Defining Foreign and Defence Policy (and hence our Military Force)

[McG]

Maybe those Ruxted guys will come out of their sabbatical and submitt something that is also shared here?  That could be a good read.

 

[PuckChaser]

This one?

That one is specific to news agencies, although QR&O19.37 allows the CDS to grant permission.

Was thinking more that they'll try to use QR&O19.38:

19.38 - COMMUNICATIONS WITH OTHER GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS

No officer or non-commissioned member shall enter into direct communication with any government department other than the Department of National Defence on subjects connected with the Canadian Forces or with the member's particular duties or future employment, unless the member is authorized to do so by or under

  a. a statute of Canada;
  b. QR&O; or
  c. instructions from National Defence Headquarters.

Considering this "open and transparent" defense review is an academic and (should be) non-partisan, we should be allowed to provide input in a respectful manner as long as you do not identify as a member of the CAF. Otherwise there's going to be 1 voice (the CDS) speaking on our behalf, and he'll be drowned out by the thousands of NDP-esque isolationists that will skew the results.

 

[MarkOttawa]

"Defence Policy Review" website, with lots of links:
http://dgpaapp.forces.gc.ca/en/defence-policy-review/index.asp

Twitter:

#defenceconsults
https://twitter.com/hashtag/DefenceConsults

Mark
Ottawa

 

[PuckChaser]

For quick reference, here are the key questions from their public consulation document:

[list type=decimal]
[*]
Are there any threats to Canada’s security that are not being addressed adequately?
2.    What roles should the Canadian Armed Forces play domestically, including in support of civilian authorities?
3.    How should Canada-United States cooperation on defence of North America evolve in the coming years?
4.    What form should the CAF contribution to peace support operations take?  Is there a role for the CAF in helping to prevent conflict before it occurs?
5.    Should the size, structure, and composition for the Canadian Armed Forces change from what they are today?
6.    How can DND and the CAF improve the way they support the health and wellness of military members? In what areas should more be done?
7.    Should Canada strive to maintain military capability across the full spectrum of operations? Are there specific niche areas of capability in which Canada should specialize?
8.    What type of investments should Canada make in space, cyber, and unmanned systems? To what extent should Canada strive to keep pace and be interoperable with key allies in these domains?
9.    What additional measures could the DND undertake, along with partner departments, to improve defence procurement?
10.  What resources will the CAF require to meet Canada’s defence needs?[/list]

 

[The Bread Guy]

"Defence Policy Review" website, with lots of links:
http://dgpaapp.forces.gc.ca/en/defence-policy-review/index.asp

Twitter:

#defenceconsults
https://twitter.com/hashtag/DefenceConsults

Mark
Ottawa

And here's who's on the advisory panel ...

... Ministerial Advisory Panel Members

- The Honourable Louise Arbour, former Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada and a member of the Advisory Board of The Coalition for the International Criminal Court
- The Honourable Bill Graham, former Minister of Foreign Affairs, and former Minister of National Defence
- General (Ret’d) Raymond R. Henault, former Chief of the Defence Staff, and past Chairman of the NATO Military Committee (CMC)
- Margaret Purdy, former Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet (Security and Intelligence) in the Privy Council Office, and former Associate Deputy Minister of National Defence

The Honourable Louise Arbour is a jurist in residence at Borden Ladner Gervais LLP. In this capacity, she provides strategic advice to lawyers of the International Trade and Arbitration Group, in particular on issues pertaining to international disputes.

Madam Arbour sat as a justice of the Supreme Court of Canada from 1999 to 2004 after serving on the Court of Appeal for Ontario and the Supreme Court of Ontario.

She has held senior positions at the United Nations, including that of High Commissioner for Human Rights, and is a member of the Global Commission on Drug Policy and of the International Commission Against the Death Penalty. Madam Arbour is also a member of the Advisory Board of The Coalition for the International Criminal Court. She chaired an inquiry commission that investigated certain events at the Prison for Women in Kingston, Ontario, and has also served as a member of the Global Commission on Elections, Democracy and Security.

Madam Arbour graduated from Collège Régina Assumpta (Bachelor of Arts), with distinction from the Faculté de droit de l’Université de Montréal (Bachelor of Laws, LL.L) after which she was admitted to the Barreau du Québec and subsequently to the Ontario bar. Madam Arbour has received 44 Honourary Doctorates, been a Companion of the Order of Canada since 2007 and a Grand Officer of the Ordre national du Québec since 2009, as well as a Commander of the Légion d'honneur, and has been decorated by Spain, Colombia and Belgium.

