• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

the budget - you be the judge

Originally posted by portcullisguy:
[qb]

Until customs officers are armed at our border crossings, we have only an illusion of border security.[/qb]

Perhaps a discussion for another thread... or another forum entirely, but I am curious (and, I think, completely open-minded): how would arming customs officers improve border security?

Have there been instances of forced entry at manned border crossings which unarmed customs officers were unable to prevent?
 
2e,
There are so many instances of armed pers from the States entering the border here it‘s not funny. The Windsor police spend as much time backing up Customs as their own. Cases involving loaded guns pointed at Customs, knife and physical attacks. In the summer there is upwards to 4000 US under 21 entering and leaving our border daily, to drink and party. Nowhere, including Toronto is the border so used and abused. Also totally neglected by the Federal Gov‘t. Our guys are entitled to protect themselves and if they haven‘t worked the Windsor border, I think our guys would tell them to quite whining. Just an opinion, but I work with these guys and hear them loud and clear. Strange, considering both crossings are in the Deputy Prime Minister‘s, Herb Grey‘s riding. Goes right along with the cosey deal he struck for the new armouries,IN HIS RIDING, that screwed the local reserve units. But that‘s another thread.
 
On the subject of mobilizing the CF vote, I don‘t believe such a thing would be mutinous or treasonous, (though I could stand to be corrected) especially if regimental associations, who are outside the control of the chain of command and are supposed to be looking after us, were to be mobilized. We still, after all, have the right to vote and we pay taxes. It wouldn‘t be the first time something like this has happened. A couple of retired RCAF guys told me about how some of the guys posted to Germany tried to change their ridings to sway the vote in the ridings of Diefenbaker and some of the cabinet ministers who had a hand in cancelling the Avro Arrow project. I don‘t know how successful that was.

We are all trained to deal with threats in the field, but our own government has accomplished what the Waffen SS and Communist Chinese could not do: render us ineffective in the field. I think that the entire CF, from the lowest militia private all the way up has to get the word out next election. Talk to your MP‘s about specific issues, many of them squeaked by because of vote splitting. Also, talk to your relatives, friends, and anyone who will listen that voting Liberal is a slap in the face to every serving member, veteran, and all of our war dead, as well as their families.

If I get jailed for expressing these views, so be it. If our senior leaders don‘t have the guts to put their careers on the line, the hell with them to.
 
Voting -- Riding Selection

As noted above, there is a prescribed window in which a service member may change their riding. Generally, the window is open when an election is not imminent.

As I understand it, the choice to be made is do I want to vote in my current riding, or in the new riding. Once you have changed from riding A (e.g., where you were recruited), to riding B (e.g., your first posting), you do not have the option of changing back. I.e., on posting C, you would have the option between riding B or C.

Many people maintain an attachment with "home" by holding onto this riding, and many others don‘t know or don‘t care that they can change.

I agree that it is time for people to start voting where they are posted. Never did when I was reg force, but it certainly starts to make sense. It might show the pols (and the local civs) how important the base is.

The real question is whether it would be effective - my experience is that there was a diverse political spectrum within the military. I don‘t know that consolidating a bases‘s vote would have any effect on the party that base‘s soldiers would for.
 
I think that the effectiveness of consolidating a base‘s votes would largely depend on the effort made to make them aware that there is a voice to be heard - before, during and after the election.

Something else that hasn‘t helped anyone is the media and peoples reaction to it. Most of the news I‘ve seen about the CF (in the mainstream media) in the last ten years hasn‘t been all that good - some of it very negative. A lot of the civilians I‘ve met over the last ten years aren‘t very aware politically and when they hear another story about the state of the CF it kind of blurs by when the 30 second clip goes by. Some even seem to accept it as the status quo! It‘s "old news" to them.

I wonder what would happen if an outside media source did an investigative piece on the recent budget brought down, the recent AG report and the government‘s reaction to it, and the current state of the CF. It‘s sad that that would probably generate more of a reaction in Ottawa than if the CBC or CTV did it.
 
Originally posted by rceme_rat:
[qb]Voting -- Riding Selection

The real question is whether it would be effective - my experience is that there was a diverse political spectrum within the military. I don‘t know that consolidating a bases‘s vote would have any effect on the party that base‘s soldiers would for.[/qb]

I think you‘re quite right about the diversity of political leanings among military members and their voting-age families.

