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.

Canada Ranks 14th in Military Spending Worldwide

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute has released its latest report on worldwide military spending. It outlined the top 15 spenders on defence worldwide. Canada comes in at 14th.

Here is the top 15:

1. United States

2. China

3. Saudi Arabia

4. Russia

5. India

6. France

7. United Kingdom

8. Japan

9. Germany

10. South Korea

11. Brazil

12. Italy

13. Australia

14. Canada

15. Turkey

Here is more from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute:

Total world military expenditure rose to $1739 billion in 2017, a marginal increase of 1.1 per cent in real terms from 2016, according to new figures from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). China’s military expenditure rose again in 2017, continuing an upward trend in spending that has lasted for more than two decades.

Russia’s military spending fell for the first time since 1998, while spending by the United States remained constant for the second successive year. The comprehensive annual update of the SIPRI Military Expenditure Database is accessible at www.sipri.org.

‘Continuing high world military expenditure is a cause for serious concern,’ said Ambassador Jan Eliasson, Chair of the SIPRI Governing Board. ‘It undermines the search for peaceful solutions to conflicts around the world.’

After 13 consecutive years of increases from 1999 to 2011 and relatively unchanged spending from 2012 to 2016, total global military expenditure rose again in 2017.* Military spending in 2017 represented 2.2 per cent of global gross domestic product (GDP) or $230 per person. ‘The increases in world military expenditure in recent years have been largely due to the substantial growth in spending by countries in Asia and Oceania and the Middle East, such as China, India and Saudi Arabia,’ said Dr Nan Tian, Researcher with the SIPRI Arms and Military Expenditure (AMEX) programme. ‘At the global level, the weight of military spending is clearly shifting away from the Euro–Atlantic region.’

China leads continued spending increase in Asia and Oceania

Military expenditure in Asia and Oceania rose for the 29th successive year. China, the second largest spender globally, increased its military spending by 5.6 per cent to $228 billion in 2017. China’s spending as a share of world military expenditure has risen from 5.8 per cent in 2008 to 13 per cent in 2017. India spent $63.9 billion on its military in 2017, an increase of 5.5 per cent compared with 2016, while South Korea’s spending, at $39.2 billion, rose by 1.7 per cent between 2016 and 2017. ‘Tensions between China and many of its neighbours continue to drive the growth in military spending in Asia,’ said Siemon Wezeman, Senior Researcher with the SIPRI AMEX programme.

Spending falls sharply in Russia, but rises in Central and Western Europe

At $66.3 billion, Russia’s military spending in 2017 was 20 per cent lower than in 2016, the first annual decrease since 1998. ‘Military modernization remains a priority in Russia, but the military budget has been restricted by economic problems that the country has experienced since 2014,’ said Siemon Wezeman.

Driven, in part, by the perception of a growing threat from Russia, military spending in both Central and Western Europe increased in 2017, by 12 and 1.7 per cent, respectively. Many European states are members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and, within that framework, have agreed to increase their military spending. Total military spending by all 29 NATO members was $900 billion in 2017, accounting for 52 per cent of world spending.

Higher spending by Saudi Arabia drives increase in the Middle East

Military expenditure in the Middle East rose by 6.2 per cent in 2017.** Spending by Saudi Arabia increased by 9.2 per cent in 2017 following a fall in 2016. With spending of $69.4 billion, Saudi Arabia had the third highest military expenditure in the world in 2017. Iran (19 per cent) and Iraq (22 per cent) also recorded significant increases in military spending in 2017. ‘Despite low oil prices, armed conflict and rivalries throughout the Middle East are driving the rise in military spending in the region,’ said Pieter Wezeman, Senior Researcher with the SIPRI AMEX programme. In 2017 military expenditure as a share of GDP (known as the ‘military burden’) was highest in the Middle East, at 5.2 per cent. No other region in the world allocated more than 1.8 per cent of GDP to military spending.

US spending no longer in decline

The United States continues to have the highest military expenditure in the world. In 2017 the USA spent more on its military than the next seven highest-spending countries combined. At $610 billion, US military spending was unchanged between 2016 and 2017. ‘The downward trend in US military spending that started in 2010 has come to an end,’ said Dr Aude Fleurant, Director of the SIPRI AMEX programme. ‘US military spending in 2018 is set to rise significantly to support increases in military personnel and the modernization of conventional and nuclear weapons.’

Other notable developments
China made the largest absolute increase in spending ($12 billion) in 2017 (in constant 2016 prices), while Russia made the largest decrease (–$13.9 billion).

Military expenditure in South America rose by 4.1 per cent in 2017, mainly as a result of notable increases by the two largest spenders in the subregion: Argentina (up by 15 per cent) and Brazil (up by 6.3 per cent). 

Military spending in Central America and the Caribbean fell by 6.6 per cent in 2017, largely due to lower spending by Mexico (down by 8.1 per cent from 2016). 

Military expenditure in Africa decreased by 0.5 per cent in 2017, the third consecutive annual decrease since the peak in spending in 2014. Algeria’s military spending fell for the first time in over a decade (down by 5.2 per cent from 2016). 

Seven of the 10 countries with the highest military burden are in the Middle East: Oman (12 per cent of GDP), Saudi Arabia (10 per cent of GDP), Kuwait (5.8 per cent of GDP), Jordan (4.8 per cent of GDP), Israel (4.7 per cent of GDP), Lebanon (4.5 per cent of GDP) and Bahrain (4.1 per cent of GDP).

