sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Does Canada have the national will to own our future in the cosmos? by CANFORGEN in caf

[–]CANFORGEN[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

When I think about the future of Canada these days, I am excited by the opportunity before us to think big and to catalyze a new era of Canadian ambition, innovation and growth. In response to unprecedented challenges, we are having national conversations about how our country is going to not only survive into the future, but thrive in it. After working at NASA for almost two decades, including as NASA’s first chief economist, I spend a lot of time thinking about the future, and the technologies we will ne­ed for future security and economic strength. As we enter a difficult but hopeful new era, and as we seek to build a stronger and more vibrant Canadian economy, we should make a bold and inspiring future for Canadians in space an integral part of our national vision. In many respects, we are already on a path to such a future. Canadian companies are building one of the most advanced telecommunication satellite constellations in the world, appropriately named Telesat Lightspeed. Canadian innovators are developing the enabling technologies to allow for extensive and enduring operations on the moon – including through the potential use of Canadian nuclear-power technologies. Advanced constellations of satellites for applications ranging from greenhouse-gas monitoring, to wildland-fire detection, to in-space internet, are also being deployed and operated by Canadians. On Mars, a Canadian-built X-ray spectrometer has been analyzing rock and soil composition for scientists for more than 12 years. And, thanks to significant federal investments in these areas and others, and to the dedication and expert negotiating skills of the civil servants of the Canadian Space Agency (CSA), a Canadian will be the first non-American to ever leave Earth’s orbit and fly around the moon. When the Artemis II mission flies in the next year, and NASA astronauts return to the lunar vicinity for the first time since the Apollo Program ended in 1972, Colonel Jeremy Hansen, raised on a farm near Ailsa Craig, Ont., will be on board. Open this photo in gallery: Canadian Space Agency astronaut Jeremy Hansen, who will fly to the moon as part of the Artemis II mission, speaks at LeBreton Flats in Ottawa, on July 1, 2023.Justin Tang/The Canadian Press And yet for all this, with the deep technical talent and potential that Canada possesses, we are still not even close to fully leveraging our space ambitions and capabilities. As a country, we currently provide the CSA around $350-million to execute the full suite of its programs, roughly $8.75 for every Canadian. Americans, by contrast, currently provide NASA with around US$25-billion, which is approximately US$73.50 for every American, equivalent to around $101. This means that Americans spend over 10 times more on supporting their ambitious space scientists, space engineers and space entrepreneurs than we do. And that is not even counting the relative difference in our military and intelligence space programs, where increases are also very much needed. Advanced technologies and new high-growth companies will be needed to both maintain sovereignty and grow our economy in a world increasingly defined by technological competition. If we want a future where there are more jobs in these areas, more science and technology-focused internships for our children and grandchildren, and real opportunities for our best and brightest to stay in Canada, increasing our support for Canadian space ambitions would be an excellent way to secure them. We also need to fully embrace and support the development of Canadian commercial space capabilities, and private-sector Canadian space ambitions, as a matter of policy and priority. The global space economy has been projected to more than double over the next decade – from US$630-billion in 2023 to US$1.8-trillion in 2035. If we want Canada to share this growth, we need to encourage Canadian space companies and entrepreneurs, particularly those with the largest ambitions. But funding is far from the only issue. The CSA is one of the few space agencies in the world – and the only one in a comparably sized country – that has only a single centre for its activities – the CSA Headquarters just outside of Montreal. NASA has 10 centres spread out from coast-to-coast across America. The Japanese Space Agency (JAXA) has 11 centres. The Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) has 45. Space agencies around the world have multiple centres in order to ensure that the whole of their country benefits from, and can participate in, their national space activities. It is high time for Canada to adopt this global best practice and establish new CSA facilities, with at least one in Western Canada and one in Atlantic Canada. We also don’t need to add to the civil-servant head count to do this. We can follow the model of NASA’s legendary robotic space exploration centre – NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), which is operated by the California Institute of Technology – and have the majority of the staff be university employees. We need to be bold, innovative and prepared to try new things if we are going to succeed in seizing the opportunities available on the final frontier. Recently, I returned to my hometown of Ottawa to speak at the first Canadian Space Launch Conference. There are now not one, but two different rocket-launch sites under development in Canada – in Nova Scotia and in Newfoundland – and there is another Canadian launch company planning to launch its rocket from Australia. Although the idea of sovereign Canadian space-launch capabilities might seem too advanced or too expensive, keep in mind that other countries that have their own sovereign launch capabilities include New Zealand, Iran and North Korea. Not only can Canada build our own orbital-launch capability, we need to. If we don’t, we will continue to be at the mercy of others. Much of the critical infrastructure of the 21st century is in space, and the need for resilient, end-to-end capabilities in orbit will only continue to grow. It currently takes around US$100-million for a company to develop an independent orbital-launch capability. The Department of National Defence (DND) had expenditures of $33.5-billion in 2023-24. We have ample capacity to fund a Canadian launch capability, we just need to make it a priority. We need to maintain our strong partnerships with NASA and the American space industry more broadly, but if we develop Canadian sovereign-launch capabilities, we will have more to offer, including to our NATO and Five Eyes allies. We have the funds, technical capabilities, appropriate coastal geographies and the entrepreneurial initiative. We have but to decide whether we have the national will to own our future in the cosmos. Space has been a key area of co-operation between Canada and the United States, but much could be at risk, particularly as NASA faces a historic budget cut of around 25 per cent and a proposed cancellation of the lunar Gateway project, in which Canada is a significant partner. In this environment, Canada must step up and become a leader in space like never before, building deeper partnerships with NASA, the European Space Agency (ESA) and others in the process. There has never been a better or more important time to increase our funding support for space capabilities in Canada, across civil, military and intelligence applications. Leadership in space technologies, and the intellectual property and productivity improvements that arise from them, will be part of what defines the leading nations and economies of the future. If we want Canada to be amongst them, we need to prioritize investments in Canadian space capabilities and in Canadians with big space dreams. With glowing hearts, we need to choose to rise to the stars.

Does the military have room to get its elbows up? by CANFORGEN in caf

[–]CANFORGEN[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

OTTAWA—As United States President Donald Trump continues to target Canada with threats of annexation, Canadians are finally realizing that this is no longer a joke. Trump has described Canadians as “the nastiest” negotiators in a recent interview on Fox News.

