NATO Hopes to see more of Canada following Defence Plan

By: Catharine Tunney, CBC News

The head of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization says he is expecting Canada to increase its presence on missions now that the Liberal government has promised to spend more on soldiers, ships and fighter jets.

"We are not able to tell exactly today what kind of missions and operations we will have in five to 10 years, but now we need more Canadian presence in Europe," NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg told Chris Hall, host of CBC Radio's The House.

"There are already many different missions and operations where Canada is participating, but of course we hope that they can further strengthen their participation in NATO missions and operations."

On Wednesday the Liberal government unveiled its long-awaited defence policy, which will increase the defence budget by 70 per cent over the next decade to $32.7 billion. The plan also pledges to buy 15 advanced warships and 88 new fighter jets.

When asked if he expects Canada to make additional contributions going forward, including more rotations through NATO exercises, Stoltenberg said "absolutely."

"We are building up our maritime presence both in the Atlantic but also in the Black Sea and other places, and we need those Canadian planes, for instance, for air policing ," he said.

Gen. Jonathan Vance, chief of the defence staff, said decisions about individual NATO missions are made by the government, but the increased spending and bolstered fleet mean Canada can contribute more going forward.

"Absolutely yes we will be able to do more in the future, not because we're altered dramatically in terms of our size, because we're not, but what we will have will be relevant to the future," he said. "Absent this investment, we may have the size but we would be irrelevant.

"A lot of this is a commitment for NATO and other allies for the long term so that NATO has not only the qualitative but the quantitative predictable capacity of Canada in mind for the long term."

Stoltenberg will travel to Europe with Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan later this month to greet Canadian troops in Latvia as part of a NATO operation to counter Russian aggression in Eastern Europe.

"Our approach to Russia is based on a dual tract: defence and dialogue. Russia is our neighbour. Russia is here to stay. NATO doesn't want a new cold war, we don't want a new arms race."
NATO strong despite disagreements: Stoltenberg

The Liberals' defence review followed on the heels of a speech Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland delivered in the House of Commons on Tuesday, when she said Canada will step up to play a leadership role on the world stage as the U.S. turns inward.



"The fact that our friend and ally has come to question the very worth of its mantle of global leadership puts into sharper focus the need for the rest of us to set our own clear and sovereign course," she said.

Stoltenberg said disagreements are bound to arise between NATO's 29 member countries.

"The strength of the alliance is that we have been able to overcome these kinds of differences again and again and unite around the core task of the alliance — that is, to protect and defend each other," he said.

That principle has come into question after U.S. President Donald Trump didn't explicitly mention Article 5, the mutual aid clause, in a speech to NATO allies in Brussels last month.

But Stoltenberg said Trump has made it clear to him that he's committed to the alliance.

"There is no way that it's possible to be committed to NATO without being committed to collective defence," he said.

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.

Freeland: Canada Needs "Hard Power" to Support Global Operations

The Canadian Press 

OTTAWA — Canadians need to spend billions on "hard power" military capability because they can't rely on the U.S. or others for protection, says Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland.

In a major foreign policy speech in the House of Commons today, she didn't mention Donald Trump by name, but made an unabashed pitch for the international rules-based order that the U.S. president's America First policy is attacking.

The speech is meant to foreshadow the release of Wednesday's defence policy review, which is expected to make the case for billions in new military spending.

Minister of Foreign Affairs Chrystia Freeland delivers a speech in the House of Commons on Canada's Foreign Policy in Ottawa on June 6, 2017. (Photo: Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press)

"To put it plainly: Canadian diplomacy and development sometimes require the backing of hard power," Freeland said in her prepared text.

"Principled use of force, together with our allies and governed by international law, is part of our history and must be part of our future."

She said Canada doesn't need an inward looking "Canada First" foreign policy, but given that the U.S. is now questioning the worth of its global leadership, it is more important than ever for Canada to plot its own course in the world.

Canada can't rely on American protection: Freeland

Freeland's speech is the Liberal government's attempt to define its military, developmental, diplomatic and trade priorities in a turbulent world that has seen the election of Trump and the rise of anti-trade sentiment.

Her emphasis on hard military power is a tougher expression of the country's international interests than Canadians are used to hearing.

She said that notwithstanding the "incredibly good relationship" with the U.S., Canada cannot just rely on American military protection.

"To rely solely on the U.S. security umbrella would make us a client state," she said.

"Such a dependence would not be in Canada's interest."

The speech affirmed Canada's support for multilateralism and rules-based international systems, human rights, gender equality, fighting climate change and spreading economic benefits more widely.

She said Canada played a major role in shaping the global order after the Second World War because the country — including her own family — suffered heavy losses in two world wars.

The U.S. has been an indispensable nation in leading the world since then, she said, but that is changing and Canada has to adapt.

"It would be naive or hypocritical to claim before this House that all Americans today agree," she said.

"Indeed many of the voters in last year's presidential election cast their ballots, animated in part by a desire shrug off the burden of world leadership. To say this is not controversial: it is simply a fact."
"To rely solely on the U.S. security umbrella would make us a client state."

She reiterated the government's disappointment in the U.S. decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement on climate change.

"International relationships that had seemed immutable for 70 years are being called into question," she said.

"And new shared human imperatives — the fight against climate change first among them — call for renewed uncommon resolve.

