Senate renews calls for CF increases.
- Thread starter Kirkhill
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 230
Senate Committee says spend more on defence
Last Updated Thu, 29 Sep 2005 12:13:28 EDT
CBC News
A Senate committee wants to see the Canadian defence budget doubled and thousands more soldiers recruited.
The defence committee's report says the budget should be $25 billion to $35 billion a year. The projected budget for 2005-2006 is $14.3 billion.
There are 62,000 Canadians in uniform. The Senate committee would like to see 90,000.
The committee says ways need to be found to purchase new equipment quickly, including used equipment from other countries.
"Canadians should think of Canada's military as a tool box for the government to use to fix things that are of vital interest to Canadians...our tools are rusting."
The senator committee, chaired by Liberal Colin Kenny, says defence spending increases announced in the last budget won't start to take effect for three years. It also says major equipment purchases for the military could take 15 years to deliver, making early budget commitments even more essential.
The report says the navy needs new destroyers and supply ships, the air force needs new transport planes and a new search and rescue plane, and the army needs "more boots on the ground."
The senators says there is a lack of candour about about defence issues, and the politicians worry about the losing votes if they support expensive military purchases.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/09/29/Senate_defence20050929.html
Last Updated Thu, 29 Sep 2005 12:13:28 EDT
CBC News
A Senate committee wants to see the Canadian defence budget doubled and thousands more soldiers recruited.
The defence committee's report says the budget should be $25 billion to $35 billion a year. The projected budget for 2005-2006 is $14.3 billion.
There are 62,000 Canadians in uniform. The Senate committee would like to see 90,000.
The committee says ways need to be found to purchase new equipment quickly, including used equipment from other countries.
"Canadians should think of Canada's military as a tool box for the government to use to fix things that are of vital interest to Canadians...our tools are rusting."
The senator committee, chaired by Liberal Colin Kenny, says defence spending increases announced in the last budget won't start to take effect for three years. It also says major equipment purchases for the military could take 15 years to deliver, making early budget commitments even more essential.
The report says the navy needs new destroyers and supply ships, the air force needs new transport planes and a new search and rescue plane, and the army needs "more boots on the ground."
The senators says there is a lack of candour about about defence issues, and the politicians worry about the losing votes if they support expensive military purchases.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/09/29/Senate_defence20050929.html
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 210
Report: Canada's military can't meet needs
Thursday, September 29, 2005 Posted: 1619 GMT (0019 HKT)
TORONTO, Ontario (AP) -- Canada's military is "wounded" and the country's defense without the money to do its job properly, according to a Senate report released Thursday.
The report laments the lack of resources and coordinated manpower to deal with a terrorist attack or natural disaster.
"A hard, honest look at the facts has made it clear to the committee that the funding is simply not there to end Canada's sad era of military darkness," said the review of defense policy by the Senate Standing committee on National Security and Defense.
The report notes that of the C$12.8 billion (US$10.9 billion) the government promised over the next five years to beef up the Canadian Forces, only C$1.1 billion ($938 million) was earmarked for the first two years. This means the rehabilitation process won't get started until 2008-2009.
"Even when the process does stutter to a start, it will remain vastly underfunded, primarily because the armed forces have been starved for money for so many years," reads an executive summary by committee chairman, Liberal Party Senator Colin Kenny.
The report notes Canada -- named by al Qaeda as one of five target nations deserving of an attack -- has done little since 9/11 to invest in anti-terrorism prevention.
"Canada has an unenviable place on Osama bin Laden's infamous list of countries to be targeted. We may get lucky. But it's not a bet you'd want to make.
"Despite the increasing complacency of most Canadians as the memory of 9/11 slips to the back of our minds, there is every likelihood that an attack will eventually occur on Canadian soil," the report said, yet noted that Canada ranks just 128th out of 165 countries in defense spending as a percentage of its gross domestic product.
