The Defence Budget [superthread]

[George Wallace]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?