Liberals Accused of Delaying Forces Plan

[jgoguen]

Reading the National Post this morning, I notice there's an article on the front page saying a long-term plan to help the CF speed up purchase of badly needed equipment has been sitting on the desk of the Defence Minister (David Pratt) for more than 4 months. The Strategic Capability Investment Plan (SCIP) is a 15-year blueprint for buying everything, from new combat boots to state-of-the-art aircraft, and has been sitting on Mr. Pratt's desk since December. Jay Hill (Conservative's Defence Critic) says the Liberals have been putting things like this off for years, so they probably don't think another few months would make much difference. The Minister's spokesman, however, says Mr. Pratt is simply poring over the 64-page document as thoroughly as he possibly can, and is reviewing it constantly. SCIP doesn't require more funding, instead redistributing the current $13-billion budget to reallocate resources from lower to higher priorities. SCIP was more than a year in the making and is designed to slowly and deliberately modernize the CF. Although SCIP assumes little to no additional funding, it does mention that should the Defence Department happen to receive extra funding in the future, the plan can be accelerated. The plan has already received approval from the CDS, General Raymond Henault, and the deputy Minister of National Defence.

On a related note, PM Paul Martin promised to help the CF if I remember right. This seems to me to be leaps and bounds in the wrong direction. Thoughts, opinions, anything else to add? Just keep in clean please...let's try not to bash anyone...

[Agnew]

I don't think it was just sitting on his desk. Probably put it in a filing cabinet after a couple of months. Maybe he spilt coffee on it and is too embarrassed to get a neww copy, lol.

Anyways, I don't see why this guy is talking so long to approve this stuff. It would be a great investment in Canada's security. Sounds like this is something to put our(as in old people over 18) tax money to better use. Who would ever be against that? (other than greedy politicians)

I don't think Canada focuses its attention much on the military. It seems more like the things on the agenda are health care, scandals, health care, SARS/BSE/Chicken noodle flu, and health care. I am pretty sure if Canada was invaded by a foreign country(AKA Americans looking for good beer) or we were attacked by terrorists(Safeways aren't safe anymore...) that the political agenda may just turn a bit more towards the CFs.

Just my crazy thoughts at 3 am..(-2minutes)

[wb256]

Anyways, I don't see why this guy is talking so long to approve this stuff. It would be a great investment in Canada's security. Sounds like this is something to put our(as in old people over 18) tax money to better use. Who would ever be against that? (other than greedy politicians)



Chances are it's taking a while for a reason. Politicians usually have SOME motive behind their actions (or, in this case, lack of action). It could be a political move by the Liberals (although, being the ignorant young person I am, I'm not sure how the party would benifit from this) or it could simply benifit other sectors of society more - something more Canadians would rather see happen (like spending the money on healthcare).

Who would oppose military spending other than greedy politicians? Well, first of all, the greed of the politician has little to do with it (the excess tax money dosn't go into their pockets, it goes to other programs).

I realize that our military is in dire need of more money, but I think there are more important issues that need to be dealt with first. I don't think we're in any danger of being invaded, and increased military spending won't stop ANY terrorist attacks.

I'm sure by now it's common knowledge that the USA has a far larger military than we do. It's also common knowledge that despite the size of their military, terrorists still managed to strike a huge blow to the USA. A large military won't stop terrorist attacks.

Abstaining from involving ourselves in controversial wars may help avoid terrorist attacks however. I think distancing Canada from American foreign policy is the answer, not creating a tighter bond between the two. (note: this has nothing to do with the American public. This is an issue involving the foreign policy of the US government - from supporting dictatorships in latin America to sending contras to reinstill the Shah in Iran).

[jgoguen]

(like spending the money on healthcare).
Who would oppose military spending other than greedy politicians? Well, first of all, the greed of the politician has little to do with it (the excess tax money dosn't go into their pockets, it goes to other programs).
I realize that our military is in dire need of more money, but I think there are more important issues that need to be dealt with first. I don't think we're in any danger of being invaded, and increased military spending won't stop ANY terrorist attacks. All three statements are quite true, but SCIP is designed assuming little to no increase in the current military budget, so the "extra" money that probably won't get directed to the military can still go towards education and health care and other such programs without negatively affecting SCIP at all. The only mention of an increase in the military budget is where SCIP mentions an increase in funding would speed things up. For quick reference, here's what I wrote in my post WRT funding:

SCIP doesn't require more funding, instead redistributing the current $13-billion budget to reallocate resources from lower to higher priorities. SCIP was more than a year in the making and is designed to slowly and deliberately modernize the CF. Although SCIP assumes little to no additional funding, it does mention that should the Defence Department happen to receive extra funding in the future, the plan can be accelerated.

