Federal Budget turns a blind eye to Canada's military needs

By David Krayden, National Post 

Opinion: Were the Liberals ever serious about their big defence plan? They cut defence spending in 2018 and are ignoring it in 2019

Last week’s federal budget offered relatively modest spending with targeted funding after years of spending from a government that seemed to believe the deficit will solve itself. Unfortunately, the Canadian Armed Forces again escaped the finance minister’s gaze and for the second consecutive year, national defence is conspicuous by its absence from the budget.

A Canadian soldier provides security as medics assist German troops during a medical evacuation demonstration on the United Nations base in Gao, Mali, on Dec. 22, 2018.Adrian Wyld/CP

You might recall the fanfare when Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan released the Liberals’ defence policy review in 2017: “Strong, Secure, Engaged.” It was already more than six months overdue and there was a feeling among defence analysts and most journalists that the Liberals had to deliver a document that suggested serious resolve.

HMCS Windsor, one of Canada’s Victoria-class long range patrol submarines, returns to port in Halifax on June 20, 2018. Andrew Vaughan/CP

Sajjan promised a whopping 70-per-cent increase in defence spending, pledging to drive funding up to $32.7 billion from $18.9 billion. Naval ships, combat-support vehicles and 88 fighter jets would be replaced through “an open and transparent competition.”

But there was one large disclaimer. All of this would happen over the next decade, assuming the realities of 2017 would remain constant during that period. How well would any government have done predicting the military needs of 1942 based on the geopolitics of 1932?

In any case, we’ve yet to see any indication that the Liberals were serious about the plan. They cut defence spending in 2018 and have ignored it in 2019.

A Canadian soldier prepares to leave base in Gao, Mali, on Aug. 1, 2018, to take part in an operation as part of the United Nations mission in that country. AFP/Getty Images

Was there an alternative motive to the 2017 defence review? Canada was still in the midst of NAFTA negotiations with an American president who was increasingly critical of our defence contribution, especially as it pertained to NATO. Donald Trump had repeatedly cited Canada as one of the deadbeat members of NATO that refuses to fund its military at two per cent of its GDP — despite having promised to do so and notwithstanding that we have done so in the past. With Budget 2019, Canada is no closer to meeting that pledge, spending 1.23 per cent of its GDP on national defence.

A photograph taken out the window of a Canadian Forces CC-150 Polaris tanker shows a CF-18 Hornet fighter jet being refuelled in the air over Vancouver on Feb. 18, 2010. Master Corporal Andrew Collins, 14 Wing Imaging

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s desultory approach to defence capital acquisition may well be defined by the fighter jet fiasco that grows more bizarre with every twist and turn of the story. It was the Liberal government of Jean Chrétien that joined the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter development program. It was Stephen Harper’s Conservative government that dithered on procuring the aircraft. It is the current Trudeau government that decided to start the whole process again. In the meantime, the Liberals considered buying some interim Super Hornets from Boeing before ultimately deciding to pick up some used Australian F-18s — just as the Royal Australian Air Force took delivery of its first F-35s.A

Perhaps the best speech of this year’s just-concluded Manning Networking Conference in Ottawa was delivered by former chief of defence staff Gen. Rick Hillier. Hillier, whose career was defined by integrity and a politics-be-damned leadership style, told the conservative gathering that if Canada “buys a fighter aircraft that is anything but the F-35, we will have lost our minds.”

The last prime minister who consistently funded the Canadian military was Louis St-Laurent. All successive administrations — Liberal and Conservative — have to varying degrees played the shell game with defence spending. While lauding a capital acquisition project here, they will starve another project over there to pay for it. While promising consistent funding, they will squeeze the military at the first opportunity when a fiscal need emerges elsewhere.


They will squeeze the military at the first opportunity

With defence procurement being so hamstrung by petty politics and policy inertia, no amount of government funding can guarantee a combat-capable military if those dollars are not efficiently and effectively spent. As Hillier said, “Our acquisition process in Canada, in particular for the Department of National Defence, is abhorrent. It is pointless to give the Department of National Defence increased spending if you then tie them in a Gordian knot where they can’t actually spend the money.”

Sadly, that’s exactly what we’re doing.

— David Krayden is a former Royal Canadian Air Force public affairs officer and legislative assistant on Parliament Hill. He has worked in print, radio and television journalism and is currently the Ottawa bureau chief for The Daily Caller, a Washington-based media outlet.

Canadian Forces Considering Dropping Citizenship Requirements

By: Tony Keene, CBC News Opinions

The Canadian Armed Forces recently said that in the interest of boosting ranks, it is considering changing its requirement that recruits have Canadian citizenship — a policy that many assumed to be longstanding.

In fact, the longstanding practice in our military has been to enroll non-citizens. It has long been part of our military tradition. If it had not been, I wouldn't be here writing this column.

