[ninty]

[quote:429f3]
McCallum calls for more military spending


Ottawa — Canada should be contributing more toward the defence of North America and the free world, Defence Minister John McCallum said Friday as he called on his own government to spend more on the military.

In his first major address since taking the portfolio four months ago, McCallum said the Canadian Forces are demoralized and financially wounded, and he promised to appoint a panel of private-sector experts to streamline his department's administration.

"If you ask me if we should do more or less than we are currently doing in the defence of our country and our continent, I would say more," he said in a speech prepared for delivery to the Toronto Board of Trade. "If you ask me if we should do more or less in deploying our forces to the myriad trouble spots of the world, I would say more."

While the federal government cut about 25 per cent from the defence budget during the 1990s, it has promised to restore more than $5-billion between this fiscal year and 2006, he noted.

"Notwithstanding these improvements, we should be spending more than is currently planned," said Mr. McCallum, who apparently wrote the speech himself as the start of a campaign to pressure his government for more money in the February budget. "Indeed, the Canadian Forces need more money simply to continue operating as they are today, in a sustainable way."

Documents obtained this week say that the army has only 40 per cent of the money it needs to maintain bases and equipment in 2002-03.

But Mr. McCallum, who has been reviewing military priorities since July, said improvements will most likely come at the expense of some capabilities he called "relics of an earlier era."

"Our overall aim will be to redirect resources away from areas that are no longer essential and towards capabilities that will be needed in the future," he said.

Defence analysts speculate that Mr. McCallum is looking at getting rid of tanks, self-propelled howitzers, destroyers and supply ships. Department officials say that no decisions have been made.

The government also owes it to its military personnel to improve their living and working conditions, Mr. McCallum said. Canada deployed 24 military missions between 1948 and 1989, and 79 between 1990 and 2002, he noted. At the same time, the number of Canadian Forces personnel has declined dramatically.

"Clearly, this is not sustainable," he McCallum said. "It translates into too much time away from home for too many of our people, with negative implications for morale, family life and general well-being.

"I think it's wrong to continue overstretching our personnel and their families."

Soldiers will simply quit the military if the problem is not addressed, he warned, adding that quality-of-life issues were addressed by his predecessor, Art Eggleton, at the expense of the capital budget.

Mr. McCallum said he will ask a small number of "highly qualified people with extensive private-sector restructuring experience" to study his department's administration and report within six months.

He will also introduce "far-reaching changes" to education and professional development programs and expects to soon finalize a joint planning group with the United States that will share intelligence and contingency plans in emergencies.
[/quote:429f3]

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/Art ... eakingnews

[ninty]

[quote:13f95]Speaking Notes for the Honourable John McCallum Minister of National Defence To the Toronto Board of Trade

Toronto, Ontario


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

October 25, 2002

[ Please Check Against Delivery ]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

After almost five months on the job, this is my first major speech as Minister of National Defence, and I'd like to take this opportunity to share some of my thoughts on the role and direction of the Canadian Forces.

Since becoming Minister, my respect for the Canadian military has taken a quantum leap, as has my determination to do what is right for them and for our country. For me, the turning point came on a visit to Afghanistan last July, where I witnessed not only the appalling and dangerous conditions under which our people served, but also the great work they had done and their richly deserved sense of pride in their achievements.

No one should doubt for a minute the quality of our military. I witnessed it firsthand in Afghanistan and in my travels to Canadian Forces bases throughout the country, and heard glowing praise from three Americans - a lieutenant-general, a colonel, and a sergeant.

NATO Secretary-General Lord Robertson put it well in fine British style when he told me that the Canadian military does very well "when measured by outputs rather than inputs". Translated into Canadian, this means that what we do, we do very well, but he'd like us to do more.

What are the central purposes of the military today? I think they are to defend the lives of our citizens and to preserve and promote our national sovereignty. The military has also played a pivotal role in our history and in the emergence of Canada as a nation.

