Month: November 2007

Canada has often been criticizing as a relative lightweight among its NATO partners when it comes to defence spending as a percentage of GDP. But now, a new report from a U.S.-based defence analyst firm, says that other NATO countries are also trimming defence spending.

Currently only four dual EU-NATO members have military budgets that allocate the NATO minimum requisite of 2 percent of annual GDP for defense: France, the United Kingdom, Bulgaria and Romania. The latter two are the newest (and poorest) members of the EU and, while tasked with replacing their aging Soviet-era equipment for NATO-compatible ware, their budgets themselves are insufficient. Greece – typically one of the bigger defense spenders in Europe – is reining in its budget, bringing it down to 1 percent of GDP or less through 2015. Forecast International projects that, by 2011, total defense spending across the European continent will amount to just under $300 billion . .

The post-Cold War European inclination has been to cut force totals in an effort to create more nimble, readily deployable militaries, while also curbing defense expenditure. Meanwhile, Europe’s governments have summoned these smaller forces to take on more missions with fewer resources. “Ultimately this trend cannot continue on either the financial or manpower scale, particularly as a new defense arm with separate demands takes root,” Darling notes.

According to Forecast International, defense spending across the entire European continent will reach only $266 billion in 2007, or about 58 percent of the U.S. baseline defense budget of $462 billion for the current fiscal year. And it isn’t only the militaries that suffer from a shortage of funds – many of these nations’ domestic defense industrial bases feel the crunch from lack of state orders needed to sustain themselves.

[Read more from the press release]

A clipping from Aviation Week:

… EADS’s repeated failure to meet its schedule commitments is starting to give the company a bad name. … A review of EADS big-ticket programs tells the story. The Tiger reconnaissance and attack helicopter was handed over more than two years late; the NH90 multi-role helicopter, on which EADS is a major player, has been similarly behind schedule. Now, the A400M airlifter (left), also being driven largely by EADS, will be at least six months late and the company warns a further six-month delay is possible .. [Read the full story]

This just in from Canada’s Department of Foreign Affairs:

CANADA CONDEMNS IMPOSITION OF EMERGENCY RULE IN PAKISTAN
 
The Honourable Maxime Bernier, Minister of Foreign Affairs, today issued the following statement on the imposition of emergency rule in Pakistan:
 
“Canada condemns the imposition of emergency rule in Pakistan. We are deeply concerned about this development and urge the government of Pakistan to cancel the state of emergency and the new provisional constitutional order immediately.
 
“These measures undermine democratic development, judicial independence and the possibility of free and fair elections to which the people of Pakistan are entitled.
 
“We urge the government of Pakistan to end emergency rule and call on the government to respect judicial processes and reinstate the judiciary, adhere to the rule of law, and allow free and fair parliamentary elections to proceed as planned. We urge all sides to refrain from violence and respect human rights. We also expect the government of Pakistan to continue in its efforts to improve regional security.”

Still waiting for reaction from Canada’s Departement of Foreign Affairs but here is what the U.S. State Department thinks of the developments in Pakistan today:

The United States is deeply disturbed by reports that Pakistani President Musharraf has taken extra-constitutional actions and has imposed a state of  emergency. A state of emergency would be a sharp setback for Pakistani democracy and takes Pakistan off the path toward civilian rule. President Musharraf has stated repeatedly that he will step down as Chief of Army Staff before re-taking the presidential oath of office and has promised to hold elections by January 15th. We expect him to uphold these commitments and urge him to do so immediately.                                                     
                                                                       
The United States stand with the people of Pakistan in supporting a democratic process and in countering violent extremism. We urge all parties to work together to complete the transition to democracy and civilian rule without violence or delay.                                                            

Canadians must pay at least $87 to get a passport. In the U.S., it costs $30 U.S. (currently about $28 Cdn) to get a passport — and even at $30, the U.S. government is being accused of “gouging the public”.

A couple of thoughts about this price differential:

First: perhaps Finance Minister Jim Flaherty should stop picking on book retailers for their price differentials and compare the fees his government charges for various services. (I don't know how many e-mails I've had from folks crossing bridges at the border where tolls are still along the lines of $2 U.S. or $3 Cdn.)

