Military Spending Cuts

[Craig Read]

Yes Hugo, the fantasy world of the left wing Liberals.

-Gay Marriage is good, after all we are all queer in some way. Church - State separation ? Come on that is so pre-Post Modern.

-High taxation - where 48 % of your income disappears is good, since you are 'equalising' society, though the money tends to be abused and misused. Case in point, the average politician will collect over $2.5 million during his lifetime just in pensions !! Man is that sweet !!

-Unfunded liabilities: Run up the tab - it is off balance sheet [tee hee hee hee]. Hey, hold on, shouldn't the World Com and Enron execs go to jail for this ??? Hold on something is wrong here.....hmmm let's say off balance sheet good for gov't, bad for business, oh yes, now i get it.

-Military: Gee that is so atavistic. Love fests, Johnny Depp and Tim Robbins political sloganeeing and the Dixie Chicks are the way to go man. No force is needed when so many Muslims love you. Peace dude. By the way can you ask for your lobotomy on the way out ? Cool.

-Social systems; Health, energy, pensions, agricultural, business subsidies, job training, public real estate projects, telecoms, and so on. Great systems - efficient, modern, and tax friendly. No need for change here. Er, why is my telephone bill 5 x higher than it needs to be ???

Yes all is nice in Orwell's 1984

[Mike C.]

In the last couple of days in the news,Canada is in a very likely position of having our commercial airliners being hi jacked for the same purposes as 9/11.This is not really a time to cut defense spending.What is this liberal regime's

thinking process.And God forbid it does happen,does anyone think the liberals like chretien,manley,copps,mccallum et al will know what the hell just happened.Thier faces would have to be crimson red,if they are at least human.

[westcoast99]

How would our government respond if it did happen?

Edited August 11, 2015 by Gugsy

[FastNed]

Do you think, Gugsy, that he'll say that before or after he calls his son-in-law for the official position of ChIraq & France?

[Craig Read]

First he will ask the UNO if self defence is okay.

When the answer is negative, he will phone the President and make an appeal based on friendship.

He will be surprised when no one in Washington answers his calls.

The Gliberal party - national socialist hacks. If this was 1940 Martin and Chretien would be telling us that Hitler was reasonable and could be 'controlled' without violence.

[On Guard for Thee]

Maybe get caught up with the times, there are conservatives in power, for the last few years, with a so called leader called Harper. Check what he's done with the surplus Martin handed him! And the late breaking news is Harper has entered us into yet another government acquisition boondoggle with arctic patrol ships. All we can hope for is that we can escape bankruptcy until 2015 The cons have been in opposition a lot more than they have peen in power and that's why we are still afloat.

[Army Guy]

Maybe get caught up with the times, there are conservatives in power, for the last few years, with a so called leader called Harper. Check what he's done with the surplus Martin handed him! And the late breaking news is Harper has entered us into yet another government acquisition boondoggle with arctic patrol ships. All we can hope for is that we can escape bankruptcy until 2015 The cons have been in opposition a lot more than they have peen in power and that's why we are still afloat.

One of the very reasons why our military is in the condition it is today, our military along with many other depts paid a heavy price to assit in reducing spending to make that surplus a reality...

[Topaz]

The main problem with this Tory government is THEY don't know what they are doing! They gave up a BILLION back to the US lumber industry, they were advised not to sign the contract for new ships because the price is way over priced and yet they go and sign it anyway. Then Canadians hear they are concerned on jobs and cutting taxes which is a complete lie, which certain taxes are going up under this last budget. In my view, Canada needs new ships and some improvement in the Air Force, but we have to have people that KNOW how to get the best for the least, so it doesn't hurt the economy and drag us down. Another point, we could spend all kinds of money on the military but do we have the man/woman power to use this equipment??

[waldo]

One of the very reasons why our military is in the condition it is today, our military along with many other depts paid a heavy price to assit in reducing spending to make that surplus a reality...

as you should appreciate/recognize, given their magnitude and complexity, any military expenditures play out across successive government budgets... often governments of competing parties! That Chretien-Martin deficit wrangling you speak of also exists against the backdrop of a 2005 Chretien-Martin era budget that significantly accounts for the current military spending rise:

... a high-water mark for capital spending came (as those Public Accounts numbers suggest) when the Mulroney government was implementing a string of decisions made in the late stages of the Trudeau government to purchase jets, tanks and ships. “In the 1980s, we were buying CF-18s, we were buying Leopard tanks, we were buying new frigates,” he said, although he cautioned that trying to make exact comparison across eras with different ways of costing out procurements is tricky to say the least.