But what does sovereignty mean in this context? It means that our government must be able to deploy forces overseas to reflect Canadian priorities and values, to help Canada achieve its foreign policy objectives and to do our fair share in the struggle for democracy and freedom around the globe.

Sovereignty means that we must be able to defend Canada and participate meaningfully in the defence of North America. As well, sovereignty means the defence of our territorial claims, not least in the North.

Finally, sovereignty means strengthening our capacity to fight terrorism. What can be more threatening to our sovereignty than terrorists determined to kill innocent Canadian citizens and destroy Canadian property?

Sovereignty means all of these things, and it doesn't come cheap.

Now, some will say, that terrorism is an American problem, not a Canadian one. To them, I would say, how many of you would have thought two weeks ago that nearly 100 Australians and even one Canadian would be killed by terrorists in Bali? I don't know the probability of a terrorist attack on Canada, but I know it is significantly greater than zero.

Notwithstanding talk of a peace dividend after the end of the Cold War, I think that the world has become a more dangerous and risky place, certainly post-September 11, if not before.

So if you ask me whether we should do more or less than we are currently doing in the defence of our country and our continent, I would say more. If you ask me whether we should do more or less in deploying our forces to the myriad trouble spots of the world, I would also say more.

Increases in defence spending between fiscal year 2001-02 and 2006-07 will total more than $5 billion. These increases include the December budget, which allocated $7.7 billion across Departments over five years to fight terrorism and reinforce public security.

Nevertheless, in my own personal view, and notwithstanding these improvements, we should be spending more than is currently planned.

Indeed, the Canadian Forces need more money simply to continue operating as they are today, in a sustainable way.

Over the past decade, the Canadian Government has been calling on the Canadian Forces more frequently. Between 1948 and 1989, our Forces deployed on 24 missions. Between 1990 and 2002, -- a quarter of that time -- the number has risen to 79. At the same time, the number of Canadian Forces members has declined substantially.

Clearly, this is not sustainable. It translates into too much time away from home for too many of our people, with negative implications for morale, family life, and general well-being. It also translates into personnel retention problems.

This problem is a real one. It is a problem openly acknowledged by the leadership of the Canadian Forces.

As Minister of Defence, I think it is wrong to continue overstretching our personnel and their families.

As an economist, I know that some of our most valuable Canadian Forces members will simply quit the Forces if this issue is not addressed. And given the time and resources that go into training our military personnel, we cannot afford this kind of exodus.

Either way, whether I look at the Canadian Forces as the Defence Minister or as an economist, I know that we must find a way to address the overstretching of our people.

Unfortunately, Defence faces a sustainability challenge in the area of capital as well as people. I give my predecessor, Art Eggleton, credit for significant improvements to the quality of life of the military. The problem, however, is that some of these improvements were financed by raiding the capital budget. We cannot continue to mortgage our future in this way.

And to those who say they want money for people but not equipment, my answer is that when we put our men and women in harm's way, we must equip them so as to minimize the risk of injury or death. We must also equip them to succeed as a combat capable force.

At one level, it should come as no surprise to anyone that the Minister of National Defence wants more money. That is always a given. Overnight, when I moved from junior Finance Minister to Defence, I became a spender rather than a saver.

The climate for more money may be good. When the two Axworthy brothers, as opposed to retired generals, both call for a substantially higher defence budget, that may be significant. (Tom Axworthy is the former Principal Secretary to Pierre Trudeau, and Lloyd Axworthy is the former Minister of Foreign Affairs.)

And there is more good news. As compared to a year ago, there has been a huge jump in support for increased funding for the Canadian Forces.

According to the most recent polling by Pollara, forty-eight percent of Canadians would support increased funding for the military compared to 17 percent that would favour less spending. A year ago, only 26 percent favoured increased military spending, while 31 percent favoured less spending.

Anyone who thinks this is only a September 11th blip should look further back to the five-year trend. Support for the Canadian Forces has been consistently gaining ground, according to the same polling firm.

