The Defence Budget [superthread]

[Colin Parkinson]

Continuous self-improvement or doing more with less is the mantra that I've heard since I've joined years ago.  It gets quickly tiresome when I am given no tools, no support to do this and yet they still demand me to cut positions, reduce my budget without cutting my responsibilities.  Perhaps it was better in the old days, but hey I was there in the old days too and its still the same.
Not whining but I am frustrated.

Cheers

While adding more process and asking why you didn't follow the current processes, which keeps you from doing your primary task.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>"Defence has got this bizarre problem that it never had before 2006 where they can't use all its money"

I've noticed an increasing volume of criticisms couched in terms of "...since 2006" or "...since 2007".  I call bullsh!t across the board unless someone cites figures going at least another 10 years back to give some context.  (I've looked twice at numbers I knew I could easily find on government websites and verified that the trends in question not only existed prior to the swearing in of Harper's first government, but were "worse" in terms of what the author/speaker claimed to hold dear.)

 

[Good2Golf]

>"Defence has got this bizarre problem that it never had before 2006 where they can't use all its money"

I've noticed an increasing volume of criticisms couched in terms of "...since 2006" or "...since 2007".  I call bullsh!t across the board unless someone cites figures going at least another 10 years back to give some context.  (I've looked twice at numbers I knew I could easily find on government websites and verified that the trends in question not only existed prior to the swearing in of Harper's first government, but were "worse" in terms of what the author/speaker claimed to hold dear.)

:goodpost:

I think that a search through publically-available data will confirm that even while the notable/significant/drastic/[insert adjective of choice] cuts of the 90s (a.k.a. Decade of Darkness) were being instituted, there was still money being returned at the end of sequential Fiscal Years.  Some will say it's the nature of the beast, working in a world where the organization is not permitted to conduct sufficient over programming such that a shortfall of an over programmed budget actually equates to the allocated funding.  It's a Financial Administration Act - Section 32 thing.

:2c:

G2G

 

[Kirkhill]

If it is "the nature of the beast" then can that be factored in to the budget?  Which number do the politicians think is affordable?  That which is budgeted or that which is spent?  Because if the answer is that the budget is considered affordable but the budget is never achieved then perhaps the argument could be made that the budget could/should be increased in 0&M and the Capital Allowance held constant.  The number dollars flowing out of the Treasury each year would be the same as the current budget.  In other words - plan to return 1 to 2 BCAD to the Treasury every year.

 

[Good2Golf]

If it is "the nature of the beast" then can that be factored in to the budget?  Which number do the politicians think is affordable?  That which is budgeted or that which is spent?  Because if the answer is that the budget is considered affordable but the budget is never achieved then perhaps the argument could be made that the budget could/should be increased in 0&M and the Capital Allowance held constant.  The number dollars flowing out of the Treasury each year would be the same as the current budget.  In other words - plan to return 1 to 2 BCAD to the Treasury every year.

FAA Sect. 32 does not permit that.  Activities can only be committed from within available, authorized resources in that FY.  That makes governmental overprogramming difficult, if not actually counter to Federal legislation...some would call doing otherwise 'breaking the law.'

Control of commitments [link]

32. (1) No contract or other arrangement providing for a payment shall be entered into with respect to any program for which there is an appropriation by Parliament or an item included in estimates then before the House of Commons to which the payment will be charged unless there is a sufficient unencumbered balance available out of the appropriation or item to discharge any debt that, under the contract or other arrangement, will be incurred during the fiscal year in which the contract or other arrangement is entered into.

Marginal note:Record of commitments

(2) The deputy head or other person charged with the administration of a program for which there is an appropriation by Parliament or an item included in estimates then before the House of Commons shall, as the Treasury Board may prescribe, establish procedures and maintain records respecting the control of financial commitments chargeable to each appropriation or item.

R.S., 1985, c. F-11, s. 32;
1999, c. 31, s. 107(F).

 

[Kirkhill]

FAA Sect. 32 does not permit that.  Activities can only be committed from within available, authorized resources in that FY.  That makes governmental overprogramming difficult, if not actually counter to Federal legislation...some would call doing otherwise 'breaking the law.'

Creativity.  Not limited to artists.

There must be a creative accountant or two out there somewhere....... ;D

 

[CountDC]

there are a few of those in jail .........

 

[CountDC]

interesting stuff.

In my short stint in Ottawa and even shorter stint in Adm(Fin) one of the laughed at points was when people were upset that the military budget was supposedly to be cut by $2b.  It was laughed at as for as long as anyone I worked with could remember DND had been returning $2b unspent every year so the cut really had no impact. 

Now if the government and DND had their @@@@ together it would have been different.

 

[dapaterson]

interesting stuff.

In my short stint in Ottawa and even shorter stint in Adm(Fin) one of the laughed at points was when people were upset that the military budget was supposedly to be cut by $2b.  It was laughed at as for as long as anyone I worked with could remember DND had been returning $2b unspent every year so the cut really had no impact. 

Now if the government and DND had their @@@@ together it would have been different.

Except much of the unspent funding was vote 5, and the reductions were to vote 1.  Very different beasts.

