NDP defence platform: Sergeant Smokey the Bear
Talk about warm and fuzzy. The NDP wants to turn the Canadian Forces into forest fire fighters. This is the defence section of their platform (the last part of the document, natch--and note there is no costing):
By the way, as far as I can see our major media have given no coverage to the Dippers' defence platform. Nor to that of the Liberals.
A the same time the NDP seems to want to turn the Canadian Coast Guard into cops. According to their platform Dippers will...
The CCG is a completely civilian organization and has no criminal law enforcement or military role (a fact many people do not realize--it is not a replica of the US Coast Guard which does have these roles). CCG vessels however do from time to time act as platforms for law enforcement personnel. The CCG is under the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, not unreasonable given its roles.
Yet the Dippers want the CCG to be transferred to the Department of Public Safety. The public safety minister is responsible for the RCMP, the Canada Border Services Agency, Corrections Canada and CSIS (though you would be hard pressed to know it from the department's website--you have to find your way here to get the big picture--why?). That seems to me like George Bush's moving the US Coast Guard from the Department of Transportation to the new Department of Homeland Security.
Is imitating president Bush the Dippers' "New Kind of Strong?" Who'd a thunk it? I suspect Mr Layton and his adherents simply don't think.
Update: As someone in the Canadian Air Force wrote me: "If they get elected apparently the Hornet will have to look into water-bombing."
Upperdate thought: The Führerprinzip expands: "Jack Layton and the New Democrats will..."
Canada’s military has a proud history, built on the principles of defending human rights and promoting peace. New Democrats believe there are three main priorities for the Canadian military today and in the years to come:The Dippers clearly don't know that the CF have no mission fighting forest fires. Maybe they want to move the Forces to Parks Canada, or something:
1. Assist people facing natural catastrophes, including floods, earthquakes, forest fires [emphasis added] and other emergencies, both at home and abroad [emphasis added].
2. Provide support for peace-making [isn't that what we're doing in Afghanistan, Jack?--with a UN Security Council mandate], peace-building and peacekeeping around the world.
3. Defend Canada from potential attack.
The Canadian Forces must be properly staffed, equipped and trained to effectively cover the full range of possible military operations arising from these three priorities. Jack Layton and the New Democrats will:
Equip the Canadian military to resume leadership in United Nations peacekeeping operations, with major new missions reviewed and approved by the House of Commons.
Reform defence procurement so Canada gets good equipment for good value. We will require tendering of all major contracts and maximize Canadian content.
Support military families, veterans and ordinary Canadians by making fair pay, good health care, fair benefits, veterans’ services, emergency readiness and good equipment top priorities for military spending...
Forest fire management is under provincial/territorial jurisdiction (with the exception of the Yukon Territory) with operational fire-control services and coordination of resource-sharing provided by the Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre [no mention of the CF there]. Parks Canada is responsible for forest fire management in our National Parks [no mention of the CF at that link either]...And the NDP wants our Forces to fight forest fires abroad too? What next? Snow removal in Moscow?
By the way, as far as I can see our major media have given no coverage to the Dippers' defence platform. Nor to that of the Liberals.
A the same time the NDP seems to want to turn the Canadian Coast Guard into cops. According to their platform Dippers will...
Transfer the Canadian Coast Guard to the Department of Public Safety and increase resources to improve its operational effectiveness, including initiatives that will better protect and strengthen our sovereignty over Canadian waters.Now, the CCG has these missions: marine search and rescue, environmental protection (e.g. oil spills), navigation safety and marine communications, and icebreaking; and, on behalf of Fisheries and Oceans, fisheries enforcement (with vessels carrying armed Fishery Officers) and providing vessels for hydrographic surveying and fisheries research.
The CCG is a completely civilian organization and has no criminal law enforcement or military role (a fact many people do not realize--it is not a replica of the US Coast Guard which does have these roles). CCG vessels however do from time to time act as platforms for law enforcement personnel. The CCG is under the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, not unreasonable given its roles.
Yet the Dippers want the CCG to be transferred to the Department of Public Safety. The public safety minister is responsible for the RCMP, the Canada Border Services Agency, Corrections Canada and CSIS (though you would be hard pressed to know it from the department's website--you have to find your way here to get the big picture--why?). That seems to me like George Bush's moving the US Coast Guard from the Department of Transportation to the new Department of Homeland Security.
Is imitating president Bush the Dippers' "New Kind of Strong?" Who'd a thunk it? I suspect Mr Layton and his adherents simply don't think.
Update: As someone in the Canadian Air Force wrote me: "If they get elected apparently the Hornet will have to look into water-bombing."
Upperdate thought: The Führerprinzip expands: "Jack Layton and the New Democrats will..."
posted by Mark, Ottawa at 10:20 a.m.
