# After SSE - Canada’s next defence policy



## McG (11 May 2022)

Canada directs military to take more ‘assertive’ stance in cyberspace - National | Globalnews.ca
					

The Department of National Defence’s 'cyber playbook,' obtained by Global News, calls for 'hardened' defences – but also for 'capacity to respond' to hostile nation states.




					globalnews.ca
				




It seems a more aggressive cyber policy and possibly continental missile defence are in Canada’s future. I hope the next policy is also a little more prescriptive on required capabilities and that it steers the CAF away from exquisite niche capabilities with no depth (ie. the kind that are spent after a just 12 month mission).

I wonder what else might be in the cards.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (11 May 2022)

TLTL - To Little, To Late


----------



## daftandbarmy (11 May 2022)

McG said:


> Canada directs military to take more ‘assertive’ stance in cyberspace - National | Globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> The Department of National Defence’s 'cyber playbook,' obtained by Global News, calls for 'hardened' defences – but also for 'capacity to respond' to hostile nation states.
> ...



Hmmm.... good question


----------



## Underway (11 May 2022)

McG said:


> Canada directs military to take more ‘assertive’ stance in cyberspace - National | Globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> The Department of National Defence’s 'cyber playbook,' obtained by Global News, calls for 'hardened' defences – but also for 'capacity to respond' to hostile nation states.
> ...



Here's the article about continental defense from Politico

Canada's defence policy has been essentially unchanged in its goals since the 1950's.  In SSE terms:
1. Strong at Home (Defend Canada)
2. Secure in North America (Defend NA)
3. Engaged with the World (Contribute to Collective Defence/Allies Defence)
In that order.  

Continental Defence is a nice two for one as anything that defends NA also defends Canada as part of NA.  I would love to see some strategically placed Spy 7 LRDR helping to track ballistic missiles, and the advantage is they have commonality with the new CSC radars for the basic TR book.

I expect however that there will be a variety of sensors, from ESM, Satellites, radars, UAV and sonar systems to collect and share data with NORAD (which does naval approaches as well now) and the BMD program.

Honestly, despite my favourite focus being on the expeditionary aspects of the CAF (Army and Navy gear) I couldn't complain about multidomain sensors to know what's going on in the approaches to Canada even if they were big and expensive infrastructure projects that are not in the least kinetic.

As far as cyber the new ships are built with cyberwarfare in mind every step of the way, despite some protestations on how hard it might be to design things with that in mind.


----------



## Good2Golf (12 May 2022)

Underway said:


> Continental Defence is a nice two for one as anything that defends NA also defends Canada as part of NA. I would love to see some strategically placed Spy 7 LRDR helping to track ballistic missiles, and the advantage is they have commonality with the new CSC radars for the basic TR book.



Well…it would make sense to have a shore-based ‘test facility’ for the SPY-7 for both the East and West coast fleets….and, while we’re at it, on for the future Northern Fleet… 😉


----------



## Underway (12 May 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> Well…it would make sense to have a shore-based ‘test facility’ for the SPY-7 for both the East and West coast fleets….and, while we’re at it, on for the future Northern Fleet… 😉


There is a shore-based test facility going in at Harden Hartlen Point for the Spy 7.  But it's a true test/training facility and only points out to sea in a specific arc.  Perhaps it needs to be upgraded...


----------



## SeaKingTacco (12 May 2022)

Underway said:


> There is a shore-based test facility going in at Harden Point for the Spy 7.  But it's a true test/training facility and only points out to sea in a specific arc.  Perhaps it needs to be upgraded...


Hartlen Point…


----------



## Underway (12 May 2022)

SeaKingTacco said:


> Hartlen Point…


Ack, edited.  I was going off memory and have never golfed there.  What are the membership fees like?   

As a bonus if the radar points inland you can test the "tracks a golf ball" claims fairly easily.  Might be able to help you with your long game giving you a play by play of the your shot arc.


----------



## daftandbarmy (12 May 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> Well…it would make sense to have a shore-based ‘test facility’ for the SPY-7 for both the East and West coast fleets….and, while we’re at it, on for the future Northern Fleet… 😉



It doesn't matter. We will never be able to attract and retain the skilled people required to operate any effective, world class cyber capability.

Competition for these types of people is insanely stiff, just about every other business and government in the world are fighting for the same small pool, and is one game we probably can't win.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (12 May 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> Well…it would make sense to have a shore-based ‘test facility’ for the SPY-7 for both the East and West coast fleets….and, while we’re at it, on for the future Northern Fleet… 😉


On the surface, it makes sense to me that we would base our “DEWline refresh” on some form of SPY-7. The economies of scale in spares and training make sense.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (12 May 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> It doesn't matter. We will never be able to attract and retain the skilled people required to operate any effective, world class cyber capability.
> 
> Competition for these types of people is insanely stiff, just about every other business and government in the world are fighting for the same small pool, and is one game we probably can't win.


Until we start doing Red Team Ops.

Blue Team stuff is everywhere and extremely lucrative for whoever wants to get into that field. It's also, much like the BBA/MBA craze in the early 2000s, saturating the market. Tons of people are going and getting their CISSP or Cyber Security certs in speculation of the next big field. 

One thing we can offer, once we get the capability and go ahead from the GoC, is the opportunity to do things that would otherwise get you arrested as a civilian; exploits, DDoS, Probing, etc. 

Doing things on the Queen's Shilling that would have otherwise seen you hung or in cells has rallied folks to the colors for centuries. The Cyber Domain is just the newest playground.


----------



## OldSolduer (12 May 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> Until we start doing Red Team Ops.
> 
> Blue Team stuff is everywhere and extremely lucrative for whoever wants to get into that field. It's also, much like the BBA/MBA craze in the early 2000s, saturating the market. Tons of people are going and getting their CISSP or Cyber Security certs in speculation of the next big field.
> 
> ...


A Letter of Marque perhaps?

Cyber Pirates 🏴‍☠️?


----------



## rmc_wannabe (12 May 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> A Letter of Marque perhaps?
> 
> Cyber Pirates 🏴‍☠️?


See Anonymous' fantastic work during the Russo-Ukranian War. I imagine there are all sorts of handshakes between governments that have turned a blind eye to their activities.


----------



## OldSolduer (12 May 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> See Anonymous' fantastic work during the Russo-Ukranian War. I imagine there are all sorts of handshakes between governments that have turned a blind eye to their activities.


I’ve seen some of that. Arrrrr matey


----------



## Underway (12 May 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> It doesn't matter. We will never be able to attract and retain the skilled people required to operate any effective, world class cyber capability.
> 
> Competition for these types of people is insanely stiff, just about every other business and government in the world are fighting for the same small pool, and is one game we probably can't win.


You would be surprised.  There is already a very good working relationship between industry, CSEC, and universities.  There are a few civilians in the CAF Cyber Ops offices as contractors as well...   Cyber Ops is weird. 

For cyber security it's often equipment and policy driven.  Removal or reduction of wireless equipment, red/black data being moved around on different lines/hardware.  Secure spaces, digital signatures etc...  No need for uniformed experts who design the stuff but just to ensure they understand and apply the policies.  Once the good habits are applied then the situation gets much better. 

For offensive cyber operations that's an entirely different kettle of fish and I think that an agile organization is required, with the application of the "violence" managed by the military.  If that means that civilians/contractors are in the organization looking for weaknesses and developing code then that might be what happens.


----------



## dapaterson (12 May 2022)

Occasional friendly red teaming to demonstrate to seniors some risk areas is also a useful educational tool.


----------



## Good2Golf (12 May 2022)

Underway said:


> There is a shore-based test facility going in at Harden Hartlen Point for the Spy 7. But it's a true test/training facility and only points out to sea in a specific arc. Perhaps it needs to be upgraded...




“Test” facility…


----------



## Kirkhill (13 May 2022)

​​​Canada’s defence minister says the world is ‘growing darker’ and ‘more chaotic’​





By Amanda Connolly  Global News
Posted May 10, 2022 2:56 pm

Defence Minister Anita Anand says the world is “growing darker.”




Speaking at a conference of defence experts organized by the Canadian Global Affairs Institute on Tuesday, Anand emphasized the more “chaotic” state of the world means Canada will need to take a more “bold and aggressive” look at its own continental defence.
“We do live in a world at the present time that appears to be growing darker,” she said in a keynote speech to the conference.
“In this new world, Canada’s geographic position no longer provides the same protection that it once did. And in this new world, the security environment facing Canada is less secure, less predictable and more chaotic.”