 

[Remius]

Except much of the unspent funding was vote 5, and the reductions were to vote 1.  Very different beasts.

I can attest to that.  and there has been an impact.

 

[Kirkhill]

there are a few of those in jail .........

WRT creative accountants


I enjoy poetry.  Not blank verse - but a tale told well while the author confines themselves to structure imposed by iambic pentameter, haiku or even limerick.

 

[srayne]

With the release of a new report from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and the Rideau Institute on Canada’s defense strategy, the nation is once again left without a coherent approach on how to move forward with respect to its military.

This isn’t a new phenomenon. Canada’s military has been in shambles for the last several decades, due entirely to the failure of any portion of the political spectrum to develop coherent policy — or even to analyze historical data accurately, which would be a good start.

Read more at: http://www.thecommunique.net/opinion/canada-has-long-been-a-nato-laggard/

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Several decades? Hell we are into our 3rd century of muddled policy and planning

 

[Underway]

With the release of a new report from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and the Rideau Institute on Canada’s defense strategy, the nation is once again left without a coherent approach on how to move forward with respect to its military.

This isn’t a new phenomenon. Canada’s military has been in shambles for the last several decades, due entirely to the failure of any portion of the political spectrum to develop coherent policy — or even to analyze historical data accurately, which would be a good start.

Read more at: http://www.thecommunique.net/opinion/canada-has-long-been-a-nato-laggard/

Once again?  A bit melodramatic since the Rideau Institute and the CCFA are just a think tanks.  They have no power and don't set policy.  Other than their media hit this report will be forgotten in 3...2...1

 

[MarkOttawa]

The Rideau Institute is no think tank--it openly says it is an advocacy group--no shoot (they don't want the CAF to):
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2013/04/23/mark-collins-government-funded-peaceniks-ceasefire-ca-and-the-rideau-institute-or/

Yet our media--at least until pretty recently, Steve Staples seems to have been occluded--usually call it a think tank.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Well, the funny thing is that the objectives of Canada's National Defence have long been clearly stated, in the 1964 White Paper on Defence:

    "The objectives of Canadian defence policy cannot be disassociated from foreign policy, are to preserve the peace by supporting collective defence measures to deter military aggression; to support Canadian foreign policy including that arising out of our participation in international organizations, and to provide for the protection and surveillance of our territory, our air-space and our coastal waters."

These objectives were correct then (not all of the White Paper was bad) and they still are today. Small caveat: at that time in our history, Canada's foreign policy was - quite properly - guided by Canada's interests, not the late Lib governments mamby-pamby "values" as foreign policy, nor the current Cons "foreign policy is only for commercial matters" foreign policy.

Note here that IMHO, the objectives are stated in reverse order of importance: I believe that objective number one is Protection of our territory. It is a no fail mission and we must be able to provide for it by ourselves at all time. The second is our participation in those international organization we have elected to join: Can-US Joint Permanent Defence Board, NORAD, NATO, SEATO at the time, UN. Finally, and only then, the collective measure of defence to deter aggression, such as our participation in Gulf War one, Korea before, Afghanistan, etc.

These objectives, however were never properly translated into a coherent set of policies that would achieve the said stated objectives. The latest Paper of the Cons came close in its title to indicate the proper policies (Canada First) but then went on to be nothing more than a shopping list for heavy materiel.

No government has come up since 1964 with policies that address, correctly and simultaneously all four aspects required of a proper and successful defence policy, which must all be addressed in proper proportion to achieve their stated aim:

* Materiel: Serviceable materiel, effective in the field for the times and in sufficient quantities to fully equip available forces and then some;

* Manpower: Forces sufficiently trained and in sufficient number for all the tasks at hand.

* Organisation: Competent leadership and structures to ensure the coordinated and effective deployment of the forces and materiel together with their support in the field.

* Intelligence: Sufficient assets and organization of the information to provide any deployed forces with the information required to maximize its chances of success.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Fixed your link for you. 


Defence Spending

There is a fair bit of truth there....

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

There is a fair bit of truth there....

But it is still polically biased.

These sentences of Byers report, for instance, give me great pause:

“The mission should define the equipment that we choose to acquire, rather than the equipment defining the mission,” said Michael Byers, a professor at UBC who wrote the study.

“But unfortunately we’re in a situation today — because of nine years of incompetence — where the equipment is starting to define the mission.”

The first sentence (the set-up) states quite correctly the process that should be followed in any acquisition program. The second one, however, implies that this was done by the (liberal) government before Harper;'s conservatives took over, which we all know to be complete baloney. They were no better at setting equipment purchase priorities right (and in fact can be said to have been worse because, lets face it, they did not acquire much in terms of materiel in their years in government).

 

[stealthylizard]

By the time the equipment is acquired, the mission is over. That's the problem I see with "let the mission dictate the acquisition of equipment."  Or is that the essence of it?  If you don't have the equipment for a mission, the military can't be used for any missions, which results in cost savings.

 

[PuckChaser]

We also end up with a bunch of 1-off stuff that gets trashed or mothballed post mission anyways, as it's useless for any other mission.