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.

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.

Cost Concerns Stall JTF2's Planned Move to CFB Trenton

By: David Pugliese, National Post 

As Canada’s special forces prepares to increase in size, a planned move of its counterterrorism unit from Ottawa to a larger base has been stalled.

The cost to move Joint Task Force 2 to a new installation at CFB Trenton has tripled to more than $1 billion.

The Department of National Defence says it is now going back to the Liberal government for a decision on how it wants to proceed.

JTF2 had planned to leave its Dwyer Hill facility in Ottawa after 2019 for a new installation at CFB Trenton. The previous Conservative government had authorized $346 million for construction of the new JTF2 site and the move of the unit.

But the special forces command has significantly added capabilities to the proposed site, expanding it beyond its original scope. That has driven costs up to about $1.2 billion.

The Liberal government recently announced it was boosting the size of Canada’s special forces by 605 personnel, although it’s unclear how many of those would be for JTF2.

Still, the military has been warning for years that the counterterrorism unit has outgrown its Dwyer Hill installation.

Last year, the Department of National Defence told the Ottawa Citizen it would have a decision on the move by this summer. But it now acknowledges there are no clear timelines for the project, if it happens at all.

“Due to the complexity of the project, the scope continues to be developed to meet minimum operational requirements,” the DND stated in an email. “The Department will seek further direction from the government on the implementation plan as the project progresses.”

Jordan Owens, a spokeswoman for Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan, said the request for direction has not yet arrived from the military.

Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Jon Vance has been warned the project is facing major risk in “cost and scope,” according to documents obtained by the Ottawa Citizen through the Access to Information law.

The military has been talking about the need for a new base for JTF2 since 2005. Among the options considered was an expansion of the existing Ottawa site or moving the unit to Garrison Petawawa.

In 2008, the Conservative government announced JTF2 would be relocated to CFB Trenton, but in 2014, DND officials said the unit would remain at its Ottawa location at least until 2019.

In a controversial move, the Conservative government in 2012 expropriated a 90-hectare farm, near the Trenton base. The farm’s owner, Frank Meyers, made an unsuccessful bid to have the expropriation stopped. The farm had been in his family for more than 200 years.

The military took over the property, tore down barns, and built a berm and some access roads. Little else has been done with the land.

Due to the complexity of the project, the scope continues to be developed to meet minimum operational requirements

Meyers’ supporters have asked the Liberal government to return the property, but it has declined to do so.

There are currently around 1,900 personnel in Canadian special forces. That will be increased to 2,500, but the Liberal government has not detailed the time frame in which this will take place.

The Liberals have also pledged to spend $1.5 billion on new equipment for the special forces. That gear will include new vehicles, surveillance aircraft and boats.

Canadian Special Operations Forces Command or CANSOFCOM oversees Joint Task Force 2, in Ottawa; the 427 Special Operations Aviation Squadron and the Canadian Special Operations Regiment, both in Petawawa; and the Canadian Joint Incident Response Unit, a Trenton, Ont.-based organization that deals with weapons of mass destruction.

The Liberal government defence plan also calls for new infrastructure for the Canadian Joint Incident Response Unit, which will see additional personnel added to its ranks. Some existing buildings will be remodelled while other new facilities will be constructed at Trenton.

If JTF2 vacates its Dwyer Hill installation, the site will be offered up within DND and then to other federal departments. After that it could be offered to provincial and municipal governments. “If there is no interest at these levels, the property will be sold on the open market through an open and fair process,” a DND spokeswoman has said.

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

RCAF Commander - Government Taking Necessary Time on Fighter Replacement

By: Lee Berthiaume, The Canadian Press

OTTAWA - The head of the Royal Canadian Air Force has refuted suggestions, including from more than a dozen of his predecessors, that the Trudeau government is needlessly dragging its feet on new fighter jets.

Lt.-Gen. Mike Hood instead said the Liberals are taking "a prudent amount of time," as choosing Canada's next fighter is a big decision — especially since it will likely be in use for decades.

