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.

Second iAOR Supply Ship Not Needed: Trudeau

By: David Pugliese, Defence Watch

As the legal battle over the fate of Vice Admiral Mark Norman was being played out in an Ottawa court Wednesday just a short distance away in the House of Commons the country’s political leaders were dealing with a related issue.

MV Asterix, accompanying Royal Canadian Navy ships, replenished two US Navy vessels at the same time in the North Atlantic this week. The USN ships are USS Bainbridge and USS Mitscher. March 2018

Norman is charged with one count of breach of trust for allegedly providing information to Davie Shipbuilding which had entered into a deal with the previous Conservative government to provide a supply ship to the Royal Canadian Navy.

Conservative leader Andrew Scheer questioned the Liberal government why it was not moving ahead with having Davie provide a second supply ship – the Obelix – to the navy. Scheer said the navy needed the second ship. “The Prime Minister has to stop playing political games and before Christmas should award that contract to Davie,” he told the Commons. “What’s he waiting for?”

But Trudeau accused Scheer of playing “petty politics.”

“The armed forces did an assessment,” Trudeau explained. “They don’t need the Obelix and for him to suggest that we should buy it anyway is pure base politics, the worst politics. We make our decisions based on facts. We recognize the quality of work done by Davie shipyard and we do want them to get good jobs but we are not going to make up work for political reasons.” Trudeau's comments follow the same line as comments made by Minister of Transportation Marc Garneau in December of 2017.

Reports from the Royal Canadian Navy indicate that there is a need for a second supply ship on the West Coast - but for now, the Asterix will be shared between both coasts until the new Protecteur-Class AORs are built by Seaspan and in service around 2026.

M/V A.Obelix is a container ship which is available for immediate purchase and conversion into a second interim-auxiliary oil replenishment ship for the Royal Canadian Navy. Davie Shipbuilding and Federal Fleet Services is offering this to the Government of Canada, and says it could have the Obleix operational as an iAOR by early 2020; six years before the Protecteur-Class AORs are available. 

Canada's Defence Spending Questioned at NATO Meeting

The Canadian Press 

The deputy minister of national defence has told a NATO meeting in Halifax that Canada is satisfied it is spending what it requires to meet its alliance and other military commitments.

Jody Thomas held fast to the government's stance on defence spending on Saturday, despite some pointed questioning about Canada's commitment following her presentation before NATO's defence and security committee, part of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly in Halifax.

U.S. Republican Rep. Michael Turner, the committee's acting chairman, asked whether Canada intends to table a plan for meeting the two per cent of GDP standard for defence spending that was agreed to by alliance members at a summit in Wales in 2014.

"Many of the nations that are here are either meeting their two per cent or have in place a plan to reach the two per cent," said Turner. "Canada is one of those countries who has not yet put forward a commitment to reach the two per cent although that is a commitment that Canada joined in making at Wales."

Thomas stuck to the Liberal government's line, saying Canada intends to increase its defence budget by 1.46 per cent by the end of 2024.

"Canada's defence budget is growing by 70 per cent as a result of Strong, Secure, Engaged (Canada's defence policy)," said Thomas. "We also on the ground are leading a significant number of operations, and we have never not participated in a NATO commitment or operation."

She also reiterated that Canada believes it contributes to the alliance in a "qualitative" way through an active participation in the alliance.

"The defence budget is a significant increase in funding for national defence and our prime minister is very satisfied with that contribution," Thomas said.
'It's not enough'

But Bob Stewart, a member of the United Kingdom delegation, reminded Thomas that Canada agreed to the commitment, adding that it's "crucial" it be honoured.

Stewart, a Conservative MP, then questioned Canada's current defence spending commitment.

"It's something like 1.12 per cent at the moment and honestly, it's not enough," said Stewart. "There are many nations that are not doing enough and I include my own nation ... we have all got to contribute more and help the United States that bears the burden."

Thomas shot back that Canada's funding includes its commitment to North American Air Defence (NORAD) and she stated that there are "inconsistencies" in the way the military budgets of member countries are assessed.

"The fact is that who counts what differs from country to country," she said.
Canadian contributions

Later in the day, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan said budget numbers don't necessarily reflect a country's actual contributions to NATO.

"The NATO Parliamentary Association may not be fully briefed about what is actually discussed at NATO," he said in an interview with The Canadian Press.

"All of this is useless if you don't make contributions," he said, citing a list of Canadian contributions that include leading a battle group in Latvia, providing air policing over Romania, leading a NATO training mission in Iraq and building a new fleet of Canadian warships.

A report released by NATO ahead of last July's alliance summit in Brussels predicted Canada would spend 1.23 per cent of its GDP on defence this year — less than last year's level of 1.36 per cent. That leaves Canada ranked 18th out of the alliance's 29 members.

The decline is largely attributed to two one-time expenses last year:
a retroactive pay increase for service members that was included in the government's defence policy, and;
a $1.8-billion payment into the account that provides pensions for Forces members and their dependents.

In an interview with The Canadian Press, British Air Chief Marshal Stuart Peach, who is chairman of the NATO Military Committee, praised Canada for its "very strong support for the alliance."

Peach pointed to ongoing naval exercises and Canada's support for NATO's forward deployment in the Baltic states along with its support for the training mission in Iraq.

With regards to the two per cent target he remained diplomatic, saying that NATO officials have maintained there are three elements to the overall funding conversation.

"There is defence spending which is about the money, there's then a description and important modernization adaptation of NATO's capabilities of which Canada plays an important role," Peach said.

"And then there's the question of contributions and I've already set out how pleased we are with the range of Canada's contributions."

RCAF Back in NATO AWACS program

By: David Pugliese, The Ottawa Citizen 

Canada will provide up to 25 personnel over the next five years to NATO’s Airborne Warning and Control System program, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced at the NATO summit.

In February, the Liberal government announced it was reversing a 2011 decision by the previous Conservative government that saw Canada withdraw from NATO’s AWACS program.

The Conservative government decided at that time to end participation in the airborne early warning plane program to save money. Canada’s NATO allies were surprised and angered about the pullout. The Royal Canadian Air Force warned at the time that the decision could put overseas operations at risk.

Over the last several years, however, NATO has significantly increased the use of its AWACS, including in areas like Central and Eastern Europe where Canada is leading a multinational NATO battlegroup based in Latvia.

The original shutdown of Canada’s contribution to NATO’s AWACS saved about $50 million a year, according to the records obtained under the Access to Information law by Defence Watch.


Canada will also contribute to the new NATO Command Structure and support the new United States Readiness Initiative. Canada is now a member of the European Centre of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats and will join the Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence.

In addition, Canada will extend its contribution to NATO’s enhanced Forward Presence through Operation REASSURANCE for another four years and increase the number of personnel taking part in this mission in Latvia from 455 to 540, Trudeau said.

Trudeau adding more Canadian troops in Latvia, extending mission

By Teresa Wright The Associated Press

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Tuesday that Canada is extending its NATO commitment in Latvia by another four years to March 2023 and will boost the number of troops in the country to 540 from the current 455 in a show of ongoing solidarity with the alliance.



Trudeau made the announcement in Riga following a meeting with Latvian Prime Minister Maris Kucinskis and indicated that he hopes the increased Canadian commitment to Latvia gets the attention of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Canada is part of a NATO battle group in Latvia, which was established as the alliance’s response to Russia’s surprise annexation of Crimea in 2014 and its invasion of eastern Ukraine.

