# Defence: $12.7-billion infusion  ;D



## big bad john (21 Feb 2005)

Forces still waiting for new planes
Promised last year: Ageing search and rescue aircraft need to be replaced
  
Chris Wattie 
National Post 


Monday, February 21, 2005

  
A government promise of $300-million for the purchase of new search and rescue aircraft in last year's budget is stuck in the defence procurement process despite a pledge to fast-track the program.

And critics say that speaks volumes about the sincerity of Liberal promises to increase defence spending in this week's budget, reportedly by $750-million.

"It's a favourite trick," said Dr. David Bercuson, the director of the University of Calgary's Centre for Military and Strategic Studies. "They make a promise and then they spin it out over several years.... It makes you wonder about the promises they're going to make this year, doesn't it?"

In his budget last April, Ralph Goodale, the Finance Minister, promised $300-million to the Canadian Forces to allow them to purchase 15 aircraft "within 12 to 18 months" to replace ageing CC-130 Hercules and CC-150 Buffalos now used for search and rescue duties.

But the air force now says it could be quite a bit longer before new planes are finally delivered to its squadrons.

Captain Jim Hutcheson, a spokesman for the air force, said that for the past year, the project has been stalled in its initial stages, awaiting its "statement of requirement," a technical document listing the performance and other needs that the aircraft must fulfill -- from speed and maximum altitude to cargo capacity and maintenance requirements.

"That part is basically done, pending whatever happens in the defence policy review," he said.

He said the purchase cannot begin to move forward until the Defence Minister introduces a defence policy paper outlining the future direction of the Canadian military, expected sometime next month.

And Capt. Hutcheson acknowledged the prediction in last year's budget that the new aircraft could be bought within a year to 18 months was a bit optimistic. "Yes, it's turning out that way," he said.

"We definitely want it in place by 2010 ... that's when the Buffalo, as it's currently planned, will cease flying. But I know that they want to have it in place before then, because it's a high-priority project and they want to complete it as quickly as possible."

But military analysts say the rescue plane program is symptomatic of an overly complicated purchasing system and time- consuming bureaucracy in the Department of National Defence.

"The procurement process in this country is so drawn-out and convoluted that it's almost impossible for anyone to tell what's going on with any given project at any given time," Dr. Bercuson said.

"The procurement process is broken ... [and] until that's fixed, you cannot do anything to improve the state of our military."

Capt. Hutcheson said once the statement of requirement is completed and approved, a call for bids from aircraft manufacturers will be issued and a contract tendering process will begin, a process that could take more than a year.

After that, the winning company must still build the 15 aircraft and have them tested and accepted by the air force.

Capt. Hutcheson said the entire process is "perfectly do-able by 2010," but could not predict whether the new planes could be delivered earlier or how much earlier.

But Alain Pellerin, the director of the defence lobby group Conference of Defence Associations, said the delays to the project are denying air force pilots of a badly needed new plane.

"Historically in Canada, these large capital projects take 10 to 15 years," he said. "In the meantime, there's more and more pressure on the Hercules fleet. Fewer of them are serviceable every year."

The project is also being slowed by an air force study into how best to meet its cargo and troop-carrying needs in the future. Senior air force officers have reportedly been pushing for the government to purchase new, large cargo aircraft such as the Boeing C-17 Globemaster to replace the Hercules, so far with little success.

However, the new search and rescue aircraft could play a role in supplanting the Hercules for smaller loads and shorter distances.

"It is going to primarily, if not entirely, address search and rescue ... but in addition to doing [that] job, it will have to fit in to the overall airlift solution that the forces is going to have to put into place," Capt. Hutcheson said.

"Whatever aircraft is selected will have to be the appropriate piece in the puzzle in addition to fitting in with other airlift resources, whether it's Herc replacements or whatever."

The fixed-wing search and rescue project has been the top priority for the air force for the past two years, since new aircraft would free up Hercules transport planes that must now be on standby for rescues.

That would reduce the strain on the fleet of 40-year-old cargo planes, which are spending increasing amounts of time in hangars being repaired because of their age and high rate of use.

The search and rescue planes are needed to answer distress calls over 15.5 million square kilometres inside Canadian air space.

The Buffalos went into service in the mid-1960s and were to be phased out in 2002, but their life expectancy was extended. They are currently available only about half the time they are needed.

The Hercules were to be replaced by 2010, but the air force is considering keeping them flying until as late as 2038, when they would be well over 70 years old.

© National Post 2005


----------



## Baloo (21 Feb 2005)

big bad john said:
			
		

> The Hercules were to be replaced by 2010, but the air force is considering keeping them flying until as late as 2038, when they would be well over 70 years old.




Can this part really be true? Or has the Air Force finally pre-empted the politicians and assumed they will not be able to replace until then? What's the deal?


----------



## big bad john (21 Feb 2005)

First the Politicans promise the funds.  Second, they then give you less than promised.  Third, you then have a competition for the best aircraft.  Forth, the pols then over rule the decision to buy the best aircraft to buy the most politically expedient aircraft.  Fifth, they then cut the budget again.  Sixth, you then tender the bid and get a number on the production line.  Remember, the process can be cancelled at any time or you can be made to start over at any time.  Finally you get the aircraft, but only if you are very, very lucky.

I think that I have it right.  Of course I am new to Canada.  Corrections anyone?


----------



## Horse_Soldier (21 Feb 2005)

big bad john said:
			
		

> First the Politicans promise the funds.   Second, they then give you less than promised.   Third, you then have a competition for the best aircraft.   Forth, the pols then over rule the decision to buy the best aircraft to buy the most politically expedient aircraft.   Fifth, they then cut the budget again.   Sixth, you then tender the bid and get a number on the production line.   Remember, the process can be cancelled at any time or you can be made to start over at any time.   Finally you get the aircraft, but only if you are very, very lucky.
> 
> I think that I have it right.   Of course I am new to Canada.   Corrections anyone?


I'll just add one large bottleneck to your listing - Public Works and Government Services Canada who do the actual contracting and procurement for the CF.  Having dealt with their procurement system on numerous occasions for small (less than $1million) projects, I've experienced the time that heavy and ponderous bureaucracy can add to the process.  In the case of a major capital project, it can be several years, especially if the politicians add the old "economic benefits" clause to any procurement, i.e. spreading gubmint cheese to various Liberal ridings by sub-contracting, etc (which is why off-the-shelf purchases for the CF are few).


----------



## S McKee (22 Feb 2005)

Troops will have to wait for increased funding: Government review of military policy won't be ready in time for tomorrow's budget

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The <Canadian> Forces should temper their expectations going into tomorrow's federal budget, partly because the government policy review charting the military's course will not be ready in time, sources say. 

Finance Minister Ralph Goodale's second budget will not contain a large, immediate infusion of cash for defence, sources told <Canadian> Press. 

Instead, commitments will be made over five years and built upon after the policy review process is complete, said senior defence officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity. 

"The defence policy review will look at the next few years, as we expect the budget will," one source said. 

"Resources will be there when the time comes." 

In the Commons yesterday, Defence Minister Bill Graham said the government will "proceed in an intelligent, measured way to get what the armed forces need." 

"I'm confident that the finance minister will be giving us the resources this week in the budget and we will have a defence review which clearly lays out an active, proactive role in defence matters that helps the rest of the world." 

Policy planners went back to the drawing board in December after Graham threw out initial drafts of the policy statement and later appointed a new chief of defence staff, Gen. Rick Hillier. 

The policy document, which could call for major investments in new ships and aircraft, is in its final stages and will be released soon. 

The total cost over five years has been estimated in the $800-million range. 

Defence sources suggest the budget will also incorporate raises and the five-year, $1-billion cost of expanding the military by the 5,000 full-time troops and 3,000 reservists the Liberals have promised. 

The initial investment in the latter commitment is expected to be about $250 million in the first year, sources said. 

The total estimate includes recruiting, training and integrating the new members, most of whom are expected to go to the <army>. 

Conservative MP Peter MacKay said the Liberals need to make a statement in tomorrow's budget. 

"This Liberal government has systematically dismantled the <Canadian> Forces over the last 12 years," he told the Commons. "The promises to repair the military are hollow, they're repeated year after year. 

"Will the budget continue the Liberal trend of dismantling and dithering and delaying, or will we actually see a firm commitment?" 

Replied Graham: "This government is committed to rebuilding our forces. We will rebuild the <Canadian> Forces. We will rebuild it in an intelligent, focused and determined way." 

The Conference of Defence Associations has called on Ottawa to increase the $13.2-billion defence budget by $1.5 billion this year and by another $1.5 billion annually to a total of $20 billion. 

Defence sources said those figures have been rejected as beyond the realm of affordability. 

The $20 billion the group is calling for represents 1.6 per cent of <Canada's> gross domestic product, or the average share of defence money among NATO member countries. The current defence budget represents one per cent of <Canada's> GDP. 

The association's recommended initial infusion of $1.5 billion would "stop the decline in CF operational capabilities, and provide an essential firm base for rebuilding and transforming (modernizing) the CF," it said. 



Here's your answer folks...more of the same


----------



## George Wallace (22 Feb 2005)

Let's see:

1.      Your Cheque is in the Mail.

2.      I won't ______ in your mouth.

3. ..............

I guess we have heard it all before.......  :

What is the wager on how long this Defence Review will take?


----------



## S McKee (22 Feb 2005)

Let's see .....they'll do the review, Then it will be put on hold because there'll be an election, then the new government will have to conduct it's own review because things have changed since the last review....and then it'll be "Well we'd like to buy all this stuff but we need money for "National Daycare for gay baby whales and harp seals." and so on and so on...... do I sound bitter?


----------



## karl28 (22 Feb 2005)

I think its alright for  you to feel bitter .  Its hard to do you job when you don't have the right equipment and a Gov that seem's not to care .  Like my Daddy said when it comes to the gov promises don't count on them till there in your hand .


----------



## John Nayduk (22 Feb 2005)

Defence to get $13B more over 5 years: CP 

Canadian Press 
  
Updated: Tue. Feb. 22 2005 9:08 PM ET 

OTTAWA - A massive injection of funds totalling $13 billion for Canada's cash-strapped military will be announced in Wednesday's federal budget, sources say.

About one-third of the funding, which will be spread over five years, will be directed towards capital projects and infrastructure for the military, senior sources told The Canadian Press.

The total includes redistribution of some existing funds, as well as new money, with spending likely to ramp up slowly over the coming years.