A pilot positions a CF-18 Hornet at the CFB Cold Lake, in Cold Lake, Alberta on Tuesday, October 21, 2014. Royal Canadian Air Force commander Lt.-Gen. Mike Hood is pushing back against critics who say the Liberal government is taking too long to launch a competition for new fighter jets. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jason Franson

"Fighter operations, there is a lot to chew on," Hood said in an interview with The Canadian Press.

"The timelines the government and the minister have articulated will let them be absolutely sure that they're making the right choice for a final fighter that will probably be flying when I'm going to the grave."

The Liberals' new defence policy includes a promise to replace Canada's 76 aging CF-18s with 88 new warplanes, which is an increase from the 65 previously promised by the Harper Conservatives.

The policy estimates the new fighters will cost between $15 billion and $19 billion, up from the $9 billion previously budgeted by the Tories.

The Liberals say the extra fighter jets are required to meet a new policy, adopted in September, that increased the number of warplanes that must always be ready for operations.

But fighter-jet companies such as Lockheed Martin and Boeing, which make the F-35 and Super Hornet, respectively, won't be asked to submit formal bids until next year at the earliest.

That is despite many defence experts, including 13 retired Air Force commanders in February, saying a competition to replace the CF-18 fleet can and should be launched immediately.

They say doing so would negate the need for 18 "interim" Super Hornets, which would save taxpayer dollars and keep from diverting personnel and resources away from other areas of the Air Force.

But Hood played down those concerns, saying that he'll have no trouble operating an interim fighter fleet if "I'm given the resources and the priority that I need."

That doesn't mean there won't be challenges in growing the size of Canada's fighter fleet, he admitted, notably in terms of having enough pilots and technicians to fly and fix the new jets.

The problem has been exacerbated by the fact that while airlines are currently on a hiring binge, Hood said, the Air Force can't ramp up the number of pilots it puts through flight school each year.

"We brought in a pilot-training system in the early 2000s that had a maximum capacity to deliver about 115 pilots a year. With attrition going up, I'd probably want to produce 140 this year, but I can't."

However, Hood is hoping planned changes to the training regime and new initiatives such as recruiting potential technicians directly out of community college will help grow his ranks.

At the same time, the military is looking at ways to improve working conditions across the board to keep experienced personnel in uniform and not lose them.

The plan to grow the number of fighter jets is only one area in which the Air Force is slated to grow in the coming years, with new armed drones, search-and-rescue aircraft and other equipment having also been promised.

Hood said that represents a significant and welcome turn of events after the service was dramatically weakened by years of cuts.

"When General (Rick) Hillier talked about the 'Decade of Darkness,'" Hood said, "the lion's share of that was done on the back of the Air Force in the '90s."

General Warns Canada's SOF Operating on 'Borrowed Time'

The Canadian Press,

The deputy commander of Canada’s special forces says his troops risk being run ragged after three years in Iraq, as well as several other lesser-known missions in other parts of the world.

Brig.-Gen. Peter Dawe says that’s why the Liberal government’s plan to add more than 600 additional soldiers to the elite force is not only welcome, but necessary.

Canada currently has about 2,000 special forces soldiers, many of whom Dawe says have done multiple tours through Iraq since first being sent to help fight the Islamic State group in August 2014.

But Canadian special forces have also been called upon to help train local forces facing extremist threats in different parts of Africa, Southeast Asia and Central America.

The demand doesn’t appear to be letting up, as the government announced last week that Canadian soldiers will stay in Iraq for at least another two years.

Dawe says his troops continue to get the job done, but have been operating “on borrowed time” and need the help to ensure they — and their families — don’t suffer burnout.

New Saab Gripen E takes first flight - A Possibility for RCAF CF-18 Replacement?

By: David Pugliese, Defence Watch 

Saab’s Gripen E, the next generation of that fighter jet made its first flight on June 15. That is a major development for the plane. Deliveries are set for 2019.

