The Defence Budget [superthread]

[McG]

The MND provides some counter perspective to criticism from media and opposition.  According to the information, portions of the ISIS and Ukraine missions will still come from the baseline defence funding.

Jason Kenney says $12B military budget boost a 'huge improvement'
Federal budget promises to restore military spending after years of lapsed spending, cuts
Katharine Starr, CBC News
22 Apr 2015

Defence Minister Jason Kenney says the federal budget's commitment of an additional $11.8 billion in military funding over the next decade is a "huge improvement" over the previous Liberal government's military cuts, despite the fact that the money is backloaded and won't even come into play until 2017.

"That was the real problem with the decade of darkness: a total, total black hole in terms of procurement," Kenney told host Evan Solomon of CBC News Network's Power & Politics, using the phrase coined by former chief of the defence staff Rick Hillier in reference to the era of slashed military spending under the Liberals.

"Skeptics manage to gloss over procurement successes," he added. "It's a mixed bag, I grant you that. We don't have all the equipment we would like immediately. It does take time to do multi-billion dollar acquisitions. We're trying to ensure these things are run prudently, we don't overspend, we don't get kit or equipment we don't need."

The federal budget's military allotment does not include all the necessary funding for the missions in Ukraine or in the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), Kenney said. Those operations will have access to supplementary funds, he told Solomon.

"Each one of those projects gets additional incremental funding above and beyond the baseline budget of the military," Kenney said. "For example, in the fiscal year we just ended, we spent $20.1 billion even though we started with a budget of about $18.5 billion. There's always additional funding available for those operations."

Kenney has estimated the fight against ISIS will cost $406 million for the fiscal year of 2015-16. The federal budget earmarked $360.3 million for the mission.

The Canadian Forces are also getting $7.1 million this year to put towards training Ukrainian soldiers, although Kenney has said that program would cost $16 million, including a $3-million dollar contingency fund.

Kenney praised the government's commitment to defence, noting it comes at a time when other allies are slashing military budgets.

"The secretary general of NATO told me Canada has been punching above its weight," he said. "The military is not just there to be some kind of abstraction. It's there to be used prudently in key issues related to our national security."

The military is also getting $4 million spread over five years to improve security on bases. In total, the defence department's budget is set to grow by three per cent each year, a boost from the previously-budgeted two per cent growth.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/jason-kenney-says-12b-military-budget-boost-a-huge-improvement-1.3044771

 

[Occam]

Actually, every collective agreement of all bargaining units that represent DND employees has expired. We should see new agreements either right before the election, or shortly after hopefully). Any raises in wages will come after that.

Nearly every collective agreement across the Public Service has expired, not just DND.  In fact, the union representing CRA employees is so far behind, they're still holding out to keep severance pay.  TB was trying to tweak the length of any negotiated settlement to get them in synch with the rest of the PS, so that TB could lump in the proposed changes to sick leave with their union along with every other union that's in negotiations now.

I think most of the unions have given up at this point; they're waiting for a change in government before trying to negotiate anything because, well...the government doesn't want to negotiate.  The government has already decided the changes to sick leave are a done deal, and locking your desired end result in stone means there's no negotiation to be had.

 

[MilEME09]

Well, part of me thinks that if your average Formation Commander is no longer allowed to authorize TD, conferences, or a cup of coffee without calling up a Level 1 Commander, then maybe what we should have is a collection of small formations and units reporting directly to their respective environmental HQ.

Put RCAF HQ where it's allowed seemed to want to be... Winnipeg.. Amalgamate CAS, 1 Air Div and 2 Air Div into one mega HQ. If that's too big a headquarters, beef up the Wings. But I'm not convinced that the intermediate HQ is of much value.

Put RCN HQ in Halifax. When the West Coast ships are afloat, they are commanded by their task groups and by CJOC. When ashore, they report to Navy HQ. We need a Garrison Esquimalt base unit to plow the snow (that's a BC joke, of course) but do we really need a MARPAC to command units in force generation? Don't the same communication devices that connect them to the ops room at MARPAC also connect them to the ops room in MARLANT? Do we need two naval 2-star HQ and a naval 3-star HQ?