Uncertainty has become the word du jour over recent years marked by the global economic calamity of the COVID-19 pandemic and ensuing supply chain struggles, coupled with societal unrest.
Then there’s the ongoing crisis of climate change and natural disasters, as well as geostrategic threats they pose to countries like Canada. Melting Arctic sea ice makes inhospitable regions more easily navigable, including for actors like China and Russia, who seem to make a habit of disregarding international laws.
As well, Russia’s unprovoked and horrific invasion of Ukraine has amplified many of the existing global economic pressures on supply chains while posing what Canadian officials have repeatedly described as an existential threat to the rules-based international order established after the Second World War.

“Threats are evolving quickly, from hypersonics to cyber attacks to the re-emergence of great power competition. In other words, the world we live in today differs from the threat assessments that underpinned _Strong, Secure, Engaged_ in 2017,” said Anand in vowing to update Canada’s defence policy.
She pointed to the work underway to craft an Indo-Pacific strategy for Canada and explicitly referenced “growing Chinese activity in the region” as a factor.
Anand also doubled down on the government’s commitment to keep supplying Ukraine with weapons as it defends its territory amid the Russian invasion, but warned: “we need to be ready for a more dangerous potential phase of this war._“_

What's next for continental defence?​Anand added the federal government is weighing whether Canada should join the U.S. in actively defending against intercontinental ballistic missiles.
She said the government is taking “a full and comprehensive look” at ballistic missile defence as part of a larger review of what is needed to better protect North America from attack.

Canada famously opted out of the U.S. ballistic missile defence program following an extremely heated national debate in 2005. Yet the question of whether Canada should reconsider has repeatedly reared its head amid concerns about North Korea’s growing nuclear arsenal and souring relations with Russia.

Anand also promised more details soon on how Canada and the U.S. will improve North America’s overall defences, which military officials have warned are badly outdated.
“We will have a lot more to say on this in the months to come. But I want to assure you and everyone here that we are leaving no stone unturned in this major review of continental defence,” she said.
“We are taking a very bold and aggressive look at what we need to do for the defence of the North American continent.”
_– with files from The Canadian Press_
© 2022 Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.










						Canada’s defence minister says the world is ‘growing darker’ and ‘more chaotic’ - National | Globalnews.ca
					

Canada's Defence Minister Anita Anand emphasized the 'chaotic' state of the world means Canada will need to take a more 'bold and aggressive' look at its own continental defence.




					globalnews.ca


----------



## Kirkhill (13 May 2022)

A Conversation with the Honorable Anita Anand, Minister of National Defence of Canada​April 28, 2022

Kathleen McInnis: Good morning, everyone. And thank you for joining us. *I’m Kathleen McInnis. I’m the director of the Smart Women, Smart Power *Initiative at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and I’m a senior fellow in the International Security Program. On behalf of CSIS, I am delighted* to welcome the Honorable Anita Anand*, the Canadian minister of national defence, for what I know will be* a phenomenal conversation on Canada’s defense priorities*, and some of the critical issues with which it’s grappling today.

First, though, I want to thank Citi for having the vision to partner CSIS in establishing this critically important platform to talk to incredible leaders like Minister Anand. And Minister Anand is truly incredible. Minister Anand was elected – or, has been in the role of minister of national defence since December 2021, and was elected to parliament in 2019. Prior to that, Minister Anand worked as a scholar, a lawyer, and a researcher. So she brings and enormous breadth of experience and expertise to her current position. She was also responsible for buying Canada’s COVID vaccine, as minister for procurement. So she’s had quite a lot on her plate for the past couple of years.

So, Minister Anand, I am so grateful that you’ve come to speak with us today. So let’s dive in. First, I’d love to get into a little bit about your background. What inspired you to public service? Was there a specific moment that you knew that you needed to run for parliament?

Minster Anita Anand: Well, thanks for having me, Kathleen. It’s great to be here in Washington. I can’t say that there was one specific moment. I, as you mentioned, had been a scholar and researcher and professor for about 25 years. I loved that job, as one does. You know, it was a very fulfilling life to write in the area of corporate and securities law and to be able to teach hundreds of students every year. I found myself, however, continually involved in policy issues. So I started writing reports for the federal and provincial government in the area of financial market regulation. I was writing op-eds on issues relating to corporate governance. And those op-eds were quite topical, given the importance of corporate governance, especially after the fall of Enron and especially during the financial market crash of 2008.

Dr. McInnis: Sure.

Min. Anand: And so I was approached to run for office and initially said no, and said no again – (laughter) – a few times, and over the course of a number of months got myself around to the idea that maybe I could make a difference –

Dr. McInnis: Sure. Sure.

Min. Anand: – if I were elected. And so I tried.

Dr. McInnis: Yeah. Fantastic.

So I imagine that being selected to be the minister of national defence is life-transforming moment. How did you find out that you were being selected or called to perform this role?

Min. Anand: Well, I was called to a meeting with the prime minister just after the election in 2021, and I didn’t know what he was going to say or ask. But when he asked me, I said I would be honored to take on this role. And he continued to tell me how important a moment this is in the history and life of the Canadian Armed Forces and how he entrusted me with this role. And so, I continue to feel privileged every day to be able to lead the Canadian Armed Forces, together with the chief of defence staff, and my whole team in Ottawa.

Dr. McInnis: Amazing.

Now that you’ve been in the hot seat for a few months, how do you view your role? What do you – what priorities do you have now as minister of national defence?

Min. Anand: When I was meeting with the prime minister, I had in my back pocket a list of issues that I thought were important because I had heard – there were some conversation in media that I may be appointed to this role, so I had given it some thought and had a to-do list of my own. And on that to-do list, in case I was asked, was cultural change in the Canadian military – ensuring that everyone has a place where they feel respected, and protected, and dignified in a way that they would be able to serve our country.

Secondly on that list was the importance of ensuring that our military has what it needs from a resources perspective, from a support perspective, from an equipment perspective. And then, thirdly, ensuring that our multilateral relationships like NORAD, like NATO are very well fulfilled from a Canadian perspective. And those continue to be the three main priorities.

Of course, February 24th is etched in our minds collectively as allies, and the war in Ukraine – Russia’s illegal invasion and occupation of that country creates another layer of concern, and really determined action by the Canadian government in the area of defense and the provision of lethal aid and military aid writ large to that country.

Dr. McInnis: Right. Right.

So, switching gears a little bit, the Canadian Armed Forces appear to be undergoing a pretty profound moment of introspection and reform, as is reflected by the recently released advisory panel on systemic racism and discrimination report.

I want to quote from the report here – apologies it’s a bit lengthy – but I wanted to quote the report here because it really gets to the heart of issue in my view. And the quote is: “There is a common thread to many of the heart-wrenching stories the Advisory Panel heard. At their core are the lost – but potentially powerful – contributions of the defense team who leave the organization because the price they would have to pay to persevere in the organization would be unbearable.”

In other words, if we don’t get things squared away on the personnel front, we are going to keep losing talent and have a hard time recruiting it. These are issues that I think a variety of national security establishments are grappling with right now in different ways. So, I wanted to ask you about your strategic approach to dealing with this organizational cultural challenge.

So, I guess my first question is, what organizational cultural characteristics do you want to see in the Canadian Armed Forces and Ministry of National Defence? And how do you plan on getting there if you’re not already there?

Min. Anand: It’s such an important question, and really, as I said in my last response, at the top of my list as minister of national defence.

And what we need to continue to build is an institution where every single person regardless of background, regardless of race, regardless of religion, regardless of any other personal characteristic, can come to work, can put on a uniform, and can serve the country that they signed up to serve free of discrimination, free of harassment, free of sexual misconduct. And that is the type of institution we need to continue to build.

And the report that you mentioned is very, very important, because it underlines the importance of us continuing with the effort that our – that is already underway. In budget 2021, we committed $236 million towards cultural change in the military; budget 2022, $100 million to ensure that we are continuing to address the issues that you raised in your question.

And as a racialized woman myself, with a professional background and experience in another large institution, in private practice before that, I am fully aware of the importance of attacking this issue, and continuing to eradicate, root out discrimination in all its form in the Canadian Armed Forces.

Dr. McInnis: When it comes to building a diverse, equitable, and inclusive workforce, obviously, representation is critical. Yet, there’s some who would argue that we as a community spend a little bit too much time focusing on the inputs, and – to the workforce, and instead, ought to focus on outcomes, like military effectiveness and diversity of thought. How do you think about that balance? Or is there even a tension?