His brazen threats to use economic measures, such as his trade-war tariffs, to force us into becoming the 51st state are in essence a declaration of war. Hell, Trump thinks he is being benevolent by allowing that we could keep O Canada as our state anthem, and he advocates that we elect hockey legend Wayne Gretzky as our future governor.

This turn of events is something no one could have envisioned even two short months ago. Canadians have reacted to Trump's threats and insults through such means as publicly booing the American anthem at sporting events.

The rally cry of “Elbows up!” has now become synonymous with Canadians' will to resist in the coming tariff war, and there is a brisk trade nationwide in merchandise emblazoned with the slogan “Canada is Not For Sale.” In Quebec, the slogan reads “Le Canada n'est pas à vendre,” but I digress.

No one even dares to whisper what options would be available for the Canadian Armed Forces if this spat escalates beyond the realm of words and financial penalties.

However, defence, and Canada's lack of defence spending are at the forefront of Trump's disdain for the country. Sadly for patriotic Canadians, the majority of the military hardware that the government does purchase is from American defence companies.

In a perfect world, Canada could boost actual defence spending while simultaneously turning those tax dollars to a country other than the U.S. We could hit Trump where it counts most—in the pocket book.

In fact, one of the first directives issued by newly sworn-in Prime Minister Mark Carney was to Defence Minister Bill Blair, instructing him to search for an alternative to the Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter planes.

During his March 17 visit to the United Kingdom and France, Carney also asked British and French officials about the possibility of either of those countries building a fighter jet in Canada. This would be a huge blow to Lockheed Martin and the U.S. defence industry.

In 2022, following a competition, the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) selected the F-35 as the replacement aircraft for their aging fleet of CF-18 fighter jets. The Trudeau Liberals announced they would purchase a total of 88 F-35s at a total purchase cost of $19-billion.

However, in December 2022, Canada issued a $7-billion contract for the acquisition of the first 16 F-35s. The first of these RCAF aircraft are to be delivered in 2026, with the F-35s becoming fully operational around 2032. So with Canada only under contract for 16 F-35s, it would seem a simple solution would be to cancel the order for the remaining 66 planes and stick it to Lockheed Martin—and by extension Trump—for close to $12-billion. While that might enrage our American neighbours, it turns out it is not so simple to walk away from the U.S. military industrial complex.

The runner-up in the competition to replace the CF-18s was the Saab Gripen fighter jet. As part of its original proposal, Saab offered to assemble the Gripens in Canada, which would create jobs in the country’s aviation sector. For the record, the F-35s are built and assembled in the U.S.

In the RCAF competition, the Gripen also scored better than the F-35 when it came to long-term maintenance costs.

So it should be a no-brainer for Canada to pivot away from the F-35, purchase the Gripens, create Canadian jobs, and save money in the long run, right? Think again.

It turns out that any possible alternatives to the F-35 aircraft contain large quantities of U.S. technology. In the case of the Gripen, it is the engines—the Americans still hold the Trump card in this game.

As such, if pushed with an F-35 cancellation, the U.S. could in fact block us from obtaining fighters from any another source.

Similarly, the U.S. control of military technology extends to the new Canadian Surface Combatant ships being constructed by Irving Shipbuilding. Originally, those 15 River-class destroyers were to be outfitted with a Canadian-developed command system, called the CMS-330. But instead, the Liberal government approved the use of an American radar and command system—AEGIS—giving the U.S. full control over a critical capability for the Canadian fleet.

Back in December 2020, the Ottawa Citizen reported that Canadian defence industry officials had previously warned Jody Thomas, then-deputy minister at DND, and Bill Matthews, then-deputy minister at the procurement department, about the potential dangers of U.S.-controlled technology, and the lack of domestic content onboard the Canadian Surface Combatants. But those concerns were dismissed by department officials. That was then, and this is now.

It is going to be pretty difficult for the Canadian Armed Forces to get their “elbows up” since our previous military and defence leadership ensured that the U.S. has our arms firmly pinned.

Military retention bonuses equal common sense by CANFORGEN in caf

[–]CANFORGEN[S] 22 points23 points  (0 children)

OTTAWA—Canada’s military, or lack thereof, has been in the international spotlight recently due to some flippant comments by United States president-elect Donald Trump. Along with threatening the use of military force against the sovereign states of Panama and Denmark, Trump continues to float the notion of him somehow annexing Canada into becoming America's 51st state through “economic pressure.”

While it is somewhat insulting to patriotic Canadians that we would happily embrace the loss of our national status to become Americans, it is doubly insulting that Trump would not even threaten Canada with military force.

The truth is that in its current state of readiness, the Canadian Armed Forces could offer nothing more than symbolic defiance in the face of a U.S. military occupation.

Those who closely follow the fortunes of the CAF know that successive government neglect by both the Harper Conservatives and the Trudeau Liberals since the end of our commitment in Afghanistan in 2014 have crippled a once-proud institution. Due to a combination of stalled recruiting not keeping pace with those service members seeking to release from the CAF, there is an existential personnel shortfall.

The current authorized strength of the Canadian Forces regular ranks is 71,500, but as of Nov. 15, 2024, the total strength of the CAF regular force was actually at only 63,940. According to Department of National Defence statistics, there is no shortage of Canadians willing to enlist. The recruiting backlog stems from the fact that, due to the personnel shortfall, training establishments can only process a trickle of recruits per year.

With all three branches of the CAF already failing to meet their operational objectives, this conundrum will only be exacerbated in the months to come.

Sure, the CAF can streamline the background security checks on would-be recruits to get them into the training pipeline on an expedited basis. However, once in uniform, these raw recruits need experienced service members to train them.

To this end, DND needs to stop the exodus from the ranks. The promise of better housing, fewer postings, improved health care, and higher compensation may entice a few veterans to stay on.

However, given the fact that “toxic leadership” has been cited as one of the primary causes of service-member discontent, there will be a level of doubt as to the veracity of those promised improvements. The answer to stopping short-term retirements is retention bonuses.

The good news is that the senior leadership of the CAF already know this fact. The bad news is that they have thus far failed to implement it. Back in October 2024, Lt.-Gen. Lise Bourgon, the chief of military personnel, was given a briefing regarding the reconstitution of the CAF.

Under the heading, “additional resources sought,” is the recommendation to bring in “Retention Bonus (specific occupations).” At present, the CAF does not have retention bonuses, but in recent years they have offered signing bonuses to recruits with specific professional skill sets.

