A DAY WHICH WILL LIVE IN INFAMY

 

It would not be fair to say that the attack came with no warning at all. Tensions had been obvious for years. Although the aggressors were aligned with a warlike state that had repeatedly attacked its neighbours most citizens believed that war could and should be avoided. There was even a large part of the population that felt the government should not pursue its policy of aiding and arming those allied states that were being attacked as it might provoke an even wider war.

 

In the end it made no difference, in the midst of 'peace' negotiations the enemy assembled a powerful force of aircraft carriers from which they launched a surprise attack which effectively destroyed the navy. It was the belief of the attackers that by denying there victims the ability to strike back they would be forced to negotiate an end to the war on terms favourable to the attackers. 

The militarists behind the attack did not foresee the consequences of there actions, that they had unleashed powerful forces that would lead ultimately to there downfall. They did not understand that the citizens of the stricken republic were resolved to triumph. They knew that there would be dark days and defeats in the future but with faith in their God and in the knowledge that their cause was just they turned to the task ahead. And in the dark days and defeats that did come, before the ultimate victory, they steadied themselves with the battle cry "Remember Pearl Harbor Bandar Abbas!

Found in the wreckage where near the body of the assassinated leader 

"Mr. President, Members of the Assembly of Experts and of the Guardian Council and the Islamic Consultative Assembly

Yesterday, February 28, 2026 —a date which will live in infamy—the Islamic Republic of Iran was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the United States of America.

The Republic of Iran was at peace with that Nation and, at the solicitation of America, was still in conversation with its Government and its President looking toward the maintenance of peace in the region. Indeed, only hours before American air squadrons had commenced bombing our country, emissaries of the United States delivered to our representatives a formal reply to a recent Iranian message. And while this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or of armed attack.

It will be recorded that the distance of Iran from the United States makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago. During the intervening time the American Government has deliberately sought to deceive the Islamic Republic of Iran by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.

The attack yesterday on the our country has caused severe damage to Iranian naval and military forces. I regret to tell you that very many Iranian lives have been lost. In addition Iranian ships have been reported torpedoed on the high seas in international waters 19 nautical miles south of Sri Lanka.

Yesterday the United States Government also launched attacks against Minab in Southern Iran, the South Pars natural gas field was struck, causing extensive damage and blackening the facility, the Strait of Hormuz and Tehran where significant strikes targeted the capital, with damage reported at the Ministry of Intelligence, Ministry of Justice, the Iranian Law Enforcement Command, and the IRIB broadcasting headquarters. The library of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was also struck.

The United States has, therefore, undertaken a surprise offensive extending throughout the entire area. The facts of yesterday and today speak for themselves. The people of Iran have already formed their opinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of our Nation.

As Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense.

But always will our whole Nation remember the character of the onslaught against us.

No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the Iranian people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory. I believe that I interpret the will of the Islamic Consultative Assembly  and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost but will make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never again endanger us.

Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory, and our interests are in grave danger.

With confidence in our armed forces—with the unbounding determination of our people—we will gain the inevitable triumph- so help us God.

I ask that the Islamic Consultative Assembly declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by the United States on Saturday, February 28, 2026, a state of war has existed between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States."

7,000 War Memorials

In 1918, Canadians turned to the duty of commemorating the dead. 

Canada’s most prominent domestic war monument is the National War Memorial in Ottawa, which is the focus, on 11 November, of a nationally televised Remembrance Day ceremony, traditionally attended by the governor general, the prime minister, senior Legion officials and a large parade of veterans.

But perhaps more important than that national symbol are the over 7,000 war memorials that were built in the years following the First World War. Monuments commemorating the lives of Canadians who died in conflicts overseas occupy a prominent place in towns and cities throughout Canada. Most were erected in the 1920s and 1930s, they come in many different varieties: stone soldiers, rock cairns, bronze tablets and polished granite obelisks are among the most common. Each war memorial is unique.

The names of subsequent wars were later added to many of these memorials to include the remembrance of war dead from the Second World War, the Korean War and the War in Afghanistan, as well as from peacekeeping missions and other international military engagements. In all, more than 1.6 million Canadians have served in Canada’s Armed Forces and more than 118,000 have died in foreign conflicts.

Some of them were living memorials to the dead. They were called Roads of Remembrance. These linear tree-lined avenues had trees that were typically a single species, regularly spaced along each side of the avenue that would grow tall and stately. A small plaque was used to assign a particular tree to a specific fallen soldier. In some cases, the next-of-kin was involved in purchasing the tree and/or plaque for the deceased soldier.

