- Reaction score
- 2,527
- Points
- 1,260
Here's the budget page, and I've attached the defence budget info (extracted from the 400+ page major document) - defence section:
The Defence Budget [superthread]
- Thread starter Edward Campbell
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 146
- Points
- 710
On CBC's "Power and Politics", 1706, minister Flaherty said the CF "will have to delay some of their acquisitions". Which? I'd think:
CCVs
A/OPs
And certainly no new fighter selection this year.
Mark
Ottawa
CCVs
A/OPs
And certainly no new fighter selection this year.
Mark
Ottawa
- Reaction score
- 2,527
- Points
- 1,260
Military escapes federal budget axe for now, but cuts loom in 2012-13
Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press, 4 Mar 10
Article link
The Canadian military dodged a bullet in Thursday's federal budget, but will still see a total of $2.5 billion carved out of future defence spending after troops withdraw from Afghanistan next year.
Funding will remain largely stable in the current year, but the Conservative government plans to take away $525 million in planned increases in 2012-13, $1 billion in 2013-14 and another $1 billion the following year.
With Ottawa facing an estimated $53-billion deficit this year and $49 billion next year, there have been calls by social welfare groups for cuts to defence spending.
The military's budget has increased by $3 billion annually since the Tories came to power four years ago. It is expected to crest above $20 billion this year.
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said restraining defence spending is one pillar in his government's strategy to cut $17.6 billion from the federal budget over the next few years.
Thursday's budget raises questions about whether the Harper government will be able to deliver planned big-ticket purchases, including new naval supply ships, search-and-rescue planes, and armoured vehicles to replace those worn out by the Afghan war.
"We do not know right now if there will be an impact on those major capital projects," said Vice-Admiral Denis Rouleau, second-in-command for the military.
"We're certainly hoping to be able to move forward." ....
More on link
Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press, 4 Mar 10
Article link
The Canadian military dodged a bullet in Thursday's federal budget, but will still see a total of $2.5 billion carved out of future defence spending after troops withdraw from Afghanistan next year.
Funding will remain largely stable in the current year, but the Conservative government plans to take away $525 million in planned increases in 2012-13, $1 billion in 2013-14 and another $1 billion the following year.
With Ottawa facing an estimated $53-billion deficit this year and $49 billion next year, there have been calls by social welfare groups for cuts to defence spending.
The military's budget has increased by $3 billion annually since the Tories came to power four years ago. It is expected to crest above $20 billion this year.
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said restraining defence spending is one pillar in his government's strategy to cut $17.6 billion from the federal budget over the next few years.
Thursday's budget raises questions about whether the Harper government will be able to deliver planned big-ticket purchases, including new naval supply ships, search-and-rescue planes, and armoured vehicles to replace those worn out by the Afghan war.
"We do not know right now if there will be an impact on those major capital projects," said Vice-Admiral Denis Rouleau, second-in-command for the military.
"We're certainly hoping to be able to move forward." ....
More on link
- Reaction score
- 4,292
- Points
- 1,160
Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Ottawa Citizen is a pretty fair assessment of the budget, with a useful list of highlights:
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/sports/faces+year+wage+freeze/2642974/story.html
I think that the freeze on government departments actually translates into finite reductions in staff, propjets or, more likely, both – including in DND. It is a signal for deputy ministers to weed out the wasteful, useless projects and people – and there are plenty of both – again, including in DND and the CF.
It has been pointed out to me, elsewhere, that DND cannot, properly (efficiently and effectively) spend what it has now so some restraint may just serve to match up available (less) money with the capability to spend it well.
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/sports/faces+year+wage+freeze/2642974/story.html
PS faces 2-year wage freeze
BY KATHRYN MAY AND ANDREW MAYEDA
MARCH 5, 2010
Budgets
Photograph by: Dennis Leung, The Ottawa Citizen
The Harper government targeted Canada’s 419,000 public servants Thursday with an unprecedented three-year freeze on department operations that will eat into their salaries, jobs and the programs and services they provide to Canadians.
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s budget is poised to take the biggest bite out of the public service — most of which is outside of Ottawa — and its day-to-day operations since the Liberals’ massive downsizing of the mid-1990s.
The freeze, which will affect salaries, administration and overhead, is expected to save $6.8 billion over the next five years, which accounts for the biggest slice of the $17.6 billion in savings squeezed from departments to reduce the $53.8-billion deficit.
The wages of public servants will be allowed to increase this year by 1.5 per cent, as mandated under collective agreements. But departments must fund the increase, which amounts to roughly $300 million, from their operating budgets. After this year, salaries and operating budgets will be frozen for two years.
The freeze will extend to the military, RCMP, Crown corporations and agencies that receive federal funding. Those that don’t, such as Export Development Corporation and Business Development Bank, are expected to follow suit.
“We will take action to ensure the government lives within its means,” said Flaherty. “Canadian families and businesses have accepted the need for restraint. Fairness requires the government, too, should have to keep costs under control.”