The Honourable Bill Graham is currently Chancellor of Trinity College at the University of Toronto, as well as Chair of the Canadian International Council, and Honorary Colonel of the Governor General's Horse Guards. He has taught at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law and practiced general litigation and international commercial transactions as a Partner with the firm of Fasken and Calvin. In 1993 he was elected Member of Parliament for Toronto-Centre-Rosedale, and from 1995-2002 served as Chairman of the Standing Committee of the House of Commons on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. He was Minister of Foreign Affairs from 2002-2004, and Minister of National Defence from 2004-2006. From February to December 2006, he was Leader of the Official Opposition and Interim Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.

The Hon. Bill Graham was educated at the University of Toronto (Bachelor of Arts, Honours; Bachelor of Laws LL.B ) and the Université de Paris (Doctorat en Sciences Juridiques). Among other awards and decorations, he is a Chevalier de la Légion d'Honneur of  France, has received the Golden Jubilee Medal and been appointed into the Order of Canada.

General (Ret’d) Raymond R. Henault, who retired from the Canadian Forces in August 2008, is the longest-serving 4-star General in Canadian history. He is now the Strategic Executive Advisor and Chairman of the Strategic Advisory Board for the ADGA Group of Companies in Ottawa, ON. General Henault’s military career began in 1968 as a fighter pilot, and has included a wide variety of command and staff positions including Commander of 444 Tac Hel Squadron in Germany, Base Commander CFB Portage la Prairie, Commander of 10 Tactical Air Group, Chief of Staff Operations at Air Command Headquarters in Winnipeg, and Deputy Chief of the Air Staff and Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff in Ottawa, ON. In June 2001, he was appointed Chief of the Defence Staff and was in command of the Canadian Forces on 9/11.

In 2004, General Henault was elected by his peers as Chairman of the NATO Military Committee (CMC) at NATO HQ in Brussels, Belgium, a position he assumed in June 2005. Representing all NATO Chiefs of Defence, he acted as the Senior Military Advisor to the North Atlantic Council and held the highest military position in the North Atlantic Alliance.

General Henault is a graduate of the University of Manitoba (Bachelor of Arts), Canada’s National Defence College and the École supérieure de guerre aérienne in Paris, France. He holds an Honorary Doctorate of Laws from the University of Manitoba, an Honorary Doctorate from the Royal Military College (Military Science) and holds the position of Honorary Professor of the University of Pecs, Hungary.

Margaret Purdy is President of Margaret Purdy Consulting Inc., a Nova Scotia-based firm providing strategic advice to public sector clients on national security, public safety and emergency management.  Her entire 28-year federal government career was spent in the areas of policing, security, intelligence and defence and included assignments as Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet (Security and Intelligence) in the Privy Council Office and as Associate Deputy Minister of National Defence. In recent years, Ms. Purdy has served as interim Chair of the Board of Directors of the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority and as the Chair of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Audit Committee. She is currently a member of the Communications Security Establishment and National Defence Audit Committees.

Margaret Purdy has published and lectured on the root causes of terrorism, cyber security, critical infrastructure protection, the security of trade and transportation gateways, and Canada’s counter-terrorism policy. At the Liu Institute for Global Issues at the University of British Columbia, she led a major research project focusing on the national security, public safety and international security implications of climate change for Canada.  Ms. Purdy is a graduate of Carleton University (Bachelor of Journalism Honours), Dalhousie University (Bachelor of Education) and the National Defence College of Canada.

 

[PuckChaser]

Glad it's non partisan...:facepalm:

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Yep! Just like the key questions asked are not loaded at all towards becoming a constabulary.

:sarcasm:

 

[FSTO]

Yep! Just like the key questions asked are not loaded at all towards becoming a constabulary.

:sarcasm:

So can we as serving members participate in the discussion forum? I filled out the form and checked "Defence Stakeholder", couldn't they just put "CAF Member"?

 

[PuckChaser]

So can we as serving members participate in the discussion forum? I filled out the form and checked "Defence Stakeholder", couldn't they just put "CAF Member"?

Technically no, but unless we self-identify as a CAF member, how would they know? The Minister needs to show some leadership here, and issue a directive that CAF members can participate. I even got a nice email on DWAN inviting me to help.

 

[FSTO]

Technically no, but unless we self-identify as a CAF member, how would they know? The Minister needs to show some leadership here, and issue a directive that CAF members can participate. I even got a nice email on DWAN inviting me to help.

True, and I assume (a dangerous thing I know) that if the centre has sent this invite to all us unwashed then they are implying that we are free to participate. Correct?

