Army Guy Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 NDP defence critic Dawn Black and Liberal defence critic Denis Coderre say the procurements should be put on hold until the government receives a report from the auditor general. The report is expected by the end of the year, around the same time that the Commons Defence committee will issue its own report on military procurement. These are the same people who claim they support the troops and they should get the equipment they need to do thier job's...So how is it that delaying contracts until the end of the year would be supporting our troops, at the same time getting the equipment they need to do the job....If this countries past leadership had replaced old rusted out equipment on a regular bassis our military would not require these huge purchased to be rushed. "It would probably be wise of the government to hold back on some of these major procurements until these reviews are completed," said Ms. Black. "They talk the talk about government accountability, so let's see them walk the walk." Yes lets talk about accountabilty shall we...from a liberal...give me a break... contracts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 Yes lets talk about accountabilty shall we...from a liberal...give me a break...contracts. I think that 40% of 17 billion of defence contracts without tender is a little on the 'iffy' side. Such criticism is certainly valid. Being members of the opposition they are doing thier job they are expected to do. The government can justify the contracts can't they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gc1765 Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 These are the same people who claim they support the troops and they should get the equipment they need to do thier job's...So how is it that delaying contracts until the end of the year would be supporting our troops, at the same time getting the equipment they need to do the job....If this countries past leadership had replaced old rusted out equipment on a regular bassis our military would not require these huge purchased to be rushed. From the same article: "Mr. Coderre said equipment actually needed for use in Afghanistan would not be affected by a moratorium." "He cited the example of the multibillion-dollar program to buy the Chinook helicopter, which won't be delivered until 2011 or 2012. Canada's Afghanistan mission ends in February 2009, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor has repeatedly said in the Commons." Anyways, if the Conservatives care so much about the troops, why did they give out 40% of the contracts without competition? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 I agree with Peter. I want the militaryt to have the tools they need, but too many mega contracts have slipped by without tender. Mind you, thank god it's not the Chretien's gov't handing out the pork.........but there's still times for the conservatives to learn how Chretien's team did it....and that's the worry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted June 12, 2007 Author Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 Peter: I think that 40% of 17 billion of defence contracts without tender is a little on the 'iffy' side. Such criticism is certainly valid. Being members of the opposition they are doing thier job they are expected to do. The government can justify the contracts can't they? I'm sure if most Canadians knew the true state of our militarys equipment, not just the age, because we do own alot different types of state of the art equipment, just very little of it. And not enough to meet our main focus of defence of the nation, sure we can deploy a battle group (2500 troops) to aAfgan but little else. One of the main problems we have now is we are to far behind in replacing equipment, and it's coming to a head, example the new herc's "the models we are flying today are the oldest in the world, no other country has flown the amount of hours we have on a single airframe." it cost more to maintain them than it will to replace them...with DND funds going else where, we will lose that capability unless we act now, because of the time frame needed to set up contracts, explore every brand out there, then wait years for our government to actually award a contract , then wait in que as they are built.. The normal start to finish time for most major contracts is 12 years or more...most of our equipment will not last that long...not only will we lose that capabilty to move troops and equipment in and out of operations, or within our own nation in regards to tactical airlift ,but we have already lost our ability to refuel our ships at sea, we have lost our destroyers , and command and control ships, we have almost zero sub capabilities, that6 is just the navy, and thats just the surface needs. our airforce is in need of new fighter aircraft, we've lost the capability to refuel them in the air, ...the only service that is half decent is the army, and it's needs list would fill a book... So it may look iffy to most Canadians , but to those serving it's a struggle just to maintain what we have...add to that the military knows what it wants, it spent years studing other equipment, drewling and dreaming of the day our government actually approved some cash to be spent...this new equipment has spent many years on the testing sites of dozens of militaries, it's proven in combat, it fits our needs, why go out and spend years retesting it only to come up with the same results. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted June 12, 2007 Author Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 "Mr. Coderre said equipment actually needed for use in Afghanistan would not be affected by a moratorium"He cited the example of the multibillion-dollar program to buy the Chinook helicopter, which won't be delivered until 2011 or 2012. Canada's Afghanistan mission ends in February 2009, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor has repeatedly said in the Commons."." Yes very true the vote to extend the Afgan mission beyond 2009 has not happen yet, but if these projects take 12 or more years to get off the ground why would you delay them. to get something cheaper, that has not been tested in combat or does not meet our needs, they know our capabilites and equipment status as well as the cons...i would agree with you whole hardily if there was a benefit to delaying and studing these projects but there is none... Anyways, if the Conservatives care so much about the troops, why did they give out 40% of the contracts without competition? Is this one of those questions you wish you could take back...our troops need this equipment to do thier jobs, it is proven equipment, it fits our requirements, and if we don't get it soon we will lose those capibilities the most important one it will save our soldiers lives...so why are we delaying again ? and why did the liberals not see this and atleast try and correct the problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 So it may look iffy to most Canadians , but to those serving it's a struggle just to maintain what we have...add to that the military knows what it wants, it spent years studing other equipment, drewling and dreaming of the day our government actually approved some cash to be spent...this new equipment has spent many years on the testing sites of dozens of militaries, it's proven in combat, it fits our needs, why go out and spend years retesting it only to come up with the same results. Sole sourcing has proven to be a costly option in most of the countries that practice it. I say spend the money but avoid the pitfalls of some of the problems that come from lack of competition in tendering. