F-35 Purchase

[eyeball]

)&M portion of the budget includes Pay for all members,all cost for all maintenance which includes parts,labor,any cost incured during maintence including out sourcing. and repair to parts such as engines etc...operations include any cost incured to include fuel, benifits such as field pay, claims, rentals, food, local purchase items, the list goes on...hence why it is the largest portion of the budget....i'd est well over 70 % of the budget thats alot of funds to be accounting for twice....and it would require a major review of DND's budget and how we do business...

This never ending outrageous, unconscionable waste of money should be causing us to completely rethink why the DND is even in business in the first place.

There has got to be a better way than doing the same thing over and over and over again. The list as you say goes on and on and on.

Where are these mythical innovators we keep hearing about? Let me guess, they're off wasting their talents on engineering more expensive ways to wage defence.

Edited April 14, 2012 by eyeball

[Wild Bill]

Thats not how the new mandatory minimums work based on my reading. Like I said, if you have 6 pot plants in your yard you will do a mandatory prison term. Thats not even enough to supply your average recreational user.

I guess I must be outside the average! I do maybe one joint every two to three years. I drink maybe 10 ounces total of alcohol per year. So much for addiction or marijuana being a gateway drug.

Gee, I always knew I was special!

[Tilter]

I just stayed home. I also can see that some of your defensiveness of the Conservative party/agenda is driven by the fact theres so many attacks on it in this forum.

When I see this type of idiotic thinking I know that the writer has absolutely NO right to bitch about ANYTHING ANY government does.

If you didn't vote YOU are the problem :ph34r:

Edited April 14, 2012 by Tilter

[Tilter]

The Portugal experiment was really eye opening.

Canada will be facing some tough sledding at the conference (whatever the hell this one is called) now under way in South America where some of the countries are acting to decriminalize All drug use. I don't think that's the way to go but the criminalization of Pot use is stupid beyond reason.

When there are LEGAL drugs (Booze and tobacco) that are far more dangerous and cause huge problems for the country the government should start to recognize the fact that both are at least a thousand times as addictive as pot and if there are any recreational drugs to be criminalized it should be alcohol & tobacco.

[punked]

I thought some possession was decriminalized? Regardless, if one uses at home, recreationally, they won't have any problems. It's if you leave your home, and possess more than a certain amount where harsher penalities kick in.

If some possession was decriminalized that would make sense. That is not what has happened though. What has happened is our government has passed tougher laws with no funding to support those laws so because our courts are getting so backed up judges and police are busting less of the lower end users effectively decriminalizing at local levels because their is no support for the rule of law from the government. Basically the brown bag rule the police MADE UP in Chicago because drinking become a public epidemic is happening in Canada with out the government stepping in to clear the gray area. It is a real problem in a society which runs on law and order. If you get busted or walk away is a flip of a coin.

[Argus]

Its not being accounted for twice. These are just estimates. Its estimated that the total direct and indirect costs of the program will be X. This is valuable information for the taxpayer regardless of which budget this comes out of. And it doesnt matter if money is already budgeted. Tax payers are still going to have to pay for every penny.

Taxpayers don't give a crap about the ongoing costs. They just want to know what it costs to make the purchase.

[Argus]

This never ending outrageous, unconscionable waste of money should be causing us to completely rethink why the DND is even in business in the first place.

Because I say so.

And I'm in charge.

And I always will be.

[Argus]

No, because you think the opposition shouldn't do a job at all, but should just sit quietly while Harper implements his omnipotent 'mandate'.

There's theory, and then there's reality.

The 'job' of the opposition, is to watch and examine the behavior, policies, and legislation of the party in power, point out the flaws of each to the people, and put forth a contrary agenda or idea on different issues which would be better for Canada.

That's the theory.

The reality is the job of the opposition is to gain power. Nothing more. Nothing less. Thus they examine what the government does not for whether it is or is not good for the country but for ways to pick up votes. They analyses the government's message for weaknesses they can exploit, consider how to score points by taking advantage of the public's ignorance on a variety of issues. They will oppose whatever the government does, generally speaking, regardless of its merits, in order to try to win attention and thus votes from key voting segments. They will criticize the government on some issues, and propose legislation, even though they know it would never work, even though they'd never do it if they were in power, just to gain favor among this or that group. None of this has anything to do with the public good. The opposition is generally uninterested in the public good. They are interested in self-promotion.

