# Harper Outlines Canada's First Defence Strategy



## Ex-Dragoon (12 May 2008)

Supposedly to make an announcement. According to CTV.news they are at the Armouries. I am betting its not an AIr Force or a Navy annoucement. 


(M.O. - Update to thread title)


----------



## dapaterson (12 May 2008)

I suspect you may be surprised then.


----------



## Sub_Guy (12 May 2008)

Something to do with the army reserves?  If it was going to be Navy/Air Force related he would not be doing it from an Armoury....


----------



## stegner (12 May 2008)

A marine commando regiment for the east coast?  Completey speculating here : :-[


----------



## Strike (12 May 2008)

Watching the news about it right now.


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 May 2008)

Lotsa backgrounders posted re:  "Canada First" Defence Strategy @ CF web page...

Canada First Defence Strategy – the four pillars
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=2648

Canada First Defence Strategy – equipment acquisitions to date
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=2647

Canada First Defence Strategy – long-term funding framework
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=2646

Canada First Defence Strategy – Canadian Forces’ contribution to sovereignty and security in the north
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=2645

...with this link not working (yet):
"Canada First" Defence Strategy
http://www.forces.gc.ca/focus/first/defstra_e.asp

...but no news release yet.


----------



## Armymedic (12 May 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> A marine commando regiment for the east coast?  Completey speculating here : :-[



Completely speculating here, you're right out of 'er


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 May 2008)

First bits, from the Globe & Mail...


*Harper pledges large-scale renewal of Canadian Forces*
BRODIE FENLON, Globe and Mail Update and Canadian Press, May 12, 2008 at 12:24 PM EDT

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has announced a large-scale renewal of the Canadian Forces.

Accompanied by Defence Minister Peter MacKay, Mr. Harper introduced the “Canada First Defence Strategy,” which includes pledges of long-term stable funding, new equipment and the recruitment of new troops and reservists.

“If a country wants to be taken seriously by the rest of the world, it needs to have the capacity to act. It's that simple,” Mr. Harper said during a press conference at the Halifax Armoury, where he was flanked by regular Canadian Forces personnel and members of the Princess Louise Fusiliers, a reserve infantry regiment that has sent some of its members to Afghanistan.

Mr. Harper also plans to attend a late-afternoon hockey game at the Halifax Metro Centre, where Canada will take on Finland in the qualifying round of the International Ice Hockey Federation championship.


And the Canadian Press....

*Prime minister unveils Canada First Defence Strategy to military audience*
8 minutes ago

HALIFAX — Prime Minister Stephen Harper has unveiled his government's Canada First Defence Strategy, a long-term plan to ensure the Canadian Forces have the people, equipment and support needed to defend the country.

The plan, unveiled today at an armoury in Halifax, will increase the number of regular and reserve troops, increase surveillance of Canada's borders and provide security to major international events - such as the Vancouver Olympics.

As well, the strategy calls for ensuring Canada meets its commitments for continental security.

The plan also promises to improve Canada's ability to contribute to global security.

Harper says the plan will provide a major economic boost for the economy, creating good jobs for thousands of Canadians.

_- edited to add CP material -_


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 May 2008)

"Mr. Harper also plans to attend a late-afternoon hockey game at the Halifax Metro Centre, where Canada will take on Finland in the qualifying round of the International Ice Hockey Federation championship."

Which is why the announcement was made in Halifax.


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 May 2008)

Backgrounder, painting the big picture.....

*Backgrounder
Canada First Defence Strategy – the four pillars*

BG.08.013 - May 12, 2008

The future security environment calls for a combat-capable, flexible, multi-role military. Recognizing this, the Canada First Defence Strategy sets out a vision for future operations as well as the funding required to support it. This vision, coupled with committed long-term funding, will allow the Canadian Forces to maintain excellence in operations at home, be a solid partner in continental defence, and fulfill a leadership role abroad.

The continued effectiveness and sustainability of the Canadian Forces requires a long-term framework to address demand across the four “pillars” upon which military capabilities are built – personnel, infrastructure, readiness and equipment. Military capabilities are developed over long periods of time and are the product of continued investment in the four key pillars.

To support its Canada First Defence Strategy, as proposed in Budget 2008, the Government is establishing predictable, long-term funding to expand the Canadian Forces, modernize CF capabilities, increase CF readiness and ensure the viability of infrastructure, striking the right balance among the four pillars on which military capabilities are developed. All of these investments will guarantee that the Canadian Forces can meet Canada’s future defence and security requirements, and ensure both the enhanced security of Canadians at home and a stronger voice for Canada on the world stage.

*Increasing CF Readiness*

To support its Canada First Defence Strategy, the Government is providing National Defence with long-term funding in Budget 2008 and a commitment to increase the overall readiness of the Canadian Forces. Readiness is the measure of the Canadian Forces’s flexibility and responsiveness to government direction and encompasses the training, maintenance and resources required for the CF to deploy. The Canadian Forces are called upon to fulfill a multitude of tasks both at home and abroad. Everyday across Canada, the CF retains assets on short notice to move. These assets are prepared to respond domestically, continentally and internationally. Maintaining these units at a certain level of readiness involves varying degrees of investment in equipment and infrastructure maintenance, spare parts, clothing, refits, exercises, fuel and ammunition.

Through its Canada First Defence Strategy, the Government is investing in an increased state of CF readiness. For example, with the implementation of the strategy, more resources will be allocated to the acquisition of spare parts and equipment maintenance. This means that equipment will be more readily available for training and operations, which in turn will improve the overall state of readiness of the Forces.

*Viability of Infrastructure*

Defence is the single largest property holder in the federal government, with over 21,000 buildings and more than 12,000 roads and utilities on over 800 properties. Approximately 50 per cent of the department's infrastructure portfolio is over 50 years old. As a result, there is a need to modernize and update DND infrastructure. To date, the Government of Canada has announced several infrastructure upgrades across the country – the first step in an ongoing commitment to provide DND/CF with the infrastructure needed to fulfill its mandate.

The CFDS aims to replace or refurbish approximately 25 per cent of DND infrastructure holdings within 10 years, with approximately 50 per cent being replaced or refurbished over 20 years. Equipment acquisitions and initiatives announced in the last two years included significant funding for infrastructure, and future acquisitions will similarly include the funding required to build new infrastructure and/or upgrade existing facilities. DND infrastructure holdings will be regularly reviewed to maximize efficiency at the national level to ensure bases efficiently support operational requirements and at the local level to ensure local facilities services are being provided in the most efficient manner.

*Modernizing CF Equipment*

Over the next 20 years, six of the CF’s core equipment fleets will reach the end of their operational lives and will need to be replaced. These include destroyers, frigates, maritime patrol aircraft, fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft, fighter aircraft and land combat vehicles and systems. The Canada First Defence Strategy is a blueprint aimed at replacing these six core equipment fleets.

The planned replacement of the CF’s major capital fleets complements the significant steps that the Government has already taken to strengthen the Canadian Forces, including the procurement of new and upgraded equipment such as strategic and tactical lift aircraft, Joint Support Ships, armoured vehicles, helicopters, and Arctic/Offshore patrol ships.

The Department will be seeking innovative and cost-reducing solutions for future procurements.

*Expanding the Forces*

The Canada First Defence Strategy sets out a long term defence program that includes expanding both the Regular and Reserve Forces and will build on the work that has already been done in this area.

Currently:

    * The Regular Force strength is approximately 65,000
    * The Reserve Force strength is approximately 24,000
    * Approximately half of all defence expenditures—over $9 billion annually—is spent on people.

The Canada First Defence Strategy sets out a long-term defence program that includes expanding to 70,000 Regular Force and 30,000 Reserve Force personnel. As the costs associated with significant personnel increases are high, the personnel levels set out in the plan represent an affordable and balanced solution. The strategy provides a solid foundation upon which to continue growing towards CF expansion targets.