In fact, no other area of government spending, including health care, has seen such a consistent increase in support over the past five years. The growth is dramatic - thirty-one percentage points over the past five years.

Having said that, however, the final budget decisions are made by the Government. And the Government must make choices between important, yet competing priorities - such as health care and education and paying down the debt. Rest assured though that over the next few months, I will be making the case for defence.

At the same time, I will also be focusing on three other priority areas: restructuring, people, and the Canada-US connection.

Let's look at restructuring first.

Over the past decade, I have worked as Dean of the Faculty of Arts at McGill University, Chief Economist of Royal Bank, and now Minister of National Defence. And I've observed that any large organization has silos, bureaucracies and waste.

Of course, I recognize that no large organization can turn on a dime in response to a changing world. And the international security environment that Defence works within has changed immensely in recent years.

Nonetheless, I believe the leaders of such organizations have a duty to push for continuous change and restructuring.

My predecessors, as well as the military leadership, have brought about tremendous change at Defence in recent years. But we can't afford to stop now. Change needs to be continuous. It is always a work in progress.
That is why I have been asking awkward questions, such as whether we need certain capabilities, some of which might be relics of an earlier era.

The rapid pace of technological change is fuelling a revolution in military affairs. And as I've indicated, new types of threats -- terrorism being the most notable -- have come to centre stage.

Our overall aim will be to redirect resources away from areas that are no longer essential and towards capabilities that will be needed in the future. By following this course, we can ensure that the Canadian Forces will emerge from this process as a more modern and sustainable institution.
Just as universities, banks, and government departments have a responsibility to students, shareholders and taxpayers, I am responsible for ensuring good value for money for the Canadian taxpayer.
And I intend to honour that responsibility. To help me do that, I will be appointing shortly a small number of highly qualified people with extensive private sector restructuring experience to study administrative efficiencies for the Department. And I will ask them to report back to me in six months.

The next priority I want to discuss is people.

One area I'd like to focus on is education. When it comes to the importance of education, I have to admit to a slight bias. The educational world is my natural habitat.

Still, while I may have a bias, when it comes to the importance of education, I am backed up by no less a Canadian hero than General Romeo Dallaire.

When General Dallaire served as Special Advisor to the Chief of the Defence Staff on education and professional development, he became a great advocate of education at all levels.

In large part through the influence of General Dallaire, we are making far-reaching changes to our system of professional development and education. And we've committed to promoting a learning culture at all rank levels.

We're increasing the number of members with post secondary education. We're developing new courses and training packages. And we've launched the Canadian Defence Academy to provide a coordinated, long term strategy for our education system.

In discussing my final priority, I come back full circle to the question of sovereignty. And I want to focus on sovereignty here at home, more specifically, as it relates to the defence of North America.

Working with our American neighbours for continental security is nothing new. In fact, it dates as far back as the Ogdensburg Accord, whose text was released by President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Prime Minister Mackenzie King on August 18, 1940.

Currently, together with the Americans, we are looking at how we can better position ourselves to respond to major crises, such as terrorist attacks or natural disasters.

We are in the final stages of negotiating a joint
bi-national planning group that could be used in the event of a crisis to coordinate a response by either Canadian or American forces, or possibly both.

This planning group will allow Canada and the United States to share intelligence and contingency plans, and clearly identify how to access the resources necessary to respond quickly to a crisis.

We are not suggesting that we create new command and control structures or assign permanent new forces to these tasks.

The negotiations are progressing well and we expect to reach an agreement very soon.

Far from ceding our sovereignty, as some critics have suggested, our overriding purpose in these negotiations is to protect Canadian and American lives. Canada now has an opportunity to work as a full partner in the protection of our continent.

Let's be clear. We share a common border. We share geography. We share infrastructure and commerce. It only makes sense that we plan to defend these shared interests.

As a government, we must be prepared to defend our citizens, our economy, our infrastructure, our economic systems, and even our very way of life.