The committee for years has been critical of government spending and coordination when it comes to national security. A report by the same committee last December found that security along Canada's 4,000-mile (6436-kilometer) border with the United States was full of holes, threatening some C$1.4 billion ($1.2 billion) in trade between the North American neighbors.
Thursday's report is the first of three; the next two in the coming weeks will focus on solutions and a future vision of the country's security.
Some have accused the committee of being alarmist and ineffectual, as it comes from the politically appointed upper house of Parliament. But committee members say they spent the last year traveling to military bases across the country, met with senior Canadian and U.S. security and military officials in Ottawa, Washington and at NATO headquarters, as well as with Canadian troops in Afghanistan. They heard some 300 hours of testimony.
"If there is any one message at the core of this report, it is this: You can't get there from here. Visions are worthless without proper funding, and the funding simply isn't there," Kenny said.
Thursday, September 29, 2005 Posted: 1619 GMT (0019 HKT)
TORONTO, Ontario (AP) -- Canada's military is "wounded" and the country's defense without the money to do its job properly, according to a Senate report released Thursday.
The report laments the lack of resources and coordinated manpower to deal with a terrorist attack or natural disaster.
"A hard, honest look at the facts has made it clear to the committee that the funding is simply not there to end Canada's sad era of military darkness," said the review of defense policy by the Senate Standing committee on National Security and Defense.
The report notes that of the C$12.8 billion (US$10.9 billion) the government promised over the next five years to beef up the Canadian Forces, only C$1.1 billion ($938 million) was earmarked for the first two years. This means the rehabilitation process won't get started until 2008-2009.
"Even when the process does stutter to a start, it will remain vastly underfunded, primarily because the armed forces have been starved for money for so many years," reads an executive summary by committee chairman, Liberal Party Senator Colin Kenny.
The report notes Canada -- named by al Qaeda as one of five target nations deserving of an attack -- has done little since 9/11 to invest in anti-terrorism prevention.
"Canada has an unenviable place on Osama bin Laden's infamous list of countries to be targeted. We may get lucky. But it's not a bet you'd want to make.
"Despite the increasing complacency of most Canadians as the memory of 9/11 slips to the back of our minds, there is every likelihood that an attack will eventually occur on Canadian soil," the report said, yet noted that Canada ranks just 128th out of 165 countries in defense spending as a percentage of its gross domestic product.
The committee for years has been critical of government spending and coordination when it comes to national security. A report by the same committee last December found that security along Canada's 4,000-mile (6436-kilometer) border with the United States was full of holes, threatening some C$1.4 billion ($1.2 billion) in trade between the North American neighbors.
Thursday's report is the first of three; the next two in the coming weeks will focus on solutions and a future vision of the country's security.
Some have accused the committee of being alarmist and ineffectual, as it comes from the politically appointed upper house of Parliament. But committee members say they spent the last year traveling to military bases across the country, met with senior Canadian and U.S. security and military officials in Ottawa, Washington and at NATO headquarters, as well as with Canadian troops in Afghanistan. They heard some 300 hours of testimony.
"If there is any one message at the core of this report, it is this: You can't get there from here. Visions are worthless without proper funding, and the funding simply isn't there," Kenny said.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
The entire report...
http://www.parl.gc.ca/38/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/defe-e/rep-e/repintsep05-e.htm
http://www.parl.gc.ca/38/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/defe-e/rep-e/repintsep05-e.htm
- Reaction score
- 970
- Points
- 1,060
While I am very much in favour of more spending, 25 billion would exceed the upper limit of what can be managed sensibly. I don't even want to try and imagine the inefficiency, waste and corruption that could be found in a budget that large.
And 90,000 on strength is completely unrealistic.
The Senate made a mistake by throwing these large figures around by opening the door for the government to say they can't afford to spend that sort of money. And the truth is, they really couldn't spend that sort of money even if they had it right now. DND is simply not set up with the proper skill sets to manage any sort of a large cash infusion, and PWGSC is even more incompetent.
Also, I note the recurring theme that the army is burnt out, yet many reg force guys on this board say that is a complete myth that exists for political purposes for the land forces.