In Toronto a living memorial, the groves of Coronation Park commemorate the service and sacrifice of Canada's military. The tree at the center of the circle, known as King's Oak, is the park's symbolic heart. Surrounding the King's Oak is a ring of maple trees representing the former British Empire's dominions and colonies. Trees in other groves commemorate Canada's military units, principally of the First World War.

In Victoria Shelbourne Street is designated as a Road of Remembrance or Memorial Avenue to serve as a tribute to fallen soldiers. The original intention was that Shelbourne Street should include one tree for every British Columbian who died in the war. The London Planetree was selected because of its longevity. Some 600 trees were planted but that number proved insufficient as ten times as many men and women from British Columbia died in the Great War.

Trees used as memorials are seen as symbols of life that embodied the spirit of idealism that emerged following the horrors of the First World War.

The tradition of planting trees as a memorial has not ended.  In 2013 local Boy Scouts and adults in planted Maple trees as a tribute in Sarnia, Ontario’s Heritage Park.

While the immediate threat of war for Canada is low, fear of war has become more common. "Experts" warn of the heightened risk of being drawn into a regional conflict as a Western ally due to global instability. While a US invasion is highly unlikely public tensions have increased and many of those same experts suggest that we need to move to a wartime footing in all respects – economically, socially, politically as well as militarily.

New data from the non-profit Angus Reid Institute finds half (49%) of Canadians willing to fight for their country in the event of an armed conflict, but among this half, most say they would only do so if they “agreed with the reasons for fighting”. History teaches us that if armed conflict should erupt many will discover that, regardless of the circumstances, they do agree with the reasons for fighting 

On this Remembrance Day let us pray that no more memorials will be needed, that no more trees will have to be planted.

 They went with songs to the battle, they were young,

Straight of limb, true of eye, steady and aglow.

They were staunch to the end against odds uncounted;

They fell with their faces to the foe.

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old: 

Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.

At the going down of the sun and in the morning

We will remember them.

REMEMBRANCE DAY, NOVEMBER 11, 2024

 

On Remembrance Day, originally called Armistice Day,  on November the 11th, at 11 a.m.  Canadians recognize all those who have served in the nation’s defence.

Remembrance Day, as we know it, has gone through periods of intense observation and periodic decline. 

The original Armistice Day, inaugurated in 1919 throughout much of the British Empire, was observed on the second Monday in November. In Canada Parliament passed an Armistice Day bill to observe ceremonies on the first Monday in the week of 11 November, but this combined the event with the Thanksgiving Day holiday. For much of the 1920s, Canadians observed the date with little public demonstration. Veterans and their families gathered in churches and around local memorials, observances involved few other Canadians.

It was not until 1931 that the federal government decreed that the newly named Remembrance Day, a renaming intended to put the emphasis on the soldiers whose deaths were being remembered, would be observed on 11 November and that Remembrance Day would emphasize the memory of fallen soldiers instead of the political and military events leading to victory in the First World War.

It is now a national holiday for federal and many provincial government workers, and the largest ceremonies are attended in major cities by tens of thousands. The ceremony at the National War Memorial in Ottawa is nationally televised, while most media outlets – including newspapers, magazines, radio and television stations, and internet sources – run special features, interviews, or investigative reports on military history or remembrance-related themes.

Remembrance Day has proven to be a flexible event. It has grown to include the remembrance of war dead from the Second World War, the Korean War and the War in Afghanistan, at  well as from peacekeeping missions and other international military engagements. It now commemorates the more than 1.6 million Canadians have served in Canada’s Armed Forces and more than 118,000 have died in foreign conflicts.

Fashions change and it may well be that just as our attitude to Remembrance Day has changed in the pas, it may change in the future.  It has become easier for generations raised with the false belief that wars are optional to 'celebrate' Remembrance Day. There is no guarantee that this will always be so. 

As an example of changing attitudes take the lines from the fourth stanza of the poem “For the Fallen”, written by Laurence Binyon in 1914 which have became known as the “Ode of Remembrance” or the “Act of Remembrance.” Its lines are often engraved on cenotaphs, war memorials and headstones in war cemeteries throughout the English-speaking world, or spoken at Remembrance Day memorials.

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:

Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn;

At the going down of the sun, and in the morning,

We will remember them.

Not so commonly repeated are the lines of the third stanza,

They went with songs to the battle, they were young,

Straight of limb, true of eye, steady and aglow.