The fuss being kicked up over the F-35 has absolutely nothing to do with the public good, absolutely nothing to do with whether the F-35 is the right plane or the right price for Canada. It's nothing more than a frantic scuffling for attention and popularity. And outside Ottawa and the national press gallery nobody gives a damn. It's a big howling mess about accounting methods !

The only part of the whole thing I'm interested in is the part where the AG said in his report that DND misled parliament and the cabinet about issues like economic benefits, timelines, and the legal effect of signing the MOU. Typically, the opposition has completely ignored that because they don't see a way to score political points by attacking bureaucrats at DND. But it's that behavior by DND which makes me believe McKay should resign. Because I believe a minister should bear responsibility for the misdeeds of his department.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

There's theory, and then there's reality.

The 'job' of the opposition, is to watch and examine the behavior, policies, and legislation of the party in power, point out the flaws of each to the people, and put forth a contrary agenda or idea on different issues which would be better for Canada.

That's the theory.

The reality is the job of the opposition is to gain power. Nothing more. Nothing less. Thus they examine what the government does not for whether it is or is not good for the country but for ways to pick up votes. They analyses the government's message for weaknesses they can exploit, consider how to score points by taking advantage of the public's ignorance on a variety of issues. They will oppose whatever the government does, generally speaking, regardless of its merits, in order to try to win attention and thus votes from key voting segments. They will criticize the government on some issues, and propose legislation, even though they know it would never work, even though they'd never do it if they were in power, just to gain favor among this or that group. None of this has anything to do with the public good. The opposition is generally uninterested in the public good. They are interested in self-promotion.

The fuss being kicked up over the F-35 has absolutely nothing to do with the public good, absolutely nothing to do with whether the F-35 is the right plane or the right price for Canada. It's nothing more than a frantic scuffling for attention and popularity. And outside Ottawa and the national press gallery nobody gives a damn. It's a big howling mess about accounting methods !

The only part of the whole thing I'm interested in is the part where the AG said in his report that DND misled parliament and the cabinet about issues like economic benefits, timelines, and the legal effect of signing the MOU. Typically, the opposition has completely ignored that because they don't see a way to score political points by attacking bureaucrats at DND. But it's that behavior by DND which makes me believe McKay should resign. Because I believe a minister should bear responsibility for the misdeeds of his department.

Wow! I don't think there is any doubt about it Argus, a true Conservative would have at least offered the resignation to the Prime Minister. Failing that Mr. Harper should have fired him. So much for the accountability and transparency a that a real Conservative Government, which we were lead to believe the case after the Party won a majority election, has allowed to transpire here. Face it, the truth is there are many problems with the F-35 program. Not merely for us, but for all potential customers of the aircraft. The Harper government was slow on the uptake here. That is the long and the short of it. It is being handled the best way they figured they could pull this puppy out of the fire. They have decided not to give the matter any more air time to the extent that they can. But throwing things under the carpet don't work to well, everybody can see the lump in the middle of the room. Now throwing things under the bus is of course yet another story. That will be the next most logical step for the government to take when the heat gets turned up. McKay is the designated fall guy, in as much as it is his Ministry in the first place.

[cybercoma]

That is not what everyone has been saying the new rules are the new accounting laws....

This isn't new. This has been the rules according to our Treasury Board since 2006. Moreover, life-cycle costing (LCC) principles have been in use for decades. Engineers began costing projects this way in the early 1980s. NASA began using LCC in the 1960s. The problem with using only acquisition costs is that it doesn't account for how much money will be necessary to operate and maintain the equipment/asset's being purchased, nor does it consider potential costly disposal fees at the end of the equipment/asset's life. If LCC is not considered at all, the government will be completely in the dark about how much money it will actually need to sustain the equipment/asset being procured. LCC allows them to better predict how much money will be needed. Governments around the world have been using LCC for decades because it's necessary for budgeting and understanding the government's expenses and what future costs the procurement of an asset will put on them.

[DogOnPorch]

Spoken like a slimy politician to a soldier.

[cybercoma]

Taxpayers don't give a crap about the ongoing costs. They just want to know what it costs to make the purchase.

Really? Taxpayers don't care how much money the government spends? I think there's quite a few taxpayers from all stripes that would disagree with you, but especially CPC supporters.

[cybercoma]

Spoken like a slimy politician to a soldier.

Imagine, talking politics on a political forum.

[DogOnPorch]

Imagine, talking politics on a political forum.

A slimy one at that!

[cybercoma]

Do you have anything worthwhile to offer or are you just interested in being a troll?

[dre]

Taxpayers don't give a crap about the ongoing costs. They just want to know what it costs to make the purchase.

