Trudeau to rebut Trump’s charge of defence-spending lag with Latvia visit

STEVEN CHASE

Canadian Army soldiers attack during Silver Arrow 2017, the multinational military drills involving eleven NATO member countries in Adazi, Latvia on Oct 29, 2017.

The Canadian government is defending itself against accusations from U.S. President Donald Trump that Canada is falling short on defence spending, saying there are big military expenditure increases planned in future years and that this country always contributes to NATO deployments.

This rejoinder from Canada comes as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau heads to the Baltic country of Latvia to showcase a Canadian military deployment aimed at deterring Russian aggression.

One military analyst, however, says Canada is dodging, rather than answering, justified criticism by changing the subject to deployments from funding levels.

The Prime Minister will visit Latvia for two days, starting on July 9, before proceeding to a NATO meeting of heads of state and government in Belgium on July 11 and 12 – a gathering that promises to be fraught with tension over Russia.

Mr. Trudeau’s Baltic visit comes after Canada, and several other NATO allies, received letters from the Trump administration complaining they are not meeting a NATO commitment to undertake military spending equivalent to 2 per cent of annual economic output.

The Globe and Mail confirmed that Mr. Trudeau received a letter from Mr. Trump. Letters were also sent to Germany, according to The New York Times, and Reuters confirmed letters were sent to Britain, Belgium and Norway.

In the letter to Britain – the Americans’ staunch partner in Iraq and Afghanistan – the Trump administration went further. U.S. Defence Secretary James Mattis, the author of this letter, warned London it risks losing the ability to project power worldwide if it doesn’t boost military spending – despite the fact Britain already meets the 2 per cent target.

Russia’s 2014 annexation of Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula and its support for pro-Moscow separatists in the war in eastern Ukraine have disrupted relations between Moscow and the West and have revitalized the NATO military alliance.

For the past year, Canada has been leading a NATO battle group in Latvia that includes 450 Canadian soldiers, part of a significant buildup of troops and assets on the easternmost flank of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to counter Russian expansionism. Canada’s leadership of the battle group represents Canada’s largest sustained military presence in Europe in over a decade.

After the annexation of Crimea, NATO allies agreed that year to end defence-budget cuts, to start spending more as their economies grew and move toward a goal of 2 per cent of GDP for defence spending within a decade.

A spokesman for Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan defended Canada’s military commitment in the face of this latest criticism from the Trump administration, noting that the Trudeau government has promised to boost spending.

“In 2017, as part of a comprehensive review of Canadian defence spending, the Government of Canada committed to increasing [the Department of National Defence]’s funding by more than 70 per cent over the next decade,” Renée Filiatrault, director of communications to Mr. Sajjan, said in a statement.

“This plan has been rigorously costed, is fully funded, and serves Canada’s defence needs. It also upholds our long-standing role as an active contributor to global peace and security,” she said.

The Sajjan spokeswoman also underlined Canada’s long-standing contributions.

“The Canadian Army, Royal Canadian Navy and Royal Canadian Air Force are among the most engaged, agile, deployable and responsive armed forces within NATO. Canada is proud to have contributed to every NATO operation since the founding of the Alliance more than six decades ago,” Ms. Filiatrault said.

However, Charles Davies, a research fellow at the Conference of Defence Associations Institute, said that even with new budgetary commitments made in recent years, Canada is still not on track to hit the 2 per cent defence-spending target.

“The Canadian government obviously sees itself being on the wrong side of this discussion … because it refuses to engage in a direct conversation about the issue,” Mr. Davies said. “Instead, it continues to play bait-and-switch, trying to divert attention towards the entirely different subject of the politics around the commitment of forces to NATO operations. This is an intellectually dishonest response to valid criticism.”

This week, other NATO allies also pushed back at U.S. criticism.

In an e-mail on July 3 to the Associated Press, Norwegian Defence Minister Frank Bakke-Jensen said, “Norway stands by its decision of the NATO Summit in 2014 and is following up on this.”

Norway has spent “far beyond” NATO’s target on new military equipment, he added.

German Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen said on Tuesday, “We stand by the 2-per cent-goal we’ve set.” She added that “we’re on the path there. And we’re prepared … to take substantial responsibility within the alliance.”

When faced with the suggestion that such German explanations for not spending 2 per cent of GDP yet might not make an impression on Mr. Trump, she retorted: “We don’t want to impress anyone.”

Mr. Trump’s pre-NATO meeting letter-writing campaign is further ratcheting up geopoliticial tensions in the 69-year-old NATO alliance. The U.S. President is planning a controversial summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin for immediately after the NATO meeting. Mr. Trump, who has previously defended Russia’s annexation of Crimea, in recent days has left the door open to recognizing this land seizure.

Mr. Trudeau’s visit to Latvia follows a January, 2018, trip by Governor-General Julie Payette. He will be accompanied by Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland, Mr. Sajjan and General Jonathan Vance, Chief of the Defence Staff.

With files from Reuters and Associated Press

Smol: Trump Paying Attention to Canadian Defence Spending

By: Robert Smol, CBC News 

Defence procurement is the government promise that keeps on rebooting. At the moment, Canada is preparing to purchase 25 second-hand F-18 fighter jets from Australia — pending U.S. approval —as a stop-gap measure until it can replace its fleet with new jets. The earlier plan was to buy 18 used jets, making this the roughly zillionth update to Canada's defence procurement plan.

This de facto refusal to truly modernize our fighter jet fleet will make Canada look like the runt compared to our allies. And by "allies," I am referring mainly to nations beyond our increasingly rogue and unpredictable friend to the south; nations such as Australia, Denmark, Norway and the Czech Republic which, unlike Canada, are not allowing their government's fighter jet procurement plans to indefinitely sputter and stall.

In spite of promises made in the last budget, the Liberal government's modest defence procurement goals remain unfulfilled. In its 2017 spending roadmap, the Trudeau government promised $6.2 billion in capital spending in the first year. In actual fact, only $3.9 billion went to our emaciated forces.

The Harper government was actually not much better when it came to defence spending, despite its bellicose rhetoric in support of the military. On top of canceled programs and perennial delays, the Conservative government was also in the habit of making self-promoting announcements of new defence procurement initiatives, without actually earmarking the financing needed.

