• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The Defence Budget [superthread]

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
 
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 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.
 
Yes, they could.  But if any of them want to do more than they are, the only way is up.
 
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?"
 
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.
 
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.

 
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.
 
Does anybody know what Trudeau's defence platform was? If they do, please do explain it more to me.
 
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......
 
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.
 
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.
 
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/#





 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top