RCAF Looking at Australian F-18s as Alternative to Super Hornets

By: Lee Berthiaume, The Canadian Press

OTTAWA — It once appeared the Liberal government would almost certainly buy Super Hornet fighter jets from U.S. aerospace giant Boeing Co. — but it's now clear that other options are on the table.

Aside from the Super Hornets, the government are also pondering used jets and could even end up extending the lives of Canada's CF-18s as its dispute with Boeing continues to escalate.

Speaking to reporters in Kelowna, B.C., where Liberal MPs are meeting before the return of Parliament, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan said the government is actively looking at alternatives to the Super Hornets as an interim fighter.

"We had identified that the Super Hornets could potentially fill that gap, but ... Boeing has not been a partner, especially when it comes to dealing with our aerospace sector," Sajjan said Wednesday.

"So we are looking at other options."

Those alternatives include deploying a team of defence officials in the past few weeks to look at some of Australia's used F/A-18s, which the country is selling as it prepares to receive new F-35 stealth fighters.

Several retired air force officers say the F/A-18 is very similar to Canada's CF-18s, and buying the used planes from Australia would be much more cost effective than new Super Hornets.

"It's a far better idea than buying Super Hornets because you're at least conceptually using the same airframe," said former chief of defence staff Tom Lawson.

"If they are interested in addressing the short-term capability gap, then they may want to consider that, and it's a far, far better plan, far less expensive and far less interruptive than purchasing Super Hornets."

But Australia isn't the only option if the government is looking to strengthen Canada's CF-18 fleet on a temporary basis until they can be replaced in a full competition.

Kuwait is also looking to sell its used F/A-18s in favour of Super Hornets, while several allies will be getting rid of used F-16s and other fighter aircraft in the coming years as they are replaced by F-35s.

National Defence said officials have not visited any other countries, but it would not say whether there have been discussions about the availability of used aircraft.

Some experts have also suggested that with the U.S. Navy looking to keep many of its own F/A-18s flying past 2025, it might be time for Canada to consider extending the lives of its CF-18s again.

Officials have previously considered the option, but it was deemed too expensive because of the expected difficulty in finding parts — which would be less of a problem if the U.S. kept its jets flying.

Lisa Campbell, head of military procurement at Public Services and Procurement Canada, would not comment on specific options being considered.

"You can make sure we do our due diligence," she said in an interview. "We really do. We and the Department of National Defence. These are major purchases. They have big implications."

The Liberal government has not officially walked away from its plan to purchase interim Super Hornets, which it announced last November amid claims Canada didn't have enough fighter jets.

Campbell said officials are still waiting for the U.S. to say when the Super Hornets could be delivered, and at what cost.

The information was requested in March, and expected by the beginning of September, but it still hasn't materialized.

"We had submitted something that said: 'Here's the capability that we need, here's when we need it, here's the cost that we need it,'" Campbell said.

"We do expect a response back from them ... and we do expect that in the next couple of weeks."

Many defence insiders and industry representatives have circled Sept. 25 on their calendars as the make-or-break moment for interim Super Hornets.

That is when the U.S. Commerce Department will present the findings of its investigation — prompted by a complaint from Boeing — into whether Bombardier sold its CSeries passenger jets at an unfairly low price with help from federal subsidies.

An adverse finding could result in fines or tariffs being imposed on Bombardier, but could also prompt the Liberal government, which has criticized the investigation, to pull the plug on any deal with Boeing.

Boeing has said it won't drop its complaint to the U.S. Commerce Department because the case is important to its long-term prosperity.

During a frank phone call Tuesday with the governor of Missouri, where the Super Hornets are built, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in turn accused Boeing of receiving billions in subsidies.

Trudeau also noted of the number of Missouri jobs that depend on the jets, and the fact Canada is the state's largest trading partner.

Griffon Helicopter Replacement not in the Cards

By: David Pugliese, Defence Watch 

A number of aerospace firms exhibiting at the recently held CANSEC 2017 defence trade show in Ottawa highlighted the helicopters they hoped they could offer the Canadian government as a replacement for the RCAF’s Griffons. The companies had heard Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan suggest that a replacement would be needed for the Griffon.

Griffon helicopters take off on a mission. DND photo. 

Romain Trapp, president of Airbus Helicopters in Canada, briefed journalists at CANSEC pointing out the capabilities of the company’s H145M as a possible replacement for the Griffon. “We made the business case by showing (the RCAF) that by going to a new platform, the Canadian taxpayers would save more than $1 billion,” he explained. Those saving would be made over a 10-year period.

Leonardo Helicopters also has a variety of aircraft that could replace the CH-146.

But the Liberal government’s newly released defence policy did not follow through with a Griffon replacement.

Instead, the Liberals will embark on what they are calling the “CH-146 Griffon Limited Life Extension.”

They didn’t go into details but the emphasis here is “limited.”

It is unclear whether that project will be a stop-gap life extension until a new helicopter procurement could take place.

Defence Review After NATO Meeting

By: Murray Brewster, CBC NEws 

Canada's long-awaited defence policy review will not be made public before Prime Minister Justin Trudeau faces allies at the NATO Summit in Brussels later this month, CBC News has learned.

It's a significant decision that could make the gathering of alliance leaders uncomfortable for the prime minister, especially in light of the demands and expectations of U.S. President Donald Trump, who has insisted allies boost spending on their militaries.

A senior government official tells CBC News the plan had been to release the policy before the meeting, but officials believe it is important that Canada's defence policy align with a broader set of foreign policy goals.

Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland will deliver a major speech shortly after the gathering of NATO leaders that will more clearly define the Liberal government's vision, said an official with direct knowledge of the plan.

That will be followed closely by Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan's policy review, which has been more than a year in the making and will set the future direction for the military, in terms of expectations, spending and equipment.

Related
Canada needs to 'stand-up to our responsibilities' on defence spending
Military grappling with years of underfunding, Sajjan acknowledges
Dawson considers revisiting probe into Sajjan over detainee abuse

Many critical decisions, including the replacement of aircraft, ships and vehicles, have been in a holding pattern because of the review.

The latest federal budget removes over $8 billion from the immediate equipment purchasing plans of National Defence and promises to sprinkle the cash into programs in future years.

NATO leaders agreed at the 2014 summit in Wales that, with a resurgent Russia on the world stage, member countries should have a plan to increase their defence budgets and bring spending up to two per cent of their gross domestic products.

That would require Canada to double the size of its defence appropriation to just over $40 billion from the current $18.7 billion.
Cash vs. action

Both Trudeau's Liberal government and former prime minister Stephen Harper's Conservative government have balked at the notion, arguing that the GDP measurement is arbitrary and that the true measurement is participation in NATO missions.

But the Trump administration, which has consistently hammered allies to pay more towards collective security, is likely to be unimpressed that Trudeau is showing up empty-handed, said one defence analyst.

"I think the Americans are going to be disappointed and our European allies will be dumbfounded," said Dave Perry, of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute. "Our recent budget changes have all been negative. We've pushed several billions of dollars of purchasing off into the future and our share of defence spending continues to decline."

According to NATO estimates, Canada is spending just under one per cent of its GDP on defence, but a recent Senate committee report, using Library of Parliament data, pegs that figure at .88 per cent.

"So, to go into the meeting empty-handed, without even the defence review; it will put our government in a very uncomfortable position," said Perry.
Ending defence cuts

The senior government official, who spoke on background because of the sensitivity of the file, said they are expecting that defence spending "will be brought up, as it always has been" at the NATO meeting, but argued "the defence policy is not for our allies. It is for Canadians."

The Americans were given a sneak peek at the new policy and were pleased, said a pair of defence sources, who were not authorized to speak to the media.

The expectation that Canada will deliver something of substance when leaders meet on May 25 extends beyond the U.S.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said the 28 member nations pledged to stop cutting defence and find a way to to get to two per cent GDP.

Related
Canada ranks 23 out of 28 NATO countries on defence spending
U.S. defence secretary tells NATO countries to increase military spending

"I expect all allies to be able to meet the commitment we made in 2014," Stoltenberg said Thursday following a meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

It will be a major topic in the coming days, and he said everyone is expected to be on onboard.

"What we're going to address is how to implement the pledge and I am encouraged by what I see across Europe and Canada."

Marc Garneau: It's Time for an ‘Honest’ list of Defence Costs

By Monique Scotti, Global News 

The Canadian government needs to be honest with taxpayers about the price-tag for upgrading our military equipment, says Transport Minister Marc Garneau, and the Liberals are preparing to unveil a “realistic set of costs.”

Garneau, a member of the government’s defence procurement committee, was called upon this weekend to answer questions from The West Block‘s Vassy Kapelos, in lieu of Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan.

