Rapid-response air unit seen as policy shift

[Leafless]

"OTTAWA — An air force unit capable of rapid deployment will be established at Canadian Forces Base Bagotville in northwestern Quebec, the government said yesterday, a move seen by some experts as a major shift away from Canada's traditional military role as a peacekeeper."

Also:

"On Thursday, Mr. O'Connor announced $200-million in funding to resurrect the Saint-Jean campus of the Royal Military College in Quebec, a move designed to draw more potential francophone officers into the Canadian Forces.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More shameless Conservative vote buying in the province of Quebec.

Now I know what they mean when they say a Canadian PM has more power than a king.

I certainly hope all this vote buying pays off well for Mr. Harper and company, as it certainly seems his desire, following in the footsteps of the Liberals, is to have only francophones employed as federal public servants.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/National/home

[weaponeer]

They are just establishing an Air Expeditionary Wing in Bagtown. There's already one in Cold Lake AB, Trenton ON, & Greenwood NS. There will now be a fourth, good. Makes the deployment rotations easier, and now there's a French Canadian one....

[Leafless]

They are just establishing an Air Expeditionary Wing in Bagtown. There's already one in Cold Lake AB, Trenton ON, & Greenwood NS. There will now be a fourth, good. Makes the deployment rotations easier, and now there's a French Canadian one....

Rapid deployment is currently a major issue with Canada's military. Canada lacks equipment badly, to be able to deploy anywhere.

"Labour Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn, the local MP, said the move would pump between $80-million and $85-million yearly into the Saguenay regional economy.

Bloc Québécois defence critic Claude Bachand said the Conservative government will be disappointed if they think Quebeckers will change their minds regarding Canada's role in Afghanistan.

"I don't think running around throwing a little bit of money on one side or another will change the opinion of the Quebeckers concerning the mission," he said."

This is nothing more than another blatant attempt to buy votes.

Three hundred million is a drop in the bucket when it comes to building a functioning military.

The $3.1 billion dollar expenditure pertaining to the Arctic patrol ships can be seen in the same light as it also is nothing more than a drop in the bucket and represents no significant increase in fire power to enforce and protect Canada's sovereignty.

Canada will forever lack the proper fire power and military strength and equipment to emulate a country like the U.S.

Spending money in the way of the military is senseless, as major national federal political parties do not share the same ideologies, concerning Canada's military.

Until a consensus is reached with all federal parties, pertaining to Canada's military, it really makes no sense for one government to build a military and another federal government to dismantle or not support the work of the other.

[weaponeer]

They are just establishing an Air Expeditionary Wing in Bagtown. There's already one in Cold Lake AB, Trenton ON, & Greenwood NS. There will now be a fourth, good. Makes the deployment rotations easier, and now there's a French Canadian one....

Rapid deployment is currently a major issue with Canada's military. Canada lacks equipment badly, to be able to deploy anywhere.

"Labour Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn, the local MP, said the move would pump between $80-million and $85-million yearly into the Saguenay regional economy.

Bloc Québécois defence critic Claude Bachand said the Conservative government will be disappointed if they think Quebeckers will change their minds regarding Canada's role in Afghanistan.

"I don't think running around throwing a little bit of money on one side or another will change the opinion of the Quebeckers concerning the mission," he said."

This is nothing more than another blatant attempt to buy votes.

Three hundred million is a drop in the bucket when it comes to building a functioning military.

The $3.1 billion dollar expenditure pertaining to the Arctic patrol ships can be seen in the same light as it also is nothing more than a drop in the bucket and represents no significant increase in fire power to enforce and protect Canada's sovereignty.

Canada will forever lack the proper fire power and military strength and equipment to emulate a country like the U.S.

Spending money in the way of the military is senseless, as major national federal political parties do not share the same ideologies, concerning Canada's military.

Until a consensus is reached with all federal parties, pertaining to Canada's military, it really makes no sense for one government to build a military and another federal government to dismantle or not support the work of the other.

Your right, since all the idiots that live in the house cannot decide what to fix we should just let it fall down around us. We should ceed our nation to others because we are to stupid, self absorbed or dimwitted to care.

Harper is doing the right thing, he's leading, something the other parties have never heard of. He is making decision, decision that will not be undone as the cost would be too high. He's giving Canadians thier pride back, something the others have no concept of...

The Air Force is going to an Expeditionary force concept, we deploy. That means around the world, or around the country, we are not longer a static organization. All that is happening here is that the folks in Bagotville will be deployable.

