The Canadian Press
The deputy minister of national defence has told a NATO meeting in Halifax that Canada is satisfied it is spending what it requires to meet its alliance and other military commitments.
Jody Thomas held fast to the government's stance on defence spending on Saturday, despite some pointed questioning about Canada's commitment following her presentation before NATO's defence and security committee, part of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly in Halifax.
U.S. Republican Rep. Michael Turner, the committee's acting chairman, asked whether Canada intends to table a plan for meeting the two per cent of GDP standard for defence spending that was agreed to by alliance members at a summit in Wales in 2014.
"Many of the nations that are here are either meeting their two per cent or have in place a plan to reach the two per cent," said Turner. "Canada is one of those countries who has not yet put forward a commitment to reach the two per cent although that is a commitment that Canada joined in making at Wales."
Thomas stuck to the Liberal government's line, saying Canada intends to increase its defence budget by 1.46 per cent by the end of 2024.
"Canada's defence budget is growing by 70 per cent as a result of Strong, Secure, Engaged (Canada's defence policy)," said Thomas. "We also on the ground are leading a significant number of operations, and we have never not participated in a NATO commitment or operation."
She also reiterated that Canada believes it contributes to the alliance in a "qualitative" way through an active participation in the alliance.
"The defence budget is a significant increase in funding for national defence and our prime minister is very satisfied with that contribution," Thomas said.
'It's not enough'
But Bob Stewart, a member of the United Kingdom delegation, reminded Thomas that Canada agreed to the commitment, adding that it's "crucial" it be honoured.
Stewart, a Conservative MP, then questioned Canada's current defence spending commitment.
"It's something like 1.12 per cent at the moment and honestly, it's not enough," said Stewart. "There are many nations that are not doing enough and I include my own nation ... we have all got to contribute more and help the United States that bears the burden."
Thomas shot back that Canada's funding includes its commitment to North American Air Defence (NORAD) and she stated that there are "inconsistencies" in the way the military budgets of member countries are assessed.
"The fact is that who counts what differs from country to country," she said.
Canadian contributions
Later in the day, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan said budget numbers don't necessarily reflect a country's actual contributions to NATO.
"The NATO Parliamentary Association may not be fully briefed about what is actually discussed at NATO," he said in an interview with The Canadian Press.
"All of this is useless if you don't make contributions," he said, citing a list of Canadian contributions that include leading a battle group in Latvia, providing air policing over Romania, leading a NATO training mission in Iraq and building a new fleet of Canadian warships.
A report released by NATO ahead of last July's alliance summit in Brussels predicted Canada would spend 1.23 per cent of its GDP on defence this year — less than last year's level of 1.36 per cent. That leaves Canada ranked 18th out of the alliance's 29 members.
The decline is largely attributed to two one-time expenses last year:
a retroactive pay increase for service members that was included in the government's defence policy, and;
a $1.8-billion payment into the account that provides pensions for Forces members and their dependents.
In an interview with The Canadian Press, British Air Chief Marshal Stuart Peach, who is chairman of the NATO Military Committee, praised Canada for its "very strong support for the alliance."
Peach pointed to ongoing naval exercises and Canada's support for NATO's forward deployment in the Baltic states along with its support for the training mission in Iraq.
With regards to the two per cent target he remained diplomatic, saying that NATO officials have maintained there are three elements to the overall funding conversation.
"There is defence spending which is about the money, there's then a description and important modernization adaptation of NATO's capabilities of which Canada plays an important role," Peach said.
"And then there's the question of contributions and I've already set out how pleased we are with the range of Canada's contributions."
Showing posts with label NATO 2%. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NATO 2%. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 20, 2018
Monday, July 16, 2018
Eggleton: CAF Pulling Its Own Weight
By: Art Eggleton, Toronto Star - Opinions
As NATO leaders prepare for their upcoming summit in Brussels, U.S. President Donald Trump is complaining about Canada and other allies not spending enough on their military operations. This brings into play the goal from past summits of each country spending 2 per cent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on defence.
There are two problems with this 2 per cent of GDP figure. First, meeting it would increase defence spending by approximately two thirds in Canada, and secondly, it is the wrong measurement for capabilities and contributions to NATO.
A two thirds defence expenditure hike would necessitate either substantial tax increases and/or significant reductions in other government programs and services, including social support measures. I consider that unrealistic and unacceptable.
GDP can go up or down, or it can be stagnant. If we have robust economic growth over the next decade, getting to 2 per cent will become even more expensive and challenging. If we unfortunately experience a recession, then our percentage of GDP for military expenditure can increase without spending a dollar more.
What sense does that make in terms of measuring capabilities and contributions? Also, only four of 29 NATO countries currently meet the 2 per cent goal. And the goal is not compulsory; or, as the Harper government said after the last summit in Wales, it is “aspirational.”
In my five years serving as Minister of National Defence in the Chrétien cabinet, I never came to appreciate that 2 per cent of GDP was the appropriate way to measure our contributions as a member of the alliance.
That was verified by NATO officials Simon Lunn and Nicholas Williams, who wrote: “the 2 per cent takes no account of the ebbs and flows of economic fortunes; is vulnerable to changing circumstances and domestic pressure, both in terms of the security requirements and the economic base; encourages creative accounting to satisfy targets; and provides zero guidance concerning precisely what capabilities are needed to counter the threats and challenges that NATO faces.”
If not 2 per cent of GDP then what?
We could, for example, measure per capita expenditures, in which case Canada ranks ninth out of 29 member states. Or a percentage of the federal government expenditures, in which case Canada ranks sixth. In either case, we rank above the NATO average if you exclude the United States, which is really in a league of its own, spending more than double on defence than all the other NATO countries combined.
Better still, shouldn’t we be measuring outputs and outcomes rather than input percentages? As Lunn and Williams suggest, the important measurement should be based on capabilities and contributions.
When it comes to capabilities, our Canadian Forces personnel are some of the best in the world. They are motivated, highly skilled and dedicated to their roles. Our allies around the world, including the U.S. military, recognize this.
We are no laggard when it comes to joint military exercises and contributing to multilateral missions. We don’t need all the equipment in the world — we work with our allies — but what’s important is the interoperability with them that strengthens the capabilities of our troops.
On the issue of equipment, NATO does want member countries to update their assets and the government has started to implement that request with budget increases this year and thereafter. This commitment is real investment in the equipment of our forces, one that is not tied to GDP but reflects actual military expenditures, and again contributes to capabilities.
When it comes to recent contributions, we have sent troops and equipment, along with our NATO allies, to operations in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo and are currently leading a mission in Latvia. And now with the United Nations, they are headed to Mali.
It is these and other capabilities and contributions to the defining conflicts of our time that armed forces should be measured by — not something as flawed as a financial yardstick that is tied to GDP.
As NATO leaders prepare for their upcoming summit in Brussels, U.S. President Donald Trump is complaining about Canada and other allies not spending enough on their military operations. This brings into play the goal from past summits of each country spending 2 per cent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on defence.
There are two problems with this 2 per cent of GDP figure. First, meeting it would increase defence spending by approximately two thirds in Canada, and secondly, it is the wrong measurement for capabilities and contributions to NATO.
/https://www.thestar.com/content/dam/thestar/opinion/contributors/2018/07/11/canadian-forces-are-pulling-their-weight/lth112486133.jpg) |
| The UN Mali patch is shown on a Canadian forces member's uniform before boarding a plane at CFB Trenton on Thursday. The soldiers are heading to Mali for Operation Presence, the military operation to support the United Nations peace mission. (LARS HAGBERG / THE CANADIAN PRESS) |
GDP can go up or down, or it can be stagnant. If we have robust economic growth over the next decade, getting to 2 per cent will become even more expensive and challenging. If we unfortunately experience a recession, then our percentage of GDP for military expenditure can increase without spending a dollar more.
What sense does that make in terms of measuring capabilities and contributions? Also, only four of 29 NATO countries currently meet the 2 per cent goal. And the goal is not compulsory; or, as the Harper government said after the last summit in Wales, it is “aspirational.”
In my five years serving as Minister of National Defence in the Chrétien cabinet, I never came to appreciate that 2 per cent of GDP was the appropriate way to measure our contributions as a member of the alliance.
That was verified by NATO officials Simon Lunn and Nicholas Williams, who wrote: “the 2 per cent takes no account of the ebbs and flows of economic fortunes; is vulnerable to changing circumstances and domestic pressure, both in terms of the security requirements and the economic base; encourages creative accounting to satisfy targets; and provides zero guidance concerning precisely what capabilities are needed to counter the threats and challenges that NATO faces.”
If not 2 per cent of GDP then what?
We could, for example, measure per capita expenditures, in which case Canada ranks ninth out of 29 member states. Or a percentage of the federal government expenditures, in which case Canada ranks sixth. In either case, we rank above the NATO average if you exclude the United States, which is really in a league of its own, spending more than double on defence than all the other NATO countries combined.
Better still, shouldn’t we be measuring outputs and outcomes rather than input percentages? As Lunn and Williams suggest, the important measurement should be based on capabilities and contributions.
When it comes to capabilities, our Canadian Forces personnel are some of the best in the world. They are motivated, highly skilled and dedicated to their roles. Our allies around the world, including the U.S. military, recognize this.
We are no laggard when it comes to joint military exercises and contributing to multilateral missions. We don’t need all the equipment in the world — we work with our allies — but what’s important is the interoperability with them that strengthens the capabilities of our troops.
On the issue of equipment, NATO does want member countries to update their assets and the government has started to implement that request with budget increases this year and thereafter. This commitment is real investment in the equipment of our forces, one that is not tied to GDP but reflects actual military expenditures, and again contributes to capabilities.
When it comes to recent contributions, we have sent troops and equipment, along with our NATO allies, to operations in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo and are currently leading a mission in Latvia. And now with the United Nations, they are headed to Mali.
It is these and other capabilities and contributions to the defining conflicts of our time that armed forces should be measured by — not something as flawed as a financial yardstick that is tied to GDP.
---
Senator Art Eggleton is a member of the Canadian Senate from Toronto. He currently serves as chair of the Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.
Thursday, July 12, 2018
RCAF Back in NATO AWACS program
By: David Pugliese, The Ottawa Citizen
Canada will provide up to 25 personnel over the next five years to NATO’s Airborne Warning and Control System program, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced at the NATO summit.
In February, the Liberal government announced it was reversing a 2011 decision by the previous Conservative government that saw Canada withdraw from NATO’s AWACS program.
The Conservative government decided at that time to end participation in the airborne early warning plane program to save money. Canada’s NATO allies were surprised and angered about the pullout. The Royal Canadian Air Force warned at the time that the decision could put overseas operations at risk.
Over the last several years, however, NATO has significantly increased the use of its AWACS, including in areas like Central and Eastern Europe where Canada is leading a multinational NATO battlegroup based in Latvia.
The original shutdown of Canada’s contribution to NATO’s AWACS saved about $50 million a year, according to the records obtained under the Access to Information law by Defence Watch.
Canada will also contribute to the new NATO Command Structure and support the new United States Readiness Initiative. Canada is now a member of the European Centre of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats and will join the Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence.
In addition, Canada will extend its contribution to NATO’s enhanced Forward Presence through Operation REASSURANCE for another four years and increase the number of personnel taking part in this mission in Latvia from 455 to 540, Trudeau said.
Canada will provide up to 25 personnel over the next five years to NATO’s Airborne Warning and Control System program, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced at the NATO summit.
