# The Defence Budget [superthread]



## Edward Campbell

Our friends at the Polaris Institute made a presentation to the Commons Standing Committee on Finance during its ongoing Pre-budget Consultations - http://www.parl.gc.ca/committee/CommitteePublication.aspx?SourceId=125567 

This - http://www.polarisinstitute.org/pubs/neverenough.pdf - I believe is their submission.

It is well prepared, factual and incredibly biased against Gen. Hillier's plans.

The Polaris Institute has, carefully and, I fear, accurately, targeted several key Liberal _sub-cultures_ including the unreconstructed anti-capitalist Trudeauites from the '70s, the Carolyn Parrish wing of knee-jerk anti-Americans, the UN _über alles_ Chrétienistas, and the Health care _über alles_ Martinis (the late Paul Martin Sr was, actually, the architect of the modern Canadian nanny state and PM PM is not keen on tampering with his father's legacy).

The argument begins with a firm recommendation:



> The Government of Canada should conduct a full, public review of Canadian defence policy and freeze further spending increases pending the outcome of that review.



It ends with an assertion that:



> If ... Canada's views of the best means-military and non-military-to deal with the problem of terrorism and to create a more secure world differ from those of that [George W. Bush] administration, then it is essential that Canada seek a role for its armed forces that goes beyond simply acting as a useful cog in its ally's military machine. And there is no reason to believe that such a role necessarily requires the kind of spending increases that the government currently plans.



We can, must, expect more of this - equally well prepared, factual and highly biased attacks on any and all increases in defence spending.  It is the counter-offensive.  It will be long because it is well supported be people who are true believers in their various, only looselyallied  causes, all of which will suffer if money is redirected to DND from any other programmes.


----------



## 2 Cdo

Ed, while they do portray their assessment in a nice, neat, logical : way, they have always failed in the big picture. I don't say we should blindly follow the US everywhere but to refer to anything done without the almighty UN's okay as bordering on criminal or illegal is typical of the unhealthy devotion that the average Canadian holds towards the UN.
I can honestly see some broken promises on the horizon from the feds in reference to this article as they try to cling to power through whatever means.  :threat:


----------



## Brad Sallows

If we aren't going to pay to do defence properly, I'd rather not pay to do anything at all.  I pay taxes for combat-capable forces, not to perpetuate the corrupt privileges and posturing of the UN.  I'll see their "freeze on spending" and raise them one: do away with all of it and put the money back in my pocket.  There's no reason to assume the money should be diverted anywhere else if not to defence.


----------



## Baloo

Their own argument of Canada "spending the 7th most" in all of NATO is torpedoed, at least in my opinion, with providing the fact that we are spending 24th on percentage of GDP.

Its a ridiculous argument.


----------



## Jed

It is truly amasing how everyone forgets to consider the Present Value of the dollar. 10 million in 1982 buys a whole lot more than 10 million in 2005. 



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> If we aren't going to pay to do defence properly, I'd rather not pay to do anything at all.   I pay taxes for combat-capable forces, not to perpetuate the corrupt privileges and posturing of the UN.



As Brad Sallows states, either we pay for a capability with taxes or we don't. I really don't want to waste more tax dollars in the corrupt UN  hallowed halls of wisdom.


----------



## HDE

As far as I can see most serious analysis, unlike this Polaris bit, uses GDP to compare spending on defence, between nations and over time.  In thoses terms their report seems to suggest that Canada could/should spend more on the military without getting out of line with most of our NATO allies.  All in all not a very inspiring effort at serious research


----------



## Brad Sallows

The dollar figures are all adjusted to be compared fairly, IIRC.  However, I'd soil myself with embarrassment if I had produced that chart because it thoroughly undermines the suggestion that Canada spends too much, provided one is armed with just a couple of simple extra facts.  Defence spending as a % of GDP in 1980 was 1.9, rose to just above 2.0 or so in the '80s, and rapidly diminished under 1.5 in the mid-'90s and later.  Project that 1.9% forward each year from the "low" total expenditure for '80-'81 and see what that yields over the intervening 25 years between then and now.  There wouldn't be so much pressing need for capital expenditures now if we'd exercised a little constancy in spending as a fraction of our wealth.


----------



## Cloud Cover

These jokers don't fool anybody. It isn't defence spending they have a problem with, it's actually the fact that defence activities don't match their little girl attitude towards the world.


----------



## daniel h.

Jed said:
			
		

> It is truly amasing how everyone forgets to consider the Present Value of the dollar. 10 million in 1982 buys a whole lot more than 10 million in 2005.
> 
> As Brad Sallows states, either we pay for a capability with taxes or we don't. I really don't want to waste more tax dollars in the corrupt UN   hallowed halls of wisdom.




It's starting to look like the UN is hopeless, so don't worry....


----------



## Britney Spears

I don't understand why this defence spending/GDP ratio comparison  has any meaning at all. Defence spending isn't a welfare program, it is a response to perceived threats from foreign enemies. We buy weapons and train troops to _kill our enemies_. Instead, Canadians are apparently very concerned about how much money and how many pieces of Leopard track they will each recieve if the army were to be liquidated tomorow.

Countries don't spend more on their armies because there is some kind of magical optimum Defence/GDP ratio that will make everything right in the world, they do it because otherwise they are conqured and subjugated by countries who do.  Do you think the Israelis are much concerned about how much of their GDP goes into defence?  I bet Canada is the only country in the world that gives more than 2 seconds of thought to this nonsense.


----------



## armyvern

Last sentence - first paragraph:

"Recently announced spending increases are intended to enhance the capability of the Canadian Forces to be "interoperable" with the military of the *United States*, not be more effective as a UN peacekeeping force."

Well that's it, that's as far as I read. Is this a factual and accurate article? No. It actually puts it's fictional, in-accurate bias right out there on the table at this point in time within the very first paragraph. We are increasing spending in order to better align ourselves with NATO, not simply the United States. Although their use of "United States" in this instance will certainly gain them the sympathy votes from those who do not agree with the US position on Iraq. Fact of the matter is, Canada is a NATO country, and must do what it can to keep themselves somewhat worthy of being a 'player' within that organization, which has been lacking for quite some time now. Gen Hillier is attempting to rectify that situation. We are officially a part of NATO, we have yet to be officially declared a "UN Peecekeeping Force" as our primary mandate. I don't see it happening anytime soon despite what this bleeding heart institute (read: lobby group for flower children and more monies for their various 'causes') likes to think our primary role is. I'll read their articles once they are accurate and factual. I'm quite sure that General Hillier will be able to rip this apart soundly, as it so richly deserves.


----------



## Brad Sallows

I take it you don't approve of our forces becoming more interoperable with the UN brothel-keeping and pandering nations of the world?


----------



## Baloo

UN Ops have turned into giant "jug-fucks" as far as I can ascertain. Granted, I haven't had my feet on the ground, but that is the appearance of things.


----------



## 48Highlander

As armyvern pointed out, part of the suggested increase would go to increase interoperability with NATO forces.  Now, who does the majority of the heavy lifting on UN ops?  Starts with an N, ends with an O, and has an "at" in the middle.  The two go hand in hand - if we can work with NATO, we can work with the UN.  Who do we need to be able to operate with other than NATO members?  Uganda?  Bosnia?  Hell, just give us some rusty old rifles and no ROE's.  We'll interoperate with those fellas just fine.


----------



## Britney Spears

> "Recently announced spending increases are intended to enhance the capability of the Canadian Forces to be "interoperable" with the military of the United States, not be more effective as a UN peacekeeping force."




<a href=http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php?date=2005-10-17>I'm not entirely sure he knows what that (UN peacekeeping force) is.</a>


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Has anyone done any digging to find out who funds them?

Based on some of the things I've read it looks as though some of the funding is actually coming from Government Departments with competing interests....



Matthew.


----------



## Lancaster

When comparing defense spending to other countries , since Canada  is a mid size  country Canada's GDP should be compared to other hundreds in the world (see www.nationmaster.com) not only to NATO nations. If other countries are spending more on defense that should be a concern to Canadians. Please see me blog site http://www.canadianmilitary.blog.ca/main/ . Recently I sent  this  blog letter to the minister of defense. The cost  of selected equipment would be approximately $100 per person over 10 years


----------



## Pieman

> Has anyone done any digging to find out who funds them?



That's what I was thinking when I was reading this. They probably get funding from a variety of sources, but ultimately whoever funded this specific research paper is of interest.


----------



## pbi

As usual, anti-Americanism is never very far below the skin with these folks, as well-intentioned as they may be.  While I certainly do not advocate mindless hero-worship of the US (or the UK, or France, or Burkina-Faso, even...) it would seem to me that unless we want to pursue the hideouly costly route of true (i.e. "armed") neutrality, we need to coordinate our defence activities and plans with our allies and major economic/security partners. Is the US the biggest and most important of those? Hmmmm....just a sec...let me look in the "Foreign Policy for Dummies"....oh, yeah---they are. Funny that.

While we must be careful to always retain national veto (like we did under the Empire) , the rest of this submission needs to be submitted to the shredder, or shared amongst other like-minded Wilsonites in the various coffee houses, PoliSci lecture halls and other dens of these types.

Cheers.


----------



## Lancaster

The Polaris Institute is "twisting the numbers" on their assessment on Canada's 7th largest spending in NATO. Polaris Institute should be using worldwide military expenditure based on GDP, using only NATO is not sufficient since there are 164 other countries who spend on military. According to website,,http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/mil_exp_per_of_GDP  ,Canada is ranked 133 in the world for lowest military expenditure based on GDP , if we do the Polaris" twist" then Canada is 32nd "worst" country in the world for military spending. Polaris would be more credible if compared other mid sizes countries like Spain. Also in the report, where is there mention that the prime minister says  we are in "war of terror " which costs billions for national security and new equipment and troop costs for Afghanistan.


----------



## stevenstaples

I'm surprised no one has taken up our criticism of useless spending programs taking up valuable resources. Ever wonder why all the defence experts we always see on the news go silent when something goes wrong with the subs?  How many other uses could $150 million U.S. go to instead of the F-35 (isn't this another corporate subsidy consuming limited defence dollars)? Seems to me we could have replaced those Hercs a long time ago if they had been made a priority by the leadership on Colonel By.

 - Steve


----------



## Slim

Welocome to the forum Mr Staples.

It will be interesting having you here.

Cheers

Slim


----------



## Infanteer

Welcome to Army.ca Mr. Staples.   We're happy to see you've joined up and offered your thoughts.

Believe me, many of us here tend to be critical of many programs that we perceive to be useless, both inside and outside of Defence.   Considering that the F-35 is an investment for an airpower frame that has a variety of uses, I don't think it could be classified as a "useless" program.

You mention criticism here to specific programs; much of the disagreement here tends to be aimed towards the Polaris Institute's entire outlook on defence, which seems to want to "throw the baby out with the bath water".

Cheers,
Infanteer


----------



## Slim

stevenstaples said:
			
		

> Ever wonder why all the defence experts we always see on the news go silent when something goes wrong with the subs?



They know, as do you and I, that buying submarines that have been sitting for an extended period of time, is going to be costly and rather wasteful. It has also turned out to be rather dangerous, as seen by the fire aboard Chicoutami while on her way back from England. That 'lesson' unfortunately cost us a very talented young officer and almost cost us several more serving members as well. 

What Canada should have done was to buy ( ot build) a number of new submarines in order to meet the sub-surface requirement for our navy. It would have been cheaper in the long run and a whole lot less dangerous to the crews who man them.

Unfortunately the navy had to move within the fiscal sphere that they were given, and so coud not go the route that they should have been able to in the first place.

Perhaps in future this argument will be rethought out and a more realistic conclusion come to in terms of serious large item procurment.

   





> How many other uses could $150 million U.S. go to instead of the F-35 (isn't this another corporate subsidy consuming limited defence dollars)? Seems to me we could have replaced those Hercs a long time ago if they had been made a priority by the leadership on Colonel By.
> 
> - Steve



Steve

Sadly a national defense is a requirement of the modern independent nation-state. An old saying goes somethig like "Your country will always have a standing army, yours or someone elses." Even though non of us ever hope to fight a war we should always be prepared to defend ourself and, to a certain degree, be able to project our nation's power to other countries that require our assistance in terms of defense or, in the case of A'stan, to remove a sick and despotic regime.

I awaite your comments on my thoughts Sir.

Cheers

Slim


----------



## Brad Sallows

>I'm surprised no one has taken up our criticism of useless spending programs taking up valuable resources.

Define "useless".   $100 million for a couple of new passenger jets?   Millions of dollars in operational expenditures for domestic operations which should (in theory) be repaid by the requesting agencies (ie. provincial governments) back to the federal government?   Hundreds of milllions of dollars lining the pockets of corrupt and incompetent native leaders practicing the politics of cronyism and nepotism with federal monies?   You want to sweat over corporate subsidies - how much have Bombardier and the various factions of the auto manufacturing industry in Canada collected in the past few decades?   How much more have we spent on defence acquisitions to place a "Made In Canada" sticker over the "Engineered in Europe/USA" one?

Anyone serious about tackling *waste in government spending* would go after *all government spending*, particularly since defence is - relatively speaking - small potatoes.   A fixation on defence spending tends to be dismissable, rightly, as mere ideological posturing.   If you're serious about coming up with 0.7% of GDP - 0.35% for aid, and 0.35% in graft to get the aid past the thugs who make the aid necessary and ensure the situation continues so that noble members of NGOs can ride white Toyota pickups to the rescue and preen indefinitely - then go after the big money in federal spending.

As for the issue of what our armed forces should be doing, I don't need to prop up my self-worth by leeching and trading on the sacrifices and risks taken by our service people, past or present.   I don't need to be able to puff up my chest and say to any foreigner who crosses my path, "I'm Canadian.   Did you know our soldiers are peacekeepers?"   I don't need to vicariously claim our soldiers' achievements as my own.   But more importantly, I realize that while the Greeks and Turks and the Israelis and their neighbours can be mostly trusted not to shoot at people wearing blue baseball caps and not much more armour than a cotton shirt, the thirteen-year old with an AK-47 in Central Africa and the Balkan thugs nursing grudges predating Vlad's tiff with the Turks, can not.   We have to be able to deliver our soldiers and the equipment they need to be more than hostages-in-waiting; we must be able to sustain them without necessarily having the goodwill of someone who owns a nearby port and airfield, and we need to be able to extract them when the locals tire of the interference in their timeless domestic disputes.   That means airlift, sealift, and the requisite air and sea power to face down rogue air defences, fighters, ships, and submarines - because a C-130 full of body bags is a hell of a price to pay for the self-anointed post-modern intellectual elites of Canada to assuage their guilt for being born here and to feel good about themselves.


----------



## Brad Sallows

>What Canada should have done was to buy ( ot build) a number of new submarines

Maybe we should have bought the Upholders before they went into long-term storage.  It's not like we don't know how old a particular class or fleet of equipment is, or when it would be prudent to replace it.  The scandal isn't what we spend, it's the amount of time it takes us to figure out exactly what to buy.


----------



## Britney Spears

> I'm surprised no one has taken up our criticism of useless spending programs taking up valuable resources.



Do a search. Try the keywords "KevinB", "C7A2", and "ill-conceived waste of time and money" for starters.


----------



## mjohnston39

Some rambling thoughts.

All Western countries have decreased their UN peacekeeping contributions   http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/contributors/

All Western countries are increasing their defense spending, and Canada's will be on par with countries with similar populations economies (Spain, Australia...)

All Western countries are modernizing their militaries to be interoperable with the US, they are the most advanced and powerful and get to set the bar. Everyone else is stepping up, we need to or we'll get left behind not only our only neighbour and our closest alley but everyone else. 

Government spending in general has increased over the last budget cycles, why should defense be any different

Directly comparing military spending in absolute terms is somewhat misleading. Dollars in Canada don't go as far, do think a service man in say Turkey makes as much as one in Canada? Same goes for equipment, buying and building in Canada is expensive due to mandated industrial/regional benefits, high wages etc. 

150M for the F35, well can Canadian companies have received over 1.5B$ in contracts, seems like a prudent investment to me... http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/10/12/Pratt_Whitney041012.html

Large capital expenditures are need because most of the equipment the CF is old and wearing out. Even if Canada was to totally dedicate itself to UN peacekeeping missions it would still need new trucks, airlift, helicopters, sea-lift, just about everything laid out in the recent defense review. The need would even be more acute as most of our allies who posses these assets, which we thumb a ride with, are no longer involving themselves in UN peacekeeping missions. If Canada was to truly dedicate solely to UN peacekeeping missions it would truly be going it alone and need a much larger military defense budget than it has now...

Tradational peakeeping worked, for the most part, because it was always backed up with a credable use of force either from the peacekeeping country or their allies. If Canada goes alone, even for UN peacekeeping, it better be prepared to carry an even larger stick...

There have been many discussions here about waste and spending more efficiently...

Mike


----------



## mjohnston39

Also the article is somewhat misleading as it fails to mention that, IIRC, the NATO mission in the former Yugoslavia were deployed under the authority of the UN security council and I believe this is the case for Afghanistan as well...http://www.nato.int/issues/afghanistan/evolution.htm



> It is these operations that are now responsible for the continuing high operational tempo of the Canadian Forces. "With a few exceptions," the Defence Policy Statement notes, "most of the Canadian Forces' major operations [of recent years] have borne no resemblance to the traditional peacekeeping model of lightly armed observers supervising a negotiated ceasefire."



The world has changed, like it or not and there are no longer defined groups to negotiate a ceasefire with in the first place....


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

stevenstaples said:
			
		

> I'm surprised no one has taken up our criticism of useless spending programs taking up valuable resources. Ever wonder why all the defence experts we always see on the news go silent when something goes wrong with the subs?   How many other uses could $150 million U.S. go to instead of the F-35 (isn't this another corporate subsidy consuming limited defence dollars)? Seems to me we could have replaced those Hercs a long time ago if they had been made a priority by the leadership on Colonel By.
> 
> - Steve



Before we proceed to much further Mr Staples, I have both watched and read your criticism for a couple of years now, but have never heard your opinion as to how you believe a military should be used?  

Specifically, do you believe in active intervention in places like Rwanda and Darfur or not?

Thank you for your time and consideration.



Matthew


----------



## stevenstaples

The recommendation from our report this week called for the creation of a new Defence White Paper through public participation (and I don't mean expert hearings in Ottawa), and until that time a freeze on defence spending. Get the policy right first, then set the budget. 

When asked, we suggest the CF focus on two objectives: (1) defence of Canadian territory to ensure sovereignty (e.g. improved capability in the North, use of new technology such as High-Frequency Surface Wave Radar), and (2) participation in UN-led peacekeeping missions (i.e. "Blue Helmets"). We expand on this a bit in Breaking Rank, the 2002 report that is also available on our web site at www.polarisinstitute.org.

 - Steve


----------



## Infanteer

stevenstaples said:
			
		

> (2) participation in UN-led peacekeeping missions (i.e. "Blue Helmets").



Are you sure this is a prudent proposal?  Most soldiers I've spoke to who've put on a blue hat say they wouldn't do it again - maybe in the '80s it was a nice thing, but experience since then has taught us otherwise.


----------



## 48Highlander

stevenstaples said:
			
		

> The recommendation from our report this week called for the creation of a new Defence White Paper through public participation (and I don't mean expert hearings in Ottawa), and until that time a freeze on defence spending.



 ;D

In other words, death by committee for the CF.  That sentence reminds me of the scene in Robo Cop 2, when they gather a civilian pannel to decide what changes to make to his programming.

"He's too mean, why can't he be nicer to people?"
"That gun of his is way too big.  It's to scary."
"It'd be nice if he'd stop and talk things out once in a while."

Following which, he ends up trying to lecture a mob of kids robbing a store, and then shoots a guy for smoking.

Face it, 99% of civs don't know squat about the military, government spending, or foreign policy.  That's why we have politicians, soldiers, intelligence agencies, and "experts".  You cannot make policy by popular opinion; it would be a particularily idiotic form of national suicide.  Whatever decisions your "public participation" might come up with - while well intentioned and seemingly logical under a cursory examination - would spell disaster for the military.


----------



## GO!!!

The problem Mr. Staples, is that the Polaris Institute is a most apt demonstration of an "opposition" movement, guaranteeing its income by making wild and press worthy accusations and suggestions, in order to secure further funding and attention, then fading into obscurity for a period of time, until its masters feel the need for more attention and funding.

In regards to your uses for the DND.

1) "The defence of Canadian territory" Bad news, radar only tells you the bad guys are coming. Since you oppose the F35 project, and the CF 18s are obsolete, just how do you intend to protect our sovereignty. Which weapon system usable north of 60 have you supported the acquisition of?

2) "Participation in UN - led peacekeeping missions" More bad news, there has never, in history, by the UN's own definition, been a successful peacekeeping mission, with the exception of the Suez crisis. Why do we want to participate in this culture of abject failure? Why should we sacrifice any more men?

Finally, given the schizophrenic and time consuming character of any type of Federal Policy Review (remember Trudeau's Foreign Policy review?) would we not be better served by a multi - task capable military, able to perform any mission anyhwere in the meantime, than a freeze on spending to push us even further back in terms of capabilities?


----------



## mjohnston39

> participation in UN-led peacekeeping missions (i.e. "Blue Helmets").



With whom do you suggest we work with on these blue-helmet missions as most of our western allies have abandoned these traditional UN mssions???

Mike


----------



## paracowboy

mjohnston39 said:
			
		

> With whom do you suggest we work with on these blue-helmet missions as most of our western allies have abandoned these traditional UN mssions?


nobody, 'cause they don't work!


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Mr Staples,

We (the Canadian Forces) have already endured a "funding freeze" that has lasted since 1993.  By advocating a funding freeze, again, while we endure a long, painful, ill-intentioned, uninformed, national policy consultation process on defence, you are basically guaranteeing the final nail in coffin of the Canadian Forces.  Nothing on our current equipment order book (that I can think of) would be inconsistent with almost any task we would be assigned anyway after a defence policy review.  Believe it or not, the CF is in a VERY fragile state right now.

Why is it, Mr Staples, that your organization has such a difficult time accepting the professional opinion of serving soldiers, sailors and airmen, who actually have operational experience in many of the world's less desireable places that what we need right now is a more, not less, aggressive and well armed military?  We are not uneducated and thoughtless people, you know. We are not just making this stuff up because we like "cool toys".  Most of us have done the government's bidding in lots of uncomfortable parts of the world, trying to implement our nation's foreign policy and generally keep any number of factions in Africa, Asia and Europe from kicking the crap out of each other, and us in the process.

Mr Staples, I highly advise you, if you have not done so yet, approach DND about getting yourself to Kandahar so that you can spend a week or so with the guys on patrol.  Or out at sea on frigate.  Or better yet, join your nearest reserve unit and find out first-hand what it is like to carry the can for Canada, on a continual, chronic, underfunded basis.

Mr Staples, I respect that you are doing what you are doing in good faith.  Please understand, however, that most soldiers, sailors and airmen are by necessity pragmatists and will accept any new funding that comes our way right now, so that we can get on with our job of protecting Canada and carrying out our foreign policy.  I, for one, remain to be convinced that you accurately understand the true situation with respect to defence in this country.

Good night.


----------



## Kirkhill

Mr. Staples,

In the interest of full disclosure:

Who do you represent?
Who supplies your funding?
Who sits on your board of directors?
Where does your board meet?
How often do they meet?
To whom are you responsible?
Where is your Institute registered?
What are your personal qualifications to comment on these matters?
What experience do you have?
With whom do you consult when you derive your position papers?

Your site seems to be silent on those matters.   I find links to many labour and "direct action" groups.   You have an "about us" page that does the mission thing very nicely but I am unable to find the answers to my questions there.   Is there a link you can direct me to that will supply those answers?

Christopher Pook


----------



## Brad Sallows

A properly done review, as opposed to a stalling and posturing exercise, should only take a few months.  There's no need to freeze anything.

Limiting our spheres of activity to UN operations basically ensures that any region that doesn't pass muster with the veto members of the UNSC is SOL.  Welding our foreign policy to the UN is shorthand for welding it to the subset of overlapping (ie. mutually agreeable) foreign policy objectives at the UN of the US, UK, Russia, PRC, and France.  That is a small set.  I'm not sure being the willing lapdog of the aforementioned nations is much of a demonstration of sovereignty.  Of course, if we want to rule out intervening in situations such as those presented in Rwanda and Darfur, it makes sense to tether ourselves to the UN.  Perhaps I misunderstand what the real objective is.  To look as if we're doing something, without really doing anything useful or costly...hmmm...sounds attractive.

Certainly we should be able to exercise our sovereignty, and protect our naval forces and shipping abroad.  If we really wanted that, we'd get on with replacing the diesel boats with nuclear-powered ones.


----------



## GO!!!

A point I missed in my earlier post as well. 

Given that the UN is comprised of despotic dictatorships, human rights abusers etc, all of whom have the same voting weight as a law abiding, well intentioned, democratic nation, why is the collective of despots assumed to be correct in the application of force, while the singular despot is a creature to be reviled?

Furthermore, why should we risk so much blood and treasure in carrying out the agenda of a mob of despots and dictators?


----------



## KevinB

UN  :  - some of their programs are commendable -- others are indictable.
 Militarily it is a fiasco -- too many tinpot dictators with votes -- and a Security Council that is rife with division.
Franco-German sticky fingers in Iraq a prime example.

 The military needs money - big time, it is not the time to freeze spending.
NONE of the current acquisitions that the critics on both sides are currently harping on are boondoggles, but items which the CF has identified as immediate requirements to fulfill our role in government policy.

I amongst others could define areas where the military needs more money right now to rectify current deficiencies.  Near and dear to my heart are small arms - where the LCMM has about 1/50th of the money he requires to upgrade our small arms and provide soldier the required capabilities at the basic level.  Add in money for small arms ammunition, low light equipment and money to train with them in a live fire environment etc.  I could easily justify a $5b increase myself.

 It is true that some items (the G Wagon for instance) were knee jerk reactions - but that happens with a rustout Army that when certain capabilities fail.  If anything the Gwagon shows us WHY we need to identify issues before we enter an active theatre, and buy items based upon our needs - rather than buy an illsuited platform (Gwagon is a good platform for somethings, however the variant we bought =sucks)


----------



## RangerRay

Some random thoughts:

I find it very ironic that those who say we shouldn't let the Americans determine our foreign policy are the same ones who say we have to do whatever the UN says.  The whole reason why we didn't go into Iraq was because France (and some shadowy Canadians, including a former PM) had oil interests with Saddam Hussein's regime.

As much as I would like to see more openness and public consultation in government in general, defence policy and foreign policy is not one of them.   Most people are very ignorant in these areas and have no clue about defence and diplomatic issues.   When dealing with national interests, that should be left to politicians, diplomats, generals and "experts".

Australia, a country much like Canada in many ways, with a smaller population, appears to have far greater military capability as us.   They have sea lift, strategic air capability (F-111 bombers), tactical attack helicopters, and even aircraft carriers, IIRC...   I heard they are even aquiring M1 main battle tanks.   As well, the past few years, they have been taking a very strong stand on the international scene.


----------



## stevenstaples

Folks - 

Thanks for all of the comments. Very interesting and useful. 

I sense that a lot of people on this forum consider themselves independent thinkers - and I see evidence of this spirit all the time in the CF at large. 

For example, have you seen the Corporals' Report by Corporal W.C. Gomm and Corporal R.K. Moran that came out in 2002? Here is the link (go to page 70): http://armyapp.dnd.ca/ael/adtb/vol_5/ADTB_vol5no3_e.pdf (page 70).

Also, have you read Col David King's article "We need a Romanow Commission for Defence and Foreign Policy": 
http://www.irpp.org/po/archive/apr02/king.pdf

In the media there is a tremendous amount of "group think" from the defence experts - who basically parrot the Generals' line and clam up whenever there is trouble (e.g. who is speaking our for the safety of submariners? Blaming Chretien won't make the subs any safer). 

We need to ensure there is a vigourous debate from inside and outside the Forces. It is not uncommon for me to hear from many CF members when we publish our reports - everything from "you're way off" to "you're right, and you don't know the half of it...". 

Would you agree the public needs to hear from CF members who are willing to take an independent position from the brass (otherwise public only ever hears the carefull crafted, savvy, media spun story from the brass, and not the real story)? How can this be done?

 - Steve


----------



## paracowboy

before anyone answers your questions, don't you think it only fair to answer theirs? After all, they asked first.


----------



## Cloud Cover

stevenstaples said:
			
		

> Would you agree the public needs to hear from CF members who are willing to take an independent position from the brass (otherwise public only ever hears the carefull crafted, savvy, media spun story from the brass, and not the real story)? How can this be done?
> 
> - Steve



It's being done on this site. Probably 80% of the content of this site challenges the assumptions of the puzzle palace, along with the less than stellar and somewhat biased performance from the media. In fact, with relatively few exceptions, we are an anathema to the media, politicians and others because we can [and have] successfully challenged their articles, assumptions, public statements and plans.     The first article you have mentioned has been discussed on this site- someone will likely provide you with links shortly.

Quick question: why do you have a silhouette of what appears to be a Russian or Chinese destroyer on the front cover of your latest report?   Freudian slip? 

Cheers.


----------



## HDE

I'm intrigued at the idea of "public participation" in determining the role, and reasonable funding, of the Canadian military.  How do we actually determine who "the public" are?  Is there a requirement that "the public" have any expertise whatsoever on military affairs, equipment requirements, etc?  Does the opinion of members of "the public" carry the same weight as the informed opinion of folks actually in the business?  During the last election campaign the Liberals put forth the claim that we can have either a military or health care and very few members of the media, much less the public, bothered pointing out the dodgy logic being used.  The same can be said of any area of government spending.  Why single out military spending?  This is the sort of "it sounds impressive, but doesn't mean anything"  assertion that formed so much of the work in the Polaris Institute report we're discussing.
The obvious point is that the Polaris Institute doesn't much like the military and then proceeds to put forth all sorts of dubious claims in order to make their point.


----------



## GO!!!

Mr. Staples,

Seeing as no - one else here has mentioned it, we, as serving soldiers are not permitted to challenge the "party line" pushed by the DND.

It is actually a crime, and troops have been charged and sentenced for it before.

You are permitted to speak about your role and responsibilities as an individual. Other than that, it must be forwarded to a Public affairs officer for processing. 

So the idea of having the Corporal debating with the General is a moot point. The General would probably jail the Corporal, strategic or not, for pointing out the flaws or inaccuracies in his plan, and he would be permitted to do so.

Can you answer my questions now?


----------



## Brad Sallows

The problem with public consultation is that a surprisingly large segment of the eligible voting population is unlikely to concede that security is the precursor for any other social institutions one wishes to construct, and to draw the appropriate conclusion that security should be first in line for whatever resources are available.  By happy coincidences and circumstances and accidents of history, Canada is in a situation in which it is somewhat possible to marginalize security without really bearing the consequences of such imprudence.

For example, I doubt anyone has attempted to estimate within an order of magnitude the value of ocean-borne trade which is secured (eg. not lost to piracy) by the presence of the world's major blue-water navies.  If we had that number, we could at least make a guess whether Canada is bearing its share or freeloading in the security of the oceans.

Likewise, one could measure Canada's contribution to maintaining a secure trading environment in Europe west of the Iron Curtain prior to the latter's fall and determine whether we spent the Cold War riding on the backs of others - trading with Europe incommensurately with our contributions to its security.

It's easy to point to our geographical location and claim that it should take very little to secure our borders. but an honest appraisal can't ignore the presence of the US and the importance to the US of relatively free-market access to Canada.  Are we freeloading in the security of the Americas?

One of the popular current debates in Canada is whether and how to expand trade with nations other than the US.  I will hazard a very rough guess and proposal: if the US is an overwhelming influence on the security of ocean-borne trade, Canada - as a nation aspiring to trade across the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans - should as a rule of thumb contribute a naval presence on a per capita basis equivalent to the US and operate closely - dare I say, interoperate - with the US.


----------



## Gunner98

Mr. Staples

If you look at the page prior to the Corporal's Report, you will see that these gentlemen had their opinions blessed for publication by the Commander prior to their (one-time only) publication - hardly "free speech" at its finest. 

Retired Col David King's article is not presented as the opinion of a serving CF officer but rather as a US National Defense University faculty member. It also comes with a disclaimer as not representative of Cdn or US authorities.

QR&O 4.27 sums it up pretty good:

4.27 PROVISION OF INFORMATION PROGRAMS AND PROMOTION OF COMMUNITY RELATIONS

(1) A commanding officer of a base, unit or element shall ensure that, in accordance with orders issued by the Chief of the Defence Staff, members of the base, unit or element are provided with information on the plans, policies, programs and activities of the Canadian Forces and that requests for information on Canadian Forces activities from either the news media or the general public are dealt with expeditiously. 

(2) A commanding officer of a base, unit or element shall take all practicable steps to stimulate and sustain a harmonious relationship between the base, unit or element and the civilian community.


----------



## pbi

GO: well posted. Having served on a few missions, I can only share in your distaste for the UN's military prowess. Even that inept organization has learned to contract its business out to regional organizations or standing alliances to get the real work done. The "traditional" UN construct of the light, largely incapable (and often inept...) UN force with no credibility, no straegic, operational or tactical intelligence system or meaningful command and control capabilities has finally been revealed as largely ineffective. That type of force never really resolved any situation, and was actually incapable of "keeping the peace" once one party or the other (or both) felt they wanted to get ugly. A police force that worked on similar principles would be judged useless. Yugoslavia, Somalia (UN) and Rwanda were the last coffin nails on the "traditional blue hat mission": even the UN itself admitted as much in the Brahini Report. If we want to make a difference in nasty places,, against nasty people, and if we want the military portion of  the "3DT" (US= DIME) construct to be capable of doing its part, we need the things the CDS is leading us towards. For the first time I can recall in 31 years of service, we have a PM, MND and CDS who can work together from a common sheet of music. That is refreshing and immensely heartening.

It is the democratic right of all Canadians, regardless of their political orientation, to express their voice on issues including defence. Indeed, on these very pages we have oftren bemoaned the ignorance, apathy and general indifference of many Canadians on the subject of our military capability. In fact, there has been no shortage of venues for that expression over the last few years, from the Minister's Monitoring Commitee travelling sessions to SCONDVA hearings across Canada to the Reserve Roles Missions and Tasks  town halls  that were held all over the country a few years ago.  At some point we have to make decisions, as professionals, advise our government of our needs and recommendations, and get on with it. That is what we are doing, and I believe that we have the support of a majority of Canadians.

Cheers.


----------



## 3rd Horseman

I agree with you in principle less the UN issue on Yugo, I thought that the Yugo mission ended with success although was very weak at points The reality is that the war ended in fall 95 under blue mission status. IFOR, SFOR only showed up after it was over winter 96. The war fighting of the blue helmets in summer 95 was the true nature of what a blue mission should and could be. Albeit the many 3rd world units did not contribute to the win and do lend credibility to your including Yugo on your list of failed or typical weak blue helmet missions, in the end it was a win, Lester B would have been proud of what the blue helmet had become by that point in history. As for including Somalia I was not there cant comment.


----------



## Gunner

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> I agree with you in principle less the UN issue on Yugo, I thought that the Yugo mission ended with success although was very weak at points The reality is that the war ended in fall 95 under blue mission status. IFOR, SFOR only showed up after it was over winter 96. The war fighting of the blue helmets in summer 95 was the true nature of what a blue mission should and could be. Albeit the many 3rd world units did not contribute to the win and do lend credibility to your including Yugo on your list of failed or typical weak blue helmet missions, in the end it was a win, Lester B would have been proud of what the blue helmet had become by that point in history. As for including Somalia I was not there cant comment.



So your definition of UN success in 1995:

UNPROFOR 1 (Croatia) - Croatian Op STORM sweeping through UN "Protected Area's" in the Krajina Region, ethnically cleansing/murdering Serbs along the way?  

UNPROFOR 2 (Bosnia) - Ended with "success" based on US involvement through NATO after letting the Europeans try to maintain order (they failed) in their backyard and imposing the seriously flawed Dayton Accord forcing everyone back to the "start state" in 1992 and telling them to "Get along".

I don't agree with you my gunner friend....


----------



## 3rd Horseman

I will need a little time to formulate a response for UNCRO mission due to its very complicated nature and how it played into the overall mission in Yugo.

As for UNPROFOR (Bosnia) the proof is in the result the war ended under blue mission, I did not see any NATO forces other than special Ops on the ground but I did see UN forces conduct Cbt team attacks, Coy assaults, Artillery duals, Platoon attacks, all which stopped Serb, BIH and Croat army's in there tracks at different times. Obviously the NATO air cover provided by the multi national air forces (all of which were supporting there own battalions on the ground wearing UN blue less the US airforce).

   Now had I had the chance to be king for a day I would have sent SFOR in in 92 followed by IFOR in winter 96 and then UNPROFOR from 97 on. Non the less  the little force that couldn't did in the end mind you it was done by a small group of forces not making up the whole UN family in theatre.

I'm still thinking about UNCRO.......... :-\


----------



## ruxted

Link to original article on  ruxted.ca


The Defence Budget

It is no secret that Canada is in the throes of a financial crisis.

Governments’ normal reaction is times of crisis is to cut, or at least _contain_, defence spending to free up money for other more popular projects and programmes.

2009 is not a normal year; The Lady’s Not for Burning or turning and Canadians need to apply the same resolve to their national defence: despite the sorry state of our economy we must not turn back the clock to the 1990s - the defence budget is not for cutting.

2009 is not a normal year because we have Canadian Forces members – our friends and family, the neighbours’ boys, our colleagues’ daughters – at war; they are not just in a combat zone, they are in close contact with the enemy in Afghanistan. We are paying a price – in lives and in shattered minds and bodies – to give effect to the Canadian promoted doctrine of “Responsibility to Protect.” Less important than the lost lives and broken bodies, but costly all the same, is the price of fuel and ammunition and the equipment which are being consumed in combat. After several “decades of darkness” 2009 is not a year to falter. Canadians finally appeared ready, in 2007/2008, to begin the long, painful and expensive process of rebuilding our military muscle so that Canada could, after a 40 year hiatus, ”make a real difference in halting and preventing conflict and improving human welfare around the world,” because, as former Prime Minister Martin said (same source), Canada must practice the kind of “activism that over decades has forged our nation’s international character—and will serve us even better in today’s changing world. The people of our country have long understood that, as a proud citizen of the world, Canada has global responsibilities. We can’t solve every problem, but we will do what we can to protect others, to raise them up, to make them safe.”

2009 is not the year to abandon our global responsibilities. Grave as our economic problems may be they pale in comparison to the economic, military, social and medical problems that bedevil the ”Bottom Billion.” Canadians hope that we can help the “Bottom Billion” without entering another shooting war but events in those countries, which are in a geo-political arc stretching from Afghanistan through to Zimbabwe, suggest that we, Canadians and other rich, sophisticated, militarily capable and mostly Western nations will have to use force to bring help and hope to the poorest of the poor and weakest of the weak.

2009 is a year in which Canada’s defence budget needs to grow, in real terms, even as the nation’s top bank economists are advising Finance Minister Flaherty to, later rather than right now, reign in government programme spending.

DND can and will look for ways to stretch every dollar it has – if DND has learned nothing else since the 1960s, it has learned how to pinch pennies; in fact, it has often been accused of being penny-wise and pound-foolish. Some defence spending – on DND’s badly neglected infrastructure on bases and stations in Canada or on replacing Canadian made equipment that has been worn out or damaged in combat – can be used to stimulate the economy in 2009. Mindless cuts to defence spending will not help Canadians in 2009 or beyond, only contributing more to our financial woes.

Finance Minister Flaherty will bring down a budget later in this month. The Ruxted Group urges him to increase defence spending, in real terms. A larger defence budget is good policy and it can be made into good politics as well.


----------



## Cronicbny

What better infrastructure programme than approving the AOPV and building it in Canada? Perhaps some $$$ for new SAR aircraft to a Canadian company (Victoria?!?!) and some bucks towards KINGSTON class mid life refit? There are myriad CF projects in the country that we could use this opportunity to invest in. I can only hope the driven masses in NDHQ are trumpeting the CF's priorities for long term building projects - nothing speaks to politicians like Shipbuilding or aircraft contracts. Even firms in Alberta, Ontario and Quebec could benefit from multi-billion dollar investment in CF capital projects.

The early to mid eighties saw some large Federal expenditures - not exactly economic boom times....

Just a thought/hope.


----------



## aesop081

Cronicbny said:
			
		

> You don't like that idea Aviator?



No. I'm a much bigger fan of buying an aircraft that meets the requirements of the job it will be doing. "But the aircraft was built in Canada" doesnt make for a good soundbite when people are dead because the aircraft sent to rescue them wasnt up to the job.


----------



## Cronicbny

Fair enough - to be fair I dont know enough about the details of the bid by the local company in Pat Bay


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Cronicbny said:
			
		

> Perhaps some $$$ for new SAR aircraft to a Canadian company (Victoria?!?!)





			
				CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> :





			
				Cronicbny said:
			
		

> You don't like that idea Aviator?





			
				CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> No. I'm a much bigger fan of buying an aircraft that meets the requirements of the job it will be doing. "But the aircraft was built in Canada" doesnt make for a good soundbite when people are dead because the aircraft sent to rescue them wasnt up to the job.



Yeah remember the LSVW Project  ;D


----------



## McG

Cronicbny said:
			
		

> Fair enough - to be fair I dont know enough about the details of the bid by the local company in Pat Bay


If you want to know, then have a look through these 46 pages: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/23889.0.html


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> What better infrastructure programme than approving the AOPV and building it in Canada?



For Fleet requirements AORs are needed more and urgently.


----------



## MarkOttawa

A post at _The Torch_:

"Waiting for Defence Budget 2009: First of the Canada First Defence Strategy Budgets?" 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/01/waiting-for-defence-budget-2009-first.html



> Excerpts from a "Commentary" by Brian MacDonald, Senior Defence Analyst, Conference of Defence Associations...



Full text here:
http://www.cda-cdai.ca/CDA_Commentary/waiting_for_budget2009.pdf

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

As far as I can see the words "defence" and "Canadian Forces" do not appear in the budget:
http://www.budget.gc.ca/2009/plan/topics-sujets-eng.html

Some conservatives.  There is this about the Canadian Coast Guard:
http://www.budget.gc.ca/2009/plan/bpc3e-eng.html



> Budget 2009 provides a catalyst to increase activity in the sector by allocating funds to speed-up needed procurement. The Canadian Coast Guard requires investments in vessels to carry out its responsibility to ensure safe and accessible waterways for Canadians. The Government is investing $175 million on a cash basis for the procurement of new Coast Guard vessels and to undertake vessel life extensions and refits for aging vessels. While contracts have not yet been awarded, work will be conducted in Canada, and where possible, by shipyards located within the regions of the vessels' home-ports. New vessel procurements planned are:
> 
> * 60 new small craft and 30 new environmental response barges that will support Canadian Coast Guard operational requirements across the country.
> * 5 new lifeboats home-ported in Prince Rupert (British Columbia), Campbell River (British Columbia), Dartmouth (Nova Scotia), Québec City (Quebec), and Burlington (Ontario).
> * 2 new inshore science vessels home-ported in Mont-Joli (Quebec) and Shippagan (New Brunswick), and one inshore fisheries vessel home-ported in St. Andrews (New Brunswick).
> 
> Vessel life extensions involve major repairs such as replacement of hulls, outdated equipment, propulsion systems and generators. The five vessels that will undergo vessel life extensions are the CCGS Bartlett and the CCGS Tanu both home-ported in Victoria (B.C.), the CCGS Tracy home-ported in Québec City (Quebec), the CCGS Limnos home-ported in Burlington (Ontario), and the CCGS Cape Roger home-ported in St. John's (Newfoundland and Labrador).
> 
> Vessel refits are smaller repairs, aimed primarily at updating obsolete operational systems to improve the availability and reliability for delivery of all Coast Guard programs. Of the 35 vessels scheduled for refit, seven are stationed in the Pacific region, five in the Central and Arctic region, seven in the Quebec region, seven in the Maritimes region, and nine in Newfoundland and Labrador.



Refits and lifeboats!  No mention of mid-shore patrol vessels or new icebreakers.
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/09/fewer-less-capable-more-delivery.html
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/08/diefenbreaker-in-2017.html

Dismal.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## FSTO

Maybe they are thinking of making a separate announcement regarding defence procurement?

Or maybe I have been in the paint locker too long.  :skull:


----------



## Edward Campbell

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ is a _potentially_ disturbing report on the forthcoming (March 2010) budget on the CF:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/budget-questions-loom-for-canadian-soldiers/article1443706/


> Budget questions loom for Canadian soldiers
> *Revitalized by Afghanistan, Canada's military has been 'firing on all cylinders.' But given the large federal deficit, analysts question how long Ottawa can keep it up*
> 
> Campbell Clark
> 
> Ottawa
> Tuesday, Jan. 26, 2010
> 
> It is the most active Canadian military in a generation – a multi-tasking force fighting in Afghanistan, aiding relief efforts in Haiti, and preparing to send thousands of troops to patrol the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics.
> Soon, however, the country's armed forces will have to grapple with a different sort of foe: a punishing federal deficit.
> 
> Defence Minister Peter MacKay said in Halifax Monday that there is no doubt the military is currently “firing on all cylinders” and operating at a “very high tempo.”
> 
> But the question, he said, is “for how long?”
> 
> The complexities of the Afghan mission have helped revitalize the military, making it better-drilled and more flexible and responsive for other deployments, such as Haiti. Yet the military has also benefited from a big boost in spending, which could be hard to sustain as Ottawa attempts to haul the country out of deficit.
> 
> Canada has 3,000 troops in Afghanistan, about 2,000 in or on their way Haiti, and 4,500 headed to Vancouver in February. It is the busiest time since the Suez crisis of the 1950s, when the forces were almost twice as big.
> 
> “It's certainly the most I have ever seen in my 30 years of service,” Lieutenant-General Andrew Leslie, who heads the army as Chief of the Land Staff, said in a recent interview. “We are probably, right this week, the busiest I have seen us, ever. … We could not have done this with the same rapidity and the same competency five years ago. That is categoric.”
> 
> More money, for things such as the huge C-17 strategic heavy-lift aircraft that flew equipment to Haiti, made a big difference. Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservatives made a political promise to provide the funds, but the fact that the forces had a mission in Afghanistan made the spending a political imperative.
> 
> The costs of fighting in Afghanistan, the cost of relief for Haiti, burn holes in the military budget, but also provide a justification for spending.
> 
> With the military preparing to leave Afghanistan next year, Canada will face different choices. The Conservatives plan to dig out of deficit by restraining discretionary spending, but one fifth of this sum is the $19.2-billion defence budget – and Mr. Harper has promised that will grow by 2 per cent each year.
> 
> Many analysts believe the Conservatives, under financial pressure, will have to scrap the expensive promise to expand the forces to 70,000 from 65,000. Planning may again revolve around the phrase coined by Joel Sokolsky, principal of the Royal Military College: “How much is just enough?”
> 
> Canada has had more impressive military capacity, and a more limited one. Queen's University military expert Doug Bland sees two episodes 40 years apart as bookend illustrations.
> 
> In 1956, Canada's 120,000-strong armed forces were recovering from Korea, heavily committed with troops and planes in Europe, but had no trouble dispatching a battalion during to the Suez.
> 
> In 1996, Canada's stretched forces rushed a mission to Zaire, the so-called “bungle in the jungle.” The forces had sketchy equipment, and couldn't get there before the reason for the mission vanished.
> 
> Spending increases since 2004 turned the trend, but now the question is what is needed for the future.
> 
> Mr. Bland said Canada should focus on the Western Hemisphere, combatting drug-runners in Latin America and the Caribbean, and providing regional security and relief.
> 
> That would make Canada a partner the United States needs, Mr. Bland said. The military can't influence Europeans, but can help relations with Washington, at least on decisions that affect Canada.
> 
> “Perhaps when we go to the table and want to talk to the Americans about Arctic sovereignty and so on, they'll be more willing to listen.”
> 
> But University of Ottawa professor Philippe Lagassé says Canada cannot expect to use its military to gain foreign-policy influence. A bigger role in foreign missions wins plaudits, but doesn't sway nations to do something they would rather not.
> 
> “You may get respect,” he said. “But actual influence is another thing altogether.”
> 
> So, he said, Canada's military should focus on goals that are important to Canada: protection at home, as in the Olympics, responding to a crisis, like an ice storm here or an earthquake in Haiti, and an expeditionary force to serve as an ally in international-security efforts, like Afghanistan. In effect, what it is doing now.
> 
> It might make sense to focus on the Western Hemisphere, Mr. Lagassé said, but Canadians will not want their government to reject calls from old NATO allies, or appeals for relief in a far-off disaster. “Are we going to say we don't do tsunamis in Asia?”
> 
> To maintain the forces at the current capacity, the military will need both the breather it will get from leaving Afghanistan and the projected 2-per-cent annual increases, he said.
> 
> The military would do more missions if it had more money, but doing much more is not likely to increase influence much, and Canadians won't accept the cost in lean years, Mr. Lagassé said. “In the end, Canadian defence policy ends up being the art of the possible.”




It has been Canadian _tradition_, for almost as long as I have been alive – and even longer, to cut defence spending whenever there is a financial crisis. Sometimes the results have been deadly.

With a possible respect to Prof. (and retired lieutenant colonel (VIIICH)) Doug Bland (Queen’s University), recasting foreign policy in (regionally) specific terms does not help the budgeting exercise. One must decide, as Prof. Joel Sokolsky (RMC) suggests on what is, broadly, needed and how much of that is “just enough.”

The answer to “just enough” is a small_ish_ (but ‘complete’ – which means it’s going to have a _poor_ tooth to tail ratio) and flexible (again, more tail than tooth) _permanent force_ (to resurrect and old term) base that can be augmented, reasonably quickly, by people (and _things_) from a large, well equipped, well trained _reserve_ – part(s) of which might be on full time or near full time service.


----------



## Edward Campbell

But cuts to defence spending are not the only or best answer according to this column by Terrance Corcoran, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from todays’ _National Post_:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/01/25/terence-corcoran-lots-of-options-for-spending-cuts.aspx


> Terence Corcoran:
> *Lots of options for spending cuts*
> *The battle must be waged anew to drive the Legendary Immovable Spending Blob out of Ottawa*
> 
> By Terence Corcoran
> 
> The Legendary Immovable Spending Blob appears to be descending over Ottawa’s pre-budget consulations. Forecasters now predict the federal government is heading for years of deficits unless something is done. By 2013-14, Ottawa could still be racking up annual deficits of $19-billion, according to the Parliamentary Budget Office. So what, exactly, is that something that must bedone? Enter the ISB, ritually dragged onto the scene by a little army of volunteers who will tell you that, no matter what the state of the economy, the one thing that can’t be done is spending cuts. Just impossible. Beyond the realm of possibility. Don’t even waste time thinking about it.
> 
> 
> The Rev. Jeffrey Simpson did his bit last week to prop up the idea that Ottawa’s spending is more or less immovable, a great fixed thing that can never be reduced in size. It can grow, but never be cut. As a result, when Ottawa moves into deficit territory, there is only one alternative.” The economists all believe,” said Rev. Simpson in one of his regular sermons, his iPod on direct download from the higher powers in Ottawa, “the federal government should raise taxes to eliminate the defict with certainty, pay down debt to prepare for aging, and give Canada a buffer against future shocks.” The preferred option: raise the GST.
> 
> 
> Spending, apparently, cannot be cut. Back in 2001, when Paul Martin was still finance minister and federal spending was a mere $130-billion a year, the idea of spending reduction was seen as just not feasible. There is nowhere to cut, no fat to trim, and no program that can be scaled back. In the wake of his own 2001 budget, Mr. Martin said: “People always come back and say, ‘You can’t find the money to do that within $130.5-billion?And the answer is no.’”
> 
> 
> This year federal spending is expected to top $270-billion on its way to $300-billion by 2015, an increase of 160%. So we have gone in a little more than a decade from a place where Paul Martin could find nothing to cut from $130-billion to a place where nothing can be cut from $300-billion.
> 
> 
> This is ancient history now, but back in 2001, just to get the ball rolling, I recommended some possible reductions in Ottawa’s annual expenses, a suggestion-list of cuts. The Western and Atlantic business subsidy agencies ($500-million), the Technology Partnerships Program ($200-million), the Sustainable Development Foundation ($100-million), the Prime Minister’s Africa Fund ($500-million), the anti-tobacco marketing campaign ($200-million), the green municipal funds ($250-million), new cultural programs ($500-million).Needless to say, these ideas were ignored and I imagine most of these spending categories have since been renamed and expanded.
> 
> 
> So the battle must be waged anew to drive the Immovable Spending Blob out of Ottawa. Spending can and must be cut. Fortunately we have two rough blueprints at hand to get us all started. Over at Maclean’s magazine, Andrew Coyne has crafted a handy plan  to trim federal spending over the next few years. In “How to cut $20-billion from spending without really trying,” Mr. Coyne proposes cuts that would bring the budget deficit to zero over 5 years. A useful but tougher companion document is the Canadian Taxpayers Federation’s pre-budget call for about $20-billion in cuts over three years.
> 
> In brief, the Coyne cuts would include $6-billion in reduced transfers to the provinces between now and 2014. Via Rail and AECL should be put on full cost recovery to save $500-million. Half the CBC allocation should be raised by the CBC via direct cable fee, saving $500-million. Assorted regional development agencies would be shut down ($700-million). Handouts to private industries could be trimmed by $1-billion. Tax breaks for Labour Sponsored Venture Capital Funds, farmers, fishers, resource industries would save another $2-billion.
> 
> 
> The taxpayers federation has similar ideas in mind, including cuts in equalization ($4.3-billion), a 5% reduction in departmental spending ($8.5-billion), and $2.5-billion saved by reducing regional development spending and crown corporation outlays. A public sector wage freeze and a freeze in public sector hiring, along with reductions in spending on consultants and advertizing could also be used to bring the deficit under control.
> 
> 
> Spending can’t be cut? Not true. There are lots of options. And now’s the time for Ottawa to start making a list.



There *are* many areas that can and should be cut, before the defence budget is even considered, as Corcoran and (in the embedded links) Coyne and the CTF point out. One can quibble about the details – three years to a balanced budget or four or five; cut all stimulus or maintain some for (necessary) infrastructure maintenance; decrease transfers or cap transfers; etc – but there is no doubt that much of the Government of Canada’s spending is unproductive and, often, counter-productive. But every programme has _champions_ and a _constituency_, a constituency  that benefits and maybe even votes.


----------



## Edward Campbell

And here is the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation's plan. It is worth a read.

Here is a key line from the report (page 22):

"Canada’s debt has gone through four major periods of explosive, sustained growth: World War One, World War Two, the prime‐ministerships of Pierre Trudeau and Brian Mulroney, and currently. The pace of the debt burden’s growth today is paralleled only by this country’s darkest hours of war and its darkest hours of fiscal recklessness."

"Fiscal recklessness" is a good term to describe most government spending since around 1968. Good government, more productive (effective) government and 'cheaper' government is possible; we've done it before. The 'culture of entitlement' (thank you Pierre Trudeau) has to change, that's all.


_Caveat lector_: I am a member of the CTF and I make occasional donations to support its work.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Financial Post_ is another useful contribution to the 2010 budget _debate_ – it’s only me, talking to myself, so far, here on Army.ca:

http://www.financialpost.com/news-sectors/economy/story.html?id=2484209


> Cut taxes to lift productivity, Ottawa urged
> *Conference Board*
> 
> Paul Vieira, Financial Post
> 
> Published: Tuesday, January 26, 2010
> 
> 
> *In a report, issued today, the board said policymakers should keep tax reform as a top issue in an effort to reverse a 20-year slump in productivity.*
> 
> OTTAWA -- Even though they face deteriorating fiscal conditions, Canadian governments should continue to keep corporate income taxes low -- better yet, reduce them further -- to boost moribund productivity levels, the Conference Board of Canada recommends.
> 
> In a report, issued today, the board said policymakers should keep tax reform as a top issue in an effort to reverse a 20-year slump in productivity. Tax reform is crucial in sparking a revival in business investment in machinery and equipment investment, which has slowed considerably since the early 1980s and might help explain Canada's awful productivity record.
> 
> "We have overinvested in people relative to the plant," said Glen Hodgson, vice-president and chief economist at the Ottawa-based think-tank.
> 
> A stronger Canadian dollar versus its U.S. peer will make it easier for businesses to invest in the necessary technology, because the equipment has never been so cheap. The high-flying loonie might have boosted business investment in machinery and equipment in the third quarter of 2009, which jumped more than 25% annualized, recent data indicate.
> 
> But lower corporate income taxes, including the abolition of capital taxes, would help accelerate the process.
> 
> If necessary, governments that find themselves too strapped for financing could opt to increase consumption taxes, or introduce a new so-called green tax, to offset the shortfall created by lower corporate tax receipts.
> 
> "It is a rebalancing of the tax system," Mr. Hodgson said. "Put less weight on investment and income and capital, and more weight on consumption taxes. Tax the things we value the least more, and try to lighten taxes on things we really do value."
> 
> Tax reform is one of the elements the federal and provincial governments must tackle as part of productivity puzzle. Late last week, Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney warned the country faced years of sputtering economic growth -- no greater than 2% a year -- unless productivity levels improve.
> 
> Productivity growth is widely considered the best way to increase a society's standard of living, as income gains are produced with less effort. For Canada, improving current moribund levels will be more crucial in an era of slowing growth in the labour force, as Baby Boomers retire.
> 
> The Conference Board study indicated the real problem for Canada is the lack of investment in equipment. The quality of labour has climbed steadily since 1961, whereas the amount of capital -- or machinery and equipment -- deployed has been stagnant as of the 1980s.
> 
> "Sluggish growth in the capital stock has been a bigger impediment to Canada's productivity performance than has the labour force," the report said.
> 
> Besides tax reform and the stronger dollar, the report said governments should tackle the following to boost productivity: measures to improve the country's venture-capital market; continued investments in infrastructure, such as public transport, roads and railways; and removing "burdensome" government regulation that removes the incentive to invest in technology.
> 
> pvieira@nationalpost.com



Two points, and I know I’m repeating myself:

1.	There is only one taxpayer – you and me. Corporations can and do pay taxes but they do so only with the money they get (earn) from you and me. Corporate taxes are, indirectly, paid by us. It is the _indirect_ nature of corporate taxes that makes them inefficient – more expensive to collect. ‘We,’ consumers mostly, would pay less, overall, if there were *NO* corporate taxes at all and other taxes were increased to provide the ‘lost’ revenue; and

2.	Productivity does mean making workers do more for less. Workers are only a minor part of the productivity equation. What needs to happen is to _allow_ each worker to do more in the same time – maybe for a higher wage – by giving him or her better tools, including better management practices, better training and  better technology.

 My, personal, preference, would be:

•	No further changes to the GST/HST except to _harmonize_ across the country;

•	Steady decreases in the income tax which is, essentially, a tax on savings and, therefore, a tax on investment and, consequentially, a tax on jobs because jobs are created by investment;

•	A total, 100%, reduction in corporate taxes;

•	A new carbon tax – a pure _consumption_ tax, paid by each of us whenever we fill up our tanks, turn up our thermostats, take a hot shower, watch our large screen TV or buy groceries.  This would be sufficient to offset ‘losses’ from the corporate taxes and pay for the steady decreases in the income tax; and

•	Serious spending cuts, as discussed above.

That would allow us to afford all the essentials, including a strong military, and have a more productive economy with more and better paid jobs for Canadians.


----------



## Northalbertan

Carbon tax is a dirty word out here in the west.  I don't think that idea will ever fly out here.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Northalbertan said:
			
		

> Carbon tax is a dirty word out here in the west.  I don't think that idea will ever fly out here.




I understand that; that doesn't make it a bad idea.

A new _consumption_ tax, all dressed up in bright green, that might, actually, reduce pollution (because it will not do anything about climate change), remains a good idea to offset the costs of a balanced budget after about $15 Billion per year have been *cut* from existing spending - without touching defence or transfers to provinces.


----------



## Jed

Mr. Campbell I agree on about 99 44/100 % of your opinions and insight but I disagree with a Carbon Tax. Yes it is a consumptive Tax and it will be theoretically distributed against the wealthy people first, but it would not be distributed 'regionally' very effectively. Folks living in rural and isolated areas away from the main centres or living in more northern climates, would be most likely taxed to the breaking point. Such a departure from the Status quo would mean having to reshift taxation on a macro basis. Please excuse my layman terminology and probably my spelling and grammar.

In my point of view it is all about production. I can not see how the completely redundant bureaucracy in Ottawa, or Toronto or any of the provincial capitals adds to efficiency.

Canada used to be relatively efficient at making things happen without killing entire forests to supply paper for legions of clerks to ensure new and improved forms are filled out correctly. What ever happened to guys like CD Howe who would go through an in basket piled 2 feet deep in one day making decisions and folks actually getting on with their work? 

Before we had computers, when typewriters were the main writing tool and numbers were added primitively, major work occurred. Why do the bosses at the top of the pyramid need to have every last detail immediately? Whatever happened to appropriate delegation of tasks and matching authority and responsibilty correctly? 

As long as we have micromanagement at the highest levels of our governmental organizations and the resulting lack of trust from employees down the line, productivity will never improve.


----------



## a_majoor

I don't think people are not listening to you Edward, after all, similar ideas are on display in the Making Canada Relevant Again economic superthread.

Tag teaming will work even better if parliamentarians, the media and every influential individual and decision maker is offered the arguments given and links to these URL's (and others) with a very polite but insistent message to _read them_ (or your political party/newspaper/business will no longer receive my patronage). As an Aikido practitioner, I would also suggest placing the links on every left wing site imaginable in order to generate controversy and discussion in the spirit that free publicity is better than none.

Army.ca is supposed to have almost 10% of the entire CF as members, so there is a critical mass to cover the nation if everyone gets aboard the project...


----------



## Edward Campbell

I hate to keep saying “I told you so,” but this, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ web site illustrates that Canadians so-called _affection_ for the CF may be a mile wide but it is, at best, only an inch deep and it does not extend to building and maintaining the military capability that one of the world’s richest and most important nations *needs*. Defence, according to _EKOS Research_ boss Frank Graves is where Canadians want Ottawa to cut:

My *emphasis* added
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/budget-should-target-fat-cat-ottawa-poll-suggests/article1465710/


> Budget should target 'fat-cat Ottawa,' poll suggests
> 
> Jane Taber
> 
> Friday, February 12, 2010
> 
> *1. Economic advice.* Canadians want the government to cut services and spending to reduce the deficit, according to a new poll. Are you listening Jim Flaherty?
> 
> The Finance Minister and Prime Minister Stephen Harper vow they can wrestle down the $56-billion deficit without having to raise taxes or to cut spending. Many economic experts believe this to be impossible.
> EKOS Research asked Canadians to tell them how they would do it. What is their preferred approach to deficit reduction? Forty-six per cent of respondents said they would cut services and spending.
> 
> And 56 per cent of those who identified themselves as Conservatives supported cuts, compared to 38 per cent who say they are Liberals, 36 per cent NDP, 42 per cent Green and a huge 56 per cent of the Bloc Quebecois.
> 
> Only 14 per cent said they would raise taxes; 10 per cent of respondents said continue to run deficits and 30 per cent said they didn’t know.
> 
> The poll of 3,006 Canadians was conducted between Feb. 3 and 9.
> 
> Mr. Flaherty is to deliver his budget on March 4, which many observers are hoping will lay out the roadmap to deficit reduction.
> 
> *EKOS pollster Frank Graves believes the Conservatives will “accent the need for severe cuts to the ‘bloated bureaucracy’.” In other words go after so-called “fat-cat Ottawa.”
> 
> “This will be effective in the short term,” he says. He also says his research team has done a lot of “hard testing” on where to cut - and it’s the Defence Department.
> 
> “My guess is that the major resources being devoted to Defence will be eyed by many Canadians as a possible target given he Afghan exit plan,” he says. “This will clash somewhat with the rising affection for the ‘troops’.”*
> 
> Mr. Graves says that he has also done polling which has shown “receptivity to re-introducing some of the cut GST and dedicating it to the deficit.” That would be a tax hike.
> Meanwhile, Canadians are feeling pretty good about themselves.
> 
> Dimitri Pantaxopoulos, of Praxicus, a national polling firm that has done research for the Conservatives, recently looked at Canadians’perceptions of their wealth.
> 
> He found that 75 per cent of Canadians felt they were the same or better off than they were at the same time last year. Last year, in the midst of the recession, only 46 per cent of Canadians felt that way.
> 
> The poll of 1,000 Canadians was conducted between Jan. 18 and 22.
> 
> However, he also found that although 72 per cent of respondents believe they are at least as well off as their parents at the same stage in life, only 46 per cent of the respondents said “they expect the next generation will be at least as well off as they are.”




It is encouraging that most Canadians disagree with Red Ed Clark, CEO of TD Canada Trust and his economist and big business colleagues that more taxes are the answer. Some taxes are necessary, even ‘good’ but deep and wide cuts to wasteful spending *must* come first – must, but, most likely will not. My guess is that there will be cuts to necessary, even productive spending but the waste will stay and will, eventually, be augmented with more waste funded by new taxes.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The Bartlett is undergoing a major refit at Allied shipyard right now. We got new 47' cutters a few years back to replace the 44's. The 41' cutters likely are due for new engines and electronics. the Hulls are in good shape. The 70' Point class are getting long in the tooth, the 47's are to small for Prince Rupert, likely another Europeon design to replace them. To bad they "sold" *cough* gave away *cough*  the John Jacobson. I suspect they could use her right now. Considering the interest in the Arctic, they could build a new 1100 class icebreaker for the West Coast and send her North in the summer, we used to have 2 x1100 on this coast. (Martha Black and George Pearkes)

They could increase SAR response in Comox by making the Crashboats a 24/7 operation with a SAR sector. 

As for Canadians understanding the need to fund the military, they need to educated in terms they can understand. Few people understand that for each soldier/sailor/airman deployed overseas, they need another 4 to keep a body there. Also war costs should come from general revenue.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ are two articles that are, simultaneously, _complementary_ and _competing_ one with the other:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/budget-must-tackle-rising-costs-of-greying-population-watchdog-warns/article1471991/


> Budget must tackle rising costs of greying population, watchdog warns
> *Slaying deficit isn't enough to counter looming squeeze on Canada's coffers, budget officer says*
> 
> Steven Chase
> 
> Ottawa
> 
> Thursday, Feb. 18, 2010
> 
> Ottawa's battling to rein in record deficits, but there's a bigger problem at play that will make life even more miserable for politicians and taxpayers: Canada's aging population.
> 
> Parliamentary budget watchdog Kevin Page is releasing a report Thursday that warns it's not good enough for Ottawa to simply balance the books – because of the increasing squeeze Canada's greying ranks will place on coffers.
> 
> He predicts that even if Ottawa slays the deficit, it will still have to confront an expanding “fiscal gap” in revenue over the next decade of $20-billion to $40-billion annually.
> 
> This will arise as Canada's work force shrinks in proportion to its growing pool of retirees, a trend that should both slow the growth of government tax revenue and increase demands for health-care spending and old-age benefits.
> 
> Mr. Page's new report effectively pours cold water on the idea Canada can “grow” its way out of trouble – as the economy expands and generates more tax revenue – or make do with a moderate restraint program.
> 
> The budget watchdog says the federal government must prepare to eliminate this revenue gap – through tax hikes or spending cuts – in order to keep its debt levels stable relative to the size of Canada's economy.
> 
> Ottawa will be forced to take actions equal to between 1 per cent and 2 per cent of Canada's estimated annual economic output merely to stabilize its debt burden, the Parliamentary Budget Officer calculates. (Mr. Page is using economic output forecasts for 2013-14 to derive the $20-billion to $40-billion prediction.)
> 
> His report also says that Ottawa would need to act on an even grander scale if it wanted to go further and shrink the size of its debt relative to economic output.
> 
> Failing to at least stabilize the problem will lead to growing deficits and “severe debt problems” over the next couple of decades, Mr. Page warns.
> 
> The year 2011 is the beginning of what has been called a “demographic time bomb” for Canada: an explosion of the 65-plus population over two decades coupled with a sharply declining proportion of Canadians in the work force as boomers retire.
> 
> “Right now we have a mindset that if we got back to balance, everything would be fine. That's a very short-term perspective,” Mr. Page says.
> 
> The watchdog takes care to avoid criticizing politicians for past fiscal decisions, but his analysis clearly suggests the combined efforts of the Harper government and former Liberal governments resulted in tax cuts that were deeper than can be sustained. Since 2006, the Tories have reduced taxes on individuals, families and businesses by an estimated $220-billion over 2008-09 and five subsequent years. That works out to roughly $36-billion a year in lost tax revenue.
> 
> Canada's demographic troubles are a slow-growing menace to this country.
> 
> The number of workers supporting each elderly Canadian is expected to dwindle to 2.5 to one in 2030 from five to one today because of this country's low birth rate, rising life expectancy and aging boomers.
> 
> This carries a fiscal cost. As the federal Finance Department warned in the 2005 budget, this looming demographic shift could sap economic growth each year over the 2010-30 period by half a percentage point.
> 
> Until the recession hit and blew Ottawa off course, this issue was a central preoccupation for the Finance Department, which warned repeatedly that it was the reason why Ottawa had to keep driving down the national debt until it was only 25 per cent of the economy. Less debt means more room to borrow when the spending pressures of an aging population begin to climb.
> 
> The number of Canadians aged 65 and over has been growing at about 2.5 per cent annually. But this rate will climb to between 3 per cent and 4 per cent starting in 2011, when the first in the massive baby boom generation celebrate their 65th birthdays.
> 
> Separately yesterday Stockwell Day, the federal cabinet minister tapped to lead the charge on restraining spending, said that he believes Canadians expect “considerable sacrifices” from Ottawa as it slays the deficit.
> 
> The Treasury Board president said the March 4 budget will identify some areas where Ottawa expects to ratchet back spending plans to help balance the federal books. “You will see some of the specifics; other areas will be more general where we will want ongoing input from Canadians.”



And

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/ottawa-should-just-show-spending-restraint/article1471713/


> Ottawa should just show spending restraint
> *The emotional GST battle obscures the fact that the government doesn't have to raise taxes*
> 
> William Robson
> 
> Thursday, Feb. 18, 2010
> 
> Anxiety over projections of red ink in the federal budget through 2015 and beyond sparked a flare-up over the goods and services tax recently. Suggestions by business leaders, and a prominent banker in particular, that Ottawa should reinstate the 7-per-cent GST to get back to a surplus drew a rebuke in a Conservative Party e-mail. An alternative path – spending restraint – could help move us past this dichotomy, and the government should take the lead with a tough and convincing budget on March 4.
> 
> Certainly the anxiety over the federal deficit is well-founded. Business leaders, policy-makers and most adult Canadians recall the frustrations of trying to rein in government over-borrowing in the 1980s and early 1990s. To get stuck on the same treadmill of interest payments mounting beyond the capacity to pay in the coming decade would be doubly foolish.
> 
> Unlike last time, when the movement of the baby boomers into their highest-earning (and highest-taxpaying) years gave a fiscal boost, the boomers are now beginning to leave the work force. Equally serious, governments around the world are in deep fiscal trouble: Fears of inflation and even default in some cases could drive borrowing costs much higher, pushing interest payments, taxes and borrowing up together.
> 
> As for the debate over the GST, feelings are high because even before the financial crisis and slump made it look fiscally imprudent, the cut to 5 per cent pitted business people and economists against political tacticians.
> 
> Most of the former see the GST as a “good” tax – much less economically damaging than alternatives such as taxes on personal incomes and business profits. For them, the cut was a missed opportunity for implementing growth-friendly tax relief instead.
> 
> Politically, however, cutting the visible and unpopular tax looked smart. The 5-per-cent GST was one of five key planks in the Conservatives' first winning election platform, one they felt obliged to enact early in their mandate. Reversing the cut would be intensely embarrassing, and advice to do so is correspondingly irritating.
> 
> We should consider what outcome promises the best fiscal future for Canada.
> 
> If, as most business people and economists would prefer, consumption taxes such as the GST should provide a larger share of government revenues over time, the provinces need them far more than Ottawa. The provinces face the relentless pressure of health-care spending as the boomers age, and the GST-like taxes that Newfoundland and Labrador, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick already have, and Ontario and British Columbia soon will, are the most robust sources to fund it.
> 
> Ottawa's fiscal situation has deteriorated so sharply partly because both the previous Liberal and the current Conservative governments committed to increase transfers to the provinces faster than the economy and the federal tax base can grow. This situation is not just fiscally unsustainable, it also undermines accountability: Governments serve citizens better when the legislature that provides the programs levies the taxes.
> 
> Those transfer commitments expire before 2015, and by then Canada will be better off if Ottawa is raising and transferring less money, and the provinces are posing honest questions to their voters about how to fund their health-care promises.
> 
> The battle also risks obscuring the key fact that Ottawa does not need to raise taxes to balance the budget. The scary projections start from a stimulus-bloated baseline. As many commentators have pointed out, and as the C.D. Howe Institute's upcoming “shadow budget” documents, simply returning real per-person spending to its 2008 level can end deficits before 2015.
> 
> The spending cuts overseen by prime minister Jean Chrétien and finance minister Paul Martin in the late 1990s not only yielded big surpluses, but also were accompanied by robust economic growth. Similar moves today are both desirable and practical.
> 
> The main obstacle to balancing the budget through restraint is opposition inside the government and among those who benefit from its spending. Talk of tax hikes will strengthen that opposition and make a necessary job harder.
> 
> Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Finance Minister Jim Flaherty can and should lay out a credible path for spending that restores budget balance before five years have passed. If they do not, people will infer that the government lacks the conviction or will to proceed. In that case, the pressure for tax hikes will grow – and if the government responds to that pressure, it will be more damaging personal and business taxes, not the GST, that go up.
> 
> If the March 4 budget does lay out a clear and compelling program of spending restraint, the task of restoring fiscal balance will be far easier to accomplish.
> 
> _William Robson is president and CEO of the C.D. Howe Institute._



First: two cherrs to Kevin Page for bringing some long term thinking to this process.

Second: to more cheers to William Robson for highlighting the single *most* important element of budgeting – *restraint*.

At the risk of repeating myself, we need:

1.	Massive cuts to expenditures, *excluding cuts* to –

     a.	Health and social transfers to the provinces,
     b.	National defence/security;
     c.	Post-secondary education; and
     d.	R&D – with emphasis on the R.

2.	Restraint in transfers to provinces – holding increases to the rate of inflation;

3.	Restrain in defence spending – holding increases to the rate of inflation for military hardware (which is much, much higher than the general rate of inflation) and funding unforecasted operations from general revenue;

4.	Cuts to taxes and fees, specifically –

     a.	Cuts to the income tax aimed at taking hundreds of thousands of the lowest income (from employment) Canadians off the tax rolls entirely
     b.	The complete elimination of corporate taxes, which are, essentially, just consumption taxes (like the GST/HST) but with an expensive, convoluted collection system,
     c.	 Reductions to the employers’ share of EI and the CPP,

5.	Then, if necessary, two new taxes –

     a.	A surtax on income from employment over some defined amount, say, just for argument) income from employment (salary and bonuses) exceeding $2.5 Million, after deductions, and
     b.	A new carbon tax, a green tax that would be collected à la the GST/HST on a _flow through_ basis so that the ‘burden’ ends up, visibly, with the end user consumer, from Victoria, to Yellowknife and on to St. John’s, every time (s)he heats the family home or business, fills up the gas tank, turns on the big screen TV or buys groceries.

You can bet that defence spending (which accounts for about 7.5% of federal spending or about ⅓ of the deficit) will be on many, many, many ‘cut’ lists – starting with the political left but including people in Finance and the Treasury Board.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ and _National Post_, respectively, are two more articles on possible cuts to defence spending:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/afghan-pullout-sets-budget-quandary-for-harper/article1473645/


> Afghan pullout sets budget quandary for Harper
> *Should expected savings of up to $1.5-billion after troop repatriation be used trim the deficit or to keep priming the military?*
> 
> Campbell Clark
> 
> Ottawa
> Friday, Feb. 19, 2010
> 
> The Harper government will save up to $1.5-billion a year after the Canadian troops are repatriated from Afghanistan in July of next year but the move will leave the Prime Minister with a tough budget choice: Use the money to pay down the deficit or roll it back into the military.
> 
> Signs of what decision Stephen Harper will make could come as early as March 4, when the federal budget is delivered and his government maps out plans for a return to balanced books.
> 
> This spring, the government will update its defence spending projections for the next three years.
> 
> Two new think-tank papers put the estimate of savings when troops return at $1-billion to $1.5-billion.
> 
> “It may be that during this year's budget speech, which will concentrate on the way in which the government plans to deal with the massive budget deficit, the government may mention that the planned withdrawal from Afghanistan will result in savings of approximately $1-billion annually,” wrote retired colonel Brian MacDonald in a paper released Thursday by the Conference of Defence Associations.
> 
> Mr. MacDonald notes that the government has already signalled it expects to lop $765-million in 2011-12 from the $943-million in special funds allocated this year to the military for the Afghan mission.
> 
> But he argues the government has yet to really clarify the plans for the military's base budget.
> 
> The current public projections for 2011-12 show the main budget declining slightly and don't even include the 2.7-per-cent annual increase that the Harper government promised in its 2008 defence strategy. An update to that figure this spring, and new spending projections for the following year, will indicate whether the military's multiyear spending plans will include big-ticket items, or restraint.
> 
> Mr. MacDonald argues that, unless some of the Afghanistan spending is pumped back into the military, the Canadian Forces will not be able to replace desperately needed equipment like the navy's ships and destroyers and the air force's fighter jets.
> 
> Suggestions that Canada forego the spending for five years to fight the deficit will mean foregoing a fully functioning navy or air force, he says: “We don't have the luxury.”
> 
> The Conference Board of Canada argues that the withdrawal from Afghanistan provides an opportunity to slow increases in military spending that have averaged 8 per cent per year since 2000.
> 
> Conference Board economist Alexandre Laurin said not all of the $1.5-billion in annual operating costs for Afghanistan estimated by Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page can really be banked when the troops withdraw, since some of it is, for example, the cost of equipment that would go to waste if not used elsewhere.
> 
> But it will still make it easier for the government to slow the rate of increases in military spending to 3 per cent per year – which the Conference Board estimates would save $1-billion in 2011-12 and $1.5-billion by 2013-14.
> 
> “What's the alternative? To keep it growing at such a high rate,” Mr. Laurin said.
> 
> Recent increases have allowed the military to rebuild its capacity, but that growth cannot be maintained when cost cuts are needed to combat the deficit, he said.
> 
> “We've done most of the catch-up. … Yes, we should be able to at least maintain our [defence] capacity, but we don't need to increase it further.”
> 
> “We need to find some areas for spending reductions, and that would be one of them.”



And

http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/02/18/don-martin-forces-prepare-for-funding-cuts.aspx


> Don Martin: *Forces prepare for funding cuts*
> Posted: February 18, 2010
> 
> Don Martin, Canadian politics
> 
> Thousands of Canadian soldiers now simulating Kandahar combat in the California desert have had their fresh meals reduced to twice daily while bottled water is replaced by tanker truck fillups.
> 
> This is not to experience civilian life in poverty-stricken Afghanistan. It is, at least partially, military conditioning for an oncoming budget squeeze.
> 
> Now, before images jump to mind of malnourished soldiers weakly staggering around the airfield pleading for boxed rations, they still have access to plenty of snack food. And phasing out bottled water has as much to do with environmental considerations - plastic bottles, very bad - as it does cost savings.
> 
> But a military which enjoyed a 57% surge in funding over five years is suddenly preparing to fight against restraint as the government's $56-billion deficit elimination project moves onto the Conservative agenda.
> 
> Internal documents show the forces are banking on a $2 billion increase in next month's budget to bring national defence spending to $21.1 billion.  But the good times stop rolling after this year and military planners are already scrambling for ammunition to take a shot at new funding ideas.
> 
> Their timing is lousy. The forces will be shifting from full tilt to full stop on the battlefield at the precise moment when the Conservative government takes aim at easy cost-cutting targets.
> 
> While budget cuts this year are not expected, military brass will still ding land, air and naval forces 5% of their total spending to create a slush fund to cover unforeseen deployments.
> 
> The big fear is that a decade of twilight will arrive in 2011 as a military confined to Canadian bases using battle-battered equipment waits for another call to action.
> 
> Let's face a squeamish reality here. The supreme sacrifice of 140 soldiers, with hundreds more maimed or mentally scarred, has rendered military budgets almost bulletproof from ministerial reduction.
> 
> Nothing boosted recruitment faster or opened government wallets wider than posting a full battle-ready deployment to the wilds of southern Afghanistan. Add in soldiers rushing to disaster relief or keeping the Winter Olympics secure, and filling military coffers has been the sexiest investment on the books.
> 
> Prime Minister Stephen Harper nailed that point home during his Haiti tour this week when he saluted Canada's heavy lift Globemaster fleet as a uniquely Conservative contribution to elevating Canada into a ‘hard power' on military matters.
> 
> Of course, he neglected to mention that most of the money to buy all this equipment was courtesy of Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin's five-year, $13-billion budget boost from 2005, a pot of gold which dries up this year.
> 
> But the perfect storm for the troops is ending. Many soldiers are poised to come home from Haiti next month, the 3,000-plus on Winter Olympic security detail starts leaving in two weeks, the California training will end soon and the withdrawal of all soldiers and hardware from Afghanistan begins in 16 months.
> 
> The question looms large: What next?
> 
> It takes a very shiny object to catch a finance minister's favorable eye, particularly when he's been ordered into the era of spending cuts,  and running, flying or sailing troops around domestic bases is not exactly an attention-grabber.
> 
> This means the must-seize military moment has arrived for Canadian Forces to create a blueprint for continued funding with causes that have mass voter appeal.
> 
> Be it stamping out Somalian pirating, fortifying our Arctic boundary, bolstering our search and rescue capabilities or some fresh brainstorm developing inside DND headquarters, the forces need a post-Afghanistan reason-to-exist recalibration.
> 
> When deadly force gives way to peacekeeping with brass waiting around for new equipment to arrive years late and over budget, soldiers could again disappear from the government's priority radar.
> 
> Then, sadly, Canada's armed forces are vulnerable to an attack which hurts them the most -- a direct hit on their bottom line.
> 
> 
> National Post
> dmartin@nationalpost.com




I suspect that M. Laurin of The Conference Board of Canada represents most of the advice being offered to Finance Minister Jim Flaherty; Brian MacDonald’s voice will be, largely, unheard or, at least, unheeded in the finance ministry boardrooms where budget plans are crafted.

Will events, or Prime Minister Harper, provide a nice new, _shiny object_ - in the form of a tough, dangerous mission - to _rescue_ the defence budget from the _death of a thousand cuts_ à la the ‘70s (and repeated in the '80s and ‘90s)?


----------



## MarkOttawa

More at _The Torch_:

The CF's budget--and missions--after Afstan 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/02/cfs-budget-and-missions-after-afstan.html



> ...
> Note what Mr Martin writes:
> 
> "...the must-seize military moment has arrived for Canadian Forces to create a blueprint for continued funding with causes that have mass voter appeal..."
> 
> Good flippin' grief. It is *not for the military to identify specific missions that may require funding*. It the function of the civilian government, from time-to-time, to call on the CF to *carry out specific missions that the government decides are in the national interest* (the military clearly should be allowed to give their best professional advice in advance, especially when there are competing possibilities). That is the essence of civilian control of the military. Mr Martin would be loud amongst those screaming bloody murder were the CF to be perceived as challenging that control by telling the government what the CF should be doing. What a hypocrite despite the "sadly" thrown into his last sentence above.
> 
> More broadly, it is the function of the government to identify for the military the general types of missions that they may be required to perform. It is then up to the military to tell the government what numbers and types of forces and equipments are required and roughly what they may cost. The government finally should make the decision about what capabilities it is ultimately willing to pay for.
> 
> But our recent governments, Liberal and Conservative, have been both unwilling and (more important) incapable to engage in the sort of serious, and politically fraught (some traditional missions may have to be ditched and there may be job losses somewhere), analytic thinking that is required for such an exercise. Sadly, the CF themselves have done little or nothing to encourage such thinking, each service being afraid that it may be gored in the process. For more along these lines see the end of this post...
> 
> *British defence budget woes--a lesson for Canada too?*
> http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/01/british-defence-budget-woes-lesson-for.html
> 
> The key thing to watch for future budgets is the 2.7% promised ongoing annual increase--and even that is hardly what it seems...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Edward Campbell

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is more speculation on the fate of defence spending when Finance Minister Jim Flaherty brings down his national budget in a few weeks:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/budget/defence-priorities-subject-to-tough-budget-decisions/article1479089/


> Defence priorities subject to tough budget decisions
> *As next week's cost-conscious federal budget draws closer, the Department of National Defence may be in for a rude awakening after years of steady and strong Tory funding*
> 
> Bill Curry and Daniel Leblanc
> 
> Ottawa — Wednesday, Feb. 24, 2010
> 
> Icebreakers, fighter jets, helicopters and armoured vehicles: no other department spends quite like the Department of National Defence.
> 
> Tory times have been good times for Canada's defence budget. When the Conservatives won power in January, 2006, Canada's total defence spending stood at $14.7-billion a year. It's now more than $21-billion, a 44 per cent increase. The Afghan mission is partly behind the higher costs, but the government has also made long-term commitments to upgrade the equipment of the Canadian Forces.
> 
> But with the Afghan mission winding down and the government's focus shifting to balancing the books over the medium term, these big hikes in defence spending are coming to an end.
> 
> In a briefing this week, a senior government official told journalists that starting in 2011, the government will look for savings by scaling back the rate of growth in program spending. The official indicated that whilehealth care  and education transfers to the provinces will be exempt, defence spending will not.
> 
> No one expects defence items will be cut in next week's budget, but observers do predict that some of the more expensive purchases the government had planned for the coming years could be delayed. The Defence Department has an annual budget of $2.3-billion for capital expenditures and $2.4-billion for maintenance and upgrades.
> 
> This is a sample of some of the high-profile projects the government is working on for the coming years, highlighting a number of tough decisions that will need to be made.
> 
> *Next-generation fighter planes*: As part of a project worth more than $4-billion, Canada's fleet of CF-18s will need to be replaced within the next decade, and the government is being asked to choose a replacement aircraft in the near future. The government is participating with the United States in a program overseen by Lockheed Martin to design a new strike fighter, but proponents of the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Boeing Super Hornet are trying to entice Ottawa to go for their planes.
> 
> *Search-and-rescue planes*: Ottawa has been talking for years about spending $3-billion for new planes to conduct search-and-rescue operations all over the country. The job is currently handled by aging Buffaloes and large Hercules, and the government will face domestic pressure over concerns that the current fleet won't be up to the job.
> 
> *Land-combat vehicles*: DND is working on a $5-billion plan to upgrade its light armoured vehicles (LAV IIIs) and select a new generation of close combat vehicles (CCVs). The project has been on again/off again, with the government having to decide whether to pay for the development costs of a new fleet of CCVs for future ground military operations.
> 
> *Supply ships*: A $3-billion project to buy three new vessels to bring supplies, including fuel, to naval task forces was announced in 2006, and has yet to get launched. Odds are the government can buy only two ships if it wants to stay within budget, and it might have to ditch its plan for fully equipped, multitasking vessels. Still, the project benefits from the fact that the ships could be built in Canada, and thus contribute to the country's economic recovery.
> 
> *Arctic offshore patrol ships*: The government has promised to buy six to eight vessels, at a cost of $3.1-billion, to navigate year-round in the North's icy waters. The plan is a key element of Prime Minister StephenHarper's  campaign in support of Canada's sovereignty over the Arctic, which makes it hard to axe, but the ships are expensive, with an estimated cost of $4.3-billion to operate over 25 years.
> 
> *Operation and maintenance*: In addition to buying new gear, the Canadian Forces spend a lot of money every year upgrading, maintaining and operating their equipment. The decades-old Sea King helicopters are high-maintenance aircraft, for example, and the government could cut back on the use of its equipment in times of fiscal restraint.



O&M, the last item on the list, is always an easy target, even inside DND where people – including admirals and generals – ought to know better; cutting O&M always comes back to bite us in the bum.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from a recent edition of the _National Post_, is a plea to “keep the military off the budgetary chopping block.” We will know is just a few hours if the government is so inclined:

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=2629573


> Keep the military off the budgetary chopping block
> 
> Matt Gurney, National Post
> 
> Published: Tuesday, March 02, 2010
> 
> On Thursday, the government will bring down a new budget. It is widely rumoured to be a stay-the-course affair that recognizes the need for tough fiscal choices. But tough choices must still be correct ones, and sometimes that means knowing where not to cut.
> 
> A recent C.D. Howe Institute report, approvingly cited by Terence Corcoran in his Financial Post series on proposed deficit-reduction measures, called for a freeze in military spending at current levels, adjusted for population growth and inflation, noting that the end of the Afghanistan campaign would provide Ottawa an opportunity to "limit the expansion of spending on National Defence without lowering our military capacity." While I share the Institute's concern over the deficit, its scholars are mistaken in two key ways: Current spending would not be enough to sustain our current capabilities, nor are those current capabilities sufficient.
> 
> As the report notes, military spending in Canada has climbed at an annual rate of 8% since 2000, far outpacing the growth in the overall economy. Beginning under Paul Martin and continuing during the Conservatives' leadership, chronically undermanned units began to return to something close to full strength. Rusted out equipment was replaced. When specific problems with Canadian gear were discovered -- for example, when the infamous unarmoured Iltis patrol jeeps fared poorly in an IED-strewn Afghan desert -- new equipment was ordered and rushed to the troops.
> 
> It can't be denied that the Harper government has delivered what the troops needed. German-made tanks, American transport helicopters and British artillery cannons have made our troops more effective and harder to kill. But it has also revealed an enduring flaw in Canadian military procurement policy: In peacetime, we convince ourselves we'll never need a military, and in wartime, we pay through the nose to buy one off the shelf. From building virtually a whole new navy and air force to battle the Nazis, to the recent race to get drones and helicopters into Kandahar in time to make a difference, it's how we've always done it. This must change.
> 
> Neglecting our Forces in peacetime and then racing to properly equip them once they're already committed to battle not only puts our men and women in danger, it's fiscally inefficient. It would be better, both for our military and our treasury, to commit ourselves to maintaining a large, robust military in peacetime that is capable of going to war on short notice, with all it needs already on hand. That means maintaining a high tempo of training, recruiting enough manpower to fill the ranks, and replacing obsolete or worn out equipment promptly.
> 
> Our navy desperately needs new supply ships and fleet-support vessels. The Forces should abandon the bizarre plan to build two bloated all-purpose ships and instead immediately design and order smaller, specialized ships which can carry out those tasks independently (and which can be built in Canadian shipyards), starting immediately. Our three 40-year old destroyers should be retired and replaced with modern, perhaps foreign-built vessels, preferably in greater numbers. The air force will soon need to replace the increasingly elderly CF-18 fighters, an enormous expense for which we should budget now. The army's fleet of armoured vehicles, battered by eight years of war, needs upgrading and retrofitting.
> 
> The steps above are what's necessary to simply maintain our current capabilities. But arguably, each branch of the Canadian Forces, most particularly the army but certainly the navy as well, ought to be considerably larger than it is. Even if Canadians are willing to settle for the status quo -- a small military that uses technology and guts to punch above its weight -- we're going to need to spend to keep us there.
> 
> Many will no doubt argue that Canada doesn't need a powerful military. But to their credit, the Conservatives, who've spent the last several years positioning themselves as the party that gave the military its pride back, aren't taking that line. Thursday's budget -- and those that follow it -- must put the money where their mouths have been.
> 
> mgurney@nationalpost.com




There is, of course, a counter argument that says that military spending is wasteful and we should, always, do just barely enough to prevent the Americans from offering unwanted help. The government’s commendably hasty response to the Haitian earthquake, made possible only by increased defence spending does not ‘earn’ the government any points in the polls: Why, therefore, spend more if there is no political return?


----------



## dapaterson

Figures lie, and liars figure.

What is the Defence budget?  A seemingly simple question, until you examine how the government operates.

Is the Defence Budget the Parliamentary appropriations in the Main Estimates only?  Do we include the Supps as well?

The Government could increase the funding to DND in the mains, but cut off the supps - that would be an "increase" that would result in less money.

There are many games that can be played in Ottawa...


(An example of the games: the announcement that PO&M budgets will be frozen for departments.  Since current collective agreements call for a 1.5% pay increase, the only way to manage that will be to attrit personnel by 1.5% per year.  Over three years, that's a 5% reduction to the size fo the public service - a desired outcome, but not cast as such)


----------



## Edward Campbell

I don’t know how the number in this story, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_, align with the government’s numbers from its own polls, but if they agree that about half of Canadians want the defence budget cut then we are in for some _lean years_:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Most+Canadians+aren+worried+federal+deficit+Poll/2638129/story.html
(my emphasis added)


> Most Canadians aren't worried by federal deficit: Poll
> 
> BY ANDREW MAYEDA, CANWEST NEWS SERVICE
> 
> MARCH 3, 2010
> 
> OTTAWA — Most Canadians aren't bothered right now by the red ink flowing out of Ottawa, but they wish the government weren't killing the home-renovation tax credit, according to the findings of a new poll.
> 
> The survey shows an overwhelming majority of Canadians are in favour of the government cutting spending to eliminate the deficit, projected to hit $56 billion this year. However, most Canadians also support the idea of running a deficit until revenues rise with the economic recovery, according to the poll, commissioned by Canwest News Service and Global National.
> 
> The results suggest public opinion is roughly in line with the deficit-reduction plan put forward by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty. Flaherty, who will introduce the budget Thursday, has vowed not to hike taxes or reduce overall spending to balance the budget. Instead, the government has said it will restrain spending growth, while hoping that tax revenues will recover sufficiently from faster economic growth to eventually eliminate the deficit.
> 
> Recently, a number of economists, former public servants and business leaders expressed concern that deficits could become entrenched unless the government takes bolder steps to get its finances in order.
> 
> However, 54 per cent of poll respondents said a federal deficit doesn't bother them "at this stage."
> 
> Ipsos Reid pollster Darrell Bricker said the results suggest that most Canadians understand the need to rack up deficits to stimulate the economy through the injection of public funds.
> 
> "When you talked about the deficit previously, it really was a representation of government waste and inefficiency," said Bricker, CEO of Ipsos Reid Public Affairs. "Now when people talk about the deficit, it's about an investment in trying to turn the economy around."
> 
> Seventy-five per cent of Canadians support cutting spending, while only 28 per cent back a tax hike, the poll found. By contrast, 59 per cent support the idea of running a shortfall "until revenues rise to help reduce the deficit."
> 
> The survey helps to explain not only why the government isn't taking any radical fiscal steps, but also why the Opposition Liberals haven't been more critical of the deficit. Recently, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has focused on urging the government to create jobs, and he has been vague about the Liberals' own deficit-fighting plan.
> 
> "To come out and radically attack the deficit, at a time when people probably still think the economy is fragile, is probably not good political positioning," said Bricker.
> 
> A senior government official revealed last week that the home-renovation tax credit will not be renewed. The credit, which allowed individuals to claim expenses on home renovations, covered work done before Feb. 1.
> 
> However, 76 per cent of poll respondents believe the credit should have been extended for another year.
> 
> "It's a missed opportunity," said Bricker. "It's obviously a program that's popular with Canadians."
> 
> Respondents were also asked to express their support for cutting government spending in different areas. Canadians expressed the most support — at 63 per cent and 60 per cent — for cutting subsidies for arts and sports organizations, respectively. It should be noted, however, that support for cutting arts funding was only 58 per cent in Quebec, where a proposal by the Conservatives to do just that provoked a backlash in the last election.
> 
> Fifty-nine per cent of respondents were in favour of cutting foreign aid; 48 per cent, subsidies for industry and agriculture; 47 per cent [of respondents were in favour of cutting] the armed forces and defence; 29 per cent, the environment; 29 per cent, justice and crime prevention; 25 per cent, social services; and 16 per cent, health care.
> 
> To complete the poll, Ipsos interviewed 1,000 randomly selected adults by phone from Feb. 18 to 22. A poll of that size has a margin of error of 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. Regional error margins tend to be significantly larger.
> 
> © Copyright (c) Canwest News Service




I will repeat what I have said over and over again: despite all the red T-shirts and yellow ribbons, Canadians’ *support* for the military may be a mile wide but it is only an inch deep. That is based, largely, on the fact that the overwhelming majority of Canadians – military supporters and opponents alike - haven’t the foggiest bloody idea of why we have armed forces and what those forces do. In fact I would guess, based on some very, very old data, that the *opponents* of national defence and defence spending – the Stephen Staples, Maude Barlows and so ons and so forths – are better informed about what the CF is and does than are the ‘supporters’ most of whom appear to be uncritical, uninformed ‘cheerleaders.’


Edit: typo


----------



## The Bread Guy

Here's the budget page, and I've attached the defence budget info (extracted from the 400+ page major document) - defence section:


> .....*Restraining Growth in National Defence Spending*
> In recent years, the Government has made major, necessary investments in
> the country’s military capabilities in support of the Canada First Defence
> Strategy, the Government’s long-term vision for the Canadian Forces. The
> Canada First Defence Strategy is a long-term commitment to modernize
> the Canadian Forces. The strategy sets out key objectives of growing the
> Forces, recapitalizing air, land and naval fleets, and other major equipment,
> restoring infrastructure, and ensuring the Canadian Forces are ready to
> deploy in the defence of Canada and Canada’s interests both at home and
> abroad. The Canada First Defence Strategy continues to point the way
> forward for Canada’s military.
> 
> In addition to incremental funding received for deployed operations,
> National Defence’s annual expenses have increased from $15 billion in
> 2005–06 to $18 billion in 2008–09. In 2008–09, National Defence
> spending represented approximately one-fifth of total government direct
> program spending on an annual basis. These investments have strengthened
> the Canadian Forces and produced tangible results, as most recently
> demonstrated by the Afghanistan mission, support for relief efforts in Haiti,
> and the provision of security at the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver.
> 
> The Government remains committed to continuing to build the Canadian
> Forces into a first-class, modern military. However, as part of measures
> to restrain the growth in overall government spending and return to
> budget balance in the medium term, the Government will slow the rate of
> previously planned growth in the National Defence budget. Budget 2010
> reduces growth in National Defence’s budget by $525 million in 2012–13
> and $1 billion annually beginning in 2013–14. Defence spending will
> continue to grow but more slowly than previously planned (Chart 4.1.2).
> 
> By implementing this measure beginning in 2012–13, the Government
> will ensure that it does not adversely affect military operations during the
> current Afghanistan mission, and that National Defence has sufficient time
> to adjust its long-term expenditure plans. The Government is confident
> that the long-term objectives of the Canada First Defence Strategy can be
> achieved and that the Canadian Forces will continue to fully meet its three
> key roles: defending Canada, defending North America and contributing to
> international peace and security.
> 
> National Defence has already begun work on a comprehensive strategic
> review to ensure its resources are fully aligned with the priorities set out
> in the Canada First Defence Strategy. This review will identify measures
> necessary to implement the Budget 2010 decision ....


----------



## MarkOttawa

On CBC's "Power and Politics", 1706, minister Flaherty said the CF "will have to delay some of their acquisitions".  Which?  I'd think:

CCVs
A/OPs
And certainly no new fighter selection this year.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy

*Military escapes federal budget axe for now, but cuts loom in 2012-13*
Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press, 4 Mar 10
Article link

The Canadian military dodged a bullet in Thursday's federal budget, but will still see a total of $2.5 billion carved out of future defence spending after troops withdraw from Afghanistan next year.

Funding will remain largely stable in the current year, but the Conservative government plans to take away $525 million in planned increases in 2012-13, $1 billion in 2013-14 and another $1 billion the following year.

With Ottawa facing an estimated $53-billion deficit this year and $49 billion next year, there have been calls by social welfare groups for cuts to defence spending.

The military's budget has increased by $3 billion annually since the Tories came to power four years ago. It is expected to crest above $20 billion this year.

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said restraining defence spending is one pillar in his government's strategy to cut $17.6 billion from the federal budget over the next few years.

Thursday's budget raises questions about whether the Harper government will be able to deliver planned big-ticket purchases, including new naval supply ships, search-and-rescue planes, and armoured vehicles to replace those worn out by the Afghan war.

"We do not know right now if there will be an impact on those major capital projects," said Vice-Admiral Denis Rouleau, second-in-command for the military.

"We're certainly hoping to be able to move forward." ....

_More on link_


----------



## Edward Campbell

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_ is a pretty fair assessment of the budget, with a useful list of *highlights*:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/sports/faces+year+wage+freeze/2642974/story.html


> PS faces 2-year wage freeze
> 
> BY KATHRYN MAY AND ANDREW MAYEDA
> 
> MARCH 5, 2010
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Budgets
> Photograph by: Dennis Leung, The Ottawa Citizen
> 
> The Harper government targeted Canada’s 419,000 public servants Thursday with an unprecedented three-year freeze on department operations that will eat into their salaries, jobs and the programs and services they provide to Canadians.
> 
> Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s budget is poised to take the biggest bite out of the public service — most of which is outside of Ottawa — and its day-to-day operations since the Liberals’ massive downsizing of the mid-1990s.
> 
> The freeze, which will affect salaries, administration and overhead, is expected to save $6.8 billion over the next five years, which accounts for the biggest slice of the $17.6 billion in savings squeezed from departments to reduce the $53.8-billion deficit.
> 
> The wages of public servants will be allowed to increase this year by 1.5 per cent, as mandated under collective agreements. But departments must fund the increase, which amounts to roughly $300 million, from their operating budgets. After this year, salaries and operating budgets will be frozen for two years.
> 
> The freeze will extend to the military, RCMP, Crown corporations and agencies that receive federal funding. Those that don’t, such as Export Development Corporation and Business Development Bank, are expected to follow suit.
> 
> “We will take action to ensure the government lives within its means,” said Flaherty. “Canadian families and businesses have accepted the need for restraint. Fairness requires the government, too, should have to keep costs under control.”
> 
> But the budget also set the stage for further reductions, including a slew of reviews, the results of which will be fed into the preparation of the 2011 budget.
> 
> In his speech to the Commons, Flaherty said: “Our government is focused on jobs and growth, for one simple reason. Canadians are focused on jobs and growth.”
> 
> As expected, the budget follows through on the second year of the government’s stimulus plan, a move that will inject $19 billion into the economy.
> 
> Beyond the stimulus plan, the budget contains a smattering of new initiatives, such as $60 million to help youth deal with the tough job market, $62 million for elite and amateur athletes, and $8 million to create a new oversight body for the RCMP.
> 
> But the biggest revelation is the government’s restraint plan, which pledges to all but balance the budget by 2015, when the deficit is expected to fall to $1.8 billion.
> 
> The government plans to save $4.5 billion over five years by capping foreign aid at this year’s level, in the process breaking a promise to increase aid by eight per cent per year. Foreign aid will rise by $364 million to $5 billion.
> 
> The Conservatives will also slow the rate of previously planned growth in the national defence budget — a move that will save a further $2.5 billion.
> 
> All told, the restraint measures will limit the growth of direct program spending to 1.3 per cent once the stimulus plan expires. Previously, the Conservatives had predicted such expenditures would grow at more than twice that clip.
> 
> At a news conference, Flaherty said it was a “tough budget” — one that offers probably the smallest hike in new spending in a decade.
> 
> “We have to make some tough decisions,” he said. “The economic recovery is fragile … We needed to make the decisions now so that we would have a credible plan we would follow now.”
> 
> Treasury Board President Stockwell Day will lead the “aggressive” departmental spending review, where all programs and services could be on the table. The government is also launching an administrative review to streamline internal operations of departments, from human resources to informatics, and to end duplication.
> 
> It will also hold consultations with the 18 federal unions to come up with a “reasonable” compensation regime and find ways to organize work and use technology to improve the productivity of workers. The government will also be looking for ways to “better manage” compensation, including pensions and benefits.
> 
> Budget documents say these measures will “over time” reduce the size of the public service, which has mushroomed to support the government’s spending spree of recent years.
> 
> The freeze will spark a showdown with its unions, which have already had to swallow four years of wage controls and a suspension of collective bargaining.
> 
> Unions and Treasury Board are supposed to be back to the bargaining table in 2011, but will face the pressure of the operating freeze because departments will have to absorb any raises.
> 
> “It doesn’t look good,” said John Gordon, president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada. “With the freeze, they aren’t giving departments money to pay for their employees so, when we go back to the table, does that mean we start negotiating at zero? That is not negotiating.”
> 
> Gary Corbett, president of the Professional Institute of the Public Service, said he was heartened that the government promised to consult with unions before the next phase of reductions. He said unions have ideas on how to save money that should be considered before the government starts cutting critical programs and services.
> 
> “What we’re talking about is a change in the public service now and forever because if we lose talent now we will never get it back,” he said.
> 
> None of the opposition parties said they would support the Conservative budget, but Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff said enough of his party’s MPs would abstain or be absent from the budget vote to allow it to pass, thus avoiding an election.
> 
> “Canadians don’t want an election,” Ignatieff told reporters. “What they want from me is an alternative, an alternative to cuts, freezes and gimmicks. And we’ve been working hard on that alternative.”
> 
> NDP leader Jack Layton also said his party did not support the budget, but would wait to decide how his MPs would vote, in the hopes of negotiating changes with the Conservatives. Bloc Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe said his party would outright oppose the budget.
> 
> _Kathryn May writes for The Citizen. Andrew Mayeda writes for Canwest News Service._
> 
> *Budget highlights*
> 
> •	$19 billion in stimulus measures
> •	Planned spending to be cut by $17.6 billion over five years
> •	$53.8-billion deficit cut in half in two years
> •	Freezing the salaries of the PM, MPs and senators
> •	Planned spending for military is cut by $2.5 billion over three years
> •	A national securities regulator within three years
> •	New bank notes and coins
> •	$62 million for elite athletes and amateur sports
> •	A new civilian complaints commission for the RCMP
> •	$3.2 billion in personal income tax relief
> •	$1 billion for training programs for workers
> •	$4.1 billion for social housing
> •	$1 billion over five years for Clean Energy Fund
> •	$300 million for Atomic Energy of Canada and the Chalk River Laboratories
> 
> © Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen




I think that the _freeze_ on government departments actually translates into finite reductions in staff, propjets or, more likely, both – including in DND. It is a signal for deputy ministers to weed out the wasteful, useless projects and people – and there are plenty of both – again, including in DND and the CF.

It has been pointed out to me, elsewhere, that DND cannot, properly (efficiently and effectively) spend what it has now so some _restraint_ may just serve to match up available (less) money with the capability to spend it well.


----------



## GAP

National Post editorial board: The future of the Canadian Armed Forces
Posted: March 08, 2010, 8:00 AM by NP Editor
Article Link

Last Thursday’s budget should silence the doubters: Canada’s mission in Afghanistan will end in 2011.

While some had suspected that Stephen Harper’s government might find a way to maintain a troop presence there, either by deploying a smaller contingent of troops on a rebranded mission or by appearing to be talked into it by Barack Obama, the budget makes clear that drawing down the war in Afghanistan and slowing the rate of military expenditures, will form a key part of the Conservative government’s plans to slay the deficit.

The Canadian military must now learn to make do with a budget that, while continuing to grow, will leave it with less fiscal room to plan and undertake missions than it originally had expected. One possible source of inspiration is a report released last week by the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute, titled Whatever Happened to Peacekeeping: The Future of a Tradition.

The report lays out the history of peacekeeping and does not gloss over some of its more notable failures, including the catastrophic Rwandan Genocide in 1994. It does find, however, that the United Nations has learned from its mistakes: More recent UN missions, conducted by heavily armed troops operating under robust mandates, have proven successful at restoring or imposing peace. The current UN mission in south Lebanon, where a large, primarily European force is maintaining a buffer between Israel and Hezbollah, is cited as an example of the UN’s new kind of “peace operation” mission — large, powerful and with the necessary political support to intervene decisively.

Nevertheless, the report takes on the near-mythical status that peacekeeping has acquired in the Canadian collective psyche. After all, it was a Canadian, then-foreign minister Lester B. Pearson, who proposed in 1956 that a UN force separate hostile Israeli and Egyptian forces, ending the Suez Crisis. And Canadians, from individual observers to entire battlegroups, have served in almost every peacekeeping mission since. The concept of the Canadian soldier as a neutral observer, unaligned with any faction in global affairs and only there to help, was always a fiction for a country inextricably bound to the Western bloc, but it was a popular one with many Canadians, particularly those disinclined to favour large military expenditures and the always messy business of geopolitical brinksmanship.

Ironically, just as the notion of the Canadian as a peacekeeper was becoming a part of our national identity, the very nature of peacekeeping was changing. Two generations ago, peacekeepers were lightly armed observers, whose very vulnerability lent them the necessary moral authority to effectively adjudicate between two once-warring states. The combatants were sovereign nations that genuinely wanted a cessation of hostilities. Both sides generally took it upon themselves to ensure the safety of the peacekeepers as an integral part of showing their goodwill and support of the peace process.
More on link


----------



## Journeyman

GAP said:
			
		

> One possible source of inspiration is a report released last week by the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute, titled *Whatever Happened to Peacekeeping: The Future of a Tradition*.


The CDFAI report is available here

The CDFAI website says, "this _ground-breaking_ report urges Canada to reconsider and rejoin UN peace operations." I don't know the Belgian co-author, but the Canadian is Jocelyn Coulon -- Director of the Francophone Peace Operations Research Network at the Université de Montréal.

Far from "ground-breaking," this report is little more than a re-hash of his 1998 book,  _Soldiers of Diplomacy: The United Nations, Peacekeeping, and The New World Order_.

Sometimes it's hard to ween academics off the UN breast. Although they note that there have been _some_ failures, they don't acknowledge that there's been a lengthy and on-going track-record of such failures. The DPKO is little more than a cash cow.

I have a suggestion for the UN too, but it involves bulldozers.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ and expressed in Olympic terms, is a useful article on public spending _efficiency_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/input-output-we-need-a-public-sector-olympics/article1491751/


> Input, output: We need a public-sector Olympics
> *O Canada: Slower, lower, feebler*
> 
> Neil Reynolds
> 
> Monday, Mar. 08, 2010
> 
> Why can't we desire excellence in government spending as passionately as we desire excellence in athletic performance? Why can't we embrace international competitions to determine who provides the world's best public services? Why can't we award gold medals to countries that, dollar for dollar, produce the healthiest, people, the best educated people, the most prosperous people?
> 
> Aren't the techniques for judging public-sector performance much the same as for Olympic performance? You calculate input (funding); you measure output (the fastest trains, the highest literacy, the strongest families). How would Canada fare?
> 
> In Olympic competition, output is easy to calculate. Count the medals. With 26 Olympic medals, Canada took 10 per cent of the 258 medals awarded, an astonishing performance compared with past Winter Games – and producing one medal for every 1.3 million Canadians. With 23 medals, Norway produced one for every 210,000 Norwegians, a six-fold superiority. For Canada to have matched that performance it would have needed to win 160 medals. With 37 medals, the United States produced one for every 8.3 million population and felt good. With 15, Russia produced one for every 9.5 million population and felt badly – although, in relative terms, it did almost as well as the U.S.
> 
> Whether processed as government subsidies, corporate sponsorships or neighbourhood bake sales, certain resources – inputs – are an essential factor for most medal winners. (You can't quantify the self-sacrifice.) People used to think that more state funding for more athletes would produce more medals. They were wrong. Now they think that more state funding for fewer athletes will produce more medals. And they're probably right. Though distinctly Darwinian, this results-driven strategy hurts no one, cuts down on waste and appears to improve performance.
> 
> When it comes to Olympic funding, the Canadian public appears to want efficient use of the government's modest inputs – and a certain medal count to justify them. When it comes to stimulus spending (to cite one example of everyday government inputs), Canadians appear indifferent to efficiency and only marginally concerned with performance. Since the inputs provided for the Olympics are insignificant in comparison with the inputs provided for all other public-sector spending, this represents a curious double standard. People know, of course, that governments are notoriously inefficient – although they don't appear to want to know exactly how inefficient. This is a dangerous ignorance.
> 
> Perhaps we need a public-sector Olympics. Here's a prototype. In an international comparison of 23 countries, published a few years back by the European Central Bank, three European economists (Antonio Afonso, Ludger Schuknecht and Vito Tanzi) endeavoured to measure the efficiency of public-sector spending. They analyzed inputs (administration, government transfers, core program spending – all the costs of the modern welfare state). Using scores of indicators, they analyzed output (educational achievement, high-school enrolment, infant mortality, life expectancy, average unemployment rates, long-term prosperity). They calculated which countries gained the most output from the least input.
> 
> In this analysis of public-sector performance in affluent, democratic countries, across a 10-year period, Canada finished 12th in input efficiency and 13th in output performance.
> 
> Expressing a gold-medal performance in public-sector efficiency by the number 1, the economists scored all other competitor countries as percentages of the first-place finish. With an input rating of 0.75, Canada's 12th-place finish meant it spent 25 per cent more money than it needed to spend – that it could have attained the same results by spending only 75 per cent of the money it spent. You could put it another way. The Canadian government wasted one dollar for every four dollars it spent.
> 
> In a three-way tie, the United States, Japan and Luxembourg took gold in this input-efficiency competition. Other top-ranked countries included Australia (0.99 for fourth place) and Switzerland (0.95 for fifth). (Its reputation for fiscal discipline notwithstanding, Norway finished behind Canada, (0.73 for 13th place.)
> 
> In the competition for public-sector performance, Canada finished with a rating of 0.84, a better score in absolute terms but a worse ranking (13th place). This score implied that Canada could have increased its public-sector performance by 16 per cent without spending another dime. (Norway distanced itself from Canada in this round, scoring 0.93 and finishing fifth.)
> 
> Without an aggressive stinginess to limit its spending, the federal government will continue relentlessly to subsidize everyone with borrowed funds. O Canada: Slower, lower, feebler.



I suspect, hell’s bells, I’m damned certain that DND can spend less and do more if management (including top level military management) and budgeting was made much, much more efficient and effective. This would require increased bureaucratic _productivity_ in the Privy Council Office, Treasury Board Secretariat and, above all, in Public Works and Government Services Canada – AKA the Department of Public Blunders and Wonders – too.

My sense is that DND, including the CF, has too much _management_ that accomplishes too little and, in the process of underachieving, spends too much money on itself and its _processes_.


----------



## TimBit

Journeyman said:
			
		

> The CDFAI website says, "this _ground-breaking_ report urges Canada to reconsider and rejoin UN peace operations." I don't know the Belgian co-author, but the Canadian is Jocelyn Coulon -- Director of the Francophone Peace Operations Research Network at the Université de Montréal.
> 
> Sometimes it's hard to ween academics off the UN breast. Although they note that there have been _some_ failures, they don't acknowledge that there's been a lengthy and on-going track-record of such failures. The DPKO is little more than a cash cow.
> 
> I have a suggestion for the UN too, but it involves bulldozers.



I happen to know Jocelyn as I studied under him at U of M. He strikes me not so much as dependant on the UN "boobie" as viscerally opposed to organized violence, which this brand of academic will obviously use as the sole definition of military activity. He struck me as a true "peacenik" with an establishment twist, i.e. war is bad peace is good but how can we use those nice institutions to turn our swords into...well blunter swords I guess. I amusingly recall tense debates between him and the more realist of the departments who thought that a couple of Tridents could still keep peace better than the UN.

Might need to buy a few tonka trucks to soothe this kind of academics if the bulldozer thing ever materializes...  :crybaby:


----------



## Edward Campbell

And since we’ve uttered the dreaded _p_ word, here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_, is an editorial on the future of our national defence:

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=2652853


> The future of the Canadian Armed Forces
> 
> National Post Published: Monday, March 08, 2010
> 
> Last Thursday's budget should silence the doubters: Canada's mission in Afghanistan will end in 2011.
> 
> While some had suspected that Stephen Harper's government might find a way to maintain a troop presence there, either by deploying a smaller contingent of troops on a re-branded mission or by appearing to be talked into it by Barack Obama, the budget makes clear that drawing down the war in Afghanistan and slowing the rate of military expenditures, will form a key part of the Conservative government's plans to slay the deficit.
> 
> The Canadian military must now learn to make do with a budget that, while continuing to grow, will leave it with less fiscal room to plan and undertake missions than it originally had expected. One possible source of inspiration is a report released last week by the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute, titled Whatever Happened to Peacekeeping: The Future of a Tradition.
> 
> The report lays out the history of peacekeeping and does not gloss over some of its more notable failures, including the catastrophic Rwandan Genocide in 1994. It does find, however, that the United Nations has learned from its mistakes: More recent UN missions, conducted by heavily armed troops operating under robust mandates, have proven successful at restoring or imposing peace. The current UN mission in south Lebanon, where a large, primarily European force is maintaining a buffer between Israel and Hezbollah, is cited as an example of the UN's new kind of "peace operation" mission -- large, powerful and with the necessary political support to intervene decisively.
> 
> Nevertheless, the report takes on the near-mythical status that peacekeeping has acquired in the Canadian collective psyche. After all, it was a Canadian, then-foreign minister Lester B. Pearson, who proposed in 1956 that a UN force separate hostile Israeli and Egyptian forces, ending the Suez Crisis. And Canadians, from individual observers to entire battlegroups, have served in almost every peacekeeping mission since. The concept of the Canadian soldier as a neutral observer, unaligned with any faction in global affairs and only there to help, was always a fiction for a country inextricably bound to the Western bloc, but it was a popular one with many Canadians, particularly those disinclined to favour large military expenditures and the always messy business of geopolitical brinksmanship.
> 
> Ironically, just as the notion of the Canadian as a peacekeeper was becoming a part of our national identity, the very nature of peacekeeping was changing. Two generations ago, peacekeepers were lightly armed observers, whose very vulnerability lent them the necessary moral authority to effectively adjudicate between two once-warring states. The combatants were sovereign nations that genuinely wanted a cessation of hostilities. Both sides generally took it upon themselves to ensure the safety of the peacekeepers as an integral part of showing their goodwill and support of the peace process.
> 
> In more recent times, however, in the era of failed states and rogue terrorist organizations, peacekeeping has become virtually indistinguishable from warfare, with the attendant rise in military casualties and collateral damage to civilians. Our government and military leaders, too fearful of a public backlash to effectively communicate the new reality of peacekeeping--or peacemaking -- to the masses, has instead created confusion, as Canadians taught to believe that our troops are impartial observers ride into pitched battles in tanks, backed by artillery and air power. Putting off these weighty discussions any further is unacceptable.
> 
> Despite the recently announced slow-down in military expenditures, the Canadian Forces are still one of the world's elite forces, capable of independently projecting power across great distances and maintaining it there as long as the political will remains. And so our allies, the United States in particular, likely will want us on board as partners in any future Afghanistan-like war (of which we doubt there will be any shortage in coming decades). The recent relief mission in Haiti, which saw thousands of Canadian soldiers rapidly deploy aboard warships and sophisticated C-17 aircraft to provide humanitarian aid and security, is another example of the sort of mission for which Canadians will be needed.
> 
> We need to make choices now about what sort of force we want to be able to project after our withdrawal from Kandahar. With military priorities in flux and budget uncertainty returning to the forefront of the military's mind, decisions made in the short term will have major implications. It is now all but certain that the replacement of some of the military's existing hardware will be postponed or cancelled outright, so decisions made now for reasons of fiscal necessity will have profound implications as to what role Canada is capable of taking on internationally for decades.
> 
> Traditional peacekeeping, whether under a United Nations, NATO or regional mandate, is a laudable mission and something that our Forces can excel in. If that is to be our military's future, then the government owes it to all Canadians, civilians and military alike, to begin making the necessary choices now to ensure that we are the very best peacekeepers that can be. If, however, as we feel is more likely and proper, the Conservative government prefers to balance our military's future duties between international aid missions and the advancement of Canada's legitimate national interests, it would be well advised to consider carefully how best to go about tightening the budgetary reins while still leaving the Canadian Forces as a potent, flexible instrument of national policy and humanitarian relief.



The UN peacekeeping _option_ would send us off on a succession of fool’s errands in support of ill conceived objectives, many of which will be contrary to our global interests.


----------



## Edward Campbell

From Jane’s, more proof, if any more was necessary, that cuts to _long term_ projects that are aimed at plugging _short term_ budget gaps can backfire and bite one on the bum:

------------------------------------------------
*UK report slams MoD procurement*

The UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) has been heavily criticised for wasting hundreds of millions of pounds on an unaffordable equipment programme, in a parliamentary report officially published on 4 March. The MoD made "ill-judged" cuts to crucial research spending in a short term bid to plug a GBP6 billion (USD9.06 billion) funding gap, but has seemingly made "no attempt" to calculate the real costs of repeated delays to equipment programmes, according to a defence equipment assessment published by the House of Commons defence committee 

First posted to http://jdin.janes.com - 04 March 2010
------------------------------------------------


This is a lesson that, it appears, almost every Western nation must relearn every few years.


----------



## dapaterson

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> This is a lesson that, it appears, almost every Western nation must relearn every few _*weeks*_.



Fixed the typo for you...


----------



## Edward Campbell

I fear that dapaterson's joke is closer to the mark than my serious comment.

I guess it says something about:

     + political direction and support;

     + professional competence; and

     + backbone, or lack of same.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ are Eugene Lang’s* thoughts on the inevitability of defence _restraint_ in current times:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/if-ottawa-fights-a-deficit-the-military-has-no-allies/article1495359/


> If Ottawa fights a deficit, the military has no allies
> *Budget arithmetic and Canadian politics mean there's no way for the military to be exempt from a major program spending cut*
> 
> Eugene Lang
> 
> Wednesday, Mar. 10, 2010
> 
> Stephen Harper is the most pro-military prime minister since the Second World War. His government has pumped more money into the Canadian Forces than any of its predecessors. That's the conventional wisdom.
> 
> Consequently, many people were a little puzzled at last week's budget, when Mr. Harper's rock-ribbed administration announced a $2.5-billion cut to defence funding increases the Conservatives had committed to four years ago. This money, considered essential by the Department of National Defence, had been effectively banked to rectify acute equipment rust problems, especially in the navy. Some senior defence officials had even started referring to the funding commitments as a “contract” with the military.
> 
> So why did the government turn on its ally? The answer is straightforward, and is based on both arithmetic and politics.
> 
> First, let's dispense with some well-worn mythology. Mr. Harper's government never was the largest financial supporter of the military, not by a long shot. That distinction goes to the short-lived government of Paul Martin – the same Paul Martin who slashed and burned the defence budget as finance minister in the mid-1990s. Yet as prime minister, Mr. Martin increased defence funding by $13-billion over five years, the largest financial boost to the military in a generation. This is in contrast to the increase of $5-billion over five years that Mr. Harper's government promised in the 2006 budget.
> 
> Now for the arithmetic. The government is running a $50-billion deficit that it wants to eliminate in about five years. A good chunk of that will be accomplished when stimulus spending ends next year. But a fair bit of the red ink – what economists call the “structural deficit” – will remain. The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates the structural deficit at about $20-billion.
> 
> This is the part that is hard to get rid of. The task is made even harder because the government has ruled out cutting transfers to provinces, reducing benefits to citizens or raising taxes. Eliminating the deficit is to be achieved through departmental program spending cuts alone. The $20-billion has to come from a pot of about $80-billion in total departmental program spending.
> 
> This is where DND comes to the fore as a matter of pure arithmetic. It is by far the largest and most costly department in the federal government, with a budget that accounts for about one-quarter of that $80-billion in departmental program spending. So regardless of how wedded any government is to the military, there is no conceivable way the Canadian Forces can be exempt from a major cut in a deficit elimination struggle focused entirely on departmental program spending.
> 
> Now, for the politics. Governments have paid steep political prices over the years for increasing taxes, cutting benefits and reducing transfers to provinces. Yet no government, Conservative or Liberal, has ever paid a discernible political price for slashing defence spending. It is simply not a priority for most Canadians.
> 
> Brian Mulroney's government cut the defence budget by nearly $3-billion in its ill-fated war on the deficit, and paid no political price whatsoever. Jean Chrétien's government virtually emasculated the DND budget, reducing it by one-third during its own deficit crusade, and got off politically scot-free.
> 
> While Canadians might be stronger supporters of the military now because of the sacrifices the men and women of the Canadian Forces have made in Afghanistan, it is unlikely that a big cut to a DND budget that approaches $20-billion a year will make any impression on the Canadian public.
> 
> In a hierarchy of public interests that includes low taxes, balanced budgets and retention of entitlements, most Canadians place military spending at the very bottom. In fact, there likely hasn't been a public-opinion survey in the history of this country that shows defence cracking into Canadians' top five priorities.
> 
> The basic lesson from all this is simple: No government, Conservative or Liberal, is pro-military when it is in a deficit fight. Arithmetic prevents this and politics permits it. That's the way it has been for decades, and that's the way it always will be.
> 
> _Eugene Lang is co-author of The Unexpected War: Canada in Kandahar. He was a senior economist at Finance Canada and chief of staff to two Liberal defence ministers._



I think Lang is, largely right: arithmetic prevents exempting defence from cuts and politics permits defence to be cut so long as the prevailing political _wisdom_ is that every department, agency and programme is worthwhile. But, the latter, highlighted, statement is, demonstrably, untrue – a few departments, several agencies and many programmes are, as TB Bank’s Chief Economist Don Drummond described them, “crappy,” and they can and should be cut and that would alter both the politics and the arithmetic for the better.  


----------
* Co-author, with Janice Gross Stein, of _The Unexpected War: Canada in Kandahar_, a book that tried to explain away *political responsibility* for sending the CF to Kandahar.


----------



## GAP

Government missing mark in plan to cut back military spending

Poll shows Canadians like idea of strong, well-equipped armed forces

By Elinor Sloan, FreelanceMarch 11, 2010
Article Link

t is clear that Canadians want their country to play a strong military role in the world. A recent Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute survey conducted by Innovative Research Group has found that well over a majority of those polled want the Canadian Forces to be able to contribute to humanitarian and war-fighting missions in the future.

And they are willing to put their money where their mouth is. Some 58 per cent think we should spend what the military needs to sustain the Canadian Forces' ability to fight terrorism in places like Afghanistan, support humanitarian missions, such as what we saw in Haiti, and defend Canada's homeland, for example in the North. Over a third of Canadians think we are not spending enough on the military, while less than one in five thinks we are spending too much.

Most remarkably, almost half the people polled thought that military spending should not be cut back to reduce the deficit once our country's military contribution to the mission in Afghanistan comes to an end next year, even if that means cutting other services to reduce the federal deficit.

Such views are testament to the visibility the mission in Afghanistan has brought to the armed forces, and the professional and expert ability with which its members have carried it out. More than ever, the military is part of the average Canadian's interest and thoughts.

There appears to be a renewed desire for Canada to play a leadership role in the world -- one that goes well beyond the soft-power words of yesterday, to concrete action that truly makes a difference.

The government missed this prevailing sentiment in last week's speech from the throne and federal budget. The speech mentioned only that the government has supported the Canadian Forces in words and investment, and that it would continue to "stand up" for our military since its members "stand up for the values and principles Canadians hold dear." The federal budget argues the government has made "major, necessary investments" in military capabilities in support of the June 2008 Canada First Defence Strategy and then announces $2.5 billion in future cuts to previously planned military spending starting in 2011-12.

But has the government really made the major, necessary investments? On one level, of course, it has.

The defence budget is significantly higher today (about $20 billion) than it was when the Harper government came into power (about $15 billion).

Canada's military is also larger, currently standing at about 66,000 active members as compared to around 52,000 when the Martin government was in power. Canada has a significant new military capability, strategic airlift, and is one of only a handful of countries in the world with this asset.

The government has also bought a fair bit of equipment for the army to meet the immediate demands of the Afghan mission, such as tactical unmanned aerial vehicles, tanks, armoured patrol vehicles and a handful of Chinook helicopters from the United States, pending the arrival of our own fleet.

Later this year, new Hercules transport aircraft and Cyclone maritime helicopters will start to arrive, replacing aircraft that were built almost half a century ago, and the navy's frigates will begin a modernization process.

But the hard decisions have been left to the future. Plans for Arctic Offshore Patrol Vessels, necessary for Canada to exercise control over its eastern, western and rapidly melting northern maritime regions have been put on ice.

In less than five years, the navy's destroyers that are at the centre of Canada's independent naval task group capability, critical for things like interdicting terrorists on the high seas, must be dry-docked due to their age. Yet plans for a replacement are on hold.
More on link


----------



## GAP

Diplomats want to have same deal as military

Foreign service officers face same risks: union

By Kathryn May, The Ottawa CitizenMarch 16, 2010 
Article Link


Canada's diplomats are appealing to the Harper government for the same employment insurance benefits it gave military families sent to Afghanistan and other overseas postings in the March 4 federal budget.

The union representing Canada's foreign service officers is asking Treasury Board President Stockwell Day to extend the EI parental leave and sick leave benefits to foreign service officers who face many of the same risks as military personnel, especially when posted in war zones such as Afghanistan.

Ron Cochrane, executive director of the Professional Association of Foreign Service Officers, said he's baffled as to why diplomats and other bureaucrats posted abroad for Canada are excluded.

The union represents 1,400 foreign service officers and more than 50 are in Afghanistan.

There are also bureaucrats posted from other departments, such as the Defence Department, Canadian International Development Agency and Canadian Security Intelligence Service. At last count, more than 40 civilian employees who work for the Defence Department were in Kandahar, said John MacLennan, president of Union of Defence Employees.

"It's all focused on National Defence," said Cochrane.

"Has DFAIT (Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade) done something? ... They are totally ignoring the rest of the public service when it comes to these changes. I don't get it. Is it deliberate? An oversight or a cost issue?"

In the budget, the government announced military personnel who adopt or have a baby will receive the EI parental leave benefits that they couldn't collect while posted overseas. This means the government will give those whose parental leave was interrupted or deferred because of a military posting an extra year of eligibility.

The government also announced that EI sick benefits will be extended to help military families coping with someone killed in action. Eligible workers who lose a family member can qualify for EI's sickness benefits.

"Canadian soldiers put their lives on the line for our country and our Conservative government is proud to stand behind them and support them," said Ryan Sparrow, director of communications for Human Resources and Social Development Minister Diane Finley in an e-mail.

In a letter to Day, PAFSO noted that diplomat Glyn Berry was killed by a roadside bomb in 2006 while on duty in Afghanistan. In December, 25-year-old foreign service officer Bushra Amjad Saeed was severely wounded in a roadside blast in Afghanistan -- the same explosion that killed four Canadian soldiers and Calgary Herald journalist Michelle Lang.

"Without diminishing the role the military has played in these theatres, employees in the rotational foreign service assigned to areas of conflict who work with military personnel are exposed to similar risks," said the letter.

This isn't the first time, PAFSO has pressed for equal treatment between the military and public servants when facing the same risks.

In 2007, it lobbied for similar tax breaks the government gives soldiers and contractors working for the military.

"No amount of money in the world will compensate someone in the military risking their life in Afghanistan ... but there are other public servants working alongside them who are also putting their lives at risk, so I don't understand the differential. If there are tax incentives for military and contractors, why not for public servants?"

The issue has also resurrected a longstanding complaint among military and diplomatic personnel that their spouses, who can't find work during postings, can't collect EI when they return to Canada. In its letter to Day, PAFSO pressed to have this changed.

The foreign service has lobbied for years for spouses of those on postings to get access to EI. It was a recommendation of the McDougall Commission, whose report on conditions in the foreign service was tabled in 1981, and has been recommended by similar reports ever since.

Cochrane argues it's difficult enough to relocate two-career families and this is another disincentive. He said it is almost impossible for professional spouses to find jobs in their chosen careers and, in some postings, they can't find jobs at all because of language, culture or other host country restrictions.

The government has a policy that anyone who is relocated abroad should not benefit nor be disadvantaged by their postings. PAFSO has long argued the government treats its members unfairly when compared to those who move with their spouses to jobs within Canada.

Under the act, they lose their entitlements to EI when abroad because they aren't available for work in Canada. This means they have to re-qualify when they return to Canada so they can't collect EI while looking for work even though they typically qualified before leaving for the posting.

The letter to Day argues this is particularly unfair because the EI act does extend the qualifying period for others, such as those incarcerated in Canadian prisons, who can collect EI when released. In light of this, the letter argues the diplomats' requests for similar treatment to the military is "a very reasonable proposal."
End of Article


----------



## Monsoon

If they can fund it out of their allotted personnel budget, then they should fill their boots. But why bother to do that when you can use precious personnel resources to lobby the Treasury Board?

Let the special pleading begin.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_, is a useful bit of analysis from Conservative Senator Hugh Segal:

http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/03/29/hugh-segal-we-need-guns-and-butter-too.aspx


> Hugh Segal: *We need guns — and butter too*
> 
> March 29, 2010
> 
> Hugh Segal, Canadian politics
> 
> *Challenges faced by G-8 finance ministers a year and a half after the collapse of the Lehman Brothers Bank are not getting easier. Populist feeling is running against Wall Street and its analogous financial centres around the world.  Rational analysis underscores the dangers to credit and investment-based economies of any dereliction of duty to both financial stability and reasonable liquidity for the economy as a whole. This quickly becomes about balance in the way restraint spending, stimulus and tax policy are managed.*
> 
> Add to this the conundrum of governments that supported financial institutions either by direct infusions of cash (as in Europe or the United States) or the purchase of multi-billion dollar mortgage portfolios (Canada) in the hopes that money would be loaned out to small businesses and consumers, only to be frustrated by financial regulators who took the more “prudential” approach of discouraging lending leverage by imposing higher capital requirements on financial institutions, and one can easily understand President Obama’s banging on the podium about insufficient lending to average Americans. Where leaders should be knocking politely (as opposed to banging) is on the door of their central financial regulators.
> 
> The liquidity challenge, which remains key to any successful budget implementation, must also confront the classic dilemma faced by finance ministers in the democracies around the old trade-off between “guns and butter.” This is often characterized as the choice between defence and security spending versus social and stimulative spending. While this may have been the most obvious of public spending dilemmas in the past, one can certainly argue today that the competition between the two is largely illusory in the geopolitical context all developed nations share.
> 
> If one takes a broad view of security and defence spending, both domestically and internationally, they clearly relate to that essential core freedom if economic opportunity is to be real — namely “freedom from fear.” If streets are not safe, if businesses are attacked by thugs and organized crime, if investors are kidnapped, if jobs are offered only when corrupt officials are paid off, fear will destroy economic development and opportunity every time. Which is why countries have laws, why anti-corruption codes matter and why international organizations (such as NATO or, on occasion, the UN) exist to protect the world from Iraqi invasions of Kuwait or Taliban-harboured al-Qaida attacks on civilians in Madrid, New York, London, Paris, Kabul, Moscow, Toronto or elsewhere. Economic development and the jobs, opportunity and security that follow are critical to the second vital freedom — “freedom from want,” which is seminal if societies are to be peaceful and productive. A world where millions are poor and only a few are wealthy or have any meaningful economic opportunity is unlikely to be a stable place — as is apparent in any city where the gaps between rich and poor are broad or getting worse. These two freedoms connect in a very precise way. Without “freedom from fear,” which requires spending on security, defence, intelligence and deployable military or police capacity, there is insufficient time to make real progress on enhancing “freedom from want” before violence or strife reduces everyone’s freedom of action. This is as true in the Middle East as it is in the drug wars of our own hemisphere. As true in Africa as it is in our First Nations communities. Without “freedom from want,” the attractiveness of crime, violence and terrorism for those with nothing to lose remains real.
> 
> In my opinion, the challenge for governments “in restraint” is devising a balanced mix of targeting “freedom from fear” and “freedom from want” so as to move toward positive trends on both accounts, if we are to make any economic and security progress in this generation. This is a larger question than the mid-term elections in the U.S., the coming U.K. election or the inevitable soon-to-be-election in Canada. And to some extent, political parties in all places that aspire to electoral progress or re-election would be well advised to approach this particular challenge in something other than a narrow partisan way.
> 
> After several years of unprecedented investment and modernization, the 2010 budget admittedly slows National Defence spending increases. This should not be surprising.  But in the time given us and in the period leading up to the winding down of combat activity in Afghanistan, we should be investing in future naval, air and reserve force capacity.  Letting the denizens of the federal civil service, Finance Department and Treasury Board weaken Canada’s defenses and our ability to engage on the “freedom from fear” challenge will be seen as a serious disavowal of prior assurances and Canada’s commitment to fight both fears simultaneously.  Similarly, with a view to the announced imposition of restraints system-wide and the current and historic duplication of Canada’s social programs, which have not reduced our poverty levels in more than two decades, this would also be the time to seriously examine a more inclusive, less micro-managed approach to its redesign and modernization. Genuine national security involves two freedoms and measurable progress on both fronts. And a post-recession modest recovery is precisely the right time to embrace these over-arching priorities.
> 
> There is no dichotomy between “guns and butter” and no dichotomy between restraint and innovation. Building real recovery and strengthening Canada at home and abroad depends upon our ability to embrace both “freedom from fear” and “freedom from want” at the same time and urging other allies and partners to do the same.
> 
> National Post
> 
> _Senator Hugh Segal (Conservative, Ontario) is a member of the Foreign Affairs and International Trade Committee of the Senate._




One can only hope that Sen. Segal has some friends in the PMO and that they read this.


----------



## GAP

Defence spending review won’t hurt troops on ground, Day says
Andrew Mayeda, Canwest News Service  Published: Monday, May 03, 2010
Article Link

Treasury Board President Stockwell Day says a spending review ordered at the Department of National Defence shouldn't affect the military's ability to equip soldiers on the ground.

Mr. Day announced Monday that 13 departments and agencies, including the Defence Department, have been asked to comb through the combined $35-billion they spend annually and come up with $1.7-billion in savings, equivalent to roughly five percent.

For the Defence Department and the Canadian Forces, which are still fighting a war in Afghanistan, that will be a daunting task, but Mr. Day insisted the review won't affect any plans to procure military equipment.

"We're still going to have our troops and our soldiers and our overall operation seeing an increase, but we're asking for five percent savings within that increase," he told reporters.

Mr. Day noted the defence budget is still expected to increase over the next few years, even though the Conservatives trimmed the rate of spending growth in the March 4 budget. Defence spending spiked 22% last year to $19.2-billion.

Also among the list of departments under review is the Privy Council Office, the bureaucratic wing of the Prime Minister's Office. Last year, that office's budget grew 8.5% to $149-million. Under the highly centralized government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the Privy Council Office's role in co-ordinating the public service has taken on greater importance.

"Now, we do emphasize that we are not reducing programs to people as in EI and seniors programs and others but no department, no agency will be spared this exercise," Mr. Day said.

Monday's announcement is the latest of the so-called "strategic reviews" launched by the Harper government in 2007. Fifty federal organizations have already undergone the process, which requires departments to identify five% of their budgets to reallocate from low-priority or low-performing programs.

In the past, much of the resulting savings were reinvested in the same department. This time, the money will flow into the government's general revenues, where it could be used to help eliminate the deficit, said Mr. Day.
More on link


----------



## MarkOttawa

A post at _The Torch_:

"Defence Budget 2010/11"/Fun with figures *Update* (latter, largely major equipment plans, based on "Report on Plans and Priorities")
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/05/defence-budget-201011.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

The new Liberal defence budget plans, from a paper released with Mr Ignatieff's speech today.

Story on speech:

Ignatieff unveils new Liberal foreign policy
Liberals would keep troops in post-combat Afghan training role; *review military “to buy” list*; boost China, India ties
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/823722

Now parse the paper:

Canada in the world
A global networks strategy (p. 22)
http://can150.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/canada_world_jun2010.pdf



> ...Since 2005-06, as a result of both Liberal and Conservative budget decisions, Canada`s defence spending has risen nearly 50 percent and is set to continue growing even after the combat mission in Afghanistan has concluded. The Liberal Party, supports the recent investments in the Canadian Forces, but the trajectory for future years must be re-evaluated. A properly-resourced military is essential to our sovereignty and our constructive role in the world, but is not sufficient on its own. It’s a matter of balance.
> 
> The government estimates that the annual incremental cost of the combat mission in Afghanistan is nearly $1.7 billion. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has reported that the incremental costs of the mission are even higher than what has been disclosed. After the combat mission ends by December 2011, a Liberal government will *re-allocate that incremental spending in a balanced manner* across the full spectrum of defence, development and diplomacy. A Liberal government will also *re-evaluate all major procurement programs* in a post-Afghanistan combat era. A well-resourced military will remain essential, but as one element of a broader concept of what Canada does in the world, compared to the narrow view of the current government.
> 
> This change will free up resources to reinvigorate other international capacities across the federal system, better reflecting the full range of integrated functions and forward-looking engagement that will drive the Global Networks Strategy...



Emphases in original.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Jed

Well, based on the latest liberal policy release, in my opinion, we can definitely count on another decade of darkness if the Liberals are able to grab the reins again. "Reevalute the major equipment purchases" is just veiled speech for hack and slash.


----------



## MarkOttawa

The new major purchases/expenditures without contracts planned for the near future--whatever that is--are ("Phase D" at link):
http://www.vcds.forces.gc.ca/sites/page-eng.asp?page=8667

Navy:

JSS: $131M (?!?)
A/OPS: $2.6B

Army:

CCV $1.8B
TAPV $1.0B
MSVS $1.1B (part of the overall Medium Support Vehicle System actually does have a contract
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/pri/2/pro-pro/msvs-ssvm-eng.asp )
LAV III Upgrade $1.2B

Then there's the new fighter (read F-35) that's not on the list but seems rather imminent:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/39415.165.html

And then there's the interminably elusive new fixed-wing SAR aircraft, not even listed:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/23889.855.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

This article seems on the, er, money to me (usual copyright disclaimer):
http://www.embassymag.ca/page/view/dnd-06-09-2010



> Despite government promises to continue increasing the Defence department’s budget post-Afghan mission and keep the military a high priority, nervousness and quiet doubts are proliferating among arms lobbyists, manufacturers and, apparently, top Canadian commanders as well…
> 
> Departmental budget cuts are being sought across most of the public service after the federal government’s two-year stimulus plan sunk billions into infrastructure and growth projects.
> 
> The Defence department and Canadian military accounted for roughly $21 billion out of the $259 billion the federal government spent last year. That amount is set to increase each year, but when it unveiled this year’s budget, the government cut the rate of increase significantly. Whether even that rate will be sustained is a matter of speculation.
> 
> Even more worrying for stakeholders is that the government announced in the spring that it is conducting a strategic review of the Defence department. Staff are being asked to find areas where it can cut five per cent of its budget.
> 
> The fear is that as the government continues to look for savings, procurement projects will be put on hold. Last week, the government announced its shipbuilding procurement strategy, although it did not contain dollar figures, and delayed the implementation for two years, ostensibly in order to conduct the process fairly…
> 
> Two weeks ago, the government released supplementary estimates that contained $412 million more in defence spending. This partly had to do with funding for security at the 2010 G8 and G20 summits, but also included funding for aircraft and heavy-lift helicopter projects. It also launched some infrastructure projects from several years ago.
> 
> The Canada First Defence Strategy, the government’s multi-decade, multi-billion-dollar defence checklist, is therefore left intact, but spread out over a year longer, says retired colonel Brian MacDonald, now a senior defence analyst with the Conference of Defence Associations. However, he was worried that the capital project spending was in supplementary estimates instead of the main estimates.
> 
> “I guess here the question is, really on the equipment side, when we are going to see some greater clarity on the strategic capital investment plan, particularly the big number items such as the fighters and the naval shipbuilding program,” said Mr. MacDonald…
> 
> Mike Greenley, vice-president of General Dynamics Canada, which produces the Canadian Army's LAV-III armoured personnel carrier, said *it doesn't appear a major platform procurement will be in the cards this year* [emphasis added, meaning that the company will have to take another look at its own programming.
> 
> "Even in 2011, if you look at the currently published schedule of programs, even if you get going on ships, even if we start talking about selling these fighting vehicles and aircraft, the actual contract signings of these things probably wont happen either," he said.
> 
> Mr. Greenley warned that an indefinite stalling of procurement will have an impact on manufacturers—and their ability to meet new requirements quickly whenever they come up.
> 
> "That's what makes you nervous, because you have got to keep pace with some of these programs," said Mr. Greenley. "I would offer on behalf of the entire industrial base that that's the thing that would keep us nervous, because unless we're moving on procurements, then those new startups of programs aren't there to keep the defence economic base engaged."..



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## TCBF

- Cut five per-cent of the budget? Easy: stop buying office furniture.


----------



## Cloud Cover

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Cut five per-cent of the budget? Easy: stop buying office furniture.



Isn't your office a tank?  8)


----------



## TCBF

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Isn't your office a tank?  8)



" Those - were - the - days my friend we thought they'd never end we'd sing and dance forever and a day... " - Boris Fomin/Konstantin Podrevskii/Gene Raskin.  Recorded by Mary Hopkins in 1968 (I loved it when it played on the radio back then).


----------



## Chilme

I find it very interesting the Canada's defence budget is ranked somewhere between 10th and 15th in the world (depending on source), yet are ranked around 60th in the world for the number of personnel.

How do we have such a large budget, yet such a small arsenal and relatively small number of soldiers?


----------



## OldSolduer

Chilme said:
			
		

> I find it very interesting the Canada's defence budget is ranked somewhere between 10th and 15th in the world (depending on source), yet are ranked around 60th in the world for the number of personnel.
> 
> How do we have such a large budget, yet such a small arsenal and relatively small number of soldiers?



Take a look at how many major HQs are around.


----------



## aesop081

Chilme said:
			
		

> How do we have such a large budget, yet such a small arsenal and relatively small number of soldiers?



Our soldiers are paid and compensated rather well, to start.


----------



## Chilme

So you're suggesting if we close down a few HQ's then more troops could be hired and a more weapons purchased?


----------



## aesop081

.....


----------



## Chilme

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Our soldiers are paid and compensated rather well, to start.



That is true.  I can't imagine this will change any time soon.  I would say their pay is well earned for most


----------



## Swingline1984

I think CDN Aviator is referring to the fact that we get paid in currency rather than cabbage.


----------



## Chilme

Has anyone seen the latest precedent set for Defence Budgets?  The British government is planning MASSIVE cuts to their military (see link below).  Apparently it is there answer to a large national debt.  I hope Canada doesn't follow the footsteps of our friends across the pond.  I did, however, find it interesting that they intend to transfer more funding to their special forces.  To me this is the way of the future, as it seems that many modern battlefields operate unconventionally.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/10/18/britain-budget-cuts.html


----------



## aesop081

Chilme said:
			
		

> as it seems that many modern battlefields operate unconventionally.



While it may be true now.....what about 2 years from now ? How about 5 years ? 10 years ?

The trouble with making huge capability cuts based on whats going on now is that later on, when things have changed, you "got nuthin' ".


----------



## OldSolduer

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> While it may be true now.....what about 2 years from now ? How about 5 years ? 10 years ?
> 
> The trouble with making huge capability cuts based on whats going on now is that later on, when things have changed, you "got nuthin' ".



How true!!


----------



## Edward Campbell

There is, often, a point (Britain figures they're at it in 2010-2015, Canada figured that back _circa_ 1995-2000) when countries *must* try to balance the books. It would be nice to think that governments think strategically but, alas, it is not possible. Governments can (and usually do) consider _strategic_ issues but they also must (and always do) consider both practical and political issue, too. Practicality and politics almost always trump strategy in democracies. People vote, issues don't. Unhappy people will punish political leaders; issues might be more benign.

In my opinion the UK defence cuts, while deep, are not as harsh as the cuts imposed on the CF beginning in 1969 and continuing, almost uninterrupted, until around 2003.

(In fairness: the deepest real cuts to Canadian defence spending occurred over a 20 year period from 1955 to 1975. After 1975 Canadian defence spending very closely 'tracked' US spending - growing and falling in step. Measured as a percentage of GDP (the best way to measure) Canadian defnec spending has (with one brief exception in about 1978-82) declined steadily from nearly 8% of GDP _circa_ 1952 to about 1.25% of GDP today. The last time our defence spending, measured as a percentage of GDP, was at a *respectable* middle power level (2 to 2.5% of GDP) was in early 1960s - the Diefenbaker/Pearson era. Stephen Harper continues to *reduce* defence spending as a percentage of GDP. The Conservatives' _Canada First Defence Strategy_ is a (financial) recipe for unilateral disarmament.)

There are several European countries, including France and Italy, that must, sooner rather than later, follow the UK's example. There is also the _problem_ of the USA: which is far, far too deeply in debt. I recommend a thin, new book by Michael Mandelbaum that outlines some of the problems that impending, necessary budget cuts will have on the USA: _The Frugal Superpower_. Mandelbaum is not and does not pretend to be a political non-partisan but that doesn't negate the wisdom of his analysis.


----------



## Chilme

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> While it may be true now.....what about 2 years from now ? How about 5 years ? 10 years ?
> 
> The trouble with making huge capability cuts based on whats going on now is that later on, when things have changed, you "got nuthin' ".



I agree with you 100%.  A military should always have the capability to challenge any perceived threats.  I do, however, believe that current situations and those in the foreseeable future should play a major role in resource allocation.  Otherwise you spread too thin.


----------



## Edward Campbell

The _Good Grey Globe_, to its credit, pays some sensible attention to defence policy and, in the process, give the Liberals a slap upsode the head, in this *editorial*, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/liberal-foreign-policy-good-ends-not-enough-means/article1816647/ 


> *GLOBE EDITORIAL*
> Liberal foreign policy: good ends, not enough means
> From Monday's Globe and Mail
> 
> The Liberals' trilogy of foreign-policy speeches by Bob Rae, Dominic LeBlanc and Siobhan Coady show a proper firmness on Afghanistan but they are lacking in commitment to provide the equipment and the money required for a vigorous presence in international affairs.
> 
> All three shadow cabinet ministers rightly emphasized that Lester Pearson, the founder of UN peacekeeping, would also have supported the Canadian mission in Afghanistan. They not only advocated a return to traditional peacekeeping but also a move toward the responsibility-to-protect doctrine, which means a heightened humanitarian interventionism, where there is no peace to be kept, or conventional governments or armies to mediate between – or specifically Canadian interests. The apparent implication is a series of future missions quite like the present one in Afghanistan.
> 
> This greater activism is to be accomplished without any increase in the Canadian defence budget in real terms. Moreover, Mr. LeBlanc, the Liberal defence critic, and his colleagues reasserted their rejection of the Conservatives' proposed purchase of F-35 stealth fighter jets. The Liberals, to their credit, affirm the importance of the Arctic (including a permanent secretariat for the Arctic Council and an ambassador for circumpolar affairs), but are reluctant to buy jets that would enable Canada to be truly and effectively sovereign over its vast northern territories – and which would do much to help the Canadian Forces take part in the overseas interventions that the Liberals favour.
> 
> The sustained engagement in foreign affairs of both Michael Ignatieff and Mr. Rae is evident in the considerable substance in current Liberal foreign-policy positions, more than is customary from an official opposition in Canada. But the Liberals' unwillingness to support their principles and proposals with adequate equipment and other resources leaves questions they will have to answer before and during the next federal election campaign.




While there is “substance” in the Liberal foreign policy positions there is much more wishful thinking and destructive politics.


----------



## GAP

Military needs billions
When will politicians face reality on massive defence money needed?
By DAVID AKIN, QMI Agency Last Updated: January 13, 2011 
Article Link

Deep in the bowels of National Defence Headquarters in Ottawa, bureaucrats are quietly pulling together pricing information to buy more giant Boeing C-17 transport planes.

Canada already has four C-17s — acquired with some controversy — in 2007.

Brand new, they have a sticker price of around $400 million. But some planners in the air force have noted the U.S. no longer wants to buy all the C-17s it had ordered from Boeing, which means there’s a good chance the Yanks might be in a mood to let one of its allies, like us, buy some off them at a deep discount.

Now, just to be clear, the senior generals of the Canadian Forces, let alone Defence Minister Peter MacKay or the federal cabinet, are not pushing a program to commit billions more for the C-17s, particularly while the government is trying to push through its controversial multibillion-dollar purchase of new F-35 fighter planes.

Still, the revelation that low-level planners at defence are even jotting notes on the backs of napkins about acquiring anywhere from two to six more C-17s is a reminder that our two leading political parties, the governing Conservatives and their Liberal challengers, are largely avoiding what ought to be a crucial and important debate leading up to the next federal election.

Simply put: Our Canadian Forces needs billions and billions of dollars worth of new gear — not just new fighter planes — but no one has any clear plans to pay for what they need, particularly in a time of global fiscal restraint.

Alternately, one party or the other could stand up and, as Conservatives have done in Britain and Democrats did in the U.S., start announcing big-time cuts to military acquisitions and other programs.

Instead, we’ve been watching Conservatives and Liberals argue bitterly about the merits of purchasing the F-35 fighter plane, though both largely agree we will need some kind of new fighter plane to replace our fleet of excellent-but-aging CF-18s.

Whatever plane we choose is going to cost us billions. How will we pay?

And is that most urgent need? Is that the top spending priority?

What about new search-and-rescue capabilities? As one defence insider put it, the equipment we have has the capability for the search part but there are too many scenarios where we simply don’t have the gear for the rescue part.

We need new technology for surveillance and monitoring, particularly in our resource-rich north. The solution there could be a combination of satellites, unmanned aerial vehicles and surveillance aircraft to replace our aging CP-140 Auroras.

Again: This will cost billions.

Or we could outsource search-and-rescue to private-sector companies and likely save a pile.

Our navy needs new ships, the most expensive of which would be one or two joint-support ships, a type of vessel that can take on multiple configurations to be, for example, a troop carrier or a supply ship. It’s a vital tool for just about any mission the CF might be given. This could be the most expensive purchase of all.

That’s just a small part of a long list. As we get set for Budget 2011 and a possible election, politicians should be straight up with voters and with those in uniform about the kind of military we want — and are prepared to pay for.

david.akin@sunmedia.ca
end


----------



## Edward Campbell

It seems to me that this is a continuation of the discussion in our (existing) Defence Budget [merged, Bruce] thread. The _Great Recession_ is still with us, and despite the real, pressing *needs* in National Defence (and a very few other spending _envelopes_) governments are not inclined to spend on anything that is not a "vote getter" - and defence spending is never popular with more than a small minority of Canadians.


----------



## chrisf

Search and rescue, now there's a thought. Why are there *any* domestic military units with SAR as a *primary* task when a civillian agency could accomplish exactly the same task cheaper, and potentially more efficiently due to less reduced red tape?


----------



## vonGarvin

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Search and rescue, now there's a thought. Why are there *any* domestic military units with SAR as a *primary* task when a civillian agency could accomplish exactly the same task cheaper, and potentially more efficiently due to less reduced red tape?


First of all, awesome profile pic!

Anyway, I think part of the answer may lay in the fact that any national search and rescue organisation ought to be that: national.  I realise that provinces have their own, and if I'm not mistaken, there are clear boundaries for "who searches when".  The other part of why may be due to the unlimited liability "clause" that the military has.  If a search and rescue agency were comprised solely of civilians, then there would perhaps be issues.  I'm not sure.  But I think the main reason is that the national level search and rescue "task" is best suited for the military, given its experiences, and expertise, in the area.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Because for all the talk of private enterprise saving "tons" of money, time, etc., that seems to only work out on paper, never in real life.

Lets see, same planes, same fuel, same wages, add in profit margin,......oh, oops......


----------



## chrisf

Technoviking said:
			
		

> First of all, awesome profile pic!



THANK YOU! I changed that a few months ago and have been secretly hoping somone would comment on it.



> Anyway, I think part of the answer may lay in the fact that any national search and rescue organisation ought to be that: national.  I realise that provinces have their own, and if I'm not mistaken, there are clear boundaries for "who searches when".  The other part of why may be due to the unlimited liability "clause" that the military has.  If a search and rescue agency were comprised solely of civilians, then there would perhaps be issues.  I'm not sure.  But I think the main reason is that the national level search and rescue "task" is best suited for the military, given its experiences, and expertise, in the area.



I could understand if they were combat SAR units, but they're not, they have little to no defence application (If there is, I've missed it and appologize), yet they're lumped into the defence budget.

If we rid ourselves of primary SAR taskings, that frees up a lot of people, a lot of resources, and we never again have to hear "Well ok, but what does this do for search and rescue" when trying to buy a fighter jet or a tank. (We even get to say "None. It's a tank. It kills people.")

According to the Canada command website, we have approx 160 SAR techs. That's arguably 160 of our best troops tied up in a role that has no combat application (Admitedly, anyone working in a SAR tech role is there because they want to be there, but that's beside the point). Plus associated staff and logistic tail.

So either make a new federal agency, or better yet use an existing federal agency. The coast guard would be a prime candidate for this tasking, they already have SAR taskings, they have facilities in most areas of Canada, and have experience maintaing air assets. Give them our primary SAR taskings (As well as sufficient resources to handle the increased work load, and expand inland), and they'd probably do it more efficiently (Not better, but more efficiently). 

Money is saved in cutting the logistics tail that comes with a military unit. No annual postings, operate air assets out of private air strips, etc.

Of course, it's only fair that we'd be expected to maintain secondary SAR roles in the air force and navy (Heck make army pers available for GSAR on a limited basis, when they're in garrison, most units can spare at least a few), but if it doesn't have a combat application, it shouldn't be on our budget.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

I am certainly no expert on SAR, but I would venture every ship that has needed someone taken to hospital, every plane that has 'landed', not of its own accord, or even a lost soldier in the Artic might think it would have a "combat application".

IMO, of course.


----------



## chrisf

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I am certainly no expert on SAR, but I would venture every ship that has needed someone taken to hospital, every plane that has 'landed', not of its own accord, or even a lost soldier in the Artic might think it would have a "combat application".



None of those things have anything to do with a combat application. 

Don't get me wrong, it's very important, but it's not somthing that ONLY the military can do.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> None of those things have anything to do with a combat application.



I think we're taking this thread far of it's topic, however, I'm sure a torpedoed ship or a shot down pilot might like to think they are "combat".

Or are we just talking about what you consider "combat"?


..and to get back on "Defence Budget", can you come up with some sort of numbers that show the saving?  I've been doing the 'Govt" thing pretty much since I was 17 and have seen many 'save money' schemes that have, and some that still are, costing us lots of dollars. And just to clarify, my ideology is less govt., however my experience hasn't borne that out yet.

Bruce


----------



## captloadie

From Wikipedia:

"Canadian defence policy today is based on the Canada First Defence Strategy,[12] introduced by the Conservative Government of Stephen Harper after he took office in 2006. Based on that strategy, the Canadian military is oriented and being equipped to carry out six core missions within Canada, in North America and globally. Specifically, the Forces are tasked with having the capacity to:

Conduct daily domestic and continental operations, including in the Arctic and through NORAD (the North American Aerospace Defense Command);
Support a major international event in Canada, such as the 2010 Winter Olympics;
Respond to a major terrorist attack;
Support civilian authorities during a crisis in Canada such as a natural disaster;
Lead and/or conduct a major international operation for an extended period; and
Deploy forces in response to crises elsewhere in the world for shorter periods"

I would say that SAR _is_ one of the CF's primary roles, whereas true combat applications fall further down the list.


----------



## chrisf

There's no question that (domestic) SAR is a primary tasking of the military, my point is it shouldn't be on our budget, it should be on somone elses.

Here's a question, theoretically, we invade north korea tommorow. Can you pick up 103 sqn, drop them in Seoul, and put them on standby for combat SAR?


----------



## captloadie

So you have your opinion on what our priorities should be.

Unfortunately for you, Stephen Harper and the Government set the priorities, and domestic and continental operations come first, and always will. The role of the military is and will likely always be, Canada first. Ask Joe Bloggins on the street if they think their tax dollars are better spent doing National SAR, or fighting a war in the middle east, and I would feel confident on betting on what the answer would be.


----------



## aesop081

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Can you pick up 103 sqn, drop them in Seoul, and put them on standby for combat SAR?



No, you can't.

But make no mistake. If you take National SAR and give it to another department, the money and everything that goes with it ( personel, aircraft,etc...) will not stay with DND. It will not simply be funded from someone else's budget. The money for national SAR will follow national SAR.


----------



## chrisf

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> No, you can't.
> 
> But make no mistake. If you take National SAR and give it to another department, the money and everything that goes with it ( personel, aircraft,etc...) will not stay with DND. It will not simply be funded from someone else's budget. The money for national SAR will follow national SAR.



I know. I wouldn't expect it not to. It's a big tasking. No department would be able to do it without the funding and assets.

But, you also stop providing combat training to people who's only tasking is SAR, you stop spending money on annual postings, you stop spending money on career courses where the focus is defence. You get more SAR bang for your buck as a result, and we never again would have to hear "Yes, but what about search and rescue?", because we reply "Remember, we don't do that any more?"

Arguably, the only way a SAR unit has a combat application is if it's deployable, and in order to be deployable, it can't leave a hole in domestic SAR by going.

*Capt Loadie:*  This is a discussion forum. Specificly, this is a discussion thread about defence budget. The intent is to discuss this things. Shy of running for office, none of us have any effect on any of the political subjects we discuss, and very little effect on any of the military subjects we discuss. 

If you're not interested in intelligent discussion, may I suggest Yahoo! answers as a much more appropriate destination? I'm in the middle of a snow day at the moment and have little else to do, as I'm waiting on some linseed oil to harden.

You're quite right, I'm also certain that Joe public would prefer to see their tax dollars spent on SAR. My point is if what we take from our budget what we spend on SAR, and transfer it to another agency, Joe Public gets a more efficient use of their tax dollars, and we ultimately save money.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> My point is if what we take from our budget what we spend on SAR, and transfer it to another agency, Joe Public gets a more efficient use of their tax dollars, and we ultimately save money.



A point without facts isn't all that sharp. Just in a few posts you have gone from give SAR to the private sector to give it to another Govt. agency, and not shown how either one saves a single dime.

Just speculation......


----------



## chrisf

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> A point without facts isn't all that sharp. Just in a few posts you have gone from give SAR to the private sector to give it to another Govt. agency, and not shown how either one saves a single dime.



Fee free to point out where I suggested transferring SAR to the private sector. If you can find it, I'll buy you a beer.

The money is saved in not training people who have no combat role for combat, and in eliminating the extra logistic tail imposed by being attached to the military. I've pointed these things out as well.


----------



## aesop081

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> But, you also stop providing combat training to people who's only tasking is SAR, you stop spending money on annual postings, you stop spending money on career courses where the focus is defence.



What combat training ?

Postings ? Thats making the broad assumption that any department taking over SAR would not have to move people around.


----------



## chrisf

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> What combat training ?



Basic training, any trade courses, career courses, as well as on going training and operations prior to either transferring to the SAR tech trade, or being posted to a SAR unit in a support role, as well as any on going annual qualifications, such as range time. As well as tactical/combat flying training for pilots. Have I missed anything?



> Postings ? Thats making the broad assumption that any department taking over SAR would not have to move people around.



Show me another department that will pack up and move it's employees/families every four years.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> civillian agency could accomplish exactly the same task cheaper, and potentially more efficiently due to less reduced red tape?



This is where it appears I thought you meant private. Not being military and all, my thought was civilian meant private,.....my bad.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Show me another department that will pack up and move it's employees/families every four years.



RCMP?


----------



## chrisf

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> This is where it appears I thought you meant private. Not being military and all, my thought was civilian meant private,.....my bad.



Fair enough, I can see the ambiguity. Though aside from the RCMP, I can't think of any other federal government agency that isn't "civillian".

Like I said, best option would be to transfer the tasking (and associated funding) to the coast guard, they already have SAR experience, SAR taskings, facilities in most regions of Canada, and experience maintaining and operating air assets.


----------



## chrisf

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> RCMP?



Ok, you win that round, but while they have a secondary GSAR tasking, they'd be a poor choice to inherit our SAR tasks.

And I appologise, as this is dragging the thread off-topic, but it was joined with larger budget thread after I made my initial post about SAR, I don't suppose you could split it could you Bruce?


----------



## OldSolduer

OK we are sidetracked but before someone steers us back I have this to say about SAR:

I do not beleive for one minute that another government department nor a civilian company could provide the quality of Search and Rescue that the CF already provides. Nor do I believe divesting ourselves of the SAR task would save us any money at all. The CF has the national SAR tasking and it shoudl remain that way.

I say what I say for a few reasons:

1.  Unlimited Liability - SAR techs are ordered into extremely hazardous circumstances routinely some of which are life threatening. Would another department or a civilian company be willing to order their employees into a situation where the employee could be at serious risk?
2. The issue of unions - and before you discount this - the issue of unions has to be dealt with. What "unionized" SAR techs would be allowed to do, hours of work etc would need to be hashe out.
3. The CF has the command, control and infrastructure in place. What would be the benefit of divesting ourselves of the SAR tasking?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

I'm actually with Sig Op on this one.

I've seen the amount of staff and command attention SAR gets in the Air Force.  Frankly, it sucks alot of heat and light away from our core combat capabilities.

I don't buy the argument that SAR gives the CF great press.  Half of the time a newspaper photo caption of a Cormorant or a Buffalo identifes it as Coast Guard anyway.

I would argue that the only reason the CF does SAR at all is because of institutional inertia.  We were given the task after WW2, because no one else could do it.  In 2011- I'm not so sure either another Govt Dept or a Civilian Company couldn't carry out the task, with the Cf tasked to augment as secondary SAR in the event of something really big or particularly remote.

Even if we gave another govt dept all of the PYs, aircraft and funding currently associated with primary SAR, I think the CF would still be further ahead.

My 2 cents worth, of course.


----------



## chrisf

More on savings... and I hate to do it this way, because suggesting a base closure makes me feel dirty, but bare with me... picking on 103 Sqn because they're technically the only pure SAR squadron...

Transfer assets/role of 103 Sqn to the coast guard, operate out of Gander International as opposed to CFB Gander (They can't be moved to St. John's or Halifax, that's been made clear by a recent study), and administered by CCG Base St. John's. Give anyone currently posted to 103 Sqn the option of taking a posting somwhere else, or doing exactly the same job they used to do, wearing a slightly different shade of blue. They can even already transfer their pension time.

Which leaves us for what role for CFB Gander? Support of Leitrim's operations, and 5CRPG HQ? Move 5 CRPG HQ to CFB Goose Bay, close CFB Gander, stand up CFS Leitrim Det Gander, administered by Leitrim and supported by CFS St. John's. Hand over the now surplus assets of CFB Gander to the town of Gander, to help off-set political fallout from base closure.


Now, holy-political-hell would be raised by the base closure, but holy-political-hell would be raised at the transfer of SAR assets anywhere anyway even if it makes operational and financial sense. Which is why we still have the SAR taskings we have.


----------



## Journeyman

Well, if you're adamant about making the most of your 'snow day' by saving the Airforce budget, argue for scrapping the Snowbirds.   :stirpot:


----------



## SeaKingTacco

...and the Skyhawks, while we are at it.


----------



## chrisf

I was under the impression that the "Sky Hawks" is a secondary tasking? That's a minimal cost for a great public relations asset.

I'm totally in favor of giving the snow birds the boot. Not nearly enough PR bang for the bucks, they're recognized as the snow birds, they're seldom recognized as the Canadian Forces Snow Birds, no matter how much we might like to think other wise. 

Not too fond of the ceremonial guard either, but at least there's a few hundred years of tradition there, and there's no aircraft to pay for/support.


----------



## OldSolduer

The Sky Hawks are a full time parachute demo team. 

Well since I stuck my foot in this earlier, I disagree with getting rid of the Snowbirds, SkyHawks and the CG. For what its worth, I think these units tell the Canadian poplulation that the CF is a valuable institution and their expense is offset by the good PR and recruiting opportunities.

My 2 Cents, plus GST


----------



## chrisf

Fair enough, they do provide valuble PR (Even if I don't see the snow birds as cost effective).

They're far to easy targets for budget cutting anyway, given that the options are disband completely, or keep, and they're far to visible, they'd never be cut.

But back to search and rescue, there wouldn't be any disbanding, just moving, making things more efficient. Same service, money spent more efficiently.


----------



## Journeyman

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> But back to search and rescue, there wouldn't be any disbanding, just moving, making things more efficient. Same service, money spent more efficiently.


OK, this has gone on for most of the day (and really should be split from the Defence Budget thread), without any substantive evidence to back your claims.

Are your opinions informed by any link to SAR experience or Airforce budget and operations planning? Can you provide any details of the SAR budget, preferably including O&M costs? Can you even define "efficiency"? Is there any indication that the Coast Guard, or whatever anonymous private agency you are imagining, has the desire or ability to even take over the task, let alone provide "same service, money spent more efficiently"?

If not, then you remain merely a Reserve SigOp sitting at home, repeating uninformed, unqualified opinions; hardly the "intelligent discussion" you claim.


----------



## chrisf

Journeyman said:
			
		

> OK, this has gone on for most of the day (and really should be split from the Defence Budget thread), without any substantive evidence to back your claims.
> 
> Are your opinions informed by any link to SAR experience or Airforce budget and operations planning? Can you provide any details of the SAR budget, preferably including O&M costs? Can you even define "efficiency"? Is there any indication that the Coast Guard, or whatever anonymous private agency you are imagining, has the desire or ability to even take over the task, let alone provide "same service, money spent more efficiently"?
> 
> If not, then you remain merely a Reserve SigOp sitting at home, repeating uninformed, unqualified opinions; hardly the "intelligent discussion" you claim.



I'm sorry, has putting the sacred cow that is airforce SAR out to pasture struck a nerve? Does anyone who has more experience with air force budget and operations planning care to tell me I'm wrong?

No one is imagining a private agency, you're putting those words in my mouth. I already gave a full example of how 103 Sqn, and CFB Gander can be transferred and shut down.

If you're having difficulty with the definition of efficiency, would "accomplishment of or ability to accomplish a job with a minimum expenditure of time and effort" work? 

Any other agency is going to have to spend exactly what we spend to maintain the same SAR assets. It's the associated costs that you won't have to spend any more. Packing people up and moving them every four or so years. A large, well equipped gym, with PSP staff. Mess facilities. Career courses. Combat training. Etc.

I don't mean to give the impression I have anything against SAR. Like it or not, we've got base closures coming, and more cutbacks. At the end of the day, would you like to transfer SAR squadrons and cut their logistcs tail, or shut down combat units?

The storm seems to have subsided and I have a driveway to shovel.


----------



## Journeyman

* The nerve struck, after watching you go on and on all day, is some peoples' inability to stay in their lane. *

You see, I was merely asking you to provide some evidence to back your claims. Repeating an unsubstantiated claim over and over again does not constitute proof. 

Since YOU provided the thesis that dropping SAR is a brilliant, cost-effective move, then YOU are obligated to provide proof of your argument. Again, "oh...oh _YA_, well you prove I'm wrong" just doesn't provide you with any credibility.

You dismiss away the fact that our Defence Policy mandates the CAS to conduct SAR.

You seem unaware that most SAR Squadrons are Transport and Rescue; without access to the O&M budget (do you know what O&M means?), one cannot begin to estimate the potential cost saving of divesting ourselves of the SAR task. Again, you can say it over and over again, but you've provided absolutely no evidence.

If you're going to hang your hat on a dictionary definition of efficiency, which emphasizes "minimum expenditure of time and effort," then there really is no task that wouldn't be better served by letting someone else do it. Again, no logic to back you. 
.....unless you're saying that without those pesky SAR Techs around, there'll be no more need for "gyms, with PSP staff. Mess facilities. Career courses. Posting cycles" -- you do know that the rest of the squadrons' personnel also use those things.

You've also ignored the request for info on the Coast Guard's desire/ability to acquire and maintain this task; you _do_ know a SAR capability can't be invented overnight, right? But I guess, if you're dismissing all the other requests to validate your argument, what's one more problem to be simply wished away. And I guess it wouldn't be the CF's problem anyway.



			
				a Sig Op said:
			
		

> No one is imagining a private agency, you're putting those words in my mouth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are there any domestic military units with SAR as a primary task when a civillian [sic] agency  could accomplish exactly the same task cheaper, and potentially more efficiently due to less reduced red tape
Click to expand...


Oh, and budget cuts aren't a zero-sum game -- it's not SAR vs "Combat" (whatever you believe that to be); there are other options available through adjusting personnel, training, headquarters....


So, no, no "SAR as Sacred Cow" nerve; 
just a desire to see contributors to the site provide evidence of their assertions (or at a minimum, some hint that their opinions are professionally credible through their training, experience, knowledge).  
I wouldn't have thought that was such a difficult concept.

But then, I've never felt a need to go on and on about Res SigOps either -- it's not "my lane."


----------



## chrisf

Journeyman said:
			
		

> You dismiss away the fact that our Defence Policy mandates the CAS to conduct SAR.



Fine, I give up. 

I'm well aware it's in our mandate to provide SAR. My original point was that it makes no sense to have it in our mandate, and that the government would be well served to transfer that mandate and associated budget and assets to another agency. 

If you don't like the alternative scenario I've presented, honestly, I don't care. It makes sense to me.

I can also get into the garage again.


----------



## OldSolduer

You know a Sig Op....you're 26. You don't have all the answers as NONE of us do. So go run for Parliament and become MND. Please, you are starting to irritate some of us.
I'd like to know if you're like this on a training night....


----------



## Journeyman

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Fine, I give up.


It's not a win/lose exercise; it's an ongoing effort, by some, to improve the intellectual status of Army.ca (and CF members as a knock-on effect) -- hence often-repeated posts on "spelling, grammar, logic, and evidence."


----------



## GAP

Billions in shipbuilding contracts will make waves for Harper
STEVEN CHASE OTTAWA— From Thursday's Globe and Mail Thursday, Feb. 03, 2011
Article Link

Stephen Harper is poised to kick off the greatest round of government shipbuilding in Canada since the Second World War.

The massive equipment purchase is also going to give him a political headache.

Pegged at $35-billion, the sums involved easily dwarf the funds committed for the Conservatives' controversial and hotly contested plan to buy $9-billion worth of F-35 fighter jets from Lockheed Martin.

It will ultimately pit three regions of Canada against each other and force a difficult choice upon Mr. Harper. He'll have to decide which region to leave in the cold during what could be an election year: the East, the West or Quebec.

The federal shopping list includes a fleet of new defence, patrol and scientific research vessels, from frigates to the John G. Diefenbaker, which will be the most powerful icebreaker Ottawa has ever owned.

The Conservative government will select two marine construction yards for the job of building $33-billion in large vessels – companies that will end up dominating public shipbuilding in Canada for decades.

But by giving two yards the bulk of the work, Mr. Harper is inviting trouble.

Regional anger over procurement decisions are stuff of legend in Canadian politics and have damaged incumbent governments. A 1986 decision by the Mulroney government to award a CF-18 fighter maintenance contract to a Quebec firm over a superior bid by a Winnipeg-based company enraged western Canadians and helped spur the rise of the Reform Party.

Five yards are expected to bid for either one or both of the shipbuilding packages: the larger order to assemble frigates, destroyers and patrol ships – and the smaller to build non-combat vessels including the polar-class Diefenbaker icebreaker.

Ottawa hasn't attached an official dollar figure to these packages, but sources familiar with the matter value the combat order at roughly $25-billion, the non-combat around $8-billion. In the first five to eight years, both packages will pour roughly the same level of investment in shipyard work – and the non-combat order is expected to grow over time to include more replacement Coast Guard vessels.

The bidding competition will heat up this month when Ottawa invites bids for the two large-vessel packages. The federal government is expected to render its decision by August or September.

Winning a contract will mean the right of first refusal to build all the vessels in the package.

Of the five yards that have made the shortlist for bidding, three are considered major contenders. They include Irving Shipbuilding Inc.'s Halifax yard, Davie Yards of Lévis, Que., and Washington Marine Group's Vancouver Shipyards in North Vancouver, B.C.

Mr. Harper's National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy is an attempt to change the playbook for Canada's boom and bust shipbuilding industry, laying out a 30-year plan that ensures a steady stream of construction work for at least two yards.

There's a strategic military reason for this too. It ensures Canada, like many of its NATO allies, maintains a constant capacity to build naval vessels.

A politically risky feature of this new procurement style however, is that it concentrates the work into just two shipyards. From an accountant's perspective this makes sense: The winners have better economies of scale, thereby reducing costs – as well as ensuring a buildup of skilled labour at the yards in question.

It's a departure from the way regional politics have forced Ottawa to conduct government shipbuilding in the past, when contracts have been chopped up and spread around. Traditionally, a single ship might be assembled by different yards – ultimately increasing the vessel's price tag.

The consolation price for three losing shipyards is they will be able to bid on an estimated $2-billion of construction work for smaller non-combat ships.

Ottawa says there's enough of these smaller jobs to suffice.
More on link and second page


----------



## MarkOttawa

More at the Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute's _3Ds Blog_:

The Government’s Fun with Shipbuilding Money and Numbers
http://www.cdfai.org/the3dsblog/?p=93



> The _Globe and Mail_ today runs a major piece on the “National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy” the government announced in June 2010:
> 
> "Billions in shipbuilding contracts will make waves for Harper"
> 
> In typical Canadian media fashion the article concentrates on the politics involved - and misses the really interesting thing.  The government’s numbers just don’t add up, especially for the poor Canadian Coast Guard...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Haletown

Mark . . . they aren't doing New Math, they are doing Government Math.

What you have proved:

A)  Bureaucrats can't do math
B)  Bureaucrats can do math but they know Journalists can't
C)  Journalists can do math but they are too lazy to do math


----------



## MarkOttawa

Haletown: C) certainly, but also I think that politicians don't give a flying fig for truth in figures.  Not exactly news, but...

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Edward Campbell

A propose f not very much: a few, well 25 or so, years ago I had occasion to learn that, in Canada, most universities required at least one math course (usually statistics) for pretty much every honurs undergraduate and prety much every graduate programme - even e.g. hstory. The theory is that anyone taking "honours" should have at least _some_ mathematical ability and even historians need to be able to understand data. There were a couple of notable exceptions - two programmes in which those who could not possibly, ever, pass a math course could find refuge:

1. Education/BEd; and

2. Journalism - at both the BA and MA levels.

Perhaps, I hope, that's changed but, with a handful of exceptions, I always assume that journalists do not comprehend e.g. compound interest or inflation and I assume that they just regurgitate whatever drivel they get from someone, anyone, who the journalist thinks can do basic arithmetic - i.e. a bureaucrat, lobbyist, politician, the civvie cleaner, anyone ...


----------



## 211RadOp

From the Kingston Whig Standard

http://www.kingstonwhigstandard.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2990015

PM defends defence spending
By BRYN WEESE, PARLIAMENTARY BUREAU
  

OTTAWA -- The first duty of a national government -- "everywhere and always" -- is to protect its people and territory from external threats, and that means buying the best for the Canadian Forces, according to the prime minister.

Stephen Harper threw down the gauntlet Tuesday to his critics who question his government's military spending, including the $16 billion put toward 65 new F-35 stealth fighter jets.

That purchase is expected to be a major election issue for the Liberals and NDP in the next campaign, whenever it's called.

While announcing a new $155-million helicopter base in B.C., Harper warned against "wilful naivete" in national security, and said Canada has to be ready to defend itself from any and all threats.

"If you don't do that, you soon don't have a country and you don't have any of the other good things you once thought were more important," he said. "Our country has certainly never gone and will never go looking for trouble. However, many times during the past 200 years, trouble has come looking for us. While Canada does not aspire to be an armed camp, neither is there any place in national defence for wilful naivety."

NDP defence critic Jack Harris shot back at Harper Tuesday, saying protecting Canadians is equally important in times of peace, too, and in that regard the government has failed.

There's no excuse, for example, for Canada to be the worst in, probably, the developed world in terms of search and rescue response times, Harris said, adding response times in Canada are 30 minutes between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday to Friday, but slows to two hours during the evenings and weekends.

Norway, by comparison, has pilots in the air within 15 minutes of receiving a search and rescue call, 24/7, and the United States and Australia both have 30 minute response times, 24/7.

The new 20,000-square-metre helicopter base announced Tuesday at Canadian Forces Base Esquimault near Victoria, B.C., will house the 443 Squadron, and its nine new Cyclone helicopters are expected to arrive in 2014.


Canada is buying 28 Cyclones to replace the country's ageing Sea Kings.

bryn.weese@sunmedia.ca


----------



## Container

Layton understands that we are a huge country mostly filled with nothing right? We can't have the same response times as......Norway.

Nor do we have the population density to have the same coverage as the States.

Has he ever been out of Toronto?

**EDIT** OOPS! I saw NDP Jack and missed Harris. My apologies to Mr. Layton- this time!***


----------



## Wookilar

No need to apologize, there's not much difference between any of them IMHO (Peter Stoffer is about the only one on that side of the house that has any sense at all).

The only way to improve SAR response times would be more.....as in more SAR Techs, more pilots, more FE's (are they still called Flight Engineer's?) more choppers and planes and more Bases for them to operate from.

Gee, didn't we used to have more????

There's no way the NDP will support more spending on the CF, for any reason.

Once again, empty posturing from the NDP. If they really were worried about SAR response times, they'd support more initiatives that would actually affect them.

Wook


----------



## ModlrMike

Mr Harris needs to remember that for virtually all of the current government's tenure, Canada has not been at peace. Perhaps his gaze should turn elsewhere in assigning blame for reaping the "peace dividend".


----------



## George Wallace

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



> *Coffee Talk
> *
> 
> *Canada's military spending highest since World War II
> *
> by Sameer Vasta
> 10/03/2011 1:00:00 PM
> 
> 
> LINK
> 
> *Increasing Canada's defence budget by 54 percent over the past decade should not come at the expense of foreign aid and diplomacy.*
> 
> According to a new study by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, military spending in Canada is expected to hit at least $22.3 billion this budget year, the highest since World War II and a 54 percent increase in defence spending over the last decade.
> 
> The increase in defence spending is staggering, but perhaps not surprising considering Canada's recent role in the Afghanistan War. What is shocking, however, is that our country now ranks 60th out of 102 contributing countries to United Nations peace-support missions. This is a drastic change from the years before, where Canada not only was a top worldwide contributor to UN peace missions, but is also a radical departure from our previous role as the country that redefined modern peacekeeping under the leadership of Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson.
> 
> Over the next 17 years, Canada has committed to increasing its military spending by $90-110 billion dollars. This not only comes at a shaky time in the global economic environment, but also at a time where the need for humanitarian aid and non-military global security spending is high. The report continues to say that Canada could easily meet the 0.7% Official Development Assistance (ODA) target by diverting the increase in military spending to global aid. (Canada has never met the 0.7% ODA target, coming closest — 0.5% — in 1986-1987.)
> 
> Does Canada really need to increase its military spending over the next few years? As far as I know, the credible threats to the country's sovereignty and security are small; justification for an increased defence budget is difficult to find in light of the other competing priorities that face our nation and the world around us. Our troops deserve new and adequate equipment and preparation, but this should be done by re-evaluating military priorities and using the current budget wisely. Substantial increases, in the billions of dollars, to defence spending should instead be invested in areas where Canada has had the most impact, and can continue to lead the world and help make it a better place.
> 
> Investing in humanitarian aid, peace-support missions, and research on global issues like climate change and migration also has a role in the security of our country and the role it plays on the world stage. Increasing military spending to World War II levels — especially at the expense of international diplomacy, foreign aid, and thought leadership — may not be the best way to remind the world that Canada is strong, free, and committed to peace.


----------



## vonGarvin

I find that the author of that piece is comparing 2011 dollars on par with 1945 dollars.  While the gross spending may be the same, the purchasing power is obviously not at World War Two levels.

As well, I wish that people would remember that even though we "were there" with UN Peacekeeping Missions, we were simultaneously "there" with our NATO brigade, Air Division and Fleets during the Cold War.  But times have changed, and sometimes you just have to shoot people in the face to make a point: the blue beret only gets you so far.


----------



## Good2Golf

...good thing nobody is asking questions about the *$1.76 TRILLION*  that HRSDC will spend (estimates based on pro-rated figures from the HRSDC 2010-2011 Report on Plans and Priorities (Section 1.7 - Spending Profile)) in that same 17-year period...


I suppose helping a proportionately small number of Canadian citizens, vice protecting ALL Canadian citizens doesn't warrant as much interest, even though the expenditures for them are approximately 500% higher than defence and protection of Canadian rights and values for all.  


Regards
G2G


----------



## HavokFour

This is being debated on CPAC this very moment, if anyone is interested.

EDIT: And by that I mean the F-35 price tag. Accountability, blah, blah, blah.


----------



## MarkOttawa

In any event ISAF has been repeatedly authorized by the UN Security Council; hence by participating in it we are taking part in a UN mission.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## thunderchild

It was the Liberals who got us into Afghanistan not the Conservative party.


----------



## HavokFour

thunderchild said:
			
		

> It was the Liberals who got us into Afghanistan not the Conservative party.



Something they tend to forget at times.


----------



## MarkOttawa

From the government's 2008 "Canada First Defence Strategy":
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/pri/first-premier/defstra/summary-sommaire-eng.asp



> ...the Government has committed through Budget 2008 to raise the annual increase in defence funding to 2 percent from the current 1.5 percent starting in fiscal year 2011-12. Over the next 20 years, these increases will expand National Defence's annual budget from approximately $18 billion in 2008-09, to over $30 billion in 2027-28. In total, the Government plans to invest close to $490 billion in defence over this period. Most importantly, the infusion of reliable funding will provide the certainty required to conduct longterm planning and meet future requirements...



The 2011-12 situation is outlined in Conference of Defence Associations' "Commentary 1-2011", by Brian MacDonald.  Money has been clawed back a bit:

Waiting for Defence Budget 2011/12: Third of the Canada First Defence Strategy Budgets
http://cda-cdai.ca/cda/uploads/cda/defbudget2011.pdf

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Haletown

2%, while a paltry sum, would be a huge increase from our traditional 1.2%  - 1/3 %.

I really doubt that Harper et al will come through with the funds.  They are pretty good at obfuscating, but better than the alternatives at CF support.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Sad but true.  One does rather long for the days of the muscular Mickey I.:
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0013421



> ...Following a 2005 lecture at the University of Dublin's Trinity College, Ignatieff excoriated Canadians for trading on Canada's "entirely bogus reputation as peacekeepers" for 40 years and for favouring "hospitals and schools and roads" over international citizenship. "If you are a human rights defender and you want something done to stop [a] massacre, you have to go to the Pentagon, because no one else is serious," Ignatieff said.
> 
> "It's disgusting in my own country, and I love my country, Canada, but they would rather bitch about their rich neighbour to the south than actually pay the note," he said, in response to a question about PEACEKEEPING. "To pay the bill to be an international citizen is not something that they want to do."..



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Bert

The original article talks about SAR response time without definition and compares the response
process of other countries with equal ambiguity.  <Sigh>.  

Perhaps a defense white paper may help Canadians to understand the challenges of maintaining
a viable military capable of domestic assistance, SAR, and national defence.  Defence spending
is like maintaining a car.  Most people understand why they have a car, but the partisan political
forum confuses the "why(s) we have the car" with the relative "quality of the parts to put into it".


----------



## Sythen

Wonder how much different the SAR response times would be had the Liberals not canceled the EH-101 like they plan to cancel the JSF?


----------



## Chilme

Its too bad we couldn't have one of these politicians against spending make an emergency landing in the middle of NWT.  I'm sure the time they spend waiting for SAR pers to fly up from Trenton, would be enough for them to think of better ways to spend that cash.


----------



## PuckChaser

Chilme said:
			
		

> Its too bad we couldn't have one of these politicians against spending make an emergency landing in the middle of NWT.  I'm sure the time they spend waiting for SAR pers to fly up from Trenton, would be enough for them to think of better ways to spend that cash.



Or put them in a HLVW on Route Fosters.


----------



## infantryian

I wonder if the article comparing our defense budget to that of the second world war takes inflation into account. I haven't studied information, but I find it hard to believe that we are spending the same money (in today's dollars) or as a GDP percentage.

Edit: Not even mentioning the blanket remark that we are at over 50% increased spending since this time last decade... 9/11 led to Afghanistan, so perhaps the defense budget is a little more strained, and a little more important than it was January-September 10, 2001.


----------



## ArmyRick

It a fairly simple concept IMO. If we want to participate in international military operations (most Canadians do) we have to pay for it.

Or we we don't pay fiddle for defence and keep all our troops at home, strictly domestic defence.


----------



## PuckChaser

Sapperian said:
			
		

> I wonder if the article comparing our defense budget to that of the second world war takes inflation into account. I haven't studied information, but I find it hard to believe that we are spending the same money (in today's dollars) or as a GDP percentage.



Theres no way it does. We were in total war mode in 1945 and any extra money was being put into the war effort.


----------



## Journeyman

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> It a fairly simple concept IMO. If we want to participate in international military operations (most Canadians do)  we have to pay for it.


But that begs the question, do "most Canadians" equate our participation in "international military operations" as combat in South-West Asia.....or some mythical blue beret-wearing UN sun-tanning mission?

I suspect that the absence of critical thinking causes 'SPF 35' to trump 'F-35' in the minds of most Canadians.


----------



## George Wallace

I wonder if the authors of these studies really looked at costs over the past seventy years?  A guestimation of what some of those costs may look like this:


12 oz bottle/can of Coke:

     1940 = $   .05
     2011 = $ 1.00

Draft Beer:

     1940 = $   .05 for 2 X 12 oz glass
     2011 = $ 6.50 for 1 X 10 oz glass


Of course we are spending more on Defence.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Here is a simple graph, courtesy of InflationData.com








As you can see inflation _compounds_, just like compound interest, and we have seen _deflation_, too - look at 1920 to 1940.

What is interesting is the two _rates_ of change: 1940 to 1970 (which, had it been sustained, would have trended out to about 750% by 2010) and 1970 to the present (which shows a remarkably consistent trend).


----------



## infantryian

That graph does cut off at the right side, here is a similar graph from the same source.

This is inflation per decade, but does not register cumulatively 
http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation/DecadeInflation.asp


----------



## MarkOttawa

Guess who's taking the 2011 budget hits?

DND to shoulder almost one-third of spending restraint
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20110322/dnd-federal-budget-restraint-110322/



> The Defence Department may not be heading back into the old decade of budget darkness, but it could be in for a time of twilight.
> 
> The military will make it home from the war in Afghanistan just in time to take a lead role in the battle against the federal deficit.
> 
> Figures released in Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s budget on Tuesday show he’s relying on the Defence Department to rein in spending sharply.
> 
> He expects Defence to account for up to 26 per cent of the federal government’s anticipated $2 billion in spending cuts next year.
> That figure jumps to 35 per cent in both 2013 and 2014 — or $1 billion a year…
> 
> Government supplementary estimates tabled earlier suggest that reduced overseas operations will save Defence as much as $300 million a year starting in 2012, although it’s not clear how much of that is attributable to the changed Afghan mission.
> 
> The government announced in the 2010 budget that the military would contribute to the deficit fight, but the numbers have become more stark.
> 
> [Douglas] Porter [deputy chief economist at Bank of Montreal] said there’s a certain volatility in the defence projections because, as the Libyan crisis has demonstrated, no one can predict how and when the military will be deployed…
> 
> Budget documents call the restraint measures at Defence “a key element” of the plan to wipe the anticipated $29.6 billion deficit for 2011-12 off the books.
> 
> Starting next year, there will be cuts to “redundant and outdated equipment” and to the procurement system, which is already short of program officers, will be streamlined.
> 
> The department has struggled with big-ticket purchases — such as new supply ships [see here for more
> http://www.cdfai.org/the3dsblog/?p=136]
> - partly because of a lack of planning staff.



Full details from the budget documents themselves--those details on the impact on DND are pretty well buried:
http://www.cdfai.org/the3dsblog/?p=152

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Haletown

wonder if that includes the $30 Billion Iggy and Jack say we shouldn't spend on new Fighters . . .  because that money is allocated from current department allocations.


----------



## ReneeClaude

Now I am not much into politics and have a long way to go to understand, but I don't think that the defense is the best place to cut for any Country, I mean, it doesn't really matter if you have free health care, great social programs and what have you, if you can't protect your Citizens... Just my  :2c:


----------



## kratz

My 9er just reminded me that there will most likely be a delay in seeing the annual economic adjustment to our pay due to the election. For the same reason, we will probably not hear of any potential changes to PLD until after the election as well. Essentially everything related to all those items are in a delayed holding pattern  until the fall, most likely.


----------



## Fergie

Hello all,

I managed to find two studies (one of them the actual one cited from the article) that will probably clear the air on the "how is this measured" question.

http://www.ploughshares.ca/libraries/WorkingPapers/wp031.pdf
(a similar study of post-war spending until 2001 with the same author contributing)

http://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/National%20Office/2011/03/Canadian%20Military%20Spending%202010.pdf
(the study cited in the article)

Summary:

1) The measurement of defence budgets is done via "Real dollars" with base years in 2001 (the first study) and 2010 (the study from the article).  This is about as accurate you can get at effectively comparing dollars/value across time.  Just like all forms of economic measurement it can't capture everything 100%, e.g. production practices becoming more efficient over time due to technology, but in terms of measuring a defence budget on the whole it's fairly accurate.

2) The article headline skews the actual results of the study... we're not spending more today than we did _during_ WWII, but rather since 1946-47... Obviously a significant difference.

The studies are interesting reads (and not too lengthy) and may provide some interesting surprises, but all in all it's obviously bias against increasing defence expenditures.  Hope this was helpful,

-Fergie


----------



## linkinarmy

Hey I have a quick question here. How is it that the Spanish Armed Forces have a defence budget relatively similar to our own but have over double the man power, More aircraft, equipment, vessels, etc.

Just curious


----------



## dapaterson

Given the amount that DND habitually underspends, a reduction of $500M stil elaves money on the table unspent.

And re: Spain:  I suspect they still have universal conscription, which saves a lot of money on your personnel budget.  As well, our pay scales compare favourably with any army in the world.


----------



## linkinarmy

Ok makes sense. I thought about the pay thing too. It had me wondering though because there a modern professional military that spends around the same as Canada.


----------



## Journeyman

But I'll leave you with a philosophical question linkinarmy....

Of what utility is having a military of "over double the man power, more aircraft, equipment, vessels..." if you withdraw it all from multinational operations and have them all hunkered down at home, where their conventional warfighting skills contribute nothing?


----------



## linkinarmy

Its useless but look at countries like Russia and China with huge militaries that do nothing out side there borders. Im not saying we should have a military of that size. Just wondered how Spain could afford all those capabilities with a budget similar to ours.


----------



## Edward Campbell

linkinarmy said:
			
		

> Its useless but look at countries like Russia and China with huge militaries that do nothing out side there borders. Im not saying we should have a military of that size. Just wondered how Spain could afford all those capabilities with a budget similar to ours.




Every sensible country maintains just enough military power to meet their national vital interests, at home and abroad.