At 10:32 on Thursday June 15, Gripen E took off on its maiden flight, flown by a Saab test pilot, according to the company. The aircraft (designation 39-8) left from Saab’s airfield in Linköping, Sweden and flew for 40 minutes. During the flight, the aircraft carried out a number of actions to demonstrate various test criteria including the retracting and extending of the landing gear.

Here are photos from Saab of that flight:

Sweden and Brazil have purchase the Gripen E. Belgium and Finland are considered potential opportunities for the Saab product, Richard Smith, Saab’s head of Gripen marketing, told journalists.

Perhaps Canada as well?

Defense News has noted that the Swedish Air Force has committed to a purchase of 60 E models, and Brazil is acquiring 36 jets, including eight twin-seat F versions.

Liberals to spend $2.5-billion to keep Victoria-Class Submarines Operating Past 2030

By: Lee Berthiaume, The Canadian Press 

The Trudeau government is planning to spend billions more on the navy's four wayward submarines to keep them operating into the 2030s.

The plan to extend the lives of the troubled vessels is included in the Liberals' new defence policy and comes following calls from senior naval officers to save the controversial ships from the scrap heap.

The actual price of the plan was not revealed in the policy document, which was released to much fanfare last week, and National Defence refused to provide a price tag following multiple requests.

That is despite assertions from the Liberal government that the defence policy was fully costed and following promises of full transparency when it came to the overall plan.

"Detailed costing will be provided in the Defence Investment Plan to be published in due course," National Defence spokesman Daniel Le Bouthillier said in an e-mail.

Defence sources, however, have told The Canadian Press that keeping the submarines in the water for another decade will cost upwards of $2.5-billion.

Without upgrades, the first of the submarines will reach the end of its life in 2022, according to documents obtained last year through Access to Information, with the last retired in 2027.

Some have questioned the wisdom of spending more money on the four vessels, which have been plagued with problems since Canada bought them used from Britain in 1998.

While the Chretien government said at the time that it was getting a bargain by paying only $750-million, the ships have required constant repairs and upgrades just to make them seaworthy for a limited time.

And while a number of experts have called for Canada look to purchase new submarines, rather than upgrading the ones it has, others have said the country doesn't need such expensive vessels.

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan this week emphasized the Liberal government's view, previously expressed by senior naval officials, that subs are necessary for protecting Canada's security and sovereignty.

"No other platform in the Canadian Armed Forces can do what a submarine can do," Sajjan said during an event in Halifax on Monday.

"No other platform has the stealth, the intelligence-gathering, surveillance and reconnaissance capability and the deterrence to potential adversaries that a sub does."

Sajjan added that the government decided upgrading the existing subs – HMCS Chicoutimi, Victoria, Corner Brook and Windsor – was more "prudent" than purchasing new vessels.

The Liberals promised in their defence policy to invest an additional $62-billion in the military over the next 20 years, which includes increasing annual defence spending by 70 per cent over the next decade.

A large chunk of that new money will end up going towards replacing the navy's 12 frigates and three recently retired destroyers with 15 new warships at a cost of between $56-billion and $60-billion.

Previous estimates had pegged the cost of those vessels at $26-billion.

The four submarines continue to generate headlines for the wrong reasons, with the most recent Thursday when HMCS Chicoutimi was hit by another naval vessel while docked at CFB Esquimalt in B.C.

But Rob Huebert, an expert on maritime security at the University of Calgary, said the other three have been involved in a variety of tasks and mission in recent months – even if most Canadians don't realize it.

"The very nature of what they do means that (the military) can't talk about it," he said.

"They're actually exceeding what the navy was expecting them to do in terms of time at sea, interdiction of drugs and co-operation with the Americans. You can't talk about any of that, but it is occurring."