She also addressed the protectionism — again without mentioning Trump by name — that has taken root in the U.S. and elsewhere, suggesting that stance is on the wrong side of history.

"Beggar-thy-neighbour policies hit middle powers soonest and hardest," she said. "This is the implacable lesson of the 1930s and the Great Depression."

Canadian Generals Defend Strategy for Defeating ISIL

By: The Canadian Press

PERSIAN GULF — Two senior Canadian generals have defended the current strategy for defeating Daesh (also known as ISIS) in Iraq and Syria, which U.S. officials have put under review following scathing criticism by President Donald Trump.

U.S. Defence Secretary James Mattis was in Iraq this week after Trump gave the retired Marine Corps general until the end of the month to come up with a plan for speeding up the campaign.

During last year’s presidential election, Trump repeatedly criticized the slow pace of progress and promised to introduce a new approach that would hasten Daesh’s defeat.

But Brig.-Gen. David Anderson and Brig.-Gen. Stephen Kelsey say they are hard-pressed to think of ways to improve the existing strategy, which they have watched unfold firsthand for the better part of a year.

And they worry that rushing to destroy Daesh could in fact undermine the progress that has been made in dealing with the root causes that led to the extremist group’s rise in the first place.

“I can’t think of a different way to do this that doesn’t create all the problems that have been there from the past,” Anderson said Monday, before Mattis’s unannounced arrival in Iraq. “I think we’ve got it right.”

Anderson and Kelsey are both based in Baghdad. And while they’re Canadian, each holds a key position within the larger international coalition for defeating Daesh.

Since last spring, Anderson has led a multinational team of military advisers posted inside the Iraqi defence ministry in Baghdad, where they have helped formulate and implement the current campaign strategy.

Kelsey has helped oversee the actual fighting on the ground, which is being largely conducted by Iraqi forces with significant assistance from Canada and other countries.

Mattis hasn’t said what changes he wants to see in the campaign plan, but reports suggest the options under discussion include putting more U.S. troops on the ground and having them do more of the fighting.

American troops, like the roughly 200 Canadian special forces in northern Iraq, have largely stayed out of the fight and instead provided training, advice and some battlefield support from behind.

Anderson and Kelsey insisted it is up to the U.S. to decide its own approach to defeating Daesh; but any change would affect all countries involved in the effort.

That includes Iraq itself, which has been the scene of more than a decade of violence and strife after the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 tore the country apart along ethnic and religious lines.

Kelsey said what’s different in Iraq this time around, and what he believes will end the cycle of violence, is that Iraqi troops are the ones doing the fighting and dying for their own country.

“What’s happening now with the strategy . . . is we are enabling our (Iraqi) partners to defeat Daesh,” he said. “We’re also creating capacity for the longer term.

“And in trying to accelerate that or do it for them, we then start owning the problem and affect their ability to create their own capacity, which is the key to long-term stability in the region.”

The two generals heaped praise on the Iraqi government and military for the progress they have made over the past two years in fighting Daesh while also dealing with various economic and political challenges.

And they said despite the fact Daesh remains a threat in Iraq and Syria more than two years after Canada and other countries intervened militarily, there is light at the end of the tunnel.

“We are closer than we think,” Kelsey said. “And that’s the adult discussion that’s going to play out here in the next little bit.”

RCAF Active over Syria; Canada Waiting on US before Extending OP IMPACT

By: Lee Berthiaume, The Canadian Press

PERSIAN GULF – Canadian military personnel involved in the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant are waiting to see what shape their mission will take in the coming months – a decision that could be heavily influenced by U.S. President Donald Trump.

More than 800 service members are currently deployed in half-a-dozen locations across the Persian Gulf region, after the Liberal government revamped Canada’s contribution to the American-led war against ISIL last year.

Two Canadian surveillance planes have flown hundreds of sorties to identify potential targets for coalition airstrikes.

While the majority of those missions have been over Iraq, a senior Canadian commander revealed Sunday that the aircraft have also flown dozens of times over Syria in recent months.

“We have done work in Syria,” Brig.-Gen. Shane Brennan, commander of Canada’s Joint Task Force-Iraq, told reporters during a media tour of the mission, though he added: “There’s lots of work to do in Iraq. We are looking at all of the areas.”

The flights over Syria have also included a different Canadian plane that has been refuelling coalition aircraft directly responsible for bombing or otherwise destroying ISIL forces and other targets.

The increased Canadian military activity over Syria, which Brennan described as between 20 and 30 missions in the past few months, is only one indication that the war against ISIL is shifting into a new phase.

As Brennan was speaking at an airfield, the location of which the military didn’t want revealed for security reasons, Iraqi forces were launching their long-awaited assault on western Mosul.

READ MORE: Mosul civilians trapped indoors as Iraqi forces bombard ISIS targets

The battle, which comes about a month after Iraqi forces declared the eastern part of the city free of ISIL, has been billed as a defining moment in eventually freeing Iraq from the extremist group’s grip.

While the fight for the city’s western half is expected to be much harder than what came before, Brennan was adamant that victory was a certainty.

“There is a battle that is ongoing and will be won,” Brennan said. “It’s an inevitable event.”

Less certain is what role Canadian troops will play when the current mandate, which also includes a military hospital, special forces troops and a helicopter detachment in northern Iraq, expires in March.

Military commanders are drawing up options based on a number of factors, including the expectation that ISIL will become a traditional insurgency in Iraq, which would require more police and counter-terrorism forces.