I don‘t think that it‘s all that important that they vote as a block -- in fact, any communication among military members to try and vote together for one party would certainly be unethical, if not outright illegal.

What is important, though, is that they by and large vote in the same riding. That way, they are a targetable market segment from the political point of view -- and political staffs will suddenly spend more time (i.e. more than zero as at present!!!) trying to understand the base demographic, its interests and its issues. That, alone, would be a huge win for the military.

Right now, most politicians don‘t have the foggiest idea how many, let alone which, of their consituents are in the military and are interested in military issues.

If there are 10,000 Portugeuse-Canadian voters living within a few blocks of each other, sharing the same interests, community centres, shopping in the same stores and voting in the same riding -- I guarantee that political candidates will spend some time courting their votes.

In many areas, there are 10,000 military members/family voters living and working in ridings around CF Bases. It‘s time their voices were heard -- regardless of their political stripes.
 
Originally posted by towhey:
[qb]

Perhaps a discussion for another thread... or another forum entirely, but I am curious (and, I think, completely open-minded): how would arming customs officers improve border security?

Have there been instances of forced entry at manned border crossings which unarmed customs officers were unable to prevent?[/qb]

You are right that this discussion is off-topic for the CdnArmy.ca forums.

Short answer to both:
1. Officers would be able to defend themselves from assault ("designated" officers are now expected to perform the same duties as a police officer, including ASD demands, arrests for stolen property and warrants, etc.)
2. Yes, and many more go unreported.

For a wider scope of news and discussions on what customs officers deal with on a daily basis, try this link:
http://communities.msn.com/CanadaCustomsInfoResourceBoard
 
What‘s troubling is that most of the money will be eaten up by the bloody red tape. Meaning that the money will never benefit the everyday soldier, sailor, or airperson. Great, double the size of JTF-2. Why don‘t they just bring back the SSF (The Airborne Regiment) and leave it‘‘s candidacy open to all CAF members.

-the patriot- :cdn:
 
(bend over ... it‘s about to get worse ... much worse)

Somehow, when Eggs says "... live within its means", I doubt he‘s talking about increasing defence funding ...

So, enjoy your new cadpat uniforms - they‘ll soon prove to be the equivalent of slapping a coat of paint on a rusty, used car ... and then turning back the odometer (i.e. tarting it up so it looks good, instead of running well)

Merry Christmas (NOT)


Eggleton wants review of defence policy

Tuesday, December 18, 2001 – CP/Globe and Mail, Print Edition, Page A7

Ottawa -- Defence Minister Art Eggleton wants a review of defence policy to help the cash-strapped military live within its means.

Less than a week after the federal budget gave the Canadian Forces far less money than most critics had demanded, Mr. Eggleton said in an interview he wants a new white paper to define what the military must do. The last formal statement of policy in 1994 said the military should be a multirole, combat-capable force ready to meet commitments at home and abroad. But chronic underfunding means changes are needed, he said.
- 30 -
 
A new white paper is only a means to deflect critisism. They‘ll throw lots of dollars at it, hire a bunch of civvie consultants and bean counters, spend more money on them, come up with a bunch of recommendations that won‘t be adopted unless they‘re totally useless and unworkable. But they‘ll be able to sit through the next election saying they‘re studying the problem and not have to commit to any descisions. This will enable them to deflect ALL critism from anybody by saying "We‘re working on it, and we‘ll see what the results are". Don‘t expect any action for another three years minimum. Eggs and the PM are only covering their butts till they leave. White Papers are a failed politician‘s last ditch effort when they are wrong but can‘t admit it." When all else fails form a commitee." <img src="eek.gif" border="0" alt="" />
 
"So, enjoy your new cadpat uniforms - they‘ll soon prove to be the equivalent of slapping a coat of paint on a rusty, used car ... and then turning back the odometer (i.e. tarting it up so it looks good, instead of running well)." - bossi

Very apt way of putting things. I think it‘s right on the money. That approach is a long standing one I‘ve never agreed with (who would?). Paint and upgrades does not equal replacement when it is required. The list is quite extensive... Leopards, CF-18‘s, Sea Kings... and this is just the tip of the iceburg.

A new white paper is definitely in order. When I heard the phrase "live within it‘s means" I really started to wonder how this was going to be defined. Hopefully there will be some light at the end of the tunnel when/if this paper sees the light of day. Any idea what this might entail? Most of the things I‘ve had on my "wish list" need some reconsidering giving the low level of speding in this budget.
 
