The CF as a re-election prop (a split thread)

[McG]

I read an article last weekend which claimed the Conservative government asked DND for a list of planned infrastructure spending that could be used as announcements in the lead-up to the election.  I don't know if this is true, but there have been a number of maintenance projects getting big announcements recently.  More recently, the National Post has called these announcements  out for how they maybe should be seen: preservation and not improvement of capability.

Mind you, it would be great to see a new truck announcement that simply preserves our lift capability at where it was two years ago.

National Post View: Basic military upkeep is nothing to brag about
National Post
30 June 2015

Have the federal Tories really set the bar so low for what constitutes good government that they are compelled — psychically obligated in some irresistible way — to laud themselves even for so minor an accomplishment as swapping out a sewer pipe?

Truly — a pipe, or at best a handful of pipes. We aren’t even talking about some major piece of urban infrastructure, bringing freshwater to, or waste away from, millions of citizens. We are talking, in this particular instance, about “new sanitation lines” at HMCS York, an onshore Royal Canadian Navy facility in the city of Toronto.

HMCS York is one of four National Defence facilities Toronto set to receive renovations as part of almost $20 million in spending announced by Associate Defence Minister Julian Fantino on Monday. The National Defence press release described the announcement as a “significant … investment to improve Defence Infrastructure in Toronto.”

One could be forgiven for taking that to mean airfields, new barracks or air defence radars. No such luck. Instead, the Canadian Forces College will receive new HVAC systems — that’s heating, ventilation and air conditioning, not some high-tech weapons system, by the way — while the Denison Armoury and family centre will also get HVAC upgrades. Moss Park and Fort York will receive various “interior and exterior” renovations.

Oh, and on top of its exciting new sewers, HMCS York will have a retaining wall repaired.

We don’t begrudge the money being spent. The problem is the fanfare. The projects being announced here aren’t significant investments in national defence, they’re basic upkeep. Working sewers, functional HVAC systems and sturdy retaining walls, not to mention modern training facilities and liveble on-base housing, ought to be something our troops can expect.

It’s all the more maddening because of how many high-profile procurements of truly defence-related items — trucks, helicopters, jets, warships — the government has bungled. Canada’s military, despite some vital (and endlessly trumpeted) acquisitions during the Afghan war, urgently needs modernized equipment and weapons of all kinds. But the projects have been stalled by incompetence, delayed for budgetary reasons or simply mismanaged into bureaucratic oblivion. Meanwhile, our military is being asked to do more, with ever less, all over the world. The latest debacle: the government is looking into converting a civilian ship into a supply vessel for the Navy after our two elderly supply ships rusted out without replacements.

It’s maddening, and it has to stop. Rather than patting himself on the back for delivering literally the bare minimum the military can ask for, Fantino should set his eyes on actually getting our troops the equipment they need to do all the nation asks of them.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/national-post-view-basic-military-upkeep-is-nothing-to-brag-about

 

[McG]

Lee Berthiaume is now picking up on the idea that the Defence Budget is currently being used to buy re-election votes.

The Gargoyle: Is the election the only war that really matters at National Defence?
Lee Berthiaume
Ottawa Citizen
03 July 2015

Anyone receiving Department of National Defence press releases could be forgiven for thinking the only thing happening on Canadian military bases over the past two weeks has been photo ops.

Since Parliament rose for the summer on June 19, the department has sent out more than a dozen press releases and held several press conferences where Conservative MPs have announced investments in infrastructure at local bases and military facilities.

The most recent was a photo op at CFB Trenton where Associate Defence Minister Julian Fantino and Conservative backbencher Rick Norlock announced $10 million in new construction. The same day, National Defence sent out a press release on behalf of backbencher Gordon Brown announcing $1.35 million in renovations for the armoury in Brockville, Ont.

Fantino has actually been the main attraction at a number of events over the past two weeks, making appearances at military facilities in Toronto, Halifax and Kitchener. At each stop, he and local Conservative MPs have posed with Canadian military personnel for photos that later show up on social media.

