Liberals party defence review

[overthere]

I'm not the one playing word games..........as cited, and quoted by you, that is this Government......removing funding from the military prior to the the findings of their own defense review............such predetermined outcomes give little credence to the merits of said review........a one year freeze, until the review was completed, might have made sense..........but punting into early next decade......that is clearly a cut.

No No NO. It isn't a cut. It's reprofiling. Remember that word,: reprofiling. It is brand new. I keep thinking we are in an Orwellian time machine where yes means no, and this is Chretien speaking instead of Trudeau Jr.

[waldo]

Are you suggesting said defense review doesn't encompass conversations on funding levels for the military?

answer your own question... where does your partisan inspired word play fixation fit within the provided public consultation questions/criteria?

-Are there any threats to Canada’s security that are not being addressed adequately?

-What roles should the Canadian Armed Forces play domestically, including in support of civilian authorities?

-How should Canada-United States cooperation on defence of North America evolve in the coming years?

-What form should the CAF contribution to peace support operations take? Is there a role for the CAF in helping to prevent conflict before it occurs?

-Should the size, structure, and composition for the Canadian Armed Forces change from what they are today?

-How can DND and the CAF improve the way they support the health and wellness of military members? In what areas should more be done?

-Should Canada strive to maintain military capability across the full spectrum of operations? Are there specific niche areas of capability in which Canada should specialize?

-What type of investments should Canada make in space, cyber, and unmanned systems? To what extent should Canada strive to keep pace and be interoperable with key allies in these domains?

-What additional measures could the DND undertake, along with partner departments, to improve defence procurement?

-What resources will the CAF require to meet Canada’s defence needs?

.

[waldo]

... instead of Trudeau Jr.

you're most aware that this improper use of the generational suffix is no longer allowed within MLW posts... this is the second recent days occurrence where I've noted you continuing to use this improper labeling/designation (you also did so in a recent status update)

.

[Derek 2.0]

No No NO. It isn't a cut. It's reprofiling. Remember that word,: reprofiling. It is brand new. I keep thinking we are in an Orwellian time machine where yes means no, and this is Chretien speaking instead of Trudeau Jr.

You're wrong, its now, as cited by Waldo, money held in "reserve"........

[Derek 2.0]

answer your own question... where does your partisan inspired word play fixation fit within the provided public consultation questions/criteria?

.

Excellent, thanks for the confirmation........to add further as found on page 24 in the review itself and the related question ( bottom of Page 25 of the review) for said section:

What resources will the CAF require to meet Canada’s defence needs?

Clearly, this Government, despite being in only the early stages of said review, feels the DND warrants over $3 billion dollars in cuts from currently ongoing programs, in some case, programs started by the previous Liberal Government and continued by the Tories....

............Absent the review, what does this Government base its decision to cut funding from the DND on? As you've pointed out numerous times, this Government has only been in power for ~6 months........they felt the need to conduct this review, why not see it through? Why the need to cut funding from ongoing DND programs, programs that for the most part (absent the Hornet replacements) have drawn little negative attention and only now has it been suggested they are facing delays?

What delays are the Cyclone now facing? Or the upgrades to the Halifax class? Or the new personal gear for the army (I would think a Government intent on sending troops to Iraq and even Peacekeeping would maintain basic life saving gear for the army)........What of FWSAR? Are the reports true that the Trudeau Liberals are now looking to privatize SAR in Canada?

There appears to be bookoo movement on a file the Liberals said they were going to review first............hence my point from the start of this thread, said review is nothing but theater......

Edited April 29, 2016 by Derek 2.0

[Smallc]

Did you hear me complain?

I complained the first time, but the next two times I understood why - DND is incapable of spending the money.

[waldo]

Excellent, thanks for the confirmation........

There appears to be bookoo movement on a file the Liberals said they were going to review first............hence my point from the start of this thread, said review is nothing but theater......

no - what is confirmed is your word-salad play is thread drift... is off-topic... has no relation to that particular public consultation question, "What resources will the CAF require to meet Canada’s defence needs?" You're absolutely not addressing need or requirements to that end. You know... need... as in what the review will help define!

most pointedly you took the personal liberty to declare an appropriate time frame for both the review to complete and any related delay in procurement/deployment to follow... I believe you blustered forward with an acceptance of 'a year or so' time frame being adequate. You simply chose an arbitrary time... cause you can! And then, you apply your sweeping broadbrush to any/all manner of shifted/delayed funding while at the same time nattering on insisting in falsely using the word "cuts" in regards that shifted/delayed funding... cause you can!

