canada military outta money

[pattbateman]

i know i posted this prediction before but here it is

'Bankrupt' Forces may shut 5 bases

Internal reports say $500M shortfall may cause closures from Winnipeg to Labrador

Chris Wattie

National Post

Tuesday, February 24, 2004

Canada's army, navy and air force are facing a funding shortfall of up to half a billion dollars, defence sources told the National Post, and the military is recommending drastic measures to make up the difference, including closing some of the largest bases in the country.

The federal government is stalling the release of internal documents that outline the looming financial crisis, but military sources said the reports indicate that in the fiscal year beginning on April 1, the air force expects to be $150-million short of funds needed to fulfill its commitments, the navy will be $150-million shy of its needs and the army will be as much as $200-million short.

The figures were submitted to General Ray Henault, the Chief of Defence Staff, last month by the heads of the land staff, the maritime staff and the air staff in anticipation of this year's defence budget.

The military sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the reports foresee a situation so dire that they recommend curtailing operations, dry-docking ships and mothballing vehicles or aircraft and closing at least four Canadian Forces bases.

Unless additional funding is awarded by the government, the air force is suggesting closing bases at Goose Bay, Nfld., Bagotville, Que., North Bay and Winnipeg, the sources said.

Further, the air force report says that unless its fleet of ageing CC-130 Hercules transport planes is replaced or modernized, the main transport base at Trenton should be closed within 10 years. "There won't be enough Hercs flying by then to justify keeping that base open," one air force source said.

The navy predicts it will not be able to live up to treaty obligations to NATO and other alliances and cannot carry out enough patrols of Canadian waters to comply with agreements with other government departments such as Immigration Canada or Fisheries and Oceans.

"We will not be able to meet our domestic defence obligations," one naval officer said.

The army is said to be in the worst financial state of all three branches of the Canadian Forces. "Everyone knows that the army's broke and has been for a couple of years," said one military source familiar with the reports.

Colonel Howard Marsh, a former senior army staff officer now working as an analyst for the Conference of Defence Associations, said he was not surprised by the size of the shortfall.

"This is a look forward ... at what they need in order to keep the army going," he said. "Nobody has ever seen a bankrupt military in a developed country.... This year I predict we will see that in Canada."

Col. Marsh said the military is saddled with ageing bases and increasingly dilapidated buildings that are fast reaching the point of collapse. "What they've been doing, year in and year out ... is not replace or repair those buildings, or buy new equipment," he said.

"The average age of the equipment in the Canadian Forces is over 20 years and it hasn't been well-maintained."

The Liberal government reduced defence spending by 23% and cut the number of regular military personnel to approximately 60,000 from 80,000 between 1993 and 2000. There were 120,000 people in the Canadian military in 1958.

In 2003, the defence budget was increased $800-million to $12.7-billion, the single largest increase since the Liberals came to power. But that still left the total below that of 1991, when the Mulroney Conservatives committed troops to the Gulf War and the defence budget stood at $12.8-billion.

Jay Hill, the Conservative defence critic, said the reports outline the result of more than a decade of Liberal cuts to the Canadian Forces.

"They shouldn't even be in this position," he said. "They shouldn't be having to look for nickel and dime savings when the government is blowing hundreds of millions on sponsorship programs."

Mr. Hill called on the government to make the three reports available immediately. "This flies in the face of this Prime Minister's stated commitment to being open and transparent," he said.

The Department of National Defence has refused to make public the annual reports, known as command impact assessments.

Defence officials this week turned down a request by the National Post and the influential defence publication Jane's Defence Weekly to see the reports under access to information legislation.

Judith Mooney, the director of access to information for the Department of National Defence, said the reports will not be made public for another three to five weeks because they are considered "draft" documents.

"I exercised my discretion to withhold the documents until the [Defence] Department's business-planning process is complete, at which time they will be released," she said.

Ms. Mooney could not say when exactly the reports would be released, but indicated they would be available by the end of March.

Although that would delay them until after the release of the federal budget, which is expected on March 23, she said David Pratt, the Defence Minister, was not involved in the decision to withhold the reports until then. Mr. Pratt did not reply to repeated requests for comment on the reports.