Certainly an Army Div commander doesn't seem to have much actual power anymore to spend money, manage careers or even conduct discipline (Bde Commanders conduct summary trials of warrants and officers that have a flexible approach to firearms safety, everything else seems to be done by the centre). Does the Div HQ bring any value added to force generation? Or can we put sufficiently robust brigades in direct contact with Army HQ?

How about the massive level of Redundancy with 1 Div being under CJOC which is technically under NDHQ, some one tell me what real purpose NDHQ has? merge CJOC to be a internal element of NDHQ, not its own HQ. On top of that all HQ's could use a down sizing to probably half what they actually have. The question is how many positions are needed vs wanted?

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

What's the change in sick leave?

 

[Occam]

What's the change in sick leave?

The government wants to wipe out all accumulated sick leave for the Public Service, and replace it with 5 sick days per year (non-accumulating).  If you were injured, you would then go on a 7-day waiting period with no pay, then go on 26 weeks of short term disability (4 weeks at 100% pay, remainder at 70% pay)...then LTD kicks in.

 

[McG]

What's the change in sick leave?

Changes to civilian pay and benefits, including sick leave, have been discussed in another thread: http://army.ca/forums/threads/110999/post-1285229.html#msg1285229

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Thanks. Coles notes version provide works.

 

[Monsoon]

How about the massive level of Redundancy with 1 Div being under CJOC which is technically under NDHQ, some one tell me what real purpose NDHQ has? merge CJOC to be a internal element of NDHQ, not its own HQ. On top of that all HQ's could use a down sizing to probably half what they actually have. The question is how many positions are needed vs wanted?

NDHQ - Strat-level and administrative HQ
CJOC - Static operational-level joint (land, air, maritime) HQ commanding multiple missions
1CD - Deployable operational-level land-heavy HQ capable of commanding a single mission

The HQs that are mostly surplus are the domestic RJTFs. Even the administrative support they provide (which is the bigger part of their actual deliverable) could be better provided by a lighter admin-only footprint.

 

[MilEME09]

Joint Task Force North comes to mind, merge it with 3 Div since it covers most of the territories any way.

 

[Monsoon]

Joint Task Force North comes to mind, merge it with 3 Div since it covers most of the territories any way.

Of the six RJTFs, JTFN is probably the only one punching close to its weight: unless things have considerably changed very recently, the staff is only about 15 guys commanded by a Col. There has to be some minimal admin support to the Ranger programme, periodic arctic exercises and CAAW arctic courses, and that's probably a fair staff size.

Now why 5 Div, which isn't even an RJTF HQ (MARLANT is) and who has three quarters of its Reg F units answering to other commanders (CADTC and CJOC, respectively) requires a similar HQ structure as 2 Div/JTFE is another question...

 

[blacktriangle]

Anyway, somebody has run the numbers and concluded that three percent growth starting in two years will not come close to covering the costs of sustaining the force.

Maybe it's time we stop pretending that we can maintain the force we have.

 

[upandatom]

Maybe it's time we stop pretending that we can maintain the force we have.

I don't think anyone is pretending they can.
Its realistic to stop penny pinching and stop pretending we can survive today's hostile environment with our land mass and a small(er) military.

Realistically, we cant protect our oceans with what we have, nor deploy fast enough to prevent an assault on any of our shores. We will always have to rely on the American might to supplement our home defence because its also in their best interest.

 

[CougarKing]

When I used to work for DFAIT/DFATD, I was surprised to find out that one is actually rewarded for spending more than the alloted budget and chastised for spending less than the alloted budget...don't tell me this practice is more widespread throughout the public service?  ??? ???

Defense-Aerospace

Canada’s Effort to Boost Defense Spending May Be Too Little, Too Late
(Source: Forecast International; posted on April 30, 2015)

Ottawa has announced a plan to provide the military with sustained annual budget growth of three percent beginning in 2017, providing a cumulative CAD11.8 billion in additional spending through 2026.

Previously, the government had planned budget growth of around two percent per year during that time. Under the revised plan, the defense budget will have increased by CAD2.3 billion by 2026, according to budget documents. The move is an attempt to offset recent cuts shouldered by the military as the government slashed expenditures to eliminate the deficit.