These days Conservatives are again presiding over an upward shift begun under the Liberals they ousted. The 2005 budget—the last of the Chrétien-Martin era—put defence spending on a track to rise steadily over five years to close to $6 billion above 2005 levels, or around $20 billion a year by 2010. In 2011, six years after that last Liberal budget and five after the Harper government won power, defence spending stood at around $21 billion.

.

.

... the major procurements the Conservatives have pushed forward on decisively—such as buying new Hercules tactical lift planes and Cyclone helicopters—were initiated by the Liberals. So far, he said, the Conservatives haven’t signed a contract for any major purchase beyond those planned by the previous government.

Big projects the Harper government could truly call its own, like the controversial F-35 fighter jets and new naval ships, have yet to be turned into signed contracts. Presumably most of those ambitious plans will proceed, although perhaps at a somewhat slower pace in an age of fiscal caution.

No reasonable observer would dispute that this is a period of renewal for the Canadian military, but it’s hardly one impervious to the pressures of budgetary restraint, and not one that eclipses the spending levels of the 1960s or the 1980s. That context matters. It suggests that what’s going on now is neither as extreme as critics of defence spending might argue, nor as remarkable as the government would have us believe.

[bleeding heart]

as you should appreciate/recognize, given their magnitude and complexity, any military expenditures play out across successive government budgets... often governments of competing parties! That Chretien-Martin deficit wrangling you speak of also exists against the backdrop of a 2005 Chretien-Martin era budget that significantly accounts for the current military spending rise:

But I thought Liberals hated the military......

[On Guard for Thee]

The main problem with this Tory government is THEY don't know what they are doing! They gave up a BILLION back to the US lumber industry, they were advised not to sign the contract for new ships because the price is way over priced and yet they go and sign it anyway. Then Canadians hear they are concerned on jobs and cutting taxes which is a complete lie, which certain taxes are going up under this last budget. In my view, Canada needs new ships and some improvement in the Air Force, but we have to have people that KNOW how to get the best for the least, so it doesn't hurt the economy and drag us down. Another point, we could spend all kinds of money on the military but do we have the man/woman power to use this equipment??

I would wholeheartedly agree with your points made here, especially your opening statement. They seem to indicate they don't know, or perhaps even care what they are doing. One point I have heard brought up often is that the current gov seems to want to hand the procurement choices directly to those who will use the equipment. They should of course have input but to put into context, would you let your teenage kid, having acquired a drivers license go out and pick his or hers first car? I'm sure they'd roll up in the driveway with a Caddy or a Vette, but how smart/costly would that be? They did this with regard to the F35, which appears to be a plane that does nothing well except cost money. Then on the other hand, with regard to these Arctic patrol ships, they did engage independent experts, who as you point out, came back with a warning that the contract was terribly inflated, and then discarded the info and signed the deal anyway. This is not the first time this patrol ship boondoggle has reared it's ugly head either. Harper was about to sign a 200 plus million dollar contract with Irving to design a ship, that was already designed, built, and floating with at least 3 different flags flying. The you know what hit the fan then and the gov backed away, now it seems to be front and center again. Makes you wonder what scandalous behind the scenes actions occurred that will surface even after we have made the "payoff"

[waldo]

But I thought Liberals hated the military......

dontja just hate it when historical budgetary review busts Conservative talking points!

[On Guard for Thee]

Canada is a very selective 'partner' of the US.

It free rides off of the US military and drug firms, and selectively promotes free trade with the US as long as domestic vote buying interests are not affected.

Ned you are right, there will be no Continental joint defence initiative.

And the result will be what ? Evenutally the US will tighten its borders with Canada - to stem future threats and current illegal immigration and abuse of the US market. At that point Canada will be caught - will it be willing to face reality and acknoweldge that its pathetic immigration policy, faineant border control system and lack of military muscle are the major factors in continuing friction with the US ?