But the budget also set the stage for further reductions, including a slew of reviews, the results of which will be fed into the preparation of the 2011 budget.
In his speech to the Commons, Flaherty said: “Our government is focused on jobs and growth, for one simple reason. Canadians are focused on jobs and growth.”
As expected, the budget follows through on the second year of the government’s stimulus plan, a move that will inject $19 billion into the economy.
Beyond the stimulus plan, the budget contains a smattering of new initiatives, such as $60 million to help youth deal with the tough job market, $62 million for elite and amateur athletes, and $8 million to create a new oversight body for the RCMP.
But the biggest revelation is the government’s restraint plan, which pledges to all but balance the budget by 2015, when the deficit is expected to fall to $1.8 billion.
The government plans to save $4.5 billion over five years by capping foreign aid at this year’s level, in the process breaking a promise to increase aid by eight per cent per year. Foreign aid will rise by $364 million to $5 billion.
The Conservatives will also slow the rate of previously planned growth in the national defence budget — a move that will save a further $2.5 billion.
All told, the restraint measures will limit the growth of direct program spending to 1.3 per cent once the stimulus plan expires. Previously, the Conservatives had predicted such expenditures would grow at more than twice that clip.
At a news conference, Flaherty said it was a “tough budget” — one that offers probably the smallest hike in new spending in a decade.
“We have to make some tough decisions,” he said. “The economic recovery is fragile … We needed to make the decisions now so that we would have a credible plan we would follow now.”
Treasury Board President Stockwell Day will lead the “aggressive” departmental spending review, where all programs and services could be on the table. The government is also launching an administrative review to streamline internal operations of departments, from human resources to informatics, and to end duplication.
It will also hold consultations with the 18 federal unions to come up with a “reasonable” compensation regime and find ways to organize work and use technology to improve the productivity of workers. The government will also be looking for ways to “better manage” compensation, including pensions and benefits.
Budget documents say these measures will “over time” reduce the size of the public service, which has mushroomed to support the government’s spending spree of recent years.
The freeze will spark a showdown with its unions, which have already had to swallow four years of wage controls and a suspension of collective bargaining.
Unions and Treasury Board are supposed to be back to the bargaining table in 2011, but will face the pressure of the operating freeze because departments will have to absorb any raises.
“It doesn’t look good,” said John Gordon, president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada. “With the freeze, they aren’t giving departments money to pay for their employees so, when we go back to the table, does that mean we start negotiating at zero? That is not negotiating.”
Gary Corbett, president of the Professional Institute of the Public Service, said he was heartened that the government promised to consult with unions before the next phase of reductions. He said unions have ideas on how to save money that should be considered before the government starts cutting critical programs and services.
“What we’re talking about is a change in the public service now and forever because if we lose talent now we will never get it back,” he said.
None of the opposition parties said they would support the Conservative budget, but Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff said enough of his party’s MPs would abstain or be absent from the budget vote to allow it to pass, thus avoiding an election.
“Canadians don’t want an election,” Ignatieff told reporters. “What they want from me is an alternative, an alternative to cuts, freezes and gimmicks. And we’ve been working hard on that alternative.”
NDP leader Jack Layton also said his party did not support the budget, but would wait to decide how his MPs would vote, in the hopes of negotiating changes with the Conservatives. Bloc Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe said his party would outright oppose the budget.
Kathryn May writes for The Citizen. Andrew Mayeda writes for Canwest News Service.
Budget highlights
• $19 billion in stimulus measures
• Planned spending to be cut by $17.6 billion over five years
• $53.8-billion deficit cut in half in two years
• Freezing the salaries of the PM, MPs and senators
• Planned spending for military is cut by $2.5 billion over three years
• A national securities regulator within three years
• New bank notes and coins
• $62 million for elite athletes and amateur sports
• A new civilian complaints commission for the RCMP
• $3.2 billion in personal income tax relief
• $1 billion for training programs for workers
• $4.1 billion for social housing
• $1 billion over five years for Clean Energy Fund
• $300 million for Atomic Energy of Canada and the Chalk River Laboratories
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen
I think that the freeze on government departments actually translates into finite reductions in staff, propjets or, more likely, both – including in DND. It is a signal for deputy ministers to weed out the wasteful, useless projects and people – and there are plenty of both – again, including in DND and the CF.
It has been pointed out to me, elsewhere, that DND cannot, properly (efficiently and effectively) spend what it has now so some restraint may just serve to match up available (less) money with the capability to spend it well.
National Post editorial board: The future of the Canadian Armed Forces
Posted: March 08, 2010, 8:00 AM by NP Editor
Article Link
Last Thursday’s budget should silence the doubters: Canada’s mission in Afghanistan will end in 2011.
While some had suspected that Stephen Harper’s government might find a way to maintain a troop presence there, either by deploying a smaller contingent of troops on a rebranded mission or by appearing to be talked into it by Barack Obama, the budget makes clear that drawing down the war in Afghanistan and slowing the rate of military expenditures, will form a key part of the Conservative government’s plans to slay the deficit.
