Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Topaz

Does Canada need a defence procurement agency?

Recommended Posts

You do realize the two "super power" empires staged indirect proxy wars all over the globe against each other,right?

Good point - Look at some of the African nations where half the males and fathers are no longer in existance - Proxy wars waged by America and the former Soviet Union - Whether a war be cold or hot it still kills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Facts are facts, and in this case, neither of us have produced any. We don't have our own sets of facts. Your position is based on your opinions, nothing more, and nothing less, but don't pretend it comes from a place of cold hard facts.

Fair enough! However, perhaps you would be good enough not to accuse ME of having no reasoned opinion and being hypocritically emotional!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my view this nation has earned a place at the international table, and therefore we have nothing to prove to anyone. With that as the basis for a discussion on national defense, I will suggest that this nation not pursue avenues of aggressive natures in military terms. Our defensive strategy can be merely that, defensive. As a people we can tell our government to adopt a true non-aggressive position and incorporate into legislative terms a truly peaceful international presence. Until we at least determine what this nation actually wants, what is the point in theorizing about force compositions and strategic considerations?

Edited by Jerry J. Fortin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wild Bill... if we are to be entirely rational about domestic defense, how very foolish of us to have effectively disarmed ourselves through gun-owner harrassment laws.

Truth is that anyone inclined to kick sand in our national face is unlikely to be deterred by even the most deadly military force our pocketbooks can muster... so the function of our warmaking capacity is not defensive in nature.

I won't disagree with you about having disarmed ourselves, Molly. Not that I would want to see a Chicago-style gangster society with shootouts all the time. Then again, look at Jane & Finch in Toronto! However, giving up our own guns only is sensible if we can trust the authorities to do a better job of protecting us than we can by ourselves. In some of our larger cities, that has become something of a debate.

And no, our military capacity is not inherently defensive. We would never spend the money to do a credible job! Fortunately, we DO have Uncle Sam and we DO have oceans between us and today's beligerent nations.

The problem is that we have allies to support and responsibilities to peacekeeping. Much better to oust a Khaddafi or an Idi Amin when he is still small. If Hitler had been stopped at the Polish border millions of people would never have died. Isolationist politicies have consequences as well, the obvious being that countries that are far away and lack the resources to be a threat to us can carve out empires and change that situation.

The UN has no armies of its own. It depends on countries like Canada and others to supply soldiers and weapons. Many countries cheap out and let others bear an unfair share of the burden, like with Canada in Afghanistan. Maybe we should do the same. Who cares if an Afghani girl can't go to school? The answer is that if those who throw acid in her face are unopposed there may come a day when they are big enough to demand that we stop schooling OUR girls!

Unilateral pacifism has never, ever worked! It just gets a lot of innocent people hurt and killed. True, most countries have done some things they should not be proud about but SOME countries are FAR, FAR worse than others! One of my yardsticks has to do with tactics. For instance, Israel has hurt and killed Palestinian civilians mostly because of collateral damage. With Hamas, Israeli civilians ARE the targets! To me, that's more than enough to make up my mind where I stand. War is messy and sadly it can be impossible not to harm innocents but when you TARGET innocents then you are simply an animal and should be put down as if you were rabid, IMHO.

That's why I so strongly oppose the native protesters at places like Oka and Caledonia. I actually agree with most of their claims. I just totally lost respect for them when they used non-native neighbours as cannon fodder. They could've HUNG McGuinty for all I cared! Just don't attack the townsfolk.

No, a certain amount of military strength will ALWAYS be required by any nation that wants to be respected on the world stage and wants to protect its sovereignty. I simply feel that Canada is still far below that level.

If you're old enough to remember the Billy Jack movies in the hippy days then you should also remember that if Billy Jack hadn't have been such a tough SOB all the hippies would have been slaughtered!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that we have allies to support and responsibilities to peacekeeping.

I think the problem we have is that it's our allies who are the one's that are starting or provoking so much of the conflict. Why Canada would want to get involved is something that the public should be heavily weighing in on.