And 90,000 on strength is completely unrealistic.
The Senate made a mistake by throwing these large figures around by opening the door for the government to say they can't afford to spend that sort of money. And the truth is, they really couldn't spend that sort of money even if they had it right now. DND is simply not set up with the proper skill sets to manage any sort of a large cash infusion, and PWGSC is even more incompetent.
Also, I note the recurring theme that the army is burnt out, yet many reg force guys on this board say that is a complete myth that exists for political purposes for the land forces.
- Reaction score
- 7,428
- Points
- 1,160
Hey whiskey:
I am not sure I completely agree with you on that one. My sense is that there is degree to which the answer to the burn-out question is dependent on trade, age, marital status and rank. Young, single, privates and corporals in the combat arms seem less likely to complain about getting a second roto in 12 months than will a middle-aged, married Colonel or Warrant in a support trade that is doing their 5th or 6th career roto. And given the relatively high proportion of older soldiers, married with kids and mortgage that there seems to be in the CF then that presents a problem.
It may not be difficult to find youngsters to fill out the sections but it seems that it is progressively harder to find qualified section, platoon, company and unit commanders and 2ic's.
I can agree entirely with your points about money and numbers - unless of course a sufficiently long time-line, good plan and adequate oversight were available - which of course brings us back to your points.
Cheers.
- Reaction score
- 2,555
- Points
- 1,260
LOVED the first chapter title....
"1. Cutting Through the Bulls---."
;D
"1. Cutting Through the Bulls---."
;D
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Our minister isn't buying into it at this point anyway, according to this morning's Globe & Mail. Makes me wonder if the govt thinks we're adequately funded now. Our money woes are definitely showing up in garrison at least; every year in February we get told to cease buying routine office supplies like pens and paper. Then in March we are told that there's a huge surplus and we'd better find a way to spend it. Why??! Yeah, it is partially a result of poor financial management, but the financial pressures that drive these kinds of orders are systemic throughout the department.
Well at least we're getting paid, unlike some military forces around the world. But at some point the government has to see a connection between what they want us to do, and how much that's going to cost.
GRAHAM DUMPS ON IDEA OF DOUBLING FORCES' BUDGET
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL LEBLANC OTTAWA Defence Minister Bill Graham shot down a gloomy Senate report yesterday that called for more than doubling the Canadian Forces' annual budget of $14-billion and for increasing the number of troops to 90,000 from 60,000.
Mr. Graham disputed the report by Liberal Senator Colin Kenny and his defence committee that the Canadian military is at the "break point" and needs $30-billion a year to function properly. He said the Canadian Forces were already benefiting from an increased budget and were well equipped for overseas missions.
"There is a sense that while there are always problems, the Forces are moving in the right direction. That's where we're going, and I'm sorry if Senator Kenny chooses in his report to pour cold water on what is a very positive story," Mr. Graham told reporters after a speech in which he defended the deployment of thousands of troops to Afghanistan.
At a news conference earlier in the day, Mr. Kenny released the first of three reports on the state of the Canadian Forces. The first assessed the overall status of the military; the others will recommend solutions.
"We talk about the elastic band that you can't stretch any farther," Mr. Kenny said. "They have muddled through up to now. What we're saying is that at some point the elastic snaps, and we think we are at that point now." Mr. Kenny has long been a champion of the Canadian Forces and has often said that they suffer from acute underfunding.
The report said the air force was struggling to keep its cargo planes in the air and the army had to borrow night-vision goggles from reservists for a mission to Haiti.
"An incredible amount of brain power and energy is used in order to keep the military functioning the way they're going," Mr. Kenny said. "It's a disproportionate amount that can only be resolved by having more money for more modern equipment." Mr. Graham said doubling military spending in the short term is impossible. The last federal budget called for bringing the Forces' annual budget to $19-billion in five years, he said.
"I understand from the generals, the admirals, and all the experts, that you can only absorb so much money at one time," he said.
