Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy

[The Bread Guy]

Sooner or later somebody is going to have to decide to do something and will discover that somebody is opposed.

 

[George Wallace]

Ummmm?  :-\ 

Don't we have enought USELESS Departments already?

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

The HILL TIMES
Defence and Security
Harper government ‘messed up’ jet-replacement process, that’s why things are slow: Sajjan
'We should have replaced our fighters a long time ago, and now we’re dealing with another potential capability gap for our air force,' says Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan.

By CHRISTOPHER GULY, RACHEL AIELLO
PUBLISHED : Monday, Sept. 26, 2016 12:00 AM

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan says he’s moving as fast as a he can on finalizing a plan to replace Canada’s fighter jets but that the previous Conservative government “messed up” the process and that’s why things are taking so long,

“We’ve been moving on that as quickly as possible, but this file is extremely complex and it had been thoroughly, if I can say, messed up from the previous government and it has slowed things down,” Mr. Sajjan (Vancouver South. B.C.) said in an interview with The Hill Times last week. “We should have replaced our fighters a long time ago, and now we’re dealing with another potential capability gap for our Air Force.”

He said something would happen on this file “sooner rather than later” in terms of deciding on a process for picking a replacement to Canada’a aging fleet of CF-18s.

Last week, the House of Commons National Defence Committee recommended that the government decide on a CF-18 replacement within the next 12 months.

Mr. Sajjan the government has to “make sure we have the right aircraft for our men and women. And it was only last November since we formed government, but replacement of the fighters was something we knew is a necessity.”

Meanwhile, man who once saw oversaw the lifecycle management of Canada’s CF-18 fighter jets says the Liberals should stick to their 2015 campaign commitment and not purchase the F-35 stealth fighters the former Conservative government wanted.

“We do not need the F-35,” said Paul Maillet, a retired Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) colonel who as an aerospace engineering officer was responsible for the military’s fleet of CF-18 Hornets.

He said that Canada would “pay far too much and get far too little” for Lockheed Martin’s F-35A Lightning II at a time when Justin Trudeau’s government is shifting the country’s military focus to peace operations.

The results of an independent audit by accounting firm KPMG, released in late 2012, pegged the cost of buying and maintaining 65 F-35s at $45.8-billion over a 42-year period. Mr. Maillet said the price tag is a lot higher in the U.S., which now considers the F-35 the standard for fighter jets.

“It will cost the Americans more than a trillion dollars, and it’s the most expensive military project ever,” he explained. “Yet we’re nearing the end of an era of manned fighter aircraft, and there’s a lot of overlap going on with unmanned drones right now.”

Mr. Maillet, who before his 2001 retirement from the military served as director of defence ethics at DND, said Canada doesn’t need stealth fighter jets to protect national sovereignty or contribute to United Nations or NATO peace missions.

“If we are no longer doing bombing campaigns in the Middle East, our money should be better spent elsewhere.”

He said DND could focus on providing transport or troops to a “peace and security response” to global and domestic situations, and made that pitch in a written submission as part of DND’s public consultation to develop the country’s new defence policy.

Mr. Maillet, who now works as an international development consultant, has called for “aligning” Canada’s national defence and foreign affairs policies, and creating a federal “Department of Peace” that could include establishing an “Office of Peace, Violence Prevention, Mediation, and Reconciliation” within DND or Global Affairs Canada.

At DND, “this could mean a robust military force-based constabulary response … [with] boots on the ground that are not afraid to share the risk and sacrifice of those non-combatants not able to protect themselves,” wrote Mr. Maillet in a document he sent to Mr. Sajjan and members of the Defence Policy Review Ministerial Advisory Panel, including Mr. Maillet’s one-time boss, retired Gen. Ray Henault, former chief of the Defence staff.

“It is time for a historic change of world view and mindset towards how we task, fund, train, and employ our military,” Mr. Maillet said.

He said if needed, Canada could opt for a lighter aircraft, such as the Saab Group’s Gripen—not dissimilar to the CF-18—and use the jets to patrol all three of Canada’s coasts without having to set up offshore bases to accommodate the larger, more expensive F-35s used in bombing missions Canada no longer supports.