In February, the Liberal government announced it was reversing a 2011 decision by the previous Conservative government that saw Canada withdraw from NATO’s AWACS program.
The Conservative government decided at that time to end participation in the airborne early warning plane program to save money. Canada’s NATO allies were surprised and angered about the pullout. The Royal Canadian Air Force warned at the time that the decision could put overseas operations at risk.
Over the last several years, however, NATO has significantly increased the use of its AWACS, including in areas like Central and Eastern Europe where Canada is leading a multinational NATO battlegroup based in Latvia.
The original shutdown of Canada’s contribution to NATO’s AWACS saved about $50 million a year, according to the records obtained under the Access to Information law by Defence Watch.
Canada will also contribute to the new NATO Command Structure and support the new United States Readiness Initiative. Canada is now a member of the European Centre of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats and will join the Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence.
In addition, Canada will extend its contribution to NATO’s enhanced Forward Presence through Operation REASSURANCE for another four years and increase the number of personnel taking part in this mission in Latvia from 455 to 540, Trudeau said.
Friday, July 6, 2018
Trudeau to rebut Trump’s charge of defence-spending lag with Latvia visit
STEVEN CHASE
The Canadian government is defending itself against accusations from U.S. President Donald Trump that Canada is falling short on defence spending, saying there are big military expenditure increases planned in future years and that this country always contributes to NATO deployments.
This rejoinder from Canada comes as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau heads to the Baltic country of Latvia to showcase a Canadian military deployment aimed at deterring Russian aggression.
One military analyst, however, says Canada is dodging, rather than answering, justified criticism by changing the subject to deployments from funding levels.
The Prime Minister will visit Latvia for two days, starting on July 9, before proceeding to a NATO meeting of heads of state and government in Belgium on July 11 and 12 – a gathering that promises to be fraught with tension over Russia.
Mr. Trudeau’s Baltic visit comes after Canada, and several other NATO allies, received letters from the Trump administration complaining they are not meeting a NATO commitment to undertake military spending equivalent to 2 per cent of annual economic output.
The Globe and Mail confirmed that Mr. Trudeau received a letter from Mr. Trump. Letters were also sent to Germany, according to The New York Times, and Reuters confirmed letters were sent to Britain, Belgium and Norway.
In the letter to Britain – the Americans’ staunch partner in Iraq and Afghanistan – the Trump administration went further. U.S. Defence Secretary James Mattis, the author of this letter, warned London it risks losing the ability to project power worldwide if it doesn’t boost military spending – despite the fact Britain already meets the 2 per cent target.
Russia’s 2014 annexation of Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula and its support for pro-Moscow separatists in the war in eastern Ukraine have disrupted relations between Moscow and the West and have revitalized the NATO military alliance.
For the past year, Canada has been leading a NATO battle group in Latvia that includes 450 Canadian soldiers, part of a significant buildup of troops and assets on the easternmost flank of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to counter Russian expansionism. Canada’s leadership of the battle group represents Canada’s largest sustained military presence in Europe in over a decade.
After the annexation of Crimea, NATO allies agreed that year to end defence-budget cuts, to start spending more as their economies grew and move toward a goal of 2 per cent of GDP for defence spending within a decade.
A spokesman for Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan defended Canada’s military commitment in the face of this latest criticism from the Trump administration, noting that the Trudeau government has promised to boost spending.
“In 2017, as part of a comprehensive review of Canadian defence spending, the Government of Canada committed to increasing [the Department of National Defence]’s funding by more than 70 per cent over the next decade,” Renée Filiatrault, director of communications to Mr. Sajjan, said in a statement.
“This plan has been rigorously costed, is fully funded, and serves Canada’s defence needs. It also upholds our long-standing role as an active contributor to global peace and security,” she said.
The Sajjan spokeswoman also underlined Canada’s long-standing contributions.
“The Canadian Army, Royal Canadian Navy and Royal Canadian Air Force are among the most engaged, agile, deployable and responsive armed forces within NATO. Canada is proud to have contributed to every NATO operation since the founding of the Alliance more than six decades ago,” Ms. Filiatrault said.
However, Charles Davies, a research fellow at the Conference of Defence Associations Institute, said that even with new budgetary commitments made in recent years, Canada is still not on track to hit the 2 per cent defence-spending target.
“The Canadian government obviously sees itself being on the wrong side of this discussion … because it refuses to engage in a direct conversation about the issue,” Mr. Davies said. “Instead, it continues to play bait-and-switch, trying to divert attention towards the entirely different subject of the politics around the commitment of forces to NATO operations. This is an intellectually dishonest response to valid criticism.”
This week, other NATO allies also pushed back at U.S. criticism.
In an e-mail on July 3 to the Associated Press, Norwegian Defence Minister Frank Bakke-Jensen said, “Norway stands by its decision of the NATO Summit in 2014 and is following up on this.”
Norway has spent “far beyond” NATO’s target on new military equipment, he added.
German Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen said on Tuesday, “We stand by the 2-per cent-goal we’ve set.” She added that “we’re on the path there. And we’re prepared … to take substantial responsibility within the alliance.”
When faced with the suggestion that such German explanations for not spending 2 per cent of GDP yet might not make an impression on Mr. Trump, she retorted: “We don’t want to impress anyone.”
Mr. Trump’s pre-NATO meeting letter-writing campaign is further ratcheting up geopoliticial tensions in the 69-year-old NATO alliance. The U.S. President is planning a controversial summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin for immediately after the NATO meeting. Mr. Trump, who has previously defended Russia’s annexation of Crimea, in recent days has left the door open to recognizing this land seizure.
Mr. Trudeau’s visit to Latvia follows a January, 2018, trip by Governor-General Julie Payette. He will be accompanied by Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland, Mr. Sajjan and General Jonathan Vance, Chief of the Defence Staff.
With files from Reuters and Associated Press
/arc-anglerfish-tgam-prod-tgam.s3.amazonaws.com/public/MZHN5UBQQFHNFDLYI4LD6S2764.jpg%7D) |
| Canadian Army soldiers attack during Silver Arrow 2017, the multinational military drills involving eleven NATO member countries in Adazi, Latvia on Oct 29, 2017. |
The Canadian government is defending itself against accusations from U.S. President Donald Trump that Canada is falling short on defence spending, saying there are big military expenditure increases planned in future years and that this country always contributes to NATO deployments.
This rejoinder from Canada comes as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau heads to the Baltic country of Latvia to showcase a Canadian military deployment aimed at deterring Russian aggression.
One military analyst, however, says Canada is dodging, rather than answering, justified criticism by changing the subject to deployments from funding levels.
The Prime Minister will visit Latvia for two days, starting on July 9, before proceeding to a NATO meeting of heads of state and government in Belgium on July 11 and 12 – a gathering that promises to be fraught with tension over Russia.
Mr. Trudeau’s Baltic visit comes after Canada, and several other NATO allies, received letters from the Trump administration complaining they are not meeting a NATO commitment to undertake military spending equivalent to 2 per cent of annual economic output.
The Globe and Mail confirmed that Mr. Trudeau received a letter from Mr. Trump. Letters were also sent to Germany, according to The New York Times, and Reuters confirmed letters were sent to Britain, Belgium and Norway.
In the letter to Britain – the Americans’ staunch partner in Iraq and Afghanistan – the Trump administration went further. U.S. Defence Secretary James Mattis, the author of this letter, warned London it risks losing the ability to project power worldwide if it doesn’t boost military spending – despite the fact Britain already meets the 2 per cent target.
Russia’s 2014 annexation of Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula and its support for pro-Moscow separatists in the war in eastern Ukraine have disrupted relations between Moscow and the West and have revitalized the NATO military alliance.
For the past year, Canada has been leading a NATO battle group in Latvia that includes 450 Canadian soldiers, part of a significant buildup of troops and assets on the easternmost flank of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to counter Russian expansionism. Canada’s leadership of the battle group represents Canada’s largest sustained military presence in Europe in over a decade.
After the annexation of Crimea, NATO allies agreed that year to end defence-budget cuts, to start spending more as their economies grew and move toward a goal of 2 per cent of GDP for defence spending within a decade.
A spokesman for Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan defended Canada’s military commitment in the face of this latest criticism from the Trump administration, noting that the Trudeau government has promised to boost spending.
“In 2017, as part of a comprehensive review of Canadian defence spending, the Government of Canada committed to increasing [the Department of National Defence]’s funding by more than 70 per cent over the next decade,” Renée Filiatrault, director of communications to Mr. Sajjan, said in a statement.
“This plan has been rigorously costed, is fully funded, and serves Canada’s defence needs. It also upholds our long-standing role as an active contributor to global peace and security,” she said.
The Sajjan spokeswoman also underlined Canada’s long-standing contributions.
“The Canadian Army, Royal Canadian Navy and Royal Canadian Air Force are among the most engaged, agile, deployable and responsive armed forces within NATO. Canada is proud to have contributed to every NATO operation since the founding of the Alliance more than six decades ago,” Ms. Filiatrault said.
However, Charles Davies, a research fellow at the Conference of Defence Associations Institute, said that even with new budgetary commitments made in recent years, Canada is still not on track to hit the 2 per cent defence-spending target.
“The Canadian government obviously sees itself being on the wrong side of this discussion … because it refuses to engage in a direct conversation about the issue,” Mr. Davies said. “Instead, it continues to play bait-and-switch, trying to divert attention towards the entirely different subject of the politics around the commitment of forces to NATO operations. This is an intellectually dishonest response to valid criticism.”
This week, other NATO allies also pushed back at U.S. criticism.
In an e-mail on July 3 to the Associated Press, Norwegian Defence Minister Frank Bakke-Jensen said, “Norway stands by its decision of the NATO Summit in 2014 and is following up on this.”
Norway has spent “far beyond” NATO’s target on new military equipment, he added.
German Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen said on Tuesday, “We stand by the 2-per cent-goal we’ve set.” She added that “we’re on the path there. And we’re prepared … to take substantial responsibility within the alliance.”
When faced with the suggestion that such German explanations for not spending 2 per cent of GDP yet might not make an impression on Mr. Trump, she retorted: “We don’t want to impress anyone.”
Mr. Trump’s pre-NATO meeting letter-writing campaign is further ratcheting up geopoliticial tensions in the 69-year-old NATO alliance. The U.S. President is planning a controversial summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin for immediately after the NATO meeting. Mr. Trump, who has previously defended Russia’s annexation of Crimea, in recent days has left the door open to recognizing this land seizure.
Mr. Trudeau’s visit to Latvia follows a January, 2018, trip by Governor-General Julie Payette. He will be accompanied by Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland, Mr. Sajjan and General Jonathan Vance, Chief of the Defence Staff.
With files from Reuters and Associated Press
Monday, February 12, 2018
Public Outcry: The Way to Fix the Canadian Forces
By: Ian J. Keddie, Macleans
But despite the limited size of spending on defence, the Canadian Armed Forces have, in fact, maintained a complex and effective range of military capabilities around the world, providing specialist experience and capabilities that are the envy of almost every country. It contributes to a diverse range of military tasks and has maintained a long history of supporting NATO operations, taking part in 19 international military operations and 11 domestic operations in 2017. It has sustained a number of missions in Europe under Operation Reassurance since the Russian invasion of Crimea in 2014. Operation Reassurance has been a sustained effort, with elements of all three services maintaining a presence in Central and Eastern Europe. Canada also has 450 soldiers leading a NATO-enhanced Forward Presence battlegroup in Latvia. In addition to European commitments, the Royal Canadian Navy has deployed a submarine across the Pacific for the first time in 50 years.
