Job cuts loom over Defence Department - Macleans.ca
 

Job cuts loom over Defence Department

2,100 jobs to disappear over the next three years


 

A total of 2,100 jobs will be cut from the Department of Defence over the next three years, according to reports circulating Thursday. The cuts come as a part of the broader scaling back of the public service expected the Conservative majority government has promised. Last week, Conservative MP Julian Fantino was appointed associate minister in charge of procurement, putting him in charge of a budget that is between 14 and 16 per cent of the department’s $22-billion total budget.

The Globe and Mail


 
Filed under:

Job cuts loom over Defence Department

  1. I patiently await the angered comments of those who supported the CPC because of how they were going to be the only ones to support our military.

    Not holding my breath, mind you, as I expect most of them are no longer paying attention. After all, the election is over, and who wants to deal with facts?

    • I supported the CPC. I also support the military. Did you read the complete article ? No talk of cutting military personnel, just the bureaucray. Anyone who served knows about the bureaucray.

       John McCallum – the former Liberal defence minister – criticized DND headquarters in Ottawa as “super bloated and getting more and more bloated every year.”

      That, from a Liberal. Do I sound angry ? Sorry to disapoint you.

      • Hint: The bureaucracy is made of people.

      • My service doesn’t mean that I know what went on in the bureaucracy and the fact that you think yours does amazes me.
        It was my experience that those who complained most about having to follow bureaucratic guidelines did so because they had something to hide; or thought that they were too good to have to follow the rules that were meant for the mere mortals.
        Yup sounds like a Harper supporter.

  2. to Thwim: There never was a doubt that their would be shrinkage in DND after we left the combat role in Afghanistan (and  none to soon for my money). And compared to the Liberals and the NDP, they ARE the only ones with a realistic view of Defence requirements. the Liberals did the best they could (Chretien) to starve the forces. The NDP would have eliminated them.

    • Good to see that cons suffer from the same debilitating effects of cognitive dissonance as everyone else.  The Chretien/Martin libs had a little debt problem of their own in the 90s – some of it inherited from an earlier con govt.[ who did a bit of defence cutting of their own]
      CPC reinvestment in the military would have largely happened in any case, since it was already in the Martin pipeline.
      As to a realistic view of defence requirements: have you not been following some of the figures and estimates for the f35 programme coming out or various US sources; some of which are credible?[ GAO] Increasingly these sources make the CPC and DoD estimates to be pure fantasy. Indeed, failure to provide full and credible information to Parliament played a roll in bringing about a CV in the house; one which the govt lost.

    • Gotta agree with kcm, cognitive dissonance is in play here.
      Penny wise, dollar foolish. 30 billion on a flying white elephant that every other country involved has spotted, while moving the costs for these folk into another budget account that doesn’t fall under the category of expenditure.

      • Not so sure about that. After all, the Libs started the F35 process so it is not exclusively a Con game. And a lot opf the heat comes from politicians who don’t know what they are talking about both here and in the US.

           I hardly think the f-35 is a white elephant. The troubles are with the Marine version  (VTO). Whatever our future military activities activities in this area it is incontestable  that we must have air supremacy for the sake of the sailors and the boots on the ground.  Sounds like a lot of money but we are talking about an airplane which will have a life of 20 plus ears, possibly in different future versions;  There is already talk in the  robotical world that the F-35 could be flown in many of its roles remotely.

        As far as  dissonance is concerned, there is always lots of fat in the civilian arms of the civil service. Even when I was there (25 years RCAF) we were able to get rid of 65 positions that were straight featherbedding by the navy in one centre.

        As far as the NDPs opinion that we should get back to the peace keeping role, anyone who has been there knows that peacekeeping is phoney. As soon a one party  wants you out (example when teh Egyptians wanted the decks cleared to attack Israel with iother Arab countries we had to remove our presence. There are other examples. The game is peace-making now.

        • Air supremacy vs. what, I might ask? 

          Any country that has the ability to attack us by air will not be deterred by 65 planes, no matter what variety they are. Hell, they probably wouldn’t even be slowed down.

          Any country that doesn’t have the ability to attack us by air will be attacking us by stealth — duffel-bag nukes and the like. Air supremacy means somewhere between jack and squat for that.  

          So the only reason to have air supremacy is if we want to project our force outward. I tend to think that most Canadians don’t envision this as part of their armed forces.

          Also given that the situations our troops will be getting into these days will tend toward more urban and guerrilla combat, rather than open field warfare, we’d be far better served by drones, as they not only can stay with our troops in tighter situations, but can remain in close proximity for extended periods, and with the right tech, can even be launched by the forces on the ground as they need them.

          • You are another of those re-fighting the next debacle what is going on currently with today’s tactics. We cannot foresee exactly where and how our forces will be engaged in the future. Sure there will likely be drones and robotics generally has been somewhat successful in Afghanistan. And the enemy there has been just as effective in finding ways to counter them.  As I said, the F-35 itself is a likely candidate for remote control.
            In case you haven’t notice, we activate our defence in cooperation with our allies – NATO and NORAD so our forces are effective by being complementary to them, whereever the fighting might be.

            Anyway, the issue is how big a budget cut can our forces take and still be effective. In the past Liberal days that was effected by starving the forces for equipment. It will likely be done by axing civilian employees this time around.

          • Also, the only reason drones are effective in Iraq and Afghanistan is that the fact that the NATO forces (Afghanistan) own the air, as does the USAF/USN/Marines in Iraq.

            I don’t know who tomorrow’s enemy might be but it won’t necessarily be an insurgency type operation as in Afghanistan.
            China is a long-term competitor rising rapidly.

            As for duffel bag nukes, we must alwys be on guard for any weak point. But don’t turn your back on the possibility of defence action against all possibilities.

          • You missed the point.

            If China attacks, 65 planes is not going to make a difference.

            If Russia attacks, 65 planes is not going to make a difference.

            If the U.S.A attacks, 65 planes will definitely not make a difference.

            This is what I was getting at. Against anybody who has the ability to strike at us via air, the number of planes we are getting will do nothing to stop them. Against anybody who doesn’t, they’ll attack by other means. There is no defensive reason for purchasing only 65 planes. Their only use is offensive, bombing the crap out of another country somewhere.

            And if we’re going offensive, then once again, 65 planes really isn’t going to make that much difference in comparison to the hardware capability that the nations we will be fighting with will be bringing to the table.

            So instead of being the half-ass country, let’s specialize in something which the other countries aren’t. They’ve got air superiority locked up, at best, we’re tag-a-longs. Instead, concentrate the money on things we do well.

  3. If the DND is anything like healthcare in this country there are many levels of administration where cuts could take place without actually affecting the frontline and in someways streamlining processes to make things run more efficiently.  If they offer early retirement, they might be able to get rid of a lot of dead wood without resorting to layoffs.