The Chinese armed forces (the People's Liberation Army), for example, has been drastically reduced in size over the past 25 years and, simultaneously, has made equally dramatic improvements in quality and professionalism. There is a lesser (perceived) need for internal security and a slowly increasing need to employ expeditionary forces - including on baby-blue beret type UN missions.

Canada tries to maintain just enough military power, at the lowest possible cost, to buy us 'seats' at various international tables.

Some countries, Spain is probably one, Russia is likely another, but Canada and e.g. Australia are not amongst them, still perceive domestic threats that appear to require large standing armies, at home.


----------



## MrsAlex

I really liked those Ignatieff'S words you posted (way up there ^). They reflect something I've thought for a while, and tried to explain to people around me. Most people who think CF budget should be cut down argue that we should use diplomacy instead of military to solve international problems. But an healthy army is a major diplomatic tool. It always has been so. I just think the population in general don't understand how important for Canada is its army and how much it costs to keep it not just barely functional but really efficient and competent.


----------



## FoverF

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Some countries... but Canada and e.g. Australia are not amongst them, still perceive domestic threats that appear to require large standing armies, at home.



Perhaps. But Australia still manages to operate amphibs, attack helicopters, AWACS, and significant submarine forces, as examples of useful and expensive capabilities which we lack. They also have 2 large flat-deck vessels in the pipeline, and already have a Hornet replacement program in place, with Super Hornets already delivered, and spots secured in the F-35 production line. Each one of these things is, in my opinion, pretty significant. 

They do all this while maintaining otherwise comparable naval, ground, and air forces to Canada, and with essentially the same budget. 

While not a complete picture by any means, it seems to me like they are getting a significantly bigger bang for their buck.


----------



## GAP

MacKay faces job cuts at DND – and an eager rookie nipping at his heels
JANE TABER OTTAWA— Globe and Mail  Thursday, May 26, 2011
Article Link

The anticipated slash and burn of the public service by the newly-minted Conservative majority government could be starting at the Department of National Defence. Reports Thursday morning say 2,100 jobs will be cut over the next three years.

This as Defence Minister Peter MacKay attempts to defend what many see as his diminished role. In the cabinet swearing-in last week, Prime Minister Stephen Harper appointed Julian Fantino, the former top cop in Ontario, as Mr. MacKay’s Associate Minister in charge of procurement, which comes with a huge budget that is between 14 and 16 per cent of the department’s $22-billion total. 
More on link


----------



## aesop081

FoverF said:
			
		

> and already have a Hornet replacement program in place, with Super Hornets already delivered,



The Super Hornet in RAAF service is not a replacement for the "legacy Hornet". It is an interim measure to bridge the gap between the retirement of the F-111 and the (much delayed) arrival of the F-35. In other words, the Super Hornet is an temporary F-111 replacement.


----------



## FSTO

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> The Super Hornet in RAAF service is not a replacement for the "legacy Hornet". It is an interim measure to bridge the gap between the retirement of the F-111 and the (much delayed) arrival of the F-35. In other words, the Super Hornet is an temporary F-111 replacement.



I think the point of his comment is that Australia appears (from up here anyway) to get more out of their defence dollars then Canada does.


----------



## Gunner98

dapaterson said:
			
		

> And re: Spain:  I suspect they still have universal conscription, which saves a lot of money on your personnel budget.  As well, our pay scales compare favourably with any army in the world.



Suspect is like a shot in the dark, fact is Spain ended conscription in 2001 after 230 years- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/spain/1332085/Conscription-ends-in-Spain-after-230-years.html


----------



## aesop081

FSTO said:
			
		

> I think the point of his comment is that Australia appears (from up here anyway) to get more out of their defence dollars then Canada does.



I gathered that, but have we lost the ability to make a point using facts ?


----------



## Kirkhill

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Every sensible country maintains just enough military power to meet their national vital interests, at home and abroad.
> 
> ......
> 
> Canada tries to maintain just enough military power, at the lowest possible cost, to buy us 'seats' at various international tables.
> 
> ........



A few days ago I came across this entry  in the Quebec History Encyclopedia.  I believe it demonstrates how much that attitude is bred in the bone of our "administering classes".  Hugh Allan was one of the Allan Steamship family and part of that set of Anglo-Scots Montrealers that Quebecers love to hate but were the driving force behind Canada.   Note the number of directorships and clubs on his resume.  It worked for those men at a personal level and was perceived to be the key at the professional and international level.

Just an aside.


WRT the budget and specifically the F-35:

What happens to the budget estimates on F-35 costs if we make the following assumptions:

Buy a limited number of air frames (original capital cost)
Lease engines supplied and maintained by OEM (Operations & Maintenance Budget)
Buy training services on an ongoing basis from the US (Personnel Management Budget - reverse of the BCATP and the NATO Hawk Plan at Moose Jaw)
Fund expeditionary activities (like Afghanistan and Libya) out of general revenues as extraordinary expenditures rather than the Defence Budget.

Fund DND to purchase training and maintenance to support and sustain minimal standing obligations (standing patrols, observation posts and quick reaction forces).  Ensure that there is retained a step-up ability to surge a "suitable, credible, politically acceptable, sufficient" field force or two.

With that model in mind I believe that the Government could credibly claim that they can field, for example, 65 F-35s and maintain a couple of 4 ship QRFs indefinitely on a very modest budget.  

The fly in the ointment is that after that minimal obligation has been met then the operating budget will determine how much or how little training time and "engine" time can be purchased in a given year.  On the plus side; moving the expeditionary costs off the annual estimates for the Department could both result in the Department getting what it needs when it needs it (with the politically astute necessity of supporting the troops) while at the same time taking some of the heat off the Department by maintaining a smaller standing budget.

I don't trust politicians any more than I trust bureaucrats or salesmen - or for that matter pimps, panderers, proselytizers or the press - but it occurs to me that there are always many ways to skin cats.  And the politicians, bureaucrats and salesmen of the world are very astute when it comes to finding ways to modify assumptions so as to find the single method that will result in the least pain ..... to them.  The yowling of the cat is a secondary matter.


----------



## Nemo888

I can't believe the Conservatives are cutting 10% of DND staff (2100) and 15%(5% per year for 3 years) of Contractors. I can't reprint it here becasue that journalist is banned from the site.  The only thing that comforts me is that if DND is getting axed like this departments they don't like will be cubicle ghost towns.

So much for priority hiring though. Won't be many places to go soon.


----------



## aesop081

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> I can't believe



Why ? What did you expect them to do ?


----------



## FoverF

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I gathered that, but have we lost the ability to make a point using facts ?



Whether the Super Hornets will be temporary or not remains to be seen. 

But you are correct, the Super Hornets are not intended as replacement of the legacy Hornets, they are the replacement of the F-111. 

Which is what I should have said in the first place, because in addition to being more accurate it also better supports my point, as it illustrates yet another capability gap (operating different fast-jet types in complimentary roles).


----------



## Edward Campbell

From another page:


			
				Haletown said:
			
		

> So the PBO can't do basic arithmetic and make a $1 billion addition error, they conclude canceling a multi-billion dollar second engine cost will increase the program costs and  they invent some truly, truly, bizarre  estimating methodology for  future aircraft costs based on the weight of an aircraft and people still take Kevin Page/the CBO seriously?
> 
> 
> Wonder how Page figured out how much 8 million lines of software code weighs?




Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page's _estimates_ have, finally, been scrutinized in this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/double-vision-flahertys-fiscal-forecasts-win-out-over-watchdogs/article2182950/


> Double vision: Flaherty’s fiscal forecasts win out over watchdog’s
> 
> BILL CURRY
> OTTAWA— Globe and Mail Update
> 
> Published Wednesday, Sep. 28, 2011
> 
> Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page releases his latest forecast Thursday challenging the Conservatives’ deficit numbers, but a review of his record to date reveals his estimates are less accurate than the government’s.
> 
> Mr. Page’s Thursday report – which is expected to expand on the PBO's concern that Ottawa faces a long term deficit due largely to demographics – comes in advance of Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s fall economic update, which has not yet been scheduled.
> 
> Since his March 2008 appointment as Canada’s first Parliamentary Budget Officer, Mr. Page’s numbers have been at odds with government estimates over everything from fighter jets to infrastructure spending, and most recently the deficit.
> 
> Now, after three years of prognosticating since Mr. Page’s arrival on the national scene, it is possible to look back and see which side has the better track record when it comes to Ottawa’s bottom line.
> 
> An analysis by The Globe and Mail reveals the edge goes to the government. Reports from Finance and the PBO since Mr. Page’s appointment show that in 15 comparable forecasts, the government beat the PBO nine times. The PBO forecasts were more accurate four times and there were two ties.
> 
> Measured another way, the Finance Ministry comes out slightly ahead with an average forecasting error – the difference between the projected surplus or deficit and the final number – of $12.6-billion, compared to $13.2-billion for the PBO.
> 
> Deficit forecasts are particularly important now amid growing warnings the world economy will slip back into recession. Deficit targets are also being used as justification to cut government spending – Mr. Flaherty has vowed his Conservative government will erase the nation’s $29.6-billion deficit by the 2014-15 fiscal year – without major public-service layoffs or cuts to health and social transfers to the provinces.
> 
> Mr. Page, meanwhile, warns that Canada faces a permanent, long-term structural deficit unless Ottawa cuts deeper than planned or raises taxes to cover the costs of Canada’s aging population.
> 
> Some independent economists told the House of Commons finance committee Monday that Mr. Flaherty may have to push back that target if the economic growth continues to slow.
> 
> Finance and PBO each released two reports at the onset of the recession in late 2008 and 2009 that are the source of their most dramatic forecasting errors. Finance’s 2008 fall update for 2009-10 proved to be off by $49.7-billion. A similarly timed report by PBO – its first forecast – was off by an even greater amount, $51.7-billion.
> 
> But the accuracy of the forecasts from both sides has improved since the peak of the recession.
> 
> Both Finance and PBO were provided with the opportunity to review the Globe and Mail’s comparison and provide input and comment.
> 
> “We will let the chart speak for itself, which I think it does well,” Chisholm Pothier, Mr. Flaherty’s spokesman, said in an e-mail.
> 
> Mr. Pothier pointed out that private-sector economists and the International Monetary Fund were also caught off-guard by the depths of the global recession and its impact on government bottom lines around the world.
> 
> For his part, Mr. Page noted that the differences are minor and based on a very small sample of three years.
> 
> “All told, the difference between Finance and PBO forecasts (on average) is very small,” he said in an e-mail. “I think it should be kept in mind that PBO provides its forecasts and analysis essentially with a full-time staff of three people, whereas Finance has an entire branch that is responsible for preparing budgets and updates.”
> 
> The Conservatives created the PBO, but the government has since faced questions about the level of funding provided and its willingness to hand over government spending data.
> 
> Finance Canada says the department has 10 full-time employees who work on fiscal analysis and forecasting, but only five of those work solely on fiscal forecasts.
> 
> Until this June, the PBO and Finance both relied on the same average of private-sector forecasters for assumptions regarding the strength of economic growth. That means any differences of opinion were focused on the impact of fiscal decisions like government spending or restraint.
> 
> In June, PBO announced that it will produce its own forecasts for economic growth and will no longer rely on the private-sector average.
> 
> The last time Ottawa erased the deficit in the mid-1990s, some accused Liberal finance minister Paul Martin of using excessively dire deficit projections to justify painful spending cuts to health, education and employment insurance. The ultimately inaccurate forecasts also set the stage for the government to later boast of beating its own targets.
> 
> One of the economists critical of the Martin approach, Jim Stanford of the Canadian Auto Workers, sees this tactic playing out again with the Conservatives.
> 
> “The billions in spending cuts that Mr. Flaherty is considering are, in my view, wrong and I think he too has painted the fiscal outlook darker than it is to try to justify those planned cuts,” he said.
> 
> Yet Mr. Stanford acknowledges his theory doesn’t explain why the PBO – an independent body – warns Ottawa won’t meet its deficit targets.
> 
> “I think the PBO folks are too bleak about the deficit numbers, too – especially their claim that we have a ‘structural” deficit,’ which I do not accept,” Mr. Stanford said.
> 
> _*Methodology*
> 
> To compare the forecasting record of Finance and the PBO, The Globe and Mail based its calculations on seven reports per organization covering the period of November, 2008, to June, 2011. These reports were chosen because they could each be paired with a comparable forecast released around the same time, based on the same public information.
> 
> The forecast covers three years, but only the first two years are measured against final numbers. The final deficit number for 2010-11 have not yet been announced. For that year, the forecasts are measured against the latest deficit estimate in the June budget._




Now this comparison is, admittedly, of budget deficits rather than F-35 costs but it indicates that, compared to the Government of Canada, Page errs, fairly consistently, on the pessimistic side. There is no reason to believe that his analyses of e.g. fighter planes does not suffer from the same pessimistic bias.


----------



## Haletown

Well said.

Page is a very political operative. He realizes his survival requires him to be government negative so the Opposition will protect him.  

In short, he is a bog standard career bureaucrat well versed in playing the Ottawa game.

That F-35 report was ludicrous, it plumbed new depths of totally inept analysis.  Projecting future costs based on historical aircraft weights . . .


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Well, here's my suggestion for deficit cutting: Get rid of the PBO - or should we call him by his real designation OOBO (Official Opposition Budget Officer).

Let's face it, it is the Government's job to prepare and present a budget to  Parliament and the Official Opposition's job to analyze and criticize the government for any error therein before the whole Parliament votes on the said budget. The Official Opposition already has a "research" budget to hire all the so called advisors and experts it may need to carry out its function. Why should we, as taxpayer, then pay on top of that for an allegedly neutral officer of Parliament to provide equally allegedly "impartial"   analysis of the government's budget, when such analysis can only serve the opposition?


----------



## Edward Campbell

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Well, here's my suggestion for deficit cutting: Get rid of the PBO - or should we call him by his real designation OOBO (Official Opposition Budget Officer).
> 
> Let's face it, it is the Government's job to prepare and present a budget to  Parliament and the Official Opposition's job to analyze and criticize the government for any error therein before the whole Parliament votes on the said budget. The Official Opposition already has a "research" budget to hire all the so called advisors and experts it may need to carry out its function. Why should we, as taxpayer, then pay on top of that for an allegedly neutral officer of Parliament to provide equally allegedly "impartial"   analysis of the government's budget, when such analysis can only serve the opposition?




I disagree.

I think we need a bigger, _better_ PBO. I think the PBO is in the right place - subordinate to the Librarian of Parliament, but so should be several other parliamentary officers, but not, of course, the Auditor General of Canada who needs a separate level of independence from everyone, including Parliament.

The Librarian of Parliament needs to be able to serve committees (HoC and Senate) and the committees of the whole with staff and expert, unbiased advice that is equally as expert as that provided to the government of the day by the civil service but is free from _direction_ from anyone except the Librarian her (or him) self.

Parties - those with 12 or more seats in the HoC and or _n_ senators should be allocated resources (money) to hire expert, partisan staff to advise committee members - there are a lot of parliamentary committees so there need to be a lot of these partisan staffers. They, partisan parliamentary staffers, would lessen the opposition's dependence on outside lobbyists and special interest groups like the Rideau Institute because MPs would have more, better information at hand.

That's hundreds of new people - mostly lawyers and economists - costing many, many tens of millions of dollars, but I think 'better' governance is worth the expense.

My  :2c:


----------



## Edward Campbell

After being caught being less accurate than Jim Flahery and the Finance Department ...







... PBO Kevin Page makes a misstep according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/kevin-page-event-raises-eyebrows-and-sends-liberals-scrambling/article2197689/


> Kevin Page event raises eyebrows – and sends Liberals scrambling
> 
> BILL CURRY
> Ottawa— Globe and Mail Update
> 
> Posted on Tuesday, October 11, 2011
> 
> A federal Young Liberal organization is scrapping plans to receive political donations at an event Tuesday evening featuring Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page.
> 
> Just hours before the event in Nanaimo, B.C., the lead organizer told The Globe and Mail money raised at the door would go the Vancouver Island University Young Liberals. The organizer also said receipts would be offered to those wishing to claim a political donation for tax purposes.
> 
> But after The Globe asked Mr. Page to comment on the optics of his appearance at an event that would be raising money for the Liberal Party, the Parliamentary Budget Officer said he would refuse to appear unless he was assured any profits would go to charity. He said he was told the event was non-partisan and that he would be contacting the organizer.
> 
> Minutes later The Globe received an email from the organizer explaining that plans had changed.
> 
> “We just now decided to clear the air and to wash away any misunderstandings or misconceptions,” wrote Mike McDowall, who is organizing the event and who is also vice-president of the federal Liberal association for Nanaimo-Alberni. “All the proceeds will go to pay for costs and any other profits raised will go to a local Nanaimo food bank.”
> 
> Chisholm Pothier, a spokesman for Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, described Mr. Page’s planned appearance at the event as “deeply disappointing” and said it calls into question the neutrality of his position. “One would think he would know better,” he said in an email.
> 
> The event in Nanaimo was promoted on the website of the federal Liberal Party.
> 
> Advance tickets were $5 for students and $10 for adults. It was billed as a non-partisan event and there was no mention of raising money for the Young Liberals.
> 
> Yet when The Globe first contacted Mr. McDowall Tuesday, he explained that money raised at the door would go the Young Liberals on campus.
> 
> “Technically the money will be going to the VIU Young Liberals, part of their financial assets,” he said when asked about what would happen to the money raised at the event. “We are giving the option for people to sign off if they want to get a tax donation... We’ll be mentioning that.”
> 
> The Parliamentary Budget Office is non-partisan and staffed by public servants. Its reports challenging the federal government’s financial numbers have at times created tension between Conservatives and the office.
> 
> When asked by The Globe about the optics of appearing at a Liberal-organized event, Mr. Page said there was never any mention of partisan fundraising.
> 
> “If there are any surplus funds (after cover for [the] hall or technology support or coffee) I will request it go to a local charity or I will not speak,” he wrote.
> 
> Local NDP MP Jean Crowder said she and other New Democrats would be attending the event. While she did not expect the organizers would make a large profit, she said it would be “problematic” for Mr. Page if money did go to the Liberals.




This is amazing. Page is a smart guy ... how could he be so careless? Or is he flying his (new? old?) partisan Liberal colours before he departs?


----------



## dapaterson

Smells to me like a Liberal shenanigan; I don't think Mr Page would pull a stunt like that.

...not that young political staffers ever make mistakes...  :


----------



## GAP

He may be a bent Liberal or not, but you can't fault him for his vast experience in immediate backpedalling once he was confronted with it.....


----------



## Edward Campbell

There's a bit of minor and, I'm sure, unintentional humour on the _Globe and Mail_ web site. It shows/says:





Kevin Page event raises eyebrows – and sends Liberals scrambling
   GLOBE SURVEY Double vision: Flaherty’s fiscal forecasts win out over watchdog’s
   DEMOGRAPHICS Find $46-billion to pay for aging population, budget watchdog says
   PROFILE Kevin Page: Bean-counter with a backbone


Which, more or less, says:

Kevin Page event raises eyebrows – and sends Liberals scrambling
   GLOBE SURVEY Double vision: _Page is not very good at guessing about finances_
   DEMOGRAPHICS _Page, who isn't very good a forecasting, forecasts a need for $46-billion for something or other_
   PROFILE Kevin Page: Bean-counter _may not be very good, but he stands up for himself and defends his mistakes_


----------



## Haletown

and I wonder who paid for his airline to Nanaimo + living expenses for this little gig.

It would be too funny if it turns out he hitched a ride on a Challenger  :nod:


----------



## OldSolduer

Haletown said:
			
		

> and I wonder who paid for his airline to Nanaimo + living expenses for this little gig.
> 
> It would be too funny if it turns out he hitched a ride on a Challenger  :nod:



I was just thinking that.  >


----------



## a_majoor

While it is important that Parliament have non partisan officers to carry out the various background activities, I am not exactly feeling confident for two reasons:

1. What happens when a "non partisan" organizations becomes overtly partisan like Elections Canada?

2. What is the value of these organizations when they can be and are often ignored (like the Auditor General)?

As most regular readers know, my answer isn't to pay for "better" government, but rather take out the shears and have less government altogether. A government with fewer powers and a smaller footprint on our lives will automatically have less abilty to meddle in our affairs, commit colossal blunders or carry out crony capitalism.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Although he doesn't specifically mention DND, Kevin Lynch, former professional head of our Dept of Finance and former Clerk of the Privy Council, gives some counsel on how to reduce spending and be more productive, at the same time, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/stimulus-austerity-we-can-have-both/article2220167/


> Stimulus. Austerity. We can have both
> 
> KEVIN LYNCH
> From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
> 
> Published Tuesday, Nov. 01, 2011
> 
> The reality of fiscal restraint is descending on all governments and, despite Canada’s past prowess, complacency is a risk. Let’s not let tangential debates about whether the fiscal books should be balanced in 2014 or 2015, or whether taxes are too high or too low, distract policy-makers and the public from the core job at hand: putting Canada on a sustainable fiscal footing and doing so in a way that makes government more productive and innovative rather than simply doing less of the status quo.
> 
> The fiscal challenges facing Canada should not be underestimated, particularly in a number of provinces led by Ontario. The global recovery will be longer, slower and more volatile than expected, and these reduced growth prospects will negatively affect Canadian tax revenues and increase social safety net spending. In facing such a worsened economic reality, we are no different than any other OECD country; where we should be different is how we respond fiscally.
> 
> In much worse fiscal circumstances in 1995, government did not just cut spending, it realized it had to innovate in how to deliver government differently and more productively. This required “cuts and investments,” new thinking about how to deliver government services to Canadians, and the willingness to make difficult choices.
> 
> At Industry Canada, where spending reductions were more than 40 per cent of the departmental budget, the reduction target was actually exceeded in order to reinvest in innovative ways of serving clients: shifting from subsidies to strategic information delivered electronically; new low-cost, high-impact initiatives such as Schoolnet to connect all Canadian schools to the Internet; reinvestment in university research through new models such as the Canada Foundation for Innovation and the Canada Research Chairs; and modernizing framework policies to encourage growth rather than subsidies to finance it.
> 
> The challenge today is somewhat different than then – namely, how do we maintain our relatively strong fiscal position in a difficult global environment?
> 
> Governments have to use the necessity of fiscal restraint as an opportunity to make government more efficient, more effective and more relevant, not just lower cost. They should avoid simplistic across-the-board cuts to government operations, which typically starve capital and investments in innovation and are too often viewed as a painless source of deficit reduction.
> 
> The federal government is right to look for savings in its program spending, and to do so in targeted ways. It is also right to avoid the false debate between stimulus on the one hand and austerity on the other – in a sound fiscal framework, you can and should have both. This requires innovation in policy-making that is responsive and responsible.
> 
> Sustainable fiscal balance requires transparently eliminating or reducing programs with commensurate reductions in budgets and employment, and eliminating inefficient or outdated tax expenditures. Government should consider modernizing its “back office” by simplifying and automating administrative processes to reduce staffing levels and costs. While shifting to a smaller, more information-technology-enabled government work force, they should avoid the mistake of the 1990s and continue the recruitment of talented young Canadians to ensure a high quality and innovative public service.
> 
> While the fiscal reality will be smaller government, the objective should be more innovative, flexible public services. Why shouldn’t we have the option of “online government” in the same way we take online banking for granted? Why can’t we reduce the red tape and regulatory burden of government, particularly on small business, not by diminishing regulatory standards but by taking a taxpayer-centric approach to government rather than a departmental approach to taxpayers?
> 
> Why are we so hesitant to embrace public-private partnerships that mobilize private capital, are financed through user-pay models rather than direct tax dollars, and can set whatever level of auditable service standards the public deems appropriate? Why not consider an overhaul of our framework policies from competition policy to intellectual property to investment to trade to immigration and others as a low-cost, high-return way to improve Canada’s long-term growth prospects? Why is government not a risk-sharing partner in the market launch of innovative new goods and services by Canadian firms through its purchasing policies?
> 
> But our fiscal challenges run deeper and longer term. Governments need to address the fiscal dilemma posed by declining productivity growth and aging demographics. These produce the double fiscal wallop of lower revenue growth than we’ve experienced for decades and higher spending pressures for health, pensions and other demographically related spending.
> 
> Squaring this circle of sustainable fiscal balance comes back to increasing innovation and productivity performance to rebuild our sustainable growth and adjusting our entitlement programs to the growth economy we will have. Ultimately, fiscal balance and growth must go hand in hand.
> 
> _Kevin Lynch is vice-chair of BMO Financial Group._




It is my impression, based upon what I read here and what I hear at periodic luncheons in the Mess, that DND, including the CF, could do with a lot of _streamlining_ involving both better (and smaller) "back office"* operations and fewer people managing (outdated? duplicate?) programmes.

Spending growth, which DND needs, and spending growth beyond that promised in the _Canada First Defence Strategy_, which Canada needs, requires that we, Canadians, "rebuild our sustainable growth" and recognize that we must and, I believe *can* have fiscal balance (austerity) in tandem with growth (stimulus).


__________
* The large HQs here in Canada and the people, processes, procedures, IT and communications that serve them. The "front office" is the lower level, _operational_, formations and HQs that employ forces at home and abroad.


----------



## Edward Campbell

More on the defence budget in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canadas-military-seeks-a-strategy-to-fit-2011-budget-realities/article2223432/


> Canada’s military seeks a strategy to fit 2011 budget realities
> 
> CAMPBELL CLARK | Columnist profile
> From Thursday's Globe and Mail
> 
> Last updated Thursday, Nov. 03, 2011
> 
> This week, for the first time since Stephen Harper took office, there are no Canadian Forces on combat operations overseas.
> 
> Now, the military is being thrust into the peacetime battle over budgets. But the map of the battlefield is out of date. The government’s 2008 long-term defence strategy still rests on spending budgets which are currently being cut. The strategy needs an update.
> 
> With the end of Canada’s mission in Libya, which began before six years of combat in Kandahar had ended, the Canadian Forces are quickly packing up kit, with the seven CF-18s and other planes expected back at base by the weekend.
> 
> Defence spending increased, especially for the army, over the years of Afghan combat. But the military no longer has the wartime narrative that grounded public support for spending, and it fears peacetime cuts. Combat operations are winding up amid a European financial crisis that’s feeding fears of recession or stagnation. Some had hoped the military would be spared cuts, but they’re coming.
> 
> In August, before he retired, Lieutenant-General Andrew Leslie, who was given the task of identifying ways to cut $1-billion from the defence budget, recommended a battle of the bulge, cutting thousands of headquarters jobs and 30 per cent of the $2.7-billion spent on professional and services contracts.
> 
> The former chief of the defence staff, General Rick Hillier, warned the recommendations would “destroy the Canadian military.” His argument didn’t seem to be with Lt.-Gen. Leslie’s priorities for cuts, but with making big cuts at all.
> 
> That argument appears lost. Two budgets have confirmed the Harper government will cut $1-billion a year, about 5 per cent, as of 2013. On top of that, the Defence Department, like all other government departments, is now presenting two options for more cuts, either 5 per cent of its budget(about $1-billion) or 10 per cent, so the government can choose how much more to slash. Defence is unlikely to escape that round of belt-tightening.
> 
> Still, there are hints there is some flailing around about how to cut. There’s talk of scrapping the navy’s second-hand submarines, still not up to snuff after huge spending. A memo on cutting real estate left Defence Minister Peter MacKay juggling the risky question of closing bases.
> 
> Gen. Leslie’s report led to hand-wringing in the military. The Defence Department identified $1- billion in “savings” months ago, but hasn’t said what they are. Mr. MacKay’s spokesman, Jay Paxton, said it “identified savings that do not affect the core capabilities or readiness of our military.”
> 
> Mr. Harper made backing the military a big part of his political identity, increasing spending each year by about $1-billion. His government says its 2008 defence strategy is still the blueprint. But the strategy projected $490-billion in spending over 20 years and budgets have since lopped $44-billion from that, with more likely to come.
> 
> But there’s almost a whole navy and air force to buy in the next 20 years, and the job might be botched if future purchases do not fit into current budget plans. The costs can be accounted for over decades, but only so many mortgages can be paid at once. Capital equipment budgets are about $3-billion now; by 2017, new fighters and frigates will each cost $1-billion a year, even if they aren’t over budget.
> 
> “At some unknown point, you run out of money again,” said Queen’s University defence expert Douglas Bland. “You could end up with a one-capability armed force. We could end up with a very strong navy and a weak air force, reduced to transportation operations.”
> 
> Half the defence budget pays people, so numbers must be cut, Mr. Bland said, and some things must be cut in big ways, or spending will creep back. Gen. Leslie, who found administrative jobs grew by 57 per cent since 2004, suggested starting there.
> 
> But soon, before the choices shrink, the government’s going to have to say how it’s going to fit the military it planned for in 2008 into the realities of 2011.
> 
> _Campbell Clark writes about foreign affairs from Ottawa_




The _Canada First Defence Strategy_ promises to cut defence spending when measured as a percentage of (likely/projected) GDP by about 2035, and now there is a perceived requirement to cut further.


----------



## Remius

From the Ottawa citizen today.  Spending estimates were released yesterday.  Recruiting, basic training and soem MAT stuff is going to take a hit.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Tory+spending+estimates+include+upcoming+cuts/6224218/story.html


----------



## George Wallace

Follow the money:

http://finance.sympatico.ca/galleries/military_money



Canada        $560 / person

Canada is 20th in the ranking of per capita military spending. The $20 billion spent on the Armed Forces make up 1.5% of GDP, which lands Canada 84th on the GDP list. Voluntary service can start at 17 years with parental consent. The service obligation is three to nine years. Reserve or military college applicants can be as young as 16. 



Top end:

United Arab Emirates        $2,653 / person

The seven emirates of the UAE are on the peninsula that separates the Persian Gulf from the Arabian Sea. Despite a moderate foreign policy, UAE's armed forces consume 7.3% of the oil-rich country's GDP. It is completely volunteer service. The forces consist of army, navy, including Marines, air force, air defense, border and coast guard directorate. The $15 billion of spending is the 16th highest military budget in the world. 


followed by:

United States        $2,141 / person

In a league of its own when it comes to military spending, the United States spends more than $687 billion as the world's remaining ''superpower.'' That is more than half a trillion above the next highest spender, China. This huge expenditure covers the branches of the Army, Navy, including the Marines, Air Force and coast guard. There is no conscription but voluntary service comes with an obligation of eight years of service, including two to five years of active duty depending on the branch. To keep the military spending in perspective, it is 4.7% of the U.S. GDP.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Crantor said:
			
		

> From the Ottawa citizen today.  Spending estimates were released yesterday.  Recruiting, basic training and soem MAT stuff is going to take a hit.
> 
> http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Tory+spending+estimates+include+upcoming+cuts/6224218/story.html


Source docs here:
2011-12 Supplementary Estimates
2012-13 Part I and II - Main Estimates


----------



## dapaterson

Crantor said:
			
		

> From the Ottawa citizen today.  Spending estimates were released yesterday.  Recruiting, basic training and soem MAT stuff is going to take a hit.
> 
> http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Tory+spending+estimates+include+upcoming+cuts/6224218/story.html



Other news reports say that retention is at a high in the Reg F, and that the force expansion targets for the Reg F have been met.

So, with fewer people leaving, and with no need for increased recruiting and basic training to fill new positions, it's no surprise that the CF would spend less on recruiting and basic training.  Seems almost, well, logical.


----------



## Journeyman

...leading to an unsurge in whininess in the Recruiting threads, as even more people have their brilliance and superstar abilities overlooked by the mean, nasty system.

    op:


----------



## The Bread Guy

And for further digging, here's DND's section of the Main Estimates.....


----------



## The Bread Guy

Next piece of the puzzle - the budget:


> The federal government will unveil its much-awaited austerity budget on March 29, although Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said those expecting a detailed schedule of spending cuts may be disappointed.
> 
> Flaherty said Wednesday the budget will not lay out in specifics where the government plans to find between $4 billion and $8 billion in annual savings over the next three years.
> 
> "There’s not going to be intricate detail," he told reporters in Ottawa.
> 
> "But there'll be enough information that it'll be comprehensible, that it will describe what we're doing in terms of the deficit reduction action plan, and much more than that, this is a jobs and growth budget." ....


The Canadian Press, 29 Feb 12

While the Treasury Board says, "the close proximity of the tabling of the Budget to the Main Estimates means the Estimates do not reflect new Budget initiatives and priorities", DND's Main Estimates look like a fair bit of cutting is being envisioned (~8% by my take of the document attached to the post before this one?) at this point in the process.  Who knows what the Budget will bring to change that, though.


----------



## Edward Campbell

More on the defence budget and, specifically, the deeply flawed _Canada First Defence Strategy_, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-plan-to-revamp-defence-spending/article4227726/


> Tories plan to revamp defence spending
> 
> MURRAY BREWSTER
> Ottawa — The Canadian Press
> 
> Published Sunday, Jun. 03 2012
> 
> The Harper government is redrafting its extensive, multi-billion shopping list of equipment for the Canadian military in an exercise many observers believe will set more sober expectations in a time of austerity.
> 
> 
> The revision to the Canada First Defence Strategy is slated to be complete and ready for public consumption by fall, multiple sources have told The Canadian Press.
> 
> Although Defence Minister Peter MacKay describes the hallmark plan as a “living document,” the reset comes at a time when the government has been hammered politically over the F-35 stealth fighter, an issue that tarnished the fiscally responsible image that the Conservatives try to project.
> 
> Defence sources say there is a baseline expectation that the promises made in the original 2008 document will be mostly kept, but whether the government will be buying in the quantities outlined at the height of the Afghan war when the federal treasury was flush, is another matter.
> 
> “We have to do this reset and it would have happened regardless of the recession, regardless of the fiscal realities,” Mr. MacKay insisted during an interview with The Canadian Press.
> 
> But the political thinking, according to some defence insiders, is that a redrafted wish list will take some of the bite out of opposition attacks and restore public confidence rattled by the F-35.
> 
> When it was announced with much fanfare, the $490-billion, 20-year defence policy was hailed as the prescription for a Canadian military which the Conservatives say was starved for cash.
> 
> But delivering on that long laundry list of ships, tanks and planes has turned into an excruciating experience, which found a voice last week in Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose’s declaration that she was “tired of being told why something can’t be done.”
> 
> But defence experts, such Phillipe Lagasse at the University of Ottawa, who studies procurement, said he hopes the procedural frustration and the storm over the F-35 doesn’t lend itself to some quick, politically palatable decisions.
> 
> “They weren’t able to achieve everything they hoped they could achieve under Canada First, [and] it didn’t happen as smoothly as they hoped,” said Mr. Lagasse, who noted the procurement system wasn’t structured to deal with such an ambitious list.
> 
> Aside from the politically-charged stealth fighter program, which has been harshly criticized by the Auditor-General, there are a host of planes and ships that have yet to leave the drawing board, including fixed-wing search aircraft and navy supply tankers.
> 
> Sources said the various drafts circulating around National Defence acknowledge that there is some equipment that must “be replaced right away,” but there are other more complicated issues, such as the F-35 and the glitch-plagued Victoria Class submarines.
> 
> The navy is currently studying whether the four British-built boats can have their life extended until 2029, but it’s clear that thought is already being given to replacing them.
> 
> Sources said the next generation of submarines has already been the subject of high-level briefings within the military and it is expected the redrawn strategy will highlight such a plan.
> 
> Mr. Lagasse said the challenge for the government will be to temper the military’s expectations.
> 
> Already signs are emerging that Conservatives are looking for long-term economical defence solutions, while those in uniform tend to believe the budget restraint is just temporary.
> 
> “Unfortunately, until they’re honest with each other, and I hope that is what this document will do, we’ll be engaged in a dialogue of the deaf,” said Mr. Lagasse.
> 
> The mistake the Conservatives made with the first version of their strategy was to raise expectations by being very specific about what they were going to buy, he added.




At the risk of saying "I told you so ..." this was easy to see coming; I will repeat myself and say:

1. Canadians' support for the CF may be a mile wide (all those red T-shirts and yellow ribbons) but it is only an inch deep, especially when it comes to defence spending vs other (social) _priorities_; and

2. The _Canada First Defence Strategy_ was never anything more than an ill-considered shopping list. It *promised* a finite decrease in defence spending when projected as a percentage of GDP out to 2035. It could do that by "low baling" costs and being vague, to be charitable, about dollars and cents.

The Conservatives are doing what needs to be done in tough economic times: _restraining_ discretionary spending - and few things are more politically _discretionary_ than national defence. But there still needs to be a _plan_ for our national defence - one that promises real growth in defence spending (as a percentage of GDP) over, say, 20 years, of an order that will buy us the people, the kit and consumables we (all Canadians) need to provide to DND and the CF to guarantee* our own security.


_____
* Not unilaterally - in conjunction with traditional friends and trusted allies


----------



## Edward Campbell

See also here for more on the _Canada First Defence Strategy_.


----------



## ModlrMike

Of course it doesn't matter what the defence budget looks like. The NDP will cry that the money should go to healthcare and education, or to "feed the poor".


----------



## m2austin

Sourced from TimesColonist.com, 5 June 2012, Link <a href="http://www.timescolonist.com/news/Tories+knew+military+budget+unaffordable+documents/6731123/story.html">Here</a>



> *Tories knew military budget unaffordable: documents*
> BY LEE BERTHIAUME, POSTMEDIA NEWS
> JUNE 5, 2012 3:03 AM
> 
> The Conservative government knew as far back as last year that Defence Department budget cuts had made its multibillion-dollar shopping list of military equipment "unaffordable," Postmedia News has learned.
> 
> As a result, National Defence officials have been urging the government since May 2011 to push the reset button and re-evaluate "the level of ambition" for its vaunted plan to rebuild the Canadian Forces.
> 
> The Canada First Defence Strategy, the centrepiece of the Conservative government's long-term vision for the military, was unveiled with much fanfare in May 2008 and promised to invest $490 billion in new equipment and upgrades over the next 20 years.
> 
> "The Canada First Defence Strategy will strengthen our sovereignty and our security," Prime Minister Stephen Harper said at the time.
> 
> "Our government will ensure that Canadian Forces have the personnel and equipment they need to do their job, to protect our values and project our interests, to fulfil Canada's international commitments, to keep our true north strong and free."
> 
> The long list of projects includes building a fleet of new naval vessels, dozens of new military aircraft and hundreds of vehicles for the army, as well as important upgrades and refits for existing equipment.
> 
> But briefing notes prepared for Associate Defence Minister Julian Fantino weeks after the last federal election and obtained through Access to Information show he was warned billions of dollars in spending reductions had rendered the Canada First Defence Strategy impossible to fulfil.
> 
> "The funding reductions from Budget 2010 and the reduced funding line going forward will make the Canada First Defence Strategy [CFDS] unaffordable," reads the briefing material.
> 
> "The department will be challenged to deliver on the CFDS commitments as a result of forecasted decreases in funding and increased in costs," it adds.
> 
> A key part of the Canada First Defence Strategy was annual increases to the defence budget over the next two decades. But the 2010 federal budget cut those increases in half. This past federal budget went further, ordering $1.1 billion in spending reductions over the next three years over and on top of $1.1 billion in budget cuts this year.
> 
> The briefing material notes that the government has planned to undertake periodic reviews of the strategy, the first of which was to be undertaken last year. To that end, National Defence officials recommended the government "conduct a CFDS Reset to confirm the level of ambition," among other things.
> 
> An official in Defence Minister Peter MacKay's office confirmed Monday that the strategy is being reviewed, but he would not offer specifics, including whether the plan to invest $490 billion over 20 years has changed.
> 
> "Minister MacKay is working with Minister Fantino and officials to refresh the Canada First Defence Strategy," Jay Paxton said in an email.
> 
> "Until this work is complete, it would be misleading and disingenuous to allocate an investment amount to such an important document."
> 
> Philippe Lagasse, an expert on military procurement at the University of Ottawa, said the Conservative government intentionally built up a reputation for supporting the military even though it was hard-pressed to fulfil the commitments laid out in the Canada First Defence Strategy from the beginning.
> 
> © Copyright (c) The Victoria Times Colonist


----------



## OldSolduer

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Of course it doesn't matter what the defence budget looks like. The NDP will cry that the money should go to healthcare and education, or to "feed the poor".



Or payoff the likes of poor misunderstood Omar......poor little darling....  :rage:


----------



## Edward Campbell

The _National Post_ takes a firm _*editorial*_ stand against cuts to the defence budget.

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_ is that editorial:

http://digital.nationalpost.com/epaper/viewer.aspx


> Don’t cut the Armed Forces
> 
> Saving money on military matériel has its own price: higher casualties during combat
> 
> Multiple sources have told The Canadian Press that the federal government intends to revise the Canada First Defence Strategy, initially announced by the Conservatives in 2008. Stung by a recent series of military procurement bungles (the F-35 being the first and foremost), the government will now be looking to find savings in the equipment purchases planned for the next 20 years.
> 
> These purchases were to have eventually replaced all of the military’s major fleets of vehicles and weapons, leaving us with a modernized and effective fighting force. But the money ran out, so the government must now scale back some of its promises for future military shopping sprees — especially since the Tories are clearly counting on a return to balanced budgets as the feat that will win them the next election.
> 
> But here’s the problem: Even though the price tag for the procurement section of the original Canada First strategy was eyepopping, it was still going to be a fairly modest updating and upgrade of our existing military capabilities. If the government cuts that, it will be cutting the Forces.
> 
> As originally laid out, the plan called for $45-billion to $50-billion in “investments” to replace “core military capabilities.” These included 15 new frigates and destroyers, 17 new search-and-rescue planes, 65 “next-generation fighters” (later announced to be the F-35), 10-12 new maritime patrol planes and a new fleet of Army vehicles, both to replace vehicles lost or worn out during operations in Afghanistan. Fiftybillion dollars is a lot of money, no doubt. But when you look at what Canada would actually be getting for that price, you see that it is not a huge amount of equipment.
> 
> We have written before about how risky it is for the Air Force to consider operating with only 65 fighter jets. The same risks apply to the other equipment. Canada has the world’s longest coastline, so it will be difficult to make do with fewer than 15 warships and 12 patrol planes. This is a huge country, and largely uninhabited, so cutting back on search-andrescue will be tough. The Army can perhaps lower its expectations for how much equipment it needs, and how good that equipment will be, but as Afghanistan showed us, the price of cutting Army equipment before a conflict is higher casualties during that conflict (and also, realistically, more money ultimately spent, as better equipment must be bought suddenly and then rushed into service).
> 
> None of the items in the original Canada First plan is exactly a frill. It seems impossible to imagine achieving any big savings without impacting any of these core purchases, or reducing some of the other “pillars” of a strong military that the plan identified — personnel, readiness (training and state of equipment repair) and the military’s general infrastructure.
> 
> Sadly, it will likely be personnel that will bear the brunt of any cuts. The Canada First strategy had called for a Canadian Forces of 100,000 members, including 30,000 reservists, and these personnel account for 51% of the military’s spending. Eliminating a plane here or a ship there will be small change next to simply limiting the number of men and women in uniform.
> 
> Such a move would be shortsighted. It takes years to train a soldier, and as the military found during the war in Afghanistan, for every soldier you send abroad, you need four others at home, either training to go next or recovering from a recent mission. There is a limit to how small the Canadian Forces can be while still having enough trained personnel ready for deployment to handle all of the jobs the government insists the military be able to accomplish. But as the government hunts for savings, it seems inevitable that a smaller military lies in the country’s future.
> 
> This is a shame. Canada should have a moderately sized, well-trained and well-equipped military. A country of 34 million need not raise armies fit to conquer the world, but as a major industrial nation and economic power, Canada needs some muscle to back up its words. Let us hope that even as it hunts for savings in its military spending, the government will remember this fact, and cut only where necessary, and only with great care.




Good on the _Post_ for taking a principled stand. Its position will not be popular, but it is right.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Here, courtesy of the _National Post_ is a useful graphic on Canadian defence spending over the past 60+ years:







As I always do, I will argue that spending as a percentage of GDP is a much better measurement than dollars spent. The dollars spent measurement tells us a lot about the _inflation rates_ of military vs general materiel but it doesn't tell us how 'important' we think our national defence is. Looking at the blue line (spending as a % of GDP): the precipitous rise and decline in military spending in the 1950s coincides with a dramatic and fundamental shift in Canadian _strategic_ thinking but the steady decline from 1963 until today reflects the reality of Canada: our fellow citizens, notwithstanding the red T-shirts and yellow ribbons, do *not* "support the troops" or care, overly, about their own national security and defence.

Here is a partial list of modern democracies and (according to Stockholm International Peace Research Institute) how much (as a % of GDP) they spend on defence:

Israel - 6.3% (they live in a rough neigbourhood)
USA - 4.7%
Singapore - 4.3%
Chile - 3.5%
Greece - 3.2%
South Korea 2.9%
UK - 2.7%
France - 2.7%
India - 2.5%
Taiwan - 2.4%
*World Average* - 2.2%
Australia - 1.9%
Italy - 1.8%
Germany - 1.8%
Fiji - 1.7%
Brazil - 1.6%
Norway - 1.6%
Finland 1.5%
Canada 1.5%
Netherlands - 1.5%
Denmark - 1.4%
New Zealand - 1.2%
Spain - 1.1%

We can, and should do 'better' than Finland and Fiji and we can afford and should spend something very, very close to the world average (2.1% is my suggestion.)


----------



## GnyHwy

The Greece 3.2% is kind of comical.  I'm no math wiz, but I think 3.2% of 0=0.

Or is their 3.2% just enough to cover these guys.


----------



## a_majoor

Greece fields a relatively modern force including such items as Leopard 2 tanks and the latest versions of the F-16, mostly out of fear of what the Turks are up to. Now with the current and ongoing fiscal crisis, they might have some difficulty paying their servicemembers and doing upkeep on the shiny kit, but nevertheless,it is still there.

The other thing that skews the numbers a bit is many of the "high spenders" have relatively small economies, so if you have to buy modern military equipment then in absolute terms you will be paying a greater portion of your budget (even if in reality the unit costs are the same as a nation with a larger economy buying the same stuff). Japan has a very effective and modern force with the most advanced Aegis cruisers as part of the fleet, for example, but they only spend about 1% of their GDP; they have such a huge economy that 1% is an enormous amount of money.


----------



## Edward Campbell

The Conservatives are, finally - and for the first time in a _looooong_ time for *any* Canadian government - being honest about their defence budget priorities according to a report in the _Globe and Mail_ which is headlined: "Tories plan ‘buy Canada’ military budget".

The article says:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-plan-buy-canada-military-budget/article4562844/


> The Harper government is embarking on an ambitious effort to develop a Canada-first military purchasing strategy – one that aims to funnel as many procurement dollars as possible to domestic firms with the potential to be leaders in their field.
> 
> It is the latest step in the Conservatives’ plans to craft a defence industrial policy for Canada – an effort to harness the power of the military-security budget in the service of long-term jobs and economic growth.



The article goes on to say that:



> Ottawa’s not planning to spurn foreign suppliers. But it wants to be smarter about backing Canadian industry where possible – funnelling more of the $240-billion the government plans to spend over 20 years on military acquisitions to domestic suppliers ... _but_ ... This new approach, which Ms. Ambrose has championed throughout government, has its risks and its critics. Some Department of National Defence officials worry it will end up adding costs and delays to military spending.



The article also notes that _"The use of procurement to stimulate innovation has been a long-standing practice in other countries, particularly the U.S. with its enormous defence expenditures,”_ but the existing _Canada First Defence Strategy_ does not promise "enormous defence expenditures," in fact, it (the Tory "Strategy") promises to *reduce* the defence budget when measured as a percentage of GDP.


----------



## Kirkhill

Ibbitson from the above article:



> For instance, flight simulators and munitions – bombs and bullets – are two areas where Canadian companies have become strong international competitors in the defence and security markets.
> 
> Ottawa wants to nurture more companies that can become the next CAE Inc. or General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems Canada.



Perhaps not a Canadian Lockheed Martin but perhaps a Kongsberg.  Not an Arrow but a Penguin.  Not UAVs like Global Hawks but UUVs like those being developed on the West Coast now.   Systems that we can sell and trade on the open market as a one for one exchange for other defense systems - Like the Aussies have done with their Bushmasters and Austal products (JHSVs and LCSs).

Maybe we could take a lead in developing the LTA transport sector as we did with the Bushplanes. Those went from Beaver to Otter to Caribou to Buffalo to DASH 7 to DASH 8 to Bombardier Qs.

Nothing wrong with buying locally if the locals have what you need, at a price you are able and willing to pay.

Canada's problem is that the locals don't have what the DND needs and they can't develop it in a timely fashion.  Nobody can anywhere in the world.  All defence projects, and most government and commercial projects for that matter, take years if not decades to develop new technologies.


----------



## The Bread Guy

It wouldn't be the _Globe_ without a counterpoint....


> In a breathtaking piece of economic nationalism run amok, the Harper Conservatives are embarking on a new military procurement policy that would see defense dollars used to grow domestic industry.
> 
> This is not about picking the best hardware for the military, as National Defense has very valid concerns about this policy increasing cost overruns and delivery delays. It is rather about using defense department dollars as a way for government to support companies that it sees as future economic champions. The policy is based on the flawed premise that a country can create economic growth by overpaying for goods and services.
> 
> The proposal has the explicit objective of leveling the playing field with foreign jurisdictions who subsidize their national military hardware producers. But do Canadians gain by trying to one-up foreign governments in the corporate welfare game?
> 
> If the Swedish government wants to provide financial subsidies to the Canadian military the Canadian taxpayer should rejoice. This presents no loss to the Canadian economy, as those dollars can be spent on other priorities such as health and education, or be used to lower taxes ....


"Mike Moffatt is an assistant professor at Ivey School of Business at Western University and a regular contributor to Economy Lab.", G&M, 24 Sept 12


----------



## dapaterson

Three simple terms come to mind:

Pork;

Featherbedding; and

LSVW redux.


----------



## Canadian.Trucker

More budget slashing, great.  Love it.  GREAT!!!  :endnigh:


----------



## Kirkhill

Many folks here would like the government to buy the CV90 for the Canadian Army.

How did the CV90 get to market?

The Swedish government had the Swedish Army talk to the Swedish vehicle supplier Haegglunds and the Swedish arms supplier Bofors about what could be done and what was wanted.  The Swedish government then paid for design work and prototyping.  It then bought some 400 CV90s for its own use.  

All costs were borne by the Swedish taxpayer, who also got paid to build it and who also was required to come out for a couple of weeks training every year or two to learn how to drive it.  

The Swedes then turned around and sold the equipment at whatever price the market would support and took the profits to defray the costs (defray - not eliminate but reduce) to the greatest extent possible.  In the process they keep Swedes employed building CV90s and supply foreign income so that Swedish taxpayers don't have to pay so much.

They also get to maintain a body of expertise that allows them to put out the Bv206, the BvS10 and a variety of other weapons systems that they get to trade on the open market allowing them to buy weapons and radars that they don't manufacture themselves.

And they retain the ability to produce a piece of kit that, apparently, many people on this site want to buy.

Why can't you substitute Canada for Sweden and International Submarine Engineering producing AUVs and USVs (as an example) for Haegglunds producing CV90s?

The CV90 design was commissioned in the early 1980s - a Marder with a bigger gun.


----------



## Kirkhill

Further to my last:

And with potential repercussions for the JSS/AOR project (Berlins) as well as the AUV-UUV-USV market.

Despite the West Coast location it might also impact the AOPS and CSC projects.

Atlas Electronik establishes Canadian subsidiary in Victoria


----------



## a_majoor

Emotionalism aside, it would be very interesting to see a detailed examination of how Sweden, a nation with similar geography, population and GDP to Canada (and also bordering on a region with very large and sophisticated military industries) was able to develop, build and field advanced military equipment for such a long time.

While most of us would be somewhat agog over the details of such things as SAAB jet fighters, the S tank, FH-77, AIP subs (powered by Stirling engines) and their Stealth missile boats, there can be little doubt that these were (and are) effective pieces of kit quite capable of doing the job needed by the Swedish military, and satisfying the few foreign customers that were allowed to purchase from Sweden. While this isn't to say we should rush into producing our own (name piece of kit here), there should be no reason to nix the idea outright, and if intelligently applied, could well work to our advantage as the current government suggests.

This would actually be best served (at least at first) by going into "niche" markets which are otherwise not well served. A strange example that I could think of off the top of my head is space surveillance capabilities. A consortium of Canadian Universities built a small space telescope (called MOST) which was about the size and weight of a barracks box, yet capable of high degrees of pointing accuracy, for the price of @ $10 million CAD. Launching a fleet of similar satelites in time of crisis would provide a very robust surveillance capability (especially when multiple satelites are ganged together in a process called optical interferometry, which creates a virtual telescope with an arbitrarily large aperture). Since our actual defense needs are rather small, "boutique" manufacturers could compete for certain contracts that other arms dealers would ignore (replacing the LSVW, G Wagon and MilCOT with a robust vehicle based on a commercial frame like a Ford F-450 could be possible using this sort of strategy).


----------



## GAP

> A consortium of Canadian Universities built a small space telescope (called MOST) which was about the size and weight of a barracks box, yet capable of high degrees of pointing accuracy, for the price of @ $10 million CAD. Launching a fleet of similar satelites in time of crisis would provide a very robust surveillance capability (especially when multiple satelites are ganged together in a process called optical interferometry, which creates a virtual telescope with an arbitrarily large aperture).



Especially with private firms now in the running to be doing the heavy lifting....


----------



## Edward Campbell

Further to "Tories plan ‘buy Canada’ military budget", this is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Winnipeg Free Press_:

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/ambrose-appoints-businessman-to-work-with-defence-industry-government-171539721.html


> Ambrose appoints businessman to work with defence industry, government
> 
> By: The Canadian Press
> 
> OTTAWA - Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose has appointed an Ontario businessman to help improve Canada's often-troubled defence procurement process.
> 
> She says Tom Jenkins will be a special adviser and will work with defence contractors to boost competitiveness.
> 
> Jenkins is executive chairman and chief strategy officer of OpenText Corp., of Waterloo, Ont.
> 
> He was chairman of an expert review panel which looked at federal support for research and development and made recommendations for the government's 2012 economic plan.
> 
> Ambrose says Jenkins will look at ways to streamline procurement and increase job opportunities in defence-related industries.
> 
> The military procurement process has long been a source of complaints, with some projects delayed for years and others hit by cost overruns.
> 
> "I look forward to working with Mr. Jenkins to improve our ability to leverage military procurement in support of Canadian jobs and industry, including innovation and technology development," Ambrose said in a statement.




Please note that this is not about reforming a terribly cumbersome bureaucratic process, it is, as stated, about _leveraging_ military procurement to try to create Canadian jobs.


----------



## The Bread Guy

What doesn't come through in PWGSC's news release on Tom Jenkins'  appointment is that he's not alone - more on who else is helping out here (highlights mine).....





> .... the Government of Canada appointed Tom Jenkins as a Special Advisor to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for Status of Women, the Honourable Rona Ambrose.
> 
> "I have agreed to assume this role and am pleased to support the Minister in the capacity of Special Advisor in her work to help improve the ability to leverage military procurement in support of Canadian jobs and industry, including innovation and technology development," said Mr. Jenkins.
> 
> "To assist me in this role, I have asked four distinguished Canadians to contribute as expert advisors in this important work - their significant experience related to business, industry and government will be valuable input to me, and I look forward to working with them," he added.
> 
> These individuals are: *Major General (Retired) David Fraser; Peter Nicholson, former President and CEO, Canadian Council of Academies; Ray Castelli, CEO, Weatherhaven; and Christyn Cianfarani, Director, Government Programs, Research and Development, and Intellectual Property, CAE Inc.* Full bios are available at: http://files.newswire.ca/1131/BiosPanelMembers.pdf
> 
> Efforts of Mr. Jenkins and his advisors will be focused on engaging a range of stakeholders involved in Canada's defence-related industries to develop criteria, and a supporting process to inform the selection of key industrial capabilities ....


Bios also attached in case link doesn't work for you.


----------



## GAP

$2.5B carved out of Defence budget
by The Canadian Press - Sep 30, 2012
Article Link

An independent analysis has concluded the waves of federal budget cuts washing over National Defence will run deeper and likely be more painful than advertised by the Harper government.

While it won't exactly be a return to the "decade of darkness" the Conservatives attribute to the Liberal years, the reductions will be significant and are expected to cut into the military's "readiness," or ability to respond quickly to a crisis.

The days of soldiers rationing their training ammunition, fuel and money used to make equipment operationally ready may be about to return, the report warned.

The research paper, written for the Centre for Security and Defence Studies at Carleton University, estimates the cumulative effect of the Harper government's strategic review and the overlapping deficit reduction action plan will carve up to $2.5 billion out of the nearly $21 billion National Defence budget by 2014-2015.

The 27-page report, penned by defence expert Dave Perry, is believed to be the first comprehensive snapshot on the post-war military of the impact of the federal government's duel-tracked deficit reduction plan and spending freezes.

"With the economy once again the government's top priority, the Canadian Forces will need to adjust to a new fiscal climate, one which will reduce its budget by at least 11 per cent over the next three years," said the research report, a copy of which was obtained by The Canadian Press.

"At the same time, the military's ability to make budgetary adjustments has been tightly constrained by the decision to retain its frontline military capabilities. As a result, the Operations and Maintenance budget will bear the brunt of these budget cuts."

The Harper government has repeatedly said it wants Canada playing a leading role internationally alongside allies, but the report warns, the way the cuts are shaking out, the military will be strained almost as badly as in the 1990s.

"As a result, it will be very difficult for the military to play the same expeditionary role that it has in recent years," said the report. "While the pursuit of influence may not be over, with less funding available for operational readiness, the prospects of making influential military contributions abroad will be greatly reduced."
More on link


----------



## Canadian.Trucker

GAP said:
			
		

> The Harper government has repeatedly said it wants Canada playing a leading role internationally alongside allies, but the report warns, the way the cuts are shaking out, the military will be strained almost as badly as in the 1990s.


I love it.  "Hey, we still want the political benefits of sending soldiers overseas, but we don't want to spend the money the properly prepare and equip them for such a task."

The word frustrating doesn't even begin to describe the situation.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Back in the 1990s, when Prime Minister Chretien and Finance Minister Martin were attacking the (far too large) Canadian budget deficit, the message to DND was, roughly: _the country is in dire straits and we must all "pull together" to win our "war on the deficit;" DND and the CF must do their full and fair share, too._ We did a more than full and a more than fair share, but we knew that was coming because good, solid public opinion polling - the kind you can trust - told us, then, and tells us know that Canadians do not like spending on their defence. DND and the CF rank, *consistently*, at the bottom of most Canadians' public spending priorities lists ~ we are down with symphony orchestras and ballet companies.

Despite all the red t-shirts and yellow ribbons, Canadian's support for their military, which may be a mile wide, is only an inch deep.


----------



## Remius

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Back in the 1990s, when Prime Minister Chretien and Finance Minister Martin were attacking the (far too large) Canadian budget deficit, the message to DND was, roughly: _the country is in dire straits and we must all "pull together" to win our "war on the deficit;" DND and the CF must do their full and fair share, too._ We did a more than full and a more than fair share, but we knew that was coming because good, solid public opinion polling - the kind you can trust - told us, then, and tells us know that Canadians do not like spending on their defence. DND and the CF rank, *consistently*, at the bottom of most Canadians' public spending priorities lists ~ we are down with symphony orchestras and ballet companies.
> 
> Despite all the red t-shirts and yellow ribbons, Canadian's support for their military, which may be a mile wide, is only an inch deep.



To add to that, we can also say that regardless of who is in power be it Conservative, Liberal or NDP, if push comes to shove and times are lean, they will _all_ cut into the Defence budget regardless of how much they say they are commited to the CF and DND.


----------



## blacktriangle

All we need is a pay/promotion freeze and then we will be able to have a real party in the coming years.


----------



## Petard

Spectrum said:
			
		

> All we need is a pay/promotion freeze and then we will be able to have a real party in the coming years.



I would say after the next "pay raise" the pay effectively is frozen, but I think what you meant is pay incentive freeze ( as seen in the 90's) as well; I wouldn't doubt that is being considered.

As for promotions, who knows? The way things are going there may well be a high attrition rate, in which case the rate of promotions might actually increase slightly, although all that experience (and $ invested in creating it) going out the door will definitely make for a helluva party


----------



## dapaterson

The CF's "high" attrition rates of a few years ago were largely driven by demographics: more personnel than usual who were eligible for an immediate annuity on release.  With that bubble having gone through the system, and with the mid to late 90s cohort mostly missing from the Regular Force (FRP didn't make a huge difference in the Reg F's size; all but stopping recruiting did), we now have a Reg F with lower average years of service, and thus with fewer people able to release immediately (and fewer options for those who do, with the changes in Reserve employment and reductions in the public service).

All this to say: increased attrition is unlikely in the near term.


----------



## Infanteer

Meh, the usual post-war budget cutting.  I'm not too concerned; although we aren't going to see any post-Korea, NATO fuelled expansion a la 1953-54, we aren't going to fall off the map as we did in 1919 or 1946.

We'll live.


----------



## Canadian.Trucker

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Meh, the usual post-war budget cutting.  I'm not too concerned; although we aren't going to see any post-Korea, NATO fuelled expansion a la 1953-54, we aren't going to fall off the map as we did in 1919 or 1946.
> 
> We'll live.


I will readily admit I got in when the ice cream and candy bar was just opening up and pouring out, so I didn't personally live through the decade of pain.  However, I can live if someone cuts off my left nut with a rusty razor, hell I am probably still "effective".  Doesn't mean I want to experience that pain, and if I do it's something that will have a lasting effect for a long time.


----------



## ModlrMike

That there will be pain is without doubt. I just don't think it will be as bad as the 90s pain.

To put it in context... during the Liberal cuts Defence shouldered a 23% reduction, all other government offices grew. There's been nothing from Ottawa lately that appears to be setting us up for a repeat evisceration.


----------



## JorgSlice

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> That there will be pain is without doubt. I just don't think it will be as bad as the 90s pain.
> 
> To put it in context... during the Liberal cuts Defence shouldered a 23% reduction, all other government offices grew. There's been nothing from Ottawa lately that appears to be setting us up for a repeat evisceration.



Speaking on that note, after The Right Honourable Mr. Harper promised to increase the funding after decades of abysmal conditions at times, I think he's the last guy that wants the CF to end up there again.


----------



## FJAG

I have to admit that being retired I get a little less enraged than I used to over these things - and I have to admit I'm a veteran of the Trudeau years when it was easy to work up a good rage over what the government was doing.

My biggest concern isn't whether we're spending an appropriate percentage of the GDP but rather where the hell is our money going?

In my mind we're losing billions on what I call bureaucratic friction. Stupid government procedures and processes that require a disproportionately large overhead in both military and civilian staff to administer.

Arbitrarily cutting budgets and reducing staff might lower the budget but not alleviate the problems within DND. 

One needs a program to streamline and reduce policies and procedures which runs in combination with an integrated staff reduction plan.


----------



## ModlrMike

FJAG said:
			
		

> One needs a program to streamline and reduce policies and procedures which runs in combination with an integrated staff reduction plan.



Bureaucratic mission creep is not limited to DND. There are too many departments with arcane procedures that serve only to chew up dollars and reduce the amount of service provided to the taxpayer. Sadly none of the government's efforts to increase efficiency will have much effect because the primary outcome of streamlining would be a reduction in the public service. PSAC has no interest in this outcome.


----------



## The Bread Guy

FJAG said:
			
		

> One needs a program to streamline and reduce policies and procedures which runs in combination with an integrated staff reduction plan.


Figure out what will be done differently, or not be done anymore, _THEN_ figure out how many folks you need - what a concept!


----------



## Edward Campbell

This report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Halifax Chronicle Herald_, illustrates, I think, the _divide_ between the political _centre_ (PCO/Treasury/Finance) and DND/CF about which I have written several times:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/canada/153665-pm-told-mackay-to-cut-more-defence-administration-letter-shows


> PM told MacKay to cut more defence administration, letter shows
> 
> October 24, 2012
> 
> BY MURRAY BREWSTER THE CANADIAN PRESS
> 
> A leaked letter shows the prime minister told Defence Minister Peter MacKay last spring that his initial budget proposals did not cut deep enough on the administrative side of National Defence.
> 
> The three-page letter — dated June 15, 2012, and obtained by The Canadian Press — was written to provide ``guidance'' to MacKay and General Walt Natynczyk as the Conservatives embarked on a rewrite of their marquee defence policy.
> 
> The document sheds light on the divide between Stephen Harper's office, determined to wrestle the deficit to the ground, and a defence establishment resolved to protect the budget gains of the last five years.
> 
> Harper's missive sets out what cuts he was prepared to accept, what wouldn't work, and even suggests National Defence unload some of its surplus property.
> 
> ``It is important that we reduce the current overhead in regular force military and civilian personnel, and in those activities that do not directly contribute to operational readiness,'' he wrote.
> 
> A spokesman for MacKay said the government doesn't comment on leaked documents and remains focused on getting the military the resources and equipment it needs.
> 
> Harper's letter to MacKay underscored that the days of ever-increasing defence spending are over, a new reality first announced in the March 29 budget and in a myriad of other public statements.
> 
> ``We need to acknowledge that, given the current fiscal climate, there can be no expectation that the defence budget will grow in the next few years,'' he wrote.
> 
> ``As a result, it will be imperative that we make every effort to ensure that each dollar currently devoted to defence is targeted towards enhancing our operational capabilities.''
> 
> The fact Harper had to spell out everything speaks to the kind of resistance his government seems to be facing from defence, said University of Ottawa defence expert Phil Lagasse.
> 
> ``I think it suggests there's an appreciation on the part of the prime minister that the defence establishment has a tendency to try and do things its own way, and that it has been resistant to political direction in recent years,'' he said.
> 
> ``Does that reflect poorly on the defence minister? Perhaps not as a person, but certainly it seems to suggest that the prime minister is somewhat concerned about his defence minister's ability to properly implement his preferences and his direction.''
> 
> In 2008, as part of the first defence strategy, the Conservatives promised stable and predictable funding increases to the military over 20 years. While it still provides increases to the operational budget, those hikes are more than offset by planned cuts that one defence researcher estimated a few weeks ago could total $2.5 billion a year by 2014.
> 
> Defence has been wrestling with how to implement the government's strategic review and the deficit reduction plan, but proposals about what to cut have been a closely guarded secret.
> 
> It's clear from Harper's letter that MacKay's first round of proposals last spring did not pass muster.
> 
> ``As we begin our review of the (Canada First Defence Strategy) I ask you start by making the detailed completion of your Department's Deficit Reduction Action Plan (DRAP) your first priority,'' the prime minister wrote.
> 
> ``Thus far, your DRAP proposals have not sufficiently addressed corporate and institutional support and services.''
> 
> The letter estimated that almost $11 billion out of a total Defence budget of $20 billion was swallowed by both civilian and military administration.
> 
> Harper urged MacKay to consult more with a cabinet committee that's steering the government-wide series of cuts, and to talk more with his office.
> 
> He also laid down red lines about what not to cut.
> 
> ``You should work closely with the next iteration of the Strategic and Operational Review Committee, as well as central agencies and my office, and present detailed proposals that critically examine corporate and institutional overhead with a view to avoiding budgetary reductions that impact on operational capabilities, the part-time reserves, training within Canada, and the promotion and protection of our national sovereignty,'' said the letter, which was copied to Treasury Board President Tony Clement and Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose.
> 
> In a paper for Carleton University's Centre for Security and Defence Studies, defence expert Dave Perry warned that the cuts planned by the Harper government can't help but take a bite out of ``readiness'' because of the way the Defence Department manages its budget and the military's unwillingness to give up capabilities, such as ships, tanks or planes.
> 
> As the letter suggests, Harper remains convinced the savings can be had in the bureaucracy in much the same way retired lieutenant-general Andrew Leslie suggested in a landmark report last year.
> 
> ``You will need to demonstrate that all internal efficiencies have been identified and pursued, in addition to those in the 2011 Transformation Report,'' Harper wrote.
> 
> ``This should include: critically examining the corporate and institutional overhead with a view to reducing duplication and consolidating on both the military and civilian sides; considering options to reduce DND's real estate holdings while remaining cognizant of government priorities.''
> 
> The letter indicates a firm belief by the Prime Minister's Office that general Leslie was correct in urging significant cuts of overhead, said Lagasse.
> 
> But Lagasse says he remains skeptical that Harper and Leslie are right.
> 
> ``The programs they have in place exist for a reason. They're not all fat and they're not all pork. You will eventually need those very things you're being asked to cut,'' Lagasse said.




I think Philippe Lagasse has correctly defined one of the symptoms of the problem: the Minister of National Defence becomes a _captive_ of a well entrenched bureaucracy and that minister surrounds himself with young _political_ aids rather than with good _policy_ people. The top levels of DND and the CF are filled with smart, tough people - they easily roll over young ministerial staffers, especially when mind numbing spreadsheets are used.

I disagree with Lagasse and Dave Perry: there is room, in my view, to make significant cuts to overhead and do no harm to, perhaps even enhance, readiness. Too much HQ effort, at too high rank levels is devoted to inter-agency politics rather than on preparing for combat operations; the Treasury Board, for example, has a legitimate role in all government spending, it is not an enemy and ought not to be seen as such by NDHQ at high bureaucratic and military levels. Sadly, and more difficult to change: even more effort is wasted on federal government mandated _busy work_ and _social engineering_. But I reiterate what I have said before: a 5% cut to the defence budget can be and should be absorbed, completely, within the top two levels of *command and control*; no cuts need be or should be made to combat, support and service support organizations although some procurement may have to be stretched, due in part to necessary changes in he procurement superstructure.

But: PM Harper has to tackle the dysfunctional government procurement system - especially in so far as it mismanages defence procurement.


----------



## GAP

> I think Philippe Lagasse has correctly defined one of the symptoms of the problem: the Minister of National Defence becomes a captive of a well entrenched bureaucracy and that minister surrounds himself with young political aids rather than with good policy people. The top levels of DND and the CF are filled with smart, tough people - they easily roll over young ministerial staffers, especially when mind numbing spreadsheets are used.
> 
> I disagree with Lagasse and Dave Perry: there is room, in my view, to make significant cuts to overhead and do no harm to, perhaps even enhance, readiness. Too much HQ effort, at too high rank levels is devoted to inter-agency politics rather than on preparing for combat operations; the Treasury Board, for example, has a legitimate role in all government spending, it is not an enemy and ought not to be seen as such by NDHQ at high bureaucratic and military levels. Sadly, and more difficult to change: even more effort is wasted on federal government mandated busy work and social engineering. But I reiterate what I have said before: a 5% cut to the defence budget can be and should be absorbed, completely, within the top two levels of command and control; no cuts need be or should be made to combat, support and service support organizations although some procurement may have to be stretched, due in part to necessary changes in he procurement superstructure.
> 
> But: PM Harper has to tackle the dysfunctional government procurement system - especially in so far as it mismanages defence procurement.



Now send that to each treasury board member....


----------



## Infanteer

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I disagree with Lagasse and Dave Perry: there is room, in my view, to make significant cuts to overhead and do no harm to, perhaps even enhance, readiness. Too much HQ effort, at too high rank levels is devoted to inter-agency politics rather than on preparing for combat operations; the Treasury Board, for example, has a legitimate role in all government spending, it is not an enemy and ought not to be seen as such by NDHQ at high bureaucratic and military levels. Sadly, and more difficult to change: even more effort is wasted on federal government mandated _busy work_ and _social engineering_. But I reiterate what I have said before: a 5% cut to the defence budget can be and should be absorbed, completely, within the top two levels of *command and control*; no cuts need be or should be made to combat, support and service support organizations although some procurement may have to be stretched, due in part to necessary changes in he procurement superstructure.



Agreed.  One only has to get into the line-by-line weeds of spending, often at the L3 or L4 level, to see how much nickel-and-diming occurs for things that do not contribute to operational effectiveness....


----------



## dapaterson

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Agreed.  One only has to get into the line-by-line weeds of spending, often at the L3 or L4 level, to see how much nickel-and-diming occurs for things that do not contribute to operational effectiveness....



In 1997, the MND decreed that all officers need a degree.  That has been accepted as dogmatic truth ever since.

At the same time, in the same document, the MND decreed that there should be less than 65 General/Flag Officers.  That has been widely ignored.

Perhaps we should put as much effort into trimming the GOFO ranks (and the related SOs, EAs and other staff that they attract) as we do into getting tactical level officers university degrees.


----------



## McG

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I disagree with Lagasse and Dave Perry: there is room, in my view, to make significant cuts to overhead and do no harm to, perhaps even enhance, readiness.


I concur.  We have covered, many times, areas to save resources while enhancing effectiveness.  These have been in the areas of superfluous HQs, unnecessary bases, over ranked positions, over-inflated staff establishments, mandated busy-work, retention of micro vehicle fleets, and frivolous cosmetic buttons & bows changes.  That is a fairly generic list with specific examples available to be found in various threads.


----------



## plagasse

Just a quick note about my last quote in the story. Most here take me to mean that no overhead should be cut. That's not my view. I'm simply pointing out that overhead cuts should be done with care and caution. There's no point cutting parts of DND or the CF's C2 that will be recreated sometime in the future. Similarly, it would be unwise to cut areas, such as the policy group or DRDC, that do useful work. Finally, it will serve no real purpose to let certain people go only to hire contractors or consultants to replace them. There are savings to be made, but I worry that the Leslie report was a bit too cavalier.

PL


----------



## The Bread Guy

plagasse said:
			
		

> Just a quick note about my last quote in the story. Most here take me to mean that no overhead should be cut. That's not my view. I'm simply pointing out that overhead cuts should be done with care and caution. There's no point cutting parts of DND or the CF's C2 that will be recreated sometime in the future. Similarly, it would be unwise to cut areas, such as the policy group or DRDC, that do useful work. Finally, it will serve no real purpose to let certain people go only to hire contractors or consultants to replace them. There are savings to be made, but I worry that the Leslie report was a bit too cavalier.
> 
> PL


Thanks for jumping in with some more info - always good to hear these things "straight from the horse's mouth", so to speak, and allowing a bit of exchange/dialogue.


----------



## McG

plagasse said:
			
		

> Just a quick note about my last quote in the story. Most here take me to mean that no overhead should be cut. That's not my view. I'm simply pointing out that overhead cuts should be done with care and caution. There's no point cutting parts of DND or the CF's C2 that will be recreated sometime in the future. Similarly, it would be unwise to cut areas, such as the policy group or DRDC, that do useful work. Finally, it will serve no real purpose to let certain people go only to hire contractors or consultants to replace them.


I think many here can appreciate where you are coming from.  There are too many examples of muscle being cut to save fat, and there are also too many examples of cuts to a specific budget without care to the fact that the taxpayer will be paying more to retain the same effect through a different funding path.


----------



## Edward Campbell

plagasse said:
			
		

> Just a quick note about my last quote in the story. Most here take me to mean that no overhead should be cut. That's not my view. I'm simply pointing out that overhead cuts should be done with care and caution. There's no point cutting parts of DND or the CF's C2 that will be recreated sometime in the future. Similarly, it would be unwise to cut areas, such as the policy group or DRDC, that do useful work. Finally, it will serve no real purpose to let certain people go only to hire contractors or consultants to replace them. There are savings to be made, but I worry that the Leslie report was a bit too cavalier.
> 
> PL





			
				milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Thanks for jumping in with some more info - always good to hear these things "straight from the horse's mouth", so to speak, and allowing a bit of exchange/dialogue.




Indeed, and welcome Prof Lagassé.

I'm not so sure LGen Lesie was all that _cavalier_: HQs have grown in both number and size since Gen Hillier took over. The fault cannot all be laid at the feet of senior officers but:

1. We seem, to me, to be in thrall of US military organizations. In my opinion the US DoD and the US armed services are not well organized for either operations or administration, and they certainly offer a poor model for small countries;

2. The very worst aspect of American military organization and one which is fundamentally wrong is command/staff relationships. The US staffs are too big, too _rich_ (in rank) and lacking in responsibility - the US military took the worst of the Franco-Prussian staff systems and left the good bits behind. We adopted the US command/staff model and we need to get away from it if for no other reason than it breeds _fat_;

3. We pay too much attention to public relations, which is _sexy_, and too little to combat service support (administration and logistics) which is dull and difficult.

But, the main failings, in my opinion, lie with senior civil servants who could have *and should have* reined in the worst aspects of military management years and years ago. I blame the Clerk and the DM DND for not saying "enough!" _circa_ 2006 when HQ bloat was evident.

To you main points:

1. We certainly do need a robust - able to withstand the shocks of war in FM Wavell's words - effective and efficient C2 system. I (and others) do not advocate wholesale slash and burn but I, for my part, want fewer HQs (accepting that some of those that remain will be large) in which the principle staff officers, beginning with the CDS if I can have my Xmas wish early, are all one rank lower than today, while commanders in the fleet and field forces remain the same or, in the case of brigade group commanders, are one rank higher;*

2. I agree with you re: both ADM (Pol) and DRDC. I have no brief for how the DM organizes his HQ and I believe that R&D is, currently, too low in the pecking order;

3. Contractors are excellent for _surges_ but we cannot rely upon them. For one thing the contracting world's main source of the experts we need for a surge is the CF, if we cut functions and rely upon contractors we cannot train the next generations of contractors.

So, I suspect we are in violent agreement, except, perhaps for my desire for fewer, lower ranked military HQs.

__________
* I hold firm to a principle I have advocated often in these pages: the principle staff officer in any HQ must be outranked by the subordinate commanders. Thus in a corps HQ (where the commander is a LGen and the subordinate (Div) commanders are MGens) the principle Ops and Adm/Log staff officers should be BGens; in Divs (where the subordinate commanders are Cols but should be BGens) the principle staff officers should be Cols, and in brigades, where the principle subordinate commanders are LCols the principle Ops and Adm/Log staff officers should be Majs.


----------



## plagasse

I very much agree on the commands. Reducing them was the right call. And there's much more reform needed.

In terms of the PR piece, and battles with central agencies, there's a risk there. Admittedly it doesn't do much for frontlines or operations. But it is an important part of the larger political game, especially now that the Afghan campaign is coming to an end. Eliminating that capacity may be costly in the longer term. 

I also agree that civilian officials and central agencies should have been far more careful startling in 2006. My guess is that the political environment wasn't favourable to that kind of intervention. Nor is it necessarily easy now, given the divergent incentives of the centre and DND/CF.

My larger concern is the capital program. As the centre focuses on overhead and NDHQ tries to find savings in operational readiness, both are ignoring the fact that the major fleets can't be replaced within the existing budget. Everyone seems content to pretend that everything will be just fine.


----------



## Edward Campbell

plagasse said:
			
		

> I very much agree on the commands. Reducing them was the right call. And there's much more reform needed.
> 
> In terms of the PR piece, and battles with central agencies, there's a risk there. Admittedly it doesn't do much for frontlines or operations. But it is an important part of the larger political game, especially now that the Afghan campaign is coming to an end. Eliminating that capacity may be costly in the longer term. Good point; I haven't given enough weight to the political realities.
> 
> I also agree that civilian officials and central agencies should have been far more careful startling in 2006. My guess is that the political environment wasn't favourable to that kind of intervention. Nor is it necessarily easy now, given the divergent incentives of the centre and DND/CF.
> 
> My larger concern is the capital program. As the centre focuses on overhead and NDHQ tries to find savings in operational readiness, both are ignoring the fact that the major fleets can't be replaced within the existing budget. Everyone seems content to pretend that everything will be just fine. Agreed. Somehow the whole government has to come to grips with the need to have an efficient and effective procurment system that, simultaneously, allows politicians to exercise their own _control_. I'm not sure how to square that circle.


----------



## plagasse

Dave Perry asked me to post the following on his behalf:

"I don’t for a minute think that the DND/CF is perfectly efficient.  There are a number of efficiency improvements that can and should be made.  What I seriously question, however, is 1) Is defence actually inefficient to the tune of $2 billion? and  2) Assuming that it is, is there any realistic prospect of enacting that many improvements, given normal bureaucratic imperatives? 

If the answer to either of those questions is no (which I certainly think is the case) the Canadian military is facing the prospect of real cuts to its readiness.”


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Reductions in readiness WILL occur as a result of reduced O+M budgets, but only if we insist on doing things exactly as we are doing them now.  I know of one major formation that is facing a 40% reduction to its O+M (essentially training, and hence readiness) budget next fiscal year that will NOT suffer any significant reduction in readiness, simply by changing the way in which they train.

If inputs are reduced but outputs are expected to remain the same, then it is the process that must change.  In many cases, there is room for significant adjustments to process - this will allow us to retain current levels of output (readiness) with reductions in inputs (resources).


----------



## GAP

Is the  current levels of output (readiness) what we require? 

Does it need to be higher or lower or of a slightly different focus?

 :dunno:


----------



## cupper

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> 1. We seem, to me, to be in thrall of US military organizations. In my opinion the US DoD and the US armed services are not well organized for either operations or administration, and they certainly offer a poor model for small countries;
> 
> 2. The very worst aspect of American military organization and one which is fundamentally wrong is command/staff relationships. The US staffs are too big, too _rich_ (in rank) and lacking in responsibility - the US military took the worst of the Franco-Prussian staff systems and left the good bits behind. We adopted the US command/staff model and we need to get away from it if for no other reason than it breeds _fat_;



Fortunately we have not inherited the associated pork barrel vote buying that the US Congress seems to have made the US military into over the decades since the end of WWII. A lot of the bloat and waste that they are now faced with cutting is a direct result of lobbying efforts and political vote buying. The Defense Industry was smart in setting up factories through out  the Congressional map in order to make sure that the Members give their goods and services place of primacy when budget items are considered. As a result, many programs that were duplicates of existing programs, or unwanted or unneeded items just kept getting funding.

Shutting bases in a congressional district is the political equivalent of suicide. As is cancelling a weapons development program. Or reducing the numbers of units in a state.

That's not to say that politics does not play a role in decisions in Canada as well. I was working and living on base with the CE Section in Cornwallis the year before the closure decision was finalized. I saw both sides playing out.


----------



## dapaterson

cupper said:
			
		

> Fortunately we have not inherited the associated pork barrel vote buying that the US Congress seems to have made the US military into over the decades since the end of WWII.



Canada has similar problems.  I recall a mid 90s OAG report describing how we purchased aircraft spares from Canadian providers, who merely drop-shipped them from the US plants at a 50% or more mark-up.

The C7 is a slightly Canadianized M-16, for a more than slightly increased unit cost.  Similarly, the LSVW was nothing if not a regional economic award; and the less we say about CF-18 maintenance and Griffon acquisition, the better.  Discussions of Canadian ship-building lead one down the path of asking why we must buy from less efficient Canadian shipyards.

As long as DND has multi-billion dollar procurement budgets, it will attract political attention, and varying levels of pork.


----------



## cupper

All valid points. But with the US system, as a politician, you are chained to the need to get reelected, and therefore vote for that which will achieve reelection, rather than vote for the option that is best in economic and policy consideration.

In Canada, the political question is not as self serving for the defense industry. For instance, ship building contracts for the most part go to one of three regions. You send the contract to one region knowing that it is possibly going to piss off the voters in the region that got screwed over.

As for buying equipment overseas as in all of your examples, although it makes economic sense, would be difficult to sell to the voters. And when you consider that most major equipment suppliers are subsidiaries of American firms it becomes a moot point anyway.


----------



## Edward Campbell

cupper said:
			
		

> All valid points. But with the US system, as a politician, you are chained to the need to get reelected, and therefore vote for that which will achieve reelection, rather than vote for the option that is best in economic and policy consideration.
> 
> In Canada, the political question is not as self serving for the defense industry. For instance, ship building contracts for the most part go to one of three regions. You send the contract to one region knowing that it is possibly going to piss off the voters in the region that got screwed over.
> 
> As for buying equipment overseas as in all of your examples, although it makes economic sense, would be difficult to sell to the voters. And when you consider that most major equipment suppliers are subsidiaries of American firms it becomes a moot point anyway.




Unless you consider the CPF or TRUMP (Tribal Class Update and Modernization Programme) projects back in the 1980s when we, intentionally, split contracts so that a second rate - in one case unqualified - yard would get ¼ of the contract value. Or consider the impact on efficiency by refusing to even consider allowing NDHQ to _concentrate_ in one location on Moodie Drive in Ottawa. I'm with dapaterson.


----------



## Edward Campbell

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Reductions in readiness WILL occur as a result of reduced O+M budgets, but only if we insist on doing things exactly as we are doing them now.  I know of one major formation that is facing a 40% reduction to its O+M (essentially training, and hence readiness) budget next fiscal year that will NOT suffer any significant reduction in readiness, simply by changing the way in which they train.
> 
> If inputs are reduced but outputs are expected to remain the same, then it is the process that must change.  In many cases, there is room for significant adjustments to process - this will allow us to retain current levels of output (readiness) with reductions in inputs (resources).



:goodpost:

Resource scarcity is nothing new, the whole _Hellyer_ thing, in the 1960s and beyond, was rooted in resource issues. Mr. Hellyer didn't set out to screw everything up; he was, seriously and honestly, intent on finding ways to make the DND and the RCN, CA and RCAF function in more efficient and cost effective ways.

Many of Minister Hellyer's ideas were given impetus by a fellow named J Grant Glassco, whose Royal Commission on Government Organization, which reported in 1962/63, did excellent work but which sideswiped DND and the RCN, CA and RCAF by noting the large number of committees required to get things done and contrasting that with the _joint_ or _unified_ organizations the Committee had seen in the USA.


----------



## Journeyman

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I know of one major formation that is facing a 40% reduction to its O+M (essentially training, and hence readiness) budget next fiscal year that will NOT suffer any significant reduction in readiness, simply by changing the way in which they train.


Would you flesh this out a bit? What are they changing?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Canada has similar problems.  I recall a mid 90s OAG report describing how we purchased aircraft spares from Canadian providers, who merely drop-shipped them from the US plants at a 50% or more mark-up.
> 
> The C7 is a slightly Canadianized M-16, for a more than slightly increased unit cost.  Similarly, the LSVW was nothing if not a regional economic award; and the less we say about CF-18 maintenance and Griffon acquisition, the better.  Discussions of Canadian ship-building lead one down the path of asking why we must buy from less efficient Canadian shipyards.
> 
> As long as DND has multi-billion dollar procurement budgets, it will attract political attention, and varying levels of pork.



The thing about shipyards is that they require new builds to reinvest in their significant amount of infrastructure. This was my concern about the BC shipyards not getting the ferry contracts. The shipyards here have built a good international rep for speedy and quality repairs, but that work is highly unpredictable and difficult to take to the bank for the capital required for reinvestment to maintain a competitive edge. So it really comes down to a policy decision, if you want shipyards capable of building or even repairing our naval fleet, you need to sustain them by restricting government new builds to domestic builders. if you are willing to give up that ability then accept the price that comes with it. Not only will your hulls come from somewhere else, but all the major repairs and refits will have to go outside the domestic marketplace.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Would you flesh this out a bit? What are they changing?



The simplest change has been to return to training in austere conditions, using only issue kit, equipment and vehicles - in other words, to live within one's means vice renting our way out of the need to plan....


----------



## Journeyman

Ack. Thanks


----------



## dapaterson

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> The simplest change has been to return to training in austere conditions, using only issue kit, equipment and vehicles - in other words, to live within one's means vice renting our way out of the need to plan....



Heretic!  Next you'll say that deployed HQs for brigades need to be agile, responsive and mobile, not sprawling tent cities filled with a cast of thousands.


----------



## OldSolduer

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> The simplest change has been to return to training in austere conditions, using only issue kit, equipment and vehicles - in other words, to live within one's means vice renting our way out of the need to plan....



but but what about the troops and their IPads, IPhones, etc etc ....how are they supposed to call ? how will they upload their antics to Youtube? :'(


----------



## Infanteer

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> The simplest change has been to return to training in austere conditions, using only issue kit, equipment and vehicles - in other words, to live within one's means vice renting our way out of the need to plan....



One only has to play with a DTSF to see what impact light stands, generators, heaters and MSA have on the training bill.  Costs can easily be cut by 25% by living tactically and not in heated mod tents with electricity and lighting while deployed to the field.


----------



## OldSolduer

But we've always done it that way!!


----------



## cupper

Actually, it's a good move. It will save huge amounts, as all of the reservists will release because field ex will no longer be fun and enjoyable, but rather will now just be work. >


----------



## OldSolduer

cupper said:
			
		

> Actually, it's a good move. It will save huge amounts, as all of the reservists will release because field ex will no longer be fun and enjoyable, but rather will now just be work. >



We live austere most of the time. There is not enough time to build tent cities.


----------



## cupper

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> We live austere most of the time. There is not enough time to build tent cities.



Don't forget I came from a Combat Service Support background, where the union agreement required a lavish field lifestyle. ;D


----------



## OldSolduer

cupper said:
			
		

> Don't forget I came from a Combat Service Support background, where the union agreement required a lavish field lifestyle. ;D



Seen!


----------



## Edward Campbell

cupper said:
			
		

> Don't forget I came from a Combat Service Support background, where the union agreement required a lavish field lifestyle. ;D




It often makes good sense to make life/work as comfortable as possible for CSS elements when they are supporting another group that is being trained, *but* CSS elements need to be trained and tested, too, under realistic (hard) conditions. Sometimes CSS elements can be trained/tested while they are supporting others ~ maximum concurrent activity and all that.


----------



## Edward Campbell

More on cuts in this report which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/new-defence-chief-takes-helm-as-forces-look-to-cut-spending/article4716968/


> New Defence Chief takes helm as forces look to cut spending
> 
> CAMPBELL CLARK
> OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail
> 
> Published Sunday, Oct. 28 2012
> 
> The new Defence Chief will be welcomed with frugal pomp as he takes command of the Canadian Forces for an era of budgetary restraint.
> 
> Lieutenant-General Tom Lawson will be sworn in as General Lawson and appointed leader of Canada’s armed forces on Monday with a 21-gun salute, a ceremony presided over by the Governor-General, and a speech from the Prime Minister.
> 
> But the military has told its people not to travel to the event, and reports indicate officials are trying to ensure the ceremony’s price tag is smaller than the $250,000 spent when General Rick Hillier left command in 2008.
> 
> The shindig on a shaved budget symbolizes the very different job Gen. Lawson faces as Chief of the Defence Staff. His two most recent predecessors, Gen. Hillier and General Walt Natynczyk, were morale-boosting leaders of troops overseas. Gen. Lawson will have to mediate internal battles at home over resources.
> 
> “The priority is no longer operations. The priority is making the department more efficient, cutting the budget, or whatever the buzzword is,” said David Perry, a defence analyst with the CDA Institute. “It was Afghanistan and operations for a long time. Now it’s resource allocation.”
> 
> Gen. Lawson, who turns 55 on Friday, is a fighter pilot who flew Starfighters and CF-18s, but most of his career lacked that Top Gun flash. His star rose within the forces when, as a colonel, he was seen as having done a crack job as commander of Canada’s largest Air Force base in Trenton – a task that requires a deft administrator.
> 
> Both Gen. Hillier and Gen. Natynczyk, who steps down Monday, took the top post when military budgets were rising. Both took on the task of raising the spirits and profile of soldiers in Canada as they led a military that was operating in Afghanistan, and in Gen. Natynczyck’s case, Libya.
> 
> Gen. Lawson faces a different task. The budget cuts will strain the military’s ability to stay ready for a mission, and will likely see different branches battle over scarce funds.
> 
> Mr. Perry said the cuts already announced by the government amount to about 11 per cent of the military’s budget, and it will hit far deeper in a category of spending known as operations and maintenance.
> 
> The Canadian Forces are being told they cannot cut the numbers in its regular force, whose salaries are the military’s biggest expense. And it must preserve the military’s capital-spending plan to buy new planes, ships and other equipment – which is already underfunded.
> 
> So far, its ideas for cutting administration and civilian staff won’t generate enough savings, Mr. Perry said.
> 
> What’s left is the training and equipment tuneups that keep units ready to ship out, he said: “It means that the operational readiness is going to be reduced.”
> 
> The Harper government, however, has made it clear that it does not want the cuts to show in public. Defence Minister Peter MacKay repeatedly states that the defence budget has gone up every year under the Conservative government. But Mr. Perry said two recent rounds of cuts are going to have a substantial impact and in real terms the Forces won’t return to their pre-cut funding levels for eight or nine years.




Managing resources, especially money, is important and, as David Perry says, it has not been a high enough priority for some time. I remain unconvinced that DND has the will or even the skill to slice away at real, institutional fat - which exists - without cutting away a lot of muscle, too.


----------



## McG

Some reflections on the current situation from someone who has seen it (though maybe on a different scale) before:


> *Former defence chief 'sensitive' to new commander's fiscal challenge*
> John de Chastelain agrees there's not much fat to trim as Ottawa warns expenses must be reduced
> The Guardian (Charlottetown)
> Jim Day (jday@theguardian.pe.ca)
> 05 November 2012
> 
> John de Chastelain knows all about belt-tightening. He was Canada's chief of defence staff in 1989. The Cold War had ended. Canada faced a severe deficit. It was time for Ottawa to make cuts and the 1989 federal budget came down like a large axe on the Department of National Defence.
> 
> CFB Summerside, at the time home to anti-submarine and coastal patrol aircraft, was identified as a candidate for the chopping block. In 1991, the base was closed and the majority of military units were transferred to CFB Greenwood in Nova Scotia.
> 
> De Chastelain fought unsuccessfully to keep Canadian forces stationed in Europe. Instead, those organizations were moved back to Canada and absorbed into a force that was already being reduced.
> 
> "We ended up closing a number of bases, including here in Prince Edward Island,'' said de Chastelain, who was guest speaker Saturday night at a fundraising dinner in Charlottetown for The Nichola Goddard Foundation that was created in honour of the first female soldier killed in combat in Afghanistan in 2006.
> 
> "I went to Summerside, in fact as chief of defence staff, to give the very sad news that we were going to be closing the base as we did in other places in Canada,'' he added.
> 
> "And it was very difficult because the people that had been working in those places had been working professionally and well. It was part of their life. Nobody wanted to have to do things like that and yet if we were to have met the limits placed on us, we had to do it.''
> 
> Canada's newly minted top military commander, Gen. Tom Lawson, has also been told trimming will take place under his command.
> 
> Prime Minister Stephen Harper delivered a clear message to the military last Monday as Lawson replaced retiring general Walt Natynczyk as chief of defence staff.
> 
> "The Forces will also be subject to the same pressures that the uncertainties of the global economy have imposed across our government and around the world,'' the prime minister told a gathering of the senior military leadership at the war museum in Ottawa.
> 
> "In order to free up resources to carry out work on the ground, administrative expenses have to be reduced.''
> 
> De Chastelain, who attended the change of command ceremony Monday, says he is "sensitive to what Tom is going through.''
> 
> He agrees with Lawson's assessment that there's not much fat to cut, particularly when it comes to combat units.
> 
> "The difficulty is that having made the cuts that we did 20 years ago, there are not too many bases you can close now,'' said de Chastelain.  "There are no troops to withdraw from Europe now. And we do have these capital acquisition programs - new ships and new aircraft - coming up. So, yeah, it's going to be tough.''
> 
> De Chastelain is hopeful the Canadian Forces will be able to continue to carry on out of area operations for a reasonable period of time, rather than simply set up a headquarters and then leave the work to others, which Canada has had to do before, he notes, with UN operations in the Middle East and Lebanon.
> 
> His major concern in 1989 through 1991 was, with all of the cuts the Defence Department was undergoing, to maintain the basis for combat capability for land, sea and air.
> 
> "We had to keep that in place so that if required we could build rapidly on it,'' he said.  "Once you do away with something entirely, it's very hard to get it back.''
> 
> De Chastelain says the most notable strength of Canada's military today, without question, is professionalism.
> 
> When he was still in uniform, NATO members constantly raved about Canada's system of training officers in all three branches of service as being extraordinary.
> 
> "And therefore I think that is one of our greatest attributes: the fact that we have very professional men and women in the Forces because we train and we train for the hard tasks and we equip for the hard tasks,'' he said. "And I think that must be maintained at all costs.''


----------



## blacktriangle

250k for Gen Hillier's change of command parade? Not knowing the exact breakdown of what went on, I can't comment too much...but it is does seem like a fair chunk of change for a change of command ceremony.


----------



## Sythen

Spectrum said:
			
		

> 250k for Gen Hillier's change of command parade? Not knowing the exact breakdown of what went on, I can't comment too much...but it is does seem like a fair chunk of change for a change of command ceremony.



Wonder how much of that was things like soldier's salaries and such that would be paid regardless? When media report numbers, they always like to include stuff like that.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

All change of command parades will consist of the oldest Cpl kicking the Commander's butt with a frozen mukluk out the door.  iper:


----------



## McG

Sythen said:
			
		

> Wonder how much of that was things like soldier's salaries and such that would be paid regardless? When media report numbers, they always like to include stuff like that.


Given that the media tends to report what we account as the costs, probably none of that was Reg F pay.  There might be Class A P Res pay if the reserves provided some contingent or if reserve senior leadership attended as guests.  Another chunk would be travel, meals, hotels and incidentals for out-of-town military & public service dignitaries.

In any case, that event is a well past sunk cost and it sounds like we (the CF) learned to keep costs more in check this time around (including asking all those out-of-towers to stay home).  I think what is more relevant now is the question of how do we move forward, cutting costs while protecting operational readiness.


----------



## Wookilar

Infanteer said:
			
		

> One only has to play with a DTSF to see what impact light stands, generators, heaters and MSA have on the training bill.  Costs can easily be cut by 25% by living tactically and not in heated mod tents with electricity and lighting while deployed to the field.



I have been pondering this for awhile. It seems that every few years our power requirements go up a couple notches. Not because we necessarily need the power, but because the power is available.

The amount of money we spend on power generation is astounding, especially if you look at the CA as a whole. It was not that long ago that we had one 20KW gennie (1954 Cat in-line 8 cyl by the way) powering C/S's 0, 8, 88, the UMS, the kitchen and the mess tent at 1 VP. That was only 10-12 years ago.

Now, every C/S has a 10KW generator at a minimum. There is no way that 8 needs anything above a 2KW to run the radios and computers. Even a 5KW is more than enough to power everything in the CP along with a heater or two if required. Last EX I was on with 1 VP, there were two 10KW gennies running C/S 8. It had nothing to do with the radios or computers (computers draw very little power by the way) or even the 1 vacan that they were running.

I'm trying to figure out a way to do a power audit for a 1st line unit; what they would require on a Roto 0 type environment. I think higher would be shocked at how much electricity a Bn needs vs what we can generate.

I can't be the only one that wonders everytime I walk into a CP know and think "What is all this for?" If I see one more fancy hot fluid making machine I'm going to lose my tiny mind. And do we really need smart boards? Really? And "field deployable tv" with their own pelican cases? Really?

I am certainly not against using equipment/power for comfort's sake and some M&W items. By all means. One tv in the kitchen tent worked for along time, why doesn't it work now?

I think know we could see a substantial cost savings if we had a power....I don't know....reconciliation (?).


----------



## OldSolduer

I prefer actual maps and map boards over fancy electronic gadgets. A good coffee pot is hard to beat though ......


----------



## Journeyman

Wookilar said:
			
		

> .... If I see one more fancy hot fluid making machine I'm going to lose my tiny mind.


 rly:  I have no heartache eliminating the "fancy," but tread lightly if you're suggesting taking away my coffee!


----------



## dapaterson

Journeyman said:
			
		

> rly:  I have no heartache eliminating the "fancy," but tread lightly if you're suggesting taking away my coffee!



Don't worry, the medical system is ready for you:


----------



## Wookilar

Lol absolutely not!! I need it as much as the next guy, but seriously, do you need to bring your capachino (sp?)maker to the field? Seen it, don't laugh. Ever want to hear a 10K TQG bog down, there's your culprit.

A 5K will run everything you need. The tassimo can stay home.


----------



## McG

Here are a few ways that I see to immediately cut costs while protecting capability:
Reduce/Stop the use of “tactical infrastructure” in field exercises
Do not bring kitchen appliances to the field (with the exception of in field kitchens) 
Maximize the use of local training areas before traveling
Teleconference to avoid TD for meetings and working groups
Prohibit the use of WSE on deployments (We do not need to pay guys above their rank when there are other sitting at home already collecting pay at that level) 
Deploy the next Op ATTENTION as 100% Reg F (again, Reg F pay is a sunk cost while a year of Class C pay for a Sr NCO of Jr Offr to train & deploy could instead added another training day for a Class A unit) 
No new “buttons & bows” announcements
Do not rebadged any more units for the sake of resurrecting old regiments
Stop any unannounced plans to rebrand/rebadged/rename any branches, corps or organization for the purposes of historical sentimentalism
Stop using rented civilian vehicles when military patter vehicles are available and serve the purpose

And here are some options options for long-term savings (though most will cost money up-front prior to the savings being achieved later):
Consolidate all of NDHQ and appropriate other NCR units on the Nortel Campus
Move CFC from Toronto to Ottawa (Nortel Campus) or Kingston (RMC or the closing prison) 
Divest unnecessary niche vehicle micro-fleets (if required, increase size of standard fleets to maintain platform numbers) 
Smash LFDTS & CTC into a single layer of HQ, transfer capability development functions from LFDTS to COS Land Strat
Re-close CMR and consolidate ROTP back into RMC 
Consolidate all of 1 CMBG in Edmonton to reduce future steady-state cost moves
Procure more training simulators for diesel guzzling equipment (like aircraft, Engr Hy Eqpt and MBT) 
Re-evaluate rank levels in HQ establishments


----------



## dapaterson

A few more contentious suggestions:

* Top to bottom compensation and benefits review to eliminate duplication and overlap
* Revisit posting policy to reduce annual move requirement (excluding off-BTL)
* Revisit IPR move policy to eliminate same-location moves (eg a paid move from Orleans to Kanata on release)
* Replace CANEX with private suppliers (who will pay market rents for CF facilities)
   * Retain small deployed NPF expertise to surge for deployments if required (hint: this does not include a Tim Hortons trailer)
* Return to annual TOS boards, particularly at ranks of LCol and above and MWO and above, to determine whether continued service meets a military requirement
* Enforce limits on GOFOs as ordered in the 1997 MND report (roughly a 1/3 reduction)
* Return to performance pay for GOFO and Capt(N)/Cols
   * Make PMAs and performance info per above public
* Make PMAs and performance information for all Public Servants public


For IM/IT 

* Migrate from MS Office to Open Office to reduce IM/IT licensing costs
* Migrate from Outlook to open-source web-based DWAN email to reduce IM/IT licensing costs
* Dissolve ADM(IM), putting IM/IT support into CANOSCOM, IM/IT procurement into ADM(Mat), and comms and ISTAR systems under CJOC


----------



## PanaEng

MCG, what is “tactical infrastructure” ?

Great  ideas, from you and dapaterson;  can't argue against any of them.

does anyone have a DND or gov wide figure for licensing costs of MS Office, Outlook and servers?
I think shared services will be better positioned to handle a conversion as opposed to each department independently.


----------



## McG

PanaEng said:
			
		

> MCG, what is “tactical infrastructure” ?


They are the FOBs complete with many giant circus tents, stadium lighting, daily showers for everyone, sea container sized electrical generators, and more protable diesel heaters than one cares to count.



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> * Return to performance pay for GOFO and Capt(N)/Cols


While we are at it, lets also tie pay incentives for all other ranks to performance and conduct.  If you are on a remedial measure (IC through to C&P) then the pay incentive is delayed by the duration of that remedial measure.  If you receive an unsatisfactory PER, then the pay incentive is delayed by a full year.


----------



## dapaterson

Forgot a few:

* Restructure establishment to differentiate between Lt and Capt
* Return to competitive promotion to Capt
* Revisit Degreed Officer Corps decision
   * Permit short engagements with no promotion beyond Capt without a degree
* Eliminate full-time second language training
   * Individuals may elect to pursue SLT on their own time; a decision not to get a language profile will limit future promotion possibilities


----------



## Edward Campbell

This report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _CBC News_ deals with our favourite topic:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/11/09/f-military-policy.html?cmp=rss


> What kind of military can Canada afford?
> *Doing the same with less after spending cuts*
> 
> By Daniel Schwartz, CBC News
> 
> Posted: Nov 12, 2012
> 
> While Canadians remember their fallen, there are questions about what kind of military Canada will have in the near future.
> 
> Defence spending has increased by about a billion dollars every year under the Harper government, but the military faces shrinking budgets in the years ahead.
> 
> National Defence cost the government $22.8 billion in the last fiscal year, almost 10 per cent of total program expenses. The cuts are expected to take $2.5 billion out of the military budget.
> 
> For Esprit de Corps magazine editor Scott Taylor, the military must "sacrifice something, whether it's capability, or whether it's manpower, something's going to have to go."
> 
> Prime Minister Stephen Harper set out a different challenge in his speech on Oct. 29 welcoming Canada's new chief of defence staff: "Within very real budgetary constraints, Canada needs to maintain a modern, general purpose military capability."
> 
> In his speech after his appointment, Gen. Tom Lawson acknowledged that the military would "have to stay within a budget that will be tighter than what we had expected," after what he described as "a wonderful new period where we've had a chance to refurbish many of our capabilities."
> 
> When defence spending increased
> 
> That period began in 2005, with the Liberal government under Paul Martin announcing in its budget that it would provide the military with $13 billion in new funding over the next five years, which it described as "the largest increase in defence spending in the last 20 years."
> 
> Martin had been finance minister 10 years earlier, when the government faced a debt crisis that led to massive cuts in spending by all government departments, including National Defence.
> 
> The new direction was the result of an improved financial situation, a changed international climate and a new prime minister more inclined to hand money to the military.
> 
> A 2005 white paper set out what the government wanted from all that new funding. The Canadian Forces would be "reorganized and retooled" to carry out both short missions and emergencies as well as longer mission-specific task forces. Full-time troop strength, then 60,000, would increase by 5,000 and new equipment would be purchased. The emphasis was on the army.
> 
> The Martin government would soon fall, and although the new Harper government would set its own defence policy, it would carry out the plans for increased spending. They would emphasize Arctic defence and move away from the focus on the army.
> 
> In 2008, the Harper government released its Canada First Defence Strategy, which set out plans to spend $490 billion on defence over 20 years.
> 
> Defence expert Philippe Lagassé, from the University of Ottawa, described the strategy's "very broad list" of six missions as something "you can pretty much put everything in under the sun." In terms of equipment, especially the major fleets, "the strategy is simply to replace everything you have."
> 
> Teeth vs. tail
> 
> That was also the year of the global financial crisis, and although the government continued to increase defence spending, and underestimate costs, it soon recognized problems ahead.
> 
> The government appointed Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie to review spending and requirements and recommend where to cut. In his 2011 report, Leslie detailed how headquarters staff had grown by nearly half but the regular forces by only a tenth since 2004.
> 
> Spending on consultants and contractors was up $2.7 billion per year.
> 
> "We are going to have to reduce overhead and invest in output; we have to become slimmer," Leslie wrote in the report. He recommended a major change in the way the department operates, with major cuts at headquarters and especially to spending on consultants and contractors, while continuing to carry out all current operations.
> 
> "In short, we are going to have to reduce the tail of today while investing in the teeth of tomorrow," Leslie wrote.
> 
> Lagassé is skeptical about Leslie's approach.
> 
> "The department has pushed back a bit, because as easy as it may seem to try and find efficiencies, there aren't that many places you can cut and still keep everything you are doing, as you are doing it," he says.
> 
> He told CBC News that the military is concerned "that you can only slash administration so much before it begins to affect your ability to be an effective force, even on the field."
> 
> Taylor, a former soldier, notes that the culture at the Department of National Defence is not one that embraces change.
> 
> "There's a culture of resistance, a culture of internal empire-building, so these guys are going to push back at everything."
> 
> However, Harper has continued to back Leslie's general recommendations. In a June letter to Defence Minister Peter MacKay, which was later leaked to Canadian Press, he made that clear.
> 
> "It is important that we reduce the current overhead," he wrote MacKay, adding not to expect "that the defence budget will grow in the next few years."
> 
> Two weeks ago, in his speech marking Lawson's appointment as CDS, Harper echoed Leslie: "The Canada First Defence Strategy must continue to advance, and as I’ve said before, with the constant search for more teeth and less tail."
> 
> Impact on troops
> 
> For Taylor, that strategy is "a hodge-podge and every direction you look it's going to need huge amounts of money." If the military goes ahead with its current procurement plans, Taylor notes, the operating costs for the new equipment will be huge.
> 
> "We just can't move forward in all the directions they say they are going to move forward, not with the amount of money that's in the pot now," Taylor told CBC News.
> 
> He says the military also faces retention problems, and that "morale is going into the toilet for the army." Once the training program in Afghanistan is over, the forces will be without a mission. For a soldier, Taylor says, that's like attending hockey practice all the time, without ever playing a game. Despite the dangers, soldiers want to do their job for real.
> 
> As well, along with the frontline experience the troops got in Afghanistan came increased pay and rapid promotion, which also means a higher income, Taylor explained.
> 
> "Love it, hate it, disagree with it; the mission in Afghanistan was a mission," Taylor said, and it gave soldiers and pilots a sense of purpose. Now, with just training exercises ahead, the fear is they will get bored, which, of course, produces more problems.
> 
> While the idea is out there that the absence of a mission like Afghanistan means substantial budgetary savings for the military, Lagassé notes that while the savings are fairly significant, the mission received incremental funding from the House of Commons.
> 
> What did come out of the DND budget won't be "sufficient to make up for the cuts DND is being asked to take in, simply because there was that incremental funding."
> 
> A more specialized military?
> 
> Canada is not alone in facing questions about what kind of military it can afford. In 2010, NATO proposed that its members eliminate some overlapping capabilities, with just one or a few members specializing in some tasks. However, Harper has made clear that he wants to continue with the general-purpose military of the Canada First Defence Strategy.
> 
> The government has said it will issue a "reset" of that strategy, which should be made public soon, but Lagassé doesn't expect anything to change except for some numbers.
> 
> "We're simply moving forward with an unaffordable strategy that will ultimately leave us with forces that have been devised in an ad hoc manner."
> 
> If Canada's military were faced with a choice of hoping for new funds in the future or taking the specialization road, Lagassé says, they'd rather wait and hope. For now, he said they will take "a two-pronged approach."
> 
> On the one hand, they will be "cutting back on operational readiness in the short term on the assumption they probably won't be deployed on any major operation for some time."
> 
> At the same time, the military keeps going with its procurement programs, "even though they are unaffordable, and eventually force the government to be in a bind and have to give you more."
> 
> Lagassé points to the huge $35-billion shipbuilding program.
> 
> "If it so happens you can't build the number of ships you stated you were going to build with the amount of money you'd been given, then given the amount of attention the government has drawn to the shipbuilding strategy, you can force their hand and force them to give you a top-up in order to ensure that you can build an additional number of ships."
> 
> Faced with situations like this in the past, Lagassé notes that the Canadian Forces ultimately made it through and did their jobs, which he said is "somewhat their curse."
> 
> "Even when they're dealt a relatively difficult circumstance, they seem to make it through, never really forcing the government into a crisis situation, where they have to resolve the problem once and for all."




Despite having lived and served through several decade*s* of darkness™ and watched the CF not only survive but do hard, credible work (in e.g. Gulf War I and the Balkans) without anything like an adequate budget, I agree with Prof. Philippe Lagassé when he says:

1. _"We're simply moving forward with an unaffordable strategy that will ultimately leave us with forces that have been devised in an ad hoc manner."_ That, _ad hoc_ planning with insufficient resources, is all we have had since 1969;

2. The DND senior management - civilian and military - would rather wait and hope than speak out ~ "speak truth to power;" and

3. The CF is, in a way, its own worst enemy having, as I mentioned just above, again and again, to muddle through and do what was needed despite the government.

I remain wedded to desire for a military establishment that would do what External Affairs Minister and later Prime Minister Louis St Laurent wanted Canada to do in the 1950s: be a leader of the "middle powers" in the world. That requires a mix of soft and hard power. Both cost money and *sufficient* hard power requires, in my considered opinion, a sustained (for decades) investment of never less than 2% of GDP for DND's budget. We currently spend about 1.4% of GDP, according to the SIPRI Yearbook. Other, roughly comparable countries spend (same source):

Australia:            1.8%
Malaysia:            2.0%
Netherlands:      1.4%
Norway:             1.5%
Portugal:            2.1%
Singapore:         3.7%
-------------
World Average:  2.2%


----------



## McG

dapaterson said:
			
		

> * Restructure establishment to differentiate between Lt and Capt
> * Return to competitive promotion to Capt


Absolutely.  On Army establishments there are 183 Lt positions that should probably all become Lt/2Lt positions (there is currently no concept of a Lt/2Lt position, and the Army has zero established 2Lt positions).  There are 296 C/Lt positions that could probably all be converted to hard Lt positions, and that is without looking at any other L1’s positions.



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> * Revisit Degreed Officer Corps decision
> * Permit short engagements with no promotion beyond Capt without a degree


We do this.  It is called CEOTP and they are limited to the rank of Capt until a degree is completed.  Once the guy is in the CF we then have the IBDP to then send a Capt at full pay to pursue a full-time undergrad programme.  I am not sure it is the best cost saving approach.  Anyway …

In the current climate, we need to look at more than just where to cut.  We also need to look at where to get better mileage from the same resources.  Here are a few thoughts to that end: 
 Replace SDA, LDA, dive pay and parachute allowance with enhanced casual allowances – the current systems reward posting messages as opposed to rewarding/compensating for the behaviour that we want: going to sea, going to the field, diving, and jumping out of aircraft.
 Reduce the number of PRes unit HQs.  Individual sub-units can retain unique regimental identities, but they will be grouped under a single stronger battalion HQ. 
 Revisit the requirement for Reg F bands.  There are 71 musicians from Sgt to CWO on Army Ref F establishments alone.  That is a lot of PYs that could be put to better purpose (especially when we have been cutting from operational units to put PYs in new capabilities)


----------



## Old Sweat

The C/Lt positions are worth a hard look. They came about in 1967 or 1968 when, as the rumour goes, Paul Hellyer decided to do the same thing with junior officers that he had done with junior ranks, that is promote automatically to captain after a certain period of time regardless of establishment positions. I seem to recall that the time in the rank of lieutenant was pegged at two years, and as second lieutenant had been abolished, this meant that all at once literally hundreds of lieutenants became captains (or lieutenants (N)) overnight.


----------



## Journeyman

MCG said:
			
		

> Replace ....dive pay and parachute allowance with enhanced casual allowances
> Reduce the number of PRes unit HQs.  Individual sub-units can retain unique regimental identities, but they will be grouped under a single stronger battalion HQ.


Yes, and yes.

While the money is a nice perk that no one will willingly turn away, most jumpers and/or divers I know would do it for free.

How many Res Infantry units parade at less-than optimal strength in Toronto? Ottawa? Montreal? I think it is doable from a logical and leadership perspective. I also suspect that the hand-wringing over cap-badges will be horrific, regardless of how it is worked out and marketted.


----------



## dapaterson

MCG said:
			
		

> We do this.  It is called CEOTP and they are limited to the rank of Capt until a degree is completed.  Once the guy is in the CF we then have the IBDP to then send a Capt at full pay to pursue a full-time undergrad programme.  I am not sure it is the best cost saving approach.



CEOTP is officially an interim measure, and can be turned on or off each year.  We need to institutionalize it.

We also need to revisit the ROTP/DEO weighting.  ROTP is very expensive, and loses four years of military service to undergrad studies.  Shrinking ROTP would save significant money; we'd likely have to triage the programs at RMC and save only those that are unique - why build our own at extra cost when we can buy off the shelf? (And why does RMC have military members and public servants teaching an "MBA"?  Isn't the DND/CF requirement for MPA instead?)


----------



## Edward Campbell

dapaterson said:
			
		

> CEOTP is officially an interim measure, and can be turned on or off each year.  We need to institutionalize it.
> 
> We also need to revisit the ROTP/DEO weighting.  ROTP is very expensive, and loses four years of military service to undergrad studies.  Shrinking ROTP would save significant money; we'd likely have to triage the programs at RMC and save only those that are unique - why build our own at extra cost when we can buy off the shelf? (And why does RMC have military members and public servants teaching an "MBA"?  Isn't the DND/CF requirement for MPA instead?)




Many, many years ago Gen (Ret'd) Ramsey Withers did a study on RMC.

Amongst the  several proposals considered was one for a _slimmed down_ RMC with three departments:

1. Engineering - teaching selected core course curricula for MILE, MARE, AERE and electronics - of course CELE and EME would be trained but the core courses would be as indicated. Equally all officers could take engineering degrees but within the limits indicated;

2. Logistics - teaching a range of topics, including courses leading towards a BComm, but aiming to produce a recognized degree in Logistics/Management; and

3. The Military Arts - history, economics, geography, etc, etc, etc, all wrapped up in a _strategic studies_ sort of programme.

The premise was that most CF officers would come from Civvy U, through a reborn UNTD/COTC sort of thing. RMC would be even more selective and much more specialized.

I'm not sure how the whole project ended, nor do I know how that particular submission was received. I recall it because Gen Withers asked my boss for some inputs and he (RAdm Ed Healey) told me to draft them; but it was a very secondary task and, for the life, of me, I can't remember what we said except that we insisted upon a solid core course curriculum for MARE officers.


----------



## dapaterson

Ah - but do we need a degree-granting institution?  Or more of a trade-school that provides additional education needed for specific occupations?

AFAIK Sandhust is not a university; why does RMC need to be one?

(And why does a Commander for 600-700 officer cadets need to be a 1*, when a battle group of 1500 can be commanded by a LCol?)


----------



## Edward Campbell

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Ah - but do we need a degree-granting institution?  Or more of a trade-school that provides additional education needed for specific occupations?
> 
> AFAIK Sandhust is not a university; why does RMC need to be one?
> 
> (And why does a Commander for 600-700 officer cadets need to be a 1*, when a battle group of 1500 can be commanded by a LCol?)




Good and fair points.

I think there was an earlier discussion about this, here on Army.ca, where someone, maybe even me, raised the prospect of a _training/education > service > education/training_ scheme wherein all prospective officers, degree holding or not, would do two years at a military college at which they would, over say, two years, receive extensive and detailed military training and some university level education with a distinct military flavour: history, leadership, geography, etc. (Think Sandhurst.) This would be followed by commissioning as a 2Lt and by service (three to five years) in the fleet or the field during which both the officer and the CF could make decisions about his/her future. Those selected and agreeing to stay in the CF would go on to finish their degrees, some at RMC some at Civvy U. This phase would be followed by more, advanced classification and generalist training, including staff training for some (those who gained entry to the staff college through rigorous, competitive examinations) . A few officers might, during this phase, decide that they do not wish to finish their degrees; they will be warned that their prospects for promotion beyond Maj are lessened but some, a "happy few," might do very well, despite a lack of formal education, because they are first rate leaders and decent military managers, too.


----------



## McG

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Good and fair points.
> 
> I think there was an earlier discussion about this, here on Army.ca, where someone, maybe even me, raised the prospect of a _training/education > service > education/training_ scheme wherein all prospective officers, degree holding or not, would do two years at a military college ...


I think you will find that somewhere in here:  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/105418/post-1132127.html#msg1132127


----------



## McG

> *Defence will also cut spending: MacKay*
> Minister says economic realities can't be ignored
> Lee Berthiaume
> Ottawa Citizen
> 16 November 2012
> 
> Defence Minister Peter MacKay said Thursday that the Canadian Forces will do its part to help the federal government balance the books by cutting administration and exploring new partnerships with foreign allies.
> 
> That may be easier said than done, however, as military officials have been quietly fretting over a very public order delivered by Prime Minister Stephen Harper late last month that the Defence Department focus on "more teeth and less tail."
> 
> Speaking to Postmedia News from Halifax as he prepared to welcome foreign dignitaries and military officials to an annual international defence summit, MacKay said Canada's defence budget is necessarily large.
> 
> "It is out of necessity given the importance of security," he said.
> 
> But MacKay also said National Defence cannot ignore the economic realities facing the country, including the need to rein in spending to cut the federal deficit.
> 
> "That's what the prime minister expects, that's (what) the government and taxpayers want us to deliver," he said.
> 
> "We're very familiar with the necessity to be responsible to taxpayers while at the same time continuing to deliver excellence at home and abroad."
> 
> That will be welcome news to Harper, who sternly warned the Defence Department during a change-of-command ceremony last month that the era of increasing military budgets is over and that belt-tightening is the order of the day.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Meanwhile, closer to the sharp end....


> With a volatile federal budget still in the red, cuts are being made across the country, including at CFB Edmonton, where a multitude of issues are currently being faced.
> 
> According to Lieut.-Col. John Reiffenstein, base commander at CFB Edmonton, the local base is seeing cuts of more than 50% to its operations and maintenance budget.
> 
> Reiffenstein said that, as a result of the new budget, some programs will have to be cut.
> 
> “Whereas before we relied on commissionaires... to provide security in a couple of spots, that ate up a considerable portion of my budget,” he said at the Fort Saskatchewan Chamber of Commerce’s monthly luncheon.
> 
> “We can’t do that anymore, so we’ve got to figure out what risks we can assume in terms of, say, roving patrols; what risks we can assume in terms of having a soldier who’s also a clerk, keeping an eye on the front entrance to a building — things like that.
> 
> “We cannot continue to spend money the way we were spending it while we were fighting the war in Afghanistan. Those days are over and our job in uniform is to get on with it.”
> 
> Although it has not yet been confirmed, Reiffenstein said that programs associated with areas such as the family resource centre, which provides services like daycare, could be some that see cuts.
> 
> “We’re still working through that. I am concerned,” Reiffenstein said.
> 
> “I provide a certain amount of support to them right now and I am concerned about what I am going to be able to continue to do in the future. (Right now, the daycare) is right where they work and everybody wants that... But if I can’t continue to provide funds, do I look at things like that? I don’t know.
> 
> “And are there other options available to our families, albeit not as good of ones? Yes.” ....


_Edmonton Sun_, 14 Nov 12


----------



## Edward Campbell

As the old joke about dead lawyers* says, it, Harper Government Announces 10,980 Public Sector Positions Eliminated in Past Six Months, is a good start.

1,621 were/are to be cut from in (and around) DND, by the end of this round of cuts we should be 'down' by 19,000+ civil servants. In my _guesstimation_ there is room to cut 21,000 more by 2015, making it a nice round cut of 40,000.


-----
* What do you call 5000 dead lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?
   A good start!


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Our new Act is in front of the house right now, regardless of Royal Assent, it may take a year to bring it into force as they laid off the people doing the regulatory work. Not to mention one of the first groups to get hit in our department were the HR people who were supposed to handle the people impacted.


----------



## McG

While this thread is full of ideas to cut fat & tail while protecting muscle & teeth, it doesn't look like there will be much detail publicly available on what is actually getting cut.


> Tories stonewall attempts to examine Defence cuts
> The Daily Gleaner
> Murray Brewster
> 28 Nov 2012
> 
> OTTAWA - Opposition attempts to shed light on spending cuts at National Defence were met by lawyerly objections from Conservative members of the House of Commons committee charged with overseeing the military.
> 
> Government MPs, led by junior defence minister Chris Alexander, tried to limit the scope of questions put to Defence Minister Peter MacKay by New Democrats and Liberals to a table of supplementary budget documents.
> 
> Both opposition parties were stymied in their efforts to find out precisely what is being cut and how the department will meet its budget targets.
> 
> MacKay assured them the budget was shipshape, and that Defence wouldn't be asking for any more cash over and above the $19 billion it expects to spend this year.
> 
> The department is holding the line, MacKay said, even though Defence faced increased costs for some equipment projects and payouts to injured soldiers for ending the clawback on their pensions.
> 
> "We have identified ways to meet these specific funding needs through decreases in spending in other areas of National Defence and reallocations of previously approved budgetary resources," he said.
> 
> But when opposition members tried to probe planned cuts, or ask why certain projects were not being funded, they were told it was outside the field of what the all-party committee met to discuss.
> 
> The chairman supported those arguments.
> 
> The tactic frustrated both the Liberals and the NDP, who tried to force through a motion that called on Defence to co-operate with parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page, who has demanded to see details from each department of the Harper government's planned cuts.
> 
> "It just seems we've got money moving around with no one knowing exactly how much is going where," said NDP defence critic Jack Harris.
> 
> "The whole object seems to be to limit the amount of information this committee and parliamentarians get, and hence (what) the public gets. There's something very wrong with that."
> 
> Liberal defence critic John McKay described the committee as being lost in "fog."
> 
> He pointed to the minister's announcement a few weeks ago that defence would spend $11 million more on the mental health of soldiers.
> 
> "So where did that 11 million bucks come from?" McKay asked. "It was reprofiled. Did it come out of trucks? Did it come out of procurement?"
> 
> A spokesman for the defence minister said the cash for mental health came from a line item known as the cost move budget - a $408-million fund that has been declared surplus.
> 
> A few weeks ago, a leaked letter detailed how Prime Minister Stephen Harper had told MacKay last spring that his initial budget proposals did not cut deep enough on the administrative side of National Defence.
> 
> The three-page June 2012 letter, obtained by The Canadian Press, underlined the divide between Harper's office and National Defence, which has become increasingly resolved to protect the budget gains of the last five years.
> 
> Harper set out what cuts he was prepared to accept, what wouldn't work, and even suggested National Defence unload some of its surplus property.
> 
> Questions about the leaked letter and a major transformation report were considered by the majority Conservative members on the committee to be out of order.
> 
> Earlier this fall, a defence researcher analyzed the Harper government's budget statements and concluded that the hit on military would be greater than previously thought, running as deep as $2.5 billion by 2014.


----------



## Edward Campbell

ff topic:

We, Canada, our parliament, haven't quite "got" the role of either committees or the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

I encourage everyone to read this, especially this bit. (They are quite clear and simple: well written and easy to understand.)

We need to fit the legitimate needs of parliamentarians (who, after all, serve us) in their committees, to examine and comment on the _estimates_, into the _estimates_ process, and we need to fit the PBO and his boss, the Librarian of Parliament, into that process, too - in support of committee members. Unfortunately, in Canada, the government and the opposition parties and the PBO himself, have all _conspired_, albeit not together, to frustrate one another and, in the process, to deny us - taxpayers - the information which we ought to have.

The process of budget, _estimates_ (main and supplementary) and expenditure review (audit) needs to flow smoothly but there needs to be "room" for parliament, mainly in committe, aided by the PBO, to review and comment on all three.

 :sorry:


----------



## GAP

> A spokesman for the defence minister said the cash for mental health came from a line item known as the cost move budget - a $408-million fund that has been declared surplus.



Really? I thought, through reading some other threads, that it was reduced, but the impression I got was it was definitely NOT surplus as a whole....


----------



## dapaterson

He either misspoke or is misquoted.


----------



## Towards_the_gap

MCG said:
			
		

> Prohibit the use of WSE on deployments (We do not need to pay guys above their rank when there are other sitting at home already collecting pay at that level)



I'm sorry, but I will argue this one. How about not prohibiting tour WSE's, but make the rules for it more stringent...No automatic WSE's for positions before deploying, either promote substantive or just deploy the lower rank person at his rank. 

..I say this as someone who was promoted WSE after his section commander was killed. Not every situation is the same.

Everything else is spot on though.


----------



## PuckChaser

The rules are pretty stringent for WSE already, need to be EPZ and qualified in the next rank filling a position that is low ranked above your rank. But if you're going to limit WSEs, why not just stop deploying so many reservists? Its the same thing, why pay an extra $70,000 a year for a Sgt when there's a RegF one sitting at home in Canada. Its a slippery slope. WSEs just as PRes members deploying offer valuable experience. And not quite the same as Towards_the_gap, I speak as someone who was a PRes member deployed and also WSE on another deployment.


----------



## dapaterson

A hard look at the establishment to figure out how many Reg we need for rotos 0 and 1, ramping up to increasing numbers of Res on rotos 3 and following, needs to be done.  The results may not be pleasing to all branches, though.  Maintaining a large Reg F in being is not the correct answer to meet all our capability requirements - that expense is even greater that the incremental cost of inducting Res F pers for operational service (preferably under the Special Force construct or some other method to avoid the current "Injured on ops?  Benefits vary depending on whether you're Reg or Res").

At the same time, we need to study the WSEs that did occur.  Were they because of a shortage at that rank, or because some people never deployed?  If there are 100 people of the right rank and trade, and no one can deploy, maybe the solution isn't to WSE someone, but rather to seat a career board and retire a few of the non-deployables, giving the person deploying the rank permanently.


----------



## PuckChaser

I know for at least Op Attention, the orders indicated the mounting unit was to make maximum use of WSE for positions, and that a minimum of 20% of deployed pers had to be reservists. This last part lead to RegF members spending 2 months on predeployment training, and then being told before Christmas that they'd lost their tour to a reservist who hadn't even been asked if they wanted to deploy yet. That decision was the fastest way to cause animosity between little and big R and jump up the budget for the tour, IMO.


----------



## GAP

No fat to cut in Army overhead; budget cuts affect training of soldiers: general
By: Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press 12/3/2012
Article Link

OTTAWA - The commander of the Canadian Army told a Senate committee Monday there is no administrative fat to cut in his branch and that budget restraint is forcing him to train soldiers to a lower standard than during the Afghan war.

Lt.-Gen. Peter Devlin testified at a Senate committee that 22 per cent of his force's baseline budget has been slashed, and when combined with the loss of a stipend for the Kandahar mission, the cumulative fiscal hit is even bigger.

"As you would expect that has an effect on people, infrastructure and training," he told senators.

Devlin underscored that 74 per cent of the army is the field force, and only four per cent take up a headquarters or administrative role among the 25,500 regular members, 16,000 reservists, and 5,000 rangers.

Earlier this year, Prime Minister Stephen Harper made it clear he believed the National Defence Department could cut more deeply on the administration side as he laid out his thoughts in a letter to Defence Minister Peter MacKay.

"It is important that we reduce the current overhead in regular force military and civilian personnel, and in those activities that do not directly contribute to operational readiness," Harper wrote on June 15, 2012. A copy of his letter was obtained last month by The Canadian Press.

Yet Devlin's testimony Monday provided a stark contrast to Harper's assertions, with the general stating that the army has already "streamlined army command and control, reducing the size of national and regional headquarters, and restructured our approach to support."

But it was on training, the bedrock of army readiness, that Devlin received many questions.

"We are training to a lower level than we trained, when we were training for combat operations," he said.

According to figures released earlier this year, at the height of the Afghan war in 2009-10, the army spent $123 million on training, including a special $79 million cash injection specifically for Afghanistan.

That figure fell to $57 million last year and is down to an estimated $46 million this year.

Devlin says he's focused his dollars on what's known as Level 5 training, which is live fire exercises meant to keep soldiers sharp for combat, but even still the army would require 60 days notice to deploy on another overseas mission.

He says he's even held back on a portion of his infrastructure budget in order to preserve training.

Conservative Senator Don Plett seemed skeptical with some of what he heard on Monday, suggesting that with the war in south Asia all-but-over for Canada, there were savings to be had.

"As we're moving out of Afghanistan, it only seems logical to me, sir, that we would be scaling back on some of this training," he said. "If you're saying it takes 60 days for you to get up to a certain level that should the need arise, I would think this government or any other government would step up to the plate and give you the resources that you need."

His comments were reinforced by a spokesman for MacKay late Monday.

"The Canadian Armed Forces are no longer in a combat mission in Afghanistan, they are no longer securing the skies over Libya, they no longer have 2,000 members in Haiti," said Jay Paxton in an email.

"For these reasons training is necessarily slowed to a more normal tempo so as to ensure the best use of taxpayer money, but Canada still has the best trained and most respected military personnel in the world. They stand ready to respond whenever Canadians need them."

Devlin noted that during the Kandahar mission, up to 3,000 soldiers, aircrew and staff officers would be trained per overseas rotation. That figure has now dropped to about 300.

The overall defence budget is expected to shrink by as much as $2.5 billion by 2014, according to independent research. As late as the end of October, when the new chief of defence staff was installed, the prime minister insisted that most of the cuts could be made in administration.
end


----------



## George Wallace

I would like to submit the following to our esteemed Members of Parliament:



			
				GAP said:
			
		

> No fat to cut in Army Fire Department overhead; budget cuts affect training of soldiers Firefighters: general  Chief
> By: Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press 12/3/2012
> Article Link
> 
> OTTAWA - The commander of the Canadian Army  Fire Chief told a Senate committee Monday there is no administrative fat to cut in his branch and that budget restraint is forcing him to train soldiers Firefightersto a lower standard than during the Afghan war since the last major fire.
> 
> Lt.-Gen. Chief Peter Devlin testified at a Senate committee that 22 per cent of his force's baseline budget has been slashed, and when combined with the loss of a stipend for the Kandahar mission past year, the cumulative fiscal hit is even bigger.
> 
> "As you would expect that has an effect on people, infrastructure and training," he told senators.
> 
> Devlin underscored that 74 per cent of the army Fire Department is the field force firefighters, and only four per cent take up a headquarters or administrative role among the 25,500 regular members, 16,000 reservists auxilary, and 5,000 rangers volunteer firefigters.
> 
> Earlier this year, Prime Minister Stephen Harper made it clear he believed the National Defence Fire Department could cut more deeply on the administration side as he laid out his thoughts in a letter to Defence Minister Fire Commissionaire Peter MacKay.
> 
> "It is important that we reduce the current overhead in regular force military full-time firefighers and civilian personnel, and in those activities that do not directly contribute to operational readiness," Harper wrote on June 15, 2012. A copy of his letter was obtained last month by The Canadian Press.
> 
> Yet Devlin's testimony Monday provided a stark contrast to Harper's assertions, with the generalChief stating that the army Fire Dept has already "streamlined army command and control, reducing the size of national and regional headquarters, and restructured our approach to support."
> 
> But it was on training, the bedrock of army firefighting readiness, that Devlin received many questions.
> 
> "We are training to a lower level than we trained, when we were training for combat operations worse case scenarios," he said.
> 
> 
> ......................and so on.



So, if we haven't had any major fires in town for the last decade or so, we can close down some of our firehalls and sell of some of our pumper trucks.  Brilliant.


----------



## mariomike

George Wallace said:
			
		

> So, if we haven't had any major fires in town for the last decade or so, we can close down some of our firehalls and sell of some of our pumper trucks.  Brilliant.



In the news this week.

"One of the largest areas where they ( sic ) city has found savings is the fire department."

"Ed Kennedy, president of the Toronto Professional Fire Fighters’ Association, told Torstar News Service the lost manpower would mean taking five of 128 fire trucks out of service and an increase in some response times.":
http://metronews.ca/news/toronto/458898/city-proposes-1-95-per-cent-property-tax-hike/


----------



## George Wallace

Security comes at a cost.  People are employed to keep you secure and safe, and to do so without you even knowing it, so you can go merrily on with your life's prosuites without concerns.  When they are no longer there, and your life is threatened in any manner, it becomes another Rudyard Kipling "Tommy" situation.


"You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires, an' all:
We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.
 For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
 But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot;
 An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
 An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool -- you bet that Tommy sees! "


Rudyard Kipling's poem: Tommy



Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool -- you bet that Tommy sees!


----------



## Towards_the_gap

I'd say this is more apt:

_
Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap;_


----------



## Rick Goebel

Calgary’s Fire Department caught flak in 2010:

“Calgary's top-heavy fire department has too many chiefs, critics are charging.
With 17 members of the management team wearing the stripes of either chief or deputy chief, two council hopefuls and the firefighters' union are turning up the heat on the department, decrying the command structure that dwarfs those of Toronto, Vancouver and Edmonton.
Mark Faires, president of the Calgary Firefighters Association, said the spike in management positions has been particularly vexing due to lagging standards for front-line workers and equipment.
"In a similarly-sized department like Edmonton or Vancouver, you'd find only about four or five," he said.” Quoted from the Calgary Sun http://www.calgarysun.com/news/calgaryvotes/2010/10/07/15621661.html

Like fire departments, the military tends to say it has to cut front-line services when told to make cuts.

I frankly find it a little hard to believe that only 1020 regulars (4% of 25,500) “take up a headquarters or administrative role” in LFHQ, LFTDS, 1 Cdn Div, 4 x Area HQs, 3 x Regular Bde HQs, 10 x Reserve Bde HQs, 4 x ASGs, 4 x ATCs, and 7 x bases.  In the specific case of the CBG HQs, I’m willing to bet big bucks that the total cost of the current CBG HQs is more than the cost of the 21 Dist HQs they replaced.  I suspect that the difference is big and, I suspect, unjustifiable by any identifiable improvement in the performance of the reserve force DUE TO the increase in HQ cost.  Perhaps the Army Comd might want to start there and work his way through the rest of the system.

Rick Goebel


----------



## McG

I suspect the Army Commander is correct.  The administrative structures of the Army are pretty lean ... which is not to say that the administrative structures of the CF are lean.  There are certainly other L1s that are purely or mostly administrative in their nature (ie. most of the ADMs and CMP) and likely there is some fat within these organizations.  

And, while the Army's administrative structures are generally lean, there are pockets of fat to be found.  Many of these require looking deeper in the weeds than the Army Commander should be looking, but his staff and subordinate staffs should be finding these.

There is also plenty of fat to be cut from places outside of administrative structures.  We can find fat in superfluous command structures.  We can cut fat from wasteful processes, unnecessary activities, duplication of efforts, redundant establishments, etc.  Administrative structures are not the only place to find fat.  There is plenty of fat to cut, and a lot of ideas were pointed out on the previous page.
[quote author=MCG]
Here are a few ways that I see to immediately cut costs while protecting capability:
Reduce/Stop the use of “tactical infrastructure” in field exercises
Do not bring kitchen appliances to the field (with the exception of in field kitchens) 
Maximize the use of local training areas before traveling
Teleconference to avoid TD for meetings and working groups
Prohibit the use of WSE on deployments (We do not need to pay guys above their rank when there are other sitting at home already collecting pay at that level)  - exceptions only for late tour battlefield promotions for casualty replacement
Deploy the next Op ATTENTION as 100% Reg F (again, Reg F pay is a sunk cost while a year of Class C pay for a Sr NCO of Jr Offr to train & deploy could instead added another training day for a Class A unit) 
No new “buttons & bows” announcements
Do not rebadged any more units for the sake of resurrecting old regiments
Stop any unannounced plans to rebrand/rebadged/rename any branches, corps or organization for the purposes of historical sentimentalism
Stop using rented civilian vehicles when military patter vehicles are available and serve the purpose
Tie pay incentives for all ranks to performance and conduct.  If you are on a remedial measure (IC through to C&P) then the pay incentive is delayed by the duration of that remedial measure.  If you receive an unsatisfactory PER, then the pay incentive is delayed by a full year.
Rebalance officer enrollment paths to reduce the number of ROTP entrants by increasing the number of DEO entrants

And here are some options options for long-term savings (though most will cost money up-front prior to the savings being achieved later):
Consolidate all of NDHQ and appropriate other NCR units on the Nortel Campus
Move CFC from Toronto to Ottawa (Nortel Campus) or Kingston (RMC or the closing prison) 
Divest unnecessary niche vehicle micro-fleets (if required, increase size of standard fleets to maintain platform numbers) 
Smash LFDTS & CTC into a single layer of HQ, transfer capability development functions from LFDTS to COS Land Strat
Re-close CMR and consolidate ROTP back into RMC 
Consolidate all of 1 CMBG in Edmonton to reduce future steady-state cost moves
Procure more training simulators for diesel guzzling equipment (like aircraft, Engr Hy Eqpt and MBT) 
Re-evaluate rank levels in HQ establishments

In the current climate, we need to look at more than just where to cut.  We also need to look at where to get better mileage from the same resources.  Here are a few thoughts to that end: 
 Replace SDA, LDA, dive pay and parachute allowance with enhanced casual allowances – the current systems reward posting messages as opposed to rewarding/compensating for the behaviour that we want: going to sea, going to the field, diving, and jumping out of aircraft.
 Reduce the number of PRes unit HQs in the Army.  Individual sub-units can retain unique regimental identities, but they will be grouped under a single stronger battalion HQ. 
 Revisit the requirement for Reg F bands.  There are 71 musicians from Sgt to CWO on Army Ref F establishments alone.  That is a lot of PYs that could be put to better purpose (especially when we have been cutting from operational units to put PYs in new capabilities)
[/quote][quote author=dapaterson]
A few more contentious suggestions:

* Top to bottom compensation and benefits review to eliminate duplication and overlap
* Revisit posting policy to reduce annual move requirement (excluding off-BTL)
* Revisit IPR move policy to eliminate same-location moves (eg a paid move from Orleans to Kanata on release)
* Replace CANEX with private suppliers (who will pay market rents for CF facilities)
   * Retain small deployed NPF expertise to surge for deployments if required (hint: this does not include a Tim Hortons trailer)
* Return to annual TOS boards, particularly at ranks of LCol and above and MWO and above, to determine whether continued service meets a military requirement
* Enforce limits on GOFOs as ordered in the 1997 MND report (roughly a 1/3 reduction)
* Return to performance pay for GOFO and Capt(N)/Cols
   * Make PMAs and performance info per above public
* Make PMAs and performance information for all Public Servants public
* Restructure establishment to differentiate between Lt and Capt
* Return to competitive promotion to Capt
* Revisit Degreed Officer Corps decision
   * Permit short engagements with no promotion beyond Capt without a degree
* Eliminate full-time second language training
   * Individuals may elect to pursue SLT on their own time; a decision not to get a language profile will limit future promotion possibilities

For IM/IT 

* Migrate from MS Office to Open Office to reduce IM/IT licensing costs
* Migrate from Outlook to open-source web-based DWAN email to reduce IM/IT licensing costs
* Dissolve ADM(IM), putting IM/IT support into CANOSCOM, IM/IT procurement into ADM(Mat), and comms and ISTAR systems under CJOC[/quote]
Adding to these ideas we could cut more fat/waste by with the following:

Stop the practice of sending new CF buttons & fasteners with all new DEU coats ordered on the Logistik Unicorps site (these buttons typically go straight to the garbage as most soldiers already have the buttons which are removable from the old coat, and most soldiers wear branch/regimental buttons) - is someone needs buttons they can spend more points to get them.
Remove the recently introduced Army DEU parka from Logistik Unicorps issue - it duplicates a function already provided by the gaberdine.
Allow only one IPR move per service couple.  If mbrs do not retire at the same time, they may be entitled to a re-unification move depending on which mbr takes IPR and where each mbr is located relative to the other at the time of the first retirement.
Delay CCV by at least two years and revisit the requirement ... The requirement either does not actually exist or we have currently got it wrong.
Replace military ID cards and military driver's licences with a single universal military identification


----------



## Edward Campbell

John Ivison has some harsh words for DND's bean counters in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/12/05/john-ivison-canadian-military-struggling-to-slash-budget-in-new-post-afghanistan-post-libya-reality/


> Canadian military struggling to slash budget in new post-Afghanistan, post-Libya reality
> 
> John Ivison
> 
> Dec 5, 2012
> 
> The British military is a bit strapped for cash these days, so it has ordered its personnel to “work from home” over the holidays to save on gas and electricity bills.
> 
> “Army shuts down for Christmas,” ran the headline in the Sunday Times.
> 
> The Canadian Forces have their own money troubles. Budget 2012 called for $2-billion in savings from its budget over three years.
> 
> But according to testimony at the Senate Finance committee this week, the brass at National Defence have a much more subtle solution than sending the entire armed forces on block leave. Rather, they have just moved a few decimal points around, shifted some numbers from one column to another and voila, money has appeared as if by magic.
> 
> Maj.-Gen. Robert Bertrand, acting chief financial officer at DND, gave the good news that no new funding is required from Parliament. But that is only because money is being “re-profiled” from the capital spending budget into the operations budget.
> 
> The supplementary spending estimates being examined by the Senate committee show that $162-million is being transferred from the capital budget to offset the spending cuts on the operations side.
> 
> “We had a capital re-profile as a result of changes in payments and contract schedules for our capital program in the order of $280-million … Again there is no requirement for additional budget appropriations through these supplementary estimates,” said Maj.-Gen. Bertrand.
> 
> It was good of him to tell us, since, remarkable as it may seem, no department is required to seek parliamentary approval unless they are looking for more money.
> 
> But it was presented as if this were an entirely logical course for the military – there was $280-million lying around, so we decided to spend it on salaries.
> 
> This may be acceptable if it didn’t deplete DND’s capital assets at a time when tens of billions of spending on new equipment is going to fall due before too long – for new fighter jets and new ships, to name but $40-billion worth of capital expenditure.
> 
> Maj.-Gen. Bertrand attempted to explain to the senators, a number of whom have had distinguished business careers, how he could spend part of his capital budget and yet still have the money available for new equipment when it was required. The senators didn’t grasp the intricacies of the process and asked him to put it in writing.
> 
> “It is a tricky concept to understand,” said Maj.-Gen. Bertrand.
> 
> “I should say so,” said Senator Irving Gerstein.
> 
> The real story here is DND’s struggle to bring its budgets into line with the new reality, post Afghanistan, post-Haiti, post-Libya and post-Winter Olympics. We have just gone through a seven year period of heightened Canadian security activity, which saw the operating budget rise from around $12-billion to over $15-billion in 2010/11.
> 
> DND’s attempts to make cuts clearly did not impress the Prime Minister, who wrote to Defence Minister Peter MacKay last spring, saying his initial proposals did not cut deeply enough into the department’s administration.
> 
> Stephen Harper re-inforced that message at the change of command ceremony for new Chief of Defence Staff, Tom Lawson, where Mr. Harper called for a “modern, general purpose military” with “more teeth and less tail,” echoing the language in the report on the transformation of the Canadian Forces produced by Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie.
> 
> Its 43 recommendations were not well received by DND, even if it is obliged to continue analyzing the effect of redeploying or eliminating 7,000 regular forces personnel and civil servants; cutting 3,500 reservists and lopping off $1-billion from the contracting budget.
> 
> Those kinds of spending cuts would shrink personal fiefdoms and power bases, so the generals are once again attempting to protect their budget gains and do an end run around the government by tapping their capital budget.
> 
> Far easier to come back to Parliament, cap in hand, when they do need the money for new equipment and claim that the $162-million slipped down the back of the couch or was exchanged for a handful of magic beans on the way to market.
> 
> Either that or they could raid the operations budget and send everyone home for Christmas.
> 
> _National Post_




As Ivison suggests, this is budgetary sleight of hand, robbing Peter to pay Paul and all that ... but that doesn't make it a bad thing. Maybe it is time for Parliament to rethink the artificial "stovepipes" that it imposes - capital, PO&M, grants and contributions, etc. These were vital controls that, as the Peel Royal Commission Cardwell Reforms showed, were necessary in the 19th century. The question is: are the administrative constraints imposed to solve the sorts of problems that surfaced in Crimea in the 1850s and South Africa _circa_ 1900 still appropriate?


----------



## GAP

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> John Ivison has some harsh words for DND's bean counters in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_:
> 
> http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/12/05/john-ivison-canadian-military-struggling-to-slash-budget-in-new-post-afghanistan-post-libya-reality/
> 
> As Ivison suggests, this is budgetary sleight of hand, robbing Peter to pay Paul and all that ... but that doesn't make it a bad thing. Maybe it is time for Parliament to rethink the artificial "stovepipes" that it imposes - capital, PO&M, grants and contributions, etc. These were vital controls that, as the Peel Royal Commission Cardwell Reforms showed, were necessary in the 19th century. The question is: are the administrative constraints imposed to solve the sorts of problems that surfaced in Crimea in the 1850s and South Africa _circa_ 1900 still appropriate?



I dislike articles by Ivison simply on the basis he has an axe to grind and the wheel is anything Conservative. That said, for once he hit the nail on the head. You don't take your capital budget to offset operational costs just so the mini empires can continue.


----------



## Edward Campbell

I disagree with almost everything Jack Granatstein says in this article which is reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/op-ed/Delays+deficit+fighting+direction/7656792/story.html


> Op-Ed: Delays, deficit-fighting and no direction
> *After a promising start, it is becoming increasingly clear the federal government has no defence policy, J.L. Granatstein writes.*
> 
> By J.L. Granatstein, Ottawa Citizen
> 
> December 5, 2012
> 
> No one who has followed the history of Canadian defence has any doubt that for their first four years in power the Harper Conservatives were the best government for the Canadian Forces since the 1950s St. Laurent government. Coming into power at the beginning of 2006, the Tories supported the troops in Afghanistan with the equipment — Leopards, C17s, new C130J Hercules transports, Chinook helicopters, anti-mine vehicles — and personnel they needed, they extended the mission twice, they increased defence spending massively, and they even produced their Canada First Defence Strategy in 2008.
> 
> The war in Afghanistan, however, did not go the way the government had hoped. The Canadian Forces did well in the field, but public support gradually turned against the conflict, deciding that it was costly and unwinnable. The Harper government read the tea leaves and pulled out, deciding (under pressure from our allies) to leave only a training cadre to work with the Afghan military and police. Supporting the CF in a war was not necessarily a recipe for votes, or so the prime minister came to understand, at least not so long as Canadian servicemen and women suffered casualties.
> 
> If Afghanistan was one blow to the government’s defence plans, the Canada First Defence Strategy was another. The CFDS, despite its name, was not a strategy so much as a list of promised equipment purchases. It did not try to lay down much of a rationale for the nation’s defence or indicate how the government envisioned the ways in which the Canadian Forces might be employed in the future. Instead it promised guaranteed growth in defence spending, proposed a modest increase in personnel strength, and promised a long list of equipment to be acquired — 15 combat vessels, support ships, the F-35 fighter, and a fleet of land combat vessels. In all, the government pledged to spend almost half a trillion dollars over the next 20 or so years.
> 
> And maybe it might have done so, the voters permitting. But the sharp recession of 2008 tossed all plans into the garbage bin, and deficit fighting, not defence spending, soon became the Tories’ driving force. Instead of the promised increases, there are cuts that are already north of 10 per cent of the Department of National Defence budget. The Army has already reduced its training, and there will be more cutbacks everywhere.
> 
> Compounding the government’s problems are the never-ending procurement delays in virtually every program in the Department of National Defence. The Chrétien government cuts in the 1990s slashed program managers, and DND has never recovered from this. But too many rules and regulations, too much insistence on domestic suppliers, and sometimes an inability to make decisions (or making the wrong ones) has made a mess of program after program. The F-35 is the best known (and most expensive) debacle, but search and rescue aircraft and helicopters are right up there — and the very expensive (but necessary) combat ship program is all but certain to be a costly mess.
> 
> Worst of all, it is becoming increasingly clear that the government has no defence policy. Nowhere has the government stated that it foresees threats or crises that might require Canadian intervention with this or that kind of forces. Granted, in a world in flux, such forecasts are difficult to make in a credible way, but such thinking used to be called strategic planning. Governments and their militaries formed such judgments, and the elected politicians, in consultation with the brass, determined that they needed so many battalions, aircraft, ships and the money to pay for them. Moreover, in a democracy, the public was ordinarily consulted in the preparatory stages and informed, via a White Paper, of the broad outlines of the government’s policy.
> 
> Not here, not now, not from the Harper government. We get no indications that there is a policy in the works and nothing so much as the sense that the government wishes that it had never made defence such a large part of its party program. Equipment purchases might still be good job creators — and vote getters — but the Canadian Forces and defence in Tory eyes now seem to constitute a swamp where no one dares to go.
> 
> This is unfortunate, to say the least, but it does leave an opening for the opposition parties to lay out defence policies of their own. If the NDP and Liberals can rise above prattling about peacekeeping and determine where the challenges of the next decades may lie and what this nation needs to do to protect itself and its friends, they can serve their own — and Canada’s — interests.
> 
> _J.L. Granatstein is a distinguished research fellow of the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute._
> 
> © Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen




First paragraph: wrong! While the Conservatives did, indeed, buy much needed new equipment, much of it was already on the books thanks to previous administrations. They did not increase _"defence spending massively"_ - when measured as a percentage of GDP, the only sensible way to do it while taking account of both inflation and national _capacity_, defence spending stagnated during the Afghanistan mission. The _Canada First Defence Strategy_, as I have explained again and again, promises to lower defence spending as a percentage of GDP over the next 25 years.

Second paragraph: correct.

Third paragraph: also correct but the dollar figures are meaningless. All they did, and still do, is to provide a target for e.g. Stephen Staples.

Fourth paragraph: wrong! For the reason he got right in the third para, Granatstein should understand that he _Canada First Defence Strategy_ itself, not the _Great Recession_, sent DND to the fiscal woodshed.

Fifth paragraph: wrong! While the defence procurement system is, indeed, in need of a *MASSIVE* overhaul, the decision making problems are, in the main, inside DND, not at the cabinet table.

Sixth paragraph: wrong!. The Harper government does, indeed, have a defence policy. It is a linear decendant of the Diefenbaker, Pearson, Trudeau, Mulroney and Chretien defence policies. It asks one question: "how little can we do, how little can we spend, and still *a)* keep our seats at various international tables, and *b)* not annoy the Americans?"

Seventh paragraph: same as the sixth.

Eighth paragraph: wrong, again! neither the NDP nor the Liberals have any need to enunciate a coherent defence policy. They understand, as do the Conservatives, that, despite all the red T-shirts and yellow ribbons, Canadians, by and large, may "support the troops" but they do not support anything like an adequate or appropriate level of defence spending.


----------



## GR66

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Eighth paragraph: wrong, again! neither the NDP nor the Liberals have any need to enunciate a coherent defence policy. They understand, as do the Conservatives, that, despite all the red T-shirts and yellow ribbons, Canadians, by and large, may "support the troops" but they do not support anything like an adequate or appropriate level of defence spending.



I'm certainly not arguing the truth of this statement, but how much of it is self-fulfilling prophesy by all the political parties?  For decades our politicians (both in government and in opposition) have avoided any serious discussion of the need for combat capable military as a part of a broader foreign policy strategy along with the costs required to obtain these benefits.  If our "leaders" don't make the effort to educate the people then they shouldn't be shocked when the people don't understand the issue.


----------



## Good2Golf

Mr. Ivison and indeed it would seem many "business experienced" Senators don't understand (which may in part be a failing of DND to properly message) the generally inflexible Federal financial structure that the Department must operate within. DND was one of the first Federal Departments to be directed by the Treaury Board to adopt fiscal planning using the 'Accrual Accounting' method, this is to say a multi-year future value based system that most Canadians would understand as a mortgage.  The challenge is that the TB then places significant restrictions on DND (and the other Departments as well) with in-year 'Cash Accounting' policies, in effect 'compartmentalizing' the 'discretionary' portion (things other than Legislated fixed costs like salaries or Federal grants) of the annual cash allocation into fairly rigid structures that are less able to be adjusted in light of notable in-year cost drivers/variances.  Canadians would understand this best as the bank giving them only a portion of their mortgage's cash advance, and even then telling the homeowner how much they could spend, based on the homeowner's planned budget made at the beginning of the mortgage period, on particular elements of the house; 45% to payment of capital, 15% to roof repair, 25% to maintenance and 15% to betterments. Problem was there was a significant snow pack over the winter and there was a huge sprin melt that overwhelmed your foundation drainage system, clogging it completely. You want to effect repairs to the drainage system right away and put some of the betterments off (re-profile the expenditure) until next year. Great idea you think, nope...bank says you can't do that until next year with an amended expenditure plan.

Such is the case with the compartmentalization of monies given to DND. It is not at all like a private business that can allocate the expenditure of its revenues without any of the restrictions that TB places (for the right reason in general, but not providing the substantive flexibilty needed) on in-year expenditures.

Regards 
G2G


----------



## GnyHwy

I do have a basic understanding of this, but I always wondered when larger capitol projects like CCV, MSVS get pushed to the right, what happens to the cash?  I realize there may not have been significant money planned to be spent for that capitol project in that fiscal year, but sometimes there would be.  It would seem that this would be a great opportunity to push smaller projects through rather quickly, and sometimes this probably does happen.  But, if the project isn't ready because there is no one doing the paperwork for the smaller projects concurrently and as a contingency plan, it can't happen.  That coupled with the small amount of times per year that you can get approval, coupled with what recently seems as even more oversight for transparency, and you pretty much can't spend squat.    

Your average troop with a handful of years in the Regts doesn't understand this, and I think we do a poor job explaining it to them as well.  Also, as G2G mentions, we may be doing a poor job explaining this deficiency it to our civilian bosses.  

Troops just wonder why they can't have the latest and greatest piece of gear that is out there, and why the hell does it take so long to procure?  But who's going to explain it to them?  The guys that need to be doing the paperwork for the next procurement?

Since we are bent around using the term capability development, perhaps we should develop our capability to develop capabilities.  That is what seems deficient to me.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Article Link

*Ex-top army commander sounds the alarm on defence spending*

*$475M rise in administrative spending despite 22% army budget cut, says Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie * 


A retired top army commander who penned a controversial report on transforming the military is breaking his silence 18 months after retiring from the ranks.

In an interview airing Saturday on CBC Radio's The House, retired Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie said he's been drawn out from the sidelines after seeing a $475-million increase in spending by the Department of National Defence (DND) for professional services, including consultants and contractors, coupled with a 22 per cent cut in the army's budget.

'It's going to result in lower levels of readiness, it's going to mean our troops are not as well trained.'—Retired Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie

The Public Accounts show that spending for Professional and Special Services at National Defence went from $2.7 billion in 2009-2010 to $3.2 billion in 2011-2012.

"This has a direct impact on our troops. It's going to result in lower levels of readiness, it's going to mean our troops are not as well trained … It's going to have an impact on part-time reserves, the lifeblood of the army. So I can't watch from the sidelines," Leslie told host Evan Solomon in his first in-depth interview since retiring in Aug. 2011.

Rise comes despite 22% army budget cut

According to Leslie, the vast majority of those professional services include consultants and contractors which he calls "overhead." And this, said the general who oversaw the Canadian army until 2010, runs contrary to the advice he gave DND in his Transformation Report commissioned by the military.

"The strongest recommendation we had was that the corporate services number should be reduced by 10 per cent per year [over three years]. And it's going exactly in the wrong way."

In addition to this increase in spending, Leslie noticed that his successor, Lt.-Gen. Peter Devlin, testified before the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence in early December that his budget had been cut by 22 per cent.

"As you would expect, that has had an effect on people, infrastructure and training," said Devlin, the Commander of the Canadian Army.

"Training has a direct impact on operational capability, a direct impact on the part-time army who are the reserves, and a direct impact on training in Canada. All to the negative," said Leslie.

A 'disconnect'

The prime minister told Defence Minister Peter Mackay, in a letter dated June 15, 2012 and obtained by The Canadian Press, that his proposed budget did not cut deep enough into the administrative side of National Defence.

According to Leslie, "there's an obvious disconnect between what's actually being said in terms of guidance and direction to DND and what's actually happening."

In a separate interview on The House, the vice chief of the defence staff, Vice-Admiral Bruce Donaldson, defended DND's spending on professional and special services.

Donaldson told Solomon that consulting includes a "very broad range of activity" and that in many ways "it's much more economical" to turn certain contracts over to the private sector.

The federal government is said to have identified $530-million in cuts over the next three years to "contracting and in-service support of defence material," according to a written statement by Jay Paxton, a spokesperson for the minister of defence.


----------



## ArmyRick

Sounds like people need to be fired!


----------



## dapaterson

GnyHwy said:
			
		

> I do have a basic understanding of this, but I always wondered when larger capitol projects like CCV, MSVS get pushed to the right, what happens to the cash?



Sorry I missed this Q earlier.

Short answer:  As always, it depends...

DND/CF has some A-base capital funding - money that is there and is use it or lose it.  For that part of the defence budget, ADM(Mat) and others try to over-program - that is, for every dollar they know they have, they plan on spending more - say $1.10 or so.  That way, as one or two projects slip, there's enough for everyone.  If everything runs on time, they can delay some projects to remain within the allocation.  If too much slippage happens, the money is lost at the end of the fiscal year (called lapsing).  There are limited provisions to carry money forward from one fiscal year to the next.

Many more recent projects, however, get accrual funding.  In that case the funding is assigned to the project.  If the project shifts its timelines, the funding is shifted as well, so it's not lost, just delayed.

There's a great deal that goes on behind the scenes, of course, with staff from ADM(Mat) and ADM(Fin CS) liaising with the Treasury Board Secretariat to keep the numbers straight, but that's a simplified version of how things work.


----------



## McG

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Sounds like people need to be fired!


Our stovepipe approach to the budget cutting and our stovepiped HR allocation systems must be at least partially behind this.  Some of the contractor and consultant increase is probably filling holes from civilian and reserve positions that no longer exist … some of this increased spending could have been avoided by reallocating Reg F from lower priority work.  Unfortunately, our ability to level resources with priorities is substantially slower than our ability to hack with a stovepipe.


----------



## Monsoon

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Sounds like people need to be fired!


Unfortunately, Andrew Leslie is no longer available for that. However, he does seem happy to sling sh*t from the sidelines using what he must know are misleading figures: if you save $1B in fixed overhead, who cares if your contracting fees to replace the services outsourced increase by less than half that? I have to wonder if he's looking at a transition into politics in an opposition party. God help us all if he ends up as MND.


----------



## dapaterson

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> God help us all if he ends up as MND.



Not a first for the family...


----------



## PuckChaser

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, Andrew Leslie is no longer available for that. However, he does seem happy to sling **** from the sidelines using what he must know are misleading figures: if you save $1B in fixed overhead, who cares if your contracting fees to replace the services outsourced increase by less than half that? I have to wonder if he's looking at a transition into politics in an opposition party. God help us all if he ends up as MND.



It matters when many units are cutting their training down to absolutely the bare minimum that could use $500m a year desperately. Sounds like you have more of a personal axe to grind against Leslie than any of the talking points he's providing.


----------



## dapaterson

Do you know where DND is spending money on contractors?  Do you want them all cut?

For example, most civilian medical professionals you see are contractors.  The Military Family Resource Centres?  They're independent, and payments to support them show up as professional services (contractor) costs.  Companies that make plans for new buildings?  Contractors.  Commissionaires at the gates?  Contractors.  Cost moves?  Brookfield gets a fixed price per move (a contractor), plus the trucking companies that move the HG&E are... you guessed it... contractors.


----------



## The Bread Guy

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, Andrew Leslie is no longer available for that. However, he does seem happy to sling **** from the sidelines using what he must know are misleading figures: if you save $1B in fixed overhead, who cares if your contracting fees to replace the services outsourced increase by less than half that? I have to wonder if he's looking at a transition into politics in an opposition party. God help us all if he ends up as MND.


More on his latest utterances.....


> A retired top army commander who penned a controversial report on transforming the military is breaking his silence 18 months after retiring from the ranks.
> 
> In an interview airing Saturday on CBC Radio's The House, retired Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie said he's been drawn out from the sidelines after seeing a $475-million increase in spending by the Department of National Defence (DND) for professional services, including consultants and contractors, coupled with a 22 per cent cut in the army's budget.
> 
> The Public Accounts show that spending for Professional and Special Services at National Defence went from $2.7 billion in 2009-2010 to $3.2 billion in 2011-2012.
> 
> "This has a direct impact on our troops. It's going to result in lower levels of readiness, it's going to mean our troops are not as well trained … It's going to have an impact on part-time reserves, the lifeblood of the army. So I can't watch from the sidelines," Leslie told host Evan Solomon in his first in-depth interview since retiring in Aug. 2011.
> 
> According to Leslie, the vast majority of those professional services include consultants and contractors which he calls "overhead." And this, said the general who oversaw the Canadian army until 2010, runs contrary to the advice he gave DND in his Transformation Report commissioned by the military.
> 
> "The strongest recommendation we had was that the corporate services number should be reduced by 10 per cent per year [over three years]. And it's going exactly in the wrong way."
> 
> In addition to this increase in spending, Leslie noticed that his successor, Lt.-Gen. Peter Devlin, testified before the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence in early December that his budget had been cut by 22 per cent.
> 
> "As you would expect, that has had an effect on people, infrastructure and training," said Devlin, the Commander of the Canadian Army ....





			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> Do you know where DND is spending money on contractors?  Do you want them all cut?
> 
> For example, most civilian medical professionals you see are contractors.  The Military Family Resource Centres?  They're independent, and payments to support them show up as professional services (contractor) costs.  Companies that make plans for new buildings?  Contractors.  Commissionaires at the gates?  Contractors.  Cost moves?  Brookfield gets a fixed price per move (a contractor), plus the trucking companies that move the HG&E are... you guessed it... contractors.


Indeed - more from the same CBC.ca piece above:


> .... In a separate interview on The House, the vice chief of the defence staff, Vice-Admiral Bruce Donaldson, defended DND's spending on professional and special services.
> 
> Donaldson told Solomon that consulting includes a "very broad range of activity" including "medical and mental health services," even "maintenance and repairs."
> 
> "A lot of it relates to supporting the men and women in uniform," Donaldson said, adding that in many ways "it's much more economical" to turn certain contracts over to the private sector.
> 
> With respect to the army's 22 per cent budget cut, Donaldson said Devlin's testimony before the Senate committee may have been misunderstood.
> 
> "Devlin was actually saying that he's been successful in preparing the army for what's next. He's reoriented training in the army to make sure they are operationally ready for the next deployed mission," said Donaldson.
> 
> The vice chief of the defence staff said the cuts in the army's budget reflect "the ramp down" from Canada's combat mission in Afghanistan ....


----------



## Monsoon

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> It matters when many units are cutting their training down to absolutely the bare minimum that could use $500m a year desperately. Sounds like you have more of a personal axe to grind against Leslie than any of the talking points he's providing.


Not at all - as others (including, now, the VCDS) have pointed out, the increase in that one line-item isn't money being "wasted". It's a direct result of certain expensive in-house services being out-sourced. If anything, the reallocation from in-house to contractor of some support services saved the Army reserve budget from being raided harder than it was.

I don't know Leslie personally, but I do know what a disgruntled politician looks like. Perpetuating the rumour that he was ever in the running for CDS is a pretty good example of the reason he was succession-planned out.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Defence Minister Peter MacKay has just announced, in Brussels, that the _Canada First Defence Strategy_, which includes a long term funding plan that I find weak and, indeed, even destructive, will be revised after the release of the 2013 budget. I expect the outcome will be weaker still until, at least, the national budget is back in surplus.


----------



## McG

Maybe we will find some ideas from this site make their way into the new plan.
A lot are below the strategic radar, but there are a few that would fit nicely into a vision and plan at that level.
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/82898/post-1193048.html#msg1193048


----------



## The Bread Guy

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Defence Minister Peter MacKay has just announced, in Brussels, that the _Canada First Defence Strategy_, which includes *a long term funding plan that I find weak and, indeed, even destructive*, will be revised after the release of the 2013 budget. I expect the outcome will be weaker still until, at least, the national budget is back in surplus.


Got it in one, Mr. C. .....


> Canada’s military was put on notice Friday that no stone will go unturned as the Harper government slashes hundreds of millions of dollars in defence spending.
> 
> National Defence is facing budget cuts in the order of between $1.1-billion and $2.5-billion over the next three years as the Harper government rewrites its vision for the military.
> 
> This has resulted in a behind-the-scenes struggle between different parts of the military over what should be cut and what is absolutely necessary for Canada’s men and women in uniform to continue doing their jobs.
> 
> That struggle has occasionally broken into public view, notably in the form of repeated warnings from Prime Minister Stephen Harper last year that National Defence will be required to do its part to cut the federal deficit.
> 
> Canada’s new top soldier appears to have gotten the message as he used a major speech at a defence conference in Ottawa on Friday to warn that implementing those budget cuts will be the Canadian Forces’ “centre of gravity” for the foreseeable future.
> 
> “There’s a budget to balance and Defence must do its part,” Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Tom Lawson told a crowd of senior military officers, industry representatives and experts. “That is an immutable fact.”
> 
> Organizations only undertake significant efforts to make themselves leaner and more efficient “when forced to make substantial cuts, or when they’re motivated by the opportunity to re-invest the savings in themselves,” Lawson said.
> 
> This is exactly the situation National Defence is in, he said, given the prime minister’s demand for “more teeth and less tail” by cutting administrative costs and putting the money back into front-line capabilities.
> 
> “It will be our centre of gravity for a year, two years, three years to come,” Lawson warned, adding that everything will be examined for savings ....


Postmedia News, 22 Feb 13


----------



## Old Sweat

In my opinion the CF is doing very little to help itself during this period. A short while ago we learned that the PM wanted the forces to reduce its administrative tail and not to reduce operational forces. What part of that is too hard to understand? So, the budgets for the field force including the reserves are being cut, while we continue to maintain a large number of headquarters, whose major function seems to be to provide places for GOFOs to micromanage their subordinate formations and units.


Talk about an addiction to self-licking ice cream cones.  :sarcasm:


----------



## The Bread Guy

Two tidbits:


> “THERE’S NO PLACE like home” could become the battle cry of the Canadian military as spending on overseas operations is forecast to take a steep dive.
> 
> Internal Defence Department reports show total spending on foreign deployments could drop to just $5 million in the 2014-15 fiscal year from the current anticipated level of $476 million.
> 
> The figures are contained in a June 1, 2012 financial report by the Department’s assistant deputy minister of finance.
> 
> The report was obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act.
> 
> Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has vowed to balance the budget by 2015.
> 
> The records show that, by then, the government expects it will no longer be paying for the tear-down and clean-up of the Kandahar combat mission, nor the Afghan training mission in Kabul set to end early next year. More significantly, it has not budgeted for any new operations, including a renewal of current peacekeeping missions and no contingency fund is aside.
> 
> The internal spending forecast notes that the tables are revised three times a year and officials note the government always has the option of adding money to the budget if cabinet decides to send the military somewhere ....


The Canadian Press, 26 Feb 13



> The federal government plans to slash $4.9 billion in discretionary spending in the next year - with the Department of National Defence bearing the brunt of cuts, while departments involved in the Conservatives' law and order agenda are spared.
> 
> The plan was unveiled Monday as Treasury Board President Tony Clement tabled the government's main budgetary estimates for 2013-14 in the House of Commons.
> 
> The detailed document provides a glimpse into how the government intends to increase or decrease funds for a long list of departments and agencies in the next fiscal year.
> 
> In additional to Defence, other departments facing spending reductions include the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Environment Canada, Transport Canada, the Canadian International Development Agency, Canada Border Services, and Health Canada.
> 
> But others will see their budgets go up. They include: Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada, the RCMP, the Security Intelligence Review Committee, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, the National Research Council, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, and Canadian Heritage ....


Postmedia News, 26 Feb 13

2013-14 Main Estimates (400+ page PDF) here, DND's section (6 page PDF via Google Drive) here.


----------



## OldSolduer

So the Conservatives just played the same shell game on us the Liberals did. 


They won't be getting my vote the next time.


----------



## George Wallace

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> So the Conservatives just played the same shell game on us the Liberals did.
> 
> 
> They won't be getting my vote the next time.



 ;D


Are you going to try "Green" next time around?



 >


----------



## OldSolduer

George Wallace said:
			
		

> ;D
> 
> 
> Are you going to try "Green" next time around?
> 
> 
> 
> >



I did the last provincial election. At least the Greens are up front about Defence- they don't like the military. The Conservatives, like the LIBs, used us for political points.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> So the Conservatives just played the same shell game on us the Liberals did.
> 
> 
> They won't be getting my vote the next time.



I disagree.  Baseline funding has been dramatically increased over the last 8 years.  They aren't the problem - we are.  We refuse to make any tough decisions, and would rather fiddle while Rome burns.  To continue the Rome analogy, we would rather squeeze more taxes and tribute from the provinces than change Rome itself.


----------



## OldSolduer

Good point. I tend to shoot from the hip sometimes. 

As people that know me.....well they know that.


----------



## Old Sweat

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I disagree.  Baseline funding has been dramatically increased over the last 8 years.  They aren't the problem - we are.  We refuse to make any tough decisions, and would rather fiddle while Rome burns.  To continue the Rome analogy, we would rather squeeze more taxes and tribute from the provinces than change Rome itself.



Remember the reaction, or apparent lack of ability to take a hint, when the front office told the DND/CF to reduce the administrative tail instead of cutting the sharp end.


----------



## GAP

If they don't do it themselves, they may just find someone else doing it for them....


----------



## The Bread Guy

GAP said:
			
		

> If they don't do it themselves, they may just find someone else doing it for them....


 :nod:


----------



## dapaterson

I recall reading a business article where a corproate president explained "Change happens.  By you or to you - your choice."

I suspect that change is going to happen _*to*_ the CF...


----------



## Journeyman

We can't really expect otherwise.  When the administrative tail (our massive, multiple HQs) are directed to cut that administrative tail, it all sort of collapses into a mobius strip of powerpoint-driven inertia. 

One doesn't have to look past the threads here on courses being cut or the elimination of education funding; any change to the overarching HQ (CDA)?  Nope.  :not-again:


----------



## Old Sweat

Journeyman said:
			
		

> We can't really expect otherwise.  When the administrative tail (our massive, multiple HQs) are directed to cut that administrative tail, it all sort of collapses into a mobius strip of powerpoint-driven inertia.
> 
> One doesn't have to look past the threads here on courses being cut or the elimination of education funding; any change to the overarching HQ (CDA)?  Nope.  :not-again:



And on occasion, after the headquarters staffed firm direction to reduce the tail, I have seen some NDHQ directorates actually grow.


----------



## Remius

Hmm.  Well I can't speak to other HQs or what not, but where I am at they've cut half the class b positions.  About 75 positions all told.  As well, through attrition we've seen a number of people leave and not be replaced.  New hiring is stopped and only hiring from within our org is allowed.  My former team has gone from 5 to 3 with no plans to staff the two vacant positions.  I've been moved to another part of the org to make up for lack of numbers on another team.  I'll be doing parts of jobs from three people that have left. 

I also know that the ADR office has been completely decimated leaving I think one or two people left from what was a staff of 15 or so.  

Not saying that the tail has been cut enough but cuts are there and that they do exist.


----------



## dapaterson

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> And on occasion, after the headquarters staffed firm direction to reduce the tail, _*I have seen some NDHQ directorates actually grow.*_



Well, someone has to track & follow up to make sure the change happens  :


----------



## Edward Campbell

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I disagree.  Baseline funding has been dramatically increased over the last 8 years.  They aren't the problem - we are.  We refuse to make any tough decisions, and would rather fiddle while Rome burns.  To continue the Rome analogy, we would rather squeeze more taxes and tribute from the provinces than change Rome itself.




 :goodpost: and it needs repeating.


----------



## Journeyman

Crantor said:
			
		

> I'll be doing parts of jobs from three people that have left.


That is the other part of the equation. Are we willing to accept that some tasks will not be done, or will we burn people out trying to "do more with less"?  

Please tell me that the Directorate of Useless Bling and Random Re-namings will not be kept as a high priority.


----------



## dapaterson

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Please tell me that the Directorate of Useless Bling and Random Re-namings will not be kept as a high priority.



[I Wish This Was Sarcasm, But Even I'm Not Sure]

First of all, it's a Director General, with directors for useless bling and random re-namings.

Second, after the dust settles we need someone to hand out "DM/CDS Innovation & Change Leadership Awards" - and who better to receive one than the Fearless Director who actually did all those random re-namings?

[/I Wish This Was Sarcasm, But Even I'm Not Sure]


----------



## George Wallace

Journeyman said:
			
		

> That is the other part of the equation. Are we willing to accept that some tasks will not be done, or will we burn people out trying to "do more with less"?



"More with less" has been the standard SOP.  I doubt it will change........or perhaps that box can be ticked off on someone's PER and the SOP will change.......Well!  That was an idiotic thought.   SALY.


----------



## McG

Once an organization is created, it seemingly becomes far to easy to justify why it must persist forever … even if the original requirement is no longer present.  I think HQs and staffs can be amongst the worst for this.  Maybe proximity to their own problems and organizational tendancy for self preservation seeps into staff recommendations for where to make cuts.

I have seen sr officers choose not to point out where they see redundancies so as to not offend the people currently in the positions.  So the wastefulness of the positions continues; the problem has nothing to do with the hard working pers in the positions but everything to do with the work of the positions being unnecessary.


----------



## ArmyRick

Agree 100%. You can be the hardest working and most efficient broom and mop tracker in the organization BUT if we don't need a damn broom and mop tracker....Sorry job done. Or at least thats the way it should be.

Did General Leslie not compare a HQ with being down sized to a dying badger defending itself? Or something like that?

I think the CF as an organization, needs INTEGRITY, how dare we go through with historical name changes (like adding royal this and that) and boost HQ/admin tail and then somewhere else in the CF, tell some sect comd he only gets 2-3 occupants in the back of his LAV or a Platoon can only have 4 guys shoot C9 PWT3 instead of its 6.

Sometimes, we have a hard time putting priority where it needs to be.


----------



## OldSolduer

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Agree 100%. You can be the hardest working and most efficient broom and mop tracker in the organization BUT if we don't need a damn broom and mop tracker....Sorry job done. Or at least thats the way it
> 
> Sometimes, we have a hard time putting priority where it needs to be.



Agreed. 

I would change the "sometimes" to "most of the time."

Our whole reason for existing is to rain death and destruction upon  our  enemies, those who would do our nation and its people grievous harm. 

Too many bureaucrats, military and civilian.


----------



## Halifax Tar

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> I think the CF as an organization, needs INTEGRITY, how dare we go through with historical name changes (like adding royal this and that) and boost HQ/admin tail and then somewhere else in the CF, tell some sect comd he only gets 2-3 occupants in the back of his LAV or a Platoon can only have 4 guys shoot C9 PWT3 instead of its 6.



Has there been any financial numbers released on the cost of adding Royal to some organization yet ?  I would be interested to see the actual financial distress this has put on the CF.  And how that money was shifted from other facets to pay for such a change. 

I say show integrity by admitting some of these HQs and what not are needless and only exist to have positions for officer and senior ncm career advancement while actually providing little in the combat or combat support capability of the CF.  Lets look at the break down of chiefs to indians in the CF re work that voodoo magic a little... 

Just the opinion of one under-educated lower decker...


----------



## UnwiseCritic

I can agree that the CF needs a little house cleaning. And that there has to be budget cuts so we no longer run a deficit. But a huge problem with the CF is the lack of discrimination. If we just raised the bar told some people no and your fired (in a polite way) we could save a lot of money and still maintain an effective fighting force. And everything should be based around the combat arms and maybe even leaning towards special forces as they now spearhead everything we do. But this 5 million for overseas deployments is ridiculuos and nothing in reserve... Great planning guys.


----------



## FJAG

I sometimes think that the real problem is that its easier to justify why we need thirty guys in the server room to keep all the computers in the building working than why we need a third rifle platoon in a company or an extra two gun dets in an arty battery.

The effects of not manning the server room are much more immediate and wide spread than the other. 

"Trimming" the budget will never work. We need a complete, from the ground up, redesign of the entire DND structure. 

I'm not holding my breath. Since I can't influence the outcome anyway, I'm just going to sit back and watch.  op:


----------



## Journeyman

UnwiseCritic said:
			
		

> But a huge problem with the CF is the lack of discrimination. If we just raised the bar told some people no and your fired (in a polite way) we could save a lot of money and still maintain an effective fighting force


       ???
While I truly hesitate to have you post more, could you re-write this so that whatever point you're trying to make is somewhat comprehensible.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Journeyman said:
			
		

> ???
> While I truly hesitate to have you post more, could you re-write this so that whatever point you're trying to make is somewhat comprehensible.



You don't think arbitrarily firing people (in a polite way) based off of a _More Discrimination In the Canadian Forces_ policy is a good idea?

On that note.
Cancel the Maple Leaf (or make it electronic only)
Stop putting crap like glow sticks and hand sanitizer on kitlists (which gets mass issued for kit inspections then promptly lost by troops)

That'll save millions.


----------



## Journeyman

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> ....is a good idea?


  :dunno:   I couldn't figure out what he was trying to say.


----------



## Halifax Tar

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Stop putting crap like glow sticks and hand sanitizer on kitlists (which gets mass issued for kit inspections then promptly lost by troops)
> 
> That'll save millions.



Excellent point!  We can go further with this, much further.  As a Sup Tech I will be honest that I am disgusted at what we LPO.  You should see the exacerbated PPNS requirements Dv HQs need. 

I say issue each soldier/sailor/airmen a pen , pencil, eraser and FMP every year.  Thats your PPNS allotment per year, any other "gucci" stuff you HAVE TO HAVE from the staples.ca website is bought with your own dime on your own time.    

LPO should be for immediate operational requirements that the CF cannot fill with its ingrained supply chain not the "go to" way of doing supply business or an avenue to get the gucci kit people wouldn't spend their own pay cheque on!


----------



## Jarnhamar

Journeyman said:
			
		

> :dunno:   I couldn't figure out what he was trying to say.



Me neither. I'm pretty sure firing people out of the blue on a pro-discrimination platform might result in a lawsuit or two  :


----------



## Halifax Tar

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Me neither. I'm pretty sure firing people out of the blue on a pro-discrimination platform might result in a lawsuit or two  :



I think he means "shedding some tail to grow some teeth", which we could probably all agree on, but I suspect he just worded it wrong.  Could be just my interpretation though...


----------



## Good2Golf

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Did General Leslie not compare a HQ with being down sized to a dying badger defending itself? Or something like that?



You mean like the re-establishment of 1 Cdn Div HQ that he seemed to personally champion?   ???




			
				PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I disagree.  Baseline funding has been dramatically increased over the last 8 years.  They aren't the problem - we are.  We refuse to make any tough decisions, and would rather fiddle while Rome burns.  To continue the Rome analogy, we would rather squeeze more taxes and tribute from the provinces than change Rome itself.



Indeed. 

Look at page  II-216 of the Main Estimates (DND portion) that Milnews.ca posted ( 2013-14 Main Estimates -  DND's section (6 page PDF via Google Drive) here ) and note that $832M that DND failed to spend during its authority period as well as $359M of project money re-profiled to the future due to 'adjusted' project timelines was removed form the 13/14 budget.  

Those capital 'lack-of-expenditures' alone account for $1.2B of reductions from previous years.  Yes, there are also factors of other Government Departments contributions to the overall delayed expenditures, but it's in DND's back yard and the Department is being held to account for it by the PM and the Dept. of Finance.

 :2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## UnwiseCritic

Yes maybe poorly worded shedding some tail and growing some teeth is correct. I have just seen some made up positions for people becuase we were scared to get rid of them move them etc. Eg we had a lav captain in a company without lavs. We also had guys dagging twice becuase everyone seemed to want somthing to do or justify there job.(Too many people and too little a pie) . I can agree on the fact we do waste a lot of money on stuff such as glow sticks as well.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Cleaned up to keep 'er on the Defence Budget.

*Milnet.ca Staff*


----------



## McG

The money spent on services contracts is again interesting in the news:


> *External contracting by DND rises by $500 million: report
> Total bill may still be climbing despite instructions from Ottawa to cut back*
> Murray Brewster
> The Canadian Press
> 06 March 2013
> 
> Money spent by National Defence on outside consulting and professional services has increased dramatically, even as the Harper government was warned the practice needed to be curbed.
> 
> Spending on external contracting rose by $500 million between 2009 and 2011, the year retired lieutenant-general Andrew Leslie advised the department it could safely cut 30 per cent of those agreements.
> 
> The contracting figure stood at $2.7 billion when Leslie, former top army commander, tabled his watershed analysis of how to overhaul the military in 2011.
> 
> The latest set of government financial estimates shows the number was $3.2 billion in 2011-12 - and it may be climbing.
> 
> A report tabled last week by the parliamentary budget officer suggests the amount could jump higher in the current budget year because National Defence was forced to go back and seek extra spending authority for "professional and special services."
> 
> An additional $774 million was pumped into the department in 2012-13 for contracting. That is over and above an extra $776 million the federal government set aside to pay a class action lawsuit by disabled veterans.
> 
> Even if the Harper government reduces defence contracting by $460 million, as promised, it will still be far short of the goals set out in the Leslie report.
> 
> Defence Minister Peter MacKay suggested earlier this week that the end of the Afghan training mission in Kabul next year will ease the pressure on the department and reduce the need for outside services.
> 
> "We have soldiers, fulltime soldiers, regular force soldiers, coming back from Afghanistan, assuming their positions throughout the country, throughout the department, and thus doing less contracting. So, there are savings to be found there," he told the Economic Club of Canada.
> 
> With trained soldiers fighting in Kandahar for five years, and later training Afghan forces, the Canadian army was forced to rely on private contractors to carry out some training functions and maintenance services.
> 
> The trend over the last decade has been to take many of the routine jobs and functions in the military, including repair and overhaul of equipment, and give it to the private sector.
> 
> The idea was to reserve soldiers for fighting and front-line duties.
> 
> In some cases, the decision to replace uniformed and civilian jobs at National Defence with the private sector has been made against the advice of senior military commanders, by federal bureaucrats who say it's the mandate of the Harper government to eliminate public service jobs.
> 
> New Democrat defence critic Jack Harris said the situation has become "utterly incoherent" and an embarrassment.
> 
> "They're all over the place when it comes to numbers," he said. "They don't seem to have a handle on this at all."
> 
> The winding down of the Afghan war means this should be an era of budget savings on contractors, Harris added.
> 
> But MacKay insisted in his remarks to the economic club that no stone was being left unturned in the hunt for savings. "We are looking in very painstaking detail at every area of the department in which we can find efficiencies," he said.
> 
> Private consultants and contractors provide myriad services, from emptying garbage pails and mopping floors, all the way to fine-tuning and repairing some of the military's state-of-the-art aircraft.
> 
> Giant defence contractors also have lucrative professional services contracts, according to public accounts records.
> 
> The largest single amount paid out in 2011-12 was to U.S.-based Lockheed Martin, which took in $175.3 million for a single engineering contact.
> 
> The company best known in the political world as the builder of the F-35 stealth fighter had six other service and consulting deals with the Canadian government that year.


----------



## dapaterson

The devil is always in the details.  What is being contracted out, and why?

In many cases it makes more sense to purchase skills, knowledge and abilities from contractors than to incubate, develop and maintain them in-house as military personnel or public servants.  Admittedly, part of the reason for going to contractors is because of the sclerotic employment policies and processes that hamstring public service hiring, but there are valid reasons to use contractors.

I'm afraid that we're going to end up throwing out babies with bathwater on this one - for example, refusing to order buses (contracted out) to bring Reservists to training events, rather than reducing or cutting contractor support to "projects" that never manage to deliver any appreciable product other than inflated TD expenses and contractors writing documents that never get approved...


----------



## MilEME09

Honestly I think part of it is DND not allocating their resources properly, I've heard stories of Techs sitting around in edmonton with little work to do, meanwhile they are hiring civilian contractors in say Petawawa because they dont have enough techs to keep up with the work load. Thats just one side of the contracting though at the front line level, I've seen posted on this site DND's requests for IED experts and other things that sound like to me we should have the full internal capabilities to supply. It may be a case of DND just spending budget not to loose it, but it think it could be better spent then getting contractors to fill the role of say a supply tech.


----------



## captloadie

There is an interesting article in the Citizen today that can't be reposted here, but seems to be the beginnings of the public relations battle between L1's. It would be nice if the CDS would nip this in the bud before all the dirty laundry gets aired to Joe Citizen.


----------



## McG

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I'm afraid that we're going to end up throwing out babies with bathwater on this one - for example, refusing to order buses (contracted out) to bring Reservists to training events, rather than reducing or cutting contractor support to "projects" that never manage to deliver any appreciable product other than inflated TD expenses and contractors writing documents that never get approved...


I worry that you are correct.  I have seen examples of the same but in an opposite direction, where units were forced to pay multiple times the price to contract a buses with drivers despite available DND buses and drivers because SWE was being cut regardless of the cost and overtime was not to be authorized.  I suspect one can find this example still happening, but I am no longer in a place to see it.


----------



## Edward Campbell

I'm not sure how _current_ this report, reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, might be:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/military-faces-deeper-cuts-in-looming-budget-document-reveals/article9857337/


> Military faces deeper cuts in looming budget, document reveals
> 
> MURRAY BREWSTER
> OTTAWA — The Canadian Press
> 
> Published Sunday, Mar. 17 2013
> 
> It seems the only soldiers who are safe from the coming budget axe are those that parade around Parliament Hill in the changing of the guard ceremony for tourists in the summer, according to a leaked report.
> 
> Defence spending will be in crosshairs when the federal budget is presented on Thursday as the Canadian army faces another barrage of major reductions over and above the Conservative government’s established deficit-fighting strategy and program review.
> 
> An army planning document shows that land forces are bracing for a further 8 per cent hit on operating and maintenance in the coming fiscal plan, in addition to an existing 22 per cent budget reduction.
> 
> The latest cuts, estimated in the range of $32-million, will slice into the army’s ability to train for operations in the jungle, desert and mountains, and come on top of $226-million in cuts ordered in the government’s strategic review and Deficit Reduction Action Plan, says a Jan. 31, 2013 document, written by Lieutentant-General Peter Devlin.
> 
> There’s expected to be an $8-million clawback on contracted services, and the army will be required to absorb a further $10-million related to civilian wages.
> 
> The document says funding for full-time reservists will have to be further reduced, and unused cash in the budget for part-time soldiers may have to be raided in order to keep full-timers.
> 
> Yet, despite the budget ravages, the army is under pressure to maintain the pet projects and pageantry admired by the Conservatives, who once promised stable and predictable funding.
> 
> “Ceasing activities viewed as priorities by the government of Canada will invite scrutiny into those activities the Army chooses to do at the expense of those items that hold government interest,” said the letter, which is meant to guide the army’s business planning for the coming year.
> 
> “As an example, activities such as the Ceremonial Guard hold particular interest for the [government of Canada] and must be sustained; even at the expense of area programming. Any and all [government of Canada] directed activities will be fulfilled.”
> 
> The Ceremonial Guard, comprised of mostly reserve members, conducts the changing of the guard ceremony on Parliament Hill during the tourist season.
> 
> National Defence is the biggest discretionary line item in the federal budget and has long been the target for deficit-slashing governments, regardless of political stripe.
> 
> Prime Minister Stephen Harper warned Defence Minister Peter MacKay last June that initial budget-cut proposals did not go deep enough on the administrative side of the department, a message he reinforced at the swearing-in of new defence chief General Tom Lawson when he said he wanted a military with “more teeth and less tail.”
> 
> When criticized about how spending cuts appear to have singled out the army, MacKay has pointed out that the army’s baseline budget is $500-million higher than it was when the Conservatives took office in 2006.
> 
> “After years of unprecedented growth, and following the end of the combat mission in Afghanistan, it is necessary for the government to balance military needs with taxpayer interests,” said MacKay spokesman Jay Paxton.
> 
> “Under our government, the military will always have the tools it needs to defend Canada and care for its people.”
> 
> Defence sources say as much as $600-million will be cut out of military “readiness” in all branches in the coming year. Readiness refers to training and equipment maintenance that a military needs to do in order to deploy both overseas and at home.
> 
> Indeed, Gen. Devlin’s planning report says the army will have to limit the scope of its operations in the Arctic, which is “five to seven times” more expensive than missions conducted in southern Canada.
> 
> The average 1.5 per cent increase in the army’s budget for fuel comes nowhere near covering the anticipated diesel costs, which rose by 24 per cent in 2011-12. As consequence, the army will have to “reduce the level of activity.”
> 
> In a recent interview with Maclean’s magazine, MacKay revealed that department intends to sell surplus property, some of which is either outdated or too costly to maintain.
> 
> Analyst Dave Perry from Carleton University in Ottawa has crunched the overall defence budget numbers and projected, in an updated analysis to be released this week, that the department will lose $2.4-billion — about 12.4 per cent — of its approximately $20-billion budget when compared against spending in 2011-12.
> 
> In his benchmark report, retired lieutenant-general Andrew Leslie called for deep cuts in the size of National Defence headquarters and for the savings to be plowed back into the field force.
> 
> But Perry’s analysis shows that since the government will not cut the overall size of the regular or reserve forces, and is not expected to give up equipment capabilities, such as specific classes of planes, tanks and ships, there is nowhere else to cut except in readiness and training.
> 
> “Since the size of the regular Forces is the largest driver of overall personnel spending, and major capital fleets account for the bulk of capital equipment fleets, this essentially protected the two single largest spending categories from the budget reduction,” Perry wrote in his analysis, obtained in advance by The Canadian Press.
> 
> “As a result, the department has been tasked with finding the majority of its cuts from the funds spent on (operations and maintenance).”
> 
> Leslie’s report has gone largely ignored, he said.
> 
> “DND has taken almost no action to enact his recommendations,” Perry said. “As a result, the bulk of the budget cuts are falling on operational readiness and training.”




It is not clear to me that the cuts Brewster discusses are new - they may have been discussed here, in Army.ca, already - he may, simply, be discussing the Army Commander's _response_ to them.

But, speaking as a Conservative (and a significant monetary supporter of the CPC), I find it shameful and, indeed amateurish, that cabinet did not impose these cuts with conditions: like a measured 15% cut in C2 _overhead_. It appears to me, based on 35+ years of service, the last 1/4 in modestly senior posts in NDHQ, that the CF (or CAF) has a fat, even bloated C2 system above ship, unit and squadron level. Now some of that C2 _*bloat*_ is there because of "government priorities" and it appears, therefore, that Minister MacKay did not follow the Prime Minister's direction ~ perhaps because he is a captive of the very large, *bloated* HQs Prime Minister Harper says he wants to cut.


----------



## jeffb

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But, speaking as a Conservative (and a significant monetary supporter of the CPC), I find it shameful and, indeed amateurish, that cabinet did not impose these cuts with conditions: like a measured 15% cut in C2 _overhead_. It appears to me, based on 35+ years of service, the last 1/4 in modestly senior posts in NDHQ, that the CF (or CAF) has a fat, even bloated C2 system above ship, unit and squadron level. Now some of that C2 _*bloat*_ is there because of "government priorities" and it appears, therefore, that Minister MacKay did not follow the Prime Minister's direction ~ perhaps because he is a captive of the very large, *bloated* HQs Prime Minister Harper says he wants to cut.



While I agree with your assessment, I disagree that this is the approach to take. The government should task the CF and DND, through the CDS, with maintaining certain capabilities and missions.  They should then fund the military according to the wider national strategy. It should then be up to the CDS, answering to MND, to allocate financial resources in order to accomplish those tasks. If they money does not meed the need then it should be up to the CDS to go back to the government with the impact. 

Let the CDS, through his staff and subordinate commanders, run the CF.


----------



## Edward Campbell

jeffb said:
			
		

> While I agree with your assessment, I disagree that this is the approach to take. The government should task the CF and DND, through the CDS, with maintaining certain capabilities and missions.  They should then fund the military according to the wider national strategy. It should then be up to the CDS, answering to MND, to allocate financial resources in order to accomplish those tasks. If they money does not meed the need then it should be up to the CDS to go back to the government with the impact.
> 
> Let the CDS, through his staff and subordinate commanders, run the CF.