* Unless otherwise stated, all figures for spending in 2017 are given in 2017 current US dollars. All percentage changes are expressed in real terms (constant 2016 prices).

Budget 2018 Shores up Cyber Defence but is Silent on New Jets and Warships

By: Murray Brewster, CBC News

The new federal budget focuses on ones and zeros over tanks and troops by pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into new and improved cyber and national security defences.

Several federal departments will not only see upfront cash but promises of long-term spending to counter both the threat of hackers — state-sponsored and otherwise — and cyber-criminals.

National Defence, by comparison, is seeing virtually nothing in terms of new spending on the nuts and bolts of the military, other than initiatives outlined in the recently tabled national defence policy.

The 2018 budget is, on the surface, a tacit acknowledgement that the nature of threats to national security — the nature of modern warfare itself — is changing.

The budget recycles the government's $3.6 billion pledge last December to provide veterans with the option of a pension for life and better services.

But cyber-security was, by far, the headline national security measure in the budget.

Finance Minister Bill Morneau's fiscal plan sets aside $750 million in different envelopes — much of it to be spent over five years — to improve cyber security and better prepare the federal government to fend off online attacks and track down cyber-criminals.
More for CSE

It also promises an additional $225 million, beginning in 2020-21, to improve the capacity of the country's lead electronic intelligence agency, the Communications Security Establishment, to gather foreign signals intelligence.

The Liberals will soon pass new national security legislation — C-59 — and CSE will receive important new powers and responsibilities to disrupt global cyber threats.

"These are brand new tools. They're going to need lots of resources — technological resources, personnel resources — to engage in those kinds of operations," said Wesley Wark, a University of Ottawa professor and one of the country's leading experts on cybersecurity and intelligence, in an interview prior to the budget.

The sense of urgency about getting the country's cyber-security house in order is being driven in part by the fallout from Russian hacking and meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, said a former assistant parliamentary budget officer.

"With what we've seen south of the border, I think cyber-security and cyber-threat has been elevated in this budget to a high-priority item," said Sahir Khan, now the executive vice president of the Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy.

The budget creates two new entities to deal with online threats.

The first, the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security, will assemble all of the federal government's cyber expertise under one roof — a plan that will require new legislation.

The second organization will be run by the RCMP and be known as the National Cybercrime Coordination Unit.

It will coordinate all cybercrime investigations and act as a central agency to which the public can report incidents.

The budget also includes cash for Public Safety's National Cyber Strategy, which not only aims to protect federal government networks but is meant to collaborate with the corporate financial and energy sectors to boost their defences.
Military procurement a work in progress

The budget's dearth of new spending on the real-world military — at a time of significant global insecurity — is due to reasons that are partly political and partly organizational, said Khan.

The former Conservative government's inability to deliver on promises of new equipment during its nine-year tenure was a political "albatross around its neck," he said.

The Liberals may have produced a clear defence policy but they have yet to straighten out the procurement system, he added.

The Trudeau government has promised a lot of military capital spending down the road. Khan said it seems determined to keep the issue out of the spotlight in the meantime.

What's missing from the new budget is a clear commitment that National Defence will get the cash it needs as those needs arise.

"I think there was a lot of clarity in the policy direction coming out of the government [defence] white paper," said Khan. "What a lot of us are trying to understand is whether the money … is accompanying that change in direction … so that DND has a stable footing to meet its needs."

He said he still has questions about whether promised future spending on fighter jets and warships has been baked into the federal government's long-term fiscal plans.

A senior federal official, speaking on background prior to the release of the budget, insisted that military capital spending is welded into fiscal plans going forward into the 2030s.

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan has said repeatedly, since the strategy was released last June, that the defence plan was "fully costed" into the future.

Up until 2016, National Defence produced an annual list of planned defence purchases.

The Liberals promised to produce their own list of planned acquisitions and table it this year. Khan said it "needs to be presented to Parliament and the public."
Training and retaining?

The cyber initiatives in Monday's budget drew a mixed response from the high-tech sector.

On the one hand, the Council of Canadian Innovators praised budget signals that suggest the Liberals are open to dealing with home-grown companies rather than buying off-the-shelf from major U.S. firms.

"The imperative to build domestic cyber capacity is not just economic. It's existential," said Benjamin Bergen, the council's executive director.

"Without a domestic capacity in cyber we risk becoming a client state. Innovators welcome the announcement of a new Canadian Centre for Cyber Security, which will allow for information sharing between the public and private sector."

What the budget didn't offer was a clear commitment to training and retaining highly-skilled software engineers and IT professionals.

"We would have liked to have seen a retention strategy. There wasn't one," said Bergen. "We know Canada produces amazing graduates but we're struggling to keep that talent here."

The council estimates there will be up to 200,000 job openings in high-tech by 2020, which will put pressure on the industry and on the federal government as it bulks up its cyber capability.

Adam Froman, CEO of the Toronto-based data collection firm Delvinia, was blunt when asked if the federal government will be able to fill all of the cyber-security job openings created by this budget.

"They're not going to be able to. Plain and simple," he said. "Or they're going to have to outsource those jobs to foreign companies."

Canadian Forces, Security get Short Shrift in Budget 2017

By: Amanda Connolly, iPolitics 

Anyone hoping that Budget 2017 would provide insight into how the government plans to exercise soft or hard power abroad is going to be disappointed – as are any who hoped for a ballpark estimate of the costs of ambitious new programs like enhanced pre-clearance or the national security committee of parliamentarians.

