Industry minister Tony Clement was interviewed (complete video at right on link) Sept. 21 on CBC News Network’s Power and Politics about the government’s decision to buy the F-35.  Almost all the discussion was about future Canadian industrial participation in the fighter’s production; nothing was said by the minister (nor interviewer Evan Solomon) about what military roles the government expects the F-35 to perform and what capabilities are required for them.  What choosing the plane is all about: for the government it’s the economy–and jobs and votes–stupid, not really the CF:

Industry Minister Tony Clement insisted on Tuesday that the government’s plan to spend $9 billion on 65 fighter jets would ensure that Canadian companies aren’t ignored from future defence contracts relating to the purchase.

During an interview Tuesday on Power & Politics with Evan Solomon, Clement spoke about a 2006 memorandum of understanding [text here, section 7.3, p. 48, seems to be the key; it does say that industries in countries actually buying the aircraft do in fact have preferential status--but subject to "best value", which rather muddies things] signed by Ottawa and a number of other countries regarding the U.S-led Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program and the purchase of a new generation of fighter jets.

Clement said that according to the memo, the aerospace industries of countries ordering the planes get a preferred line on bidding for some of the contracting work to build components of the jet.

He referred to one section of the memo that states participants in the JSF program require the main contractor of the jets to select subcontractors from participating nations, “on a competitive, best value basis to the maximum practical extent.”

But a 2008 news release issued by then industry minister Jim Prentice [text here] appeared to suggest that Canada did not have to purchase the planes to obtain preferential treatment for its aerospace companies.

It stated that Canada’s participation in the program still “makes it eligible to benefit from the preferential condition and advantages reserved for JSF partners.”

The news release added that “this participation does not commit it to purchase the aircraft.”

Asked about the 2008 release, and the fact that it seemed to contradict Clement’s interpretation, Clement said the release made no sense to him and that he would talk to Prentice about it at the first opportunity.

Clement insisted however that the memo states that “in order to have preferential access to the bidding process, you have to be a participating country.”..

There’s much more detail about the MoU in the video; CBC did some good and serious research. The following is from a December 2006 story by the American Forces Press Service:

Canada, Australia, U.K. Sign Joint Strike Fighter Agreements

With the first flight of the Joint Strike Fighter set for this week, Canada, the United Kingdom
and Australia have “re-enlisted” for the program.

Canada signed on for the project’s production, sustainment and follow-on development phase during a Pentagon ceremony here yesterday. Australia signed on today as part of the U.S.-Australia ministerial meetings at the State Department, and the United Kingdom signed at a Pentagon ceremony today.

The Joint Strike Fighter is the Defense Department’s program for a “multi-role” stealth air-to-ground strike aircraft. The Navy, Air Force, Marines and allies are developing the system together.

Canadian Deputy Defense Minister Ward Elcock and U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England signed a memorandum of understanding that calls on Canada to pledge $150 million toward production of the Joint Strike Fighter. Canada already has contributed $150 million to the system-development and demonstration portion of the program…

Elcock stressed that the program demonstrates how well the United States and Canada can work together. “The program will allow the United States and Canada to continue to benefit from each others’ wealth of technology and expertise,” he said.

Canada expects to retire its CF-18 fleet sometime after 2017, Elcock said. “Canada needs to explore what it needs from the next generation of fighter aircraft,” he said. “Our continued involvement in this project will help us determine our future fighter requirements for the Canadian Forces [so no commitment to buy at that time either]. Certainly, one capability we know we want to have is interoperability with the United States and our allies.”..

Earlier:

Canada and the F-35: Not much news here about possibility of a competition/Peter MacKay Update

The US Marine Corps, the F-35, and the Super Hornet–4.5 for Canada?

F-35: Video of Gov’t ministers before Commons’ national defence committee/Real reason for decision Update

Update: Round-up article from Defense Industry Daily:

Canada Preparing to Replace its CF-18 Hornets

Plus a balanced comment at Milnet.ca:

In fairness to Industry Minister Tony Clement, he is supposed to talk about industrial benefits and Canadian industry participation in the programme. Defence Minister Peter MacKay is supposed to explain the defence requirements and why the JSF is the answer to a military maiden’s prayers.