In addition to public reviews on who our allies are and why they're allies we should be putting our involvement in their fights to a referendum and requiring a super-majority before we so much as put a boot on the ground a ship in the water or a plane in the air.

The same goes for whoever we sell arms to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Avoid the word F**k - It makes you look like a kid.

I understand some people don't take to it much. Actually, I show a lot of restraint, as I would prefer to use it continually.

At any rate, your use of the word is not at all diluted by replacing two letters with asterisks. It's like the tv censor "beeps" in which the telling consonants remain audible, making the censoring itself a kind of cosmetic joke. So you've just used the word yourself, while you claim that I should not. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know a guy with a plate in his head who is - how shall we say - "slow" > He is always flattering who ever he meets - He was once accused of killing a child and found "not guilty" ---- My X-wife allows the guy to come in and wash her floors - walk her dog and generally be some sort of low grade replacement of me! I am told that he is a wonderful man...from what I see just because he has a few screws missing...and is classed as having some sort of mental disablity - that some how he is an angel...I believe that the jerk is a deviate and a con man...and only GOD and he know what really happened regarding the child murder.

Now that is a case of the mentally ill NOT being good people ....From my observations this little creep is a chronic and shifty liar. Having vented that - no way in hell am I going to respect anyone that is dishonest or has a possible horrific past...By the way for anyone of our members who assume because of my abstract writing style that I am crazy - let me assure you I am as sane and centred as you can get!

You don't think he's not a good person because he's mentally ill though. You think he's not a good person because he may have murdered a child.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I dont claim that. I dont know what our spending profile would look like if it was based on real cost benefit analysis and risk analysis. I dont claim to know all the answers I just have a personal preference on the manner in which decisions should be made. So when I hear emotional imagery invoked as the justification to spend a whole lot of money we dont even have, I get a little worried.

And I reject the underlying assertion that huge defecit funded military purchases are in his daughters best interests. Her biggest risk is actually being left with the massive bar tab after this generation drinks itself to death.

Had we kept that realistic spending profile all along , including during the decade of darkness, there would be no massive bar tab, but rather a more even tab that could be swallowed during the bad times and good times. All that being said this massive tab you talk about is to equip our forces to the size they are today...which is to small "my opinion" The equipment that is going to be replaced is rusting out, well over 25 years ...When would be a good time to replace it, after we get our defict down to what number ? how many years will that take ? So when talking about our military we should ask ourselfs this .....is this massive bar tab worth it just to maintain status quo, or should we consider another option, such as Having the US provide our security needs and lossing our sov, or contract it out to a private company, and risk lossing our identity....pick one they all come at a cost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had we kept that realistic spending profile all along , including during the decade of darkness, there would be no massive bar tab, but rather a more even tab that could be swallowed during the bad times and good times. All that being said this massive tab you talk about is to equip our forces to the size they are today...which is to small "my opinion" The equipment that is going to be replaced is rusting out, well over 25 years ...When would be a good time to replace it, after we get our defict down to what number ? how many years will that take ? So when talking about our military we should ask ourselfs this .....is this massive bar tab worth it just to maintain status quo, or should we consider another option, such as Having the US provide our security needs and lossing our sov, or contract it out to a private company, and risk lossing our identity....pick one they all come at a cost.

If we absolutely must demonstrate some sort of defensive posture before we can be taken seriously then I'd have to go with the nuclear deterrence option. I'm as loath as anyone to depend on the US for my protection and I'm even more loath to pretend it's actually been making the world a safer place for us or anyone else for that matter.

In any case the likeliest invasion route is from the south so who the hell are we fooling here anyway? $240 billion worth of conventional weapons over 25 years won't do squat to save us in that event. I bet 20% - 40% of the country would probably welcome our occupation by the US with open arms.

Edited by eyeball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand some people don't take to it much. Actually, I show a lot of restraint, as I would prefer to use it continually.