Or will it fall back on Trudeauian/Chretienesque anti-American dogma and national socialist slander and posturing ?

A strong military is a sign of adult hood. It shows a willingness to play a real meaningful role in today's dangerous world. Canada has so far proven its adolescence.

If Canada's immigration policy is so pathetic, why did the Americans initially suggest that the 9-11 bombers came through Canada to get to the US, which of course turned out to be totally untrue and in fact they were trained to fly by US training facilities?

[Army Guy]

as you should appreciate/recognize, given their magnitude and complexity, any military expenditures play out across successive government budgets... often governments of competing parties! That Chretien-Martin deficit wrangling you speak of also exists against the backdrop of a 2005 Chretien-Martin era budget that significantly accounts for the current military spending rise:

Pierre Trudeau had little taste for the alliances and relationships he inherited in 1968. Canada had taken a lead role in creating the institutions of the postwar world, from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to the General Organization for Tariffs and Trade. Those institutions were intended in great part to contain the aggressive totalitarian regimes in the Soviet Union and China. In 1968, Canada remained a considerable military power and an important voice in the councils of the West.

Trudeau repudiated that inheritance. His spending spree did not include the military. He cut air and naval capabilities, pulled troops home from Europe, and embarked on morale-destroying reorganizations of the military services. In 1968, Canada was a serious second-tier non-nuclear military power, like Sweden or Israel. By 1984, Canada had lost its war-fighting capability: a loss made vivid when Canada had to opt out of ground combat operations in the first Gulf War of 1990-91.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/03/23/david-frum-the-disastrous-legacy-of-pierre-trudeau/

And yes Trudeau did announce and plan the purchases of F-18, new frigates, and tanks, which were left to carry over into the Mulroney years. but you fail to mention why he had to plan this new purchases, was it presure from NATO command or from the US had it not been for this presure can you say with all honesty this purchases would have been made. And these purchases do not off set the damage he did do to our military forces at the time.

The 2005 budget was an election budget, big promises that they had no intentions of keeping,they knew they were out the door, the proof is in the proof 1988 DND budget was 12.1 bil, 2004 it was 14.8 barely adjusted for inflation, not to mention we had entered Afghanistan which was eating up a major portion of the dept's budget. They had years to fix the military problem, and waited to their last budget to say maybe when need to address it....come on... you can't change history....No it took the Cons to find a solution and start the repair process....

Military expenditure (% of GDP) in Canada was 1.42 as of 2011. Its highest value over the past 23 years was 1.99 in 1988, while its lowest value was 1.14 in 2004.

http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/canada/military-expenditure

... the major procurements the Conservatives have pushed forward on decisively—such as buying new Hercules tactical lift planes and Cyclone helicopters—were initiated by the Liberals. So far, he said, the Conservatives haven’t signed a contract for any major purchase beyond those planned by the previous government.

The liberals were infromed by the military that the hercs were long over due for replacement, and you are correct the liberals had a plan for their replacement, but failed to launch on anything, if that is what we are counting now are plans then we also have to give the Cons credit for the many purchases that are on the books....more than any other government in the last 25 years or so....( it was not until 2006 that the cons ACP-T was announced and a contract signed and agreed upon in 2007 for new herc's. )

The Cyclone helos not even sure why you mentioned that purchase, because of it's failure and cost under the liberals, you would have done better just leaving that beast in the closet where it belongs...not a high piont for the liberals, or for that matter anyone else...

As for the Cons not signing any major purchase thats complete B>>>S>>>, perhaps we have already forgotten these

C-17 globe master, not only signed but delivered.

CH-47D Chinnook's Purchased for use in Afghan, resold at the end of our combat role

CH-47F Chinnook's contract signed and the first one's already in operation in Petawawa

M-777 155MM Arty guns contract signed and most delivered

TAP-V (tactical Armoured patrol vehs) contract signed and deliveries started

Leo IIA4 (used) tanks purchased , and modified in Canada deliveries started

Leo II based AEV, ARV contracts signed awaiting deliveries

Close area suppresion system (auto grenade launcher) signed , delivered.

Other small projects

Small arms replacement project,

Bison midlife update project., ongoing

LAV III midlife upgrade project , Ongoing

These are just the ones off the top of my head, i'm sure if you wanted to research it you could find plenty more...The main reason i piont this out is to show you your source is very bias and not very truthful.