Canadian Brig.-Gen. David Anderson, who is leading an international team of military advisers in Iraq’s defence ministry, said his group recently submitted a two-year plan focused on exactly that.

There are also concerns that the group will try to spread outside Iraq and Syria, which is why Canada helping strengthen border security in Jordan and Lebanon.

The military will present three options for the government to choose from in the coming weeks in deciding the future of the mission.

Yet one big wild card is what direction the U.S. military will go, after President Trump blasted the slow progress of the fight against ISIL and ordered a 30-day review to consider new options.

U.S. Defence Secretary James Mattis is expected to visit Iraq in the next week or so before presenting his recommendations later this month.

Exactly what Mattis will recommend, both in Iraq and Syria, is wide open for speculation.

But Brennan said the results could have a big impact on what Canada decides to do given the need to ensure a unified and co-ordinated international effort in the fight against ISIL.

“It does depend what happens,” Brennan said. “We are waiting as well. I think the question is: What else needs to be done or could be done?”

Stopgap Super Hornet purchase could have $5B to $7B price tag

By: Murray Brewster, CBC News

The Trudeau government has begun talks with Washington about the sole-source purchase of up to 18 Super Hornet jet fighters.

The measure, intended as a stopgap solution to ease pressure on the air force's aging fleet of CF-18s, could cost taxpayers between $5 billion and $7 billion over the lifetime of the aircraft, according to data circulating within the Department of National Defence and shared with CBC News by sources who insisted upon anonymity.

The figures are only preliminary, but they are backed up by U.S. congressional budget information.

CBC News was granted rare, extraordinary access to officials and facilities belonging to Boeing, the U.S. manufacturer of the Super Hornet, and to the U.S. navy's principal air base where the fighters operate and train. During that visit, Boeing officials confirmed Canada has begun talks with the Pentagon to buy the planes.

The decision to buy 18 warplanes in a sole-source deal, originally announced last fall, is meant to address what the Liberal government describes as an urgent "capability gap."

But it also lands Canada squarely in the middle of the Trump administration's showdown over the future of the Super Hornet's rival, the oft-maligned F-35.
1st delivery by 2019?

There are questions about what kind of deal Canada will get on the Super Hornets, especially with the new U.S. administration.

A final agreement, which requires congressional approval, will take about a year to negotiate, but CBC News has learned the Liberal government has already signalled it would like to see the first aircraft arrive in 2019, which would coincide with the next election.

A Boeing official, when asked, confirmed both the timeline and anticipated delivery date, and said the company is currently waiting for formal, written notice — known as a letter of request — from the Canadian government, which will be submitted to the U.S. Pentagon within the next few weeks.

CBC News was granted access to U.S. Naval Air Station Oceana at Virginia Beach to see U.S. navy Super Hornets in action. (Murray Brewster/CBC)

Dan Gillian, Boeing's vice-president of the F-18 programs, said the company is looking at how production of Canadian jets can be slotted alongside existing orders from the U.S. navy and Kuwait. Boeing currently produces two Super Hornets a month.

"We think we can build all of those airplanes in time to meet the customer demands," said Gillan. "We may have to increase production rate, but that is very doable."
U.S. navy costs a benchmark

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's government promised in the last election not to buy Lockheed Martin's F-35 when it came time to replace Canada's entire 1980s-vintage CF-18 fleet.

The Liberals said they would buy a cheaper alternative and plow the savings back into rebuilding the navy, but Trudeau has since said the F-35 stealth fighter will not be excluded from an open competition for replacement jets.

Federal officials, including the head of the Royal Canadian Air Force, have taken pains to describe the process with Boeing as tentative and exploratory.

But Canadian military planners visited the company's St. Louis, Mo., engineering facility two weeks ago to scope out the customized features they want in the fighter.

That, along with a series of other factors, will determine how much Canada pays for what the Liberals insist is an "interim" solution to the problem of not having enough jet fighters to meet all of the country's military commitments.

A cost breakdown of the Super Hornets is provided in U.S. Department of Defence estimates:
The base price for a Super Hornet, according to U.S. Department of Defence 2015 budget estimates, was $85 million ($65 million US) per aircraft.
On top of that, there is what's known as government-furnished equipment, which can be anything from engines to radar and other electronics, depending on what the air force says it needs. That could add $26.2 million ($20 million US) per fighter — although those fees can sometimes be negotiated.
Washington also levies what is known as a foreign military sales charge of about 3.5 per cent, but other costs for research and development could boost U.S. service charges to as high 11 per cent, according to Pentagon records.

"What an airplane costs depends upon configuration, timing of deliveries and quantities. The U.S. government documents are a good reflection," said Boeing's Gillian.

That all means the final cost of each individual Super Hornet could range from $115 million ($88 million US) to $123 million ($94 million US), bringing a total purchase price of between $1.9 billion ($1.5 billion US) and $2.1 billion ($1.6 billion US) for 18 jets.

Canada has begun talks with the U.S. Defence Department to buy up to 18 Boeing Super Hornets. (Murray Brewster/CBC)

But the Liberal government would also have to negotiate an in-service support contract and consider buying training simulators, which can add billions.

When those costs are added in, the total price tag for the "interim" Super Hornet solution could run between $5 billion and $7 billion over the life of the planes.
Economic benefits

If the Liberal government buys the planes entirely through a foreign military sales deal, it means Boeing will not automatically be required to provide what are called industrial offsets — essentially, guaranteed work for Canadian companies.