And see the following comment, relevant to this:

New fighters, Joint Support Ships, and Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships: What’s good enough?/Canada and the F-35 competition Update

US Upperdate: Thirty aircraft for Americans, note just one firm foreign sale, no price per plane given:

Pentagon, Lockheed sign F-35 contract

As for the Dutch (and Danes):

While the US government has completed negotiations with Lockheed Martin covering the fourth low rate initial production (LRIP) batch of F-35s, discussions about the price of the engines – covered by a separate contract – are not complete. This was disclosed by the Netherlands Ministry of Defense in a letter to Parliament yesterday [Sept. 23].

Despite Lockheed Martin’s predictions of bargain prices, the Dutch government is still bracing for higher-than-expected costs.

The defense ministry says that it is still waiting for US government’s approved CAPE cost estimate for the F-35A. (CAPE figures so far lump the three variants together.) However, the defense ministry has told parliament that it it is working with the JSF Program Office and its own government auditors to analyze the cost of the Dutch program. “To all appearances, the impact on the F-16 replacement project will be considerable,” parliament is told.

The ministry has also formally confirmed to Parliament that, if the JSF buy is approved by the next government [emphasis added], first production deliveries will be slipped to 2016 from 2014, in line with the delayed completion of development testing announced in March.

This follows Denmark’s decision to delay its own [F-35] fighter program…

More Dutch details:

September 24: In a statement to the Dutch parliament, the Minister of Defence Eimert van says that the cost of the F-35A for the Royal Netherlands Air Force faces a “considerable increase” and that the impact on the F-16 Replacement Project will also be “considerable”.

Van Middelkoop said that since the last report in 2009 the average cost per aircraft has risen from $69.2 million (€51.4 million) to $92.4 million (€68.6 million). To offset some of this cost the Dutch Ministry of Defence has pushed back the first delivery two years from 2014 to 2016.

Current plans are for 85 F-35As to be purchased in two batches (57 and 28 aircraft) to replace the entire F-16 fleet of 100 aircraft.

Why cannot (or will not) our government gives us any serious estimate of our price per plane?  Interesting also, is it not, that the Netherlands–a very small country geographically and with half our population–is planning to buy more new fighters than Canada?

Mark
Ottawa

This story in the Ottawa Citizen suggests a major revelation that makes the govenment look bad:

Air force expected bid process for new jets
Competition for contract worth billions was scheduled for this year, documents reveal

Air force officers working on the purchase of Canada’s new fighter planes expected there would a competition this year for the multibillion-dollar deal, according to Defence Department documents obtained by the Citizen.

The plan written by officers for the Next Generation Fighter Capability project called for a “competitive process” for both the aircraft and the long-term maintenance contract, according to the project outline developed in the summer of 2009. That schedule planned for the competition to be run in 2010, with a contract to be awarded by 2012, according to the project documents.

Instead, the Conservative government decided to proceed without a competition and select the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter built by U.S. aerospace firm Lockheed Martin…

I think the government already looks bad enough–e.g., see here, here, here and here. But it is hardly shocking news to discover that the Air Force was making plans for a possible new fighter competition. After all militaries engage in an awful lot of planning as a matter of course, and competition is the usual method for equipment procurement.

On the other hand it has long been clear that the Air Force really wanted the F-35. From Aviation Week & Space Technology, June 2009:

Canada is working to bring forward a decision on its new fighter to later this year, with the Lockheed Martin-led F-35 Joint Strike Fighter facing ostensible competition from the Boeing F/A-18E/F, Eurofighter Typhoon and Saab Gripen NG (Next Generation).

“We are trying to advance the decision to 2009,” says a Department of National Defense (DND) official. The intent, assuming the F-35 is selected, is to allow Canada to participate in a potential “consortium buy” promising better pricing and industrial rewards…

And from the Ottawa Citizen itself, August 2009:

Military favours stealthy jet to replace CF-18s
Sole-source deal for Joint Strike Fighters a mistake: critics [the link has vanished, but part of the story can still be seen here and I have kept more of it in my personal files]

The Defence Department is recommending a multibillion-dollar sole-source purchase of a U.S. stealth-like aircraft to replace Canada’s CF-18 fighter jets.

