentage increase? Is it based on seniority, rank, merit?'
The former watchdog for military personnel said it sounds like the Liberal government wants to implement a pay boost quickly, but 'the mechanisms that they apply to it is going to complicate it and once the bureaucrats get their hands on it, well, I can see a slowdown coming.'
If CAF members don't see a 20 per cent pay bump after the minister's announcement, he said, it will be 'déjà vu all over again' for military personnel who have been let down in the past by lofty promises followed by implementation that 'sucks big time.'
The federal government has multiple policy options for addressing the cost of living for CAF members, such as lowering rent for on- or near-base housing or boosting allowances, such as danger pay.
Duval-Lantoine suggested Ottawa should focus on specialty trades that 'do not get nearly the attraction that they need to have.'
The military has long struggled with shortages of professionals who are hard to recruit and retain — people in the technical trades and logistics, pilots, medical specialists and middle management.
The Navy has found it hard to attract and keep maritime technicians, while people working in maintenance trades such as plumbers and electricians can be paid better in the private sector.
Walbourne suggested Ottawa look at direct pay, focus on the lower ranks and address regional disparities in the cost of living.
Andrew Leslie, a retired lieutenant-general and former Liberal MP who has called for higher wages in the armed forces, hailed the minister's pledge as long overdue.
'They need it because the last 10 years, there hasn't been a lot of love shown to the Canadian Armed Forces by the government of Canada,' Leslie said.
'Quite frankly, a 20 per cent pay increase is outstanding and I compliment the leaders who made that decision. I firmly believe they're going to pay a 20 per cent pay increase to everybody in the Canadian Forces.'
Gaëlle Rivard Piché, head of the Conference of Defence Associations and the CDA Institute, called the promised pay hike a 'great first step' and something that could be achieved 'quite easily' compared to other challenges facing the armed forces.
'It was long overdue,' she said. 'We know that the Canadian Armed Forces have been dealing with both a recruitment and a retention problem, and an increase in salary will certainly help to make Canadian Armed Forces positions and employment more attractive.'
Prime Minister Mark Carney vowed during the recent federal election that he would rebuild and rearm the military and increase military pay. Some of the largest earmarks in his election platform go toward national defence.
He recently announced a cash injection of $9 billion into national defence this fiscal year, as Canada looks to finally meet its NATO defence spending commitment.
Then-defence minister Bill Blair last year described the state of military recruitment as a 'death spiral' and Canada is still short some 13,000 regular and primary reserve personnel, according to the Department of National Defence.
'There's been generally some delays in terms of receiving basic training, but also trade-related training, which makes people less inclined to finish their training and then become an actual serving member,' said Rivard Piché.
Leslie also said housing and base conditions remain abysmal in some areas and need to be quickly addressed.
'Black mould exists in a variety of national defence buildings. There are some bases that don't have drinking water. There's buildings and houses for families that are 60, 70, 80 years old in dire need of repair,' he said.
'As well, you've got to make sure that you have money for equipment, money for training, money to create the stockpiles of stuff you're going to need should the worst happen — i.e., war.'