[Zipperhead]

I realize that our military is in dire need of more money, but I think there are more important issues that need to be dealt with first. I don't think we're in any danger of being invaded, and increased military spending won't stop ANY terrorist attacks.

A strong military (or at least credible) has nothing to do with impending National threats or defeating Terrorist attacks. It has to do with bolstering the political influence that a Country has on the International stage.

[Neo]

[QUOTE=jgoguen]Reading the National Post this morning, [\QUOTE]

The National Post is not known for its unbiased News Reports...

[jgoguen]

I'll give you that. And now I'll back it up with the text of a debate from Parliament:



National Defence


Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC): Mr. Speaker, by delaying the purchase of military replacement equipment that would put us in sync with our NATO partners, scarce defence department dollars are wasted maintaining obsolete equipment and systems. The money would be better invested now.

Why does the Prime Minister insist on pledging troops overseas with no long term commitment to modern equipment?

¸ (http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/3/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/041_2004-04-26/ques041-E.htm#TOC-TS-1435) (1435)

Hon. David Pratt (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have a very clear commitment to modernize the equipment of the Canadian Forces. It is contained within the strategic capability investment plan which provides for a total expenditure of approximately $27.5 billion over the next 15 years.

In the first four months of this government, we took action to move forward on $7 billion worth of procurement items for the Canadian Forces. I think the record speaks for itself.

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC): Mr. Speaker, military spouses are asking what good is a tax exemption if their spouses do not come home from overseas. The Minister of National Defence is afraid to sign off on the strategic capability investment plan because that will confirm Liberal policy of shortchanging our military.

Will he at least authorize those purchases that will ensure the safety of our troops?

Hon. David Pratt (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is some confusion with respect to whether or not my signature is required on this particular document. In fact, it is not required. It is an internal planning document of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces.

As I indicated earlier, decisions have already been made to move forward on a number of capital items and we will continue to work from the basis of that plan which continues to evolve.

Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the latest attempt by the defence department to outline its basic needs has been sitting on this minister's desk for the past four months. All it needs is his signature to get moving.

Apparently the Liberals are delaying for a possible election call this spring or summer. Why are the Liberals using our military as a campaign announcement?

Hon. David Pratt (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, clearly the hon. member was not listening to the answer I gave to the previous question.

This document does not need my signature to give it effect. It is a planning document. It is an internal document of the Canadian Forces and the Department of National Defence.

If the hon. members want a copy of the document, it is available in the reading room of the Department of National Defence library. It is all there for them to see.

Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the strategic capability investment plan does not require more military spending. It simply reallocates current resources from lower to higher priorities. It has been ready since November.

Why are we not moving? Why is the minister waiting for an election call to speed up the purchase of badly needed equipment? Let us get with it.

Hon. David Pratt (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if I say this three times, maybe they will get it. The important thing about the SCIP is that it is an evolving document. It is a planning document.

The fact that we allocated $1.3 billion in the budget for a new fixed wing search and rescue aircraft is an example of the government's commitment to the Canadian Forces. In fact, that is going to allow us to advance projects that had been in the medium term and move them to the left in terms of being able to acquire more equipment for the Canadian Forces. If you want to check it out, the whole text of all topics can be found at http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/3/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/041_2004-04-26/ques041-E.htm (http://%3Cu%3Ehttp://www.parl.gc.ca/37/3/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/041_2004-04-26/ques041-E.htm%3C/u%3E) Search for "Strategic Capability Investment Plan" to get within the quoted section of the text.


The Minister keeps saying his signature isn't needed, but he never denies that the document has been on his desk for 4 months. However, if his signature isn't needed, why isn't the plan being put into action? One would think there would be at least one high-ranking military official who would know if SCIP needs the Defence Minister's signature or not...:rolleyes: So from this, although the political views may be exaggerated and biased, I'd have to say the essence of the article is correct and therefore open for debate, regardless of the reputation for bias of the news source.


