• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Canada moves to 2% GDP end of FY25/26 - PMMC

So anyone can enlighten me as to what this line is about?:

This is the appropriate and healthy reaction of a sane human being when told they need to make two seperate Treasury Board submissions to seek approval for a procurement that the Prime Minister already announced.
@MidOfficer’s making a funny. I know who he is, we’ve chatted, and he has experience in (and scars from) the procurement world. He’s shining a bit of light on the absurdity of pushing even fully politically supported acquisitions through TBS and the procurement bureaucracy.
 

2nd Canadian Division task.
No. This would be an RCMP national security investigation, undoubtedly paralleled by CSIS. On scene, at most they might request support from CAF EOD if needed, but probably it would be well within the capabilities of police CBRNE. The forensic exploitation of the devices would be key evidence.
 
@MidOfficer’s making a funny. I know who he is, we’ve chatted, and he has experience in (and scars from) the procurement world. He’s shining a bit of light on the absurdity of pushing even fully politically supported acquisitions through TBS and the procurement bureaucracy.

The PM announcing we're doing something means the bureaucracy in turn has to make it happen. Parts of that process are ripe for streamlining. But challenge and oversight are key parts. Otherwise things can and do get missed.

War story: the acquisition of Leo IIs was a rush job. The team working it had expertise from a variety of domains, and still, well past the 11th hour, they realized one slight oversight in their plans (as opposed to a number of other things deliberately overlooked): the main gun on the Leo II is 120mm, not 105mm like the Leo Is that were then in service. New ammo has a list of implications for cost, time and work.
 
No. This would be an RCMP national security investigation, undoubtedly paralleled by CSIS. On scene, at most they might request support from CAF EOD if needed, but probably it would be well within the capabilities of police CBRNE. The forensic exploitation of the devices would be key evidence.

The RCMP will supply the security cordon and the C-RAM/C-RAM defence? The district security patrols?
 
The RCMP will supply the security cordon and the C-RAM/C-RAM defence? The district security patrols?
I’m talking about dealing with an incident that has already taken place or a plot that is detected. If you’re talking about a standing defence against a hypothetical but non specific threat, different question.
 
Nuclear plants have their own civilian security with the ability to use up to lethal force. We don't need RCMP or CAF doing this.
They however have their own limitations.
There are areas where the CAF and RCMP would be better suited
 
It is not just the nuclear power plants that are at risk. The need for the federal government to have the ability to beef up Vital Point security in times of heightened tensions has been recognised since at least the Perrin Beatty white paper on defence.

The problem we now face is that back then the threat and the resulting force was seen as being of a limited duration, like the Second World War.

The hybrid threat, the hybrid war, we are now facing is an enduring threat. We need to think in terms of decades and careers.
 
It is not just the nuclear power plants that are at risk. The need for the federal government to have the ability to beef up Vital Point security in times of heightened tensions has been recognised since at least the Perrin Beatty white paper on defence.

The problem we now face is that back then the threat and the resulting force was seen as being of a limited duration, like the Second World War.

The hybrid threat, the hybrid war, we are now facing is an enduring threat. We need to think in terms of decades and careers.
We also live in a free and open society. There are inherent risks with liberty and using soldiers as cops is often antithetical to liberty.
 
We also live in a free and open society. There are inherent risks with liberty and using soldiers as cops is often antithetical to liberty.

How about using citizens as security guards?

You can retain the power of arrest as a police power if you wish.
Or you can do what the criminal code requires of a citizen and that is go to the aid of a police officer when aid is requested.

Section 129(b).


Soldiers do not have to act as cops, even when cops act as soldiers.
 
How about using citizens as security guards?

You can retain the power of arrest as a police power if you wish.
Or you can do what the criminal code requires of a citizen and that is go to the aid of a police officer when aid is requested.

Section 129(b).


Soldiers do not have to act as cops, even when cops act as soldiers.
No thanks. Id rather accept the risk of liberty than descend into a police state. We arent at war.
 
How about using citizens as security guards?

You can retain the power of arrest as a police power if you wish.
Or you can do what the criminal code requires of a citizen and that is go to the aid of a police officer when aid is requested.

Section 129(b).


Soldiers do not have to act as cops, even when cops act as soldiers.
Seriously? I don't believe the facilities in question are facing the same criminal element as the local mall. Training, weapons qualification, insurance, dealing with drones are just a few areas where someone other than a rent-a-cop style of force would be needed and that suggests a professional force; and a well trained force at that. We as a country haven't really had to give this type of security much thought and the folks who would carry out this type of activity know it. You can start with the gatehouse guards at most Forces bases.
 
Google translates



Security guards of the Danish Homeguard. Part-timers.


Tasks of the Army Home Guard.

 
Back
Top