.

[bush_cheney2004]

"The defence review is an opportunity for Canada to take another giant stride, the greatest since the defeat of the Quebec separatists and the successful Mulroney-Chrétien-Martin assault on the federal budget deficit, to gain Canada the status it has otherwise earned as one of the world’s important powers."

...and other delusional thoughts from Conrad Black:

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/conrad-black-canadas-planned-defence-review-is-an-opportunity-for-our-nation-to-take-a-giant-stride

[waldo]

...and other delusional thoughts from Conrad Black:

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/conrad-black-canadas-planned-defence-review-is-an-opportunity-for-our-nation-to-take-a-giant-stride

hey now! Good on ya... but that's a real quandary to have the staunch conservative Baron Black of Crossharbour so chastise the former Harper Conservative government while coming out so forcefully for the Liberal Defence Review!

.

[Argus]

I complained the first time, but the next two times I understood why - DND is incapable of spending the money.

Is it? Or were they told not to? And if they're 'incapable' maybe the byzantine purchasing process over there needs to be remade.

[overthere]

You're wrong, its now, as cited by Waldo, money held in "reserve"........

It cannot be a reserve, we don't have any money or we would not be borrowing at a $30 billion per annum clip.

Maybe it is 'reprofiled for future social infrastructure investment' or 'pretend money', since we are pretending that this govt has not set defence far, far down the priority list. I kind of favour 'pretend money', which will soon enough be how Canadian currency is described once our economy takes an actual dip caused by what passes for fiscal policy and catches the attention of rating agencies and currency traders.

[Derek 2.0]

no - what is confirmed is your word-salad play is thread drift... is off-topic... has no relation to that particular public consultation question, "What resources will the CAF require to meet Canada’s defence needs?" You're absolutely not addressing need or requirements to that end. You know... need... as in what the review will help define!

.

Are you stating the cited Liberal Defense review doesn't encompass defense funding? As said, its cited clearly from the document.

most pointedly you took the personal liberty to declare an appropriate time frame for both the review to complete and any related delay in procurement/deployment to follow... I believe you blustered forward with an acceptance of 'a year or so' time frame being adequate. You simply chose an arbitrary time... cause you can! And then, you apply your sweeping broadbrush to any/all manner of shifted/delayed funding while at the same time nattering on insisting in falsely using the word "cuts" in regards that shifted/delayed funding... cause you can!

I didn't take any "liberty", the Liberals themselves have stated said review should be completed by early next year.... in time for the next budget..........so why are the Trudeau Liberals making cuts in this years budget that will impact programs into the 2020s (if not longer)?

Waldo, I'd advise you pull up your socks and sharpen your pencil.......you're embarrassing yourself

Edited April 29, 2016 by Derek 2.0

[Derek 2.0]

It cannot be a reserve, we don't have any money or we would not be borrowing at a $30 billion per annum clip.

Sure it can, if the current moniker slithers into a different direction after the "review" is complete, the Trudeau Liberals will simply zig-zag into another meme on subject of the future of the Canadian Armed Forces.........because its 2016

[Argus]

Australia is facing the same problem as Canada in its urgent need for supply ships for the navy. Unlike Canada, it's actually doing something about it. But then Australia actually cares about its military and defense.

Australia’s government is facing criticism for its decision to have two supply ships built in Spain, instead of in an Australian shipyard. But Defence Minister Marise Payne said the two supply ships were urgently needed – that was the main reason behind the decision to award the contract to the Spanish shipbuilder Navantia. The two ships will be delivered 12-24 months earlier – and at a much cheaper cost – than if the vessels were built in Australia. The Spanish yard will deliver the first vessel in 2019.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/australia-decides-to-have-its-supply-ships-built-overseas-vessels-needed-urgently-says-government

[waldo]

Are you stating the cited Liberal Defense review doesn't encompass defense funding? As said, its cited clearly from the document.

I didn't take any "liberty", the Liberals themselves have stated said review should be completed by early next year.... in time for the next budget..........so why are the Trudeau Liberals making cuts in this years budget that will impact programs into the 2020s (if not longer)?

Waldo, I'd advise you pull up your socks and sharpen your pencil.......you're embarrassing yourself

again, you're thread drifting... you're attempting to speak to funds prior to identifying/confirming needs/requirements. You're drifting. Your liberty presumes that one-year (for simply the review) will set the budget requirements and related practical extensions for the next 10 years. And your continuing insistence in using the word "cuts" instead of "defer/delay" is simply you being you. I suggest you get some socks and a pencil, hey!

.

