# the budget - you be the judge



## bossi (10 Dec 2001)

Just in case you haven‘t heard, here‘s some info on the budget (I don‘t trust myself to comment without using bad words - i.e. why am I not suprised the Bloc was the only party to support this pathetic increase to defence spending, while HRDC and other departments piss away this much in a single year on pork barrel spending - so I will let somebody else do the dispassionate reporting):

No budget relief for overtaxed military 
‘It‘s paltry,‘ says Day of proposed increase; ‘Incredible!‘ says angered McDonough 
By Graham Fraser
NATIONAL AFFAIRS WRITER 

 OTTAWA -- Paul Martin offered prayers and $1.2 billion over the next five years for Canada‘s Armed Forces in his budget today. 
"Just as we are moving to enhance Canadian security here at home, so too are we joined in the war against terrorism abroad," Martin told the House of Commons. "At this moment, 2,000 men and women of the Canadian Forces are defending freedom on distant shores. They carry our cause and they have our prayers." 

However, many military analysts, critics and interest groups had been calling for an increase in the annual base funding for the Canadian Armed Forces of at least $1 billion a year, rather than $1.2 billion over five years. 

"I‘m a bit disappointed," said retired Gen. Clive Addy, national vice-chairman of the Conference of Defence Associations. "It‘s not going to resolve the paucity, or shortage of soldiers, the rotations in Bosnia, and it will not solve the problem of capitalization, which is a snowball effect." 

The defence spending announcement was greeted with derision by the Opposition - with the exception of the Bloc Québécois, whose leader Gilles Duceppe said that the party had only minor disagreements with Martin about the amount. 

New Democratic Party leader Alexa McDonough said that twice as much was needed for the Armed Forces. 

"What we have here is essentially $1 billion spread over five years," she said. "Anything less than $2 billion just doesn‘t do what needs to be done. And not a mention of Sea Kings! Unbelievable!" 

Canadian Alliance leader Stockwell Day called the allocation for the Armed Forces "a fraction" of what is needed. 

"It‘s a paltry amount," he said. "The whole budget is just a wasted opportunity." 

Progressive Conservative leader Joe Clark pointed out that it was much less than recommended by commentators, and much less than required. 

"At the same time, they are increasing the calls upon the Armed Forces in the country," he said. "So the inconsistency between a high demand for the Armed Forces and a low willingness to pay the price continues with this government."

In the budget, Martin announced that $210 million would be spent on Canada‘s participation in the coalition attack on Afghanistan, dubbed Operation Apollo, and $300 million on military equipment. 

The remaining $690 million will be spent on what the budget documents call "the security initiatives" 

This includes the doubling of the capacity of Joint Task Force Two (JTF-2), the highly-trained anti-terrorist commando unit that specializes in hijack rescues. 

This will cost $119 million over the next five years and, in the words of the Finance Department documents that accompanied Martin‘s speech, "will improve JTF-2‘s ability to respond to incidents at home and abroad." 

Canadian Alliance critic Leon Benoit said he disagreed with the decision to double the size of the JTF-2, calling it "very political." 

He pointed out that the British equivalent, the SAS, has only 400 members - and argued that what Canada actually needs is a rapid response force, which the Airborne was. 

The Chrétien government disbanded the Airborne after embarrassing incidents of extreme hazing and torture in Somalia. 

There will also be $513 million spent over the next five years on increasing Canada‘s ability to respond to chemical, biological and nuclear attacks. 

This money will be spent on improving Canadian laboratories so that they can identify these threats more quickly, and buying new protective equipment for emergency response teams. 

Since Sept. 11, several Toronto public buildings have been evacuated as a result of anthrax scares. 

These two initiatives - enhancing the JTF-2 and improving the response to chemical, biological and nuclear attacks - were hinted at by National Defence Minister Art Eggleton when he appeared before the Finance Committee earlier this fall. 

Eggleton pointed to the JTF-2 and the Nuclear Biological and Chemical teaching unit at Canadian Forces Base Borden as key pieces in Canada‘s response to Sept. 11. 

"Those are all areas that are under consideration and we are currently fleshing out and reviewing plans with respect to them," he said. 

Yesterday, those plans were announced. 

Gen. Addy said he was pleased by the increase announced for the JTF-2, but pointed out that Auditor-General Sheila Fraser had said that the Armed Forces were $1 billion short in base funding to meet the commitments in a 1994 Defence White Paper. 

"All we‘ve seen is $300 million in one shot for military equipment," he said. 

National Defence Minister Art Eggleton said that the priorities for buying new equipment with the $300 million in the budget had not yet been decided. 

"I couldn‘t tell you at this point in time," he said. "We do have a number of equipment purchase programs, but the $300 million is additional money on top of the money we‘re already spending. We‘ve already brought up the percentage of our budget that is spent on capital, so we are modernizing the Canadian Forces." 

A few weeks ago, in a report prepared before Sept. 11, the Conference of Defence Associations made a gloomy assessment of the state of Canada‘s military, pointing out that Canada spent $265 (U.S.) per capita on defence in 2000, as compared with a $589 per capita average among NATO nations and $504 per capita average in G-7 countries. 

They called for an additional $1 billion for National Defence in each of the next two fiscal years to stabilize the situation, on top of the $3 billion already added. 


More for the military
Highlights of support for the military announced by Finance Minister Paul Martin in his 2001 budget:

$300 million for capital spending over two years.

$210 million over two years for Operation Apollo, the campaign against terrorism.

$119 million over five years to double the capacity of Joint Task Force Two, elite anti-terrorist unit.

$570 million shared with other agencies and departments over five years for emergency preparedness and expanded capacity to deal with nuclear, chemical and biological threats.

No increase in authorized manpower of 60,000.

No major inroads on a capital-spending shortfall which the auditor general says will total $6.5 billion over next five years. 
- CP

- 30 -


----------



## fortuncookie5084 (11 Dec 2001)

Ouch.  My hopes for some kind of boost for our team have been dashed (again).  You know the Army‘s situation is dire when the NDP is supporting more money to us.


----------



## enfield (11 Dec 2001)

So essentially JTF2 becomes the golden boys to patch up any situations that arise while the rest of the military falls apart beneath it. Beautiful. JTF2 has just become it‘s battalion. PPCLI, RCR, and R22R, as well as the Militia, Air Force and Navy may be completley ineffective but they‘ll have this flagship token unit to wheel out on the international stage for the cameras. 
Being able to say "we have 200 commandos operating with US special forces" goes a long way in the media. Too bad the rest of the CF is rotting on the vine, except to act as a manpower pool for JTF. Sickening. 
Benoit is right, we do need a rapid reaction unit. We need more transport capacity - otherwise even the bloated JTF2 will be unable to reach the theatre.

A very sad day for the CF.


----------



## Infanteer (11 Dec 2001)

s.hitheads....
We should adopt the principle of accountability practiced in ancient Athens.
At the end of this term, Eggleton and Cretian would be exiled from Canada.


----------



## bossi (11 Dec 2001)

That quisling Marcel Masse must be killing himself laughing at the continuing evisceration of the Canadian Army.
Meanwhile, Maria Minna and Romeo Dallaire are re-inventing the wheel (i.e. it used to be called the Peace Corps in the U.S. eh?)

Long-term peace requires unpalatable commitments, says retired general

STEPHEN THORNE  
Canadian Press 

Monday, December 10, 2001

OTTAWA (CP) - Bringing lasting peace to war-ravaged regions of the world requires politically unpalatable long-term commitments that are measured in decades, not months or years, retired general Romeo Dallaire said Monday. "To help a nation today come out of its morass, this is not two years in and then we‘re out of there and let them take over," Dallaire said in an interview. 

"We‘re talking 10, 20, 50 years where generations can evolve with support. None of this conflict resolution, none of these humanitarian activities are punctual things within the mandate of a government." 

Persuading governments to make such commitments is a hard sell, said Dallaire, now Ottawa‘s special adviser on war-affected children. 