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 May 2008)

Here's the Canada First page (news release link doesn't work as of this posting).


----------



## slowmode (12 May 2008)

ARTICLE:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080512/PM_announcement_080512/20080512?hub=Canada&s_name=



> Spending on the military will increase to $30 billion over the next 20 years, Harper said.


The Rest Can be read in the news article.

This is another + for the conservatives. Its great to finally see a government in power taking care of our Military.


----------



## Mike Baker (12 May 2008)

This is great news!

BZ to PM Harper


Cheers
Baker


----------



## Old Sweat (12 May 2008)

Without trying too hard to be a wet blanket, I question whether the amount of money will be sufficient. See, for example, this piece by the gnomes of Ruxted:

http://ruxted.ca/index.php?/archives/98-Capabilities-and-Money.html


----------



## jimc (12 May 2008)

Just to correct the plan is "Canada *First* Defense strategy. ( Canada vs Canada's )  And I have to agree with Old Sweat that 1.5 Billion each year over a 20 year period ( or what ever formula is used to arrive at 30 Billion over 20 years ) is not enough. I would prefer the 30 Billion being over a 5 year period. The reason being is that it is doubtful that the Tories would hold power for 20 years. The next government could just kill the rest of the extra spending. He's in now, figure out what he needs equipment wise and sign those contracts now to ensure the help is immediate and can not be subject to political winds in the future years.  Just my thoughts.


----------



## Yrys (12 May 2008)

Government of Canada announces "Canada First" Defence Strategy

PM unveils Canada First Defence Strategy

(the link in the DND page goes to the PM website)



> Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Minister of National Defence and Minister of Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency Peter MacKay today unveiled the Canada First
> Defence Strategy, the government’s comprehensive plan to ensure the Canadian Forces (CF) have the people, equipment, and support they need to meet the nation’s long-term
> domestic and international security challenges.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 May 2008)

Sorry to rain on the parade but, I’m with Old Sweat:

•	According to Statistics Canada our GDP at end 2007 was $1.558 *Trillion* and our defence budget for 2007/08 is $16.881 *Billion* which equals 1.08% of GDP;

•	If the defence budget is $30 *Billion* by 2027 then that will equal only 1.32% of GDP, *IF* GDP rises much more slowly than most economist predict;

•	As The Ruxted Group has pointed out, a more *reasonable* level of expenditure on national defence for a would-be _Leading Middle Power_ is 2%+ of GDP; and

•	2.2% (Ruxted’s number) of a very conservatively projected GDP in 2027 of $2.271 *Trillion* would be $49.965 *Billion*- nearly $20 *Billion* more than Prime Minister Harper promises.

But, getting the defence budget to 2% of GDP may be more than the political system can manage. If we grew the budget by stages starting at 2% real growth in 2008/09 and getting to 5% real growth by 2017 – a not unreasonable number when one considers that the inflation rate for things like fuel, ammunition and MILSPEC equipment is _waaaaay_ higher than the general inflation rate of 2%± - we would have a budget of just about $40 *Billion* by 2027. That's not the $50 *Billion* we need but better than the $30 *Billion* Harper is promising.

On the bright side growing the budget from 1.08% to 1.3%of GDP is, at least, not disarmament by stealth.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (12 May 2008)

Well you know what we Cpl's say.  "Its better then a kick in the junk!"


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 May 2008)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> Well you know what we Cpl's say.  "Its better then a kick in the junk!"



You're right, LWQ, it is better, much, much better than a kick in the slats but we, as Canadians, not just as military people, should tell the PM (at Harper.S@parl.gc.ca) that he has done well but he can and should do better. What's better? A bit more than 2% of GDP by 2027 (around, maybe more than $50 Billion) is what we really need, but $40 Billion (around 1.75 % of GDP) would be useful and affordable for a G8 nation.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (12 May 2008)

I do agree with you E.R.C.  I guess I am just happy they aren't taking things away.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (12 May 2008)

So, what am I missing?  What anything new or really specific announced? 

All this has been bandied about before and/or included in previous budgets, although the infrastructure piece is at least new noise.


----------



## rifleman (12 May 2008)

slowmode said:
			
		

> This is another + for the conservatives. Its great to finally see a government in power taking care of our Military.



I have more faith in this govt, but I'm still waiting for the stuff promised by the last conservative government


----------



## blacktriangle (12 May 2008)

Well as long as funding doesn't drop in the next 3-6 years I'm happy..  ;D


----------



## CrazyCanuck (12 May 2008)

Anything can happen in these 20 years that will have an effect on military spending, we could hit a recession/depression, or the opposite, or even a full blown war. The reason it is 20 and not less is politics and economics, to a certain extent the government has handicapped itself with recent tax cuts (not complaining) which means 30 billion over 5 years would put us near or in deficit. Plus this government has a track record of doing things long term because they realize that they will not be in power forever and that any future changes will be unpopular which will help them regain government. Really because this is such a gradual increase the government is really not committing to anything and is leaving any major spending problems to the next government be it a con. or liberal government. Still any money is good money.


----------



## MarkOttawa (12 May 2008)

Two posts at _The Torch_:

Babbling Brooks:

Much ado about...? *flipping pages madly, looking for the "strategy"*
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/05/much-ado-about-flipping-pages-madly.html

Myself:

"Canada First Defence Policy": Drowned squib
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/05/canada-first-defence-policy-drowned.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 May 2008)

Well, this is interesting...

*Conservatives won't commit defence strategy to paper*
20-year plan for military to be based on 'vision' outlined in Harper, MacKay speeches
CanWest/National Post, 13 May 08
Article link

Canada's defence strategy for the next 20 years will be based on speeches by Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Defence Minister Peter Mac-Kay given yesterday in Halifax.

In a highly unusual move, the Conservative government will base its entire future rebuilding of the Canadian military on Mr. Harper's 10-minute speech and Mr. MacKay's 700-word address. No actual strategy document has been produced, or will be produced, according to government and defence officials. Neither speech went into any specific details about equipment purchases, costs or timelines or how the future strategy will unfold. Both speeches presented more broad-brush approaches to defence.

Asked about when the actual Canada First Defence Strategy was going to be released, Jay Paxton, Mr. MacKay's press secretary, replied: *"It is a strategy that you heard enunciated by the prime minister and Minister MacKay."*

*"It is not a 'document' like a white paper -- it is the vision delivered today for long-term planning for the CF," he added. "As such, the speeches are the strategy." *....

Here's the link to the PM's speeches page, and here's the link to the DefMin's speeches page - nothing on either as of this posting.


----------



## MarkOttawa (13 May 2008)

Only 65 new fighters:

Canada to buy fewer F-35 fighters than thought
http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews/idUSN1231405420080512



> OTTAWA, May 12 (Reuters) - The Canadian government said on Monday it would buy 65 new F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, a figure lower than the 80 planes that had widely circulated in the media.
> 
> "One of the reasons there will be fewer of the new fighters is we anticipate the new fighters will have significantly greater capacity than existing fighters," Prime Minister Stephen Harper told a news conference.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## karl28 (13 May 2008)

Any one know when we are supposed to take delivery of these 65 new F-35 ?  I am wondering if the lower number also has to do with technology changing  as in more capable  UCAV that are being developed  .


----------



## Spencer100 (13 May 2008)

It is most likely minimum number of airframes we need to do the job with the money we can afford.   And probably a few less


----------



## Babbling Brooks (13 May 2008)

Possibly the only time you'll ever hear this from me, but I'm with Dawn Black, as quoted in the ******** article Tony links to earlier:



> NDP defence critic Dawn Black said even the previous Liberal government produced a strategy document when it last announced its defence policy for the future. *"It's appalling that defence is the biggest expenditure of government and yet there's no strategic documents to go with this supposed plan," Ms. Black said. "We waited two years for this, if you can believe it."* (my emphasis)



Absolutely astonishing.