Work is under way on a presentation to cabinet for approval to buy 65 Joint Strike Fighters, known as JSF, even though military leaders had earlier claimed that a competitive process would be followed in any CF-18 replacement…

Defence officials have always maintained that no decision has been made on whether JSF should be purchased. But a 2006 briefing report produced by the office of Dan Ross, the assistant deputy minister for materiel, concluded that JSF was the plane best suited for Canada…

Then there’s this from an Ottawa Citizen blog post in October 2009:

…
There is also strong support for a JSF purchase within the Canadian Air Force. In May 2006 the Chief of the Air Staff completed an options analysis study that examined the future global market for next-generation tactical fighter aircraft.

“The results of this study have indicated that the JSF family of aircraft provides the best available operational capabilities to meet Canadian operational requirements, while providing the longest service life and the lowest per aircraft cost of all options considered,” according to a Sept. 19, 2006 briefing report entitled JSF Program. The report was prepared for then Defence Minister Gordon O’Connor by office of Dan Ross, the assistant deputy minister for materiel…

It’s worth noting though that in December 2006 the CF were saying there were possible alternatives to the F-35 and thus implicitly not ruling out a competetion; one never knows what goverments may eventually decide:

U.K., Canada Keep JSF Options Open

Even though Pentagon officials this week inked agreements with three of the eight Joint Strike Fighter partner nations, two of those countries will continue to examine secondary options to the F-35 in the coming months, international defense officials tell Inside the Air Force.

Representatives from the United States, Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom all approved an international memorandum of understanding solidifying the participation of those nations for the next stage of development on the fifth-generation aircraft…

…
While echoing the sentiment that preliminary evaluations of the F-35 have shown the aircraft to be the answer to its fighter requirements [emphasis added, observe the "prliminary"], Canadian defense officials are also looking at potential alternatives to the fifth-generation aircraft.

“I think that we are going to look at the full spectrum of capabilities to meet future operational requirements,” [Michael] Slack [Canada’s Joint Strike Fighter program manager] said in the interview. “If something emerges that turns out to be extremely capable, who knows? I do not have a crystal ball anymore than you do.”

Canadian defense officials are eying the 2012 time frame for a final decision [so why the rush now? see this post again]…

Production aircraft seen as possible alternatives to the JSF include the JAS 39 Gripen and the Eurofighter Typhoon, along with upgraded versions of the Super Hornet, Col. Dave Burt, Canada’s director for air requirements, said in a brief Dec. 11 interview with ITAF [Inside the Air Force]…

So more of that normal planning even with a preference. Keeep in mind also that the 2006 agreement clearly in no way committed Canada actually to buying the F-35.

Update: Towards the end of this interview this morning on CFRA Ottawa,

…
Madely in the Morning – 7:45am — Steve Madely is joined by Defence Minister Peter Mackay to discuss his announcement to pump $2 billion into helping the country’s most severely injured veterans.
mp3 (click here to download)…

the MND is asked about the F-35. He says Canada is “getting a preferred price” (why not tell us exactly what it is then?) and that our Air Force will have the “best fighter aircraft on the planet” (Peter has apparently forgot the F-22, but then it’s not for export).  As for getting the best, that clearly does not apply to the Navy, odd that.

Mark
Ottawa

Further to this post,

F-35: Video of Gov’t ministers before Commons’ national defence committee/Real reason for decision Update

goings-on in the US Senate (remember this is still preliminary, er, skirmishing):

Key Senators Eye Cut to JSF Order In 2011
…
The JSF provisions…could challenge Lockheed’s plan to meet envisioned program economies as the industrial team is counting on a production ramp-up. But at a hearing Sept. 14, Senate Appropriations Committee (SAC) Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), who also chairs the defense subcommittee, pointed to the protracted haggling over the next low-rate initial production award as justification for cutting spending (Aerospace DAILY, Sept. 14).

“I would inform my colleagues that the Defense Department has not yet awarded a contract to build the 30 aircraft, which the Congress funded nearly a year ago,” Inouye said.

In turn, the panel’s bill so far funds just 32 F-35s — six for the Navy, 10 for the Marines Corps and 16 for the Air Force. The legislative language also defers follow-on software development and cuts Navy test funds “due to under-execution.”..

Tough getting those costs down, Peter, Tony and Rona.

Update: Do read this very well-thought out comment by GR66 at Milnet.ca on the lack of governments’ thinking seriously about what they require the CF to do–and the ensuing problems that causes for procurement.

