The Defence Budget [superthread]

[Occam]

No idea where the actual plants where, as there aren't any 'fitted' plants in LStL, but this was more of a community service.

Look to your right when you're the first in line for Tim Horton's - or at least there used to be one there.  I'm pretty sure there are others, I just can't place them.

 

[dapaterson]

Taking garbage from desks is the least important function of cleaners, that's like saying we have electronic banking so we don't need pay clerks....

Well, we don't need pay allotments any more, that's for sure; I have greater flexibiltiy to manage my money online (even on my phone) so why waste effort on maintaining that system?

Maybe by eliminating useless functions we can reduce or repurpose clerks.

 

[McG]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/retired-generals-take-aim-at-ottawa-s-handling-of-defence-cuts-1.2469381

Retired generals take aim at Ottawa's handling of defence cuts
Deep cuts planned for training and maintenance
Evan Solomon, Kristen Everson
CBC News
18 Dec 2013

Tension is growing between Canada's top generals and the government over how to carry out deep cuts to the military.

CBC News has learned that those cuts are coming for the operations and maintenance budget, which includes training.

Sources have told CBC News the government's plan for the future of the Canadian Forces, known as the Canada First Defence Strategy, was debated at a federal cabinet meeting Tuesday in Ottawa.

The government does not want to reduce the number of soldiers from current levels of 68,000, nor does it want to cut the budget for high-profile equipment such as planes and ships.

But the military says that leaves only training and maintenance, and that doesn't sit well with some military experts.

Retired general Rick Hillier, the former chief of defence staff, came out blasting the Canada First strategy on Wednesday.

"You're going to devastate the capability of the Canadian Forces" if the military's choice of cuts goes ahead, Hillier told CBC News.

"If all the other things are untouched because you don't want to reduce the number of people, because you're committed to equipment, then you're going to savage the operations and training piece of it, which means that soldiers won't train, sailors won't sail and men and women won't be in their aircraft very much."

Hillier is calling for an overhaul of the entire military strategy — starting with a reduction of the number of soldiers.

"The defence strategy is no longer affordable. You need to re-set. You need to reshape it and you need in fact to come out with a new Canada First Defence Strategy."

The government last year announced total cuts of $2.1 billion to the military's $20-billion budget by 2015.  Those cuts are already being felt.

Sources inside the military tell CBC News that brigades have been sent letters informing them of cuts of 61 per cent to operations and maintenance budgets.

Those cuts mean there will be less money for  food, fuel and ammunition for training exercises.

"Fewer training dollars, and less maintenance money means there's fewer platforms for people to go on an exercise with, and then at a certain point down the road, there's going to be fewer aircraft and fewer ships for the Canadian Forces to actually deploy with," said  Dave Perry, a senior defence analyst with the Conference of Defence Associations Institute.

Perry pointed to a recent announcement by the navy that it can't maintain the number of coastal defence vessels at sea it had previously.

Generals are not allowed to talk about the cuts openly, because it is a politically sensitive issue that goes to the Conservatives' base of support, but one senior member of the military told CBC News the government is cutting the defence budget while "pretending they are not."

Another former top soldier now working as a policy adviser to the Liberals said he can't understand why the Canadian Forces are short of money when the Department of Defence underspent its budget by $1.3 billion in April.

"This is fiscal mismanagement on a vast scale," said retired lieutenant-general Andrew Leslie, who authored a controversial "transformation" report on the future of the military before he left in 2011.

"Our transformation team, over two years ago, recommended they cut consultants and contractors, which in 2010 was at $2.77 billion per year.

"Since then DND increased spending on consultants and contractors to $3 billion a year," he told CBC News Wednesday. "This is irresponsible."

A Conservative MP was not made available to discuss the issue on CBC News Network's Power & Politics Wednesday.

But Defence Minister Rob Nicholson's office released a statement in response to CBC News's request for comment.

"Our government has made unprecedented investments in the Canadian Armed Forces. In fact, since 2006 we have boosted defence budgets by 27 per cent, roughly $5 billion in annual funding," the statement quoted Nicholson as saying.

"The government will continue to place priority emphasis on meeting operational requirements, training within Canada, supporting the part-time reserves, undertaking national sovereignty missions and caring for ill and injured soldiers."

The messages are getting bleaker.

 

[Edward Campbell]

And it is reported that the "government is freezing departments’ operational budgets for another two years ... [it] will affect all departments and separate agencies and is expected to generate $1.7 billion in savings over two years." DND is part of that freeze and a good slice of those savings will come from DND.

