Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 9,408
- Points
- 1,260
Lumber said:
We can always use them as working bodies in supply
Send down as many as you can spare Sir!
The Defence Budget [superthread]
- Thread starter Edward Campbell
- Start date
We can always use them as working bodies in supply
Send down as many as you can spare Sir!
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 9,141
- Points
- 1,160
Lumber said:
Cross training in damage control, weapons, crowd control, navigation?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
PPCLI Guy said:
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
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,702
- Points
- 1,040
Lumber said:
Colin P said:
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.
- Reaction score
- 7,252
- Points
- 1,160
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.
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.
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."
'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
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 12,239
- Points
- 1,140
Lumber said:
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.
- Reaction score
- 2,379
- Points
- 940
That suggests that our elected representatives are not Canadian; such "recognition" from Parliament is routinely lacking.Old Sweat said:
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
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 230
Journeyman said:
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.?
- Reaction score
- 989
- Points
- 1,160
I hope this is the Trump affect. Expenditures means actually now rather than commit funds to the future.
Is this still the Liberal excuse to buy the Super Hornet?
To properly equip the RCAF that means expending funds on the F-35 like the rest of NATO. The Trump affect again or not?
J
jollyjacktar
Guest
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
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,421
- Points
- 1,010
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.
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.
- Reaction score
- 9,065
- Points
- 1,360
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.
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.
- Reaction score
- 50
- Points
- 330
President Trump doesn't care about our electoral system. He does care about our defence spending and bilateral trade. [FSTO said:
- Reaction score
- 3,320
- Points
- 1,160
New money is useless without gutting the current defense procurement gongshow. What good is new equipment that takes 20 years to show up?
Similar threads