Despite this tempo of operations, the Armed Forces are often out of sight and out of mind. Indeed, Canada’s relationship with its military could be generously described as aloof. Little attention is given to the topic of defence in the country’s media, and the Armed Forces often take a backseat to many other national issues. Considering the significant role of the Armed Forces in Canada’s founding myths, military tradition and experience is strangely absent from everyday life, and thanks in part to this feeling of indifference on the part of voters, Canada’s politicians have allowed spending to dwindle.
There are, however, still military issues that provoke attention nationally. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s tone-deaf response to a disabled veteran at a town hall meeting in Edmonton last week about why the government was fighting some veterans’ groups in court over injury compensation—because “they’re asking for more than we are able to give right now”—demonstrated a profound misjudgement of attitudes, and he has suffered a wave of criticism as a result.
Trudeau’s comment will only widen the divide between veterans and the government. But a gap between civilian and military culture is not isolated to the Liberal Party: it is the symptom of a broader disconnect in the national psyche.
COUNTERPOINT: We’ve given up on Canada’s military, so let’s abandon it altogether
Canada’s vast geography has a lot to do with that: the country is simply too big and major population centres too far away from the main centres of military activities. Of the world’s 20 largest economies, Canada easily has the smallest military per area of territory. Short of completely demilitarized states such as Iceland or Costa Rica, it is almost impossible to find a country with fewer personnel per square kilometre; as of 2016, Canada has just 0.0066 uniformed personnel to protect each square kilometre, while Australia is the only nation that comes close, with 0.0074 personnel per square kilometre. South Korea is (understandably) the most militarized of the top 20 economies, at 6.24 in uniform per square kilometre.
Of course, this may be an unfair metric for the second largest country on Earth. But an alternative metric, using military personnel per capita, still leaves Canada the fourth-lowest number, with 0.0018 per person. In this instance, Canada is only beaten by India, Brazil, and China, whose large armed forces are eclipsed by their giant populations. Such measurements tell us nothing about military effectiveness or capability, but they do give some indication of the presence of the military in everyday life.
Indeed, Canada’s military is far less visible, particularly to people living in larger urban centres, and Canadians are less likely to know someone who has, or is currently serving in the Armed Forces. Countries such as the U.K., Germany, and Australia have almost 30 per cent more personnel per capita and the proportion is greater still in places like Spain, France, or the United States. The recent attention on defence spending by NATO nations has certainly spurred a greater discussion on the topic and it is right that Canada should gradually take more responsibility for national defence and seek to improve the role it can play with allies and international partners. But it shouldn’t require a wounded former soldier arguing with the Prime Minister for military issues to make the front pages: there are Canadian personnel carrying out tasks around the world every day that largely go unreported.
READ MORE: Why military funding in Canada is in such a sorry state
The other reason for the forces’ lack of visibility is the simple fact of our national peace. More so than perhaps any other advanced economy, Canada has benefited from the peace dividend that resulted from the end of the Cold War, and the implied protection that Canada’s close relationship to the U.S. provides has led to a complacent attitude towards national defence. The Trudeau administration has attempted to reverse Canada’s spending trend and aims to increase spending from around 1 per cent of GDP to 1.4 per cent by the middle of the next decade, but it’s a decision many saw as merely a response to a new era of uncertainty around U.S. policy.
Still, the Trudeau administration has touted engagement with partners and a wider global presence as an aim for the military and Canada’s government agencies, and the country’s various deployments demonstrate an ability to carry out that role. But if Canada wants to maintain such capabilities, then investment in personnel and equipment are vital for the future of the CAF. There was a great deal of praise for the navy’s new supply ship, the MV Asterix, entering service last month, but celebrations should be tempered by remembering that the MV Asterix was hastily procured as a stop-gap until brand new supply ships are delivered some time next decade. Successive governments have delayed decisions on the Joint Supply Ship (JSS) programme since 2004, and no construction is likely to start until 2019. Multiple attempts to choose a new jet has left the air force in need of its own stopgap secondhand F-18s from Australia, and a huge shortfall looms in the number of reserve personnel that the army aims to have by next year. Trudeau’s planned additional investment of $62 billion over the next 20 years is failing to make headwayin the first year of implementation, and there are many areas of the Defence Policy Review that lack specific goals or deadlines.
If Canada wants to invest more in national defence, Canadian attitudes towards delays or can-kicking of procurement decisions must change so that they are politically unacceptable. Such an opportunity presents itself this year when the government selects a winning bidder for the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) programme; the CSC, the largest procurement project ever carried out by Canada, represents the future shape of the RCN, and could be the first of many large investments into the future of the CAF under Trudeau. Other, smaller investment decisions in cyber warfare, drones, and satellite communications are capabilities that Canada lacks, and while many of these are outlined as requirements in the Defence Policy Review, they were given no specific plans. Training, recruitment, and retention have also been chronic problems for the CAF, but investment in areas such as these usually fails to grab the headlines in the same way that new jets or ships do.
The stakes are increasing. Two decades of delays and underinvestment will eventually erode Canada’s capabilities. Much of Canada’s military equipment is entering the latter stages of its lifespan, and it is crucial that the money for replacements is invested now rather than left until it is too late. There won’t always be stop-gap options in the future, and it is far more difficult to relearn capabilities than it is to retain them.
In Jack Granatstein’s 2004 book, Who Killed the Canadian Military?, the historian concludes that ultimately, public attitudes have allowed politicians—who should take “the major share of the credit” in the military’s fade—to ignore the CAF. The Canadian interpretation of the military’s role is distinctive on the world stage, as the country sees peacekeeping as the CAF’S primary function and ignored the requirement for national defence. It’s produced a catch-22: the military’s shrinking role throughout the second half of the 20th century often placed it out of citizens’ view, which has led to even less public interest and political appetite. As the Trudeau administration reconsiders the country’s foreign policy and the role the armed forces will play in that, the public needs to provide the momentum for sustained regeneration of the military—before it’s too late.
Opinion: Why the Canadian Armed Forces are trapped in a catch-22—and why pressure on our politicians is the only thing that can break it
Canada may not be known for its military might—perhaps rightly so. The country’s military budget has fallen among the lowest in NATO, when measured as a percentage of GDP, and procrastination on decisions for new equipment has led to years of delays. A Lester Pearson-era reputation for peacekeeping has subsumed, in the public’s mind, the CAF’s responsibility for national defence.But despite the limited size of spending on defence, the Canadian Armed Forces have, in fact, maintained a complex and effective range of military capabilities around the world, providing specialist experience and capabilities that are the envy of almost every country. It contributes to a diverse range of military tasks and has maintained a long history of supporting NATO operations, taking part in 19 international military operations and 11 domestic operations in 2017. It has sustained a number of missions in Europe under Operation Reassurance since the Russian invasion of Crimea in 2014. Operation Reassurance has been a sustained effort, with elements of all three services maintaining a presence in Central and Eastern Europe. Canada also has 450 soldiers leading a NATO-enhanced Forward Presence battlegroup in Latvia. In addition to European commitments, the Royal Canadian Navy has deployed a submarine across the Pacific for the first time in 50 years.
Despite this tempo of operations, the Armed Forces are often out of sight and out of mind. Indeed, Canada’s relationship with its military could be generously described as aloof. Little attention is given to the topic of defence in the country’s media, and the Armed Forces often take a backseat to many other national issues. Considering the significant role of the Armed Forces in Canada’s founding myths, military tradition and experience is strangely absent from everyday life, and thanks in part to this feeling of indifference on the part of voters, Canada’s politicians have allowed spending to dwindle.
There are, however, still military issues that provoke attention nationally. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s tone-deaf response to a disabled veteran at a town hall meeting in Edmonton last week about why the government was fighting some veterans’ groups in court over injury compensation—because “they’re asking for more than we are able to give right now”—demonstrated a profound misjudgement of attitudes, and he has suffered a wave of criticism as a result.
Trudeau’s comment will only widen the divide between veterans and the government. But a gap between civilian and military culture is not isolated to the Liberal Party: it is the symptom of a broader disconnect in the national psyche.
COUNTERPOINT: We’ve given up on Canada’s military, so let’s abandon it altogether
Canada’s vast geography has a lot to do with that: the country is simply too big and major population centres too far away from the main centres of military activities. Of the world’s 20 largest economies, Canada easily has the smallest military per area of territory. Short of completely demilitarized states such as Iceland or Costa Rica, it is almost impossible to find a country with fewer personnel per square kilometre; as of 2016, Canada has just 0.0066 uniformed personnel to protect each square kilometre, while Australia is the only nation that comes close, with 0.0074 personnel per square kilometre. South Korea is (understandably) the most militarized of the top 20 economies, at 6.24 in uniform per square kilometre.
Of course, this may be an unfair metric for the second largest country on Earth. But an alternative metric, using military personnel per capita, still leaves Canada the fourth-lowest number, with 0.0018 per person. In this instance, Canada is only beaten by India, Brazil, and China, whose large armed forces are eclipsed by their giant populations. Such measurements tell us nothing about military effectiveness or capability, but they do give some indication of the presence of the military in everyday life.
Indeed, Canada’s military is far less visible, particularly to people living in larger urban centres, and Canadians are less likely to know someone who has, or is currently serving in the Armed Forces. Countries such as the U.K., Germany, and Australia have almost 30 per cent more personnel per capita and the proportion is greater still in places like Spain, France, or the United States. The recent attention on defence spending by NATO nations has certainly spurred a greater discussion on the topic and it is right that Canada should gradually take more responsibility for national defence and seek to improve the role it can play with allies and international partners. But it shouldn’t require a wounded former soldier arguing with the Prime Minister for military issues to make the front pages: there are Canadian personnel carrying out tasks around the world every day that largely go unreported.
READ MORE: Why military funding in Canada is in such a sorry state
The other reason for the forces’ lack of visibility is the simple fact of our national peace. More so than perhaps any other advanced economy, Canada has benefited from the peace dividend that resulted from the end of the Cold War, and the implied protection that Canada’s close relationship to the U.S. provides has led to a complacent attitude towards national defence. The Trudeau administration has attempted to reverse Canada’s spending trend and aims to increase spending from around 1 per cent of GDP to 1.4 per cent by the middle of the next decade, but it’s a decision many saw as merely a response to a new era of uncertainty around U.S. policy.
Still, the Trudeau administration has touted engagement with partners and a wider global presence as an aim for the military and Canada’s government agencies, and the country’s various deployments demonstrate an ability to carry out that role. But if Canada wants to maintain such capabilities, then investment in personnel and equipment are vital for the future of the CAF. There was a great deal of praise for the navy’s new supply ship, the MV Asterix, entering service last month, but celebrations should be tempered by remembering that the MV Asterix was hastily procured as a stop-gap until brand new supply ships are delivered some time next decade. Successive governments have delayed decisions on the Joint Supply Ship (JSS) programme since 2004, and no construction is likely to start until 2019. Multiple attempts to choose a new jet has left the air force in need of its own stopgap secondhand F-18s from Australia, and a huge shortfall looms in the number of reserve personnel that the army aims to have by next year. Trudeau’s planned additional investment of $62 billion over the next 20 years is failing to make headwayin the first year of implementation, and there are many areas of the Defence Policy Review that lack specific goals or deadlines.