In the First World War, the Canadian Expeditionary Force, which fought on the Western Front, was largely made up of British-born men throughout the entire four years of that conflict. They were given priority for recruitment in some cases, and even as late as October of 1917, a survey showed that the CEF was still 55 per cent British. And that was all ranks. If you take out the officers, who were largely Canadian-born, the percentage rises to about 65 per cent.

And that, after more than three years of war.

Canada was awarded 73 Victoria Crosses in that conflict. Only 30 of them went to those born in this country; the rest went to foreigners, almost all of them British.

When the war ended, large numbers of those men did not come home to Canada, but went back to the British Isles. They weren't Canadian, and did not consider themselves to be. Most of them joined because they were unemployed, and wanted to go home to Britain. Three hots and a cot, and a steamship bunk.

After the Second World War, when not only Brits but many Americans served in our uniforms, the Royal Canadian Air Force was being equipped with the Bomarc anti-aircraft missile. The need for increased security prompted the formation of an Air Force Police branch, and recruiters immediately set out, not across Canada but across the Atlantic, seeking to lure the famed British Bobby to come to our shores.

At the time, the the Metropolitan London Police were thought to be the finest police force on earth, and Brit cops were thought to be superior overall.

One of those was my father.

Recruitment on the streets of London

Having served in the Household Cavalry, he was now in the Metropolitan Police Mounted Branch. While riding through the streets of London in 1955, he was hailed by a Canadian air force recruiter:

"Good morning constable! Are you thinking about emigrating? The Royal Canadian Air Force needs policemen."

And that's how I got here.

After living in Alberta for five years, we were posted to France, and then Germany with the 1st Canadian Air Division.

I remember going into the guardhouse at Grostenquin in France to see my father, and hearing nothing but British accents from everyone in there. The entire shift was British.

The author's father, Cpl. Jack Keene, being decorated at RCAF 2 Wing, Grostenquin, France in 1961. (Supplied)

Upon our return to Canada in 1964, we settled at Base Borden in Ontario and at the age of 17, I joined my local militia regiment, the Grey and Simcoe Foresters. Citizenship was never an issue. Three years later, I was commissioned and joined my local newspaper, The Barrie Examiner, and my two careers moved forward in tandem.

We were called "landed immigrants" and for all intents and purposes, we were the same as citizens.

When my father retired in 1969, we were still not citizens, and this caused a flap when my parents returned to Britain for two years and then tried to come back. They were turned down as "undesirable immigrants" and it took newspaper headlines and a ministerial warrant to allow them back in.

We all became Canadian citizens shortly after that. I remember walking into the citizenship office in uniform, as I was on reserve duty at the time. I was shown into an office where a woman administered the oath, had me sign a piece of paper, and that was it. My certificate arrived in the mail shortly afterwards.

Enrolling non-citizens in the Forces is a Canadian tradition going back to the beginning of our military. This is nothing new, and it will not only provide us with skilled and trained soldiers, but eventually with more solid citizens, especially if we give them a "fast track" way of doing it.

If the world needs more Canada, Canada needs more Canadians. This is another good way to get them.

---
This column is part of CBC's Opinion section. For more information about this section, please read this editor's blog and our FAQ.

CAF Grows More Top Heavy

By: Lee Berthiaume, The Canadian Press

OTTAWA — The Canadian military has been getting heavier up top and not in the muffin sort of way.

New figures show the ranks of the Canadian Forces' senior brass have been growing at a much faster rate than the rest of the military over the last 15 years as dozens of generals and admirals have been added.

How much faster? There were 130 generals and admirals in January 2018 compared with 81 during same month in 2003 — a 60 per cent increase over a period in which the rest of the military grew by less than two per cent.

Defence chief Gen. Jonathan Vance stood by the additional brass in an interview on Wednesday and said he plans to grow the senior ranks even more in the coming years in response to new demands and challenges.

"The number of general officers in militaries is not a direct reflection or correlation to the number of people you have in your military," he told The Canadian Press. "We don't grow generals because we want more generals."

Defence experts are divided over the rapid rate of expansion, with some saying it is necessary and others warning about the potential draw on resources from other parts of the military, particularly in terms of combat readiness.

One high-profile review conducted in 2010 by then-lieutenant-general Andrew Leslie, now a Liberal MP and parliamentary secretary for Canada-U.S. relations, specifically called for a reduction in senior military positions.

"Initiatives to reduce overhead should target the disproportionate increases in senior management ... aiming to restore civilian and military (executive) positions to roughly 2004 levels," Leslie wrote.

Vance pushed back against suggestions the Canadian Forces is in danger of getting a brass bulge, saying there have been important changes over the past 15 years that require more generals.

For example, he said, Canada has deployed more senior officers to act as liaison officers with various U.S. and foreign commands in response to evolving threats and the need for greater understanding of what is happening overseas.

New priorities have also emerged with regards to space and cyber operations, while Vance said he has specifically appointed senior officers to manage sensitive personnel files such as sexual misconduct and veterans' issues.