“We certainly hope that the message is passed clearly to President Putin that his actions in destabilizing and disregarding the international rules-based order that has been successfully underpinned by NATO amongst others over the past 75 years or so is extremely important,” said Trudeau.

The Canadian-led group is one of four in the region, and includes troops from seven NATO allies. Germany leads a similar force in Lithuania, Britain leads one in Estonia and the U.S. leads in Poland.

Before leaving Canada on Monday, Trudeau spoke to NATO secretary general Jens Stoltenberg by telephone to stress the “importance of the alliance’s unity and solidarity on defence and security issues.”

Trudeau’s announcement comes a day ahead of a NATO summit in Brussels, where the stage is set for another confrontation between world leaders and Donald Trump, as Canada and other NATO allies prepare to counter the U.S. president’s complaint that they aren’t carrying their fair share of the burden of being part of the military alliance.

Trudeau also met in Riga Tuesday with Latvian President Raimonds Vejonis.

He also laid flowers at the monument of freedom and took part in a number of activities at a military base in Adazi. Trudeau also attended a candlelight vigil at a Latvian memorial to fallen soldiers, a vehicle display by multinational troops and spoke to Canadian military personnel.

Trudeau’s visit to Latvia comes as the stage is set for another confrontation between world leaders and Donald Trump, with Canada and other NATO allies preparing to counter the U.S. president’s persistent complaint that they aren’t carrying their fair share of the burden of being part of the 69-year-old military alliance.

Trump’s ongoing efforts to portray Canada and other member states as pinching pennies when it comes to the military spending target of two per cent of GDP – a benchmark agreed to by allies at the 2014 summit in Wales.

Trump has threatened to pull out of the alliance entirely if other member nations don’t pony up.

The president acknowledged Monday on Twitter that other member states have increased their defence spending, but repeated his complaint that the U.S. contributes far more than other countries, which he said “is not fair nor is it acceptable.”

If the U.S. were to leave NATO, it would have a “huge and highly negative” affect on Canada, said David Perry, a senior defence analyst with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute.

“If you take his rhetoric at full value … it would actually start to undermine the solidarity alliance, it would be hugely consequential for Canada because NATO has been so important to it.”

Having a forum in which Canada can engage in discussions about key security issues with the U.S. as part of a larger alliance of nations also offers Canada some counterweight that doesn’t exist in North America alone, where the United States is the “800-pound gorilla,” Perry added.

ut given that Trump has followed through on other threats – including tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from Canada and the European Union, as well as a full-blown trade war with China – Perry said allies ought to be concerned about the possibility that Trump isn’t bluffing.

Concerns about U.S. disengagement have also deepened given that Trump is scheduled to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin just days after the summit.

Some see the controversial meeting as an undermining of the alliance itself, considering some of NATO’s active military missions – including the one in Latvia – were undertaken in direct response to Russia’s escalating aggression in the Baltic region.

“The Trump-Putin summit could potentially aggravate U.S. allies who want to isolate Putin,” said Jayson Derow, a research analyst at the NATO Association of Canada.

“However, while U.S. President Donald Trump’s rhetoric has surely shaken the confidence of U.S. allies and NATO members across the Atlantic, the alliance is still standing and the Trump administration has taken tangible steps to bolster the alliance and European security, while countering Moscow with the sales of military hardware and its own deployments in eastern Europe.”


© 2018 The Canadian Press

Smol: Trump Paying Attention to Canadian Defence Spending

By: Robert Smol, CBC News 

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

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

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

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

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

Relying on the U.S.

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

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

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

Procurement among allies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

----

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

Canada-US Trade Dispute Could Impact US Firms Out in Military Equipment Sales

By: David Pugliese, The National Post 

U.S. President Donald Trump’s tirade against Canada and threats to punish the country could undermine efforts by American firms trying to sell fighter jets and other military equipment to the Canadian Forces, warn defence and industry analysts.

One European firm, Airbus, has already been talking with Canadian officials to pitch its plan to build fighter jets in Quebec as it positions itself to win the $16-billion deal to replace CF-18 aircraft. A similar offer has been made in the past by Dassault Aviation. 

A Canadian Forces CF-18 Hornet comes in for a landing at CFB Bagotville, Quebec, on June 7, 2018. GEOFF ROBINS/AFP/GETTY. 

An Italian aerospace firm, Leonardo, is looking at building helicopters in Nova Scotia as it moves towards negotiations for a search-and-rescue aircraft modernization project the Department of National Defence says will be worth between $1 billion and $5 billion.

Trump has hit Canadian aluminum and steel with tariffs, claiming their import is a threat to national security. After the weekend G7 meeting and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s reaffirming that Canada would reciprocate with tariffs on specific U.S. products, Trump vowed more economic grief that will “cost a lot of money for the people of Canada.”

Trump’s move comes at a time when European firms are courting the Canadian government, particularly on big-ticket defence items such as aircraft and warships. Billions of dollars in new purchases are potentially at stake and European firms had a strong presence at the recent CANSEC military equipment trade show in Ottawa.

“Trump certainly isn’t helping U.S. defence companies who want to sell to Canada,” said Martin Shadwick, a defence analyst in Toronto. “It would be very difficult at this point from a political optics point of view for the government to announce awarding contracts to any American firm.”

Shadwick said whether that situation will continue for the next several years, when for instance the decision on new fighter jets is supposed to be made, would depend on any further actions by the president. Two U.S. aircraft, the Boeing Super Hornet and the Lockheed Martin F-35, are among the top contenders in that jet competition. The other three aircraft are from European companies.

An earlier trade dispute with Canada has already backfired on Boeing and the Trump administration, costing the U.S. billions in fighter jet sales. Last year Boeing complained to the U.S. Commerce Department that Canadian subsidies for Quebec-based Bombardier allowed it to sell its civilian passenger aircraft in the U.S. at cut-rate prices. As a result, the Trump administration brought in a tariff of almost 300 per cent against Bombardier aircraft sold in the U.S.

In retaliation, Canada decided against buying 18 new Super Hornet fighter jets from Boeing. That deal would have been worth more than US$5 billion.

Trump certainly isn't helping U.S. defence companies who want to sell to Canada

Christyn Cianfarani, president of the Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries, said it is too early to determine the impact of the U.S. tariffs on the domestic defence industry. “Tariffs are never good for trade or business,” she added.

“CADSI is monitoring the issue and consulting our members to better understand the potential impact to Canadian firms, both in terms of the direct impact of any tariffs and the more indirect, long term impact on supply chains and market access,” she said.

There is growing concern that Canadian aviation firms could be hurt by Trump’s aluminum tariffs. The Aerospace Industries Association of Canada did not respond to a request for comment. But its counterpart in the U.S. has voiced concern that American aerospace companies could feel pain.

In March, the U.S. Aerospace Industries Association noted it was deeply concerned about Trump’s tariffs on steel and aluminum as it “will raise costs and disrupt the supply chain, putting U.S. global competitiveness at risk.”

“There is also a significant threat for retaliation from other countries towards American ­made products,” the association noted in a statement.

Canada is the largest exporter of aluminum and steel to the U.S.

Is Canada a Security Threat to the US? No - Canadians Actually Help Keep US Safe.