"It gets tricky," said Dave Perry, an analyst with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute. The Liberals would have to negotiate benefits separately under such a deal, he said.

"It doesn't mean you can't get an economic offset, it just a little murkier."

But late Monday, Boeing officials said the company was prepared to deliver an offset equal to the purchase price the U.S. navy pays, roughly $85 million ($65 million US) per aircraft.
The Trump factor

U.S. President Donald Trump has also added an unexpected wrinkle to the Liberal government's plan.

Prior to taking office, Trump tweeted that he'd asked Boeing to "price out a comparable F-18 Super Hornet" to the F-35 in response to rising costs in the stealth fighter program.

U.S. President Donald Trump signs executive orders at the U.S. Department of Defence in Arlington, Va., last week. There are questions about what kind of deal Canada will strike with the Trump administration to buy Super Hornet jet fighters. (Olivier Douliery/Getty Images)

Lockheed Martin said last week it was confident it would soon get the price of an F-35 down to $111 million ($85 million US) per plane. Canada would not have to pay the foreign military sales charge because it has already contributed toward the development of the project.

Much of the public debate in Canada has revolved around the enormous cost of the F-35. In fact, the Liberal government's distaste for the stealth fighter was formed partly by the former Conservative government's refusal to be more transparent about the price tag.

Perry said it would be ironic if Trump succeeded in quickly driving down the cost to the point where both fighters were competitively priced.

"If Trump is able to gets some extra savings out of Lockheed … my guess is you're looking at a 10 per cent cost difference [between the Super Hornet and the F-35]," he said.

Trudeau vouches for NATO after Trump calls military alliance ‘obsolete’

The Canadian Press

OTTAWA – Justin Trudeau has affirmed Canada’s support of NATO, days after president-elect Donald Trump‘s pronouncement that the military alliance is obsolete.

But the prime minister stopped short of saying he would be willing to boost the defence budget so Canada could meet NATO’s spending target for its member countries.

READ MORE: Reality check: Donald Trump says NATO members need to pay more. What is Canada paying?

Trudeau cited Canada’s leadership in Latvia, where it will contribute 450 troops and command several national contingents as part of a military deterrent to Russia on Europe’s eastern flank.

He said that was “a great example of how Canada continues to be an extraordinarily important player in NATO and we will continue to be a reliable partner, not just to the United States, but to all of our allies as we move forward.”

The Liberal chair of the House of Commons foreign affairs committee has told The Canadian Press that Canada will have to contribute more to the 28-country alliance if the United States – its largest financial and military contributor – scales back its involvement as Trump has suggested.

“That means countries like ours will have to step up to the plate,” Bob Nault said in an interview Monday.

Speaking to reporters in New Brunswick today, Trudeau said: “When there’s heavy lifting to do, when there’s a need for people to step up, Canada is there on the front lines contributing fully to NATO operations.”

Howard Drake, the British high commissioner to Canada, told The Canadian Press that NATO remains highly relevant as the West deals with the challenge of a newly assertive Russia.

“That’s his view. Who am I to comment on that?” Drake said when asked about Trump. “If ever NATO was valid, it’s now.”

He recalled the 2006 London killing of former Russian spy, Alexander Litvinenko, who sipped a cup of tea laced with a radioactive poison administered by a Russian operative.

READ MORE: Canada has to reach into its pockets to pay for NATO if US leaves: MP

“The Russian state killed a former KGB agent on the streets of London,” Drake said.

“We know all about what it is to deal with Russia, and we believe we should be on our guard.”

Trump criticized NATO during the U.S. election campaign, and sparked surprise in Europe when he levelled more attacks this week.

But Trump’s nominee for defence secretary, retired Marine general James Mattis, spoke in support of NATO during his congressional confirmation hearing last week.

Analysts say Trump will expect other NATO members to increase spending in the alliance to ease the burden on the United States.

Canada lags at 23rd in spending in NATO, and currently contributes about one per cent of GDP to defence spending – well below the alliance’s two-per-cent target. The U.S. is one of only five NATO countries that meet the spending target.

NATO without U.S. means Canada will have to do more

By: Mike Blanchfield, The Canadian Press

OTTAWA — Canada will have to contribute more to NATO if the U.S. follows through on president-elect Donald Trump's musings on withdrawing from the alliance, says the head of the House of Commons foreign affairs committee.

Liberal MP Bob Nault cautions that Canada and its NATO partners need to see how U.S. foreign policy formally takes shape after Trump's Friday inauguration.

But he says Canada remains committed to the 28-country alliance and can't let it become weakened if the U.S. — its largest financial and military contributor — scales back its involvement.

"That means countries like ours will have to step up to the plate," Nault said in an interview Monday.

Nault said the upcoming defence policy review will help Canada decide where and how it should deploy its military resources. With a federal budget coming this winter that could mean an increase in defence spending, he added.

Nault and the committee are going to visit Latvia and Poland, two of NATO's eastern European members and nervous neighbours of Russia, which annexed part of Ukraine almost three years ago.

The MPs will travel to Ukraine as well as Kazakhstan on their 12-day, fact-finding mission.

The visit is timely, given Trump's frequent compliments directed at Russian President Vladimir Putin and his renewed criticism that NATO is "obsolete."

