• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The Defence Budget [superthread]

I sometimes think that the real problem is that its easier to justify why we need thirty guys in the server room to keep all the computers in the building working than why we need a third rifle platoon in a company or an extra two gun dets in an arty battery.

The effects of not manning the server room are much more immediate and wide spread than the other.

"Trimming" the budget will never work. We need a complete, from the ground up, redesign of the entire DND structure.

I'm not holding my breath. Since I can't influence the outcome anyway, I'm just going to sit back and watch.  :pop:
 
UnwiseCritic said:
But a huge problem with the CF is the lack of discrimination. If we just raised the bar told some people no and your fired (in a polite way) we could save a lot of money and still maintain an effective fighting force
      ???
While I truly hesitate to have you post more, could you re-write this so that whatever point you're trying to make is somewhat comprehensible.
 
Journeyman said:
      ???
While I truly hesitate to have you post more, could you re-write this so that whatever point you're trying to make is somewhat comprehensible.

You don't think arbitrarily firing people (in a polite way) based off of a More Discrimination In the Canadian Forces policy is a good idea?

On that note.
Cancel the Maple Leaf (or make it electronic only)
Stop putting crap like glow sticks and hand sanitizer on kitlists (which gets mass issued for kit inspections then promptly lost by troops)

That'll save millions.
 
ObedientiaZelum said:
Stop putting crap like glow sticks and hand sanitizer on kitlists (which gets mass issued for kit inspections then promptly lost by troops)

That'll save millions.

Excellent point!  We can go further with this, much further.  As a Sup Tech I will be honest that I am disgusted at what we LPO.  You should see the exacerbated PPNS requirements Dv HQs need.

I say issue each soldier/sailor/airmen a pen , pencil, eraser and FMP every year.  Thats your PPNS allotment per year, any other "gucci" stuff you HAVE TO HAVE from the staples.ca website is bought with your own dime on your own time.   

LPO should be for immediate operational requirements that the CF cannot fill with its ingrained supply chain not the "go to" way of doing supply business or an avenue to get the gucci kit people wouldn't spend their own pay cheque on!
 
Journeyman said:
  :dunno:  I couldn't figure out what he was trying to say.

Me neither. I'm pretty sure firing people out of the blue on a pro-discrimination platform might result in a lawsuit or two  ::)
 
ObedientiaZelum said:
Me neither. I'm pretty sure firing people out of the blue on a pro-discrimination platform might result in a lawsuit or two  ::)

I think he means "shedding some tail to grow some teeth", which we could probably all agree on, but I suspect he just worded it wrong.  Could be just my interpretation though...
 
ArmyRick said:
Did General Leslie not compare a HQ with being down sized to a dying badger defending itself? Or something like that?

You mean like the re-establishment of 1 Cdn Div HQ that he seemed to personally champion?  ???


PPCLI Guy said:
I disagree.  Baseline funding has been dramatically increased over the last 8 years.  They aren't the problem - we are.  We refuse to make any tough decisions, and would rather fiddle while Rome burns.  To continue the Rome analogy, we would rather squeeze more taxes and tribute from the provinces than change Rome itself.

Indeed.

Look at page  II-216 of the Main Estimates (DND portion) that Milnews.ca posted ( 2013-14 Main Estimates -  DND's section (6 page PDF via Google Drive) here ) and note that $832M that DND failed to spend during its authority period as well as $359M of project money re-profiled to the future due to 'adjusted' project timelines was removed form the 13/14 budget. 

Those capital 'lack-of-expenditures' alone account for $1.2B of reductions from previous years.  Yes, there are also factors of other Government Departments contributions to the overall delayed expenditures, but it's in DND's back yard and the Department is being held to account for it by the PM and the Dept. of Finance.

:2c:

Regards
G2G
 
Yes maybe poorly worded shedding some tail and growing some teeth is correct. I have just seen some made up positions for people becuase we were scared to get rid of them move them etc. Eg we had a lav captain in a company without lavs. We also had guys dagging twice becuase everyone seemed to want somthing to do or justify there job.(Too many people and too little a pie) . I can agree on the fact we do waste a lot of money on stuff such as glow sticks as well.
 
Cleaned up to keep 'er on the Defence Budget.

