# Defence Infrastructure Failing for Lack of Investment



## McG (2 Oct 2016)

So here is what spending only 1% of GDP gets for defence.  Guess we must wait and see what the new Real Property Operations Units are able to do to for improvement, but I will remain skeptical until they show they can make a difference on the same little old budget.



> *Canada's military bases falling apart due to lack of funding: National Defence audit*
> Lee Berthiaume, The Canadian Press
> CTV News
> 02 Oct 2016
> ...


http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/canada-s-military-bases-falling-apart-due-to-lack-of-funding-national-defence-audit-1.3098400


----------



## PuckChaser (2 Oct 2016)

Condition wasn't tracked for 81% of the properties? I feel like that's in someone's job description and either they're too busy or no one is checking to see if they're actually doing their job properly.

I'm also a big fan of the national inventory of PSPC properties that contain asbestos.... that didn't include a single DND building outside of the NCR. I guess the exposed and flaking asbestos-wrapped pipes in my old office were a figment of my imagination.


----------



## George Wallace (2 Oct 2016)

For the last four decades people have been saying this, only to see band-aid solutions or privatization of various organizations responsible for upkeep of properties.  The Government has gone on the "Cheap" for longer than anyone here can remember; and we have some very senior members.


----------



## jollyjacktar (2 Oct 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> For the last four decades people have been saying this, only to see band-aid solutions or privatization of various organizations responsible for upkeep of properties.  The Government has gone on the "Cheap" for longer than anyone here can remember; and we have some very senior members.



Longer than that, even.  I remember my dad saying about the buildings that were built during the second war, that they were only intended and designed to be used for 5 years and if they were needed longer than that, they were to be pulled down and replaced with more permanent structures.  Here it is almost 80 years later and many of these buildings still survive, although they are starting to go as the Drill Shed and Sea Division buildings in Halifax did.  The costs of replacing all that infrastructure was then (post 1945 onwards), as it is today, just so bloody expensive to contemplate all at once.


----------



## donaldk (2 Oct 2016)

I read the above article as basically confirmation that ADM(IE) has nearly created the SSC of the infrastructure world (all we would need is for AME(IE) itself to loose its mandate and PSPC take over in a mega-fail fashion).  Now if CRS/OAG can rip their books open and check into their individual base RPOS detachments operating budgets and DND vehicle allotments (especially the TD/Minor Travel).

... now if I could get my local RPOS section off their ass to get a sink installed and not passed around the phone mill (private office tower, PSPC lease, my directorate has $$$ set aside... would love it if I could go directly to PSPC).


----------



## OldSolduer (2 Oct 2016)

Infrastructure and the maintenance of it is not "sexy" and it's expensive if preventative maintenance isn't performed.
Small example - the big washrooms in Minto Armories have been n/s for a few years. Every Div Comd that toured the building knew about because I told them about it. The project has been started but what should take a month....is still not complete.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (3 Oct 2016)

back in the day it was the Construction Engineers that did a lot of the basic repair and upkeep, I guess that went by the wayside?


----------



## dapaterson (3 Oct 2016)

"You hear about the new CE truck? It sleeps six."


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (3 Oct 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> back in the day it was the Construction Engineers that did a lot of the basic repair and upkeep, I guess that went by the wayside?



Probably on the spurious logic imposed on governments everywhere in recent decades: "They are doing work that is civilian in nature, can be done by properly 'carded' union members of a trade union and some of them are unemployed so you are depriving them of valuable work if you do it in-house with "untrained" personnel".

The same dubious logic the now prevents parents from holding a "chore" day before the beginning of the year to clean up all the lockers, playgrounds and possibly give a fresh coat of paint at their children's school.