(...SNIPPED)

Ironically, the recent decline in defense spending results from a combination of budget cuts and the military’s inability to spend all of its allocated resources. Just as with Canada First, there is no guarantee that the military will see the extra money in the latest budget. The plan spans multiple elections, and future governments may have different priorities. Another economic slowdown could also derail any projected spending increases.

(...SNIPPED)

For now, the acquisition funding deferral means Canada’s defense budget will still decline between 2016 and 2017 before the new growth rates are set to kick in. The latest government estimates show defense spending of CAD18.9 billion in 2015, CAD19.2 billion in 2016, and CAD18.7 billion in 2017.

The scope of ongoing military operations is another uncertainty that will impact military spending. Canada recently expanded its six-month operation against ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) by one year. The new budget plan will provide up to CAD360.3 million to support this extension, plus another CAD7.1 million to help train Ukrainian security forces.

(...SNIPPED)

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Managers in my department are expected to come in very close to their budgets, thankfully this department does try to get good budget information out early and does quarterly budget forecasts and meetings to keep things on track or to ID shortfalls and unexpected expenses. Far better than the C****** F*** that was DFO finances

 

[MarkOttawa]

Very realistic Policy Update by Dave Perry of CDFAI:

Defence Budget 2015: A Long-Term Funding Increase…Maybe

Introduction

The 2015 Budget has provided the Department of National Defence (DND) with a combination of short-term fiscal relief for budget pressures related to expeditionary operations and the promise of modest budget increases in the future. The Budget immediately provides the military incremental funding to cover the costs of operations in Iraq and Syria, as well as the training mission in Ukraine. It also contains a small increase to support improvements to the physical security of Canadian military installations. Over the long term, it pledges to progressively increase the defence budget by increasing its rate of escalation from two per cent a year to three per cent annually starting in 2017/2018.

The short-term operational funding is much needed, given the cuts to the defence budget in recent years which have targeted DND’s operating funds. The long-term increase would eventually reverse the impact of deficit reduction at DND, if left intact long enough, but the likelihood of that occurring is low...
http://www.cdfai.org/defence_budget_2015

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Edward Campbell]

David Akin, chief of the Sun News' Parliamentary Bureau, suggests, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Ottawa Sun that defence spending (the defence budget) should be a topic for debate in the 2015 election campaign:

http://www.ottawasun.com/2015/05/18/make-canadas-woeful-defence-spending-record-an-election-issue

Make Canada's woeful defence spending record an election issue

BY DAVID AKIN, PARLIAMENTARY BUREAU CHIEF

FIRST POSTED: MONDAY, MAY 18, 2015

OTTAWA - Stephen Harper’s Conservatives like to boast about their commitment to Canada’s military, that they restored the Canadian Forces after the “decade of darkness” under Jean Chretien’s Liberals.

Maybe.

Things in the military certainly improved when Harper took over in 2006 but now, nine years and tens of billions of dollars later, it’s an arguable point that Ottawa is putting its money where its mouth is when it comes to military spending.

As Liberal MP Joyce Murray noted when Defence Minister Jason Kenney appeared before the House of Commons defence committee last week, spending on defence, as measured by a percentage of the size of Canada’s economy or gross domestic product (GDP), will bottom in a few years under the Conservatives at 0.89%, the lowest level of defence spending by any federal government since the 1930s.

“That would be comical if it wasn't so disappointing and disrespectful to the Canadian Armed Forces,” Murray said.

I agree with Murray.

Canada and all of its NATO allies must do what they have agreed to do at any number of NATO summits and raise defence spending to 2% of GDP.

But do you know when Canada last spent 2% of its GDP on defence? You might be surprised: It was the government of Pierre Trudeau in 1971-72. We’ve never been above 2% since and the trend line now, under the Conservatives, is going in the wrong direction.

Defence spending in Harper’s first budget in the spring of 2006 totalled 1.1% of GDP. For the fiscal year that ended in March 2014, defence spending was 1% of GDP. Heck, even in the worst years of the Jean Chretien era, when Chretien was struggling with mountains of red ink, defence spending was 0.9% of GDP.