And I'll save my applause for when the promised money actually appears.  Remember, the Liberals promised money too.  I wasn't impressed then, either (see the graph):

http://babblingbrooks.blogspot.com/2005/02/how-much-is-liberal-promise-worth.html

We're talking about a budget of tens of billions of dollars.  A written policy statement isn't too much to ask for.


----------



## jzaidi1 (13 May 2008)

65 new fighters?!  Damnit - chances of becoming a CF fighter pilot are dwindling by the day, it seems.  How can 65 aircraft (assuming 75% are fully operational at one time) defend the national interests of Canada?  Even with greater capacity it spreads thin the amount we can achieve - I mean, what are we going to do, fire long range missles at every Russian Bear that comes close to our borders?!?!

God - not a good day to be a fighter pilot - sheesh!

J


----------



## Colin Parkinson (13 May 2008)

Not to mention the historical loss rate of fighters. While the F-35 may be the greatest thing since sliced bread, I would still like to see a 2 fighter fleet, using a smaller number of the extremely expensive top line fighters bolstered by a sizable fleet of a decent fighter/bomber that is more reasonable to buy and fly. Is there anything the F-35 can do in Afghanistan that a Superhornet could not? There is a good chance that next few wars will be like Afghanistan, not requiring the top of the line fighters, but still requiring air support.


----------



## hauger (13 May 2008)

Neat how this "hurray, yay Military" stuff comes out right after the all the stories about the Buffalo (and FWSAR in general) will have to keep flying, fueled pretty much on wishes and prayers, until eventually we get around to restarting the bidding process to once again enter into contract talks to start the process of waiting just 5 more years to begin replacing, one at a time, the existing FWSAR assets.

Want to impress me....can the speeches and get the equipment on the ramp (or in the ocean on on the ground), now.  Plan ahead, don't get caught with a busted fleet of anything, only to realise that you can't just swing by the frigate dealership and pick up the 2010 model, that it actually takes forsight and planning to realise that the equipment you have will very predictably wear out.


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 May 2008)

Babbling Brooks said:
			
		

> We're talking about a budget of tens of billions of dollars.  A written policy statement isn't too much to ask for.



I don't think policy/strategy via reading the tea leaves in news releases and backgrounders is the way to go.  As much as one might not like "bureaucrats", their putting to paper what needs to happen has got to be better than, "what exactly did the Minister _mean_ when he said x?"

BTW, nothing here or here yet as of this posting.


----------



## Babbling Brooks (13 May 2008)

Oh, and while I agree with much of what E.R. Campbell said above, I'm afraid that if the budgetary increases announced with great hoopla by the Conservatives don't even keep up with inflation in the defence world, as he indicates, then it will indeed be "disarmament by stealth."


----------



## jzaidi1 (13 May 2008)

My take,

Remove the "civvie" defense minister and allot the post to the highest ranking member of the CF.  Who else can lobby with conviction other than someone who has spent their lives defending our nation?  Of course, if I were the highest ranking member in the CF I wouldn't want to deal with the back-stabbing Civvies in Parliament.  Hillier for defense minister would be fantastic, once he hands over the torch to someone else.  

Peter Mackay - graduated with an Arts degree in '87, Law degree in '91, no military background
http://canadaonline.about.com/od/conservativeparty/p/petermackay.htm

General Rick Hillier - graduated with BSc in '75, been serving as an officer since
http://www.cds.forces.gc.ca/pubs/bio_e.asp

J


----------



## Colin Parkinson (13 May 2008)

This is my rant from elsewhere:

Remind me again what those plans did for us? Did they work for Somalia, did they work for the Balkans, did they work for Afghanistan?

The world is going to be evolving a lot in this century, no one is really sure where the chips will land. If I told you in June 2001 that Canada would be fighting a hot war with tanks in Afghanistan you would have laughed and thrown me into the rubber room. Planning can be good, but why bother at this point, the Libs will throw it out the moment they come in. Also if the CPC focuses to much on the military they will be painted as “war-mongers” by the NDP and Libs. There is an old saying, no plan survives contact with the enemy. Right now Canada does not need a plan, we already have a good idea of what we need just to be ready for the identified threats. We have pissed away the time for  grand plans and now need to get started on rebuilding the forces. We already know they are to small to sustain operations, we already know that our ships need replacing. We already know we need more presence in the Arctic. It’s pretty clear that we will require a flexible expeditionary army that can fight conventional and insurgent warfare. There are questions of what equipment mix is needed for that. There are legit questions on what type of support ships we need, but we know that the sales of subs around the world is high, so ASW is required, command and control functions are required for the ships, the Falklands showed that Air defense is important. 
A competent general or Admiral with decent equipment and a sizable force can adapt to any situation. But if they don’t have the basic equipment and people to do the job the “grand plan” is just really bad toilet paper.


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 May 2008)

Fireball said:
			
		

> Remove the "civvie" defense minister and allot the post to the highest ranking member of the CF.



Uh, I think they tried something like this in several south and central American countries some time ago, to less-than-ideal effect - see "Civilian Control of the Military"....


----------



## PO2FinClk (13 May 2008)

Fireball said:
			
		

> Remove the "civvie" defense minister and allot the post to the highest ranking member of the CF.


I prefer democracy, no thanks.

CIVIL CONTROL OF THE CANADIAN ARMED FORCES http://www.dnd.ca/somalia/vol1/v1c6e.htm


----------



## OldSolduer (13 May 2008)

PO2 FinClk has it right. According to the laws of this great nation, the military is controlled by Parliament, not the CDS or the PM.


----------



## stegner (13 May 2008)

> I prefer democracy, no thanks.



Me too.  




> Remove the "civvie" defense minister and allot the post to the highest ranking member of the CF.



But whose to say the top generals are any better.  After all on October 29, 2003 it was Lt. Gen Rick Hillier along with John McCallum that announced the demise of tanks in place of the MGS and MMEV.  I don't think McCallum came up with that idea on his own.  The military sometimes has a tendency to buy kit for wars they would like to fight rather than wars they will actually fight.   Though, predicting what the next conflict will be is next to impossible.   Who had heard of Afghanistan in 1994 or would think the CF would ever go there?



> did they work for the Balkans



Indeed they did in 1999 during the bombing of Kosovo.  Have you wondered why Canada stationed 12 CF-18's in Aviano, Italy?   Btw U.S Airpower has dropped bombs in Somalia and Afghanistan within the last 60 days.  The U.S dropped lots of bomb in the Balkans too _throughout _ the UN mission there and even shot down some enemy jets.  Might not hurt if Canada had some of its own planes too?  Just because we don't use every piece of kit in every conflict doesn't mean that the kits is not useful.   Certain jobs require certain tools.  Ensuring that Canada can ensure air superiority is future conflicts is essential as the army can't do too much if opposing forces have the air superiority.  Maybe Canada will one day have to fight a conflict where it does not have the benefit of American aerial support?  Even in Afghanistan the Canadians are not a huge priority for being able to call in airstrikes if it is an eventful day in the country.


----------



## hauger (13 May 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> PO2 FinClk has it right. According to the laws of this great nation, the military is controlled by Parliament, not the CDS or the PM.



See....I thought the military (purely by law) was controlled by the Queen via the G.G.

Yes, I know, the GG does what Parliment (and the government of the day) tells him/her, but the letter of the law is the Queen runs the show.


----------



## stegner (13 May 2008)

The Crown is part of Parliament. Parliament is comprised of three bodies: 1. Crown 2. Senate 3. Commons.   Ever hear of the term Crown-in-Parliament?