"So those are positions that get filled as a result of how it is that we want to improve our own performance in a force that's growing or has gotten new needs," he said.

"I put a general officer in a place where I need a general officer. And there are a number of factors that lead to that. It's not always how many people are you leading. It might be the job that you're doing."

Defence analysts were largely united in their belief that some type of growth at the top of the military over the past 15 years was to be expected — and even necessary.

"The business of defence has become increasingly complex over the last 20 years," Canadian Forces College professor Eric Ouellet said in an email. "So, there is a need for more 'management' and therefore more (senior officers)."

But David Perry of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute was among those who questioned the extent of the "rank creep," especially since the numbers continued to climb even as the Harper government cut the Forces earlier this decade.

Many units were forced to park vehicles or cut training as they faced budget reductions of up to 15 per cent, which has only been reversed in the past couple of years.

"I'm sure there are defensible explanations for all of them," Perry said of the continued increase in senior officers.

"It's just when you step back and look at 50 positions and that kind of percentage increase which vastly exceeds the overall increase in the size of the force, then it's a little bit harder to rationalize the collective picture."

Public Outcry: The Way to Fix the Canadian Forces

By: Ian J. Keddie, Macleans

Opinion: Why the Canadian Armed Forces are trapped in a catch-22—and why pressure on our politicians is the only thing that can break it

Canada may not be known for its military might—perhaps rightly so. The country’s military budget has fallen among the lowest in NATO, when measured as a percentage of GDP, and procrastination on decisions for new equipment has led to years of delays. A Lester Pearson-era reputation for peacekeeping has subsumed, in the public’s mind, the CAF’s responsibility for national defence.

But despite the limited size of spending on defence, the Canadian Armed Forces have, in fact, maintained a complex and effective range of military capabilities around the world, providing specialist experience and capabilities that are the envy of almost every country. It contributes to a diverse range of military tasks and has maintained a long history of supporting NATO operations, taking part in 19 international military operations and 11 domestic operations in 2017. It has sustained a number of missions in Europe under Operation Reassurance since the Russian invasion of Crimea in 2014. Operation Reassurance has been a sustained effort, with elements of all three services maintaining a presence in Central and Eastern Europe. Canada also has 450 soldiers leading a NATO-enhanced Forward Presence battlegroup in Latvia. In addition to European commitments, the Royal Canadian Navy has deployed a submarine across the Pacific for the first time in 50 years.

Despite this tempo of operations, the Armed Forces are often out of sight and out of mind. Indeed, Canada’s relationship with its military could be generously described as aloof. Little attention is given to the topic of defence in the country’s media, and the Armed Forces often take a backseat to many other national issues. Considering the significant role of the Armed Forces in Canada’s founding myths, military tradition and experience is strangely absent from everyday life, and thanks in part to this feeling of indifference on the part of voters, Canada’s politicians have allowed spending to dwindle.

There are, however, still military issues that provoke attention nationally. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s tone-deaf response to a disabled veteran at a town hall meeting in Edmonton last week about why the government was fighting some veterans’ groups in court over injury compensation—because “they’re asking for more than we are able to give right now”—demonstrated a profound misjudgement of attitudes, and he has suffered a wave of criticism as a result.

Trudeau’s comment will only widen the divide between veterans and the government. But a gap between civilian and military culture is not isolated to the Liberal Party: it is the symptom of a broader disconnect in the national psyche.

COUNTERPOINT: We’ve given up on Canada’s military, so let’s abandon it altogether

Canada’s vast geography has a lot to do with that: the country is simply too big and major population centres too far away from the main centres of military activities. Of the world’s 20 largest economies, Canada easily has the smallest military per area of territory. Short of completely demilitarized states such as Iceland or Costa Rica, it is almost impossible to find a country with fewer personnel per square kilometre; as of 2016, Canada has just 0.0066 uniformed personnel to protect each square kilometre, while Australia is the only nation that comes close, with 0.0074 personnel per square kilometre. South Korea is (understandably) the most militarized of the top 20 economies, at 6.24 in uniform per square kilometre.

Of course, this may be an unfair metric for the second largest country on Earth. But an alternative metric, using military personnel per capita, still leaves Canada the fourth-lowest number, with 0.0018 per person. In this instance, Canada is only beaten by India, Brazil, and China, whose large armed forces are eclipsed by their giant populations. Such measurements tell us nothing about military effectiveness or capability, but they do give some indication of the presence of the military in everyday life.

Indeed, Canada’s military is far less visible, particularly to people living in larger urban centres, and Canadians are less likely to know someone who has, or is currently serving in the Armed Forces. Countries such as the U.K., Germany, and Australia have almost 30 per cent more personnel per capita and the proportion is greater still in places like Spain, France, or the United States. The recent attention on defence spending by NATO nations has certainly spurred a greater discussion on the topic and it is right that Canada should gradually take more responsibility for national defence and seek to improve the role it can play with allies and international partners. But it shouldn’t require a wounded former soldier arguing with the Prime Minister for military issues to make the front pages: there are Canadian personnel carrying out tasks around the world every day that largely go unreported.