But unfortunately for those who are rightly concerned that we are starving the Canadian Forces of the personnel and materiel they need to protect our vast country, it’s not clear if the Liberals are ready to step up and increase spending on the Canadian Forces.

I asked Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau last week what we might expect from his party’s platform on military spending, but his answer was vague and unhelpful. That’s not surprising. In an election year, each party will put details about defence spending into their platform and they will want to make sure the numbers add up.

I’m prepared to wait to see what the Liberals have to offer. It was Wilfrid Laurier, after all, who went down to defeat in 1911 largely on the promise he would spend a fortune to build a Canadian navy rather than do what Robert Borden’s Conservatives wanted to do which was to simply send a cheque to let Great Britain build battleships and Canada would hope for the best.

And I’ve seen no evidence we can count on Thomas Mulcair’s New Democrats to champion increased defence spending.

In the meantime, Canada now ranks 22nd among NATO’s 28 countries when it comes to military spending. Our peers are Latvia, Belgium and Spain.

Our southern neighbour, the U.S., will spend 3.8% of its GDP on defence. Our northern neighbour, Russia, will spend 4.2%.

Meanwhile, our navy no longer has a ship that can refuel our frigates at sea. Search-and-rescue missions on our West Coast rely on planes built in the 1960s. The CF-18 fighter planes — now bombing ISIS targets in Iraq and Syria — were acquired in the 1980s. We’ve been trying to replace our Sea King helicopters since 1983. And don’t even get me started on new trucks for the army.

The Harper government promised a deep-sea naval port in the high Arctic. And ships that could get through Arctic ice in any conditions. We’re still waiting.

It was a big deal when it was announced earlier this year that we had the money to replace 6,500 rifles used by the Canadian Rangers, the largely aboriginal force that acts as Canada’s eyes and ears north of the 49th parallel.

Do you know how old the Rangers’ Lee-Enfield rifles are that we’re finally replacing? We bought them in 1947!

This election season, let’s make this an issue. We need a plan to boost defence spending. Which party will take our defence needs seriously?

I couldn't agree more!

 

[dimsum]

David Akin, chief of the Sun News' Parliamentary Bureau, suggests, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Ottawa Sun that defence spending (the defence budget) should be a topic for debate in the 2015 election campaign:

http://www.ottawasun.com/2015/05/18/make-canadas-woeful-defence-spending-record-an-election-issue

I couldn't agree more!

I'm sure all of us on this forum would agree, but how would this actually become an election issue?  Each party who champions it (or attacks the Tories about it) will surely get smashed on its own record of support (or not) for Defence.  Potentially the best party to do it are the Tories, but it doesn't look like they're willing.

 

[jollyjacktar]

If you mean smashed by their handling of it, then yes, the Tories would get a black eye or two.  They've been like a fart.  Mostly noise but no substance.  The others don't impress me much either for that matter.

 

[Ostrozac]

Defence is really very expensive, the Canadian model of defence makes it worse (because we insist on first-class high-tech equipment and also want regional industrial benefits, so in general we overpay for firepower and rarely get a deal), and Canadians hate both deficits and taxes.

Add into the mix governments that are loath to make hard decisions about cutting capabilities (either army, navy or air force) in order to reassign resources  because 1) they might turn out to be wrong 2) the capability being cut will have political influence that will be applied to reversing the cut and 3) an honest appraisal of our defence needs probably shows that we need a better-funded balance of army, navy and air force capabilities.

 

[Edward Campbell]

As I keep repeating, I'm a Conservative Party member and a major financial contributor to the Party (I get a nice letter and a cheap pin every year to tell me I'm in the "Leaders' Circle," whatever that might be ~ I can't help but think circle jerk, but ...) and I will have no problem asking my CPC candidate where (s)he and his/her party stand on defence and what their plan is to address the serious financial shortfall. I will ask the same questiuons of the Liberals ... I'll go easy on the NDP because their policy will be even deeper cuts, kumbaya, and, somehow or other, jobs for unionized shipyard workers in Quebec.


Edit: spelling  :-[