They were staunch to the end against odds uncounted:

They fell with their faces to the foe

It would be fair to say that those sentiments are no longer fashionable. 

There are no guarantees about how future generations will remember the fallen, we can only hope that in that future, as in the past, there will always be some willing to step forward to insure that we are allowed to decide for ourselves what we choose to do on November 11th. Perhaps that is what Remembrance Day is really about, reminding ourselves that others have sacrificed so that we have those choices. 

 

KURSK, PAST AND FUTURE-TENSE

Black Swan events are, by definition, low probability events with outsized effects. There is a small but measurable chance that such an event could occur as a result of the wars ongoing in Ukraine and Russia

On August 6 Ukraine launched a surprise incursion with armour and infantry into the Kursk and Belgorod regions involving thousands of troops amounting to 14 brigades.

This invasion surprised western observers, most of whom seem to have missed the historic significance of an invasion of the Kursk region of Russia.

In July 1943 German forces launched Operation Citadel against Soviet forces in the Kursk salient during the Second World War on the Eastern Front that initiated the Battle of Kursk. For the Germans, this campaign, which included the largest tank battle in history, was the final strategic offensive that Germany was to launch on the Eastern Front.

The deliberate defensive operation that the Soviets implemented to repel the German offensive is referred to as the Kursk Strategic Defensive Operation. The extensive loss of men and tanks suffered by the German forces during the operations ensured that the victorious Soviet Red Army enjoyed the strategic initiative for the remainder of the war.

While the significance of this Russian victory of WWII may be lost on some who do not live in the region, it is hard to believe that the implications of an invasion of Russia in this area is not a factor for those directly involved in the current conflict.

One possible, if extremely unlikely, outcome would be the use of nuclear weapons, by Russian forces, to expel the Ukrainian invaders. The question must be asked; has the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons been lowered by the advance of Ukrainian army units into the Kursk region?

If such an admittedly low probability event should occur the effects would be enormous.

Even though all the consequences of the use of such weapons by Russia are hard to assess, it is fair to say that they might not all be negative for the current regime ruling that nation.

It would be difficult for some nations, based on their own current nuclear use policies, to condemn the use of nuclear weapons by Russia on their own soil against an invading army.

As Russia is currently the recipient of a host of economic and political sanctions, there is not much left in this sphere which can be used to punish Russia for flouting international norms.

The effect on other countries adjacent to Russia, those which currently condemn Russian actions in Ukraine, might be seen to be to Russian advantage, i.e. they might moderate their views out of renewed fear of hostilities.

The use of nuclear weapons would have incalculable effects on U.S. politics, but throwing U.S. politics into disarray is never a bad thing from Russia's point of view.

Negative consequences for Russia would involve, among other factors, a general weakening of the universal prohibition on the use of nuclear weapons. Offsetting this might be the belief, by Russian leadership, that such risks can be handled, at least in the short term, by a nuclear power.

Of course even more important is not what would happen in response to such an action, but rather what Russian leadership, that is to say Vladimir Putin, believes would happen.

In this regard it should be noted that according to the Institute for the Study of War the Kremlin's response to Ukraine's incursion into Kursk Oblast has emphasized how the Kremlin's internal priorities have increasingly oriented towards regime stability, especially over the past year.

In the most basic terms, what matters is that if  Putin believes the consequence of detonating one or more low yield nuclear weapons, hopefully in such a manner as to limit radioactive fallout, on Russian territory against invading Ukrainian forces is to advance his war aims, protect the borders of greater Russia against all possible enemies for a generation and to solidify his hold on power then the chances of this happening are more then zero.

Western responses in general and Canadian responses in particular to the chances of such an event are limited. Nor is it clear what could be done in the aftermath of the use of nuclear weapons by Russia in Russia.

In advance of such an event Global Affairs Canada could liaise with allies to try and determine what their responses would be. An attempt could be made to reassure partner nations that Canada would not change its policies in the aftermath of the use of nuclear weapons in a European conflict. It is not clear if this is indeed the fact.

After such an event both Global Affairs Canada and the Department of National Defence would have to re-examine many of their assumptions and plans.

Let us hope that this never becomes necessary and that the forgoing commentary is the result of faulty analysis and an overly active imagination.

A FEW THOUGHTS ON THE RIVER CLASS DESTROYERS

On June 28^th of this year it was announced that construction had officially begun on Canada’s fleet of Canadian Surface Combatants.