In fact, while in power, the Harper Conservatives allowed about $9.6 billion in military funding to lapse. Speaking to CBC in 2015, Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page noted that the government was not spending the defence dollars authorized by Parliament, suggesting that "National Defence is becoming a source of funds to reduce the deficit."

Relying on the U.S.

Could this perennial dithering be the result of institutional incompetence? Lack of political will? Or is it simply grounded in the assumption that the United States will always be willing to use its military, at no cost to us, to protect Canada for Canadians? My concern is that it's primarily the latter — a premise especially worrying under the current U.S. president, who has made it clear he cares little about the welfare of his allies.

In any case, it is telling that our commitment to defend our airspace, the second-largest in the world, will be a tiny fleet of second-hand fighters.

To reiterate: Canada is the anomaly among our allies. Regardless of their own political and economic challenges, smaller nations such as Australia, Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands have ensured that their air forces have the modern aircraft needed to do the job. Success in modern warfare requires high tech, highly mobile delivery of lethal force on key enemy targets in both offensive and defensive operations, as well as over long distances and over very short periods of time. Fighter jets are a leading edge in the delivery of that capability. We need them.

Procurement among allies

Norway has purchased and is in the process of acquiring 52 F-35 jets, with several already becoming operational. Denmark is buying 27 of the same. Next door, non-aligned Sweden continues its tradition of defence self-reliance with a deal to acquire 60 of the latest JAS-39Gripen, with plans to lease 14 jets each to the Czech Republic and Hungary.

Australia, from which Canada is getting our second-hand F-18s, has already purchased and is taking on a fleet of 72 new F-35 Lightning — ironically, the same aircraft that we might finally decide we need.

We might think we don't need to match these efforts. We might well choose to hold on to the delusion that our "polite" reputation and proximity to the U.S war machine will keep us safe.

But how reliable will the United States be as a guarantor of our own defence when, under its current administration, it unapologetically shuns, slanders and shames traditional allies, all while seeming to embrace countries like North Korea and Russia?

And even if the willingness was there, the U.S military is beginning to question its own ability to sustain consistent military superiority beyond its borders. The U.S Department of Defence's own risk assessment titled "At Our Own Peril," published in 2017, states that the U.S military "no longer enjoys an unassailable position versus state competitors" and that it no longer can "automatically generate consistent and sustained local military superiority at range."

So maybe a well-equipped Canadian air force — and entire military, for that matter — is both a practical necessity, as well as a symbolic imperative. We must be ready to act, as well as be seen to be ready to act, along with our allies.

Perhaps we could afford to live with the delusion that the United States would always be ready to come to our aid in the past. Not anymore.

----

Robert Smol served over 20 years in the Canadian Armed Forces. He is currently a teacher and freelance writer in Toronto.

Budget Flatlines Canadian Defence Spending

By: Ken Hanse, Macleans Magazine 

You really have to dig into Equality+Growth, the Liberal government’s 2018 budget document, to find any mention of defence spending at all. Only after more than 300 pages, in the Supplementary Information section, can you find a table that shows National Defence is the largest spender amongst government departments. At $25.5 billion, forecasted direct-program expenditures by National Defence will clock in at more than the next two departments—Indigenous Services Canada and the Canada Revenue Agency, which were both forecasted to spend $11.0 billion—combined.

The same table shows that the total for all direct programs spending from the government in 2018 will be $338.5 billion, so the defence part only comprises 7.53 per cent of that total. That seems minuscule until it’s compared with the $26.3 billion the government will pay covering the interest on the federal debt. Or—seen another way—given that the budget shortfall for 2018-19 is projected to be $18.1 billion, knowing what a significant portion of spending defence represents helps explain why it’s always a target for reduction.

Practically all Liberal governments of the past—and many Conservative ones too—have carved large amounts out of the defence budget to cut down on deficits. Recently, though, things have seemed different. Last year, the budget announced an eye-popping 70-per-cent increase to defence spending over the next decade, reaching $32.7 billion by the 2026/27 fiscal year, as part of the Liberals’ new defence policy, Strong, Secure, Engaged, released last year. This year, in addition to that significant top-line figure, there were some minor funding increases for the Defence Department; military family crisis centres will get $4 million over five years, plus $800,000 ongoing afterward. Operation IMPACT against ISIS will get $48 million over two years, but it will be refocused on security and stabilization efforts in Jordan and Lebanon. Work is ongoing to improve the military pension system and provide better care for disabled veterans.

So the likely course of action for the military leadership will be to hold their tongues and keep their heads down. But of course, there are problems—lots of them.

What was supposed to be a low-risk, two-year deployment to Afghanistan turned into the longest conflict in Canadian history. The army is broken and worn out. Beyond that, almost all major equipment systems are decades-old and the supporting infrastructure is in a deplorable state of disrepair. There are very great needs for increased defence spending just to rectify the material side of the house.

The human costs of Afghanistan have also been high. Suicide, depression and domestic violence are commonplace in the forces. Shortages of trained and effective members, most recently identified in the 2016 report of the Auditor General, have worsened. Recruitment targets are not being met and voluntary releases have continued to climb. Some military trades are now 20 per cent short of target manning levels. When five per cent short is considered a critical manpower shortage, 20 per cent is a catastrophe.

And most of the spending in this year’s budget is devoted to cybersecurity and cyberdefence; virtually no new spending has been set out for the fundamentals of Canada’s armed forces, including capital procurement.

When it comes to defence, absent a major threat, new capital program spending is always viewed as discretionary, meaning that Cabinet retains approval of all major programs and could reduce or eliminate them, even if recommended by Treasury Board. That was supposed to change with the Liberal defence policy, Strong, Secure, Engaged, released last year. The claim, made repeatedly by Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan, is that full lifecycle costs for all material needs were built into the new policy. However, the lack of capacity from within the department to administer major programs due to the lack of experienced military and public works program managers has already translated into reduced spending, despite the money carved out for them. “DND is on track to deliver barely better than half of the intended spending on new equipment and infrastructure,” wrote Dave Perry, vice president and senior analyst with Canadian Global Affairs, in a report in January. While some believe deferred spending will eventually be used as planned, I remain skeptical.