Canada has to put up or shut uip, and Harper is stepping up..... Canadians have not seen a gov't that supports the military since St. Laurent, guess it is a shock........

[Leafless]

The Air Force is going to an Expeditionary force concept, we deploy. That means around the world, or around the country, we are not longer a static organization. All that is happening here is that the folks in Bagotville will be deployable.

The folk in Bagotville could very well be French nationalist that care little for federalist.

I see no merit in a PM pandering to a culture that approx. 50% of Quebec's population sided with the separatist in the last referendum.

Loyalty to Canada is the name of the game and when it comes to Canada's military or federal public servants, loyalty to Canada must be assured.

I think Mr. Harper is blindly wading into a dangerous area without verifying Canada's federal public servants are indeed loyal to Canada first and foremost which is impossible to determine pertaining to Quebec at this time.

This of course, could, in the event of severe problems between Quebec and the rest of Canada, place the country at risk.

I don't know how anyone could possibly be so naive not to acknowledge this fact.

[weaponeer]

The Air Force is going to an Expeditionary force concept, we deploy. That means around the world, or around the country, we are not longer a static organization. All that is happening here is that the folks in Bagotville will be deployable.

The folk in Bagotville could very well be French nationalist that care little for federalist.

I see no merit in a PM pandering to a culture that approx. 50% of Quebec's population sided with the separatist in the last referendum.

Loyalty to Canada is the name of the game and when it comes to Canada's military or federal public servants, loyalty to Canada must be assured.

I think Mr. Harper is blindly wading into a dangerous area without verifying Canada's federal public servants are indeed loyal to Canada first and foremost which is impossible to determine pertaining to Quebec at this time.

This of course, could, in the event of severe problems between Quebec and the rest of Canada, place the country at risk.

I don't know how anyone could possibly be so naive not to acknowledge this fact.

As it stands now we have an entire army brigade in Valcartier QB, and a fighter wing in Bagotville. That's lots of military power. The 3R22R from Valcartier is currently replacing 2RCR in Afghanistan, so Quebec military units are at the pointy end these days.... I have benn in the military for 19 years and have not met many separtists in unifom, only 1 I recaqll, and he was a 20 years old private, not much of a threat.....

I spent 18 months stationed at St Jean QB. We military folks were treated as an occupying army by the civilain locals for the most part. Quebec separtist have NO loyalty to Canada, your right, so they do not join our military......

[Leafless]

The Air Force is going to an Expeditionary force concept, we deploy. That means around the world, or around the country, we are not longer a static organization. All that is happening here is that the folks in Bagotville will be deployable.

The folk in Bagotville could very well be French nationalist that care little for federalist.

I see no merit in a PM pandering to a culture that approx. 50% of Quebec's population sided with the separatist in the last referendum.

Loyalty to Canada is the name of the game and when it comes to Canada's military or federal public servants, loyalty to Canada must be assured.

I think Mr. Harper is blindly wading into a dangerous area without verifying Canada's federal public servants are indeed loyal to Canada first and foremost which is impossible to determine pertaining to Quebec at this time.

This of course, could, in the event of severe problems between Quebec and the rest of Canada, place the country at risk.

I don't know how anyone could possibly be so naive not to acknowledge this fact.

As it stands now we have an entire army brigade in Valcartier QB, and a fighter wing in Bagotville. That's lots of military power. The 3R22R from Valcartier is currently replacing 2RCR in Afghanistan, so Quebec military units are at the pointy end these days.... I have benn in the military for 19 years and have not met many separtists in unifom, only 1 I recaqll, and he was a 20 years old private, not much of a threat.....

I spent 18 months stationed at St Jean QB. We military folks were treated as an occupying army by the civilain locals for the most part. Quebec separtist have NO loyalty to Canada, your right, so they do not join our military......

You have failed to understand what the risk is.

The risk is, in the event of a Quebec/ROC conflict who would Quebec (and or francophones in general) federal public servants/military be loyal to, Quebec nationalistic ideologies or federal ideologies?

And how can you confirm or prove loyalties and ideologies?

You can't and this compounds the risk.

[weaponeer]

The Air Force is going to an Expeditionary force concept, we deploy. That means around the world, or around the country, we are not longer a static organization. All that is happening here is that the folks in Bagotville will be deployable.

The folk in Bagotville could very well be French nationalist that care little for federalist.

I see no merit in a PM pandering to a culture that approx. 50% of Quebec's population sided with the separatist in the last referendum.