[Smallc]

Australia is facing the same problem as Canada in its urgent need for supply ships for the navy. Unlike Canada, it's actually doing something about it. But then Australia actually cares about its military and defense.

Australia’s government is facing criticism for its decision to have two supply ships built in Spain, instead of in an Australian shipyard. [/size]But Defence Minister Marise Payne said the two supply ships were urgently needed – that was the main reason behind the decision to award the contract to the Spanish shipbuilder Navantia. The two ships will be delivered 12-24 months earlier – and at a much cheaper cost – than if the vessels were built in Australia. The Spanish yard will deliver the first vessel in 2019.[/size]

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/australia-decides-to-have-its-supply-ships-built-overseas-vessels-needed-urgently-says-government[/size]

And now that money has left Australia forever, as has the associated skill. What Canada needs is more money in its program. I used to agree with you that offshoring was the answer. When you see the cost in economic opportunity loss, it's no longer a bargain.

[Smallc]

Also, we'll have a supply ship in the same time frame, thanks to Harper:

http://projectresolve.ca/

[Derek 2.0]

again, you're thread drifting... you're attempting to speak to funds prior to identifying/confirming needs/requirements. You're drifting. Your liberty presumes that one-year (for simply the review) will set the budget requirements and related practical extensions for the next 10 years. And your continuing insistence in using the word "cuts" instead of "defer/delay" is simply you being you. I suggest you get some socks and a pencil, hey!

.

It's not the slightest bit of drift.......as cited chapter and verse from the actual review, said review will also cover the topic of funding.........also, as it stands, prior to the review being completed (~next year), the Liberals have seen fit to cut funding, with a promise to restore sometime in the future, billions of dollars earmarked for DND.

[Argus]

And now that money has left Australia forever, as has the associated skill. What Canada needs is more money in its program. I used to agree with you that offshoring was the answer. When you see the cost in economic opportunity loss, it's no longer a bargain.

It's called trade. Should we buy everything here even if we can buy it from a foreign supplier for half the cost? Would you pay $2000 for your smartphone to have it made in Canada? We buy things from foreign countries which can make them cheaper and more efficiently and then trade what we can produce cheaper and more efficiently. That's how the system works.

[Bonam]

It's called trade. Should we buy everything here even if we can buy it from a foreign supplier for half the cost? Would you pay $2000 for your smartphone to have it made in Canada? We buy things from foreign countries which can make them cheaper and more efficiently and then trade what we can produce cheaper and more efficiently. That's how the system works.

I think the question for some Western countries may come down to: "Can we make anything cheaper and more efficiently?" If the answer is no, what then? Or if the answer is yes, but the things we can make cheaper and more efficiently only constitute a very small industry that is not enough to provide wealth and employment for the nation, what then?

[Argus]

Also, we'll have a supply ship in the same time frame, thanks to Harper:

http://projectresolve.ca/

Same time frame? They started two years ago. And they're not building ships, they're refurbishing a civilian cargo vessel.

[Smallc]

Same time frame? They started two years ago. And they're not building ships, they're refurbishing a civilian cargo vessel.

The refurbished cargo vessel will serve the roll until both of the dedicated platforms are ready. It's something that Australia iself has done with an oil hauler.

[Smallc]

It's called trade. Should we buy everything here even if we can buy it from a foreign supplier for half the cost? Would you pay $2000 for your smartphone to have it made in Canada? We buy things from foreign countries which can make them cheaper and more efficiently and then trade what we can produce cheaper and more efficiently. That's how the system works.

That's not how it works for strategic industries like shipbuilding. Canadian companies actually do build ships for ourselves and others. The government is finally a partner at that table making it more possible.

[Big Guy]

The liberal is asking for the publics opinion on their new defence review.....thought it might create some interesting discussions. Have a look it is a survey, with plenty of room to voice any opinion. takes about 10 mins to fill out, plus there is a discussion forum , but still have not been able to see the forum or other comments. but that should be interesting.

http://dgpaapp.forces.gc.ca/en/defence-policy-review/index.asp?utm_campaign=dnd-defencereview&utm_medium=vanity-url&utm_source=canada-ca_defence-consultations

be interested in what you think, and any questions you want to discuss here.

Thanks for the link. I took you advice and completed the questionnaire. I also intend to attend personally when there is an opportunity in our area. I think that should be far more effective then commenting anonymously on this board.

[Army Guy]

It is only strategic when there is a navy contract every 30 years, then it's reduced to building what again.....ships, more like little boats.....why is that because it is to damn expensive to buy Canadian made ships.....