Now, as for the Defence Minister's signature...it's already been stated that the CDS has approved the plan, as well as the deputy MND. Now if the Defence Minister's signature isn't needed, wouldn't that be good enough to action the plan? One would think the highest-ranking member of the CF would be able to approve such things:rolleyes: Also, wouldn't the Minister's spokesperson have said no signature was necessary? And haven't the Liberals got a reputation for putting off (read: cancelling) contracts and plans to benefit the military? As much as I'd like to be able to say the Post isn't credible cause they're biased and toss the article as nothing more than an editor's rant, the Post, as far as I've ever been able to confirm, gets the essence of the story right. As a side note, how many people here trust CNN as a credible, unbiased news source? They're biased, yet more people trust them as an unbiased source. Must be cause CNN is on TV...being on TV makes you unbiased and credible maybe...:rolleyes:

[jgoguen]

As a side note (and bit of a reminder) you're always free to post your own links to other articles if you find them, or to post the whole article. And the discussion is more one of opinions. So if your opinion is that one or more quoted news sources are biased, perhaps you could offer opinion only on the facts offered (like the plan itself, or how it's been sitting around for 4 months) as opposed to thingts open to interpretation (like what the Minister actually said or didn't say).

[wb256]

As much as I'd like to be able to say the Post isn't credible cause they're biased and toss the article as nothing more than an editor's rant, the Post, as far as I've ever been able to confirm, gets the essence of the story right. As a side note, how many people here trust CNN as a credible, unbiased news source? They're biased, yet more people trust them as an unbiased source. Must be cause CNN is on TV...being on TV makes you unbiased and credible maybe...:rolleyes:

I would trust neither CNN nor the Post for my news - I don't think either of them get the "essence of the story" correct.

It's quite clear that the only trustworthy source for matters such as these is The Onion. I think we should all refrain from making anymore comments on the matter until they have reported on it.

[Wood]

That sounds a lot like aimless accusations to me without any firm backing. Mrs Gallant did not ask the questions that I would have asked if I recieved those answers, the comments she then made were nonsensical.

I mean she says your not doing anything, he says I'm doing this. She says why are you holding this process up, he says I'm not, I'm not even a nessessary chain in the loop. She says you are, he says that it is an EVOLVING document and that it is being implemented. Seems normal to me, especially when there's no political gain the other way. You know the military, do you think that overnight they could reallocate funds from all over the place without casing shortterm problems? I think slowly looking at the plan and implementing it in a nonintrusive way is imperative. We cannot afford to make moves that will undermined our troops currently engaged overseas.

[Pilot]

Mr Pratt has already done wonders for the CF... the joining bonus of $10,000 that was available to some trades has been completely removed... sounds like a bang up job to me {!}

[AMothfromWpg]

Mr Pratt has already done wonders for the CF... the joining bonus of $10,000 that was available to some trades has been completely removed... sounds like a bang up job to me {!}
in addition to the education reinbursement program being cut this year,

It's to bad though because that was what helped me to get the ball rolling was this carrot dangling after a year of service with a unit, to reimburse x % of my tuition - which of course would go back to tuition payment....

[jgoguen]

So the Liberals cut yet another part of the budget. Wonder if that needs the Minister's signature too;) Maybe he thinks it doesn't, so all the money the CF will ever need is just waiting for him to realize he actually needs to sign a form or 2 in his career :D

[Wood]

in addition to the education reinbursement program being cut this year,

It's to bad though because that was what helped me to get the ball rolling was this carrot dangling after a year of service with a unit, to reimburse x % of my tuition - which of course would go back to tuition payment....


But the money has to come from somewhere, how can a man simultaneously be criticized for not rerouting money fast enough and at the same time for taking money away from things you like.

[AMothfromWpg]

I was simply saying that I thought it was an effective recruiting carrot. And that is one thing the Forces is trying to do- recruit and retain new recruits

[Wood]

I was simply saying that I thought it was an effective recruiting carrot. And that is one thing the Forces is trying to do- recruit and retain new recruits

However, if we are thinking about things that are needed vs things that are not needed, its falls into the latter category. Its more important to be able to get our troops to the front lines and once they get there to have the equipment available to fight effectively than to simply have a lot of troops. And I think that by simply showing that we have the right equipment will drastically increase the CFs numbers if that is in fact what they want to do.

[CadetJeff]

I am pretty sure if Canada was invaded by a foreign country(AKA Americans looking for good beer)...

Who's to say that hasn't started? Besides, the US has tried that one already. It didn't work. So, the US and Canada just became really good economic friends. :)