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 Is this one of those questions you wish you could take back...our troops need this equipment to do thier jobs, it is proven equipment, it fits our requirements, and if we don't get it soon we will lose those capibilities the most important one it will save our soldiers lives...so why are we delaying again ? and why did the liberals not see this and atleast try and correct the problem. Why is it that our allies are able to have competition in bidding but not Canada? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gc1765 Posted June 13, 2007 Report Share Posted June 13, 2007 Is this one of those questions you wish you could take back...our troops need this equipment to do thier jobs, it is proven equipment, it fits our requirements, and if we don't get it soon we will lose those capibilities the most important one it will save our soldiers lives...so why are we delaying again ? and why did the liberals not see this and atleast try and correct the problem. Of course the troops need the equipment, but does that mean the government should just give out contracts to whoever they want? Did the Conservatives not realize that the general public (as well as the opposition parties) might question such a move? If the Liberals were handing out these contracts, does anyone expect that the Conservatives would stand idly by? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Posit Posted June 13, 2007 Report Share Posted June 13, 2007 Bigger than Adscam.....its AfghaniScam! If the Conservatives are going to screw us, they have vowed to screw us BIG! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey Posted June 13, 2007 Report Share Posted June 13, 2007 Bigger than Adscam.....its AfghaniScam! If the Conservatives are going to screw us, they have vowed to screw us BIG! What most of the diehard Liberal lovers don't get, is that adscam was a deliberate fraud to steal our money and hand it to Liberal candidates in Quebec. "AfghaniScam" is stretching the rules to provide equipment to the military. No money is being stolen. Is it being spent reasonably? I trust that Sheila will figure it all out and let us know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Bluth Posted June 13, 2007 Report Share Posted June 13, 2007 Bigger than Adscam.....its AfghaniScam! If the Conservatives are going to screw us, they have vowed to screw us BIG! We *only* stole $1.14 Million! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gc1765 Posted June 13, 2007 Report Share Posted June 13, 2007 What most of the diehard Liberal lovers don't get, is that adscam was a deliberate fraud to steal our money and hand it to Liberal candidates in Quebec. "AfghaniScam" is stretching the rules to provide equipment to the military. No money is being stolen. What concerns me is this: "The report also slammed Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor for his work as a lobbyist for 28 firms, including five of the world's top 10 defence contractors, "almost all seeking government contracts during the period just prior to his appointment as defence minister." Link Who is getting these contracts? Anyone have this information? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey Posted June 13, 2007 Report Share Posted June 13, 2007 Who is getting these contracts? Anyone have this information? Sheila Fraser does, and if he's been found in a conflict of interest, she'll slam him as hard as she did to the Liberals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gc1765 Posted June 13, 2007 Report Share Posted June 13, 2007 Sheila Fraser does, and if he's been found in a conflict of interest, she'll slam him as hard as she did to the Liberals. I know you're right...I just can't wait that long, I want to know now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted June 13, 2007 Author Report Share Posted June 13, 2007 jdobbin: Sole sourcing has proven to be a costly option in most of the countries that practice it. I say spend the money but avoid the pitfalls of some of the problems that come from lack of competition in tendering. Why is it that our allies are able to have competition in bidding but not Canada? Like i've already said, DND has already been studying equipment from around the world, remember it has had over 15 years or more to study and test it, on top of all that this equipment has been tested in combat operations, and surpasses all our standards and requirements. Take a look at the C-17 globemaster purchase, it's only compition for that size of aircraft is russian built, in this case you get what you pay for and will not last as long, historically Canada hangs on to it's equipment well past it's useful life span. Another problem is most of the nations marked unfriendly or hostile nations also use this same model, a major problem on the battlefield. The only viable opition is to sole source it because it is only available thru one source. The leo IIA6, this Tank is one of the best on the market, The contract we have signed is for used LeoIIA4 which will be upgraded to A6 standard, making this one of our better buy's, cheaper than any other country could provide. hence why we sole sourced it. As for the liberal remarks "we don't need tanks" well i'll bet he's never been on a modern battlefield. The compitive process is not the end all by all either. remember our purchase of Search and rescue helo's, we purchased a brand new model, that was not combat tested, nor was all the bugs worked out, how many times in the news have we seen them parked on the ground, for cracks, etc etc...The LSVW truck made by western star another example of a compitive bid gone really bad, we could not have possiably purchased a worse veh, it had to be taken to a desert enviroment to pass our standards....so there are examples of good and bad purchases made using both processes. And if we had the time to do the compitive process i'm sure they would.. The compitive process has problems with it as well, DND does not ask for a specific type of veh, such as the C-130J but rather puts in a spec sheet, IE plane cargo, this big must ,go this fast,carry this wieght, able to land on rough airfield, corgo area must be this big etc etc...this sheet is handed to a bunch civilains who goes out into the market and assembles a bunch of examples... The military tests each one, while we test them the politicians have a crack at them, can it be made in Canada, can it be made in my district, what spin offs is there for my party...they eleminate alot of the example this way, not because they are better, or safer for our soldiers, because there is some sort of spin of for them...next is price, the cheapest bidder wins...And we all know you get what you pay for, DND smiles says thanks spends millions on upgrades, and modifications to make it all suit our needs. Our purchasing process needs to be upgraded, with the exception of strategic wpns, or capabilities, the military should be able to spend thier funds on the equipment the need, as they need it, cutting out half the red tape, that has pushed the purchase of new equipment to 12 or more years, try and think how stupid it would be to purchase your next family car with a 12 year lead time, alot of things change in 12 years. The contracts that have been sole source have been signed by Boeing aircract ind for the C-17, and the CH-47F helos, the other went to lockheed for the Herc tac transport aircraft. The other sole source contract was for the LeoIIA4 tanks and it was signed with the Dutch government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
normanchateau Posted June 13, 2007 Report Share Posted June 13, 2007 "It would probably be wise of the government to hold back on some of these major procurements until these reviews are completed," said Ms. Black. "They talk the talk about government accountability, so let's see them walk the walk." Yes lets talk about accountabilty shall we...from a liberal...give me a break... Actually Ms. Black is a NDP MP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.