The Canadian military must now learn to make do with a budget that, while continuing to grow, will leave it with less fiscal room to plan and undertake missions than it originally had expected. One possible source of inspiration is a report released last week by the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute, titled Whatever Happened to Peacekeeping: The Future of a Tradition.
The report lays out the history of peacekeeping and does not gloss over some of its more notable failures, including the catastrophic Rwandan Genocide in 1994. It does find, however, that the United Nations has learned from its mistakes: More recent UN missions, conducted by heavily armed troops operating under robust mandates, have proven successful at restoring or imposing peace. The current UN mission in south Lebanon, where a large, primarily European force is maintaining a buffer between Israel and Hezbollah, is cited as an example of the UN’s new kind of “peace operation” mission — large, powerful and with the necessary political support to intervene decisively.
Nevertheless, the report takes on the near-mythical status that peacekeeping has acquired in the Canadian collective psyche. After all, it was a Canadian, then-foreign minister Lester B. Pearson, who proposed in 1956 that a UN force separate hostile Israeli and Egyptian forces, ending the Suez Crisis. And Canadians, from individual observers to entire battlegroups, have served in almost every peacekeeping mission since. The concept of the Canadian soldier as a neutral observer, unaligned with any faction in global affairs and only there to help, was always a fiction for a country inextricably bound to the Western bloc, but it was a popular one with many Canadians, particularly those disinclined to favour large military expenditures and the always messy business of geopolitical brinksmanship.
Ironically, just as the notion of the Canadian as a peacekeeper was becoming a part of our national identity, the very nature of peacekeeping was changing. Two generations ago, peacekeepers were lightly armed observers, whose very vulnerability lent them the necessary moral authority to effectively adjudicate between two once-warring states. The combatants were sovereign nations that genuinely wanted a cessation of hostilities. Both sides generally took it upon themselves to ensure the safety of the peacekeepers as an integral part of showing their goodwill and support of the peace process.
More on link
Posted: March 08, 2010, 8:00 AM by NP Editor
Article Link
Last Thursday’s budget should silence the doubters: Canada’s mission in Afghanistan will end in 2011.
While some had suspected that Stephen Harper’s government might find a way to maintain a troop presence there, either by deploying a smaller contingent of troops on a rebranded mission or by appearing to be talked into it by Barack Obama, the budget makes clear that drawing down the war in Afghanistan and slowing the rate of military expenditures, will form a key part of the Conservative government’s plans to slay the deficit.
The Canadian military must now learn to make do with a budget that, while continuing to grow, will leave it with less fiscal room to plan and undertake missions than it originally had expected. One possible source of inspiration is a report released last week by the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute, titled Whatever Happened to Peacekeeping: The Future of a Tradition.
The report lays out the history of peacekeeping and does not gloss over some of its more notable failures, including the catastrophic Rwandan Genocide in 1994. It does find, however, that the United Nations has learned from its mistakes: More recent UN missions, conducted by heavily armed troops operating under robust mandates, have proven successful at restoring or imposing peace. The current UN mission in south Lebanon, where a large, primarily European force is maintaining a buffer between Israel and Hezbollah, is cited as an example of the UN’s new kind of “peace operation” mission — large, powerful and with the necessary political support to intervene decisively.
Nevertheless, the report takes on the near-mythical status that peacekeeping has acquired in the Canadian collective psyche. After all, it was a Canadian, then-foreign minister Lester B. Pearson, who proposed in 1956 that a UN force separate hostile Israeli and Egyptian forces, ending the Suez Crisis. And Canadians, from individual observers to entire battlegroups, have served in almost every peacekeeping mission since. The concept of the Canadian soldier as a neutral observer, unaligned with any faction in global affairs and only there to help, was always a fiction for a country inextricably bound to the Western bloc, but it was a popular one with many Canadians, particularly those disinclined to favour large military expenditures and the always messy business of geopolitical brinksmanship.
Ironically, just as the notion of the Canadian as a peacekeeper was becoming a part of our national identity, the very nature of peacekeeping was changing. Two generations ago, peacekeepers were lightly armed observers, whose very vulnerability lent them the necessary moral authority to effectively adjudicate between two once-warring states. The combatants were sovereign nations that genuinely wanted a cessation of hostilities. Both sides generally took it upon themselves to ensure the safety of the peacekeepers as an integral part of showing their goodwill and support of the peace process.
More on link
- Reaction score
- 2,379
- Points
- 940
The CDFAI report is available hereGAP said:
The CDFAI website says, "this ground-breaking report urges Canada to reconsider and rejoin UN peace operations." I don't know the Belgian co-author, but the Canadian is Jocelyn Coulon -- Director of the Francophone Peace Operations Research Network at the Université de Montréal.
Far from "ground-breaking," this report is little more than a re-hash of his 1998 book, Soldiers of Diplomacy: The United Nations, Peacekeeping, and The New World Order.
Sometimes it's hard to ween academics off the UN breast. Although they note that there have been some failures, they don't acknowledge that there's been a lengthy and on-going track-record of such failures. The DPKO is little more than a cash cow.