10 Comments:
"And the NDP wants our Forces to fight forest fires abroad too? What next? Snow removal in Moscow?"
Well they do have the experience clearing the streets of Toronto of the evil white stuff . . maybe a proud soldier shoveled Jacko's sidewalk back in the day and so impressed him that it is now NDP policy?
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Fred--You should've checked the link at Moscow!
Couldn't resist either.
Mark
Ottawa
I find it interesting that defense of teh realm is only a #3 priority.
And perhaps some Dipper heard CF members talking about fire control, and drew the wrong conclusion.
To be fair, if anyone bothered to do research, they'd know the Canadian Forces DO frequently fight forest fires.
Never heard of Op Peregrine I guess? And I guess when my chain of command put me on warning order every year since then for possible forest firefighting should the situation get that bad was just them talking out of their asses.
Then again, that doesn't matter when it comes to bashing the NDP, I mean, who cares about facts when you can just be blinded by partisanship and prior opinion?
Dont get me wrong, I like this blog, I read it daily, but seriously, the NDP platform is pretty mainstream.
It's a pretty good platform, that calls for things this blog has called for in the past, and was a hell of a lot more fleshed out and intelligent than the Liberal platform.
Was it as good as I would have liked? No, but its a damn sight beter than its been before and a hell of a lot better than your going to see from the Liberals.
I guess you totally missed the part where they said they wanted the Canadian forces to partake in 3 block warfare? You know, peace making, peace building, peacekeeping?
Were the priorities a little off backwards? Sure, but frankly, I think the Canadian Forces do a whole hell of a lot more of the first two priorities than they do defending Canada, its just the nature of the current world.
Why not constructively engage by pointing out where they are right, like with making canadian forces equipment in Canada, dedicating to peace making, increasing funding, increasing veterans benefits and their arctic sovereignty issues.
Then when you criticize them for their legitimate problems, like the hypocrisy over Afghanistan and the UN bit, you dont sound like blind idiots, and more like reasonable people?
Patrick Meehan: What I meant was that fighting forest fires is not exactly high on the CF priority list, even in terms of providing support to civilian agencies in emergencies. And certainly not overseas.
The insistence now/now on industrial offsets and on building vessels in Canada is one of the things that makes purchasing equipment for the CF much more politicized, slower and complicated than it should be.
How could the C-17 purchase have been done otherwise? Or would you want to wait a few more years to see if the A400M could compete? Or the C-130J purchase?
And, as I have frequently argued, the military in reality have little role in our efforts to assert our maritime/maritime sovereignty claims in the Arctic.
The NDP platform is all boiler-plate and devoid of detail. At least the Liberals promised to keep the Conservative funding increases planned for the next four years.
Mark
Ottawa
Aid to civil power isn't high on the priority list?
I'll agree with you that there are most definitely instances where you simply cannot tender purchasing contracts to Canadian companies, or where its simply better to do so. But this blog and others have been hashing the government for seeking to go about replacing our aging fleet overseas instead of here in Canada.
In fact, the NDP platform didn't say 'only' purchase in Canada, simply to maximize Canadian content.
It doesn't need to be slower and more complicated, and frankly, having domestic production capabilities simply makes sense from a security standpoint.
I was disappointed to see the NDP platform no doubt. It had no numbers, it had no specifics and it contradicted itself over Afghanistan. That said, there was definitely positive stuff there, and just the fact that its longer and more thorough than the Liberal one should be pointed out.
Patrick Meehan: I've been critical here of the government's refusal to consider going abroad for new vessels, either basically the whole thing or at least a substantial part, e.g. hull etc., with considerable adding of components in Canada.
That's the Aussie approach for their LHD and new destroyers respectively as I have pointed out here.
Mark
Ottawa
Fair enough then, that sounds about accurate, I must have gotten this blog confused with Pugliese's.
Regardless, that's not discounted by the vague NDP statement of 'maximizing Canadian Content." It would seem you agree in principle that we should, where possible, maximize Canadian Content in defence purchases.
Confused with Pugliese? What worse can you say about us?
"maximize Canadian content"--when it doesn't significantly add to cost, slow things down noticeably, or result in a less capable equipment. Which is almost never for any major purchase, LAV IIIs aside.
Think Iltis for the downside. But politics will ensure that any/any government will do what it can to buy votes, so one is essentially crying in the wilderness.
Mark
Ottawa
The Forces will be allowed to defend Canada, as long as they don't use guns, and nobody gets hurt, and that we respect the right of our attackers to kill us freely, and nobody's self-esteem is injured in the process.
Otherwise they have to just give up.
Post a Comment
<< Home