No reasonable observer would dispute that this is a period of renewal for the Canadian military, but it’s hardly one impervious to the pressures of budgetary restraint, and not one that eclipses the spending levels of the 1960s or the 1980s. That context matters. It suggests that what’s going on now is neither as extreme as critics of defence spending might argue, nor as remarkable as the government would have us believe.

Perhaps i'm a unreasonable observer, and would hardly call it a period of renewal, when the forces is faced with the loss of core capablities which are nessicary for the defense of Canada and it's foreign policies. What your acticle fail to mention or account for is the price tag of these new CON projects such as the replace of fighter aircraft and new ships. Forgotten because it would blow thier ests and numbers out of the water, never in our history as any projects cost so much, i'd like to see those actual numbers added in to defence spending and plans just to see if it eclipses the spending levels of the 60's or 80's . But i don't think that would happen or your author of your source would not have a leg to stand on in regards to his story, which is what it is a liberal "feel good about ourselfs story" .

[Army Guy]

One point I have heard brought up often is that the current gov seems to want to hand the procurement choices directly to those who will use the equipment. They should of course have input but to put into context, would you let your teenage kid, having acquired a drivers license go out and pick his or hers first car? I'm sure they'd roll up in the driveway with a Caddy or a Vette, but how smart/costly would that be? They did this with regard to the F35, which appears to be a plane that does nothing well except cost money.

Then on the other hand, with regard to these Arctic patrol ships, they did engage independent experts, who as you point out, came back with a warning that the contract was terribly inflated, and then discarded the info and signed the deal anyway. This is not the first time this patrol ship boondoggle has reared it's ugly head either.

Your not familar with the current procurement policies are you. Other than creating a requirement it is PWSG that controls what is available to test, DND tests those products and it is the Government that makes the final choice, very rarely does the military get a final say on what they want. examples of this are the LSVW, built by western star in BC, Griffon helo from Bell Canada.

Kind of like sending your wife out to buy your power tools, rifles, or your next truck....How smart is that.....So there is a major difference between buying your sons first car , or buying something that men and women of the CF very lifes depend on, with that in mind why is it a bad chioce to let those very same men and women have a direct voice in what is purchased, it could in the long run save money...Military purchases should be free of all taxpayers and polictical interference. what both parties should be concerned with is how much is it going to cost period , not what product or how many or what political gain can come from it...but limited to how much funding is available....let the Military or end user pick out thier tools, if they are expensive then they buy fewer....Like we would do for our sons first car, here you go , heres 5000.00 buy what ever you want but thats all you get.

Lets also not forget that some purchases are not generated from DND, such as the AOP, DND does not need a AOP, and would if had the choice spend those funds else where, AOP was never on the Navies shoping list it was some dream a polictician had and pushed through...it was also a job creation venture, and to spark up our ship building industry. I'm sure if you had told the NAVY to purchase what ever they wanted.... ships built or designed in Canada would not be amoung them.... why because we suck at it...making warships anyways.

[waldo]

Perhaps i'm a unreasonable observer

yes, I agree in your observer assessment! You chose to highlight a Chretien-Martin deficit reduction... and a resulting (Harper Conservative squandered) surplus, as the basis for your evaluated state of today's Canadian military. The sourced article simply pointed out to you that it was Liberal government budgets that set in motion the significant historical military procurements associated with Conservative governments. My quote of that linked article focused on your focus; i.e., the 2005 Martin budget. And now... you want to take this back to Trudeau - that's fine, but your stated 'unreasonable observer' status is highlighted when you offer a back-handed acknowledgement to the most significant military procurements that Trudeau did initiate.

as for your listing of procurements, I expect one needs a reference guide to evaluate your measuring bar on "major versus small" projects. To me, the real measure of exactly what Harper Conservatives have done today, or rather 'not done' today, rests against the backdrop of so-called Arctic sovereignty - something Harper Conservatives give 'lip service' to... well, unless you really like Harper's yearly photo-op trip north! The glaring attention deficiency of Harper Conservatives is showcased when comparing the initiatives Russia has made and is moving towards! Today, "Russia has several search-and-rescue stations in the Arctic and is building ten more – each with its own ships and aircraft. Canada lacks a single port along the Northwest Passage in which a vessel could seek refuge in the event of mechanical problems or a serious storm. Russia has sixteen deep-water ports along its Arctic coastline."

