The Defence Budget [superthread]

[Good2Golf]

Whether it was $1.4 or 2B  is sort of irrelevant to the actual point of why the money should be moved.

Justification for re-profile (why the money should be moved) was not why I asked you the question; I do not actually disagree with the concept of reprofiling investment cash from the accrual envelope of the fiscal framework.  I was looking for factual provision of information related to magnitude.  You quoted a media article within which the authors did not present their references to an assertion.  Their assertion appears to be either inaccurate, or included other factors not immediately apparent to readers from the content of their article. 

I presented references to actual Governmental data that shows different figures than the article you used as a reference.  David Perry's reference of the same figures that I referred to from actual Government sources (TB data of the Main Estimates) give me greater faith in Mr. Perry's journalistic craft than that of Mssrs. Fekete and Berthaume.

So you are saying that accuracy of the figures, give or take a fraction of a billion dollars, isn't important? 

Regards
G2G

*edit - spelling

 

[TCM621]

I'd say it takes more than 5 months to properly fix a system.  That said, what are they going to use the money for?  We're supposed to be buying Canadian Surface Combatants and F-35s right now.  Those buys are 5 - 10 years off.  They money needs to be moved.

How about on people and training? We are chronicly short staffed and the staff we do have are often short on experience relative to their responsibilities.

Or how about we stop fucking over troops financially by stripping every benefit possible? You force a private or corporal to live away from his family then you force him to pay 500 plus dollars for rations. Or you force someone to move and take an 80 grand loss on a house,  and spend 10 times that fighting to ensure he doesn't get benefits he is entitled to.

Or how about we buy some spare parts for the ancient aircraft we fly?

I could spend that 1.4 Billion in an afternoon if they let me without buying anything we don't need.

 

[Kirkhill]

Replacing boots already in the system, replacing broken struts on aircraft ... those come out of the operations and maintenance budget.

Buying new planes and ships.... those come out of the capital budget.

In the days before accrual, as I understand it, both operations and maintenance came out of the same cash allowance managed by the DND. 

On the plus side, again from what I understand, that meant that if money was not spent on buying a new ship then it could be reallocated and spent on new boots.

On the minus side, when the money was spent buying new boots this year, it meant that that money was not available next year when the ship was ready to be bought. And so the ship wasn't bought although boots were available.

Now, it seems, you have neither ships nor boots.  And that is not all due just to the lack of money.

 

[Cloud Cover]

This is just a wild assed guess, but I think (hope) that Morneau simply refused to commit dollars to big ticket projects that are a mess, or so far behind that the money would be wasted anyway. There are a lot of off the record notes in the media that finance will top off certain defence budget items if actually needed while the government figures out how to proceed on the big items. I am hopeful that means that DND needs to start spending money more wisely before asking for more, but also that if there is good justification, then extra money will be allocated during the FY.  So maybe things things like boots and parts etc will be available, but only time will tell. I think the government really does need time to look at the mess and figure a way forward, goodness knows things couldn't be much more backwards.

 

[jmt18325]

So you are saying that accuracy of the figures, give or take a fraction of a billion dollars, isn't important? 

That's exactly what I'm saying.  In this case, the fact that DND has to keep returning billions to the treasury is the most important thing.  The exact number of billions is less important to the point.

 

[jmt18325]

I appreciate your acknowledgement that some elements of the preceding government were not entirely at odds with your perception of a liberal democracy.

I voted for the previous government twice, and supported them wholeheartedly until about 2012.  From there, my support was more conditional.

 

[Kirkhill]

I voted for the previous government twice, and supported them wholeheartedly until about 2012.  From there, my support was more conditional.

Another error on my part.

 

[Good2Golf]

That's exactly what I'm saying.  In this case, the fact that DND has to keep returning billions to the treasury is the most important thing.  The exact number of billions is less important to the point.

I would offer that both accuracy and resolution of deficiencies is required, especially where it comes to taxpayers' money.