READ MORE: Why military funding in Canada is in such a sorry state

The other reason for the forces’ lack of visibility is the simple fact of our national peace. More so than perhaps any other advanced economy, Canada has benefited from the peace dividend that resulted from the end of the Cold War, and the implied protection that Canada’s close relationship to the U.S. provides has led to a complacent attitude towards national defence. The Trudeau administration has attempted to reverse Canada’s spending trend and aims to increase spending from around 1 per cent of GDP to 1.4 per cent by the middle of the next decade, but it’s a decision many saw as merely a response to a new era of uncertainty around U.S. policy.

Still, the Trudeau administration has touted engagement with partners and a wider global presence as an aim for the military and Canada’s government agencies, and the country’s various deployments demonstrate an ability to carry out that role. But if Canada wants to maintain such capabilities, then investment in personnel and equipment are vital for the future of the CAF. There was a great deal of praise for the navy’s new supply ship, the MV Asterix, entering service last month, but celebrations should be tempered by remembering that the MV Asterix was hastily procured as a stop-gap until brand new supply ships are delivered some time next decade. Successive governments have delayed decisions on the Joint Supply Ship (JSS) programme since 2004, and no construction is likely to start until 2019. Multiple attempts to choose a new jet has left the air force in need of its own stopgap secondhand F-18s from Australia, and a huge shortfall looms in the number of reserve personnel that the army aims to have by next year. Trudeau’s planned additional investment of $62 billion over the next 20 years is failing to make headwayin the first year of implementation, and there are many areas of the Defence Policy Review that lack specific goals or deadlines.

If Canada wants to invest more in national defence, Canadian attitudes towards delays or can-kicking of procurement decisions must change so that they are politically unacceptable. Such an opportunity presents itself this year when the government selects a winning bidder for the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) programme; the CSC, the largest procurement project ever carried out by Canada, represents the future shape of the RCN, and could be the first of many large investments into the future of the CAF under Trudeau. Other, smaller investment decisions in cyber warfare, drones, and satellite communications are capabilities that Canada lacks, and while many of these are outlined as requirements in the Defence Policy Review, they were given no specific plans. Training, recruitment, and retention have also been chronic problems for the CAF, but investment in areas such as these usually fails to grab the headlines in the same way that new jets or ships do.

The stakes are increasing. Two decades of delays and underinvestment will eventually erode Canada’s capabilities. Much of Canada’s military equipment is entering the latter stages of its lifespan, and it is crucial that the money for replacements is invested now rather than left until it is too late. There won’t always be stop-gap options in the future, and it is far more difficult to relearn capabilities than it is to retain them.

In Jack Granatstein’s 2004 book, Who Killed the Canadian Military?, the historian concludes that ultimately, public attitudes have allowed politicians—who should take “the major share of the credit” in the military’s fade—to ignore the CAF. The Canadian interpretation of the military’s role is distinctive on the world stage, as the country sees peacekeeping as the CAF’S primary function and ignored the requirement for national defence. It’s produced a catch-22: the military’s shrinking role throughout the second half of the 20th century often placed it out of citizens’ view, which has led to even less public interest and political appetite. As the Trudeau administration reconsiders the country’s foreign policy and the role the armed forces will play in that, the public needs to provide the momentum for sustained regeneration of the military—before it’s too late.

Is it time the Canadian Forces developed a full-service rapid response brigade?

By: Anthony Furey, Sun Media 

The Canadian Forces should develop a new brigade that can take on sea, land and air roles all in one, a new paper recommends.

A tri-service rapid response brigade, as it’s called, would be a groundbreaking endeavour that rolls in all the current and traditional capabilities of the Canadian Forces as well as new measures like attack helicopters, drones (both armed and unarmed), cyber warfare specialists and more.

It would be built upon the current training models and performance levels of the Joint Task Force Two and the Special Operations Regiment.

“Canada neither needs nor can afford a large general service military,” the paper, Canada’s Defence Policy: Now Taking Off, argues in one section of a broader study of the latest defence policy review. “What it can develop and maintain are smaller units consisting of highly-trained personnel with multi-modal capability.”

The idea for the rapid response brigade came from speaking with senior NATO figures who said Canada’s allies would really benefit from us having such a capability, explained the report’s co-author Brian Hay, a retired major in the reserves and current vice-chair of the Mackenzie Institute, a national security think-tank.

“Many military conflicts today are going to be fought on a smaller unit basis,” Hay said in a phone interview. “We’ve got to have the capability of standing alone if they have to do so.”

While other countries have similar initiatives, the closest comparison is the U.S. Marine Corps. This new brigade could do a range of activities from disaster relief to fighting terrorism. “We’re trying to encourage broader thinking and outside-the-box approaches,” Hay added.

