Canada's military feeling the strain responding to climate change

[Furniture]

You know I'm a CPC supporter and I'm not really that concerned about this being a veiled support of the LPC agenda. The CPC isn't really climate change deniers; they just see some different solutions to the problem.

What does concern me is that he's whining about a few domestic operations "stressing" out the CAF. It's true that we're under equipped for high end military operations albeit we're not badly equipped for light and medium weight ones. We're only understaffed at the sharp end because we're grossly overstaffed at the blunt end and as it is we're having troubles meeting recruiting quotas with the establishments that we have.

Let's face it, flood and fire fighting isn't rocket science; it's bull work which our military training and organization has and can easily adapt to.

That was true when we were facing nuclear disaster oriented aid to the civil power and is even more relevant today.

Canada gives DND around $25 billion per year. If we're really stressing out some units or elements for these type of operations then it's our own bloody fault. The CDS needs to get his own house in order before he start whining to the public like Oliver Twist: "Please, Sir. Can I have some more?".

:worms:

Could it be that the type of people interested in war fighting aren't terribly interested in fighting floods and forest fires? We can make them do it once they are in, but can we keep them around when between training to fight first class opponents they spend what should be their summer leave fighting forest fires, and filling sandbags?

Does the budget size matter when the people clearly aren't interested in joining or staying? Perhaps the CDS is making it known the CAF is feeling a bit stretched so we can ramp down the pace of operations and give our deployers a break?

 

[mariomike]

For Mario Mike. (I don't know how to post a quote from a previous post). The HUSAR teams are a good start and the three municipalities (and the provinces and feds who have provided support and funding) are to be congratulated. But these three teams, for the entire country, do not represent any sort of level of adequate preparation. I stand by my statement. We, collectively, are woefully prepared for a major disaster and the only significant mobile, deployable and self-contained response agency is the CF.

I agree with the high-lighted part, OldTanker.

HUSAR is what we've got. I wasn't a member, but I was permanent on the Mass Casualty ( MCI ) multi-patient buses after 1980, and was well aware of our limited surge capacity.

Since funding is provincial, I don't know how it works in Vancouver or Calgary.

The challenge we faced was our funding was based on the census population, not the business day commuter population. As a result,  there were always more people requiring service than the system was funded for.

Add things like the Raptors parade, Pride, Caribana, Pearson Airport and Union Station, general tourism, 18 live lanes on the 401, etc. etc , many of those visitors are from out of town. 

I'll leave the Climate Change debate for its 118-page super-thread. But, in terms of weather, because of the density , a major snow storm can paralyze this city.

I know NYC relies heavily on their National Guard units during snowstorms.

:cheers:

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Stockpile more bridging, rafting and water treatment equipment at the various Reserve Combat Engineer units.

 

[Jarnhamar]

[quote author=QV]   

We need to be good stewards of the environment, but there has been a lot of dishonesty about climate change and it's being used to advance political agendas. 
[/quote]

This is exactly what I mean (but fail to articulate).
Climate is changing, some of it very well be man made. There's a lot of dogma about it and dishonesty for personal or political advantage.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I can't speak to other provinces, but neither BC nor Alberta put anything like the necessary resources into emergency preparedness and response that they should. This is even worse at the municipal level.

This is exactly what I noticed. My area had significant flooding a couple years ago. Residents and municipalities seemed wholy unprepared  for more flooding and seemed to do extremely little in the way of preparation.

Politics among the municipalities was dumbfounding.

People complained a lot the CAF could have helped a lot more if we were called out 3 weeks earlier and they were not wrong.

But if the CAF is going to be used as de-facto firefighters and flood responders then we need training and especially equipment. CAF members shouldn't be buying hip waders on their own because they don't want to stand in shit water and there's none in the system.

 

[OldTanker]

If the CF is going to be more committed to domestic operations in the future, perhaps there is some value in considering re-configuring Army units specifically for this role. For example, we could consider reconfiguring Militia Armour and Artillery units to engineering, logistical and medical units, something that would be sorely needed after a major disaster. And then equip them accordingly. We need to think of the CF role in a major disaster (the big earthquake on the West Coast for example) and not just relatively short-term flood and fire responses. Shades of the "snakes and ladders" days of the Reentry Columns of the 1960s I know, and heresy to an old tanker, but we need to face reality. The soldier in me understands the need to maintain a military capable of fighting, the taxpayer in me wonders what point there is in spending billions of dollars on something that can't protect us from an emerging threat. This probably shouldn't be the responsibility of the CF, but if not them, who? Suggestions cheerfully solicited.