----------



## OldSolduer (13 May 2008)

At the end of WWII, the world was basically split into two camps: The US(Western) side and the USSR(Soviet Bloc) side. Eventually the Soviet system collapsed on itself(with help from the Wetern side). In the early 90's nations that were formerly controlled by the USSR or satellites were clamoring for independence - Croatia, the Ukraine, The Baltice  states - all broke free. Croatia was a bloodbath, and under the UN we were sent in to quell the participants and their thirst for human slaughter.
Now we see more intra state warfare, such as the Sudan and Darfur and Afghanistan and its insurgency. The face of war has changed, and will continue to evolve until we get back to "classic" warfare - state vs state. This is why we need to maitain expertise in tanks, fighter jets, warships etc.
China is and up and coming power...it already us by virtue of its large population and possession of nuclear weapons. Quantity has a quality all its own.
Hang on...it could be quite a ride.


----------



## Babbling Brooks (13 May 2008)

> There is an old saying, no plan survives contact with the enemy.



Too true.  That's not a reason not to plan, though.  It's a reason to build flexibility into a plan, and to not adhere rigidly to a preconceived method of achieving your objective, but it's no reason not to have a plan in the first place.

As someone I know wrote a few years back now:

_What's missing in the national discussion of defence is any serious discussion of why we have armed forces in the first place. The role of conventional armed forces in national defence is pretty limited these days, thanks to geography and friendly neighbours (who we couldn't fight even if we wanted to -- we'll always be friendly perforce). So we expect our forces to perform other roles, such as peacekeeping -- but without any serious discussion of what, precisely, those roles should be and what our forces should be prepared to do.

Will we act only with Security Council sanction, or with broad international agreement, or will we support a war launched by isolated allies? Is our army a war-fighting force, or a ceasefire monitoring organization, or something in between? Do we expect to be able to respond to another Rwanda with rifles and bayonets on the ground? If so, how quickly, and with how many troops? If the Security Council authorizes military intervention in Fantasia, what does Canada expect to contribute?

It's only after we've had this discussion that we can seriously address whether we need submarines, and unmanned aerial vehicles, and tanks, and helicopters, and fighter jets. These are the questions that need to be addressed in an election campaign. Not how many dollars we'll spend, but why we're spending them._

He was right.


----------



## hauger (13 May 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> The Crown is part of Parliament. Parliament is comprised of three bodies: 1. Crown 2. Senate 3. Commons.   Ever hear of the term Crown-in-Parliament?



Good Try.  How's about: 

1. Executive
2. Legislative
3. Judicial

The executive branch has final say on what the military does, the legislative funds it.  The GG represents the top of the executive branch (excluding the queen herself).  The military runs on order of the GG in a letter of the law legal way.  "Crown in Parliament" refers to is the monarch historically ceding power to the legislative house to pass binding laws, but only in practice, which is why all laws still require royal ascent to be binding.  It has absolutely nothing to do with the ordering and structuring of power within Canada.

In reality, the Prime Minister empowered by the backing of the government of the day (usually his majority party) calls the shots....the PM through consultation with his ministers makes a decision to utilize the military who's action is at best rubber stamped by the GG (and hence the monarch).  To say though that Parliament runs the military is practically correct, but legally incorrect.


----------



## Greymatters (13 May 2008)

Colin P said:
			
		

> If I told you in June 2001 that Canada would be fighting a hot war with tanks in Afghanistan you would have laughed and thrown me into the rubber room.



Any plan longer than five years is essentially useless not just because of a changing political leadership who will scrap it, but because of our inability to predict where our forces will be five years from now, and what kind of equipment will be needed in our future operations.  We always get surprised as to where we end up.  

Overall, its enough to prop up some of our problem areas, but nowhere near enough to replace all the infrastructure, buy new equipment/planes/frigates/etc., and expand the forces personnel all at the same time.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (13 May 2008)

Stenger
What I was saying did our white paper at the time adequately deal with our involvement in the Balkans, I honestly don’t know, but I doubt it.

Babbling Brooks
A plan is a good thing, but it’s not like we don’t know what type of potential tasks in the future will be already. Regardless of our inability to defend from invasion by our neighbour, we still have to make an effort to defend our airspace and coast. We already know that Canada is not going to adopt a isolationist strategy in the near future, so we know that we require an expeditionary land force, that may have to do: peacekeeping, conventional warfare and counter-insurgent warfare, plus maintain operability with our allies
. The only real unknown is the political will to carry out any of these actions or which one will be the flavour of the day. Unless the long term defense planning includes buy in from all parties with a potential to hold power, then it is a worthless document as it has no staying power. In the current political climate, I doubt very much that there is interest to work together (or at least be seen to work together, I do however feel that there are a few figures in the opposition who we could work with) To build a long term plan we need buy in from the majority of the political field, but this is going to take more time than we have and that is the crux of the matter, we don’t have time left in our current core equipment, it has been squandered. I think the current government is doing a fine job (within the current political reality) of dealing with the absolute necessity to meet the needs of the soldier going out on patrol tomorrow morning. They are struggling to decide which of the crisis to tackle next and likely they have had to say: “NOT NOW” to a lot of projects which we really need. Is this the perfect solution , but I think Maslow’s hierarchy of needs applies here. Currently the military is at the bottom level, until you fix that, everything else is luxury.


----------



## Babbling Brooks (13 May 2008)

Colin P:



> A plan is a good thing, but it’s not like we don’t know what type of potential tasks in the future will be already.



Then why not articulate them?  That's what the Martin/Liberal Defence Policy Statement did.  I wasn't a fan, because I didn't think the Liberals would actually deliver on their fine words, but at least they put those words to paper to guide the force development and employment parameters.

Here's what I suspect is happening:


There was significant conflict between Hillier and O’Connor over this policy statement which prevented its release except in snippets over the past few years and usually made by the MND on his own.
There are supporting documents, but they are for the most part still under negotiation or being developed and face the challenge of competing visions.
The government is trying to shift the focus of the debate back to their election platform which is about protecting Canada’s north and building increased capability in various parts of the country (i.e. maritime commando unit in Comox, northern trg centre in Goose Bay, ice hardened frigates and an arctic port, heavy lift helos and Bagotville, territorial battalion for major population centres, etc.) and not about progressing the war in Afghanistan. They think it is an election winner and would rather fight an election on this than over the war.
They are doing it at this time because the CDS, who had been the key roadblock on much of this is on the way out, and before a new CDS is brought on board who may oppose it, especially if it’s Natynczyk.

I'm afraid this sounds more than plausible to me, it sounds downright likely.


----------



## jzaidi1 (13 May 2008)

Hence, my initial point which is remove the Civilian weak-link from decisions that affect national security.  Democracy works - but has it's flaws too.  A clear policy must be in place for Defense.

What kind of government do we have in place that only allocates 1.x% of GDP to defend the other 98.x% of GDP?  The old insurance principle should work here: 3-4% of your income is paid into insurance and will protect the other 96-97% of your way of life should anything bad happen.  The DND is every Canadian's insurance policy when it comes to defending our national interests and we should treat it as such.

China, Russia and India are building military capacity that will far exceed both US and Canada in the coming years.  They all have home-grown solutions for defense and are independant of each other.  Guess who China and India will look at 10-20 years down the road when all their natural resources have been depleted - yep, Canada!  If they can't buy it then they'll take it...the next major war will be fought over natural resources - you can already see the imbalance in the marketplace with civil unrest over food prices.

J


----------



## Remius (13 May 2008)

Hehe.

They won'tr take it.  They'll just buy it up...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (13 May 2008)

Babbling Brooks said:
			
		

> Colin P:
> 
> Then why not articulate them?  That's what the Martin/Liberal Defence Policy Statement did.  I wasn't a fan, because I didn't think the Liberals would actually deliver on their fine words, but at least they put those words to paper to guide the force development and employment parameters.
> 
> ...


You may be very right, but in this brief period of "instability" (for lack of a better word) we have received, new tanks, new aircraft and now new helicopters, along with several other specialized pieces of equipment.  Not to mention taken an army forced feed peacekeeping and turned it back into the fighting machine it was renowned for. I will take more this and less of the previous "status quo"


----------



## drunknsubmrnr (13 May 2008)

I agree with Babbling Brooks.

