I had a hard time deciding which thread to post this in but I thought this one was the most appropriate:
Canadians depend on luck for national security, says Senate report
Wed Dec 8,11:10 AM ET
STEPHEN THORNE
OTTAWA (CP) - Canadians depend largely on luck for national security, not good planning and preparedness, says a Senate committee.
"When it comes to national security and defence - issues that are not part of the everyday lives of most Canadians - the vast majority of citizens trust in luck," the committee on national security and defence said Wednesday.
"Unfortunately, luck is notoriously untrustworthy."
In its first "guide book" on military and security preparedness, the committee says Ottawa has made progress dealing with military and security shortcomings during the last year, but significant gaps remain.
The government's most significant reform is the consolidation of much of the security file under Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan and the release of the national security policy, it says.
Still, the new government under Prime Minister Paul Martin "has yet to demonstrate that is prepared to match resources with its stated objectives."
Major issues that remain include:
-Inadequate defence budgets, lack of military personnel, co-ordination within the federal government, the need for expanded co-operation with U.S. security institutions.
-Airports lack screening of mail and cargo, have inadequate background checks on airport personnel, lack controls over access to restricted areas, don't provide enough training for part-time customs staff.
-Seaports are vulnerable. Organized crime and inadequate container screening persist.
-Great Lakes surveillance is "the soft underbelly of Canadian coastal defence."
-There is no evidence that intelligence agencies have enough staff and scope to "thwart threats to the security of Canadians and Canada's allies."
-A "toothless Coast Guard" is vastly underutilized.
It seems that the Senate Committee echoes a great deal of the overall sentiments contained in ARMY.CA. If only the committee position was binding to the government, some headway might be achieved. However, since the committee position isn't binding do you believe it will fall upon deaf ears in Ottawa, only to be used as quote material by sympathetic jounalists, or will this succeed in turning up a measure of worthy pressure to act?
In its first "guide book" on military and security preparedness, the committee says Ottawa has made progress dealing with military and security shortcomings during the last year
What progress? A few helicopters and talk of 5000 peacekeepers? Has any other progress been made?