By: Tristen Hopper, The National Post

It's been two days since President Trump called Prime Minister Trudeau 'weak' and a 'backstabber', and it’s been a week since the Trump Administration slapped Canada with steel and aluminum tariffs on the ground that reliance on our imports was threatening the “national security” of the United States.

If Canadians are particularly galled at this, it might be because no foreign country in modern times has done more to arm and equip the United States than Canada. “I would not be surprised if every single major aircraft or warship in U.S. military service today has Canadian components in it,” said Richard Shimooka, a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.

Below, a cursory summary of some of the Canadian stuff used by history’s most powerful military.

Landing gear

We’ll start with an entry that directly concerns steel and aluminum. Quebec-based Héroux-Devtek is the world’s third largest aircraft landing gear company, and some of that is thanks to a longstanding relationship with the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy. Specifically, Héroux-Devtek is in charge of landing gear repair and overhaul for several large U.S. aircraft, including the heavy-lift C-130 Hercules. Of course, landing gear is made almost entirely of steel or aluminum. So, thanks to these new tariffs, American military procurers are either going to start getting hosed on their Héroux-Devtek contracts — or they’re going to have start getting their landing gear overhauls from a U.S. company that isn’t their first choice.

Armoured personnel carriers

“Canada and the US have been building military equipment for each other since the summer of 1940,” David Bercuson, a military historian at the University of Calgary, told the National Post. “Literally billions of dollars of such equipment has passed the border since then.” The most obvious example is the Stryker. There are nearly 5,000 Stryker armoured personnel carriers in the U.S. military, and all of them were built in London, Ontario. Not only that, but the Stryker is even based on a Canadian design, the LAV III. Coming in at a rock bottom $4 million apiece, the Americans use Strykers for everything: Ambulances, firefighting, missile platforms, chemical weapons defence and mine detection. They even started rigging them up with giant lasers to shoot down enemy drones. Armoured vehicles happen to be a Canadian specialty. While the United States was busy throwing money at big ticket items such as tanks and attack helicopters, the shoestring Canadians have gotten very good at the much cheaper task of simply strapping guns and armour to oversized trucks. And if a U.S. diplomat found themselves touring Iraq in an armoured Toyota Land Cruiser, chances are good they were shielded from bullets and IEDs by Canadian workmanship.

Stryker in action. Trevor Robb/Edmonton Sun/QMI Agency

Specialized aircraft

The United States Army Parachute Team leap out of a modified Twin Otter. United States Military

Here again, the United States has it covered when it comes to big ticket aircraft such as fighters or bombers. But the U.S. military will occasionally call up Canadian plane-makers when it needs something quirky. Bombardier has retooled some of its airliners and business jets to act as airborne radar platforms. When the United States Army Parachute Team appears at air shows, they’re jumping out of a Canadian-made de Havilland Twin Otter. De Havilland has also hooked up the Americans with some of its famously rugged prop planes for use in electronic warfare, remote cargo drops or simply moving National Guard troops around Alaska. All told, the U.S. military is flying more planes built in Canada than in any other foreign country.

The U.S. military’s only cargo drone (and it has the most Canadian name imaginable)
A U.S. special forces unit is pinned down on a remote Central Asian mountaintop. Surrounded by militants on all sides, it needs an emergency airlift of water and ammunition to even see daybreak. Enter the SnowGoose, an unmanned autogyro specializing in precision deliveries to special forces. The SnowGoose is the U.S. military’s only cargo drone, and it’s an all-Canadian creation. An emerging theme on this list is that Canada is great at building niche military hardware for cheap, and the SnowGoose is no exception. As the drone’s Stittsville, Ont. builders note, it can move cargo across a battlefield at a fraction of the price of other drones.

Nuclear Fuel

Uranium is a big part of the modern U.S. military. It has more than 100 nuclear-powered vessels in the navy, and there’s also those 7,000 atomic weapons it still has lying around. Canada has sold a whole lot of uranium to the U.S. military, going all the way back to the initial atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. However, the taps were somewhat shut off in the 1960s, when Canada started limiting uranium exports to “peaceful” purposes. Still, with Canada ranking as the United States’ top uranium dealer, we help keep their uranium topped up enough to have plenty left over for the military. With the Trump administration in the midst of a Trillion Dollor Nuclear Modernization plan, keeping Canada friendly is probably a good idea. 

Speaking of nuclear weapons, it might behoove the White House to remember that if a Russian or North Korean missile should happen to be fired in their direction, a Canada-based NORAD station will likely be among the first to let them know.

Making fighter jets last forever

This entry should fill thrifty Canadians with particular pride: We’ve gotten so good at squeezing every penny out of our CF-18s that we’re now globally renowned experts at fighter jet life extension. Among other things, Canada invented “robotic shot-peening,” a method of using robots to restore aging aircraft with a precision never before known. The technology has been exported to Europe, Australia and, in 2013, the U.S. Navy brought in the Quebec aerospace company L-3 MAS to give its jets a makeover.

A very old, but very well taken-care-of, CF-18. File

Battlefield communications
Tactical radios are another niche technology in which Canadian companies have a built a slow but steady reputation with the Americans. In a 2017 reporton Canada/U.S. military industrial cooperation, the Center for Strategic and International Studies noted that the U.S. military has been using Canadian radios since the 1960s. Ultra TCS, headquartered in Montreal, remains a supplier of tactical radios to both the U.S. Army and Marine Corps. And these aren’t just walkie-talkies; they’re hyper-advanced networks that can provide email, voice and even video hook-ups to American troops in battle.

Jeeps

That’s right. The Second World War-era Willys Jeep — one of the most American vehicles in history — was manufactured in part by Canada. Ford Motor Company of Canada churned out thousands of Jeeps after the Second World War. In 1952 alone, Canadian factories were making an average of seven of them per day. According to Ford Canada’s website, “these postwar Canadian-made Jeep were shipped to the United States, for the American military forces.”

A 1952 Willys Jeep similar to what Canada would have been manufacturing for the United States. file. 

Space robots

The space shuttle was initially envisioned as a vehicle to steal Russian military satellites, in which the Canadarm would have been critical. Max Harrold/Postmedia News

DARPA is the U.S. agency tasked with pursuing military so cutting edge that they occasionally veer into outright science fiction. Last year, DARPA signed a deal with Canada’s MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates to design robots that could be dispatched into space in order to repair U.S. military satellites. And like most times Canada is brought in for U.S. military stuff, the robot space mechanic program is indeed intended as a cost saving measure. Canada has been a leader in space defence for some time. Our beloved Canadarm, in fact, technically qualifies as an early military space robot. Over the course of the space shuttle program 11 missions were sent up to perform classified work for the Pentagon. We still don’t know the specifics of what the Canadarm did for Uncle Sam on those missions, but the arm is a certifiable Cold Warrior.

Don Martin: Waving the White Flag on Canada as a Middle Military Power

By: Don Martin, CTVNews, Host of PowerPlay 

The most uplifting takeaway from my 2007 Afghanistan embedding with the troops was hearing how our soldiers had never been prouder to serve than being in combat against the tyranny of the Taliban.

But a decade later, that pride has gone along with the fall in our status as a middle military power.

