# Now Grits want $700M military cut



## pegged (17 Oct 2004)

October 16, 2004 
The Toronto Sun 
Link


Now Grits want $700M military cut 
By STEPHANIE RUBEC, OTTAWA BUREAU 

THE LIBERAL government is set to take an axe to the cash-strapped Canadian Forces' $13.2-billion budget. Revenue Minister John McCallum, who chairs the federal re-allocation committee, said despite its cash crunch, the defence department must find 5% savings within days -- about $700-million. 

"Defence is no exception, it applies to every department. Even the governor general has been asked to do this," McCallum said yesterday. 

McCallum said each department must find the savings so the Liberal government can fund priorities such as health care and daycare. 

"It may be that some departments will be asked to cut little or anything, it may be that other departments will be asked to review their expenditures by more than 5%," he said. 

The expenditure review was launched by Prime Minister Paul Martin, who is looking for $12-billion in savings over the next five years. 

The Liberals have been highly criticized for slashing the military's budget through the 1990s by $3.5 billion to $9.3 billion. Since then, the Grits boosted military spending to $13 billion, but some of that is one-time money for specific equipment or initiatives. 

McCallum said the upcoming clawback doesn't preclude handing the military more money in the next budget. 

Martin committed in his throne speech this month to boost the military by 5,000 regular troops and 3,000 reservists. 

Opposition members in the House of Commons criticized the cuts yesterday.


----------



## AlphaCharlie (17 Oct 2004)

Wow... thats a lot of money to just give up...


----------



## bossi (17 Oct 2004)

Hmmm ... just when we thought it couldn't get any worse ...
Hmmm ... maybe we could mothball some subs ... one in particular ...
Hmmm ... whatever happened to the billions of dollars in the federal surplus ... ?


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Oct 2004)

Does anybody in this Godforsaken country have any flaming idea what their doing?


----------



## canuck101 (17 Oct 2004)

when it comes to money if it is not going to healthcare they don't want to hear about it, the USA will protect us. never fear is what they think. they may help  but at a very high price.  I don't plan to be here if that happens. Being a free and independent country took  blood sweet and tears to build and the present day citizens could give a crap.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (17 Oct 2004)

This is not news - it was announced last year.  Moreover, do you think that it is all that much of a bad thing for us to have a hard look at ourselves and find some internal savings every now and then?  It is like telling your kid to clean up his toys, go through them and through out the broken ones before you take him to Toys R Us.


----------



## Highland Lad (17 Oct 2004)

True - it's not a bad thing... when it only happens every now and then. When DND is asked every year to look at operations and administration and to "find" 5% savings, it starts to really suck. To carry the analogy further, it's like asking your kid to go through all his toys every day, and to make sure _each time_ that at least one isn't needed any more, whether you're buying him a new one or not!


----------



## PPCLI Guy (17 Oct 2004)

Highland Lad said:
			
		

> To carry the analogy further, it's like asking your kid to go through all his toys every day, and to make sure _each time_ that at least one isn't needed any more, whether you're buying him a new one or not!



Ok - thats a fair one.   I just wanted to point out that, much like health care, the answer isn't always more money - it is usually to use your money more efficiently and effectively.


----------



## Highland Lad (17 Oct 2004)

100% agreement there - savings can always be found, but often they illustrate the law of diminishing returns, especially when the impacts on morale and personal performance of having to "go back and do it again" are bigger than the savings. When you ask a kid to clean the room, then look at the results and (without praise or pointers) say "now do it again" (repeat as politically necessary), the situation may keep improving, but the effort required may not be worth it.

Look at it this way: each review that DND undertakes costs $$$ for auditors and consultants to come in and assist with finding the savings (because otherwise there are important people pulled away from the jobs that really need their attention). While the savings they find may be long-term, and very useful, the expense comes out of this year's budget.

It reminds me of a cartoon a few years ago (Foxtrot) - a consultant presents the final recommendations:
     Consultant: Here are the savings my study found.
     Roger: Wow! That is really impressive. And what's this?
     Consultant: That's the bill for my services.
     Roger: Erp!
     Consultant: Trust me, in eleven and a half years, the company will thank me.