"Because all of us are so damn Cartesian and so damn North American short-term," he said. "I suppose the Europeans have gone that way, too. 

"You have to have an auditor‘s result in a year. And if you don‘t see all of a sudden a miracle happen, then we tend to downgrade it and leave." 

Lasting solutions to problems like those that exist in the Middle East or Afghanistan, or even less visible areas like Sierra Leone, don‘t bring the sustained news coverage or the political payoffs that dramatic gestures do. 

But in the annals of nation-building, 40 years and billions of dollars are but drops in a bucket, he said. 

Dallaire, who appeared at a Monday fund-raiser for Afghan children sponsored by parliamentary spouses, knows only too well the pitfalls of failed commitment. He commanded a doomed peacekeeping mission in Rwanda in 1994. 

Belgium pulled its forces out of the country early on after 12 of its peacekeepers were butchered in the capital, Kigali. 

Dallaire was left with a small contingent of Canadian staff officers and a few hundred poorly armed and ill-equipped African troops who watched helplessly as hundreds of thousands of Rwandans were killed. 

Dallaire was left with severe emotional problems. His mental scars eventually prompted his early retirement from the military. 

The United States ran into a similar problem in Somalia in 1993, pulling out after 18 of its elite troops were killed in a bloody siege in Mogadishu. 

"There is all kinds of room for a nation like Canada to take a leadership role," said Dallaire, who just returned from a week in Sierra Leone. 

"We‘re still seen as a lead country in our ability to bring humanism to all these things and not necessarily humongous amounts of money or big structures." 

Canada should seize on that reputation as "a leader in sensitizing and moving many other countries into the arena of the human coalition versus the military or political coalitions," he said. 

The retired general has drawn up a proposal for International Co-operation Minister Maria Minna that would establish a program for Canadian youth to participate in humanitarian efforts in war-ravaged regions. 

He said the program would encourage graduates to take a year and use their skills working with non-governmental organizations "just smelling the hurt out there and bring that smell back to influence others. 

"I think it would add a great maturing dimension to a nation like ours." 
- 30 -


----------



## Spanky (11 Dec 2001)

What‘s the bloody point!!!!!!!!  This government....damn- I‘m pissed off!They had a golden opportunity to show some balls and they wasted it! They just confirmed that they are nothing but a bunch or arrogant, pompus idiots that have no sense of reality whatsoever!  1.2 billion over 5 years!  What a sick joke and slap in the face!  We won‘t even see the entire amount.  A good portion of it will go to other areas.  And they have the balls to make every flag fly at half mast for 14 women killed by 1 sicko, while only the flag on the Peace Tower is mandated to do so on Remembrance Day!
There I feel better now..... NOT


----------



## Yard Ape (11 Dec 2001)

Canadian Alliance Leader Stockwell Day quoted in the Globe and Mail:

"The Auditor-General, in terms of just getting the maintenance budget going for the Armed Forces, talked about $1.3-billion per year and [the Liberals] are talking about $300-million per year. It falls so far short,"


----------



## Yard Ape (11 Dec 2001)

According to the CBC ther highlights (aside from the 7.7 billion for "security and defence")include: 




$2 billion deferral of corporate tax for small business for six months 
$185 million over two years for aboriginal health and education 
$100 million for Canadian Television Fund 
$60 million for CBC 
$75 million additional per year for Canadian Institutes of Health Research 
$200 million for university research 
No change to previously announced $100 billion in tax cuts 
No change to $23 billion in health spending announced last year 
$2 billion Strategic Infrastructure Foundation 
$500 million Africa Fund


----------



## Yard Ape (11 Dec 2001)

*Our planes will be safer and our border more secure* 
But we still need manpower, national standards and an anthrax plan, expert says
Tuesday, December 11, 2001 – Page A14 
Globe and Mail 
By JAN WONG

Canada, we stand on guard for thee! Well, we do, more than we did before.

According to yesterday‘s budget, we‘re going to spend scads of money strengthening aviation security and our borders. We‘re pouring money into intelligence and policing and screening all those immigrants and refugee claimants.

Canada sure looks secure now. At least it does to someone who travels occasionally, reported on the World Trade Center attacks and, ahem, recently carried a box cutter onto an Air Canada flight.

But Michel Riberdy, a counterterrorist consultant, knows better. He sees many holes:



 no national standards for emergency procedures (so a team in Halifax, say, could help out in Quebec City)
no specific measure to deal with anthrax in the Canadian postal system

no tax breaks for the private sector (such as chemical companies) to develop emergency measures

no central agency to disseminate information in a crisis

no funds for a CIA-type organization to spy on terrorists overseas

 
Mr. Riberdy considers this last omission the most serious. "We cannot ignore that some of the planning for Sept. 11 was done outside the country," he says. "One of the things completely missing is an intelligence agency gathering information outside Canada."

The $7.7-billion in security spending over the next five years amounts to less than 5 per cent of the total budget, he notes.

"Canadians don‘t put a high priority on security. And it‘s reflected all the way through to the government. It‘s the Canadian mentality."

In contrast, his own town of Buckingham, Que., (pop. 11,000), spends 17 per cent of its budget on police and firefighting. Toronto spends 14 per cent, he added.

...


----------



## Yard Ape (11 Dec 2001)

Okay, last one . . . but I think it best puts this budget in perspective with all the reports that have come out critisizing defence shortfalls.

*Liberals‘ security budget shortchanges military: critics* 
_Even NDP says forces receiving ‘peanuts‘: $1.2B over five years falls far short of what experts say is needed_ 
Sheldon Alberts, with files from Chris Wattie
National Post‘s Budget Coverage 
Tuesday, December 11, 2001

OTTAWA - The federal government increased spending on the overstretched military by $1.2-billion in yesterday‘s budget, ignoring calls for more than four times that amount to preserve the Canadian Forces‘ ability to field a fighting force.

Paul Martin, the Minister of Finance, said yesterday he will double the size of the Canadian army‘s elite special forces unit, Joint Task Force 2, as part of an increased five-year spending program.

But the overall figure fell short of recommendations from the defence industry, military analysts and the Liberal-dominated Commons defence committee, which said earlier this year that $1-billion a year was needed to rebuild the Canadian Forces.

Even Alexa McDonough, the NDP leader and not usually among the biggest supporters of defence spending, called it "peanuts" and retired general Clive Addy, who has been pressing for higher spending, said he was disgusted with the figure. "I find this very frustrating," he said.

Yesterday‘s budget includes an immediate $300-million in funding for the purchase of much-needed military hardware to replace ageing equipment that has threatened Canada‘s combat readiness.

Despite the emphasis on security in the budget, the Liberals have decided against a dramatic expansion in the overall size of Canada‘s military forces from its current level of 60,000 personnel.

Instead, the bulk of new military-related spending is earmarked to pay for ongoing operations in the war on terrorism and to strengthen the country‘s ability to protect itself from -- and respond to -- nuclear or biological attacks.

The expansion of the 250-member JTF-2 anti-terrorist team is the only major increase in front-line troops.

The commando unit, which has already deployed members to Afghanistan, will receive an additional $119-million over the next five years, enough money to increase the number of soldiers to 500.

Officials say the money will also enable JTF-2 -- which is specially trained to respond to domestic hostage-taking incidents -- to shift its focus to international anti-terrorist missions.

Critics charged the money is a drop in the bucket compared with what is needed to halt the decline of the Canadian military and warned continued underfunding by Ottawa will further erode its effectiveness.

Bob Morton, a retired Air Force lieutenant-general, said the Forces are running out of ways to make ends meet.

"The military has had to juggle equipment modernization and renewal programs, operations and maintenance budgets, and personnel numbers in order to sustain the defence capacity that still exists," he said.

"However, the trade-offs that have worked thus far are exhausted. The Canadian Forces function now by high levels of dedication and professionalism throughout the force. The nation must begin its rescue plan."