Mark
Ottawa

They’re live on CPAC (Update: here’s the continuing link, watch it and…the second panel, with senior officers and bureaucrats, was somewhat better though I do not think the CAS made a compelling argument that Canada must have the F-35).  Hint: it’s mainly about pork(c), i.e., jobs! votes!–look at the ministers appearing and all the contracts and future prospects they’re citing.  I guess Lockheed Martin both twisted the government’s arms very hard and made a whole lot of noise, with implied promises, about future contract opportunities.  We’ll see what that noise is worth.  And don’t believe the claims about total eventual international sales, see here and Update here.

Earlier:

What the F-35 is mainly about [a bomb truck]

And a whole bunch of posts here, plus more at a Milnet.ca topic thread.

Update:  The truth about the government’s decision.  At 11:00 industry minister Clement said that if Canada had not agreed this year to purchase the F-35 LM would have shut Canadian companies out of participating in much bidding for future  contracts for the overall F-35 program.  All about industrial benefits, made clear.

Ministers made no case as to why we need specifically “next generation” (“fifth generation”), i.e., stealth, fighters.  The only military argument made for the new fighter was that it is necessary for airspace control/defence–for which stealth is not necessary.  No mention was made by either the government or opposition that the F-35′s primary role is as a bomb truck.  Otherwise almost all the the talk, from all parties, was about those industrial benefits.

What a pathetic Commons.  The F-35 may be the right fighter for our Air Force.  But the government cannot explain why convincingly in military terms, only in potential economic advantages.  The ministers kept referring to a supposed “statement of requirements” developed by the Air Force.  Yet those requirements seem to boil down solely to that stealth.  Without, to repeat, any clear indication from the government of why stealth is in fact essential.

The ultimate silliness that points out the general ignorance involved in Canadian political discussions of defence: a Liberal M.P., Scott Simms, made it clear he thought stealth means invisibility to the naked eye.  Help.

More recent points of mine:

…The only mission for which stealth is a necessity is initial attack against heavy and effective air defence systems (first days of war). I cannot see Canada taking part in any such operations–or if we did, with a total of 48 operational F-35s, bringing much to the table.

Stealth also is a great advantage in aerial combat, a necessity in certain limited circumstances such as when seriously outnumbered against very advanced aircraft (see 187 F-22s) . We have not engaged in aerial combat since the Korean War [oops update--RCAF Sabres did not fly in Korea, just pilots seconded to USAF]. And again, the number of aircraft we could bring to the party would not add much to a serious allied effort.

As I keep writing, the USN is still buying Super Hornets for the other attack/fighter roles–plus dogfighting is some circumstances. I simply do not see why our Air Force needs to be capable of doing even more–with extremely limited numbers–than what will remain for many years the majority of the USN’s fighter force.

Plus:

FoverF:

…
As for the critiques of the F-35s performance, there are valid points to be made here. It is not a dogfighter in the mold of the teen series fighters. It is more of a fighter-bomber, and perhaps most analagous to the F-105 Thunderchief, which is not a particularly renowned dog-fighter…

As far as I can see the only non-discretionary role for which the Canadian government absolutely requires that the Air Force have fighters is national airspace control/defence (unless we let the US do it). Any expeditionary deployments, numbers of planes and mission, esp. for combat (think Afstan), are a matter of foreign policy and happen most infrequently.

Thus it does not seem to me that the sort of aircraft you describe above–accurately in my view–is necessarily the sort of fighter that should be sole-sourced as the Air Force’s next fighter. It really is a question of what the planes are for in practical and probable uses. And what will do for those uses at a reasonable cost.

It also seems to me that the small number of F-35s that we could contribute to any allied action that required the aircraft’s special capabilities would in fact add little to the prospects of that action–and thus would not derive any particular foreign policy benefits from our government’s deploying that particular fighter as opposed to another type of modern one that could contribute in other roles.

Frankly, I think the basis for this government’s decision is, under a lot of pressure from LockMart (and the US gov’t?), possible jobs and votes whoopee! Not military, or foreign policy, factors at all.

Looks like I was right, see start of the Update.

Upperdate thought: This decision (not a contract yet) is not about traditional offset IRBs; it’s a fairly risky gamble when put under the gun by LM’s saying if we don’t commit now many fewer contracts will be available in a couple of years after a competition:

…
Normally when aircraft are purchased, governments get iron-clad guarantees, called industrial regional benefits, that commit companies to spend dollar-for-dollar the value of the contract in Canada.