The danger is that without an overall plan, some or all of the procurement and training programs may invalidate other programs.

Look at the C-17 buy for an example. The MGS procurement heavily influenced the ACP-S procurement plan. When we switched from the MGS to the Leo 2, ACP-S had a bit of a wrench thrown into it to the extent that we can't actually do what we got the C-17 to do.


----------



## rifleman (13 May 2008)

Hopefully this means I can do my next business plan through a brief speech and not commit to it ;D


----------



## Colin Parkinson (13 May 2008)

rifleman said:
			
		

> Hopefully this means I can do my next business plan through a brief speech and not commit to it ;D



Well I have yet to see a business plan written in government that was adhered to even for one fiscal year. In DFO we only got our unit budget confirmed in November.


----------



## Richie (13 May 2008)

Fireball said:
			
		

> Hence, my initial point which is remove the Civilian weak-link from decisions that affect national security.  Democracy works - but has it's flaws too.  A clear policy must be in place for Defense.



That civilian "weak link" you refer to _is_ democracy. Removing the civilian connection from national security decisions would be very dangerous; it would likely mean something like the German Navy Laws of the early twentieth century which restricted the ability of the Reichstag to control annual defence expenditures. This is an assault on the very nature of democracy. 
As you said, democracy has its flaws but I'll take democracy, warts and all, over a military role in determining government policy any day.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 May 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act, is the _National Post_’s Don Martin’s take on the issue:

http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_paper/story.html?id=510307


> Election the real battlefront of Harper's military plan
> 
> Don Martin, National Post
> Published: Monday, May 12, 2008
> ...



First, Martin is wrong: we have a strategy, but there’s no use asking a “Defence spokesman” about it because DND is only peripherally involved in the process.

Our strategy is, as it has been for about sixty years: *collective security*.

We continue to believe that only through collective action can we, Canada, achieve the sorts (the plural maters) of security we need: military security, social (domestic) security, economic security and so on.

Our strategy continues to work through a wide range of multilateral institutions: big ones like the UN and its members agencies (more important, *strategically*, than the UN, proper), medium sized ones like NATO and the OECD, and small, even bilateral ones like NAFTA and NORAD.

Our strategy is multi-faceted and defence budgets have very little to do with it. The _strategy_ here, in the Halifax announcement, is more akin to a “_strategy_ for national dental fitness” than it is to *grand strategy*.

Second Martin is right: this is just a rehash of existing equipment, organizational and budget measures – with some added delay. It is a non-news item designed, I suspect, to get the PM to Halifax to watch a hockey game and to strengthen Peter MacKay’s reputation in Nova Scotia where he will be challenged by Green Party leader Elizabeth May. I'm guessing the hockey game was the PM's highest priority.


----------



## stegner (13 May 2008)

> Good Try.  How's about:
> 
> 1. Executive
> 2. Legislative
> ...



I was not talking about ordering and structuring power.  I merely wanting to show there are three elements to Parliament.  However, you are thinking of the three branches of government which is not the same as the the three branches of Parliament.  The judiciary is not part of Parliament.   The PM is.  Thus, Parliament controls the military because the PM sits as an MP as do his Cabinet Ministers who are accountable to the House, the House of Commons funds the military and the Governor General signs off on deployments and he or she is welcome to say no to the PM-though this would be most unusual.


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 May 2008)

Well, here's part of the "strategy" - PM's speech text (and a .pdf permalink should the link ever not work).  Still nothing as of this posting on the DefMin's web page - and I look forward to that part, since the PM closes with saying, "now I will call on Minister MacKay to give some of the details."

*PM unveils Canada First Defence Strategy*
12 May 2008
Halifax, Nova Scotia

Thank you very much, Sub Lieutenant, for that kind introduction.  Chief of Defence Staff General Hillier, Vice Chief Lieutenant General Natynczyk, all other senior members of the Armed Forces, Minister MacKay, Senator Oliver, I see Minister Taylor here from the provincial government, and of course, members of the Canadian Forces, ladies and gentlemen.

I'm very pleased to be here at the Halifax Armoury, and very pleased to be joined by some of our finest citizens, some of the most admirable people in our great country; the men and women of the Canadian Forces.  Every day through your service, you and your comrades across Canada and around the world are protecting our nation's sovereignty and security.  Canadians are grateful and rightly proud of the work you do.  They recognize that you are heirs to a long and honourable tradition of military service in Canada, as the Sub Lieutenant mentioned, and they are also rightly proud of that history as well.

We've never gone looking for a fight in Canada, but whenever war has been thrust upon us, Canadians have proven themselves among the bravest, most skilled and most successful soldiers, sailors and airmen on earth:  repelling the invaders at Queenston Heights, storming Vimy Ridge, taking Juno Beach on D-Day, saving Seoul at the battle of Kap'yong, staring down the Soviets in the Cold War, peacekeeping missions in numerous countries, taking on terrorists in Afghanistan. These are some of the great milestones of our nationhood.  They remind us of who we are, what we believe in, and why we stand on guard for the True North Strong and Free.  Now, some thought the end of the Cold War would mark the so-called end of history; that all future conflicts would be resolved by soft power; that we could simply lay down our arms and rest in peace.  Thus began the so-called decade of darkness for the Canadian Forces.  Even as new conflicts erupted in Africa, the Balkans and elsewhere, our military was starved and neglected.  They kept getting new responsibilities, but not the tools to keep them going.  Equipment was rusting out, manpower was declining, morale was sinking.  We did almost nothing to assert our sovereignty in our North, in our Arctic.  We had to hitch rides on American aircraft to deliver troops for disaster relief within our own country.  Our capacity for peacekeeping, delivering humanitarian assistance, and taking up arms when necessary began to noticeably diminish. 

Ladies and gentlemen, if a country wants to be taken seriously in the world, it must have the capacity to act.  It's that simple.  Otherwise, you forfeit your right to be a player.  You're the one chattering on the sidelines that everybody smiles at but nobody listens to.  Our government is committed to ensuring that Canada not only has an opinion, but that Canada is heard, that Canada is protected, and that Canada is a force for good, for positive change in the world. 

Today I'm proud to unveil the Canada First defence strategy, our government's comprehensive, long-term plan to ensure the Canadian Forces have the people, equipment and support they need to do what we ask them to do.  This announcement is a significant part of the commitment we made during the last election; the commitment to stand up for Canada.

As the name implies, the first priority of our Canada First defence strategy is to strengthen our ability to defend our country and protect our citizens.  Minister MacKay will get into the details in a moment, but the bottom line is that we will substantially strengthen the Canadian Forces, we will gradually increase the numbers of regular troops and reservists, and provide them with more and better equipment to make them as effective and as safe as possible.  Renewal of the Canadian Forces is the most pressing priority. Like the national workforce, the average age in the military has been rising, so we're going to recruit and train a new generation of soldiers, sailors and airmen, just as we're going to renew our aging fleets of aircraft, ships and military vehicles with next-generation state-of-the-art equipment.  The Canada First strategy will improve surveillance of our land and coastal borders.  It will also bolster our capacity to provide support for civilian authorities in the event of natural disasters, and it will help to provide security to major international events like the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver.

Our second priority is to ensure we meet our commitments for continental security.  Canada's fortunate in many ways to have a defence alliance with the United States that has been nurtured for decades by governments, both Conservative and Liberal.  This relationship, however, only works if it is governed by mutual respect, and the way to earn that respect is to ensure Canada shoulders its fair share of the burden of defending North America, including through our obligations under NORAD.

