Eric James

Does it come with or without a brain?

Representation by population is a principle that the number of seats in the House of Commons should correlate to a ratio of the population. That ratio does not mean that an increase in population should reflect an increase in seats if the ratio can be amended to include more Canadians under one MP. For example, three ridings over a region with a population of 30,000 will have a ratio of 1:10,000. If the population spikes to 50,000 with one region getting the majority of the newcomers that does not mean a whole new seat needs to be created. Three new ridings can be imposed that have a new ratio of 1:~20,000. The principle of rep. by pop. is maintained and the state does not bear the burden of extra costs for creating a whole new seat. Sure that MP has to represent more people but in our digital age connecting with people can be done on a larger scale than in the past with a little innovation and creativity.

One of the largest problems with procurement in Canada is that the decision making process only includes input for requirements from the people on the ground in the first few stages of development. Once a design has been approved and given the go ahead to move forward changes are often made late down the road that have significant consequences on the original design composed from suggestions by people on the ground by beaurcrats in Ottawa. A classic example of this is the Kingston class which was designed to fullfill a NATO committment to have mine sweeping capabilities on both coasts. Along the design process it was realized that these vessels could be used to fill a seperate manning mandate for the Reserves which would widen its operations. Today the Kingston class vessels are designated mechanical minesweepers with no minesweeping gear in sight and with little to no mine sweeping experience among the crews. The are know as Maritime Coast Defence Vessels (MCDVs) manned primarly by class C reservists who serve 2-3 year long contracts. The vessels conduct route survey, BOIV operations as well as RCMP escorts and can act as a aid to civil power. Canada has the second largest seaboard in the entire world. The Navy should be the primary element of the Armed Forces IMO. Including procurement and building capability. Not to mention that there is no reason why Canada can not have a world class shipbuilding industry for both public and private investment.

All one has to do is watch The Pentagon Wars and then do a little research on what really happened with the Bradley Fighting Vehicle to understand how backward US military procurement can be. I agree 110% with your last statement though. The ball was dropped considerably.

The issue was that after the big build for the Kingston class and the Halifax class as well as several vessels for the Coast Guard the shipbuilding industry in Canada was left to die slowly and quietly. Building new ships would not be as simple as turning around and saying to a contractor 'okay we want this and this and this...' it would have to be a process that would include heavy investment from the government to jump start these industries. That is exactly what is happening with the tendering process for the building of these new warships and coastal ships. And you are right we should not wait for everything to be obsolete. The attitude with regard to military procurement was that the Navy got some big ticket items in the 90s therefore the 2000s would be more Army focuses especially with the war in Afghanistan raging on. Unfortunately the military operates on such a sparse budget when it comes to procurement and equipement maintaince that priority policy not set on a basis of what needs work but what we could get away with letting slip from work for some time to use resources on other things. It is important to note that in Canada our procurement process is much more complicated than that of the US. The various departments in the US concerninig their Armed Forces generate their own procurement processes and present these plans to Congress. This is where we get this idea of a General creating enemies to get a shiny new toy from the boys on the Hill. In Canada procurement of government assets (including military assets) is largely conducted by the Minister of Public Works in consultation with the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Finance. It's a slower process and there are more hands in the pie but it keeps the players away from the buyers.

No manager, commander, team leader, etc. would ever say that they have all of the resources that they need to complete a job. And yet in the end the job gets done. The mantra of the Canadian Forces (in all of its forms) way back even before the First World War was 'Doing all of the work with half of the equiment.' That is still true today. You are right when you say that the military, just like any other organization, would jump at the chance to have some new toys. But to say that the military cooks up stories and threats to push for these chances is false. The facts simply speak for themselves. In the Royal Canadian Navy we have two oil replenishment vessels (AORs) that were commissioned in 1969-70. Both vessels are tired and have reached the end of their lifetime. We have three destroyers that were built in the 60s and went through a major refit in the 90s that gave them extensive Command and Control capabilities. These ships are old and have reached the end of their lifespan. We have 12 Halifax class frigates which are the work-horse of the Navy. Currently all of these ships are going through a refit period called FELIX which means that they will be rotated in and out of service on a 6-month basis for the next 4 years. While this refit will extend the life of these ships they have been work so hard since they were commissioned in the 90s that some people wonder if FELIX will actually materialize into a modern warship. Next we have 12 Kingston class vessels (the ones I sail on). These vessels were a design nightmare and as a result have limited capabilities. And then there are the submarines. The fact is that we do need new vessels in the Royal Canadian Navy. It's a natural life cycle not brass creating smoke and mirrors to get what they want.

I am surprised that no one has bothered to ask the question of why we need more MPs in Ottawa. One of the great pains in our current Canadian parliamentary model is the role of the MP. Pierre Trudeau once remarked that back bench MPs were nobodies. Considering that the majority of people sitting in the House of Commons are back bench MPs why would we want to increase that number? Certainly expanding the membership in the House of Commons would not correlate to an expansion of membership on Standing Committees. It may mean a larger Cabinet but that is doubtful especially considering the optics of expanding the Ministry while we are in these unstable economic times. The House of Commons is able to make amendments without the amending formula on matters related to the Senate and the House of Commons. There is little doubt that the courts, if it ever came to it, would rule that this includes the composition of both Houses. Imagine how complicated the process of expanding the House with changing demographics would be if the government of the day had to go to the provinces for approval. I can tell you what would happen in that instance. Either no changes would ever get made and the membership of House of Commons would become wildly out of tune with the demographics of the nation or the issue would become so political that expanding or reducing seats would be held as a bargaining chip by the provinces to get other issues resolved. Imagine Quebec saying that they will not support losing seats unless Ottawa resolves their HST issue to their liking first. Not good.

From what I gather in this thread the discussion has revolved around the reasoning why something like this would happen and the reaction of the people in response to this horrible event. Firstly, I think that regardless of how you feel about the reasons and the reaction you simply can not deny that this is a horrible event. There is no reason for murder - whether or not a certain society supports reasons or not. Secondly, every murder, every crime in fact has a reason. There is a whole discipline in academia on it called criminology. Regardless of the reason a murder is a murder - just the same that stealing is stealing whether it is done by a poor man or a rich man. The reaction of the people is all presumption and thus should all be taken with a grain of salt no matter how hubris is dripping from the bounty of facts they present to support their theory.

Well you can thank conservatives in the country for that one. The whole idea of governments increasing spending goes against the concept of small(er) government. (When I say conservatives I mean supports of the neo-liberal, right-wing movement - these can be members of any political party.)