Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[QV]

I don't recall where I saw it, probably on X... it was a GoC web page screen shot depicting a long list of funded foreign initiatives such as; $5M for studying climate impacts on women entrepreneurs in Nigeria (I know I didn't get that exactly right but it was a boat load of line items of that nature).

I think a Canadian DOGE entity would start with bringing these sorts of things to public attention and identifying how much could be saved with cutting those kinds of initiatives that, I guess, a majority of Canadians would consider a complete waste of time and money.

 

[ytz]

We need our own version of DOGE in this country.

How do you think we ended up with the consultants taking over government to begin with? A lot of that really ramped up under the last government. They cut personnel, discovered they still needed that function, and then hired them back as a contractor. This government just ran with that ball.

The Americans are probably going to end up going that way.

 

[ytz]

I cannot think of a single thing Canada needs less that a government agency who’s purpose is to review yet again every acquisition we make.

As someone recently finished the project approval course, I feel this. We have a whole bunch of majors and LCOLs and PS equivalents whose job it is to make sure the paperwork is ready for TBS, who then move it on to more people who go back and forth with TBS. Bureaucracy meant to get accountability has more made all of government so risk averse that everything takes years.

I know everybody loves to blame Ottawa. But I don't think those folks who work at C Prog really like the bureaucracy either. They are doing what they have to do to try and get kit delivered.

 

[Remius]

I don't recall where I saw it, probably on X... it was a GoC web page screen shot depicting a long list of funded foreign initiatives such as; $5M for studying climate impacts on women entrepreneurs in Nigeria (I know I didn't get that exactly right but it was a boat load of line items of that nature).

I think a Canadian DOGE entity would start with bringing these sorts of things to public attention and identifying how much could be saved with cutting those kinds of initiatives that, I guess, a majority of Canadians would consider a complete waste of time and money.

Once again. That function and capability already exists.

 

[ytz]

Hey if I know anything it’s that government agencies never outlive their initial purpose.

But getting to the root of DOGEs purpose its job is to oversee government costs right? To make sure the tax payer is getting the best possible, most efficient, most fair, bang for its buck? To make sure that no one is spending that money unwisely?


It’s the Treasury Board.

They already have two agencies in the US Government that do this:

Government Accountability Office

Congressional Budget Office

But apparently that's not enough....

 

[ytz]

Not at all what I asked. Keep deflecting.

I’ll make it easier.

How did DRAP work out?

What would a value village version of DOGE do that TB can’t?

Exactly. There is absolutely nothing stopping Cabinet from telling TBS to cut the government in half. They could do it easily.

In the US, they actually have more complications with various funding directed by Congress.

 

[dapaterson]

As someone recently finished the project approval course, I feel this. We have a whole bunch of majors and LCOLs and PS equivalents whose job it is to make sure the paperwork is ready for TBS, who then move it on to more people who go back and forth with TBS. Bureaucracy meant to get accountability has more made all of government so risk averse that everything takes years.

I know everybody loves to blame Ottawa. But I don't think those folks who work at C Prog really like the bureaucracy either. They are doing what they have to do to try and get kit delivered.

You need people who understand the system to understand how to make the system work.

Or you can have a NWO CaptN declare as a director that before he's posted out of his job they will have cut steel for the CSC. He retired as CRCN without steel cut.

 

[QV]

Once again. That function and capability already exists.

Yeah? What is that exactly?

 

[Remius]

Yeah? What is that exactly?

It’s been explained many times in this thread. Treasury Board. The government in power can essentially order them to do that.

It’s happened before and it can and will happen again.

 

[markppcli]

Yeah? What is that exactly?

The treasury board, following the direction of Cabinet / the PMO.

 

[QV]

The treasury board, following the direction of Cabinet / the PMO.

Ok... I see you and others have missed the point altogether. That just isn't working and in fact has lead to the situation we are presently in. You see, it is the TB via the current Cabinet/PMO who have funded a metric shit ton of foreign initiatives that I doubt the majority of Canadians would support, particularly in times of fiscal pressure. This needs a bright light on it, not an obscure line in a government record the public will never see or even look for.

I'm totally open to the fact I am a shit communicator on these kinds of forums, but here is how I just saw this go:

Me: we need someone to identify and highlight to the public the excess foreign spending on initiatives that might be considered wasteful by most Canadians.

You guys: the government who already wastes our money are the ones who do that. So no problem.

 

[KevinB]

Ok... I see you and others have missed the point altogether. That just isn't working and in fact has lead to the situation we are presently in. You see, it is the TB via the current Cabinet/PMO who have funded a metric shit ton of foreign initiatives that I doubt the majority of Canadians would support, particularly in times of fiscal pressure. This needs a bright light on it, not an obscure line in a government record the public will never see or even look for.

I'm totally open to the fact I am a shit communicator on these kinds of forums, but here is how I just saw this go:

Me: we need someone to identify and highlight to the public the excess foreign spending on initiatives that might be considered wasteful by most Canadians.

You guys: the government who already wastes our money are the ones who do that. So no problem.

Your DOGE won’t fix that. A change of government might.

But all the info you think they will be bringing to light is already public record.