In the short term, the lack of new spending in the new budget means DND will have to make economical choices for interim replacements for worn-out ships, aircraft and vehicles. The air force’s interest in acquiring used fighters from Australia may fit this purpose. But the navy’s leasing of a converted container ship from Federal Fleet Systems for $700 million over five years for operational sustainment is a less convincing effort at economy; it cannot be used for combat missions, so it will also have limited effectiveness.

The lack of new spending is only exacerbated by the fact that the future of many of the military’s legacy systems is murky. The design for the navy’s future warship has not yet been chosen and the future of the submarine fleet is being put off for further review. The need for more modern fighters, helicopters and other aircraft is also being weighed against the use of unmanned drones. This project will have significant cost regardless of which is chosen; moving to new platforms and methods will require extensive testing and development, plus a host of retraining and reorganization measures, while failing to recognize a new transformational age of drone technology and remaining with expensive legacy systems will mean huge expenditures for capabilities that risk becoming immediately obsolete.

Procurement decisions will also inevitably be complex and come slowly. This means, in the mid-term, the air force will likely have to look for an economical solution to replace their aged fighters. The navy will need to be content so long as the money in the Shipbuilding Strategy is left untouched. The army will also have to buy time until benefits of a decade-long funding increase produce useful tools. All of the services will have a long list of immediate and critical needs if a major new operation is announced.

That’s not to say that the investment into cybersecurity isn’t welcome. For some, cyber threats and unconventional warfare methodologies and the state of our intelligence capabilities are more worrying than the state of our military, and with major conflict with Russia or China possible, investment into the Communications Security Establishment (CSE) is an overdue priority that’s finally being addressed. As Benjamin Bergen, the executive director of the Council of Canadian Innovators, said in a CBC report: “Without a domestic capacity in cyber, we risk becoming a client state.”

But if this strategic principle is valid, and it is taken to its logical conclusion, the need for nationally planned and generated capabilities to address security risks should apply equally to the defence, security and safety sectors, or we risk becoming a client state in other avenues, too. Buying off-the-shelf foreign products that do not reflect our own estimates of need will not prove economical, as DND’s instinct to “Canadianize” a foreign-designed system to suit our situation will make that choice expensive all the same.

To assure that Canada has an independent and self-sustaining military, a common-sense appreciation of what the future holds is urgently needed—and that starts with the planning exercise of the defence budget. While money has been set aside in the previous budget, the proven difficulties with doling that out and the lack of explicitly budgeted new spending risks hamstringing the military at a critical juncture.

----

Ken Hansen is an independent defence and security analyst and owner of Hansen Maritime Horizons. Retired from the navy in 2009 in the rank of commander, he is a member of the Science Advisory Committee for Atlantic Oceans Research Enterprise and a contributor to the Security Affairs Committee for the Royal United Services Institute.

Canadian Military Officials hope Procurement Now On-Track

The Canadian Press

 For anyone hoping the Liberal government plans to blow up Canada's much-maligned military procurement system, Patrick Finn has some advice: Don't hold your breath.

Finn is the Defence Department official responsible for overseeing the $6-billion-per-year procurement system, which has been criticized far and wide in recent years over a perceived failure to deliver critical military equipment.

The problems have been blamed on poor planning, red tape and internal bickering, which has tied up efforts to buy new aircraft, naval ships and other equipment.

There were expectations that the Liberal government would finally start to unravel the problem with its new defence policy last month, which promised an extra $62 billion for the military over the next 20 years.

But the policy made little mention of the procurement system, even though its proper functioning will be all the more critical if and when the promised new defence spending starts to flow.

There were expectations that the Liberal government would finally start to unravel the problem with its new defence policy last month, which promised an extra $62 billion for the military over the next 20 years. (Jeff McIntosh/Canadian Press)

Finn, whose official title at National Defence is assistant deputy minister of materiel, believes that after a decade of hard-earned lessons, the system has finally turned a corner.

"Do I think we're on the right path? I do," he said in an interview with The Canadian Press.

"Do I think we're at the end of that path? We're not. Do I think we're through all the growing pains? We're not, but we're a lot more mature than we were three, five, eight or 10 years ago."

The reference to 10 years ago is important.
Materiel section gutted in the 1990s

National Defence's materiel section had only a handful of procurement specialists, many of whom were inexperienced, when the Harper Conservatives unveiled their own defence policy in 2008.

Gutted in the 1990s, the section struggled to produce accurate cost estimates and schedules for the billions of dollars in new military equipment the Tories promised.

Finn said many of the problems can be traced back to that shortage of staff and experience, and he acknowledged that having enough skilled personnel remains his top risk.

His 4,200-strong workforce is in the process of adding 300 more staff by the end of next summer, he said, while many of his staff have the hard-earned experience to know what works, and what doesn't.

"The nature of the conversations that we're having compared to 10 years ago, it's kind of exciting because we're really kind of getting into: 'Be careful, we've done this over the years,"' Finn said.

Another significant problem was the fact the Conservatives didn't set aside enough money for their policy, which led to a merry-go-round of trying to match available funding to the military's needs.

Finn is hopeful that the Liberals' defence policy, which the government says has been rigorously costed by six accounting firms, will finally fix that problem by acknowledging the real cost of different gear.

A worker grinds a component at the Irving Shipbuilding facility in Halifax in June 2016. While the Conservatives said 15 warships would cost $26 billion, the Liberals say the actual price tag will be closer to $60 billion. (Andrew Vaughan/Canadian Press)

One example: while the Conservatives said 15 warships would cost $26 billion, the Liberals say the actual price tag will be closer to $60 billion — the same number as reported by the parliamentary budget officer.

Many critics of the military procurement system, including some of those who held Finn's position before him, have also lamented what they see as an onerous amount of red tape and lack of accountability.

The reason is that while the ultimate purpose of the system is to buy the gear the military needs, there are other interests as well, notably the desire to maximize economic benefits and competition. That means heavy involvement in the system by two other federal departments: Economic Development Canada and Public Services and Procurement Canada.
'It's up to us now'

Critics of the system have repeatedly asked the government to create one single department responsible for all military procurement. Finn said that isn't on the radar right now.

"Are we going to fundamentally change the authorities of ministers or are we going to smash it all together? Not at this point," he said.