This year’s budget offers little – and in many cases, nothing – in the way of plans to support the Canadian Forces or domestic security agencies. It also offers no insight into how, or if, the government plans to address pressure from the Trump administration to meet the two-per-cent of GDP target set by NATO allies for defence spending.

Budget 2017 includes no new money for the Department of National Defence, although the department is scheduled to get a bit of pocket money in the form of $134 million that kicks in this year under the escalator increase put in place by the former Conservative government in Budget 2015.

Until the long-awaited Defence Policy Review is completed, officials said Wednesday, the government will not be releasing any information about planned costing measures for the military.

The terms for the panel of experts advising Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan on the Defence Policy Review were extended last month to run until April 28. Although the listing on the Privy Council Office website stated the terms were extended so the panel could help finalize the report, a spokesperson for the minister said shouldn’t be taken as a timeline for the report’s release.

“We know how important it is to play our role internationally … we also know how important defence is to our economy,” said Finance Minister Bill Morneau in a press conference Wednesday, noting the pending release of the Defence Policy Review. “That will show our level of ambition.”

Budget 2017 does clarify the ongoing cost of renewing Canada’s military training mission in Ukraine, which decreases from $32 million per year in 2015 and 2016 to $29 million over the next two years.

Officials say that decrease reflects the start-up costs of the mission and not a reduction in the work Canadian soldiers are doing on the ground in Ukraine, given that the mission mandate is unchanged.

The government also adjusted the total amount of money allocated for large-scale capital projects – funding that was punted forward by about 30 years in Budget 2016.

While that budget set a total of $84.3 billion for deferred spending on military procurements the department isn’t ready to complete, Budget 2017 puts that figure closer to $83 billion.

The only new spending more-or-less related to defence is $13 million over five years to implement the Arms Trade Treaty, which Canada is set to join this year.

On the security front, the budget news is equally thin.

Despite suggestions that the government could have the planned new national security committee of parliamentarians in place by the end of the year, the budget allocates no new money for the committee’s secretariat, or for the reported $500,000 needed for renovations to upgrade existing meeting facilities to house the committee.

The same goes for plans to enhance pre-clearance efforts on both sides of the border under C-23.

The Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, Transport Canada and the RCMP will get an operational top-up of $125 million; CATSA and Transport Canada will get roughly $600,000 each from that envelope to support existing security screening measures for airport staff.

The Canadian Security Intelligence Service will share $1.25 million with Public Safety Canada to keep screening foreign investors for potential threats to Canadian national security – but there is no new money for CSIS’s operating budget or oversight, or for its sister signals intelligence agency, the Communications Security Establishment.

However, the government is recognizing the unfailing creativity of those who would like to blow up public spaces by giving $8.7 million over five years to Natural Resources Canada to expand the list of regulated chemicals to include those that could be used to create homemade explosives.

That list has not yet been finalized, officials said.

Public Safety Canada will get $1.37 million this year for its Regional Resilience Assessment Program and the Virtual Risk Analysis Cell, which together work to conduct site assessments of critical infrastructure facilities and share that information with those who operate critical infrastructure.

Community organizations looking for help in setting up security equipment like cameras for their facilities will be able to access $5 million that will be rolled out over five years through Public Safety Canada’s Security Infrastructure Program.

The only area seeing substantial new money this year appears to be the asylum system, which will get $62.9 million over five years and $11.5 million each year after that to provide better legal aid to asylum seekers.

Budget 2017 also includes $29 million over five years, with $5.8 million each year after, to allow officials with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada to intervene in asylum hearings to verify the information being provided in the applicant’s claim.

Yazidi refugee resettlement efforts will also get $27.7 million over three years, although there is no indication of how the government may adjust the soon-to-be-reevaluated mission against ISIS in Iraq.

The $167 million over three years that was announced in Budget 2016 for that mission continues and does not appear to have been changed.

Canada reviewing how NATO members calculate defence spending

By: Lee Berthiaume, The Canadian Press 

OTTAWA – Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan says he has ordered officials to look at how Canada calculates military spending compared to other NATO members, to ensure all allies are comparing “apples to apples.”

“We have to be cognizant that different nations use a different formula,” Sajjan told the House of Commons defence committee on Thursday.

“So right now the deputy minister is working with our closest partners to look at exactly the formula that they were using so we can have a good comparison.”

The comments come as Canada and other NATO allies are facing pressure from the Trump administration in Washington to increase the amount they spend on their militaries.

While all NATO members agreed in 2014 to work towards spending two per cent of their gross domestic product, or GDP, on defence, only five have reached that goal.

Canada is not one of them, and is actually near the back of the pack. It currently spends less than one per cent of GDP on defence, which ranks it 23rd among 28 NATO members.

Sajjan would not say whether the government will actually roll in the spending on the coast guard or veterans programs like the U.S. and Britain, which would inch Canada closer to two per cent.

“But at the same time, we do need to look at what our closest allies are actually using so that we can then compare apples to apples in terms of that commitment,” he told The Canadian Press after the meeting.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau appeared to all but dismiss the two per cent target during a visit to Germany last month, saying: “There are many ways of evaluating one’s contribution to NATO.”

That is the message the government has repeatedly delivered to Washington, emphasizing Canada’s military contributions to Latvia, Ukraine and Iraq in lieu of large spending increases.

Sajjan repeated it during and after his committee appearance, adding that the government would invest in what it believes the military needs to do its job rather than to meet a specific target.

“We are going to invest in defence and what we need for outputs,” he said. “That’s how we conduct a defence policy review. That’s what makes it credible.”

Defence analyst David Perry of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute said there is validity to the government’s argument that spending alone isn’t a good measure of a country’s contributions to NATO.