Earlier this year the Commons defence committee called on the government to increase the military‘s capital spending for new equipment to 23% of the budget from the current 19%, and asked for a guarantee that troop levels will not be reduced in order to make ends meet financially.

A report last month, called To Secure a Nation: Canadian Defence and Security in the 21st Century, by the University of Calgary‘s Centre for Military and Strategic Studies called on the government to carry out a "badly needed review" of its defence policies.

It urged Ottawa to immediately increase military spending, saying a dwindling defence budget, which fell by 23% between 1993 and 1998, has translated into exhausted troops, shoddy equipment and institutions with little appeal for new recruits.

"What we see here today is a clear message from this government that they are going to phase out our military as a combat capable force," said Leon Benoit, the Canadian Alliance defence critic. "We are going to lose further stature as a country with our trading partners, with NATO, with the United States."

Much of the increase in the military‘s budget will cover the unexpected costs of Canada‘s participation in the international war on terrorism.

The cost of Operation Apollo is expected to hit $210-million, the budget says. Another 1,000 infantry troops have been promised to an international security force in Afghanistan.

Just last week, Canada‘s auditor-general warned the Forces could not guarantee their combat readiness because of ageing equipment and severe shortages of spare parts and qualified maintenance personnel.

Defence officials said yesterday the $300-million set aside in yesterday‘s budget for capital purchases will be spent on replacing existing equipment.

"It isn‘t what was needed. It isn‘t what was promised. It isn‘t what it seems," said Joe Clark, the Tory leader. "Only half a billion is going to be directed to the Armed Forces as such. The rest goes into new kinds of research and other things which are commendable in themselves, but they are not normally considered to be contributions to national defence."

Beyond the funding pegged to equipment purchases and JTF-2‘s expansion, the budget document is bereft of specific measures. The government has set aside $513-million to spent on improving Canada‘s ability to respond to chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear threats, but has given only a rough outline of where the money will be spent.

...


----------



## Donjk (11 Dec 2001)

It is encouraging however to see the unanimity of the media‘s political commentators in condemning the paltry increase in DND funding.


----------



## King (11 Dec 2001)

The more things change the more they stay the same...

This was a vanity budget for Paul Martin. He‘s got a reputation among the international finance community as a responsable manager of our money and he doesn‘t want to blow it. More importantly he wants to be the next Prime Minister and being able to say he kept us out of a deficit even in a recession won‘t hurt his chances. Chretien had a hand in drafting this budget and according to a few news reports I have read, he made sure it was "balanced" in the sense that there was something in it for all the potential leadership candidates. Everything this government does for the next few years will revolve around the leadership race &/or Chretien‘s legacy. 

As for the CF, they took it up the ***  once again. I certainly didn‘t expect the military to get what it required, but I thought they‘d get more then $300 million. They‘ll spend an extra $1 billion on "international assistance." It seems we‘re more concerned with foreign dictators building up their militaries then our own.

I think Enfield hit the nail on the head with the JTF2. As long as the gov‘t thinks we have enough troops for any forseeable peacekeeping operations and a couple of token fighters and ships. It doesn‘t matter if we accomplish anything, just as long as we deploy. 

From listening to people comment on the budget things are getting back to normal. Go over to the CBC site and read some of the e-mail sent. All the special intertest groups still are getting in their shots. They still want money for their causes, everything from seniors to health to tax cuts to Canadian culture to the environment. People haven‘t really woken up to the threats that exist. I think the Liberals aren‘t ready to handle the problems within the CF. The budget was meant to get the country off Chretien‘s back with regards to security so we can all resume debating the host of pitiful crap we were so concerned with before Sept. 11.

[ 11 December 2001: Message edited by: King ]


----------



## Pikache (11 Dec 2001)

*sigh*

You‘d think that after renewed interested n CF and security of Canada by many of the civilian population, the government would at least make more money available to CF, even if it is to cover their own political interests.

What is the point with increased recruiting and reforms if there aren‘t the money to keep them.


----------



## bossi (13 Dec 2001)

Harking back to the pittance given to the military in the budget, I‘d like to offer some perspective: You‘ll recall the much-ballyhoo‘d announcement that Canada‘s armed forces would receive 1.2 billion dollars ... but then there was the fine print (over five years) ... 

Okay: 1.2 billion, divided by five, equals only 240 million per year (yes - I‘m glossing over the finer details of how this money was micro-managed ... including the fact that not all of it will be given to the military!) 

Oh, yes - perspective - the US Air Force lost a B1 bomber on Wednesday - estimated cost? 280 million US dollars (roughly 420 million on Canadian Tire money). 

Another perspective concerns the collective disarmament of the Canadian citizenry. The politically correct whankers are wasting their time and our tax dollars spending approx 800 million to disarm ordinary Canadians (instead of sending terrorists to the crowbar hotel) - it really pisses me off that the Liberals are ensuring we ordinary Canadians will only be able to defend ourselves with nail clippers and Swiss Army knives in the future (unless they start confiscating them too ... oops ... they already have, haven‘t they?) 

So, please - don‘t be bamboozled by the spin doctors - the Liberals hooped our military again (look up "quisling" in the dictionary). 

On another note - I am, however, glad they gave some money to the RCMP and CSIS (especially in light of the "revelations" that we‘ve got terrorists living in our midst ... and the government has known about it for some time now). 

I was always uncomfortable with the "conventional wisdom" of letting terrorists live in Canada, ostensibly so they could be better monitored ... duh! When one‘s house is infested with cockroaches or vermin, we don‘t let them set up shop "so we can watch them" - we call the exterminator. Before we start suffering from any more murderous terrorist attacks, we should clean house - I won‘t shed any tears if a few terrorists are killed resisting arrest, either. 

But, that‘s just my personal opinion (which, in Canada, we‘re still entitled to have ... but I wonder for how much longer ...) 

M. Bossi, Esquire
Toronto, Ontario (you‘ve got the rest of my address on file - come and get me if you dare, but I‘ve got nail clippers stashed all over the house - I won‘t give up without a good grooming ...)


----------



## rceme_rat (13 Dec 2001)

That message is not so tongue-in-cheek!!

I love how they are making a big deal of the money thet are spending when it is far less than the amount they hacked over the past five years.  Not to mention the money wasted in doing the hacking, keeping obsolete equipment running, etc.

My gut feel is that when the damage is finally repaired by some future government, the cost of the repairs to our military -- recruiting and training new people, buying new kit at even higher prices, the sum spent on higher repair costs, the losses taken in paying people to leave, and it just goes on ... -- will far outwiegh any savings that might have been claimed.

I don‘t think many of us think that we need a Cadillac when a Chevy will do.  But a broken-down Yugo (is that redundant?) is deplorable.

I think it is far past time when the government should have clearly defined what they want the military to do - and then accept that certain costs come with that - including not only money, but limits on roles, responsibilities and tasks.  Tell us what you want done, and how well you want it done, and then pay for it.

One of the things they might want to consider is how we can justify such a low percentage of population and GDP being committed to the armed forces.  

E.g. -- (1) Why is the reserve disprportionately smaller than the reg force when many countries have the opposite situation.  

(2)Why are we operating 30 year old tanks - do they do the job we need them to, or they expensive toys ewe no longer need, or do we need to spend some big bucks to give us what we really need?!

Frustrating as hell, isn‘t it?
All of which begs the question -- is it a good time to get back in, or is the new attention the military is getting really just another illusion which will pass when the press gets bored?


----------



## King (13 Dec 2001)

No, it‘s just until the U.S. is finished bombing Muslims. Then it‘ll be back to normal. People still want their little pet projects to be funded. The Shelia Culture Copps got a billion I think, Tobin got $100 million to bring broadband internet to rural areas, $2 billion on an infrastructure projetc which will have a board of directors appointed by and reporting to Chretien. I wonder where all the roads will be built...  