At any rate, your use of the word is not at all diluted by replacing two letters with asterisks. It's like the tv censor "beeps" in which the telling consonants remain audible, making the censoring itself a kind of cosmetic joke. So you've just used the word yourself, while you claim that I should not. :)

At least I am showing some respect and empowerment to those that might find the full word distracting or simply vulgar. As my dad used to say "there are others" You have to consider how the full word effects others - shock value is not a replacement for good communication...all I am saying is it is not a neccestiy - so why don't you stop and F**k off,,, l o nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Word of warning - The mods will dump you from the sight if you devalue it. This is supposed to be a serious place _ If Harper reads your post he will not read from Mapleleafweb. again - so don't ruin it for others that are attempting to make a constructive difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Tory government wants to spend $240 Billion, for the next 20 years, for military equipment and there's not anyone or oraganization held responsible for the handing of it. Right now, ministers of Industry, Defence and Public Safety are responsible but some think there should be one agency to do this, since all three may disagree at times. Canada generates 10Bil. in yearly sales, 50% which is exported. http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Report%2Bcalls%2Bdefence%2Bprocurement%2Bagency/5044046/story.html

tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca

Specific defence projects have project teams.

Usually tenders are put out in concert with the relevant federal industry associations in the private market.

The request for tenders thus can be pronounced by those who pay attention to government tenders. Assocations may then post those tenders to their membership for requests to be sent to the appropriate contacts designated by the government command chain on the project.

Public works however is the "workhorse" in my opinion of managing expenditures of government funds to projects. This while the treasury board and finance interact to insure the financial flow.

The CF usually itself puts out the requests for new equipment based on its own assessed needs. Called the "wish list".

The US has a seemingly more advanced system but they handle more projects and have more stringent requirements (in part perhaps because they build their own equipment). Canada has the tendency to import large parts.

An example is the CCV

http://www.forces.gc.ca/aete/closecombatvehicleccvproject-projetdesvehiculesdecombatrapprochevcr-eng.asp

You can also look to

http://www.forces.gc.ca/aete/home-accueil-eng.asp

About PWGSC

Public Works and Government Services Canada's (PWGSC's) mandate is to be a common service agency for the Government of Canada's various departments, agencies and boards. With a strong focus on quality services and sound financial stewardship, we ensure optimum value by enabling other government departments and agencies to provide their programs and services to Canadians.

The Materiel Group is the single, central service provider and program authority for materiel for the Canadian Forces (CF) and the Department. ADM(Materiel) is accountable to the Deputy Minister (DM) for materiel's full life cycle - from acquisition, through maintenance and support, to disposal. This is accomplished by:

developing and managing the materiel acquisition and support business processes and systems for the CF and the Department;

contributing to the development of both capital acquisition support plans and National Procurement (NP) support plans (for maintenance) and managing the budgets of these two corporate accounts;

managing equipment projects;

maintaining overall design authority of CF equipment and systems and providing certain aspects of engineering and maintenance, repair and overhaul;

disposing of equipment; and

overseeing defence materiel relations with other departments, governments and international organizations.

---

The idea of a seperate agency seems to be merited; however, you then got to ask yourself who buys?

Why not just establish a parliamentary committee for aquisitions, secrecy is the only factor, but lets be real, we won't know anyway. As soon as you have structures you have requirements, the more structure the more paper the more paper the less secrecy, and it totally invalidates the process.

It really is a CF thing but the Federal civil side of things and parliament need to insure value for money.

This is why I advocate my "CF allowance" program that gives the CF initially 10 billion dollars to invest in military industrial complex and revenue gaining infrastructure and programs. Then scale that 10 billion back by 1 billion a year expecting the CF to generate atleast 1 billion / year in dividend on the 10 billion initial investment and the subsequent 50 billion or so over 15 years. This is scaled to a minimum of 3 billion / annum for "annuity" generating programs and infrastructure. This will free access to federal crownland and exemption from Royalty (or any other taxes or fees aside from environmental restrictions)

I think that due to the nature of perhaps only 1 in 10 members of parliament being former service members they just lack the defence knowledge as a voting block, those members though could form the majority of a committee on defence acquisition. That called on the CF.. but I think that the CF through other programs such as my right to work (total of 50 billion to remove unemployment of the willing that would be drawing government benefits anyway to productive work including, asset generation and military works programs (although as a secondary tier of the program) I'm not just talking about hard labour and resources, but everyone in the program would have their employable skills listed so even out of work programmers could be put to work developing code, people with other useful skills likewise. These programs existed previously in war time it is unfortunate that they weren't kept alive to eliminate unemployment of the willing.