I'm not sure letting _"the CDS, through his staff and subordinate commanders, run the CF"_ is _Constitutionally_ proper or, for that matter, even a good idea. I'm not sure that the CDS and his subordinate commanders are *qualified* to "run the CF." He (and they) are there to _administer_ the CF as a force in being, but establishing, organizing, equipping and directing the CF is not the CDS' business. it is the business of cabinet and the bureaucracy, part of which is uniformed. i think parts of many of the CF's problems stem from too much military _intrusion_ into matteres where the military is ill qualified to operate: areas like defence policy and equipment procurement.

But maybe I'm a bit of an iconoclast.


----------



## OldSolduer

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But maybe I'm a bit of an iconoclast.



I had to look up that last word. You are but you are in good company. 

I agree, there are too many uniformed politicians - more correctly wannabe politicians.


----------



## mad dog 2020

From the Halifax Chronical Herald 18 March 2013

OTTAWA — It seems the only soldiers who are safe from the coming budget axe are those that parade around Parliament Hill in the changing of the guard ceremony for tourists in the summer, a leaked report suggests.

Defence spending will be in the federal budget crosshairs this week as the Canadian Army faces another barrage of major reductions over and above the Harper government’s established deficit-fighting strategy and program review.

An army planning document, obtained by The Canadian Press, shows that land forces are bracing for a further eight per cent hit on operating and maintenance in the coming fiscal plan, in addition to an existing 22 per cent budget reduction.

The latest cuts, estimated in the range of $32 million, will slice into the army’s ability to train for operations in the jungle, desert and mountains, and come on top of $226 million in cuts ordered in the government’s strategic review and Deficit Reduction Action Plan, says a Jan. 31, 2013 document, written by Lt.-Gen. Peter Devlin.

There’s expected to be an $8 million clawback on contracted services, and the army will be required to absorb a further $10 million related to civilian wages.

The document says funding for full-time reservists will have to be further reduced, and unused cash in the budget for part-time soldiers may have to be raided in order to keep full-timers.

Yet, despite the budget ravages, the army is under pressure to maintain the pet projects and pageantry admired by the Conservatives, who once promised stable and predictable funding.

“Ceasing activities viewed as priorities by the government of Canada will invite scrutiny into those activities the Army chooses to do at the expense of those items that hold government interest,” said the letter, which is meant to guide the army’s business planning for the coming year.

“As an example, activities such as the Ceremonial Guard hold particular interest for the (government of Canada) and must be sustained; even at the expense of area programming. Any and all (government of Canada) directed activities will be fulfilled.”

The Ceremonial Guard, comprised of mostly reserve members, conducts the changing of the guard ceremony on Parliament Hill during the tourist season.

National Defence is the biggest discretionary line item in the federal budget and has long been the target for deficit-slashing governments, regardless of political stripe.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper warned Defence Minister Peter MacKay last June that initial budget cut proposals did not go deep enough on the administrative side of the department, a message he reinforced at the swearing-in of new defence chief Gen. Tom Lawson when he said he wanted a military with “more teeth and less tail.”

When criticized about how spending cuts appear to have singled out the army, MacKay has pointed out that the army’s baseline budget is $500 million higher than it was when the Conservatives took office in 2006.

“After years of unprecedented growth, and following the end of the combat mission in Afghanistan, it is necessary for the government to balance military needs with taxpayer interests,” said MacKay spokesman Jay Paxton.

“Under our government, the military will always have the tools it needs to defend Canada and care for its people.”

Defence sources say as much as $600 million will be cut out of military “readiness” in all branches in the coming year. Readiness refers to training and equipment maintenance that a military needs to do in order to deploy both overseas and at home.

Indeed, Devlin’s planning report says the army will have to limit the scope of its operations in the Arctic, which is “five to seven times” more expensive than missions conducted in southern Canada.

The average 1.5 per cent increase in the army’s budget for fuel comes nowhere near covering the anticipated diesel costs, which rose by 24 per cent in 2011-12. As consequence, the army will have to “reduce the level of activity.”

In a recent interview with Maclean’s magazine, MacKay revealed that department intends to sell surplus property, some of which is either outdated or too costly to maintain.

Analyst Dave Perry from Carleton University in Ottawa has crunched the overall defence budget numbers and projected, in an updated analysis to be released this week, that the department will lose $2.4 billion — about 12.4 per cent — of its approximately $20-billion budget when compared against spending in 2011-12.

In his benchmark report, retired lieutenant-general Andrew Leslie called for deep cuts in the size of National Defence headquarters and for the savings to be plowed back into the field force.

But Perry’s analysis shows that since the government will not cut the overall size of the regular or reserve forces, and is not expected to give up equipment capabilities, such as specific classes of planes, tanks and ships, there is nowhere else to cut except in readiness and training.


----------



## UnwiseCritic

"The latest cuts, estimated in the range of $32 million, will slice into the army’s ability to train for operations in the jungle, desert and mountains" Situation no change.

"Defence sources say as much as $600 million will be cut out of military “readiness” in all branches in the coming year" Don't worry they contracted out a precog who said nothing will happen in the near future.

"MacKay revealed that department intends to sell surplus property" maybe they will sell off Wainwright.

"As an example, activities such as the Ceremonial Guard hold particular interest for the (government of Canada) and must be sustained" Gotta make sure the cameras fim some sharp looking soldiers. That's how wars are won now. (I do think it is good pr)


----------



## Colin Parkinson

How does one fire a 21 gun salute with 81mm mortars by the way?


----------



## ARMY_101

2013-2014 main estimates by department

DND expended $20.22 billion in 2011-2012, estimates it spent $19.8 billion in 2012-2013, and is requesting $17.99 billion for 2013-2014.

... Just to give a preview of what we may expect in Thursday's budget.


----------



## UnwiseCritic

Pg.40


----------



## McG

> There's no fat left to cut, top soldier says
> The Daily Gleaner
> Steve Rennie (The Canadian Press)
> 19 March 2013
> 
> 
> OTTAWA - Canada's top soldier says the armed forces have no fat left to cut ahead of this week's austerity budget.
> 
> But Gen. Thomas Lawson told the Senate security and defence committee he understands that militaries around the world are being forced to operate with less money.
> 
> Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's budget on Thursday is widely expected to make substantial cuts across government, and the Defence Department and Canadian Forces won't escape unscathed.
> 
> Lawson, who took over last year as chief of defence staff, said the military already runs a lean operation.
> 
> "I would like to think that there was fat in the armed forces," he said Monday. "I don't think there is."
> 
> "What we find as we squeeze (is) that there is very little fat," he added later.
> 
> Still, the governing Conservatives will be looking to shave off a little more.
> 
> A leaked army planning document obtained by The Canadian Press says land forces are bracing for a big hit on operating and maintenance on top of existing budget cuts.
> 
> Those cuts will slice into the army's ability to train for operations in the jungle, desert and mountains.
> 
> The document, dated Jan. 31 and written by Lt.-Gen. Peter Devlin, says funding for full-time reservists will have to be further reduced, and unused cash in the budget for part-time soldiers may have to be raided in order to keep full-timers.
> 
> Lawson acknowledged more reservists - many of whom signed up for full-time service during the Afghanistan mission - will likely go from being full-time to part-time soldiers.
> 
> Prime Minister Stephen Harper warned Defence Minister Peter MacKay last June that initial budget cut proposals did not go deep enough on the administrative side of the department.
> 
> Lawson's remarks came on the heels of a paper that says the Defence Department has struggled to spend billions of dollars allocated to it in past budgets.
> 
> The Conference of Defence Associations Institute puts unspent and carried-over funding over the last six years at nearly $8 billion - mostly in the areas of capital equipment and infrastructure.
> 
> But the problem, as defence analyst David Perry sees it, is that sections of the department that seem to find themselves with more budget dollars than they can spend are not be the ones facing reductions.
> 
> Instead, he says it is areas such as operations and maintenance - which have no trouble spending their allocated money - that will feel the brunt of the budget cuts.
> 
> "It is therefore not the case that the funds being cut would not have been spent in any event," Perry writes.
> 
> "Rather, DND faces the dual pressures of funding reductions in some budget areas and a loss of purchasing power in others."
> 
> DND could lose more than $500 million worth of purchasing power, he estimates.


I am not sure why we keep coming to the conclusion that there is no fat to cut.  There is plenty of fat, but most of it requires more effort, requires more planning & thought than "shaving the ice cube, and/or is within protected empires or sacred cows.  There is a list of options identified in this thread:  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/82898/post-1193048.html#msg1193048

The coming cuts are likely to be much deeper than the existing fat, but if we stop denying the existence of fat then we can focus some of the pain where it will do the least damage.


----------



## Edward Campbell

There is always "fat" in every large organization. Gen Lawson is not a fool, he knows there is fat. He doesn't want to cut the C2 superstructure which is worse than fat, it is bloated ~ morbidly obese. Why not?   :dunno:   Perhaps he's just lazy, maybe he doesn't want to upset his colleagues. The "why" shouldn't really matter to parliamentarians: they should just conclude that the job (CDS) is too big for Gen Lawson.


----------



## Old Sweat

Or perhaps he does believe that all the various bits and pieces of the bureaucracy are necessary vital, and that they are all undermanned lean and mean. In other words, perhaps he is process oriented, which is not unusual in government, and feels that meetings, and briefings, and studies and all the rest of the paraphernalia actually contribute to the defence of Canada. If so, Edward's last sentence still applies.


----------



## ArmyRick

From the ground floor level, I can see there is still fat to trim, and lots of "hidden fat". I know the ITCB class B has finally been severed completely (three years after it was supposed to stop), but certain institutions/organizations continue to keep class B soldiers on staff when either it could be reverted to a heavy employed Class A soldier or filled by Reg F positions. If we are serious about being honest to the tax payer, time to get lean and mean for real.

Again, I think HQ everywhere could most certainly "trim it up", but hey that's just me. 

I also know talking to other people on the reg f side, they have seen senior serving members wastefully employed or just "marking time" while waiting for pension clocks to run out. I disagree with such notions of entitlement to employment in the CAF. 

Do we as an organization (the Canadian Armed Forces) really have the stomach to make these cuts? It will certainly make a lot of people unhappy.


----------



## Journeyman

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> From the ground floor level....


Ah, but that's the problem with "the floor level" -- you _clearly_ don't see the wisdom ( : ) in asking headquarters where headquarters' fat can be cut.


----------



## George Wallace

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Ah, but that's the problem with "the floor level" -- you _clearly_ don't see the wisdom ( : ) in asking headquarters where headquarters' fat can be cut.




 >   'cause when they look down, they can't see the floor.


----------



## PuckChaser

George Wallace said:
			
		

> >   'cause when they look down, they can't see the floor.



Will be interesting to see those individuals do the shuttle on the FORCE test... images of a basketball being bounced off the floor come to mind...  ;D


----------



## Ostrozac

Colin P said:
			
		

> How does one fire a 21 gun salute with 81mm mortars by the way?



With illum rounds, during the day, over the Ottawa river? Template it like it's the Canada Day fireworks?

In all seriousness, keeping a weapons system around for purely ceremonial reasons strikes me as kind of pointless. If firing salutes with guns is important, then we can do it with M777, if it isn't important, then we simply don't do it.

With budget cuts coming, some things simply aren't going to get done.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Look, folks: we have had budget cuts before ~ worse than these (in proportion). We survived. It wasn't always easy but, sometimes, we took good, hard looks at what we did and how we did things and we decided to be more efficient. We never cut the Ceremonial Guard, nor the Snowbirds, nor saluting cannons. We are not popular in this country, notwithstanding yellow ribbons and red T-shirts; polling puts us, consistently, near the bottom of most Canadians' list of spending priorities. Balancing the budget in Canada is nearly akin to rugby in New Zealand, plus it's good policy. DND always does a full and more than fair share when budget cuts are needed, we always survive. We will this time, too.

That's my perspective from 35+ years in uniform during the past 50+ years.


----------



## Journeyman

....but rugby is enjoyable.   ;D


----------



## devil39

Journeyman said:
			
		

> ....but rugby is enjoyable.   ;D



Were you not  a back?   Or maybe a "scrum fluff" flanker?  Go figure....

Try sticking your head between two fat guys legs.....


----------



## PPCLI Guy

devil39 said:
			
		

> Were you not  a back?   Or maybe a "scrum fluff" flanker?  Go figure....
> 
> Try sticking your head between two fat guys legs.....



BTDT


----------



## The Bread Guy

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> devil39 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were you not  a back?   Or maybe a "scrum fluff" flanker?  Go figure....
> 
> Try sticking your head between two fat guys legs.....
> 
> 
> 
> BTDT
Click to expand...

Not that there's anything wrong with that .....  >

Drifting back to the budget, the Department of Finance info-machine says it'll be easy to catch the budget/economic action plan/whatever tomorrow.


----------



## Journeyman

devil39 said:
			
		

> Were you not  a back?   Or maybe a "scrum fluff" flanker?  Go figure....
> 
> Try sticking your head between two fat guys legs.....


Really?  You come out of Milnet hibernation to post that?  
It's got to be tough at your age..... forgetting that I was the guy beside you wearing the 5.   

But you _are_ getting older.   Sad, really.   >


----------



## McG

> *Military braces for more spending cuts
> Some fear new 'decade of darkness'*
> Lee Berthiaume
> Ottawa Citizen
> 20 March 2013
> 
> The Conservative government's oft-stated support for Canada's military is coming under the microscope as senior officers and defence analysts brace for more cuts in Thursday's federal budget.
> 
> And some are even warning that unless dramatic steps are taken, the military is in danger of entering another dreaded "decade of darkness."
> 
> An analysis by retired Lt.-Col Brian MacDonald of the Conference of Defence Associations has found military spending as a percentage of gross domestic product trending toward its lowest level since 1997.
> 
> The "decade of darkness" was the name given by former chief of defence staff Rick Hillier to describe the deep spending cuts imposed on the military by the government of former prime minister Jean Chrétien in the 1990s.
> 
> MacDonald stated that the declining ratio of defence spending to GDP - from a high of 1.4 per cent in 2009-10 to an estimated 1.08 per cent by 2015 - is "more consistent to a return to "the Decade of Darkness' than to the 'Brave New World' promised" by the federal Conservatives.
> 
> Such a comparison is potentially volatile for the federal government, which has painted itself as a champion of the Canadian Forces while blasting the Chrétien government for the cuts imposed under its rule.
> 
> Douglas Bland, chair of defence management studies at Queen's University, said the Conservatives have discovered what the Chrétien Liberals already knew: there's always cash to be found in the defence budget.
> 
> "It's like a change jar," Bland said, noting that provinces don't get angry when money is taken from the military and few Canadians notice, "so there is very little blowback."
> 
> But CDA analyst David Perry wasn't prepared to say the Canadian Forces is entering another "decade of darkness."
> 
> Perry released his own study this week that found national defence funding has been reduced by $2.12 billion, or about 10.6 per cent, in the last two federal budgets - a number that may be even higher if new cuts are introduced in Thursday's budget.
> 
> But that compares to a more than 20 per cent cut imposed by the Chrétien government, Perry said, "so we're about halfway to where we were in the '90s"
> 
> The fact the federal government has pledged to maintain the Canadian Forces' strength at 68,000 regular force members and 27,000 reservists, and that it's still planning to buy new equipment, are noteworthy.
> 
> "Every other time the budget has been cut, the front-line personnel have been reduced and the capital budget has been frozen or reduced," Perry said.
> 
> "This will make it easier to come back in three or four years if the books recover and bump things back up."
> 
> But the fact the military is severely restricted in what it can and cannot slash is causing other short-term problems, Perry said, including hitting training and maintenance disproportionately hard.
> 
> This is consistent with concerns recently raised by the head of the Canadian Army, Lt.-Gen. Peter Devlin, whose own force is facing a 22 per cent spending cut.
> 
> "While we have had our budget reduced by 22 per cent, there are a bunch of fixed costs," Devlin told a Senate committee Dec. 3.
> 
> "It means that the training budgets for the formations are probably about 45 per cent lower than it was."
> 
> Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Tom Lawson acknowledged during an appearance before a Senate committee Monday that managing the spending reduction would be the focus of senior officers for the foreseeable future.
> 
> And he agreed there will be challenges.
> 
> "Anywhere we look for these savings, we will do so carefully," Lawson said. "But there will be some loss of capability."
> 
> Yet the country's top soldier said he remained optimistic - in part because the military had recovered from the "decade of darkness."
> 
> "The Canadian Armed Forces of 2013 is well ahead of where we were back in the mid-1990s," Lawson said.
> 
> "I can see clearly how far we have come to where we are today."


----------



## Edward Campbell

Some interesting chat here. I have chatted, briefly, with Stephen Saideman about this; I suspect he, and Prof Stein, are right: cuts to HQs (which I believe are both possible and would, indeed, produce positive results) and reforms to the defence procurement _processes_ will not produce the required cuts. We must do a lot less with less money - but: we have done that before. We, the nation, can sustain a core of general purpose combat capable forces with less resources; it is not easy but it is possible.

According to Elinor Sloan's research, the public is content to _maintain_ adequate defence spending but, as I have said before, that same public also *demands* a balanced budget. My _quesstimate_ is that the latter trumps the former.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

> Try sticking your head between two fat guys legs.....



Try being the fat guy.

Is there any flexibility in reducing some units readiness to boost other units? ie tying the MCDV's and submarines to the wall while diverting funding to fully fund frigates operations


----------



## PuckChaser

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> Is there any flexibility in reducing some units readiness to boost other units? ie tying the MCDV's and submarines to the wall while diverting funding to fully fund frigates operations



There probably would be, but I strongly suspect there are people unwilling to let their departments take that hit in order to have readiness increased it other operational areas.


----------



## Edward Campbell

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> Try being the fat guy.
> 
> Is there any flexibility in reducing some units readiness to boost other units? ie tying the MCDV's and submarines to the wall while diverting funding to fully fund frigates operations




I wonder if, in the current O&M climate, some admirals are not considering tying up a frigate (_n_ sailors and $_n,nnn.nn_/hour to operate) and manning an extra MCDV (only _n_/5 sailors and $_nn.nn_/hour).


----------



## Sub_Guy

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> Try being the fat guy.
> ie tying the MCDV's and submarines to the wall while diverting funding to fully fund frigates operations



Tying up the boats (subs) would be a horrible idea, if those were to get tied up for any length of time we might as well leave them there.


----------



## Monsoon

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> There probably would be, but I strongly suspect there are people unwilling to let their departments take that hit in order to have readiness increased it other operational areas.


Well, there's only L1 involved in that decision, so that wouldn't be the issue; the fact that it's a bad idea would probably be the driving factor. As Dolphin-Hunter pointed out, tieing up the subs now would more or less write off the entire sub programme (fine if that's your goal, I guess - but it doesn't seem to be anyone's goal). As for the Kingston class, those ships are so laughably cheap to run that the cost/benefit math for tieing them up just doesn't compute. They see off a lot of the RCN's domestic commitments (SOVPATs, FISHPATs, SAR station, etc) at a fraction of the cost (like, a tenth) of running a heavy to do the same thing. I wouldn't be surprised if paying them off entirely meant fewer days at sea doing task group-level work/training.


----------



## PuckChaser

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Well, there's only L1 involved in that decision, so that wouldn't be the issue; the fact that it's a bad idea would probably be the driving factor. As Dolphin-Hunter pointed out, tieing up the subs now would more or less write off the entire sub programme (fine if that's your goal, I guess - but it doesn't seem to be anyone's goal). As for the Kingston class, those ships are so laughably cheap to run that the cost/benefit math for tieing them up just doesn't compute. They see off a lot of the RCN's domestic commitments (SOVPATs, FISHPATs, SAR station, etc) at a fraction of the cost (like, a tenth) of running a heavy to do the same thing. I wouldn't be surprised if paying them off entirely meant fewer days at sea doing task group-level work/training.



I didn't necessarily mean the RCN, just happened to quote his example as well. Tying up older ships would be akin to tying up LSVWs or MLVWs in the Army for a year, they would be rotten hulks when you tried to start them up again. Aren't the MCDVs run by reservists? That's a lot of Cl C money being dumped into crewing those ships, are there not crews available from ships in extended refit?


----------



## Stoker

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I wonder if, in the current O&M climate, some admirals are not considering tying up a frigate (_n_ sailors and $_n,nnn.nn_/hour to operate) and manning an extra MCDV (only _n_/5 sailors and $_nn.nn_/hour).



Right now there is a plan to man another MCDV this summer for force generation with a mix reg/reg crew. Right from the Admirals mouth last month he said the MCDV's will be doing the lions share of Fisheries and such as other CPF's go into refit for the foreseeable future. They are cheap to operate compared to a CPF and will be seeing more operations down south in the form of OP Caribe where they are very well suited.


----------



## Stoker

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I didn't necessarily mean the RCN, just happened to quote his example as well. Tying up older ships would be akin to tying up LSVWs or MLVWs in the Army for a year, they would be rotten hulks when you tried to start them up again. Aren't the MCDVs run by reservists? That's a lot of Cl C money being dumped into crewing those ships, are there not crews available from ships in extended refit?



MCDV's are indeed run by reservists, but most of the billets are reserve billets and the reg force has little interest manning them. You would think there are lots of extra crew around, but there isn't really with things such as coursing and other manning challenges such as the Orca's.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Right now there is a plan to man another MCDV this summer for force generation with a mix reg/reg crew. Right from the Admirals mouth last month he said the MCDV's will be doing the lions share of Fisheries and such as other CPF's go into refit for the foreseeable future. They are cheap to operate compared to a CPF and will be seeing more operations down south in the form of OP Caribe where they are very well suited.




That, using (smaller & cheaper) MCDVs for tasks which are within their capability envelope, is just good sense.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> MCDV's are indeed run by reservists, but most of the billets are reserve billets and the reg force has little interest manning them. You would think there are lots of extra crew around, but there isn't really with things such as coursing and other manning challenges such as the Orca's.




At some point the RCN, especially, but the CF as a whole, has to come to grips with _permanent_ vs _non-permanent_ establishments. Our colleague dapaterson has pointed out, time and again, that the CF is breaking its own rules.

While I think the _idea_ of reserve manned ships (and units) is great, it appears, as I understand it, that it violates the rules. Maybe we need to rethink the regular/reserve split; maybe we need two components: the _active force_ and the _reserve force_ and, maybe, within the _reserve force_ we need a _permanent (or active) reserve_, which is on full time service and can be called to active service without further administrative action but which is not subject to e.g. postings (except for deployments) and a _non-permanent (or volunteer) reserve_.  :dunno:  My sense is that the Naval Reserve (the RCN(R)?) cannot run more than, say, half of the MCDVs and credible Naval Reserve Divisions. Maybe there need to be some nearly fully RCN(R) crewed MVDVs used for reserve training, say four or five of them, while the other seven or eight have mixed crews and are used for tasks like fisheries patrol and Op CARIBE, oceanographic research and even mine countermeasures.


Edit: typo


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

> At some point the RCN, especially, but the CF as a whole, has to come to grips with permanent vs non-permanent establishments.



I agree. I also think that Regular force-manned as opposed to Reserve-force manning is the tip of the iceberg.

We've already seen with Huron that once a ship goes, it won't be replaced. Would it not make sense to decide now what the future fleet should be and divert as many resources as we can towards that? Once the remaining destroyers are paid off, chances are pretty good they won't be replaced. I think that 15 surface combatants are a lot more useful to the fleet and the country rather than 12 surface combatants and 4 training submarines.


----------



## dapaterson

The RCN has done considerable work to forecast the current and future fleets, and the personnel requirements to manage the transition from one to the next.

The challenge is in the large number of moving pieces - a one-year delay in AOPS means that the CSC is also delayed at least a year, meaning that the pers plan is now askew.  And that's a relatively simple thing... throw in occupational changes, departmental priorities, and so on, and the RCN has a large challenge on their hands.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

> The RCN has done considerable work to forecast the current and future fleets, and the personnel requirements to manage the transition from one to the next.



The work appears to amount to a detailed wish list. The chances of actually getting the desired fleet in an operationally useful timeframe are slim. We're already seeing this with the JSS and AOPS, and they're not terribly complicated platforms.

RCN project planning must involve a lot of "And this is where a miracle happens" milestones....


----------



## ARMY_101

3 hours to go!  Who else is excited? ;D

www.budget.gc.ca


----------



## Canadian.Trucker

ARMY_101 said:
			
		

> 3 hours to go!  Who else is excited? ;D
> 
> www.budget.gc.ca


I expect your question is a little tongue in cheek, since there is little to be excited about from what I've heard.


----------



## Edward Campbell

According to a report in the _Ottawa Citizen_ the budget explicitly endorses "the report by Tom Jenkins, chairman of OpenText Corp., [which] recommended in February that the government use a "once in a century" opportunity to leverage the $490 billion in defence spending over the next 20 years." This is precisely the opposite of _most bang for the buck_ and, instead, provides _most *pork* for the buck_; the CF will get whatever Canadian industry can produce, not what the military operational requirements specify. Ho-hum, we've been here before - anyone else old enough to remember the split CPF and TRUMP contracts?


----------



## The Bread Guy

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> .... This is precisely the opposite of _most bang for the buck_ and, instead, provides _most *pork* for the buck_; the CF will get whatever Canadian industry can produce, not what the military operational requirements specify ....


.... with industry happy to hear it (highlights mine):


> The Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries (CADSI) strongly endorses the federal government's commitment to create and implement a defence procurement strategy in which Canadian companies will be part of any plan to build equipment for the Canadian Forces, as expressed today in the federal Budget.
> 
> "Military procurement is the largest single area of discretionary spending the government has," said Mr. Page.  "The Government is boldly seizing the opportunity this spending represents to create jobs, especially high-end manufacturing jobs, in the Canadian defence and security sector.  This is an important step forward, putting Canada on a similar footing to other highly industrialized countries with clear strategies to promote their defence and security sectors."
> 
> Mr. Page added, "The government's commitment in the Budget recognizes that it is in the national interest to have a strong, innovative, domestic defence-related manufacturing base that produces leading edge equipment, generates high-value exports, and supports knowledge-based jobs for Canadians."
> 
> *CADSI had broadly supported recommendations put forward by OpenText chairman Tom Jenkins in his report to the government on leveraging defence procurement around Key Industrial Capabilities in the Canadian sector.  "Our industry is delighted that the government endorsed Tom Jenkins' proposal to use Key Industrial Capabilities to leverage military procurement and has committed to expediting the implementation of the Jenkins recommendations this Spring," said Mr. Page* ....


Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries info-machine, 21 Mar 13


----------



## ARMY_101

Is it just me, or does Budget 2013 not mention the specific amount of money DND/CAF will be receiving?


----------



## dapaterson

That information is contained in the Main Estimates, which will then be amended by the Supplementary Estimates.


----------



## ARMY_101

dapaterson said:
			
		

> That information is contained in the Main Estimates, which will then be amended by the Supplementary Estimates.



Estimated spent in 2012-2013: $20,678,142,610
Main estimates for 2013-2014: $17,985,310,381
= $2.69 billion reduction

... Not bad.


----------



## Monsoon

ARMY_101 said:
			
		

> Estimated spent in 2012-2013: $20,678,142,610
> Main estimates for 2013-2014: $17,985,310,381
> = $2.69 billion reduction
> 
> ... Not bad.


Just to contextualize a bit, the "Estimated spent" is the final, year-end tally - (almost) always higher than the Main Estimate. For comparison, the Main Estimate going into 2012-13 was $19,799,128,095, so this year's Main Estimate is only $1.8B less (a reduction of about 9%).

And budget cuts allocated by component:

- "Land readiness" (CA): 6.9%
- "Joint readiness" (CJOC, _et al_): 7.3%
- "Maritime readiness" (RCN): 10.6%
- "Aerospace readiness" (RCAF): 9.6%


----------



## ARMY_101

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Just to contextualize a bit, the "Estimated spent" is the final, year-end tally - (almost) always higher than the Main Estimate. For comparison, the Main Estimate going into 2012-13 was $19,799,128,095, so this year's Main Estimate is only $1.8B less (a reduction of about 9%).
> 
> And budget cuts allocated by component:
> 
> - "Land readiness" (CA): 6.9%
> - "Joint readiness" (CJOC, _et al_): 7.3%
> - "Maritime readiness" (RCN): 10.6%
> - "Aerospace readiness" (RCAF): 9.6%



What about all the ADMs, CMP, and all the other L1s not considered Army, Navy, or Air Force?  Are they covered under "Support" and internal services?


----------



## Monsoon

ARMY_101 said:
			
		

> What about all the ADMs, CMP, and all the other L1s not considered Army, Navy, or Air Force?  Are they covered under "Support" and internal services?


I suspect some of what they do gets rolled into "Joint and Common" (which is bigger than either the RCN or the RCAF, so it's got to be more than just CJOC), but there are a lot of other line items in the Main Estimate they could fall under. These four lines above only account for just over half the total Defence budget.


----------



## dapaterson

The Program Activity Architecture (PAA) describes the activities of Defence, and is what is used for the attributions of costs.  All done at an extremely high level; units & formations aren't asked or tasked to contribute to it.


----------



## Monsoon

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The Program Activity Architecture (PAA) describes the activities of Defence, and is what is used for the attributions of costs.  All done at an extremely high level; units & formations aren't asked or tasked to contribute to it.


True - not everything the RCAF does is "Aerospace Readiness", and not all "Aerospace Readiness" is done by the RCAF alone... but it's a handy thumb-guide to how things will likely break down L1-wise, since we don't really get to see the breakdown by formation. For example, Comd RCN has been quoted in the media as saying he expects an 11% cut to his budget this year: that corresponds quite closely to the 10.5% cut to "Maritime Readiness" in the PAA.


----------



## Good2Golf

Did I read page II-37 of the Main Estimate correctly, that the CBC, after all its vilification of the Conservative Government was actually only cut 0.9%?

12-13   $1,074,319,060
13-14   $1,064,769,960
cut       $      -9,550,000

-9,550,000 ÷ 1,074,319,060 x 100 = -0.889%


Poor CBC...  :'(


----------



## McG

> *Federal government accused of deficit slashing by stealth as defence spending $2.3B below budgeted amount*
> Murray Brewster
> National Post
> 11 July 2013
> 
> OTTAWA — New figures from the parliamentary budget office show National Defence hasn’t spent billions of dollars set aside for it during the last budget year in a continuing trend that’s being described as deficit slashing by stealth.
> 
> The data on quarterly expenditures in the federal government show that by the end of the last fiscal year in March, the department had spent $2.3 billion less than what was allocated by Parliament.
> 
> That’s more than 10% of the annual defence appropriation, which also happens to be the single biggest discretionary line item in the federal budget.
> 
> The figures for previous years show that $9.6 billion has gone unspent in defence since the 2006-07 budget year — a trend defence officials have blamed on late equipment projects and an inefficient bureaucracy.
> 
> A former commander of the army says this calls for an explanation from the Harper government.
> 
> “I am not aware of any other Western armed forces, who are all going through budget reductions, underspending by such a dramatic amount over such a relatively long period of time,” said retired lieutenant-general Andrew Leslie.
> 
> He said the spending pattern is either a matter of managerial incompetence or a deliberate policy.
> 
> “If it is deliberate, the government of Canada needs to explain why.”
> 
> Some of the unspent funds, mostly earmarked for equipment, can be moved to other budgets in an exercise known as re-profiling, but a university expert in defence spending say the continuing pattern makes him wonder if the aim is deliberate.
> 
> Dave Perry, of Carleton University and the Conference of Defence Associations, says if it was simply a matter of a faulty process, a government committed to ending inefficiency would have fixed it.  “I really cannot conceive of how this is could not be considered a major problem and why they couldn’t, over the span of three years, address this,” he said.
> 
> Perry said he doesn’t believe “that this is entirely accidental” and he’s heard of plans and projects being delayed as a way to make DND’s books look better and make an even greater contribution to deficit reduction
> 
> The effect on operations and equipment is magnified by the government’s parallel deficit-fighting plans, which aim to cut baseline appropriations.
> 
> Leslie said the effect is like absorbing three big budget cuts all at once. He pointed to Senate testimony from the current army commander and former head of the navy, who both said their operations budgets have taken major hits.  Ultimately, the military’s ability to quickly respond to emergencies and mount sustained operations is affected, he said.
> 
> National Defence isn’t alone in not spending what Parliament gives it. The budget office numbers show the federal government as a whole only spends about 90% of what is appropriated.  The RCMP, Transport Canada and Natural Resources and Aboriginal Affairs had a tougher time spending their budgets last year, according to the data.  But the size of the defence numbers and the consistency of the problem make the department stick out.
> 
> The numbers released this week are not final, officials at the budget office acknowledged. The federal government will present a final tally on revenue and spending later this year when the public accounts are tabled in Parliament.


----------



## Edward Campbell

LGen Peter Devlin makes some candid remarks about the current budgetary situation in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Montreal Gazette_:

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Hardwon+lessons+Afghan+life+support+outgoing+army/8658566/story.html







> Hard-won lessons of Afghan war on 'life support,' outgoing army commander warns
> 
> BY MURRAY BREWSTER, THE CANADIAN PRESS
> 
> JULY 14, 2013
> 
> OTTAWA - Budget restraint and under-spending at National Defence have left some of the army's hard-won capabilities from the Afghan war on "life support," says the outgoing commander of the Canadian Army.
> 
> The federal government needs to recognize that intelligence operators are as much a part of today's front line as soldiers and tanks, said Lt.-Gen. Peter Devlin, whose three-year tenure as Canada's top soldier comes to an end Thursday.
> 
> "I am unusually proud that there is an army that has been reloaded and I've spent an incredible amount of energy and effort to pay respect to the lessons that were learned with blood in Afghanistan," Devlin said in an interview with The Canadian Press.
> 
> Much of Devlin's 35-year career in the military was spent in the field in Afghanistan, as well as in Iraq as an exchange officer with the U.S. Army.
> 
> But the transition from the front line to Ottawa's political trench warfare can be daunting, and Devlin's candid — but tactful — assessments of the effect of budget-slashing at National Defence have been like fingernails on a chalkboard to a government that's staked much of its reputation on embracing the military.
> 
> Before a Senate committee last December, Devlin revealed the army's baseline budget had been cut by 22 per cent and warned there was little fat to cut throughout the organization — a view that did not sit well in political circles.
> 
> It has been a scramble to maintain not only training, but elements Devlin described as the "softer skills" essential to fighting modern wars, such as intelligence, surveillance and expertise in countering improvised explosive devices.
> 
> "Some of them, to be quite frank, are on life support," he said. "Some are important; others we have had to make rough choices."
> 
> Each of those elements figured prominently in the hit-and-run war against the Taliban, and yet the army has found itself redirecting soldiers from infantry, armoured and artillery regiments in order to maintain the necessary intelligence capability.
> 
> The ranks of troops who conduct information and electronic warfare — more important than ever on the modern-day battlefield — are stretched thin, Devlin said. "The definition of what soldiers are considered the pointy end of the stick is much broader now, and I would argue that the intelligence analyst is a pointy-ended soldier today."
> 
> The army is pushing it, he said, but has "just enough" door gunners for training to man the new CH-47F Chinook helicopters, which began arriving last month.
> 
> Equipment such as surveillance balloons and electronics towers, used to keep 24-hour watch over the battlefield, are instead packed up in storage and used sparingly for training because of shrinking budgets, he added.
> 
> "If our training scenarios are not rich enough to keep those skills honed at the level they should be, it will mean we will take extra time, extra training and extra resources to bring them up to an appropriate level to represent Canada professionally — the way Canada needs to be represented — domestically or internationally."
> 
> A series of internal briefings, released to The Canadian Press over the last year, echo Devlin's concerns, including one memo that warns of possible "degradation," particularly in intelligence.
> 
> “Recent operational experience has reinforced the conviction that deployed land forces ... depend on a sophisticated (human intelligence) network that draws from all sources,” said the April 8, 2011, briefing, obtained under the Access to Information Act.
> 
> The army found itself hobbled at the beginning of the Kandahar mission in 2005, by the absence of that sophisticated ground network of sources, and by its lack of experience in interrogating prisoners.
> 
> Defence analysts have been warning for months that while the army has been able to maintain training at the highest level for quick reaction units, which are designed to deploy in a crisis, its ability to mount a sustained operation similar to the one in Afghanistan has been compromised by cuts to training and readiness.
> 
> Devlin's comments come just days after the parliamentary budget office revealed that National Defence had under-spent its budget by as much as $2.3 billion last year — bringing the cumulative total of unused funds to $9.6 billion since 2006.
> 
> The department claims some of that cash is the result of government belt-tightening in the form of strategic review and deficit reduction, which combined could carve as much as 13 per cent a year out of the defence budget.
> 
> When asked last week, the department refused to provide detailed figures. But Stephen O'Connor, the associate deputy minister of financial services, told CTV on Friday that the figures for under-spending last year were not as bad as the budget office made it seem.
> 
> O'Connor estimated the number at slightly less than $1.5 billion. "That's still a large number, we understand that, but there are reasons behind that number," he said.




Two points:

     1. LGen Devlin "warned there was little fat to cut throughout the organization," but the point is that there still is "fat." There was when we were doing _slash and burn_ exercises in NDHQ in the 1980s and 1990s
         and there is now. If anyone says that there is no HQ fat left to cut then I *guarantee* that person is either not a veteran of NDHQ or has another agenda - and yes, I am talking about Gen Lawson; and

     2. "Stephen O'Connor, the associate deputy minister of financial services, told CTV ... the number _[the unspent money]_ [is] slightly less than $1.5 billion. "That's still a large number, we understand that, but there
         are reasons behind that number.""  There are, indeed, reasons, good, proper and legal reasons behind that and the number is manageble and can and should be _programmed_ because it happens year after year after year.


----------



## The Bread Guy

MCG said:
			
		

> *Federal government accused of deficit slashing by stealth as defence spending $2.3B below budgeted amount* ....
Click to expand...




			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> .... "Stephen O'Connor, the associate deputy minister of financial services, told CTV ... the number _[the unspent money]_ [is] slightly less than $1.5 billion. "That's still a large number, we understand that, but there are reasons behind that number.""  There are, indeed, reasons, good, proper and legal reasons behind that and the number is manageble and can and should be _programmed_ because it happens year after year after year.


The Info-machine responds....


> Recent reports in the media are providing a misleading impression of how the Department of National Defence manages its spending.  This statement is being issued to clarify matters:
> 
> Based on current departmental financial information, our unused appropriations in 2012-13 will be less than $1.5 billion. The final 2012-13 spending levels will be reported to Parliament later this year as per normal.  It is important to note, however, that the vast majority of the amount of unused appropriations was beyond the department's control.
> 
> For example, these unused appropriations were associated with:
> 
> Requirements to lapse authorities associated with decisions that flowed from the deficit reduction action plan which were announced after the Main Estimates were tabled.
> rescheduling of a payment to a foreign government from 2012-13 to 2013-14, as required by accounting rules;
> a change in the timing of payments required from a judicial decision as the decision was not taken until early April 2013, pushing the funds into the 2013-14 fiscal year; and
> revised cash flow schedules for capital equipment and infrastructure projects.
> 
> Defence procurement tends to be complex and lengthy, involving a number of stakeholders.  Spending forecasts are based on plans but these plans are dependent on a number of assumptions and considerations ....


----------



## Jarnhamar

That's horrible.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Part of the budget problem is jumping through all of the hoops to actually be allowed to spend the money. Frankly I think if a proposal/contract/project is 2/3rds the way along, the money should automatically carry over to the next fiscal. I lost count how projects have hit my desk come March and then have to tell them they need a CEAA review or First nation consultation before we could issue a permit and the funding agencies refusing to guarantee to carry over the money, despite their holding onto it till the last minute and causing the crisis in the first place.


----------



## FSTO

Colin P said:
			
		

> Part of the budget problem is jumping through all of the hoops to actually be allowed to spend the money. Frankly I think if a proposal/contract/project is 2/3rds the way along, the money should automatically carry over to the next fiscal. I lost count how projects have hit my desk come March and then have to tell them they need a CEAA review or First nation consultation before we could issue a permit and the funding agencies refusing to guarantee to carry over the money, despite their holding onto it till the last minute and causing the crisis in the first place.



This x a zillion!
In the name of accountability -  the powers that be have put in so many oversights and reports for expenditures it is amazing that we are able to even buy fuel! Coupled with the risk avoidance mentality that permeates at the decision making level we have this massive road block to getting major purchases completed.


----------



## UnwiseCritic

FSTO said:
			
		

> This x a zillion!
> In the name of accountability -  the powers that be have put in so many oversights and reports for expenditures it is amazing that we are able to even buy fuel! Coupled with the risk avoidance mentality that permeates at the decision making level we have this massive road block to getting major purchases completed.



Is this some of the fat we could trim?


----------



## Ostrozac

_a change in the timing of payments required from a judicial decision as the decision was not taken until early April 2013, pushing the funds into the 2013-14 fiscal year;_

Is this the Envoy/RoyalLepage/IRP decision?


----------



## Edward Campbell

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Look, folks: we have had budget cuts before ~ worse than these (in proportion). We survived. It wasn't always easy but, sometimes, we took good, hard looks at what we did and how we did things and we decided to be more efficient. We never cut the Ceremonial Guard, nor the Snowbirds, nor saluting cannons. We are not popular in this country, notwithstanding yellow ribbons and red T-shirts; polling puts us, consistently, near the bottom of most Canadians' list of spending priorities. Balancing the budget in Canada is nearly akin to rugby in New Zealand, plus it's good policy. DND always does a full and more than fair share when budget cuts are needed, we always survive. We will this time, too.
> 
> That's my perspective from 35+ years in uniform during the past 50+ years.




There is an interesting article in today's _Globe and Mail_ about newly released documents from Britain's _National Archives_. The report refers, specifically, to a briefing note prepared for Prime Minister Margrert Thatcher for a 1983 trip to Canada. It warns her about Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau's _"unsound personal views on East/West problems and the strategic balance.”_ It also added that _“the Canadians are a people of the extreme centre. They have not been averse to the quiet life offered by Trudeau nor keen to spend more money on defence or effort abroad.”_

Nothing has changed in 30 years, in fact, nothing has changed in 60 years, since the end of the Korean War: Canadians do not like to spend money on defence and they do not like sending the CF overseas. It is the way it always has been and I can see nothing that suggests it will change in my lifetime or yours (which is, I hope, much longer).

Get used to skrimping and saving and to doing more with less ~ some of us did it for 35 years.


Edit: spelling  :-[


----------



## Jed

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> There is an interesting article in today's _Globe and Mail_ about newly released documents from Britain's _National Archives_. The report refers, specifically, to a briefing not prepared for Prime Minister Margrert Thatcher for a 1983 trip to Canada. It warns her about Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau's _"unsound personal views on East/West problems and the strategic balance.”_ It also added that _“the Canadians are a people of the extreme centre. They have not been averse to the quiet life offered by Trudeau nor keen to spend more money on defence or effort abroad.”_
> 
> Nothing has changed in 30 years, in fact, nothing has changed in 60 years, since the end of the Korean War: Canadians do not like to spend money on defence and they do not like sending the CF overseas. It is the way it always has been and I can see nothing that suggests it will change in my lifetime or yours (which is, I hope, much longer).
> 
> Get used to skrimping and saving and to doing more with less ~ some of us did it for 35 years.



Spot on. It is my hope however, that the public sees fit to properly fund our wounded warriors which they have done so in the past but appear to be reneging on at the present time.


----------



## Old EO Tech

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> There is an interesting article in today's _Globe and Mail_ about newly released documents from Britain's _National Archives_. The report refers, specifically, to a briefing not prepared for Prime Minister Margrert Thatcher for a 1983 trip to Canada. It warns her about Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau's _"unsound personal views on East/West problems and the strategic balance.”_ It also added that _“the Canadians are a people of the extreme centre. They have not been averse to the quiet life offered by Trudeau nor keen to spend more money on defence or effort abroad.”_
> 
> Nothing has changed in 30 years, in fact, nothing has changed in 60 years, since the end of the Korean War: Canadians do not like to spend money on defence and they do not like sending the CF overseas. It is the way it always has been and I can see nothing that suggests it will change in my lifetime or yours (which is, I hope, much longer).
> 
> Get used to skrimping and saving and to doing more with less ~ some of us did it for 35 years.



I totally agree, the Canadian population only likes to see us when we are doing aid to civil power stuff/disaster relief.  And they still don't want the price to be very high :-/  This is just a fact of life and many politicians, especially liberals, but not limited to them, have taken advantage of this.

Jon


----------



## GAP

Jed said:
			
		

> Spot on. It is my hope however, that the public sees fit to properly fund our wounded warriors which they have do so in the past but appear to be reneging on at the present time.



That's because of the great selling job when they brought it in. I listened for, but found zero dissent when it came in. Everybody was willing to give it a chance because of the $250,000 number was being thrown out, etc. etc.. 

nobody read the small print. :


----------



## Jed

Similar to the sales job they did when they brought in the new pension for the Reg and the Res force (while confusing it with CRA Compulsory Retirement Age changes). And this was pushed by our own people. 

Enough to bring out the cynic in me.  ;D


----------



## McG

> *Strong. Proud. Ready?*
> Stephen Harper has championed stronger defence. But impending cuts will take a toll on unreformed armed forces with more tail than teeth
> The Economist
> Aug 3rd 2013
> 
> BOTH Rob Nicholson and Peter MacKay looked cheery enough as they shared a laugh after swapping the defence and justice portfolios in a cabinet shuffle last month. But only Mr MacKay, the new justice minister, had good reason to smile. He inherits a department where most of the Conservative government’s law-and-order agenda has already been implemented while leaving one where difficult spending cuts lie ahead. It is Mr Nicholson, widely seen as a capable politician, who must now choose what to cut while also wrestling with problems over orders for new fighter jets and ships. His appointment follows those of new commanders for all three armed forces. So a new team is in charge of Canada’s defence—a subject especially close to the heart of Stephen Harper, the prime minister.
> 
> Canada is hardly alone in trying to trim its defence budget. Most of its allies, including the United States, Britain, France and Germany, are also trying to do the same with less. But since he took office in 2006 Mr Harper has made support for the armed forces a personal trademark. He has used it to differentiate his government from its Liberal predecessors, which ushered in what both the generals and the prime minister call “the decade of darkness”, when funding was cut as part of a successful effort to eliminate the budget deficit in the 1990s.
> 
> The Conservatives set out to reverse what they claimed was neglect of the armed forces, pouring money into troops and equipment. Defence spending had already started to rise again in the last few years of Liberal government; but in the first two years of a Conservative one it shot up to C$19.2 billion ($17.1 billion) in 2008-09 from C$15.7 billion in 2006-07. To existing orders for support vehicles, search-and-rescue helicopters and howitzers, the Conservatives added plans to buy F-35 fighter jets for the air force, support ships and Arctic patrol vessels for the navy, plus a polar icebreaker for the Coast Guard, and some transport helicopters. The opposition parties called the 2008 “Canada First” defence strategy more of a shopping list than a policy document.
> 
> The Conservatives have also worked to change the image of the Canadian armed forces from peacekeepers (a Liberal idea) to fighters. They celebrated military milestones. The government spent C$28m to mark the bicentenary of the War of 1812 between what was then a group of British colonies and the United States. Red Fridays, when Canadians wear red to support the troops, won political support. The image makeover was helped by the fact that Canadian forces were fighting in Afghanistan and were led by a charismatic and outspoken chief of the defence staff, General Rick Hillier.
> 
> Circumstances have changed. General Hillier has retired. Canada is no longer fighting in Afghanistan, although 950 trainers will remain until next year as part of the international effort to create an Afghan army. Money is tight. The federal budget slipped back into deficit in 2008-09 and the government’s determination to return to surplus before the next election in 2015 means even a favoured department like defence is not being spared. It lost just over C$2 billion in the first two rounds of government-wide spending cuts and looks likely to lose as much again as the 2015 deadline looms. The “Canada First” strategy is unaffordable and there are mutterings about a new decade of darkness.
> 
> That need not happen. Mr Nicholson could rootle out a 2011 report on military reform commissioned by the government, which spells out how the ministry could save money yet still invest in future needs such as cyber-security and enhanced Arctic capabilities. Its main recommendation was to cut the bloated bureaucracy at headquarters, which swelled during the years of plenty, and send officers back into the field. It also recommended reducing the amount spent on consultants, contractors and professional services, which rose 54% to C$2.7 billion a year during the six-year period of review (and jumped to C$3.2 billion the following year). Canada’s forces need to trim the “tail” so they can invest in the “teeth”, says Lieutenant-General Andrew Leslie, the report’s author.
> 
> But the defence department has done almost the opposite. It has cut money for operations and maintenance, reducing readiness, while preserving the number of full-time troops at about 68,000 and proceeding with the procurement programme, albeit with a slight delay. Such a strategy only makes sense if full funding is restored quickly, according to David Perry, a defence analyst, in a paper for the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute, a think-tank. Otherwise, the armed forces risk being fully equipped and, on paper, fully staffed but unable to deploy troops. Lieut-General Leslie says the navy is already short of 900 active-duty sailors while “expensively trained naval operators are sailing their desks up and down the corridors in Ottawa”.
> 
> Mr Nicholson has given no sign that he will dust off the Leslie report. Still, the wholesale clean-out at the top of the department has prompted speculation that Mr Harper himself has decided to take charge. That could be a good thing, says Jack Harris, the defence spokesman for the opposition New Democratic Party, as the prime minister has said in the past he wants troops in the field rather than at their desks. Mr Harris urges a white paper laying out a new defence strategy to replace the outdated “Canada First” policy.
> 
> With less cash, officials have fallen back on cheaper ways of reviving past military glory. Two years ago the navy and air force inserted the word “royal” into their official names. The army plans to revert to historical titles for privates, who now become sappers, bombardiers, fusiliers or troopers depending on their function. A fortnight ago the army adopted a new badge and a new tagline: Strong. Proud. Ready. Canadians would not argue with the first two. But some think the third is now in doubt.


http://www.economist.com/news/americas/21582526-stephen-harper-has-championed-stronger-defence-impending-cuts-will-take-toll


----------



## pbi

Unfortunately, the unprecedented surge in popularity and profile that the military experienced during Afghanistan may turn out to be a double-edged sword for the CF as it tries to come to grips with what is already a straitened financial environment.

The ten years or so that we fought in Afghanistan represented 0-Major, or O-Sgt/WO in military career terms. That means we have an entire generation of leaders who have not really known what it's like to serve in a "shoestring Army".

The descent from that (well-earned) "high" to what is typically the norm for a peacetime CF is going to be that much more difficult, and hurt that much more, because of this recent period of rejuvenation or rebirth.

Like E.R, I can only offer that the CF have survived this before, and are going to survive it again. Bitterness and introspection, or reverting to "buttons and bows" will not help. 

IMHO what we have going for us in the CA is neither mass nor firepower nor overwhelming logistic capacity; it's just people. As long as the CA remembers that, and stays focused on developing professionals who can grab the torch when the  time comes (and it will come again-it always does, just when we least expect it...), we will do OK.

And, I guess it's worth reminding people that professional soldiers should never hitch themselves to the wagon of any particular political party. In the end, our politicians are just that: politicians. They will make their decisions for the good of the nation (we hope), or for the good of their party (too often), but rarely will they ever uphold the cause of the military at the cost of anything else critical.


----------



## Canadian.Trucker

Agreed pbi.  I joined at the start of the money wave, so I have not known what it's like to exist during the decade of darkness.  Regardless we all still have a job to do, and even with a reduced budget we have to move forward and perhaps get creative with our training to maximize the resources we have to play with.

Flexibility and economy of effort.


----------



## pbi

Canadian.Trucker said:
			
		

> Flexibility and economy of effort.



You are going to need both.....


----------



## Canadian.Trucker

pbi said:
			
		

> You are going to need both.....


Understatement of the week.


----------



## Old Sweat

In my 20s and 30s I experienced the worst of the budget cuts, reductions, disbandments and all the rest of the integration and unification which was not well planned at all and in fact was implemented in a pretty haphazard manner. Then add on the general contempt in which the government of the day held the forces in the seventies, and it was not easy being a soldier. This also was the Vietnam and post-Vietnam era, and the dislike of the war and of the military in general migrated north of the border and we were widely viewed as baby killers and all the rest. In spite of all that, or maybe because of it, we took pride in doing our best with what little we did get, and trained as hard and as often as we could. 

Two generations of Canadian service people lived through all this with no real prospect of being on the two way range. Despite that we maintained extremely high standards. Our legacy and our payback came watching you guys and gals perform so magnificently in Afghanistan and Haiti and Libya and patrolling in far distant waters and . . . Less I get too preachy, I'll just close by urging you to build on what you learned and don't ever take the easy way out. Soldiering in times of peace when the budgets shrink is not easy, but it can be done. No, it has to be done, lest ye break faith.


----------



## Jed

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> In my 20s and 30s I experienced the worst of the budget cuts, reductions, disbandments and all the rest of the integration and unification which was not well planned at all and in fact was implemented in a pretty haphazard manner. Then add on the general contempt in which the government of the day held the forces in the seventies, and it was not easy being a soldier. This also was the Vietnam and post-Vietnam era, and the dislike of the war and of the military in general migrated north of the border and we were widely viewed as baby killers and all the rest. In spite of all that, or maybe because of it, we took pride in doing our best with what little we did get, and trained as hard and as often as we could.
> 
> Two generations of Canadian service people lived through all this with no real prospect of being on the two way range. Despite that we maintained extremely high standards. Our legacy and our payback came watching you guys and gals perform so magnificently in Afghanistan and Haiti and Libya and patrolling in far distant waters and . . . Less I get too preachy, I'll just close by urging you to build on what you learned and don't ever take the easy way out. Soldiering in times of peace when the budgets shrink is not easy, but it can be done. No, it has to be done, lest ye break faith.



Great post.  :goodpost:


----------



## Edward Campbell

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> In my 20s and 30s I experienced the worst of the budget cuts, reductions, disbandments and all the rest of the integration and unification which was not well planned at all and in fact was implemented in a pretty haphazard manner. Then add on the general contempt in which the government of the day held the forces in the seventies, and it was not easy being a soldier. This also was the Vietnam and post-Vietnam era, and the dislike of the war and of the military in general migrated north of the border and we were widely viewed as baby killers and all the rest. In spite of all that, or maybe because of it, we took pride in doing our best with what little we did get, and trained as hard and as often as we could.
> 
> Two generations of Canadian service people lived through all this with no real prospect of being on the two way range. Despite that we maintained extremely high standards. Our legacy and our payback came watching you guys and gals perform so magnificently in Afghanistan and Haiti and Libya and patrolling in far distant waters and . . . Less I get too preachy, I'll just close by urging you to build on what you learned and don't ever take the easy way out. Soldiering in times of peace when the budgets shrink is not easy, but it can be done. No, it has to be done, lest ye break faith.




Many years ago I was asked to speak to a somewhat broad question about what kind of Army (CF) we wanted. All the good words/ideas like flexible and affordable and, and, and ... had been covered so I decided to take a soldier specific focus.

Now, this was in the midst of the _decades if darkness_ (the plural matters because, as Old Sweat says, there were several of them. The ideas being presented had to be something we could _manage_ under the highly constrained circumstances in which we found ourselves.

My thinking, such as it was, led to me to believe that, like the lord high executioner, I needed a little list. Mine ended up with six items, all related to the notion that the modern Canadian soldier must be: _________

Here is my little list (the first four, I insisted, must be in this exact order):

     1. Tough;
     2. Superbly disciplined;
     3. Well trained;
     4. Adequately equipped;
                                             (the next two, I suggested, were not “order” sensitive, but they were equally important)
     5. Properly organized; and
     6. Well led.

It was a somewhat lengthy presentation and I cannot remember most if but here is a encapsulated _sketch_ of the items, from memory:

Tough refers to *both* physical and mental “robustness” - what Field Marshal Lord Wavell described as the ability to withstand the shocks of war. What is was not was what my old friend MGen (ret'd) Clive Addy called “macho thuggery” (this was just after the Somalia Inquiry so that sort of thing was on many minds). (I explained that _toughness_ is not the same as brute strength and that nothing in my comments could or should be considered as, in any way, restricting the employment of women.) But, I reminded my audience, war was a rough, dirty business, not for the faint of heart, mind of body. Toughness, I opined, could be taught, in fact it had to be taught – developed and nurtured in every phase of training and employment for all officers, NCOs and men. We were never too old or too senior to need “toughening up,” I said, and I suggested that the time would come when some officers in the audience, wearing more rank than they had at the moment would have to make hard, life and death decisions and we had all better hope that they were tough enough to do it.

Discipline, I told my audience, is the _sine qua non_ of soldiering: the toughest guys and gals in the world are useless if they are not able to submerge their (natural) fears and sense of self preservation and “soldier on” just because  they ARE soldiers and their duty requires it. Discipline, I said, is what sets really good armies apart from just good or average or just acceptable ones. Well disciplined – and I kept repeating the phrase “superbly disciplined” - soldiers, I said, would always find a way to “make a silk purse from a sow's ear,” and I reminded my audience that given our current budgetary situation, “sow's ear” pretty much described our equipment situation. I also said that we didn't need a “school of discipline” or a CF disciplinarian or anything new: all we needed was to reinforce what was already written in our (recent) military ethos documents and what was written, in blood, in our military history. Like toughness, superb discipline needed to be an everyday thing – I recall digressing, just a bit, into remarks on senior officers' dress, deportment, passing of faults (like saluting) in NDHQ, conduct at all ranks social functions and physical fitness, there was an uncomfortable silence in the room – and it needed to be instilled by example, from the top down. Quiet, almost invisible, self discipline, I said, was the goal. Square bashing and screaming NCOs was just a step on a long – permanent – quest for superb discipline in all ranks in all circumstances.

Training did (and still does) cost money and we were (and you still are) right to look closely at training to make sure it is what is needed, that it is delivered when it is needed and that it is done in an efficient and effective manner. But, I said, a separate training function, separate from the general staff in HQ and separate from combat formation and unit commanders in the field, was neither efficient nor effective. Service schools, I suggested, must be where we always find our best officers and NCOs – getting in to a school staff position should be hard, getting out of one should be easy. School postings, like HQ staff jobs, should be temporary things, between regimental duty tours, and they should be damned hard work, too – but since only the best should be posted in to a school those who are there should often be promoted when they leave – and all the hard work will be worth it. But the important training is not done in schools, it is done in units and in the field, on exercises. That's where we teach soldiers, NCOs and officers, including colonels and generals, how to apply the skills and knowledge, including “leadership” knowledge, learned in the schools.

Equipment did cost money and I suggested that we had to be sure we understood the old adage that the very best is the enemy of the good enough and we needed to question the last 5% of performance when it consumed 20% of the budget for an item. It was out duty, as staff officers, I said, to “fight,” in all our committees, for the Army's fair share of the capital budget and then to “fight” to ensure that we, the Army staff, spent it wisely.

Organization is a very subjective issue but I suggested to my colleagues and superiors that we, the CF, were not especially well organized and, more important, that poor organization cost real, measurable money. There is no “perfect” or even "right” organization but there are very imperfect and, indeed, wrong ones and it is the duty of the staff to recommend better organizations.

Leadership is “easy,” I suggested – it is, essentially, a combination of _toughness_, _discipline_ and _training_ piled on top of what an honest young man or woman learned from his family, friends and teachers. But I did mention that leadership training was (still is) *vital* and nowhere more than at the junior levels – corporal and 2nd lieutenant. Leadership training, I suggested, is an essential component of TQ5, 6 and 7 training.

Why is this long story relevant to budgets? Because, 20+/- years ago, we were also (still) in a budget crisis and we were looking for ways to, as Old Sweat suggests to maintain the “extremely high standards” which had been passed on to us and we had to do that with too little money and too many tasks.

I suggest that keeping our your “great little army” great isn't overly expensive and it can be done if officers and NCOs, on regimental duty and in HQs, want to make it work.

Clearly, not all my ideas found favour with those to whom they were presented but I still think they are valid.

Attitudes matter more than "stuff," and the very human business of developing tough, superbly disciplined, well trained and adequately equipped soldiers need not stop or even slow when budgets are tight. In fact, as an old friend used to say: "when the weather's bad let's step up the training;" we should say, "when budgets are tight let's use our imaginations."


----------



## Canadian.Trucker

Excellent well rounded post/presentation E.R.

I agree that many of these things are in the attitude and implementation of a high level of expectation/discipline/work by Officers and SrNCO's.  

A thread I'm reminded of in regards to training is here on army.ca where it was asked for ideas on inexpensive and free ways to do interesting and relevant training for soldiers to keep them sharp and get them out of the rut of doing the same old thing.  I know for myself when I was a Pl Comd with the G&SF I sat down with the OC's direction on training and developed a training plan that could be implemented in a 2.5 hour parade night to keep soldier skills up, instead of just cleaning weapons and hitting the mess.  It was not extremely work intensive to implement once the plan was in place, it just required some creative thought and (just as important if not more so) buy in from my NCO's to do the training.  In the end it was a great success and the Pl loved it because it was challenging and relevant for them.

Unlimited funds does not automatically produce excellent results, and therefore limited funds does not produce poor results, it is in the leadership of our military that the results will be based upon I believe.


----------



## UnwiseCritic

Canadian.Trucker said:
			
		

> Unlimited funds does not automatically produce excellent results, and therefore limited funds does not produce poor results, *it is in the leadership of our military that the results will be based upon I believe*.



Bingo! Which is why I'm so surprised leadership is last on the list... E.R. suggests the system will take care of that. But I think the only way the system can take care of that is if the _leadership_ takes care of the system. How do we do make sure we go round and round the circle in a positive/beneficial way. We identify the correct people in the recruiting centers.


----------



## OldSolduer

It's about time someone posted that quote about officers in the four categories with the stupid and industrious being weeded out.....
We need to do some heavy weeding....


----------



## Edward Campbell

UnwiseCritic said:
			
		

> Bingo! Which is why I'm so surprised leadership is last on the list... E.R. suggests the system will take care of that. But I think the only way the system can take care of that is if the _leadership_ takes care of the system. How do we do make sure we go round and round the circle in a positive/beneficial way. We identify the correct people in the recruiting centers.




I said that _leadership_ and _proper organization_ were not "order sensitive," in other words leadership could be first and organization last, or _vice versa_, or both at the top or both, as I listed them, at the bottom, but the other four, I suggested, need to be in that precise order because you can disciple a tough person but you cannot, necessarily make a disciplined person tough enough to be a soldier; equally training ought not to be wasted on people who are not both tough and well disciplined and "adequate equipment" will get good results in the hands of tough, superbly disciplined and well trained troops, but even the very best equipment will be wasted in the hands of troops who are poorly trained or ill disciplined and so on.


----------



## UnwiseCritic

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Get used to skrimping and saving and to doing more with less ~ some of us did it for 35 years.
> Edit: spelling  :-[



A very hard truth to accept



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I said that _leadership_ and _proper organization_ were not "order sensitive," in other words leadership could be first and organization last, or _vice versa_, or both at the top or both, as I listed them, at the bottom, but the other four, I suggested, need to be in that precise order because you can disciple a tough person but you cannot, necessarily make a disciplined person tough enough to be a soldier; equally training ought not to be wasted on people who are not both tough and well disciplined and "adequate equipment" will get good results in the hands of tough, superbly disciplined and well trained troops, but even the very best equipment will be wasted in the hands of troops who are poorly trained or ill disciplined and so on.



I stand corrected and yep much wiser than I.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> It's about time someone posted that quote about officers in the four categories with the stupid and industrious being weeded out.....
> We need to do some heavy weeding....


Found on http://old-soldier-colonel.blogspot.ca/2011/07/field-marshal-moltkes-four-types-of.html

“There are only four types of officer. First, there are the lazy, stupid ones. Leave them alone, they do no harm…Second, there are the hard- working, intelligent ones. They make excellent staff officers, ensuring that every detail is properly considered. Third, there are the hard- working, stupid ones. These people are a menace and must be fired at once. They create irrelevant work for everybody. Finally, there are the intelligent, lazy ones. They are suited for the highest office.”
Field Marshal Erich Von Manstein

I would disagree about the lazy stupid ones though.  Nothing like someone rubber stamping something without even a token review, especially when you're engineers supposed to be certifying something as safe to operate.  Sadly I normally now assume when first working with someone that they haven't done anything properly and question it rather then assume their head is an external organ.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

I think lazy, in this sense, refers to finding simple, easy ways of doing things and not over complicating military life.


----------



## Navy_Pete

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I think lazy, in this sense, refers to finding simple, easy ways of doing things and not over complicating military life.



Ah, seen, thanks.

Big fan of KISS.


----------



## CougarKing

Related:

National Post link



> *John Ivison: F-35 purchase may force Conservatives to chop infantry battalion from cash-strapped military*
> 
> As Rob Nicholson, the new defence minister, settles in at National Defence headquarters, he will have been briefed on the war of the Two Towers — one run by DND bureaucrats who control the purse strings; the other by the uniforms of the Canadian Forces.
> 
> The on-going hostilities are likely to flare up as the new minister is forced to make some unpalatable decisions on resource allocation, *including the possibility of reducing the size of Canada’s 68,000 regular forces by chopping one or more of its nine infantry battalions.*
> 
> Earlier this month, U.S. defence secretary Chuck Hagel indicated the Pentagon might have to decide between a “much smaller force” or a decade-long “holiday” from modernizing weapons systems and technology. Word leaked that the cancellation of the $392-billion F-35 joint strike fighter program was being contemplated — a rumour defence officials later tried to quash.
> 
> *Canada has its own cash crisis — by 2014/15, nearly $2.5-billion will have been cut from DND’s budget.*
> 
> 
> The Armed Forces want to maintain the existing number of troops and bases, while adding new gear like the F-35s*. An update released late last week showed that DND is still committed to buying 65 F-35s, despite cost increases. Rather than increase the $8.9-billion it would cost to buy the planes, the department simply reduced the amount of contingency it had in place for cost over-runs from $602-million down to $342-million, to remain within the $9-billion ceiling*. “The provision for acquisition contingency could be considered low for a project of this size and scope,” DND admitted in the update.
> 
> David Perry, a senior analyst at the Conference of Defence Associations Institute, said the military brass’s hopes of muddling through are likely to prove forlorn. “Something has to give,” he said. “They are facing a significant budget crunch that is going to force them to make some serious reforms,” he said.
> 
> 
> According to the 2011 transformation report authored by Andrew Leslie, the now retired former Canadian Forces general*, the military was already $1-billion short in funding for the Canada First Defence Strategy acquisitions to re-equip the military. He suggested $2-billion in savings by cutting non-operational spending on things like consultants and administration to pay for the capital acquisitions and satisfy the government’s deficit-reduction plan.* But the report has been gathering dust since it reached the less than enthusiastic hands of then defence minister, Peter MacKay.
> 
> The uniformed tower in DND not only resisted the Leslie report, it is fighting the prospect of any reduction in numbers or equipment cancellations. The preferred option is to find “efficiencies” in ongoing operations — a Holy Grail type search that has yielded few results in the last 20 years.
> 
> This, after all, is the department that is never able to spend its capital budget, at considerable cost to the taxpayer. When it can’t spend its capital allocation, it “reprofiles” the money but loses purchasing power because projects are not compensated to adjust for inflation, which runs at 7% annually according to the Defence Specific Inflation average. The cumulative impact has been $556-million of lost purchasing power in recent years, according to Mr. Perry.
> 
> *Andrew Leslie points out that the administrative overhead has grown by 40% in recent years, since 2006, while the number of deployable troops has grown by just 10%. “Reduce overhead before you attack output,” he said.*
> 
> *Yet Mr. Perry estimates that, even if the Leslie report was implemented in full, it probably wouldn’t be sufficient.* At some point the Canadian Forces will have to reduce personnel numbers or get out of the expensive business of fighter jet or submarine warfare, he said.
> 
> Given the expensive investments in planes and ships, the most logical place to cut is the army, which has seen numbers rise to 68,000 from 60,000 in recent years. The suggestion from some quarters is that the current structure, where Canada has three regular force regiments — the Royal Canadian Regiment in Ontario and New Brunswick; the Princess Patricia’s Light Infantry in Alberta and Manitoba and the Royal 22nd Regiment in Quebec City — is a political construct without justification in the real world. Each regiment has three battalions but the imperative for that number is more political than military, so the argument goes.
> .
> *When asked specifically if the Conservatives were committed to maintaining a regular force of 68,000, Mr. Nicholson’s press secretary Julie Di Mambro said only that the government would maintain a “modern, first-class military that is sustainable over the long term.”*
> 
> When asked if it were possible that there may be revisions in planned equipment acquisitions, she said the Canada First Defence Strategy remains the basis for defence planning. However, she added “all countries normally review their specific defence policy priorities and objectives every few years to ensure that they are keeping pace with evolving strategic realities.” All of which suggests everything is under review.
> 
> *Chopping a battalion in Quebec City — the only part of the province where the Conservatives may keep their head above water at the next election — may make Mr. Nicholson blanche.*
> 
> Mr. Leslie gave some indication of the likely reaction to any cuts to the army’s “teeth,” as opposed to its “tail.”
> 
> “If the decision is taken to reduce training, regular forces or reserves, Canadians should start to ask some serious questions about the fiscal competence of the government,” he said.
> 
> But if Mr. Perry’s calculations are correct, DND can’t simultaneously slash budgets, maintain headcount and invest in new gear without doing something drastic — especially when the budget was insufficient in the first place.
> 
> National Post


----------



## Ostrozac

Chopping an infantry battalion is pretty drastic. And why Valcartier, as was hinted at? Petawawa has infrastructure issues, and Edmonton has attrition issues -- and Gagetown and Shilo are isolated from their parent brigades. If we were to go down the road to 8 battalions, Valcartier would be the last place I would think about for downsizing. I know that the R22eR have been recruiting more anglos lately, but the manning situation in 5 Brigade seems pretty healthy, and so did the infrastructure last time I visited there.

Anybody with recent experience in 5 Brigade want to chirp in?


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Before we start the process of arguing, in public, over which Battalion we should cut, let us first consider this statement:



> The suggestion from some quarters is that the current structure, where Canada has three regular force regiments — the Royal Canadian Regiment in Ontario and New Brunswick; the Princess Patricia’s Light Infantry in Alberta and Manitoba and the Royal 22nd Regiment in Quebec City — is a political construct without justification in the real world. Each regiment has three battalions but the imperative for that number is more political than military, so the argument goes.



Mr Ivison is a smart man, and I am a fan of much of what he writes, and I respect the manner in which he writes it.  Having said that, before he wrote this piece, I think it quite likely that he did not know we had nine infantry battalions, and would have been very hard-pressed to name the three Regiments to which they belong.

This begs the question: which "quarters" are suggesting this, and who specifically suggested it to Mr Ivison?  Perhaps more importantly, to what end did they "suggest" this.

It should be quite interesting to watch the response to this piece, both internal and external to the Army and CF.


----------



## CombatMacguyver

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> Chopping an infantry battalion is pretty drastic. And why Valcartier, as was hinted at? Petawawa has infrastructure issues, and Edmonton has attrition issues -- and Gagetown and Shilo are isolated from their parent brigades. If we were to go down the road to 8 battalions, Valcartier would be the last place I would think about for downsizing. I know that the R22eR have been recruiting more anglos lately, but the manning situation in 5 Brigade seems pretty healthy, and so did the infrastructure last time I visited there.
> 
> Anybody with recent experience in 5 Brigade want to chirp in?



I'm not entirely sure about the number of Anglos posted to the R22R battalions as I`m with 5BNS, but there are a surprising amount of Anglos posted here (none that want to be here but that`s another story)

In chats with some of the VanDoos about this article the response was generally something akin to: 'we have three half-empty battalions but when one deploys it magically becomes a full batallion.  So if they cut, for example 1R22R, we'll just have two slightly-more-than-half-full batallions without losing any guys from the regiment'

Not sure what the intent there would be.  You could make an argument for lower overhead as you'd have one less building to worry about, maybe less civilian staff and officer positions, but you're still going to have the same amount of enlisted guys.

edit - added quotation


----------



## The Bread Guy

Thought I'd share this blog post by a U.K. defence bureaucrat, talking about the challenges Canada and other middle powers face with shrinking budgets - well worth the read!  From the post:


> .... Humphrey makes no secret of being an enormous admirer of the Canadian military – having studied in Canada, and been fortunate enough to undertake a short attachment to the Royal Canadian Naval Reserve, he has fond memories of being part of a very professional organisation, and to this day thinks warmly of the people and role. Later on, his career has regularly brought him into contact with members of the Canadian military, who have always been supremely professional. Therefore, he continues to follow developments in the Canadian military quite closely.
> 
> (....)
> 
> The biggest question arguably facing Canada today is how to address what is a three pronged axis of interest. As an Atlantic and Pacific power, with substantial economic interests in both areas, Canada has an inevitable interest in both regions, which have extremely different challenges. At the same time, the emerging interest in the Arctic, where global warming and climate change is seemingly allowing an opening of trade routes, means a previously neglected region suddenly takes on far more strategic role. Beyond this home position, Canada continues to play a major role overseas, providing troops, aircraft and ships to participate in operations across the globe from the Gulf to Afghanistan.
> 
> (....)
> 
> Medium powers like Canada though struggle to balance their wider interests, desire to play  a role in global affairs against a small military and limited resources. The question for powers such as this is what do they wish to be? On the one hand there is perhaps the inevitable temptation for finance ministries to push for a gentle glide path into military obscurity – maintain the bare minimum, and replace high end capabilities like frigates or Main Battle Tanks with OPVS and wheeled vehicles – in other words abandon pretences of capability. At the same time there is a natural desire to want to play more of a role and be more than a bit player – it is perhaps noticeable how many leaders enjoy the attention and press coverage that comes from being seen as influential on the wider stage, and the plaudits that come from this. This perhaps explains the reluctance in some countries to pare down military expenditure. At the same time maintaining a reasonably sized military has wider industrial and economic benefits – the presence of a substantial defence industry is often linked to military capability – scaling this down reduces the ability to not only build and support equipment at home (with all the attendant benefits for the economy and sovereignty) but also reduces export orders which helps the economy. This is a challenge facing Canada now – invest at considerable cost in new Frigates, creating a shipbuilding programme to assure them of sovereignty, or buy overseas, saving money for wider capability, but reducing economic benefits to taxpayers – who would expect to see their tax dollars spent at home ....


----------



## Remius

I could see them cutting 2 or even 3.  One from each.

PPCLI has manning issues to begin with.  Going to 2 battalions would be pretty effortless.

2 RCR would remain as it has the only footprint in Atlantic Canada. But 1 or 3 would likely be the targets.

And cutting the 22eme is easier when you cut everywhere else as well.

Beef up CSOR, Primary Reserve units.

And tehn 10 years from now when we can't do anything we'll experience another recruiting surge.


----------



## Infanteer

Once you cut something, it is almost impossible to get it back.  Better to leave the shell for when that surge comes.  450 Sqn required a war.


----------



## Rifleman62

Infanteer:





> Once you cut something, it is almost impossible to get it back.  Better to leave the shell for when that surge comes.  450 Sqn required a war.



Does that thought process go for the Reserves also??


----------



## George Wallace

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Infanteer:
> Does that thought process go for the Reserves also??



Whole Reserve units have disappeared.  Started way back in the '70s.


----------



## Rifleman62

I thought the symbol represented "tongue in cheek".

Whole Reg F units Army units disappeared at the same time: The Black Watch, QOR of C, to the Militia: Cdn Guards, Cdn Airborne, 4 RCHA, etc, gone.

Both "sides"have been hit. I spent 1962 to 2007 in the _Molitia_ watching it happen.

I do agree with Infanteer's statement, but lets not start the Reg F vs P Res kerfuffle* again.*


----------



## Inquisitor

Crantor said:
			
		

> I could see them cutting 2 or even 3.  One from each.
> 
> ...
> 
> Beef up CSOR, Primary Reserve units.
> 
> And then 10 years from now when we can't do anything we'll experience another recruiting surge.



During the Chretien cuts wasn't one of each a 10-90 BN 10% RF and 90% PR ?How did that play out?

I have a strong hunch the answer is not well. 

Comment. Given the cuts I find it odd that the INF BNs are not retaining core cadre capabilities such as 81 MM mortar, TUA, Assault pioneer etc. These are skill sets that add capability and take a long time to acquire. Also with life in garrison add additional challenge. Back in the 70's the BN's had these posn's manned. They could add on militia riflemen to fill gaps on fairly short notice. 

Just my .05


----------



## OldSolduer

Inquisitor said:
			
		

> During the Chretien cuts wasn't one of each a 10-90 BN 10% RF and 90% PR ?How did that play out?
> 
> I have a strong hunch the answer is not well.
> 
> Comment. Given the cuts I find it odd that the INF BNs are not retaining core cadre capabilities such as 81 MM mortar, TUA, Assault pioneer etc. These are skill sets that add capability and take a long time to acquire. Also with life in garrison add
> additional challenge. Back in the 70's the BN's had these posn's manned. They could add on militia riflemen to fill gaps on fairly short notice.
> 
> Just my .05



It wasn't our choice to not retain those capabilities.


----------



## Good2Golf

Inf Bns were stripped of mortars and pioneer elements a long, long time ago.  Not even on the table.


----------



## dapaterson

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> It wasn't our choice to not retain those capabilities.



It was the choice of the Army (writ large) not to maintain those capabilities.  In the analysis at the time, it was decided that they were lower priorities than others, and thus were divested.


----------



## Good2Golf

Apparently "UBIQUE" translates to 'We'll be ther for you!'


----------



## McG

If we need to find money to make the F-35 initial procurement feasible, then kill the CCV project.  The Army could invest the CCV money in itself in hundreds of better ways but, since that will not be happening, it makes more sense to sacrifice the CCV project than a battalion upon the alter of F-35.



			
				CombatMacguyver said:
			
		

> In chats with some of the VanDoos about this article the response was generally something akin to: 'we have three half-empty battalions but when one deploys it magically becomes a full batallion.  So if they cut, for example 1R22R, we'll just have two slightly-more-than-half-full batallions without losing any guys from the regiment'


There is an argument to be made for closing the third battalions and rolling the personnel and positions into the first and second battalions.  Unfortunately, that is not what is being suggested in the article.  The article suggested that the battalion would be closed and the positions (PYs as they are called) would be harvested.  Some of the personnel could move to other battalions where vacant positions exist (in some cases requiring re-bading), but most would redundant and offered release or remuster.  In the Army, we have a pretty good idea what in Infantry battalion should look like, and many people assume the difference between that and reality is just that the people are missing - in fact the battalions are underestablished and the positions do not exist for people to be hired into.  Some battalions may even be over established, but to the troops in those battalions it still looks like there are spaces.  The truth is hidden in the mechanics and bureaucracy of how we establish and build our organization.  The hollow battalions are hollow by design, and in the west this is exacerbated for positions gone unfilled.

I am skeptical that there ever was official talk of closing down a full battalion.  Maybe.  If we need ways to reduce the force, it will require deep analysis and hard decisions to do it in a way that does not wreck the organization.  We have been trimming quietly from everywhere for years, and we are at the point now just a little bit more from everywhere will start to result in failings all over the place.  The waffer thin mint if you will.  An aggressive position-by-position review of the whole CAF will turn up a number of redundant or wastefull positions hidden away in organizations, but the fiefdoms will bitterly defend themselves.  If we really do need to reduce the force and in relatively short time, someone will have to decide which capabilities, bases, and/or units were are prepared to be done with ... and maybe that will be some portion of our infantry.  Perhaps it is time to abandon promises of new battalions (or at least 500 more service members) for particular places on the map.  I don't know.  But maybe it is not force reduction that we need to achieve.  Maybe we just need to find more money.

If we need ways to save money, this thread is full of ideas.  Page 12 compiled a few lists of them:
[quote author=MCG]
Here are a few ways that I see to immediately cut costs while protecting capability:
Reduce/Stop the use of “tactical infrastructure” in field exercises
Do not bring kitchen appliances to the field (with the exception of in field kitchens) 
Maximize the use of local training areas before traveling
Teleconference to avoid TD for meetings and working groups
Prohibit the deployment of pers into positions requiring WSE (We do not need to pay guys above their rank when there are other sitting at home already collecting pay at that level)  - exceptions only for in-theatre casualty replacement
Deploy the next Op ATTENTION as 100% Reg F (again, Reg F pay is a sunk cost while a year of Class C pay for a Sr NCO of Jr Offr to train & deploy could instead added another training day for a Class A unit) (too late for this) 
No new “buttons & bows” announcements 
Do not rebadged any more units for the sake of resurrecting old regiments 
Stop any unannounced plans to rebrand/rebadged/rename any branches, corps or organization for the purposes of historical sentimentalism
Stop using rented civilian vehicles when military patter vehicles are available and serve the purpose
Tie pay incentives for all ranks to performance and conduct.  If you are on a remedial measure (IC through to C&P) then the pay incentive is delayed by the duration of that remedial measure.  If you receive an unsatisfactory PER, then the pay incentive is delayed until you receive a satisfactory one.
Rebalance officer enrollment paths to reduce the number of ROTP entrants while increasing the number of DEO entrants
Stop the practice of sending new CF buttons & fasteners with all new DEU coats ordered on the Logistik Unicorps site (these buttons typically go straight to the garbage as most soldiers already have the buttons which are removable from the old coat, and most soldiers wear branch/regimental buttons) - if someone needs buttons they can spend more points to get them.
Remove the recently introduced Army DEU parka from Logistik Unicorps issue - it duplicates a function already provided by the gabardine.
Allow only one IPR move per service couple.  Instead, a reunification move will bring the first retiring member to live with the mbr continuing to serve, or if both retire at the same time then a reunification move will bring the mbr without F&E to the mbr with F&E.

And here are some options options for long-term savings (though most will cost money upfront prior to the savings being achieved later):
Consolidate all of NDHQ and appropriate other NCR units on the Nortel Campus
Move CFC from Toronto to Ottawa (Nortel Campus) or Kingston (RMC or the closing prison) 
Divest unnecessary niche vehicle micro-fleets (if required, increase size of standard fleets to maintain platform numbers) 
Smash LFDTS & CTC into a single layer of HQ, transfer capability development functions from LFDTS to COS Land Strat
Re-close CMR and consolidate ROTP back into RMC 
Consolidate all of 1 CMBG in Edmonton to reduce future steady-state cost moves
Procure more training simulators for fuel guzzling equipment (like aircraft, Engr Hy Eqpt and MBT) – include this in the initial acquisition of future systems 
Reevaluate rank levels in HQ establishments – the goal is to reduce where unnecessary inflation has occurred
Replace military ID cards, PKI cards, and military driver's licences with a single universal military identification

In the current climate, we need to look at more than just where to cut.  We also need to look at where to get better mileage from the same resources.  Here are a few thoughts to that end: 
 Replace SDA, LDA, dive pay and parachute allowance with enhanced casual allowances – the current systems reward posting messages as opposed to rewarding/compensating for the behaviour that we want: going to sea, going to the field, diving, and jumping out of aircraft.
 Reduce the number of PRes unit HQs in the Army.  Individual sub-units can retain unique regimental identities, but they will be grouped under a single stronger battalion HQ. 
 Revisit the requirement for Reg F bands.  There are 71 musicians from Sgt to CWO on Army Ref F establishments alone.  That is a lot of PYs that could be put to better purpose (especially when we have been cutting from operational units to put PYs in new capabilities)
[/quote][quote author=dapaterson]
A few more contentious suggestions:

* Top to bottom compensation and benefits review to eliminate duplication and overlap
* Revisit posting policy to reduce annual move requirement (excluding off-BTL)
* Revisit IPR move policy to eliminate same-location moves (eg a paid move from Orleans to Kanata on release)
* Replace CANEX with private suppliers (who will pay market rents for CF facilities)
   * Retain small deployed NPF expertise to surge for deployments if required (hint: this does not include a Tim Hortons trailer)
* Return to annual TOS boards, particularly at ranks of LCol and above and MWO and above, to determine whether continued service meets a military requirement
* Enforce limits on GOFOs as ordered in the 1997 MND report (roughly a 1/3 reduction)
* Return to performance pay for GOFO and Capt(N)/Cols
   * Make PMAs and performance info per above public
* Make PMAs and performance information for all Public Servants public
* Restructure establishment to differentiate between Lt and Capt
* Return to competitive promotion to Capt
* Revisit Degreed Officer Corps decision
   * Permit short engagements with no promotion beyond Capt without a degree
* Eliminate full-time second language training
   * Individuals may elect to pursue SLT on their own time; a decision not to get a language profile will limit future promotion possibilities

For IM/IT 

* Migrate from MS Office to Open Office to reduce IM/IT licensing costs
* Migrate from Outlook to open-source web-based DWAN email to reduce IM/IT licensing costs
* Dissolve ADM(IM), putting IM/IT support into CANOSCOM, IM/IT procurement into ADM(Mat), and comms and ISTAR systems under CJOC[/quote]


----------



## PuckChaser

Migrating to a completely different office suite is neither easy, or cheap. We'd spend far more than we'd save with all the helpdesk headaches and migration headaches for very little gain.


----------



## Inquisitor

I understand there was already one move to cancel CCV and the Government said no.


----------



## Edward Campbell

John Ibbitson, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, takes a look at the defence budget and, as I read it, Conservative indifference t the defence of Canada:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/warship-collision-shows-not-everythings-shipshape-with-canadas-military/article14076905/#dashboard/follows/


> Warship collision shows not everything’s shipshape with Canada’s military
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> John Ibbitson
> OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail
> 
> Published Tuesday, Sep. 03 2013
> 
> The two damaged warships that limped into Esquimalt, B.C. on the weekend offered a painful reminder of the fragility of the Canadian Forces at home and abroad.
> 
> The Conservative government has committed to a slow, steady modernization of equipment over the course of the next 30 years. But the emphasis is on slow, and on any given day, any given mishap can expose the inherent weakness of Canada’s military.
> 
> “If everything goes smoothly, we’re okay,” said Anthony Seaboyer, a political scientist at Queen’s University who specializes in national security issues. “But if things like this happen, we’re less and less able to react to them than we were in the past.”
> 
> A recent wave of defence budget cuts – expected to reach $2.5-billion by 2015 – is one reason for the decreasing ability to react, as the Harper government struggles both to retain a functioning military and to balance the budget before the next election.
> 
> The destroyer HMCS Algonquin and refuelling vessel HMCS Protecteur collided during a training exercise in the Pacific Ocean on Friday, damaging both ships.
> 
> A press spokesman for the Pacific fleet on Monday said both vessels had returned to port and were being examined. A fuller update is expected later this week, but the Algonguin, which received the brunt of the damage, is likely to be laid up for a while.
> 
> And until the damage to the Protecteur’s bow is repaired, the Pacific fleet will have no refuelling capability.
> 
> That operational gap highlights the price the navy is paying as Ottawa drags its heels on the promised renewal of the fleet. The National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy – which commits $33-billion over 30 years to replace and upgrade core naval assets – remains, for the most part, all paper, no keels.
> 
> The navy is not alone. The army is at risk of losing the intelligence and combat skills it acquired in Afghanistan through lack of training. And the fate of the F-35 fighter jet, intended to replace the aging CF-18s, remains uncertain.
> 
> The problem is threefold. The first is the government’s commitment to balance the budget in 2015, which has led to spending cuts across all departments, including National Defence.
> 
> The second is the time lag between a committment to replace something as large as a plane or a ship, and actually replacing it. Plans to replace the Protecteur, for example, were announced as far back as 2004, but a new vessel won’t be ready until 2018, at the earliest, and the armed forces has never seen a procurement deadline it couldn’t miss.
> 
> Third, there is the constant examination and re-examination of priorities. The Canadian Forces has a mandate to protect the national borders while also being ready at any time to deploy overseas on either a short-term or extended mission, in concert with allied forces.
> 
> But what is the right mix? How much should go to training special forces, providing air support for ground troops, and protecting the coasts? How important is it to defend the Arctic versus being able to assist NATO allies when the need arises? What is the nature of the terrorist threat and how can the military identify and respond to it?
> 
> What is the best ratio between purchasing, training and hiring? And why are there so many people at headquarters?
> 
> Among the democracies, governments everywhere struggle with these questions, while also balancing the needs of their militaries with domestic priorities.
> 
> Though critics abound, Prof. Seaboyer said he believes the Canadian government, overall, is taking the right approach. “The balance that has been struck … makes sense in terms of future needs that may arise,” he explained. “The problem is, who can see into the future?”
> 
> Billions of dollars of acquisitions could prove useless in conflicts that no one predicted. It’s another reason why it makes sense to go slow on procurement – except, that is, until a ship turns to starboard when it should have turned to port, and suddenly there’s a big hole in the Pacific fleet.
> 
> _John Ibbitson is the chief political writer in the Ottawa bureau._




John Ibbitson says, at the beginning of the article, "The Conservative government has committed to a slow, steady modernization of equipment over the course of the next 30 years." *That is not true.* The _Canada First Defence Strategy_ commits Canada to a slow, but steady decline in defence spending by any fair and sensible measure. Much was made of the $30 Billion "end state" but $30+ Billion _inflated dollars_, even at today's inflation rates, in 2027/28 will represent fewer *real* dollars for defence as a percentage of GDP (the best way to measure that sort of long range spending), as a share of government spending, as a share of your pay packet and so on. It is a _strategy_ for unilateral disarmament ~ it was good politics but it was and is bad policy.

Ibbitson also says, at the end of the article, "Billions of dollars of acquisitions could prove useless in conflicts that no one predicted. It’s another reason why it makes sense to go slow on procurement," and that's not true, either. A well planned, sensible force structure and concomitant capital equipment programme will produce *A*daptable forces that can cope with the unexpected, when it happens. That same well planned, sensible force strucrure and equipment programme will produce forces which are *A*ppropriate for a G-8 nation and *A*vailable when required. _Triple *A*_ armed forces, in other words - not in the big leagues, but able to what Canadians expect: to promote and defend Canada's vital interests in the world. But we really want _Triple*A*+_ forces: *A*daptable, *A*ppropriate, *A*vailable and *A*ffordable. The _Canada First Defence Strategy_ certainly does provide for *A*ffordable armed forces, but I would argue that they cannot and will not meet Canada's requirements because giving Canadians what they want ~ spending less and less and less on national defence ~ is not the same as giving Canadian what we need. In my opinion a *real strategy* for Canada would result in budget growth to about 2% of GDP over the next 15 years.

The rest of Ibbitson's article makes sense; the _Canada First Defence Strategy_ does not.


----------



## Edward Campbell

And there is some reinforcement, in an article in the _National Post_, for the idea that we need to figure out how many is _enough_ warsips for "a G8 country with the world’s biggest coastline" and then budget for that requirement.

The article, speaking broadly about ships, tanks and aircraft, says, "we don’t have [enough] right now, because successive Canadian governments have gotten into the bad habit of replacing larger number of older military vehicles (of all kinds) with smaller numbers of more capable vehicles. The argument is, of course, that a smaller number of more advanced vehicles, be they ships, tanks or planes, can do the work of a larger number of older ones with greater efficiency. But there is a minimum number of vehicles and units that must be kept available if Canada is to maintain a proper, modern military. And right now, we’re well below that number." It goes on to conclude that, "Warships are also vital instruments of national policy, both at home and abroad. Having a Navy isn’t cheap, but if we’re going to do it, we may as well do it right." The author could have extended that to all three services and the many, varied and vital support functions, too.


----------



## Edward Campbell

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> John Ibbitson, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, takes a look at the defence budget and, as I read it, Conservative indifference t the defence of Canada:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/warship-collision-shows-not-everythings-shipshape-with-canadas-military/article14076905/#dashboard/follows/
> 
> John Ibbitson says, at the beginning of the article, "The Conservative government has committed to a slow, steady modernization of equipment over the course of the next 30 years." *That is not true.* The _Canada First Defence Strategy_ commits Canada to a slow, but steady decline in defence spending by any fair and sensible measure. Much was made of the $30 Billion "end state" but $30+ Billion _inflated dollars_, even at today's inflation rates, in 2027/28 will represent fewer *real* dollars for defence as a percentage of GDP (the best way to measure that sort of long range spending), as a share of government spending, as a share of your pay packet and so on ...




My _guestimate_ is based on:

     2013: GDP ≈ $1.75 Trillion
     2013: Defence Budget ≈ $20.1 Billion ≈ *1.14% of GDP*

     2013-2017: a slow recovery, GDP growth never reaches 3% annually
     2013-2028: modest to good GDP growth, no "great recession," but growth never reaches 4%

     2028: GDP ≈ $2.85 Trillion
     2028: Defence spending ≈ $32 Billion (_Canada First Defence Strategy_ says over $30 Billion in 2028)
     2028: Defence Budget ≈ *1.12% of GDP* which means a decline in *real* spending over the next 15 years.


----------



## FJAG

I've always thought that calculating defence spending as a percentage of GDP is akin to the way religions demand a tithe from their adherents (or for that matter Chile's old Copper Law that dictated that 10% of all earnings from Chile's nationalized copper industry went to military equipment). You create some magic number (like 3%) and say that this is what you should commit every year to ensure that we (either God or DND) can provide you with a warm, fuzzy, secure life. I could never quite grasp why defence should get more just because the economy has gotten better (or the price of copper skyrocketed or alternatively why it should get less if the economy slides)

IMHO defence spending should run like any other budgeting process; first by critically analysing the organizations program needs (i.e. what are our defence/security objectives; what are the options for how they will be met; what is the cost); secondly, by reviewing income available for program delivery; thirdly, by comparing those costs against other program needs and setting priorities or making compromises.

A recent National Post graphic showed that in the last ten years our real dollars spending on defence has gone from just over 12 to just under 23 Billion (2012) dollars but stayed approximately steady at 
1.2 to 1.4 to 1.2 % of GDP. GDP aside, that was a very serious commitment of cash.

The same graphic shows that we have increased our spending by +53% (the US by +59%, the UK by +18%, France by -0.6%, Germany by -3.6%). Yup others did way more and others did way less. What does this prove? It proves that there is no standard although one could make arguments that Russia and China are entering into a new arms race. Do we do a knee-jerk reaction?

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/06/08/graphic-financing-canadas-armed-forces/

Long story short. I'm having a hard time getting excited about all this arbitrary up and down in the defence budget. I'm a Trudeau era guy. I've seen bad. I've seen arbitrary. What I have never seen (especially in the last ten years) is DND taking any serious steps to control its "tail" based expenditures. I don't expect I ever will. 

 :stirpot:


----------



## Edward Campbell

Fair enough, FJAG, but the last time we made defence decisions in the way you would prefer was back _circa_ 1950.

By the 1960s the rate of inflation for the cost of modern weapon systems was soaring and still, I think, remains two or three times as high as the general inflation rate. It made defence spending more and more difficult. In fact, as I have said several times, I think that ~ the cost of defence ~ was the primary driver behind Mr. Hellyer's experiments back in the 1960s.

(An Ameican aerospace exec did a tongue in cheek paper many years ago demonstrating the inflating values of combat aircraft and showed that at some point in the future the _n_th generation fighter jet would consume the entire defence budget and it would be allocated to the USAF on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, the USN on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays and the USMC on Sundays. Can anyone with really powerful _google-fu_ find it?)

Dollars, big or small, are just numbers unless they relate to something: and relating them to GDP is a useful way to measure the national commitment to defence. As you point out, in a decade defence spending appears to have nearly doubled, but, in *reality*, relative to the nation's capacity, it remained stable.

I believe that the _strength_ of the political will to defend Canada can only be measured by comparing it to the strength of the political will to provide good hospitals or prisons or symphony halls.


----------



## Infanteer

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> (An Ameican aerospace exec did a tongue in cheek paper many years ago demonstrating the inflating values of combat aircraft and showed that at some point in the future the _n_th generation fighter jet would consume the entire defence budget and it would be allocated to the USAF on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, the USN on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays and the USMC on Sundays. Can anyone with really powerful _google-fu_ find it?)



From a footnote in the Black Swan concept we were just discussing:



> As Norman Augustine, an aerospace industry executive, stated in his famous forecast of 1986 in reference to the
> soaring prices: ‘In the year 2054, the entire defence budget will purchase just one aircraft. This aircraft will have to be
> shared by the Air Force and the Navy three and one half days each per week except for leap year, when it will be made
> available to the Marines for the extra day.’ His dire prediction of vanishing aircraft inventories equally applies to ships.


----------



## myself.only

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> In fact, as I have said several times, I think that ~ the cost of defence ~ was the primary driver behind Mr. Hellyer's experiments back in the 1960s.



Well, the stated objective definitely was the never-ending, chimerical pursuit of efficiencies in the face of rising defence costs.
But at the level of personal motivation, I don't think we can discount Hellyer's own unfortunate experiences struggling with inter-service inefficiencies while trying to enlist in WW2.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Just a few words, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, about why DND's budget is going to be tight for a few more years:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/top-business-stories/jim-flaherty-lauds-frugal-germans-rejects-us-printing-more-money/article14125180/?cmpid=rss1&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter#dashboard/follows/


> Jim Flaherty lauds ‘frugal’ Germans, rejects U.S. ‘printing more money’
> 
> MICHAEL BABAD
> The Globe and Mail
> 
> Published Thursday, Sep. 05 2013
> 
> *Flaherty rejects Fed stimulus*
> 
> Canada’s finance minister gave a nod to “frugal” Germany today as he again rejected the money-printing ways of the Americans.
> 
> Jim Flaherty was referring to the Federal Reserve’s massive stimulus program known as quantitative easing, or QE, under which the U.S. central bank is acquiring $85-billion (U.S.) a month in bonds.
> 
> All eyes are on that program, of course, because of indications that the Fed could soon begin to pull back, something that has caused angst among investors who want to be certain the economy and the markets can withstand that.
> 
> “The Americans tend to emphasize creating more jobs and less concern about the accumulation of public debt and printing more money, with which I’ve never agreed,” Mr. Flaherty said in St. Petersburg, Russia, where he’s attending the G20 summit.
> 
> “The Germans tend to be more prudent and frugal like Canadians tend to be.”
> 
> The Federal Reserve is trying to ease the high level of unemployment in the U.S., where 11.5 million people can’t find work.
> 
> The U.S. jobless rate stood at 7.4 per cent in July, and the August reading is scheduled to be released tomorrow. In Canada, where unemployment rate is 7.2 per cent, 1.4 million people are without jobs.
> 
> Mr. Flaherty's comments came as his government appeared to step back from its target for reducing the national debt, even as it presses other nations at the G20 summit to follow Canada’s lead in curbing debts and deficits.
> 
> Mr. Flaherty and Prime Minister Stephen Harper used the setting of this year’s G20 leaders’ summit to release new debt targets for the federal government, The Globe and Mail's Bill Curry reports from St. Petersburg.
> 
> Ottawa is now promising to bring its debt-to-GDP ratio down to 25 per cent by 2021. The government said this would be in addition to erasing annual deficits by 2015.
> 
> However the new target of 25 per cent appears to represent a softening of a timeline Mr. Flaherty’s own department released in 2012. Last fall, Finance Canada released long-term projections suggesting a debt-to-GDP ratio of 23.8 per cent in 2020-21.




There are three classes of people who don't like defence spending:

     1. Senior bureaucrats, many of who are economists, in every government department, including a handful in DND itself, because they recognize that defence spending is discretionary and politically difficult;

     2. Economists, because they recognize that defence spending is, broadly, unproductive; and

     3. Voters, the vast majority of them, anyway, because they realize that every dollar spent on defence, a common good, is a dollar that cannot be spent on themselves or on their pet projects.

The Americans always consider themselves _exceptional_ and, in defence production, they are; America produces the overwhelming majority of the defence hardware it buys - in a less than wholly efficient and effective way US defence spending does create US jobs. There are similar situations in Russia and China (who, together with the USA have the biggest defence budgets in the world). Canada, like Germany and most other countries, does not have much of a defence export industry ~ we have some, just not much. In our situation _frugality_, especially with regards to the nation's defence makes economic sense.


----------



## ARMY_101

Does anyone actually have a table of the DND/CF budgets by year? After searching budget documents, Treasury Board/Finance Canada websites, etc, I cannot find anything that clearly and easily breaks down the total budgets by year.

For example, is this accurate: http://milexdata.sipri.org/result.php4 ?


----------



## MarkOttawa

See p. 14 and following here:
http://atlantic-council.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Defence-matters-jul-8.pdf

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Edward Campbell

More news if this report, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is correct:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/dnd-braces-for-cuts-as-ottawa-targets-deficit/article14540777/?cmpid=rss1&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter#dashboard/follows/


> DND braces for new wave of job cuts as Ottawa targets deficit
> 
> BILL CURRY
> OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail
> 
> Published Thursday, Sep. 26 2013
> 
> A new wave of job notices is going out at National Defence Thursday as the department absorbs big spending cuts to help the Conservative government climb out of deficit.
> 
> The vast majority of the 172 workers who will receive “affected” notices are at Canadian Forces Base Montreal, where 145 positions are impacted. Receiving a notice does not necessarily mean a person will be laid off. The union representing defence workers received advance notice of the letters, but the department did not indicate to the union how many positions it plans on eliminating.
> 
> “We didn’t see this coming,” said John MacLennan, President of the Union of National Defence Employees. Mr. MacLennan said the affected positions represent direct service to the Canadian Forces.
> 
> According to the union, the affected staff are primarily mechanics who work on tanks and armoured personnel carriers.
> 
> “These are not back-office jobs,” he said, taking issue with Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s claim that cuts would only affect “back-office stuff.”
> 
> “These are front-line workers that overhaul and repair the engines, make sure the turret’s working, the gun’s working on it, the cannon’s working on it,” he said, warning that the government will be losing the corporate knowledge that it paid for in terms of staff training.
> 
> Julie DiMambro, a spokesperson for Defence Minister Rob Nicholson, would not confirm details of the notices.
> 
> “With the mission in Afghanistan winding down, the civilian workforce that was brought in to backfill for deployed military members is being reduced and the Department will make every effort to ease the impact on affected employees,” she said in a statement.
> 
> National Defence received about $20.1-billion in approved funding during the fiscal year that ended March 31, 2013. A recent report from the department’s Deputy Minister, Richard Fadden, indicates that one quarter into the current fiscal year, spending is down about 9 per cent.
> 
> The 2012 budget announced $5.1-billion in permanent government-wide cuts by next year, of which $1.1-billion was to come from National Defence.
> 
> More than two years have passed since Lieutenant-General Andrew Leslie – now retired and volunteering as an adivsor to Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau – issued a detailed report on how the department and the Canadian Forces could save money.
> 
> Mr. Leslie’s report on “transformation” in July, 2011, received a cool reception from military brass. The report found the staff size of DND and the Forces at headquarters had increased 46 per cent from 2004 and 2010 and that the department was spending too much on Ottawa-based contractors and consultants.
> 
> The report recommended trimming levels of bureaucracy – what he called the “tail” – in order to prioritize spending on the front-line military – or “teeth.”
> 
> The report found the department was spending about $2.7-billion a year on contracts to consultants and contractors, employing at least 5,000 people.
> 
> It would appear from the department’s latest spending update that the government is cutting back on contractors, although the union warns that Thursday’s cuts will lead to more outsourcing.
> 
> The 2012 federal budget required DND and the Canadian Forces to find $692.4-million in savings this year and $1.1-billion in permanent annual savings by next year.
> 
> After the first three months of the current fiscal year, the department reported that 44 per cent of the year’s targeted savings have been achieved. A departmental report says this was done through “administrative efficiencies, reducing reliance on contracted services and rebalancing the workforce.”
> 
> The government is attempting to find savings while maintaining CAF regular force strength at 68,000, with an additional 27,000 reserves. The government’s most recent estimates for civilian personnel indicated a slight decline from 25,408 this year to 24,814 in 2015-16, but those figures came with a footnote stating that “these planning figures may be further reduced.”
> 
> Former Chief of Defence Staff Rick Hillier weighed in this week about the current changes at DND.
> 
> “It’s a massive, massive challenge and the cuts are enormous,” he told CTV’s Power Play on Monday. Mr. Hillier retired from the Canadian Forces in 2008.
> 
> He expressed concern that without reducing the size of the Forces, the cuts will come to training and operations budgets.
> 
> “And that means soldiers will sit in garrison and ships will remain tied up at the dock and airplanes won’t fly and I think you have to balance that,” he said, recommending that Ottawa shrink the Canadian Forces down to 50,000 personnel.




I agree with Gen (Ret'd) Hillier about reducing the size of the forces. My suggestion is:

     1. Cut 25 flag and general officers ~ if their work is really important it can be done by Capts(N)/Cols;

     2. Cut 50 Capts (N) and Cols ~ replace all four stripe 'director' positions in NDHQ with Cdrs/LCols who are, anyway, out "first level executives;"

     3. Cut 100 each Cdrs/LCols and LCdrs/Majs ~ and the work they do goes with them; and

     4. Cut most of the "dot Coms" and return their functions to NDHQ and other, level 2, HQs and then cut 200 other officer and NCM positions.


----------



## McG

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> 1. Cut 25 flag and general officers ~ if their work is really important it can be done by Capts(N)/Cols;
> 
> 2. Cut 50 Capts (N) and Cols
> 
> 3. Cut 100 each Cdrs/LCols and LCdrs/Majs ~ and the work they do goes with them; and


Where do these numbers come from?



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ... replace all four stripe 'director' positions in NDHQ with Cdrs/LCols who are, anyway, out "first level executives;"


Would the follow-on be to reduce all three stripe section heads to LCdr/Maj and make Capt the working rank of NDHQ?



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> 4. Cut most of the "dot Coms" and return their functions to NDHQ and other, level 2, HQs and then cut 200 other officer and NCM positions.


In a way, this has been done.  There are only two that remain as CEFCOM, CANADACOM and CANOSCOM were all merged.  Though, I have no doubt that efficiencies can be found.


----------



## Edward Campbell

MCG said:
			
		

> Where do these numbers come from? Essentially out of my ass, but I did think a bit about the 25 GOFOs and then multiplied the others.
> Would the follow-on be to reduce all three stripe section heads to LCdr/Maj and make Capt the working rank of NDHQ? No. Director is the "first level executive" in the civil service. Cdr/LCol (ship/unit CO) is ours; they should be _harmonized_.
> In a way, this has been done.  There are only two that remain as CEFCOM, CANADACOM and CANOSCOM were all merged.  Though, I have no doubt that efficiencies can be found. Agreed.


----------



## dapaterson

In 1997, the MND report on leadership and management of the CF directed a reduction to 65 GOFOs.  To my knowledge, that written direction from the MND has never been rescinded.

It would be interesting for an MND to walk in one day and tell the CDS,

"Right.  Your GOFO establishment, effective tomorrow, is 1 Admiral/General, 5 VAdm/LGens, 15 RAdm/MGens, and 45 Cmdre/BGens.  Come back tomorrow with your establishment plan.  Come back the day after with your posting plot against the new establishment, and I'll sign off the release messages."


----------



## McG

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ... replace all four stripe 'director' positions in NDHQ with Cdrs/LCols who are, anyway, out "first level executives;"





			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Would the follow-on be to reduce all three stripe section heads to LCdr/Maj and make Capt the working rank of NDHQ? No. Director is the "first level executive" in the civil service. Cdr/LCol (ship/unit CO) is ours; they should be _harmonized_.


Sect Heads report to directors and are typically Cdr/LCol and they oversee a team of primarily majors.  If you drop the directors, I would assume you then drop the section heads and the "working staff."   If that is not where you are going, how do you see this work?


----------



## OldSolduer

dapaterson said:
			
		

> It would be interesting for an MND to walk in one day and tell the CDS,
> 
> "Right.  Your GOFO establishment, effective tomorrow, is 1 Admiral/General, 5 VAdm/LGens, 15 RAdm/MGens, and 45 Cmdre/BGens.  Come back tomorrow with your establishment plan.  Come back the day after with your posting plot against the new establishment, and I'll sign off the release messages."



Interesting yes, it would be. I'd be curious as to how long the MND remains the MND after he tells the CDS this.


----------



## Old Sweat

I suspect any MND with the confidence to slash the GOFOs could survive, especially if he had done his homework with the PMO and PCO. Having said that, Edward's figure should have a separate add on pool for international/representational positions. This would includes posts such as the DComd NORAD and Canmilrep NATO as well as ones that pop up from time to time like the one in Naples LGen Bouchard filled and LGen Vance is in now. There probably are minimum eight to ten of these posts that are our share of alliances' command and control.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I suspect any MND with the confidence to slash the GOFOs could survive, especially if he had done his homework with the PMO and PCO. Having said that, Edward's figure should have a separate add on pool for international/representational positions. This would includes posts such as the DComd NORAD and Canmilrep NATO as well as ones that pop up from time to time like the one in Naples LGen Bouchard filled and LGen Vance is in now. There probably are minimum eight to ten of these posts that are our share of alliances' command and control.




I agree, in my _perfect world®_ the CDS would be a three star, ditto the VCDS and DCINC NORAD and CANMILEP NATO. When, from time to time, we get positions like the one in Naples occupied by LGen Vance, that three star would be "surplus" and approved, and funded, on a temporary basis, by cabinet. Equally when, even less often, we get a four star position - e.g. Chairman of the NATO Military Committee which Gen (Ret'd) Henault occupied from 2005-08 - one of the three stars would be promoted and that position would also be "surplus." Further, in my _perfect world®_, the CNS, CGS (currently CCA) and CAS and the DCDS, the head of the J-Staff in NDHQ and head J-3 guy, would all be two stars. So would the commanders of major commands and the Defence Advisors (Attachés) in Washington and London.

A Canadian officer who made it, in a full 30+ year career, to one star would be a "star." The very good officers would retire as Capts(N)/Cols and the consistently "better than most" would finish their careers as Cdrs/LCols.


----------



## dapaterson

With a Reg F target of 68K paid strength, one GOFO per 1000 would be 68.  Given that the 68K is paid, not trained, strength, we should be able to provide our share to our alliances out of that 68 and still have enough left in Canada for our own needs - if, outside of specialists & limited staff, you start to need one per 4K trained (that's one per bde) we've still got plenty, even for unforecast requirements.


----------



## MilEME09

Federal auditors found $1.5 billion in ‘significant’ defence department accounting errors

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/2013-budget/Federal+auditors+found+billion+significant+defence/9012549/story.html


this is why we cant have nice things


----------



## CougarKing

Not sure what to think of Ivison's commentary as he slams the DND in his commentary below, which was titled "While the House was mesmerized by the train wreck in the Senate, National Defence pulled a fast one" on the National Post website's front page:   

National Post



> (...)
> 
> For example:* The Department of National Defence appears to be transferring $57-million from its capital budget into its operating budget* (a DND spokeswoman said the amount is actually $62-million but couldn’t explain why).
> 
> *Obviously, this is excellent news for those who need to pay the bills at Defence. It’s not even bad news for those charged with buying the planes, ships and armoured vehicles identified as necessary under the Canada First defence strategy. DND is notorious for being unable to spend its capital budget on time — a practice that has resulted in $556-million in lost purchasing power in recent years, according to analyst David Perry, thanks to a 7% Defence Specific Inflation average.
> 
> But it’s bad news for the taxpayer. You can’t take money from the capital budget, re-allocate it to the operations budget, and still have money in the capital pot to buy the equipment that you’re already committed to.*
> 
> MPs should be asking some hard questions about this and other nuggets buried deep in the body of the estimates
> It’s an exercise in kicking the can down the road and coping with the $2.5-billion in operational cutbacks the Conservatives ordered as part of their deficit reduction plan. This financial sleight of hand is an open secret in the bureaucracy and the Department of Finance is quiescent since it gives DND flexibility to manage the cuts, while keeping budgets on track to balance across government in 2015.
> 
> It’s possible the uniforms could decide to live with smaller capital budgets, and do without the shiny new kit they’ve already earmarked. Possible, but not probable. More likely, they will come back to Parliament, cap in hand, for a capital budget top-up when they need the cash.
> 
> Ironically, when a similar thing happened last year, it was the vigilance of members of the Senate Finance committee that brought the matter to public light.
> 
> Senator Irving Gerstein asked Major-General Robert Bertrand, acting chief financial officer at DND, how he could spend part of his capital budget on operations and still have money available for new equipment.
> 
> “It’s a tricky concept,” said Maj.-Gen. Bertrand.
> 
> “I should say so,” said Mr. Gerstein.
> 
> *Defence is facing a budget crunch, as it tries to maintain existing numbers of troops and bases, while adding new gear like the F35 fighter jets. The answer appears to be the perennial search for “efficiencies” in ongoing operations. In the interim, the department is raiding unspent money in the capital budget.*
> 
> Yet this transfer requires parliamentary approval. MPs should be asking some hard questions about this and other nuggets buried deep in the body of the estimates. For example, why does Public Works need $25-million for “additional office accommodation” and $38-million to “fit up” Crown-owned buildings, when there are 20,000 fewer public servants than there were a couple of years ago?
> 
> (...)


----------



## Navy_Pete

So they cut $2.5 billion, and transferring $62 million to keep the lights on and meet govt operational requirements is somehow bad for the taxpayer?  I'm confused.

They purposely created so many hoops to jump through for capitol spending that most of that money would just get unspent in the fiscal year anyway.  Our system is highly optimized and very efficient at not spending a dime, but keeping a lot of people busy to try and do so.


----------



## marinemech

how about going after contractors who are dragging their heels on the multi-billions dollars of contracts that are years overdue, by assigning multimillion dollar per pay penalties.


----------



## Edward Campbell

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> More on the defence budget and, specifically, the deeply flawed _Canada First Defence Strategy_, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the _Globe and Mail_:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-plan-to-revamp-defence-spending/article4227726/
> 
> At the risk of saying "I told you so ..." this was easy to see coming; I will repeat myself and say:
> 
> 1. Canadians' support for the CF may be a mile wide (all those red T-shirts and yellow ribbons) but it is only an inch deep, especially when it comes to defence spending vs other (social) _priorities_; and
> 
> 2. The _Canada First Defence Strategy_ was never anything more than an ill-considered shopping list. It *promised* a finite decrease in defence spending when projected as a percentage of GDP out to 2035. It could do that by "low baling" costs and being vague, to be charitable, about dollars and cents.
> 
> The Conservatives are doing what needs to be done in tough economic times: _restraining_ discretionary spending - and few things are more politically _discretionary_ than national defence. But there still needs to be a _plan_ for our national defence - one that promises real growth in defence spending (as a percentage of GDP) over, say, 20 years, of an order that will buy us the people, the kit and consumables we (all Canadians) need to provide to DND and the CF to guarantee* our own security.
> 
> 
> _____
> * Not unilaterally - in conjunction with traditional friends and trusted allies




So, the chickens are finally home ... this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ revisits the _Hobson's choice_ that faces the Government of Canada ~ cuts the forces to fit the money available or add some money (which doesn't exist until after the 2015 election:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/as-ottawas-defence-shopping-list-keeps-getting-longer-somethings-got-to-give/article15433715/?cmpid=rss1&click=dlvr.it#dashboard/follows/


> As Ottawa’s defence shopping list keeps getting longer, something’s got to give
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> Campbell Clark
> OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail
> 
> Published Thursday, Nov. 14 2013
> 
> It’s an eye-popping figure: $105-billion for new warships. It’s a sobering estimate of what it costs to buy a navy. Too bad there’s no sober assessment of what Canada’s defence will do without.
> 
> There is an inescapable squeeze: the cost of all the military equipment the Conservatives pledged is edging higher, but the military budget is shrinking.
> 
> The new $105-billion estimate of lifetime costs for building warships – released by the government as it awaits an Auditor-General’s report on its shipbuilding plans – shows why current decisions have to fit into a long-term plan that adds up.
> 
> Prime Minister Stephen Harper built a big part of his political persona on pumping money into the military, as the Conservatives blamed previous Liberal governments for putting the Canadian Forces through what general Rick Hillier called a decade of darkness. Now it seems like Mr. Harper doesn’t want to admit the money he pledged isn’t there by revamping the plans.
> 
> When his government set out its plans for military-equipment purchases, in a 20-year defence strategy issued in 2008, it was planning bigger defence budgets. This year’s defence budget was supposed to be $21.7-billion, but now, in reality, it’s $3-billion less. It’s projected to stay relatively flat. The gap between the plan and reality is getting bigger every year.
> 
> Add the $105-billion lifetime cost for ships to the $45-billion estimated by accounting firm KPMG for F-35 fighter jets – even if the decision on buying them is on hold for now – and it starts to look like real money. In broad terms, that would take up a quarter of the defence budget, year after year, unless the budget is increased. And there’s more on the shopping list.
> 
> The $105-billion projection for warships doesn’t come from a spiralling price tag – if there are cost increases or overruns, they will be added later. But it’s supposed to be all-inclusive, and long-term: it includes the purchase price, but also 30 years of maintenance costs and the salaries of people who will operate them.
> 
> It provides a great big number, with everything, in theory, thrown in. In this case, it’s a useful illustration: it amounts, with a just a small portion missing, to what it costs to buy and operate a navy over 30 years. The $105-billion breaks down (roughly, because of the accounting details) to about $3.5-billion a year in constant dollars – but it’s there year after year, for decades.
> 
> It includes the ships that are the backbone of the navy – the so-called “surface combatants” that will replace the current frigates and destroyers. Building “up to” 15 of them will cost $26.2-billion, and with maintenance and operations, the total cost is estimated at $90-billion over 30 years. The $105-billion total also includes the cost of replacing two supply ships and adding “up to” eight new Arctic patrol vessels. Barring the costs of operating and (possibly) replacing Canada’s four submarines and its 12 small coastal vessels, it’s pretty much the fleet.
> 
> There isn’t much to cut, unless you do without a navy. Some in the military would do without the Arctic patrol vessels, about 8 per cent of the cost estimate, but the government insists. The biggest element – about 85 per cent – is the crucial frigates. The $26.2-billion purchase price is already very tight, said David Perry, a defence analyst with the CDA Institute, so the government will have to either shrink the small fleet or skimp on their capabilities.
> 
> Big price tags for a navy and fighters mean a big figure has to be squeezed into the defence budget every year. Half the defence budget, more than $9-billion, goes to salaries, and only a small fraction is for the navy or fighter squadrons. The overwhelming portion is in the army and bureaucracy. Billions more are spent on bases and training – though the Defence Department is already reducing the latter. It is cutting billions, and stretching the life of equipment, but its capital spending is supposed to go up.
> 
> There’s still the other things Mr. Harper pledged to buy: search-and-rescue planes, maritime patrol planes and close-combat armoured vehicles. And as the estimate for warships illustrates, decisions made now will be paid for year after year, long after Mr. Harper is gone.
> 
> So far, it won’t all fit. Former lieutenant-general Andrew Leslie, when he was still in the army, called for restructuring the military, cutting overhead to pay for its cutting edge. The government still argues cost-cutting will make it fit. But something big has got to give, and as yet, the Conservative government hasn’t explained what it is. The military isn’t back to the decade of darkness, not yet, but its budget is in the shadows. Time for a new plan.
> 
> _Campbell Clark is a columnist in The Globe’s Ottawa bureau._




Let me repeat a few points:

     1. The Government of Canada is doing the right thing - restraining, cutting discretionary spending until its fiscal house is in order again;

     2. The _Canada First Defence Strategy_ was never about increasing Canada's military strength. It was, at best, a juvenile, ill advised bit of political fluff designed to fool the vast majority of Canadians who are economically illiterate,*
         at worst it was a cynical attempt to cut the military by stealth. It makes no _strategic_ sense at all - but then Canadian governments are, generally, poor at _strategy_, and it's poor economics, too;

     3. Defence spending is not _productive_ ~ and that includes "buy Canadian" projects;

     4. LGen (ret'd) Leslie is, partially, right, but a bit timid. The CF is a C2 train wreck. It is over-managed and mismanaged to a degree that goes beyond being disgraceful. Many, most of a our flag and general officers are, at least, one rank higher
         than necessary or even desirable and fully ⅓ can be, and should be retired without replacement ~ _management_ would improve ~ and we should "delayer" one complete level of the CF C2 superstructure;

     5. Canada needs a _grand strategy_, starting with a _vision_ that leads towards a sensible, politically acceptable foreign policy and a defence policy that produces armed forces which are:

          a. *A*ppropriate for a G8 nation which is, by any measure, in the world's top 10%,

          b. *A*daptable to an ever changing strategic environment;

          c. *A*vailable when and where needed ~ which implies adequate numbers of people (in units, not HQs) and adequate (working) equipment and adequate strategic "lift," and

          d. *A*ffordable ~ we may not be a "big league" military power, and we don't need or want to be one, but we can be, and should be in the _Triple A_ + league.


_____
* It probably worked with much of the Conservative base, too, which is, generally, less educated than the supporters of more _progressive_ parties.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Honestly.  When I saw that piece about the life cycle cost of new vessels over a 30 year period,  I wasn't a bit surprised.  What did they expect the cost of personnel, fuel and refits ect would cost over such a prolonged period of time?  I'd be willng bet that in reality the cost will be much more at the end of the day.  That's the cost of doing business and is exactly why you don't see the major powers or many others with major fleets of the past.  Who the hell can afford it?  This is just some trying to make hay and get the masses all up in arms at the expense of the government of the day.
 :


----------



## Edward Campbell

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Honestly.  When I saw that piece about the life cycle cost of new vessels over a 30 year period,  I wasn't a bit surprised.  What did they expect the cost of personnel, fuel and refits ect would cost over such a prolonged period of time?  I'd be willng bet that in reality the cost will be much more at the end of the day.  That's the cost of doing business and is exactly why you don't see the major powers or many others with major fleets of the past.  Who the hell can afford it?  This is just some trying to make hay and get the masses all up in arms at the expense of the government of the day.
> :



I'm pleased to see more realistic life cycle costs being used and publicized.

The downside is that these large numbers play into the hands of the large anti-military faction in Canada.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Yes, I agree it's good to be up front with it as well.  But, as I said it's someone who's trying to raise shit on the procurement at the Conservatives expense.  Pure politics.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Excellent article.  Shared under Section 29 of the Copyright Act.



> Kelly McParland: Demanding cost certainty for new Navy vessels is an exercise in fantasy
> Kelly McParland | 14/11/13 10:23 AM ET
> More from Kelly McParland | @KellyMcParland
> 
> A news item the other day reported that the federal government had, for the first time, released an all-inclusive figure  giving its best estimate for the total lifetime costs of the new warships it is building.  The bill, it said, “will exceed $100-billion … tens of billions of dollars more than Ottawa has previously disclosed.”
> 
> The implication is that the federal Conservatives are involved in another example of financial chicanery, similar to the ever-changing price estimates for the F-35 fighter purchase program. An NDP strategist duly appeared on Wednesday to declare the entire 30-year program (which is in Year Two) had been “bungled” and was “another absolute mismanagement of the procurement process.”
> 
> Which is nonsense.
> 
> The actual estimated cost for up to 15 surface combat vessels is $26.2 billion, pretty much what it was to begin with. Another $3 billion is budgeted for Arctic offshore patrol vessels. The inclusion of a package on non-combat vessels brings the price tag to $36.6 billion. A spokeswoman for Public Works and Government Services told the Halifax ChronicleHerald (much of the shipbuilding will take place in Halifax) that numbers may move a little now that the program is underway and more refined projections can be made.
> 
> What’s changed is this: in order to fend off headlines feigning shock and outrage, the government has made its best guess as to the total costs associated with the project over three decades. In addition to the actual cost to design and build the ships, it consulted its crystal ball and tried to estimated every other possible expense that could possibly relate to the ships over that period, including the running costs, the crew costs, the maintenance costs, the food costs,  repair costs … you name it. The hull gets a bit rusty and you have to scrape it clean … in 2031, say … and gee, what’s that going to cost, do you suppose? First you have to know how wages, benefits, fuel, supplies and general economic trends have changed between now and 2041 or so.  Then  you have to apply it to an entire fleet of  ships, based on how you think they might have been deployed in the interim.  It’s sheer fantasy: governments can barely get economic forecasts right from year to year, so guessing what the world might look like 20 or 30 years down the road is just make believe.
> 
> Ottawa needs to have a number to offer when asked, however, so it came up with one: $64 billion. As it noted in the Public Works update:
> 
> The Canadian Surface Combatant project is in the very early days of its definition work. At this point, the current preliminary acquisition cost estimate, for planning purposes, is approximately $26.2B. There is an additional early, projected estimate of approximately $64B for personnel, operating and maintenance costs over 30 years. This gives the Canadian Surface Combatant a total preliminary through-life cost estimate in the vicinity of $90B. It is important to note that the initial, rough estimate of $64B is a projection essentially based only on the costs associated with the existing frigate and destroyer fleets, and will be refined over time.
> Which, in English, means: “We don’t really know, but you wanted an estimate, so here’s an estimate.” This is the number that has critics salivating in hopes of another F-35 shouting match in Parliament.
> 
> There’s nothing clarifying about asking Ottawa to peer into a murky future and anticipate 30 years of costs for $26 billion worth of vessels.
> To demand exactitude in a project so large, vast and complex, spread over 30 years, is ridiculous. It’s a bit silly to even expect Ottawa to try.   These are war ships, people: they could go to war. Wars can do damage to ships. Say a shell hits a Canadian ship 20 years from now; you going to call up Stephen Harper in retirement and blame him for getting the estimate wrong?
> 
> The equivalent exercise in the non-government world would be to require automobile builders to advertise the price of their vehicles based on the estimated lifetime cost, rather than the amount they actually charge you to buy it.
> 
> So, a compact car priced at $25,000 would have to include all the estimated costs for gasoline, oil, repairs, tires, insurance, maintenance, and the possibility that, somewhere down the road, you back it into a tree and need a new bumper, which you decide to pay for yourself rather than risk your insurance rates being bumped. All that, over the entire lifetime of the car, which could vary anywhere from a few years to a couple of decades, depending on how you drive and how well you treat the vehicle.  So now your Honda Civic costs $60,000, even though you’re only going to pay $25,000. Does that make sense?
> 
> Everyone wants more clarity from Ottawa, and honesty when it comes to spending. But there’s nothing clarifying about asking Ottawa to peer into a murky future and anticipate 30 years of costs for $26 billion worth of vessels. You might as well ask it to announce the inflation rate 25 years down the road as well, and pick the Stanley Cup winners for 2023 through 2040.
> 
> National Post


----------



## Edward Campbell

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Excellent article.  Shared under Section 29 of the Copyright Act.




As to his _Honda Civic_ analogy: yes, it does make economic sense to understand and to programme, however roughly, the life cycle costs of a complex system. It makes very, very good sense with big, complex military systems like ships, major army weapon and support systems and aircraft.

But, the Auditor General of Canada, using the best available professional standards, needs to set (and, now and again, update) the rules for life cycle costing and DND, and other government departments and the Parliamentary Budget Officer need to obey those rules. As I understand the latest go 'rounds in Ottawa the AG, DND and PBO all have different systems; that's silly and counter-productive. The AG is the expert, not ADM(Mat) or ADM(Fin) or the PBO. One ring to rule rule to guide them all.


----------



## FSTO

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> As to his _Honda Civic_ analogy: yes, it does make economic sense to understand and to programme, however roughly, the life cycle costs of a complex system. It makes very, very good sense with big, complex military systems like ships, major army weapon and support systems and aircraft.
> 
> But, the Auditor General of Canada, using the best available professional standards, needs to set (and, now and again, update) the rules for life cycle costing and DND, and other government departments and the Parliamentary Budget Officer need to obey those rules. As I understand the latest go 'rounds in Ottawa the AG, DND and PBO all have different systems; that's silly and counter-productive. The AG is the expert, not ADM(Mat) or ADM(Fin) or the PBO. One ring to rule rule to guide them all.



It would be nice for a standard to be set. 
Also it would be nice for the "critics" to acknowledge that wages, rations, O&M (and other costs) are already captured within the yearly budget and that this is not new money that is over and above the yearly cost to operate the CAF. But then it is not sexy to point that out. Although our media outlets should be the ones to point out that fact to the talking heads. Sadly that never happens.


----------



## Edward Campbell

FSTO said:
			
		

> It would be nice for a standard to be set.
> Also it would be nice for the "critics" to acknowledge that wages, rations, O&M (and other costs) are already captured within the yearly budget and that this is not new money that is over and above the yearly cost to operate the CAF. But then it is not sexy to point that out. Although our media outlets should be the ones to point out that fact to the talking heads. Sadly that never happens.




Agree! And that's why we need someone like the AG, *a real, unbiased, expert accountant*, to set a standard, and then we need everyone ~ and governments (politicians and bureaucrats, alike) will hate this ~ to follow the damned rules or have their political and bureaucratic knuckles rapped, in public, for trying to lie to the Canadian people.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

FSTO said:
			
		

> It would be nice for a standard to be set.
> Also it would be nice for the "critics" to acknowledge that wages, rations, O&M (and other costs) are already captured within the yearly budget and that this is not new money that is over and above the yearly cost to operate the CAF. But then it is not sexy to point that out. Although our media outlets should be the ones to point out that fact to the talking heads. Sadly that never happens.



Mind you, when we asked for a tasking of a CCG ship, they wanted to charge us for every cost, not just the additional ones. The ship sitting at the dock consumes x amount of money a day without a tasking and then they wonder why we hire a commercial vessel instead. Sometimes I wonder if our own management understands such mundane facts as well.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Colin P said:
			
		

> Mind you, when we asked for a tasking of a CCG ship, they wanted to charge us for every cost, not just the additional ones. The ship sitting at the dock consumes x amount of money a day without a tasking and then they wonder why we hire a commercial vessel instead. Sometimes I wonder if our own management understands such mundane facts as well.




My guess, based on 37 years in uniform and another decade in the private sector working very closely with government, is that some, but not most, do not; but even those who do are bound by an incredible array of often contradictory regulations, some dating back to the 19th century, that make financially sound decision making difficult and, sometimes, even impossible.

The add political interference ...


----------



## Navy_Pete

I think some of the life cycle costing does have a lot of merit in some respects for looking at things like crew sizes.

It's nice to say we need x crew (which they have pulled a number out of their asses without knowing what the ship looks like, what it will do, or how they will run it), but everytime you add a body onboard, there is a large cost once you get above the critical mass that will fit into the hull you end up with based on the stability/seakeeping requirements.  For every crew member you have growth in the requirement for all habitability systems (sewage, garbage, fridges, HVAC etc) and the various life saving systems (lifeboats, fire escape etc).

It's a good way to keep the good ideas club from arbitrarily pulling a crew size out of their hats, and as we are generally well ahead of other navies in embracing automation with each ship, core crew sizes should be shrinking, not growing.

Some of the other navies now run their CTG staff from a shore unit and use satcomms to pass orders.  When it's working, it's indistinguishable from embarked command staff for all the other ships in consort.  That way the Cmdre can have 30 staff with all their own minions without needing the bunking and infrastructure on the ship. If nothing else, morale on the ships probably improves as you aren't suddenly overrun with the mobile ballast extra personnel that come on board.

You can make the argument that kind of arrangement leaves you vulnerable if comms are down, but I've seen first hand how few of them are actually useful if they are embarked and comms go down (ie about 5 of the 60 were doing anything, the others were hanging out in the messes watching movies).


----------



## Kirkhill

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> (about 5 of the 60 were doing anything, the others were hanging out in the messes watching movies).



About a year or so ago I was looking at the nominal roles for HMS Victory at Trafalgar.  Of the 1000 or so men on board (primarily gunners and marines with a small cadre of shiphandlers and tradesmen) I could only identify a staff for Nelson of about 7 men.


----------



## Edward Campbell

More cuts coming according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/national/Troop+reductions+could+table+Canada+defence+chief+says/9185278/story.html


> Troop reductions could be on the table, Canada’s defence chief says
> 
> BY LEE BERTHIAUME, POSTMEDIA NEWS
> 
> NOVEMBER 19, 2013
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Tom Lawson
> Photograph by: Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press/Files , Postmedia News
> 
> OTTAWA – Canada’s top soldier has raised the possibility of cutting military personnel from the Canadian Forces’ ranks to deal with budget cuts.
> 
> The federal Conservative government has long said it will not reduce the military’s strength from its current total of 68,000 full-time members and 27,000 reservists despite billions of dollars in spending reductions.
> 
> But Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Tom Lawson told reporters Tuesday that cuts could be on the table when military planners present cabinet with options for a new long-term vision for the Canadian Forces in the coming months.
> 
> Lawson made the remarks following a speech to the Canadian Club in which he acknowledged the difficulties in dealing with the budget cuts while maintaining the military’s current strength and not cutting the Canadian Forces’ capabilities.
> 
> More to come …
> 
> lberthiaume(at)postmedia.com
> 
> Twitter:/leeberthiaume
> 
> © Copyright (c) Postmedia News




Troop reductions would be a very, very good thing if they are applied, 100%, to the too numerous, bloated HQs in and around Ottawa. We can do with several, about ⅓ fewer admirals and generals and far fewer navy captains and colonels, too.


----------



## Teager

OTTAWA – Canada’s top soldier has raised the possibility of cutting military personnel from the Canadian Forces’ ranks to deal with budget cuts.

The federal Conservative government has long said it will not reduce the military’s strength from its current total of 68,000 full-time members and 27,000 reservists despite billions of dollars in spending reductions.

But Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Tom Lawson told reporters Tuesday that cuts could be on the table when military planners present cabinet with options for a new long-term vision for the Canadian Forces in the coming months.

Lawson made the remarks following a speech to the Canadian Club in which he acknowledged the difficulties in dealing with the budget cuts while maintaining the military’s current strength and not cutting the Canadian Forces’ capabilities.

More to come …

lberthiaume(at)postmedia.com

Twitter:/leeberthiaume


----------



## PuckChaser

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Troop reductions would be a very, very good thing if they are applied, 100%, to the too numerous, bloated HQs in and around Ottawa. We can do with several, about ⅓ fewer admirals and generals and far fewer navy captains and colonels, too.



And you know thats exactly what won't be cut. Would you approve a plan to cut your own job? PYs will come out of operational units, reduced recruiting or another FRP.


----------



## Edward Campbell

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> And you know thats exactly what won't be cut. Would you approve a plan to cut your own job? PYs will come out of operational units, reduced recruiting or another FRP.




I fear you're correct. My statement reflects the triumph of hope over experience.  :dunno:


----------



## PuckChaser

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I fear you're correct. My statement reflects the triumph of hope over experience.  :dunno:



Unfortunately to quote a motivational poster I saw recently at work, "Hope is not a valid COA." Fingers crossed I'm proven wrong on this, some trades won't survive PY cuts again.


----------



## blacktriangle

So what did FRP entail the last time around? Are there any incentives for those serving on IE25 but not eligible for a pension yet? I have figured something like this would happen in the near future...but I guess they haven't said any specifics yet. 

I concur with others that we are in a bloated military that is executive friendly. I don't see the cuts coming in the right places.


----------



## jollyjacktar

FRP! FRP! FRP!   :nod:


----------



## MilEME09

Well we can hope harper will stick with his commitment and keep personal levels where they are and throw this idea out the door


----------



## Jarnhamar

Talkin to the ol Canadian Club eh? I do that sometimes too.


----------



## blacktriangle

LOL


----------



## The Bread Guy

Teager said:
			
		

> OTTAWA – Canada’s top soldier has raised the possibility of cutting military personnel from the Canadian Forces’ ranks to deal with budget cuts.
> 
> ( .... )
> 
> More to come …
> 
> lberthiaume(at)postmedia.com
> 
> Twitterleeberthiaume


More here at the latest version of the story.


----------



## George Wallace

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Well we can hope harper will stick with his commitment and keep personal levels where they are and throw this idea out the door



With the Pips and Crowns?


----------



## CombatDoc

Interesting.  6 weeks ago at the Defence Renewal Team rollout, the message was that there were no planned reductions in military positions, that Defence Renewal was about reinvesting money savings. Then, Gen (Ret'd) Hillier suggests that we reduce the Reg F from 68K to 50K. Now, a mere 6 weeks later, troop reductions are potentially on the table due to budget cuts.

This would follow the historical short-sighted Canadian practice of over-reducing military strength after a conflict. Hard not to think "thank you for your service" post-Afghanistan.


----------



## tomahawk6

So what regiments will give up a battalion ?  >


----------



## CombatDoc

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> So what regiments will give up a battalion ?  >


Since the goal is "more tooth, less tail" it is unlikely to be any combat arms units. Not sure how you cut 5k+ positions and re-allocate another 5K to new capabilities (Chinook, cyber, int) etc without completely gutting capabilities.  Pointy end bayonets are not the rate-limiting step in operational capability, it is often the supporting enablers.


----------



## MilEME09

CombatDoc said:
			
		

> Edited due to duplicate post. Apologies.



I see a lot of waist lines that need cutting > maybe that will save money


----------



## McG

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> More cuts coming according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_:
> 
> http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/national/Troop+reductions+could+table+Canada+defence+chief+says/9185278/story.html
> 
> Troop reductions would be a very, very good thing if they are applied, 100%, to the too numerous, bloated HQs in and around Ottawa. We can do with several, about ⅓ fewer admirals and generals and far fewer navy captains and colonels, too.


I agree.  Given his previous stance on managing defence costs, I could even see the PM publicly directing that (if cuts do occur) only headquarters establishments may be reduced and that units must be left alone.  This would be a good thing (though, there are certainly units that have fat to shed too).

We have identified a number of reduction opportunities in this thread already.  Admittedly, I would have preferred to see cuts in one place reinvested in another, but we have to live within our fiscal limitations.  Previously identified areas for force reduction include:

Consolidate RMC, CMR and CFC into a single educational establishment in Kingston
Consolidate CADTC HQ and CTC HQ into a single Canadian Army Training Group HQ under a BGen in Gagetown. 
Eliminate the Reg F bands. 
Rebalance officer enrollment paths to reduce the number of ROTP entrants while increasing the number of DEO entrants. 
Enforce limits on GOFOs as ordered in the 1997 MND report (roughly a 1/3 reduction).
We could also look at partial civilianization of PSel and TDO occupations.  Others have mentioned blanket 10% cuts to all staffs, though I prefer a deliberate line-by-line, task-by-task review of the establishment which will target areas of fat more specifically than other places.



			
				jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> FRP! FRP! FRP!   :nod:


I hope we can find a more intelligent way of reducing the personnel to match any drop in positions.  Fresh RMC grads should not be given a big chunk of cash to go off into civilian world with their free education, but instead there should be a system that targets/encourages those personnel who have reached or are most closely approaching the 20 year mark.  As previously mentioned by dapaterson, we could/should also return to annual TOS boards (particularly at ranks of LCol and above and MWO and above) to determine whether continued service meets a military requirement.

One can expect that any force reduction will be accompanied by an end to accommodations as it will become more urgent to fill those positions with fit service personnel.  That will add urgency to resolving issues related to transition support and veteran support for injured soldiers.


----------



## X Royal

Just seen this story.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/cutting-size-military-could-table-harper-government-201346410.html
Any thoughts.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> FRP! FRP! FRP!   :nod:



Perhaps a telling sign on the state of the Army (Or maybe just my particular sub-component of it) was that on hearing the news of a potential FRP people actually got EXCITED and began discussing the possibility of it being like the last one with buy outs, etc. 

Any similar experiences or are the people in my sub-component just that low morale?


----------



## Halifax Tar

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Perhaps a telling sign on the state of the Army (Or maybe just my particular sub-component of it) was that on hearing the news of a potential FRP people actually got EXCITED and began discussing the possibility of it being like the last one with buy outs, etc.
> 
> Any similar experiences or are the people in my sub-component just that low morale?



I am roughly 6 years from a 20 year pension so the deal would have to be pretty good but I will defiantly look at what is offered if something is offered.  I wasn't around for FRP, how did it work ?


----------



## Remius

I doubt they will do FRP as it was back in the 90's.  They haven't offered any deals to teh PS in their reduction.

My guess?  They'll start with attrition.  I'm willing to bet those that have 30 years + that are due for retirement are in HQ establishments anyway and they will simply not replace those positions.

MCG's RMC consolidation is a good start and reducing ROTP targets in favour of DEO is another.

Not sure about the bands though.  Maybe reduce to the CF Central Band only. 

Maybe, just maybe we'll see some real reserve restructuring as well.


----------



## OldSolduer

My feeling - no FRP will be offered. Some of the cuts will be covered by attrition and reduced recruiting.

Having said that - this is a trial balloon. If it's not shot down it may float....ya know?


----------



## George Wallace

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> My feeling - no FRP will be offered. Some of the cuts will be covered by attrition and reduced recruiting.
> 
> Having said that - this is a trial balloon. If it's not shot down it may float....ya know?



I doubt attrition will meet the goals.  We all know what kinds of problems reduced recruiting generate.  

Doesn't look good.


----------



## kilekaldar

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> So what regiments will give up a battalion ?  >



Looks like 2 VP and 2 RCR.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/analysis/manitobans-need-answer-on-shilos-future-232964821.html


----------



## Remius

kilekaldar said:
			
		

> Looks like 2 VP and 2 RCR.
> 
> http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/analysis/manitobans-need-answer-on-shilos-future-232964821.html



Looks more like worries as opposed to actual decisions about both.  The article is also a bit misleading in that the minister waffled on the whole garantee that 2VP won't be cut.  By stating yea or nay it would be easy to start speculating.  Not garanteeing it does not mean it's a fait accompli.

It would make more sense to amalgamate 1 and 3 RCR (both are in the same area and share space with CSOR) and it might actually be better to do it in a riding that will vote CPC no matter what.

2 RCR is the only atlantic infantry footprint (barring the reserves) so it makes no sense to cut them.  But I wouldn't put it past them to merge 2 of the PPCLI battalions.

We'll see what comes.


----------



## George Wallace

You do realize you just said: "makes no sense".  You of course know that usually means something is about to happen that does not make sense, and someone will call it "a good thing".


----------



## Remius

George Wallace said:
			
		

> You do realize you just said: "makes no sense".  You of course know that usually means something is about to happen that does not make sense, and someone will call it "a good thing".



Very true George.  Not sure if they'll call it a good thing, but they'll likely sell it as making the CF leaner and meaner and how they are commited to a robust, effective and capable CF, thank the men and women who have served.  Plenty of spin on whetever happens.


----------



## OldSolduer

kilekaldar said:
			
		

> Looks like 2 VP and 2 RCR.
> 
> http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/analysis/manitobans-need-answer-on-shilos-future-232964821.html



Don't hold your breath.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

It would cost far to much to move all the pers and equipment from Shilo to Edm as well as cleaning up the Base to be turned over to the public.


----------



## OldSolduer

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> It would cost far to much to move all the pers and equipment from Shilo to Edm as well as cleaning up the Base to be turned over to the public.


Couple with the fact disbanding the battalion,  the only unit in the CF that has been awarded the US Presidential Unit Citation for Kapyong would not sit well with the soldiers, the Americans and the Koreans.


----------



## Jed

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Couple with the fact disbanding the battalion,  the only unit in the CF that has been awarded the US Presidential Unit Citation for Kapyong would not sit well with the soldiers, the Americans and the Koreans.



Probably go over as well as disbanding the Airborne Regiment or messing with the Black Watch or Queen's Own.


----------



## Old Sweat

We are getting wrapped around the axle over a bit of speculation by an individual who wrote an oped piece that was published in The Winnipeg Free Press. The author made a bunch of assumptions, some of which may be valid and some of which appear to be pretty wild. Any meaningful reduction in the CAF would have to entail cutting much more than the 1300 positions or so embodied in two battalions. Frankly I am prepared to see what falls out of the trees in the days ahead, but to reach the ceiling Rick Hillier was talking about would require massive amputations, not just trimming. I don't think that is politically possible or even very smart, given the state of the world.


----------



## Rifleman62

Jim Seggie: 





> Couple with the fact disbanding the battalion, the only unit in the CF that has been awarded the US Presidential Unit Citation for Kapyong would not sit well with the soldiers, the Americans and the Koreans.



Sorry RSM, that means nothing to the Americans or the Koreans, nor to any government.

If we were to cut one of the two PRes Inf units in Wpg, who would it be?

A unit that costs the government extra for kilts, bag pipes, or a unit that has the "Royal" designator, the name of the city in its title, and a longer more distinguished history?

We have gone through this many times as recently as less than ten years ago when the Camerons almost got re-rolled to Engineers.

Winnipeg does not need, has not needed since the 70's two PRes Infantry units. Unsustainable. When the time comes to cut, I fear the Highland mafia will have the most pull. History, names, etc will not even enter into the equation.


----------



## rifleman

Perhaps they could cut one battalion down to something like 10% Regular Force and 90% Reservist?


----------



## Halifax Tar

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Jim Seggie:
> Sorry RSM, that means nothing to the Americans or the Koreans, nor to any government.
> 
> If we were to cut one of the two PRes Inf units in Wpg, who would it be?
> 
> A unit that costs the government extra for kilts, bag pipes, or a unit that has the "Royal" designator, the name of the city in its title, and a longer more distinguished history?



Sounds like buttons and bows to me... I believe many on here are against that stuff...


----------



## Monsoon

rifleman said:
			
		

> Perhaps they could cut one battalion down to something like 10% Regular Force and 90% Reservist?


Given that the structure of most reserve units is 8-10 full timers and 80-100 class "A" types, that would be pretty much every militia unit in the army.


----------



## McG

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> It would cost far too much to move all the pers and equipment from Shilo to Edm as well as cleaning up the Base to be turned over to the public.


Consolidating 1 CMBG is one of those things that would spend money to save money.  Overtime there would be savings from reductions of cost moves, TD and equipment transportation.  It would also make life easier as the Bde would not find itself trying to FG a TF in two separated locations, or conducting identical min-load courses in two locations to avoid putting half a max-load course on TD.

Moving 1RCHA and 2PPCLI from Shilo would not necessitate the base be closed (though some facilities on the base would be).  And (depending on who you talk to) the preferred consolidation location for 1 CMBG would be debatable.


----------



## Strike

MCG said:
			
		

> Consolidating 1 CMBG is one of those things that would spend money to save money.  Overtime there would be savings from reductions of cost moves, TD and equipment transportation.  It would also make life easier as the Bde would not find itself trying to FG a TF in two separated locations, or conducting identical min-load courses in two locations to avoid putting half a max-load course on TD.
> 
> Moving 1RCHA and 2PPCLI from Shilo would not necessitate the base be closed (though some facilities on the base would be).  And (depending on who you talk to) the preferred consolidation location for 1 CMBG would be debatable.



What you would also have to consider is where the guns would be able to play.  Do we even have enough land around Edmonton?  Is Wainwright comparable?  The cost of land in Alberta is pretty darned high, then add the costs for environmental assessments and the time it would take to get all of that set up.  By the time any of that were to ever get sorted, the winds of change would be blowing again and the solution of moving the guns would no longer be valid.


----------



## OldSolduer

There is also the political element to consider. The Conservatives may lose ground in Manitoba if one of the two major units is moved.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

I have heard that this story is completely unfounded.  It might be worth it to hold off on the frenzy of discussion until Monday and see what the chain of command has to say.


----------



## GAP

This whole issue is based on an article about a Liberal trying to create an issue that they can cry foul on regarding a dumb question. 



> That's not good enough for Lamoureux, who says "the future of 2 PPCLI and CFB Shilo are being put into question because of this government's lack of commitment to Manitoba. People all over the province, and in particular Shilo, are concerned. The minister's non-answer causes me to believe that they have a hidden agenda and they do not want their decision to interfere with the upcoming byelection."
> 
> Up to now, the Brandon-Souris byelection has lacked a dominant issue for candidates and voters to focus on. The possibility of 2 PPCLI and CFB Shilo being targeted by federal spending cuts -- and the possibility the Harper government is withholding the news until after the byelection -- could reframe the dynamics of the campaign days before the vote.



That the issue right there and it's media pap. It is cold in Manitoba this weekend, so other than grannies skidding into the ditches while driving, what else is going on.......oh, that byelection thingy in Brandon....hmmm.......

The possibility of 2 PPCLI and CFB Shilo being targeted by federal spending cuts is a guarantee......as proportionally as every other area. Some a wee bit more than others.


----------



## Strike

Kinda like Goose Bay - every few months someone tries to stir the pot in order to get people to vote for them/support them without thinking about how much their unfounded rumours are affecting people.


----------



## Haletown

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> We are getting wrapped around the axle over a bit of speculation by an individual who wrote an oped piece that was published in The Winnipeg Free Press. The author made a bunch of assumptions, some of which may be valid and some of which appear to be pretty wild. Any meaningful reduction in the CAF would have to entail cutting much more than the 1300 positions or so embodied in two battalions. Frankly I am prepared to see what falls out of the trees in the days ahead, but to reach the ceiling Rick Hillier was talking about would require massive amputations, not just trimming. I don't think that is politically possible or even very smart, given the state of the world.



An OpEd pice written by someone who has a long deep history with the Liberal Party of Canada. Not saying he is pushing an agenda buy there is an election happening in the  area and politics is politics.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I have heard that this story is completely unfounded.  It might be worth it to hold off on the frenzy of discussion until Monday and see what the chain of command has to say.



Thank you. I was waiting for someone in the bigger picture to respond.


----------



## 54/102 CEF

Straws in the wind but big names verbalising...........

Get a trade / skill to take with you out the door is always good advice 

Troop reductions could be on the table, Canada’s defence chief says Lee Berthiaume
Published: November 19, 2013, 2:29 pm
http://o.canada.com/news/national/troop-reductions-could-be-on-the-table-canadas-defence-chief-says/

"One of Lawson’s predecessors, retired general Rick Hillier, warned in a recent interview that reducing the size of the military was the only way to ensure the force remains strong and stable.

“If we do this right, we can still have an agile force, we can still have a superbly trained force and we can still have a force capable in this era of threats,” Hillier told CTV in September. “But it’s going to be smaller, you just can’t get around it.”

Putting Military Pay on the Table
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Published: November 30, 2013
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/01/opinion/sunday/putting-military-pay-on-the-table.html?hp&rref=opinion

"After a decade of war, the very idea of cutting benefits to soldiers, sailors and Marines who put their lives on the line seems ungrateful. But America’s involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan is over or winding down, and the Pentagon is obliged to find nearly $1 trillion in savings over 10 years. Tough choices will be required in all parts of the budget. Compensation includes pay, retirement benefits, health care and housing allowances. It consumes about half the military budget, and it is increasing.

In a speech last month, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel warned that without serious savings in this area, “we risk becoming an unbalanced force, one that is well compensated but poorly trained and equipped, with limited readiness and capability.” Meanwhile, Gen. Ray Odierno, the Army chief of staff, told a hearing: “The cost of a soldier has doubled since 2001; it’s going to almost double again by 2025. We can’t go on like this, so we have to come up with [new] compensation packages.”


----------



## Transporter

The military compensation package in the US is sweet, but expensive. Pension is 2.5% per year, average best three, collect after 20. And that's without having to pay a dime into it. Also, upon retirement, free (or nearly free) health/dental care for members and their dependants at US military medical facilities. It's even sweeter if you consider the fact that nine (9) states have no state income tax, thirteen (13) other states exempt 100% of military pensions from income tax, and virtually all of the remaining states have varying tax exemptions or deductions for military pension income (ex, 50% of pension income exempt from taxation, etc).


----------



## Occam

You know it's bad when...

Received as a NCR-wide e-mail.



PLANTS IN THE WORKPLACE

The Treasury Board Secretariat’s ‘Guide to the Management of Real Property’ categorizes plants as a discretionary expense. Accordingly, plants are considered to be optional within the workplace. The Government of Canada Workplace 2.0 Fit-up Standards have clarified that plants and associated maintenance costs, previously covered by PWGSC, are now in fact a tenant (DND) responsibility.  The cost to DND to maintain the plants currently placed in the workplace within the NCR would be in the neighbourhood of $300,000 per year. Therefore, given that plants in the workplace are not core to DND's mandate, and that we are facing some significant current budgetary challenges, DND will not assume these costs.  As such, PWGSC will arrange for the removal, disposal and/or relocation of the existing plant inventory over the coming weeks and months as our maintenance contracts expire.

This message is being sent on behalf of Brigadier-General M.P. Jorgensen, Chief of Staff to the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, to all recipients in the National Capital Region (NCR) and as such does not need to be forwarded to anyone within the NCR.  Please do not reply as this mailbox is not monitored.


----------



## Old Sweat

Geez, Jorgey survived the Herc crash (in Alaska?) when he was in the AB Regt to be reduced to this.

 :sarcasm:


----------



## PPCLI Guy

300K will buy a week in the field for 1 CMBG.  I say kudos for rooting out waste wherever it is.


----------



## Old Sweat

Imagine how long 1 CMBG could be in the field if the system had the discipline to prune the staff with the equal vigour shown in clear cutting NDHQ.


----------



## Infanteer

That's the kind of line item review that needs to be done; managing the budget won't be about big things like cutting a battalion, it'll be about eliminating the death by 1000 cuts that occurs daily throughout the defence budget.  Kudos to the General.


----------



## Good2Golf

> I say kudos for rooting out waste wherever it is.



I see what you did there. :nod:


----------



## The Bread Guy

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

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


*Excellent* stat - useful as a response to anyone saying, "it's _only_ a few hundred thousand, nothing that'll break the bank if we keep it in."


----------



## Edward Campbell

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> *Excellent* stat - useful as a response to anyone saying, "it's _only_ a few hundred thousand, nothing that'll break the bank if we keep it in."




 :goodpost:

And it reinforces the good points made by Infanteer and PPCLI Guy. Sorry as I am too see BGen Mike Jorgensen shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic paper on the 13th floor, he's doing the right thing and he's doing things right.

Remember this, Old Sweat? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





I'm not sure printing "Misuse is abuse" on pencils and rulers was cost effective but you and I both remember what real austerity felt like, don't we?


----------



## Old Sweat

The trouble with cutting the small stuff is that the system lacks the discipline to keep all the little "nice to haves" out. Watch for the plants to creep back in over the next few years. I may be cynical, but how much could be saved by curtailing or rolling back the growth in headquarters' size and especially the ones that exist purely to put the gloss of self importance on staff functions? Methinks the institutional wing of the CAF and DND is hunkered down and will outwit and out wait the reformers once again.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> .... how much could be saved by curtailing or rolling back the growth in headquarters' size and especially the ones that exist purely to put the gloss of self importance on staff functions? ....


The tough part is reaching internal consensus at that level re: which bits "put the gloss of self importance on staff functions".  Who offers to walk the plank first?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

I wonder how much baby will go with the bath water.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> The trouble with cutting the small stuff is that the system lacks the discipline to keep all the little "nice to haves" out. Watch for the plants to creep back in over the next few years. I may be cynical, but how much could be saved by curtailing or rolling back the growth in headquarters' size and especially the ones that exist purely to put the gloss of self importance on staff functions? Methinks the institutional wing of the CAF and DND is hunkered down and will outwit and out wait the reformers once again.




I couldn't agree more, but you and I have both seen more than one of these _decades of darkness_®, and that's why you know the small stuff, the "nice to haves," will creep back, but, until (unless) some organizational discipline is imposed on the CF ~ because it seems unlikely that the CF will discipline itself, the "senior leadership" being bereft of leaders ~ then the small stuff will have to do. Warships are being tied up, potted plants for HQ functionaries can go, too.

Of course, maybe Capt Bligh (or the captain from "Mister Roberts") could use them ... to raise morale, of course.


----------



## dapaterson

Perhaps leave the plants, and let the employees water them on their own time, instead of hiring plant attendants?  After all, for the past decade everyone in NDHQ takes care of their own garbage - no cleaners.

Do folks in 1 CMBG still have cleaners picking up garbage from their desks?


----------



## Infanteer

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Do folks in 1 CMBG still have cleaners picking up garbage from their desks?



Yep, she just came through my office.  Mind you, I believe that is a 3 CDSG/CDSB Edm expense.


----------



## dapaterson

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Yep, she just came through my office.  Mind you, I believe that is a 3 CDSG/CDSB Edm expense.



So, you're saying Comd 3 Div spends money on cleaners to pick up your trash rather than have you take it out the bin yourself.  And therefore that's a higher priority to him than giving 1 CMBG more money for training.

And how much is spent on ground maintenance for Edmonton - for flowers etc - you know, the plants that will be eliminated in NDHQ?

I'm betting there's more than 300K that could be saved in Edmonton alone... but this 300K is in NDHQ / CFSU(Ottawa), and therefore we should eliminate everything there.


----------



## Occam

dapaterson said:
			
		

> And how much is spent on ground maintenance for Edmonton - for flowers etc - you know, the plants that will be eliminated in NDHQ?



Looking here at LStL and 455 DLC (now known as the ADM(Mat) Campus), I don't see many plants in common areas within the buildings.  I know this is outside the scope of the e-mail this morning - but the landscaping and greenery that is done on the outside surrounding the two buildings is impressive...and IMHO overkill.  We could fence in the property surrounding the buildings, post an armed guard, and grow cash crops (medicinal pot, perhaps?) to supplement DND's budget.  

Now where did I put that ADM(Mat) Suggestion Award form...


----------



## dapaterson

Occam said:
			
		

> Looking here at LStL and 455 DLC (now known as the ADM(Mat) Campus), I don't see many plants in common areas within the buildings.  I know this is outside the scope of the e-mail this morning - but the landscaping and greenery that is done on the outside surrounding the two buildings is impressive...and IMHO overkill.  We could fence in the property surrounding the buildings, post an armed guard, and grow cash crops (medicinal pot, perhaps?) to supplement DND's budget.
> 
> Now where did I put that ADM(Mat) Suggestion Award form...



Ah, but those are not DND owned buildings.   Rented.  And the owners have requirements under local zoning to maintain the properties (which they contract out).

But the idea of growing medical maijuana in a secure area, like the hallways of NDHQ... I think you deserve a DM's innovation award.  Or at least a bag of nacho chips.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

All cleaning services at CFB Shilo are done by a contracted from sweeping floors to taking out the garbage.


----------



## Occam

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Ah, but those are not DND owned buildings.   Rented.



Seen.  That would explain it.



> But the idea of growing medical maijuana in a secure area, like the hallways of NDHQ... I think you deserve a DM's innovation award.  Or at least a bag of nacho chips.



I like nacho chips.   ;D  

Kidding aside, this is my first experience with a frozen NICP (spare parts) budget, and it's a little daunting.  All these buys are piling up, and when the taps reopen in April, I can see the budget being exhausted in very short order.  The techs in uniform are going to have to do some creative maintenance on the equipment when parts bins in the warehouses start coming up empty.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Occam said:
			
		

> ...
> Kidding aside, this is my first experience with a frozen NICP (spare parts) budget, and it's a little daunting.  All these buys are piling up, and when the taps reopen in April, I can see the budget being exhausted in very short order.  The techs in uniform are going to have to do some creative maintenance on the equipment when parts bins in the warehouses start coming up empty.




We've been through that before and hopefully the folks in the LCMM shops and in the 3rd andf 2nd line maintenance units remember how to manage shortages and how to manage the (too small) "flood" in April.

Good luck!


----------



## Infanteer

dapaterson said:
			
		

> So, you're saying Comd 3 Div spends money on cleaners to pick up your trash rather than have you take it out the bin yourself.  And therefore that's a higher priority to him than giving 1 CMBG more money for training.
> 
> And how much is spent on ground maintenance for Edmonton - for flowers etc - you know, the plants that will be eliminated in NDHQ?
> 
> I'm betting there's more than 300K that could be saved in Edmonton alone... but this 300K is in NDHQ / CFSU(Ottawa), and therefore we should eliminate everything there.



Sure.  But my budget only has L101, so I don't know who decides to pay for cleaners but if I do, I'll pass on your idea.


----------



## McG

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> The trouble with cutting the small stuff is that the system lacks the discipline to keep all the little "nice to haves" out.





			
				Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> I wonder how much baby will go with the bath water.


These are my worries.  Part of the answer is here: 





			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> That's the kind of line item review that needs to be done; managing the budget won't be about big things like cutting a battalion, it'll be about eliminating the death by 1000 cuts that occurs daily throughout the defence budget.


The potential savings are exist; we have identified a number of reduction opportunities in this thread already and can now add office garbage removal and plant maintenance to the growing list of potential savings.

Unfortunately, it is easier to take the belt-sander to evenly wear-down everywhere than it is to locate and make deep cuts to the areas of luxury and option … especially to those such areas that also have stakeholders ready to fight for preserving the excess.

In a time of austerity, the loss of indoor vegetation is a good news story.


----------



## Privateer

My suggestion for one (admittedly minor) item that could be cut immediately:  The plastic name tags worn on DEU.  The tags are ugly and unnecessary on non-operational clothing.  An easy item to just delete from the system.  These should just disappear.


----------



## Furniture

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Perhaps leave the plants, and let the employees water them on their own time, instead of hiring plant attendants?  After all, for the past decade everyone in NDHQ takes care of their own garbage - no cleaners.
> 
> Do folks in 1 CMBG still have cleaners picking up garbage from their desks?



This is an excellent idea! No cleaners just like on ship, the Jr ranks will clean all of the ship/office twice a day. Of course during that time nothing else will get done because the highly paid experts are scrubbing toilets and floors... seems like a perfect system. Maybe we should hire a few thousand extra Pte-Cpl to make sure our toilets and break rooms are clean at all times, we cam even call them Molly's to keep the RCN influence alive.

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....


----------



## Occam

Privateer said:
			
		

> My suggestion for one (admittedly minor) item that could be cut immediately:  The plastic name tags worn on DEU.  The tags are ugly and unnecessary on non-operational clothing.  An easy item to just delete from the system.  These should just disappear.



Or......if you really want a DEU nametag, you can buy (from your personal funds) one of those designer/vanity nametags that I've seen OUTCAN people wear.  You know:

Lieutenant Commander James "Jimbo" Bloggins
Royal Canadian Navy
Executive Assistant to the Chief Bottle Washer
ADCOMSUBORDCOMPHIBSPAC

Toss on a couple of unit/command badges and you're good to go.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Wrt the plants contract, to put it in context, the contractor performing the work hired mentally handicapped people to do the work, so now they are out of work.  This was cut across a number of departments.

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


----------



## Occam

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> 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

WeatherdoG said:
			
		

> 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

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> 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

Occam said:
			
		

> 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 ....


			
				PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> *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

MCG said:
			
		

> 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

MCG said:
			
		

> 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

MCG said:
			
		

> 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

Occam said:
			
		

> 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

MCG said:
			
		

> 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

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> 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

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> 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

Lightguns said:
			
		

> 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

dapaterson said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## Journeyman

Lightguns said:
			
		

> There is actually a part of the government that gets supplied and maintained potted plants?


Yes, they're posted in.   :nod:


----------



## dapaterson

Lightguns said:
			
		

> There is actually a part of the government that gets supplied and maintained potted plants?



And the landscaping on a base appears by magic without human intervention?


----------



## OldSolduer

dapaterson said:
			
		

> And the landscaping on a base appears by magic without human intervention?



A distant cousin of the Good Idea Fairy.


----------



## George Wallace

dapaterson said:
			
		

> And the landscaping on a base appears by magic without human intervention?



50/50.  Someone has to load those rounds fired into the Impact Areas.


----------



## Occam

milnews.ca said:
			
		

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



As long as we're on the topic, there's an update from DND as well.  From the Defence Team people (DWAN link only):



> Adopt a Plant – Keeping DND Green for a Good Cause
> 
> Recent policy changes have meant that the DND has had to part with all of the greenery in its National Capital Region offices. Thanks to the quick thinking of one employee, not everyone is saying goodbye to their workplace plant life.
> 
> Upon hearing of the plant removal, <_name removed_> took it upon herself to place an online bid on the 60 plants located within her building. As luck would have it, she won them all.
> 
> Not having the means to take care of all the plants herself, Ms. <_name removed_> set up a plant “adoption” program, which would give employees in her office the opportunity to take on the responsibility for caring for their favourite office plants. For a minimum adoption fee of $20, employees could choose to either take their plants home, or leave them at work. The initiative has been a great success! Within less than a week of returning from holidays all 60 plants found new caregivers.
> 
> All proceeds from the adoptions are being donated to the Soldier On Fund, a Canadian Armed Forces charitable fund that helps serving and retired military members overcome their non-visible or visible illness and injury through sport and other physically challenging activities. To more than $1,230 has been raised.
> 
> Anyone inspired by Ms. <_name removed_>’s initiative, can place bids on the auction website at www.gcsurplus.ca.


----------



## Old Sweat

This story which states that DND requested the deferment of $3B from its capital budget was taken from the National Newswatch site. It is reproduced under the Fair Dealings provision of the Copyright Act.

DND requested budget time-out: Harper

By The Canadian Press — Feb 12 2014

OTTAWA - Prime Minister Stephen Harper says the request to put off $3 billion in military equipment purchases was made by National Defence and does not represent a cut.

His comment comes in the face of Opposition demands that the Conservatives outline precisely which capital programs are being deferred over the next three years.

The new federal budget provided a global figure but no details on what is affected and when the reinvestment will occur.

Harper says the budget adjustment came from the military because it's unable to spend the cash during that time period, which happens to coincide with the government's drive to balance the budget.

Defence experts say the delay means that programs will lose buying power and the military may have to do with either fewer or less-capable pieces of equipment.

Harper insists the money will be available when the department needs it.


----------



## Nemo888

I'm not really sure what that means. Deferred for three years and it needs to be deliberately put back into the budget kind of sounds like cut to me.

Any better numbers available? They don't say where the cuts will be. 2012 was over a 40 billion deficit, 2013 still waiting for Q4 to get the final numbers.  A balanced budget will not be painless.


----------



## The Bread Guy

No _wonder_ all that capital spending is being "moved" - DND wanted it!


> Prime Minister Stephen Harper says the request to put off $3 billion in military equipment purchases was made by National Defence and does not represent a cut.
> 
> His comment comes in the face of Opposition demands that the Conservatives outline precisely which capital programs are being deferred over the next three years.
> 
> The new federal budget provided a global figure but no details on what is affected and when the reinvestment will occur.
> 
> Harper says the budget adjustment came from the military because it’s unable to spend the cash during that time period, which happens to coincide with the government’s drive to balance the budget ....


----------



## Edward Campbell

David Parkins, in the _Globe and Mail_, explains the impact of the federal budget on the Canadian Armed Forces in one picture:






Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/are-you-csis-csec-or-rcmp/article16655155/#dashboard/follows/


----------



## blackberet17

If paracord and gun tape are holding that $hit together, it may not be too bad...

I jest.


----------



## McG

With all the talk of retirement moves, John Ivison brings discussion back to the real problems: poor budget/resource management and absent political direction.  Let's bring our attention back to this.


> *Report fires at aimless Canadian military ruled by balance sheets not foreign policy*
> John Ivison
> 18 February 2014
> 
> Rob Nicholson, the defence minister, clearly thinks that attacking a retired general over his moving expenses, in order to undermine his new role as an adviser to Liberal leader Justin Trudeau, is a priority and efficient use of his time.
> 
> The $72,000 bill for Andrew Leslie to move from one part of his tony Ottawa neighbourhood of Rockcliffe to another may stick in the craw of many taxpayers but it’s clear he operated within the Department of National Defence’s relocation rules.
> 
> Yet for Mr. Nicholson, this is the only event of note to have prompted a ministerial statement to the press in recent times. It has at least diverted public attention from a new report that excoriates the government’s handling of the defence file post-Afghanistan.
> 
> The Conference of Defence Associations Institute’s Strategic Outlook for Canada, released Tuesday, takes no prisoners.
> 
> “Ignoring defence requirements based on what the outside world looks like and not doing anything about it, is tantamount to delinquency of one’s government duty,” concludes the report, authored by veteran defence commentators Ferry de Kerckhove and George Petrolekas.
> 
> From the South China Sea to Syria, in times of crisis, Canada is a non-player, thanks to its adversarial approach, they say.
> 
> Ouch.
> 
> Canada is not alone in adopting what they call a “quasi-isolationist” approach to foreign engagement.
> 
> But it is the imperatives driving defence policy that disturb the authors — and should unsettle all Canadians.
> 
> “Fiscal pressures are leading to cuts to defence, based more on the balance sheet than on what a nation wishes to do in the world. For Canada, cuts to capability, delay or elimination of procurements, or reduction in readiness are imposed without the benefit of a foreign policy and defence review to articulate our national interests. This is deeply troubling …. Absent an articulated vision of its role in the world, and the provision of the right means to achieve it, Canada risks doing little and mattering even less in world affairs.”
> 
> Anecdotal evidence from sources inside DND suggest a department in disarray. The most obvious manifestation of this is the litany of failure on the procurement front. Aside from the well-documented cluster-flub of the F-35 fighter jet purchase, there was the recent decision not to proceed with the Close Combat Vehicle purchase — after an estimated $38-million of public money was spent on the tender process.
> 
> Then there is the Cyclone helicopters fiasco. The $1.7-billion spent on the effort to replace the aging Sea-Kings is the stuff of management failure legend, spanning three governments. But the Conservatives decided in December to plough on with the purchase when a more prudent move might have been to admit to mistakes made and go back to the drawing board. Sources suggest that there are over 200 ways in which the Cyclone fails the statement of operational requirement. Four of the 28 aircraft ordered are sitting in Halifax but are not considered operational because they lack the integrated electronics capability required.
> 
> There is plenty of blame to go around for these foul-ups — from inexperienced and credulous project management staff at DND, who were outmanoeuvred by highly motivated industry pitchmen, to military brass not prepared to risk their careers by admitting they got it wrong.
> 
> But the major structural complication behind much of the chaos at DND is that there is no clear concept of what the military should be doing after Afghanistan. The new defence procurement strategy announced this month is unlikely to revolutionize the process if there is still a lack of political direction on precisely what the military should be preparing itself for.
> 
> Budget freezes and the deficit reduction plan has chopped $2.7-billion, or 14%, from the defence budget. This has resulted in ad hoc cuts to operations such as land training programs, full-time reserve employment and aerospace and maritime readiness.
> 
> The Speech from the Throne last year called for the renewal of the Canada First Defence Strategy, at the same time as it announced further budget cuts. To say the CFDS is outdated is an understatement – one of its six core missions is to support key international events in Canada “like the 2010 Olympics.”
> 
> As the CDA paper points out, there may be a role for a Canadian “transitional disengagement force” to police a future peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians. Are we equipped for such a role? The authors say the Prime Minister is devoted to the Arctic, but point out that Canada’s physical presence is no match for other Arctic powers. Should that be the focus of future capacity building?
> 
> Even decisions that have already been made are now open to question, given the new fiscal climate. Both the Auditor General and the Parliamentary Budget Officer have found that the ships in the Royal Canadian Navy’s fleet will be replaced with less capable vessels unless the fleet becomes smaller.
> 
> Another recent CDA paper by analyst David Perry makes clear the government needs to reorient the military “to face new strategic demands with significantly fewer resources, in order to make the best of doing less with less.”
> 
> General Tom Lawson, the chief of the defence staff, acknowledged this salient fact in his Guidance to the Armed Forces, which said the military needs to “synchronize our level of ambition for new operational capabilities to today’s fiscal realities.”
> 
> The Conservatives love to harken back to the “decade of darkness” under the Liberals. At the same time, Mr. Nicholson is absorbed with firing a political broadside at a retired general who has retaliated by pointing out he faced real bullets when he was fighting for his country.
> 
> The defence minister’s time would be better served calibrating our ambition and articulating a vision of what the government wants from its military.
> 
> Beyond our support of Israel and freedom of religion, it’s not clear what Canada’s foreign policy goals are — or how its armed forces are expected to fulfill them. No wonder we are wasting hundreds of millions of dollars buying the wrong military hardware.


 http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/02/18/john-ivison-report-fires-at-aimless-canadian-military-ruled-by-balance-sheets-not-foreign-policy/

... and for the report that he references, see here: http://www.cdainstitute.ca/images/so2014en.pdf
(Unlike the article, the report itself really deserves discussion in a forgein policy thread)


----------



## Old Sweat

This story from the Ottawa Citizen suggests the CAF is considering dropping some capabilities and/or personnel cuts. It is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act.

Canadian military studying personnel cuts, heavier reliance on allies for new defence strategy
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/2013-budget/Canadian+military+studying+personnel+cuts+heavier/9788258/story.html

BY LEE BERTHIAUME, OTTAWA CITIZEN APRIL 29, 2014


Canadian military studying personnel cuts, heavier reliance on allies for new defence strategy


OTTAWA — Defence officials have been asking hard questions about the state of Canada’s military and its future needs, as the federal Conservative government prepares a new Canadian defence strategy.

The questions include where the Canadian Forces are most likely to be deployed globally, whether the military should try to save money by relying more heavily on its allies, and whether it has too many soldiers, sailors and air personnel.

Any decisions would require government approval, but the questions, revealed in internal documents obtained by the Citizen, provide a window into myriad issues the Canadian military and Department of National Defence face now and in future.

A new defence strategy is long overdue. Officials have deemed the government’s current plan, unveiled in 2008 and dubbed the Canada First Defence Strategy, unaffordable and in need of an update.

The government won’t say when the new defence plan will be unveiled. But, based on the documents, here are some of the issues officials are grappling with:

Do personnel levels need to change?

The Department of National Defence, like all federal departments, is facing deep budget cuts as the Conservative government tries to balance the budget by next year. It is unusual, however, in that while it can lay off civilians like any other department to find savings, the government has ordered it not to cut personnel in uniform. Instead, it must remain steady at 68,000 full-time military personnel and 27,000 reservists.

The Conservative government is sensitive to reducing the size of the military after criticizing past Liberal governments for doing this in the 1990s. But some, such as retired defence chief Rick Hillier, have suggested the number of people in uniform should be shrunk, especially in light of funding cuts and the end of the Afghan mission.

Defence officials are also looking separately at the army, navy, air force and special forces to ensure they are the right size “to meet future challenges,” suggesting a rebalancing of personnel across the services. And planners are looking at what special capabilities would be required to address new challenges such as space, cyber attacks and the Arctic, and how they should be prioritized.

What degree of self-sufficiency can be given up to save money?

One of the first things the new Conservatives government did for the military on coming to power in 2006 was order four C-17 heavy transport aircraft. “To be truly sovereign, we must be able to deploy our forces and equipment where they are needed, when they are needed,” Prime Minister Stephen Harper said at the time. “To put it bluntly, hitchhikers may get to their destination, but they don’t get to pick the route or the timing.”

Eight years later, defence planners are facing a different economic environment, with some trade-offs already planned. The navy will turn to allies and private firms to resupply its fleets starting next year, rather than keeping Canada’s existing replenishment vessels in the water until replacements are ready.

Third-parties will also be used to refuel Canada’s F-35s in mid-flight if the government decides to purchase the stealth fighter, which is incompatible with Canada’s current refuelling aircraft.

In both circumstances, the government will save money, but also face higher risks from having to rely on outside assistance.

How much? How fast? How long?

The government has laid out six broad missions the Canadian Forces must be ready to conduct, potentially all at the same time. They include such things as patrolling the Arctic, responding to a terrorist attack, helping out during a domestic or international natural disaster, and fighting a war.

Fiscal belt-tightening, however, has left defence planners studying their level of “ambition” when it comes to such missions, including what kind of forces should be dedicated to a mission, how fast the military should be called upon to respond, and for how long.

The idea that the military must be able to conduct six missions at once now appears uncertain, as officials have questioned what “degree of concurrency is expected in executing the mission.”

How to deal with aging equipment?

The government is already grappling with a large number of troubled military procurement projects aimed at replacing aging equipment. These include the air force’s fighter jets and search-and-rescue airplanes, and the navy’s resupply ships, frigates and destroyers.

But defence planners noted more equipment will need replacement in the coming years, including the airplanes used to fly the prime minister, the air force’s air-to-air refuelling aircraft, and the navy’s four submarines.

Complicating matters is uncertainty about how much money DND can actually count on when budgeting for the future, and how to address “defence-specific inflation.”

Inflation has been identified as a significant challenge for the department as it runs much higher in the defence sector than the average thanks in part to constantly evolving technological advances. Any project delay means less equipment can be bought with the money budgeted, unless the government gives more.

Defence Strategy Limbo

The Canada First Defence Strategy was unveiled to great fanfare by the federal Conservative government in May 2008. The focus was a promise of stable funding for the Canadian Forces for the next 20 years, and to re-equip the military with state-of-the-art equipment.

But the CFDS, as it is known in defence circles, was almost immediately criticized as little more than a shopping list, with little strategy. And only three years after being released, defence officials had quietly concluded the strategy was unaffordable.

The Conservative government’s promise of stable, long-term funding has essentially been abandoned to eliminate the federal deficit, with DND having hundreds of millions of dollars less than anticipated.

Nearly all the planned equipment purchases have also been scrapped or delayed. New frigates and destroyers were supposed to be in the water starting next year, and search-and-rescue airplanes in the air. Now no one knows when any of those will be delivered.

New maritime surveillance aircraft were expected in 2020, but won’t arrive until 2030. The army also recently cancelled a $2-billion plan to buy heavily armed and armoured personnel carriers, while it remains unclear what jet fighter will replace Canada’s CF-18s.

The Conservative government has been promising an updated defence strategy since 2012, but refuses to say when it will be produced.

© Copyright (c) Postmedia Network Inc.

- mod edit to add article link -


----------



## MarkOttawa

> New frigates and destroyers were supposed to be in the water starting next year...
> http://www.canada.com/news/2013-budget/Canadian+military+studying+personnel+cuts+heavier+reliance/9788258/story.html



Absolutely wrong, how typical of Canadian "journalism"--from Jan. 2013:



> ...CSC is currently at the earliest stages of project definition. By 2016, the RCN anticipates working toward finalizing the design of CSC and delivering its first of 15 vessels by 2022 [sure]...
> http://vanguardcanada.com/unanswered-questions-about-the-canadian-surface-combatant/



Perhaps the author had the A/OPS in mind but even then the last time first delivery in 2015 was claimed was in 2011:
http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/rpp/2011-2012/inst/dnd/st-ts05-eng.asp#aops-npea

And by 2012 that delivery had shifted all the way to 2018 [with six ships planned what are the chances of getting first CSC in 2022?]:
http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/rpp/2012-2013/inst/dnd/st-ts04-eng.asp#aops-npea

Now the gov't only says that there will be "...a construction contract in 2015", who knows when deliveries will begin:
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-equipment/arctic-offshore-patrol-ships.page

Ace reporting, eh?


Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Perhaps the reporter was referring to the clamouring of the Navy, which has for years now indicated that the Destroyers were getting way past their life time and should be replaced by 2015 at the latest.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Those are just three ships (eventually to be replaced via CSC program) but the story refers to "frigates" too--those 12 are the big number and never any expectation that their replacing would start 2015: FELEX:
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-equipment/halifax-frigate.page

Also no plan of any recent date I can recall to replace destroyers themselves from 2015.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Scoopster

Hey Mark,

Since you asked, here's the relevant section:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about/canada-first-defence-strategy.page#ql8

In case you're too busy, let me reproduce it for you:

*Destroyers and Frigates*

Starting in 2015, 15 ships to replace Canada's destroyers and frigates. While all these vessels will be based on a common hull design, the frigate and destroyer variants will be fitted with different weapons, communications, surveillance and other systems. These new ships will ensure that the military can continue to monitor and defend Canadian waters and make significant contributions to international naval operations.

Ace Reporter


----------



## MarkOttawa

Scoopster: Unfortunately those CFDS words date from 2008:
http://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2008/05/12/canada-first-defence-strategy

Text then same as at your link:
http://www.casr.ca/doc-canada-first-defence-strategy-5.htm

One would have thought one should have looked at the current situation when writing about it.

Also from same 2008 text:



> Fixed Wing Search & Rescue Aircraft
> 
> Starting in 2015, 17 fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft to replace...
> 
> Fighters
> 
> Starting in 2017, 65 next-generation fighter aircraft to replace...
> 
> Maritime Patrol Aircraft
> 
> Starting in 2020, 10-12 maritime patrol aircraft to replace...



What would you think if someone repeated those dates today?  Pleased to reproduce actual background for you.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Scoopster

Mark,

Of course they're from 2008. I think you missed the point that part of the article was trying to address, namely that the CFDS is vastly out of date. Which you clearly agree with.


----------



## Journeyman

Suddenly a heated agreement breaks out......


----------



## MarkOttawa

Scoopster: My apology, you're right--the article does put that date in the context of the original 2008 CFDS and I missed it.

Thanks very much,

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## McG

> *Defence documents show cuts hurting vehicle readiness
> Military commanders have warned that there's no budget fat left to trim*
> Lee Berthiaume
> Ottawa Citizen
> 11 Jun 2014
> 
> Canada's air force, army and navy commanders have been quietly warning that all the fat has been trimmed when it comes to certain spending cuts, and reductions are now having deep and long-term impacts.
> 
> Those impacts include more vehicle fleets parked, shortages of spare parts and an overall decline in the military's ability to respond quickly to the government's demands and do its job effectively. Defence Minister Rob Nicholson's office defended the government's approach to defence spending Tuesday.
> 
> "Our continued investments will ensure that the Canadian Armed Forces is able to defend Canada and protect our borders, maintain sovereignty over our northern lands and waters, fight alongside our allies and respond to emergencies within Canada and around the world," spokeswoman Johanna Quinney said in an email.
> 
> But the revelations contained in internal briefing documents obtained by the Citizen provide a stark assessment of the military's fiscal situation as the Conservative government digs deep to produce a surplus before next year's federal election.
> 
> "Multiple iterations of reduction exercise has eliminated any lowrisk impacts and ensured that only med-high impacts on operations and material readiness are felt," reads one report prepared by the Royal Canadian Air Force.
> 
> "It must be understood that decisions to reduce (maintenance) spending in-year will not simply defer purchases of spare parts to the following years," reads another report from the Canadian Army, "but rather will result in parts that are never purchased."
> 
> The documents were prepared last summer as the government was considering whether to reduce air force, army and navy maintenance by four, six or eight per cent as National Defence worked to find $2.5 billion in savings by 2015.
> 
> Only the navy said it could absorb a four per cent cut, while both the air force and army warned even that reduction would have dramatic impacts on their respective capabilities not just today, but for the next two or more years.
> 
> "The follow-on effects in the outyears will be felt longer than just the next consecutive year," reads a briefing note prepared by the Royal Canadian Navy. "For example, the reductions that occurred in (fiscal year) 09/10 are still, and in some cases just, being felt today."
> 
> The Defence Department confirmed this week that the army's maintenance budget was cut by four per cent last year, while the navy saw a two per cent reduction. The air force was spared the axe.
> 
> While that appears to amount to good news, David Perry, an analyst with the Ottawa-based Conference of Defence Associations Institute, said the reality is that contracts had already been signed with industry when the decision to cut was made. As a result, further reductions are likely to come down this year.
> 
> The Defence Department did not say whether maintenance budgets had been or would be slashed this year.
> 
> The cuts are already having visible impacts; the army has parked a large number of its trucks and other support vehicles to cut back on maintenance, while the navy has docked half of its 12 coastal patrol ships.
> 
> At the same time, maintenance requirements are growing for many of the military's vehicle fleets as they get older and near, or surpass, their life expectancies. Perry said that is only half the problem because the government doesn't have a plan to get back on track once the budget is balanced, it is extremely difficult - and expensive - for militaries to catch back up with maintenance once such cuts are made.
> 
> Prime Minister Stephen Harper has insisted over the past two years that the military reduce administrative overhead to free up resources for the front line, or as he described it, "more teeth and less tail."
> 
> The Conservative government says spending cuts are possible given significant injections of money since 2006 and the end of military operations in Afghanistan.
> 
> "Our government has made unprecedented investments to rebuild the Canadian Armed Forces," said Quinney, noting the government has moved to purchase new military aircraft, ships and vehicles.
> 
> But some have warned the military is in danger of entering another "decade of darkness" like that in the 1990s when the Liberal government slashed personnel and budgets across the board.
> 
> Canada currently spends about one per cent of its gross domestic product on the military, which is among the lowest of all NATO allies.
> 
> 
> *CANADA'S DEFENCE BUDGET*
> 
> 
> Year     Current prices   Adjusted for inflation to 2005 levels 2000    $12.3 billion   $14 billion 2005     $16 billion    $16 billion 2009    $21.8 billio   $20.2 billion2010    $19.3 billion    $17.4 billion2011    $20.6 billion     $18 billion2012    $20.3 billion    $17.5 billion2013    $18.9 billion    $16.1 billion
> 
> [size=10pt]Canadian Defence Spending as a percentage of GDP
> Average 1990-1994      1.8
> Average 1995-1999      1.3
> Average 2000-2004      1.1
> Average 2005-2009     1.2
> 2009      1.4
> 2010      1.2
> 2011      1.2
> 2012      1.1
> 2013      1.0
> 
> NATO members spending the same or less on defence as a percentage of GDP than Canada:
> Luxembourg 0.4
> Lithuania 0.8
> Greece 0.9
> Latvia 0.9
> Spain 0.9
> Belgium 1.0
> Slovak Republic 1.0
> (Source: NATO)


----------



## MarkOttawa

Unless a super-sudden change Greek spending over 2% GDP:
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS

Plus:



> ...
> In 2013, only the United States, Britain, Greece and Estonia met the NATO target of spending the equivalent of two percent of their economic output on defense, according to NATO figures...
> https://news.yahoo.com/nato-chief-hopes-summit-pledge-raise-defense-spending-163806958.html



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Crispy Bacon

Military complains there is no fat left to cut, will have to resort to cutting operational priorities



> Canada’s air force, army and navy commanders have been quietly warning that all the fat has been trimmed when it comes to certain spending cuts, and reductions are now having deep and long-term impacts.
> 
> Those impacts include more vehicle fleets parked, shortages of spare parts and an overall decline in the military’s ability to respond quickly to the government’s demands and do its job effectively.
> 
> Defence Minister Rob Nicholson’s office defended the government’s approach to defence spending Tuesday.
> 
> “Our continued investments will ensure that the Canadian Armed Forces is able to defend Canada and protect our borders, maintain sovereignty over our northern lands and waters, fight alongside our allies and respond to emergencies within Canada and around the world,” spokeswoman Johanna Quinney said in an email.
> 
> But the revelations contained in internal briefing documents obtained by the Citizen provide a stark assessment of the military’s fiscal situation as the Conservative government digs deep to produce a surplus before next year’s federal election.
> 
> “Multiple iterations of reduction exercise has eliminated any low risk impacts and ensured that only med-high impacts on operations and material readiness are felt,” reads one report prepared by the Royal Canadian Air Force.
> 
> “It must be understood that decisions to reduce (maintenance) spending in-year will not simply defer purchases of spare parts to the following years,” reads another report from the Canadian Army, “but rather will result in parts that are never purchased.”
> 
> The documents were prepared last summer as the government was considering whether to reduce air force, army and navy maintenance by four, six or eight per cent as National Defence worked to find $2.5 billion in savings by 2015.
> 
> Only the navy said it could absorb a four per cent cut, while both the air force and army warned even that reduction would have dramatic impacts on their respective capabilities not just today, but for the next two or more years.
> 
> “The follow-on effects in the out-years will be felt longer than just the next consecutive year,” reads a briefing note prepared by the Royal Canadian Navy. “For example, the reductions that occurred in (fiscal year) 09/10 are still, and in some cases just, being felt today.”
> 
> The Defence Department confirmed this week that the army’s maintenance budget was cut by four per cent last year, while the navy saw a two per cent reduction. The air force was spared the axe.
> 
> While that appears to amount to good news, David Perry, an analyst with the Ottawa-based Conference of Defence Associations Institute, said the reality is that contracts had already been signed with industry when the decision to cut was made. As a result, further reductions are likely to come down this year.
> 
> The Defence Department did not say whether maintenance budgets had been or will be slashed this year.
> 
> The cuts are already having visible impacts; the Canadian Army has parked a large number of its trucks and other support vehicles to cut back on maintenance, while the navy has docked half of its 12 coastal patrol ships.
> 
> At the same time, maintenance requirements are growing for many of the military’s vehicle fleets as they get older and near, or surpass, their life expectancies.
> 
> Perry said that is only half the problem because the government doesn’t have a plan to get back on track once the budget is balanced, it is extremely difficult — and expensive — for militaries to catch back up with maintenance once such cuts are made.
> 
> Prime Minister Stephen Harper has insisted over the past two years that the military reduce administrative overhead to free up resources for the front line, or as he described it, “more teeth and less tail.”
> 
> The Conservative government says spending cuts are possible given significant injections of money since 2006 and the end of military operations in Afghanistan.
> 
> “Our government has made unprecedented investments to rebuild the Canadian Armed Forces,” said Quinney, noting the government has moved to purchase new military aircraft, ships and vehicles.
> 
> But some have warned the military is actually in danger of entering another “decade of darkness” like that in the 1990s when the Liberal government slashed personnel and budgets across the board.
> 
> Canada currently spends about one per cent of its gross domestic product on the military, which is among the lowest of all NATO allies. And NATO records show Canadian aid spending, after being adjusted for inflation, is at its lowest level since 2005.



http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-documents-show-cuts-hurting-military-vehicle-maintenance


----------



## Occam

The Navy hit 112% of the yearly NICP (National Inventory Control Point, or spare parts in other words) budget 60-odd days into the new fiscal year.  I have no idea where spare parts are going to come from for the foreseeable future.  If there isn't an existing project to pay for parts, and there aren't any in the bins, they're not getting bought unless it's stopping a ship from going to sea.  Even then, a HPR part demand for a single widget* (when we normally buy widgets in quantity to fill the bins in the warehouses and depots) could meet long lead times of months, if a manufacturer even bothers to respond to a RFQ for a single widget.

Apparently the Army is in even worse shape than we are, at 114%.

*widget = any given part


----------



## McG

More looking at the current state of things.


> *The problem with the Harper doctrine*
> Matt Gurney
> The National Post
> 11 June 2014
> 
> Prime Minister Stephen Harper travelled to Europe last week to observe the 70th anniversary of the D-Day landings in Normandy and to consult with allies about the ongoing tensions between Russia and the West. Our NATO allies in Eastern Europe, particularly those with memories of domination by the Soviet Union, are understandably alarmed at the prospect of a resurgent, expansionist Russia.
> 
> Canada has responded to this crisis with some small military steps. Six CF-18 jets and support personnel have been deployed to Europe, to patrol the skies there and reassure our allies. A warship has been sent to the region, and 120 Canadian Army soldiers are there, as well, conducting training exercises with our allies. During the European trip, Tom Clark, of Global News, sat down with the Prime Minister, at the Bény-sur-Mer Canadian Cemetery, where over 2,000 of the Canadians killed in action on D-Day and the days immediately after found their eternal rest. Mr. Clark asked the Prime Minister about his thoughts on the current state of Europe - and what role Canada could play going forward.
> 
> The Prime Minister noted, rightly, that Russian president Vladimir Putin has proven himself to be an extreme nationalist and an imperialist, who's willing to use military force to redraw borders. The Prime Minister also observed, again correctly, that many of our allies in Western Europe have been reluctant to take as strong a diplomatic stand against Russia as have Canada and the United States, and that the Eastern European members of NATO are, in the words of the Prime Minister, "beside themselves" with fear.
> 
> And then the Prime Minister told Mr. Clark what he believes the "Harper Doctrine" of Canadian foreign policy is.
> 
> "First and foremost ... our role is to protect the values and interests of Canadians in the world," the Prime Minister said. "[Canada is] not afraid to take stands that may put us offside others from time to time. [We're] working not just for Canadians, but for Canadians' broader objectives that we share with fellow human beings."
> 
> Powerful stuff. Equally powerful was when the Prime Minister acknowledged that he'd learned the lesson instilled by him by his father, that, "As bad as [the Second World War] had been ... a lot of it could have been avoided if people had been aware of the threat of Hitler and his ilk in the 1930s."
> 
> That's indeed an important lesson. Yet despite the Prime Minister observing that Canada's Army and Air Force have recently received some badly needed new investments (particularly during the war in Afghanistan), the sad fact is that while Canada may not "turn a blind eye" to foreign threats, in the Prime Minister's phrasing, it also doesn't do much about what we see.
> 
> Embarrassingly for a G7 country, our deployment of six CF-18 jets and a warship to Europe is as much as we realistically can send. Canada has so few planes and ships that even in the unlikely event that war erupted between Russia and NATO, once we accounted for local defence needs and units unavailable to deploy, we'd probably discover that we could send little more.
> 
> Pressed by Mr. Clark about Canada's low military spending, the Prime Minister replied that we are currently embarking on an "enormous shipbuilding program" for the Navy. But that program will leave us with only 15 heavy surface warships - hardly enough to both protect our coast while contributing meaningfully abroad. Our CF-18 jets are aging while the Tories ponder what to replace them with. Our Army still needs more troops and basic equipment. Even something as simple as new trucks have proven beyond the ability of the government to provide. Ambitious plans for a permanent Canadian military presence in the Arctic have been pared back to annual token gestures.
> 
> Prime Minister Harper told Mr. Clark that while Canada spends far less on defence than the 2% of GDP called for by NATO, that's OK, because we focus on what we can do, not how many dollars it costs. It's a nice talking point, but given that National Defence has repeatedly seen its budget cut to help the Tories eliminate the deficit before the next election, it's little more than that.
> 
> It's wonderful that the Prime Minister's doctrine rules out turning a blind eye to threats abroad. Pity it doesn't include anything about ensuring Canada has a military capable of actually standing up in a meaningful way to any threats we see.



… and the reply:


> *Building our military
> Re: The Problem With The Harper Doctrine, editorial, June 11*
> Letters to Editor
> National Post
> 12 June 2014
> 
> Our government has made unprecedented investments to rebuild the Canadian Armed Forces. After a decade of darkness, under the previous Liberal government, we have increased the defence budget by over 27% to ensure our men and women have the tools they need to succeed. These investments include: ..C-17 aircrafts used in Afghanistan, Haiti, Libya, Syria and the Philippines; ..C-130 aircrafts; ..Leopard II tanks; and ..major capital projects such as the Maritime Helicopter Project, Aurora modernization and Arctic Offshore Patrol ships. Our continued investments will ensure that the Canadian Armed Forces is able to defend Canada and protect our borders, maintain sovereignty over our northern lands and waters, fight alongside our allies and respond to emergencies within Canada and around the world. Unlike the previous government, we will continue to ensure that our men and women in uniform have the equipment they need to protect Canadian interests at home and abroad.
> 
> Troop levels are currently at 68,000 regulars and 27,000 reservists. This is in sharp contrast to the previous Liberal government, where levels in 2005 were approximately 61,000 regulars and 23,000 reservists.
> 
> Johanna Quinney, press secretary, office of the Minister of National Defence, Ottawa.


----------



## The Bread Guy

If you prefer to look at rather than read your information/stats, attached find a graph pulled together & shared by an academic re:  Canadian defence spending over time.


----------



## McG

Link that graphic with some stats going farther back and it looks like we may be at the lowest spending levels, as a percent of GDP, since before the Second World War.






http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/06/08/graphic-financing-canadas-armed-forces/


----------



## Edward Campbell

And the public reaction ~ the thing that politicians watch so carefully ~ to this is ...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.





The Canadian public does not like military spending. All the yellow ribbons and red T-shirts are just 'feel good' PR stuff ... public support for the Canadian military is very, very shallow. We consistently rank near the very bottom of Canadians' public spending priorities, tied, usually, with symphony orchestras and ballet/opera house projects.


----------



## George Wallace

That pretty much summed it up.