Min. Anand: Well, I think we have to go back to what morally is right. What morally is right is that we have an institution where equity and diversity and inclusiveness are fundamental principles that are universally held. And at the current time, I would say, from my conversations with the Canadian Armed Forces, from my conversations with the chief of defence staff, we are pushing on open doors, and in fact, that is what one of the panel members said verbatim on Monday, after we released that report. And I would underscore that point, given my conversations across the country, at military bases, people agree that there is this moment –

Dr. McInnis: Yeah. Yeah.

Min. Anand: – before us, to effect change. And so I believe we have momentum, and we are going to continue to see this moral underpinning of the Canadian Armed Forces continuing to take shape.

At the same time, there’s also the question of longevity of the forces. We need to attract talent. We need to retain talent. And how do you do that? You ensure that your institution is built on principles that are durable, and that will endure for the long term. And certainly, non-discrimination is one such principle.

And then I would say the third point is that this principle is important for the defense of our country, for the security of our country. If we can’t have an institution where everybody feels safe, and protected, and respected, our ability to defend our country and to engage in operations, domestically and internationally, is undermined. And that can’t happen.

Dr. McInnis: Absolutely.

Min. Anand: So there’s a holistic approach here. And I just laid it out for you –

Dr. McInnis: (Laughs.)

Min. Anand: – in terms of what I’m thinking about every day.

Dr. McInnis: Yeah, thank you. I happen to agree with you. I think that the national security workforce and ensuring that our people are sufficiently empowered to bring their best selves to the decision-making table is, hands down, the most important mission that we face as a community.

Min. Anand: One of the AP panel members was Sandra Perron. I’m not sure if you’ve read her book, “Outstanding in the Field.” She was a trailblazer in the Canadian Armed Forces, and a chief milestone after milestone, in terms of women holding significant positions in the forces. And her story is very much a story of having to push against closed doors. And my hope is that those doors, as I said, will continue to open, and we will see greater equity and equality and diversity in the Canadian Armed Forces.

Dr. McInnis: Fantastic.

Changing gears a little bit to the Canadian defense strategy, it was recently announced that there’s going to be another strategic review. Given that the lines between domestic and international issues gets blurrier by the day, how do you see the roles and missions of the Canadian armed forces evolving?

Min. Anand: So the defense review that you just mentioned was set forth in budget 2022 announced at the beginning of April –

Dr. McInnis: Right. Right.

Min. Anand: – and at the same time our government committed an additional $8 billion in defense spending on top of the 70 percent increase in defense spending, which began in 2017 over a nine-year period. The defense policy currently in place is called Strong, Secure, Engaged, and that defense policy still remains in place and is the underpinning of many of the things we are doing right now in defense.

Our procurements, for example, we have six offshore – Arctic offshore patrol ships, three of which have been delivered to – three have – are in the water. Two have been delivered. All that to say that we have a defense policy – Strong, Secure, Engaged.

On top of that, we will do an update to that policy so that we can take into account new and emerging threats such as the increasing importance of cybersecurity and surveillance, which we are currently very much engaged with Ukraine on, offering them support in that area under Operation Unifier.

Those are the types of things we need to build into our defense policy and our update will reflect that.

Dr. McInnis: OK. So it’s an update to the current policy foundation that –

Min. Anand: The current policy will remain in place and we will continue to look at this emerging threat environment – what do we need to continue to do from a defense perspective in light of changing global circumstances.

Dr. McInnis: So we read recently Hugh Segal, who’s a former Canadian chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, made the argument that the end strength – how many troops/sailors that are in the Canadian armed forces is not sufficient to meet Canada’s strategic level of ambition, especially given the blurring of the lines between domestic and international security issues.

How do you think about these questions of end strength and resources? Militaries always want more. (Laughs.)

Min. Anand: So I know Hugh well. I don’t agree with him on this issue.

Dr. McInnis: OK.

Min. Anand: Let me tell you what I hear when I am visiting countries and speaking with our Canadian armed forces and other stakeholders. Other countries are continually asking for more Canada. The Canadian armed forces bring something to the table that is not represented across the board in other armed forces.

For example, we have been in Ukraine since 2015 training the Ukrainian armed forces. We’ve trained 33,000 members of the Ukrainian armed forces, 2,000 members of the Ukrainian national guard. That was a decision strategically that we made after Russia’s invasion of Crimea to say what contribution can we bring as the Canadian armed forces. We are leading an enhanced forward presence battle group in Latvia. We are one of four countries to do that.

We recently doubled our commitment in the air, on land, and at sea. We have the Halifax frigate that has just arrived there. In other words, again, people say more, more Canada – what else can you do. We have outstanding requests, actually, for more Canada on NATO’s eastern seaboard.

So I will say that we have to look at the tangible footprint that Canada puts on the ground, and from this vantage point at the ministerial level I see that every day. We also have 3,400 members of the Canadian armed forces on standby ready to be called up if NATO chooses to do so. That’s the type of contribution Canada will continue to make. We are there for our allies.

Dr. McInnis: Mmm hmm. Burden sharing is a perennial issue here in Washington – (laughs) – and burden sharing as measured by a percentage of GDP, and you just mentioned that Canada has decided to increase its defense budget by $8 billion over the coming years.

Can you envision any scenarios whereby Canadian defense expenditure might further increase?

Min. Anand: Well, what I will say is that with our $8 billion commitment we are just under 1.5 percent, and so the trajectory is upward for Canada at the current time. And we are committing this $8 billion on top of the 70 percent increase in defense spending over a seven-year period which began in 2017. And we are seeing tangible results from those increases. For example, I recently announced the procurement – being in the final phases of the procurement for 88 new future fighter jets, the F-35s. That is such an important procurement for our continental relationship, for our relationship in NORAD, for our potential NATO contributions as well, and that is a $19 billion commitment in Strong, Secure, Engaged, our defense policy. All that to say that the focus on 2 percent excludes some of the tangible contributions that Canada is making and, in any case, our trajectory in defense spending is on an incline. I will be coming forward with a robust package to modernize NORAD and continental defense, for example, and this afternoon I’m meeting with the secretary of defense, Lloyd Austin, to discuss this and other issues, including Arctic security as well as the war in Ukraine.

Dr. McInnis: That’s actually – you’re sort of preempting my next question –

Min. Anand: (Laughs.)

Dr. McInnis: – which was on NORAD and how you see that command – so last year the U.S. and Canada had an agreement on NORAD modernization. How do you see that agreement being implemented? And again, how do you see the role of NORAD evolving as the security environment becomes –

Min. Anand: So last year – it wasn’t so much an agreement, it was a statement of principles that both Canada and the United States agree to be important in the modernization of NORAD, so research in technology, working on surveillance systems such as over-the-horizon radar systems. It was more a statement of intent and we committed millions of dollars in our last year’s budget to carry forward that thinking into the modernization of NORAD and continental defense more generally, which is ever so important in the face of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, in the face of climate change issues, in the face of the need for greater interoperability between our technological systems in the two countries. So we believe this to be extremely important, but we are not sitting by the sidelines and doing nothing on this at the same time as modernizing NORAD and our continental defense systems. We are also maintaining the current surveillance system. So recently our government put forward a $600 million contract with a corporation that is Inuit-run, Nasittuq Corporation, and that $600 million contract is an archetype, in fact, of the type of contract we will continue to look to as a way of engaging indigenous communities in the modernization of continental defense and NORAD.

Dr. McInnis: Oh, that’s fascinating. How interesting.

Min. Anand: It’s so important, right? Like, the economic benefits of NORAD modernization must be shared, and the indigenous population in our north is extremely important to our country and to our government. And as the premier of the Northwest Territory has recently said, nothing about us without us, and that is a principle that I take to heart and our government feels is very important.

Dr. McInnis: Fascinating. Now we’re sort of in the High North Arctic. How is climate change opening of northern sea routes or sea lanes impacting your thinking on Canadian naval presence and capabilities and capacities, especially as the Arctic becomes more passable and approachable by adversaries?

Min. Anand: It’s a great question. So obviously, across ministerial portfolios, we must think about how we address the climate crisis, from a climate emissions standpoint, from a melting polar ice cap standpoint, from a migration of fish standpoint, and all of that comes together in terms of what is happening in the northern climes, in the Arctic region, when, as you say, we are seeing ice flows change rapidly. And the need for our defense policy to be responsive to climate change and to see climate change as an actual security threat is extremely important and at the top of my agenda.