Given the government's guidance ~ no (significant) cuts to personnel nor to high profile equipment projects (F-35s and new ships) ~ it seems to me that the only sensible course open is to:

    1. Cut HQ bloat ~ a massive redesign of the CF C2 system, which will include a large scale "delayering" process that will cut the numbers of, especially, GOFOs and colonels and move those PYs, quickly, through early retirement,
          to the fleets and the field force;

    2. Cut unnecessary equipment projects like the Close Combat Vehicle.

 

[dimsum]

And it is reported that the "government is freezing departments’ operational budgets for another two years ... [it] will affect all departments and separate agencies and is expected to generate $1.7 billion in savings over two years." DND is part of that freeze and a good slice of those savings will come from DND.

Given the government's guidance ~ no (significant) cuts to personnel nor to high profile equipment projects (F-35s and new ships) ~ it seems to me that the only sensible course open is to:

    1. Cut HQ bloat ~ a massive redesign of the CF C2 system, which will include a large scale "delayering" process that will cut the numbers of, especially, GOFOs and colonels and move those PYs, quickly, through early retirement,
          to the fleets and the field force;

    2. Cut unnecessary equipment projects like the Close Combat Vehicle.

I'd like to believe that option 1 could happen, but the cynical realistic part of me says no one will cut jobs for their peers.

 

[The Bread Guy]

You know it's bad when...

Received as a NCR-wide e-mail.



PLANTS IN THE WORKPLACE ....

Every little bit helps - interesting defences to keep the plants ....

The Department of National Defence is facing such a spending squeeze that it is getting rid of all plants at its offices across the National Capital Region to save $300,000 a year.

A recent internal memo said the department wasn’t going to keep plants at its 40 area locations as they are not “core” to the department’s mandate and too expensive to maintain during a time of restraint.

“If it doesn’t fly, sail or fire bullets, they will get rid of it,” said John MacLennan, president of Union of Defence Employees. “They’re cutting so close to the bone that they have to cut plants. How much further can they go, stop buying furniture?”

Since then, more than 350 potted plants have been listed for sale to the highest bidder on Public Works website gcsurplus.ca. The plant removal will continue in coming months as the existing maintenance contracts expire.

The decision has been the subject of mockery, but some argue it’s a sign of how squeezed departments are after years of spending reductions, as well as the government’s scant concern for the ambience or health of the workplace.

“It’s penny-wise and pound-foolish,” said Ron Cochrane, co-chair of the joint union and management National Joint Council. “Aside from the costs, they serve a purpose of providing more oxygen and the government is always talking about how they want a healthier workplace.” ....

If you want to give any of the plants a good home, go to gcsurplus.ca, click on "What's For Sale?" and search for "live potted plants".

And a reminder of what a $300K saving can mean ....

300K will buy a week in the field for 1 CMBG.

 

[McG]

This article was written about all government departments, but it makes several specific references to DND and even the general stuff applies to our budget concerns.

Conservatives trim shadow government
But spending on professional services may have actually increased locally
James Bagnall, OTTAWA CITIZEN
27 Dec 2013

It turns out it wasn’t just civil servants who were squeezed by the Conservatives’ efforts to downsize the federal government. Spending on outside professional services has also dropped significantly, according to recently released public accounts data.

While the government spent a sizable $10 billion in fiscal 2013 (12 months ended Mar. 31) on a wide variety of professionals, that was nearly $700 million less than in the previous year. It was also the lowest annual total in four years for the sector, which includes engineers, lawyers, management consultants, guards, translators, lobbyists and computer specialists, among others. The sector is often referred to as a shadow government because it contains so many people who work side-by-side with full-time civil servants.

About one-quarter of the government’s annual spending on professionals involves federal departments that contract with each other; the rest of the professional services budget is earmarked for private sector players.

Among the top 12 categories of professional services, the government hiked spending in 2013 only on security, which cost $413.3 million — up 8 per cent year-over-year. The big item here was a 17 per cent jump in the RCMP’s budget for independent security specialists, to $135 million.

In sharp contrast, there were double-digit declines across government for spending on temporary help (down 20 per cent year-over-year), scientific research (off 16 per cent), training (minus 13 per cent) and translation services (a drop of 12 per cent).

This should have been bad news for the National Capital Region, which depends heavily on the professional services sector. But the evidence suggests the latter held up rather well locally. There were 78,100 employed in Ottawa-Gatineau in professional services on March 31 — up 4,600 from a year earlier. A substantial portion of these depend on the federal government for contracts.

The sector employed 85,300 in November — a new record. It made up 12.3 per cent of the region’s total jobs. Indeed, the rise of professional services locally has helped offset to a considerable extent the drop in civil service jobs.

