Tag Archives: Canadian Forces

I am endorsing…

Since the editor of the site is the same as the publisher, I am given tremendous latitude in who I endorse around here.

In Saskatoon West where I live, I have a choice between:

  • Randy Donauer: Conservative
  • Lisa Abbott: Liberal
  • Sheri Benson: NDP

Of the three, the NDP were the only ones that knocked on my door.  A gaggle of Conservatives walked by my door, looked at the address, checked their database and kept walking.  Apparently they were not interested in either Wendy or my vote in this election.  I wasn’t even robo-called called by the Conservatives or the Liberals.  So yeah, thanks for the effort teams.

For me the decision comes down to the Liberals and the NDP, both parties are outside of my federal comfort levels.  I have serious problems with both of their platforms but nothing compared to the problems I had with the Conservative campaign. 

I also have been poorly served by Kelly Block’s office.  When I used to contact Carol Skelton’s office, I always got a personal follow up from Skelton, even when she was a minister.   The one time I contacted Kelly Block’s about a serious issue, I was sent Conservative Party talking points by an assistant. 

I have watched Randy Donauer as a city councillor and I was greatly disappointed in the change I saw from the time he announced his candidacy until now.  He was always a fiscal conservative which is needed but to see him pander that almost exclusively in council meetings was frustrating.  From the time that he announced his candidacy, I called on him to resign his seat on council (just as I did when Councillors Paulsen and Hill did when the ran for the Liberals) which is the same as other some other cities require.

As for the Conservative record. 

  • Bill C-51 when the United States has proven that local police will abuse powers.
  • Elimination of the Mandatory Long Form Census
  • Botched military procurement (which to be honest, isn’t all their fault)
  • Seeing military procurement as a job builder rather than equipping the Canadian Forces with the best gear possible.
  • The Mike Duffy debacle
  • The Pamela Wallin debacle
  • The decision to shut down the senate without making a serious effort at reforming it.
  • Lack of participation with the Premiers
  • Cutting funding to the Homelessness Partnering Program
  • The feud with the Supreme Court of Canada
  • The lack of desire to fix unsafe water conditions on Canadian reserves.
  • Muzzling of scientists then lying about it.

I grew up in a Conservative household.  I was part of PC Youth.  I still defend Grant Divine when push comes to shove but I can’t defend this record.  Part of me thinks that if another Conservative government had acted like this, Stephen Harper would start his own party… oh right, that is exactly what he did do.

I thought Lisa Abbott has run a great campaign.  So great that it may cause an unfavourable vote split between the Liberals and the NDP but that it the first past the post system.  She has run the best Liberal campaign I have ever seen in Saskatoon West since I moved here in 1984.   Her candidacy (and the Justin Trudeau campaign) have made Liberals relevant in Saskatoon West for the first time ever.  I can’t speak highly enough of how she carries herself in this campaign.

As for Sheri Benson, she has been working on issues that political parties ignored during this campaign.  Poverty and homelessness for years through the Saskatoon United Way.  She has brought different social agencies together (it’s like herding cats but harder) and brought focus to issues that few care about.  If Lisa Abbott has been helped by the Trudeau campaign, Benson has probably been hurt by the mediocre NDP campaign (the phrase “You NDP’d that up” for when you should win but don’t is now entering our lexicon).

If I lived in Saskatoon Grasswords, I would vote for Tracy Muggli and in Saskatoon University I’d vote for Cynthia Block.  Both are excellent candidates that deserve to be in Ottawa.

Living in Saskatoon West, I am going to endorse Sheri Benson.  She has shown the ability to move local issues that few cared about forward and that is what we will need in Ottawa.  In a minority government, all parties will need people who can bring people together.  Sheri will do that for the NDP. 

That being said, I have a tremendous amount of respect for Lisa Abbott for her campaign.  She would also make a great MP from what I have seen and if either one of them are unsuccessful, I hope they run again either provincially or federally.

Harper isolated on NATO defence spending

From Jeffrey Simpson

Mr. Harper’s isolation could be read indirectly into the reporting of last week’s phone call between him and U.S. President Barack Obama. Whereas the Canadian “readout,” or report, of the conversation made no mention of defence spending, the White House reported that “the President stressed the agreement on increased defence investment in all areas is a top priority at the NATO summit.”

