Harper Outlines Canada's First Defence Strategy

[stegner]

I prefer democracy, no thanks.

Me too.  

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

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

did they work for the Balkans

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

 

[hauger]

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

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

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

 

[stegner]

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

 

[OldSolduer]

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

 

[Babbling Brooks]

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

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

As someone I know wrote a few years back now:

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

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

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

He was right.

 

[hauger]

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

Good Try.  How's about:

1. Executive
2. Legislative
3. Judicial

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

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

 

[Greymatters]

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

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

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

 

[Colin Parkinson]

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

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

 

[Babbling Brooks]

Colin P:

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

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

Here's what I suspect is happening:

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

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

 

[jzaidi1]

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

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

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

J

 

[Remius]

Hehe.

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

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Colin P:

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

Here's what I suspect is happening:

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

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

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

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

I agree with Babbling Brooks.

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

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

 

[rifleman]

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

 

[Colin Parkinson]

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

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

 

[Richie]

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

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

 

[Edward Campbell]

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

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

Election the real battlefront of Harper's military plan

Don Martin, National Post
Published: Monday, May 12, 2008

With lines of soldiers standing tall in potted-plant formation as a camera-friendly backdrop, the Prime Minister announced Monday a 20-year glimpse into the Canadian military's future.

Only one thing was missing: the strategy itself.

There are 45 paragraphs of background rhetoric, all of it announcement regurgitation from earlier budgets, but the complete plan is apparently locked inside Prime Minister Stephen Harper's brain, albeit requiring the odd whispered correction from Defence Minister Peter MacKay.

"The strategy was enunciated today by the Prime Minister and the Minister," said a Defence spokesman responding to my request to read the actual plan. "So the strategy is what they unveiled.

Huh? Keep in mind this defence vision has been years in the crafting and has gone through multiple drafts to make sure every comma was correctly placed. So now, it seems, what was listed by Chief of Defence Staff Rick Hillier as a top task for his replacement doesn't actually exist in written form beyond speaking notes. Very odd.

Perhaps the best explanation came from one retired military officer, who confided to me a few months ago that the real purpose of the strategy was to arm the Prime Minister with military plans for election campaign battle.

The body language of the Prime Minister supports the notion this was a rushed rollout, conveniently located in Halifax to keep Mr. Harper away from the Commons lest his Foreign Affairs Minister's dating history become a hot topic of Liberal attack.

Appearing uncharacteristically disengaged, Mr. Harper fumbled answers to basic questions on equipment and needed his budgetary math corrected by a modest $10- billion at one point. That's perfectly understandable, but as anyone who has watched Mr. Harper would know, he's usually better briefed and prepared than his ministers.

In any event, it took mere minutes before local reporters, picking up signals they were being used as stenographers for a government propaganda release, demanded to know what, if anything, was new about the strategy.

"The newest thing about this announcement is that it is a long-term plan," Mr. Harper insisted. So the plan is the news and it doesn't exist except in verbal form. Gosh.

Even if it were written down, there would be problems with a 20-year military buildup blueprint.

Mr. Harper promises regular increases in military budgets, which may or, more likely, may not be shared or allowed by future finance ministers.

And it's clearly presumptuous to envision Canada's place in the world two decades hence without providing any clear emphasis or directional preference for domestic, continental or international challenges.

Given that nobody could have foreseen Canada's greatest military effort of the last 50 years would be in Kandahar, a dusty dot on an Afghan map few could have found at the millennium turn, prophetic accuracy is difficult, if not impossible, and that complicates equipment requirements.

Just five years ago, for example, Canada's military leaders elevated search and rescue aircraft to the top of their priority list and would have laughed out loud at the notion of hauling refurbished Leopard tanks out of retirement for Afghanistan duty.

Yet this let's-pretend document salivates for tanks and barely mentions fixed-wing aircraft, surrendering the job of patrolling 71,261 kilometres of coastline and our vast interior to the duct-taped-together Buffalo and Aurora fleet for another decade.

OK, let's give the Conservatives some credit. At least they have confirmed a constant direction forward by pledging annual money boosts, a major manpower increase and orderly equipment upgrades. If future governments continue to provide advanced military firepower, Canada will be ready for flexible deployments upon demand anywhere in the world.

Still, the priorities for Mr. Harper could be shelved as the first act of post-election business by another prime minister. Lest we forget, the Mulroney era pledged new helicopters, which were quickly scrapped in the Chrétien era.

If Mr. Harper wants to push Canada's military in a particular direction, he might consider appointing a new Chief of Defence Staff soon to learn the secrets to military manoeuvring from Gen. Hillier. That decision is overdue.

But when it comes to spotting long-range military targets, vision deteriorates rapidly with age and, because it's limited to the gap between elections or changes in prime ministers, is chronically short-sighted.

National Post

[email protected]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[stegner]

Good Try.  How's about:

1. Executive
2. Legislative
3. Judicial

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

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

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

 

[The Bread Guy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[The Bread Guy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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