The Liberals know that 3 or 4 years from now when the next election roles around it‘ll be about the economy or health care, but certainly not security. That‘s one reason why the "security" budget was so pitiful. They don‘t want to spend too much of the CF because when something else takes priority they would have to go and cut the military again, which would look bad, and because the Liberals have a reputation for staying out of a deficit. The fact that they do both allows them a snappy reply whenever the Alliance bugs them about fiscal responsability or our the **** state of our military. For a while they‘ll be able to say that they have not added to the debt and have increased the DND budget for X years running. Even though the $1.2 B is less then the gov‘t‘s projected rate of inflation for the next 5 years.


----------



## IamCDN (13 Dec 2001)

I do know for sure that I will not be voting Liberal next time around. But than that leaves me with the problem of who to vote for.


----------



## towhey (13 Dec 2001)

> Originally posted by IamCDN:
> [qb]I do know for sure that I will not be voting Liberal next time around. But than that leaves me with the problem of who to vote for.[/qb]



Interestingly, one of the reasons the CF has very little political clout is because there is no "military vote".

Regular Force members, who are often posted around the country and overseas many times between federal elections, normally maintain the right to vote in a "designated riding" -- normally the riding in which they lived when they joined up.  There is an annual window during which you can change your designated riding, but most members don‘t.

As a result, even though there are thousands of servicemembers and families in, say, Ottawa -- very few of them actually vote for the local MP.  Instead, they vote for MPs in Kamloops, Chicoutami, Oromocto, Cape Breton, etc.

So what?  So, the Ottawa MP doesn‘t really give a damn about what military personnel or their families think about government policies.  Nor do the MPs who represent Edmonton, Valcartier, Borden, Kingston, Gagetown, Esquimalt, etc. etc. etc.

If all military members changed their designated residence to the base on which they lived before the next federal election, we might see some political candidates take note.  10,000 to 20,000 votes, including spouses, in one riding like Ottawa makes a BIG difference.  Suddenly, the MP for Ottawa, Edmonton, and other base towns might sit up and listen to what soldiers, sailors, air crew and their families had to say.

But, of course, to suggest doing this might be considered mutiny.  

However, until it happens the CF is a non-existent force on the political map.


----------



## portcullisguy (13 Dec 2001)

> Originally posted by bossi:
> [qb]Okay: 1.2 billion, divided by five, equals only 2.4 million per year[/qb]



Actually, it‘s $240 million per year.

[qb]Another perspective concerns the collective disarmament of the Canadian citizenry. The politically correct whankers are wasting their time and our tax dollars spending approx 800 million to disarm ordinary Canadians (instead of sending terrorists to the crowbar hotel) - it really pisses me off that the Liberals are ensuring we ordinary Canadians will only be able to defend ourselves with nail clippers and Swiss Army knives in the future (unless they start confiscating them too ... oops ... they already have, haven‘t they?)[/qb]

And Canadians had their chance to voice their disapproval of this federally mismanaged boondoggle called the Canadian Firearms Centre, during the last elections.  It seems Canadians as a whole are quite willing to trade their freedom for security.

[qb]On another note - I am, however, glad they gave some money to the RCMP and CSIS (especially in light of the "revelations" that we‘ve got terrorists living in our midst ... and the government has known about it for some time now).[/qb]

I‘m not.  As a customs officer, I am concerned about issues of border security.  The RCMP get more money, but that doesn‘t mean any improvement in their use of it to combat border crimes.  What‘s that?  Oh, the money isn‘t for them to boost border security?  I would hazard a guess that if more money were spent on border security, through existing agencies and programs (customs, immigration, coast guard), LESS money would need to be spent on RCMP and CSIS investigations after-the-fact (after terrorists already make it here).  Until customs officers are armed at our border crossings, we have only an illusion of border security.


----------



## centurion (14 Dec 2001)

Can probably agree with the previous, but that whine is old and made from sour grapes!
It looks like Customs are getting sidearms for prtection on the Windsor / Detroit border, finally, for your job. Come to where the action is!
Illegitimus non carborundum.


----------



## towhey (14 Dec 2001)

> Originally posted by portcullisguy:
> [qb]
> 
> Until customs officers are armed at our border crossings, we have only an illusion of border security.[/qb]



Perhaps a discussion for another thread... or another forum entirely, but I am curious (and, I think, completely open-minded):  how would arming customs officers improve border security?

Have there been instances of forced entry at manned border crossings which unarmed customs officers were unable to prevent?


----------



## centurion (14 Dec 2001)

2e,
 There are so many instances of armed pers from the States entering the border here it‘s not funny. The Windsor police spend as much time backing up Customs as their own. Cases involving loaded guns pointed at Customs, knife and physical attacks. In the summer there is upwards to 4000 US under 21 entering and leaving our border daily, to drink and party. Nowhere, including Toronto is the border so used and abused. Also totally neglected by the Federal Gov‘t. Our guys are entitled to protect themselves and if they haven‘t worked the Windsor border, I think our guys would tell them to quite whining. Just an opinion, but I work with these guys and hear them loud and clear. Strange, considering both crossings are in the Deputy Prime Minister‘s, Herb Grey‘s riding. Goes right along with the cosey deal he struck for the new armouries,IN HIS RIDING, that screwed the local reserve units. But that‘s another thread.


----------



## byuill (14 Dec 2001)

On the subject of mobilizing the CF vote, I don‘t believe such a thing would be mutinous or treasonous, (though I could stand to be corrected) especially if regimental associations, who are outside the control of the chain of command and are supposed to be looking after us, were to be mobilized.  We still, after all, have the right to vote and we pay taxes.  It wouldn‘t be the first time something like this has happened.  A couple of retired RCAF guys told me about how some of the guys posted to Germany tried to change their ridings to sway the vote in the ridings of Diefenbaker and some of the cabinet ministers who had a hand in cancelling the Avro Arrow project.  I don‘t know how successful that was.

We are all trained to deal with threats in the field, but our own government has accomplished what the Waffen SS and Communist Chinese could not do:  render us ineffective in the field.  I think that the entire CF, from the lowest militia private all the way up has to get the word out next election.  Talk to your MP‘s about specific issues, many of them squeaked by because of vote splitting.  Also, talk to your relatives, friends, and anyone who will listen that voting Liberal is a slap in the face to every serving member, veteran, and all of our war dead, as well as their families.

If I get jailed for expressing these views, so be it.  If our senior leaders don‘t have the guts to put their careers on the line, the hell with them to.


----------



## rceme_rat (14 Dec 2001)

Voting -- Riding Selection

As noted above, there is a prescribed window in which a service member may change their riding.  Generally, the window is open when an election is not imminent.

As I understand it, the choice to be made is do I want to vote in my current riding, or in the new riding.  Once you have changed from riding A (e.g., where you were recruited), to riding B (e.g., your first posting), you do not have the option of changing back.  I.e., on posting C, you would have the option between riding B or C.

Many people maintain an attachment with "home" by holding onto this riding, and many others don‘t know or don‘t care that they can change.

I agree that it is time for people to start voting where they are posted.  Never did when I was reg force, but it certainly starts to make sense.  It might show the pols (and the local civs) how important the base is.

The real question is whether it would be effective - my experience is that there was a diverse political spectrum within the military.  I don‘t know that consolidating a bases‘s vote would have any effect on the party that base‘s soldiers would for.


----------



## Meditations in Green (14 Dec 2001)

I think that the effectiveness of consolidating a base‘s votes would largely depend on the effort made to make them aware that there is a voice to be heard - before, during and after the election.

Something else that hasn‘t helped anyone is the media and peoples reaction to it. Most of the news I‘ve seen about the CF (in the mainstream media) in the last ten years hasn‘t been all that good - some of it very negative. A lot of the civilians I‘ve met over the last ten years aren‘t very aware politically and when they hear another story about the state of the CF it kind of blurs by when the 30 second clip goes by. Some even seem to accept it as the status quo! It‘s "old news" to them.

I wonder what would happen if an outside media source did an investigative piece on the recent budget brought down, the recent AG report and the government‘s reaction to it, and the current state of the CF. It‘s sad that that would probably generate more of a reaction in Ottawa than if the CBC or CTV did it.