Med in Grn,
You‘re question is answered above about white papers. We posted at the same time. <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0" alt="" />
 
I‘m sure any new White Paper will have to get the approval of Martin, Copps, the guy down the street and every bleeding heart tree hugger in the country so that things will appear that we are grossly over funded and should only be used as a snow removal service. Given the history of this government the White Paper will only be good for wiping your *** with.
 
After reading this editorial, I‘m renewing my subscription to the National Post!

December 19, 2001
Game theory and military preparedness

James B. Davies and Ken Boessenkool
National Post

Those who have ever said to their boss, "If you do that, I‘ll quit," or to their kid "If you do that, you can‘t watch TV for a week," and then backed down when the transgression occurred, will quickly learn the importance of making credible threats. They will also learn that it is especially effective if you can commit to your threatened behaviour in advance. Learning these lessons puts you well on your way to becoming a game theorist.

Game theory is a seemingly arcane and complex branch of mathematics and economics that has, at its core, a solid body of common sense. Canada lays claim to impressive game theorists, occupying positions in our top universities and those of the United States. But we also lay claim to a distinguished group of game players in Ottawa -- our federal Liberals.

The Liberals have unique opportunities to hone their game theory skills. As a party that expects to be perpetually in power, they can afford to think ahead not just to the next election, but to the long future over which they expect to reign. Seeing the recent budget as one of these unique opportunities can help explain its otherwise inexplicable character.

In the months since the horrific events of Sept. 11, Canada has joined the United States, Britain and others in an ambitious and apparently successful attempt to root out the terrorists from their home in Afghanistan. While Canadian servicemen and women have contributed to this effort with distinction, our overall military contribution has been small. This has been the inevitable result of the size and limitations of our armed forces, limitations stemming from a long series of budget cuts for the armed forces.

These cuts have resulted in lousy salaries for military personnel; helicopters that aren‘t airworthy; transport aircraft that cannot be relied on to make it to the battle zone; and only a few thousand battle-ready soldiers who actually carry guns.

The dismal state of funding of our armed forces was in part the result of the need to trim expenditures in the battle against deficits and debt. The United States under Bill Clinton also substantially reduced expenditures on the military in an effort to get their deficit under control.

In these extraordinary times, however, Ottawa has decided it is necessary to deviate sharply from the course it has charted since 1995 and had reinforced just months ago, when the Finance Minister said that massive new spending would "risk the country‘s hard-won victory over deficit financing." Ottawa charted a new course with a budget that proposes to increase spending by nearly 10% next year, the largest increase in decades. Sept. 11 and its economic aftermath, Mr. Martin now says, make necessary a dramatic about-turn in spending plans.

With such a significant increase in spending, you might expect big dollars for the armed forces to fill the gaps and correct past deficiencies, to say nothing of increasing the size and capacity of our forces. But the budget provides nothing like that. The armed forces are getting only $300-million over and above the direct expenditures incurred to allow them to take part in the war in Afghanistan. This amount represents only 2% of the increased spending promised in the budget, and a fraction of one per cent of total federal program spending.

While inexplicable on its face, game theory can provide an explanation for this pitiful increase.

Suppose (economists‘ favourite word after "other" and "hand") you are the leader of a perpetual party in power in Ottawa. You expect the United States to become engaged in future conflicts, wars and military adventures ranging from small to large. And you realistically expect that either the United States will apply pressure for Canadians to assist in these efforts or Canadians themselves will spontaneously choose to do so.

But suppose, and here‘s the kicker, that you are not all that interested in participating in these future efforts. You would prefer to commit yourself to not participating.

Game theory would direct you to resolve this dilemma by limiting the resources allocated to the armed forces. You reduce manpower, expenditures, quality and quantity of equipment as much as the electorate will stand for. When Uncle Sam comes asking for help you can say, "Yes, we‘ll give you as much help as we possibly can, keeping in mind our other commitments. We‘re sorry we can‘t provide more help, but you see, our armed forces are rather small."

By starving the armed forces, the Liberals can commit to withhold significant future military assistance. The implicit threat is credible and, from a game theory point of view, effective.

That should not be a surprise. If the perpetual party in power in Ottawa decides in advance that it doesn‘t really want to help out much on these occasions, not funding the military is just common sense.