I suggest that if you want to tout the military procurement position of Harper Conservatives you spend a few cycles on the state of search & rescue, the Coast Guard, Arctic sovereignty, etc. I would suggest that most Canadians would favour targeting military expenditures toward these types of avenues, as distinct from presumptive limited participation in foreign nation building pursuits... or from afar bombing exercises!

What your acticle fail to mention or account for is the price tag of these new CON projects such as the replace of fighter aircraft and new ships. Forgotten because it would blow thier ests and numbers out of the water, never in our history as any projects cost so much, i'd like to see those actual numbers added in to defence spending and plans just to see if it eclipses the spending levels of the 60's or 80's . But i don't think that would happen or your author of your source would not have a leg to stand on in regards to his story, which is what it is a liberal "feel good about ourselfs story" .

if I recall correctly, you've argued the unfairness in highlighting the full/complete costs of the Harper Conservative F-35 boondoggle! In any case, as the linked article highlighted, acknowledgement was made to both the F-35 and naval upgrade intentions... while also highlighting no actual contracts have been signed. Oh wait, do you count the 'on-again, off-again' F-35 contract that Harper/McKay couldn't make their minds up over?

.

[Argus]

But I thought Liberals hated the military......

They do. The only reason lthe Liberals were finally, after long long delays beginning to look into new purchases was simply that everything the military had was about to collapse from old age. There's only so long you can keep flying ancient jets and sending ancient ships out to sea, after all.

[Army Guy]

yes, I agree in your observer assessment! You chose to highlight a Chretien-Martin deficit reduction... and a resulting (Harper Conservative squandered) surplus, as the basis for your evaluated state of today's Canadian military. The sourced article simply pointed out to you that it was Liberal government budgets that set in motion the significant historical military procurements associated with Conservative governments. My quote of that linked article focused on your focus; i.e., the 2005 Martin budget. And now... you want to take this back to Trudeau - that's fine, but your stated 'unreasonable observer' status is highlighted when you offer a back-handed acknowledgement to the most significant military procurements that Trudeau did initiate.

Question ? Are you saying that this effort to reduce deficit is not one of the main causes of todays military state. Other than the 2005 Election Budget is there a Chretien / Martin budget that focused or provided the military with much needed equipment ? And it was not me that picked this budget out it was you that highlighted it with your source document. I just found it laughable because the Liberals knew they had serverly damaged the military in their efforts to control the deficit, and failed to either control that damage, or find another solution they also knew there was a good chance they were leaving office, so poof out comes a election budget where they could promise the world and not have to deliver anything.

As for the major purchases started within the liberal government of the time, the 3 made by Trudeau which is brought up by you and your source document, F-18's, frigs, and tanks, where started by trudeau because he was presured to do so by NATO, and the US, not because he wanted to throw the military a bone, during his spending spree.....but was basically forced to make that buy, once again it was your source that went back to Trudeau and his spending spree and it was not me giving credit to trudeau ,i did however piont out that these purchases were not of trudeau's making but rather he was forced to do so.

The other liberal generated purchase of helos again is a beast and a liberal failure , why you or your source wanted to bring that up is beyond me. so far this contract has proved a failure for both sides....that being said one could hardly call it liberal generated as Mr Chrietien cancelled the whole thing, the ball was picked up by the cons....

as for your listing of procurements, I expect one needs a reference guide to evaluate your measuring bar on "major versus small" projects. To me, the real measure of exactly what Harper Conservatives have done today, or rather 'not done' today, rests against the backdrop of so-called Arctic sovereignty - something Harper Conservatives give 'lip service' to... well, unless you really like Harper's yearly photo-op trip north! The glaring attention deficiency of Harper Conservatives is showcased when comparing the initiatives Russia has made and is moving towards! Today, "Russia has several search-and-rescue stations in the Arctic and is building ten more – each with its own ships and aircraft. Canada lacks a single port along the Northwest Passage in which a vessel could seek refuge in the event of mechanical problems or a serious storm. Russia has sixteen deep-water ports along its Arctic coastline."