I have a suggestion for the UN too, but it involves bulldozers.
- Reaction score
- 4,292
- Points
- 1,160
Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail and expressed in Olympic terms, is a useful article on public spending efficiency:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/input-output-we-need-a-public-sector-olympics/article1491751/
I suspect, hell’s bells, I’m damned certain that DND can spend less and do more if management (including top level military management) and budgeting was made much, much more efficient and effective. This would require increased bureaucratic productivity in the Privy Council Office, Treasury Board Secretariat and, above all, in Public Works and Government Services Canada – AKA the Department of Public Blunders and Wonders – too.
My sense is that DND, including the CF, has too much management that accomplishes too little and, in the process of underachieving, spends too much money on itself and its processes.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/input-output-we-need-a-public-sector-olympics/article1491751/
I suspect, hell’s bells, I’m damned certain that DND can spend less and do more if management (including top level military management) and budgeting was made much, much more efficient and effective. This would require increased bureaucratic productivity in the Privy Council Office, Treasury Board Secretariat and, above all, in Public Works and Government Services Canada – AKA the Department of Public Blunders and Wonders – too.
My sense is that DND, including the CF, has too much management that accomplishes too little and, in the process of underachieving, spends too much money on itself and its processes.
Journeyman said:
I happen to know Jocelyn as I studied under him at U of M. He strikes me not so much as dependant on the UN "boobie" as viscerally opposed to organized violence, which this brand of academic will obviously use as the sole definition of military activity. He struck me as a true "peacenik" with an establishment twist, i.e. war is bad peace is good but how can we use those nice institutions to turn our swords into...well blunter swords I guess. I amusingly recall tense debates between him and the more realist of the departments who thought that a couple of Tridents could still keep peace better than the UN.
Might need to buy a few tonka trucks to soothe this kind of academics if the bulldozer thing ever materializes... :crybaby:
- Reaction score
- 4,292
- Points
- 1,160
And since we’ve uttered the dreaded p word, here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the National Post, is an editorial on the future of our national defence:
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=2652853
The UN peacekeeping option would send us off on a succession of fool’s errands in support of ill conceived objectives, many of which will be contrary to our global interests.
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=2652853
The UN peacekeeping option would send us off on a succession of fool’s errands in support of ill conceived objectives, many of which will be contrary to our global interests.
- Reaction score
- 4,292
- Points
- 1,160
From Jane’s, more proof, if any more was necessary, that cuts to long term projects that are aimed at plugging short term budget gaps can backfire and bite one on the bum:
------------------------------------------------
UK report slams MoD procurement
The UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) has been heavily criticised for wasting hundreds of millions of pounds on an unaffordable equipment programme, in a parliamentary report officially published on 4 March. The MoD made "ill-judged" cuts to crucial research spending in a short term bid to plug a GBP6 billion (USD9.06 billion) funding gap, but has seemingly made "no attempt" to calculate the real costs of repeated delays to equipment programmes, according to a defence equipment assessment published by the House of Commons defence committee
First posted to http://jdin.janes.com - 04 March 2010
------------------------------------------------
This is a lesson that, it appears, almost every Western nation must relearn every few years.
------------------------------------------------
UK report slams MoD procurement
The UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) has been heavily criticised for wasting hundreds of millions of pounds on an unaffordable equipment programme, in a parliamentary report officially published on 4 March. The MoD made "ill-judged" cuts to crucial research spending in a short term bid to plug a GBP6 billion (USD9.06 billion) funding gap, but has seemingly made "no attempt" to calculate the real costs of repeated delays to equipment programmes, according to a defence equipment assessment published by the House of Commons defence committee
First posted to http://jdin.janes.com - 04 March 2010
------------------------------------------------
This is a lesson that, it appears, almost every Western nation must relearn every few years.
- Reaction score
- 21,821
- Points
- 1,090
E.R. Campbell said:
Fixed the typo for you...
- Reaction score
- 4,292
- Points
- 1,160
I fear that dapaterson's joke is closer to the mark than my serious comment.
I guess it says something about:
+ political direction and support;
+ professional competence; and
+ backbone, or lack of same.
I guess it says something about:
+ political direction and support;
+ professional competence; and
+ backbone, or lack of same.
- Reaction score
- 4,292
- Points
- 1,160
Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail are Eugene Lang’s* thoughts on the inevitability of defence restraint in current times:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/if-ottawa-fights-a-deficit-the-military-has-no-allies/article1495359/
I think Lang is, largely right: arithmetic prevents exempting defence from cuts and politics permits defence to be cut so long as the prevailing political wisdom is that every department, agency and programme is worthwhile. But, the latter, highlighted, statement is, demonstrably, untrue – a few departments, several agencies and many programmes are, as TB Bank’s Chief Economist Don Drummond described them, “crappy,” and they can and should be cut and that would alter both the politics and the arithmetic for the better.