 

[mariomike]

This was the headline in 1954, after Hurricane Hazel.

To the best of my knowledge, 1954 and the 1999 ( snow-storm ) were the only times the army deployed in Toronto.

Looks like the 48th Highlanders (?) in one pic.

 

[FJAG]

If the CF is going to be more committed to domestic operations in the future, perhaps there is some value in considering re-configuring Army units specifically for this role. For example, we could consider reconfiguring Militia Armour and Artillery units to engineering, logistical and medical units, something that would be sorely needed after a major disaster. And then equip them accordingly. We need to think of the CF role in a major disaster (the big earthquake on the West Coast for example) and not just relatively short-term flood and fire responses. Shades of the "snakes and ladders" days of the Reentry Columns of the 1960s I know, and heresy to an old tanker, but we need to face reality. The soldier in me understands the need to maintain a military capable of fighting, the taxpayer in me wonders what point there is in spending billions of dollars on something that can't protect us from an emerging threat. This probably shouldn't be the responsibility of the CF, but if not them, who? Suggestions cheerfully solicited.

Sorry mate, I couldn't disagree more. Having briefly been part of the "snakes and ladder" crowd for a short period in the '60s I can attest to how thoroughly demoralizing that was. Luckily our officers basically ignored the mandate and kept us focused on our artillery role but we lost a lot of good NCOs and other folks who didn't want any part of that nonsense. I quoted Gen Simonds above about a military trained for major warfare can easily adapt to civil power roles. The opposite isn't true.

Dealing with disasters is a provincial matter. Federal legislation kicks in only when a "public welfare emergency" is of an extant "that results or may result in a danger to life or property, social disruption or a breakdown in the flow of essential goods, services or resources, so serious as to be a national emergency." Military involvement generally comes only to augment provincial authorities by way of aid to the civil power.

Climate change, while serious, is not on the scale of '60s style "imminent nuclear destruction". There is time for federal, provincial and local governments to get serious and address concerns at their respective levels and create the essential mechanisms and organizations to deal with those matters.

My personal opinion is that we shouldn't ignore the very real revival of the cold war that the government has identified in SSE, and for which we now keep forces deployed for in the Baltics, and reorganize and equip our reserves (especially armour, artillery, infantry, air defence artillery, engineers and service support units) to be an effective expansion (both depth and breadth) of our Regular Force. Aid to civil power should remain as a secondary or even tertiary capability on a stand by basis.

:cheers:

 

[Brad Sallows]

Except for municipalities that face specific recurring likely risks and which should at least plan accordingly, I would not expect municipalities to put much into emergency preparedness.  While a province might face one major event per year, not every municipality will - centralize resources accordingly.  Where municipalities might be negligent in matters under their direct control is in management of infrastructure and land use practices.

Municipalities and provinces seem to be running out of funds but not out of things they want to buy.  (There is a constant stream of ideas for squeezing out a little more tax and fee revenue here in BC, particularly in the lower mainland.)  The federal government doesn't just provide access to people and equipment; it provides access to funding.  More frequent requests for these resources should be expected; but there will always be a need for something at which to point a finger other than "we didn't manage our forests/waterways/interfaces prudently".

 

[mariomike]

Climate change, while serious, is not on the scale of '60s style "imminent nuclear destruction".

EMO
http://maps.library.utoronto.ca/datapub/digital/metro_1963/metro_1963_046.jpg

 

[YZT580]

The principal cause of forest fires is still arson.  The largest fire in Ontario last year was indirectly caused by global warming true: equipment overheated that was being used to construct windmills.  Just a little irony.  Much of the flooding in Ontario has been caused by the closure or partial closure of spillways on the St. Lawrence system, allowing construction on known flood planes,  and inhibiting water flows through the use of pipes and channels rather than allowing natural flow.  Hurricanes have been of normal strength and duration.  In fact one of the most devastating financially wasn't even a cat. 3.  Just bad luck and a random track.  Just think, if they had spent the money on planning and prevention for both flooding and fires instead of subsidising wind power and fridges for large companies most of the problems would never have occurred.  IMHO

 

[FJAG]

EMO
http://maps.library.utoronto.ca/datapub/digital/metro_1963/metro_1963_046.jpg

That reference to auxiliary police is actually a very good one. I know most provincial measures organizations have stores for emergencies, trained headquarters and supervisor staffs and links into parallel organizations (fire communications, air drop etc) as well as sources of personnel resources (such as local communities in the north for fire fighting staff).