The budget will also allow Canadians to keep a few more loonies in their pockets, after but harassed parents must wait longer to see relief in the form of a national child-care program. On the personal income tax front, Finance Minister Ralph Goodale will announce an increase totalling almost $2,000 over the next four years in the basic personal amount that one can earn before income tax kicks in.

Sources say that's expected to ultimately bump about 800,000 low-income earners off the federal tax rolls.

The increase to $10,000 in the basic personal exemption by 2009 -- from the 2005 level of about $8,150 and last year's level of $8,012 -- will apply equally to all taxpayers, regardless of income.

Small corporate tax breaks will also be announced as the Liberals reveal their eighth consecutive balanced budget, sources say.

The large budget increase for the military and reduction in personal taxes could help the minority Liberals win some badly needed support from Opposition Conservatives, who have 99 seats in the Commons.

The Conservatives may also be pleased with the Liberal go-slow approach to a national child-care program.

This budget pledges only about $700 million in the coming fiscal year for child-care _ an amount critics say is hardly a promising start to the $5-billion, five-year program that was the centrepiece of the Liberal election platform last June.

Advocates say what's really needed is a yearly commitment of at least $1 billion to kick-start a national child-care plan and lure provinces onside.

The small amount won't go far when spread over several provinces, such as Ontario and Manitoba, that are ready to work with Ottawa.

Struggling families across the country need help fast, says Monica Lysack, executive director of the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada.

"If you're parenting a two-year-old and a four-year-old ... you need it right now -- not next year.''

The pokey pace on child care won't please the opposition New Democrats, whose 19-seat support is important to the 133 minority Liberals.

But NDP concerns may be assuaged by the pledge of at least $1 billion over five years for a clean energy fund to help Ottawa meet its commitments under the Kyoto environmental accord.

Over that same five-year period, the military will be able to implement pay raises as well as an expansion of personnel, by 5,000 full-time troops and 3,000 reservists. > 

Prime Minister Paul Martin and his finance minister want to keep the opposition onside -- they can't forget that the last time a minority government presented a federal budget in 1979, the Conservative government of the day soon fell.

Goodale's document -- titled Delivering On Commitments -- will aim to meet Liberal election promises while setting out what could be Martin's next platform.

Part of that includes tax breaks, however small.

Just what the rise in the basic personal exemption will mean to individuals depends on their incomes.

Still, it helps meet the promise of tax reductions for modest-income earners, made last fall to win Conservative support for the Liberal minority's throne speech.

Goodale's second budget is also expected to:

Spend $400 million to help immigrants settle, with more funding for job training. 
Offer $600 million for communities as the first year of a five-year, $5-billion deal. _ Increase benefits for seniors totalling about $500 million over two years. 
Cut the number of weeks needed for EI eligibility. 
Increase foreign aid. 
Spend about $100 million over two years to replace dilapidated native housing. _ Offer roughly $150 million over five years for learning programs on reserves. 
Add $20 million for Sport Canada and extend existing programs. With Goodale predicting tight budgets in the next two years, this document will focus on sprinkling small sums of seed money widely across many projects.
The minister insists only tiny federal surpluses of $4.5 billion and $5.9 billion are expected in the next two fiscal years.

Those figures drop below $1 billion after his annual rainy day funds of $4 billion in 2005-06 and $5 billion in 2006-07 are subtracted.

Money is particularly scarce just now, noted Goodale, due to costly promises to provinces last fall -- a $41-billion, 10-year health pact as well as a $33-billion equalization deal over the same period. Opposition finance critics say they don't believe his numbers.

Tuesday, each party presented its own surplus calculations ranging anywhere from $4.1 billion to $12.6 billion for the year 2005-06. 




© Copyright 2004 Bell Globemedia Inc.


----------



## Big Foot (22 Feb 2005)

Oh man I hope this is true


----------



## Pte. Bloggins (22 Feb 2005)

Whoa...one can only hope...


----------



## karl28 (22 Feb 2005)

Man oh man this would be so sweet if it was True I hope it is . The Military deserves to have that money and more . The income tax would help me out abit to so good all around but we will just have to wait for it though the worse part i hate waiting LOL . ;D


----------



## Canuck_25 (22 Feb 2005)

Remember, even if it is true, it has to be passed through parliment. You better hope the conservatives come on side.


----------



## FredDaHead (22 Feb 2005)

I think they forgot to add a minus sign before the number. As it is, my bull**** detector is going crazy.

I do hope the military gets more money though. It would definately help a lot.


----------



## qor556 (22 Feb 2005)

Another Recce Guy said:
			
		

> Defence to get $13B more over 5 years: CP
> 
> Over that same five-year period, the military will be able to implement pay raises as well as an expansion of personnel, by 5,000 full-time troops and 3,000 reservists. >



You still have to take in account there will be about 8,000 more new troops coming into the system... One can only hope the money is spent well -  at least ensuring they receive 2 pairs of combat boots :. Other than that, they better invest a sufficient amount of money into getting more kit into the system, it's hard as it is with 8,000 less people as you all know. Oh yea, but if actually happens it will be great, just have to watch and shoot I suppose. Imagine if we can one day have the Canadian army at full strength.


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Feb 2005)

Two other noteworthy events:

Ottawa and Quebec are putting 750,000,000 into Bell Helicopters at Mirabel to "develop a new civilian helicopter"

Bell is part of the US101 consortium -  should help to soothe damaged feelings about the MHP buy - and could open the way to discussions on Griffon upgrades and possibly even (dreaming) AH-1Zs and/or EH-101s for Tpt.

Also Jerry Schwartz of Onyx (the guy who tried to buy Air Canada and IIRC whose wife owns Indigo/Chapters) just bought a division off of Boeing in Kansas that used to employ 18,000 people.  Intends to supply fuselages to Boeing "and other aircraft manufacturers" like even Airbus for civilian applications.

In the world of governmental quids pro quo does this open the line to buying 747s or C-17s now that Canada has a stake in the US aircraft industry?   Could it also have implications for the Airbus A400M?

Things are looking quite interesting.

At the same time Martin says absolutely no BMD he praises Bush, increases military spending and his Ambassador says Washington has got what it asked for on BMD.

Funny old world.


----------



## Good2Golf (23 Feb 2005)

Kirkhill, I was chatting with someone close to things in Mirabel and they said that things look good for Bell Textron getting the US Army's contract for the ARH replacement to today's OH-58D Kiowa Warrior.   A related article is included below, and notes that "*The Bell ARH, which will be built at Bell's Military Assembly and Integration Center in Amarillo, Texas, will also draw from a large and talented supplier base for its sophisticated sensors, weapons and defensive systems.*"   What my contact mentioned was that "*built*" means "sub"-assemblies made on the current 407 line in Mirabel, then shipped to Amarillo, where the helicopter will be    "built".   Fact is, all the [very expensive] tooling is in Mirabel and would jack costs way too much to duplicate a line in Texas

Bell proposes version of its Model 407 for US Army Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter. and an equally interesting article Analysis of US ARH Program - Flight International

I wonder if there will be any US-101 parts made in Mirabel, then sent down to Texas for finally assembly?   Ah yes, the world gets to be a very complicated place, doesn't it?   ;D

I hope we do get some good news tomorrow...here's hoping, folks!

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## SprCForr (23 Feb 2005)

On the lighter side folks. Once again, Rick Mercer! 

http://www.cbc.ca/mondayreport/videos/rick_rant_for_week_of_february_21_2005.wvx


----------



## Good2Golf (23 Feb 2005)

Rick was great, last night!  Hey, have we invited him to be an Honourary Colonel for a CF unit, yet???


----------



## scm77 (23 Feb 2005)

Hmm... that link didn't work for me for some reason, but I found the video.  This one should work for people who can't see the other one.

http://www.cbc.ca/mondayreport/videos/rick_rant_for_week_of_february_21_2005.mov

Rick Mercer is great


----------



## qor556 (23 Feb 2005)

That was hilarious. Good ol' Rick Mercer.


----------



## MikeM (23 Feb 2005)

Excellent, Rick for PM!!


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Feb 2005)

Complicated right enuff Duey. ;D

Any idea how many "Kiowas" will fit inside a C17?  
Edit: Never mind - just read your link.

It might also be interesting to see if US airlines are suddenly allowed to fly in Canadian airspace and what effect that might have on the "Freight" business - new demand for Aircraft capable of handling outsize loads?

It's always fun to speculate.


----------



## Sundborg (23 Feb 2005)

Is that $13B going to be extra on top of the current military budget?


----------



## PPCLI Guy (23 Feb 2005)

Sundborg said:
			
		

> Is that $13B going to be extra on top of the current military budget?



Yes


----------



## armyrules (23 Feb 2005)

Geez I realy hope the military gets the money they deserve it.


----------



## scm77 (23 Feb 2005)

http://www.canada.com/finance/rrsp/budget_2005/story.html?id=47c08718-f50b-442f-b45c-959330b4322b

It's kinda long and deals with a bunch of stuff other then the military so I'll just the military related stuff.  You can read the full article if you like.



> The federal Liberals are poised to make the largest single investment in Canada's cash-strapped military in more than two decades today when Finance Minister Ralph Goodale announces he will boost the Armed Forces budget by more than $12 billion over the next five years.





> Sources say the more than $12-billion defence injection will be spent on such initiatives as hiring 5,000 soldiers, 3,000 reservists and providing an across-the-board pay hike of 6.5 per cent. The initial downpayment in new hires is expected to be about $250 million in the first year.
> 
> *A total of $2.5 billion in new money is being earmarked for new helicopters*, sources say, and another $1.5 billion is expected to go toward filling the existing "shortfall" the department has been running because of previous budget cuts, the high cost of maintaining equipment, and the rising costs associated with an increase in the number of military operations around the world.
> 
> Sources note a significant portion of this overall injection has been announced previously to pay for new equipment.



Anyone know if they are just talking about the MHP again or additional new helicopters (ie Chinook)?


----------



## Mr. Ted (23 Feb 2005)

This could be good folks, even though I'll believe it when I see it.  Possibility of 13 BILLION for the army over next few years.

Check it out:

Budget to include billions for military, environment
Last Updated Wed, 23 Feb 2005 08:55:35 EST 
CBC News
OTTAWA - The Liberal government is expected to present a balanced budget Wednesday that includes billions of new dollars for the military and the Kyoto Accord while offering tax breaks to some Canadians. 

  
Ralph Goodale studies his budget.  
Finance Minister Ralph Goodale will present an eighth consecutive Liberal budget that balances the nation's books â â€œ and is designed to placate the opposition parties who have the power to defeat the minority government. 