As I said earlier, I agree fundamentally that re-profiling where necessary, is an appropriate response.  However, it should be a secondary action after primary management and optimization of an acquisition process has occurred, and I think that no one party holds a monopoly on failing to do so in the past.

I will classify this move by the new Government as a "soft win" in that it appears to be making a pragmatic move to profile DND's accrual envelope within the fiscal framework "realistically."  What I was looking for, however, was a firmer commitment to deliberate action on the a number of major capital projects, CSC and F-18 replacement amongst them.  The re-profile and lack of specific wording appears, for all intents and purposes, as a push beyond the next election.  Should I be faulted for interpreting this is as their substantively avoiding the issue?  To reprofile funds is one thing; to be silent on major programs is another.

Regards
G2G

 

[jmt18325]

What I was looking for, however, was a firmer commitment to deliberate action on the a number of major capital projects, CSC and F-18 replacement amongst them.  The re-profile and lack of specific wording appears, for all intents and purposes, as a push beyond the next election.

I don't think you'll hear anything about that until after the defence review is complete.  That said, there are specific actions that will, apparently, be in front of cabinet very soon in regards to the CSC.  We know they've already gone ahead with specific actions related to the JSS and OOSV, so I'm optimistic.

 

[Kirkhill]

My version of the challenge for the CAF: How to manage the swings in direction that result from governments that reflect those people of Canada that see the Costa Rican constabulary as the model to emulate and those that see the model as being more along the lines of the Royal Marines, the Foreign Legion or the USMC.

And where, exactly, does this Prime Minister see himself on that spectrum?

 

[cavalryman]

And where, exactly, does this Prime Minister see himself on that spectrum?

Nowhere.  If it's not a selfie, he can't see himself.

 

[The Bread Guy]

My version of the challenge for the CAF: How to manage the swings in direction that result from governments that reflect those people of Canada that see the Costa Rican constabulary as the model to emulate and those that see the model as being more along the lines of the Royal Marines, the Foreign Legion or the USMC.

I'm not confident most Canadians have thought to this level of detail about the question "how much military does Canada need and what do you think it should be able to do?"

Although that, or a variation on that theme, might be an interesting polling question as part of the public consultation leading up to the defence review ...

 

[OldSolduer]

I'm not confident most Canadians have thought to this level of detail about the question "how much military does Canada need and what do you think it should be able to do?"

Although that, or a variation on that theme, might be an interesting polling question as part of the public consultation leading up to the defence review ...

Most Canadians are ignorant of our military and military history. Their idea of the military is the peacekeeping myth that perpetuates the idea all we need is a few lightly armed troops.
Afghanistan has been convenient forgotten as has Korea.

If you asked the average Canadian some would say "I didn't know we had an army..."

 

[dimsum]

Most Canadians are ignorant of our military and military history. Their idea of the military is the peacekeeping myth that perpetuates the idea all we need is a few lightly armed troops.
Afghanistan has been convenient forgotten as has Korea.

If you asked the average Canadian some would say "I didn't know we had an army..."

Recently (the past year or so), I've had people living in Victoria, BC tell me they had no idea there was a major navy base within a 15-minute drive of downtown.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

http://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=837734&playlistId=1.2835220&binId=1.810401&playlistPageNum=1&binPageNum=1

 

[Jed]

http://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=837734&playlistId=1.2835220&binId=1.810401&playlistPageNum=1&binPageNum=1

That was quite a load of double speak.  I wonder if the ABC folks are having second thoughts? Probably not ... that will take another decade or so of introspection.

 

[Harris]

"we remain committed to our commitments." - What the heck does that mean?

 

[cavalryman]

"we remain committed to our commitments." - What the heck does that mean?

The same thing as "we're entitled to our entitlements"?  >

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Same as

Agree to disagree

  ;D

 

[The Bread Guy]

I wonder if the ABC folks are having second thoughts? Probably not ... that will take another decade or so of introspection.

Well, the Liberals can always commit to doing what the last government did for about a decade - that'll sure make things move forward, no?  >