James B. Davies is a professor of economics at the University of Western Ontario. Ken Boessenkool is president of Sidicus Consulting Ltd. and an Adjunct Research Fellow at the C.D. Howe Institute.
- 30 -
 
A shot in the arm or the foot?
Kingston Whig-Standard, Sharon Lindores

Defence Minister Art Eggleton‘s call for a review of defence strategy has experts predicting everything from a major downsizing of the Armed Forces to a beefing up of resources that will give Canada‘s military greater international credibility.

The government plans to start work on the white paper in the new year, but it could be months before Canadians learn if it‘s a harbinger of drastic change.

Queen‘s University Prof. Douglas Bland says the public should demand a say in the matter before it‘s too late.

"If the review is held within the closed hallways of the National Defence Headquarters, that won‘t happen," said Bland, chairman of defence management studies at the school of policy studies.

Following a budget that did little for a cash-starved military, Bland says the white paper announcement signals the military‘s future is at risk.

"Every time Ottawa jiggles the money bags or takes money out of the Defence budget, all of the capabilities are up for question," Bland said. "I don‘t think anything will not be on the table." CFB Kingston included.

"The question of which bases remain open is back up in the air, and the numbers of people and the equipment. In my mind the status of Trenton, Petawawa and perhaps Kingston are going to be reviewed.

"These are the kind of questions the minister implies have to be faced."

Eggleton said Monday that changes have to be made.

"Certainly we‘re going to have to make structural adjustments to live within our means," Eggleton said.

"[A policy review] will help to determine how we should cut the cloth according to the resources that we have."

Paul Martin‘s Dec. 10 federal budget gave the military an extra $300 million for capital spending, far less than the $1 billion per year for five years that critics have been seeking.

‘VERY BAD NEWS‘

"This is very bad news," Bland said. "What it means to Canadians is that Canada is going to be much less involved in international affairs than it has been since 1939, because the suggestion is we‘re going to have to build an armed force only based on what the finance minister is willing to provide for national defence and not on what‘s needed for national defence.

"The finance minister made it explicit - we‘re not going to play in big games any longer overseas."

Bland said the announcement comes at a critical time when U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is in Brussels meeting with NATO members suggesting they spend a great deal more. "And we are making the suggestion that‘s not even possible."

Hal Klepak, a professor of military history at Royal Military College, disagrees.

"It would be an extraordinary message to send to the U.S. at this time - that we are reducing our effort," Klepak said. "I think Washington would simply be flabbergasted and I think the prime minister is very aware of it, so I don‘t think the announcement means forced reductions.

"You might restructure somewhat, but I can‘t see a reduction in strength. There‘s not much meat on the bone."

The demands keep rising while the number of soldiers and the amount of equipment and weaponry is falling, Klepak said.

"We‘re a bit stuck. In the ‘60s we had over 120,000 people in the Armed Forces and much less to do. Now, we have fewer than 60,000 and much more to do, so obviously there‘s a problem."

Klepak argues that Canada should put more resources into the military, foreign policy and aid policy if the country wants to be part of international-order discussions in the future.

The white paper might be a way to usher in those changes, he said.

Joel Sokolsky a political science professor at RMC, said that‘s unlikely.

"People who assume a new white paper will lead to more defence spending better think again," Sokolsky said.

He doesn‘t believe a public debate would help, saying people would rather see sky marshals on every plane than more troops in Afghanistan.

He doesn‘t think Canadians can buy influence right now.

‘FOLLOWERS AND ALLIES‘

"My view is that the U.S. is looking for followers and allies, not full partners," Sokolsky said. "If we doubled our spending it wouldn‘t make one iota of difference to the U.S. in terms of influencing its policy.

"I think the government has to create a priority list for equipment and look at recruitment and take a hard look at our existing overseas deployment," he said, adding he doesn‘t think a new white paper is necessary or will make a difference.

Don Macnamara, a retired air force brigadier-general who spent 37 years in the military, thinks a new policy is long overdue.

Five reports within the past year alone have called for a review. The most recent was Sheila Fraser‘s auditor general report, which said the military has a shortage of funds, skilled technicians and modern equipment.

"To me, it‘s clear something substantial will have to take place," said Macnamara, a Queen‘s business professor.

"Last week, when there was very little money announced in the budget, it was clear that the Canadian Forces could not continue.

"It all comes down to money. It‘s a five-letter word, not a four-letter word.

"It‘s clear the money the Forces now gets is not sufficient for them to do what policy expects in terms of equipment, training and manpower."

Macnamara said the government should develop a comprehensive defence arrangement with the U.S., be capable of upholding its international commitments in a sustainable manner, and be able to prevent global events from escalating into military or humanitarian responses.

