Shipbuilding contracts

[Smallc]

OK...so all the "money" is kept in a big opaque pool by DND with no specific earmarks or oversight ?

They can buy or not buy whatever they want ?

No - I've seen the numbers before somewhere. They're simply not as easy to find as they should be. Trudeau is supposed to change that. We'll see.

[bush_cheney2004]

No - I've seen the numbers before somewhere. They're simply not as easy to find as they should be. Trudeau is supposed to change that. We'll see.

Well, smart ass American comments aside, I don't understand how that is the case, regardless of ruling party. Canada is not a third-world country...the basics of government budgeting and appropriations should be transparent by definition....not access to information request.

One would think that the press alone would be all over this in real time.

[Smallc]

I agree with you. We should demand better. You should make more points without smart assed American comments, lol.

[bush_cheney2004]

I agree with you. We should demand better. You should make more points without smart assed American comments, lol.

Well, that wouldn't be as much fun.

I'm beginning to understand why so many members here know more about the inner workings of U.S. spending than in their own country. They just give up because finding and digging for it is so much more difficult. But they easily recall the price of a Mil-Spec hammer !

[On Guard for Thee]

Well, smart ass American comments aside,

We can always hope.

[ReeferMadness]

Well, smart ass American comments aside, I don't understand how that is the case, regardless of ruling party. Canada is not a third-world country...the basics of government budgeting and appropriations should be transparent by definition....not access to information request.

One would think that the press alone would be all over this in real time.

Are you not paying attention? The Liberals were sworn in a month ago. There IS no budget!! Derek is getting himself in a tizzy over his interpretation of some election material. It doesn't specify exactly what is being spent, it just says where spending is increased or cut. So, if the Conservatives planned for expenditures, that money is still in the plans. If not, it's hard to blame that on the Liberals.

[Derek 2.0]

I'll eat my hat if the projects don't go forward. The problem from the Conservative end is two fold - not enough money set aside, and too much money allowed lapse.

This isn't a problem for the Conservative, as they won't be tabling next years budget.

At the time that document was constructed, we (and the Liberals) didn't know that there wasn't enough money. The Conservatives did, apparently. The Liberals have already moved swiftly to repair what they can right now.

We? The media and opposition have been claiming that for years.........even I, in this very thread, numerous times, for years, have said there won't be enough money...........

How does the hiring of an "expert" address tens of billions of dollars that the Liberals haven't budgeted.

[Derek 2.0]

OK...so all the "money" is kept in a big opaque pool by DND with no specific earmarks or oversight ?

Of course not, what he's suggesting would be akin to the House appropriations committee giving the DoD the funding for the fifth Ford class CVN decades in advance to "hold onto"......

[Smallc]

This isn't a problem for the Conservative, as they won't be tabling next years budget.

Yes, many of us made sure of that.

We? The media and opposition have been claiming that for years.........even I, in this very thread, numerous times, for years, have said there won't be enough money...........

We didn't have an idea of figures. We do now. The Liberals are to begin a strategic review of the Canadian Forces. There will be money moved from place to place. That will free up more money for priorities deemed to be more important through the review. None of this, of course, affects the OOSV. The Liberals have made very firm commitments to the CCG, and the extra money will almost definitely be found.

How does the hiring of an "expert" address tens of billions of dollars that the Liberals haven't budgeted.

We now have quarterly public reports and annual parliamentary ones. There is no more black hole of information on this file.

Besides, as you keep saying, very little is to happen in this mandate. Outside of what's already been budgeted, we're not talking about a whole lot of money for the JSS (which is already operating with a larger construction envelope) and the OOSV.

[Smallc]

Of course not, what he's suggesting would be akin to the House appropriations committee giving the DoD the funding for the fifth Ford class CVN decades in advance to "hold onto"......

That isn't at all what I'm saying. Departments project far into the future based on their projected budgetary envelope and projected needs. This includes money for future procurement. It is money that is planned for - expected to be spent. Nothing more, and nothing less.

[Derek 2.0]

Are you not paying attention? The Liberals were sworn in a month ago. There IS no budget!! Derek is getting himself in a tizzy over his interpretation of some election material. It doesn't specify exactly what is being spent, it just says where spending is increased or cut. So, if the Conservatives planned for expenditures, that money is still in the plans. If not, it's hard to blame that on the Liberals.

Actually it does, right down to costs measured in the millions of dollars of the next four years, such the cost to waive camping fees at National parks........it is detailed enough to outline spending to the benefit of campers measured in the millions, but not spending measured in the tens of billions for the Navy and Coast Guard.

As to "blame", the Liberals made specific promises to the level of vessels to be produced and their capabilities (a Blue Water navy), if the price has since "doubled", based on a report conducted and funded by the shipbuilder, that is not the fault of the Tories, but it sure will be the Liberals problem.

