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

Harper Outlines Canada's First Defence Strategy

I was just about to say to those who were complaining of no release of a detailed document, "Why on earth would Harper want to do that?"  The only thing that would accomplish would be to provide ammunition to the Liberals, NDP and Bloc.

How many times do you want to hear "It's a George Bush Plan!" in news soundbites?

It's better to just keep cranking up funding, and procuring what we need as quickly as they can.


Matthew.  :salute:
 
It's better to just keep cranking up funding, and procuring what we need as quickly as they can.

The House of Commons votes as a whole to fund DND and Harper's new defence vision  and withholding information will only aggravate the opposition and may lead to them not funding it.  BTW Canada is a democracy and is supposed to be open and accountable.  We are not China.  Thus, there needs to be democratic debate on what Canada's defence policy will be. 
 
stegner said:
The House of Commons votes as a whole to fund DND and Harper's new defence vision  and withholding information will only aggravate the opposition and may lead to them not funding it.  BTW Canada is a democracy and is supposed to be open and accountable.  We are not China.  Thus, there needs to be democratic debate on what Canada's defence policy will be. 

Why should Harper be first?

There was no debate when St. Laurent more than doubled the size of the military in the 1949/51 period.

There was some, poorly focused debate when Hellyer proposed unification back in the early '60s.

There was no debate when Trudeau attempted to disarm Canada - and succeeded in emasculating the CF - in 1971.

There was "debate" of sorts when Mulroney issued a deeply flawed White Paper in the late '80s but it was mostly ridicule.

There was no debate when Chrétien decided we didn't need armed forces back in '94.

Why now?
 
stegner said:
..............   Thus, there needs to be democratic debate on what Canada's defence policy will be.   

Why?  This has been done already.  We have a White Paper on Defence as a result of it.  So it is nearly fifty  ;D years old.  

Why do we elect our officials and let the ruling party form the Government and appoint members to Cabinet, if not to make our decisions for us?  Why must we now have a debate in Parliament for every decision that has to be made?  Is this some Third World parliament that is bogged down in personal vendettas and fist fights that you seek?  This is a Democracy, not a Socialist Regime.  Not every minute function of government requires debate on the floor of the Commons.   ::)
 
Meanwhile clarification is muddied; the government remains communications-challenged:
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=55539cbc-75a7-42fa-a7ef-b4b1f7334ec5

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...

Moreover, the cost of replacing heavy equipment is expected to cost much more than previously indicated by the government.

Lt.-Gen. Walt Natynczyk, the vice-chief of the defence staff, said replacing heavy equipment over the coming decades will also cost between $45 to $50 billion. That is significantly higher than the $30 billion price tag that MacKay and Harper announced on Monday to replace ships, maritime patrol aircraft, fixed-wing search and rescue planes and army combat vehicles.

Half of that will be spent on ship upgrades for the navy, specifically the upgrading of frigates and destroyers, said Natynczyk
[emphasis added]...

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 [emphasis added]...

Overall, the annual defence budget will grow to $30 billion by 2028 from its current $18 billion based on the two-per cent annual increases that the Conservative plan now promises.

Military officials attempted to offer more details of the new defence spending plan at a briefing on Wednesday.

However, the event quickly went off the rails, when military officials told journalists that none of the assembled military experts could be quoted by name.

Only the opening remarks by Natynczyk, Canada's No. 2 soldier and the front-runner to replace Gen. Rick Hillier in July, were deemed quotable by defence officials.

Natynczyk rejected a request by journalists to hold the entire briefing on the record in the public interest.

Afterwards, some senior military officials expressed dissatisfaction with the ground rules for the briefing.

One senior officer used an expletive to express his dissatisfaction with how, in his view, the most proactive spending plan the Forces have ever seen was being communicated to the public.

"It's the policy of government," said another senior military official, who declined to say whether the ground rules were imposed by the prime minister's office.

Asked if he was comfortable with how the briefing had unfolded, the office said: "It becomes a challenge."

Military planners said they took a comprehensive modern approach to predict what global security risks or "conflict drivers" such as terrorism, climate change or population migration would drive up demand for the services of the Forces.

"Food is one, oil is another one, water is one," said another military official...

Dates:
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/425582

...The briefing served up a few more details on the plan, such as a rough schedule for the purchase of new fighter jets (2017), search-and-rescue planes (2015), destroyers (2017) and frigates (2024) [actually Single Class Surface Combattan, to replace both]. The ships will eat up more than half of the equipment budget...

Mark
Ottawa
 
milnewstbay said:
"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.
Would this be the SCIP?
 
...The briefing served up a few more details on the plan, such as a rough schedule for the purchase of new fighter jets (2017), search-and-rescue planes (2015), destroyers (2017) and frigates (2024) [actually Single Class Surface Combattan, to replace both]. The ships will eat up more than half of the equipment budget...

Mark there is not SCSC anymore, its Destroyer Replacement Project. Any frigate will be be a version of the destroyer.
 
Question from a land type:
What is the difference between a frigate and a destroyer?
 
OldSolduer said:
Question from a land type:
What is the difference between a frigate and a destroyer?

Our Frigate's are old, our destroyers are older.
 