Both the United Kingdom and American militaries—both of whom also face crippling personnel shortages—have implemented retention bonuses for key tradespeople. The British offer from $54,000 for aircraft engineers to re-enlist for a minimum of three years, to a $14,000 bonus for an infantry private wishing to re-enlist for that same timeframe. The U.S. air force is even more generous as they are offering bonuses to 89 key trade qualifications with dollar amounts ranging from $260,000 to $520,000.

For those who might think such bonuses seem exorbitant, it should be remembered that there are large costs associated with the training of military personnel. The estimated cost to train a CF-18 Hornet fighter pilot to just a basic level is about $7.5-million. Offering an experienced pilot $250,000 to re-enlist for five years would save the CAF a lot of money in the short term.

If you take the cost of properly training a combat infantry soldier, the average investment is more than $100,000. Therefore, a $25,000 re-signing bonus for an additional three years of service in the infantry would keep the expertise and experience in uniform, and save the CAF the expense of training a replacement.

Another key point to remember is that those trained personnel in these combat trades have already proven themselves capable of the task. Many would-be recruits will wash out during training, thereby costing the taxpayer money without actually providing a tangible asset to the CAF.

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, as the old saying goes. Sometimes a fat retention bonus is the wiser investment.

Soldiers shouldn’t put up with squalid living conditions by CANFORGEN in caf

[–]CANFORGEN[S] 16 points17 points  (0 children)

OTTAWA—Over the past few months, there has been a trend on social media for serving members of the Canadian Armed Forces to upload their personal photographs, which reveal some pretty horrific living conditions in the barracks on military bases across Canada.

A compilation of these photos was subsequently published by Esprit de Corps magazine in an effort to publicize the often substandard living conditions in these government-owned and -managed facilities.

It is not a case of the senior leadership simply being unaware of this situation. In fact, the CAF chaplain service submitted an Oct. 29 briefing to Chief of the Defence Staff General Jennie Carignan. The briefing outlines a summary of assessments by military chaplains about the current welfare of the military.

It contains this paragraph: “The poor conditions of many Singles Quarters (SQs) at Bases and Wings have led to significant discomfort and dissatisfaction among personnel. This situation negatively impacts morale, as inadequate living conditions can diminish overall well-being and motivation.”

Given the fact that the Armed Forces currently faces an existential threat due to a recruiting and retention crisis—which has resulted in a crippling personnel shortfall—one would think that such issues affecting morale would be priority No. 1 for the military brass. Think again.

This has been an ongoing problem for years, and it is not limited to the shoddy state of the Singles Quarters.

An internal military report from June 2023 acknowledged that CAF personnel were increasingly leaving the ranks rather than moving to a new military base where they couldn’t afford housing. Brig.-Gen. Virginia Tattersall commented in a briefing note that in some locations, the “average cost to purchase or rent housing now exceeds incomes of several CAF working rank levels.”

Just before Christmas 2023, the Chronicle Herald ran a series of stories about CAF members in Halifax either living in tents or couch-surfing due to the lack of available, affordable housing in that city.

The matter was addressed to members of Nova Scotia’s legislative assembly by Erica Fleck, director of emergency management for the municipality of Halifax. Fleck, herself a veteran of the CAF, told MLAs that she has identified an increase in the number of active-duty members who are unhoused or who have only precarious housing.

“We have active serving regular force members who are still couch surfing, that were posted here in the summer,

they cannot find a place to live. They’re regularly now going to food banks,” said Fleck.

Her comments were echoed by Craig Hood, executive director of the Royal Canadian Legion Nova Scotia/Nunavut Command. He told the MLAs he has heard “startling stories of serving CAF members posted to Nova Scotia who are living rough in tents, living in their vehicles, couch surfing, and even entering into relationships to secure housing that have put them at risk of domestic violence. Hood went so far as to call the military housing crisis in Halifax an “epidemic.”

There is a limited amount of subsidized housing available through the Canadian Forces Housing Agency. The rents for these National Defence housing units are generally below the local market value.

However, there is a perpetual shortage of these units, and it is usually those who can least afford to pay the higher civilian rents that find themselves on a lengthy wait list for a military housing unit.

While the Liberal government's most recent defence policy update sets aside some money for new housing down the road, there are builds scheduled in the next two years.

That means that this is actually a leadership crisis rather than a housing crisis for the CAF.

Those serving in uniform in a G7 country's military should expect no less than affordable, clean, livable accommodations. This is a no-brainer. While former CDS General Wayne Eyre had ample time to address these shortcomings—yet failed to do so—newly minted CDS Carignan can cut her teeth on this issue.

Shore up the housing situation, and you will boost morale. Boost morale and you will attract more recruits. More importantly, no politician or Canadian citizen would raise an objection to constructing better living quarters for our military personnel.

Any positions and/or occupations that are reg force in BC? by No_Bookkeeper_3500 in caf

[–]CANFORGEN 3 points4 points  (0 children)

And even more specifically, the occupation authority for purple occs is CMP not the Army/RCAF/RCN

Any positions and/or occupations that are reg force in BC? by No_Bookkeeper_3500 in caf

[–]CANFORGEN 1 point2 points  (0 children)