But the fact the government is reviewing the formula indicates it is at least a little concerned about how Canada compares to other NATO members, particularly given the messages coming out of Washington.

It is also another indication that the government is not planning to include any big injections of money into the military in the upcoming budget or its new defence policy, which is expected in the coming weeks.

“If they were about to unleash a big increase to the budget,” Perry said, “you’d kind of wonder whether or not they’d be going through the exercise of figuring out what to count.”

Canada is Considering its Next Military Deployments

By: Bruce Campion-Smith, The Toronto Star 

OTTAWA—Canada's military is facing a critical few weeks as the federal government weighs renewed deployments to Iraq and Ukraine, ponders the fate of a long-awaited peace mission, lays out a new vision for the armed forces and decides the budget to pay for it all.

It all sets the stage for what promises to be a busy year for Canadian soldiers — one that could leave supply lines stretched — as they continue ongoing deployments in eastern Europe, the Middle East, embark on a new mission to Latvia and finally move ahead on the peace mission that could take them to Africa.

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan used his oft-repeated line Tuesday that the Liberal government is taking the time it needs.

“We want to make sure that we actually spend the time to get the analysis right and that it goes through the appropriate government process before we make any announcements,” Sajjan said after a cabinet meeting.

In the meantime though, the defence department hangs in limbo as it waits for announcements.


“There’s a lot of uncertainty,” said Dave Perry, a senior analyst with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute.

Military deployments to Ukraine and Iraq are due to expire in March though observers expect both missions to be extended.

The former Conservative government dispatched 200 Canadian troops to Ukraine in 2015 in a non-combat role to train local soldiers, as part of efforts to bolster eastern European countries in the wake of Russia’s annexation of Crimea. It’s expected that a renewed mission in Ukraine will be announced soon.

“Canada is dedicated to the future good fortune of Ukraine. I am preparing options for the government to consider,” Gen. Jonathan Vance, the chief of defence staff, said last week.

Vance said the military has also laid the groundwork to continue its deployment in Iraq, where some 200 special forces soldiers are helping train and advise Peshmerga troops in their fight against Daesh near Mosul. The military operates a hospital near Erbil that has treated 100 patients since November while an air-to-air tanker and surveillance aircraft operate out of airfields in Kuwait.

“Canada is committed to this coalition and options will go before government on how to stay committed to it,” Vance said.

The big question mark continues to hang over the Liberals’ peace mission. After an announcement last August that the government could deploy up to 600 soldiers and 150 police officers on such a mission, a flurry of fact-finding trips to Africa by cabinet ministers, and promises of a decision by Christmas, the file has gone quiet since Donald Trump’s election as U.S. president.

Vance said the world has “changed a little bit” since planning for the mission began and said the government now needs to weigh those changes before deciding where troops are best deployed.

“The government has options before it but I think we’re finding that kind of set piece decision-making doesn’t work very well sometimes in a very, very fluid world where things are changing,” Vance told reporters.

“Where will coalition efforts occur next? What are our allies doing? What do they think?” Vance said.

Since taking over, Trump’s administration has turned up the heat on NATO member nations to pony up more for defence. The Liberal government has made the case that it matters more what Canada — which ranks near the bottom of the spending list — does with its military rather than simply measuring the bottom line. But that dynamic could be forcing the government to reframe its peace mission to account for U.S. concerns.

“I guess it’s understandable that the government wants to wait and see how the security environment unfolds given the U.S. election,” Perry said.

“They may be looking to make sure that any kind of operation we do is connected as much as it possibly could be to a broader alliance,” he said.

Still, the delay in an announcement has likely meant that plans conceived last fall will have to be updated,” Perry said.

“The mission doesn’t sit static, frozen in time while Canada decides whether or not we’re going to participate,” he said.

The other two big pieces of the defence puzzle are the upcoming budget — expected in the coming weeks — and the defence policy review which will lay out a new blueprint for the Canadian Armed Forces for the next 20 years.

According to the government, that strategy will deliver “a modern, more agile and better-equipped military.” It’s expected to touch on everything from procurement process, to whether the navy should have subs, what kind of fighter jets are required for the air force to how the military looks after its personnel.

“What are the capabilities that are required for this and what investment is going to be needed,” Sajjan said during a visit to NATO headquarters earlier this month. “Yes, we will be investing.”

But Perry said the military — which has a budget of $18.6 billion in 2016-17 — needs more money just to maintain the status quo.

“Unless the government directs them to do fewer things than it’s done before, they can’t make do with the existing funding,” he said.

Auditors find Canadian Military bases falling apart

The Canadian Press

OTTAWA — National Defence auditors have found that many of Canada's military bases are literally falling apart because of chronic underspending on maintenance and repairs.

The Liberal budget in March set aside more than $200 million over two years to fix armouries, aircraft hangars, naval jetties and military housing across the country.

But that money won't address the problems identified by the auditors, which deal with the basic utilities needed to operate military facilities, such as electrical and heating systems, drinking water and sewer systems and even roads.

Complicating matters is the fact the bases themselves often have little to no information on the state of those systems, in part because of poor record-keeping but also because infrastructure is not checked on a regular basis.

As a result, the department doesn't actually know how many hundreds of millions of dollars — if not billions — it will cost to repair or replace all of the decrepit infrastructure, more than half of which has already exceeded its 50-year life expectancy.

The auditors say the risk of service disruptions at military bases will increase as long as the problems aren't addressed.