"And I would caution to anybody: Be very careful. Because even just smashing that all together is probably going to distract us for a year or two while this kind of stuff sits on the backburner."

Liberal defence policy promises to spend tens of billions of dollars on 50 major military equipment purchases over the next 20 years, including the long-delayed purchase of new fighter jets and warships. (Rick Bowmer/Canadian Press)

Finn's optimism will soon be put to the test. The Liberal defence policy promises to spend tens of billions of dollars on 50 major military equipment purchases over the next 20 years.

Those include the long-delayed purchase of new fighter jets and warships that are expensive, complex and politically sensitive, but absolutely necessary if Canada is to have a modern military.

Finn noted many other projects previously tied up in the system are moving ahead or being delivered, such as new armoured vehicles for the army, Arctic patrol ships for the navy, and search-and-rescue planes.

"It's up to us now," he said of his unit. "The government has done their part to kind of sign up to this, and we're very seized departmentally."

Ivison: New Liberal Plan for CAF gets Parliamentary Reality Check

By: John Ivison, The National Post 

Things don’t just happen because politicians are keen on them.

As Yes, Minister’s Sir Humphrey Appelby noted: “Neville Chamberlain was keen on peace.”

The Trudeau government is, all of a sudden, ardent in its enthusiasm for rebuilding the military — growing the regular force and spending billions on equipment purchases and new investments.

But that doesn’t mean any of it will happen.

The day after the glossy defence policy review landed, the House of Commons Public Accounts committee tabled its report on the auditor general’s fall 2016 review of recruitment and retention in the Canadian Armed Forces.

Wednesday’s defence review stated with unwavering confidence that the regular force will grow by 3,500 soldiers to 71,500. Thursday’s committee report suggests that confidence is misplaced.

For one thing, the auditor general noted that there were just 56,300 regular force members at the end of 2015-16.

The auditor’s report stated “it is unlikely that the CAF will be able to recruit, train or retain sufficient personnel to meet its target of 68,000 by the 2018-19 fiscal year.”

A spokeswoman said, as of May 31, the number of regular forces in the navy, army and air force stood at 66,225.

But the defence policy document is frank that a problem exists: “The current system is too slow to compete in Canada’s highly competitive labour market and does not effectively communicate the exciting and fulfilling employment opportunities offered by military service.”

The CAF have found it hard to attract highly skilled people, particularly mental health professionals

With its idealized images of “well-supported, diverse, resilient people and families,” the review document attempts to burnish that lifestyle.

“Military service is extremely rewarding and military members and their families become stronger through the unique challenges and opportunities they face in their work. They become more resilient, discover and strengthen their best attributes and live meaningful, fulfilled lives, secure in the knowledge that they are serving their country,” it says, in prose that seeks to inspire glowing hearts.

The reality is more prosaic. In his committee testimony, John Forster, the deputy minister of National Defence, outlined the challenges the Forces have found with recruitment.

“It’s an exacting, sometimes hazardous profession. Realities such as deployment, separation from family, relocation and the general rigours of military life do not appeal to everyone,” he said.

Cpl Melanie Ferguson, Digital Acquisition Team (DAT)A file photo of troops in the Canadian Forces

The CAF have found it hard to attract highly skilled people, particularly mental health professionals, and even harder to retain people once they have been trained. Of the 95 occupations in the military, 23 had attrition rates higher than 10 per cent.

This is not a new problem — auditors general reports in 2002 and 2006 also found “ongoing, systemic recruiting challenges for the regular forces.”

The defence review suggested a number of new initiatives aimed at improving recruitment and retention: reducing the time it takes to enrol; implementing a targeted recruitment campaign, including hiring more women; increasing diversity and addressing priority occupations; developing a new retention strategy; and providing a tax-free salary to members on deployment internationally.

The Forces could hit its target numbers quicker by becoming more competitive in the labour market

But the fact the problem exists a decade and a half after it was first raised by the auditor suggests it is not going away any time soon.

Clearly, the Forces could hit its target numbers quicker by becoming more competitive in the labour market and jacking wages.

But that is likely to be the fatal flaw in the new defence plan — intentions are good and genuine but, as we hit the years when peak dollars are to be spent, other priorities will come along that may seem much more important, particularly if there is a change of government.

The best-laid schemes of mice and men often go awry, never more so than when they are made by politicians over a 20-year timeline.

Fisher: Liberals’ Defence Plan has Notable Omissions

BY: Matthew Fisher, The National Post 

Canada’s back!

Well, it may be one day if some grand spending promises outlined in the Trudeau government’s defence policy review — which would increase defence spending by a whopping 70 per cent — are kept. But the timeline announced by the government Wednesday to get there runs to 2026 and beyond.

“Canada’s Defence Policy” is like other papers published since the end of the Second World War outlining military policy for the next 20 years. It is long on spending promises — $62 billion of them. But most of the money is heavily back-loaded. It will be subject to the budgetary constraints and whims of the winners of the next few federal elections and will not be of much help to Canada or NATO in the near future.

The document — announced to great fanfare before a Greek chorus of several hundred soldiers in Ottawa’s Cartier Square Drill Hall — was as interesting for what it didn’t say as for what it did say.

There was scant mention of peacekeeping, although this was supposed to have been Justin Trudeau’s signature military policy and the best way — or so he and his aides once thought — for Canada to secure a two-year appointment as a member of the United Nations Security Council.

Other than stating for the umpteenth time that at some point Canadian blue helmets will embark for Africa to honour a campaign promise that Trudeau made nearly two years ago, there was barely a whiff in the 112-page document or numerous side papers about where those peacekeepers might end up, in what configuration and to what end. The best its authors could muster was some vague talk about collaborating with the UN, which has made a hash of peacekeeping lately, and, even more dangerously, establishing closers ties with the African Union, whose record on peacekeeping has been a disgrace.

Related
John Ivison: Liberal defence plan puts national interest ahead of its own partisan concerns, for now
Liberal defence policy calls for hundreds more commandos and $1.5 billion in special forces equipment
Liberals pledge $14 billion more to expand the Canadian Armed Forces, but delay most spending until 2019

Replying to questions from journalists, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan hid, as the government has for months, behind the excuse that peacekeeping was dangerous. So there must be “no snap decisions” made about where to commit troops, the minister said.

