Defence: $12.7-billion infusion ;D

[qor556]

That was hilarious. Good ol' Rick Mercer.

 

[MikeM]

Excellent, Rick for PM!!

 

[Kirkhill]

Complicated right enuff Duey. ;D

Any idea how many "Kiowas" will fit inside a C17? 
Edit: Never mind - just read your link.

It might also be interesting to see if US airlines are suddenly allowed to fly in Canadian airspace and what effect that might have on the "Freight" business - new demand for Aircraft capable of handling outsize loads?

It's always fun to speculate.

 

[Sundborg]

Is that $13B going to be extra on top of the current military budget?

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Is that $13B going to be extra on top of the current military budget?

Yes

 

[armyrules]

Geez I realy hope the military gets the money they deserve it.

 

[scm77]

http://www.canada.com/finance/rrsp/budget_2005/story.html?id=47c08718-f50b-442f-b45c-959330b4322b

It's kinda long and deals with a bunch of stuff other then the military so I'll just the military related stuff.  You can read the full article if you like.

The federal Liberals are poised to make the largest single investment in Canada's cash-strapped military in more than two decades today when Finance Minister Ralph Goodale announces he will boost the Armed Forces budget by more than $12 billion over the next five years.

Sources say the more than $12-billion defence injection will be spent on such initiatives as hiring 5,000 soldiers, 3,000 reservists and providing an across-the-board pay hike of 6.5 per cent. The initial downpayment in new hires is expected to be about $250 million in the first year.

A total of $2.5 billion in new money is being earmarked for new helicopters, sources say, and another $1.5 billion is expected to go toward filling the existing "shortfall" the department has been running because of previous budget cuts, the high cost of maintaining equipment, and the rising costs associated with an increase in the number of military operations around the world.

Sources note a significant portion of this overall injection has been announced previously to pay for new equipment.

Anyone know if they are just talking about the MHP again or additional new helicopters (ie Chinook)?

 

[Mr. Ted]

This could be good folks, even though I'll believe it when I see it.  Possibility of 13 BILLION for the army over next few years.

Check it out:

Budget to include billions for military, environment
Last Updated Wed, 23 Feb 2005 08:55:35 EST
CBC News
OTTAWA - The Liberal government is expected to present a balanced budget Wednesday that includes billions of new dollars for the military and the Kyoto Accord while offering tax breaks to some Canadians.

 
Ralph Goodale studies his budget. 
Finance Minister Ralph Goodale will present an eighth consecutive Liberal budget that balances the nation's books â “ and is designed to placate the opposition parties who have the power to defeat the minority government.

Goodale is expected to announce around $13 billion for Canada's cash-strapped military. About one-third of the funding, which will be spread over five years, will be directed towards capital projects and infrastructure for the military, The Canadian Press reported.

The environment will also be a key focus of the budget, with about $5 billion earmarked for compliance with the Kyoto Accord, half of it new money. About $1 billion of that will go to a new fund for incentives to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Goodale will use the budget to showcase how his government plans to save money by becoming more environmentally friendly.

The plan will include a new Office of Green Procurement at the Department of Public Works that will look for energy-efficient ways to trim 10 per cent of the department's contracting costs.

Money for social programs will include $5 billion over five years for a new child care program, with a $1 billion initial commitment to be made Wednesday.

To appease the Conservatives, tax cuts will come through a boost to the basic personal exemption amount.

The Canadian Press reports the plan will include an increase totalling almost $2,000 over the next four years in the basic personal amount that one can earn before income tax kicks in.

That will ultimately bump about 800,000 low-income earners off the federal tax rolls.

Immigration will also get a boost of $400 million over five years including funding to help foreign doctors get their credentials recognized in Canada.

The budget is also expected to include more money for foreign aid and an increase to seniors benefits.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

The cheques in the mail to.

 

[a_majoor]

I expect this to evaporate over the five year period due to "changing prioreties", and the money we do get moves to "Liberal Friendly" contractors.

End result: treading water.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

I expect this to evaporate over the five year period due to "changing prioreties", and the money we do get moves to "Liberal Friendly" contractors.

End result: treading water.

Perhaps it is a little early to be checking the teeth of this particular gift horse?

Dave

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I agree, ......different rider and certainly different governing circumstances

 

[JasonH]

I expect this to evaporate over the five year period due to "changing prioreties", and the money we do get moves to "Liberal Friendly" contractors.

End result: treading water.

Rather they do that with our usual 750 million?

Yeah... thats what I thought

 

[Franko]

The big question is:

Is it going to boost the CF in any way? What I mean is, will it go towards purchasing new equipment or go towards this "great idea" of standing up a new brigade?

Personally I would like to see new equipment, not only for the army but forces wide. What are the bureaucrats going to get......new wallpaper for their offices at a princely sum (see Bob Fowler   :  )

It'll surprise me if it gets spent the way it should....well soon see.