Only military organizations that raise their interest when it comes to cuts are "heritage" organizations like the Ceremonial Guard and Snowbirds.  The Royal Nova Scotia International Tattoo is a not-for-profit charity, which is a crowd pleaser, has very little to do with national defence.  Even the CAF's "contribution" to "National Health Care" through the hard work and bravery of our SAR Techs and crews does not gain much public attention.


----------



## McG

> *Canada's Top soldier warns cuts will hurt military readiness
> Training and maintenance bearing brunt of cuts, top soldier tells minister*
> Kristen Everson
> CBC News
> 26 June 2014
> 
> The chief of defence staff and the deputy minister of national defence has warned the government that cuts to the Canadian Forces budget will affect readiness and capabilities across the military.
> 
> Gen. Tom Lawson and Deputy Minister Richard Fadden issued the stark warning to Defence Minister Rob Nicholson in a memo dated Nov. 20, 2013, obtained by CBC News under the Access to Information Act.
> 
> "Without at least maintaining current funding level, we will directly affect the readiness of key fleets of aircraft, ships and army vehicles. This in turn has an overall impact upon training and readiness," the memo states.
> 
> In 2012, the government announced a $2.1-billion cut to the military's $20-billion budget by 2015. That includes a  budget freeze put in place in 2010.
> 
> Those reductions are beginning to be felt on the front lines.
> 
> In the memo, Lawson and Fadden write that the cuts can be managed for now, but will bite harder as time goes on — and any further reductions will have a more drastic impact.
> 
> "It is clear that the follow-on effect in future fiscal years will be more severe, as the effects of lack of spares [parts] and maintenance on army fleets of vehicle, ships and aircraft begin to be felt with greater acuity," it reads.
> 
> George Macdonald, a former vice-chief of defence staff, said the military cutbacks "have meant that some exercises have been cancelled, some training has been reduced, some spare procurement has been deferred. Perhaps to be replaced at a greater expense later on."
> 
> In a statement, a spokesperson for the defence minister's office said the government increased the defence budget by four per cent this year. But the majority of the increase is for large purchases such as new ships, planes and trucks and cannot be used for training or maintenance.
> 
> While the Conservative government boasts about its support of the military and says military spending is up 27 per cent since 2006, the Conference of Defence Associations Institute says the budget has actually shrunk since 2010 when inflation is taken into account, leaving the military with less buying power.
> 
> "The spending now on the military, when you adjust for inflation, is back before where it was in 2008. So it's at roughly 2007 levels," said David Perry, senior defence analyst with the Conference of Defence Associations Institute.
> 
> In December, CBC News reported that some brigades were facing up to a 61 per cent cut to their operation and maintenance budgets. That's the money used for critical training exercises, ammunition, gas, equipment maintenance and spare parts.
> 
> Unless given the go-ahead by government, the Forces cannot reduce the number of personnel, whose salaries account for a large portion of the military's budget. Big ticket purchases are also off limits, leaving maintenance and training budgets vulnerable.
> 
> The government has said that while defence budgets need to be reduced along with those of other departments, resources are not supposed to be taken from the front lines.
> 
> Back in 2012, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said, "the Forces must be restructured to ensure administrative burdens are reduced and resources freed up for the front line. The Canada First Defence Strategy must continue to advance, and as I've said before, with the constant search for more teeth and less tail."
> 
> That doesn't seem to be happening.
> 
> Perry said operations and maintenance budgets have been reduced by about a fifth.
> 
> "It's had a pretty direct impact on operational readiness for the military," he said, warning that neglecting equipment maintenance may save money now, but could be costly in the future.
> 
> "It's like your car. You can delay getting new brakes, but at some point you're going to need an entire brake job," Perry said.
> 
> Macdonald said the impact on readiness and training can be significant even with relatively small reductions.
> 
> Briefing notes to Gen. Lawson from navy, army and air force commanders cover the same concerns.
> 
> Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Tom Lawson says cuts will mean the military will have less flexibility to meet assigned missions. (Justin Tang/Canadian Press)
> 
> The navy warns that significant cuts to its budget come as maintenance budgets are already stretched thin, with nine ships that need to be upgraded and two submarines under support contracts.
> 
> The army says it will have to reduce ammunition, its truck fleet and light-armoured vehicle fleet, among other things.
> 
> The air Force says its maintenance budget was cut by $99 million and warns any reduction will "impact forces engaged in operations." The briefing note goes further to say that in 2014-15, the air force is facing a $220-million cut.
> 
> It warns that any reduction in flying rates will have adverse effects on training and the ability to graduate new pilots.
> 
> Lawson's memo to Nicholson was included in a large package of documents on the decline of the army's truck fleet with vehicles reaching the end of their lives and replacements slow to arrive.
> 
> In this year's budget, the government slashed the $3.1 billion it had planned to spend on new military purchases, part of the government's attempt to balance the budget by next year, in time for the next election.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/gen-tom-lawson-warns-military-cuts-will-hurt-readiness-1.2687806

... But at least we have enough excess in the defence budget to carve out millions to fund heritage transformations.  :facepalm:


----------



## Journeyman

MCG said:
			
		

> *Canada's Top soldier warns cuts will hurt military readiness*
> Training and maintenance bearing brunt of cuts, top soldier tells minister



"......but our layer upon layer of HQs remain sacred ground, safe from any substantive cuts...."


----------



## MilEME09

Journeyman said:
			
		

> "......but our layer upon layer of HQs remain sacred ground, safe from any substantive cuts...."



As I have said time and time again, it's the ones who decide the cuts who actually need to be cut, but who is going to cut their own job?


----------



## McG

Journeyman said:
			
		

> "......but our layer upon layer of HQs remain sacred ground, safe from any substantive cuts...."


That would be funny if it did not seem to be true. 




> *The Harper government loves the military – in theory*
> Jeffrey Simpson
> The Globe and Mail
> 28 Jun 2014
> 
> Canada’s Conservative government loves the idea of the military; it just doesn’t always like the military.
> 
> The idea of the military conforms to the Conservatives’ sense of the country and its history – “true north, strong and free” – and the idea of the military fits the party’s political agenda. So we have monuments to the War of 1812, a National Day of Honour to recognize the Afghan mission, military ceremonies at home and abroad and, most recently, the announcement that $83-million will be spent over the remainder of the decade to commemorate military history and veterans.
> 
> Meanwhile, while all this is being done for public consumption, the defence budget – which is, after all, what reflects any government’s real policies – is now smaller after accounting for inflation than in 2007, not long after the government was elected with a pledge to boost military spending.
> 
> Capital spending on military equipment has declined four years in a row and remains on a downward trend. As a share of the defence budget, capital spending has dropped to the lowest level since 1977-78.
> 
> These arresting facts, and others, were recently unveiled in a paper by David Perry, senior security and defence analyst for the Ottawa-based Conference of Defence Associations Institute. He notes that the defence budget became the sitting duck for the government’s deficit-reduction strategy. Defence cuts accounted for a quarter of the overall drop in government spending in the 2014 budget.
> 
> Inside government, far from the headlines, the Department of National Defence has experienced problems getting Treasury Board approval for its investment plans. As a result, fiscal years pass without the department having the necessary approval to spend. For four straight years, about a quarter of the department’s budget for capital purchases has gone unspent, according to Mr. Perry’s study.
> 
> The military, as opposed to the idea of the military, keeps creating political problems for the government. Repeatedly, stories have appeared that put the military – as in, the government – in a poor light. The aborted F-35 fighter-jet purchase, a decision about which has apparently been delayed again, is only the most obvious.
> 
> Even when the news can be spun positively, the real news is bad. The government recently signed a deal with Sikorsky for new maritime helicopters to replace its Sea Kings, acquired in the 1960s. Delivery of these 28 new Sikorsky birds, at a cost of $5.7-billion, will end a saga that began in 2004, when Ottawa signed a contract for the delivery of one aircraft a month beginning in 2008.
> 
> So it is with many defence procurements: They get announced, with the government’s spin machine in high gear. Then, for a variety of reasons, projects get delayed, run over budget or don’t get built at all. At each stage, the government looks bad.
> 
> Fixed-wing search-and-rescue planes, multimission patrol aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles, joint support ships, Arctic offshore patrol ships, destroyers, fighter jets – all these projects have experienced problems that have led to damaging headlines. They made the government look bad and these headlines got the government very annoyed at the military, as opposed to the idea of the military.
> 
> This government sometimes talks tough in foreign policy, as with Ukraine and Libya, but lacks the modern military capability to back up its tough talk.
> 
> In the not-too-distant future, it could be that the government decides to join the U.S. anti-ballistic missile system, as was recommended recently by a Senate committee with a Conservative majority. That would come with price tag, but where would the money come from?
> 
> Part of the problem still haunting the Conservatives is that they fell in love with the idea of the military while in opposition without knowing much about it. As a result, the party made a series of foolish promises – the most evident of which was to build and station three armed heavy naval icebreakers in the Arctic. There were other unrealistic and not properly considered promises that caught the government in the snare of its own rhetoric.
> 
> A lot of time was wasted disentangling the government from its illusions. It is still easier politically, and less costly financially, to be in love with illusions about the military and its past glories than with the hard realities of today’s military and its requirements.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/the-harper-government-loves-the-military-in-theory/article19355276/


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Journeyman said:
			
		

> "......but our layer upon layer of HQs remain sacred ground, safe from any substantive cuts...."



Funnily enough, some of them are probably going to grow over the next few years to build what some would call "new capabilities"  :

They must have a different definition than you or I do of what a "capability" is.


----------



## Old Sweat

Some things never change. A million years ago, ok, half a century, I was in a group of junior officers having a discussion in the mess with the Adjutant General of the Canadian Army. The discussion really consisted of one of us asking a question and the great man delivering a longwinded, pompous dissertation in "staff speak." One question was regarding the policy that saw the field units operating on restricted establishments which were never fully manned while the various headquarters were always a priority for manning. Instead of giving us a short, sharp lesson in budgeting, manpower ceilings and priorities, which he may have thought was beyond our intelligence, he pronounced that it was more important to have the staff fully manned so they could properly support us than to have up to strength units. 

Presumably with more and larger headquarters and staffs, the troops will be besides themselves with appreciation and joy over how well they are being served. More liley the ungrateful wretches will shortsightedly gripe over going to the field with platoons of 16 and companies of 65.


----------



## Edward Campbell

It actually got worse in the 1970s, I _think_. 

A new, improved, _management_ culture took hold ... driven, in large part, by a fascination with some of the changes Robert McNamara imposed on the US DoD in the 1960s. McNamara was an important figure; he was one of the "dollar a year men" brought to Washington, especially to the Pentagon, early in the war (1942) from industry to help _streamline_ war production and, in fact, war making. But, as McNamara himself noted in his memoirs, they, the industry 'experts' learned a whole lot about _systematic management_ from the admirals and generals and they took it back to Detroit and Pittsburg and, indeed, Wall Street. By the 1950s both the US military and industrial cultures were changed by the introduction of revised management techniques (remember _Management by Results_ and _Management by Objectives_ and "balls on the wall" and all that?).

Canada, the Canadian Army, especially, still heavily influenced by London, was slow to adopt the new-fangled American methods and models ... until 1968, that is, when, at the highest policy levels, everything and anything British was _verboten_ and there was no place else to look for ideas. So, about the time, say mid 1970s, that the US was starting to realize that some (much? most?) of what Robert McNamara had done while he was Secretary of Defence had done at least as much harm as good we were starting to adopt it all, _holus-bolus_.

By the mid 1980s we were full-steam-ahead into "management gone wild." If you wanted something, anything to move within the HQ you had to add a "___Something or other___ Management" section to your proposal, complete with a flow chart, and by the end of the '80s, a spreadsheet, to your proposal.

(I was on both ends of this in the '80s and '90s. I recall, once, in the late '80s, when my boss, a two star, called me into his office, slid a thick stack of paper towards me and said, "PM* __Project__ just got a new desktop computer system. He left me his quarterly report. Annex A used to be useful ~ one page with some important data clearly visible in a table. Now it's a quarter in thick computer printout that tells me nothing. Take this away and make sense of it, please. And tell all the PMs to stop this voluminous nonsense." Later, when I had my own directorate I recall hiring a consultant to, at considerable expense to the public, repackage my own (military) staff's work into a nice, fancy, civilian consultant's report because our military and departmental management had decided (if that's the right world) that consultants were smart and we, civil servants and soldiers, were not.)

My sense is that things got worse in the 1990s and in the 21st century. We have always had an unhealthy fascination with HQs ~ Old Sweat has reminded us before that if you put three Canadian officers together in a room they are likely to form a new HQ ~ and we, also seem, usually uncritically, to accept whatever the "big boys" (first the Brits, now the Americans) are doing as being best for us, too.

Edited to add:

It wasn't just the military or even DND that developed an unhealthy fascination with the _management for its own sake_ culture. It pervaded all of government and a large part of industry, too. The notion took hold that you didn't have to produce much, and certainly not just produce something better and cheaper than the competition, all you had to do was _manage_ processes well enough and you would succeed.

____
* Project Manager (normally a Capt(N) or Col, sometimes a Cmdre or BGen 

Another edit: to correct a repetition and a couple of typos


----------



## dapaterson

Much worse now; we are now beholden to McKinsey, who the Government hired to find efficiencies.  Well, not so much find them as say "Based on our proprietary formula, you can find savings of $XX to $YY million, together with reductions of AAA to BBB personnel in this area".

So great staff work, with many powerpoint slides etc is now being produced as headquarters grow to try to find the elusive savings promised by the same folks who made Enron what it is today.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Much worse now; we are now beholden to McKinsey, who the Government hired to find efficiencies.  Well, not so much find them as say "Based on our proprietary formula, you can find savings of $XX to $YY million, together with reductions of AAA to BBB personnel in this area".
> 
> So great staff work, with many powerpoint slides etc is now being produced as headquarters grow to try to find the elusive savings promised by the same folks who made Enron what it is today.



If I could have one goal in my career, it would be to destroy powerpoint!


----------



## FJAG

Old Sweat and E.R. you are both so bang on.

I too recall the fact that we were told, in all seriousness, that headquarters had to be at full strength because they were unable to function at a reduced strength while we in the field units were just "training aids" for the development of the officer and NCO corps and therefore didn't need to be fully manned.

Unfortunately we found out that we didn't need to have fully manned battalions for Afghanistan because we could use an entire brigade to cobble together a battle group sized Task Force of whatever artificial structure that we wanted and then give it a year to train and prepare for the mission. That's a tremendous departure from the old 1950s/1960s "forces in being" concept that dramatically reduced the size of the reserves in favour of a greatly expanded regular force.

We have two great budget busters: 

The first is that we have a massive system of legislation, regulation and processes that absolutely require a large bureaucracy to manage it. We are unable to reduce the size of the bureaucracy until we dismantle the web that we have woven over the last half century which makes the bureaucracy necessary.

The second is that full-time people are expensive regardless of whether they are at home or on operations. If we stay with the "forces in being" concept (which the regular force and civil service will never abandon because their collective careers depend on it) we will never be able to manage our budgets. Every year the costs associated with keeping a member in uniform goes up resulting in the continuing conundrum as to whether to reduce strength or reduce activities. Under our present model we will very soon have so little activity that we will have an entirely useless force.

Quite honestly I don't believe that the mandarins, neither the civilian ones nor the military ones, are being honest with their political masters or with themselves. Even Leslie's paper was just a superficial tug at the scab. The We can't solve our budget problems unless someone does an in depth analysis of what the underlying generators are that require that we have the bureaucracy and force model that we do and then determine how to eliminate them.

 :cheers:


----------



## Edward Campbell

This letter to the editor, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, was sent by Mark Collins of the CDAI (Mark is a member here, too):



> Tory tough love
> 
> In his letter to the editor, Minister of National Defence Rob Nicholson, touts the government's record in acquiring new equipment for the military, in particular C-17 and C-130J transport planes and Chinook helicopters (Case For The Defence – July 1).
> 
> But all those contracts were signed quite some time ago. The last of them, for the Chinooks, dates from 2009. Since then, there has still been no acquisition of a new fixed-wing search-and-rescue aircraft, a project that was a “top priority” in 2003 for the Liberal government. Consider also the Cyclone new maritime helicopters. That contract was signed in 2004; 10 years later, the Conservatives still have not managed to get an operational chopper aboard a ship.
> 
> Speaking of ships, no construction contracts have been signed for the navy’s new Arctic/offshore patrol ships or for its Joint Support ships. The same applies for the Coast Guard’s – one only – new icebreaker. All three projects are several years behind schedule.
> 
> And of course there is the delay in the Air Force’s new fighter. In fact, the government’s acquisition record since 2009 has been dismal. Nor is its current funding for the Forces worth crowing about. Adjusted for inflation, spending is at the same level it was in 2005.
> 
> It would seem that, if the Conservatives love our military, it is tough love indeed.
> 
> _Mark Collins, Fellow, Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute_




Quite.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Thanks, Edward.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## McG

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Adjusted for inflation, spending is at the same level it was in 2005.
Click to expand...

That would match what we saw on the previous page, and defence spending is its the lowest as a percentage of GDP since before the Second World War.

But I wonder ... inflation adjustments are typically based on consumer inflation.  Defence inflation is typically higher than consumer inflation1.  That tells me that DND and the CAF has even less financial power today than in 2005.


1.  I can find no Canadian reference for defence inflation, but UK numbers for consumer and defence inflation show defence at .7 percent higher per year over the period of 2006 to 2013.
Defence: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/280003/2011-12-original.pdf
Consumer:http://www.inflation.eu/inflation-rates/great-britain/historic-inflation/cpi-inflation-great-britain.aspx


----------



## MarkOttawa

Good point, mostly for capital projects I would imagine.  E.g. how far will that $9B for F-35--oops! new fighter--go?  And the $2.6B for JSS and $3.2B for A/OPS?  Not to mention $26B for CSC:
http://vanguardcanada.com/what-is-best-value-for-the-canadian-surface-combatant/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Edward Campbell

Calculating inflation is hard enough when we are able to use very, very _gross_ values. It becomes nearly - but not quite - impossible when related to _functional_ areas, like national defence.

We can, however, calculate inflation rates within some sectors, where we have reasonably competitive markets: like the military aircraft marketplace a generation or two ago. (I would suggest that it is *absolutely impossible* to calculate real costs and prices of 21st century combat aircraft, like the F-35, because government subsidies and officially/government sanctioned uncompetitive behaviors amongst vendors totally distortrs both costs and prices. No one, I suggest, at any level of any government or any corporation has any useful idea about how much an F-35 costs or is worth (in terms of pennies per Lockheed Martin share).) Shipbuilding and even military electronics and some weapon systems are still developed and sold in reasonably competitive markets so we can calculate defence related inflation there.

I doubt the utility of the UK study because it measures a _function_ (defence), which pays a wide range of prices for an equally wide range of products. Some of those prices are 'set' in a reasonable free market and their _values_ can be accepted; others are either 'normal' (food and fuel, for example) and ought not to be included or are _directed_ (_Buy British_ or _Buy American_ programmes) and, therefore, artifially inflated, by policy, and also ought not to be counted. The inflation rates for defence electronics, for example, is remarkably different from that for consumer electronics and it ought to be one of the (handful) of measures that we put before policy makers when we try to describe the fiscal challenges.

The Brits "situated the appreciation" and got a number that was manageable. Those trying to manage defence budgets know it's much, much harder than the Brit study suggests.


----------



## Good2Golf

In our case, you use the Treasury Board provided inflation rates used by all departments.  I have never seen a 'defence-specific' inflation rate provided.  In that 'defence' might effectively have a different aggregate inflation rate that other elements of government business, defence itself is not a homogeneous industry, and would have numerous effective inflation rates dependent on which sector of defence was being assessed.

Just using the national standard rates for all years applicable to the accrual period of the particular capital project would be reasonably accurate, certainly for initial identification and definition phases of a project.

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Edward Campbell

I am aware of one study, done 30_ish_ years ago, that tried, and failed, to offer a 'defence' inflation factor. It was not accepted beyond DND and some people within DND, including ADM(Mat), himself, had reservations about both the *a)* the utility of such an 'inflator,' and *b)* the arithmetic that went into it.

I actually agree with the _notion_ of a defence inflator but I think it is a *political* matter and I _think_ this government has made a broad _political_ decision which says that defence spending will be restrained until two things happen: 

     1. DND come up with a *plan* that makes good _strategic_ sense. (It is my _opinion_ that no such plan existed after the 1950s ~ the _White Papers_ (1964, 1971, 1987, 1994 and 2009) all papered over/justified _a priori_ political decisions.)

     2. There is a situation which requires Canadian military action.

I _think_ the government of the day made a _political_ decision to accept the full costs of e.g. the C-117s and the CH-147s; they have, yet, to make similar decisions re: F-35s or ships. They will, or will not, as a matter of routine _political_ calculus.


----------



## Good2Golf

:goodpost:

Concur.  

The irony is that It could be considered unreasonable for the Government to expect of Defence anything other than a defence-centric appreciation of the situation, including such inflation factors, bu in all cases, independent of political, regional or other non-defence factors. Defence is often chastised for politicizing issues.  Well...it has arguably been bred into Defence, and indeed other Departments, by the Government itself.  It is disingenuous to form a highly politicized/influenced structure within which DND must work, yet critique DND when, unsurprisingly, characteristics of the solution appear to have political considerations contained within.  

Regards
G2G


----------



## GR66

How do you reconcile a sensible Defence strategy with a government (any party when we're deployed) that is unwilling to properly fund the military?

For example, if the CF were to say we don't need ultra expensive F-35's to perform EVERY air combat task we have, so we'd like a smaller number of them for expeditionary roles and an additional number of a lead-in fighter (for example the KAI FA-50 if we decide to use the T-50 trainer for the F-35s) for domestic duties...and we don't need ALL our ships to be as capable as the proposed CSC, so we'd like 4 of the AD version and a dozen smaller ships similar to a modernized Halifax rather than just being able to afford only 8 CSCs...and not every Maritime Patrol Aircraft needs to be a P-8 equivalent so we'd like a few P-8s and several cheaper but less capable MPAs to support them and cover more area overall than if we only had expensive P-8s...etc, etc, etc.

That might actually be a reasonable strategy for the CF to pursue but if they suggest that do they not run the risk of JUST getting lead-in fighters, Halifax replacements and Dash-8 MPAs and NO F-35s, CSCs or P-8s because they're not needed for EVERY role required by the CF.  The politicians hold the purse strings and when the CF isn't in the spotlight it's easier to cut the top end equipment/capabilities and just fund the lower 80% capabilities because those platforms are cheaper.  Maybe that's why the CF leadership appears to fixate on the "gold standard" equipment (in ever smaller quantities) at the expense of getting usable tools into the hands of the troops.

Both approaches have the same end effect - a less capable CF.  Either through having high-end equipment but in quantities so small that we have difficulty finding enough to deploy, or by having 2nd-tier equipment that limits our ability to perform all the tasks asked of our military when it is deployed.

Short of some type of national discussion about the role of the CF and agreement to provide the funds to properly support what we're asking the military to do I don't know what the solution to this problem might be.


----------



## McG

Michael Byers seems to suggest we have entered the even darker decade of darkness.


> The Harper Plan for unilateral Canadian disarmament
> Michael Byers
> National Post
> 08 July 2014
> 
> Stephen Harper could find himself in unexpected company this autumn, as a contender for the Nobel Peace Prize.
> 
> Other Canadians have found themselves in this position: Lester Pearson became a Nobel laureate in 1957 for pioneering UN peacekeeping, an activity for which Roméo Dallaire must later have come close to winning the prize. Stephen Lewis would have been shortlisted for his work on HIV/AIDS, as would have Lloyd Axworthy for the Landmines Convention.
> 
> Unexpected company, indeed, for this Conservative prime minister. But consider this: Despite his tough talk about supporting the troops, Stephen Harper has reduced defence spending to just 1% of GDP — the lowest level in Canadian history.
> 
> For decades, Canada’s level of defence spending was comparable to that of Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands and Norway (all currently at 1.4%). After the Cold War ended, Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin reduced defence spending to 1.2% of GDP — leading to what General Rick Hillier called a “decade of darkness.” The Afghanistan mission necessitated an increase, with spending returning to 1.4% by 2009.
> 
> But then Harper cut deep: At 1% of GDP, Canada’s new defence spending peers are Belgium, Latvia and Slovakia.
> 
> Two factors account for the decrease.
> 
> First, Harper is focused on delivering a surplus in 2015 that will enable him to cut taxes before the election. Deep spending reductions are therefore needed and, with no significant missions underway or anticipated, the military is an easy target.
> 
> Last year, reduced maintenance budgets forced the Army to park many of its trucks, while the Navy tied up half of its patrol vessels. The Air Force cut back on maintenance of its CF-18 fighter jets, with possible safety consequences for its pilots. This year, the PM clawed back an additional $3.1-billion in defence spending.
> 
> Second, the Harper government has failed to complete a number of major defence procurement projects and, by so doing, kept them off the budget. For it is the year of spending, not the year of announcing or contracting, which determines when expenditures first show up on the balance sheet.
> 
> The delayed procurements have left the military in a weakened state.
> 
> In 2006, the Harper government announced the replacement of the Navy’s 45 year-old supply ships. Eight years later, no construction contract has been signed. The new ships are now expected in 2020, with the $2.6-billion expense postponed until then. In the same year, the government promised 1,300 armoured trucks to replace a fleet the Army warned was at risk of “catastrophic failure.” To date, no manufacturer has been selected and $800-million remains unspent.
> 
> New search-and-rescue planes were also promised in 2006, to replace a half-century old fleet. This procurement, too, has suffered repeated delays, leaving $1.9-billion hanging. Also in 2006, the government launched a plan to sole-source unmanned aerial vehicles. No contract has been signed and $1-billion remains unspent.
> 
> The following year, Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ships were promised. Seven years later, no construction contract has been signed and $3.1-billion remains off the ledger. In 2010, the Harper government announced that F-35 fighter jets would be purchased to replace the CF-18s, at a cost of $9-billion. No contract was signed and the decision was later suspended, after the Auditor General estimated a life-cycle cost of $45-billion for the fleet.
> 
> In 2011, the government announced that the Navy’s 44 year-old destroyers would be replaced. No contract has been signed, delivery has slipped to at least 2020, and another $5.2-billion has been deferred. Then, in 2013, the government cancelled a $2-billion purchase of Close Combat Vehicles for the Army.
> 
> Finally, there is the never-ending effort to replace the Sea King helicopters. The Martin government signed a contract in 2004, with deliveries promised for 2009. Under Harper, the delivery date has slipped to 2018, with nearly $1.8-billion still to be paid.
> 
> It is possible that Harper intends to carry through with these procurements, after pausing to create the temporary illusion of a surplus. If so, he is setting his successor up for a headache. For there is, in fact, a substantial deficit — resulting from over-$25 billion in deferred acquisition costs for military equipment.
> 
> Exacerbating matters, inflation rates are higher in defence procurement than in the economy in general, which means that every deferred cost leads to higher final costs and, with that, pressure for reduced orders and lowered capability requirements. In other words, failing to recapitalize the military in a timely manner has created a procurement death spiral, as rusting-out equipment becomes increasingly expensive to replace.
> 
> From the perspective of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee in faraway Oslo, Canada is engaged in deep-reaching process of unilateral disarmament. For this reason, Stephen Harper could soon find himself elevated to Pearsonian heights. The prospect of winning the Nobel Peace Prize, however, may be the cause of consternation rather than celebration for Canada’s tough-talking PM.


http://ww2.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/07/08/michael-byers-the-harper-plan-for-unilateral-canadian-disarmament


----------



## MarkOttawa

Serious budgetary sausage-making, at _Embassy _ :

‘Good luck, have the Scotch ready’: Defence Department struggled to meet [TBS] planning expectations into 2013
http://www.embassynews.ca/news/2014/07/23/good-luck-have-the-scotch-ready-defence-department-struggled-to-meet-planning-expectations-into-2013/45823

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Monsoon

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Serious budgetary sausage-making, at _Embassy _ :
> 
> ‘Good luck, have the Scotch ready’: Defence Department struggled to meet [TBS] planning expectations into 2013
> http://www.embassynews.ca/news/2014/07/23/good-luck-have-the-scotch-ready-defence-department-struggled-to-meet-planning-expectations-into-2013/45823
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa


The issue: DND spends as much as more than half of all the other departments put together. Planning a $20B defence budget is about a hundred, not twenty, times more complicated than planning a $1B Heritage department budget. TBS guidelines and planning models are optimized for the smaller department cases, and TBS has only a dim appreciation of this (up until recently, the TBS defence analyst was also the TBS Canada Post analyst, as though those two portfolios were somehow comparable in scale). DND procurements need to be approached differently, much as the PS would hate to admit it.


----------



## GR66

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> The issue: DND spends as much as more than half of all the other departments put together. Planning a $20B defence budget is about a hundred, not twenty, times more complicated than planning a $1B Heritage department budget. TBS guidelines and planning models are optimized for the smaller department cases, and TBS has only a dim appreciation of this (up until recently, the TBS defence analyst was also the TBS Canada Post analyst, as though those two portfolios were somehow comparable in scale). DND procurements need to be approached differently, much as the PS would hate to admit it.



Does larger size automatically equal greater complexity in the budget?  DND certainly has more personnel, property, equipment, vehicles, etc. than any other department but is budgeting for them automatically more complex just because there's more of them than in other departments?  The equipment that DND procures is certainly more expensive on a per-unit basis than items in other departments but is the budgetary planning for a $1 billion dollar item really 20 or 100 times more complicated than budgetary planning for a $10 million dollar item?  Do unit cost or quantity always mean more complexity in terms of budgetary planning?

Certainly there are MANY things in DND that don't necessarily fit a standard mould that might be applied to other government departments, but I'm not convinced that "we're special" is always a reasonable argument as to why DND can't be more efficiently run or more cost effective in it's programs (including procurement).  

Only $2.8 billion of last year's budget (15% of the total DND budget) was slated toward Acquisition and Disposal of Machinery and Equipment (http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs-quarterly-financial/dept-budget-expenditures-june-2013.page).  I imagine quite a chunk of that is concentrated in relatively few, but expensive procurement programs.  I'd hope that DND would have enough of a handle on these programs to be able to report back to the TB on them in a timely manner.


----------



## Kirkhill

GR66:

A  $100,000,000 budget  buys 100 projects of $1,000,000 each.  $1,000,000,000 will buy Heritage a lot of paperclips, desks and air time.   Managing 100 projects of that size still represents an incredible amount of effort.

A  $20,000,000,000 budget buys 20,000 projects of $1,000,000 each...... 

And a tank of $3,000,000 is actually, at some level, three separate $1,000,000 projects that somebody somewhere is managing.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

text taken from the article  http://www.embassynews.ca/news/2014/07/23/good-luck-have-the-scotch-ready-defence-department-struggled-to-meet-planning-expectations-into-2013/45823



> The investment plan is a document that government departments must submit to the Treasury Board every three years. The plan “outlines the department's long-term strategic direction and objectives, and articulates how these are aligned with the objectives and priorities of the government of Canada,” the Treasury Board website reads.
> 
> The plan must include information on the department’s “strategic plans and priorities,” detailed plans for investing in assets and acquired services, an overview of any issues identified with the department’s management of investments, and more, according to the website.
> 
> The investment plan is a “monster” of a document that calls for a large amount of detail, and treats military acquisitions like those from any other government department, said the former senior National Defence official, who would only speak on condition of anonymity.
> 
> “You have to write a business case on why you need to buy a tank,” the former official said.



The above statements were the part of the document that caught my eye the most.  It tells me that we have no strategic plans or priorities which is concerning.  Some would say this is because the government hasn't given us any direction which has left us in limbo.  I don't agree with this because while the government's direction may be vague, they have given us a budget and they have given us a broad ranging document in the Canada First Defence Strategy.

Why doesn't the department practice what they preach and exercise a little bit of mission command and get on with it already.  In the absence of direction, make your own.  At least that's what I was always told.

Also, to whomever this former "National Defence Official" is.  While we may not cut the same slice of bacon as other departments, why should that preclude us from having a business plan?  We are in the business of war but that doesn't mean we are allowed to be wasteful as last time I looked economy of effort and administration were two key principles.  

What's so wrong with having to define why we need to buy a tank or any other tool in our toolbox for that matter?


----------



## Edward Campbell

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> text taken from the article  http://www.embassynews.ca/news/2014/07/23/good-luck-have-the-scotch-ready-defence-department-struggled-to-meet-planning-expectations-into-2013/45823
> 
> The above statements were the part of the document that caught my eye the most.  It tells me that we have no strategic plans or priorities which is concerning.  Some would say this is because the government hasn't given us any direction which has left us in limbo.  I don't agree with this because while the government's direction may be vague, they have given us a budget and they have given us a broad ranging document in the Canada First Defence Strategy.
> 
> Why doesn't the department practice what they preach and exercise a little bit of mission command and get on with it already.  In the absence of direction, make your own.  At least that's what I was always told.
> 
> Also, to whomever this former "National Defence Official" is.  While we may not cut the same slice of bacon as other departments, why should that preclude us from having a business plan?  We are in the business of war but that doesn't mean we are allowed to be wasteful as last time I looked economy of effort and administration were two key principles.
> 
> What's so wrong with having to define why we need to buy a tank or any other tool in our toolbox for that matter?




Another  :goodpost:

TB is not the enemy, it is, rather, a control measure - think of it as a boundary or a phase line in your tactical plan. But, as with a boundary, TB and its rules, are there for a larger purpose.

There is a reason, as I have mentioned many times in the past, why the policy _centre_ in Ottawa (PCO, Finance and TB) do not trust DND: they think that we you DND's leadership and senior management are lazy and _waaaay_ too self important, too full of themselves.


----------



## Journeyman

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> Why doesn't the department practice what they preach and exercise a little bit of mission command  and get on with it already.



How timely.   
Allan English, "Whatever Happened to Mission Command in the CAF?" _Canadian Military Journal_, Vol 14, No 3


----------



## dapaterson

A far more interesting read is MGen (ret'd) Gosselin's history of civilians in NDHQ and the frictions that resulted.



> Deputy Minister C.R. “Buzz” Nixon declared in 1982 that NDHQ was staffed inappropriately by military officers who were incapable of managing well in the Ottawa environment, and that “military parochialism,” or friction between the services within the military, was contributing to several projects and ideas being unsuccessful in Ottawa.



http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vol14/no3/page38-eng.asp


----------



## McG

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> There is a reason, as I have mentioned many times in the past, why the policy _centre_ in Ottawa (PCO, Finance and TB) do not trust DND: they think that we you DND's leadership and senior management are lazy and _waaaay_ too self important, too full of themselves.


We are too ready to break/by-pass/ignore procedures for major projects without understanding either the reason those procedures exist or the long-term perils from which they protect us.

Fully define the requirement before launching the acquisition?  We are too smart to need that step everytime.


----------



## Edward Campbell

dapaterson said:
			
		

> A far more interesting read is MGen (ret'd) Gosselin's history of civilians in NDHQ and the frictions that resulted.
> 
> http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vol14/no3/page38-eng.asp




But the problem is: there IS an established, _constitutional_ split between the civil and military _realms_. We, followers of the British tradition, have been working at this for 400+ years and we've been taking it seriously since Walpole clashed with the king and the military notables (and won) in the 18th century. Defence _policy_ IS the domain of civilians, just as the conduct of military operations is the domain of soldiers (as Roosevelt knew and Churchill didn't).

I watched too many GOFOs come to Ottawa and decide that they liked the civil service power game - a game they were ill equipped to play, by training and experience and, I would argue by the _ethos_ that had made them into GOFOs in the first place. By trying to be high level bureaucrats they left the military field open to very bright civil servants - think Bob Fowler who intruded, directly, into the "conduct of operations' domain whenever he chose ... because he could.


----------



## Crispy Bacon

dapaterson said:
			
		

> A far more interesting read is MGen (ret'd) Gosselin's history of civilians in NDHQ and the frictions that resulted.
> 
> http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vol14/no3/page38-eng.asp



 :goodpost:


----------



## Good2Golf

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ...But the problem is: there IS an established, _constitutional_ split between the civil and military _realms_. We, followers of the British tradition, have been working at this for 400+ years and we've been taking it seriously since Walpole clashed with the king and the military notables (and won) in the 18th century. *Defence policy IS the domain of civilians*, just as the conduct of military operations is the domain of soldiers (as Roosevelt knew and Churchill didn't)...



Concur, fully.

However, the civilian structure conflictingly expects Defence to write/update "it's own" national strategy...



> (From the Embassy 'Scotch' article)...National Defence’s ability to plan has been partially handicapped by *its ongoing overhaul of the Canada First Defence Strategy *  and multiple cuts and deferrals to its capital budget in recent years, Mr. Perry said...



Darned if you do, darned if you don't...


----------



## McG

Another article presenting the idea that the government's professed love for the military is not substantiated by the support actually given.  Generally, it seems to be the same arguments we have heard from other sources recently.

I don't buy the argument that TB policies make it impossible for DND to manage a budget.  I have not doubt there are frictions, but managing the budget must be possible.  Capital equipment purchases fall behind because we have trouble defining our requirements ... Sometimes we even throw things to the front of the priority list before even thinking about the requirements.

The military may be underfunded now, but not all fingers should be pointed outwards when it comes to the department's financial health.  There is still plenty of internal waste that could & should be brought to heel.



> Canada doesn't have the military to back up its foreign policy
> COLIN KENNY
> Published on: July 31, 2014
> Updated: August 2, 2014
> Ottawa Citizen
> 
> Stephen Harper likes to poke the bear – a.k.a. Vladimir Putin.
> 
> The Canadian prime minister has slammed Putin’s “expansionism and militarism” and called the Russian president a “throwback” to the evil mindset of the Soviet Union.
> 
> In terms of the words Harper uses, I appreciate his forthright condemnation of Putin’s behaviour in Ukraine. The 20th century was an ugly one for Europe, and the world can’t afford leaders colouring outside the lines when it comes to annexing territory or messing with the internal affairs of its neighbours.
> 
> Historians J.L. Granatstein and William Kaplan co-authored an article in the Globe and Mail, applauding the Canadian prime minister for being ahead of the pack in identifying Putin’s nasty behaviour in Ukraine, exposing him as “a Stalinist using Nazi big lie techniques and Soviet-era disinformation tactics to camouflage his government’s actions and shift blame.”
> 
> They commended Harper’s exhortations to Canada’s allies to mobilize to counter Russian expansionism – to activate NATO and to impose economic sanctions to make Putin think twice about throwing his weight around. All good.
> 
> But these words are fluff unless Canada is willing to put its money where its mouth is when it comes to standing up to the Putins of this world.
> 
> This government – which swaggers around in fatigues, pretending to be a friend of the Canadian Forces – has a lot to answer for when it comes to maintaining a military that can play its role in the world when these kinds of crises arise.
> 
> Canada’s defence budget as a percentage of GDP peaked at 2.0 percent under the Trudeau government. It went into steady decline under the Chrétien Liberals, looked like it would expand long-term  when the Harper government came to power, then plummeted. According the World Bank, it dropped from 1.4 per cent in 2009 to 1.0 per cent in 2013. Based on a number of signals that the government is going to keep tightening its military spending, that downward spiral is just going to continue.
> 
> Canadians don’t expect their governments to spend as much on their armed forces as countries like Russia (4.2 per cent of GDP) and the United States (3.8 per cent). But when non-combative countries like Norway (1.4 per cent), Denmark (1.4 per cent) and Sweden (1.2 per cent) are spending more, you know you have a government that’s putting the squeeze on our military.
> 
> The Department of National Defence is currently being hounded by Treasury Board, which had designed a system that makes it impossible for DND to manage its budget. As a result, the military keeps falling behind in equipment purchases and capacity keeps declining. The government could put an end to this stalemate if it wished to, but instead seems delighted that it is pocketing the unspent money to meet and exceed its deficit-fighting targets.
> 
> Canadians already have a small military and it just keeps shrinking. Not in numbers, because the government knows the optics of reducing personnel – when juxtaposed with repeated failures to replace essential equipment – would confirm that the government isn’t much interested in the military at all. But when you maintain personnel numbers and order cuts of 20 per cent in operations and maintenance expenditures, you’re creating a dysfunctional organization that can’t do what it is supposed to do.
> 
> Never has a government talked such big talk about investing in its military while allowing it to erode so dramatically. Canada’s navy, for instance, is going to be without a lot of essential ships after this government has left the scene. The same applies to key aircraft for the air force.
> 
> It’s nice to hear strong words condemning Putin’s perfidy in Ukraine. But they ring a bit hollow when they mask not-so-nice weakness in this country’s capacity to back them up.


http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/canada-doesnt-have-the-military-to-back-up-its-foreign-policy


----------



## MilEME09

While i do agree with you MCG that we should be looking inward first and fix our massive overhead issues, I also agree with the article that there are times when DND's arm is twisted by the TB, and they are unable to spend money due to bureaucratic in fighting


----------



## Edward Campbell

MilEME09 is correct in part, but we must remember that TB is an arm of the cabinet so the "infighting" isn't necessarily bureaucratic: TB enforces the _diktats_ of the cabinet; DND is, in  that respect, just another line department.

MCG has most of the problem in his sights: DND and especially the CF is lousy, repeat lousy at administration and financial management. There is no excuse for that, every other agency of government manages, most better than DND. Either we hire (recruit) stupid people or our military culture is ill suited to managing in government. I think it's a bit of both, overwhelmingly the latter. Admirals and generals are poor bureaucrats and they oughtn't to be allowed to wield much bureaucratic authority.

My  :2c:


----------



## Good2Golf

Mr. Campbell, perhaps there is room to increase the jointness of Departmental procurement planning, with an aim to reducing the inter-service tribalism that contributes significantly to the lack of harmonized definition of overall military requirements?  While General Hillier was a great proponent of jointness, projects like Leopard 2, while good for the RCAC, may not have been the best use of the Department's capital procurement envelope.

As well, is the issue just Departmental?  DND's current CFO, previously of TBS itself, has had half a decade in his position.  Would not one expect there to have been greater fiscal soundness with the cross-pollination of Mr. Lindsay's experience?  As well, Mr. Fonberg, until of late replaced by Mr. Fadden as Deputy Minister, was widely regarded as one of the more influential DMs in the machine of Government, and while by many external appearances demoted from DM of DFAIT to Senior Associate Secretary of Treasury Board before his tenure at Defence, was well regarded for his efforts in Treasury to set in place PM Harper's fiscal accountability model.  Was it the military leadership these kinds of professional bureaucrats were unable to influence to be better stewards of Defence's assigned resources? Was it the Department's own cadre of senior bureaucrats who have contributed to the fiscal managerial malaise?  Is it the nature of military leadership coming and going on relatively short cycles compared to their civilian bureaucratic colleagues that stymies good governance?  Is it relatively unseen influence by politicians with regional or other non-operational exigencies that renders less efficient the military's stewardship of resources?  Does the degree to which Public Works may or may not collaborate with Defence during tendering and in-service management of complex contracts affect efficient and effective stewardship of huge sums of procurement monies?

Is it time for a Royal Commission on Defence spending to get to the bottom of why DND is, or at least is perceived to be so bad at spending money?  Or for as much as Government says it is displeased with how DND performs, does it itself not want the details of such performance to really be known?

Regards
G2G


----------



## McG

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Mr. Campbell, perhaps there is room to increase the jointness of Departmental procurement planning, with an aim to reducing the inter-service tribalism that contributes significantly to the lack of harmonized definition of overall military requirements?


Wasn't CFD supposed to achieve exactly this?


----------



## Edward Campbell

My highly _personal_ point of view is: policy, finance, liaison with government, public affairs and procurement are, almost exclusively, the domain of the civil service - military officers should be few and far between and, generally, in 'observer' type appointments. The control and management of the forces in being and the conduct of operations and training are, equally, almost exclusively the domain of military people. Civil service _advice_, much less direction, is not applicable.

I agree with _joint_ requirements and funding by a _joint_ staff, project by project, rather than service 'slices' of the fiscal pie.

I'm not sure a Royal Commission would do any good but the Clerk of the Privy Council should convene a _tiger team_ of DMs too reform defence procurement and while that _tiger team_ should give a courteous hearing to admirals and generals it should, broadly and generally, ignore 99% of what 99% of them say.


----------



## dapaterson

On top of the revolving door of military postings, there's another more foundational problem in the current defence management scheme.

We place, for example, a Lieutenant Colonel pilot in the chair as an analyst of the RCAF's procurements.  This individual must speak truth to power - in other words, his or her role is to challenge the assumptions and desires of the commander of the RCAF.

Given the influence over future career prospects of that LCol that the commander of the RCAF holds, it can be extremely difficult to properly execute an appropriate level of that challenge function.

In a perfect world the Commander RCAF would be open and receptive to this, and the LCol would feel no institutional pressures to push things along regardless of their readiness.  Tragically, we live in a less than perfect world.


----------



## Good2Golf

MCG said:
			
		

> Wasn't CFD supposed to achieve exactly this?



MCG, CFD for the most part validates the policy basis for and coordinates integration of the capability and structure requirements of the activities identified and analyzed by the services, then executed by the material group.  I was thinking more along the lines of full out identification and options analysis being fully conducted by a joint structure as CFD, with advisorial functions provided by the services, but true "sponsorship" of the projects being the Chief of Force Development, accountable though the Vice Chief of Defence to BOTH the CDS and DM.  This would be in contrast to the current method wherein sponsorship (and by functional exigency 'Championship') is carried out by the head of the elemental service.  Perhaps that would create a necessarily more integrated procurement space, where the joint nature of the development body held "resource demand tie-breaking" as a function isolated from the parochial view of the services.  



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> My highly _personal_ point of view is: policy, finance, liaison with government, public affairs and procurement are, almost exclusively, the domain of the civil service - military officers should be few and far between and, generally, in 'observer' type appointments. The control and management of the forces in being and the conduct of operations and training are, equally, almost exclusively the domain of military people. Civil service _advice_, much less direction, is not applicable.



Concur, on the understanding that the definition of the _operational requirement_ (based on the capability that the Government _must clearly define_ by Policy) must remain the responsibility and purview of the military.  The challenge is that Government must: a) provide enough granularity in defence policy to the military to support development of the operational requirement, bounded with reasonable resource constraints; and b) clearly state when it is 'overriding' pure operational requirements with other considerations that normally occur, but are not identifiable as a nonmilitary constraint enforced upon procurement activities. 



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I agree with _joint_ requirements and funding by a _joint_ staff, project by project, rather than service 'slices' of the fiscal pie.
> 
> I'm not sure a Royal Commission would do any good but the Clerk of the Privy Council should convene a _tiger team_ of DMs too reform defence procurement and while that _tiger team_ should give a courteous hearing to admirals and generals it should, broadly and generally, ignore 99% of what 99% of them say.



This might well work, although the challenge would to ensure that such tiger teaming of DMs (and perhaps key ADMs from participating departments) included an associated "team accountability structure" wherein these senior bureaucrats were judged/assessed as to their effectiveness in deriving appropriate results from their directive work.  As it is now, one hears in the news how Defence procurement is broken, but very little either of the degree to which military leadership, or civilian bureaucrats were held to account for their decisions which affected billions of dollars.  Perhaps one could argue that at least in the case of previous Defence DM Robert Fonberg, there was institutional accountability in that he was demoted from DM of DFAIT to a Senior Associate Secretary at TBS when he failed to effectively separate the two primary functions of foreign affairs and international trade as tasked by the Clerk of the Privy Council.  Other examples show less accountability, in fact their performance of duties of the day seems confusing, particularly when contrasted against the reality today (e.g. Mr. Alan Williams [DND Associate Deputy Minister (Material) at the time] and his ardent defence of participating in the JSF program, but for industrial participation only he says now, not to actually buy the aircraft that the program was to deliver). 



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> On top of the revolving door of military postings, there's another more fundamental problem in the current defence management scheme.
> 
> We place, for example, a Lieutenant Colonel pilot in the chair as an analyst of the RCAF's procurements.  This individual must speak truth to power - in other words, his or her role is to challenge the assumptions and desires of the commander of the RCAF.
> 
> Given the influence over future career prospects of that LCol that the commander of the RCAF holds, it can be extremely difficult to properly execute an appropriate level of that challenge function.
> 
> In a perfect world the Commander RCAF would be open and receptive to this, and the LCol would feel no institutional pressures to push things along regardless of their readiness.  Tragically, we live in a less than perfect world.



dapaterson, one would expect that staff officer, or any other such officer in similar position, to look beyond the colour of his or her uniform and to conduct the 'challenge function' in a manner that best supports the interests of the Department's overall goals (amongst them accountability and good governance in the use of the citizens' resources).  Whether his or her respective affiliated service agreed with the staff officer's departmentally-aligned advice or not, it should at least be respected.  Yes, this could conceivably make such an officer less popular within their respective service, but one would hope that pursuit of one's duties and loyalties to the sound management of departmental procurement activities would be seen as a good thing.


Regards
G2G


----------



## Edward Campbell

I think that going back for 20_ish_ years or more several DMs and a few Clerks have had a "defence procurement reform plan" in the top drawers of their desks. The fact, and I believe it is a fact, is that no cabinet, and no prime minister, not Chrétien, not Martin and not Harper, has had the stomach for the sort of _machinery of government_ 'reorg' that such a "master plan" requires. I think that David Emerson (the political turncoat) may have proposed such a 'reorg' but it would have been too disruptive for a minority government. Prime Minister Harper does not, I suspect, see a pressing political advantage in reform ... some minister and some constituencies are happy with the current bugger's muddle. Making defence "better" is not a vote getter.


----------



## Kirkhill

Additionally PM Harper may, belatedly, have discovered there is political advantage in NOT having a readily deployable force.  If your force is at NTM you have fewer excuses for not using them.  Putting it another way - if you had them your allies might expect you to use them.  If you don't have them you can't send them.

Canadians aren't much in the sending mood these days.


----------



## Old Sweat

Jack Granatstein predicts that the army is not going anywhere soon in this piece from the Globe and Mail reproduced under the fair dealings provision of the Copyright Act.


No Canadian boots on the ground
J.L. GRANATSTEIN
Special to The Globe and Mail

Published Tuesday, Aug. 19 2014, 3:00 AM EDT
Last updated Tuesday, Aug. 19 2014, 4:53 AM EDT

Last week, Ottawa announced that it was sending two Royal Canadian Air Force transport aircraft to ferry supplies to Kurdish forces in Iraq battling the Islamic State advance. The Royal Canadian Navy has a frigate in the eastern Mediterranean watching the Russians who threaten Ukraine, and the RCAF has fighter aircraft in Romania patrolling the skies to reassure our NATO allies. While the government has sent a few handfuls of soldiers on training exercises in eastern Europe, there are no troops for a long-term deployment. Ships, yes. Aircraft, yes. But no boots on the ground.


Two weeks ago, the World Federalist Movement-Canada issued a report calling on Canada to do more peacekeeping, suggesting a deployment in the Central African Republic. The organization pointed out that the Canadian Forces currently has only 34 members on peacekeeping service. Again, no boots on the ground.

Why? There are reasons that must seem compelling to the Prime Minister and his government. When he was first elected in 2006, Stephen Harper was markedly pro-military, promising more equipment and support for the Canadian soldiers fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan. But as the casualties increased, the government’s commitment to the mission waned. After 158 dead, after hundreds wounded, and uncounted numbers suffering from post-traumatic stress, the zeal is gone. Defence spending is at its lowest level since the Second World War, a mere 1 per cent of GDP. The Canadian Forces are running on fumes, its equipment aging rapidly, and new procurements are stuck in endless meetings, re-evaluations, and bureaucratic processes. Apparently, there are no votes in supporting the troops.

But ships and aircraft might be provided. In 1950, as the war in Korea began, the United States pressed Canada for a commitment. “We’ve sent destroyers,” then foreign minister Lester Pearson reportedly said. “That’s just a token,” the U.S. envoy replied. “But it’s three destroyers,” Pearson plaintively said. “Okay, it’s three tokens.” Pressured, Canada duly sent a brigade of infantry. Boots on the ground mattered in 1950.

They still matter in 2014, but this Canadian government – and likely any future government in the near-term – will not send soldiers abroad in any number. We have become casualty averse, and the sight of body bags arriving at Trenton and being convoyed to Toronto loses votes and weakens ministerial will.

But this does not mean – and cannot mean – that Canada will never deploy its military again. We have national interests, and they need to be defended if they are threatened. The state has the obligation to protect the Canadian people and territory against invaders. It must protect Canadian unity, our economy, and those with whom we are allied by treaty. We must work with our friends to protect and advance democracy and freedom, a lesson we surely learned in the terrible wars of the 20th century and the conflicts of the 21st. Will we fight to keep our national interests secure? We must – to the limits of our strength.

We have real domestic and international obligations, and we maintain the Canadian Forces to meet them. We are in NATO, and if Russia or any other power attacks NATO members, we have a legal and moral obligation to assist in repelling invasion. We are in NORAD, and we have the obligation to work with the U.S. to protect the air approaches to North America. Will we fight to honour our treaty obligations? We must, but as an independent nation we can decide the scope of our contribution.

We are in the United Nations, and we should – when we are able and when the conditions are right – participate in peacekeeping operations. But we need to be selective. Peacekeeping in Africa is probably best accomplished by African states, not Canadian troops dependent on good roads and airfields for movement and support. We can contribute more than 34 peacekeepers, for sure, but no Canadian government is likely to send a large contingent into the coercive, violent peace enforcement missions that the UN is dealing with today, as in the Central African Republic. Casualty-averse Canadian governments simply will not do this, nor should they.

Certainly Prime Minister Harper will not deploy a battalion or brigade anywhere abroad before a 2015 general election, however tough his rhetoric sometimes sounds.

Thus, no boots on the ground today, and likely few in the future. It’s better to send a navy vessel or a half-squadron of CF-18s to troubled areas where there are few real risks of casualties. But the army will stay at home, training for the uncertain future.


----------



## Edward Campbell

I think Prof Granatstein is willfully, and very, very incorrectly, minimizing the danger that warships in e.g. the Mediterranean and Arabian Seas face. There are plenty of people out there, often in small, fast, explosive laden wooden boast who are willing and able to mount a suicide attack against a major warship.

To his main point: Canadians, not governments, "have become casualty averse," because they cannot understand (because governments refuse to explain?)* *why* we should send troop into harm's way. 

The great military historian John Fortescue famously said of Elizabeth I that "she hated straight dealing for its simplicity, she hated conviction for its certainty, and she hated war for its expense." Rings true today, in Ottawa, London and Washington, doesn't it? Elizabeth was finally pushed and dragged and coerced (mostly by Burghley and Walsingham) into a necessary but extremely risky war with Spain.

I don't think there are any "necessary" wars right now .... certainly there is no prospect of one anywhere in the Middle East: the Israelis have the power to deter their enemies or to punish them horribly if they attack. but I'm not certain Israel can survive and I'm even less sure if we (or the USA and Germany, and, and, and ...) can do an anything much to help them (they, the Israelis, can nuke Damascus and Tehran and Riyadh and so on).

I know that _innocent civilians_ are dying in great numbers in all sorts of dark, dirty corners of the world ... I'm not sure that matters enough to justify sending Canadian troops to fight and die anywhere.

_____
* Back in 2002, when we first send troops to Afghanistan I thought the the government of the day (Jean Chrétien, _Prop_) was clear and direct in the "why." There were three reasons listed on the DFAIT web site:

     1. To do our full and fair share in countering a direct and explicit threat against Canada - Osama bin Laden had named Canada as one of his next targets - by defeating the Taliban and denying them a firm base in Afghanistan;

     2. To be seen to be doing our fair share and more in the Western world's response to global terrorism; and

     3. To help Afghanistan ... in some undefined ways.


----------



## Halifax Tar

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I know that _innocent civilians_ are dying in great numbers in all sorts of dark, dirty corners of the world ... I'm not sure that matters enough to justify sending Canadian troops to fight and die anywhere.



ERC, I think this statement of yours sums up the the great divide in western military and international dealings.  

Many want to help, no one wants to pay the bill; be it in hard currency or blood. 

I personally take a isolationist stance.  Freedoms and social directions must be gained and earned by the people who want them, not imposed by an outside force.  It is sad but in order for a society/culture to progress and develop sometimes violence must ensue, innocence will be violated and we should stay the fudge out.


----------



## Kirkhill

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> ERC, I think this statement of yours sums up the the great divide in western military and international dealings.
> 
> Many want to help, no one wants to pay the bill; be it in hard currency or blood.
> 
> I personally take a isolationist stance.  Freedoms and social directions must be gained and earned by the people who want them, not imposed by an outside force.  It is sad but in order for a society/culture to progress and develop sometimes violence must ensue, innocence will be violated and we should stay the fudge out.



I am a bit more proactive than isolationist but I firmly require a Plan B.  Maybe I just misheard my classes or maybe I just remember what I want to have heard but I have a firm and unchanging planning principle:  What do I do when the plan fails?  How do I painlessly withdraw, reassess and reset?

In the world of diplomacy I firmly believe that the Navy plays the key element in controlling the length, depth and scope of any commitment and that is why I was a pleasure to be informed the Navy is standing up a full time Boarding Party-Small Boats Unit.   I believe that that will drive ship construction that  is more compatible with launching other troops towards shore.  That then allows the Canadian Government to send in a couple of ships and launch some JTF2, CSOR and even Lt Infantry Troops ashore - and to withdraw them expeditiously.  

The depth of the penetrations will necessarily be limited and their durations - but that is exactly as it should be.

Building Big Honking Ships to support invasions may not sell.

But building a Helpful Navy could have all sorts of benefits - and nobody would argue against the need for a ship operating far from home to be protected.


----------



## observor 69

You don't suppose Mr Granatstein is thinking of Gwynne Dyer's new book in this article ?

Military historian Gwynne Dyer on why Canada fights

http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/episode/2014/08/06/military-historian-gwynne-dyer-on-why-canada-fights/

http://www.amazon.ca/Canada-Great-Power-Game-1914-2014/dp/0307361683


----------



## MarkOttawa

In response to Granatstein piece James Cox
http://ca.linkedin.com/pub/jim-cox-ph-d/6/257/82b
https://www.facebook.com/jsc11a

takes on PM Harper:
http://cdfai3ds.wordpress.com/2014/08/19/j-l-granatstein-no-canadian-boots-on-the-ground/comment-page-1/#comment-7493



> Dr. Granatstein, as always, accurately identifies an important central issue. After their initial, shallow jingoism in 2006, about how Canada would not ‘cut and run,’ the government did just that, principally because they did not have, and still do not have, any real leadership ability to lead our country in a real fight.
> 
> Mr. Harper never did try to ‘rally the troops’ or motivate Canadians to stay the course and bear the burden needed to prevail on the battlefield. If Mr. Harper had been PM in 1917, we would never have been in France, let alone fight at Vimy Ridge. Had he been PM in 1942, Canada would probably have sent only best wishes and foodstuffs to allies fighting in Europe. Even Mackenzie King has a better record in conflict than Mr. Harper.
> 
> The Islamic State is a brutal, medieval and unmoral group of thugs who need to be eliminated. They are a threat to normal people everywhere. True, early efforts to eradicate this despicable group should fall on Iraqis, aided by other regional forces, but developed western nations should not ignore the need to get involved, perhaps decisively at the first opportune moment. We let the Nazis fester and grow. Let’s not commit the same mistake again.
> 
> As always, the US, and to a certain extent the UK, seems to be the only other states with enough gumption to take the fight to the the bad guys. If there was ever an issue that could unite NATO and Russia, the growing infection of the Islamic State is it.
> 
> Canada’s weak backstage contribution impresses no one, but it does allow Mr. Harper to once again avoid the requirement to (heaven forbid) actually talk with Canadians and explain why the Islamic State must be destroyed as quickly as possible.
> 
> As with Canada’s fight against militarism in the First World War, against Nazism during the Second World War, against Communism during the Cold War, and recently against the Taliban in Afghanistan, Canadians will fight, when needed and when well led, no matter the level of casualties. Regrettably, Mr. Harper does not provide that kind of leadership today. He would rather argue with Canadians at home than fight real enemies abroad. He really has no guts for anything beyond harmless domestic political fights. He seems to be afraid to get out front when the bullets are flying and people are dying. He reigns by fiat, not through real leadership.
> 
> Good luck to those fighting to eliminate the Islamic State. If you need help, don’t bother calling. If you need some maple syrup, give us a shout. We’ll fly it in, to a neighbouring country, but you’ll have to come and get it.



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## CougarKing

A scathing article against the Tories by Murray Brewster of the Canadian Press via Reuters:





> *Canada talks tough on Ukraine, but cuts $2.7-billion from defence in 2015*
> 
> OTTAWA - Stephen Harper has been one of the toughest-talking leaders throughout the Ukraine crisis, yet newly released figures show National Defence is expected to face an even deeper budget hole in the coming year than previously anticipated.
> The ongoing reductions come as the prime minister is expected to resist pressure from allies at this week's NATO summit to spend substantially more on the military.
> 
> Annual spending on the military, when compared with 2011, is slated to shrink by a total of $2.7-billion in 2015, according to a briefing note prepared for the deputy defence minister.
> 
> That would be almost $300-million more than earlier internal estimates, and roughly $600-million higher than the figure defence official acknowledged last fall when they rolled out the department's renewal plan.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)
> 
> *Those pressures include, among other things, severance for laid off civilians at defence; the bill for the Harper government's pledge to sustain newly trained Afghan forces; and the cost of operating the Public Works secretariat that is picking a replacement for the CF-18s.*
> 
> National Defence has repeatedly said that it — like other government departments — is expected to contribute towards the government's drive towards a balanced budget next year.
> 
> The issue of how much allies fork out for their militaries will be among the major closed-door topics when NATO leaders meet this week in Wales
> 
> (...SNIPPED)
> 
> According to the latest NATO figures, *the Harper government spends one per cent of GDP on defence, just slightly ahead of financially-troubled Spain, the Slovak Republic, Hungary, Luxembourg, Lithuania, and Latvia.*
> 
> (...EDITED)


----------



## McG

Terry Milewski is making a similar argument that the government is talking a game for which it is not prepared to write the checks.


> *Analysis: Stephen Harper takes big words, small stick to NATO summit*
> *Meeting in Wales this week puts spotlight on the gap between Canada's words and deeds*
> Terry Milewski, CBC News
> 01 Sep 2014
> 
> Canada's modest military might has always made it hard for its prime ministers to strut convincingly on the world stage. Stephen Harper is only the latest to offer stirring rhetorical contributions to the Western alliance, without having much firepower to back them up.
> 
> When it comes to speeches, Harper has not pulled his punches, even comparing the predations of Russian President Vladimir Putin to those of Nazi Germany. He says that Putin's "aggressive, militaristic and imperialistic" activities threaten the "peace and stability of the world."
> 
> For domestic consumption, Harper's government claims to be leading the Western response. Foreign Minister John Baird has insisted that "no other government has stood up more forcefully and aggressively against the Russian aggression in Ukraine."
> 
> Really? Those are big words. But this week's NATO summit in Wales will expose a gap between words and deeds.
> 
> Faced with a pressing need to offer more than ringing denunciations of Russian aggression, NATO's 28 members are being challenged to increase their defence budgets.
> 
> Harper intends to do no such thing. As long as that's true, Harper will be speaking loudly, but carrying a small stick.
> 
> So far, Harper seems reluctant to mention the topic [of defence funding]. The official account of his pre-summit phone call with U.S. President Barack Obama states that it "focused primarily on preparations for next week's NATO Summit in Wales, where leaders will discuss, among other things, the coordinated response to Russia's efforts to destabilize Ukraine and undermine the country's sovereignty and territorial integrity." Nothing there about boosting defence spending.
> 
> By contrast, the White House account of the same call says this: "The president stressed that agreement on increased defence investment in all areas is a top priority at the NATO summit."
> 
> A "top priority?" For the U.S., maybe — but not for Canada, where the Conservative government is focused on balancing the budget before next year's election.
> 
> Instead, according to the account of the Prime Minister's Office, Harper's goal at the NATO summit is to emphasize what Canada has already done, especially with its fine rhetoric: "Canada's main objectives for the Summit include highlighting its contributions to the Alliance, notably the role it has played since the onset of the Russia-Ukraine crisis by stressing the need for a strong international response to Russia's aggression against Ukraine..."
> 
> So: our "main objective" is to "highlight" our role in "stressing the need" for a "strong response."
> 
> No doubt, other members of the NATO alliance will hasten to highlight the exemplary power of their own speeches.
> 
> But among NATO's key members, only the U.S. — which pays 70 per cent of NATO's bills — and the United Kingdom top the desired level of two per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) in defence spending.
> 
> Canada's spending is closer to one per cent of GDP. Greece and Estonia both do better.
> 
> Which leaves Canada with a challenge — which it is meeting rhetorically.
> 
> The PMO says that Canada's military is "one of the most engaged and responsive armed forces within the Alliance." Perhaps so — but it's one of the smallest.
> 
> *Canada ranks sixth in spending among the allies* and contributes just six per cent of NATO's budget. As a share of GDP, only five of NATO's 28 members spend less than Canada.
> 
> It is true that Canadian troops fought effectively in Afghanistan, although how successful the Western intervention there was will be another difficult question for the summit.
> 
> More recently, Canada has sent half a dozen CF-18s to Eastern Europe for patrols in response to Russia's Ukrainian adventure, and has also offered support and "non-kinetic" aid to the Ukrainian government. (Apparently, that means it won't hurt anyone. No bullets.)
> 
> But NATO wants something much more kinetic from all its members. It wants a more agile, muscular military deterrent to Russia, kept in a high state of readiness with a rapid-reaction force and pre-positioned supplies close to Russia's borders — notably in Poland. And the outgoing secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, says that members who want the "insurance policy" of collective defence must "pay the premiums."
> 
> Rasmussen will still be in the chair at this week's summit — he doesn't quit until the end of the month — and it's clear that the NATO alliance will, once again, urge its members to raise their defence spending to two per cent of GDP over 10 years — a pledge made before, without success.
> 
> The Harper government has not denied that it is resisting this latest proposal. Instead, a defence department statement implies that Canada's already doing enough: "Our government has made significant investments into the Canadian Armed Forces ... Following a decade of darkness under the previous Liberal government, we have increased the defence budget by over 27 per cent. We have also delivered on important procurement projects..."
> 
> These procurement projects, it says, include the frigate modernization program and the Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships — neither of which has, in fact, been delivered. Besides that, the 27 per cent increase takes no account of inflation.
> 
> But never mind; we still have plenty of rhetoric. The statement says: "Our government is delivering on its commitment to ensuring Canada's military is strong, proud and ready to defend Canadian interests at home and abroad."
> 
> Wrong, says the Conference of Defence Associations, a fiercely pro-military group whose experts concluded in a June report this year that, "adjusting for inflation, the defence budget is now smaller than it was in 2007."
> 
> In fact, the report found, *defence cuts provided a quarter of all the current year's budget reductions*. The CDA adds that, "in real terms, *capital spending for major new equipment has declined four years in a row*, and remains on a downward trend. DND [the Department of National Defence] has not spent 25 per cent of the amount allocated to replacing major equipment for four straight years. As a share of the defence budget, capital spending has dropped to the lowest level since 1977-78."
> 
> The CDA's conclusion was that "the Canadian Armed Forces' operational readiness is dropping, its purchasing power is being eroded, and future military capability is being reduced."
> 
> Is the "decade of darkness" over? Or is this just a new one? There's no sign that the trend will be reversed soon. But if words are needed, Canada stands ready.
> 
> "Canada will continue to work closely with its allies and partners," says the PMO, "and will take further economic steps if Russia continues down this reckless and irresponsible path. We will continue to support our allies in Eastern Europe and take the steps necessary to assist them to maintain their security and national territorial integrity."
> 
> Except, apparently, spending money.


But ...

It is difficult to blame all our problems on funding levels while at the same time we are inefficient or wasteful with the funding we have.  We continue to retain unnecessary layers of HQ/bureaucracy, we over-rank our higher establishments for unnecessary parity with foreign militaries,  we invest millions tinkering with fashion, we spend tens of millions on historical celebrations, we like to WSE guys for tours when pers of the correct rank are available, we like to use rental cars when DND vehicles are adequate, we like to stay in hotels when DND quarters are available, etc.

I am not saying there is enough money in the defence budget.  We certainly need more to deliver on all the promises being made as to our readiness.  However, getting our spending priorities better focused on military capability and readiness (training, maintenance, equipment) would see us in a much better position.  We need to do this regardless of more money coming or not (and more money is probably not coming).

... but anyway; the article seemed to imply we had a small military next to most NATO nations.  Our budget as a percent of GDP is certainly small, but I don't think the military itself is small.  If one believes Wikipedia (and at times that can be dangerous), then we are fairly middle of the pack as far as size goes.  Of course, there is another funding problem: mid-size armed forces on a compact -size budget.


----------



## MilEME09

I would tend to agree that its not all about that 2%,instead like the current German defense minister has said when he announced moderate increases to the budget months ago its about efficiently spending the money. You can spend over 2% all you want but if you have a very wasteful defense department just how good is that budget? That said I think if DND was able to spend all that unspent capital money it could go a long way to giving us sharper teeth, not dentures that keep falling out.


----------



## Journeyman

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> A scathing article against the Tories.....


  And yet if the Tories were deploying a Brigade-Group into Eastern Europe, the headlines would be demanding Harper's resignation as a rabid, mad-dog, war-monger.   :


----------



## dimsum

Journeyman said:
			
		

> And yet if the Tories were deploying a Brigade-Group into Eastern Europe, the headlines would be demanding Harper's resignation as a rabid, mad-dog, war-monger.   :



Yep.  Pretty much "damned if you do, damned if you don't."  Hell, I was surprised the CBC was lambasting him for not spending money on the military - someone should save that article and paste it when, in the future, they start the inevitable "return to peacekeeping only" shtick.


----------



## McG

It looks like Canada may have succeeded in watering down NATO's call for members to invest more in defence.

Meanwhile, DND is being asked to cover more costs with its shrinking budget.


> NATO allies unwilling to boost defence spending may soon see compromise
> Prime Minister Stephen Harper arrives in London for NATO summit
> CBC News
> 02 Sep 2014
> 
> A face-saving compromise may be on the way for reluctant allies, including Canada, who are unwilling to boost defence spending to meet the NATO standard.
> 
> A spokesman for Prime Minister Stephen Harper says the final statement at the Wales Summit later this week will describe the long-standing expectation that members nations spend at least two per cent of their gross domestic product on defence as an "aspirational target."
> 
> That seems enough to satisfy the Harper government, which has balked at pressure from both the United States and Britain to substantially boost the military's budget slashed in the drive towards next year's balanced budget and anticipated election.
> 
> Jason MacDonald, the prime minister's director of communications, said late Tuesday that the government is willing to spend more "on measures that meet actual operational needs, in response to global issues."
> 
> He says Canada is not prepared to meet "an arbitrary target."
> 
> Wiggle room in meeting target, U.S. says
> 
> The language not only puts out an embarrassing political fire, given the prime minister's harsh condemnation of Russia, but it may also be enough to placate the Americans.
> 
> ...
> 
> Harper has been one of the vocal western leaders in condemning Russia's annexation of Crimea and ongoing invasion of eastern Ukraine, which has claimed over 2,000 lives.
> 
> The statement that the government intends to fund "operational needs" is significant because it means the federal treasury could be called upon to pony up for individual deployments and commitments, rather than telling the defence department to find the money within its annual budget.
> 
> With the exception of the combat mission in Kandahar, the Conservatives have resisted doing special appropriations for deployments, the way most other countries do.
> 
> Documents obtained by The Canadian Press under access to information show that missions, such as the Afghan training deployment and the Libya bombing campaign, were funded out of the National Defence budget.
> 
> That was breaking a promise in the government's own Canada First Defence Strategy, which pledged overseas missions would be paid for through a special budgetary appropriation.
> 
> The defence department is currently being asked to swallow the cost of the Harper government's three-year commitment to fund newly trained and independent Afghan forces — something agreed to at a previous NATO summit.
> 
> There was no indication Tuesday whether the government would find the money elsewhere to cover that bill.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/nato-allies-unwilling-to-boost-defence-spending-may-soon-see-compromise-1.2753155


----------



## McG

As  E.R. Campbell  has noted before, the defence budget is where it is at because Canadians are content for it to be there.  Michael den Tandt provides the prescription for getting the budget from where it is to the state it needs to be at to deliver on government promises.



> Despite tough talk, Canadian Forces are badly under-funded
> MICHAEL DEN TANDT, POSTMEDIA NEWS
> Ottawa Citizen
> 01 Sep 2014
> 
> Is Russian president Vladimir Putin a bad, bad man? We think probably he is.
> 
> Do the butchers of the Islamic State, now running amok in Iraq and Syria, pose a clear and present danger to Western civilization? It seems so.
> 
> Therefore it’s good, we can agree, that this country’s prime minister and foreign minister, Stephen Harper and John Baird, can get their Winston Churchill on now and then. Harper and Baird’s denunciations of Putin’s reckless invasion of Ukraine, a sovereign country that had not fired so much as a rubber band towards Russia, have been refreshingly blunt.
> 
> Oh – except for our military, which, according to reporting by the Canadian Press’s Murray Brewster, is about to have another $2.7-billion lopped off its annual budget. Awkward. Postmedia’s Matthew Fisher reports that Ottawa is under pressure from North Atlantic Treaty Organization members to spend more, not less, as Harper heads to Wales for a NATO summit. Might someone at this confab publicly suggest that, when it comes to smiting evil, Canada is mostly bluster?
> 
> This is in no way intended as a slight against the Canadian Forces, whose members have displayed such skill, courage and simple good humour, in so many foreign engagements. No one who travels with the CF, or watches them work, can fail to appreciate their worth. The same very high standards, I observed recently, are exemplified by the Canadian Coast Guard. Thank goodness for them.
> 
> But the simple truth is that Canada’s military is badly under-resourced, given the range of emerging global threats, and the United States’ continuing withdrawal from its long-standing role as global policeman. Setting aside a sharp increase in defence spending between 2002 and 2010, the pattern has been for Ottawa to use the CF as a kind of piggy bank. When money is tight, it can safely be lopped out of the defence budget, because a) soldiers, sailors and airmen and women can’t complain too bitterly and b) the defence of North America is essentially an American responsibility. Right?
> 
> The Jean Chretien-Paul Martin Liberals famously balanced the federal budget on the backs of the CF during its so-called “decade of darkness,” in the 1990s. Those cuts were so severe that on some bases, according to soldiers I have spoken to, every second light bulb was unscrewed to save power. The Airborne Regiment was disbanded in the wake of the Somalia affair. Major procurements were cancelled, delayed or botched. In 2005, ringing in the dawn of a new era, Harper promised to undo all that. And until roughly 2010, with Canada at war in Afghanistan, his government delivered.
> 
> But it appears the Tories are doing again what the Liberals did 20 years ago, even though the geopolitical context is demonstrably more perilous today than it was then. Canada spends roughly one per cent of GDP on its military – putting us 22nd second among 27 NATO countries, ahead of Hungary, Latvia, Spain, Lithuania and Luxembourg. The Slovak Republic, Belgium, Slovenia, the Czech Republic, Italy and the Netherlands all spend a greater share of GDP on their militaries than does Canada. Even though, as the prime minister is fond of reminding us, this country leads the Group of Seven industrialized nations in terms of fiscal performance. It doesn’t square.
> 
> Last week on Baffin Island, I watched Harper deliver his toughest-sounding denunciation yet of both Putin and the Islamic State. Speaking to a small audience of soldiers, sailors and airmen and women, including Inuit Rangers tasked with providing Canada’s first line of defence in the north, Harper declared that “in Europe, we see the imperial ambitions of Vladimir Putin, who seems determined that, for Russia’s neighbours, there shall be no peace.” And this: “… because Russia is also Canada’s Arctic neighbour, we must not be complacent here at home. In our time, the Royal Canadian Air Force has again been called to respond to increased Russian activity in the Arctic.”
> 
> Bracing stuff. But how to justify the gap between the talk and the walk? The 5,000 Rangers, it is now promised, will receive their long-awaited new bolt-action rifle next year. Beyond that, there is precious little good news to report. As I have written previously, new ships are half a dozen years from delivery, at best. The fighter-jet replacement program has been on ice since late 2012, when the government’s sole-source F-35 purchase went supernova. There is still no competition under way to replace the CF-18s.
> 
> This state of affairs is not, to be fair, entirely the Harper government’s fault. The Tories’ defence spending is dictated by what they perceive to be Canadians’ wishes. There is no tradition in Canada of popular support for the kind of outlay – close to $40-billion annually, compared with the current $19-billion – that would bring us into line with the NATO standard of two per cent of GDP. But *at what point does the government assume its responsibility to lead and shape popular support, rather than simply put a finger to the wind and move with the current?
> 
> If the threats are as grave as Harper and Baird say, leadership is called for. They can’t have it both ways forever.*


http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Despite+tough+talk+Canadian+Forces+badly+under+funded/10168311/story.html


----------



## Eye In The Sky

5000 bolt actions rifles...that'll learn 'em to mess with Canada!   ;D


----------



## McG

I am a little surprised that the media has continued to press the under-funded military topic as persistently as it has in the last few days.  Here, John Ivison builds on an earlier article to press the message further.  An important element here is the message that part of the solution to the funding problem is for military, bureaucratic, & political leadership to focus priorities on what is necessary.  Preserving extraneous HQ layers is not necessary.



> DND brass tenaciously do nothing in face of report's warning over Canadian military
> By John Ivison, National Post
> 04 Sep 2014
> 
> Six months ago, a retired Canadian Forces officer, George Petrolekas, and a retired Canadian diplomat, Ferry de Kerckhove, published an annual report analyzing the international security environment.
> 
> The Strategic Outlook for the Conference of Defence Associations Institute was blunt in its assessment, pointing out a retrenchment by Western powers, the death of leadership and an absence of strategy.
> 
> “Ignoring defence requirements based on what the outside world looks like and not doing anything about it, is tantamount to a delinquency of one’s government duty,” the report concluded.
> 
> *“Fiscal pressures are leading to cuts to defence, based more on the balance sheet than on what a nation wishes to do in the world.* For Canada, cuts to capability, delay or elimination of procurements, or reduction in readiness are imposed without the benefit of a foreign policy and defence review to articulate our national interests. This is deeply troubling. … Absent an articulated vision of its role in the world, and the provision of the right means to achieve it, Canada risks doing little and mattering even less in world affairs.”
> 
> Amongst its other findings, it suggested that Putin’s Russia was bent on rediscovering its past glories by trying to become the heart of  Eurasia.
> 
> The report holds up pretty well six months later. Needless to say, it was summarily dismissed as too pessimistic by the Department of National Defence.
> 
> ...
> 
> But Messrs. Petrolekas and de Kerckhove were closer to the mark about the unfolding international landscape than the military establishment seems to have been.
> 
> And they nailed a problem that DND, in all its pomp and circumstance and complacency, has preferred to ignore — namely, Canada’s military is in disarray, too stretched to effectively procure equipment or properly keep its forces in a state of mission readiness.
> 
> Stephen Harper was in London on Wednesday saying Canada is willing to act against ISIS. He has been among the most vocal critics of Russia’s adventurism in Ukraine. And he was in declaratory mode in the Arctic again last month, proclaiming Canada’s sovereignty in the region.
> 
> Yet annual spending on the military will be $2.7-billion lower next year than it was in 2011.
> 
> Now there are demands from Canada’s NATO allies that we double our military spending, to 2% of GDP.
> 
> That is not going to happen — not as long as this government is intent on balancing the budget and funding tax cuts ahead of next year’s election.
> 
> The Strategic Outlook authors suggest *the military could improve its capacity, and still stay within budget*, by closing such bases as CFB Borden and Goose Bay, and by reducing the 12,000 employed at headquarters in Ottawa.
> 
> But there are political costs to base closures, and neither the military nor the government seems disposed to doing anything that might make the situation more tenable.
> 
> As the Strategic Outlook makes clear, attempts to “transform” the Canadian Forces to fit new fiscal and geopolitical realities have been going on for a decade. At least no one can say the Forces lack backbone — it takes tenacity to do nothing for that length of time.


----------



## Furniture

I agree mostly with the article as written, but the one thing that puzzles me is the base closure part. How will the CAF save anything by closing the support training base? Training of clerks, cooks, aviation mechanics, fire fighters, vehicle techs, etc... has to happen somewhere. Is there a real cost saving in moving that raining to another base?  Or is this a case a person with no real knowledge of how the CAF works just trying to justify their pet ideas about the CAF?


----------



## MilEME09

WeatherdoG said:
			
		

> I agree mostly with the article as written, but the one thing that puzzles me is the base closure part. How will the CAF save anything by closing the support training base? Training of clerks, cooks, aviation mechanics, fire fighters, vehicle techs, etc... has to happen somewhere. Is there a real cost saving in moving that raining to another base?  Or is this a case a person with no real knowledge of how the CAF works just trying to justify their pet ideas about the CAF?



While i would say it wouldn't save money, perhaps decentralizing it will, as many in the RCEME world will tell you we all end up back at the mothership we love to hate called Borden. Makes sense for central canada perhaps, but how much money could be saved if techs and support trades were trained closer to home? for example Wainwright for the west and Gagetown for the east? less travel cost for the CF and such I would think?


----------



## Furniture

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> While i would say it wouldn't save money, perhaps decentralizing it will, as many in the RCEME world will tell you we all end up back at the mothership we love to hate called Borden. Makes sense for central canada perhaps, but how much money could be saved if techs and support trades were trained closer to home? for example Wainwright for the west and Gagetown for the east? less travel cost for the CF and such I would think?



What about oil changes and power pack changes is specific to a brigade or division? Why does 1 CMBG require a differently trained tech than 2 CMBG? Why does MARLANT require a steward or cook with different skills than MARPAC? 

Making schools for each area results in different standards for each area. That doesn't work under our model of one CAF serving all of Canada. In my time in I've never seen two schools teaching the same course do it in the same way with the same standard.


----------



## MilEME09

WeatherdoG said:
			
		

> What about oil changes and power pack changes is specific to a brigade or division? Why does 1 CMBG require a differently trained tech than 2 CMBG? Why does MARLANT require a steward or cook with different skills than MARPAC?
> 
> Making schools for each area results in different standards for each area. That doesn't work under our model of one CAF serving all of Canada. In my time in I've never seen two schools teaching the same course do it in the same way with the same standard.



While I understand your point, you can't tell me it makes sense for me to fly all the way to Borden from Alberta to read the inspection standards of a C7 and then do it, why can't that be done in Wainwright Edmonton, or Shilo?


----------



## Happy Guy

Closure of BORDEN will not mean the end of centralized training.  For you, it just means that the RCEME might move to GAGETOWN because it is an Army trade.  So RCEME trades training will be conducted there.


----------



## George Wallace

Happy Guy said:
			
		

> Closure of BORDEN will not mean the end of centralized training.  For you, it just means that the RCEME might move to GAGETOWN because it is an Army trade.  So RCEME trades training will be conducted there.



Or perhaps back to Barriefield (Kingston) where the School was originally.


----------



## Old Sweat

Moot to the discussion is a study for reforming the Public Service by Hugh Segal. Honest, it is important. Mr Segal proposes reducing the number of senior executives and the layers of authority in the bureaucracy. He also questions the policy of shifting managers and executives between departments as this reduces the level of competency. It seems to me that reducing GOFOs and the number of headquarters and layers of staff would do a lot to increase the efficiency of the CAF.

Here is a link to the report on the study in the Ottawa Citizen:

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/fixing-the-public-service-groom-stronger-specialized-managers-says-hugh-segal


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

MCG said:
			
		

> I am a little surprised that the media has continued to press the under-funded military topic as persistently as it has in the last few days.  Here, John Ivison builds on an earlier article to press the message further.  An important element here is the message that part of the solution to the funding problem is for military, bureaucratic, & political leadership to focus priorities on what is necessary.  Preserving extraneous HQ layers is not necessary.



Closing Borden would be interesting as it would also require moving the Canadian Forces Ammo depot to somewhere else, which would be expensive.  I dont know why Borden always comes up for closure... it's a great location near Canada's largest city. If we wanted to actually gain more exposure and potentially more recruits it would seem to make sense to augment Borden with more reg force units and close more austere bases that are harder to draw/keep pers in (Cold Lake, etc)
I'm sure that if people in Toronto/Southern Ontario could join the regular force and stay closer to home than that would be a great selling feature. Basing CF-18's or army equipment there could also permit more military parades (therefore presence). If we want to close bases, close Shilo, Cold Lake or Goose Bay.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I can't agree with the Cold Lake closure however, I would offer closing Pat Bay and Shearwater and moving those Sqns (443 and 423) to Comox and Greenwood.  Of course, this will never happen now that new facilities have been built in both PB and SW.  

No reason all of the 'maritime air' folks couldn't be co-located on 1 Wing per coast.  I'd even take it a step further and move 1 CFFTS out of Winnipeg and put it in either Comox or Greenwood too.  Lots of potential in all of those ideas (that will never happen IMO).

I don't see closure of Borden as having much value either.  You'd be running X amount of mini-TEs across the country, with X amount of cadres, require X amount more trg aids, etc.


----------



## George Wallace

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I can't agree with the Cold Lake closure however, I would offer closing Pat Bay and Shearwater and moving those Sqns (443 and 423) to Comox and Greenwood.  Of course, this will never happen now that new facilities have been built in both PB and SW.




Young pup.  Surest sign of a Base Closure happening is just that -- construction of new facilities and major upgrades to infrastructure.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I can't agree with the Cold Lake closure however, I would offer closing Pat Bay and Shearwater and moving those Sqns (443 and 423) to Comox and Greenwood.  Of course, this will never happen now that new facilities have been built in both PB and SW.
> 
> No reason all of the 'maritime air' folks couldn't be co-located on 1 Wing per coast.  I'd even take it a step further and move 1 CFFTS out of Winnipeg and put it in either Comox or Greenwood too.  Lots of potential in all of those ideas (that will never happen IMO).
> 
> I don't see closure of Borden as having much value either.  You'd be running X amount of mini-TEs across the country, with X amount of cadres, require X amount more trg aids, etc.


Or the MH Sqns could be returned to the RCN (where the belong) and the RCN could decide where they should be based.  Just sayin'....


----------



## GAP

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Young pup.  Surest sign of a Base Closure happening is just that -- construction of new facilities and major upgrades to infrastructure.



I don't know how many millions they spent renovating and insulating all the buildings at Kapyong Barracks in Winnipeg AFTER they moved everybody to Shilo and had it shut down.....there were little $$ signs floating above each building just remind everyone it was their tax dollars at work (humor, in case you weren't sure)......


----------



## Eye In The Sky

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Young pup.  Surest sign of a Base Closure happening is just that -- construction of new facilities and major upgrades to infrastructure.



Hmmm.  'tis true; thinking of the $11million Combined Mess that was built in Summerside right before it was shut down.  Looks like the MH community better get ready for a move.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Or the MH Sqns could be returned to the RCN (where the belong) and the RCN could decide where they should be based.  Just sayin'....



That would make more sense, which is precisely why it will never happen.  Makes you wonder though, if someone was to start a rumour that MAG was going to be re-born...you know, to go along with the DEU rank color changes and what-not...


----------



## Sub_Guy

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I'd even take it a step further and move 1 CFFTS out of Winnipeg and put it in either Comox or Greenwood too.  Lots of potential in all of those ideas (that will never happen IMO).



Well the AES Op training could be handled in Greenwood, considering the CP-140 and CH-148 are going to end up with very similiar mission computers, I am not saying the MOAT/OTU should be combined, but the basic AES Op training 
could all be done here, that way when it came time for the MOAT/OTU the individual would already have a solid grasp on the basic operation of the mission computers.   Heck you could simulate the entire basic AES Op course, and hold
off flying them until the MOAT/OTU.


----------



## George Wallace

GAP said:
			
		

> I don't know how many millions they spent renovating and insulating all the buildings at Kapyong Barracks in Winnipeg AFTER they moved everybody to Shilo and had it shut down.....there were little $$ signs floating above each building just remind everyone it was their tax dollars at work (humor, in case you weren't sure)......



Brand spanking new Hangar and Mess Hall in CFB Summerside and within a year -- CLOSED.

The list of such excessive spending on infrastructure and improvements to Bases prior to their CLOSURE and sale of prime real-estate, often for the grand sum One (1) Dollar, is long.  If one wants to look at the monumental waste of "Tax Payers' Dollars", that list should be referenced.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Well the AES Op training could be handled in Greenwood, considering the CP-140 and CH-148 are going to end up with very similar mission computers, I am not saying the MOAT/OTU should be combined, but the basic AES Op training
> could all be done here, that way when it came time for the MOAT/OTU the individual would already have a solid grasp on the basic operation of the mission computers.   Heck you could simulate the entire basic AES Op course, and hold
> off flying them until the MOAT/OTU.



Pretty much exactly what's be talked about in the crew rooms a few times, as well as the possibility of moving Gonzo to the Wing for the IAQC/flying phase or just doing a ground school (BAQC) and then going on to MOAT/OTU...and getting Wings after passing (like the FEs).  Another topic was the merit of having all folks go LRP first tour and then sending folks MH (once the Cyclone is at the Op Sqns) like was done in the past.

But, moving MH Sqns to 'LRP Wings' and TEs around costs money, and jobs in the locale's they'd be leaving.  Money and politics.


----------



## Sub_Guy

Leave the Gonzo in Winnipeg, an AES Op really doesn't need to fly prior to a MOAT/OTU.  This would lighten the load for the Gonzo, plus it would cut the AES Op positions down in Winnipeg, saving money on moves. 

The argument of having them fly just to see if they can fly doesn't really hold any merit, because if that was the case all potential AES Op's would fly prior to heading to 1 CFFTS, and when
was the last time we lost someone to chronic motion sickness?


----------



## Lightguns

Doubtful that there will be any real base closings this time.  They are looking for immediate savings, closing bases requires movement of people and property with a return in later years.  Expect a downturn in activity, maybe we will all practice a little light infantry for a year or drive the ship in a simulator.  The key area to save money is still the mini empires of the NCR bandits but that is unlikely to happen.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Closing Borden gets debated every decade or so. When I was sill serving it was the Air Force that wanted to have three _super-bases_ (Groups?) at Cold Lake, Trenton and Bagotville and the thought (if it even qualified as that) was that technician training in Borden and Kingston would be combined (probably a good idea) and then split into _Anglo_ and _Franco_ streams (probably not a bad idea) and then moved to Cold Lake and Bagotville. The Army was "on board" (if that's not overstretching the expression) with splitting Log training and moving some to Gagetown, some to Halifax/Esquimalt and some to Trenton (also, probably some sense in that notion, too). EME, as I recall, was considered for a move to Quebec, somewhere ~ sometimes proposals to move things to (or from) Quebec are all based on a 23% factor.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Leave the Gonzo in Winnipeg, an AES Op really doesn't need to fly prior to a MOAT/OTU.  This would lighten the load for the Gonzo, plus it would cut the AES Op positions down in Winnipeg, saving money on moves.
> 
> The argument of having them fly just to see if they can fly doesn't really hold any merit, because if that was the case all potential AES Op's would fly prior to heading to 1 CFFTS, and when
> was the last time we lost someone to chronic motion sickness?



So, back to ABATS basically.  Move the positions to you guys, and add BAQC to your "can do" list.

"Whats old is new again"  ;D


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Closing Borden gets debated every decade or so. When I was sill serving it was the Air Force that wanted to have three _super-bases_ (Groups?) at Cold Lake, Trenton and Bagotville and the thought (if it even qualified as that) was that technician training in Borden and Kingston would be combined (probably a good idea) and then split into _Anglo_ and _Franco_ streams (probably not a bad idea) and then moved to Cold Lake and Bagotville. The Army was "on board" (if that's not overstretching the expression) with splitting Log training and moving some to Gagetown, some to Halifax/Esquimalt and some to Trenton (also, probably some sense in that notion, too). EME, as I recall, was considered for a move to Quebec, somewhere ~ sometimes proposals to move things to (or from) Quebec are all based on a 23% factor.



Understood, and I've heard talk of Borden and Meaford closing before, but I dont understand why this base, and not lesser value bases, is discussed for closure. With it's location and "reasonably" large training area (roughly equivalent to Valcartier) it could be a fantastic location to promote the CAF to Canada via the 5 odd million people in Toronto and 10 odd million in southern Ontario. Plus it's a base that a significant number of people would like WANT to go to (unlike Shilo, Suffield, Wainwright, Cold Lake, Goose Bay, Gander, etc). Certainly, having a posting option close to home for people from Toronto, Kitchener, London, etc would help in recruiting some people from the golden horseshoe who may not want to move to Gagetown or Shilo.


----------



## George Wallace

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Understood, and I've heard talk of Borden and Meaford closing before, but I dont understand why this base, and not lesser value bases, is discussed for closure. With it's location and "reasonably" large training area (roughly equivalent to Valcartier) it could be a fantastic location to promote the CAF to Canada via the 5 odd million people in Toronto and 10 odd million in southern Ontario. Plus it's a base that a significant number of people would like WANT to go to (unlike Shilo, Suffield, Wainwright, Cold Lake, Goose Bay, Gander, etc). Certainly, having a posting option close to home for people from Toronto, Kitchener, London, etc would help in recruiting some people from the golden horseshoe who may not want to move to Gagetown or Shilo.



Besides these reasons, the location of the CAF Ammo compound and all the Schools, Borden is also the Support Base for Meaford (which is just down the road).  [Edit to add:]  We mustn't forget Blackdown and all the Cadet facilities....... ;D

I can imagine that there could be some backroom political shenanigans with land developers for the prime real-estate Borden offers as a potential developer's dream to build a Sub-division for Toronto commuters, close to Wasaga Beach, Blue Mountain Resorts and Ski areas, and the other surrounding resorts and of course cottage country.


----------



## Old Sweat

Before I would consider closing Borden I would want to see a detailed plan showing where and how we would duplicate the training done there. I also would want to see the costs associated with the move including associated construction and what that would do to the DND budget over the next few years. At first blush my reaction is "that dog don't hunt!"

As for George's point re developers, let them pay the range clearance bill for both Borden and Meaford. Back circa 1972 there was a push to close Meaford put forward by the locals for environmental reasons, but the real reason was that a bunch of the local movers and shakers wanted to develop it. DND was prepared to see it become a nature preserve closed to the public, but the locals were firm that it should be given back to the local municipality. When told about the range clearance issue and that to guarantee their safety, it would have to be bulldozed down to bed rock, their enthusiasm waned and they decided they could live with the status quo after all.


----------



## dapaterson

Calls to close Borden are loudest from the combat arms community (and their RCAF and RCN ilk) who have not given it much thought, other than "It's not shiny and pointy, and I don't understand it, so we should close it."

Frankly, if we want to increase bang for the buck, Edmonton would be a more logical base to close, moving 1 CMBG to Wainwright so they are co-located with their training area.  Of course, that would not be popular as spousal employment would be orders of magnitude more difficult.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Calls to close Borden are loudest from the combat arms community (and their RCAF and RCN ilk) who have not given it much thought, other than "It's not shiny and pointy, and I don't understand it, so we should close it."
> 
> Frankly, if we want to increase bang for the buck, Edmonton would be a more logical base to close, moving 1 CMBG to Wainwright so they are co-located with their training area.  Of course, that would not be popular as spousal employment would be orders of magnitude more difficult.



That's the glory of Borden... a Bn sized element (or perhaps 4 AD/4th Regiment, GSR) could be moved there and the spouses would have MORE employment opportunities (and entertainment, etc) than in Gagetown or Pet. This would make retention easier. It's a rare case that offers the benefits of a city with the provision of a training area


----------



## FortYorkRifleman

The budget allocated to the CAF annually doesn't cover procurements, right? Its primarily for salaries, maintenance, training and operations I imagine.


----------



## dapaterson

Incorrect. Defence capital procurement is included in the defence budget, as either A-base or accrual funding.


----------



## dimsum

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I can't agree with the Cold Lake closure however, I would offer closing Pat Bay and Shearwater and moving those Sqns (443 and 423) to Comox and Greenwood.  Of course, this will never happen now that new facilities have been built in both PB and SW.
> 
> No reason all of the 'maritime air' folks couldn't be co-located on 1 Wing per coast.  I'd even take it a step further and move 1 CFFTS out of Winnipeg and put it in either Comox or Greenwood too.  Lots of potential in all of those ideas (that will never happen IMO).



Agree that moving MH to the RCN and letting them sort it out is a great idea, but something to consider is that the single RAN helicopter base is in Nowra, ~200km from Sydney (Fleet Base East) and a few thousand km from Rockhampton (Fleet Base West.)  So, the idea of moving MH to Comox and Greenwood may not be a totally ridiculous idea.  

Alternatively, there's the (admittedly much lower) possibility of moving the LRP sqns to Victoria and Halifax International Airports.  Of course, that is politically a non-event.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Or we could prune Headquarters.  Dramatically.

Just saying.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

If we ever close Borden before dismantling CDA, I will lead the torch-light parade to the Hill.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Agree that moving MH to the RCN and letting them sort it out is a great idea, but something to consider is that the single RAN helicopter base is in Nowra, ~200km from Sydney (Fleet Base East) and a few thousand km from Rockhampton (Fleet Base West.)  So, the idea of moving MH to Comox and Greenwood may not be a totally ridiculous idea.
> 
> Alternatively, there's the (admittedly much lower) possibility of moving the LRP sqns to Victoria and Halifax International Airports.  Of course, that is politically a non-event.



Can't do it. No DLAs.


----------



## McG

If we want to play with base closures and rearrangements, I would get CFC out of Toronto and I would consolidate all the 1 CMBG units to a common base.  


			
				PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Or we could prune Headquarters.  Dramatically.
> 
> Just saying.


There is the right answer!   Aside from CDA, let's not forget the CADTC/CTC silo of excellence.
Do we get our money's worth from 1 Cdn Div?
Does the East coast really merit its own Div HQ?


----------



## dimsum

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Can't do it. No DLAs.


 
DLAs?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Designated loading area.

CYYJ and CYHZ are too small and too encroached upon by civilian areas to accommodate either a bomb dump or place on the airfield to load weapons.


----------



## Lightguns

MCG said:
			
		

> If we want to play with base closures and rearrangements, I would get CFC out of Toronto and I would consolidate all the 1 CMBG units to a common base.  There is the right answer!   Aside from CDA, let's not forget the CADTC/CTC silo of excellence.
> Do we get our money's worth from 1 Cdn Div?
> Does the East coast really merit its own Div HQ?



I wrote service paper suggesting moving CADTC from Kingston and 5 Whatever its called from Halifax, to Gagetown and combining them in a single HQ commanding Army training and Atlantic Area.  This would make all militia in 5 Whatever into demo troops for Army training on a rotational basis.   It received some interesting responses, some not so polite.  Not as bad as my "only tour experienced troops should occupy positions in the training system that touch on the design and delivery of training" idea.


----------



## Good2Golf

Lightguns said:
			
		

> I wrote service paper suggesting moving CADTC from Kingston and 5 Whatever its called from Halifax, to Gagetown and combining them in a single HQ commanding Army training and Atlantic Area.  This would make all militia in 5 Whatever into demo troops for Army training on a rotational basis.   It received some interesting responses, some not so polite.  Not as bad as my "only tour experienced troops should occupy positions in the training system that touch on the design and delivery of training" idea.



Lightguns, no wonder...you were trying to halve the number of Army 2-stars in Kingston.  For as much as folks like to bash on the RCAF, at least there is only a single 2-star commanding the entire operational air force Canada-wide, and the training authority is only a 1-star.  

Regards
G2G


----------



## Edward Campbell

General Disorder said:
			
		

> Just in case you were wondering, it's back on...




And it may end up rescuing the defence budget from the slow, steady decline which Prime Minister Harper *knows* the people of Canada want.


----------



## FortYorkRifleman

Once the government has a balanced budget come 2015 what will happen with the CAF's budget in regards to maintenance, training, exercises and procurements? Harper, given his recent rash of remarks condemning Russia, ISIL etc seems to point to an increase in spending, right?


----------



## GR66

Boy, with all the significant changes in the international situation it sure sounds like a great time to re-examine our foreign policy and defence policy, eh?  

I won't hold my breath.


----------



## OldSolduer

GR66 said:
			
		

> Boy, with all the significant changes in the international situation it sure sounds like a great time to re-examine our foreign policy and defence policy, eh?
> 
> I won't hold my breath.



One can only hope, but hope is not a plan.


----------



## McG

E.R. Campbell's theme is again repeated in the media:  Defence spending does not pay-off for Canadian politicians, because it is not important to Canadians.  This article goes farther and hings that it does not gain anything for the nation from our allies.  


> *Harper no big defence spender – and gets away with it*
> Campbell Clark
> The Globe and Mail
> 08 Sep 2014
> 
> When it comes to defence spending, the old Stephen Harper wouldn’t recognize the new one. The new one looks at lot more like Jean Chrétien.
> 
> Mr. Harper came to office believing that bigger defence spending paid off in terms of influence, particularly in that most important capital, Washington. But he’s since decided that the results are not worth the extra billions.
> 
> It all seems so incongruous. Last week, Mr. Harper announced that Canada is sending up to 100 special-ops advisers to fight the jihadi Islamic State in northern Iraq, and dispatched a frigate to U.S.-Ukraine military exercises in the Black Sea, designed to send a signal to Russia.
> 
> At the same time, Mr. Harper brushed off demands of his biggest NATO allies for bigger defence spending, pushing back against U.S. and British efforts to have allies commit to larger defence budgets.
> 
> That’s not really unusual, in the historical sense. *Canadian prime ministers have in the past calculated that they can afford to leave some of the burden of defence spending to larger allies*. And others, like Mr. Chrétien, handed the Canadian Forces a medley of tasks while squeezing their funding.
> 
> But in Mr. Harper’s case, it’s the product of lessons learned on the job.
> 
> Back in 2008, when he unveiled his government’s Canada First Defence Strategy, Mr. Harper criticized his Liberal predecessors for the so-called “decade of darkness,” when military spending was cut in the 1990s.
> 
> “Even as new conflicts erupted in Africa and the Balkans and elsewhere, our military was starved and neglected. They kept getting new responsibilities but not the tools to keep them going,” Mr. Harper said then. He promised to provide stable defence spending increases, expand the forces and buy new equipment. He argued nations that don’t spend on their military aren’t taken seriously.
> 
> His government had increased budgets. But it didn’t last. One reason was the financial crisis of 2008-09. Another was misadventure in Afghanistan. It seems clear he also decided that increased defence spending wasn’t really buying Canada clear influence on the world stage, or in Washington – or at least not enough to justify political sacrifices at home.
> 
> Under the Conservative government’s 2008 strategy, defence spending was supposed to be about $22-billion this year, 2014-15. Instead, it’s one-fifth less, $18.15-billion in accrual accounting terms, according to Defence Department documents.
> 
> Adjusted for inflation, spending is now lower than in 2007, according to David Perry, senior security and defence analyst with the CDA Institute. In other words, it is essentially back to Liberal levels. Compared with the size of the Canadian economy, it’s less than it was in Mr. Chrétien’s tenure, at about 1 per cent of GDP.
> 
> What changed? When Mr. Harper took power, George W. Bush was U.S. president, prosecuting two wars, and it seemed reasonable to argue Canada’s influence depended on military burdensharing. But Barack Obama disengaged from wars. Mr. Harper found *a sizable role in Afghanistan didn’t necessarily pay with NATO allies*. It’s not clear that increased defence spending earned extra influence with Mr. Obama – it certainly didn’t transfer to a cherished file, the Keystone pipeline.
> 
> Of course, in theory, defence spending isn’t supposed to be quid pro quo. Canada is supposed to share the burden of global security. But Canadian prime ministers don’t face major domestic threats, and bigger allies can be counted on for global ones. They’d usually rather spend the extra billions at home.
> 
> When crises come, Canadians often want their country to play a part, and allies request it. Mr. Harper, like Mr. Chrétien, asks the military to send modest contingents to hot spots, while budgets are shaved. Mr. Harper argues, rightly, that it’s not how much you spend on the military that counts. Allies care about who is willing to contribute, even modestly. But that calculation only lasts so long.
> 
> Politically, it’s long enough. Mr. Harper’s government has pushed back spending on training and new equipment, so one day soon Ottawa will face a big spending crunch, when things like jet fighters and navy frigates have to be purchased – though not until after the next election.
> 
> In the meantime, Mr. Harper has apparently learned what Mr. Chrétien knew: that he can afford not to spend big on defence.


----------



## TCM621

One of the big problems with the average Canadian's viewpoint is their reliance on "bigger" allies. We are a G7 country. There are not a whole lot of people "bigger" than us. The US isn't better able to afford a strong military than we are, they just spend money they don't have. They believe a strong military is important, so they fund it. They might not be doing it in the best way but at least it gets done. 

We don't need the size the US does but we need to step up to the plate. There is a reason Canada sits at the kiddie table internationally and it has nothing to do with our economy.  100 advisors isn't much of a contribution. Our allies know when called we will fight... With the smallest contribution possible.

If we doubled the effective strength of the CAF to around 100k and provided equipment less than 20 years old, we would be able to contribute in meaningful numbers and be seen as such internationally. Time and time again, Canadian Forces members have proven they can do more with less but this is getting ridiculous.


Edit: I would also like to point out that we still have much of the same equipment we had during the "dark decade" of the 90s.


----------



## dimsum

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> One of the big problems with the average Canadian's viewpoint is their reliance on "bigger" allies. We are a G7 country. There are not a whole lot of people "bigger" than us. The US isn't better able to afford a strong military than we are, they just spend money they don't have. They believe a strong military is important, so they fund it. They might not be doing it in the best way but at least it gets done.
> 
> We don't need the size the US does but we need to step up to the plate. There is a reason Canada sits at the kiddie table internationally and it has nothing to do with our economy.  100 advisors isn't much of a contribution. Our allies know when called we will fight... With the smallest contribution possible.
> 
> If we doubled the effective strength of the CAF to around 100k and provided equipment less than 20 years old, we would be able to contribute in meaningful numbers and be seen as such internationally. Time and time again, Canadian Forces members have proven they can do more with less but this is getting ridiculous.
> 
> 
> Edit: I would also like to point out that we still have much of the same equipment we had during the "dark decade" of the 90s.



Agree, but try selling that to the average Canadian.  

From the news, etc we get compared to Australia a lot, which isn't really fair.  I've said this before, but Australia knows it's the big "western" country in Asia-Pacific region and has a defence budget to match.  NZ, on the other hand, now essentially relies on Australia for air cover, amongst other things. 

Canada is essentially the NZ to the US's Australia, and short of getting hit on home soil (which I hope never happens), Canadians won't change their attitudes towards defence spending.


----------



## FortYorkRifleman

Many people still see us as peacekeepers and only peacekeepers, so the idea of the military procuring tanks, fighter jets etc is distasteful to them. The problem is also our greatest asset: America. On the one hand, they'll watch out for us given that we're their our neighbor but on the other hand the general Canadian population feels that their military might and prestige mean we have nothing to worry about.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> We don't need the size the US does but we need to step up to the plate. There is a reason Canada sits at the kiddie table internationally and it has nothing to do with our economy.  100 advisors isn't much of a contribution. Our allies know when called we will fight... With the smallest contribution possible.



In terms of "advisors" - ie the only real boots on the ground, our contingent is larger than any other ally - and we offered them faster than anyone else.  We are more than doing our fair share in this case.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Perhaps in the hope they don't ask us for anything else???


----------



## McG

As I have said elsewhere, I do not see the path to Canadian economic health as being through defence spending.  However, I do think we need more investment in defence.  Conrad Black calls for just that here:


> The path to a richer Canada goes through our Armed Forces
> By Conrad Black, National Post
> 20 Sep 2014
> 
> ...
> 
> This country should do better [economically]. Combining economic facts with the case I tried to make two weeks ago about the desirability of Canada being a more plausible source of firm leadership in the Western Alliance, which has been reduced virtually to cobwebs by the irresolution of most of its traditional members, particularly the United States, the economy could be stimulated, unemployment reduced, and credibility conferred upon the purposeful foreign policy remarks of the prime minister and foreign minister, if we expanded our defence capability. We are down to 15 functioning navy ships and 15,000 people in the army. The Air Force is in somewhat better condition, but could be stretched seriously if the Russians start in earnest at their old game of consistently flying up to, and slightly in, our air space.
> 
> The prime minister recently told an inquiring journalist that he did not think increased military expenditure justified, but I don’t think he has thought this through. Air force expansion could be projected in a way that landed Canada a position in military aircraft consortia greatly exceeding what we now get. Shipbuilding, which this government has promised for eight years but not delivered, backs very conveniently into steel and other industries, and all the armed forces are a boon to high technology industries. Expansion of personnel would facilitate adult education and career training, as the United States, in particular, has shown.
> 
> This is a rich country and we are all in the West forced to accept the reality of a substantial American retrenchment in the world. That country carried us all on its back for decades, and no one should forget that the defence of Canada was successful in the Cold War because of the American guaranty of Canada’s territory, given originally by FDR at Kingston, Ont. in 1938. While the United States sorts out what it is prepared to continue to do in alliance terms, the Europeans and ourselves are going to have to account for more of the burden. Paul Martin indicated a willingness to do this, but left office before he could do anything about it.
> 
> As has been written here and elsewhere, Canada had one or two aircraft carriers from 1943 to 1970, and has had none since. Helicopter and VTOL (vertical take-off and landing) carriers, with amphibious and command capability are available from France and the Netherlands, and probably the United States also. Everything is available, including the prospects of a resulting shot in the arm in terms of economic consequences and national morale, for Canada to grow into the role the prime minister’s righteously strident foreign policy assertions indicate a desire to play.
> 
> The same investment would greatly increase the country’s ability to respond to natural disasters around the world. In straight political terms, as an election year approaches, supporters of the armed forces are a much larger and more reputable constituency than the Conservatives’ knuckle-dragging Neanderthals of the jail’em, flog’em, hang’em sub-culture being extravagantly pandered to with infamous crime legislation promising the erection of redundant prisons that will largely be occupied by native people who don’t belong there.
> 
> There is little point in Stephen Harper slagging off Justin Trudeau for his vapid reflections on the “root causes” of terrorism if his own reaction to the same acts is perceptive bellicosity unsupported by any ability to participate usefully in an effective Alliance response. (The six aircraft we sent to Poland to encourage Ukraine have been redirected to Balkan countries not under threat, and in such a high-stakes game are only a token and a solo gesture in any case.)
> 
> The Canadian electorate is not a vast kindergarten that can be propelled into transports of gratitude by pre-electoral distributions of its own money. It may be too late to do much that is original in this parliament, but a believable disposition to pursue economic growth responsibly and to match military capabilities to bold words in sensible strategic spending over time would be welcome in itself, and would be popular. But no one should imagine that another empty promise of imminent rearmament will be seen as anything but the production of a still-born rabbit from a tattered hat.


----------



## TCM621

MCG said:
			
		

> As I have said elsewhere, I do not see the path to Canadian economic health as being through defence spending.  However, I do think we need more investment in defence.  Conrad Black calls for just that here:


I think utilized properly defense spending could be a huge boost to the economy.  3 capital ship projects (jss, ddg replacement, ice breaker) would inject billions into the ship building industry and all the feeder industries.  the same goes for new airplanes.  An increase in the military of say 10000 adds 10000 new middle class jobs for people who spend and get taxed (that's almost 20 thousand dodge rams, snow mobiles, motorcycles, etc). As well as added support staff. 

Would it not be a cure all but it would be a solid economy booster that could help pave the way for others. 

Imagine the benefits for communities if they had to reopen Chilliwack, Cornwallis, etc. to support the increase in military size?


----------



## Happy Guy

Ref: http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/eisenhower-warns-of-military-industrial-complex, 28 Sep 2014

I believe that Canada should develop and sustain a suitable Canadian military industry, but we should heed the warning by President Eisenhower who warned of the military industrial complex.

From the above ref: 

"Eisenhower cautioned that the federal government's collaboration with an alliance of military and industrial leaders, though necessary, was vulnerable to abuse of power. Ike then counseled American citizens to be vigilant in monitoring the military-industrial complex. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."


----------



## Good2Golf

Happy Guy said:
			
		

> Ref: http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/eisenhower-warns-of-military-industrial-complex, 28 Sep 2014
> 
> I believe that Canada should develop and sustain a suitable Canadian military industry, but we should heed the warning by President Eisenhower who warned of the military industrial complex.
> 
> From the above ref:
> 
> "Eisenhower cautioned that the federal government's collaboration with an alliance of military and industrial leaders, though necessary, was vulnerable to abuse of power. Ike then counseled American citizens to be vigilant in monitoring the military-industrial complex. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."



A powerful military-industrial complex might be an issue for a nation that pumps almost 5% GDP through its programme, but as sub-1%, it would likely not come close to being a significant concern in Canada.


----------



## Happy Guy

I was one of the project management staff for one of the larger Army capital projects.  I painfully remembered getting telephone calls and emails requests for meetings from regional government officials who demanded to know of the potential regional economic benefits that a certain defence contractor, who submitted the winning bid (including outline of Canadian economic benefits) and how they can get a their fair share or more than their fair share.  A lesson learned for me - regional economic benefits can outweigh the military requirement for having their needs met first.
Slightly less than 1% GDP for defence spending, of which roughly 25% is for capital procurement, is still a lot of money.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> I think utilized properly defense spending could be a huge boost to the economy.  3 capital ship projects (jss, ddg replacement, ice breaker) would inject billions into the ship building industry and all the feeder industries.  the same goes for new airplanes.  An increase in the military of say 10000 adds 10000 new middle class jobs for people who spend and get taxed (that's almost 20 thousand dodge rams, snow mobiles, motorcycles, etc). As well as added support staff.
> 
> Would it not be a cure all but it would be a solid economy booster that could help pave the way for others.
> 
> Imagine the benefits for communities if they had to reopen Chilliwack, Cornwallis, etc. to support the increase in military size?



Sad to think when a glorified Frigate and supply ships are considered "Capital Ships"


----------



## Edward Campbell

Happy Guy said:
			
		

> I was one of the project management staff for one of the larger Army capital projects.  I painfully remembered getting telephone calls and emails requests for meetings from regional government officials who demanded to know of the potential regional economic benefits that a certain defence contractor, who submitted the winning bid (including outline of Canadian economic benefits) and how they can get a their fair share or more than their fair share.  A lesson learned for me - _regional economic benefits_ can outweigh the military requirement for having their needs met first.
> Slightly less than 1% GDP for defence spending, of which roughly 25% is for capital procurement, is still a lot of money.




There are no such things as regional economic *benefits*. There are regional "offsets," but, rest assured, we pay at least 100% for each and every one - usually more than 100%.

There are three fundamental laws of engineering in DND projects: F=MA, you cannot push a rope, and there is no free lunch.

That is why, at least many years past it was why, ADM(Mat) insisted that Industry Canada coughed up the cash for "regional benefits."


----------



## a_majoor

In real economic terms, direct spending on the military only moves dollars around on a ledger (or putting money from your right pocket into your left, if you want an analogy). Military spending by itself does not create growth.

If Canada were to be actively selling its warships around the world (building 35 Halifax class frigates and selling them to other nevies) then _that_ would be an example of defense spending paying off in real economic benefits. You can think of other military goods and services which *could* be leveraged to provide economic benefits, but these are secondary effects of our initial military spending (i.e. we paid the R&D, and bought the first units), not primary effects. Indeed, in theory we could be building and selling al kinds of military kit that the CF does not even have access to, if some corporation were willing to get into the global arms market (think of Gerald Bull and his high powered 155mm artillery shells and cannon, for example).

Our economic prosperity that derives from military spending is pretty much all second and third order effects: companies have confidence in the long term stability of Canada, interest rates are somewhat lower, corporations have less need of security forces of their own etc. Third order effects are the "Seat at the Table"; other nations are willing to treat Canada as a serious partner and we get to enjoy benefits like diplomatic support for our initiatives and interests or entry into trade blocks that would otherwise not want to deal with us.


----------



## Monsoon

Thucydides said:
			
		

> If Canada were to be actively selling its warships around the world (building 35 Halifax class frigates and selling them to other nevies) then _that_ would be an example of defense spending paying off in real economic benefits.


Just because we're not selling whole ships, it's naive to suppose there haven't been durable economic benefits to previous military industry investments. To use just one example from the Halifax class frigates, a whole division of CAE (now under L-3) has been employing hundreds of solidly upper-middle class engineers and technicians in Montreal for decades solely in selling the machinery control systems developed in that project to buyers abroad.

As military folk, we resent Canadian-sourced procurement because it means our acquisition dollars don't go as far as we'd like. Even still, the benefits of in-sourcing defence development from an national industrial standpoint can't just be hand-waved away.


----------



## Good2Golf

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Just because we're not selling whole ships, it's naive to suppose there haven't been durable economic benefits to previous military industry investments. To use just one example from the Halifax class frigates, a whole division of CAE (now under L-3) has been employing hundreds of solidly upper-middle class engineers and technicians in Montreal for decades solely in selling the machinery control systems developed in that project to buyers abroad.
> 
> As military folk, we resent Canadian-sourced procurement because it means our acquisition dollars don't go as far as we'd like. Even still, the benefits of in-sourcing defence development from an national industrial standpoint can't just be hand-waved away.



 :nod:

And sometimes Canadian industry benefits greatly from value proposition of a production and/or support contract with major manufacturers as a result of an initial Canadian program:

Heroux-Devtek wins Boeing H-47 Chinook helicopter landing gear contract
CP | By Ross Marowits, The Canadian Press ( *article link* )



> MONTREAL - Heroux-Devtek Inc. has been awarded a five-year contract from Boeing to manufacture landing gear for the H-47 Chinook helicopter for the U.S. army.
> 
> Delivery of the landing gear for the medium- to heavy-lift helicopters are scheduled to begin in the first half of 2014 and be spread out over five years.
> 
> The U.S. army has contracted for 155 aircraft, but has options for an additional 150 helicopters.
> 
> Heroux-Devtek didn't provide a value for the contract but an industry analyst estimated it is worth about $40 million, or $8 million a year, which is three per cent of Heroux's overall annual sales.
> 
> It is the Quebec-based manufacturer's third H-47 contract in three years. *The first contract in September 2009 involved fabrication, assembly, testing and delivery of the landing gear for H-47F aircraft delivered to customers outside the United States, including the CH-147 used by the Canadian Forces*.
> 
> The second agreement, announced last September, was for a license to fabricate replacement parts and carry out repair and overhaul services for the landing gear of all Chinook variants.
> 
> Heroux-Devtek (TSX:HRX) CEO Gilles Labbe said the new contract reinforces Boeing's (NYSE:BA) confidence in the company's abilities to manufacture quality landing gear.
> 
> "This additional contract firmly positions Heroux-Devtek as the leading landing gear supplier on this important and longstanding program," he stated.
> *
> Cameron Doerksen of National Bank Financial said the contract is an important win for Heroux and probably represents three times as much revenue as the contract to non-U.S. landing gear.
> 
> "A key investor concern for Heroux-Devtek is the exposure to the military segment, but this contract win will help offset any weakness in existing military programs and also demonstrates the company's ability to grow its market share," he wrote in a report*.
> 
> The commercial segment is a bigger driver for the company's growth, but Doerksen said the military segment's heavy focus on aftermarket activity means it shouldn't be a significant drag on growth.
> 
> The H-47F Chinook's primary mission is to move troops, artillery, ammunition and other equipment on the battlefield. It is also used for medical evacuation, disaster relief, search and rescue, aircraft recovery, fire fighting, parachute drops, heavy construction and civil development.
> 
> The aircraft type has been used by the U.S. army since 1962 and has been selected by nearly 20 other defence forces around the world.
> 
> Heroux-Devtek also said Monday that all investors who acquire its shares until markets close on Dec, 19 will be entitled to a special distribution that follows the company's sale of a large portion of its operations at the end of August.
> 
> The payment will consist of $2.70 per share consisting of a partial reduction and return of capital, and $2.30 per share in dividend.
> 
> On the Toronto Stock Exchange, Heroux's shares gained one cent at $12.79 in morning trading.


----------



## Edward Campbell

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Just because we're not selling whole ships, it's naive to suppose there haven't been durable economic benefits to previous military industry investments. To use just one example from the Halifax class frigates, a whole division of CAE (now under L-3) has been employing hundreds of solidly upper-middle class engineers and technicians in Montreal for decades solely in selling the machinery control systems developed in that project to buyers abroad.
> 
> As military folk, we resent Canadian-sourced procurement because it means our acquisition dollars don't go as far as we'd like. Even still, the benefits of in-sourcing defence development from an national industrial standpoint can't just be hand-waved away.




No question ... but MCS was a _winner_ on its own merits, ditto the LAV III and so on and so forth. There is nothing wrong, ever, with buying the best a first rate product when it sells at a fair price. Equally, there is nothing wrong with "Canadian-sourced procurement" when there is a good product at a competitive price ... even at a slight price  premium, for the reasons you state. (There is a very, very good _economic_ argument against subsidies to the defence (or any other) industry but I never make them because I recognize that we live in a world in which e.g. America, Germany, Israel and Netherlands heavily subsidize their industries and if we want to give some sectors a "level playing field" we must do the same - it's not _right_ but it is necessary.) But "Buy Canadian" is just a foolish in both economic and bureaucratic terms as is "Buy American." "Buy Right" is the _right_ answer; providing lots of direct government funding for _*R*_esearch and BIG indirect subsidies for _*D*_evelopment are good ways to promote the sorts of innovation that produce _winners_ in the market. Subsidizing specific industry projects on _national security_ grounds is legal and proper under current international trade law and we should do it, too, even though it makes less than perfect _economic_ sense.


----------



## MilEME09

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> No question ... but MCS was a _winner_ on its own merits, ditto the LAV III and so on and so forth. There is nothing wrong, ever, with buying the best a first rate product when it sells at a fair price. Equally, there is nothing wrong with "Canadian-sourced procurement" when there is a good product at a competitive price ... even at a slight price  premium, for the reasons you state. (There is a very, very good _economic_ argument against subsidies to the defence (or any other) industry but I never make them because I recognize that we live in a world in which e.g. America, Germany, Israel and Netherlands heavily subsidize their industries and if we want to give some sectors a "level playing field" we must do the same - it's not _right_ but it is necessary.) But "Buy Canadian" is just a foolish in both economic and bureaucratic terms as is "Buy American." "Buy Right" is the _right_ answer; providing lots of direct government funding for _*R*_esearch and BIG indirect subsidies for _*D*_evelopment are good ways to promote the sorts of innovation that produce _winners_ in the market. Subsidizing specific industry projects on _national security_ grounds is legal and proper under current international trade law and we should do it, too, even though it makes less than perfect _economic_ sense.



From what I've seen reading Canadian Defense Review over its past 4 issues (including one which ranked Canada's top 50 defense firms) we have a lot of smaller companies starting to land large contracts for minor equipment, which is good. What Canada lacks though is the ability to accomplish large scale R&D, and later manufacturing and testing of larger equipment like vehicles, ships, helicopters and such. I know Bombardier has a defense branch but they dont have to big of a name, that might be a good place to start, sure its not going to compete with the big names right away but we may be able to get into the low cost marts like south and central america, africa, eastern europe, and central asia.


----------



## Monsoon

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> No question ... but MCS was a _winner_ on its own merits, ditto the LAV III and so on and so forth. There is nothing wrong, ever, with buying the best a first rate product when it sells at a fair price.


I don't know about that... CAE/L-3's IMCS was developed bespoke for the FFH project based on the extensive consultation with industry that preceded construction during requirements definition. There's a case to be made that any first-world military procurement should be about enhancing the state of the art, and that that will necessarily mean developing new technology. That being the case, it only makes sense to target those R&D dollars domestically.


----------



## Edward Campbell

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> I don't know about that... CAE/L-3's IMCS was developed bespoke for the FFH project based on the extensive consultation with industry that preceded construction during requirements definition. There's a case to be made that any first-world military procurement should be about enhancing the state of the art, and that that will necessarily mean developing new technology. That being the case, it only makes sense to target those R&D dollars domestically.




At the time, beginning of the 1980s, the very _idea_ of 'control systems' was new. The PM Frigate (then Cmdre Ed Healey) directed that work be done to create (semi) automated control systems for his new as yet undefined ships. Yes,, the project - the defence budget - took some risks, but RAdm Healey understood that he needed such things and automation was the only way to get what the admirals demanded within the budget constraints (and remember further, please, that in the late early 1980s the best available minicomputer processor we had was a 16 bit machine and microprocessors were 8 bit).


----------



## Monsoon

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> At the time, beginning of the 1980s, the very _idea_ of 'control systems' was new. The PM Frigate (then Cmdre Ed Healey) directed that work be done to create (semi) automated control systems for his new as yet undefined ships. Yes,, the project - the defence budget - took some risks, but RAdm Healey understood that he needed such things and automation was the only way to get what the admirals demanded within the budget constraints (and remember further, please, that in the late early 1980s the best available minicomputer processor we had was a 16 bit machine and microprocessors were 8 bit).


Interesting bit of background history. At the time the contract was awarded CAE was an aircraft simulator company; the R&D contract to develop the IMCS from scratch could have just as easily been given to Lockheed Martin or any one of a number of more established international (read: US) defence R&D consortia. The fact that it was awarded to CAE has been durably good for Canada, even if it cost more to develop domestically than it would otherwise have. In any case, I'd be inclined to agree with you that this sort of "industry-developing" R&D should be funded out of Industry Canada rather than DND.


----------



## Edward Campbell

That's one of the cases where I think the charge against the defence budget is legitimate.

(Then) Cmdre Healey wasn't funding _development_, he knew, at 'block diagram' level what he wanted, he just needed someone to translate his _notion_ into something practical. I have no idea why he chose CAE. He may well have seen that this was a potential _winner_ and he was a 'fan' of supporting Canadian industry ... when it made economic sense. We were, also, a bit nervous about the US habit of restricting access to any technology in the development of which they may have made some contribution.

(_Circa_ 1990, when the CPF was newly in service, we sent one to the Persian Gulf and Asia on a "friendly visit" (sales mission). It was interesting to note that our visit was followed, very quickly, by bigger and better (in terms of _hospitality_ funding) visits by thr American, British, French, German and Italian navies.)


----------



## Edward Campbell

MCG said:
			
		

> E.R. Campbell's theme is again repeated in the media:  Defence spending does not pay-off for Canadian politicians, because it is not important to Canadians.  This article goes farther and hings that it does not gain anything for the nation from our allies.




As expected, author, academic and "talking head," Jack Granatstein, of the _Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute_, also weighs in, saying "I voted CPC before but not this time; this time I'll vote for .... _doh_," in this article which is reproduced under the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/how-the-harper-government-lost-its-way-on-defence-spending/article20859264/#dashboard/follows/


> How the Harper government lost its way on defence spending
> 
> J.L. GRANATSTEIN
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> 
> Published Wednesday, Oct. 01 2014
> 
> _J.L. Granatstein is a fellow of the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute._
> 
> A few years ago I wrote that no government since that of Louis St. Laurent in the 1950s had done more to improve the defence of Canada than Stephen Harper’s Conservatives. The St. Laurent Liberals built up the armed forces to deal with the war in Korea and with the defence of North America and western Europe in the face of Soviet expansionism. At its peak, the defence budget took more than 7 per cent of Canada’s Gross Domestic Product, and the army, navy, and air force had as many as 120,000 men and women in the regular forces.
> 
> No one could expect any government in this century to spend on that scale, but the Conservative government did treat defence well in its first years in power. The commitment to the Afghan War, never very popular, was handled capably, and the troops received everything they needed – helicopters, new artillery, upgraded armoured personnel carriers, and tanks, not to mention new transport aircraft. The number of regulars rose slowly and slightly toward 65,000, and the government presented a schematic Canada First Defence Policy in 2008 that listed a range of objectives and equipment acquisitions. The budget projections were colossal, almost $500-billion to be spent over the next 20 years.
> 
> But somewhere along the way, the Harper government lost its sense of purpose on defence. We don’t know precisely what happened, but it seems likely that the Prime Minister realized that the war in Afghanistan – and the regular convoys of hearses from the air base at Trenton to the coroner’s office in Toronto – was increasingly unpopular and unsettling to Canadians. The soldiers had the public’s admiration and support, but the war did not. Similarly, he must have come to the conclusion that Canadians did not much like defence spending when their health care or child care or tax cuts were more important to them. Better to let the United States carry the load abroad and in the defence of North America. This might have been a foolish attitude on the part of the people, but Mr. Harper is very good at reading opinion polls and focus groups.
> 
> The result was that the defence budget was cut, in substantial part because deficit reduction and a budget surplus were more important than “toys for the boys.” From a peak of $21-billion in 2009-10, the defence budget in this fiscal year is $18.2-billion, about a 13 per cent reduction in dollars made worse by inflation. The percentage of GDP spent on defence is now hovering at 1 per cent, the lowest since the 1930s. In 2009, it was 1.3 per cent. Making matters even worse, the Department of National Defence somehow cannot spend all the money it gets, returning almost $10-billion to the Treasury since 2006.
> 
> There are still plans for equipment purchases – some day. Procurements grind forward at a glacial pace: new ships for the Royal Canadian Navy are in process but are unlikely to be afloat for a decade or more, and the costs, because everything has to be constructed in shipyards that had to be created anew, are going to be stratospheric; an expensive new fighter-bomber for the Royal Canadian Air Force is under study and up for consideration (and has been for years), but the F-35 is/is not the right fit, depending on which bureaucrat or general or minister or Opposition expert is talking on what day of the week; instead, the government may try to keep the aging fleet of CF18’s flying until 2025; and the Army, licking its wounds from Afghanistan, still has to get by without good trucks because, incredibly, no contract has yet been let to purchase them in this nation of automobile factories. Even if the Army had its trucks, the costs of operating and maintaining them and its helicopters and tanks is too high for real training under the present straitened circumstances.
> 
> Notwithstanding the funding-induced paralysis in the military, the Harper government talks tough. We are the best friends of Israel and Ukraine, and we will slap sanctions on the Russians and send a handful of soldiers on training exercises to Poland, a few fighter jets to Romania or the Baltic states, and a frigate to the Black Sea to show our teeth. Canadian rhetoric can match anyone’s, even as our equipment is slipping rapidly into obsolescence.
> 
> I voted for the Conservatives in the last two elections because I believed their promises to improve the nation’s military. I have been utterly disappointed, and I will not vote for them in 2015. My difficulty on election day, of course, will be that the NDP and Liberals will likely be even worse in their treatment of the Canadian Forces.




Dr. Granatstin is saying what many, many here, on Army.ca, have already said: 'Canada can and should spend more on defence; the post 2010 cuts really hurt; the CF is "rusting out," and I will run away and never vote Conservative any more!'






.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The same people also state the obvious: 'we live in a democracy; I want the government to do what I say, not what good policy or the law require.'





.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Well, the *majority*, a real majority of Canadians, verified, consistently, by the polling of all major political parties and the media, is getting what _*it wants*_: lower and lower defence spending. Canadian 'support for the troops' goes no father then a few yellow ribbons and red T-shirts; most Canadians fear that new ships, new boots, new airplanes and new support systems means less _"pogey"_.







The fact is that there is a defence _plan_. I might not think much of the _Canada First Defence Strategy_, which is now under revision, because I thought the original version was all 'smoke and mirrors,' or 'fun with numbers' that didn't add up, but there is a plan and there are projects ~ they get pushed farther and farther into the future because the government's only real, firm priority is getting re-elected and it believes, firmly, that the route to re-election runs through a balanced budget followed by focused tax cuts ~ but there are projects, too: new helicopters, new ships, new planes, new _stuff_ is 'on the books.'

Prime Minister Harper, like many other _conservative_ Conservatives, like Margaret Thatcher, for example, is not a fan of defence spending: he likes having his picture taken on the deck of a warship, but he doesn't like paying for warships, or planes or guns, or ... in that he reflects the very deeply ingrained _conservatism_ of most of his fellow Canadians.

Get over it, Jack.


----------



## FortYorkRifleman

With missions like Afghanistan and more recently Iraq does the budget for those expenditures come out of the existing budget or is money set aside specifically for them like in the US?


----------



## Cloud Cover

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Dr. Granatstin is saying what many, many here, on Army.ca, have already said: 'Canada can and should spend more on defence; the post 2010 cuts really hurt; the CF is "rusting out," and I will run away and never vote Conservative any more!'



To be honest, I am a big supporter of national defence but I cannot support an increased defence budget until (1) Parliament, (2) Government, (3)Bureaucracy and (4) the Canadian Armed Forces partner together and prove themselves to be responsible stewards of (a) a coherent and meaningful defence policy and (2) and actually defending the country itself through proper means.  The 4 partners are failing individually and jointly, do not act rationally or pragmatically, and consequently I cannot support an increase in defence spending. To be clear I am not looking for national defence that is the most economical, I am looking for national defence and a military force that makes logical sense. 

We don't have those things in place, nothing logical or rational is on the horizon. Even to a guy like me, compared to what we have right now, I would take Trudeau's doves over Harpers BS. (and I happen to personally dislike Trudeau, would never vote for him or Harper (again) but it seems to me that Trudeau whether he realizes it or not, has at least metaphorically described our current defence policy/capability correctly.)


----------



## Kirkhill

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> To be honest, I am a big supporter of national defence but I cannot support an increased defence budget until (1) Parliament, (2) Government, (3)Bureaucracy and (4) the Canadian Armed Forces partner together and prove themselves to be responsible stewards of (a) a coherent and meaningful defence policy and (2) and actually defending the country itself through proper means.  The 4 partners are failing individually and jointly, do not act rationally or pragmatically, and consequently I cannot support an increase in defence spending. To be clear I am not looking for national defence that is the most economical, I am looking for national defence and a military force that makes logical sense.



Whiskey - Unfortunately I find myself inclined to agree with you on this.  Why can't Canadians be more like the Swedes, the Danes, the Norwegians, the Dutch, the Australians?  ....... But there again, as I write this, I struggle to find other examples of nations that have got their act together.  The Brits, they Yanks, the French and the Germans don't.   Singapore, Korea and perhaps Japan seem to be doing alright in Asia.  



			
				whiskey601 said:
			
		

> We don't have those things in place, nothing logical or rational is on the horizon. Even to a guy like me, compared to what we have right now, I would take Trudeau's doves over Harpers BS. (and I happen to personally dislike Trudeau, would never vote for him or Harper (again) but it seems to me that Trudeau whether he realizes it or not, has at least metaphorically described our current defence policy/capability correctly.)



Here, I'm afraid, I can't follow your lead.  It may be just my visceral reaction to the name Trudeau, but given the alternatives I will vote for a disappointing Harper until Trudeau is consigned to the dustheap of history.  Or Harvard (same place actually).


----------



## Journeyman

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> ..... until Trudeau is consigned to the dustheap of history.  Or Harvard (same place actually).


They already have their quota of failed Liberal leadership; Ignatieff went back there this summer.


----------



## dimsum

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Whiskey - Unfortunately I find myself inclined to agree with you on this.  Why can't Canadians be more like the Swedes, the Danes, the Norwegians, the Dutch, the Australians?  ....... But there again, as I write this, I struggle to find other examples of nations that have got their act together.



I can't (and won't) speak for the other countries, but I _believe_ that with the current governments in both Australia and Canada, the deciding factor that affects the differing foreign/military policies is geographical distance from US (and formerly UK) support.  I wouldn't say that the ADF has totally got its act together, but being the big "Western" power in the region, it is definitely aware that the US may not respond to threats in time - in WWII, Japan managed to bomb Darwin and other parts of the Northern Territory, and subs attacked Sydney and Newcastle. Both history and distance temper any real argument to reduce the size/capability of the ADF, especially the RAAF and RAN.  I'm sure that it would be the same if Canada didn't have the US next door and was attacked as well.

Australian public support for Afghanistan and now Iraq is comparable to Canadian support, and I believe that if next year wasn't an election year in Canada, the anti-mission rhetoric wouldn't have been as strong.  As well, the "peacekeeper" myth doesn't really exist in Australia - there are ADF members in UN peacekeeping missions, but the idea that a nation's military should be primarily conducting peacekeeping is not something that Australians share.

All that being said, while Australians know that (despite their new toys) they are essentially dependent on the US military, Australians really do not like being compared similarly to Americans in any way (even more so than Canadians).  One of the first things that Aussies regularly ask me is whether I find that Australia has become too "American" - yes, it has.


----------



## Journeyman

Dimsum said:
			
		

> One of the first things that Aussies regularly ask me is whether I find that Australia has become too "American" - yes, it has.


A Kiwi once told me (with beer and Aussies present) that Australia has become England, filled with Americans.

I don't know how _I_ manage to attract such shit-disturbers.   >


Mind you, with the Wallabies and the All-Blacks both losing their rugby matches last weekend, there's a great disturbance in the force.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Whiskey - Unfortunately I find myself inclined to agree with you on this.  Why can't Canadians be more like the Swedes, the Danes, the Norwegians, the Dutch, the Australians?  ....... But there again, as I write this, I struggle to find other examples of nations that have got their act together.  The Brits, they Yanks, the French and the Germans don't.   Singapore, Korea and perhaps Japan seem to be doing alright in Asia.
> 
> Here, I'm afraid, I can't follow your lead.  It may be just my visceral reaction to the name Trudeau, but given the alternatives I will vote for a disappointing Harper until Trudeau is consigned to the dustheap of history.  Or Harvard (same place actually).




Further to the Germans, see this article which is reproduced under there Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _The Economist_:

http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21621876-germany-able-give-its-allies-more-military-help-chinks-armour


> *Germany’s army*
> Chinks in the armour
> *Is Germany able to give its allies more military help?*
> 
> Oct 4th 2014 | BERLIN | From the print edition
> 
> URSULA VON DER LEYEN, Germany’s first female defence minister and a possible successor to Angela Merkel as chancellor, likes a good photo opportunity. One that backfired recently had her standing under a dramatic sky with an army transport aircraft in the background, gazing into the distance as though on the look out for geopolitical derring-do. The derision was instantaneous. The image matched both her ambition and the vision she outlined in January of Germany’s armed forces playing a bigger role in international crises. Given post-war Germany’s radical pacifism, that was controversial.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She is now at risk of failing her first two practical tests. Last month she dispatched German army volunteers to Africa to help in the struggle against Ebola. And although Germany has not joined its allies in bombing the Islamic State (IS), she sent weapons to the beleaguered Iraqi Kurds. Sensing another photo-op, she boarded a Transall transport plane and flew to Iraq for a ceremonial delivery. But the anti-tank weapons, rifles and machine guns had not arrived, nor the German trainers, because the planes carrying them (one of them leased from the Dutch) were grounded en route for repairs. Another Transall, bound for Senegal with the German volunteers to fight Ebola, was stranded with technical difficulties in the Canary Islands.
> 
> The problems extend far beyond unreliable transport aircraft. Reporting to parliament last month, inspectors said that only a fraction of Germany’s helicopters, submarines and tanks are fit to be deployed. The problem is a lack of spare parts. Ordering and making them will take time. On September 30th another blow came when it emerged that technical defects affecting the air force’s Typhoon fighter jets had been found.
> 
> Mrs von der Leyen has some explaining to do. Airbus should finally deliver the first of its new A400M aircraft to replace the old Transalls this autumn, she said. The other maintenance problems, she claims, date back to her predecessors and have come to light because more is being asked of the army.
> 
> All true, but the question remains whether in a crisis Germany could meet its obligations as part of NATO. With Russia’s aggression in Ukraine on their minds at their summit in Wales last month, the 28 allies renewed their pledge to commit at least 2% of GDP to their armed forces. Germany has steadily cut its defence budget. It spends only 1.3%, putting it 14th among alliance countries.
> 
> The shoddy state of the armed forces is now Mrs von der Leyen’s biggest problem. It is causing tension within the grand coalition of the centre-right camp (to which she and Mrs Merkel belong) and the centre-left Social Democrats. Their parliamentary leader, Thomas Oppermann, accused Mrs von der Leyen of poor management but simultaneously ruled out spending more. Another senior Social Democrat, Thorsten Schäfer-Gümbel, suggested that she should do more work and “fewer photo shoots”.




So, it's not just us ... and we don't even get a 'hot' MND.


----------



## Kirkhill

And her name is Ursula no less......

I think I have been a bad boy.


----------



## Kirkhill

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I can't (and won't) speak for the other countries, but I _believe_ that with the current governments in both Australia and Canada, the deciding factor that affects the differing foreign/military policies is geographical distance from US (and formerly UK) support.  I wouldn't say that the ADF has totally got its act together, but being the big "Western" power in the region, it is definitely aware that the US may not respond to threats in time - in WWII, Japan managed to bomb Darwin and other parts of the Northern Territory, and subs attacked Sydney and Newcastle. Both history and distance temper any real argument to reduce the size/capability of the ADF, especially the RAAF and RAN.  I'm sure that it would be the same if Canada didn't have the US next door and was attacked as well.
> 
> Australian public support for Afghanistan and now Iraq is comparable to Canadian support, and I believe that if next year wasn't an election year in Canada, the anti-mission rhetoric wouldn't have been as strong.  As well, the "peacekeeper" myth doesn't really exist in Australia - there are ADF members in UN peacekeeping missions, but the idea that a nation's military should be primarily conducting peacekeeping is not something that Australians share.
> 
> All that being said, while Australians know that (despite their new toys) they are essentially dependent on the US military, Australians really do not like being compared similarly to Americans in any way (even more so than Canadians).  One of the first things that Aussies regularly ask me is whether I find that Australia has become too "American" - yes, it has.



Dimsum - you are probably onto something there.

The Norwegians, Dutch and Danes were all invested by the Nazis and suffered accordingly.  The Swedes have been heavily focused on keeping the Russians at bay for a three or four hundred years.  I don't suppose Putin is much of a surprise to them.

The Easterners, led by the Poles and the Balts have got good reason to get their heads straight having just go rid of the Russians, kind of.

But then there is the French.....There is always the French. Its own bizarre form of exceptionalism.  It has the same history as all of the rest of the Europeans I mentioned but it just can't find its footing on anything, anywhere, anytime.  Ah, le bon dieu. :facepalm:   (ou se trouve le Gallic Shrug).


----------



## McG

And, as the budget starts to ballance, is the military about to see better funding?  Likely not, according to some predictions.



> *Military starved to balance budget*
> *Forgoing reduction in taxes for a military cash jolt is an unlikely choice for Tories*
> Michael Den Tandt
> The Starphoenix
> 10 Oct 2014
> 
> "The government took office with a firm commitment to stand up for Canada," declared Prime Minister Stephen Harper in the Canada First Defence Strategy. "Fulfilling this obligation means keeping our citizens safe and secure, defending our sovereignty, and ensuring that Canada can return to the international stage as a credible and influential country, ready to do its part."
> 
> It was ambitious rhetoric, and politically suited to the times. In 2008 Canada was at war. Though there was continuing controversy about the Afghan mission in the Commons, Canadians were deeply engaged. The newspapers were filled with stories of soldiers returning safely home, and of those who didn't come home. The government rarely missed an opportunity to praise "our brave men and women in uniform."
> 
> At last, in 2008, Canadian soldiers in Kandahar seemed well equipped for their jobs. That was the era, not coincidentally, during which Ottawa's defence spending as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product was climbing rapidly, from 1.29 in January of 2008, to 1.46 in 2009, and 1.45 in 2010. This was still well off the North Atlantic Treaty Organization target of two per cent, but it was light years ahead of the paltry 1.16 per cent the Liberals had spent in 2002.
> 
> But then, beginning in 2010, a series of light bulbs went off in the Langevin Block that houses the Prime Minister's Office.
> 
> First, it was realized that the Afghan government under then-president Hamid Karzai would never be a reliable ally, and that consequently much of the money being spent on "institution-building" was being frittered away.
> 
> Second, as it began to grapple with political blowback from its sole-source F-35 fighter jet purchase, the Harper government began to perceive what every Canadian administration since the Trudeau years has understood: In Canada, you can beggar the military and pay no political price. By late 2012, the new jets had become an impossible liability, and they were shelved.
> 
> Which is why now, nearly two years on, and with another war in the offing, there is still no replacement pending of Canada's Boeing F-18 Hornets, the first of which flew in 1982, and the last of which will be flying until 2025. There are 79 of the planes still operational: Many of the original 138 are now in storage or used for parts to keep the others serviceable.
> 
> Last spring, Canada deployed a half-dozen F-18s to eastern Europe, in a NATO "reassurance" mission aimed at deterring Russian aggression. Now another half-dozen are being readied to join the air war over Iraq, and possibly Syria.
> 
> Best not to consider where that leaves the Royal Canadian Air Force's capacity to fulfil what was, after 9/11, considered its most important task, that of providing over-flight protection for major Canadian cities.
> 
> More than 600 Canadian Forces personnel, the six fighters, their ammunition, two Aurora observation planes and a refuelling aircraft will soon be deployed to Kuwait to join the aerial bombardment of Islamic State, the government said Tuesday, confirming an earlier report by Postmedia's Matthew Fisher.
> 
> This means, in effect, that Canada will build a new base, perhaps within an existing allied base, as occurred in Afghanistan and in the United Arab Emirates years ago. It means an aerial supply line will wend its way to Kuwait, likely from CFB Trenton in Ontario, via Germany, made up of Boeing C-17s, Airbuses and, in-theatre, Hercules C-130s. Those serving in Kuwait will need vehicles, transport trucks, portable shelters or sea containers, and all the other myriad gear required to keep people fed, fit and combat-ready in a desert war.
> 
> Yet unlike in the early years of the Afghan conflict, when military spending was rising steadily each year from 2002 on, the defence budget in the past four years has dropped - to the point where spending as a ratio to GDP may actually be hovering at or just below one per cent, which is Liberal "decade of darkness" territory, to repeat former Chief of Defence Staff Rick Hillier's famous expression.
> 
> In the 2014 budget, the Defence Department was shorn of $3 billion that had been earmarked for imminent procurements. In addition to the stalled jets, the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy is mired in delays; a plan to buy high-flying spy drones has gone nowhere; fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft have been in limbo for a decade.
> 
> The government is to issue its fall fiscal update at the end of this month. There has been speculation that, because the budget is de facto in balance now, it will include tax cuts - the beginning of the bonanza that is to bring middle-Canadians back into the Tory fold just in time for next fall's federal election.
> 
> Forgoing any of that, or slowing the pace of deficit and debt reduction, in favour of renewed spending on "our brave men and women in uniform," is not something any member of the Conservative caucus will want to consider.
> 
> One wonders how long they can keep that up, while at the same time sending the Canadian Forces back to war, for an undetermined length of time.



We will have to stick with what we can control: better use (ie. less waste) of the funds that we do get.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Time to arm the Snowbirds to defend our cities  8)


----------



## Old Sweat

And in the anything is possible department, this piece from Postmedia hints that the cuts to the Defence Budget may be restored. It is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act.

Den Tandt: Canadian military may get its $3.1-billion back
http://o.canada.com/news/politics-and-the-nation/den-tandt-canadian-military-may-get-its-3-1-billion-back

Things may be about to change in the Canadian military, with the possibility of  billions of dollars in the balance.

Even as the Harper Conservatives have deployed CF-18 fighter jets to Eastern Europe, and now to Kuwait to join the air war against Islamic State, the Canadian Forces have seen their funding slashed. But that may be about to change, as the government considers adding back part or all of the $3.1-billion removed from the military’s piggy bank in last February’s budget.

Friday, it was reported here that Prime Minister Stephen Harper personally intervened recently to settle a dispute between Treasury Board, led by Tony Clement, and the Defence Department, led by Rob Nicholson, over a pending $800-million sole-sourced purchase of next-generation Sea Sparrow naval missiles from U.S.-based Raytheon Co.

Concerns that the acquisition under the U.S. government’s Foreign Military Sales program would tilt the scales in favour of the Raytheon-Lockheed-Martin group in a burgeoning trans-Atlantic competition for up to $18-billion in sub-contracts on DND’s new Canadian Surface Combatant fleet, were overruled. As were, apparently, any worries about the optics of making another large military purchase, a la F-35, without opening the process up to competing bids.


The move came after a letter to the prime minister in which Nicholson, Public Works Minister Diane Finlay and Industry Minister James Moore argued, contrary to officials at Treasury Board, that this was a policy matter and not a contract within the latter’s purview.

The settlement approved by the PM stipulates that the purchase of a missile system for the new naval vessels will indeed be subject to an open competition. Marcel Poulin, a press secretary for Finlay, Tweeted Friday that “it is inaccurate to suggest that the potential upgrade of the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile… would have any impact on the procurement of the Canadian Surface Combatant.” Poulin wrote. In a subsequent Tweet, he added: “The missile system on the CSC will be subject to full, fair and open competition.”

The difficulty is that, given the defence department’s long history of skewing its requirements to favour a single preferred supplier, and its long relationship with the Lockheed-Martin-Raytheon group, and the latter’s centrality in U.S. defence planning for the foreseeable future, few in Ottawa will believe this – especially since the frigate missile upgrade itself could have been put up for competition, and now will not be.

Logic would suggest that, following a nearly $1-billion outlay on a new “smart missile” system from Raytheon for the old frigates, it may make fiscal and operational sense for the Navy to stick with this system in its new warships, to be built by the Irving shipyard in Halifax, rather than switch mid-stream to a different system, for example such as that produced by European-based MBDA.

Next up, defence industry insiders anticipate, will be a purchase of an additional Boeing C-17 Globemaster long-haul transport for the Royal Canadian Air Force, adding to the four already in service, also under the U.S. government’s Foreign Military Sales program. That acquisition, expected later this fall, will be justified by the necessity of the new missions in Ukraine, Eastern Europe and Iraq.

Meantime, DND officials are in the process of drafting a memorandum to cabinet, which insiders expect will meet a favourable response, for the return of the entire $3.1-billion tranche that was taken away, or technically deferred to future years, in the late Jim Flaherty’s final budget last February. It is expected the Sea Sparrow upgrade, as well as the new C-17, will be paid for out of this fund.

The government would appear to have fiscal room for such a move: The federal deficit in the year ended March 31 was just $5.2-billion, the PM disclosed earlier this month, about a third of what had been projected in the budget.

Simmering in the near distance is a looming clash of interests pitting Ottawa’s traditional strategic anchor and biggest trading partner, the United States, against our new free-trading BFF, the European Union. At issue are multiple billions of dollars’ worth in defence procurement – primarily related to the replacement of the fighter jets and frigates.

Companies such as French ship-builder DCNS, which builds the FREMM multi-role warship, and aircraft makers Dassault, Saab, and the consortium of Alenia, Airbus and BAE, are keen to compete on these contracts. In the case of the ships, the lion’s share of the cost is in the sub-contracting of a design, and the ships’ systems, including weapons systems. It is understood that the French, Germans and others are quietly lobbying to at least be allowed to bid on some of the work. French president Francois Hollande is to visit Canada in early November.

Weighing against that is Canada’s long-standing reliance on the United States for continental defence, and the allure of interoperability with a next-generation U.S. defence network — which includes the F-35 and Raytheon’s proprietary land, sea and airborne Co-operative Engagement Capability — that is expected to offer participants unprecedented situational awareness around the globe.

- mod edit to add link -


----------



## Colin Parkinson

2 more C-17's would be a very good idea and they are a great way to earn brownie points on the world stage without high risk.


----------



## Spencer100

How many of the C-17 "white" tails are available?  The C-17 is shutting down next year.  I read the Ozzies would like two also.


----------



## ringo

Additional C-17 great news, should by more than 1 however.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

They will keep the line open if they are getting orders


----------



## MarkOttawa

"Twill be a close-run thing--April 2014:



> Boeing shutting down C-17 military transport production early
> http://www.thenewstribune.com/2014/04/07/3137516/boeing-shutting-down-c-17-military.html
Click to expand...


Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

Going out of business sale! Opportunity of a lifetime! Only 10 left!

Counter proposal:

2 BUSD of inventory?  I'll take a couple of those off your hands.  How much of a discount for cash?

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/algeria-could-miss-out-on-c-17-boeing-cautions-403843/



> Boeing, however, is shutting down C-17 production in June 2015, leaving only 10 unsold “white tails” available from which Algeria could make a purchase.
> 
> “I’m hoping Algeria can get through their process. I would like to have Algeria as a C-17 customer. I’m just concerned that their process will not allow them to move quick enough,” says Paul Oliver, Boeing’s vice-president for business development in the Middle East and Africa, speaking at the Africa Aerospace and Defence show.
> 
> Several other countries are lining up to claim the white tails, although no deals have been signed yet.
> 
> “We’re seeing a lot of our existing customers who now realise the line is going away, so they’re coming in and buying them up,” Oliver says.
> 
> In July, Boeing Defense, Space & Security chief executive Chris Chadwick said he expected to see deals close within the next six months.
> 
> Oliver says he “thinks” new orders will be placed for the white-tail C-17s soon.
> 
> “We’ve got aircraft available, but that number… [is] decreasing rapidly,” he says.


----------



## a_majoor

Given the deteriorating global situation (Ukraine, ISIS, Ebola, South China Sea, etc.), virtually any political party in power will be forced to look at the state of the Armed Forces and determine if *we* can actually do all the things demanded of us (and despite our "Can Do" attitude and amazing ability to pull things out of the hat, there really _are_ limits to what can be achieved).

Sadly, I suspect the real "answer" from our political class may be to simply limit Canadian engagement in the world until our aspirations match the amount of resources we are willing to put on the table. The long term effects will be quite incalculable, in the form of lost diplomatic influence, lost sales to the world market, declining "soft power" influence through cultural and other avenues and other effects.

And of course, *we* will still end up paying for defense anyway, either as we discover once again we do not live in a fireproof house far removed from conflict and pick up tools in a hurry, or "pay" someone else to do the job for us.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Thucydides--at _The Gods of the Copybook Headings_ blog, always interesting:



> …
> Among the relatively large nations of human history [only quite recently in terms of population] Canada is almost unique in one respect: We don’t strictly speaking need a military. There has not been a direct existential threat to Canada in more than a century. The only nation capable of invading is the one nation that would never try.  Our security has been underwritten by either Britain or the United States for over two centuries. Tomorrow we could dispense with the whole of the Canadian Forces and, leaving aside the communities in which our few military bases are located, I doubt anyone would notice.
> 
> …Just ask the Americans to protect our borders, including the Arctic, and deal with the loss of sovereignty and national dignity. That’s a course, which I suspect, most on the Canadian Left would want to pursue if they thought it politically practical. [I'm not so sure if the course were formal; our left is anti-American to its bowels.] It isn’t practical because it would offend ordinary Canadians perceptions of Canada as a serious country. Like it or not serious countries need a military. Even if it is increasingly seen as a token force…
> 
> Canada without a military is not unlike that feckless heir. A country that would live off the efforts of other nations too honourable and responsible. Nations that understand the need for a common defence of the free world. Instead we would be a nation free to morally preen over the decisions of the Great Powers, without the necessity of having to be blamed for the consequences. The security bum of the Western world. That’s a vision which, unfortunately, appeals to many on the Left. As a matter of self-respect Canada needs a military commensurate with its wealth and good fortune in the world. In the life of nations honour is just as important as guns and butter.
> http://godscopybook.blogs.com/gpb/2014/10/macho-man.html



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Edward Campbell

According to and article in the _Globe and Mail_, DND is not the only agency that cannot manage to spend its money each year.

While the RCMP's Chief Commissioner was telling parliamentarians that he doesn't have enough money,the _Globe_ says that: "the latest year-end figures published last week in the Public Accounts shows the RCMP underspent its approved budget [$3.1-billion] by $158.7-million." The article goes on to say that: "The Public Accounts show other security agencies also underspent their approved budgets. The Canada Border Services Agency spent $194.2-million less than its approved budget of $2.2-billion; the Canadian Security Intelligence Service came in at $18.2-million below its approved budget of $534.8-million and the Communications Security Establishment spent $25.1-million less than its approved budget of $468.8-million."


----------



## Kirkhill

Dept	  Budget	Lapsed	Lapsed
DND	   19908	2300	          12%
RCMP    3100	159	           5%
CBSA    2200	194	           9%
CSIS	     535	18	           3%
CSE	     469	25	           5%

Does this indicate problems at Treasury Board (intentional or otherwise)? A failure of the system at large? Or simply a failure of the individual departments to fully understand the approval cycle?  Would another document solve the problem or would fewer Project Managers with longer tenures be a contributor to the solution?

Or, is it a bad thing that people are given more money than they can use?

Me personally, I don't mind having a bit of change left in my jeans after all the bills are paid.

But there again I get to carry that money over from year to year.   

I believe the Brits have started to experiment with that.


----------



## McG

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Does this indicate problems at Treasury Board (intentional or otherwise)? A failure of the system at large? Or simply a failure of the individual departments to fully understand the approval cycle?


All of the above maybe.

Sometimes the problem lies outside DND and the CAF, like when delivery on a new fleet of major equipment becomes held-up as a result of the product failing acceptance testing.



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Would another document solve the problem ...


No.



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> ... would fewer Project Managers with longer tenures be a contributor to the solution?


Maybe, but we do have some PMs and PDs who are too long on a given file and become too emotionally invested in the developed product as opposed to the required capability


----------



## McG

We have concluded in this thread that Canadians don't punish governments for underfunding the military and it is the prerogative of governments to sacrifice defence for other agendas.  But, it does seem fair, when a government is sacrificing defence requirements, to ask that government to be public about its cuts as opposed to presenting itself of as the champion of defence I vestment.



> If the Tories really loved the military so much, it wouldn’t be systematically underfunded
> Michael Den Tandt
> National Post
> 13 Nov 2014
> 
> Question: For how much longer can the federal Conservatives shamble along with a national defence and procurement posture that is disjointed, underfunded, poorly understood, chronically secretive and increasingly, obviously unequal to the challenges at hand?
> 
> This week at the G20 in Brisbane, Australia, Prime Minister Stephen Harper will wax combative about the growing list of strategic and security brushfires faced by the global club of pluralistic democracies, of which Canada purports to be an important member.
> 
> Chances are good that, when Harper speaks, his peers will pay some attention. Agree with him or disagree, there is no misunderstanding the PM’s positions vis-à-vis the theocracy in Iran, or Hamas, or Israelis’ right to live in peace and security, or the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggressions in Ukraine.
> 
> Those afflicted with Harper Derangement Syndrome, which many days seems to include most of my Twitter feed, have persuaded themselves that this foreign policy is demonstrably un-Canadian and harmful to the country’s international reputation. I see little evidence abroad to support this view.
> 
> During a decade in Afghanistan Canada earned a reputation as a serious country with a serious military, willing and able to fight when necessary and build when possible. The Royal Canadian Air Force’s involvement in the campaign against Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), though comprised of just six aging CF-18s, is an attempt to sustain that reputation
> 
> But how much longer can this hold, when the military’s budget is dwindling – defence spending is projected to fall below $19-billion this year, down from a high of $23-billion 2011 — and procurement is being arranged, to all appearances, on the back of a napkin? To call the current defence rebuild a shambles understates matters. Unless there are dramatic changes soon, it’s fair to ask whether Canada will even be able to field a capable military in a few years’ time.
> 
> Supposedly chastened after years of controversy over procurement, the government unveiled a new, “streamlined” approach to the file last February. The Defence department in June published its first new Defence Acquisition Guide. One cannot read this summary without coming away thunderstruck by the magnitude of the rust-out. The report may as well be stamped, “Everything here broken – and stay broken.”
> 
> For reasons that defy logic and the Conservatives’ own repeated promises, the F-35 Lightning II sole-source program is still twitching, requiring only a jolt of electricity from cabinet’s operations committee to set it staggering once again onto the political stage. The latest is a leaked Pentagon slide, entitled Canadian Aircraft Options Current Status, indicating a plan for Canada to buy four of the planes imminently. “Congressional notification letter being staffed through the F-35 Joint Program Office,” reads the Oct. 27 slide, citing timing of mid-November.
> 
> For the RCAF to own and operate just four F-35s would be akin to its owning and operating four Maseratis, and about as practical. The maintenance and training costs would be ruinous. Therefore more planes would be sure to follow; therefore this must be construed as yet another signal that, say what its civilian bosses might, DND simply will not accept any option other than its beloved F-35. But for political reasons, the Harper government cannot be seen to move forward with anything but a competition. The result will almost certainly be a furtherance of the status quo, which is paralysis.
> 
> Meantime, the Coast Guard’s three-season polar icebreaker – just one, mind you – is delayed. The Royal Canadian Navy’s joint supply ships are delayed; its Arctic Offshore Patrol vessels are too expensive for their allotted budget, according to the Parliamentary Budget Office; a purchase of new fixed-wing search and rescue craft, originally rolled out a decade ago, has receded into myth, like the Roman gods; and the biggest-ticket item of all, the $26-billion Canadian Surface Combatant shipbuilding program, is seized with uncertainty over whether shipboard systems contracts worth an estimated $16-billion will be put up for competition, or sole-sourced to DND’s favoured U.S. supplier, Lockheed-Martin.
> 
> Perhaps the biggest scandal of all, amid the near-constant drumbeat of Tory posturing about the “brave men and women in uniform,” is that services for veterans have been slashed, and not restored. Nine offices that served veterans specifically have been closed. Government spin maintains the level of service has actually increased; anyone who has ever lived through a downsizing will be skeptical, to say the least. Distinct offices for veterans are gone; these were staffed by people who had specific expertise useful in helping veterans, which is not readily available at a Service Canada booth.
> 
> The record shows, in sum, that the Harper Conservatives’ peans to the military are piffle, and have been for some time. During the post-Cold War era in the 1990s the former Liberal government got away with worse, because global threats then were less obvious. It is unclear how the Tories can perpetuate that sad-sack tradition now, while continuing to cast themselves as the soldier’s best friend.


----------



## Monsoon

Here's the other way of looking at it: prior to the recession, this gov't instituted an automatic escalator in defence funding of 2% per year. Since the recession, this gov't has been announcing the reductions in defence spending required to reach a zero-deficit position against this escalated baseline.If they had really wanted to kneecap us, they would just announced a one-time cut to the escalator. Instead, what they've done has allowed them to announce a reduction (to keep the fiscal hawks happy) while leaving any successor gov'ts to announce further cuts if they want to cut into defence spending.


----------



## McG

The “funding escalator” disappeared five years ago. Over the last half decade, funding has slid to lows unseen since the period between the World Wars.  

http://army.ca/forums/threads/82898/post-1313325.html#msg1313325


----------



## MilEME09

Well in politics usually the government will listen to the people, and in a recent web poll on CTV, National Defense came in tied for 2nd for where any surplus money would be spent.



> If you held the federal pursestrings, how would you spend any surplus cash?
> 
> Job creation, 892 (18 %)
> National defence, 879 	(18 %)
> Save for a rainy day, 672 (14 %)
> Social services, 804 (16 %)
> Tax breaks, 1250 	(25 %)
> Other, 454 (9 %)


----------



## Monsoon

MCG said:
			
		

> The “funding escalator” disappeared five years ago.


No it did not. While much of the future money allocated in escalation has not been attributed in the in-year budgets, the baseline has continued to be escalated. For instance, the $2.7B cut for 2015 translates into a defence budget of $18.9B against $20B in 2013. The cut announced in dollar terms is against an escalated baseline.



> Over the last half decade, funding has slid to lows unseen since the period between the World Wars.
> http://army.ca/forums/threads/82898/post-1313325.html#msg1313325


Percent-of-GDP defence spending is one approach to broader policymaking, but it's not how the bullets and beans get bought. I promise you the $18.9B we're spending next year is still more than the $9.8B we got in 1998. The fact that this gov't isn't advertising that is a indication of their interest in restoring funding to the escalated baseline. Put another way, the government currently spends 8.7% of the total federal budget on defence, as opposed to 6.7% in '98 - an _increase_ of 23%.


----------



## MilEME09

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Percent-of-GDP defence spending is one approach to broader policymaking, but it's not how the bullets and beans get bought. I promise you the $18.9B we're spending next year is still more than the $9.8B we got in 1998. The fact that this gov't isn't advertising that is a indication of their interest in restoring funding to the escalated baseline. Put another way, the government currently spends 8.7% of the total federal budget on defence, as opposed to 6.7% in '98 - an _increase_ of 23%.



I would prefer we spend smarter and more efficiently, throwing money at DND won't solve our problems, management (Ie. NDHQ) needs to be cleaned up and stream lined. We could get a lot more done with the budget we already have, however the majority of it is lost now before it can be used by the department.


----------



## TCM621

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> I would prefer we spend smarter and more efficiently, throwing money at DND won't solve our problems, management (Ie. NDHQ) needs to be cleaned up and stream lined. We could get a lot more done with the budget we already have, however the majority of it is lost now before it can be used by the department.


If they divorced the cost of capital upgrades from our budget, we would be fine. The problem is we have tens of billions of dollars worth of major purchases that need to be bought now. 5-10 ships, a couple of plane fleets, a couple vehicle fleets, etc. 

If those were part of another budget, we could spend the rest pretty easy,  starting with career courses and exercises.


----------



## Monsoon

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> We could get a lot more done with the budget we already have, however the majority of it is lost now before it can be used by the department.


Dirty secret: money not spent by the department in a given year does _not_ get lost under the new accrual accounting system that replaced the old cash accounting system. Cash accounting is what's used for unit-level budgets: if you don't spend it by 31 March, it "disappears"; not so at the department level where the money carries over as long as it has been committed. A large number of projects in the past couple of years have been funded out of accrual - yet another advantage this department enjoys today that it did not during the decade of darkness.


----------



## McG

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Percent-of-GDP defence spending is one approach to broader policymaking, but it's not how the bullets and beans get bought. I promise you the $18.9B we're spending next year is still more than the $9.8B we got in 1998. The fact that this gov't isn't advertising that is a indication of their interest in restoring funding to the escalated baseline. Put another way, the government currently spends 8.7% of the total federal budget on defence, as opposed to 6.7% in '98 - an _increase_ of 23%.


If you are going to look at dollar value, then you need to use a constant dollar value.  $9.8B in 1998 is over $13B in 2013 or 2014, assuming military inflation has not exceeded consumer inflation.

http://www.bankofcanada.ca/rates/related/inflation-calculator/

So go back to here:





			
				MCG said:
			
		

> http://army.ca/forums/threads/82898/post-1313325.html#msg1313325


and scroll down a post to see that our funding, while maybe not at the lowest low, has returned to "decade of darkness" levels in constant dollars.


----------



## Monsoon

MCG said:
			
		

> If you are going to look at dollar value, then you need to use a constant dollar value.  $9.8B in 1998 is over $13B in 2013 or 2014, assuming military inflation has not exceeded consumer inflation.
> 
> http://www.bankofcanada.ca/rates/related/inflation-calculator/
> 
> So go back to here:and scroll down a post to see that our funding, while maybe not at the lowest low, has returned to "decade of darkness" levels in constant dollars.


As luck would have it, I consulted the Bank of Canada's inflation calculator before I made my last post. And as I'm sure you noticed, the BoC inflation calculator for $9.8B from 1998 equals $13.8B in 2014 dollars. In other words, the $18.9B budget we enjoy today is 37% higher in real terms than it was in the '90s.

The only reason I didn't mention it in my original post is that I have no idea why you would bother to have mentioned numbers that further undermine your mistaken belief that the present government has somehow been worse for defence spending than the previous. Yes, I understand a journalist wrote something to that effect. But he's demonstrably wrong. DND is much, much better off than it was in the '90s, and that fact is reflected in every meaningful gauge of the numbers.


----------



## jollyjacktar

But are we really?  OK, you've shown the buck is worth more but the cost of things is substantially more too.  I wish l was paying the same price for consumer goods l was then.  And our wages have increased substantially too.  I fear that all eats into the buck is worth more argument to the point it's not really a point anymore.  Maybe the CPC are dishing out more but they're more talk than real action.  Just look at the NVC and their doing jack shyte to fix it if it needed it as many believe.


----------



## Monsoon

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> But are we really?  OK, you've shown the buck is worth more but the cost of things is substantially more too.  I wish l was paying the same price for consumer goods l was then.  And our wages have increased substantially too.  I fear that all eats into the buck is worth more argument to the point it's not really a point anymore.


Absolutely - that's why I used _inflation-adjusted_ numbers above. Even after inflation, we're about a third ahead of '98.



> Maybe the CPC are dishing out more but they're more talk than real action.  Just look at the NVC and their doing jack shyte to fix it if it needed it as many believe.


Look - I'm not the "everything is awesome" guy. For sure, DND has had to take its share (or slightly less than that) of the post-financial crisis budget cutting. What's been difficult for the past couple of years is that we were told in 2006 to start planning for a budget of "X", but we've had to make do with somewhat less, which means projects have to get dumped or pennies have to get squeezed to keep things moving along. That's never fun, but what gets me is when people within the CAF itself start buying into this revisionist history where we're told knowingly by political hacks that the '90s cuts were "no biggie" compared to what's happening now. As someone who lived through both rounds of cutting, I know for a fact that that just ain't the case and the numbers support my observations.

We could always hope for more from the gov't - and to be sure their walk doesn't fully match their talk - but things could be and have been a helluva lot worse.


----------



## McG

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> ... their walk doesn't fully match their talk ...


And this is the argument I am making.  They are presenting themselves as the champions of the CAF while spending the same as when the Liberals left power and sabre rattling for a fight through which our allies would have to carry us.  It measures-up as a little baloney.  



> *Baloney Meter: Is the Harper government really spending more on military? *
> Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press
> 11 Sep 2014
> 
> OTTAWA -- "Canada has been increasing the defence spending, as I mentioned in London and elsewhere. It's up some 27 per cent since we took office. And more importantly, a significant percentage of that expansion of expenditure is investments in equipment and capacities of the Canadian Armed Forces for the future." -- Prime Minister Stephen Harper
> -----
> 
> Last week, the prime minister defended his government's record on defence spending in the face of pressure from NATO allies who want to see Canada set aside more money for the military in light of growing unrest in eastern Europe and the Middle East.
> 
> Is the Conservative government adequately funding the military, as it claims?
> 
> Spoiler alert: The Canadian Press Baloney Meter is a dispassionate examination of political statements, culminating in a ranking of accuracy on a scale of "no baloney" to "full of baloney" .
> 
> This one earns a rating of "some baloney." Here's why:
> 
> *THE FACTS:*
> 
> The latest federal budget projects that National Defence has been allocated a budget of $18.2 billion in 2014-15, down from an Afghan wartime high of $21.1 billion in 2009-10.
> 
> As part of its drive towards an overall balanced budget in 2015-16, the Conservative government instituted three lines of spending cuts and restraint over successive budgets.
> 
> They included a strategic review of spending, the deficit reduction action plan, known as DRAP, and a measure within the 2010 budget that required each department to absorb the cost of negotiated wage increases with civil servants.
> 
> The cuts were phased in and amounted to an annual $2.46-billion per year reduction at National Defence.
> In addition, the military is facing "additional planning pressures" not accounted for in the main lines of spending cuts.
> 
> These expenses include the cost of severance for laid off civilians at defence; the bill for the government's pledge to sustain newly trained Afghan forces; and the cost of operating the Public Works secretariat that is picking a replacement for Canada's aging CF-18 fighters.
> 
> The latest federal budget also postponed $3.1-billion in capital spending on equipment that had been slated for the years between 2014 and 2017.
> 
> While the government has promised to "reprofile" the funds to future years, it has not spelled out when the money will be returned to the military's capital budget.
> 
> When the Conservative government came to power, National Defence's budget was $13.4 billion, according to the 2004-05 main estimates. The Liberal government of Paul Martin committed in its last budget to spend an additional $2.6 billion per year.
> 
> A decade later, defence spending is $4.8-billion higher, a nominal increase of roughly 27 per cent, but when inflation is taken into account, the difference shrinks to seven per cent.
> 
> Six years ago, the prime minister pledged the military would receive a "stable and predictable" two per cent funding increase, starting in 2011.
> 
> The escalator, as it's known, amounts to about $350 million per year and continues to be delivered, but it's been more than offset by reductions elsewhere in the defence budget.
> 
> Canada will spend about one per cent of its gross domestic product on the military this year, down from 1.3 per cent in 2009.
> 
> *WHAT THE EXPERTS SAY:*
> 
> The numbers have been repeatedly crunched by Dave Perry, an analyst with the Conference of Defence Associations, and there can be no argument that spending has fallen over the last few years.
> 
> "It definitely did increase up until 2010, (but) they've clearly cut spending," Perry said.
> 
> Some important contextual information is missing from the blanket assertion that spending has gone up, he added -- notably the eroding influence of inflation.
> 
> "It's still an increase, but when you look at the actual purchasing power, the increase is far less significant that the 27 per cent nominal figure would imply," said Perry, who is also a doctoral candidate in political science at Carleton University.
> 
> Another factor that doesn't get mentioned is that over the last decade, even when the government was pumping more money into the military, National Defence has not been able to spend all of its budget allocation.
> 
> Since 2006, National Defence has been forced to return $9.6 billion to the federal treasury, according to a July 2013 analysis by the parliamentary budget office.
> 
> The prime minister was very clear in his marching order for cuts in 2012, pointedly telling the department that he wanted reductions focused on back room administration and a bloated headquarters establishment.
> 
> "The Forces must be restructured to ensure administrative burdens are reduced and resources freed up for the front line," Harper said on Oct. 29, 2012. "The Canada First Defence Strategy must continue to advance, and as I've said before, with the constant search for more teeth and less tail."
> 
> So, what impact have the reductions had?
> 
> All branches of the military tightened their belts and combined headquarters, but the big savings have come in the area of readiness, where there have been fewer flying hours, more simulator time for pilots and an army that's been parking trucks and conserving training ammunition.
> 
> University of Ottawa defence expert Phillippe Lagasse said the army has been hit particularly hard. The only exception has been special forces, which have enjoyed consistent funding.
> 
> As it currently stands, Canada would be unable to mount a sustained deployment of troops to the world's hotspots because of the cuts, according to multiple internal National Defence documents.
> 
> "Readiness has been a more immediate and obvious place to make short-term cuts," Lagasse said.
> Harper's bid to cut the back room has largely fallen flat.
> 
> "This idea that you can magically find a whole bunch of savings in the administrative structure; that's not true," said Lagasse. "That's not instantaneous. It takes time and it takes a real understanding of where you want to trim."
> 
> The government has not funded the military to the extent that it promised in its 2008 defence strategy, which envisioned an investment of $490 billion over 20 years, he added.
> 
> "But we've always known that."
> 
> *THE VERDICT*
> 
> The experts agree that Harper is correct to say the defence budget has increased substantially, but some important qualifications have been left out of his argument.
> 
> The Conservatives have cast themselves as defenders of the military and criticism of their record is bound to sting, but both Perry and Lagasse say the numbers are the numbers.
> 
> For that reason, Harper's statement earns a rating of "some baloney."


http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/baloney-meter-is-the-harper-government-really-spending-more-on-military-1.2001899

I have said that things will not be so bad as before if we manage our money responsibly, and do the hard analysis to make the right as opposed to the easy cuts.  Unfortunately, I am not convinced that is happening.  And the money is certainly not there to repair/develope defence capability.


----------



## Edward Campbell

There is another important but even less easily discussed than inflation aspect: the nature of the _defence industry_, itself.

Fifty to 75 years ago the defence industry was robustly competitive and, consequently, prices, including R&D costs, were (relatively) low. Consider, just as one example, in the high cost aerospace field the fate of _North American Aviation_: it was founded in 1928 but only became a manufacturing company in 1934; it designed, developed and produced, amongst other things, the T-6 Texan trainer, the P-51 Mustang fighter, the B-25 Mitchell bomber, the F-86 Sabre jet fighter, the X-15 rocket plane, and the XB-70, as well as Apollo Command and Service Module, the second stage of the Saturn V rocket, the Space Shuttle orbiter and the B-1 Lancer. 












                                           P51 _Mustang_                                                         through                                    F86 _Sabre_                                            to                               B1 _Lancer_

But that did not keep _North American_ from being swallowed up by Rockwell which was, in its turn, swallowed by Boeing. The chain of mergers resulted, in some respects, from qualitatively better aircraft: consider, just for example, the performance envelopes and the Reliability-Availability-Maintainability data for the North American F86 versus the McDonnell Douglas* F18 _Hornet_, both flown by the RCAF. We used to have 12 F86 fighter squadrons operating from four flying stations in Europe (Baden-Soellingen, Grostenquin, Lahr and Marville) we replaced them, eventually, with three squadrons on one base. Why? Were the new airplanes more expensive? Yes, that's one part of the answer, but the new aircraft were, also, much, Much more capable - they could fly farther, faster, more regularly (because they were more reliable) and they could do much more once in their target areas. We could, and did, "do more with less." But the development and production costs of the new aircraft were, at least an order of magnitude higher, even allowing for inflation, so going from 300 to 36 aircraft did not consume a lesser _slice_ of the defence budget. 

Similar things happened to ship building, engine technology, guided weapons, radios, radars and electronics and so on. Performance improved, continuously and measurably, but costs, especially development costs, escalated at even greater rates and the _consolidation_ of the defence industrial base, throughout the US led West, meant that there was less competition, with the expected consequences. "Competition" in aerospace, for example, now occurs almost only when a Western government of group of government have a _design_ competition, essentially a set of unprovable promises about engineering and finance, and then _direct_ a contract to the winner ... cost containment is, in practice, impossible.

(I can recall when the CDS of the day, Gen Jacques Dextraze, went to "war" against _Mil Specs_ because he was persuaded that they were overly restrictive - making real market competition even more difficult - and precluding "good enough" products. The result was the CUCV, the Commercial Utility Cargo Vehicle, the 5/4 ton truck in the CF, which ended up not saving a whole lot of money because it required extensive adaptation (a 12V to 24V conversion, as one example, a completely new electrical suppression system retrofit as another) before it could enter full service. Gen Dextraze's original idea ~ "why can't those big, tough, all weather logging trucks work in the military?" ~ never got properly answered, but it made us nervous about adapting commercial systems, except, perhaps, in ships where the MCDVs have demonstrated their fully adequate sea keeping capabilities.) 
  
There have been at least a few PhD dissertations on this topic, but there are, also, other problems, including corruption and bad management ... consider, just for example, Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands and the Lockheed bribery scandals and the whole 'business' of regional industrial benefits in Canada. The defence industry has, traditionally, been complicit in projects that add new costs to their products, costs which the corporate shareholders are (properly) unwilling to bear and which must, therefore, be borne, eventually, by the customer ~ taxpayers in America, Britain, Canada and so on ~ through higher prices.

_____
* Also swallowed up by Boeing.

Edit: typo


----------



## Kirkhill

"Fail to Plan. Plan to fail."

But how about "Planned failure".

Any plan can be made to work. Equally any plan can be made to fail.  If the participants are disinterested then the proponents of the plan must work harder to make the plan succeed.  If, on the other hand, the participants are actively opposed then the success of any plan becomes a contest of wills. And if the proponents are not actively engaged in conducting the operations necessary to ensure the plan's success then the opponents have the field to themselves and the plan fails to the embarrassment of the proponents.  And often to the delight of the opponents.

I am not saying that I have any knowledge of the politics or Politics of these issues but I would suggest that if I thought that Jadex's notions on buying commercial vehicles were ridiculous then I could probably find a way to follow orders and buy the least effective solution.  Or I coiuld probably find a way to follow orders and still drive the cost of a 70 million Norwegian Arctic Patrol Ship into an unaffordable Canadian Arctic Patrol Ship.  Or I could probably find a way to follow orders and cut the budget by reducing training, readiness and capital acquisitions while maintaining middle management positions.

My sense of the likelihood of planned failure is based on a lot of personal bruises collected over thirty years of trying to make things happen - not in your field but in the civvy world of my labours.

Advice, or as it is known in your circles, orders (more specifically Commander's Intent) never results in the intended outcome unless the Commander is actively engaged in driving the plan to success.  If the Commander isn't there then he is pushing on a rope at best.

If the Government commands a reduction in staffing and overhead then the only way they are going to achieve that is to actively get involved in the hiring and firing and day to day operations.... and I can see the headlines already.

Edit to add:

I wonder if Samuel Pepys, or even C.D. Howe, could operate effectively in the modern Canadian environment.


----------



## McG

Expect to see 2015/2016 continue without the resources to sustain training and readiness.  Predictions are that the budget freeze will continue if it is not accompanied by cuts.  This will be the cost of recently announced spending and tax cuts followed by falling oil prices.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/spending-cuts-may-come-in-spring-budget-conservatives-signal-1.2913133

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/feds-may-extend-spending-freeze-to-balance-budget-kenney-1.2194134


----------



## Good2Golf

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Absolutely - that's why I used _inflation-adjusted_ numbers above. Even after inflation, we're about a third ahead of '98.
> Look - I'm not the "everything is awesome" guy. For sure, DND has had to take its share (or slightly less than that) of the post-financial crisis budget cutting. What's been difficult for the past couple of years is that we were told in 2006 to start planning for a budget of "X", but we've had to make do with somewhat less, which means projects have to get dumped or pennies have to get squeezed to keep things moving along. That's never fun, but what gets me is when people within the CAF itself start buying into this revisionist history where we're told knowingly by political hacks that the '90s cuts were "no biggie" compared to what's happening now. As someone who lived through both rounds of cutting, I know for a fact that that just ain't the case and the numbers support my observations.
> 
> We could always hope for more from the gov't - and to be sure their walk doesn't fully match their talk - but things could be and have been a helluva lot worse.



Retail inflation is not as high as Defence inflation, which many references note to be on average about 3% higher than retail.  Compound a 3% difference for nine years and you get a 30% additional inflation factor, which pretty much eats up the "we're one third better off..."  If we were procuring commercially available, unmodified equipment that was not impacted by the relatively high impact of generally much more skilled labour implicated with defence systems, then using the BoC's CPI would not be unreasonable.  Military equipment, even COTS/MOTS, rarely finds itself tied to consumer indices.


Regards
G2G


----------



## McG

... And that is why we are already down to 5 vs 8 AOPS.


----------



## Monsoon

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Retail inflation is not as high as Defence inflation, which many references note to be on average about 3% higher than retail.  Compound a 3% difference for nine years and you get a 30% additional inflation factor, which pretty much eats up the "we're one third better off..."  If we were procuring commercially available, unmodified equipment that was not impacted by the relatively high impact of generally much more skilled labour implicated with defence systems, then using the BoC's CPI would not be unreasonable.  Military equipment, even COTS/MOTS, rarely finds itself tied to consumer indices.


Not to get drawn into an old thread again, but defence inflation is only properly applied to large capital _procurements_ (and in this it runs to closer to 7%). Since we procured virtually nothing of significance between 1993 and 2006, the effect on the budgetary bottom line in that period is negligible. The single biggest component of the defence budget is pay - which has been quite tightly pegged to consumer inflation.

And all those procurement deferrals from the 1990s to today have made the cost of buying the equipment today that much higher as a result of defence inflation. And _that's_ part of why we can now afford less than we need.


----------



## dapaterson

Defence inflation applies equally to defence-specific supplies consumed in day to day activities - ammunition & spares, for example.


----------



## Monsoon

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Defence inflation applies equally to defence-specific supplies consumed in day to day activities - ammunition & spares, for example.


I'd definitely welcome a reference for that. Certain specialty ammunition I could definitely see, but routine spares are typically part of any procurement project's lifecycle cost (obviously spares beyond the projected lifecycle would be the exception here).

In any case, I think we can agree that just applying "defence inflation" to the DND main estimates isn't how it works. At best it's a ballpark aggregate of specific costs that don't necessarily track CPI (the cost of steel and energy, notably), applying principally to procurement, and is a thumbnail measure at that.


----------



## McG

Project and equipment lifecycle are two different things that should not be confused.

Major crown projects provide for initial parts provisioning ... A couple years at most.  Most spare and replacement parts are contracted through the lifecycle of the equipment after the projects have closed.  Inflation applies.


----------



## dapaterson

Correct, initial provisioning is two years of spares or ISS; beyond that, spares are part of national procurement.

Admittedly, not all spares should be inflated using a specific defence escalator. But there is a significant amount of defence procurement outside the capital program where costs increase more than CPI.


----------



## Kirkhill

Expenditures:

People (Pay, Benefits and Training)
Infrastructure (Buildings and Bases)
Capital (Non-military and Military)
Consumables (Beans, Bandages, Batteries, POL, Bullets)

What per cent of the budget is spent on Military Capital and Bullets?

Inflation at 7% vs 3% can have a significant impact on a project budget while not grievously impacting the department budget.

This is particularly true if the capital budget (military) is only 10 to 20% of the total budget.

7% - 3% = 4% of the 10 to 20% or 0.4 to 0.8%

And if a quarter of that 10 to 20% is unspent annually (2 to 5 %) of the total budget that would more than compensate for the inflation factor.  Especially if the unspent portion were put into escrow against future expenditures.  IMO.

(Hopefully my arithmetic is tracking again - Christmas vacation is over).


----------



## McG

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Expenditures:
> 
> People (Pay, Benefits and Training)
> Infrastructure (Buildings and Bases)
> Capital (Non-military and Military)
> Consumables (Beans, Bandages, Batteries, POL, Bullets, Parts)
> 
> What per cent of the budget is spent on Military Capital and Bullets and Parts?


You missed something.  In your consumable costs, don't forget those unique military bits and sub-assemblies required as replacements to keep the existing capital equipment in service.  Ammunition is not the only consumable more subject to a military inflation vs a consumer inflation.


----------



## Kirkhill

Good point. Thanks.

So how much of the departmental budget goes to the supply of military parts?  More than or less than 10%?


----------



## MilEME09

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Good point. Thanks.
> 
> So how much of the departmental budget goes to the supply of military parts?  More than or less than 10%?



wasn't the spare parts budget cut over the past year though? I know my unit saw a sharp drop in ours. That said I recently read an interview with the commander of the army in the new issue of Canadian defense review, and there appear to be some ambitious plans afoot, and I dont see when the funds will come from. For example he says the LVM program will have tender starting in 2017 to replace the LSVW and HLVW fleets, with final delivery by 2022. The Ground based Air & Munitions defense project is in the per-identification phase to procure ground based air defense platform(s). among other programs and pieces of kit.


----------



## FortYorkRifleman

Can anyone shed light on trade specific budgets for training and exercises like infantry as opposed to Pilot? I would think it cheaper to spend money on exercises and training for Combat Arms where I assume money is spent just on bullets, explosives, usage of trucks, LAV's etc. as opposed to maintanence time on aircraft, spares etc. for the Air Force. That being said going forward will the crunch in budget affect Combat Arms, specifically Infantry, in regards to range time, ex's and/or opportunities for courses like Basic Para?


----------



## McG

The retirement of a few ships and scrapping half the truck fleet has previously had its mention in the media, now budget cuts to flying hours are getting attention:



> *Budget cuts hit RCAF flying hours*
> Cutbacks affect aircraft upkeep, documents show
> Lee Berthiaume
> Ottawa Citizen
> 12 Feb 2015
> 
> Federal budget cuts have been quietly clipping the wings of the Canadian military, with the air force's fighter jets, search-and-rescue helicopters and other aircraft spending more time on the ground in an attempt to save money.
> 
> The belt-tightening, combined with increasing fuel, utility and training costs, has also made it more difficult for the Royal Canadian Air Force to pay for such essentials as removing snow and ice from runways, and has forced it to cut back on preventive aircraft maintenance.
> 
> The revelations are contained in internal business plans prepared by 1 Canadian Air Division, which manages the RCAF's numerous aircraft fleets. The documents predate the current conflict in Iraq, raising further questions as to how that action is affecting the air force's already stressed budget.
> 
> RCAF spokesman Maj. James Simiana says the air force "is always exploring ways and means aimed at ensuring we can effectively and responsibly maintain and deliver operational effect in support of Canadians and Canada's national interests, both at home and abroad.
> 
> "The RCAF will continue to maintain its current level of operational and readiness excellence by examining and implementing new ways of achieving the military effects required, becoming more innovative, more agile, and more adaptable."
> 
> But 1 Canadian Air Division's 2014-15 business plan says the "extremely limited manning and financial flexibility that exists in the Air Force restricts the effectiveness with which we can fulfill our mandate." It adds that underfunding "will eventually impact the RCAF's ability to conduct operations."
> 
> NDP defence critic Jack Harris says the "damning warning" makes it even more important for the Conservative government to reveal how much the Iraq war is expected to cost, and whether the Department of National Defence will have to pay for it from its shrinking budget.
> 
> Canada has six CF-18 fighter jets, two Aurora surveillance aircraft and a Polaris refuelling plane participating in the U.S.-led bombing campaign against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or ISIL.
> 
> All three types of aircraft have seen their planned flying hours cut since 2009, and increasing them beyond the planned rates, for Iraq or any other reason, would require additional government money or diverting resources from other areas.
> 
> "They're shaving pretty close to the bone there when it comes to cutting back on these hours," Harris said.
> 
> "The question becomes: Where is the money coming from for Iraq? If they hide it by cutting back on flying hours outside of that, then we're going to have a significant impact on other operations for the air force."
> 
> Liberal defence critic Joyce Murray accused the Conservative government of having the wrong priorities by promising to introduce income-splitting while "compromising the ability of the air force to protect Canadians.
> 
> "Clearly the government's priority is to be able to deliver a tax cut to families that need it the least," she said.
> 
> "They've used the National Defence budget over the last few years as a giant piggy bank to accomplish that objective, which is to deliver tax cuts for the 2015 election."
> 
> The Conservative government has slashed billions of dollars from DND's budget and let billions more go unspent in recent years to help eliminate the federal deficit and pay for the government's promises before this year's election.
> 
> But the cuts have had visible impacts.
> 
> The army has parked a large number of trucks and other support vehicles to reduce maintenance costs; the navy has docked coastal patrol ships; training exercises have been scaled back; and orders for spare parts postponed or cancelled.
> 
> Less obvious has been a gradual reduction in the amount of flying hours for the Royal Canadian Air Force's numerous aircraft fleets.
> 
> 1 Canadian Air Division's business plans show total planned flying hours were cut 11 per cent from 2009 to 2014.
> 
> That includes 13-per-cent fewer flying hours for the RCAF's CF-18 fighter-jet fleet, 30-per-cent less for its Aurora surveillance planes, a 26-per-cent cut for its Globemaster transport aircraft, and a 44-percent reduction for the Polaris refuelling planes.
> 
> Planned flying hours also dropped by five per cent for the RCAF's ancient Buffalo searchand-rescue airplanes and Tutor jets used by the Snowbirds aerial acrobatic team, and nearly four per cent for the air force's aged Sea King helicopters.
> 
> The cuts were partially offset with the addition of new Chinook transport helicopters, Cyclone search-and-rescue helicopters and King Air training planes. But the only previously existing aircraft with more airtime in 2014 were the Cormorant search-and-rescue helicopters and executive Challenger planes.
> 
> The 2014-15 business plan also states that "aircrew/ground crew training are increasing in cost as funding levels continue to drastically decline."
> 
> In addition, plans to cut costs with simulators and other measures, "although promising, are not immediately possible as they are either not yet available or lack the required fidelity."
> 
> Annual increases to the price of chemicals for removing snow and ice from runways "continue to erode budgets," the report says, while diesel shortages had resulted in cuts to heavy equipment driver training "critical" to keeping runways clear and supporting overseas missions.
> 
> "Manning shortfalls and inadequately funded vehicles maintenance budgets have resulted in a reduction of preventive maintenance at the Wings, resulting in increased corrective maintenance at an overall higher cost," the business plan adds.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

One option is to move the cost of procuring from the DND budget, not the actual final cost of the equipment itself, but the cost of running a competition to PW or similar. That would free up more money from the defense budget to buy actual kit, employ more PY's. If PW can't charge DND for the costs but is responsible, then there might be incentive to streamline the process.


----------



## McG

So, it would appear that Op IMPACT has cost over $122M from Oct to today.  This is all actual cost to the CAF and does not include fixed costs like pay.  Also missing is the month of Sep when CANSOF first deployed.

The Canada First Defence Strategy pledged overseas missions would be paid for through a special budgetary appropriation from Parliament.  Too bad that policy has been silently dropped.  Instead, these costs have will be added to the Afghan training mission in Kabul and the Libya campaign as expenses cut out of the defence budget.


----------



## McG

A little late but they are doing it.  The government has asked Parlaiment for almost $140 million to cover the costs of Op IMPACT and Op REASURANCE in the 14/15 FY.

http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=935889&tp=980

... but, when that money arrives and previously diverted funds flow back to where they were formerly budgeted, what is our ability to spend all of that before end FY?


----------



## Infanteer

MCG said:
			
		

> ... but, when that money arrives and diverted funds flow back to where they were previously budgeted, what is our ability to spend all of that before end FY?



I can't remember where, but I read somewhere that that is not exactly the case - Departments can move money forward to another FY for certain things like capital procurement.  It's the baseline O&M that can't carry over.  If that's the case (and I may have it all wrong) then I'd hope it goes into some projects (Mukluks anyone?)


----------



## McG

But this does not look like capital funds, and it would have been O&M taken from elsewhere in the budget to feed these operations prior to these new funds being approved.


----------



## Kirkhill

What civvy organization would include "footwear" in the Capital Budget?  That is considered a consummable and comes out of Ops and Maintenance.  If suddenly the Ops and Maintenance budget was enriched by a windfall (like an inter-departmental transfer of funds) then the manager would run out and immediately run out and restock his shelves - no tenders, no questions.

Which brings us back to McG's question:



> ... but, when that money arrives and previously diverted funds flow back to where they were formerly budgeted, what is our ability to spend all of that before end FY?



Actually, the "no questions" bit is a lie.  One question would be asked of the manager: "Why did you allow the shelves to go empty in the first bloody place?"


----------



## McG

The initial procurement to kit the Army with new footwear is capital.  Stocking the shelves after the new footwear is implemented then becomes O&M.


----------



## Good2Golf

Both capital and O&M can be re-profiled, but there are specific limits to how much I each, and it's generally much less for O&M than for capital.  The amount that can be re-profiled is a matter of public record and usually in the order of several hundred million dollars.


----------



## McG

So, there is reasonable hope that we can spend the Op IMPACT and Op REASURANCE 14/15 money over the next FY?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Build me a much needed ammo compound and I think it's safe to say we could make that money disappear.


----------



## McG

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> MCG, if I read between the lines of publicly available activities, I would figure a fair amountr could be expended in the new fiscal year. :nod:


Excellent.


----------



## Kirkhill

MCG said:
			
		

> The initial procurement to kit the Army with new footwear is capital.  Stocking the shelves after the new footwear is implemented then becomes O&M.



So Mukluks, which are not new footwear, is not capital?  They are O&M?


----------



## Infanteer

The new mukluk project, to replace the old one, is a capital procurement project.


----------



## OldSolduer

Infanteer said:
			
		

> The new mukluk project, to replace the old one, is a capital procurement project.



Begging everyone's pardon, but I was not aware there was anything wrong with the old mukluks......or am I missing something?


----------



## McG

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> So Mukluks, which are not new footwear, is not capital?  They are O&M?