Loyalty to Canada is the name of the game and when it comes to Canada's military or federal public servants, loyalty to Canada must be assured.

I think Mr. Harper is blindly wading into a dangerous area without verifying Canada's federal public servants are indeed loyal to Canada first and foremost which is impossible to determine pertaining to Quebec at this time.

This of course, could, in the event of severe problems between Quebec and the rest of Canada, place the country at risk.

I don't know how anyone could possibly be so naive not to acknowledge this fact.

As it stands now we have an entire army brigade in Valcartier QB, and a fighter wing in Bagotville. That's lots of military power. The 3R22R from Valcartier is currently replacing 2RCR in Afghanistan, so Quebec military units are at the pointy end these days.... I have benn in the military for 19 years and have not met many separtists in unifom, only 1 I recaqll, and he was a 20 years old private, not much of a threat.....

I spent 18 months stationed at St Jean QB. We military folks were treated as an occupying army by the civilain locals for the most part. Quebec separtist have NO loyalty to Canada, your right, so they do not join our military......

You have failed to understand what the risk is.

The risk is, in the event of a Quebec/ROC conflict who would Quebec (and or francophones in general) federal public servants/military be loyal to, Quebec nationalistic ideologies or federal ideologies?

And how can you confirm or prove loyalties and ideologies?

You can't and this compounds the risk.

So you are saying we should deny entry into the military for any French Canadian because there is a "risk" they may not be loyal. What about muslims, jews etc....

[Leafless]

So you are saying we should deny entry into the military for any French Canadian because there is a "risk" they may not be loyal. What about muslims, jews etc....

Yes, of course.

This IS along the same lines as Islamic terrorist and Canadian immigration policies.

Allowing terrorism to achieve political victories cannot be condoned.

Failure to take a stand, is promoting their objectives.

What do Jews have to do with anything, in the way of terrorist activity?

Have Jews not been loyal to Canada and have contributed greatly to Western society?

[weaponeer]

So you are saying we should deny entry into the military for any French Canadian because there is a "risk" they may not be loyal. What about muslims, jews etc....

Yes, of course.

This IS along the same lines as Islamic terrorist and Canadian immigration policies.

Allowing terrorism to achieve political victories cannot be condoned.

Failure to take a stand, is promoting their objectives.

What do Jews have to do with anything, in the way of terrorist activity?

Have Jews not been loyal to Canada and have contributed greatly to Western society?

Jews are fine, I just used them as an example. I seriously doubt the disloyalty of French Canadians. They have voted down two referendums, they have been in Canada since the beginning, all be it a thorn at times, but I cannot see them attacking Canada with DND equip. Besides, most of our CF18 fighters are in Alberta, and our biggest army units are in Alberta & Ontario.

Alberta is the most heavily armed province in Canada.......

[Leafless]

Jews are fine, I just used them as an example.

As an example directed at what? Disloyality? Terroist threat, what exactly?

I seriously doubt the disloyalty of French Canadians. They have voted down two referendums

You know as well as I do the results of those two Quebec referendums were extremely close and Quebec was involved with terrorism against Canadian ideologies with actions from the FLQ who even to this day have sympathizers towards Quebec national ideologies.

Was their not an issue previously suggesting Quebec members of Canada's military fight alongside Quebec in the event of military action against Quebec, if in the event separation was successful?

Besides, most of our CF18 fighters are in Alberta, and our biggest army units are in Alberta & Ontario.

Alberta is the most heavily armed province in Canada.......

Thank God for that one, but I still don't see why Quebecers should be in Canada's military when it is clear they have a different troublesome set of political ideologies compared to anywhere else in Canada.

[AngusThermopyle]

Was their not an issue previously suggesting Quebec members of Canada's military fight alongside Quebec in the event of military action against Quebec, if in the event separation was successful?

Actually there was no such issue at all. You're close though. What actually happened was that some dipstick French Canadian Officers circulated letters to members of French Units suggesting that in the event of separation these members should in effect desert. This was in order for them to help form their very own Quebecois defence force. At no time was fighting the CAF ever mentioned.

In my opinion they were still very much in the wrong and as such should have been charged with something like treason or intent to cause sedition. Of course this would never happen, they were from Quebec. I have however served with some very fine service members from Quebec. In fact on more than one occasion I have entrusted my life to them, and obviously, never been let down.

I don't want to insult you Leafless but I have to say it is very apparent to me that you have just about zero knowledge of the Armed Forces and the people who serve in them. There is a bond amongst service members that goes beyond petty provincial bickering. Hence the reason the Dipstick Officers had no success with their seditious activities.