 

[Journeyman]

I filled out the form and checked "Defence Stakeholder".....

That would be a default setting for all Canadians.  Ahh, the blissful ignorance of sheeple.

 

[PuckChaser]

True, and I assume (a dangerous thing I know) that if the centre has sent this invite to all us unwashed then they are implying that we are free to participate. Correct?

Reasonable doubt if they charge you, I guess?  ;D

 

[Kirkhill]

That would be a default setting for all Canadians.  Ahh, the blissful ignorance of sheeple.

I wuz thinking the same thing.

I need a bottle to settle my stomach after reading that stramash.  If feels like a Marvin day.

 

[FSTO]

Reasonable doubt if they charge you, I guess?  ;D

Ignorance of the law is no defence.  ;D

 

[The Bread Guy]

This part's VERY interesting:

I even got a nice email on DWAN inviting me to help.

True, and I assume (a dangerous thing I know) that if the centre has sent this invite to all us unwashed then they are implying that we are free to participate. Correct?

If there's been an all-points-bulletin email clearly saying, "hey, there's a review going on", that's one thing.  If the e-mail doesn't clearly say something like, "you can send your concerns directly outside of the chain of command to xxxx@youllremainanonymous.ca", though ...

So can we as serving members participate in the discussion forum? I filled out the form and checked "Defence Stakeholder", couldn't they just put "CAF Member"?

While CF members are, indeed, defence stakeholders, there's no QR&O's saying stakeholders can't, without permission, "publish in writing or deliver any lecture, address or broadcast in any dealing with a subject of a controversial nature affecting other departments of the public service or pertaining to public policy".  I'd love to hear from someone with more legal chops about this sort of distinction.

It may be a fine line between "providing input as a citizen" and "commenting on government policy as a service member."  Also, would it be dealt with differently with the Minister hearing "x" from front-line bureaucrat and "y" from that bureaucrat's DM?

Let's see if anything comes out of the Twitter-sphere from this question to the Minister from a fat, old, former Mo' guy  ;D

Question: how do members of the CF share their ideas?

If only there was a collective group that could share the collective concerns of the front-line folks ...  >

 

[PuckChaser]

Let's see if anything comes out of the Twitter-sphere from this question to the Minister from a fat, old, former Mo' guy  ;D

I liked it. Hopefully I'm not in cells tomorrow. Probably would be if I was in Bagotville though....  >

 

[jollyjacktar]

I wuz thinking the same thing.

I need a bottle to settle my stomach after reading that stramash.  If feels like a Marvin day.

That is the avatar for how I feel about the trade amalgamation, etc.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Hopefully I'm not in cells tomorrow.

At worst, the "discussion" without coffee & Timbits, right?  ;D  Well, at one level, it IS a fair question, especially if you got an email (mind you, I know how government emails are written, so I don't know how many of the big three - accuracy, brevity, clarity - are in it).  Sometimes, us civvies can ask "that guy" questions more easily.

Mind you, I'm also guessing people calling for CF members to comment in this process may have had their noses out of joint if some serving members wanted to comment to, say, the Manley Commission on where AFG should have gone at that point.

Watch & shoot ...

 

[MilEME09]

I am agreeing with some of the critics on this defense review, many are saying "what is the point?" given that in the throne speach and the budget we very clearly saw the direction the liberals want to take the CAF, and unless something massively different comes out from the public consultations and the review as a whole, I believe it will just be twisted to suit their own political agenda.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

I am agreeing with some of the critics on this defense review, many are saying "what is the point?" given that in the throne speach and the budget we very clearly saw the direction the liberals want to take the CAF, and unless something massively different comes out from the public consultations and the review as a whole, I believe it will just be twisted to suit their own political agenda.

I'm looking forward to what John from Toronto's views are on the requirement for an expeditionary GBAD capability to shield roto 0 troops from UAS/provide C-ISR, Glenda from Cape Breton's views on the acquisition of the F35 as a means of providing interoperability within NATO, or Joe's thoughts on the requirement for submarines to patrol sea lines of communications.

The average Canadian is that up on defence policy right?

This has all the fixings of a meeting made up of like-minded people controlling a "public" forum to make it seem that liberal views are representative of all Canadians. While there is something of an argument that +/- 60% of the Canadian population is left-wing oriented, the defence views of typical liberal and NDP supporters have traditionally been quite different, so I'm not sure that this applies as much as it might to social issues.

Also, what happens if magically the people agree we need the F35? Is the PM going to reverse this (random) decision?