If Canada wants to invest more in national defence, Canadian attitudes towards delays or can-kicking of procurement decisions must change so that they are politically unacceptable. Such an opportunity presents itself this year when the government selects a winning bidder for the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) programme; the CSC, the largest procurement project ever carried out by Canada, represents the future shape of the RCN, and could be the first of many large investments into the future of the CAF under Trudeau. Other, smaller investment decisions in cyber warfare, drones, and satellite communications are capabilities that Canada lacks, and while many of these are outlined as requirements in the Defence Policy Review, they were given no specific plans. Training, recruitment, and retention have also been chronic problems for the CAF, but investment in areas such as these usually fails to grab the headlines in the same way that new jets or ships do.
The stakes are increasing. Two decades of delays and underinvestment will eventually erode Canada’s capabilities. Much of Canada’s military equipment is entering the latter stages of its lifespan, and it is crucial that the money for replacements is invested now rather than left until it is too late. There won’t always be stop-gap options in the future, and it is far more difficult to relearn capabilities than it is to retain them.
In Jack Granatstein’s 2004 book, Who Killed the Canadian Military?, the historian concludes that ultimately, public attitudes have allowed politicians—who should take “the major share of the credit” in the military’s fade—to ignore the CAF. The Canadian interpretation of the military’s role is distinctive on the world stage, as the country sees peacekeeping as the CAF’S primary function and ignored the requirement for national defence. It’s produced a catch-22: the military’s shrinking role throughout the second half of the 20th century often placed it out of citizens’ view, which has led to even less public interest and political appetite. As the Trudeau administration reconsiders the country’s foreign policy and the role the armed forces will play in that, the public needs to provide the momentum for sustained regeneration of the military—before it’s too late.
Friday, June 9, 2017
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Monday, May 15, 2017
Defence Review After NATO Meeting
By: Murray Brewster, CBC NEws
Canada's long-awaited defence policy review will not be made public before Prime Minister Justin Trudeau faces allies at the NATO Summit in Brussels later this month, CBC News has learned.
It's a significant decision that could make the gathering of alliance leaders uncomfortable for the prime minister, especially in light of the demands and expectations of U.S. President Donald Trump, who has insisted allies boost spending on their militaries.
A senior government official tells CBC News the plan had been to release the policy before the meeting, but officials believe it is important that Canada's defence policy align with a broader set of foreign policy goals.
Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland will deliver a major speech shortly after the gathering of NATO leaders that will more clearly define the Liberal government's vision, said an official with direct knowledge of the plan.
That will be followed closely by Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan's policy review, which has been more than a year in the making and will set the future direction for the military, in terms of expectations, spending and equipment.
Canada's long-awaited defence policy review will not be made public before Prime Minister Justin Trudeau faces allies at the NATO Summit in Brussels later this month, CBC News has learned.
It's a significant decision that could make the gathering of alliance leaders uncomfortable for the prime minister, especially in light of the demands and expectations of U.S. President Donald Trump, who has insisted allies boost spending on their militaries.
A senior government official tells CBC News the plan had been to release the policy before the meeting, but officials believe it is important that Canada's defence policy align with a broader set of foreign policy goals.
Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland will deliver a major speech shortly after the gathering of NATO leaders that will more clearly define the Liberal government's vision, said an official with direct knowledge of the plan.
That will be followed closely by Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan's policy review, which has been more than a year in the making and will set the future direction for the military, in terms of expectations, spending and equipment.
Related
Canada needs to 'stand-up to our responsibilities' on defence spending
Military grappling with years of underfunding, Sajjan acknowledges
Dawson considers revisiting probe into Sajjan over detainee abuse
Many critical decisions, including the replacement of aircraft, ships and vehicles, have been in a holding pattern because of the review.
The latest federal budget removes over $8 billion from the immediate equipment purchasing plans of National Defence and promises to sprinkle the cash into programs in future years.
NATO leaders agreed at the 2014 summit in Wales that, with a resurgent Russia on the world stage, member countries should have a plan to increase their defence budgets and bring spending up to two per cent of their gross domestic products.
That would require Canada to double the size of its defence appropriation to just over $40 billion from the current $18.7 billion.
Cash vs. action
Both Trudeau's Liberal government and former prime minister Stephen Harper's Conservative government have balked at the notion, arguing that the GDP measurement is arbitrary and that the true measurement is participation in NATO missions.
But the Trump administration, which has consistently hammered allies to pay more towards collective security, is likely to be unimpressed that Trudeau is showing up empty-handed, said one defence analyst.
"I think the Americans are going to be disappointed and our European allies will be dumbfounded," said Dave Perry, of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute. "Our recent budget changes have all been negative. We've pushed several billions of dollars of purchasing off into the future and our share of defence spending continues to decline."
According to NATO estimates, Canada is spending just under one per cent of its GDP on defence, but a recent Senate committee report, using Library of Parliament data, pegs that figure at .88 per cent.
"So, to go into the meeting empty-handed, without even the defence review; it will put our government in a very uncomfortable position," said Perry.
Ending defence cuts
The senior government official, who spoke on background because of the sensitivity of the file, said they are expecting that defence spending "will be brought up, as it always has been" at the NATO meeting, but argued "the defence policy is not for our allies. It is for Canadians."
The Americans were given a sneak peek at the new policy and were pleased, said a pair of defence sources, who were not authorized to speak to the media.
The expectation that Canada will deliver something of substance when leaders meet on May 25 extends beyond the U.S.
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said the 28 member nations pledged to stop cutting defence and find a way to to get to two per cent GDP.
Canada needs to 'stand-up to our responsibilities' on defence spending
Military grappling with years of underfunding, Sajjan acknowledges
Dawson considers revisiting probe into Sajjan over detainee abuse
Many critical decisions, including the replacement of aircraft, ships and vehicles, have been in a holding pattern because of the review.
The latest federal budget removes over $8 billion from the immediate equipment purchasing plans of National Defence and promises to sprinkle the cash into programs in future years.
NATO leaders agreed at the 2014 summit in Wales that, with a resurgent Russia on the world stage, member countries should have a plan to increase their defence budgets and bring spending up to two per cent of their gross domestic products.
That would require Canada to double the size of its defence appropriation to just over $40 billion from the current $18.7 billion.
Cash vs. action
Both Trudeau's Liberal government and former prime minister Stephen Harper's Conservative government have balked at the notion, arguing that the GDP measurement is arbitrary and that the true measurement is participation in NATO missions.
But the Trump administration, which has consistently hammered allies to pay more towards collective security, is likely to be unimpressed that Trudeau is showing up empty-handed, said one defence analyst.
"I think the Americans are going to be disappointed and our European allies will be dumbfounded," said Dave Perry, of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute. "Our recent budget changes have all been negative. We've pushed several billions of dollars of purchasing off into the future and our share of defence spending continues to decline."
According to NATO estimates, Canada is spending just under one per cent of its GDP on defence, but a recent Senate committee report, using Library of Parliament data, pegs that figure at .88 per cent.
"So, to go into the meeting empty-handed, without even the defence review; it will put our government in a very uncomfortable position," said Perry.
Ending defence cuts
The senior government official, who spoke on background because of the sensitivity of the file, said they are expecting that defence spending "will be brought up, as it always has been" at the NATO meeting, but argued "the defence policy is not for our allies. It is for Canadians."
The Americans were given a sneak peek at the new policy and were pleased, said a pair of defence sources, who were not authorized to speak to the media.
The expectation that Canada will deliver something of substance when leaders meet on May 25 extends beyond the U.S.
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said the 28 member nations pledged to stop cutting defence and find a way to to get to two per cent GDP.
Related
Canada ranks 23 out of 28 NATO countries on defence spending
U.S. defence secretary tells NATO countries to increase military spending
"I expect all allies to be able to meet the commitment we made in 2014," Stoltenberg said Thursday following a meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
It will be a major topic in the coming days, and he said everyone is expected to be on onboard.
"What we're going to address is how to implement the pledge and I am encouraged by what I see across Europe and Canada."
Canada ranks 23 out of 28 NATO countries on defence spending
U.S. defence secretary tells NATO countries to increase military spending
"I expect all allies to be able to meet the commitment we made in 2014," Stoltenberg said Thursday following a meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
It will be a major topic in the coming days, and he said everyone is expected to be on onboard.
"What we're going to address is how to implement the pledge and I am encouraged by what I see across Europe and Canada."
Tuesday, April 25, 2017
Ivison: CAF Budget hits Post-War Low
By: John Ivison, The Globe and Mail
Justin Trudeau will head to Sicily next month for a NATO meeting with Donald Trump and other allies. The defence department hopes to release its major policy review before then, but perhaps it would be just as well if the Prime Minister goes empty-handed.
The Americans want Canada to live up to its commitment to spend 2 per cent of GDP on defence, but new figures suggest this year the country will hit a post-war spending low of just 0.88 per cent. Last month’s federal budget said the defence policy review will put the Armed Forces on a “sustainable footing,” but there was no money in that budget — in fact, $933 million earmarked for capital spending was pulled out of the defence budget over a six-year period.
This is a bad omen for the prospects of a major cash infusion. In previous reviews, DND got the money first and then published a policy outlining how it would be used.
Multiple sources say that the military submitted its plan to the federal cabinet only to have it sent back to the department for some pruning.
One particular thorny issue is ballistic missile defence, the cost of which is almost impossible to gauge since the Americans won’t talk hard numbers until Canada agrees to sign on. Nobody in defence minister Harjit Sajjan’s office would talk about cabinet discussions but sources expect the review will fudge on the subject by simply asking the military to examine the issue more closely.
David Perry, a senior analyst at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, said he doesn’t believe the defence policy review is likely to assuage American concerns that Canada is a free-rider when it comes to defence.
“I’m not hearing they are dealing with a ton of money,” he said.
Before the federal budget, Perry wrote a paper suggesting the budget would establish the fiscal framework for the defence policy review. Ahead of similar exercises in 2005 and 2008, spending increases were included in the budget.
“If the outcome of the Defence Policy Review is an expansionist defence policy, and the minister of National Defence has indicated it will be, its short-term success depends on getting the needed funding put into the fiscal framework in the 2017 budget,” he wrote.
That didn’t happen — in fact, the government withdrew $8.48 billion from the fiscal framework over the next 20 years, to help pay for other priorities.
Trudeau — and his predecessor Stephen Harper — have long argued that share of GDP devoted to defence is not a good measure of Canada’s commitment to NATO.
“While the argument has merit, it would likely carry more weight if the share of our GDP devoted to defence were not in decline,” said Perry.
At $18.7 billion, defence spending is also at a new low in terms of share of total program expenditures at 6.11 per cent.
The same Senate defence committee report that found Canada is approaching a post-war low point in spending concluded that the Canadian military is “chronically underfunded,” pointing out that the Forces need more than $2 billion in new money, just to maintain current operations.
Support in cabinet for a major increase in defence spending is clearly tepid
“As the world becomes a more complex place, especially with rogue regimes and non-state actors seeking and acquiring biological, nuclear and chemical weapons, and mobile missile launch capability, Canada should not rely on others to protect our national interests and defend our sovereignty,” the report said, as it recommended Canada sign up for BMD and double defence spending to 2 per cent of GDP over the next 11 years.
There are no signs that the defence policy review will reflect similar thinking.
Canada has committed to some 600 soldiers for a still-undefined peacekeeping mission in Africa; 450 troops are already in Latvia; a further 830 personnel are contributing to the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.
Gen. Jonathan Vance, Chief of the Defence Staff, said the Canadian Forces are fully capable of doing what has already been announced. But it would be a career-limiting move for a general to suggest otherwise.