Trump also said he might end sanctions imposed on Russia for its 2014 annexation of Ukraine's Crimea region in return for a nuclear arms reduction deal.

Trump's latest NATO broadside sparked a backlash in Europe, while Moscow said his offer on linking sanctions relief with a nuclear arms deal should be treated with caution.

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said Trump's remarks "caused astonishment."

Trump criticize NATO during the election campaign, but his nominee for defence secretary, retired Marine general James Mattis, spoke in support of NATO during his congressional confirmation hearing last week.

In Ottawa, the government held firm to its current policy line, affirming Canada's commitment to NATO and its solidarity with Ukraine in the face of the "illegal annexation" of Crimea.

"Canada is a committed member of NATO; we have been a part of every single mission since its inception," said Joseph Pickerill, spokesman for Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland.

Canada is one of four countries playing a leading role in NATO's military build-up on Europe's eastern flank to deter Russia with a 450-strong contribution of personnel to Latvia.

David Perry, senior analyst with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, said if Trump is taken literally it is bad news for the alliance, but he said it could just be a salvo by a self-styled hard-bargainer to push more countries to increase their defence spending.

That has implications for Canada, which lags at 23rd in spending in NATO, and currently contributes 0.99 per cent of GDP to defence spending — well below the alliance's two-per-cent target, he said.

The U.S. is one of only five NATO countries to meet the target and Trump wouldn't be the first president to push for more spending. President Barack Obama chided Canada to increase defence spending during his speech to Parliament last summer.

Nault said his committee will be speaking with European officials about the continuing role of NATO, whether the sanctions on Russia are effective and how the region is coping and "how this is all translating into the new world order."

The committee will report back to Parliament on whether sanctions are in fact working, or if they are an ineffective political tool, he said.

If the U.S. removed its sanctions on Russia, it would likely undermine the whole regime, Nault said.

Nault said the issue of "unintended consequences" of sanctions needs a closer look. Canada-Russia trade has fallen by half since they were imposed.

"If we're putting sanctions on as Canadians and we feel good about it, and nobody else is doing the job then really, is it to our benefit? That's the question that has to be asked."

War Against ISIL Marches On as Canada, Allies Wonder What Trump will Ask of Them

By: Murray Brewster, CBC News

The night Donald Trump was elected, Canadian Brig.-Gen. Dave Anderson was at a reception hosted by the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.

When the results were finalized, the American ambassador gave a short speech to his anxious Iraqi hosts and assured them Washington's commitment to the war-ravaged country is "real and it's long-term."

A little later, Anderson spoke with the chairman of the U.S. joint chiefs of staff, who told him: "If you look at a problem set through the lens of national interest, the solution doesn't change."

It was a comment that stuck with him as the uncertainty unfolds around the incoming U.S. administration's foreign policy.

"National interest trumps everything," said Anderson, who leads the multi-national liaison team that's helping advise the Iraqi defence ministry.

Canadian Special Forces troops launch into a mission from a base in Erbil, Iraq, on Nov. 14, 2016 (Murray Brewster/CBC News)

Related
Kurdish PM opposes Canada's 'organized migration' of Yazidis
Canadian special forces shooting first at ISIS to protect civilians, allies
Canadian troops watching for human rights abuses as battle for Mosul rages

Because national interests don't change, he said, he believes there's a real commitment from Washington, and right the way through the coalition, to stick it out in Iraq until ISIS is totally defeated and the region is stable.

"We shouldn't see a dramatic change and as long as the government of Iraq wants us here, we'll be here," Anderson told CBC News.

The determination to destroy the extremist group may not be in question, but the stage is set for what could be some pretty brutal policy battles about how that can be accomplished.

The election of Trump as the next U.S. president has the potential to radically reshape the future of the war against the Islamic State over the long-term.

It will have little influence, in the near-term, on the unfolding, bloody campaign to retake Iraq's second-largest city, said Anderson and other coalition commanders who spoke to CBC News.

A Peshmerga soldier guards an outpost on Zardek Mountain, northwest of Erbil, in northern Iraq. (Murray Brewster/CBC)

The direction of the daily, grinding battle in Mosul was set months ago. Trump's election is also not expected to change the plan to encircle and eventually liberate Raqqa, the de facto ISIS capital in Syria.

The Obama administration intended those campaigns to be conducted with a "light footprint" from the Western point of view, utilizing local ground forces, Syrian opposition groups, coalition special forces, as well as western artillery and air power.

But key decisions on how and where to proceed afterwards await the president-elect when he takes over in January.
What will Trump ask of Canada?

Whether Trump agrees with the strategy or wants it changed to include a more robust Western involvement is unclear.

During the U.S. election, Trump threatened to "bomb the hell out of ISIS" and suggested he was prepared to upend the carefully laid military plans.

"I know more about ISIS than the generals do, believe me," Trump said last August. "I'd hit them so hard your head would spin. There's nobody bigger or better at the military than I am."

He promised to send up to 30,000 U.S. troops to the region, but has since backtracked with a pledge to pressure other countries to fight.

The big question for Canada will be whether a Trump administration will demand more than just military training and non-combat support in the next phase of the campaign.

Lt.-Col. Steve Hunter, commander of the Canadian Special Forces Operating Regiment in Iraq on Nov. 14, 2016. (Murray Brewster/CBC)

The Liberal government withdrew Canadian fighter-bombers from the anti-ISIS air campaign last February, but tripled the number of special forces trainers and increased specialized intelligence and surveillance of extremists in Iraq.