One of the ways we need to address this is to understand that Arctic sovereignty, writ large, becomes more important because with melting ice and greater ability to traverse the northwest passage, we are going to have other countries – Russia, China – undertake so-called research efforts in those waters. And we need to be able to respond to that. In addition, we need to understand how the seabed is mapped. We need to understand the migration of fish; how melting ice and polar ice caps is going to really affect fish migration, fish proteins, which are so important economically to the Canadian economy.

So these are the types of issues that climate change raises. And as I said, across the board – from the Canadian armed forces perspective – we need to be thinking about that, not just in terms of the Arctic. Our troops have been on the ground in forest fires, in floods. And climate change is exacting a toll on our country. And we need to address it head-on, not just from an ex-ante, proactive standpoint in terms of reducing carbon emissions by 2030, by 2050, in terms of our targets, but also in terms of addressing the here and now. What can our forces do? How are they going to respond?

Dr. McInnis: Right. Shifting gears to one of the biggest – well, the crisis that we’re facing now – Ukraine. Canada, as you’ve mentioned, has committed considerable resources to help Ukraine fight against Russia’s invasion, and has been doing so since 2015, with the training mission. Is it your sense that Canada will do even more? Is the trajectory upwards in terms of –

Min. Anand: Yes.

Dr. McInnis: OK.

Min. Anand: Hard yes.

Dr. McInnis: OK. (Laughs.)

Min. Anand: We prior to the budget had committed $117 million in military aid to Ukraine. Carl Gustaf anti-tank weapons system, fragmentation vests, rocket launchers, hand grenades, and the list goes on. And in fact, we had shipments of military aid on the ground before February 24th. We were very well prepared for the potential for the invasion by Russia. Then in budget 2022, we committed $500 million to further military aid for Ukraine. And in that regard, we have procured armored vehicles that we are sending to Ukraine. I announced that this week. And we will continue to support Ukraine. For example, with our allies, sending heavy weaponry and 777 howitzers to Ukraine for the purposes of supporting this important effort.

It's not just Ukraine’s sovereignty and security that is at stake. It is the fundamental integrity of the rules-based international order. And my counterpart, Lloyd Austin, and I are very much aligned in terms of the urgency and importance of this situation. And we’ll discuss that this afternoon.

Dr. McInnis: Great to hear that. Finally, to bring this fascinating conversation to a close, this is Smart Women, Smart Power. So I wanted to ask you what aspects of your job do you think are more influenced by your experience as a woman? Or do you think that being a woman in this role is influencing the way you approach the job? And if so, why? If not, why?

Min. Anand: I would say that I believe fundamentally in the importance of having women at the decision-making table in many capacities, in every institution. And one the reasons I ran for office was because I believe that the demographic composition of our population should be reflected in our institutions – whether it’s government, whether it’s hospitals, whether it’s universities – and the list goes on. And so that’s the general frame that I carry with me all day every day.

But in terms of actual decisions per se, I’m bringing a skillset to the table that is reflective of my background and experience and professional education and experience. And that showed itself to be the case in procurement of vaccines, in terms of having expertise in contract analysis and negotiation, and now in terms of being the minister of national defence especially in terms of governance of large institutions. And indeed, that was an area that I specialized in before becoming the minister. So it is really bringing your experiences and your knowledge to the table all the time regardless of who you are that I think is important.

Dr. McInnis: Fantastic.

Well, the moment is extraordinary and you – and you’re an extraordinary woman to be leading the Canadian Ministry of National Defence. And so thank you so much for your time today. This has been an absolutely extraordinary interview, and thank you so much for being here.

Min. Anand: Oh, Kathleen, the pleasure and honor is mine. So thank you so much for having me. I really appreciate the invitation and I’ll look forward to another chat sometime soon.

Dr. McInnis: Absolutely. (Laughter.)

Min. Anand: Thanks again.










						A Conversation with the Honorable Anita Anand, Minister of National Defence of Canada
					

Kathleen McInnis: Good morning, everyone. And thank you for joining us. I’m Kathleen McInnis. I’m the director of the Smart Women, Smart Power Initiative at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and I’m a senior fellow in the International Security Program. On behalf of CSIS, I am...




					www.csis.org


----------



## Kirkhill (13 May 2022)

Canada considering actively defending against intercontinental ballistic missiles: Anand​
OTTAWA -
Defence Minister Anita Anand says the federal government is weighing whether Canada should join the U.S. in actively defending against intercontinental ballistic missiles.
Anand made the comment this morning as she provided an update of sorts on Ottawa's plans to modernize North America's aging defences with the U.S.
Anand told a conference hosted by the Canadian Global Affairs Institute that the government is taking "a full and comprehensive look" at ballistic missile defence as part of a larger review of what is needed to better protect North America from attack.

Updated May 10, 2022 2:29 p.m. MDT
Published May 10, 2022 9:38 a.m. MDT









						Canada considering actively defending against intercontinental ballistic missiles: Anand
					

Defence Minister Anita Anand says the federal government is weighing whether Canada should join the U.S. in actively defending against intercontinental ballistic missiles.




					www.ctvnews.ca


----------



## Kirkhill (13 May 2022)

Lawrence Martin in the Globe and Mail.​In the face of global disorder, Trudeau’s team is timid​


LAWRENCE MARTINPUBLIC AFFAIRS COLUMNIST
SPECIAL TO THE GLOBE AND MAIL
PUBLISHED YESTERDAY
FOR SUBSCRIBERS
214 COMMENTS
SHARE
BOOKMARK
Think of it this way, said Frank McKenna, the former New Brunswick premier and ambassador to Washington. “Canada has what Russia has.”
In the absence of that pariah state as a supplier of oil, gas, grain, other critical minerals and resources, Canada, he said, can do much more to fill the void.
Addressing a Canadian Global Affairs Institute conference in Ottawa Tuesday, he was one of several seasoned foreign policy specialists who had a message the Justin Trudeau Liberals would do well to heed.
In confronting the Russian invasion of Ukraine as well as other threats to liberal democracy, the government is being overly cautious, reactive instead of proactive. There’s a lack of enterprise, leaving this country’s potential on the foreign stage markedly unfulfilled.
In the past, inaction wasn’t so costly. Given the new world disorder, standing back won’t do. “We have to have a greater presence,” the Canadian ambassador to the United Nations Bob Rae told the gathering, “or we will lose out.”
The problem, said former prime minister and foreign minister Joe Clark in a corridor interview, is that Mr. Trudeau heads “a remarkably inward-looking government. We’re not sufficiently engaged.” While there are a couple of very talented ministers, he thinks they don’t make enough of a mark. “They go to an event for the photo and then leave.”
The absence of boldness is a strange posture in the context of what John Manley, who piloted foreign policy under Jean Chrétien, had to say. Given the ways of geopolitics, especially how the United States can no longer be relied upon as in the past, “we are more alone in the world than we ever have been,” he said. Even the newly modernized NAFTA, Mr. Manley said, can’t be guaranteed to last, given how Mexico has not been integrated as hoped.
As tensions between NATO and Russia increase, look to Kaliningrad
This year’s Victory Day in Russia will be a confirmation, not a contradiction
On relations with the U.S., Gary Doer, a former Manitoba premier and Washington ambassador under Stephen Harper, said there should be a push to forge a comprehensive energy security plan.
He didn’t mince his words. It’s “absolutely insane,” he said, that Washington is considering replacing oil imports from Russia with supplies from human rights abuser Venezuela instead of working together with Canada to fast-track deliveries.
On Ottawa’s military assistance to Ukraine, Conservative Peter MacKay, who served as foreign minister in the Harper government, didn’t mince his words either. “We sent four howitzers. That’s not enough to protect a small village.”