[Derek 2.0]

We didn't have an idea of figures. We do now. The Liberals are to begin a strategic review of the Canadian Forces. There will be money moved from place to place. That will free up more money for priorities deemed to be more important through the review. None of this, of course, affects the OOSV. The Liberals have made very firm commitments to the CCG, and the extra money will almost definitely be found.

Based on a report funded by the builder..........so you're suggesting the Liberals are going to base their funding levels, potentially cuts to the Forces, on a report issued and funded for by the ship builder that states it will need double the money?

That's insane.

We now have quarterly public reports and annual parliamentary ones. There is no more black hole of information on this file.

How does that address funding?

Besides, as you keep saying, very little is to happen in this mandate. Outside of what's already been budgeted, we're not talking about a whole lot of money for the JSS (which is already operating with a larger construction envelope) and the OOSV.

You're assuming the OOSV or JSS gets built........reread your cite.

[Smallc]

Actually it does, right down to costs measured in the millions of dollars of the next four years, such the cost to waive camping fees at National parks........it is detailed enough to outline spending to the benefit of campers measured in the millions, but not spending measured in the tens of billions for the Navy and Coast Guard.

Tens of billions in the next four years.

[Derek 2.0]

That isn't at all what I'm saying. Departments project far into the future based on their projected budgetary envelope and projected needs. This includes money for future procurement. It is money that is planned for - expected to be spent. Nothing more, and nothing less.

Ahh so the money isn't "just there"........money that is planned for......hmmm......would a Government include such planned funds in their own fiscal plan?

[Derek 2.0]

Tens of billions in the next four years.

Their fiscal plan only covered this mandate......do they have published spending plans past this mandate?

[Smallc]

Based on a report funded by the builder..........so you're suggesting the Liberals are going to base their funding levels, potentially cuts to the Forces, on a report issued and funded for by the ship builder that states it will need double the money?

You're the one that said we had to pay that. You're now taking my words and twisting them - as normal. The Liberals have promised a defence review with a focus on the navy. You're the one assuming all kinds of stuff.

You're assuming the OOSV or JSS gets built........reread your cite.

You're assuming, in direct contradiction to statements by the government, that they won't.

[Smallc]

Their fiscal plan only covered this mandate......do they have published spending plans past this mandate?

Since when is it tens of billions in the next four years?

[Smallc]

Ahh so the money isn't "just there"........money that is planned for......hmmm......would a Government include such planned funds in their own fiscal plan?

We don't know what this government's fiscal plan will be.

[Derek 2.0]

You're the one that said we had to pay that. You're now taking my words and twisting them - as normal. The Liberals have promised a defence review with a focus on the navy. You're the one assuming all kinds of stuff.

They do if they want to build the vessels the navy requires through Irving.

You're assuming, in direct contradiction to statements by the government, that they won't.

My assumption is based on your cite that clearly states the Government has a "off ramp" from said purchases, and that the Government is to review said programs.

[Derek 2.0]

Since when is it tens of billions in the next four years?

I'm not the one stating the vessels will be procured within this mandate......you've suggested they could start producing the combatants near the end of this decade/mandate.

[Derek 2.0]

We don't know what this government's fiscal plan will be.

Are you suggesting the one they released, with fiscal spending through this mandate, and is on their website, to be untrue?

[Smallc]

They do if they want to build the vessels the navy requires through Irving.

First, that's for the vessels the navy wants, not what they require. Second, I'm not hiring you for any negotiation. There's obviously a healthy margin built in. There is a middle ground that will be found through negotiations.

My assumption is based on your cite that clearly states the Government has a "off ramp" from said purchases, and that the Government is to review said programs.

My cites also repeat a strong commitment to shipbuilding - over and over again.

[Smallc]

Are you suggesting the one they released, with fiscal spending through this mandate, and is on their website, to be untrue?

There will undoubtedly be changes. You've already told me that everything else the said is untrue. Why should I believe any of it?

[Smallc]

I'm not the one stating the vessels will be procured within this mandate......you've suggested they could start producing the combatants near the end of this decade/mandate.

2020 is not (likely) within this mandate. There is a possibility of a contract within this mandate given that the prime contractor has already been named.

[bush_cheney2004]

Are you not paying attention? The Liberals were sworn in a month ago. There IS no budget!!

This answers the wrong question: What are the exact DND or Fisheries appropriations (not budget) for the current fiscal year ? Why can't anybody click on a link and see what spending has been authorized for any shipbuilding in the current year by the Government of Canada, regardless of ruling party ?

Why is this so hard ? Does the government wipe out all budgets and appropriations just because the previous government got turfed ?