I suggest that if you want to tout the military procurement position of Harper Conservatives you spend a few cycles on the state of search & rescue, the Coast Guard, Arctic sovereignty, etc. I would suggest that most Canadians would favour targeting military expenditures toward these types of avenues, as distinct from presumptive limited participation in foreign nation building pursuits... or from afar bombing exercises!

.

Question, are you suggesting that the purchase of 4 C-17, or 15 CH-47F, or TPAV are a minor purchase. if so where is the line drawn in the sand, how many bils need to be spent to hit the radar.... your source did say "not one single purchase had been made", it did not say big or small.

I disagree with you on this topic of artic sovereignty it is proably not the best time for the governments decision to keep up with the russians in the north and that funding could be spent on some of the basics. Again i think you would be hard pressed to find a NAVY guy that would say we need AOP before anything else. defending the artic would be compared to icing on the cake, right now we have not even got the cake made yet.

As for the Coast guard , i agree with you , here is a dept that has almost starved for funding, but it lacks the political will or punch to sell it's ideas, and as far as the Citizens of Canada are concerned , well i don't think the topic comes up...even though they are one of the depts that make up Canada's defense team.

Currently DND runs on the last White paper to be published, it clearly states that the goal and function of our military is to be prepare to defend Canada, and it's foreign interests, plus be able to contribute to our defensive agreements, such as NATO, NORAD, etc...you can't do that with out having a general purpose military that is equiped and trains for the worst case situation...if that is done correctly and maintained all these other tasks such as SAR, Assistance to coast Guard, Artic Sov, are a piece of cake....but they will never be the main show in town unless there is a new white paper that pionts us in that direction....

[Army Guy]

if I recall correctly, you've argued the unfairness in highlighting the full/complete costs of the Harper Conservative F-35 boondoggle! In any case, as the linked article highlighted, acknowledgement was made to both the F-35 and naval upgrade intentions... while also highlighting no actual contracts have been signed. Oh wait, do you count the 'on-again, off-again' F-35 contract that Harper/McKay couldn't make their minds up over?

.

I was and still find it unfair to have those costs counted twice.but as was told to me it is law and that was that, suck it up, this is the way we do bussiness now. and when those costs are eventually added in, that year will be the highest ever spent in Canada's history.

As for the highlighting that no contracts have been signed, according to your source that having a signed contract does not matter it was whom started the project....much like the martime helo's and hercs....the liberals did not have contracts signed either....well they did have a contract but then cancelled it...does that count ?

I will be the first to agree our procument sys sucks, all of it's processes and policies suck....and this needs to be fixed , it these problems that ham string any party in charge. And i have said repeatily the procument sys needs to be politically free of interference....it is this Hey we need to get re elected that prevents them from pulling the trigger...But hey next time you go to the car dealer and he say's that car you want it cost a 100k as we've costed it out for 35 years , what answer do you think your wife is going to give you when you ask her if you can buy it....but then again we've already had that discusion and i lost, it is law and that is just the way we do it now.

[waldo]

And it was not me that picked this budget out it was you that highlighted it with your source document. I just found it laughable because the Liberals knew they had severely damaged the military in their efforts to control the deficit, and failed to either control that damage, or find another solution they also knew there was a good chance they were leaving office, so poof out comes a election budget where they could promise the world and not have to deliver anything. [waldo: again, it was you that highlighted the Chretien-Martin era deficit reduction... the associated 2005 budget reference I quoted is a direct extension of/reflection on that deficit reduction undertaking. I sense a tone of your resentment to the overall thrust of the linked article... I interpret your own interpretation of the article being favourably biased towards the Liberal party. I don't read that/your inferred bias. The fundamental facts of the article remain, no matter how you wish to spin them; again, the Liberals set in motion the procurement/budgetary impetus of some of the most major military procurement... procurement that associates with Conservatives, procurement that Conservatives are given credit for initiating.

You speak of military procurement intentions within an election cycle budget as being nothing more than, 'undeliverable promises to the world'! Is it favourable for a party to run on a military procurement platform? Really? Sure... it might garner votes in particular target ridings where plants or bases exist (or might be built), but overall, I don't see the populace too accepting of wide-sweeping billion-dollar military expenditure promises! I'd suggest you need to rethink this point.]