From panelist after panelist, the warnings piled up. “Get ready for a period of long confrontation with China,” said Roland Paris, a former foreign policy adviser to Mr. Trudeau. China, he said, is on track to be “a bigger foreign policy problem for us than Russia.”
David MacNaughton, Canada’s Washington ambassador during Donald Trump’s presidency, said Canadian foreign policy has to put more focus on its own hemisphere, particularly in the Caribbean, where China is making major investments, and in the North, where neighbour Russia threatens Arctic sovereignty. Both areas offer potential for collaboration with the U.S., he said.
The run of critiques came after Defence Minister Anita Anand opened the conference with the statement that “Our allies and partners want more of Canada.” This is a crucial moment, she said, and promised there would be more from Canada to be seen in the coming months, including on the subject of continental defence, which she called an as-yet unwritten chapter in the policy book.
On the plus side, as noted by Mr. McKenna and others, is the vast Canadian potential. If any country has the capacity to navigate the new perilous world, said Mr. Manley, noting Canada’s natural resources, diversity and highly educated population, it’s this country.
A more activist role in foreign affairs, pollsters David Coletto and Frank Graves told the participants, stands a good chance of being greeted by something unusual on the political front: bipartisan support. Liberals and Conservatives are not so ideologically divergent in the domain.
Unlike other countries that have been turning inward, even isolationist, Mr. Graves observed how Canadians commendably remain open to the world, to free trade and immigration.
In sum, noted Mr. Rae, “We have every reason for our diplomacy to be more robust.” To the Manley concern about Canada having never been so alone, he offered one of his favourite maxims: “If you want to have a friend, be one.”
Good advice. The new world instability calls for a bold new foreign policy. Instead of caution, it’s time, as Richard Fadden, Mr. Harper’s former national security adviser put it, to “pop the clutch.”
_Keep your Opinions sharp and informed. Get the Opinion newsletter. __Sign up today__._


----------



## Kirkhill (13 May 2022)

Canada's New Global Affairs Minister Reveals Her Mentor is Frank McKenna









						Canada’s new Global Affairs minister reveals her mentor is Frank McKenna | TJ.news
					

Frank McKenna and Mélanie Joly




					tj.news
				




Frank McKenna on Continental Defence in 2002



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/continental-defence-not-threat-to-sovereignty-mckenna-1.348738
		




> Canada's next ambassador to U.S. instigates outrage over missile defense​
> 
> *February 22, 2005*
> OTTAWA - Frank McKenna, Canada's next Ambassador to the U.S., announced Canada's partnership in the U.S.A.'s continental missile shield program. "We are part of it now," he said at a press conference in Ottawa.








						Canada's next ambassador to U.S. instigates outrage over missile defense - Wikinews, the free news source
					






					en.wikinews.org


----------



## Kirkhill (13 May 2022)

CBC News in Review •April 2005 • Page 19


MISSILE DEFENCE: CANADA TAKES A PASS
Introduction

Focus
In February 2005, Prime  Minister  Paul Martin  announced that Canada would not take part in the
U.S. ballistic missile defence plan. This News in Review module  explores the pros and cons of the 
Canadian decision,  with specific emphasis on the part Canada plays in the de- fence of North 
America.

Definition Ballistic  refers to projectiles  that return  to  earth through  the  force
of gravity. Ballistics is the study of projectiles  and firearms.


The president leaned across the table and said to the prime minister, “I’m not taking this 
position, but some future president is going to say, ‘Why are we paying to defend Canada?’” This is 
what U.S. President George W. Bush said to Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin at a meeting in 
December 2004—at least that is what the Wash- ington Post says happened (The Globe and Mail, 
January 25, 2005). The hottest military topic at the time: Ballis- tic Missile Defence (BMD). 
Canada had vacillated on the issue for long enough; the United States wanted Canada on board as a 
confirmation of the strong defence partnership the two nations had maintained since 1940. The 
comment by the president was seen by some as a gentle nudge toward Cana- dian endorsement of U.S. 
missile defence plans. Others saw the comment as the U.S. strong-arming Canada into co-operation in 
a highly controversial weapons project.

Defence in the Nuclear Age BMD finds its origins shortly after the dawn of the nuclear age. Once it 
had been established that several nations either had or would have the ability to deploy nuclear 
weapons, defence scientists worked on a way to defend
against such attacks. The greatest threat came from the intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), 
a weapon that could travel from the USSR to the U.S. or vice versa and deliver its nuclear pay- 
load on the perceived enemy. From about 1960 onward both Cold War rivals tried to come up with a 
workable defence shield that could counter the ICBM threat. Efforts seemed futile— the technology 
just wasn’t there—so in 

1972 the U.S. and the USSR signed the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. Seen by many as the 
blueprint for peace and deterrence in the Cold War era, the ABM Treaty marked a diplomatic 
breakthrough in the arms race. Both sides agreed to abandon the idea of constructing a defence 
shield. The ABM went virtually untested until the Cold War heated up in the 1980s. U.S. President 
Ronald Reagan proposed the construction of a complex weapons system known as the Strategic Defence 
Initiative (SDI). Referred to as “Star Wars” by some critics, SDI was an ambitious program designed 
to defend the U.S. from ballistic missile attacks. SDI was widely criticized because of its plans 
to put weapons in space.

NMD: Son of Star Wars
The SDI was reorganized into the Ballistic Missile Defence Organization in the 1990s, with 
President Bill Clinton proposing a toned-down version of the original plan, sometimes called “son 
of star wars.” Clinton’s National Missile Defence (NMD) plan called for the construction of a 
missile defence shield co-ordinating land, sea, and air com- mands in the interception and destruc- 
tion of ballistic missiles aimed at the
U.S. By the end of his presidency, Clinton decided to let his successor, George W. Bush, determine 
the fate of the project, since testing indicated that the missile defence system didn’t work and 
the appetite for spending money on the program had waned. However, after September 11, 2001, Bush 
gave the NMD the resources it needed. By fall 2004, the first interceptor missiles were in place at 
the U.S. military base in Fort Greely, Alaska.

FurtherResearch To learn more about  Canada’s alliances with the U.S., consider visiting the CBC 
Digital  Archives  at www.cbc.ca/archives and  explore  the audio-visual  files “NORAD:  Watching 
The Skies,” and “One for All: The North  Atlantic Treaty  Organiza-
tion.”


Canada and BMD
The Canadian and U.S. militaries have been closely linked since the formation of the Permanent 
Joint Board on De- fence (PJBD) by President Roosevelt and Prime Minister King in 1940. The 
formation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) followed in 1949 and the North American 
Aerospace Defence Agreement (NORAD) in 1958. Clearly both countries have viewed the defence of 
North America as being of pre-eminent importance. However, the issue of BMD has led to a political 
and military impasse between the two allies. The Americans view BMD as being a non-negotiable 
national security strat- egy that they will pursue with or with- out Canada’s involvement. Many 
Canadians see BMD as leading to a new arms race and the weaponization of space—a non-negotiable 
proposition in Canadian politics. Critics suggest that this strategy is equivalent to trying to  
hit a bullet with another bullet—an idea that is highly improbable with today’s technology.

The Politics of Missile Defence By February 2005, Canada felt com- pelled to make a decision on 
BMD. Canadian Ambassador to the U.S., Frank McKenna, forced the issue when he made a public 
statement claiming that Canada was already on board with the U.S. missile defence plan. McKenna 
cited an amendment to the NORAD
protocol giving military personnel at Peterson Air Force Base permission to share information with 
the U.S. missile defence command. Since the Americans did not expect Canada to pay a dime for BMD, 
McKenna reasoned that Cana- dian participation would take the shape of information sharing. The 
ambassador’s comments sent Liberal politicians in Ottawa into damage control. The Prime Minister 
and the Minister of Defence emphasized that no firm decision on BMD had been made. Opposition 
members accused the gov- ernment of making a secret deal with the U.S., promising Canadian involve- 
ment in BMD. Within days of the McKenna comment, Prime Minister Martin announced that Canada would 
take a pass on BMD. Many Canadians breathed a collective sigh of relief; the Americans expressed 
their displeasure.
U.S. Ambassador Paul Cellucci claimed that Canada was blindly giving up its seat at the table when 
it comes to mis- sile defence; U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice abruptly cancelled a trip 
to Canada. However, for Prime Minister Martin staying out of BMD became a matter of political 
survival. A torrent of opposition in Ottawa had put his minority government on thin ice. It was 
likely that the Liberal government would fall given the opposition to BMD from within the Liberal 
caucus and from other members of the House of Commons.


----------



## Kirkhill (13 May 2022)

I apologize for the long list of postings .... but   

While focusing on Ukraine I haven't been paying much attention to the home front.

It appears that Minister Anand has been busy consulting - and one group of consultants was essentially the entire Privy Council - anybody that has ever been named Honourable or Right Honourable was invited to a CGAI party to express their views.  The consensus, as described in the Lawrence Martin report was it is well past time for Canada to get the thumb out.

The fact that the opinion piece was as close as Lawrence Martin ever gets to a straight news report is in itself remarkable.  Normally I consider him nothing more than a Liberal tout.  In this case that has merit.  It suggests to me that there is a shaping of the battlefield going on.

Continental Defence, getting into bed with those nasty Yanks, Star Wars, Ballistic Missile Defence - all of those things are on the table.

I have started to get used to Minister Anand sounding a bit more like Manley and MacKay than Axworthy and Clark but I had my concerns about Joly.  

Then I discovered that Joly considers Frank McKenna a mentor.

