Canada’s Military current state & equipment

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
27,427
10,153
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
Here’s another crazy idea. Currently our government is saving the planet one decommissioned RCMP vehicle at a time, by crushing them instead of reselling them? Why not donate those directly to the military?

Those that aren’t used directly by the forces, can be sold at a discount to military personnel as part of the incentive for being military personnel. Those that aren’t used in either scenario above, can be resold to the public to help fund the military.

An RCMP vehicle graveyard in Manitoba has row upon row of sedans, SUVs, ATVs, snow machines and boats tagged with government of Canada letters on the windshield that show some have barely been used.
1738846961586.jpeg
An unmarked Econoline van with only 30,000 kilometres on it sits along with four boats — each with two newer Honda motors — and dozens of nondescript newer model SUVs, ATVs and snowmachines. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation says lots like this exist elsewhere in Canada too but finding out where and how many decommissioned vehicles are there has been difficult to determine.
1738847001050.jpeg
Someone with knowledge of the situation in Winnipeg, whom we aren’t identifying as their job would be in jeopardy, told Global News that these vehicles are spray-painted with large inventory numbers and sit in storage before being taken to another Winnipeg facility where they’re crushed — all of this during a global automobile shortage. This is absolutely insane.

“It’s hard to believe until I saw the pictures of all the cars sitting there,” Haubrich says. “They’ve had years to figure out how to deal with this backlog of vehicles, especially ones that could in no way be used to look like a cop car and could be easily sold but the government’s been dragging its toes on that despite the RCMP calling for these vehicles to be sold again.

“Taxpayers can’t keep paying for this and we can’t just keep crushing cars when they could be sold.”
1738847054146.jpeg
The RCMP declined an interview but told Global News in a statement that “day-to-day fleet operations are affected as stored vehicles cause a disruption to the flow and timeliness of the vehicle up-fit process due to the lack of space and pressure on existing resources as the vehicles need to be shuttled to off-site storage facilities. Both impact the timely replacement of vehicles used in policing operations.”

Public Safety Canada deferred all questions to the RCMP despite being the department that issued the moratorium.

Weeks after Global News made inquiries about the vehicles, RCMP headquarters responded that Public Safety Minister David McGuinty has “recently” signalled he will partially lift the ban and “later this winter” the RCMP can resume selling off-road vehicles and others “that are broadly commercially available to the public.” However, “sedans, SUVs and pickup trucks” built for police purposes (???) will continue to be crushed.
 

spaminator

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 26, 2009
38,053
3,371
113
CAF discrimination settlement was ’slap in face,’ says former soldier
Author of the article:Canadian Press
Canadian Press
Catherine Morrison
Published Feb 19, 2025 • 3 minute read

OTTAWA — A former member of the Canadian Armed Forces who has been involved in a discrimination class action for eight years says the settlement isn’t enough to compensate for the trauma he and others experienced.


The class action was launched on behalf of current and former members of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) who suffered racial discrimination or harassment in connection with their military service at any time since April 17, 1985.

The settlement is worth up to $150 million, and individual payments will range from a base of $5,000 up to $35,000 for class action members who provide a “narrative of their experience.”

Documents filed with the Federal Court in June 2024 suggest about 45,000 people could be eligible for the settlement. The claims period is expected to open after April 10, 2025.

Anyone eligible for the settlement has the option of getting a personalized apology letter from the chief of the defence staff. The settlement also includes a pledge to make systemic changes to the Canadian Armed Forces’ culture.


Rubin Coward, who joined the CAF in 1981 and spent the last eight years working on the class action, said the agreement is “unfair and inequitable.” He said he thinks members were “short changed” compared to those who received other types of settlements.

“I’m very disillusioned and I’m not at all happy with what has transpired,” he said. “I’m just totally disappointed in the entire system … That’s really a slap in the face.”

In 2019, the Canadian government settled a $900-million class-action lawsuit with veterans and military members who experienced sexual misconduct in the Armed Forces.

More than 23,000 people have received compensation through that claim, with most eligible to receive between $5,000 and $55,000 in compensation. Those who experienced exceptional harm, or have been previously denied benefits for exceptional harm, were eligible for up to $155,000.


Coward said he also has concerns about the agreement’s effectiveness, given that racism continues to exist within the CAF.

In a decision released last week, Judge Ann Marie McDonald said the settlement was “fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class as a whole.” She said the word compensation is not used in the agreement “in recognition that money cannot make someone whole again.”