What Sajjan did not say was that there had been a snap decision on peacekeeping and it was made by Trudeau in the 2015 election because his advisers thought there were votes in such a humanitarian gambit. But clearly neither the prime minister nor those around him had the slightest understanding at the time about how peacekeeping has changed radically since Canadians last did it in large numbers 20 years ago.

The military and the diplomatic corps have been bringing the cabinet up to speed about this ever since. What they have heard has clearly spooked them to the point where they do not have a clue how to honour this promise.

As tricky as peacekeeping has become, the army and the air force have been ready for nearly a year with personnel and assets to fulfill a wide range of mission requirements. Troops were identified and training space was set aside, but the government continues to dither, leaving in limbo the brigade that is always on call for such operations.

There are other significant gaps in what the government claims is a landmark document. Perhaps the biggest one is that there is nothing about whether Canada will finally join the U.S. program for North American ballistic missile defence, which has been a top NORAD priority for some time because of the lethal long-range capabilities that North Korea, Russia and China have been acquiring.

After consulting for months with all kinds of Canadians, all that the paper has to say about BMD is that Canada is committed to modernizing its overall contribution to NORAD.

There is also no clarity on the jet fighter procurement muddle. The paper announced that Canada now needs 88 new fighter jets, rather than 65, as the Tories had it. If this is the number of new jets that the RCAF actually gets, it will be good for Canada, NORAD and NATO. But there is no explanation about what represents a multibillion-dollar shift in policy or about when those new aircraft might actually join the fleet.

There is also nothing about how these new jets will fit in with the Liberals’ ill-considered plan to spend as much as $7 billion on an interim purchase of 18 Boeing Super Hornet jets that almost nobody in the military community in Canada or elsewhere understands the justification for.

What may be happening in slow motion is that the government is laying the groundwork to bail out of the sole-source Super Hornet interim buy in favour of a competition for a much larger number of aircraft. Almost all of Canada’s allies inside and outside NATO have decided on the much newer Lockheed Martin F-35. Germany and Poland are the latest countries to seriously consider buying the F-35, leaving Canada in awkward isolation with a short-term plan to buy the much older, less capable Super Hornet.

Other than the smart, multi-coloured brochure announcing the new policy, the most impressive thing about Wednesday’s announcement was that the numbers being thrown around were bigger than anyone expected. Special Forces is a prime example. This secretive lethal part of the military is to get an additional 605 badly needed troops for critical missions. And there is a guarantee of sorts that Canada will build 15 surface warships, after speculation that the number was going to shrink to as low as six because of ballooning costs.


If history is any guide, a lot of the promises made in the Defence Policy Review will never be kept

There is also an acceptance of the realities of modern warfare with talk of more resources for drones, cyber warfare and intelligence, as well as predictable words about the need for greater diversity and gender equality.

The Defence Policy Review was not written only for Canadians, of course. It is designed to answer serious questions that Washington and NATO have about Ottawa’s commitment to collective security.

In this regard there is some fancy — some might say fanciful — bookkeeping so that it can be claimed that Canada will eventually spend 1.4 per cent of GDP on defence, though this is still far short of the pledge that it and every NATO country has made to spend two per cent of GDP on defence. Part of the way the government plans to reach 1.4 per cent is to throw into the calculation some of the money that is spent on the Coast Guard, the RCMP and pensions for soldiers and, if it was understood correctly, for DND civilians.

How much of this new arithmetic will be accepted by NATO, the U.S. and other allies is anyone’s guess. Still, the feel-good factor was high Wednesday. If history is any guide, a lot of the promises made in the Defence Policy Review will never be kept. Canadians should have the answer to that in about 2026.

Why increase Canadian military spending? A=Trump

Globe and Mail Editorial

That's it?

On Tuesday, Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland delivered a speech to the House of Commons that promised, in response to the Presidency of Donald Trump, a less United States-centric Canadian foreign policy, including making "necessary investments in our military" because, as Ms. Freeland put it, "to rely solely on the U.S. security umbrella would make us a client state."

Twenty-four hours later, the audience having been teed up, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan unveiled his long-awaited review of defence policy. The spin around it is finely spun, but beneath, the Liberal government's new military clothing is exceedingly modest.

Related: Ottawa lays out $62-billion in new military spending over 20 years
Read more: Canada's new defence spending must come quickly, experts say

How modest? The plan calls for the number of sailors, soldiers and air force personnel to increase by five per cent – over 10 years. Canada's defence spending, among the lowest in NATO, will gradually increase from 1.2 per cent of GDP to 1.4 per cent, according to the government, or from one per cent to 1.2 per cent, as measured by many international observers.

Either way, even if the Trudeau government wins a second majority government mandate, and then a third, Canada will still be nowhere close to meeting the NATO defence spending target of two per cent of GDP.

The big money in the plan is devoted to new equipment, replacing some very old kit. The Royal Canadian Air Force will get its much-delayed new fighter jets, eventually; timeline, cost and supplier to be determined. This announcement is a recommitment to a long-planned and long-troubled purchase – though the Liberals say they will buy 88 aircraft, nearly a third more than the 65 jets the previous Conservative government proposed.

The Royal Canadian Navy will get 15 new "Canadian Surface Combatant" ships, replacing the existing fleet of 12 frigates and four recently-retired destroyers. This, too, is not a new program: It was announced in 2008. The first ship won't be delivered until the late 2020s, at the earliest. The program's expected costs have also ballooned, from $26-billion to as much as $60-billion.

The goal of all of this is to allow the Canadian Forces of the future to simultaneously undertake "two deployments of 500 to 1,500 personnel," plus one short, six-to-nine month "limited-time deployment of 500 to 1,500 personnel," plus three small deployments of 100 to 500 personnel.


That sounds like a lot, and the truth is that Canada, in terms of willingness to undertake missions and send soldiers into harm's way, punches far above its modest budget weight within NATO.

But compare the government's long-term plans to what the Canadian Forces have recently done. Consider that in Afghanistan, Canada had as many as 3,000 troops in Kandahar province, in combat, for five years, while also taking part in smaller missions around the world.

In other words, the aim of the defence plan laid out on Wednesday is to allow the Canadian Forces, a decade from now, to be able to do roughly what the Canadian Forces were doing, a decade ago.