Goodale is expected to announce around $13 billion for Canada's cash-strapped military. About one-third of the funding, which will be spread over five years, will be directed towards capital projects and infrastructure for the military, The Canadian Press reported. 

The environment will also be a key focus of the budget, with about $5 billion earmarked for compliance with the Kyoto Accord, half of it new money. About $1 billion of that will go to a new fund for incentives to cut greenhouse gas emissions. 

Goodale will use the budget to showcase how his government plans to save money by becoming more environmentally friendly. 

The plan will include a new Office of Green Procurement at the Department of Public Works that will look for energy-efficient ways to trim 10 per cent of the department's contracting costs. 

Money for social programs will include $5 billion over five years for a new child care program, with a $1 billion initial commitment to be made Wednesday. 

To appease the Conservatives, tax cuts will come through a boost to the basic personal exemption amount. 

The Canadian Press reports the plan will include an increase totalling almost $2,000 over the next four years in the basic personal amount that one can earn before income tax kicks in. 

That will ultimately bump about 800,000 low-income earners off the federal tax rolls. 

Immigration will also get a boost of $400 million over five years including funding to help foreign doctors get their credentials recognized in Canada. 

The budget is also expected to include more money for foreign aid and an increase to seniors benefits.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (23 Feb 2005)

The cheques in the mail to.


----------



## a_majoor (23 Feb 2005)

I expect this to evaporate over the five year period due to "changing prioreties", and the money we do get moves to "Liberal Friendly" contractors. 

End result: treading water.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (23 Feb 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> I expect this to evaporate over the five year period due to "changing prioreties", and the money we do get moves to "Liberal Friendly" contractors.
> 
> End result: treading water.



Perhaps it is a little early to be checking the teeth of this particular gift horse?

Dave


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (23 Feb 2005)

I agree, ......different rider and certainly different governing circumstances


----------



## JasonH (23 Feb 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> I expect this to evaporate over the five year period due to "changing prioreties", and the money we do get moves to "Liberal Friendly" contractors.
> 
> End result: treading water.



Rather they do that with our usual 750 million?

Yeah... thats what I thought


----------



## Franko (23 Feb 2005)

The big question is:

Is it going to boost the CF in any way? What I mean is, will it go towards purchasing new equipment or go towards this "great idea" of standing up a new brigade? 

Personally I would like to see new equipment, not only for the army but forces wide. What are the bureaucrats going to get......new wallpaper for their offices at a princely sum (see Bob Fowler    :   )

It'll surprise me if it gets spent the way it should....well soon see.

Regards


----------



## Good2Golf (23 Feb 2005)

Scm, I think they're talking about the MHP although there is very specific mention of heavy lift helos being recommended in the Defence Review....not sure how that will pan out but I understand that Gen Hillier has made a pretty firm attachment between deploying more troops and the need to provide integral (as opposed to borrwed) aviation support.   I guess we'll see....

Like I said earlier...I'll happily be a bus-driver for you guys if you give me the right kit! ;D

Cheers,
Duey



http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=0fab0d98-cadf-4411-a1b5-24c31d69a905



> Coming soon: A bigger, quicker army: Navy, air force cast as 'bus drivers' for land forces: sources
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> The government's long-awaited defence policy review will recommend the Canadian Forces be rebuilt around a greatly expanded army, which would include two mobile task forces to be deployed anywhere in the world aboard new expeditionary warships and heavy-lift helicopters, the National Post has learned.
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Feb 2005)

I'm with Bruce and Dave on this one.

Nobody doesn't support " A Responsibility to Protect".   Conservatives, and even left wing Liberals, NDPers and the Bloc have all called for Canada to have the capability to intervene.   The only debate really is whether we have to have the Americans underwrite our effort.   If we want and independent, or even God-forbid an anti-American, ability to act internationally then we have to pay for it.   There seems to be broad support for that notion.

BTW Franko: Chris Wattie at the National Post reports "no new units, no new brigades".


----------



## FSTO (23 Feb 2005)

Reports this morning of an "Army Centric" Defense review consisting of increased numbers of JTF2 and 2 rapid deployment Brigades/Battalions(sorry, Navy guy here)? Amphib ships, heavy lift aircraft (C17? Chinooks?) and attack aircraft (Apaches? Warthogs? Harriers?)  States that the Navy and Air Force will be reduced to bus drivers.

This statement proves that the author doesn't have a clue what they are talking about.

If we have an Amphib projecting forces ashore, how do you protect it? How does it get there in a hostile environment? If we have to depend on other nations to protect our one great asset, you better believe it won't leave port very often.

As for air support, its the airforce that provides that or is DND thinking about bringing back Army Aviation and the Fleet Air Arm? I highly doubt it.

Though I'll believe the funding once I see hard commitments.


----------



## Franko (23 Feb 2005)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> BTW Franko: Chris Wattie at the National Post reports "no new units, no new brigades".



That is also being said...as well as what FSTO said.

Only a few more hours......

Regards


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (23 Feb 2005)

"which is to be unveiled soon after today's federal budget"

This is an important statement although it is even more important the the White Paper is actually followed and adhered to.


----------



## Cloud Cover (23 Feb 2005)

I don't think it's an actual "white paper" - it's just a review with some proposed directions.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (23 Feb 2005)

I'm not liking your use of "proposed" ie if the boss doesn't like it then things get cut.


----------



## Cloud Cover (23 Feb 2005)

I don't doubt the defence Minister's commitment to whatever the plan says, but there is too much political risk undertaken by the cabinet with spending 13 billion on defence which is somehow tied to creating expeditionary forces. For example, this morning I was handed a flyer downtown, which was titled 'Smart Kids, Not Smart Bombs" and which then outlined a "citizens action plan"   to pressure the government to fund other "more important priorities that Canadians really want." I was   amazed with the speed of reaction and the ability to rapidly mobilize that these groups have.     

How is a politician supposed to respond to slogans like the above? We all know how rational and reasoned decision makers would, but that automatically excludes politics. Nothing is carved in stone in politics, except health care and equality rights- 2 of the things that Canadians apparently "really want."     

As an aside, it appears that access to a national daycare program is now emerging as the latest objective of "true equality." Watch and shoot to see who has more influence.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Feb 2005)

And continuing in the vein of curious coincidences and fortuitous timing:


Discussion about CF-18 upgrade at defense-aerospace.com



> *Boeing's * sub-contractor for installation of these systems is *L3Com Canada (Military Aviation Services) at Mirabel*.


http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.4308111.1089903978.QPadasOa9dUAAESlMZk&modele=jdc_34





> Hot on the heels of AgustaWestland's VXX victory, another Finmeccanica company, *Alenia*, has essentially *dumped Lockheed Martin from its bid to supply C-27J* tactical transports to the US Army. Instead, the Italian manufacturer* has teamed up with US firm L-3 Communications * to prime the bid, demoting Lockheed - the company that led the winning VXX team - to the status of critical supplier.
> 
> Every competition is different, and Lockheed's success in the VXX contest is no guarantee that it could have led a winning C-27J bid. But Alenia's move to team with L-3 seems calculated to establish the Italian company's name in the USA. Time will tell whether it has underestimated the competitive advantage it can gain from Italy's status as a US ally in Iraq.



http://www.flightinternational.com/fi_issue/is_reg_comment.asp   (posted by Duey)


Now, how might   these influence Heavy Lift buys? Coupled with the previously mentioned moves by the Government and Bell at Montreal and Schwartz with Boeing?

Lockheed out, Bell, Boeing and Alenia in? - Bell 407/ Boeing CH47/ Alenia C27J?


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Feb 2005)

> How is a politician supposed to respond to slogans like the above? We all know how rational and reasoned decision makers would, but that automatically excludes politics. Nothing is carved in stone in politics, except health care and equality rights- 2 of the things that Canadians apparently "really want."



*'Smart Kids, Not Smart Bombs*" ?

How about

*Smart Canadian Kids or Dead African Kids?*


----------



## Gunnar (23 Feb 2005)

Live kids, not live bombs?


----------



## Horse_Soldier (23 Feb 2005)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> *'Smart Kids, Not Smart Bombs*" ?
> 
> How about
> 
> *Smart Canadian Kids or Dead African Kids?*



Ummm - and when has the navel-gazing, self-satisfied voting public ever given a damn about dead African kids, outside the rock events like Live-Aid that is?   Our foreign aid levels are scandalously low for a wealthy country like Canada, and yet there is absolutely no constituency for raising them - not even from that sector producing these neat, feel-good lefty pamphlets.   I guess solidarity with the poor of the world is trumped by more entitlements from the public purse.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Feb 2005)

> I guess solidarity with the poor of the world is trumped by more entitlements from the public purse.



On my cynical days I know you're right....but I can't let myself be that cynical all the time...but there again :-\


----------



## GGboy (23 Feb 2005)

Well sure, $12-billion sounds like a lot of money but consider this:
$2.1 billion for Joint Support Ship pgm
$600 million for the MGS
$300 million for fixed-wing SAR aircraft
$5 billion for Sea King replacements
Total previously announced projects: $8 billion

Add to that an estimated $1-billion for the 5,000 new troops and you've got a lot less money spread out over five years.
The usual smoke and mirrors in other words


----------



## Sheerin (23 Feb 2005)

I think Steven Staples is going to be just a tid bit upset...

lol   ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Feb 2005)

GGBoy:

Perhaps we are confusing Budget with Projects.

AFAIK the projects that you listed had previously been allowed for within the standing budgets.  The question rightly is, is this new money or just new projects.  The sense that I have is that this is new money.

I hope I am right,  we'll all see soon enough.


----------



## TheCheez (23 Feb 2005)

We'll know for sure this afternoon but the leaked stuff sounds more like they are spinning a smaller cash amount by saying 13B to the forces but really some of that has been spent. Looking forward to hearing the truth over the next few days. Here's a clip from one article: (The rest of the article is non-military budget talk)

Sources say the more-than-$12-billion defence injection will be used to <recruit> 5,000 more soldiers and 3,000 additional reservists, providing them with an across-the-board pay hike of 6.5%. The initial down payment in new hires is expected to be about $250-million in the first year. 

A total of $2.5-billion in new money is being earmarked for helicopters, sources say, and another $1.5-billion is expected to go toward filling the existing "shortfall" the defence department has been running due to previous budget cuts, the high cost of maintaining equipment and the rising costs of an increased number of military operations around the world. 