We continue to negotiate to buy hand-me-down jets from the Aussies. Combat ship building languishes on the drawing boards as the price tag soars. And with new supply ships delayed by at least four years, the substitute vessel can’t actually venture into dangerous environments where the navy usually goes.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau reviews an honour guard at the International Peacekeeping and Security Centre in Yavoriv, Ukraine Tuesday July 12, 2016. (Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press)

Sure there is a small training mission in Ukraine and a mid-sized Latvia deployment to deter Russian aggression.

And let’s not forget the mostly idle Operation Impact, a $370-million exercise monitoring Iraq for signs of ISIS life with zero actual impact on protecting the region.

But the final insult to Canada’s military status downgrade was a small CBC story this week.

Military documents revealed the defence minister couldn’t bring himself to send a tiny group of soldiers for UN peacekeeping duty in Colombia.

Consider the context of this unfathomable display of military risk avoidance.

Colombia is a country where two civil-warring factions have disarmed and declared a peaceful end to a 50-year conflict. That means it’s the peacekeeping equivalent of monitoring a Grade four class in the playground during recess.

Yet inexplicably Canada dithered, pondering the potential danger of the mission until the spots were filled by other countries which didn’t consider the world’s safest peacekeeping assignment too risky to join.

This has got to leave Canada’s war-hardened Chief of Defence Staff avoiding eye contact in the mirror.

Jonathan Vance didn’t sign up to watch countries like Jordan, Denmark, Holland and even Rwanda deliver peacekeeping in extremely dangerous Mali while Canada goes AWOL in offering to monitor the coffee grow in Colombia.

Two years after Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan began scouring the world for places to help, we still have 600 troops waiting for a reason to deploy.

Our 50,000-plus combat-ready troops, trapped on base by the government’s pacifist preference to avoid a world filled with conflict, must be mortified that all missions are seemingly impossible.

By refusing to accept even the softest assignment for blue helmet peacekeeping, the Canadian government has waved the white flag as a middle military power.

That’s the Last Word.

On Peacekeeping, Canada is Failing the Global Community

By: Ian J. Keddie, Macleans Magazine 

General Jonathan Vance, Canada’s chief of defence staff, has a confident and relaxed way about him. But when he opened the second day of the Conference of Defence Association in Ottawa last week, and then answered questions from reporters on the country’s peacekeeping operations, the tone seemed wrong for the moment. “The UN has spaces available for nations to contribute to, should they wish. We understand what those spaces available are,” said Gen. Vance, adding that the government is in preliminary stages of planning such a deployment “We are in what I would call the planning stages to deploy forces. We’re trying to match best fit to best missions with the capability that we have. So it’s a work in progress, but it’s going well.”

The optimism of that tone came in stark contrast to the many speakers who highlighted the government’s failure to carry through with a 2016 pledge to deploy up to 750 personnel on international peacekeeping missions in addition to the 112 which were deployed at the time of the announcement. The most recent figures from the United Nations show that Canada’s commitment has reached an all-time low, and now stands at just 43 peacekeeping personnel at present. This represents the lowest number of uniformed personnel and lowest global military contribution for Canada since 1956.

The Liberal government maintains that it is merely awaiting the right opportunity to deliver on 2016’s promises. Gen. Vance’s suggestion that Canada is in the “the planning stages to deploy forces” maintains the idea that the government is still searching for deployments that Canadian forces can support and the Prime Minister’s own speech at the UN Peacekeeping Defence Ministerial in Vancouver in November 2017 outlined the need for Canada to deliver more. “We are making these pledges today, because we believe in the United Nations and we believe in peacekeeping,” the Prime Minister said at the time, as he called for a new era in peacekeeping.

But rather than delivering a reinvigorated peacekeeping effort, two years of handwringing by the Trudeau administration has seen Canada revert to a pre-Pearson era level of deployment. Experts agree that decision-making has become paralyzed and that the Liberal government seems reluctant to follow through on its promises. “Canada has let the UN down,” said Dr. Walter Dorn of the Canadian Forces College. “If you actually look at the pledges we would have more than 750 uniformed personnel and we’re down at an all-time low. It’s a disappointment and at this point, you could say it’s a broken promise.” Dorn puts the blame at desks of the most senior figures in the current administration: “I think it’s at the cabinet level: the Prime Minister, the Defence Minister and the Foreign Minister just haven’t got their act together.”

Even more disappointing is that the original troop pledge was sold as a sign of Canada’s commitment to the international community. “This government came to power with the promise of doing real peacekeeping and then has repeatedly told the UN and lots of countries that might want to vote for Canada for the next security council seat,” said Stephen M. Saideman, the Paterson Chair in International Affairs at Carleton University.

While many of the conference attendees condemned the low number of peacekeeping personnel being deployed, there was disagreement over how Canada should move forward. Dorn suggested that operations in Africa could be more palatable, pointing that peacekeeping operations in Mali are less dangerous and less expensive than most people perceive. “The fatality rate is a factor of five less in Mali (when compared to Afghanistan), and the type of equipment you need is less expensive and the UN pays back a substantial portion of your costs,” he said. But Saideman thinks that missions in Africa would prove challenging for Canadian forces. “As far as I understand it, most of the places that Canada would be asked to go in Africa are actually quite risky. The Japanese have pulled out of the South Sudan because it’s falling apart. The DRC—600 troops would be a drop in the bucket. The people that I know that have gone to Mali suggest that it’s a counterinsurgency war, it’s not a peacekeeping campaign.” Saideman added that Canada already missed an ideal opportunity: “If I was advising the government I would’ve told them to go to Colombia last year, because I think that would’ve been a far less risky endeavour, but that would have made a contribution.”

If the government is going to continue to wait for a less risky peacekeeping opportunity, then there might not be any decision in the near future. If Colombia was the ideal deployment, as Saideman suggests, then it is unlikely Canada will find something suitable in the current trouble spots of the world. Trudeau and his cabinet have made numerous pledges of peacekeeping to the international community but those promises will fall on deaf ears, particularly to countries such as India, Pakistan, and Ethiopia who contribute thousands of troops to UN missions. It will likely come down to voters at home as to whether or not the government should take its pledges more seriously though.

With such a low number of peacekeeping personnel on operations, it is hard to believe the government can ignore the glaring contradiction in rhetoric versus action for much longer. If Canada truly wants to contribute to peace operations on a meaningful scale once again, it comes with an inherent risk. While there may be some missions that are better suited for Canadian expertise and equipment, it’s clear that the government has given every option some consideration over the last couple of years—but any further delay clearly rests on the desks of the Foreign, Defence, and Prime Ministers.

Budget Flatlines Canadian Defence Spending

By: Ken Hanse, Macleans Magazine 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

----

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

Plan to send Canadian Peacekeepers to Colombia Fizzled

By: Murray Brewster, CBC News 

Canada had a small military team on standby to take part in a high-profile United Nations peacekeeping mission in Colombia, but foot-dragging on Ottawa's part saw other countries fill up the mission's ranks instead, newly released documents reveal.

The army "identified, screened and trained" 19 Spanish-speaking soldiers to act as ceasefire observers in the South American country, which is emerging from five decades of guerrilla war.

The troops were, according to a briefing note prepared for Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan, ready to go by October 2016 — just weeks after the Liberal government committed itself to deploying 600 troops and 150 police officers in support of UN-led peace operations.Play

The soldiers remained on standby for months.

A decision to deploy them, however, remained in limbo — until it was too late.