Auditor General paints dismal picture of the Canadian Army Reserves

By: David Pugliese, Defence Watch

Auditor General Michael Ferguson appeared before the Senate’s defence committee on Tuesday. His presentation, based on an audit of the Army reserves, as well as his answers to questions from senators painted a less than encouraging picture about the situation the Army’s reserve units find themselves in. Here is some of what Ferguson had to say:

-Training of the Army reserve was not fully integrated with that of the regular Army units. Although the Army reserve was given clear guidance on preparing for domestic missions, units did not receive the same level of guidance or how to train troops soldiers for international missions. The Army Reserve doesn’t always have access to the equipment it needed for training and deployments, Ferguson noted.

– Army reserve units are responsible for training their own soldiers. But the AG found that many reserve units didn’t have the number of soldiers they needed. Twelve of the 123 Army reserve units were smaller than half of their ideal size, Ferguson said.

– The Canadian Army provided funding for 21,000 reserve soldiers but only about 14,000 were active and trained. When Army reserve units met in 2105 for their annual, large‑scale collective training events across Canada, only about 3,600 Army Reserve soldiers attended, Ferguson said.

– DND knows that the current reserve recruiting system doesn’t work and that it needs to take steps to boost retention. It has set a goal to increase the Army reserve by 950 soldiers by 2019. But Ferguson said this goal will be difficult to achieve as the number of Army reserve soldiers declined by about 1,000 soldiers a year for the three years his office conducted the audit. Ferguson pointed to the latest numbers provided by DND; as of May 15, 2016, the number of active and trained Army reserve soldiers dropped by a further 1,000 soldiers, to 13,181.

-Ferguson’s audit found that although individual skills training was designed to train the Army reserve and regular army soldiers to the same standard, reserve courses were designed to teach significantly fewer skills than were taught in regular army courses. This skill gap was not always addressed during the pre‑deployment training of Army reserve soldiers, Ferguson pointed out. One example he used was that when Canadian Army soldiers began to deploy as part of NATO’s mission in Eastern Europe, a gap remained in weapons training between Army reserve and regular force soldiers.

-A number of reserve soldiers weren’t receiving the number of days of training that was predicted for them.

-Even if the reserves had all the personnel needed and all of the equipment required, and were doing all of the training, the result would be a severe strain on the existing funds the force has.

-Twenty‑seven per cent of the Army reserve’s existing budget is being spent on full‑time reservists, even though reserves are supposed to be mostly part-time.

-$166 million out of $706 million of their total budget is being allocated back to National Defence to pay for infrastructure.

“What I’m saying is based on everything that we’ve looked at, it is hard for me to sit here and see how they would be able to fund everything they’re supposed to do within the budget that they currently have,” Ferguson told senators. “But certainly it looks to me like it would be a significant challenge for them.”

Sajjan meets academics, experts as part of DPR

The Honourable Patty Hajdu, Minister of Status of Women, today hosted an informative gender-focused discussion with experts in various related fields as part of public consultations taking place across the country to inform a new defence policy for Canada.

Meeting participants included academics and subject matter experts from a variety of non-governmental organizations, including the Institute for Inclusive Security and the White Ribbon Campaign.

Today’s discussion focused on five main points:
How to best assess gender implications in the development of Canada’s new defence policy;
Methods for applying Gender Based Analysis+ in the planning of new operations;
How to ensure a career within the Canadian Armed Forces is appealing to all regardless of gender;
How to apply best practices to ensure Canada remains a leader in promoting human rights and gender equality, particularly in settings where cultural norms differ widely from our own;
How best to promote the strategy of taking gender and other factors (such as age and education) into account during the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of policies, programs and military operations.

“Today’s session is an important step to ensure Canada remains a world leader in the advancement of gender equality," said The Honourable Patty Hajdu, Minister of Status of Women. "I’m pleased that the Canadian Armed Forces are demonstrating leadership by integrating gender considerations into its processes and policy development. I welcome the opportunity to take part in this dialogue and play a role in the changing culture of this important Canadian institution.”

Participants provided short submissions ahead of the meeting, which were used alongside the public consultation paper to guide the discussion. These submissions are available on the Defence Policy Review online consultation portal at http://dgpaapp.forces.gc.ca/en/defence-policy-review/perspectives.asp.

“Gender equality is a priority for the Government of Canada and for the Canadian Armed Forces," said Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan. "By incorporating diverse viewpoints into our discussions on defence issues, we ensure Canada’s new defence policy is more inclusive, and more representative of Canadians, as well as the women and men who serve.”

The public consultation process will continue to be open for input until July 31, 2016, via the defence consultation website at www.canada.ca/defence-consultations.

Gender-based Analysis+ (GBA+) is an analytical tool used by the federal government to advance gender equality in Canada which assesses the potential impacts of policies, programs or initiatives on diverse groups, taking into account gender and other identity factors (such as age, education, language, geography, culture and income).

In January 2016, the Chief of Defence Staff issued a directive which forms the basis for integrating GBA+ across the CAF. In order to guide and assist the CAF in implementing GBA+, a number of Gender Advisors are being identified, trained and placed in both strategic and operational levels, including in the Chief of Defence Staff’s office.

As of July 15, 2016, the Department of National Defence (DND) has received over 13,300 submissions in the Defence Policy Review e-workbook and over 4,700 participants who have contributed comments and votes through the online discussion forum.

Including today’s session, DND has hosted eight roundtable meetings with key stakeholders as part of the Defence Policy Review.

