- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 230
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.....Rusty Old Joint said:
Defence: $12.7-billion infusion ;D
- Thread starter big bad john
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
The Russians refer to their country as the "Rodina": the Motherland. What about Britania, she rules the waves. Sounds alright to me!
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
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.
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.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
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
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
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
There are always tradeoffs.
- Reaction score
- 8,210
- Points
- 1,160
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.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
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.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
But is it the third that is not grounded for some reason or other?
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 460
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....
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....
- Reaction score
- 8,210
- Points
- 1,160
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.
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.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
- Reaction score
- 5,962
- Points
- 1,260
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.
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.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
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.
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.
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.
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.
- Reaction score
- 5,962
- Points
- 1,260
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.