 Given that the design and design team contract was originally awarded in February of 2019, the announcement focused largely on federal government messaging about the naming of the class, in the future the CSC will be known as the River-class.

While the Miriam-Webster dictionary defines a destroyer as “a small fast warship used especially to support larger vessels and usually armed with guns, depth charges, torpedoes, and often guided missiles” the Canadian government, in their press release, have defined destroyers as “a powerful and multi-functional ship, that is a fast, maneuverable, anti-aircraft and anti-submarine long-endurance warship, which can escort larger vessels in a fleet, convoy, or carrier battle group and defend them against a wide range of general threats.”

This is a definition which more accurately describes the 8,800 ton displacement, missile armed ship previously know as the Canadian Surface Combatant.

As the Royal Canadian Navy’s next generation combat ship the CSC, or River class destroyers, will replace both the Iroquois class destroyers and the Halifax-class frigates.

While the Iroquois class ships have long been retired, the Halifax class ships, the first of which was launched in 1988, are still in service.  HMCS Ottawa, the most recently built unit of the 12 ship class, was launched in May of 1996. In the year 2050, the currently projected in service date for the last of the River class destroyers, she will be 54 years old.

When in service there were 4 Iroquois class destroyers, with a displacement of 5,100 long tons each, along with the currently serving 12 Halifax class frigates which displace 4,690 long tons each. The total tonnage of all 16 vessels being replace is 76,680 long tons.

 Compare this to the River class destroyers which, at a displacement of over 8,000 long tons each, come to a total of 121,200 long tons for the fifteen ships currently envisioned. 

As a note of interest, the 14 original River class destroyers of WW II fame displaced approximately 1,340 long tons each for a total of 18,760 long tons.

The graphic provided with the announcement indicates that the government in continuing with the choice of the Leonardo 127mm gun rather then the BAE MK 45 as used by our allies. Explanations of this choice have been less then coherent.

It has been noted that there appears to have been a reduction in weapons on the CSC. Originally the RCN appeared to suggest that there would be 32 Missile Vertical Launch Systems on each combatant. Now, that has been reduced to 24. No explanation was provided.

With only 24 VLS systems the River Class will be seriously under-armed by modern AAW destroyer standards, and will likely be one of the expensive in terms of missile cells/launchers by platform cost and size.

 One of the reasons for the loss of VLS tubes is explained by fact sheet published with the June 28 announcement showing  the Rolling Airframe Missile replacing the previously selected CAMM Sea Ceptor for the close in defence role. 

While it is true that there was an overlap between the capabilities of the CAMM and the RIM-162 ESSM Sea Sparrow air defence missiles that are to be carried in some of the VLS launchers, with the loss of CAMM it means that more of the relatively few VLS tubes may have to be devoted to the Sea Sparrow missiles leaving fewer tubes available for other weapons.

Aft of the RAM launcher are two Leonardo Lionfish 30/X 30mm stabilized rapid-fire guns. While having some point defence capabilities it is assumed that the choice of these weapons was also driven by the emerging threats of attack drones, both airborne and naval. 

What is not clear is why it was decided that these weapons were so superior to the BAE Mark 38 25 mm machine gun system currently used on the Canadian Navy's  Harry DeWolf-class offshore patrol vessels that the advantages outweighed the costs of introducing a new and untried weapons system with all its entailed logistic, training and operational costs. 

Of course all of this is speculation. As unlikely as it seems, nobody, including the Navy and the Government, really know exactly what their new warship will look like or how it will be equipped.

It has been reported that government officials acknowledged they don’t have a final cost for the project. It is an indictment of the entire procurement process that is producing these ships that even though ship design started in February 2019 and the preliminary design review was completed in December 2022 they also still don’t have a final design.

 

 

 

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/news/2024/06/construction-begins-for-canadas-new-warship-fleet--the-river-class-destroyers.html

https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/amd-dp/mer-sea/sncn-nss/navcom-surfcom-eng.html#a2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMCS_Ottawa_(FFH_341)

https://www.naval-technology.com/news/canadas-new-river-class-destroyers-begin-construction/

https://vanguardcanada.com/canadas-next-generation-warship-fleet-the-river-class-destroyers-set-sail/

https://www.canada.ca/en/navy/corporate/fleet-units/surface/river-class-destroyer/fact-sheet.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_River-class_destroyer

https://jgmjgm516.blogspot.com/2023/10/why-is-canada-procuring-5-inch-naval.html

https://jgmjgm516.blogspot.com/2023/12/does-anyone-really-know-what-is-going.html

