Military looking for doubling of defence spending by 2025

[Edward Campbell]

Here is an article, reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act, from today’s (18 Jan 07) Ottawa Citizen which should stir up a hornet’s nest:

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=607bbb42-ce9e-4efa-83af-5c3138e27cab&k=9171

Military looking for doubling of defence spending by 2025

Richard Foot, CanWest News Service
Published: Thursday, January 18, 2007

The Defence Department is asking the Harper government to more than double its annual funding to $36.6 billion by 2025, and approve a list of about 30 new military rebuilding projects with an emphasis on protecting Canada's Arctic sovereignty.

But the military wish list - detailed in a long-awaited planning document called the Canada First Defence Strategy - faces a tough sell in the federal cabinet and the office of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, according to Liberal Senator Colin Kenny, chairman of the Senate's defence and national security committee.

Kenny, who has reviewed a copy of the plan, says he doubts the government will approve most of its spending requests. Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor has been promising to release the strategy since last fall, yet it remains stalled before the cabinet.

Kenny says Gen. Rick Hillier, the chief of defence staff, needs all the $37 billion outlined in the document to proceed with his bold plans to rebuild the Armed Forces. However, Kenny says that plan is having ''serious problems'' getting political approval.

''A week ago, there was supposed to be a meeting between O'Connor and Harper to discuss the strategy, and Harper cancelled the meeting because he didn't think that the preparation surrounding the document was adequate,'' he says.

O'Connor told the defence community in Halifax during a recent visit that a series of new spending announcements would begin this winter, but it's not clear how closely those will match the strategy proposals.

Kenny, a longtime advocate of strengthening Canada's military, says the strategy outlines three options for increasing annual funding for the Defence Department, which now stands at roughly $15 billion.

The first option is to gradually increase annual funding to $26.9 billion by 2025. The middle option seeks increases up to $35 billion by 2025, and the third option seeks an annual budget of $36.6 billion by 2025. Kenny says while those numbers sound impressive, they are not large when inflation and growth in Canada's gross domestic product are taken into account.

Canada now spends about one per cent of its GDP on defence, making it one of the lowest defence spenders in the NATO alliance.

If Ottawa adopts the cheapest option and boosts spending to only $26.9 billion, military spending would actually fall to less than one per cent of GDP in 2025, according to the document's projections.

If the most expensive option is selected and spending reaches $36.6 billion, defence spending would move to 1.3 per cent of GDP.

In October, the Senate committee on national security and defence issued a report saying Canada needed to boost defence spending to at least two per cent of GDP - or $35 billion in annual funding - by as early as 2012.

''What's frustrating is that you don't see the Canadian Forces actually functioning well under any of the options now before the cabinet,'' says Kenny. ''Even if you had the best-case scenario, it wouldn't give us the defence Canada needs or deserves.

''And I don't think the government is going to go for the 'best-case' option. I think they're going to do it on the cheap.''

Kenny declined to specify what projects the military wants as part of its rebuilding process, but said the strategy places, in his view, ''an inordinate focus on the North.''

There has been debate about whether ensuring Arctic sovereignty should fall to the military or to other agencies, and whether Canada's northern ocean should be patrolled by the navy or by the coast guard operating on new icebreakers.

Kenny says the Defence Department is clearly seeking a military solution and wants the government to purchase a fleet of six new armed Arctic patrol ships.

He also said the strategy calls for the continuation and strengthening of Canada's barely functioning submarine capability and for the building of a fleet of new ''single-class surface'' combat ships to replace the existing fleet of naval frigates, which are now reaching their mid-life stage.

There is no mention in the document, he says, of a replacement for the navy's aging destroyers.

Previous media reports have said the strategy also proposes a fleet of new-generation Leopard tanks, more light-armoured vehicles of the kind being used by Canadian troops in Afghanistan, a new fleet of search-and-rescue airplanes and additional unmanned aerial vehicles.

The Harper government has already announced plans to buy $17 billion worth of new supply ships for the navy, tactical and strategic transport planes and helicopters for the air force, and trucks for the army.

Dan Middlemiss, a defence scholar at Dalhousie University, said no matter how much of the new strategy the government ultimately adopts, it's defence decisions will likely be announced piecemeal over the coming months, or withheld and incorporated into the Conservative campaign platform in the next election.