The government owes it to the young people who are willing to fight and die for the country, he said.

Still, he‘s not optimistic it will be forthcoming, particularly when Finance Minister Martin says health care and education are the country‘s top priorities.

"The underfunding of the Canadian Forces has been continuous almost for the last 10 years," said Macnamara, who retired from the Forces in 1988.

"Yes, there has been drama associated with the war on terrorism, but this doesn‘t seem to have affected the resources provided to the military, therefore there must be a new policy reflecting expectations and resources."

PAPER CHASE

Â¥ The last white paper on national defence was done 1994

Â¥ It outlined a cut in personnel from 87,600 in 1990 to 60,000 by 1999 and a variety of commitments

Â¥ Most critics agree Canada hasn‘t met the policy guidelines outlined in the paper

Â¥ The groups that have called for a new policy within the past year include: the Royal Canadian Military Institute; the Conference of Defence Associations Institute; the Council for Canadian Security in the 21st Century, through the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary, the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs; and the Auditor General

++++++++++++++++++++++

AN ANALYSIS OF FEDERAL BUDGET 2001
December 16, 2001

General Impression

From the point of view of the Department of National Defence (DND) and the Canadian Forces (CF), Federal Budget 2001 is highly unsatisfactory. Although it professes to address the post-September 11 environment, it largely ignores the urgent requirements of an essential component of national security; namely, the armed forces. There are two main concerns:

C Additional funding assigned to general military capabilities, and to operational readiness comprises only $510 million over two years, whereas annual shortfalls in the DND budget computed by the Auditor-General and others far exceed that sum ;

C The manner in which funding for defence is presented lacks clarity and could be misleading for those interested in defence issues, but not well informed on budget procedures.

Budget Data

In raw terms the budget allocates $1.2 billion to DND and its agencies over the five year period starting in Fiscal Year (FY) 2001/2002 to 2006/2007. Full details are available on the Department of Finance website: www.fin.gc.ca

Over a five year (plus this year) horizon (FY 01/02 to 06/07) , amounts from the above total are assigned as follows:

C Expanded anti-terrorist capacity $119 million

C Nuclear, Biological, Chemical threats 513 million

C Contingency 100 million

The balance is assigned over a two year (including this year) horizon as follows:

C Supporting Canada’s military $510 million

Total $ 1.2 billion

Note that the budget document, Budget Plan 2001, also includes $396 million for Emergency Preparedness" (p.92). In fact, this amount will be assigned to and dispersed by other departments and agencies, and is not included in this analysis. Much the same applies to the $513 million for NBC threats, although some of it will remain in DND (see below re "changes in budget format").

Comment

The additional funding is useful, but only $510 million is available for application to conventional military capabilities and the commitments assigned by the 1994 White Paper on defence.

Moreover, the $510 million is specifically assigned as follows, and therefore not available to address the long list of shortfalls in operational readiness of the CF:

C Operation APOLLO (anti-terror coalition operations) $210 million

C Capital purchases 300 million

The funds for Operation APOLLO have already been spent, and will not contribute to stopping the decline of operational readiness in the Canadian Forces as a whole.

The $300 million for capital purchases will be applied mainly to payments for projects already underway; for example, the ‘lease to purchase’ payments for the new fleet of VICTORIA class submarines. Nevertheless, it will relieve some pressure in future years in the DND Capital Program.

The "expanded anti-terrorist capacity"noted above refers to raising the strength of Joint Task Force 2 (JTF), as well as providing it with appropriate equipment. Funding this new and specific task will not alleviate the general malaise of the CF and, in terms of the additional manpower requirement, will impose further strains on an organization already pushed to the breaking point.

Defining the Problem

Recently, a number of agencies have issued reports and studies in which they analyse the problems arising from the failure of the government to provide the funds necessary for DND and the CF to implement the policy set out in the 1994 White Paper on Defence. They are as follows:

C The Royal Canadian Military Institute (RCMI);

C The Federation of Military and United Services Institutes of Canada (FMUSIC);

C The Conference of Defence Associations (CDA);

C The Council for Canadian Security in the 21st Century ( CCS 21);

C The House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans’ Affairs;

C The House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance.

All of the these reports and studies list serious problems within the CF arising inter alia from a lack of trained manpower, insufficient training, ‘rusting-out’equipment, and inadequate logistics support.