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2020/11/royal-canadian-navy-unveils-new-details-on-csc-frigates/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAMM_(missile_family)#Operators

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-116_Rolling_Airframe_Missile#Service

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Combat_System#Operators

https://www.espritdecorps.ca/feature/introducing-the-river-class-destroyer-the-rcns-new-warship

SOME "ANSWERS" FROM THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF CANADA ABOUT DEFENCE

After posting I'D RATHER HAVE AN AIRFORCE THAN A NATIONAL PHARMACARE PROGRAM Canadian Defence Matters sent an abbreviated version of the post to a variety of politicians, it said;

I believe that as a citizen it is my duty to make my priorities clear to my representatives in government. I am contacting you to with these priorities in mind.

 I am not sure how many people realize that Canada doesn't really have an Air Force.

 We don't have enough transport aircraft to meet our stated needs. We don't have enough search and rescue aircraft for a country this size, nor do we have the numbers of long range reconnaissance/patrol aircraft our lengthy coastlines demand. Many of the helicopters we use are aging and we do not have a viable number of lift helicopters.  Even more important, we don't have the personnel to properly maintain and fly the aircraft we do have. All these shortcomings are most evident, and most troubling, in our fighter fleet.

 The fleet of operational Cf-18 Hornet jet fighters is currently down to about 37 aircraft.  This fleet size is sufficient only to sustain domestic NORAD operations. In fact it has been announced that the RCAF would withdraw from NATO commitments for the foreseeable future. Even more problematic is the lack of pilots and support personnel, which may even lead to the Air Force being unable to fulfill the NORAD alert mission requirements in full. This will only get worse as the F-35 transition gets underway in the coming years. It is more than likely that there will be insufficient personnel to staff both aircraft types, which will likely result in even fewer available CF-18s to meet the alert role.

Aside from the very real threats posed to Canadian security by this situation, what will happen when the United States loses confidence in its northern neighbour to be a stalwart, binational partner? What will happen if the U.S. believes that there is a serious security threat that needs to be met by NORAD and that Canada is not capable of fulfilling our obligations to continental defence?

I believe that there will be real world consequences that will impact Canada negatively. When that happens, when Canadians realize that not having an Air Force have consequences that affect Canadian sovereignty and security, we will blame the politicians for getting us in this mess. 

The politicians will blame the generals and the generals in turn will complain about the politicians. 

The truth is, it will be our fault. Canadian Citizens have not made Defence a priority for their leaders. We have chosen an illusory security and short term gains over real security and long term planning. We have taken the easy way and there will be no one else to blame but ourselves.

So I have decided that the time has come to tell our political leaders something different. If asked in the future I am going to tell anyone who will listen that: 

I'D RATHER HAVE AN AIRFORCE THAN A NATIONAL PHARMACARE PROGRAM

I received replies from James Bezan, the Conservative party shadow minister for National Defence and, eventually, from Pierre Poilievre, leader of the official opposition.

Dear J.G.,

Thank you for taking the time to share your concerns with me regarding our Royal Canadian Air Force.

 

I agree that Canada's Air Force is essentially unable to meet our NORAD and NATO partnership commitments, which degrades our standing amongst our allies who depend on us for binational and multilateral security.

 

Under the Trudeau Liberals, our fighter pilots and technicians have left in droves in response to Liberal politicking with fighter jet procurement. After a naive election promise never to purchase the F-35, Justin Trudeau ran a years long competition only to select the F-35 in the end. In the interim he spent a billion dollars purchasing used jets from Australia as old as our current obsolete fleet. 

 

When Canada finally takes delivery of the F-35 in the mid 2030's, barring further delays, we will not have the staffing necessary to fly or maintain them.  The fault lies at the feet of Justin Trudeau and his contempt for our men and women in uniform. 

 

Conservatives understand that rebuilding our Air Force and the CAF in general will not happen overnight, but we understand the national security implications of allowing our military to further erode. At a time of increased geopolitical instability at levels not seen since the Cold War, and increased great power competition, Conservatives will bring home security for Canadians.

 

Thank you again for sharing your thoughts with me, and for your concern for our Royal Canadian Air Force.

 Sincerely,

James Bezan, MP

Shadow Minister for National Defence

I replied as follows;

James Bezan,

 Thank you for your reply to my email. I appreciate your concern for our armed forces and agree with you that 'politicking' is a key reason for many of the problems we have. Unfortunately, blaming Justin Trudeau personally for all the problems our defence establishment suffers from is just another example of the kind of behavior that has handicapped the Canadian Armed Forces for so long.