Support in cabinet for a major increase in defence spending is clearly tepid, and closing the funding gap does not appear to be a priority for the Prime Minister.
Yet his most important foreign policy task is to have a close working relationship with the President of the United States.
If Trudeau turns up in Sicily with a defence plan that indicates Canada is not serious about paying its own way, he will be greeted by a turbulent President Trump, one in transition between Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.
Justin Trudeau will head to Sicily next month for a NATO meeting with Donald Trump and other allies. The defence department hopes to release its major policy review before then, but perhaps it would be just as well if the Prime Minister goes empty-handed.
The Americans want Canada to live up to its commitment to spend 2 per cent of GDP on defence, but new figures suggest this year the country will hit a post-war spending low of just 0.88 per cent. Last month’s federal budget said the defence policy review will put the Armed Forces on a “sustainable footing,” but there was no money in that budget — in fact, $933 million earmarked for capital spending was pulled out of the defence budget over a six-year period.
This is a bad omen for the prospects of a major cash infusion. In previous reviews, DND got the money first and then published a policy outlining how it would be used.
Multiple sources say that the military submitted its plan to the federal cabinet only to have it sent back to the department for some pruning.
One particular thorny issue is ballistic missile defence, the cost of which is almost impossible to gauge since the Americans won’t talk hard numbers until Canada agrees to sign on. Nobody in defence minister Harjit Sajjan’s office would talk about cabinet discussions but sources expect the review will fudge on the subject by simply asking the military to examine the issue more closely.
David Perry, a senior analyst at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, said he doesn’t believe the defence policy review is likely to assuage American concerns that Canada is a free-rider when it comes to defence.
“I’m not hearing they are dealing with a ton of money,” he said.
Before the federal budget, Perry wrote a paper suggesting the budget would establish the fiscal framework for the defence policy review. Ahead of similar exercises in 2005 and 2008, spending increases were included in the budget.
“If the outcome of the Defence Policy Review is an expansionist defence policy, and the minister of National Defence has indicated it will be, its short-term success depends on getting the needed funding put into the fiscal framework in the 2017 budget,” he wrote.
That didn’t happen — in fact, the government withdrew $8.48 billion from the fiscal framework over the next 20 years, to help pay for other priorities.
Trudeau — and his predecessor Stephen Harper — have long argued that share of GDP devoted to defence is not a good measure of Canada’s commitment to NATO.
“While the argument has merit, it would likely carry more weight if the share of our GDP devoted to defence were not in decline,” said Perry.
At $18.7 billion, defence spending is also at a new low in terms of share of total program expenditures at 6.11 per cent.
The same Senate defence committee report that found Canada is approaching a post-war low point in spending concluded that the Canadian military is “chronically underfunded,” pointing out that the Forces need more than $2 billion in new money, just to maintain current operations.
Support in cabinet for a major increase in defence spending is clearly tepid
“As the world becomes a more complex place, especially with rogue regimes and non-state actors seeking and acquiring biological, nuclear and chemical weapons, and mobile missile launch capability, Canada should not rely on others to protect our national interests and defend our sovereignty,” the report said, as it recommended Canada sign up for BMD and double defence spending to 2 per cent of GDP over the next 11 years.
There are no signs that the defence policy review will reflect similar thinking.
Canada has committed to some 600 soldiers for a still-undefined peacekeeping mission in Africa; 450 troops are already in Latvia; a further 830 personnel are contributing to the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.
Gen. Jonathan Vance, Chief of the Defence Staff, said the Canadian Forces are fully capable of doing what has already been announced. But it would be a career-limiting move for a general to suggest otherwise.
Support in cabinet for a major increase in defence spending is clearly tepid, and closing the funding gap does not appear to be a priority for the Prime Minister.
Yet his most important foreign policy task is to have a close working relationship with the President of the United States.
If Trudeau turns up in Sicily with a defence plan that indicates Canada is not serious about paying its own way, he will be greeted by a turbulent President Trump, one in transition between Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.
Monday, March 27, 2017
Canada Must Make Tough Decisions on Defence Spending: Former NATO Envoy
By Monique Scotti, National Online Journalist, Politics Global News
Canada’s former ambassador to NATO says Ottawa has “to make some decisions” on defence spending given the global security situation and a recent budget that pledged almost no new money for the military.
Speaking with The West Block‘s Vassy Kapelos this weekend, Yves Brodeuremphasized that Canada is hardly the biggest laggard in the 28-member alliance, contributing to international missions like the one in Latvia.
But he also acknowledged that the recent federal budget is unlikely to impress Canada’s allies, many of whom are actively working toward NATO’s established benchmark of spending 2 per cent of their GDP on defence.
“I’m sure that the NATO leadership … would very much wish to see our numbers go up,” Brodeur said.
“In terms of Canada specifically, I think that we’re gong to be under pressure from our friends down south (in the United States) to try and do better.”
U.S. President Donald Trump has repeatedly stated that he will expect to see more money flowing in from America’s NATO allies, and has even threatened to pull out of the alliance. Canada currently spends just under 1% of GDP on defence, the fifth smallest proportion among NATO members.
NATO estimates that Canada set aside $20.3 billion for defence in 2016. The 2017 budget offered no additional money to move the needle, however, drawing loud criticism from the Opposition benches in the House of Commons.
“I think that we have to make some decisions, just looking at what’s happening in the world right now,” Brodeur said.
READ MORE: Lack of defence spending in the federal budget draws fire
He added that there are “several ways” of looking at the numbers. For instance, Canada currently ranks 9th out of all NATO nations when it comes to defence spending per capita.
“So not necessarily the top five, but not the bottom. So it’s not actually that bad.”
Still, money for new equipment and training will be critical in the coming years, said the veteran diplomat.
“That is really key for us, especially as we commit to do more military operations. I think we owe it to our military forces to have the best equipment they can count on if we’re going to put them in harm’s way.”
Canada’s former ambassador to NATO says Ottawa has “to make some decisions” on defence spending given the global security situation and a recent budget that pledged almost no new money for the military.
Speaking with The West Block‘s Vassy Kapelos this weekend, Yves Brodeuremphasized that Canada is hardly the biggest laggard in the 28-member alliance, contributing to international missions like the one in Latvia.
 |
| Screen Grap of Global News "The West Block" |
“I’m sure that the NATO leadership … would very much wish to see our numbers go up,” Brodeur said.
“In terms of Canada specifically, I think that we’re gong to be under pressure from our friends down south (in the United States) to try and do better.”
U.S. President Donald Trump has repeatedly stated that he will expect to see more money flowing in from America’s NATO allies, and has even threatened to pull out of the alliance. Canada currently spends just under 1% of GDP on defence, the fifth smallest proportion among NATO members.
NATO estimates that Canada set aside $20.3 billion for defence in 2016. The 2017 budget offered no additional money to move the needle, however, drawing loud criticism from the Opposition benches in the House of Commons.
“I think that we have to make some decisions, just looking at what’s happening in the world right now,” Brodeur said.
READ MORE: Lack of defence spending in the federal budget draws fire
He added that there are “several ways” of looking at the numbers. For instance, Canada currently ranks 9th out of all NATO nations when it comes to defence spending per capita.
“So not necessarily the top five, but not the bottom. So it’s not actually that bad.”
Still, money for new equipment and training will be critical in the coming years, said the veteran diplomat.
“That is really key for us, especially as we commit to do more military operations. I think we owe it to our military forces to have the best equipment they can count on if we’re going to put them in harm’s way.”
Friday, March 10, 2017
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.”
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.”
Friday, February 17, 2017
Canada to spend more on defence, Sajjan says, but non-committal on NATO
By: The Canadian Press
OTTAWA -- Canada expects to make significant new investments in defence following the forthcoming release of its defence policy review, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan said Thursday as he met with NATO leaders in Brussels.
But Sajjan was non-committal about the specific issue of Donald Trump's repeated complaints about NATO members whom the U.S. president has long alleged have failed to pay their fair share of the cost of the alliance.
Sajjan said he spoke with U.S. Defence Secretary James Mattis, a strident spokesman for the Trump administration on the issue of NATO spending who on Wednesday delivered a stern ultimatum to member nations.
RELATED STORIES
Pentagon chief says NATO members must boost defence spending
Troops prepare to leave for Ukraine amid uncertainty over mission's future
"America will meet its responsibilities, but if your nations do not want to see America moderate its commitment to the alliance, each of your capitals needs to show its support for our common defence," Mattis said.
Canada is demonstrating its commitment to NATO by contributing troops and leading a multinational NATO mission in Latvia as part of what is known as Operation Reassurance, Sajjan noted.
"Obviously we did discuss (spending) in terms of the resources required for the impact that we want to have in NATO, and every nation is doing their part towards that," Sajjan said.
He repeatedly mentioned the ongoing defence policy review, which was part of his mandate as defence minister and which is looking at Canadian defence needs for the next 20 years, including NATO commitments and missions.
That means more money, Sajjan said -- although he didn't say how much.
"We knew that spending by the previous government was low and the defence policy review allowed us to do a thorough analysis of what was required," he said. "Yes, this will require defence investments."
NATO says member states should aim to spend two per cent of GDP on defence. Canada now spends about one per cent and has long been under pressure from the U.S., including long before the start of the Trump era, to boost spending.
The government is looking at predictable, planned investments, Sajjan said.
"We in Canada need to be able to demonstrate a thorough plan and what type of defence investment is needed, because this is significant money that needs to be invested, but the Canadian taxpayer also requires us to make sure that we are efficient with the money."
As well as the NATO talks and a meeting with a counter-ISIL group led by Mattis, Sajjan also had bilateral meetings with the NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg and ministers from Australia, France, Germany, Portugal, Slovenia and the United Kingdom.
He is heading to Germany for the Munich Security Conference, where senior decision-makers from around the world will discuss international security challenges.
OTTAWA -- Canada expects to make significant new investments in defence following the forthcoming release of its defence policy review, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan said Thursday as he met with NATO leaders in Brussels.
But Sajjan was non-committal about the specific issue of Donald Trump's repeated complaints about NATO members whom the U.S. president has long alleged have failed to pay their fair share of the cost of the alliance.
Sajjan said he spoke with U.S. Defence Secretary James Mattis, a strident spokesman for the Trump administration on the issue of NATO spending who on Wednesday delivered a stern ultimatum to member nations.
RELATED STORIES
Pentagon chief says NATO members must boost defence spending
Troops prepare to leave for Ukraine amid uncertainty over mission's future
"America will meet its responsibilities, but if your nations do not want to see America moderate its commitment to the alliance, each of your capitals needs to show its support for our common defence," Mattis said.
Canada is demonstrating its commitment to NATO by contributing troops and leading a multinational NATO mission in Latvia as part of what is known as Operation Reassurance, Sajjan noted.
"Obviously we did discuss (spending) in terms of the resources required for the impact that we want to have in NATO, and every nation is doing their part towards that," Sajjan said.
He repeatedly mentioned the ongoing defence policy review, which was part of his mandate as defence minister and which is looking at Canadian defence needs for the next 20 years, including NATO commitments and missions.
That means more money, Sajjan said -- although he didn't say how much.
"We knew that spending by the previous government was low and the defence policy review allowed us to do a thorough analysis of what was required," he said. "Yes, this will require defence investments."
NATO says member states should aim to spend two per cent of GDP on defence. Canada now spends about one per cent and has long been under pressure from the U.S., including long before the start of the Trump era, to boost spending.