The in-service mukluk is to be replaced with a new mukluk.  Everyone with an in-service mukluk will have it replaced and every in-service mukluk sitting on a supply system shelf will be replaced.  This is capital.  The attrition replacement afterwards will be O&M

If the plan were to not replace every in-service mukluk but to just start buying a new design and to buy it at attrition replacement rates, then it could be done with O&M.  We can see this example with the improved combat uniform.  Pers with the old style uniform will continue to wear it until it is worn-out and can be replaced, old uniforms on shelves will continue to be issued until stock is depleted and then new style uniforms will be issued.


----------



## MJP

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Begging everyone's pardon, but I was not aware there was anything wrong   with the old mukluks......or am I missing something?



That is why it is being changed.


----------



## Infanteer

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Begging everyone's pardon, but I was not aware there was anything wrong with the old mukluks......or am I missing something?



The boot does not provide much ankle support.  As well, it is not very effective in wetter snow - while it is an alright arctic boot, it is not ideal for winter in the sub-tundra climates.


----------



## Spencer100

Canada is one of five in NATO who are reducing the defence budget.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/161407/nato-defense-spending-continues-to-decline.html


----------



## TCBF

Infanteer said:
			
		

> The boot does not provide much ankle support.  As well, it is not very effective in wetter snow - while it is an alright arctic boot, it is not ideal for winter in the sub-tundra climates.



- I can remember alighting out of a Twin Huey onto a frozen river in Petawawa (1977?), only to find that between the snow on top and the frozen river on the bottom was about two inches of water. So, the 1951 'X' designed arctic gear does not excel during spring break up, or 'wet cold'. As for ankle support, I bet at least a third of my parachute jumps are in mukluks.


----------



## The Bread Guy

PBO shares a bit of the obvious ....


> The Harper government has built a military that it cannot afford and will be forced to make tough choices about in the future, if it sticks with the current funding envelope, the country's budget watchdog said Thursday.
> 
> The new assessment by the parliamentary budget office came as debate kicked off in the House of Commons about an expanded and extended war against the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, a conflict that opposition MPs were warned this week will last more than a year.
> 
> Jean-Denis Frechette, the parliamentary budget officer, says the federal government will need to either pour more money into its defence budget, scale back its ambitions, or do a mixture of both in order to put Canada's military on a sustainable footing.
> 
> The Harper government currently spends $21.5 billion on defence — or 1.1 per cent of the gross domestic product.
> 
> In order to sustain the existing number of troops, bases, tanks, planes and ships, the budget office says the Conservatives will have to spend about 1.6 per cent of GDP, which would be an increase of at least $3 billion annually ....


This from the PBO (23 pg PDF) ....


> This report examines sustainability of the national defence program by providing two estimates: a ‘source of funds’ forecast, meaning a forecast of future defence budgets; and a ‘use of funds’ estimate, meaning the cost of delivering a national defence program.
> 
> The Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) estimates that the current force structure of the Department of National Defence (DND) is unsustainable at current funding levels. To achieve sustainability, it will be necessary to change the force structure, increase the amount of funding allocated to DND, or implement a combination of the two.
> 
> In the 2013-2014 fiscal year, DND expenditures totalled $21.5 billion, accounting for 1.1 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP). Of that amount, roughly half went toward personnel costs and roughly one-third was used for operations and infrastructure; the balance went toward the acquisition and replacement of capital equipment.
> 
> The government’s Canada First Defence Strategy (CFDS) promised to raise the nominal (non-inflation adjusted) annual increase in defence expenditure to 2 per cent starting in fiscal year 2011-2012, investing a total of $490 billion over a 20-year horizon, in an effort to provide the military with reliable funding.
> 
> However, PBO’s long-term defence program affordability estimate (the ‘should-cost’ estimate) indicates that defence costs will become unsustainable over the next 10 years. Our modelling shows that until 2014, there were sufficient funds to maintain the program. The cost to maintain Canada’s national defence force structure increased at roughly 1.5 per cent per year in real terms (adjusted for inflation) from 1995 to 2014; over the same period, defence spending increased 1.9 per cent per year in real terms.
> 
> In Summary Figure 1-1 (attached below), PBO estimates that the annual, inflation-adjusted rate of growth in the cost of maintaining the force structure from 2015 onwards will be 2.5 per cent per year.
> 
> PBO calibrated the model to the 1995 force structure, to ensure that the slope of the expenditure line to 2012 and beyond was reasonable. Because the model is driven by force structure, notably the size of the regular force and associated equipment and support costs, calibrating to a different year will produce a different outcome. The report should be read with that in mind ....


----------



## MilEME09

Which will still be ignored because it involves spending money, in a election year, and no party wants to say "hey Canadians give us $3 billion for the military" How many tax payers do you think would vote for a party that says yes to that?


----------



## OldSolduer

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Which will still be ignored because it involves spending money, in a election year, and no party wants to say "hey Canadians give us $3 billion for the military" How many tax payers do you think would vote for a party that says yes to that?



Quite right I think. As ERC says, the Canadian publics support for the military is a mile wide but an inch deep.
We've been fighting this battle since Canada became a country.


----------



## McG

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> PBO shares a bit of the obvious ....



Farther down in Murray Brewster's article is the scary bit.  He notes, based on the PBO's findings, that we are now being funded for a _decade of darkness military_.



> ...
> 
> That affordability gap -- or shortfall -- runs anywhere between $33 billion and $42 billion over the next decade.
> 
> Left addressed, the gap means the military will be forced to thin out the ranks by "several thousand soldiers," close buildings and reduce its capital spending plan, said defence analyst Dave Perry, of the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute.
> 
> *Frechette said, under the current budget structure, the government can afford a military about the same size it had in 1999, at the height of what the Conservatives have often described as the "decade of darkness" under the Liberals*.
> 
> Joyce Murray, the Liberal defence critic, said the government is being hoisted on its own rhetoric.
> 
> "It's very childish to point back and not look at their own record," she said.
> 
> ...


http://winnipeg.ctvnews.ca/parliamentary-budget-officer-says-defence-costs-unsustainable-over-next-decade-1.2298533


----------



## a_majoor

I suspect the solution to this goat rodeo is going to be similar to how we did business in Afghanistan; "emergency requirements" to suddenly restock the military with trucks, boots and all the other things which dropped through the cracks the last time, and get new warships in the water (sorry Air Force dudes and dudettes, you got helicopters and the C-17's last time....).

Of course that is a _great_ way to ensure the long term management problems of our procurement system are solved [/snarc]


----------



## FortYorkRifleman

Link removed IAW site policy.

*Milnet.ca Staff*


----------



## MilEME09

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Of course that is a _great_ way to ensure the long term management problems of our procurement system are solved [/snarc]



Now i'm no expert in our procurement system but from the many conversations on this forum, its a matter of to many birds on DND's shoulders saying whats what.Also I would say ML's with no floor for my feet cause its rusted out makes it an emergency.


----------



## McG

Looks like O&M funds are taking another hit this year.
I am not clear on the provisionments being made for international operations.  Can Parlaiment vote in a secret dollar allocation, will the defence budget be forced to eat the cost, or is something else going on?



> War in Iraq and Syria will cost Canada $528M by next year, Kenney says
> Defence minister reveals estimate one day after DND labelled information as classified
> MURRAY BREWSTER, THE CANADIAN PRESS
> CBC News
> 01 Apr 2015
> 
> Canada's war in Iraq and Syria is expected to cost more than half a billion dollars by this time next year, Defence Minister Jason Kenney revealed Wednesday, one day after federal budget reports stamped the estimate as secret.
> 
> Of the total, $406 million is expected to be spent in the new budget year that began Wednesday, on top of the projected $122.5 million that was set aside in the fiscal year that just ended.
> 
> Those are the incremental costs — the amount of money the Department of National Defence spends over and above the routine expense of maintaining an army.
> 
> The federal Treasury Board's plans and priorities report for the coming fiscal year, released Tuesday, showed the price tags for overseas operations in both the Middle East and eastern Europe were classified.
> 
> Both opposition parties complained, calling the decision to hide the dollar figures unacceptable, but Kenney said the information simply wasn't available when the estimates were completed in early March.
> 
> The $528.5-million estimate is likely not the last word on the question of costs, because there will be tear-down expenses should the next federal government decide to end the combat mission next March.
> 
> "I offer a caveat. That number will obviously change," Kenney said on the way into question period.  "If the past is any guide, it'll change upward, but that's our best estimate. And it's on that basis that cabinet approved additional funding."
> 
> Last month, the parliamentary budget office estimated in a February report that one year of combat operations would cost between $242 million and $351 million.
> 
> Both Kenney and Prime Minister Stephen Harper suggested there was no attempt to hide the figure, claiming it was released last week. A spokeswoman in Kenney's office said the numbers were revealed during a conference call with ethnic media, which took place around the time the Commons was debating the motion to extend and expand the deployment.
> 
> If Kenney was really interested in accountability he would have informed MPs, said Liberal defence critic Joyce Murray.
> 
> "Reports that the minister would disclose this on a call, and not in the House, reinforces how little regard he and his government have for our Parliament and its role in maintaining oversight," Murray said.
> 
> The estimates also keep secret the cost of Canada's contribution to NATO's reassurance mission in the new budget year. Those figures were not released on Wednesday.
> 
> Dave Perry of the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute said it's the first — and only — time in nearly 20 years that cost estimates for an international operation was withheld because it was deemed classified.
> 
> Opposition NDP leader Tom Mulcair said the government shouldn't have to be dragged kicking and screaming towards accountability.
> 
> "The first thing Canadians are entitled to when we are in a war situation is truth, including the truth about the cost of that war," Mulcair said.
> 
> *Baseline defence budget set to shrink*
> 
> At the same time, a close examination of the budget estimates also show the age of austerity is here to stay at National Defence, with baseline budget spending to expected to drop over the long term.
> Spending on the military is forecast to be six per cent lower in 2017-18 than it was when the deficit fight began, Perry said.
> 
> The reports, which lay out projected spending over several years, show Defence will get a slightly bigger baseline budget in 2016-17 of $19.2 billion, but will be cut to $18.7 billion in 2017-18, which is lower than the current forecast of $18.9 billion.
> 
> The figures are significant because the country is committed to a hot war in Iraq and Syria, and an emerging cold war in eastern Europe — both of which are not expected to be resolved any time soon, Perry said.
> 
> The defence policy "plan that's on the books now is intended to have the budget and spending grow every single year," he said. "That's not what's happening."
> 
> Kenney and others in the Conservative government have previously argued that they are spending 27 per cent more on the military than when they took office in 2006 — a figure that does not take into account the corrosive effect of inflation.
> 
> The government has also argued it has topped up the budget with extra appropriations, particularly for overseas missions.
> 
> Perry said the baseline budget is where all of the training, maintenance and preparations for those deployments are found. Those forecasts show deep cuts in readiness for all three branches of the military, made in the name of balancing the budget, will remain, he said.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/war-in-iraq-and-syria-will-cost-canada-528m-by-next-year-kenney-says-1.3018802


----------



## OldSolduer

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Regardless of which of the generally excellent officers is chosen he (and the DM and the MND) need to understand that the prime minister told them (back in 2012) that he wanted cuts to the defence superstructure. Prime Minster Harper singled out "corporate and institutional support and services," which is not very secret code for headquarters and real estate. In other words Prime Minister Harper told his MND (and through him the DM and CDS) that he wanted cuts to admirals and colonels and office buildings, not to combat units; but at least some of Peter MacKay, Rob Nicholson, Robert Fonberg, Richard Fadden, John Forster, Walt Natynczyk and Tom Lawson (and their subordinates) thought they knew better and they tied up ships and cut vehicle fleets instead ... they were wrong.
> 
> The new CDS needs to be smarter. He doesn't own the CF, the country does, he _administers_ the CF on behalf of the Government of Canada (Stephen Harper, _Prop._)



Amen ERC! Well said!


----------



## tomahawk6

The world is not a less dangerous place than it was 3 years ago.If anything it is more so.The threats come from a resurgent Russia and China,as well as from the islamists.Cutting defense capability is quite short sighted if savings can be found on the domestic spending side of the ledger,then thats the avenue to take.


----------



## bradley247

I couldn't disagree with you more ERC. The problems in the CF today are not because every MND and CDS has misinterpreted "The Great Stephen Harpers" grand vision for the CF...it's because we are a cash cow to fund his precious balanced budget, while at the same time promising not to cut troops. The CDS is such a shitty job because he has to both stand up for the CF and not butt heads with the government (I'm sure you can remember how much Harper loved Hillier). The PMO isn't nearly as hands off in running the CF as you are implying. 

Standing by for pro-Harper chewing out in 3...2...1


----------



## Edward Campbell

Cutting the C2 _bloat_, trimming HQs, lowering staff ranks to much more reasonable levels and so on should have been, and still should be, priorities for MNDs, DMs and CDSs. That those simple steps, _encouraged_ - even _directed_ - by the head of government, were not taken is inexcusable, _in my opinion_.

     The CF has too many officers.

          The CF has far, far too many flag and general officers.

               The CF has too many HQs.

                    Too many staff officers carry too much rank - it muddies the command/control relationship which should be clear and can be clear.

None of those problem, and they are, I suggest, very real problems that do material, measurable harm to the CF, are too hard to solve. They are all within the CDS' power to correct.


----------



## upandatom

bradley247 said:
			
		

> I couldn't disagree with you more ERC. The problems in the CF today are not because every MND and CDS has misinterpreted "The Great Stephen Harpers" grand vision for the CF...it's because we are a cash cow to fund his precious balanced budget, while at the same time promising not to cut troops. The CDS is such a shitty job because he has to both stand up for the CF and not butt heads with the government (I'm sure you can remember how much Harper loved Hillier). The PMO isn't nearly as hands off in running the CF as you are implying.
> 
> Standing by for pro-Harper chewing out in 3...2...1



No Chewing out here, 
I think they are all idiots. 

Im glad Vance is in there, Met him several times overseas and hes a great leader, perfect for the position. The reason why Uncle Rick was so well respected with the troops was because he allowed himself to be identifiable with them. Uncle Walt was able to the same on a not so grand scale as his predecessor. Lawson though, hard for any troops to identify with in any aspect, he was put in the job in a hard time. I think with Vance having such an impact on the operation in Afghanistan and being so well identifiable to the troops, he will excel in this role. He is not one to be pushed around by the GoC as well. 

Good on him, he Deserves the role and the respect that comes with it.


----------



## Navy_Pete

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Regardless of which of the generally excellent officers is chosen he (and the DM and the MND) need to understand that the prime minister told them (back in 2012) that he wanted cuts to the defence superstructure. Prime Minster Harper singled out "corporate and institutional support and services," which is not very secret code for headquarters and real estate. In other words Prime Minister Harper told his MND (and through him the DM and CDS) that he wanted cuts to admirals and colonels and office buildings, not to combat units; but at least some of Peter MacKay, Rob Nicholson, Robert Fonberg, Richard Fadden, John Forster, Walt Natynczyk and Tom Lawson (and their subordinates) thought they knew better and they tied up ships and cut vehicle fleets instead ... they were wrong.
> 
> The new CDS needs to be smarter. He doesn't own the CF, the country does, he _administers_ the CF on behalf of the Government of Canada (Stephen Harper, _Prop._)



Don't really care what Harper said; if you reduce the NP budget to the point where you can't buy parts or do maintenance on your whole fleet, and only do it on the higher priority ships, then what your public direction for the voters is doesn't matter.

The fact of the matter is the only way they can quickly reduce defence spending is to stop buying things and spending money.  That's what they did to create an artificial surplus, so they look good for the election.  They (the politicians) also instituted a ton more bullshit processes that have slowed down every single major procurement, which is another good way to defer spending.

Harper Government (tm) support for the CAF is about as real as an election day slogan, and they want to spend the absolute minimum on us that they can get away with and not lose voter support.  At least other parties are honest in their lack of support to operations.


----------



## Kirkhill

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ...Prime Minster Harper singled out "corporate and institutional support and services," which is not very secret code for headquarters and real estate. In other words Prime Minister Harper told his MND (and through him the DM and CDS) that he wanted cuts to admirals and colonels and office buildings, not to combat units; ....



Could support and services be expanded to trades and positions that don't hear the "crack-thump"?

The Government is funding 68,000 positions (more or less).  In addition to those command positions how many uniformed support positions could be "civilianized", even if they were designated for deserving, time-expired members?

It would change the balance on the liability side of things (more people in the line of fire and thus more risk) but equally it would open up more jobs for injured, experienced personnel while not detracting from the numbers potentially available for front line service.

Also, is there an opportunity to push further on the In-Service Support side of things and find a better balance between the three "traditional" models of service delivery:

 - private contractors - worked for the RN when all they had to do was deliver to the ship, not so well for the army where they had a tendency to flee

 - the independent government department - the Commissariat - major problems when the Commissariat accompanied the army into the field and demanded releases before handing out ammunition and other supplies

 - the "nation at war" system ofr WW1 and WW2 - where uniformed personnel managed everything from the factory gate, if not the factory floor, to the front line.

How far forward can "private" or "PWGSC" support and supply be trusted?  Can they be trusted to maintain an independent battle group in a timely fashion?  A Brigade?  Higher?

Are the Army's requirements different than those of the RCN and the RCAF? Intelligence?  I believe that there is a difference and that that difference can and should be exploited to get people out of the uniformed 68,000 (releasing them for combat positions) and into civilian positions similar to the Royal Fleet Auxiliary.

It would also have a significant impact on the procurement of equipment - perhaps more emphasis on "replacement in a timely fashion" rather than "never break and easy to repair".  Perhaps more use of civilian services and equipment where the bullets aren't flying and dedication of the available dollars to the front lines?


----------



## tomahawk6

I have previously advocated use of Reservists to fill some of these roles as we do in the US.We think it saves money and it does free up active duty personnel for other duty.


----------



## daftandbarmy

I think this guy is right, in terms of Harper's intentions:

http://vanguardcanada.com/what-future-the-combat-army/

Feet and knees together folks, this will likely be one helluva ride!


----------



## Eye In The Sky

bradley247 said:
			
		

> I couldn't disagree with you more ERC. The problems in the CF today are not because every MND and CDS has misinterpreted "The Great Stephen Harpers" grand vision for the CF...it's because we are a cash cow to fund his precious balanced budget, while at the same time promising not to cut troops. The CDS is such a shitty job because he has to both stand up for the CF and not butt heads with the government (I'm sure you can remember how much Harper loved Hillier). The PMO isn't nearly as hands off in running the CF as you are implying.
> 
> Standing by for pro-Harper chewing out in 3...2...1



Or perhaps a chewing out for being unprofessional towards the elected PM?  As the armed forces, our job is to follow direction from the elected officials, even if we don't agree with them personally.

The PM and government have to consider the wants and whinings of all Canadians, not just the small % of us in uniform.  I don't think there's much care and concern for our military that scratches below the surface from the average voting Canadian.  They would rather see their taxes dollars used elsewhere.

A government that ignores the wants of a majority of its citizens will soon find itself sidelined IMO.  Believing that in its simplistic form (although not completely accurate), I have said before and will say it again, the government will support and fund the CAF to the limit it believes it can without suffering major backlash from the average voting Canadian.


----------



## McG

The government's specific, clear direction is not just giving to Canadians what they want.  It is what the CAF needs.  Extraneous, bloated beuraucracy does not only consume resources to sustain itself, it also gets in the way of efficient command.

Instead of following the specific, clear direction - the CAF has build new layers of HQ and cut muscle to preserve fat.  But, the government that gave its very public direction has also been complicit in the failure to follow that same direction.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Could support and services be expanded to trades and positions that don't hear the "crack-thump"?
> 
> The Government is funding 68,000 positions (more or less).  In addition to those command positions how many uniformed support positions could be "civilianized", even if they were designated for deserving, time-expired members?
> 
> It would change the balance on the liability side of things (more people in the line of fire and thus more risk) but equally it would open up more jobs for injured, experienced personnel while not detracting from the numbers potentially available for front line service.
> 
> Also, is there an opportunity to push further on the In-Service Support side of things and find a better balance between the three "traditional" models of service delivery:
> 
> - private contractors - worked for the RN when all they had to do was deliver to the ship, not so well for the army where they had a tendency to flee
> 
> - the independent government department - the Commissariat - major problems when the Commissariat accompanied the army into the field and demanded releases before handing out ammunition and other supplies
> 
> - the "nation at war" system ofr WW1 and WW2 - where uniformed personnel managed everything from the factory gate, if not the factory floor, to the front line.
> 
> How far forward can "private" or "PWGSC" support and supply be trusted?  Can they be trusted to maintain an independent battle group in a timely fashion?  A Brigade?  Higher?
> 
> Are the Army's requirements different than those of the RCN and the RCAF? Intelligence?  I believe that there is a difference and that that difference can and should be exploited to get people out of the uniformed 68,000 (releasing them for combat positions) and into civilian positions similar to the Royal Fleet Auxiliary.
> 
> It would also have a significant impact on the procurement of equipment - perhaps more emphasis on "replacement in a timely fashion" rather than "never break and easy to repair".  Perhaps more use of civilian services and equipment where the bullets aren't flying and dedication of the available dollars to the front lines?




Those issues are beyond the CDS' remit. So is deciding on _how_ the CF is employed (the _Vanguard_ article linked by daftandbarmy). What he can do, with very, very little interference from anyone, is _adjust_ the CF's command and control superstructure; that's very much in his domain.


----------



## Kirkhill

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I have previously advocated use of Reservists to fill some of these roles as we do in the US.We think it saves money and it does free up active duty personnel for other duty.



A couple of excellent ways to manage personnel - 

Move time expired, or injured personnel to the rear as civilians with Reserve status that can be Called to the Colours as the situation warrants.

Hire civilians straight off the the street to supply technical skills through private ISS contractors. Offer those willing (and able) the opportunity to serve closer to the front lines as Reservists.  - That would also solve the problem of how do you find time to train Reservists - It would become a condition of their employment - Their employer, if he wanted to do business with DND would have to dedicate some percentage of the employees' time towards military training.

I can think of similar models being effective for Coast Guard manned AOPSs, a Canadian version of the Royal Fleet Auxilliary and also for the new Air Refuelling supply model - civilian in the rear, reservist/regular at the front.

I seem to recall that not all positions at KAF were uniformed positions - and not all truck drivers in Iraq were Army drivers.


----------



## Kirkhill

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Those issues are beyond the CDS' remit. So is deciding on _how_ the CF is employed (the _Vanguard_ article linked by daftandbarmy). What he can do, with very, very little interference from anyone, is _adjust_ the CF's command and control superstructure; that's very much in his domain.



Seen.

But if not the CDS then who?  Is it a civilian function or military function?  And would the military trust any decisions made by civilians?

(Sorry McG).


----------



## upandatom

How is adding Civilian positions trimming the fat?
The problem stems deeper.
From the Comms and support side-
It stems in certain positions that are integral to CAF operations and communications that are stuck with civilian employees that have hoarded information, protected themselves where the CAF would be crippled in some deployments should something happen because of the fact that they dont give up the information. They kick and they effin scream when someone tries to pull it out of them. They have created a protective bubble with information hoarding. 

If the IC of an OR, or a sigs section/ CO of a unit can effectively punish, or create just cause for terminating employee or holding them accountable that will clear a lot of bureaucratic red tape and overhead pay. It will hold them accountable so they are not untouchable as they were. 

Look at 202 DA, even with a fat trim of 80+ employees, the military personell are outnumber 4 to 1, and watch some civilian take 2 months a year vacation, they watch them sit on their asses during "Overtime" on a saturday meanwhile the military has to sit there and supervise them and not get any reimbursement for the extra hours they are putting in, but meanwhile for that civilian its going into 110+ hours a pay period Overtime. 

Adding civilians and having them get strangleholds on positions isnt going to fix anything. I say the opposite. Wipe them, offer them to medical releases. I know for a fact that going military to Civi is a difficult transition. Those that are medically released due to service injuries, should be accommodated for it. Not Joe Schmo off the streets that happens to win a competition that is absolutely biased.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Could support and services be expanded to trades and positions that don't hear the "crack-thump"?
> 
> The Government is funding 68,000 positions (more or less).  In addition to those command positions how many uniformed support positions could be "civilianized", even if they were designated for deserving, time-expired members?
> 
> It would change the balance on the liability side of things (more people in the line of fire and thus more risk) but equally it would open up more jobs for injured, experienced personnel while not detracting from the numbers potentially available for front line service.
> 
> Also, is there an opportunity to push further on the In-Service Support side of things and find a better balance between the three "traditional" models of service delivery:
> 
> - private contractors - worked for the RN when all they had to do was deliver to the ship, not so well for the army where they had a tendency to flee
> 
> - the independent government department - the Commissariat - major problems when the Commissariat accompanied the army into the field and demanded releases before handing out ammunition and other supplies
> 
> - the "nation at war" system ofr WW1 and WW2 - where uniformed personnel managed everything from the factory gate, if not the factory floor, to the front line.
> 
> How far forward can "private" or "PWGSC" support and supply be trusted?  Can they be trusted to maintain an independent battle group in a timely fashion?  A Brigade?  Higher?
> 
> Are the Army's requirements different than those of the RCN and the RCAF? Intelligence?  I believe that there is a difference and that that difference can and should be exploited to get people out of the uniformed 68,000 (releasing them for combat positions) and into civilian positions similar to the Royal Fleet Auxiliary.
> 
> It would also have a significant impact on the procurement of equipment - perhaps more emphasis on "replacement in a timely fashion" rather than "never break and easy to repair".  Perhaps more use of civilian services and equipment where the bullets aren't flying and dedication of the available dollars to the front lines?



This was actually trialed by the CF in late 1990s/early 2000s.  It was called "Alternate Service Delivery"  (ASD).  The goal from what I remember was to cut our uniformed supply train's static positions to almost nil while maintaining the integrated uniformed first line logistical support as per "normal".  Basically, in a Sup Tech sense, get ride of our base/garrison side positions and re-roll them into an almost purely civilian organization, in this case contractors, vice PS.  While maintaining QM staff, Ships Log Depts ect.  

Now I was an OS when this was "squashed" but I know it sent shock waves through the Log branch that this was even attempted.

http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_199911_27_e_10156.html


----------



## Kirkhill

Somewhere along the line, if change is going to happen, somebody's bull is going to be gored.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Somewhere along the line, if change is going to happen, somebody's bull is going to be gored.



Absolutely correct.  And the Log Branch bull is one that should be looked at.


----------



## upandatom

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Absolutely correct.  And the Log Branch bull is one that should be looked at.



Signals world should be number one. The amount of red tape "specialists" for a wide range of positions is worse, and the amount those pers are paid because of "knowledge"


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Absolutely correct.  And the Log Branch bull is one that should be looked at.


How so?


----------



## MilEME09

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Absolutely correct.  And the Log Branch bull is one that should be looked at.



I would argue the opposite, yes all branches have inefficiencies, however I think the support trades need to be expanded to decrease our dependance on civilian contractors.


----------



## Brasidas

upandatom said:
			
		

> Signals world should be number one. The amount of red tape "specialists" for a wide range of positions is worse, and the amount those pers are paid because of "knowledge"



Someone's not a fan of Calian?


----------



## Halifax Tar

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> How so?



*** OFF TOPIC ***

First of all I said it should be looked at, not necessarily "gored".

A few areas that should be looked at:

-  Personnel Management
-  Trade(s) Justification and realignment 
-  Business Processes 
-  Operational Role(s) 
-  Basic Soldiering Ability (Lack of a better term for individual operational capabilities)


----------



## Kirkhill

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> I would argue the opposite, yes all branches have inefficiencies, however I think the support trades need to be expanded to decrease our dependance on civilian contractors.




My problem is that I can't see hiring civilians to pull triggers.  I can see hiring civilians to turn wrenches and to drive trucks and even to supply some forms of intelligence.  

Therefore if I want to optimize the number of trigger pullers I can field within my budget of 68,000 people then I should minimize the number of truck drivers and wrench-jockeys in uniform.

You will never eliminate the number of positions - you need some people that even if not pulling triggers are willing to do "support" jobs where the bullets are flying.  But do you really need (as many) uniformed personnel throughout the support system operating in places where there is no hazard to life or limb?

As to the civilians hoarding info and dogging it on the job.... I'm sure there are bodies in uniform quite capable of operating exactly the same way.

Equally, I am sure that a private contractor has more options at his disposal to motivate personnel than does a public service shop.

And I consider Lockmart (and Irving) to be something half way and between a private contractor and a government agency.  Contrasting organizations would be Austal and Odense Maritime Technology (and perhaps, hopefully Washington Marine).


----------



## Halifax Tar

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> My problem is that I can't see hiring civilians to pull triggers.  I can see hiring civilians to turn wrenches and to drive trucks and even to supply some forms of intelligence.
> 
> Therefore if I want to optimize the number of trigger pullers I can field within my budget of 68,000 people then I should minimize the number of truck drivers and wrench-jockeys in uniform.
> 
> You will never eliminate the number of positions - you need some people that even if not pulling triggers are willing to do "support" jobs where the bullets are flying.  But do you really need (as many) uniformed personnel throughout the support system operating in places where there is no hazard to life or limb?
> 
> As to the civilians hoarding info and dogging it on the job.... I'm sure there are bodies in uniform quite capable of operating exactly the same way.
> 
> Equally, I am sure that a private contractor has more options at his disposal to motivate personnel than does a public service shop.
> 
> And I consider Lockmart (and Irving) to be something half way and between a private contractor and a government agency.  Contrasting organizations would be Austal and Odense Maritime Technology (and perhaps, hopefully Washington Marine).



I would agree with what you are saying.  I did two tours NSE in Afg.  There were a good number of people in my organisation that wouldn't, couldn't or didn't want to go OTW.  There were a great many "Static" positions that could have been given over to a contractor with our main focus being on CLPs, FLGs and FP.  This all ties into my point about operational roles and what is basically IBTS.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> My problem is that I can't see hiring civilians to pull triggers.  I can see hiring civilians to turn wrenches and to drive trucks and even to supply some forms of intelligence.
> 
> Therefore if I want to optimize the number of trigger pullers I can field within my budget of 68,000 people then I should minimize the number of truck drivers and wrench-jockeys in uniform.
> 
> You will never eliminate the number of positions - you need some people that even if not pulling triggers are willing to do "support" jobs where the bullets are flying.  But do you really need (as many) uniformed personnel throughout the support system operating in places where there is no hazard to life or limb?
> 
> As to the civilians hoarding info and dogging it on the job.... I'm sure there are bodies in uniform quite capable of operating exactly the same way.
> 
> Equally, I am sure that a private contractor has more options at his disposal to motivate personnel than does a public service shop.
> 
> And I consider Lockmart (and Irving) to be something half way and between a private contractor and a government agency.  Contrasting organizations would be Austal and Odense Maritime Technology (and perhaps, hopefully Washington Marine).



I agree that support should be looked at for realignment or cuts and that many positions (base side) could be made civilian, though I doubt this would save much in the way of money. Service Bn, ships log divisions, and some air log positions should be completely military though for operational reasons.

That said, if we're going to cut than we need to look at a full range of cuts that should be made. 

- why do we pay for a reserve bde/div structure that is outdated, undeployable, and inefficient?

- what capabilities do we really need based on tasks and what can we do without/keep for emotional reasons? tanks, fighter aircraft, submarines and other specialty capabilities need to be rationalized as well in the same way that AT and AD were and there needs to be a REAL thought on what we want out military to be/accomplish.

- what bases do we need. Do we need more bases or less, andwhat ones offer the most bang for the buck? ie- could we close edmonton, and amalgamate 1 CMBG in Shilo or Wainwright? 

Once,and only once, that is done than the logisitical tail should be looked at.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Bases have already been shrunk down enough, fighters are operational every day of the year, submarines sail operationally without 99% of the CAF knowing and tanks were used operationally in the sandbox.

Sorry but the "tooth" has been reduced and crippled enough already.   What needs to be reduced is any and all things "tail" starting with HQs.  We need to change the way we think and prioritize.  Commanders at all levels who don't get with the program to reduce the tail, as directed, should be replaced.  Full stop.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> I agree that support should be looked at for realignment or cuts and that many positions (base side) could be made civilian, though I doubt this would save much in the way of money. Service Bn, ships log divisions, and some air log positions should be completely military though for operational reasons.
> 
> That said, if we're going to cut than we need to look at a full range of cuts that should be made.
> 
> - why do we pay for a reserve bde/div structure that is outdated, undeployable, and inefficient? Excellent question and it should be on the CDS "to do" list, but it is fraught with difficulties ~ many of them political and _I suspect_ that other CDSs who have tried to reform the reserves have found the task too long and complex.
> 
> - what capabilities do we really need based on tasks and what can we do without/keep for emotional reasons? tanks, fighter aircraft, submarines and other specialty capabilities need to be rationalized as well in the same way that AT and AD were and there needs to be a REAL thought on what we want out military to be/accomplish. Another good question and one in which the CDS should take some interest, should make some contributions, but, in the end, a policy question and, therefore, the province of others, like PM Harper and Ms Charette.
> 
> - what bases do we need. Do we need more bases or less, andwhat ones offer the most bang for the buck? ie- could we close edmonton, and amalgamate 1 CMBG in Shilo or Wainwright? Once again, a good question and another in which the CDS should offer some advice, but also a very, very political question with all those inherent difficulties.
> 
> Once,and only once, that is done than the logisitical tail should be looked at.


----------



## Kirkhill

I don't take issue with the need to cut at the HQ level, nor rationalizing / eliminating the reserve force as is, nor rationalizing bases and infrastructure.

I guess what I am saying is, starting from the Front Line Own Troops, when can you start feeding civilians into the mix so as to leave as many trigger pullers as possible up front.  

And before I get taken to task on concentrating on trigger pullers I do recognize the need for people to do specialized work in the face of enemy fire ...... 

But, in WW1 the tendency was to go and find miners and teach them to mine in a military manner and look after their rifle - as opposed to finding soldiers and teaching them how to be miners - or worse find civilians and teaching them how to be both miners and soldiers.

Myself, I would be looking for trained tradesmen and asking which of them want to practice their trade for Queen and Country.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I don't take issue with the need to cut at the HQ level, nor rationalizing / eliminating the reserve force as is, nor rationalizing bases and infrastructure.
> 
> I guess what I am saying is, starting from the Front Line Own Troops, when can you start feeding civilians into the mix so as to leave as many trigger pullers as possible up front.
> 
> And before I get taken to task on concentrating on trigger pullers I do recognize the need for people to do specialized work in the face of enemy fire ......
> 
> But, in WW1 the tendency was to go and find miners and teach them to mine in a military manner and look after their rifle - as opposed to finding soldiers and teaching them how to be miners - or worse find civilians and teaching them how to be both miners and soldiers.
> 
> Myself, I would be looking for trained tradesmen and asking which of them want to practice their trade for Queen and Country.



I agree with the thought of finding civilian trained specialists and making them soldiers vice the opposite way around, increasing job flexibility for serving members, and ridding ourselves of a personnel management system that dates back to the industrial age. The problem that arises (potentially at least) is needing to pay those persons the going civilian rate to do their craft, which can be far more expensive than giving the job to a pte/Cpl at $30-50,000/year (even knowing that there's a good chance that the pte/cpl will leave for civie street once their contract is up).


----------



## MilEME09

Perhaps we need to look then where we can push civilians contractors into position to maximize people in operational units. Rolling base maintenance over to all civilian with maybe a hand full of military personal as quality control might be a place to start. Free up more people to be attached to operational units and service battalions.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Bases have already been shrunk down enough, fighters are operational every day of the year, submarines sail operationally without 99% of the CAF knowing and tanks were used operationally in the sandbox.
> 
> Sorry but the "tooth" has been reduced and crippled enough already.   What needs to be reduced is any and all things "tail" starting with HQs.  We need to change the way we think and prioritize.  Commanders at all levels who don't get with the program to reduce the tail, as directed, should be replaced.  Full stop.



I would argue that we keep bases for the sake of keeping the bases. Take Shilo- a base for 2 units of 1 CMBG. Why not just put those units in Edmonton to train out of Wainwright (or Suffield when BATUS isn't in play) or move the Edmonton garrison (with no real training area) to Shilo and let the reserves train out of Wainwright. 

I should digress somewhat in that I used fighters and subs as basic examples, not neccessarily as THE examples. Subs would seem to have a low priority for a small navy like Canada, but at some point we have to look at our manning and say, "what can we do well", "what do we really need", and "how can we best accomplish our mission". If those questions mean that niche capabilities such as subs, GBAD, AT, etc go away to put bodies and money into the key enablers that we're looking for than agree.

Finally, I agree that we need to trim the tail. I just suggest that we figure out what military we want (based on a realistic and not emotional rationale) and than tailor the support to that force. We can't meet PY numbers as is for the wide range of capabilities we field, so it's not ALL the tail's fault.


----------



## MilEME09

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> I would argue that we keep bases for the sake of keeping the bases. Take Shilo- a base for 2 units of 1 CMBG. Why not just put those units in Edmonton to train out of Wainwright (or Suffield when BATUS isn't in play) or move the Edmonton garrison (with no real training area) to Shilo and let the reserves train out of Wainwright.



I would disagree with this, as closing any more bases would hurt Dom Ops response time in the various provinces if you start axing bases, as well both bases used as example (edmonton and Shilo) have room to expand if the CF does. It's a lot easier to close a base then it is to open one.


----------



## McG

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I guess what I am saying is, starting from the Front Line Own Troops, when can you start feeding civilians into the mix so as to leave as many trigger pullers as possible up front.


This is not necessarily a clean-cut question.  Domestic garrison work that could be provided by civilians may be provided by service personnel who are needed when we deploy.  Base kitchens could be all civilian cooks, but it is the military cooks in those kitchens who end-up also following units to the field or on operations.  

We have been through the experiment of out-sourcing services [Google "Most Efficient Organization (MEO)"]. In some cases, the in-place DND assets entered the public ASD solicitation to continue providing the service and it was the DND assets that would win.

 I think much of what could be pruned has been pruned at the service provider end.  What could be civilianized was civilianized ... then when other cuts came in years later it, it was the civilianized positions that were cut to return SWE money.



			
				Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I would agree with what you are saying.  I did two tours NSE in Afg.  There were a good number of people in my organisation that wouldn't, couldn't or didn't want to go OTW.  There were a great many "Static" positions that could have been given over to a contractor with our main focus being on CLPs, FLGs and FP.  This all ties into my point about operational roles and what is basically IBTS.


That was one very specific theatre.  If we design our force exclusively to fight that war again, then we will have committed to being irrelevant in any future peer or near-peer conflict.  This is much the same as how we first suffered in Afghanistan for capabilities allowed to atrophy because they were not required for Bosnia.



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Sorry but the "tooth" has been reduced and crippled enough already.   What needs to be reduced is any and all things "tail" starting with HQs.  We need to change the way we think and prioritize.  Commanders at all levels who don't get with the program to reduce the tail, as directed, should be replaced.  Full stop.


Yes.  HQ bloat is the place to start for big savings or reinvestment.


----------



## Rifleman62

No one has mentioned that these civilian workers will be in a union. Possibly not at the start of a change, but eventually.


----------



## Ostrozac

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> I would disagree with this, as closing any more bases would hurt Dom Ops response time in the various provinces if you start axing bases, as well both bases used as example (edmonton and Shilo) have room to expand if the CF does. It's a lot easier to close a base then it is to open one.



Domestic response time is a bit of a red herring. There is only one IRU on standby for all of LFWA/3 Div-- it is supposed to deploy in support of either JTF West or Pacific, and the largest cities in the west are Vancouver and Calgary, which already don't have Army bases. The standby IRU will launch, if required, out of either Shilo or Edmonton, and it's already a long way from Shilo to Vancouver.

I remember that 2 Bde exercised deploying by airlift the IRU HQ and Vanguard Coy from Petawawa to Thunder Bay a few years back. Similarly, the LFAA/5 Div IRU is always staged out of Gagetown -- if there's an issue in Newfoundland, then it's off to the airhead. It's been done before.

Now, I do agree that we shouldn't be closing any more bases. I think that the environmental cleanup costs alone would bankrupt us. We're stuck with what we have until cleanup technology becomes much much cheaper. Oh, and whenever the Brits get tired of using Suffield, we'll have to find a use for it. Cleaning up that place and turning it into a park just wouldn't be an option.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> I would disagree with this, as closing any more bases would hurt Dom Ops response time in the various provinces if you start axing bases, as well both bases used as example (edmonton and Shilo) have room to expand if the CF does. It's a lot easier to close a base then it is to open one.



Perhaps the "DOMOPS" task could be part of a rationalization of the role of the reserves, leaving the regular force for expeditionary ops as a primary and domestic ops as a secondary task? This would allow for a base closure or two (and associated savings on O&M costs) which could allow for the purchase of a stronger "real" support structure, including C-17s, trucks to move pers, etc, etc.

In reality close to 50% of the budget goes to personnel costs (I know it was 49% a couple years ago- if someone knows the 2014/2015 FY figure feel free to correct me), so the majority of savings will come from the O&M budget. Reducing HQs would be a great start in lowering costs and must happen, but I dont believe that it alone will come anywhere near creating the savings we believe it will without a rational lowering of O&M costs.

Further, we can't get/retain enough people to come close to meeting our PY allotment. Cutting 1000 HQ (and yes, its important) positions doesn't necessarily mean that there will magically be 1000 PYs in front line units. Retention of front line personnel is critical if we are really going to increase the teeth as well as rational cuts to front line capabilities not 100% required and cuts to "base-side" type positions that are keeping combat arm/hard sea/hard air personnel from their primary duties. Admittedly, retention is not a simple issue, so the elimination of the nice to have positions is the easiest target.

Finally, I _believe_ that part of the problem with gaining and retaining front line pers is the same reason why Maple Leaf foods in Brandon has to bring in foreign workers- Canadians prefer office type jobs (in our case, HQs) to physical labour jobs.


----------



## MilEME09

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Perhaps the "DOMOPS" task could be part of a rationalization of the role of the reserves, leaving the regular force for expeditionary ops as a primary and domestic ops as a secondary task? This would allow for a base closure or two (and associated savings on O&M costs) which could allow for the purchase of a stronger "real" support structure, including C-17s, trucks to move pers, etc, etc.



The last briefing I had from ARCC and others about a year ago said exactly this, and I've said it a few times on this forum that the army want's to shift 90% of dom ops to Pres, and Reg force doing 90% international operations, the other 10% being picked up by the other side for various reasons (such as specialized equipment needed for a dom op). Problem is DND seems to not want to execute this vision properly because it means more money to the reserves to give them kit like bridging equipment for example during floods. The structure of the reserves also doesn't support it well because if I said to my employer I need an unknown amount of time off to do disaster relief in BC or Manitoba. I'd probably get told to take a hike, you want reserves deploying on mass? training us to be a deployable sub-unit not just a force multiplier to augment the reg force. then give us the job protection so we feel comfortable with leaving our jobs for days/weeks to do these ops.


----------



## PuckChaser

Brasidas said:
			
		

> Someone's not a fan of Calian?



Didn't we layoff most of the double dippers Calian staff when the budget crashed? There's sure as heck not many walking around CFSCE anymore, only few I saw were running the EMBL (there's some money savings for you).


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> The last briefing I had from ARCC and others about a year ago said exactly this, and I've said it a few times on this forum that the army want's to shift 90% of dom ops to Pres, and Reg force doing 90% international operations, the other 10% being picked up by the other side for various reasons (such as specialized equipment needed for a dom op). Problem is DND seems to not want to execute this vision properly because it means more money to the reserves to give them kit like bridging equipment for example during floods. The structure of the reserves also doesn't support it well because if I said to my employer I need an unknown amount of time off to do disaster relief in BC or Manitoba. I'd probably get told to take a hike, you want reserves deploying on mass? training us to be a deployable sub-unit not just a force multiplier to augment the reg force. then give us the job protection so we feel comfortable with leaving our jobs for days/weeks to do these ops.



Agree with your sentiments. If the reserve was rationalized, understrength units merged or eliminated (ie- Reserve Arty bty in Yarmouth, NS), and protection for reservists granted (which seems like a relatively simple political thing, though in politics nothing is simple) than I believe we could see more efficient structures, freeing up the money for training. To me, this would mean going all in on the concept, minimizing/eliminating reserve combat training above a Coy level (reserve Bde exes), and purchasing the required equipment. I also believe that it would be easier for reserve units to keep pers in this role as they would feel more appreciated, as it were, than being treated as a second fiddle to reg force units.


----------



## Brasidas

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Didn't we layoff most of the double dippers Calian staff when the budget crashed? There's sure as heck not many walking around CFSCE anymore, only few I saw were running the EMBL (there's some money savings for you).



Its been years since I've been back at CFSCE. Saw a few over at the LTF in Edmonton a couple weeks ago. I remember gripes about them when I was in Kingston.


----------



## Ostrozac

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> The last briefing I had from ARCC and others about a year ago said exactly this, and I've said it a few times on this forum that the army want's to shift 90% of dom ops to Pres, and Reg force doing 90% international operations, the other 10% being picked up by the other side for various reasons (such as specialized equipment needed for a dom op). Problem is DND seems to not want to execute this vision properly because it means more money to the reserves to give them kit like bridging equipment for example during floods. The structure of the reserves also doesn't support it well because if I said to my employer I need an unknown amount of time off to do disaster relief in BC or Manitoba. I'd probably get told to take a hike, you want reserves deploying on mass? training us to be a deployable sub-unit not just a force multiplier to augment the reg force. then give us the job protection so we feel comfortable with leaving our jobs for days/weeks to do these ops.



I agree. When I served on RSS the unit was full of experienced, motivated soldiers -- all of whom had day jobs. When the next October Crisis/Red River Flood hits, I don't expect that the RCMP and the city police will be keen to let their guys go into uniform on short notice. It was even worse with my soldiers that were DND civilians -- their skill overlap with their day jobs was of fantastic value to both organizations, but their day job supervisors weren't keen on letting them down tools instantly in a time of crisis. 

Now, given 6 to 12 months notice, can their organizations spare them for a tour in Iraq or Afghanistan? Absolutely. With enough advance notice, it's not  much more disruptive than parental leave. The reserves remain a fantastic manpower pool for extended (Roto 2+) expeditionary operations.

I'm not sure who came up with the idea that reservists should be a short notice local response force, but the idea doesn't jive with the reserve unit that I served with. Plus, the IRU tasking itself (4 Bns on standby, no special equipment, minimal training bill, deploying very occasionally) doesn't seem to be that much of a burden on the regular field force, so even in the long term if it is divested entirely to a growing TBG/ARCG capability, I don't think the regular field force would see much of a savings.


----------



## dapaterson

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Perhaps the "DOMOPS" task could be part of a rationalization of the role of the reserves, leaving the regular force for expeditionary ops as a primary and domestic ops as a secondary task? This would allow for a base closure or two (and associated savings on O&M costs) which could allow for the purchase of a stronger "real" support structure, including C-17s, trucks to move pers, etc, etc.



That's about as ass backwards as you can get.  If you're paying someone 24/7, they are the logical ones to respond to short-notice tasks - like domestic emergencies.  For deployed ops where there is a longer ramp-up time for roto 1 and beyond, leverage the Reserves.  Indeed, since a large chunk of such missions tends to be the combat arms, which are the lower-training skillsets, it makes more sense to vest them in the Reserves with a small Reg F that can do roto 0 unsupported, roto 1 augmented, and roto 2+ with 30%+ from the Reserves, saving those 68000 positions (not really that many - read on) for the high-skillset personnel needed.

As for 68000: there ain't no such animal.  Historic attrition is 7% (surges and down, year over year, but the long-term plan should be based on 7%).  Current training times average about 2 years to the OFP (that's the point where someone can be employed in their military occupation.  This varies greatly between occupations, and between officers and NCMs.  It is heavily weighted by the long time it takes to train ROTP officers - they are pre-OFP throughout their university studies and for whatever time it takes them to be trained in their occupation after graduation).  Thus, at any one time, we have two years worth of attrition in the training pipeline - that's 14% of our 68000, or about 9500, leaving 58500 trained strength.  There's usually about 500 ending their careers and thus on final leave, and another 1000 or so with long-term medical conditions.  Thus, you're left with 57000 of 68000 who are employable; and about 1000 of those are on advanced training of some sort, meaning our 68000 are now winnowed down to 56000.


(EDIT: expanded on OFP a bit)


----------



## MilEME09

dapaterson: I think this just shows again DND doesn't have it's priorities correct. If done properly CFRG should be one of the most effective and efficient parts of the CF filled with people that would be great at recruiting people. If you were to include the reserves in your math, then the numbers would just get worse, we just held an open house, about 70 people in the door, 30 application packages were taken, of that we expect to get five actual applications to the CF, one might get past BMQ.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

dapaterson said:
			
		

> That's about as *** backwards as you can get.  If you're paying someone 24/7, they are the logical ones to respond to short-notice tasks - like domestic emergencies.  For deployed ops where there is a longer ramp-up time for roto 1 and beyond, leverage the Reserves.  Indeed, since a large chunk of such missions tends to be the combat arms, which are the lower-training skillsets, it makes more sense to vest them in the Reserves with a small Reg F that can do roto 0 unsupported, roto 1 augmented, and roto 2+ with 30%+ from the Reserves, saving those 68000 positions (not really that many - read on) for the high-skillset personnel needed.
> 
> As for 68000: there ain't no such animal.  Historic attrition is 7% (surges and down, year over year, but the long-term plan should be based on 7%).  Current training times average about 2 years to the OFP (that's the point where someone can be employed in their military occupation.  This is heavily weighted by the long time it takes to train ROTP officers).  Thus, at any one time, we have two years worth of attrition in the training pipeline - that's 14% of our 68000, or about 9500, leaving 58500 trained strength.  There's usually about 500 ending their careers and thus on final leave, and another 1000 or so with long-term medical conditions.  Thus, you're left with 57000 of 68000 who are employable; and about 1000 of those are on advanced training of some sort, meaning our 68000 are now winnowed down to 56000.



I disagree that it's *** backwards as it gets.

Your comments on a Roto 0, Roto 1 scenario are entirely correct and that's why I stated that Reserve training could be up to a Coy level (not because a Coy will deploy, but because it would expose Pl Comds/Pl WOs to a larger op before augmenting a regular force unit. There is no requirement to train reserves any higher than this in a COMBAT role as the days of industrial age warfare that would require a Reserve bde to deploy whole are gone. There's no task, no equipment, and no desire for it, so why waste money training for no need?

As for the DOMOP task, I would argue that it makes sense that local units would be able to better react to local needs than to bring in Regular force units. Granted, this would require a significant modification of the current reserve charter and protection for workers, but having reserve/militia units called out "in support of the local power" is not unprecedented and was extremely common in the past (before we moved to our current reserve structure). Moreover, being engaged in DOMOPs would also be a legitimate task for a reserve Bde HQ and leadership.

As this thread is about budgets and how we can save money, my point is that we (the CAF and government) need a REALISTIC and not emotional valuation of what it is that the CAF will be expected to perform. In a perfect world Canada would have a division size army, including divisional force multipliers (real GS regiment, AH, etc) and a reserve structure fully equipped to move up to support the regular force. However, this is unfeasible under current funding and government direction. So, understanding that the reserves will provide 1 for 1 augmentation and rationalizing reserve capabilities/formations accordingly (perhaps up to disbandment of reserve armour for example) would be a way to focus resources on a task that the reserves could really be expected to do.

As for your numbers on the 68,000, I also track that we are usually -15% to -25% of effective strength due to various reasons, with the higher number being attributed to TCAT/PCAT pers. However, the CAF cannot come close to meeting the 56,000 that you state as a winnowed state, let alone the 68,000. So, as stated, we cannot meet our 68,000 PYs due to retention and recruitment shortfalls, regardless of their status in the force.


----------



## MilEME09

On a different note, I was looking on the Reserve Employment opportunity website, and I noticed the vast majority of positions open are clerks. It makes me wonder, do we even need clerks in the reserves? can these positions be filled by civilians for cheaper? or even in the reg force could it be done for cheaper? I'm sure you can find plenty of accountants looking for work that could be employed in finance roles.


----------



## McG

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> On a different note, I was looking on the Reserve Employment opportunity website, and I noticed the vast majority of positions open are clerks.


I suspect a large part of these were MATA/PATA backfills?

Every time I have deployed, there have been clerks that deployed with me.  I have never seen bandsmen, TDOs nor PSOs deployed anywhere.  Let's start with these if one is looking for whole occupations to cut.


----------



## MilEME09

MCG said:
			
		

> I suspect a large part of these were MATA/PATA backfills?
> 
> Every time I have deployed, there have been clerks that deployed with me.  I have never seen bandsmen, TDOs nor PSOs deployed anywhere.  Let's start with these if one is looking for whole occupations to cut.



As a whole I wonder if there are any trades that can be safely divested to our civilian counter parts?


----------



## McG

How about bandsman?


----------



## MilEME09

MCG said:
			
		

> How about bandsman?



Chaplain, Cooks (in most cases), Dental officers?, Public affairs officers (this should really be a position not a trade, as according to forces.ca), Training Development Officer (again position not a trade). 

this is just going off forces.ca


----------



## dapaterson

MCG said:
			
		

> I suspect a large part of these were MATA/PATA backfills?
> 
> Every time I have deployed, there have been clerks that deployed with me.  I have never seen bandsmen, TDOs nor PSOs deployed anywhere.  Let's start with these if one is looking for whole occupations to cut.



The average Army Reserve unit will have three full-time Reserve clerk positions, plus one Reg F clerk.  Not excessive, given the work required (and the fact that people take leave, go on course etc).

TDOs were deploying regularly to Sierra Leone from about 2000 onwards.  Of course, there were no lessons to be learned; they were establishing training systems for a third world military that we and our allies were working to re-establish.  Where could that knowledge possibly have been applied.

PSOs deployed individually to Afghanistan doing a variety of studies as requested by the Army and force employers.


If we want to look at occupations to reduce in size, may I suggest MARE, RCEME, AERE and the various flavours of Sigs officers?  They infest NDHQ by the hundreds, working on projects.  Because they are frequently rotated, projects suffer.  Moving to civilian professionals in project management who would remain with projects for the majority of the project's life would improve performance.

Chaplains are extremely worthwhile.  Dentists could easily be outsourced (perhaps moving the military to the public service model of finding their own dental services on the economy, with contract dentists to confirm dental fitness for deployment).


And remember: in the 1990s, someone, somewhere, decided that musicians were more important than physical fitness instructors as trades in the CAF.


----------



## OldSolduer

MCG said:
			
		

> How about bandsman?



Yes. I have the honour of being the RSM of a Reserve Band and Pipes and Drums. They can outperform any Reg Force Band out there.

The issue is one of availability. Since they are all Reservists, they can't drop everything to play at short notice.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

MCG said:
			
		

> I suspect a large part of these were MATA/PATA backfills?
> 
> Every time I have deployed, there have been clerks that deployed with me.  I have never seen bandsmen, TDOs nor PSOs deployed anywhere.  Let's start with these if one is looking for whole occupations to cut.



I know of a PSO Maj who deployed - Official Visits O.   ^-^


----------



## Eye In The Sky

One of the big factors, IMO, to consider and plan for when discussing closing bases and reserve units down is politics.  No MP, provincial MLA or mayor is going to clap if they find out that a base or unit is going to go away and with it, the associated $.


----------



## blacktriangle

Given Canada's geography, I'd let the army take a hit to better equip the AF and Navy. 

But if we truly have commissioned 25% of the Reg Force, I'd say we've lost the initiative to do just about anything useful.


----------



## upandatom

Spectrum said:
			
		

> Given Canada's geography, I'd let the army take a hit to better equip the AF and Navy.
> 
> But if we truly have commissioned 25% of the Reg Force, I'd say we've lost the initiative to do just about anything useful.



None should have to take a hit. Reducing your forces in any way shape or form in the way this world is now is the polar opposite of what we should be doing. 

Number one we should be doing is peeling away pensions after 8 years for MPs, look at the wages there. They already have 95% of their day to day living cost covered through the government, why are they paid so much and able to submit claims for everything.


----------



## blacktriangle

upandatom said:
			
		

> None should have to take a hit. Reducing your forces in any way shape or form in the way this world is now is the polar opposite of what we should be doing.
> 
> Number one we should be doing is peeling away pensions after 8 years for MPs, look at the wages there. They already have 95% of their day to day living cost covered through the government, why are they paid so much and able to submit claims for everything.



Sure, let me know how that one goes.


----------



## OldSolduer

upandatom said:
			
		

> Number one we should be doing is peeling away pensions after 8 years for MPs, look at the wages there. They already have 95% of their day to day living cost covered through the government, why are they paid so much and able to submit claims for everything.



Different department. We can't nor should we point fingers and complain. Senate and Member of Parliament reform is beyond our control.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Was that TF 2011?  I swear the officers out numbered the troops 2:1


----------



## PuckChaser

Or every roto of Op ATTENTION....


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

I'm being literal though. It was brutal.


----------



## McG

The ATTENTION rotos were imbalanced, but our ranks were consistent with allies in the organizations that Canada had representation.  The mission was not so much a symptom of Canadian rank inflation but a symptom of NATO/US rank inflation and our desire to staff both senior allied HQs and an ANA medical school.

Our rank inflation problem is in Ottawa, Kingston, Winnipeg and an assortment of other HQ centric locations.


----------



## Ostrozac

upandatom said:
			
		

> Number one we should be doing is peeling away pensions after 8 years for MPs, look at the wages there. They already have 95% of their day to day living cost covered through the government, why are they paid so much and able to submit claims for everything.



Not much real savings to be found, there. The whole of the parliamentary budget comes to approx $600 million a year, while the defence budget clocks in at $19 billion. Even if you squeezed parliament by another 10 or 20 percent, it wouldn't free up that much money in the big picture of the government budget.

Actually, now that I think about it, I think that the biggest cost of parliament isn't salary, pensions and travel, it's infrastructure. Running heritage buildings to modern standards is expensive, and I think the renovation project of the Hill runs several billions. So if you're serious about saving money through parliamentary reform, then moving them to a modern building is probably the only way to do it.

But talking about the expense of a heritage building is boring -- so instead we are employing auditors to look at receipts for bacon and eggs, and conduct a food blogger review of Air Canada inflight menus.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

MCG said:
			
		

> The ATTENTION rotos were imbalanced, but our ranks were consistent with allies in the organizations that Canada had representation.  The mission was not so much a symptom of Canadian rank inflation but a symptom of NATO/US rank inflation and our desire to staff both senior allied HQs and an ANA medical school.
> 
> Our rank inflation problem is in Ottawa, Kingston, Winnipeg and an assortment of other HQ centric locations.



I seriously doubt the close down tour had the correct balance of officers vs troops.


----------



## Monsoon

Spectrum said:
			
		

> Given Canada's geography, I'd let the army take a hit to better equip the AF and Navy.
> 
> But if we truly have commissioned 25% of the Reg Force, I'd say we've lost the initiative to do just about anything useful.


According to DHRIM, trained officers make up 20% of the paid strength of the Reg F. That includes large overhead organizations that are composed almost exclusively of officers, so in the operational chains of command you can bet it's significantly less.


----------



## Remius

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> According to DHRIM, trained officers make up 20% of the paid strength of the Reg F. That includes large overhead organizations that are composed almost exclusively of officers, so in the operational chains of command you can bet it's significantly less.



I could count on two hands how many NCMs I encountered at JAG.  Most of that organisation is officers (for obvious reasons) and civilians.  Working rank was at the Major level (again for obvious reasons).


----------



## dapaterson

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> According to DHRIM, trained officers make up 20% of the paid strength of the Reg F. That includes large overhead organizations that are composed almost exclusively of officers, so in the operational chains of command you can bet it's significantly less.



If we look only at trained officers, that should be as a proportion of trained strength, not total strength, for an apples to apples comparison.  So, if we drop OCdts and 2Lts from the calculation, we need to drop Pte(R) and Pte(B) as well.  That gives over 23% officers; moving to total strength including untrained the number is over 24%.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

I would definitely agree that we have too many officers, which is a result of the mass amount of HQs we have and the subsequent "need' for officers to man those HQs. But aside from fiscal considerations and waste in salaries (there was a captain who was paid 2 years of Capt pay to work in the arty museum) there is the secondary effect of, IMHO, limiting the effectiveness of the officer corps as a whole. 

The reason is, to me, that Jr officers spend far too little time in front line units learning their craft and becoming proficient, or god forbid- good, at it and far too much time bouncing around positions to check boxes and within HQs of dubious requirement learning "lessons" about "how the real army works". Jr Officers should be spending a minimum of 5 years at the tactical level to learn their trade and leadership, than bounce to a HQ for a small amount of time. This only works, however, when you aren't recruiting 20 officers for 5 positions with the intent of casting 5 of them off to HQs.


----------



## OldSolduer

While we're at it, can we develop software that actually works? It seems to me CFTPO, Monitor Mass, RPSR, etc can't communicate well with each other.


----------



## Monsoon

dapaterson said:
			
		

> If we look only at trained officers, that should be as a proportion of trained strength, not total strength, for an apples to apples comparison.  So, if we drop OCdts and 2Lts from the calculation, we need to drop Pte(R) and Pte(B) as well.  That gives over 23% officers; moving to total strength including untrained the number is over 24%.


Patently false. Including the untrained strength for both sides yields a result that is still much closer to 20%. Set down the axe you're grinding and run your numbers again.


----------



## dapaterson

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Patently false. Including the untrained strength for both sides yields a result that is still much closer to 20%. Set down the axe you're grinding and run your numbers again.



You mean take the statistical report from DHRIM dated yesterday, take the total number of officers (Gen through OCdt), and divide by the total number of Reg F personnel?

That's what I did.


EDIT:  Alternatively, I could take the PSRs from DPGR and compare the TEE for officers vs NCMs.  I do not have those figures at hand; maybe that can be a tomorrow thing to do.


----------



## Monsoon

dapaterson said:
			
		

> You mean take the statistical report from DHRIM dated yesterday, take the total number of officers (Gen through OCdt), and divide by the total number of Reg F personnel?
> 
> That's what I did.
> 
> 
> EDIT:  Alternatively, I could take the PSRs from DPGR and compare the TEE for officers vs NCMs.  I do not have those figures at hand; maybe that can be a tomorrow thing to do.


Nah, I re-ran mine and you were right - about the numbers. Your point is obviously that 24% is too many, but I don't see any reason to accept that at face value. The entire CAF isn't an infantry battalion.


----------



## dapaterson

Nor would I expect the whole CAF to be organized like an infantry battalion.  To pick on my background, the Army has a fetish for large, over-officered HQs, that is slowly infecting the rest of the CAF organization.  While geographic spread requires some additional overheard, there are economies to be found.  The current Div Support Group HQ structures have grown to be larger than the Area Support Group  HQs they replaced in the name of "economy".

And there is still in theory in force the 1997 direction from the PM to restrict the CAF to about 65 General and Flag officers (from The Report to the PM on the Management and Leadership of the Canadian Forces).  Progress towards that goal was reported annually by the CDS until the early to mid 2000s, at which point it began to be ignored.  We're still (more or less) enforcing the degreed officer corps, another recommendation from that report.


----------



## McG

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> The entire CAF isn't an infantry battalion.


That's a weak excuse.  Both the US and UK achieve 17% across all services, and they too are accused of bloat.

www.militaryonesource.mil/12038/.../2012_Demographics_Report.pdf
https://www.gov.uk/.../uk-af-personnel-report-1-april-2013-revised.pdf


----------



## Edward Campbell

MCG said:
			
		

> That's a weak excuse.  Both the US and UK achieve 17% across all services, and they too are accused of bloat.
> 
> www.militaryonesource.mil/12038/.../2012_Demographics_Report.pdf
> https://www.gov.uk/.../uk-af-personnel-report-1-april-2013-revised.pdf




There is a matter of "economies of scale" at play: we do require some people, many of them officers, to do HQ staff work that everyone, even me, agrees needs to be done and to do some of the that is imposed upon DND and the CF by the government. The fact that we have a small army makes the officer _ratio_ look bad ... but I remain convinced that even if, say, 17% is lower than we can, reasonably, achieve, 24%, which is what we have, is too high.

My first solution is to reduce the rank levels: make directors in NDHQ, and their equivalents in other HQs commanders/lieutenant colonels ~ that's our "first level" _executive_ rank and that's what a _director_ is in a HQ. If directors and equivalents are commanders/lieutenant colonels then directors generals and equivalents will be navy captains and colonels and we will need far fewer of them. Concomitant rank reductions can be and should be made ~ including, _in my personal opinion_, at the very top ~ and we should be able to cut somewhere between 20% and 35% of flag and general officer and a similar number of navy captains and army and air force colonels. Thos people will, sooner rather than later, retire and the positions can be converted to urgently needed able and leading seamen and privates and corporals.


----------



## PuckChaser

And you're probably going to get 2-3 Cpl/Ptes out of every GOFO you cut, on a simple salary basis.


----------



## McG

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> There is a matter of "economies of scale" at play: we do require some people, many of them officers, to do HQ staff work that everyone, even me, agrees needs to be done and to do some of the that is imposed upon DND and the CF by the government.


Understood, and I unsuccessfully attempted to find similar Officer:NCM ratios for Australia, Belgium, Neatherlands, Sweden, Poland and a few others (I did find a questionable source that points to Germany being 18%).  If I were to make a wild guess, I would say that we should be able to get down to 20% ... but that 20% should not be the objective as opposed to getting the organization right.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ... rank reductions can be and should be made ~ including, _in my personal opinion_, at the very top ~ and we should be able to cut somewhere between 20% and 35% of flag and general officer and a similar number of navy captains and army and air force colonels. Thos people will, sooner rather than later, retire and the positions can be converted to urgently needed able and leading seamen and privates and corporals.


So, if you start here:  http://www.army-armee.forces.gc.ca/en/about-army/leadership.page (with 7 x BGen, 3 x MGen and 1 x LGen)

CADTC and 1 Cdn Div could each be reduced from MGen to BGen (to match the other "divisions").  At that point, the DComd does not need to be of higher rank than all the subordinate commanders, so that position can also be reduced from MGen to BGen.  The Army Comd could then be filled by a MGen. DG Land Reserves could probably be a Col.  That would leave the Army with 9 x BGen and 1 x MGen.  Is that about where you would put things in the CA?


----------



## Brasidas

dapaterson said:
			
		

> ...Dentists could easily be outsourced (perhaps moving the military to the public service model of finding their own dental services on the economy, with contract dentists to confirm dental fitness for deployment).
> ..



That assumption was made in the 90s, and it was implemented. It didn't work - after the expense of paid early releases, the lack of pers to fill positions, both in general and deployable, caused them to do a 180 and wound up offering bonuses to re-hire uniformed dental officers.


----------



## dapaterson

Brasidas said:
			
		

> That assumption was made in the 90s, and it was implemented. It didn't work - after the expense of paid early releases, the lack of pers to fill positions, both in general and deployable, caused them to do a 180 and wound up offering bonuses to re-hire uniformed dental officers.



They reduced dental officers; the occupations of the Dental Branch (or Royal Canadian Corps of Teeth or whatever their Pips-and-Crownsified name is) were not eliminated.


----------



## Brasidas

dapaterson said:
			
		

> They reduced dental officers; the occupations of the Dental Branch (or Royal Canadian Corps of Teeth or whatever their Pips-and-Crownsified name is) were not eliminated.



Yes, and the reduction was in part reversed.


----------



## OldSolduer

Brasidas said:
			
		

> That assumption was made in the 90s, and it was implemented. It didn't work - after the expense of paid early releases, the lack of pers to fill positions, both in general and deployable, caused them to do a 180 and wound up offering bonuses to re-hire uniformed dental officers.



Despite most people having a bigger noggin than I, I think we still need a number of uniformed medical and dental specialists. We can't outsource Med Techs, MOs and nurses. 
Same with Supply and Log folks.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Despite most people having a bigger noggin than I, I think we still need a number of uniformed medical and dental specialists. We can't outsource Med Techs, MOs and nurses.
> Same with Supply and Log folks.




You're right, Hamish we spent the better part of 200 years learning that communications, logistics and medical services need to be in the combat zone and that civilian contractors, the _wagon train_ and _commissariat_ and a semi-civil _Army Medical Department_ were not the right answer.

Some services do quite well: the UK's Royal Fleet Auxiliary is one example of one that does; but it may the exception that proves the rule.

We need some of each supporting arm and service, and we need some at various levels: logisticians, for example, must be 'expert' at running DPs in the combat zone and managing national depots. They have to have some experience at every level. The trick is: how much of, say, our third and fourth line supply, transport, maintenance and telecomm/IT services do we contract and how much do we staff with military folks? Can we gain some (enough?) useful higher level experience through well designed (one way) exchange programmes, for example? How about 'mixed' depots, etc?

 :dunno:  If I knew the answers I'd probably have retired with a helluva lot bigger pension.


----------



## McG

The former PBO reiterates the recent defence spending message of the current PBO. 


> *Government gets poor grade for military spending*
> Ex-PBO Kevin Page says the government failed to live up to its own promises
> David McKie, CBC News
> 14 April 2015
> 
> As Canada gets set to deploy 200 troops to help Ukraine's military in its fight against Russian-backed rebels, Canada's former parliamentary budget watchdog gives the Conservative government a barely passing grade for its defence spending.
> 
> In his inaugural Money Page segment for CBC News Network's Power & Politics, Kevin Page says the government has been unable meet its own expectations of boosting military spending and giving the troops the hardware they need, adding "spending in real terms is even lower than when they came into office in 2006."
> 
> "[The mark] has to be something like a D, D+," Page told host Evan Solomon. "As a result of the expectations that were raised... you have to give them a very weak mark."
> 
> The promise to usher in a new era of military spending occurred under the watch of then-defence minister Peter MacKay, some six years after former chief of the defence staff Rick Hillier coined the phrase "decade of darkness" to denounce the previous Liberal government's military cuts.
> 
> "We won't see our military return to the difficult years of Liberal governance," MacKay wrote in a 2013 op-ed piece. "Our government remains committed to delivering a modern, multi-role, combat-capable Canadian Armed Forces able to respond to current and future challenges."
> 
> For the first three years of its tenure, the Conservative government increased defence spending, but then it began to cut back.
> 
> "What we found is that we're still in the age of darkness," Page said, comparing Conservative military spending to previous administrations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another way of comparing the Conservatives' military spending to that of previous administrations is by looking at the cash outlay as a percentage of GDP, Page said.
> 
> Here, too, the Conservatives come up short compared to the targets set out in their Canada First Defence Strategy, which promised "stable and predictable defence funding."
> 
> But a look at the Harper government's defence spending suggests predictability has been difficult to achieve in the wake of budget cuts and the government's determination to balance the budget so it can offer tax breaks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 2013, Peter MacKay said his government was succeeding in procuring equipment and preparing Canada's troops where the Liberal Party had "failed and failed again."
> 
> But this spending has not lived up to expectations, Page said. It's still an open question when, or if, the government will buy fighter jets to replace the aging CF-18s that are nearing the end of their shelf life. And it was only recently that the government finally announced it was asking companies to bid on a contract to replace search-and-rescue aircraft that the auditor general warned in 2013 needed replacing.
> 
> Since 2006, much of the money set aside for equipment went unspent. According to Power & Politics' analysis of the Public Accounts, National Defence has allowed about $9.6 billion in funding to lapse over this period.
> 
> "We're asking Parliament for the money. Parliament is authorizing the money, and the government is still not spending it," said Page. "National Defence is becoming a source of funds to reduce the deficit.
> 
> "We're going to need a whole new capital plan for National Defence."


http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/government-gets-poor-grade-for-military-spending-1.3030862


----------



## FortYorkRifleman

Is it possible that once the election is over and the Conservatives (presumably) win we'll see an increase in Defence spending?


----------



## OldSolduer

FortYorkRifleman said:
			
		

> Is it possible that once the election is over and the Conservatives (presumably) win we'll see an increase in Defence spending?



I'm not holding my breath. My initial response was to laugh at you.....


----------



## FortYorkRifleman

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> I'm not holding my breath. My initial response was to laugh at you.....



Wishful thinking on my part, I guess


----------



## MilEME09

FortYorkRifleman said:
			
		

> Wishful thinking on my part, I guess


It is possible as defense spending doesn't win elections. We know the capital budget was pushed off till 2016 after all or atleast part of it.


----------



## TCBF

- There are entrenched 'sleeper agents' from the anciene regime whose sole purpose in the bureaucracy is to de-militarize the defence budget in every way possible. They try to spend as much of it as possible on tearing down old buildings that are still good, building new buildings that are not as functional as the old ones, handing out 'sweet heart' contracts for glossy communications and IT, and at the same time stalling, dumbing down, delaying and sabotaging equipment purchases and recruiting policy.

- Why a majority gummint led by an old Reform Party tiger has failed to clean out this nest of whores and thieves is beyond me, but the truth may lay in some misplaced sense of national unity.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Some Twitter teases from the federal finance minister before budget time this afternoon ....

"#Budget2015 will support our Canadian Armed Forces in the fight against ISIS."
"#Budget2015 will help equip the Canadian Armed Forces to keep Canadians safe. "
"#Budget2015 will contain measures to help disabled veterans."


----------



## The Bread Guy

Attached is the def/security highlights handout, and the highlights from the full budget document ....


----------



## McG

So, four points for defence:


> Strengthening the Canadian Armed Forces by providing $11.8 billion over 10 years through an increase to the annual escalator for National Defence's budget to 3 per cent, starting in 2017-18


This looks good, but we will be waiting two years before it kicks in.  Is this enough to close the funding gap for sustaining our force structure (as identified by the PBO here -  http://army.ca/forums/threads/82898/post-1359065.html#msg1359065)?



> Providing up to $360.3 million in 2015-16 for the Canadian Armed Forces to extend its mission to counter the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)
> Providing $7.1 million in 2015-16 for the Canadian Armed Forces to deliver training assistance to the Ukrainian Security Forces


This is good and in keeping with promisses to provide specific provisions for international operations and not cover costs out of the defence budget.



> Providing $23 million over four years on a cash basis, starting 2015-16, to upgrade the physical security of Canadian Armed Forces bases.


Multi-lane base gates with guard shack for each lane so that we have the capacity to check everybody's ID while not congesting peak hour traffic?


----------



## George Wallace

MCG said:
			
		

> Multi-lane base gates with guard shack for each lane so that we have the capacity to check everybody's ID while not congesting peak hour traffic?



 ;D


Now after almost every Base has torn down their guard shacks at their front gates............Retro......Back to before the cry from Tax Payers for access to bases and see what their tax dollars were paying for; and the beginning of the "Open Base Policies".


----------



## FortYorkRifleman

Having followed the goings on in the CAF for a few years I've yet to hear or know of any wage increases. Is that already factored into the budget?


----------



## George Wallace

FortYorkRifleman said:
			
		

> Having followed the goings on in the CAF for a few years I've yet to hear or know of any wage increases. Is that already factored into the budget?



No.

The CAF wage increases are in line with whatever all the Public Civil Service unions negotiate with Treasury Board.  None of the Public Civil Service unions are currently negotiating any increases at this time, as they have already negotiated with TB last year (or the year before).  They have an agreement, which gave them raises on 1 Apr.  They have a couple of years yet before they negotiate again.


----------



## Haggis

What, exactly, is meant by the phrase "on a cash basis"?  
As in:



> Providing $23 million over four years *on a cash basis*, starting 2015-16, to upgrade the physical security of Canadian Armed Forces bases.


----------



## PuckChaser

Seems like a spend it or lose it type thing. It's not in the budget, but special appropriation for each base?


----------



## jollyjacktar

George Wallace said:
			
		

> No.
> 
> The CAF wage increases are in line with whatever all the Public Civil Service unions negotiate with Treasury Board.  None of the Public Civil Service unions are currently negotiating any increases at this time, as they have already negotiated with TB last year (or the year before).  They have an agreement, which gave them raises on 1 Apr.  They have a couple of years yet before they negotiate again.



OK... our last raise was 1 Apr 13.  So does this mean we "might" see "something" back dated....????!?!???


----------



## captloadie

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.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Ta, very much.


----------



## dapaterson

I am fairly confident that CMP staff are tracking pay increases, and will discuss / negotiate with TBS pay increases effective 01 Apr 14 and beyond.  Of course, those will be informed by Public Sector increases, so until those are resolved, I don't think there would be much movement on CAF increases.


----------



## FortYorkRifleman

For those of you currently serving will the money provided by the government address some of the issues plaguing the CAF? Issues like procurement, training, maintenance and other needs?


----------



## PuckChaser

Anything that stops the cuts is a good thing. We could have unlimited dollars and still not have enough money for everything we want, however.


----------



## MilEME09

FortYorkRifleman said:
			
		

> For those of you currently serving will the money provided by the government address some of the issues plaguing the CAF? Issues like procurement, training, maintenance and other needs?



It depends how the increase is allocated, I would be happy if the maintenance budget gets returned to normal


----------



## FortYorkRifleman

I just hope the CAF won't get burned down the road; assuming the CPC wins there's always the chance they'll lower or get rid of the proposed funds through the next decade. Then again, if they dont win this'll be off the table completely. :-[


----------



## McG

FortYorkRifleman said:
			
		

> For those of you currently serving will the money provided by the government address some of the issues plaguing the CAF? Issues like procurement, training, maintenance and other needs?


The new money will not be coming until FY 17/18.  It will do nothing for the next two years.


----------



## FortYorkRifleman

MCG said:
			
		

> The new money will not be coming until FY 17/18.  It will do nothing for the next two years.



Won't the funds allocated to the missions in Ukraine and ISIS take pressure off the Defence budget?


----------



## McG

FortYorkRifleman said:
			
		

> Won't the funds allocated to the missions in Ukraine and ISIS take pressure off the Defence budget?


No.  Those funds will pay the incremental cost of those missions.  They avoid a pressure being added to the budget as opposed to removing a pressure from the budget.

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.  


> Opposition parties blast boost to defence spending that doesn't kick in for 2 years
> Murray Brewster
> CTV News
> 21 Apr 2015
> 
> OTTAWA -- The Harper government is promising to spend more on the day-to-day-upkeep of the military, but the cash does not kick in for two years and is short of what the parliamentary budget office says is necessary to maintain the status quo.
> 
> The new federal budget also confirms previously announced improvements to veterans benefits and programs -- $1.6 billion in spending booked in the last fiscal year in order to avoid a deficit this year.
> 
> Finance Minister Joe Oliver's fiscal plan, released Tuesday, sets aside $11.8 billion over 10 years to increase the baseline defence appropriation beginning in the 2017-18 fiscal year.
> 
> At that time, National Defence will see a $184-million increase and the cash ramps up gradually to $2.3 billion by 2026-27.
> 
> The parliamentary budget office, however, warned a few weeks ago that the Conservatives need to spend up to $3 billion extra a year in order to keep the existing military.
> 
> The budget also sets aside a one-time, $360.3 million payment this year for the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and an additional $7.1 million for the recently announced mission to train the Ukrainian army.
> 
> "Our government understands the present dangers -- and is determined to respond responsibly, without ambiguity or moral equivocation," Oliver said in his budget speech to the Commons.
> 
> In recent weeks, Veterans Affairs Minister Erin O'Toole has announced a series of initiatives to care for ex-soldiers, including a retirement benefit for soldiers without a military pension, a fund to help the caregivers of wounded veterans and more staff to handle cases and process claims.
> 
> The budget reflects all of those initiatives, but shows they were paid for in the fiscal year that ended on March 31, 2015. That decision contributed to last year's deficit, but also helped keep the Conservative promise of a surplus this year.
> 
> The Conservatives have been under pressure, most notably at last fall's NATO summit, to increase defence spending, but analyst Dave Perry, of the Canadian Foreign Affairs and Defence Institute, says the impact of Oliver's funding increase will be small.
> 
> It just begins to make up for the $2.1 billion that was stripped from the military's annual budget during the battle to rein in the deficit.
> 
> "So, they're essentially starting from a hole and this is going to provide some moderate, year-over-year help to get them where they need to be to keep the forces they have," he said. "But it's not actually going to close the gap that's emerged over the last couple of years."
> 
> That means the next government will face tough choices and possibly have to cut either the number of troops or planned equipment purchases, Perry said.
> 
> The last federal budget removed $3 billion in planned spending on ships, planes and vehicles with the promise it would be spent in future years, but there is no sign of that in the budget or in the multi-year projections tabled Tuesday.
> 
> Come this fall, the Conservatives are expected to campaign as champions of the military, but Perry says the budget demonstrates that their record is mixed.
> 
> "It's fair to say they championed them for three years" between 2007-10, Perry said. "Since then, defence has been treated like any other department and faced a period of austerity. It doesn't appear that age of austerity has ended."
> 
> NDP defence critic Jack Harris said the budget strains the government's credibility.
> 
> "They're clearly kicking the problems, the issues and the decision-making down the road to the next government," Harris said.
> 
> Liberal defence critic Joyce Murray said the dearth of near-term defence spending is unforgivable when the country faces a hot war in the Middle East and an emerging cold war in eastern Europe.
> 
> "The idea that Canadians can trust this government when it comes to defence is a myth," she said.
> 
> The budget also contains $23 million to improve security on military bases across the country -- a direct response to events last October when two Canadian soldiers were murdered by homegrown extremists.


http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/opposition-parties-blast-boost-to-defence-spending-that-doesn-t-kick-in-for-2-years-1.2338344


----------



## MilEME09

really its making it look like they are spending money but not spending it, the only real spending seems to be for base security


----------



## donaldk

captloadie said:
			
		

> 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.



Last back door side bar I had with some of the charge hands and the CBUs is that the overall intention of the unions will be to start negotiation of new collective agreements after the election.  The wait will be annoying but it will be good for two reasons of many:

1. Less political pressure on both ends, keeps union collective bargaining process from overtly affecting election results.  The Public service has a mandate to be impartial of politics in the public eye.
2. Unions won't waist time dealing with a lame duck government if the Cons get voted out.  Stability will ensure a collective agreement sticks for its term.


----------



## McG

Lee Berthiaume adds to the coverage noting that this budget still does not meet the requirements of the force we have.
The silver lining to all this is only in a hope ... hopefully, the resource constraints will motivate us to finally cut some extraneous HQ layers.


> *DND boost too little too late, experts say
> 'Modest' increase doesn't undo years of cutbacks and freezes*
> Lee Berthiaume
> Ottawa Citizen
> 22 Apr 2015
> 
> After shouldering much of the burden in the Conservative government's drive to balance the federal budget, the Canadian military will have to wait more than a decade to get back what was taken away.
> 
> National Defence played a major role in helping eliminate the deficit over the past three years to help produce the $1.4-billion surplus announced by Finance Minister Joe Oliver on Tuesday. That includes a cut of $2.1 billion to its operating budget and billions more to spending for new equipment.
> 
> Those efforts have had visible impacts on the Canadian Forces. The army has parked trucks and other support vehicles; the air force is flying its aircraft less; the navy has docked some of its ships; training exercises have been scaled back; and major procurement projects have been delayed or cancelled.
> 
> The cuts have raised questions about the military's long-term sustainability. Parliamentary Budget Officer Jean-Denis Fréchette was the latest to warn, last month, that the government would have to either spend more on defence or significantly scale back the Canadian Forces' capabilities.
> 
> On Tuesday, the government appeared to respond to those concerns as it announced plans to speed up the rate by which defence spending will grow over the coming decade. The department's budget was set to increase by two per cent per year to offset inflation and other costs, but it will now grow by three instead.
> 
> The government says the move will inject a cumulative $11 billion into the military by 2026. Speaking in the House of Commons, Oliver said the measure will ensure Canadian Forces personnel "have what they need to accomplish the dangerous tasks Canadians ask of them."
> 
> But the military won't begin to see any benefit until 2017, according to budget documents. Even then, the defence budget will increase by only $184 million, which former assistant parliamentary budget officer Sahir Khan described as "chicken feed" for the military.
> 
> "You've seen a department that's actually had to manage with less for quite a long time," Khan said. "And then you see the first increments of money coming in are in 2017 and it's $184 million, which is nowhere near the amount of money they were contributing to the fiscal bottom line."
> 
> The government says it will take until 2021 for the budget to grow by $1 billion under the new model, which Khan noted is two elections from now. Given that the government is expecting tight finances over the next few years, Khan said there's no assurance the money will ever actually materialize for National Defence.
> 
> "So to a large extent you wonder if DND is just basically going to be treading water for the next few years," Khan said. "With future fiscal headroom, future governments may have other priorities for any of those operating budgets earmarked for DND. So there's no assurance it's going to them." According to the budget documents tabled Tuesday, the government expects the military's budget to have increased by $2.3 billion in 2026. But defence analyst David Perry estimated it would need to increase by $3 billion to return it to pre-deficit levels. That's not accounting for the billions in deferred equipment purchases. "The budget increase overall looks like a large figure, but it's actually pretty modest on a yearby-year basis," Perry said. "It's not going to undo the impacts of the cuts, wage freezes and capital reprofiling over the last few years."


----------



## Ostrozac

MCG said:
			
		

> Lee Berthiaume adds to the coverage noting that this budget still does not meet the requirements of the force we have.
> The silver lining to all this is only in a hope ... hopefully, the resource constraints will motivate us to finally cut some extraneous HQ layers.



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?


----------



## 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

captloadie said:
			
		

> 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

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> 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

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> 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

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> 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

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> 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

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> 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

MCG said:
			
		

> 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

Spectrum said:
			
		

> 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

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> 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  :-[


----------



## George Wallace

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> ........ and Canadians hate both deficits and taxes.




I would tend to agree with you, but I live in Ontario and it seems that the people of Ontario are being contrary and seem to love deficits and more taxes.   ;D


----------



## MilEME09

Perhaps then we need to do the hard choice and get a new model in regards to defense spending. Jobs in Canada are great, but if we can make our shrinking dollars go much further just by looking to our allies then we should.


----------



## Edward Campbell

And, now, in this editorial which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Toronto Sun_, Sun media weighs in on the defence budget:

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/05/24/do-more-on-defence


> EDITORIAL
> *Do more on defence*
> 
> POSTMEDIA NETWORK
> 
> FIRST POSTED: SUNDAY, MAY 24, 2015
> 
> In last week’s papers columnist David Akin pointed out that the federal government's “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.”
> 
> NATO currently wants its members to spend 2% of GDP on defence. If everyone slacks off on this, NATO's defences are down. Literally.
> 
> A couple of days later Defence Minister Jason Kenney penned a guest column in our papers responding to Akin.
> 
> He pointed out that the Conservatives have increased spending dollars by 38% since 2006 and that the Parliamentary Budget Officer reported “the most significant cuts” to defence were during the last Liberal era.
> 
> Kenney’s main point, though, was that results matter more than raw dollars spent. Great point. We agree.
> 
> But while NATO’s 2% figure wasn’t arrived at by an exact science, it’s still wrong for us to be less than halfway there.
> 
> “Canadians know that we cannot 'opt-out' of the world,” Prime Minister Stephen Harper rightly said at a foreign policy speech in Montreal Thursday night.
> 
> But for us to keep two feet firmly planted in the world as we go after the Islamic State, among other challenges, we need the budget to do it.
> 
> Our defence challenges run the gamut: Equipment in dire need of replacement. Sexual assault in the military. The lacking treatment of veterans (albeit under a different cabinet portfolio).
> 
> The Conservatives should sing their accomplishments but also need to recognize there’s work to be done.
> 
> It’s doubly important that the Harper government acknowledge there’s room for improvements because they’re the only ones we trust to make them.
> 
> The Liberals? Pfft. As Akin’s column notes: “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.”
> 
> As for the NDP: Why would they want to spend more money on the military when they seem to oppose so many things the military does?
> 
> Still, the Conservatives must prove they’re ready to do more.




I'm sorry these editorials and articles are coming out so early ... we want to hold politicians' feet to the fire during the election campaign.


----------



## The Bread Guy

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And, now, in this editorial which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Toronto Sun_, Sun media weighs in on the defence budget:
> ( .... )
> I'm sorry these editorials and articles are coming out so early ... we want to hold politicians' feet to the fire during the election campaign.


If they _truly_ believe this is something worth pressing, not to worry - it'l be pressed.


----------



## Underway

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> _......
> I'll go easy on the NDP because their policy will be even deeper cuts
> ......_



This never made sense to me.  NDP are supposed to be socialist correct?  Isn't the first goal of any socialist government the protection of the state as the state is more important than the individual?  So why are the Canadian version of socialists so opposed to defence spending, or are they?  We don't actually know yet as federally NDP have never been in power and had to make those decisions.  Seems to me that NDP would be completely onside for spending tax dollars on new equipment from General Dynamics, Bombardier, Irving etc.... as those are manufacturing unionized jobs.

And unlike the conservatives the NDP might actually want to keep a tax base large enough (raise GST 2%) that you don't have to cut military spending to meet the budget, just raise taxes.  Many European countries have left wing gov'ts that are very pro-military.

The largest difference with the NDP at the helm would probably be how the Canadian Forces are deployed with an open debate in parliment as the dippers just can't stop themselves of being holier than thou.  Also a generous benifits package for veterans would come out as well.  I don't see it as absolute doom and gloom.  Caring for people is their weakness and strength, so repackaging equipment and benifits requirements as necessary for the CAF could work to our advantage.

That beings said we should all vote Green.  I mean really GREEN is the name of the party.  Its all about supporting the army obviously... (though an end to subsidization of big oil and refocus that money on the CAF wouldn't be a bad start....)


----------



## George Wallace

Underway said:
			
		

> This never made sense to me.  NDP are supposed to be socialist correct?  Isn't the first goal of any socialist government the protection of the state as the state is more important than the individual?  So why are the Canadian version of socialists so opposed to defence spending, or are they?



Perhaps because they don't want to be closely identified with or associated to the National Socialist Party......and we know what kind of history they wrote.    >


----------



## The Bread Guy

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Perhaps because they don't want to be closely identified with or associated to the National Socialist Party......and we know what kind of history they wrote.    >


Not to mention those OTHER socialists, and their own less-than-glowing history.


----------



## OldSolduer

The NDP doesn't like DND and the CAF because that party is full of the descendants of Uncle Joe Stalin's "useful fools".


----------



## George Wallace

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> The NDP doesn't like DND and the CAF because that party is full of the descendants of Uncle Joe Stalin's "useful fools".



Not sure what you are alluding to.  Do you mean the 'survivors' who managed to avoid all the 'accidents' that occurred during Stalin's reign?  There seemed to be quite a rash of people accidentally falling out of windows, having brake failures, drowning, etc. while Stalin held office.


----------



## OldSolduer

Uncle Joe,  IIRC through agents of influence, managed to convert a number of people not to Communism, but to socialism. One of the themes was "the USSR is our friend.....we don't need to spend money of defence".

I distinctly remember Pauline Jewett saying we should cut defence spending to show the USSR we were only interested in peace. This was in 1983 or 84.

A useful fool, da Comrade?


----------



## TCBF

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Perhaps because they don't want to be closely identified with or associated to the National Socialist Party......and we know what kind of history they wrote.    >



- They didn't. We did.


----------



## Edward Campbell

More, here[/ur] and below, from David Akin's blog:

http://blogs.canoe.com/davidakin/defence-2/we-got-a-defence-spending-debate-me-kenney-murray-the-prime-minister/


> We got a defence spending debate: Me, Kenney, Murray & the Prime Minister
> 
> David Akin - May 26th, 2015
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Earlier this month, I wrote a column for our papers in which I argued that Canada has done a lousy job of living up to the commitment we made t4o our NATO allies to spend at least 2 per cent of our GDP on defence. I put together the chart above drawing on data published by the Department of Finance.  Some excerpts from that column:
> 
> 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.
> 
> …
> 
> 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%.
> 
> 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?
> 
> Defence Minister Jason Kenney responded with his own column, arguing that Canada’s military is well-equipped:
> 
> I welcome the recent call from Sun Media’s parliamentary bureau chief, David Akin, for Canada’s defence spending record to become an election issue this fall. As defence minister, I would gladly put the Conservative record up against
> the sad legacy left by the Liberals.
> 
> Our government has made significant investments since 2006, increasing National Defence spending from $14.5 billion in 2005-06 to $20.1 billion in 2014-15 on a cash basis.
> 
> That represents a 38% increase – a far cry from when the Liberals were in power.
> 
> The Kenney column prompted one in response from the Liberal Party defence critic Joyce Murray. She wrote “The real Conservative defence record.”
> 
> Since 2012, they axed nearly $5 billion from the defence budget, and let $10 billion of approved funding go unspent since 2007. This includes nearly $7 billion in DND’s capital budget – funds allocated for new equipment like search-and-rescue aircraft, trucks and ships.
> 
> These cuts have driven defence spending below 1% of GDP, the lowest share of GDP since the 1930s, and well below our expected spending commitment as a NATO member. The funding escalator announced in the budget, which Mr. Kenney trumpets,
> in fact does not kick in until 2017. And under the government’s funding plan, the budget will continue to fall to 0.89% of GDP by 2027.
> 
> Finally, last week I had a chance to ask Prime MInister Stephen Harper about spending on defence.
> 
> Here is that exchange:
> 
> AKIN:  When you talk about the success of your government in controlling debt, you often refer to our debt-to-GDP levels. When you talk about our success versus our G7 partners, you often measure us relative to GDP. I emphasize
> that [relative measurement] in talking about defence spending which, as you know, is well under, and has been well under, the 2% GDP target that NATO countries are asked to spend. Your government, if you’re re-elected this fall,
> could be under 1%. That’s worse than the Liberal government you replaced. Can you give us a sense when you might start talking about restoring defence spending to 2% of GDP.
> 
> HARPER: Well, in fact, in the recent budget, as you know, the government announced some significant increases in defence spending. Since we came to office defence spending has risen almost 30% on national defence. Canada is a
> major contributor to virtually all of NATO’s activities. We’ve enhanced defence in our Arctic and our northern regions. We’ve basically rebuilt the capacity of the Canadian army, made significant investments and upgrades to the air force.
> We’ve also had the largest naval shipbuilding program in Canadian. history. We’ve budgeted in the years ahead the investments to make sure we have the capacity necessary. We don’t measure these things strictly in terms of dollars.
> We measure them in terms of capabilities. In the postwar period, the Canadian military has never been as active and as capable as today,  And we thank them for their work in places like Iraq, Syria and Ukraine.




It's all "fun with numbers" ~ in fact GDP means the _wealth_ the "common wealth," so measuring spending as a percentage of GDP says something about how much the people are _*willing*_ or prepared to pay for their own security.

I think we have a "friend" in David Akin: he's someone who will help hold politicians' (of all stripes) feet to the fire on this issue.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I wonder if those figures account for the funds returned unspent?


----------



## The Bread Guy

Colin P said:
			
		

> I wonder if those figures account for the funds returned unspent?


Funny you should mention that - this take from The Canadian Press's "Baloney Meter" on defence spending ....


> .... Kenney had his facts right when he cited the numbers around increased defence spending, but he omitted some important details that give a much fuller picture.  With the October federal election in the offing, the Conservatives will be positioning themselves as champions of the military. But as (experts interviewed) point out, all that *increased spending hasn't translated into important new equipment, such as ships and planes*.  For that reason, Kenney's statement earns a rating of "a little baloney." ....


----------



## McG

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Funny you should mention that - this take from The Canadian Press's "Baloney Meter" on defence spending ....



The cited "experts" did not have much good to say in that article:


> ...
> 
> David Perry, the senior analyst at the Conference of Defence Associations, has been crunching Canada's defence spending numbers for years, and he took issue with Kenney's assertion.
> 
> He said there's no accounting for inflation in Kenney's 38 per cent assertion. When the final estimates come out on what the Canadian Forces actually spends this year, "I don't believe for a minute they'll reflect $20.1 billion in defence expenditure," he said.
> 
> That's mainly because of the logjam in National Defence over big procurement projects, such as the stalled — and very controversial — F-35 stealth fighter jet replacement project.
> 
> For the last decade, Perry said the military has never been able to spend its full budget, with at least five per cent -- or about $1 billion — going back to the federal treasury each year, a practice known as lapsed funding.
> 
> This coming fiscal year, Perry is predicting an even bigger lapse of 10 per cent — closer to $2 billion.
> 
> He said the huge program at National Defence didn't have an approved investment plan until the second quarter of the last fiscal year, so they couldn't move on new spending.
> 
> "Defence has got this bizarre problem that it never had before 2006 where they can't use all its money," Perry said. "To me the far more meaningful metric is: what are you asking the defence department to deliver and how much money does it have relative to that plan?"
> 
> Douglas Bland, professor emeritus and former head of the Queen's University defence studies program, said Kenney's numbers may be accurate, but they don't address a core question: has all that extra money improved Canada's military capability?
> 
> Bland's answer is no.
> 
> "It's not the amount of money that's put on the table, it's how efficient it is in producing Canada's national defence," he said.
> 
> All three branches — army, navy and air force — have seen a decline in their capability.
> 
> "The army has a lot of old equipment and fewer numbers," said Bland. The navy, meanwhile, has lost assets, such as its two support ships, HMCS Preserver and Protecteur, while will be taken out of service before their replacements arrive.
> 
> "When you look at the state of the navy, for instance, we're not better off. When you look at the air force, many countries are now ordering up or bringing into service the new F-35 from the United States. We're not even on the order paper."
> 
> ...


----------



## Happy Guy

My Command is still waiting for the comptroller staff to crunch out the numbers for this fiscal year.  We will get our budget sometime this month in June.  Meanwhile we can't finalize our business plans. 

Informally we were told that the Government needs to balance the budget and all government departments have been ordered to tighten up again.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Happy Guy said:
			
		

> My Command is still waiting for the comptroller staff to crunch out the numbers for this fiscal year.  We will get our budget sometime this month in June.  Meanwhile we can't finalize our business plans.
> 
> Informally we were told that _the Government needs to balance the budget and all government departments have been ordered to tighten up again_.




_*All*_ government departments should _*always*_ be "ordered to tighten up again," even in the middle of a major war the government should order the defence department and defence related departments to "tighten up" so that the maximum money can be spent on *necessary* things. There is always "fat" that can be cut ... in 1943/44, when our defence production was going at very nearly 100% capacity C.D. Howe was "ordering" his people to "tighten up again." Anyone who is not, _*always*_, "tightening up" should have his (or her) arse fired  out onto the bread line ... "pink slips and running shoes" as _Lyin' Brian Mulroney_ threatened back in the 1980s.


----------



## Happy Guy

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


----------



## MilEME09

Happy Guy said:
			
		

> 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



I tend to agree, more with less has its breaking point, and I feel like the CF is getting close to that point....again


----------



## captloadie

There will always be waste in a system that fails to plan ahead adequately. There is an L1 that has determined that it will have a $200 million dollar slippage in their current FY budget. Word has gone out to the other L1s, and disseminated to the lowest levels, to submit wish lists of items to be procured with the funding. It is being handled much like MRs. Which means in the end, alot of necessary big ticket items will continue to go unfunded but we'll have lots of little gucci gadgets and new furniture.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Happy Guy said:
			
		

> 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

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >"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

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> 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

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> 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

CountDC said:
			
		

> 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

dapaterson said:
			
		

> 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

CountDC said:
			
		

> 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

srayne said:
			
		

> 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

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Fixed your link for you.
> 
> 
> Defence Spending



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


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## Edward Campbell

It's the endless "_*a *_war" or "_*this*_ war" argument. I don't dispute Prof Byer's premise ... IF we are "all in" for a long, drawn out, drag out, full scale war. But, for the kinds of wars that have been most common since 1945, Prof Byers (and PPCLI Guy) are so full o' s__t that their eyes are brown.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It's the endless "_*a *_war" or "_*this*_ war" argument. I don't dispute Prof Byer's premise ... IF we are "all in" for a long, drawn out, drag out, full scale war. But, for the kinds of wars that have been most common since 1945, Prof Byers (and PPCLI Guy) are so full o' s__t that their eyes are brown.



I will assume that you are having bad day and let that one slide.


----------



## Edward Campbell

You're right, and I apologise,   and thanks for the pass ... but Prof Byers is wrong.

He's right that "Inflation — which is higher in the defence industry than in the general economy — means that these deferred purchases will further increase final costs and, with that, pressure for reduced orders and lowered capability requirements. Failing to recapitalize the military in a timely manner has created a veritable procurement abyss, as rusting-out equipment becomes increasingly expensive to replace." No one should ever misunderstand that fact. But he's wrong, just a paragraph or two later, when he says that _"The fact of the matter is, nobody knows how much these delayed procurements will actually cost. All we know for certain is that the expenses are being offloaded on future governments — and future generations of taxpayers. And, that the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces are on course to end up with less equipment — and in some cases less capable equipment — than they need."_ In fact the costs are fairly easy, albeit unpleasant to calculate, and there is nothing to suggest that deferred procurement must, somehow, equal less equipment or less capable equipment.

Prof Byers says, _"Our less-than-full-service military is made up of a small peacekeeping- and counterinsurgency-capable army organized around 550 newly refitted LAV III light armoured vehicles; a small navy organized around twelve middle-aged frigates; and a small air force organized around new transport aircraft and old but capable fighter jets."_ _I think_ that's a gross misrepresentation of even the NDP's wet dream of a defence posture.

I disagree, vehemently, with Prof Byers when he says: _"Ideally, the missions should determine the equipment and not the other way around."_ *That's drivel. *Ideally, or not, the mission must be decided by the (ever changing) _strategic_ situation. No one, not Sir Wilfred Laurier in 1899, not Sir Robert Borden in 1914, not Mackenzie-King in 1939, not Louis St Laurent in 1950 and not Paul Martin in 2006, sent Canadians to war based on the equipment in the inventory ... Canada went to war _*despite*_ the wonders and blunders of politicians, civil servants and military managers; it was only after we knew what the war was all about that we decided how to equip the military to fight it.

I will not dispute his "six core mission" (page 16) as long as he agrees that _"Surveillance"_ embraces a multitude of tasks including SIGINT.

I believe Prof Byers strays from simple _cloud cuckoo land_ into outright nonsense in Part IV. A Plan for Rebuilding the Canadian Armed Forces.. This is the kind of overly detailed rubbish that we would not tolerate from a junior staff school syndicate (because they haven't the resources to make such a detailed analysis) and we ought not to tolerate it from a university professor, either. It's fair and good to say that the F-35 is wrong because of A. B. and C. ~ even if we're not sure qualified to measure B ~ but it's not fair to say that Canada should _"extend the CF-18 fleet with 30–40 new F/A-18 Super Hornets."_ _I call BS._ Prof Byers has no basis for that recommendation ... none other than pure, partisan, propaganda. His arguments for the rest, even the ones which _I think_ _might_ have some merit, are equally unfounded.

I have argued at length that the _Canada First Defence Strategy_ is deeply flawed, as a _strategy_, but _I suspect_ that Prof Byers doesn't really grasp the impact of inflation ... despite getting it right in the early going.

There is some merit in some of his recommendations ~ especially about buying proven equipment and (although he doesn't go anywhere near far enough) his notion (Recommendation 20) to _Un-tie industrial regional benefits_. My problem is that the recommendations, even the not bad ones, rest on a foundation of intellectual quicksand.

In summary, _I still believe_ that Prof Byers is so full of s__t that his eyes are brown. His report is a piece of election propaganda and should be treated as such, in its entirety.


----------



## Kirkhill

Whew, thank gawd for that.  I hate it when Mummy and Daddy fight.  ;D


----------



## Brad Sallows

>“The mission should define the equipment that we choose to acquire, rather than the equipment defining the mission,” said Michael Byers

Byers confused something along the lines of "forward-looking threat and capability analysis" with "mission".  Maybe it's an easy mistake to make - "operation" and "mission", for example, being terms of art - but it risks grossly misleading people.

Once the inventory is established and procurement is set in motion, then yes: the equipment to an extent does "define the mission" if we are (inevitably) part of a multinational effort and each contributor is searching for a job which fits capabilities, expertise, and political exigencies.

I find he was wrong twice in one sentence.


----------



## a_majoor

Perhaps the good Prof forgot a rather profound truth of warfare:



> "As you know, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time."



In fact, we do most jobs with "what we have", rather than what "we might want or wish to have at a later time", and generally make it work (with the occasional trip to Home Depot or Canadian Tire for the things which have no substitutes). The Armed Forces is no different.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> You're right, and I apologise,   and thanks for the pass ... but Prof Byers is wrong.



Thank you Mr, Campbell.  I believe that you know the high esteem in which I hold you, both personally and professionally.

In fairness, I should explain what resonated with me.

1)  The single greatest cost of any program is the one least understood by the military.  It is not start up costs, life cycle costs or what have you.  It is opportunity cost - and Mr Byers alludes (albeit very briefly) to this fact.  In a military without anti-tank weapons, integral air defence, trucks, machine guns, a SAR platform, ISR, a ship that can fed our other ships, close air support or even attack aviation, I am not certain that the F35 fits our holistic needs, given its extraordinary opportunity costs.  We have expended enormous capital (intellectual, human, fiscal, and most importantly small "p" and big "P" political capitol) on a premise of dubious intellectual and professional honesty, and then doubled down on a ludicrously large HQ overhead that is, frankly, indefensible.

2) COTS and MOTS.  He got this one right.  We need to convince our political masters that "industrial regional benefits" and "domestic off-sets" may make good announcements and petty politics, but they make for horrific national security strategy costs in a medium sized country with substantial commitments, large aspirations and a small industrial base.  How is it possible that the requirement for a truck led to the MSVS?  How hard is to to buy an MLVW or 2 1/2 ton basic truck, without air brakes, computer sensors, and expensive third party maintenance contracts?

3)  Which brings me to the third point.  We own the problem.  There is no sense blaming the "government of the day".  They don't know a 3rd generation fighter from a 5th generation fighter, an AOR from a BHS, a CCV from a LAV.  They know what we pitch them.  We have created this problem with our own lack of discipline, leadership, and failure to identify whole-of-force opportunity costs.

I am the first to admit that there are many more on this site and countless others in the wider CF who are much more knowledgeable about the Borg and all that it takes to get a program from conception to combat than I am.  I am, however, losing my patience with efforts to cast the responsibility for all our problems on <insert your personal demon here: liberals, conservatives, think tanks, academia, commie pinkos, the CBC, or the great LBGT / Ontario / BC Consensus> vice taking ownership of the problems ourselves.  Much as voters get the government they deserve, the military (generally) gets the equipment and structure that they deserve.

With respect,

PPCLI Guy

<< edit: small spelling error>>


----------



## Harrigan

I am not a fan of Dr.Byers, but I think it is a useful document if only to show an alternative perspective on national defence policy.  This is not a bad thing.  I will comment per Mr.Campbell's points, as I am not sure how to individually quote each line sequentially:

Costs of Procurement: _there is nothing to suggest that deferred procurement must, somehow, equal less equipment or less capable equipment._

Byers comments are clearly a shot at the systematic lowballing of costs that the federal government has insisted on parroting in the F35 and NSPS situations.  
I agree that it is not actually that difficult to know the long-term costs to anyone who looks into it, but to purposefully hide those costs from the public and pretend that they are less than they KNOW they are is irresponsible government, IMHO.  That blame should lie with all previous federal governments, but the present one isn't exempt.  As for the costs of deferred procurement, there seems to me to be MUCH suggesting exactly that - the longer it slides to the right, the less aircraft/ships etc are received as costs go up.  It happened with AOPS, I believe it happened with the F35 as well (weren't we supposed to get 90 originally, now it is 65), and has the CSC not gone from "15 ships" to "up to 15 ships"?  I have taken "deferred procurement" to include delayed procurement - I know they are two separate things, but the end result is the same I would think, with increased per unit costs even if the per-year costs are reduced due to spreading out the timeline.

Byer's stated defence posture: _"Our less-than-full-service military is made up of a small peacekeeping- and counterinsurgency-capable army organized around 550 newly refitted LAV III light armoured vehicles; a small navy organized around twelve middle-aged frigates; and a small air force organized around new transport aircraft and old but capable fighter jets."_ 

I am not sure what portion of it is incorrect?  I would agree with that characterization.  That is more or less what we are at the moment, and that is the tense that he uses.  I would also add that if a party decides that is the defence posture that it recommends for Canada in future, and Canadians vote them in, then we get on with making it happen and providing the best service that we can.  Some of us may have joined up to drive tanks, drop bombs behind enemy lines, and engage in hand-to-hand combat, but if the country prefers us to conduct SAR, humanitarian assistance, and peacekeeping moreso than the "hard power" aspects, they have the right to make us do so.  We work for them.

Missions defining Equipment:  _I disagree, vehemently, with Prof Byers when he says: "Ideally, the missions should determine the equipment and not the other way around." *That's drivel. *Ideally, or not, the mission must be decided by the (ever changing) strategic situation._

This seems a bit like splitting hairs.  I think he is saying: "I believe it is Apples before Oranges instead of Oranges before Apples."  You are saying "no, no, no.... It is Bananas before Apples!".  You are both right.  Ideally.....it is Strategic Situation ---> Mission ---> Equipment (or Bananas before Apples before Oranges).  You are also absolutely correct that governments don't tailor the mission to the equipment on hand, we respond with whatever we have at the time to make the mission work.  (That said, I also don't believe that the govt is completely ignorant of the equipment on hand - I trust the CDS informs the MND of this, even if the MND doesn't feel like listening).

Also, your list of PM's sending the CF off to major conflicts doesn't seem right to me.  It should say "Chretien in 2001" vice "Martin in 2006".  Some units were deployed to Afghanistan continually from 2001-2011, and others "since 2001...." I would guess.  

_Part IV. A Plan for Rebuilding the Canadian Armed Forces_

It is not fair to criticize an alternate view, particularly from an opposition party, based on "you don't have all the information".  Of course they don't.  NOBODY does, except the government.  By that logic, nobody should be allowed to offer alternate visions on any subject unless the government has given "all the information".  If this were the case, Opposition parties would never be able to articulate their proposed policies.  All incumbent governments would like this to be the case, of course.  But it does not serve the public, it serves only the incumbent.  On the subject of F35's, an open and transparent competition would have provided this information.  However, the F35 has not been subjected to an open and transparent competition against its industry competitors (the XF-35 vs XF-32 competition wasn't against its industry competitors - Typhoon, Rafale, etc)

------

Should a potential NDP government take Byers report as a baseline to develop their defence policy off of, it would have to adjust as required once they had "seen the books" and knew the true costs/capabilities/equipment etc.  Would it survive first contact with the "enemy"?  No, of course not.  No plan does.  But at least it is a plan from which to deviate!     I agree completely that it is partisan, and unfairly lays all the blame on the current government, with some shots at the Liberals too.  But, if we are to assume that this is some sort of a trial balloon to propose an alternate vision for defence policy that is not "official" NDP policy (thereby allowing deniability), what would one expect?  Did the opposition Conservatives refrain from blaming the Liberal government in their vision of defence policy?

There are a few nuggets in the report that I agree with, others I an neutral on, and some I disagree with entirely.  But I don't think the whole thing should be disregarded in its entirety.  It is an alternative vision, and anything which stimulates a debate in the public about defence policy is a good thing IMHO, even if the end result of it is different from what some of us on here might prefer to see.

At the moment, the CF is not resourced adequately to meet its mission sets.  There are only two ways to fix this:  Increase resources to meet the existing mission sets, or reduce the mission sets to meet the resourcing level (or some sort of combination of both).  Byers' report seems to suggest the latter, with some major changes in defence focus away from warfighting and back to the CF being peacekeeping-centric.  Must of us on here don't agree with this, but we would ignore or disregard that perspective at our own peril, as it is consistent with a significant portion of the population.

Mr.Campbell, please don't take this email as a criticism of your views.  I have a great respect for the information and perspective you provide (I may be only a recent poster, but am a long-time lurker), and I dare say your take on Byers' report is probably the majority view on this forum.  I've interpreted it slightly differently, and while I do not agree with Dr.Byers on very much, I believe there are some policy nuggets there that may very well form planks of a potential NDP defence policy.  Obviously, "NDP defence policy" is a bit of an untrodden path that the military has not really had to pay much attention to, but in 2015 that is no longer the case.  The public clearly is not as scared by the "doomsday scenarios" as opposing partisans would have them believe, and barring some major unforeseen event, it is hard to imagine them fading to irrelevance in just 109 days.  My guess is that Byers' may reflect some (though not all) of the NDP's defence policy thoughts, and this report may be a "trial balloon" to see what portions resonate (or not) with the electorate.  They would then presumably release their actual defence policy prescription during the campaign, which may include some of these ideas.  (To that end, it is entirely possible that the Liberals would be watching the reaction as well and may lift some ideas from Byers' report too)

No doubt the next 3.5 months will be interesting.

Harrigan


----------



## dapaterson

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Thank you Mr, Campbell.  I believe that you know the high esteem in which I hold you, both personally and professionally.
> 
> In fairness, I should explain what resonated with me.
> 
> 1)  The single greatest cost of any program is the one least understood by the military.  It is not start up costs, life cycle costs or what have you.  It is opportunity cost - and Mr Byers alludes (albeit very briefly) to this fact.  In a military without anti-tank weapons, integral air defence, trucks, machine guns, a SAR platform, ISR, a ship that can fed our other ships, close air support or even attack aviation, I am not certain that the F35 fits our holistic needs, given its extraordinary opportunity costs.  We have expended enormous capital (intellectual, human, fiscal, and most importantly small "p" and big "P" political capitol) on a premise of dubious intellectual and professional honesty, and then doubled down on a ludicrously large HQ overhead that is, frankly, indefensible.
> 
> 2) COTS and MOTS.  He got this one right.  We need to convince our political masters that "industrial regional benefits" and "domestic off-sets" may make good announcements and petty politics, but they make for horrific national security strategy costs in a medium sized country with substantial commitments, large aspirations and a small industrial base.  How is it possible that the requirement for a truck led to the MSVS?  How hard is to to buy an MLVW or 2 1/2 ton basic truck, without air brakes, computer sensors, and expensive third party maintenance contracts?
> 
> 3)  Which brings me to the third point.  We own the problem.  There is no sense blaming the "government of the day".  They don't know a 3rd generation fighter from a 5th generation fighter, an AOR from a BHS, a CCV from a LAV.  They know what we pitch them.  We have created this problem with our own lack of discipline, leadership, and failure to identify whole-of-force opportunity costs.
> 
> I am the first to admit that there are many more on this site and countless others in the wider CF who are much more knowledgeable about the Borg and all that it takes to get a program from conception to combat than I am.  I am, however, losing my patience with efforts to cast the responsibility for all our problems on <insert your personal demon here: liberals, conservatives, think tanks, academia, commie pinkos, the CBC, or the great LBGT / Ontario / BC Consensus> vice taking ownership of the problems ourselves.  Much as voters get the government they deserve, the military (generally) gets the equipment and structure that they deserve.
> 
> With respect,
> 
> PPCLI Guy
> 
> << edit: small spelling error>>



Or, to summarize, "We have met the enemy, and he is us."


----------



## Edward Campbell

I agree, pretty much across the board, with PPCLI Guy's comments which I am going to try to synopsize as: _The main problem with defence procurement is inside the Department of National Defence and, primarily, within the uniformed, military establishment._

We, and I use "we" because, before I retired I did have some (briefly, rather a lot of) involvement at the bottom of the (uniformed) "executive" ladder with some aspects of procurement policy,* are the main architects of a big, fat, shambling _system_ and _I think_ we know it's our problem but we are too busy with pips and crowns and public relations to actually get down to the (admittedly very hard) task of cleaning up the system.

(We don't need ~ we should not try ~ to design any system that does not have intense political involvement. Our _system_ has it origins in the 16th century, I like to trace it to a deal that John Hawkins, then (_circa_ 1575) the Treasurer of the Navy) made a bargain with the shipbuilders at Chatham. The _bargain_ included new ship designs, etc, and it was, essentially, a deal between the "operators" (Hawkins was, first and foremost, a combat commander doing a senior staff job) and the suppliers ~ just what many military folks would like. But William Cecil, Lord Burghley, the Lord Treasurer and _de facto_ prime minister of England, would not allow the Navy to deal directly with suppliers without "cutting in" the Queen. We had, by the 1580s, the outline of the _system_ we still use today: political ~ bureaucratic ~ military ~ industrial, but with political concerns always being predominant. That doesn't mean that the system cannot be much more efficient and effective, but it does mean that we cannot even try to "cut out" the politicians or the bureaucrats: they have (unwritten but very, very real) _Constitutional_ rights and responsibilities for both the defence of the realm, including equipping the armed forces, and the people's money, and their roles need to be respected. I remember, faintly (I was only a subaltern at the time) in about 1968 when we heard about the new CFHQ. I do recall that _Requirements_ were JOINT. As I recall, I may have the details wrong wrong, there was "chief" (a two star) and directors general (one stars) for combat requirements and support requirements but the first time one saw a 100% navy, or army, or air "requirements" team was at the lieutenant colonel level. (We were told that this was in, partial, response to the _Avro Arrow_ fiasco when one service's requirement was, nearly, allowed to break the entire defence budget; a _joint_ requirements staff, we were told, would seek to _balance_ all our needs and get "just enough" of what everyone needed for the _joint_ mission of defending Canada and home and abroad.)

"Requirements" are a mix of political _direction_, bureaucratic _allocation of resources_ and military _foresight_. In an ideal world operational requirements arise when military officers "see" a deficiency in the CF's capabilities to meet the missions and tasks assigned by the government ... that *assumes*, of course, that one can detect some _direction_ (some missions and tasks) in the government's policy statements.

"Procurement" is the process through which the resources, allocated by the bureaucrats, are used, within overarching government policy direction, to buy what's needed to meet the requirements in a timely manner.

It may well be that we, the uniformed military, have a valid, well defined, quite unassailable "operational requirement," grounded in clear government policy, *but* unaffordable within the existing resource envelope. What do we do, then? In practice, admirals and generals try to use their (limited) "political capital" to drum up public support for the requirement. It is, after, the people's country we are defending and their money which we want to spend ... if they, the people, don't agree with us then "we" need to try to change their minds: to inform them.

It may also happen than, as is the case in Canada today, the government has defined some _strategies_ that are, in the main, *limitations* on spending, over time, to both create some jobs and be able to say "promise made, promise kept." What do we do then? Not much, I'm afraid: it is the government's _*right*_ and _*duty*_ to make those kinds of "strategies." It's not really good _strategy_ but it is well within the remit of our elected governments.

But, there are some things that serving military officers *can do*, right now, that could help unplug the _system_:

     1. Close some unnecessary (there are many, Many, MANY of them) staff branches and, indeed, compete HQs and reassign very good people to a revitalized _joint_ requirements staff that can bring some operational (and budgetary) balance to the whole process;

     2. Get _procurement_ out of the _requirements_ business and, conversely, ensure that the _procurement_ system is open to and trusted by the "operators" so that they will not be tempted to intrude into areas in which they do not belong.

Point 1 means being "grownup;" understanding that the entire defence envelope must be supported not just one bit, here, and another there. _I think_ that is a failing, right now, in the uniformed services. I do not believe that enough senior officers have a CF "field of view," too many, _I fear_, do not even have a full view of their own service's needs, or, if they do, they are submerging the needs of the service to the perceived needs of one small component.

Point 2 is _procedural_ ~ what a lot of important staff work is, really, all about ... it would be hard to do, but that's why staff officers get to work in air conditioned offices instead of being at sea, out in the mud and rain, or in a cramped cockpit.

It is, as PPCLI Guy says, _our problem_, we, the CF, _own_ it. It is not beyond the wit of man to solve the military parts of the problem and, thereby, make major reforms to the system ... if enough senior officers want to do that. If the senior uniformed military leads then the senior bureaucrats will follow: they aren't any happier than we are.

Prof Byers hasn't helped: he may have gotten some of the symptoms right but he's identified the wrong disease, and his cure, therefore, will do more harm than good.

       _  "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
          But in ourselves, that we are underlings."_
                                             William Shakespeare
                                             Julius Caesar (I, ii, 140-141)

_____
* For example, in the 1980s I _designed_ a small part of the process that aimed to ensure that the _dividing line_ between the uniformed, military "sponsors" of a requirement and the mixed civil-military engineering and procurement staff was _clear_, but, in so doing, I probably made it harder for the "operator" to make his influence count ... I did that because I worked for the guy at the top of the engineering (projects) heap and he wanted to ensure that his power was protected. Later (1990s), with the best of intentions, I added yet another (thin) layer to an already overloaded process ... I did that because an operator had made a technically unsound (downright improper) decision and it made it into the media and it got the DM's attention. She (the DM was a she at the time) didn't want this to ever happen again and she, like many, Many, MANY managers believed that adding another regulation was always the right answer.


Edit: format (Mod edit also done on format)


----------



## Underway

His big push seems to be that because we haven't fought a war against a state actor with full spectrum military capabilities then we don't need a military that can take on these types of conflicts.

I haven't had a fire in my house or a car accident in over 15 years.  Perhaps I need to cancel my insurance to save $10'000 over the next 8 years.  I call it "Smart Insuring".


----------



## McG

Underway said:
			
		

> His big push seems to be that because we haven't fought a war against a state actor with full spectrum military capabilities then we don't need a military that can take on these types of conflicts.
> 
> I haven't had a fire in my house or a car accident in over 15 years.  Perhaps I need to cancel my insurance to save $10'000 over the next 8 years.  I call it "Smart Insuring".


... and, of course, Canada is currently the most vigorously involved in rattling sabres in Russia's face.  If we want to be doing that, we should be investing commensurately in the resources to back-up the rhetoric.


----------



## MarkOttawa

MCG: "most vigourously involved in rattling sabres in Russia's face"?



> US confirms it will place 250 tanks in eastern Europe to counter Russian threat
> Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Bulgaria, Romania and Poland will host equipment, says Ash Carter, the US defence secretary
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/11693497/US-confirms-it-will-place-250-tanks-in-eastern-Europe-to-counter-Russian-threat.html
> 
> 4-star on Russia: 'The threat that has my greatest focus'
> http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2015/06/26/gen-allyn-eastern-europe-greatest-focus/29329693/
> 
> Photos show B-52s loaded with mines for simulated massive naval mine drop outside Sweden
> http://theaviationist.com/2015/06/14/photos-show-b-52s-loaded-with-mines-for-simulated-massive-naval-mine-drop-outside-sweden/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. Army Begins Training Ukrainian Soldiers [we haven't]
> http://wnpr.org/post/us-army-begins-training-ukrainian-soldiers#stream/0
> 
> US warship visits Georgia amid Ukraine crisis
> http://news.yahoo.com/us-warship-visits-georgia-amid-ukraine-crisis-152656856.html



Don't be taken in by the Canadian media's relentless spin.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Underway

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> MCG: "most vigourously involved in rattling sabres in Russia's face"?
> 
> Don't be taken in by the Canadian media's relentless spin.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Oh the rattling is vigorous.  Its just that we only have one sabre. And we are rattling from far away.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

"Speak Loudly, Wave a Small Stick!"


----------



## Good2Golf

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> 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).



OGBD, I didn't read him that way.  I though the 9-years was a (not unreasonable) dig at the Cons...2006-2015 is nine years.  Libs were, as you know, 13 years, from 1993 to 2006.  I interpreted his statement to mean that, notwithstanding procurements of C-17s, Leopard 2s and Chinooks (which some will attribute more to Hillier's influence to get big honking helicopters, and tanks and big cargo planes than the Con's love of the CAF) [I'll write C-130J's off as their path being pretty much put in place during the last few years of Lib rule], the rest of the Con record has seen limited functionality...still no MLVW replacements (SMP, not the mil cots stuff), BHH (big honking ship), FWSAR, etc...  It would be somewhat of a challenge to disagree with him in that regard).

Then again, maybe I misread Byers.  :dunno:

G2G


----------



## Eland2

The only defence budget I personally support is one that provides for, and maintains general combat capability for the CF. Peacekeeping is all very well and good when there is a peace to keep, and the warring factions are willing to cooperate. But if you organize the military around peacekeeping missions as the dominant role and its raison d'etre, you deprive it of the capability to engage in much more demanding missions when required, and relegate it to being a more or less ineffectual constabulary. The same holds true of counter-insurgency missions.

When I talk about 'general purpose combat capability', I mean the ability to prosecute a major war, albeit on a smaller scale than some of our alllies are capable of, given that Canada lacks the manpower, wealth, and resources to be able to engage in such conflict entirely on its own.

To my way of thinking, it makes far more sense to have a military that has a mix of heavy and light weapons systems and capabilities, and scale them down accordingly if need be to fit lighter missions like peacekeeping than it does to have a peacekeeping military and try to scale its capabilities upwards using resources that are already inadequate. 

Overall, a general purpose combat capability should rest on a pillar that supports three major aims: to the maximum extent possible, the defence of Canada and preservation of its sovereignty, and, the ability to project power beyond Canada's borders to advance Canada's foreign policy aims and protect Canadian citizens and assets overseas. The third aim should be ensuring that the CF have enough manpower and sufficient resources to be able to competently and effectively honour treaty obligations within organizations like NATO and NORAD.


----------



## McG

Sun Media is adding its editorial voice to the call for 2% GDP for defence funding and for the defence budget to be an election topic.  In the Ottawa, Toronto, Winnipeg Calgary and Edmonton editions of the Sun, the following has been published today:



> Help vets by supporting active soldiers
> The Calgary Sun
> 25 Aug 2015
> 
> If Justin Trudeau really wants to support our veterans he also needs to support our men and women in the military while they're still in service.
> 
> On Monday the Liberal leader announced a handful of campaign pledges involving veterans. These include hiring 400 new staff members at Veterans Affairs, budgeting $20 million to create two new veterans care centres and committing $80 million to build a new Veterans Education Benefit, which would pay for veterans' post-secondary education. These are all good measures. Every party should show a similar commitment to supporting our vets. They put their lives on the line for us and it's up to us to help them with their health and future once they return.
> 
> But that's not the full story. One of the main ways we can help them is by making sure they have the best equipment, training and resources they need while they're on the job. Right now Canada could do so much more for our men and women in uniform.
> 
> We agree with Sun Media columnist David Akin that defence spending needs to be an election issue.
> 
> Akin points out our equipment is behind the times: "The CF-18 fighter planes -now bombing ISIS targets in Iraq and Syria -- were acquired in the 1980s."
> 
> All members of NATO, including Canada, have committed to spending 2% of GDP on our military. But we fall short. Very short. We're on track to be at 0.89% of GDP.
> 
> The last time Canada spent 2% of GDP in our military was back in 1971-1972, when Pierre Trudeau was prime minister.
> 
> That's a scandal. How can we send our men and women into harm's way if they're not properly funded?
> 
> So while Trudeau's veterans announcements deserve applause, he's only addressing half of the issue.
> 
> Does Trudeau see the value in this? Perhaps not. He doesn't even support the mission against the Islamic State. Can he be trusted to properly fund it?
> 
> Trudeau, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and NDP Leader Tom Mulcair have so far avoided making any campaign statements on this issue. It's time they spoke out.
> 
> If you care about our vets, give them the funding they need to do their job successfully and safely.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Clearly a trial balloon from Dippers, who don't seem to have a firm grasp on some facts (or else it's the author):



> Lawrence Martin
> Military spending might be NDP’s secret weapon
> 
> ...it would be rather strange to expect the New Democrats to propose higher military spending than the Conservatives. But don’t be dumbfounded if it happens.
> 
> “You might well imagine,” an adviser to Thomas Mulcair was telling me, “Tom coming out in September and saying Harper has driven down defence spending to one per cent of GDP. We’re going to raise it to 1.2 per cent. We have a military that’s being allowed to rust out and we’re going to fix it.”
> 
> Another adviser cautioned the level of support might not be that high – a 20 per cent increase – but significant enough to show Canadians the NDP is by no means soft on defence.
> 
> ...the Conservatives, adept at military tributes and warrior-nation marketing, have created an image which belies the statistics. Their muscle-flexing is with itsy-bitsy biceps, but they have somehow projected an image of global tough guys. They defend their record, saying they have increased overall military spending by 27 per cent, a number which doesn’t factor in inflation. They plan on boosting outlays beginning in 2017.
> 
> The approach being considered by the NDP would abandon the Tory plan to purchase hyper-expensive F-35 fighter jets and aim for something more reasonably priced. Among the _NDP’s other priorities are search and rescue helicopters_ [emphasis added, surely FWSAR], armoured [?] trucks for the army
> [SMP contract now done https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/07/16/mark-collins-canadian-army-truckin-at-last-whiff-of-porc/ ],
> supply ships for the Navy [lease more from Davie?], more spending on housing and health care for the troops.
> 
> A big emphasis would be put on cleaning up the procurement process. While the Tories like to boast of being prudent financial mangers, they have overseen one procurement debacle after another.
> 
> Michael Byers, a defence specialist and former NDP candidate, says that given the resulting shortfalls in military hardware “any government that is serious about completing necessary procurements would therefore incur higher costs.”..
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/military-spending-might-be-ndps-secret-weapon/article26076974/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Edward Campbell

geo said:
			
		

> You can plan to hire and employ as many reservists as you want, but the day the government tells the CF to cut xx millions from his budget, where do you think he's going to cut 1st....
> 
> Class A reservists payroll & field training budget is one of the only places the CDS can cut, without hamstringing his ability to field an effective fighting force.




The government cannot get defence budgeting straight unless and until it has a defence policy. My sense is that any defence policy is unwelcome because it is likely to be expensive.

Before you can have any sort of sensible, comprehensible defence policy you need to have a _strategic survey_ to tell you _*why*_ you need to defend Canada ... against who or what?

I am absolutely certain that we have more than one _strategic survey_. I'm sure there's on in DND and another in Foreign Affairs. There are, _I am guessing_, two problems with those two: _first_, they contradict one another, and _second_, no one in the _political/policy centre_ in Ottawa (PMO, PCO, Finance and TB) really believes what either DND or DFAIT think about the big, wide world.

I am also certain that the Department of Finance has a detailed _strategic survey_ ~ with its focus on economics, of course, but dealing with security and defence issues, too. I am equally cerrtain that PCO has its own _strategic survey_, also, that takes account of Finance's document and takes some note of DND's and DFAIT's views, too. _I suspect_ the PMO has another and _I fear_ that it is not consistent with what PCO, Finance and even DFAIT and DND think.

My view is that defence policy can go nowhere because there is no consensus between PMO and PCO about the problem. Without a defence policy DND cannot establish sensible spending priorities. Without decent priorities Prime Minister Harper's promises about reserves (or ships or fighter jets or anything else) are meaningless. (Ditto, by the way, for promises that might be made by Messers Muclair and Trudeau.)


----------



## McG

It would be nice to see this get some discussion tonight.


> *Canada's patched-up military: Too few dollars, too many missions*
> If there is an election debate needed, it's on Canada's military role and what we can afford
> Brian Stewart, CBC News
> 28 Sep 2015
> 
> National defence is a dead zone in our elections, rarely debated in depth in a country where the military and its multiple problems are mostly out of sight, out of mind.
> 
> Sure, the bizarre complexities of the F-35 stealth fighter inevitably surface, as they did when Justin Trudeau vowed to scrap it entirely from the competition to replace the aging CF-18s.
> 
> But controversy briefly focused on one weapon system is hardly an adequate debate into the chronic ills of a long-underfunded military.
> 
> This national conversation is missing because politicians know defence is rarely a big vote getter, and voters seem content to let Ottawa spend as little on defence as it can get away with. And it gets away with a lot.
> 
> Somehow we scrape by with a dilapidated navy, now forced to rent foreign supply ships on a day-rate just to keep our much shrunken fleet occasionally ocean worthy.
> 
> Then there is an air force still bewildered over when it will get to replace the CF-18s we bought back in the 1980s; and an army impatient to see delivery of the new trucks that have been promised for a decade.
> 
> Those steadily rising military budgets and bold new weapons promised by the Harper government back in 2008 under the Canada First Defence Strategy have been derailed by budget cuts, spending freezes and procurement foul-ups.
> 
> While the Conservative government claims its defence spending over the years has risen massively, independent studies show the Tories actually underspent their own approved military budgets by close to $10 billion. They also chopped nearly $5 billion from defence since 2012, in large part to help Stephen Harper reach his much proclaimed budget surplus.
> 
> "The spending now on the military, when you adjust for the inflation is back where it was … at roughly 2007 levels," says David Perry, senior defence analyst with the Conference of Defence Associations.
> 
> We tend to think that the $18 to $20 billion we spend a year on defence amounts to an awful lot over a decade or so.
> 
> But it is actually far short of what's needed to sustain our forces in the work we expect them to do.
> 
> We're going to need to add on much more — between $33 billion and $42 billion across the coming decade — just to  adequately modernize and maintain our military, warns Parliamentary Budget Officer Jean-Denis Frechette.
> 
> And even that wouldn't satisfy our allies. Leaders of the NATO alliance, especially the U.S. and U.K., nag that we should be spending twice what we're now doing, up from one per cent of GDP to the two per cent that NATO members have set as the common goal.
> 
> The last time Canada hit that two per cent mark was (surprise) under Pierre Trudeau over 40 years ago, and we're not about to get even remotely close in the foreseeable future.
> 
> So we remain slumped near the bottom of NATO, 22 out of 28 in the percentage of GDP that we spend on a common defence.
> 
> The curious thing in all this is that the lower we sink in military spending, and the more tattered our equipment, the tougher our government promotes Canada's military "brand" and its role abroad
> 
> That surely is no accident. What Harper has done is shrug off the NATO nagging by trading dollars for duties.
> 
> This is done by setting up our armed forces as a reliable "go to" force in the Western alliance. A minor contributor, but a hyperactive one.
> 
> So, in just the past five years, Canadians have fought in Afghanistan, chased pirates in the Red Sea, bombed Libya, conducted air strikes against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, trained combat troops near front-line position in Kurdistan, Iraq, helped upgrade Ukraine's embattled infantry and flown fighter patrols over Baltic nations as part of NATO's show of force.
> 
> The Conservatives have not exactly turned our military into a mercenary force, but they have insisted that multi-million-dollar values be attached to this muscular service abroad and included in NATO accounts.
> 
> It's a powerful case, strongly made, at a time when many European NATO members are notoriously reluctant to volunteer for risky foreign missions. Harper's Canada by contrast seems to strain at the leash.
> 
> "We don't measure these things strictly in terms of dollars, we measure them in terms of capabilities," Harper has said when asked about Canada's share of NATO spending.
> 
> The problem, though, is that while a (often limited) show of capabilities overseas can give us some make-up points with allies, it does nothing to address the serious weaknesses that flow from dilapidated equipment and constant budget shortfalls.
> 
> Two years ago, a very rare red-flag memo from then chief of the defence staff, Gen. Tom Lawson, warned that continued budget cuts threatened the availability of key fleets of aircraft, ships and army vessels while "this in turn has an overall impact upon training and readiness."
> 
> The navy, tasked with defending seven million kilometres of Canadian waters has essentially been reduced to little more than a modest coastal defence force.
> 
> It lacks modern destroyers as command ships, and the dozen frigates left now lack dedicated large supply ships, which are essential for deep ocean operations.
> 
> Eventually our own "joint support ships" will be built as part of a planned $28 billion modernization. But this plan, too, has been dogged by constant procurement delays.
> 
> As for future promises, the Conservatives are vowing larger reserves and bigger budgets, but only starting two years from now.
> 
> Meanwhile the Liberals promise cheaper fighter jets and to make the navy "a priority," and the NDP vaguely vows to repair a military that both past Liberal and Conservative governments have allowed "to rust out."
> 
> Overall, it's pretty thin campaign gruel and perhaps what we've grown to expect.
> 
> Still, whoever gains power next month has a rude reality looming as the now staggering cost of delayed military modernization keeps escalating with inflation, and will be the bane of balanced budget hopes for many years to come.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-defence-spending-brian-stewart-1.3242611


----------



## TCM621

Just to add on to this. We currently have 56k and change as trained effective strength service members (reg force). I had it in my head for some reason that we were still at 68k. That is small. Just to add some perspective the UK has 156k regular force. The Aussies about 58k and the mexicans about 200k.


----------



## dapaterson

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> Just to add on to this. We currently have 56k and change as trained effective strength service members (reg force). I had it in my head for some reason that we were still at 68k. That is small. Just to add some perspective the UK has 156k regular force. The Aussies about 58k and the mexicans about 200k.



Are you comparing total strength or trained strength across the board?  It makes a significant difference - apples to apples, as it were...

Canada has always reported total strength, including those not yet occupationally qualified.  Thus, using the 56K figure is misleading, as it omits others that have traditionally been included.


----------



## Kirkhill

Just a point: 

Outside of Afghanistan all of those missions have been accomplished with minimal Canadian Army involvement.  They are RCN led.  They are RCAF led. They are CANSOFCOM led.  They don't require many bodies.  They don't require a large footprint.  They don't generate many Canadian casualties.

A massive chunk of the defence budget goes towards recruiting, training, maintaining, supporting and "divesting" soldiers of the Canadian Army that governments of all stripes are increasingly unwilling to use.


----------



## TCM621

56k is trained effective strength (TES) meaning people who are trained (QL3 I believe) and able to do the job (ie not at JPSU,  etc). If you include non effective strength members,  it is 60k and change.  That is straight from this year's PARRA report on the DGPR site. We do not have 12 thousand people siting in pat platoon awaiting training.


----------



## dapaterson

Reg F is not at 60K and change.  You are misinterpreting the numbers.


----------



## McG

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Reg F is not at 60K and change.  You are misinterpreting the numbers.


It was 65K and change when I looked in June.

Anyway, a few individuals offer a path to a stronger military for party leaders to follow and the National Post offers it for all to view:



> *A roadmap to a stronger military*
> Paul H. Chapin, J.L. Granatstein, Brig. Gen. (Ret) Don Mcnamara And Hugh Segal
> 28 Sep 15
> 
> Canada today is a secure and prosperous nation, but security conditions have been deteriorating. A militant and violent Islamist terror is rampant throughout the Middle East without an agreed strategy to contain it, claiming over 100,000 lives, displacing more than 10 million, and causing a migration crisis of global dimensions. Russia and China have coerced neighbours and taken unilateral action over disputed areas - with the laws and institutions the world has counted on to maintain the peace for 70 years standing by helplessly. There are concerns about Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, and the lunatic regime in North Korea now has them. Meanwhile, the United States has retreated from its international leadership role.
> 
> As a highly globalized society, Canada has vital interests at risk - a secure homeland (freedom from fear), economic well-being (freedom from want), a stable world order, and the human values and democratic principles we believe in. What sustains our way of life are security at home and stability abroad. In these uncertain times, we can hope for the best or try to guess what most threatens us. Or we can build the capabilities a G7 country ought to have no matter what. We think it's time we put a priority on self-defence and on our ability to influence global events.
> 
> There is work to do. Who actually "stands on guard" for Canada today? The Canadian Armed Forces have the primary responsibility, but their overall military effectiveness is small compared to the job we expect them to do. Why is the world's second-largest country being defended by the world's 58th largest military force? Governments routinely declare defence to be a vital public policy, then treat it as a discretionary rather than mandatory activity, with a licence to raid the defence budget to finance other things. There is a callousness to this which is unbecoming of a people who cherish their country and want to see it secure. As Jack Granatstein has said, "Canadian governments, whatever their political stripe, cynically reckon that the men and women in uniform can get by with obsolete equipment and insufficient funding. After all, who worries about the need to protect Canada's national interests?"
> 
> Canadian industry has not helped by insisting on being a preferred supplier of military equipment it has limited capacity to produce. This has been costly: equipment has been much more expensive for the Canadian Armed Forces than for the militaries of other countries, it takes much longer to enter into service, and the delay requires millions in retrofits to keep old equipment running. Allies have played a part too, criticizing Canada for not "pulling its weight" in NATO - by which they really mean not doing more for the defence of Europe. This has distracted us from doing more for our own defence. As an ally in good standing we have a role to play in deterring Russian aggression, but Europe today is an economic giant fully capable of underwriting its own defence.
> 
> How to fix this? The starting point has to be Canada's vital interests and what it will take to protect them. It's what citizens understand, will support, and will pay for. Defence budgets have gone up and down over the decades, but they've never gone down when citizens were part of the discussion.
> 
> What capabilities should citizens be entitled to expect? Effective response to domestic crises with the military on hand when first responders cannot cope. Protection from terrorist attacks. The exercise of sovereignty over all of Canada's land, sea, and airspace, including the strategically important and ecologically vulnerable North. Full partnership with the United States in the common defence of North America. An influential voice on international security issues. The capacity to make a significant military contribution to shaping a favourable international security environment. Strong support for humanitarian operations. This is an entirely reasonable and feasible agenda, but citizens are not getting much of it.
> 
> So what's blocking things? Mainly how we think about defence. First off, let's agree Canada is worth it. That means Canadians should have armed forces able to defend their country and support their international goals. This is partly a matter of ensuring the forces have the means to do what we ask of them. It's also a function of how we manage them, equip them, and finance them. Canadians need to understand better how important military human resources are to their security, not allow them to be deployed for capricious reasons when vital national interests are not at stake, and respect the "social covenant" between the military and citizens. When service members put their lives on the line for the nation, citizens owe them the best training, equipment and care available. Governments should spare no expense to look after wounded veterans and their families. Without limits? Are there limits to the liability service members accept?
> 
> Military procurement has been a disaster because it has been driven by just about every consideration other than getting the troops the equipment they need when they need it. Bordering on the Atlantic and Pacific, Canada needs a deployable blue-water navy to meet its strategic requirements, not to fulfil industrial and regional development aspirations. Occasionally, procurement works well. In 2006, the government decided it wouldn't settle for leasing Ukrainian cargo planes to move supplies to Canadian troops in Afghanistan and gave notice it would purchase four large Boeing C-17 transport aircraft. It took delivery of the first one just a year later. The lesson: you can do it if you want to.
> 
> We also have to stop being sad-sacks about whether we can "afford" something. Canada is fabulously wealthy and could spend much more on defence. Its closest friends all spend more proportionately - and they don't have to close hospitals, fire teachers, or throw single mothers into the street to "afford" it. Those who predict this sort of thing need to be asked why they didn't even notice, let alone complain, when Canada's defence budget doubled to help finance the Afghanistan campaign. If the budget can go from $10 billion to $22 billion in 10 years without anyone noticing (besides maybe a few folks at DND and Finance), why not to $30 billion? That's not an outrageous number. It would represent about 10 per cent of the federal budget, not an unreasonable portion to devote to protecting the other 90 per cent and the kind of country that that budget helps sustain. It's more like five per cent today.
> 
> Finally, let's end Canadians' irrational love affair with "UN peacekeeping" which many believe can and should be Canada's role in the world. They worship a myth, not grounded in reality. First, peacekeeping is a dangerous business; 3,386 members of UN peacekeeping missions have been killed since 1948, including 121 Canadians, and the trend is worsening. Second, peace operations are no less worthy just because they are not UN-led. Increasingly, the UN has had to mandate other organizations (NATO, EU, African Union) to undertake the really difficult peace operations (Balkans, Afghanistan, East Africa, Congo). And third, Canadian decisions to participate in peacekeeping have been motivated by realpolitik not altruism - to keep otherwise inconsequential regional disputes becoming major wars and leading to nuclear confrontation. Bottom line: the creation of conditions for peace today requires combat-capable forces, not observers in blue berets.
> 
> What to do? The list of good things to do could fill a volume. We have selected eight practical measures which will make a difference.
> 
> Instill a sense of urgency
> 
> The defence of Canada and its interests deserves a greater sense of urgency than governments have been giving it. Good ideas have been developed and sensible plans made, only to have them languish and allocations left unspent. At the current pace, previous capabilities won't be restored until 2025 at the earliest - a long time for a serious country to continue to live with aged fighters and warships and for its Prime Minister to be able to offer only token contributions to shaping a favourable international security environment.
> 
> Issue a national security strategy
> 
> Unlike our major allies, we have never articulated an overall national security strategy - a set of policies - to guide the activities of the many departments and agencies of government involved in internal and international security affairs. Such a strategy would put a security plan in place which could be monitored and adjusted as necessary, and it would help end the interminable arguments over priorities, jurisdictions, and budgets.
> 
> Invest in information and ideas
> 
> Governments should have the best information available to make the best possible decisions on national security issues. This is not something they now can count on. Canada should invest in an Office of National Assessment such as Australia has, tasked with gathering data from both classified and open sources and producing independent assessments directly for the Prime Minister. We should also invest in the intellectual capital on which our aspirations to exercise international leadership depend. There has been such a "dumbing down" of Canadian policy capacity that Canada no longer has much to offer in solving international problems. We need to build up policy capacity in government and reverse the reductions in Canada's diplomatic and military staff in the places decisions are made.
> 
> Increase the size of the Armed Forces
> 
> Canada's armed forces are too small and stretched too thin to adequately protect its interests in the complex and uncertain times in which we live. A total force of 150,000, including 50,000 in a Ready Reserve, would be a realistic five-year goal. Canada has one of the smallest Reserve forces in the world. The Reserves are mainly Army units trained for combat and available to reinforce the Regular Force as necessary. They are also the key resource when national calamities occur. So far, the Canadian Armed Forces have been able to respond when called upon, but one cannot be sanguine about their ability to handle a series of events, multiple events at the same time, or a major event like the earthquake some foresee for the west coast.
> 
> Ensure a capability for enforcement action in the North
> 
> Canada needs to be able to enforce national authority over national territory, seas, and airspace. This doesn't require, as many believe, a permanent armed presence in the North.
> 
> The constant would be effective satellite and aircraft patrols so that the proper authorities can know what's going on and direct military assets to areas where and when sovereignty enforcement is necessary. The challenge is to ensure the Canadian Armed Forces have a persistent ability to take effective identification, interception, and enforcement action especially in strategically important locations whenever others are present.
> 
> Participate in ballistic missile defence
> 
> Canada was a full partner with the United States in defending the continent until 2005, when it unilaterally absented itself from a role in dealing with the gravest new threat the continent faces, ballistic missiles. The arguments for participation are stronger today than ever, while those against are as vapid as ever. Right now, Canada is the only NATO member not involved in ballistic missile defence.
> 
> Buy F-35s
> 
> Canada must also replace its CF-18s with F-35s. Despite the dust thrown up, the facts are clear. Canada needs a fifth-generation fighter to be interoperable with the U.S. in continental defence and with allies in coalition operations. Anything less means Canadian fighters can be seen and engaged by enemy aircraft before they even know they are in the vicinity. The only fifth generation fighter being manufactured in the west is the F-35. Its costs are not "out of control"; the manufacturer's price has dropped by 50 per cent since 2007. What has been out of control are the estimates of the costs and of the F-35's lifespan - from DND's 20 years to PBO's 30 years, to the AG's 36 years, to KPMG's 42 years. If the F-35 is "too expensive" for Canada, why have 12 other countries apart from the U.S. not found it too expensive to place orders for 674 aircraft? .
> 
> Restore the Navy
> 
> According to DND, "The construction of the first Canadian Surface Combatant is expected to begin in the early part of the next decade." Meanwhile, the Navy no longer has any support vessels to replenish its existing warships at sea and is looking at options to fill the role until two new auxiliary oiler replenishment (AOR) vessels become operational around 2021. This is not what the Chretien, Martin or Harper governments had planned. Since 1994, the idea had been to acquire not two AORs but four much more capable "joint support ships." The larger number would provide the Navy the flexibility required to operate off two coasts, while a JSS can both resupply warships and sealift troops, equipment, supplies, and helicopters for international operations. O Canada. Most of us know the words and can sing them at hockey games. But many fewer of us pause to think about what they mean. And very few of us are actually involved in "standing on guard." Let's change that.
> 
> _Excerpted from O Canada: Who Stands on Guard for Thee? An Open Letter to the Political Party Leaders. Published by the Vimy Institute._


----------



## TCM621

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Reg F is not at 60K and change.  You are misinterpreting the numbers.


I'll look again tomorrow but it seemed pretty cut and dried.


----------



## dapaterson

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> I'll look again tomorrow but it seemed pretty cut and dried.



I suspect you are omitting the BTL & SUTL.  Rather fundamental things.


----------



## TCM621

I was a little off. TES is 56,061. Prefered manning Level is 60,416 and total strength is 65,715. Regardless, my intial point was that we have 56k who are functional.


----------



## dapaterson

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> I was a little off. TES is 56,061. Prefered manning Level is 60,416 and total strength is 65,715. Regardless, my intial point was that we have 56k who are functional.



That's 56K of the 60K target, of the 68K target paid.

And I know of ongoing studies to validate whether the 60K is an achievable goal within the 68K cap; BTL/SUTL/SPHL etc all place demands on the system that are known, but may not be currently met with their allocations.


----------



## TCM621

dapaterson said:
			
		

> That's 56K of the 60K target, of the 68K target paid.
> 
> And I know of ongoing studies to validate whether the 60K is an achievable goal within the 68K cap; BTL/SUTL/SPHL etc all place demands on the system that are known, but may not be currently met with their allocations.



Maybe you can expand on that a bit.  We are aiming for 60k TES with another 8k assumed to be non-effective for various reasons such as training, injured, etc? The way I see it, they are setting the bar low and failing to achieve it. As a G7 country and the second biggest landmass in the world, even a 60k military is a fraction of what we need and could reasonably afford.


----------



## Kirkhill

And while you are at it DAP perhaps you can square those numbers with these plans....

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs-report-plan-priorities/2015-analysis-programs-strategic-outcome.page#p4_4_1
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs-report-plan-priorities/2015-reserve-force.page

I have a cup of coffee if you want it.


----------



## dapaterson

For the Reg F #s: DND does not manage by PAA; it only reports by PAA.  Meaning that the reports are crafted by machine (with some human intervention) and may or may not seem to align with reality.

For the Res F: I'm aware of a number of ongoing intiatives to improve the information reported.  Which includes better breakdowns of full time vs part time Reservists, and better attribution of where the full-time Res F is employed - in Res units or in the rather amply girthed HQs Canada seems to love so much.


----------



## Kirkhill

dapaterson said:
			
		

> For the Reg F #s: DND does not manage by PAA; it only reports by PAA.  Meaning that the reports are crafted by machine (with some human intervention) and may or may not seem to align with reality.
> 
> For the Res F: I'm aware of a number of ongoing intiatives to improve the information reported.  Which includes better breakdowns of full time vs part time Reservists, and better attribution of where the full-time Res F is employed - in Res units or in the rather amply girthed HQs Canada seems to love so much.



So, wrt the Regs, 

Assuming that Lt Col Boyd knew what he was talking about, 







How far is the Observation from the Orientation and how many iterations are you looking at before they match?

I gather the Reserve numbers are, charitably, indeterminate?


----------



## Good2Golf

PAA is an annual roll-up and will lag, so by the time of its reporting, it will never match the actual figures.  PAA is meant as a reporting/context tool, not the actual positional management tools.

:2c:

Cheers
G2G


----------



## TCM621

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> PAA is an annual roll-up and will lag, so by the time of its reporting, it will never match the actual figures.  PAA is meant as a reporting/context tool, not the actual positional management tools.
> 
> :2c:
> 
> Cheers
> G2G


It should be fairly close though, right? Unless we have a massive hire or release hit, the numbers should be a good estimate. 

To me the fact that we have 56k TES aiming for a PML of 60k is ridiculous. We are basically aiming for 60th place in the world. We are G7 country and the second largest land mass. Anything less that top a 20 military is embarrassing. 
I know it's not all about numbers but at the end of the day it takes bodies to function at the top and we are about 140 thousand people away from being in the top 25 in terms of numbers. If we doubled our numbers, and gave them the kit to function we might, maybe,  be able to argue for top 20 status.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> It should be fairly close though, right? Unless we have a massive hire or release hit, the numbers should be a good estimate.
> 
> To me the fact that we have 56k TES aiming for a PML of 60k is ridiculous. We are basically aiming for 60th place in the world. _We are G7 country and the second largest land mass. Anything less that top a 20 military is embarrassing. _
> I know it's not all about numbers but at the end of the day it takes bodies to function at the top and we are about 140 thousand people away from being in the top 25 in terms of numbers. If we doubled our numbers, and gave them the kit to function we might, maybe,  be able to argue for top 20 status.




And that is the sort of argument that we, informed citizens, can and should make to politicians. 

The politicians and the senior bureaucrats have expert advice on everything from equipment to force structure, and they _should_ follow it. You and I  might disagree with the advice being offered, but the top level policy makers are duty bound to listen to the real experts in the government's employ.

We citizens, on the other hand, _can_ and _should_ say what sort of foreign, security and defence _policies_ we want.

If we are very, very certain of our ground we can even speak about capabilities. I, for example, would feel on safe ground to say to a political candidate that my vote goes to the person and party promising and delivering 24/7, near real time surveillance over all of Canada's territory, the maritime approaches to that territory and the airspace over both. I will know that I am asking for (a) constellation(s) of satellites in non-geostationary orbit, land based radars, airborne warning and control systems, land and undersea sensors and control and analysis facilities, but I, personally, would feel confident to say that. I would not feel competent to say what fighter jet we need, much less how many, nor what ships or tanks or boots.

If enough of us tell the politicians enough reasonable things ~ if we all stay in our lanes, in other words ~ they might listen to some of it.

Our lanes are to say _what_ we want; the experts (military people, engineers, contractors) are there to tell the government _how_ it can be delivered. We, finally, have to tell our politicians that we are (or are not) willing to pay for it all.


----------



## Good2Golf

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> It should be fairly close though, right? Unless we have a massive hire or release hit, the numbers should be a good estimate.
> 
> To me the fact that we have 56k TES aiming for a PML of 60k is ridiculous. We are basically aiming for 60th place in the world. We are G7 country and the second largest land mass. Anything less that top a 20 military is embarrassing.
> I know it's not all about numbers but at the end of the day it takes bodies to function at the top and we are about 140 thousand people away from being in the top 25 in terms of numbers. If we doubled our numbers, and gave them the kit to function we might, maybe,  be able to argue for top 20 status.



...but (most) Canadians only want to believe that we are influential and strong, etc...  They don't want to pay the price (offset by reducing other benefits) that such a military would take.  It's hard enough to make a case for 1.1% of GDP...


----------



## MilEME09

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> ...but (most) Canadians only want to believe that we are influential and strong, etc...  They don't want to pay the price (offset by reducing other benefits) that such a military would take.  It's hard enough to make a case for 1.1% of GDP...



I think it would be easier (not by much) to make the case if we could increase our manufacturing base as part of that increased spending. I know I am asking for a miracle but if we could manufacture more at home it might go better to make the case. More production licenses, and manufacturing at home rather then build else where and deliver.


----------



## Good2Golf

You mean like high-tech aerospace that will feel "Uncle Sam's Wrath" when the Liberals cancel F-35?  Some people naively think that we'll carry on getting all the secured contract resulting from JSF Program participation.

Time will tell.

G2G


----------



## McG

It would seem that, while promising a move toward "classic" peacekeeping, the NDP defence proposal would also require the largest investment in defence capability.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/election/ndp-defence-promises-could-make-party-top-military-spender-analyst-1.2604873

Is that irony?


----------



## jollyjacktar

Maybe so, but when the only direction is upwards...


----------



## PuckChaser

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Maybe so, but when the only direction is upwards...


I beg to differ, we can be cut, significantly. Especially if the NDPs left wing base gets its way.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Yes, they could.  But if any of them want to do more than they are, the only way is up.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Most politicians, there are a very few notable exceptions (and two of them are NDP), know little and care less about defence except as a prop for a photo-op. They don't care because it (you, if it's the case) is not an issue for about 98% of Canadians; polling says that defence spending is, consistently, ranked as about as popular as public spending on symphony orchestras and ballet-opera houses.

In the civil service, as I understand it, the mantra is to spend just enough to prevent the Americans from deciding that we need to be defended, by them. The civil service _strategists_ (and that's where almost all of them reside) assume that the US will, under any imaginable circumstance, defend Canada against any threat from any other nation. The only threat to our precious _sovereignty_, therefore, is from the USA, itself. We need to "defend against (American) help" which would, _de facto_, infringe upon our sovereignty.

The question is not, therefore: _"how much should we do?"_ it is: _"how little *can* we get away with doing?"_


----------



## MilEME09

So I was going through the verious defense promises of the parties when I realized I think someone in the NDP war room must be reading this site. Actually doing something smart and in the right direction for the CAF.



> Draft a new Defence White Paper by 2016 to articulate a clear strategic vision for the Canadian Armed Forces and Canada’s defence policy in the 21st Century.



Which based off the results of the White paper leads to.



> Launch a comprehensive review, as part of the Defence White Paper, to determine how best to meet Canada’s needs in the replacement of our aging fleet of CF-18 Fighters, and ensure that any new program is subject to a competitive process.


----------



## OldSolduer

As always Mr. Campbell has nailed it.


----------



## Kirkhill

MCG said:
			
		

> It would seem that, while promising a move toward "classic" peacekeeping, the NDP defence proposal would also require the largest investment in defence capability.
> 
> http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/election/ndp-defence-promises-could-make-party-top-military-spender-analyst-1.2604873
> 
> Is that irony?



Gladstone or Disraeli?
Major or Blair?

That sense of responsibility leads strange places.


----------



## Edward Campbell

I think that Prime Minister (elect) Trudeau (and Prime Minister Harper) find themselves in much the same sort of situation that confronted Prime Ministers St Laurent, Diefenbaker and Pearson in the 1950s and '60s: First, the _direct (military) threats_ to Canada are hard to explain because they are hard for Canadians to see; Second, the cost of defending Canada keeps rising and rising, far faster and higher then the general rate of inflation. Our limited resources seem to but less and less, even when the _performance envelope_ of a new weapon system is factored in to the equation. In short: Canadians don't want to spend on defence and we keep paying more for less.

In 1963 Paul Hellyer offered Mike Pearson an option: a leaner, more efficient military structure to help offset the inexorable cost increases that were making defence too expensive.

In the 1960s we also had the Glassco Commission (1960-63) which in my opinion led Minister hellyer down an organizational rate hole from which we still have not (fully) recovered.

I believe there are parallels today, without a Glassco Commission to miuddy the waters.


----------



## ArmyRick

Does anybody know what Trudeau's defence platform was? If they do, please do explain it more to me.


----------



## OldSolduer

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Does anybody know what Trudeau's defence platform was? If they do, please do explain it more to me.



I'd don't think there was one, other than "we're going to pull the 18s out of wherever they're at".

In other words we can't allow Canadian soldiers  to hurt anyone......


----------



## The Bread Guy

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Does anybody know what Trudeau's defence platform was? If they do, please do explain it more to me.


Quick highlights (the words, before looking over the books in detail, anyway):

"We will maintain current National Defence spending levels, including current planned increases."
"We will renew Canada’s commitment to peacekeeping operations."
"We will not buy the F-35 stealth fighter-bomber -- We will immediately launch an open and transparent competition to replace the CF-18 fighter aircraft ...."
"We will make investing in the Royal Canadian Navy a top priority -- By purchasing more affordable alternatives to the F-35s, we will be able to invest in strengthening our Navy, while also meeting the commitments that were made as part of the National Shipbuilding and Procurement Strategy." ....
"We will end Canada’s combat mission in Iraq -- We will refocus Canada’s military contribution in the region on the training of local force ...."
"We will implement the recommendations made in the Canadian Forces’ Report on Transformation"


----------



## Kirkhill

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Quick highlights (the words, before looking over the books in detail, anyway):
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> "We will implement the recommendations made in the Canadian Forces’ Report on Transformation"



Best of luck with that.....


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> As always Mr. Campbell has nailed it.



I wanted to echo this, as well as thank him for helping me somewhat understand things well over my pay grade and ladder rung.  Not only on this topic but many others.


----------



## McG

It looks like contracting someone else to solve your resource constraints is not a panacea.  Hopefully the new management will force the CF to take a closer look at some protected rice bowls that should be obvious places to find “re-investments.”


> National Defence may need two extra years to meet budget battle savings goals
> The Canadian Press
> BY MURRAY BREWSTER
> 26 Oct 15
> 
> OTTAWA _ National Defence is struggling to implement a program to give the military less administrative tail and more operational teeth, which was a signature initiative of the outgoing Conservative government.
> 
> Documents, written earlier this year and obtained by The Canadian Press under access to information legislation, show officials running the Defence Renewal Program are searching for more "reinvestment opportunities'' to meet the government's goal of finding between $750 million and $1.2 billion a year in departmental savings.
> 
> The plan, as announced in the fall of 2013, was to divert savings from redundant programs to front-line initiatives.
> 
> The program was supposed to be fully in place by the 2017-18 budget year, but the memos suggest the department needs more time, possibly as much as two years.
> 
> A briefing prepared for former defence minister Rob Nicholson, on Jan. 16, 2015, says a cumulative total of only $146 million in savings had been earmarked to the end of the fiscal year in March.
> 
> Maj. Doug McNair, a spokesman for the renewal team, says that figure was eventually bumped up to $158 million.
> 
> He said the original dollar amounts and timelines were "an estimate of possible savings developed by a consultant using data from 2012'' and that refinements were expected and are underway.
> 
> "No new estimate and timeline has been finalized or approved,'' McNair said in an email. "We remain committed to achieving the strategic outcomes of Defence renewal and reinvesting the resulting substantial savings in readiness and capability development.''
> 
> The administrative overhaul of National Defence, which the Conservatives long considered bloated and inefficient, was one of the pillars of the outgoing government's reform agenda, something in which Stephen Harper took a personal interest. At one point, he took the unusual step of admonishing former defence minister Peter MacKay for not cutting deep enough on the administrative side and publicly made his feelings known during the swearing-in for former general Tom Lawson in 2012.
> 
> "The Forces must be restructured to ensure administrative burdens are reduced and resources freed up for the front line,'' the prime minister said on Oct. 29, 2012. "The Canada First Defence Strategy must continue to advance and, as I've said before, with the constant search for more teeth and less tail.''
> 
> Harper commissioned a study by retired lieutenant-general Andrew Leslie, who is now a newly elected Liberal MP and a leading contender for a cabinet post in Justin Trudeau's government.
> 
> Trudeau, during the election campaign, signalled he would follow a similar path to Harper and proposed "a leaner, more agile, better equipped'' military, saying he believed "there's a lot of administrative weight'' in the department compared with the uniformed branch.
> 
> The new government will be sworn in next week and it remains unclear how hard the Liberals will lean on defence to follow the Conservative initiative.
> 
> A defence source, who was not authorized to speak to the media on the subject, says Gen. Jon Vance, the country's new top military commander, has put his weight behind the savings exercise, even though some corners of the department see less urgency.
> 
> In formulating the renewal plan, defence officials cherry-picked from Leslie's transformation report. It remains an open question whether the Liberals will use the report as a template for their own changes.


----------



## observor 69

Interesting article, some thoughtful analysis:

It’s your military, Mr. Sajjan. What do you want it to do?

Just a week into his government, Prime Minster Trudeau has made some bold moves. His fresh, balanced cabinet and his stated intent to bring collaboration back to the business of government policy-making is being welcomed with enthusiasm by a lot of Canadians. Every one of these new cabinet ministers faces a massive workload — none more than the new minister of Defence, Harjit Sajjan.

As a politician, Sajjan is still a novice; as an expert in security, foreign and domestic, he comes to the table with a magnificent resume. But he’s going to find that commanding a ministerial office and commanding troops under fire are two very different things — although they might feel similar from time to time.

Canada has not had a meaningful defence strategy for decades. Successive federal governments have failed to explain their vision for Canada’s role in the world — what we want to do, and how. They have not codified their expectations for the security of this nation, its citizens and their interests. For the new government, this must be job one.

More at link:
http://ipolitics.ca/2015/11/09/its-your-military-mr-sajjan-what-do-you-want-it-to-do/#


----------



## Edward Campbell

Baden Guy said:
			
		

> Interesting article, some thoughtful analysis:
> 
> It’s your military, Mr. Sajjan. What do you want it to do?
> 
> Just a week into his government, Prime Minster Trudeau has made some bold moves. His fresh, balanced cabinet and his stated intent to bring collaboration back to the business of government policy-making is being welcomed with enthusiasm by a lot of Canadians. Every one of these new cabinet ministers faces a massive workload — none more than the new minister of Defence, Harjit Sajjan.
> 
> As a politician, Sajjan is still a novice; as an expert in security, foreign and domestic, he comes to the table with a magnificent resume. But he’s going to find that commanding a ministerial office and commanding troops under fire are two very different things — although they might feel similar from time to time.
> 
> _Canada has not had a meaningful defence strategy for decades. Successive federal governments have failed to explain their vision for Canada’s role in the world — what we want to do, and how. They have not codified their expectations for the security of this nation, its citizens and their interests._ For the new government, this must be job one.
> 
> More at link:
> http://ipolitics.ca/2015/11/09/its-your-military-mr-sajjan-what-do-you-want-it-to-do/#




I agree the _first highlighted bit_ 100%.

I suspect that the second highlighted bit is dreaming in technicolour.

It may well be that Prime Minister Trudeau and Minister Sajjan both want to bring some sense to Canada's defence policy and make a sound, sensible plan for the CF ... but, if that's true, then they are, likely, almost alone in _official Ottawa_. There are many powerful _interests_, in the "chattering classes," in the bureaucracy and, indeed, in the military, itself, who are quite happy to muddle through without too much real thinking.

If, Big IF, we ever have a coherent defence policy it may:

     1. Require massive infusions of (very scarce) money, which, essentially, means robbing (the social) Peter to pay (the military) Paul; or

     2. Require major changes inside the CF ~ cuts to some sectors, increases to others.

That's why the _status quo_ is so popular ... inefficient, ineffective, but very popular.


----------



## observor 69

Which I attribute to the lack of an external threat attention getter. In contrast to Australia where defence matters are several measures of increased concern to the voting public. Hence more attention to the budget and equipment for their military.


----------



## dimsum

Baden Guy said:
			
		

> Which I attribute to the lack of an external threat attention getter. In contrast to Australia where defence matters are several measures of increased concern to the voting public. Hence more attention to the budget and equipment for their military.



I wouldn't go as far as the average Australian thinking that way.  The various political parties, yes - hence why missions like OP OKRA in Iraq/Syria are supported by the major parties without much infighting - but I'd think that aside from ANZAC Day and Remembrance Day (which is much more subdued in Australia than elsewhere), most Australians would feel the same way about Defence as we do.

The politicians in Australia do know that it needs a fairly robust military as it is the big Western power in that side of the world with some powerful neighbours, and that the US may not arrive in time to help out.


----------



## McG

So a few years and the election of a new government have come to pass, but the recomendations from the first twenty pages of this thread are still generally relevant for the CAF (and Canada) to get the most from alloted defence dollars:
[quote author=MCG]
Here are a few ways that I see to immediately cut costs while protecting capability:
Reduce/Stop the use of “tactical infrastructure” in field exercises
Impose a moratorium on creating new headquarters
Do not bring kitchen appliances to the field (with the exception of in field kitchens) 
Maximize the use of local training areas before traveling
Teleconference to avoid TD for meetings and working groups
Prohibit the deployment of pers into positions requiring WSE (We do not need to pay guys above their rank when there are other sitting at home already collecting pay at that level)  - exceptions only for in-theatre casualty replacement
Deploy the next Op ATTENTION as 100% Reg F (again, Reg F pay is a sunk cost while a year of Class C pay for a Sr NCO of Jr Offr to train & deploy could instead added another training day for a Class A unit) (too late for this) 
No new “buttons & bows” initiatives 
Do not rebadged any more units for the sake of resurrecting old regiments 
Stop any unannounced plans to rebrand/rebadged/rename any branches, corps or organization for the purposes of historical sentimentalism
Stop using rented civilian vehicles when military patter vehicles are available and serve the purpose
Tie pay incentives for all ranks to performance and conduct.  If you are on a remedial measure (IC through to C&P) then the pay incentive is delayed by the duration of that remedial measure.  If you receive an unsatisfactory PER, then the pay incentive is delayed until you receive a satisfactory one.
Rebalance officer enrollment paths to reduce the number of ROTP entrants while increasing the number of DEO entrants
Stop the practice of sending new CF buttons & fasteners with all new DEU coats ordered on the Logistik Unicorps site (these buttons typically go straight to the garbage as most soldiers already have the buttons which are removable from the old coat, and most soldiers wear branch/regimental buttons) - if someone needs buttons they can spend more points to get them.
Remove the recently introduced Army DEU parka from Logistik Unicorps issue - it duplicates a function already provided by the gabardine.
Allow only one IPR move per service couple.  Instead, a reunification move will bring the first retiring member to live with the mbr continuing to serve, or if both retire at the same time then a reunification move will bring the mbr without F&E to the mbr with F&E.

And here are some options options for long-term savings (though most will cost money upfront prior to the savings being achieved later):
Consolidate all of NDHQ and appropriate other NCR units on the Nortel Campus
Move CFC from Toronto to Ottawa (Nortel Campus) or Kingston (RMC or the closing prison) 
Divest unnecessary niche vehicle micro-fleets (if required, increase size of standard fleets to maintain platform numbers) 
Smash LFDTS & CTC into a single layer of HQ, transfer capability development functions from LFDTS to COS Land Strat
Re-close CMR and consolidate ROTP back into RMC 
Consolidate all of 1 CMBG in Edmonton (or Wainwright, Suffield or Shilo) to reduce future steady-state cost move requirements
Procure more training simulators for fuel guzzling equipment (like aircraft, Engr Hy Eqpt and MBT) – include this in the initial acquisition of future systems 
Reevaluate rank levels in HQ establishments – the goal is to reduce where unnecessary inflation has occurred
Replace military ID cards, PKI cards, building access cards, and military driver's licences with a single universal military identification (See US CAC for example)

In the current climate, we need to look at more than just where to cut.  We also need to look at where to get better mileage from the same resources.  Here are a few thoughts to that end: 
 Replace SDA, LDA, dive pay and parachute allowance with enhanced casual allowances – the current systems reward posting messages as opposed to rewarding/compensating for the behaviour that we want: going to sea, going to the field, diving, and jumping out of aircraft.
 Reduce the number of PRes unit HQs in the Army.  Individual sub-units can retain unique regimental identities, but they will be grouped under a fewer stronger battalion HQs. 
 Revisit the requirement for Reg F bands.  There are 71 musicians from Sgt to CWO on Army Ref F establishments alone.  That is a lot of PYs that could be put to better purpose (especially when we have been cutting from operational units to put PYs in new capabilities)
[/quote][quote author=dapaterson]
A few more contentious suggestions:

* Top to bottom compensation and benefits review to eliminate duplication and overlap
* Revisit posting policy to reduce annual move requirement (excluding off-BTL)
* Revisit IPR move policy to eliminate same-location moves (eg a paid move from Orleans to Kanata on release)
* Replace CANEX with private suppliers (who will pay market rents for CF facilities)
   * Retain small deployed NPF expertise to surge for deployments if required (hint: this does not include a Tim Hortons trailer)
* Return to annual TOS boards, particularly at ranks of LCol and above and MWO and above, to determine whether continued service meets a military requirement
* Enforce limits on GOFOs as ordered in the 1997 MND report (roughly a 1/3 reduction)
* Return to performance pay for GOFO and Capt(N)/Cols
   * Make PMAs and performance info per above public
* Make PMAs and performance information for all Public Servants public
* Restructure establishment to differentiate between Lt and Capt
* Return to competitive promotion to Capt
* Revisit Degreed Officer Corps decision
   * Permit short engagements with no promotion beyond Capt without a degree
* Eliminate full-time second language training
   * Individuals may elect to pursue SLT on their own time; a decision not to get a language profile will limit future promotion possibilities

For IM/IT 

* Migrate from MS Office to Open Office to reduce IM/IT licensing costs
* Migrate from Outlook to open-source web-based DWAN email to reduce IM/IT licensing costs
* Dissolve ADM(IM), putting IM/IT support into CANOSCOM, IM/IT procurement into ADM(Mat), and comms and ISTAR systems under CJOC[/quote]


----------



## McG

Matt Gurney asks the question on all our minds: What does a "leaner" military mean?

Depending on how this plays out, it could foreshadow either good or bad for the military.  I hope to see that "leaner" is the reduction of bloat that former PM Harper directed from the former CDS but never saw delivered.



> *Matt Gurney: What does a ‘leaner’ military mean, exactly?*
> The National Post
> 07 Dec 2015
> 
> It’s just 36 words, out of a speech that totalled, as written, almost 1,700. But they were the ones that jumped out at me in the new Liberal government’s Speech from the Throne. The words were, “To keep Canadians safe and be ready to respond when needed, the government will launch an open and transparent process to review existing defence capabilities, and will invest in building a leaner, more agile, better-equipped military.”
> 
> Fair enough. But what, pray tell, does “leaner” mean?
> 
> Leaner could, one supposes, be good news. Even under the last government, the Armed Forces were looking at ways of getting more bang from the buck. In 2011, one of the Army’s most prominent and respected Afghan War veterans, a general no less, undertook a major report into streamlining the our top-heavy military, in shaking personnel and resources out of desk jobs and functions that could perhaps be better handled by non-military personnel. The report ran into bureaucratic resistance from the military — no kidding — and didn’t really go anywhere. It’s author was Lt. Gen. Andrew Leslie. If that name sounds familiar, it may be because of his wartime military service … or it may be because Prime Minister Trudeau just made him the Liberal House Whip. If the Liberals intend reform the military along Leslie’s proposed lines, that could be genuinely good news.
> 
> But there’s every chance it won’t mean that at all. And that leaner will simply mean smaller and less capable … and therefore cheaper. For a government that was just elected with a slate of costly promises and an already softening economy, that has to be appealing.
> 
> The problem, of course is that there’s only so small a military can be before it is no longer really effective. Since the Second World War, Canada has generally tried to retain the ability to project and sustain meaningful military power abroad. Good equipment and good training is a huge part of that. But you just can’t get it done without old-fashioned mass. Quality cannot totally replace for quantity.
> 
> One can quibble over where precisely the balance should be struck. In the context of North American military history, we’ve generally leaned more toward quality, as it’s easier and usually cheaper to train and equip someone well than it is to send a greater number of less well trained and equipped troops halfway around the world, and then keep them there.
> 
> There’s no magical “right” number for how many planes, ships and troops you want to be able to sustain abroad. But whatever your number is — we’ll unimaginatively call it X — you need roughly three times X. For every soldier and ship we want to be able to commit to military operations on a sustainable basis, you need one more ready to take over and one more that just finished and is resting up. When Canada sent 3,000 troops to Kandahar, that really meant about 10,000 were needed, because 3,000 would always be getting ready to deploy and 3,000 had just come back and needed time off (the number is larger even than that, since there were troops here at home involved in the war effort in a support role, but the 3X rule is approximate and works well enough here for our purposes). Likewise, if Canada decides to commit a ship to a NATO or UN operation on an indefinite basis, that’s really a three-ship commitment — one deployed, one just returned, one getting ready to leave.
> 
> Right now, we don’t have the mass to sustain those kinds of operations, even modestly. As I’ve noted in prior columns and editorials here, when you factor in how many of our CF-18 jets are down for long-term overhaul, short-term repairs or simply not currently assigned to an operational unit, we’ve got less than three dozen planes, total, we can use on any given day. The Navy is actually in even worse shape. We have precisely one (1) destroyer, and she’s so old she’s probably basically done her career. We have four submarines, but they’re just finally coming online now, so we can maybe deploy one abroad at a time. We have 12 frigates, and that’s good, but half of them are in the middle of a major mid-life overhaul and refit. We no longer have any supply ships to sustain them on their missions, anyway, and the Liberals recently deferred a key decision on a proposal to replace them with converted civilian vessels, on an interim basis, until replacements arrive sometime next decade. Canada has been sending small Kingston-class coastal patrol ships far overseas to participate in international missions and exercises in place of larger frigates and destroyers. The Kingston-class ships aren’t cut out for those missions, but we’re out of frigates and destroyers, which form the backbone of a modern fleet. So out go the Kingstons.
> 
> The long and short of it is this: a “leaner” military may be a good thing, but overall, it’s already too small. The Army should have more brigade groups, but so long as they’re kept fully staffed and properly trained and equipped, we can probably get by with three for now. But the Navy and the Air Force must absolutely be larger than they are now if they’re going to be worth keeping at all. And there’s no sign that any political party with a decent shot at forming government next election — the Liberals, Tories and, one supposes, still the NDP — gets that.
> 
> Up until recent years, our Navy had 15 heavy warships — 12 frigates and 3 destroyers. In theory, the government was planning to replace those ships on a one-to-one basis, with 15 new, Canadian-built vessels. Delays and cost overruns now threaten to force cuts to that total, and that will be bad, since 15 ships is really about the right number for either the Atlantic or Pacific Coasts, not both. The former government also planned on replacing our current fleet of 65 active CF-18s (which actually mean having the three dozens operational planes I referenced above) with the same number of F-35s — 65 jets. But that’s not enough. Whatever fighter we get next needs to be purchased in sufficient quantity to not just replace our threadbare, too-tiny squadrons, but to actually add some bulk back to the Air Force.
> 
> It probably won’t happen. Canadian military history is replete with examples of replacing weapons with a smaller number of new ones, and touting the sophistication of the new weapon as enough to make up the gap. But even advanced new military gear needs repairs, downtime and will sometimes simply break down. In an actual war, God forbid, you’ve got to count on the bad guys destroying some of your stuff, too. That’s why you need sheer quantity sometimes, too. So I hope “leaner” means more efficient, not smaller. But I have a bad feeling about what’s to come.
> 
> National Post
> mgurney@nationalpost.com
> Twitter.com/MattGurney


http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/matt-gurney-what-does-a-leaner-military-mean-exactly


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Like anything, the path of least resistance which I believe to mean HQ will stay intact.


----------



## jmt18325

He could at least check his facts.  Project resolve is a go.


----------



## RDBZ

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I wouldn't go as far as the average Australian thinking that way.  The various political parties, yes - hence why missions like OP OKRA in Iraq/Syria are supported by the major parties without much infighting - but I'd think that aside from ANZAC Day and Remembrance Day (which is much more subdued in Australia than elsewhere), most Australians would feel the same way about Defence as we do.
> 
> The politicians in Australia do know that it needs a fairly robust military as it is the big Western power in that side of the world with some powerful neighbours, and that the US may not arrive in time to help out.



The dark days 1942-43 - Japanese air raids across northern Australia, the battle of the Coral Sea being fought off the coast from Townsville and Cairns, and Japanese submarines in Sydney harbour are all etched into the Australian psyche.  The stance of the major parties just reflects that.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> He could at least check his facts.  Project resolve is a go.



the timing was tight on that, likely this went to print as they changed their minds again.

I have to wonder if the only way to develop a new military structure is to have a group of senior people from your allied militaries, take a good look and make the recommendations as they will not have a vested interest in the internal politics.


----------



## McG

Colin P said:
			
		

> I have to wonder if the only way to develop a new military structure is to have a group of senior people from your allied militaries, take a good look and make the recommendations as they will not have a vested interest in the internal politics.


The danger, as I saw with development of the ANA, is that the allies just attempt to duplicate their system in another country without consideration for how that other country has different requirements.


----------



## jollyjacktar

How true, they'll never be up to western standards on the whole.  Especially the mall cops (ANP).  No, wait, real mall cops are more professional (better find another nick name for the ANP).


----------



## The Bread Guy

MCG said:
			
		

> The danger, as I saw with development of the ANA, is that the allies just attempt to duplicate their system in another country without consideration for how that other country has different requirements.


And, going further (and maybe a bit  :Tin-Foil-Hat: of me), maybe even try to "recommend" things that may be better for them as "allies" than for the CF as a whole.


----------



## Old Sweat

This oped piece from the National Post is reproduced under the Fair Dealing Provision of the Copyright Act. 

Hugh Segal: If ‘Canada’s back,’ we’ll need a military

Hugh Segal, National Post | January 5, 2016 | Last Updated: Jan 6 8:25 AM ET

Whatever the trajectory, priorities or intensity of our new government’s foreign policy, however the election of Oct. 19 is interpreted as a mandate for foreign policy change, no meaningful Canadian foreign policy can exist without a competent, well-resourced and multi-skilled armed forces. This is not about an obscure dialectic between those who prefer peacekeeping versus those who support combat capacity. Both preferences require a strong and capable armed forces.


Even supporting the important “responsibility to protect” principle embraced by a UN task force with Lloyd Axworthy as a leading member, now a formal UN doctrine, requires the “capacity to deploy.” In fact, supporting that doctrine or more engagement in peacekeeping also requires more deployable capacity. As does a commitment to more “on the ground training” in support of Peshmerga and other land forces arrayed against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

To the new government’s credit, it has a rooted, practical and highly skilled brain trust in place to serve both the Prime Minister and the national interest. There’s the new defence minister, who has outstanding battle theatre command credentials from several tours of duty in Afghanistan and as a commander of a reserve regiment. The Chief of Defence Staff has been in serious and complex operational command roles globally. The Chief Government Whip is a retired general staff officer who served in the field. The senior National Security Advisor to the Prime Minister is a former head of CSIS and deputy defence minister. Likewise, the Foreign Affairs minister has the legitimacy of long parliamentary service and the analytical mindset of a distinguished academic before entering public life. Like any compelling mix of outstanding assets, they prove nothing by their mere existence. How they combine to shape policy and priorities with the Prime Minister and cabinet is what will determine their success and impact. Still, with such qualified individuals in government, there is reason for optimism.

When it comes to establishing and preserving a strong national defence, the lawful protection of national security and the core freedoms of our democracy, there is an enemy in Ottawa. It is not to be found in the media or opposition benches. Every finance department, under any party or minister, has within it those who believe that defence expenditures are unnecessary or excessive. And they have allies on the Treasury Board and in other government departments. They are driven by two policy models which, on occasion, have had support from the highest levels of government: that as the Americans would defend Canada in the event of any serious threat, our own defence expenditures are unnecessary or excessive and are better put toward other spending priorities (say infrastructure); and that, like Japan, we can use foreign aid, trade and investment to obviate any military obligations or ensuing missions worldwide. The massive cuts to our defence budget and capacity in the 1990s were driven not only by the fiscal crunch Canada faced, but by support, from the-then prime minister on down, for these “What me, worry?” theories of defence and sovereignty.

A G8 country with no deployable defence capacity for humanitarian, peacekeeping or, when there is no other choice, combat in support of our allies or national interest, should simply not be taken seriously — and won’t be, by many, including some of our friends. This is not a great premise for a “Canada is Back” foreign policy thematic.

The new government’s commitment to the rebuild, hopefully at a more rapid rate, of the Royal Canadian Navy, and the new Defence Minister’s refusal to rule out any aircraft from the review of RCAF procurement needs, are very constructive beacons of both hope and sanity. Between now and the March budget it is vital that it be clear that “lean” military capacity must be about focus, instrumental reform, new technologies and a re-calibration in favour of front-line intelligence, deployable combat and reserve capacity, not a smaller, less capable force. Reduced back office and bureaucracy and more deployable capabilities is the right balance. Cuts to diminish deficits is not.

Budget 2016 would be a superb opportunity for a budget paper on how we can begin in 2017, Canada’s 150th anniversary of Confederation, to build a total force of 100,000 regular force members and a reserve of 50,000 members. Whether for aid to the civil power in face of natural disasters, humanitarian or peacekeeping deployments and maintaining our air, sea and land force obligations to our allies, not to mention our own defence and air/sea rescue needs across three of the longest coasts in the world and a land base larger than Europe,‎ anything less is putting our national interest at risk. We can do better and, as has been suggested, “better” is always possible in Canada.

National Post

Hugh Segal, Master of Massey College, is a senior fellow of the Munk School of Global Affairs in Toronto and the Institute of Global Affairs in Calgary. He is a former chair of the Senate Committees of Foreign Affairs and of Anti-Terrorism.


----------



## McG

The UK is not happy with our investments in defence, and the US is commenting on "free riders."  I don't hold too much hope that either fact will see improved defence spending in Canada.



> *NATO allies miffed over Canada’s failure to meet defence spending commitment*
> John Ivison
> The National Post
> 21 Jan 2016
> 
> The British may form the world’s most orderly line-ups but they tend to lose patience when people don’t live up to their commitments.
> 
> At the conclusion of the NATO summit in Wales two years ago, all countries signed a declaration reaffirming collective defence, after Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, and agreeing to increase defence spending to two per cent of gross domestic product within a decade.
> 
> With another summit due in Warsaw this summer, the Brits indicated this week they are a little bit cross, if not slightly miffed, no visible progress is being made by several countries, including Canada.
> 
> There was no official comment but sources said London sent the diplomatic message through embassies and high commissions this week. They were at pains to point out that Canada was not the only recipient of the rebuke.
> 
> But it came in the same week that the Trudeau government was excluded from a U.S.-led meeting of defence ministers from countries spearheading the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. U.S. Defence Secretary Ashley Carter warned allies that there was no room for “free-riders” in the coalition.
> 
> The pressure is piling on the government’s defence agenda from all sides. One particularly damning commentary doing the rounds points out that, according to estimated expenditures for 2015, only four NATO members are expected to spend less as a percentage of GDP than Canada  and one of them is Luxembourg. The author of that piece was Roland Paris, Justin Trudeau’s new foreign policy adviser.
> 
> The Liberals are not responsible for the Harper government’s record on defence spending, but talk of a “leaner, more agile” military does not suggest a sharp uptick in expenditure.
> 
> The reason for the furrowed brows in London, and in Washington, is easily explained by a glance at military spending by GDP, still the benchmark measure used by NATO.
> 
> Only five nations – the U.S., Britain, Greece, Estonia and Poland – will meet the two per cent target this year. Canada’s defence expenditure is now less than half that, having fallen from about two per cent under Brian Mulroney in 1988. The Americans account for three quarters of the alliance’s spending.
> 
> Budget 2015 earmarked another $11.8 billion for defence over 10 years, but that amount doesn’t start flowing until next year and will barely keep spending increases above inflation.
> 
> Canada, whose armed forces are about the same size as those of NATO ally Romania, also falls short on another commitment made in Wales — one fifth of defence spending would be devoted to equipment. It currently spends about 16 per cent of its defence budget on equipment, research and development.
> 
> In the past, Canadian governments have argued allies should look at the quality of their contribution, not the quantity. Further, they have pointed out that Canada always answers the call.
> 
> But that argument carries little water in light of the decision to pull the CF-18 fighters from Iraq.
> 
> The Americans said Thursday they will convene a meeting of defence ministers from 27 countries next month to discuss how each coalition member can contribute more to defeating ISIL.
> 
> “Every nation must come prepared to further contributions to the fight,” said Carter.
> 
> Even in the relatively honeyed words of international diplomacy, it is apparent that our principal allies believe we have short arms and long pockets; that if we had to choose between our money and our lives, we would have to think it over.
> 
> As a nation, we signed on to an agreement that pledged to strengthen the partnerships on which the foundations of our prosperity and way of life are built.
> 
> We said we would provide the resources, capabilities and political will to meet any challenge; that we would stand ready to act together to defend freedom and our shared values.
> 
> Apparently, the Harper government signed the summit declaration, with no intention of even trying to live up to it. For once, the Liberals are in full agreement.
> 
> But we live in a dangerous world and the alliance is the bedrock of this country’s security.
> 
> Canada can’t be back unless it plays a fuller part in NATO.


http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/john-ivison-nato-allies-miffed-over-canadas-failure-to-meet-defence-spending-commitment


----------



## Good2Golf

Not sure there is anyone willing to take on a wager that Canada would ever one day spend $40B (current year dollars) annually on Defence.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Just look at the figure for inflation in naval systems I quote above, Underway. The RAND Corporation pins it at 11% a year.
> 
> That means that the price of system (which includes a whole ship) doubles every seven years. Which also means it quadruples in 14 years. Fourteen years is not an unusual number of years for a naval construction project to go from start of the development phase to completion of the first ship in class.
> 
> And I agree: It's crazy.




It has been this way since _circa_ 1960, when we, finally, had exhausted all the "free" technology gains from World War II and Korea, and now we had to pay for the (largely American) R&D that was needed to develop e.g. solid-state microelectronics and advanced jet fighters and precision guidance systems and space based things and, and, and ... and pay for them we did, in some part because (mostly American) companies hid the gods alone know what and how many R&D failures in military projects that actually got sold.

Since the 1950s the "cost," to the defence industry, of brain-power has also gone up because the market place for "brains" has grown. Engineers are no longer available in abundance because the salaries are so high ~ now business degrees are equally or more popular (and require a lot less math, too!). 

It's a point I have made over and over here on Army.ca. Senior officials are well aware of the problem but no one in the political stream (CPC or LPC) is willing to give the defence budget "credit" for the real rates of inflation for aerospace and defence ~ assuming someone actually believes the reports that are out there.


----------



## Journeyman

MCG said:
			
		

> One particularly damning commentary  [comes from] Roland Paris, Justin Trudeau’s new foreign policy adviser.
> 
> http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/john-ivison-nato-allies-miffed-over-canadas-failure-to-meet-defence-spending-commitment


Roland Paris is generally considered to be one of the "peacekeeping guys" at the University of Ottawa.  

One of his more interesting works is _At War's End: Building Peace after Civil Conflict_.  In it, he seems to understand that forcing democracy onto countries has had a pretty abysmal track record.  The major flaw seems to be a gap between war-fighting and academic advisors showing up to save the day -- that 'suddenly, peace magically happens' gap.  I'm not sure if "Trudeau’s new foreign policy adviser" fully understands what is required to pull that rabbit out of the hat.


----------



## Old Sweat

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Roland Paris is generally considered to be one of the "peacekeeping guys" at the University of Ottawa.
> 
> One of his more interesting works is _At War's End: Building Peace after Civil Conflict_.  In it, he seems to understand that forcing democracy onto countries has had a pretty abysmal track record.  The major flaw seems to be a gap between war-fighting and academic advisors showing up to save the day -- that 'suddenly, peace magically happens' gap.  I'm not sure if "Trudeau’s new foreign policy adviser" fully understands what is required to pull that rabbit out of the hat.


I haven't read the book or any of the rest of his work, but it seems to me unless the winner(s) - occupying power(s) in other words - are willing to devote the time and treasure to slowly build the structure they want nothing will change. That implies an invasion by a powerful external force that may support one side or the other after a long period of nation building.

As a side issue most popular revolutions fall prey to an extreme faction after the "nice guys" are subverted perhaps because they are not hard and ruthless enough to cement their power. The question is how does an outside force influence the winners to set up a "democratic" structure when the winners are looking to take their turn running a kleptocracy? 

And as an example of apparent success can go wrong, remember how quickly the communist political system collapsed in the Warsaw Pact states once the Soviet Union imploded.


----------



## dapaterson

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Roland Paris is generally considered to be one of the "peacekeeping guys" at the University of Ottawa.
> 
> One of his more interesting works is _At War's End: Building Peace after Civil Conflict_.  In it, he seems to understand that forcing democracy onto countries has had a pretty abysmal track record.  The major flaw seems to be a gap between war-fighting and academic advisors showing up to save the day -- that 'suddenly, peace magically happens' gap.  I'm not sure if "Trudeau’s new foreign policy adviser" fully understands what is required to pull that rabbit out of the hat.



Seems as if we need... a comprehensive approach?

Or maybe send in the academics before peace is established - perhpas being in a conflict zone would hone some of their models...


----------



## Happy Guy

Ref: http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/military-shrinks-to-lowest-level-in-years-and-could-shrink-further

The Canadian Armed Forces have been bleeding personnel at an increasing rate, as attrition and recruiting problems push the number of men and women in uniform down to levels not seen in years.

The numbers are likely a sign of things to come as the Liberal government moves on its promise to create a “leaner, more agile” force.

The previous Conservative government expanded the military after coming to power a decade ago, adding thousands of men and women to the ranks. After the 2009 financial crisis, the government promised to keep 68,000 full-time military members and 27,000 reservists in uniform despite billions in spending cuts.

But a Defence Department report tabled in the House of Commons this week shows a shortage of nearly 1,900 regular force members and 5,300 part-time reservists as of March 2015, thanks to higher than expected attrition and, for reservists, “challenges in meeting recruiting quotas.”

That compares with a shortage of 900 full-time military personnel and 4,500 reservists the previous year. The military has said it needs more than 4,000 new recruits each year just to offset attrition and keep 68,000 full-time troops in uniform.

The report doesn’t explain the difficulties in recruiting and retaining personnel, but the shortfall created problems, at least in the short term. Of 95 occupations in the regular forces, 24 were “stressed” – that is, understaffed – though the report said new recruits in the system would “gradually” make up the difference.

The shortage of reservists was especially acute as the part-time force has been called upon numerous times to help with missions such as Afghanistan, or in crises at home such as floods and forest fires. The shortage of army and navy reservists was cited as a particular concern.

Defence analyst David Perry of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute said the numbers in the report put the Canadian Armed Forces at their smallest size since at least 2009. But rather than rushing to the rescue, the Liberal government could end up shrinking the military even more.

The Liberal government has ruled out any significant budget increases for defence. Instead, it has promised a comprehensive defence review to create the first defence white paper in more than 20 years, with a plan to making the military “leaner, more agile.”

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan confirmed Tuesday that one of the things the government will be looking at is the size of the force.

“It’s going to look not just look at the procurement, it’s going to look at our number of forces, how it connects into our global footprint,” he told reporters outside the House of Commons. “We want to make sure that the Defence Review is done in a manner that sets us ­ Canada up for the next 10, 20 years and how we fit as part of the world.”

The Conservatives were sensitive about reducing the size of the military after criticizing previous Liberal governments for doing exactly that in the 1990s. 

But the Tories’ refusal to reduce the number of personnel in uniform at the same time it was cutting billions of dollars in defence spending put a disproportionate amount of budgetary pressure on other parts of the military, including maintenance and procurement.

One former defence chief, retired general Rick Hillier, warned in 2013 that reducing the size of the military was the only way to ensure the force remained strong and stable. He said the number of full-time members should be reduced from 68,000 to 50,000.

Most analysts agree that the mandated staffing levels and planned procurement projects are unsustainable under the current defence budget.

“Something has to give,” said Perry, who has estimated that cutting the size of the force by 1,000 regular-force members would save about $105 million a year.

National Defence also reported that it was short about 2,200 civilian employees, against an authorized strength of more than 24,000. The Conservative government did not have a target for the number of civilian workers, though it did put a priority on employing those in uniform.

lberthiaume@postmedia.com

Twitter.com/leeberthiaume

The Canadian Armed Forces, by the Numbers

68,000: Mandated strength of the regular force

66,130: Actual strength of the regular force on March 31, 2015

1,870: Difference between mandated and actual strength

27,000: Mandated strength of the reserve force

21,707: Actual strength of the reserve force on March 31, 2015

5,293: Difference between mandated and actual strength

— Source: Department of National Defence
______________________________________________________________________________________

As it correctly states in this article something has to give.  Given the rapidly declining source of revenue coming into the federal coffers, DND, as it always is, will most likely face some sort of budget cut in the next federal budget.  Like father like son?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

> National Defence also reported that it was short about 2,200 civilian employees, against an authorized strength of more than 24,000. The Conservative government did not have a target for the number of civilian workers, though it did put a priority on employing those in uniform.



Why can't we take these 2,200 civie positions and give them to uniforms? Simplistic, I know, but is there any insurmountable reason why not?