Sources also note, however, that *a portion of this overall injection has been announced previously to pay for new equipment*

Source: National Post


----------



## Canuck_25 (23 Feb 2005)

whiskey 601 said:
			
		

> I don't doubt the defence Minister's commitment to whatever the plan says, but there is too much political risk undertaken by the cabinet with spending 13 billion on defence which is somehow tied to creating expeditionary forces. For example, this morning I was handed a flyer downtown, which was titled 'Smart Kids, Not Smart Bombs" and which then outlined a "citizens action plan"   to pressure the government to fund other "more important priorities that Canadians really want." I was   amazed with the speed of reaction and the ability to rapidly mobilize that these groups have.
> 
> How is a politician supposed to respond to slogans like the above? We all know how rational and reasoned decision makers would, but that automatically excludes politics. Nothing is carved in stone in politics, except health care and equality rights- 2 of the things that Canadians apparently "really want."
> 
> As an aside, it appears that access to a national daycare program is now emerging as the latest objective of "true equality." Watch and shoot to see who has more influence.



 Well, i think Canadians generally support a boost in the military's budget. I have a english teacher in my school who is extremily anti American (one of those former protesters back in the day.) Her english 10 class gets taught about hiroshima and how the U.S. shouldnt have dropped the bomb. Even she admits that we should drop missile defence and give our military the money it deserves, and she supports it. Although, she is a dinosaur of the past.


----------



## Cloud Cover (23 Feb 2005)

Here is the summary from the gc.ca website:

4 Strengthening National Defence
Budget 2005 introduces the largest increase in defence spending in 20 years, worth more than $12.8 billion in cash terms over five years.

This substantial increase in funding, which goes far beyond commitments made last year, will allow National Defence to better meet increasingly complex international challenges.

Examples of recent challenges for the military in Canada and abroad include:

Canada's efforts in the war on terrorism and in re-establishing peace and security in Afghanistan and Haiti. 
Vital engineering, medical and basic support and relief to tsunami victims in Sri Lanka. 
Responses to domestic emergencies and disasters, such as Hurricane Juan in Halifax and forest fires in British Columbia. 
These recent missions and other contributions to international security have placed considerable demands on Canadian Forces personnel and resources. As the world changes, the role of the military must continue to change with it.

Over a five-year period, funding provided in Budget 2005 includes:

$3 billion to expand the Canadian Forces by 5,000 and the reserves by 3,000, delivering on the commitment in last year's Speech from the Throne. 
$3.2 billion to strengthen military operations by improving training and operational readiness, enhancing military medical care, addressing critical supplies and repairs shortages, and repairing infrastructure. 
$2.7 billion on a cash basis  to acquire and operate new medium-capacity helicopters, trucks, utility aircraft and specialized facilities for Canada's elite anti-terrorism unit, JTF2.  
$3.8 billion on a cash basis  for further projects to support the objectives established for Canada's military in the upcoming International Policy Statement. 
_____________________________________________________________________________

Cash basis: I think this means "go shopping" ASAP.


----------



## mjohnston39 (23 Feb 2005)

Breakdown is like this:

05-06 500M
06-07 600M
07-08 1.55B
08-09 4.5B
09-10 5.7B

Table 6.1
Budget 2005 Defence Funding (cash basis illustration)




                                                                     05â â€œ06 06â â€œ07 07â â€œ08 08â â€œ09   09â â€œ10    Total  
Expand the Forces(5,000/3,000)                           80    100    500    1,200    1,180    3,060  

Operational sustainability of the Forces                   420   500    600       800       900    3,220 
   
New medium capacity helicopters, logistics trucks, 
utility aircraft and JTF2 facility                                   0      0    338     1,232    1,187    2,757 
           
Post Defence Policy Review investments                    0      0    120     1,234    2,437    3,791 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total                                                                 500  600 1 ,558    4,466     5,704   12,828 








http://www.fin.gc.ca/budget05/bp/bpc6e.htm

Mike.


----------



## GGboy (23 Feb 2005)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> GGBoy:
> 
> Perhaps we are confusing Budget with Projects.
> 
> ...



I hope you're right too, but I don't think so ... the last budget only mentioned the FWSAR, MGS and JSS projects and most of the cost was "back-loaded" onto future budgets. All of the projects I listed are long-term expenditures, to be included in DND (and therefore overall federal) budgets for several years to come. Therefore, most of this money has already been announced ...


----------



## Cloud Cover (23 Feb 2005)

The big increases in the 2009-2011 time frame coincide with the MHP/JSS projected delivery dates and are at least 2 governments and 2 prime ministers away in terms of political time. This is a strange case of too much too late!!


----------



## John Nayduk (23 Feb 2005)

Defence: $12.7-billion infusion
By KENNY YUM 

Wednesday, February 23, 2005 
Updated at 4:07 PM EST

Globe and Mail Update

Ottawa - The Defence Department got a $12.7-billion infusion in Wednesday's budget that will boost its troop strength, buy new equipment and bring back the nut-and-bolts funding that was lost in previous cuts. 

The money far surpasses previous Liberal promises, but it will have a long wait before most of the funding arrives. 

In the budget, the Liberals announced $12.8-billion in funding over five years - its largest spending increase for the department in 20 years. Part of the money will be used in expanding its troops and $2.5-billion for new helicopters, aircraft and other vehicles. 

Much of the funding recognizes and restores some of the cuts made to the Forces' budget in the past - to the tune of $3.2-billion over five years. 

Advertisements







"In an increasingly uncertain world, Canadians know that we must play our part and shoulder our share," Finance Minister Ralph Goodale said. 

"This significant investment in our military means that we will be able to better meet our responsibilities abroad and protect our people at home." 

But much of the money will be slow to arrive, with $1.1-billion of the cash coming in the next two fiscal years. At the end of the five-year funding plans, 2008 to 2010, the department will see $10.1-billion. 

A total of $3-billion will be spent on boosting the size of the forces - 5,000 full time troops and 3,000 reserves. By the end of the five years, all troops should be in place. 

New equipment such as helicopters and trucks will come from $2.7-billion while $3.2-billion will be spent on operational sustainability. This excludes equipment such as the Sea King replacements already announced. 

The Liberals has no defined plans for almost 30 per cent of the funding - it set aside $3.8-billion for "new roles" for the military that will come apparent after the defence policy review. 

"The shape of what that role should be is evolving, with a new National Security Policy released last April and a comprehensive international policy review soon to be presented," Mr. Goodale said. 

The government committed in its Throne Speech to boost its regular forces and its reserves. During the election, the Liberals pledged to spend $2.5-billion to $3-billion over five years. 

The budget also contained additional security measures, including: 

$1-billion over five years for national security 
$3.4 billion in foreign assistance funding for poor countries 
© Copyright 2005 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.


----------



## mjohnston39 (23 Feb 2005)

Only 5 years away, so maybe only one PM and/or governemnt, I guess it will depend when the next election is...

Mike.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (23 Feb 2005)

Well the conservaties were quick to say that they would not object to this budget.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (23 Feb 2005)

http://army.ca/forums/threads/27278.0.html


----------



## Brad Sallows (23 Feb 2005)

I too am waiting for an analysis which extracts the truth of how much is actually "new money".

I am also skeptical it will survive the next election, or that the next election is very far off.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Feb 2005)

Military gets new helicopters, planes in defence package 

OTTAWA (CP) - The federal government promised $12.8 billion in defence spending over five years Wednesday, much of it aimed at badly needed troop helicopters, Arctic aircraft and a new home for Canada's special forces. 
However, with the military cancelling programs, docking ships and grounding aircraft, this year's one-time increase is only $500 million, with another $600 million coming next year on a base budget of $13.5 billion. 

That far less than the $1.5 billion flat budget increase called for by lobby groups and some senators and members of Parliament. 

The government did promise major new expenditures as its long-anticipated defence policy statement kicks in, with total military spending rising to about $20 billion a year by 2009-2010 - if Paul Martin's government lasts that long. 

Find it on our Search:
caribbean cruise | cheap airfare | hotel
steak | online dating | plasma tv
car rental | satellite dish 


"In an increasingly uncertain world, Canadians know that we must play our part and shoulder our share," said Finance Minister Ralph Goodale. 

"Our responsibility is to make sure that . . . capabilities match the new demands of a new era. The shape of what that role should be is evolving." 

The promises over five years include: 

Learn how to use eBay 


-$3 billion to recruit, train and integrate 5,000 additional full-time soldiers and 3,000 reservists. Only $80 million of those funds will be coming this year. 

-$3.2 billion to enhance specialized medical services for returning troops, to address critical supply and repair shortages, and to fix ragged infrastructure like runways and jetties. 

-$2.7 billion for transport helicopters, logistics trucks, light utility aircraft and a new base or expansion of the old one for the growing number of Joint Task Force 2 commandoes. 

-$3.8 billion, starting in 2007-08, for unannounced initiatives that could include a new amphibious assault ship and revamped emergency response capabilities like those provided by the Disaster Assistance Response Team. 


There is no mention of big-ticket items like warships or transport aircraft to replace the aging C-130 Hercules, but there are promises to allocate funds "as needed" to coincide with priorities set by the policy statement. 

The promise of big new military spending comes a day after word that Martin has decided against signing on to the controversial U.S. missile defence plan. 

U.S. Ambassador Paul Cellucci has repeatedly called for Canada to increase its military spending, recently itemizing a shopping list of items the federal government should buy for its ailing Forces. 

But initial spending is limited to unexciting housekeeping items. 

The spending blueprint dovetails with comments made by the new chief of defence staff, Gen. Rick Hillier, who has set upgrading supply and infrastructure as an urgent priority. 

The document sets aside $420 million in this year's budget and another $500 million next year to address those basic ailments, where woes mounted in recent years as the military focused on post-9/11 overseas deployments. 

"Supplies of spare parts and military equipment have been depleted, and repairs, overhauls and upgrading of equipment have been delayed or missed to support the high operational demands," it says. 

"Capital pressures and gaps have also become apparent." 

Those include replacements for the Chinook transport helicopters Ottawa sold off to the Dutch in the early 1990s, aging trucks used to ferry troops and supplies and the Arctic's fleet of yellow Twin Otter planes used in search-rescue and to transport the Rangers on sovereignty patrols. 

*The military budget had already factored in this year's nine per cent raises for the enlisted corps as well as the costs of new joint supply ships, maritime helicopters and mobile gun systems. 

The costs of modernizing Aurora patrol aircraft and CF-18 fighter-bombers were also factored into the base budget.[/**b] 

The budget figures do not include the cost of future deployments, which are usually paid for by special dispersements from the government's central treasury. 