And McKenna was a proponent, in Hilliers day, of Continental Defence and Anti Ballistic Missile Systems.

So with Anand, Joly and Freeland in place is it too much to hope that this trio of women could sell Canadians on the need to protect hearth and home and come up with a strong, rational defence policy.

One thing I did notice.   I was reading an article about refreshing the North Warning System with Over The Horizon radars.  The important part was the headline was all about protecting the cities of the south.  The subtext was equally important - a Canadian radar built in Canada by Canadians - in particular Southern Ontario.

As I said, I sense a shaping of the Information battlefield.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (13 May 2022)

Whoa, that's a lot of words...


----------



## dimsum (14 May 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> One thing I did notice. I was reading an article about refreshing the North Warning System with Over The Horizon radars. The important part was the headline was all about protecting the cities of the south.



That's not all that surprising though.  Most of the population and infra is in the south.  

If you're going to be convincing govt to approve it, and the public to get on board with it, "protecting Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver" is going to have a bigger impact than "protecting Iqaluit and the NWP".

That might not be the correct strategic answer, but it's the correct "voting" answer.


----------



## daftandbarmy (14 May 2022)

dimsum said:


> That's not all that surprising though.  Most of the population and infra is in the south.
> 
> If you're going to be convincing govt to approve it, and the public to get on board with it, "protecting Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver" is going to have a bigger impact than "protecting Iqaluit and the NWP".
> 
> That might not be the correct strategic answer, but it's the correct "voting" answer.



But what would a trustee fund raised sparkle socks wearing privileged ego-maniac white man baby want to do?

IMHO, that's the key factor in the estimate


----------



## Kirkhill (14 May 2022)

dimsum said:


> That's not all that surprising though.  Most of the population and infra is in the south.
> 
> If you're going to be convincing govt to approve it, and the public to get on board with it, "protecting Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver" is going to have a bigger impact than "protecting Iqaluit and the NWP".
> 
> That might not be the correct strategic answer, but it's the correct "voting" answer.



Agree absolutely.  It's the fact that it is being presented as "beneficial to Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver" and not just that it is a "military necessity" or, even worse, "a useless requirement of the Americans" that I find interesting.

If the government wants to win the information war then use the "TMV" pitch.  If the government wants to lose the information war then use the "Americans" pitch.

The "Americans" pitch was used during the Reagan Star Wars (pejorative)  and Cruise Missile campaigns, the Clinton Son of Star Wars campaign and the Bush II Continental Defence campaign.   The government of Canada didn't have to take a position.  It simply didn't bother to counter the opposition position and let it dominate the public square.

This time I sense two or three major differences:

1 There is a government pitch presenting the benefits
2 The party that is doing the pitching is the same  party that has made hay out of opposing the exact same pitch previously

And the third, maybe

3 The pitch is a Gender Based pitch being led by three women - the Finance Minister, the Global Affairs Minister and the Defence Minister.

Defence is one area where gender generally splits the population, being seen as a predominantly male interest with a significant portion of female population preferring butter over guns.  And the left tends to skew their message in that direction.  And this government, in particular this wing of the Liberal Party and the NDP have both built their power base making their pitches to that audience.

If they want to, or are forced to, change policy to one of guns instead of butter then they are going to have to bring their power base, the left, with them.  They can't simply declare a policy change because that would result in outcry.  They have to do the Ralph Klein thing and lead where their followers want to be led.

The one thing that trumps "more butter" is "security".

If the government were inclined to oppose an imposed policy change then it would do what it has in the past and let the "outcry" prevail and tell the world "Sorry! We tried. It is just not politically possible for us domestically. Nothing we can do about it."

This time, the fact
that the government is taking the time to make the pitch,
that it is being made by a left wing government,
that it is being made by women,
that it is being pitched through the CBC, the Globe and Mail's Editorial Board and Lawrence Martin,
through a convening of the cross party old guard of Privy Councillors by the Canadian Global Affairs Institute,
that it was pitched through a presentation in Washington sponsored by the "Smart Women Smart Power Initiative" of the Center for Strategic and International Studies,
all suggest that the change is real.

Take that together with the Auditor General's military "slush fund"
With the Government making a 600 MCAD investment in Nunavut to "maintain" (clean-up?) the existing DEW-Line/North Warning Sites which seem about ready to be made redundant by OTH Radars and an enhanced Radarsat constellation, 
And I suggest that the government is moving fast in an unlikely direction.

Even the deal with the NDP of March 22, a month after the February 24 Russian invasion of Ukraine, three weeks after the Feb 28  speech by Chancellor Scholz of Germany repudiating Merkel and Rapprochement, a deal apparently brokered by Christia Freeland, a deal that gives what was a weak minority government a firm platform for the next two or three years, can be seen through this same lens.

The weak minority government, even with the Ukrainian backdrop, would have been challenged to do a Scholz Turn on defence and sell guns instead of butter.   It needed to know that it could manage its base against the base's strong isolationist, pacificist, inward looking elements.

And all of this has been done since February 24th - 79 days ago, less than 12 weeks, less than 3 months.

In Canada this is lightning fast for what can be perceived as a monumental shift by the party in power.

It also suggests that the change to the international scene and the impact it has on the domestic scene is perceived as very real by the people in power in Canada.  Whoever that may actually be.


----------



## Kirkhill (14 May 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> But what would a trustee fund raised sparkle socks wearing privileged ego-maniac white man baby want to do?
> 
> IMHO, that's the key factor in the estimate



What would he WANT to do, indeed.

It will be interesting to see if he rides out the changes, if the changes happen despite his wants, if he gets replaced, or if he just starts reading from a new script.


----------



## Good2Golf (14 May 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> In Canada this is lightning fast for what can be perceived as a monumental shift by the party in power.
> 
> It also suggests that the change to the international scene and the impact it has on the domestic scene is perceived as very real by the people in power in Canada. Whoever that may actually be.



Methinks that Canada received a multi-source pummeling behind the scenes recently, with a ‘put up, or shut up!’ message train…


----------



## FJAG (14 May 2022)

This all seems to me to be a fairly realistic approach by a government that I have zero respect for.

Canada's population is a generation that has never had Soviet Nuclear sabres rattled at it before. Those that follow the MSM - and I think there are still some - will have noticed that it's not just Ukraine that is being threatened, but North America as well.

We have two major security issues that we could invest in:

1 Continental defence;

2. European NATO advanced defence.

The US would be happy if we invested in 2 and ecstatic if we invested in 1. No one really cares what Europe thinks because there is too little return on investment from them. The US on the other hand ...

We could actually fulfill both.

Put our real money into continental defence. We're already refreshing our fighter fleet and naval forces. An anti-missile defence actually does something, is complementary, and it will be seen as a defensive rather than offensive measure. Something that now threatened Canadians can get on board with. The fact that there might be economic spin offs from that is a bonus.

As for European defence - a low cost solution is to move the CMTC infrastructure and a healthy slice of a brigade's equipment as a flyover force to Poland. (Easily done if 2 CMBG is turned into a light brigade and Canada commits two LAV battalions and a half a regiment of tanks plus enablers overseas). Our annual managed readiness cycles can then be built around a flyover Maple Resolve. Much of the recurring costs would come out of existing Ready Forces programs. The additional recurring funds required are miniscule compared to those being sunk into continental defence but would still garner significant political brownie points. By being a flyover force it would be seen as less "offensive" by the Canadian public who, at the moment, are already being conditioned with the very real Russian threat to world peace.

China? It's a long game. It can wait until we have our continental ducks in a row.

🍻


----------



## Kirkhill (14 May 2022)

FJAG said:


> This all seems to me to be a fairly realistic approach by a government that I have zero respect for.
> 
> Canada's population is a generation that has never had Soviet Nuclear sabres rattled at it before. Those that follow the MSM - and I think there are still some - will have noticed that it's not just Ukraine that is being threatened, but North America as well.
> 
> ...



I'll go you one further when it comes to the Army FJAG.  Reverse the 1970s batting order.

Instead of the SSF National Defence Force, the 5 CMBG CAST (nominal) Brigade, the 1 CMBG Augmentation Brigade and the 4 CMBG Prepositioned Brigade  with the SSF being everybody's Regimental Step-Child and 4 CMBG being the big leagues, recreate 1, 2 and 5 Brigades as 2 battalion light Special Service Forces for Continental Defence and resurrect 4 CMBG with two sets of kit - one in Alberta or Gagetown and one in Europe.  

The Regiments (Inf, Armd, Arty and Eng) rotate troops from the SSFs through 4 CMBG and 4 CMBG regularly practices deployments over seas.