"No [Canadian Armed Forces] nominations were submitted to the UN and, as of March 2017, the mission is currently fully manned with no foreseen additional requirements from Canada," said the March 30, 2017 briefing note, obtained by CBC News under access to information legislation.
Worries about troop security

Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Jonathan Vance, the country's top military commander, said the mission was considered — but he had concerns about how well protected the troops would be in the event of trouble.

He said concerns about force security are "a good reason for everything as to why we do, and do not, do everything the UN asks of us."

Chief of Defence Staff General Jonathan Vance. (Fred Chartrand/Canadian Press)

Canada did end up deploying two police officers to support the special political mission in that country.

Ultimately, it would have been up to the federal cabinet to decide whether to participate in the mission.

The UN mission in Colombia was one of the more benign deployments available to Canada in terms of mandate and risk.
A lower-risk mission

Over 450 unarmed soldiers, in 40 locations, acted as observers supervising the disarming of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) — a mission that is more in line with the Canadian public's perception of peacekeeping.

The mission certainly presents a lower risk to peacekeepers than the tribal, jihadist-fuelled bloodshed in Mali, or the civil war in the corruption-tainted Democratic Republic of Congo — both sites of current UN peacekeeping operations.

"It is startling that we had the personnel trained and we didn't deploy them," said Walter Dorn, a professor at the Canadian Forces Staff College.

He said Canada's failure to send soldiers to the one of the most auspicious missions on the UN's plate throws into doubt the Liberals' election pledge to return to peacekeeping in a meaningful way.

Since the 2015 election of the Liberal government and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's declaration that "Canada is back" on the world stage, the UN has offered Canada a number of marquee posts and opportunities.
Multiple missions rejected

According to documents uncovered last summer by CBC News, Canada was: offered command of the mission in Mali; asked to deploy troops to replace the Dutch contingent in the same country; bombarded with multiple requests for helicopter support and; asked to establish a police training mission in the volatile Central African Republic.

All of the requests were turned down, much to the frustration of UN officials and diplomats with the European Union who were courting Canada on separate, but complementary peace deployments and training in the region.

"The cabinet is just not able to make up its mind about where it wants to deploy," said Dorn. "It seems there is eagerness at some levels of the Canadian government, but not others."

Last fall, Trudeau laid out the Liberal government's roadmap for rejoining peacekeeping, which includes phased deployments of transport planes, helicopters, military trainers and a 200-strong rapid reaction force over a five-year period.

Where they'll go, and when, is still the subject of discussions.

The federal government also made an important social commitment to deploy more women peacekeepers and to end the exploitation of child soldiers.

Dorn said Canada's contribution to UN missions is at an all-time low.

At the end of December, Canada had only 43 peacekeepers deployed on various missions.

Canada Announces Purchase of 18 Australian F/A-18s

The Associated Press 

A Royal Australian Air Force F-18 fighter on a training mission. (Royal Australian Air Force)

Canada has ditched a plan to buy 18 Super Hornet jet fighters from U.S.-based Boeing Co. and will instead buy 18 used F-18 fighters from Australia.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had previously warned that Canada would stop doing business with Boeing if the company doesn't drop a trade complaint against Canadian plane maker Bombardier, and the government warned again on Tuesday that Boeing would have little chance of winning a new contract for 88 additional fighter jets under the status quo.

Trudeau's government also said Tuesday that it would assess companies' overall impact on Canada's economy before buying the 88 additional fighter jets to replace its aging F-18s.

"Bidders responsible for harming Canada's economic interest will be at a distinct disadvantage compared to bidders who aren't engaged in detrimental behavior," Procurement Minister Carla Qualtrough said.

Boeing spokesman Scott Day acknowledged that the statement was directed toward the company and said that Boeing respects the Canadian government's decision to buy the Australian planes. Day also said the company would review the requirements for the new fleet and emphasized what he said was Boeing's long-term presence in Canada.

"I think you have to let our record speak for itself," Day said in an email.

Boeing claims Bombardier's new C Series passenger aircraft receives subsidies that give it an advantage internationally.

Canada had been in talks to purchase the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet fighter jets from Boeing in an effort to bridge the gap between its aging F-18s and the new fighter fleet that it plans to purchase.

But officials said the Australian jets will cost significantly less than Super Hornets and can be put into action two years earlier. "We have received an offer for sale of F-18 aircraft from the government of Australia, which we intend to pursue, and we have received an offer of Super Hornets from the U.S. government, which we intend to let expire," Qualtrough said.

Jonathan Vance, chief of the defense staff of the Canadian Armed Forces, said Canada can't meet its domestic and international obligations without some form of supplemental capability until the future fighter fleet is in place and the Australian jets will work fine.

Canada will begin receiving deliveries of the used Australian jets next year. The value of the deal is about $388 million.

Vance expects the fleet of 88 next-generation fighters to arrive in 2025, and the government said the competition would be open to all companies as bidding gets underway.

Analysts see the F-35 made by Boeing rival Lockheed Martin as a likely contender, even though Trudeau has said it is too expensive. Trudeau has since softened that stance.

Defense Minister Harjit Sajjan said the new fleet of planes is required to meet Canada commitments to NATO and the North American Aerospace Defense Command.

Federal Government Rejects FREMM Frigate Proposal That Could Save $30B

By: David Pugliese, National Post

Liberals reject warship proposal that companies said would save taxpayers as much as $32B
Industry sources alleged the Canadian competition is skewed to favour a bid by Lockheed Martin Canada and the British firm BAE which would see Canada buying the Type 26 frigate. 

The 3rd FREMM "Languedoc" sails during the acceptation ceremony by the OCCAR on March 16, 2016 in Toulon.BORIS HORVAT/AFP/Getty Images.

The Liberal government has rejected a European consortium’s offer to provide Canada with a fleet of new warships, which industry officials said could have saved Canadian taxpayers as much as $32 billion.

Postmedia reported last week that the French and Italian governments made the Canadian government a proposal on behalf of their shipbuilders, Fincantieri of Italy and Naval Group of France, offering Canada 15 of the consortium’s FREMM frigates at a fixed price of roughly $30 billion. The offer came in lieu of a bid from the consortium to win the design for the $62-billion Canadian Surface Combatant program, intended to provide the Canadian navy with the core of its future surface combat fleet.


To be clear, any proposals submitted outside of the established competitive process will not be considered

But the Canadian government announced Tuesday it was rejecting the pitch. “The submission of an unsolicited proposal at the final hour undermines the fair and competitive nature of this procurement suggesting a sole source contracting arrangement,” Public Services and Procurement Canada said in a statement. “Acceptance of such a proposal would break faith with the bidders who invested time and effort to participate in the competitive process, put at risk the Government’s ability to properly equip the Royal Canadian Navy and would establish a harmful precedent for future competitive procurements.

“To be clear, any proposals submitted outside of the established competitive process will not be considered,” the statement said.

The Fincantieri-Naval Group’s gambit was always seen as risky, as federal bureaucrats were expected to fight the proposal. But sources close to the European companies said they felt they didn’t have anything to lose. They alleged the Canadian competition is skewed to favour a bid by Lockheed Martin Canada and the British firm BAE which would see Canada buying the Type 26 frigate BAE is building for Britain’s navy.

A photo shows the FREMM Aquitaine multipurpose frigate on May 11, 2017 in Brest harbour, western France. FRED TANNEAU/AFP/Getty Images

The Canadian government had originally asked for only bids featuring proven ship designs. It changed those parameters last year to allow a bid from BAE, though the Type 26 was at the time still on the drawing board.