Yet, Queen’s University political studies professor Kim Nossal said Canada is responsible for protecting North America with the U.S. under NORAD, and that “the only aircraft that some people are saying will be acceptable to the Americans is the F-35.”

“The RCAF has always flown whatever the Americans have flown since 1960, after the Avro Arrow got canned the year before,” said Prof. Nossal, a fellow in the Centre for International and Defence Policy at Queen’s.

“The federal government knows the only plane that the United States air force, marines, and navy is going to use over the next 20 to 25 years is the F-35,” which has become a “political football” tossed around by both the Liberals and Conservatives.

He said Stephen Harper’s government “made the right choice” when in 2010 it announced that it would acquire 65 F-35s, “but the Conservatives screwed up how they did it.”

Instead of bringing the opposition on board and committing to a fair competition for the CF-18 replacement contract—in the same way Pierre Trudeau’s Liberal government did when it chose the CF-18s—the Conservative government “decided to play a little gamesmanship” and pursue a sole-source deal with Lockheed Martin, according to Prof. Nossal, who’s written a book called Charlie Foxtrot: Fixing Defence Procurement in Canada, to be released by Dundurn in December. The book includes an examination of the “F-35 fiasco.”

He said the Liberals “returned the favour by politicizing the issue of F-35 costs,” which originally were set at $9-billion, but eventually climbed after Auditor General Michael Ferguson had a closer look and KMPG was later brought on board to identify the true cost of the procurement. “The Harper government abandoned the program and sent it back to the drawing board, and little was done,” said Prof. Nossal.

However, he said the full cost of the aircraft, from purchasing it to maintaining it, would cost $1-billion a year.

Since 1997, the federal government had contributed more than $311-million toward the development of the F-35s, which in turn has generated $812-million US in contracts to Canada’s aerospace industry, The Canadian Press reported in July.

Prof. Nossal said that not proceeding with the F-35 purchase would “almost definitely end those long-term benefits of being in the Lockheed Martin global value chain.”

Withdrawing from the F-35 program would also leave the federal government on the hook for as much as $346.7-million US, according to DND documents obtained by Postmedia News.

But Lockheed Martin is still in the game, and was one of five companies that responded to the Trudeau government’s call for finding a fighter-jet replacement to the CF-18. The other four firms are: Dassault Aviation for its Rafale; Eurofighter GmbH on its Typhoon; Saab (Gripen); and Boeing Co.’s Super Hornet, which is an aircraft the Liberals reportedly considered acquiring through a sole-source contract over the summer.

That latter fighter jet will soon be out of production, Prof. Nossal noted, and in his view the other three aircraft won’t meet Canada’s primary obligations under NORAD.

Mr. Maillet expects that pressure to choose the F-35 will also come from the RCAF’s fighter-pilot community that “always wants the best and shiniest” aircraft.

But he added that procurement should be subservient to military strategy, and “buying the best bomber in the world” doesn’t fit the government’s policy on moving Canada from a combat role to a peace player on the world stage.

news@hilltimes.com

The Hill Times

Timeline

1980: Canada decides to buy 138 CF-18 Hornets from McDonnell Douglas.

1997: Liberal government invests $10-million in the U.S.-led, nine-nation Joint Strike Fighter program, involving Lockheed Martin, to develop a new fighter jet.

2000: Canada upgrades the CF-18s to keep them flying until 2020.

2010: Conservative government announces it intends to buy 65 F-35s from Lockheed Martin.

2012: Auditor general and KPMG say costs will be significantly higher.

2015: Liberals say they won’t buy the F-35s if they form government.

2016: Liberal government launches public consultation on defence policy review and a new competition for the next-generation fighter jet.

More on LINK.

 

[Journeyman]

.....procurement should be subservient to military strategy....

Sure would be sweet to have one of those -- you wouldn't even have to say "White Paper," because that's probably offensive to someone.

 

[Lightguns]

"Mr. Maillet, who now works as an international development consultant, has called for “aligning” Canada’s national defence and foreign affairs policies, and creating a federal “Department of Peace” that could include establishing an “Office of Peace, Violence Prevention, Mediation, and Reconciliation” within DND or Global Affairs Canada."