READ MORE: PMO taps transport minister with defence interview in place of embattled Sajjan

Sajjan has faced sustained criticism over the last two weeks after he falsely claimed to have been the “architect” of an offensive in Afghanistan. He has since apologized repeatedly for that “mistake.”

The controversy surrounding the minister comes just ahead of the expected unveiling of the government’s long-awaited defence policy review.

Garneau said the document would be made public “very shortly,” but would not confirm if the review would include an immediate influx of new funds for the Canadian Forces.

READ MORE: Federal budget 2017’s lack of defence spending draws fire

Previous governments, including Liberal ones, have not properly assessed the real cost of purchasing new fighter jets, ground vehicles, ships and rescue planes, Garneau noted.

“I’m not going to talk about any of the details at this point,” he said.

“We’ve looked at it very carefully, we’ve calculated the costs very carefully. We’ve had them audited, we’ve had them checked by five different companies.”

Canada currently spends less than one-per-cent of its gross domestic product on defence (far short of the 2 per cent target set by NATO), and has cut back significantly on operating costs over the past decade.

“I’m ex-navy, I can tell you we don’t have resupply ships at the moment,” Garneau acknowledged.

“We don’t have a destroyer left. If we had to go into combined operations we’d have to work with the Americans in order to ensure area defence.”
Accepts Sajjan’s apology

As for Sajjan’s “mistake,” Garneau said that as an ex-military member himself, he accepts the minister’s apology.

“I know minister Sajjan very well and I serve with him on the defence procurement committee, and I can tell you that there is no one who is fighting harder to make sure that the men and women of the armed forces are properly equipped and taken care of,” Garneau said.


Asked why Sajjan would make such a provably false claim about the level of his involvement in a military offensive, Garneau said that’s not for him to answer.

“Mr. Sajjan will use his own words if he chooses to do so. I’m not going to interpret. I certainly accept his apology and I’m very glad he is the minister of defence.”

CAF to Review Uniforms, Badges, and More for Greater Diversity

By: David Pugliese, The National Post

The Canadian military will review its badges, uniforms, flags and associated ceremonial activities to ensure they are welcoming to women, visible minorities, the disabled, indigenous people and members of the gay and transgender communities.

The move is part of the Canadian Armed Forces Diversity Strategy approved last May by Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Jon Vance.

It is now up to the Canadian Forces to figure out how to move ahead with Vance’s strategy, and in January of this year the military produced a diversity strategy action plan, which was forwarded to the Ottawa Citizen by sources inside National Defence headquarters.

The action plan focuses on Designated Group Members, which the Canadian Forces defines as women, Indigenous people, persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities. Also included in the strategy is the LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Transsexual, Queer, Questioning and 2-Spirited) community. The plan includes a detailed list of initiatives the Forces can take to accommodate those members, among them:

• “Review current dress, badges, flags, music, lineages, affiliations, drill and ceremonial, etc. and ensure these customs complement and expand towards a more diverse and inclusive national military institution (Allow dress appropriate to one’s gender identity.)”

• “Consider family circumstances when posting CAF members, including if possible, geographic proximity to family for cultural reasons, when requested.”

• “Dedicate a room at the workplace where CAF members feel encouraged and not at risk to practice their religion.”

• “Develop policy and guidelines to address the spiritual needs of Indigenous CAF Members.”

Other initiatives to be considered involve examining military equipment and infrastructure to “accommodate the needs of Designated Group Members and other members with specific needs,” and ways to improve healthcare and family support for the various individuals, which would include “traditional healing, spiritual needs, specific accommodations – dietary needs.”

Messages about employment equity and diversity will also be included in all Canadian Forces advertising and displays, according to the action plan, and military leaders will have to undergo diversity training to be considered for promotion.

Department of National Defence spokeswoman Suzanne Parker said Vance approved the action plan earlier this year. The approach is intended to be as comprehensive as possible, she said, accounting for the many differences that exist among Canadian military personnel beyond the four designated groups.

“Many of the initiatives, programs and other activities identified in this Action Plan are already in place, are ongoing or will soon be implemented,” Parker said in an email. “The Diversity Strategy’s Action Plan is expected to be fully implemented by the end of 2018.”

The military hopes the diversity strategy will help with recruitment.

It’s unclear at this point how equipment, uniforms, flags and ceremonial activities might be changed to be more accommodating.

In February, Vance was questioned at a defence conference in Ottawa about body armour and other gear not being properly fitted for women. The general agreed, and said that if the Canadian Forces wants to “become more diverse and inclusive, we’re going to have to change.”

Related
Matthew Fisher: Canada’s forces deployed in Latvia to include ‘cyber warriors’ to counter Russians
Inside the mysterious removal of the Canadian military’s second-in-command
Canadian Forces looking to replace Second World War-era pistols but it could take another 10 years

The Canadian military has tried previously to change or alter some of its equipment for women. In 1997 it earmarked more than $2 million for creating what it believed would be the world’s first combat bra. The project was eventually abandoned.

Over the last several years, the Canadian Forces have been under fire for incidents of sexual assault and misconduct, most of it directed towards women. In an April 30, 2015 report, former Supreme Court justice Marie Deschamps found that not only was sexual misconduct “endemic” in the Canadian Forces but that it was condoned by the military leadership.

During her year-long investigation, Deschamps interviewed hundreds of full- and part-time military personnel, as well as commanding officers, military police, chaplains, nurses and social workers. The interviews pointed to what she described as a “hostile sexualized environment” in the military, particularly among recruits and the junior ranks. “At the most extreme, these reports of sexual violence highlighted the use of sex to enforce power relationships,” said Deschamps’ report, “and to punish and ostracize a member of a unit.”

Vance has condemned such behaviour and has vowed to take a tough approach against involved in sexual misconduct. Although he has acknowledged that sexual misconduct is a problem in the Canadian Forces, he also recently blamed the news media for reporting on such incidents, saying the media has created a “toxic” narrative about the military.

Canada reviewing how NATO members calculate defence spending

By: Lee Berthiaume, The Canadian Press 

OTTAWA – Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan says he has ordered officials to look at how Canada calculates military spending compared to other NATO members, to ensure all allies are comparing “apples to apples.”

“We have to be cognizant that different nations use a different formula,” Sajjan told the House of Commons defence committee on Thursday.

“So right now the deputy minister is working with our closest partners to look at exactly the formula that they were using so we can have a good comparison.”

The comments come as Canada and other NATO allies are facing pressure from the Trump administration in Washington to increase the amount they spend on their militaries.

While all NATO members agreed in 2014 to work towards spending two per cent of their gross domestic product, or GDP, on defence, only five have reached that goal.

Canada is not one of them, and is actually near the back of the pack. It currently spends less than one per cent of GDP on defence, which ranks it 23rd among 28 NATO members.

Sajjan would not say whether the government will actually roll in the spending on the coast guard or veterans programs like the U.S. and Britain, which would inch Canada closer to two per cent.

“But at the same time, we do need to look at what our closest allies are actually using so that we can then compare apples to apples in terms of that commitment,” he told The Canadian Press after the meeting.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau appeared to all but dismiss the two per cent target during a visit to Germany last month, saying: “There are many ways of evaluating one’s contribution to NATO.”

That is the message the government has repeatedly delivered to Washington, emphasizing Canada’s military contributions to Latvia, Ukraine and Iraq in lieu of large spending increases.

Sajjan repeated it during and after his committee appearance, adding that the government would invest in what it believes the military needs to do its job rather than to meet a specific target.

“We are going to invest in defence and what we need for outputs,” he said. “That’s how we conduct a defence policy review. That’s what makes it credible.”

Defence analyst David Perry of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute said there is validity to the government’s argument that spending alone isn’t a good measure of a country’s contributions to NATO.

But the fact the government is reviewing the formula indicates it is at least a little concerned about how Canada compares to other NATO members, particularly given the messages coming out of Washington.

It is also another indication that the government is not planning to include any big injections of money into the military in the upcoming budget or its new defence policy, which is expected in the coming weeks.

“If they were about to unleash a big increase to the budget,” Perry said, “you’d kind of wonder whether or not they’d be going through the exercise of figuring out what to count.”

Bids For Permanent Fleet to Replace CF-18s Expected in 2019

By: David Pugliese, The National Post 

The Liberal government plans to request bids for a new fleet of fighter jets as early as 2019, which would coincide with the next federal election.

That move, along with the push by the Liberals to have the first of the interim Super Hornet fighter aircraft delivered by that year, could help blunt criticism about bungled military procurements and delays in buying a new jet, say military insiders and analysts.

Public Services and Procurement Canada confirmed the 2019 date for the release to industry of the request for proposals for the permanent fighter fleet.

The department also noted the government expects a deal in place by the end of 2017 or early 2018 to acquire the 18 Boeing Super Hornets as an interim measure. The Liberal government has been pushing to get the first of those planes delivered some time in 2019, industry sources say.