Milnet.ca Staff
 
The money spent on services contracts is again interesting in the news:
External contracting by DND rises by $500 million: report
Total bill may still be climbing despite instructions from Ottawa to cut back

Murray Brewster
The Canadian Press
06 March 2013


Money spent by National Defence on outside consulting and professional services has increased dramatically, even as the Harper government was warned the practice needed to be curbed.

Spending on external contracting rose by $500 million between 2009 and 2011, the year retired lieutenant-general Andrew Leslie advised the department it could safely cut 30 per cent of those agreements.

The contracting figure stood at $2.7 billion when Leslie, former top army commander, tabled his watershed analysis of how to overhaul the military in 2011.

The latest set of government financial estimates shows the number was $3.2 billion in 2011-12 - and it may be climbing.

A report tabled last week by the parliamentary budget officer suggests the amount could jump higher in the current budget year because National Defence was forced to go back and seek extra spending authority for "professional and special services."

An additional $774 million was pumped into the department in 2012-13 for contracting. That is over and above an extra $776 million the federal government set aside to pay a class action lawsuit by disabled veterans.

Even if the Harper government reduces defence contracting by $460 million, as promised, it will still be far short of the goals set out in the Leslie report.

Defence Minister Peter MacKay suggested earlier this week that the end of the Afghan training mission in Kabul next year will ease the pressure on the department and reduce the need for outside services.

"We have soldiers, fulltime soldiers, regular force soldiers, coming back from Afghanistan, assuming their positions throughout the country, throughout the department, and thus doing less contracting. So, there are savings to be found there," he told the Economic Club of Canada.

With trained soldiers fighting in Kandahar for five years, and later training Afghan forces, the Canadian army was forced to rely on private contractors to carry out some training functions and maintenance services.

The trend over the last decade has been to take many of the routine jobs and functions in the military, including repair and overhaul of equipment, and give it to the private sector.

The idea was to reserve soldiers for fighting and front-line duties.

In some cases, the decision to replace uniformed and civilian jobs at National Defence with the private sector has been made against the advice of senior military commanders, by federal bureaucrats who say it's the mandate of the Harper government to eliminate public service jobs.

New Democrat defence critic Jack Harris said the situation has become "utterly incoherent" and an embarrassment.

"They're all over the place when it comes to numbers," he said. "They don't seem to have a handle on this at all."

The winding down of the Afghan war means this should be an era of budget savings on contractors, Harris added.

But MacKay insisted in his remarks to the economic club that no stone was being left unturned in the hunt for savings. "We are looking in very painstaking detail at every area of the department in which we can find efficiencies," he said.

Private consultants and contractors provide myriad services, from emptying garbage pails and mopping floors, all the way to fine-tuning and repairing some of the military's state-of-the-art aircraft.

Giant defence contractors also have lucrative professional services contracts, according to public accounts records.

The largest single amount paid out in 2011-12 was to U.S.-based Lockheed Martin, which took in $175.3 million for a single engineering contact.

The company best known in the political world as the builder of the F-35 stealth fighter had six other service and consulting deals with the Canadian government that year.
 
The devil is always in the details.  What is being contracted out, and why?

In many cases it makes more sense to purchase skills, knowledge and abilities from contractors than to incubate, develop and maintain them in-house as military personnel or public servants.  Admittedly, part of the reason for going to contractors is because of the sclerotic employment policies and processes that hamstring public service hiring, but there are valid reasons to use contractors.

I'm afraid that we're going to end up throwing out babies with bathwater on this one - for example, refusing to order buses (contracted out) to bring Reservists to training events, rather than reducing or cutting contractor support to "projects" that never manage to deliver any appreciable product other than inflated TD expenses and contractors writing documents that never get approved...
 
Honestly I think part of it is DND not allocating their resources properly, I've heard stories of Techs sitting around in edmonton with little work to do, meanwhile they are hiring civilian contractors in say Petawawa because they dont have enough techs to keep up with the work load. Thats just one side of the contracting though at the front line level, I've seen posted on this site DND's requests for IED experts and other things that sound like to me we should have the full internal capabilities to supply. It may be a case of DND just spending budget not to loose it, but it think it could be better spent then getting contractors to fill the role of say a supply tech.
 