Regards

 

[Good2Golf]

Scm, I think they're talking about the MHP although there is very specific mention of heavy lift helos being recommended in the Defence Review....not sure how that will pan out but I understand that Gen Hillier has made a pretty firm attachment between deploying more troops and the need to provide integral (as opposed to borrwed) aviation support.   I guess we'll see....

Like I said earlier...I'll happily be a bus-driver for you guys if you give me the right kit! ;D

Cheers,
Duey



http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=0fab0d98-cadf-4411-a1b5-24c31d69a905

Coming soon: A bigger, quicker army: Navy, air force cast as 'bus drivers' for land forces: sources
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The government's long-awaited defence policy review will recommend the Canadian Forces be rebuilt around a greatly expanded army, which would include two mobile task forces to be deployed anywhere in the world aboard new expeditionary warships and heavy-lift helicopters, the National Post has learned.

Defence sources familiar with the policy paper, which is to be unveiled soon after today's federal budget, called it "a very army-centric document," with the navy and air force relegated to the role of "bus drivers" for land forces.

"There's a lot in there about a bigger army, and a bigger role for them ... but not much for the navy and even less for the air force," said one source, a senior officer familiar with the final draft of the defence review.

"Basically, they're going to be supporting the army -- they'll be the bus drivers."

But defence analysts questioned whether today's budget, which sources told CanWest will include $12-billion over five years in additional military spending, will have enough money to pay for the ambitious plan outlined in the policy review.

The review would give the army thousands of new soldiers, including more commandos for the JTF-2 special forces unit, and reorganize the ground forces into two big "land task forces" focused exclusively on overseas missions, military sources said on condition of anonymity.

The policy review recommends the navy purchase a large expeditionary vessel and the air force acquire heavy lift helicopters, but sources said the two services get little other attention in the 50-page document.

It recommends the navy get a new "landing platform dock" vessel -- a large warship that could carry a flight of helicopters, up to 1,000 soldiers and their equipment to land them on hostile shores anywhere in the world.

It barely touches on the thorny issue of new long-range transport aircraft, saying only that the topic "should be investigated."

Alain Pellerin, the director of the defence lobby group Conference of Defence Associations, said the plan laid out by the policy review is sound but will need even more money than the government is preparing to give the overworked and chronically underfunded Canadian Forces.

Mr. Pellerin said as much as $9-billion of the reported defence increase has probably already been accounted for, most of it from earlier government announcements of everything from replacements for the ageing Sea King helicopters to new mobile gun systems for the army.

The proposed expeditionary ship, new army helicopters and additional troops could cost more than $3-billion, which Mr. Pellerin says will require an even more substantial budget boost.

"It's going to require more," he said. "Unless there's future additions to the [defence] budget, that's not going to be enough to do everything they seem to want to do."

Sources said the review mostly relegates the navy and air force to supporting roles in future overseas missions and says the army is the key to the future of the <Canadian> Forces. It says a promised infusion of 5,000 new regular force soldiers and 3,000 reservists should be added as quickly as possible and the troops incorporated into existing army regiments and brigades.

 

[Kirkhill]

I'm with Bruce and Dave on this one.

Nobody doesn't support " A Responsibility to Protect".  Conservatives, and even left wing Liberals, NDPers and the Bloc have all called for Canada to have the capability to intervene.  The only debate really is whether we have to have the Americans underwrite our effort.  If we want and independent, or even God-forbid an anti-American, ability to act internationally then we have to pay for it.  There seems to be broad support for that notion.

BTW Franko: Chris Wattie at the National Post reports "no new units, no new brigades".

 

[FSTO]

Reports this morning of an "Army Centric" Defense review consisting of increased numbers of JTF2 and 2 rapid deployment Brigades/Battalions(sorry, Navy guy here)? Amphib ships, heavy lift aircraft (C17? Chinooks?) and attack aircraft (Apaches? Warthogs? Harriers?)  States that the Navy and Air Force will be reduced to bus drivers.

This statement proves that the author doesn't have a clue what they are talking about.

If we have an Amphib projecting forces ashore, how do you protect it? How does it get there in a hostile environment? If we have to depend on other nations to protect our one great asset, you better believe it won't leave port very often.

As for air support, its the airforce that provides that or is DND thinking about bringing back Army Aviation and the Fleet Air Arm? I highly doubt it.

Though I'll believe the funding once I see hard commitments.

 

[Franko]

BTW Franko: Chris Wattie at the National Post reports "no new units, no new brigades".

That is also being said...as well as what FSTO said.

Only a few more hours......

Regards

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

"which is to be unveiled soon after today's federal budget"

This is an important statement although it is even more important the the White Paper is actually followed and adhered to.

 

[Cloud Cover]

I don't think it's an actual "white paper" - it's just a review with some proposed directions.