 I understand that if you wish to bring in new policies you need to form a government, and I understand that the Liberal Party of Canada has worked long and hard to sell Justin Trudeau as their 'brand leader' so it becomes incumbent upon you, if you wish to attack the brand, to attack the spokesman. But phrases like "Justin Trudeau and his contempt for our men and women in uniform." are not just pointless,(and probably untrue) they suggest that you are more interested in politicking then in dealing with the real problems we face. 

We have real issues with recruiting and retention, getting rid of Justin Trudeau will not create more jobs for spouses of service personnel in places like Cold Lake or Bagotville. It won't help with unaffordable housing or the frequent moves that make military service so unappealing for so many. We have real problems that are going to need hard choices to fix. 

My main point was that I was willing to forgo spending on social problems so as to be able to put more resources into Defence. I know you want to "bring home security for Canadians." but how do you intend to pay for that, where is the money coming from? Find some good answers to those questions and your party is more likely to get my vote in the future.

J.G. Murray

I received the following response.

Dear J.G.,

Thank you for your follow up email. I appreciate your thoughts and concerns. 

I can say that conversations are always happening both at the Standing Committee on National Defence and within the Conservative team about what needs to happen to fix the issues facing the Canadian Armed Forces. Our defence policy and costed platform will be released in due course. Until then, I am unable to share the specifics of what a future Conservative government will do, but rest assured it is front of my mind. 

 

Thank you again for your correspondence. 

James Bezan, MP

Shadow Minister for National Defence

This reply was received from Pierre Poilievre, leader of the official opposition.

Dear J.G. Murray:

On behalf of the Hon. Pierre Poilievre, thank you for your correspondence.  We have noted your concerns regarding the Canadian military and national defence spending.   

After nine years of Trudeau, our military has been gutted and left in a state of disrepair.  Trudeau has failed our Canadian Armed Forces and the men and women who serve.  In 2017, the Liberals released their first Defence Policy document Strong, Secured, Engaged, which proved to be a book of empty promises. They have missed every marker set out by the original defence policy for defence spending.

In fact, this Liberal government has let over $10 billion lapse in the last eight years and recently cut the defence budget by another $1-billion.  Under the Liberals’ watch, we are short almost 16,000 troops this year and a further 10,000 troops are undertrained and undeployable.  After eight years of Trudeau, he has hollowed out our military and only 58% of our forces stand ready to deploy.

Further, Canada’s stature as a trusted and reliable NATO partner has been diminished under this Liberal government.  Last year, the Trudeau government spent 1.29% of our GDP on defence, putting Canada 25th out of 29 NATO members.  Two years after the war in Ukraine began, this borders on negligence.

Our allies no longer take Canada seriously. Under the Liberals watch, our warships are rusting out, our fighter jets are worn out, our army has been hollowed out and we are so short of sailors, soldiers and aircrew that our troops are burnt out.  Entire air squadrons are being shut down because they don't have enough personnel. Our submarines are barely in the water and our warships are aging faster than expected and the Liberals’ plan to replace them is still years away. 

As the world is gripped with Russian aggression, it is more important than ever for our military to have the equipment it needs to protect our vast borders and support our NATO allies.  Conservatives support the commitments Canada has made to NATO, and we must make an effort to meet them.

Common sense Conservatives are the only party that will stand with our troops and ensure they have the equipment and resources they need to do their important work.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to write.

Sincerely,

Correspondence Unit
Office of the Leader of the Official Opposition

I replied as follows;

Correspondence Unit, Office of the Leader of the Official Opposition

 Thank you for responding on behalf of the Hon. Pierre Poilievre. I share your concerns about the Canadian Armed Forces, but it is not clear from your email what you plan to do about the problems you catalogue. If you will recall, the suggestion in my initial correspondence was that I was prepared to forgo some social spending in order to increase spending on the Armed Forces.

  What increases in the budget of the DND do you foresee under a Conservative government?  I would also be interested to know if you plan to fund any increases by way of cuts to other programs or by raising taxes.  Does a Conservative government under Pierre Poilievre expect to reach the NATO target of spending a minimum of 2% of GDP on defence and, if so, do you have a spending plan to achieve that goal?

Thank you again for reaching out, I look forward to hearing from you.

J.G. Murray

In the event that more replies of note are received I will pass them on.