And more will no doubt follow as the announcements relate to $452 million the government announced last November that it was setting aside for military facilities across the country. Meanwhile, opposition defence critics have complained that they are barred from touring military bases to see what those in uniform actually do.

National Defence has sent out the occasional press release on other issues, such as the return of Canadian troops from Eastern Europe and a visit to Charlottetown by the frigate HMCS Charlottetown. But judging by the volume and pace of the infrastructure announcements, it seems someone thinks the military’s most important mission is helping the Conservatives win on Oct. 19.

Here’s a sample of the National Defence press releases and photo ops from the past two weeks:

• July 3: backbencher Gord Brown — $1.35 million for the Brockville Armoury
  
  July 3: Associate Defence Minister Julian Fantino and backbencher Rick Norlock — $10 million for CFB Trenton, Ont.
  
  July 2: Justice Minister Peter MacKay and backbencher Scott Armstrong — $20 million for CFB Greenwood
  
  June 30: Norlock — inauguration of a new training facility at CFB Trenton
  
  June 30: backbencher Lawrence Toet — $1.6 million for three Winnipeg armouries
  
  June 29: Infrastructure Minister Denis Lebel — $3.7 million for two armouries in Quebec
  
  June 29: Fantino and backbenchers Mark Adler and Corneliu Chisu — $19.5 million for six military facilities in Toronto
  
  June 26: backbencher Cheryl Gallant — naming ceremony for new hangar in CFB Petawawa, Ont.
  
  June 26: Fantino — naming ceremony for new Arctic patrol ship in Halifax
  
  June 26: backbencher LaVar Payne — $2.5 million for CFB Suffield, Alta.
  
  June 26: backbencher Cathy McLeod — $535,000 for an armoury in Kamloops, B.C.
  
  June 25: Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Lebel — renovations for CFB Bagotville, Que.
  
  June 24: backbencher Larry Maguire — $15.2 million for CFB Shilo, Mani.
  
  June 23: Fantino and backbenchers Peter Braid and Harold Albrecht — $1.5 million for new rifles for the Canadian Rangers
  
  June 23: Fantino and backbenchers Stephen Woodworth, Braid and Albrecht — $1 million for Kitchener Armoury

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/the-gargoyle-is-the-election-the-only-war-that-really-matters-at-national-defence

 

[PuckChaser]

Isn't it always? I mean the whole "Buy in Canada" gag is set up to win votes by dumping money into Canadian industries that may or may not produce the product we need at the quality we deserve.

 

[Monsoon]

Isn't it always? I mean the whole "Buy in Canada" gag is set up to win votes by dumping money into Canadian industries that may or may not produce the product we need at the quality we deserve.

Won't disagree there's a political component that makes it easy to sell to cabinet, but the whole "buy in Canada" gag is, from the military's perspective, about the strategic imperative to maintain at least a limited domestic defence production capacity that can be of use in time of crisis. Arguably, one of our key strategic capabilities is that of being a highly industrialized economy with an educated workforce; if we don't make an effort to leverage that as part of our defence strategy, we're assuming a lot of hidden risk.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Lee Berthiaume is now picking up on the idea that the Defence Budget is currently being used to buy re-election votes.
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/the-gargoyle-is-the-election-the-only-war-that-really-matters-at-national-defence

Good point - and this, as commentary ....

National Post View: Basic military upkeep is nothing to brag about

Have the federal Tories really set the bar so low for what constitutes good government that they are compelled — psychically obligated in some irresistible way — to laud themselves even for so minor an accomplishment as swapping out a sewer pipe?

Truly — a pipe, or at best a handful of pipes. We aren’t even talking about some major piece of urban infrastructure, bringing freshwater to, or waste away from, millions of citizens. We are talking, in this particular instance, about “new sanitation lines” at HMCS York, an onshore Royal Canadian Navy facility in the city of Toronto.