Defence analyst Martin Shadwick said such moves could provide political cover for the Liberals. “It could be politically useful in an election year to have both in the works,” said Shadwick, who teaches strategic studies at York University in Toronto. “That’s a pretty good way to buy some political insulation.”

Shadwick said if the first Super Hornets arrive during the election year, that in particular would be a tangible event the Liberal government could highlight.

The Liberals had promised during the last campaign to purchase a replacement for the CF-18 jet fleet, pointing out that it would go for a cheaper alternative to the controversial F-35 stealth fighter that had been selected by the Conservative government.

That’s a pretty good way to buy some political insulation

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan announced in November the government’s decision to begin negotiations to buy 18 Boeing Super Hornets as “interim” fighter jets until a permanent fleet for the existing CF-18 aircraft could be bought.

The Liberals said Canada is facing a capability gap because it doesn’t have enough jets to fulfil its military missions, a situation Sajjan has blamed on the previous Conservative government for bungling the project to replace the aging CF-18s.

Canadian CF-18 Hornet flies beside two Portuguese F16 Flying Falcons over Lithuania on Sept. 15, 2014.
Cpl Gabrielle DesRochers/DNDA 

The Liberals’ upcoming Defence Policy Review will also contain details on the project to acquire a permanent replacement fleet for the CF-18s.

“These requirements will include the number of aircraft needed, the level of in-service support required and the estimated time of delivery,” noted the recently released update from Public Services and Procurement Canada. “Planning for the competition is already underway, and we anticipate a request for proposals will be issued in 2019.”

But the Liberal plan to buy the Super Hornets has come under fire from retired Royal Canadian Air Force generals, who say it is too costly. They argue the Liberals should cancel the Super Hornet deal and proceed immediately to a competition to buy permanent replacements for the CF-18s.

Jordan Owens, a spokeswoman for Sajjan, said the government is continuing with its negotiations on the Super Hornets. “The Royal Canadian Air Force faces a significant challenge because it does not have the number of fighter aircraft available to meet Canada’s NORAD and NATO obligations if called to do so simultaneously,” Owens said.

Critics, including the Conservatives and some retired officers, have disputed that position and questioned whether there is such a gap.

The Liberals have reversed their position somewhat on the F-35. They now say they will hold an open competition for the permanent fleet of fighter jets and that Lockheed Martin is welcome to propose the F-35.

The myth of one-party support for the Canadian Armed Forces

By: Tony Keene, CBC News

There is a myth widely accepted by many in the military, by veterans and by the civilian public that the Conservatives are the party of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF). This idea holds that while the Tories have traditionally supported and increased funding to the CAF, the Liberals are constantly looking for opportunities to cut costs. It's a prevalent notion, but a fallacious one nonetheless, and one that's being repeated as we look ahead to the Liberals' plans for 2017.

Back in 2006, a year from retirement as a reservist, I stood beside General Rick Hillier — then chief of the defence staff — as he was scrummed by the media on a visit to Halifax. The new Conservative defence minister had just announced a massive multi-billion-dollar plan to upgrade the military, especially the navy.
A 'decade of darkness'

Hillier, the burly Newfoundlander who had captivated the public with his down-home folksiness, could not resist slipping into political vernacular as he told the newsies that under the Stephen Harper government, the "decade of darkness" under the Liberals was over, and the navy was going to get "big honkin' ships."

As a lifelong Tory supporter, I was thrilled. Not only did it seem like Canada's men and women in uniform would finally get the respect they were due, but as a veteran (I was set to retire the following year), I was certain I would be looked after by the Harper government.

My optimism didn't last.

The Harper government began closing Veterans Affairs offices across the country, ending the face-to-face service we expected. The relationship between veterans affairs minister Julian Fantino and the men and women whose interests he was supposed to represent became combative, with sides trading barbs at a news conference. Under the New Veterans Charter, the government ended lifetime support for wounded soldiers and instead offered lump-sum payments, which many of us took to be "shut up and go away" payoffs.

As for military spending, there were no new ships — big, honking or otherwise — after nine years, and precious little of anything else. Defence spending fell to 0.99 per cent of GDP.

HMCS Athabaskan might not make it to her planned retirement. (Andrew Vaughan/Canadian Press)

Training and recruiting were cut, and our last destroyer — HMCS Athabaskan — became so clapped out that there is doubt she will even make it to her planned retirement date later this year. There are no support ships. Canada's aged Sea Kings are still flying (barely), as are the CF-18s.

What Harper did do was restore the "royal" designation of the navy and air force, and officers had their British-style rank insignia returned: shades of prime minister Brian Mulroney, who in 1985 gave us three coloured uniforms, and then sent us to the Gulf War without, from what we saw, a single penny of additional spending. Napoleon said men would die for scraps of ribbon. He was probably right.
Defence spending lore

Recently, in a military mess, I spoke with young officers who were convinced we were about to enter another "decade of darkness" under the Liberal government. These guys, all young enough to be my grandchildren, were adamant that Stephen Harper had increased defence spending every year, and that Justin Trudeau was now going to cut it again.

Facts and figures meant nothing. They were absolutely certain: Conservatives good, Liberals bad. End of story.

The argument can be made that defence spending in Canada rises and falls no matter who is in power. My personal experience, which includes four decades of service, was that almost all significant improvements in equipment, pay and allowances and family support came under Liberal regimes. But then again, the Liberals were in power for most of that period.

Liberals to buy 18 Boeing Super Hornet fighter jets

In the year Canada's new government has taken the reins, some improvements have been made: the Liberals have re-opened many of Veterans Affairs offices closed under the Conservative government. Interim measures have been taken to back up the CF-18s and provide support vessels for the navy, and a decorated soldier is serving as defence minister. But the Grits are still struggling to nail down the procurement process, and have taken up the former government's lawsuit over the Veterans Charter, among other things.

Nevertheless, the myth of one-party support for the CAF still remains, and as long as military personnel and veterans continue to believe it, it will continue to skew how they vote, and how we, as a people, think. That tired way of thinking needs a reality check. 

---

Tony Keene was a reservist in the Canadian Armed Forces for 40 years and completed multiple overseas tours of duty. He has worked as a journalist in newspapers and broadcasting.

This column is part of CBC's Opinion section. For more information about this section, please read this editor's blog and our FAQ.

Realistic Peacekeeping Options for Canada

By: Sarah Jane Meharg, Canadian Global Affairs Institute

The Liberal government’s Defence Review was called on 6 April 2016. Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan’s review will determine defence capabilities – what the Canadian Armed Forces have and what they need and how these capabilities will be employed to confront conflict and calamity in the environment of global instability. Defence Reviews are significant benchmarks because they set out guiding principles informed by foreign policy within the emerging social, political and economic context of the day.

Historically, such reviews have not aligned with fiscal frameworks to develop fully the grand strategies envisioned in such White Papers. If ends, ways and means – in other words, the fiscal framework – are not in lock-step, then, for the next decade Canada will be out of step in achieving its defence-related foreign policy aims.

The security and defence budget is approximately CAD $20 billion, rising with inflation each year. Canada’s UN peacekeeping financial contribution does not come out of the security and defence budget, but rather directly from Global Affairs Canada, the department responsible for making all assessed contributions to international organizations, of which UN peacekeeping is one. Defence dollars are spent at home and internationally. There is an (irrational) fear held by the government that the defence budget is bloated and there is a move afoot by Canada’s new government to carve out a leaner, more agile military from the already gutted reality of the past decade.

Putting the ongoing procurement debacle aside, defence requires funding specifically aligned with the readiness to deploy.

Peacekeeping missions have expanded to include many peace operation activities that have been empirically proven to reduce conflict recidivism, including: deployments into large, expensive and increasingly complex operations; developing and implementing transition strategies for operations where stability has been achieved; and equipping communities with capacity for long-term peace and stability, evidenced through economic development. UN peacekeeping remains one of the most powerful tools wielded by the international community to manage peaceful outcomes of contemporary armed conflicts, yet, like any other capability development, peacekeeping requires training that is specific to its remit. The tool is only as effective as its contingent troops, police and civilian personnel, and this boils down to deployment experience.

Deployments, among other things, help identify the personnel who cannot manage the stress of operations and who may detract from mission successes. Only with real experience – rather than simulations and exercises – can successes be gained. For example, the United States has innovated its ability to gain relevant and timely deployment experience by running ‘live exercises’ during its humanitarian assistance and disaster response operations (HA/DR) – a type of operation that requires a whole-of-government approach to succeed.