Canada is currently capable of playing a small but valuable supporting role in a major military engagement, and a big role in a minor military mission. Soon, we will be capable of playing a small but valuable supporting role in a major military engagement, and a big role in a minor military mission.

Wednesday's defence plan does not involve Canada replacing the U.S., not even one little bit; Ms. Freeland on Tuesday correctly described America as the pre-Trump era's "indispensable nation." The new defence plan merely allows Canada to stay in the game, as one of NATO's middle powers.

And yet, for all of those caveats, the Trudeau government nevertheless is promising to spend more on defence – not less. It is promising to reverse the decline in the Canadian Forces, not accelerate it. And it's promising to greenlight the two biggest tickets items, fighter jets and combat ships, despite huge price tags and massive cost escalation. This is not nothing.


Nobody can blame the Liberals for failing to meet the NATO commitment to spending two per cent of GDP on defence. Achieving that tomorrow would mean shelling out an extra $20-billion a year.

The Liberals don't have the political support, or the budgetary room, to go that far. But they're still increasing defence spending, modestly but substantially, in peacetime. And that kind of headline – Cash-Strapped Trudeau Liberals Somehow Find New Billions For Military – is not likely to score well with a voting base of middle-class middle-agers and activist youth.

Perhaps that's why Ms. Freeland was tasked with giving this particular speech right before Mr. Sajjan's big announcement. Yes, the Liberals are raising military spending – exactly as Mr. Trump demanded! But by way of explanation, they offered a vague, anti-Trump story. In 2017, that's always a winning pitch.

Liberal Defence Review Unveiled

Ken Pole, Frontline Defence Magazine 

The federal government announced June 7 that it plans to nearly double the Department of National Defence annual budget over the next decade, to $32.7 billion in 2026-2027 from $17.1 billion in the fiscal year just ended. It would begin decreasing at the end of that period as major capital projects are completed.

Detailed in a new Strong, Secure, Engaged policy document, the commitment would still fall short of what some allies – notably the United States and other members of NATO – say should be two per cent of gross domestic product, the government said it is “affordable, achievable and . . . informed by a rigorous, evidence-based analysis.”

Achieving two per cent would require an increase in the annual budget to more than $40 billion, but a senior DND official suggested in a background briefing that the annual budget would amount to at least 1.4 per cent of GDP by 2024-2025.

At the official announcement later, in a downtown Ottawa DND drill hall, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan told a mixed audience of uniformed and civilian personnel that the commitment reversed “a pattern of decline” in that it would see funding grow by more than $70 billion in 10 years. However, the total did not include unspecified and understandably uncalculable future costs associated with modernizing NORAD.

Flowing from a 14-month review and extensive public consultations which have cost at least $6 million, the policy document sets out specific plans for modernizing all elements of the Canadian Armed Forces and increasing Regular Force personnel by 3,500 to 71,500 and the Reserves by 1,500 to 30,000.

“These investments will provide the necessary flexibility . . . to operate across the spectrum of operations,” the document states, adding that it also would enable the CAF to “leverage new technologies to maintain . . . interoperability with allies and an operational advantage over potential adversaries.”

Among other things, the Royal Canadian Air Force is being promised 88 new fighters through an open competition, an increase from an earlier requirement for 65 aircraft, enabling simultaneous NORAD and NATO deployments. A senior DND official said during a background briefing that the current projected capital cost of that acquisition is $15-19 billion.

The RCAF also would have the resources to replace its Airbus CC-150 Polaris tankers, deHavilland CC-138 Twin Otter utility transport aircraft, and Lockheed Martin CP-140 Aurora intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance platforms.

Other RCAF commitments include enhanced space-based surveillance capability, upgraded tactical command, communications and navigation systems, more remotely-piloted platforms, modern air-to-air missiles, life extension of its Leonardo CH-139 Cormorant search and rescue helicopters.

The policy also promises to “operationalize” new fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft, a process which could be delayed because the government’s decision to award a contract to Airbus is being challenged in court by the Leonardo group.

Meanwhile, the Royal Canadian Navy is on track to receive a “full complement” of 15 surface combatant replacements for its current frigates and retired destroyers 56-60 billion! as well as two support ships and up to six Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships. It also press on with upgrades to its four Victoria-class diesel-electric submarines.

Naval Task Groups remain the preferred RCN operational core, and would comprise up to four surface combatants and a support vessel, backed “where warranted” by a submarine. “Configured and crewed to provide its own command and control, a Naval Task Group can lead allied or coalition forces for sustained periods anywhere in the world.”

A DND official told FrontLine after the media briefing that the task group approach essentially will work the same way it does now in that the RCN will be able to draw assets from any of its bases to make up the necessary strength.

The Army, in addition to upgrading its fleet of General Dynamics Land Systems light armoured vehicles, will be able to replace its family of armoured combat vehicles and acquired modern logistics vehicles and heavy engineering equipment a light utility trucks.

Other new Army assets expected to flow from the policy include ground-based air defence systems, modernized Improvised Explosive Device Detection and Defeat capabilities, state-of-the art communications hardware, shelters, and equipment for austere environments such as the Arctic.

Special Operations also are up for more money as well as 605 more personnel. They would be equipped with new airborne ISR platforms, armoured sports-utility vehicles and other platforms, modernized command, control and communications systems and computer defence networks and enhanced “next generation” integrated soldier systems.

Focusing on a particularly sensitive issue for the entire CAF community, the policy document provides for what the government describes as “unprecedented support to our people and their families.” This would include physical, psychological and social support from recruitment to retirement and beyond.

“Offering steadfast support . . . not only builds a strong and agile defence organization, but also acknowledges the sacred obligation the government . . . has to our military personnel, veterans and their families,” it adds. “Military families . . . are the strength behind the uniform.
Sajjan pointed out in his speech that Canada has asked “a lot . . . time and again” from its troops. “They delivery every time. And yet, governments have not invested adequately and predictably in their equipment, in their care and their well-being. In an increasingly unpredictable world, we will continue to rely on them in the years ahead. It’s time for government to hold up to its end of the bargain.”