HMCS York is one of four National Defence facilities Toronto set to receive renovations as part of almost $20 million in spending announced by Associate Defence Minister Julian Fantino on Monday. The National Defence press release described the announcement as a “significant … investment to improve Defence Infrastructure in Toronto.”

One could be forgiven for taking that to mean airfields, new barracks or air defence radars. No such luck. Instead, the Canadian Forces College will receive new HVAC systems — that’s heating, ventilation and air conditioning, not some high-tech weapons system, by the way — while the Denison Armoury and family centre will also get HVAC upgrades. Moss Park and Fort York will receive various “interior and exterior” renovations.

Oh, and on top of its exciting new sewers, HMCS York will have a retaining wall repaired.

We don’t begrudge the money being spent. The problem is the fanfare. The projects being announced here aren’t significant investments in national defence, they’re basic upkeep. Working sewers, functional HVAC systems and sturdy retaining walls, not to mention modern training facilities and liveble on-base housing, ought to be something our troops can expect.

It’s all the more maddening because of how many high-profile procurements of truly defence-related items — trucks, helicopters, jets, warships — the government has bungled. Canada’s military, despite some vital (and endlessly trumpeted) acquisitions during the Afghan war, urgently needs modernized equipment and weapons of all kinds. But the projects have been stalled by incompetence, delayed for budgetary reasons or simply mismanaged into bureaucratic oblivion. Meanwhile, our military is being asked to do more, with ever less, all over the world. The latest debacle: the government is looking into converting a civilian ship into a supply vessel for the Navy after our two elderly supply ships rusted out without replacements.

It’s maddening, and it has to stop. Rather than patting himself on the back for delivering literally the bare minimum the military can ask for, Fantino should set his eyes on actually getting our troops the equipment they need to do all the nation asks of them.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I know I'm repeating myself, but a major political (highly partisan political) component has been a feature of our defence production/procurement system for nearly 500 years. It is wildly, irresponsibly impractical to think that you might remove it ~ I would go farther and suggest that political management, even micromanagement of the defence budget might even be a Constitutional requirement.

          (See my comments in The End of the MCDS thread about Ernest Bevin doing battle with Lord Beaverbrook to protect trade union jobs (and Labour votes) when, in the
          middle of a war, Beaverbrook wanted to streamline British shipbuilding.)

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

ERC, I agree with you that defence production/procurement has always been, and is likely to remain political. That is the government of the day will either favour a friend of the party or will grant a contract to a region for reasons of political gain, etc. (Irving Shipyard anyone!).

However, that is quite different than political grand standing using the everyday operations and maintenance budget. That I have never seen before (at least to such an extent - I have seen the good'ol sign in front of a facility getting major repairs saying something like "7M$ for upgrade for the next century - your tax at work" type of thing ).

And it is even worse when the actual serving members are forced (I cannot think of any thing else) and dragged in front of the camera just to look good for the ruling party and obviously for their electoral benefit. The CAF should under no circumstances  be involved in or even appear political*. Anybody remember what happened the last time the uniformed personnel tried to do something "electoral" for a politician? It was called the Somalia Scandal.

If you pair that with the alleged government action which prevents other parties Defence Critics ( and I would say any other member of parliament) from attending at bases to find out what the military is doing, it starts to look like the Harper government is thinking it owns the military as if they were its political pawns. It is time perhaps for the higher ups to do their job and tell the government to "Go Fly a Kite. Oh! And we will accept visits by ANY member of Parliament anytime THEY ask - since we see this as their right. Than you very much".

*: I was absolutely sickened earlier this winter when one of the ministers (can't recall which one) held a press conference in Halifax, on the occasion of an international defence conference, to announce some changes to Vet benefits. About a dozen of (mostly) seamen and a few soldiers in their DEU's had been dragged for no other reason than to provide "background" for him. These seaman had no reason to be at that conference, other perhaps than as support staff for some functions going on at the place. In any event, they had a job to do somewhere else from which they were dragged just to make the thing look good for a politician. Had I been the senior officer there, I would have halted the thing before it starts - reminded the minister that we are not his toys and these people have work to do; told the minister to hire actors at his own cost if he wanted background, but that they better not put a uniform on or else I'll have them arrested for impersonating.   