----------



## dapaterson

Because military are more expensive than civilian pers, so why waste uniformed person on functions that do not need it?


----------



## GR66

recceguy said:
			
		

> Why can't we take these 2,200 civie positions and give them to uniforms? Simplistic, I know, but is there any insurmountable reason why not?



And while you're at it maybe ask why you need 1 civilian employee to support less than 3 reg force members...many of which themselves are "tails" supporting a very tiny number of "teeth".


----------



## dapaterson

Last I looked the majority of DND civilians were employed by the three environments, mostly in base support type functions.  Shrink the number of bases to significantly shrink the number of civilians.


----------



## Kirkhill

Meanwhile









> 'Sweden could be at war within a few years'
> Published: 26 Jan 2016 17:04 GMT+01:00
> 
> Sweden could be at war in just a few years, a top military officer has claimed in an internal document sent to soldiers and Swedish Armed Forces staff and seen by Swedish media.
> 
> Majority of Swedes back return to military service (04 Jan 16)
> Swedes to get alerts on foreign intrusions (16 Sep 15)
> Russian jets spotted off Sweden's east coast (31 Aug 15)
> 
> Sweden's Major General Anders Brännström made the comments in a brochure for representatives attending an annual Armed Forces conference in Boden next week.
> 
> "The global situation we are experiencing and which is also made clear by the strategic decision leads to the conclusion that we could be at war within a few years. For us in the army we have to, with all force we can muster, implement the political decisions," he wrote, reported the Expressen tabloid.
> 
> Since the end of the Cold War the Swedish Armed Forces have focused mainly on providing assistance to international missions abroad, but according to Brännström the strategy has now changed to "capability of armed battle against a qualified opponent".
> 
> The goal, he wrote in the leaflet, is to create "a threshold effect against military attacks and ultimately defend Sweden".
> 
> Sweden has made moves towards stepping up its military capability in the past year, with Defence Minister Peter Hultqvist extending cooperation with other neighbouring countries as well as Nato allies in the face of rising tensions in the Baltic region.
> 
> Sweden's Security Service Säpo said last year that the biggest intelligence threat against Sweden in 2014 came from Russia. Its stern words are largely credited with sparking increased Nato support in the traditionally non-aligned Nordic country.
> 
> Supreme Commander Micael Bydén has previously said that Sweden is not under any immediate military threat, but has warned that conflict may increase in the Nordic region.
> 
> "We should be aware that we are continuously being exposed to intelligence gathering and campaigns. We also know that areas in our region, the Baltic and increasingly the Arctic, constitute areas of friction between Russia and the West," he told a military conference in Sälen earlier this month.



http://www.thelocal.se/20160126/sweden-could-be-at-war-within-a-few-years


----------



## Kirkhill

And in Denmark



> Denmark's status in Nato threatened: top official
> Published: 11 Aug 2015 08:42 GMT+02:00
> 
> The former chairman of the Nato Military Committee has warned that Denmark risks losing "visibility and influence" in the military alliance due to budget cuts and decreased capabilities.
> 
> Denmark will join Nato's missile defense system (22 Aug 14)
> Denmark to play key role in Nato's Russia plans (31 Jul 14)
> Danish military seeing a 'critical' loss of officers (28 Jul 14)
> Historic jet purchase enters new phase (21 Jul 14)
> 
> General Knud Bartels, Denmark’s former defence minister and the recently-replaced chairman of the Nato Military Committee, warned new Defence Minister Carl Holst that Denmark’s relevance in Nato is threatened by holes in the defence budget and “a growing discrepancy between [Denmark’s] ambition level and [its] ability to contribute” to the military alliance.
> 
> Berlingske newspaper obtained and published a two-page letter sent by Bartels just before he ended his term at the head of the Military Committee in June. In the letter, Bartels expressed concern about Denmark’s planned military spending, which he says fails to keep pace with growing Russian aggression.
> 
> The former defence minister warns his successor that “the changing security policy situation” and coming changes to Nato’s structure threaten to leave Denmark on the outside looking in.
> 
> “I see Denmark’s role in the alliance as challenged. At the same time, Denmark will after my retirement as the chairman of the Military Committee no longer have people placed in leadership positions in the alliance, neither military nor civil, thus missing visibility and influence,” Bartels wrote.
> 
> According to Bartels, Denmark’s Nato partners are worried that Denmark’s coming massive purchase of new fighter jets will result in cuts to the nation’s defence budget.
> 
> He also wrote that “Denmark’s military level could come under pressure from the alliance’s expectations”, especially when viewed against “Russia’s security and defence policy ambitions east and north of the alliance”.
> 
> When Nato holds its top meeting in Warsaw next year, Bartels said that Denmark will be under massive pressure to present a plan for significant military contributions.
> 
> Holst has already said he supports more spending on the military and government support parties the Danish People’s Party (DF) and the Conservatives urged Holst to heed Bartel’s warnings.
> 
> “We have an idea that Denmark should be a safe and secure country with a good defence, but we aren’t because our defence lies in tatters. We haven’t used enough money for a long time and we have chipped away our capacities,” DF spokeswoman Marie Krarup told Berlingske.
> 
> Rasmus Jarlov of the Conservatives told Berlingske that Bartels’s letter reinforces the need to spend more on Denmark’s military capabilities.
> 
> “The navy needs ships and submarines, the air force is missing surveillance capabilities, fighter jets and anti-aircraft defence while the army is missing combat vehicles, trucks and artillery. It’s hard to say who is missing the most,” he told Berlingske.
> 
> Holt declined to comment specifically on Bartel’s letter but told Berlingske that he “listens with great interest to all viewpoints”. Holt also pointed out that the there are commitments to invest some three billion kroner annually in new military equipment while another three billion is spent each year on maintenance.



http://www.thelocal.dk/20150811/denmarks-status-in-nato-threatened-top-official


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Our leader is too busy with selfies.


----------



## McG

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Last I looked the majority of DND civilians were employed by the three environments, mostly in base support type functions.  Shrink the number of bases to significantly shrink the number of civilians.


So, you are saying there is merit to ERC's suggestion of super bases with air wings and army brigades living together?


----------



## runormal

GR66 said:
			
		

> And while you're at it maybe ask why you need 1 civilian employee to support less than 3 reg force members...many of which themselves are "tails" supporting a very tiny number of "teeth".



We could say the same thing about the ratio of Officers to NCMs..

The thing is throwing more money to DND isn't going to solve the problem. A 2 year " freeze" pegged slightly above inflation, while conducting a thorough review is an excellent idea. When you have _excellent_ ideas such as Div Patches, Royal XXXX, high-vis ranks and name tags, pips and crowns , new "Slip on" for the new combat shirt, new air force rank structures, while mulling about changing beret colours taking precedent over replacements for LSVW'S, SEA KINGS, Supply Ships, Destroyers and quality Boots. It is evident that theire arr spending problems and some waste that could  easily be removed from the budget. 

I'm not saying we need to more with less but without actually reviewing what we have, what we dont need and what we actually need, we will never solve the problem.


----------



## dapaterson

Exactly. When money is plentiful all the silly ideas can be funded. A little hunger helps focus attention.


----------



## McG

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Exactly. When money is plentiful all the silly ideas can be funded. A little hunger helps focus attention.


I don't know.  I would like to think it is true, but our current fascination with aesthetics kicked off as budgets were being reduced.  I also seem to recal Granstien commenting, in his history on Canada's Army, that our focus also turned to dress and regimental fashions in past budget reduction (specifically in reference to post World War One or Two).  

... And I don't trust HQs and bureaucracies to make he decisions that are best for the CAF as opposed to the decisions that are best for their local empires or stovepipes.  I have already seen an L2 HQ harvest SWE from an L4 unit because it wanted more staff.


----------



## MilEME09

MCG said:
			
		

> I don't know.  I would like to think it is true, but our current fascination with aesthetics kicked off as budgets were being reduced.  I also seem to recal Granstien commenting, in his history on Canada's Army, that our focus also turned to dress and regimental fashions in past budget reduction (specifically in reference to post World War One or Two).
> 
> ... And I don't trust HQs and bureaucracies to make he decisions that are best for the CAF as opposed to the decisions that are best for their local empires or stovepipes.  I have already seen an L2 HQ harvest SWE from an L4 unit because it wanted more staff.



This is a radical idea but what about bringing in an outside, friendly military of comparable size to review everything with fresh eyes? like the Aussies or the Italians? then they can go "hey why the hell are you spending so much on X, while project Y has been stalled for months?"


----------



## dimsum

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> This is a radical idea but what about bringing in an outside, friendly military of comparable size to review everything with fresh eyes? like the Aussies or the Italians? then they can go "hey why the hell are you spending so much on X, while project Y has been stalled for months?"



<sarcasm>

Because then we would look bad in front of other people?   

</sarcasm>

The Aussies would probably be a good model for what you suggest, minus the fact that they have more credible threats (without the continental US at their doorstep) and therefore have more political buy-in for the capabilities they have/need.


----------



## McG

Lots of money not spend by DND last fiscal year and based on older stories, I expect the current FY is going a lot worse.  Still, it would be nice to imagine our equipment deficit being closed sometime in the not too distant future.


> *Defence short "several tens of billions" for equipment: analyst*
> Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press
> Published Monday, February 1, 2016 9:08PM EST
> 
> OTTAWA -- A Senate committee has been told there is a shortfall of tens of billions of dollars between funding that's been set aside for military equipment and the actual price tag for what the military says it needs.
> 
> Defence analyst Dave Perry of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute testified that the "mismatch" is one of the biggest problems facing the new Liberal government as it seeks to overhaul the country's defence policy.
> 
> "At present, the defence procurement system is trying to buy more equipment that DND can afford," said Perry. "There is roughly three times more demand for project funding than there are available funds, leaving the capital acquisition budget short by several tens of billions of dollars, even with the planned increase to the defence budget that the government has promised to honour."
> 
> There are at least 100 pieces of equipment that Defence has deemed essential to fulfil its mandate in the coming years and only a portion of that list is funded, he said.
> 
> The dysfunctional military procurement system was a bane to the former Harper government, but despite reforms implemented two year ago, roughly 63 per cent the projects listed in the federal government's defence acquisition guide are late and only 34 per cent are on time.
> 
> Perry says since 2007 a total of nearly $9 billion in allocated capital funding for military hardware was not spent and much of that went back to the federal treasury.
> 
> He noted the figure rose significantly in the last budget year, which concluded in March 2015 and saw $1.5 billion in funds earmarked for purchasing capital equipment go unspent.
> 
> The Harper government introduced its much-heralded Defence Procurement Strategy in February 2014, an initiative meant to streamline the process and leverage the participation of Canadian industry.
> 
> But Perry told the Senate defence committee that the effort has not yet produced results.
> 
> "To be blunt, I hope the new government finds that lack of progress unacceptable," he said.
> 
> The Liberals promised a comprehensive defence policy review to replace the former Conservative government's 2007-era Canada First Defence Strategy. That document had a list of planned equipment purchases, but within 18 months of its publication National Defence privately deemed some of the projects unaffordable.
> 
> The new review -- the first comprehensive analysis since the Chretien government's 1994 defence white paper -- is key for tough decisions the Trudeau government will have to make, including how to replace the Air Force's aging CF-18 jet fighters.
> 
> Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan has said he wants the policy review completed by the end of the year -- a commitment he reinforced last week in a speech to the Canada 2020 think-tank.


http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/defence-short-several-tens-of-billions-for-equipment-analyst-1.2760918


----------



## PuckChaser

Between what we need and what we can afford, I don't think I'm in the minority to know that afford trumps need 100% of the time, across all parties. I'd love to be wrong, though.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Personally, I don't like the way this article is phrased. 

This sentence annoys me:

_"the defence procurement system is trying to buy more equipment that DND can afford"/i]__ .

It makes it look like its a DND problem, and that DND is the organization that is failing to fund defence procurement properly.

This is kind of an upside down view of the situation. It's DND that determines what is needed to carry out the mission it is charged with. Then Defence procurement comes up with the costed out project. But the financing of the projects, that is totally outside DND or Defence procurement's purview: It rests with the TB and Finance Departments, in other words, the government - not DND. It would have been more precise to say:

"The defence procurement system is trying to buy more equipment to fulfill DND's needs than Treasury Board is allowing it to buy."

And BTW, the composition of the TB, which is a committee of the cabinet whose members are appointed by the PM, is usually a good indication of where the PM of the day's priorities lie. 

PM JT has assigned to the Board Scott Brisson as Chair (ok, good choice) but saddled him with the Ministers for (1) Immigration, refugee and Citizenship, (2) Finance [compulsory appointment], (3) Health, (4) Families, childhood and social development and (5) Environment and climate change.

Even the "alternates" come from (1) Agriculture, (2) House Leader, (3) Natural resources, (4) Infrastructure and (5) Democratic institutions.

Overall, absolutely no one from the departments that have some form of responsibility for the safety or security of the citizens of the country (DND, Public Safety, Justice, Attorney-General, Transport) are on the Board, and only in the alternates are there any ministers that might be considered, but even then only indirectly, interested in the economy (Agriculture, Natural resources and infrastructure).

Guess how high defence procurement and DND are going to be on the TB list of people to care for.
/RANT OFF   _


----------



## Kirkhill

So, when a new government comes into office and sits down with the CDS - who goes first?  The New Government or the CDS?

Does the CDS tell them what he CAN do?  Or does the New Government tell him what they WANT to do?

Between CAN and WANT is a gap.

Who supplies the info to fill the gap?

I would guess that the CDS would detail the gap-fillers necessary.

Then somebody has to estimate the cost of filling the gap.

Who does that?  And is it done before the PM has had a chance to chat with Treasury Board and allows his Defence Minister to issue a Policy Statement (white paper or what have you)?

It seems a bit strange to me that capabilities are always under-funded, that there is never enough money, and that it is never possible to do what was originally proposed.

Who got the math wrong?  The original estimator?  Or the current project managers?


----------



## Old Sweat

Short answer - the PCO decides for both of them and then sorts the details out with the PMO, Finance and TB.


----------



## Kirkhill

From Sir Humphrey's web site.

http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/index.asp?lang=eng&page=prec


*The Canadian Ministry (by order of precedence)*
[PDF version]

*The order of precedence for the ministry is determined by the Prime Minister.* The order in which ministers are sworn into the ministry is also determined by the Prime Minister. For the November 4, 2015 swearing-in ceremony, ministers were sworn in alternating between men and women, according to their place in the order of precedence.

The Right Honourable Justin P. J. Trudeau
Prime Minister

The Honourable Ralph Goodale
Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

The Honourable Lawrence MacAulay
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food

The Honourable Stéphane Dion
Minister of Foreign Affairs

The Honourable John McCallum
Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

The Honourable Carolyn Bennett
Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs





The Honourable Scott Brison
President of the Treasury Board

The Honourable Dominic LeBlanc
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

The Honourable Navdeep Singh Bains
Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development

The Honourable William Francis Morneau
Minister of Finance

The Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

The Honourable Judy M. Foote
Minister of Public Services and Procurement




The Honourable Chrystia Freeland
Minister of International Trade

The Honourable Jane Philpott
Minister of Health

The Honourable Jean-Yves Duclos
Minister of Families, Children and Social Development

The Honourable Marc Garneau
Minister of Transport

The Honourable Marie-Claude Bibeau
Minister of International Development and La Francophonie

The Honourable James Gordon Carr
Minister of Natural Resources

*The Honourable Mélanie Joly
Minister of Canadian Heritage*

The Honourable Diane Lebouthillier
Minister of National Revenue

*The Honourable Kent Hehr
Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence*

The Honourable Catherine McKenna
Minister of Environment and Climate Change

*The Honourable Harjit Singh Sajjan
Minister of National Defence*

The Honourable MaryAnn Mihychuk
Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour

The Honourable Amarjeet Sohi
Minister of Infrastructure and Communities

The Honourable Maryam Monsef
Minister of Democratic Institutions

The Honourable Carla Qualtrough
Minister of Sport and Persons with Disabilities

The Honourable Hunter Tootoo
Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard

The Honourable Kirsty Duncan
Minister of Science

The Honourable Patricia A. Hajdu
Minister of Status of Women

The Honourable Bardish Chagger
Minister of Small Business and Tourism


----------



## Ostrozac

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> The order of precedence for the ministry is determined by the Prime Minister.



That may be so by the _letter_ of the law, but by _custom_ aren't Ministers and their Ministry granted precedence by the PM in the order that the Ministers were sworn into the Privy Council? The order of precedence listed exactly tracks with seniority in the privy council, going back to Ralph Goodale and Lawrence MacAulay (the two senior Ministers in Cabinet) who were both sworn in on the same day (4 Nov 1993).


----------



## Happy Guy

Ref: http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/canada-among-bottom-third-of-allies-in-defence-spending-nato-says


Canada among bottom third of allies in defence spending, NATO says

 Lee Berthiaume, Ottawa Citizen
 More from Lee Berthiaume, Ottawa Citizen

 Published on: February 3, 2016 | Last Updated: February 3, 2016 8:54 PM EST 
​

Canada is near the back of the pack when it comes to defence spending among NATO members — a trend that is expected to worsen under the Liberal government, and which could cause trouble with our allies.

Like all NATO members, Canada has repeatedly committed to spending two per cent of its gross domestic product, or GDP, on defence spending. And like most of its allies, Canada has repeatedly failed to fulfil that commitment. Only the United States, United Kingdom and a few others have consistently met the target.

But a new NATO report estimates Canada spent just one per cent of GDP on defence last year, leaving it in the bottom third of allies. Only Italy and Spain, whose economies have been struggling, Luxembourg Belgium, and Eastern European members Slovenia, Hungary and the Czech Republic ranked lower.

Canada’s lagging performance is not especially new, as it has hovered around the one-per-cent mark for the past few years. But the Liberals themselves have predicted the figure will decline even further under their watch over the next few years. 
The previous Conservative government promised in last year’s federal budget to boost defence spending over the next decade. In real terms, that meant growing the military’s $20-billion budget by about $2.3 billion by 2026.

During the election campaign, the Liberals promised to stick with the Conservatives’ plan — even though they had predicted months earlier that defence spending would actually fall to 0.89 per cent of GDP under the plan thanks to economic growth surpassing the planned spending increases.

“Their (the Conservatives’) promises of increased funding are not credible in light of (past) promises and cuts,” then-Liberal defence critic Joyce Murray told The Canadian Press in April.

“And, even if they were to implement this delayed increase, this would still reduce our military’s share of GDP to just point eight per cent, which is unprecedented.”

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan’s spokeswoman, Jordan Owens, said in an email that the government “is committed to maintaining current Defence spending levels, including current planned increases.

“Canada joined allies in the Defence Investment Pledge,” she added, in reference to the two per cent target. “But it’s important to note that the pledge is *aspirational* and that nations calculate their 2 per cent differently. Percentage of GDP can misrepresent how much is actually being spent on capabilities. We’re focused on outputs and ensuring we have the necessary capabilities to support operations.”
  The National Post reported last week that the British government has sent diplomatic notes to Canada and other NATO allies urging them to bolster defence spending. Defence analyst David Perry of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute believes it could be only a matter of time before allies begin complaining in public.

Successive U.S. ambassadors to Canada publicly pressured the then-Liberal government in the late 1990s and early 2000s to increase its defence spending. But Perry said the Conservative government was able to get away with underspending while Canadian troops fought in Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq and Syria.

“The past government would make the argument that ‘We aren’t spending the same amount, but we are doing other things,’” Perry said. “And there was some credence to that argument because you didn’t see active pressure on Canada to spend more.”

The Liberals have promised to withdraw Canadian fighter jets from Iraq and Syria, where they have been bombing Islamic State targets since 2014 but say they will fight ISIL in other ways.

Still, Perry says, Canada’s absence from a major anti-ISIL meeting in Paris last month suggests allies don’t consider it a key player. And unless Canada steps up with a new contribution in Iraq and Syria, it could be only a matter of time before the pressure to pull its weight in dollars begins to ratchet up.

“If we continue to make significant operational contributions to NATO, then I think that we realistically continue to get somewhat of a pass in the fact that we’re not even close to that neighbourhood,” he said. “If not, then I think our allies look at us in a significantly different way then they have been.”

lberthiaume@postmedia.com

Twitter.com/leeberthiaume



Canadian defence spending, by the numbers

$20 billion: Estimated Canadian defence spending last year.

$17 billion: Estimated Canadian defence spending last year, when adjusted for inflation to 2005 figures.

$16 billion: Canadian defence spending in 2005, the year before the Conservatives came to power.

1 per cent: Estimated amount of Canada’s gross domestic product spent on defence last year. This is the number that analysts and allies look at closest as a way to compare between different NATO members and different points in time.

2.42 per cent: Estimated average amount of GDP spent on defence by all NATO members.

1.43 per cent: Estimated average amount of GDP spent on defence by European NATO members.

1.1 per cent: Average amount of Canada’s GDP spent on defence annually between 2000 and 2004. This is during the height of the so-called “decade of darkness” under previous Liberal governments.

1.8 per cent: Average amount of Canada’s GDP spent on defence annually between 1990 and 1994. This is during the tail end of the Cold War.

2 per cent: The amount of GDP that NATO has long asked its members to spend on defence.

2009: Canadian defence spending peaks at 1.4 per cent of GDP under the federal Conservative government. This also marks the peak of Canada’s military involvement in Afghanistan.

28: Total number of NATO members.

Seven: Number of NATO members that spent less on defence as a share of GDP than Canada last year. They are Belgium, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg, Slovenia and Spain.

Source: NATO, Bank of Canada


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From all indications the DND budget will decrease in the next budget.  The question is how many CAF members will the Government allow DND to cut? To 50,000 like Gen (Ret'd) Hiller suggested?


----------



## Cloud Cover

Besides cutting personnel, they need to decide which obsolete capabilities need to be axed, which relevant and useful capabilities need to be scaled back, and which parts of our foreign policy that currently rest on defence posture, will change in nature. Do not look for anything that signals any degree of serious intention of improving overall capability or efficiency. 

Mr. Harper epically failed in rebuilding and revitalizing the CAF. Although Trudeau could do worse, even if he does nothing at all the green machine will implode, if it hasn't already. IMO Trudeau will take the opportunity to purposely, and with a very clear policy intent, substantially and permanently deliberately disarm and disengage the military from long established practices and relationships. When doing so, I hope that he will not take the path that all previous governments engaged at with various degrees of stealth. The man is some sort of ideological pacifist, it would be refreshing if he would just say so and move on. At least people would know where he really stands, and I think the majority of Canadians might support him, if he moves quickly.


----------



## Good2Golf

...OR......Canada - #6 in NATO spending.

Ref: Defence Expenditures of NATO Countries (2008-2015)

...from Table 2 - Defence Expenditures (USD) for 2015

USA - $649.9B
GBR -  $59.7B
FRA -   $43.8B
GER -   $39.7B
ITA -    $18.3B
CAN -   $15.8B


...OR....

CAN (15.8B USD) = 15.9B USD (ALB + BUL + CRO + CZR + DEN + EST + HUN + LAT + LUX + POR + ROM + SLR + SLV)


Is %GDP one way of measuring Def Exp?  Yes.

Is absolute expenditures another way?  Yes.


:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Happy Guy

Absolutely correct in looking at another methodology or perspective in looking at the budget, but it doesn't change the fact that DND is struggling to live within its means and something has to give, now and in the immediate future.

As another point of reference, whether it is right or wrong, the Australians will be spending $31.9B AUS or roughly $31.5 B CDN for 2015-16.  Ref: http://www.defence.gov.au/Budget/15-16/.  Of course the Aussies cannot rely on the Americans to readily help them whereas we (Canadians) must depend on the Americans to protect our sovereignty.


----------



## CombatMacguyver

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> CAN (15.8B USD) = 15.9B USD (ALB + BUL + CRO + CZR + DEN + EST + HUN + LAT + LUX + POR + ROM + SLR + SLV)



True but if you remove Romania from that list the population is roughly the same as Canada.  And nobody ever expected half those countries to pull their weight, it was just a way to fence in the (former) USSR


----------



## jmt18325

CombatMacgyver said:
			
		

> True but if you remove Romania from that list the population is roughly the same as Canada.  And nobody ever expected half those countries to pull their weight, it was just a way to fence in the (former) USSR



Yeah, but if we add a US state with about the same population as Romania, our defence budget goes way up.


----------



## The Bread Guy

The latest ...


> Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan has ruled out cutting the size of the Canadian military, despite the country's bleak economic and fiscal picture.
> 
> The Liberals will concentrate on meeting existing approved levels of 68,000 full-time and 27,000 part-time soldiers, with an eye towards eventually expanding Canada's military ranks, Sajjan said Thursday.
> 
> "We are not looking at reducing our personnel," he said. "In fact, the conversations I'm having right now (are) about where do we need to increase the personnel."
> 
> A recent federal report from last year's budget shows military reserves are running at roughly 20,000 paid members — about 19 per cent short of full strength.
> 
> The numbers are only slightly better for the regular forces, with roughly 66,000 full-time members in uniform.
> 
> Sajjan says recruiting has slowed over the last few years and he wants to see measures stepped up so the country always has an agile, optimal force.
> 
> National Defence is the largest single discretionary item in the federal budget. Previous governments, Liberal and Conservative alike, have often used military cuts as a way to balance the books ...


----------



## Kirkhill

It would like to be pleasantly surprised by the Liberals on this file.

Minister Singh's comments, the lack of action on the F35, and an article in the Globe and Mail "To be a world player, Trudeau must spend on defence: As it addresses its budgetary challenges, the government also needs to get a grip on military procurement
Feb 18, 2016 - Colin Robertson"

Given Canadian realities it is only the Liberal Party that can increase Defence spending, just as it is only the Liberal Party that can increase security and surveillance.  They have the electorate convinced that Blue is scary.  But if Red does what Blue proposed then that is just fine.  C-54 as case in point.

St-Laurent jacked defence at the onset of the Cold War.  Peace-Keeping Mike Pearson signed up to arm the Canadian Army and RCAF with nukes, which Pierre Trudeau maintained.

Perhaps once the adults have decided then PM Trudeau will be dispatched to sell the message.


----------



## CougarKing

Does this mean Trudeau is actually listening to Canadian military veterans who are members of parliament, besides the Defence Minister/retired Colonel Sajjan, such as Capt. Marc Garneau (RCN-retired) and Genneral Leslie (Army-retired)?

Canadian Press



> *Liberals rule out cutting the size of the military, despite soaring deficit*
> 
> Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press
> The Canadian Press
> February 18, 2016
> 
> OTTAWA - Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan has ruled out cutting the size of the Canadian military, despite the country's bleak economic and fiscal picture.
> 
> The Liberals will concentrate on meeting existing approved levels of 68,000 full-time and 27,000 part-time soldiers, with an eye towards eventually expanding Canada's military ranks, Sajjan said Thursday.
> 
> "*We are not looking at reducing our personnel,"* the minister said. "In fact, the conversations I'm having right now (are) about where do we need to increase the personnel."
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## McG

Privates are cheaper than majors.  Maybe the government will look at adjusting the rank distribution to keep the same force size while spending less on pay?  There are a few places, in both PRes and Reg F, where we could benefit from moving a few PYs to lower ranks.


----------



## PuckChaser

MCG said:
			
		

> Privates are cheaper than majors.  Maybe the government will look at adjusting the rank distribution to keep the same force size while spending less on pay?  There are a few places, in both PRes and Reg F, where we could benefit from moving a few PYs to lower ranks.



Could get almost 2 Cpl/Ptes for every Major we get rid of. 3 for every Col/GOFO. Great way to grow PYs in the CAF.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Not grow PYs.

The defence budget is a zero sum game. If you get rid of a GOFO and hire a Cpl in at the bottom, that is a saving of probably 100k. Do that a few hundred or thousand times down to the rank of major, and pretty soon you have some serious cash for O&M. Or procurement. Or infrastructure.


----------



## Good2Golf

To have enough of current budget levels assigned to re-capitalization, 68,000 (of whatever rank) is still too big.  Milpay is the largest share of the Defence budget by a wide margin.  If RegF levels remain at (well, aimed for is more like it), then I would be very surprised to see any substantive improvement to the equipment and maint&repair side of the house.

:2c:

G2G


----------



## McG

The Liberal government released details of Conservative budget cuts starting in 2012: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/budget-spending-cuts-strategic-review-1.3455590
Source document:  http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2716170/Strategic-and-Operating-Review.pdf  (Defence is on page 12)

The article claims $1.19 billion was cut from defence in 2012 and grew to a $2.1 billion per year cut, but (unless I am missing something in the detailed charts) it was $326,771 cut in 2012 and grew to $1.119 billion per year by 2014.

But if anyone was hoping this to be a good news story, the Liberals have already stated they will not undo/reverse the cuts.


> *No plans to undo Conservative cuts to military spending, says Sajjan*
> New numbers show $1.19 billion in defence spending was cut in the Conservative Party's 2012 federal budget
> CBC News
> By Andy Blatchford, Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press
> 19 Feb 2016
> 
> Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan says "what's done is done" when it comes to the former Conservative government's deep cuts to defence spending in 2012.
> 
> Sajjan was reacting to a fresh batch of numbers detailing spending cuts from four years ago, released Friday by the Liberal government in response to a long-standing and disputed request by the parliamentary budget office.
> 
> However, the numbers made public Friday did not contain key information long sought by the federal budget watchdog: how, exactly, the cuts affected services for Canadians.
> 
> The data did show $1.19 billion in defence spending was cut in 2012, the first wave in a series of reductions that eventually saw over $2.1 billion per year carved out of the military's funding envelope.
> 
> Sajjan, a reserve force lieutenant-colonel, said he witnessed the effects of the cuts.
> 
> "The previous cuts, which I'm aware of and felt myself, did have an impact, but what's done is done," Sajjan said Friday.
> 
> "I'm the minister of defence now and our government is looking at making sure that the planned increases are there. The military, what it needs to move forward is stable, predictable funding, and that's what I'm working towards and make sure it's going to happen."
> 
> The defence numbers weren't entirely new: defence analysts Dave Perry and George Petrolekas crunched the numbers a few years ago using open-sourced budget data and came up with roughly the same figures.
> 
> What the newly released figures did reveal was where those cuts were directed, including a $40 million per year reduction in the number of reservists — or part-time soldiers — and $305 million annually to restrain growth in the military.
> 
> Since the cuts, the bottom has effectively fallen out of the reserves with a 19 per cent drop in the size of the force — something defence experts attribute to a lack of money for training or other activities.
> 
> In their last budget, the Conservative government promised to begin ramping up defence spending starting in 2017, a commitment the Liberals have said they plan to keep.
> 
> Since coming to power, the Liberals have also vowed to be more transparent and to work more closely with the parliamentary budget office. Friday's release was intended in that spirit, Treasury Board President Scott Brison wrote to Jean-Denis Frechette, the parliamentary budget officer.
> 
> "We are guided by the principle that government data belongs to all Canadians," Brison wrote in the letter, posted on the Treasury Board's website.
> 
> Frechette said he was pleased with Brison's gesture of openness in the letter and his offer to meet with him.
> 
> But he added that while neatly packaged, most of the figures weren't new to the budget office. The office had already accumulated most of the information via other means.
> 
> ...


http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/conservative-cuts-defence-spending-1.3456095


----------



## Journeyman

MCG said:
			
		

> "The previous cuts, which I'm aware of and felt myself, did have an impact, *but what's done is done *," Sajjan said Friday.



Anyone still believe that having _any_  former Canadian military members in the Liberal Party will make the slightest difference?


----------



## Kirkhill

It'll be interesting to see if the Liberals are as forthcoming when it is their programmes being reviewed.


----------



## Edward Campbell

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I think that Prime Minister (elect) Trudeau (and Prime Minister Harper) find themselves in much the same sort of situation that confronted Prime Ministers St Laurent, Diefenbaker and Pearson in the 1950s and '60s: First, the _direct (military) threats_ to Canada are hard to explain because they are hard for Canadians to see; Second, the cost of defending Canada keeps rising and rising, far faster and higher then the general rate of inflation. Our limited resources seem to but less and less, even when the _performance envelope_ of a new weapon system is factored in to the equation. In short: Canadians don't want to spend on defence and we keep paying more for less.
> 
> In 1963 Paul Hellyer offered Mike Pearson an option: a leaner, more efficient military structure to help offset the inexorable cost increases that were making defence too expensive.
> 
> In the 1960s we also had the Glassco Commission (1960-63) which in my opinion led Minister Hellyer down an organizational rate hole from which we still have not (fully) recovered.
> 
> I believe there are parallels today, without a Glassco Commission to muddy the waters.




I keep saying this: absent an clear, comprehensible, to the "ordinary Canadian," and _existential_ threat to Canada ~ and _Da'esh_/ISIL/ISIS does not rise to that standard, not even Putin/Russia does, yet ~ then Canadians will not support any increases in defence spending. 

As I always say about the Canadian public's "support for the troops," it is: 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Now, there are threats, real ones. If you don't subscribe then go to your local library and get this month;'s edition of _Foreign Affairs_ and read Robert Kaplan's essay, "*Eurasia's Coming Anarchy: The Risks of Chinese and Russian Weakness*," there's plenty about which we should worry, but, by my _guesstimate_, 85% of Canadians are unaware of what's happening in the world (and a good 65% are, I suspect, unable to read well enough to understand what Kaplan writes, even if they were curious) and the Canadian cabinet ministers at the table are, for now, just coming to grips with what Andrew Coyne calls a severe case of _cognitive dissonance_: so many of their promises need to be broken, but they cannot quite figure out why, so they just shrug and pretend that their world, filled with _sunny ways_, unicorns and _flowers_, is real. They are going to try to spend the next four years in campaign mode, mostly campaigning against Stephen Harper, the meanest man ever. They do not want the world to intrude. They do not want to spend on defence.

They will, of course, but only when it is (almost) too late.


----------



## Cloud Cover

I would like to think that if this country suffers a serious defence or security setback ( a slaughter of CAF in Iraq   or large scale terrorist attack within our borders, especially Toronto) there will be no forgiveness by the electorate.


----------



## Journeyman

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> I would like to think that if this country suffers a serious defence or security setback ( a slaughter of CAF in Iraq   or   large scale terrorist attack within our borders, * especially Toronto* ) there will be no forgiveness by the electorate.


I'm not sure I'd get too worked up about that.


----------



## dapaterson

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I'm not sure I'd get too worked up about that.



What if they take out the Steamwhistle brewery?


----------



## Journeyman

dapaterson said:
			
		

> What if they take out the Steamwhistle brewery?


Budweiser of the North?  No loss.


----------



## Cloud Cover

That's cruel. Everybody knows the centres of progressive civilizations are: University of Ottawa, Concordia and all of Toronto. What's the point of hitting, say, Sudbury or Red Deere. No sense pissing off the wrong people.


----------



## Kirkhill

We went wrong with the Toronto 18.  They were targeting the CBC.


----------



## CountDC

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Anyone still believe that having _any_  former Canadian military members in the Liberal Party will make the slightest difference?



ok now I have to question.  In 2012 the cons did announce around a $2 bil cut to the defence budget but that amount mirrored what defence had returned to the government yearly over a 2 or 3 year period.  Made sense that if defence wasn't spending it and giving it back to cut it.  If we weren't spending it then what impact did he really feel from the cut?  I would have to suspect any impact was a defence generated one and not as a result of the cut.


----------



## CountDC

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> ....or large scale terrorist attack within our borders, especially Toronto) there will be no forgiveness by the electorate.



define large scale - my kids can be pretty terrorizing and we are headed there.   >


----------



## McG

CountDC said:
			
		

> ok now I have to question.  In 2012 the cons did announce around a $2 bil cut to the defence budget but that amount mirrored what defence had returned to the government yearly over a 2 or 3 year period.  Made sense that if defence wasn't spending it and giving it back to cut it.  If we weren't spending it then what impact did he really feel from the cut?  I would have to suspect any impact was a defence generated one and not as a result of the cut.


You are looking at different sums of money.  The cuts described above are reductions to money that was being spent.  As an example $40 million was terminated Class B positions.  More was from elimination of civilian positions.  The money being returned at year end is above and beyond the cuts described in the article.


----------



## MarkOttawa

See the pre-budget figures:



> Canadian Department of National Defence: 2016-17 Main Estimates
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/02/27/mark-collins-canadian-department-of-national-defence-2016-17-main-estimates/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## jmt18325

So it looks like they're doing as they promised; following the Conservative funding plan for DND.


----------



## Good2Golf

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> So it looks like they're doing as they promised; following the Conservative funding plan for DND.



Yes, 2% for 16/17's Vote 1 reference level.

Interesting to see the 15.6% reduction in Vote 5 baseline reference level.


Regards
G2G


----------



## The Bread Guy

Let's not forget, though, that the upcoming Budget can blow all of this out of the water.  

If I understand correctly (and I do stand to be corrected/educated), these Estimates have to, by law, match the "last lawful command," so to speak, from the previous government, given no new Budget's been released yet.

Watch and shoot ... op:


----------



## The Bread Guy

1)  The latest, from the 2016-17 Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces 2016-17 Report on Plans and Priorities ... 


> The upcoming federal budget is not expected to commit to a broad increase in military spending, say several defence sources.
> 
> In fact, newly tabled fiscal planning documents suggest overall spending on the military could to shrink by almost $400 million in the coming year.
> 
> During the election campaign, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau promised to maintain the former Conservative government’s defence spending levels and increase funding in 2017, as laid out in last year’s federal budget.
> 
> His government has been under pressure from allies to hike what it spends on defence, with both the United States and Britain asking Canada to aim for the NATO spending benchmark of two per cent of GDP.
> 
> The demands have become particularly strident in the aftermath of the Paris terrorist attacks last November, which killed 130 people.
> 
> Preliminary budget estimates for the coming year show the military is expected to end the year with a budget of just over $19 billion, but planned spending for fiscal 2016-17 amounts to $18.64 billion.
> 
> National Defence routinely goes back and tops up its budget later in the year, but the amounts vary depending on what is going on in the world.
> 
> Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan has denied there are broad-based spending cuts in the works, citing a Liberal promise to stick with planned annual increases through a budgetary mechanism known as the defence escalator.
> 
> He said Tuesday that the difference between the actual spending and the forecast for next year relates to a series of one-time expenses that National Defence incurred in 2015-16 that won’t be repeated.
> 
> “This is not a reduction” in the overall budget, Sajjan insisted. “We are committed to the planned increases and the promises we made during the campaign are going to be kept.”
> 
> Documents obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act show those annual two per cent increases don’t keep up with inflation and have been more than offset by the previous Harper government’s earlier deficit spending cuts ...


2)  The Conservative defence critic, James Bezan, has this to say ...


> *Conservatives support the Canada First Defence Strategy* -- If properly implemented and financed, it will produce a first-class, modern military ...


If only a party had been in a majority position for to be able to make that happen ...


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Article Link

Defence spending expected to drop $400M — despite Liberal pledge to keep up with Tories: sources


Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press 

Apologies, I didn't realize this was the same article linked to above in Milnews.ca's post.


----------



## Journeyman

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Conservatives support the Canada First Defence Strategy -- *If *properly implemented and financed, it will produce a first-class, modern military ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...If only a party had been in a majority position for to be able to make that happen ...
Click to expand...

I don't believe the number of seats held was ever a factor. _CFDS_  was shelved before the ink was dry; even the Conservatives (well, most I assume) realized that it was a pie in the sky wish list, well beyond what Canadians would be willing to pay "if properly implemented and financed."

That they're still using it as some sort of touchstone just shows a lack of thought towards moving forward.


----------



## Edward Campbell

I was a non-believer pretty much right from the start ...

_First_, the money was never "right," it was all smoke and mirrors financing (some members may recall that I called it something like "disarmament by stealth" (I'm too lazy to go find my original post));

_Second_, it was never supported by a foundation "strategic survey" that would have tried to tell us, Canadians, what the world was likely to look like for the next 25+ years (for a generation or so in the future), so the equipment list made little sense; and

_Third_, it was, in my opinion, just a ploy to make defence go away and stop bothering the cabinet's "P&P" (plans and priorities) committee: the real "inner cabinet."


----------



## Colin Parkinson

There are times I wished the Russians had never sold Alaska, being on the frontlines against the Soviet threat might have changed the way we see the world.


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin P said:
			
		

> There are times I wished the Russians had never sold Alaska, being on the frontlines against the Soviet threat might have changed the way we see the world.



It didn't help Sarah Palin to convince New York or Los Angeles.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

A line of fortifications and minefields would certainly help focus the mind.


----------



## George Wallace

Colin P said:
			
		

> A line of fortifications and minefields would certainly help focus the mind.



AH!  Parks Canada and the other organizations that run our current forts would be pleased to wash their hands of these money pits and  hand them over for upkeep and modernization.  The Fort Henry Guard could be "Drafted" as skilled members into the CAF.  Same for the Citadel in Halifax and Louisbourg.  The Van Doos already occupy La Citadel.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Parks Canada, tending a Minefield   [:'(


----------



## cavalryman

Colin P said:
			
		

> Parks Canada, tending a Minefield   [:'(


I can see some entertainment value in the notion.  op:


----------



## MilEME09

Waiting for the details to go online but just watched the budget come down, Capital budget pushed off further down the road, money for armoury renovations, nothing really to big for DND.


----------



## 63 Delta

Budget can be found here: http://www.budget.gc.ca/2016/docs/plan/budget2016-en.pdf. TLDR...not much to read.


----------



## MilEME09

For ease of everyone.



> Reallocate $3.7 Billion in capital spending to 2020
> 
> •$77.1 million on projects to support readiness for Canadian Armed Forces military operations, including investments to repair and construct live-fire ranges, airfields and hangars and naval jetties across Canada;
> 
> •$67.4 million on projects to support the Reserve Force, including investments to repair and maintain armouries in Alberta, Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia;
> 
> •$50.0 million on projects to support military personnel and their families, including investments to upgrade and construct military housing across Canada; and
> 
> •$6.0 million on projects to support northern operations, including investments in airfield ramp reconstruction that is critical to northern search and rescue and upgrades to fire suppression systems that directly support the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD).


----------



## MarkOttawa

From budget--new fighters and CSCs way down the road:



> ...To ensure that funding is available when key capital acquisitions will be made, the Government will reallocate funding of $3.716 billion for large-scale capital projects from the 2015–16 to 2020–21 period to future years. This funding is being shifted into future years to align with the timing of major equipment acquisitions...
> http://www.budget.gc.ca/2016/docs/themes/world-monde-en.html



More at p. 203 PDF:
http://www.budget.gc.ca/2016/docs/plan/budget2016-en.pdf

CP story:



> DND equipment purchases postponed again
> 
> The promised re-equipping of the Canadian military has essentially been postponed until after the next election in a maiden federal Liberal budget that shifts billions of dollars in capital spending to 2020 — or later.
> 
> The Trudeau government's new fiscal plan shoves $3.7 billion in planned defence purchases — ships, planes and vehicles — off into the future, but Finance Minister Bill Morneau insists the move does not represent a cut to military funding.
> 
> Morneau said the Liberals need a year to figure out Canada's defence priorities.
> 
> "In order to make sure we have the funds available at the time when they need those funds, we've reprofiled some in the fiscal framework," he told a news conference prior to tabling the budget in the House of Commons.
> 
> "So, when we need the money, the money will be in the fiscal framework. So, we believe that is the appropriate action to take to ensure our military has the appropriate equipment, the planes and the ships they need."..
> http://www.northumberlandnews.com/news-story/6401738-dnd-equipment-purchases-postponed-again/



So F-35 after all as only Gripen and Rafale (even those?) likely to be in production mid 2020s?

Earlier, note the shift well right for CSCs and TBDs for new fighter:

Canadian Forces’ Major Acquisitions: Big Slippages for CSCs, Fighters, Drones
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/03/11/mark-collins-canadian-forces-major-acquisitions-big-slippages-for-cscs-fighters-drones/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Edward Campbell

My quick glance at p. 204 shows:
                                                         _2015/16   2016/17   2017/18     *Total*_
Subtotal ~ Defending Canada        -205          -90          -1,319      *-1,614*


----------



## Kirkhill




----------



## Good2Golf

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> My quick glance at p. 204 shows:
> _2015/16   2016/17   2017/18     *Total*_
> Subtotal ~ Defending Canada        -205          -90          -1,319      *-1,614*



At first glance, at Chart 6.2 on page 203 of the Budget document ( http://www.budget.gc.ca/2016/docs/plan/budget2016-en.pdf ), the 'cut' area under the curve appears similar to the 're-profiled' amount over the curve appears 'similar'.  Chart 6.2 doesn't indicate whether the figures are Budget Year or Current Year...hopefully Current Year, but one never knows.

'On verra'

Regards
G2G


----------



## jmt18325

DND returned $2B to the government last year.  The ships and jets are going to be later than they were supposed to be.  We all knew that was the case.  The Conservatives moved money two years ago for the same reason.  We know there won't be CSC until at least 2020.  We know the CF-18 purchase was delayed, and that they won't arrive before 2022.  We know all of these things.  The budget just made that a reality.


----------



## ModlrMike

Decade of darkness come again?


----------



## dapaterson

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Decade of darkness come again?



More of the same that we've seen for the past several years.  If that qualifies as a decade of darkness...


----------



## jmt18325

DND wasn't spending the money now.  The CPC did the same thing two years ago for the same reason.  Nothing has changed.


----------



## McG

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Decade of darkness come again?


There is no cut to the operating budget.  Except for the big purchases, we are still on the same path set by the previous government.


----------



## PuckChaser

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> DND wasn't spending the money now.  The CPC did the same thing two years ago for the same reason.  Nothing has changed.


And the Tories were vilified for it as a cut to DND spending. Why do you think Trudeau deserves better?


----------



## jmt18325

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> And the Tories were vilified for it as a cut to DND spending. Why do you think Trudeau deserves better?



Hey, I defended that move then, just as I defend it now.  Harper was a good Prime Minister.  Trudeau is as well (so far) but for completely different reasons.


----------



## George Wallace

MCG said:
			
		

> There is no cut to the operating budget.  Except for the big purchases, we are still on the same path set by the previous government.



First the big purchases, then the infrastructure, then recruiting, and then pay freezes for all government Departments.


----------



## McG

George Wallace said:
			
		

> First the big purchases, then the infrastructure, then recruiting, and then pay freezes for all government Departments.


You can see the future?


----------



## jmt18325

MCG said:
			
		

> You can see the future?



There are a lot of people here with that ability.


----------



## George Wallace

Nope.  Not all the time.  But if the writing is on the wall, or something experience shows that it looks like it is going to have potential of happening, then maybe.   [


----------



## jmt18325

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Nope.  Not all the time.  But if the writing is on the wall, or something experience shows that it looks like it is going to have potential of happening, then maybe.   [



Did you say that after the Conservatives did the same thing two years ago?


----------



## PuckChaser

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Did you say that after the Conservatives did the same thing two years ago?



Chretien was real good at differing capital acquisitions. So good in fact, that 20 years later we're just getting the maritime helicopters he differed.


----------



## OldSolduer

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Chretien was real good at differing capital acquisitions. So good in fact, that 20 years later we're just getting the maritime helicopters he differed.



I believe he coined the term "Cadillac elicoptiers"


----------



## MarkOttawa

jmt18325: CSCs not until late 2020s:
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs-report-plan-priorities/2016-status-report-on-transformational-and-major-crown-projects.page#P6

New fighter TBD for all milestones:
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs-report-plan-priorities/2016-status-report-on-transformational-and-major-crown-projects.page#P10

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## jmt18325

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> jmt18325: CSCs not until late 2020s:
> http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs-report-plan-priorities/2016-status-report-on-transformational-and-major-crown-projects.page#P6



But we'll need the money around 2021 - 2023, so that the first ship can start construction as the AOPS finishes construction.  A lot of this has to wait a year for the defence review.



> New fighter TBD for all milestones:
> http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs-report-plan-priorities/2016-status-report-on-transformational-and-major-crown-projects.page#P10



The fighter project and what it looks like is 100% contingent on the defence review.


----------



## FSTO

No surprises here at all.


----------



## Good2Golf

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> DND returned $2B to the government last year.



Interesting.  Do you have an open source reference to support your assertion?

op:

Regards
G2G


----------



## jmt18325

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Interesting.  Do you have an open source reference to support your assertion?
> 
> op:
> 
> Regards
> G2G



The federal government sat on close to $9.5 billion in approved expenditures last fiscal year, including $2 billion in unspent funding for the Department of National Defence, as it tried to balance the books during an election year.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/tories-left-9-5-billion-in-approved-funds-untouched-to-avoid-deficit-during-election-year


----------



## jmt18325

A ) there was never really a balanced budget

B ) DND has returned $11.7B to the federal treasury since 2007; most of it unspent capital money.

Before last year's return: 

National Defence has lapsed $9.7 billion since 2007.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/defence-csis-rcmp-unable-to-spend-11-billion-of-their-budgets-since-2007-1.2964507


----------



## Good2Golf

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> The federal government sat on close to $9.5 billion in approved expenditures last fiscal year, including $2 billion in unspent funding for the Department of National Defence, as it tried to balance the books during an election year.
> 
> http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/tories-left-9-5-billion-in-approved-funds-untouched-to-avoid-deficit-during-election-year



Interesting.  I was thinking more like "official open source data", not "because someone (press notwithstanding) said."

Not sure where Messieurs Fekete and Berthaume got their figures, but I see $1.4B...$1.406.162.546.00 to be exact.

FY2014/2015 Vote 5 Capital Expenditures Main Estimate - DND: $4,722,631,021. ( http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/hgw-cgf/finances/pgs-pdg/gepme-pdgbpd/20152016/me-bpd02-eng.asp#toc7-76 )

FY2014/2015 Vote 5 Capital Expenditures Main Estimate - DND: $3,316,468,475. ( http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/hgw-cgf/finances/pgs-pdg/gepme-pdgbpd/20162017/me-bpd02-eng.asp#toc7-76 )

$4,722,631,021 - $3,316,468,475 = $1,406,162,546.

Perhaps the media uses different math?  ???

Regards
G2G


----------



## vonGarvin

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Interesting.  I was thinking more like "official open source data", not "because someone (press notwithstanding) said."
> 
> Not sure where Messieurs Fekete and Berthaume got their figures, but I see $1.4B...$1.406.162.546.00 to be exact.
> 
> FY2014/2015 Vote 5 Capital Expenditures Main Estimate - DND: $4,722,631,021. ( http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/hgw-cgf/finances/pgs-pdg/gepme-pdgbpd/20152016/me-bpd02-eng.asp#toc7-76 )
> 
> FY2014/2015 Vote 5 Capital Expenditures Main Estimate - DND: $3,316,468,475. ( http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/hgw-cgf/finances/pgs-pdg/gepme-pdgbpd/20162017/me-bpd02-eng.asp#toc7-76 )
> 
> $4,722,631,021 - $3,316,468,475 = $1,406,162,546.
> 
> Perhaps the media uses different math?  ???
> 
> Regards
> G2G


They use mathemagics...


----------



## jmt18325

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


----------



## PuckChaser

Moving the money just admits they can't fix the procurement system. We could use it now if they had an idea of how to fix the system.


----------



## The Bread Guy

In case anyone's interested, here's a link to the full Budget 2016 document (PDF) - enjoy!


----------



## jmt18325

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Moving the money just admits they can't fix the procurement system. We could use it now if they had an idea of how to fix the system.



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.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

jmt18325 said:
			
		

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



True, but a portion of that moved to O&M, construction, etc, would greatly improve the ability to train and improve base infrastructure in the near term. Sort of like the infrastructure money meant to fix current structures- the bases could use tons of this (plus less bases, but that's another thread)


----------



## jmt18325

I mean, the Conservatives did the exact same thing the last two years in a row for the same reason.  You either have to applaud it, or speak against it in both cases.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I mean, the Conservatives did the exact same thing the last two years in a row for the same reason.  You either have to applaud it, or speak against it in both cases.



Who cares what the conservatives did? Sunshine and lollipops literally ran on infrastructure development as a cure to a minor rececssion based on a slump in the price of oil. The bases need lots of infrastructure development and had extra money, so it seems like a no-brainer. At some point the 'the conservatives did it" thing has to stop- the PMO has went out of their way to say that everything the conservatives did was wrong (which is anti-intellectual) so they can't then say "well the conservatives did it".


----------



## Kirkhill

I think this might be the gold standard for this discussion:

http://policyschool.ucalgary.ca/sites/default/files/research/canadian-defence-budgeting-perry.pdf

Perry, 2015 on the accrual system and the pluses and minuses.  And Perry verifies the 1.4 BCAD number - and a consistent pattern of returning anywhere from 8% to 28% of the capital budget due to the inability of the "system" to provide invoices in a timely manner.  There just aren't enough opportunities to write checks because the procedures in place don't allow for approvals to be generated fast enough.

Personally, unless I totally misunderstood the accrual system, I was of the opinion that the accrual system implied that funds allocated, but not spent would be rolled forwards and essentially held in escrow with the Government of the Day acting as the bank.

Perry seems to imply the same conclusion, while noting that the accrual system means putting the capital budget at the head of the financing parade, with its own line item, rather than its historical position at the bottom of the list, an after-thought to be managed with whatever funds are available after statutory, personnel, operations and maintenance bills had all been paid.

Have DND and the public purchasing manager successfully come to terms with the reprioritizing of the capital budget?


----------



## jmt18325

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> so they can't then say "well the conservatives did it".



They can when the Conservatives were right to do it.


----------



## Kirkhill

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> They can when the Conservatives were right to do it.



Your pardon? It is difficult to find anybody that voted LPC that would admit to the CPC having done anything correct while in power.  Certainly the government is doing its best to create that impression, an attitude which is not inclined to create any sort of love from the  31.9% of the voting population that supported Prime Minister Harper throughout his time in power and in 2015.  Prime Minister Trudeau may have convinced a million NDPers to become LPC members for the vote, and 3 million youngsters to turn out, all of whom were inclined to accept the Scary Harper meme, but can he hold them, and the natives, while at the same time holding the Manley's and, increasingly, the Catholic Liberals?

I apologize for the digression.  That is better on the Politics 2016 discussion.  But the surprise is honest.  It is easier to have an honest conversation if one can accept that honourable people act according to their beliefs and with the best of intentions.  

And the same thing is true for the LPC.  I have difficulty accepting Prime Minister Trudeau as the best candidate the LPC could have put forward.  I personally would have preferred any of a number of other candidates. Having said that, I will be giving him the benefit of the doubt and ascribing his actions to youthful enthusiasms that are unmoderated by the experience (cynicism) that comes with age.

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

Regards.


----------



## PuckChaser

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I mean, the Conservatives did the exact same thing the last two years in a row for the same reason.  You either have to applaud it, or speak against it in both cases.


You don't get to say "but these guys did it" when you run a campaign on "real change" and pledging to be totally different.


----------



## Kirkhill

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You don't get to say "but these guys did it" when you run a campaign on "real change" and pledging to be totally different.



Actually, you do. 

"Real change" - whatever that may mean - doesn't have to mean "All change".  And the conservative in me would be grateful for any stability that I can find.  We need it these days.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> It is difficult to find anybody that voted LPC that would admit to the CPC having done anything correct while in power.


Or vice versa ...


			
				Chris Pook said:
			
		

> It is easier to have an honest conversation if one can accept that honourable people on all sides act according to their beliefs and with the best of intentions.


FTFY -- well put!


----------



## Kirkhill

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Or vice versa ...FTFY -- well put!



Stipulated on both annotations.


----------



## Good2Golf

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> 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

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> 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

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> 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

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> 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

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> 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

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> 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

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> 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

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> 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

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> 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

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> 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

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> 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

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> 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

Harris said:
			
		

> "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

Jed said:
			
		

> 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?  >


----------



## Kirkhill

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> 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 ...



Slow getting back but....

I agree that most Canadians wouldn't know the Cost Rican Orbat from a Tim Horton's menu but I believe that there is a substantial chunk of the populace that just doesn't see the need for a defence force when they have seen no evidence of an attack.

And to have an attack force just doesn't seem the done thing.

Consequently they don't see the need for any force - which essentially brings you down to the Costa Rican standard.

Meanwhile even the supporters of the CAF seem to include a large proportion more inclined to thinking they need an Army, and it needs lots of buttons and bows, with lots of things that make loud bangs, but not much sense of what they would actually do with it.

The people that want an Army so that they can use it are, unfortunately, in my opinion, in very short supply.


----------



## MilEME09

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Meanwhile even the supporters of the CAF seem to include a large proportion more inclined to thinking they need an Army, and it needs lots of buttons and bows, with lots of things that make loud bangs, but not much sense of what they would actually do with it.
> 
> The people that want an Army so that they can use it are, unfortunately, in my opinion, in very short supply.



This is just my opinion, however I believe our Army is at a good size, and numbers just need to get moved around (IE less HQ/overhead), it is our navy and airforce that need to see large increases, especially the navy. In these times of climate change and more and more arctic sea ice is disappearing, the requirement for the RCN to assist in patrolling our northern waters will increase.


----------



## TCBF

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> This is just my opinion, however I believe our Army is at a good size, and numbers just need to get moved around (IE less HQ/overhead), it is our navy and airforce that need to see large increases, especially the navy. In these times of climate change and more and more arctic sea ice is disappearing, the requirement for the RCN to assist in patrolling our northern waters will increase.



- If the arctic ice pack breaks up, it wont just disappear in a year. We will have decades of moving chunks of loose pack ice being moved by the ocean currents - INTO the Northwest Passage, not out of it. As a sea route, the northwest passage will become even less useable than it is now.


----------



## jollyjacktar

And speaking of our defence spending...

Canada should boost military spending, former NATO commander says

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/nato-commander-trump-comments-1.3559234


----------



## Journeyman

From the cited article:





			
				jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/nato-commander-trump-comments-1.3559234
> 
> ... a release from Sajjan said, noting that budget 2016 included predictable funding for the military.


Yep, it certainly was "predictable."


----------



## Kirkhill

From Jason Fekete in the National Post



> OTTAWA – The federal government is spending millions of dollars on overtime for communications staff as it looks to get out its messaging to Canadians, with the largest tabs in the departments of Environment, Finance, Global Affairs, Defence, and the Privy Council Office.



http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/federal-liberals-spending-millions-on-overtime-for-communications-staff-documents-reveal


Good news - Defence it high on the list of things the government considers important.

Bad news - These are the things the government is working hard at messaging.

Cynical me tends to believe that somebody who is working hard at selling doesn't have much to sell.


You and your supporters are important - just not important enough to spend money on actually doing stuff.


----------



## Kirkhill

> OTTAWA — Like the Harper government before it, the Trudeau government left billions of dollars unspent on everything from national parks to veterans services to economic development grants during the 2015-16 fiscal year.
> 
> The so-called “lapsed” funding for fiscal 2016 is $9.7 billion, according to the Public Accounts of Canada. All of those unspent funds were used to pay down the federal debt.
> 
> This year’s three-volume public accounts also close the books on fiscal 2016, a year in which the Harper Conservatives controlled the purse strings for the first seven months and the Trudeau Liberals for the final five months.



http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/liberals-left-900-million-unspent-last-year-at-indigenous-affairs

Even the Liberals can't spend fast enough......

I don't know whether to be applauding obstructionist bureaucrats or calling for them to be chucked.   Something ain't right.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Part of the problem is that often money is released late in the day and by the time they get regulatory approvals they can't build before fiscal ends. They need to change the rules that once a project is selected for funding and is moving into the regulatory phase, that money is locked in and can only be returned to general revenue if it is denied at the regulatory stage. Fuck the accountants and TB, I have watched this play out far to many times and tried to get Western Economic Diversification Fund to guarantee the money to a group, because we would issue the approval as soon as the environmental assessment was done, but we could not meet the March 31 deadline. another example is giving my program $200,000 in helicopter time to review projects in NW BC, except they sat on the money till November and expected us to spend it by end of March. Flying IN NWBC at that time of the year in that area was generally useless and incredibly dangerous.


----------



## Kirkhill

> Here’s a game: guess how many types of battle tank are employed in the defence forces of Europe. As a clue, I’ll tell you that the US uses two. No? Still not sure? The answer is that the nations of Europe, equivalent in size to the entire US, maintain 37 sorts of tank.
> 
> ...
> 
> The only two countries in the EU that fulfill all their Nato defence spending obligations are the UK and Poland. The US footed the bill for more 70 per cent of Nato's defence spending last year. Not only does the EU not spend enough; the little cash it does spend is used appallingly badly.
> 
> It’s not just tanks. The EU’s 28 countries also maintain 12 kinds of tanker aircraft and 19 kinds of fighting aircraft, according to Sophia Besch at the Centre for European Reform. In Eastern Europe, many spare parts are still supplied by Russia. *Some countries* that do spend more, like Greece, *fritter defence budgets away on a vast headcount and military pensions, rather than technology*.
> 
> *When states do procure hardware, they are overwhelmingly protectionist, coddling their own industries at the cost of effectiveness.* As Ms Besch puts it, the whole system is full of “duplication and redundancy”.
> 
> ...



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2016/11/10/trump-throws-the-future-of-nato-into-doubt-europe-must-step-up-t/


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Except we have also seen the defense industry when you only have a few "super companies" 

What they need to do now is beef up Reserve forces, this reduces your long term personal cost while improving the pool to draw upon. In the army start whittling it down on anything that does not go bang or provides the stuff to go bang or can clear the way for those who go bang. Make everyone potentially deployable. Have a fixed training camp for each reserve Combat arm, they run mostly summer and have modern equipment and they train up soldiers to set standard on that equipment. The units can continue to teach the basics and send as many interested people as they can each year. Keep it the same time and format year after year, everyone can plan around it. A bit like the battle schools run by the German and Brits.


----------



## Kirkhill

Agree on the Reserve Force - as it applies to the Army.

But I disagree on its applicability to the Navy, the Air Force and the Special Forces.  Those can never be Reserve Dependent as they are 24/7 capabilities.  The Army is a "break-glass in event of fire" capability.

As to the "Super Companies"  - there used to be fewer - all of them state controlled.

Venice Arsenal
Royal Dockyards
Woolwich Arsenal
Enfield


----------



## jmt18325

From the defence review online consultation report, pages 34 and 35:



> Contributors overwhelmingly indicated that they
> thought the “Canadian Armed Forces are not adequately
> resourced to meet current roles and responsibilities”
> (Chart 12). This is consistent with the responses
> to questions regarding the procurement process and
> spending discussed above, as well as the general view
> that defence spending should be increased, with some
> specifically suggesting that Canada reach the NATO
> target of 2% of GDP. Comparisons with the levels of
> spending by Canada’s allies, or by other G7 nations,
> were also referenced. Considerably fewer advocated
> reductions in spending. The level of expenditure was
> also viewed as relating to the public’s willingness to
> spend on the military.



http://dgpaapp.forces.gc.ca/en/defence-policy-review/docs/reports/public-consultation-online-report.pdf


----------



## FSTO

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> From the defence review online consultation report, pages 34 and 35:
> 
> http://dgpaapp.forces.gc.ca/en/defence-policy-review/docs/reports/public-consultation-online-report.pdf



Lots of commentary about emulating or working with Australia, getting a political consensus on the vision for the CAF, even "gasp" getting a Mistral type of ship. 

All good things from the public. But will there be a will within Parliament to act on these recommendations? I won't hold my breath.


----------



## jmt18325

FSTO said:
			
		

> Lots of commentary about emulating or working with Australia, getting a political consensus on the vision for the CAF, even "gasp" getting a Mistral type of ship.
> 
> All good things from the public. But will there be a will within Parliament to act on these recommendations? I won't hold my breath.



I'm taking this as a signal from the government that they expect to have to do more in the Trump era.  We'll see.


----------



## Journeyman

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I'm taking this as a signal from the government that they expect to have to do more in the Trump era.  We'll see.


The report was published 24 Oct; Trump wasn't elected until 8 Nov.  I saw no reference in the report to time travel.  

Also, the report is a summary of public inputs (ie - not even the expert input) compiled by Ipsos; it is not any form of government statement.


----------



## Kirkhill

I'm willing to go "half-full" on this one.

The Government held a public consultation recently.
It got opinions.

Many of the offered opinions were likely from people like us, if not us.
It probably got contrary opinions as well.

Government prepares to implement its agenda.
It decides which opinions to publicize to support its agenda.


Reality intrudes.
Trump gets elected and frightens the hell out of everybody.
He might actually do the stuff he says he might do.

Government revises its agenda
It decides which opinions to publicize to support its agenda.

Trump has created a great field for negotiating.
He has created uncertainty.  Nobody is sure what he is going to do.
He has created believability.  Everybody is sure he is capable of doing anything.

The US is not taken for granted.

Edit to add:   Interesting "bail-out" clause:

"The summary of the discussion presented in this report
is* not representative of Canadians’ views* but offers a
thematic overview of what was submitted by contributors."


----------



## Journeyman

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Government revises its agenda
> It decides which opinions to publicize to support its agenda.


I agree.....except......

The government has changed no agenda points that I've seen (we're going to do "peacekeeping" dammit), nor publicized any support (it's 2016 now....and we got elected, so the populace must clearly support whatever it is we eventually decide to do).


----------



## Kirkhill

You wrote while I read and wrote JM.

I agree with you.  Apparently our consultations were not reflective of those of real Canadians.

I wonder if that same paragraph appears in reports on pipelines, carbon and electoral reform?


----------



## MilEME09

From the online consultations report

under section 5.5, page 29.



> Many participants felt that the size of the CAF should
> be increased, or at the very least, not reduced (Chart
> 6).  Some argued that increasing the size of the CAF
> was  important  to  counter  fatigue  and  burnout  among
> members.



Chart below it shows 1299 responses thought the CAF should be expanded vs 220 who said it was the right size and 50 who said it should be reduced.

and why do I feel one of you wrote this submission



> the Armed Forces are far too small to adequately serve the needs of a
> nation of 35 Million.  Small numbers of personnel deploying over and over
> again, as in Afghanistan, is a great model for future problems with PTSD, Stress
> and Burn Out. Structure.  We have too many HQ’s.  Parliament should pass
> laws that regardless of how big the Canadian [Armed] Forces is, only a certain
> maximum percentage of the overall strength should be allowed to be employed
> in HQs above unit level.  The basic Army, Navy, Air Force and Special Forces
> structures should remain, however, there needs to be more authority by the
> CDS to direct and control overall Joint Priorities.  The services hinder this,
> but do have the expertise within their domains.  The CDS should be able to set
> strategic priorities to solve a problem, decide which roles the services should
> play in those overall Joint Priorities, and then task the services to deliver their
> part of the capability.  Right now the services drive the major projects from the
> bottom up, and that is a problem


----------



## Good2Golf

Which was precisely what Gen Hillier was trying to do in the early days of CF Transformation back on 2005, but a number of (not all) environmental Commanders resisted (refused, actually)...


...hypothetically...


----------



## jmt18325

I won't complain if Trump gets Canada to spend more money on defence.


----------



## kev994

If Canada doubled the defense budget we would have no idea how to spend it. We would end up with a bunch of new desks next March.


----------



## MilEME09

kev994 said:
			
		

> If Canada doubled the defense budget we would have no idea how to spend it. We would end up with a bunch of new desks next March.



Would I be able to get boots as well?


----------



## PuckChaser

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Would I be able to get boots as well?


No, but we'd have a metric #^/#-tonne of forage caps for Generals.


----------



## jollyjacktar

kev994 said:
			
		

> If Canada doubled the defense budget we would have no idea how to spend it. We would end up with a bunch of new desks next March.



Oh no, we'd know but PSPC would throw so much red tape and monkey wrenches into the transmission we'd be unable to spend it.


----------



## jmt18325

There's no chance we'd double the budget - increase it by $5B; maybe.


----------



## QV

Well... I guess we will see how a Trump administration compels Trudeau to shift gears.  Stay embarrassingly low on defence spending and suffer an economic smack with a NAFTA burning party, or increase defence spending to the agreed 2% and do a fair share of the lifting and the NAFTA issue gets only a slight tweak...

Trudeau, I think, will be perpetually between a rock and a hard place as long as Trump reigns.  

Interesting times ahead.


----------



## kev994

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Oh no, we'd know but PSPC would throw so much red tape and monkey wrenches into the transmission we'd be unable to spend it.


Ack. That's what I meant.


----------



## Rifleman62

QV: 





> Well... I guess we will see how a Trump administration compels Trudeau to shift gears.  Stay embarrassingly low on defence spending and suffer an economic smack with a NAFTA burning party, or increase defence spending to the agreed 2% and do a fair share of the lifting and the NAFTA issue gets only a slight tweak...
> 
> Trudeau, I think, will be perpetually between a rock and a hard place as long as Trump reigns.
> 
> Interesting times ahead.


  

Since Trump has met with the CEO's of Boeing and MacDonald Douglas re costs we may expect that Canada will get (after a big nudge from Trump) the F-35 as the procurement will further decrease the costs. Trudeau will come up with some cockomany excuse such as Canadian industry benefits etc to CYA.

IMHO and my political bias that it will be a big embarrassment to Canada when Trump and Trudeau meet. Trump will see right through the PM in seconds flat. Trump will be gracious though and tweet that Trudeau has nice hair.


----------



## FJAG

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> QV:
> 
> Since Trump has met with the CEO's of Boeing and MacDonald Douglas re costs we may expect that Canada will get (after a big nudge from Trump) the F-35 as the procurement will further decrease the costs. Trudeau will come up with some cockomany excuse such as Canadian industry benefits etc to CYA.
> 
> IMHO and my political bias that it will be a big embarrassment to Canada when Trump and Trudeau meet. Trump will see right through the PM in seconds flat. Trump will be gracious though and tweet that Trudeau has nice hair.



I'm not so sure it will be an "embarrassment" for Canada but could possibly be an "economic problem" for Canada.

Both these guys are shallow neophytes without "political" negotiating skills. Trump is a bully and Trudeau is a lightweight holding few negotiating cards. Both are fervently nationalistic; Trump overtly so and Trudeau as the inheritor of the Liberals' long-standing hatred of anything American. I'm not so sure that either of the two realises the mutual benefit that accrues to our two countries under our present trade structure and they may both be too enraptured in their own rhetoric to see or accept that.

What worries me more than anything isn't so much JT's shallowness being an embarrassment as his more experienced but intransigent handlers setting up a situation which will trigger Trump's reflex to lash out irrationally.

 :cheers:


----------



## daftandbarmy

FJAG said:
			
		

> I'm not so sure it will be an "embarrassment" for Canada but could possibly be an "economic problem" for Canada.
> 
> Both these guys are shallow neophytes without "political" negotiating skills. Trump is a bully and Trudeau is a lightweight holding few negotiating cards. Both are fervently nationalistic; Trump overtly so and Trudeau as the inheritor of the Liberals' long-standing hatred of anything American. I'm not so sure that either of the two realises the mutual benefit that accrues to our two countries under our present trade structure and they may both be too enraptured in their own rhetoric to see or accept that.
> 
> What worries me more than anything isn't so much JT's shallowness being an embarrassment as his more experienced but intransigent handlers setting up a situation which will trigger Trump's reflex to lash out irrationally.
> 
> :cheers:



'A leader is a dealer in hope.'

They're both pretty good leaders so far, IMHO, in their own right.


----------



## The Bread Guy

QV said:
			
		

> Well... I guess we will see how a Trump administration compels Trudeau to shift gears.  Stay embarrassingly low on defence spending and suffer an economic smack with a NAFTA burning party, or increase defence spending to the agreed 2% and do a fair share of the lifting and the NAFTA issue gets only a slight tweak...


If we believe what Trump says, my guess is that saving American jobs is a higher priority to him than getting Canada to spend more on defence.  If that's the case, bye bye NAFTA, no matter _what_ Prince Valiant does on defence spending.


			
				Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Trump will see right through the PM in seconds flat. Trump will be gracious though and tweet that Trudeau has nice hair.


More than likely.


			
				FJAG said:
			
		

> What worries me more than anything isn't so much JT's shallowness being an embarrassment as his more experienced but intransigent handlers setting up a situation which will trigger Trump's reflex to lash out irrationally.


 :nod:


			
				Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Since Trump has met with the CEO's of Boeing and MacDonald Douglas re costs we may expect that Canada will get (after a big nudge from Trump) the F-35 as the procurement will further decrease the costs. Trudeau will come up with some cockomany excuse such as Canadian industry benefits etc to CYA.


It's interesting to see how many folks around here seem to be OK with a foreign power squeezing Canada's nutz to get what it wants ...


----------



## dimsum

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> It's interesting to see how many folks around here seem to be OK with a foreign power squeezing Canada's nutz to get what it wants ...



I think it's just people being realistic given our geopolitical situation.  It's not like we'll deploy by ourselves and will more than likely do so with the US, and also that we need to work hand in glove with the US for NORAD, etc., so it will be a hard sell to not alter our wishes to coincide with theirs (ie. follow them).


----------



## Eaglelord17

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> It's interesting to see how many folks around here seem to be OK with a foreign power squeezing Canada's nutz to get what it wants ...



My question to you is when in history hasn't this been the case? Since we became a nation (as well as before it) someone has always been forcing us to do what they want for their benefit. For a while it was the UK, now it is the US. It would be nice if we could just shrug it off, but we have neither the power, or more importantly the will to do so.


----------



## FSTO

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> My question to you is when in history hasn't this been the case? Since we became a nation (as well as before it) someone has always been forcing us to do what they want for their benefit. For a while it was the UK, now it is the US. It would be nice if we could just shrug it off, but we have neither the power, or more importantly the will to do so.



I would be okay with what we do (militarily wise) currently if we were just honest about it. Our leaders (political and military) trot out "Multipurpose combat capable military" when we are just barely hanging on to that mantra. I'd be impressed if the Government just came clean and said "We are doing the absolute minimum required because we know that when push comes to shove, the USA will do the job for us. We have no intention of increasing military expenditure and all new purchases will prioritize local jobs over combat capability." 
That would be immensely refreshing.


----------



## MilEME09

FSTO said:
			
		

> I would be okay with what we do (militarily wise) currently if we were just honest about it. Our leaders (political and military) trot out "Multipurpose combat capable military" when we are just barely hanging on to that mantra. I'd be impressed if the Government just came clean and said "We are doing the absolute minimum required because we know that when push comes to shove, the USA will do the job for us. We have no intention of increasing military expenditure and all new purchases will prioritize local jobs over combat capability."
> That would be immensely refreshing.



That level of honesty would be very refreshing, on the other hand, given human history, I firmly believe we are due for a major conflict soon, and Canada is very much reactionary with defense spending, like both world wars, Korea, and even Afghanistan we were caught with our pants down saying "oh wait we need a military"


----------



## MarkOttawa

Will a hammer on defence spending come down from new POTUS?



> Readout from Secretary James Mattis’ Call with Canada Minister of National Defense Harjit Sajjan
> 
> Pentagon Spokesman Capt. Jeff Davis provided the following readout:
> 
> Secretary of Defense James Mattis spoke this morning via telephone with Canadian Minister of National Defence Harjit Sajjan.  This was Secretary Mattis' first telephone conversation with a defense counterpart since being confirmed as secretary of defense on Jan. 20.  Secretary Mattis thanked Minister Sajjan for his leadership and the deep and enduring defense partnership between the United States and Canada.  The two reiterated the depth and breadth of the relationship shared between the United States and Canada as NORAD partners, NATO allies, and North American neighbors.
> 
> Secretary Mattis and Minister Sajjan reinforced the vital importance of U.S. and Canadian commitment to North American defense and NORAD.  Secretary Mattis emphasized the indispensable partnership with Canada across the spectrum of bilateral and multilateral security issues such as Iraq, NATO Enhanced Forward Presence and C-ISIL.  The two leaders also addressed the importance of North American defense relations among the United States, Canada, and Mexico.
> 
> Secretary Mattis thanked Minister Sajjan for Canada’s strong support for our alliance, and expressed his personal appreciation for the professionalism of the Canadian Armed Forces. The two committed to stay in close communication and noted they looked forward to meeting one another.
> https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Releases/News-Release-View/Article/1057416/readout-from-secretary-james-mattis-call-with-canada-minister-of-national-defen#.WIanNaSUVFQ.twitterhttps://www.defense.gov/News/News-Releases/News-Release-View/Article/1057416/readout-from-secretary-james-mattis-call-with-canada-minister-of-national-defen



Cf. UK:



> Readout from Secretary James Mattis’ Call with UK State Secretary for Defense Michael Fallon
> 
> Pentagon Spokesman Capt. Jeff Davis provided the following readout:
> 
> Secretary of Defense James Mattis spoke today by telephone with his counterpart from the United Kingdom, State Secretary for Defense Michael Fallon. Secretary Mattis emphasized the United States and the United Kingdom will always enjoy a uniquely close relationship, reflected in our defense ties which are a bedrock of U.S. security.
> 
> He also emphasized the United States' unshakeable commitment to NATO and _he thanked Secretary Fallon for his country’s commitment of two percent of GDP to defense_ [emphasis added] and contributions to international security. The two leaders pledged to work together in the coming months, agreeing to maintain focus on defeating ISIL.  They pledged to work closely and noted they looked forward to meeting at the upcoming NATO defense ministerial.
> https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Releases/News-Release-View/Article/1057424/readout-from-secretary-james-mattis-call-with-uk-state-secretary-for-defense-mi



Read between the lines?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Old Sweat

According to this CP story, reproduced under the Fair Dealings provision of the Copyright Act, the MND has announced that Canada will be increasing defence spending. No indication of when and how much was made.

Canada will make new investments in defence, Sajjan says from Brussels
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/canada-will-make-new-investments-in-defence-sajjan-says/
By The Canadian Press — Feb 16 2017

OTTAWA — Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan says Canada is looking at significant new investments in defence that will follow the forthcoming release of its defence policy review.

Sajjan made the remarks today when asked about U.S. President Donald Trump's repeated complaints about NATO members failing to carry their share of the cost of the alliance.

Sajjan is in the middle of a series of defence meetings in Europe, including a gathering of NATO ministers.

Speaking to a teleconference from Brussels, he says he has spoken with U.S. Defence Secretary James Mattis, who stressed the importance of the NATO alliance.

Sajjan says Canada is demonstrating its commitment to NATO by contributing troops and leading a multinational NATO mission in Latvia as part of what is known as Operation Reassurance.

He says the policy review looked at Canadian defence needs for the next 20 years and that means more money — although he didn't say how much.

NATO says member states should aim to spend two per cent of GDP on defence. Canada now spends about one per cent.

"We knew that spending by the previous government was low and the defence policy review allowed us to do a thorough analysis of what was required," the minister said.

"Yes, this will require defence investments."

The government is looking at predictable, planned investments, he said.

"We in Canada need to be able to demonstrate a thorough plan and what type of defence investment is needed, because this is significant money that needs to be invested, but the Canadian taxpayer also requires us to make sure that we are efficient with the money."

As well as the NATO talks and a meeting with a counter-ISIL group led by Mattis, Sajjan also had bilateral meetings with the NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg and ministers from Australia, France, Germany, Portugal, Slovenia and the United Kingdom.

He is heading to Germany for the Munich Security Conference, where senior decision-makers from around the world will discuss international security challenges.

_- mod edit to add link -_


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

That sounds very positive, but hesitant to get my hopes up.....


----------



## Edward Campbell

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> According to this CP story, reproduced under the Fair Dealings provision of the Copyright Act, the MND has announced that Canada will be increasing defence spending. No indication of when and how much was made.
> 
> Canada will make new investments in defence, Sajjan says from Brussels
> By The Canadian Press — Feb 16 2017
> 
> 
> OTTAWA — Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan says Canada is looking at significant new investments in defence that will follow the forthcoming release of its defence policy review ...



That's great but will those "new investments" be in more serving members (other than admirals and colonels), in ships, tanks, aircraft, boots and logistics vehicles? or will they come from Professor Michael Byers' list?


----------



## suffolkowner

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> That's great but will those "new investments" be in more serving members (other than admirals and colonels), in ships, tanks, aircraft, boots and logistics vehicles? or will they come from Professor Michael Byers' list?



The last paragraph by Byers is reasonable, but the preceding was just an attempt to justify the abandonment of our responsibilities


----------



## MarkOttawa

A letter I sent to the _Globe and Mail_:



> "Prof. Michael Byers, in his article "Canada doesn’t deserve its reputation as a defence laggard" (Feb. 16), makes an heroic effort to exaggerate the scale of Canada's defence spending by claiming that spending should include elements of the budgets of the RCMP, Canadian Border Services Agency and Canadian Coast Guard.
> 
> I am shocked to note that in this effort he failed to included monies allocated to Fishery Officers of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.  These enforcement personnel are uniformed, often armed, and work on land, freshwater and the oceans; their funding would have helped to raise his supposed defence dollars even higher."
> 
> Reference (scroll down to "Conditions of Employment"):
> http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/career-carriere/enf-loi/conditions-eng.htm



When I was with CCG at DFO HQ in Ottawa one would sometimes see a Fishery Officer in uniform in the building carrying a Heckler & Koch machine pistol.

As for the perniscious peacenik prof.:



> The Canadian Forces, or, The Byers Disarmament Plan
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/07/08/mark-collins-the-canadian-forces-or-the-byers-disarmament-plan/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Cloud Cover

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> When I was with CCG at DFO HQ in Ottawa one would sometimes see a Fishery Officer in uniform in the building carrying a Heckler & Koch machine pistol.



Shooting fish in a barrel? (sorry, couldn't resist).


----------



## MarkOttawa

At least not us bureaucrats .

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## FJAG

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> That's great but will those "new investments" be in more serving members (other than admirals and colonels), in ships, tanks, aircraft, boots and logistics vehicles? or will they come from Professor Michael Byers' list?



Actually the article gave me food for thought. If NATO considers some of these items as part of a country's overall defence spending, then with some tweaking such as Byer's suggests one could move up the ranking list with no additional spending and no real change in budgets or responsibilities of the various departments.

That would mean that one wouldn't then need a tremendous amount of new spending to create both a more credible force and achieve the target 2.0% figures.

One mustn't forget that while the US spends 3.6% of its GDP on defence, only a small fraction of that is committed to NATO while most NATO members' spending (excluding Canada) is almost 100% committed to NATO. There's a bit of an apples and oranges situation going on in this debate when one compares US and other NATO members' spending.

 :cheers:


----------



## Kirkhill

OK -  I feel better now.

An opportunity to disagree.   [

The US is contributing 3.6% of GDP to its defence.  IN ADDITION it provides all the other services that Byers describes to its citizens.

If the US (and NATO) agree to the Byers model then the US will claim a budget of 5? 6? 10%? of GDP.  So, will 2% still be the standard?

And, indeed, while not all of the 3.6% of GDP is committed to NATO, NATO has access to all of the capability that that 3.6% of GDP buys.

Meanwhile, in Canada, we get covered not only by the NATO committed budget (of 2%) but also the NORAD committed budget.  Arguably we should be committing MORE than 2%.

Sir.   :nod:


----------



## FJAG

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> OK -  I feel better now.
> 
> An opportunity to disagree.   [
> 
> The US is contributing 3.6% of GDP to its defence.  IN ADDITION it provides all the other services that Byers describes to its citizens.
> 
> If the US (and NATO) agree to the Byers model then the US will claim a budget of 5? 6? 10%? of GDP.  So, will 2% still be the standard?
> 
> And, indeed, while not all of the 3.6% of GDP is committed to NATO, NATO has access to all of the capability that that 3.6% of GDP buys.
> 
> Meanwhile, in Canada, we get covered not only by the NATO committed budget (of 2%) but also the NORAD committed budget.  Arguably we should be committing MORE than 2%.
> 
> Sir.   :nod:



I think we generally agree (and I think that the US Coast Guard is already part of the US Armed Forces and therefore within the 3.6% - not sure if they count Border Security)

I quite frankly think that we can and should put more into the defence budget but it needs to be for a meaningful use and not to create bigger and fatter headquarters. 

I'm still a big believer that we do not need a larger regular force. What we need is a bigger and fully equipped reserve force that translates into more deployable field force which would allow us to meet commitments. How that's legislated, recruited, organised, trained, equipped and deployed are details. What we need first of all is a commitment which takes us away from the fiction that only full time personnel will do the job.

If we're letting the US dictate our GDP numbers then maybe we should look at the US active component to reserve (NG and AR) ratios:

Army: Active 487k, NG/AR 660k;

Navy: Active 323k, NR 111k;

Air Force: Active 307k, ANG/AFR 211k;

Marines: Active 183k, MR 111k;

Coast Guard: Active 39k, CGR 8k

Our numbers are:

Army: Reg 23k, Res 17k, Rangers 5k;

Navy: Reg 8.5k, Res 5.1k

Air Force: Reg 14.5k Res 2.6k

Other: Reg F 22k, Res 1.8k

With the exception of the navy, our reg to Res ratios are all skewed significantly in favour of the Reg F. This is especially true for the army where much of the US heavy combat power and sustainment organizations (those forces primarily required for major operations) are contained in the ANG and AR respectively while lighter rapid deployment and special forces are in the Active componenet. On the other hand our Army reservists have no equipment (much less heavy equipment) to speak of.

The same holds true (even more so) for the US Air Force where significant war fighting equipment is in the hands of the AirNG and Air Res.

Long story short, while I favour an increased defence budget, in my humble opinion we should not give one more nickle to the defence budget until the senior command comes up with a plan to first create significant and fully equipped and deployable war fighting formations predominantly staffed by the Res F.

 :tank2:


----------



## MilEME09

FJAG said:
			
		

> Long story short, while I favour an increased defence budget, in my humble opinion we should not give one more nickle to the defence budget until the senior command comes up with a plan to first create significant and fully equipped and deployable war fighting formations predominantly staffed by the Res F.



For this to Occur, we need a well trained Res Force, right now we have officers that couldn't lead a company out of a paper bag because they have no real experience once they leave course.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

I fundamentally disagree with the notion that we should invest more money in the Reserve Force.  We would need a significant change in organization, leadership and policy governing the Reserve Force before I'd consider investing one more dime into the organization.  

What's really needed is a fully staffed and funded Regular Force.  We've got three Brigades which are only Brigades on paper, we don't properly equip the formations we do have and our doctrine is 30 years out of date in some cases.  I've heard certain folks say that we wouldn't know how to spend additional money, even if we did get it.  I agree with this and until the institution itself changes, no further money should be allocated to the Defence portfolio.

For the Army:

1.  Increase manpower and funding to form three fully staffed and equipped brigades, not paper ones.
2.  Get rid of the Divisions as a level in the command structure.
3.  Significantly reduce the number of pers Involved in administering the IT monster and download a lot of IT to the units (exception being advanced courses and office training).
4.  Invest in the "Brains" of the Army (Doctrine, Lessons Learned, Simulation, Future Concepts and Designs)
5.  Performance Management to become a Standards Driven initiative as opposed to Funds Driven.  Money folks should have input but shouldn't be responsible.
6.  A fundamental rethink of the Managed Readiness Plan, staff officers in Army HQ should not be dictating to Bde Comds which units do what.  
7.  Align Readiness with the fiscal year and posting cycle.  Right now none of the plans are linked.

Right now, the Regular Force spends most of its time simply trying to administer itself, never mind conducting actual operations.  We talk a big game but it's one thing to talk its another to walk the walk.


----------



## dapaterson

The question you seem to be asking is which oversize beast to feed and reform.

Maybe some first principles work is in order : what do we want the army to be able to deliver, and thus what structure - reg and res - do we require to accomplish it?  We can't presuppose that the three CMBGs are what we need / where we need / how we need things to be.


----------



## FJAG

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> For this to Occur, we need a well trained Res Force, right now we have officers that couldn't lead a company out of a paper bag because they have no real experience once they leave course.



That creates an infinite chicken and egg loop: We need a well trained Res F before we structure an expanded defence force based on reservists however we'll never have a well trained Res F without properly training and equipping it.

Plans have to come first. Build the plan for a force that integrates a large deployable Res F and then implement it with the appropriate legislation, doctrine, recruiting, staffing, training, equipping, etc.

I can't see that happening when NDHQ couldn't even make the modest past proposals work. A radical change in attitude is needed. If all we do is throw more money at Defence without a comprehensive plan/policy we'll just be throwing more money into the black hole of a bureaucracy that is DND.

 :cheers:


----------



## Journeyman

Ah, so you're suggesting....a Defence White Paper?       Crazy talk;  we just did one of those in 1994!

Sure, the government has since produced the masturbatory cheerleading _A Role of Pride and Influence in the World_  (2005) and the delusional shopping list _Canada First Defence Strategy_ (2008), which went to the shredder before the ink was dry.  But an actual Defence White Paper -- a clearly annunciated, realistic, and affordable defence policy -- hasn't been seen in almost a quarter of a century.

And I'm not referring to the still dragging-out Defence Policy Review.  :   Travelling the country and seeking enough opinions (again, informed or otherwise was apparently irrelevant), until the government gets enough to say "yep, peacekeeping is the way ahead -- says so right here...right after 'we don't actually know the fighter aircraft needs for Canada, but it is anything but the F-35'," does not remotely resemble an actual Defence White Paper.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The question you seem to be asking is which oversize beast to feed and reform.
> 
> Maybe some first principles work is in order : what do we want the army to be able to deliver, and thus what structure - reg and res - do we require to accomplish it?  We can't presuppose that the three CMBGs are what we need / where we need / how we need things to be.



100% in agreement on your first point I feel both the Reg and Res need reform.  Your second part, I don't think we need first principles work, the works already been done, we've just never bothered following through on our words.  It's words without any action.  It's been articulated many times, General Purpose Combat Capability and Medium Weight Force.  A medium weight force is supposed to be able to do everything across th spectrum of conflict, though not as well at some tasks that would be more suitable to a light force or heavy force.  

We've got doctrine, we've got designs and future concepts, let's buy equipment and properly man and support our forces and align ourselves with doctrine, designs and future concepts.  The first question we should be asking ourselves whenever we buy a new piece of equipment is, does this support our doctrine at present and in the future.  We let equipment drive our doctrine when it should be the other way around.

Things that make sense to me:

1.  Medium weight forces - We have a small Army so the medium weight concept makes sense to me, it also gives us flexibility.  A LAV based force is a potent weapon but we've opted to reinvent the wheel every time we buy a new piece of kit, none of it makes any sense.  e.g. Armoured Recce with a TAPV.
2.  The Brigade - Every Army in the world worth its salt works around the Brigade concept, why change what works?  
3.  Readiness - We've got three Brigades but the idea that one Brigade is at High Readiness while the others are in Trg and Support is flawed.  Readiness should be managed at the Brigade level and tasks should be downloaded the Brigades to decide who/what to employ.  Each Brigade should maintain 1/3 of it's force at High Readiness.  Given our geographical spread, this makes the most sense, especially when you consider the domestic tasks we're frequently called upon to do.  The whole Lines of Operations concept is ridiculous, it's a staff officer wet dream and is micromanagement to the tenth degree.  We're a professional army, a military force should be able to rapidly re-roll itself to perform all tasks along the spectrum of conflict.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Concur, FJAG.

It also goes back to something I have been saying throughout my career: If the reg force wants the reserves to meet a certain standard, then the reg force must assume full duty and responsibility for the training.

So long as the militia, or the naval reserve, or the air reserve "self-train" within their ranks, they cannot achieve readiness levels requested of them by the reg force. Basically: the reg force must be the one training the reserves.

However, to get there, the reserves must accept that the historical militia regimental system, or the local NRU's for the Navy, must be abandoned in favour of a more direct approach to training. And the reg force must understand that when not called out for ops, reservists should be under training, at their current level, by the reg force for every moment they are available, with no time whatsoever spent on paperwork, administration, etc.


----------



## Blackadder1916

FJAG said:
			
		

> Actually the article gave me food for thought. If NATO considers some of these items as part of a country's overall defence spending, then with some tweaking such as Byer's suggests one could move up the ranking list with no additional spending and no real change in budgets or responsibilities of the various departments.



For an brief explanation of what NATO considers defense spending see page 10 of this document. http://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2016_07/20160704_160704-pr2016-116.pdf


----------



## Kirkhill

FJAG said:
			
		

> I think we generally agree (and I think that the US Coast Guard is already part of the US Armed Forces and therefore within the 3.6% - not sure if they count Border Security)
> 
> I quite frankly think that we can and should put more into the defence budget but it needs to be for a meaningful use and not to create bigger and fatter headquarters.
> 
> I'm still a big believer that we do not need a larger regular force. What we need is a bigger and fully equipped reserve force that translates into more deployable field force which would allow us to meet commitments. How that's legislated, recruited, organised, trained, equipped and deployed are details. What we need first of all is a commitment which takes us away from the fiction that only full time personnel will do the job.
> 
> If we're letting the US dictate our GDP numbers then maybe we should look at the US active component to reserve (NG and AR) ratios:
> 
> Army: Active 487k, NG/AR 660k;
> 
> Navy: Active 323k, NR 111k;
> 
> Air Force: Active 307k, ANG/AFR 211k;
> 
> Marines: Active 183k, MR 111k;
> 
> Coast Guard: Active 39k, CGR 8k
> 
> Our numbers are:
> 
> Army: Reg 23k, Res 17k, Rangers 5k;
> 
> Navy: Reg 8.5k, Res 5.1k
> 
> Air Force: Reg 14.5k Res 2.6k
> 
> Other: Reg F 22k, Res 1.8k
> 
> With the exception of the navy, our reg to Res ratios are all skewed significantly in favour of the Reg F. This is especially true for the army where much of the US heavy combat power and sustainment organizations (those forces primarily required for major operations) are contained in the ANG and AR respectively while lighter rapid deployment and special forces are in the Active componenet. On the other hand our Army reservists have no equipment (much less heavy equipment) to speak of.
> 
> The same holds true (even more so) for the US Air Force where significant war fighting equipment is in the hands of the AirNG and Air Res.
> 
> Long story short, while I favour an increased defence budget, in my humble opinion we should not give one more nickle to the defence budget until the senior command comes up with a plan to first create significant and fully equipped and deployable war fighting formations predominantly staffed by the Res F.
> 
> :tank2:



Unfortunately, I find no opportunity to disagree here.


----------



## Kirkhill

Re Reg Res:

I continue to argue that Res is not the same as Militia and that a proper Res is an integral part of the Reg Force and needs to be planned as such from the get go.  

The basic position has to be that when shooting starts we need lots of Privates and we need them fast.  
On the other hand Privates tend to clog up the works in Garrison, expect accommodations for wives and pensions, and generally go Bolshie when not making loud bangs.

The Reserve should be a place where trained Privates, from the Regular force, retire for 7 years after 3 years with the colours.  They need a cadre of Junior Officers and a strong NCO force of all ranks to both oversee continuation/refresher training and to supply a body of leaders that will take their Privates and amalgamate them into the Regs at short notice (maybe a tiered response of 72 hrs NTM and 14 days NTM).

The Militia - the defence of Canada volunteer force - is a separate discussion entirely and should be treated entirely separately.  What you can expect from volunteers and how, or if, they should be compensated, is all moot (as in debatable).


----------



## MilEME09

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Concur, FJAG.
> 
> It also goes back to something I have been saying throughout my career: If the reg force wants the reserves to meet a certain standard, then the reg force must assume full duty and responsibility for the training.
> 
> So long as the militia, or the naval reserve, or the air reserve "self-train" within their ranks, they cannot achieve readiness levels requested of them by the reg force. Basically: the reg force must be the one training the reserves.
> 
> However, to get there, the reserves must accept that the historical militia regimental system, or the local NRU's for the Navy, must be abandoned in favour of a more direct approach to training. And the reg force must understand that when not called out for ops, reservists should be under training, at their current level, by the reg force for every moment they are available, with no time whatsoever spent on paperwork, administration, etc.



I've been saying for awhile not, especially in CSS that to fix what we have, we need the reg force to take control. I am glad others share my view, however to achieve this, we need institutional change, something I don't see coming over night, or any time soon for that matter.


----------



## Kirkhill

Courtesy of Blackadder's Link Above.



> NATO defines defence expenditure as
> payments made by a national government
> specifically to meet the needs of its armed
> forces or those of Allies. A major component
> of defence expenditure is payments on Armed
> Forces financed within the Ministry of Defence
> (MoD) budget. Armed Forces include Land,
> Maritime and Air forces as well as Joint
> formations such as Administration and
> Command, Special Operations Forces,
> Medical Service, Logistic Command etc. They
> might also include "Other Forces" like Ministry
> of Interior troops, border guards, national
> police forces, customs, gendarmerie,
> carabinierie, coast guards etc. In such cases,
> expenditure should be included only in
> proportion to the forces that are trained in
> military tactics, are equipped as a military
> force, can operate under direct military
> authority in deployed operations, and can,
> realistically, be deployed outside national
> territory in support of a military force. Also,
> expenditure on Other Forces financed through
> the budgets of ministries other than MoD
> should be included in defence expenditure.
> 
> Pension payments made directly by the
> government to retired military and civilian
> employees of military departments should be
> included regardless of whether these
> payments are made from the budget of the
> MoD or other ministries.
> 
> Expenditures for peacekeeping and
> humanitarian operations (paid by MoD or other
> ministries), the destruction of weapons,
> equipment and ammunition, and the costs
> associated with inspection and control of
> equipment destruction are included in defence
> expenditures.
> 
> Research and development (R&D) costs are to
> be included in defence expenditures. R&D
> costs should also include those for projects
> that do not successfully lead to production of
> equipment.
> 
> Expenditure for the military component of
> mixed civilian-military activities is included, but
> only when this military component can be
> specifically accounted for or estimated.



That would seem to suggest that for Dr. Byer's prescription to be accepted then the RCMP, the CBS and the CCG would all need to be trained in Platoon/Troop level tactics and be deployable over seas in that capacity as part of a Canadian Expeditionary Force.


----------



## jmt18325

Reading further, that's not really what he said.  He said that a portion of each of their budgets (with some changes in the case of the CCG) already meet the definition of NATO spending, but aren't counted as such by Canada.  In the case of the CBSA and CCG, it's only a very small part of their budget that would be counted.  He came up with something like $5B more with no changes whatsoever, and proposed spending more money on training and equipment.  I like the idea of spending more on training and equipment.


----------



## RCPalmer

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> 100% in agreement on your first point I feel both the Reg and Res need reform.  Your second part, I don't think we need first principles work, the works already been done, we've just never bothered following through on our words.  It's words without any action.  It's been articulated many times, General Purpose Combat Capability and Medium Weight Force.  A medium weight force is supposed to be able to do everything across th spectrum of conflict, though not as well at some tasks that would be more suitable to a light force or heavy force.
> 
> We've got doctrine, we've got designs and future concepts, let's buy equipment and properly man and support our forces and align ourselves with doctrine, designs and future concepts.  The first question we should be asking ourselves whenever we buy a new piece of equipment is, does this support our doctrine at present and in the future.  We let equipment drive our doctrine when it should be the other way around.



Amen.  All I would note is that the PRes costs overall are very inexpensive and quite stable at around 1 Billion CAD/year which includes RSS, equipment, base support, etc..  It is the overall defence budget overall which grew so rapidly in the 2000s with virtually no readiness improvements, and relatively few capability enhancements.  One of the more interesting findings of Leslie's 2011 transformation report was most of the funding growth in the period went into increased personnel costs with questionable ROI.  By way of comparison, the Aussies do everything we do (and a number of things we don't) with a full time force of 55,000.   

With the PRes as such a resource starved organization, I would offer that there are plenty of opportunities for modest funding increases which could produce significant readiness enhancements.  Consider the retention implications of an adequate allocation of our relatively inexpensive vehicles, and weapons for example.  Clearly, both the PRes and RegF structures need reform, but if the question is "could the PRes gainfully use the additional resources if they received them", I think the answer is that they could.  

Things that make sense to me:


			
				Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> 1.  Medium weight forces - We have a small Army so the medium weight concept makes sense to me, it also gives us flexibility.  A LAV based force is a potent weapon but we've opted to reinvent the wheel every time we buy a new piece of kit, none of it makes any sense.  e.g. Armoured Recce with a TAPV.



Yep-still trying to figure out who wanted that vehicle.  It doesn't seem to be meeting anyone's needs.



			
				Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> 2.  The Brigade - Every Army in the world worth its salt works around the Brigade concept, why change what works?



Agreed, and I think that the three brigade structure is correct for the current readiness model.  I would offer that the structure (i.e. number of units) in each brigade could be realigned to get more bang for our buck, or reduced if we accept that additional PYs are not forthcoming (which they certainly could find if worked on the HQ bloat). 



			
				Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> 3.  Readiness - We've got three Brigades but the idea that one Brigade is at High Readiness while the others are in Trg and Support is flawed.  Readiness should be managed at the Brigade level and tasks should be downloaded the Brigades to decide who/what to employ.  Each Brigade should maintain 1/3 of it's force at High Readiness.  Given our geographical spread, this makes the most sense, especially when you consider the domestic tasks we're frequently called upon to do.  The whole Lines of Operations concept is ridiculous, it's a staff officer wet dream and is micromanagement to the tenth degree.  We're a professional army, a military force should be able to rapidly re-roll itself to perform all tasks along the spectrum of conflict.



That works until we get a brigade sized mission, like we were required to sustain in Afghanistan. There is also a span of control question.  If we want to put every enabler into the fight, sometimes we will need a brigade HQ, even though we aren't necessarily deploying a brigade. DOMOPS are a bit of a different beast as the forces responding to them aren't (and probably don't need to be) in a high readiness cycle.  Is there any reason a unit outside of HR couldn't fill an IRU task for example?


----------



## TCM621

I think the first step is getting the public and politicians to under that Canada does not "punch above it's weight". We are a large G7 country and we have a third world military. The CAF does punch above it's weight but we are basically lightweights in the light heavyweight division. 

Second,  we need to maintain a continuous lifecycle program. We can't wait 10-20 years after the need has been recognized. If we accept that it takes a generation to procure more equipment we need to start the plans for the next piece of kit almost as soon as we receive the first piece. 

We need to change our training from "just enough, just in time"  to the right amount as soon as possible to allow people to gain experience. Surges just result in a lowered standard of training, because we need boots on the ground now. 

None of this stuff is revolutionary, it is stuff everyone knows and unless he lived in a bubble during his time in our MND knows it too. We used to be a medium sized military with very well trained and experienced people. Now we are a small military and have a lot of adequately trained people with a ok amount of experience (even the army is losing a lot of costly experience from Afghanistan and replacing it with minimally trained pers).  Give us the equipment we need,  and the people to use it then we can handle everything else. 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## Eland2

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> I think the first step is getting the public and politicians to under that Canada does not "punch above it's weight". We are a large G7 country and we have a third world military. The CAF does punch above it's weight but we are basically lightweights in the light heavyweight division.
> 
> Second,  we need to maintain a continuous lifecycle program. We can't wait 10-20 years after the need has been recognized. If we accept that it takes a generation to procure more equipment we need to start the plans for the next piece of kit almost as soon as we receive the first piece.
> 
> We need to change our training from "just enough, just in time"  to the right amount as soon as possible to allow people to gain experience. Surges just result in a lowered standard of training, because we need boots on the ground now.
> 
> None of this stuff is revolutionary, it is stuff everyone knows and unless he lived in a bubble during his time in our MND knows it too. We used to be a medium sized military with very well trained and experienced people. Now we are a small military and have a lot of adequately trained people with a ok amount of experience (even the army is losing a lot of costly experience from Afghanistan and replacing it with minimally trained pers).  Give us the equipment we need,  and the people to use it then we can handle everything else.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk



I agree, Canada doesn't consistently punch above its weight, not with the current force size and equipment that the CF have now. In limited circumstances where Canada's role and the ROE are clearly defined, and the mission is suited to the capabilities the CF have, then yes, we have been capable of punching above our weight every now and then. The problem is that because we have punched above our weight just often enough, some individuals, particularly politicians, assume that the CF are capable of doing a lot with very little

I also agree that Canada has a Third World military, but I would go one step further and argue that in many important respects, Canada has less than a Third World military. There are a few Third World countries that actually have more troops and equipment than Canada does. What they have may not be top-tier, but it may be capable of defeating a military force the size of Canada's through strength of numbers and raw firepower. To a certain extent we got lucky in Afghanistan and that was mainly because the relatively small force we contributed vastly overmatched what the Taliban could muster. That, and the deployment of tanks and APCs that could handle the job.

Our embarrassing lack is the end result of a persistent refusal to properly fund and equip the CF because we arrogantly assume Canada is too geographically large to be invaded and too peaceful, with absolutely no imperial ambitions; and if the shit really does hit the fan, the US will come to our rescue. Therefore we conclude that we need not concern ourselves with defence matters very deeply. 

The biggest reason why Canada used to have a medium-weight military is because of the exigencies of the Cold War and because its allies forced the issue.

As to the issue of stop-and-start cycles of defence production, this has happened because we've laboured under the illusion (or maybe delusion) that somehow going down this route somehow saves money or prevents waste. The problem with this mindset is that it always costs more in the long run to rebuild and refurbish factories and other production infrastructure that have been left fallow before they can be spooled up to produce anything. It also causes delays that mean the military gets new kit years later than it should. 

With respect to the defence budget overall, I think we should aim for a general-purpose force that is capable of the following:


Defence of Canada (to the maximum extent possible given Canada's budgetary constraints and ability to generate combat-capable forces) and the advancement and maintenance of Canada's foreign policy aims

Participation in NATO or UN missions, with the ability to match or closely approximate contributions made by Canada's peer allies, the ability to defeat enemy peer or near-peer forces and the ability to deploy anywhere in the world, with sufficient resources to carry out the missions
[*]Provision of search and rescue, aid-to-the-civil-power and disaster relief services in considerable depth, with equipment and resources pre-positioned so that they can rapidly reach trouble spots within a given radius of the location where the equipment and resources are pre-positioned
[/list]

MGen Lewis Mackenzie once opined that Canada should have armed forces totalling about 180,000 in all components. And being an army officer, he probably envisaged a force where a substantial proportion of that number would comprise the land component. Given Canada's wealth, I personally think that the number Mackenzie came up with isn't too far out of line. If the army alone represented 60% of that number, or 108,000, we could have the equivalent of a division-sized force in the most populous provinces. Or at least one or two brigades per province with additional weight situated on the east and west coasts. We'd also have a force that comes close to or exceeds what we had from 1945 until approximately 1965.


----------



## FJAG

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Concur, FJAG.
> 
> It also goes back to something I have been saying throughout my career: If the reg force wants the reserves to meet a certain standard, then the reg force must assume full duty and responsibility for the training.
> 
> So long as the militia, or the naval reserve, or the air reserve "self-train" within their ranks, they cannot achieve readiness levels requested of them by the reg force. Basically: the reg force must be the one training the reserves.
> 
> However, to get there, the reserves must accept that the historical militia regimental system, or the local NRU's for the Navy, must be abandoned in favour of a more direct approach to training. And the reg force must understand that when not called out for ops, reservists should be under training, at their current level, by the reg force for every moment they are available, with no time whatsoever spent on paperwork, administration, etc.



Yup

 :cheers:


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

RCPalmer said:
			
		

> Agreed, and I think that the three brigade structure is correct for the current readiness model.  I would offer that the structure (i.e. number of units) in each brigade could be realigned to get more bang for our buck, or reduced if we accept that additional PYs are not forthcoming (which they certainly could find if worked on the HQ bloat).
> 
> That works until we get a brigade sized mission, like we were required to sustain in Afghanistan. There is also a span of control question.  If we want to put every enabler into the fight, sometimes we will need a brigade HQ, even though we aren't necessarily deploying a brigade. DOMOPS are a bit of a different beast as the forces responding to them aren't (and probably don't need to be) in a high readiness cycle.  Is there any reason a unit outside of HR couldn't fill an IRU task for example?



I'll elaborate further on my point WRT high readiness.  I wouldn't call what we had in Afghanistan a Brigade sized force, it was more like a large Regiment.  We had a combined arms battlegroup, PRT and OMLT.  I often hear folks say, server had three maneuver units because we had those three elms in theatre, except the OMLT and PRT aren't really maneuver units, calling them so is a misnomer.

Reality is the Canadian Army is a task force Army.  Brigades, due to our size, are in all reality, a force generator as opposed to a force employer.  

The reason why every Brigade in the Army should have portions of their Brigades at a state of high readiness is to be able to respond to potential Domestic and Expeditionary operations at the same time.  

Readiness to me has nothing to do with training, rather, it has to do with the speed in which we can respond to a crisis.  It's units at 100% manning, rucksacks packed, kit and vehicles prepped and ready to roll.  

Nine infantry battalions in the Army, three (one per Brigade) should be available at any given time for immediate recall along with required enablers.  Ditto the Armoured Regiments, Guns, Sappers, etc...

Those Battalions in HR can potentially fill multiple tasks.  While in HR, no courses are run, all focus is on continuation training.


----------



## George Wallace

I found the Vice President's comments on nations' contributions to NATO interesting, and his jabs at those who are not towing the line, including "some of its' largest members".  Just as interesting were Trudeau's comments that there were "other ways to contribute".  I found those to be rather naive and totally out of touch.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I found the Vice President's comments on nations' contributions to NATO interesting, and his jabs at those who are not towing the line, including "some of its' largest members".  *Just as interesting were Trudeau's comments that there were "other ways to contribute".  I found those to be rather naive and totally out of touch.*



Uggghhh.  For a moment I was starting to hope Prime Minister Selfie was going to be a positive surprise, but that hope appears to be being extinguished quickly.   :facepalm:


----------



## Rifleman62

> George Wallace on Today at 10:14:55
> 
> I found the Vice President's comments on nations' contributions to NATO interesting, and his jabs at those who are not towing the line, including "some of its' largest members".  Just as interesting were Trudeau's comments that there were "other ways to contribute".  I found those to be rather naive and totally out of touch.



Are airhead comments by the PM considered as contributions by our Defence Allies?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I believe that when it comes to determining if a NATO nation is pulling its own weight or not, where defence spending is concerned, the only contributions that will count are those that the US consider to be proper contribution, regardless of the point of view of every body else. 

At least, that will be so as far as the current US administration is concerned. After all, they are the one that indicated they would curtail their own contribution accordingly, so who's to dictate to them what constitutes a contribution or not.


----------



## Kirkhill

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Uggghhh.  For a moment I was starting to hope Prime Minister Selfie was going to be a positive surprise, but that hope appears to be being extinguished quickly.   :facepalm:



He got support from Angela Merkel.







http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/18/us-pledges-unwavering-commitment-nato-munich-security-conference/

Merkel's pitch is that the US's allies do other stuff too and that the US needs allies.

I might suggest a counter might be that the EU, with US connivance admittedly, is the one that advanced more and more into the personal space of their "threat".   All the while relying at the big guy at the back to support them as they make their situation more precarious.  They are writing checks on someone else's bank.  They are expecting the US nuclear umbrella, of which one must not speak in polite company, to cover them as they provoke.

And as to friendship with Russia - it would get awfully cold in Berlin without Russian gas.  

It is easy to believe that Berlin wants US cover and a Polish no-mans land to allow them to make up all the money they lost in 1945 by trading with Russia and exploiting cheap Russian resources: Selling Beamers to Greeks and Yanks.

The Socialist International has no interest in helping the US.


----------



## jmt18325

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I found the Vice President's comments on nations' contributions to NATO interesting, and his jabs at those who are not towing the line, including "some of its' largest members".  Just as interesting were Trudeau's comments that there were "other ways to contribute".  I found those to be rather naive and totally out of touch.



It's worth pointing out that this was the same position of the former Conservative prime minister as well - that Canada, though a laggard in spending (as a percentage of GDP, anyway) is has always stepped up to the plate to contribute.


----------



## Rifleman62

Oldgateboatdriver: 





> At least, that will be so as far as the current US administration is concerned. After all, they are the one that indicated they would curtail their own contribution accordingly, so who's to dictate to them what constitutes a contribution or not.



It will be interesting how the US Trump Administration) sees our lack of contribution to NORAD. The US will protect Canada to protect the homeland, but they will want more from us. 

IMHO, in the old days, shooting down a Soviet bomber with live nuclear weapons over Canada before it it US territory was a given.


----------



## George Wallace

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> It's worth pointing out that this was the same position of the former Conservative prime minister as well - that Canada, though a laggard in spending (as a percentage of GDP, anyway) is has always stepped up to the plate to contribute.



And I may find it worth pointing out that with Trump it may be more bombastic of him to pull off a "Reality TV Host act" that would be even more 'pointed' to young Justin, than what was forced upon his father in the 1970's.  Trump may pull off his own version of "Celebrity Apprentice" on NATO members and point out that they formed a Pact (NATO) and are not fulfilling their RESPONSIBILITIES as agreed upon when they signed on.  Their lack of commitment makes them UNTRUSTWORTHY as partners in such an organization.  "Stepping up to the plate" is not the same as fulfilling one's agreed OBLIGATIONS to the agreement.  "Stepping up to the plate" is only an attempt to pull the wool over everyone's eyes and make it seem that one is committed, but really will only RENEGE on fully fulfilling their OBLIGATIONS.  When, since 1992, have we really had a FULL-TIME commitment?  We have only made piecemeal commitments since closing down the CAD and CMBG in Europe.


----------



## GR66

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Oldgateboatdriver:
> It will be interesting how the US Trump Administration) sees our lack of contribution to NORAD. The US will protect Canada to protect the homeland, but they will want more from us.
> 
> IMHO, in the old days, shooting down a Soviet bomber with live nuclear weapons over Canada before it it US territory was a given.



Maybe the old days aren't the new days.  According to this article (http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/10/19/russian-kh-101-air-to-surface-cruise-missile-unique-and-formidable.html), the Russian Kh-102 nuclear air-launched cruise missile has a range of 5,500km (with some claims of up to 10,000km...but possibly only 4,500km?) which would mean that they can be launched well outside Canadian airspace.  At 5,500km they could hit Washington from the far side of Iceland.  

Perhaps the increasing range of air-launched cruise missiles along with the existence of sub-launched missiles changes the reality of North American air defence.  In realistic terms what would it mean if large formations of Russian bombers were coming at us over the pole?  Regardless of what type of weapons they were carrying (conventional or nuclear...how would we be sure until they hit their targets?) or how many we were able to detect and shoot down either pre- or post-launch, would the US have ANY option but to assume that they are under massive, preemptive nuclear attack and have no choice but launch a full counter-strike with all available nuclear weapons? Could/would they trust that they detected ALL of the incoming aircraft and missiles and that NO incoming nuclear weapons remain undetected?  Would they be willing to absorb a limited nuclear attack from Russia without retaliating in kind?

As mad as MAD may be, it remains the ultimate deterrent to full-scale war between the nuclear-armed major powers.  Frankly, if we ever have to face waves of Russian (or Chinese) bombers penetrating our airspace it will not matter one bit whether we have 5th Generation or 4th Generation fighters in the RCAF.  It will be the least of our worries since it means the outhouse has collided with the windmill and VERY bad things are happening.  

Please don't take that to mean the I don't think that investment in the CF in general, and high-end equipment (like the F-35) in particular are not important.  They are.  They are vital for containing smaller conflicts and preventing them from becoming full-scale conflicts and for deterring other powers from making stupid assumptions about our will and capabilities.  However, "defence of North America" in my mind is a bit of a red herring.  If we ever get to the point that we actually have to directly militarily defend Canada/USA then it's probably too late anyway.


----------



## jmt18325

George Wallace said:
			
		

> And I may find it worth pointing out that with Trump it may be more bombastic of him to pull off a "Reality TV Host act" that would be even more 'pointed' to young Justin, than what was forced upon his father in the 1970's.  Trump may pull off his own version of "Celebrity Apprentice" on NATO members and point out that they formed a Pact (NATO) and are not fulfilling their RESPONSIBILITIES as agreed upon when they signed on.  Their lack of commitment makes them UNTRUSTWORTHY as partners in such an organization.  "Stepping up to the plate" is not the same as fulfilling one's agreed OBLIGATIONS to the agreement.  "Stepping up to the plate" is only an attempt to pull the wool over everyone's eyes and make it seem that one is committed, but really will only RENEGE on fully fulfilling their OBLIGATIONS.  When, since 1992, have we really had a FULL-TIME commitment?  We have only made piecemeal commitments since closing down the CAD and CMBG in Europe.



You'll be surprised to know that I agree with you - we should spend what we promised.  There is a lot more capability that we could use.  Attacking Trudeau over it is the hollow part, as Harper was no better and made the same excuses (I supported him most of the way through his tenure).


----------



## George Wallace

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> You'll be surprised to know that I agree with you - we should spend what we promised.  There is a lot more capability that we could use.  Attacking Trudeau over it is the hollow part, as Harper was no better and made the same excuses (I supported him most of the way through his tenure).



Any reference to any failings of previous Prime Ministers have NOTHING to do with this.  This will be Trump and Trudeau.  Any references to previous Governments are really irrelevant, other than CANADA's trend of not living up to its' fiscal responsibility.


----------



## Edward Campbell

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Any reference to any failings of previous Prime Ministers have NOTHING to do with this.  This will be Trump and Trudeau.  Any references to previous Governments are really irrelevant, other than CANADA's trend of not living up to its' fiscal responsibility.




Oh, for heaven's sake! It, reneging on our promises to allies, is a completely _*bi-partisan*_ issue in Canada, and has been since 1967. The fact that Prime Minister Harper talked tough, used (and misused) the CF for partisan political purposes _*and*_ cut the budget is at least as germane as what Prime Minister Trudeau may (or may not) want to do or be forced to do.

This is not a Conservative vs Liberal issue: it is all about ~ and only about ~ what the overwhelming majority of Canadians ~ our friends and neighbours and relatives, too ~ want their government priorities to be ... and defence is _waaaaaaay_ down at the bottom of the list, wedged between spending on symphony orchestras and opera houses.

The comment about Harper was fair and on point; you are trying to make it partisan.  :facepalm:


----------



## Kirkhill

The comment was fair and on point.   And the issue is one of where our neighbours wish to spend their beer money.


----------



## a_majoor

GR66 said:
			
		

> If we ever get to the point that we actually have to directly militarily defend Canada/USA then it's probably too late anyway.



That day passed a long time ago. In the 1970's we had our own "Apprehended Insurrection" and the US had full scale riots in the street as the New Left tried out its Brownshirt act. In the 1980's we had the Indian Government and Sikhs fighting a proxy war on our soil (culminating in the Ari Inda bombing) and throughout the 1990s the LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam) were recruiting people, raising money and using Canada as a safe haven in their war against Siri Lanka. Other groups were also active in Canada at various levels of mayhem ("Direct Action's" bombing of the Litton Industries plant, various eco terrorist groups) or supporting wars outside of Canada (think back to where many of the paramilitary groups in Yugoslavia were getting money and weapons, or for that matter, Somali warlords sending family members to Canada to collect welfare and send the money back to Africa).

While it is true these have never coalesced into anything larger, that may be more a matter of luck and circumstance than anything else. We certainly are _very_ concerned about people who went overseas to fight for ISIS, and home grown radicals who are nurtured over the Internet may be an even greater problem in the future.

The real issue is we are facing what is sometimes called 4GW right here on the ground in Canada, the United States and Mexico. Currently, the actors are not numerous enough on the ground nor have they found the proper vehicle to harness, but the essential aim is to destabilize the current structures of governance and society and impose change on us all without consent, or in the words of Thomas X Hammes (USMC Ret.):



> Fourth-generation warfare (4GW) uses all available networks — political, economic, social, and military — to convince the enemy’s political decision makers that their strategic goals are either unachievable or too costly for the perceived benefit. It is an evolved form of insurgency. Still rooted in the fundamental precept that superior political will, when properly employed, can defeat greater economic and military power, 4GW makes use of society’s networks to carry on its fight. Unlike previous generations of warfare, it does not attempt to win by defeating the enemy’s military forces. Instead, via the networks, it directly attacks the minds of enemy decision makers to destroy the enemy’s political will. Fourth-generation wars are lengthy — measured in decades rather than months or years.



So the real problem isn't if Canada or North America can protect itself from attack, but want sort of attack is likely to be encountered. If Russia considers the stakes high enough in Donbas they might not send bombers, but incite Canadians using the Russian Troll Army and getting CBC to repeat ideas first broadcast on RT, using the tenants of Hybrid Warfare. If the stakes in the South China Sea get high enough the Toronto Stock Exchange might see billions of dollars of trades driving Canada's economy down, or currency manipulation that makes the Canadian dollar uncompetitive (as per Unrestricted Warfare doctrine). It might not even be immediately obvious we are under attack.

So if *we* were ever to become serious about defense, then ramping up spending might be more than a matter of buying more tanks and airplanes (although we are certainly deficient in that regard as well), but looking at the modalities of modern warfare and where *we* are really deficient.


----------



## Old Sweat

As the officer who had the counter-terrorism "desk" in J3 at NDHQ, for a few years in the early 90s, I suggest you all read Thuc's post very carefully. We may be building an electronic Maginot Line, for example.


----------



## TCM621

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Oh, for heaven's sake! It, reneging on our promises to allies, is a completely _*bi-partisan*_ issue in Canada, and has been since 1967. The fact that Prime Minister Harper talked tough, used (and misused) the CF for partisan political purposes _*and*_ cut the budget is at least as germane as what Prime Minister Trudeau may (or may not) want to do or be forced to do.
> 
> This is not a Conservative vs Liberal issue: it is all about ~ and only about ~ what the overwhelming majority of Canadians ~ our friends and neighbours and relatives, too ~ want their government priorities to be ... and defence is _waaaaaaay_ down at the bottom of the list, wedged between spending on symphony orchestras and opera houses.
> 
> The comment about Harper was fair and on point; you are trying to make it partisan.  :facepalm:


I think was in response to a perception that because harper did it too,  just in should be given some slack. From your comment,  I don't think you believe that to be the case and the fact is that it is a long standing Canadian tradition to spend as little on defence as we possibly can. 

However, there is a major difference this time around. We have a young politically inexperienced PM. They have strong willed,  billionaire with no political experience who has no problem taking his toys and going home if he doesn't get his way. This isn't Papa Trudeau and Johnson or Mulroney and Reagan. We can't rely on trump to allow us to get away with what we have always done 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## GR66

Thucydides said:
			
		

> That day passed a long time ago. In the 1970's we had our own "Apprehended Insurrection" and the US had full scale riots in the street as the New Left tried out its Brownshirt act. In the 1980's we had the Indian Government and Sikhs fighting a proxy war on our soil (culminating in the Ari Inda bombing) and throughout the 1990s the LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam) were recruiting people, raising money and using Canada as a safe haven in their war against Siri Lanka. Other groups were also active in Canada at various levels of mayhem ("Direct Action's" bombing of the Litton Industries plant, various eco terrorist groups) or supporting wars outside of Canada (think back to where many of the paramilitary groups in Yugoslavia were getting money and weapons, or for that matter, Somali warlords sending family members to Canada to collect welfare and send the money back to Africa).
> 
> While it is true these have never coalesced into anything larger, that may be more a matter of luck and circumstance than anything else. We certainly are _very_ concerned about people who went overseas to fight for ISIS, and home grown radicals who are nurtured over the Internet may be an even greater problem in the future.
> 
> The real issue is we are facing what is sometimes called 4GW right here on the ground in Canada, the United States and Mexico. Currently, the actors are not numerous enough on the ground nor have they found the proper vehicle to harness, but the essential aim is to destabilize the current structures of governance and society and impose change on us all without consent, or in the words of Thomas X Hammes (USMC Ret.):
> 
> So the real problem isn't if Canada or North America can protect itself from attack, but want sort of attack is likely to be encountered. If Russia considers the stakes high enough in Donbas they might not send bombers, but incite Canadians using the Russian Troll Army and getting CBC to repeat ideas first broadcast on RT, using the tenants of Hybrid Warfare. If the stakes in the South China Sea get high enough the Toronto Stock Exchange might see billions of dollars of trades driving Canada's economy down, or currency manipulation that makes the Canadian dollar uncompetitive (as per Unrestricted Warfare doctrine). It might not even be immediately obvious we are under attack.
> 
> So if *we* were ever to become serious about defense, then ramping up spending might be more than a matter of buying more tanks and airplanes (although we are certainly deficient in that regard as well), but looking at the modalities of modern warfare and where *we* are really deficient.



We're discussing the Defence Budget and the CF here.  We are a VERY long way away in Canada from the type of scenario you are describing where a group of foreign agent provocateurs could so incite Canadian citizens against our own government that the appropriate response would be a military in nature rather than law enforcement.  It's a strawman argument and ignores what I was saying.  I'm suggesting that MILITARY defence of Canada is not about defending Canada from external military threats, it's about defending our overseas allies and political/economic interests from external military threats.  

I'm not arguing against defence spending...just suggesting the focus that we should be putting on the nature of our defence spending.  For example, the Liberals suggest that the F-35 is not the right aircraft for defending Canadian airspace.  I'm suggesting that that's not the correct criteria for determining what kind of aircraft we require.  Defending Canadian/US airspace against Russian/Chinese bombers is not the real primary role of our fighters (although of course we need an aircraft that is capable of responding to challenges to our airspace), but rather to deter other powers from military action in parts of the world where there are real military threats.  So in that case, aircraft capable of strike missions in opposed/defended airspace ARE a requirement.  

It may not be politically correct in Canada to say that, but it is the truth.


----------



## Jed

GR66 said:
			
		

> We're discussing the Defence Budget and the CF here.  We are a VERY long way away in Canada from the type of scenario you are describing where a group of foreign agent provocateurs could so incite Canadian citizens against our own government that the appropriate response would be a military in nature rather than law enforcement.  It's a strawman argument and ignores what I was saying.  I'm suggesting that MILITARY defence of Canada is not about defending Canada from external military threats, it's about defending our overseas allies and political/economic interests from external military threats.
> 
> I'm not arguing against defence spending...just suggesting the focus that we should be putting on the nature of our defence spending.  For example, the Liberals suggest that the F-35 is not the right aircraft for defending Canadian airspace.  I'm suggesting that that's not the correct criteria for determining what kind of aircraft we require.  Defending Canadian/US airspace against Russian/Chinese bombers is not the real primary role of our fighters (although of course we need an aircraft that is capable of responding to challenges to our airspace), but rather to deter other powers from military action in parts of the world where there are real military threats.  So in that case, aircraft capable of strike missions in opposed/defended airspace ARE a requirement.
> 
> It may not be politically correct in Canada to say that, but it is the truth.



I do not agree with your assessment of the immediacy of the threat facing Canadians.  Just why do you think this is the case and do you  have any logical insight to back this claim?


----------



## GR66

Jed said:
			
		

> I do not agree with your assessment of the immediacy of the threat facing Canadians.  Just why do you think this is the case and do you  have any logical insight to back this claim?



How about the 2016 Public Report On The Terrorist Threat To Canada (https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2016-pblc-rpr-trrrst-thrt/index-en.aspx) where the official government report notes that "the Government was aware of approximately 180 individuals with a nexus to Canada who were abroad and who were suspected of engaging in terrorism-related activities. The Government was also aware of a further 60 extremist travelers who had returned to Canada."

240 individuals currently suspected of being involved in terrorism-related activities.  The CF currently has around 68,000 Reg Force personnel, 28,000 Reservists and 5,000 Rangers.  According to StatsCan (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/legal05a-eng.htm) there are over 68,000 police officers in Canada as of 2015.  

Are there both foreign and domestic terrorist threats to Canada?  Certainly.  Here's a list of events to prove it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Canada).  Is that threat so great that it has passed from being something that requires a law enforcement and intelligence agency response to something of a level that requires a MILITARY response on Canadian soil?  Look at the numbers.  All tragedies of course and certainly something we should all be concerned about and work hard to prevent, but I stand by my statement that "we are a VERY long way away in Canada from that type of scenario".  

I've given facts which I believe back up my claim.  What facts do you have to present that suggest that the focus of the CF should shift from facing overseas military and insurgent threats to putting down domestic insurrections?


----------



## George Wallace

Can I return to my analogy of the small town Fire Department, basically what our Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces have slowly become over the years since the Korean War.  The town council have come to the conclusion that their townsfolk have been fairly good in their fire safety practices, and their Fire Department has received far less calls over the years, even though their town's population has grown.  To save some dollars on the next year's town budget, they have come up with the idea to sell off the last remaining firetruck, and stick with the local Fire Safety Inspection company to be contracted out to monitor the state of the various Fire suppression systems in the town buildings, and the fire hydrant system.  They see no need of equipment that has not been used for years, and do not foresee a major fire incident in the near future that would require such expensive equipment.

Looking at the history of our Canadian Armed Forces, since the 1950's, we have seen with every major equipment purchase that existing equipment was being replaced with half that number of new equipment in many cases; be it aircraft, tanks, trucks, ships, etc.  We have gone from FOUR (4) Fighter Wings in Europe in the 1950's/1960's alone, to less than Two (2) in Canada.  We saw the RCN go from the third largest in the world at the end of WW II to one of the smallest in the world today.  We have seen the near demise of the Armour Corps and the Submarine force in the past two decades.  We have seen the Army lose almost, if not all, Heavy and Medium Wheeled logistical vehicles.  We have seen the Change of Rank Insignia discussions here on army.ca and the discussions on the lack of BOOTS for the troops.  

It is time that the Government stop reneging on its AGREEMENT signed as a member of NATO to use 2% of its' GDP as a basis for its Defence Budget.  The currently less than 1% is a sham.  Our troops (Firefighters) need their equipment (Firetrucks) to do the job should the worse case scenario ever occur.  It is too late after a fire has started to be going out to purchase a firetruck and start training firefighters.


----------



## Journeyman

GR66 said:
			
		

> Defending Canadian/US airspace ...is not the real primary role of our fighters ...but rather to deter other powers from military action in parts of the world [therefore]... aircraft capable of strike missions in opposed/defended airspace ARE a requirement.


At the risk of being repetitious (notwithstanding that being a very popular online 'discussion' method), you are situating the estimate. In the absence of a coherent Defence White Paper, all any of us can do is frame the 'discussion' in terms of our own preferred outcome.  If a sitting government, hypothetically, decided that the purpose of our military was flood response, shovelling out Toronto bus stops, and UN-only peacekeeping, there would be no "real primary role" for fighter aircraft beyond the minimal number/capability to appease NORAD.  No one here can state categorically where we should be going;  shame our government prefers to waffle, until it can point to an equally-situated public opinion Defence Review.




			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> The real issue is we are facing what is sometimes called 4GW right here on the ground in Canada....


While I agree 100% with the premise, I still hold that the current threat remains a police/intelligence issue where primacy lay in adhering to our Canadian rights and freedoms (although I could be convinced of _some_  military role in cyber).

I am pleasantly surprised that the M-103 Islamophobia motion, sufficiently stupid in its own right, hasn't been characterized more widely as a Daesh 4GW operation.




			
				Old Sweat said:
			
		

> We may be building an electronic Maginot Line, for example.


Thursday (17 Feb) was André Maginot's birthday   :cheers:
/trivia tangent


----------



## George Wallace

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Oh, for heaven's sake! It, reneging on our promises to allies, is a completely _*bi-partisan*_ issue in Canada, and has been since 1967.



It has been going on for much longer.  I would say that it began earlier; after the end of the Korean War, if not 1945.




			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The comment about Harper was fair and on point; you are trying to make it partisan.  :facepalm:



I am not denying that Harper was any different.  As stated, the Defence Budget has been cut for over five decades consistently by ALL Governments.  What I am saying is that all that is irrelevant, as this current Defence Budget and commitment to NATO is going to be a face-off between Trump and Trudeau.


----------



## Old Sweat

I'm not sure that we give whatever party is in power much of a reason to increase funding when so much of the budget is spent on large headquarters that mostly spend their time duplicating effort and empire building. Do you really think if the forces got a big boost in spending they would suddenly undergo a change in philosophy?


----------



## Cloud Cover

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> As the officer who had the counter-terrorism "desk" in J3 at NDHQ, for a few years in the early 90s, I suggest you all read Thuc's post very carefully. We may be building an electronic Maginot Line, for example.



Perhaps true, but the laws and regulations that govern that sort of activity are quite restrictive for our respective entities in a domestic situation. And, although the entities may already be somewhat active extra territorially, the term "Maginot line" may be inappropriate for a number of reasons. First, the line has no fixed location but it is restricted by laws and subject to eye wincing oversight; and second there are not enough personnel, stations and equipment to form a "line", but they can form a "post". 

Fighting this type of point and click skirmishing with defensive and offensive electronic information warfare seems new, but in fact it has manifested itself many times in  different forms throughout the ages(think of the role General Sherman's signalmen in the "march to the sea", the use of listening posts on the telegraph (interception), sending fake encoded messages using captured ciphers from captured telegraph stations (man in the middle) and tearing up the railway telegraph lines behind the enemy lines (denial of service). This was a tactical form of information operations warfare that he learned about from  advisers who were fresh from studying the Crimean War, where telegraph lines were  first used by the British and French for communications at the front and also to report back to London, Paris. It wasn't long before the Russians started using the same "technology", and not long after that that both sides began efforts to access, monitor or cripple enemy lines of communications. The major differences in the current era are many, and while the tactical implications are relational, the global aspects coupled with the ability to deliver precision or distributed attacks from the dark web or other places adds to the complexity. 

Enough of history for today. What is really interesting to watch ( and we do "watch") is how, without the restrictions that bind official operations, the "unorganized cyber militias" are behaving and what they may be capable of accomplishing. I'm not talking about "Anonymous" here either ...  

If Canada was to invest in new defence spending, other than boots and trucks, ships and things that kill, some large sums need to dropped into a massive new EW and ESM support program for offensive and defensive information operations. Potentially this could include sensor equipped airborne platforms.  The (open source) JED Journal of 3-4 months ago profiled emerging pod capabilities for the Growler to search for, collect and retransmit (in near real time) ground level cellular signals, wi-fi access point and router data, fingerprinting of computers and communications devices of end users. All of these would therefore be capable of being targeted for jamming or other (more violent) means of disruption  >


----------



## GR66

Journeyman said:
			
		

> At the risk of being repetitious (notwithstanding that being a very popular online 'discussion' method), you are situating the estimate. In the absence of a coherent Defence White Paper, all any of us can do is frame the 'discussion' in terms of our own preferred outcome.  If a sitting government, hypothetically, decided that the purpose of our military was flood response, shovelling out Toronto bus stops, and UN-only peacekeeping, there would be no "real primary role" for fighter aircraft beyond the minimal number/capability to appease NORAD.  No one here can state categorically where we should be going;  shame our government prefers to waffle, until it can point to an equally-situated public opinion Defence Review.



You are of course absolutely correct.  Certainly the government of the day can decide whatever it likes as the primary roles of the CF and the CF will (should) try its best to fulfill that mandate in the most efficient way possible given the resources allocated to them by the government.

Despite the policies of the government however, there are certain external realities which exist outside their decisions.  The size, composition, capabilities and physical location of the world's various military forces will to a very high degree dictate what kinds of conflicts are likely to be possible.  The political decisions of Ottawa with our small overall military contribution will have very little impact on those realities.  

Will those realities evolve and change (sometimes even rapidly) over time?  Of course...which is why we should be well informed, flexible and responsive in our policies.  Sadly I don't believe that we are.

Edited to clarify:

My choice of words in suggesting a proper "role" for the CF was wrong.  As correctly pointed out the Government determines the "role" of the CF.  I was suggesting what I feel might be a more effective "capability" for the CF in terms of overall collective defence of ourselves and our allies.  The government could determine in a Defence White Paper that the CF should focus on the development and deployment of high-tech, smart, air-dropped caltrops designed to effectively disable the horses of enemy cavalry units.  They have the full constitutional right to determine that to be the role of the CF.  It wouldn't however make it an effective tool in our defence.


----------



## The Bread Guy

George Wallace said:
			
		

> ... Trump may pull off his own version of "Celebrity Apprentice" on NATO members and point out that they formed a Pact (NATO) and are not fulfilling their RESPONSIBILITIES as agreed upon when they signed on.  Their lack of commitment makes them UNTRUSTWORTHY as partners in such an organization.  "Stepping up to the plate" is not the same as fulfilling one's agreed OBLIGATIONS to the agreement ...


Should more be spent by some militaries, including Canada's?  Sure thing (notwithstanding the "pouring more water into a still-leaky bucket" thing).  Is that the only way we should judge the "trustworthiness" of those forces/partners, though?

Just to be "that guy", how well do you think the "not pulling one's weight" argument would resonate for the families of the approximately 150 troops from NATO members that used to be Warsaw Pact countries*** who've been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan[sup]**[/sup] since 2003 and 2001, respectively?  Does _that_ count for SFA in the contribution to the collective fight?

How about other contributions, like hosting places where USA int could interrogate folks to get int in the War on Terror?  In case you worry about bias in MSM coverage of this one, here's an ... alternative source for the info as well   

*** -- Not including 18 troops from Ukraine (not a member of NATO, but still a former Warsaw Pact country) have been killed in Iraq.
[sup]**[/sup] -- I know the fight in AFG started in support of the USA being attacked.  IRQ?  Not so much.


----------



## Jed

GR66 said:
			
		

> How about the 2016 Public Report On The Terrorist Threat To Canada (https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2016-pblc-rpr-trrrst-thrt/index-en.aspx) where the official government report notes that "the Government was aware of approximately 180 individuals with a nexus to Canada who were abroad and who were suspected of engaging in terrorism-related activities. The Government was also aware of a further 60 extremist travelers who had returned to Canada."
> 
> 240 individuals currently suspected of being involved in terrorism-related activities.  The CF currently has around 68,000 Reg Force personnel, 28,000 Reservists and 5,000 Rangers.  According to StatsCan (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/legal05a-eng.htm) there are over 68,000 police officers in Canada as of 2015.
> 
> Are there both foreign and domestic terrorist threats to Canada?  Certainly.  Here's a list of events to prove it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Canada).  Is that threat so great that it has passed from being something that requires a law enforcement and intelligence agency response to something of a level that requires a MILITARY response on Canadian soil?  Look at the numbers.  All tragedies of course and certainly something we should all be concerned about and work hard to prevent, but I stand by my statement that "we are a VERY long way away in Canada from that type of scenario".
> 
> I've given facts which I believe back up my claim.  What facts do you have to present that suggest that the focus of the CF should shift from facing overseas military and insurgent threats to putting down domestic insurrections?



I suppose you could call this supporting facts.  I am not suggesting that the CF shift its focus.  I am saying that world history shows that events can shift very rapidly with little forewarning and that Canada does not have a very good 'plan B or plan C' or any significant reserve pool of trained personnel or equipment that could be given different tasks.

The ship continues to sail on blissfully until it hits the iceberg.


----------



## Kirkhill

George Wallace said:
			
		

> It has been going on for much longer.  I would say that it began earlier; after the end of the Korean War, if not 1945.
> 
> 
> I am not denying that Harper was any different.  As stated, the Defence Budget has been cut for over five decades consistently by ALL Governments.  What I am saying is that all that is irrelevant, as this current Defence Budget and commitment to NATO is going to be a face-off between Trump and Trudeau.



George, we can go all the way back to Sir John A.  and the rest of the Fathers.  None of them wanted to allocate a penny for defense.  That was the job of the Brits.  In exchange for British protection they would deliver a reliable source of resources and a communications link between the Atlantic and the Pacific.  The Brits agreed to defend Halifax and Esquimalt.  After 1871 Canada was on its own and MacDonald was forced to find funds to support the Mounties - the original, active, Defence of Canada Force.  

Veering off in a different direction - two really good articles from Der Spiegel. They are noteworthy, in my opinion, for the moderate tone in a magazine that generally is to the left of the Guardian.  Perhaps headway is being made.



> It is, perhaps, the least expected opening to a German editorial at the moment: Donald Trump is right. But it's true. At the 2014 NATO summit in Wales, Germany announced that it would soon dramatically increase its defense spending. When Trump and his Defense Secretary James Mattis now admonish Germany to fulfill its pledge, they are right on two counts. First, on principle: Promises should be kept. Second, on merit: There is no reason that, more than 70 years after World War II, the United States should continue carrying the main burden for ensuring European security.
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, this isn't just a question of money. America's justified demand comes right in the middle of an internal crisis in the West so deep that nobody knows how much of the West will be left in the end. NATO always aspired to be something more than a defense alliance. It viewed itself as the protective power of liberal democracy, the West and Western principles. It was a moral framework, the foundations for their existence. But are we certain that the West is still a community of shared values?....



http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/american-withdrawal-presents-opportunity-for-europe-a-1135172.html

Much more in the article.  My major point of contention is the point about "liberal democracy".  I am still not convinced that the values of liberal democracy have ever been shared.  In my opinion the devils bargain after WW2 was, in exchange for peace the liberal democracies left the authoritarian corporatists in power and permitted them to proclaim themselves liberal democrats even as they proposed to manage the liberalism they detested, and curtail the democracy they feared, out of existence.  But..... another thread for that discussion.

The other article has Germany recognizing the merits of the US argument, the problems a re-armed Germany would present to its neighbours, the domestic problems it would present, and finally - something that will resonate on this site - the lack of a mechanism to effectively spend the budget they already have, much less a vastly expanded budget.



> ...It is becoming increasingly clear that things could soon become uncomfortable for Berlin. The Pentagon sees Germany as the most important country in Europe, the one that sets the tone on the Continent. If the Germans don't pay their share, U.S. defense officials believe, smaller European countries will follow suit, essentially hiding behind Berlin's coat tails. The pressure from Washington, in other words, is only going to grow in intensity.
> 
> Germany, of course, is not in an easy position. Politicians in Berlin are aware that their neighbors have long been skeptical, even fearful, of a militarily powerful Germany. That helps explain why German military spending in real terms ranks only third in Europe, behind the UK and France, despite being the Continent's strongest economy. Were Germany to meet the NATO target of spending 2 percent of GDP on defense, that would mean jacking up the annual defense budget from its current level of 37 billion euros to significantly over 60 billion euros. That would make Germany by far the largest military power on the Continent, which is likely a situation that would make many other Europeans nervous.
> 
> Concrete Numbers in Munich
> 
> Furthermore, it isn't entirely clear how much political support the project has. While von der Leyen, a member of Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats, is committed to reaching the NATO target, Rainer Arnold, the defense policy spokesman for the Social Democrats (SPD), believes that increasing German defense spending to 2 percent of GDP is "unrealistic." And increasingly, it is looking as though the SPD candidate for chancellor in autumn general elections, Martin Schulz, has a realistic chance of an upset victory over Merkel.
> 
> Still, at the Munich Security Conference on Friday, von der Leyen provided perhaps the clearest indication yet that Germany is intent on living up to its financial obligations agreed to in 2014, but also hinted that it will take time. In her speech at the conference, she repeatedly mentioned "burden sharing" and said "yes, we know that we must bear a larger, a fairer, share of the burden for trans-Atlantic security."
> 
> She also mentioned a few concrete numbers, including the fact that the German defense budget rose by 8 percent from 2016 to 2017 and she also referred to a plan she introduced last year for an investment package worth 130 billion euros. "We have to recognize that we must rapidly increase investments in both internal and external security in the coming years," she said....





> ...Speaking not long after von der Leyen, German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble seemed to indicate that he, too, would support increased military spending. "We will stick to our obligations," he said.
> 
> More money, though, does not automatically mean more and better equipment. Military procurement is notoriously inefficient, opaque and politicized in all countries and is thus susceptible to lobbyist manipulation. More money often makes the problem worse because more people begin angling for a slice of the pie.
> 
> Von der Leyen is well aware of that. A sudden increase in defense spending could reduce the pressure that she needs to push through her ambitious procurement reform package. Even now, the German military is having trouble spending its money sensibly. The structures are simply too complicated...



http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/pressure-on-germany-to-increase-defense-spending-for-nato-a-1135192.html

Final comment - I find it interesting that Merkel has come out recently stating that she can't find the new money, especially when the US and Britain are on the verge of implementing new policies that will reduce taxes and that will necessarily have a knock-on effect in Europe (currently beating up on Ireland with its 12.5% corporate rate).  On the other hand, within hours of that, she was musing about the return of the Deutsche Mark and her ministers were referencing the critical need for a strong bilateral Anglo-German relationship.

Dutch Election 15 March
60th Anniversary of the Treaty of Rome 25 March
May's Brexit Deadline 31 Mar
French Prelims 23 Apr
French Finals 7 May
German Election 24 Sep


----------



## Journeyman

Jed said:
			
		

> ... Canada does not have a very good 'plan B or plan C'


Even when we do have a plan, it seems easier to employ all those Staff Officers to reinvent the wheel rather than dust off the plan and amend detail.

And since Chris P started the history lesson.... you don't have to go all the way back to Gwatkin's mobilization plan being scuttled by Sam Hughes sending telegrams to all the Militia COs saying "allons-y les boys; everyone RV at Valcartier."   ;D


----------



## Good2Golf

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> As the officer who had the counter-terrorism "desk" in J3 at NDHQ, for a few years in the early 90s, I suggest you all read Thuc's post very carefully. We may be building an electronic Maginot Line, for example.



^ This, and Thucydides' words.  Call it 4GW, IW, whatever, there are threats on planes other than the physical/kinetic that will manifest themselves to great effect against liberal democracies far sooner than we'll have Presidents Putin or Xi send bombers or hypersonic cruise missiles in over our Northern approaches.  Defence investment needs to be balanced, but needs to plus up our cyber capabilities as much as politicians are willing to temper the general Canadian population's aversion to such electronic intervention (which many believe to be an invasive attack on their privacy, whether they believe themselves to be Government targets or not).

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Kirkhill

Perhaps the major issues are two-fold:

1-the enemy wins when we lose faith in our situation and no longer feel comfortable.  

2-enemies exist.

Arguably the first condition exists.

The bigger issue is getting people to accept that there are enemies who don't like our ways of doing things - and want to make us stop.


----------



## Kirkhill

The final paragraph in the Der Spiegel editorial referenced above:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/american-withdrawal-presents-opportunity-for-europe-a-1135172.html



> America's withdrawal actually represents an opportunity for Europe. The idea of Europe being a junior partner could finally be consigned to the dustbin of history and lead Europe to begin defining its own interests. That includes a reasonable relationship with Russia that isn't based exclusively on deterrence. That also includes making clear to Turkey that there are limits to solidarity if Ankara plays with fire in Syria or if the conflict with the Kurds further escalates. That could also include making some trade-policy concessions during the Brexit negotiations in exchange for British participation in a joint European defense partnership.* Ultimately, a Europe that is serious about its own security will also have to consider nuclear deterrence. This doesn't mean that Germany needs to build a bomb, as some have pondered. But it would require a level of trust in the nuclear power of France that Germany has so far only reserved for the United States.*



Here exists a major problem - The Europeans fear Putin's nukes.  They rely on Trump's nukes to keep Putin in check.  But they don't ever want Trump to use them.  Meanwhile Trump is asking why he should risk having to press the button, and risk people in Nebraska dying either in retaliation or as a preventative measure, to stop the Russians moving back into Estonia - especially when nobody seems to want to help keep that risk at bay by ponying up for conventional forces.

The other side of the problem is the alternative.  I can see the Brits adding their nukes to an American response. Much like the RN threw a few Tomahawks into Iraq alongside the USN to add some tone to the affair.  I can't see them acting unilaterally.  

So the alternative to the US nukes are the French nukes.  And does anybody believe that France will launch nukes on Moscow to protect Estonia?  Or for that matter to protect Germany?  I can see the French launching nukes into Germany to detonate over Russian hordes threatening to invade France.  But not France using their Force de Frappe to assist allies.


----------



## Edward Campbell

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Can I return to my analogy of the small town Fire Department, basically what our Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces have slowly become over the years since the Korean War.  The town council have come to the conclusion that their townsfolk have been fairly good in their fire safety practices, and their Fire Department has received far less calls over the years, even though their town's population has grown.  To save some dollars on the next year's town budget, they have come up with the idea to sell off the last remaining firetruck, and stick with the local Fire Safety Inspection company to be contracted out to monitor the state of the various Fire suppression systems in the town buildings, and the fire hydrant system.  They see no need of equipment that has not been used for years, and do not foresee a major fire incident in the near future that would require such expensive equipment.
> 
> Looking at the history of our Canadian Armed Forces, since the 1950's, we have seen with every major equipment purchase that existing equipment was being replaced with half that number of new equipment in many cases; be it aircraft, tanks, trucks, ships, etc.  We have gone from FOUR (4) Fighter Wings in Europe in the 1950's/1960's alone, to less than Two (2) in Canada.  We saw the RCN go from the third largest in the world at the end of WW II to one of the smallest in the world today.  We have seen the near demise of the Armour Corps and the Submarine force in the past two decades.  We have seen the Army lose almost, if not all, Heavy and Medium Wheeled logistical vehicles.  We have seen the Change of Rank Insignia discussions here on army.ca and the discussions on the lack of BOOTS for the troops.
> 
> It is time that the Government stop reneging on its AGREEMENT signed as a member of NATO to use 2% of its' GDP as a basis for its Defence Budget.  The currently less than 1% is a sham.  Our troops (Firefighters) need their equipment (Firetrucks) to do the job should the worse case scenario ever occur.  It is too late after a fire has started to be going out to purchase a firetruck and start training firefighters.




That, the highlighted bit, is mainly because the performance envelope of the new system has allowed us to do more than the same with half as much kit. We didn't need four fighter wings (10 to 15 squadrons) in Europe when the F-104 replaced the F-86 _Sabre_. The F-104 could do much, much more with fewer aircraft. Ditto with ships: the _Halifax_ class frigates were qualitatively so much better than the old "steamers" they replaced that 12 could do what we needed 15 to 20 to do before. You, yourself, must know that a regiment of, say, just 50 _Leopard 2_ tanks could do more than a regiment of 80 _Centurions_.

There were, of course, also social and political pressures. The 1970s saw an aggressive _peace_ movement (how's that for a contradiction in terms?) move into the political realm where it found fertile ground because Americans and Brits and Canadians and Danes and, and, and were all tired of paying big bills for a cold war which we had already won and wanted more and better "social safety net" policies.

At the risk of repeating myself: where is the existential threat to Canada that Joe Six-Pack and Molly the Maid can understand?


----------



## George Wallace

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> That, the highlighted bit, is mainly because the performance envelope of the new system has allowed us to do more than the same with half as much kit. We didn't need four fighter wings (10 to 15 squadrons) in Europe when the F-104 replaced the F-86 _Sabre_. The F-104 could do much, much more with fewer aircraft. Ditto with ships: the _Halifax_ class frigates were qualitatively so much better than the old "steamers" they replaced that 12 could do what we needed 15 to 20 to do before. You, yourself, must know that a regiment of, say, just 50 _Leopard 2_ tanks could do more than a regiment of 80 _Centurions_.
> 
> There were, of course, also social and political pressures. The 1970s saw an aggressive _peace_ movement (how's that for a contradiction in terms?) move into the political realm where it found fertile ground because Americans and Brits and Canadians and Danes and, and, and were all tired of paying big bills for a cold war which we had already won and wanted more and better "social safety net" policies.
> 
> At the risk of repeating myself: where is the existential threat to Canada that Joe Six-Pack and Molly the Maid can understand?



I'll pick just one point, but still it reflects on the whole concept.  Yes, 50 Leopard 2 can do more than 80 Centurions, but does that really justify cutting the whole Corps.  Having, in essence, one tank Regiment, down from three or four, just because the new tanks are capable of far more than their predecessors is faulty logic.  The enemy has just as more capable tanks as their predecessors, but their numbers haven't been reduced.  Meanwhile, the cuts in equipment, all across the board in all Elements and Branches, also mean cuts in Trained personnel.  A military reduced to the state of a "Police Force" will never be able to effectively fight to defend the nation, unsustained by back up forces and equipment; let alone deploy for any length of time in support of Allies.  In today's world, we would not have time to ramp up Industry to produce equipment, time to train troops, and create all necessary to fight a major war.  We would have been overrun and defeated.  No replacement aircraft.  No replacement ships.  No replacement AFVs.  We are hurting right now with no replacement fighters due to crashes in peace time; not to mention loses in the Navy.  Reductions in numbers of vehicles in our Logistics fleets have created problems.  

We have been suffering the "Peace Dividend" cuts since the 1950's.  

I highly doubt that  Joe Six-Pack and Molly the Maid have any concept of National Security, and never have since the 1960's.  They all seem to think the world is just as free and safe as Canada, and that there are no really evil men/women out there that want us dead.  They do not see any threats to Canada.


----------



## Edward Campbell

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I'll pick just one point, but still it reflects on the whole concept.  Yes, 50 Leopard 2 can do more than 80 Centurions, but does that really justify cutting the whole Corps.  Having, in essence, one tank Regiment, down from three or four, just because the new tanks are capable of far more than their predecessors is faulty logic.  The enemy has just as more capable tanks as their predecessors, but their numbers haven't been reduced.  Meanwhile, the cuts in equipment, all across the board in all Elements and Branches, also mean cuts in Trained personnel.  A military reduced to the state of a "Police Force" will never be able to effectively fight to defend the nation, unsustained by back up forces and equipment; let alone deploy for any length of time in support of Allies.  In today's world, we would not have time to ramp up Industry to produce equipment, time to train troops, and create all necessary to fight a major war.  We would have been overrun and defeated.  No replacement aircraft.  No replacement ships.  No replacement AFVs.  We are hurting right now with no replacement fighters due to crashes in peace time; not to mention loses in the Navy.  Reductions in numbers of vehicles in our Logistics fleets have created problems.
> 
> We have been suffering the "Peace Dividend" cuts since the 1950's.
> 
> I highly doubt that  Joe Six-Pack and Molly the Maid have any concept of National Security, and never have since the 1960's.  They all seem to think the world is just as free and safe as Canada, and that there are no really evil men/women out there that want us dead.  They do not see any threats to Canada.




Well, arguably, we actually "won" the cold war in 1959 ~  the famous Khrushchev-Nixon "kitchen debate" in Moscow ~ and all the rest, including all your and my service in Germany was just "winding down" while we waited for the Russians to finally figure out that Eisenhower had bluffed them (his other bluff) into a position from which they could not win anything. Ike, essentially, began the "peace dividend" back in 1953 when he bet that a nuclear threat would allow America to divert scarce resources toward economic development while a rather silly "no first use" pledge would bind the Soviet Union to a military based strategy which it could not afford. But Canada, until about 1969, still made considerable, even "punching above our weight" type contributions to the defence of the West. 

But, and _*I know I'm repeating myself*_, given that there was a steadily declining conventional military threat, until, by say the early 1980s, there was, to be honest, none, why should hard working Canadians agree to fund a pointless military? Politics is often the art of the possible ... you can go and ask your aunts and uncles and cousins and friends and neighbours why they decreed, to Conservative and Liberal governments alike, that military spending was unnecessary and, therefore, politically impossible.

It doesn't matter what Joe Six-Pack understands about strategy; what matters is how he thinks his tax dollars ought to be spent ... or would you rather live in a country with a form of government that isn't a liberal democracy?


----------



## McG

FJAG said:
			
		

> If we're letting the US dictate our GDP numbers then maybe we should look at the US active component to reserve (NG and AR) ratios:
> Army: Active 487k, NG/AR 660k;
> Navy: Active 323k, NR 111k;
> Air Force: Active 307k, ANG/AFR 211k;
> Marines: Active 183k, MR 111k;
> Coast Guard: Active 39k, CGR 8k
> 
> Our numbers are:
> Army: Reg 23k, Res 17k, Rangers 5k;
> Navy: Reg 8.5k, Res 5.1k
> Air Force: Reg 14.5k Res 2.6k
> Other: Reg F 22k, Res 1.8k
> 
> With the exception of the navy, our reg to Res ratios are all skewed significantly in favour of the Reg F.


And, with the exception of the army, the American reg to res ratios are also all skewed significantly in favour of the active duty.  But let’s just agree this comparison is too shallow an analysis from which to make any conclusions.  A first principles analysis of Canada’s requirements is a better start.



			
				Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> We let equipment drive our doctrine when it should be the other way around.


You are giving too much credit to some major capital acquisition decisions.  We buy shinny things without thought to doctrine, organization, training, supporting resources, personnel, etc.  When projects deliver it is high-fives and commendations all around … and the field force gets stuck figuring out how to fill the holes.



			
				Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> dapaterson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can't presuppose that the three CMBGs are what we need / where we need / how we need things to be.
> 
> 
> 
> …
> 2.  The Brigade - Every Army in the world worth its salt works around the Brigade concept, why change what works?
Click to expand...

In those armies, a brigade is a deployable entity.  If you intend to neither use it nor manage its readiness so that it can be used, is it really that valuable a building block to Canada?  Don’t answer that here.  It is probably too into the weeds for this budget discussion, but we have another thread for that idea: What Should the Army's Role, Capabilities & Structure Be?



			
				Tcm621 said:
			
		

> We need to change our training from "just enough, just in time"  to the right amount as soon as possible to allow people to gain experience. Surges just result in a lowered standard of training, because we need boots on the ground now.


 We used to say “train two up” which meant to train every individual to do the job two positions higher so that the machine could keep grinding forward as leaders became casualties.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> … the performance envelope of the new system has allowed us to do more than the same with half as much kit. We didn't need four fighter wings (10 to 15 squadrons) in Europe when the F-104 replaced the F-86 _Sabre_. The F-104 could do much, much more with fewer aircraft. Ditto with ships: the _Halifax_ class frigates were qualitatively so much better than the old "steamers" they replaced that 12 could do what we needed 15 to 20 to do before. You, yourself, must know that a regiment of, say, just 50 _Leopard 2_ tanks could do more than a regiment of 80 _Centurions_.


I am not sure that the “able to do more with fewer platforms” statement has been true every time we have said it (let alone true for the numbers being discussed).  If you buy trucks twice as big as the current fleet, you could conceivably do the job with half as many trucks … until you realize that time & space realities prevent any smaller of a fleet from completing deliveries to all required locations even if the trucks had infinite capacity.  In the case of main battle tanks, fifty Leopard 2 can certainly do more on a battlefield than eighty Centurions against the same threat.  But, the Leopard 2 should not be measured against what it can do against a battlefield of T54.  Can the Leopard 2 do on a battlefield of T90 (or Armata) what the Centurion could do on a battlefield of T54?  Where physical numbers mean that fewer Leopard 2 cannot necessarily be at the right places at the right times to do what a Centurion would have done 50 years ago, do we have an alternate tool in the box to cover the capability gap?

If the future surface combatant is so capable that we can replace Destroyers and Frigates with a new smaller fleet and our current operational commitments see single ships joining coalition task forces, will we send fractions of ships on operations in the future?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

MCG said:
			
		

> And, with the exception of the army, the American reg to res ratios are also all skewed significantly in favour of the active duty.  But let’s just agree this comparison is too shallow an analysis from which to make any conclusions.  A first principles analysis of Canada’s requirements is a better start.
> You are giving too much credit to some major capital acquisition decisions.  We buy shinny things without thought to doctrine, organization, training, supporting resources, personnel, etc.  When projects deliver it is high-fives and commendations all around … and the field force gets stuck figuring out how to fill the holes.
> …



I agree that comparing our military to the American one is a colossal waste of time.  The active US Army is larger than 99% of armies in the world, it's a useless comparison.

As for equipment, I'm not giving any credit to some capital acquisition organizations.  The Army controls Doctrine and DLR, has a pulse on DGLEPM and runs the Technical Staff Program which feeds staff officers to the machine.  How those organizations came up with TAPV as a suitable Armoured Reconnaissance vehicle is perplexing? 



> 2.  The Brigade - Every Army in the world worth its salt works around the Brigade concept, why change what works?  In those armies, a brigade is a deployable entity.  If you intend to neither use it nor manage its readiness so that it can be used, is it really that valuable a building block to Canada?  Don’t answer that here.  It is probably too into the weeds for this budget discussion, but we have another thread for that idea: What Should the Army's Role, Capabilities & Structure Be?



You're right that I'm digging in to the weeds with this post but I think it's relevant to the discussion from the perspective that we try and reinvent the wheel continuously without asking the most important question:

"Does what I'm doing or the decision I'm making conform to Doctrine?  If it doesn't what is the reasoning it doesn't validated against the Principles of War?"

This is important because in a time of tight budgets, equipment procurement should be managed even more carefully.  We should be very skeptical of any new equipment we bring on because we will likely be stuck with anything we do buy for a very long time, whether it works or not.

As for the Brigade: 

The Brigade is an administrative formation in Canada but that doesn't make it any less relevant.  All Battalions, Brigades, Divisions, Corps, Armies are is a way of managing a group of soldiers.  Without the C2 all we have is a very well armed Mob.

Even the tiny NZ and Norwegian Armies use the Brigade so why, in a country as big as Canada do we think we need to get rid of it?  Before you get rid of the Brigade as an organized formation in the Canadian Army, ask yourself, "does what I'm doing conform to doctrine?" If not, what's my reasoning for doing it?"  

BACK ON TOPIC

I'm on E.R. Campbell and Journeyman's side on this one.  We haven't had clear policy direction from the government in a very long time and I think this is partially what's to blame for some of our hair brained decisions.  Until we get firm policy direction from the government, no new money should be allocated to the Defence portfolio.  Even if the money was allocated, we likely wouldn't know how to spend it anyways.  

I think what's really needed in Canada isn't a Defence White Paper, what's actually needed is a National Security Strategy.  Numerous folks have mentioned terrorism, cyber, espionage, natural disasters, civil insurrection, etc. As possible threats to Canada.  Those aren't really our responsibility though, the majority of the above are actually law enforcement/intelligence responsibilities.  Does the military have a role to play in these issues, possibly but that role should be outlined clearly in a National Security Stratrgy.

In reality, the national military strategy is nested within the national security strategy and is but one component.  What I would like to see is a white paper which covers the spectrum of instruments at the disposal of the federal government, CSIS, RCMP, CSEC, CAF, etc... and how they all work together IOT implement a National Security Strategy.


----------



## Good2Golf

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I think what's really needed in Canada isn't a Defence White Paper, what's actually needed is a *National Security Strategy*.  Numerous folks have mentioned terrorism, cyber, espionage, natural disasters, civil insurrection, etc. As possible threats to Canada.  Those aren't really our responsibility though, the majority of the above are actually law enforcement/intelligence responsibilities.  Does the military have a role to play in these issues, possibly but that role should be outlined clearly in a National Security Stratrgy.
> 
> In reality, the national military strategy is nested within the national security strategy and is but one component.  What I would like to see is a white paper which *covers the spectrum of instruments at the disposal of the federal government*, CSIS, RCMP, CSEC, CAF, etc... and how they all work together IOT implement a National Security Strategy.



^ This.  :nod:


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> ^ This.  :nod:



The responsible department for National Security is actually Public Safety Canada.  

Public Safety Canada Mandate: "Our mandate is to keep Canadians safe from a range of risks such as natural disasters, crime and terrorism."

"Public Safety Canada works with five agencies and three review bodies, united in a single portfolio and all reporting to the same minister.

We also work with other levels of government, first responders, community groups, the private sector and other nations, on national security, border strategies, countering crime and emergency management issues and other safety and security initiatives, such as the National Information Exchange Model.
"

Source:

https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/bt/index-en.aspx

Now lets look at this interesting Org Chart:







Department of National Defence & CSEC are nowhere to be found.  It's as if the government is looking at the problem of National Security in only a domestic context.  

EDIT:

The last actual National Security Strategy was written by Paul Martin's government: "Securing an Open Society, Canada's National Security Policy".  An archived copy can be found here:  http://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/CP22-77-2004E.pdf  

That was published in 2004, it seems the CAF isn't the only department suffering from a lack of intellectual de rigueur.


----------



## Good2Golf

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> ...
> Department of National Defence & CSEC are nowhere to be found.  It's as if the government is looking at the problem of National Security in only a domestic context.



Ding - ding - ding!  :nod:

The irony is in the procedure whereby MPS will temporarily sign over operational control of a crappy situation to MND when PSC's machinery can't handle a domestic 'bad situation.'  


If I were King for a day, I'd get at least three line-Departments together on Canadian Security:  GAC-PSC-DND  

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Journeyman

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I think what's really needed in Canada isn't a Defence White Paper, what's actually needed is a National Security Strategy.


Concur.....theoretically.   (Always a caveat   ;D  ).

I think that a Defence White Paper _could_  be produced, if the government had the will and any interest in being informed by facts.

I also think, sadly, that any attempt at a National Security Strategy would be quickly derailed by considerations of peripheral (or completely irrelevant) aspects, ranging from Motion M-103, Status of Women, Tips for mobile dating apps (if you don't believe me, check the Public Safety Canada home page  : ), etc, etc ...  It would be irretrievably bogged down before coffee on Day 1. 

 While a Defence White Paper _should_  be nested within a National Security Strategy, that would be a bridge too far.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Ironically, Iraq has a robust National Security Strategy and they are working on a Security Sector Reform Campaign Plan.

If only we could follow the example of those that we have been sent to advise and assist....

[size=10pt][size=8pt]<<edited for PERSEC>>[/size][/size]


----------



## Old Sweat

I fear if we tried to write one, it would soon concentrate on LBGTQ issues and the need for national childcare and pharmacare programs.


----------



## McG

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> The Army controls Doctrine and DLR, has a pulse on DGLEPM and runs the Technical Staff Program which feeds staff officers to the machine.  How those organizations came up with TAPV as a suitable Armoured Reconnaissance vehicle is perplexing?


One problem with doctrine and requirements is that they are in different cities, reporting to different general officers, and not talking often enough.  The tech staff program is only able to help so far as the system insist that tech staff grads fill tech positions (and there are many examples where the opposite is done).  As for TAPV, that did not come from DLR; it was the product of a discussion between (then) LGen Leslie as CLS and Mr Ross as ADM(Mat).  I recall visiting DLR the next day to be told "Yesterday we did not know what CCV, TAPV and LRPR were.  Today they are the Army's top three equipment priorities."  Subsequent rumours have suggested to me that the Army made concessions to get ADM(Mat) support for LAV-Up, because ADM(Mat) did not like GDLS and wanted the army to have vehicles designed all for survivability.


----------



## Kirkhill

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> The responsible department for National Security is actually Public Safety Canada.
> 
> Public Safety Canada Mandate: "Our mandate is to keep Canadians safe from a range of risks such as natural disasters, crime and terrorism."
> 
> "Public Safety Canada works with five agencies and three review bodies, united in a single portfolio and all reporting to the same minister.
> 
> We also work with other levels of government, first responders, community groups, the private sector and other nations, on national security, border strategies, countering crime and emergency management issues and other safety and security initiatives, such as the National Information Exchange Model.
> "
> 
> Source:
> 
> https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/bt/index-en.aspx
> 
> Now lets look at this interesting Org Chart:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Department of National Defence & CSEC are nowhere to be found.  It's as if the government is looking at the problem of National Security in only a domestic context.
> 
> EDIT:
> 
> The last actual National Security Strategy was written by Paul Martin's government: "Securing an Open Society, Canada's National Security Policy".  An archived copy can be found here:  http://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/CP22-77-2004E.pdf
> 
> That was published in 2004, it seems the CAF isn't the only department suffering from a lack of intellectual de rigueur.



Peculiar that NATIONAL DEFENCE is now focused on Expeditionary Warfare.

Orwell wins again I guess.

How much of this is driven by Vimy Ridge and the dominance of an Infantry-Centric Army in an Army-Centric Force?

To be honest - I find it hard to argue for a large Army budget on grounds of NATIONAL DEFENCE.  

On NATIONAL DEFENCE grounds I find it easy to justify CSEC, Satellites, Radars, Air Forces and the Navy.  

I can also justify, in my mind at least, a small force (roughly of the current man-power) of highly trained rapid response professionals to counter the unexpected here within our Area of Operations/Interest.

Beyond that there is a useful debate to be had on how much money we wish to spend influencing the world beyond our borders.

It seems to me that it is an easier sell to sell National Defence as an element of Public Security than it is to sell Expeditionary Forces to maintain World Order.

The fact that many of the resources purchased for Public Security / National Defence could be purchased in surplus with the surplus elements allocated overseas for training and diplomatic reasons could be sold as a necessity/benefit.


----------



## Journeyman

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> ...influencing the world ....


Fortunately, that's covered. There's a select, elite bunch of Reservists addressing that concern.   :nod:


----------



## Kirkhill

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Fortunately, that's covered. There's a select, elite bunch of Reservists addressing that concern.   :nod:



Two weeks a year and one Saturday a month until May.  Assuming that the Regs don't claw back the funding.


----------



## Jed

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Fortunately, that's covered. There's a select, elite bunch of Reservists addressing that concern.   :nod:



Isn't that the truth.  [


----------



## Edward Campbell

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> The responsible department for National Security is actually Public Safety Canada.
> 
> Public Safety Canada Mandate: "Our mandate is to keep Canadians safe from a range of risks such as natural disasters, crime and terrorism" ...
> ...
> Source:
> 
> https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/bt/index-en.aspx
> ...
> Department of National Defence & CSEC are nowhere to be found.  It's as if the government is looking at the problem of National Security in only a domestic context ...



Actually, from a national security point of view, I would be a helluva lot happier if *CSEC* wasn't mentioned at all, ever, by anyone, except, _en passant_, by the MND at some late night meeting of an obscure sub-committee dealing with the boring bits of the budget. There are some capabilities, CSEC is one of them, about which the less is said the better.

I think one can make a case that DND ought not to be part and parcel of the national security regime ... I think everyone, even politicians and voters, can understand that DND and the CF can be called in by almost any government "envelope" to provide direct or indirect support.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Actually, from a national security point of view, I would be a helluva lot happier if *CSEC* wasn't mentioned at all, ever, by anyone, except, _en passant_, by the MND at some late night meeting of an obscure sub-committee dealing with the boring bits of the budget. There are some capabilities, CSEC is one of them, about which the less is said the better.
> 
> I think one can make a case that DND ought not to be part and parcel of the national security regime ... I think everyone, even politicians and voters, can understand that DND and the CF can be called in by almost any government "envelope" to provide direct or indirect support.



I agree that the less is said, the better; however, that doesn't preclude us from having an overarching strategy which these organizations draw their marching orders from.  I'm seeing none of that right now.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Further to this post,
http://milnet.ca/forums/threads/82898/post-1476496.html#msg1476496

the _Globe and Maiil_ has published my letter (scroll down):



> Costs of defence
> 
> Michael Byers makes an heroic effort to exaggerate the scale of Canada’s defence spending by claiming that spending should include elements of the budgets of the RCMP, Canadian Border Services Agency and Canadian Coast Guard (Canada Doesn’t Deserve Its Reputation As A Defence Laggard, Feb. 16 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/canada-doesnt-deserve-its-reputation-as-a-defence-laggard/article34030524/ ).
> 
> I am shocked the professor failed to include monies allocated to fishery officers of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. These federal enforcement personnel are uniformed and often armed, and they work on land, fresh water and the oceans. Their funding would have helped to raise his supposed defence dollars even higher.
> 
> _Mark Collins, Ottawa_
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/letters/feb-21-the-fentanyl-problem-and-other-letters-to-the-editor/article34073890/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

he does show an inability to live up to a ethical standard in that article, basically saying "lie through your teeth"


----------



## Good2Golf

Colin P said:
			
		

> he does show an inability to live up to a ethical standard in that article, basically saying "lie through your teeth"



Not sure if that's a fair comment.  If there is a (generally) accepted list of contribution elements that most NATO nations are using to calculate the baseline, it would not be unreasonable for Canada to at least investigate what a greater level of alignment with such reporting would do to its contribution ratio.

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Lightguns

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Not sure if that's a fair comment.  If there is a (generally) accepted list of contribution elements that most NATO nations are using to calculate the baseline, it would not be unreasonable for Canada to at least investigate what a greater level of alignment with such reporting would do to its contribution ratio.
> 
> :2c:
> 
> Regards
> G2G



I am willing to bet we maxed out any possible deferments long ago or our government would be launching a massive propaganda campaign to tell everyone how wonderful we are.  Self congratulation, it's something Canadian governments do well.  There is something to be said when only the media is making stuff up so we don't look bad.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Not sure if that's a fair comment.  If there is a (generally) accepted list of contribution elements that most NATO nations are using to calculate the baseline, it would not be unreasonable for Canada to at least investigate what a greater level of alignment with such reporting would do to its contribution ratio.
> 
> :2c:
> 
> Regards
> G2G



I don't personally see a problem with it, in many European countries, Policing at the federal/national level falls under the jurisdiction of the Armed Forces, in fact many National Police Forces are actually administrated by the respective Ministries of National Defence.


----------



## QV

This 2% is really about a country having a capable military in relation to the size and wealth of said country.

Does Canada have a capable military?  Based on our deteriorating fighter fleet, our older and few warships, and small ground force, I would say no absolutely not.  We couldn't defend our own sovereignty let alone make any major contribution somewhere else.  It bothers me immensely that this doesn't bother the average Canadian.  

And if NATO comes calling for a serious contribution because the Russians or Chinese, what happens then?


----------



## Eland2

QV said:
			
		

> This 2% is really about a country having a capable military in relation to the size and wealth of said country.
> 
> Does Canada have a capable military?  Based on our deteriorating fighter fleet, our older and few warships, and small ground force, I would say no absolutely not.  We couldn't defend our own sovereignty let alone make any major contribution somewhere else.  It bothers me immensely that this doesn't bother the average Canadian.
> 
> And if NATO comes calling for a serious contribution because the Russians or Chinese, what happens then?



The reason why the average Canadian isn't bothered by this is manifold. First off, average Canadians don't think much about defence, if they think of it all. Second, they assume that Canada is too large in physical terms and offers too many geographical and topographical obstacles to be easily invaded. Third, the general assumption is that if the fecal material hits the rotary impeller, the Americans will simply come to our aid and do all the heavy lifting anyway, and if that doesn't work/isn't feasible, they will simply bring out their nuclear clubs to beat the enemy into submission. On our behalf, of course.

If NATO called on us to make a substantial contribution, we'd be screwed and simply unable to make that contribution. It isn't just the small size of our combat forces and their relative obsolescence that explain why we couldn't make such a contribution, it's the fact that currently we don't have any mechanisms in place to induct, train, equip, mobilize and deploy very large numbers of people in a relatively short period of time. 

If you recall what happened during the Second World War, Canada was totally unprepared to fight any kind of significant enemy force in 1939. It wasn't until 1942 that the country was able to just begin to make a meaningful ground contribution. In my estimation, the ill-starred attempt to seize Dieppe was a trial run for deploying a much larger force, which didn't happen until 1943. In other words, it took Canada nearly four years to sufficiently ramp up the size and capability of its ground forces. We were fortunate that we had the luxury of lots of time to prepare. 

The next major war is likely to erupt very quickly and proceed at a very rapid pace, thanks to the sheer speed and striking power of current weapon systems. By the time Canada mobilizes any kind of meaningful contribution, the war may well be over. That is more or less what happened during the Gulf War in 1991.
At that time we had too little in the way of men and materiel to be able to do anything more than mount a token effort. 

My personal take is that a rise in the defence budget to 2% of GDP will only be efficacious if Canada spends a lot more money beforehand to develop the infrastructure to induct, equip, train and mobilize large numbers of troops in a short period of time.


----------



## Blackadder1916

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Not sure if that's a fair comment.  If there is a (generally) accepted list of contribution elements that most NATO nations are using to calculate the baseline, it would not be unreasonable for Canada to at least investigate what a greater level of alignment with such reporting would do to its contribution ratio.



As previously identified in this thread.

https://army.ca/forums/threads/82898/post-1476606.html#msg1476606
https://army.ca/forums/threads/82898/post-1476628.html#msg1476628


*NATO definition of defence expenditure*
http://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2016_07/20160704_160704-pr2016-116.pdf

NATO defines defence expenditure as
payments made by a national government
specifically to meet the needs of its armed
forces or those of Allies. A major component
of defence expenditure is payments on Armed
Forces financed within the Ministry of Defence
(MoD) budget. Armed Forces include Land,
Maritime and Air forces as well as Joint
formations such as Administration and
Command, Special Operations Forces,
Medical Service, Logistic Command etc. They
might also include "Other Forces" like Ministry
of Interior troops, border guards, national
police forces, customs, gendarmerie,
carabinierie, coast guards etc. In such cases,
expenditure should be included only in
proportion to the forces that are trained in
military tactics, are equipped as a military
force, can operate under direct military
authority in deployed operations, and can,
realistically, be deployed outside national
territory in support of a military force. Also,
expenditure on Other Forces financed through
the budgets of ministries other than MoD
should be included in defence expenditure.

Pension payments made directly by the
government to retired military and civilian
employees of military departments should be
included regardless of whether these
payments are made from the budget of the
MoD or other ministries.

Expenditures for peacekeeping and
humanitarian operations (paid by MoD or other
ministries), the destruction of weapons,
equipment and ammunition, and the costs
associated with inspection and control of
equipment destruction are included in defence
expenditures.

Research and development (R&D) costs are to
be included in defence expenditures. R&D
costs should also include those for projects
that do not successfully lead to production of
equipment.

Expenditure for the military component of
mixed civilian-military activities is included, but
only when this military component can be
specifically accounted for or estimated.

Financial assistance by one Allied country to
another, specifically to support the defence
effort of the recipient, should be included in the
defence expenditure of the donor country and
not in the defence expenditure of the receiving
country.

Expenditure on NATO Common infrastructure
is included in the total defence expenditure of
each NATO country only to the extent of that
country's net contribution.

War damage payments and spending on civil
defence are both excluded from the NATO
definition of defence expenditure.

NATO uses United States dollars (USD) as the
common currency denominator. The exchange
rate applied to each Ally is the average annual
rate published by the IMF. The values for
defence expenditure are expressed in current
prices; constant prices; current prices and
exchange rates; as well as constant prices and
exchange rates.


----------



## RCPalmer

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I don't personally see a problem with it, in many European countries, Policing at the federal/national level falls under the jurisdiction of the Armed Forces, in fact many National Police Forces are actually administrated by the respective Ministries of National Defence.



To further muddy the waters, I was told by my French Army course DS that the Paris fire service is a unit of the French Army.  Really interesting historical precedent around that, but quite separate from what most states would consider to be part of their national security apparatus.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Eland2:



> It wasn't until 1942 that the country was able to just begin to make a meaningful ground contribution.



Well, there was this:



> Canadian 1st Infantry Brigade in France: 13-18 June 1940
> 
> After the defeat and evacuation of the British Expeditionary Force, the German army launched a second offensive against the remainder of the French army south of the Seine and Marne rivers on 5 June. The British War Cabinet organized a second expeditionary force under the command of General Sir Alan Brooke. This force included the 1st Canadian Division commanded by Major-General Andrew McNaughton.
> 
> The first wave, or, to use the military term, advance guard, of the 1st Canadian Division, 1st Canadian Infantry Brigade, arrived at the French port of Brest on 13 June. The following day, the battalions of the 1st Canadian Infantry Brigade moved by rail toward Le Mans. The German army entered Paris on 17 June 1940, and the French government requested an armistice. As a result, the second British Expeditionary Force including the Canadian 1st Infantry Brigade immediately withdrew and, by 18 June, had boarded troopships in Brest and St. Malo and returned to Britain. Fortunately, the rest of 1 Canadian Division had never left England. The Canadian Brigade was forced to abandon most of its vehicles, but it was able to save all of its artillery.
> http://lermuseum.org/index.php/second-world-war-1939-45/1940/canadian-1st-infantry-brigade-in-france-13-18-june-1940



Lots more here, note:

...Early on the 14th [June] the Germans entered undefended Paris. The same morning General Brooke, who had set up at Le Mans his extremely rudimentary headquarters (one of his staff said later that they had "not even a typewriter"), discussed the situation with Generals Weygand and Georges. It was quite apparent from these conferences that the French Army was falling into a "general state of disintegration". Brooke therefore at once recommended to the War Office that all movement of British forces to France should be stopped, and arrangements made for evacuation. That afternoon orders arrived from London for the withdrawal to England of all parts of the B.E.F. not actually fighting under French orders...
https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/Canada/CA/OpSumm/OpSumm-1.html

In fact Brooke saved the Canadians and Brits--Churchill wanted them to stay to encourage the French and tried to harangue Brooke on the phone into agreeing.  Brooke with great courage stood his ground that the Second BEF must withdraw: "...it was impossible to make a corpse feel, and that the French army was, to all intents and purposes, dead..."  Churchill finally and reluctantly agreed to the withdrawal that Brooke had already ordered to begin.  Read his account in his _War Diaries_:
https://books.google.ca/books?id=SruMeCBkw1oC&pg=PA81&lpg=PA81&dq=1940+alan+brooke+second+BEF+%22le+mans%22+churchill&source=bl&ots=jMGFLFBYB_&sig=8_aTY1ihJrKk0MX70nEqVwc3wo0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjrjqjhjaTSAhVn2IMKHaocCCUQ6AEIODAF#v=onepage&q=1940%20alan%20brooke%20second%20BEF%20%22le%20mans%22%20churchill&f=false

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## TCM621

I think part of the problem is that senior leadership won't,  or can't, publicly say we have any issues According to LGen Hood, during  his appearance before the standing armed forces committee, the air force has all the people  and all the resources it needs. Thats not what it looks like on the ground floor,  I can tell you that. I don't know if this is mandated from on high or what but if our generals can't be honest to parliament how can we fix anything? Maybe I am not conversant in political speak and can't read between the lines,  but it did not seem like an accurate portrayal of daily readiness in the airforce. 
 I understand that we want to be problem solvers and the standard military answer to a problem is "I'll get it done Sir".

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## Remius

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> I think part of the problem is that senior leadership won't,  or can't, publicly say we have any issues According to LGen Hood, during  his appearance before the standing armed forces committee, the air force has all the people  and all the resources it needs. Thats not what it looks like on the ground floor,  I can tell you that. I don't know if this is mandated from on high or what but if our generals can't be honest to parliament how can we fix anything? Maybe I am not conversant in political speak and can't read between the lines,  but it did not seem like an accurate portrayal of daily readiness in the airforce.
> I understand that we want to be problem solvers and the standard military answer to a problem is "I'll get it done Sir".
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk



Or is those that are reporting directly to them that aren't being honest?  to be honest the Navy I believe has been screaming to anyone that would listen that they have problems with manning, equipment etc for the last twenty years, including the guys at the top if I'm not mistaken.


----------



## QV

Military leadership is politized and it shouldn't be.  

I was half expecting (hoping) the CAS would have resigned in protest over the F35/SH/number of fighters Canada needs/has/enough to meet our commitments debacle earlier.  

The CAF needs a few big wigs to resign in protest in order to bring the heat and light to the true state of the CAF.  Maybe that is the only way the rest of Canada will start to pay attention to defence funding.  As it stands the average Canadian just assumes the CAF is properly equipped and staffed to do everything it needs to do. 

Trudeau et al opining about Canada "punching above our weight" or how we somehow contribute far more to NATO then our lackluster budget would have you believe runs counter to reality.  

On defence spending per GDP I heard a liberal pundit comment how the USA would surely rather have 100 Canadian soldiers with them then 100 Greeks (who are at the 2% target).  We are being compared to the Greeks, how bad is that?  If you want to compare military spending and actual capability Canada should be somewhere north of Australia but south of the U.K.  That would be a reasonable place to be given our geography, population and economic power.


----------



## a_majoor

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> ^ This, and Thucydides' words.  Call it 4GW, IW, whatever, there are threats on planes other than the physical/kinetic that will manifest themselves to great effect against liberal democracies far sooner than we'll have Presidents Putin or Xi send bombers or hypersonic cruise missiles in over our Northern approaches.  Defence investment needs to be balanced, but needs to plus up our cyber capabilities as much as politicians are willing to temper the general Canadian population's aversion to such electronic intervention (which many believe to be an invasive attack on their privacy, whether they believe themselves to be Government targets or not).
> 
> :2c:
> 
> Regards
> G2G



The real issue isn't that these threats do or don't exist, but too many people seem to see them as binary: more tanks/airplanes=less cyber/SoF, for example.


----------



## The Bread Guy

QV said:
			
		

> ... On defence spending per GDP *I heard a liberal pundit comment how the USA would surely rather have 100 Canadian soldiers with them then 100 Greeks* (who are at the 2% target).  We are being compared to the Greeks, how bad is that? ...


If you want to pick on liberal pundits, go for it, but I suspect the comparison was being made (professional, volunteer) soldier-to-(conscript) soldier.  And that's a bit of an apples-vs-bicycle comparison when talking global defence budgets, no?


----------



## CombatDoc

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The real issue isn't that these threats do or don't exist, but too many people seem to see them as binary: more tanks/airplanes=less cyber/SoF, for example.


If neither the defence budget nor the number of CAF personnel increase, it is indeed a zero sum game. More personnel for cyber and SOF would require a reduction from some other line of operation (1 x infantry battalion, for example). More F35s could equal fewer surface combatants for the RCN. More support enablers (eg sigs, log, medical) in an austere environment  = fewer bayonets on ops with a force cap. This is the  calculus that we must conduct for every operation.


----------



## MarkOttawa

By CGAI's Dave Perry--in fact these figures pretty gruesome, hope The Donald doesn't notice:



> GOC Main Estimates 2017-18: The Good, Bad and Ugly for Defence
> http://www.cgai.ca/opedfebruary242017



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Good2Golf

Looks like a planned descent back down to Chretien-levels of spending...

G2G


----------



## dapaterson

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Looks like a planned descent back down to Chretien-levels of spending...
> 
> G2G



Or an acknowledgement of DND's chronic inability to advance its capital program... it would be more interesting to see how much DND actually spent in prior years as the basis for comparison, and not how much was allocated.  The amounts lapsed are traditionally very significant.


----------



## Good2Golf

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Or an acknowledgement of DND's chronic inability to advance its capital program... it would be more interesting to see how much DND actually spent in prior years as the basis for comparison, and not how much was allocated.  The amounts lapsed are traditionally very significant.



Which would be a 100% fair comment if DND was 100% in control of procurement.  

Regards
G2G


----------



## dapaterson

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Which would be a 100% fair comment if DND was 100% in control of procurement.
> 
> Regards
> G2G



If there wasn't PSPC, DND would create it, just to have someone to blame things on.  But in many instances "the fault lies not with our stars but with ourselves".


----------



## Eaglelord17

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Looks like a planned descent back down to Chretien-levels of spending...
> 
> G2G



We are already at Chretien-levels of spending if you base it on GDP. Just looking at how many billion was allocated is somewhat redundant unless you adjust the numbers for inflation. If our spending goes back to the exact same amount we had in the Chretien years we would actually have less money than then.


----------



## GnyHwy

dapaterson said:
			
		

> If there wasn't PSPC, DND would create it, just to have someone to blame things on.  But in many instances "the fault lies not with our stars but with ourselves".



Let's put spending at the tactical level and see how that goes!


----------



## Old Sweat

According to this CP story, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act, the members of the Commons Defence Committee are hearing demands for increased defence spending during their visit to Washington. It remains to be seen (a) how the excuse that we are doing extra stuff and (b) attempts to recalculate defence spending by adding certain civilian activities will work.

Canadian MPs in Washington hear the call for more money spent on defence
By The Canadian Press — Mar 8 2017

WASHINGTON — Canadian MPs visiting Washington this week say they keep hearing a familiar message in the U.S. capital: Canada and other NATO partners will be expected to pony up more money for the military.

It's something that members of the parliamentary committee on national defence say they'll be taking home after three days of meetings at the Pentagon, the U.S. Capitol and think-tanks.

But they also say the U.S. recognizes Canada's non-financial contributions — such as volunteering for roles in combat zones including Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq, in addition to efforts in Eastern Europe.

The committee's Liberal chairman, Stephen Fuhr, says there's no question U.S. policy-makers expect allies to spend more, but he says they also recognize that part of that contribution can be counted in other ways.

He says there's also discussion about how countries calculate their military spending — and whether things like the coast guard should be counted toward the NATO spending target of two per cent of GDP.

Canada is currently one of the lowest-spending members of NATO according to that metric; it spends less than half the guideline target and was already facing pressure from the Obama administration to increase its expenditure, before Donald Trump promised to take a harder line on defence spending.


----------



## FSTO

So we got hit by Real Property today that we had better come up with a damn good reason for a boatshed because they are thinking of not renewing the lease. Also my promotion and posting may (I'm going with the attitude that it is) be delayed til 2018.
So if anyone had any thoughts that there will be an increase in Defence Spending this year. Might as well put down the Kool-Aid right now.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Yup, they are adamant we are going to have a substantial decrease in available funds for procurement this coming FY.  Things are going to be difficult in progressing forwards for the most part.


----------



## jmt18325

I would point out once again that no one would have seen those numbers.  The rumours, according to Matthew Fisher (no Liberal friend) is for there to be an increase of between $400M and $700M.  That's not much money, but it's certainly not less money.  

Of course, that's only a rumour.  We'll find out on the 22nd if things are higher or lower, or just stand pat.


----------



## FSTO

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I would point out once again that no one would have seen those numbers.  The rumours, according to Matthew Fisher (no Liberal friend) is for there to be an increase of between $400M and $700M.  That's not much money, but it's certainly not less money.
> 
> Of course, that's only a rumour.  We'll find out on the 22nd if things are higher or lower, or just stand pat.



Please quit doing this. We are at the coal face and I received the bad news today. I'm not very impressed and I'm trying very hard not to insult you.


----------



## Old Sweat

Many years ago, when the Chretien Liberals balanced the budget, a friend (retired MGen emailed me among others, for input as he was scheduled for a TV interview after the budget about defence spending. I suggested anything in the nature of 300 - 500 million was purely optical to suggest they cared about defence. Anything less was insulting and an indication of the contempt felt towards the forces. I believe we were left standing at the altar again back then in the 90s. We'll see if the bride skips town with the Uber driver again in 2017.


----------



## jmt18325

FSTO said:
			
		

> Please quit doing this.



I'll keep "doing this" until budget day.  If the DND budget is less, so be it.  I'll know that on budget day, just like everyone else outside of a few key people.


----------



## jmt18325

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Many years ago, when the Chretien Liberals balanced the budget, a friend (retired MGen emailed me among others, for input as he was scheduled for a TV interview after the budget about defence spending. I suggested anything in the nature of 300 - 500 million was purely optical to suggest they cared about defence.



To be fair, the $400 - 700M would be on top of the normal 2017 escalator or 3% (if the rumour is even true), so the actual increase would be more.  We'll see if it happens.


----------



## George Wallace

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> To be fair, the $400 - 700M would be on top of the normal 2017 escalator or 3% (if the rumour is even true), so the actual increase would be more.  We'll see if it happens.



If $300 - 500 million was nothing three decades ago, then with inflation, $400 - 700 million is outright INSULTING to one's intelligence.


----------



## jmt18325

George Wallace said:
			
		

> If $300 - 500 million was nothing three decades ago, then with inflation, $400 - 700 million is outright INSULTING to one's intelligence.



I agree - it's a token sum and nothing more.


----------



## suffolkowner

http://www.cgai.ca/growing_the_defence_budget_what_would_two_percent_of_gdp_look_like

looking at growth plans to 2% for the CAF, notice where the 3% escalator gets us over time, it would need to be 6% to even be reasonable plus another 1B$ short each year on infrastructure


----------



## jollyjacktar

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I'll keep "doing this" until budget day.  If the DND budget is less, so be it.  I'll know that on budget day, just like everyone else outside of a few key people.



Do it all you like, I suggest the few key people have been speaking with our key people and they are telling us to prepare for less, much less.  I'll believe my key people over your Matthew Fisher talk as this is not water cooler talk amongst the crowd.  Just be prepared to eat some crow come budget day if you're wrong as will I, but I don't think I'll be dining that day...


----------



## Stoker

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Do it all you like, I suggest the few key people have been speaking with our key people and they are telling us to prepare for less, much less.  I'll believe my key people over your Matthew Fisher talk as this is not water cooler talk amongst the crowd.  Just be prepared to eat some crow come budget day if you're wrong as will I, but I don't think I'll be dining that day...



I know we're in trouble when they start talking about getting rid of lunch on the ship to save a few bucks, that's exactly what i'm hearing now.....


----------



## jollyjacktar

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> I know we're in trouble when they start talking about getting rid of lunch on the ship to save a few bucks, that's exactly what i'm hearing now.....



I have never heard the direction from higher I'm hearing now, until now.  It makes me think the bad ol'days of Chretien and Big Daddy T are coming back in force.

Somebody has to cover the $1.5 trillion dollar deficit all that Sunny Ways is going to cost...  why not the usual Liberal cash cow?


----------



## jmt18325

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Do it all you like, I suggest the few key people have been speaking with our key people and they are telling us to prepare for less, much less.  I'll believe my key people over your Matthew Fisher talk as this is not water cooler talk amongst the crowd.  Just be prepared to eat some crow come budget day if you're wrong as will I, but I don't think I'll be dining that day...



I'm not actually making any predictions.  All I'm saying is that it would be premature to make predictions, and that the rumours are a (very) small increase, rather than a decrease.  Rumours are often wrong, but we won't know that until the 22nd.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Unhuh...


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> I know we're in trouble when they start talking about getting rid of lunch on the ship to save a few bucks, that's exactly what i'm hearing now.....



That doesn't save any money. The ships have to be stored with xx days worth of rations at all times. If not used, they will just go bad and get thrown out. 

And then there is the health risk associated with everyone bringing lunch and storing it...where, precisely?

Dumbass ideas from accounts who have never spent a day at sea...


----------



## Stoker

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> That doesn't save any money. The ships have to be stored with xx days worth of rations at all times. If not used, they will just go bad and get thrown out.
> 
> And then there is the health risk associated with everyone bringing lunch and storing it...where, precisely?
> 
> Dumbass ideas from accounts who have never spent a day at sea...



Every few years they talk about it, although the wholesale change and compromises that's going on right now nothing would surprise me. Nothing in the RCN is sacred anymore, well perhaps soup at stand easy ;D


----------



## MilEME09

Well I see it going one of three ways 1. Heeding pressure from Allies we see a serious amount over a 3% increase to the defense budget, 2. to try and appease allies we give the 3% inflation increase to say hey we increased it. or finally 3. DND gets cut by hundreds of millions to pay for infrastructure and health care spending (especially after the new deals with the provinces.)


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Well I see it going one of three ways 1. Heeding pressure from Allies we see a serious amount over a 3% increase to the defense budget, 2. to try and appease allies we give the 3% inflation increase to say hey we increased it. or finally 3. DND gets cut by hundreds of millions to pay for infrastructure and health care spending (especially after the new deals with the provinces.)



Let's hope it's not #3, as that might just get us our very own "Mexican Wall" on the border....


M.   :-\


----------



## jmt18325

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Let's hope it's not #3, as that might just get us our very own "Mexican Wall" on the border....



That would literally cost more than $100B


----------



## Rifleman62

A fair amount of the increase will be ate by the promoting Canadian industry policy vice off the shelf.

How much could be saved by DND not paying i.e. GST on purchases and that amount used to increase spending?


----------



## The Bread Guy

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> How much could be saved by DND not paying i.e. GST on purchases and that amount used to increase spending?


Don't government buyers get GST back?  I _thought_ they did ...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

The government gets the GST back, Milnews. It gets 100% of it back when it collects the GST from all the suppliers and their own suppliers down the line. But each separate department doesn't get it's share back in proportion of how much it paid but only as part of its budget as allocated from the consolidated revenues.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Every few years they talk about it, although the wholesale change and compromises that's going on right now nothing would surprise me. Nothing in the RCN is sacred anymore, well perhaps soup at stand easy ;D



Woah! Woah! Woah! Is somebody talking about cancelling the stand easy soup !!!!! Do they want the hulls smashed?? Do they want a fleet wide mutiny on their hands??

