US Steel for Canadian Warships

By: David Pugliese, The Vancouver Sun 

The Canadian navy’s new supply ships are being constructed of U.S. steel even as President Donald Trump punishes Canadian producers of the same product with a 25-per-cent tariff.

The supply ships are being built at the Vancouver shipyards of Seaspan, which is owned by a U.S. company. The Department of National Defence confirmed the steel is being purchased from a mill in Alabama, a solidly Republican state that voted 62 per cent for Trump.

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan cut some of the first U.S. steel for the ships at a June 15 ceremony, the same day that Trump launched yet another verbal attack on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau while praising North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un.

Trump has brought in tariffs of 25 per cent on Canadian-made steel and 10 per cent on Canadian aluminum. His government has stated that Canadian steel and aluminum pose a national security threat to the U.S.

Trump also lashed out at Trudeau as “dishonest and weak,” after the prime minister reiterated his position that U.S. steel and other products would face retaliatory tariffs. In addition, Trump has promised to punish Canadians in other ways on the economic front.

The government awarded Seaspan an initial $66-million contact to begin building 52 sections of the new naval supply ships, or about 20 per cent of the vessels. DND said the steel for the ships was ordered “a number of months ago.”

“While Canadian mills will continue to be considered for future chapters of the project, there simply was no Canadian mill who could supply the required certified steel of suitable size and grade at the time it was required,” the DND said in an email.

But Joseph Galimberti, president of the Canadian Steel Producers Association, said domestic firms can supply enough product.

“There is capacity in the Canadian steel industry to participate in these projects,” he said Wednesday. “As a general rule, we have very high quality, quite innovative, extraordinary cost-effective producers in Canada and would like to be considered for participation” in the government’s shipbuilding programs.

Galimberti pointed out that U.S. steel producers actively lobbied the Trump administration to make sure their Canadian competitors faced tariffs. The situation with the supply ships sees those U.S. firms protected in their home markets but still profiting on sales for a Canadian government project, he noted.

“If you wanted to respond to the U.S. tariffs but you are exempting U.S steel producers who are behind the U.S. tariffs, then you have failed,” Galimberti added.

Two supply ships will be built at Seaspan. The project will cost $3.4 billion, of which 60 per cent goes for the construction of the ships.

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan, left, cuts steel for the first of two Joint Support Ships for Canada’s Navy at the Seaspan Shipyards in Vancouver, June, 15, 2018. JONATHAN HAYWARD/THE CANADIAN PRESS

At one point, the first ship was supposed to arrive in 2012. That has been changed a number of times, with the government later hoping for a 2018 delivery and then a 2019 arrival for the first vessel. DND is now hoping for the delivery of the first ship in 2022 or 2023. The Joint Support Ships are critical as they provide fuel and supplies for warships at sea. The Royal Canadian Navy retired its last two aging supply ships years ago.

Trump continues to threaten various nations, including Canada, with additional tariffs. But his economic policies are also backfiring on some U.S. firms.

Increased steel costs because of the tariffs forced the Mid-Continent Nail plant in Poplar Bluff, Missouri to recently lay off 60 of its 500 employees.

The company is in danger of shutting production by September unless the U.S. government grants it an exclusion from paying the tariffs, company spokesman James Glassman told CNN.

The plant is located in an area that overwhelmingly voted for Trump.

Harley-Davidson has also announced it will move the production overseas of motorcycles to be sold in Europe. The company decided on the move since the European Union has imposed retaliatory tariffs on U.S.-built motorcycles.

Trump responded to the decision by Harley-Davidson by threatening to increase its taxes.

Opinion: Canada is Sending the Wrong Helicopters to Mali

By: Robert Smol, iPolitics 

In Mali, Canada’s flying pick-ups are no replacement for European helicopters

Canadian Forces door gunner keeps watch as his Griffon helicopter goes on a mission, February 20, 2017 in northern Iraq. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Ryan Remiorz

"Will our next round of UN peacekeepers have to engage, yet again, in that perennial Canadian military tradition of sending our military into harm’s way with far less than what our allies might provide to their forces?"A

For the last four years the German peacekeeping contingents, as well as the preceding Dutch, have struggled though the military and political quagmire of Mali with heavily armed, combat-proven attack helicopters operated by specially trained crews.