Geeez, bet he bought into the peacekeeper myth with his life savings.......  Another dis-interested observer and we should take his word for it. 

 

[MARS]

Every time the blame is placed on the previous government, I am reminded of the "three envelopes" joke that was told to me on my assumption of Command.  Although in politics, perhaps there are more than three envelopes...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/28/joke-the-three-envelopes_n_1635781.html

 

[George Wallace]

Trudeau blames Tories for complicating Azer case by cutting ties to Iran

So now it is Harper's fault that Stephan Dion is a disrespectful Minister who insults the Mrs. Azer in the House?

 

[OldSolduer]

Trudeau blames Tories for complicating Azer case by cutting ties to Iran

So now it is Harper's fault that Stephan Dion is a disrespectful Minister who insults the Mrs. Azer in the House?

Our grandkids will be blaming Harper when they are my age..... :facepalm:

 

[jollyjacktar]

Our grandkids will be blaming Harper when they are my age..... :facepalm:

Don't you mean Trudeau's grandkids?

 

[George Wallace]

$112.8 million to be sent outside of Canada.

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

JUSTIN TRUDEAU, PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA

The Prime Minister announces significant support for Africa and La Francophonie at the XVI Summit of La Francophonie

Antananarivo, Madagascar
November 27, 2016

While attending the XVI Summit of La Francophonie in Madagascar, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau today announced that the Government of Canada will provide $112.8 million for international aid projects that will benefit several African countries and Haiti.

This funding will contribute to projects that aim to fight climate change, empower women, and protect their rights. It will also be used to stimulate economic growth, which will create job opportunities for young people and women, and to counter terrorism and prevent radicalization.

During the Summit, the Prime Minister held discussions with his counterparts from countries of La Francophonie on issues related to the Summit’s theme – Shared Growth and Responsible Development: Conditions for Stability Around the World and Within La Francophonie.

The Prime Minister also highlighted that Ontario has been granted observer status in the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie (OIF). This bolsters Canadian representation in the OIF and will provide greater exposure for Franco-Ontarian communities on a global scale.

Quote

“Canada’s participation in the Summit is in keeping with our desire to revitalize our commitment to La Francophonie and Africa. Working together with other member and observer States and governments, we can better address the numerous challenges that face members of La Francophonie, from climate change, to gender inequality, to human rights – including LGBTQ2 issues. Canada congratulates Madagascar on a successful Summit of La Francophonie.”
—Rt. Honourable Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada


Quick Facts

• Africa plays a leading role within La Francophonie. The previous two summits (Kinshasa in 2012 and Dakar in 2014) took place in Africa. African countries account for 29 of the 54 full members.
• In addition to Ontario, La Francophonie also welcomed Argentina and South Korea as observers, and New Caledonia as an associate member.
• The governments of Quebec, New Brunswick and Ontario are represented at the XVI Summit of La Francophonie respectively by premiers Philippe Couillard and Brian Gallant, as well as by Marie-France Lalonde, Minister responsible for Francophone Affairs (Ontario).
  

Related Product

• Fact Sheet: The Prime Minister announces significant support for international aid while attending the XVI Summit of La Francophonie
  
  

Associated Links:

• 
  Major La Francophonie Events – 2016 Francophone Summit in Antananarivo, Madagascar
• Canada in La Francophonie
• XVI Summit of La Francophonie 2016 (Available in French only)
  

Official statement LINK.

 

[The Bread Guy]

$112.8 million to be sent outside of Canada.

And?  Team Blue sent all kinds of $ outside of Canada all the time without many complaints around these parts.

Or are you against the $500,000 for "Counterterrorism and prevention of radicalization to violence" in Niger? 

 

[George Wallace]

And?  Team Blue sent all kinds of $ outside of Canada all the time without many complaints around these parts.

Or are you against the $500,000 for "Counterterrorism and prevention of radicalization to violence" in Niger? 

One more link on Canada's Foreign Aid:  Foreign Aid Portal

 

[The Bread Guy]

One more link on Canada's Foreign Aid:  Foreign Aid Portal

That's where my first link came from.

