Shipbuilding contracts

[Smallc]

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

Of course not. The problem is that the Conservatives made any information very hard to find. I admit that now as one of their supporters at the time.

[Derek 2.0]

First, that's for the vessels the navy wants, not what they require.

So you're now suggesting the navy just wants billions of dollars in vessels?

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.

What does Irving need to negotiate? If the Government wants to procure 15 blue water vessels for the navy, built by Irving, we already know what Irving will be charging.

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

So? He also said he'd bring 25000 Syrians refugees in by the end of the year........government "promises" change all the time.

[Derek 2.0]

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.

There is also a possibility that this Government decides we need Star Destroyers and flying monkeys for the air force......doesn't mean its likely.

[Smallc]

So you're now suggesting the navy just wants billions of dollars in vessels?

In every procurement since the beginning of - forever - there has always been must have, want to have, and would be nice to have. The $30B, by the sound of it, is the 'would be nice to have'. We'll probably get far less than that. Probably the bare minimum. This is Canada, after all.

What does Irving need to negotiate? If the Government wants to procure 15 blue water vessels for the navy, built by Irving, we already know what Irving will be charging.

Wow, okay. I'm in business (and I'm good at it). I'm not hiring you.

So? He also said he'd bring 25000 Syrians refugees in by the end of the year........government "promises" change all the time.

Why did you feel the need to remake my point for me? You're assuming a bunch of stuff. Since we're doing that, I'll just do the same.

[Smallc]

There is also a possibility that this Government decides we need Star Destroyers and flying monkeys for the air force......doesn't mean its likely.

Look, as of last year, according to the defence acquisition guide, 2018 - 2020 is the period in which implementation and contract award will happen for the CSC. Take it up with DND and the Conservatives, not me.

[Derek 2.0]

In every procurement since the beginning of - forever - there has always been must have, want to have, and would be nice to have. The $30B, by the sound of it, is the 'would be nice to have'. We'll probably get far less than that. Probably the bare minimum. This is Canada, after all.

No, there is what is required versus what the Government is willing to spend and what they consider acceptable risk.

Wow, okay. I'm in business (and I'm good at it). I'm not hiring you.

Didn't you say you ran a corner store? If you commit to only one supplier, and said supplier knows this, you'll either pay what said supplier wants or go without.

Why did you feel the need to remake my point for me? You're assuming a bunch of stuff. Since we're doing that, I'll just do the same.

You just suggested, because they said they were, committed to the Navy.......like they were committed to 25000 Syrians by the end of the year until they changed their mind.

[bush_cheney2004]

Of course not. The problem is that the Conservatives made any information very hard to find. I admit that now as one of their supporters at the time.

This doesn't make any sense...how can any government make "information very hard to find" when the spending must be appropriated by Parliament for each fiscal/calendar year (however you guys do it). This is nuts....where is the basic oversight and visibility ?

It's not fair to expect you to know all the nuts and bolts, but this is the basic stuff of government, not "...there's a hole in Daddy's arm where all the money goes".

[Smallc]

No, there is what is required versus what the Government is willing to spend and what they consider acceptable risk.

There are things that the navy wants that are not an absolute necessity. As has always been thus.

Didn't you say you ran a corner store? If you commit to only one supplier, and said supplier knows this, you'll either pay what said supplier wants or go without.

I run a business that has many facets. It is retail, but it's far from a corner store. I make less than I should because there are 4 of us splitting the net. I'm still not hiring you to negotiate. The government can always go elsewhere. Irving isn't stupid.

You just suggested, because they said they were, committed to the Navy.......like they were committed to 25000 Syrians by the end of the year until they changed their mind.

First, that was never in the platform. Go ahead and try to find it. That was a slip of the tongue that they stupidly endorsed. Also, you just suggested that they were committed to their budgetary figures, while suggesting that they weren't in fact committed to anything else they said...so....

[Smallc]

This doesn't make any sense...how can any government make "information very hard to find" when the spending must be appropriated by Parliament for each fiscal/calendar year (however you guys do it). This is nuts....where is the basic oversight and visibility ?

Majority government is powerful. The Conservatives created the PBO and then undermined the purpose of said office. There should be a line by line budget. I can't find it. I agree with you that this shouldn't be.

That said, I'm sure parliamentarians (at least those on the finance committee) see such a budget, and I'm sure it's available somewhere on the internet. I would like to see it.

[Derek 2.0]

There are things that the navy wants that are not an absolute necessity. As has always been thus.

I would consider the ability to defend oneself against a handful of supersonic anti ship missiles as a necessity for a navy.

The government can always go elsewhere.