Quite appropriate for what is already considered the most dangerous peacekeeping operation attempted by the UN in its 73-year history.

But Canada does not own any attack helicopters. Instead our aging Griffon utility helicopters will be taking on armed escort responsibilities alongside our larger Chinook transport helicopters. Griffons were never designed to be an attack helicopter except in a pinch.

So the question needs to be asked: if Canada is expected to carry on and match the efforts of the Germans and Dutch will we have comparable capability in our improvised “armed” helicopters or will our next round of UN peacekeepers have to engage, yet again, in that perennial Canadian military tradition of sending our military into harm’s way with far less than what our allies might provide to their forces?

National Defence Headquarters, perhaps predictably, would not respond to my requests for information on any possible armament, sensor, and protective devices being installed on our 22-year old utility helicopters. However during the Afghan and Iraqi deployments , when Canadian troops were under the protective shield of US and allied attack helicopters and fighter aircraft, our Griffons were occasionally photographed carrying a door gunner positioned in the aircraft’s opening with a C-134 machine gun.

This haphazard, Vietnam-era “gun in the door” protection is quite consistent with the Griffon’s purpose. The Griffon is classified as a Utility Tactical Transport Helicopter. Its primary role, according to the RCAF website is “transportation of troops and material” making it more of a flying pick-up truck as opposed to highly agile flying tank that is a modern attack helicopter.

We should be concerned because, in Mali we will be away from the protective, largely U.S military shield that our military, not to mention the Canadian public, have come to expect in recent years.

So what did the preceding Dutch and German contingents in Mali have by way of armed helicopter escort? What level of armed, combat capability would our improvised, souped up utility helicopters have to match?

From 2014 to 2017 the Royal Netherlands Air Force deployed A-64D Apache attack helicopters to protect its assets. The Dutch Apache is armed with a 30mm automatic Boeing M230 chain gun that has a rate of fire of 625 rounds a minute. It also has a Lockheed Martin/Boeing AGM-114D hellfire air-to-surface missile with a range of 8-12 km. Also, depending on the nature of the threat, the Dutch Apache can also be mounted with Hydra 70 general purpose rockets and the AIM-92 Stinger anti-aircraft missiles.

Equally lethal, the standard armament for the German Tiger attack helicopter, currently exiting Mali, include a 30 mm cannon with a rate of fire of 750 rounds per minute. The Tiger can also be equipped 8 HOT Trigat anti-tank missiles, and 4 Stinger or Mistral short range air-to-air missiles. Also standard for the Tiger are two pods carrying 22 SNEB 68mm rockets.

Also impressive are the defensive countermeasure systems that are fitted to these flying tanks maximizing their survivability and effectiveness. These include, on both the German Tiger and the Dutch Apache a radar warning receiver, laser warning, and a chaff/flare dispenser. Crew survivability is also enhanced through the armoured protection given them a chance to make it back safely even after taking on enemy fire.

Could it be that Canada’s modified utility-transport helicopters, being deployed to Mali, are fitted with comparable armament and protection? Since we all know what the answer likely is the question then has to be asked: what level of additional support and compensation for our military weakness and vulnerabilities could we demand from the primary peacekeeping contingents in Mali which today are Burkina Faso, Chad, Bangladesh, Senegal, and Togo?

With Germany and the Netherlands out of the conflict, and the United States disengaged, it is from these country’s militaries that we will have to rely on once Mali’s Islamic militants realize that America’s most humble and obedient military servant (Canada) is facing them with utility transports posing as attack helicopters.



Welcome back to peacekeeping Canada!

—

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.

Trudeau to rebut Trump’s charge of defence-spending lag with Latvia visit

STEVEN CHASE

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

Female Canadian soldiers to train 1st all-female platoon in Jordanian army

By: Amanda Connolly, Global News 

Women from the Canadian military are heading to Jordan within the next six months to help train a new team of all-female soldiers in the Jordanian army.

The Jordanian Armed Forces Quick Reaction Force Female Engagement Team is a new platoon made up entirely of female soldiers trained for rapid response in situations where male soldiers cannot realistically engage with women encountered by the armed forces.