----------
* Co-author, with Janice Gross Stein, of The Unexpected War: Canada in Kandahar, a book that tried to explain away political responsibility for sending the CF to Kandahar.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/if-ottawa-fights-a-deficit-the-military-has-no-allies/article1495359/
I think Lang is, largely right: arithmetic prevents exempting defence from cuts and politics permits defence to be cut so long as the prevailing political wisdom is that every department, agency and programme is worthwhile. But, the latter, highlighted, statement is, demonstrably, untrue – a few departments, several agencies and many programmes are, as TB Bank’s Chief Economist Don Drummond described them, “crappy,” and they can and should be cut and that would alter both the politics and the arithmetic for the better.
----------
* Co-author, with Janice Gross Stein, of The Unexpected War: Canada in Kandahar, a book that tried to explain away political responsibility for sending the CF to Kandahar.
Government missing mark in plan to cut back military spending
Poll shows Canadians like idea of strong, well-equipped armed forces
By Elinor Sloan, FreelanceMarch 11, 2010
Article Link
t is clear that Canadians want their country to play a strong military role in the world. A recent Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute survey conducted by Innovative Research Group has found that well over a majority of those polled want the Canadian Forces to be able to contribute to humanitarian and war-fighting missions in the future.
And they are willing to put their money where their mouth is. Some 58 per cent think we should spend what the military needs to sustain the Canadian Forces' ability to fight terrorism in places like Afghanistan, support humanitarian missions, such as what we saw in Haiti, and defend Canada's homeland, for example in the North. Over a third of Canadians think we are not spending enough on the military, while less than one in five thinks we are spending too much.
Most remarkably, almost half the people polled thought that military spending should not be cut back to reduce the deficit once our country's military contribution to the mission in Afghanistan comes to an end next year, even if that means cutting other services to reduce the federal deficit.
Such views are testament to the visibility the mission in Afghanistan has brought to the armed forces, and the professional and expert ability with which its members have carried it out. More than ever, the military is part of the average Canadian's interest and thoughts.
There appears to be a renewed desire for Canada to play a leadership role in the world -- one that goes well beyond the soft-power words of yesterday, to concrete action that truly makes a difference.
The government missed this prevailing sentiment in last week's speech from the throne and federal budget. The speech mentioned only that the government has supported the Canadian Forces in words and investment, and that it would continue to "stand up" for our military since its members "stand up for the values and principles Canadians hold dear." The federal budget argues the government has made "major, necessary investments" in military capabilities in support of the June 2008 Canada First Defence Strategy and then announces $2.5 billion in future cuts to previously planned military spending starting in 2011-12.
But has the government really made the major, necessary investments? On one level, of course, it has.
The defence budget is significantly higher today (about $20 billion) than it was when the Harper government came into power (about $15 billion).
Canada's military is also larger, currently standing at about 66,000 active members as compared to around 52,000 when the Martin government was in power. Canada has a significant new military capability, strategic airlift, and is one of only a handful of countries in the world with this asset.
The government has also bought a fair bit of equipment for the army to meet the immediate demands of the Afghan mission, such as tactical unmanned aerial vehicles, tanks, armoured patrol vehicles and a handful of Chinook helicopters from the United States, pending the arrival of our own fleet.
Later this year, new Hercules transport aircraft and Cyclone maritime helicopters will start to arrive, replacing aircraft that were built almost half a century ago, and the navy's frigates will begin a modernization process.
But the hard decisions have been left to the future. Plans for Arctic Offshore Patrol Vessels, necessary for Canada to exercise control over its eastern, western and rapidly melting northern maritime regions have been put on ice.
In less than five years, the navy's destroyers that are at the centre of Canada's independent naval task group capability, critical for things like interdicting terrorists on the high seas, must be dry-docked due to their age. Yet plans for a replacement are on hold.
More on link
Poll shows Canadians like idea of strong, well-equipped armed forces
By Elinor Sloan, FreelanceMarch 11, 2010
Article Link
t is clear that Canadians want their country to play a strong military role in the world. A recent Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute survey conducted by Innovative Research Group has found that well over a majority of those polled want the Canadian Forces to be able to contribute to humanitarian and war-fighting missions in the future.
And they are willing to put their money where their mouth is. Some 58 per cent think we should spend what the military needs to sustain the Canadian Forces' ability to fight terrorism in places like Afghanistan, support humanitarian missions, such as what we saw in Haiti, and defend Canada's homeland, for example in the North. Over a third of Canadians think we are not spending enough on the military, while less than one in five thinks we are spending too much.
Most remarkably, almost half the people polled thought that military spending should not be cut back to reduce the deficit once our country's military contribution to the mission in Afghanistan comes to an end next year, even if that means cutting other services to reduce the federal deficit.
Such views are testament to the visibility the mission in Afghanistan has brought to the armed forces, and the professional and expert ability with which its members have carried it out. More than ever, the military is part of the average Canadian's interest and thoughts.
There appears to be a renewed desire for Canada to play a leadership role in the world -- one that goes well beyond the soft-power words of yesterday, to concrete action that truly makes a difference.