In previous years, the assessments have been made public.

This year's reports paint a picture even more bleak than last year's, which said the military would be unable to sustain itself without additional resources or a reduced workload.

They were the basis for a story last year in Jane's Defence Weekly, the prestigious London-based magazine, which caused a furor in Canadian and NATO defence circles. Under the headline "Running on Empty," the story said the army, navy and air force did not receive the money they needed.

The article said the navy asked for an additional $50-million to bridge the funding gap, but received only $6.7-million. The air force expected a $104-million shortfall but received about $7-million. The army had a larger gap between what was expected of it and the funding available, and received $85-million in extra money.

Major-General Terry Hearn, the chief of finance for the Canadian Forces, acknowledged the military has had "issues" with funding over the past four years.

But he said the department is implementing a long-term plan to stabilize its finances. "We'll become sustainable over the next couple of years," he said. "We have long-term strategies to deal with these issues ... [but] we're not going to solve them next year."

Peter Stoffer, a New Democrat MP whose Nova Scotia riding includes a large military base, called the government's refusal to release the reports "very suspicious."

"If anyone out there honestly believes that access to information will be any easier under this government, they are fooling themselves," he said. "They say one thing and do another."

[mr mahs]

Originally posted by pattbateman

"The average age of the equipment in the Canadian Forces is over 20 years and it hasn't been well-maintained."

The Liberal government reduced defence spending by 23% and cut the number of regular military personnel to approximately 60,000 from 80,000 between 1993 and 2000. There were 120,000 people in the Canadian military in 1958.

In 2003, the defence budget was increased $800-million to $12.7-billion, the single largest increase since the Liberals came to power. But that still left the total below that of 1991, when the Mulroney Conservatives committed troops to the Gulf War and the defence budget stood at $12.8-billion.

Jay Hill, the Conservative defence critic, said the reports outline the result of more than a decade of Liberal cuts to the Canadian Forces.

"They shouldn't even be in this position," he said. "They shouldn't be having to look for nickel and dime savings when the government is blowing hundreds of millions on sponsorship programs."

:laugh: :laugh: Maybe they should ask Micheal Moore for a cut of the gross from his fictional work of "Bowling for Columbine".

The CANADIANS have been very vocal, even insulting towards our initiatives in the middle east all the while feeling the comfort, that if the bad guys come the "Bastard Americans" would come and help them. If anyone wants to know if a Kucinich, Sharpton or even Kerry came into office what our military would look like? look to the North and their fiscal difficulties of funding their own military... 80K people in their military? what a joke!!!!!

[marksimons]

yes. 'cause canada have so many enemies around them like... erm... *cough* alaska and oh, the US...

a supposed friend?

what does it matter if the canadian army is cutting numbers?

is america committed to any international peace keeping force?

no.

what canada does is it's own businesses.

canada should be safe from terrorists and it's not the army that protects the nation from terroists, at home, anyway.

[igloo]

Originally posted by marksimons

yes. 'cause canada have so many enemies around them like... erm... *cough* alaska and oh, the US...

a supposed friend?

what does it matter if the canadian army is cutting numbers?

is america committed to any international peace keeping force?

no.

what canada does is it's own businesses.

canada should be safe from terrorists and it's not the army that protects the nation from terroists, at home, anyway.

This posts of your should be a sticky for stupidity......this clearly shows that you really have no idea what the fuck you are talking about you driveling douche bag......

You are nothing but a pile of bullshit...fucking bloward

[marksimons]

what am I talking about?

why do canada need a large and expensive military?

if America invades then they have enough guns to go around...

peacekeeping missions are a joke these days...

why does canada need a big military?

[igloo]

Originally posted by marksimons

what am I talking about?

why do canada need a large and expensive military?

if America invades then they have enough guns to go around...

peacekeeping missions are a joke these days...

why does canada need a big military?

It is simply amazing how ignorant you are you fucking douchebag.....

Stick to protesting against the US military machine while you enjoy its global protection you fucking jerkoff...