This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 21, 2025.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
12 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Bill C-5 passes in the House, as Carney vows to consult Indigenous groups
OTTAWA — Facing concerns and warnings of Indigenous resistance against a key part of his governing agenda, Prime Minister Mark Carney acknowledged Friday that 'more fulsome conversations are needed' to choose the development projects his government wants to fast-track through controversial new legislation, Bill C-5. Speaking moments after the bill passed third reading in the House of Commons, Carney pledged to hold meetings in the coming weeks with First Nations, Inuit and Métis leaders and experts in a series of summits to 'launch the implementation of this legislation in the right way' in 'full partnership' with Indigenous communities. This will be the 'first step' in the process to choose which projects will be chosen through the new legislation for the fast-track to approval within the government's goal of two years. The Liberal government's major projects bill has passed the House of Commons thanks to help from the Conservative Party. Prime Minister Mark Carney calls the legislation the core of his government's domestic economic response to U.S. tariffs (June 20, 2025 / The Canadian Press) Carney also repeated pledges earlier this week, as the Liberal government rammed the bill through the House over the objections of some Indigenous , environmental groups and opposition parties, that the new process will respect Indigenous rights to consultation and 'free, prior and informed consent' under the United Nations Declaration to the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The government House Leader said this week they expect the bill to pass in the Senate next week. 'These projects will be built with Indigenous nations and communities. This is not an aspiration. It is the plan embedded in the bill itself,' Carney said Friday. 'We all agree that more fulsome conversations are needed to select the nation-building projects and to determine the conditions that they must fulfil. In other words, the real work begins now.' In the April 28 election, Carney's Liberals won a minority government while promising to fast-track development projects like mines, pipelines and ports to boost economic growth, make Canada a 'superpower' in clean power and fossil fuels, and reduce reliance on the United States that has imposed a series of tariffs on Canadian goods. Carney acknowledged the bill sailed through the Commons quickly, but argued Friday that speed was needed to confront the 'crisis' of the American trade war. 'This is the response. This is us being in charge of our destiny. That's why we pushed it,' Carney said. Indigenous Services Minister Mandy Gull-Masty — a former grand chief of Eeyou Istchee in Quebec — said the promised summits are a 'serious signal' that Indigenous communities are going to be 'at the table' in deciding how projects will be chosen under the new process. 'There have been more projects selected. It is something that we will define together,' she said. The bill passed through the House of Commons Friday in two votes, after House Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia ruled to split the legislation into two parts. All parties supported a less contentious section to lift federal barriers to trade and labour movement inside Canada. The other, more controversial part dealing with major projects also passed with Liberals and Conservatives voting en masse in favour, and Bloc Québécois, NDP and Green MPs voting against. Toronto Liberal and former cabinet minister MP Nate Erskine-Smith also voted against the national projects part of the legislation . The version of the bill now moving to the Senate came with a suite of amendments, including some that the government supported, aimed at increasing transparency and restricting some of the powers the legislation would create. This includes a provision to obtain the written consent of affected provinces and territories before the government chooses to fast-track a given project, and to ensure the new process that the law would create respects ethics rules and can't override legislation like the Indian Act. The changes also created a new requirement for the government to publish a suite of information about the projects — from the contents of any studies and assessments about their impacts, to all recommendations about them from the civil service — at least 30 days before it officially puts them into the fast-track process. Business groups like the Canadian Chamber of Commerce have also supported the legislation, arguing that a thicket of government regulations has delayed major projects, and that there is now an urgent need to build new infrastructure for energy, critical minerals and other sectors. But Bill C-5 remains controversial, including with predictions this week from some Indigenous leaders that it could inspire resistance and protest like the 2012 'Idle No More' movement because of a lack of consultation on the new powers. MPs have also condemned the national projects part of the legislation as a troubling expansion of power that risks trampling environmental protections and Indigenous rights. After the amendments Friday, the bill retained its proposal to allow the cabinet to choose projects to fast-track based on 'any factor' it considers relevant, and to skirt laws like the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and Species at Risk Act when reviewing projects to speed up. 'This legislation is an abomination and one that will be a stain on the reputation of this government and of our prime minister. As a first effort to lead this country, it's a bad effort,' said Green Leader Elizabeth May. Bloc MP Sébastien Lemire accused the government of reproducing the 'condescending and colonialist spirit' of the last century towards Canada's Indigenous Peoples. And Don Davies, the NDP's interim leader, alleged the bill creates 'Henry VIII' powers that allow the government 'to override laws by decree. 'It guts environmental protections, undermines workers and threatens Indigenous rights,' Davies said. 'This bill will end up in court.'