The government missed this prevailing sentiment in last week's speech from the throne and federal budget. The speech mentioned only that the government has supported the Canadian Forces in words and investment, and that it would continue to "stand up" for our military since its members "stand up for the values and principles Canadians hold dear." The federal budget argues the government has made "major, necessary investments" in military capabilities in support of the June 2008 Canada First Defence Strategy and then announces $2.5 billion in future cuts to previously planned military spending starting in 2011-12.
But has the government really made the major, necessary investments? On one level, of course, it has.
The defence budget is significantly higher today (about $20 billion) than it was when the Harper government came into power (about $15 billion).
Canada's military is also larger, currently standing at about 66,000 active members as compared to around 52,000 when the Martin government was in power. Canada has a significant new military capability, strategic airlift, and is one of only a handful of countries in the world with this asset.
The government has also bought a fair bit of equipment for the army to meet the immediate demands of the Afghan mission, such as tactical unmanned aerial vehicles, tanks, armoured patrol vehicles and a handful of Chinook helicopters from the United States, pending the arrival of our own fleet.
Later this year, new Hercules transport aircraft and Cyclone maritime helicopters will start to arrive, replacing aircraft that were built almost half a century ago, and the navy's frigates will begin a modernization process.
But the hard decisions have been left to the future. Plans for Arctic Offshore Patrol Vessels, necessary for Canada to exercise control over its eastern, western and rapidly melting northern maritime regions have been put on ice.
In less than five years, the navy's destroyers that are at the centre of Canada's independent naval task group capability, critical for things like interdicting terrorists on the high seas, must be dry-docked due to their age. Yet plans for a replacement are on hold.
More on link
Diplomats want to have same deal as military
Foreign service officers face same risks: union
By Kathryn May, The Ottawa CitizenMarch 16, 2010
Article Link
Canada's diplomats are appealing to the Harper government for the same employment insurance benefits it gave military families sent to Afghanistan and other overseas postings in the March 4 federal budget.
The union representing Canada's foreign service officers is asking Treasury Board President Stockwell Day to extend the EI parental leave and sick leave benefits to foreign service officers who face many of the same risks as military personnel, especially when posted in war zones such as Afghanistan.
Ron Cochrane, executive director of the Professional Association of Foreign Service Officers, said he's baffled as to why diplomats and other bureaucrats posted abroad for Canada are excluded.
The union represents 1,400 foreign service officers and more than 50 are in Afghanistan.
There are also bureaucrats posted from other departments, such as the Defence Department, Canadian International Development Agency and Canadian Security Intelligence Service. At last count, more than 40 civilian employees who work for the Defence Department were in Kandahar, said John MacLennan, president of Union of Defence Employees.
"It's all focused on National Defence," said Cochrane.
"Has DFAIT (Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade) done something? ... They are totally ignoring the rest of the public service when it comes to these changes. I don't get it. Is it deliberate? An oversight or a cost issue?"
In the budget, the government announced military personnel who adopt or have a baby will receive the EI parental leave benefits that they couldn't collect while posted overseas. This means the government will give those whose parental leave was interrupted or deferred because of a military posting an extra year of eligibility.
The government also announced that EI sick benefits will be extended to help military families coping with someone killed in action. Eligible workers who lose a family member can qualify for EI's sickness benefits.
"Canadian soldiers put their lives on the line for our country and our Conservative government is proud to stand behind them and support them," said Ryan Sparrow, director of communications for Human Resources and Social Development Minister Diane Finley in an e-mail.
In a letter to Day, PAFSO noted that diplomat Glyn Berry was killed by a roadside bomb in 2006 while on duty in Afghanistan. In December, 25-year-old foreign service officer Bushra Amjad Saeed was severely wounded in a roadside blast in Afghanistan -- the same explosion that killed four Canadian soldiers and Calgary Herald journalist Michelle Lang.
"Without diminishing the role the military has played in these theatres, employees in the rotational foreign service assigned to areas of conflict who work with military personnel are exposed to similar risks," said the letter.
This isn't the first time, PAFSO has pressed for equal treatment between the military and public servants when facing the same risks.
In 2007, it lobbied for similar tax breaks the government gives soldiers and contractors working for the military.
"No amount of money in the world will compensate someone in the military risking their life in Afghanistan ... but there are other public servants working alongside them who are also putting their lives at risk, so I don't understand the differential. If there are tax incentives for military and contractors, why not for public servants?"
The issue has also resurrected a longstanding complaint among military and diplomatic personnel that their spouses, who can't find work during postings, can't collect EI when they return to Canada. In its letter to Day, PAFSO pressed to have this changed.
The foreign service has lobbied for years for spouses of those on postings to get access to EI. It was a recommendation of the McDougall Commission, whose report on conditions in the foreign service was tabled in 1981, and has been recommended by similar reports ever since.
Cochrane argues it's difficult enough to relocate two-career families and this is another disincentive. He said it is almost impossible for professional spouses to find jobs in their chosen careers and, in some postings, they can't find jobs at all because of language, culture or other host country restrictions.