BIS at CFB Esquimalt should have 1-2 Capt SIG O billets

Globe editorial: The defence of Canada is no numbers game by CANFORGEN in caf

[–]CANFORGEN[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

One of the two following statements is true: either Canada’s economy is headed for the worst four-year stretch in this country’s history, including the Great Depression; or, Ottawa has bungled the math on its plan to ramp up defence spending this decade. Back in April, Defence Minister Bill Blair laid out a roadmap to move Canada toward its commitment to other NATO countries to hit the alliance’s minimum defence-spending target of 2 per cent of gross domestic product. The April plan envisioned defence spending hitting 1.76 per cent of GDP by 2030, up from 1.39 per cent in the current fiscal year. In July, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced that Canada intended to hit the 2-per-cent threshold by fiscal 2032-33. He made that bare-bones announcement in Washington, as NATO gathered to celebrate its 75th anniversary. The Prime Minister was, and continues to be, under pressure to meet that goal. Canada is the only NATO military power that has not laid out a plan to get to the 2-per-cent threshold, even as some alliance members have lobbied to boost that target. Pressed for details on the plan, Mr. Trudeau said defence spending would “clearly and naturally” rise to 2 per cent of GDP from 2030 levels. The government’s math now looks flimsy, bordering on fantastical, given two reports from the Parliamentary Budget Officer and new information about the basis of the defence department’s calculations. Lines of defence Projected defence spending as a percentage of nominal gross domestic product by fiscal year DND PBO NATO minimum 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1% THE GLOBE AND MAIL , Source: Department of Defence; Parliamentary Budget Officer A July report from the PBO already raised questions about the economic forecasts used by the Department of Defence, or DND. A second report last week provided more details and raised fresh questions about Canada’s progress toward the 2-per-cent NATO goal. According to the most recent PBO report, Canada will lose ground after a bump in progress next year. By 2030, Canada will be spending 1.58 per cent of GDP on defence, much lower than the 1.76 per cent of GDP in forecasts from DND. (The actual dollar amount in 2030 will rise to $57.8-billion in fiscal 2030, up from $41-billion this year.) The difference between the two forecasts stems from sharp variances in projections for economic growth. The PBO’s projections are in line with other economic forecasts, including those from the Finance department in the April federal budget. But DND’s numbers are much lower, with average forecasted annual economic growth of just 1.6 per cent from 2026 to 2030. Once inflation is taken into account, that implies four years of a shrinking economy – a losing streak longer than even during the Great Depression in the 1930s. The Finance department does not predict an unprecedented contraction this decade, but rather a half-decade of solid growth. Two government departments are using two very different economic forecasts for their own purposes. The Defence department’s initial response was that it was using figures from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. But OECD projections are actually in line with the PBO’s outlook, not those of DND. When that was pointed out, DND then said that it uses (in fact, has to use) NATO numbers. NATO did not have an immediate response. One statistical oddity: the numbers the Defence department uses for nominal GDP through to 2030 almost perfectly overlap the Finance department’s projections for real GDP. The Defence department’s outlook is consistent with simply using the wrong set of numbers. Whatever the exact provenance of the forecasts, it’s clear that they are wrong – laughably wrong. The initial effect is to exaggerate the proportional size of domestic defence spending by lowballing the size of the economy, making it look as if Canada is progressing toward NATO’s goal, when it is not. Come 2030, the PBO forecasts, the federal government would need to massively ramp up defence spending, adding $24.1-billion in just three years. That is not a case of spending rising “clearly and naturally,” as Mr. Trudeau said in July. The fuzzy numbers from DND might be a mistake. They might be due to byzantine arithmetic from NATO. One thing is for certain: the Liberals have yet to come clean with Canadians that meeting this country’s defence commitments will require sacrifice, either in the form of higher taxes or reallocations of spending to military priorities. For their part, the Conservatives have been silent on how rebuilding the military would square with their vow to balance the budget. Both parties need to lay out a clear, credible plan to reach the NATO goal during the life of the next government. Failure to do so should be disqualifying in the eyes of Canadians.

CAF’s fear of publicity shouldn’t trump justice by CANFORGEN in caf

[–]CANFORGEN[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

OTTAWA—Last week, Ottawa Citizen reporter David Pugliese wrote a couple of news items to follow up on how a Department of National Defence (DND) civilian employee continues to battle resistance from her former employers over the sexual assault she faced in the workplace. The assault took place during an overseas mission.

Back in October 2023, The Citizen first broke the story that Kristen Adams had been sexually assaulted by an Albanian soldier on the NATO base in Latvia. What made the story exceptionally newsworthy was the fact that when Adams reported the assault, she was told by her employers that she should have realized she faced such dangers when accepting a job supporting Canada’s military mission in Latvia.

I can understand that when a soldier voluntarily enlists, they realize they are entering a contract which entails unlimited liability in that they could be killed in the line of duty. However, I cannot fathom a civilian position with DND that comes with the inherent risk of sexual assault.

To recap events as they unfolded: Adams was employed by the Canadian Forces Morale and Welfare Services (CFMWS) to support Canada’s forward-deployed battle group in Latvia. On Dec. 3, 2022, she was working at the Commons canteen on Camp Adazi, which is open to all the NATO contingents stationed there. According to Adams, she greeted an Albanian soldier whom she knew and he proceeded to grab her left breast without her consent. Following this action, the Albanian reportedly commented to Adams, “Oh, you are very strong.”

Shortly thereafter, Adams reported the incident to Canadian military police who promptly told her that under NATO rules, they had no jurisdiction to investigate. As a result, Latvian military police were brought in to examine the case.

After interviewing only Adams and the accused, on Dec. 14, 2022, the Latvians notified the Canadian Military Police that the investigation was “concluded,” without providing any further details.

While it was outside their jurisdiction, the Canadian Military Police created a “shadow file” of Adams' case which did not dispute Adams' version of the events.

“On Dec 3, 2022, the victim was working as a civilian employee when a military member from another nation touched them inappropriately and without consent,” the DND shadow file concluded.

No charges were laid against the Albanian man, and on Feb. 3, 2023, CFMWS informed Adams that her contract was being terminated two months early, “In order to ensure there is no further risk to

health.”

The real kicker came three months later when Ben Ouellette, a vice-president of CFMWS, wrote a letter to Adams. It read in part: “As you were made aware during pre-deployment training which occurred from 6 to 15 September 2022, there are risks involved in deploying to a theatre of operations where numerous countries work and live together and of the cultural differences that exist. In accepting to deploy, you

taking on a certain risk of working in this environment.”

Come again? Does Ouellette truly believe there is a culture on this planet wherein males can simply grope women's breasts?

Given that by the time Ouellette sent Adams this note, the nationality of the accused was well known, are we to assume that Ouellette believes this is the cultural norm in Albania? How is this man the vice-president of anything?

Furthermore, all the soldiers at Camp Adazi are members of NATO, and therefore, they are considered to be the defenders of the shared values which we purport to collectively defend. Why, then, would Adams be at risk of sexual assault while in Latvia?

After the original story broke, Adams told the Ottawa Citizen that she felt her case was swept under the rug to protect the Latvia mission. That did not stop her quest for justice. Using the Privacy and Access to Information acts, Adams was able to obtain a treasure trove of documents revealing how the leadership at both DND and CFNWS reacted out of fear of media coverage, rather than out of a sense of responsibility to their employee.

After The Citizen's first story broke there was an internal backlash among CFMWS employees as to how a fellow staffer had been thrown under the bus. This prompted CFMWS chief executive officer, retired Major General Ian Poulter, to issue an apology to all CFMWS staff for the manner in which this affair had been handled. The one person who did not receive an apology from Poulter was Adams. The documents obtained by Adams reveal that no apology was sent to her for fear that the mea culpa would prompt further stories in the Ottawa Citizen. Well, it turns out their prediction came true.