Hamilton Spectator
21 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Ottawa considering ‘combination of approaches' to 20% military pay hike
OTTAWA - Defence Minister David McGuinty's office says it's considering a 'combination of approaches' to boosting pay for armed service members, including introducing retention bonuses for 'stress trades.' 'This investment represents an almost 20 per cent increase to the overall CAF compensation envelope,' McGuinty's spokesperson Laurent de Casanove said in an email statement to The Canadian Press. 'The Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces are actively working on how best to implement this investment — looking at options that include a combination of approaches such as retention bonuses for stress trades, increased starting salaries for junior members, and a broad-based salary increase.' While McGuinty's recent public commitment to grant the Canadian Armed Forces a '20 per cent pay increase' won praise within the defence community, it has also led to confusion — and some experts are saying they want to read the fine print. Military pay scales are complicated and are based on rank, profession, deployment and other conditions. There are many ways to roll out a boost in compensation. Charlotte Duval-Lantoine, a fellow at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, said she thinks this will not amount to an across-the-board pay hike. 'What is clear to me from this statement is that they are looking at all the options,' she said. 'We're still in that big question about what it looks like because a pay raise versus specialty pay versus an adaptation of the compensation package overall — not in salary — are not the same thing.' She said the way the pay pledge was communicated initially was 'risky' since the details were not readily available, and that has led to confusion among military members and expectations of a blanket pay hike. Gary Walbourne, former ombudsman for the Department of National Defence, called McGuinty's promise 'vague at best.' 'There's nothing clear in this message,' he said. 'A 20 per cent increase overall to CAF compensation envelope, what does that mean? Is it coming in benefits? … Is it going be on a cyclical basis? What's the percentage increase? Is it based on seniority, rank, merit?' The former watchdog for military personnel said it sounds like the Liberal government wants to implement a pay boost quickly, but 'the mechanisms that they apply to it is going to complicate it and once the bureaucrats get their hands on it, well, I can see a slowdown coming.' If CAF members don't see a 20 per cent pay bump after the minister's announcement, he said, it will be 'déjà vu all over again' for military personnel who have been let down in the past by lofty promises followed by implementation that 'sucks big time.' The federal government has multiple policy options for addressing the cost of living for CAF members, such as lowering rent for on- or near-base housing or boosting allowances, such as danger pay. Duval-Lantoine suggested Ottawa should focus on specialty trades that 'do not get nearly the attraction that they need to have.' The military has long struggled with shortages of professionals who are hard to recruit and retain — people in the technical trades and logistics, pilots, medical specialists and middle management. The Navy has found it hard to attract and keep maritime technicians, while people working in maintenance trades such as plumbers and electricians can be paid better in the private sector. Walbourne suggested Ottawa look at direct pay, focus on the lower ranks and address regional disparities in the cost of living. Andrew Leslie, a retired lieutenant-general and former Liberal MP who has called for higher wages in the armed forces, hailed the minister's pledge as long overdue. 'They need it because the last 10 years, there hasn't been a lot of love shown to the Canadian Armed Forces by the government of Canada,' Leslie said. 'Quite frankly, a 20 per cent pay increase is outstanding and I compliment the leaders who made that decision. I firmly believe they're going to pay a 20 per cent pay increase to everybody in the Canadian Forces.' Gaëlle Rivard Piché, head of the Conference of Defence Associations and the CDA Institute, called the promised pay hike a 'great first step' and something that could be achieved 'quite easily' compared to other challenges facing the armed forces. 'It was long overdue,' she said. 'We know that the Canadian Armed Forces have been dealing with both a recruitment and a retention problem, and an increase in salary will certainly help to make Canadian Armed Forces positions and employment more attractive.' Prime Minister Mark Carney vowed during the recent federal election that he would rebuild and rearm the military and increase military pay. Some of the largest earmarks in his election platform go toward national defence. He recently announced a cash injection of $9 billion into national defence this fiscal year, as Canada looks to finally meet its NATO defence spending commitment. Then-defence minister Bill Blair last year described the state of military recruitment as a 'death spiral' and Canada is still short some 13,000 regular and primary reserve personnel, according to the Department of National Defence. 