----------



## Scratch_043 (17 Oct 2004)

I have a question.

why does the DND have to 'find 5% to be cut' when a surplus of $9.1M was just announced??

it would make more sence to me, that instead of cutting our existing (and dwindeling) funding, the feds could be more responsible initially when they plot out the budget.   I hate how the public have been sucked in by this excuse: "We have to cut this and that because we don't have the money for it, it's not out fault, the money just isn't there because of _such and such reason_, .............oh, and we will have this HUGE surplus this year, vote LIEberal."


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Oct 2004)

Okay, I've calmed down on this one.

PPCLI Guy, I remember reading about the government looking for 200 MCAD back.  It was the 700 MCAD that threw me.

Having said that, is it likely that any of the 700 can or should be drawn out of the operational budget with the reduction in commitments in both Bosnia and Afghanistan.  Weren't some of those funds supplied as "one time" funds and essentially added on "for the duration"? Or am I thinking wishfully again and Treasury Board wants to cut into the meat?

Cheers.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (18 Oct 2004)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Okay, I've calmed down on this one.
> 
> PPCLI Guy, I remember reading about the government looking for 200 MCAD back.   It was the 700 MCAD that threw me.
> 
> Weren't some of those funds supplied as "one time" funds and essentially added on "for the duration"?



That is my undertanding...


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Oct 2004)

Well then .... I feel much better nooow 

I won't have to resort to valium tonight, the whiskey will do just fine.

Cheers.


----------



## Tpr.Orange (18 Oct 2004)

my mother always said if you dont have anything nice to say VOTE CONSERVATIVE


----------



## canuck101 (18 Oct 2004)

Right you are


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Oct 2004)

Tried that.  Didn't work.


----------



## canuck101 (18 Oct 2004)

I guess we have to keep voting till the get into office.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (18 Oct 2004)

Problem.....

Although an occassional belt-tightening is a good idea in principle, if our "fat" is in fact in the decision-making echelon, you have a problem in they are unlikely to cut costs themselves.  Instead they are more likely to cut at the operational level reducing things like ballistic vests, etc. as per the other recently posted article.

Bottom Line:  You need to let the Auditor General complete a full review and let the chips fall where they may.....



Matthew.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Oct 2004)

The sad thing to contemplate is we really don't need "that much" money, the structural deficit has remained at about 1.8 billion since the early 1990's. If the money wasted on things like the "Billion Dollar Boondoogle", "Shawinigate", "Adscam" and the gun registry had been spent on defense through the years, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Saying the money is needed for healthcare is a cop-out. A trillion dollars a year could be spent on health care, but the built in perverse incentives in the system divert money away from patients. Private systems subject to market forces (not private insurance cartels like American HMO's) tend to deliver service quickly and at a reasonable cost.

Because Defense is and must be a govenment monopoly, we are subject to a different set of rules. Unless and until there is a loud public demand for a defense budget that pays the bills, we will always be subject to cutbacks and clawbacks with no recourse other than to carry on.


----------



## Guardian (18 Oct 2004)

Here's some news....


*PM: Military to get more money

Commons accepts throne speech amendment

OTTAWA (CP) - Prime Minister Paul Martin says the Defence Department will get more money even as its expenditures are examined. 

All government departments will undergo line-by-line review of expenditures as "an essential part of good management," he said Monday. However, the Liberals will live up to an election campaign promise to increase overall military spending, he said. 

On another defence matter, he said the Commons will vote on the controversial U.S.-led missile defence program. 

However, the vote won't commit the Liberals to any decision on participating in the U.S. plan. It will be more symbolic of co-operation the minority government is trying to build with opposition parties. 

Martin dismissed the significance of the vote, saying he had already shown support for a Commons debate on the issue. 

"If you take a look at my own speech in the House on that issue, I essentially said that . . . we're very open to debate," Martin said before a meeting in his Parliament Hill office with the prime minister of Burkina Faso.   
   

Liberals were believed to be wary of a Commons vote because it would expose deep divisions toward Americans within the minority caucus and present an opportunity for more MPs to vent anti-Americanisms that could damage relations with the United States. 

A few weeks ago, Defence Minister Bill Graham indicated that a vote was unlikely because the federal government retained sole authority for national defence and treaties with other countries. 

However, sources in two parties said Sunday that Martin appears to have come around to the idea of a vote after a week of negotiations with Conservatives, the Bloc Quebecois and the NDP.*

Thoughts?


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 Oct 2004)

Heckuva PR gambit.  Suppose you plan to increase annual DND spending by $300M.  First you tell DND to "find", say, $200M in savings.  Then you can stage a press conference and announce $500M in "new" money for DND!