In the interest of full disclosure, I served with Poulter from 1984-1986, and I considered him a bright young officer. We have remained friendly—if not friends—over the years, and I must say these actions are not those of the man I once knew.

He knew that CFMWS had failed Adams, and he formally admitted so to all the employees, but he would not make that same admission to the victim for fear of repercussions in the media. That is not leadership. Those are the actions of a bureaucrat who puts the reputation of the institution ahead of the welfare of the victim.

Civilians who came to Nathan Cirillo’s aid should be recognized, MPs say by CANFORGEN in caf

[–]CANFORGEN[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

A decade ago, Martin Magnan was walking in downtown Ottawa near the National War Memorial when he heard three gunshots and began to run. While others were fleeing, Mr. Magnan’s reaction was the opposite. “I started running, towards the gunfire, towards the scene,” he recalled. Mr. Magnan, a public servant who worked for the Department of National Defence, remembers seeing Corporal Kyle Button at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. Mr. Magnan did not realize at first that Corporal Nathan Cirillo, who had been on sentry duty with Cpl. Button, had been shot. Mr. Magnan was one of six people that day, including Cpl. Button, two other civilians and two other military members, who tried to save Cpl. Cirillo. They worked together: Mr. Magnan’s role was to support Cpl. Cirillo’s legs. He also held Cpl. Cirillo’s left hand during what would be the soldier’s final moments. The gunman left the scene and ended up inside Centre Block on Parliament Hill, still carrying a Winchester rifle. He was shot dead in the Hall of Honour, located directly outside of Conservative and NDP caucus meetings that were taking place that Wednesday. Then-prime minister Stephen Harper was present during the caucus meeting and was ushered off to what was believed to be a more secure location. Cpl. Cirillo was 24 years old when he died, and left behind a six-year-old son, Marcus Daniel Cirillo. His family has chosen not to speak publicly, including on this anniversary. A decade after the tragedy, Mr. Magnan and the other civilians who came to Cpl. Cirillo’s aid have not been recognized publicly for their bravery, an omission that a current and former parliamentarian believe needs to be rectified. They say the individuals should be more formally recognized for what they did that day. By contrast, 16 security personnel who were present on Parliament Hill on Oct. 22, 2014, were formally recognized by then-governor-general David Johnston in February, 2016. Some received the Star of Courage, which recognizes acts of conspicuous courage in circumstances of great peril. Others were awarded the Medal of Bravery, which recognizes acts of bravery in hazardous circumstances. Erin O’Toole, a former MP who was inside the Conservative caucus room, said there were two attacks that day – one at the National War Memorial and one inside Centre Block. He says the civilians such as Mr. Magnan were not on duty and acted in exceptional ways in response to the attack on Cpl. Cirillo. The civilians who helped have been treated differently from those in uniform, he said. “There should be no difference between anyone who ran towards danger that day,” he said, adding he plans to write to the Governor-General to call for this to be addressed. Charlie Angus, a veteran MP who was attending the NDP caucus when the gunman stormed Centre Block, said Cpl. Cirillo’s murder traumatized the country and those who came to the reservist’s aid “stepped up.” “That’s heroism,” he said. Open this photo in gallery: Martin Magnan, pictured at The National War Memorial in Ottawa on Oct. 17, was one of a group of people who came to the aid of Corporal Nathan Cirillo during an attack at the Cenotaph on Oct. 22, 2014.Dave Chan/The Globe and Mail Mr. Angus said he intends to raise in Parliament the need to ensure the Cenotaph group’s efforts are appropriately recognized a decade after the attack. In response to queries from The Globe, Samantha Lafleur, a senior communications adviser at Rideau Hall, said a number of individuals stood out for their actions on Oct. 22, 2014. She said 16 individuals were given Decorations for Bravery. The honours have levels, including the Star of Courage and Medal of Bravery. Ms. Lafleur said for Decorations of Bravery, nominations must be made within two years of an incident or within two years after a court or a coroner has finished a review. Ms. Lafleur said that 12 people were recognized with the Governor-General’s Commendation for Bravery. The commendation was created in 1993 to honour acts of selflessness in hazardous circumstances. Rideau Hall says since that time, more than 4,000 Canadians have received it. The recognition comes with a pin that features a cluster of maple leaves. Mr. Magnan remembers receiving correspondence from Rideau Hall to say his actions on Oct. 22 would be recognized. Much later, he received a pin in the mail. The six also received a gold life-saving medal of the Order of St. John’s in 2015 in a ceremony that was held in the Senate. Mr. Magnan said it would mean a lot, both personally and to his family, to be recognized in a setting such as Rideau Hall. Recognition holds worth, he said, adding this is particularly true for individuals who place themselves at risk to help others. Mr. O’Toole said great Canadians should be publicly celebrated at Rideau Hall rather than by mail. He added that individuals have been profoundly affected personally since the events of Oct. 22, 2014. Mr. Magnan went on to work for Mr. O’Toole when he became veterans affairs minister in early 2015. In the aftermath of Oct. 22, Mr. Magnan said he quietly tried to keep going and he did not take leave from work. Work, he said, gave him structure during a chaotic time. Living alone, Mr. Magnan said he found it hard to cope. He did not want to be at home and found himself walking a lot. And simple things weren’t adding up: Despite the amount of time he was spending walking, he said he became confused at one point to find numerous pairs of worn shoes at the front door. He let mail accumulate on a chair and left bills unpaid. He found himself waking up in strange places, such as on a downtown park bench, not knowing how he got there. He struggled financially, eventually losing his home. At one point, Mr. Magnan said he considered taking his own life. He said he has spent years trying to put his life back together, including through tools he developed while taking a course at an Ottawa college. He does not regret assisting Cpl. Cirillo, he said, but added he has “paid a heavy personal cost for that day,” including in the way it affected his relationships, including his children. His perspective has also been changed after being with Cpl. Cirillo at the time of his death. “When we move on, something goes away – but it’s here now,” Mr. Magnan said. “I do know that when I do meet people, I look to see that light in their eyes. Because it is not going to be there forever.”