''Many of us have been waiting to see the document for months, but it's just slipped and slipped and slipped,'' he says. ''I think the policy will either come out in dribs and drabs, or the government might turn it into a plank for the election.''

© CanWest News Service 2007​

If a lousy $37 Billion by 2025 is all O’Connor and Hillier can manage to recommend then both should quit because they clearly do not understand the problem.

$37 Billion represents a 20 year disarmament by stealth project.

The so called ‘first option’ ($26.9 Billion by 2025) is nothing more than a flat 3% growth rate – about enough to keep pace with inflation.  In other words the Hillier/O’Connor baseline is beyond just no real growth at all, it represents a steady and accelerating decline in Canada’s national defence capabilities.  That’s bloody disgraceful, in my opinion.

I believe it is widely accepted,* based on historical data, that defence inflation is much higher than the standard inflation rates predicted by e.g. Finance and the Bank of Canada.  On that basis even the ‘third option’ ($37 billion) is less than enough to keep up with inflation, it – apparently the best Hillier and O’Connor have the nerve to recommend – is the no growth option.

I would guesstimate, and it is a highly unscientific wild assed guess because I have been retired for years and years, that anything less than about 7.5% growth, year after year for a decade, and then steady 5% growth will mean that we disarm Canada.



---------
* I know it was widely accepted, in the ‘80s and early ‘90s, even by the Auditor General, that defence inflation ran at double the general inflation rate.


Edit: corrected format in "© CanWest News Service 2007"

 

[MarkOttawa]

Similar thoughts by Babbling Brooks in a post at The Torch:

Double?
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/01/double.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here is an editorial from today’s (19 Jan 07) Ottawa Citizen, reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act:

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/editorials/story.html?id=fb3ab92e-c898-4950-b42d-bd83cfa4227f

Military manoeuvres

The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Friday, January 19, 2007

In 2005, the Senate committee on national security and defence advised that the Canadian military needed a significant cash infusion.

At that time the annual budget allotment for defence was about $14 billion. Today it is $15 billion.

In other words, the Canadian Forces remains dramatically underfunded.

Here's how Senator Colin Kenny, the respected chairman of the defence committee, put it in 2005: "Never have I seen a prime minister (Paul Martin), defence minister (Bill Graham), and chief of the defence staff (Rick Hillier) working in greater harmony, with greater concern, to transform our armed forces into a useful agent for advancing Canada's interests internationally. ... But our committee concluded in its recent unanimous report that there is only one thing missing: Money."

And so it remains today, despite the election of a prime minister, Stephen Harper, who seems to appreciate the role of the Canadian military in (as Mr. Kenny put it) advancing Canada's interests internationally.

In fairness, Mr. Harper's Conservative government has injected some new money into the defence budget, and that was welcome. It has also sent positive signals to the men and women in uniform, by announcing plans to buy new equipment and to increase the number of soldiers.

But the kind of commitment that would allow our military to maintain influence abroad (through NATO and the United Nations) and do a credible job defending the homeland is still lacking.

For example, the Canadian Navy currently cannot conduct a 35-day patrol of the fishing grounds off Canada's East Coast because it doesn't have enough money in its budget. The defence minister has promised to find the needed money, but what program will he take it from to ensure that sovereignty over Canadian waters is enforced?

This is the kind of hand-to-mouth, crisis-driven response that the Senate committee has warned about in its reports. The fact is, the military needs funding that is predictable and adequate for the tasks we assign it. The Canadian north must be patrolled and protected, and that's expensive. The price tag for the Afghan mission is more than $2 billion and rising.

In government, the unwritten understanding is that departments always ask for more than they expect to get, because everyone knows they can function on less. The Defence Department is asking the government to double its funding to $36.6 billion by 2025, and, for once, it may well be that this is actually how much the Forces needs. The figure is consistent with what the Senate committee has been advocating.

All governments juggle priorities in budget deliberations, but without a properly functioning military, one that allows Canada to have some measure of independence rather than relying on others such as the U.S. for security, many of these other priorities are at risk.

© The Ottawa Citizen 2007​

A couple of observations:

” The fact is, the military needs funding that is predictable and adequate for the tasks we assign it.”  The important word is ‘we.’  Canadians, the vast, indeed overwhelming majority of Canadians, remain resoundingly and consistently hypocritical when it comes to paying for the work they assign to their armed forces.  I reiterate: the two predominant characteristics of Canadians are: greed and envy.  They want everything they see in the global candy store – a strong, effective military, free health care, a robust ‘helpful fixer’ foreign policy, low taxes and a strong dollar – but they don’t, ever, want to pay for it.  They feel entitled to their own entitlements and have scant regard for the needs of their community or their country.  The Citizen may be saying the obvious but it is shouting into a gale of popular indifference and ignorance.