Trump has made no secret of the fact he believes allies should pay and do more around the world.

The campaign to liberate Mosul could drag on for months as Iraqi security fight their way, block by block, through the city that once housed two million people.

It is now a warren of rubble, booby traps, roadside bombs and sniper ambush points.
Shadow warfare expected next

Almost every senior military commander on the ground, American, Canadian, Iraqi and Kurdish, is expecting ISIS to revert to a hit-and-run insurgency once Mosul and surrounding villages are cleared.

That presents a problem.

Most of the training Canadian special forces have provided to the Kurds involves traditional combat skills, not the intelligence-driven shadow warfare that characterized the decade-long combat commitment in Afghanistan.

Brig. Adel Rash, a Peshmerga commander in the region of Zartak Mountain on the outskirts of Mosul, told CBC News that his forces would welcome counter-insurgency training and he wants the Canadians to deliver it.

"We are in need of training courses," he said in an interview. "When ISIS activity changes to an insurgency, I need to be prepared."

Whether the Trudeau government, with its planned return to peacekeeping and deployment of a battle group in eastern Europe, is interested in such an ongoing commitment is unclear.

Judging by federal budget documents, the Liberals have given themselves the option of pulling the plug next year.

Only $41.9 million has been set aside for the operation in Iraq in 2017-18, two-thirds less than what is being spent this year.

But now, one has to ask: Will Donald Trump allow Canadians to leave without consequence?

Trudeau affirms commitment to NATO, Latvia mission following Trump victory

By: Lee Berthiaume, Canadian Press 

OTTAWA — Canada is pressing ahead with plans to deploy hundreds of troops as part of a NATO effort to deter Russian aggression in eastern Europe amid concerns about the military alliance's future under Donald Trump.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on Monday affirmed Canada's commitment to lead one of four NATO forces in eastern Europe, which will see 450 Canadian troops deploy to Latvia starting next year.

Trudeau said he is "very proud" that Canada is taking a leadership role "as we support the Baltic states and defend the eastern European border against Russia."

His comments came as NATO members scrambled to understand how the Trump administration plans to deal with and support the 67-year-old military alliance.

During the presidential election campaign, Trump repeatedly called NATO obsolete and warned the U.S. would not automatically come to the defence of a member that was attacked.

The real-estate mogul and reality-television star also praised Russian President Vladimir Putin, despite a clampdown on human rights and democracy in Russia and its actions in Ukraine and Syria.

Now that Trump has been elected president, many NATO members have been wringing their hands over what might happen if Russia decided to flex its muscles in eastern Europe in the same way it did in Ukraine.

U.S. President Barack Obama sought to allay those concerns in Washington, D.C., on Monday, as he prepared to visit NATO members Germany and Greece.

"In my conversation with the president-elect, he expressed a great interest in maintaining our core strategic relationships," Obama said.

"There is no weakening of resolve when it comes to America's commitment to maintaining a strong and robust NATO relationship."

Many NATO members are nonetheless waiting for Trump himself to set the record straight on his views over the military alliance.

Trump has said he would first consider whether an ally that is under attack has been pulling its weight in terms of defence spending before deciding whether the U.S. would help.

All NATO members agreed in 2014 to spend two per cent of their gross domestic product (GDP) on defence, but only five meet that target.

Canada is in the bottom third of allies at less than one per cent, the lowest level in decades.

Latvia was at 1.04 per cent last year, but has committed to doubling that figure by 2018.

Asked about the risk to troops in Latvia if U.S. support for NATO softens, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan said the military is considering all the risks and will make sure the soldiers and their partners are prepared.

The Canadians are to form the core of a 1,000-strong battle group that will include troops from Albania, Italy, Poland and Slovenia.

"This will be a very robust battlegroup that Canada will be leading," Sajjan said.

Latvia's ambassador to Canada downplayed the impact of Trump's election on NATO, saying his country, a former Soviet republic, has lived through "different times and settings" in its history.

"We believe that U.S. institutions and democracy are strong, international commitments clear and there are no obstacles that we could not overcome if necessary," Karlis Eihenbaums said in an email.

Steve Saideman, a NATO expert at Carleton University, said he would like to see Canada come together with Germany and Britain to publicly affirm their support for the alliance and eastern European members.

Such an action, he said, would help counter some of the uncertainty that Trump has injected into the alliance and give Russia pause about taking any action.

But defence analyst David Perry of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute said the reality is that Canada and most of the other NATO members have not been pulling their weight, and that it may be time to start doing so.

"We've all agreed to these commitments of two per cent," he said. "We won't move to two per cent tomorrow, but increasing to 1.2 or 1.3 per cent would be a significant increase."

— with reporting from Alexander Panetta in Washington, D.C.

— Follow @leeberthiaume on Twitter

Lee Berthiaume, The Canadian Press

Trump’s win will increase pressure on Canada to ramp up defence spending, military analysts predict

By: David Pugliese, National Post 

Donald Trump’s election victory will put pressure on the Liberal government to boost defence spending and rethink participation in the U.S. missile defence shield, and could affect some of its high-profile missions such as in eastern Europe.

Department of National Defence officials in Ottawa are working on an analysis of what a Trump presidency will mean. But Trump has already provided a preview of the direction he plans to take.