McDonald said that while most of the feedback received from class members has been in support of the settlement, some have argued the payment amounts are too low, the CAF still needs structural changes and racists in the ranks are not being held to account.

“Overall, despite the objections raised, I am not satisfied that the objections take the proposed settlement outside the zone of reasonableness,” McDonald said.


She said those opposed to the settlement can opt out and bring forward claims at their own expense.

Wallace Fowler, one of the class action plaintiffs, has asked to be removed from the action to pursue his own claim. McDonald said Fowler objects to the payout amount and alleges “collusion between the lawyers and military officials.”

Kened Sadiku, a spokesperson for the Department of National Defence, said racial discrimination and harassment have “no place” in the Canadian Armed Forces.

Sadiku said that while “no amount of money will ‘compensate’ class members for what they experienced,” both parties developed and agreed to a financial assessment scheme with input from external experts.

Sadiku said DND and the CAF acknowledge that “a history of systemic racism and discrimination within the organization has led to harmful impacts on military personnel, public service employees, and the trust in the organization held by Canadians.” He said that while there have been positive changes and several programs have been implemented, “there is much more work to do.”

Coward said he faced racism during his entire time in the military and was “targeted” almost daily. He said he has since been diagnosed with complex PTSD and was medically released from the military in 1995.

He said he spent years learning about human rights law and helped to launch the class action in 2016.

“None of us put a uniform on so that we’d be abused,” said Coward, who is entitled to a $30,000 honorarium for his involvement in settlement negotiations.

Coward said that while he can’t challenge the judge’s decision, he hopes the financial settlement can be reconsidered and increased.
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
27,427
10,153
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
The federal Liberals unveiled their plan for national security last week. Does it increase spending on our armed forces? No, according to “outgoing” Heritage Minister Pascale St-Onge, the way to defend this country is by almost doubling funding for CBC. St-Onge released a document that suggested revamping the funding and operational models for CBC.

“Public finances are a matter of concern for the Canadian population, but so are our national security and our sovereignty,” said St-Onge.
The new measures are needed to protect Canada from foreign interference, from the “Trump administration” and from “the hegemony and the place that the richest men on the planet occupy in the public space of discussion, debate and information,” she said.

St-Onge suggested we need CBC to counter “misinformation” from other news sources. And she said it without laughing.
The CBC, that bastion of fair-minded and even-handed coverage, will lead us to the Promised Land of Truth in Broadcasting.

The same CBC where some journalists and commentators can barely suppress an eye roll when they talk about Conservatives. The same CBC that launched a ludicrous copyright lawsuit against the Conservative party in the final days of the 2019 elections for using a short clip from the broadcaster in its advertising. The same CBC that Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has vowed to defund if he becomes prime minister.

(Poilievre responded to St-Onge by pointing to the CBC’s dismal ratings. “They have among the worst ratings of any network and yet Trudeau gives them billions more. We’re going to cut wasteful spending, not just there but across the government, to bring down inflation, deficits and taxes. That’s common sense,” Poilievre said)

St-Onge didn’t specify how much more a Liberal government would give the CBC. It currently receives about $1.4 billion from the federal purse. That’s $33.66 per person. She indicated that she’d like to bring it up to the G-7 average of $62.20 per person, assuming all people pay taxes, & those that don’t will have their share to the CBC covered by those that do.

We’d prefer to beef up security the old-fashioned way by investing that money in guns and tanks. Perhaps we could buy a functioning submarine or two.

Instead, it seems, a Liberal government would have our national broadcaster bore to death our enemies with tedious discussions about obscure topics in which nobody has any interest.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Taxslave2

Taxslave2

House Member
Aug 13, 2022
4,309
2,505
113
The federal Liberals unveiled their plan for national security last week. Does it increase spending on our armed forces? No, according to “outgoing” Heritage Minister Pascale St-Onge, the way to defend this country is by almost doubling funding for CBC. St-Onge released a document that suggested revamping the funding and operational models for CBC.

“Public finances are a matter of concern for the Canadian population, but so are our national security and our sovereignty,” said St-Onge.
The new measures are needed to protect Canada from foreign interference, from the “Trump administration” and from “the hegemony and the place that the richest men on the planet occupy in the public space of discussion, debate and information,” she said.