Clement conceded the arrangement with Lockheed Martin provides no such guarantees and that Canadian companies will have to bid on opportunities, but if they win, they’ll be providing parts and services to the entire fleet…

The government’s decision has little, if anything, to do with defence or foreign/strategic policy considerations. The government is betting that Canadian companies will make a lot more money, and get better quality contracts, than would be the case through traditional IRBs were another plane chosen.

Riverboat types, eh?

Mark
Ottawa

Further to the Upperdate at this post,

Why we need F-35s, or, do the Russians have a radar that can reach Cold Lake?/Nuclear Voodoo Update thought/Boys in blue ties Upperdate

the government sure keeps trying to get those votes in Québec:

Deal keeps Mirabel firm aloft
$468-million accord with fees Contract to maintain CF-18 fighter jets would save 500 jobs, L-3 MAS says

L-3 MAS (Canada) Inc. of Mirabel pocketed a $468-million cheque from Prime Minister Stephen Harper yesterday for the last contract to maintain Canada’s aging fleet of 78 CF-18 fighter jets.

The deal runs to 2017, with possible extensions to 2020 that would add $86 million to the contract’s value and maintain 500 jobs at L-3 MAS’s Mirabel plant.

After the elaborate photo op and announcement ceremony -at which Harper answered briefly to only five questions -L-3 MAS president Sylvain Bedard told reporters that without the agreement, his company would have had to fire 500 employees…

But the bigger prize by far still eludes L-3 MAS, the Canadian subsidiary of New York City-based L-3 Communications, a major global provider of aircraft maintenance and modernization services.

That would be a deal to service the CF-18′s successor, the 65 Joint Strike Fighter CF-35s the federal government recently agreed to buy from Lockheed Martin for $9 billion. The maintenance and servicing clause of that deal is worth another $7 billion.

In a brief interview, National Defence Minister Peter Mackay said L-3 MAS “certainly has the inside track (to snag the CF-35 deal), especially after the job they’ve done (on the CF-18) all these years.”

“The great thing is that they would be in line not just for the 65 (CF-35s), but possibly for other armed forces as well. I mean, (Lockheed Martin) sold 3,000 of those things.”..

Via Spotlight on Military News and International Affairs.

I mean, those jet fuel fumes really are getting to poor Peter’s brain if he thinks other countries are going to give up their own pork to have their F-35s maintained in Canada Québec. And if he believes Lockheed Martin has actually sold 3,000 F-35s he’s truly in cloud cukoo land; he might do well to read this post:

Fighter sales prospects

Plus the “…F-35 fact check Update” here.

Update: More Conservative pork-o-mania here and here, via John Robson.  Dig the audio of his weekly Friday morning interview at CFRA Ottawa this morning, today on the nth resurrection of the Palestinian peace “process”, Iraq, Afstan, health care run by central planning–plus the federal government’s seeming insatiable propensity for pushing pork.  Mr Robson is a rare Canadian who can speak with real knowledge, fierce intelligence, and wicked wit.

Upperdate: I won’t link to this Ottawa Citizen story,

Russian planes don’t often fly into Canadian territory: Documents

since the only “expert” it quotes is St. Steve Staples.

Mark
Ottawa

…of our Afghan combat mission:

Kingston man to lead troops
AFGHANISTAN: Brig.-Gen. Dean Milner will oversee mission until July 2011

A Kingston man is next in line to be the head of Canadian Forces in Afghanistan.

Brig.-Gen. Dean Milner will deploy to Afghanistan on Aug. 31 to take over as Commander of Joint Task Force Afghanistan from Brig.-Gen. Jonathan Vance.

Milner was quarterback for the Frontenac High School Falcons, which beat Regiopolis-Notre Dame in the 1979 Kingston area football championships by a score of 2-1.

Milner said he will be in command a total of 5,000 soldiers in Joint Task Force, including roughly 3,000 Canadian soldiers [see last link at end of post].

He said his nine-month term as commander will be a crucial period in the Kandahar region, where Canadian Forces are based.

“My particular area will be a big focus in the coming months,” he said. “Kandahar is one of the main focuses to resolve. It’s getting a lot of the heat and light.

“There’s a realization that a lot of the insurgents are working in the area and they’re having an impact on Kandahar City [more on the city].”