The government has a policy that anyone who is relocated abroad should not benefit nor be disadvantaged by their postings. PAFSO has long argued the government treats its members unfairly when compared to those who move with their spouses to jobs within Canada.
Under the act, they lose their entitlements to EI when abroad because they aren't available for work in Canada. This means they have to re-qualify when they return to Canada so they can't collect EI while looking for work even though they typically qualified before leaving for the posting.
The letter to Day argues this is particularly unfair because the EI act does extend the qualifying period for others, such as those incarcerated in Canadian prisons, who can collect EI when released. In light of this, the letter argues the diplomats' requests for similar treatment to the military is "a very reasonable proposal."
End of Article
Foreign service officers face same risks: union
By Kathryn May, The Ottawa CitizenMarch 16, 2010
Article Link
Canada's diplomats are appealing to the Harper government for the same employment insurance benefits it gave military families sent to Afghanistan and other overseas postings in the March 4 federal budget.
The union representing Canada's foreign service officers is asking Treasury Board President Stockwell Day to extend the EI parental leave and sick leave benefits to foreign service officers who face many of the same risks as military personnel, especially when posted in war zones such as Afghanistan.
Ron Cochrane, executive director of the Professional Association of Foreign Service Officers, said he's baffled as to why diplomats and other bureaucrats posted abroad for Canada are excluded.
The union represents 1,400 foreign service officers and more than 50 are in Afghanistan.
There are also bureaucrats posted from other departments, such as the Defence Department, Canadian International Development Agency and Canadian Security Intelligence Service. At last count, more than 40 civilian employees who work for the Defence Department were in Kandahar, said John MacLennan, president of Union of Defence Employees.
"It's all focused on National Defence," said Cochrane.
"Has DFAIT (Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade) done something? ... They are totally ignoring the rest of the public service when it comes to these changes. I don't get it. Is it deliberate? An oversight or a cost issue?"
In the budget, the government announced military personnel who adopt or have a baby will receive the EI parental leave benefits that they couldn't collect while posted overseas. This means the government will give those whose parental leave was interrupted or deferred because of a military posting an extra year of eligibility.
The government also announced that EI sick benefits will be extended to help military families coping with someone killed in action. Eligible workers who lose a family member can qualify for EI's sickness benefits.
"Canadian soldiers put their lives on the line for our country and our Conservative government is proud to stand behind them and support them," said Ryan Sparrow, director of communications for Human Resources and Social Development Minister Diane Finley in an e-mail.
In a letter to Day, PAFSO noted that diplomat Glyn Berry was killed by a roadside bomb in 2006 while on duty in Afghanistan. In December, 25-year-old foreign service officer Bushra Amjad Saeed was severely wounded in a roadside blast in Afghanistan -- the same explosion that killed four Canadian soldiers and Calgary Herald journalist Michelle Lang.
"Without diminishing the role the military has played in these theatres, employees in the rotational foreign service assigned to areas of conflict who work with military personnel are exposed to similar risks," said the letter.
This isn't the first time, PAFSO has pressed for equal treatment between the military and public servants when facing the same risks.
In 2007, it lobbied for similar tax breaks the government gives soldiers and contractors working for the military.
"No amount of money in the world will compensate someone in the military risking their life in Afghanistan ... but there are other public servants working alongside them who are also putting their lives at risk, so I don't understand the differential. If there are tax incentives for military and contractors, why not for public servants?"
The issue has also resurrected a longstanding complaint among military and diplomatic personnel that their spouses, who can't find work during postings, can't collect EI when they return to Canada. In its letter to Day, PAFSO pressed to have this changed.
The foreign service has lobbied for years for spouses of those on postings to get access to EI. It was a recommendation of the McDougall Commission, whose report on conditions in the foreign service was tabled in 1981, and has been recommended by similar reports ever since.
Cochrane argues it's difficult enough to relocate two-career families and this is another disincentive. He said it is almost impossible for professional spouses to find jobs in their chosen careers and, in some postings, they can't find jobs at all because of language, culture or other host country restrictions.
The government has a policy that anyone who is relocated abroad should not benefit nor be disadvantaged by their postings. PAFSO has long argued the government treats its members unfairly when compared to those who move with their spouses to jobs within Canada.
Under the act, they lose their entitlements to EI when abroad because they aren't available for work in Canada. This means they have to re-qualify when they return to Canada so they can't collect EI while looking for work even though they typically qualified before leaving for the posting.
The letter to Day argues this is particularly unfair because the EI act does extend the qualifying period for others, such as those incarcerated in Canadian prisons, who can collect EI when released. In light of this, the letter argues the diplomats' requests for similar treatment to the military is "a very reasonable proposal."
End of Article
- Reaction score
- 4,292
- Points
- 1,160
Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the National Post, is a useful bit of analysis from Conservative Senator Hugh Segal:
http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/03/29/hugh-segal-we-need-guns-and-butter-too.aspx
One can only hope that Sen. Segal has some friends in the PMO and that they read this.
http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/03/29/hugh-segal-we-need-guns-and-butter-too.aspx
One can only hope that Sen. Segal has some friends in the PMO and that they read this.