'There's been generally some delays in terms of receiving basic training, but also trade-related training, which makes people less inclined to finish their training and then become an actual serving member,' said Rivard Piché. Leslie also said housing and base conditions remain abysmal in some areas and need to be quickly addressed. 'Black mould exists in a variety of national defence buildings. There are some bases that don't have drinking water. There's buildings and houses for families that are 60, 70, 80 years old in dire need of repair,' he said. 'As well, you've got to make sure that you have money for equipment, money for training, money to create the stockpiles of stuff you're going to need should the worst happen — i.e., war.' This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 21, 2025.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Fuel firms can challenge California's emission limits, supreme court rules
Fossil fuel companies are able to challenge California's ability to set stricter standards reducing the amount of polluting coming from cars, the US supreme court has ruled in a case that is set to unravel one of the key tools used to curb planet-heating emissions in recent years. The conservative-dominated supreme court voted by seven to two to back a challenge by oil and gas companies, along with 17 Republican-led states, to a waiver that California has received periodically from the federal government since 1967 that allows it to set tougher standards than national rules limiting pollution from cars. The state has separately stipulated that only zero-emission cars will be able to sold there by 2035. Although states are typically not allowed to set their own standards aside from the federal Clean Air Act, California has been given unique authority to do so via a waiver that has seen it become a pioneer in pushing for cleaner cars. Other states are allowed to copy California's stricter standard, too. But oil and gas companies, as well as Republican politicians, have complained about the waiver, arguing that it caused financial harm. The waiver was removed during Donald Trump's first term but then reinstated by Joe Biden's administration. Last week, Trump again moved to end the waiver, signing a congressional disapproval of California's move to cut pollution and shift new cars and trucks to become electric over the next decade. Gavin Newsom, California's governor and a Democrat, who is in a huge head-to-head battle with the White House over the Los Angeles protests and state power, amid Trump's immigration crackdown, has called this move illegal and has said the state will sue. The justices' ruling overturned a lower court's decision to dismiss the lawsuit by a Valero Energy subsidiary and fuel industry groups. The lower court had concluded that the plaintiffs lacked the required legal standing to challenge a 2022 EPA decision to let California set its own regulations. 'The government generally may not target a business or industry through stringent and allegedly unlawful regulation, and then evade the resulting lawsuits by claiming that the targets of its regulation should be locked out of court as unaffected bystanders,' conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the majority. Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from the decision. The lower court had previously ruled that the oil and gas industry didn't have legal standing to attempt to topple the California waiver but a challenge to this reached the supreme court, which appeared sympathetic to the claim when the case was heard in April. 'It's not that high a burden,' Amy Coney Barrett, one of the justices, said about proof of the alleged harm. California and the federal government have been allowed to 'stretch and abuse' the Clean Air Act, the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, one of the groups challenging the waiver, has complained. But environmentalists and California's Democratic leadership have defended the waiver, arguing that it has helped push forward vehicle innovation and help cut greenhouse gases. Transportation is responsible for more planet-heating pollution in the US than any other sector. 'California and other clean car states cannot achieve federal clean air standards and protect communities without reducing harmful transportation pollution,' said Andrea Issod, senior attorney at the Sierra Club. 'We stand with these states to defend their well-established authority to set standards for clean cars.' The supreme court's ruling on Friday does not in itself end California's standards to cut pollution from vehicles, said Vickie Patton, general counsel of the Environmental Defense Fund. 'The standards have saved hundreds of lives, have provided enormous health benefits, and have saved families money,' Patton said. 'While the supreme court has now clarified who has grounds to bring a challenge to court, the decision does not affect California's bedrock legal authority to adopt pollution safeguards, nor does it alter the life-saving, affordable, clean cars program itself.'