"We've got the amount of money we need to do the job we have to do. I think it's an exaggeration to say at this time that the Forces are stretched thin." Mr. Graham said troops are happy with recent deployments, such as the mission to the southern United States after hurricane Katrina.
"I'm travelling around the [Canadian Forces] bases and enthusiastic young people are saying, 'Wow, for the first time in a long time, we're moving ahead and we feel terrific,' " Mr. Graham said.
In his speech to the Canadian Club in Ottawa, Mr. Graham presented the federal government's rationale for the mission in Afghanistan, where the troops are providing security as well as hunting insurgents.
"Some have described this as a peacekeeping mission, while others have characterized it as a radical departure from Canada's traditional role as peacekeepers," he said. "This mission is not about terminology.
It blends many elements, including peacekeeping and combat."
DATE: 2005.09.30
BYLINE: DANIEL LEBLANC
SECTION: National News
EDITION: Metro
Well at least we're getting paid, unlike some military forces around the world. But at some point the government has to see a connection between what they want us to do, and how much that's going to cost.
GRAHAM DUMPS ON IDEA OF DOUBLING FORCES' BUDGET
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL LEBLANC OTTAWA Defence Minister Bill Graham shot down a gloomy Senate report yesterday that called for more than doubling the Canadian Forces' annual budget of $14-billion and for increasing the number of troops to 90,000 from 60,000.
Mr. Graham disputed the report by Liberal Senator Colin Kenny and his defence committee that the Canadian military is at the "break point" and needs $30-billion a year to function properly. He said the Canadian Forces were already benefiting from an increased budget and were well equipped for overseas missions.
"There is a sense that while there are always problems, the Forces are moving in the right direction. That's where we're going, and I'm sorry if Senator Kenny chooses in his report to pour cold water on what is a very positive story," Mr. Graham told reporters after a speech in which he defended the deployment of thousands of troops to Afghanistan.
At a news conference earlier in the day, Mr. Kenny released the first of three reports on the state of the Canadian Forces. The first assessed the overall status of the military; the others will recommend solutions.
"We talk about the elastic band that you can't stretch any farther," Mr. Kenny said. "They have muddled through up to now. What we're saying is that at some point the elastic snaps, and we think we are at that point now." Mr. Kenny has long been a champion of the Canadian Forces and has often said that they suffer from acute underfunding.
The report said the air force was struggling to keep its cargo planes in the air and the army had to borrow night-vision goggles from reservists for a mission to Haiti.
"An incredible amount of brain power and energy is used in order to keep the military functioning the way they're going," Mr. Kenny said. "It's a disproportionate amount that can only be resolved by having more money for more modern equipment." Mr. Graham said doubling military spending in the short term is impossible. The last federal budget called for bringing the Forces' annual budget to $19-billion in five years, he said.
"I understand from the generals, the admirals, and all the experts, that you can only absorb so much money at one time," he said.
"We've got the amount of money we need to do the job we have to do. I think it's an exaggeration to say at this time that the Forces are stretched thin." Mr. Graham said troops are happy with recent deployments, such as the mission to the southern United States after hurricane Katrina.
"I'm travelling around the [Canadian Forces] bases and enthusiastic young people are saying, 'Wow, for the first time in a long time, we're moving ahead and we feel terrific,' " Mr. Graham said.
In his speech to the Canadian Club in Ottawa, Mr. Graham presented the federal government's rationale for the mission in Afghanistan, where the troops are providing security as well as hunting insurgents.
"Some have described this as a peacekeeping mission, while others have characterized it as a radical departure from Canada's traditional role as peacekeepers," he said. "This mission is not about terminology.
It blends many elements, including peacekeeping and combat."