Second: Why do they need that passport fee. Well, so far as the U.S. goes, Tom Casey, deputy spokesman for the U.S. State Department, was asked that very question. Here's his answer, given at yesterday's State Department press briefing:

QUESTION: Can you address the concerns of some people on the Hill that the State Department Passport Office is gouging the public with its $30 processing fee for passports?

MR. CASEY: Yeah, well, it's a bit of a complicated issue, Matt, but let me see if I can give you the simple answer I've gotten on it.

First of all, let me make clear that the State Department doesn't receive a penny of the execution fee. Most of that fee goes to the individual passport acceptance office where applications are received, so your local post office or local government offices getting the revenue from that. In the case of those applications that come in to one of our passport agencies, that money is transferred directly to the U.S. Treasury. So let me just make it clear, too, that anyone implying that the State Department is trying to seek some kind of advantage for itself in terms of these fees is just wrong on the facts.

I know that a lot of this is related to a GAO study that was done. And while that study does issue a number of criticisms, it does not, as I understand it, say that the Department was actually overcharging for these fees. What it did recommend is that we used a different and better methodology to substantiate the costs as we've determined them for this. And those costs are determined through a review by an outside contractor of what the actual cost is to us, the State Department, to be able to execute this. The GAO has recommended that future studies, including the one that is ongoing now, take account not only of our costs, the Department's costs, but also try and address the issue of what that cost is for some of these other outside organizations, the local post office and other facilities, just to make sure we have as accurate a depiction as possible of what the actual costs are.

Certainly, we always want to make sure that we are providing a good, high-quality service for the American people and that we're doing so in a cost-appropriate way. And again, in terms of the fees associated with a passport application, under the law, we have to and are required to charge what the costs are to us and to the U.S. Government as a whole of producing the document, adjudicating the case and moving forward on it. But we are comfortable that the fees that we are charging for this represent our best understanding of the actual cost of this.

QUESTION: Well, I don't think the allegation was that the State Department was somehow trying to profit from this itself, just that it was over — that the amount being charged for this processing fee or — what is it?

MR. CASEY: It's the — the official word is the execution fee.

QUESTION: That the amount being charged for this execution fee is more than double the actual execution cost.

MR. CASEY: Well, again, Matt, the determination of that is done through a review by an outside contractor that looks at the actual costs to us. And again, if there are concerns that the cost to agencies that receive this that are not part of the State Department may be lower or different, then that's certainly something we'll take a look at. And again, there's a review ongoing.

But the execution fee as determined is represented based on an outside review of what our actual costs are, and so we're comfortable that that represents our actual cost.

QUESTION: Even though these investigators seem to have found that $13 — I think it's 13 and $11 and some change on each — is the actual execution cost.

MR. CASEY: Well, I don't think they found that that's what it costs a U.S. Passport Agency to receive it. And again, our analysis of this is based on what it costs State Department passport agencies to provide this service. And again, I understand that there are some contentions that some of the local government organizations, post offices and others that receive them, have lower or different costs for that. And that's certainly something we'll take a look at. And we agree with the GAO's recommendation that we use more rigorous methodology in making this determination.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. CASEY: But again, I think we are comfortable that we've done a good analysis of our costs on this and that's reflected in the fees. And again, that's in compliance with the law.

QUESTION: So the very short answer to the question is no, you are not gouging the American public?

MR. CASEY: (Laughter.) The very short answer is no, we are not trying to gouge the American public, Matt. Thank you.

Conservative strategists that I ran into this week after the Economic Update were in a pretty good mood. They'd delivered on their promised GST cut at least a year, if not two, ahead of schedule and found that the federal treasury could make them look even better with a bevy of corporate and personal income tax cuts to boot.

During the 2006 campaign, many were given to wearing “5%” buttons or stickers — a reminder that they were the party that stood for bringing the GST down to five per cent.