That could include conducting physical searches of a refugee woman at a border crossing or responding to incidents at refugee camps, according to a post published last month on the Maple Leaf,a website run by the Canadian Armed Forces that publishes material on the work of the military.

A spokesperson for the military confirmed that a team will deploy within the coming months but did not provide details, citing security concerns.

“A small team of Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) members (all female) will be deployed to Jordan later this year to provide training support to the Jordanian Armed Forces (JAF) Quick Reaction Force Female Engagement Team,” wrote Cpt. Christopher Daniel, public affairs officer with the Canadian Joint Operations Command.

“Their identity, exact numbers, and exact location will not be disclosed at this time due to operational security considerations. Also, they will not conduct media engagements at this time.

Female engagement teams were first used by the American military during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

They started out largely as an ad-hoc effort, using women already deployed on existing operations to speak and work with local women.

READ MORE: Canadian Armed Forces pushes for more women: ‘I’m a woman in the military and I love it’

Strict cultural norms prevented male soldiers from talking to local women and as a result, opportunities were missed to both provide and gain information.

The first full-time American female engagement team arrived in Afghanistan in March 2010.

They were quickly followed by a British team in October 2010.

According to a 2011 NATO presentation on the teams, their duties ranged from providing information on enemy activity back to their units, communicating messages meant to educate and influence the public through the women in local communities, conducting security searches of women and conducting medical outreach.

Daniel did not say what kinds of training the Canadian female soldiers will provide.

He did, however, note the training will focus on how the Jordanian female soldiers can take the lead in situations where men might not be able.

“The specific types of training are not ready to be discussed yet as they are still in the planning stages,” he said.


“The training will be geared towards enabling the JAF Quick Reaction Force Female Engagement Team to respond in a culturally sensitive and respectful manner to security tasks, enhancing operational effectiveness.”

Jordan, as a country that is relatively stable and among the most progressive in the Middle East, has been a key recipient of Canadian humanitarian and security support in recent years, particularly since the rise of the so-called Islamic State terror group.

A Jordanian pilot was murdered by ISIS in 2015 and in 2016, the Canadian government announced Jordan would be among the core recipients of an anti-ISIS training and support package worth almost $2 billion.

The power vacuum caused by the Syrian civil war provided fertile ground for ISIS to metastasize as the country fell to pieces.

Roughly 1.4 million Syrian refugees fleeing the violence of both the civil war and the fight against ISIS have arrived in Jordan, which operates camps to house the refugees as they await resettlement through the United Nations Refugee Agency.

The camps have been cited as a major source of concern because of the potential they hold for radicalization, human trafficking and sexual assault of those living in them.

The deployment later this year will not be the first time Canadian soldiers will be training Jordanian counterparts.

Since roughly the end of 2016, a Canadian training team has been working with the Jordanian military to help with things like soldier skills, building infrastructure in areas of concern like the border with Syria, and providing equipment like wet weather gear and searchlights.

Another team is also working with soldiers in Lebanon.

It is not clear, however, how long the deployment of the female training unit might last.

The current mandate for Operation Impact, which is Canada’s mission against ISIS through which the training and support are conducted, expires in March 2019.

Peter MacKay: Peacekeeping is not Suited to Today’s Conflicts

By: Hon. Peter MacKay, Policy Opinions Forum

The future of Canadian peacekeeping was the topic of a November 2017 conference hosted by the Mackenzie Institute, a not-for-profit think tank on security matters. Its title was “Positioning for Peace Preservation: The New Form of Peacekeeping.”

This theme captures a mature, perhaps overdue admission that the Pearsonian peacekeeping era is well and truly over. That romantic vision of blue-helmeted troops must now join the other cherished military symbols and artifacts in the National War Museum in Ottawa. The principle of standing nobly between hostile forces to prevent conflict seems idyllic but detached from the modern world, where terrorist groups like ISIL, al-Qaeda and Boko Haram behead innocents, kidnap schoolgirls and wreak havoc through murderous nihilist means.


No one wants to avoid bloodshed more than those who have been closest to the sound of the guns. Our country has proudly produced warriors of the highest calibre and ability, who have made significant military contributions in combat to secure a more peaceful world. In addition, Canada has clearly earned immeasurable respect for peacekeeping since its inception. It is indeed part of our storied history that an unlikely hero, Lester B. Pearson, a diplomat at the time, helped negotiate a solution in the volatile Suez Canal crisis in 1956. It included “neutral” Canadian troops standing between potential warring factions until a settlement could be found. It worked. Peacekeeping, as it became known, was born, and Canada and Pearson rightly received much credit; in addition, Pearson won the Nobel Peace Prize.