We owe it to our men and women in uniform and to ourselves as a country to make the Canadian Forces the best they can be. As Minister of National Defence, I am committed to doing precisely that.
[/quote:13f95]

[Pfc.Green]

You guys need more people like him in your goverment.

[ninty]

Well, he is the minister of national defence.

But what he wants to do is increase spending on JTF-2 and more of the counter terrorist stuff and strategic lift and all the things we will need in the future, but he wants to get rid of the Tanks, cause we aren't going to use them, and cut down on our destroyers.

"Defence analysts speculate that Mr. McCallum is looking at getting rid of tanks, self-propelled howitzers, destroyers and supply ships. Department officials say that no decisions have been made."

I don't know if thats a good thing or not. I can't really see Canada rolling out tanks in some foreign country, we'd have a pretty tough time getting them there. But I don't know if we should get rid of them.

I disagree with getting rid of destroyers and supply ships. I mean look how many times they were dispatched this year. After sept 11 we had about 6 ships in the gulf. There are probably 2 or 3 there right now.

He said he wants to replace the sea kings, but if he gets rid of our ships, there will be no place for them to land! They stay on the frigates.

I guess we'll have to wait and see.

[Pfc.Green]

Originally Posted by ninty9

I don't know if thats a good thing or not. I can't really see Canada rolling out tanks in some foreign country, we'd have a pretty tough time getting them there. But I don't know if we should get rid of them.

I disagree with getting rid of destroyers and supply ships. I mean look how many times they were dispatched this year. After sept 11 we had about 6 ships in the gulf. There are probably 2 or 3 there right now.

He said he wants to replace the sea kings, but if he gets rid of our ships, there will be no place for them to land! They stay on the frigates.

I guess we'll have to wait and see.

I agree there, I did some searching and you only have 38 major ships in your navy, cutting those doesnt make much sense. And yeah you cant land helicopters if theres no place to land'em.

[Bane]

Why does he want to get rid of the armor you already have? That doesn't make much sense to me unless it's totally obsolete. It obviously costs money to have and maintain these things, but it can't be enough to justify getting rid of it.

[ninty]

[quote="Pfc.Green":ca596]

Originally Posted by ninty9

I don't know if thats a good thing or not. I can't really see Canada rolling out tanks in some foreign country, we'd have a pretty tough time getting them there. But I don't know if we should get rid of them.

I disagree with getting rid of destroyers and supply ships. I mean look how many times they were dispatched this year. After sept 11 we had about 6 ships in the gulf. There are probably 2 or 3 there right now.

He said he wants to replace the sea kings, but if he gets rid of our ships, there will be no place for them to land! They stay on the frigates.

I guess we'll have to wait and see.

I agree there, I did some searching and you only have 38 major ships in your navy, cutting those doesnt make much sense. And yeah you cant land helicopters if theres no place to land'em.[/quote:ca596]

We only have 4 destroyers so if he wants to cut those then that won't affect the new helicoptors cause they go on the frigates. I don't know why he would cut supply ships. We only have 2 and you would think we would need those. oOo:

[quote:ca596]Why does he want to get rid of the armor you already have? That doesn't make much sense to me unless it's totally obsolete. It obviously costs money to have and maintain these things, but it can't be enough to justify getting rid of it. [/quote:ca596]

I don't know. The basic idea is that they want to spend in new areas and areas that we will need in the future like conter terrorsim. To do that they have to cut in other areas. I guess they don't see us using our tanks any time soon and to tell you the truth I don't either. I doubt were going to war with the states or mexico, so theres no real point in ahving them. I doubt there is going to be a real war where we need to use a full invasion force with tanks. Their the Leopard tanks bought in the 70's from Germany. They've been upgraded recently so that doesn't make much sense either.

Anyway hes calling for 1 billion increase on our annual 12.5. This is suprising to me because the defence minister is speaking out aginst the Prime Minister. Chretien already said there would be no new money for the military as they incrested the budget last year after Sept 11. There are other parties in canada who want to increase spending by 2 billion, but they'll never get in.