By Dr. Ann Griffiths, 10 April 2024
As you have probably heard, the has government released the long-awaited defence policy update. It’s entitled “Our North, Strong and Free: A Renewed Vision for Canada’s Defence” (available at Our North, Strong and Free: A Renewed Vision for Canada’s Defence - Canada.ca). As the title suggests, there’s a focus on the North and the protection of that vast area.
In addition to the focus on the North, it’s filled with promises of things that Canada will do. Thus,
Canada will harness innovation in hypersonic and cruise missile defence, undersea surveillance, space domain awareness, Arctic operations, and other areas. We will strive to adapt to rapid technological change faster than our adversaries and as fast as our allies. We will improve defence procurement to rapidly identify and acquire the military capabilities needed to maintain operational advantage and build a strong defence industrial base to help meet Canadian defence and security needs through reliable, high-quality production at a scale necessary to meet the security needs of Canada and our allies. (p. 12)
Decision-making will speed up, innovation will increase, procurement will be fixed, Canadian defence industries will grow, personnel shortages will be dealt with (“Canada will provide its military with the right people, in the right numbers, to enable our members to succeed in the missions that Canada asks of them” (p. 19)), training will be modernized, and so on….
The language used for submarines is less committed – the government will “explore options for renewing and expanding our submarine fleet” (p. 24). The government will also “explore options for enabling our Arctic and Offshore Patrol Vessels to embark and operate our maritime helicopters at sea” (p. 25).
It’s a beautiful document written in inspirational and enthusiastic language. But it’s a lot of talk, and not a lot of walk. Strong Secure Engaged also promised to boost recruitment, and not much has changed since that promise in 2017. The government has been exploring submarines for some time now – isn’t it time to stop exploring and start deciding/acting. (See Philippe Lagassé and Dave Perry’s article “Canada’s New Defence Policy Commits to Exploring Instead of Committing” in The Globe and Mail, 10 April.) It’s great that the Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ships might get helicopters, but why didn’t they get the capability in the first place? Defence procurement has been glacially slow and painful for years and various governments have attempted to fix it. What’s new in this policy? And so on.
I really want to believe. But I’ve heard this song before. And promising money after 2025 is a rather hollow promise since it’s likely that an election will be held in 2025 and a new government will be in place.
Am I being too cynical? Any comments?
14 thoughts on “Defence Policy Update Released”
A lot of BS to say the least, it does not and will not make NATO happy. The only reason they are getting away with this is the US has for the most part let them off the hook. There is no teeth in their statement.
Good morning Ron,
I guess that time will tell if you are correct.
Ubique,
Les
Considering the Chinese developed their Arctic ships in the 90s, they are operational pretty sure. And Russia is already being right next to it for access. Why does Canada think it stands a chance when we’ve not addressed it for as long as they have. It makes no sense. Another bloated project by Canada.
I have read the ‘new’ Our North, Strong & Free Defence policy with great interest. It seems however that Canadians have seen this new defence policy before in the old 2017 Strong Secured Engaged doctrine, perhaps with more ‘fluff’ than any new policy statements. It will be interesting to see if Canadians will actually see any concrete evidence over the next several months that the government is actually going to do all of what they are boldly saying in reality with this new defence policy. This policy must be realized very soon. The government must initiate this policy immediately and not just ‘sit on their hands’ and hope it all goes away before the next election in 2025. The CAF is in a world of hurt now! They need an infusion of people and mission capable hardware now, and not 10-20 years from now!! All Canadians will be watching very intently over the next several months to ensure the governments feet are held to the fire and not just more ‘talk’. The CAF & Canadian people deserve nothing less!!!
I think that the root of the problem is that all Canadians haven’t been watching, only a small interested minority, and I don’t have a warm and fuzzy that has changed in any significant way.
A lot of statements are glazed over to make allies happy but it doesn’t appear to have substance in finances.
Given the PM’s remark about potential nuclear submarines and joining AUKUS, then reading page 33, this to me seems like a distraction. We know Canada will potentially go to pillar II of AUKUS and that will be about it. To say nuclear submarines are a possibility even with a major increase in the defense budget from 1.29% to 1.76% still won’t cover that program.
Overall I think this is just to pacify NATO given that Trump may win the next US election and throw scorn on Canada (Again).
Never forget AOPS flight ops were planned for RCMP and CCG helicopters. With virtually no combat capability, embarking a CH-148 would be pointless.
Hello,
I suggest taking the time to review Canada’s GDP by industry sector over the past 10 years (available on Statscan).
Track the vector of GDP contribution by Petroleum Products, Chemical Manufacturing, Primary Metal Manufacturing, Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing, Machinery Manufacturing, Aerospace, and other value-added processing of metals and machine/tool making. Compare these to the contribution of “Finance, insurance, real estate, rental and leasing and holding companies”. This should tell you that Canada is not the industrial powerhouse that should be associated with a strong defense policy.
Ammunition, airplanes, ships, submarines, missiles, artillery barrels, all this means heavy machinery, not fanciful procurement PR. Countries with an advanced machinery-building complex can easily produce these things as needed. Countries with 2/3 of GDP from services and close to 20% from finance, will struggle and waste horrendous sums of money.
Until a policy makes it a core imperative to develop STEM education, industry, advanced manufacturing, high-tech chemical and metals processing and machinery/tool making, it will be PR fluff.