Essentially I see two types of issues that need addressing. The first is short duration events such as seasonal flooding and fires that need a readily available supply of local volunteers (either paid or unpaid) together with an available deployable infrastructure of command and control and supplies. The second is major long term environmental changes such as coastal sea rise, and agricultural impacts which go far beyond local resources and require major investments in infrastructure and government policies. Japan is an example of a society and government that is dealing with disaster issues better than we are. We should look to them for some guidance and volunteer auxiliary disaster agencies would play a far better role than continued reliance on the the military which is a an expensive resource (at least to the federal purse)

:cheers:

 

[mariomike]

Japan is an example of a society and government that is dealing with disaster issues better than we are.

Japan ( and Germany ) both rose from the ashes after 1945.

We should look to them for some guidance and volunteer auxiliary disaster agencies would play a far better role than continued reliance on the the military which is a an expensive resource (at least to the federal purse)

:cheers:

:nod:

 

[garb811]

The principal cause of forest fires is still arson. 
...

Not to quibble but just because a wildfire has a human cause does not make it arson. Arson is a criminal act and relatively few wildfires comparatively are ever investigated as such.

While it is true that the "major" cause of wildfires is human, lightening is a close second at 47% (at least in the stats I've seen). The difference between a human caused wildfire and a lightening strike has a huge impact on the initial response though. A large number of non-arson human fires are reported immediately and are generally in areas easily accessible to local firefighters as first response and they tend to be contained and suppressed very quickly. The major problems come with lightening strikes because they can happen in the middle of nowhere and can be well established and out of control before they are even spotted...  This is the reason some provinces established fire lookout tower systems in remote areas; Alberta still has 127 of them in use.

 

[mariomike]

Wildfire? Bring in the Fire Train.

30,000 gallons of water.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Nothing more impressive that watching Martin Mars doing drops on a fire.

 

[Blackadder1916]

. . .  Japan is an example of a society and government that is dealing with disaster issues better than we are. We should look to them for some guidance and volunteer auxiliary disaster agencies would play a far better role than continued reliance on the the military which is a an expensive resource (at least to the federal purse)

The German model is also one of the better ones (well, maybe that's my opinion because I have some dated experience in seeing them in operation - back in the 1990s one of my neighbours in Schuttern was a Hilfswerker).  Most of the tasks that the CF does as assistance to civil authorities as well as overseas operations similar to DART are the responsibility of the Bundesanstalt Technisches Hilfswerk (THW, Federal Agency for Technical Relief).  This is a civilian agency that currently has about 80,000 members; 99% of them are volunteers (usually unpaid).  Of course, there is a different culture in Germany.  Back when there was conscription, the THW was one of the options as alternate service, five years with the THW (an unpaid, part-time commitment) or 18  months full-time service in the Heer with a reserve requirement afterwards - that's why my neighbour said he started in the THW but when I knew him he had been a Hilfswerker on and off for almost  20 years.

Besides the higher profile major operations, they are also available to respond to much smaller and more locally focused situations.  Sections are organized in a large number of communities.

Departments

668 local sections, 66 branch offices, eight regional offices, a federal training center with two locations and THW headquarters. THW has stretched its safety net over Germany. All contact details can be found here.

Their website is also in English https://www.thw.de/EN/Action/action_node.html, but some of the more detailed description about organization is only in German.

As an example of a typical section, the Lahr website provides some detail (though it's in German).  Seems that they moved onto the airfield once we left in 1994.
https://www.thw-lahr.de/das-thw-lahr/

 

[daftandbarmy]

We should look to them for some guidance and volunteer auxiliary disaster agencies would play a far better role than continued reliance on the the military which is a an expensive resource (at least to the federal purse)

:cheers:

Japan has a population of about 80 million in a land area about half the size of of BC, and a GDP many times that of Canada's.

And a few other differences....

 

[Blackadder1916]

Japan has a population of about 80 million in a land area about half the size of of BC, and a GDP many times that of Canada's.

And a few other differences....

Just because we have more land and fewer people doesn't mean we can't learn lessons from countries that take civil protection more seriously than us.

 

[FJAG]

Japan has a population of about 80 million in a land area about half the size of of BC, and a GDP many times that of Canada's.

And a few other differences....

Like a habit of social responsibility while we tend to gravitate towards social indifference.

Maybe we could change that with a few tax incentives for volunteerism of this type as we already do for political contributions and charitable donations. Maybe even federally/provincially funded rough terrain fire fighting and rescue equipment located in fire-prone rural communities (many of which already have volunteer fire departments).

Oh and how about development moratoriums on flood plains (like Vancouver  ;D)

Ooh! Ooh! And how about long range fire watch IR drone surveillance instead of towers.

:cheers: