Canada must spend billions to give its military ‘hard power’ in a world abandoned by U.S., Freeland says

Big-ticket defence plan helps Canada face new global threats, top general says

A multibillion-dollar strategy outlined last week will position Canada’s military to negotiate an “uncertain world” while improving the way it treats troops at home, Gen. Jonathan Vance says.

Gen. Jonathan Vance, the chief of the defence staff, said the Armed Forces must offer more varied career paths and more flexibility to allow injured personnel to remain in uniform. "We can do a much better job of making it a great place to come to work," he said.

By: Staff Torstar News Services Published on Sun Jun 11 2017

OTTAWA—Canada’s big-ticket defence policy will give the military greater capacity to operate in a world of complex threats — superpower aggression, challenging peacekeeping missions and the spread of “terror armies” — while transforming the way it looks after its troops at home, Gen. Jonathan Vance says.

Vance, the chief of the defence staff, says the strategy unveiled by the Liberal government last week will influence the country’s military for decades.

He said the welcome commitments of new equipment and big investments come at a time when the Armed Forces are confronted with increasingly complex conflicts, from regional terror cells to Russian aggression and North Korean threats.

At home, the military is called on to help Canadians caught up in natural disasters, from the Fort McMurray wildfire to a New Brunswick ice storm and, in recent weeks, flooding in Ontario and Quebec.

“It’s a far more uncertain world, far more fluid. Threats emerge faster and when they emerge, they stay. Intractable conflicts,” Vance said.
“There’s definitely an issue of scope and scale. It’s not a matter of being ready for a conventional fight on the German border. Now you’ve got to be able to do more things with the Armed Forces,” he said in an interview Friday in his office at Defence headquarters in Ottawa.

In a speech this week, Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland suggested that Canada must prepare for a world where the United States under President Donald Trump is less prepared to engage in world affairs.
But Vance says the defence policy was written to spell out what Canada could do on the world stage, “regardless of the comings and goings of allies.”
“Canada wants to be a good ally,” said Vance.

The new defence policy, titled “Strong, Secure, Engaged,” details plans to spend heavily on military hardware and on the welfare of its personnel.

The defence strategy outlines 111 initiatives. Among them is a call for 15 new warships and modernized submarines, 88 new fighter jets — up from the fleet of 65 proposed by the previous Conservative government — new hardware for the army, and 300 new civilian and military intelligence experts.

The plan commits to boosting annual defence spending from $18.9 billion now to $32.7 billion by 2026-27. Over 20 years, it promises an extra $62.3 billion in funding for the military. That spending is “affordable, achievable,” the strategy claims.
Vance said much of the plan consists of renewal and modernization of existing capabilities.

He said it will give the military greater capacity to conduct multiple operations at home and abroad at the same time, both big and small, “particularly in terms of joint force enablers, all those things that allow us to run theatres, logistics, medical support.”
But he said the plan will bring transformation on one front — how the military looks after its personnel, from the time a new recruit dons a uniform to their transition back to civilian life.

Indeed, a quarter of the plan’s initiatives involve personnel issues, including promised investments of $342 million in resource centres and a health and wellness strategy.

“It’s a fundamental alteration of our personnel policy … It doesn’t transform us away from being combat-ready, service before self. But I think there are more ways to allow our population to serve,” Vance said.

Vance says the military must offer more varied career paths and more flexibility to allow injured personnel to remain in uniform. “We can do a much better job of making it a great place to come to work,” he said.

As the military looks to boost the ranks of regular and reserve forces by 5,000, Vance says it must get better at recruiting by actively going after talent. “Industry goes out there and gets people ... right now, we wait for them to come to us,” he said.

He conceded that headlines about military suicides and sexual harassment in the ranks are a barrier to attracting talent.

The strategy reaffirms Vance’s goal of having women make up 25 per cent of the military by 2026. “It’s not going to be easy, but it’s absolutely doable,” he said.

In his conversation with the Star, Vance touched on other highlights of the defence plan, including:

Drones, some for surveillance, others to pack a lethal punch on the battlefield with the ability to launch missiles at targets below. Vance said that drones are “modern enablers.”

“Without it, you are nearly irrelevant in the battle space. Our adversaries, even Daesh (also known as ISIS or ISIL), have armed UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles). They are homemade, jerry-rigged, but they use them,” Vance said.

“This isn’t black ops, assassination, Hollywood-style at all. This is a conventional weapon for conventional purposes for striking legitimate military targets with a much greater chance of avoiding civilian casualties,” the top general said.

Enhanced capabilities to conduct cyberwarfare. “It’s a domain where military forces are operating now, adversarial forces are operating now,” Vance said.

“We need to be able to operate in an offensive manner, even if it’s just to protect ourselves,” Vance said. “To be able to disrupt or prevent an enemy from acting by effective use of cyber-power, along with everything else, I think will save lives.”

A “significant” boost to shadowy Canadian special forces, with a commitment of 605 new troops, bringing their ranks to 2,700. “It’s an acknowledgement that on the spectrum of conflict, there are a great number of areas and types of operations that will demand the unique expertise of special forces, from counterterror to capacity building,” Vance said.

Vance, a military veteran, has seen defence plans come and go. But he says he’s confident this one will stand the test of time and changes of government.

“It’s a realistic view of the world today … and a realistic view of Canada’s role and what forces it might use in the world,” Vance said. “I have absolute faith that this policy will be implemented."

http://www.metronews.ca/news/ottawa/2017/06/11/big-ticket-defence-plan-will-help-canada-face-global-threats.html

Minister of Defence Harjit Sajjan speaks at CFB Trenton in Trenton, Ont., on Thursday June 8, 2017.

Search and rescue and surveillance top Canada’s Arctic defence priorities

By Levon Sevunts | Friday 9 June, 2017

Despite blasting Russia for its “illegal annexation of Crimea” and “its willingness to test the international security environment,” search and rescue and surveillance, not warfighting are the main thrusts of Canada’s newly released defence priorities in the Arctic, experts say.

The defence policy released by Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan on June 7 calls on the government to increase Canada’s annual military spending by 70 per cent to $32.7 billion over the next decade.

The ambitious new policy called Strong, Secure, Engaged set out plans to increase the size of Canada’s regular and reserve forces, invest in better care for soldiers and veterans, buy a new fleet of 88 fighter jets and 15 new navy warships, as well as invest in high-tech drones, cyber warfare, space and intelligence capabilities.

The announcement comes on the heels of Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland’s address to Parliament on June 6, where she laid out the case for increased investment in Canada’s “hard power.”

Liberals vow to increase defence spending by 70 per cent over decade
Canada charts ‘sovereign’ foreign policy course as U.S. leadership waivers

Surveillance and search and rescue

Canada selected Airbus C295W for Fixed-Wing Search and Rescue. © Hand-out / Airbus Defence and Space

Michael Byers, Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia, said he was struck by the continuity of policy from not only the last year and a half of Trudeau government but also under Stephen Harper’s Conservative government.

“The policy on the Arctic continues to be one of regarding the region as a peaceful region where cooperation between allies is the appropriate response and where investments in the military are relatively moderate and focused on search and rescue and surveillance,” Byers said.

(click to listen to the full interview with Michael Byers) http://www.rcinet.ca/console.php?id=7735629&image=http://img.src.ca/2016/11/11/635x357/161111_gy3ig_rci-michael-byers_sn635.jpg&locale=en&appCode=medianet

Search and rescue and surveillance are the primary military concerns in the Arctic, Byers said.

“We’re not seeing a big investment in warfighting capability because there is no serious state to state threat in or around Canada’s Arctic,” Byers said. “So I think this is a wise approach to focus on the more peaceful dimension of military operations in the North.”

Investment in space capability

In 2018, Canada will launch an expanded constellation of RADARSAT satellites that can be used day and night and in all weather. This enhanced capability will allow Canadian authorities to track maritime traffic over much larger swathes of ocean and provide for more timely identification of vessels that may require further scrutiny © Canadian Space Agency

The most significant element of the defence policy review relating to Canada’s Arctic capabilities concerned investments in satellite technology, Byers said.

“The government has reaffirmed its commitment to a new generation of synthetic aperture radar satellites, RADARSAT constellation, which is a technology for surveillance that enables the operators, in this case the Canadian Forces to see through clouds at night to track vessels on the ocean,” Byers said. “It’s a very powerful technology developed in Canada and the government remains committed to that.”

In addition, the government made a multi-billion commitment to putting new satellites into a polar orbit to provide high bandwidth communications ability for Canadian Forces in northern operations, he said.

“Clearly, at the level of surveillance this government is prepared to pay what is necessary to keep our eyes and ears open in the Canadian Arctic,” Byers said.

No new military bases in the Arctic

The Liberals also renewed their commitment to the Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ship (AOPS) program and the refueling station at Nanisivik refueling station for the Navy on Baffin Island in Nunavut, Byers said.

The Army too will get some new equipment and more training to allow it to continue Arctic operations, Byers said.

“We’re not seeing a major buildup, we’re not going to see new military bases in the Arctic,” Byers said. “It’s pretty much a continuation of what we had before under Stephen Harper and the last year and a half under Mr. Trudeau.”

Complete turnaround and continuity

Rob Huebert, an associate professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Calgary and a senior research fellow with the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies, said there has been a complete turnaround in the way the Liberals approach defence of the Arctic.

“I think what the document clearly shows is that the Arctic is not an afterthought, it’s not a sort of a boutique subject that often we saw in the past like, ‘Oh, yes we have to protect Arctic sovereignty. Next subject,’” Huebert said. “Whereas in this defence paper what was quite striking was that a lot of attention was given in terms of what we needed to do.”

(click to listen to the full interview with Rob Huebert) http://www.rcinet.ca/console.php?id=7735595&image=http://img.src.ca/2015/10/05/635x357/151005_ly2v0_rob_huebert_polito_sn635.jpg&locale=en&appCode=medianet

For example, it’s clear that there is a commitment to renew the binational North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD), Huebert said.

“The other part that I think was quite striking also in terms of the Arctic is that there wasn’t any scaling back of some of the initiatives that Harper had brought forward,” Huebert said.

Maturing political system

The Liberal government committed to building 5 or 6 Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ships (AOPS). They will provide armed, sea-borne surveillance of Canadian waters, including in the Arctic. © Royal Canadian Navy

There had been some concern on the basis of some preceding statements that the Liberals had made that they were going to decrease the number of Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ships (AOPS) and instead of building the 5 or 6 the Harper government had promised, that they were going to build maybe two or three, he said.

The defence policy paper made it clear that Liberals were going to build 5 or 6 AOPS.

The continuance of the improvement of the surveillance capability, particularly satellite capabilities, is another sign of maturing political system, Huebert said.

“We’re starting to see a bit of a bipartisan agreement in terms of the centrality and importance of the Arctic,” Huebert said. “That shows a certain maturity that I think is not always in all the things the government does.”

A sleight of hand?

Huebert said he would have liked to see more of the spending begin earlier, instead of being pushed to a later date after the next election.

“Just as the Conservatives had done beforehand, it’s a sleight of hand, saying, ‘Oh, we’re going to increase the budget, but we’re going to do it in a ten-year period,’” Huebert said. “Well, that would be fine if, of course, the term of office that they had was 10 years but it’s not. So I think that’s a bit dishonest.”

The trouble with Trump and Russia

U.S. President Donald Trump (C) is flanked by British Prime Minister Theresa May (L) and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg during in a working dinner meeting at the NATO headquarters during a NATO summit of heads of state and government in Brussels, Belgium, May 25, 2017. © POOL New

Huebert said he was struck by how blunt Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland was in terms of identifying the international environment that Canada is now facing.

“She basically was quite blunt and quite forward talking about the challenges that are presented to Canada by both the actions of the Trump administration in the United States and the Putin administration in Russia,” Huebert said.

The Trump administration presents a completely new challenge to Canada, one that Ottawa hasn’t had to deal with since the beginning of WWII, Huebert said.

“One of the paradoxes of course is that as long as we weren’t too concerned about the Americans being off the overall focus of defence for the Western world, we could basically free-ride, and I think we did to a very large degree” Huebert said.

“I think now that the realization has sunk in that a) we don’t know where Trump is going, and b) I think there is a very real reason [not] to trust his commitment to the maintenance of Western security, it means that we got to start doing it ourselves.”


Continuation of Dion policy

Minister of Foreign Affairs Chrystia Freeland delivers a speech in the House of Commons on Canada’s Foreign Policy in Ottawa on Tuesday, June 6, 2017. © PC/Sean Kilpatrick

While Freeland was very blunt about the threat posed by Russia in other regions of the world, she did not identify Moscow as a threat in the Canadian Arctic, Byers said.

“I think that is significant,” Byers said. “We know that Chrystia Freeland’s predecessor as foreign minister, Stephane Dion, made a real effort to promote Arctic cooperation, including with Russia.”

That Arctic engagement seems to be continuing under Freeland despite her quite strong views about Russia’s actions in places like the Ukraine, Byers said.

“We need to talk with Russia, we need to cooperate with Russia in the Arctic,” Byers said. “It’s a large and extreme region where we need to work with each other. It’s not a place that we can afford to militarize just because it’s so big, so remote and so incredibly expensive.”

http://www.rcinet.ca/en/2017/06/09/search-and-rescue-and-surveillance-top-canadas-arctic-defence-priorities/

EDITORIAL: Charge ahead with Canada’s Defence review, if necessary

Published June 10, 2017


A Canadian CF-18 gets the go-ahead for takeoff at the military base in Dohar, Qatar in this 1990 photo.

It’s not often that we get a “full-speed-ahead, damn-the-torpedoes” defence policy from a Liberal government in Ottawa.

But it served several purposes of Justin Trudeau’s government to jolt Canadians this week with an ambitious defence review that calls for large hikes in the defence operating budget and capital spending on weapons systems.

Some of those purposes have Donald Trump written all over them.

Canada, like other U.S. allies, is worried about the reliability of a Trump-led United States. So the Liberals are recognizing the need to take out insurance by spending more on our own defence capabilities in case the Trump slump in U.S. leadership isn’t fixed soon.

Ottawa’s fanfare over the spending boost also serves as a riposte to Mr. Trump’s frequent complaint that other NATO members aren’t carrying their weight or meeting a commitment to spend two per cent of GDP on defence. The policy update throws a big, dramatic number to critics of Canada’s effort and brings total spending, over time, to 1.4 per cent of GDP. That’s through new spending and by counting government-wide costs for veterans support, peacekeeping, humanitarian missions and defence-related IT not counted previously.

Another purpose of this review is just a frank recognition of inflation — a warning that even the new military gear Canada had already vowed to buy in the next 20 years is going to cost a lot more than previously advertised.

Reliable sources were telling us that already. Last week, for example, the Parliamentary Budget Office estimated the cost of 15 new surface-combat navy ships would be $61 billion, not the $26 billion originally budgeted. The policy review agrees the best estimate is now $56-60 billion.

Other major new systems, like fighter and patrol aircraft, face the same inflation pressures.

If Canadian taxpayers are going to damn those financial torpedoes, they need to see realistic cost projections and be given plenty of time to absorb and manage them. Starting that frank discussion is one of the update paper’s strengths.

The plan forecasts a rise in total defence spending over 20 years of $48.9 billion, as measured by accrual accounting, or $62.3 billion as measured by cash outlays.

Both numbers include capital and operating costs, including the cost of operating the new assets.

Why the two numbers?

The lower accrual number reflects the standard accounting practice of spreading the cost of a capital asset, like a ship, over its entire useful life. A budget “amortization” expense is recognized in each year of that lifespan. So some of the cost of defence assets bought in this period will appear as expenses in budgets after the 20-year period.

The cash method simply recognizes when suppliers are paid with cash from revenues or borrowing.

Current and new defence spending would total $497 billion over 20 years on an accrual basis and $553 billion in cash. That doesn’t include the cost of any future missions.

So even this policy is hostage to world events, American intentions, new technology, elections and economics. Eventually, a time-honoured Canadian formula may apply: We’ll buy costly gear, and damn the torpedoes, if necessary. But not necessarily this gear, these dollars or these torpedoes.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/editorials/1476562-editorial-charge-ahead-with-canada%E2%80%99s-defence-review-if-necessary

If the Liberals can resist Trump-bashing, they’re on their way to the most serious foreign policy in decades

Conrad Black June 9, 2017



June 9, 2017

Despite the customary flapping and hand-wringing from the Never Trump international press, the Comey appearance at the U.S. Senate intelligence committee confirmed that there is no possible threat to President Trump from the Russian or obstruction issues. Trump has never been a suspect on Russia, other than to the Democrats and their jackal media, and Senator Marco Rubio had his best moment in years when he asked Comey to explain how that fact was the only one that wasn’t publicly leaked out of the investigations in progress. Comey misstated some facts and acknowledged that he had engaged in leaks to try to promote the appointment of a special counsel. He cannot be resurrected as a sympathetic or even competent figure. The world will have to learn to live with Trump, but it will not be as challenging as the foreign minister, Chrystia Freeland, implied in her address to Parliament on Wednesday. On the other hand, as I suggested here last week, the world is unlikely to be dealing with Theresa May as prime minister of the U.K. much longer. The hour of the ineffable Boris Johnson may be about to strike. (The last leader of the British Conservative party to leave altogether voluntarily was Stanley Baldwin, who took a good look at Hitler and retired in 1937.)

Freeland’s speech, taken with defence minister Harjit Sajjan’s policy speech on Thursday, are, on balance, an interesting and commendable strategic effort by the government. The strongest part of the foreign minister’s speech was the foretaste she gave of the defence minister’s comments that followed, when she said that “Canadian diplomacy and development sometimes require the backing of hard power.” While occasional lip service was paid to these purposeful views by the Stephen Harper and Jean Chrétien governments, this is the first plausible utterance of such words by an authorized spokesperson since the piping days of Brian Mulroney. If he had been listened to, our Arctic approaches would be protected by our own nuclear submarines, and not just by the U.S. Navy assisted by our native people in kayaks.

Despite the customary flapping and hand-wringing from the Never Trump international press, the Comey appearance at the U.S. Senate intelligence committee confirmed that there is no possible threat to President Trump from the Russian or obstruction issues. Trump has never been a suspect on Russia, other than to the Democrats and their jackal media, and Senator Marco Rubio had his best moment in years when he asked Comey to explain how that fact was the only one that wasn’t publicly leaked out of the investigations in progress. Comey misstated some facts and acknowledged that he had engaged in leaks to try to promote the appointment of a special counsel. He cannot be resurrected as a sympathetic or even competent figure. The world will have to learn to live with Trump, but it will not be as challenging as the foreign minister, Chrystia Freeland, implied in her address to Parliament on Wednesday. On the other hand, as I suggested here last week, the world is unlikely to be dealing with Theresa May as prime minister of the U.K. much longer. The hour of the ineffable Boris Johnson may be about to strike. (The last leader of the British Conservative party to leave altogether voluntarily was Stanley Baldwin, who took a good look at Hitler and retired in 1937.)

Freeland’s speech, taken with defence minister Harjit Sajjan’s policy speech on Thursday, are, on balance, an interesting and commendable strategic effort by the government. The strongest part of the foreign minister’s speech was the foretaste she gave of the defence minister’s comments that followed, when she said that “Canadian diplomacy and development sometimes require the backing of hard power.” While occasional lip service was paid to these purposeful views by the Stephen Harper and Jean Chrétien governments, this is the first plausible utterance of such words by an authorized spokesperson since the piping days of Brian Mulroney. If he had been listened to, our Arctic approaches would be protected by our own nuclear submarines, and not just by the U.S. Navy assisted by our native people in kayaks.

If Mulroney had been listened to, our Arctic approaches would be protected by our own nuclear submarines, and not just by the U.S. Navy assisted by our native people in kayaks

The foreign minister made the customary and obligatory references to international organizations and peacekeeping, but regrettably, gave no hint of proposing the radical reforms several of those organizations desperately require and that Canada is uniquely qualified to advocate. Peacekeeping must cease to be the renting out of UN-sponsored forces, for which the main powers, especially the U.S., have been paying hard currency, and where many of the contributing countries (though certainly never Canada), supplement their incomes by renting their peacekeepers out to the local factions to exacerbate the war they are supposed to be damping down. Instead of campaigning for the favour of the corrupt national hypocrisies that in practice control the dispositions of the General Assembly, we should be asking that countries that do not approach the human rights standards of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, partially composed by Canadian John Humphry (whom Freeland graciously mentioned) should be reduced to non-voting observer status until they pull up their socks. By that method the human rights and arms control apparatus of the UN would pass out of the hands of the totalitarian and despotic states that largely control them now.

The foreign minister also gave the traditional endorsement of NATO and NORAD, but especially as her colleague the defence minister announced the next day a very substantial increase in defence spending over the next decade, she could have proposed the expansion of NATO to all passably democratic countries in the world who wish to subscribe to and support a defensive alliance, protecting existing borders. (There would be the usual complications about the frontiers of Israel.) NATO was for the containment of the Soviet Union; it has a wider mission now. These organizations, and the IMF and others, have been deformed by the passage of years and the seizure of unearned influence by irresponsible and often anti-Western countries. The government is returning to the post-St. Laurent Liberal, and occasional Conservative, policy of professing admiration and friendship for the United States and implying disapproval of the current administration in Washington. This was what John Diefenbaker did with John F. Kennedy, Lester Pearson with Lyndon Johnson, Pierre Trudeau with Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, and both Chrétien and Harper with George W. Bush and finally with Barack Obama.

Canada likes to play a shabby game of pandering to moderate anti-Americanism while fending off charges of anti-Americanism by praising Norman Rockwell’s America

It is essentially a slightly shabby game of pandering to moderate anti-Americanism while fending off a charge of anti-Americanism by praising Norman Rockwell’s America while disparaging Donald Trump’s America (as if it were unAmerican). There is also the reflexive over-emphasis on climate change. It was introduced at the start of the speech as the “greatest … shared human imperative.” This is not only dubious, as we have no idea what the full extent, cause or likely consequences of climate change are. It also incites grim fears that the baleful legacy of the renewable energy-driven McGuinty-Wynne negative economic miracle in Ontario may have been carried to Ottawa. Ironically, the chief antidote to such an unhappy turn of events will be the economic growth likely to be generated by the Trump administration, which will wash into Canada. That administration has no such isolationist and protectionist leanings as Freeland imputed to it, only a desire not to carry an unjustly excessive share of the West’s defence burden or to promote free trade by allowing other countries to export unemployment to the United States. These are unexceptionable goals, though this president could certainly impart them in a more emollient tenor and vocabulary. As Freeland and the prime minister whom she serves must know, the longest step they could take in assuring smooth relations with Washington is precisely the measure announced the next day by Sajjan, of increasing Canadian defence spending by 70 per cent in the next decade. It is also, as I have written here until I was almost blue in the face, the best form of public-sector economic stimulus and the only way to achieve any political influence for Canada.

Climate change really has nothing to do with foreign policy, as each country at Paris just said what their countrymen would approve, from nothing in China and many other countries, to confirmation of what has already been effortlessly achieved in environmentally simple places like Denmark. Apart from the compulsive references to that chimera, the most unsatisfactory element of the Freeland speech was the even more worm-eaten chestnut that Canada is a “middle power,” echoing what John Diefenbaker enunciated to the United Nations in 1960. It was so then but is not today. Of the 198 countries in the world (counting Taiwan, the Vatican, and Palestine), Canada is for its GDP, resources, talent of work force, stability of institutions and quality of life, and by any other measurement except population and military capability, one of the 10 or 12 most important in the world. Canadians don’t generally realize that or think like that, but we must grow into the place we have earned and if the foreign minister won’t tell them that, who will?

Canadians don’t generally realize that we’re not a middle power, but we must grow into the place we have earned and if the foreign minister won’t tell them that, who will?

The answer, in effect, is the defence minister, who promised to increase the forces, regular and reserves, by 5,000; warplanes from fewer than 60 “aging” CF-18’s to 88 first-line aircraft, and seaworthy ocean-going warships to 15. This will enable us to be taken seriously in the Western Alliance for the first time since Mulroney’s era (and much of that was due to Brian Mulroney’s high personal standing with Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush). The increase in outlays over 10 years from $18.9 billion to $32.7 billion should bring us almost online with our NATO promises. Sajjan also announced some fine initiatives to make the armed forces a more attractive career, including better health care and veterans’ benefits, and partial elimination of income tax for anyone deployed to active foreign theatres. It was a first-class defence paper, uttered with apparent conviction. Unfortunately, the minister’s aspersions of the previous government in this area were entirely justified, though he could have included the Chrétien government as well.

The government shouldn’t flirt with Trump-bashing; a little courtesy would gain a lot of mileage in key policy areas. Obama’s tasteless address in Montreal (for $500,000) last week, while Hillary Clinton was explaining that her electoral defeat was due to the stupidity of her fellow Americans and the incompetence of everyone except herself, should cause a few Canadians to come out from under the propaganda carpet-bombing of the U.S. national media and their Canadian parrots and realize that better days are ahead. Trump is not, as Freeland said, about to “shrug off the burden of world leadership.” He is going to kick the free riders who just want a free U.S. military guaranty off the bus, and define the U.S. national interest mid-way between George W. Bush’s trigger-happy interventionism and Obama’s outright abdication. The Canadian government had a much better week than its American or British analogues.

National Post
cbletters@gmail.com

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/conrad-black-freeland-and-sajjans-speeches-represent-a-commendable-strategic-effort-by-the-government

Resource centres to benefit from new defence policy

By Steph Crosier June 9, 2017


Sherry Romanado, parliamentary secretary to the minister of veterans affairs and associate minister of national defence announces new funding at the Military Family Resource Centre on CFB Kingston on Friday.

The federal government's new defence policy has promised to support those closest to Canadian Forces members and those leaving the military, the parliamentary secretary to the minister of veterans affairs and associate minister of national defence said Friday.

Sherry Romanado was at Canadian Forces Base Kingston's Military Family Resource Centre to speak to families privately, and the media later on, about how the new defence policy -- entitled Strong, Secure, Engaged -- has promised more than $6 million annually for resource centres across the country for the next 20 years.

"As a mother of two sons serving in the Canadian Armed Forces, I absolutely appreciate the value and the importance and the work that is done at the MFRC," Romanado said. "I know the difference is made to me knowing that if ever there is a question, or concern, I can turn to the local MFRC and ask for their support."

The new defence policy was announced by Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan on Wednesday and promises to increase defence spending by $13.9 billion over the next decade to $32.7 billion in 2026-27. In addition to promises of 88 new fighter jets, 15 new war ships and investing in modern technology, the policy vows to take care of Canadian Forces members from their first day on the job until retirement.

"[The policy] recognizes that spouses and partners, daughters and sons, mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, and loved ones provide the foundation of support our service members need to do their jobs to stand firm in the face of danger and to protect Canada and Canadians," Romanado said. "It also recognizes that military life places significant stresses and strains on military families, like extended absences from home, operational deployments, moving [to different] cities, provinces or even countries for a loved one's next posting."

Romanado said the funding will help the resource centre continue to support military families -- including those at Royal Military College -- especially during the moving process. Relocating their families and a lack of "geographic stability" was a main reason for job dissatisfaction, according to a report obtained by the Ottawa Citizen last October.

A briefing at the time for Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Jon Vance noted that at least 10,000 military personnel and their families are moved in their jobs or relocated to another part of the country each year. Those moves come at a cost to taxpayers. Currently there are 68,000 regular force members who in their career could be forced to move; the policy promises to increase that number to 71,500.

Romanado spoke to the Whig-Standard about how those looking to retire from the forces -- especially the ill and injured -- will not be released from the military until their pensions are looked after. In April 2016, ombudsman Gary Walbourne noted in a public statement that there continues to be "chronic and excessive delays" on when retirees start to get the pensions into which they've paid over their entire careers. The statement said regular force members are waiting more than 14 weeks to receive their pensions and reserve force members more than 36 weeks.

"What was happening before was that perhaps they hadn't received their Canadian Armed Forces pension, but they've already left and are already in the Veterans Affairs world "¦ so there was a gap," Romanado said Friday. "We know that that gap exists. We're cognizant of it."

Romanado said that before they transition into civilian society, the idea is that members will have their pensions in place and any benefits from Veterans Affairs in order.

"I think it is something that we have been needing for a long time," Romanado said. "I think this is something that is going to be transformative in terms of the supports to our military families because that is a definite stresser."

http://www.thewhig.com/2017/06/09/resource-centres-to-benefit-from-new-defence-policy

IMO this whole dog and pony show is for Trump.

It's the ultimate fake news to the CF and vets. But it sure strokes Trumps ego that he will spin in his favor to his voters that he made a NATO country pay their dues. Hell one of his inner circle monkey tweeted it out that Trump made Canada increase military spending by 70%

The only thing that is relevant is the new Career Transition Branch the CF is going to create to replace the defunct JPSU/IPSC

Loader wrote:

Trooper wrote:Canadians are no longer fooled by the words or promises made by governments. 

Not sure if Canadians are no longer fooled, or just apathetic about all things military. Point is, I haven't yet heard any real complaints, most civilians think its great the military is getting additional billions. Truth is, the DPR didn't amount to much more than a glossy brochure with lots of promises but zero outline of how the promises were going to implemented.

Compare our White Paper to the 2016 Australian White Paper.  Their defence strategy and capability plans were aligned with funding, cost-assured and externally validated to ensure the plans were both affordable and achievable.

Unsurprisingly for an island continent, their White Paper is centered around a maritime-based strategy with a focus on Southeast Asia and the emerging threat posed by China to the region. To counter this threat, the Australian government proposed significantly enhanced maritime warfare capabilities over the next 20-30 years.

Perhaps the most striking of these naval capabilities will be the acquisition of 12 “regionally superior” conventional submarines. The fact that these submarines will be based on a Competitive Evaluation Process between three offshore designs (Japanese, German, French) has already raised a firestorm of protest from local Australian shipbuilders. In Canada, regional spin-off benefits from acquisitions appear to drive the acquisition process, with the resulting military capability a secondary benefit. This truly is an example of the tail wagging the dog  

During the briefing, the MND was asked several times about where the monies were coming from, his oft repeated response was, "don't worry, the money will be made available". Maybe there really is no need to worry about this heavily back-ended funding that extends to 2026. After all, budgets apparently balance themselves

With the above statement, and the many items not discussed; such as Ballistic Missile Defence,  a (so-called) peacekeeping deployment,  or any clarification on jet fighters, I don't think there is a rational and / or integrated plan to implement the promises contained in the DPR.

They are politicians, they are very good at given false statements and promises that all look and sound good, but that's as far as it goes. They are looking after themselves and their own families first, everything else is just false BS. It takes a special person to take part in being a politician in this Country, it is a family of it's own that has it's own agenda's geared towards the political spin circle of flowing towards their own well being with some added bonuses given every now and then to the people of this Country. If you cannot flow within their circle, you won't make it as a politician as pointed out by the former NDP candidate Pat Stogran’s in his recent announcement of quitting the party. This defence policy announcement is just another way of politicians making it look like they are working to better the Country, the fact of the matter is their false and incompetence tactics are getting old, and their days of dancing around policies without tackling it head on with Immediate concrete action is only verifying the fact of their very incompetence. My opinion is to let them fight it out between the opposition parties against the Liberals until the next election, then we will again be put through the same old BS tactics again by either the same government, or a new government.

Trooper wrote:Canadians are no longer fooled by the words or promises made by governments. 

Not sure if Canadians are no longer fooled, or just apathetic about all things military. Point is, I haven't yet heard any real complaints, most civilians think its great the military is getting additional billions. Truth is, the DPR didn't amount to much more than a glossy brochure with lots of promises but zero outline of how the promises were going to implemented.

Compare our White Paper to the 2016 Australian White Paper.  Their defence strategy and capability plans were aligned with funding, cost-assured and externally validated to ensure the plans were both affordable and achievable.

Unsurprisingly for an island continent, their White Paper is centered around a maritime-based strategy with a focus on Southeast Asia and the emerging threat posed by China to the region. To counter this threat, the Australian government proposed significantly enhanced maritime warfare capabilities over the next 20-30 years.

Perhaps the most striking of these naval capabilities will be the acquisition of 12 “regionally superior” conventional submarines. The fact that these submarines will be based on a Competitive Evaluation Process between three offshore designs (Japanese, German, French) has already raised a firestorm of protest from local Australian shipbuilders. In Canada, regional spin-off benefits from acquisitions appear to drive the acquisition process, with the resulting military capability a secondary benefit. This truly is an example of the tail wagging the dog  

During the briefing, the MND was asked several times about where the monies were coming from, his oft repeated response was, "don't worry, the money will be made available". Maybe there really is no need to worry about this heavily back-ended funding that extends to 2026. After all, budgets apparently balance themselves

With the above statement, and the many items not discussed; such as Ballistic Missile Defence,  a (so-called) peacekeeping deployment,  or any clarification on jet fighters, I don't think there is a rational and / or integrated plan to implement the promises contained in the DPR.

Canadians are no longer fooled by the words or promises made by governments. If they were serious about this new policy, major action would have been taken Immediately. They are so full of it, it's Laughable. What a waste of tax payer dollars. Weak leadership is what we are witnessing all the way around. I heard the Minister defend our antique subs, what kind of leadership is that, weak, weak and weak. Well there's not a whole lot we can do about it, not much to choose from. Let's just continue to watch the incompetence of our so called leaders make false promises, it is, what it is, we need to live with it I guess.

David Pugliese, Ottawa Citizen - Published on: June 8, 2017 | Last Updated: June 8, 2017 1:34 AM EDT



Liberal defence minister Harjit Sajjan keeps saying that his government’s defence policy will guide the country’s military for a “generation.” That the policy will unfold over the next 20 years.

“For the first time National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces will have a 20 year funding commitment,” Sajjan said Wednesday.

That’s rubbish, military officers privately say.

For that claim to be valid, it would require all federal governments to follow this plan for the next 20 years. It would assume that there are no major events in the world that would change the course of the plan, for better or worse.

How likely is that?

Over the years, Canadian governments have shown they can’t even follow their own defence plans, let alone those from other governments.

Take for instance, the Conservative’s “Canada First Defence Strategy.” That 2008 document, according to then Defence Minister Peter MacKay, was designed to guide the Canadian Forces for 20 years.

It lasted about two years, being scuttled when the Conservatives started cutting the Canadian military.

How about the 1987 Conservative government’s defence White Paper? That called for, among other things, the purchase of a fleet of 10 to 12 nuclear submarines.

Two years later the plan was dead in the water.

Liberal governments have done no better.

The Liberal government of Prime Minister Jean Chretien released its defence white paper in 1994. The defence strategy was followed for several years, mainly focussing on cutting personnel numbers and bases.

Paul Martin’s government produced a 2005 policy statement on defence and diplomacy. Not surprisingly, it didn’t survive when Stephen Harper came to power a year later.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/20-years-of-stable-funding-for-the-canadian-military-think-again

RCN retired - your right on. For us that where in for years, we know those white papers are like the crazy Dog and Pony shows we always did. All fluff, no substance. Johnny Out, VVV..

RCN-Retired wrote:Smoke and mirrors, the promises are not worth the cost of the paper they are on. There will be new government that will cancel contracts and start from square one again and we will go on sending our troops into harms way ill prepared and with ancient equipment. Been going on since the 50s and I for one do not see anything different in the years ahead. Don't even know why companies keep spending time to put together proposals for items that most likely will not happen. These contracts once announced should not be able to be cancelled by the next group of loonies.

Well said, we got their number.

Smoke and mirrors, the promises are not worth the cost of the paper they are on. There will be new government that will cancel contracts and start from square one again and we will go on sending our troops into harms way ill prepared and with ancient equipment. Been going on since the 50s and I for one do not see anything different in the years ahead. Don't even know why companies keep spending time to put together proposals for items that most likely will not happen. These contracts once announced should not be able to be cancelled by the next group of loonies.

Excerpt from page 31 of the Defence Policy - All retiring members require transition support, but the needs are most acute for our ill and injured. The Canadian
Armed Forces Transition Group will look after ill and injured personnel with the goal of returning them to active duty. For those who cannot continue wearing the
uniform, the Transition Group will provide personalized, guided support centred on the unique situation and needs of individual members. This is critical to the well-being of our personnel.

NEW INITIATIVES

To better meet the needs of all retiring personnel, including the ill and injured, the Defence team will:

25. Establish a Personnel Administration Branch of experts in military human resources and personnel administration to focus and improve military
human resource services to all Canadian Armed Forces members.

26. Allocate some of the growth in the Medical Services Branch to support transition care.

27. Create a new Canadian Armed Forces Transition Group that provides support to all members to seamlessly transition to post-military life. This
Group, commanded by a General Officer and staffed from experts in human resources and personnel administration, will be approximately 1,200 personnel
strong and include specialized staff and holding positions for ill and injured who are preparing to return to duty or transition out of the Canadian Armed Forces.
The Group will provide a fully engaged, personalized, guided support to transition all Canadian Armed Forces members, with special care and attention being
provided to those who are ill or injured, including those with psychological or critical stress injuries.

28. Ensure that all benefits will be in place before a member transitions to post-military life.


Please note the PDF file contained in the below link is approximately 29 MB in size and may be very slow to download.
http://dgpaapp.forces.gc.ca/en/canada-defence-policy/docs/canada-defence-policy-report.pdf

No faith whatsoever in these clowns, they have just over two years left in power. Will be lucky to see 5% of what was announced in their time remaining. Good photo ops though.