[Leafless]

Actually there was no such issue at all. You're close though.

This was an important subject of debate, at that time, thus making it an issue.

At no time was fighting the CAF ever mentioned.

No one ever said there was.

But then again Quebec never did separate at that point, so we will never know what could have happened in the event Quebec did separate, relating to possible violent retribution to appease Quebec separatist ideologies.

I don't want to dig up the original story on this since it really is not important relating to this thread, but did mention it to confirm potential hostilities towards other parts of Canada did exist along with previously mentioned FLQ terrorist activity against Canadian ideologies.

I have however served with some very fine service members from Quebec. In fact on more than one occasion I have entrusted my life to them, and obviously, never been let down.

Your personal relationship with members from Quebec really has nothing to do with violent actions in the event of separation or any other possible turmoil between Quebec and the ROC.

I don't want to insult you Leafless but I have to say it is very apparent to me that you have just about zero knowledge of the Armed Forces and the people who serve in them. There is a bond amongst service members that goes beyond petty provincial bickering. Hence the reason the Dipstick Officers had no success with their seditious activities.

I know several people from the armed services including my brother in law. But this thread has nothing to do with your bond amongst service members because in the event of conflict between Quebec vs. Canada, as those waters have NEVER been tested, have they?

[AngusThermopyle]

The risk is, in the event of a Quebec/ROC conflict who would Quebec (and or francophones in general) federal public servants/military be loyal to, Quebec nationalistic ideologies or federal ideologies?

I believe this is where you were talking about a Quebec/ROC conflict. You may utilize all the semantic sophistry you wish, it is very clear that you are implying a distinct risk of conflict with Quebec.

I'm still new here so I'm not really sure who everyone is yet. I have to ask though, are you one of those guys with the Tinfoil hats? frankly your whole premise, you know, disloyal Quebecers out to get Canada, well quite frankly I find it amazing you can actually believe this.

Okay, so you know some people in the Forces. I'm sure second hand information, impressions and hearsay are a far more reliable vehicle for knowledge than actually spending a major portion of your life actually living the experience.

I'm sorry I cant share your beliefs on this matter but I just cant. I was married to a very good Quebecois woman for a good many years. I dont think I ever met any of her friends, family or aquaintances who spoke of open conflict with the rest of Canada

[B. Max]

More shameless Conservative vote buying in the province of Quebec.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/National/home

That's exactly what it is. Unless they plan on using such a force in this country, it's not of much use. Without your air force, what are you going to do once you get somewhere. What they really need are a couple of carrier groups and everything that goes with them.

Edited August 2, 2007 by B. Max

[M.Dancer]

More shameless Conservative vote buying in the province of Quebec.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/National/home

That's exactly what it is. Unless they plan on using such a force in this country, it's not of much use. Without your air force, what are you going to do once you get somewhere. What they really need are a couple of carrier groups and everything that goes with them.

yeah, carriers......

[AngusThermopyle]

Actually Carriers aren't a bad idea. Something like the Brits use, a smaller "pocket" carrier would be ideal for us. Equipped with Helo's and Harriers they'd increase our capabilities dramatically. As for the rest that goes with them, well I already stated in the ice breaker thread that we should have bought the Amethyst Rubis class of smaller Nukey Boats. That way we'd have our own Carrier groups with Destroyers, Frigates, Boats and Carriers. It would be a formidable force tailored to Canada's more modest needs.

[M.Dancer]

Actually Carriers aren't a bad idea. Something like the Brits use, a smaller "pocket" carrier would be ideal for us. Equipped with Helo's and Harriers they'd increase our capabilities dramatically. As for the rest that goes with them, well I already stated in the ice breaker thread that we should have bought the Amethyst Rubis class of smaller Nukey Boats. That way we'd have our own Carrier groups with Destroyers, Frigates, Boats and Carriers. It would be a formidable force tailored to Canada's more modest needs.

British carriers are not very capable for anything other than escort duties. While the US carriers can strike well over 800 miles deep with aerial refueling, Harriers are not suitable for anyting beyond a couple of 100 miles.

The idea that Canada has the money and the manpower for a couple of carrier groups is laughable.

Considering that an aircraft carrier will at a bare minimum need:

1 AOR

1 missile cruiser

6 destroyers or frigates

....you are talikng about 7000 people.......

[Leafless]

I'm still new here so I'm not really sure who everyone is yet.

Then I wish you a hardy welcome to this wonderful site that, for the most part, allows the exchange of politcal opinions via free speech.