If we are not doing Cyprus peacekeeping anymore, we certainly need to avoid doing the same type of peacekeeper training. Canada can apply innovative ‘live exercising’ to get on-the-job peacekeeping training. Deploying more Canadians on UN missions means that they gain field experience within semi-permissive multidimensional environments and learn the lessons of international cross-cultural leadership, civil-military relations, community-based policing and security, and other innovative techniques that bring about lasting stability. It is recommended that the government deploy 1,000 contingent troops, police and civilian personnel per year to the UN peacekeeping missions that matter to national security, and fall within its defence related foreign policy aims. The cost of this increase would be approximately 10 times the current cost of the deployment of 100 personnel. Deployments should be short term (1 month), medium-term (3 months) and long-term (6 months to 1 year) to yield learning and innovation.12 It is recommended that the government engage existing defence lessons-learned capabilities to assess the experience of troops, police and civilian personnel to increase knowledge acquisition within the relevant government departments and agencies.

When the government of Canada decides to deploy the CAF to an existing or new UN peace operation, it must ensure the following pieces are in place:

• A clear chain of command exists in theatre and with the CAF in Canada able to make decisive changes if the mission environment deteriorates beyond the remit of the mission’s mandate and Rules of Engagement. 
• If deploying under a Chapter 7 mandate, Canada must guarantee – or confirm allied protection through – combat heavy weapons support in theatre prior to the deployment of CAF capabilities, such as mobile medical teams, engineering support, civilian experts, police and the Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART), if its mandate is widened beyond disaster response. 
• The CAF, Canadian police and other deployed personnel foster relationships with reliable in theatre partners in communications, logistics and airlift in the nascent stages of Canada’s own development in these support capabilities.
• The rules of engagement (ROE) for each mission13 in which Canadians are deployed are robust to allow for a full spectrum of use of force by the CAF against aggressors, whether aggressor violence is focused on the local civilian population, or the UN peacekeepers themselves. If the ROEs are not robust enough, Canadians should not deploy to the mission. 

Canada’s bid to participate on the UN Security Council for two years starting in 2020 is a committed position to engage fully in multilateral efforts of the international system intended to net enhanced peace, security and stability dividends.

While it is pursuing a seat, it is recommended that the government focus its approach to conflict management by supporting innovative systems and processes that can be duplicated by other states and non-state actors, such as it did with the development of innovations like Results-Based Management,14 the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre15 and Free Balance,16 to name a few. The remit for Global Affairs Canada (GAC) now has an economic lens, evidenced by the transformation away from supporting ‘dead aid’ that causes cyclical state-based welfare in developing states towards investment aid that ends the welfare cycle and creates autonomy in developing states while having direct economic benefits for Canada’s public and private sector contributions to global peace and security. UN peacekeeping contributions should be viewed with a similar lens in that missions can be used to deploy more Canadians to reap the benefits of live whole-of-government exercises. As well, contributions should empower the development of innovations in the conflict management industry to improve the efficacy of peacekeeping while driving Canadian economies. While the Security Council seat would be advantageous for Canada, the government must concomitantly support UN peacekeeping by increasing deployments to missions, as well as drive public and private sector innovations for managing conflicts, all while capturing the relevant lessons to inform the government’s understanding of the changing nature of the conflict environment. It is recommended that the government establish a fiscal framework supporting peacekeeping training, deployments, lessons learned and conflict management innovations that exceeds the existing budget for these existing capabilities by 10%.

This plan will yield the highest dividends for global peace and security which, in turn, underscores Canada’s foreign policy interests. Working shoulder-to-shoulder with allies on UN peace operations permits Canada entry to the decision-making table regarding international governance and collective security.

----
Dr. Meharg is Canada’s authority on post-conflict reconstruction. She specializes in the cultural, security and economic reconstruction of post-conflict and post-disaster environments. Dr. Meharg teaches peacekeeping and political geography at the Royal Military College of Canada, where she is Adjunct Assistant Professor, and also instructs at the Canadian Forces College in Toronto.

Canadian Defence Policy and Armed Intervention

By: Daniel Maillet, CAF Dispatch Author 

In a recent briefing paper presented to The Simons Foundation, peace advocate Ernie Regehr presented his outline for how the Government of Canada should assess any future Peacekeeping, Peace Support, or Military Operation.

His paper is a direct Canadian link to his published work, Disarming Conflict: Why Peace Cannot Be Won on the Battlefield (2015) where Regehr outlines that military victories are extremely rare in the post-World War Two era, and they are in decline since the end of the Cold War.

Regehr states that while a foe can be military degraded through armed intervention, that does not guarantee the region will be governable, secure, or safer in the future. Therefore, before Canada deploys to what many consider  extremely volatile regions as it returns to a Peacekeeping model for its armed forces, it needs to assess the overall political strategies of both the deployment and the UN's goals for the mission.

Regehr concludes, that while everyone admits peace support or peacekeeping operations offer no guarantee of success. But that does not mean they are useless, but it will take more than a pledge from Canada to re-engage in UN Peace Operations to correct any imbalance of Peace Operation trends.

You can  read Ernie Regehr's complete article:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BxqdoHflB6JNNFhKTUxaajJGcnM

CAF JAG asks for input on Court Martial System

DND Press Release

The Canadian Armed Forces’ (CAF) Judge Advocate General (JAG) is launching consultations with Canadians as part of the ongoing comprehensive review of the court martial system.

As directed by the JAG, Major-General Blaise Cathcart, Q.C., the purpose of the review is to conduct a legal and policy analysis of the CAF’s court martial system. In addition to consulting with Canadians, including soldiers, sailors, and aviators, the Review Team will engage with stakeholders such as victims’ rights advocates, academia, and international experts. This is in an effort to ensure the CAF’s court martial system is effective, efficient, and aligns with Canadian values and the rule of law, all the while serving the particular needs of the CAF.

From October 11 to November 7, 2016, all interested Canadians are invited to participate and share their views with the team conducting the Court Martial Comprehensive Review.

Canadians have three ways that they can join the discussions:
Fill out the Comment Form: Court Martial Comprehensive Review – Public Consultations
Send an email: JAG-Consultations@forces.gc.ca
Mail comments: Office of the Judge Advocate General – Court Martial Comprehensive Review Team, 101 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, ON K1A 0K2

Colonel Rob Holman, Deputy Judge Advocate General for Military Justice and Director General of the Court Martial Comprehensive Review Team said: “The launch of these consultations with Canadians marks an important milestone for the Court Martial Comprehensive Review. By engaging with and listening to what Canadians have to say, we hope to make our world-class military justice system even better.”

DND concludes public consultations for defence review

DND Press Release 

Defence Minister Harjit S. Sajjan today announced the conclusion of public consultations on the future of Canada’s defence policy, the largest such effort in more than 20 years.

“I want to thank Canadians, Parliamentarians, experts, academics, key international Allies and partners who contributed to this important discussion about the future of Canada’s defence policy," said Minister Sajjan. "I am confident that the information gathered over the last four months will help inform a new defence policy that balance priorities, responds to emerging challenges, and invests in the Canadian Armed Forces.”

The Department of National Defence (DND) launched these public consultations on April 6, 2016 to seek feedback from interested Canadians, international allies, and key stakeholders on the type of military Canada needs in order to represent Canada’s interests at home and abroad. Discussions focused on:

• the main challenges to Canada’s security
• the role of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) in addressing current threats and challenges
• the resources and capabilities needed to carry out the CAF mandate

DND has received approximately 20,200 submissions to the Defence Policy Review online consultation portal and over 4,700 participants have contributed comments and votes using the online discussion forum.

Moving forward, important choices will be made to ensure that DND and the CAF have what they need to confront new threats and challenges in the years ahead. Over the coming months, DND will be compiling and reviewing the information received from online submissions, stakeholder roundtables and discussions with Parliamentarians and key international Allies and partners. This will help inform the development of Canada’s new defence policy to be launched in early 2017.

Canada Requests for information from Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, Saab, Dassault and Eurofighter in CF-18 Replacement

By: DefenseWorld.Net

Canada has issued a request for information to Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, Saab, Dassault and Eurofighter earlier this month seeking information by the end of July in order to design an acquisition process to replace Ottawa’s CF-18 fighters.

Amidst reports that Lockheed Martin’s F-18 stands at an advantage in Canada’s fighter aircraft competition, the Canadian MoD has issued a document stating “all procurement options are being considered,” Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan was quoted as saying by the globe and mail earlier this month.

The Department of National Defence predicts that its fleet of CF-18s will be able to fly into the next decade, even as Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan ramps up his calls for an urgent purchase of new fighter jets to ward off an eventual “capability loss.”

“Some aircraft could begin to be retired beginning in 2023. Over all, the Canadian Armed Forces are working to “extend the fleet to 2025” as part of a series of upgrades,” said a document provided at the start of this month to the five aircraft manufacturers in the race to offer new fighter jets.