----------



## towhey (14 Dec 2001)

> Originally posted by rceme_rat:
> [qb]Voting -- Riding Selection
> 
> The real question is whether it would be effective - my experience is that there was a diverse political spectrum within the military.  I don‘t know that consolidating a bases‘s vote would have any effect on the party that base‘s soldiers would for.[/qb]



I think you‘re quite right about the diversity of political leanings among military members and their voting-age families.

I don‘t think that it‘s all that important that they vote as a block -- in fact, any communication among military members to try and vote together for one party would certainly be unethical, if not outright illegal.

What is important, though, is that they by and large vote in the same riding.  That way, they are a targetable market segment from the political point of view -- and political staffs will suddenly spend more time (i.e. more than zero as at present!!!) trying to understand the base demographic, its interests and its issues.  That, alone, would be a huge win for the military.

Right now, most politicians don‘t have the foggiest idea how many, let alone which, of their consituents are in the military and are interested in military issues.

If there are 10,000 Portugeuse-Canadian voters living within a few blocks of each other, sharing the same interests, community centres, shopping in the same stores and voting in the same riding -- I guarantee that political candidates will spend some time courting their votes.

In many areas, there are 10,000 military members/family voters living and working in ridings around CF Bases.  It‘s time their voices were heard -- regardless of their political stripes.


----------



## portcullisguy (14 Dec 2001)

> Originally posted by towhey:
> [qb]
> 
> Perhaps a discussion for another thread... or another forum entirely, but I am curious (and, I think, completely open-minded):  how would arming customs officers improve border security?
> ...



You are right that this discussion is off-topic for the CdnArmy.ca forums.

Short answer to both:
1. Officers would be able to defend themselves from assault ("designated" officers are now expected to perform the same duties as a police officer, including ASD demands, arrests for stolen property and warrants, etc.)
2. Yes, and many more go unreported.

For a wider scope of news and discussions on what customs officers deal with on a daily basis, try this link:
  http://communities.msn.com/CanadaCustomsInfoResourceBoard


----------



## the patriot (17 Dec 2001)

What‘s troubling is that most of the money will be eaten up by the bloody red tape.  Meaning that the money will never benefit the everyday soldier, sailor, or airperson.  Great, double the size of JTF-2.  Why don‘t they just bring back the SSF (The Airborne Regiment) and leave it‘‘s candidacy open to all CAF members.

-the patriot-


----------



## bossi (18 Dec 2001)

(bend over ... it‘s about to get worse ... much worse)

Somehow, when Eggs says "... live within its means", I doubt he‘s talking about increasing defence funding ...

So, enjoy your new cadpat uniforms - they‘ll soon prove to be the equivalent of slapping a coat of paint on a rusty, used car ... and then turning back the odometer (i.e. tarting it up so it looks good, instead of running well)

Merry Christmas (NOT)


Eggleton wants review of defence policy

Tuesday, December 18, 2001 – CP/Globe and Mail, Print Edition, Page A7

Ottawa -- Defence Minister Art Eggleton wants a review of defence policy to help the cash-strapped military live within its means.

Less than a week after the federal budget gave the Canadian Forces far less money than most critics had demanded, Mr. Eggleton said in an interview he wants a new white paper to define what the military must do. The last formal statement of policy in 1994 said the military should be a multirole, combat-capable force ready to meet commitments at home and abroad. But chronic underfunding means changes are needed, he said. 
- 30 -


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Dec 2001)

A new white paper is only a means to deflect critisism. They‘ll throw lots of dollars at it, hire a bunch of civvie consultants and bean counters, spend more money on them, come up with a bunch of recommendations that won‘t be adopted unless they‘re totally useless and unworkable. But they‘ll be able to sit through the next election saying they‘re studying the problem and not have to commit to any descisions. This will enable them to deflect ALL critism from anybody by saying "We‘re working on it, and we‘ll see what the results are". Don‘t expect any action for another three years minimum. Eggs and the PM are only covering their butts till they leave. White Papers are a failed politician‘s last ditch effort when they are wrong but can‘t admit it." When all else fails form a commitee."    <img src="eek.gif" border="0" alt="" />


----------



## Meditations in Green (18 Dec 2001)

"So, enjoy your new cadpat uniforms - they‘ll soon prove to be the equivalent of slapping a coat of paint on a rusty, used car ... and then turning back the odometer (i.e. tarting it up so it looks good, instead of running well)." - bossi

Very apt way of putting things. I think it‘s right on the money.  That approach is a long standing one I‘ve never agreed with (who would?). Paint and upgrades does not equal replacement when it is required. The list is quite extensive... Leopards, CF-18‘s, Sea Kings... and this is just the tip of the iceburg. 

A new white paper is definitely in order.  When I heard the phrase "live within it‘s means" I really started to wonder how this was going to be defined. Hopefully there will be some light at the end of the tunnel when/if this paper sees the light of day. Any idea what this might entail? Most of the things I‘ve had on my "wish list" need some reconsidering giving the low level of speding in this budget.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Dec 2001)

Med in Grn,
You‘re question is answered above about white papers. We posted at the same time.  <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0" alt="" />


----------



## John Nayduk (19 Dec 2001)

I‘m sure any new White Paper will have to get the approval of Martin, Copps, the guy down the street and every bleeding heart tree hugger in the country so that things will appear that we are grossly over funded and should only be used as a snow removal service.  Given the history of this government the White Paper will only be good for wiping your ***  with.


----------



## bossi (19 Dec 2001)

After reading this editorial, I‘m renewing my subscription to the National Post!

December 19, 2001
Game theory and military preparedness

James B. Davies and Ken Boessenkool
National Post

Those who have ever said to their boss, "If you do that, I‘ll quit," or to their kid "If you do that, you can‘t watch TV for a week," and then backed down when the transgression occurred, will quickly learn the importance of making credible threats. They will also learn that it is especially effective if you can commit to your threatened behaviour in advance. Learning these lessons puts you well on your way to becoming a game theorist.

Game theory is a seemingly arcane and complex branch of mathematics and economics that has, at its core, a solid body of common sense. Canada lays claim to impressive game theorists, occupying positions in our top universities and those of the United States. But we also lay claim to a distinguished group of game players in Ottawa -- our federal Liberals.

The Liberals have unique opportunities to hone their game theory skills. As a party that expects to be perpetually in power, they can afford to think ahead not just to the next election, but to the long future over which they expect to reign. Seeing the recent budget as one of these unique opportunities can help explain its otherwise inexplicable character.

In the months since the horrific events of Sept. 11, Canada has joined the United States, Britain and others in an ambitious and apparently successful attempt to root out the terrorists from their home in Afghanistan. While Canadian servicemen and women have contributed to this effort with distinction, our overall military contribution has been small. This has been the inevitable result of the size and limitations of our armed forces, limitations stemming from a long series of budget cuts for the armed forces.

These cuts have resulted in lousy salaries for military personnel; helicopters that aren‘t airworthy; transport aircraft that cannot be relied on to make it to the battle zone; and only a few thousand battle-ready soldiers who actually carry guns.

The dismal state of funding of our armed forces was in part the result of the need to trim expenditures in the battle against deficits and debt. The United States under Bill Clinton also substantially reduced expenditures on the military in an effort to get their deficit under control.

In these extraordinary times, however, Ottawa has decided it is necessary to deviate sharply from the course it has charted since 1995 and had reinforced just months ago, when the Finance Minister said that massive new spending would "risk the country‘s hard-won victory over deficit financing." Ottawa charted a new course with a budget that proposes to increase spending by nearly 10% next year, the largest increase in decades. Sept. 11 and its economic aftermath, Mr. Martin now says, make necessary a dramatic about-turn in spending plans.

With such a significant increase in spending, you might expect big dollars for the armed forces to fill the gaps and correct past deficiencies, to say nothing of increasing the size and capacity of our forces. But the budget provides nothing like that. The armed forces are getting only $300-million over and above the direct expenditures incurred to allow them to take part in the war in Afghanistan. This amount represents only 2% of the increased spending promised in the budget, and a fraction of one per cent of total federal program spending.