… without a properly functioning military, one that allows Canada to have some measure of independence rather than relying on others such as the U.S. for security, many of these other priorities are at risk.”  Equally and intuitively obvious and, therefore, quite beyond the grasp of the average Canadians who feels entitled to ‘free’ protection from the USA, too – along with ‘free’ TV sitcoms for our shallow, self absorbed and celebrity obsessed ‘culture.’  What a sad excuse for a country.  Can you imagine our modern, 21st century Canada facing up to 1940 again – standing nearly alone and facing a huge, mighty and implacable foe?  Not bloody likely.  Gilles Duceppe, Stéphane Dion and Jack Layton and 97.5% of their followers would pee their pants and hide in the closet.

” The Defence Department is asking the government to double its funding to $36.6 billion by 2025, and, for once, it may well be that this is actually how much the Forces needs.” (Emphasis added.)  disagree.  I think the $37 Billion is a cop out – nothing more than a ‘high side’ figure to nudge cabinet towards the ‘middle ground’ and totally inadequate $29 Billion figure which, when adjusted for inflation – at its historical ‘norm’ of 3%, means that there is no, repeat NO growth in defence spending at all – no money for the absolutely critical thousands and thousands of new military members and, therefore, no money for the new equipment they need, either.  IF the news reports are true then Defence Minister Gordon O’Connor and CDS General Rick Hillier have offered the government a plan to slowly and surely destroy the Canadian Forces.  They should be ashamed.

If prime Minister Harper has a single shred of vision; if he believe even one word of his speeches about restoring Canada to its old, pre-Trudeau role as a leader of the free nations of the West then he will reject the rubbish O’Connor and Hillier have on offer and provide 7.5% real and sustained (for, say, a decade) growth for the CF, followed by a commitment to long term (15 more years) of 5% growth.  That will tally up to a helluva lot more than a measly $37 Billion.  If that’s too much for Canadians then we will deserve to lose our sovereignty which will, as surely as the gods made little green apples, be the unintended but quite predictable consequence of the current DND plan.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Now, here, in today’s (19 Jan 07) Globe and mail is an article, reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act, in which Sen. Colin Kenny talks some economic sense.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070119.NAVY19/TPStory?cid=al_gam_globeedge

Liberal decries funding military 'on the cheap'
Tory plan calls for spending much less than other NATO countries, senator says

GLORIA GALLOWAY

OTTAWA -- The Conservative government's long-term strategy for the Canadian Forces will barely fill the cracks in a military that has been squeezed of cash for more than a decade, says a Liberal senator who has seen a copy of the plan.

While "respectable NATO countries" devote 2 per cent of their GDP to their armed forces, the Canada First Defence Strategy drawn up by Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor projects funding levels that will fall far short of that -- even 18 years into the future -- said Senator Colin Kenny, the chairman of the National Security and Defence Committee.

Canada currently spends about 1.1 per cent of its GDP on the military.

"They are doing it on the cheap, and they are aiming really low, and it means that the plans that this government has going forward are to continue to have an underfunded armed forces," Mr. Kenny said yesterday.

The plan put together by Mr. O'Connor, which is stalled at the cabinet table, puts forth three options starting at 0.9 per cent of GDP, an amount that the senator said would leave the country with a vastly reduced military.

A second option calls for an increase to 1.2 per cent of GDP and a third option would push the spending to 1.3 per cent, an amount that is still far below the levels currently set by many of Canada's NATO allies.

Put another way, Mr. Kenny said, "we're spending about $340 per capita on defence in Canada. If your look at the Dutch, they are spending about $650 per capita."

Mr. O'Connor's most expensive plan would double the current military budget, in dollar terms, to $36.6-billion in 2025, he said.

"Somebody who looks at a $36-billion figure says wow, that seems like a lot. But they are thinking in today's dollars," Mr. Kenny said.

His committee has called for military spending to increase to $35-billion by 2012.

"What this study does is just barely fill in some of the cracks. It doesn't solve the military's problem," he said.

The leak of the Canada First Defence Strategy, which was sent to the senator's office in a brown envelope marked "Occupant," comes as the navy's Atlantic formation is running short of cash.