He added that the Canadian Forces have adopted a risk-management strategy to deal with the scarcity of available aircraft, and he wants to put an end to the practice. Because of maintenance issues, he said, only about half the fleet of 77 fighter jets is available at any given time.

Conservative MP James Bezan said the government seems to be looking for a way to fulfill its promise to buy an aircraft other than the F-35.

“This is about setting the narrative to go to a sole-source [acquisition of Super Hornets],” he said.

Bezan said the government could simply launch an open competition and quickly obtain the best product for the Canadian Forces at the best price for taxpayers.

“There’s no question that planes are available,” he said, explaining that both Super Hornets and F-35s are currently in production. “They can go through this very methodically and still come to the right decision, rather than try to rig the process.”

Asked to expand on the capability gap, Sajjan’s office said the 2023 timeline for the retirement of the first aircraft “doesn’t take into consideration any of the issues that could come up with our fleet,” such as crashes, being used for parts, or other commitments for deployment to NATO or peacekeeping missions that would add flying hours.

The government sent a 38-page questionnaire last week to five aircraft manufacturers that are in the running to replace the CF-18s.

The acquisition process will be unveiled as early as September. The questions include acquisition and life-cycle costs, current and planned production numbers, and potential industrial and technological benefits for Canada.

Canada has issued a request for information to Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, Saab, Dassault and Eurofighter earlier this month seeking information by the end of July in order to design an acquisition process to replace Ottawa’s CF-18 fighters.

Amidst reports that Lockheed Martin’s F-18 stands at an advantage in Canada’s fighter aircraft competition, the Canadian MoD has issued a document stating “all procurement options are being considered,” Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan was quoted as saying by the globe and mail earlier this month.

The Department of National Defence predicts that its fleet of CF-18s will be able to fly into the next decade, even as Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan ramps up his calls for an urgent purchase of new fighter jets to ward off an eventual “capability loss.”

“Some aircraft could begin to be retired beginning in 2023. Over all, the Canadian Armed Forces are working to “extend the fleet to 2025” as part of a series of upgrades,” said a document provided at the start of this month to the five aircraft manufacturers in the race to offer new fighter jets.

He added that the Canadian Forces have adopted a risk-management strategy to deal with the scarcity of available aircraft, and he wants to put an end to the practice. Because of maintenance issues, he said, only about half the fleet of 77 fighter jets is available at any given time.

Conservative MP James Bezan said the government seems to be looking for a way to fulfill its promise to buy an aircraft other than the F-35. “This is about setting the narrative to go to a sole-source [acquisition of Super Hornets],” he said.

Bezan said the government could simply launch an open competition and quickly obtain the best product for the Canadian Forces at the best price for taxpayers.

“There’s no question that planes are available,” he said, explaining that both Super Hornets and F-35s are currently in production. “They can go through this very methodically and still come to the right decision, rather than try to rig the process.”

Asked to expand on the capability gap, Mr. Sajjan’s office said the 2023 timeline for the retirement of the first aircraft “doesn’t take into consideration any of the issues that could come up with our fleet,” such as crashes, being used for parts, or other commitments for deployment to NATO or peacekeeping missions that would add flying hours.

The government sent a 38-page questionnaire last week to five aircraft manufacturers that are in the running to replace the CF-18s.

The acquisition process will be unveiled as early as September. The questions include acquisition and life-cycle costs, current and planned production numbers, and potential industrial and technological benefits for Canada.

Sajjan meets academics, experts as part of DPR

The Honourable Patty Hajdu, Minister of Status of Women, today hosted an informative gender-focused discussion with experts in various related fields as part of public consultations taking place across the country to inform a new defence policy for Canada.

Meeting participants included academics and subject matter experts from a variety of non-governmental organizations, including the Institute for Inclusive Security and the White Ribbon Campaign.

Today’s discussion focused on five main points:
How to best assess gender implications in the development of Canada’s new defence policy;
Methods for applying Gender Based Analysis+ in the planning of new operations;
How to ensure a career within the Canadian Armed Forces is appealing to all regardless of gender;
How to apply best practices to ensure Canada remains a leader in promoting human rights and gender equality, particularly in settings where cultural norms differ widely from our own;
How best to promote the strategy of taking gender and other factors (such as age and education) into account during the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of policies, programs and military operations.

“Today’s session is an important step to ensure Canada remains a world leader in the advancement of gender equality," said The Honourable Patty Hajdu, Minister of Status of Women. "I’m pleased that the Canadian Armed Forces are demonstrating leadership by integrating gender considerations into its processes and policy development. I welcome the opportunity to take part in this dialogue and play a role in the changing culture of this important Canadian institution.”

Participants provided short submissions ahead of the meeting, which were used alongside the public consultation paper to guide the discussion. These submissions are available on the Defence Policy Review online consultation portal at http://dgpaapp.forces.gc.ca/en/defence-policy-review/perspectives.asp.

“Gender equality is a priority for the Government of Canada and for the Canadian Armed Forces," said Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan. "By incorporating diverse viewpoints into our discussions on defence issues, we ensure Canada’s new defence policy is more inclusive, and more representative of Canadians, as well as the women and men who serve.”

The public consultation process will continue to be open for input until July 31, 2016, via the defence consultation website at www.canada.ca/defence-consultations.

Gender-based Analysis+ (GBA+) is an analytical tool used by the federal government to advance gender equality in Canada which assesses the potential impacts of policies, programs or initiatives on diverse groups, taking into account gender and other identity factors (such as age, education, language, geography, culture and income).

In January 2016, the Chief of Defence Staff issued a directive which forms the basis for integrating GBA+ across the CAF. In order to guide and assist the CAF in implementing GBA+, a number of Gender Advisors are being identified, trained and placed in both strategic and operational levels, including in the Chief of Defence Staff’s office.

As of July 15, 2016, the Department of National Defence (DND) has received over 13,300 submissions in the Defence Policy Review e-workbook and over 4,700 participants who have contributed comments and votes through the online discussion forum.

Including today’s session, DND has hosted eight roundtable meetings with key stakeholders as part of the Defence Policy Review.

Previous roundtables were held in Vancouver, Toronto, Yellowknife, and Ottawa with Defence Minister Harjit S. Sajjan; in Edmonton with Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence Kent Hehr; and in Montreal and Halifax, with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, John McKay.

A guide is also available online for communities wishing to carry out their own consultations with interested citizens. These events will play an important role in augmenting the work being done by DND and the CAF, helping to ensure that the review process is credible, evidence-based, and informed by the views of Canadians.

All Canadians are encouraged to participate in the consultation process online atwww.canada.ca/defence-consultations until July 31, 2016.

Drozdova: Thoughts on Future Conflict and its impact on DND/​CAF

By: OKSANA DROZDOVA, CDA Institute 

The following is a summary of the CDA Institute Roundtable “Defence Policy Review Considerations: Thoughts on Future Conflict and its impact on DND/​CAF” held on 25 May 2016. These roundtable discussions are held under the Chatham House Rule. This summary reflects Analyst Oksana Drozdova’s perception of the discussion. The CDAInstitute thanks our Strategic Partners Lockheed Martin Canada and General Dynamics for their generous sponsorship of the 2016/​17 Roundtable Discussion Series.

The electoral platform of the current Liberal government was filled with promises, one of which was the pledge to exercise informed decision-​making. This particular pledge has recently been put to test with the launch of the Defence Policy Review (DPR). With a few roundtables already concluded, the first being held in Vancouver and subsequent ones already held in Toronto, Yellowknife, and Edmonton, informed observers of Canadian defence policy are still keen to share their ideas on the future of Canada’s defence policy.

A recent roundtable organized by the CDA Institute, titled Defence Policy Review Considerations: Thoughts on Future Conflict and its impact on DND/​CAF, provided a venue in which contributors shared their ideas as to which key aspects of the country’s defence policy should be addressed in the DPR.

With the Liberal government proclaiming “Canada is back,” it is still unclear how exactly the “comeback” is going to happen. On one hand, the Liberals want to bring Canada back as a champion of peacekeeping. On the other, security of sovereign territory and national interests, as well as commitments to the NATO allies require more resources. The theme that should figure most prominently in the crafting the DPR, at least in this early stage, is prioritization. Will we, as a nation, be able to sustain all these roles, and if not, which should be privileged above the others?

Indeed, the financial realities of budgetary considerations (fiscal constraints) will most likely, in one way or another, guide the pen of those creating the final draft of the renewed defence strategy. And when the time comes for making the decision, the question will inevitably arise: Which strategy, broad overhaul or strategic investment, is right for us?