Canada’s defence policy review, announced by the government in June, pledged to increase defence spending to inch towards our NATO commitments as well as increase the head count of both the regular and reserve forces by the thousands.

But there was no plan that came close to this one. The current and former Canadian Forces members I spoke to were all supportive of the general idea.

One veteran who served tours in Afghanistan stressed we need to break away from the regimented system and move to more blended training and battleground operations.

A former platoon commander was enthusiastic but skeptical about the implementation due to what he called the Canadian military’s “institutional lethargy” and “lack of inertia that is profound even by federal government standards.”

This notion, that change at the military, when it even happens, does so at a snail’s pace is nothing new but an even bigger stumbling block for an ambitious project like this.

Spencer Fraser, a former military officer and defence industry executive who is currently CEO of Federal Fleet Services, said “the challenge we’ve always had in Canada is the elements have been piecemeal deployed.” One example he cites is when the army is deployed abroad but becomes part of a U.K. brigade.

“Canada can cobble together high readiness units ready to go — and very professional ones — but if we were told to put together a fighting brigade to go to the Korean Peninsula, we’d have a difficult time,” said Fraser.

The paper, also authored by Honorary Lt.-Col. Matthew Gaasenbeek III, acknowledged the logistical challenges — predicting it would take a decade to get this up and running in a non-wartime environment. That’s certainly no reason not to try, though. It’s an idea that should be seriously considered.

“We have an air force that’s an air force. An army that’s an army. A navy that’s a navy. And they support each other when they can,” said Hay. “But when you’re in a conflict, you’re in it together.”

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."

The Battle to get More Women into the Military

This article was originally published on The Conversation, an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts. Disclosure information is available on the original site.
——

The Trudeau government released a new defence policy in early June, after months of speculation about the size of the defence budget, purchase of major equipment and Canada’s future role in military operations.

The election of Donald Trump in the U.S. no doubt threw the process off course and forced certain revisions to the policy, which was initially due in January. The policy offers guidelines on the types of operations the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) might undertake and promises a steady increase in funding over the next decade. But its main focus is on people — the women and men who dedicate their life to military service.


Highlighting the importance of diversity, the policy pays special attention to female service members and aims “to further increase the representation of women in the military by one per cent annually towards a goal of 25 per cent in 10 years.” Driving this shift is the assumption the CAF is in need of culture change — and that more women and the use of gender perspectives will improve the effectiveness of the armed forces.

Reflecting the community it serves

Why are women now seen as critical to the military enterprise?

First, greater diversity in the CAF is key to maintaining a healthy connection between the military and the rest of society. The CAF Diversity Strategy recognizes this and envisions an armed force representative of the community it serves to ensure public legitimacy and keep support for the military strong.

How can the CAF attract more women? There are formal commitments to recognize the importance of retaining diverse personnel, but informal barriers remain. The CAF already has some of the longest parental-leave policies in the world. But single parents and women still face professional setbacks.

The CAF must quickly recognize and address the pressures of military careers on families, which includes frequent moves and prolonged absences from loved ones during deployments. Counting parental leave toward promotion will also be necessary for the professional advancement of women, who disproportionately take on the role of primary caregiver.

Women are also less likely than men to consider a military career in the first place.

To address these well-known challenges, the CAF’s new recruitment strategy will aim to showcase the wide variety of occupations it offers, in an attempt to make the military more attractive to women. The Women in Force Program will also allow for a “try it before you buy it” program for women interested in joining but not ready to commit.

Seeking buy-in among the ranks

Second, a more diverse CAF is good for the entire organization, men included. Although adding more women will not result in immediate and transformative changes in the way the CAF does business, research has shown that diverse teams work better.

Military leaders will have to constantly promote these initiatives, but will also have to assuage fears about the maintenance of physical and performance standards. All members of the armed forces must trust that standards will be enforced fairly if the diversity strategy is to have buy-in at all levels.

This kind of broad-based buy-in has proven elusive in the past. Even if no formal professional barriers remain, there is still organizational resistance to women’s presence in non-traditional roles, such as combat. And women are still disproportionately affected by sexual misconduct, as a recent survey showed. Discriminatory and sexist attitudes, thus, persist.

‘Hop on Her’ controversy

These common narratives can be tempered with dedicated leadership. In the military context, these challenges need a commitment to addressing hard-to-answer questions.

For example, the Chief of the Defence Staff issued Operation Honour, an order meant to eradicate harmful and inappropriate sexual behaviour in the CAF’s ranks. This was a leadership decision that addressed a difficult and pervasive challenge for the military. But some members of the armed forces started undermining the initiative by calling it “Hop on Her.”.

This is where leaders in the military — who are mostly men — must be included in the discussion of promoting gender perspectives and women’s participation in the armed forces. For these reasons, the burden of change cannot rest on women’s shoulders, but must be spread evenly across the entire organization.