A challenge which continues to face DND is actually spending the money it is allocated, mostly as capital project times are extended beyond their original projected time-line. The policy document acknowledges that problem, noting that “there are, and will continue to be, periods in which Defence does not use all of the funds allocated in a given year.”

DND, which has the largest capital budget of any federal institution, is permitted to carry forward only up to 2.5 per cent of its annual budget to the next fiscal year when this happens. However, the document says, DND has been improving its forecasting models in an attempt to ensure that it doesn’t have to keep going back for parliamentary approval authority.

“Since 2015-2016, the department has closely monitored in-year capital projects to identify slippage and delays earlier in the year,” it says. “During the year, new projects may be approved, which would have new demands for capital funding. In order to reduce the lapse, National Defence will fund these new projects from surplus in-year funding rather than request additional funding from Parliament.”

While Sajjan called the policy “the most rigorously costs, fully- and transparently-funded defence policy ever produced in Canada,” he declined to speculate on how the current and future governments would actually pay for its promises, possibly even resorting to budgetary deficits.

Canada Must Make Tough Decisions on Defence Spending: Former NATO Envoy

By Monique Scotti, National Online Journalist, Politics Global News

Canada’s former ambassador to NATO says Ottawa has “to make some decisions” on defence spending given the global security situation and a recent budget that pledged almost no new money for the military.

Speaking with The West Block‘s Vassy Kapelos this weekend, Yves Brodeuremphasized that Canada is hardly the biggest laggard in the 28-member alliance, contributing to international missions like the one in Latvia.

Screen Grap of Global News "The West Block" 

But he also acknowledged that the recent federal budget is unlikely to impress Canada’s allies, many of whom are actively working toward NATO’s established benchmark of spending 2 per cent of their GDP on defence.

“I’m sure that the NATO leadership … would very much wish to see our numbers go up,” Brodeur said.

“In terms of Canada specifically, I think that we’re gong to be under pressure from our friends down south (in the United States) to try and do better.”

U.S. President Donald Trump has repeatedly stated that he will expect to see more money flowing in from America’s NATO allies, and has even threatened to pull out of the alliance. Canada currently spends just under 1% of GDP on defence, the fifth smallest proportion among NATO members.

NATO estimates that Canada set aside $20.3 billion for defence in 2016. The 2017 budget offered no additional money to move the needle, however, drawing loud criticism from the Opposition benches in the House of Commons.

“I think that we have to make some decisions, just looking at what’s happening in the world right now,” Brodeur said.

READ MORE: Lack of defence spending in the federal budget draws fire

He added that there are “several ways” of looking at the numbers. For instance, Canada currently ranks 9th out of all NATO nations when it comes to defence spending per capita.

“So not necessarily the top five, but not the bottom. So it’s not actually that bad.”

Still, money for new equipment and training will be critical in the coming years, said the veteran diplomat.

“That is really key for us, especially as we commit to do more military operations. I think we owe it to our military forces to have the best equipment they can count on if we’re going to put them in harm’s way.”

Canadian Defence Spending Must Grow Significantly

By Tony Battista and Dr. David McDonough, OnTrack Magazine (Vol 21, No. 2) Originally published by The CDA Institute 

The Canadian government triggered some controversy with its most recent defence policy announcement – that it now plans to delay the open competition for the CF-18 replacement by five years, and instead opt to procure an interim fleet of 18 Super Hornets as a stopgap measure to fill what it says is a capability gap.

The subsequent news stories following this announcement have only raised further questions. It now appears this capability gap only arose following a policy shift in the government’s approach (and increase) in commitments, especially to its NATO and NORAD commitments. Without further information on the rationale, it is difficult to make any definite assessment about this decision.

Clearly, it is the government’s prerogative to set policy, although the timing of it, when the government was trying to justify a plan for interim Super Hornets, is certainly curious. One must then ask about the extent to which subject matter experts were consulted on this decision, and whether such a decision should more properly be part of the Defence Policy Review (DPR) – and the value of the DPR when such key decisions are taken outside of it?

Another equally troubling story is that the government has forced over 200 civil servants involved in the CF-18 replacement project to sign lifetime non-disclosure agreements. Given that there are already existing stringent measures to protect classified government information, such a draconian measure is certainly at odds over the government’s stated position on transparency and openness, and raises questions about the underlying intent of such a policy. Is it really only about protecting sensitive information or trade secrets? Or is it simply a way to prevent officials from criticizing the government’s handling of this file after they leave office?

Of course, much remains unknown about how the government will ultimately proceed with its plan. What fighter aircraft will realistically be available to compete in the CF-18 replacement competition in five years’ time? With the exception of the F-35, most of the other possible aircraft will already be at their mid-life point by that time. And will the US government even agree to sell interim Super Hornets? Lest it be forgotten, Lockheed Martin remains the single largest contractor for the American government, and there is little doubt that Washington has a vested interest in the future of the F-35 – and much less so with the Super Hornet, which is becoming a legacy aircraft for them.

Yet the most worrisome aspects of this decision is on the question of cost. How much will it cost to purchase an interim Super Hornet fleet? What is the additional cost of operating a mixed fleet? A possible answer to the former can be seen in Australia’s purchase of 24 Super Hornets for 6.1-billion (Australian $). A roughly similar amount could be expected. On the latter, it will undoubtedly be an expensive proposition – as noted in a Defence Research and Development Canada (DRDC) report that has (coincidentally?) disappeared from the DND/DRDC website.

And is the interim Super Hornet fleet to be a permanent fixture of the RCAF force structure? Or is it merely a bridging fleet that will be retired soon after the permanent CF-18 replacement are delivered? Of note, Australia had planned for a bridging fleet with its own Super Hornet purchase, which quickly emerged as a permanent mixed arrangement, with all its attendant additional costs. Then there is the matter of what is the requisite size our fighter fleet in light of the government’s increased commitments to NORAD and NATO – and whether the permanent CF-18 replacement will take that number into consideration?

Is Canada’s defence budget large enough to handle the governments reported and impending defence decisions? What conclusions can be made from the many procurements, as well as current and emerging military commitments (procurement of an interim fleet of fighter aircraft, a major building of new naval ships, increasing the CAF operational tempo with new deployments to Latvia and to a still unknown locale in Africa (possibly Mali), current anti-ISIL mission in the Mideast, and likely more money for recruiting, training, education, readiness, retention and transition)?