Numerous arguments are in favour of both approaches. Indeed, the image of multi-​purpose combat capabilities has its appeal. A flexible, combat ready army is capable of standing on its own as well as contributing to allied efforts in a meaningful way. Moreover, access to a wide range of capabilities will allow Canada to strengthen its defence posture abroad and ensure its national security at home. Moreover, while ties with the US are strong, Canada cannot forever piggy back on the support of our better equipped ally. As such, the general opinion maintains that a truly secure Canada should be able to at least defend its own territory and interests without relying entirely on the assistance of its neighbour.

However, as was raised in these discussion, in our current economic state, broad based capabilities are not something Canada can afford. And, as tough choices will need to be made, concentrating on areas of expertise in which Canada excels will yield the most benefit. In prioritizing a particular defence niche, we should not conceive of it as a means to repel a specific threat; threats constantly change. On the contrary, we should develop specialized capabilities that would be flexible and widely applicable.

Furthermore, at their essence, broad-​based capabilities are chiefly designed to repel aggression from a state. This concept of warfare is largely outdated as the potential of a true ‘state on state conflict’ is highly unlikely. Indeed, cyber-​attacks, hybrid warfare, non-​state actors, and the consequences of climate change (most notably mass migrations) are the most prominent future sources of instability. Conversely, our current defence structure, which is predicated on the broad-​based capabilities model, is designed to repel an open state aggression and has been adapted to deal with fragile states and non-​state actors. Yet, other than Russia’s sabre-​rattling, there is no significant state threat that would force Canada to engage in ‘state-​on-​state’ warfare. With low chances of a direct state assault, certain areas of broad-​based capabilities, which also happen to weigh the most heavily on the defence budget, become under-​utilized.

With dozens of ongoing conflicts around the world, Canada has any number of choices when it comes to committing its military resources. Identifying the most pressing areas in which Canadian military involvement can make the greatest impact is of the essence. For instance, while Canada can renew its longstanding commitment to UN peacekeeping as promised, it seems unlikely it can at this time return to peacekeeping on the scale that it practiced in Cyprus and Bosnia. Instead, it should strive to offer targeted technical expertise and state-​building knowledge to missions worldwide. Canada’s efforts in Afghanistan provide a good example of how persistence and targeted military intervention can help maintain a fragile and much needed balance in an unstable region.

Western democracies are gradually learning and accepting that intervention has to be comprehensive in scope and long-​term in duration. With the pattern of global instability and threats constantly changing, it will be increasingly difficult to address threats earlier – the difficulty of understanding and responding to them will remain proportionate to their complexity. Instead, Western democracies need to build and promote internal capacities and societal resilience of fragile states. And since peacekeeping, or peacebuilding – as some experts prefer to call it, stating that it is not merely a question of semantics – is what many Canadians view to be a staple of our national identity, Canada’s commitment to those operations will have to be significantly furthered and augmented.

With future military threats becoming increasingly volatile and uncertain, our military strategy will require interaction with an ill-​defined combination of state and non-​state actors who are both declared and undeclared. Multilateral engagement and allied cooperation will thus become the most effective framework to address these complex issues. The reality is as true for the idea of pursuing independent foreign policy as it is for vigorous and interventionist multilateralism, in which the international community has certainly missed the tone and substance of Canada’s well-​honed role. And if we are indeed serious about “being back,” innovatively excelling in our strengths while cooperating with our allies in a meaningful way will allow for fruitful investment with tangible results the Canadian public can see and take pride in.
----
Oksana Drozdova is an Analyst with the CDAInstitute currently working towards a Master’s degree at UOttawa’s Graduate School of Public and International Affairs (GSPIA). Her research interests focus on International security, Eastern European studies and issues of statehood in political theory. (Image courtesy of Bruce Campion-​Smith/​Toronto Star.)

Canada Preparing To Commit Troops To UN Peacekeeping Mission: Source

By: Althia Raj, The Huffington Post

OTTAWA — Canada may soon announce it will commit troops to new peacekeeping missions, The Huffington Post Canada has learned.

A spokeswoman for Foreign Affairs Minister Stéphane Dion told HuffPost Tuesday the Liberal government wants to “re-energize” Canadian leadership in key areas and in multilateral institutions.

“Canada will increase its support to UN peace operations, extending beyond peacekeeping to include the equally important civilian components of conflict prevention, mediation, and peacebuilding efforts,” said Chantal Gagnon.

Government sources said decisions would be made in the coming months.

Foreign Affairs Minister Stephane Dion speaks at the NATO summit in Warsaw, Poland on July 9, as Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan listens. (Photo: Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)

The United Nations is organizing a meeting in London this September, when pledges will be made and future contributions discussed, a UN spokeswoman told HuffPost.

Over the weekend, the Liberals announced Canada would lead a NATO mission in Latvia to curb Russian aggression and deploy 450 troops, a frigate and up to six CF-18 fighter aircrafts. Dion told The Canadian Press, “It is terribly unfortunate that Canada has to deploy its forces in Latvia instead of having peacekeeping in Africa or in an area of the world where it is much more needed.”

The foreign affairs minister is on a rare vacation and was unavailable for an interview. But his office insisted the new NATO deployment will not prevent the Canadian Armed Forces from participating in new peace and security missions.

“Min. Dion has been clear that we will still implement our renewed peacekeeping strategy and that we've had lots of specific requests from other countries to consider, including in Africa (e.g. CAR [Central African Republic], Mali),” his chief of staff, Julian Ovens, wrote in an email.

Dion’s office would not specify what those requests are, but said they’re currently being evaluated in conjunction with the Department of National Defence.
“... we will welcome additional support, particularly in the areas of training, capacity building, engineering, aviation and medical support. ”
— UN spokeswoman Ismini Palla

The UN said it would welcome additional aid from Canada.

"Peacekeeping is increasingly in need of high-technology assets and specialized skills,” said spokeswoman Ismini Palla.

“While Canada is already contributing to UN Peacekeeping, we will welcome additional support, particularly in the areas of training, capacity building, engineering, aviation and medical support.

“Canada's contribution in this field would be highly beneficial,” she said.

Malian police patrol with the German UN mission in Mali in May. (Photo: Souleymane Ag Anara/AFP/Getty Images)

The two missions cited by Dion’s office are particularly risky.

The UN mission in Mali is the deadliest in the world. Since April 2013, 68 peacekeepers have been killed by what the UN calls “malicious acts.”

In May, five Togolese peacekeepers were killed when their vehicle was ambushed. Days later, a Chinese peacekeeper was killed in a mortar attack on a UN camp. Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb claimed responsibility for that attack. Three people working for a UN subcontractor were also killed that same day in a separate attack.

The UN mission in Central African Republic is also plagued with violence. Last week, the UN’s under-secretary-general for peacekeeping operations, Hervé Ladsous, told the Security Council that while free elections had been held this winter, the country continues to face “a security climate that remains fragile and reversible.”

More than two million people — or half the population — lack access to food. One-fifth of the nation remains displaced, and armed groups continue to control vast parts of the country, he said. Last month, more than a dozen people were killed, including a Senegalese UN peacekeeper.

Hellen Akello, 38, a victim of the Lira district attacks by members of the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) militia movement, displays her injuries during a visit by an International Criminal Court prosecutor in northern Uganda in 2015. (Photo: Edward Echwalu/Reuters)

Outside the capital in the country’s southeast, the Lord’s Resistance Army continues to murder, abduct, force sex-slavery and recruit child soldiers, said the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein in a July news release.

More than 290 people were abducted between January and April, including 60 children, he said.

Zeid also raised concerns that the Ugandan army deployed to help the country is engaged in “credible” allegations of sexual abuse, exploitation, abduction, forced marriages and rape.


’Effective and targeted contributions’


Gagnon said Global Affairs Canada — the foreign affairs department — was exploring different ways to engage in peacebuilding, such as new training initiatives. In addition to talks with National Defence, the department is consulting with the UN, the RCMP, Public Safety, and Canadian experts, she said.

The government is assessing its own abilities in light of the UN’s needs and wants to provide “effective and targeted contributions,” Gagnon added.

The Liberals are also looking to promote the equality of women and men, and would like to increase the number of female peacekeepers and advisors, she said.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau speaks at the United Nations headquarters in New York in April. (Photo: Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press)

Canada is eager to contribute more to UN peacekeeping efforts, in part because of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s commitment to the organization, and thegovernment’s stated desire to win a Security Council seat in 2021.

Speaking in March at the UN, Trudeau pledged to revitalize Canada's historic role as a key contributor to United Nations peacekeeping. "Canada will increase its engagement with peace operations, not just by making available our military, police, and specialized expertise, but also by supporting the civilian institutions that prevent conflict, bring stability to fragile states, and help societies recover in the aftermath of crisis,” he said.

“Canada would be very welcomed back in peacekeeping.”

The United Nations currently has 16 peacekeeping operations, including nine in Africa.

Of the approximately 1,100 Canadian Armed Forces members deployed in operations around the world, only 31 are working in UN peacekeeping operations, ranging from 12 in South Sudan to one lone member in Cyprus.