 

[Edward Campbell]

ERC, I agree with you that defence production/procurement has always been, and is likely to remain political. That is the government of the day will either favour a friend of the party or will grant a contract to a region for reasons of political gain, etc. (Irving Shipyard anyone!).

However, that is quite different than political grand standing using the everyday operations and maintenance budget. That I have never seen before (at least to such an extent - I have seen the good'ol sign in front of a facility getting major repairs saying something like "7M$ for upgrade for the next century - your tax at work" type of thing ).

And it is even worse when the actual serving members are forced (I cannot think of any thing else) and dragged in front of the camera just to look good for the ruling party and obviously for their electoral benefit. The CAF should under no circumstances  be involved in or even appear political*. Anybody remember what happened the last time the uniformed personnel tried to do something "electoral" for a politician? It was called the Somalia Scandal.

If you pair that with the alleged government action which prevents other parties Defence Critics ( and I would say any other member of parliament) from attending at bases to find out what the military is doing, it starts to look like the Harper government is thinking it owns the military as if they were its political pawns. It is time perhaps for the higher ups to do their job and tell the government to "Go Fly a Kite. Oh! And we will accept visits by ANY member of Parliament anytime THEY ask - since we see this as their right. Than you very much".

*: I was absolutely sickened earlier this winter when one of the ministers (can't recall which one) held a press conference in Halifax, on the occasion of an international defence conference, to announce some changes to Vet benefits. About a dozen of (mostly) seamen and a few soldiers in their DEU's had been dragged for no other reason than to provide "background" for him. These seaman had no reason to be at that conference, other perhaps than as support staff for some functions going on at the place. In any event, they had a job to do somewhere else from which they were dragged just to make the thing look good for a politician. Had I been the senior officer there, I would have halted the thing before it starts - reminded the minister that we are not his toys and these people have work to do; told the minister to hire actors at his own cost if he wanted background, but that they better not put a uniform on or else I'll have them arrested for impersonating.  

I agree with you, but nothing sickened me more than a general, the CDS in fact, going on TV to lie and blame his own people for the fact that the prime minister of the day didn't want to interrupt a vacation with his grandchildren to attend the funeral of a respected international leader ... that was in 1999.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I agree with you, but nothing sickened me more than a general, the CDS in fact, going on TV to lie and blame his own people for the fact that the prime minister of the day didn't want to interrupt a vacation with his grandchildren to attend the funeral of a respected international leader ... that was in 1999.

You mean when "Le p'tit gars de Shawinigan" could not make King Hussein's funeral because of the Army, when the seeing US President and four ex-president managed to do ti with all the security that entails!  Yeah, that made me sick too.

 

[Edward Campbell]

You mean when "Le p'tit gars de Shawinigan" could not make King Hussein's funeral because of the Army, when the seeing US President and four ex-president managed to do ti with all the security that entails!  Yeah, that made me sick too.

And that, as much, perhaps more than anything else, opened to the door to be CF being made into a partisan political prop. As is so often the case we have only ourselves to blame for all this.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

You mean when "Le p'tit gars thug de Shawinigan" could not make King Hussein's funeral because of the Army, when the seeing US President and four ex-president managed to do ti with all the security that entails!  Yeah, that made me sick too.

TFTFY

 

[jollyjacktar]

TFTFY

more like merde...

 

[OldSolduer]

And that, as much, perhaps more than anything else, opened to the door to be CF being made into a partisan political prop. As is so often the case we have only ourselves to blame for all this.

Again Mr C has nailed it. The same thing has happened with the RCMP when a certain RCMP Commissioner pretty much did what the ruling party wanted...whether it was ethical or not.