The government is looking at predictable, planned investments, Sajjan said.
"We in Canada need to be able to demonstrate a thorough plan and what type of defence investment is needed, because this is significant money that needs to be invested, but the Canadian taxpayer also requires us to make sure that we are efficient with the money."
As well as the NATO talks and a meeting with a counter-ISIL group led by Mattis, Sajjan also had bilateral meetings with the NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg and ministers from Australia, France, Germany, Portugal, Slovenia and the United Kingdom.
He is heading to Germany for the Munich Security Conference, where senior decision-makers from around the world will discuss international security challenges.
Wednesday, February 8, 2017
Sajjan Hints at New Money for CAF after meeting with SoD Mattis
The Canadian Press
OTTAWA — Canada’s defence minister is hinting at new money for the military following a much-anticipated meeting with his U.S. counterpart in Washington this week.
But Harjit Sajjan says what’s equally important is what countries do with their military, a line successive federal governments have used to defend Canada’s paltry defence spending.
The comments come one day after Sajjan sat down with U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis in Washington, the first such meeting between a Canadian minister and a member of the Trump administration.
Trump has repeatedly blasted NATO allies for not spending enough on their own defence, a message he repeated Monday even as Sajjan was meeting with Mattis.
The Liberal government is currently drawing up a new defence policy that sources say will start inching Canadian defence spending closer to NATO’s target of two per cent of GDP.
But they also say even with the additional funding, Canada will fall far short of that goal.
Canada’s current defence budget of $20 billion accounts for less than one percent of GDP, meaning the government would have to more than double spending to reach NATO’s target.
Sajjan says he and Mattis also discussed Canada’s plan to send peacekeepers to Africa, though he isn’t saying whether the government is closer to deciding on a specific mission.
OTTAWA — Canada’s defence minister is hinting at new money for the military following a much-anticipated meeting with his U.S. counterpart in Washington this week.
But Harjit Sajjan says what’s equally important is what countries do with their military, a line successive federal governments have used to defend Canada’s paltry defence spending.
The comments come one day after Sajjan sat down with U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis in Washington, the first such meeting between a Canadian minister and a member of the Trump administration.
Trump has repeatedly blasted NATO allies for not spending enough on their own defence, a message he repeated Monday even as Sajjan was meeting with Mattis.
The Liberal government is currently drawing up a new defence policy that sources say will start inching Canadian defence spending closer to NATO’s target of two per cent of GDP.
But they also say even with the additional funding, Canada will fall far short of that goal.
Canada’s current defence budget of $20 billion accounts for less than one percent of GDP, meaning the government would have to more than double spending to reach NATO’s target.
Sajjan says he and Mattis also discussed Canada’s plan to send peacekeepers to Africa, though he isn’t saying whether the government is closer to deciding on a specific mission.
Monday, February 6, 2017
What President Trump Might Mean for Canadian Defence Policy
By Vincent J. Curtis, Espris de Corps Magazine (Vol. 23, No. 11)
With the election of Donald Trump as the next president of the United States, the world can expect a large recapitalization of the U.S. military over the next four to eight years. We can also expect the Trump administration to pressure NATO allies to increase their defence expenditures to two per cent of their GDP (gross domestic product).
Trump famously campaigned on the theme that the United States was not going to carry a heavier share of the defence burden of the western world than was justified by economics. If NATO allies expected the assistance of the United States, then they needed to do their part. Some of that pressure will undoubtedly be applied to Canada, for Canada is one of those not spending up to the agreed level of two per cent of our GDP.
What does this mean for Canadian defence?
In the first place, it would mean that the Canadian defence budget would have to increase to be in the range of CDN $48-billion. The budget track released by the Trudeau government in its maiden budget forecast revealed a decrease in defence expenditures — the amount projected for 2016 was $29.4-billion with a decrease to $14.4-billion by 2020–2021. In the eyes of Trump, we are moving in the wrong direction.
Yes, defence is one of many competing priorities for federal tax expenditures, but national defence and maintaining good relations with allies is among the most fundamental of priorities of any national government. Those priorities have a higher call for money than new spending to make life more comfortable for a minority of Canadians. The needs of all take priority over the needs of the few.
What use could be made of additional defence expenditures?
There is no question that the Canadian Armed Forces are in need of recapitalization. The Royal Canadian Navy needs to be completely rebuilt, and soon. The fighting capacity of the Royal Canadian Air Force is aging rapidly, and the replacement for the CF-18 fleet is late and nowhere in sight. The Canadian Army could also use a new store of capital equipment for general-purpose combat operations.
The government is dithering over whether it should acquire 10 or 12 frigates to refight the Battle of the Atlantic, should it ever come back. The naval brass is still in the grip of the old-school small ship navy mentality that has dominated Canadian naval thinking since the days of the Niobe and the Rainbow. The RCN brass need to have in their top drawer a plan for a real battle fleet — a fleet consisting not just of frigates but of one or more battlecruisers as well. And if battlecruisers seem to be too war-like for political tastes, then missile-cruisers in the 10,000-ton range can be had off-the-shelf from the United States at $2-billion apiece, less than the cost of a 5,000-ton custom-built frigate. Anyhow, a capitalization project for the Navy in the range of $40-billion should be ready to go.
The RCAF is caught between the failure of Lockheed Martin to deliver a viable F-35 Joint Strike Fighter in a timely and cost-efficient manner, and a new government that wants to start the bidding process for a CF-18 replacement aircraft from scratch. The solutions are easy: buy off-the-shelf F-16s, or the updated F/A-18E/F Super Hornet off the shelf, both of which are also still in production. These are Gen 4.5 fighters, not Gen 5 fighters, but they can be had soon; they are still current and viable for modern combat air operations, and should be seen as an interim purchase until the Gen 5 fighters are finally available.
The Army could also use a store of useful equipment, in particular modern artillery. The M-777 proved spectacular in Afghanistan, and no army has been able to succeed in modern combat operations in the absence of dominant artillery since the 17th century’s Thirty Years’ War.
The problem of joint operations between air and surface has and will continue to bedevil CAF combat operations. If it flies, it is said to belong to the RCAF. But what about rotary aviation? What about a naval aircraft carrier? The United Timbuktu, Gao and Kidal regions ranged from 77 to 92 per cent.
Although PRTs were once described as the militarization of aid, some of these areas are just too dangerous for aid workers. In South Sudan, peacekeepers ignored the rape and assault of aid workers in the country. The adoption of a UN PRT model would allow aid workers to operate more freely in the country. It would also allow more positive interaction between the indigenous population and UN peacekeepers. The interaction with aid organizations and the local population will foster trust and, in turn, hopefully, generate useful, operational intelligence.
PRTs involved a level of Civil-Military Co-Operation (CIMIC) and that level and overall approach can vary depending on the model. There are four generic PRT models: American, German, British(-Nordic) and Turkish. These four generic models can be then divided into many sub categories that vary depending on which nation implemented the model in Afghanistan. A PRT model can be adapted to suit the requirements of a UN peacekeeping mission. Moreover, a UN PRT model in Mali may not work for South Sudan or Somalia and therefore a PRT model will need to be drafted to meet the requirements of each individual theatre.
The Trudeau government is weighing its options and conducting fact-finding missions to pinpoint the one mission that has the least of political consequences. The last thing the Trudeau government and the Canadian Armed Forces need is another Somalia incident. Since our withdrawal, UN peacekeeping missions have been blighted with accusations of rape and the solicitation of sexual relations with prostitutes and even trading weapons for gold.
Canada’s re-engagement with peacekeeping will offer its own unique challenges. Peacekeepers are regularly fired upon and that alone will create a political fervor in Canada. Our re-engagement will take political fortitude, but if the Trudeau government really desires for Canada to take international leadership, we must drive the evolution of UN peacekeeping.
Wednesday, January 18, 2017
Trudeau vouches for NATO after Trump calls military alliance ‘obsolete’
The Canadian Press
OTTAWA – Justin Trudeau has affirmed Canada’s support of NATO, days after president-elect Donald Trump‘s pronouncement that the military alliance is obsolete.
But the prime minister stopped short of saying he would be willing to boost the defence budget so Canada could meet NATO’s spending target for its member countries.
READ MORE: Reality check: Donald Trump says NATO members need to pay more. What is Canada paying?
Trudeau cited Canada’s leadership in Latvia, where it will contribute 450 troops and command several national contingents as part of a military deterrent to Russia on Europe’s eastern flank.
He said that was “a great example of how Canada continues to be an extraordinarily important player in NATO and we will continue to be a reliable partner, not just to the United States, but to all of our allies as we move forward.”
The Liberal chair of the House of Commons foreign affairs committee has told The Canadian Press that Canada will have to contribute more to the 28-country alliance if the United States – its largest financial and military contributor – scales back its involvement as Trump has suggested.
“That means countries like ours will have to step up to the plate,” Bob Nault said in an interview Monday.
Speaking to reporters in New Brunswick today, Trudeau said: “When there’s heavy lifting to do, when there’s a need for people to step up, Canada is there on the front lines contributing fully to NATO operations.”
Howard Drake, the British high commissioner to Canada, told The Canadian Press that NATO remains highly relevant as the West deals with the challenge of a newly assertive Russia.
“That’s his view. Who am I to comment on that?” Drake said when asked about Trump. “If ever NATO was valid, it’s now.”
He recalled the 2006 London killing of former Russian spy, Alexander Litvinenko, who sipped a cup of tea laced with a radioactive poison administered by a Russian operative.
READ MORE: Canada has to reach into its pockets to pay for NATO if US leaves: MP
“The Russian state killed a former KGB agent on the streets of London,” Drake said.
“We know all about what it is to deal with Russia, and we believe we should be on our guard.”
Trump criticized NATO during the U.S. election campaign, and sparked surprise in Europe when he levelled more attacks this week.
But Trump’s nominee for defence secretary, retired Marine general James Mattis, spoke in support of NATO during his congressional confirmation hearing last week.
Analysts say Trump will expect other NATO members to increase spending in the alliance to ease the burden on the United States.
Canada lags at 23rd in spending in NATO, and currently contributes about one per cent of GDP to defence spending – well below the alliance’s two-per-cent target. The U.S. is one of only five NATO countries that meet the spending target.
OTTAWA – Justin Trudeau has affirmed Canada’s support of NATO, days after president-elect Donald Trump‘s pronouncement that the military alliance is obsolete.
But the prime minister stopped short of saying he would be willing to boost the defence budget so Canada could meet NATO’s spending target for its member countries.
READ MORE: Reality check: Donald Trump says NATO members need to pay more. What is Canada paying?
Trudeau cited Canada’s leadership in Latvia, where it will contribute 450 troops and command several national contingents as part of a military deterrent to Russia on Europe’s eastern flank.
He said that was “a great example of how Canada continues to be an extraordinarily important player in NATO and we will continue to be a reliable partner, not just to the United States, but to all of our allies as we move forward.”
The Liberal chair of the House of Commons foreign affairs committee has told The Canadian Press that Canada will have to contribute more to the 28-country alliance if the United States – its largest financial and military contributor – scales back its involvement as Trump has suggested.
“That means countries like ours will have to step up to the plate,” Bob Nault said in an interview Monday.
Speaking to reporters in New Brunswick today, Trudeau said: “When there’s heavy lifting to do, when there’s a need for people to step up, Canada is there on the front lines contributing fully to NATO operations.”