I have to ask though, are you one of those guys with the Tinfoil hats?

I don't know how you ask such a question, especially being employed full time in Canada's military.

Of course this would make you rather immune to what we are actually talking about and indicates you have the ability to blot out of your mind the realities of Canadian history, directly related to what we are discussing.

frankly your whole premise, you know, disloyal Quebecers out to get Canada, well quite frankly I find it amazing you can actually believe this.

So your saying Quebec is not predisposed to participating in any sort of violence to achieve their nationalistic ideologies in a conflict with the ROC? Time to take off the blinders and read up on Canadian history.

Okay, so you know some people in the Forces. I'm sure second hand information, impressions and hearsay are a far more reliable vehicle for knowledge than actually spending a major portion of your life actually living the experience.

I don't really know what your trying to get at but it seems you are trying to make some sort of connection to being a member of Canada's armed forces to the actualities of Canadian history. The two are totally separate entities, one does not care about the other.

I'm sorry I cant share your beliefs on this matter but I just cant. I was married to a very good Quebecois woman for a good many years. I dont think I ever met any of her friends, family or aquaintances who spoke of open conflict with the rest of Canada.

Maybe I am also married to francophone women (who only speaks French with family members) and I share the rest of your concerns.

But this again has nothing to do with nationalistic political ideologies of Quebec and their quest for POWER, which I think is not only breaking Canada but will lead to the destruction of Canada especially from Liberal friendly implemented policies and especially relating to the Charter itself.

[B. Max]

British carriers are not very capable for anything other than escort duties. While the US carriers can strike well over 800 miles deep with aerial refueling, Harriers are not suitable for anyting beyond a couple of 100 miles.

The idea that Canada has the money and the manpower for a couple of carrier groups is laughable.

Considering that an aircraft carrier will at a bare minimum need:

1 AOR

1 missile cruiser

6 destroyers or frigates

....you are talikng about 7000 people.......

It's only laughable if you are socialist. There is plenty of money. Just the money that is thrown down the Indian rat hole every year is more than sufficient, and there also are many of the people to do the job. Rather than getting something for nothing, it's long past time to produce something for what they get.

[M.Dancer]

British carriers are not very capable for anything other than escort duties. While the US carriers can strike well over 800 miles deep with aerial refueling, Harriers are not suitable for anyting beyond a couple of 100 miles.

The idea that Canada has the money and the manpower for a couple of carrier groups is laughable.

Considering that an aircraft carrier will at a bare minimum need:

1 AOR

1 missile cruiser

6 destroyers or frigates

....you are talikng about 7000 people.......

It's only laughable if you are socialist. There is plenty of money. Just the money that is thrown down the Indian rat hole every year is more than sufficient, and there also are many of the people to do the job. Rather than getting something for nothing, it's long past time to produce something for what they get.

It's not so much the idea that is laughable, but its supporters.

The USS Enterprise costs $160 million dollars a years to run and a couple of billion to build. Add another 100 million year for her support ships and another couple of billion to build them. Now add a billion for the aircraft.........

The total for 1 carrier group stands over 6 billion dollars.........

Edited August 2, 2007 by M.Dancer

[B. Max]

It's not so much the idea that is laughable, but its supporters.

The USS Enterprise costs

Yes this country and its supporters certainly excel at mediocrity.

Edited August 2, 2007 by B. Max

[M.Dancer]

Yes this country and its supporters certainly excel at mediacracy.

Could you say that in either English or french, pick one please.

[B. Max]

Could you say that in either English or french, pick one please.

Done.

[AngusThermopyle]

Actually we don't need Super Carriers. As far as I know we don't have any near nor distant plans to strike major inland targets. Our continued Naval role would be buisness as usual, sovereignty patrols and NATO obligations. For these roles Pocket Carriers would be ideal. In that same way we wouldn't need a U.S. size Carrier Battle Group. A much scaled down one would be more than adequate for our needs.

I don't see Naval expansion for Canada as being something we would do to assert control over the sea lanes, rather it would mearly enable us to full fill our roles and obligations in a much more efficient and effective manner. Also cost is a major factor. A scaled down battle group would be far more cost effective and thus far more acceptable to the Canadian public.

I almost forgot. If we hadn't scrapped the Bras Dor project that class of ship would have been the knock out punch added to any battle group. Another travesty of government mis-management when it concerns military matters and just a huge shame that we never continued to produce this class of ship.

Edited August 2, 2007 by AngusThermopyle