© The Canadian Press, 2005 

http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do?pageID=canada_home&articleID=1854187

The way that I read this, and it confirms what I believe I heard with last year's budget, that the Supply Ships, MGS, Cyclones as well as the Aurora and CF-18s are ALREADY in the budget.   In other words the CF already had a plan to pay for them but that was running lean on parts and maintenance everywhere else.

This 12.8 Bn is intended to refill the parts bins and buy new kit.   To my understanding this has NOT been already spent.   I could be wrong though - has happened.

The other interesting point is that the release Confirms that deployments will come out of General Revenues and not the CF budget.   Although they state that that is the norm AFAIK with some of the deployments under Chretien they came out of the CF Operational budget contributing to the hole.

I still think this is pretty good news.

Cheers.

*


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Feb 2005)

Kirkhill and CP are right on how it should work ... fill up the bins and 'buy' new, _unprogrammed_, people, ships, aircraft and, and, and ...

There are obstacles: most of the money is in the 'out' years and one government cannot be bound by the plans of its predecessor â â€œ even when they are of the same party and have the same leader.   If we have an election before the promised money makes it into the _estimates_ then it is not 'real' money â â€œ just a promise like _â Å“I'll respect you in the morningâ ?_ and _â Å“the cheque's in the mail, honest.â ?_.   An election mans a 'new' government with a 'new' mandate and they may decide they have new priorities.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Feb 2005)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050223.wdefence0223/BNStory/specialBudget2005/

Here's the Globe and Mail's take.

The other thing that gives me hope is that if there is an election what is the likely outcome?  Either the Liberals get back in or the Conservatives form the next government.

I accept that you lot have been screwed over many times but just once I would like to think that there is SOME hope out there.

By the way the budget included money for domestic security that could impact on the CF if, for example, the Coast Guard gets some new kit and takes up some tasks, and the Foreign Assistance budget is getting a rise.  That might also indirectly impact you.

Cheers.


----------



## Whiskey_Dan (23 Feb 2005)

Well I think the gov't should've just given the CF the entire $10billion all at once ...but I guess it would never be with the Libs.
At least were getting more money though right? I mean Im in the application process right now and I sure hope I dont get screwed over and dont get all the kit I need just because we ran out of money one fiscal year. IMHO....$12billion is still not enough since the military is also adding an extra 8 000 troops to the nominal roll.
Maybe now though we'll have new long-range planes to play around with?
Time for war :threat: 

Dan


----------



## Mich (23 Feb 2005)

;D God has answered our prayers! Wow, I was so shocked when I heard about this.  I didn't think anyone would actually do anything about the defence budget.  I'm so glad I was proven wrong.  But what about all the talks about Canada not needing more money to support its army or what John McCallum had to say about other 'more important issues' like health care and whatnot? What exactly made the government change its mind?

With more money for the army, does this mean that the chances for getting enrolled are higher?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (23 Feb 2005)

There is a discussion on this already guys.  See my link above


----------



## Spartan (23 Feb 2005)

In reading the budget synopsis - it all seems like the whole budget is a shell game - monies previously pledged, leftover money from previously pledged etc. 
Isn't quite sitting well with me.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (23 Feb 2005)

The budget spoke of an expenditure review, that freed up some money for this budget.   Here is DNDs contribution over the 5 year period (640M) - the numbers are for 05, 06 etc out to 09:



> National Defence   34.0   88.0     143.0     172.0   203.0     640.0
> 
> Reallocate Search and Rescue (SAR) Assets   6.0   12.0     25.0     37.0   53.0     133.0
> Reallocate search and rescue assets across Canada and eliminate six C115 Buffalo aircraft and ten CC130 Hercules aircraft as a result of the decision to proceed with the new fixed-wing Search and Rescue aircraft.
> ...


   

Note that we can play the "outyear" game as well as any one else...

Bottom line is that this budget is way better than a kick in the nuts with a frozen mukluk.   How about we wait and see how it all pans out before we run off crying "foul" and "liberal conspiracy" and "its the CBCs fault".

Dave


----------



## GGHG_Cadet (23 Feb 2005)

> Canadian Parachute Center   -  1.0  3.0   5.0  7.0   16.0
> Training to be provided in partnership with Canada's allies. Skyhawks elite demonstration program will remain.



Does that mean that they are getting rid of the CPC or just not offering jump courses anymore? Or am I completely wrong


----------



## SlipStream (23 Feb 2005)

Sounds like this budget just focuses on the army. but the army is not everything you know it would be good to see some new battleships sailing on our coastlines and new planes flying overhead.


----------



## Zipper (23 Feb 2005)

Well, it looks encouraging at least. Not the usual pass over like past years.

However! As encouraging as it sounds, I'll keep my eyes open for the policy review. That is the true benchmark.

Good on them though...


----------



## Ammo (23 Feb 2005)

Go to http://www.fin.gc.ca/access/budinfoe.html if you want to view the entire budget.
Select Budget 2005 (February 23, 2005) and The Budget Plan


----------



## Long in the tooth (24 Feb 2005)

The $12 B is the usual liberal after the fact loading.... the poor CDS still doesn't have any money, but talks a brave talk.   The money isn't set to arrive for 4-5 years.   Just in time for a government (or 2 change).   Perhaps the CDS is just a bit naive?


----------



## JAFMA (24 Feb 2005)

Lets remember troops th meat of this budget  is forecasted to happen in the next 4-5 years.  So do you really think that this is going to have any real effect on the CF.  Lets watch and shoot for the next general election and hope that the Tories do better next time round. 

UBIQUE


----------



## bossi (24 Feb 2005)

Try as I might, I just couldn't stay away from this discussion ...
Having said that:   My "left and right of arc" with respect to DND's budget ... is kinda narrow.
I will however, agree 100% with the boss in the context of evolutionary vice revolutionary change (as well as getting it right the first time ... for a change ...).
"Watch and shoot" is probably one of the best adages for these times.
(P.S. JAFMA posted while I was typing ... chuckle!)



> "... We did not get to where we are in the Canadian Forces, in a stress situation, in one year, and it's going to take more than one year, clearly, to get out of that situation ..."



Here's Rubec report (and, as usual, some numpty editor jumps to an incorrect conclusion - i.e. the defence budget is not being "doubled" per se ... which makes me wonder who's got a sugar daddy in the Sun/Quebecor ... but, I digress ...):

Thu, February 24, 2005 
*Grits toss troops new cash lifeline*
MILITARY SPENDING TO DOUBLE BY END OF DECADE
By Stephanie Rubec, Senior Political Reporter (The Sun)

THE LIBERAL government will pump $12.8 billion into Canada's cash-strapped military, ordering up new digs for its anti-terrorism unit and giving the green light for a hi-tech shopping spree. But the military will have to wait for the lion's share of funds, benefiting from only $500-million extra this year and $600-million more next year -- far less than the $1.5 billion annual increase called for by military supporters. 

The military won't see a cent of the $2.7-billion earmarked for the purchase of up to 18 new troop-transport helicopters and four Arctic planes to replace their aging Twin Otters until 2007. 

The initial flow of funds will serve to buy 1,000 transport trucks to replace the army's rusted-out 2.5-tonne MLVWs. 

Some of the $2.7 billion will also go to buy Canada's JTF-2 commandos a new home. Military officials say they'll either build a second base and keep the Dwyer Hill training centre west of Ottawa or moving the entire unit to a new location. 

Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier said he'll use this year's cash injection to improve training and medical care for soldiers, fix crumbling military buildings and address the chronic shortage of spare parts. 

"We've got an investment and a commitment from our government to rebuild the Canadian Forces, to give us the necessary resources to be able to transform us here and to allow us to start right now," Hillier said yesterday. 

Hillier signed off on the Liberals' decision not to pump the full $12.8-billion into the military at once, explaining that the Forces need time to organize their priorities. 

"We did not get to where we are in the Canadian Forces, in a stress situation, in one year, and it's going to take more than one year, clearly, to get out of that situation," he said. By decade's end, Finance Minister Ralph Goodale said he will boost the military's annual budget from $13.2 billion to $19 billion -- the largest increase in two decades. 

Of that, almost $4-billion has been earmarked to pay for the hardware the military will need to answer the Liberal priorities to be outlined in the upcoming international policy review. 

And $3 billion will pay for a Liberal promise to boost military ranks by 5,000 regular force soldiers and 3,000 reservists over the next five years. 

"Our responsibility is to make sure that their capabilities match the new demands of a new era," Goodale said yesterday.


----------



## JBP (24 Feb 2005)

Well, we can always be hopeful!!!  :

I mean, say the Conservatives get into power, they certainly won't overlook us in thier budget plan! And if Mr. Martin stays in power for awhile he better stick to his guns/promises (as he knows) or he'll get the boot basically!

I don't see the NDP comming to power anytime soon... Last time was what, in the 40's-50's??? I also don't see the good ole' Block gaining Prime Minister either.... So, don't have to worry on those fronts.  

I think eventually, no matter what over the next couple years, we can depend on seeing at least 1/2 that money regardless. Which is better than, as someone else put it, "A freezing muckluck to the sack!"... Not sure who said that on here but I did read it... 

That's what I'll count on anyway. HALF the money...  :-\


----------



## pbi (24 Feb 2005)

I say give the CDS a chance before we go back to crying in our beers. The worst possible course of action would have been to dump all the money now: that would have resulted in a feeding frenzy with no opportunity to plan properly, and with half the cash left unspent by end FY. We are a very sick patient: we cannot go from IV to steak dinners in one day. We need to start with toast and ginger ale.

Let's see what happens.

Cheers


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Feb 2005)

One other hopeful sign that I saw was that neither Jack Layton nor Bill Blaikie (NDP's defence critic) complained about the increase in the Defence allocation.  Blaikie on CPAC wanted to ensure that the money got spent wisely and that the troops quality of life was well taken care of but supported investing in capabilities to act independently of the Americans.  Layton wanted more money on social programs right enough but I haven't heard him say that they should be at the expense of defence.  He went after Corporate Tax cuts.

All of that, taken together, suggests that all of Canada's politicians, with the possible and likely exception of the Bloc, are in agreement that you guys need support.

I would take that as a good sign.  I think somewhere along the way a corner has been turned.  Now the question for me is what does the road ahead look like.

More interesting times still.  Fearfully hopeful.


----------



## FSTO (24 Feb 2005)

While I have little hope that the Liberals will actually go through with their promises, I am going to give the CDS my support towards his vision of an actual joint force.

The CDS will have to drag the Army, Air Force and Navy service chiefs together and force them to agree to his vision. To quote Maximus in Gladiator we must work together to survive.