----------



## a_majoor (18 Oct 2004)

Since the public and hence the Government never give the military much thought, all this fun with figures is fairly meaningless. It is not so much "how much" money you have, as how you plan to spend it. Previous posts have compared the Indian Armed forces to ours, noting the very different capabilities despite the near pairity in dollars spent.

The Indians have a limited nuclear capability, a fairly impressive air-force (whupped the Americans in an air combat wargame Sukhois vs F-15c Eagles), reasonably modern mechanized army and a blue water navy. On the other hand, they DON't have employment equity, great pension plans, IMPs, education plans, several orders of dress and all the other amenities we take for granted. Then again, India has two nuclear armed neighbours who have demonstrated hostile intent, so their Government has an incentive to take things seriously.

We could have a Liberal "pork fest" with all kinds of money showered on the CF, without improving our capabilities one bit. It will always be nice to have a few more resources, but until there is a sea change in public attitudes (Starting with a new White Paper, and incorporating something like the "quadrennial review" process to stay current), the real question has to be "what do we think the public wants?" and react accordingly.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (19 Oct 2004)

> We could have a Liberal "pork fest" with all kinds of money showered on the CF, without improving our capabilities one bit. It will always be nice to have a few more resources, but until there is a sea change in public attitudes (Starting with a new White Paper, and incorporating something like the "quadrennial review" process to stay current), the real question has to be "what do we think the public wants?" and react accordingly.



As differentiated from "what do we think the public needs?"


----------



## a_majoor (19 Oct 2004)

Right now the CF is in "reactive" mode. We go off on expeditionary forces, usually in support of American political or diplomatic initiatives. (The Dayton peace accords, IS AF, OP Athena and OP Apollo are all examples of this. Pretty slick work for a bunch of "Morons", eh?) If the public is mostly concerned about "soft power" issues, the CF DART team will become the premier army formation.

While we are getting great new kit like the LAV series of vehicles (DFSV excepted), the types and numbers of things we do get are not driven by a coherent doctrine or expression of our needs, but just plain political posturing. The air force now has two entirely separate helicopters (EH 101 and SH-92) to do _exactly the same job_ at an incredible cost. The taxpayers have been suckered out of far more money than the original EH 101 purchase would have cost (especially when you factor in the maintenance of the Sea Kings in the interim) without understanding why...

Without a White paper to clearly state what sort of defense capabilities the public wants and is willing to pay for, we twist in the wind, sending troops to Kabul to patrol and Toronto to shovel snow, not really able to justify why we need _"x"
_ new dollars or explain why losing $700 million is a really bad idea (or why the Navy needs subs, etc. etc.)


----------



## PPCLI Guy (19 Oct 2004)

We are in complete agreement.  I have spoken f this on a number of threads - we are unable to articulate what we need, because we are not sure what we are needed to do.


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Oct 2004)

I think we are all in agreement on the need for a White Paper.  And I think each one of us would like to write it.  But essentially it is a Government paper and Politicians will write it.  And that is correct.  They are our elected representatives.  However imperfect the electoral process or the outcome that is their job.

What I think that the Military side of the house should be doing at this stage is preparing a series of cost estimates.  In business this is the first step in preparing a business plan and deciding on a course of action,   and like it or not that is what this exercise is all about.

The Military should prepare, and publish for general consumption, the costs of raising a parachute battle group, a light infantry battle group, a mech battle group, an armoured battle group,  a commando squadron, an arty battery, various brigades, the cost of airforce surveillance squadrons, naval patrol flotillas, naval task forces.  The costs of deploying and recovering single roto elements. The cost of Roto 0 vs the Cost of Subsequent Deployments.  The Cost of Maintaining 1, 2 battle groups.    The comparative costs for Brit, Aussie, Yank, Dutch, Danish, French..... units.  The capabilities that that investment buys.

That is what the Canadian Taxpayer needs at this time from the people who should know.  What can we do and what will it cost us.

Blue Sky it.  Price out the reasonable and the unreasonable.  Price out a Peacekeepers Brigade.  Price out a fully Air Portable Armoured Division complete with "Gavins.....shudder" and Challenger 2s.

I don't really care what options you choose to price out but price them out and publish them.