----------



## Kirkhill (14 May 2022)

FJAG said:


> This all seems to me to be a fairly realistic approach by a government that I have zero respect for.
> 
> Canada's population is a generation that has never had Soviet Nuclear sabres rattled at it before. Those that follow the MSM - and I think there are still some - will have noticed that it's not just Ukraine that is being threatened, but North America as well.
> 
> ...



More thoughts more in keeping with this thread rather than the Force 2025 meander I took

Yes it is a sensible approach and one that I think is both right and sellable - and more easily sellable because it is right.  
We are not a world apart on the Flyover approach although I suspect my continuing Light emphasis will gain few additional converts.
WRT China - I wouldn't wait too long on China.  I suspect, believe, that with a collapse of the Kremlin that China will move to exploit the vacuum.  I still expect to see them looking for a seat on the Arctic Council before long as well as looking to exploit indigenous connections across the north.


----------



## YZT580 (14 May 2022)

With the understanding that stationing troops offshore costs money, would establishing a brigade somewhere in Europe not help with retention and recruitment?  Having one's spouse disappear for months at a time causes significant hardship whereas being overseas with them might make it more palatable.


----------



## Kirkhill (14 May 2022)

YZT580 said:


> With the understanding that stationing troops offshore costs money, would establishing a brigade somewhere in Europe not help with retention and recruitment?  Having one's spouse disappear for months at a time causes significant hardship whereas being overseas with them might make it more palatable.


Very true that.

Two years in Poland with the family, Canadian schools and a Canex would probably be a major recruiting tool.

So you put a brigade of kit in Poland, another in Canada and keep a Battle Group forwards with the remainder getting flyovers.  Some might prefer to stay in Canada.


----------



## OldSolduer (14 May 2022)

Perhaps the first thing is decide what policy the nation needs to follow cause this one ain't working.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (14 May 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> I suspect, believe, that with a collapse of the Kremlin that China will move to exploit the vacuum.  I still expect to see them looking for a seat on the Arctic Council before long as well as looking to exploit indigenous connections across the north.


Many of the indigenous communities are not enamoured or loyal to Ottawa or Moscow, or any other Northern Capital. Nor is their leadership well versed in the pitfalls of dealing with Beijing, so could be bought in many ways. It would make an interesting battle if a indigenous group on "unceded land" declared they are now a independent nation with the financial and political support of Beijing.


----------



## daftandbarmy (14 May 2022)

YZT580 said:


> With the understanding that stationing troops offshore costs money, would establishing a brigade somewhere in Europe not help with retention and recruitment?  Having one's spouse disappear for months at a time causes significant hardship whereas being overseas with them might make it more palatable.



Or just don't recruit married people?


----------



## Kirkhill (14 May 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Many of the indigenous communities are not enamoured or loyal to Ottawa or Moscow, or any other Northern Capital. Nor is their leadership well versed in the pitfalls of dealing with Beijing, so could be bought in many ways. It would make an interesting battle if a indigenous group on "unceded land" declared they are now a independent nation with the financial and political support of Beijing.



Denmark has trouble with China over Greenland. 






						Greenland: what is China doing there and why? | Presence before power
					






					www.clingendael.org
				











						Greenland has an election on Tuesday. Why are the U.S. and China so interested in its outcome?
					

On an Arctic island with some of the world’s largest supplies of rare-earth elements, a heated debate about mining and its environmental costs will have big consequences for global superpowers




					www.theglobeandmail.com
				











						Greenland says no to China-backed rare-earth mine in election
					

Party opposed to Kvanefjeld project wins, denting Beijing's ambitions




					asia.nikkei.com
				




Need to keep the North on-side.


----------



## Underway (14 May 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> Methinks that Canada received a multi-source pummeling behind the scenes recently, with a ‘put up, or shut up!’ message train…


I'm with @Edward Campbell source on this.  The Government is _resigned _in that increased defense focus is coming and that there need to be changes given a "new" reality.


----------



## FJAG (14 May 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> Perhaps the first thing is decide what policy the nation needs to follow cause this one ain't working.


Sometimes folks down a tier from the top need a self-made plan in default of a policy from the top.

😉


----------



## dimsum (15 May 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> Or just don't recruit married people?


Doesn't the US, UK, etc have age limits on recruiting?


----------



## FJAG (15 May 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> Or just don't recruit married people?


Charter of Rights.

😉


----------



## Good2Golf (15 May 2022)

FJAG said:


> Charter of Rights.
> 
> 😉



S.1 Demonstrably Justified:  Has entered the chat.


----------



## Brad Sallows (15 May 2022)

People who like spending programmes require money to spend.  A prosperous Canada produces greater government revenues.  The US is still the big trading partner, and Canadian prosperity depends heavily on good trading relationships with the US.  Actively antagonizing the US is obviously a foolish indulgence (which some past politicians have done, leaving Canada to underwrite the consequences of their fits), but so is passively allowing the US to become frustrated/disappointed/angry with Canada's posture.  Left-leaning parties in Canada have the most to gain from a happy-happy-joy-joy relationship with the US, no matter how much it gets up their noses to do so.

Facing facts, the people in Ottawa know that Republicans are almost certain to win the House and highly likely to win the Senate this year; and in two year's time, more likely than not to win the presidency.  Republicans more than Democrats take a dim view of defence free riders.  Consequently...


----------



## Kirkhill (15 May 2022)

This is a 2014 Canadian Senate report on Ballistic Missile Defence

I have no idea why the link displays a CBC reference but it links to a Senate BMD report on my computer.  I may need help mods. [_Mod edit: Sorry, it’s a glitch in the web page’s meta data that’s causing a ‘wonky’ unfurl._]






						Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs (41st Parliament, 2nd Session)
					

Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs



					sencanada.ca
				



Anywho what took me was that the people signing on to the BMD program in 2014 was the entirety of NATO, including the French, Germans, Hungarians, Albanians and Bulgarians, the Japanese, South Koreans and Australians as well as the UK and the US.

Canada and the Kiwis, were odd men out, just as in the AUKUS case.

Canada out of step with the Five Eyes, the Quad and NATO...


----------



## Kirkhill (15 May 2022)

Globe and Mail Editorial (Konrad Yakabuski) on Continental Defence - 

Royal Commission time...



> Canada needs to put up or shut up on missile defence​
> 
> 
> KONRAD YAKABUSKI
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (15 May 2022)

And some thoughts on the near term Geopolitics that might influence the debate.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1525827783448055811
In fairness to Trudeau's government, something I am generally loathe to be, there is real justification for taking some time before making decisions on Foreign and Defence Policy at this moment.  The situation is changing very rapidly and Canada can't do very much in the short term to influence events - beyond convening...

On the other hand I expect by the end of the summer a major shift in thinking will be required.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (15 May 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> Globe and Mail Editorial (Konrad Yakabuski) on Continental Defence -
> 
> Royal Commission time...


Just once, I would love to see partisanship get the hell out of the way on a defense issue. Just once. 

As much as we need to be thorough, we need to be decisive and quick. 

As Ukraine unfortunately found out the hard way, time is a luxury we don't have when it comes to preparing our defenses.


----------



## Good2Golf (15 May 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> Just once, I would love to see partisanship get the hell out of the way on a defense issue. Just once.
> 
> As much as we need to be thorough, we need to be decisive and quick.
> 
> As Ukraine unfortunately found out the hard way, time is a luxury we don't have when it comes to preparing our defenses.


I wouldn’t be overly upset if the US just advised Canada that it was using its Northern neighbour as a BMD buffer zone.  We’re such pathetic freeloaders that we’d fully deserve it.


----------



## Kirkhill (15 May 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> Just once, I would love to see partisanship get the hell out of the way on a defense issue. Just once.
> 
> As much as we need to be thorough, we need to be decisive and quick.
> 
> As Ukraine unfortunately found out the hard way, time is a luxury we don't have when it comes to preparing our defenses.


I agree on the partisanship, and think we should be moving to join AUKUS on subs as well as BMD and Continental Defence (3 different things).  But the ground underfoot is changing rapidly.  Now is not a great time for making predictions.


----------



## KevinB (15 May 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> I wouldn’t be overly upset if the US just advised Canada that it was using its Northern neighbour as a BMD buffer zone.  We’re such pathetic freeloaders that we’d fully deserve it.


I mean that is what we are doing currently. 
  Don’t want to be an impact area? Get on board and hit them further out…


----------



## daftandbarmy (15 May 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> I wouldn’t be overly upset if the US just advised Canada that it was using its Northern neighbour as a BMD buffer zone.  We’re such pathetic freeloaders that we’d fully deserve it.