On December 7, 2001, the Auditor-General of Canada issued her annual report. It verified and supported the findings of the other reports listed above. In particular, it noted that there was an ongoing deficit in the DND Operations and Maintenance (O & M) account of $1.3 billion per annum. This means that over a two-year period DND would need $2.6 billion merely to clear this deficit. As shown above, the 2001 federal budget provides only $510 million over two years -- and that amount is already spoken for in other areas!

In previous reports the Auditor-General has also identified an additional $6 to $10 billion over the next decade which would be needed for major equipment replacement.

To date, DND has managed to survive by re-prioritizing and re-allocating resources -- the so-called ‘rob Peter to pay Paul’ approach. Considering the failure of the 2001 budget to provide significant new funds, this option is no longer viable. It is therefore likely that a defence policy update, scheduled for release early in 2002, will direct further downsizing of the CF, with associated elimination or reduction of combat capabilities.

Lack of Clarity

Budget Plan 2001, lacks clarity in addressing the above situation. For example, when it sets out to illustrate "incremental defence funding"from 1999 to 2001, it provides information in a manner that could mislead the reader.

The following statement from the box on page 99 of the Budget Plan 2001 illustrates the point:

The $3.9 billion of new funding in the budgets of 1999 and 2000, together with the more than $1.2 billion of new funding in this budget, means that the Government will have increased DND funding by $5.1 billion over the next five years.

The total of $5.1 billion is computed as follows:

Budget 1999 $550 million

Budget 2000 3.350 billion

Budget 2001 1.202 billion

Total $5.102 billion

It has already been shown in earlier paragraphs of this memo that only $510 million of the $1.2 billion allocated to DND in Budget 2001 would be available to support existing military capabilities of the CF. Moreover, this amount is designated in advance for specific expenditures.

The $550 million from the actions taken in Budget 1999 is being applied to Quality of Life projects – very necessary, but not directly applicable to rehabilitation of military capabilities. As well it could be critiqued in the same vein as illustrated in the next paragraph.

It is, however, the totals of $3.350 billion shown for Budget 2000, and the Grand Total (Budgets 1999, 2000, 20001) of $5.102 billion that are most questionable in the manner in which they are presented. The problem lies with confusion over approved rises in the’ base’ of the DND budget in a given year, versus cumulative totals shown for succeeding years. The first rise is indeed an increase in funding which raises the level of the budget base. However, the government refers to the ongoing insertion of the rise over a period of years as an "investment." This may be correct, but there is also an implication that the level of the base has continued to rise past the first year, when that is not the case. There are clear differences in meaning between the two terms – ‘raise the base,’ and ‘total investment’-- and these are explored in detail in the attached annex.

Political Intent

Paragraph 2 on page 99 of Budget Plan 2001reads as follows:

This budget therefore commits substantial funding to enhance emergency response and preparedness. It allocates more than $1.6 billion over the next five years to improve the Government’s ability to detect, prevent and respond to threats, and to fund Canada’s military participation in the international coalition against terrorism.

In conjunction with this quotation it should be noted that the form of Budget 2001 is quite different from previous practice. Instead of making allocations directly to government departments and agencies, it assigns money to a number of "agendas." DND and the CF are included in the Security Agenda. For this reason, most of the $1.6 billion will not be available for DND expenditure (as already noted above for the Emergency Preparedness allotment). Moreover, even within the DND allocation funds are assigned to objects of expenditure in advance, many outside of DND; for example, nuclear, chemical, biological threats.

The political intent of the above quotation may be interpreted as follows:

To respond to public concerns regarding the economic downturn and terrorism;

To channel most of the new DND funds into local economies;

To deflect criticism by allies and analysts that the CF, including elements assigned to Operation APOLLO, are not ‘battle ready.’ (Elsewhere the government has recognized this deficiency by stating that Operation APOLLO forces would not be committed to combat operations).

Evaluation

The results of Budget 2001 indicate the following:

The operational readiness of the CF will continue to decline, mainly as a result of under funding, which leads to a lack of trained manpower and the progressive "rust-out" of equipment, and inadequate logistics support;

The government does not intend to raise defence expenditures above the level of 1.1% of GDP, and therefore the policy stated in 1994 White Paper on Defence will remain largely unaffordable in the context of government priorities.

Recommendation

The Government initiate at once a broad national security review, comprising comprehensive public and parliamentary examination of Canada’s needs in the realms of foreign policy and defence policy. At the conclusion of the process, publish a new White Paper on Defence, with a government commitment to adequate long-term funding written into it. This process was recently undertaken and implemented in Australia.