And point out the basis for the analysis - specifically  the price if bought out of British, Dutch or American yards for an Air Defence Destroyer and how that impacts on the feasibility of deploying a Task Force vs a PWGSC Canadian purchase.

If this is all about dollars for the politicians then make it about dollars for the citizens.  This is what is possible.  This is how much it could cost.  This is how much Canadian policies cost us.

Focus on the budget.

Follow the money.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (19 Oct 2004)

Great advice - essentially you are recommending that we get inside the OODA or PR loop of ouur poitlical masters..,

We have to start playing the game the way it is played, and not the way that we wish it was.


----------



## Infanteer (19 Oct 2004)

Definitely like that proactive approach.

As well, I don't think we should take an "all or nothing" approach to rationalization of TO&E's, equipment, and deployability.  I think it would be more efficient for the CF to "modularize" Air, Naval, and Ground assets into joint "deployable and sustainable units of action" (does that make sense?); this would allow us to make a clear case for budgetary increases.

For example.  Organize and price out the cost of an Army Brigade which can be backed by the appropriate level of tactical and strategic Air Support and delivered and sustained by an appropriate naval taskforce.  I guess it would be something to the USMC MEB.  If the government believes we need more resources to meet our and national security commitments, the solution in building another "CEB" offers an easy sell as opposed to mega decisions related to budgets like "cut tanks, by trucks, settle with what we got for helicopters, etc, etc".

A form of organizing to budgetary constraints such as this ensures that quality will never be in doubt, the quantity is the variable.  I'd rather have 1 completely independent Canadian Expeditionary Brigade (well equipped) that can project Canadian Combat Power as we see fit rather then the smattering of units operating to their own tune, all struggling with various forms of equipment shortage and manpower issues.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (19 Oct 2004)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> While we are getting great new kit like the LAV series of vehicles (DFSV excepted), the types and numbers of things we do get are not driven by a coherent doctrine or expression of our needs, but just plain political posturing. The air force now has two entirely separate helicopters (EH 101 and SH-92) to do _exactly the same job_ at an incredible cost. The taxpayers have been suckered out of far more money than the original EH 101 purchase would have cost (especially when you factor in the maintenance of the Sea Kings in the interim) without understanding why...



Actually, our EH-101s (we call them Cormorants) and the new H-92s do not do exactly the same job.   Cormorants are shore-based rescue helicopters and are laid out as such.   Period. (a debatable use of scarce military bodies and cash in this day and age IMHO)

H-92s will replace our Sea-Kings in the Maritime Helicopter role as the CFs only ship-based aviation asset and will perform the following functions and will be one of three fleets of CF aircraft that deliver weapons (CF-18, Aurora are the others) :
1. surface search and surveillance (detecting, identifying and tracking surface shipping)
2. subsurface search and surveillance (aka ASW- finding submarines, tracking them and dropping weapons as required)
3. anti-surface warfare (with either it's own weapon or, more likely in the short-term, by third party targetting a ship's weapon)
4. Boarding party support (mostly recce and topcover gun platform right now)
5. Fleet logistcal support (hauling stores and personnel around the fleet at sea)
6. Search and rescue (we do this as a secondary role.   the Sea King fleet often picks up the SAR standby posture from the Cormorant fleet when they are all unserviceable.   This why it is not a great idea to have ALL your aircraft of exactly the same type- it limits your options.)
7. Support to other government departments (ie fisheries, RCMP, etc.   Not my favourite thing, but it pays some of the bills)

Maritime Helicopters do alot of things on a daily basis and are inherently flexible.   We often shift through many of these missions in the same and we greatly multipy the effectiveness of the ship we fly from.

I agree the that the Sea King replacement program has been a convoluted mess from day one, however.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (19 Oct 2004)

Surely there would have been some economies of scale (particularly on the maint side) if we had a common fleet?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (20 Oct 2004)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Surely there would have been some economies of scale (particularly on the maint side) if we had a common fleet?



You would think so, except that we contracted out the SAR fleet maintenance.   My understanding is that we don't "buy" a part for the Cormorant until it is required to be installed, so no savings on the spares issue.

We would have saved money on simulators.

Which would have been eaten up by the cost of processing the Redress of Grievances from SAR pilots once they started getting posting messages telling them to start reporting for sea-duty.      (just joking...)


----------



## PPCLI Guy (20 Oct 2004)

> Which would have been eaten up by the cost of processing the Redress of Grievances from SAR pilots once they started getting posting messages telling them to start reporting for sea-duty.    (just joking...)



