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

Defence Policy in the 2006 General Election

Conservatives vow defence boost
Dec. 4, 2005. 05:48 PM
STEPHEN THORNE
CANADIAN PRESS

OTTAWA - The federal Conservatives say if elected they'll boost the national defence budget "in magnitude," assuring the military a win no matter who's in after the Jan. 23 vote.

The Liberal government committed $12.8 billion to military expansion in last February's budget, which will bring the total defence budget to almost $20 billion within five years.

Defence Minister Bill Graham has dangled tantalizing toys before Canada's military - new planes, ships and vehicles. He's expanding the forces by 5,000 personnel.

But the Conservatives say they'll do even more for defence.

"Certainly the Armed Forces aren't going to get less," said the Tory defence critic, retired general Gordon O'Connor.

"There's going to be substantially more for the Armed Forces - in magnitude different."

The Tories will boost military spending significantly - O'Connor wouldn't say how much - and expand personnel by 15,000, to 75,000, said O'Connor, who drafted the party's defence platform.

All Liberal defence policies will be up for review, said O'Connor, including last spring's defence policy statement that was supposed to set the course for Canada's army, navy, air and special forces for 20 years.

"We will review everything," O'Connor said. "We have our own policy. It may support what they are doing or it may modify what they are doing."

During the 2004 election campaign, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper promised an extra $5 billion in military spending over five years, 20,000 new soldiers, new tanks, new helicopter-carrying warships and muscular transport planes.

O'Connor, who retired as the director of military requirements and later became an industry lobbyist, said airlift now is his party's No. 1 defence priority.

But it's up in the air whether the Tories will go for 16 mid-range transport planes worth nearly $5 billion, as the Liberals announced Nov. 22, or opt for fewer of those supplemented by larger, heavy-lift aircraft capable of transporting troops and equipment over vast distances.

Under a Conservative government, the Liberal procurement project may go ahead or it may be modified, O'Connor said.

"We believe in airlift," he said. "I consider airlift as the No. 1 equipment requirement for the Armed Forces.

"But an airlift solution based on our policy may be different."

O'Connor said he expects Harper will announce his defence policy before Christmas.

He said the party won't be bound by preconceived ideas. They want to look at requirements before settling on what combination of aircraft would best serve defence.

A Conservative government would also buy more Arctic utility aircraft than the Liberals plan and base some of them further north, he added.

"I believe we should have a firm deployment of new aircraft in the Arctic," he said.

With the Liberals' blessing, navy planners are already in the early stages of acquiring new support ships and transport vessels, similar to those Harper promised in last year's election campaign.

O'Connor said he strongly supports streamlined military procurement practices, but he says the Liberal method will hurt competition and favour certain products - Lockheed Martin's C-130J transport plane, for example.

Prime Minister Paul Martin has said getting what the military needs takes precedence over regional and industrial benefits.

O'Connor said he also supports what he calls the "sensible" Liberal concept of setting out requirements based on performance needs. But he said regional and industrial benefits are a must in any military procurement.

"The biggest waste of time is in the Defence Department," O'Connor said. "They're spending four years now to arrive at a document that says this is what we want."

He said defence procurements have to be directed from the top down, not the bottom up.

"Things will be better for the military" under a Conservative government, O'Connor promised.

"In funding, you're going to see a substantial difference - quite a bit more than the Liberals. We've got to get this Armed Forces out of a hole."

Link to Article
 
Gordon O'Connor seems very waffly on any position.  "Maybe we will do the same thing, or maybe we will not."
 
career_radio-checker said:
If they win, he'll probably be our next defences minister.

I'm hoping that Laurie Hawn will become MoD rather than Gordon O'Connor...but I would prefer it if MGen. Mackenzie would run.  ;D
 
From a late yesterday evening post in this thread: NATO to send up to 6,000 troops, including Canadians, to southern Afghanistan
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/37255/post-306352.html#msg306352

Article on CBC
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/national/2005/12/08/layton-troops051208.html

As this is a separate spin on the same article, I'll not merge the two topics.  I'll leave this thread open for comments on NDP 'philosophy'.
 
This will happen if you vote for the Hippies(NDP). this party is so out of her! theses would be the same people who goto Iraq to preach peace and have us all captured! Crazy i tell you Crazy!
 
silentbutdeadly said:
This will happen if you vote for the Hippies(NDP). this party is so out of her! theses would be the same people who goto Iraq to preach peace and have us all captured! Crazy i tell you Crazy!

I didnt' want to be the first one to say it, but I totally agree. They are absolutely, a bunch of hippies. I can't stand them or 95% of their ideas.

"Let's cut the military budget in half and spend the savings on a big park with a giant happy face for all the kids to play in!"
^ Thats what I heard when Jack Layton spoke last year about his policy.
 
I guess thats why there at the bottom of the political pile.
I refer to them as the Kitchen party
 
I'm probably going to vote Conservative, again, this year - unless they run a fire-plug in Ottawa Centre.  I will not vote Liberal, not if they ran the best candidate in the world - and they are running a scummy lobbyist.  I used to vote Liberal, back in the '60s, but I stopped and I will not vote Liberal again until they select a leader who will, finally, erase the lingering vestiges of Trudeauism which, I believe, may, if left to fester, unchecked, destroy our country.  I don't think I can bring myself to vote NDP - they are socio-economic illiterates, at best, "vandals" is closer to the mark.

That being said I have reservations about how the Conservatives have responded to General Hillier's attempts to rebuild, quickly, before things fall apart.  I was amused when the Tories adopted typical Liberal ward heeling tactics and promised to do whatever it took for Goose Bay - arrant and dishonest nonsense but harmless political dishonest nonsense I thought at the time.  I was more dismayed when defence critic O'Connor went off the rails, in my personal opinion, this year.