St-Onge suggested we need CBC to counter “misinformation” from other news sources. And she said it without laughing.
The CBC, that bastion of fair-minded and even-handed coverage, will lead us to the Promised Land of Truth in Broadcasting.

The same CBC where some journalists and commentators can barely suppress an eye roll when they talk about Conservatives. The same CBC that launched a ludicrous copyright lawsuit against the Conservative party in the final days of the 2019 elections for using a short clip from the broadcaster in its advertising. The same CBC that Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has vowed to defund if he becomes prime minister.

(Poilievre responded to St-Onge by pointing to the CBC’s dismal ratings. “They have among the worst ratings of any network and yet Trudeau gives them billions more. We’re going to cut wasteful spending, not just there but across the government, to bring down inflation, deficits and taxes. That’s common sense,” Poilievre said)

St-Onge didn’t specify how much more a Liberal government would give the CBC. It currently receives about $1.4 billion from the federal purse. That’s $33.66 per person. She indicated that she’d like to bring it up to the G-7 average of $62.20 per person, assuming all people pay taxes, & those that don’t will have their share to the CBC covered by those that do.

We’d prefer to beef up security the old-fashioned way by investing that money in guns and tanks. Perhaps we could buy a functioning submarine or two.

Instead, it seems, a Liberal government would have our national broadcaster bore to death our enemies with tedious discussions about obscure topics in which nobody has any interest.
Really not sure if I should laugh or cry at how stupid liberals are.
I thought this thread might be about getting the used submarine back up and going again.
At least 1 of them is floating by the dock in Esquimalt. Not sure about the running part.
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
27,427
10,153
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
I thought this thread might be about getting the used submarine back up and going again.
Those four submarines from the West Edmonton Mall, or the ones from Britain that we had to tow to Halifax (thank God for CAA)?

The West Edmonton Mall subs were the real deal — they were the first recreational submarines in the world at that time and were deep-sea tested by the Vancouver company that built them for the mall. Each of the subs cost $900,000. Perhaps most importantly, the ride gave dads all over Edmonton the chance to repeatedly joke about West Edmonton Mall having four submarines to the Canadian Navy’s three.

Vs the Victoria class which are British-built diesel-electric fleet submarines designed in the late 1970s to supplement the Royal Navy's nuclear submarine force. They were decommissioned at the end of the Cold War

The boats were originally named the Upholder class, after the most renowned vessel of the former U class. Their British service life was short, with the vessels being decommissioned in 1994. After an unsuccessful bid to transfer these submarines to the Pakistan Navy in 1993–1994, the Canadian government eventually purchased the submarines and a suite of trainers from the Royal Navy for Canadian Forces Maritime Command (renamed to Royal Canadian Navy in 2011) to replace their decommissioned Oberon-class submarines in 1998.

Believe it or not…Canada was going to build its own fleet of nuclear submarines at one point BUT….The Canada-class submarine was a proposed class of ten nuclear-poweredattack submarines to be built for Canadian Forces Maritime Command (today's Royal Canadian Navy) with an option for two more….BUT…

BUT…The United States objected to the RCN having SSNs as part of its fleet, fearing a significant impact to its own submarine operations in North American waters and possible conflict over access to the Northwest Passage.

In order to prevent this, the United States exercised its rights under two previously signed treaties. Under the 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement, the US had the right to block the sale of submarine nuclear reactors by the United Kingdom to any third party (i.e. Canada), and under a 1959 agreement between the US and Canada the US had the right to block the purchase of submarine nuclear reactors by Canada from any third party (i.e. the United Kingdom or France).

Attempts to negotiate with the United States were initially unsuccessful, as Canadian Defence Minister Perrin Beatty was "told in no uncertain terms by the U.S. Defense Department and submarine service officials that a Canadian nuclear submarine program was unnecessary and even unwelcome." Hmmmm…interesting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bob the dog

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
59,335
9,026
113
Washington DC
Canada needs to re-think its whole defense strategy. Its whole strategy is based on cooperation and coordination with the U.S. and to a lesser extent NATO.

Now that the U.S. is no longer a reliable ally, things need to change, from the ground up.
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
27,427
10,153
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
Canada needs to re-think its whole defense strategy. Its whole strategy is based on cooperation and coordination with the U.S. and to a lesser extent NATO.

Now that the U.S. is no longer a reliable ally, things need to change, from the ground up.
It’s weird, and strange, both simultaneously.