Wrong.

[DogOnPorch]

Do you have anything worthwhile to offer or are you just interested in being a troll?

Are you kidding me? You're the one talking down to military members like they know nothing. Type in USS Los Angeles into Google and suddenly you know more than BC-2004 about operating nuclear submarines.

[cybercoma]

Are you kidding me? You're the one talking down to military members like they know nothing. Type in USS Los Angeles into Google and suddenly you know more than BC-2004 about operating nuclear submarines.

Right. So trolling. Got it.

[punked]

Are you kidding me? You're the one talking down to military members like they know nothing. Type in USS Los Angeles into Google and suddenly you know more than BC-2004 about operating nuclear submarines.

Military members shockingly only get one vote in Canada like the rest of us. Please don't talk down to people because they aren't in the military that is not how our society works if you want that society it exists in other countries but not this one. Have fun in North Korea my friend.

Edited April 14, 2012 by punked

[Argus]

Really? Taxpayers don't care how much money the government spends? I think there's quite a few taxpayers from all stripes that would disagree with you, but especially CPC supporters.

We know what the budget is. We know what we pay for defense. What we want to know is what the new kit costs, especially as compared to other kit we might buy. The ongoing operation costs we have to pay anyway aren't of much interest insofar as deciding what aircraft to buy.

[cybercoma]

The ongoing operation costs we have to pay anyway aren't of much interest insofar as deciding what aircraft to buy.

Standard accounting practices over the last several decades say you're wrong. The Treasury Board rules say you're wrong. The government's internal documentation say you're wrong. Life-cycle costing is standard procedure and it's the only way to make an informed decision about asset procurement. The asset is useless if you don't have a plan to sustain it over its life. The Canadian taxpayers have every right to know how much that's going to cost them.

And for that matter, we don't know what the budget is as you say. The budget can change and it needs to be approved by parliament each year.

Edited April 14, 2012 by cybercoma

[Signals.Cpl]

Standard accounting practices over the last several decades say you're wrong. The Treasury Board rules say you're wrong. The government's internal documentation say you're wrong. Life-cycle costing is standard procedure and it's the only way to make an informed decision about asset procurement. The asset is useless if you don't have a plan to sustain it over its life. The Canadian taxpayers have every right to know how much that's going to cost them.

And for that matter, we don't know what the budget is as you say. The budget can change and it needs to be approved by parliament each year.

So when is the last time this was used to select a replacement for the CF equipment? Was it used when the G-Waggons were chosen? What about when the LSVW's were selected? When the government gave out the contract for the MSVS, did they use this exact criteria?

It seems to me that the criteria being used here is just for political purposes and when it is convenient the opposition will forget about this criteria.

[jacee]

So when is the last time this was used to select a replacement for the CF equipment? Was it used when the G-Waggons were chosen? What about when the LSVW's were selected? When the government gave out the contract for the MSVS, did they use this exact criteria?

It seems to me that the criteria being used here is just for political purposes and when it is convenient the opposition will forget about this criteria.

I believe it's been established and repeated several times that Life 9ycle Costing became law in 2006.

Nobody disputes that Harper should have produced the numbers.

I'm not sure what people are still quibbling about really.

Seems an interest/obssession only of Con party strategist types who expect to get away with whatever the Libs did in the past - ie, before we threw them out of office.

Seems petty to me on both sides.

Canadians are entitled to be treated as intelligent enough to comprehend a breakdown of acquisition-maintenance-operations.

The point needed to be made.

Edited April 14, 2012 by jacee

[cybercoma]

I believe it's been established and repeated several times that Life 9ycle Costing became law in 2006.

Nobody disputes that Harper should have produced the numbers.

Not to mention that the "last time this was used" was with the F-35s. They just refused to release those numbers when asked.

[Signals.Cpl]

I believe it's been established and repeated several times that Life 9ycle Costing became law in 2006.

Nobody disputes that Harper should have produced the numbers.

I'm not sure what people are still quibbling about really.

Seems an interest/obssession only of Con party strategist types who expect to get away with whatever the Libs did in the past - ie, before we threw them out of office.

Seems petty to me on both sides.

Canadians are entitled to be treated as intelligent enough to comprehend a breakdown of acquisition-maintenance-operations.

The point needed to be made.

MSVS-2011

Shipbuilding strategy-2010

Chinooks -2009

Leopard 2-2007

JSS-2009

Arctic Patrol Ship Project-2007

All of this projects were approved after 2006.