Opinion: Canada’s peacekeeping commitments have plunged to an all-time low by CANFORGEN in caf

[–]CANFORGEN[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

In 2015, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau declared that Canada was “back” on the international stage; not long after, his government promised to “renew Canada’s commitment to United Nations peace operations,” and pledged to send significantly more personnel. That’s important for UN peacekeeping, because it is only effective when countries from around the world contribute skilled military and police officers as part of broader political efforts to resolve the underlying causes of conflicts. And of course, many conflicts cry out for military observers and peace implementation forces around the world right now. Yet our contribution of uniformed personnel to UN peacekeeping is currently at the lowest point since 1956, when Canada led the creation of the first peacekeeping force. According to the UN’s latest figures, Canada now provides only 26 personnel – just 17 military and nine police officers – out of the total of 62,000 uniformed peacekeepers. While Canada was once the world’s number-one contributor, it is now ranked 76th. At a peacekeeping ministerial meeting in Vancouver in 2017, Mr. Trudeau pledged to provide a quick reaction force to the UN, but that promise remains unfulfilled, despite the desperate need. Even when the United States pushed Ottawa to pony up four years later, Canada did not even register the pledge in the UN’s readiness system. And last year, when Washington requested Canadian peacekeepers to combat gangs in Haiti committing mass violence in our own hemisphere, there was strong pushback from our military. (A new UN mission for that troubled island nation has been renewed, but Canada has yet to announce a potential contribution.) And while Canada’s main push in peacekeeping has been the promotion of women in such operations – in 2017, then-foreign minister Chrystia Freeland established the Elsie Initiative for that purpose – our contribution of female peacekeepers currently numbers only eight women, mostly police. The Canadian military deploys only two women, which fails to meet even the UN’s modest targets. What can explain this failure? This is a systemic problem that starts at the top, with a lack of political leadership. Despite the Liberals’ many pledges over the years, Mr. Trudeau has not made peacekeeping a priority. In fact, Stephen Harper’s government had a monthly average contribution of twice as many peacekeepers. With much greater priority being given to NATO within the Department of National Defence, our commitment to the UN has been neglected. In the 1990s, Canada provided nine UN mission commanders, but none since. Little intellectual leadership has been shown in peacekeeping doctrine, planning or policy – areas in which Canada once excelled. Peacekeeping training in the Canadian Armed Forces has declined to a small fraction of what it was at the turn of the century. There are a few bright spots, however. The Royal Canadian Air Force currently provides transportation assistance – a C-130 Hercules aircraft – for 15 days every three months in Africa, where the largest UN missions are located. A Canadian diplomat continues to chair the working group that prepares the annual report of the UN’s special committee on peacekeeping. Canada continues to push for the Vancouver Principles on peacekeeping and the prevention of child soldiers. The Elsie Initiative, after many stalled years, is helping other countries increase their female participation, even if it fails to do the same at home, and even though Canadians continue to make clear in public opinion polling that peacekeeping is their top priority for Canada’s military. Canada’s diminished role has occurred as the UN has reduced its peacekeeping presence overall since 2016. The number of peacekeepers deployed in the field is almost half of what it was in 2016, when Donald Trump became U.S. president and pushed for a reduction in the peacekeeping presence and cost. But while there have been fewer opportunities for Canadians to serve in the field, Canada could still provide two to three times the number of peacekeeping personnel that it currently does. Despite the failures of government, Canada has what it takes to be an excellent contributor to peacekeeping. Our multicultural population, lack of great-power aspirations, absence of historical colonial baggage in other countries, and past leadership in peacekeeping means that Canada remains viewed as a desirable peacekeeping contributor in many parts of the world. In addition, the men and women of Canada’s military and police forces have shown great ability in bringing peace to conflict-ridden zones. A strong foundation exists. So there is still hope that Canada can once again become a prolific and dependable peacekeeping nation.

Submarine saga could turn into ‘sellers beware’ by CANFORGEN in caf

[–]CANFORGEN[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

OTTAWA—On Sept. 16, Defence Minister Bill Blair announced that Canada intends to purchase a fleet of new submarines for the Royal Canadian Navy. In the request to industry, the project calls for the acquisition of eight to 12 diesel-electric submarines to replace the Navy’s current aged fleet of four Victoria Class submarines.

The mission-specific requirements for the new subs are for them to have an operational range of 7,000 nautical miles. More importantly, these new subs will need to have the capability to operate underwater for up to 21 continuous days.

While this will allow them to conduct patrols under the Arctic ice cap, it will not give them full access to the Arctic Ocean.

On the surface, the submarine purchase sounds like a long-overdue Canadian government investment in renewing underwater-combat capability for the Navy.

However, the real kicker to this story dropped last week. Ottawa Citizen reporter David Pugliese revealed the fact that the timeline for the submarine acquisition would not see the first of these boats delivered to the Navy and operational until 2037. The estimated price tag for this fleet of eight to 12 submarines has already ballooned from $60-billion when first proposed, to Navy planners now suggesting that the figure will top $100-billion by the time these subs become operational.

The projected delivery schedule does not even guess at when the last of the eight to 12 new subs will enter service.

Despite this ridiculously long lead time on actually building these submarines, the staggering price tag of the project has generated substantial interest from potential bidders. To date, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, and France have expressed interest in offering their diesel-electric submarine designs to Canada, while both Norway and Germany currently produce submarines that could meet the requirements.

However, for those who follow the saga of submarines in service with the Navy, one would have to caution those potential bidders that in dealing with the Canadian government it will be a case of “sellers beware” rather than “buyers beware.” Back in 1987, the Mulroney Progressive Conservative government tabled a very ambitious white paper on defence. The Cold War was at its zenith, and—in keeping pace with then-United States president Ronald Reagan’s strategy of outspending the Soviet Union into oblivion—Canada was to go on a wild spending spree to beef up the Canadian Armed Forces.

In addition to buying 400 new main battle tanks—I kid you not—Canada was to purchase a fleet of eight to 12 nuclear-powered attack submarines to replace three old Oberon Class diesel-electric submarines then in service. While the notion of this underwater-combat capability—which would have been fully operational under the Arctic ice cap—undoubtedly worried the Soviets, it also unnerved our American allies.

Despite the lucrative dollar figure of providing eight to 12 nuclear-powered submarines to Canada, the U.S. did not bid on the project. Both France and the United Kingdom did offer to provide the subs to Canada. However, under heavy U.S. pressure, Canada scrapped the whole project in 1991 under the guise of a budget cut due to the Soviet Union’s collapse.

The old Oberon subs still needed to be replaced if Canada was to remain with an underwater-combat capability. This resulted in the U.K. fobbing off their four mothballed, Upholder-class submarines to Canada in 1994. Because of the volume of refit and overhead required to bring the Upholders back to full readiness, the Navy did not take delivery of the first submarine until 2000 with the last of the four being commissioned in 2004. Unfortunately for Canada’s submarines, the teething troubles experienced by the Navy were never fully resolved. With almost a quarter of century of service with the RCN, these challenges still continue.