Canadian peacekeeping’s high-water marks came in Suez and later in Cyprus, a mission that lasted until 1993. However, in recent times, the tragic missions in Somalia (1992-93) and Rwanda (1993-96) drastically undermined the view of traditional peacekeeping. The model is now associated with rising costs, increased risk, ineffectiveness, human rights failures and loss of life. Political and public enthusiasm for Canada to take on more of this type of mission has hugely decreased. The deeply flawed outcomes in Somalia and Rwanda were undeniably a serious blow to Canada’s reputation and the public’s perception of peacekeeping generally. Arguably, both missions were doomed from the get-go. They were ill defined and under-resourced, and they should never have been characterized as peacekeeping. In the midst of extreme poverty, famine and clannish blood feuds, the hostilities were intense, with violence and weaponry widespread. These were horrendous conditions on the ground for Canadians and others to contend with — and the farthest thing from peace. There was simply none to keep. Despite the best efforts of many Canadians and allies, failure was imminent in those two African nations.

Somalia and Rwanda led to a major rethink in most military circles on peacekeeping and on the need to adopt a more pragmatic posture. A new model was offered by NATO and other coalitions of allies, in more muscular missions like Bosnia (1992-95) and Kosovo (1998-99). These were more organized, better directed, had clear rules of engagement, and were certainly safer and more in keeping with traditional military objectives. These deployments had defined orders, discipline, heavy equipment, training and measurable tactical outcomes that were closely coordinated with diplomatic and development goals and among multiple members of allied nations. The best we can sometimes say at the close of a mission is that there is an absence of open conflict and a fragile, tenuous state of stability. Arguably, this is what we sought to achieve in Afghanistan (beginning in 2001), at tremendous cost in blood and treasure. Tragically, recent events show that with its troublesome neighbours and a resurgent Taliban, the future of the country is still far from secure.

I do not mean to diminish or tarnish peacekeeping overall and the ingenuity and valiant efforts exhibited by forces from the 1950s forward. But to maintain the mythology of peacekeeping as the answer to today’s conflicts is disingenuous and, I submit, dangerous. Canada’s glory days of peacekeeping are over, as sure as fixed bayonets and foxholes. To use a sports analogy, peacekeeping is like the era of hockey’s original six teams: while some may yearn for those good old days, the game has changed, and so have the players and the rules. Executing a peacekeeping mission today is more difficult and more deadly by factors of 100.

The Liberal government has been casting about in search of a peacekeeping mission for over two years now. The search appears to be driven more by the goal of keeping an ill-advised campaign commitment than by a genuine concern for ending conflict. For a while the destination of the next mission was rumoured to be an African nation, judging by the travels of the Defence Minister and the comments of the Chief of Defence Staff. Our last UN-led peacekeeping missions on the continent, in Somalia and Rwanda, went horribly wrong. If we replicate this outdated model in terrorist-riddled hot spots, it would be a recipe for disaster that sets Canadian forces up to fail.

Canada’s commitment announcement in November at a UN peacekeeping conference in Vancouver appeared to be a public relations exercise that landed flat and left many disappointed. The long awaited, much hyped roll-out was far less than what was expected. Prime Minister Trudeau had promised in the 2015 election that 600 troops and 150 police would be committed to a new UN peacekeeping mission. Yet all that was announced in Vancouver was the creation at a future date of a “rapid reaction force” of 200 persons (we already have DART, the Disaster Assistance Response Team), but no specific mission was announced for it or even a hint given of when a mission will be chosen. Trudeau committed to making helicopters available, although they are already in short supply for our own needs, and to add training capacity, including a new fund of $15 million for increasing female participation in security roles.


Canada’s commitment announcement in November at a UN peacekeeping conference in Vancouver appeared to be a public relations exercise that landed flat and left many disappointed.