An additional 84 civilian Canadians are part of peacekeeping missions around the world, according to Global Affairs Canada.

Bilingual advantage

In February, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and Ladsous met with Canadian officials in Ottawa.

“They conveyed the message that Canada would be very welcomed back in peacekeeping,” Palla told HuffPost.

“Our pitch with Canada was also that they can also offer excellent bilingual personnel, in French and English, which is also very important to our peacekeeping operations because half of them are in francophone places,” she said.

JTF2 Planned Move Triples in Cost; now over $1B

By: David Pugliese, National Post

OTTAWA — The cost for a new Canadian special forces base planned for the Trenton, Ont., area has more than tripled and is now estimated to be more than $1 billion.

Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Jon Vance has been warned that the project to move the Joint Task Force 2 commando unit from Ottawa to Canadian Forces Base Trenton is facing major risk in “cost and scope,” according to documents obtained by the Ottawa Citizen through the Access to Information law.

The unit had planned to leave its Dwyer Hill facility in Ottawa after 2019 for a new installation at CFB Trenton. Whether or not that happens is now unclear.

The previous Conservative government had authorized $346 million for building of the new JTF2 site and the move of the unit.

But special forces have significantly added capabilities to the proposed site, expanding it beyond its original scope, which has driven costs up to about $1.2 billion.

Concern has been building inside National Defence headquarters about the growing cost of the facility.

The Liberal government is in the midst of a defence review, which is expected to shift money to top military priorities and new initiatives. There is concern that if the costly JTF2 base proceeds, then funding will be drawn away from the army, navy or air force, a government source said.


The project continues to refine the scope to meet minimum operational requirements within budget constraints.

Department of National Defence spokesman Evan Koronewski said the project, which is in the design phase with architectural and engineering studies underway, has yet to receive further direction from government. “The project continues to refine the scope to meet minimum operational requirements within budget constraints,” he said in an email. “Once the design is substantially complete, the department will seek further direction from Treasury Board on the implementation plan.”

“This decision is not anticipated until late summer 2017,” added Koronewski. “Unfortunately, there are no other updates available at this time.”

Rick Norlock, the former Conservative MP for Northumberland–Quinte West, also hinted at the cost issues last year while he was still in government. “It’s now hugely more expensive than originally” planned, Norlock told CJBQ, a Belleville radio station.

Last year DND spokeswoman Ashley Lemire noted the initial cost estimate for the special forces base was done in 2006.

The military has been talking about the need for a new base for JTF2 since 2005. Among the options considered was an expansion of the existing Ottawa site or moving the unit to CFB Petawawa.

In 2008, the Conservative government announced JTF2 would be relocated to CFB Trenton, but in 2014, DND officials said the unit would remain at its Ottawa location at least until 2019.

Last year the Citizen reported that DND was looking for a one-year extension. It wanted to spend $17 million to hire a contractor to provide maintenance and support services for JTF2 at Dwyer Hill from 2017 to 2020.

In a controversial move, the Conservative government in 2012 expropriated a 90-hectare farm, near the Trenton base, that was owned by Frank Meyers. The farm had been in the Meyers family for more than 200 years and a bid to stop the expropriation failed.

The military took over the property, tore down barns, and built a berm and some access roads. Little else has been done with the land.

Meyers’ supporters have asked the Liberal government to return the property but it has declined to do so.

Once JTF2 vacates its Dwyer Hill installation, the site will be offered up within DND and then to other federal departments. After that it could be offered to provincial and municipal governments. “If there is no interest at these levels, the property will be sold on the open market through an open and fair process,” a DND spokeswoman has said.

Reviewing Canada’s Arctic Capability: Suggestions for the Defence Policy Review

By: Adam Lajeuness, CDA Institute. 

CDA Institute guest contributor Adam Lajeunesse, a post-​doctoral fellow at St. Jerome University, offers suggestions on how the government can approach the Arctic in the context of the Defence Policy Review.

As the Liberal government undertakes its comprehensive defence review, eyes are inevitably turning to the Arctic, a region that held such a personal interest for former Prime Minister Stephen Harper and one which he so often used to burnish his nationalistic credentials. At first glance, Arctic defence policy would seem ripe for radical revision. The ‘use it or lose it’ mentality that Harper introduced early in his term often manifested in grandiose (by Canadian standards) displays of military power and rhetoric, sometimes presupposing foreign threats to Canadian sovereignty and Russian military threats to its security. For a Liberal government seeking a new détente with Russia as part of a broader push towards cooperation and dialogue over confrontation, there would seem to be room to swing away from the old Conservative defence philosophy that has defined the past ten years of Arctic military operations.

The reality of Canada’s Arctic security philosophy is, however, far more complicated than the broad brush depictions often used in the media. Despite the sometimes hawkish feelings generated by Harper’s statements on the North, and the frequent photoshoots of the prime minister and other VIPs in the Northwest Passage surrounded by warships, Canada’s Arctic security policy has been level-​headed, thoughtful, and restrained. Behind the headlines, CAF strategy and doctrine has repeatedly emphasised the absence of any military threat to the region, preparing instead for a wide range of unconventional scenarios – such as pollution prevention and support to civilian departments and agencies. What the Liberals will likely discover as they move forward is that they have little choice but to continue the Conservative approach to Arctic defence.

That assessment is based on the assumption that the geopolitical situation in the region will not deteriorate over the next decade. Such predictions are impossible to make with absolute confidence but the evidence suggests that it’s a safe bet. Russia, so often held up as a potential aggressor, has certainly been building its Arctic military capability, however that build-​up has mostly taken the form of ground force expansion, SAR, and local area defence – not power projection. Moscow is also the principal beneficiary of circumpolar stability as it seeks to attract hundreds of billions of dollars in Chinese and Indian (and perhaps if sanctions are lifted, Western) investment to the region. Russian military posturing is necessary for domestic consumption and for maintaining the siege mentality that keeps Vladimir Putin’s approval ratings high, but there is little that Russia can achieve through aggressive expansion into the Arctic Basin or anywhere beyond its own Arctic territory.

China is likewise unlikely to present any real military threat to the region. It has long sought a cooperative relationship with Arctic powers and, only recently, released a shipping guide instructing its vessel operators to respect Canadian law and regulation when in Canadian waters. China also lacks the technology and military platforms to operate safely in ice-​covered waters and appears to be in no hurry to spend the small fortune required to achieve that inessential capability.

Regardless of Russian or Chinese intentions or capabilities, conventional security is well in hand. NORAD provides adequate monitoring and fighter coverage of the North American Arctic and the US Navy maintains a subsurface capability and presence which began neatly sixty years ago. If Arctic defence policy is productively changed, it must be at the operational and tactical level, and here there is much that still needs to be adjusted. The Harper government’s great success was in defining the Forces’ direction and requirements – moving it away from its traditional warfighting role and into a support position. Implementation has, however, been slow, painful, and incomplete.

To begin with, the CAF’s Arctic forces require a more coherent training program, better communication, faster procurement, and a clearer sense of mission. The Arctic Response Company Groups (ARCG) were stood up in 2007 to provide the Army with a force that it could confidently deploy in response to a variety of Arctic scenarios. In the years since, the ARCG have suffered from inconsistent training standards, poor harmonization of operating requirements, and a lack of higher-​level direction – with training and equipping having been delegated to the ARCG host divisions.

Equipping these forces has proven more challenging than should have been the case. Certain Arctic clothing and basic equipment still needs to be developed or purchased, while the Forces’ lack of light and heavy over-​snow vehicles (and its inability to maintain what it currently owns) can be attributed to bureaucratic inertia and a poor understanding within the Army of what its Arctic purpose and requirements really are. The distribution of the Army snowmobiles provide a perfect case in point. Rather than being concentrated in the hands of the ARCGs, the machines were parcelled out to the divisions in small groups, making large scale training impossible.

The Army has also shown an inability to learn many of the lessons observed during its annual Arctic exercises, something that can in part be chalked up to a lack of communication. Arctic deployed forces rarely communicate after the fact and there has been a general failure to compare notes between these units on what has worked and what has not. Siloed within different divisions, ARCG training is often undertaken in isolation where lessons are learned and relearned repeatedly.

The operational role of the Army’s Arctic forces , likewise, needs to be clarified. The ARCG, for instance, were described in their Master Implementation Directive as a rapid response force that could be assembled and deployed in the event of an emergency. The reality is that these reserve units could never be deployed quickly enough or sustained as a formed unit without extensive planning. Rather, these groups represent a reserve of basic Arctic capability that can be tapped when needed to provide perhaps half a dozen soldiers with the skills needed to provide mass to an Immediate Reaction Unit or another government agency. Their call out procedure should be refined and false planning assumptions purged from expectations of how the Army might use its forces outside of a planned exercise.