Our mutual security together makes so much sense that this new twist seems surreal. After about 70 years of what seemed like somewhat complimentarily cooperative defence, this is a new paradigm.

1740365786448.jpeg
Canada has to rethink things in such a way to make its vulnerabilities into its strengths. America & Canada will always be linked via trade & defence to varying degrees but things do have to change.

Do the Trump threats & ultimatums make NORAD irrelevant? Is that a question without an answer yet?

Do the Trump threats & ultimatums make NATO irrelevant? Is that also a question without an answer yet?

Canada is short on living up to its NATO obligation of 2% of GDP by about $15,844,500,000.00 Canadian Pesos.

(Weirdly, US buys Canadian oil at a discount and exports at full price, which currently yields a US$19 billion annual windfall, so if American just paid the fair market value just for Canadian crude oil exports the Canada supplements the American economy with…& if that spread was directed directly towards Canadian Military spending, Canada would far exceed its 2% GDP military budget as per NATO, but that’s neither here nor there)

Thinking out of the box, perhaps Canada needs to mine the living shit out of the Arctic (both land & sea) in what would seem to be complete randomness, which wouldn’t prohibit aircraft but would sure make it uncomfortable for people, boats, ships, submarines, terrestrial crafts, etc…& post a few signs with respect to trespassing, etc…? Canada has been vocally anti-landmine for decades and it hasn’t gotten us anywhere so maybe we need to think differently, on an industrial scale, including sea mines?

Perhaps if we created so damn many of these things and deployed them by the millions, creating employment of a finished manufactured good, then they can become one of our Principal exports. Maple Leaf shaped shrapnel to be exported globally.

Something low tech for the most part but with increasingly sophisticated variants, but prolific enough mass produced to make them a couple of dollars each that would be able blanket tundra and other terrain alike. Won’t do much for the Polar Bear & Caribou populations, but it’s thinking outside the box for Canada.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Twin_Moose

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
28,219
7,863
113
B.C.
It’s weird, and strange, both simultaneously.

Our mutual security together makes so much sense that this new twist seems surreal. After about 70 years of what seemed like somewhat complimentarily cooperative defence, this is a new paradigm.

View attachment 27688
Canada has to rethink things in such a way to make its vulnerabilities into its strengths. America & Canada will always be linked via trade & defence to varying degrees but things do have to change.

Do the Trump threats & ultimatums make NORAD irrelevant? Is that a question without an answer yet?

Do the Trump threats & ultimatums make NATO irrelevant? Is that also a question without an answer yet?

Canada is short on living up to its NATO obligation of 2% of GDP by about $15,844,500,000.00 Canadian Pesos.

(Weirdly, US buys Canadian oil at a discount and exports at full price, which currently yields a US$19 billion annual windfall, so if American just paid the fair market value just for Canadian crude oil exports the Canada supplements the American economy with…& if that spread was directed directly towards Canadian Military spending, Canada would far exceed its 2% GDP military budget as per NATO, but that’s neither here nor there)

Thinking out of the box, perhaps Canada needs to mine the living shit out of the Arctic (both land & sea) in what would seem to be complete randomness, which wouldn’t prohibit aircraft but would sure make it uncomfortable for people, boats, ships, submarines, terrestrial crafts, etc…& post a few signs with respect to trespassing, etc…? Canada has been vocally anti-landmine for decades and it hasn’t gotten us anywhere so maybe we need to think differently, on an industrial scale, including sea mines?

Perhaps if we created so damn many of these things and deployed them by the millions, creating employment of a finished manufactured good, then they can become one of our Principal exports. Maple Leaf shaped shrapnel to be exported globally.

Something low tech for the most part but with increasingly sophisticated variants, but prolific enough mass produced to make them a couple of dollars each that would be able blanket tundra and other terrain alike. Won’t do much for the Polar Bear & Caribou populations, but it’s thinking outside the box for Canada.
Canada dropped the ball on national defense and independence from American dominance when we folded on Avro Arrow . We had a top of the line aerospace industry in Winterpeg . We sold that down the river in exchange for American protection . Our sovereignTy has been on a downward spiral ever since . We also had world leading Candu reactors but we mothballed them for environmental expediency, yet fifty years later we are talking of intigrating the technology. We could and should have fifty years of world leading refinement and advantage . Instead we educate our brightest students to study the boogey man of climate change . We went from a serious nation respected on the world stage to an afterthought .
I voted Liberal for half my adult life so accept my share of blame .