DATE: 2005.09.30
BYLINE: DANIEL LEBLANC
SECTION: National News
EDITION: Metro
The senate defence committee is "right on" on their suggested size of army and spending. I have studied NATO and pacific allies such as Australia, they spend 1.9% of GDP on their military Canada spends only 1.1%. Should we not learn from the U.S. that it takes 40,000 soldiers to restore city of New Orleans, but a Canada's army is capable half of that. What happens if a Canadian natural disaster of an major earthquake hits Vancouver? Do we have the Chinook helicopters and large transports seen on CNN to rescue any large city? A modern army is changing to fight natural disasters and peacekeeping, but not to fight the "old cold war". According to www.nationmaster.com (see select "in category"-military, "with statistic" -army personnel, "generate stat")Canada's army is ranked 39th in the world behind such notable countries such as Yemen, Libya, Norway, and Australia. Is Canada not a G-8 country one of the richest countries in the world, by increasing our army could we not do more for humanity such as intervening in another Rwanda?
To conclude the senate defence committee is in the ball park and deserve credit. Also Canada is a mid power but spends below other mid size countries such as Australia, Netherlands and Spain. Remember to have a relevant "foreign policy" you need a relevant "army".
To conclude the senate defence committee is in the ball park and deserve credit. Also Canada is a mid power but spends below other mid size countries such as Australia, Netherlands and Spain. Remember to have a relevant "foreign policy" you need a relevant "army".
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I agree. That's the key connection that seems to be missing at the legislative level (or at least, policy is not based on it): the connection between what the government wants us to be able to do, and what that is going to cost.
Every time a Minister praises CF members for their ingenuity (àla duct tape and hockey sticks...), it sounds as if they're really saying ... "See, you have enough money now to do what you're doing, and hopefully because of your resourcefulness noone will look at us and wonder why you needed to use duct tape and hockey sticks in the first place".
Okay, where's that "rant" icon?
Every time a Minister praises CF members for their ingenuity (àla duct tape and hockey sticks...), it sounds as if they're really saying ... "See, you have enough money now to do what you're doing, and hopefully because of your resourcefulness noone will look at us and wonder why you needed to use duct tape and hockey sticks in the first place".
Okay, where's that "rant" icon?
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 530
There were a couple of things in that report that were deeply disturbing:
1) The description of Human Resources Management both in terms of the Reserves - Regular Forces Transfer and Direct Recruiting is nauseating. In all seriousness, someone should get fired over it. There is no excuse for it. (From memory, I believe the description is on page 121-122).
2) The fact our Victoria Submarines in their "Canadianization" still cannot fire torpedoes. Seriously WTF? Why could we not have just stayed with Spearfish? I'm betting the cost of buying the Spearfish inventory would be less than ripping out the whole fire control system, not to mention the incredible amount of downtime avoided and the fact they would've maintained a harpoon capability.
3) The fact that our soldiers have been enlisted to do the Liberal Party's dirty work and propegate lies/misinformation they know to be false is repugnant.
4) The fact our procurement model includes a minimum of 3, and sometimes up to 6 departments all with competing interests. No wonder suppliers charge us higher rates. We make them jump through so many hoops it probably takes them more time to present to us, than to the USA for an order 20x the size.
5) The description of NDHQ and their "consensus management" which ensures no one is responsible for anything.
6) The description of the NDHQ procurement cycle - 12-14 years? :blotto:
In short, there is no doubt we have problems with money, but there are some structural issues that are truly ridiculous and need to be addressed sooner rather than later.
I should add I truly bleed for all you guys in uniform. You have the patience of saints.....
Matthew.
1) The description of Human Resources Management both in terms of the Reserves - Regular Forces Transfer and Direct Recruiting is nauseating. In all seriousness, someone should get fired over it. There is no excuse for it. (From memory, I believe the description is on page 121-122).
2) The fact our Victoria Submarines in their "Canadianization" still cannot fire torpedoes. Seriously WTF? Why could we not have just stayed with Spearfish? I'm betting the cost of buying the Spearfish inventory would be less than ripping out the whole fire control system, not to mention the incredible amount of downtime avoided and the fact they would've maintained a harpoon capability.