There were 130,200 federal government employees in Ottawa-Gatineau as of November, down 18,000 from Mar. 31, 2012, shortly after Finance Minister Jim Flaherty delivered his most draconian federal budget. Over the same 20-month period, the professional services sector added 11,800 jobs.  These contrasting trends also hint at a third one — it’s possible that retiring government workers are entering the private sector in greater numbers for second careers as consultants or scientists [to the government].

During the peak of the government downsizing, the region’s workforce shrank, suggesting civil servants who accepted buyouts or retired were simply saying goodbye to employment. But that may no longer be the case.

A look at the top suppliers of professional services to government shows there are plenty of potential vehicles for a second career. Roughly one in three of the 50 largest in fiscal 2013 are military contractors — not surprising, considering that the Department of National Defence accounts for 30 per cent of the federal government’s total spending on professional services.

Nor has the ratio shifted much over the past decade. All that changes is the ranking of a few military specialists whose revenues ebb and flow according to the status of the government’s most recent major procurements. Babcock (submarines), Halifax Shipyards (warships) and Seaspan Marine (non-combat vessels) have all improved their ranking in recent years courtesy of the government’s program to rebuild the fleets of the Navy and Coast Guard.

The top supplier, General Dynamics, is a U.S. military conglomerate with a key stake in two of Canada’s largest military programs — the long-running quest to replace the Navy’s Sea King helicopters, and armoured combat vehicles, built in London, Ont.

Most of the professional services contracts involving the military are specialized engineering jobs, which is why you find so many ex-service employees doing them. The government shelled out $1.5 billion on military engineering in fiscal 2013, down from $1.6 billion the year before. Even so, that constituted the lion’s share of the $2.2 billion allocated for engineering services of all types in fiscal 2013.

The government also spent more than $1 billion each in fiscal 2013 on health services and information technology, only slightly less than the year before. Express Scripts Canada, the subsidiary of a St. Louis-based giant, manages government employees’ pharmacy, dental and health claims. Dozens of independent contractors — from IBM to Maplesoft — help the government keep its information technology networks up to date.

The Ottawa region is also the headquarters for a lively staffing services sector — companies that fill employment gaps at federal departments, or supply particular skills under long-term contracts for certain projects. Calian, the company founded by former Ottawa mayor Larry O’Brien, is the largest of these, thanks in part to a multi-year deal to supply health services workers to the military.

Among the notable items in last year’s professional services budget government-wide:

• The Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development spent by far the most on legal services — $106 million. Think land claims. The next biggest spender was Canada Revenue Agency with a legal bill of $66 million. Disputes over tax assessments were a big item here.

• The government earmarked $459 million for management consultants — with Public Works accounting for $184 million. Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development was the next biggest buyer of management consulting with a budget of $45.5 million.

• The big spenders on health services were Veterans Affairs ($333 million), Public Safety ($257 million) and National Defence ($179 million). This involved anything from treatments for post-traumatic stress to rehabilitation for combat veterans, border guards and members of the RCMP.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Conservatives+trim+shadow+government/9328968/story.html

If the skills required to perform a service contract would have required someone to first serve a career in the military, does it cost more to perform the task with a service member or to pay both a pension and the cost of a contract?  In other words: could money be saved by increasing the number of authorized PYs to bring long-term work requiring military skills back into the military, or would such a move just be an exercise in moving costs from one pot of money to another pot of money?

 

[Monsoon]

If the skills required to perform a service contract would have required someone to first serve a career in the military, does it cost more to perform the task with a service member or to pay both a pension and the cost of a contract?  In other words: could money be saved by increasing the number of authorized PYs to bring long-term work requiring military skills back into the military, or would such a move just be an exercise in moving costs from one pot of money to another pot of money?

My understanding is that including pension benefits in the cost of contractors who are receiving pensions is a red herring. Because federal pensions are properly managed and fully funded (unlike many municipal pensions), the pensions are paid out of a separate actuarially managed fund, not out of departmental funding. The actual cost for a pension to the department is booked in the FYs in which the the recipient worked and was provided employee-side contributions to the pension in the past. Thus, as long as the cost of a contractor is less than the cost of a service member PY (which includes employee-side pension contributions for the member, and a host of benefits that are actual tangible costs at the department level, as well as salary), then it makes sense to use a contractor no matter whether they are a pension beneficiary or not. Of course you need to adjust for the marginal value you attribute to a service member's being able to be posted elsewhere in the organization while a contractor cannot, but at the institutional level this is generally a smaller amount than we believe at the tactical level.