Howard Drake, the British high commissioner to Canada, told The Canadian Press that NATO remains highly relevant as the West deals with the challenge of a newly assertive Russia.
“That’s his view. Who am I to comment on that?” Drake said when asked about Trump. “If ever NATO was valid, it’s now.”
He recalled the 2006 London killing of former Russian spy, Alexander Litvinenko, who sipped a cup of tea laced with a radioactive poison administered by a Russian operative.
READ MORE: Canada has to reach into its pockets to pay for NATO if US leaves: MP
“The Russian state killed a former KGB agent on the streets of London,” Drake said.
“We know all about what it is to deal with Russia, and we believe we should be on our guard.”
Trump criticized NATO during the U.S. election campaign, and sparked surprise in Europe when he levelled more attacks this week.
But Trump’s nominee for defence secretary, retired Marine general James Mattis, spoke in support of NATO during his congressional confirmation hearing last week.
Analysts say Trump will expect other NATO members to increase spending in the alliance to ease the burden on the United States.
Canada lags at 23rd in spending in NATO, and currently contributes about one per cent of GDP to defence spending – well below the alliance’s two-per-cent target. The U.S. is one of only five NATO countries that meet the spending target.
Tuesday, January 17, 2017
Tory candidate Erin O’Toole vows to double defence spending
By: ANTHONY FUREY, POSTMEDIA NETWORK
Canada’s defence spending will double if Erin O’Toole becomes prime minister. The Conservative leadership candidate and Ontario MP has crafted a substantial defence policy paper that includes a commitment to increasing defence spending to 2% of GDP.
O’Toole, a former veterans affairs minister, says in a statement: “This plan will achieve that as quickly as possible through a responsible increase in expenditures to modernize the equipment needs of the Canadian Forces to ensure the capabilities required for Canada to contribute to domestic, continental and allied defence needs.”
Two per cent of GDP is the amount NATO members technically pledge to spend on defence. However only a handful of the 28 member countries actually fulfill their commitment. Canada currently spends around 1% of GDP on defence.
The policy paper is clearly designed to show O’Toole is serious about not only national defence but also key foreign affairs issues. “The security of Canada, its sovereignty and the safety of its citizens must be recognized as the first and most important responsibility of Government - and is even more so today than it has been for over a generation,” the statement notes. “Every day, we see the war against terrorism, Russian aggressiveness and Chinese geopolitical posturing in the news.”
O’Toole served in the Canadian Armed Forces for more than a decade before becoming a lawyer, entering the House of Commons in 2011.
Other measures O’Toole proposes in the paper include creating a Defence Procurement Agency with the aim of depoliticizing major equipment purchases; strengthening Arctic security measures; implementing new co-operation agreements with Israel and Ukraine; and creating a cyber warfare division within the Canadian Forces.
Tory candidates will square off once again on Tuesday at a French language debate, the third of four official debates, in Quebec City. The leadership vote will be held on May 27.
Canada’s defence spending will double if Erin O’Toole becomes prime minister. The Conservative leadership candidate and Ontario MP has crafted a substantial defence policy paper that includes a commitment to increasing defence spending to 2% of GDP.
O’Toole, a former veterans affairs minister, says in a statement: “This plan will achieve that as quickly as possible through a responsible increase in expenditures to modernize the equipment needs of the Canadian Forces to ensure the capabilities required for Canada to contribute to domestic, continental and allied defence needs.”
Two per cent of GDP is the amount NATO members technically pledge to spend on defence. However only a handful of the 28 member countries actually fulfill their commitment. Canada currently spends around 1% of GDP on defence.
The policy paper is clearly designed to show O’Toole is serious about not only national defence but also key foreign affairs issues. “The security of Canada, its sovereignty and the safety of its citizens must be recognized as the first and most important responsibility of Government - and is even more so today than it has been for over a generation,” the statement notes. “Every day, we see the war against terrorism, Russian aggressiveness and Chinese geopolitical posturing in the news.”
O’Toole served in the Canadian Armed Forces for more than a decade before becoming a lawyer, entering the House of Commons in 2011.
Other measures O’Toole proposes in the paper include creating a Defence Procurement Agency with the aim of depoliticizing major equipment purchases; strengthening Arctic security measures; implementing new co-operation agreements with Israel and Ukraine; and creating a cyber warfare division within the Canadian Forces.
Tory candidates will square off once again on Tuesday at a French language debate, the third of four official debates, in Quebec City. The leadership vote will be held on May 27.
Tuesday, July 5, 2016
Canada ranks 23 out of 28 NATO countries on defence spending
By: Murray Brewster, CBC News
The Trudeau government won praise Monday along with some European allies who have chosen to put more into their militaries, despite only promising to increase defence spending by a whisker in the current budget year.
New figures released by NATO ahead of this weekend's leaders' summit show Canada inhabits the lower third of NATO membership in terms of defence spending, with the government planning to spend an additional .01 per cent of the country's gross domestic product on defence.
The increase, which is only anticipated because the 2016 budget year is just getting underway, will see Canada's defence spending rise to .99 per cent of GDP from .98 per cent.
To put that in perspective, the North Atlantic military alliance has established two per cent of GDP as its annual investment benchmark. Canada is ranked 23rd out of 28 member countries, wedged between Hungary and Slovenia.
It has been a source of frustration for the Americans, something that manifested itself last week in U.S. President Barack Obama's speech to Parliament, where he pointedly called on the Trudeau government to meet the NATO measure because "the world needs more Canada."
The irritation was also felt in Brussels, where NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has struggled to convince hesitant allies to pry loose cash in the face of a resurgent Russia.
"Last year, after a long period of decline, we saw a small increase in overall defence spending by NATO's European Allies and Canada," the secretary general said Monday.
'A very long way to go'
Stoltenberg, who has regularly but diplomatically rebuked nations for failing to meet the two per cent standard, chose to focus his praise on what's known as "real" defence spending — the total dollars each ministry pours into its budget without accounting for the corrosive effect of inflation.
He said NATO is pleased to see an expected increase of three per cent in defence spending by European Allies and Canada in 2016. That amounts to about $8 billion US, and 22 of the allies are planning bigger budgets.
"So, we are both spending more and we are spending better," he said. "But we have a very long way to go and we must keep up the momentum."
According to NATO figures, Canada will set aside $20.3 billion for defence in 2016, an increase from $19.4 billion last year.
Stoltenberg's praise raised a few eyebrows among defence experts, who point out it comes just a few days after the Liberal government committed to send troops and headquarters formation to a NATO high-readiness brigade, which is slated to deploy to eastern Europe.
"If we were not going to take a leadership position on one of NATO's key priorities, I imagine that we would be having a very different conversation right now," said Dave Perry, an analyst with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute. "We have been getting a free pass on our actual budget commitments because we are heavy lifters when it comes to operations."
Perry noted the country's No. 23 ranking at NATO and said there's little in the Liberal government's plans or public statements that will change that.
Risk of a 'hollow force'
During the 2015 election campaign, Justin Trudeau promised not to cut defence expenditures and to live up to Conservative pledges of an additional two per cent annual increase, starting in 2017.
The government is in the midst of a strategic defence review, which could be completed in time for the next budget, but Perry said the Liberals seem to have other priorities.
"Our allies will remain disappointed with the actual amount of money we put on the table, and I suspect we can fob off the criticism by showing up for operations," he said.
But Perry warned that strategy runs the risk of further wearing down equipment and personnel, creating a "hollow force."
A spokeswoman for National Defence responded that government agreed at the 2014 NATO summit in Wales that bigger budgets were in order, but that committing to a "fixed target" was not something Canada was prepared to do.
Dominique Tessier said the NATO two per cent benchmark is "a statement of aspirations" and the prodding by allies was meant "to reverse the trend of falling spending on defence among allies and to optimize the use of available funds."
The Trudeau government won praise Monday along with some European allies who have chosen to put more into their militaries, despite only promising to increase defence spending by a whisker in the current budget year.
New figures released by NATO ahead of this weekend's leaders' summit show Canada inhabits the lower third of NATO membership in terms of defence spending, with the government planning to spend an additional .01 per cent of the country's gross domestic product on defence.
The increase, which is only anticipated because the 2016 budget year is just getting underway, will see Canada's defence spending rise to .99 per cent of GDP from .98 per cent.
To put that in perspective, the North Atlantic military alliance has established two per cent of GDP as its annual investment benchmark. Canada is ranked 23rd out of 28 member countries, wedged between Hungary and Slovenia.
It has been a source of frustration for the Americans, something that manifested itself last week in U.S. President Barack Obama's speech to Parliament, where he pointedly called on the Trudeau government to meet the NATO measure because "the world needs more Canada."
The irritation was also felt in Brussels, where NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has struggled to convince hesitant allies to pry loose cash in the face of a resurgent Russia.
"Last year, after a long period of decline, we saw a small increase in overall defence spending by NATO's European Allies and Canada," the secretary general said Monday.
'A very long way to go'
Stoltenberg, who has regularly but diplomatically rebuked nations for failing to meet the two per cent standard, chose to focus his praise on what's known as "real" defence spending — the total dollars each ministry pours into its budget without accounting for the corrosive effect of inflation.
He said NATO is pleased to see an expected increase of three per cent in defence spending by European Allies and Canada in 2016. That amounts to about $8 billion US, and 22 of the allies are planning bigger budgets.
"So, we are both spending more and we are spending better," he said. "But we have a very long way to go and we must keep up the momentum."
According to NATO figures, Canada will set aside $20.3 billion for defence in 2016, an increase from $19.4 billion last year.
Stoltenberg's praise raised a few eyebrows among defence experts, who point out it comes just a few days after the Liberal government committed to send troops and headquarters formation to a NATO high-readiness brigade, which is slated to deploy to eastern Europe.
 |
| Troops from the U.S. Army's 173rd Infantry Brigade Combat Team parachute from a Boeing C-17 Globemaster III during a NATO-led exercise held together with Canada's 3rd Battalion and Princess Patricia's Light Infantry, and Poland's 6th Airborne Brigade in southern Poland in May 2014. (Kacper Pempel/Reuters) |
Perry noted the country's No. 23 ranking at NATO and said there's little in the Liberal government's plans or public statements that will change that.
Risk of a 'hollow force'
During the 2015 election campaign, Justin Trudeau promised not to cut defence expenditures and to live up to Conservative pledges of an additional two per cent annual increase, starting in 2017.
The government is in the midst of a strategic defence review, which could be completed in time for the next budget, but Perry said the Liberals seem to have other priorities.
"Our allies will remain disappointed with the actual amount of money we put on the table, and I suspect we can fob off the criticism by showing up for operations," he said.
But Perry warned that strategy runs the risk of further wearing down equipment and personnel, creating a "hollow force."
A spokeswoman for National Defence responded that government agreed at the 2014 NATO summit in Wales that bigger budgets were in order, but that committing to a "fixed target" was not something Canada was prepared to do.
Dominique Tessier said the NATO two per cent benchmark is "a statement of aspirations" and the prodding by allies was meant "to reverse the trend of falling spending on defence among allies and to optimize the use of available funds."
Thursday, June 30, 2016
'NATO needs more Canada,' President Obama says in Ottawa
By: Josh Dehaas, CTVNews.ca Writer
In a mostly praise-filled speech from U.S. President Barack Obama, one notable exception was his urging that Canada “contribute its full share” to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
“As your ally and as your friend, let me say that we’ll be more secure when every NATO member including Canada contributes its full share to our common security,” the president told Parliament.
