Senate Committee: more money for CF, join BMD, no Navy icebreakers

[MarkOttawa]

CBC story on latest report by Senate Committee on National Security and Defence:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/10/05/defence-report.html

Canada should not waste military resources on defending the Arctic, but should sign on to the U.S. ballistic missile defence program and double the amount of money it gives for foreign aid, a Senate defence committee report released Thursday says.

The senators also say the Defence Department should get special treatment, suggesting that its minister be empowered to spend up to $500 million on equipment without having to go through the long process of cabinet approval.

Military spending is far too low, the report concludes, saying the projected budget of $20 billion by 2012 is "at least $5-billion short and more probably $15-billion short."

On missile defence, the report criticizes the decision by former prime minister Paul Martin to reject Canadian participation in the program.

"The government should not make the mistake that the last government made by refusing to support the United States in this project."

The report concludes that an effective anti-missile system has the potential to save "hundreds of thousands of Canadian lives."

It dismisses critics who say the system is unworkable, saying there have been recent tests that show promising results.

The report also argues that the system, which is being developed at no cost to Canadians, offers a defence that will act solely as a deterrent and not lead to an arms race in space.

"If there is the tiniest chance that it could [work], why would we turn up our noses at the opportunity to be a partner in this project?"

No threat in Arctic: report

The report also focuses on the Arctic and rejects the use of the military as the primary tool to defend the area and criticizes the government's plan to build three Canadian Forces icebreakers.

"There is no serious threat to Canada through the Arctic," the report says, adding that the chances of the Arctic itself being a military target are "ridiculously low."

Instead, defence of the Arctic should be handled primarily by other agencies, including the Canadian Coast Guard, which should be armed, suggested the report.

[for CCG vessel needs see:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2006/10/02/icebreakers-new.html

The report also urges Ottawa to abandon military bases which have outlived their usefulness, naming Happy Valley-Goose Bay in Labrador...

Executive Summary here:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/defe-e/rep-e/ExecSumRepOct06-e.pdf

Full text, "MANAGING TURMOIL: The Need to Upgrade Canadian Foreign Aid and Military Strength to Deal with Massive Change", available here:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/Committee_SenRep.asp?Language=E&Parl=39&Ses=1&comm_id=76

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Dissident]

We never wanted icebreakers to fight off an invasion or any sort of military threat. My understanding was that we wanted the CF to have the capability to enforce our sovereignty in the region.

Edit: Thanks Mark, I perused the other threads and will read them more thoroughly.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Dissident: My views on icebreakers:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/42397/post-454693.html#msg454693
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/42397/post-454721.html#msg454721

It's been quite a discussion on various threads.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

More detail in Globe story:

Canada's military a 'one-trick pony,' Senate committee says
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061005.wdefence1005/BNStory/National/home

...
The wide-ranging 323-page report doesn't pull any punches, calling Canada's armed forces a “one-trick pony” that is ill-equipped to deal with multiple threats.

“Canada does not have the military tools in place to deal with more than one major threat at a time (at best) in an era when Canadians may be called upon to counter multiple threats in different places and simultaneously – both domestically and abroad,” the report states.

It also estimates that the government's projected $20-billion military budget could be up to $15-billion short of what would be required by 2012.

“The blueprint currently laid out by the Government of Canada – while it does give a welcome boost to defence spending after decades of neglect – will not give the Canadian Forces the capacity to deploy ground troops to two major assignments at the same time,” the report states.

“That is why – with 2,500 troops in Afghanistan– the government could not make any kind of substantial commitment to Lebanon or Darfur even if it wished to, and why it would have to turn somersaults to adjust personnel allocation if a major threat to Canada were to emerge at home or somewhere else abroad.”..

Some stuff on JTF 2 too.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[brihard]

The ABM is getting more logical. With North Korea, Iran and other rogue powers developing nuclear arms, it's really inevitable that eventually there will be a genuinely hostile nuclear-armed power. Now, they may not launch one at us- but do you trust the North Korean missile techs? I sure as hell don't, and Seattle's a damned nice target. So's Detroit. With 90% of our population near the U.S. border it may make sense to cover our ass in case someone should attempt to launch a nuke at our neighbours to the south.

I like the non-partisan ass-kicking of the report. They slam BOTH parties, and that ought to buy some legitimacy for what they have to say. Here's hoping someone listens.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here is the report: http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/defe-e/rep-e/RepOct06-e.pdf

Good stuff.

Great Stuff!

Sen. Kenny has, once again justified an unelected legislative chamber.

Imagine how much good this report would do if the Senate of Canada was legitimate.