These are only a few examples of the CAF’s Arctic growing pains – indeed, there are many more issues of supply, training, and operational doctrine that still need to be addressed. None of these problems are really surprising however. Similar problems became apparent in the 1950s and again in the 1970s-​80s when the CAF undertook a similar expansion of its Arctic presence. It is understandable how an organization as large and complex as the Canadian military might move slowly to embrace a new and unfamiliar set of responsibilities.

Yet, in spite of these shortfalls, the government should recognize that the CAF’s overarching concept for Arctic operations is good and should be maintained. What is required is not a fundamental rethink but a renewed focus on turning the Forces’ existing high-​level strategic direction into something that is achievable, practical, and exercised on a regular basis.
---
Dr. Adam Lajeunesse is a SSHRC postdoctoral fellow at St. Jerome’s University. He is currently working on a research program examining the history of Canadian military operations in the Arctic and the history of northern development, with a focus on hydrocarbon exploration from the 1960s to the mid-​1980s. (Image courtesy of the Canadian Army.)

Defence Review Could Lead to Reduced Canadian Army

By: Richard Cohen, iPolitics 

The federal government, as part of its ongoing Defence Policy Review (DPR), recently announced public consultation on the future of Canada’s armed forces. So what does Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan have in mind — a political exercise, or something more in-depth?

For all its faults, the Conservatives’ 2008 Canada First Defence Strategy (CFDS) was developed inside a clear fiscal framework … which was later discarded. In contrast, the DPR is wide open and (allegedly) not constrained by financial considerations. But as everyone knows, the size and shape of the Armed Forces will be determined by what the government decides to spend on defence. Money drives defence policy.

Given the big budget deficit, it’s hard to imagine the Liberals significantly boosting defence spending. Their aim is a ‘leaner and more agile’ military — almost certainly a code word for ‘smaller.’ And as any seasoned politician or bureaucrat knows, the $4 billion in equipment spending that was deferred for five years in the March budget is unlikely to return to Defence. Even if it does, by that time ‘defence inflation’ will have gobbled up a good part of its value.

Ideally, the government would announce that, unlike its predecessors, it will begin to work toward the agreed NATO goal of spending 2 per cent of GDP on defence. Canada, as one of the lowest-ranking military spenders in NATO, hovers around 1 per cent. But barring a major international crisis, or an unexpected change of heart, such an increase in defence spending isn’t likely to happen.

So the DPR will have to be developed within realistic financial limits. This means focusing only on military capabilities that are absolutely essential to our national interests — while relegating the rest to the ‘nice to have but can’t afford’ category.

So where to start? Nearly everyone agrees on the three basic roles of Canada’s Armed Forces: defence of Canada, defence of North America with the U.S. and contributing to international operations.

Reducing the Army’s strength — which is more than double that of the other two services — would free up funds for higher-priority capabilities.

The first two roles are not optional; the third may have to be. The only way Canada can continue to contribute to international operations is if the capabilities it funds for its primary and secondary military roles — defence of Canada and of the continent — can be adapted to overseas conflicts.

Let’s break down those three roles according to what they require. Defending Canadian territory starts with a robust surveillance capability for all three coasts and for our vast land area, including the Arctic. For this we need satellites, land-based sensors and radars, underwater devices and unmanned air and underwater vehicles — backed up by the Canadian Rangers, who spread very thinly across the North. We need ice-capable ships, transport aircraft, heavy-lift helicopters and quick-response army units to react to incursions or incidents. An effective anti-submarine capability and submarines capable of travelling under ice complete the picture. Tasks like air search-and-rescue and routine domestic disaster response could be transferred to non-military organizations.

Continental defence overlaps with national defence. The focal point for continental defence is NORAD, and it requires advanced interceptor aircraft, an integrated Canada-U.S. ballistic missile defence system, joint maritime surveillance and a new and more effective North Warning System across the Arctic.

State-of-the-art jets, ships, submarines and UAVs are essential for both these roles and also could make a useful contribution to international combat operations. But they are expensive to buy, operate and maintain.

So what do we have to give up?

The Army relies on people. People are expensive and account for half of our defence budget. Reducing the Army’s strength — which is more than double that of the other two services — would free up funds for higher-priority capabilities. The government and Canadians would have to accept that our ground forces cannot play a significant role in allied combat operations.

Our mechanized forces, based around a small number of (expensive to maintain) Leopard 2 tanks, cannot contribute much to major combat operations. Canada’s Light Armoured Vehicles (LAVs) and the new military trucks would be useful in small-scale overseas operations, including support for the UN — but in smaller numbers. So tanks and other combat vehicles, and the ground units that operate them, probably will have to be reduced or eliminated.

The DRP must ensure that, at minimum, we have world-class defence capabilities on the home front. Some ships and aircraft can be ‘double-hatted’ for international operations. But limiting our ambitions to contribute to major land battles overseas makes sense — and would release money needed to effectively defend Canada closer to home.

Liberals playing defence with reports of Super Hornet Purchase

By: Lee Berthiaume & David Pugliese, Ottawa Citizen (Post Media) 

The Liberal government has brushed aside opposition concerns following a report it intends to purchase Super Hornet fighter jets, saying it must act “sooner rather than later” to meet the country’s defence needs.

But the opposition says the government has manufactured a crisis so it can fulfil its promise not to buy the F-35 stealth fighter.

The Ottawa Citizen, citing multiple sources, reported over the weekend the Liberal government is intent on buying Super Hornet fighter jets.

Rather than a full replacement of the air force’s aging CF-18 fighter fleet, it’s believed the purchase will be labelled an interim measure to fill what Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan has warned is a pending “gap” in Canada’s military capabilities.

The Liberals promised during the election campaign not to buy the F-35 to replace the CF-18s. But the government has been struggling with how to fulfill that promise for fear any attempt to exclude the stealth fighter from a competition will result in a multi-billion-dollar lawsuit, says a senior Defence Department official.

In the House of Commons Monday, Conservative defence critic James Bezan accused the Liberals of having already decided to buy the Boeing Super Hornet.

John McKay, Sajjan’s parliamentary secretary, didn’t deny the charge, but blamed the Conservatives for failing to deal with the fighter jet replacement during their tenure.

“Unfortunately, the last five years has been a bit of a loss, and as a consequence, there is a developing capability gap which needs to be managed,” McKay said. “We have obligations to NATO. We have obligations to NORAD. We have obligations to our own defence and to expeditionary matters.”

Sajjan has “taken the responsible action and he is moving forward with making a decision sooner rather than later, which should have happened maybe five years ago now.”

Bezan questioned the Liberal government’s claim the CF-18s are close to the end, pointing out they can operate effectively until 2025.

“Liberal suggestions that our fighters are literally on their last legs is patently false,” he said.

In 2014, the Conservative government said it was upgrading the CF-18s so they could continue to operate through 2025. That $400-million initiative was intended to buy the government time to make the right decision on a replacement.

The Royal Canadian Air Force is continuing to work on the project and contracts are expected to be awarded in the next two years.

In April, Lt.-Gen. Michael Hood, the air force chief, told the Commons’ defence committee the military had enough CF-18s to do its job for the foreseeable future.

The end of the CF-18s “useful life” has been established as 2025, and while some aircraft will be retired before that, there is no rush on a replacement, he added.

“I’m confident, heading into what the government has suggested for an open and transparent competition, about the timelines associated with that project,” Hood said. “I’m confident that if a decision were taken, certainly in the next five years, we’ll be in a comfortable position changing that aircraft.”

In the last month, Sajjan has introduced the idea that a fighter capability gap has emerged and the government needs to move quickly on a replacement jet.

McKay said the government finds itself in the situation “where we are going to have to make serious decisions about the replacement for the CF-18. We cannot any longer carry on in the fashion that we’ve been carrying on.”

There is precedent for buying Super Hornets on an interim basis. Australia paid $2.5 billion for 24 of the aircraft to replace antiquated F-111 jets until newer F-35s were ready.

However, the idea of Canada needing to follow suit was largely dismissed by a government-appointed expert panel and the military’s research branch.

The expert panel, whose mandate was to evaluate options for replacing the CF-18s, wrote in its final report in December 2014 “there was no need to pursue a bridging option,” as “it is possible, with certain investments, to fly the CF-18 to 2025 and even beyond.”

In 2014, Defence Research and Development Canada wrote ,“The costs involved with bridging options make them unsuitable for filling capability gaps in the short term … any short-term investment results in disproportionately high costs during the bridging period.”

The reason such a stop-gap would be more expensive is because the air force would be operating two types of aircraft, requiringdifferent training, infrastructure and supporting equipment. Opinion is divided over whether buying the Super Hornet could mitigate some of those costs given its similarities to the CF-18.