As for the major purchases started within the liberal government of the time, the 3 made by Trudeau which is brought up by you and your source document, F-18's, frigs, and tanks, where started by Trudeau because he was pressured to do so by NATO, and the US, not because he wanted to throw the military a bone, during his spending spree.....but was basically forced to make that buy, once again it was your source that went back to Trudeau and his spending spree and it was not me giving credit to Trudeau ,i did however point out that these purchases were not of Trudeau making but rather he was forced to do so. [waldo: I didn't quote the Trudeau reference within the article... again, what I quoted was in direct response to your Chretien-Martin deficit reduction impact on military expenditures. You keep repeating a claim that 'Trudeau was pressured' into bringing forward the most significant military expenditures on record. Even if you could support that claim, the fact remains, they were initiated by a Liberal government. That's my key take-away from the linked article... which also highlights the military expenditure reductions of particular governments, including the most recent yearly billion dollar reductions initiated by Harper Conservatives. Uhhh... something about 'fighting a growing Harper Conservative deficit'!]

Question, are you suggesting that the purchase of 4 C-17, or 15 CH-47F, or TPAV are a minor purchase. if so where is the line drawn in the sand, how many bils need to be spent to hit the radar.... your source did say "not one single purchase had been made", it did not say big or small. [waldo: the source was secondary, not the article author... perhaps the source didn't interpret that, for example, $400 million per each of 4 C-17 transports is 'major'. Perhaps (the sources) 'relative' measuring when balanced against the multi-billion profile intentions like the naval upgrade or the CF-18 replacements.]

I disagree with you on this topic of artic sovereignty it is proably not the best time for the governments decision to keep up with the russians in the north and that funding could be spent on some of the basics. Again i think you would be hard pressed to find a NAVY guy that would say we need AOP before anything else. defending the artic would be compared to icing on the cake, right now we have not even got the cake made yet.[waldo: there's "keeping up with the Russians"... and then there's doing, quite literally, nothing - which is what Harper Conservatives are doing in terms of their much publicized focus on protecting Canada's claims to the Arctic. Yearly Harper photo-op trips to the north don't count!]

As for the Coast guard , i agree with you , here is a dept that has almost starved for funding, but it lacks the political will or punch to sell it's ideas, and as far as the Citizens of Canada are concerned , well i don't think the topic comes up...even though they are one of the depts that make up Canada's defense team.

Currently DND runs on the last White paper to be published, it clearly states that the goal and function of our military is to be prepare to defend Canada, and it's foreign interests, plus be able to contribute to our defensive agreements, such as NATO, NORAD, etc...you can't do that with out having a general purpose military that is equiped and trains for the worst case situation...if that is done correctly and maintained all these other tasks such as SAR, Assistance to coast Guard, Artic Sov, are a piece of cake....but they will never be the main show in town unless there is a new white paper that pionts us in that direction....[waldo: the last/current White paper is the Harper Conservatives 'Canada First Defence Strategy'... if you feel it deficient in 'direction setting', your own direction setting should have you focused on answering why Harper Conservatives haven't met your expectations. I personally can't fathom any financial expenditure scenario that could conceivably support your "anything and everything" expectations... something has to give - somewhere! What's also lacking is a perspective on just how much funding is directed towards the military. Not just the procurement focus... the everyday operational costs, across the board! If Joe-Canadian knew the actual yearly funding the military/DND receives, I suspect there would be an even greater public consternation than projected via media coverage of the profile procurement undertakings.]

[Army Guy]

[waldo: again, it was you that highlighted the Chretien-Martin era deficit reduction... the associated 2005 budget reference I quoted is a direct extension of/reflection on that deficit reduction undertaking. I sense a tone of your resentment to the overall thrust of the linked article... I interpret your own interpretation of the article being favourably biased towards the Liberal party. I don't read that/your inferred bias. The fundamental facts of the article remain, no matter how you wish to spin them; again, the Liberals set in motion the procurement/budgetary impetus of some of the most major military procurement... procurement that associates with Conservatives, procurement that Conservatives are given credit for initiating.