Unreal

[marksimons]

can't you answer my question?

why does canada need a big well funded army?

admittedly it's a shame that this isn't being spun in a oooh we're cutting off the fat and making a lean mean peace fighting machine - but erm, they're not.

but seriously.

why. does. canada. need. a. big. military?

to protect their oil assets?

nope...

to get more oil assets?

nope...

to repress their own people?

nope...

to participate in peacekeeping forces?

bingo, but erm, this whole thing needs a proper look at them.

and lastely, why does it affect any of us what canada does with its military?

oh and hang on.

they're spending 12 billion a year on their armed forces?

what the fuck.

transparent accounting needed there methinks...

[igloo]

Originally posted by marksimons

can't you answer my question?

why does canada need a big well funded army?

to participate in peacekeeping forces?

bingo

Exactly....and no one is saying they need to big military, but a capable one......just like Europe you stupid motherfucker.....

And if you don't understand why (which you obviously do not), it just proves what an ignorant fool you are....

Seriously, you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about, even when you say it..

You have been exposed again as a blowhard...nothing but hot air and a pile of bullshit....

[bigpoppanils]

Originally posted by mr mahs

or even Kerry came into office what our military would look like? look to the North and their fiscal difficulties of funding their own military... 80K people in their military?

i dont understand how Canada's failure links to kerry.

[vicman]

so much for Canada's plan of invading Greenland

[bigpoppanils]

Originally posted by marksimons

why does canada need a big well funded army?

but seriously.

why. does. canada. need. a. big. military?

to protect their oil assets?

nope...

erm....Canada is a member of NATO. one nation having a poorly funded army makes the whole alliance weaker.

and yes, Canada does need to protect is oil assets. Wherever there is oil, Al-Qaeda has shown interest (look to Al Qaeda's threats against Norway last year as an example).

[marksimons]

what I don't get is...

they're spending 12 billion a year...

how does about 150 million short for each air force, navy and army cause so many problems?

canada doesn't have to defend its oil assets in the same way as it's neighbour to the south...

and as for nato.

that's a bit of a relic...

what does it do?

I know it did kosovo, but erm, that's for reasons that could take some time here...

we need to have a co-ordinated worldwide rapid response force, that can operate under the mandate of the UN to go in as peacekeepers with clear missions, well supported and non political.

but erm, that's for another thread.

somehow, I get the feeling canada ain't top of al queda's list though...

[bigpoppanils]

Originally posted by marksimons

somehow, I get the feeling canada ain't top of al queda's list though...

i'm sure that is exactly what Norway thought

[marksimons]

but they only got a warning, no attacks right?

there was some speculation at the time that they got nowrway confused with denmark, I think the danish sent a submarine to help out in the gulf.

or something...

makes sense, sure we could confuse yeman and oman, or uzbeckistan or some of the other former russian 'istans...

[bigpoppanils]

Originally posted by marksimons

what I don't get is...

they're spending 12 billion a year...

how does about 150 million short for each air force, navy and army cause so many problems?

wow. you really are a stubborn one. its not that those divisions are short of money this year....its that they have been short of money for a decade. most organizations can stand a couple of years of shortfalls, but not for a period as long as in this case.

as for your statement that NATO is a relic....if that is true, then Canada can only count on themselves for their own defense. thus, Canada needs a well funded military.

[marksimons]

yeah, guess nato would be important in protecting canada, but let's face it, it'd be american hardware doing the work.

this is the problem for nato, the eu and the un, what do they do when members are attacked, from outside or from within should perhaps create a thread on this...

but is 12 billion a year really underfunding?

I'm sure that there are a few things here and there that could save the cash and the staff.

sure there are overspends, massive overspends in the equipment side and R&D, seems to be the case in the UK and US, may be the case in canada.

perhaps not.

and as for decades of under-investment, know how that can fuck things up, our education, health and transport, to name the major ones, have been fucked up royally by consistent under-funding...

meh.

the canadians should legalise weed then tax it. good few hundred million in that. at least...

nato is a relic, we have to find something to replace it, europe wants a rapid response force, but everyone's like ooh no that sounds like a european army...