Previous roundtables were held in Vancouver, Toronto, Yellowknife, and Ottawa with Defence Minister Harjit S. Sajjan; in Edmonton with Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence Kent Hehr; and in Montreal and Halifax, with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, John McKay.

A guide is also available online for communities wishing to carry out their own consultations with interested citizens. These events will play an important role in augmenting the work being done by DND and the CAF, helping to ensure that the review process is credible, evidence-based, and informed by the views of Canadians.

All Canadians are encouraged to participate in the consultation process online atwww.canada.ca/defence-consultations until July 31, 2016.

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

By: Lee Berthiaume, The National Post

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

lberthiaume@postmedia.com

Twitter.com/leeberthiaume

Sajjan: Liberals ‘absolutely’ committed to military

 

BY LEE BERTHIAUME, OTTAWA CITIZEN APRIL 7, 2016

Reposed from Canada.com

OTTAWA — Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan says the Liberal government is “absolutely” committed to the Canadian Armed Forces, but that need — not want — will decide the size of the military and what kind of equipment it fields.

Sajjan made the remarks in an interview Thursday, as the government conducts Canada’s first comprehensive defence review in a generation. The Liberals promised the review during the election campaign, and a new defence policy is expected in early 2017.

Military officials as well as industry representatives and defence experts have largely welcomed the review, saying a medium- to long-term assessment of Canada’s military requirements was long overdue. But the Liberals also promised a “leaner, more agile” military, prompting fears of a stripped-down force.

Sajjan insisted the Liberal government is looking to strengthen the Armed Forces, not weaken it.

“I think what many Canadians are asking for is: Is this government committed to the military?” he said. “And the answer is absolutely yes.”

But Sajjan also left the door open to cancelling some planned defence purchases, saying the guiding principle will be whether the armed forces actually needs certain equipment or capabilities.

“I want to make sure if we’re going to be looking at purchasing certain things, that we are actually going to need it,” he said.

Earlier this week, Sajjan launched public consultations as part of the defence review. Among the questions being asked are whether the military needs to continue search-and-rescue operations and disaster-relief missions abroad, or if other organizations are better placed to do so.

The Canadian military has in the past tried to do everything, Sajjan said. He would like instead to maintain “a complete, sound foundation of our combat capability,” while focusing on some niche areas where Canada can specialize.

“So it’s not ‘do everything’,” he said. “It’s core foundation, with a few niches, but flexible enough within enough time to be able to switch.”

While some may interpret that as indicative of plans to slash the military, Sajjan defended the government’s record. He noted that last month’s budget included $200 million to fix up military bases and maintained small annual increases to the department’s operating budget.

He also took credit for the controversial decision to delay $3.7 billion in planned equipment purchases over the next few years, saying it ensures the money will be available when needed. Some experts and critics have panned the so-called re-profiling as a budget cut.

At the same time, Sajjan said plans to buy new fighter aircraft and warships will proceed independently of the defence review. He said the review won’t change those two procurement projects, the largest in Canadian history, because they address some of the military’s “staple” needs.

“We know we need to replace our frigates,” he said. “Our supply ships, we don’t even have any right now. So if anybody right now says ‘Hold off on building your supply ships,’ well, if we want a navy, we need supply ships.”

Defence analyst David Perry of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute has estimated a $60-billion gap between current funding for new military equipment, and what the military is planning to purchase over the next 20 years.

But Perry said many of those things are essential for the military to operate, including trucks, communications gear and radar for defending North American airspace. “A big chunk of those unfunded priorities are systems that you’re going to need, no matter what your defence policy is,” Perry said.

Conservative defence critic James Bezan said every government faces the challenge of separating what the military wants from what it needs. But he worried the Liberals had already determined they wanted a smaller force, “and I hope (the review) isn’t the catalyst to put us into another era of darkness for our troops.”

Twitter.com/leeberthiaume
© Copyright (c) National Post

CADSI extends support to Canada’s Defence Review

Published by: Frontline Defence News 

Christyn Cianfarani, president of the Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries (CADSI), has issued the following statement pledging CADSI's support and expertise to the advisory panel to Canada’s Defence Review:

The Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries (CADSI) welcomes the launch of Canada’s Defence Review and looks forward to being consulted by the Minister of Defence’s advisory panel. Our 1,000 member companies are an important part of the solution with global expertise to contribute.

The ability of the Government and the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) to effectively implement Canada’s new defence policy is dependent on procuring the equipment and services the CAF needs to carry out its missions. Improving the process of defence procurement is therefore an essential part of developing an effective defence policy.

Canada’s defence industry has unsurpassed knowledge and expertise in procurement. We work with the system in Canada and across the world every day and at every level. We can speak to practical improvements to procurement to ensure the efficacy of a new defence policy developed through the Defence Review.

Our industry plays an essential role in our nation’s security and sovereignty by ensuring ongoing readiness of existing and building new capabilities with world class, innovative technologies made across Canada and sought the world over. The Canadian defence industry and Canada’s defence policy are interdependent and need to be considered as such in the Defence Review.

Defence Minister to announce Public Consultations on new Defence Policy

Written by David Pugliese, The National Post 

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan will announce Wednesday the beginning of public consultations on the country’s new defence policy.

Sajjan says he wants to have the policy completed by the end of the year.

The review would include details on the future size of the Canadian Forces, its roles and alliances and the type of missions it can expect to take on in the future.

Government sources told Postmedia Tuesday that they expect the public consultations to be finished by the end of July.

Department of National Defence sources say they expect to be flooded with presentations from defence analysts, groups and lobbyists pushing for more funding for the Canadian Forces as well as a plea to resist cutting back on the current size of the military.