At an Ottawa nightspot on Tuesday night, I was joking with one senior Conservative about those “5%” stickers as we started talking about his party's electoral chances in Toronto. “Those buttons represents our chances of winning a seat in Toronto …” he joked. I said I thought Maureen Harquail might have a chance in Jim Petersen's old riding in Willowdale. “Nope,” said the strategist I was with. “Not a chance.”

So, if some of Harper's closest current and former advisers think urban Canada is not exactly going to be fertile ground during the next election, why start yanking candidates?

Mark Warner, who had won the right to lead what would most likely have been a futile Conservative charge against Liberal Bob Rae in the riding of Toronto Centre (formerly held by Bill Graham), has been told that his services are no longer required:

Red Tory Fired from Downtown Toronto Electoral Race

“Federal Conservative Party has no interest in engaging with urban Canada”

TORONTO — October 31, 2007 – Today, after ten months of campaigning, Mark Warner, the Federal Conservative Candidate for Toronto Centre, withdrew as the Conservative Candidate for Toronto Centre in the upcoming Federal

election/by-election.

Over the objections of leaders of the Toronto Centre riding association Mr. Warner was removed by the Party's National Campaign Manager, Doug Finley, and its National Council President Don Plett, of Landmark Manitoba for trying to tailor the Party’s message to be relevant to Toronto Centre. Mr. Warner said that “this decision made no sense” and explained that “every brand manager knows that even McDonald’s offers lobster rolls in Nova Scotia and beer in France!”

One of a growing number of former Progressive Conservative candidates to be removed, Mr. Warner said that he “fought this arbitrary process to the end because of its importance to my supporters and volunteers in the Toronto Centre Riding Association and to the voters and community at large.”

An international lawyer who has worked around the world and holds Masters degrees in both law and economics, Mr. Warner expressed his disappointment.

Mr. Warner stated that while he expected the fight in Toronto Centre to be tough against his high-profile Liberal opponent, he never expected that he would be forced to spend so much of his energy campaigning against his own party's lack of interest in winning in Toronto Centre, and dealing with his own Party’s increasingly well-publicized “micro-management from a distance” as he attempted to “strengthen the urban voice that has been regrettably absent from our current national government”

“I joined the Party when Brian Mulroney was the strongest voice for Nelson Mandela’s freedom. Unfortunately, I have found that the Conservative Party today, by its actions, is not the inclusive Party that I once believed in. The Conservative Party today cynically pays “lip service” to diversity and outreach to minority communities in Canada.” [Warner is black – Akin]

Mr. Warner went on to express “his sincerest gratitude to all those who have volunteered and offered their support and encouragement since we began this journey in February. “I trust that they will exercise their vote accordingly to ensure that they obtain the best federal representation possible in the riding’s next election.”

The Conservatives have also told their 2006 candidate in Guelph, Brent Barr, that his services are no longer required. In Guelph, where incumbent Liberal Brenda Chamberlain is not running again, my sources tell me that the Conservatives want to run a local city councillor they feel is more popular and who is a woman. The Conservatives, even more than the Liberals, are under the gun to put more female candidates into the field and, they hope, more women into their caucus. Here's what Barr had to say:

Without doubt you have heard by now that the Conservative Party of Canada has opted to force me out as the Federal candidate for Guelph. Needless to say I am shocked and dismayed that they are pushing my elected nomination aside in such an undemocratic maneuver.

In an attempt to continue to serve the citizens of Guelph, I followed all the prescribed avenues of appeal through the National Council. The Honourable Dr. William Winegard and William Scott assisted me in this matter, but it was to no avail and late Tuesday afternoon the battle was lost. [Winegard, a former University president, was the last Conservative to win in Guelph in the 1980s and Scott is an educator who has long been active in local PC circles in Guelph. – Akin]

…

The Conservative Party I know would not remove a duly elected candidate that has done nothing to embarrass or denigrate the party. Simply, I was accused and convicted of not doing enough to strengthen the party locally. A false statement, as I have been going door to door, engaging in various events and conversations and volunteering my time to build a better community for everyone on behalf of the party and my EDA.

At this point, bullied and in vehement disagreement with the process and result, I will walk away from front line politics. ..