Education and training are key. Including feminist texts in the military curriculum or challenging the warrior ethos might lead to greater gender awareness amongst the upper cadre of military leaders, but most operators will only pay attention if they see how gender matters on the battlefield.

To this end, highlighting the link between gender (as opposed to women) and operational effectiveness is necessary. When soldiers are on the ground, accounting for the roles played by women and men — and their unique needs and power differences — is critical to operational planning and securing lasting outcomes. Understanding how gender intersects with social and cultural factors leads to greater situational awareness. Gender roles in Afghanistan and in Iraq, for example, had clear operational implications.

Promoting the operational and social benefits of women in the CAF is just the first step toward increasing their numbers in the military. To move beyond commitments and toward organizational change and buy-in, the CAF must go beyond women’s representation in the ranks and become aware of how gender relations are constructed, at home and on the battlefield.

----

Authors: Stefanie von Hlatky, Assistant Professor of Political Studies and Director of the Centre for International and Defence Policy, Queen’s University, Ontario and Meaghan Shoemaker, PhD Student, International Relations and Gender and Politics, Queen’s University, Ontario

CAF Women in Force Program Quickly Fills Up

By: Marc Montgonmery, CBCNews 

Women in Force Program

The Canadian Forces are eager to increase the number of women in the military.

There is a perception that women generally are intimidated by the idea of a military career so a new pilot project seeks to give them short information and “hands on” experiences with the military. The idea is to help dispel myths, get a sense of the realities and the many opportunities, and possibly inspire them to join.

LCol Raby is Deputy Commander, Canadian Forces Recruiting Group, and Canadian Armed Forces’ Head of the Women Recruiting Tiger Team.

The new pilot programme is called “Women in Force”.

It’s a reaction to a survey showing women really don’t know much about opportunities in the military, and what they do know often consists of myths and inaccuracies.

LCol Raby points out that one of the first myths about women in the Canadian Forces is that women’s roles are limited.

She says every career position of the one hundred or so available, is open to women including such things as front line infantry, or fighter pilot.

Participants in the 10-day Women in Force programme will get to experience a bit of hands on training with weapons and equipment. © Corporal Neil Clarkson, 14 AMS Wing Imaging GD2015-0285-003

She also points out that the military would like to encourage women in any role from engineers, to lawyers, pilots to doctors, dentists, nurses, from mechanics to firefighters, you name it, all are open to women and in the army, the air force, and the navy.

The newly conceived pilot programme involves two options for those women interested. The first option is a three-day session which takes place at Base Borden in Ontario for English speakers, and St Jean sur Richelieu in Quebec for Francophones.

A variety of opportunities and training in the medical field are available in the CF. Here, Master Corporal Natasha Lauzon of 1 Canadian Field Hospital in Petawawa, Ontario, and Sergeant Valerie Charbonneau, a medic with 55 Field Ambulance in Quebec City, Quebec, tend to the foot of a Canadian Armed Forces Nijmegen marching team member, during the Nijmegen Marches in the Netherlands, on July 23, 2015. © WO Jerry Kean, 5 Cdn Div Public Affairs

These sessions involve a lot of talking and meeting with those already involved in various trades with the military. They will learn about the realities and requirements of military life, and about the benefits and opportunities of which there are many.

Captain Meghan McCready (left), Aerospace Controller with 12 Radar Squadron, watches the control radar screen while Master Corporal Patrick Flynn (right), Air Control Operator with 12 Radar Squadron, relays the information during Exercise AMALGAM DART 15-2 in Resolute Bay, Nunavut on May 31, 2015. © Corporal Patrick Drouin, 4 Wing Imaging

A more involved ten-day visit is available in August which offers a more “hands-on” approach getting to experience various pieces of equipment including weapons. Another myth that most women have is that the physical fitness requirements would eliminate them. The ten-day experience allows them to experience physical fitness training and attempt the physical test for themselves.

The experience also gives a chance for one-on-one connection with women and men now in a variety of trades to learn about them first hand.

LCol Raby also points out that an officer training programme still exists in Canada whereby candidates have their university education paid for, and then sign up (and still get paid!) to serve in their degreed trade for a period of at least five years. Experience has shown that a high percentage choose to continue with the Canadian Forces after that time.

However, this pilot programme is to give a basic familiarization to any adult woman with Canadian citizenship with a minimum of grade 10.

She says once this initial pilot programme ends, the military will discuss the impressions of those involved and adjust future programmes to even better serve women who may be interested in the many trades, skills, and exciting opportunities the military has to offer.

LCol Raby says they are quite pleased with this initial pilot programme as all the 120 spots have been quickly filled with a waiting list.

Liberals face tough questions on Afghanistan, interim Fighter Jets

By: Lee Berthiaume, Canadian Press 

OTTAWA — Although the Trudeau government launched its long term plan for modernizing the military last week, more immediate realities are tugging for attention on the Liberals' list of defence priorities.