A “top American priority” is always to cajole NATO allies into spending more on defence. That priority is certainly not Mr. Harper’s. He has developed an ambivalent and somewhat contradictory attitude toward the military, and it toward him. The Prime Minister and his advisers and the top military brass circle each warily, harbouring their respective reservations about each other.

To put matters aphoristically, Mr. Harper’s government likes the idea of the military more than it likes the military itself.

The idea of the military means history, monuments, medals, ceremonies, parades and repeated rhetorical praise. The military itself means buying equipment, deploying it, dealing with veterans and wrestling with a budget that always seems to go up unless the political masters get tough.

The military has produced some nice headlines to an image-obsessed government, notably from the Afghanistan mission, but it has also delivered headaches and bad headlines, especially over procurement. Delays and problems have beset such purchases as the new generation of fighter aircraft, maritime helicopters, search and rescue aircraft, ships and some smaller gear.

For this government (as for previous ones), the military seems always set on a permanent “ask,” but for the military, this government like previous ones, promises more than it delivers and takes on missions that stretch the military’s means of delivery.

Another day, another botched procurement for the Canadian government

Interest article in CBC that highlights the problems the Canadian Forces has with procurement and that is we don’t build enough naval vessels (or buy enough military hardware) to have the needed expertise to do it well (which even countries like the United States find complicated enough)

IMC’s report was overseen by its president, Tom Ward, a veteran of the industry who was in charge of building the Canadian Coast Guard icebreaker Henry Larsen. Ward declined to comment on his report or to say why it had so little impact. But shipbuilding experts say that the moribund state of the industry in Canada means that government officials know little about shipbuilding — so expert, third-party reviews of such massive contracts are essential.

“There’s no expertise in government,” said business professor Michael Whalen of Mount Saint Vincent University in Halifax.

“Who’s going to look at those issues and the proposals from the Irvings and their subcontractors? We don’t have anybody, because they haven’t worked in that area for 30 or 35 years. So we’re going to go out to third-party consultants who do have that kind of expertise and can advise us. Are we getting value for money? Are we getting the right ship for the money?”


How Harper has lost control of military procurement

Sobering read from the Toronto Star

Military procurements usually begin with the drawing up of a “statement of operational requirements,” which manufacturers then use to prepare bids. But more often than not, the generals and admirals have already made their decision and “fix the specs” to secure the equipment they want.

Defence officials decided the CF-18 replacements needed stealth technology, thus excluding all aircraft other than the F-35. They narrowed the field for the fixed-wing search and rescue project by specifying a minimum cabin length just 15 centimetres greater — and a cruising speed just 12 knots faster — than the Spanish-made EADS C-295. They set a minimum size for Canada’s maritime helicopter replacement that excluded the Sikorsky Seahawk, the workhorse of the U.S. navy’s rotary wing fleet.

Officials like to buy so-called “paper planes” that are only in the design phase, since this offers the possibility of having the very latest and flashiest kit. But there are risks involved with unbuilt, unproven designs. The F-35 design proved grossly optimistic, leading to long delays, much-increased costs, and less than expected performance. The U.S. Department of Defense has already downgraded its specifications for the plane.

In the case of the planned Sikorsky Cyclone helicopters chosen to replace the Sea Kings, the generals and admirals added new electronics and weapons systems onto the design after the procurement was approved and a contract signed. All the additional equipment proved too heavy for the engines, which meant that more powerful engines had to be designed and fitted, which in turn required a lengthy and expensive full re-engineering of the aircraft.

Defence officials secure approval for these “paper planes” by telling ministers that Canadian companies involved in the initial production of cutting-edge military equipment will reap significant rewards when other countries purchase the same equipment later. The problem is that new designs fail more often than they succeed, and other countries shy away from equipment that underperforms or is overly delayed. No country apart from Canada has selected the Cyclone. Sales of the F-35 are far below the projected level, diminishing any economic benefits and driving up the per-unit cost.

Officials also lowball costs, or fail to inform ministers about maintenance, infrastructure and other “life-cycle” expenses related to the purchase. For the F-35s, defence officials said the cost would be $9.7 billion. The parliamentary budget officer said $29.3 billion. The auditor general said $25.1 billion. When the government brought in the accounting firm KPMG to provide some clarity, it said $45.8 billion.

If the numbers were not so very large, the audacity of the officials might be funny.