Sean Henry. Senior Defence Analyst CDA

ANNEX

The figures and explanations provided in the box on page 99 of the Budget Plan 2001 document are the most contentious in terms of misleading the reader (and the public).

To analyse them one must understand the basic framework of departmental budgets. The latter should be perceived in two parts: a foundation and a smaller superstructure – both of which exist for only one year, and which must re rebuilt at the start each new fiscal year. The foundation is known as the ‘base’, and the superstructure comprises sums of money added outside the base during the year. The complete structure is described in the annual departmental estimates. Recently, in the case of DND, the so-called ‘fiscal framework’(Budget) has been running at about $9.5 billion per annum, and the Estimates at about $11.5 billion.

It is important that the DND budget base be set high enough to fund the commitments assigned to the CF in the 1994 White Paper on Defence. An adequate budget base provides stability, allows coherent forward planning, and keeps the CF in an effective state of operational readiness.

If there is no federal budget to provide additional money to DND, or if a given budget does not provide an additional allocation, then the Central Agencies simply rebuild the base as it was in the previous year, and approvals at Cabinet, Treasury Board, Department of Finance, and Privy Council Office add the superstructure as required – for example in Supplementary Estimates for expenditures approved during the year. The important point is that the base is made up of individual bricks, most comprising increases approved for the base in previous years. Hence, if a base increase is approved in a given year, it must be inserted again in each succeeding year. Therefore, it is only a ’real increase’ in defence funding the first year it appears. In succeeding years, it is merely re-inserted to keep the base at the approved level.

Since the last base increase in Budget 2000, this brick has come to be known as "Program Integrity" or "Sustainability." In FY 00/01 it was set at $400 million. Since the additional funds allocated to DND in Budget 2000 totalled $3.3 billion (including subsequent extrapolations out to FY 06/07), one may ask why the brick is only worth $400 million. Part of the answer is that the $3.3 billion represents the cumulative funding (original + yearly insertions) over the extended period, i.e., FY 99/00 to FY 06/07. As well, other funds were designated and applied directly to such objects of expenditure as provincial disaster relief and the war in Kosovo. These and other factors meant that in the end the brick of ‘real’ new money applied to the base in the first year was only $400 million. A similar analysis could be applied to the ‘brick’ for Quality of Life, added in Budget 99, and amounting to $140 million.

On the other hand, the base-raising brick of $400 million approved in Budget 2000 has subsequently received approval to appreciate in a limited amount over the period out to FY 06/07. This will raise the budget base incrementally during that period by an amount totalling $300 million. This means that between FY 00/01 and FY 06/07, the DND budget base will rise by $400 million + $300 million = $700 million

The government’s interpretation of this situation differs from the above analysis. The government adds up all the bricks (the initial one, plus the annual re-insertions) in cumulative fashion, and calls it "total investment in defence" – amounting to $5.1 billion. This could mislead those unfamiliar with budget procedures into believing that the government has made ‘additions’ to the DND budget base, when it has only made ‘insertions’ to the budget. (Using the government’s logic, it could be said that the cumulative DND budget allocations from 00/01 to 06/07, totalling some $60 billion are also an "investment in defence").

The annual insertion of bricks serves to preserve the new level of money originally approved in a given budget, but afterwards they are not an "increase" in funding. What is not acknowledged in the current situation, is the fact that the foundation is not large enough to address the annual and ongoing DND deficit of $1.3 billion per annum identified by the Auditor-General in her report of December 7, 2001. What is required to resolve the severe underfunding problem within DND is to add new and larger bricks to the DND budget base, of the order of $1 billion per annum in each of the next five years, to bring the budget base up to a steady state of some $14 -15 billion.

Until that happens, to use another analogy, any lesser increase in real funding will only serve to maintain the life support systems, rather than to cure the patient.
 
Found some of the money that should have gone to the military. The liberals are putting it better use.

OTTAWA SEEKS TO CONTRACT OUT GUN REGISTRY
The federal government wants to contract out operations of its gun
registry, a deal which will likely cost hundreds of millions of dollars
more than what has already been spent.
FULL STORY:
http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/view?/news/2001/12/20/gun_registry011220
 
(okay - count to ten before losing my temper ... count to ten before losing my temper ... count to ten before losing my temper ... grrrrrr ... several reasons come to mind, with regard to his question ... arrogant is a polite one ... and by the way - it makes me sick to think of the gold-plated pension he‘s going to receive ... and that he voted for himself, whereas reservists receive diddly-squat ... okay - count to ten before losing my temper ... grrrrr ....)