Because extra money that was anticipated when this year's budget was crafted did not materialize, the Maritime Forces Atlantic had to make up a $25-million shortfall and decided to eliminate at least one fishing patrol off the Grand Banks, as well as other discretionary spending.

Mr. O'Connor said he would find the money for the fishing patrol and, yesterday, it was back on the agenda.

Commander Michel Drapeau, a Canadian Forces veteran who teaches military studies at the University of Ottawa, said he believes the Conservative government has acted with "indecent haste" in pouring money into defence hardware. About $17-billion was announced last year for helicopters trucks, ships and planes.

"Buying equipment doesn't make an army," Cdr. Drapeau said.

The primary problem facing the Canadian Forces today, he said, "is one of people.

"Without people you don't have an armed forces. We have problems recruiting and we have problems retaining."

I have, as usual, a few quibbles and comments.

Sen. Kenny’s recommendation of $35 Billion by 2012 would require a steady, year after year, increase in defence spending of 18.5%.  I am not convinced that:

• Such an increase is politically acceptable to any but the tiniest minority of Canadians – it’s a non-starter; and

• DND could not, effectively, spend that kind of money.

Commander (I suspect it is Colonel (Retired)) Michel Drapeau is wrong to suggest that we should not buy equipment when the money is available.  He is right that people must be the first priority – see Ruxted at: http://ruxted.ca/index.php?/archives/29-Ordering-Priorities-Retention,-Recruiting,-Reassignment.html – ”Even as we continue to fight in Afghanistan, the highest priority task facing the Minister and the defence staff must be to add many thousands of sailors, soldiers and air force personnel to the ranks of the regular and reserve forces.”  That is still good, solid advice.  We need new equipment but we also need thousands and thousands of new sailors, soldiers and aviators to use and maintain it.

Sen. Kenny is in danger of falling into the Polaris* trap and mixing apples and oranges.  As Ruxted (again) pointed out over a years ago at: http://ruxted.ca/index.php?/archives/6-Defence-budget-rising.html ” It doesn't matter if it is 0.25%, 2.5% or 25% of GDP, we, Canadians, either pay the bills or the government's foreign policy is rubbish. Equally, it matters not at all, not even one tiny iota, what Belgium or Germany spend on their defence; they are not Canada and their armed forces are not doing Canadians' bidding. It also doesn't matter what we spent in 1950 or 1975 or 2000 - people and things, food and fuel cost what they cost now.”

We, Canadians, need to spend just enough on our defences to allow the CF to just accomplish the missions we assign to them.

Personally, I think DND could make good use of a steady 9% increase, years after years, until 2017, followed by an equally steady set of 5% increases to sustain that force.  That would allow us to grow the military to about 85,000 all ranks/services and equip, train and organize that force for a sensible range of operational tasks – from 4th generation war in some dirty, dusty hell-hole to traditional high intensity combat operations.  That would mean we would be spending $50 Billion in 2025 instead of the totally inadequate $37 Billion proposed by the political and bureaucratic pansies (some in uniform) in DND.

Gen Hillier and Deputy Minister Elcock are supposed to have the right mix of balls and brains to get DND out of its hole.  They need to use both and confront Lynch in the PCO, Bob Wright in Finance and Ian Brodie† in the PMO and convince them that if we surrender our sovereignty – which the $37 Billion plan guarantees – then all the other government plans and projects ad priorities are meaningless busy work.

A loss of sovereignty is guaranteed because if we cannot assert our place in the world then we will be overlooked and then walked over whenever our vital interests are at stake – even inside our own country.


----------
* After Army.ca member Steve Staples and his anti-military Polaris Institute
† See: http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/default.asp?Language=E&Page=clerk&Sub=Biography  http://www.fin.gc.ca/comment/dm_e.html and http://publish.uwo.ca/~irbrodie/

 

[Kirkhill]

It will be interesting to see how the Liberal MPs go about handling this.  We all know that Senator Kenny is onside with growth but that has made him a very atypical Liberal.

How do you sell this -  Doubling the Budget!!! 36 Billion!!!

Or 1.5% Growth rate above the anticipated rate of inflation.

And there is still that pesky issue of what gets included in the budget and how you fund capital projects.  There is also the continuing issue of whether the Government should be SELLING the CF services to agencies like the UN, NATO, allies, and states in need.