While inexplicable on its face, game theory can provide an explanation for this pitiful increase.

Suppose (economists‘ favourite word after "other" and "hand") you are the leader of a perpetual party in power in Ottawa. You expect the United States to become engaged in future conflicts, wars and military adventures ranging from small to large. And you realistically expect that either the United States will apply pressure for Canadians to assist in these efforts or Canadians themselves will spontaneously choose to do so.

But suppose, and here‘s the kicker, that you are not all that interested in participating in these future efforts. You would prefer to commit yourself to not participating.

Game theory would direct you to resolve this dilemma by limiting the resources allocated to the armed forces. You reduce manpower, expenditures, quality and quantity of equipment as much as the electorate will stand for. When Uncle Sam comes asking for help you can say, "Yes, we‘ll give you as much help as we possibly can, keeping in mind our other commitments. We‘re sorry we can‘t provide more help, but you see, our armed forces are rather small."

By starving the armed forces, the Liberals can commit to withhold significant future military assistance. The implicit threat is credible and, from a game theory point of view, effective.

That should not be a surprise. If the perpetual party in power in Ottawa decides in advance that it doesn‘t really want to help out much on these occasions, not funding the military is just common sense.

James B. Davies is a professor of economics at the University of Western Ontario. Ken Boessenkool is president of Sidicus Consulting Ltd. and an Adjunct Research Fellow at the C.D. Howe Institute.
- 30 -


----------



## bossi (19 Dec 2001)

A shot in the arm or the foot?
Kingston Whig-Standard, Sharon Lindores

Defence Minister Art Eggleton‘s call for a review of defence strategy has experts predicting everything from a major downsizing of the Armed Forces to a beefing up of resources that will give Canada‘s military greater international credibility. 

The government plans to start work on the white paper in the new year, but it could be months before Canadians learn if it‘s a harbinger of drastic change. 

Queen‘s University Prof. Douglas Bland says the public should demand a say in the matter before it‘s too late. 

"If the review is held within the closed hallways of the National Defence Headquarters, that won‘t happen," said Bland, chairman of defence management studies at the school of policy studies. 

Following a budget that did little for a cash-starved military, Bland says the white paper announcement signals the military‘s future is at risk. 

"Every time Ottawa jiggles the money bags or takes money out of the Defence budget, all of the capabilities are up for question," Bland said. "I don‘t think anything will not be on the table." CFB Kingston included. 

"The question of which bases remain open is back up in the air, and the numbers of people and the equipment. In my mind the status of Trenton, Petawawa and perhaps Kingston are going to be reviewed. 

"These are the kind of questions the minister implies have to be faced." 

Eggleton said Monday that changes have to be made. 

"Certainly we‘re going to have to make structural adjustments to live within our means," Eggleton said. 

"[A policy review] will help to determine how we should cut the cloth according to the resources that we have." 

Paul Martin‘s Dec. 10 federal budget gave the military an extra $300 million for capital spending, far less than the $1 billion per year for five years that critics have been seeking. 

‘VERY BAD NEWS‘ 

"This is very bad news," Bland said. "What it means to Canadians is that Canada is going to be much less involved in international affairs than it has been since 1939, because the suggestion is we‘re going to have to build an armed force only based on what the finance minister is willing to provide for national defence and not on what‘s needed for national defence. 

"The finance minister made it explicit - we‘re not going to play in big games any longer overseas." 

Bland said the announcement comes at a critical time when U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is in Brussels meeting with NATO members suggesting they spend a great deal more. "And we are making the suggestion that‘s not even possible." 

Hal Klepak, a professor of military history at Royal Military College, disagrees. 

"It would be an extraordinary message to send to the U.S. at this time - that we are reducing our effort," Klepak said. "I think Washington would simply be flabbergasted and I think the prime minister is very aware of it, so I don‘t think the announcement means forced reductions. 

"You might restructure somewhat, but I can‘t see a reduction in strength. There‘s not much meat on the bone." 

The demands keep rising while the number of soldiers and the amount of equipment and weaponry is falling, Klepak said. 

"We‘re a bit stuck. In the ‘60s we had over 120,000 people in the Armed Forces and much less to do. Now, we have fewer than 60,000 and much more to do, so obviously there‘s a problem." 

Klepak argues that Canada should put more resources into the military, foreign policy and aid policy if the country wants to be part of international-order discussions in the future. 

The white paper might be a way to usher in those changes, he said. 

Joel Sokolsky a political science professor at RMC, said that‘s unlikely. 

"People who assume a new white paper will lead to more defence spending better think again," Sokolsky said. 

He doesn‘t believe a public debate would help, saying people would rather see sky marshals on every plane than more troops in Afghanistan. 

He doesn‘t think Canadians can buy influence right now. 

‘FOLLOWERS AND ALLIES‘ 

"My view is that the U.S. is looking for followers and allies, not full partners," Sokolsky said. "If we doubled our spending it wouldn‘t make one iota of difference to the U.S. in terms of influencing its policy. 

"I think the government has to create a priority list for equipment and look at recruitment and take a hard look at our existing overseas deployment," he said, adding he doesn‘t think a new white paper is necessary or will make a difference. 

Don Macnamara, a retired air force brigadier-general who spent 37 years in the military, thinks a new policy is long overdue. 

Five reports within the past year alone have called for a review. The most recent was Sheila Fraser‘s auditor general report, which said the military has a shortage of funds, skilled technicians and modern equipment. 

"To me, it‘s clear something substantial will have to take place," said Macnamara, a Queen‘s business professor. 

"Last week, when there was very little money announced in the budget, it was clear that the Canadian Forces could not continue. 

"It all comes down to money. It‘s a five-letter word, not a four-letter word. 

"It‘s clear the money the Forces now gets is not sufficient for them to do what policy expects in terms of equipment, training and manpower." 

Macnamara said the government should develop a comprehensive defence arrangement with the U.S., be capable of upholding its international commitments in a sustainable manner, and be able to prevent global events from escalating into military or humanitarian responses. 

The government owes it to the young people who are willing to fight and die for the country, he said. 

Still, he‘s not optimistic it will be forthcoming, particularly when Finance Minister Martin says health care and education are the country‘s top priorities. 

"The underfunding of the Canadian Forces has been continuous almost for the last 10 years," said Macnamara, who retired from the Forces in 1988. 

"Yes, there has been drama associated with the war on terrorism, but this doesn‘t seem to have affected the resources provided to the military, therefore there must be a new policy reflecting expectations and resources." 

PAPER CHASE 

Â¥ The last white paper on national defence was done 1994 

Â¥ It outlined a cut in personnel from 87,600 in 1990 to 60,000 by 1999 and a variety of commitments 

Â¥ Most critics agree Canada hasn‘t met the policy guidelines outlined in the paper 

Â¥ The groups that have called for a new policy within the past year include: the Royal Canadian Military Institute; the Conference of Defence Associations Institute; the Council for Canadian Security in the 21st Century, through the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary, the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs; and the Auditor General

++++++++++++++++++++++

AN ANALYSIS OF FEDERAL BUDGET 2001
December 16, 2001

General Impression

From the point of view of the Department of National Defence (DND) and the Canadian Forces (CF), Federal Budget 2001 is highly unsatisfactory. Although it professes to address the post-September 11 environment, it largely ignores the urgent requirements of an essential component of national security; namely, the armed forces. There are two main concerns:

C Additional funding assigned to general military capabilities, and to operational readiness comprises only $510 million over two years, whereas annual shortfalls in the DND budget computed by the Auditor-General and others far exceed that sum ;

C The manner in which funding for defence is presented lacks clarity and could be misleading for those interested in defence issues, but not well informed on budget procedures.