He has promised to boost the size of the U.S. military and significantly increase the number of warships in America’s arsenal. He has talked about improving missile defence, focusing on outfitting naval ships with such a capability.

In addition, Trump has warned that NATO nations he sees as “free riders” will have to share more of the financial burden on the security front. Although he didn’t specifically name Canada, defence analysts expect Washington will send a message in the future that more money and equipment are needed.

CF-18 fighter jets sit on the tarmac at the NATO airbase at the NATO Baltic Air Policing mission in Lithuania in 2014.

Related
Defence cuts have left Canadian military in ‘fragile’ shape: Rick Hillier
Harjit Sajjan defends Canada’s military budget after Donald Trump slams NATO ‘free riders’

“Canada is going to come under some pressure to bump up its defence spending,” said analyst Martin Shadwick, who teaches strategic studies at York University in Toronto. “Trump is also talking about a type of Fortress America so that could affect our own border security policies.”


NATO members had signed a declaration in Wales two years ago agreeing to increase defence spending to two per cent of gross domestic product within a decade.

NATO says Canada spent just one per cent of GDP on defence last year, the smallest amount since before the Second World War. While most other NATO members have also failed to fulfil their commitment, Canada is currently in the bottom third in terms of defence spending as a percentage of GDP.

Steve Staples, vice president of the Rideau Institute in Ottawa, said Trump’s victory could have a significant impact on Canada’s defence policy. Trump is promoting protectionist trade policies and tighter border security. Similar to the presidency of George W. Bush, Canada may have to make security concessions if it wants to keep the border open for trade, Staples said.

“There will be intense pressure to boost spending on the military, to buy new equipment, preferably from the Americans,” said Staples. “Canadian defence policy makers are going to have little room to manoeuvre with this president.”

In an interview shortly after Trump complained in April about NATO free riders, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan defended Canada’s level of defence spending. He questioned NATO’s figures and told the Ottawa Citizen that depending on what formula is used, Canada’s contribution could be seen to be as high as 1.5 per cent of GDP.

At the same time, Sajjan said what’s important is that Canada is contributing to a large number of military operations that directly and indirectly benefit NATO. That includes sending troops to Ukraine and Poland and deploying a frigate to the Black Sea.

But will Canada’s presence in eastern Europe — aimed at supporting NATO’s efforts against what it terms Russian aggression — leave much of an impression on Trump?

Trump has said he wants to form a new relationship with Russia and promised he would meet the country’s president, Vladimir Putin, before his inauguration. Trump has also suggested there needs to be increased co-operation with Russia in the battle against Islamic extremists in Iraq and elsewhere.

“We may see a big shift in tone on Russia,” said Staples. “In some ways Trump’s future policy is a blank page. As he has said, he doesn’t owe anything to anybody.”

In addition, both Staples and Shadwick see a Trump administration wanting Canadian participation in missile defence.

Some Liberals have already signaled their desire to take part in America’s missile shield and any pressure from a Trump administration may be enough to seal Canada’s participation.

Shadwick, however, pointed out that Trump is interested in focusing on a missile defence system outfitted on naval vessels, something Canada’s navy is also examining.

dpugliese@postmedia.com

Twitter.com/davidpugliese

A Trump Presidency could Pressure Canada on Defence Spending

By: John Paul Tasker, CBC News 

NATO adopted a 2% of GDP Defence Spending Policy -
Something Canada is currently not abiding by

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan says meeting NATO spending targets is under consideration; as part of Defence Review.

Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump doesn't hesitate to shoot from the hip on a host of public policy issues, but his comments Wednesday about the efficacy of NATO have reverberated throughout defence circles and could have consequences for Canada.

At the core of his criticism of the multilateral alliance is that the United States foots the bill for far too much of the alliance's defence capacity, and other member nations — including Canada — are "freeloaders" for failing to contribute their fair share of domestic military spending.

"It's obsolete and too many people are getting a free ride," Trump said Tuesday night after racking up lopsided victories in five presidential primaries.

"Frankly, they have to put up more money. We are paying disproportionately. It's too much. It's a different world than it was when we originally conceived of the idea."

He has also argued that NATO does not adequately address the pressing problems of our time, notably Islamic terrorism, but is instead focused on an older adversary, Russia, and its continental encroachment.

Related
Canada's patched-up military: Too few dollars, too many missions
Harjit Sajjan names blue-ribbon panel to review Canada's defence policy
Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan says he will not reduce the size of the military

He doubled down Wednesday, during one of his first scripted policy speeches in Washington, saying that if NATO allies don't meet the spending targets they should get out of the alliance and defend themselves against security threats without relying on American firepower.

"The countries we are defending must pay for the cost of this defence, and if not, the U.S. must be prepared to let these countries defend themselves. We have no choice," he said.

Donald Trump slams military 'free riders' in NATO0:48
Defence review to consider spending boost

Canada's Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan said Wednesday that meeting NATO's spending target of two per cent of GDP — something that Canada agreed to in 2006 — is still under consideration.

"This is a discussion we're going to have as part of the defence review," Sajjan said, adding that money alone does not accurately measure Canada's military contributions. "The defence review is also going to allow us to have that conversation about what direction we need to go. We are committed to working with our multilateral organizations, and NATO is a part of that."