 

[Edward Campbell]

And?  Team Blue sent all kinds of $ outside of Canada all the time without many complaints around these parts.

Or are you against the $500,000 for "Counterterrorism and prevention of radicalization to violence" in Niger? 

Bingo!

For many, many people, who react rather than think, anything and everything done by Prime Minister Trudeau must be wrong and bad and ill considered and wasteful and so on while anything done by Prime Minister Harper must have been right and good and principled and productive and, and, and ...

Look, I am a card carrying Conservative; more than that I donate enough money that I am a member of the Party's so-called Leaders Circle* but I do not believe that everything CPC was or is, automatically, right and proper; nor do I believe that Justin Trudeau and the Liberals are all devilish idiots ... that's why I refuse to engage in political discussions in Army.ca ... both the Conservative and Liberal partisans are, generally, just mindlessly spouting the (internet) party lines.

I do not think Canadians chose well in 2015, I hope they will come to their senses in 2019. But Justin Trudeau is neither a fool nor the devil incarnate. He is my prime minister, too, even though I want that to change, and I think that he deserves some respect and some benefit of the doubt, too.

___
* The Conservative Party eschews the apostrophe in its Leaders Circle bumph so I don't know if I'm in a circle around the leader (a Leader's Circle) supporting and protecting him, or in a circle of leaders (a Leaders' Circle) doing something else ... no "circle jerk" jokes, please    consider that a pre-emptive strike!

 

[The Bread Guy]

Bingo!

For many, many people, who react rather than think, anything and everything done by Prime Minister Trudeau must be wrong and bad and ill considered and wasteful and so on while anything done by Prime Minister Harper must have been right and good and principled and productive and, and, and ...

And I'll also be honest enough to admit that there are more than a few out there who think the same re:  PM Harper - or any Team Blue coach.

All that said, some advice from "Red Dawn" ...

 

[Fishbone Jones]

My name's Dave and I'm a liberal hater. My political awakenings happened around the time of Trudeau Snr. That likely set the pattern. After his first term I had gained a visceral hate for all things (Canadian political) liberal and socialist. Have they done some good stuff. Probably. Have the conservatives fooked it? Absolutely, you only have to look at Mulroney, who acted more like a liberal than a conservative. Right down to the money scandals.

I miss a lot of what the liberals actually say. Given my extreme dislike, for them, I can't get through an article without losing my mind. It's almost become an automatic reflex. Yes, I rant and rave here against them (and other places) and sometimes I get it right.

Like golf, one good shot makes you keep coming back and trying again.

So, I guess, all that to say, if you read one of my posts and it doesn't point to research or a complete understanding of the subject and just sounds like a rant, it likely is and questioning me about it won't provide any solace, as I likely only gave it a cursory look.

Trudeau doesn't impress me. At all. He's putting on the show of a leader but has to leave the real work to the back end Laurentian Elites that are making him perform like a seal. He's a mental midget that screws up everytime he goes off the script that his handlers gave him. 

So, yeah, he's Canada's PM, which makes him mine also. However, the one thing the liberals can't do, is make me like or feel good about it.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I'm never sure what to make of it when people say/write "my PM" or "my president".

If someone were to say "my king", I'd infer that the speaker regards himself as a subject.  In a democracy, that relationship is not the case.  You can still say, "my {leader}" (servant of the people), but it's a little ambiguous.

So I prefer "the PM", not "my PM".

 

[Edward Campbell]

I'm never sure what to make of it when people say/write "my PM" or "my president".

If someone were to say "my king", I'd infer that the speaker regards himself as a subject.  In a democracy, that relationship is not the case.  You can still say, "my {leader}" (servant of the people), but it's a little ambiguous.

So I prefer "the PM", not "my PM".

It's simple, really, he is the fairly, honestly, elected leader of my country and while no one would be happier than I if (when) he fails on political grounds I do not want to see him fail, over and over and over again, on policy grounds.

When he fails Canada suffers, maybe not much, but it does ... I am willing to see us all pay a price for his political demise, but I hope that at least some of his policies are not failures.