----------



## FJAG (15 May 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> In fairness to Trudeau's government, something I am generally loathe to be, there is real justification for taking some time before making decisions on Foreign and Defence Policy at this moment.


I agree with you but, not being fair to this government at all, my guess is that any time spent is more likely being spent to avoid making any decision at all with the hope that the whole thing will blow over with time.

🍻


----------



## Good2Golf (15 May 2022)

FJAG said:


> I agree with you but, not being fair to this government at all, my guess is that any time spent is more likely being spent to avoid making any decision at all with the hope that the whole thing will blow over with time.
> 
> 🍻


This government makes Paul Martin look like an instantaneous decision maker!


----------



## CBH99 (15 May 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> I agree on the partisanship, and think we should be moving to join AUKUS on subs as well as BMD and Continental Defence (3 different things).  But the ground underfoot is changing rapidly.  _Now is not a great time for making predictions_.


True, now may not be a great time for making decisions. 

In the last 6 months, the happenings of international affairs has completely gone against any of my predictions in any way, shape, or form.  


_But regardless, some things will require us to be active on these 3 things._

BMD - whether it’s Russia, North Korea, or China, BMD matters

Continental Defense - being able to sense, locate & track, and prosecute targets close to home will be just as important as doing it overseas, even if the situation that requires it never materializes 

NORAD - I think of this and the above as being one in the same.  


The training, industrial, intelligence sharing, and breadth of interoperability benefits _are too big of a missed opportunity_ for us to dither on.  

My 0.02


----------



## Good2Golf (15 May 2022)

I have a hard time believing that this government is doing anything even loosely related to Defence for any reason other than they were “told to” by the ‘losers’ of the War of 1812…


----------



## McG (15 May 2022)

CBH99 said:


> BMD - whether it’s Russia, North Korea, or China, BMD matters


It needs to be continental missile defence. With evolving technology, not all threats still follow a traditional ballistic trajectory.


----------



## CBH99 (15 May 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> I have a hard time believing that this government is doing anything even loosely related to Defence for any reason other than they were “told to” by the ‘losers’ of the War of 1812…


I’m equally cynical, but with a different motive in mind also.  

This government will do something loosely related to defence _IF_ it makes the PM look good, also.  Or to avoid him looking bad.  

He has the speaking points down.  He assures allies that Canadian troops will be deployed to this place and that, when/if the situation requires it.  

He was just banking on the situation never actually requiring it.  


Now that Ukraine vs Russia is happening, I think he’s realized just how bare the cupboard is.  He can’t donate real heavy weapons, and it’s making him look bad…


----------



## Underway (15 May 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> I agree on the partisanship, and think we should be moving to join AUKUS on subs....


This is nothing more than a FOMO reflex. AUKUS is a South Pacific strategic partnership. We have no skin in the game there.  We could easily make our own deal with US and/or UK if necessary for our own interests, call it Arctic security or whatever.

As for continental defence I'll repeat myself.  There is $15 billion in unspecified military spending in the budget. What's that for?  Likely NORAD, continental defence spending and buying things to replace whatever we send to Ukraine.

As far as a defence policy update I think that it would be dumb to rush out and just start flinging money around.  Ukraine is rewriting what is important in military tactics, strategy and technology as we speak.  We can afford to wait a few months (say end of summer as @Kirkhill pointed out).  I'm wondering if some projects will be accelerated in timeline based on this situation (GBAD or the MALE UAV program for example)


----------



## GK .Dundas (15 May 2022)

CBH99 said:


> I’m equally cynical, but with a different motive in mind also.
> 
> This government will do something loosely related to defence _IF_ it makes the PM look good, also.  Or to avoid him looking bad.
> 
> ...


For which in the fashion of Canadian politicians since time immemorial he will undoubtedly blame the military for getting him into this spot.


----------



## YZT580 (16 May 2022)

If he truly had leadership abilities he would be directing the MND to sit down with her conservative counterpart and draft up a mutually agreeable approach.  Bipartisanship is essential and whilst I believe that there is plenty of time to get it right, we can't spare any time in doing it wrong. Training, purchasing, designing take an inordinate amount of time and having to go back and start again would burn through resources that we cannot spare.  We have done that too often already.  The C295 and our orphan helicopter fleets come to mind as I write.  Besides there is no way that Singh is going to sign on to a robust military so Trudeau had better get the Cons on side.  (I know, I am dreaming)


----------



## Kirkhill (16 May 2022)

This may seem a strange place to post this article but I think it relates.

The Russian-Ukrainian scrap is in large part about energy.
The German-Hungarian position is in large part about energy.

At the bottom of both is "CLIMATE" - an enemy crafted in 1992 at Rio.  Something that has driven diplomacy for the last 30 years.  And no country has been more invested in the "prevention" programme than Canada.  That programme was base on convincing people that they were doing it wrong and needed to change. They needed to improve.

There has always been an alternate school of thought.  Climate change is.  It is real.  It always has been.  And there is precious little that can be done to stop it.  The best that can be done is to figure out how to adapt to it.  The Bjorn Lomborg position if you like.

I can be accused, rightly, of reading too much into things.  But in this instance I find this policy shift, this announcement, as curious as if Trudeau suddenly announced that he was joining the BMD/Continental Defence program.

It could be nothing.  Or it could be another sign of the winds shifting a bit.









						Ottawa goes public with its planning to brace for climate change’s consequences
					

Public consultations to begin Monday with virtual launch event as Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault reiterates Ottawa’s goal to complete the strategy by November’s COP27 climate summit




					www.theglobeandmail.com
				






> Ottawa goes public with its planning to brace for climate change’s consequences​
> 
> 
> ADAM RADWANSKI
> ...


----------



## Good2Golf (16 May 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> This may seem a strange place to post this article but I think it relates.
> 
> The Russian-Ukrainian scrap is in large part about energy.
> The German-Hungarian position is in large part about energy.
> ...


All very interesting, but I was ‘intrigued’ by this assessment by Radwanski…as in whether this was his ide, or that of Minister Guilbault?



> Among the fundamental challenges with which Mr. Guilbeault and his colleagues are grappling is how to set meaningful targets for building resilience that can be used *to hold themselves and future governments to account*.



Not sure if he’s a new writer, but I’d be very interested to see what any government (let alone this one) would come up with to hold itself to account… 🤔


----------



## dimsum (16 May 2022)

Underway said:


> There is $15 billion in unspecified military spending in the budget.


Maybe I just missed it, but I'm surprised the usual pundits didn't immediately jump on that rather than focusing on the $8 billion.

Keeping the "underfunded military" theme going?


----------



## Kirkhill (16 May 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> All very interesting, but I was ‘intrigued’ by this assessment by Radwanski…as in whether this was his ide, or that of Minister Guilbault?
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure if he’s a new writer, but I’d be very interested to see what any government (let alone this one) would come up with to hold itself to account… 🤔




Missed that.

Another indication of failing to come to terms with the Sovereignty of Parliament.  One of the tenets of the system is that no government can bind a future government.  Parliament has the authority, the sole authority, to establish law.  That means they can add, subtract or change the body of law that Canada recognizes within its borders.


----------



## Good2Golf (16 May 2022)

True in an absolute sense, but Governments of the day can certainly make things ‘unpalatable’ for future governments, to wit the Conservative’s reduction of GST from 7% to 5%.  Today’s Liberal Democrats are just finding creative ways to stealthily tax the middle class (from where the majority of tax revenue comes) to make up for the 28.8% lower GST revenues.  Hand it to Harper…he knew it was a fiscally responsible but poison pill for the Liberals to have to swallow in perpetuity.


----------



## Underway (16 May 2022)

dimsum said:


> Maybe I just missed it, but I'm surprised the usual pundits didn't immediately jump on that rather than focusing on the $8 billion.
> 
> Keeping the "underfunded military" theme going?


The only article I could find was the G&M.  That plus the $8billion over three years works out to a budget increase of about $7.6 billion every year over the next three.  Which would be about a 33% increase (rough math, we're what ~$21 billion right now? Goes to $29 billion).

That is not an insignificant amount of money.  Not 2% yet (that's closer to the $40+ billion mark).

*Caveat: all financial numbers are from my first coffee Monday morning fog brain.  They are approximated for discussion purposes, not exact accounting!


----------



## Brad Sallows (16 May 2022)

> True, now may not be a great time for making decisions.



When is?  Is there a list of conditions which can be consulted to identify "great times"?


----------