Defence spending review won’t hurt troops on ground, Day says
Andrew Mayeda, Canwest News Service Published: Monday, May 03, 2010
Article Link
Treasury Board President Stockwell Day says a spending review ordered at the Department of National Defence shouldn't affect the military's ability to equip soldiers on the ground.
Mr. Day announced Monday that 13 departments and agencies, including the Defence Department, have been asked to comb through the combined $35-billion they spend annually and come up with $1.7-billion in savings, equivalent to roughly five percent.
For the Defence Department and the Canadian Forces, which are still fighting a war in Afghanistan, that will be a daunting task, but Mr. Day insisted the review won't affect any plans to procure military equipment.
"We're still going to have our troops and our soldiers and our overall operation seeing an increase, but we're asking for five percent savings within that increase," he told reporters.
Mr. Day noted the defence budget is still expected to increase over the next few years, even though the Conservatives trimmed the rate of spending growth in the March 4 budget. Defence spending spiked 22% last year to $19.2-billion.
Also among the list of departments under review is the Privy Council Office, the bureaucratic wing of the Prime Minister's Office. Last year, that office's budget grew 8.5% to $149-million. Under the highly centralized government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the Privy Council Office's role in co-ordinating the public service has taken on greater importance.
"Now, we do emphasize that we are not reducing programs to people as in EI and seniors programs and others but no department, no agency will be spared this exercise," Mr. Day said.
Monday's announcement is the latest of the so-called "strategic reviews" launched by the Harper government in 2007. Fifty federal organizations have already undergone the process, which requires departments to identify five% of their budgets to reallocate from low-priority or low-performing programs.
In the past, much of the resulting savings were reinvested in the same department. This time, the money will flow into the government's general revenues, where it could be used to help eliminate the deficit, said Mr. Day.
More on link
Andrew Mayeda, Canwest News Service Published: Monday, May 03, 2010
Article Link
Treasury Board President Stockwell Day says a spending review ordered at the Department of National Defence shouldn't affect the military's ability to equip soldiers on the ground.
Mr. Day announced Monday that 13 departments and agencies, including the Defence Department, have been asked to comb through the combined $35-billion they spend annually and come up with $1.7-billion in savings, equivalent to roughly five percent.
For the Defence Department and the Canadian Forces, which are still fighting a war in Afghanistan, that will be a daunting task, but Mr. Day insisted the review won't affect any plans to procure military equipment.
"We're still going to have our troops and our soldiers and our overall operation seeing an increase, but we're asking for five percent savings within that increase," he told reporters.
Mr. Day noted the defence budget is still expected to increase over the next few years, even though the Conservatives trimmed the rate of spending growth in the March 4 budget. Defence spending spiked 22% last year to $19.2-billion.
Also among the list of departments under review is the Privy Council Office, the bureaucratic wing of the Prime Minister's Office. Last year, that office's budget grew 8.5% to $149-million. Under the highly centralized government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the Privy Council Office's role in co-ordinating the public service has taken on greater importance.
"Now, we do emphasize that we are not reducing programs to people as in EI and seniors programs and others but no department, no agency will be spared this exercise," Mr. Day said.
Monday's announcement is the latest of the so-called "strategic reviews" launched by the Harper government in 2007. Fifty federal organizations have already undergone the process, which requires departments to identify five% of their budgets to reallocate from low-priority or low-performing programs.
In the past, much of the resulting savings were reinvested in the same department. This time, the money will flow into the government's general revenues, where it could be used to help eliminate the deficit, said Mr. Day.
More on link
- Reaction score
- 146
- Points
- 710
A post at The Torch:
"Defence Budget 2010/11"/Fun with figures Update (latter, largely major equipment plans, based on "Report on Plans and Priorities")
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/05/defence-budget-201011.html
Mark
Ottawa
"Defence Budget 2010/11"/Fun with figures Update (latter, largely major equipment plans, based on "Report on Plans and Priorities")
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/05/defence-budget-201011.html
Mark
Ottawa
- Reaction score
- 146
- Points
- 710
The new Liberal defence budget plans, from a paper released with Mr Ignatieff's speech today.
Story on speech:
Ignatieff unveils new Liberal foreign policy
Liberals would keep troops in post-combat Afghan training role; review military “to buy” list; boost China, India ties
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/823722
Now parse the paper:
Canada in the world
A global networks strategy (p. 22)
http://can150.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/canada_world_jun2010.pdf
Emphases in original.
Mark
Ottawa
Story on speech:
Ignatieff unveils new Liberal foreign policy
Liberals would keep troops in post-combat Afghan training role; review military “to buy” list; boost China, India ties
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/823722
Now parse the paper:
Canada in the world
A global networks strategy (p. 22)
http://can150.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/canada_world_jun2010.pdf
Emphases in original.
Mark
Ottawa
Similar threads