 

[McG]

Pension is a cost to the government.  Regardless of when it is accounted for, the pension cost is not occurred by the government until it is being paid out.  It is not a red herring because, while the department does not pay, the business case could be made to increase PYs and their funding if that will save money somewhere else.

If we do not create the contract work to draw members out of the forces, then they continue paying into the pension instead of drawing from it.

 

[Monsoon]

Pension is a cost to the government.  Regardless of when it is accounted for, the pension cost is not occurred by the government until it is being paid out.

You are mistaken. Pensions can only be a liability in the current FY (to the department or the government at large) when they are not properly funded in the FY in which the pension accrues. That is not the case with federal pensions; thus, no savings in the federal budget's current FY can be won by preventing someone from drawing their pension.

You would be correct if federal pensions were managed like the EI system, where funds go into general revenue and expenses come out of general revenue (-ish; technically there is an "EI fund", but it's not actuarially managed and been raided freely in the past, with the resultant shortfalls coming out of general revenue. Consider EI to be an example of a fund that is actuarially under-funded). The federal pension plans are fully funded in the FYs in which the pension benefit is earned by the employee and pensions paid out have never come out of in-year funding.

 

[Edward Campbell]

This article was written about all government departments, but it makes several specific references to DND and even the general stuff applies to our budget concerns.http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Conservatives+trim+shadow+government/9328968/story.html

If the skills required to perform a service contract would have required someone to first serve a career in the military, does it cost more to perform the task with a service member or to pay both a pension and the cost of a contract?  In other words: could money be saved by increasing the number of authorized PYs to bring long-term work requiring military skills back into the military, or would such a move just be an exercise in moving costs from one pot of money to another pot of money?

It seems to me that there is another issue, besides cost, and that is that many of the jobs that go to consultants are not suitable for serving military officers. In some cases we the CF needs a very long service, specialized sort of person in, say, the rank of major or WO ... but we you really don't want to have too many of those people "blocking" positions in the CF. So we the system encourages them to retire and then hires them back as consultants ... it "unblocks" some valuable military positions and we you still get the people we you want.

In some cases it might make very good sense to hire people into the civil service directly from the military ... I managed that once, it was a long, painful process which took up entirely too much of my personal time (and political capital) as a director. I got what my organization needed: a civil servant who would a) stay in place for a long time, and b) had the right mix of military experience/knowledge and academic education. Everyone, right up to and including the VCDS and the DM of DND, agreed it was the right move, but the process ~ the public serving staffing process ~ was far too complex. It was designed to prevent just the move I wanted needed to make: a direct transfer from a military officer to a senior engineering position.

We You, the military, have a need for the CF to train some specialists who will, after a useful time in the military (say 20 to 25 years) retire and return to us your organizations as either civil servants or consultants: the choice is defined by the degree of permanence you need.

 

[The Bread Guy]

You know it's bad when...

Received as a NCR-wide e-mail.



PLANTS IN THE WORKPLACE ....

A quick update - now it's not JUST DND ....

The NDP’s undercover plant plot may be about to dry up.

On Thursday, a memo went out to the offices of MPs and House of Commons staff from Sergeant-at-Arms Kevin Vickers  to inform them that all plants in House of Commons buildings will be removed and sold.

The Department of Public Works no longer pays for the watering of plants in federal government buildings due to budget cuts. The “discretionary expense” of plant watering was downloaded to departments, which must now decide whether to take over the responsibility by April 2015.

The House of Commons, like the Department of Defence, has decided that it will not pay to water the plants in its offices on and around Parliament Hill and will instead sell them online ....

 

[McG]

And, for a fun read on the path to the CAF's current situation, have a read here: http://www.cdainstitute.ca/images/LesswithLessJan2014Perry.pdf

 

[Good2Golf]

And, for a fun read on the path to the CAF's current situation, have a read here: http://www.cdainstitute.ca/images/LesswithLessJan2014Perry.pdf

Yeah, I printed that one out, Andrew...if only they had us do less....

 

[armyvern]

Yeah, I printed that one out, Andrew...if only they had us do less....

Amen.

 

[McG]

Some defence specific assessment of the recent budget.

Federal budget sends Canadian military’s equipment buying plan into limbo; new fighter jets likely off the table
Murray Brewster, Canadian Press
National Post
11 February 2014

OTTAWA — The badly needed new equipment on the Canadian military’s shopping list may end up becoming a wish list over the next three years after Tuesday’s federal budget pushed $3.1 billion in planned capital spending into the future.