There is an interesting article in the Citizen today that can't be reposted here, but seems to be the beginnings of the public relations battle between L1's. It would be nice if the CDS would nip this in the bud before all the dirty laundry gets aired to Joe Citizen.
 
dapaterson said:
I'm afraid that we're going to end up throwing out babies with bathwater on this one - for example, refusing to order buses (contracted out) to bring Reservists to training events, rather than reducing or cutting contractor support to "projects" that never manage to deliver any appreciable product other than inflated TD expenses and contractors writing documents that never get approved...
I worry that you are correct.  I have seen examples of the same but in an opposite direction, where units were forced to pay multiple times the price to contract a buses with drivers despite available DND buses and drivers because SWE was being cut regardless of the cost and overtime was not to be authorized.  I suspect one can find this example still happening, but I am no longer in a place to see it.
 
I'm not sure how current this report, reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, might be:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/military-faces-deeper-cuts-in-looming-budget-document-reveals/article9857337/
Military faces deeper cuts in looming budget, document reveals

MURRAY BREWSTER
OTTAWA — The Canadian Press

Published Sunday, Mar. 17 2013

It seems the only soldiers who are safe from the coming budget axe are those that parade around Parliament Hill in the changing of the guard ceremony for tourists in the summer, according to a leaked report.

Defence spending will be in crosshairs when the federal budget is presented on Thursday as the Canadian army faces another barrage of major reductions over and above the Conservative government’s established deficit-fighting strategy and program review.

An army planning document shows that land forces are bracing for a further 8 per cent hit on operating and maintenance in the coming fiscal plan, in addition to an existing 22 per cent budget reduction.

The latest cuts, estimated in the range of $32-million, will slice into the army’s ability to train for operations in the jungle, desert and mountains, and come on top of $226-million in cuts ordered in the government’s strategic review and Deficit Reduction Action Plan, says a Jan. 31, 2013 document, written by Lieutentant-General Peter Devlin.

There’s expected to be an $8-million clawback on contracted services, and the army will be required to absorb a further $10-million related to civilian wages.

The document says funding for full-time reservists will have to be further reduced, and unused cash in the budget for part-time soldiers may have to be raided in order to keep full-timers.

Yet, despite the budget ravages, the army is under pressure to maintain the pet projects and pageantry admired by the Conservatives, who once promised stable and predictable funding.

“Ceasing activities viewed as priorities by the government of Canada will invite scrutiny into those activities the Army chooses to do at the expense of those items that hold government interest,” said the letter, which is meant to guide the army’s business planning for the coming year.

“As an example, activities such as the Ceremonial Guard hold particular interest for the [government of Canada] and must be sustained; even at the expense of area programming. Any and all [government of Canada] directed activities will be fulfilled.”

The Ceremonial Guard, comprised of mostly reserve members, conducts the changing of the guard ceremony on Parliament Hill during the tourist season.

National Defence is the biggest discretionary line item in the federal budget and has long been the target for deficit-slashing governments, regardless of political stripe.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper warned Defence Minister Peter MacKay last June that initial budget-cut proposals did not go deep enough on the administrative side of the department, a message he reinforced at the swearing-in of new defence chief General Tom Lawson when he said he wanted a military with “more teeth and less tail.”

When criticized about how spending cuts appear to have singled out the army, MacKay has pointed out that the army’s baseline budget is $500-million higher than it was when the Conservatives took office in 2006.

“After years of unprecedented growth, and following the end of the combat mission in Afghanistan, it is necessary for the government to balance military needs with taxpayer interests,” said MacKay spokesman Jay Paxton.

“Under our government, the military will always have the tools it needs to defend Canada and care for its people.”

Defence sources say as much as $600-million will be cut out of military “readiness” in all branches in the coming year. Readiness refers to training and equipment maintenance that a military needs to do in order to deploy both overseas and at home.

Indeed, Gen. Devlin’s planning report says the army will have to limit the scope of its operations in the Arctic, which is “five to seven times” more expensive than missions conducted in southern Canada.

The average 1.5 per cent increase in the army’s budget for fuel comes nowhere near covering the anticipated diesel costs, which rose by 24 per cent in 2011-12. As consequence, the army will have to “reduce the level of activity.”

