Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

They overestimated the work saving of their regulatory changes and they had teams in Ottawa making decisions with very little ground knowledge, hence we were forced to lay off a exceptional employee and keep a problematic one one. They also laid off our only GIS tech which became a major issue for our modernization project to include GIS into our database. One thing I liked and needs to be done at the Provincial and Municipal level was 1 regulation had to go, to introduce a new one.

But.... they did balance the budget.

I bet you could go to every single Govt Manager during that time period and they would point out something they weren't able to do due to the funding cuts.

You will never get it 100% correct when it comes to managing something as large and as complex as Government finances.

Canadians didn't want a balanced budget though. The CPC defeat in 2015 was essentially a message that the Canadian public didn't want to save, they wanted to spend and spend they have. Hindsight tells me this was a poor decision by the shareholders of this Country.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

In our case we couldn’t replace any of our procurement instructors and course went stale because the policy centres couldn’t update anything because they has other things to do because they couldn’t replace some of their people.

We also ended up with Phoenix…

You mean the system that the Liberal Government rolled out despite independent reports that it wasn't ready. These reports apparently never were read by the new Minister of Procurement Judy Foote, who never held another cabinet position after that bungle.

 

[Remius]

You mean the system that the Liberal Government rolled out despite independent reports that it wasn't ready. These reports apparently never were read by the new Minister of Procurement Judy Foote, who never held another cabinet position after that bungle.

The system they inherited? Yes that one.

It’s also the one they haven’t dealt with either so that is fair.

The fact is that Harper had already moved the pay center to Miramichi and cut pay and compensation by two thirds before this thing was ready.

I am well aware that cuts are coming and needed. I am less comfortable in my confidence in the government of the day getting it even remotely right.

 

[ueo]

It's working so well too! There is absolutely zero government bureaucratic waste when it comes to military procurement. Carry on.

Whaat?

 

[McG]

..

 

[Quirky]

Whaat?

Whooo?

 

[dimsum]

But.... they did balance the budget.

I bet you could go to every single Govt Manager during that time period and they would point out something they weren't able to do due to the funding cuts.

You will never get it 100% correct when it comes to managing something as large and as complex as Government finances.

Canadians didn't want a balanced budget though. The CPC defeat in 2015 was essentially a message that the Canadian public didn't want to save, they wanted to spend and spend they have. Hindsight tells me this was a poor decision by the shareholders of this Country.

There is a difference between wholesale “cut X%” and targeted cuts to things perceived to be wasteful.

I say “perceived to be wasteful” because I bet that a significant amount of Canadians would say that the CAF, as it is, is wasteful. DND is also the biggest line item in the budget, period. So should it be cut outright to do the best to balance the budget? We would say no, but a bunch of Canadians would disagree.

Even if they make targeted cuts, what happens if (I’d say “when”) they cut too far in a certain department and, as per the examples mentioned already, things stop working? Do we hire them back? Do we bypass the govt hiring process and hire them as contractors, adding to the complaints that we have too many contractors?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

But.... they did balance the budget.

I bet you could go to every single Govt Manager during that time period and they would point out something they weren't able to do due to the funding cuts.

You will never get it 100% correct when it comes to managing something as large and as complex as Government finances.

Canadians didn't want a balanced budget though. The CPC defeat in 2015 was essentially a message that the Canadian public didn't want to save, they wanted to spend and spend they have. Hindsight tells me this was a poor decision by the shareholders of this Country.

I worked for 4 PM's, Chreatin was pretty ruthless in his cuts as well. Our SAR Cutter was tied to the dock for lack of fuel, fish hatchery closed, etc, etc. The thing is that the Liberals are far better lairs than the Conservatives ever have been. A Liberal will tell you what you want to hear and then go do something else. They also never actually shut things down, they would just defund them and leave empty shells lying around. If it blew up in their face, they shove money back in to make the problem go away. The CPC actually shut down programs and did away with the empty shells.

 

[ArmyRick]

This is an excert from committee meeting on defence this week. from "This Guy's garage" (who is an excellent Youtube source, he doesn't break anything down, he just shows the stratight footage as theis stuff happens and he is openly anti-Liberal, so he puts his cards on the table)

 

[Edward Campbell]

There is a difference between wholesale “cut X%” and targeted cuts to things perceived to be wasteful.

I say “perceived to be wasteful” because I bet that a significant amount of Canadians would say that the CAF, as it is, is wasteful. DND is also the biggest line item in the budget, period. So should it be cut outright to do the best to balance the budget? We would say no, but a bunch of Canadians would disagree.

Even if they make targeted cuts, what happens if (I’d say “when”) they cut too far in a certain department and, as per the examples mentioned already, things stop working? Do we hire them back? Do we bypass the govt hiring process and hire them as contractors, adding to the complaints that we have too many contractors?

One can, and I would, argue that "real," ideological conservatives do believe the military is a waste ... maybe, like a fire a department, a "waste" that one is afraid to do without, but a waste, all the same. Many ideological conservatives believe, as Woodrow Wilson did, that peace is possible without constantly preparing for war.

 

[McG]

Many ideological conservatives believe, as Woodrow Wilson did, that peace is possible without constantly preparing for war.

He seemed to come to a different conclusion in 1916.

 

[Edward Campbell]

He likely did, even before that. He was, I believe, ideologically, opposed to German aggression (see e.g. Mead) and he, and his wife, seemed, according to some biographers, to have been Francophiles.

 

[Kirkhill]

One can, and I would, argue that "real," ideological conservatives do believe the military is a waste ... maybe, like a fire a department, a "waste" that one is afraid to do without, but a waste, all the same. Many ideological conservatives believe, as Woodrow Wilson did, that peace is possible without constantly preparing for war.

That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law;

That the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal;

That the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal;

That the commission for erecting the late Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes, and all other commissions and courts of like nature, are illegal and pernicious;

That levying money for or to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative, without grant of Parliament, for longer time, or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted, is illegal;

That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal;

That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law;

That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;

That election of members of Parliament ought to be free;

That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;

That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted;

That jurors ought to be duly impanelled and returned, and jurors which pass upon men in trials for high treason ought to be freeholders;

That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void;

And that for redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening and preserving of the laws, Parliaments ought to be held frequently.

Avalon Project - English Bill of Rights 1689

The conservative position.

....

The Navy and its Marines were considered separately.

...

PS - Digression alert. - the lead in to the Second Amendment and to the recent amendment to the Alberta Bill of Rights.

That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;

.....



And before anybody gets wrapped around the axle over special privileges for Protestants I would note

Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom;

Protestants in 1689 had reasons to be leary of the state.

The Killing Time - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And since that time non-protestants have come to be considered to have the same rights as protestants. Even if they were Unitarians. Catholics gained acceptance before the Unitarians, and before Quakers, Methodists and Presbyterians. 1689 Protestants were Church of England Protestants.

The Doctrine of the Trinity Act 1813 was a piece of legislation that repealed penal acts against those who denied the Trinity. This act was a result of a relaxation of opposition to the doctrine by both the clergy and laity. William Smith, an abolitionist and the grandfather of Florence Nightingale, was a major advocate for the act in Parliament.