The reallocation and delay outlined in Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s fiscal plan was something long expected in defence circles, and a dramatic demonstration of how far the department has fallen in terms of the political pecking order in Ottawa.

In practical terms, it’s a reflection of the government’s failure so far to deliver long-promised new ships, search planes, helicopters and trucks. But it’s also part of a Conservative campaign to outflank the deficit in the run-up to the 2015 election.

Defence sets aside a certain amount each year to buy new gear, but the new budget kicks that planned spending — originally scheduled to take place between 2014 and 2017 — to “future years,” putting many programs in doubt.

Flaherty defended the decision, saying it wasn’t a cut and the money is being socked away until the military can use it.

“There’s no point in having money sitting there when they can’t spend it this year, which they can’t,” he said prior to the budget’s public release. “So, we’re pushing it forward, not taking it back.”

A senior government official, speaking on background, wasn’t able to provide a list of the affected projects and noted that the cash in many instances had not been appropriated by Parliament.

Future governments must decide when the money will be put back, the official said.

The stowing of equipment funds adds to previous Conservative austerity measures, which have already carved as much as $2.1 billion out of defence.

As the biggest discretionary pot of federal money, the military is accustomed to having a target on its back. But the pain won’t end once the government delivers a $6.3-billion surplus at the end of the 2015-2016 budget year, one defence analyst says.

National Defence will continue to feel the squeeze as the Conservatives strive to keep the books balanced — without generating new revenues — in order to finance long-promised goodies such as income splitting, said Dave Perry, a professor at Carleton University and a researcher with the Conference of Defence Associations.

“If you are making all of these moves to restrain federal spending writ large, cut taxes and spend money on other programs, I don’t see a big windfall coming for the military post-2015,” Perry said.

“I just don’t see how it can work given the political parameters they’ve outlined.”

Deferring capital spending will erode the buying power of projects that have already been announced, forcing the military to either make do with fewer ships, planes and vehicles, or settle for less sophisticated gear, he added.

The replacement of the country’s aging jet fighters, which National Defence was supposed to start spending on next year, will likely be the most high-profile victim of the reallocation.

The government put the F-35 program, a political lightning rod, on hold in December 2012 and has yet to say whether it will hold a full-fledged competition to determine which fighter to buy.

Other big-ticket items likely to fall into the shuffle would include the navy’s new supply ships, the long-promised Arctic patrol boats, replacements for Canada’s aging Sea King helicopters and new fixed-wing search planes, among others.

Defence Minister Rob Nicholson, who announced a reboot of the military procurement program last week, promised the government would begin posting a renewed list of its defence equipment needs this June.

In the meantime, though, Perry said the renewed departmental spending freeze — coupled with other restraint measures — will have a significant impact on defence, forcing it to internally reallocate as much $591 million by 2015.

That will mean less cash for operations, maintenance and training — and the numbers are stark.

In the 2009-10 budget year, the last before the axe began to fall on spending, National Defence was given $7.6 billion to spend on upkeep, fuel, patrols and exercises. According to Perry’s research, that number has fallen by 18 per cent.

The effects are already apparent. On Monday, the Snowbirds flying team announced it was cancelling performances in the U.S. due to budget cuts. A number of the army’s logistics trucks, known as the B-Fleet, have also been mothballed.

And defence sources say funding for CF-18 operations and maintenance, the air force’s premier weapons system, has already been curtailed by as much 25 per cent.

“The navy has a lot less flexibility because they don’t have the math to play with,” Perry said. “They’ll be tying up ships, even if there is no further pain.”

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/02/11/federal-budget-sends-canadian-militarys-equipment-buying-plan-into-limbo-new-fighter-jets-likely-off-the-table/

 

[Lightguns]

A quick update - now it's not JUST DND ....

I am amazed, I am a bube resident and we have potted plants.  Folks brought em it and they water, it cost nothing.  There is actually a part of the government that gets supplied and maintained potted plants?

bube should be cube!

 

[dapaterson]

I am amazed, I am a bube resident and we have potted plants.  Folks brought em it and they water, it cost nothing.  There is actually a part of the government that gets supplied and maintained potted plants?

On the other hand, there's no garbage pickup in NDHQ - you have to deliver your own trash to the bins.  From what I know of most bases, folks still get their trash picked up at their desks...

 

[Halifax Tar]

On the other hand, there's no garbage pickup in NDHQ - you have to deliver your own trash to the bins.  From what I know of most bases, folks still get their trash picked up at their desks...

Cant speak for everywhere but not my office/warehouse.  We look after our own garbage.

 

[George Wallace]

Garbage pick up.  That is all set out in the negotiated/requirements in the Cleaner contract.