Just wait until I'm CDS and you guys start lifting 105s and Infantry Platoons... :crybaby:


----------



## SeaKingTacco (20 Oct 2004)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Just wait until I'm CDS and you guys start lifting 105s and Infantry Platoons... :crybaby:



Bring it on- I'm the guy who took (then) Col Beare for a Sea King ride when he was Comd 1 Bde and pointed out that we ACTUALLY could sling an LG1.   If not for Sept 11 happening, we may have ended up on Bde Ex the next spring, helping out.

I look forward to hauling you guys ashore someday... and going back to the ship to sleep!        (hey- I've slept in mud before.   I prefer the racks on a ship...)

Cheers!


----------



## bossi (20 Oct 2004)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Great advice - essentially you are recommending that we get inside the OODA or PR loop of ouur poitlical masters..,
> 
> We have to start playing the game the way it is played, and not the way that we wish it was.



In contrast, the American armed forces have personnel in Washington whose job is to keep senators and congressmen informed ... (i.e. to prevent ignorance).


----------



## Sam69 (20 Oct 2004)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Surely there would have been some economies of scale (particularly on the maint side) if we had a common fleet?



The original plan (NSA/NSH) was to purchase 50 EH-101s (35 Maritime and 15 SAR - later scaled back to 44 total by Kim Campbelll's Tories) and use the aircraft to cover both roles with great economies to be realized in training, maintenance, and spare parts. With the cancellation of the EH-101 purchase by Jean Chretien, the two contracts were separated and, once the EH-101 had been purchased for SAR, the MHP competition was not allowed to consider any of the potential economies that could be realized through a common airframe. This is but one example of the subtle political "tweaking" that went on throughout the entire MHP competition to lessen the chance that we would buy EH-101s for the MHP contract and embarass the government by buying the same aircraft that the PM had labelled a "Cadillac." 

In any case, putting on my "glass half full" glasses, there are a few benefits to a mixed fleet. For example, the entire Cormorant fleet is currently ops restricted due to a series of tail hub cracks that were discovered in one aircraft. Having a different Maritime helicopter means that the MH can carry some of the SAR duties when the SAR fleet is grounded.

Sam


----------



## PPCLI Guy (20 Oct 2004)

> Having a different Maritime helicopter means that the MH can carry some of the SAR duties when the SAR fleet is grounded.



Great point - hadn't thought of that


----------



## Fraser.g (21 Oct 2004)

Just got this from my MP

Grant:
Thought you might find this news release of interest.
Allison Sigstad
Administrative Assistant
for:  Carol Skelton, M.P.
Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar




Office of the
Leader of the Opposition

Bureau du
Chef de l'opposition

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

October 20, 2004


MEDIA ADVISORY 


Conservative Party Proposes Motion on Support for Canadian Forces

OTTAWA â â€œ The Conservative Party of Canada has tabled the following motion for debate Thursday, October 21, 2004, in the House of Commons.  This Opposition Motion is votable, and stands in the name Gordon O'Connor, MP (Carleton-Mississippi Mills, ON).  Debate will begin at approximately 10:15 AM:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government's national defence policies are seriously out of date and funding has fallen dramatically short of what is needed to meet defence commitments, the combat capabilities of the Canadian Forces have been permitted to decay and the government is continuing this trend by proposing to raise a peace keeping brigade at the expense of existing combat ready forces; accordingly,

This House call on the government to commit to maintaining air, land and sea combat capability by ensuring that members of the forces are trained, equipped and supported for combat operations and peacekeeping, in order to enhance Canada's status and influence as a sovereign nation.

-30-

For more information, please contact: 
Official Opposition Press Office (613) 947-2400


----------



## onecat (22 Oct 2004)

"In contrast, the American armed forces have personnel in Washington whose job is to keep senators and congressmen informed ... (i.e. to prevent ignorance)."

Too bad that's not going to happen here.  I can't really see any Liberal gov't actually taking advice from the military on military matters.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (22 Oct 2004)

The gov't doesn't even listen to their own senators who have investigated the military situation and said we need more money.


----------



## a_majoor (22 Oct 2004)

Until Al Qaeda or some similar gang flies a 747 into the Peace Tower, I don't think Parliament or the public will really wake up and smell the coffee.

The only problem then is how to manage the panicked response


----------