For example, since graduating from BOTC in 89, only once (during a block french course) have I as a Naval Officer had a chance to interact with an army officer (armoured). When I was in Timor on HMCS PROTECTEUR, it was the RAN that got them to the island. The only time we saw pers from the Van Doos was when a few of them came on board for some RnR. There was no attempt (from either side) to sit and talk. This lack of interaction reflects poorly on a force of less than 60,000.

The CDS would like to have an amphibious capability. Well we better ALL get on the same page very quickly because:
a. We have not done amphib ops since the Scheldt Estuary in 45;
b. The Navy has 0 doctrine on conducting even the most basic over the shore logistics; and
c. Our only aircraft capable of operating in the amphib environment is way past its best before date.

And this is only from a Navy point of view.


----------



## Zipper (24 Feb 2005)

Well we seem to have two camps now. Those who think we should be optimistic, and those who still don't trust the Government even when on paper.

Its hard to say which way to go. They're saying all the right things and it looks like we'll start seeing healing in the Forces. On the other hand, I believe (ret.)Gen. Mackenzie when he said that with the money stretched out over such a period, that the money earmarked for the forces is reviewed every two years and may still disappear. So we'll just have to keep a close eye on it.

Otherwise, let the CDS do his talking (as much as I admire the man, he is a political animal now) and hope for the best, and that policy review.

FSTO - Good on you. I think the Army, Navy, Air Force idea's are dead. There is only the CAF, and we should be organized as such.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (24 Feb 2005)

Zipper said:
			
		

> Well we seem to have two camps now. Those who think we should be optimistic, and those who still don't trust the Government even when on paper.



That has ever been the case on this forum.



> Its hard to say which way to go.



Is your glass half full, or half empty?


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Feb 2005)

Our glass is very much half full ... even though I am an instinctive pessimist when Canadian politicians on the scene, but:

"¢	It will be hard (politically) - not impossible, mind you, just hard - for the Liberals to back too far away from $12+ Billion over five years, even after an election; and

"¢	It will be even harder for a Conservative government to fail to provide _*at least*_ as much if they ever manage to unseat the _natural governing party_.

But, again:

"¢	It will be easy for politicians and empire building bureaucrats and generals (and admirals, too) to waste a very large proportion of whatever funds end up in the capital budget, especially; and

"¢	It will be tempting for politicians, empire building bureaucrats and generals to get priorities mixed - it is always tempting, especially for politicians who are within range of a camera lens, to want to announce an 'new' (made right here!) this, that or the other rather than to watch the money 'drift' away on things like parts and ammo and fuel which do not have too much sex appeal.


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Feb 2005)

> "¢   It will be easy for politicians and empire building bureaucrats and generals (and admirals, too) to waste a very large proportion of whatever funds end up in the capital budget, especially; and
> 
> "¢   It will be tempting for politicians, empire building bureaucrats and generals to get priorities mixed - it is always tempting, especially for politicians who are within range of a camera lens, to want to announce an 'new' (made right here!) this, that or the other rather than to watch the money 'drift' away on things like parts and ammo and fuel which do not have too much sex appeal



Agreed entirely ROJ.  On the other hand isn't it likely that with this transformation we are going to see a lot of "unavoidable" screw-ups and poor decisions?  Given our lack of current experience in much of the areas under consideration, the distance necessary to travel and the relatively short time involved isn't it pretty inevitable that the resulting steep learning curve is going to result in somebody somewhere making a bad decision?

Note to all concerned - this is not to argue against any proposals for change, just to point out that during change, even good change, bad things happen.  And given the nature of our press and society the bad things will be highlighted.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (24 Feb 2005)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> And given the nature of our press and society the bad things will be highlighted.



...because good things don't sell newspapers.


----------



## dutchie (24 Feb 2005)

So were pretty much in agreement that there's little chance of any Governing party backing out of the financial commitment of 12 billion. 

Now if we only could figure out how to ensure that money is spent wisely.....


----------



## Zipper (24 Feb 2005)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Agreed entirely ROJ.   On the other hand isn't it likely that with this transformation we are going to see a lot of "unavoidable" screw-ups and poor decisions?   Given our lack of current experience in much of the areas under consideration, the distance necessary to travel and the relatively short time involved isn't it pretty inevitable that the resulting steep learning curve is going to result in somebody somewhere making a bad decision?



An example of a future screw up...               ...the MGS system.

But thats for another thread.


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Feb 2005)

The CPC will indeed have to match the Liberal ante in the next election, and the Liberals will pretend the budget is better than an election promise.  ("See?  We're not just making an election promise.  We promised it in a BUDGET.")  But WTF got into the brain stems of those of you who believe the Liberals will honour any of it if they win a majority?


----------



## S McKee (24 Feb 2005)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> But WTF got into the brain stems of those of you who believe the Liberals will honour any of it if they win a majority?



You hit the nail on the head Brad! If Martin and his cronies ever got a majority (and lets hope that won't happen, residents of Ont/PQ wake the ####up!) CF kiss your 13B good-bye, hello Daycare, and Kyoto windmills.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Feb 2005)

I need to repeat what I said, with a wee bit of emphasis:

"It will be hard (politically) - not impossible, mind you, just hard   - for the Liberals to back too far away from $12+ Billion over five years, even after an election ...â ?

The worst two situations are:

"¢	A Liberal majority which emphasizes the masculine/feminine* split in Canada - i.e. the majority is based in urban BC, the Greater Toronto Area, the 905 belt around Toronto, and Québec; or

"¢	A Liberal minority which can, with NDP support, push a _leftish_ agenda.

In either case the Canadian economy is, without fail, going to 'slow' and it will be politically popular to shift defence spending further and further 'out' - beyond 2011, beyond, even, 2015, by which time inflation will have eaten any real gains.
----------

* I believe that Canada has become a _feminine_ nation.   I think we, Canadians, eschew the traditional _masculine_ forms and norms in domestic and foreign policies.   I believe the _feminization_ began, in earnest, in 1968, when we traded, consciously - out in the open, our traditional value based culture for a culture of _entitlement_.   We cemented the _feminization_ in 1982 when we became _Charter Canadians_, concerned, almost wholly, with our rights and privileges rather than our responsibilities.   I believe that the _feminization_ took root quickly and firmly in the areas I mentioned above but did not find fertile ground in rural areas, especially.


----------



## SlipStream (24 Feb 2005)

Arnt they still waiting for the defence review before they start deciding what to spend the cash on?


----------



## dutchie (24 Feb 2005)

I think there is little chance of a Liberal majority in the next election. The damage done in Quebec, from my West-coast perspective, is significant. Duceppe will have to fall on his sword for the Bloc to lose significant ground there to the Grits. The Sponsorship Inquiry, I believe, will expose the CURRENT Government as liars, cheats, and above all, thieves. Martin can't hide the fact that he was the senior man in Quebec and the Finance Minister. That's just a gut feeling, but that's how I see it. Finally, the NDP have made significant gains in the last election, and I expect they will lose some ground, but not enough to give Martin the majority.

That all adds up to a slim minority for either the Liberals or the Conservatives. Which one depends on to what extent the above comes in to play, how the Same-Sex thing plays out, and whether Harper can gain ground in Ontario among the right/centre.


But yeah, if there IS a Liberal majority, back to the poor house for us.


----------



## Cpl.Banks (24 Feb 2005)

When I first heard the 13B dollar addition to the CF I was exstatic, then after thinking aobut it 13B doesnt seen all that much, is it an add on to our current bugdet or is that the entire budget for the Cf? The U.S's budget for defense grows every year by the same amout we are going to get in 5 years, then again the Lib will prolly bring that down every now and then and soon enought the CF wont be getting jack all...And I really do hope that dont get a majority god help us then...How about some new howitzers???   

UBIQUE!!!


----------



## Baloo (24 Feb 2005)

Not that much money? Jeez...and yes, it is an add on to the budget already in place. 

And don't go around trying to analyze our budget next to the American one. 

And don't hold you breath for howitzers. We have much bigger priorities than that.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (24 Feb 2005)

Earth to Cadet Banks...all and all this will bring the Defence Budget up to over 20 billion a year. This is significant.  :


----------



## canuck101 (24 Feb 2005)

We have to think long term here.  We are going to need that amount of money for years to come to build up the CAF. We all are going to have to keep the governments foot on the fire so as not to allow them to back down on promises.


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Feb 2005)

>I believe that Canada has become a feminine nation.

Somewhere out in the electronic ether there is an essay which argues that:

1) Women are wired - whether by evolution or otherwise - to prefer security over liberty, and men to prefer liberty over security; and
2) The increased role of the welfare state may thus correspond to the increased role and power of women in politics.


----------



## Andyboy (24 Feb 2005)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >I believe that Canada has become a feminine nation.
> 
> Somewhere out in the electronic ether there is an essay which argues that:
> 
> ...



That is a very interesting hypothesis and I would like to read that essay if you can find it. Now back youyour regular scheduled conversation.


----------



## karl28 (24 Feb 2005)

Just wondering if the new increase to the military funding will include the purchase for the c-17 ? and the JSS ? I hope so the Cf needs that new equipment .


----------



## Bin-Rat (24 Feb 2005)

Well you do know that this money could COST YOU....
Now what am I talking about.. Well everyone here should know how some of the funding came into place in that the Goverment scooped 16Billion from the CFSA.. as in Canadian Forces Supernumeration Account, the account for CF member's pensions, and the RCMP I believe.. and this is a C&P froma site I will mention later...

Minister of National Defence

Annual Report on the Status of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act

for year 2002

The Canadian Forces Superannuation Act clearly states that the Minister of National Defence must publish a full Report on the status of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act Annually!.

It is also quite obvious that John McCallum was NOT and David Pratt is NOT sufficiently familiar with their appointments as Defence Ministers to produce and table the Report for 2002.

OR

Has someone again been dipping into the CFS Account and a Liberal cover-up is taking place?

Repeated requests of the two Ministers past and present has yielded nothing but a comment from some clerk that our correspondence will be â Å“reviewedâ ?.

One excuse for the delay has been that the Report had to be submitted to the Auditor General. That is an added step and could catch any new shenanigans by any government. However, it would appear that the Assistant Auditor General who signed off on the 2001 missed out that the total confiscation from our retirement savings would appear to now be in excess of $20 billion and. NOT the $16.6 billion authorized by Bill C-78!

Perhaps that is why the 2002 Report has been deliberately delayed until after the election when the Liberals had hoped that they would again be Canada's dictators!

In the extract from the 2001 Report that follows it would appear that the previous confiscation of the $4.2 billion was missed as there was another $16 plus billion that was gobbled up by the â Å“Fiberalâ ? Party.