“Because the Canadian Armed Forces are really good,” he added. “If I can borrow a phrase, the world needs more Canada. NATO needs more Canada. We need you. We need you.”
Obama made the remarks after stating that “when nations violate international rules and norms, such as Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, the United States and Canada stand united, along with our allies, in defence of our collective security.”
Canada currently spends less than one per cent of its GDP on defence, despite a commitment made by all NATO countries to spend at least two per cent of GDP.
Most NATO countries do not meet the two per cent target, but some do, including the U.S. which spends 3.5 per cent, France which spends 2.2 per cent, and the United Kingdom which spends two per cent, according to theWorld Bank.
The prodding of Canada to boost its military contribution was only a small part of a speech around the broad theme that countries are better off when they work together on things like trade and security, rather than “building walls.”
Obama’s position on NATO is in stark contrast to Republican Donald Trump, who has repeatedly called NATO “obsolete” and a waste of money.
Democrat Hillary Clinton has called Trump’s suggestion dangerous. "Putin already hopes to divide Europe," Clinton said in March, referring to Russian President Vladimir Putin. "If Mr. Trump gets his way, it will be like Christmas in the Kremlin,” she added.
In a speech last week, former Progressive Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney also made the case that Canada should once again spend two per cent of its GDP on defence -- as it last did when he was in charge -- in part due to a rising threat from Russia.
“President Putin clearly wants to restore Russia’s great power status by forging, by force if necessary, a new Eurasian union dependent on Russia for its economy and security, adapting Lenin’s phrase of 'pushing the knife in,' until it hits NATO bone,” he said.
“He’s sharpening that knife with a 40 per cent increase in military spending since 2013, far and above anything committed by the West,” Mulroney added.
Mulroney said that NATO should be a top defence priority for Canada. “What we cannot do is talk about Canada “being back” in the world without making tangible commitments that will anchor our aspirations,” he said.
In a mostly praise-filled speech from U.S. President Barack Obama, one notable exception was his urging that Canada “contribute its full share” to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
“As your ally and as your friend, let me say that we’ll be more secure when every NATO member including Canada contributes its full share to our common security,” the president told Parliament.
“Because the Canadian Armed Forces are really good,” he added. “If I can borrow a phrase, the world needs more Canada. NATO needs more Canada. We need you. We need you.”
Obama made the remarks after stating that “when nations violate international rules and norms, such as Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, the United States and Canada stand united, along with our allies, in defence of our collective security.”
Canada currently spends less than one per cent of its GDP on defence, despite a commitment made by all NATO countries to spend at least two per cent of GDP.
Most NATO countries do not meet the two per cent target, but some do, including the U.S. which spends 3.5 per cent, France which spends 2.2 per cent, and the United Kingdom which spends two per cent, according to theWorld Bank.
The prodding of Canada to boost its military contribution was only a small part of a speech around the broad theme that countries are better off when they work together on things like trade and security, rather than “building walls.”
Obama’s position on NATO is in stark contrast to Republican Donald Trump, who has repeatedly called NATO “obsolete” and a waste of money.
Democrat Hillary Clinton has called Trump’s suggestion dangerous. "Putin already hopes to divide Europe," Clinton said in March, referring to Russian President Vladimir Putin. "If Mr. Trump gets his way, it will be like Christmas in the Kremlin,” she added.
In a speech last week, former Progressive Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney also made the case that Canada should once again spend two per cent of its GDP on defence -- as it last did when he was in charge -- in part due to a rising threat from Russia.
“President Putin clearly wants to restore Russia’s great power status by forging, by force if necessary, a new Eurasian union dependent on Russia for its economy and security, adapting Lenin’s phrase of 'pushing the knife in,' until it hits NATO bone,” he said.
“He’s sharpening that knife with a 40 per cent increase in military spending since 2013, far and above anything committed by the West,” Mulroney added.
Mulroney said that NATO should be a top defence priority for Canada. “What we cannot do is talk about Canada “being back” in the world without making tangible commitments that will anchor our aspirations,” he said.
Tuesday, June 21, 2016
Defence Review Could Lead to Reduced Canadian Army
By: Richard Cohen, iPolitics
The federal government, as part of its ongoing Defence Policy Review (DPR), recently announced public consultation on the future of Canada’s armed forces. So what does Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan have in mind — a political exercise, or something more in-depth?
For all its faults, the Conservatives’ 2008 Canada First Defence Strategy (CFDS) was developed inside a clear fiscal framework … which was later discarded. In contrast, the DPR is wide open and (allegedly) not constrained by financial considerations. But as everyone knows, the size and shape of the Armed Forces will be determined by what the government decides to spend on defence. Money drives defence policy.
Given the big budget deficit, it’s hard to imagine the Liberals significantly boosting defence spending. Their aim is a ‘leaner and more agile’ military — almost certainly a code word for ‘smaller.’ And as any seasoned politician or bureaucrat knows, the $4 billion in equipment spending that was deferred for five years in the March budget is unlikely to return to Defence. Even if it does, by that time ‘defence inflation’ will have gobbled up a good part of its value.
Ideally, the government would announce that, unlike its predecessors, it will begin to work toward the agreed NATO goal of spending 2 per cent of GDP on defence. Canada, as one of the lowest-ranking military spenders in NATO, hovers around 1 per cent. But barring a major international crisis, or an unexpected change of heart, such an increase in defence spending isn’t likely to happen.
So the DPR will have to be developed within realistic financial limits. This means focusing only on military capabilities that are absolutely essential to our national interests — while relegating the rest to the ‘nice to have but can’t afford’ category.
So where to start? Nearly everyone agrees on the three basic roles of Canada’s Armed Forces: defence of Canada, defence of North America with the U.S. and contributing to international operations.
The federal government, as part of its ongoing Defence Policy Review (DPR), recently announced public consultation on the future of Canada’s armed forces. So what does Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan have in mind — a political exercise, or something more in-depth?
For all its faults, the Conservatives’ 2008 Canada First Defence Strategy (CFDS) was developed inside a clear fiscal framework … which was later discarded. In contrast, the DPR is wide open and (allegedly) not constrained by financial considerations. But as everyone knows, the size and shape of the Armed Forces will be determined by what the government decides to spend on defence. Money drives defence policy.
Given the big budget deficit, it’s hard to imagine the Liberals significantly boosting defence spending. Their aim is a ‘leaner and more agile’ military — almost certainly a code word for ‘smaller.’ And as any seasoned politician or bureaucrat knows, the $4 billion in equipment spending that was deferred for five years in the March budget is unlikely to return to Defence. Even if it does, by that time ‘defence inflation’ will have gobbled up a good part of its value.
Ideally, the government would announce that, unlike its predecessors, it will begin to work toward the agreed NATO goal of spending 2 per cent of GDP on defence. Canada, as one of the lowest-ranking military spenders in NATO, hovers around 1 per cent. But barring a major international crisis, or an unexpected change of heart, such an increase in defence spending isn’t likely to happen.
So the DPR will have to be developed within realistic financial limits. This means focusing only on military capabilities that are absolutely essential to our national interests — while relegating the rest to the ‘nice to have but can’t afford’ category.
So where to start? Nearly everyone agrees on the three basic roles of Canada’s Armed Forces: defence of Canada, defence of North America with the U.S. and contributing to international operations.
Reducing the Army’s strength — which is more than double that of the other two services — would free up funds for higher-priority capabilities.
The first two roles are not optional; the third may have to be. The only way Canada can continue to contribute to international operations is if the capabilities it funds for its primary and secondary military roles — defence of Canada and of the continent — can be adapted to overseas conflicts.
Let’s break down those three roles according to what they require. Defending Canadian territory starts with a robust surveillance capability for all three coasts and for our vast land area, including the Arctic. For this we need satellites, land-based sensors and radars, underwater devices and unmanned air and underwater vehicles — backed up by the Canadian Rangers, who spread very thinly across the North. We need ice-capable ships, transport aircraft, heavy-lift helicopters and quick-response army units to react to incursions or incidents. An effective anti-submarine capability and submarines capable of travelling under ice complete the picture. Tasks like air search-and-rescue and routine domestic disaster response could be transferred to non-military organizations.
Continental defence overlaps with national defence. The focal point for continental defence is NORAD, and it requires advanced interceptor aircraft, an integrated Canada-U.S. ballistic missile defence system, joint maritime surveillance and a new and more effective North Warning System across the Arctic.
State-of-the-art jets, ships, submarines and UAVs are essential for both these roles and also could make a useful contribution to international combat operations. But they are expensive to buy, operate and maintain.
So what do we have to give up?
The Army relies on people. People are expensive and account for half of our defence budget. Reducing the Army’s strength — which is more than double that of the other two services — would free up funds for higher-priority capabilities. The government and Canadians would have to accept that our ground forces cannot play a significant role in allied combat operations.
Our mechanized forces, based around a small number of (expensive to maintain) Leopard 2 tanks, cannot contribute much to major combat operations. Canada’s Light Armoured Vehicles (LAVs) and the new military trucks would be useful in small-scale overseas operations, including support for the UN — but in smaller numbers. So tanks and other combat vehicles, and the ground units that operate them, probably will have to be reduced or eliminated.
The DRP must ensure that, at minimum, we have world-class defence capabilities on the home front. Some ships and aircraft can be ‘double-hatted’ for international operations. But limiting our ambitions to contribute to major land battles overseas makes sense — and would release money needed to effectively defend Canada closer to home.
The first two roles are not optional; the third may have to be. The only way Canada can continue to contribute to international operations is if the capabilities it funds for its primary and secondary military roles — defence of Canada and of the continent — can be adapted to overseas conflicts.
Let’s break down those three roles according to what they require. Defending Canadian territory starts with a robust surveillance capability for all three coasts and for our vast land area, including the Arctic. For this we need satellites, land-based sensors and radars, underwater devices and unmanned air and underwater vehicles — backed up by the Canadian Rangers, who spread very thinly across the North. We need ice-capable ships, transport aircraft, heavy-lift helicopters and quick-response army units to react to incursions or incidents. An effective anti-submarine capability and submarines capable of travelling under ice complete the picture. Tasks like air search-and-rescue and routine domestic disaster response could be transferred to non-military organizations.
Continental defence overlaps with national defence. The focal point for continental defence is NORAD, and it requires advanced interceptor aircraft, an integrated Canada-U.S. ballistic missile defence system, joint maritime surveillance and a new and more effective North Warning System across the Arctic.
State-of-the-art jets, ships, submarines and UAVs are essential for both these roles and also could make a useful contribution to international combat operations. But they are expensive to buy, operate and maintain.
So what do we have to give up?
The Army relies on people. People are expensive and account for half of our defence budget. Reducing the Army’s strength — which is more than double that of the other two services — would free up funds for higher-priority capabilities. The government and Canadians would have to accept that our ground forces cannot play a significant role in allied combat operations.
Our mechanized forces, based around a small number of (expensive to maintain) Leopard 2 tanks, cannot contribute much to major combat operations. Canada’s Light Armoured Vehicles (LAVs) and the new military trucks would be useful in small-scale overseas operations, including support for the UN — but in smaller numbers. So tanks and other combat vehicles, and the ground units that operate them, probably will have to be reduced or eliminated.
The DRP must ensure that, at minimum, we have world-class defence capabilities on the home front. Some ships and aircraft can be ‘double-hatted’ for international operations. But limiting our ambitions to contribute to major land battles overseas makes sense — and would release money needed to effectively defend Canada closer to home.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)