Both Public Services and Procurement Canada and Halifax’s Irving Shipbuilding, which the government has named prime contractor on the CSC project, have denied allegations of favoritism.

Industry sources, however, told Postmedia that two other European shipbuilders also decided against submitting bids on the Canadian program because of concerns over the fairness of the process.

PSPC has declined to say how many bids were received for the CSC project by the Nov. 30 deadline. Besides the Lockheed-BAE group, only two other companies have publicly acknowledged bidding.

Fincantieri and Naval Group had hoped their offer might sway the Liberals, as it eliminated much of the risk in such a large procurement by offering a proven warship design at a fixed price. The consortium had proposed building the ships at Irving’s Halifax yards, as well as using Canadian technology on board the ships and transferring some technology to Canadian firms so they could be involved in future sales of FREMM vessels on the international market.

But the Canadian government dismissed the consortium’s claim of cost savings. “With respect to suggestions that significant savings could be realized through this alternative process, this is far from evident,” PSPC’s statement said.

Officials from Fincantieri and Naval Group were not available for comment Tuesday.

The Italian, French, Moroccan and Egyptian navies currently operate FREMM frigates; Australia is considering buying them for its new fleet, and they are seen as serious contenders in the competition to outfit the U.S. Navy with modern frigates.

The cost of the CSC program has steadily increased. Originally set at $26 billion, the Department of National Defence later estimated its price tag at $40 billion. Then in June, Parliamentary budget officer Jean-Denis Fréchette estimated its cost at $61.82 billion. He also warned that inflation will cost taxpayers an extra $3 billion for every year beyond 2018 the awarding of the contract is delayed.

RCAF CF-18s to Fly past 2030?

By: David Pugliese, The Ottawa Citizen 

Some sources in industry as well as at the Department of National Defence are now suggesting that the country’s CF-18 fleet could be flying until 2030.

Why?

The purchase of interim Super Hornets from Boeing is stalled, if not dead in the water. That is the result of Boeing’s decision to go after Bombardier on its C-Series commercial aircraft and the resulting duties from the U.S. of almost 300 per cent.

The potential acquisition of fighter aircraft from Australia is a possibility. But that won’t happen overnight. Australia will respond by the end of December but that is just the beginning of the process, if it does proceed.

The CF-18s will be upgraded to allow them to keep flying to at least 2025.

But even Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan has acknowledged in the past that the planes could remain in the air much longer. In November 2016 on CBC Radio’s As It Happens, Sajjan said the jets might be required to keep flying until 2032. (And that was before the issues emerged with the purchase of interim Super Hornets from Boeing).

This is all despite the fact that DND stated, "An ELE extension to 2030 is assessed as a high risk option in terms of cost, schedule and technical factors" in its now Archived CF-18 Hornet Estimated Life Expectancy document.

Canadian Firms prod Trudeau to approve Super Hornet deal

By: Daniel Leblanc, The Globe and Mail 

Ten Canadian-based aerospace companies are calling on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to stop blocking the purchase of 18 Super Hornet fighter jets, arguing they stand to suffer from the government's unwavering support of Bombardier Inc. in a trade dispute with Boeing Co.

"Prime Minister, we ask for your co-operation as we work with Boeing to keep our collective growth and innovation story unfolding here in Canada. Our partnership is deep and enduring, but it needs your engagement," said the letter sent on Tuesday by senior executives from firms such as Héroux-Devtek, L-3 MAS, CAE and GE Canada.

The letter, which calls on the government to advance "aerospace for all of Canada," is the most recent development in an increasingly bitter dispute between the Canadian government and Boeing. Ottawa is holding the Super Hornet contract as its main bargaining chip in its fight on behalf of Quebec-based Bombardier, while members of the "Boeing team in Canada" want to convince the government that its strategy will actually hurt Canada's aerospace industry as a whole.


Read more: Ottawa seeks second-hand jets from Australia amid Boeing, Bombardier dispute

"There is a bright opportunity in front of us that can be harvested, in a successful and mutually beneficial win for Canada, our Canadian companies, and Boeing," said the letter sent to Mr. Trudeau, his two key aides, Katie Telford and Gerald Butts, and five federal ministers.


At the heart of the dispute is Boeing's complaint against Bombardier over allegations of illegal subsidies and dumping that was filed in April with the U.S. Department of Commerce. The matter is currently in front of the U.S. International Trade Commission, with Boeing asking for tariffs to be imposed on Bombardier C Series planes sold in the United States.

Ottawa responded by lambasting Boeing for its actions against Bombardier, which is seen in the Liberal government as the crown jewel of Canada's aerospace industry, quickly putting the Super Hornet deal on hold.

A Canadian delegation recently travelled to Australia to see whether second-hand fighter jets, which are being placed on the market by the country's military, could instead fit Canada's needs for an "interim" fleet.

"Australia has flown a very similar F-18 to ours, it is one of the reasons why we have sent a team down to take a look at various options," Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan told reporters at a caucus meeting in Kelowna. "Our engineers will take a look at all the specs to make sure the airframe is worthy enough, making sure we look at the systems that are also employed. ... They will provide an assessment in short order."

Mr. Trudeau has himself sought to put pressure on Boeing to drop its complaint against Bombardier. On Tuesday, Mr. Trudeau called Eric Greitens, the Governor of Missouri, where Super Hornets are assembled, to highlight the billions of dollars and thousands of jobs that are now in play.



STORY CONTINUES BELOW ADVERTISEMENT



"Canada is reviewing current military procurement that relates to Boeing, as Boeing is pursuing unfair and aggressive trade action against the Canadian aerospace sector. Meanwhile, Boeing receives billions in support from U.S. federal, state and municipal governments," the Prime Minister's Office said on Tuesday.

Still, the president of Boeing International has told Canadian media that Boeing will not back down in its fight against unfair subsidies.

"We recognize the Canadian government might be upset with us. We don't intend to upset anybody, but we plainly have to do what we believe is right," Boeing International president Marc Allen told The Globe and Mail.

Mr. Allen urged the federal government to stop making a link between Boeing's case against Bombardier and the Super Hornet contract. "If you ask me my opinion, I wouldn't want the U.S. government trading national security for trade," he said.

Mr. Allen added the federal government should not forget that Boeing does $4-billion a year of business in Canada, with 560 suppliers and an overall impact of 17,000 jobs.

Bombardier has denied any wrongdoing and is currently defending itself in front of the U.S. International Trade Commission.


"The bottom line is that Boeing's petition is meritless and based on false assumptions, citing a campaign in which they didn't even compete," Bombardier Commercial Aircraft spokesman Bryan Tucker said. "Boeing's petition is a direct attack on innovation, competition, development and jobs on both sides of the border."

Trudeau Not Planning on Sending Troops Back to Afghanistan

LEE BERTHIAUME
OTTAWA
THE CANADIAN PRESS

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has thrown cold water on suggestions the Liberal government wants to sign onto continental ballistic missile defence, or that it might send troops back into Afghanistan.

The question over whether Canada should be part of the U.S.'s continental missile-defence shield has been rekindled in recent days amid concerns about North Korea's growing nuclear arsenal.

Canada opted out of ballistic missile defence in 2005 following a divisive national debate, but many defence experts and parliamentarians, including some Liberals, want the issue reopened.