In particular, two critical, short-term questions have emerged: what to do about the government's plan to buy "interim" fighter jets, and whether to take on a new role in Afghanistan?

The Canadian Press has learned that Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan met with the head of Lockheed Martin, the U.S. defence giant behind the F-35 stealth fighter, in Singapore earlier this month.

Word of Sajjan's meeting with Lockheed president Marillyn Hewson came as the minister told CTV's Question Period that the government is looking at "different options" for addressing a critical shortage of fighter jets.

The Liberals announced last November that they would address the jet shortage by purchasing 18 "interim" Super Hornets from Boeing, before holding a competition to replace all of Canada's CF-18s.

But that was before Boeing complained to the U.S. Commerce Department that Canadian aerospace firm Bombardier had sold its CSeries jet liners at an unfair discount with help from the federal government.

The Liberals have since threatened to scrap the Super Hornet plan because of the dispute, which took another turn Friday when the U.S. International Trade Commission said it would continue investigating.

Sajjan's spokeswoman Jordan Owens confirmed the minister met with Hewson at a defence summit in Singapore at the beginning of June, but could not immediately comment on the discussion.

However, a Lockheed official speaking on background said Hewson told Sajjan that her company was ready and eager to deliver F-35s on an urgent basis if required.

That would represent a marked turn in the ongoing saga to buy new fighter jets for Canada, after initially promising during the last election to not buy the stealth fighters.

The Liberals recently spent another $30 million to stay at the table as a partner in the F-35 project, while Boeing for its part has emphasized its long-standing economic and commercial ties to Canada.

Fighter jets aren't the only issue requiring an immeidate decision as Sajjan's office said Sunday that NATO has asked Canada to send police officers to Afghanistan to help train the war-torn country's beleaguered security forces.

"We just received this and are looking into it," Sajjan's spokeswoman, Jordan Owens, told The Canadian Press. "The door hasn't been closed yet."

The request comes as the U.S. and NATO seek to bolster the alliance's footprint in Afghanistan, where local police and military forces have struggled against a resurgent Taliban.

The situation has been complicated by the arrival of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, which has launched several deadly attacks across the country over the past year.

One NATO official, who was not authorized to comment publicly, said alliance members will gather in Brussels later this month to announce what they can provide.

That puts Canada, which ended its military mission in Afghanistan in 2014, on the clock to decide sooner rather than later whether to dive back into the conflict.

Any decision to send Canadians, even police officers, back into Afghanistan is sure to stoke strong reactions given the heavy cost of Canada's military involvement in the country between 2001 and 2014.

Thousands of Canadians who served in Afghanistan during that period continue to suffer from physical or mental injuries, while 158 soldiers, one diplomat and one journalist were killed.

Canada also contributed billions of dollars in development assistance to the country - money that continues to flow in the form of about $150 million per year for aid and to pay the Afghan security forces.

Yet despite those investments of blood and treasure, peace and stability remain not only elusive, but increasingly scarce as Afghan security forces have lost ground to the Taliban, in particular.

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.

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.

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."

Senate Defence Report Calls for Bold Defence Plan

BY HUDSON ON THE HILL
© 2017 FrontLine Defence (Vol 14, No 3)

Canada can stop militarily “freeloading on our southern neighbour” if the federal government agrees to an ambitious capital equipment shopping list crafted by the Senate Committee on National Security and Defence. However, in releasing its third and final report on how the Canadian Armed Forces should evolve to fulfill all of its domestic, continental and overseas taskings, the committee didn’t put a price tag on any of its recommendations.

Its Chairman, Yukon Conservative Daniel Lang – who used the “freeloading” comment at the onset of his opening remarks – explained at a May 8 news conference that no dollar figures are attached to the recommendations simply because the committee lacks the resources to do those kinds of calculations.

There’s no doubt the committee’s core recommendation – that military spending be increased to the much-discussed NATO target of 2% of gross domestic product from the current 0.88% – could easily triple the annual outlay once inflation and time frames are taken into account over the next decade or two. But Lang repeatedly stressed the economic benefit of having so many new programs in play.

Royal Canadian Air Force capabilities would be increased through improvements on several fixed-wing components, topped by the committee’s call for the acquisition of 120 new fighters. It urged the government to immediately begin its promised competition for a replacement of the aging Boeing CF-188 Hornets with a view to choosing a new aircraft by mid-2018. Part of the package would include cancellation of the planned purchase of 18 Super Hornets as an interim measure.

Other fixed-wing recommendations include a call to: prioritize new air-to-air refueling platforms to replace the current Airbus CC-150 Polaris fleet; to expedite the replacement of the deHavilland CC-138 Twin Otters currently based in Yellowknife for search and rescue work in the North; and to replace the Lockheed Martin CP-140 Aurora long-range platforms – all by 2030.