To put all this in perspective meaning the 2005 budget, one had to mention the entire decade of darkness, and the damage it had done, it is my opinion that the Liberals were throwing DND a bone, a face saving attempt if you will with the 2005 budget. Which would suggest that they knew they had damaged the military and this was a way to perhaps wrangle some of that vote back. I mean really what major purchases had they done during their regien of terror , the martime helo replacement, which was cancelled , i don't think this one should count for any side as it has been a huge black hole for all parties. the Hrec project, yes the concept was orginated with the liberals, but no contract had been signed until the cons got into power....

Yes i see the article showing bias towards the liberals. and Yes what the Liberal party did to the Military at that time has left a bad taste in my mouth, along with many soldiers from that era. I will agree with you that the Trudeau Liberals of that time did set in motion some of the largest procument projects ( F-18, Frigs, Tanks) and i know that the fighter replacement will go ahead eventually, what is not know is which aircraft will be chosen even if we choose the F-18E/F that one program will cost more than all 3 or the trudeau Liberals pirchases. again the ship building projects have yet to make major headlines compared to say the F-35 that is. I know that no contract has been signed todate, nor in the near future but anyway you slice it, it will be a cons idea....and that was not given credit in your source.

You speak of military procurement intentions within an election cycle budget as being nothing more than, 'undeliverable promises to the world'! Is it favourable for a party to run on a military procurement platform? Really? Sure... it might garner votes in particular target ridings where plants or bases exist (or might be built), but overall, I don't see the populace too accepting of wide-sweeping billion-dollar military expenditure promises! I'd suggest you need to rethink this point.]

I think most Canadians are aware that our military needs help, and those that want to help or would not mind if extra funding is given, is a gowing segment of our population. Deep down i think a majority of Canadians would want a military force, and would make that a priorty if our current military colasped, which is where we are heading now, in my opinion....so do i think people would vote for a party that was pro military with a pro military budget....yes i do...It seems to be working with the CON's not once but twice....

I

[On Guard for Thee]

Your not familar with the current procurement policies are you. Other than creating a requirement it is PWSG that controls what is available to test, DND tests those products and it is the Government that makes the final choice, very rarely does the military get a final say on what they want. examples of this are the LSVW, built by western star in BC, Griffon helo from Bell Canada.

Kind of like sending your wife out to buy your power tools, rifles, or your next truck....How smart is that.....So there is a major difference between buying your sons first car , or buying something that men and women of the CF very lifes depend on, with that in mind why is it a bad chioce to let those very same men and women have a direct voice in what is purchased, it could in the long run save money...Military purchases should be free of all taxpayers and polictical interference. what both parties should be concerned with is how much is it going to cost period , not what product or how many or what political gain can come from it...but limited to how much funding is available....let the Military or end user pick out thier tools, if they are expensive then they buy fewer....Like we would do for our sons first car, here you go , heres 5000.00 buy what ever you want but thats all you get.

Lets also not forget that some purchases are not generated from DND, such as the AOP, DND does not need a AOP, and would if had the choice spend those funds else where, AOP was never on the Navies shoping list it was some dream a polictician had and pushed through...it was also a job creation venture, and to spark up our ship building industry. I'm sure if you had told the NAVY to purchase what ever they wanted.... ships built or designed in Canada would not be amoung them.... why because we suck at it...making warships anyways.

Just have a quick review of the F35 debacle and many of your questions will be answered. The plane is crap and the price is skyrocketing and Harper continued to lie through his teeth about it. I certainly don't fault our military for wanting one. If it could do half of what it was originally touted to be able to do, I'd want one to. Although it is single engine, (and a problem laden one at that), and it doesn't seem to work well in cold weather. In Canada? Don't sound right to me somehow.

[dre]

Military purchases should be free of all taxpayers and polictical interference

Then get the money from somewhere else besides the taxpayer.

[Bonam]

Then get the money from somewhere else besides the taxpayer.

The taxpayers and their elected representatives should decide the total amount of military funding. What the military does with the funding should be left up to military generals, admirals, engineers, and acquisition specialists, so that they can make the best choices on equipment, rather than politicized choices.

[dre]

The taxpayers and their elected representatives should decide the total amount of military funding. What the military does with the funding should be left up to military generals, admirals, engineers, and acquisition specialists, so that they can make the best choices on equipment, rather than politicized choices.

Military generals dont even know what equipment they might need, until people and elected representitives decide what we want them to do.