But it is expected the Liberal government will follow the path it has already outlined during the federal election and move ahead in developing an “agile and lean” Canadian Forces.

Related Stories:
Retired Canadian general aims blunt message at Liberal government ahead of defence review
Conrad Black: Canada’s planned defence review is an opportunity for our nation to take a giant stride
DND’s science cuts threaten ability to do job, documents warn

Retired general Rick Hillier, the former chief of the defence staff, has advocated cutting the size of the military. He has argued that would ensure the organization remains stable and effective; Hillier pointed out that the size of the Canadian Forces could be reduced from the current size of around 66,000 to 50,000.

The Liberals are also committed to a continuation of the current military roles in defence of Canada and North America, working with the U.S. military on alliances such as NORAD and maintaining key alliances such as NATO.

In addition, the Liberals want to return to contributing militarily to United Nations missions, both in peacekeeping and disaster relief, defence sources tell Postmedia.

Canada’s role on UN operations was significantly scaled back under the Conservative government’s tenure.

Military equipment programs will not be looked at specifically but instead defence procurement would be address more broadly, Sajjan has noted

Sajjan has also said the review will examine how the military looks after its personnel as well as Canada’s capabilities to fend off cyber attacks.

Military equipment programs will not be looked at specifically but instead defence procurement would be address more broadly, Sajjan has noted.

The Liberal government has also stated it would renew focus on surveillance and control of Canadian territory and approaches, particularly in the Arctic regions. It would also follow the Conservative government’s earlier approach and increase the size of the Canadian Rangers, which provide the eyes and ears for the military in the far North.

During the election the Liberals also promised they would “launch enhanced icebreakers.”

But Postmedia has confirmed with government sources that the term “enhanced icebreakers” is a reference to what was already promised under the Conservative government’s national shipbuilding strategy. The Liberals do not intend to purchase additional icebreakers.

The review is also expected to look at funding and whether Canada can afford the equipment the military wants. The Senate defence committee was recently told that the gap between what the Canadian Forces says it needs for the future, and the amount of funding that had been proposed for the future, is in the tens of billions of dollars.

This story has been updated with a response from Defence officials.

Perry: Our broken military procurement system

Written by David Perry, The National Post 

Every two years, apparently, the Department of Finance announces that Canada’s system for procuring military equipment is under-performing.

The 2016 budget had little to say about defence, but what it did say was depressing. A total of $3.716 billion in funding that was set aside for capital projects is being removed from the fiscal framework over the next five years, and reallocated out into the future. The funding, intended to buy ships, aircraft and vehicles for the military in the short term, has been shoved out into the distant future, to be used between 2021 and 2045.

Sadly, this is a reoccurring theme. The same thing happened in 2012 and again in 2014. In those years, the Harper government similarly pushed that exact same pot of funding into the future. In total, the Tories deferred $6.7 billion in funding pledged for major defence purchases. At the time, there was significant speculation then-prime minister Stephen Harper had done so as part of the effort to balance the budget.

Since Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s “modest” deficits will total $113 billion over five years, this shifting of procurement funds is certainly not part of an effort to curb spending. Rather, it reflects a system of procuring defence equipment that simply cannot deliver on schedule. The funds can be moved largely because they “cannot be spent due to unforeseen delays in planned projects.” In essence, no matter how badly the equipment is needed, the government just isn’t able to get this money out the door on schedule.

he Budget Plan contains at least a partial explanation why this is. The cumulative military recapitalization plans outlined by the Martin and Harper governments were extremely aggressive. They were intended to procure tens of billions worth of new equipment in a few years. But adhering to that schedule would have required a major expansion of the procurement system’s capacity.

Instead, a procurement workforce that lost a huge amount of capacity during the 1990s grew only marginally during the 2000s, and was then hammered by Harper’s attempts to balance the books. At the same time, longstanding problems defining and communicating military requirements and costing projects persisted, and new, more onerous policies regarding investment planning and managing major projects were introduced, which meant that procuring military equipment took more time and effort. Major problems with the procurement of military helicopters and fighter jets flagged by the auditor general contributed to a loss of trust in the bureaucracy, resulting in new governance regimes that added further steps to the procurement process. As a result, the aggressive schedules proved increasingly unrealistic.

This all drives home the importance of the commitment the budget makes to improving the process for making major defence purchases over the coming year. No matter what form the revised defence policy takes, it will require further, significant spending on military re-capitalization. Turning the available funding into actual military equipment requires sustained attention from the government.

The creation of an ad hoc cabinet committee for major procurement files is a positive indication of a commitment to improve the system. This needs to be matched by increasing the capacity of the system by growing the workforce and increasing its level of expertise. As part of the defence policy review, our true priorities need to be identified and have resources concentrated on moving them forward.

Finally, few areas of government stand to benefit more than defence procurement from the government’s pledge to reorient toward actual outcomes. Inordinate focus is placed at present on complying perfectly with policies interpreted to demand zero risk to the government, rather than the actual acquisition of military equipment.

If this situation doesn’t change, the 2018 budget will be telling the exact same story of a defence procurement system unable to deliver what Canada needs.

National Post

Dave Perry is a senior analyst at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute.

With Federal Deficit Soaring - Are Cuts to CAF Coming?

Written by Matthew Fisher, The National Post 

Whatever the new government announces in its first budget on March 22, Canadian Forces operational readiness, training and maintenance will probably suffer in order to free up funds for units that have to deploy.

