Author Topic: The Defence Budget  (Read 410256 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jmt18325

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 14,830
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 912
Re: The Defence Budget
« Reply #1425 on: March 19, 2017, 18:03:18 »
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Offline ballz

    ...

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 98,496
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,929
Re: The Defence Budget
« Reply #1426 on: March 19, 2017, 18:54:50 »
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.

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.


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.
Many persons have a wrong idea of what constitutes true happiness. It is not attained through self-gratification, but through fidelity to a worthy purpose.
- Helen Keller

Offline jmt18325

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 14,830
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 912
Re: The Defence Budget
« Reply #1427 on: March 19, 2017, 19:32:03 »
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Let me check my Giveashitometer. Nope, nothing.
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 169,110
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,132
    • Airborne Electronic Sensor Operators - AES OP
Re: The Defence Budget
« Reply #1428 on: March 20, 2017, 02:15:27 »

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.



« Last Edit: March 20, 2017, 02:26:10 by Eye In The Sky »
The only time you have too much gas is when you're on fire.

Online Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 171,755
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,376
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: The Defence Budget
« Reply #1429 on: March 20, 2017, 12:01:02 »
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.
Over, Under, Around or Through.
Anticipating the triumph of Thomas Reid.

"One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”  - James Lovelock

Conservative, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others. [Ambrose Bierce, 1911]

Offline milnews.ca

  • Info Curator, Baker & Food Slut
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 374,740
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 20,521
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
Re: The Defence Budget
« Reply #1430 on: March 20, 2017, 15:48:42 »
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 ...
“Most great military blunders stem from the good intentions of some high-ranking buffoon ...” – George MacDonald Fraser, "The Sheik and the Dustbin"

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 180,290
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,319
Re: The Defence Budget
« Reply #1431 on: March 20, 2017, 16:02:17 »
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.
Quote
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

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 30,180
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,288
Re: The Defence Budget
« Reply #1432 on: March 20, 2017, 16:11:45 »
Quote
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.
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Let me check my Giveashitometer. Nope, nothing.
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 169,110
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,132
    • Airborne Electronic Sensor Operators - AES OP
Re: The Defence Budget
« Reply #1433 on: March 21, 2017, 01:15:22 »
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.
The only time you have too much gas is when you're on fire.

Offline CBH99

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 16,715
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 529
Re: The Defence Budget
« Reply #1434 on: March 21, 2017, 02:21:53 »
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.   >:D 

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 ****.
Fortune Favours the Bold...and the Smart.

Wouldn't it be nice to have some Boondock Saints kicking around?

Offline SRidders

  • Guest
  • *
  • 520
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8
Re: The Defence Budget
« Reply #1435 on: March 21, 2017, 10:37:12 »
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.   >:D 

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.

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 30,180
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,288
Re: The Defence Budget
« Reply #1436 on: March 21, 2017, 14:26:52 »
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.


"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline jmt18325

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 14,830
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 912
Re: The Defence Budget
« Reply #1437 on: March 22, 2017, 16:37:18 »

Offline jmt18325

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 14,830
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 912
Re: The Defence Budget
« Reply #1438 on: March 22, 2017, 16:39:08 »
It's safe to say the rumours were wrong, and I'll be happy to have insults hurled at me at this point.

Offline jollyjacktar

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 118,467
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,030
  • My uncle F/Sgt W.H.S. Buckwell KIA 14/05/43 22YOA
Re: The Defence Budget
« Reply #1439 on: March 22, 2017, 16:49:26 »
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 crap there was indeed no light at the end of the tunnel but instead, an oncoming train.

Offline jmt18325

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 14,830
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 912
Re: The Defence Budget
« Reply #1440 on: March 22, 2017, 17:00:56 »
What I was expecting (based on the rumors) was money for new equipment, not necessarily for operations - I was wrong. 

Offline jmt18325

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 14,830
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 912
Re: The Defence Budget
« Reply #1441 on: March 22, 2017, 17:03:36 »
But I apologize for me disbelief before, if it makes you feel any better.

Offline Scott

    likes kicking bee hives.

  • Likes fire and loud noises.
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 162,955
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,227
  • El Scorcho
Re: The Defence Budget
« Reply #1442 on: March 22, 2017, 17:11:28 »
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?
License to kill gophers by the government of the United Nations. Man, free to kill gophers at will. To kill, you must know your enemy, and in this case my enemy is a varmint. And a varmint will never quit - ever. They're like the Viet Cong - Varmint Cong. So you have to fall back on superior intelligence and superior firepower. And that's all she wrote.

Offline FSTO

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 22,995
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,202
Re: The Defence Budget
« Reply #1443 on: March 22, 2017, 17:12:41 »
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.

Offline Flavus101

  • Member
  • ****
  • 11,865
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 206
Re: The Defence Budget
« Reply #1444 on: March 22, 2017, 17:21:36 »
Quote
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.

Offline trooper142

  • New Member
  • **
  • 2,055
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 29
Re: The Defence Budget
« Reply #1445 on: March 22, 2017, 17:28:11 »
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.

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 12,730
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,176
Re: The Defence Budget
« Reply #1446 on: March 22, 2017, 17:36:50 »
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.
 

Offline jmt18325

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 14,830
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 912
Re: The Defence Budget
« Reply #1447 on: March 22, 2017, 17:47:02 »
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.

Offline jmt18325

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 14,830
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 912
Re: The Defence Budget
« Reply #1448 on: March 22, 2017, 17:48:39 »
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.

Offline jollyjacktar

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 118,467
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,030
  • My uncle F/Sgt W.H.S. Buckwell KIA 14/05/43 22YOA
Re: The Defence Budget
« Reply #1449 on: March 22, 2017, 17:51:00 »
But I apologize for me disbelief before, if it makes you feel any better.

No need to apologize on my behalf.  We all lose.