The CF should be making their own stuff. The bloody IP liscenced use thing really trashes that though. I hate Intellectual Property (patents copyright etc.. restrictions). They limit advance and we don't have the time to make dollars and cents out of the immaterial.. but alas that is the world that we are held to. Part of the reason why all this stuff is bought from the US is because even when Canadian firms develop the stuff the US buys out those firms and moves the patent to their US mothership. It ends up being control of access to intellectual property and that is far worse than restriction to the material itself because you can't even advance the previous design and build your own technology without getting licensed by a foreign company to use it and that is detrimental when it comes to national security and defence.

Edited by William Ashley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca

Specific defence projects have project teams.

Usually tenders are put out in concert with the relevant federal industry associations in the private market.

The request for tenders thus can be pronounced by those who pay attention to government tenders. Assocations may then post those tenders to their membership for requests to be sent to the appropriate contacts designated by the government command chain on the system.

Public works however is the "workhorse" in my opinion of managing expenditures of government funds to projects. This while the treasury board and finance interact to insure the financial flow.

The CF usually itself puts out the requests for new equipment based on its own assessed needs.

Then take what you need and no more and get lost!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Derek L

If we absolutely must demonstrate some sort of defensive posture before we can be taken seriously then I'd have to go with the nuclear deterrence option. I'm as loath as anyone to depend on the US for my protection and I'm even more loath to pretend it's actually been making the world a safer place for us or anyone else for that matter.

In any case the likeliest invasion route is from the south so who the hell are we fooling here anyway? $240 billion worth of conventional weapons over 25 years won't do squat to save us in that event. I bet 20% - 40% of the country would probably welcome our occupation by the US with open arms.

To field a creditable, independent, nuclear deterrent (more so then the UK), just the initial out lay would be in the 200 billion dollar range…….that says nothing of the annual operating costs…..

As for a direct threat, a hostile nation wouldn’t need to invade Canada to inflict serious harm to our country……just mine our harbours and form a submarine blockade

Edited by Derek L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Derek L

In my view this nation has earned a place at the international table, and therefore we have nothing to prove to anyone. With that as the basis for a discussion on national defense, I will suggest that this nation not pursue avenues of aggressive natures in military terms. Our defensive strategy can be merely that, defensive. As a people we can tell our government to adopt a true non-aggressive position and incorporate into legislative terms a truly peaceful international presence. Until we at least determine what this nation actually wants, what is the point in theorizing about force compositions and strategic considerations?

How did we earn that seat at the grown-ups table?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Derek L

Had we kept that realistic spending profile all along , including during the decade of darkness, there would be no massive bar tab, but rather a more even tab that could be swallowed during the bad times and good times. All that being said this massive tab you talk about is to equip our forces to the size they are today...which is to small "my opinion" The equipment that is going to be replaced is rusting out, well over 25 years ...When would be a good time to replace it, after we get our defict down to what number ? how many years will that take ? So when talking about our military we should ask ourselfs this .....is this massive bar tab worth it just to maintain status quo, or should we consider another option, such as Having the US provide our security needs and lossing our sov, or contract it out to a private company, and risk lossing our identity....pick one they all come at a cost.

Those are some very good points……..both of which, I don’t feel the majority of Canadians would want to try and stomach…….Since the 60s (as I’m sure you can agree) till very recently, the “uniquely” Canadian approach to foreign + defence policy (and procurement) has been akin to that person in the car pool that never pays for gas and waits for one of the people to be sick to buy coffee……..

