Skip to main content
morning buzz

Defense Minister Peter MacKay takes questions during a news conference at a NATO meeting in Brussels on June 9, 2011.Virginia Mayo/The Associated Press

Defence Minister Peter MacKay's math is off - way off, according to the Rideau Institute.

As MPs prepare to debate extending Canada's mission in Libya on Tuesday, the left-leaning think tank puts the cost between $80-million and $85-million. Mr. MacKay, however, estimates a total bill of just $60-million.

The motion under debate calls on the House of Commons to consent to "another extension of three and a half months of the involvement of the Canadian Forces" and "that the House deplore the ongoing use of violence by the Libyan regime against the Libyan people, including the alleged use of rape as a weapon of war by the Libyan regime ... and that the House continues to offer its wholehearted support to the brave men and women of the Canadian Forces who stand on guard for all of us."

Last week, Mr. MacKay said the mission has so far cost Canadian taxpayers $26-million and he estimated it would cost another $36-million - for a total of $60-million - to extend it until the end of September.

Not so, the Rideau Institute says. It compared the Libya mission to Kosovo in 1999, which was also an air campaign.

"Based on the costs, the number of sorties, and the number of bombs dropped, we can observe that the operational tempo over Libya today is 24 to 30 per cent higher than it was over Kosovo," Steven Staples, the think tank's president, said in an email explaining the figures.

Kosovo lasted 78 days and cost about $45-million, which the Rideau Institute estimates would be $60-million in today's dollars. So far the Libya mission has lasted 76 days and has cost about $26-million. And as of June 6, Canada had flown 393 sorties and as of May 25 had dropped 240 bombs. Extending the mission until the end of September would add another 120 days.

"Continuing the Libya mission at the current tempo would imply about 960 CF-18 sorties over the total mission and about 690 bombs dropped ... about 24 per cent more sorties and about 30 per cent more bombs dropped than during the Kosovo war," according to Bill Robinson, a senior advisor at the Rideau Institute.

"Thus, unless DND anticipates a significant decrease in operational tempo over the next three and a half months compared to the war so far, the department's $60-million estimate appears to be substantially underestimated."

The mission, meanwhile, seems to have changed from what Canada initially signed on to, which was to protect civilians from violence at the hands of the Gadhafi regime.

Given that, the institute is posing 10 Questions MPs should address during the debate. They include: what are Canada's objectives in Libya and how do we define success; are more than air strikes being considered; are Canadian special forces operating in Libya; and under what circumstances would the government extend the mission for a second time, if there is no result by the end of September?

Mr. Staples told The Globe they spoke to a panel of political experts, several with military service, to help them develop the 10 questions. "The overall message is that Canadians need more information, and the Government must more clearly explain its objectives - especially how we know when we have achieved them," he said.

"The consensus for UN security Council resolution 1973 we had in Parliament is eroding. For the opposition, the NDP will likely support this short extension, but needs to set out markers for the government to meet in the next 3 and a half months. Then, if there is another vote on a second extension in the fall, the NDP could be in a better position to vote against it."

Nevertheless, the NDP will likely call for amendments to the current motion. Foreign affairs critic Paul Dewar said Monday that he wants to "make sure that Canada is going to play a significant role in terms of diplomacy - for instance, taking a look at how we can look at working with the folks on the ground as well as allies to bring this conflict to an end and to support the kind of political engagement that is required."

Digesting Vancouver's Game 6 meltdown

Never mind Ron MacLean and Don Cherry or the play-by-play announcers for the Stanley Cup final, the politicos provided their own Monday night via Twitter. At first, there was so much hope, then disbelief and finally mocking resignation.

It began with the Prime Minister's director of communications Dimitri Soudas settling down in front of his TV - with such great anticipation - to watch the game: "Game 6 is about to begin. Wouldn't it be great if Lord Stanley's Cup came home tonight? Go Canucks Go!"

That was followed quickly by four goals in four minutes.

But Mr. Soudas, whose loyalty to the Prime Minister may only have been exceeded by his loyalty to the Canucks on Monday night, wasn't ready to give up. "If Boston scored 4 in 10 minutes why can't Vancouver? Keep the faith or just acknowledge this is going to a 7th game."

Treasury Board President Tony Clement, a Habs fan who is cheering for the Canucks now, didn't show the same loyalty. His tweets were about ensuring Canucks goalie Roberto Luongo doesn't repeat his dismal performance: "Schneider for Game 7," he said.

And then Heritage Minister James Moore, the senior minister from British Columbia, summed it all up with this hopeful spin: "Well .... the good news is the Canucks have them exactly where we want them for a dramatic comeback."

Interact with The Globe