Rather than extend the lives of the submarines, Huebert said he would have liked to see the government start looking for replacements, but that wasn't possible given the huge costs of replacing the frigates.

"What we saw was the defence review was an intelligent decision to do what was necessary to lengthen the life of the subs while making sure the (new warships) are built," he said.

Resolve iAOR to be Unveiled July 20

By: David Pugliese, Defence Watch 

Chantier Davie has issued invitations for the unveiling of the Resolve-class interim Auxiliary Oiler Replenishment (AOR) ship. That will happen July 20. All members of the public are welcome according to the invitation.

In November 2015, the Liberal government tried to derail the $669 million project for the supply ship but backed down after their attempt became public.

Project Resolve was approved by the previous Conservative government and involved Davie shipyards in Quebec quickly converting a commercial vessel into an AOR. The ship had already been delivered to Davie to begin the conversion process when James D. Irving, co-chief executive officer of Davie’s rival, Irving Shipbuilding, wrote a letter on Nov. 17, 2015, to then procurement minister Judy Foote and Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan. Irving requested its proposal for a similar vessel, already rejected by the Conservative government, be examined.

After receiving Irving’s letter the Liberal government put Project Resolve on hold.

Details about the Liberals’ decision to put Project Resolve on hold, as well as Irving’s letter and details of cabinet discussions about the matter, were leaked to the CBC in November 2015. The leak embarrassed the new Trudeau government and sparked outrage in Quebec about the potential loss of hundreds of jobs if Davie were to lose the ship deal. The Liberals beat a quick retreat and shortly afterwards, Project Resolve went ahead.

The RCMP has claimed that Vice Admiral Mark Norman was involved in leaking information on Project Resolve to Davie officials. Norman denies any wrongdoing. The RCMP have not laid any charges against the vice admiral who was suspended from his job in January by Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Jon Vance. Norman’s supporters have raised questions about how the respected officer has been treated.

The ship will be leased to the Canadian government, which has an option to buy the vessel if so desired.

Davie has issued these photos of the vessel:

Defence Experts Reject "Capability-Gap" and Interim Fighter Plan

In a new survey, 88 percent of the country’s top experts on defence and security agreed the government should cancel its proposed interim Super Hornet purchase and proceed with a permanent fighter jet replacement

OTTAWA, June 13, 2017 – Nearly nine in 10 experts in Canada’s security and defence community say the federal government’s proposal to purchase Super Hornet fighters on an interim basis is a bad idea.

That’s the finding from a new paper from the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.

An overwhelming majority of defence and security thought leaders believe “the government’s plan lacks merit, is strategically unsound, and ultimately should be cancelled”, write authors David McDonough and Brian Lee Crowley.

To read the full paper, titled “Should We Purchase Interim Super Hornets? A survey of the experts”, click here.

In November 2016, the Canadian government announced plans to acquire an interim fleet of 18 Super Hornet fighter jets as a stopgap measure to supplement the existing fleet of 76 CF-18s. In addition, it announced an “open and transparent” competition for a permanent fighter aircraft replacement for its CF-18s, which would take up to five years to complete.

According to one respondent, if the government continues with this plan, “The damage to the RCAF and Canada’s defence posture would be devastating and permanent.” Indeed, 88% of the experts surveyed said the government should cancel the Super Hornet purchase and proceed with a permanent fighter jet replacement. In the words of another respondent, “it would show the Government has the courage to correct a significant error.” Only 6.6% were in favour of the purchase, with the rest unsure on this fundamental question.

The Macdonald-Laurier Institute surveyed the country’s foremost security and defence policy thinkers and practitioners to get an independent, dispassionate and expert assessment on the merits of the interim Super Hornet plan and its underlying rationale. Potential respondents were selected for their expertise in security and defence generally, although procurement and airpower experts and practitioners were well represented among them.