On the rotary-wing side, the committee recommends the acquisition of 55 new medium- to heavy-lift helicopters as a partial replacement for 95 Bell CH-146 Griffons, as well as 24 attack helicopters for ground support. It also calls on the government to increase to 36 (from 15) the relatively new fleet of Boeing CH-147F Chinooks, and to upgrade and put into operation the VH-71 Kestrel variants of the Leonardo (AgustaWestland) CH-149 Cormorant SAR platforms, purchased from the U.S. government as a spares source several years ago, in order to augment the current Cormorant fleet through a proposed mid-life upgrade.

Modernization of the Royal Canadian Navy would centre around the acquisition of 12 new air-independent submarines (a concept rejected by the federal government a couple of decades ago). Pointing out that other circumpolar nations are expanding their underwater capabilities, the committee agreed with the RCN’s assessment that subs are “likely to remain the dominant naval platform for the foreseeable future.”

These would be augmented by a second Resolve-class support ship to fill the urgent need; increasing the new surface combatant fleet to 18; and expediting replacement of the current fleet of coastal defence vessels with minesweepers and destroyers.

The committee also recommends that the government commission “a fully independent and impartial review” of the $3.5-billion Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ships (AOPS) project because of their relatively low speed, inadequate armaments, and inability to operate in more than a metre of ice. Fleet defences would be enhanced through the acquisition of an Lockheed Martin Aegis radar-based combat system or a “similar-styled” platform.

The committee said the nearly universal opinion of witnesses saw the RCN as “a naval force in decline, mostly due to lack of funding and slow progress made with the recapitalization of its aging fleet.” It also said that capability gaps in the wider CAF are “unacceptable for a G8 nation which aspires to play a greater role in the world as well as meet its commitments to the defence of North America and NATO.”

Also in the maritime operational domain, the committee recommends the creation of an armed Constabulary Coast Guard to enforce environmental, transportation and fishing regulations, as well as Criminal Code offences.

While the helicopters would continue to be an RCAF asset, they tend mainly to be used to support land operations. The main Canadian Army-specific element of the report is the recommended purchase of 60 upgraded LAV III light-armoured vehicles from General Dynamics Land Systems.

Another key hardware element, which would have application across most CAF operations, is the recommendation that the DND proceed with its long-delayed Joint Unmanned Surveillance and Target Acquisition System (JUSTAS). This likely would involve four basic platforms and the committee, noting their value for SAR work as well as tactical operations, says there is no questioning the need for such systems.

Underpinning everything, the committee urges increased cooperation within NORAD, including improved protection against ballistic missiles and cyber attacks, and renewal of the North Warning System.

Personnel requirements were also addressed, such as elimination of barriers within the CAF to “appropriate representation of women, indigenous populations and visible minorities”. Added resources for training, compensation for Reservists’ medical assessments, increasing the Canadian Rangers cohort in the North to 7,000, and establishing a Yukon-based Reserve Regiment were all identified for action.

In an earlier report, the military procurement machinery was singled out for criticism. In an exclusive interview, Lang agreed that it remains a key concern that the current process seems incapable of managing even the relatively few procurements in the hopper.

The Committee is convinced that “the responsibility for procurement should be in Defence, not elsewhere,” the Chairman told FrontLine. “We also recommended that any project over $1 billion should have an interlocutor to manage it and to be responsible for it, so that when decisions are taken […] they do what they can to put these projects into play.”

Elaborating on the concept that responsibility for procurement should be DND-centric, he says the department would determine what equipment it needs rather than having ministers or officials from other departments having the final say. He points out that the Cabinet Committee on Defence Procurement is chaired by Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr, whose department “has nothing to do with defence.”

Apart from Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan, the rest of the committee is comprised of Scott Brison (Treasury), Navdeep Bains (Innovation, Science and Economic Development), Kirsty Duncan (Science), Judy Foote (Public Services and Procurement) and Marc Garneau (Transport).

“It seems to me that what you need is to make sure that when the final decision comes down […] we can’t forget what’s in the best interests of the Department of National Defence.” Lang was not suggesting that Foote’s department, historically fundamental to procurement, should be excluded. “What we’re saying is that the actual decision-making should be going back into the Department of National Defence.”

Lang suggests that a review of the bureaucracy – where, he says, decisions are made by committees – could be beneficial. “We could go a long ways to ensuring that our procurement, once a decision is made, is done in a reasonable manner […] within a time frame that is acceptable.”

Lang adds that his perception from several years as committee chairman is troubling. “I don’t know if this is fair, but this is my evaluation: I see a system that’s almost in paralysis; nobody makes a decision, and no decision is a good decision because nobody’s responsible for it. We’ve got to change that culture.”

Will giving DND more money be practicable, given that it often has to carry forward unspent appropriations? Lang says that situation flows from a seemingly entrenched inability to make decisions. “Why would you spend the money if you don’t know what to buy?”

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.”