In a recent interview with Maclean’s magazine, MacKay revealed that department intends to sell surplus property, some of which is either outdated or too costly to maintain.

Analyst Dave Perry from Carleton University in Ottawa has crunched the overall defence budget numbers and projected, in an updated analysis to be released this week, that the department will lose $2.4-billion — about 12.4 per cent — of its approximately $20-billion budget when compared against spending in 2011-12.

In his benchmark report, retired lieutenant-general Andrew Leslie called for deep cuts in the size of National Defence headquarters and for the savings to be plowed back into the field force.

But Perry’s analysis shows that since the government will not cut the overall size of the regular or reserve forces, and is not expected to give up equipment capabilities, such as specific classes of planes, tanks and ships, there is nowhere else to cut except in readiness and training.

“Since the size of the regular Forces is the largest driver of overall personnel spending, and major capital fleets account for the bulk of capital equipment fleets, this essentially protected the two single largest spending categories from the budget reduction,” Perry wrote in his analysis, obtained in advance by The Canadian Press.

“As a result, the department has been tasked with finding the majority of its cuts from the funds spent on (operations and maintenance).”

Leslie’s report has gone largely ignored, he said.

“DND has taken almost no action to enact his recommendations,” Perry said. “As a result, the bulk of the budget cuts are falling on operational readiness and training.”


It is not clear to me that the cuts Brewster discusses are new - they may have been discussed here, in Army.ca, already - he may, simply, be discussing the Army Commander's response to them.

But, speaking as a Conservative (and a significant monetary supporter of the CPC), I find it shameful and, indeed amateurish, that cabinet did not impose these cuts with conditions: like a measured 15% cut in C2 overhead. It appears to me, based on 35+ years of service, the last 1/4 in modestly senior posts in NDHQ, that the CF (or CAF) has a fat, even bloated C2 system above ship, unit and squadron level. Now some of that C2 bloat is there because of "government priorities" and it appears, therefore, that Minister MacKay did not follow the Prime Minister's direction ~ perhaps because he is a captive of the very large, bloated HQs Prime Minister Harper says he wants to cut.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
But, speaking as a Conservative (and a significant monetary supporter of the CPC), I find it shameful and, indeed amateurish, that cabinet did not impose these cuts with conditions: like a measured 15% cut in C2 overhead. It appears to me, based on 35+ years of service, the last 1/4 in modestly senior posts in NDHQ, that the CF (or CAF) has a fat, even bloated C2 system above ship, unit and squadron level. Now some of that C2 bloat is there because of "government priorities" and it appears, therefore, that Minister MacKay did not follow the Prime Minister's direction ~ perhaps because he is a captive of the very large, bloated HQs Prime Minister Harper says he wants to cut.

While I agree with your assessment, I disagree that this is the approach to take. The government should task the CF and DND, through the CDS, with maintaining certain capabilities and missions.  They should then fund the military according to the wider national strategy. It should then be up to the CDS, answering to MND, to allocate financial resources in order to accomplish those tasks. If they money does not meed the need then it should be up to the CDS to go back to the government with the impact.

Let the CDS, through his staff and subordinate commanders, run the CF.
 
jeffb said:
While I agree with your assessment, I disagree that this is the approach to take. The government should task the CF and DND, through the CDS, with maintaining certain capabilities and missions.  They should then fund the military according to the wider national strategy. It should then be up to the CDS, answering to MND, to allocate financial resources in order to accomplish those tasks. If they money does not meed the need then it should be up to the CDS to go back to the government with the impact.

Let the CDS, through his staff and subordinate commanders, run the CF.


I'm not sure letting "the CDS, through his staff and subordinate commanders, run the CF" is Constitutionally proper or, for that matter, even a good idea. I'm not sure that the CDS and his subordinate commanders are qualified to "run the CF." He (and they) are there to administer the CF as a force in being, but establishing, organizing, equipping and directing the CF is not the CDS' business. it is the business of cabinet and the bureaucracy, part of which is uniformed. i think parts of many of the CF's problems stem from too much military intrusion into matteres where the military is ill qualified to operate: areas like defence policy and equipment procurement.