After ensuring the security of our country and continent, the third priority of our strategy will be our contribution to global security.  Canadians have long desired to share the peace and prosperity we enjoy with less fortunate people in the world, and we have always answered the call of the world community to respond to global threats and international crises, just as we are now doing as part of the United Nations mission in Afghanistan.  Our strategy will ensure that Canada continues to be a robust and reliable contributor to global security and humanitarian interventions.

Beyond strengthening our security at home and abroad, the Canada First defence strategy will deliver significant economic benefits for Canadians.  This unprecedented commitment of stable, long-term funding will provide good jobs and new opportunities for thousands, for tens of thousands of Canadians who work in defence industries and communities with military bases.  We intend to implement the defence strategy in tandem with a revised long-term procurement strategy designed to not just benefit but to build commercial capacity in the relevant knowledge and technology industries. 

Ladies and gentlemen, the Canada First defence strategy will strengthen our sovereignty and our security.  Our government will ensure that Canadian Forces have the personnel and equipment they need to do their job, to protect our values and project our interests, to fulfill Canada's international commitments, to keep our True North strong and free.  Thank you very much, and now I will call on Minister MacKay to give some of the details.


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 May 2008)

Wait a minute, now - there IS a document somewhere, but now someone is deciding how much of it we see!

*Contradictions surround Canada's defence policy*
Mike Blanchfield ,  Canwest News Service, 14 May 08
Article link

OTTAWA - Canada's military strategy for the next 20 years exists in a document that, for now, is being withheld from the public and is for the eyes of federal cabinet only, Canwest News Service has learned.

"There is obviously a government document that lays this down in detail," a senior official from Defence Minister Peter MacKay's office said Wednesday. "There's a very detailed cabinet document that lays this down and more."

That revelation Wednesday contradicts the official government line that was put forth Monday when Prime Minister Stephen Harper and MacKay announced the "Canada First Defence Strategy" with great fanfare in Halifax. At the time, MacKay's spokesmen said Canadians would have to rely on the speeches of the prime minister and defence minister, not a written document that laid out the government's plans. 

"It is not a 'document' like a White Paper," spokesman Jay Paxton said Monday. "The strategy is what they unveiled," added Dan Dugas, MacKay's senior spokesman....  

On Wednesday, the official said the government is assessing what portions of the cabinet document can be made public so Canadians can get a better look at the new military plan.

"You've got the bones of it here," the official said, following an oral briefing at Defence Department headquarters in Ottawa in which senior military officials offered further explanations about the defence strategy.

"There is a very solid, detailed document in existence. It's not just stuff pulled out of the air," the official said.

The Forces have been working for two years on its defence capabilities plan. Last year, it produced a 39-page Canada First Strategy that was rejected by the current Conservative government because it was too detailed, and could be used by critics to more closely measure what projects were completed and what were not.

A senior military official, who would only speak on the condition of anonymity, said the creation of the current defence strategy was a two-year process that involved Treasury Board and the Finance Department.

"We have an investment plan that we've laid out in response to government direction to the department. Now the challenge is how do you lay this out into a format that Canadians can understand," said the official....


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (14 May 2008)

I was just about to say to those who were complaining of no release of a detailed document, "Why on earth would Harper want to do that?"  The only thing that would accomplish would be to provide ammunition to the Liberals, NDP and Bloc.

How many times do you want to hear "It's a George Bush Plan!" in news soundbites?

It's better to just keep cranking up funding, and procuring what we need as quickly as they can.


Matthew.


----------



## stegner (15 May 2008)

> It's better to just keep cranking up funding, and procuring what we need as quickly as they can.



The House of Commons votes as a whole to fund DND and Harper's new defence vision  and withholding information will only aggravate the opposition and may lead to them not funding it.   BTW Canada is a democracy and is supposed to be open and accountable.  We are not China.   Thus, there needs to be democratic debate on what Canada's defence policy will be.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 May 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> The House of Commons votes as a whole to fund DND and Harper's new defence vision  and withholding information will only aggravate the opposition and may lead to them not funding it.   BTW Canada is a democracy and is supposed to be open and accountable.  We are not China.   Thus, there needs to be democratic debate on what Canada's defence policy will be.



Why should Harper be first?

There was no debate when St. Laurent more than doubled the size of the military in the 1949/51 period.

There was some, poorly focused debate when Hellyer proposed _unification_ back in the early '60s.

There was no debate when Trudeau attempted to disarm Canada - and succeeded in emasculating the CF - in 1971.

There was "debate" of sorts when Mulroney issued a deeply flawed White Paper in the late '80s but it was mostly ridicule.

There was no debate when Chrétien decided we didn't need armed forces back in '94.

Why now?


----------



## George Wallace (15 May 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> ..............   Thus, there needs to be democratic debate on what Canada's defence policy will be.



Why?  This has been done already.  We have a White Paper on Defence as a result of it.  So it is nearly fifty  ;D years old.  

Why do we elect our officials and let the ruling party form the Government and appoint members to Cabinet, if not to make our decisions for us?  Why must we now have a debate in Parliament for every decision that has to be made?  Is this some Third World parliament that is bogged down in personal vendettas and fist fights that you seek?  This is a Democracy, not a Socialist Regime.  Not every minute function of government requires debate on the floor of the Commons.   :


----------



## MarkOttawa (15 May 2008)

Meanwhile clarification is muddied; the government remains communications-challenged:
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=55539cbc-75a7-42fa-a7ef-b4b1f7334ec5



> Canada's military strategy for the next 20 years exists in a document that, for now, is being withheld from the public and is for the eyes of federal cabinet only, Canwest News Service has learned.
> 
> "There is obviously a government document that lays this down in detail," a senior official from Defence Minister Peter MacKay's office said Wednesday. "There's a very detailed cabinet document that lays this down and more."
> 
> ...



Dates:
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/425582



> ...The briefing served up a few more details on the plan, such as a rough schedule for the purchase of new fighter jets (2017), search-and-rescue planes (2015), destroyers (2017) and frigates (2024) [actually Single Class Surface Combattan, to replace both]. The ships will eat up more than half of the equipment budget...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## McG (15 May 2008)

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> "There is a very solid, detailed document in existence. It's not just stuff pulled out of the air," the official said.
> 
> The Forces have been working for two years on its defence capabilities plan. Last year, it produced a 39-page Canada First Strategy that was rejected by the current Conservative government because it was too detailed, and could be used by critics to more closely measure what projects were completed and what were not.
> 
> A senior military official, who would only speak on the condition of anonymity, said the creation of the current defence strategy was a two-year process that involved Treasury Board and the Finance Department.


Would this be the SCIP?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (15 May 2008)

> ...The briefing served up a few more details on the plan, such as a rough schedule for the purchase of new fighter jets (2017), search-and-rescue planes (2015), destroyers (2017) and frigates (2024) [actually Single Class Surface Combattan, to replace both]. The ships will eat up more than half of the equipment budget...



Mark there is not SCSC anymore, its Destroyer Replacement Project. Any frigate will be be a version of the destroyer.


----------



## OldSolduer (15 May 2008)

Question from a land type:
What is the difference between a frigate and a destroyer?


----------



## MarkOttawa (15 May 2008)

Ex-Dragoon: Thanks for the correction.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Reccesoldier (15 May 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Question from a land type:
> What is the difference between a frigate and a destroyer?



Our Frigate's are old, our destroyers are older.


----------



## MarkOttawa (15 May 2008)

Destroyer Replacement Project
http://www.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/ad-ad.nsf/en/ad03884e.html



> Client Department: 	Department of National Defence
> Prime Contractor: 	To be determined
> Company Contact:       To be determined
> Industry Canada Manager: Greg Browning   613-954-3266
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 May 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Why should Harper be first?
> There was no debate when St. Laurent more than doubled the size of the military in the 1949/51 period.
> There was some, poorly focused debate when Hellyer proposed _unification_ back in the early '60s.
> There was no debate when Trudeau attempted to disarm Canada - and succeeded in emasculating the CF - in 1971.
> ...