 This would mean war :threat:


----------



## dimsum

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Woah! Woah! Woah! Is somebody talking about cancelling the stand easy soup !!!!! Do they want the hulls smashed?? Do they want a fleet wide mutiny on their hands??
> 
> This would mean war :threat:



I thought that was the outcome if they stopped Sliders.    >


----------



## Halifax Tar

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Woah! Woah! Woah! Is somebody talking about cancelling the stand easy soup !!!!! Do they want the hulls smashed?? Do they want a fleet wide mutiny on their hands??
> 
> This would mean war :threat:



On a serious note, the slow erosions of beards, beer and now maybe soup/lunch is probably not what the RCN needs to keep folks in uniform... 

This on top of sea time that keep climbing while hulls and people shrink is/could really hurt the Navy.


----------



## Stoker

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> On a serious note, the slow erosions of beards, beer and now maybe soup/lunch is probably not what the RCN needs to keep folks in uniform...
> 
> This on top of sea time that keep climbing while hulls and people shrink is/could really hurt the Navy.



Wait until the PLD goes down, Spec 2 goes away and sea pay for when your only at sea..... at least they fixed the parking somewhat


----------



## Halifax Tar

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Wait until the PLD goes down, Spec 2 goes away and sea pay for when your only at sea..... at least they fixed the parking somewhat



Please tell me that's just a dirty communist rumor ?


----------



## trooper142

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Wait until the PLD goes down, Spec 2 goes away and sea pay for when your only at sea..... at least they fixed the parking somewhat



Fixed parking? Really?  The only base in the country to get it's members to pay to come to work! Hiding behind some illusion that they have to be based on fair market value!

Last I checked, and I am willing to be corrected, Willow/Windsor Park is now 69$ a month, tax deductible.  Can someone enlighten me as to where this is fair market; where near those two properties do people pay for parking to go to work? 

The solution would be to abandon parking rates completely as yet another failed experiment.


----------



## Stoker

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Please tell me that's just a dirty communist rumor ?



I know for a fact PLD is being reviewed, so at some point the new rates are coming out, it wouldn't surprise me that it would drop in halifax. All spec pay is being reviewed so I could certainly see spec 2 going away with the changes. Sea pay is indeed being reviewed, everything and anything is being looked at.


----------



## Stoker

trooper142 said:
			
		

> Fixed parking? Really?  The only base in the country to get it's members to pay to come to work! Hiding behind some illusion that they have to be based on fair market value!
> 
> Last I checked, and I am willing to be corrected, Willow/Windsor Park is now 69$ a month, tax deductible.  Can someone enlighten me as to where this is fair market; where near those two properties do people pay for parking to go to work?
> 
> The solution would be to abandon parking rates completely as yet another failed experiment.



Fixed parking as its now a taxable benefit. Doesn't really matter when they also raised the rates from $45 to $75 :facepalm:


----------



## Halifax Tar

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> I know for a fact PLD is being reviewed, so at some point the new rates are coming out, it wouldn't surprise me that it would drop in halifax. All spec pay is being reviewed so I could certainly see spec 2 going away with the changes. Sea pay is indeed being reviewed, everything and anything is being looked at.



Parking... GD parking... I cant for the life of me fathom how they can continue that program.  Why isn't Peter Stoffer or some other MP or retired MP making this an issue ?  

Sounds to like FRP by other means when you start to kill things with a million little cuts like this


----------



## trooper142

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Fixed parking as its now a taxable benefit. Doesn't really matter when they also raised the rates from $45 to $75 :facepalm:



The way to fix the parking system is to get rid of it entirely.  It's absurd that members have to pay to park on government property to go to work.

Next they are gonna demand that you pay for the gas you use while driving a CFR


----------



## Eye In The Sky

trooper142 said:
			
		

> It's absurd that members have to pay to park on government property to go to work.



IIRC though, this is a CRA or TB policy, not a DND/CAF one.  I know, its still the GoC and I agree with you, my tax dollars pay for all government spending.  IMO, having to pay to park on a CFB parking lot would be like the company that sold me my last house charging me to park on my driveway that I already paid for.

Tough times are coming, they have been since...Oct 2015?  Already starting to see it with things like basic operational clothing.  It really fuckin irks me that I can't get my operational dress exchanged but I can get the new wings sewn on my DEUs.   :facepalm:

Meanwhile, in other parts of the world, DEU fixins' and the like aren't necessarily the priority.  Case in point.

As funding and ACTUAL support for the CAF drops from the Liberals, I suspect you'll see an equal lowering of mbr's GAFF drop.  Loyalty is a two way street, isn't it?


----------



## Stoker

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> IIRC though, this is a CRA or TB policy, not a DND/CAF one.  I know, its still the GoC and I agree with you, my tax dollars pay for all government spending.
> 
> IMO, having to pay to park on a CFB parking lot would be like the company that sold me my last house charging me to park on my driveway that I already paid for.
> 
> Tough times are coming, they have been since...Oct 2015?  Already starting to see it with things like basic operational clothing.  It really ****** irks me that I can't get my operational dress exchanged but I can get the new wings sewn on my DEUs.
> 
> As funding and ACTUAL support for the CAF drops from the Liberals, I suspect you'll see an equal lowering of mbr's GAFF drop.  Loyalty is a two way street, isn't it?



Parking been a disaster since the new pay policy started, half the parking machines do not work something like $200,000 grand for that. They gave out too many passes, and people who had passes couldn't get spots, so they clawed back the passes.They couldn't figure out how to collect the funds for parking from some members. They backed off on the pay for hospital parking and MFRC pay parking after an outcry. The whole study for pay parking was shown to be flawed at the get go and left out lots around the base that would have affected fair market value. At Christmas with everyone on leave and the base deserted Commissionaires were happily giving tickets to base shift workers who had the gall to park close to their work. They should of made it scramble parking or a taxable benefit from the get go.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I remember clearing into Halifax in '07 and part of my inclearance was to read the Parking Regs (MARLANTORD?).  I thought, ok no biggie.  Then I found them...29 frickin page document.  For parking!!   :

IIRC the most expensive parking in Hfx is down at RA Park, as it is prime real estate in the downtown sector.  $110+ a month rings a bell.


----------



## dapaterson

Or sailors can get over themselves, and like millions of other Canadians, pay for parking at or around their workplace.

Or do those lots magically clear themselves and maintain themselves?  Driving to work is a choice.  (As is living so far away that you can't take public transit).  (And notice that bases that don't have a commercial sector around them and don't have a transit system around them have... free parking, that is not a taxable benefit).


----------



## Eye In The Sky

No, the lots don't clear themselves.  The government pays for that.  Taxpayers pay the government taxes so they have money to pay for all this stuff.  Doesn't seem to complicated, really.  Like I said, I don't pay the builder I had build my current house to park on the driveway I already paid for.  Fair market value means "some way we can grab cash back".  Same as the rent amounts for PMQs that have been paid for time and time over.  Anyone who thinks the fair market value stuff is actually fair probably should get their water tested.

Millions of Canadians don't work and park on government property that their tax dollars already pay/paid for.  There's the difference.  Its a cash grab.  It isn't easy to swallow, either, when you watch the same government hand out money like we all shit it out to Bombardier, any country that might help the Lib's get their seat in the UNSC...stuff like that.  But hey, what better group to nit pick than the CAF...not like we can strike eh?

* I am not at a base where I pay for parking.


----------



## Stoker

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Or sailors can get over themselves, and like millions of other Canadians, pay for parking at or around their workplace.
> 
> Or do those lots magically clear themselves and maintain themselves?  Driving to work is a choice.  (As is living so far away that you can't take public transit).  (And notice that bases that don't have a commercial sector around them and don't have a transit system around them have... free parking, that is not a taxable benefit).
> [/quote
> 
> Wasn't commenting on having to pay, just the disaster to implement the system and doing the study the correct way.  Really driving to work is a choice? I bet you're real fun to work for.


----------



## dimsum

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Driving to work is a choice.  (As is living so far away that you can't take public transit).



If that only affected folks who do a M-F 9-5 job, maybe.   

I'd wager a fair amount of those paying for parking sail or do some shift work, and therefore can't get to/from work on the regularly-scheduled bus routes (if they're close enough to even take them due to where they live, likely because house prices have gone up in the HRM).  Also, it'd be fun lugging around sea kit on the bus.


----------



## Stoker

Dimsum said:
			
		

> If that only affected folks who do a M-F 9-5 job, maybe.
> 
> I'd wager a fair amount of those paying for parking sail or do some shift work, and therefore can't get to/from work on the regularly-scheduled bus routes (if they're close enough to even take them due to where they live, likely because house prices have gone up in the HRM).  Also, it'd be fun lugging around sea kit on the bus.



Don't bother Dimsum, there's not much sympathy for us having to pay for parking.


----------



## dapaterson

There are provisions in the policy to provide different pricing, where warranted, for shift workers.  As for lugging kit on the bus: been there, done that.  (Or buy a buddy a beer and carpool or... many ways around such problems)

And yes, driving to work is often a choice.  In Shilo, Wainwright or Cold Lake?  No.  In a major urban centre?  Yes.  And note that in those remote areas, there is no fee for parking...

Life is about making choices.  If you choose to have a large house on a big piece of property far outside town, then that's a choice you made.  If that choice means you have to drive to work instead of taking a bus or subway (in an urban area where that's an option) - that was your choice as well.

On to "The government pays for that" comment.  How wonderful.  Government gets its money from where, exactly?  (Hint: Look at your T4)  Maybe the people who benefit from it (the folks who drive in and park on the lot) should pay for it?


----------



## Eaglelord17

dapaterson said:
			
		

> On to "The government pays for that" comment.  How wonderful.  Government gets its money from where, exactly?  (Hint: Look at your T4)  Maybe the people who benefit from it (the folks who drive in and park on the lot) should pay for it?



So by your logic every single base in Canada should pay for parking? Or is it only fair if Halifax pays for it? What the complaint is something that has never been charged is now suddenly being charged and creating a unequal standard of living for one certain area (which also means they should also raise PLD for Halifax area as this is now a extra expense only occurred in that one location). 

Last I also heard (mind you a couple years out of date) they were making significantly more money than what was needed to pay for the parking area and maintain it. When someone asked where the money was going, they didn't get a answer. Just one of the many cuts they have made, and part of the reason people have been leaving in droves. Thank god I am no longer in the Navy, never regretted making the decision to leave once.


----------



## blacktriangle

The other issue is that the CAF basically expects you to have a vehicle. At least in my experience. Imagine trying to DAG in the NCR by taking public transit. Not exactly the most efficient use of time.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

dapaterson said:
			
		

> There are provisions in the policy to provide different pricing, where warranted, for shift workers.  As for lugging kit on the bus: been there, done that.  (Or buy a buddy a beer and carpool or... many ways around such problems)
> 
> And yes, driving to work is often a choice.  In Shilo, Wainwright or Cold Lake?  No.  In a major urban centre?  Yes.  And note that in those remote areas, there is no fee for parking...
> 
> Life is about making choices.  If you choose to have a large house on a big piece of property far outside town, then that's a choice you made.  If that choice means you have to drive to work instead of taking a bus or subway (in an urban area where that's an option) - that was your choice as well.



WTF exactly does this have to do with some CAF members have to pay for parking, some don't?  If I live in Dartmouth and work in Halifax, I  pay to park.   If I live in Halifax and work in Shearwater, I don't have to pay to park.  I don't see how that is fair, one mbr is paying for something where the other isn't, the BS stuff you keep focusing on above apply equally to both. Why is it that you have no trouble with SOME people having to pay to park, and not ALL people?  What, should every CAF member's life be based solely on things like paid parking?  Or do we care about the welfare of (some of) our subordinates?  Pretty sure that not in the Vol 1, Ch 5 stuff.



> On to "The government pays for that" comment.  How wonderful.  Government gets its money from where, exactly?  (Hint: Look at your T4)  Maybe the people who benefit from it (the folks who drive in and park on the lot) should pay for it?



Great!  So when do I get to stop paying EI and welfare;  there are plenty of lazy fucks on welfare and EI who can, but just don't work.  Like you don't want to pay for parking lots in Hfx, I don't want to pay for them with taxes;  I like millions of working Canadians don't benefit from those things. 

Oh...wait...do we get to decide what our taxes get spent on?


----------



## Flavus101

^

Solid post.


----------



## CBH99

Just my 0.02, which may be overly simplistic & outdated...

But I feel like we - as an organization - complicate the living **** out of everything to the point that we actually create a lot more work for ourselves, and create a lot of our own problems.

Government employees shouldn't have to pay for parking when parking on government property.  Keep it simple.

Issue a parking permit to each employee/member who is parking on base/government property.  Ticket people who park without a permit.  Simple.


We talk so much about PLD here, PLD there, cost of working on this base is more than this base, etc.   I feel like we create a lot of the paperwork that we then in turn complain about.

I'm NOT saying this for everything across the board.  Obviously the cost of living in Shilo, Pet, Edmonton, Victoria, etc - fluctuate significantly.

But as for PARKING?  Come to work, park for free.  Simple as hell.


----------



## Flavus101

It is all about creating little empires (job security) for some people.

Those who are so far removed from where the frontline work gets done in the CAF have ample time to worry about these issues which really shouldn't require much thought to get right. These are the types who devote their time to these challenging issues of determining parking rates and what headdress we will wear today. 
I wonder how often the people that make these decisions are affected by the decision (or realize how much it affects a Pte when he gets a couple more $100 deductions from his paycheque).


----------



## dapaterson

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> WTF exactly does this have to do with some CAF members have to pay for parking, some don't?



Ah, the key point comes out: Someone else might be getting something, so I should too.

There is no reason for the CAF to run parking lots in locations where there's a commercial market.  It's not a core military task.  So get out of that business.  Same as CANEX - not needed, so why keep that albatross?  The CAF is not a retail empire.  It's not a real estate empire.  It's not (despite appearances at times) a form of uniformed welfare.  There are core roles for a military to perform - and 50c off Tide or managing parking lots are not core military tasks.

For the "Free parking everywhere!" proponents, I'd suggest you read up on induced demand.


----------



## Stoker

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Ah, the key point comes out: Someone else might be getting something, so I should too.
> 
> There is no reason for the CAF to run parking lots in locations where there's a commercial market.  It's not a core military task.  So get out of that business.  Same as CANEX - not needed, so why keep that albatross?  The CAF is not a retail empire.  It's not a real estate empire.  It's not (despite appearances at times) a form of uniformed welfare.  There are core roles for a military to perform - and 50c off Tide or managing parking lots are not core military tasks.
> 
> For the "Free parking everywhere!" proponents, I'd suggest you read up on induced demand.



On the other hand its also "i'm paying so you should too" attitude as well. I guess we sailors don't dare complain about our lot in life as we have all the advantages. I'm against anything that puts hardship on the member, I can well afford parking, its the OS I worry about. As previously mentioned here it seems like death by a thousand cuts.


----------



## Remius

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> I guess we sailors don't dare complain about our lot in life as we have all the advantages.



That's not what I get from reading the last few pages of this thread...


----------



## NavyShooter

Death by a thousand cuts indeed.

Some things that I keep thinking about.

1.  Personnel costs are (I believe) the biggest piece of DND's associated costs.  Less personnel = less costs.

2.  Specialist personnel cost more.  I will note the 'dumbing down' of my own trade's technical training is, *in my opinion*, likely to result in my trade group losing Spec 1 pay.  Note, the increased use of ISSC services....and look at the crew percentage on an MCDV that's drawing spec pay....apply that to a CPF....or the CSC.  

3.  Soup, Parking, etc are simply the window dressing to the structural changes that will much more broadly impact the RCN going forward.  Joining the MSE Trades together, shortening their training, moving away from a CERA to a Chief Engineer, etc.  Parking?  Bah.  Cost of coming to work.  Soup?  Nice to have on ship, but I don't get it ashore.  Lunch?  Again, nice to have on ship, but I don't get it ashore.  

What are the REAL changes that will impact the way we do business? 

Some of the skill sets that a LS once held 20 years ago when I was on the Gatineau are now held at the CPO2 or PO1 level, IF you're lucky to have the right person in position.  

Just some thoughts from reading the past couple of pages here...

NS


----------



## Eye In The Sky

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Ah, the key point comes out: Someone else might be getting something, so I should too.



Nope.  Not my message, if that was directed at me.  As I said, I DO NOT PAY FOR PARKING.  So I've nothing to gain from my stance. 



> There is no reason for the CAF to run parking lots in locations where there's a commercial market.  It's not a core military task.  So get out of that business.  Same as CANEX - not needed, so why keep that albatross?  The CAF is not a retail empire.  It's not a real estate empire.  It's not (despite appearances at times) a form of uniformed welfare.  There are core roles for a military to perform - and 50c off Tide or managing parking lots are not core military tasks.



Have you seen the parking lots on IVO the dockyard before?  Do you realize that, even with THAT much space, there isn't enough room for everyone to park and its a shit show??

The US Forces maintain PXs, NEXs, etc on deployed bases, NASs, etc.  I guess that's just part of the looking/supporting people stuff that is part and parcel of the military as well.  I shopped at one today, and when I was deployed at a PX because the CAF is doing absolutely SFA in places like Camp Canada.  Jesus, we even piggy back off their (USAF) Christmas turkey dinner.  Is this really something to brag about?  I know...we do things on deployments, etc with the same mentality as we operate in NATO;  hoping someone else will pick up part or some of the check.  Not something to pat ourselves on the back about.



> For the "Free parking everywhere!" proponents, I'd suggest you read up on induced demand.



What does that have to do with double standards and government charging tax payers to park on the parking lot their tax dollars paid for.

We are talking about parking.  Is this a new strange, concept, that people can't all live across the road from work, and must travel, even if they do to do things like drop kids off, shop, groceries, whatever and need a fuckin vehicle in this modern world?   :facepalm:


----------



## Halifax Tar

dapaterson said:
			
		

> There is no reason for the CAF to run parking lots in locations where there's a commercial market.



Ummm where is the commercial market around the DKYRD or STAD  ? 

There is 1, small, privately owned lot on Brunswick street that is always full up with JR members who don't have the TI for a parking pass.


----------



## Good2Golf

Spectrum said:
			
		

> The other issue is that the CAF basically expects you to have a vehicle. At least in my experience. Imagine trying to DAG in the NCR by taking public transit. Not exactly the most efficient use of time.



Although OC Transpo would most definitely be better than the NDHQ shuttle... :nod:


----------



## Stoker

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> Death by a thousand cuts indeed.
> 
> Some things that I keep thinking about.
> 
> 1.  Personnel costs are (I believe) the biggest piece of DND's associated costs.  Less personnel = less costs.
> 
> 2.  Specialist personnel cost more.  I will note the 'dumbing down' of my own trade's technical training is, *in my opinion*, likely to result in my trade group losing Spec 1 pay.  Note, the increased use of ISSC services....and look at the crew percentage on an MCDV that's drawing spec pay....apply that to a CPF....or the CSC.
> 
> 3.  Soup, Parking, etc are simply the window dressing to the structural changes that will much more broadly impact the RCN going forward.  Joining the MSE Trades together, shortening their training, moving away from a CERA to a Chief Engineer, etc.  Parking?  Bah.  Cost of coming to work.  Soup?  Nice to have on ship, but I don't get it ashore.  Lunch?  Again, nice to have on ship, but I don't get it ashore.
> 
> What are the REAL changes that will impact the way we do business?
> 
> Some of the skill sets that a LS once held 20 years ago when I was on the Gatineau are now held at the CPO2 or PO1 level, IF you're lucky to have the right person in position.
> 
> Just some thoughts from reading the past couple of pages here...
> 
> NS



Its the little things Brad that don't really affect me but to the Jr sailor who sails it may be the deal breaker on retention. Its funny you mention personnel as you know we want to sail our ships with much less personnel in the future and utilize ISSC for repairs which fits into less qualifications and retention of tech or spec pay. A quick look at the message file each day shows the mass Exodus that is occurring. I just got offered my CT, drop one rank and back to sea as Chief Engineer for another 3 years, too bad I already did 10 as a Chief Engineer, we are that hard up for personnel as you know.


----------



## Stoker

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Ummm where is the commercial market around the DKYRD or STAD  ?
> 
> There is 1, small, privately owned lot on Brunswick street that is always full up with JR members who don't have the TI for a parking pass.



They used that lot and a couple others to base the fair market value on, even though right next door Irving built a parking structure that is free for their employees and should of been included with the market review.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> They used that lot and a couple others to base the fair market value on, even though right next door Irving built a parking structure that is free for their employees and should of been included with the market review.



What other lots are in a reasonable walking distance ?  I've been here 14 years and I know of 1. 

:Tin-Foil-Hat: there is more to this story than is being told.  It sure would help if the uppers would just come out with an honest "This is why we did this" document. 

SNIC is a huge budget factor, but it also is in Kingston, and Borden ect... Do they pay for parking ?  Negative.  Hell when I was SQ at 1 Line we used to bring our trucks/cars in the loading bays after hours in the winter, not sure I should have said that lol Vern might kill me now...


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> The US Forces maintain PXs, NEXs, etc on deployed bases, NASs, etc.  I guess that's just part of the looking/supporting people stuff that is part and parcel of the military as well.  I shopped at one today, and when I was deployed at a PX because the CAF is doing absolutely SFA in places like Camp Canada.  Jesus, we even piggy back off their (USAF) Christmas turkey dinner.  Is this really something to brag about?  I know...we do things on deployments, etc with the same mentality as we operate in NATO;  hoping someone else will pick up part or some of the check.  Not something to pat ourselves on the back about.



564 Billion dollars (80% of which will be borrowed, as the deficit is 446B) buys you a lot of things - including over 2 million people in uniform and 1.4 million civilian and contractors.  They have the critical mass that makes PXs and lifetime health care make sense.  We do not. 

As an aside, our military spending represents 120% of our deficit, (19B vs 25B).


----------



## QV

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Life is about making choices.



Right.  How is retention going anyway?


----------



## dapaterson

QV said:
			
		

> Right.  How is retention going anyway?



At historical levels, actually... 7%(+/-) attrition.


----------



## QV

Hell, keep chipping away then.  What have you got to lose?


----------



## Halifax Tar

dapaterson said:
			
		

> At historical levels, actually... 7%(+/-) attrition.



I have a hard time believing that.  But I am willing to eat crow if I am wrong.  Have a link for those stats ?


----------



## dapaterson

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I have a hard time believing that.  But I am willing to eat crow if I am wrong.  Have a link for those stats ?



PARRA report (DPGR page on the CMP DWAN page); year end stats should be out in late April / early May.  Friction areas are lower intake than planned (which is lower than that required to go immediately to the target strength) for the past several years, and some increases in attrition due to increasing numbers of medical releases.


----------



## Flavus101

I found an open source report: http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_201611_05_e_41834.html#p109

_5.109 Actual attrition. In the 2014–15 and the 2015–16 fiscal years, the Regular Force lost 5,487 and 4,804 members respectively, which represented about 8 percent and 7 percent of the total number of members in the Regular Force in each of the respective years. We found that attrition rates varied significantly among occupations and were particularly high in some. In the 2015–16 fiscal year, 23 occupations had attrition rates higher than 10 percent.

5.110 We found that whereas the total number of members leaving the Regular Force had outpaced the number of enrolments between the 2011–12 and 2014–15 fiscal years, this trend reversed in the 2015–16 fiscal year. We found that the total number of people leaving during the 2011–12 to 2014–15 fiscal years was about 2,400 more than the total of enrolments. Although the total number of people leaving was 500 fewer than the total number of enrolments in the 2015–16 fiscal year, we observed that in 44 occupations, the number of people leaving had still outpaced enrolments, as it had in the 2014–15 fiscal year._


----------



## Eye In The Sky

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> 564 Billion dollars (80% of which will be borrowed, as the deficit is 446B) buys you a lot of things - including over 2 million people in uniform and 1.4 million civilian and contractors.  They have the critical mass that makes PXs and lifetime health care make sense.  We do not.
> 
> As an aside, our military spending represents 120% of our deficit, (19B vs 25B).



Does this mean we can't do *something* small for deployed OPs?  IIRC you've been to Camp Canada.  Sustained op now, would it really kill to set up a small Tim's?  Put it next to the barber, put it over on the LSA side.  A small touch of home that I think a lot of people would take advantage of...Green Bean is good but Tim's is Tim's ( I don't drink it myself regularly...just using as an example).

Defense is expensive.  To me, part of that expense is looking after your people.  Some of those costs are going to be parking lots, 'cause most people own cars to get around, and places to get/buy stuff like toothpaste when you're away from your postal code.  Again.


----------



## blacktriangle

I'm willing to bet technical trades are harder hit than average, with losses across all ranks but a higher rate in the Cpl/MCpls.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Flavus101 said:
			
		

> I found an open source report: http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_201611_05_e_41834.html#p109
> 
> _5.109 Actual attrition. In the 2014–15 and the 2015–16 fiscal years, the Regular Force lost 5,487 and 4,804 members respectively, which represented about 8 percent and 7 percent of the total number of members in the Regular Force in each of the respective years. We found that attrition rates varied significantly among occupations and were particularly high in some. In the 2015–16 fiscal year, 23 occupations had attrition rates higher than 10 percent.
> 
> 5.110 We found that whereas the total number of members leaving the Regular Force had outpaced the number of enrolments between the 2011–12 and 2014–15 fiscal years, this trend reversed in the 2015–16 fiscal year. We found that the total number of people leaving during the 2011–12 to 2014–15 fiscal years was about 2,400 more than the total of enrolments. Although the total number of people leaving was 500 fewer than the total number of enrolments in the 2015–16 fiscal year, we observed that in 44 occupations, the number of people leaving had still outpaced enrolments, as it had in the 2014–15 fiscal year._



Im not smart, but that sounds to me like more people are going to the release section than are going to the recruiting center(s)... Feel free to correct me


----------



## dapaterson

Attrition, its causes, models to predict it and such are interesting and important topics; I don't think this is the correct thread to discuss it.


----------



## Halifax Tar

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Attrition, its causes, models to predict it and such are interesting and important topics; I don't think this is the correct thread to discuss it.



You are very right.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Does this mean we can't do *something* small for deployed OPs?  IIRC you've been to Camp Canada.  Sustained op now, would it really kill to set up a small Tim's?  Put it next to the barber, put it over on the LSA side.  A small touch of home that I think a lot of people would take advantage of...Green Bean is good but Tim's is Tim's ( I don't drink it myself regularly...just using as an example).



Or, we could be on ops, and do our job, without a "small Tims".   Camp Canada and Mirage 2.0 is hardly a tough go....


----------



## trooper142

dapaterson said:
			
		

> There are provisions in the policy to provide different pricing, where warranted, for shift workers.  As for lugging kit on the bus: been there, done that.  (Or buy a buddy a beer and carpool or... many ways around such problems)
> 
> And yes, driving to work is often a choice.  In Shilo, Wainwright or Cold Lake?  No.  In a major urban centre?  Yes.  And note that in those remote areas, there is no fee for parking...
> 
> Life is about making choices.  If you choose to have a large house on a big piece of property far outside town, then that's a choice you made.  If that choice means you have to drive to work instead of taking a bus or subway (in an urban area where that's an option) - that was your choice as well.
> 
> On to "The government pays for that" comment.  How wonderful.  Government gets its money from where, exactly?  (Hint: Look at your T4)  Maybe the people who benefit from it (the folks who drive in and park on the lot) should pay for it?



As far as I have seen, there are no provisions for shift workers.  The MPs at Windsor park in the patrol section park 5 days on the base per month where a parking pass is required, and are required to pay 69$ a month.  Fair market eh? Choices?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Or, we could be on ops, and do our job, without a "small Tims".   Camp Canada and Mirage 2.0 is hardly a tough go....



Yup, we could and are.  *Nothings too good for the troops!*   :nod:

I just don't know where the line will stop.  Next thing, I'll be forced to stay in hotels that don't have maids _and_ share a room!!   :not-again:


----------



## jollyjacktar

Well any more "Pyrrhic victory" type of management decisions/style and continued budget cuts and we will be out of business.  With the imbalances in retention and recruitment as of late we'll bleed out in the not too far distant future.  If we don't, as a country want to spend etc to defend ourselves, we'll become someone's prison bitch down the road.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Or, we could be on ops, and do our job, without a "small Tims".   Camp Canada and Mirage 2.0 is hardly a tough go....



Screw the Tims, PX, etc... I'd be happy with half a case of beer per week, nothing like a nice refreshing pint after a workout in the Desert.  Now that's real morale and welfare right there.


----------



## Journeyman

The Canadian Global Affairs Institute has published a 2017 Defence Budget Primer, which provides some points on things to consider ahead of the 22 March budget release date.



I'll save some bandwidth by pre-emptively adding, "the author doesn't have a clue what he's talking about because the numbers haven't been released."   :


----------



## Remius

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I'll save some bandwidth by pre-emptively adding, "the author doesn't have a clue what he's talking about because the numbers haven't been released."   :



That's a little unfair.  I read the article and thought it was quite a measured approach tempered with some cautious caveats about what to expect and how any increase needs to be looked at in context.  I found this part to be particularly well measured.

"_Any discussion about defence budget increases in the 2017 budget should be evaluated carefully to see whether they represent additional previously unplanned budget increases, or restatements of existing plans to increase defence funding which are already built into the fiscal framework_"

What is it in particular about it that makes him not know what he's talking about? It is a primer.  Basically things to look for, historical context,  capital expenditures  etc etc.  It basically sets a good tone to understand what may come out on the 22nd.  In fact he's not making any real predictions about anything really, just pointing to trends and explaining how everything needs to be considered. 

I thought it was a very good analysis.


----------



## jmt18325

That was directed at me.  I thought it was a good article, btw (even though he does actually have little if any idea what will actually happen, just like almost everyone else in the world).


----------



## Underway

I'll just leave this poll/survey from Angus Reid here...

Half of Canadians say Trump right on increased NATO spending, but fewer actually want to meet that mark.


----------



## Good2Golf

Journeyman said:
			
		

> The Canadian Global Affairs Institute has published a 2017 Defence Budget Primer, which provides some points on things to consider ahead of the 22 March budget release date.
> 
> 
> I'll save some bandwidth by pre-emptively adding, "the author doesn't have a clue what he's talking about because the numbers haven't been released."   :






			
				jmt18325 said:
			
		

> That was directed at me.  I thought it was a good article, btw (even though he does actually have little if any idea what will actually happen, just like almost everyone else in the world).



Q.E.D.


----------



## jmt18325

In the lead-up to the federal budget, there have been several hints that the Trudeau government might make additional investments in defence. When evaluating the information published in Budget 2017, it is important to consider that significant, additional future spending is already set aside in the fiscal framework for defence. DND is unique in the federal government in having a built-in automatic increase to its budget. Under the current arrangements, this additional funding, known as the defence escalator, gives DND several hundred million dollars of additional budget funding each year. Since 2008 and through the fiscal year ending March 31, 2017, DND has been receiving a compounding two per cent annual increase.

In the 2015 budget, the Harper government pledged to add another compounding one per cent to the escalator, increasing it to three per cent annually for a decade, starting on April 1, 2017. The Main Estimates for fiscal year 2017/2018 show that the Trudeau government has stuck to this plan, which is increasing DND’s operating budget by $550 million for this fiscal year.

Any discussion about defence budget increases in the 2017 budget should be evaluated carefully to see whether they represent additional previously unplanned budget increases, or restatements of existing plans to increase defence funding which are already built into the fiscal framework.

http://www.cgai.ca/2017_defence_budget_primer?utm_campaign=budget_primer&utm_medium=email&utm_source=cdfai

BTW, that's what I've been saying (in far less eloquent language).  The main estimates take into account capital deferment of billions by both Harper and Trudeau.  If there is new money, it will be interesting to see if it's money that is pulled forward (again), or money that is actually new.

I mean, a lot of it really can't be pulled forward, as it's tied up in the shipbuilding schedule.


----------



## dimsum

Underway said:
			
		

> I'll just leave this poll/survey from Angus Reid here...
> 
> Half of Canadians say Trump right on increased NATO spending, but fewer actually want to meet that mark.



 ???

I'm getting a mental image of someone being interviewed and saying "well of course we need to spend more money.  Just as long as we don't pay for it", and the interviewer doing this:


----------



## Good2Golf

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> ...BTW, that's what I've been saying (in far less eloquent language).  The main estimates take into account capital deferment of billions by both Harper and Trudeau.  If there is new money, it will be interesting to see if it's money that is pulled forward (again), or money that is actually new.
> 
> I mean, a lot of it really can't be pulled forward, as it's tied up in the shipbuilding schedule.



They are not tied together.  

The ships are funded from the accrual space in the Fiscal Framework.  Accrual space is *not* included in the Main Estimates, which refer only to the three Votes (1, 5, 10) of cash-accounted reference levels.

Regards
G2G


----------



## jmt18325

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> They are not tied together.



You're right, and that makes sense based on the numbers that I'm seeing.  Sorry about that.

That leaves me confused - the 3% escalator is being applied, but the budget is not increasing by 3% - what operational funding was taken away by the previous budgets to make it so that the give and take results in a stand pat total (I'm genuinely curious, as I don't know)?


----------



## jmt18325

BTW, I apologize for being confrontational - looking at them, I don't dispute the main estimates, as I have doubts that operational funding will change - what I can see changing is that accrual space - I see it as likely that Canada will try to meet the 20% target rather than the 2% one.


----------



## Good2Golf

The 2%/3% escalator only applies to the cash-accounting reference levels.  One of the critiques of the Conservative's implementation of accrual accounting for DND as the time (and in years past) was/is that the accrual profile as not similarly adjusted by an escalator as the cash-accounted reference levels were.  The resultant effect is that without adjustment, DND's accrual space allocation actually reduces in procurement power as time progresses.  

When one looks at the details of the Liberal's 2016 budet, the ~$3.6B re-profile of 2016-2020 accrual space into $200M/yr increments in the 18-ish out-years, that was done with CY, or 'current year' dollars (2016 being the 'current' year) with the result that in 2035 the $200M re-profile chunk will only be worth (spit-balling here, because who knows what each year of inflation between now and 2035 will be) ~$140M in 2035 dollars (devaluation of 2%/yr for 18 years 2017 to 2035).  Furthermore, even using 2% for an escalator is notoriously low for defence inflationary factors.  Figures generally in the 8-12% range are considered more realistic for the technologically advanced defence industries' sector inflation factors, so the push of close-in accrual space to the out-years creates a _de facto_ 25-40% reduction in acquisition power.  Add to that the increasingly complex layers of oversight without significant thinning of other processes and one should not anticipate a great improvement in effectiveness of DND's equipment and infrastructure buying power.

:2c:

Regards
G2G

_edit: got my CYs and BYs crossed during my initial posting_


----------



## jmt18325

I'm sure you would agree though that 8 - 12% is completely unrealistic.


----------



## Edward Campbell

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I'm sure you would agree though that 8 - 12% is completely unrealistic.




It is a completely "_*realistic*_" reflection of what actually happens when we have to buy modern, sophisticated weapon systems and support for them ... but, it is, I agree, _*politically unpalatable*_, and will remain so until the consequences of decades (since 1968) of irresponsible political pandering come home to roost.


----------



## jmt18325

It's also economically unsustainable - the economy and government revenue doesn't grow near that fast.  If it makes you feel better, I felt the same about the provinces' position that the 6% health escalator should have continued to infinity.


----------



## George Wallace

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It is a completely "_*realistic*_" reflection of what actually happens when we have to buy modern, sophisticated weapon systems and support for them ... but, it is, I agree, _*politically unpalatable*_, and will remain so until the consequences of decades (since 1968) of irresponsible political pandering come home to roost.



I have a feeling that the day that this all comes home to roost is going to be very soon.  But I have been wrong so many times before; often years before my time in such predictions.


----------



## Edward Campbell

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> It's also economically unsustainable - the economy and government revenue doesn't grow near that fast.  If it makes you feel better, I felt the same about the provinces' position that the 6% health escalator should have continued to infinity.




It ~ equipping the "right sized" forces with the right equipment is perfectly sustainable IF one has a sensible funding model for defence. The typical, government, "one-size-fits-all" model is not sensible ... popular but insane, by Einstein's definition.

The health care funding issue is different ~ that is a _*statist*_, even _Stalinesque_ model that was imposed by temrinally silly people with _zilch_, zero, _nada_ economic sense ...

     
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







     ... undoing that model is also essential, but will be wildly unpopular.


----------



## Old Sweat

And don't forget North Korea. An outbreak of hostilities or even a demonstration of the regime's ability to hit North America will provide a dash of reality like a bucket of ice water in the face. And don't think we can duck by suddenly discovering NATO or Mali or the Middle East. It didn't work in 1950 and it won't work now.


----------



## Edward Campbell

I read, recently, that the Trudeau regime _*might*_ be considering joining the missile defence programme ... a decade, plus late but a smart move, if it happens, even if it's made under duress.


----------



## Rifleman62

Our Budget will be interesting. Trump is telling every countries leader to pay up.

https://www.axios.com/trumps-contentious-nato-meeting-with-angela-merkel-2318503024.html

*Trump's contentious NATO meeting with Angela Merkel*

President Trump pushed German Chancellor Angela Merkel very hard on the subject of NATO during their closed doors meeting today, according to two sources with direct knowledge of the events.

Trump said Germany has accumulated an immense lack of investment over many years, according to one of our sources, telling Merkel the U.S. feels taken advantage of for spending so much on defense while its allies have benefited without their own degrees of contribution.

Germany only spends 1.19% of its GDP on defense, far below NATO's 2% requirement. The U.S., meanwhile, spends 3.61% of GDP on its military.


----------



## Old Sweat

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I read, recently, that the Trudeau regime _*might*_ be considering joining the missile defence programme ... a decade, plus late but a smart move, if it happens, even if it's made under duress.



I read that as well, and share your assessment. That really does not address the issue of defence on the cheap by fuzzy thinkers. President Trump's line yesterday that the NATO allies who had not met the 2% target owed a large debt that had to be repayed was an interesting wrinkle.


----------



## Good2Golf

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I read that as well, and share your assessment. That really does not address the issue of defence on the cheap by fuzzy thinkers. President Trump's line yesterday that the NATO allies who had not met the 2% target owed a large debt that had to be repayed was an interesting wrinkle.



...but needs to include a solid assessment of where the 2% is effectively contributing to! :nod:  Perhaps KPMG will get a good gig "re-accountig" how much Canada contributes towards "defence"?

Regards
G2G


----------



## George Wallace

KPMG?

Don't we now have a scandal going on involving KPMG accounting?


----------



## Old Sweat

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> ...but needs to include a solid assessment of where the 2% is effectively contributing to! :nod:  Perhaps KPMG will get a good gig "re-accountig" how much Canada contributes towards "defence"?
> 
> Regards
> G2G



It seems to me that is having fun with numbers, like saying I know I am not paying my hydro bill, but I only use my stove for cooking healthy meals, so I should get extra credit for that. A recompilation adding in other government departments with a defence and security role is one thing; trying to justify skimping because we spend smart or step up quickly when needed is another.


----------



## Good2Golf

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> It seems to me that is having fun with numbers, like saying I know I am not paying my hydro bill, but I only use my stove for cooking healthy meals, so I should get extra credit for that. A recompilation adding in other government departments with a defence and security role is one thing; trying to justify skimping because we spend smart or step up quickly when needed is another.



...and being told that by a large group of people who tell you that you should do your business with fewer people.


----------



## Eland2

Trudeau had better be careful on how he stickhandles this. If he vacillates on the defence budget, and Trump finds his efforts wanting, he could impose trade restrictions or other sanctions that could see a drop in Canada's GDP that would effectively cost the country more than it would have had to spend to bring defence up to the 2% recommended minimum. To say nothing of lost jobs and business revenues due to diminished trade opportunities with the US. And if we think the Canadian dollar is almost in the toilet now...

The West German government did the same thing to great effect back in the late 1970s when they told Trudeau Sr 'no tanks, no trade', thus forcing him to buy the tanks he didn't want to buy and station some of them in Germany to boot, at a time when he was in the midst of drastically downgrading Canada's NATO commitments in Germany.


----------



## Kirkhill

Given that the inflation escalator applies to capital - meaning that it whittles down the amount of equipment that can be purchased - but, at the same time most of the Canadian budget goes into bodies and infrastructure I will continue to argue that the solution is to whittle down the number of bodies on the full time pay roll and make better use of both technology and the reserves.

I will continue to argue for 50 man crews for the navy, two man crews for the cavalry and 8 man batteries for the artillery.

Close Combat Forces (Special or Regular) need to be maintained at some useful level but that majority of manpower can be held, after effective training, on the shelf at minimal cost with only an annual refurbishment.

For the Regular forces, outside the CCF types, the emphasis has to be on technical management of equipment rather than man-management.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Eland2 said:
			
		

> Trudeau had better be careful on how he stickhandles this. If he vacillates on the defence budget, and Trump finds his efforts wanting, he could impose trade restrictions or other sanctions that could see a drop in Canada's GDP that would effectively cost the country more than it would have had to spend to bring defence up to the 2% recommended minimum. To say nothing of lost jobs and business revenues due to diminished trade opportunities with the US. And if we think the Canadian dollar is almost in the toilet now...
> 
> The West German government did the same thing to great effect back in the late 1970s when they told Trudeau Sr 'no tanks, no trade', thus forcing him to buy the tanks he didn't want to buy and station some of them in Germany to boot, at a time when he was in the midst of drastically downgrading Canada's NATO commitments in Germany.



But you don't understand, Eland: That is the second way to achieve our defence target.

You can double the defence budget or ... you can halve the country's GDP  ;D

Problem solved!  :nod:


----------



## jollyjacktar

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Given that the inflation escalator applies to capital - meaning that it whittles down the amount of equipment that can be purchased - but, at the same time most of the Canadian budget goes into bodies and infrastructure I will continue to argue that the solution is to whittle down the number of bodies on the full time pay roll and make better use of both technology and the reserves.
> 
> I will continue to argue for 50 man crews for the navy, two man crews for the cavalry and 8 man batteries for the artillery.
> 
> Close Combat Forces (Special or Regular) need to be maintained at some useful level but that majority of manpower can be held, after effective training, on the shelf at minimal cost with only an annual refurbishment.
> 
> For the Regular forces, outside the CCF types, the emphasis has to be on technical management of equipment rather than man-management.



The thing with a major combatant vessel, Chris, is that crew size gets really important when the shit hits the fan, unless you're considering the ship and crew to be an expendable asset.  You need to have the manpower available to conduct damage control/propulsion operations, to keep the vessel in the fight and moving so that those Ops Room folks can concentrate on punching the lights out of whomever they're engaging.  Technological advances are not at the Star Trek phase for AI to take over things and keep systems running or at least with Zumwalt levels of smart valves etc.  We're too fucking cheap and broke to afford that.  Hell, even the USN can't afford to really ramp up the smart valve tech etc.  Until then, you're going to need more meat interfaces or consider the equipment to be more or less single use only.  With the trade amalgamation that is happening in the marine engineering trades,  and the watering down of training as well the time will come in the not too far distant future where we won't have the detailed skill sets to save ourselves easily.  The RN have come to that conclusion, finally, and are now in the process of reversing course, whereas we're full speed ahead, off the cliff...


----------



## Kirkhill

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> The thing with a major combatant vessel, Chris, is that crew size gets really important when the shit hits the fan, unless you're considering the ship and crew to be an expendable asset.  You need to have the manpower available to conduct damage control/propulsion operations, to keep the vessel in the fight and moving so that those Ops Room folks can concentrate on punching the lights out of whomever they're engaging.  Technological advances are not at the Star Trek phase for AI to take over things and keep systems running or at least with Zumwalt levels of smart valves etc.  We're too fucking cheap and broke to afford that.  Hell, even the USN can't afford to really ramp up the smart valve tech etc.  Until then, you're going to need more meat interfaces or consider the equipment to be more or less single use only.  With the trade amalgamation that is happening in the marine engineering trades,  and the watering down of training as well the time will come in the not too far distant future where we won't have the detailed skill sets to save ourselves easily.  The RN have come to that conclusion, finally, and are now in the process of reversing course, whereas we're full speed ahead, off the cliff...



I'm not considering the crew expendable.  I am considering that the ship should be expendable.  And regardless of the magic number the drive should be to get the job done with the least number of bodies possible.  Especially given that you can't seem to hire enough bodies for the berths that you have.

This is not a new discussion.  It is one that I have had on various shop floors over the last forty years.  It's one that by and large has gone to the side of the smaller shift, the smaller crew, in every case.  And the capital cost is not significantly higher to automate with feed back than it is to provide manual control and supervision.  An additional benefit is that installations can be much more compact and modularized so that, like a tank engine, units can be swapped rather than repaired. 

Another personal mantra of mine revolves around the number three.  I love having three of everything.  Then I can dog along at 66% of capacity with all three running but still get the job done when one drops off line.  Or maybe I just put up with doing a bit less for a while until I can bring all units back on line.

Why do you lot insist on looking to stuff 200 bodies that you don't have into 15 hulls you don't have?


----------



## jollyjacktar

There's the rub.  When the CPF came along they just dropped the crew size of the classes they were replacing, the Steamers, and carried on.  To be fair, they now realize that this as a mistake and are trying to not commit the same error in the new ships.   

Some technology does exist, like smart valves which are on the Zumwalt class, which allows the ship autonomy to some degree.  But, the costs are at present, too high for the USN to roll that out everywhere, as much as they would desire to.  For us, it's out of the question.  We cannot afford those options, hell, we cannot even afford all the ships we need...

So, until we automate,  I respectfully suggest 50 is too small for a combatant, unless it's a Corvette or MTB.


----------



## Kirkhill

JJT - how can smart valves be considered a high price option when they have been on the factory floor for at least the last two decades?

Or is there some secret new technology of which I am unaware.  

For me a smart valve is a valve tied into a bus, with its own onboard solenoid or other electric actuator and positioning feed back to indicate that the valve is fully open, closed or throttled.

I have mom and pop food processing plants with that technology.  Coupled with VFDs and PLCs.  







http://www.alfalaval.com/products/fluid-handling/automation/control-unit/thinktop/

This is one system that I am reasonably familiar with.  Burkert, Asco, Festo, GEA, MAC, SPX and many many more make them.  

Are we talking different languages here?


----------



## jollyjacktar

As I understand, these valves all communicate with each other and are attuned to what is happening in their respective ring mains.  The can detect a drop in pressure due to damage or a breach, for example and on their own isolate, reroute and continue to provide coverage for whatever systems feed off the ring main.  I believe these valves at about $40K a pop.  That gets very expensive on a ship where there are hundreds of valves.


----------



## Kirkhill

http://ir.colfaxcorp.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=458062



> April 12, 2010
> Colfax Supplies $25 Million in SMART Technology Systems for New U.S. Navy Destroyers
> 
> RICHMOND, Va., April 12, 2010 /PRNewswire via COMTEX News Network/ -- Colfax Corporation (NYSE: CFX), a global leader in fluid-handling solutions for critical applications, announced it will supply $8 million in SMART technology valve systems and $17 million in magazine fire-suppression systems and SMART pump controllers, including engineering design services and hardware, for the first two DDG-1000 Zumwalt-class destroyers being built at the Bath Iron Works shipyard in Bath, Maine, for the U.S. Navy. The shipyard is a subsidiary of General Dynamics Corporation (NYSE: GD).
> 
> Colfax has already begun shipping components manufactured by its Portland Valve business in South Portland, Maine, and its Fairmount Automation business in Newtown Square, Penn. Shipments for the two destroyers will continue through 2010.
> 
> "SMART fluid-handling technologies are an increasingly important part of our business in a variety of applications, and we're proud our systems were selected to help protect Zumwalt-class destroyers, the Navy's newest class of surface combatants," said Clay Kiefaber, president and CEO of Colfax.
> 
> The company won the contract through a competitive bid, using its Colfax Business System(R) customer-focused process, which synthesizes strategic-planning and lean-manufacturing principles.
> 
> Colfax businesses have more than 100 years of fluid-handling application expertise in the defense industry.
> 
> ABOUT COLFAX CORPORATION - Colfax Corporation is a global leader in critical fluid-handling products and technologies. Through its global operating subsidiaries, Colfax manufactures positive displacement industrial pumps and valves used in oil & gas, power generation, commercial marine, defense and general industrial markets. Colfax's operating subsidiaries supply products under the well-known brands Allweiler, Fairmount Automation, Houttuin, Imo, LSC, Portland Valve, Tushaco, Warren and Zenith. Colfax is traded on the NYSE under the ticker "CFX." Additional information about Colfax is available at www.colfaxcorp.com.
> 
> ABOUT COLFAX DEFENSE SOLUTIONS - Colfax Defense Solutions serves militaries around the world with fluid-handling solutions that deliver precision performance for demanding conditions. Colfax Defense Centres of Excellence - located in Mumbai, India; Tours, France; and Warren, Massachusetts, USA - have specialized staff, engineering support, advanced software, fabrication facilities and testing equipment tailored to meet the specific needs of the defense industry.
> 
> ABOUT PORTLAND VALVE - Portland Valve delivers unique skills in the close-tolerance precision machining, welding and fabrication of valves, actuators, components and subassemblies. Located in South Portland, Maine, Portland Valve is a prime contractor for the U.S. Navy and a major subcontractor for all naval and private shipyards, as well as a manufacturer for Army weapons systems and select commercial applications.
> 
> ABOUT FAIRMOUNT AUTOMATION - Fairmount Automation develops innovative control solutions for mission- and safety-critical processes and machinery in the harsh environments of the worldwide military, transportation and industrial automation markets. Founded in 1996, and known for technologically superior products that minimize cost of ownership, Fairmount created the rugged multiloop process controller that serves today on more than 25 percent of the U.S. Navy's surface ships.



I'm not seeing any gee-whiz stuff there.  The system will be self-regulating and will take advantage of automated valves with feed back, coupled with pressure, flow and temperature sensors (I can throw in pH, conductivity, and turbidity as well if you want).

And $8,000,000 in valves (4 apiece for each system) - well, all I can say is that that is my conventional order of magnitude and that is in an industry with a margin of around 3%.


----------



## jollyjacktar

The info I was told about the smart valves came from someone from the CSC PMO, as he was explaining to me how and what, where and why they're being used by the USN.   At $4M a pop (in 2010 dollars) that isn't chump change when you're funding a 300+ ship fleet.   I have to go with what he said re: costs and benefits and why the American's believe it's too expensive for all ships to be converted. 

And to have valve(s) that will reroute themselves instantaneously, is Buck Rogers stuff, in my eyes.  We'd love it too but it is considered too expensive to pursue in our new and current fleet.  Like I said we're going to be lucky to get the full number of ships promised as costs escalate for what we're getting.


----------



## Kirkhill

JJT - how much does it cost to hire a sailor, train him, support him and his family throughout his service, thank him for his service, send him to school, compensate him for any injuries, provide him a lifetime pension and medical benefits and provide a military funeral?

The ancillary costs of hiring, especially in the US, is astronomical.  

And I don't begrudge the benefits.  That is not my point.  The point is that the personnel budget burden needs to be given a good hard look when making capital and operating budget decisions.  And I continue in my belief that the CF is mired in making sure that Admiral Nelson has a decent number of sideboys for his funeral.

Meanwhile, in civilian practice, a handful of operators will be responsible for using hundreds of valves, dozens of motors, sensors and vessels, all controlled via PLCs, to convert tens of ingredients and materials into hundreds of different varieties of products in assorted containers.

Long ago, when I was a Sea Cadet in Peterborough and fascinated by technology, particularly hovercraft, I came across a book called Janes Surface Effects Ships and Skimmers.  A centre piece of the publication was a Canadian Boat/Ship - HMCS Brador.  You'll know her I'm sure.  More particularly interesting was an accompanying article on the future fleet envisaged by DeHavilland Canada (the builders) and the RCN.  The concept was to create a flotilla, if not a fleet, of bluewater gunboats.  The boats would be 100 ton displacement, crew of 14, cruise speed of 10 knots (convoy speed) and sprint speed of 50 kts.  The vessel was envisaged as carrying 8 tonnes of weaponry (57mm and a Vulcan, or missiles and a Vulcan) or a VDS system, torps and a Vulcan.   The roles were patrol, convoy escort and ASW (employing sprint and drift tactics).  The little boats performed well in high sea states due to the stabilizing effect of the hydrofoils.

I am well aware of the problems that the Brad had, and more generally the hydrofoils had, but I continue to believe that there have been many instances where opportunities to exploit technology have been missed.


----------



## McG

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Given that the inflation escalator applies to capital - meaning that it whittles down the amount of equipment that can be purchased - but, at the same time most of the Canadian budget goes into bodies and infrastructure I will continue to argue that the solution is to whittle down the number of bodies on the full time pay roll and make better use of both technology and the reserves.


Should we cut the force to fit it inside a 1% budget, or should we give-up the lie that a 1% budget affords the standard of military that Canada ought to have?


----------



## Kirkhill

MCG said:
			
		

> Should we cut the force to fit it inside a 1% budget, or should we give-up the lie that a 1% budget affords the standard of military that Canada ought to have?



MCG:  I would love to see you have the 2% budget.  But it hasn't happened yet.  And to be honest, even when the CF had more money it always felt it was insufficient and continued to draw up plans based on the money it would like to have rather than the money it had.

And I've been watching this since the Bras d'Or was in the water and we were going to keep the Russians out of Norway.

In a "peace-loving" country like Canada I seem to keep circling around to off-loading "para-military" capabilities into civilian agencies so that the "defence" budget, as constrained as it is, can be focused on pointy end stuff.

For example - National Surveillance - spread that around amongst the Space Agency, CSE, Coast Guard, Mounties but give DND a place to sit to watch all the inputs.  The DND then needs to maintain a lethal response capability to back up the civilians in overwatch or, when the politicians decree, act.  I also believe that a Canadian Government Transport Service could provide domestic support and international humanitarian support but also be available to the CF when necessary.  It would be in addition to the current CF transport capabilities.  The public gets to see Red Maple Leafs doing good stuff  (out of the 0.7% of GDP supposedly budgeted for foreign aid as well as being financed by domestic disaster relief programmes).  

Meanwhile the CF focuses its dollars on the things the civilians can't/won't do.  And again, in that regards, Regs drive motors.

If I have to hire 4 guys is it more effective to stick all four into one vehicle with one gun or put them into two vehicles with two guns?


----------



## jmt18325

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Our Budget will be interesting. Trump is telling every countries leader to pay up.



Thankfully, Germany has told him where to go.


----------



## jmt18325

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It ~ equipping the "right sized" forces with the right equipment is perfectly sustainable IF one has a sensible funding model for defence. The typical, government, "one-size-fits-all" model is not sensible ... popular but insane, by Einstein's definition.



That's a completely different topic.  Sustained growth in any government department that is above the growth in government revenue is completely unrealistic.



> The health care funding issue is different ~ that is a _*statist*_, even _Stalinesque_ model that was imposed by temrinally silly people with _zilch_, zero, _nada_ economic sense ...



I take it you missed the point, and decided to go on a rant instead (Canadians certainly don't share your opinion here, nor do they have to).  There is nothing statist about single payer healthcare.  In fact, there is probably nothing more statist than a military (and that's not in any way a critical view).


----------



## ballz

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> That's a completely different topic.  Sustained growth in any government department that is above the growth in government revenue is completely unrealistic.



We can sustain growth in the DND budget if we cut spending elsewhere. We can also sustain growth if we decide that of "x growth %" in government revenues, the DND budget will grow by "x% + y" while the rest will only grow by "x% - z." Your world of "absolutes" is not realistic.



			
				jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I take it you missed the point, and decided to go on a rant instead (Canadians certainly don't share your opinion here, nor do they have to).  There is nothing statist about single payer healthcare.  In fact, there is probably nothing more statist than a military (and that's not in any way a critical view).



First of all, thanks for deciding on behalf of Canadians what we all think. I wonder why I even have to worry about critical thinking when I have people like you that will gladly decide for me. According to this, only 42% of Canadians agree that “on the whole, the system works pretty well and only minor changes are needed,” so I guess you're just plain wrong. And where did E.R. Campbell say everyone had to agree with him? You're being quite arrogant, pump the brakes.

Secondly, "there is probably nothing more statist than a military" is simply not true. Most "small-government" types, classical liberals, or minarchist, believe that one of the only legitimate roles of the state is to provide security of national sovereignty through... you guesses it... an armed force.

On the spectrum of "pure statism / authoritarianism ---------- pure anarchism," healthcare and other social programs would cleary be more towards the statism/authoritarianism side than an armed force or state-run police force. Authoritarianism is less about what is enforcing the rules and more about what the rules are. A state than employs a private military and private police force to enforce its rules about how you live, and has very strict rules about how you will live, is much more "statist" than a state that employs a public military / police force and has very few rules about how you must live.

The Canada Health Act was Trudeau Sr's backdoor way of seizing the the province's constitutionally defined authority to run healthcare by seizing control of almost all of the revenue generation for healthcare and trapping province's into administering healthcare the way the federal government of the day wanted it done. If that's not statist, I don't know what is.


----------



## jmt18325

ballz said:
			
		

> We can sustain growth in the DND budget if we cut spending elsewhere. We can also sustain growth if we decide that of "x growth %" in government revenues, the DND budget will grow by "x% + y" while the rest will only grow by "x% - z." Your world of "absolutes" is not realistic.



Your world of putting defence on a pedestal is completely unrealistic, actually.



> First of all, thanks for deciding on behalf of Canadians what we all think.



You're very welcome.  Of course I don't decide those things - Canadians do.  Canadians have time and again put their first payer health system above pretty much anything else.  We like it, we want it.  It doesn't always work the way we want, but we want it.  That's not true of everyone, but, hey, democracy, right?



> I wonder why I even have to worry about critical thinking when I have people like you that will gladly decide for me. According to this, only 42% of Canadians agree that “on the whole, the system works pretty well and only minor changes are needed,” so I guess you're just plain wrong. And where did E.R. Campbell say everyone had to agree with him? You're being quite arrogant, pump the brakes.



According, to what, exactly?  You didn't cite anything.  You also didn't state the other options and their respective percentages, nor the methodology 



> Secondly, "there is probably nothing more statist than a military" is simply not true. Most "small-government" types, classical liberals, or minarchist, believe that one of the only legitimate roles of the state is to provide security of national sovereignty through... you guesses it... an armed force.



It's an armed organism of the state.  It's statist.  



> On the spectrum of "pure statism / authoritarianism ---------- pure anarchism," healthcare and other social programs would cleary be more towards the statism/authoritarianism



I'm a lot closer to a banana than I am to a rock.  I'm not really close to either.  You've simply presented a false dichotomy.



> The Canada Health Act was Trudeau Sr's backdoor way of seizing the the province's constitutionally defined authority to run healthcare by seizing control of almost all of the revenue generation for healthcare and trapping province's into administering healthcare the way the federal government of the day wanted it done. If that's not statist, I don't know what is.



That's actually not true.  The provinces are free to pull out at any time.  Nothing was seized.


----------



## ballz

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> We like it, we want it.
> 
> According, to what, exactly?  You didn't cite anything.  You also didn't state the other options and their respective percentages, nor the methodology



Oops, sorry, I forgot to add the source. https://secure.cihi.ca/free_products/HCC_CMWF_Bulletin_8_Eng.pdf page 10 "Overall views"

Apparently up to 58% of us don't like it the way it is.



			
				jmt18325 said:
			
		

> It's an armed organism of the state.  It's statist.



I never said it's not statist. The only thing that is not statist is pure anarchism. On a continuum, however, it is not very statist. It is one of the first things those in favour of small government would support as a legitimate role of government. Using the military / police to tell people how to live (aka... you will use and support the single payer tax system or you will go to jail) is statist, and by comparison, far more statist than simply having a military who's only purpose is to defend national sovereignty.



			
				jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I'm a lot closer to a banana than I am to a rock.  I'm not really close to either.  You've simply presented a false dichotomy.



Actually at this point I'm convinced you're closer to a rock than anything else.



			
				jmt18325 said:
			
		

> That's actually not true.  The provinces are free to pull out at any time.  Nothing was seized.



Just $36 billion dollars of tax revenue taken at the federal level from the citizens of their province.

There is no "pulling out." The Canada Health Act is federal legislation, it is in effect whether the provinces like it or not. They can choose to not administer health in the way the Canada Health Act stipulates, but they don't get "pull out" and keep the $1028/per person that the federal government robs from that province's citizens.


----------



## ballz

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Your world of putting defence on a pedestal is completely unrealistic, actually.



Never said anything about "putting it on a pedestal," although there are obvious examples where it has been. Simply pointing out your assertion that you cannot grow military spending at a rate faster than the government revenues are growing is a 2 + 2 = 5 assertion. It is simply not true.


----------



## George Wallace

ballz said:
			
		

> The Canada Health Act was Trudeau Sr's backdoor way of seizing the the province's constitutionally defined authority to run healthcare by seizing control of almost all of the revenue generation for healthcare and trapping province's into administering healthcare the way the federal government of the day wanted it done. If that's not statist, I don't know what is.



Ewwww!  The trend continues, and their true colours may be on the verge of being exposed:

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



> Pallister defiant, unbowed after Ottawa threatens to kill $60M Winnipeg research facility
> By: Mia Rabson
> Posted: 03/15/2017 11:31 AM | Last Modified: 03/15/2017 5:25 PM
> 
> OTTAWA — Premier Brian Pallister says he will not be intimidated by the federal government into signing a health-care deal he feels is fundamentally bad for Manitoba, regardless of any threats Ottawa makes.
> 
> "We will stand up for ourselves and we will be heard," he said during question period Wednesday.
> 
> His remarks followed a Free Press report earlier in the day about Ottawa's threat to end $60 million in promised funding for the Winnipeg's new Factory of the Future research facility unless Manitoba capitulates and agrees to the health-care deal the other provinces and territories have all signed.
> 
> "That’s not something you bring into a negotiation, if you have strength of character," Pallister said.
> 
> The threat is referenced in a letter sent Monday to Richard Maksymetz, chief of staff to Finance Minister Bill Morneau, by Michael Richards, Manitoba's deputy minister of intergovernmental affairs.
> 
> Richards rejected the demands outright and said they are "completely unacceptable to my government."
> 
> He wants Ottawa to confirm its commitment to Factory of the Future and lift the hold placed on the ongoing site selection process.
> 
> The letter indicates Ottawa also made demands for Manitoba to finally agree to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s national climate-change framework.
> 
> Factory of the Future is a project of the previous Conservative government to build a new $60-million National Research Council facility in Winnipeg focused on aerospace, automotive and agricultural equipment-manufacturing research.
> 
> Progress on the project has been slow as the NRC struggles to find an appropriate parcel of land.
> 
> The $60 million was in this year’s budget but it will lapse at the end of this month unless Morneau and Trudeau agree to extend it into the next budget, which Morneau will table next Wednesday.
> 
> A senior federal official said Ottawa has not given a firm deadline for Manitoba to have a health deal in place and said the mention of Factory of the Future wasn't — specifically — a threat.
> 
> "We just pointed out it is going to lapse in three weeks," he said, referring to the funding commitment.
> 
> He agreed he could see how Manitoba would take that as a threat.
> 
> "It's also factually correct. It is going to lapse in three weeks," he said.
> 
> He said there are a several outstanding issues between Manitoba and Ottawa and the federal government is just trying to "wrap them all up at the same time."
> 
> He also said Pallister is the one who first linked the health-care deal to the climate-change framework when he refused to support the latter at the first ministers' meeting in December. Pallister said his support for the framework would depend on Trudeau agreeing to a first ministers' meeting on health care and to putting a better deal on the table for health-care funding.
> 
> Pallister had hoped other premiers would stand with him on that, but none did. The premiers initially joined forces in an effort to get a better health deal, but the unity was short-lived; Manitoba stands alone without a health agreement.
> 
> Pallister acknowledged Wednesday he made a link between Manitoba’s support for the climate-change pact and his desire to see the prime minister improve the health-care deal, but said it was a "request."
> 
> "I never threatened Ottawa," he said.
> 
> The health agreement signed in the rest of the country raises the Canada Health Transfer by at least three per cent a year for a decade, and splits $11.5 billion over 10 years for home care and mental-health programs.
> 
> In addition to the money already on offer, Manitoba wants another $60 million over a decade to deal with chronic kidney disease. Richards’ letter indicates Manitoba is also seeking $5 million to address the opioid overdose crisis.
> 
> Both British Columbia and Alberta secured some additional funding for the drug battle in their deals.
> 
> Ottawa has not yet said whether Manitoba’s share of home care and mental-health money for 2017-18 will be taken off the table if the province doesn’t sign on before Wednesday's budget.
> 
> Ottawa told the unsigned final four that it wanted everyone on board by March 10. Ontario, Alberta and Quebec agreed last Friday.
> 
> However the federal government does not have the same level of political influence over Manitoba as it did with other premiers such as B.C.’s Christy Clark, who is facing re-election this spring, or Ontario’s Kathleen Wynne, whose poll numbers are the lowest in the country and has to seek re-election no later than June 2018.
> 
> Pallister, on the other hand, was elected less than a year ago with a huge majority, and with opposition parties in Manitoba struggling to rebuild, he is enjoying an extended honeymoon period and has political capital to spare.
> 
> mia.rabson@freepress.mb.ca



More on LINK.


Federal Government use of INTIMINDATION to get what they want?

This will have some repercussions in Wednesday's Budget, and likely be an indicator as to what to expect as to what Defence will be getting within that Budget.


----------



## jmt18325

ballz said:
			
		

> Oops, sorry, I forgot to add the source. https://secure.cihi.ca/free_products/HCC_CMWF_Bulletin_8_Eng.pdf page 10 "Overall views"
> 
> Apparently up to 58% of us don't like it the way it is.



That actually doesn't speak to Canadians wanting a less 'statist' solution.  From your link:

Canadians’ views about the health care system have grown
more positive in the past decade. Today, 42% agree that
“on the whole, the system works pretty well and only minor
changes are needed,” double the 22% who felt this way
in 2004. 

Canadians that do want changes don't generally want to change a way from a less universal system - they simply want it to work better.



> I never said it's not statist. The only thing that is not statist is pure anarchism. On a continuum, however, it is not very statist. It is one of the first things those in favour of small government would support as a legitimate role of government. Using the military / police to tell people how to live (aka... you will use and support the single payer tax system or you will go to jail) is statist, and by comparison, far more statist than simply having a military who's only purpose is to defend national sovereignty.



It's not statist to provide universal coverage (not care) in a democratic country.  In fact, with Health, Ottawa is only paying (some of) the bill.  With the military they actually own the entire system of delivery.  The second is a more statist circumstance.



> There is no "pulling out." The Canada Health Act is federal legislation, it is in effect whether the provinces like it or not. They can choose to not administer health in the way the Canada Health Act stipulates, but they don't get "pull out" and keep the $1028/per person that the federal government robs from that province's citizens.



The federal government has federal taxation power.  The provincial governments have provincial taxation power.  The provincial governments have given up some of their constitutional responsibility for health in exchange for a piece of federal taxation power.  Being wrong and not liking the way things are doesn't make you right.


----------



## ballz

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> That actually doesn't speak to Canadians wanting a less 'statist' solution.  From your link:
> 
> Canadians’ views about the health care system have grown
> more positive in the past decade. Today, 42% agree that
> “on the whole, the system works pretty well and only minor
> changes are needed,” double the 22% who felt this way
> in 2004.
> 
> Canadians that do want changes don't generally want to change a way from a less universal system - they simply want it to work better.



Wow, 58% of people don't feel that "on the whole, the system works pretty well and only minor changes are needed" and somehow you are trying to spin that into a positive.

I never said anything about "universal." You were talking about the "single payer system." It's you that is speaking to one thing and one thing only.



			
				jmt18325 said:
			
		

> It's not statist to provide universal coverage (not care) in a democratic country.  In fact, with Health, Ottawa is only paying (some of) the bill.  With the military they actually own the entire system of delivery.  The second is a more statist circumstance.



You don't know what statism means, obviously. "A political system in which the state has substantial *centralized* control over *social* and economic affairs.

Unless the military is being used to influence (enforce) social and economic policies, it really has nothing to do with whether or not the country is "statist." What makes a country "statist" is, as the definition points out, whether the state is exercising control over social and economic affairs. With the Crown centralizing control of healthcare at the federal level (both social from a social services perspective and economic from a taxation perspective), this healthcare system is almost a walking talking definition of a statist policy. We can debate the merits of it, but you really can't argue that 2 + 2 = 5 when it in fact, happens to equal 4. The Canada Health Act, and Canada's healthcare system in general, is statist.




			
				jmt18325 said:
			
		

> The provincial governments have given up some of their constitutional responsibility for health in exchange for a piece of federal taxation power.



No, they didn't. They had that decision made on their behalf by the federal government through the Canada Health Act. Stop trying to make this sound like it was voluntary and everybody agreed, or that it was some big favour the federal government did to the provinces. This was a loophole Trudeau Sr found in order to further their belief in a heavily centralized way of governing, exactly opposite of what the provinces had in mind when they signed into Confederation.

There are plenty of people who favour a two-tier healthcare system. Alberta would have one already if it wouldn't be taken out at the knees by the Canada Health Act. They probably favour it because they've seen that every single OECD healthcare system that ranks above Canada's has a mixture of private and public healthcare.


----------



## jmt18325

ballz said:
			
		

> Wow, 58% of people don't feel that "on the whole, the system works pretty well and only minor changes are needed" and somehow you are trying to spin that into a positive.



That actually doesn't say that.  It's also only one survey.  Canadians value universal healthcare as a principle in far greater numbers.



> I never said anything about "universal." You were talking about the "single payer system." It's you that is speaking to one thing and one thing only.



Single payer is the type of universal coverage that Canada chose.  There are other less desirable models.



> You don't know what statism means, obviously. "A political system in which the state has substantial *centralized* control over *social* and economic affairs.
> 
> Unless the military is being used to influence (enforce) social and economic policies, it really has nothing to do with whether or not the country is "statist." What makes a country "statist" is, as the definition points out, whether the state is exercising control over social and economic affairs. With the Crown centralizing control of healthcare at the federal level (both social from a social services perspective and economic from a taxation perspective), this healthcare system is almost a walking talking definition of a statist policy. We can debate the merits of it, but you really can't argue that 2 + 2 = 5 when it in fact, happens to equal 4. The Canada Health Act, and Canada's healthcare system in general, is statist.



That's a very extreme interpretation of what it is.  In reality, the state exercises some control over everything.  Most of our health system is regulated private enterprise, just like the rest of the economy.  The difference in this case is that the government pays for about 70% of the services.



> No, they didn't. They had that decision made on their behalf by the federal government through the Canada Health Act. Stop trying to make this sound like it was voluntary and everybody agreed, or that it was some big favour the federal government did to the provinces. This was a loophole Trudeau Sr found in order to further their belief in a heavily centralized way of governing, exactly opposite of what the provinces had in mind when they signed into Confederation.



The provinces do not have to participate.  That is the reality.  I'm not sure how we got to talk about health care.  I only brought it up to serve as an example of how an escalator that increases faster than government revenue is impossible to maintain.



> There are plenty of people who favour a two-tier healthcare system. Alberta would have one already if it wouldn't be taken out at the knees by the Canada Health Act. They probably favour it because they've seen that every single OECD healthcare system that ranks above Canada's has a mixture of private and public healthcare.



I never said I was opposed to that (in theory, anyway).  Perhaps I misunderstood you.  I was under the impression that you wanted to end single payer altogether.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Take your 225 Iroquois berths, spread them out amongst 15x 15-man "capsules" like the DeHavilland Boats and add in a bunch of autonomous barges carrying seacans full of self-unloading HE.  Which is the more survivable, combat effective and cost effective force?



I think the folks who wear Dolphins would love this, as one consideration.  Nothing like one, fat, dumn target that is in the TDZ of any number of the quiet, modern SSN, SSKs or SSGNs (and their ASMS) to make some people really happy.

Naval warfare, surface or subsurface, is a pretty complex business.  You'll need something to defend the bunch of barges...like an escort force that can track/deter/attack subsurface forces, sfc to sfc missiles, air to surface missiles.  Do we have a robot escort force?  All the way up to a CBG?  Now we're talking really expensive...

There is going to be something that can take out your super-barge, from over the horizon, up close, you don't know where, but he is out there and he and his brothers, some that are younger, silent and pack a more vicious punch, they have one purpose when the balloon goes up.  And he has a lot of cousins and uncles that will also be ready to jump in if you can take him down.


----------



## Kirkhill

Build the ship around the weapons.  Add the minimum crew.  You will end up with a smaller ship.

Also, not all ships need to carry all weapons so long as the task force is capable of managing all threats.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> But the world is full of fat dumb targets.  And those targets won't go away ...


Sorry - thought I was still in the politics thread ...


----------



## McG

A lot of discussion about the budget crunch was happening in this thread over the past little while.  Well, the details have hit the news.  There are lots of little things hitting the CAF right now including past penny-saving is coming home to roost, and mission costs that exceed the funding escalator & are not separately funded.

… and when you cut regular training to preserve mission specific training, you are reducing readiness.


> *DND curbs travel, non-mission training to save money for missions*
> Lee Berthiaume, The Canadian Press
> Published Monday, March 20, 2017 7:27AM EDT
> 
> OTTAWA -- Senior defence officials have ordered a curb on non-essential activities across the department, The Canadian Press has learned, as they look to free up millions of dollars for military operations and other more critical tasks.
> 
> The result has been a severe cut to activities not directly related to missions or military readiness, including travel and non-mission training, as the department limps to the end of the federal fiscal year on March 31.
> 
> The cost-cutting is in addition to the military having already parked large numbers of trucks and support vehicles, docked naval vessels and cut back on flying times for aircraft because of financial pressures.
> 
> While the department won't say how much money officials are looking to save, spokesman Dan Le Bouthillier said it is "likely" to be less than one per cent of the overall defence budget.
> 
> With a combined operating and capital budget of $19.2 billion in this fiscal year, that would amount to around $190 million.
> 
> "We need to remain within the spending authorized by Parliament," Le Bouthillier said in an email.
> 
> "To do this, we asked that our organizations identify discretionary spending on activities that don't impact military operations or the department's core business."
> 
> Canada's overall defence budget is broken into three main categories, which in 2016-17 were: $14.3 billion for operating expenditure; $3.5 billion for capital expenses such as new equipment and infrastructure; and $1.3 billion in required funding to NATO and other international organizations or programs.
> 
> Several insiders told The Canadian Press that the belt-tightening is the result of years of deep cuts followed by minimal increases, even as the military has been called upon to do more and more.
> 
> Canada has more military personnel deployed abroad now than at any point since Afghanistan, and would surpass Afghanistan if the Liberals pull the trigger on a new peacekeeping mission in Africa.
> 
> It is also expected to dedicate a growing amount of resources toward cyber-security and space.
> 
> Yet the $14-billion operating budget remains about $2 billion less now than it did when the combat mission in Afghanistan ended in 2011.
> 
> The past year saw the defence department's operating budget increase by about $140 million, even though it was expected to spend $200 million more on international missions.
> 
> Previous financial pressures have had a visible impact. The army has idled support vehicles, the navy has left ships in port to reduce maintenance costs and the air force has cut back on flying times.
> 
> One insider, speaking like the others on background because he wasn't authorized to comment publicly, compared the new cost-cutting exercise to a search for loose change to pay for rent.
> 
> He and others spoke of having to postpone or cancel meetings with foreign counterparts, attendance at international conferences, and even Spring Break courses for cadets.
> 
> While some of the activities have been rescheduled until after the new fiscal year starts on April 1, there are fears that will only exacerbate the pain next year unless the department gets more funds.
> 
> The military is scheduled to get an extra $550 million to its operating budget thanks to an automatic increase the former Conservative government approved and the governing Liberals have said they will continue.
> 
> But defence analyst David Perry of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute says it won't be enough to cover the department's existing shortfalls and emerging costs associated with peacekeeping and cyber-defence.
> 
> "The extra money will help mitigate it," he said, "but it's not going to totally address their issues because they've got a number of other funding pressures."
> 
> Any extra money on top of that will likely have to wait until later in the year as government sources have indicated Wednesday's budget will not include any significant new cash for the military.
> 
> That means any new money is instead expected to be announced in the fall, after the Liberal government releases its new defence policy.


http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/dnd-curbs-travel-non-mission-training-to-save-money-for-missions-1.3331987


----------



## MilEME09

> even Spring Break courses for cadets.



This tells me once again it's the cadet program, and more then likely the Reserves across the board who will also suffer with more cuts. Budget cuts, and yet we are being told under the new recruiting system they hope to have the reserves at max capacity in 5 years......hey waiter, ill have what ever he's smoking.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Should the funding for the Regular force be cut first?   ???  All components and elements need funding, but there has to be a priority.  That is always, or in most instances, going to be the Reg Force pers and equip because they are the ones who need to be able to go out the door the quickest.


----------



## CBH99

Under the new recruiting program, we can max out the reserves in 5 years!  21 days from initial meeting with the recruiter, to picking up a uniform & kit?   Bam!!  Personnel problems solved!!

But once they are recruited...it's gonna be a whole lot of sitting around.  And hence those people will leave, and the cycle will continue.   >  

Because I know when I first joined, I obviously joined for the same reasons everybody else did too...marching in circles on the parade square, every Wednesday.  Oooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhh yeah.  Alpha As ****.


----------



## SRidders

CBH99 said:
			
		

> But once they are recruited...it's gonna be a whole lot of sitting around.  And hence those people will leave, and the cycle will continue.   >



As long as the unit does its job and uses the time to prepare the new recruits for BMQ in a scheduled regimented fashion, there will be plenty to do. All you need is time (which they will have) and experience to pass on. Those things most reserve regiments have in spades.


----------



## MilEME09

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Should the funding for the Regular force be cut first?   ???  All components and elements need funding, but there has to be a priority.  That is always, or in most instances, going to be the Reg Force pers and equip because they are the ones who need to be able to go out the door the quickest.



No i'm not suggesting that though we all know our HQ is so inflated we could find hundreds of millions in savings there.


----------



## jmt18325

http://www.budget.gc.ca/2017/docs/plan/chap-03-en.html#Toc477707469

So no new funding - and $8.5B re profiled 20(!) years out:

http://www.budget.gc.ca/2017/docs/plan/chap-03-en.html#Toc477707469


----------



## jmt18325

It's safe to say the rumours were wrong, and I'll be happy to have insults hurled at me at this point.


----------



## jollyjacktar

I'm not going to bother, but will point out that you were the only one who continued to use the rumour word, whereas we were trying to tell you that we were getting direction from above.  And don't kid yourself, I'm not any happier that your "rumors" weren't worth a pinch of coon shit there was indeed no light at the end of the tunnel but instead, an oncoming train.


----------



## jmt18325

What I was expecting (based on the rumors) was money for new equipment, not necessarily for operations - I was wrong.


----------



## jmt18325

But I apologize for me disbelief before, if it makes you feel any better.


----------



## Scott

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> But I apologize for me disbelief before, if it makes you feel any better.



So. Have you finally learned something about this forum's membership?


----------



## FSTO

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> But I apologize for me disbelief before, if it makes you feel any better.



I apologize as well for my explosion as well. Very unprofessional.

I'm thinking that my purchase of season tickets would guarantee my move to Ottawa. We shall see next week if that worked.


----------



## Flavus101

> Between April and July 2016, the Department of National Defence conducted public consultations, receiving nearly 20,200 submissions through an online portal, while engaging directly with defence experts, industry representatives, academia, Indigenous leaders, and international allies and partners.



*Offtopic alert*

This is most definitely not the most important thing out of above releases. I just find it interesting that Indigenous leaders were specifically consulted. It would be nice to know what exactly they bring to the table in regards to Defence Policy, besides possibly helping to increase natives recruitment numbers in the CAF.

Hopefully someone can enlighten me.


----------



## trooper142

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> http://www.budget.gc.ca/2017/docs/plan/chap-03-en.html#Toc477707469
> 
> So no new funding - and $8.5B re profiled 20(!) years out:
> 
> http://www.budget.gc.ca/2017/docs/plan/chap-03-en.html#Toc477707469



This isn't terribly surprising, given that almost everyone was saying no new funding will be announced prior to the governments release of the Defence Review, which is confirmed in the budget:

"The Government will soon release a new defence policy for Canada, following substantive public consultation and extensive analysis. It will be more rigorously costed than any previous defence policy. It will commit the level of investment required to restore the Canadian Armed Forces to a sustainable footing with respect to finances, capital and people, and equip the Forces to meet the challenges of the coming decades."

So that seems to coincide with reports new funding will be announced in the fall; if there is any to be given.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Agreed t142. Why would the minister of finance dump more money into an organization that needs its own bureaucracy to be beaten with mukluks and slapped with seal skins. They can't even buy boots and trucks without frigging it up.  As for all the consultations, that's just another way of saying "we don't know what to do", and then using the budget to make it official.


----------



## jmt18325

Scott said:
			
		

> So. Have you finally learned something about this forum's membership?



I'm here for a reason - I know that people generally know what they're talking about.  There are just some times that I'm going to go with official sources that I can actually see.  I understand that's frustrating to some of you, but I have no way to verify individual things that people say.


----------



## jmt18325

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> Agreed t142. Why would the minister of finance dump more money into an organization that needs its own bureaucracy to be beaten with mukluks and slapped with seal skins. They can't even buy boots and trucks without frigging it up.  As for all the consultations, that's just another way of saying "we don't know what to do", and then using the budget to make it official.



Lets hope there is some new funding in the fall, or if not new funding, some type of reorganization.  DND needs more money, or to stop being all things to all people.  Regardless of which, it needs to spend the money it has better.


----------



## jollyjacktar

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> But I apologize for me disbelief before, if it makes you feel any better.



No need to apologize on my behalf.  We all lose.


----------



## ballz

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> Agreed t142. Why would the minister of finance dump more money into an organization that needs its own bureaucracy to be beaten with mukluks and slapped with seal skins. They can't even buy boots and trucks without frigging it up.  As for all the consultations, that's just another way of saying "we don't know what to do", and then using the budget to make it official.



I made a joke the other day about how, as much as I support having a large military, I don't know if I can support a single cent of funding increases for the CAF. If we increase spending by 1 billion each year, that's another $800 million worth of ammo the troops will have to shoot off in March.


----------



## suffolkowner

I'm afraid as long as the CF continue to make due there will be pressure to reduce cost mostly from O&M. I have seen it to many times in private industry. Lack of catastrophic failure provides all the proof that is needed to continue the current COA


----------



## Eye In The Sky

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I know that people generally know what they're talking about.



Or, we know from the opposite view of yours ( you are outside, looking in thru a window) from certain indicators, trends, historical things, whatever that the money is in a certain state.  A good indicator is things like people saying they can't get uniforms...operational dress, to be specific, boots, postings are on hold or cancelled...there are a variety of things that can make our spider sense tingle; for some of us, its also because we've been around long enough to have 'seen it before'.  We're pretty good at knowing when the official party line in the "news" (using the term loosely, in the form it often is today...) is actually a banana, or a log of shit painted yellow.   :2c:


----------



## NavyShooter

Scott said:
			
		

> So. Have you finally learned something about this forum's membership?



I honestly doubt he has.

I suspect that he'll carry on with his blather, enlightening us with his wisdom, and most of our wit (and wits) will be lost on him.

*shrug*

I'm not surprised to see what we see in the budget. 

What I am happy DID NOT happen with the budget was the potential for the Chretien era pay freeze as a means to control the deficit.  (Or mitigate it a bit.  Hard to mitigate a hemorrhage such as this is looking to be over the next few years.)

NS


----------



## jmt18325

For context, adjusted for economy and inflation, these deficits are actually rather small.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Another glorious laural for the anyone but conservative crowd eh


----------



## Occam

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Another glorious laural for the anyone but conservative crowd eh



Considering the Liberals beat the CPC by 1.3 million votes in the election, the CPC must've ticked off a lot more than ABC, or ABC had a massively larger impact on the vote than anyone is willing to admit.  Since the former is far more likely, why am I still reading comments like yours placing blame on ABC?

I supported ABC, and stand by it.  Harper had to go.  Don't confuse that with condoning the Liberals' performance to date.  

You folks taking potshots at ABC would probably better spend your time figuring out a way ahead with the weak showing of candidates for leadership of the CPC.  ABC didn't put the CPC where they are today, Harper did...and the history books will reflect that.  

Quite frankly, looking at some other sites, I'm a little disturbed at veterans threatening other veterans with physical violence, calling them traitors and the like, simply because they supported ABC.  If that's that the CPC stands for - and some of these groups are outwardly supportive of the CPC - they will never see my vote again.  

Brothers in arms, my ass.


----------



## George Wallace

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> What I am happy DID NOT happen with the budget was the potential for the Chretien era pay freeze as a means to control the deficit.  (Or mitigate it a bit.  Hard to mitigate a hemorrhage such as this is looking to be over the next few years.)
> 
> NS



Not that a pay freeze has more or less been in effect for several years already, due to the bargaining of the various PS Unions.  As I understand it, the last union has come to terms and we will soon see the resulting pay raises, back pay, etc.........As long as the Phoenix System gets fixed so that the members of those unions can enjoy the benefits of their efforts.   [    (CAF is still not on Phoenix, so it matters not to them.)


----------



## Occam

I haven't dug into it to find more accurate figures, but I know that a sizeable portion of PIPSC is at a stalemate and going to binding conciliation.  My own union has a tentative agreement that won't go to ratification until May (though it's a relatively small portion of the entire PS).  We've been told not to expect pay action on the tentative agreement until Christmas.

I don't think as many unions have settled as you indicate.  It may constitute enough for the CF to start looking at numbers, though.  I'll look into it.


----------



## George Wallace

Occam said:
			
		

> I haven't dug into it to find more accurate figures, but I know that a sizeable portion of PIPSC is at a stalemate and going to binding conciliation.



Was talking to a member of PIPSC Tuesday night, and it sounded like they had come to terms.  I could ask the wife, but she doesn't follow the bargaining with a fine toothed comb.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Occam said:
			
		

> Considering the Liberals beat the CPC by 1.3 million votes in the election, the CPC must've ticked off a lot more than ABC, or ABC had a massively larger impact on the vote than anyone is willing to admit.  Since the former is far more likely, why am I still reading comments like yours placing blame on ABC?
> 
> I supported ABC, and stand by it.  Harper had to go.  Don't confuse that with condoning the Liberals' performance to date.
> 
> You folks taking potshots at ABC would probably better spend your time figuring out a way ahead with the weak showing of candidates for leadership of the CPC.  ABC didn't put the CPC where they are today, Harper did...and the history books will reflect that.
> 
> Quite frankly, looking at some other sites, I'm a little disturbed at veterans threatening other veterans with physical violence, calling them traitors and the like, simply because they supported ABC.  If that's that the CPC stands for - and some of these groups are outwardly supportive of the CPC - they will never see my vote again.
> 
> Brothers in arms, my ***.



I dunno.  I wasn't as militant as many ABC folks were but I felt that it was time for Harper to go and I voted accordingly to that.  Now I will openly admit I think I was dupped and that we would have better off with Harper.  That's just me though.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Clearly, DND and the Canadian Forces are not going to see any significant new money, regardless of who forms government. Given that a ceiling of $20 billion seems to be all that Canadians are willing to spend on defence, it seems to me (without prejudging the outcome of the Defence Review later this year) that is past time for us to structure the military along the lines of the capabilities that we can afford, rather than the capabilities we want to have.

Since personnel is by far our largest Departmental expenditure, I would start there- both in terms of the size of the CF (and DND) and the rank composition (higher ranked people cost more). To what extent could we make better use of Reservists? Do we need so many GOFOs and CWOs? Are we better off having civilian employees doing certain functions that will never deploy and save the uniforms for functions that do?

In short- if we are to survive as a fighting force, a lot of rice bowls need to get broken. I am not optimistic.


----------



## dapaterson

If you are interested in historical rank by rank breakdowns of the CAF, there is interesting data from TBS for the period 90-91 to 02-03 at: https://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/report/orp/2007/er-ed/vol2/vol210-eng.asp

Over that time period, the number of CWOs was reduced by about 40%; the number of GOFOs by about 50%; the number of LCols by about 16%; and overall strength by about 30%.


----------



## Occam

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Was talking to a member of PIPSC Tuesday night, and it sounded like they had come to terms.  I could ask the wife, but she doesn't follow the bargaining with a fine toothed comb.



There are multiple bargaining groups within PIPSC.  For example, the CS, AVS, RE and SH groups have a tentative agreement or have ratified.  However, the AFS and NR groups have not.  There are more; I just didn't feel like looking any longer.


----------



## Scott

Occam said:
			
		

> There are multiple bargaining groups within PIPSC.  For example, the CS, AVS, RE and SH groups have a tentative agreement or have ratified.  However, the AFS and NR groups have not.  There are more; I just didn't feel like looking any longer.



Indeed. Outside what you've posted, I know of at least one more that hasn't reached an agreement.


----------



## George Wallace

OK.....A much longer a wait then....... [:'(


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Ladies & Gentlemen,

In March 2015, The Parliamentary Budget Office published a report titled “Fiscal Sustainability of Canada’s National Defence Program”.

Link to document provided:

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiauoW05uzSAhVMzIMKHUmnAEAQFgg1MAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pbo-dpb.gc.ca%2Ffiles%2Ffiles%2FDefence_Analysis_EN.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHclg1rlehU0cXYrco9lLrlI1pJsg&sig2=QsrC6u_G9xcIbrHzUa99OA

The document highlights, in succinct detail, what exactly the problems are with respect to Canada’s current National Defence Program.  I’ll give you the conclusion of the document to save you some reading:

_“As a result of the underinvestment through the 1990s, the model illustrates the cumulative affordability gap that existed until the early 2000s. The model shows that it was only with the significant spending increases seen in the latter half of the 2000s that the affordability gap was closed and capability was able to be maintained and to some extent re-built. However, the recent cuts to the defence budget point to an impending affordability gap beginning in this fiscal year. 
The outcomes of a fiscal gap in the defence program are beyond the scope of this paper. However, if program costs and the budget allocation are not brought to equilibrium, there will be a reduction in the capabilities of the current force structure. This means a reduction in the numbers and types of equipment and potentially a reduction in the number of personnel in the Armed Forces42. This would also result in the government falling short of its CFDS commitments. 
Ultimately, it is the role of policy makers to decide on the future role of the defence program, the makeup of the force structure to support that role, and the budgetary allocation required to support that force structure.”_

I’ve also uploaded a couple of charts which show the current predicament we’re in and also explain how we got there.  If you read the document and look at Fig 3-6 in the document, you’ll note that the only way to afford our military is to revert to a 1997 Force Structure Calibration, which is the historic low point in our Defence Expenditure.

One of two things needs to happen:

1.  We drastically increase the Defence Budget; or
2.  We make significant adjustments to our present Force Structure by cutting personnel, equipment, operations, etc.  No more doing more with less, the future is all about doing less with less.


----------



## Journeyman

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> This would also result in the government falling short of its CFDS commitments.


 To be fair, the _CFDS_  was never any form of a "strategy"; it was a Christmas 'wish list' masquerading as a coherent policy.  It was correctly judged as unaffordable and shelved before the ink was dry.



> One of two things needs to happen:
> 1.  We drastically increase the Defence Budget
> 2.  We make significant adjustments to our present Force Structure by cutting personnel, equipment, operations, etc.  No more doing more with less, the future is all about doing less with less.


"1" is a non-starter...well, until we're in some crisis and it's too late.

"2" needs a complete re-think.

For way too long, our default has been "ok, they've given us _x_ dollars; what can we do with it?"  If Canada was remotely serious about the military* the government (Party is completely irrelevant) must start discussions with "what do we want the military to be able to do?" [with sub-sets of "how many of those must we be able to do concurrently, vice consecutively"]. 

"OK, here's the bill for those deliverables."   <<-- see how I got a trendy buzzword in there?  

Seeing the bill, and the CAF sticking to it's guns - as opposed to we can _always_  make it happen - I suspect they'd go back and revisit what they see as military necessities.  Mind you, I assume that the trimmed list would still include Snowbirds, Skyhawks, Ceremonial Guard, 1.5 Military Colleges, LGBTQ2 projects [yes, it's in the budget and I had to Google since I wasn't up to speed with the latest acronym], LCol-commanded Militia platoons, etc, etc... 

Of course, if.....*IF*....the CAF was honestly looking at what it is required to deliver, I bet we could divest a metric shitload of HQs,  Staff Officers, the Army Intelligence Regiment, Air Defence and IA (if it's not worth investing and training seriously, it's obviously expendable), and duty-CWOs stapled to officers because "Command Team" has become a kharmic chant, regardless of whether there are troops to command.    /hopeless dreamer


Gee, I hope I didn't upset any apple carts.....  op:


* Discussing military requirements comes after a larger understanding of defence and security expectations, and who does what to whom?


----------



## sandyson

One option to save money is to close the entire Dept of National Defence and move the CF to Foreign Affairs (or whatever it's calling itself this week).  The CF cannot defend Canada, and surely many people think the need is preposterous. So if the CF are a toy to play in the sandbox of someone else, why not say so explicitly and save money?  The CF would still play overseas when ever a minister is looking to the world stage for his/her footnote in history.  We could use the money for 'national infrastructure'.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Journeyman said:
			
		

> To be fair, the _CFDS_  was never any form of a "strategy"; it was a Christmas 'wish list' masquerading as a coherent policy.  It was correctly judged as unaffordable and shelved before the ink was dry.
> "1" is a non-starter...well, until we're in some crisis and it's too late.
> 
> "2" needs a complete re-think.
> 
> For way too long, our default has been "ok, they've given us _x_ dollars; what can we do with it?"  If Canada was remotely serious about the military* the government (Party is completely irrelevant) must start discussions with "what do we want the military to be able to do?" [with sub-sets of "how many of those must we be able to do concurrently, vice consecutively"].
> 
> "OK, here's the bill for those deliverables."   <<-- see how I got a trendy buzzword in there?
> 
> Seeing the bill, and the CAF sticking to it's guns - as opposed to we can _always_  make it happen - I suspect they'd go back and revisit what they see as military necessities.  Mind you, I assume that the trimmed list would still include Snowbirds, Skyhawks, Ceremonial Guard, 1.5 Military Colleges, LGBTQ2 projects [yes, it's in the budget and I had to Google since I wasn't up to speed with the latest acronym], LCol-commanded Militia platoons, etc, etc...
> 
> Of course, if.....*IF*....the CAF was honestly looking at what it is required to deliver, I bet we could divest a metric shitload of HQs,  Staff Officers, the Army Intelligence Regiment, Air Defence and IA (if it's not worth investing and training seriously, it's obviously expendable), and duty-CWOs stapled to officers because "Command Team" has become a kharmic chant, regardless of whether there are troops to command.    /hopeless dreamer
> 
> 
> Gee, I hope I didn't upset any apple carts.....  op:
> 
> 
> * Discussing military requirements comes after a larger understanding of defence and security expectations, and who does what to whom?



Never were truer words spoken, I'm of the opinion that any Defence Policy Review is a gigantic waste of time if it isn't a nested piece of a more comprehensive National Security Review.  Our National Security Strategy hasn't been revised since 2004 and I consider the strategy to not be worth the paper it's printed on.  

Want to realize real savings?  We need better integration of the Security, Intelligence, Public Safety and Defence sectors across the board.  The trend in the Canada for the past 50+ years has been decentralization of the State security apparatus.  Repealment of the War Measures Act, Disbandment of the RCMP Security Service, Creation of CSIS, etc.  All things designed to protect individual rights and freedoms; however, has the pendulum swung too far?  My take is some of these acts were done more for the sake of a peace offering than as an actual effective piece of public policy.

The future of inter, intra and inner state conflict is 4th Generation Warfare.  ISIS, the Taliban, Al Qaeda, AQIM, FARC, etc... are all terrorist organizations but also criminal organizations.  This is not going to change and is only going to become more prevalent.

See attached graphic:

A Defence Policy Review needs to articulate how Defence is nested in a wider National Security Strategy and how Defence can be used to keep Canadians safe from internal as well as external threats.


----------



## George Wallace

Sandyson said:
			
		

> One option to save money is to close the entire Dept of National Defence and move the CF to Foreign Affairs (or whatever it's calling itself this week).  The CF cannot defend Canada, and surely many people think the need is preposterous. So if the CF are a toy to play in the sandbox of someone else, why not say so explicitly and save money?  The CF would still play overseas when ever a minister is looking to the world stage for his/her footnote in history.  We could use the money for 'national infrastructure'.



Just so that you are more in the picture, once CAF members are deployed overseas, the Minister of Global Affairs, formerly Foreign Affairs, has more say on their activities than the Minister of National Defence.  It has been that way for years.


----------



## sandyson

Exactly.  So let's cut out the middleman. >


----------



## George Wallace

Sandyson said:
			
		

> Exactly.  So let's cut out the middleman. >




Well......Do we really want Global Affairs dictating internal/national policies as well?    [


----------



## McG

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> MCG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should we cut the force to fit it inside a 1% budget, or should we give-up the lie that a 1% budget affords the standard of military that Canada ought to have?
> 
> 
> 
> MCG:  I would love to see you have the 2% budget.  But it hasn't happened yet.  And to be honest, even when the CF had more money it always felt it was insufficient and continued to draw up plans based on the money it would like to have rather than the money it had.
Click to expand...

There are options between 1% and 2%.  A nice start would be 1.3%.  We have been living in a cycle of “shave the ice cube” then lower the standard to what we can achieve and declare success, then shave the ice cube again.



			
				suffolkowner said:
			
		

> I'm afraid as long as the CF continue to make due there will be pressure to reduce cost mostly from O&M. I have seen it to many times in private industry. Lack of catastrophic failure provides all the proof that is needed to continue the current COA


Yep.  Unfortunately, until we fight a real enemy, we can keep getting away with the intellectual dishonesty of lowering the measure of success to fit the force we have atrophied into being.  No anti-tank capability?  That’s okay, we will just make sure the enemy does not have tanks in the exercise.  No air defence?  That’s okay too because we can waive a hand like Obi-Wan and that threat also disappears from the exercise.  Not enough trucks to support ourselves in the field?  We will just contract a giant rental fleet and hope real vehicles spring forth from the ground if we actually deploy.  It does not matter; the exercise always ends in Canadian victory and with the battle groups getting certified ready to go for a shooting war with a near peer.



			
				MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Eye In The Sky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should the funding for the Regular force be cut first?   ???  All components and elements need funding, but there has to be a priority.  That is always, or in most instances, going to be the Reg Force pers and equip because they are the ones who need to be able to go out the door the quickest.
> 
> 
> 
> No i'm not suggesting that though we all know our HQ is so inflated we could find hundreds of millions in savings there.
Click to expand...

There are lots of places for savings.  Lots of ideas already posted through the history of this thread:

[quote author=MCG]Here are a few ways that I see to immediately cut costs while protecting capability:
Reduce/Stop the use of “tactical infrastructure” in field exercises
Impose a moratorium on creating new headquarters
Do not bring kitchen appliances to the field (with the exception of in field kitchens) 
Maximize the use of local training areas before traveling
Teleconference to avoid TD for meetings and working groups
Prohibit the deployment of pers into positions requiring WSE (We do not need to pay guys above their rank when there are other sitting at home already collecting pay at that level)  - exceptions only for in-theatre casualty replacement
Do not deploy PRes for the sake of deploying PRes on international ops – use Reg F where the capacity exists, especially for long tours (Reg F pay is a sunk cost while a year of Class C pay for a Sr NCO of Sr Offr to train & deploy could instead add another training day for everybody in a Class A unit) 
No new “buttons & bows” initiatives 
Do not rebadged any more units for the sake of resurrecting old regiments 
Stop any unannounced plans to rebrand/rebadged/rename any branches, corps or organization for the purposes of historical sentimentalism
Stop using rented civilian vehicles when military pattern vehicles are available and serve the purpose
Tie pay incentives for all ranks to performance and conduct.  If you are on a remedial measure (IC through to C&P) then the pay incentive is delayed by the duration of that remedial measure.  If you receive an unsatisfactory PER, then the pay incentive is delayed until you receive a satisfactory one.
Rebalance officer enrollment paths to reduce the number of ROTP entrants while increasing the number of DEO entrants
Allow only one IPR move per service couple.  Instead, a reunification move will bring the first retiring member to live with the mbr continuing to serve, or if both retire at the same time then a reunification move will bring the mbr without F&E to the mbr with F&E.

And here are some options options for long-term savings (though most will cost money upfront prior to the savings being achieved later):
Consolidate all of NDHQ and other appropriate NCR units on the Nortel Campus
Move CFC from Toronto to Ottawa (=fewer annual cost moves, reduced PLD costs, reduced IR costs, lower property costs, …) 
Divest unnecessary niche vehicle micro-fleets (if required, increase size of standard fleets to maintain platform numbers) 
Smash LFDTS & CTC into a single layer of HQ, transfer capability development functions from LFDTS to COS Land Strat
Re-close CMR and consolidate ROTP back into RMC 
Consolidate all of 1 CMBG in Edmonton (or Wainwright, Suffield or Shilo) to reduce future steady-state cost move requirements
Procure more training simulators for fuel guzzling equipment (like aircraft, Engr Hy Eqpt and MBT) – include this in the initial acquisition of future systems 
Re-evaluate rank levels in HQ establishments – the goal is to reduce where unnecessary inflation has occurred
Replace military ID cards, PKI cards, building access cards, and military driver's licences with a single universal military identification (See US CAC for example)

In the current climate, we need to look at more than just where to cut.  We also need to look at where to get better mileage from the same resources.  Here are a few thoughts to that end: 
 Replace SDA, LDA, dive pay and parachute allowance with enhanced casual allowances – the current systems reward posting messages as opposed to rewarding/compensating for the behaviour that we want: going to sea, going to the field, diving, and jumping out of aircraft.
 Reduce the number of PRes unit HQs in the Army.  Individual sub-units can retain unique regimental identities, but they will be grouped under a fewer stronger battalion HQs. 
 Revisit the requirement for Reg F bands.  There are 71 musicians from Sgt to CWO on Army Ref F establishments alone.  That is a lot of PYs that could be put to better purpose (especially when we have been cutting from operational units to put PYs in new capabilities)
[/quote][quote author=dapaterson]A few more contentious suggestions:

* Top to bottom compensation and benefits review to eliminate duplication and overlap
* Revisit posting policy to reduce annual move requirement (excluding off-BTL)
* Revisit IPR move policy to eliminate same-location moves (eg a paid move from Orleans to Kanata on release)
* Replace CANEX with private suppliers (who will pay market rents for CF facilities)
   * Retain small deployed NPF expertise to surge for deployments if required (hint: this does not include a Tim Hortons trailer)
* Return to annual TOS boards, particularly at ranks of LCol and above and MWO and above, to determine whether continued service meets a military requirement
* Enforce limits on GOFOs as ordered in the 1997 MND report (roughly a 1/3 reduction)
* Return to performance pay for GOFO and Capt(N)/Cols
   * Make PMAs and performance info per above public
* Make PMAs and performance information for all Public Servants public
* Restructure establishment to differentiate between Lt and Capt
* Return to competitive promotion to Capt
* Revisit Degreed Officer Corps decision
   * Permit short engagements with no promotion beyond Capt without a degree
* Eliminate full-time second language training
   * Individuals may elect to pursue SLT on their own time; a decision not to get a language profile will limit future promotion possibilities

For IM/IT 

* Migrate from MS Office to Open Office to reduce IM/IT licensing costs
* Migrate from Outlook to open-source web-based DWAN email to reduce IM/IT licensing costs
* Dissolve ADM(IM), putting IM/IT support into CANOSCOM, IM/IT procurement into ADM(Mat), and comms and ISTAR systems under CJOC[/quote]


----------



## Kirkhill

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs-report-plan-priorities/2015-analysis-programs-strategic-outcome.page#p4_4_1
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs-report-plan-priorities/2015-reserve-force.page

Based on the line item analysis prepared on Jason Kenney's watch I took the liberty of juggling numbers.

What I came up with was this:

Under C4ISR, to include C&C (1.3.1), Int Ops (1.3.2), Ops Spt Svcs (1.3.3), Canadian Surveillance (1.1.2), NORAD (1.1.3), North America (1.1.4), National SAR (2.2.3), OGD Assistance (2.2.5)  the allocation is 680 MCAD, and 4550 PYs 

Under Reaction Forces, to include all Special Ops, Joint, SAR, Air and Maritime forces at all stages of readiness and training (line items 2.2.4, 3.1.1, 3.1.3, 3.1.4, 3.1.5, 3.2.1, 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 3.2.5, 3.2.6, 3.3.1, 3.3.3, 3.3.4, 3.3.5, 3.4.1, 3.4.3, 3.4.4, 3.4.5) but explicitly excluding the Land Element the allocation is 1430 MCAD and 10,364 PYs.  The manning pool includes 3081 Naval Reservists and 1938 Air Reservists integrated into providing operational capabilities on a NTM basis.

The Forces are supported by a civilian management team of 3485 with a budget of 435 MCAD that absorbs 521 uniformed PYs (line items 6.1 to 6.10)

In addition 3998 civilians manage real estate with a budget of 1810 MCAD and absorb an additional 1505 uniformed PYs (line items 4.3.1 to 4.3.6)

IT is a joint civil/military mandate with 1536 civilians and 1367 uniformed PYs and a budget of 732 MCAD (line items 4.4.1 to 4.4.4)

And then there is Materiel (line items 4.2.1 to 4.2.6) with 5919 civilians and 7574 uniformed PYs and a budget of 6664 MCAD - by far the biggest single slice of the pie being about 30 to 35% of the budget.

On the operational front DND allots 66 bodies and 7 MCAD to respond to domestic and North American crises (2.1.1) and an additional 108 bodies and 9 MCAD (2.1.3) for Non-Combatant Evacuation Operations.  And that is the extent of what I would consider the "requirements" of the CF for mandated assistance to Canadians.  There is no allocation for the defence of Canada (1.1.1) or for Counter-terrorism (2.2.1). Both of those are funded out of General Revenues on an "as needed" basis.

Line Item 1.3.4 is designated as  Military Diplomacy 286 uniforms and 394 MCAD to win friends and influence people.  I suggest that all of Canada's International Operations should actually be considered under this heading.  That would include Continuing Ops (1.2.1), NATO Ops (1.2.3), International Crises (1.2.2), and International Humanitarian Assistance to Crises (2.1.2).  All of those items together add up to a commitment of 1429 Uniforms and 675 MCAD.  A very modest contribution to saving and preserving humanity and the world order.

Up to now I have accounted for 27,486 of the allocated 68,000 PYs and 12,443 MCAD of the allocated budget of $18,286 MCAD and some 5000 of the authorised primary reserve pool of 27,000 bodies.

That leaves 40,000 PYs and 22,000 primary reservists, 8 to 12,000 supplemental reservists and 5,000 Rangers under the care of the Personnel system and with a budget of 5,843 MCAD to generate both sufficient trained personnel to meet all of the primary commitments above and also to generate an effective Land Force.

In this category I am including line items 4.1.1 to 4.1.10 which include management, recruiting, HR, training and professional development, morale, health services, and policing but also military heritage (2.3.1 for 69 MCAD) and youth programmes (2.3.2 for 234 MCAD) which I consider as part of the recruiting effort.

What I consider interesting there is that the personnel budget of 4113 MCAD is consumed by 5792 civilians and 23,110 uniforms.  I can only assume that those uniforms represent not only the cadre and instructors but also bodies under training.  I think it would be useful if these numbers were split like the Real Property, Materiel and IT budgets between those acting and that being acted upon.

Or are there really 23,110 bodies involved in generating and managing the remainder of the 68000 PYs and 27,000 PRes, 12,000 SupRes and 5,000 Rangers?

At the end of the line we have the Land Element.  I intentionally left them out of the Ready forces because I neither see them being ready nor routinely engaged.  When engaged they are employed as part of that Military Diplomacy branch of operations.

They are allotted 16,643 PYs and a budget of 1729 MCAD as well as a PRes force of 18456 bodies and the lion's share of the SupRes as well as supporting the 5000 Rangers.

Looking at all of this I would suggest that in terms of bang for buck the Government could be excused for focusing on the RCN, the RCAF and CANSOFCOM, together with the necessary C4ISR and Joint Structures necessary to employ them.

The Army and the Personnel systems (with the Army being the biggest client) appear, to my eyes, to have the biggest hole to dig themselves out of.  There seems to be ample opportunity for the available resources to be better organized, prioritized and allocated before anybody goes anywhere asking for more money.

40,000 PYs
22,000 primary reservists, 
8 to 12,000 supplemental reservists
5,000 Rangers 
a budget of 5,843 MCAD


----------



## dapaterson

Never confuse a report with reality.


----------



## Kirkhill

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Never confuse a report with reality.



Ack.  But a starting point has to be found someplace.  Even if it is only to define what is not.

Also, can you confirm to me that if all of the budgeted 68,000 PYs were allocated to Regular Force members that would leave Zero PYs available for training and employing Reserve members?


----------



## dapaterson

1. Reg F PYs and their reporting and accountability have little to do with Res F PYs.  Simplified, Reg F pers measurements are usually in PYs (essentially FTEs, but FTEs are usually used to refer exclusively to public servants). Res F outputs may be measured in some full-time positions, but are more generally described in dollar terms, in part due to challenges In identifying a single, accepted methodology for reporting on part-time Reservists.  (Supp Res and Canadian Rangers are whole other sets of challenges in reporting - the prior is a list of names; the latter have very different employment and training constructs).

2.  The report you cite has nowhere near 40K pers involved in Pers Production.  "Ready Force Production" refers to field units in the environments, who conduct training and maintain readiness.  Those are the pers who will be rotated in and out of the "Defence Combat and Support Operations" box, as they are needed.

3.  Similarly, the Assistance to Canadians tasks you identify are, when needed, filled out by pers from either the Combat and Support box or the Ready Force Production box.  Or, in other words, we train CAF members for general combat capability, then employ them where required - we don't have 2000 soldiers sitting with snow shovels, waiting for Toronto's next crisis. 

4.  Box 4.1 is the bulk of the Personnel system, and includes both schoolhouses, planning, and students.  Ballpark figures are that at any one time there will be approximately 10,000 personnel either newly entered the military or on extended career courses; those personnel are reported against this box.  As are the staff in the schools to train. And the staff who administer.  And the staff who support the training.


All clear as mud?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Ack.  But a starting point has to be found someplace.  Even if it is only to define what is not.
> 
> Also, can you confirm to me that if all of the budgeted 68,000 PYs were allocated to Regular Force members that would leave Zero PYs available for training and employing Reserve members?



The starting point comes from above, not within.  

It starts with identifying pillars of the state:

intelligence, law enforcement, armed forces, governance, economy, populace and perceptions

It is then further refined through a national security strategy whose aim is to protect these pillars.

The defence strategy is nested within the above strategy.

Chris, you need to step out of the weeds and focus on the big picture.


----------



## Kirkhill

Thanks for trying again DAP.  

Still in the mud (and the weeds).  And Humphrey.  I search the weeds for signs of pillars for the pillars are hard to discern.

With respect to the 40,000 -  I know (scratch that - I gather) that Personnel is only about half of that (including lawyers, MPs, doctors, nurses, career counsellors, chaplains and social workers).  I was adding in all the land force PYs as well because it was hard for me to suss out when a recruit transitions from professional development (BMQ) and occupational training to becoming part of a force element.  And when a team leader training his team leaves the training regime and becomes part of force generation.  Not to mention how those things integrate on the Reg/Res interface.

I continue to be confused - but this is not the first time and won't be the last time.

I do think though that the RCN, RCAF and SOF are more easily explained than the Army and the Personnel system on which it relies.


----------



## dapaterson

The personnel system is purple - at least at the front end.  But the principles are the same:

1.  An individual enrols.  They are part of the BTL (or SUTL, but let's keep it easy).

2.  An individual undergoes CAF-common recruit training, as an NCM or officer, still on the BTL.

3.  An individual undergoes any environmental training, still on the BTL.

4.  An individual undergoes occupation-specific Developmental Period 1 training, still on the BTL.

5.  If required for their occupation, an individual completes any required On The Job Training to meet the DP 1 requirements.  Still on the BTL.

6.  The trained individual is posted to a unit, leaves the BTL and becomes part of the trained strength.

7.  If selected for a long course, the individual may be posted to the Advanced Training List, crating a position vacancy in their old unit that the Pers System will endeavour to fill.  (Not 100% of demand is met with ATL credits, so some positions can go vacant).  Once they complete the course, they are posted back to the Trained Effective Establishment.


In the background are planners who forecast - looking at current strengths vs establishments, actual and planned, to ID intake and training requirements.  They look out with some degree of precision three years, and with less precision beyond.  This includes workforce modelling, including a forecast of releases, based on demographic information by occupation.  It's actually quite remarkable what gets studied and analyzed and recommended - but there are other limiting factors; for example, if a training institution can only train 15 people a year, then intake above 15 (or perhaps slightly more to account for attrition during training) is a waste of resources - as that excess is then not being trained, but is still being paid, and contributes to growth of the BTL.  Process optimization on the recruiting side means attempts to align training to minimize delays between courses; that's not always possible.

Resource constraints mean tradeoffs get made in terms of courses to run, numbers to enrol in different occupations, intake plans to use to bring people in.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Of course, if.....*IF*....the CAF was honestly looking at what it is required to deliver, I bet we could divest a metric shitload of HQs,  Staff Officers, the Army Intelligence Regiment, Air Defence and IA (if it's not worth investing and training seriously, it's obviously expendable), and duty-CWOs stapled to officers because "Command Team" has become a kharmic chant, regardless of whether there are troops to command.    /hopeless dreamer
> 
> 
> * Discussing military requirements comes after a larger understanding of defence and security expectations, and who does what to whom?



Actually, the US of all countries has begun investing quite heavily in GBAD and the PPCLI put a UOR in for a GBAD asset for their recent deployment. I also presume by "Air Defence" you mean specifically Ground Based Air Defence and dont want to get rid of the AD fighters and would be in favour of procuring AD destroyers for the navy. If you're going to suggest a capability be fully divested, at least get the terminology right.

If we really want to divest an asset that serves no purpose than we should look at the 3 x jump companies which dont serve any tactical purpose.


----------



## Jarnhamar

[quote author=Occam]

I supported ABC, and stand by it.  Harper had to go.[/quote]

If you knew then what you know now would you still have supported ABC?

I wasn't impressed with Harper or the Conservatives at the end of their tenure but I believed the alternative was much worse. I don't feel I was wrong.



> ABC didn't put the CPC where they are today, Harper did...and the history books will reflect that.


Harper caused that himself but I wasn't very appreciative how the ABC message seemed to impart they spoke on behalf of veterans in many cases I seen. They also didn't seem to put Canada's defense needs first. The Conservatives are hardly indulgent towards military spending but I think we'd be much better off than where we are now.   ABC chose to contribute to it so IMO it's something they wear.



> Quite frankly, looking at some other sites, I'm a little disturbed at veterans threatening other veterans with physical violence, calling them traitors and the like, simply because they supported ABC.


I share your disgust but ABC is hardly the sole target or victim of 'Veteran online rage'.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Just so that you are more in the picture, once CAF members are deployed overseas, the Minister of Global Affairs, formerly Foreign Affairs, has more say on their activities than the Minister of National Defence.  It has been that way for years.



Do tell.....with examples please


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Oh, and money for defence? Surely you all jest ... which amongst you can posit a coherent, sensible, comprehensible threat to Canada or its vital interests for which more military is the best answer? Overall, Journeyman has it about right.



There isn't a coherent argument to be made because there isn't a comprehensible threat to Canada.  I've got no problem with current funding levels.  My problem is with the way the money is allocated.  We've got too many people, not enough equipment, a large cumbersome bureaucracy and our ranks are way over-inflated.  

If I were king for a day I would keep the budget as is and cut Reg Force numbers by 15k-20k right off the bat, the Army would receive the brunt of the cuts.  Money would be reallocated to Procurement and O&M.  We'd also hopefully have far less people worrying about buttons and bows.


----------



## TCM621

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> There isn't a coherent argument to be made because there isn't a comprehensible threat to Canada.  I've got no problem with current funding levels.  My problem is with the way the money is allocated.  We've got too many people, not enough equipment, a large cumbersome bureaucracy and our ranks are way over-inflated.
> 
> If I were king for a day I would keep the budget as is and cut Reg Force numbers by 15k-20k right off the bat, the Army would receive the brunt of the cuts.  Money would be reallocated to Procurement and O&M.  We'd also hopefully have far less people worrying about buttons and bows.



Too many people? Are you kidding? Staffing on the ground has been thin for years. At my work we have gone from essentially  5 crews to 2 and can't even keep 2 full crews if everyone burns their leave at the same time. We are at 55k TES and probably half are those are deployable at anyone time. Not to mention we can't afford to train the people we have right. All our in depth training has been exchanged for "just enough, just in time". I could list a half dozen areas off the top of my head that we have manpower shortages either from lack of bodies or training. 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> Too many people? Are you kidding? Staffing on the ground has been thin for years. At my work we have gone from essentially  5 crews to 2 and can't even keep 2 full crews if everyone burns their leave at the same time. We are at 55k TES and probably half are those are deployable at anyone time. Not to mention we can't afford to train the people we have right. All our in depth training has been exchanged for "just enough, just in time". I could list a half dozen areas off the top of my head that we have manpower shortages either from lack of bodies or training.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk



BUT...if the people HB is speaking about cutting was taken, as much as possible, from trimming the fat off the meat, maybe you could go up to 3, possibly 4 crews.  Consider how much of the pay budget is chewed up by the fat year after year.  Cpls are far less expensive than surplus CWOs, Snr Officers and GOFOs.

I know, we are already an embarrassingly small military but the message has come across loud and clear if this government is going to bump up defence spending (nope!  and no one should be surprised...the overall Canadian population likes things like the Snowbirds and CAF members on parade in DEU on Nov 11th...and then it starts to peter off support-wise).

If funding is not going up, what option based on reality is there to consider?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> BUT...if the people HB is speaking about cutting was taken, as much as possible, from trimming the fat off the meat, maybe you could go up to 3, possibly 4 crews.  Consider how much of the pay budget is chewed up by the fat year after year.  Cpls are far less expensive than surplus CWOs, Snr Officers and GOFOs.
> 
> I know, we are already an embarrassingly small military but the message has come across loud and clear if this government is going to bump up defence spending (nope!  and no one should be surprised...the overall Canadian population likes things like the Snowbirds and CAF members on parade in DEU on Nov 11th...and then it starts to peter off support-wise).
> 
> If funding is not going up, what option based on reality is there to consider?



See post I made here:



			
				Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Ladies & Gentlemen,
> 
> In March 2015, The Parliamentary Budget Office published a report titled “Fiscal Sustainability of Canada’s National Defence Program”.
> 
> Link to document provided:
> 
> http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiauoW05uzSAhVMzIMKHUmnAEAQFgg1MAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pbo-dpb.gc.ca%2Ffiles%2Ffiles%2FDefence_Analysis_EN.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHclg1rlehU0cXYrco9lLrlI1pJsg&sig2=QsrC6u_G9xcIbrHzUa99OA
> 
> The document highlights, in succinct detail, what exactly the problems are with respect to Canada’s current National Defence Program.  I’ll give you the conclusion of the document to save you some reading:
> 
> _“As a result of the underinvestment through the 1990s, the model illustrates the cumulative affordability gap that existed until the early 2000s. The model shows that it was only with the significant spending increases seen in the latter half of the 2000s that the affordability gap was closed and capability was able to be maintained and to some extent re-built. However, the recent cuts to the defence budget point to an impending affordability gap beginning in this fiscal year.
> The outcomes of a fiscal gap in the defence program are beyond the scope of this paper. However, if program costs and the budget allocation are not brought to equilibrium, there will be a reduction in the capabilities of the current force structure. This means a reduction in the numbers and types of equipment and potentially a reduction in the number of personnel in the Armed Forces42. This would also result in the government falling short of its CFDS commitments.
> Ultimately, it is the role of policy makers to decide on the future role of the defence program, the makeup of the force structure to support that role, and the budgetary allocation required to support that force structure.”_
> 
> I’ve also uploaded a couple of charts which show the current predicament we’re in and also explain how we got there.  If you read the document and look at Fig 3-6 in the document, you’ll note that the only way to afford our military is to revert to a 1997 Force Structure Calibration, which is the historic low point in our Defence Expenditure.
> 
> One of two things needs to happen:v
> 
> 1.  We drastically increase the Defence Budget; or
> 2.  We make significant adjustments to our present Force Structure by cutting personnel, equipment, operations, etc.  No more doing more with less, the future is all about doing less with less.



I'll reattach the graphic:

BLUF, current force structure is unaffordable with our current funding.  Do you want good kit with lots of time to use it or do you want no kit with excess amount of folks sitting around twiddling their thumbs?

We can make all sorts of emotional arguments about how important certain folks, rice bowls, pieces of kit, etc. are.  The thing I love about numbers is they don't lie and they're worth a heck of a lot more coming from the PBO than some internally produced document.

Parliamentary Budget Officer:  The mandate of the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) is to provide independent analysis to Parliament on the state of the nation’s finances, the government’s estimates and trends in the national economy; and upon request from a committee or parliamentarian, to estimate the financial cost of any proposal for matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction.


----------



## Journeyman

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> If you're going to suggest a capability be fully divested, at least get the terminology right.
> 
> If we really want to divest an asset that serves no purpose.....


OK, let me try again:
I suggest that decisions on divestment, or honestly supporting, _any_  capability be decisions informed by government expectations of military purpose.

While _*personally*_,  I think what we've done with GBAD is borderline criminal, the decision was completely self-inflicted from within the military, and arguably had no basis in what deliverables the CAF may be required to produce.  I suspect the rationale was little more than, "it's too expensive; make it go away  give it to the Militia."

I gather by your online name that this is a personal issue.  Got it.  However, saying "oh...oh _ya_ !?  Well how about dumping the jump companies," is equally uninformed by requirements that may or may not come out of rethinking the way ahead.  If any capability is determined to be a legitimate requirement, then support it realistically (funding, PYs, training, doctrine, integration with the other arms, etc, etc);  otherwise it's expendable.  Désolé.

Many of our problems, I suspect, come from situating estimates based on cap badges, empires, ...or even school ring.  We can be our own worst enemy.


----------



## Journeyman

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> The thing I love about numbers is they don't lie...



"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
_~attributed to UK PM Benjamin Disraeli_


It was that quote, or make some reference to the US election 'discussions'   >


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Journeyman said:
			
		

> OK, let me try again:
> I suggest that decisions on divestment, or honestly supporting, _any_  capability be decisions informed by government expectations of military purpose.
> 
> While _*personally*_,  I think what we've done with GBAD is borderline criminal, the decision was completely self-inflicted from within the military, and arguably had no basis in what deliverables the CAF may be required to produce.  I suspect the rationale was little more than, "it's too expensive; make it go away  give it to the Militia."
> 
> I gather by your online name that this is a personal issue.  Got it.  However, saying "oh...oh _ya_ !?  Well how about dumping the jump companies," is equally uninformed by requirements that may or may not come out of rethinking the way ahead.  If any capability is determined to be a legitimate requirement, then support it realistically (funding, PYs, training, doctrine, integration with the other arms, etc, etc);  otherwise it's expendable.  Désolé.
> 
> Many of our problems, I suspect, come from situating estimates based on cap badges, empires, ...or even school ring.  We can be our own worst enemy.



Ding ding on highlighted bit in yellow.  We can't have a discussion on Defence Spending because every discussion immediately reverts to lowest common denominator.  

It's the equivalent of doing a Combat Estimate in a Large auditorium and asking the audience, each person individually, what they think the MLCOA and MDCOA is.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Journeyman said:
			
		

> "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
> _~attributed to UK PM Benjamin Disraeli_
> 
> 
> It was that quote, or make some reference to the US election 'discussions'   >









Attributed to google  ;D


----------



## Occam

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> If you knew then what you know now would you still have supported ABC?



You betcha.



> I wasn't impressed with Harper or the Conservatives at the end of their tenure but I believed the alternative was much worse. I don't feel I was wrong.
> Harper caused that himself but I wasn't very appreciative how the ABC message seemed to impart they spoke on behalf of veterans in many cases I seen. They also didn't seem to put Canada's defense needs first. The Conservatives are hardly indulgent towards military spending but I think we'd be much better off than where we are now.   ABC chose to contribute to it so IMO it's something they wear.
> I share your disgust but ABC is hardly the sole target or victim of 'Veteran online rage'.



I agree the wording they used sometimes was poorly chosen, and implied that the veterans community at large was being spoken for by ABC, and that shouldn't have happened.  There's plenty of data to support that the Conservatives' spending on defence was on track to be the lowest in history by percentage of GDP, so neither the CPC nor the Liberals are doing us any favours.

I agree that there's a fair bit of "veteran online rage" out there, but to direct it at other veterans for their political beliefs?  Here's a taste of what I've seen in a public group, and even condoned ("liked") by the administrators.

https://www.facebook.com/vetsfortheCPC/posts/1816742851982682


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

Journeyman said:
			
		

> OK, let me try again:
> I suggest that decisions on divestment, or honestly supporting, _any_  capability be decisions informed by government expectations of military purpose.
> 
> While _*personally*_,  I think what we've done with GBAD is borderline criminal, the decision was completely self-inflicted from within the military, and arguably had no basis in what deliverables the CAF may be required to produce.  I suspect the rationale was little more than, "it's too expensive; make it go away  give it to the Militia."
> 
> I gather by your online name that this is a personal issue.  Got it.  However, saying "oh...oh _ya_ !?  Well how about dumping the jump companies," is equally uninformed by requirements that may or may not come out of rethinking the way ahead.  If any capability is determined to be a legitimate requirement, then support it realistically (funding, PYs, training, doctrine, integration with the other arms, etc, etc);  otherwise it's expendable.  Désolé.
> 
> Many of our problems, I suspect, come from situating estimates based on cap badges, empires, ...or even school ring.  We can be our own worst enemy.



Its actually not personal. There is an identified need in our largest ally for GBAD and the only use I've seen for jump companies is delaying/prolonging Maple Resolves and creating a niche. Even talking to 3 PPCLI jump company guys the best rationale they could come up with for their existence was some magical requirement to jump a company into the arctic. I use that as a Rice bowl that is being protected. Perhaps they can find a role defending the BSA?


----------



## The Bread Guy

Occam said:
			
		

> I don't think as many unions have settled as you indicate.  It may constitute enough for the CF to start looking at numbers, though.  I'll look into it.


PA group in our building voted this week.


----------



## TCM621

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> BUT...if the people HB is speaking about cutting was taken, as much as possible, from trimming the fat off the meat, maybe you could go up to 3, possibly 4 crews.  Consider how much of the pay budget is chewed up by the fat year after year.  Cpls are far less expensive than surplus CWOs, Snr Officers and GOFOs.
> 
> I know, we are already an embarrassingly small military but the message has come across loud and clear if this government is going to bump up defence spending (nope!  and no one should be surprised...the overall Canadian population likes things like the Snowbirds and CAF members on parade in DEU on Nov 11th...and then it starts to peter off support-wise).
> 
> If funding is not going up, what option based on reality is there to consider?


There is actually some justification for being a little top heavy. If we ever end up in a world war 3 like scenario ptes and LTs can be made pretty quick. SNCOs and Generals not so much. However, I take your point about HQs. HQs need to be cut and the people in them fired back to the front line units. 

There are a lot of problems there as well though. For one, a decent number of people manning some of this bloat at HQs are career class B reservists, so they couldn't /wouldn't go to front line units. For another, it isn't like people at HQs sit around doing nothing. I have said before but I think most people agree HQs are over staffed just not in their office where they are swamped. We would have to have a culture shift where we pushed decision making back down to the front lines. Thirdly, the last time they were directed to cut HQs and leave the teeth, the cuts got push down until it hit the person who couldn't push it down any further, aka unit COs. 

I get that we have to deal in reality but at some point we need to admit that given current funding and procurement practices a functional, international military might not be a reality for much longer. 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## jollyjacktar

From a procurement perspective, it would make it almost impossible to make sure what's needed for the units, gets to the units if further cuts were made at HQ.  In many sections of the navy side we're already understaffed as it is, which only makes it more challenging to get things done.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Occam said:
			
		

> You betcha.


Madness! But you're still cool in my books so don't beat yourself up too much  



> I agree that there's a fair bit of "veteran online rage" out there, but to direct it at other veterans for their political beliefs?


Yup. Losers.


----------



## suffolkowner

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> :ditto:
> 
> I often disagree with you, jmt, but, then, I usually disagree with almost everyone on almost everything.
> 
> In fact I was going to post something to support your view that there are, essentially, "no new taxes" ~ at least not in the big scheme of things. I was going to add that there is, in fact, "no new anything," this is a timid, conservative, do nothing budget because no one in _official Ottawa_ wants to do anything because no one knows what the global economic situation is going to be like in six days, much less in six weeks, six months or six years. _Brexit_, Donald Trump, the _South China Seas_, global terrorism, _supply and demand_ and, and, and ... are all out of whack.
> 
> There are, generally, three major inputs to a budget: government, officials and allied experts, and the business community. In _my opinion_ this budget is about 95% officialdom, and 2.5% each government/politics and business. The officials are, by their very nature and by the nature of their environment, very, Very, VERY *conservative* and this is a _conservative_, stand-pat, _do nothing_, signal nothing, _wait and see_ budget. The verbiage is "Team Trudeau"trying to set the table for 2019 ~ they will shift away, _I suspect_, from the green, feminist and sunny ways agenda and towards an "innovation" agenda, but that's just a WAG ~ but the numbers, that "do nothing" are pure, cautious, timid, Canadian civil service.
> 
> Oh, and money for defence? Surely you all jest ... which amongst you can posit a coherent, sensible, comprehensible threat to Canada or its vital interests for which more military is the best answer? Overall, Journeyman has it about right.



Good post ERC, you may even have me considering Erin O'toole. I don't see how the CF's can survive 7 more years of this


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> Thirdly, the last time they were directed to cut HQs and leave the teeth, the cuts got push down until it hit the person who couldn't push it down any further, aka unit COs.



If there is direction and someone with the nads to make it happen at the level they tell people to make it happen, that can be overcome.  We, at the end of the day, follow orders and lawful commands.  If the GoC and the CDS says "make it so", the folks below them should just make it so, or be treated like anyone else who doesn't follow direction from lawful authority.  :2c:


----------



## Jarnhamar

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> Good post ERC, you may even have me considering Erin O'toole. I don't see how the CF's can survive 7 more years of this



Easy. Keep CANSOF to do the fighty stuff, get rid of the regular combat arms and just have supporters supporting supporters.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> supporters supporting supporters.



Judging from what I've seen deployed over the past few years, we'd be good at that!!


----------



## Eye In The Sky

So some retired guys are opting for replacing "trips to the low ground" or "generator maintenance" for the cyber versions because people were talking as if the represented them, and in actuality they didn't.  If someone spoke for me without asking me, saying stuff I wouldn't say, I'd be pissed off to.   


I'd be more concerned about the guy in Montreal preaching about how Jews should be killed, that's a big deal but everyone picks their own flag to wave I guess.  This "punch ABC in the face" stuff is *meh* to me.  People need thicker skins, or to not do things that make people want to punch them in the face.  Then they'd have nothing to worry about...

:dunno:


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> supporters supporting supporters.



The JTF(I) motto.....


----------



## Kirkhill

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I just have to say this.
> 
> I know most of you won't believe it.  I was angry earlier.  The truth is, I really enjoy this place.  It's a place where I've learned a lot from people that have a lot of information.  I realize now that for me, what's just a discussion, is real life for many of you.  I guess I didn't understand how that would impact your perspective on some pretty forceful outside views.  That's not the way I meant to or mean to come across.  On (some) military matters, I should probably shut up most of the time (and indeed, I do most of the time, but I should shut up more often), because even if I can't verify who you are, you're most likely who you claim to be.
> 
> I'm sorry for offending people and coming across as a jerk.  If I stay, I'll probably do it again.  It's not necessarily intentional (we're all intentional jerks sometimes).
> 
> That said, I do know a fair bit about government.  I don't know as much about government as a senior bureaucrat or politician, but I've studied it as my main hobby for about 15 years.  I've always loved it.  When I said that there was basically no new taxes, I meant just that.  It wasn't meant to be a confrontational or controversial statement.  It was simply my view that all of that tax increases (none of which I will pay [okay, I'll pay the alcohol and tobacco ones, but not as an end consumer]) amounted to nothing when compared with the size of the budget and the economy.  If you disagree, that's fine - it's simply my assessment.
> 
> I'm not trolling.  I know some of you see me that way, but I'm not.  I'm sorry for that perception as well.  Have a good night and or day, whenever you read this.



Well said jmt.  Hope to talk to you in a bit.

Cheers.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> The JTF(I) motto.....



And, as it is relevant to the recent discussion about bloat, top heavy trend and the way we do business, I'll offer the picture below.  I got it from one of the CAF FB pages but I can assure you this is the Camp Canada Kuwait Remembrance Day parade 2016.

On the far side of the picture is the WOs and Sgts section of the hollow square; we were 4 ranks.  With their backs to us is the picture is the Officers section of the hollow square;  8 ranks.

We had the same frontage in the WOs and Sgts as the Officers did, as did the Jnr Ranks who were 3-4 ranks as well.  In fact, some Jnr Officers were moved from their section to the Jnr Ranks one "_so it wouldn't look like there was so many officers_".  I guess 8 ranks was ok...9 would be WAY too many.   ???

We HQ top heavy, we deploy top heavy.  Our tooth to tail ratio is horrible.  IMO, JTF-I is an example of deployed bloat.


----------



## Occam

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> So some retired guys are opting for replacing "trips to the low ground" or "generator maintenance" for the cyber versions because people were talking as if the represented them, and in actuality they didn't.  If someone spoke for me without asking me, saying stuff I wouldn't say, I'd be pissed off to.
> 
> 
> I'd be more concerned about the guy in Montreal preaching about how Jews should be killed, that's a big deal but everyone picks their own flag to wave I guess.  This "punch ABC in the face" stuff is *meh* to me.  People need thicker skins, or to not do things that make people want to punch them in the face.  Then they'd have nothing to worry about...



I'm not particularly happy about the Royal Canadian Legion Dominion Command claiming that it advocates for all veterans, when in reality its position statement on the return to lifetime disability pensions tosses modern veterans under the bus - but you don't see me calling for throat punches all around for the RCL Executive.  

Jeez, maybe that's what we're doing wrong.  Sorry for the thread tangent.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> The JTF(I) motto.....



My experience with JTF-I would be, "Supporters supporting supporters as long as you dont actually want support..."


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> My experience with JTF-I would be, "Supporters supporting supporters as long as you dont actually want support..."



Thankfully, there is a coin for achieving that level of support.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Occam said:
			
		

> I'm not particularly happy about the Royal Canadian Legion Dominion Command claiming that it advocates for all veterans


  The Legion, despite how it is failing now, has been around for decades.  ABC sprung up because a few people decided they wanted to see how 15 minutes of fame felt.



> Sorry for the thread tangent.



No worries.


----------



## sailoraye123

With this 7.5+ billion put on hold for sar birds 15+ years down the road where are they going to cut from? Posting freezes and/or force reductions.. the 90's are back and this will be the second time we see the dark years


----------



## NavyShooter

The grass will definitely look greener on the other side to a lot of folks.

As for the RCL....there's threads about that.  They called me 2 years ago to ask me if I was coming to the annual awards dinner to pick up my 10 year thing.  (Their medal I guess?)  I think it's probably still waiting for me to drop by and pick it up.  I join at a cost of $35 a year so that I can get in early to the gun-shows.  

Regarding delayed purchases....well....what are we going to put off?  Fighters, ships, LAV's, pistols?  Have a look at the CID and see what's planned, and what's delay-able.  

I suspect we will see very little progress on infrastructure in the near (and long) term.

NS


----------



## jollyjacktar

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Thankfully, there is a coin for achieving that level of support.



Does that Chimp have a gold nut sack?  That is most impressive.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Does that Chimp have a gold nut sack?  That is most impressive.



It's actually a football and he is...*interacting* with it.


----------



## Quirky

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> Good post ERC, you may even have me considering Erin O'toole. I don't see how the CF's can survive 7 more years of this



Maybe that's exactly what we need, a full blown, public and national defence failure until the CF gets a compete retool from the top down. 

...or you know, keep the status quo of doing more with less and accepting it as the unwritten policy.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> It's actually a football and he is...*interacting* with it.



That's cool too.  Where do they sell the coins?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> That's cool too.  Where do they sell the coins?



The PX in Kuwait where Camp Canada is;  that's the only place I've ever seen them.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> The PX in Kuwait where Camp Canada is;  that's the only place I've ever seen them.



Shame, I'll never see the spot.  Should have bought the Achmed the Dead Terrorist morale patch at the Dutch PX ay KAF when I first saw it too.  Sold out and never came back while I was there.


----------



## MilEME09

Quirky said:
			
		

> Maybe that's exactly what we need, a full blown, public and national defence failure until the CF gets a compete retool from the top down.
> 
> ...or you know, keep the status quo of doing more with less and accepting it as the unwritten policy.



How big of a failure are we talking here? embarrassment on the world stage such as borrowing equipment from allies and such? Honestly I think our NATO allies need to step up and slap Canada, hard, and say get your shit together, at the end of the day we (as in Canada) agreed to the 2% NATO target at multiple NATO meetings over multiple governments. You can whine all you want about it and say there are other ways to calculate contributions but at the end of the day we said yes, yes to 2% of GDP on defense spending. The fact that we turned our back yet again on that promise should raise a flag with NATO, and find ways to get Canada to play ball.


----------



## Kirkhill

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> How big of a failure are we talking here? embarrassment on the world stage such as borrowing equipment from allies and such? Honestly I think our NATO allies need to step up and slap Canada, hard, and say get your shit together, at the end of the day we (as in Canada) agreed to the 2% NATO target at multiple NATO meetings over multiple governments. You can whine all you want about it and say there are other ways to calculate contributions but at the end of the day we said yes, yes to 2% of GDP on defense spending. The fact that we turned our back yet again on that promise should raise a flag with NATO, and find ways to get Canada to play ball.



Your problem there is that there are no NATO partners sufficiently well placed, from a moral standpoint, to be able to criticize Canada.  The majority are well under the 2% number, despite including stuff like RCMP with tanks, the Coast Guard and Paris firefighters in the budget to inflate their numbers.  Just take a look at the crapstorm POTUS Trump has stirred up by daring to suggest that things cost.

Hey, even the RN includes Fisheries Patrols that come out of the Coast Guard (non-defence) budget in Canada.


----------



## jmt18325

I think we agreed to the target as an aspirational goal only.


----------



## Kirkhill

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I think we agreed to the target as an aspirational goal only.



I've got you.  It was only for the purposes of the cameras and the next election then?  

Unfortunately, regardless of the actual number, real defences cost real dollars (or Euros).  Assuming that Vlad, or Erdogan, or Assad, or Khamenei, or Saud, or Xi or Kim are real threats,  at very least some of them are really frightening some people enough to concern them enough to believe that real defences are called for, then somebody is going to have to pay for them.  The command economy version didn't work out very well for the Russians.

The concerned parties agreed that their economies could support a donation of 2% of GDP to the cause, in addition to 0.7% of GDP to the cause of supporting the international order through foreign aid.

Aspirations don't pay the bills.

And, glad you're still here.


----------



## Kirkhill

Further to the Fighter Debacle:

Is it just me or does this leave the government a whole lot of wiggle room?



> The Government has announced a plan to replace Canada's legacy fleet of CF-18 fighter aircraft. *It will* launch an open and transparent competition to replace the fleet within its current mandate, and *explore the acquisition* of 18 new Super Hornet aircraft to supplement the CF-18s until the permanent replacement arrives.



Does that actually commit the government to buying, leasing, borrowing, begging, operating anything?


----------



## jmt18325

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Further to the Fighter Debacle:
> 
> Is it just me or does this leave the government a whole lot of wiggle room?
> 
> Does that actually commit the government to buying, leasing, borrowing, begging, operating anything?



I think you have a keen eye.  I would submit that they probably intend to buy them.  There are things that could kill the deal, I would assume.


----------



## Kirkhill

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I think you have a keen eye.  I would submit that they probably intend to buy them.  There are things that could kill the deal, I would assume.



Like they intend to spend 2% of GDP?


----------



## jmt18325

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Like they intend to spend 2% of GDP?



I would submit that governments of both stripes have made it clear that they don't intend to meet that target.


----------



## Kirkhill

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I would submit that governments of both stripes have made it clear that they don't intend to meet that target.



Agreed.


----------



## Loachman

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> I think most people agree HQs are over staffed



I am in one that is very lean at the best of times, and which is also short-staffed in many areas. It is very effective because of its small size - decisions are generally made at low levels, and there are only one or two levels to pass through to get to the top so there is almost no drag. I am also only a few paces away from anybody with whom that I need to speak.

More staffmembers also generate more work, which is not often a good thing.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Your HQ doesn't grow because it is busy - it gets busy because you let it grow......


----------



## Kirkhill

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Your HQ doesn't grow because it is busy - it gets busy because you let it grow......









  ???

Although I personally preferred this


----------



## McG

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Your HQ doesn't grow because it is busy - it gets busy because you let it grow......


Well, I have observed that feeding the information/product wants of a bloated higher headquarters can cause lower headquarters to grow to produce the extraneous reports and products for the higher staff.  So, in principle, your statement is correct but it is worth noting that HQ bloat is contagious to subordinates.


----------



## McG

On another note, where the government gives a giant chop to our vote 5 funds, there is no guarantee we would get to keep substantial vote 1 savings that we might realize from cutting the size of the force.  Our infrastructure and equipment are lacking, and that is where the cuts are happening.  The day-to-day pains many have described in this thread are not the result of budget cuts so much as the government not separately funding the increase in international operations.


> *National Post View: Which branch of the military, exactly, do the Liberals plan to gut this time?*
> National Post
> 24 Mar 2017
> 
> This week’s budget deferred $8.5 billion in defence capital expenditures to beyond 2030. That really means the government has absolutely no idea when it will spend that money, if ever. So, a question for the federal Liberal government: which particular branch of the Armed Forces does it feel is currently properly and fully equipped? What, exactly, does the government feel that the military can do without?
> 
> This is not just another lamenting of the longstanding multi-party tradition of underfunding the Canadian Armed Forces. As we noted in a recent editorial, Canada’s neglect of the military warrants its own Heritage Minute. Nor is this a gripe over Canada’s continuing failure to honour our pledge to NATO allies to spend 2 per cent of GDP on defence, a prospect so remote as to best be deemed science fiction.
> 
> No, we’re simply wondering what branch of the Armed Forces Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Finance Minister Bill Morneau and National Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan believe is so fully and lavishly equipped that billions of dollars in equipment purchases can be punted off to some unknown and unknowable future without compromising readiness. The budget was rather vague on this point, glossing over the gutting of the military in a mere few pages. Some clarity would be appreciated.
> 
> Perhaps it’s the Army? There are any number of projects that the government may have decided simply aren’t needed before the 2030s. Perhaps the long-delayed plan to replace the Second World War-era 9 mm pistols carried by military personnel (mostly but not exclusively in the Army) will be postponed, to save the government a few million bucks. After all, these 70-year-old guns can probably be kept in service for a generation longer. Some might even reach a century of service before being retired. But, no. That’s too ridiculous, and would only save a little bit of money. Perhaps the much more expensive plan to retrofit the LAV III combat vehicles that form the backbone of our infantry battalions, the core of our Army, will be delayed instead. These vehicles were driven into the ground through hard and honourable service in Afghanistan, but can remain effective weapons if properly taken care of. But maybe that can wait 20 years. Or perhaps maintenance of base facilities and barracks will be deferred instead.
> 
> Or maybe it won’t be the Army. Perhaps the government has decided that the Navy is simply too flush with cash and really ought to make do with less. But that would be silly, seeing as we still haven’t replaced the 50-year-old Sea King helicopters, we’ve retired both our supply ships without replacements, we no longer have any destroyers, our submarines have perhaps a decade of useful service left in them and the 12 frigates we’re left with are barely enough to patrol our own coasts, let alone contribute meaningfully abroad. So no, surely, the government won’t defer spending from the Navy or its shore bases (as quiet as they must be these days, as our fleet rusts itself into retirement).
> 
> That leaves the Air Force, then. With the Army and Navy both clearly in need of as much new equipment as we can provide, the cuts — sorry, the “reprofiling” — must be intended for the Air Force, which, presumably, the government believes has all it needs. But wait! What of the Liberals’ insistence that our fighter squadrons are in such dire shape that only an urgent purchase of 18 “interim” F-18 Super Hornets, at a cost of as much as $7 billion, can save them? This is in fact so urgent a priority, say the Liberals, that there isn’t even time to hold a proper competition to choose our next full-time fighter. The Super Hornets must be rushed into service, whatever the cost. So, maybe we’ll just wait until the 2030s to acquire those fancy new search-and-rescue aircraft we just announced. Try not to get lost, everyone.
> 
> You see the problem here, then. The government recognizes the urgent need for new Army weapons and refitted vehicles. It admits the Navy has rusted out and needs dozens of new ships and support vessels. It insists the Air Force is in such crisis that only a rush-buy of fighter jets can keep it flying. And yet it also proposes to cut billions from the equipment budget.
> 
> On the face of it, it doesn’t seem to make much sense. But it can’t be that the government hasn’t thought this through, or is daring to talk a good game on supporting the military while starving it for funds. Perish the thought! Some clarity from the Liberals on these matters would certainly put our minds at ease.


http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/national-post-view-which-branch-of-the-military-exactly-do-the-liberals-plan-to-gut-this-time


----------



## blacktriangle

I did a quick google - so Vote 1 is "operating". Does this include both personnel costs, and O&M? And then Vote 5 is capital? 

Thanks.


----------



## McG

Yes.


----------



## blacktriangle

Thanks MCG.


----------



## MilEME09

Well if anything we seem to be waiting to see when our supreme overlord America tells us to go to Mali, cause we are not capable of independent decisions. However if our Vote 1 costs are frozen or reduced the government will be faced with hard choices with Iraq, Poland, Latvia on the go, I just read CF-18's are heading to Iceland and Romania for air policing ops. Adding Mali to this mix, we'll have more deployed then we did in Afghanistan, without the same budget.


----------



## NavyShooter

Or perhaps, with almost the same budget, now worth less due to inflation?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Well if anything we seem to be waiting to see when our supreme overlord America tells us to go to Mali, cause we are not capable of independent decisions. However if our Vote 1 costs are frozen or reduced the government will be faced with hard choices with Iraq, Poland, Latvia on the go, I just read CF-18's are heading to Iceland and Romania for air policing ops. Adding Mali to this mix, we'll have more deployed then we did in Afghanistan, without the same budget.



Wait a minute! Are you suggesting that the Trudeau government is going to "Whip out its big CF-18", as if they were a Canadian phallic symbol? Say it ain't so, Joe".


----------



## Good2Golf

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Wait a minute! Are you suggesting that the Trudeau government is going to "Whip out its big CF-18", as if they were a Canadian phallic symbol? Say it ain't so, Joe".



...but this time would be different, and for the right reasons...and if it can be done with SUPER big CF-18s, even better!   


Regards
G2G


----------



## Colin Parkinson

About the talk of cutting the fat, from my experience, the people doing the job are to busy to protect themselves and end up being cut. The people you really want to cut, spend almost all their time protecting themselves and sniffing the wind, they are very good at surviving cutbacks and layoffs.


----------



## sandyson

That has been my observation in universities as well.


----------



## Kirkhill

I'll chip in from the civvy side.

A pretty universal phenomenon.

Techs and sales before management.


----------



## Good2Golf

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I'll chip in from the civvy side.
> 
> A pretty universal phenomenon.
> 
> Techs and sales before management.



Because only management can re-baseline the funnel...


----------



## Eland2

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> How big of a failure are we talking here? embarrassment on the world stage such as borrowing equipment from allies and such? Honestly I think our NATO allies need to step up and slap Canada, hard, and say get your crap together, at the end of the day we (as in Canada) agreed to the 2% NATO target at multiple NATO meetings over multiple governments. You can whine all you want about it and say there are other ways to calculate contributions but at the end of the day we said yes, yes to 2% of GDP on defense spending. The fact that we turned our back yet again on that promise should raise a flag with NATO, and find ways to get Canada to play ball.



One thing that would definitely do it is cutting off all trade with Canada. I seem to remember that the Germans told Trudeau Sr. "No tanks, no trade (with Germany)." And guess what happened next? The government bought new Leopard I tanks and even stationed some of them in Germany. So, if the threat to cut off trade worked in the mid-1970s, why wouldn't it work now?

I find it really disturbing that the Liberals will once again gladly let the entire military rust out and be incapable of doing even the most minimal jobs we ask it to do, just so that money will not have to be spent on the military. At this rate, why don't we just lower the flag, fold it up, and have the provinces apply for statehood, if it is so difficult to have a properly funded and equipped military?


----------



## jmt18325

It's really hard to blame the Liberals for simply continuing what the Harper government did post 2009.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Eland2 said:
			
		

> I find it really disturbing that the Liberals will once again gladly let the entire military rust out and be incapable of doing even the most minimal jobs we ask it to do, just so that money will not have to be spent on the military. A



What task(s) exactly have we failed at?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Eland2 said:
			
		

> One thing that would definitely do it is cutting off all trade with Canada. I seem to remember that the Germans told Trudeau Sr. "No tanks, no trade (with Germany)." And guess what happened next? The government bought new Leopard I tanks and even stationed some of them in Germany. So, if the threat to cut off trade worked in the mid-1970s, why wouldn't it work now?
> 
> I find it really disturbing that the Liberals will once again gladly let the entire military rust out and be incapable of doing even the most minimal jobs we ask it to do, just so that money will not have to be spent on the military. At this rate, why don't we just lower the flag, fold it up, and have the provinces apply for statehood, if it is so difficult to have a properly funded and equipped military?



No such threat of cutting off trade was ever made, Eland. And there never was any obligation to buy German tanks. We could have bought British or American ones and it would have had the same effect.

What Trudeau senior was told, in diplomatic (almost) terms, was: "Until you put your money where your mouth is in financing your defence burden, you can go sit in the corner over there and let adults discuss security matters at the NATO table. When you are ready to play with the adults, you can come back, but in the meantime, shut the hell up". It was very insulting for someone with an overinflated ego like Trudeau senior, who actually thought he mattered on the international scene.


----------



## Kirkhill

Eland2 said:
			
		

> One thing that would definitely do it is cutting off all trade with Canada. I seem to remember that the Germans told Trudeau Sr. "No tanks, no trade (with Germany)." And guess what happened next? The government bought new Leopard I tanks and even stationed some of them in Germany. So, if the threat to cut off trade worked in the mid-1970s, why wouldn't it work now?



That's funny!  [  Helmut Kohl played the same hand that Trump is apparently playing with Merkel.

Trump may (or may not) have put a dollar value on the cost of defending Germany.



> White House Rejects Claims Trump Gave Merkel Fake $376 Billion ‘Bill’ For NATO Payments


http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/27/white-house-rejects-claims-trump-gave-merkel-fake-380-billion-bill-for-nato-payments-transatlantic-relationship-germany-europe-security-defense/

Regardless of what did or did not happen linking defence and trade is not new.

I continue to assert that the Dew Line bought the AutoPact and that North Warning bought the Canada US Free Trade Agreement.


----------



## jollyjacktar

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> It's really hard to blame the Liberals for simply continuing what the Harper government did post 2009.



To be fair, it's more of a continuation of direction started under Mr. T Sr., and improved upon or played with by subsequent administrations.  All, gleefully kicked us in the chops and nads as seen fit.  Some,  Chretien for instance , with greater abandon than others, Harper, but all treated us as a tool and led us down various paths with sweet nothings or fuck you's whispered in our ears.  I personally don't know which knife in the guts hurts more, the ones held by the hand you knew wasn't your friend, Uncle Jean, or the one by he who promised he was a friend, Uncle Steven, and in reality, was all talk.


----------



## George Wallace

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> That's funny!  [  Helmut Kohl played the same hand that Trump is apparently playing with Merkel.
> 
> Trump may (or may not) have put a dollar value on the cost of defending Germany.
> http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/27/white-house-rejects-claims-trump-gave-merkel-fake-380-billion-bill-for-nato-payments-transatlantic-relationship-germany-europe-security-defense/
> 
> Regardless of what did or did not happen linking defence and trade is not new.
> 
> I continue to assert that the Dew Line bought the AutoPact and that North Warning bought the Canada US Free Trade Agreement.



Even in Business it is called "Politics".   [


----------



## jmt18325

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> To be fair, it's more of a continuation of direction started under Mr. T Sr., and improved upon or played with by subsequent administrations.  All, gleefully kicked us in the chops and nads as seen fit.  Some,  Chretien for instance , with greater abandon than others, Harper, but all treated us as a tool and led us down various paths with sweet nothings or frig you's whispered in our ears.  I personally don't know which knife in the guts hurts more, the ones held by the hand you knew wasn't your friend, Uncle Jean, or the one by he who promised he was a friend, Uncle Steven, and in reality, was all talk.



Oh I agree with you - I was simply speaking to the plans for the operational escalator and the continued deferment of more and more capital spending.


----------



## TCM621

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> It's really hard to blame the Liberals for simply continuing what the Harper government did post 2009.


But Harper could only do so much and alot of the problems we have were problems under the previous liberal government (supply ships, destroyers, helicopters, etc). Hell, a lot of it goes back to Trudeau Sr. The Tories don't get a free pass (they had issues as well particularly on the veteran file) but as someone who has served under 3 Liberal PMs, I sure as hell can blame them. 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## Edward Campbell

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> To be fair, it's more of a continuation of direction started under Mr. T Sr., and improved upon or played with by subsequent administrations.  All, gleefully kicked us in the chops and nads as seen fit.  Some,  Chretien for instance , with greater abandon than others, Harper, but all treated us as a tool and led us down various paths with sweet nothings or fuck you's whispered in our ears.  I personally don't know which knife in the guts hurts more, the ones held by the hand you knew wasn't your friend, Uncle Jean, or the one by he who promised he was a friend, Uncle Steven, and in reality, was all talk.




But that is exactly what we you are: a tool in a legitimate government's toolbox. A good, effective military is an expensive and finely crafted tool, but that's just what it is ... and tools are made to be used.

The people don't "owe" us you anything beyond a decent salary, adequate training and equipment and lawful missions. They, the people and the governments they elect, _should_, but often don't, give you some respect ... you deserve it, but it is a bonus.


----------



## YZT580

E.R. you said it.  The trouble is that at best the government is only providing half of your list.  The services are probably adequately paid but training is continuously postponed and adequate equipment provision is a joke. Even when they do supply equipment the primary objective isn't to supply but to provide some auxiliary benefits.  Witness our latest purchase of short range turbo-prop twins that are guaranteed to cause back problems to every SAR tech over 5' 10.   At the moment they are providing missions that seem to make sense but I will reserve the right to change even that statement if they aren't very careful with regards the UN. So the government is not coming close to living up to their end of the contract.  We have indeed entered another 4 years of darkness.


----------



## Lightguns

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> But Harper could only do so much and alot of the problems we have were problems under the previous liberal government (supply ships, destroyers, helicopters, etc). Hell, a lot of it goes back to Trudeau Sr. The Tories don't get a free pass (they had issues as well particularly on the veteran file) but as someone who has served under 3 Liberal PMs, I sure as hell can blame them.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk



Under 9 PMs and I agree with you, Heck, our problems started with NATO in 1949 and the "sphere of American Influence" forcing us to give away all our equipment to nations in the "sphere of UK influence".  We are still trying to catch up.


----------



## George Wallace

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Under 9 PMs and I agree with you, Heck, our problems started with NATO in 1949 and the "sphere of American Influence" forcing us to give away all our equipment to nations in the "sphere of UK influence".  We are still trying to catch up.



Add the false impression that more modern and more efficient weapons systems and equipment justifies downsizing and you can see how we have gotten to where we are today.  We have seen numerous discussions on these forums on many of the points to affirm this; 10 tonne trucks to replace 5 tonne and 2.5 tonne trucks on a one for four exchange as one example.  The impression that one Leopard 2 tank is more deadly than previous tanks, so we can cut the numbers accordingly.  All across all Elements, Branches and Corps we have seen this reasoning cut our capabilities.  We often forget that we have equipment removed from service through maintenance scheduling, rebuild or modification scheduling, accidents (damaged or destroyed), etc. so we need to ensure we have replacements or a "War Stock" to provide a minimum replacement pool.  

Another factor overlooked by many is that technology is not cheap and constantly advancing.


----------



## jmt18325

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> But Harper could only do so much and alot of the problems we have were problems under the previous liberal government (supply ships, destroyers, helicopters, etc). Hell, a lot of it goes back to Trudeau Sr. The Tories don't get a free pass (they had issues as well particularly on the veteran file) but as someone who has served under 3 Liberal PMs, I sure as hell can blame them.



I'm talking specifically about the current funding track.  As a Canadian that cares about defence, I had high hopes that SJH would do better in that department(indeed, I voted for him twice), and he did at first, I'm sure you'd agree.  His short sighted political belief that he needed to balance the budget now really dashed those hopes.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Under 9 PMs and I agree with you, Heck, our problems started with NATO in 1949 and the "sphere of American Influence" forcing us to give away all our equipment to nations in the "sphere of UK influence".  We are still trying to catch up.



Served under 8, from Trudeau Sr. to Harper ... but what the heck are you rambling on about "us giving away all our equipment to nations in the "sphere of UK influence" "  ???


----------



## Lightguns

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Served under 8, from Trudeau Sr. to Harper ... but what the heck are you rambling on about "us giving away all our equipment to nations in the "sphere of UK influence" "  ???



When NATO was formed in 1949, it was divided into military spheres of influence.  In each sphere, the minor nations had to deploy equipment that marched the ammo and spares of the lead nation.  This was the first step to NATO standardization of ammo and equipment.  We were in the US sphere and gave our Canadian made British kit to the Italians and Belgians for cheap as they were in the UK sphere.  We basically gave away our kit while purchasing half as much kit from the US military.  This happened through the 1950's til we basically had all US calibres and vehicle powertrains.  There were exceptions, such as Centurion which we had committed to before NATO standardization.   There were also a lot of mix matching, like getting rid of .303 Vickers for .30-06 GPMG while still using .303 Lee Enfields, then converting the GPMG to 7.62 NATO at near the same time as buying FNs.  NATO Standardizing put a lot of pressure on a government that never liked buying military equipment to begin with and left the Army with a shortfall of equipment that has since been the norm.  

It's from a PD session several years ago.  Basically, the jest of the Thesis was that the military never caught up in it's equipment lifecycle because it was forced to change equipment, ammo and spares in a shorter period of time (a decade) and dispose of equipment that it had not intended to dispose of so quickly.  Then the continuous cuts from the Diefenbaker era on kept the army behind.


----------



## Kirkhill

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Add the false impression that more modern and more efficient weapons systems and equipment justifies downsizing and you can see how we have gotten to where we are today.  We have seen numerous discussions on these forums on many of the points to affirm this; 10 tonne trucks to replace 5 tonne and 2.5 tonne trucks on a one for four exchange as one example.  The impression that one Leopard 2 tank is more deadly than previous tanks, so we can cut the numbers accordingly.  All across all Elements, Branches and Corps we have seen this reasoning cut our capabilities.  We often forget that we have equipment removed from service through maintenance scheduling, rebuild or modification scheduling, accidents (damaged or destroyed), etc. so we need to ensure we have replacements or a "War Stock" to provide a minimum replacement pool.
> 
> Another factor overlooked by many is that technology is not cheap and constantly advancing.



So, does that mean that you endorse the need for a Managed Readiness Plan with, for example, one Squadron in a Regiment being equipped with vehicles for garrison purposes?  Vehicles being drawn from stock for exercises and operations?


----------



## George Wallace

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> So, does that mean that you endorse the need for a Managed Readiness Plan with, for example, one Squadron in a Regiment being equipped with vehicles for garrison purposes?  Vehicles being drawn from stock for exercises and operations?



I thought that that Managed Readiness Plan was a farce.  Vehicles need to move.  Putting them into storage at Depots or Training Areas only permits seals to dry out, rust to take hold, etc. making the vehicles less serviceable than if they are in daily use.


----------



## Lightguns

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Add the false impression that more modern and more efficient weapons systems and equipment justifies downsizing and you can see how we have gotten to where we are today.  We have seen numerous discussions on these forums on many of the points to affirm this; 10 tonne trucks to replace 5 tonne and 2.5 tonne trucks on a one for four exchange as one example.  The impression that one Leopard 2 tank is more deadly than previous tanks, so we can cut the numbers accordingly.  All across all Elements, Branches and Corps we have seen this reasoning cut our capabilities.  We often forget that we have equipment removed from service through maintenance scheduling, rebuild or modification scheduling, accidents (damaged or destroyed), etc. so we need to ensure we have replacements or a "War Stock" to provide a minimum replacement pool.
> 
> Another factor overlooked by many is that technology is not cheap and constantly advancing.



And thus 500 Sherman tanks are replaced by 250 Centurion tanks which are then replaced by 114 Leopard I tanks and finally 65 Leopard II tanks.  My numbers maybe a little off but the jest is the same.  Of course, the government allows a little overlap between new and used kit so that the impression is that they are not taking away capability.


----------



## Kirkhill

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I thought that that Managed Readiness Plan was a farce.  Vehicles need to move.  Putting them into storage at Depots or Training Areas only permits seals to dry out, rust to take hold, etc. making the vehicles less serviceable than if they are in daily use.



OK.  Understood.  But could that be managed by more frequent use of the depot stocks?  Say returning the vehicles to depot every 3 months? 6 months? A year?  Also - a notion I have broached before is the notion that rather than the techs being tied to the regiment that they be tied to the vehicles?   When you draw a squadron of Leos you get their accompanying troop of techs.  When you draw a squadron of LAVs or TAPVs or Vikings (it is to dream) you get the appropriately qualified techs with them.


----------



## George Wallace

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> OK.  Understood.  But could that be managed by more frequent use of the depot stocks?  Say returning the vehicles to depot every 3 months? 6 months? A year?  Also - a notion I have broached before is the notion that rather than the techs being tied to the regiment that they be tied to the vehicles?   When you draw a squadron of Leos you get their accompanying troop of techs.  When you draw a squadron of LAVs or TAPVs or Vikings (it is to dream) you get the appropriately qualified techs with them.



Looks good on paper.  HOWEVER.......Having the vehicles parked in Wainwright does little cost effective wise for units in Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes.  Rotation of those vehicles through those units would cause additional maintenance costs and more costly transportation costs.  Same could be said for sending troops from the East out West to rotate through those vehicles.


----------



## Brasidas

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Looks good on paper.  HOWEVER.......Having the vehicles parked in Wainwright does little cost effective wise for units in Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes.  Rotation of those vehicles through those units would cause additional maintenance costs and more costly transportation costs.  Same could be said for sending troops from the East out West to rotate through those vehicles.



What about putting them all in Gagetown? If we've got one squadron's worth of tanks, how about outfitting only one squadron and the school with a pool of tanks? Call everybody else armoured recce like they did with the reserves?


----------



## Kirkhill

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Looks good on paper.  HOWEVER.......Having the vehicles parked in Wainwright does little cost effective wise for units in Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes.  Rotation of those vehicles through those units would cause additional maintenance costs and more costly transportation costs.  Same could be said for sending troops from the East out West to rotate through those vehicles.



On the plus side - regular road moves between training venues, depots and garrisons would exercise troops, exercise vehicles and show presence.  On the other hand money would have to be found for POL, bearings and seals.

One of the reasons I became fascinated with things military was counting red and yellow lugs on Ayrshire Yeomanry Dingos or Ferrets (whatever they were driving when I was 3 years old and the wheels were the only thing I could see through the fence).  Those vehicles were regularly on the road on some scheme or other.


----------



## jmt18325

The unofficial word around official Ottawa is that the budget's Donald Trump Paragraph means that the forthcoming defence review -- with the Trudeau government's amorphous pledge to "equip the Forces to meet the challenges of the coming decades" -- will result in Canada finally meeting its NATO commitment. A Conservative government had long been a NATO free rider, but it will be a Liberal government that will finally pay its way in NATO. To this Liberal hawk, that is profoundly ironic -- but highly satisfying.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/warren-kinsella/trump-trudeau-and-nato_b_15643424.html

I'll take that with a grain of salt, but that would be huge news if true.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Sorry, JMT, but  :rofl:  gasp, pause for breath   :rofl:

Not from my seat's view at work... I'd almost not be surprised if the payroll didn't come in mid-month with the vibes going around.  This has all the smell and taste of the early 90's after Mr. C took over the helm.  And again, I really, really, really hope that the spidey sense we are getting in the office is just wind.  But, I fear, it's more substance than just wind.


----------



## FSTO

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> The unofficial word around official Ottawa is that the budget's Donald Trump Paragraph means that the forthcoming defence review -- with the Trudeau government's amorphous pledge to "equip the Forces to meet the challenges of the coming decades" -- will result in Canada finally meeting its NATO commitment. A Conservative government had long been a NATO free rider, but it will be a Liberal government that will finally pay its way in NATO. To this Liberal hawk, that is profoundly ironic -- but highly satisfying.
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/warren-kinsella/trump-trudeau-and-nato_b_15643424.html
> 
> I'll take that with a grain of salt, but that would be huge news if true.



Since it comes from Mr Kinsella, then that grain is salt block size. 
Words are words, I won't get excited until there is actual ships alongside and sailors manning all stations!


----------



## Kirkhill

FSTO said:
			
		

> Since it comes from Mr Kinsella, then that grain is salt block size.
> Words are words, I won't get excited until there is actual ships alongside and sailors manning all stations!



Agree with both you and JJT on Kinsella......

But...

One thing I have discovered is that the only people that can enact "conservative" policies in Canada are the Liberals.  For exactly the same reason that Jr got elected: better marketing.


----------



## jmt18325

FSTO said:
			
		

> Since it comes from Mr Kinsella, then that grain is salt block size.



I actually posted it specifically because it was from him - if anyone were to know...


----------



## Good2Golf

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> The unofficial word around official Ottawa is that the budget's Donald Trump Paragraph means that the forthcoming defence review -- with the Trudeau government's amorphous pledge to "equip the Forces to meet the challenges of the coming decades" -- will result in Canada finally meeting its NATO commitment. A Conservative government had long been a NATO free rider, but it will be a Liberal government that will finally pay its way in NATO. To this Liberal hawk, that is profoundly ironic -- but highly satisfying.
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/warren-kinsella/trump-trudeau-and-nato_b_15643424.html
> 
> I'll take that with a grain of salt, but that would be huge news if true.



I think you shouldn't rush to snap judgments about how much the Liberal's are going to invest beyond the postponement of billions of dollars to DND's capital budget.

You know, like waiting until the truth actually comes out.  I remember someone telling many of us just a little while ago not to pre-judge...


----------



## blacktriangle

I heard money is being set aside for a GBA+ battalion in Goose Bay.


----------



## jmt18325

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> I think you shouldn't rush to snap judgments about how much the Liberal's are going to invest beyond the postponement of billions of dollars to DND's capital budget.
> 
> You know, like waiting until the truth actually comes out.  I remember someone telling many of us just a little while ago not to pre-judge...



I'm just posting a story that came up on twitter that I found interesting and hopeful.


----------



## jmt18325

Spectrum said:
			
		

> I heard money is being set aside for a GBA+ battalion in Goose Bay.



A what?


----------



## MilEME09

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> A what?


Gender based Analysis, government buzz word. Atleast thats the only gba+ i can find. They will need every woman in the CF to get an equalled out battalion.

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk


----------



## Lightguns

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> The unofficial word around official Ottawa is that the budget's Donald Trump Paragraph means that the forthcoming defence review -- with the Trudeau government's amorphous pledge to "equip the Forces to meet the challenges of the coming decades" -- will result in Canada finally meeting its NATO commitment. A Conservative government had long been a NATO free rider, but it will be a Liberal government that will finally pay its way in NATO. To this Liberal hawk, that is profoundly ironic -- but highly satisfying.
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/warren-kinsella/trump-trudeau-and-nato_b_15643424.html
> 
> I'll take that with a grain of salt, but that would be huge news if true.



Given the mount of criticism Kinsella heaped on Trudeau during the leadership race (his man Garneau) and the election and continues to on his twitter,  Kinsella is very much an outsider in his own party.


----------



## Halifax Tar

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> The unofficial word around official Ottawa is that the budget's Donald Trump Paragraph means that the forthcoming defence review -- with the Trudeau government's amorphous pledge to "equip the Forces to meet the challenges of the coming decades" -- will result in Canada finally meeting its NATO commitment. A Conservative government had long been a NATO free rider, but it will be a Liberal government that will finally pay its way in NATO. To this Liberal hawk, that is profoundly ironic -- but highly satisfying.
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/warren-kinsella/trump-trudeau-and-nato_b_15643424.html
> 
> I'll take that with a grain of salt, but that would be huge news if true.



Please do not read the comments after that article...


----------



## Lightguns

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Please do not read the comments after that article...



Actually those comments explain how the Canadian government, regardless of team colour, is able to get away with their deficit of defense spending.  Canadians, in the majority, do not give two anal massages about their military *IF* it means that their guvermint entitlements maybe cut or held below the rate of inflation.


----------



## George Wallace

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Not from my seat's view at work... I'd almost not be surprised if the payroll didn't come in mid-month with the vibes going around.  This has all the smell and taste of the early 90's after Mr. C took over the helm.  And again, I really, really, really hope that the spidey sense we are getting in the office is just wind.  But, I fear, it's more substance than just wind.



Mr C is hiding in the wings as one of JT's advisors.  Your fears may have some substance.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Actually those comments explain how the Canadian government, regardless of team colour, is able to get away with their deficit of defense spending.  Canadians, in the majority, do not give two anal massages about their military *IF* it means that their guvermint entitlements maybe cut or held below the rate of inflation.



And speaking of said Canadians, you'll find one man's opinion as stated in today's Chronicle Herald.  This guy is, I believe, a full civilian and not defence analyst or any sort... but everyone has an opinion and this is his.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/1454557-opinion-five-ways-we-can-remake-canada%E2%80%99s-defence-strategy


----------



## jollyjacktar

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Mr C is hiding in the wings as one of JT's advisors.  Your fears may have some substance.



Ye Gods, save us from "dat guy".  Once with him as overlord was more than enough to suit me.


----------



## Halifax Tar

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> And speaking of said Canadians, you'll find one man's opinion as stated in today's Chronicle Herald.  This guy is, I believe, a full civilian and not defence analyst or any sort... but everyone has an opinion and this is his.
> 
> http://thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/1454557-opinion-five-ways-we-can-remake-canada%E2%80%99s-defence-strategy



I think that guy drank all the Liberal cool aide and had their cookies too lol


----------



## Lightguns

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I think that guy drank all the Liberal cool aide and had their cookies too lol



Lighthouses.....with big 'effin' missiles pointing out of them.  That will make the bad man go away.  And more Twin Otters, and, and,............


----------



## Journeyman

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> This guy is, I believe, a full civilian and not defence analyst or any sort... but everyone has an opinion and this is his.
> 
> http://thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/1454557-opinion-five-ways-we-can-remake-canada%E2%80%99s-defence-strategy


THAT was effin' hilarious!    :rofl:


"full civilian"...but definitely not a 'full deck'   ;D


----------



## Halifax Tar

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Lighthouses.....with big 'effin' missiles pointing out of them.  That will make the bad man go away.  And more Twin Otters, and, and,............



He's why we don't get nice things


----------



## FSTO

That's why they call it the Comical Herald!


----------



## The Bread Guy

FSTO said:
			
		

> That's why they call it the Comical Herald!


There may be a reason the free online paper set up by striking Herald workers is nominated for more awards than the now-management-run hard copy a year into a strike there ...


----------



## jollyjacktar

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> There may be a reason the free online paper set up by striking Herald workers is nominated for more awards than the now-management-run hard copy a year into a strike there ...



Thanks, Tony, for putting this out there for guys like me who are away from kith and kin in Nottawa and other extremes.  This will enable me to keep in touch with home and what's going on there, better than the Herald.  Especially if they're going to put out nonsense like that.


----------



## dapaterson

FSTO said:
			
		

> That's why they call it the Comical Herald!



And here I thought it was the Chronically Horrible.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> And speaking of said Canadians, you'll find one man's opinion as stated in today's Chronicle Herald.  This guy is, I believe, a full civilian and not defence analyst or any sort... but everyone has an opinion and this is his.
> 
> http://thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/1454557-opinion-five-ways-we-can-remake-canada%E2%80%99s-defence-strategy


----------



## NavyShooter

Chronicle Herald?

Try the Chronically Horrible.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Article Link

Canada's top general says military not hurting for money, defends spending delay

'There's no point giving us billions when we can't spend it,' says Vance

The country's top soldier has pushed back on suggestions the armed forces is struggling from a lack of cash, saying he's not convinced it is making the most of the money it already gets.

Yet chief of defence staff Gen. Jonathan Vance says he is also eager to see the government's new defence policy, which has promised to put the military on a strong financial footing over the long term.

"The here and now is fine, we're delivering," Vance said in an interview with The Canadian Press. "But going forward, that's when the government committed to sustainable, progressive armed forces."

The question of military spending has taken on a life of its own over the last year, after U.S. President Donald Trump called on NATO allies to contribute more to their own defence.

Canada currently spends about one per cent of its GDP on defence, which is half the agreed-upon NATO target of two per cent and puts it in the bottom half among the allies.

Rather than increase defence spending, however, last week's federal budget saw the Liberal government delay hundreds of millions of dollars in planned equipment purchases by several years.

Vance said defence officials asked for the delay because several projects weren't ready for the money, which Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan's office has blamed on a shortage of procurement staff.

"The reprofiling was our choice," Vance said. "I know people have a hard time believing that, but it is true. There's no point giving us billions when we can't spend it."

Defence policy review

Officials have insisted the money will be available when it's actually needed in future years.

One of the big questions posed by defence analysts, however, is whether there will be enough money to sustain the military over the long term.

Some have flagged what they see as a gap between the amount of money available for new military equipment in the coming years, and what the government has promised to spend.

Vance noted the government is working on a new defence policy, which is expected in early May and which the budget promised will be rigorously costed and sustainable.

"We're waiting for the defence policy review and that investment," he said. "That's going to be the expression of investment by the government of Canada."

Ensuring efficiency

In the meantime, the general said defence officials are looking at the current $19-billion budget to ensure it is being used as effectively as possible.

Vance acknowledged there are some areas of the military that need more money, starting with its crumbling bases, armouries and other infrastructure.

"But my gut instinct right now tells me we have way too much infrastructure in the armed forces for the size that we are," he said.

"We have a lot of buildings that we're paying tax on that we don't use. So before we blame government for a lack of money, we've got to make certain that in-house we are the most efficient we can be."

Finance Minister Bill Morneau said last week that the armed forces was "appropriately provisioned" to meet Canada's needs, while leaving the door open to future "adjustments" as needed.

But space for additional investments looks to be quite limited, at least in the short term, as the budget predicted the federal deficit will stay above $20 billion until 2021-22.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WTF.  I can't get new t shirts, thermals or flight suits right now because there AREN'T any.  Maybe he can chuck some bucks at the operational clothing budget so, you know, there isn't shortages or NO STOCK of certain items.

I know I'm just a small cog and I don't pretend to know how the CAF budget stuff runs, BUT...I know when someone says "we don't need money" and I can't even get my basic operational clothing exchanged, I want to put my hand up and wave my *excuse me!* flag.


----------



## MilEME09

Deadline given to have a plan to meet 2%



> U.S. gives NATO allies 2 months for defence spending plans
> 
> 
> RUSSELS -- U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson warned NATO allies Friday to boost defence spending or come up with plans to reach the alliance's budget guidelines within two months.
> 
> Tillerson, in his first talks with NATO counterparts in Brussels, said that Washington is spending a "disproportionate share" on defence compared with its 27 partners, and that he expects action by the time President Donald Trump meets with other alliance leaders on May 25.
> 
> NATO leaders pledged in 2014 to halt defence spending cuts and move toward a guideline target of 2 per cent of gross domestic product within a decade. Only four other nations currently meet the target: Britain, Estonia, Greece and Poland.
> 
> "Our goal should be to agree at the May leaders meeting that by the end of the year all allies will have either met the pledge guidelines or will have developed plans that clearly articulate how, with annual milestone progress commitments, the pledge will be fulfilled," Tillerson told the ministers.
> 
> Tillerson did not say what would happen if European allies and Canada fail to respect their pledges. During election campaigning, Trump suggested that he might not come to the defence of those allies who do not do their fair share, rocking allies near an increasingly aggressive Russia, such as Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland.
> 
> However, Tillerson sought to calm any fears, saying Friday that "we understand that a threat against one of us is a threat against all of us, and we will respond accordingly. We will uphold the agreements we have made to defend our allies.
> 
> The United States is by far NATO's most powerful ally. It spends more on defence than all the others combined; 3.61 per cent of GDP in 2016, according to NATO estimates, although U.S. spending, too, has tapered off in recent years.
> 
> Germany spent 1.19 per cent of its overall budget on defence last year.
> 
> But German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel said it would be "unrealistic" for his country to hike spending from 35 billion euros ($37 billion) a year to over 70 billion euros, which would see Berlin allocate more to defence than Russia currently.
> 
> "I don't know a politician in Germany who believes that this would be achievable or even desirable," Gabriel said.
> 
> He said security is also about crisis prevention, not just combat, and noted that Germany spends a lot of money on refugees who arrive because military interventions have failed.
> 
> Seven countries -- including Canada, Italy and Spain -- would have to virtually double their spending to reach the target.
> 
> Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland said that beyond money, "it's also really important to look at capabilities and what countries are actually doing."
> 
> "We really feel that we're doing our share," she said, highlighting Canada's troop deployment to Latvia to help deter Russian aggression.
> 
> Tillerson also urged NATO to do more to fight the Islamic State group and other extremists, notably by countering IS online messaging and propaganda.
> 
> NATO has fought insurgents in Afghanistan, and is training Iraqi officers so that local forces can make a strong stand against extremists. There is no appetite to deploy troops in counter-terrorism operations. Allies believe that the international coalition against IS should be leading combat operations, not NATO.
> 
> NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said the lesson learned from operations in Afghanistan, but also in Kosovo and Bosnia-Herzegovina, is that "in the long run it is much better to fight terrorism and project stability by training local forces, building local security institutions, instead of NATO deploying a large number of combat troops.



http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/u-s-gives-nato-allies-2-months-for-defence-spending-plans-1.3348890

though the liberals will tout their new defense policy review to say they have a plan. Also reference the above article posted by Eye in the Sky, who else caught the line that the CDS hasn't seen the new defense policy? It is highly concerning that the top soldier is not involved in the process.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> ... I know I'm just a small cog and I don't pretend to know how the CAF budget stuff runs, BUT...I know when someone says "we don't need money" and I can't even get my basic operational clothing exchanged, I want to put my hand up and wave my *excuse me!* flag.


I'm not even in, but looking from the outside in as a fat civilian, I've seen more than one post over a few governments saying money is going back because it's not being spent by year end.  I'm all for mo' $ for the troops, but it also sounds like there's a need to fix the "how it's spent?" system.


			
				MilEME09 said:
			
		

> ... who else caught the line that the CDS hasn't seen the new defense policy? It is highly concerning that the top soldier is not involved in the process.


Is it possible "Vance says he is ... eager to see the government's new defence policy" = "Vance hasn't seen the FINAL version"?  I'd be surprised if even Team "Just Not Ready" didn't let the CAF provide input into the defence policy ...


----------



## daftandbarmy

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Article Link
> 
> Canada's top general says military not hurting for money, defends spending delay
> 
> 'There's no point giving us billions when we can't spend it,' says Vance
> 
> The country's top soldier has pushed back on suggestions the armed forces is struggling from a lack of cash, saying he's not convinced it is making the most of the money it already gets.
> 
> Yet chief of defence staff Gen. Jonathan Vance says he is also eager to see the government's new defence policy, which has promised to put the military on a strong financial footing over the long term.
> 
> "The here and now is fine, we're delivering," Vance said in an interview with The Canadian Press. "But going forward, that's when the government committed to sustainable, progressive armed forces."
> 
> The question of military spending has taken on a life of its own over the last year, after U.S. President Donald Trump called on NATO allies to contribute more to their own defence.
> 
> Canada currently spends about one per cent of its GDP on defence, which is half the agreed-upon NATO target of two per cent and puts it in the bottom half among the allies.
> 
> Rather than increase defence spending, however, last week's federal budget saw the Liberal government delay hundreds of millions of dollars in planned equipment purchases by several years.
> 
> Vance said defence officials asked for the delay because several projects weren't ready for the money, which Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan's office has blamed on a shortage of procurement staff.
> 
> "The reprofiling was our choice," Vance said. "I know people have a hard time believing that, but it is true. There's no point giving us billions when we can't spend it."
> 
> Defence policy review
> 
> Officials have insisted the money will be available when it's actually needed in future years.
> 
> One of the big questions posed by defence analysts, however, is whether there will be enough money to sustain the military over the long term.
> 
> Some have flagged what they see as a gap between the amount of money available for new military equipment in the coming years, and what the government has promised to spend.
> 
> Vance noted the government is working on a new defence policy, which is expected in early May and which the budget promised will be rigorously costed and sustainable.
> 
> "We're waiting for the defence policy review and that investment," he said. "That's going to be the expression of investment by the government of Canada."
> 
> Ensuring efficiency
> 
> In the meantime, the general said defence officials are looking at the current $19-billion budget to ensure it is being used as effectively as possible.
> 
> Vance acknowledged there are some areas of the military that need more money, starting with its crumbling bases, armouries and other infrastructure.
> 
> "But my gut instinct right now tells me we have way too much infrastructure in the armed forces for the size that we are," he said.
> 
> "We have a lot of buildings that we're paying tax on that we don't use. So before we blame government for a lack of money, we've got to make certain that in-house we are the most efficient we can be."
> 
> Finance Minister Bill Morneau said last week that the armed forces was "appropriately provisioned" to meet Canada's needs, while leaving the door open to future "adjustments" as needed.
> 
> But space for additional investments looks to be quite limited, at least in the short term, as the budget predicted the federal deficit will stay above $20 billion until 2021-22.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> WTF.  I can't get new t shirts, thermals or flight suits right now because there AREN'T any.  Maybe he can chuck some bucks at the operational clothing budget so, you know, there isn't shortages or NO STOCK of certain items.
> 
> I know I'm just a small cog and I don't pretend to know how the CAF budget stuff runs, BUT...I know when someone says "we don't need money" and I can't even get my basic operational clothing exchanged, I want to put my hand up and wave my *excuse me!* flag.



The answer? More staff officers so we can do the work ups required on those spending plans


----------



## Eye In The Sky

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Deadline given to have a plan to meet 2%



We just deferred what, $8+ billion in spending to the 2030s?  

op:


----------



## The Bread Guy

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> The answer? More staff officers so we can do the work ups required on those spending plans


That, and more consultants to guide them, should get the budget up to 2% GDP lickety-split ...


----------



## Kirkhill

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> That, and more consultants to guide them, should get the budget up to 2% GDP lickety-split ...



Did somebody say they needed a consultant?  Let me check my calendar....  ;D


----------



## MilEME09

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> That, and more consultants to guide them, should get the budget up to 2% GDP lickety-split ...



I had to shake my head the other day reading an article about the Change of Command for the Military Personal Command, though i take the numbers with a grain of salt it stated that MPC has about 14,000 military and civilian members to manage all the personal in the Canadian forces. 14,000 people... to manage 68,000 careers, hmmm


----------



## The Bread Guy

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> I had to shake my head the other day reading an article about the Change of Command for the Military Personal Command, though i take the numbers with a grain of salt it stated that MPC has about 14,000 military and civilian members to manage all the personal in the Canadian forces. 14,000 people... to manage 68,000 careers, hmmm


That's a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooot of "managing" right there - see what I mean about how the CAF _may_ need to fix how it spends before pouring more money into the bucket?


----------



## McG

That number probably includes all of health services, recruiting centres, and students at RMC & CMR.


----------



## dapaterson

No, it does not take 14K to manage 68K.  CMP and MPC do include ~14,000 personnel (mil and civ).  However, there's a wide variety of folks in that number, performing a wide array of jobs.

That includes the ~8000 regular force personnel on the BTL - those not yet trained.

That includes the ~1000 regular force personnel on the ATL - those on career courses of a year or more.

That includes the recruiting system.  It includes the recruit school.  The military colleges.  The CF college.  Most of the schools in Borden.  Base staff in Borden.  The health care system, including Reg F, Res F and civilian personnel.  NDHQ elements that do things like career management, personnel policy, occupational management, research, history & heritage...


----------



## Journeyman

dapaterson said:
			
		

> ... history & heritage...


Oh, _that_  idiot.  rly:


----------



## a_majoor

The Trump Administration lights a fire under the NATO alliance WRT their 2% spending. I notice that a lot of the countries are already trying to fined weasel words to suggest that spending on other things should be considered part of the 2%, but we will see how that goes:

http://bigstory.ap.org/ce256f31a023483b8ed5d246abd49290



> *US gives NATO allies 2 months for defense spending plans*
> By LORNE COOK
> Mar. 31, 2017 7:47 AM EDT
> 
> BRUSSELS (AP) — U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson warned NATO allies Friday to boost defense spending or come up with plans to reach the alliance's budget guidelines within two months.
> 
> Tillerson, in his first talks with NATO counterparts in Brussels, said that Washington is spending a "disproportionate share" on defense compared with its 27 partners, and that he expects action by the time President Donald Trump meets with other alliance leaders on May 25.
> 
> NATO leaders pledged in 2014 to halt defense spending cuts and move toward a guideline target of 2 percent of gross domestic product within a decade. Only four other nations currently meet the target: Britain, Estonia, Greece and Poland.
> 
> "Our goal should be to agree at the May leaders meeting that by the end of the year all allies will have either met the pledge guidelines or will have developed plans that clearly articulate how, with annual milestone progress commitments, the pledge will be fulfilled," Tillerson told the ministers.
> 
> Tillerson did not say what would happen if European allies and Canada fail to respect their pledges. During election campaigning, Trump suggested that he might not come to the defense of those allies who do not do their fair share, rocking allies near an increasingly aggressive Russia, such as Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland.
> 
> However, Tillerson sought to calm any fears, saying Friday that "we understand that a threat against one of us is a threat against all of us, and we will respond accordingly. We will uphold the agreements we have made to defend our allies.
> 
> The United States is by far NATO's most powerful ally. It spends more on defense than all the others combined; 3.61 percent of GDP in 2016, according to NATO estimates, although U.S. spending, too, has tapered off in recent years.
> 
> Germany spent 1.19 percent of its overall budget on defense last year.
> 
> But German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel said it would be "unrealistic" for his country to hike spending from 35 billion euros ($37 billion) a year to over 70 billion euros, which would see Berlin allocate more to defense than Russia currently.
> 
> "I don't know a politician in Germany who believes that this would be achievable or even desirable," Gabriel said.
> 
> He said security is also about crisis prevention, not just combat, and noted that Germany spends a lot of money on refugees who arrive because military interventions have failed.
> 
> Seven countries — including Canada, Italy and Spain — would have to virtually double their spending to reach the target.
> 
> Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland said that beyond money, "it's also really important to look at capabilities and what countries are actually doing."
> 
> "We really feel that we're doing our share," she said, highlighting Canada's troop deployment to Latvia to help deter Russian aggression.
> 
> Tillerson also urged NATO to do more to fight the Islamic State group and other extremists, notably by countering IS online messaging and propaganda.
> 
> NATO has fought insurgents in Afghanistan, and is training Iraqi officers so that local forces can make a strong stand against extremists. There is no appetite to deploy troops in counter-terrorism operations. Allies believe that the international coalition against IS should be leading combat operations, not NATO.
> 
> NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said the lesson learned from operations in Afghanistan, but also in Kosovo and Bosnia-Herzegovina, is that "in the long run it is much better to fight terrorism and project stability by training local forces, building local security institutions, instead of NATO deploying a large number of combat troops."


----------



## jollyjacktar

If they want to take off the hand cuffs, leg shackles and gag ball from my mouth (process wise), I and my co-workers, I assure you can go a long ways towards not returning monies and seeing that shit gets procured within a short time frame.  But then, the adults didn't like that before and thus why we're cuffed, shackled and gaged now...


----------



## jollyjacktar

Opinion piece I agree on.  Shared under the fair dealings provisions of the copyright act.



> Opinion
> Canada has a 'colonial mentality' when it comes to funding our military
> We expect the U.S. to make up for the ever-increasing gaps in our defence capabilities
> By Robert Smol, for CBC News Posted: Mar 31, 2017 5:00 AM ET Last Updated: Mar 31, 2017 6:04 AM ET
> 
> The stated objective in the Trudeau government's recent budget was to "continue to deliver on the things that matter most to Canadians."
> But what mattered most when it came to defence procurement, apparently, was to defer the purchase of much-needed equipment for an already emaciated military to the 2030s.
> 
> As with past military cuts, this government banked on the belief that their refusal to commit to Canada's defence would be met with little more than passive concern. And they were right.
> 
> Indeed, whatever diplomatic language might be used to soften this hit, the fact remains that this budget is only the latest installment in the slow and painful devolution of Canada's commitment to defend its territory and interests.
> 
> Dependence on the U.S.
> 
> Canada is not entirely leaving its shores and airspace open to violation, mind you. But we should take Justin Trudeau's polite reneging on his promise to maintain our military as silent acknowledgement of Canada's military dependence on the United States.
> 
> We Canadians have what can only be described as a "colonial mentality" when it comes to defence. This means that we inherently expect the U.S. to make up for the ever-increasing gaps in our military capabilities. And, like the classic enabler, the U.S. unwittingly continues to allow Canada to live its traditional "middle power" delusion of global significance, while carrying the burden of our defence.
> 
> With that as the status quo, why would Canada duplicate the billions of dollars the U.S. already devotes to defending its country — and its continent?
> 
> Of course, Canada isn't the only country looking at U.S. military might as a sort of defence safety net. But when it comes to defence procurement, even smaller NATO countries — Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands, for example — have far superior records when it comes to maintaining well-equipped militaries.
> 
> Canada's aging fleet
> 
> These and other allied countries in Europe have their new fighter fleets ordered and coming into operation, while Canada has barely started the process of putting in a request. Twenty-seven F-35 Lightning fighters are scheduled for the Danish Air Force, for example, and 52 and 37 planes have been purchased and are coming into operation for the Norwegian and Netherlands air forces respectively.
> 
> Even if Canada does eventually acquire and stick with the 18 interim Super Hornets as currently proposed, each of these tiny European countries will have a larger fleet of modern fighter aircraft than Canada, which should be embarrassing for a country of our size and status.
> 
> It's just as bad if we look at Canada's navy fleet. Today, the Royal Canadian Navy has been shed of its outdated supply ships and destroyers, leaving the country with the largest coastline in the world with 12 aging patrol frigates and four dysfunctional second hand diesel submarines.
> 
> Meanwhile the Danes, over the last 15 years, have constructed and commissioned three modern air defence frigates, two combat support ships, two ocean patrol vessels and six smaller patrol vessels. Today, the "grandmothers" of the Royal Danish Navy are their four Thetis-class frigates, which were built in the early 1990s — the same time as Canada's front-line Halifax patrol frigates.
> 
> Then there's Norway, which has 12 per cent of the coastline as does Canada, and 14 per cent of our population, but has managed to launch 12 new warships and one new supply ship in the same amount of time that Canada has managed to launch… zero.
> 
> U.S. President Donald Trump has insisted that America's NATO allies are not spending their fair share on defence, and if that's true — which, according to NATO numbers, it most certainly is — then Canada is unquestionably among the military deadbeats of the bunch. That will continue just as long as we remain content in our freeloading stupor, banking on the U.S. to bail us out if things get bad.
> Smaller NATO members, meanwhile, are showing they are ready to do their part.
> 
> This column is part of CBC's Opinion section. For more information about this section, please read this editor's blog and our FAQ.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/canada-defence-spending-1.4048409


----------



## TCM621

Even the CBC is turning on JT and defending the military? Am I in an alternate dimension? 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## jmt18325

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> We just deferred what, $8+ billion in spending to the 2030s?
> 
> op:



I'm still on this - what do they do if we don't?  Nuke us?


----------



## PuckChaser

Stop allowing Canadian troops from training in the US? Tighten ITAR restrictions removing our ability to get Type 1 Cryptographic material? Plenty can be done if the PM does stop cutting at the CAF like his father and Chretien did.


----------



## jmt18325

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Stop allowing Canadian troops from training in the US? Tighten ITAR restrictions removing our ability to get Type 1 Cryptographic material? Plenty can be done if the PM does stop cutting at the CAF like his father and Chretien did.



And what would be the practical consequences of that to Canadians?  I don't really see Canadians caring enough about that to call the government to action - frankly, I'm not sure that Canadians should care.  The 2% target is rather arbitrary, as is the two week deadline.


----------



## daftandbarmy

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I'm still on this - what do they do if we don't?  Nuke us?



No, but they can crush our economy in other ways in retaliation, in a heart beat, especially since we have a 'Commie' Prime Minister in (soft) power now: 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trump-trade-softwood-dairy-1.3966926


----------



## jollyjacktar

An even more hamstrung and ineffective military, equipment wise. 

If we, as a nation, aren't interested in providing/participating for our defence, someone else will do it to us.  And that, jmt, won't be a happy solution to Canadians as we'll be something else and no longer Canadians.  Being another country's prison bitch, will be what we deserve, too.

(mentality wise, it's usually those whom bitch about the police the most are the first to scream for them, when they feel frightened)


----------



## PuckChaser

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> And what would be the practical consequences of that to Canadians?  I don't really see Canadians caring enough about that to call the government to action - frankly, I'm not sure that Canadians should care.  The 2% target is rather arbitrary, as is the two week deadline.


2 months is the deadline. In a practical sense, as long as Canadians still see the Snowbirds, CFL flypasts and the ceremonial guard, no one will be able to see the rot under the shiny paint.


----------



## jmt18325

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> 2 months is the deadline. In a practical sense, as long as Canadians still see the Snowbirds, CFL flypasts and the ceremonial guard, no one will be able to see the rot under the shiny paint.



Sorry, for some reason I had two weeks in my head.


----------



## MilEME09

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> 2 months is the deadline. In a practical sense, as long as Canadians still see the Snowbirds, CFL flypasts and the ceremonial guard, no one will be able to see the rot under the shiny paint.


