We can be happy that Ottawa is sending 15 Leopard II tanks to Latvia, where Canadian troops are leading an operation to discourage Russia from setting foot in the Baltic countries.
But this beautiful announcement cannot mask the fact that our soldiers are so ill-equipped that they pay out of their own pockets to buy basic equipment: raincoats, belts for ammunition or even modern helmets to mitigate the her.
It’s a real shame! Especially since it’s fairly easy to obtain equipment, not hyper-sophisticated technologies. And soldiers from other countries participating in the mission are arriving with more advanced, Canadian-made equipment on top of that, as CBC News revealed in early June.1.
This embarrassing situation is reminiscent of the early 2000s, when Canadian troops were sent in green camouflage uniforms into the desert of Afghanistan, making them prime targets, while American troops had the appropriate clothing.
Misery ! We are talking about war, not masquerade.
We have to face the facts, the supply of the Canadian army is in crisis, as several former high-ranking soldiers testified last week before the Standing Committee on National Defense of the House of Commons.
The bureaucratic heaviness means that Ottawa is unable to spend the amounts promised on equipment. Defense Department underspent budget by $10 billion over four years (2017-18 to 2020-21), Parliamentary Budget Officer says2.
The decision-making process is so slow that equipment is sometimes obsolete when it is finally delivered to soldiers after long years of waiting.
Uniforms, spare parts, books… Half the time, the military receives equipment late, notes Auditor General Karen Hogan. And delays are even more common for priority items that meet critical needs.
These delays in the purchase of equipment are hurting us on several fronts.
First, it reduces the ability of Canadian Defense to carry out its missions and manage its resources efficiently.
Second, it doesn’t help to recruit the soldiers – which the army is sorely lacking – when the recruits see that they are putting their health at risk because of the lack of equipment.
It’s not like that either that we will convince our traditional allies to take us seriously on the military level.
For example, Canada would like to enter the tripartite alliance “AUKUS” (Australia-UK-US) concluded in 2021 to counter China’s ambitions in the Indo-Pacific region. In the long term, our absence from this partnership could exclude us from an important sharing of strategic and technological knowledge, in fields of the future such as artificial intelligence or quantum computing.
If Canada does not want to remain on the service track, it will have to demonstrate a firmer commitment to reaching the level of military spending required by NATO, ie 2% of GDP.
Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom are there. But Canada remains far from the target, despite a commitment to raise the level of spending from 1.33% in 2022-2023 to 1.59% in 2026-2027.
Beyond the money, there also needs to be greater accountability in the purchase of military equipment, which straddles the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Supply.
To reduce confusion and costly duplication, it would be wise to assign the task to a single ministry, whose performance could be measured more easily.
The idea has been around for years. What are we waiting for to go on the offensive? As threats from Russia and China escalate, our soldiers deserve to be equipped from head to toe.
“With no headphones” sounds good for a folk music group from Montreal. But for the Armed Forces, not at all.