That is the opinion of Dave Perry of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, who may be the best informed independent expert on Canadian defence spending. But, as the affable 33-year-old political scientist admitted with a smile, he probably wins the title by default.

Although defence spending is the single biggest departmental item in the federal budget, Perry is almost the only person in the country not working for government or the military who closely tracks the roughly $20 billion spent on national defence, and understands the big picture of the funding and technologies required to respond to current and emerging threats.

The Trudeau government faces hard choices about how much money it gives to the military — with the federal budget deficit soaring, a larger military training mission in Iraq and possible missions in northern Africa, huge bills in prospect for new warships and warplanes, and growing pressure from NATO to increase spending because Canada spends less per capita on defence than any major alliance member.


Ottawa has provided few hints about spending plans, but during last fall’s election campaign the Liberals indicated they expected $3 billion in “efficiencies” from all ministries. Perry said this means the Department of National Defence could contribute about $600 million a year in savings in three years.

Harjit Sajjan, the defence minister, has pledged the number of men and women in uniform will stay more or less the same.

“Because fixed personnel costs take 50 per cent of out of the budget, if you keep the size of the force the same, the cuts elsewhere (in the department) would be fairly consequential,” Perry said.

“The pot from which the $600 million will be taken is not that big. It could have a big impact on force readiness and operational effectiveness. They are going to have to restrict training funds, maintenance, repair and the purchase of spare parts — what regular forces and special forces need to make their equipment usable.”

Military spending was cut in the early days of the Harper government before it established a budget escalator that got funding this year back to about where it had been. It would be harder to find $600 million in savings now because the earlier cuts and freezes had already “imposed a fair bit of fiscal pain,” Perry said. “There is less fat than previously.

One of the many unknowns is whether the Iraq training mission will be paid for from existing funds or “incremental funding because you can’t cover it under a normal budget,” Perry said, adding the cost will be “fairly significant. For past Liberal budgets, if there were big operations like this, they would top up the budget. I hope they have some extra money for that, but I am not sure that is the case.”

Given the fiscal squeeze, he wondered how the military could afford new equipment “when everyone knows they are having trouble moving forward to acquire big-ticket items – ships and jets – as well as upgrades to protect against new technologies.” Improvements are required for satellite and cyber capabilities, and North American surveillance, detection and warning systems built in the 1980s.

There are 200 such capital projects but most are not nearly as expensive as the ships and jets, Perry said, although “they are potentially more expensive in their totality than the big, shiny things. From peace support to humanitarian aid to war fighting you need baseline investments in areas such as surveillance and cyber counter-measures. I am not sure how fully-seized the government is about how expensive the military is.”

One of the hottest political potatoes in Ottawa remains the tens of billions of dollars the next fighter jets and surface combat ships will cost. Perry praised the decision this week to combine the ship building competition into one process, rather than two, because this would mean the navy gets badly needed ships a few years earlier than expected. However, he finds it hard to believe the government’s campaign rhetoric it could “save tens of billions” from the $40 billion earmarked for the F-35 by buying another aircraft.

A defence policy review is due to be published by the end of this year. Aside from the $600 million in efficiencies being looked for in the existing fiscal plan, inherited from the Harper government, Perry said he expected there would be no major impact on defence funding in next month’s budget. But once the policy review was complete, a harsher reckoning is likely in the 2017 budget.

“We have not been hearing a lot about what the government’s (defence spending) priorities might be,” he said. Nevertheless, “I think the bean counters at defence are quite worried. My worry is that there are not enough people over there counting beans.”

CAF Equipment Funding Billions Short

Written by Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press

OTTAWA — A Senate committee has been told there is a shortfall of tens of billions of dollars between funding that's been set aside for military equipment and the actual price tag for what the military says it needs.

Defence analyst Dave Perry of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute testified that the "mismatch" is one of the biggest problems facing the new Liberal government as it seeks to overhaul the country's defence policy.

"At present, the defence procurement system is trying to buy more equipment that DND can afford," said Perry. "There is roughly three times more demand for project funding than there are available funds, leaving the capital acquisition budget short by several tens of billions of dollars, even with the planned increase to the defence budget that the government has promised to honour."

There are at least 100 pieces of equipment that Defence has deemed essential to fulfil its mandate in the coming years and only a portion of that list is funded, he said.

The dysfunctional military procurement system was a bane to the former Harper government, but despite reforms implemented two year ago, roughly 63 per cent the projects listed in the federal government's defence acquisition guide are late and only 34 per cent are on time.

Perry says since 2007 a total of nearly $9 billion in allocated capital funding for military hardware was not spent and much of that went back to the federal treasury.

He noted the figure rose significantly in the last budget year, which concluded in March 2015 and saw $1.5 billion in funds earmarked for purchasing capital equipment go unspent.

The Harper government introduced its much-heralded Defence Procurement Strategy in February 2014, an initiative meant to streamline the process and leverage the participation of Canadian industry.

But Perry told the Senate defence committee that the effort has not yet produced results.

"To be blunt, I hope the new government finds that lack of progress unacceptable," he said.

The Liberals promised a comprehensive defence policy review to replace the former Conservative government's 2007-era Canada First Defence Strategy. That document had a list of planned equipment purchases, but within 18 months of its publication National Defence privately deemed some of the projects unaffordable.

The new review — the first comprehensive analysis since the Chretien government's 1994 defence white paper — is key for tough decisions the Trudeau government will have to make, including how to replace the Air Force's aging CF-18 jet fighters.

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan has said he wants the policy review completed by the end of the year — a commitment he reinforced last week in a speech to the Canada 2020 think-tank.

Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press