 

[Remius]

Ok... I see you and others have missed the point altogether. That just isn't working and in fact has lead to the situation we are presently in. You see, it is the TB via the current Cabinet/PMO who have funded a metric shit ton of foreign initiatives that I doubt the majority of Canadians would support, particularly in times of fiscal pressure. This needs a bright light on it, not an obscure line in a government record the public will never see or even look for.

I'm totally open to the fact I am a shit communicator on these kinds of forums, but here is how I just saw this go:

Me: we need someone to identify and highlight to the public the excess foreign spending on initiatives that might be considered wasteful by most Canadians.

You guys: the government who already wastes our money are the ones who do that. So no problem.

No. You keep missing the point.

Reality: TB under the direction of the sitting government has the capacity to do that. Whether they action that capacity is up to the sitting government to do.

You guys: We need our own version of DOGE! Why? Because we don’t understand how government works so no problem

I am perfectly fine with anyone who wants more efficiencies and effective spending. But a discount rack version of DOGE isn’t really needed to do that.

 

[markppcli]

Ok... I see you and others have missed the point altogether. That just isn't working and in fact has lead to the situation we are presently in. You see, it is the TB via the current Cabinet/PMO who have funded a metric shit ton of foreign initiatives that I doubt the majority of Canadians would support, particularly in times of fiscal pressure. This needs a bright light on it, not an obscure line in a government record the public will never see or even look for.

Yes the government spending varies depending on who gets elected and those departments excercise the will of elected officials - that’s democracy.

I'm totally open to the fact I am a shit communicator on these kinds of forums, but here is how I just saw this go:

Me: we need someone to identify and highlight to the public the excess foreign spending on initiatives that might be considered wasteful by most Canadians.

Who is we ? What your essentially saying is that we need an organization to over see costs and cut programs. We have that, it’s the Treasury Board.

You guys: the government who already wastes our money are the ones who do that. So no problem.

The Treasury Board doesn’t, well it does in some cases, waste our money. They follow govt policy, and priorities. Guess what? DOGE is going to follow the policies of the elected officials in the US.

 

[YZT580]

Yes the government spending varies depending on who gets elected and those departments excercise the will of elected officials - that’s democracy.



Who is we ? What your essentially saying is that we need an organization to over see costs and cut programs. We have that, it’s the Treasury Board.



The Treasury Board doesn’t, well it does in some cases, waste our money. They follow govt policy, and priorities. Guess what? DOGE is going to follow the policies of the elected officials in the US.

simplify things. each minister goes through his department desk by desk to justify that position and its responsibilities which should include the money being spent at the same time. Get rid of the ones that can't be justified and eliminate that line of the budget. That last is most important. Trouble is that requires a minister who isn't trying to build his own empire. Where do you find all those dedicated people?

 

[markppcli]

simplify things. each minister goes through his department desk by desk to justify that position and its responsibilities which should include the money being spent at the same time. Get rid of the ones that can't be justified and eliminate that line of the budget. That last is most important. Trouble is that requires a minister who isn't trying to build his own empire. Where do you find all those dedicated people?

The Ministers are rotating positions semi annually, and are never going to actually fully understand how those departments work. Do you actually expect the Environment Minister to go through and write a justification for all 7,600 employees? Or could they just do their actual job ?

 

[YZT580]

The Ministers are rotating positions semi annually, and are never going to actually fully understand how those departments work. Do you actually expect the Environment Minister to go through and write a justification for all 7,600 employees? Or could they just do their actual job ?

not at all. Pick people within your department and task them with it. Check up on their progress in a week or so. If they havent made a good start, eliminate their desk and budget line and task the next individual. Doesn't take full comprehension, it takes leadership. The heads of departments should be able to logically justify every major expenditure. The minister doesn't have to

 

[dapaterson]

not at all. Pick people within your department and task them with it. Check up on their progress in a week or so. If they havent made a good start, eliminate their desk and budget line and task the next individual. Doesn't take full comprehension, it takes leadership. The heads of departments should be able to logically justify every major expenditure. The minister doesn't have to

Except the revolving doors of leadership, especially in the CAF, mean a lack of knowledge and understanding.

It's easy to fire the folks doing long term planning and readiness peeps because their outcomes are not immediate.

I am presently working on a mandatory file that's on a five year cycle. Lots of pushback because nobody remembers the last one, so therefore it's not important.

 

[FJAG]

I am presently working on a mandatory file that's on a five year cycle. Lots of pushback because nobody remembers the last one, so therefore it's not important.

I don't know what that file is and I presume it could be quite important, but a report/file that has a five-year cycle to it and no one knows what its about automatically makes me question why its a mandatory report in the first place. Will anyone of consequence review it? And is it likely that any action of consequence result? Or will it simply go into the file folder?

A whole lot of records under the DSCDS have a five-year hold and dispose cycle to them. All the old reports could already been ash canned or transferred to LAC. (Oh wait - what am I thinking? No one follows the DSCDS)

 

[dapaterson]

I never said it was a report. It is a statutory requirement, that we have managed to reduce to a five year cycle instead of annually. And with an attention span that does not survive APS, and a PME system that tells people they need to be Commanders instead of institutional leaders, it is a continual struggle to remain compliant.