Meanwhile, U.S. President Donald Trump's plan to send thousands more troops to Afghanistan has also resurrected questions about whether Canada will be asked to follow suit.

Speaking in Montreal on Wednesday, however, Trudeau appeared to close the door on both ideas.

"On those cases, we will always take the decisions in terms of what is the best interests of Canadians," Trudeau told reporters after meeting federal and provincial immigration officials.

"And our long-standing positions on those two issues are not going to be changed any time soon."

The comments on ballistic missile defence were the strongest yet from the Liberal government, which has largely sidestepped questions about its intentions in recent weeks.

Whether the prime minister has succeeded in finally putting the issue to rest is another question, however, particularly if tensions between Washington and Pyongyang continue to escalate.

At least one Liberal MP has said Canada should reconsider its decision not join the U.S. missile-shield system, as have both the House of Commons and Senate defence committees.

The Liberals had also said in their recent defence policy that they planned to discuss with the U.S. ways to improve North America's defences against, among other things, ballistic missiles.

Exactly what form those discussions will take – and what concrete measures will be taken to better protect the continent – remains unclear.

Trudeau's position on Afghanistan was less of a surprise, as he had previously ruled out a NATO request for Canada to send police trainers to the war-torn country.

The last Canadian troops left Afghanistan in 2014, and despite concerns about a resurgent Taliban, the Liberals have instead emphasized Canada's military contributions to Iraq and Latvia.

Still, it's uncertain how the comments will be received by the Trump administration and NATO, both of which have called on allies to redouble their efforts and help end the 16-year-old conflict there.

"We will ask our NATO allies and global partners to support our new strategy, with additional troop and funding increases in line with our own," Trump said Monday. "We are confident they will."

Dithering or a Rethink on Peacekeeping Intentions?

By: Blair Gilmore, RUSI-NS

Three recent news items relate to Justin Trudeau’s intent to send troops on a UN peacekeeping mission. Outfits like the CDA Institute have released their analysis on Canada’s new Defence Policy, the Globe and Mail reported that a CAF sniper once again holds the record for the furthest kill shot, and MPs of the House of Commons are expected to rise for their summer break, which lasts from June 23 to September 18.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau famously (or infamously) declared in the early days after the 20 October 2015 election that “Canada is back!” This partly referred to our country’s apparent readiness to get back onto the world stage as a peacekeeping nation. The CAF had been regrouping after 12 years of operations in Afghanistan and had taken an operational pause. Cynics thought the Liberals just wanted a coveted seat back on the UN Security Council, while altruistic observers believed they wanted to bring Canadian ‘sunny ways’ to downtrodden portions of the planet. Either way, this promise to our allies to help with the ‘heavy lifting’ is going on two years with no fulfilment in sight.

Reminiscent of The Economist’s assessment of a former Liberal PM, Justin Trudeau seems to be turning into 'Mr. Dithers' The Sequel. He is hedging his bets by judiciously spending Canada’s "blood and treasure" on select hellhole missions around the world. The CAF has Special Operations Forces in hotspots sprinkled here and there and, as evidenced by the record-breaking kill shot, we are turning the ‘bad guys’ into pink mist. But these operations are shrouded in secrecy to minimise the PR fallout. We also are making a big deal of a contingent of 450 soldiers being sent to bolster Latvia; of CF 18s patrolling Iceland’s air space, and a frigate in the Mediterranean under Operation Reassurance in an effort to blunt Russia’s burgeoning re-emergence as an aggressive military world power. The world may be sliding back into another Cold War, but the potential for onesies or twosies of Canadian-flag-draped coffins coming home is minimal.

The government pumped out a comprehensive Canada Defence Policy which impressively lays out the CAF’s focus for the next 20 years along with substantive budget increases. There have been immediate results like overdue pay increases but the large expenditures will not kick in until after the next election cycle. Lots of good words and promises, but very little in the way of solid rubber meeting the road.

About a year ago, the Minister of National Defence (MND), Harjit Sajjan made the rounds of African countries for potential Canadian peacekeeping missions in an effort towards due diligence before fulfilling the PM's promise. The scuttlebutt has been that Mali was the lead contender of Canadian peacekeeping largesse. Mali is a particularly nasty quagmire with open Islamic civil warfare, use of child soldiers, frequent and numerous peacekeeper casualties – all with a generous dash of IEDs.

As a former Intelligence officer, the MND is no dummy. I think he and the PM were somewhat unprepared for the realities of Mali, and now recognise that dead CAF men and women will be regularly travelling the Highway to Heroes route if we send troops out on these peacemaking missions. This is why they dither when pressed on when the government is planning on making a decision.

I am no fan of sending CAF personnel into harm’s way. I have family and friends in uniform. I have lost military friends doing their duty. Frankly, in my opinion, some parts of the world are burning and that’s just the way it is. Let them sort their own crap out because all we seem to do as Western powers is muddy the water and waste our efforts. The government knows there is no upside to sending troops to a place like Mali, so they are stalling like mad, hoping other world events or opportunities will come up to distract us from that ill-conceived promise.

As reported by CBC's Murray Brewster, Canada has been presented with a long list of 'marquee command roles' for UN missions and has turned them all down except for a plum position in New York. With the rising of the House, the Liberals will undoubtedly push any decision further to the right by months until at least the fall session.

Opposition MPs will rightly want a debate before sending CAF troops into obvious peril – and this will be another excuse to, in military parlance, mark time.

There’s an old military adage related to the concept of leadership when it comes to making a choice. Either make a decision, follow, or get the hell out of the way. Our allies, like the Dutch in need of a tag-out in Mali, and the Germans who wanted the use of our helicopters instead of theirs, are probably dismayed that Canada is 'all talk and no action'.

Perhaps the innocents who are being killed, tortured, raped and maimed would like to stop holding out false hope that blue-beret-wearing Canadians are coming to their rescue. The world and our defence partners are realizing that Canadian ‘Sunny Ways’ and ‘Canada is Back’ talk is simply blowing sunshine up their collective behinds.

-----

– Blair Gilmore is a Research Fellow with the Nova Scotia branch of the Royal United Services Institute of (RUSI-NS)

Sajjan Faces Continued Criticism Over MEDUSA Claims

By: David Pugliese, Defence Watch 

It was another tough day for Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan.

He tried to change the channel Wednesday with a speech that bluntly outlined the problems that the Canadian military and the DND face as far as money and resources.

But most of the questions he faced from journalists were still about his Op Medusa claims.

As readers know, in an April 18 speech during his trip to India, Sajjan made this claim about Operation Medusa: “On my first deployment to Kandahar in 2006, I was kind of thrown into an unforeseen situation and I became the architect of an operation called Operation Medusa where we removed over, about, 1,500 Taliban fighters off the battlefield. And I was very proud to be on the main assault of that force,” he said.

Claiming to be the architect of Medusa was seen as an embarrassing exaggeration by some and by others as a blatant lie. Over the last several days Sajjan has been called out by military personnel as well as members of the public. Sajjan issued a clarification/statement of regret but that didn’t seem to quell the anger.

On the weekend he issued an apology on his Facebook page.

That hasn’t done much to ease the situation.

The Conservatives are continuing their strategy of raising questions about Sajjan’s credibility. They have pointed to the Op Medusa “architect” claims and statements that Canada’s allies had no issues with the pull-out of CF-18s from the Iraq campaign, when they clearly did.