----------



## dapaterson (3 Oct 2016)

In fact, the underlying logic is that military personnel are more expensive than civilian personnel and are limited in number by governmental direction, so therefore employing military personnel in non-core roles should be avoided, except where there is a need for "ship to shore" ratio.  If a function is performed entirely in a domestic environment with no operational role, it should not be done by military personnel.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Oct 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> In fact, the underlying logic is that military personnel are more expensive than civilian personnel and are limited in number by governmental direction, so therefore employing military personnel in non-core roles should be avoided, except where there is a need for "ship to shore" ratio.  _If a function is performed entirely in a domestic environment with no operational role, it should not be done by military personnel._




And I agree, entirely, in principle ... which is why I have advocated, for years, that:

1. The Communications and Electronics Branch, just for one example, should be chopped in half: one half should be better trained to provide C2 systems in operations and the other half should be sent to _Bell_, _Telus_, _Intelsat_, etc, who can provide most (almost all) of the strategic communications system, including being cleared to hold and "load" crypto and including providing civilian maned terminals in operational theatres; and

2. The Military Police Branch, for another example, should be split into a military force charged with and properly trained for operational area traffic control, POW handling and base (including IT facility) security, and a civilian police force ~ maybe the RCMP ~ that would do routine, day-to-day, "police" work, including on base traffic policing and criminal investigation.

Civilians are not "bad," and, in fact, they are, generally, very "able." They have to be properly paid, well managed (which means that contracts have to be drafted properly and administered fairly and consistently) and treated with a modicum of respect.


----------



## OldSolduer (3 Oct 2016)

Once again Mr. Campbell has nailed it.

Mil points in bound sir!


----------



## McG (3 Oct 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> back in the day it was the Construction Engineers that did a lot of the basic repair and upkeep, I guess that went by the wayside?


The positions do not exist to do much of the direct maintenance any more (either by military or PS).  There is still some capacity, but many RPO Dets are largely services contracting staff.



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> In fact, the underlying logic is that military personnel are more expensive than civilian personnel and are limited in number by governmental direction, so therefore employing military personnel in non-core roles should be avoided, except where there is a need for "ship to shore" ratio.  If a function is performed entirely in a domestic environment with no operational role, it should not be done by military personnel.


And the RPOUs took several engineers out of Div Engr shops (where they also worried about PRes & Ref F CERs, Div Engr Ress Tps, and Engr support to DOMOPS) to put them into jobs solely focused on domestic infrastructure and environment.  I suspect a lot of these positions could now be civilianized.


----------



## George Wallace (3 Oct 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> "You hear about the new CE truck? It sleeps six."



Times have changed.  It used to be "It is yellow and it sleeps six."  Those days are long gone.  It could be any colour and hide more easily in a crowd.


----------



## quadrapiper (3 Oct 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> In fact, the underlying logic is that military personnel are more expensive than civilian personnel and are limited in number by governmental direction, so therefore employing military personnel in non-core roles should be avoided, except where there is a need for "ship to shore" ratio.  If a function is performed entirely in a domestic environment with no operational role, it should not be done by military personnel.


Assume there's no perceived need for a readily-accessible pool of uniformed construction pers lest "we" end up setting up a long-term presence abroad?


----------



## dapaterson (3 Oct 2016)

That factors into plans as well. But how much is required?  And with a finite limit of the size of the CAF, should we take risk in trades with easily transferable skillsets,  or those that are unique to the military?


----------



## YZT580 (3 Oct 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> 2. The Military Police Branch, for another example, should be split into a military force charged with and properly trained for operational area traffic control, POW handling and base (including IT facility) security, and a civilian police force ~ maybe the RCMP ~ that would do routine, day-to-day, "police" work, including on base traffic policing and criminal investigation.



Except that RCMP officers are in a higher salary bracket and since the employer is the same, it is taking potential man years away from the military.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (3 Oct 2016)

Not to mention OT and you are at the mercy of the whims of RCMP management for staff, training.


----------



## Lightguns (4 Oct 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> 2. The Military Police Branch, for another example, should be split into a military force charged with and properly trained for operational area traffic control, POW handling and base (including IT facility) security, and a civilian police force ~ maybe the RCMP ~ that would do routine, day-to-day, "police" work, including on base traffic policing and criminal investigation.



RCMP manning varies across Canada from 13%  to 50% below staffing levels


----------