3) The fact that our soldiers have been enlisted to do the Liberal Party's dirty work and propegate lies/misinformation they know to be false is repugnant.
4) The fact our procurement model includes a minimum of 3, and sometimes up to 6 departments all with competing interests. No wonder suppliers charge us higher rates. We make them jump through so many hoops it probably takes them more time to present to us, than to the USA for an order 20x the size.
5) The description of NDHQ and their "consensus management" which ensures no one is responsible for anything.
6) The description of the NDHQ procurement cycle - 12-14 years? :blotto:
In short, there is no doubt we have problems with money, but there are some structural issues that are truly ridiculous and need to be addressed sooner rather than later.
I should add I truly bleed for all you guys in uniform. You have the patience of saints.....
Matthew.
Monsoon
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 10
- Points
- 230
The recruiting process is set up in such a way that no one is utimately responsible for the handling of any one file. So of course no one will be disciplined - this isn't a cop-out, it's a fact.Cdn Blackshirt said:
The report doesn't criticize the removal of the harpoon capability as such, and rightly so. The systems did need to be upgraded anyway (they spent ten years in mothballs) and while a sub-launched missile capability would be a good thing to have, it didn't fit the subs' Concept of Operations so it couldn't be cost-justified. The time spent in upgrading the systems is something else entirely, though in fairness industry tends to move very slowly so the process is held back waiting for quotes and technical proposals at every stage. On the other hand, policies like not allowing industry workers onto the subs without a specific awarded contract are absurd - they can't take a walk through the engineering spaces to find out what the space layouts are like to design systems that fit, so time is wasted trying to find information from third parties.
I don't remember reading that in the report.
These three points are all related - we aren't actually charged "higher rates", but the amount of undirected back-and-forth in the design phase (and even after a specification has been released) means that we get charged for additional re-engineering work. But in terms of industrialized nations, we do all right - the UK is simply appalling in this regard, and the US system of procurement is even more muddled, though they have the money to pay for the people to push projects through.
It may surprise people to learn that all of this is a direct outgrowth of the push to "cut the headquarters" a few years ago. People observe that HQ didn't shrink that much, but that's only because so much was moved to NDHQ (like CMS, CAS and CLS staffs on top of what was there before) after the HQ cuts. Also, the number of civilian employees has stayed constant because of their strong union. But on the military side, the number of project managers and guys who manage things like procurement is literally one-quarter of what it was ten years ago. There just aren't enough hours in the day, which is why it takes 9 years for us just to analyze a concept and decide whether or not we want it. Increase the HQ!
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 530
RE: Misinformation being provided by serving officers:
It's mentioned repeatedly....did you read it cover to cover?
Matthew. ???
hamiltongs said:
It's mentioned repeatedly....did you read it cover to cover?
Matthew. ???
Monsoon
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 10
- Points
- 230
Yes.Cdn Blackshirt said:
While the "translations" were cute and certainly caught the eyes of the newsmedia for a day or so, I thought they detracted from the overall effect of the report. In any case, at worst the report criticized admirals/generals for not going far enough in calling for financial assistance and for not being more "media-savvy" in their public statements. Since there is a long-established tradition of military folks keeping their noses out of public politics, that tendency doesn't come as much of a surprise. The report may have been trying to dislodge that (self-destructive) tradition. In any case, since the chair and principle pitchman of the report is Liberal, I find it hard to believe they were specifically fingering Liberal "propaganda" as a problem.
While on the topic of the report's shortcomings, I noticed that the authors expressed horror, in a relatively thorough section on the Militia, at the thought that 2,500 of 16,000 Army Reservists were working full-time at any given time. I can't imagine what they would have thought of the fact that 1,000 of 3,800 Naval Reservists are on semi-permanent class B/C. If they had bothered to include a section on the Naval Reserves it might also have come out that fully 50% of Naval Reserve officers (trained and untrained) are on full-time contracts at the moment. As it is, the closest they came to mentioning NAVRES was a laughable quote asserting that Kingston class MCDVs can't operate on the Grand Banks in winter. No mention of Port Security, mineclearance, route survey, Port Inspection Dive Teams or, for that matter, anything else related to the reserves.