Didn't you suggest several weeks ago the Atlantic provinces were a key area for the Liberals? Irving has them over the barrel.....

First, that was never in the platform. Go ahead and try to find it. That was a slip of the tongue that they stupidly endorsed.

Also, you just suggested that they were committed to their budgetary figures, while suggesting that they weren't in fact committed to anything else they said...so....

Not at all, I've said numerous times, in this very thread, the Liberals could add more money.

[ReeferMadness]

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 ?

Maybe you can but you're asking the wrong question of the wrong person. It's Derek who's kvetching over a Liberal election document looking for answers that aren't there.

[bush_cheney2004]

All I can find are fiscal year expenditures by "program activity", not specific line items for shipbuilding progress payments. So it looks like payments for Fisheries would be buried somewhere as "Capital", for instance. Nothing tied to specific shipbuilding already in progress.

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/hgw-cgf/finances/pgs-pdg/be-bd/pyepa-apdap-eng.asp

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/hgw-cgf/finances/pgs-pdg/be-bd/nba-abn-eng.asp

[Smallc]

I would consider the ability to defend oneself against a handful of supersonic anti ship missiles as a necessity for a navy.

Area Air Defence will probably happen. I question its cost effectiveness to Canada.

Didn't you suggest several weeks ago the Atlantic provinces were a key area for the Liberals? Irving has them over the barrel.....

They also have a fair amount of ridings in Quebec - even 1 across the river from Davie.

Not at all, I've said numerous times, in this very thread, the Liberals could add more money.

The Liberals will likely find a billion or so somewhere else.

[Smallc]

All I can find are fiscal year expenditures by "program activity", not specific line items for shipbuilding progress payments. So it looks like payments for Fisheries would be buried somewhere as "Capital", for instance. Nothing tied to specific shipbuilding already in progress.

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/hgw-cgf/finances/pgs-pdg/be-bd/pyepa-apdap-eng.asp

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/hgw-cgf/finances/pgs-pdg/be-bd/nba-abn-eng.asp

You did better than me. I found spending by major category in Finance Canada.

http://www.fin.gc.ca/pub/annual-annuelle/2015-eng.asp

Edited December 6, 2015 by Smallc

[Smallc]

Actually, your chart basically told me what I wanted to know. I wanted to know how much money there was for procurement in each department. 'Capital' gets us close.

Edited December 6, 2015 by Smallc

[bush_cheney2004]

You did better than me. I found spending by major category in Finance Canada.

http://www.fin.gc.ca/pub/annual-annuelle/2015-eng.asp

This helps...some high level summaries....but no line item details down to shipbuilding:

http://www.fin.gc.ca/afr-rfa/2015/report-rapport-eng.asp#toc3

[bush_cheney2004]

Actually, your chart basically told me what I wanted to know. I wanted to know how much money there was for procurement in each department. 'Capital' gets us close.

Right..."Capital" smells like the right bucket, but no more detail below that.

[Smallc]

Right..."Capital" smells like the right bucket, but no more detail below that.

It would be interesting to see that detail - how much for example, is spent each year on the currently building OFSV project.

[Derek 2.0]

All I can find are fiscal year expenditures by "program activity", not specific line items for shipbuilding progress payments.

You won't, because it's a separate line item outside of DND's annual budget..........The hole in Daddy's arm

[bush_cheney2004]

It would be interesting to see that detail - how much for example, is spent each year on the currently building OFSV project.

Agreed...that is what I am trying to drill down to, but it is not easy. The shipbuilder would be awarded progress payments based on milestones achieved on the contract as well as money for procurement of long lead items/subcontracts.

I suppose another way to skin this cat would be reported gross revenues from the shipbuilder (if publicly held).

[bush_cheney2004]

You won't, because it's a separate line item outside of DND's annual budget..........The hole in Daddy's arm

OK...help me out please...are the OOSV's Fisheries or DND ?

[Smallc]

You won't, because it's a separate line item outside of DND's annual budget

No it's not. It's outside of the DND operating budget, not the DND total budget. That budget, per his link, includes about $5B for capital, including shipbuilding.

[Smallc]

OK...help me out please...are the OOSV's Fisheries or DND ?

The OFSV and OOSV are CCG, part of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

[Derek 2.0]

OK...help me out please...are the OOSV's Fisheries or DND ?

DFO, but said money would not come from their budget either, but Public Works and Government Services (or whatever the Liberals changed its name to)

[Smallc]

DFO, but said money would not come from their budget either, but Public Works and Government Services (or whatever the Liberals changed its name to)

That would also be incorrect. They're the ones charged with spending the money. The money comes from the capital budget of DFO.