			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Why?  This has been done already.  We have a White Paper on Defence as a result of it.  So it is nearly fifty  ;D years old.
> Why do we elect our officials and let the ruling party form the Government and appoint members to Cabinet, if not to make our decisions for us?  Why must we now have a debate in Parliament for every decision that has to be made?  Is this some Third World parliament that is bogged down in personal vendettas and fist fights that you seek?  This is a Democracy, not a Socialist Regime.  Not every minute function of government requires debate on the floor of the Commons.   :



Both correct - I have no issue at all with government using constitutionally OK executive powers.

However, when a government commits itself to "improved accountability and transparency" (at least according to this news release from 2006), I'm only questioning the lack of documentation that can be scrutinized (especially since the last White Paper is so timely   ).  After all, we can look at a "DND/CF STRATEGY MAP" (.pdf).

Other major democracies have similar documents online - quick Google shows United States and the United Kingdom as quick examples.

There is already public debate underway on the issue (including here), and all we can debate is the speech of the Prime Minister (which says the Defence Minister's speech will have the details - but still no DefMin speech made public).  The speech, and the reading of the tea leaves therein, is already providing fodder for the opposition anyway, so why not share a base document?  

Or do we have to read other tea leaves, like budget documents, estimates, RPP's and other arcane data to ferret out the truth?  I know I have no life and can dig, but how many other people who may want to debate the issue can?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (15 May 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Question from a land type:
> What is the difference between a frigate and a destroyer?



Traditionally a frigate was smaller then a destroyer but size these days have little to do with it. In the CF we use destroyers as flagships and to provide Area Air Defence duties. A frigate is used for general warfare duties.



> Our Frigate's are old, our destroyers are older.


Our frigates still stack favourably to most other nations frigates, they are a capable platform and once FELEX is underway wil continue to do an outstanding job for Canada and the Navy.


----------



## Reccesoldier (15 May 2008)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Our frigates still stack favourably to most other nations frigates, they are a capable platform and once FELEX is underway wil continue to do an outstanding job for Canada and the Navy.



I didn't think I needed to put the smiley in, guess I was wrong.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (15 May 2008)

A defense white paper right now would be a godsend to the Liberal party, it would be like throwing them a lifeline. Politics is like war, with a minority government there is no real point investing a large amount of effort into a plan that may not last 6 months, once they have a majority then hold their feet to the fire.


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 May 2008)

Colin P said:
			
		

> A defense white paper right now would be a godsend to the Liberal party, it would be like throwing them a lifeline.



Sadly, they're gonna make as much hay out of what's out there now as they would with a White Paper, so too late for that....



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> Politics is like war, with a minority government there is no real point investing a large amount of effort into a plan that may not last 6 months, once they have a majority then hold their feet to the fire.



Politically, you're bang on.  However, someone more cynical than me could say, "so, minority governments are supposed to do things half-a*s until they get a majority?"  Or even, "so we don't hold the feet of minority governments to the fire?"


----------



## jzaidi1 (15 May 2008)

You know whats really sad?  Bill Gates' current net worth is 3 times our defense budget annually.  I guess if becoming a pilot is not an option then I'll just have to become phenomenally rich and buy my own Airforce. 

Anyway - our Defense Strategy is in place but not for public consumption.  What kind of gov't runs a multi-billion dollar dept without a strategy?  I just hope this includes lots of new equipment, ships, aircraft, people, etc. and increase our status quo - not just maintain it.

J


----------



## Reccesoldier (15 May 2008)

Fireball said:
			
		

> Anyway - our Defense Strategy is in place but not for public consumption.  What kind of gov't runs a multi-billion dollar dept without a strategy?  I just hope this includes lots of new equipment, ships, aircraft, people, etc. and increase our status quo - not just maintain it.
> 
> J



And where oh, where does the accountability ball bounce to without any coherent, directed and codified plan.  Can you say slim to none?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (15 May 2008)

Zip said:
			
		

> I didn't think I needed to put the smiley in, guess I was wrong.



Only because we have a lot of people that still come here and do not have a clue on defence issues, hence accuracy is crucial.

Milnet.Ca Staff


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 May 2008)

Fireball said:
			
		

> I just hope this includes lots of new equipment, ships, aircraft, people, etc. and increase our status quo - not just maintain it.



Another way of making Zip's point can be:  How do you ensure what was promised is happening, or that what's promised is what you want (allowing you to wholeheartedly agree or disagree), without something more detailed in writing?


----------



## MarkOttawa (15 May 2008)

It's really a "future defense funding strategy".  The conclusion of a lucid analysis from _Defense Industry Daily_:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Canada-Lays-Out-Future-Defense-Plans-04894/



> ...In any democratic polity, politics can and does shift. This is what makes “future year” budget figures are especially suspect, since they are by definition outside the control of the present government. Personnel increases take longer to unwind, and equipment purchases cost money to unwind once commitments are made. Until commitments are made, however, Canada’s past offers ample demonstration that even harmful neglect can be continued for some time.
> 
> Canada now has a future defense funding strategy, which is a step forward. That strategy offers some realistic hope of reconstituting a basic military capability for the country. If they can keep it.



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (15 May 2008)

The Conference of Defence Associations provides a round-up of media coverage of the "Strategy"  at the start of this piece:

Afghanistan, Canada First defence strategy (15 May)
http://www.cdaforumcad.ca/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1210867001/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 May 2008)

This report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is *great* news – IF it doesn’t get clarified tomorrow:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080515.wquestionperiod0515/BNStory/National/home
My emphasis added


> Tories grilled on defence plan
> 
> BRODIE FENLON AND STEVEN CHASE
> 
> ...



First: $45-50 Billion for major new capital projects is very welcome, but it is not an overwhelming number – large though it appears.

Second: the recruiting issue is *bad news*. It may be that the planners in DND understand that, 20 years from now, after $50 Billion worth of new hardware, a $30 Billion annual budget will only buy a *total force* of 100,000 adequately equipped people.


----------



## MarkOttawa (15 May 2008)

During Question Period it was clear that PM Harper meant $30 billion as the eventual annual budget and the $45-50 billion as the cumulative capitital cost until, to be frank, never-never time.

Deepak Obhrai, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, answered at least a couple of questions.  He maintained the $30 billion figure was an "operating" as opposed to an annual budget.  So then at that budgetary point the total annual budget would be somewhat larger.  Cannot the government get its responses straight?  And, sadly, the opposition are too ignorant to seize on the obvious.  Just read the scripted question whatever the government may have said.  Listening and thinking on the spot not required, nor even allowed.

As for Mr Obhrai: why replies from Foreign Affairs on pure DND questions as opposed to National Defence?  The government's answering line-up is increasingly, er, bizarre; there may be some deep political calculus that escapes me.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (17 May 2008)

A post at _The Torch_:

This is the sort of defence statement...
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/05/this-is-sort-of-defence-statement.html



> ...the Conservative government seems incapable of making. Excerpts from a speech by the Australian parliamentary secretary for defence procurement; I urge you to read the whole thing--and compare it with our government's pathetic efforts...Some observations follow...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 May 2008)

Just spotted the speaking notes to the Defence Minister's speech on the strategy (.pdf permalink)...

*Minister's Speech
The Canada First Defence Strategy*
Excellence at Home and Leadership Abroad
May 12, 2008, Halifax

Please check against delivery

Prime Minister;

General Hillier, Members of the Canadian Forces;

Ladies and gentlemen.

In times of war and peace, Halifax has been -- and remains -- a linch-pin in the defence of Canada.

I believe this city’s long and storied military history makes it an ideal place to talk about our Canada First Defence Strategy.

Our Government has already made significant investments in the Canadian Forces.

In our first Budget, we allocated an additional $5.3 billion over five years to defence.

And we subsequently announced that annual increases in defence spending will grow from 1.5% to 2% starting in 2011-2012.