Budget Data

In raw terms the budget allocates $1.2 billion to DND and its agencies over the five year period starting in Fiscal Year (FY) 2001/2002 to 2006/2007. Full details are available on the Department of Finance website: www.fin.gc.ca

Over a five year (plus this year) horizon (FY 01/02 to 06/07) , amounts from the above total are assigned as follows:

C Expanded anti-terrorist capacity $119 million

C Nuclear, Biological, Chemical threats 513 million

C Contingency 100 million

The balance is assigned over a two year (including this year) horizon as follows:

C Supporting Canada’s military $510 million

Total $ 1.2 billion

Note that the budget document, Budget Plan 2001, also includes $396 million for Emergency Preparedness" (p.92). In fact, this amount will be assigned to and dispersed by other departments and agencies, and is not included in this analysis. Much the same applies to the $513 million for NBC threats, although some of it will remain in DND (see below re "changes in budget format").

Comment

The additional funding is useful, but only $510 million is available for application to conventional military capabilities and the commitments assigned by the 1994 White Paper on defence.

Moreover, the $510 million is specifically assigned as follows, and therefore not available to address the long list of shortfalls in operational readiness of the CF:

C Operation APOLLO (anti-terror coalition operations) $210 million

C Capital purchases 300 million

The funds for Operation APOLLO have already been spent, and will not contribute to stopping the decline of operational readiness in the Canadian Forces as a whole.

The $300 million for capital purchases will be applied mainly to payments for projects already underway; for example, the ‘lease to purchase’ payments for the new fleet of VICTORIA class submarines. Nevertheless, it will relieve some pressure in future years in the DND Capital Program.

The "expanded anti-terrorist capacity"noted above refers to raising the strength of Joint Task Force 2 (JTF), as well as providing it with appropriate equipment. Funding this new and specific task will not alleviate the general malaise of the CF and, in terms of the additional manpower requirement, will impose further strains on an organization already pushed to the breaking point.

Defining the Problem

Recently, a number of agencies have issued reports and studies in which they analyse the problems arising from the failure of the government to provide the funds necessary for DND and the CF to implement the policy set out in the 1994 White Paper on Defence. They are as follows:

C The Royal Canadian Military Institute (RCMI);

C The Federation of Military and United Services Institutes of Canada (FMUSIC);

C The Conference of Defence Associations (CDA);

C The Council for Canadian Security in the 21st Century ( CCS 21);

C The House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans’ Affairs;

C The House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance.

All of the these reports and studies list serious problems within the CF arising inter alia from a lack of trained manpower, insufficient training, ‘rusting-out’equipment, and inadequate logistics support.

On December 7, 2001, the Auditor-General of Canada issued her annual report. It verified and supported the findings of the other reports listed above. In particular, it noted that there was an ongoing deficit in the DND Operations and Maintenance (O & M) account of $1.3 billion per annum. This means that over a two-year period DND would need $2.6 billion merely to clear this deficit. As shown above, the 2001 federal budget provides only $510 million over two years -- and that amount is already spoken for in other areas! 

In previous reports the Auditor-General has also identified an additional $6 to $10 billion over the next decade which would be needed for major equipment replacement.

To date, DND has managed to survive by re-prioritizing and re-allocating resources -- the so-called ‘rob Peter to pay Paul’ approach. Considering the failure of the 2001 budget to provide significant new funds, this option is no longer viable. It is therefore likely that a defence policy update, scheduled for release early in 2002, will direct further downsizing of the CF, with associated elimination or reduction of combat capabilities.

Lack of Clarity

Budget Plan 2001, lacks clarity in addressing the above situation. For example, when it sets out to illustrate "incremental defence funding"from 1999 to 2001, it provides information in a manner that could mislead the reader. 

The following statement from the box on page 99 of the Budget Plan 2001 illustrates the point:

The $3.9 billion of new funding in the budgets of 1999 and 2000, together with the more than $1.2 billion of new funding in this budget, means that the Government will have increased DND funding by $5.1 billion over the next five years.

The total of $5.1 billion is computed as follows:

Budget 1999 $550 million

Budget 2000 3.350 billion

Budget 2001 1.202 billion

Total $5.102 billion

It has already been shown in earlier paragraphs of this memo that only $510 million of the $1.2 billion allocated to DND in Budget 2001 would be available to support existing military capabilities of the CF. Moreover, this amount is designated in advance for specific expenditures.

The $550 million from the actions taken in Budget 1999 is being applied to Quality of Life projects – very necessary, but not directly applicable to rehabilitation of military capabilities. As well it could be critiqued in the same vein as illustrated in the next paragraph.

It is, however, the totals of $3.350 billion shown for Budget 2000, and the Grand Total (Budgets 1999, 2000, 20001) of $5.102 billion that are most questionable in the manner in which they are presented. The problem lies with confusion over approved rises in the’ base’ of the DND budget in a given year, versus cumulative totals shown for succeeding years. The first rise is indeed an increase in funding which raises the level of the budget base. However, the government refers to the ongoing insertion of the rise over a period of years as an "investment." This may be correct, but there is also an implication that the level of the base has continued to rise past the first year, when that is not the case. There are clear differences in meaning between the two terms – ‘raise the base,’ and ‘total investment’-- and these are explored in detail in the attached annex. 

Political Intent

Paragraph 2 on page 99 of Budget Plan 2001reads as follows:

This budget therefore commits substantial funding to enhance emergency response and preparedness. It allocates more than $1.6 billion over the next five years to improve the Government’s ability to detect, prevent and respond to threats, and to fund Canada’s military participation in the international coalition against terrorism.

In conjunction with this quotation it should be noted that the form of Budget 2001 is quite different from previous practice. Instead of making allocations directly to government departments and agencies, it assigns money to a number of "agendas." DND and the CF are included in the Security Agenda. For this reason, most of the $1.6 billion will not be available for DND expenditure (as already noted above for the Emergency Preparedness allotment). Moreover, even within the DND allocation funds are assigned to objects of expenditure in advance, many outside of DND; for example, nuclear, chemical, biological threats.

The political intent of the above quotation may be interpreted as follows:

To respond to public concerns regarding the economic downturn and terrorism;

To channel most of the new DND funds into local economies;

To deflect criticism by allies and analysts that the CF, including elements assigned to Operation APOLLO, are not ‘battle ready.’ (Elsewhere the government has recognized this deficiency by stating that Operation APOLLO forces would not be committed to combat operations).

Evaluation

The results of Budget 2001 indicate the following:

The operational readiness of the CF will continue to decline, mainly as a result of under funding, which leads to a lack of trained manpower and the progressive "rust-out" of equipment, and inadequate logistics support;

The government does not intend to raise defence expenditures above the level of 1.1% of GDP, and therefore the policy stated in 1994 White Paper on Defence will remain largely unaffordable in the context of government priorities.

Recommendation

The Government initiate at once a broad national security review, comprising comprehensive public and parliamentary examination of Canada’s needs in the realms of foreign policy and defence policy. At the conclusion of the process, publish a new White Paper on Defence, with a government commitment to adequate long-term funding written into it. This process was recently undertaken and implemented in Australia.

Sean Henry. Senior Defence Analyst CDA

ANNEX

The figures and explanations provided in the box on page 99 of the Budget Plan 2001 document are the most contentious in terms of misleading the reader (and the public).

To analyse them one must understand the basic framework of departmental budgets. The latter should be perceived in two parts: a foundation and a smaller superstructure – both of which exist for only one year, and which must re rebuilt at the start each new fiscal year. The foundation is known as the ‘base’, and the superstructure comprises sums of money added outside the base during the year. The complete structure is described in the annual departmental estimates. Recently, in the case of DND, the so-called ‘fiscal framework’(Budget) has been running at about $9.5 billion per annum, and the Estimates at about $11.5 billion.

It is important that the DND budget base be set high enough to fund the commitments assigned to the CF in the 1994 White Paper on Defence. An adequate budget base provides stability, allows coherent forward planning, and keeps the CF in an effective state of operational readiness. 