It also does a very incomplete job of justifying the $25B number that caught everyone's eye - from all of the quotes from the report, I could only find stated shortfalls of $3-5B at the most. I also couldn't find the $25B number in the report itself - does anyone know where that came from?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
I believe the 25B came from the press conference that Sen. Kenny gave, he was asked specifically how much the CF should get and replied somewhere between 25 to 35B.
Mike.
Mike.
- Reaction score
- 17,199
- Points
- 1,260
I am sure that some areas of shortfall come under "need to know" and an open report will not release areas which affect certain deployment shortfalls...
I know one issue I dealt with that I understood as open source and I release a paper one draw some severe problems as certain members higher in the food chain that I (a lowly Cpl) saw as operation capability deficiencies...
I could spend $25B quite easily.
Each C17 is 1/4B USD...
Furthermore I believe that there is easily a 3B gap in ammuntion for small arms training - annually.
I know one issue I dealt with that I understood as open source and I release a paper one draw some severe problems as certain members higher in the food chain that I (a lowly Cpl) saw as operation capability deficiencies...
I could spend $25B quite easily.
Each C17 is 1/4B USD...
Furthermore I believe that there is easily a 3B gap in ammuntion for small arms training - annually.
- Reaction score
- 4,356
- Points
- 1,160
hamiltongs said:
The problem is that there was an established (but only during part of the 20th century) tradition of an apolitical military. It reached its zenith in America and Britain in the '40s and '50s and plunged to a nadir in Canada in the '60s and '70s and, just when we thought it could fall no farther, along came General Maurice Baril to prove that the pit of venality is bottomless - remember February 1999 when General Baril offloaded the blame from PM Chrétien (who wanted to remain in Whistler) skiing with his grandchildren) and on to his own uniformed subordinates by claiming that an aircraft could not have gotten the PM to Jordan for King Hussein's funeral when all the evidence proved exactly the opposite?
Back in the late '60s and early '70s the Canadian public service and political elites - who had been too closely intermingled since O.D. Skelton's reign in the '30s - developed a new, quite pernicious doctrine which went from the already overly-political: "don't, ever, embarrass the Minister" to a new low: "we will actively support the Minister."
At the heart of our political/administrative doctrine is the idea that elected politicians have the right and duty to set direction and the civil services, indeed all the services, including the armed services, have a duty to implement that direction in an apolitical, professional manner - without being required to make their views known in public. That fact that admirals and generals are, routinely, called to parliament (and the congress in the USA) to answer for political, policy directions means that we have abandoned one of the cornerstones of our system. (Of course admirals and generals can be, should be called to explain matters within their purview - but their purview is not policy.)
The correct response for almost all admirals, generals, and assistant deputy ministers in Ottawa when asked almost any policy question is: "please ask my minister." The problem is that careers depend upon the grace and favour of politicians and politically connected deputies who are the successors (and beneficiaries) of the authors of the "support the minister" doctrine so we are in a downward spiral.
Senator Kenney is attempting to further politicize the process by asking admirals and generals, and indeed colonels and commanders to be openly critical of defence policy decisions.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
The fact that we abandoned the constitutionally correct doctrine back in the '60s does not mean that we should complete the politicization of the military, or the bureaucracy.
Monsoon
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 10
- Points
- 230
The position of an admiral or general is inherently political in that way, I suppose. I should have said that the tradition is of avoiding political criticism, but all the same I wouldn't put the blame on careerism. I know that VAdm MacLean is no careerist pushover, and I suspect that the language he (and the other element chiefs) used before the Senate committee was that which he knew to be most effective when speaking to politicians and members of the civil service. Quite unlike the language used in the committee report, which will go nowhere and have no impact on defense policy because it alienates every single person who's in a position to implement its recommendations.Edward Campbell said:
Similar threads