I thought about O'Connor's ill-considered critique of the aircraft project.  I wish he had said something like this:

"Mr. Speaker: I rise today to applaud the Minister.  The decision to go forward with the purchase of these sorely needed aircraft is the right one.  Well done, sir!

But, Mr. Speaker, isn't it sad that the government must rush this purchase through what amounts to a sole source process because these airplanes - and the others the CDS wants but which the Minister's cabinet colleagues would not support - should have been purchased, through an open, competitive process years ago; they should be flying, in Canadian Forces' livery, today, Mr. Speaker.

I worry about this procurement process, Mr. Speaker because I wonder how many Liberal hacks, flacks and bagmen are lined up between the cheque writing machine and the honest, hard working contractor.  Despite that, Mr. Speaker, we, on this side, support the purchase and commend the Minister for standing up to his caucus and cabinet colleagues.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Minister must come clean with this House: how much more do we need for our armed forces; how many other things are bent to the breaking point?

Mr. Speaker we, quietly, supported the former prime minister when he continued putting our financial house in order.  Of course we did because we started it.  It was a Conservative government which sounded the alarm after years and years of Liberal overspending and it was a Conservative government which balanced the programme budget in the late '80s.  Canadians were afraid, Mr. Speaker that the Conservatives would slash health and social transfers to the provinces and cut other programme spending as soon as the economy turned around; they threw us out of office.  The Liberals slashed health and social transfers to the provinces and cut other programme spending, just as we would have had we been elected in '93.

Mr. Speaker, we Conservatives agreed that DND had to take a full and fair share of the cuts to programme spending, but only a full and fair share.  The Liberals cut too far, too deep; in so doing they endangered our national security and they took unconscionable risks with the lives of the brave men and women who serve in our armed forces.

So, Mr. Speaker: how much more is needed?  How much for other aircraft?  How much for helicopters?  How much for new ships?  How much to refit existing ships?  How much for thousands and thousands of additional soldiers and their equipment and training?  How much for more expensive fuel?  How much more for operations overseas?  Will the Minister of National Defence come clean with this House and with Canadians? 

We will support him in his efforts to repair the damage the Liberals did to our national defence, Mr. Speaker, right up to the moment we take over the government.  After that we will be honest with Canadians and we will set things right with our military."

By the way: Gordon O'Connor made it up to BGen.  That's farther than I went.  I acknowledge his superior military skills and knowledge, work ethic, etc.  Gordon O'Connor, in retirement, offered himself for selection as a candidate and then for election - something I would not do, even if invited.  If, by some strange twist of events, I found myself a candidate I'm certain that Canadians would find very, very good reasons to vote for the other fellows!  I don't especially like O'Connor (I don't dislike him, either) but I think he has earned our respect - he has mine, as do all MPs.  I just hope that when (if) the Tories take power the leader/PM selects someone other than Mr. O'Connor to be defence minister.  I think DND needs a hard charging, ambitious young member to be MND - someone who will want to use the task of rebuilding our forces as a stepping stone to advance his/her own political career.

 
Now Now gentleman, it would behove us to restrain in calling down elected officials of our Federal Gov't.

He never said he wanted to stop us going over.He is not asking to stop our troops from working (not fighting, working like we have been) in Afghanistan persea, as much as he want the Gov't to be accountable to the people for sending us over.

The wounding of three special forces soldiers in a battle near Kandahar this week and the more aggressive posture of Canadian troops as they prepare to return to the region en masse highlights a delicate legal point.

There has been no formal public debate â ” or declaration of war.

He called for an immediate halt to Canada's buildup of troops in southern Afghanistan, and he demanded that Prime Minister Paul Martin define the goals of the mission, which has been in preparation for months.

As well, Layton wants country's involvement in the war on terror debated in the House of Commons.

It's all polictical BS.
He is calling the Gov't out..wanting to be able to hold them accountable the next time a soldier is KIA'd in Afghanistan.

Is election time after all...enough hot air to keep winter from getting too cold.
 
Armymedic said:
Is election time after all...enough hot air to keep winter from getting too cold.

They use the worst things to get the votes, they don't really care, they just make it seem like they do until they are re-elected, well thats what I think anyways
 
Ok well Im not sure I totaly understand the Tory platform here. are they saying that they plan on increasing the CF by 15000 - 75000 on top of what is already in the works in terms of increasing the size of the military?? This seems way to ambitious. If Im not mistaken the CF is having a hard enough time trying to increase by 5000 nevermind by 15 or 20 thousand. and if you manage to expand the forces by such an enormous amount you then have to consider where would they be stationed?? what equipment would they use?? the military would then have to build another base or 2 or 3 to accomadate this and would have to do some MAYJOR procurment because there is simply not enough, vehicles, uniforms, ammo etc etc etc to support this huge increase. So one thing leads to another here and this is very doubtful to happen. If it did you could kiss those fancy new planes good bye and those new transport ships cause there wont be enough funds to do both at the same time.

Please feel free to correct me on any of my points.
 
I agree with ya chopperhead. Total federal budget is + or - 160 Billion $$$ there are too many other social programs to give a bigger slice of the taxpayer pie.

By the way, does anyone know when the parties are going to announce their defence policies?
 
i think the Tories are going talk in general terms so the liberals have no real targets to shot them on when talking about DND.
 
I love how they add Op Desert Storm! hahah she most likely was in Pet for that the whole time! ( she provided teletype equip to Op Desert Storm for troops oversesa)!
 
During Operation Desert Storm, was part of a team that provided radio teletype equipment to Canadian troops overseas

so was she the supply tech who issued it, or the operator who lent it out?
 
Back
Top