Canada signed on to meeting that target but that promise looks disingenuous in retrospect. Canada's spending comes in at just one per cent of GDP, or roughly $20 billion a year, a figure that many argue is simply too low to sustain a fine fighting force. Indeed, only five other countries of the 28 in NATO spend less.

In the short term, Canada is inching no closer to meeting its goal. The 2016 budget deferred some $3.7 billion in spending for capital projects by five years. The Harper government, too, let billions in planned military spending lapse.

The military spending shortfall from non-U.S. NATO allies has left some member countries wholly dependent on the Americans for key military functions, something that could be mitigated by more robust national military budgets.

"There is an over-reliance by the alliance as a whole on the United States for the provision of essential capabilities, including for instance, in regard to intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; air-to-air refueling; ballistic missile defense; and airborne electronic warfare," NATO officials wrote in a recent policy paper on national funding.
Trump, Obama on the same page

It's not just the decidedly non-interventionist Trump — a man who has had trouble naming any of his foreign policy advisers — who has taken aim at countries that are failing to meet the spending target. In fact, he is on the same page with an unlikely ally: the current president.

"Free riders aggravate me," Obama said in a recent, in-depth interview with The Atlantic magazine.

As recently as last year, the president warned the United Kingdom that it would no longer be able to claim a "special relationship" with the U.S. if it failed to spend at least two per cent of its GDP on defence.

"You have to pay your fair share," Obama told British Prime Minister David Cameron. In last year's budget, Britain subsequently met the target despite an emphasis on austerity in other areas of program spending.

Trump is not the first person to raise the "free rider" statement. U.S. President Barack Obama has said he doesn't like military 'free riders,' something that could include Canada, which lags behind the NATO goal of spending two per cent of GDP on defence.

It's not known if Obama has raised Canada's comparatively low levels of military spending with Prime Minister Trudeau, but the country's defence budget has not gone unnoticed by others in the capital of our closest partner, including liberal-minded Democrats in Congress.

"The prime minister has committed to up the ante for Canada's presence in the world," senior U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar told CBC Radio's The House during a recent visit to Washington, and that should include boosted military spending.

"I know you have your own economic issues with oil prices down and other things ... but I do think that it would be good if Canada would invest a bit more — and I love that two per cent number," the senator said, identifying it as one of the few sticking points between the two countries.

----

John Paul (J.P.) Tasker is an associate producer and web writer in the CBC's Parliamentary bureau in Ottawa. Prior to joining the web desk, he was a producer on CBC News Network's Power & Politics. He can be reached at john.tasker@cbc.ca.
Follow J.P. on Twitter

Sajjan defends Canada’s military budget after Donald Trump slams NATO ‘free riders’

By: Lee Berthiaume, The National Post

OTTAWA — Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan has defended Canada for bringing up the rear in terms of military spending among NATO members, after U.S. Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump and a number of U.S. senators recently slammed the alliance for being full of “free riders.”

All NATO members signed a declaration in Wales two years ago agreeing to increase defence spending to two per cent of gross domestic product within a decade.

But NATO says Canada spent just one per cent of GDP on defence last year, the smallest amount since before the Second World War. While most other NATO members have also failed to fulfil their commitment, Canada is currently in the bottom third of the alliance in terms of defence spending as a percentage of GDP.

In an interview with the Ottawa Citizen, Sajjan questioned NATO’s figures. “My question back is: What formula would you like us to use?” he said. “If we use the different formulas of various other countries, we can crunch the numbers and we can move it up to 1.3 (per cent of GDP), 1.4, potentially even 1.5.”

At the same time, Sajjan said what’s important is that Canada is contributing to a large number of military operations that directly and indirectly benefit NATO. That includes sending troops to Ukraine and Poland, deploying a frigate to the Black Sea, and helping stop drug traffickers in the Caribbean.

“So when you actually look at what Canada is doing and what investment we have made to certain capabilities that supports those operations, then I would like to say: Before you talk about how much money and that percentage, talk to me about what each nation is actually doing,” Sajjan said.

Related
Liberals ‘absolutely’ committed to military but it needs a tighter focus, defence minister says
Everything on the table during upcoming review of military, defence minister says
Donald Trump to key allies: ‘Substantially reimburse’ U.S. or lose military protection

Defence analyst David Perry of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute said NATO’s formula for calculating spending is standardized for all alliance members. And while he sympathized with the view that it’s what you do with your military, not how much you spend, he said Canada still made a commitment to spend two per cent on defence.

“That’s what we signed up to,” Perry said. “That’s the metric we’re measured against.”

The question of NATO members not pulling their weight emerged last week as a potential issue in the U.S. presidential election, after Trump called the alliance “obsolete” and accused a number of countries of being “free riders.”

While many of Trump’s comments during the Republican primary have been dismissed as absurd or worse, some U.S. analysts have said Trump’s comments on NATO reflect a growing sentiment within the American populace — and even some parts of official Washington.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg got an earful from angry senators during an hour-long, closed-door meeting in Washington last week, according to Foreign Policy magazine. The senators wanted to know why only five of 28 NATO members were spending two per cent of their gross domestic product on defence.

The British government, which spent about 2.07 per cent of GDP on defence last year, also sent a diplomatic message to Ottawa and other NATO capitals in January indicating their unhappiness with the lack of progress made toward meeting the Wales commitment.

lberthiaume@postmedia.com

Twitter.com/leeberthiaume