In total, more than 100 people were initially contacted to undertake the survey, and we received survey responses from 75 individuals (for more information on respondents, see the paper). Participants came from across the political spectrum, and included noted scholars and think tank experts, former senior military officers from all three services, including many former RCAF commanders, and former government officials. Many also had widely differing opinions on such issues as the need for a permanent fighter aircraft competition or what particular aircraft was most suitable for Canadian defence requirements.

In other words, the diverse range of participants encompassed a large part of the security and defence community in Canada, which allowed us to gain access to their collective wisdom on this vital matter.
The survey itself consisted of 8 questions to be answered yes, no, or unsure, which allowed us to aggregate the responses. In so doing, we were able to assess their collective views on this matter and gauge, in an “evidence-based” manner, whether there is any broad consensus on the wisdom of the government’s plan – from its key justifications to its costs to whether the decision should be reversed.

Today, the government is in a very public spat with Boeing, the Super Hornet manufacturer, owing to its decision to ask the US Commerce Department and International Trade Commission to investigate subsidies for Bombardier’s CSeries aircraft. As a result, Ottawa suspended talks with Boeing on the interim Super Hornet purchase. The government’s recent defence policy statement also now only refers to the “potential” acquisition of an interim aircraft, omitting even a reference to the Super Hornet.

“Both of these developments provide a welcome opportunity for the government to reconsider this hasty procurement decision”, write McDonough and Crowley. “As a government publicly committed to ‘evidence-based decision making,’ it should consider the opinions of the vast majority of experts in the field”.

***

David McDonough is Deputy Editor at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and a Research Fellow at Dalhousie University’s Centre for the Study of Security and Development.

Brian Lee Crowley is the Managing Director of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.

The Macdonald-Laurier Institute is the only non-partisan, independent national public policy think tank in Ottawa focusing on the full range of issues that fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government.

For more information, please contact Mark Brownlee, communications manager, at 613-482-8327 x105 or email at mark.brownlee@macdonaldlaurier.ca.

RCN Officer Told to Choose between her Child or Career

By: Murray Brewster, CBC News 

CBC EXCLUSIVE

Acting Sub-Lt. Laura Nash is on her way out of the military after being given what she says is an utterly impossible, unfair choice.

The single mother says she was called into a meeting with two superior officers, both of them women, in late 2013 and claims she was told she had too many "family issues."

She faced a training deadline to go to sea and was given six weeks to decide between her child and her career as a warship navigator.

"The decision broke me," Nash, 33, told CBC News in an interview. "I couldn't make the decision. It was a catch-22. I didn't want to live without my child, but I needed a means of supporting him and so I didn't want to lose my job."

Last week, the Liberal government released its defence policy which set goals of increasing the representation of women in uniform, more respectful treatment and greater career flexibility.
More soldiers, ships and planes for military in Liberal defence plan

Nash's case is a demonstration of how far the defence department and the military have to go in order to achieve those lofty goals.

There is little institutional support and, more importantly, empathy for single moms in uniform, said Nash.

She was, at the time of her dressing down, at the navy's principal West Coast fleet base in Esquimalt, B.C. for her chosen occupation as a maritime surface and sub-surface operator — something that requires frequent deployments and long stints at sea.
No options, no backup

Nash never expected to be in such a difficult position. A former champion kayaker, she joined in 2010 and was in a relationship when she became pregnant. Nash was comfortable with the notion her child's father could take care of him while she was at sea.

But her relationship dissolved in 2012 and, in order to keep up with the demands of training and military life, she was forced — frequently — to send her boy, Ronin, who is now six, to her parents in Belleville, Ont. where they cared for him.
'I can't just leave a child on a beach.'— Acting Sub-Lt. Laura Nash

It was, however, only a temporary arrangement, one that would be difficult to carry on once she had been fully qualified and posted to a warship, at which point, even when in port, she would be required to stand 24-hour duties.

Her parents both worked full time. Child-care options through the military family resource centre were limited, particularly in light of the waiting list for spaces which has — at times — stretched to two years.