Destroyer Replacement Project
http://www.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/ad-ad.nsf/en/ad03884e.html

Client Department: Department of National Defence
Prime Contractor: To be determined
Company Contact:      To be determined
Industry Canada Manager: Greg Browning  613-954-3266
                                      Mary Campbell  613-954-3789
Contract Period: To be determined
Description: Replacement of Iroquois Class vessels.

Mark
Ottawa
 
E.R. Campbell said:
Why should Harper be first?
There was no debate when St. Laurent more than doubled the size of the military in the 1949/51 period.
There was some, poorly focused debate when Hellyer proposed unification back in the early '60s.
There was no debate when Trudeau attempted to disarm Canada - and succeeded in emasculating the CF - in 1971.
There was "debate" of sorts when Mulroney issued a deeply flawed White Paper in the late '80s but it was mostly ridicule.
There was no debate when Chrétien decided we didn't need armed forces back in '94.
Why now?

George Wallace said:
Why?  This has been done already.  We have a White Paper on Defence as a result of it.  So it is nearly fifty  ;D years old.  
Why do we elect our officials and let the ruling party form the Government and appoint members to Cabinet, if not to make our decisions for us?  Why must we now have a debate in Parliament for every decision that has to be made?  Is this some Third World parliament that is bogged down in personal vendettas and fist fights that you seek?  This is a Democracy, not a Socialist Regime.  Not every minute function of government requires debate on the floor of the Commons.   ::)

Both correct - I have no issue at all with government using constitutionally OK executive powers.

However, when a government commits itself to "improved accountability and transparency" (at least according to this news release from 2006), I'm only questioning the lack of documentation that can be scrutinized (especially since the last White Paper is so timely  ;) ).  After all, we can look at a "DND/CF STRATEGY MAP" (.pdf).

Other major democracies have similar documents online - quick Google shows United States and the United Kingdom as quick examples.

There is already public debate underway on the issue (including here), and all we can debate is the speech of the Prime Minister (which says the Defence Minister's speech will have the details - but still no DefMin speech made public).  The speech, and the reading of the tea leaves therein, is already providing fodder for the opposition anyway, so why not share a base document? 

Or do we have to read other tea leaves, like budget documents, estimates, RPP's and other arcane data to ferret out the truth?  I know I have no life and can dig, but how many other people who may want to debate the issue can?
 
OldSolduer said:
Question from a land type:
What is the difference between a frigate and a destroyer?

Traditionally a frigate was smaller then a destroyer but size these days have little to do with it. In the CF we use destroyers as flagships and to provide Area Air Defence duties. A frigate is used for general warfare duties.

Our Frigate's are old, our destroyers are older.
Our frigates still stack favourably to most other nations frigates, they are a capable platform and once FELEX is underway wil continue to do an outstanding job for Canada and the Navy.
 
Ex-Dragoon said:
Our frigates still stack favourably to most other nations frigates, they are a capable platform and once FELEX is underway wil continue to do an outstanding job for Canada and the Navy.

I didn't think I needed to put the smiley in, guess I was wrong.
 
A defense white paper right now would be a godsend to the Liberal party, it would be like throwing them a lifeline. Politics is like war, with a minority government there is no real point investing a large amount of effort into a plan that may not last 6 months, once they have a majority then hold their feet to the fire.
 
Colin P said:
A defense white paper right now would be a godsend to the Liberal party, it would be like throwing them a lifeline.

Sadly, they're gonna make as much hay out of what's out there now as they would with a White Paper, so too late for that....

Colin P said:
Politics is like war, with a minority government there is no real point investing a large amount of effort into a plan that may not last 6 months, once they have a majority then hold their feet to the fire.

Politically, you're bang on.  However, someone more cynical than me could say, "so, minority governments are supposed to do things half-a*s until they get a majority?"  Or even, "so we don't hold the feet of minority governments to the fire?"
 
You know whats really sad?  Bill Gates' current net worth is 3 times our defense budget annually.  I guess if becoming a pilot is not an option then I'll just have to become phenomenally rich and buy my own Airforce. :)

Anyway - our Defense Strategy is in place but not for public consumption.  What kind of gov't runs a multi-billion dollar dept without a strategy?  I just hope this includes lots of new equipment, ships, aircraft, people, etc. and increase our status quo - not just maintain it.

J
 
Fireball said:
Anyway - our Defense Strategy is in place but not for public consumption.  What kind of gov't runs a multi-billion dollar dept without a strategy?  I just hope this includes lots of new equipment, ships, aircraft, people, etc. and increase our status quo - not just maintain it.

J

And where oh, where does the accountability ball bounce to without any coherent, directed and codified plan.  Can you say slim to none?
 
Zip said:
I didn't think I needed to put the smiley in, guess I was wrong.

Only because we have a lot of people that still come here and do not have a clue on defence issues, hence accuracy is crucial.

Milnet.Ca Staff
 
Fireball said:
  I just hope this includes lots of new equipment, ships, aircraft, people, etc. and increase our status quo - not just maintain it.

Another way of making Zip's point can be:  How do you ensure what was promised is happening, or that what's promised is what you want (allowing you to wholeheartedly agree or disagree), without something more detailed in writing?
 
Back
Top