Pay overview


Following unification of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) in the mid-60s, the Department of National Defence and the Treasury Board Secretariat adopted the principle of comparability between the CAF and the Public Service (PS). There were two major reasons for instituting comparability - that CAF members would benefit from the results of collective bargaining and that the federal government acted as the employer for both groups.

Team Concept

As is the case in most militaries, the CAF uses a rank-based team concept or institutional approach to determine pay. In this methodology, the average value of the work performed by all members of a specific rank level is considered in developing pay. This is quite different from the more common Public Service method in which an individual is paid the evaluated worth for the specific position they are filling. In exceptional cases, market factors force the CAF to consider a handful of military occupations, such as doctors, dentists, lawyers and some high-tech trades, separate from the majority of CAF members. However, within these special occupations, the team concept is applied.

Given the nature of the military's work, the team concept makes a lot of sense and it is used to the maximum extent possible. However, the use of the team concept presents some challenges when comparing the CAF to non-military organizations that use an occupational or job-specific approach.

Total Compensation Methodology

In the late 70s, Treasury Board directed that the Department adopt Total Compensation (TC) analysis, which was also being developed for use in collective bargaining with the PS unions. Treasury Board wanted to ensure that the full value of the compensation and benefits made available by the employer to federal public servants was considered in negotiations. The methodology includes salary, but also evaluates benefits such as pensions, severance pay, acting pay, overtime and medical and dental services, as well as time not worked, annual leave and sick leave being two examples.

The objective of this form of analysis, therefore, is to compare the compensation and benefits available to one group of employees to the compensation and benefits of another group. The end result provides a net value, expressed in terms of the dollars paid per hour actually worked, for the first group of employees, as compared to the net value of the dollars paid per hour actually worked for the second group. The warranted pay increase or decrease in a given year is the percentage difference between these two values. For the military, two TC analyses are conducted: one for general service officers and one for non-commissioned members. Comparability is considered to be achieved if the CAF dollar per hour worked is equal to the PS dollar per hour worked.

Military Factor

It is important to note that the TC analyses, as applied to the CAF, also provide latitude to determine the dollar value of the unique aspects of CAF service. The most obvious example is the Military Factor, which values the major characteristics of military service. Although the unique aspects of military service such as Code of Service Discipline, separation from family and posting turbulence are not easily quantified, the Military Factor was originally valued at 4% of salary for all non-commissioned members and general service officers. As of April 1, 2016, the Military Factor stands at 8.7% for non-commissioned members and for general service officers. These recent increases were in recognition of a higher operational tempo and resulting increases in the incidence of separation, and a new component (Personal Limitations and Liabilities), which further recognizes the implications inherent in the military system of unlimited liability. Another less obvious example is the fact that CAF members are not eligible for overtime. To adjust for this in the TC analyses, values of 6% of salary for non-commissioned members and 4% of salary for general service officers are used.

Comparability, therefore, is not a case of making one rate of pay equal to another. Instead, a comparability shortfall is the amount of increase to CAF pay that is needed to equalize the bottom line (dollars per hour worked) between the CAF and the PS values, but only after considering all salary and applicable benefits including unique CAF conditions of service.

Pay Groups

Non-Commissioned Members

Non-commissioned members are paid rates of pay determined through TC analysis. Within each rank there are a number of Pay Increments (PI) which represent automatic annual increases given in recognition of advancements in experience, skill and knowledge. As well, there are three sub-groups of pay into which non-commissioned member trade groups are slotted. These sub-groups are Standard, Specialist 1 and Specialist 2 and pay rates vary in each sub-group. The Specialist 1 and Specialist 2 sub-groups, which include trades such as Fire Control Systems Technicians, Flight Engineers, Biomedical Electronics Technicians, and Marine Engineering Artificers, comprise jobs which are highly complex in nature and whose skills are in high demand in the private sector.

General Service Officers

General Service Officers are all officers below the rank of colonel in all occupation groups except for pilots and specialist officers (legal, medical and dental officers). General service officers pay rates are also determined through TC analysis and they receive pay increment increases just like non-commissioned members. One significant difference is that there are often more pay increments for officer ranks than there are for non-commissioned member ranks, on the basis that it takes longer for officers to gather all the experience, skill and knowledge required for their rank. Hence, they must wait longer than non-commissioned members to receive the job rate (maximum) for their rank.


Pilots are paid general service officer rates of pay plus a pilot differential that is in recognition of private sector market factors.

Senior Officers (Colonels and above)

Officers, other than legal, medical and dental officers, at the rank of colonel and general officer are paid based upon direct benchmarks to the Public Service's Executive Category. Job analysis is used to establish the benchmarks and after that they receive the same pay and benefits as their PS counterparts.

Legal Officers

All CAF legal officers (except military judges) are paid based on direct benchmarks to the Public Service's Law Group. In addition, legal officers below the rank of colonel receive the same military factor as general service officers as analysis has proven that they are subjected to similar conditions as the general service officers.

Military Judges

Military judges are paid based upon the recommendations of the Military Judges' Compensation Committee and the subsequent approval of both the Minister of National Defence and the Treasury Board.

Medical and Dental Officers

As of April 1, 1999, medical and dental officers' total compensation is determined in relation to private practice practitioners. Those below the rank of colonel receive the same military factor as general service officers.

Date modified: