• 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]

jmt18325 said:
DND returned $2B to the government last year.

Interesting.  Do you have an open source reference to support your assertion?

:pop:

Regards
G2G
 
Good2Golf said:
Interesting.  Do you have an open source reference to support your assertion?

:pop:

Regards
G2G

The federal government sat on close to $9.5 billion in approved expenditures last fiscal year, including $2 billion in unspent funding for the Department of National Defence, as it tried to balance the books during an election year.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/tories-left-9-5-billion-in-approved-funds-untouched-to-avoid-deficit-during-election-year
 
A ) there was never really a balanced budget

B ) DND has returned $11.7B to the federal treasury since 2007; most of it unspent capital money.

Before last year's return:

National Defence has lapsed $9.7 billion since 2007.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/defence-csis-rcmp-unable-to-spend-11-billion-of-their-budgets-since-2007-1.2964507
 
jmt18325 said:
The federal government sat on close to $9.5 billion in approved expenditures last fiscal year, including $2 billion in unspent funding for the Department of National Defence, as it tried to balance the books during an election year.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/tories-left-9-5-billion-in-approved-funds-untouched-to-avoid-deficit-during-election-year

Interesting.  I was thinking more like "official open source data", not "because someone (press notwithstanding) said."

Not sure where Messieurs Fekete and Berthaume got their figures, but I see $1.4B...$1.406.162.546.00 to be exact.

FY2014/2015 Vote 5 Capital Expenditures Main Estimate - DND: $4,722,631,021. ( http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/hgw-cgf/finances/pgs-pdg/gepme-pdgbpd/20152016/me-bpd02-eng.asp#toc7-76 )

FY2014/2015 Vote 5 Capital Expenditures Main Estimate - DND: $3,316,468,475. ( http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/hgw-cgf/finances/pgs-pdg/gepme-pdgbpd/20162017/me-bpd02-eng.asp#toc7-76 )

$4,722,631,021 - $3,316,468,475 = $1,406,162,546.

Perhaps the media uses different math?  ???

Regards
G2G

 
Good2Golf said:
Interesting.  I was thinking more like "official open source data", not "because someone (press notwithstanding) said."

Not sure where Messieurs Fekete and Berthaume got their figures, but I see $1.4B...$1.406.162.546.00 to be exact.

FY2014/2015 Vote 5 Capital Expenditures Main Estimate - DND: $4,722,631,021. ( http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/hgw-cgf/finances/pgs-pdg/gepme-pdgbpd/20152016/me-bpd02-eng.asp#toc7-76 )

FY2014/2015 Vote 5 Capital Expenditures Main Estimate - DND: $3,316,468,475. ( http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/hgw-cgf/finances/pgs-pdg/gepme-pdgbpd/20162017/me-bpd02-eng.asp#toc7-76 )

$4,722,631,021 - $3,316,468,475 = $1,406,162,546.

Perhaps the media uses different math?  ???

Regards
G2G
They use mathemagics...
 
Whether it was $1.4 or 2B  is sort of irrelevant to the actual point of why the money should be moved. 
 
Moving the money just admits they can't fix the procurement system. We could use it now if they had an idea of how to fix the system.
 
PuckChaser said:
Moving the money just admits they can't fix the procurement system. We could use it now if they had an idea of how to fix the system.

I'd say it takes more than 5 months to properly fix a system.  That said, what are they going to use the money for?  We're supposed to be buying Canadian Surface Combatants and F-35s right now.  Those buys are 5 - 10 years off.  They money needs to be moved.
 
jmt18325 said:
Whether it was $1.4 or 2B  is sort of irrelevant to the actual point of why the money should be moved.

True, but a portion of that moved to O&M, construction, etc, would greatly improve the ability to train and improve base infrastructure in the near term. Sort of like the infrastructure money meant to fix current structures- the bases could use tons of this (plus less bases, but that's another thread)
 
I mean, the Conservatives did the exact same thing the last two years in a row for the same reason.  You either have to applaud it, or speak against it in both cases.
 
jmt18325 said:
I mean, the Conservatives did the exact same thing the last two years in a row for the same reason.  You either have to applaud it, or speak against it in both cases.

Who cares what the conservatives did? Sunshine and lollipops literally ran on infrastructure development as a cure to a minor rececssion based on a slump in the price of oil. The bases need lots of infrastructure development and had extra money, so it seems like a no-brainer. At some point the 'the conservatives did it" thing has to stop- the PMO has went out of their way to say that everything the conservatives did was wrong (which is anti-intellectual) so they can't then say "well the conservatives did it".
 
I think this might be the gold standard for this discussion:

http://policyschool.ucalgary.ca/sites/default/files/research/canadian-defence-budgeting-perry.pdf

Perry, 2015 on the accrual system and the pluses and minuses.  And Perry verifies the 1.4 BCAD number - and a consistent pattern of returning anywhere from 8% to 28% of the capital budget due to the inability of the "system" to provide invoices in a timely manner.  There just aren't enough opportunities to write checks because the procedures in place don't allow for approvals to be generated fast enough.

Personally, unless I totally misunderstood the accrual system, I was of the opinion that the accrual system implied that funds allocated, but not spent would be rolled forwards and essentially held in escrow with the Government of the Day acting as the bank.

Perry seems to imply the same conclusion, while noting that the accrual system means putting the capital budget at the head of the financing parade, with its own line item, rather than its historical position at the bottom of the list, an after-thought to be managed with whatever funds are available after statutory, personnel, operations and maintenance bills had all been paid.

Have DND and the public purchasing manager successfully come to terms with the reprioritizing of the capital budget?

 
jmt18325 said:
They can when the Conservatives were right to do it.

Your pardon? It is difficult to find anybody that voted LPC that would admit to the CPC having done anything correct while in power.  Certainly the government is doing its best to create that impression, an attitude which is not inclined to create any sort of love from the  31.9% of the voting population that supported Prime Minister Harper throughout his time in power and in 2015.  Prime Minister Trudeau may have convinced a million NDPers to become LPC members for the vote, and 3 million youngsters to turn out, all of whom were inclined to accept the Scary Harper meme, but can he hold them, and the natives, while at the same time holding the Manley's and, increasingly, the Catholic Liberals?

I apologize for the digression.  That is better on the Politics 2016 discussion.  But the surprise is honest.  It is easier to have an honest conversation if one can accept that honourable people act according to their beliefs and with the best of intentions. 

And the same thing is true for the LPC.  I have difficulty accepting Prime Minister Trudeau as the best candidate the LPC could have put forward.  I personally would have preferred any of a number of other candidates. Having said that, I will be giving him the benefit of the doubt and ascribing his actions to youthful enthusiasms that are unmoderated by the experience (cynicism) that comes with age.

I appreciate your acknowledgement that some elements of the preceding government were not entirely at odds with your perception of a liberal democracy.

Regards.

 
jmt18325 said:
I mean, the Conservatives did the exact same thing the last two years in a row for the same reason.  You either have to applaud it, or speak against it in both cases.
You don't get to say "but these guys did it" when you run a campaign on "real change" and pledging to be totally different.
 
PuckChaser said:
You don't get to say "but these guys did it" when you run a campaign on "real change" and pledging to be totally different.

Actually, you do.

"Real change" - whatever that may mean - doesn't have to mean "All change".  And the conservative in me would be grateful for any stability that I can find.  We need it these days.
 
Chris Pook said:
It is difficult to find anybody that voted LPC that would admit to the CPC having done anything correct while in power.
Or vice versa ...
Chris Pook said:
It is easier to have an honest conversation if one can accept that honourable people on all sides act according to their beliefs and with the best of intentions.
FTFY -- well put!
 
Back
Top