She had no one.
'Everybody's valuable in the armed forces.'— Gen. Jonathan Vance

"I can't just leave a child on a beach while I sail away," said Nash, using the navy slang that refers to relatives left behind in port.

"It's stupid. So, I tried to make the decision the best I could, and there was no answer. The only thing I could think of was going for help to mental health because it was causing me to suffer and causing anguish to think about giving him away."

And that was where her journey out of the military began in early 2014.

Nash, who reached the rank of acting sub-lieutenant, is being given a medical release at the end of July. (Mike O'Shaughnessy/CBC)

Nash says she sought help for depression, one so deep she — briefly — contemplated suicide. But she pulled out of it and was determined to fight.

By that time, Nash had been placed at a Joint Personnel Support Unit, which is supposed to help ill and injured military members rehabilitate or get ready for release to civilian life.

Nash says she repeatedly asked for a transfer to another occupation, such as logistics, which would not require her to be away from home as often.

ANALYSIS | Trudeau suggests defence review will invest more in troops than weaponry

She was initially given permission to switch, but the paperwork got sidetracked within the system.

By the time Nash found out, it was too late.

She was posted ashore and her transfer request was effectively denied when a base doctor refused to sign off.

Nash is being given a medical release at the end of July.

She says she has spent the better part of the last two years doing nothing and has not even been given a medical re-evaluation.
Grievances, harassment complaints

In the meantime, she has filed grievances and harassment complaints within the military related to her treatment.

Also, there is a complaint still formally pending before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, in which Nash claims some policies at National Defence, notably travel policies, discriminate against single mothers.

Her lawyer, Natalie MacDonald, said Nash was penalized for being a woman, having a child and seeking mental health care, something the military says it has taken great pains to de-stigmatize.

"Laura Nash was clearly reaching out and needed help from the Armed Forces and they didn't provide it," MacDonald said in an interview.
Ex-soldier and cancer survivor evicted during wait for military pension

Throughout her ordeal, some suggested to Nash she should have never chosen a career in the navy if she wanted a family, something MacDonald finds outrageous particularly given her client asked to be transferred to another occupation.

"That's ridiculous," she said. "That's absolutely unfair. It's discriminatory and I would hope in 2017 that kind of attitude would be banished from society."

"Quite frankly, a woman is able to choose whatever career she wants to but, when she has family status issues, which is exactly what Laura Nash was experiencing on the basis of her sex, the employer — and even the Canadian Armed Forces — needs to accommodate that request for accommodation."
More career flexibility promised

National Defence was reluctant to talk about Nash's case specifically, citing matters of privacy but there was last week a sweeping acknowledgment in the Liberal government's defence policy that the military needs to be more flexible.

Gen. Jonathan Vance, the chief of the defence staff, said the military wants to move beyond the notion of career "accommodation" because it has a "grudging sound to it."

Specifically, he is looking at case-by-case exemptions for ill and injured, who are on track to be medically released, and a more nimble system that will allow full-time members to move to the reserves and back again as circumstances allow.

As much as anything else it is a dollars-and-cents calculation, given the investment the military puts into training someone.

"What we want to do is alter — somewhat — how we look at people," says Vance, speaking to CBC News about the policy and not individual cases.

"Everybody's valuable in the armed forces."

Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Jonathan Vance has talked about encouraging women to serve in the military. (Fred Chartrand/Canadian Press)

Much has been written about misogyny, assault and bullying against women by men in the military, but Nash says her experience has been that women in uniform can be more harsh and judgmental.

"Women just treat other women terribly," she said, adding that she knows of at least three women who gave up their children — in one capacity or another — because of their military careers.

Nash said she went looking for empathy from one career officer who told her she too had "personal issues" around deployments because she had to find a place to store her car and change cell phone plans.

"That's the way that some of the women in the military look at children," said Nash. "They're just another piece of administration to deal with. They're not humans. They're not something that needs to be taken care of and raised and loved and something to be with their moms."

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.