The NDP have raised questions about conflict of interest in regard to the Afghan detainee issue. As minister, Sajjan, an Afghan war veteran, decided against an inquiry into allegations of abuse of detainees. But the NDP argue he may have had indirect/direct knowledge of detainee issues so he could be in a conflict of interest on making a decision against an inquiry.

Parliament’s ethics commissioner gave Sajjan a clean bill of health on this file.

But the commissioner is now reviewing a request by NDP leader Tom Mulcair to reconsider her decision.

All this means that Sajjan will be in the news for the next little while.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is said to like Sajjan and has, for now, stood behind him.

How long will that last?

One potential scenario is that Sajjan will stick around long enough to deliver the Liberal government’s new defence policy. And then a short time later he will leave in a cabinet shuffle.

Minding the Capability "Gap"

BY HUDSON ON THE HILL
© 2017 FrontLine Defence (Vol 14, No 2)

The House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence (SCND) recently went In Camera to start drafting its long-awaited report on “Canada and the Defence of North America”, an issue the Members of Parliament have been studying for the better part of a year.

The report, when it gets presented to the House, is virtually guaranteed to include more money for the Canadian Armed Forces in general, and the Royal Canadian Air Force in particular, given that continental defence is a top-dollar priority for the Department of National Defence. From a DND perspective, the Arctic (including the impact of global warming) is mainly an RCAF operational responsibility.

Some elements of the upcoming report can be found in an earlier report by the SCND, which is chaired by B.C. Liberal MP Stephen Fuhr, a former CF-18 Hornet pilot and one of several retired Canadian Armed Forces personnel who have repeatedly proved their mettle on defence policy despite being first-term MPs. That earlier report recommended better awareness of cyber attacks and emerging missile threats, among other things. But it focused heavily on NORAD and aerial readiness, and devoted most of its content to the RCAF.

Urging “a thorough review of Canada’s international and domestic capability requirements” for replacing the remaining “legacy” Hornets, the committee pushed for an aircraft that would satisfy all needs, including maintaining Canadian sovereignty in the North, and said the government should decide on a replacement by September 2017.

In a letter from Sajjan to Fuhr, the government’s response to the SCND noted that the DPR consultations over the past year had included not only the public through social media and other means but also experts through a series of roundtables, and more than 50 Members of Parliament had participated in constituency-level discussions.

Sajjan further highlighted the decision to acquire 18 Super Hornets from Boeing – to plug what he initially described as an RCAF “capability gap” until there’s a decision on replacing the already diminished legacy fighter fleet of CF-18s, which are set to be retired in the 2023-2025 timeframe, despite a pending $500-million upgrade program.

The notion of a “gap” arose when Sajjan announced last May that the government would work to acquire additional fighters to enable Canada to fulfill simultaneous commitments to both NORAD and NATO. The announcement seemed to come out of the blue because, only a few weeks earlier, the RCAF Commander Lieutenant-General Mike Hood never mentioned it when testifying before the SCND in April.

Pressed by Nova Scotia Liberal MP Darren Fisher, Hood noted that CAF readiness is budgeted annually. “I’m funded in my operations and maintenance budget to ensure that I can keep my NORAD commitments at a posture that’s ready.” He went on to say that finding resources “has not been a challenge under my watch at this time” and that “we have enough trained personnel, we have enough aircraft and enough maintenance people to keep them going, and we have the money, certainly, to operate.”

In other words, no “gap”, seen by some as a contradiction of the government’s position. While it might be splitting hairs, it should be noted that Hood did not include NATO, which obviously can be a volatile component, in the readiness/affordability mix. He did say, however, that if he faced “any challenges” in fulfilling commitments, he was confident that the additional resources would be endorsed by “the chief”, meaning General Jonathan Vance, the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS).

Later, as the controversy continued to bubble, Sajjan’s spokesperson, Jordan Owens, sought to clear the air with a statement in which she defined the “capability gap” as being “an insufficient number of aircraft available on any given day to meet our existing NORAD obligations and NATO commitments combined, not to mention having the capacity to react to unforeseen and emerging threats.”

Owens also pointed out, rightly, that keeping the legacy Hornets flying longer was not the solution. “With the current availability rate what it is, even if the 77 airplanes could fly forever, there still wouldn’t be enough of them to simultaneously meet our NORAD and NATO commitments. The only way to address the capability gap is to improve the availability rate of our fighter fleet. This means we need more people and it means we need more planes.”

Note that this didn’t include domestic fighter requirements. With a serviceability rate of only about 50%, if all three became active missions simultaneously, the legacy fleet could not handle them all.

A few days later, Hood suggested to the Senate Standing Committee on National Security and Defence that a policy shift had resulted in the tactical shortfall. “The government has now directed that we be ready to meet our daily NATO and NORAD commitments simultaneously,” he said in his opening statement, adding later under questioning that he was “at present unable to do that with the present CF-18 fleet” because he doesn’t have enough aircraft (a status inherited from a series of RCAF commanders whose roles were constrained by various governments over the years).

Asked by Senator Colin Kenny how many aircraft the RCAF might need, given that it has been talking about a next-generation fleet of 65 compared with the 1980s buy of 138 CF-18s. Hood wasn’t prepared to reveal that: “the numbers behind the commitments with respect to NORAD and NATO are classified,” he said. “Suffice it to say,” he added, “the 77 we presently have are incapable of delivering that number.”

Judy Foote, the Minister of Public Services and Procurement (who has since taken an indefinite leave of absence for unspecified personal reasons), also involved herself in the debate, suggesting that the CDS was was in a better position to explain things. “I think if you ask General Vance, he’d have a different view on that and I have a lot of faith in the Minister of Defence, who of course has been on the ground and knows only too well what the need is," she said, adding that a capability gap has “existed for some time” but had been ignored by the previous government.

Foote also disagreed with Hood’s assertion to the Senate committee that keeping the legacy Hornets operational until 2025 would negate any urgency to sole-source FA/18 Super Hornets as the RCAF’s next frontline fighter.

On numerous occasions, Sajjan has reiterated the notion that providing the CAF with resources they need to do their job had been a “key component” of the DPR consultations. “Capability requirements for operations at home and abroad, situational awareness, and intelligence are all being considered. Our goal is to ensure the CAF have the tools they need to safely and effectively perform the missions set by our Government. Your conclusions and recommendations have informed and will be reflected in Canada’s new defence policy.”

That said, Sajjan’s latest statement on the DPR, after an April 11 cabinet meeting, was to repeat that “we are coming very close to making the decisions,” but deflected questions about when that might be.

“We want to make sure that we get this right,” he told reporters, repeating what has become a ministerial mantra. “We want to make sure that it’s not just about the missions and what we do here in Canada and abroad; it’s about how we look after our troops as well. It’s extremely thorough, and I look forward to presenting this to Canadians on behalf of the government, and […] to having the discussion with parliamentarians as well […] in the coming months.”

Could that mean the DPR isn’t released until after Parliament begins its summer recess? That’s currently set to begin June 23 and run until Sept. 18. That’s 12 weeks in which the government couldn’t be held accountable in Parliament. The optics of that scenario would be poor at best.

====
Hudson on the Hill
The role of Hudson is being filled by contributing editor Ken Pole.