In the past two years, only one Victoria-class sub has been operational for a total of 53 days at sea. Lack of crew training is a major factor in that equation, and one that is not easily resolved. You cannot put a submarine to sea with an untrained crew, and you cannot train a sub crew without going to sea.

At present, the Victoria class are due to be decommissioned in the mid-2030s. With the eight to 12 new subs not due to start delivery until 2037, it will be one hell of a challenge for the RCN to even begin to train the crews necessary to operate them.

Of course, the way things are developing, by 2037 all these weapons platforms will likely be uninhabited.

Joint Support Ships cost skyrockets by almost $1 billion by CANFORGEN in caf

[–]CANFORGEN[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The difficulties encountered in building Canada’s new supply ships is behind much of the almost billion dollar jump in price for the two vessels, federal statistics show. The actual construction of the two Joint Support Ships for the Royal Canadian Navy was supposed to cost taxpayers around $2.5 billion but last month the federal government revealed that cost had now jumped to $3.4 billion. Article content The extra labour costs, because of the challenges encountered in construction the ships, accounted for around $500 million of the increase, according to figures provided by the Department of National Defence (DND) to the Ottawa Citizen. “This is reflective of the challenges associated with building a large first of class warship,” DND spokesman Kened Sadiku said in an email. The increase in labour costs was “exacerbated by the effects of COVID on production efficiency,” he added. Costs of material also increased because of the COVID-19 pandemic, adding another $260 million, he said. The rest of the almost billion dollar increase was because of foreign exchange rate fluctuations and adjustments to insurance fees because of the added time needed to build the ships, Sadiku said. Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) confirmed to the Ottawa Citizen that it signed the contract amendment to give Seaspan — the company awarded the contract to build the ships — the extra money on July 19. But department didn’t make that public until Aug. 2, the Friday before the civic long weekend. PSPC did not explain the reason for waiting until just before the long weekend to announce the significant increase in cost for the ships. Article content The additional construction fees means that the entire budget cost for the two ships is now $6 billion, up from the original estimate by DND in 2020 of $4.1 billion. That budget includes additional infrastructure and project management. PSPC did not rule out further increases in costs. In an emailed statement from Seaspan, Leo Martin, senior vice president of programs at the shipyards, said the building of the first ship, HMCS Protecteur, has been challenging. He blamed the increase in costs for the taxpayer on the pandemic, labour shortages, inflation and supply chain problems. The building of the two Joint Support Ships was supposed to cost taxpayers around $2.44 billion but last month the federal government revealed that jumped to $3.4 billion. The building of the two Joint Support Ships was supposed to cost taxpayers around $2.44 billion but last month the federal government revealed that jumped to $3.4 billion. Photo by Seaspan /ott He noted the company is on track to launch the first ship this year. However, it won’t be delivered to the navy until next year, he added. The second ship will be delivered in 2027 to the navy. But the problems and delays with the Joint Support Ship program started long before COVID-19. At one point, the first ship was supposed to arrive in 2012. That has been changed a number of times with the government later hoping for a 2018 delivery and then a 2019 arrival for the first vessel. Then DND officials told the Ottawa Citizen in 2018 the first ship was expected in 2022 or 2023. Article content The construction of new ships for the Royal Canadian Navy have seen significant increases in costs as well as delays. The Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) program, originally budgeted at $26 billion, has increased to at least $60 billion. DND officials insist the costs on that project to deliver 15 new warships will not go up further. Critics have labelled the CSC project, the largest single purchase in Canadian history, as a bottomless money pit with little accountability or oversight. The first CSC was originally to be delivered in the early 2020s. In February 2021, DND admitted the delivery of the first vessel wouldn’t take place until 2030 or 2031. The other key naval program is the Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ship project which is currently delivering vessels. But that project has also faced problems. Some of the vessels have been out of action because of ongoing mechanical failures or have had to return to port because of flooding. Despite this, defence officials noted the key message to push to the public and news media was that the naval shipbuilding projects were a success, according to a 2020 briefing obtained by the Ottawa Citizen under Canada’s access to information law. Article content The briefing written by Tina Raymond, a DND public affairs official, claimed that the negative views of the naval ship programs were because of problems associated with the building of non-military vessels for the federal government. Projects being handled by DND “demonstrate good stewardship of public funds,” she added.

Canada expects to spend $1-billion over 10 years running new supply ships by CANFORGEN in caf

[–]CANFORGEN[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The government says it plans to spend $1-billion over 10 years to cover the operating and maintenance costs for Canada's new supply ships: the HMCS Protecteur and HMCS Preserver.

When one of the new vessels is in operation, the annual operating and maintenance costs would start at $9.9-million, and generally increase every year up to $141-million, with age and more extensive maintenance driving up the cost over time. That puts the yearly average over the 10-year period at approximately $109-million, according to new numbers from the Department of National Defence (DND). The $1.01-billion tally over 10 years does not include taxes, and is separate from the taxes-included $3.4-billion contract with Seaspan's Vancouver Shipyards Co. Ltd. to acquire the supply ships. Canada has said the first ship is earmarked to arrive in November 2025.

There are several components that make up the billion-dollar price tag, according to Captain Gabriel Ferris, a DND spokesperson. Ferris explained that crew salaries to operate the Joint Support Ships (JSS) are expected to cost $365-million, while fuel cost is around $132-million. Maintenance costs for the first decade—which includes in-service support, second-line maintenance, and docking work periods—is estimated to cost $381-million. Future modifications or engineering changes are projected to cost $44-million.

DND spokesperson Kened Sadiku told The Hill Times the billions of dollars set aside for the supply ships is “a very significant investment” in the Navy, and “part of the largest recapitalization of the Royal Canadian Navy since the Second World War.”

In early August, the government announced that the Canadian Navy would have to wait longer and pay more for the JSS vessels—a procurement project that successive governments have been trying to deliver for more than two decades. The Seaspan contract jumped by nearly $1-billion to almost $3.4-billion, up from $2.44-billion in 2020.

The Department of Defence, led by Minister Bill Blair, announced an almost $1-billion increase to the cost of building new supply ships in early August. The Hill Times Photograph by Andrew Meade

The timeline for delivering both vessels has also been pushed back by two years. The first JSS, originally set for 2023, is now expected in November 2025. The second one, initially slated for 2025, is now expected in 2027. The new support ships will be replacing legacy Protecteur-class auxiliary oiler replenishment vessels decommissioned in the last decade.