We have committed over $30 billion for major capital equipment projects and in service support contracts.

This includes:

    * 4 x C-17 strategic lift aircraft; a brand new capability which has given us a significantly increased ability to deploy and support our troops and at home and abroad
    * 17x C130-J tactical lift aircraft to replace our aging Hercules fleet
    * 16x CH 47-F Medium-to-heavy-lift helicopters; As a short term measure we are acquiring 6X CH 47- Ds in the next few months to support our troops in Afghanistan;
    * 100x Leopard 2 battle tanks,
    * mine protected vehicles and trucks,
    * EROC counter-IED systems;
    * 6-8x Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships to provide surveillance and control along our coasts and on the approaches to our Arctic waters; and,
    * 3x Joint Support Ships to provide supply and replenishment to our ships at sea and an important troop and equipment carrying capability.

But we need to continue building on this solid foundation.

That’s why the Government is providing the Canadian Forces with long-term, stable, predictable defence funding. Our strategy is designed to provide a solid basis for defence planning over the next 20 years. No doubt the world will change dramatically during that period but this strategy provides the Canadian Forces with a solid and balanced foundation of core capabilities to ensure they can answer the call in the face of future threats.

Under the Canada First Defence Strategy, this Government is expanding the Canadian Forces.

The Armed Forces will expand to an all up force of 100,000 including 70,000 Regulars and 30,000 in the Reserve Force over the course of the plan.

This expanded force will increase our capabilities and flexibility at home and abroad and position the Canadian Forces for further growth in the future.

We also need to equip our men and women in uniform for success.

So in addition to the capital equipment projects this Government has previously announced, we will be making more sound investments in major fleets. This will provide the Canadian Forces with:

    * new Destroyers and Frigates, to replace our aging fleet of surface combatant ships;
    * new Maritime patrol aircraft to replace our Aurora fleet;
    * New fixed-wing Search and Rescue aircraft;
    * Next-generation fighter aircraft to replace our CF-18s; and
    * A new family of land combat vehicles and systems.

This is a long-term plan, and it will evolve as we continue to assess our needs and the opportunities to make wise investments. But for the first time in modern memory the CF will be able to plan for the long-term, because this government has committed to long-term and growing funding.

Let me be clear:

    * We’re not rebuilding the Canadian Forces to face the challenges of yesterday;
    * We’re rebuilding the Canadian Forces to face the uncertainties and the challenges of the 21st Century.

The Canada First Defence Strategy will ensure that our military is well positioned to defend us at home, and protect our interests and values abroad – today and into the future.


----------



## Greymatters (19 May 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> This report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is *great* news – IF it doesn’t get clarified tomorrow:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080515.wquestionperiod0515/BNStory/National/home
> My emphasis added
> ...



Its an improvement over the initial numbers provided.  Perhaps if we wait a few more weeks we'll see if more money gets tossed into the pot...?


----------



## MarkOttawa (19 May 2008)

Greymatters: What did not happen, it would seem, in November 2006--UAVs, fixed-wing SAR, Twotter replacement; and then that "Canada First Defence Strategy":
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/11/more-equipment-for-canadian-forces.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Greymatters (20 May 2008)

Hmmm, and like then, will it all fall to pieces...?


----------



## MarkOttawa (3 Apr 2009)

"Canada First Defence Strategy": New web pages--DND has a whole new bunch of web pages devoted to the, er, strategy:
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/focus/first-premier/defstra-stradef-eng.asp

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## ltmaverick25 (4 Apr 2009)

I just checked out that link.  Did anyone else notice the reference to a maritime commando unit?  It was in the Question and Answer section.  The answer seemed full of fluff meaning perhaps the govt is reconsidering this capability.  I didnt even realise it was on the table.  Does anyone else know anything about this?


----------



## Snakedoc (4 Apr 2009)

Interesting point ltmaverick25.  I understand that there was a working document on a martime commando unit and I've seen it myself on the DIN but my understanding was that this idea was essentially put on 'hold' due to funding priority issues.  Perhaps this is another capability the gov't has put back on the horizon for the long term?

Edit: I notice now that the mention of the martime commando unit was just in the form of a question on the site (along with the reinstatement of the airborne regiment) and not anything the gov't has specifically stated it was looking into.


----------



## Journeyman (4 Apr 2009)

Snakedoc said:
			
		

> and not anything the gov't has specifically stated it was looking into.



Exactly. Put away your light sabres.


----------



## ltmaverick25 (5 Apr 2009)

The point being is that they must have made mention somewhere that they intended to create a maritime commando unit and then decided not to, or to put it on hold, which would explain why they would _offer_ a FAQ on that issue.

I had never heard of the concept before, and was curious if anyone else had.


----------



## MarkOttawa (5 Apr 2009)

ltmaverick25: During the 2005/2006 election campaign the Conservatives promised to station "rapid reaction battalions" at a number of CF bases, including Comox:

Stupid Conservative defence promises 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/08/stupid-conservative-defence-promises.html

This then apparently morphed into a plan, presumably the CF response to the promise, to place a JTF 2 marine commando unit at Comox:

Campaign promises and JTF 2 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/01/campaign-promises-and-jtf-2.html

That idea seems now to have been quietly dropped; instead a supply depot for JTF 2 is to be set up at Esquimalt:

JTF 2 West Coast base to be set up  
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/01/jtf-2-west-coast-base-to-be-set-up.html


> ...
> A 2006 plan by the Defence Department to create a maritime special forces group was shelved because of a lack of money and naval personnel. At the time, CFB Comox, on Vancouver Island, was being considered as the home for the new unit...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Snakedoc (5 Apr 2009)

More info in this thread on the Maritime Commando Regiment:

http://forums.navy.ca/forums/threads/79495.0.html


----------



## George Wallace (5 Apr 2009)

There are quite a few, probably more legitimate, documents sitting in IN baskets awaiting Ministerial Signatures.  It may be some time before any movement is seen towards a Maritime Commando Unit other that what is already provided by the Navy, CSOR and JTF2.


----------



## MarkOttawa (24 Dec 2009)

"Canada First Defence Strategy" on web now at:
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/focus/first-premier/index-eng.asp

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (24 Dec 2009)

"THE CANADA FIRST DEFENCE STRATEGY – ONE YEAR LATER"
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/12/canada-first-defence-strategy-one-year.html



> We at _The Torch_ were distinctly unenthused by the "Strategy": see the posts here and here and follow the links.
> 
> Now there is a paper by Lieutenant-General (Ret’d) George Macdonald, fellow of the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute, and former Vice Chief of the Defence Staff. Read between the lines of the "Executive Summary" for the unappetizing reality...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## McG (4 Jun 2012)

Looks like we will be seeing an updated Canada First Defence Strategy soon.


> *Tories trim plans for defence spending*
> Redrafted wish list meets austerity reality
> The Canadian Press
> Published in the Toronto Star
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Jun 2012)

See also here for more on the Defence budget.


----------



## McG (23 Mar 2015)

Three years after announcing that the CFDS would be revisited to arrive at an affordable plan, there is not visible/publiched progress.  This won't help focues the reduced financial (and diminishing capital) resources.  


> *No new defence strategy, four years after original declared unaffordable*
> Lee Berthiaume
> Ottawa Citizen
> 16 Mar 2015
> ...


http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/new-defence-strategy-still-in-the-works-four-years-after-original-declared-unaffordable


----------



## dimsum (23 Mar 2015)

I'd be very surprised if anyone even brought it up until after this election business is over.


----------



## McG (23 Mar 2015)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I'd be very surprised if anyone even brought it up until after this election business is over.


I suspect the government would prefer that too.  But, if they campaing on fiscal strength and a strong military vision, then the expensive and now-irrellevant CFSD may be a weakness that other parties latch onto (even if they have nothing better to offer).


----------