With Canadian Forces scheduled to begin withdrawal from Afghanistan by the time Milner finishes his term in July 2011, he said one of his main goals is to create a stable environment for whatever organization takes over the Canadian post.

“We’ll make a smooth transition to some NATO force or the Afghans themselves [almost certainly the poor bloody GIs],” he said. “Our goal is to hand a lot of responsibilities to the Afghan national army and Afghan national police as well.”

Milner said he’s designated one particular district under his command that shows potential to be completely Afghan-run.

“In the district of Dand, I’m confident that we can get the Afghans in the right direction,” he said [more here].

“This is a district has the right Afghan leadership, it’s got Afghan national police that have recently been well trained and we’re going to put in the Afghan national army.”..

Milner said preparing much of the Canadian military infrastructure for removal come July will be a task unique to his term as commander [more here].

He will receive an additional team of 200 around December to begin disassembling equipment…

Milner said he has planned his term with the understanding that Canadian Forces will move out on schedule in July.

“We’ve worked very closely with the Afghan national army and the leadership. We’ve established some very close ties so leaving won’t be easy but the bottom line is it’s going to happen [emphasis added].”..

Offical biography here (via Spotlight on Military News and International Affairs):

…

…

Meanwhile, in a district that was once the CF’s responsibility:

United States, Afghan forces prepare for major assault on the birthplace of the Taliban

HOWZ-E-MADAD, Afghanistan – As Lt. Col. Peter N. Benchoff prepares for an assault next month into the birthplace of the Taliban, he doesn’t sugarcoat the hurdles his troops face in this crucial swath of southern Afghanistan.

“Security sucks. Development? Nothing substantial. Information campaign? Nobody believes us. Governance? We’ve had one, hour-long visit by a government official in the last 2 1/2 months,” the battalion commander says. “Taliban is the home team here.”

“Here” is 116 square miles (300 square kilometres) of Zhari, a district just west of Kandahar through which the insurgents funnel fighters, drugs, explosives and stage attacks into the city…

Earlier:

“Canadian tragedy in Afghanistan”…

Afstan flash: One and half cheers for Peter MacKay/Dipper Update

Taking the“Can” out of Kandahar

Update: Some interesting observations about President Karzai’s plan to ban private security firms at BruceR.’s Flit.

Upperdate: After the last command:

Ottawa maps out post-combat role in Afghanistan
Internal documents reveal Ottawa’s vision for a ‘strictly civilian mission’ after 2011
…
A spring 2010 PowerPoint presentation, stamped “Secret, Canadian Eyes Only,” offers further evidence of how solidly committed Ottawa is to ending the military mission in Afghanistan despite pressure from allies to keep a combat force there.

The presentation, obtained under an access to information request for records from Chief of Defence Staff General Walt Natynczyk’s office, quotes Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s January, 2010, pledge that Afghanistan “will become a strictly civilian mission after 2011.”..

Defence officials said privately Monday the document was authored by the Privy Council Office – the central bureaucratic agency that serves the prime minister and is helping steer the Afghanistan mission.

…A Tory senator and even senior Liberals have talked up the prospect of keeping a soldiering force in the south-central Asian country past that date [2011, more here].

But Mr. Harper has been adamant that Canada’s combat mission – which has claimed the lives of 151 soldiers – will cease in 2011…

Canada’s post-2011 funding would include $9.7-million to support the RCMP’s international training program that deploys Mounties to Afghanistan to train local police [emphasis added]…

The presentation says that the “U.S., NATO and [other] allies” have asked for post-2011 contributions including training Afghan National Security Forces – a job that could require Canadian soldiers to stay behind…

So it’s OK for Mounties to stay on training the Afghan police but not for the CF to stay on doing non-combat training for the Afghan army. There is absolutely no logic in that, just political cowardice since the RCMP’s role has not been controvesial. Fie and hurl.

Mark
Ottawa

But what’s the government’s position?  The Minister of National Defence appears to have opened the door a fair way; now if only the Liberals are serious and come through it.  I am of course assuming the MND spoke with the prime minister’s authorization; apparently Mr MacKay spoke without it once before, see last para of first quote:

Canada could stay in Afghanistan: MacKay

Defence Minister Peter MacKay strongly suggested today that the Harper government is open to extending the Canadian military mission in Afghanistan beyond July, 2011, if agreement can be reached with the opposition.

“I know that Ignatieff and Rae have made comments recently about training, and extending the mission,” MacKay said while on a tour of CFB Meaford. “That’s all very interesting.”

The minister repeatedly stressed, however, that the current Parliamentary motion governing the mission in Afghanistan requires that it end in July of next year, with all forces withdrawn by December of 2011.

“There’s not a lot of flex as to what we can do, within the context of the parliamentary motion…. We’ll respect the letter of the motion.”

The motion, passed by the House of Commons in March of 2008, calls for a complete pullout by December of 2011 [only from Kandahar, see below] and leaves no room for further extensions.

However, in the past year there has been growing pressure from Canada’s allies, including the U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, for an extension in some capacity. The Afghan government is also pressing Canada to remain [more here].

Liberal foreign affairs critic Bob Rae returned from an Afghan visit earlier this summer and pointedly remarked that the Liberals would be open to an extension limited to training Afghan security forces [more from Adrian here].

Proponents of this option suggest such a move could be designed to limit Canadian troops to operating “inside the wire,” that is within the confines of fortified bases, which greatly reduces the risk of attack [see 2) here]…

In terms of any extension as a pure training mission, he said, “we’re examining all the options.”

In the past, when Prime Minister Stephen Harper or senior Canadian military officeres have been queried about an extension, they have flatly ruled it out [so has foreign minister Cannon--in late June MND MacKay was rather winging it: "Peter might be open to the idea [a non-combat training role], but this doesn’t mean that the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada is open to the idea.“]. Polls have consistently shown Canadians evenly divided on the Afghan mission [and we all know a responsible government decides key forign policy, national security and defence issues by poll]…

Milnews.ca:

…
I bet my loonie on government not changing its mind.

The truth of the 2008 Commons’ motion. The government, sadly, still continues to be so economical about the truth of it as to be mendacious. The motion does not require that the CF leave Afstan; it only refers to ending the Kandahar mission:

…this extension of Canada’s military presence in Afghanistan is approved by this House expressly on the condition that:
…

(c) the government of Canada notify NATO that Canada will end its presence in Kandahar as of July 2011, and, as of that date, the redeployment of Canadian Forces troops out of Kandahar and their replacement by Afghan forces start as soon as possible, so that it will have been completed by December 2011…

Update: Further flash, an e-mail just in from one of Taliban Jack’s boys, Brad Lavigne (I’m on his address list for some reason, maybe his people think bloggers are, er, cool):

My Fellow New Democrat,

For two years, Stephen Harper has repeatedly promised Canadians that the combat mission in Afghanistan would end in 2011.

Canadians were counting on it. They thought they could take Stephen Harper at his word. They were wrong.

Today we learned that Stephen Harper wants a backroom deal with Ignatieff’s Liberals to keep Canadian soldiers in the military mission past 2011.

The majority of Canadians have spoken. Parliament has spoken. We want the combat mission to end in 2011. Now I want you to help me get the word out about this backroom deal.

Click here to spread the word on Facebook.

Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff – do the right thing. Keep your promise to Canadians on Afghanistan.

Brad Lavigne,
National Director
Canada’s New Democrats

Mark
Ottawa

The headline reads: “Military relies on CSIS information in Afghanistan, MacKay admits.” But if you read the article, Defence Minister Peter MacKay did not say that the military “relies” on CSIS in Afghanistan. What he did do was acknowledge that the Department of Public Safety has been involved in Afghanistan:

“Officials from the Department of Public Safety (which includes CSIS) clearly do play an important role depending on what particular Taliban prisoners may have to say, what information is being sought, and clearly it’s in all our interests to have accurate information as we attempt to protect people — which is what we’re there to do.”

Peter MacKay didn’t say that CSIS plays an important role in developing intel from prisoners. He said that the Department of Public Safety, which includes CSIS, plays a role in gathering intelligence from detainees. It would have been nice if he had actually read the Canadian Press article before responding to these questions, because it makes it sound like he’s admitting that CSIS agents interrogate Taliban fighters. For reasons why that’s unlikely, read the back story.

But there is a vast chasm between saying something vague like admitting that CSIS plays a role in gathering intel from prisoners in Afghanistan in order to develop a comprehensive strategy to deal with the enemy, to copping to the assertions that have been made that CSIS in integral in interrogation and torture, or that it has some kind of technique to identify high-value targets under the constraints of the 96-hour rule.