Also on same page.. there is another excerp further down.... but here is the site/page to read up on it, how it is being or has been taken to court the fight to get back the Money that should belong in our CFSA account........

http://www.afp-aac.org/01_2004_E1.htm

I am not affiliated with them I found this is asearch for something else, but came across it accidently and I didn't even know of this.......
but I am Awwww'd and shocked they are getting away with it....


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (25 Feb 2005)

Rusty Old Joint said:
			
		

> I---------
> 
> * I believe that Canada has become a _feminine_ nation.


       Well, if we are feminine, its looking like we are getting a bit more Maggie Thatcher, and a bit less Princess Di.   If memory serves, the Argentines still walk bowlegged.....


----------



## big bad john (25 Feb 2005)

The Russians refer to their country as the "Rodina": the Motherland.  What about Britania, she rules the waves.  Sounds alright to me!


----------



## Long in the tooth (25 Feb 2005)

There's still no money on the table, and no obligation to spend upon a change of government.  The Liberals have been creative in setting up unauditable trusts.  Too Cynically, perhaps, I believe the Liberals have done the 'bait and switch' on the CDS.  In fact his options were so limited he could only talk back in Lib Speak - 'It allows a start, to plan, to prepare" without actually adding to the military.  

Any change in government or leadership will allow a change in policy.  These are hollow promises without a shred of guarantee.

By the way, why do we need the radical C17 and not incrementally upgrade to the 130J once the teething problems are cleared?  It seems we have the infrastructure for the 130s, and the C17s, although awesome, need a completely new program.  Please advise.


----------



## S McKee (25 Feb 2005)

Grits sharpen axe

By STEPHANIE RUBEC, Parliamentary Bureau, Sun Media
      




The Liberal government will slash programs, cut about 2,840 jobs and mothball equipment over the next five years to help pay for Finance Minister Ralph Goodale's budget spending spree. Few departments will be spared the axe, which will carve $11 billion out of programs by 2010. 

The cost-saving measures will see one of six RCMP forensic labs closed and as of Tuesday, Canada's air transport complaints commissioner was out of a job. 

To boost revenue, the Liberal government will hire collection agencies to recover debts owed to Human Resources, Social Development and Industry Canada. 

The biggest losers from Wednesday's budget are the Canada Revenue Agency, the Defence Department  and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.  
Revenue Agency jobs will be cut when bar codes are added to income tax software, eliminating the need for manual data entry. 

Canadians will feel the pinch next year when the department cuts jobs at its tax service centres. Taxpayers will have to make an appointment to see staffers. 

The feds will fire armed fisheries officers who enforce habitat protection and the Fisheries Department will ground five of its 27 helicopters and mothball one of three research trawlers. 

The Defence Department, which will see a $12.8-billion boost to its budget over the next five years, will speed up the retirement of its M113 armoured personnel carriers and sell off non-military vehicles. 

The Canadian Forces will also mothball 10 of its 32 Hercules transport planes and its six Buffalo aircraft and replace them with search and rescue planes.   The governor general will cut $3.3 million in overhead and administrative costs in the next five years. 

Agriculture Canada will also take a big hit when the feds shut down the Edmonton service centre and Winnipeg grain research laboratory. 

Revenue Minister John McCallum, who led the expenditure review, said he agonized over every cut. But he said the government plans to make a regular exercise of chopping low-priority programs to fund the Liberal agenda. 

McCallum pointed out that 40% of Goodale's new priorities were funded by the savings found in his expenditure review -- except the $75-billion health care and equalization deal cut with the provinces which was funded by the surplus. 

The Liberals will also cut 1% of public service jobs per region. It's expected some will find work in departments benefiting from an increase in funding. 


You get the 13 B but here's the catch...wait for the other shoe to drop gang


----------



## FSTO (25 Feb 2005)

Does the CDS have eyes in the back of his head? I wonder if he knew of McCallum skulking about pulling the rug from under him? :threat:


----------



## big bad john (25 Feb 2005)

There are always tradeoffs.


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Feb 2005)

> The Defence Department, which will see a $12.8-billion boost to its budget over the next five years, will speed up the retirement of its M113 armoured personnel carriers and sell off non-military vehicles.
> 
> The Canadian Forces will also mothball 10 of its 32 Hercules transport planes and its six Buffalo aircraft and replace them with search and rescue planes.



I am pretty sure that if you review Government, DND, NDHQ and CAF statements as well as a number of the discussions on this board that this is not really a revelation.  Except for the possibility of money in the future.   The M113s were gone long ago, except possibly for some engineering roles and the CC130Es and the Buffalos are to be replaced by the FWSAR aircraft - whatever that may be.


----------



## S McKee (25 Feb 2005)

Mothballing almost one third of our strategic airlift capability is not a trade off, it's a kick in the pants. And whether or not this equipment was destine for the scrap heap or not, the issue is was it going to be replaced with something else *before* it was mothballed.


----------



## big bad john (25 Feb 2005)

But is it the third that is not grounded for some reason or other?


----------



## Sub_Guy (25 Feb 2005)

After some research I found that the Aussie Budget topped 16 billion in 2004-05.    How come it seems that the Aussies seem to always get more bang for their buck.   Why do we always have to waste time and money shopping for goods, and designing our own ships, when we could buy off the shelf?????  

If there is any military in the world we should try to follow it is the Aussies......    Even with our new budget announcement DND gets an extra 500 million for this year.... and where is most of that money going?    Pay riase?  The ADF has a good procurement policy....


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Feb 2005)

BBJ is right AFAI can see.

These CC130Es are the ones that they were considering buying used Fuselages for because they are so clapped out.   The only things worth saving was the electrics that they just replaced in the last 5 years or so and the possibly the wings, also recently replaced IIRC.

But I'll give you this Jumper - the capability that should have been supplied by those aircraft is needed and it would have been nice to see this announcement made in conjunction with some indication of what the plan is for the future.

On the other hand - I saw John McCallum on the tube the other night being interviewed and he was really clear that he wanted credit to be given for "SAVING" real money and that that meant that the savings had to be presented as being something new, different and exciting to reinforce the notion of ongoing expenditure review.   As a taxpayer I actually agree that programmes should be regularly reviewed, evaluated and culled.   So I support that end of the argument.   

But for a department that has been cut back as much as DND has it is tough to take even if it is just appearances.

The challenge for McCallum is that every other department knows that they are much more important than DND - just ask them - and most of the governing party agree with them.   In order to get them to accept the concept then I am betting that DND had to be seen to be subject to the same rules as   everybody else.

What DND actually threw into the pot were things that were actually already on the way out and dressed them up as actual savings.

Keep in mind that one of the other outcomes of McCallum's review was support for downsizing NDHQ.


----------



## big bad john (27 Feb 2005)

MONEY AND MISSILES
A good-news, bad-news week for defence 

Sun Feb 27 2005

By LT.-GENERAL RAY CRABBE (ret.)


   


CANADA'S newly appointed Chief of Defence Staff, General Rick Hillier, is a straight-shooting no-nonsense commander. 
Knowing him as well as I do, I have no doubt that he used the opportunity in his 'assessment meeting' with the prime minister at 24 Sussex Drive to make it clear that he would accept the appointment only if the military was promised enough funding to match his vision of the future of the Canadian Forces. 

Wednesday's federal budget must have been music to his ears. 

Deciphering government budgets and determining what funds are real, re-circulated or previously committed is difficult at best, and this one is no exception. Even so, if Ralph Goodale's plan survives the next five years, including the infusion of $12.8 billion into the defence budget, it will be a good start in turning around the devastation of Canada's military caused by the benign neglect of the Liberal government over the past many years. 

The 2005 budget is, of course, a compromise to ensure the survival of the minority Martin government. But, given the competing demands for national funds and the comparative support received by the military, there is reason for optimism that Ottawa has at last listened to Canadians and recognized the need to beef up Canada's armed forces in light of the troubled world we live in. 

Despite the good news, the Canadian Forces is not out of the woods with regard to the long-term strategic issues that continue to plague its effectiveness. For example, the expeditionary nature of Canada's military and the need for long-range deployability and sustainability have not been addressed. It is an undeniable fact that modern militaries require long lead-times to plan and purchase equipment that is commensurate with the roles assigned to them by governments. That is why most of the funding for DND will be available only in the latter part of the five-year budgetary period. What must be avoided is a repeat of past hacking and slashing of funds, which leads to uncertainty and the inability to plan the nation's defence in a coherent and logical manner. On the other hand, five years of assured funding will assist greatly in addressing this issue -- if it is indeed assured. 

The confirmed funding for an additional 5,000 troops is most welcome news. This will allow the military to beef up its undermanned units -- and most units in the Forces are undermanned -- so each can deploy on its own rather than having to be cobbled together with two or three other understaffed organizations. 

The additional personnel will also alleviate substantially the unsustainable operational pace of the Canadian Forces over the past 15 years and, in the process, reduce the traumas suffered by our troops as a result of back-to-back operations. The funding for an additional 3,000 reservists will assist in this regard as they provide essential augmentation to the regular force in carrying out assignments. 

Although previously announced, funding for the Sea King helicopter replacement will be well-received by the Navy and Air Force, and will put behind us the image of Jean Chretien tearing up the contract that cost Canadian taxpayers more than half a billion dollars for the original replacement program. This will provide the added punch and capability to protect our coastlines from illegal aliens, poachers, narcotics smugglers, polluters, and the real and growing threat of terrorist incursions. It will also add the missing dimension of operations necessary for the Navy to be a power on the oceans. 

Continued funding for the upgrading of Canada's ailing CF-18 fighters will go a long way to ensure that we can continue to work with our allies in international operations and contribute effectively to the defence and control of our airspace at home. 

But, again, the military budget will remain good news only if past government practices of succumbing to perceived fiscal pressures are avoided. Mr. Goodale's budget will prime the pump needed to raise the military out of the abyss created by the government over the past many years. Men and women of the Canadian Forces deserve this shot in the arm. More importantly, Canadians deserve the defence and security afforded by it. The bad news of the week was the flip-flop announcement by the prime minister that Canada will not participate in the U.S.-sponsored Ballistic Missile Defence program. While some apparently careless remarks by Canada's new ambassador to Washington, Frank McKenna, may have prompted Prime Minister Martin to launch a pre-emptive strike on BMD, this is not good news for Canada. 

BMD is a means of protecting our sovereignty through collective and shared responsibilities with the Americans. This is not Star Wars, as some would like us to believe. Frankly, Canada had everything to gain and very little to lose by signing up for BMD. Political expediency has gotten in the way of national security. 