I have to laugh when some suggest Canada “gets back to it’s peacekeeping roots” and/or adopts a purely defensive strategy…….Peacekeeping today is a failed strategy, where as peacemaking is the name of the game, but as it’s been shown by coffins arriving in Trenton, one of which the general public doesn’t have the stomach for either…….As for becoming a neutral country, as has been shown by Sweden, it’s inherently expensive to go on your own (Case in point the Swedes moving closer to NATO/EU/UN), we’re better off carpooling with Norad and NATO………

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does Canada need a defence procurement agency?

No.

We actually don't need any new agencies. Any new civil servants, and any new gov't projects.

And sorry, I don't buy into the whole 'if we just spend money, we can save money' garbage that the gov't has been selling you guys for years. If you still believe that then you need help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for a direct threat, a hostile nation wouldn’t need to invade Canada to inflict serious harm to our country……just mine our harbours and form a submarine blockade

Really? So the mines and submarines in the harbours would stop all that air cargo and all those produce trucks from the US from coming up here? Or would they threaten the cod fishing industry?

Just trying to sort out what you are getting at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least I am showing some respect and empowerment to those that might find the full word distracting or simply vulgar. As my dad used to say "there are others" You have to consider how the full word effects others - shock value is not a replacement for good communication...all I am saying is it is not a neccestiy - so why don't you stop and F**k off

You think my using the word "fuck" in a sentence, not aimed at any poster here, is more offensive and "distracting" than your telling me, personally, to "F**k off"?

:) Are you serious?

Well then, to answer your request in a more civil manner, according to your interesting standards: I humbly request that you go perform a difficult and potentially dangerous sex act upon your own person.

Edited by bloodyminded

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? So the mines and submarines in the harbours would stop all that air cargo and all those produce trucks from the US from coming up here? Or would they threaten the cod fishing industry?

Just trying to sort out what you are getting at.

Mines wouldn't stop air cargo..but air cargo is a drop in the bucket compared to what exits montreal, halifax and vancouver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You think my using the word "fuck" in a sentence, not aimed at any poster here, is more offensive and "distracting" than your telling me, personally, to "F**k off"?

:) Are you serious?

Well then, to answer your request in a more civil manner, according to your interesting standards: I humbly request that you go perform a difficult and potentially dangerous sex act upon your own person.

No of course I am not serious - I was trying to be funny...I don't care if you curse...I was just giving you a pointer on how to be a more attractive writer. Your last bit is funny - real f**king funny.......lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple and lowly men are happy with a simple hobby - like maybe restoring an old car...or having a model train set....As you go up the food chain - the toys are more sophisticated...Like having your own REAL fighter jet! Ever look at Harper's face when he sits in a chopper at the controls - Or McKay's beaming eyes as he dawns a helmet moments before breaking the sound barrier?

They all had a BB gun as kids....now they have access to massive fire power ---------------why not - when you run a country and have access to billions in tax dollars - You can buy any toy you want!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No of course I am not serious - I was trying to be funny...I don't care if you curse...I was just giving you a pointer on how to be a more attractive writer.

Well, that's fucking awesome. I appreciate any good advice, from any well-meaning motherfucker around, on how to improve the attactiveness of my fuckin' writing...shit, I want it to be as attractive as a nice cunt, if I can manage it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that's fucking awesome. I appreciate any good advice, from any well-meaning motherfucker around, on how to improve the attactiveness of my fuckin' writing...shit, I want it to be as attractive as a nice cunt, if I can manage it!

Amusing - don't be to surprised when the mods arrive and give you a 30 day ban. Maybe you should go to another more fitting site?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amusing - don't be to surprised when the mods arrive and give you a 30 day ban. Maybe you should go to another more fitting site?

You're the only one of us two who is using profanity specifically directed at another poster.

If I were to get banned, not much I can do. As for going to another site: perhaps you might be more comfortable at Stormfront, where Jew-hating and homophobia are welcome.

You can bring that sleazy little coward Rue with you, if you like. He doesn't like Jews or gays much, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...