Chrétien defends Forces
PM insists military is ready for action, skirts support for U.S. move on Iraq

By HEATHER SCOFFIELD (Globe and Mail)
Friday, December 21, 2001

OTTAWA -- People who complain that the federal government is not spending enough on the military are living in the past, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien said yesterday.

In year-end interviews with the CTV and Global Television networks, the Prime Minister insisted that the Canadian Forces are well-equipped and well-respected around the world, and that the pressure to increase military spending simply stems from the profit-oriented agenda of lobbyists for the defence industry.

"We have to adjust to the new reality of 2001. But some are still thinking in terms of the same strategy at the time of 1939. We‘re not having wars of the same nature," Mr. Chrétien told CTV News.

Every year since he became a member of Parliament in 1963, the military has asked for more money, the Prime Minister said. But improvements in Canada‘s effectiveness as a military power should focus more on adjusting defence policy to suit modern needs, and not on amassing more tanks.

"They don‘t use a lot of tanks today," he said. "I‘m not sure, there‘s two wars in a row that we have been involved into. There was Kosovo, and there was Afghanistan. Not one tank was used there."

While he said he understands where the "bunch of guys who are lobbyists, who are representing those who sell armaments" are coming from, they should realize that any extra money for defence comes at the expense of spending on health care or the poor.

The federal budget brought down earlier this month contained $300-million over six years for new military equipment, and a total of $1.2-billion over the same period of time for a wide range of domestic defence needs -- an amount critics deplored as "paltry."

Military experts, opposition critics and even Liberal MPs have repeatedly told the government that the Forces lack the resources to provide soldiers with modern equipment and proper training.

The Liberal-dominated Commons committee on national defence has said the Canadian Forces are in a financial crisis and need an additional $1-billion a year to meet their commitments. The report said the military is starved for funds, understaffed and in some cases poorly trained. It recommended giving the Forces money to upgrade its reserves, increase its capacity to deal with biological weapons and quadruple the size of its elite commando squad. Money for tanks was not a main priority.

Mr. Chrétien said yesterday he was not ignoring those criticisms.

"In fact, [the Forces] are well-equipped . . ." he told Global Television. "The army performs very well. . . . They have all the equipment they need to do the good job that makes us so proud."

The Prime Minister also showed great reluctance to support any initiative by the United States to expand its military activity from Afghanistan to Iraq. Canada has committed itself only to fighting terrorism and the al-Qaeda network, but an attack on Iraq would have nothing to do with terrorism, Mr. Chrétien said. Rather, an attack on Iraq would have more to do with the proliferation of biological and chemical weapons, he said.

For now, Canada will support only an initiative with a "direct link" to terrorism, he added.

The Prime Minister skirted questions about when he would retire, saying he would consider his future during the second half of his term. He reiterated his intentions to stick around at least until April 6, 2003, his 40th anniversary as an MP.

He acknowledged that he occasionally wonders whether he should retire soon, but always changes his mind.

"Why should I leave?" he asked.
- 30 -
 
I hate to compare a patriotic cold warrior like Rockin‘ Ronnie Reagan, who has the cajones, even today, and the PM, who is obvoiusly greatly lacking, in this department. However a similarity is starting to show as they both reached their golden years and political zenith. We know that Reagan lost touch with reality and now the same brain malady is affecting Cretian. Difference being Reagan was surrounded by competent people who were able to guide him along till he finished as President. Cretian is surrounded with delusionists like himself who will only guide us to a sad and dishonourable end.
 
[qb] Every year since he became a member of Parliament in 1963, the military has asked for more money, the Prime Minister said. But improvements in Canada‘s effectiveness as a military power should focus more on adjusting defence policy to suit modern needs, and not on amassing more tanks.

"They don‘t use a lot of tanks today," he said. "I‘m not sure, there‘s two wars in a row that we have been involved into. There was Kosovo, and there was Afghanistan. Not one tank was used there."
[/qb]

Canadian tanks were deployed to Kosovo and, while no Canadian tanks have gone to Afghanistan, there were plenty of tanks used there. But the CF is not looking for more money to buy tanks. The CF needs more money to maintain what it has now.
 
Back
Top