Well cant have snow birds or flypasts if ITAR has us unable to get spare parts in a timely manner

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk


----------



## jmt18325

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> No, but they can crush our economy in other ways in retaliation, in a heart beat, especially since we have a 'Commie' Prime Minister in (soft) power now:
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trump-trade-softwood-dairy-1.3966926



I'm going to leave the commie discussion for another thread (but no, we don't).  The idea that the US will 'crush' Canada economically because we continue to spend the way that we have for such a long time is kind of preposterous.  Trump has displayed little ability to affect any kind of actual change as of yet.


----------



## Jarnhamar

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Trump has displayed little ability to affect any kind of actual change as of yet.


You mean besides making American great again?  :blotto:


----------



## The Bread Guy

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> ... The idea that the US will 'crush' Canada economically because we continue to spend the way that we have for such a long time is kind of preposterous ...


"Crush" may be too strong a word, but can the U.S. "twist arms"?   I'd say yes - and this is true no matter _who's_ in the White House.  Meanwhile ...

_*"Trump to order probe into how 16 countries are abusing trade with the U.S., including Canada"*_


----------



## Journeyman

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> _*"Trump to order probe ....."*_


Every time I see "Trump" and "probe,"  I can't help but think of aliens...


----------



## MilEME09

So I found out where all the boots went, given to VAC for the Vimy event this coming sunday. CTV showed what they said were "boots worn by canadian soldiers" all around the memorial with a poppy in each boot. Boot's look like they hadn't ever been worn. >


----------



## MilEME09

The Senate Defense committee has released today part one of it's own defense policy review. Below is a link to it as well as the video of the press conference, but the sound is bad on the video. Part two with detailed recommendations will be released in May.

https://sencanada.ca/en/sencaplus/news/canada-not-carrying-its-weight-when-it-comes-to-defence-spending/


The key recommendations.


> The committee recommends that the government present a budget plan to Parliament within 180 days to increase defence spending to 1.5% of GDP by 2023, and to 2% of GDP by 2028. It is difficult to plan for the future when objectives are not clear. The Canadian military has commitments at home and abroad; identifying priorities and providing the necessary support is essential for success.
> 
> The committee recommends that the government make the necessary investments to ensure the military is fully equipped and trained to carry out Canada’s defence priorities:
> -The protection of Canadian sovereignty, including the Arctic,
> -The defence of North America under NORAD, and
> -Full participation in NATO as well in United Nations and other multilateral international operations.
> 
> Fixing military procurement will require an extensive overhaul of current practices. A representative group of parliamentarians should work toward finding a long-term solution.
> 
> The committee recommends that Parliament establish a Special Joint Parliamentary Committee with senators and MPs to study and report on military procurement. In the meantime, the Minister of National Defence should appoint a lead negotiator for each procurement project valued at over $1 billion to make the process more efficient.


----------



## TCM621

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> The Senate Defense committee has released today part one of it's own defense policy review. Below is a link to it as well as the video of the press conference, but the sound is bad on the video. Part two with detailed recommendations will be released in May.
> 
> https://sencanada.ca/en/sencaplus/news/canada-not-carrying-its-weight-when-it-comes-to-defence-spending/
> 
> 
> The key recommendations.


I can't wait for the government's response to this. Should be good for a laugh. 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

This could be interesting for a couple of reasons as both the current liberal government and the US could use it as the basis of negotiations.

"If we are exempt from a border adjustment tax and Canada is included as part of the American Trade solution, we will do the following."

"If a border adjustment tax is instituted or other exclusionary measures are applied, we will be unable to do the following and instead will need to do ________."


----------



## The Bread Guy

This from the Senate's Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence ...


> The federal government should increase military spending to 2% of Canada’s gross domestic product to prevent the continued erosion of our existing military capabilities and to fulfil our obligations to Canadians and our allies, senators said in a report released Thursday.
> 
> Successive governments have failed to provide the military with the support and clear priorities it needs to defend Canada and fulfil its international commitments. Today, Canada is spending 0.88% of GDP on the military. This is clearly insufficient.
> 
> Canada needs to be properly defended.
> 
> In its report, Military Underfunded: The Walk Must Match the Talk, the Senate Committee on National Security and Defence makes 16 recommendations to shore up Canada’s military and to address problems that have plagued it for decades.
> 
> The committee recommends the government present a plan to Parliament within 180 days to increase defence spending to 1.5% of Canada’s gross domestic product (GDP) by 2023 and to 2% by 2028.
> 
> These much needed funds will be used to address the urgent capability gaps within the military and ensure effective security and defence for Canadians. It will also allow Canada to fulfil the government’s requirement that the military must also be able to simultaneously meet our NORAD and NATO obligations.
> 
> The committee notes that military procurement also requires urgent attention and a total revamp. The current system is a bureaucratic morass with little accountability. It is prone to delays that prevent the timely acquisition of necessary materiel and diminish the government’s purchasing power. The committee makes a number of recommendations to address this long-standing issue.
> 
> The committee also urges the government to do more to protect critical infrastructure, eliminate lapse funding, and to move forward with plans to promote a cross-party consensus on military issues, as this will be in the best interest of Canadians.
> 
> The government can no longer afford to just talk the talk while the military struggles. Our national defence is too important. It is time for the government to turn words into action and make the much needed investments in our own security and defence.
> 
> *Quick Facts*
> 
> More than $2 billion per year in new money is needed to maintain current operations.
> Canada’s military spending is in decline and accounts for just 0.88% of GDP.
> Canada ranks 23rd out of 28 NATO member countries in defence spending.
> 
> *Quotes*
> 
> “Government after government has talked a good game about the military while providing less and less support. The current government has pledged to ensure our military does not get short-changed. The recommendations made in this report — if adopted — will allow the government to keep its promise. It’s time for the walk to match the talk.”
> 
> - Senator Daniel Lang, Chair of the committee.
> 
> “Our military has important commitments at home and abroad. Defending our vast Arctic region requires significant resources, while helping our international partners ensure the rule of law is respected in trouble countries overseas is a humanitarian commitment from which we cannot shrink. We ask a lot from our military. Now we must show that we support them, as they unfailingly support us.”
> 
> - Senator Mobina Jaffer, Deputy Chair of the committee ...


This, from the summary of the report (2 MB 56 page PDF) - exec summary also attached in case link to report doesn't work for you...


> EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
> 
> This report focuses on broader issues related to the Canadian military and the defence policy review.  Specifically, it addresses:
> • the continual underfunding of Canada’s own security needs, and through that the military;
> • the problems of an overly-complex procurement system that lapses billions of dollars annually and under delivers equipment to the military;
> • risks to Canada’s critical infrastructure;
> • the need for cross-party consensus on military issues; and
> • the need for quadrennial defence policy reviews and reviews of national security strategy and foreign policy.
> 
> (...)
> 
> PROVIDING ADEQUATE FUNDING TO THE MILITARY
> 
> For too long, successive governments have called on military women and men to do more and more — yet these governments have failed to invest in the tools required for the job.  Today, spending on the military is 0.88% of Canada’s gross domestic product (GDP), well short of our commitment as part of the NATO alliance to spend 2% of GDP on our own security and defence needs.
> 
> At the same time, spending on defence has been shrinking as a percentage of total government expenditure. This is a troubling sign for the military.  Today, Canada ranks 23rd of 28 NATO members when it comes to spending on our own defence.
> 
> This is unacceptable.
> 
> _Chronic underfunding of the military and buck passing must stop._
> 
> (...)
> 
> 1. INCREASE SPENDING TO 2% OF GDP TO ENSURE SAFETY AND SECURITY IS MAINTAINED
> 
> (...)
> 
> 2. FIXING CANADA’S MILITARY PROCUREMENT SYSTEM
> 
> (...)
> 
> 3. DO MORE TO COORDINATE CYBER DEFENCES AND PROTECT CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
> 
> (...)
> 
> 4. REGULAR REVIEW OF DEFENCE POLICY REQUIRED
> 
> (...)
> 
> 5. BUILD CROSS-PARTY CONSENSUS ON MILITARY ISSUES
> 
> (...)


----------



## MarkOttawa

Two key recommendations, cyber and missile defence--will gov't take seriously (bucks?)--p. 10 PDF (link is full report):
https://sencanada.ca/content/sen/committee/421/SECD/Reports/DEFENCE_DPR_FINAL_e.pdf



> ...
> Recommendation 12:
> That  the  Government  of  Canada  explore  opportunities  to  coordinate  an  integrated  joint  cyber
> defence  strategy  with  the  United  States  as  well  as  other  countries  and  report  to  Parliament  on
> best options within 180 days...
> 
> Recommendation 14:
> That the Government of Canada become a full partner with the United States on Ballistic Missile
> Defence;  provide  strategic  locations  for  radar  installation;  and  collaborate  on  joint  research  and
> technology partnerships...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## PuckChaser

We're taxing the new legal weed. Sounds like a great place to find $5B to bring us up to a respectable budget.


----------



## MilEME09

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> We're taxing the new legal weed. Sounds like a great place to find $5B to bring us up to a respectable budget.



Have Bombardier pay back all their loans, 5% penalty on Irving and Seaspan for every month ships are delivered late, cut 25% of the civilian contracts in the Ottawa area (estimated to cost DND 3 billion a year for all those contracts) might get us close to $5B. Then actually increase our budget as the committee recommends. I'm curious what the Senate included though to come up with the 0.88%


----------



## George Wallace

Should we get back on topic of Defence Budgets?


----------



## Rifleman62

As many speculated, _the fix_ was in. Trump may thump sunshine and butterflies about defence spending, the start of which was softwood lumber tariff today and hopefully supply management soon.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/john-ivison-new-liberal-defence-plan-likely-to-short-change-military

*John Ivison: New Liberal defence plan looks likely to leave military short-changed* 24 Apr 17

Justin Trudeau will head to Sicily next month for a NATO meeting with Donald Trump and other allies. The defence department hopes to release its major policy review before then, but perhaps it would be just as well if the Prime Minister goes empty-handed.

The Americans want Canada to live up to its commitment to spend 2 per cent of GDP on defence, but new figures suggest this year the country will hit a post-war spending low of just 0.88 per cent. Last month’s federal budget said the defence policy review will put the Armed Forces on a “sustainable footing,” but there was no money in that budget — in fact, $933 million earmarked for capital spending was pulled out of the defence budget over a six-year period.

This is a bad omen for the prospects of a major cash infusion. In previous reviews, DND got the money first and then published a policy outlining how it would be used.

Multiple sources say that the military submitted its plan to the federal cabinet only to have it sent back to the department for some pruning.

One particular thorny issue is ballistic missile defence, the cost of which is almost impossible to gauge since the Americans won’t talk hard numbers until Canada agrees to sign on. Nobody in defence minister Harjit Sajjan’s office would talk about cabinet discussions but sources expect the review will fudge on the subject by simply asking the military to examine the issue more closely.

David Perry, a senior analyst at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, said he doesn’t believe the defence policy review is likely to assuage American concerns that Canada is a free-rider when it comes to defence.

“I’m not hearing they are dealing with a ton of money,” he said.

Before the federal budget, Perry wrote a paper suggesting the budget would establish the fiscal framework for the defence policy review. Ahead of similar exercises in 2005 and 2008, spending increases were included in the budget.

“If the outcome of the Defence Policy Review is an expansionist defence policy, and the minister of National Defence has indicated it will be, its short-term success depends on getting the needed funding put into the fiscal framework in the 2017 budget,” he wrote.

That didn’t happen — in fact, the government withdrew $8.48 billion from the fiscal framework over the next 20 years, to help pay for other priorities.

Trudeau — and his predecessor Stephen Harper — have long argued that share of GDP devoted to defence is not a good measure of Canada’s commitment to NATO.

“While the argument has merit, it would likely carry more weight if the share of our GDP devoted to defence were not in decline,” said Perry.

At $18.7 billion, defence spending is also at a new low in terms of share of total program expenditures at 6.11 per cent.

The same Senate defence committee report that found Canada is approaching a post-war low point in spending concluded that the Canadian military is “chronically underfunded,” pointing out that the Forces need more than $2 billion in new money, just to maintain current operations.
*
Support in cabinet for a major increase in defence spending is clearly tepid*

“As the world becomes a more complex place, especially with rogue regimes and non-state actors seeking and acquiring biological, nuclear and chemical weapons, and mobile missile launch capability, Canada should not rely on others to protect our national interests and defend our sovereignty,” the report said, as it recommended Canada sign up for BMD and double defence spending to 2 per cent of GDP over the next 11 years.

There are no signs that the defence policy review will reflect similar thinking.

Canada has committed to some 600 soldiers for a still-undefined peacekeeping mission in Africa; 450 troops are already in Latvia; a further 830 personnel are contributing to the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

Gen. Jonathan Vance, Chief of the Defence Staff, said the Canadian Forces are fully capable of doing what has already been announced. But it would be a career-limiting move for a general to suggest otherwise.

Support in cabinet for a major increase in defence spending is clearly tepid, and closing the funding gap does not appear to be a priority for the Prime Minister.

Yet his most important foreign policy task is to have a close working relationship with the President of the United States.

If Trudeau turns up in Sicily with a defence plan that indicates Canada is not serious about paying its own way, he will be greeted by a turbulent President Trump, one in transition between Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.


See also:

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/canadian-military-could-be-on-verge-of-new-decade-of-darkness-rick-hillier

*Defence cuts have left Canadian military in ‘fragile’ shape: Rick Hillier* 13 Apr 17


----------



## Journeyman

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> If Trudeau turns up in Sicily with a defence plan that indicates Canada is not serious about paying its own way, he will be greeted by a turbulent President Trump, one in transition between Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.


But to many of our Prime Minister's cheerleaders, being unpopular with Trump just adds to the PM's rock-star status. 

They're not remotely thinking of knock-on effects, like trade quotas and tariffs, softwood lumber, pipelines....  Simply that our guy stood up to the evil ogre -- bonus points for it being on the subject of _ewww_... military spending. 

    :not-again:


----------



## Kirkhill

Journeyman said:
			
		

> But to many of our Prime Minister's cheerleaders, being unpopular with Trump just adds to the PM's rock-star status.
> 
> They're not remotely thinking of knock-on effects, like trade quotas and tariffs, softwood lumber, pipelines....  Simply that our guy stood up to the evil ogre -- bonus points for it being on the subject of _ewww_... military spending.
> 
> :not-again:



Thumbs up.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Journeyman said:
			
		

> But to many of our Prime Minister's cheerleaders, being unpopular with Trump just adds to the PM's rock-star status.
> 
> They're not remotely thinking of knock-on effects, like trade quotas and tariffs, softwood lumber, pipelines....  Simply that our guy stood up to the evil ogre -- bonus points for it being on the subject of _ewww_... military spending.
> 
> :not-again:



They are thinking about soft wood lumber and pipelines...they just don't care. People who drill for oil and cut trees for a living, tend not to vote Liberal in large numbers. And, keeping oil in the ground and trees standing in a forest (until they fall down or burn down, catestrophically) thrills the Laurentian elite.

Mark my words...


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Another, obliquely related thought.

If I were a machevallian premier of Alberta or Saskatchewan (or both), I might make a big deal about supporting US softwood lumber tariffs, unless and until BC and Quebec start to see the light on pipelines.

Just sayin....


----------



## Kirkhill

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-04-24/trump-said-to-plan-20-tariff-on-canadian-softwood-lumber-j1wq4tyg

Opportunity to test your theory SKT.

24% Tariff.

By the way - 



> Democrats Make Final Stand In Montana Special Election
> PHILLIP STUCKY
> 3:10 PM 04/24/2017
> 
> Democrats face an uphill battle in their effort to turn the Montana special election into a referendum on President Donald Trump after their party failed to win in either the Kansas or Georgia special elections.



http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/24/democrats-make-final-stand-in-montana-special-election/

Anybody remember this guy?  Democrat Senator Max Baucus from Montana.  The face of the American Softwood Lobby.






Trump keeps looking for easy twofers.  Boost Trump and Republicans in Montana and Wisconsin.  Pressure Canada to get its act together on Trade and Defence.

As Trump has made clear by now, and explicit to the Chinese and Germans, trade and deficits and defence are linked.  You don't get security for free.


----------



## Rifleman62

The PM is going to whip out Cdn milk cows on Pres Trump re supply mgt.


----------



## jmt18325

The best response to this is no response at all.  Just let him twist in the wind.


----------



## Kirkhill

Maybe this might get the PM's attention.

From the article above on the tariffs.



> *In the latest chapter of a trade dispute that has been simmering for decades, the U.S. Department of Commerce in a preliminary determination Monday said it has calculated that Canada subsidizes *Canfor Corp. by 20.26 percent; West Fraser Mills Ltd. by 24.12 percent; Tolko Marketing and Sales Ltd. and Tolko Industries Ltd. by 19.5 percent; Resolute FP Canada Ltd. by 12.82 percent and *J.D. Irving Ltd.* by 3.02 percent. It set a preliminary subsidy rate of 19.88 percent for all other producers in Canada.



And yes.  It is the same Irving.

https://www.jdirving.com/


----------



## jmt18325

The Canadian government claims no subsidy (haven't we won every previous case on this?).  We'll have to wait a little longer before drawing too many conclusions based on US claims.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Maybe this might get the PM's attention ...


This info is not exactly new, and hasn't led to a resolution by either Team Red or Team Blue since the early-mid 1980's.


			
				jmt18325 said:
			
		

> ... (haven't we won every previous case on this?) ...


Yes.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

I have a bad feeling that our smug young PM just put a big bullseye on all of us.

 :facepalm:


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Maybe this might get the PM's attention.
> 
> From the article above on the tariffs.
> 
> And yes.  It is the same Irving.
> 
> https://www.jdirving.com/



Note that Irving got dinged far less than anyone else.  My guess, it's because they have operations in both the Canada .... and the US.






Note the mills in Maine and NY.  As well as the extensive woodlot holdings in Maine.


----------



## McG

... but, we are now getting well off the topic of defence funding.


----------



## jmt18325

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> I have a bad feeling that our smug young PM just put a big bullseye on all of us.
> 
> :facepalm:



Trudeau has been nicer to Trump than pretty much anyone else.  I don't think that's the issue.


----------



## MilEME09

Maybe we should do this the Ukrainian way and start fund raising. "With your sponsoring of a canadian soldier, youll recieve this photo of the soldier who you are supplying with rations and ammo"

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk


----------



## MilEME09

On Wednesday May 3rd, there will be a news conference with the CDA where the MND will be making a long speech about defense policy. This could be our defense policy review release.


----------



## jmt18325

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> On Wednesday May 3rd, there will be a news conference with the CDA where the MND will be making a long speech about defense policy. This could be our defense policy review release.



I thought I read somewhere that he'd only be speaking for 10 minutes (that somewhere can't be linked to...)?


----------



## jollyjacktar

I'm sure it will be good news.  Wednesday the 3rd is McHappy day.   ;D


----------



## daftandbarmy

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I'm sure it will be good news.  Wednesday the 3rd is McHappy day.   ;D



It's also my 20th wedding anniversary..... just sayin'


----------



## PuckChaser

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I thought I read somewhere that he'd only be speaking for 10 minutes (that somewhere can't be linked to...)?



Won't take long to tell us the new Defense Policy will be to GBA+ everything, and that current and future funding cuts are acceptable.  >

I don't think this is the announcement on the review. They'd announce it as such with big fanfare.


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View

They'll most likely announce the Defence review just before the parliament's dismissal for summer break.


----------



## Journeyman

Eagle Eye View said:
			
		

> They'll most likely announce the Defence review just before the parliament's dismissal for summer break.


....via Twitter; 140 characters should be enough:  

Donald says slackers; we count 2% GDP… _differently_. CAF has LOTS of money. Peacekeeping cool; F35 bad. Canada is back. 
The Architect sends.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Journeyman said:
			
		

> ....via Twitter; 140 characters should be enough:
> 
> Donald says slackers; we count 2% GDP… _differently_. CAF has LOTS of money. Peacekeeping cool; F35 bad. Canada is back.
> *The Architect sends.*


The bit in yellow for the WIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## George Wallace

I think we are headed in this direction; looking at the alignment of the stars:


----------



## MilEME09

Journeyman I will forever call him by the callsign "The Architect" for the rest of my life. GW: Given the failed promises, and everything else negative that has happened to the liberals in not even two full years yet, the attack ads will have a lot of ammo next election and I think the LPC will have a hard time holding onto a majority government, we may even see the next CPC leader as PM depending how bad things go over the next two years.


----------



## George Wallace

Debatable.  The memories of the Canadian Public are very short.


----------



## Rifleman62

Interesting interview this a.m. See extract highlights. I don't think Mr Trudeau and Butts are going to get away with being ultra lightweights on Defence. If the US is looking at all alliances then certainly they will want Canada to contribute more to NORAD. If we are lucky Trudeau will have the F-35 jammed down his throat.

The US has a huge stick to negotiate (demand) with Canada - dairy, softwood, F-35 production, POL, and now Boeing is after Bombardier re C series. 

 http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2017/04/30/lt-gen-h-r-mcmaster-on-foreign-policy-sen-schumer-on-president-trumps-first-100-days.html

*Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster (President's National Security Advisor) on foreign policy.* 30 Apr 17 _Extract _from Fox News Sunday With Chris Wallace transcript.


WALLACE: President Trump, changing just a little bit, but same region, said this week that South Korea should pay for the missile defense system that we have installed there, the THAAD system, $1 billion. There is a report today that you called your South Korean counterpart and said, no, the old agreement was that we the United States pay that billion dollars and we’re going to stick by that.

Is that true?

MCMASTER: Well, the last thing I would ever do is contradict the president of the United States, you know? But -- and that's not what it was. In fact, what I told our South Korean counterpart is until any renegotiation that the deal is in place. We’ll adhere to our word.

*But what the president has asked us to do is to look across all of our alliances and to have appropriate burden-sharing, responsibility-sharing.* We are looking at that with a great ally, South Korea. *We’re looking at that with NATO.*

And what you’ve seen because of the president's leadership, *more and more nations are contributing more to our collective defense.*

WALLACE: So, the question of who pays the billion dollars is still up in the air?

MCMASTER: The question of what is the relationship on THAAD, on our defense relationship going forward, will be renegotiated as it’s going to be with all of our allies. Because what the president has said is, he will prioritize American citizens' security and interests. *And to do that, we need strong alliances. But also to do that effectively, and a way that is sustainable economically, we need everybody to pay their fair share.
*


----------



## YZT580

It doesn't take much to add up to a whole lot of hurt financially for Canada, far more than 2% since much of that can be written off under other headings such as regional development, arctic development, coast guard, etc.


----------



## Loachman

Donald Trump MCAFGA...

There should be hats.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Loachman said:
			
		

> Donald Trump MCAFGA...
> 
> There should be hats.



 :rofl: priceless


----------



## jollyjacktar

> Sajjan to reveal military spending 'hole' in set-up for new defence policy
> 
> The Canadian Press
> Published May 3, 2017 - 5:02am
> Last Updated May 3, 2017 - 6:12am
> 
> OTTAWA — Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan is expected to set the stage Wednesday for the Liberals' much-anticipated defence policy by casting a glaring light on what senior defence sources say is a massive "hole" in military spending.
> 
> The hole has been caused by years of under-investment in the Canadian Armed Forces, the sources argue, and resulted in little-to-no money for the replacement of essential but aging equipment.
> 
> That includes new logistical vehicles and construction equipment such as bulldozers for the army, surveillance aircraft for the air force, and satellites for communications in the Arctic.
> 
> The sources spoke on condition of anonymity.
> 
> The shortfall, which adds up to tens of billions of dollars, also includes upgrades to the military's current fleet of search-and-rescue helicopters and training for aircrews.
> 
> The result is that work that should have already been underway to acquire a long list of equipment and services that the military needs to do its job has been stalled, the sources said, if it has started at all.
> 
> Training and even support and benefits for military personnel have also failed to keep up.
> 
> The full extent of the problem hasn't been well understood outside National Defence even by experts, the sources said, and caught the Liberals by surprise when they took office in November 2015.
> 
> It has since posed a real challenge as the government has drawn up its new defence policy, which is expected to be unveiled before NATO leaders gather in Belgium later this month.
> 
> The hole will be Sajjan's main focus when the minister addresses defence industry representatives and experts at a Conference of Defence Associations Institute luncheon on Wednesday.
> 
> Sajjan is not expected to reveal how the Liberals plan to address the problem, including whether the government plans to put more money into the military or scrap some planned purchases.
> 
> Those details will have to wait for the actual defence policy, which the government says will be fully costed.
> 
> The Liberals ran in the last election on a promise to create a "leaner, more agile" military, but the sources noted the government wants more than the 65 new fighter jets previously promised by the Conservatives.
> 
> Canada is also facing pressure from the U.S. and NATO to increase its defence spending, which currently sits at around one per cent of GDP — half NATO's two-per-cent target.
> 
> The presence of a gap between what the military needs and the money available won't come as a surprise to some defence analysts who have been warning about such a problem for years.
> 
> David Perry of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute has previously estimated a gap of about $2 billion per year between current funding levels and promised new equipment in the next few years.
> 
> The Parliamentary Budget Office released its own assessment in March 2015 that said the country's military structure would become unsustainable over the next decade under existing defence spending levels.
> 
> A variety of factors have been blamed for the problem, including poor cost estimates during project planning and government's refusal to add more money when delays result in cost increases from inflation.
> 
> Gen. Jonathan Vance, the chief of defence staff, told The Canadian Press in an interview in March that he was eager to see the new defence policy, which has promised to put the military on a strong footing.
> 
> "The here and now is fine, we're delivering," Vance said. "But going forward, that's when the government committed to sustainable, progressive armed forces."
> 
> Sajjan has been under intense pressure over the past few days after having to apologize and retract comments he made about his role in Operation Medusa in Afghanistan.
> 
> Lee Berthiaume, The Canadian Press
> 
> 
> http://navy.ca/forums/index.php?action=post;topic=82898.0;last_msg=1486961



And yet, the CDS say's were so flush with money we can't even spend it...   :stars:  

I think it's more like, the procurement process is so fucked, broken and byzantine, we can't spend what little we get with all the red tape.  The red tape factories must be the ones making out like bandits with all the product they're apparently selling to the government (TB and PSPC).


----------



## jmt18325

That article seems to speak to incoming money....


----------



## Journeyman

So, the same government that stripped $8.4 billion out of the equipment budget in March now magically discovers there's a  massive "hole" in military spending.

       anic:


Mind you, news readership keeps seeing claims that North Korea's weapons are fake amidst a year's worth of reports of consistently failing ballistic missile tests, accepting that NK is an imminent existential threat....


----------



## Flavus101

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> That article seems to speak to incoming money....



I'll believe it when it happens.

Just because they are finally starting to realize how much we are starving for more money to actually conduct decent training and to be able to procure modern kit for said training does not mean they will do anything about it.

Call me cynical but this could just be a way for the MND to put his recent slip-up behind him and get back in the good books with members of the CAF by appearing to champion serious issues that significantly affect us.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Flavus101 said:
			
		

> I'll believe it when it happens.
> 
> Just because they are finally starting to realize how much we are starving for more money to actually conduct decent training and to be able to procure modern kit for said training does not mean they will do anything about it.
> 
> Call me cynical but this could just be a way for the MND to put his recent slip-up behind him and get back in the good books with members of the CAF by appearing to champion serious issues that significantly affect us.



Whatever is coming was earmarked (or not) well before his new found fame as an internet meme.  I am sure he's hoping (if it could be viewed as good news) to deflect the slings and arrows that are flying like English Arrows at Agincourt.


----------



## MilEME09

Flavus101 said:
			
		

> Call me cynical but this could just be a way for the MND to put his recent slip-up behind him and get back in the good books with members of the CAF by appearing to champion serious issues that significantly affect us.



I'll believe that when we see boot's, Tac vests made for fighting a war, major projects that do not take 10 years (I mean come on they've come and said the project to replace the Browning HP will take 10 years, 10 bloody years for a damn pistol!) Championing an issue in my books means he gets things done, so far I don't see him fighting for DND, if DND's budget had to be sent back for pruning, how much fight did the minister put against that? if none then he is no champion for DND.


----------



## Rifleman62

> Gen. Jonathan Vance, the chief of defence staff, told The Canadian Press in an interview in March that he was eager to see the new defence policy....



Does this mean he has no idea what it will be? The military must have had some input. Did the military do a draft based on the parameters the government gave them or is Mr Butts just writing it in isolation?


----------



## Rifleman62

Expectations on defence spending from the Liberals? Who has those?

Blame the Conservatives will never stop. Both political parties share blame, but the Liberals get most of it.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/sajjan-to-lower-expectations-for-future-military-purchases/article34882029/ 

*Sajjan to lower expectations for future military purchases*

DANIEL LEBLANC AND STEVEN CHASE - OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail

Last updated Wednesday, May 03, 2017 8:07AM EDT

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan, under pressure to deliver a new purchasing plan for big-ticket military goods, is preparing to lower expectations for the amount of cash available by blaming the former Conservative government for leaving the Canadian Armed Forces with a multibillion-dollar budget shortfall.

Mr. Sajjan will deliver a speech in Ottawa on Wednesday that will lay out the lack of available funds for essential procurement projects into the next decade, arguing that this is creating unexpected challenges for the long-term plan for the CAF, federal officials said.

After a series of delays, the results of the defence policy review are expected to be unveiled in coming weeks, the officials said.

Mr. Sajjan, who had to apologize on the weekend for overstating his role as an officer in the war in Afghanistan, is now facing pressure to deliver on the Liberal Party’s 2015 promise for a “leaner, more agile, better-equipped military.”

However, defence officials said the minister will clearly lay out to Canadians that he is facing budget constraints that go well beyond the expectations of most military experts.

“We need to get more hard facts into the public domain about the real state of affairs and where we’re starting from. It has made the challenge deeper than it was widely understood to be going in,” said a senior defence official, speaking ahead of the speech on condition of anonymity.

In particular, defence officials said there are 18 major projects, which are all essential to the continuing operations of the Armed Forces, that are currently unfunded. As such, any future budget increases awarded to the Department of National Defence would have to go to these projects rather than to new purchases that will be called for in the defence policy review.

The unfunded projects include a replacement fleet for Canada’s decades-old Aurora aircraft, new communications satellites for the Arctic, new military-grade bulldozers and new refuelling trucks. All together, these projects are worth well more than $10-billion, with additional needs to train CAF members.

But the Conservative Party, which is calling for Mr. Sajjan’s resignation for having called himself the “architect” of Operation Medusa in Afghanistan in 2006, is refusing to shoulder the blame for DND’s current budget problems.

“I’m very concerned that our Armed Forces will be hollowed out, as they have been by previous Liberal governments,” Conservative MP James Bezan said. “In terms of hard dollars, we were spending more than they are by quite a bit.”

Meanwhile, Canada’s Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson is facing new pressure to reopen an investigation into whether Mr. Sajjan violated the Conflict of Interest Act by refusing to open an inquiry in the Afghan detainee controversy.

During Canada’s combat mission in Afghanistan’s Kandahar province, prisoners captured by Canadian soldiers were handed over to Afghanistan’s notorious National Directorate of Security, where they were tortured to produce intelligence that could help the fight against the Taliban.

Mr. Sajjan, a former reserve soldier who served in Afghanistan, declined to open an investigation into Canada’s role in the matter, saying Canadian troops’ handling of the detainees was in accordance with international law.

When Ms. Dawson questioned him about his involvement in the detainee matter, Mr. Sajjan told her “at no time was he involved in the transfer of Afghan detainees, nor did he have any knowledge relating to the matter.”

However, NDP Leader Tom Mulcair is now pointing to praise for Mr. Sajjan’s intelligence-gathering role in Kandahar, such as a letter from a superior saying the minister was a key liaison with Afghan forces, including the Afghan National Police.

“This information casts further doubt on the minister’s truthfulness in the account of his role that he provided to you. It is simply not plausible for a military intelligence liaison officer who had such a role on the battlefield to have had no access whatsoever to information relating to the capture and transfer of Afghan detainees,” Mr. Mulcair wrote in a May 2 letter to Ms. Dawson.

“This is a clear conflict between the minister’s responsibilities and his personal interests regarding events before his appointment.”

The issue of procurement has long been a challenge for governments of all stripes.

Back in 2008, the Conservative government laid out a Canada First Defence Strategy that would build 15 ships to replace existing destroyers and frigates, buy 65 new fighter jets and 17 fixed-wing search-and-rescue planes, among other items.

Mr. Sajjan is expected to make the case on Wednesday that Canada will need much more than 65 fighter jets when it buys its next fleet in coming years, adding billions to the final price tag.

Vice-Admiral Mark Norman publicly warned Canadians of this funding shortfall shortly after the Liberals won election under Justin Trudeau. The veteran officer, now suspended pending the outcome of an RCMP probe into the leak of confidential information, went public in late 2015 with a frank discussion of the lack of sufficient money allocated to building Canada’s future fleet of military ships.

He said in December, 2015, when he was head of the Royal Canadian Navy, that the military would need twice as much money set aside for warships, saying the initial cost estimates of $14-billion had doubled and would cost as much as $30-billion.

The Liberal Party has historically found itself divided over military spending, which tends to restrain its enthusiasm for funnelling cash into the Department of National Defence.

But the Conservative Party, which is avidly pro-military, nevertheless delivered far less than it promised for the Forces during nearly a decade in office. The government of Stephen Harper had a few early successes in its mandate – such as heavy-lift aircraft – but then quickly became bogged down in efforts to deliver planes and ships.

Military procurement has proven difficult for successive governments over the decades. For example, it was only in 2015 that Ottawa finally took delivery of the first six of 28 naval helicopters originally ordered more than a decade ago. Former Harper defence minister Peter MacKay called that helicopter purchase the “worst procurement in the history of Canada.”


----------



## dapaterson

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Does this mean he has no idea what it will be? The military must have had some input. Did the military do a draft based on the parameters the government gave them or is Mr Butts just writing it in isolation?



The CDS cannot make public comment on anything until it is released by the government.


----------



## Rifleman62

I get that, but his newspaper quote did not sound like he knew what was coming down: "eager to see". He must have seen a draft. He could have said something like eager to see it on the street or eager to see it implemented.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> I get that, but his newspaper quote did not sound like he knew what was coming down: "eager to see". He must have seen a draft. He could have said something like eager to see it on the street or eager to see it implemented.


Maybe he meant, "eager to see _the final version_," given he probably had some level of contact with a draft?  I think he'd be smarter than to comment on an internal draft that isn't gov't policy _quite_ yet.


----------



## Journeyman

Maybe he meant, "eager to see the architectural schematics"....   :-*


----------



## MilEME09

> Military grappling with years of underfunding, Sajjan acknowledges
> 
> 
> 
> OTTAWA - Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan is calling attention to years of underfunding for the Canadian military, which he says has hollowed out the Armed Forces and left them struggling to do even basic tasks.
> 
> The minister says successive governments are responsible for the defence-spending hole, though he is particularly critical of budget cuts implemented under the previous Conservative government.
> 
> The result is that money has not been set aside for essential but aging military equipment that must be replaced soon.
> 
> Sajjan's comments come as the Liberal government prepares to unveil its new defence policy, which the minister says will start fixing some of the problems.
> 
> That includes predictable, sustainable defence funding and better accounting to ensure money is available to meet the military's needs.
> 
> One thing Sajjan isn't saying is whether the plan will provide more money for the military, or whether the government plans to cut non-essential projects.



since the conference just happened this is pretty bare, more to follow.


----------



## The Bread Guy

And this from the Info-machine (whether it's a transcript or speaking notes, who's to say anymore?) -- also attached if the link doesn't work for you -  *highlights* mine ...


> Thank you, Mr. Battista and the whole CDA Institute team, for hosting today’s event. It’s a pleasure being here with you today.
> 
> I understand the CDAI had a productive exchange with the Chief of Defence Staff, General Jonathan Vance, in February about a range of issues facing the Canadian Armed Forces.
> 
> I’m here today to outline where we’re really starting from with Canada’s new defence policy. *The Government will be releasing that policy very soon, and the depth of the challenge has come into more stark relief through the course of our analysis.*
> 
> This analysis consisted of a thorough public consultation. Canadians provided over 20,000 submissions online. Parliamentarians held over 50 town hall discussions.  107 subject area experts participated in roundtables across the country, from Vancouver to Yellowknife, Edmonton to Toronto, in Halifax, Ottawa and Montreal.
> 
> I’m going to be very frank, because I believe it’s important to be clear about the hole we are starting in. I’ll say up front that successive governments contributed to the current state of affairs.
> 
> This audience is keenly aware of the extent of the challenges facing our military as a result of under-investment.
> 
> And yet, the state of affairs is, in some ways, worse than realized by most observers.
> 
> I know that you understand that we cannot build the Canadian Armed Forces this nation needs through a series of short-term decisions.
> 
> I know you understand that a military is not strengthened by cobbling together pieces from one budget to the next.
> 
> By succumbing continually to the pressures of the urgent at the expense of the strategic.
> 
> By hoping that 20 years down the line, all of the disjointed ups and downs will somehow result in the military we need.
> 
> That is why, in launching a Defence Policy Review, we set out to take the long-term view – to deliver a credible, realistic and funded strategy for our military.
> 
> *Let me state outright and up front that the Canadian Armed Forces deliver what governments ask of them every time. They perform superbly regardless of the resource constraints they face. *
> 
> All Canadians can be proud of the fact that our women and men in uniform answer the call of duty whenever and wherever it sounds.
> 
> In recent years alone, they have deployed to Iraq to contribute to global efforts to fight DAESH.
> 
> They deployed to Nepal in just 48 hours, after a tragic earthquake struck the tiny nation, and…
> 
> They deployed with NATO to bolster alliance resolve and deterrence against aggressive Russian actions in Ukraine.
> 
> …at home, they have helped residents of Winnipeg and Fort McMurray overcome massive floods and devastating forest fires.
> 
> The Canadian Armed Forces is an inspiring institution that makes me proud every day. Responsive, professional and dedicated, they are counted amongst the best militaries in the world.
> 
> But militaries cannot perform well forever without proper support.
> 
> Governments have a responsibility to uphold their end of the bargain…To care for their militaries, resource them properly, and fund them in a responsible way that meets their needs.
> 
> Since being elected a year and a half ago, we have worked hard to address the complex challenges that the Defence Team has faced in recent years.
> 
> Doing this properly has been a very large task.
> 
> We have spent a lot of time and attention assessing what’s working, what isn’t, and why.
> 
> We engaged with defence and security experts in Canada and abroad to increase our understanding of modern security threats.
> 
> We met with allies and partners to better understand the best defence role for Canada, and…
> 
> We listened to Canadians about their aspirations for the Forces and our country.
> 
> At every stage, the take-away has been clear:  *Governments have not delivered predictable, sustainable, long-term funding for the Canadian Armed Forces. *
> 
> It has not been a straight line. Let me take a moment to retrace some twists and turns.
> 
> In 2004-05, Prime Minister Paul Martin’s government implemented annual budget increases of around $1.5 billion in successive years.
> 
> After that, the budget grew incrementally, predominantly to cover the cost of the combat mission in Afghanistan until it ended in 2010-11.
> 
> Two deficit reduction programs followed, Strategic Review and the Deficit Reduction Action Plan. By the time these were fully implemented in 2015, each reduced the annual defence budget by $1 billion dollars, for a total of about $2 billion per year.
> 
> The defence escalator, which was implemented to protect the DND budget from defence inflation, was increased from 1.5% to 2% in 2011. And beginning this fiscal year, it increased from 2% to 3%. Yet even that will not be sufficient to meet our future requirements.
> 
> Years of ups and downs have contributed to unpredictability for those responsible for supporting, maintaining and sustaining the Forces and planning for its future.  The reductions have left the organization hollow in a number of areas.
> 
> Fighter jets and ships are prime examples of the unfortunate link between inadequate investment and capability gaps.
> 
> Canadians were told a few years ago that the government would buy 65 new jets to replace our aging fleet of CF-18s. But for the missions we ask the Royal Canadian Air Force to undertake, and for our alliance commitments, 65 jets would simply not be enough.
> 
> If we want to fully meet our commitments to NATO and NORAD simultaneously – and we do – then 65 jets would not be a full fleet. It would only be a fleet for risk managing our requirements, not meeting them.
> 
> Furthermore, the $9 billion in funding that was earmarked for the jet replacements by the previous government is nowhere near enough to even cover the 65 jets they proposed.
> 
> For the Navy’s new surface combatants, the previous government ended up saying they would buy up to 15. As has been well reported, the budget identified was dramatically insufficient and unrealistic.
> 
> *The Royal Canadian Navy deserves a clear, realistic and fully funded commitment.
> 
> Canada’s naval capabilities are at a 40-year low. *
> 
> The number of operational ships in Canada’s fleet has dropped by five in the last two years alone. Ships have been retired without replacement because any plans for investments simply came too late.
> 
> Without a single destroyer in its fleet, Canada will rely on the United States and NATO for Area Air Defence until  the introduction of our new Surface Combatants.
> 
> Without a single supply ship, Canada is reliant on the capabilities of allies and partners for its replenishment needs, as well.
> 
> These examples alone would be troubling enough, but there is much more to grapple with.
> 
> The previous government’s budget cutting means $2 billion dollars less in the defence budget this year. This has exacerbated an already challenging situation.
> 
> Closing recruitment offices made it harder to attract new recruits.
> 
> *Cutting the number of procurement officers made it difficult to buy, maintain and sustain all the tools and equipment we actually could afford for our military. *
> 
> We are now in the troubling position where status quo spending on defence will not even maintain a status quo of capabilities.
> 
> Current funding has us digging ourselves into a hole…A hole that gets deeper every year. As a percentage of our GDP, we are spending less on defence today than we were in 2005.
> 
> There is a list of major capital projects that are entirely unfunded. These aren’t ‘nice to haves’, these aren’t frills. These are projects that must be completed to allow our military to just keep doing what it’s doing. Investments that need to be made into the Forces key equipment and capabilities….And no funding has been allocated for them.
> 
> *Our Air Force will need funding for mid-life upgrades to its Cormorant search and rescue helicopters. We are talking about a critical need to invest in a fleet of aircraft that our Air Force uses on operations every day to help Canadians in distress.
> 
> And they will also need sufficient funds to extend the life of the Griffons. These are highly reliable helicopters that have served our Air Force faithfully on missions at home and abroad for over 20 years. *
> 
> These helicopters are used to transport troops and materials, as they have on humanitarian missions and on operations in Afghanistan, and now in Iraq. And they can fit right inside the C-17 Globemaster, so they’re easily transportable, and give the Forces flexibility and agility in responding to crises around the world.
> 
> But if we don’t fund their life extension project, we need to phase them out because helicopters with obsolete instrumentation can’t fly in North American airspace.
> 
> And yet…no money was allocated to keep them running in the years to come.
> 
> *With the Army, we discovered that no funding had been allocated to allow soldiers to keep doing some of their most important work.
> 
> Without support from our allies, Canadian soldiers deployed overseas would be exposed to threats emanating from aircraft, missiles and long-range artillery.  Therefore, investments in Ground Based Air and Munitions Defence systems are required to guarantee the safety of our deployed troops.
> 
> Yet no money was earmarked to provide this protection to our soldiers in the past. *
> 
> There are several other examples of projects that the Army needs the government to fund in order to ensure it can continue to assist Canadians during natural disasters, and to meet international commitments.
> 
> *Its fleet of Heavy Support Equipment such as forklifts, dozers, loaders, and excavators, needs to be replaced so that our soldiers can build camps, protective works as well as roads and shelters.  *
> 
> The list of activities that our soldiers undertake with this equipment is long. Yet here, too, no investments were planned.
> 
> Furthermore, the Army’s fleet of Logistic Support Vehicles, such as trailers and medium-size trucks, used to transport supplies and essential equipment, has been significantly degraded over time and must be replaced.  These capabilities are essential to sustain our soldiers at home and abroad.
> 
> Again – no investment planned.
> 
> But the resourcing problems that we have found the most troubling, are the ones that have directly affected our service members.
> 
> In over 25 years as a Reservist, I saw firsthand the ways that Canada’s government have failed to properly equip our Reserve force.
> 
> Not only is there not enough equipment, but the training to use what equipment they have is lacking, as well.
> 
> Our Reserve units are tremendously resourceful, and they perform extremely well, despite having been under-funded for so long. But that does not excuse the failure to properly resource our Reserves.
> 
> They deserve gratitude from the Governments that deployed them away from their families and into harm’s way.
> 
> Instead, when they take off the uniform, they get pension cheques delivered late.
> 
> They have to run an obstacle course when they retire from the military, and they get short-changed in more ways than any Government would want to admit.
> 
> So, these are some of the problems to be solved. Before it can build anything new, Canada’s new defence policy must first get us out of the hole that we’re starting in.
> 
> Part of the solution will lie in financial rigour.
> 
> Some of the decisions by previous governments about funding for major capital investments were based on overly optimistic assumptions about how far they could stretch the dollars in their defence budget to purchase military equipment.
> 
> But it is difficult for Canadians to hold the Government to account, because so few people understand the financial framework to begin with.
> 
> Defence budgets lack sufficient transparency and openness.
> 
> *The capital budgets themselves have not been informed by full-life costing, and defence funding was unpredictable, so long-term planning has been extremely challenging. *
> 
> That is why we promised a comprehensive review of Canada’s defence policy in 2015.
> 
> It is why we sought the input of Parliamentarians from all parties, and why we sought input during a series of expert roundtables, including the Industry roundtable last July.
> 
> It is why we consulted Canadians across the country through our online portal and Town Hall discussions.
> 
> We also held roundtable discussions to hear from Indigenous community members and academics and others with expertise on gender-related issues.
> 
> We wanted a thorough understanding of how every facet of our defence policy would impact our own people and Canada more generally.
> 
> We will act on the evidence gathered throughout of defence policy review process.
> 
> The process made clear the need to focus on emerging domains, like space and cyber.
> 
> The need to remain a trusted and capable ally and a respected voice on the international stage – to protect Canadians and their interests.
> 
> Most of all, we need to take better care of our Canadian Armed Forces personnel and their families. And we need to level with Canadians about what that really costs.
> 
> *This Canadian defence policy will be the most rigorously costed one ever produced. *
> 
> *It has been developed with support from global costing experts from Deloitte, one of Canada’s top professional services firms, who also participated in Defence reviews among our Five Eyes partners.
> 
> But then we went a step further. We asked five other major accounting firms in Canada to review the methodology we used. *
> 
> This will be a fair and accurate assessment of challenges, and a sound plan for how to address them.
> 
> Roméo Dallaire once said that we need “an unambiguous statement of what is expected of the Armed Forces. How the Forces will be structured. What resources will be available to them, and how the government will guarantee that it will be sustained in the future”.
> 
> Canada’s new defence policy will be that plan.
> 
> It will be a plan to get out of the hole we are starting in, and it will be a plan to build an even stronger military.
> 
> It will be a plan to allocate realistic funding to those “bread and butter” projects that will keep our military running efficiently and effectively for years to come.
> 
> Most of all, it will be a plan to care for the women and men who put on the uniform.
> 
> I look forward to doing right – now and for the long term - by those who defend Canada, our people, and our way of life.
> 
> Thank you.


Number of mentions of boots:  0  >


----------



## dapaterson

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> ...Number of mentions of boots:  0  >



To be fair, he's an architect, not a cobbler...


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

dapaterson said:
			
		

> To be fair, he's an architect, not a cobbler...



He only conceptualizes what the boots will look like, he doesn't actually make them  ;D

I'm sorry but any time someone says architect I only think of this:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

To be fair, Milnews, he does say towards the end, and I quote:

"_It will be a plan to allocate realistic funding to those “bread and butter” projects that will keep our military running ..._" 

bread and butter project, to keep the military running obviously equals "boots"  :bowing:

On a serious note, if this speech is the beginning of "sell the Defence review" program, I am at least comforted by the fact that it includes a reference to lack of AAD destroyers until the surface combatant comes along, which would indicate to me that there is an intent to retain the Canadian Task Force concept for maritime affairs, and that there is a reference to GBAD and requirement for realistic training for the army.


----------



## Kirkhill

The "edited" version didn't seem to have much to say about things that go bang.

Priorities

Saving Canadians
Reserves
Thanking ancient warriors.


----------



## Gunner98

We should consider - do we want first-class or affordable - can we really have it both ways?  Source:  http://www.lop.parl.gc.ca/ParlInfo/Compilations/FederalGovernment/PaperList.aspx?Menu=Fed-Doc-White&Paper=c6a4db8e-e464-430b-bbfe-ca77532e9ccb&Year=0&Department=defence&Minister=&Title=&Subject=

The 2008 Defence White Paper was called the Canada First Defence Strategy. Its synopsis was: 
"The Canada First Defence Strategy provides a detailed road map for the modernization of the Canadian Forces, building on the Government’s investments in the military since taking office in 2006. *It will produce a first-class, modern military that is well trained, well equipped and ready to take on the challenges of the 21st century*. This Strategy is based on the Government’s vision for defence as well as an extensive and rigorous analysis of the risks and threats facing Canada and Canadians in the years to come. Starting from the Government’s clearly defined roles and level of ambition for the Canadian Forces, the Strategy identifies the military capabilities required to meet these objectives, which in turn determine where investments are most needed. This Strategy also takes into account valuable lessons drawn from recent experience at home and around the globe."

The last true Defence White Paper was in 1994 - its synopsis was- "With this White Paper, the Government has fulfilled its obligation to provide Canadians with an effective, realistic and *affordable* defence policy. From the outset, our objective was not to discard sound practices in favour of simplistic solutions. Rather, the Government was committed to reviewing carefully every aspect of Canada’s defence policy so that it could make reasoned judgements on how best to ensure the nation’s security and well-being. At the heart of our approach were extensive and *far-reaching public consultations*, lasting for most of 1994. The Government believes the defence policy enunciated in this White Paper reflects a Canadian consensus."


----------



## GnyHwy

Anyone ever wondered why it takes so long to get stuff? There are 3 desirables of procurement, but you only get to pick 2 of them:

1. Quality
2. Price
3. Speed of delivery

The 1994 paper makes a lot of sense to those who have been in long enough. "Affordable"+"consultation"="Decade of Darkness".


----------



## Edward Campbell

Sadly, there were decade*S* of darkness, beginning, I would argue in about 1968 or '69.

The financial problems facing national defence in the West started in the late 1950s: the costs associated with replacing _*quantity*_ (massed, conscripted armies using hand-me-down, war surplus stocks of materiel) with _*quality*_ (relatively large (by 1930 standards) professional forces using first class, modern, sophisticated equipment that had very high R&D costs that needed to be recouped) became apparent circa 1960 and they were, in large measure, what drove Paul Hellyer to look for innovate, organizational ways to square the _affordability vs first class_ circle. He failed, of course, because the problem wasn't organizational it was, and remains, financial ... and it's not that Canada, one of the ten largest and "best" economies in the world, cannot afford _more_ and _better_, it is just that we, voters, do not want to spend any more on our defence ~ nor, I hasten to add on our home and car insurance or on our police and fire departments, either.

So the decade*S* of darkness were the 1970s, '80s, '90s and the last 17 years, too. Yes, for a wee, tiny bit Paul Martin and Stephen Harper reversed the decline ~ or, at least, slowed the rate of decline ~ but that was temporary and it only lasted while we you were taking casualties. 

I know I'm repeating myself but unless or until there is a *real*, credible, *comprehensible* (to Joe Sixpack and his wife) threat to Canada, and to their safety and prosperity (such as it is in _Trutopia_) they are not going to vote for politicians who (like e.g. Erin O'Toole) promise to spend 2% of GDP on defence and reform the defence procurement system. They will vote, instead, for politicians who promise to "help" the middle class ... even when that help never materializes.


----------



## Carbon-14

Anyone get the feeling they're laying the foundation to decrease the size of the Reg Force, increasing the PRes, and put that freed up money towards equipment?  The Minister specifically mentioned the Reserve Force in his speech, which I found out of place.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Carbon-14 said:
			
		

> Anyone get the feeling they're laying the foundation to decrease the size of the Reg Force, increasing the PRes, and put that freed up money towards equipment?  The Minister specifically mentioned the Reserve Force in his speech, which I found out of place.




This is a topic which has been discussed here, several times: the notion that the long service, career, regular (permanent) force should be heavy on people who are harder and more expensive to train ~ technicians and so on ~ and the reserve force (much reformed, revitalized, reorganized and reequipped) should provide platoons or soldiers who can be (relatively) quickly and easily trained in communities.

The model has a lot to recommend it, in economic (productivity) terms, but it would be hideously complex and risky, too.

Still, it is a useful discussion to have ... if only to expose the flaws in the proposal.


----------



## Lumber

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> This is a topic which has been discussed here, several times: the notion that the long service, career, regular (permanent) force should be heavy on people who are harder and more expensive to train ~ technicians and so on ~ and the reserve force (much reformed, revitalized, reorganized and reequipped) should provide platoons or soldiers who can be (relatively) quickly and easily trained in communities.
> 
> The model has a lot to recommend it, in economic (productivity) terms, but it would be hideously complex and risky, too.
> 
> Still, it is a useful discussion to have ... if only to expose the flaws in the proposal.



It IS really hard finding things for radar operators to do when we're not sailing. Radar techs, not so much. I imagine the case is similar for infantry.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Lumber said:
			
		

> It IS really hard finding things for radar operators to do when we're not sailing. Radar techs, not so much. I imagine the case is similar for infantry.



But how much training does it take to get the Dibs up to speed?  I would imagine that the training for an operator is not something that could easily be accomplished on a part time basis and once trained the skills would be difficult to maintain at a Stone Frigate in Saskatoon.  I agree they seem to have jack shit to do except to scull around the main cave while alongside.  There's always cleaning stations.  Or the trainer.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Lumber said:
			
		

> It IS really hard finding things for radar operators to do when we're not sailing. Radar techs, not so much. I imagine the case is similar for infantry.








We've got lots of infrastructure that needs to be cleaned  8)

And on occasion we go mechanized to change it up, with trace orders issued of course!  






I'm convinced the sole purpose of MAPLE RESOLVE is to help keep the Wainwright training area fertilized by using the boots of soldiers to evenly distribute the waste produced by the cattle we allow to graze there  ;D


----------



## Lumber

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> We've got lots of infrastructure that needs to be cleaned  8)
> 
> And on occasion we go mechanized to change it up, with trace orders issued of course!
> 
> I'm convinced the sole purpose of MAPLE RESOLVE is to help keep the Wainwright training area fertilized by using the boots of soldiers to evenly distribute the waste produced by the cattle we allow to graze there  ;D



Let me amend:

It is very difficult finding MEANINGFULL AND ENGAGINE work for radar operators while not sailing.

When my ship was in a shore office for a year, there were weeks, months on end where sailors literally sat in a large office and did literally nothing (except PT and cleaning) for days on end. Morale was shit. We didn't have a ship, and without a ship, we were zero priority for any kind of simulator trg. We had a few people release just because, try as we might, we couldn't get them attach-posted somewhere. It didn't matter that they knew we would eventually get our ship back (in half a year or so) and be much busier then.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Lumber said:
			
		

> It IS really hard finding things for radar operators to do when we're not sailing. Radar techs, not so much. I imagine the case is similar for infantry.



Good thing the Ops room types get spec pay I never said that 

We can always use them as working bodies in supply   Send down as many as you can spare Sir!


----------



## Flavus101

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Whatever is coming was earmarked (or not) well before his new found fame as an internet meme.  I am sure he's hoping (if it could be viewed as good news) to deflect the slings and arrows that are flying like English Arrows at Agincourt.



Very true.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Flavus101 said:
			
		

> Call me cynical



Ok.  You are cynical.  

You are also perhaps uninformed as to how policy is made.....


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Lumber said:
			
		

> Let me amend:
> 
> It is very difficult finding MEANINGFULL AND ENGAGINE work for radar operators while not sailing.
> 
> When my ship was in a shore office for a year, there were weeks, months on end where sailors literally sat in a large office and did literally nothing (except PT and cleaning) for days on end. Morale was crap. We didn't have a ship, and without a ship, we were zero priority for any kind of simulator trg. We had a few people release just because, try as we might, we couldn't get them attach-posted somewhere. It didn't matter that they knew we would eventually get our ship back (in half a year or so) and be much busier then.



Cross training in damage control, weapons, crowd control, navigation?


----------



## Flavus101

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Ok.  You are cynical.
> 
> You are also perhaps uninformed as to how policy is made.....



Or perhaps I find the results of the policy to be unsatisfactory? 

I will admit that the sentence about the MND was off-base and comes more from my frustration of the system and the poor overall results we have achieved in the military file. It amazes me that we cannot issue basic items to troops that are effective for their intended purpose (from what I understand this is not only the fault of DND but other government departments as well).


----------



## Eaglelord17

Lumber said:
			
		

> Let me amend:
> 
> It is very difficult finding MEANINGFULL AND ENGAGINE work for radar operators while not sailing.
> 
> When my ship was in a shore office for a year, there were weeks, months on end where sailors literally sat in a large office and did literally nothing (except PT and cleaning) for days on end. Morale was shit. We didn't have a ship, and without a ship, we were zero priority for any kind of simulator trg. We had a few people release just because, try as we might, we couldn't get them attach-posted somewhere. It didn't matter that they knew we would eventually get our ship back (in half a year or so) and be much busier then.





			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> Cross training in damage control, weapons, crowd control, navigation?



A good solution is to take away all the 'shared' responsibilities alongside from the engineers and give them to the people sitting around on there ass without work.

You have one department which is at 50% manning, and has a meaningful job alongside, which can't do all the work they need to do in working hours. They also have what limited time they have available to work eaten up by bullshit taskings like Scullery, cleaning stations, painting party, bosnmate, etc. Meanwhile you have a department which is perpetually whining about how they have nothing to do alongside. There is no need for those jobs to be shared 'equally' as I know for me, I was stuck staying until 6 or later many times well the Combat department had left at 3:45 due to my time during the day being wasted on BS tasks.

Just saying employment can easily be better managed, I am just glad I am no longer part of that.


----------



## McG

... but, how to employ the crew is perhaps a topic for a thread on the navy boards?  I think we've passed the point where that discussion links back to the defence budget (which is the topic of this thread).


----------



## Kirkhill

Can't help this interjection - sorry.

Reading about Engineers and the Techs being under-manned and swamped while the operators moan about having to go home early because there is nothing to do got me chuckling.

Operator:  Boss,  my screen has lost that bright light thingy and there's a red light flashing beside me. What do I do now?  

Supervisor: Call maintenance and take the rest of the day off.


----------



## Old Sweat

In this story from the CTV site, reproduced under the Fair Dealings provision of the Copyright Act, Transport Minister Marc Garneau promises there will be a significant increase in defence spending.

'Significant' military spending coming, Garneau says

Published Sunday, May 7, 2017 7:00AM EDT 
Last Updated Sunday, May 7, 2017 7:14AM EDT
OTTAWA -- Transport Minister Marc Garneau says Canadians can expect "significant expenditures" to come out of the government's defence policy review.
The long-awaited policy review, which was expected last December, will be unveiled before Prime Minister Justin Trudeau heads to the NATO summit in Brussels at the end of the month, Garneau said in an interview with Evan Solomon, host of CTV's Question Period.
"If we are to properly equip our men and women, of whom we ask a great deal, then we're going to have to make significant expenditures," he said.
"We have chronically under-funded the military. We've been doing it in successive governments. This is not a partisan issue," Garneau added.
The Liberals have been clear, Garneau said, that 65 fighter jets the previous Conservative government wanted to buy won't be enough to support Canada's commitments to NORAD and NATO. Garneau also said the previous government didn't put aside enough money for new ships or helicopters.
"No money had been identified for that. There are a number of significant expenditures that we are going to have to make," he said.
"I think Canadians recognize that when we call upon our military to go into troubled spots, into war areas, we need to properly [equip them] and we need to take care of them afterwards. And that recognition is going to be in the defence policy review as it never has before."


----------



## OldSolduer

Lumber said:
			
		

> It IS really hard finding things for radar operators to do when we're not sailing. Radar techs, not so much. I imagine the case is similar for infantry.



There's only so many times you can do C6 refresher training and weapons drills. IIRC we did a lot of CQ "taskings" and drank loads of coffee.


----------



## FSTO

Significant changes to elections were coming as well. 

Colour me very sceptical that there will be any extra money.


----------



## Journeyman

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Transport Minister Marc Garneau:
> "I think *Canadians recognize that *when we call upon our military to go into troubled spots, into war areas, we need to properly [equip them] and we need to take care of them afterwards."


That suggests that our elected representatives are not Canadian;  such "recognition" from Parliament is routinely lacking.


If Garneau is the Defence talking head, does that mean we can expect Sajjat to pronounce upon how he's resolved crude oil tanker traffic issues? 


Edit:  1st-coffee grammar


----------



## RedcapCrusader

Journeyman said:
			
		

> That suggests that our elected representatives are not Canadian; such "recognition" from Parliament is routinely lacking.
> 
> 
> If Garneau is the Defence talking head, does that mean we can expect Sajjat to pronounce how he's resolved crude oil tanker traffic issues?



I'm quite astonished as to the number of cabinet ministers speaking on behalf of other ministries in this current government. Isn't that "talking out of lane" essentially?

Should it not be the ADM making these comments not Transport Minister etc.?


----------



## MilEME09

The senates part 2 report on our defense will be released tomorrow, time to see some more details that just about everyone on this site already knows


----------



## Rifleman62

> "No money had been identified for that. There are a number of significant expenditures that we are going to have to make,"
Click to expand...


I hope this is the Trump affect. Expenditures means actually now rather than commit funds to the future.



> The Liberals have been clear, Garneau said, that 65 fighter jets the previous Conservative government wanted to buy won't be enough to support Canada's commitments to NORAD and NATO.
Click to expand...


Is this still the Liberal excuse to buy the Super Hornet?



> "I think Canadians recognize that when we call upon our military to go into troubled spots, into war areas, we need to properly [equip them] .....



To properly equip the RCAF that means expending funds on the F-35 like the rest of NATO. The Trump affect again or not?


----------



## jollyjacktar

I expect I shall have as much faith later this month in things getting significantly better under this government as I do now, which is slim to none.  A Trudeau never changes his spots.  Too much like the elder I fear.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Lunchmeat, by ADM, I'll assume you mean the Associate Minister of National Defence (usually shortened AMinDef) and not referring to just any Associate Deputy Ministers.

Truth is, while the various Ministers have "lanes" where it comes to the exercise of their various ministerial powers and their powers to bind the government, there are no such distinctions on matters of politics. We had gotten used to a more strictly enforced regimen for public engagement from the Harper government, while this government seems to be Ok with looser restrictions on the various ministers. And in central Canada, Garneau is turning out to be a major player/spokesperson for this government: he is simply everywhere on just about all topics.

This said, It would seem to me that the Trudeau government considers its upcoming Defence Policy a major event, a defining policy of its administration that will let them spend their way into the next election (you may read this as meaning starting one year after tabling of policy, heavy porkbarreling in all provinces). As such, they are now in the lead up phase and all major players will be constantly talking about it.

I hope I am wrong and that they truly mean they wish to finally put "partisan" politics out of military budgeting and policy and they wish to provide what is actually required in a non partisan fashion. But I'll believe it when I see it. 

On the other hand, those of us who followed the "public consultation" over the internet in the development of this policy review will recognize the fact that  the overwhelming majority of people that answered the "money" section indicated that the CAF needed more, or at the very least, no less funding than now. That was pretty amazing, as it meant that ordinary (?) Canadians, who don't like to spend on defence, recognized that there was a major funding deficit there.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

I've been hard on this government in the past but if they put together a coherent Defence Policy I'll be happy.

One of the things that worries me is the government has no National Security Strategy, to me that's even more pressing than a Defence Policy as the Defence Policy should be tied to the National Security Strategy.

The Defence Policy Review asked three questions:


1.  The main challenges to Canada’s security
2.  The role of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) in addressing current threats and challenges
3.  The resources and capabilities needed to carry out the CAF mandate

Question 1 shouldn't be asked as the answer should be provided by a National Security Strategy.  Question 2 and 3 Are the the National Military Strategy (i.e. Defence Policy Review)

If we had a National Security Strategy we wouldn't need to ask question 1.


----------



## cavalryman

FSTO said:
			
		

> Significant changes to elections were coming as well.
> 
> Colour me very sceptical that there will be any extra money.


President Trump doesn't care about our electoral system.  He does care about our defence spending and bilateral trade.  [


----------



## PuckChaser

New money is useless without gutting the current defense procurement gongshow. What good is new equipment that takes 20 years to show up?


----------



## blacktriangle

Don't worry PuckChaser, the new berets should only take a year or so to procure.


----------



## Kirkhill

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I expect I shall have as much faith later this month in things getting significantly better under this government as I do now, which is slim to none.  A Trudeau never changes his spots.  Too much like the elder I fear.



JJT - I am at the "willing to hold my breath for a week or two stage"  ie very cautiously optimistic.

The reality of Canada is that the only people that can get things like this done ARE the Liberals.  I don't like it but that is the way it is.  Canadians have been immersed in George Brown's ink for way too long so that the only people many of them are willing to trust are the Liberals.

For their part the Liberals have been successful by having no principles.  And I say that in a surprised "good way".  When stuck between principle and survival the Liberals will choose survival every time.

The Donald is the impetus - without doubt.  But Canadians would never let the Conservatives bow to the Donald.   On the other hand they will let the Liberals paint it red, put a flag on it and declare victory even as they bend over.


----------



## sandyson

Even if new money is budgeted for Defence, will Treasury allow them to spend it?  In a couple of years the Liberals have to go to the poll and Defence procurement won't win as many votes as the _heritage_ garden at the corner of main and fourth, or the new drop-in centre gazebo. Very few people see Defence except on the news. An important question is what is the dollar/vote return?


----------



## jmt18325

I think this is one of those things that you need too just wait and find out about.  All the political grandstanding on this site really changes nothing.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> JJT - I am at the "willing to hold my breath for a week or two stage"  ie very cautiously optimistic.



I have had my hopes dashed too many times or felt the lash of my first Trudeau (post Clark) - Chrétien and subsequent years up to this day to have much, if any, faith in the masters I see across the river daily.  (I have a splendid view of Parliament Hill in the distance from work)  As I've said before, I don't know which is crueler, the hand that promises food and just makes a show of it (Cons) or the hand that you already know doesn't want to feed you (Libs).


----------



## PuckChaser

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I think this is one of those things that you need too just wait and find out about.  All the political grandstanding on this site really changes nothing.



As opposed to the political grandstanding done around the Defense budget by the politicians? Lets keep in mind Sajjan blamed the Tories for cuts as his government deferred $8B CAD in equipment purchases. Garneau is the first minister of anything to come out and say that defense spending has been chronically low by both parties. Allow us to be at least a little bit skeptical of someone who has as almost as much time as a politician than in the CAF finally having a "come to Jesus" moment on defense spending.


----------



## sandyson

Re: I think this is one of those things that you need too just wait and find out about.  All the political grandstanding on this site really changes nothing.

Yeah, but it's fun.


----------



## jmt18325

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> As opposed to the political grandstanding done around the Defense budget by the politicians? Lets keep in mind Sajjan blamed the Tories for cuts as his government deferred $8B CAD in equipment purchases.



Actually, he didn't single them out for that.  He was in fact very careful to blame past governments going back a long way for the problems that exist.  The reality is, the system is so broken that the CAF can't spend the money that it has.  This isn't the first time that money has been profiled for that reason, and it wasn't only by this government.


----------



## PuckChaser

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Actually, he didn't single them out for that.  He was in fact very careful to blame past governments going back a long way for the problems that exist.



He strongly implied, but did not name the Tories directly.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/05/03/harjit-sajjan-hole-defence-spending_n_16407284.html



> 'Troubling position'
> 
> "We are now in the troubling position where status quo spending on defence will not even maintain a status quo of capabilities," the minister said.
> 
> "Current funding has us digging ourselves into a hole. A hole that gets deeper every year. As a percentage of GDP, we are spending less on defence today than we were in 2005."
> 
> Yet Sajjan was light on details when it came to how the Liberals intend to get out of that hole.



In case you've forgotten, 2005 was the last year the Liberals were in power before the Tories took over in 2006.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?locations=CA For reference, our military spending by % of GDP from 1988 to 2015. 2017 has us at 0.88%, lower than its ever been, even under the decade of darkness. It also wouldn't be dropping if the Liberals hadn't reneged on their promise to maintain the Tory spending increase escalator.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Sandyson said:
			
		

> Even if new money is budgeted for Defence, will Treasury allow them to spend it?  In a couple of years the Liberals have to go to the poll and Defence procurement won't win as many votes as the _heritage_ garden at the corner of main and fourth, or the new drop-in centre gazebo. Very few people see Defence except on the news. An important question is what is the dollar/vote return?



If the money spent creates jobs in key ridings, then I suspect it will be spent.


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin P said:
			
		

> If the money spent creates jobs in key ridings, then I suspect it will be spent.



Does it work any better if you start by accepting political realities and asking what single-sourced national suppliers could bring to the warehouse right now?  

What small arms can you acquire through Diemaco?  What ammunition can you acquire through GD Canada?  What can you acquire through Rheinmetall? GDLS? L-M? Local suppliers of boots, radios, civilian vehicles?

I suggest that is the way that CD Howe and Beaverbrook looked at their problem.

A poor pair of boots is better than no boots.  Fill the bins with what's available to buy some breathing room.  Next work on improving the quality of the product (life expectancy).  Finally look to add new capabilities.

And bugger TB rules.  They are set by the politicians in any case.  That which is made can be unmade.


----------



## FSTO

My worry is that nobody is looking at the root problem which is the layers upon layers of oversight, reports and returns and sticky fingers from departments and interest groups that have no business having a say in defence equipment procurement. When DND says it cannot spend the money its not because they don't want to spend it, its that time runs out before contracts can be signed.
On CTV's Question Period, Lew Mackenzie touched on this issue. But Marc Garneau (the de facto DND Spokesman now) did not mention procurement process as an issue just the lack of money. 
I'm not very confident that the root causes will be looked at in the coming weeks, months, years.


----------



## Kirkhill

FSTO said:
			
		

> My worry is that nobody is looking at the root problem which is the layers upon layers of oversight, reports and returns and sticky fingers from departments and interest groups that have no business having a say in defence equipment procurement. When DND says it cannot spend the money its not because they don't want to spend it, its that time runs out before contracts can be signed.
> On CTV's Question Period, Lew Mackenzie touched on this issue. But Marc Garneau (the de facto DND Spokesman now) did not mention procurement process as an issue just the lack of money.
> I'm not very confident that the root causes will be looked at in the coming weeks, months, years.



And the back of mind there is a lingering suspicion that the politicians and bureaucrats don't really want the system fixed.

The bureaucrats get paid regardless if anything shows up in the warehouse.  In fact the less that shows up the less they have to do.

The politicians, in the meantime, get to blame non-performance on the soldiers and bureaucrats and the rule of law, make grandiose announcements (repeatedly) and never have to worry about having capabilities they don't really want to use and spending money they don't really want to spend.


----------



## jollyjacktar

FSTO said:
			
		

> I'm not very confident that the root causes will be looked at in the coming weeks, months, years.



Agreed.  The elephant in the room that nobody at the decision level wants to acknowledge. Even if they have the balls to do so, I'm not confident they would take any action that would correct the issue.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> And bugger TB rules.  They are set by the politicians in any case.  That which is made can be unmade.





			
				Chris Pook said:
			
		

> And the back of mind there is a lingering suspicion that the politicians and bureaucrats don't really want the system fixed.



Think on the Project Resolve: That is exactly what happened. The Conservatives changed the rules so the contract could be let out in a timely fashion. That really pis**d off the civil servants at procurement. When the new government came in they tried to block it and go back to the old rules. I find it funny that nobody in that scenario questioned how ISL knew to send a letter demanding review and that it would be considered by the government. I guess civil servants that leak in order to advance their pet projects are OK, it's just the uniformed personnel that can't maneuver to get the materiel they know to be required for the job instead of just anything the civil servants want.


----------



## Good2Golf

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> And the back of mind there is a lingering suspicion that the politicians and bureaucrats don't really want the system fixed.
> 
> The bureaucrats get paid regardless if anything shows up in the warehouse.  In fact the less that shows up the less they have to do.
> 
> The politicians, in the meantime, get to blame non-performance on the soldiers and bureaucrats and the rule of law, make grandiose announcements (repeatedly) and never have to worry about having capabilities they don't really want to use and spending money they don't really want to spend.



^ Quoted for the truth!  :nod:


----------



## MilEME09

From the Senate.



> *Cancel Super Hornets jet order, Senate defence committee urges*
> 
> Ottawa – The federal government should scrap the planned purchase of Super Hornet fighter jets to spare taxpayers from funding a costly stopgap solution that risks isolating Canada from the United States, the Senate Committee on National Security and Defence said in a report released Monday.
> 
> The report, Reinvesting in the Canadian Armed Forces: A Plan for the Future, concludes the committee’s analysis of the Canadian Armed Forces.
> 
> The recommendation to cancel a government decision to sole source 18 new Super Hornets to replace Canada’s aging CF-18s comes after expert testimony that long-term costs would outweigh any short-term savings and that these aircraft would reduce interoperability with Canada’s allies.
> 
> The committee urges the government to immediately begin a competition to replace the CF-18s and to make a decision by June 30, 2018.
> 
> Senators also made recommendations to create a more robust and egalitarian Army Reserve Force. Defence experts identified reservists as having extraordinary skill sets; the value of their contributions could be greatly increased with sufficient support.
> 
> Given the challenges of recruitment and retention, the committee recommends the government introduce a signing bonus for people skilled in in-demand trades, as well as for women, Indigenous Canadians and visible minorities.
> 
> This recommendation is also meant to reduce the barriers women and minorities face in the armed forces. Indigenous peoples and visible minorities account for a very small percentage of Canada’s military; former Supreme Court Justice Marie Deschamps’ 2015 report noted an “undeniable link” between the prevalence of sexual misconduct in the military and the poor integration of women.
> 
> Chief of Defence Staff Jonathan Vance told the committee that diversity “increases our operational capability.” While senators welcome this view and the soon-to-be-established Recruiting and Diversity Task Force, the committee recommends that the government ensure the military provide a progress report on its efforts to see if words are translating into action.
> 
> For Canada’s military to thrive the government must provide adequate resources — in material but also in personnel.
> Quick Facts
> 
> A number of former Royal Canadian Air Force generals noted technical concerns with the Super Hornets purchase, including the need for flight simulators, logistic support and maintenance organizations. They estimated the cost at between $5 billion and $7 billion.
> Membership in the Reserve Force dwindled from 25,500 in 2012 to 21,350 in 2015. As a result, the Chief of Defence Staff issued a directive to grow the Reserve Force to 28,500 by July 2019 and to train members to the same high standard as those of the Regular Force.
> 
> As of 2016, women made up only 14% of the Regular Force. Indigenous peoples represent just 2.5% of the military, while visible minorities represent 6.5%.
> 
> Quotes
> 
> “When the federal government is offering no new money to our underfunded military, it is particularly important that what funding there is does not go to waste. The Super Hornets purchase is a costly mistake that will limit our ability to work with our allies and hamper efforts to provide the military with the equipment it really needs.”
> 
> - Senator Daniel Lang, Chair of the committee.
> 
> “Our military often serves as the face of Canada during overseas operations. We believe it should reflect the diverse Canadian population as much as possible. Bringing more women, visible minorities and Indigenous peoples into the forces should remain a priority so that our military benefits from different perspectives, backgrounds and experiences.”
> 
> - Senator Mobina Jaffer, Deputy Chair of the committee.


https://sencanada.ca/en/newsroom/cancel-super-hornets-jet-order-senate-defence-committee-urges/

Final report

https://sencanada.ca/content/sen/committee/421/SECD/Reports/SECDDPRReport_FINAL_e.pdf


reading it my self now, especially the section on the reserves




Some highlights:

Airforce- -start an open competition to replace the CF-18 by june 18th 2018, the target fleet should be three squadrons of atleast 120 aircraft
-replace 55 of the giffons with non-civilian medium to heavy lift helicopters, and purchase 24 attack helicopters to protect our chinooks in theatre

Navy: -Four AoR's needed
-Article patrol vessels are not up to par, will need a coast guard ice breaker escort, slower then a BC ferry "That the Government of Canada conduct a fully independent and impartial review of the capabilities of the Arctic Off shore Patrol Ships (AOPS) "
- Replace our current sub fleet with 12 modern subs


----------



## Kirkhill

Re the AOPS:

For me the key question is "value for money".

The AOPS as planned is probably "value for money" at 70 to 100 MCAD per hull (Svalbard pricing)
The AOPS as planned is questionable "value for money" at 500 MCAD per hull (6 Hulls for 2.5 to 3 BCAD depending on how you add up the contracts).


----------



## jollyjacktar

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> From the Senate.
> https://sencanada.ca/en/newsroom/cancel-super-hornets-jet-order-senate-defence-committee-urges/
> 
> Final report
> 
> https://sencanada.ca/content/sen/committee/421/SECD/Reports/SECDDPRReport_FINAL_e.pdf
> 
> 
> reading it my self now, especially the section on the reserves
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some highlights:
> 
> Airforce- -start an open competition to replace the CF-18 by june 18th 2018, the target fleet should be three squadrons of atleast 120 aircraft
> -replace 55 of the giffons with non-civilian medium to heavy lift helicopters, and purchase 24 attack helicopters to protect our chinooks in theatre
> 
> Navy: -Four AoR's needed
> -Article patrol vessels are not up to par, will need a coast guard ice breaker escort, slower then a BC ferry "That the Government of Canada conduct a fully independent and impartial review of the capabilities of the Arctic Off shore Patrol Ships (AOPS) "
> - Replace our current sub fleet with 12 modern subs



Those sneaky, sneaky, bastards...  saying things that make sense and I can agree with.  WTF?  They've obviously been reading my thoughts, where I think they're a bunch of useless pricks who never come up with anything useful to say.  Too bad in this case that all they can do is make noise and not make changes in policy and direction.


----------



## Loachman

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> replace 55 of the giffons with non-civilian medium to heavy lift helicopters, and purchase 24 attack helicopters to protect our chinooks in theatre



The entire Griffon fleet should be replaced with a decent utility helicopter. I would not, not, not replace any with Chinooks. They are big baskets with a lot of eggs in each. We lost one in Afghanistan, and came within seconds of losing everybody aboard - saved by a skilled crew and a bunch of luck. The Americans lost a few. An Infantry section-carrying machine is ideal - UH-60 and UH-1Y conform to that concept. Four small targets with a section of troops and elements of a platoon HQ on each is better than one large target with a platoon on it.

AHs are essential. Twenty-four would be insufficient to sustain ops in even low-level conflict. With just under seventy Griffons in service, and eight of them overseas plus a small non-flying reserve correctly configured in Canada, we were down to nine serviceable across Canada on a few days at the end of Athena and for a year or so afterwards, with twenty being a good day. Take a third out of any fleet for major inspections and unserviceabilities, then a percentage for OTU requirements (conversion to type), plus pre-deployment work-ups and regular training support to ground troops, and there are not a lot left to deploy.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Loachman said:
			
		

> The entire Griffon fleet should be replaced with a decent utility helicopter. I would not, not, not replace any with Chinooks. They are big baskets with a lot of eggs in each. We lost one in Afghanistan, and came within seconds of losing everybody aboard - saved by a skilled crew and a bunch of luck. The Americans lost a few. An Infantry section-carrying machine is ideal - UH-60 and UH-1Y conform to that concept. Four small targets with a section of troops and elements of a platoon HQ on each is better than one large target with a platoon on it.
> 
> AHs are essential. Twenty-four would be insufficient to sustain ops in even low-level conflict. With just under seventy Griffons in service, and eight of them overseas plus a small non-flying reserve correctly configured in Canada, we were down to nine serviceable across Canada on a few days at the end of Athena and for a year or so afterwards, with twenty being a good day. Take a third out of any fleet for major inspections and unserviceabilities, then a percentage for OTU requirements (conversion to type), plus pre-deployment work-ups and regular training support to ground troops, and there are not a lot left to deploy.



From an Army standpoint the biggest problem with the Griffon is its lack of lift.  UH-60 or UH-1Y would be far more suitable.  

I disagree that 24 AH's would be too few, it's probably just right for our size.  Out of the top 20 military spenders in the world we are the only one without Attack Helicopters.  Comparing us to other NATO/SETO countries of similar sized Armed Forces:

Dutch:  28 Apaches
Poland:  29 Hinds
Spain:  9 Tigers
Turkey:  21 Cobras, 20 Mangusta
Italy:  50 Mangusta
Germany:  47 Tigers
UK:  50 Apaches
France:  55 Tigers
Australia:  22 Tigers

Heck even Japan, with their pacifist ways, has 88 Cobras and 13 Apaches.

Our Army Aviation is woefully inadequate for the modern battlefield and we are about 30 years behind everyone else.  

Edit:  I understand your point about serviceability; however, we should base the entire AH fleet in a Petawawa, re-roll 2CMBG in to an Air-Mobile Brigade.  Lets not kid ourselves that 2 CMBG is a Mech Brigade, it doesn't even have tanks, air defence, heavy engineering equipment, SP Artillery, or adequate logistics vehicles for that matter.


----------



## MilEME09

it should be noted the number 24 was picked as it would mean one AH for every chinook, idea the senate having is that one to escort every chinook


----------



## Loachman

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I disagree that 24 AH's would be too few, it's probably just right for our size.



Of those twenty-four, how many would you expect to deploy for a sustained operation?



			
				Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Edit:  I understand your point about serviceability; however, we should base the entire AH fleet in a Petawawa, re-roll 2CMBG in to an Air-Mobile Brigade.



I agree with that concept in general. It would not affect serviceability, however, or any other factor. And we should think in terms of tactical units rather than rectally-extracted numbers.

Coincidentally,  but I doubt that the Senate scoured any doctrinal publications, a standard US Army Attack Reconnaissance Battalion has three companies of eight AH64, which equates to a Canadian Squadron of three Flights of eight. I would accept that model, as it's been proven and would allow one flight preparing, one deployed, and one recovering. Additional machines would still be required for an Operational Training Flight (aircrew and groundcrew conversions-to-type) and some to account for the number in major inspections. That twenty-four machine Squadron is, after all, a tactical unit, and taking out a quarter or so continually has an effect, especially when it comes to deployments. Presuming that we were to deploy a Flight of eight, the six (presuming 25%) out of the picture for a couple of months each for major inspections drops the number left in Canada to ten, of which a couple more would be down for regular unserviceabilities. And once losses due to combat and accident start to happen...

I'd prefer to see two such Squadrons for sustainability, or at least a Squadron-and-a-half, with one affiliated with your proposed 2 CABG, as we would be hard-pressed to keep one Flight fully manned and equipped for an extended period. We had 11% of our Griffon fleet in Kandahar for a little over two years (I'm not counting the non-flying "ready reserve" as stripping as much weight off as possible and adding some essential gear would not be required) and were hard-pressed to sustain that. Trying to keep 33% of an AH fleet deployed is a bit more of a challenge.

We did, yes, add six Chinooks into theatre with no extra bodies, so that skews the numbers a bit. The total deployed, both types, still only equated to 19% of our total fleet, both types, and the smaller fleet was not acquired for long-term use and we did not run an OTF.

On the plus side, AHs are not likely to be tasked with domestic VIP trips and flood relief...



			
				MilEME09 said:
			
		

> it should be noted the number 24 was picked as it would mean one AH for every chinook, idea the senate having is that one to escort every chinook



Escorts work in sections of two, for mutual support. We flew the ring routes (administrative aerial bus routes) with one Chinook and two Griffon escorts. For larger, tactical, missions this ratio would change, but properly capable utility helicopters are better than a Chinook-exclusive/Chinook-heavy fleet for insertions and extractions. Chinook become the helicopter of choice in Afghanistan because heat and elevation sucked performance (helicopters are more efficient at sea level in low temperatures) and it had lift capacity to spare, and it was a relatively permissive environment.

We should not base our assumptions and resultant purchases on _*the last *_war, but war in general. The next one could be a more conventional slugfest in a cooler, lower, rainier place, in which case we would find ourselves oversubscribed with Chinook and undersubscribed with UHs and AHs, and Griffon would be a lot less useful as an escort with door guns only.

How much of that fancy essential-for-the-time route clearance equipment did we retain?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Loachman said:
			
		

> Of those twenty-four, how many would you expect to deploy for a sustained operation?



I would expect us to deploy be able to deploy four helicopters, potentially up to six if it's really required.  



> I agree with that concept in general. It would not affect serviceability, however, or any other factor. And we should think in terms of tactical units rather than rectally-extracted numbers.
> 
> Coincidentally,  but I doubt that the Senate scoured any doctrinal publications, a standard US Army Attack Reconnaissance Battalion has three companies of eight AH64, which equates to a Canadian Squadron of three Flights of eight. I would accept that model, as it's been proven and would allow one flight preparing, one deployed, and one recovering. Additional machines would still be required for an Operational Training Flight (aircrew and groundcrew conversions-to-type) and some to account for the number in major inspections. That twenty-four machine Squadron is, after all, a tactical unit, and taking out a quarter or so continually has an effect, especially when it comes to deployments. Presuming that we were to deploy a Flight of eight, the six (presuming 25%) out of the picture for a couple of months each for major inspections drops the number left in Canada to ten, of which a couple more would be down for regular unserviceabilities. And once losses due to combat and accident start to happen...



I understand that US Army Doctrine States the following; however, I think we get caught up too much in US Army Doctrine and for the size of our military force, its wholly inappropriate.  We still wouldn't have the mass required to conduct actual air assaults.  We could also mitigate having less attack helicopters by also deploying the UH-1Ys which are superior to the Griffon in speed, lift and weapons systems.



> I'd prefer to see two such Squadrons for sustainability, or at least a Squadron-and-a-half, with one affiliated with your proposed 2 CABG, as we would be hard-pressed to keep one Flight fully manned and equipped for an extended period. We had 11% of our Griffon fleet in Kandahar for a little over two years (I'm not counting the non-flying "ready reserve" as stripping as much weight off as possible and adding some essential gear would not be required) and were hard-pressed to sustain that. Trying to keep 33% of an AH fleet deployed is a bit more of a challenge.
> 
> We did, yes, add six Chinooks into theatre with no extra bodies, so that skews the numbers a bit. The total deployed, both types, still only equated to 19% of our total fleet, both types, and the smaller fleet was not acquired for long-term use and we did not run an OTF.
> 
> On the plus side, AHs are not likely to be tasked with domestic VIP trips and flood relief...
> 
> Escorts work in sections of two, for mutual support. We flew the ring routes (administrative aerial bus routes) with one Chinook and two Griffon escorts. For larger, tactical, missions this ratio would change, but properly capable utility helicopters are better than a Chinook-exclusive/Chinook-heavy fleet for insertions and extractions. Chinook become the helicopter of choice in Afghanistan because heat and elevation sucked performance (helicopters are more efficient at sea level in low temperatures) and it had lift capacity to spare, and it was a relatively permissive environment.
> 
> We should not base our assumptions and resultant purchases on _*the last *_war, but war in general. The next one could be a more conventional slugfest in a cooler, lower, rainier place, in which case we would find ourselves oversubscribed with Chinook and undersubscribed with UHs and AHs, and Griffon would be a lot less useful as an escort with door guns only.
> 
> How much of that fancy essential-for-the-time route clearance equipment did we retain?



My personal opinion is acquiring Attack Helicopters solely for the purpose of escorting Chinooks around would be a waste of the resource.  Escort is one of the roles they can perform; however, supporting troops in contact and armed reconnaissance is more important IMO. 

In spite of all the Sabre Rattling in Europe and North Korea, I don't see us engaging in a conventional war any time soon.  Small Wars are a reality though and we will be fighting Islamic Militants in North Africa and the Middle East for the foreseeable future.  We need appropriate tools to be able to do so.


----------



## Journeyman

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> ...... we will be fighting Islamic Militants in North Africa and the Middle East for the foreseeable future.


I guess you missed the link to how we're going to be UN peacekeepers dammit, ... no matter how much the bribes cost Canadian taxpayers.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I guess you missed the link to how we're going to be UN peacekeepers dammit, ... no matter how much the bribes cost Canadian taxpayers.



I pay no attention to the whole "peacekeeping" thing.  It's a sideshow, always has been and always will be.  Now if we said we were going in to the Sahel to CONTAIN or INTERDICT Ansar al-Sharia expansion further in to the African Continent, that would be a mission that made sense to me.


----------



## Journeyman

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> .... a mission that made sense to me.


Ahh... that pesky 'sensibility' snag.


----------



## Kirkhill

Just for reference - the senate called for 36 Chinooks and one AH for each Chinook - apparently in the senate that equates to 24 AH.

Loachman, how would you feel about 36 AH-1Zs and upping the CH-146s to the UH-1Y configuration?  Don't adjust the number of flying squadrons or pilots.  Just adjust the inventory.


----------



## TCM621

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> From the Senate.
> https://sencanada.ca/en/newsroom/cancel-super-hornets-jet-order-senate-defence-committee-urges/
> 
> Final report
> 
> https://sencanada.ca/content/sen/committee/421/SECD/Reports/SECDDPRReport_FINAL_e.pdf
> 
> 
> reading it my self now, especially the section on the reserves
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some highlights:
> 
> Airforce- -start an open competition to replace the CF-18 by june 18th 2018, the target fleet should be three squadrons of atleast 120 aircraft
> -replace 55 of the giffons with non-civilian medium to heavy lift helicopters, and purchase 24 attack helicopters to protect our chinooks in theatre
> 
> Navy: -Four AoR's needed
> -Article patrol vessels are not up to par, will need a coast guard ice breaker escort, slower then a BC ferry "That the Government of Canada conduct a fully independent and impartial review of the capabilities of the Arctic Off shore Patrol Ships (AOPS) "
> - Replace our current sub fleet with 12 modern subs


A huge problem is that more than half of that article is focused on diversity rather than our actually problems. How the hell does diversity increase our operational effectiveness? I straight up don't care who I work with and most of the people I know don't either. I can tell you the women I work with would be much happier having parts and tools to do a job rather than more women on the crew. I can tell you that having a professional, well trained military with state of the art equipment has more effect on other nations than having and appropriately diverse crew. Are we going to DAG by race and gender now? Do transsexuals count towards the gender quota or LGBTQ quota? Can you have use an ethnic transgendered lesbian to tick off three boxes or just one?

 Seriously, give us give the kit we need, proper benefits and pay, fast recruiting and make the military and employer of choice. No amount of targeted recruiting will entice people to join a the CAF when our inadequacies (real and imagined) are broadcast to the world on a regular basis.


----------



## Kirkhill

TCM

If that is what it took to bring the other side of the house on board with the rest of the report then it was well worth the effort.  And besides, it doesn't hurt.  Both increased diversity, and paying attention to an issue that is top of the pile on the CDS's desk are not undesirable.


----------



## Rifleman62

In the old days the descriptor was the men of the e.g. Army. It then became the men and women. Now its heading to the men, women and transgender of the Army. Wait for it. Someone will come along and bitch that the descriptor is not inclusive. We must be PC.


----------



## Altair

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> In the old days the descriptor was the men of the e.g. Army. It then became the men and women. Now its heading to the men, women and transgender of the Army. Wait for it. Someone will come along and ***** that the descriptor is not inclusive. We must be PC.


Biological organisms. That should cover it.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> A huge problem is that *more than half of that article* is focused on diversity rather than our actually problems ...


While about 200 of the 580 words of the news release deal with diversity (apart from the headline), have you looked at the report?  Two pages out of 105 deal with "REFLECTING CANADA’S DIVERSITY".  Shows you what the report writers find critical vs. the news release writers (although there's overlap between those two groups).


			
				Tcm621 said:
			
		

> ... Seriously, give us give the kit we need, proper benefits and pay, fast recruiting and make the military and employer of choice ...


Most of the rest of the report deals exactly with that.


			
				Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> In the old days the descriptor was the men of the e.g. Army. It then became the men and women. Now its heading to the men, women and transgender of the Army. Wait for it. Someone will come along and bitch that the descriptor is not inclusive.


Since you mention the Army, how about "troops"?


----------



## Journeyman

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> While about 200 of the 580 words of the news release deal with diversity (apart from the headline), have you looked at the report?  Two pages out of 105 deal with "REFLECTING CANADA’S DIVERSITY".



       :nod:

Sometimes there are benefits to _actually reading_  complete articles/reports....


----------



## The Bread Guy

Journeyman said:
			
		

> :nod:
> 
> Sometimes there are benefits to _actually reading_  complete articles/reports....


Or at least skimming them - even if JUST to compare to what the politicos & MSM say/find important.


----------



## Good2Golf

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I guess you missed the link to how we're going to be UN peacekeepers dammit, ... no matter how much the bribes cost Canadian taxpayers.



Pshawwww....you're limiting your creativity!


----------



## TCM621

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> While about 200 of the 580 words of the news release deal with diversity (apart from the headline), have you looked at the report?  Two pages out of 105 deal with "REFLECTING CANADA’S DIVERSITY".  Shows you what the report writers find critical vs. the news release writers (although there's overlap between those two groups).Most of the rest of the report deals exactly with that.


I didn't count the words, just guessed based on how much of the page it took up. I have yet to read the report the fact that a large portion of the article focused on 2 pages of the report is telling.


----------



## Loachman

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Loachman, how would you feel about 36 AH-1Zs and upping the CH-146s to the UH-1Y configuration?  Don't adjust the number of flying squadrons or pilots.  Just adjust the inventory.



I think that we should have an "open and transparent competition", followed by a court challenge, before settling on airframes.

But those machines would be fine with me, or AH-64 and UH-60.

Our Griffons should be swapped one-for-one, and the AHs would have to form a resurrected Squadron with additional PYs. If 2 CMBG is to become 2CABG, then there should be a utility Squadron in Petawawa (or close) as well, for a total of two additional Squadrons including a few more new UHs. Dormant former 10 TAG Squadrons include 411, 422, and 447. I'd prefer to hand 400 Squadron's current maintenance function to civ contractors and return it to flying status, but leave it in Borden and attempt to increase its Reserve component again. 411 Squadron was 400 Squadron's sister Squadron in Downsview.


----------



## Underway

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> I didn't count the words, just guessed based on how much of the page it took up. I have yet to read the report the fact that a large portion of the article focused on 2 pages of the report is telling.



Fortunately, most of the news articles I read said little to nothing about diversity.  That would be burying the lead; as ATTACK helicopters and doubling the defense budget are far more interesting and controversial.


----------



## TCM621

Underway said:
			
		

> Fortunately, most of the news articles I read said little to nothing about diversity.  That would be burying the lead; as ATTACK helicopters and doubling the defense budget are far more interesting and controversial.


I would love attack helicopters. Unfortunately, I will never see them. I only have 17 years left.


----------



## MilEME09

Not to mention 50 billion for 12 subs. Well thats if we build our own and i feel like it would be higher, now say get 12 built in a foreign yard and we could probably get 12 for like 5 billion

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk


----------



## GR66

There are a whole lot of new toys in that document.  I find it hard to argue with the additional equipment they are recommending for the Navy and Air Force, but even with increasing the defence budget to 2% of GDP is it even doable without making significant cuts elsewhere?  HQ and staff cuts will only go so far when you're talking about equipment expenditures of this magnitude, not to mention all the people to man and maintain them.  Does that mean a significantly reduced Army?  Base closures?


----------



## MilEME09

GR66 said:
			
		

> There are a whole lot of new toys in that document.  I find it hard to argue with the additional equipment they are recommending for the Navy and Air Force, but even with increasing the defence budget to 2% of GDP is it even doable without making significant cuts elsewhere?  HQ and staff cuts will only go so far when you're talking about equipment expenditures of this magnitude, not to mention all the people to man and maintain them.  Does that mean a significantly reduced Army?  Base closures?



No because the report also says the army is undermanned, and capabilities need to stop being divested.

Edit: On that note, whats everyones opinions on the recommendation of creating a Reserve unit in the Yukon?  and expanding the rangers.


----------



## suffolkowner

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Just for reference - the senate called for 36 Chinooks and one AH for each Chinook - apparently in the senate that equates to 24 AH.
> 
> Loachman, how would you feel about 36 AH-1Zs and upping the CH-146s to the UH-1Y configuration?  Don't adjust the number of flying squadrons or pilots.  Just adjust the inventory.



Can the UH-1Y's be built in Montreal? Problem solved! Upgrades on the CH-146 are limited by the transmission are they not?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Not to mention 50 billion for 12 subs. Well thats if we build our own and i feel like it would be higher, now say get 12 built in a foreign yard and we could probably get 12 for like 5 billion
> 
> Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk



Even when we planned on 10-12 nuclear attack subs, it would have been at the expense of the surface fleet. I would like to see 5-6 subs likely tagging onto the Aussie-French deal, 2 operational subs on each coast, 1-2 in various refits. Of the operational subs on the coast, one can be on long operations and the other doing training at and near the base, so the crews can keep up their other training and have something of a life ashore.


----------



## Kirkhill

> Can the UH-1Y's be built in Montreal? Problem solved! Upgrades on the CH-146 are limited by the transmission are they not?




That was actually the reason I raised the point.

If new helicopters are required then the options are, in my opinion: the status quo; the AH-1/UH-1 solution; the UH-60/AH-64 solution.  

The USMC has left open a door for the RCAF by its "fast and loose" UH-1 "upgrade".  In my view that is a classic application of "my grandfather's axe" to the procurement issue.  As long as there is one piece of metal, the one with the original serial number on it, left on the aircraft then it is still the original aircraft.  It is still "my grandfather's axe".

That means that the options are, assuming that we want logistics commonality between the AH and the UH versions of the aircraft, either to "upgrade" the Griffons to the USMC UH-1Y/AH-1Z standard or to go whole hog and buy a new fleet of UH-60s and AH-64s.

My "guess" is that in an "open and fair" not to mention "transparent" competition, upgrading the Griffons at Mirabel with part kits supplied from Texas
 would be the least-cost/politically-sensitive solution.


----------



## MilEME09

That would be a good start for sure given our resources, there is a lot of things for the airforce and Navy in this report that if we did it all, we would need a lot more people. Though I've always been an advocate for the airforce and navy being much larger.


----------



## Loachman

The UH-1Y is more than an "upgrade". Little of the UH-1N likely survives. Everything above and aft of the main cabin area is new, and the cabin area has been extended.

The new LAVs are not "upgrades" either, but new hulls and turrets and many other components. The US Marines had their LAVs stripped and the bottoms of the hulls cut off and new double-V bottoms welded on. It is cheaper to build new hulls, as we did, and that is why so many were offered as monuments.

Whether it is worth Bell's while (and ours, if it costs more) to open a short-run second production line, I don't know. In any case, Bell makes various components in various places - and, as we found out with late-run Griffons, not everything fits as it should. A number were delivered with collectives rubbing against the left-hand doors. Ours were assembled in Mirabel, and then (at least some, if not all) individually flown a long distance, possibly Dallas-Fort Worth, in primer only, to be painted. The last time that I was at the Bell factory in Mirabel, a few years ago, it was pretty packed and busy. Bell is providing employment in, and generating revenue for, this Country already as it is. They may already be building some components for UH-1Y and AH-1Z here.


----------



## Kirkhill

Loachman said:
			
		

> The UH-1Y is more than an "upgrade". Little of the UH-1N likely survives. Everything above and aft of the main cabin area is new, and the cabin area has been extended.
> 
> The new LAVs are not "upgrades" either, but new hulls and turrets and many other components. The US Marines had their LAVs stripped and the bottoms of the hulls cut off and new double-V bottoms welded on. It is cheaper to build new hulls, as we did, and that is why so many were offered as monuments.
> 
> Whether it is worth Bell's while (and ours, if it costs more) to open a short-run second production line, I don't know. In any case, Bell makes various components in various places - and, as we found out with late-run Griffons, not everything fits as it should. A number were delivered with collectives rubbing against the left-hand doors. Ours were assembled in Mirabel, and then (at least some, if not all) individually flown a long distance, possibly Dallas-Fort Worth, in primer only, to be painted. The last time that I was at the Bell factory in Mirabel, a few years ago, it was pretty packed and busy. Bell is providing employment in, and generating revenue for, this Country already as it is. They may already be building some components for UH-1Y and AH-1Z here.



I understand you Loachman.  The UH-1Y is to the UH-1N as the F18-E is to the F18-C.  But this country doesn't seem to see much below the headlines.  And if, as you suggest, Mirabel might already be engaged in the USMC programme, maybe that is another point in its favour.


----------



## GK .Dundas

The Marines UH 1 Y programme reminds me of two different US Programmes separated by almost a hundred years 
 The first was the US Navy post civil war modernization of more then a few ships It seems Congress  would not fund any new building programs at all but it seemed there was if not plenty  than adequate funding for  improving and modernizing .
So what the navy did was replaced everything but the ships bell with a new , well new everything .
 The second one was the CIA and the US Air Force  had ONMark engineering  rebuild B 26 C's into A 26 K's the story goes that ONMark replaced everything but the windshield . 
In short if we buy into the Yankee  we will not be upgrading  we will be purchasing new builds .


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Many a DHC Beaver are a new plane built around the Registration plate


----------



## The Bread Guy

I know, people will be shocked to see this from ceasefire.ca/Rideau Disarmament Institute*** ...


> *I don't want Canada's military spending increased by $20 billion.*
> 
> _Use available public dollars to improve social programs, to conserve the environment, and to build peace._
> 
> Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is being pressed to increase Canada's military spending. The pressure is coming from United States President Donald Trump, who is being supported by a large military establishment within Canada with close ties to the U.S. military and American-based weapons-builders.
> 
> They want Canada to double its military spending to reach 2 per cent of our national economy, measured as Gross Domestic Product (GDP). This would be an increase of more than $20 billion a year for the military.
> 
> Instead of increases to military spending, the Canadians who have signed this petition support our tax dollars being used to improve social programs, to prevent climate change, and to build peace.
> 
> Add your name to the petition
> President Trump has pledged to increase U.S. military spending by $54 billion, creating a defence budget that will exceed $600 billion each year. His plan includes efforts to "bomb the Hell out of ISIS," increase the total number of ships in the US Navy fleet, build additional F-35 fighter jets to expand the Air Force, and increase America's nuclear forces.
> 
> To pay for it, he's slashing spending on foreign aid, environmental protection, health, education, and housing.
> 
> The United States is already the highest military spender in the world. American military spending is nearly three times the spending of China, the second highest globally, and is nine times that of Russia, the world's third-highest military spender ...


You get the gist ...

*** - The "Disarmament" is silent.


----------



## MilEME09

If it was upto them, we would have no military. At that point we might as we raise the american flag.

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk


----------



## sandyson

Well considering the frequency of seeing the American flag in this country, I'd say we already have raised it.  As for the CF budget, we would probably keep peace with the Pentagon if we sent half of it to them as tribute and closed the local shop.  Then we'd have more money for the variety of welfare cheques needed.  (Hey! You have a pretty good idea there.) [Xp


----------



## dimsum

Sandyson said:
			
		

> Well considering the frequency of seeing the American flag in this country, I'd say we already have raised it.



Where do you live?  Aside from sports games where we're playing against the US, the border, or at American institutions/companies, I'd be hard-pressed to see the US flag at all.  We get American programming on TV but so does everyone else, to varying degrees - you see US programs in the UK or Australia just as much.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Trump to NATO today - also attached if link doesn't work ...


> Thank you very much, Secretary General Stoltenberg.  Chancellor Merkel, thank you very much.  Other heads of state and government, I am honored to be here with members of an alliance that has promoted safety and peace across the world.
> 
> Prime Minister May, all of the nations here today grieve with you and stand with you.  I would like to ask that we now observe a moment of silence for the victims and families of the savage attack which took place in Manchester.  (A moment of silence is observed.)  Thank you.  Terrible thing.
> 
> This ceremony is a day for both remembrance and resolve.  We remember and mourn those nearly 3,000 innocent people who were brutally murdered by terrorists on September 11th, 2001.  Our NATO allies responded swiftly and decisively, invoking for the first time in its history the Article 5 collective defense commitments.
> 
> The recent attack on Manchester in the United Kingdom demonstrates the depths of the evil we face with terrorism.  Innocent little girls and so many others were horribly murdered and badly injured while attending a concert -- beautiful lives with so much great potential torn from their families forever and ever.  It was a barbaric and vicious attack upon our civilization.
> 
> All people who cherish life must unite in finding, exposing, and removing these killers and extremists -- and, yes, losers.  They are losers.  Wherever they exist in our societies, we must drive them out and never, ever let them back in.
> 
> This call for driving out terrorism is a message I took to a historic gathering of Arab and Muslim leaders across the region, hosted by Saudi Arabia.  There, I spent much time with King Salman, a wise man who wants to see things get much better rapidly.  The leaders of the Middle East have agreed at this unprecedented meeting to stop funding the radical ideology that leads to this horrible terrorism all over the globe.
> 
> My travels and meetings have given me renewed hope that nations of many faiths can unite to defeat terrorism, a common threat to all of humanity.  Terrorism must be stopped in its tracks, or the horror you saw in Manchester and so many other places will continue forever.  You have thousands and thousands of people pouring into our various countries and spreading throughout, and in many cases, we have no idea who they are.  We must be tough.  We must be strong.  And we must be vigilant.
> 
> The NATO of the future must include a great focus on terrorism and immigration, as well as threats from Russia and on NATO’s eastern and southern borders.  These grave security concerns are the same reason that I have been very, very direct with Secretary Stoltenberg and members of the Alliance in saying that NATO members must finally contribute their fair share and meet their financial obligations, for 23 of the 28 member nations are still not paying what they should be paying and what they’re supposed to be paying for their defense.
> 
> This is not fair to the people and taxpayers of the United States.  And many of these nations owe massive amounts of money from past years and not paying in those past years.  Over the last eight years, the United States spent more on defense than all other NATO countries combined.  If all NATO members had spent just 2 percent of their GDP on defense last year, we would have had another $119 billion for our collective defense and for the financing of additional NATO reserves.
> 
> We should recognize that with these chronic underpayments and growing threats, even 2 percent of GDP is insufficient to close the gaps in modernizing, readiness, and the size of forces.  We have to make up for the many years lost.  Two percent is the bare minimum for confronting today’s very real and very vicious threats.  If NATO countries made their full and complete contributions, then NATO would be even stronger than it is today, especially from the threat of terrorism.
> 
> I want to extend my appreciation to the 9/11 Memorial and Museum in New York for contributing this remnant of the North Tower, as well as to Chancellor Merkel and the German people for donating this portion of the Berlin Wall.  It is truly fitting that these two artifacts now reside here so close together at the new NATO Headquarters.  And I never asked once what the new NATO Headquarters cost.  I refuse to do that.  But it is beautiful.
> 
> Each one marks a pivotal event in the history of this Alliance and in the eternal battle between good and evil.  On one side, a testament to the triumph of our ideals over a totalitarian Communist ideology bent on the oppression of millions and millions of people; on the other, a painful reminder of the barbaric evil that still exists in the world and that we must confront and defeat together as a group, as a world.
> 
> This twisted mass of metal reminds us not only of what we have lost, but also what forever endures -- the courage of our people, the strength of our resolve, and the commitments that bind us together as one.
> 
> We will never forget the lives that were lost.  We will never forsake the friends who stood by our side.  And we will never waiver in our determination to defeat terrorism and to achieve lasting security, prosperity and peace.
> 
> Thank you very much.  It’s a great honor to be here.  Thank you.
> 
> END


Interesting tidbits ...


> ... The NATO of the future must include *a great focus on terrorism and immigration*, as well as *threats from Russia and on NATO’s eastern and southern borders* ...


Good on him for naming the underlined bit - interesting including "immigration" as a potential NATO issue (although there's always been more than just defence @ play with the Alliance).


> ... 23 of the 28 member nations are still not paying what they should be paying and what they’re supposed to be paying for their defense.
> 
> This is not fair to the people and taxpayers of the United States.  And *many of these nations owe massive amounts of money from past years and not paying in those past years*.  Over the last eight years, the United States spent more on defense than all other NATO countries combined.  If all NATO members had spent just 2 percent of their GDP on defense last year, we would have had another $119 billion for our collective defense and for *the financing of additional NATO reserves* ...


On the bit in orange, who do the countries "owe" this money to?  If there's going to be billing/accounting, does that mean Canada gets  a credit for helping out the last (only) time Article 5 was invoked?  Also, what's that yellow underlined bit mean?  More reserve military forces or $ reserves?


----------



## Rifleman62

> Also, what's that yellow underlined bit mean?  More reserve military forces or $ reserves?



Financial funds (contingency reserve funds). In context: 





> If all NATO members had spent just 2 percent of their GDP on defense last year, we would have had another $119 billion for our collective defense and for the financing of additional NATO reserves ...


 in the NATO kitty.


----------



## Kirkhill

To whom is the money owed?

Well, for the last umpteen years Johnny has been inviting his buddies over to his annual potluck kegger.  23 out of 28 have been showing up with a bag of chips while Johnny puts dogs, burgers and steaks on the grill.  Johnny made lots of friends but his family was going broke.  

Johnny has asked that somebody else supply the steaks and beer this year.

Strangely there is some talk of abandoning the "tradition".  And not much talk of how to help Johnny.


----------



## MilEME09

atleast someone has high hopes for the new defense policy



> Canadian Army commander hopes days of scrounging to train soldiers are over
> 
> By Lee BerthiaumeThe Canadian Press
> Tues., Sept. 5, 2017
> 
> OTTAWA—Canadian Army commander Lt.-Gen. Paul Wynnyk is hoping the federal government’s new defence policy means the days of pinching pennies to properly train his soldiers are finally in the past.
> 
> Much of the attention around the Liberals’ defence policy has focused on the large amounts of money promised for new equipment such as fighter jets and warships.
> 
> The army will benefit from this bonanza, with new air-defence weapons and logistical vehicles among the extra $62 billion that the government has promised for the Canadian Forces over the next 20 years.
> 
> But what has Wynnyk most excited is that the government has — for the first time — promised to train Canada’s soldiers to what he considers the required level.
> 
> “Throughout the years, when I look back at my career, we haven’t always had a government promise or a government commitment to do that, and by extension the funding to do that,” Wynnyk told The Canadian Press.
> 
> “So I think that’s an incredibly important thing that was included in this defence policy, which we haven’t necessarily seen in the past.”
> 
> The defence policy specifically states that training to what is known as the “brigade-group level” is the minimum required to be able to conduct large military operations that include non-army units and allies.
> 
> Yet funding hasn’t always been available to train to that level, especially following the end of the combat mission in Afghanistan and deep spending cuts under the Harper Conservatives starting in 2012.
> 
> The army managed to keep training at the brigade-group level, Wynnyk said, but “it was almost on an ad hoc-basis in terms of cobbling together the funding, having to borrow from one area to go to another.”
> 
> One of the areas from which money was drawn? Infrastructure, which has been historically underfunded across the Canadian Forces because of a shortage of funding in other priority areas.
> 
> “We had to make hard choices,” Wynnyk said. “We didn’t cut on (training), but we had to skimp and penny-pinch in a number of areas to make sure that that continued.”
> 
> The army commander also has high hopes for the future of the military reserves, which are facing a dramatic overhaul after struggling with a shortage of people and equipment for years.
> 
> The fate of the part-time force is especially important to Wynnyk given that between 65 and 70 per cent of its members belong to the army reserve, which plays a huge role in virtually all army operations.
> 
> The Canadian Forces is supposed to have 28,500 reservists, but the actual number has been thousands less because of problems with recruiting and retention.
> 
> The defence policy calls for the reserve force to be expanded to 30,000, as well as shorter recruiting times and four years of guaranteed summer employment to keep them in uniform.
> 
> Wynnyk, who started his own 36-year career as an army reservist, is hoping those changes will reverse what had become a steady decline in the size of the part-time force in recent years.
> 
> The defence policy also plans to turn reserve units into specialized troops capable of supporting regular-force units with special skills or abilities, such as mortar units, linguists, cyber operators and technicians.
> 
> Some reservists have previously complained about a lack of resources to do even their basic jobs right; Wynnyk said there is some validity to those complaints, but the plan is to fix all those issues.
> 
> “What we will end up doing is making sure that every reserve unit has an operational role, and they have the force-generation base to actually deploy people on a sustained basis,” Wynnyk said.
> 
> “This is actually pretty significant. We haven’t been there in the past, we haven’t been funded to do this in the past.”



https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/09/05/canadian-army-commander-hopes-days-of-scrounging-to-train-soldiers-are-over.html


----------



## Brad Sallows

Fiscal reference tables for 2017 have finally been published.

"Direct Program Expenses - National Defence" is down from $28.5B in 2015-2016 to $25.5B in 2016-2017.  The new government is very efficient at doing more with less.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The money for the fairy dust he is sprinkling has to come from somewhere.


----------



## Rifleman62

https://www.opencanada.org/features/forget-more-defence-dollars-canada-needs-fix-its-procurement-process/

*Forget more defence dollars — Canada needs to fix its procurement process* - 23 Feb 18
_If the new budget touches on defence, it must consider increasing the number of staff and calibre of experts that take care of procuring military equipment, argues Steve Saideman. _

On February 27, the Liberals table their next budget. Whatever it says about defence spending, it is probably best to be skeptical. 

When Stephen Harper was prime minister, there seemed to be annual announcements that the budget of the Department of National Defence was going to be under-spent by billions of dollars. While there was much suspicion that this was part of an effort to reach a balanced budget, the fact that the Trudeau government may be forced to make similar announcements — which may very well happen when this year’s budget is released — suggests something is broken besides campaign promises. 

Indeed, when the Defence Policy Review, Strong, Secure, Engaged, was released in 2017 with promises of much greater defence spending, there was much criticism, as people anticipated that the Liberals had no intention of actually fulfilling those promises. 

It turns out that there is a feature in Canadian defence that is enduring, regardless of the party in power: it is hard to spend large amounts of defence dollars.

This seems counter-intuitive, since most defence projects are expensive, and increasingly so, as defence costs inflate faster than most of the economy. Yet it is precisely that the big projects require complex processes to make the decisions, issue the contracts and then build the weapons systems that make it so easy for spending to slip from one year to the next.

Simply put, Canada does not have enough procurement specialists to do all of the work, as prior defence cuts have meant expertise is lagging when it comes to how to estimate costs quickly, how to develop clear requirements for contracts, and how to write contracts. On top of that, there is a cumbersome bureaucracy involving multiple ministers which means diffuse accountability — no single minister is accountable because several partially are. This means that decisions get delayed, which in turn means that money goes unspent.

The National Shipbuilding Strategy illustrates these problems quite well. It seemed simple. The shipyards were chosen years ago (in 2011) — Irving in Halifax for the frigates and the arctic offshore patrol vessels and Seaspan in Vancouver for the support ships. While that was the big political decision, it did not mean that designs of ships were chosen or subcontractors determined for various parts of the project. Picking ship designs is a complicated process, since the design that wins may influence which subcontractors get more or less of the work, and also because the Navy values flexibility, which means that tradeoffs may be deferred. Moreover, delays increase the costs in a variety of ways, so as governments change and tweak the requirements, deferring decisions causes the budgets to grow. 

_"No single minister is accountable because several partially are. This means that decisions get delayed, which in turn means that money goes unspent."_ 

To be clear, while it often seems like the defence contractors are at the mercy of capricious politicians and delayed by the understaffing of procurement officials, they also can make everything more complicated. Currently, the highest-ranking officer in the Royal Canadian Navy, Vice Admiral Mark Norman, is suspended due to unproven claims he was embroiled in the rivalry the Irving shipbuilding company has with the Davie shipyards. The story is complex, but the ruthless desire by Irving to get every potential project made it more difficult to produce interim ships to supply the Navy at sea. In short, everyone involved is mismanaging defence procurement.

The F-35 story is very similar but “benefits” from more politicization. No major party can oppose the shipbuilding effort, nor can they be too critical, since it involves thousands of clearly identified jobs — and voters. The effort to replace the current fighter planes has been fraught from the outset, as politicians have attacked competing parties over decisions and non-decisions alike. Whatever “offsets” there might be that lead to high tech jobs in Canada, they are not so clearly tied to particularly communities, like ships in Halifax and Vancouver. This means that the various parties can politicize and threaten to cancel all they want.

To what effect? The Royal Canadian Navy simply cannot do as much as it once could. It cannot send as many ships to sea since the RCN has fewer ships. Because Canada is not at war, this does not endanger Canadian security — the absence of a few ships will not lead to our invasion.  But it may mean that Canada cannot keep all of its commitments to its allies, that it cannot always show up when it is expected to do so. Politically, it is problematic; Canada was able to assure US President Donald Trump last year that while we may not spend two percent of GDP on defence anytime in the near future, Canada was going to be increasing its defence spending. But stories of deferring spending may cause Trump to overreact, as he will not read beyond the headline to realize that news is the result of procurement problems.  

Politically, of all the promises Justin Trudeau made, the broken commitments on the defence file will probably cost him the least. Unless one works for a defence contractor, most people do not vote based on defence spending. The Conservatives can try to argue that they are more serious about national defence, but their lousy record of procurement is recent enough that they probably do not want to focus on it. The New Democratic Party will never try to outflank the Liberal Party to its right. So, the political consequences are probably minimal. 

The most serious cost involved is that older equipment might endanger Canadian soldiers, sailors and aviators. They may not be able to perform their assigned missions to the best of their ability because their equipment may not function as well as it should, or as well as the equipment of their adversaries. So, while a navy reliant on leased supply ships or on an interim vessel might seem like a joke, this is not really a laughing matter.

When it comes to the realities of the modern military, the risks are significant and the consequences can be fatal. Getting better at procurement, something that Strong, Secure, and Engaged promised to do, is not just about saving money and preventing the government from being embarrassed. It is what we owe the people who risk their lives for Canada at home and abroad. 

So, whatever promises are made in this budget, the focus should be on whether it includes significant improvements, including increased staffing, of Canada’s defence procurement specialists. Alas, these people don't just appear from thin air — they require training and experience. The question remains whether the new budget will create incentives and processes that begin to reverse the shortfalls. All we can be certain of is that if the procurement process is not fixed, more dollars will be pushed further into the future, and so will the ships, planes and other kit that the Canadian Armed Forces need.


----------



## pbi

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> https://www.opencanada.org/features/forget-more-defence-dollars-canada-needs-fix-its-procurement-process/
> 
> *Forget more defence dollars — Canada needs to fix its procurement process* - 23 Feb 18
> _If the new budget touches on defence, it must consider increasing the number of staff and calibre of experts that take care of procuring military equipment, argues Steve Saideman. _...The question remains whether the new budget will create incentives and processes that begin to reverse the shortfalls. All we can be certain of is that if the procurement process is not fixed, more dollars will be pushed further into the future, and so will the ships, planes and other kit that the Canadian Armed Forces need.



A very good article, and actually quite objective. IMHO this is not really a "Liberal" or a "Tory" problem: it's a "Govt of Canada" problem, including the DND and CAF. This can't just be blamed on politicians, as much as military people love doing that.

I recently read a history of the ill-fated Bobcat APC project which the Canadian Army launched back in the early 1960's. (IIRC you can see the sole surviving prototype in the RCAC Park at Borden). This sad story had all the sordid earmarks of a typical Canadian defence project, with all the usual suspects (or their contemporary equivalents). One thing was quite clear: the Army created some of its own grief with unrealistic "Cadillac" expectations for the vehicle, some of which were in advance of contemporary AFV technology. I think we may still have problems like this.

Remember that politicians, of any stripe, are usually opportunists. If defence spending doesn't offer any attractive opportunities for them, it will not have much priority.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

defense procurement in Canada has been broken since 1867, with only a few bright spots along the way.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

pbi said:
			
		

> A very good article, and actually quite objective. IMHO this is not really a "Liberal" or a "Tory" problem: it's a "Govt of Canada" problem, including the DND and CAF. This can't just be blamed on politicians, as much as military people love doing that.
> 
> I recently read a history of the ill-fated Bobcat APC project which the Canadian Army launched back in the early 1960's. (IIRC you can see the sole surviving prototype in the RCAC Park at Borden). This sad story had all the sordid earmarks of a typical Canadian defence project, with all the usual suspects (or their contemporary equivalents). One thing was quite clear: the Army created some of its own grief with unrealistic "Cadillac" expectations for the vehicle, some of which were in advance of contemporary AFV technology. I think we may still have problems like this.
> 
> Remember that politicians, of any stripe, are usually opportunists. If defence spending doesn't offer any attractive opportunities for them, it will not have much priority.



Defence procurement, even at the lowest levels, is seemingly designed to make people not procure anything. As an example- the current surplus in 1 CMBG is $4 million, give or take. But, because the PSPC purchasing deadline was in November, the Brigade can't purchase large items that it needs as nothing over $25k can be procured. So, the Bde will just inevitably turn the money in. the units can't even just buy gym equipment as it's over $25k, which gets you a grand sum of 3 treadmills.

If we can't have a system flexible enough to buy gym equipment for infantry battalions (which isn't controversial in any way) than how can we expect to buy vehicles or aircraft with any sort of competency?


----------



## Edward Campbell

I don't know how long those rules have been inn place but, back a few decades, in the 1980s, we had a thing we called "March Madness" when people ~ it was real people, not nameless organizations ~ believed that if they turned any money back they would get less next year so they bought totally useless crap ... millions and millions of dollars worth of waste. 

(Anecdote: it was 1984 and both my boss and I had just arrived in our new jobs; we were walking through the staff area leading to the office suite when he asked "What are all those colourful boxes that are on top of so many closets?" I went to ask and reported to him: "they are _Dictaphones_, Sir (office recording devices) purchased, this year, so that staff members can dictate their memos for production by the typing pools that were disbanded five years ago.")







Many silly rules are put in place to stop even sillier things from happening.


----------



## OldSolduer

And this March Madness continues or at least it did when I was in.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

I remember all the hate I got at my old job when I started throwing out office furniture to try to give the Coord Bullpen a more professional and organized appearance.  

"We can't throw that out, we only bought it three years ago!" 

My reply:

1.  Nobody uses it
2.  It sits in the corner along with all that other stuff you bought collecting dust
3.  It's a sunken expense
4.  You only bought it to spend money at the end of the fiscal year

The CAF is worse than a lot of hoarders when it comes to keeping useless stuff.  I am against big workdesks for a number of reasons, they are disorganized, people fill their drawers with all sorts of useless stuff.  They also cause files to get lost.  A gigantic table with no drawers is my style.  An office can have a centralized file cabinet that can be locked should it be required.


----------



## McG

“March Madness” still exists, but the term is frowned upon and there is an expectation that a little more discipline is applied to the process.  Most places maintain lists of opportunity purchase items - things that are needed but for which there is no funding set aside.  As the FY progresses and monies go unspent (or costs shift to future years), there is the ability to reallocate money to buy these opportunity items.

In practice, year end money is usually spent on a mix to disciplined and impulse purchases.


----------



## jollyjacktar

We don't have it per se in ADM(Mat), they want up to have monies accounted for before end year.  Any surplus goes back.

My previous units were getting more responsible in March and not spending on stupid shit.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> If we can't have a system flexible enough to buy gym equipment for infantry battalions (which isn't controversial in any way) than how can we expect to buy vehicles or aircraft with any sort of competency?



...perhaps the egg heads in accounting would rather see the infantry run around in circles - much cheaper than buying treadmills.  The army isn't allowed to buy very much of anything with the controversial word "tread".


----------



## pbi

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Defence procurement, even at the lowest levels, is seemingly designed to make people not procure anything. As an example- the current surplus in 1 CMBG is $4 million, give or take. But, because the PSPC purchasing deadline was in November, the Brigade can't purchase large items that it needs as nothing over $25k can be procured. So, the Bde will just inevitably turn the money in. the units can't even just buy gym equipment as it's over $25k, which gets you a grand sum of 3 treadmills.
> 
> If we can't have a system flexible enough to buy gym equipment for infantry battalions (which isn't controversial in any way) than how can we expect to buy vehicles or aircraft with any sort of competency?



If the Army was a business, it would be out of business...


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I don't know how long those rules have been inn place but, back a few decades, in the 1980s, we had a thing we called "March Madness" when people ~ it was real people, not nameless organizations ~ believed that if they turned any money back they would get less next year so they bought totally useless crap ... millions and millions of dollars worth of waste.
> 
> (Anecdote: it was 1984 and both my boss and I had just arrived in our new jobs; we were walking through the staff area leading to the office suite when he asked "What are all those colourful boxes that are on top of so many closets?" I went to ask and reported to him: "they are _Dictaphones_, Sir (office recording devices) purchased, this year, so that staff members can dictate their memos for production by the typing pools that were disbanded five years ago.")
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many silly rules are put in place to stop even sillier things from happening.



The same attitude exists now, even though we do annual business planning. The regulations though are what drives the need to spend money as they state that all CO's must be within .05% or $3600 on a $641k budget to be considered "successful" which leads to March madness occurring as random things are bought to achieve this magical number. It's supposed to increase our financial stewardship, though the success of this is arguable at best.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> ...perhaps the egg heads in accounting would rather see the infantry run around in circles - much cheaper than buying treadmills.  The army isn't allowed to buy very much of anything with the controversial word "tread".



That's the problem though- we really really really wanted to buy treadmills, 1 CMBG agreed to it, and we had the money. The problem is that while we could have purchsed $75k in treadmills the regulations are set up that everything over $25k goes to PSPC, which shut down purchasing in November (except for one 1 CMBG unit that forgot to replace $170k in tooling they sent to Latvia and realized in Dec when they failed an ERV). So, while the money was there, it wasn't something that any Canadian would get upset about if it hit newspapers, and we were going to do all the work to contract, PSPC regulations blocked it as there is no flexibility built in. That's the real problem- how can we expect to buy ships and airplanes in a system that doesn't allow to buy treadmills past month 7 of 12, when all that was required was a signature?


----------



## dapaterson

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> That's the problem though- we really really really wanted to buy treadmills, 1 CMBG agreed to it, and we had the money. The problem is that while we could have purchsed $75k in treadmills the regulations are set up that everything over $25k goes to PSPC, which shut down purchasing in November (except for one 1 CMBG unit that forgot to replace $170k in tooling they sent to Latvia and realized in Dec when they failed an ERV). So, while the money was there, it wasn't something that any Canadian would get upset about if it hit newspapers, and we were going to do all the work to contract, PSPC regulations blocked it as there is no flexibility built in. That's the real problem- how can we expect to buy ships and airplanes in a system that doesn't allow to buy treadmills past month 7 of 12, when all that was required was a signature?



Are there standing offers in place?  Plenty of ways to spend money effectively, if there's a plan and people willing to work at it.

Of course, the larger question is what was the original plan for the money, and why wasn't it used for that?


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Are there standing offers in place?  Plenty of ways to spend money effectively, if there's a plan and people willing to work at it.
> 
> Of course, the larger question is what was the original plan for the money, and why wasn't it used for that?



There are still standing offers, but none for gym equipment nationally.

For 1 CMBG, the forest fires caused most units to miss autumn training FTXs and Ex IRON RAM was also smaller than predicted as most units couldn't support as much as they wanted due to the forest fires.

In 1 CMBG's fault though is the fact that it spent the first months of the FY acting like the end was nigh with low cost centres, then added to CC's as the situation became apparent. 1 CMBG didn't even put out an operating plan this FY, which is clearly to fault too.


----------



## dapaterson

So work to get SOs in place for next year.  Adopt LL from this to do better next time.  Develop a plan to spend $20K/ year on the unit gym on a recurring basis.

Lots of ways to get value for money with opportunity funding... and not just by stockpiling dictaphones.


----------



## dimsum

So...I may have missed it, but I have not heard anything from the recent Budget about defence.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

dapaterson said:
			
		

> So work to get SOs in place for next year.  Adopt LL from this to do better next time.  Develop a plan to spend $20K/ year on the unit gym on a recurring basis.
> 
> Lots of ways to get value for money with opportunity funding... and not just by stockpiling dictaphones.



the national fitness equipment was supposed to be in place for this FY, which is why Shilo never renewed the old one.

The initial point is not about SO's or spending money, which is easy. It's about a system that is inflexible and inadaptable, which ours is regardless of standing offers.


----------



## dapaterson

Lots of flexibility... but it requires planning ahead.  And HHQs that don't wait for months to devolve funding.

The rules have not dramatically changed, yet every year people are surprised by what happens.  Is the problem absolutely "the system", or those who make up the organization who don't ever seem to learn, year after year?


----------



## Wookilar

Agreed. If there is anyone in the procurement stream that doesn't realize that spending $75K, at any time of the year, is going to take a great deal more time/planning than spending $3k, they need to be a bit more aware.

I've spent $500K, sole-source, within 4 weeks (in Feb). I've also had purchases of $35K go south months in advance.

Once you get over that NAFTA limit, the SOR/SOW gets more complicated, translations are picked apart (more), and there are a lot more eyes on at PWGSC. That's the way its supposed to work.

Bird_Gunner, I understand your frustration, seriously, been there more times than I care to remember. If the old SO is no longer in force (which makes me wonder what the hell they are doing not having the new one ready beforehand), there are other ways to do it..... just might need to be a bit more creative.

Say.....find a treadmill for under $25K maybe? Buy one now, better than none.

PWGSC may want to shut things down, but they simply can't. The show must go on and toilet paper must be purchased in bulk.

And don't confuse the difference in "spare" operational budget because of missed/cancelled EX's. Usually has very little to nothing to do with procurement of items that are considered permanent. Different pots of money.


----------



## Edward Campbell

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Lots of flexibility... but it requires planning ahead.  And HHQs that don't wait for months to devolve funding.
> 
> The rules have not dramatically changed, yet every year people are surprised by what happens.  Is the problem absolutely "the system", or _those who make up the organization who don't ever seem to learn, year after year_?




I think that's it. My old boss, the one I mentioned in the anecdote, was surprised, 35 years ago, that this ("March Madness") was still going on when we took over his branch ... maybe he, over the next couple of years, only damped it down, rather than stamping it out, but maybe, also, the culture in the ADM(Mat) Group did change. But September/October is the time when leaders should review spending to date and look at budget realignments to spend _*efficiently*_ and* effectively*; Jan/Feb is way too late. National standing offers are great tools but they require regular review and tweaking and people have to know how to use them.

I remember a very wise senior officer (he was then something like the Comptroller General for Mobile Command) telling us (unit COs) that the money in our units' accounts was "real" money, not just numbers that some "gnomes with green eyeshades" moved about in ledgers ... "Those were real dollars when they came out of your bank accounts last spring, to pay your income tax" he explained,"and they're real dollars when a contractor gets them and then gives you some goods or services in return." "They're real dollars that can only be spent once and need to be spent on things we really need, not wasted, because they are _*OUR*_ real dollars and our parents' real dollars and our kids' real dollars, too." Too many people seem to forget that.


----------



## ballz

Wookilar said:
			
		

> Agreed. If there is anyone in the procurement stream that doesn't realize that spending $75K, at any time of the year, is going to take a great deal more time/planning than spending $3k, they need to be a bit more aware.



It's not the procurement people tha say "yes, you can go buy stuff now."

Being an Infantry Officer who now works for a G8, the 3rd Division G8 in fact (aka the Div HQ above 1 CMBG whom this issue of treadmills / gym equipment is being discussed), my observation has remained the same since I was a Platoon Commander and now being on the finance side has only strengthened my belief.

We have completely separated the user (ie the "operators" as they call them in the Log world) from the process. There are Combat Arms LCols, Cols, and Generals filling extremely important positions that need to have a Log O sit down beside them and "help them" in order to complete their Expenditure Management Course so they can get their DOA for their own cost centre.

Everyone in the finance world so far has basically looked at me like I have 18 heads when I suggest that Pl Comds should be given a DOA and a small budget. Rifle Coy OC's (or their Coy 2ICs) should have their own Cost Centre and be an actual RC Manager. For some reason this is just a crazy idea, despite the fact that the entire Financial Administration Act is designed to do exactly that... allow the person in charge of something to have the financial authorities required to do their jobs.

Perhaps if the first time a Combat Arms officer (the ones who are ultimately going to fill most Command roles and therefore the only people with authority to really address this problem) sees a dollar sign wasn't when he is the CO of a Unit, and is now too far in over his head and just simply signs whatever the QM tells the DCO to tell him to sign, we wouldn't be so financially incompetent at every level.

I promise you if Pl Comd's had even the smallest budget there wouldn't be a cent left in it at the end of the year. And they'd actually spend it on useful stuff that they *want* to do. I have had this discussion with enough of my peers, they all feel the same way. But by the time people hit Major, they are bred to afraid of and purposefully avoid learning about anything outside of Ops.



			
				Wookilar said:
			
		

> Say.....find a treadmill for under $25K maybe? Buy one now, better than none.



That's pretty much textbook definition of contract splitting. In fact, that very kind of example exists in the CDWT course. You are splitting the contract in order to keep the approval level lower.



			
				Wookilar said:
			
		

> PWGSC may want to shut things down, but they simply can't. The show must go on and toilet paper must be purchased in bulk.



While that's true, PWGSC doesn't belong to DND so how is a G4(contracts) person supposed to influence this? PWGSC won't touch anything over 25k after November 1st. No one has asked the MND to talk to his peer Minister about the issue yet I guess.



			
				Wookilar said:
			
		

> And don't confuse the difference in "spare" operational budget because of missed/cancelled EX's. Usually has very little to nothing to do with procurement of items that are considered permanent. Different pots of money.



Almost all of the surpluses used to buy stuff in March are from O&M. Op Plans are always over-programmed and the costs are overestimated... again... we reap what we sow with financial incompetence.


----------



## ModlrMike

End year spending is totally messed up. I have four >5K projects funded in the last week and I'm only certain that one of them will actually succeed, because I can get the cost under 5K and approve it at my level. 17 Wing is up to their eyeballs, and my most time sensitive project is priority number 23. This with one month to go, and the restriction that the goods have to be in hand by 31 Mar.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Conference of Defence Associations Institute on 2018 federal budget:



> *EXECUTIVE SUMMARY*
> ...
> Overall, the Budget has a strong orientation of the budget towards social equity issues with the
> designation of explicit targets for changing activities and outcomes in keeping with this orientation. This will
> influence DND and CAF activities and operations over time as the Government looks for progress in these areas as part of the pan-Governmental effort...
> 
> *ANALYSIS*
> 
> *Measures Announced Directly Affecting DND/CAF*
> 
> Nil...
> http://files.constantcontact.com/aacbce66101/00e344e7-220a-4552-a2ec-acecfeb7bbde.pdf



Nil. That's all they gender-neutral, whatever, wrote.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Rifleman62

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/military-brass-shakeup-1.4559620 -2 Mar 18

CBC article re senior appts ends with:

The shuffle comes at critical time for the military, as it begins to implement the nuts and bolts aspects of the Liberal government's defence policy. It will be up to the new leadership to set down the plans to spend the money the federal government has earmarked for the military over the next two decades. Those implementation plans — for equipment purchases and programs — are still being put together, according to a senior defence official who testified before the Senate finance committee this week.

_Skepticism about government's spending plans_

Asked to provide a list of the department's capital and program spending, Julie Charron, the defence department's deputy chief financial officer, said: "We are not in the position at this point to provide you with the information itemized by project, simply because there may be some delays in the projects."

The Liberals promised to inject an additional $14 billion into the military budget on an annual basis in the coming years. They even went the extra step of earmarking it in the federal government's long-term financial plan, known as the fiscal framework — a measure that required both the prime minister and the finance minister to sign off.

There was virtually no mention of defence in this week's budget, prompting expressions of skepticism from defence analysts, including Sen. Elizabeth Marshall, the former auditor general of Newfoundland and Labrador.


----------



## McG

ballz said:
			
		

> ... finance world so far has basically looked at me like I have 18 heads when I suggest that Pl Comds should be given a DOA and a small budget. Rifle Coy OC's (or their Coy 2ICs) should have their own Cost Centre and be an actual RC Manager. For some reason this is just a crazy idea, despite the fact that the entire Financial Administration Act is designed to do exactly that... allow the person in charge of something to have the financial authorities required to do their jobs.
> 
> Perhaps if the first time a Combat Arms officer (the ones who are ultimately going to fill most Command roles and therefore the only people with authority to really address this problem) sees a dollar sign wasn't when he is the CO of a Unit, and is now too far in over his head and just simply signs whatever the QM tells the DCO to tell him to sign, we wouldn't be so financially incompetent at every level.


My observations have been that it is unique in 3 Div to not give budgets to sub-units. In speaking to Engineers who collectively have been OCs in all the divisions, all of the ones from 4 ESR through 2 CMBG and 5 CMBG had owned their budgets.  Only the 1 CMBG guys needed the DCO to approve all spending.


----------



## ballz

MCG said:
			
		

> My observations have been that it is unique in 3 Div to not give budgets to sub-units. In speaking to Engineers who collectively have been OCs in all the divisions, all of the ones from 4 ESR through 2 CMBG and 5 CMBG had owned their budgets.  Only the 1 CMBG guys needed the DCO to approve all spending.



I just came from 2 RCR and I know it wasn't the case there. Because we've been having this discussion in our cell, I searched on DRMIS the fin structures and the DOAs associated with them and it appears 2 CMBG is set up the exact same way as 1 CMBG (didn't check 5 CMBG). Also checked out a few units within each formation (didn't feel like I had to check them all based on what I was seeing). Mind you, some units may be giving their sub-units a budget, but there isn't a cost centre assigned to them with their own DOA (neither RC Manager or RC Administrator)* so it's not even marginally better to do that in my mind.

Interestingly enough about your post, 1 CER as well as some other units in 1 CMBG have been asking to have more than one cost centre. That's what's caused the discussion to come up in the office.

*I have seen some varied use of RC Admin DOAs but its few and far between. For example, some Units do have all of their Majors set up on an RC Admin DOA for the unit's cost centre, so it's a step in the right direction... but even those examples seem rare from my DRMISing.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I remember all the hate I got at my old job when I started throwing out office furniture to try to give the Coord Bullpen a more professional and organized appearance.
> 
> "We can't throw that out, we only bought it three years ago!"
> 
> My reply:
> 
> 1.  Nobody uses it
> 2.  It sits in the corner along with all that other stuff you bought collecting dust
> 3.  It's a sunken expense
> 4.  You only bought it to spend money at the end of the fiscal year
> 
> The CAF is worse than a lot of hoarders when it comes to keeping useless stuff.  I am against big workdesks for a number of reasons, they are disorganized, people fill their drawers with all sorts of useless stuff.  They also cause files to get lost.  A gigantic table with no drawers is my style.  An office can have a centralized file cabinet that can be locked should it be required.



Depends on the work you do, when you still look at 36x36 plans, charts, the office 2.0 stuff becomes a hindrance. I had a boss that was a neat freak, went through our file room, tossed out the complete record of all our archived files, instruction manuals for equipment we still had and tossed out the transducer for the expensive depth sounder, all in one week...

For March madness, we restrict it to equipment or supplies we will use in the coming year, my current department is very good at releasing budgets early and tracking expenditures, so march madness is not that great, working at DFO, they would release your budget in August, freeze it in October and then release a crapload of money in January, contributing to the March madness greatly.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Note the author of this CGAI piece--excerpts:



> Use It or Lose It: SSE and DND’s Chronic Underspending Problem
> ...
> by Eugene Lang
> CGAI Fellow
> ...
> On June 7 of last year the Trudeau government gifted the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) and the Department of National Defence (DND) with a new defence policy, titled Strong, Secure, Engaged (SSE), and a corresponding commitment to grow the defence budget (on a cash basis) from $18.9 billion in 2016-2017 to $32.7 billion in 2026/2027 – a 70 per cent increase.
> 
> A financial boost to DND of this magnitude was totally unexpected from this government. It was not an election commitment. Military funding was conspicuously absent from the Liberal platform, which made financial promises in virtually every other federal domain.
> 
> The coalition of voters that elected the Trudeau Liberals was not calling for an increase in military spending. (Nor is boosting the defence budget ever identified in opinion polls as a top priority for Canadians). Not surprisingly, there were no strong voices in the Liberal cabinet or caucus for a big financial boost to DND...
> 
> Whatever the reason [for the commitment], the bottom line is that National Defence got lucky in 2017 and it is now time for DND’s senior leadership to capitalize before their luck runs out. Simply put, this means DND needs to figure out how to spend the capital funds authorized to it by Parliament.
> 
> As David Perry has documented, over the past decade National Defence has shown a chronic inability to spend anywhere near its approved capital vote. According to Perry, since 2007-2008 DND has underspent its vote 5 capital by $9.92 billion (in 2014-2015 dollars) in total. By way of comparison, 15 years ago, National Defence was underspending about two per cent of its vote 5 capital, whereas between 2009-2010 and 2013-2014 that number had ballooned to 20- to 30 per cent.1 The problem persists to this day, such that in the run-up to the release of SSE, the Chief of Defence Staff, General Jonathan Vance, told the media “there is no point giving us billions when we can’t spend it.”2 He got the billions nonetheless.
> 
> The chief reason for this underspending relates to a dysfunctional defence procurement system. The government acknowledged this to some degree in SSE...
> 
> These admissions are based on the pre-SSE volume of procurement, a level of output about one-quarter of what DND envisages in the medium term. Which means the underspending is poised to get a lot worse absent some significant reforms to the way defence procurement is conducted...
> 
> The hard reality, however, is that the other departments involved in defence procurement have no incentive to end the [procurement] game. They face no pressure to improve or streamline their part of the process to help DND spend its capital. In fact, those other departments couldn’t care less about DND’s capital spending performance...
> 
> And no one should expect the political level of this government to care very much about whether DND manages to spend its capital. The dominant political view is likely that the National Defence box was more than ticked with SSE, and it’s now up to DND to figure out how to spend the money it has been pledged.
> 
> In other words, for National Defence, procurement streamlining and reform must begin at home, with a concentration on those aspects of the system over which it has control. Chief among these is getting real on project priority setting; streamlining the byzantine approvals processes within the department and developing better two-way dialogue and transparency with industry. It must also establish more genuine co-operation with other departments involved in the process, and design better governance within DND itself. In short, clean up your own house first, even if you think your neighbour is the source of the mess...
> 
> A cursory look at the history of defence white papers over the past 30 years should also tell us that the policy and funding commitments made in such well-intentioned documents rarely survive half a decade.4 Defence funding pledges can be and have been easily undone in an afternoon’s work at the Department of Finance, or in a 30-minute meeting in the Prime Minister’s Office, regardless of what is written down in a government white paper. This is one of the few areas of federal policy where there has been consistent bipartisan behaviour over many years.
> 
> In the final analysis, the message is straightforward. DND got a big gift in 2017, but it has a narrow window of opportunity to seize upon it. This requires an admission that the department needs to take procurement reform much more seriously than it has to date. Which means DND getting its own house in order so it can spend the largesse gifted by a government that two years ago showed no interest in national defence and to this day is neither philosophically nor politically invested in the file...
> 
> *About the Author*
> 
> _Eugene Lang is Adjunct Professor, School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University, and Fellow, Canadian Global Affairs Institute. He was chief of staff to two ministers of National Defence in the Chrétien and Martin governments and served as an official in the Department of Finance._
> https://www.cgai.ca/use_it_or_lose_it_sse_and_dnd_s_chronic_underspending_problem



_Bonne_ flipping _chance_.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Trudeau government's planned defence spending from Dave Perry of CGAI--note big capital boost in mid-2020s, for new RCAF fighters and RCN CSCs (via a tweet):
https://twitter.com/DavePerryCGAI/status/1016363536971436034



>



Bets on those 88 new planes and 15 new ships?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

Looks like the intention is for a constabulary force right about the time the oilsands are phased out.......

The future's so bright I've got to wear shades.


----------



## Ostrozac

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Looks like the intention is for a constabulary force right about the time the oilsands are phased out.......
> 
> The future's so bright I've got to wear shades.



There's really nothing wrong with building a constabulary/counterinsurgency force. There is room for such a force in the world's spectrum of conflict. What is wrong is if we delude ourselves that such a force can go toe to toe with any serious fighting force. A constabulary force has no business in the Baltics or North Korea, but might prove quite useful in places like Mali or Haiti. But that would require cutting our coat according to the cloth, instead we seem to be existing in a strange half-world, where our doctrine says we can fight a high-end opponent, but our equipment says we only fight low-end rag-tag insurgents. This contradiction has significant risk; the truth may catch us up one day, and we may end up in a fight with an enemy that we simply can't handle.


----------



## suffolkowner

Are we actually making progress on Strong Secure Engaged?

https://defence-blog.com/aviation/canada-confirms-spy-planes-acquisition-plan.html

https://www.skiesmag.com/press-releases/leonard-welcomes-ch-149-cormorant-mid-life-upgrade-fleet-augmentation/

Does anyone have any updates on the other points of action?


----------



## PuckChaser

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> Are we actually making progress on Strong Secure Engaged?



Considering the current speed of the procurement process, I strongly doubt any of these projects were started after the 2015 Election, or even after SSE was released in early 2017.


----------



## Good2Golf

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Considering the current speed of the procurement process, I strongly doubt any of these projects were started after the 2015 Election, or even after SSE was released in early 2017.



Both those projects were on public record and published in DND’s Defence Acquisition Guide (DAG) before the 2015 election and certainly before SSE.

Perhaps the CANSOF King Airs may advance, but not sure Cormorant upgrade will happen before the 2019 election. ???

Regards
G2G


----------



## suffolkowner

so we're progressing at treading water that's something at least! baby steps


----------



## Rifleman62

> Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
> « Reply #4379 on: Yesterday at 19:22:52 »
> Quote
> Quote from: Colin P on Yesterday at 12:22:01 Sigh we will be a "near peer" to Singapore
> 
> 
> FJAG: I don't think that we'll measure up.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equipment_of_the_Singaporean_Army
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Singapore_Air_Force#Aircraft
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Singapore_Navy#Current_fleet
> :brickwall:



*MILITARY SPENDING LESS THAN PROMISED* - National Post - 5 Mar 19 - LEE BERTHIAUME

OTTAWA • The federal government will invest billions of dollars less in new military equipment than promised this year, raising concerns about the readiness of the Canadian Forces and the prospect that Canada will fall short on another NATO spending target. The Trudeau government in 2017 released a defence policy that included dramatic increases in the amount of money to be spent on new aircraft, ships, armoured vehicles and other military equipment each year for the next two decades. The investments are considered vital to replacing the Canadian Forces’ aging fighter jets, ships and other equipment with state-of-theart vehicles and weapons.

Yet while the government is on track to invest more in new equipment for the second year in a row, budget documents show the Defence Department will still fall short more than $2 billion (35% is a huge amt) on the government’s plan to spend $6.5 billion.The government spent $2.3 billion less than planned last year, largely because of delays in projects such as the government’s huge plan to buy new warships, though also because some things ended up costing less than expected.

The department’s top civil servant, deputy minister Jody Thomas, told a House of Commons committee last week that about $700 million was because some projects came in under budget (gov't/Cdn military procurement under budget??) and other “efficiencies (don't buy anything), *so we didn’t need that money*. (??)”

But Thomas acknowledged the department was to blame for some of the other underspending, and industry has also faced challenges in delivering on projects — although she said it shouldn’t be a surprise there have been some problems given the number of projects underway. “There are going to be some slowdowns by us,” she said, adding: “If money isn’t moving quite quickly enough because of a problem with a particular supply chain, a particular supplier, a contract, the way we’ve defined a project, we work with industry to try to resolve that.”

Still, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan acknowledged to the same committee that while the government is spending more on military equipment than previous years, “we need to get enough people to be able to handle the volume of projects. (more civ/mil at HDHQ) We need to get better at that.” Defence officials have previously blamed a shortage of procurement experts for some project delays and cost overruns. That shortage was created by successive cuts to the department starting under the Liberals in the 1990s and continued under the Conservatives earlier this decade.

While the fact the department saved money on some projects was seen as a positive development, Conservative defence critic James Bezan said he is nonetheless concerned that hundreds of millions of dollars in promised new investments aren’t being realized.
“Despite the explanation that was given by officials at committee, we still feel projects are falling behind, promises are going to be broken and ultimately the Canadian Armed Forces will not get the equipment that it needs in a timely manner,” Bezan told The Canadian Press. “The whole idea that they’re finding efficiencies is good news. But at the same time, those dollars should be getting re-invested in other capital projects that aren’t off the books yet.”

The underspending doesn’t just mean delivery of some promised equipment will be delayed, said defence analyst David Perry of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute; it also threatens Canada’s ability to meet a key NATO spending target. “So the military is not getting re-equipped as fast as intended when the defence policy was published,” Perry said in an interview. “And we had basically reassured NATO that we were going to really do a good job at spending on recapitalization, and we’re not nearly as far ahead as we should be on that.”


----------



## Rifleman62

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/once-again-the-federal-budget-turns-a-blind-eye-to-canadas-military-needs

*Once again, the federal budget turns a blind eye to Canada's military needs* - National Post - David Krayden - 27 Mar 19
    _Opinion: Were the Liberals ever serious about their big defence plan? They cut defence spending in 2018 and are ignoring it in 2019_

Last week’s federal budget offered relatively modest spending with targeted funding after years of spending from a government that seemed to believe the deficit will solve itself. Unfortunately, the Canadian Armed Forces again escaped the finance minister’s gaze and for the second consecutive year, national defence is conspicuous by its absence from the budget.

You might recall the fanfare when Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan released the Liberals’ defence policy review in 2017: “Strong, Secure, Engaged.” It was already more than six months overdue and there was a feeling among defence analysts and most journalists that the Liberals had to deliver a document that suggested serious resolve. Sajjan promised a whopping 70-per-cent increase in defence spending, pledging to drive funding up to $32.7 billion from $18.9 billion. Naval ships, combat-support vehicles and 88 fighter jets would be replaced through “an open and transparent competition.”

*There was one large disclaimer*

But there was one large disclaimer. All of this would happen over the next decade, assuming the realities of 2017 would remain constant during that period. How well would any government have done predicting the military needs of 1942 based on the geopolitics of 1932?

In any case, we’ve yet to see any indication that the Liberals were serious about the plan. They cut defence spending in 2018 and have ignored it in 2019. Was there an alternative motive to the 2017 defence review? Canada was still in the midst of NAFTA negotiations with an American president who was increasingly critical of our defence contribution, especially as it pertained to NATO. Donald Trump had repeatedly cited Canada as one of the deadbeat members of NATO that refuses to fund its military at two per cent of its GDP — despite having promised to do so and notwithstanding that we have done so in the past. With Budget 2019, Canada is no closer to meeting that pledge, spending 1.23 per cent of its GDP on national defence.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s desultory approach to defence capital acquisition may well be defined by the fighter jet fiasco that grows more bizarre with every twist and turn of the story. It was the Liberal government of Jean Chrétien that joined the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter development program. It was Stephen Harper’s Conservative government that dithered on procuring the aircraft. It is the current Trudeau government that decided to start the whole process again. In the meantime, the Liberals considered buying some interim Super Hornets from Boeing before ultimately deciding to pick up some used Australian F-18s — just as the Royal Australian Air Force took delivery of its first F-35s.

Perhaps the best speech of this year’s just-concluded Manning Networking Conference in Ottawa was delivered by former chief of defence staff Gen. Rick Hillier. Hillier, whose career was defined by integrity and a politics-be-damned leadership style, told the conservative gathering that if Canada “buys a fighter aircraft that is anything but the F-35, we will have lost our minds.”

The last prime minister who consistently funded the Canadian military was Louis St-Laurent. All successive administrations — Liberal and Conservative — have to varying degrees played the shell game with defence spending. While lauding a capital acquisition project here, they will starve another project over there to pay for it. While promising consistent funding, they will squeeze the military at the first opportunity when a fiscal need emerges elsewhere.

*They will squeeze the military at the first opportunity*

With defence procurement being so hamstrung by petty politics and policy inertia, no amount of government funding can guarantee a combat-capable military if those dollars are not efficiently and effectively spent. As Hillier said, “Our acquisition process in Canada, in particular for the Department of National Defence, is abhorrent. It is pointless to give the Department of National Defence increased spending if you then tie them in a Gordian knot where they can’t actually spend the money.” Sadly, that’s exactly what we’re doing.

_— David Krayden is a former Royal Canadian Air Force public affairs officer and legislative assistant on Parliament Hill. He has worked in print, radio and television journalism and is currently the Ottawa bureau chief for The Daily Caller, a Washington-based media outlet.
_


----------



## MarkOttawa

Australian defence spending--smaller armed forces--getting close to twice Canada's (with 2/3 the population), soon at 2% of GDP; Canada' 2019-20 defence budget is at C$ 21.6 billion, scroll way down to Table A2.13a (https://budget.gc.ca/2019/docs/plan/anx-02-en.html#33-Outlook-for-Program-Expenses):



> Australia’s 2019-20 defence budget increases to $38.7bn
> 
> The Australian Government’s 2019-20 defence budget has increased by A$2.3bn ($1.6bn) to A$38.7bn [Oz dollar almost same as Canadian] ($27.52bn) and A$175.8bn ($125.02bn) to 2022-23.
> 
> In its annual budget statement, the government said the rise from the last financial year is in line with its commitment to increase the defence budget to 2% of GDP by 2020-21.
> 
> The defence budget aims to increase the country’s commitment to regional and global security, boost investment in advanced defence capabilities and create several Australian job opportunities.
> 
> In a statement, Australian Defence Minister Christopher Pyne said: “The Morrison Government’s number one priority is keeping Australians safe and secure. The 2019-20 budget sees continued strong investment in Australia’s national security, with a particular focus on enhancing our regional security, building defence capability and supporting Australia’s sovereign defence industry.”
> 
> The country will continue to support the US-led international Counter-Daesh coalition in Iraq, assist Afghanistan in controlling its security and increase support level to South East Asian countries.
> 
> Currently, more than 2,300 Australian defence personnel are deployed around the world in support of several operations.
> 
> More than A$200bn ($142.23bn) will be invested by the government in defence capabilities over the next decade until 2028-29.
> 
> Capabilities include the purchase of F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, P-8A Poseidon aircraft, E-7A Wedgetail and EA-18G Growler upgrade, as well as continuing the country’s ship and submarine building.
> 
> In order to safeguard the government and Australian Defence Force networks from cyber-attacks, investments will continue to be made to strengthen cyber defence.
> 
> The budget has also allocated funds for investment in the Australian Signals Directorate, including the Australian Cyber Security Centre, and for the establishment of cybersecurity ‘SPRINT teams’ and a Cyber Security Response Fund...
> 
> Approximately A$47.5bn ($33.78bn) has been dedicated by the government for the procurement of new capabilities since the 2018-19 budget release.
> https://www.army-technology.com/news/australian-defence-budget-increases/



Some governments and countries are serious.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Rifleman62

Yeah, but who really cares. ;D


----------



## Remius

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Australian defence spending--smaller armed forces--getting close to twice Canada's (with 2/3 the population), soon at 2% of GDP; Canada' 2019-20 defence budget is at C$ 21.6 billion, scroll way down to Table A2.13a (https://budget.gc.ca/2019/docs/plan/anx-02-en.html#33-Outlook-for-Program-Expenses):
> 
> Some governments and countries are serious.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Yes.  When you are alone in that area of the world you have to be.


----------



## dimsum

Remius said:
			
		

> Yes.  When you are alone in that area of the world you have to be.



They also, by default, provide air defence for NZ.


----------



## MarkOttawa

And the US will provide for our air defence if we are not up to our NORAD tasks. Putting RCAF's priority on NORAD gives us "defence against help":



> Canada-US security arrangements: Still defending against help?
> https://www.cigionline.org/articles/canada-us-security-arrangements-still-defending-against-help



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## RDBZ

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Australian defence spending--s*maller armed forces*--getting close to twice Canada's (with 2/3 the population), soon at 2% of GDP; Canada' 2019-20 defence budget is at C$ 21.6 billion, scroll way down to Table A2.13a (https://budget.gc.ca/2019/docs/plan/anx-02-en.html#33-Outlook-for-Program-Expenses):
> 
> Some governments and countries are serious.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



There wouldn't be too many metrics against which the ADF would be smaller than the Canadian Forces though.


----------



## MarkOttawa

ADF 60,000 active, 20,000 reserve:
https://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=australia

CAF 64,000 active, 30,000 reserve:
https://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=canada

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## RDBZ

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> ADF 60,000 active, 20,000 reserve:
> https://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=australia
> 
> CAF 64,000 active, 30,000 reserve:
> https://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=canada
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



When comparing the ADF and CF, and their funding, two questions seem apparent: for what roles do you really _need_ uniformed personnel, and how long do you spend money on obsolescent equipment, even if it remains serviceable, to the detriment of investment in new platforms and capabilities?


----------



## Infanteer

I'd be interested in seeing a breakdown of the Canadian and Australian budgets by major line items/votes.  The Australian military does not have a defined benefit pension plan - I'm curious how much that takes off the books for them.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Where Canada stands according to NATO's latest numbers (graph w/CAN highlighted in yellow & full NATO doc attached).


----------



## Czech_pivo

RDBZ said:
			
		

> When comparing the ADF and CF, and their funding, two questions seem apparent: for what roles do you really _need_ uniformed personnel, and how long do you spend money on obsolescent equipment, even if it remains serviceable, to the detriment of investment in new platforms and capabilities?



I question the information listed in the attachments - it lists the RCN as having 63 ships....they must be including the tugboats and fireboats....in reality its 12 frigates, 10 coastal patrol ships, 4 subs and 1 leased joint civilian/navy AOR, and, in the future, the AOPS.  All the other boats are non-commissioned, the tugs, fireboats, Orcas, etc.


----------



## McG

So the objective is 20% of 2% of GDP (ie. 0.4% of GDP) should be spent on equipment.
We are spending 13.34% of 1.68% of GDP (ie. 0.224% of GDP) on equipment.
That's why we have so many old fleets still suffering rust-out and so many new fleets that are too few in quantity and never seem to have enough parts to keep in operation.


----------



## MarkOttawa

And note the sorry state of the Coast Guard, all of whose large vessels are in need of replacement ASAP:



			
				MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> After third OFSV built still an RCN Joint Support Ship, one CCG Offshore Oceanographic Science Vessel and another supply ship to be built before Seaspan can--likely in later 2020s--get to the other 16 ships Justin Trudeau has promised for CCG (_in effect complete replacement, along with the six new icebreakers plus the polar one almost certainly for Davie, of whole fleet of large CCG vessels_, our media don't yet seem to realize this: 1) https://globalnews.ca/news/5302516/justin-trudea-canadian-coast-guard-renewal/ 2) https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-ontario-shipyard-withdraws-complaint-alleging-federal-favouritism-2/):
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa


----------



## Good2Golf

it appears that this graph does not correct/normalize respective nations’ alliance-supporting budgets to only NATO-specific expenditures? What, for instance does the US allocation to PACOM and other non-NATO/non-European/non-Alliance related operations and activities have to do with supporting the integrity of the Alliance?  If NATO really is such a drain on US forces, why not pull its 65,000 troops out of Europe and Turkey?  The extra troops could then be used elsewhere to advance American interests and not be such a huge burden to the American economy.

#FortressAmerica

Regards
G2G


----------



## Cloud Cover

It would be interesting to know more about this parts issue. They won’t pony money to purchase parts, or is it the case that parts cannot be readily sourced, or is Canada a low priority for parts that are available but not in quantity. 

Given the seriousness of this, it can’t just be a little of each? Are some groups being treated more “special” than others? Is one coast favoured over another? Is one of the (seemingly) 3 armies a preferred army? 
This is a 20+ billion dollar organization. Surely this parts thing can be solved with planning and money.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Heh, heh, heh ...


> William Watson: I'll pay my taxes the way Trudeau funds the military
> 
> _We shouldn’t be fixated with an arbitrary number, I’ll tell the people at the Canada Revenue Agency. Look at my record. I have consistently stepped up_ ...


----------



## Spencer100

If this true.....URGH!!!!!  

A 2 billion dollars a year defence and other R&D centre in Alberta.  So like the Liberals lets fund defense but not real defense. And kill two birds with one stone. As if an R&D centre will appease the western alienation problem.  This has got to be dumbest idea plus the weapons researched will have a "climate change" component.  So as you blow up stuff it releases no CO2? 

https://buffalochronicle.com/2019/12/04/freeland-is-pushing-trudeau-to-spend-heavily-on-defense-research-in-alberta-to-meet-nato-obligations/?fbclid=IwAR2575g-ynH1laUOOQ0noAEiIDt373m6XPbj8wUW0Pz-bXGmMV1sQ3kgH_s


----------



## MarkOttawa

Buffalo Chronicle is generally considered to be fake news:
https://ipolitics.ca/2019/10/18/facebook-notified-government-of-trudeau-story-deemed-false/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Spencer100

I don't know anymore.  They were right about the Trudeau payoff.  I would not put ipolitics up too high a standard

We are living in interesting times.  Hell the Babylon Bee has more truth in it than the NY Times these days


----------



## The Bread Guy

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> They were right about the Trudeau payoff.


 :rofl: Were they?  You mean for the injunction against the newspaper that we're still waiting to see?


----------



## Quirky

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> If this true.....URGH!!!!!
> 
> A 2 billion dollars a year defence and other R&D centre in Alberta.  So like the Liberals lets fund defense but not real defense. And kill two birds with one stone. As if an R&D centre will appease the western alienation problem.  This has got to be dumbest idea plus the weapons researched will have a "climate change" component.  So as you blow up stuff it releases no CO2?
> 
> https://buffalochronicle.com/2019/12/04/freeland-is-pushing-trudeau-to-spend-heavily-on-defense-research-in-alberta-to-meet-nato-obligations/?fbclid=IwAR2575g-ynH1laUOOQ0noAEiIDt373m6XPbj8wUW0Pz-bXGmMV1sQ3kgH_s



From the article: "The initiative is being tentatively dubbed ‘Area 53’ "

Area 53 is Cold Lake, except unlike Area 51, they don't let you out.


----------



## The Bread Guy

These proposed extra funds from the latest Supp Estimates (B) list:


> ... *Department of National Defence: $487.3 million*
> 
> Funding for capital investments in support of Strong, Secure, Engaged
> 
> This funding will support a range of capital projects under the Strong, Secure, Engaged defence policy, including military equipment, physical infrastructure and information management and technology systems.
> 
> (...)
> 
> *Department of National Defence: $148.2 million*
> 
> Funding for the Heyder and Beattie class actions final settlement agreement
> 
> The Heyder and Beattie class actions sought damages related to gender-based discrimination, sexual assault and sexual harassment. This funding will be used to fulfill immediate obligations and payments under the final agreement, including payments to claimants, reimbursement of plaintiff legal fees, awareness building activities, administration and case management.
> 
> *Department of National Defence: $128.5 million*
> 
> Funding for North Atlantic Treaty Organization assurance and deterrence measures in Central and Eastern Europe (Operation REASSURANCE) and for UN Peace Support Operation Africa (Operation PRESENCE)
> 
> This funding will support overseas missions, including the continued deployment of a land task force in Latvia, an air task force for patrol and training, naval vessels to work with NATO partners, transport aircraft and supporting personnel for UN operations in Uganda.
> 
> (...)


More granular detail on what's being earmarked for what, and from where, here or in attached.

Next steps?  "... Like the main estimates, the supplementary estimates are divided into votes, are referred to standing committees for review, and provide information to support the consideration of an appropriation bill. The appropriation bill associated with supplementary estimates is presented at the end of the supply period during which the supplementary estimates were presented ..."  I stand to be corrected, but my understanding is that the appropriation bill for these and other add-ons to the budget is expected to come up for a vote in the summer.

More on the budget process here.


----------



## Good2Golf

Supp B, yes. Supp C is voted in late-Fall (date varies a bit).  Supp C is usually the most entertaining, as that’s when things get closer to the ‘uh oh, we’re short by XXX million, we need more!’ time of year.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Start of post based on piece by Eugene Lang, former Liberal chief of staff to MND:



> COVID-19 may well be the End of the Canadian Armed Forces as we have Known them…and of our Effective Sovereignty
> 
> Further to this post,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will COVID-19 Kill the Canadian Military? Its Budget, that is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> excerpts from a piece by Eugene Lang, a Liberal who knows his defence stuff and Canadian politics, at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute (CGAI). “SSE” is “Strong, Secure, Engaged“, the Justin Trudeau government’s 2017 paper pledging fairly large but never really very credible defence spending increases well down the line; it was in no sense a serious defence policy analysis demonstrating which defence capabilities were needed to achieve which military effects in pursuit of specific Canada’s national interests (we have not had one of those for yonks)...
> https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2020/05/14/covid-19-may-well-be-the-end-of-the-canadian-armed-forces-as-we-have-known-them-and-of-our-effective-sovereignty/
Click to expand...


Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Start of post based on piece by Eugene Lang, former Liberal chief of staff to MND:
> 
> excerpts from a piece by Eugene Lang, a Liberal who knows his defence stuff and Canadian politics, at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute (CGAI). “SSE” is “Strong, Secure, Engaged“, the Justin Trudeau government’s 2017 paper pledging fairly large but never really very credible defence spending increases well down the line; it was in no sense a serious defence policy analysis demonstrating which defence capabilities were needed to achieve which military effects in pursuit of specific Canada’s national interests (we have not had one of those for yonks)...
> https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2020/05/14/covid-19-may-well-be-the-end-of-the-canadian-armed-forces-as-we-have-known-them-and-of-our-effective-sovereignty/
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Great piece Mark.  It's pretty well certain that the CAF is going to be in a world of hurt once this is all said and done.

I'm predicting the Navy scraps it's submarines and we don't end up with anywhere close to those 15 frigates.

I can see the Air Force buying a token fighter force of JAS Gripen for NORAD duties and other programs get turfed.  Armed RPAs never materialize and CP140s don't get replaced.

The Army will park the Tanks and other kit like AD, etc will never appear either.

Anyway you slice it, the CAF as a fighting force is going to go the way of the Irish Defence Force or the NZDF.  It's what the present Government wants and it's ultimately what Canadians want.  

This could be a very good opportunity to make some personnel cuts to the Force, that won't happen though.  The Government will raid the O&M and Procurement Budgets and use the CAF as a form of CADPAT Welfare.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

And we will, effectively, have become a colony of the United States. A Puerto Rico or Guam of the North, with no say over our own sovereignty.

We might then just as well join the US formally. A least then we get Congress/Senate representation and get to vote....


----------



## Good2Golf

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> And we will, effectively, have become a colony of the United States. A Puerto Rico or Guam of the North, with no say over our own sovereignty.
> 
> We might then just as well join the US formally. A least then we get Congress/Senate representation and get to vote....



The myopic unintended consequences of the LPC’s long-term plan (PMs in-between, but functionally a handover from PM father to PM son) leveraging of the current situation to further ‘constabularize’ the CAF to its desired end state — something that serves the global narrative of the ongoing leadership of Canada to continue LBP’s progressive worldly peaceful, inclusive nice guy service to world peace and mutual respect.  

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## MarkOttawa

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> The myopic unintended consequences of the LPC’s long-term plan (PMs in-between, but functionally a handover from PM father to PM son) leveraging of the current situation to further ‘constabularize’ the CAF to its desired end state — something that serves the global narrative of the ongoing leadership of Canada to continue LBP’s progressive worldly peaceful, inclusive nice guy service to world peace and mutual respect.
> 
> :2c:
> 
> Regards
> G2G



Actually Mike Pearson himself was no "soft-power", peacekeeping-first fellow--note this post (and remember he was the external affairs minister helping to create NATO in 1949),



> Not Remembering Canada’s Real Post-WW II Military History
> https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2015/11/11/mark-collins-not-remembering-canadas-real-post-ww-ii-military-history/



and this one (some links no longer work):



> “Fantasy”, or, There is no “Pearson-Trudeau-Axworthy school of foreign policy thought”
> https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2014/03/21/mark-collins-fantasy-or-there-is-no-pearson-trudeau-axworthy-school-of-foreign-policy-thought/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Brad Sallows

The post-pandemic world is going to have a say ("events").  Canada must trade, and therefore benefits from international political and economic stability.


----------



## Good2Golf

By no means would I call Pearson a hawkish power, nor even near the right arc of Liberal orientation.  I suspect, though remain to be corrected by explicit reference, that the US nuclear weapons authorized by Canada starting during LBP’s tenure as PM had more to do with a ‘mutual understanding’ between he and LBJ after he was chastised by Johnson for his 1965 comments recommending the US pause bombing in Northern Vietnam.  If he had been such a proponent of nuclear power in the mid-60s, post-Suez, I think he would have been supportive of Canada’s acceptance of its role in security-related nuclear power back in the mid-1940s, prior to his appointment as Minister of External Affairs in 1948, when the sixth permanent seat as the UNSC was offered to Canada, which deferred on the basis of its desire for only peaceful use of nuclear power.  France then got the last permanent seat, as Canada went in to sell weaponizable nuclear power to India and Pakistan....”Go peaceful use of nuke power!” :

:2c:


----------



## MilEME09

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> By no means would I call Pearson a hawkish power, nor even near the right arc of Liberal orientation.  I suspect, though remain to be corrected by explicit reference, that the US nuclear weapons authorized by Canada starting during LBP’s tenure as PM had more to do with a ‘mutual understanding’ between he and LBJ after he was chastised by Johnson for his 1965 comments recommending the US pause bombing in Northern Vietnam.  If he had been such a proponent of nuclear power in the mid-60s, post-Suez, I think he would have been supportive of Canada’s acceptance of its role in security-related nuclear power back in the mid-1940s, prior to his appointment as Minister of External Affairs in 1948, when the sixth permanent seat as the UNSC was offered to Canada, which deferred on the basis of its desire for only peaceful use of nuclear power.  France then got the last permanent seat, as Canada went in to sell weaponizable nuclear power to India and Pakistan....”Go peaceful use of nuke power!” :
> 
> :2c:



It is amazing looking back on history how Naive we as a nation are some times


----------



## Good2Golf

Naive, virtuously manipulative....to-may-toe, to-mah-toe.


----------



## Old Sweat

It seems to me that the 1963 election, which returned the Liberals, was fought, in part, on the issue of whether to accept the warheads for the nuclear weapons for the Canadian Army and the RCAF. At that time the Liberals were much more hawkish, or at least defence minded, than were the PCs.


----------



## Good2Golf

Old Sweat, you mean the Liberals we’re actively campaigning to bring nukes onto Canadian soil?

If so, I’d wager that ole Lester/Mike regretted bringing young Pierre under his wing...oh how things changed.


----------



## Old Sweat

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Old Sweat, you mean the Liberals we’re actively campaigning to bring nukes onto Canadian soil?
> 
> If so, I’d wager that ole Lester/Mike regretted bringing young Pierre under his wing...oh how things changed.



Yes, although it was sold along the lines of honouring commitments. The army had first decided to go nuclear in the St Laurent days in the 1950s with the Lacrosse missile system. The Lacrosse was ultimately canceled and we went for the Honest John. (We trained for the nuclear battlefield long enough for me to get my CD under the nuclear umbrella.)


----------



## Ostrozac

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Old Sweat, you mean the Liberals we’re actively campaigning to bring nukes onto Canadian soil?
> 
> If so, I’d wager that ole Lester/Mike regretted bringing young Pierre under his wing...oh how things changed.



The pro-nuclear weapons position of the Liberal Party and Mike Pearson should be viewed in the political context of the time -- the Conservative Party was deeply split on the issue and in open revolt -- then-Prime Minister John Diefenbaker being anti-Nuke, much of his cabinet, including then-Defence Minister Doug Harkness, being pro-Nuke. The Liberal Party put forward the position that the Conservative Prime Minister was wrong, so wrong that half his own cabinet had resigned and forced an election on the issue. The Liberals then won that election. 

Was this principled or political? Or both? Note that much of this saga -- continental air defence/nuclear vs conventional/missiles vs fighters -- is wrapped up in the Avro Arrow mythology, so this remains controversial and opinions vary. Also it appears that Diefenbaker and Harkness deeply loathed each other, which may have also been a factor.

On the plus side, the eventual deployment of nuclear surface to air missiles must have been a good posting for some lucky Canadian airmen. One of the Bomarc squadrons was in Mount Tremblant!


----------



## MarkOttawa

It's worth recalling that from the 1930s until late 60s when Trudeau I came in the Liberals were the pro-American party and the PCs were pro-Empire and UK. Dief at first even promised to divert considerable trade to Britain:



> ...the Diefenbaker government pushed for broader trade agreements with Britain in its early years, with the aim of diverting as much as 15% of Canada's spending on American goods to the UK. While Diefenbaker had hoped to encourage Britain to maintain strong trade ties with Commonwealth nations, the proposed trade agreements were ultimately not economically feasible for Canada and the negotiations were discarded...
> https://diefenbaker.usask.ca/virtual-exhibits/crown-in-canada.php



And during Suez Crisis of 1956 Liberals (Pearson as external affairs minister) aligned us with US vs. UK--the peacekeeping idea was a joint one with the Americans who got us to push it in General Assembly to make it more palatable to many countries; the "concept" was just a way of getting the Israelis to stop fighting and the UK and France to agree to get out. It was no great ideological conception (and see the combat "peackeeping" force in the Congo in early 60s. For Suez Dief and the PCs were firmly for the UK:



> ...
> In the Suez crisis, Diefenbaker and his Conservatives opposed the American position against Britain and France, and strongly rejected then-prime minister Louis St. Laurent's likening the role of the two European allies in Suez to that of the Soviet Union in its recent crushing of the Hungarian uprising...
> https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/lets-be-honest-about-honest-john/article723618/



By the way I worked on the Pearson memoirs as a research assistant and do know the story.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Good2Golf

Mark, thanks for the insight.  Certainly quite the change in allegiances over the decades. 

Regards
G2G


----------



## Cloud Cover

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> It seems to me that the 1963 election, which returned the Liberals, was fought, in part, on the issue of whether to accept the warheads for the nuclear weapons for the Canadian Army and the RCAF. At that time the Liberals were much more hawkish, or at least defence minded, than were the PCs.



The 1963 election was also within the 6 month time frame post Cuban Missile Crisis, which put that Nuclear missile issue right on our doorstep. Having a plan for the Canadian army in Europe with nuclear weapons pointed at the Soviets was perhaps good defence policy optics as well. This country was not always snowflakes and sunbeams.


----------



## MilEME09

CloudCover said:
			
		

> The 1963 election was also within the 6 month time frame post Cuban Missile Crisis, which put that Nuclear missile issue right on our doorstep. Having a plan for the Canadian army in Europe with nuclear weapons pointed at the Soviets was perhaps good defence policy optics as well. This country was not always snowflakes and sunbeams.



Unfortunately it will take a major world event like that to happen again for Canadians to put defense as a priority. Like a Chinese nuclear sub surfacing off Vancouver island or something


----------



## blacktriangle

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Unfortunately it will take a major world event like that to happen again for Canadians to put defense as a priority. Like a Chinese nuclear sub surfacing off Vancouver island or something



I don't think the residents would notice. Most of them still haven't noticed the large Naval base already there...


----------



## Ostrozac

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Unfortunately it will take a major world event like that to happen again for Canadians to put defense as a priority. Like a Chinese nuclear sub surfacing off Vancouver island or something



Not even that would trigger such a reaction out of Canada — the main reason for China to put such a boat off Vancouver Island would be the US Navy activity out of Puget Sound.

No, what will trigger Canada’s emphasis on defence has been what it always has been, our relationship with our allies. Will the US demand greater participation in North American defence, NATO, or brushfire wars as a precondition for retaining favourable access to the US market? 

Either that, or a growing domestic role. The Canadian Forces are the instrument of last resort to backfill any number of capabilities that fall short of warfighting — from search and rescue, to evacuations, and now staffing old age homes. The CAF are the Swiss Army Knife for every department and level of government. The country seems to need that backstop.


----------



## Spencer100

I was going to post on different thread but...After Covid…the CF (it won't be the CAF) will be a constabulary force.   I'm hoping the gov will be able to negotiate an agreement we still part of NORAD with second in command.  We upgrade the NWS and RCAF pilots can fly in USAF jets. My thinking is that it is better to know what is happening in our airspace than not know even if we can not do anything about.  The US will do something and if we have some pilots there it is better than nothing.  So my vote is upgrade NWS and give up fast jets.  That is going to be the choice.  I hate it but....


----------



## Cloud Cover

Right now they are spending 20-30 billion and not getting much of a return on the dollars spent. More than anything else they need a proper white paper that reflects the reality that no Canadian government is willing to find the type of military that they like to tell people we have.  They need to do that before going to far and deep on the big purchases on the books- like the CSC.


----------



## OldSolduer

CloudCover said:
			
		

> Right now they are spending 20-30 billion and not getting much of a return on the dollars spent. More than anything else they need a proper white paper that reflects the reality that no Canadian government is willing to find the type of military that they like to tell people we have.  They need to do that before going to far and deep on the big purchases on the books- like the CSC.



This current government won't do that. Nor will any that follow it.


----------



## Brad Sallows

>Right now they are spending 20-30 billion and not getting much of a return on the dollars spent. 

Hard to measure.  Part of what gives a nation soft power is being a credible contributor to hard power.


----------



## FJAG

> The gold standard of deterrence and assurance is a defensive posture that confronts the adversary with the prospect of operational failure as the likely consequence of aggression.
> 
> Ochmanek, David et al. “U.S. Military Capabilities and Forces for a Dangerous World” RAND Corp 2017  at p. 45  https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1782-1.html



 :2c:


----------



## Weinie

CloudCover said:
			
		

> _*Right now they are spending 20-30 billion and not getting much of a return on the dollars spent.*_ More than anything else they need a proper white paper that reflects the reality that no Canadian government is willing to find the type of military that they like to tell people we have.  They need to do that before going to far and deep on the big purchases on the books- like the CSC.



Sigh....there are so many problems with that statement. How about 100K + direct jobs, and likely 3 times as many as that with a Defence nexus. How about the contributions to local economies through groceries, cars, houses, PILT etc etc. How about SAR, and maritime patrolling, along with contributions to NORAD/NATO/UNIFIER/REASSURANCE. How about sp to Op Caribbe. How about DART? How about the current Op Laser, or floods, fires, sp to Fisheries etc. How about CAF as a participant in international agreements and UN resolutions through enforcement actions. How about CAF as a R&D driver, an option for a career, or just for a 5 year hitch to learn a trade and then jump back into the civvy world. How about CAF pers being leveraged as trainers, mentors in a host of nations? How about sp to GAC and OGD's, which is constant? I haven't even scratched the surface on CAF responsibilities. How much should/DOES that cost? How does one quantify returns?

And please don't fall back on the boilerplate "we need X,Y,and Z, assets IOT maintain combat effectiveness. Show me any military in a Euro/western-based democracy that doesn't have to maintain a solid support base domestically IOT garner funding. 

As to the following point, a demand for a "_*solid white paper*_" will get the same mix of academics, former military officers, patronage appointments, and devils advocates that have plagued us for the last three iterations. Maintenance of the 2020-2025 approved SSE fiscal support in the current economic mess is unlikely, and more importantly, unfeasible. We are going to take some hits.


----------



## CBH99

I think the general point he was trying to make, which I'm sure most of us agree on, is that we _*COULD*_ be getting far more return on the investment than we are.

Yes, it is a large and stable employer for over 100,000 Canadians.  Far more when you consider the businesses and industries that are supported by providing goods & services to the CAF.  Even more, the further down the supply chain you go.

Yes, we do get a solid return on NORAD and NATO, observer missions, training missions, and a few solid command positions within allied militaries.




As we've all discussed in a variety of other threads, our organization *COULD* use the resources we have far more efficiently 'en masse'.  

That isn't to say some trades aren't very well run & efficiently employed.  But as a general whole of concept within the organization, I think we can all agree that we could do things more efficiently, and thus put more funds towards things that would make a more deployable/flexible organization.

^^ Example is the HQ bloat, and the thousands of bodies & large sums of money those bloated and numerous HQ's take up.  


Streamlining that alone could allow those funds to be put towards small, albeit important things, that would help fill some of the gaps that members complain about.


----------



## Weinie

CBH99 said:
			
		

> I think the general point he was trying to make, which I'm sure most of us agree on, is that we _*COULD*_ be getting far more return on the investment than we are.
> 
> Yes, it is a large and stable employer for over 100,000 Canadians.  Far more when you consider the businesses and industries that are supported by providing goods & services to the CAF.  Even more, the further down the supply chain you go.
> 
> Yes, we do get a solid return on NORAD and NATO, observer missions, training missions, and a few solid command positions within allied militaries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As we've all discussed in a variety of other threads, our organization *COULD* use the resources we have far more efficiently 'en masse'.
> 
> That isn't to say some trades aren't very well run & efficiently employed.  But as a general whole of concept within the organization, I think we can all agree that we could do things more efficiently, and thus put more funds towards things that would make a more deployable/flexible organization.
> 
> ^^ Example is the HQ bloat, and the thousands of bodies & large sums of money those bloated and numerous HQ's take up.
> 
> 
> Streamlining that alone could allow those funds to be put towards small, albeit important things, that would help fill some of the gaps that members complain about.



Long ago, I was posted into a unit that regularly kvetched about the decisions and direction given from above (and I bought into that mindset) . It was easy (and ultimately pointless) to blame a host of problems on Higher HQ.

As I have progressed through the ranks and through progressively higher HQ's, context has become a wonderful thing. I became exposed to the personnel, political. economic, societal, media, legal, and myriad other things that staffers (who 1,3,5,20 years ago were in your shoes) now are confronted with. 

In 1994 we rationalized HQ's. This resulted in HQ's getting smaller at the Div level. Since then we have a plethora of fin, legal, ethical, and societal impetuses. HQ's are large because they have to be, they have been hammered/hampered/constrained (in the media/parliament) because they "overlooked" something or did not comply with the latest directive. Guess what, mandated outcome is new org to deal with it and make sure it never becomes an issue again and meets reporting targets = more staff. The amount of admin that is required (by law, act, operationally, or ethically) is mind-boggling. There is no bloat.
Be cynical, but also seek context.


----------



## Good2Golf

The Four Corners would bitch about DND and the CAF if it was the leanest, hardest military in NATO.  It’s in their DNA. It is a mugs game
To believe that money ‘saved’ on significantly scaled back HQs would be redistributed within the CAF.  I can with 100% cynical certainty tell you where it would be redistributed.......NOT the CAF.

As the guy at the table says, “Convince me otherwise.”

In the end, bitching about ‘bloated’ HQs is like pissing yourself in a dark suit, it feels good for you but no one else notices...


----------



## Underway

CloudCover said:
			
		

> Right now they are spending 20-30 billion and not getting much of a return on the dollars spent. More than anything else they need a proper white paper that reflects the reality that no Canadian government is willing to find the type of military that they like to tell people we have.  They need to do that before going to far and deep on the big purchases on the books- like the CSC.



It will be a hard decision now.  Before cuts to the military were easy, the Cold War provided stability and predictability.  The ending of the Cold War allowed the US to continue on as the worlds police force and the rest of us could cash in on their contribution.  Now the world is becoming unstable, going back to WW1 great power competition, with the Japanese, French, British, China and Turks back at it as the US withdraws.  Canada has never been in the position before. The world is becoming competative again, and COVID may have been the beginning of the slow burn that shows us just how dangerous it is.

We also have the benefit of massive military infrastructure projects in the shipyards.  You think a federal government is going to cut jobs just like that during an economic downturn?  Solid working class jobs from important voting areas?

Something has changed.  The zeitgeist feels different.


----------



## FJAG

Weinie said:
			
		

> Sigh....there are so many problems with that statement. How about 100K + direct jobs, and likely 3 times as many as that with a Defence nexus. How about the contributions to local economies through groceries, cars, houses, PILT etc etc. How about SAR, and maritime patrolling, along with contributions to NORAD/NATO/UNIFIER/REASSURANCE. How about sp to Op Caribbe. How about DART? How about the current Op Laser, or floods, fires, sp to Fisheries etc. How about CAF as a participant in international agreements and UN resolutions through enforcement actions. How about CAF as a R&D driver, an option for a career, or just for a 5 year hitch to learn a trade and then jump back into the civvy world. How about CAF pers being leveraged as trainers, mentors in a host of nations? How about sp to GAC and OGD's, which is constant? I haven't even scratched the surface on CAF responsibilities. How much should/DOES that cost? How does one quantify returns?
> 
> And please don't fall back on the boilerplate "we need X,Y,and Z, assets IOT maintain combat effectiveness. Show me any military in a Euro/western-based democracy that doesn't have to maintain a solid support base domestically IOT garner funding.
> 
> As to the following point, a demand for a "_*solid white paper*_" will get the same mix of academics, former military officers, patronage appointments, and devils advocates that have plagued us for the last three iterations. Maintenance of the 2020-2025 approved SSE fiscal support in the current economic mess is unlikely, and more importantly, unfeasible. We are going to take some hits.



Sorry Weinie. I just don't buy that.

A nation does not spend $20+ billion per year (roughly 8% of the total budget) just so that 100,000 civilian and military civil servants can collect a paycheck to help boost the economy. If you left that money in the public's hand they would use it to contribute much more to the economy.

Canadians spend that money to ensure that when a security threat faces our country, we have the ability to respond. In other words they contribute their hard earned money to ensure that Canada can generate the necessary defence outputs to ensure their way of life.

For some time now it has become obvious that DND/CAF does not have the ability to generate the defence outputs that Canada's investment should buy because we spend over half of that money on full-time personnel of whom far too many do nothing but administer the system. Don't get me wrong; this isn't a teeth to tail ratio argument - tails are essential. This is a self licking ice cream cone administration argument that employs numerous marginally useful GOFOs and all their staffs which produce little, if any, defence outputs and whose costs starve the system of the necessary dollars for equipment and O&M needed to deliver proper defence capabilities.

When I saw the meagre "concurrent operations" provisions in the SSE I was quite frankly embarrassed because I knew (as did everyone else) that this provision was written by our military leadership as to the limits of what they thought we could do. 100,000 full time salaries and 27,000 part-timers (on a good day) and all that we can generate are two battlegroups and two company+ contingents on a continuous basis. And we aren't even doing that much and are nonetheless being stressed doing it.

I'm tremendously proud of today's soldiers, sailors and airmen but regretfully have come to believe that our leadership has lost it's way. I think for me the straw that broke the camel's back was the lack of follow through on Leslie's report on transformation which in itself was quite modest. We have far too many folks who, while I don't doubt their good intentions, seem to be doing little more than protecting the rice bowls of their fiefdoms.

I do agree with you on White Papers. I frankly don't think they matter one bit as long as you have a military leadership whose only solution to security issues is "more money and more full-timers". It's time for a radical change in approach and I doubt a simple Ottawa written white paper will ever deliver that.



			
				Good2Golf said:
			
		

> The Four Corners would ***** about DND and the CAF if it was the leanest, hardest military in NATO.  It’s in their DNA. It is a mugs game
> To believe that money ‘saved’ on significantly scaled back HQs would be redistributed within the CAF.  I can with 100% cynical certainty tell you where it would be redistributed.......NOT the CAF.
> 
> As the guy at the table says, “Convince me otherwise.”
> 
> In the end, bitching about ‘bloated’ HQs is like pissing yourself in a dark suit, it feels good for you but no one else notices...



Betcha that if the Minster, the CDS and the Deputy Minister were told that of every headquarters position that was cut in Ottawa half the money was to go to equipment and the other half to divide between the three of them no questions asked, we'd have ten thousand less positions in Ottawa within a year.  ;D Seriously though, right now there is no incentive to "fix" the problem and to a large extent there is denial that there even is a problem - its kind of like the boiling frog fable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog 

 :stirpot:


----------



## Good2Golf

> Betcha that if the Minster, the CDS and the Deputy Minister were told that of every headquarters position that was cut in Ottawa half the money was to go to equipment and the other half to divide between the three of them no questions asked, we'd have ten thousand less positions in Ottawa within a year.  ;D



“If....”

I wouldn’t doubt it.  :nod:

However...You and I both know that money wouldn’t stay in the Department, but would be making a sonic boom on its way back into Finance’s coffers.


----------



## Weinie

FJAG said:
			
		

> Sorry Weinie. I just don't buy that.
> 
> _*A nation does not spend $20+ billion per year (roughly 8% of the total budget) just so that 100,000 civilian and military civil servants can collect a paycheck to help boost the economy. If you left that money in the public's hand they would use it to contribute much more to the economy.
> *_
> Canadians spend that money to ensure that when a security threat faces our country, we have the ability to respond. In other words they contribute their hard earned money to ensure that Canada can generate the necessary defence outputs to ensure their way of life.
> 
> For some time now it has become obvious that DND/CAF does not have the ability to generate the defence outputs that Canada's investment should buy because we spend over half of that money on full-time personnel of whom far too many do nothing but administer the system. Don't get me wrong; this isn't a teeth to tail ratio argument - tails are essential. This is a self licking ice cream cone administration argument that employs numerous marginally useful GOFOs and all their staffs which produce little, if any, defence outputs and whose costs starve the system of the necessary dollars for equipment and O&M needed to deliver proper defence capabilities.
> 
> When I saw the meagre "concurrent operations" provisions in the SSE I was quite frankly embarrassed because I knew (as did everyone else) that this provision was written by our military leadership as to the limits of what they thought we could do. 100,000 full time salaries and 27,000 part-timers (on a good day) and all that we can generate are two battlegroups and two company+ contingents on a continuous basis. And we aren't even doing that much and are nonetheless being stressed doing it.
> 
> I'm tremendously proud of today's soldiers, sailors and airmen but regretfully have come to believe that our leadership has lost it's way. I think for me the straw that broke the camel's back was the lack of follow through on Leslie's report on transformation which in itself was quite modest. We have far too many folks who, while I don't doubt their good intentions, seem to be doing little more than protecting the rice bowls of their fiefdoms.
> 
> I do agree with you on White Papers. I frankly don't think they matter one bit as long as you have a military leadership whose only solution to security issues is "more money and more full-timers". It's time for a radical change in approach and I doubt a simple Ottawa written white paper will ever deliver that.
> 
> Betcha that if the Minster, the CDS and the Deputy Minister were told that of every headquarters position that was cut in Ottawa half the money was to go to equipment and the other half to divide between the three of them no questions asked, we'd have ten thousand less positions in Ottawa within a year.  ;D Seriously though, right now there is no incentive to "fix" the problem and to a large extent there is denial that there even is a problem - its kind of like the boiling frog fable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog
> 
> :stirpot:





			
				FJAG said:
			
		

> If you left that money in the public's hand they would use it to contribute much more to the economy.




I am from the Maritimes, I know where that money would go, not to any economy that I desire.

I see your "skepticism" and I raise the you the "equalization payments" Hard for me to be critical of an institutional HQ when political malfeasance is the norm.

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-finance/programs/federal-transfers/major-federal-transfers.html#Newfoundland


----------



## FJAG

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> “If....”
> 
> I wouldn’t doubt it.  :nod:
> 
> However...You and I both know that money wouldn’t stay in the Department, but would be making a sonic boom on its way back into Finance’s coffers.



You're not being fair. You know exactly how much of a cynic I am and where all my dog whistles are.  ;D

I actually think that it's all a matter of how it's approached. If for example the CDS convinced the Minister that he could double the capability of the army to seriously increase our NATO commitment in Europe by virtue of restructuring the reserves in the way I've argued for in various places and that he would do so by taking one billion in annual funding out of the full-time personnel budget (by which I mean Ottawa) and reallocating it to purchasing equipment and O&M for the army reserve for ten years so long as there is funding stability for that then I could see it being considered favourably by the government especially if it could result in spending within our own country. (I don't particularly like the LAV for Europe and sometimes I wonder if GDLS-C could build tanks and IFVs under licence - bet they could - maybe the GDLS-UK AJAX line - the Brits are getting 589 in various variants for CAD6 billion)

As you've probably determined by now my cynicism is mostly pointed at our internal bureaucracy which is concerned that if they even suggested that they could cut back on the bureaucracy in favour combat capabilities, the government would just take those cuts without the increase in capability. I think much of that is caused by our own rhetoric to the uninitiated that we have lots of capability, thank you very much and that every bit of the bureaucracy is vital so give us more money to replace old equipment with shiny new toys.

Personally, I think Hillyer blew it for us. He had the charisma and the military crisis that allowed him great sway with the politicians. Unfortunately, he was singularly focused on turning the army into fledgling Stryker brigades because he considered heavy forces to be millstones around our necks. On top of that he built a coterie of headquarters and started the build up of headquarters (ably assisted by civilian growth in DND). We became even more risk averse under him and had more and more directorates to work in minutiae of this and that (Good Lord my own Legal Branch grew by leaps and bounds to 150 Reg F and 70 Res F officers [mostly LCols and Majs] and even more civilian staff and which probably has a higher personnel pay envelope than a battalion - don't get me started on the DND&CFLA)

We desperately need an asymmetric force with elements trained and equipped for SOF, light, medium and heavy threats. We already have most of the capabilities to engage effectively in the first three (although poorly organized in the light and medium and which are mostly discretionary commitments) but are woefully incapable of meeting the fourth (which, while remote, may be a compulsory one). I've said this before; at a conference in Germany in the early 2000 my group was briefed by a Russian diplomat from their embassy in Germany who, in response to the question: "What will Russia do if the Baltic States join NATO?" replied "The tanks will roll." He wasn't joking. The unasked question is "when?" The answer by way of the Ukraine was "When we're ready" This is why I think our leaders, military and civilian need to get off their collective butts and build capabilities with the money they have now.


 :cheers:


----------



## FJAG

Weinie said:
			
		

> I am from the Maritimes, I know where that money would go, not to any economy that I desire.
> 
> I see your "skepticism" and I raise the you the "equalization payments" Hard for me to be critical of an institutional HQ when political malfeasance is the norm.
> 
> https://www.canada.ca/en/department-finance/programs/federal-transfers/major-federal-transfers.html#Newfoundland



I'm well past "skepticism" and deeply into "cynicism". Actually the only time I was  ever skeptical was as a lawyer whenever I interviewed a witness. I've always been cynical but the degree has been steadily climbing.

What I meant before is don't tax it in the first place and leave it in the hands of the tax paying worker/consumer rather than in the hands of a civil servant. I did not mean pay more pogey although from an economic point of view, there is very little difference between the net effect of that lump of money in the hands of an employed civil servant and that of a welfare recipient (perhaps with the vacations that civil servants take outside the country, the welfare recipient contributes more of it back into the local economy)

 ;D


----------



## Brad Sallows

>If you left that money in the public's hand they would use it to contribute much more to the economy.

100% (the sentiment, not the details).  Do not fall into the trap of using jobs and spending to bolster arguments.  Someone who understands "opportunity cost" and "Frederic Bastiat" - which could be just about any neophyte political staffer with a proper liberal arts degree - will hand you your head.  Focus on the capabilities, particularly those with domestic uses, and the pay-to-play aspects of international involvement.  Throw in a couple of appeals to Chesterton's Fence (Wikipedia actually has a good one-line summary: "Chesterton's fence is the principle that reforms should not be made until the reasoning behind the existing state of affairs is understood." (Ie. don't degrade our capabilities because we have peace, because you don't know how much of the former is responsible for the latter.)

I have never read an opinion that armed forces become more bureaucratically efficient the longer an absence of major war prevails.  The only prudent assumption is that as each year passes without trimming, there is more to be trimmed.


----------