The constant use of partisan language over the past two years, with references to Canada being “back,” and grand pledges delayed until well beyond the next election, are emblematic of a government that is not serious about robust defence and more concerned with re-election. Having backed away from leadership and the necessary heavy lifting, which would entail taking on a high degree of risk, cost and long-term commitment — for example, by taking part in the bombing runs over Syria to suppress the advances of ISIL and curtail the violent Syrian regime — we appear ready to pay others, train others and leave others to the hard, risky work of security building. That is not a return to our traditional role, it’s abandoning and shirking our responsibilities to our traditional allies. Some of the elements of the announcement were laudable: the commitment to include more women in security forces, and making equipment and training available to our allies. Yet it is far short of what was promised in 2015 and what was hoped for by the UN. “Condescending” and “tap-dancing around the difficult issues” was the apt description of one of our finest soldiers and peacemakers, General Lewis MacKenzie.

Another noble, well intended and, again, Canadian-led initiative that has lost some of its lustre is the Responsibility to Protect doctrine, known as R2P. It calls for UN intervention if a nation proves incapable of protecting its own population from harm. The UN version is a watered-down variant of article 5 of the NATO treaty, which binds the alliance’s members to come to the defence of any country that is attacked. Like peacekeeping, R2P is becoming tarnished: overwhelmed by the bureaucratic inertia emblematic of the UN or overruled by deadlock at the UN Security Council. Only robust force, clear red lines and measurable actions have any real meaning in the modern violent and volatile world, where peace can be elusive.

When, where, what and how to deploy should clearly be defined predominantly by the military, overseen and directed by democratically elected bodies. There is no doubt that our extraordinary Canadian armed forces and all our engaged security forces are up to the challenge. Their remarkable abilities have been demonstrated in recent joint operations. Joint Task Force 2 and the Canadian Special Operations Regiment have shown their superior discipline and surgical strike capabilities.

It is when the military operational decisions are thwarted or overtaken by political decisions (often geared to domestic audiences) that the inevitable troubles for those in harm’s way begin. The same can be said of military procurement: witness the Sea King helicopter replacement debacle in the 1990s, soon to be overtaken as the worst example by the current fiasco of fighter jet replacement.

Today’s overwhelming firepower has overwhelming impact; it is highly expensive yet effective. It is speed and lethality in balance that win the day, as in the first Gulf War and Libya. New technology for use in conflict zones — such as highly precise drones, better signals intelligence, life-saving explosive detection and removal equipment, and even missile defence and early warning systems — is a critical area of investment for Canada. Lest we forget, our history, reputation and identity include full-scale fighting when the cause is just, as recently as the last decade. This kind of engagement requires much different preparation than any type of peacekeeping.

Our open society, tolerance and inclusivity are admirable, attractive features of Canadian society, as are our rule of law, human rights protections and welcoming immigration system. All these are still a work in progress. But make no mistake: they also create openings and vulnerabilities for many reasons — reasons to be proud of, even to celebrate — but we must be vigilant in their preservation, for what makes us great also makes us a target. All that we love about Canada leaves us wide open and attractive to attack, especially by battle-hardened ISIL fighters, beaten and returning to the hated Western country they left. They come back with a distorted sense of vengeance and twisted values, and brandishing the deadly knowledge of how to hit soft targets. These are not individuals who can be rehabilitated, as was recently suggested by the Prime Minister; rather, they should be prosecuted and imprisoned, where evidence warrants.

We simply cannot afford to minimize the challenges or be naive about what it takes to create peace in today’s world. Security and defence are not areas where we can afford to cut corners on the significant investment of resources required to keep citizens safe. Our entire security apparatus of CSIS, CSE, the RCMP and all our law enforcement in addition to our military — and, I believe, our legal system, including antiterrorism laws — need vigilant attention, more nonpartisan support and ample funding, like the 2 percent of GDP for defence spending requested by NATO. Virtue signalling on security matters when citizens’ lives are at risk is anything but virtuous. Neglect and putting partisan politics ahead of principled decisions can put many in harm’s way. That is not the Canadian way.

----

Hon. Peter MacKay, PC, QC, is the former justice minister and attorney general, minister of defence, minister of foreign affairs and the minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. He is now a partner with the Toronto-based law firm Baker McKenzie.

This essay was originally published by the Policy Opinions Foum on January 24, 2018

Published on CAF Dispatch - June of 2018