Edit: two typos

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I just got to explain to a bunch of adult Chinese ESL students, how projects are reviewed and approved in Canada. I explained that the Public Service is not supposed to be political and serve the government of the day. That this is my 4th government and as long as they give us lawful direction we will do our best to carry it out and that major decisions are political in nature. I could tell by their questions that they were struggling to grasp the difference, the 2 biggest is that our political masters come and go and that the PS is not heavily entwined in the political side, to get anywhere in China you must belong to the party.

 

[McG]

Is the military component of our foreign policy currently about doing just enough with what we have so that we are not asked to do it with more?

How Canada’s defence money is spent
David J. Bercuson
24 Nov 2016

In early July, Justin Trudeau’s government announced that in 2017 it will dispatch a “battle group” of 450 soldiers to command one of four North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) brigades that are being formed in the NATO countries that border Russia, particularly the Baltic states and Poland. The Canadian contingent will be going to Latvia for six months, to be replaced by other Canadian contingents, as necessary, for as long as NATO believes they are warranted. The other brigades will be commanded by Britain, the United States and Germany.

The aim of the deployment is ostensibly to aid those countries in the event Russia takes military action against them. In fact, those brigades are not meant to defend anything as much as to provide a tripwire that, in the event of a Russian attack, will kick in Article V of the NATO treaty which provides for common defence among all NATO members.  How do we know this? Because a NATO brigade’s life expectancy will be very short indeed if Russian forces launch an all-out attack. The four brigades are thus far more a symbol than they are effective defence; with or without those brigades, a Russian invasion of any NATO country is supposed to spark off a NATO military response.

Nevertheless, they will send a clear signal, symbolic or otherwise, that Russia ought not to believe that even though these NATO nations are on the far eastern fringe of NATO, they will not be defended to the same extent that Germany or France would. And it is a sure sign of Canada’s ongoing commitment to NATO under the new Liberal government that the commitment was eventually made, even though it came after many weeks of open U.S. and NATO pressure on Canada to participate.

Many questions remain about the mission: what kind of a force does Ottawa have in mind when it talks about a 450-member “battle group”? For over 25 years the Canadian Armed Forces have used the term “battle group” in the same way that other nations use the term battalion group. These formations add a core battalion of infantry—generally about 600 soldiers—accompanied by other units such as engineers, medics, mortars and/or heavy machine gunners. The battle groups that Canada fielded in Afghanistan and, earlier, in the Balkans were generally from 750 to 900 men and women. So what exactly does the government mean by a 450-person battle group?

Of course many of the details may not have been worked out yet (the decision was only made in July) and presumably people at National Defence Headquarters will have these and other issues worked out before the deployment. But one is already crystal clear: by undertaking a high profile mission, a small one to be sure but an important one for NATO, Ottawa is demonstrating its response to critics, both domestic and international, who say that Canada’s defence expenditures of roughly .8 per cent to one per cent of GDP (as opposed to NATO’s desired two per cent of GDP) are inadequate. From the beginning of the Liberal mandate, the minister of National Defence has said that it is not so important how much Canada spends; what really counts is how Canada’s defence money is spent.

In other words, to keep Canada’s critics off Ottawa’s back–especially Americans who speak of Canada as a free-rider—this government has undertaken at least two missions that Washington is, or will be, well aware of: (1) increasing Canada’s logistical, training, special forces, and surveillance troops on the ground in the Iraq/Syria theatre and (2) commanding a brigade in Latvia and contributing a significant chunk to it. Of course, Canada did pull its six-pack of CF-18s from the Iraq/Syria theatre in order to keep Prime Minister Trudeau’s election promise, but then another six-pack is now to accompany Canadian troops to Latvia.

At this point in its mandate, the only consistent defence policy that the government seems to be pursuing is just that—undertaking small, but high profile missions (especially in Washington) to keep our No. 1 ally from focusing too much on our anemic defence spending. It’s not a bad idea and one that Canada could get away with. It should at least hold off serious U.S. criticism until the new president assumes office and Canada’s new defence policy review emerges as a serious, cohesive policy that Canadians are ready to support financially.   

https://legionmagazine.com/en/2016/11/how-canadas-defence-money-is-spent/

 

[Good2Golf]

Sounds more like a plussed-up Combat Team?  ???