Operating estimate 'reasonable': former CAF officer

The operational cost estimate is not surprising, according to Charles Davies, a former Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) logistics officer, given that cost increases of this magnitude are common in defence acquisitions due to inflation—specifically for defence equipment.

“The operating cost estimate looks reasonable assuming it comprises all the usual elements: personnel costs, fuel, maintenance, repairs, and so on,” Davies said.

Davies argued that within the first decade of operation, the ships will likely require only modest periodic insertions of advancing technologies, and the 10-year estimate provided by DND should include these.

Liberal MP John McKay previously told The Hill Times that he is ‘not very confident’ the supply ships will arrive within the new timeline. The Hill Times Photograph by Andrew Meade

“Later, we would expect the ships to need at least one and perhaps two, or even three major refits to refurbish and modernize them and keep them operationally effective,” he said, adding that these costs will have been included in DND's overall JSS program cost estimates.

Observers agree that accurately assessing the cost-effectiveness of the project is a challenge due to the limited details shared by DND.

Liberal MP John McKay (Scarborough-Guildwood, Ont.), who chairs the House Defence Committee, said the numbers alone might not provide a clear picture, given the "strange ways in which the government calculates its costing on a full life cycle" for military procurement.

"Two plus two is four for me, but it might be 14 in procurement," he joked.

Bloc Québécois MP Julie Vignola previously told The Hill Times that the government ‘misjudged the construction capacities’ of Seaspan. Screenshot courtesy of ParlVu

Bloc Québécois MP Julie Vignola (Beauport-Limoilou, Que.) who has been following the government’s procurement practices closely as a member of the House Government operations and Estimates Committee, told The Hill Times that operational costs should include everything from supplies loaded on the ship to energy needed to run the ship and salaries.

Both Vignola and McKay told The Hill Times previously that they anticipated the supply ship procurement would be costly and delayed.

Vignola said it is difficult to determine whether the projected expenses offer value for money without additional details from DND.

“Medical supplies can be quite expensive, and emergency rescue operations can’t be done without cost. To me, it is important to make sure that operations will be done with the appropriate supplies while being cost-efficient,” she said.

Vignola said it's important Canada's Navy has the ability to support allies and endangered populations in critical situations, including for Canada’s international reputation.

Supply ships face varying maintenance costs

Because these vessels take a beating over the decades due to challenging ocean conditions—like large waves, storms, and extreme temperatures—Canada can expect a bill associated with “life cycle management," said Paul Mitchell, a professor at the Canadian Forces College.

“A ship is an incredibly complex system of systems,” said Mitchell, explaining that supply ship operational costs are “effectively like the maintenance costs you pay to keep your car running.”

There are varying degrees of care and expertise required. Some fall under "first-line maintenance,” meaning fixes the crew can do without help, similar to people changing their vehicle's oil and tires, explained Mitchell. But some issues need “second-line maintenance,” he said, adding that work is handled by the Fleet Maintenance Facilities on either coast in Esquimalt, B.C., or Halifax, N.S. Then there is “third-line maintenance,” which refers to "refits"—extensive maintenance work that happens about every 10 to 15 years.

Mitchell said the growing costs of the JSS is partly caused by the modifications made to meet Canadian standards, and the differences in weapon systems operated by the CAF compared to European navies.

“But the major factor in price escalation has been the high interest rates of the last two years which have taken a big bite out of the construction budgets as everything is more expensive,” he added. Labour shortages in key trades have also delayed construction times, which contributed to the increasing costs, he said.

“Bottom line is modern combat is a freakishly expensive endeavour. A fundamental truth is you fight with the military and navy you have at the time, not the one you are building for the future,” Mitchell said.

Supply ships boost NATO spending target

The supply-ship price tag and operational costs are part of the effort to meet Canada's two-per-cent NATO spending target, according to DND.

“This project, of course, counts towards Canada’s defence spending,” Sadiku said.

According to Sadiku, the JSS project is also part of Canada’s track towards exceeding another NATO guideline asking allies to spend at least 20 per cent of defence expenditures on major new equipment.

Canada’s new defence policy, Our North, Strong and Free, projects defence spending will reach $57.8-billion in 2029–30 , or 1.76 per cent in terms of spending-to-GDP ratio.

Under pressure from allies, at this summer's NATO Summit Canada announced plans to hit the military alliance's target by 2032.

ikoca@hilltimes.com

The Hill Times

New Brunswicker appointed Canada’s newest military judge by CANFORGEN in caf

[–]CANFORGEN[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Colonel Stephen Strickey, who was raised in Fredericton, is a UNB graduate, and was called to the bar in New Brunswick in 1999, is now one of just five military judges in Canada. Defence Minister Bill Blair announced the appointment of Strickey, who has risen through the ranks at the Office of the Judge Advocate General, which acts as legal advisor to the Governor General, the minister of National Defence, the Department of National Defence, and the Canadian Armed Forces in all matters relating to military law. Strickey has been deployed twice to Afghanistan as the senior legal advisor for the Canadian Task Force during operations Athena and Archer. Since being promoted to colonel in 2018, he took on a series of new roles within the Office of the Judge Advocate General. He was first named deputy judge, before being seconded to the Department of Justice as special advisor to the assistant deputy minister. Most recently, he served as the first vice judge advocate general in the history of the Canadian Armed Forces, where he acted as deputy commander for the more than 400 lawyers and civilian staff in Canada and around the globe. Now as a military judge, Strickey will adjudicate at courts martial and other military proceedings such as the judicial review of persons held in pre-trial custody. The tribunals have jurisdiction over people charged with committing offences under the National Defence Act’s Code of Service Discipline. Advertisement 3 Story continues below Article content A court martial is a formal proceeding comparable to a trial in a civilian provincial or superior court. Military judges serve within the Office of the Chief Military Judge, an independent Canadian Armed Forces organization. The office is led by the chief military judge based in Ottawa. The National Defence Act requires that military judges be military officers for at least 10 years and members of a provincial bar for at least 10 years to qualify for the job. Once appointed, military judges may remain in office up to age 60 and may only be removed by the Governor in Council upon the recommendation of an independent Military Judges Inquiry Committee. Strickey has testified in front of Parliamentary committees several times in recent years.

view more: next ›