The worst enemy of our disarmed Forces

There is a dangerous enemy stalking Jennie Carignan, the first woman appointed this week to head our Armed Forces.

The world order that has prevailed since the end of World War II has never been so shaken, with Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine and China tightening its grip around Taiwan.

But to ensure our national security, Jennie Carignan will first have to fight against the chronic lack of political will in Canada on defence. After decades of underinvestment and poor planning, our military is at the end of its strength.

With its embarrassing reputation as a money-grubber, Canada will have reason to blush next week at the NATO summit in Washington, marking the 75th^e anniversary of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Despite spending increasing by nearly 70% since 2014, Canada will spend only 1.37% of its GDP on defence in 2024. This is well below NATO’s 2% target.

Canada also fails to devote at least 20% of its defence budget to equipment purchases, as NATO requires.

Out of 32 countries, only Belgium ranks worse than us on these two fronts combined.

It is true that the government announced in its April budget additional investments of 72 billion over 20 years which should make it possible to reach 1.76% of GDP by 2030.

But in the meantime, our army is desperately short of troops and equipment.

Already, Canada is one of the NATO countries with the fewest military personnel per capita (2 per 1000), much less than France (3 per 1000) and the United States (4 per 1000).

However, these figures do not take into account the fact that there is a shortage of 16,000 military personnel, or approximately 15% of the workforce of 71,500 regular members and 28,500 reservists.¹.

Is there no way to reduce the administrative procedures that make recruitment take 18 to 24 months? While 70,000 candidates have knocked on its door, the army has not even managed to process 5,000 applications, due to lack of resources. Defense Minister Bill Blair himself speaks of a “death spiral.”

On the ground, the results are pitiful. In Latvia, where Canada is leading the NATO deployment, some soldiers are doing two or three rotations in a row because there is no one to take over. And their equipment is so outdated that some have paid out of pocket for new helmets.

In fact, the army is so poorly supplied that our soldiers would have only three days’ worth of ammunition if Russia confronted them.

This cannot continue. The military’s lack of preparedness puts our troops at risk. It tarnishes Canada’s credibility and influence internationally. And it harms its ability to defend its own territory.

It is time to take our defense more seriously, like so many other countries.

Australia could serve as an example. Faced with a more threatening China, the country has determined its priorities and developed a long-term plan, endorsed by all parties, which protects it from about-faces in the event of a change of power, as we saw in Canada with the purchase of F-35 jets, delayed by partisan jousting.

In Canada, where are the threats? What are our priorities?

The Arctic? Okay. But then, how come replacing our submarines is not included in the “Our North, Strong and Free” strategy presented by Ottawa in April? We can’t wait until they reach the end of their useful life in 2030 to think about it.

These major expenses must be carefully planned if you do not want to find yourself overdrawn.

This is exactly what is happening with our obsolete fleet of 15 combat ships, the replacement cost of which has exploded to $85 billion, almost four times the original budget. Production has not yet started in Halifax, and there are concerns about the financial viability of the project. Until the first delivery in 2032, it is impossible to meet all our commitments to NATO.

If we want to source from Canada to maximize economic benefits, it is urgent to develop a military industrial policy.

Ideally, we should develop cutting-edge sectors (e.g. drones or artificial intelligence) where military innovation would then stimulate our civilian industry.

In order for things to move forward smoothly, it would be desirable to entrust a single minister with responsibility for the purchase of military equipment, which is shared between the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Procurement.

This would make it easier to measure the performance of this clogged supply chain. The proof? While the army lacks everything, $12 billion of the budget has not been spent for five years, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

At a time when dictators are showing their teeth in the face of democracies, the population wants Canada to do more, as the polls show.

The appointment of the first woman as Canada’s chief of the defence staff proves that attitudes can change, even in a conservative environment like the military.

It is now at the political level that morals must change.

1. See the article published on the Rubicon website “Don’t Count on Us: Canada’s Military Unpreparedness”