But maybe I'm a bit of an iconoclast.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
But maybe I'm a bit of an iconoclast.

I had to look up that last word. You are but you are in good company.

I agree, there are too many uniformed politicians - more correctly wannabe politicians.

 
From the Halifax Chronical Herald 18 March 2013

OTTAWA — It seems the only soldiers who are safe from the coming budget axe are those that parade around Parliament Hill in the changing of the guard ceremony for tourists in the summer, a leaked report suggests.

Defence spending will be in the federal budget crosshairs this week as the Canadian Army faces another barrage of major reductions over and above the Harper government’s established deficit-fighting strategy and program review.

An army planning document, obtained by The Canadian Press, shows that land forces are bracing for a further eight per cent hit on operating and maintenance in the coming fiscal plan, in addition to an existing 22 per cent budget reduction.

The latest cuts, estimated in the range of $32 million, will slice into the army’s ability to train for operations in the jungle, desert and mountains, and come on top of $226 million in cuts ordered in the government’s strategic review and Deficit Reduction Action Plan, says a Jan. 31, 2013 document, written by Lt.-Gen. Peter Devlin.

There’s expected to be an $8 million clawback on contracted services, and the army will be required to absorb a further $10 million related to civilian wages.

The document says funding for full-time reservists will have to be further reduced, and unused cash in the budget for part-time soldiers may have to be raided in order to keep full-timers.

Yet, despite the budget ravages, the army is under pressure to maintain the pet projects and pageantry admired by the Conservatives, who once promised stable and predictable funding.

“Ceasing activities viewed as priorities by the government of Canada will invite scrutiny into those activities the Army chooses to do at the expense of those items that hold government interest,” said the letter, which is meant to guide the army’s business planning for the coming year.

“As an example, activities such as the Ceremonial Guard hold particular interest for the (government of Canada) and must be sustained; even at the expense of area programming. Any and all (government of Canada) directed activities will be fulfilled.”

The Ceremonial Guard, comprised of mostly reserve members, conducts the changing of the guard ceremony on Parliament Hill during the tourist season.

National Defence is the biggest discretionary line item in the federal budget and has long been the target for deficit-slashing governments, regardless of political stripe.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper warned Defence Minister Peter MacKay last June that initial budget cut proposals did not go deep enough on the administrative side of the department, a message he reinforced at the swearing-in of new defence chief Gen. Tom Lawson when he said he wanted a military with “more teeth and less tail.”

When criticized about how spending cuts appear to have singled out the army, MacKay has pointed out that the army’s baseline budget is $500 million higher than it was when the Conservatives took office in 2006.

“After years of unprecedented growth, and following the end of the combat mission in Afghanistan, it is necessary for the government to balance military needs with taxpayer interests,” said MacKay spokesman Jay Paxton.

“Under our government, the military will always have the tools it needs to defend Canada and care for its people.”

Defence sources say as much as $600 million will be cut out of military “readiness” in all branches in the coming year. Readiness refers to training and equipment maintenance that a military needs to do in order to deploy both overseas and at home.

Indeed, Devlin’s planning report says the army will have to limit the scope of its operations in the Arctic, which is “five to seven times” more expensive than missions conducted in southern Canada.

The average 1.5 per cent increase in the army’s budget for fuel comes nowhere near covering the anticipated diesel costs, which rose by 24 per cent in 2011-12. As consequence, the army will have to “reduce the level of activity.”

In a recent interview with Maclean’s magazine, MacKay revealed that department intends to sell surplus property, some of which is either outdated or too costly to maintain.

Analyst Dave Perry from Carleton University in Ottawa has crunched the overall defence budget numbers and projected, in an updated analysis to be released this week, that the department will lose $2.4 billion — about 12.4 per cent — of its approximately $20-billion budget when compared against spending in 2011-12.

In his benchmark report, retired lieutenant-general Andrew Leslie called for deep cuts in the size of National Defence headquarters and for the savings to be plowed back into the field force.

But Perry’s analysis shows that since the government will not cut the overall size of the regular or reserve forces, and is not expected to give up equipment capabilities, such as specific classes of planes, tanks and ships, there is nowhere else to cut except in readiness and training.
 
Back
Top