Moreover, what will the budgetary situation be like in five years, when Canada expects to choose a permanent CF-18 replacement fleet? Then, it will have to address other competing spending priorities in other areas of security and defence, but also on social programs, health, dealing with the effects of climate change and its challenges on the environment, a direr financial situation for many western countries, and social upheaval (extremism, nationalism, protectionism, etc), not to mention the resurgence of China and Russia?

As the PBO and others have pointed out, the existing budget is simply too small for the existing force structure. And the government has shown little interest in decreasing either personnel numbers or basing infrastructure to make things more manageable. Indeed, as its decision on the interim Super Hornets seems to indicate, it may have set itself on the road to acquiring more fighter aircraft than even its predecessor. That is not necessarily a bad outcome, and may indeed be a silver lining of sorts – as having more aircraft will allow the CAF greater flexibility in terms of readiness and operational deployments. But much depends on whether there will be sufficient funds to allow for such growth.

It seems clear: The Defence Budget Has to Go Up! Canada’s defence budget needs to grow starting with this next Federal Budget. As the recent Senate Standing Committee on National Security and Defence report on UN peacekeeping notes, the government needs to “ensure adequate funding is available to meet the operational priorities of the Canadian Armed Forces” – and this is as true with the government’s plan for peace support missions as it is with national priorities and commitments to NORAD and NATO.

And the window of opportunity for such growth may be limited. After all, the government plans on running deficits, but will likely need to start curtailing spending prior to the next election in three years. Otherwise, what will likely grow is a substantive commitment-capability gap, leaving behind an unpalatable central legacy of the current government with both a large deficit and an ill-equipped Canadian Armed Forces.

 As a result, the next budget in 2017 may be the most feasible opportunity for the government to increase the baseline of the defence budget – and to put National Defence in a better position to deal with the expected military requirements of the foreseeable future. It also coincides with the arrival of the Trump administration in the United States, which many expect will make burden-sharing a centrepiece of its engagement with key allies.

A decision by the Trudeau government to increase defence spending starting with the next Federal Budget could go a long way to establish its credibility when it comes to security and defence policies, to look after Canada’s short and long-term security and defence needs, and to reassuring our American ally on this issue.
----
Tony Battista is the Chief Executive Officer of the CDA and CDA Institute. 

Dr. David McDonough is Research Manager and Senior Editor at the Conference of Defence Associations Institute (CDA Institute), and a Research Fellow at the Centre for the Study of Security and Development (formerly CFPS) at Dalhousie University.  

Canada ranks 23 out of 28 NATO countries on defence spending

By: Murray Brewster, CBC News 

The Trudeau government won praise Monday along with some European allies who have chosen to put more into their militaries, despite only promising to increase defence spending by a whisker in the current budget year.

New figures released by NATO ahead of this weekend's leaders' summit show Canada inhabits the lower third of NATO membership in terms of defence spending, with the government planning to spend an additional .01 per cent of the country's gross domestic product on defence.

The increase, which is only anticipated because the 2016 budget year is just getting underway, will see Canada's defence spending rise to .99 per cent of GDP from .98 per cent.

To put that in perspective, the North Atlantic military alliance has established two per cent of GDP as its annual investment benchmark. Canada is ranked 23rd out of 28 member countries, wedged between Hungary and Slovenia.

It has been a source of frustration for the Americans, something that manifested itself last week in U.S. President Barack Obama's speech to Parliament, where he pointedly called on the Trudeau government to meet the NATO measure because "the world needs more Canada."

The irritation was also felt in Brussels, where NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has struggled to convince hesitant allies to pry loose cash in the face of a resurgent Russia.

"Last year, after a long period of decline, we saw a small increase in overall defence spending by NATO's European Allies and Canada," the secretary general said Monday.
'A very long way to go'

Stoltenberg, who has regularly but diplomatically rebuked nations for failing to meet the two per cent standard, chose to focus his praise on what's known as "real" defence spending — the total dollars each ministry pours into its budget without accounting for the corrosive effect of inflation.

He said NATO is pleased to see an expected increase of three per cent in defence spending by European Allies and Canada in 2016. That amounts to about $8 billion US, and 22 of the allies are planning bigger budgets.

"So, we are both spending more and we are spending better," he said. "But we have a very long way to go and we must keep up the momentum."

According to NATO figures, Canada will set aside $20.3 billion for defence in 2016, an increase from $19.4 billion last year.

Stoltenberg's praise raised a few eyebrows among defence experts, who point out it comes just a few days after the Liberal government committed to send troops and headquarters formation to a NATO high-readiness brigade, which is slated to deploy to eastern Europe.

Troops from the U.S. Army's 173rd Infantry Brigade Combat Team parachute from a Boeing C-17 Globemaster III during a NATO-led exercise held together with Canada's 3rd Battalion and Princess Patricia's Light Infantry, and Poland's 6th Airborne Brigade in southern Poland in May 2014. (Kacper Pempel/Reuters)

"If we were not going to take a leadership position on one of NATO's key priorities, I imagine that we would be having a very different conversation right now," said Dave Perry, an analyst with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute. "We have been getting a free pass on our actual budget commitments because we are heavy lifters when it comes to operations."

Perry noted the country's No. 23 ranking at NATO and said there's little in the Liberal government's plans or public statements that will change that.
Risk of a 'hollow force'

During the 2015 election campaign, Justin Trudeau promised not to cut defence expenditures and to live up to Conservative pledges of an additional two per cent annual increase, starting in 2017.

The government is in the midst of a strategic defence review, which could be completed in time for the next budget, but Perry said the Liberals seem to have other priorities.

"Our allies will remain disappointed with the actual amount of money we put on the table, and I suspect we can fob off the criticism by showing up for operations," he said.

But Perry warned that strategy runs the risk of further wearing down equipment and personnel, creating a "hollow force."

A spokeswoman for National Defence responded that government agreed at the 2014 NATO summit in Wales that bigger budgets were in order, but that committing to a "fixed target" was not something Canada was prepared to do.

Dominique Tessier said the NATO two per cent benchmark is "a statement of aspirations" and the prodding by allies was meant "to reverse the trend of falling spending on defence among allies and to optimize the use of available funds."