Participation in BMD would provide a continuing and positive control over our airspace, and give us a say in the program's direction. Canada was not asked to position missiles on Canadian soil. The recent technical failures of the interceptor missiles must not be the benchmark for participation -- the world that put men on the moon will overcome these shortfalls. 

The cost to Canada would be miniscule compared with the advantages that BMD would provide -- in the same way that Canada enjoys the protection afforded by NORAD at relatively little cost. We stand to lose nothing. 

What Canadians must realize is that the Americans will deploy and use BMD, and will shoot down incoming missiles -- including those in Canadian airspace destined for the U.S. -- whether Canada is a partner or not. By refusing to take part in BMD, we are abrogating our sovereignty to the U.S. Simply put, we will have no say and no control over the matter if we are on the outside. 

On the heels of a good-news budget, the bad-news decision on BMD is a particularly sad example of the dithering that continues to characterize our country's prime minister. 


Lt.-Gen. Ray Crabbe, a native of Neepawa and now retired in Winnipeg, served as the deputy chief of defence staff for Canada's military.


----------



## Allen (27 Feb 2005)

I agree with Crabbe's POV. But I don't know why he is bringing up MHP & CF-18 upgrade which have nothing to do with the current increase - the contracts were already signed way before it.

I am guardedly optimistic that the Liberals will honour their commitments to defence. I see a minority gov't situation for many years yet. Even if Liberals win a majority, they will be loathe to renege - they have taken enough beating in Parl. & media on this issue. 

Hillier's appointment and the degree of leeway Martin is giving him shows that at least Martin is not Chretien.


----------



## mo-litia (27 Feb 2005)

Allen said:
			
		

> Hillier's appointment and the degree of leeway Martin is giving him shows that at least Martin is not Chretien.



Give him time, give him a majority government. That's when we'll see what Mr Dithers is really made of.


----------



## Sheerin (27 Feb 2005)

I have a feeling this minority government might last a little while longer.  I think for the time being, at least  if they went the polls we'd end up with basically the same breakdown in the House. 127-140 or so libs, 95-105 conservative, 15-20 NDP, 50-60 BQ.. 1 Ind

but thats offtopic. 


Unless there is a major recession, I don't Martin could not get away with not giving the 12.8 billion, especially if he wants Canada to be taken seriously on the world stage.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Apr 2005)

Here is another take, from today's electronic _Globe and Mail_, at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050424.wmilit0424/BNStory/National/

The key word is _sustainability_.  It is all well and good to have combat _capable_ and combat _ready_ forces but if we cannot _sustain_ them, in operations and in reserve, for protracted periods then we are trying to fool ourselves. 



> Canada's military hanging by fiscal thread
> 
> By STEPHEN THORNE
> Sunday, April 24, 2005 Updated at 5:48 PM EST
> ...


----------



## Skinny (24 Apr 2005)

http://www.canada.com/national/story.html?id=177fdbf8-662e-4608-a1ce-8a1a980aaa74

Canadian Press

Sunday, April 24, 2005

ADVERTISEMENT

OTTAWA -- Canada's armed forces are so underfunded and overstretched that the government's much-lauded budget commitments may not come close to fixing them, suggest documents released to The Canadian Press.

Economic impact assessments filed by all three services paint a picture of a decaying military that is, as the navy commander put it, fast approaching the point of "critical mass in its ability to execute its mission."

The navy is docking ships, the air force is grounding planes and the army may someday be unable to meet overseas commitments without significantly more cash, say the documents, obtained under access to information.

All services are short-staffed -- the navy and air force most of all -- but it is the army that will receive the bulk of new recruits in the next five years.

Both navy and air force say they cannot meet all assigned tasks in 2005-06, with "deficiencies and shortfalls in all areas."

"The result is a decaying infrastructure, a depreciating asset base, increasing personnel issues, and a fleet that faces considerable sustainment issues," writes the head of the navy, Vice-Adm. Bruce MacLean.

"I will not be able to deliver the full mandated level of maritime defence readiness and capability delineated in the Defence Plan."

The air force alone has accumulated a $1-billion infrastructure deficit, its long-term capital shortfall is even greater, and it was going into the current fiscal year $608 million underfunded.

"The air force we have today is not sustainable tomorrow," writes the air force chief, Lt.-Gen. Ken Pennie.

MacLean cites $419 million in navy funding shortfalls this year. The army is $177 million short. The combined projected shortfall for the three services exceeds $1.1 billion this year.

February's federal budget promises $12.8 billion in new defence spending over five years, but only $500 million of that comes this year in a one-time infusion, primarily for infrastructure maintenance.

And while another $600 million is slated to come next year, the big money doesn't arrive until years four and five. Most is pegged for new kit and other elements of the plan set out in last week's defence policy statement.

However, with the budget yet to pass in Parliament and the minority government teetering on the brink of defeat, the documents paint a bleak picture of an already-beleaguered military slipping into a fiscal abyss.

Drafted before the budget and policy statement, they talk of unprecedented personnel and equipment shortages, decaying infrastructure and assets, and a plethora of deficits and red ink.

A disclaimer attached to the service impact assessments says that, while the documents do not reflect February's new budget numbers, "demand will always exceed supply" in most government organizations.

"It is no different at Defence," it says. "The management of resources will always require that choices be made."

Neither Defence Minister Bill Graham nor the military finance chief, Maj.-Gen. Doug Dempster, could be reached for comment. But officials said the budget will help and Defence hopes to soften the blow by shedding antiquated equipment, focusing efforts and reallocating resources.

The service chiefs -- including the new chief of defence staff and former commander of the army, Gen. Rick Hillier -- sound desperate.

"The cumulative costs of not funding (programs) are not only significant and growing, but oftentimes are hidden insofar as they contribute to skill fade, career stagnation, and asset deterioration beyond economical repair," wrote Hillier, who went from army boss to military chief in February.

"The sustainment base has not been provided the necessary resources."

MacLean says the navy "faces the dilemma of not having enough people to meet minimum requirements and not enough, or limited resources to provide them with the necessary tools to also do their jobs fully."

The air force is "beyond the point where even constant dedication is sufficient to sustain the capabilities needed to meet assigned Defence tasks," writes Pennie.

"The AF remains fragile due to chronic underfunding and asymmetric cuts to personnel. Our Wings and Squadrons are too hollow to sustain the current tempo of operations."

Pennie says the air force is "still struggling with the draconian personnel cuts of the previous decade."

"It seems quite evident that the AF was cut too deeply in the past, such that present establishments cannot cope with the operational and training tempos that we face today."

Some problems appear slated to get worse before they get better.

Last week's policy statement charts a vast Forces reorganization and sweeping new responsibilities for the three services, including greater roles in continental defence and security for the navy and air force.

It promises to address infrastructure decay, equipment deficits and manpower shortages. But it says the "vast majority" of the 5,000 additional full-time recruits it promises will go to the army -- not the other services.


----------



## CBH99 (25 Apr 2005)

What else is new?

The media has been publishing articles like this for years, always trying to strike fear into the hearts of the general public about the state of military affairs in Canada.

Does DND need a lot of equipment replaced?  You betcha.  Trucks, Jeeps, SAR fixed wing aircraft, destroyers, additional weapons at all levels so our troops have more "bang" with them when they go, a moderate air defense capability at the army formation level, etc, etc.  And yes, if a lot of this equipment isn't replaced very soon, there will be a point of decay where the military will be unable to fulfill its committments and mandates.  

However, I think its important to remember that the media isn't the more reliable source of information, especially about the military.  Does this story have merit?  Yes.  But material and financial management has always been an issue at DND, and will continue to be for quite some time.


----------



## Gunnar (9 May 2005)

> Give him time, give him a majority government. That's when we'll see what Mr Dithers is really made of.



umm....if it's all the same to you, I'd really rather not.  I'd rather save myself the embarassing discovery of the exact value of a Liberal PM to my country.... :


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 May 2005)

Gunnar said:
			
		

> I'd rather save myself the embarassing discovery of the exact value of a Liberal PM to my country.... :



Unless you are rather young, you already have.  Pierre Elliot Trudeau _*despised*_ the military and the poeple in it.  He despised serving soldier and veterans, alike.  He tought our generals were anti-intellectual time-servers and the sailors, soldiers and aviators - private through chief petty officer - were bums.


----------



## Infanteer (9 May 2005)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> Unless you are rather young, you already have.   Pierre Elliot Trudeau _*despised*_ the military and the poeple in it.   He despised serving soldier and veterans, alike.   He tought our generals were anti-intellectual time-servers and the sailors, soldiers and aviators - private through chief petty officer - were bums.



Trudeau also hid in Harvard while the Greatest Generation liberated Europe and Asia from Fascism - greatest Canadian my ass....


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (9 May 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Trudeau also hid in Harvard while the Greatest Generation liberated Europe and Asia from Fascism - greatest Canadian my ***....



I recall reading a biography ("Shrug, Trudeau in Power" by Walter Stewart, IIRC) in which one of his favourite activities during the war is described: him and his buddies dressing in Nazi-looking clothes and scaring the beejebus out of local farmers and whatnot (thinking the Nazis had invaded) ... I'm all for a good pratical joke, but that just ain't right ... put me in the [massiveunderstatement]"not a fan"[/massiveunderstatement] column, too.


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 May 2005)

We should give 12.5 billion to the JTF and let the rest of the forces fight over the remaining .2 billion - spock vs captian kirk style.


----------



## arpo_69 (16 Jul 2005)

OK I am going to post a Idea of what the government wants to do with our military through the next   years or so.... Let me know if you think this is going to be enough. Please Post your thoughts on this.
Here are some charts







Budget 2005 Defence Funding (cash basis illustration)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   2005â â€œ06 2006â â€œ07 2007â â€œ08 2008â â€œ09 2009â â€œ10 Total 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   (millions of dollars)

Expand the Forces   80, 100, 500, 1,200, 1,180, 3,060, 

Operational sustainability of the Forces 420, 500, 600, 800, 900, 3,220 

New medium capacity helicopters, logistics  trucks, utility aircraft and JTF2 facility 0, 0, 338, 1,232, 1,187, 2,757 

Post Defence Policy Review investments   0, 0, 120, 1,234, 2,437, 3,791 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total 500 600 1,558 4,466 5,704 12,828 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## Allen (17 Jul 2005)

That's old news, I think this was already posted. It's anybody's guess whether this is "enough" - not enough detail provided.

Out of curiosity, how can you post if you are banned?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (17 Jul 2005)

He was banned tonight, all his posts stay unless we specifically take them down.


----------