If there is no federal budget to provide additional money to DND, or if a given budget does not provide an additional allocation, then the Central Agencies simply rebuild the base as it was in the previous year, and approvals at Cabinet, Treasury Board, Department of Finance, and Privy Council Office add the superstructure as required – for example in Supplementary Estimates for expenditures approved during the year. The important point is that the base is made up of individual bricks, most comprising increases approved for the base in previous years. Hence, if a base increase is approved in a given year, it must be inserted again in each succeeding year. Therefore, it is only a ’real increase’ in defence funding the first year it appears. In succeeding years, it is merely re-inserted to keep the base at the approved level.

Since the last base increase in Budget 2000, this brick has come to be known as "Program Integrity" or "Sustainability." In FY 00/01 it was set at $400 million. Since the additional funds allocated to DND in Budget 2000 totalled $3.3 billion (including subsequent extrapolations out to FY 06/07), one may ask why the brick is only worth $400 million. Part of the answer is that the $3.3 billion represents the cumulative funding (original + yearly insertions) over the extended period, i.e., FY 99/00 to FY 06/07. As well, other funds were designated and applied directly to such objects of expenditure as provincial disaster relief and the war in Kosovo. These and other factors meant that in the end the brick of ‘real’ new money applied to the base in the first year was only $400 million. A similar analysis could be applied to the ‘brick’ for Quality of Life, added in Budget 99, and amounting to $140 million.

On the other hand, the base-raising brick of $400 million approved in Budget 2000 has subsequently received approval to appreciate in a limited amount over the period out to FY 06/07. This will raise the budget base incrementally during that period by an amount totalling $300 million. This means that between FY 00/01 and FY 06/07, the DND budget base will rise by $400 million + $300 million = $700 million

The government’s interpretation of this situation differs from the above analysis. The government adds up all the bricks (the initial one, plus the annual re-insertions) in cumulative fashion, and calls it "total investment in defence" – amounting to $5.1 billion. This could mislead those unfamiliar with budget procedures into believing that the government has made ‘additions’ to the DND budget base, when it has only made ‘insertions’ to the budget. (Using the government’s logic, it could be said that the cumulative DND budget allocations from 00/01 to 06/07, totalling some $60 billion are also an "investment in defence"). 

The annual insertion of bricks serves to preserve the new level of money originally approved in a given budget, but afterwards they are not an "increase" in funding. What is not acknowledged in the current situation, is the fact that the foundation is not large enough to address the annual and ongoing DND deficit of $1.3 billion per annum identified by the Auditor-General in her report of December 7, 2001. What is required to resolve the severe underfunding problem within DND is to add new and larger bricks to the DND budget base, of the order of $1 billion per annum in each of the next five years, to bring the budget base up to a steady state of some $14 -15 billion. 

Until that happens, to use another analogy, any lesser increase in real funding will only serve to maintain the life support systems, rather than to cure the patient.


----------



## John Nayduk (20 Dec 2001)

Found some of the money that should have gone to the military.  The liberals are putting it better use.

OTTAWA SEEKS TO CONTRACT OUT GUN REGISTRY
The federal government wants to contract out operations of its gun
registry, a deal which will likely cost hundreds of millions of dollars
more than what has already been spent.
FULL STORY:
 http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/view?/news/2001/12/20/gun_registry011220


----------



## bossi (21 Dec 2001)

(okay - count to ten before losing my temper ... count to ten before losing my temper ... count to ten before losing my temper ... grrrrrr ... several reasons come to mind, with regard to his question ... arrogant is a polite one ... and by the way - it makes me sick to think of the gold-plated pension he‘s going to receive ... and that he voted for himself, whereas reservists receive diddly-squat ... okay - count to ten before losing my temper ... grrrrr ....)


Chrétien defends Forces
PM insists military is ready for action, skirts support for U.S. move on Iraq

By HEATHER SCOFFIELD (Globe and Mail)
Friday, December 21, 2001

OTTAWA -- People who complain that the federal government is not spending enough on the military are living in the past, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien said yesterday.

In year-end interviews with the CTV and Global Television networks, the Prime Minister insisted that the Canadian Forces are well-equipped and well-respected around the world, and that the pressure to increase military spending simply stems from the profit-oriented agenda of lobbyists for the defence industry.

"We have to adjust to the new reality of 2001. But some are still thinking in terms of the same strategy at the time of 1939. We‘re not having wars of the same nature," Mr. Chrétien told CTV News.

Every year since he became a member of Parliament in 1963, the military has asked for more money, the Prime Minister said. But improvements in Canada‘s effectiveness as a military power should focus more on adjusting defence policy to suit modern needs, and not on amassing more tanks.

"They don‘t use a lot of tanks today," he said. "I‘m not sure, there‘s two wars in a row that we have been involved into. There was Kosovo, and there was Afghanistan. Not one tank was used there."

While he said he understands where the "bunch of guys who are lobbyists, who are representing those who sell armaments" are coming from, they should realize that any extra money for defence comes at the expense of spending on health care or the poor.

The federal budget brought down earlier this month contained $300-million over six years for new military equipment, and a total of $1.2-billion over the same period of time for a wide range of domestic defence needs -- an amount critics deplored as "paltry."

Military experts, opposition critics and even Liberal MPs have repeatedly told the government that the Forces lack the resources to provide soldiers with modern equipment and proper training.

The Liberal-dominated Commons committee on national defence has said the Canadian Forces are in a financial crisis and need an additional $1-billion a year to meet their commitments. The report said the military is starved for funds, understaffed and in some cases poorly trained. It recommended giving the Forces money to upgrade its reserves, increase its capacity to deal with biological weapons and quadruple the size of its elite commando squad. Money for tanks was not a main priority.

Mr. Chrétien said yesterday he was not ignoring those criticisms.

"In fact, [the Forces] are well-equipped . . ." he told Global Television. "The army performs very well. . . . They have all the equipment they need to do the good job that makes us so proud."

The Prime Minister also showed great reluctance to support any initiative by the United States to expand its military activity from Afghanistan to Iraq. Canada has committed itself only to fighting terrorism and the al-Qaeda network, but an attack on Iraq would have nothing to do with terrorism, Mr. Chrétien said. Rather, an attack on Iraq would have more to do with the proliferation of biological and chemical weapons, he said.

For now, Canada will support only an initiative with a "direct link" to terrorism, he added.

The Prime Minister skirted questions about when he would retire, saying he would consider his future during the second half of his term. He reiterated his intentions to stick around at least until April 6, 2003, his 40th anniversary as an MP.

He acknowledged that he occasionally wonders whether he should retire soon, but always changes his mind.

"Why should I leave?" he asked.
- 30 -


----------



## John Nayduk (21 Dec 2001)

Almost sounds like the death of the Armoured Corp!


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Dec 2001)

I hate to compare a patriotic cold warrior like Rockin‘ Ronnie Reagan, who has the cajones, even today, and the PM, who is obvoiusly greatly lacking, in this department. However a similarity is starting to show as they both reached their golden years and political zenith. We know that Reagan lost touch with reality and now the same brain malady is affecting Cretian. Difference being Reagan was surrounded by competent people who were able to guide him along till he finished as President. Cretian is surrounded with delusionists like himself who will only guide us to a sad and dishonourable end.


----------



## McG (30 Dec 2001)

> [qb] Every year since he became a member of Parliament in 1963, the military has asked for more money, the Prime Minister said. But improvements in Canada‘s effectiveness as a military power should focus more on adjusting defence policy to suit modern needs, and not on amassing more tanks.
> 
> "They don‘t use a lot of tanks today," he said. "I‘m not sure, there‘s two wars in a row that we have been involved into. There was Kosovo, and there was Afghanistan. Not one tank was used there."
> [/qb]



Canadian tanks were deployed to Kosovo and, while no Canadian tanks have gone to Afghanistan, there were plenty of tanks used there.  But the CF is not looking for more money to buy tanks.  The CF needs more money to maintain what it has now.


----------