Regards,
A few initial impressions:
1) This is the second time that the Liberals have released a defence policy without the benefit of a foreign policy review. The “update” does not define and discuss fulsomely Canada’s vital or secondary interests, which for serious countries would come in the form of a foreign policy statement.
2) The analysis of the strategic landscape is shallow and at times facile. It speaks of a rules-based order without defining it or noting that said order was never as universal as its proponents would have us believe. It mentions great-power competition as a challenge but does not deal with equally impactful developments such as the rise of ambitious regional powers and blocs, the fragmentation of the UN system, the persistence of impunity leading to massive human rights abuses. The list goes on. It mentions the climate, which is one positive.
3) For all the talk of a revanchist Russia and aggressive China, there’s not much that will underwrite a greater Canadian presence in Europe or the Indo-Asia-Pacific. Canada seems to be pivoting homeward.
4) The apparent focus on the Arctic is defensible. Canada has limited resources and so prioritizing the home front is no sin. Indeed, successive defence policies have had that as job #1. It will please Washington. But it sends a signal that Europe cannot expect any more from Canada than it’s already getting. (So long, SMG1. Been nice sailing with ya!)
5) The repeated use of the 20-year horizon (“Over the next 20 years Canada will…”) indicates a lack of urgency, and will discourage those hoping for a faster turn-around. True, it may be that there is no vacancy at the procurement table for the next decade as existing purchases are bought and paid for (JSS, F-35, P-8, STTC, AOPS, CSC ramp-up, etc.). But doesn’t that indicate a lack of procurement capacity within DND/ADM(Mat), PSPC, etc? How long has this been the case?
6) One interpretation of the frequent use of “Canada will explore options for” is that government wants a political off-ramp so that it can put off re-capitalization indefinitely. Another is that it will the CAF needs time to more fully define its requirements (i.e., for submarines, land systems, long-range precision strike systems). Either is plausible, but the former is more likely. Recall that many of our allies went right out into the market to acquire new kit after Russia’s 2022 re-invasion of Ukraine. They did not pause for (10 years of) reflection.
7) The government has had the defence file for 9 years, so why it has taken this long to pledge meaningful procurement reform? It has also known about recruiting/retention issues since at least 2017, so why only now are there any novel ideas about how to address them? (Nothing on improving terms of service for CAF members aside from a couple of flaccid references to housing and childcare.) Again, lethargy.
8) The boast that $8B will be spent in the short term is offset but the budgetary claw-backs that Treasury Board insisted on to the tune of… $4B(?) over the next four years.
9) The promise to conduct a national security review at regular intervals is welcome, but one would have to see it to believe it. Future governments may be distracted by other matters or disinclined to hold themselves to such scrutiny. In the US, quadrennial defence reviews are mandated by Congress, which has the power to hold the Administration to account. Who wields that kind of power in Canada? Parliament? Can a majority government simply forget about the “promise”?
The MND is to commended for his candour that the CAF is in a “death spiral”. But this only speaks to systemic lethargy and apathy by the political class. This update appears to my jaundiced eye as an exercise in political damage control. It is a series of mostly promisory notes, meant to defer hard decisions while placating allies who no longer subscribe to the narrative that what Canada lacks in (financial) resources for defence, it makes up for in contributions to allied operations. The latter is dependent on the former. It is no longer possible to separate the two, if it ever was.
It is also (mostly?) intended to impress the most important audience of all: the US. Failure to a achieve at least a partial reckoning with our defence shortcomings would have been a source of significant embarrassment this coming July. If Canada were to attend the NATO 75th anniversary bash in Washington without something to show and tell, we would be relegated to the children’s table in short order.
Great paper! Carefully worded, but sets expectations high. Executive summary:
“This defence policy update will provide us with new tools we need to defend Canada, protect North America, and support the international rules and institutions that keep Canadians safe. New investments in the policy include:
– A more modern, mobile and effective tactical helicopter capability;
– Significantly scaling up the production of artillery ammunition here in Canada;
– Acquiring long-range missile capabilities;
– Purchasing a new fleet of airborne early warning aircraft;
– Building Northern Operational Support Hubs to establish a greater year-round military presence in the Arctic and North;
– Enhancements to Canada’s intelligence and cyber operations;
– A worldwide satellite communications capability and satellite ground station in the Arctic;
– Maritime sensors that can be rapidly deployed on our Arctic and Offshore Patrol Vessels; and
– Extending the life of our Halifax-class frigates.”
And also: “Initial construction of [CSC] ships is set to begin this year.”
“We will also explore options for a number of additional capabilities, including:
– Upgrading or replacing our tank and light armoured vehicle fleets;
– Renewing and expanding our submarine fleet;
– Acquiring new vehicles adapted to ice, snow, and tundra;
– Acquiring ground-based air defences to defend critical infrastructure;
– Acquiring a suite of surveillance and strike drones, and counter-drone capabilities;
– Modernizing our artillery capabilities; and
– Acquiring long-range air and sea-launched missiles.”
Moreover: “Through this policy, we are making new investments to support all members of our institution [by]
– Building new housing for Canadian Armed Forces personnel and their families, rehabilitating existing housing, and establishing a CAF Housing Strategy;
– Improving childcare access for CAF personnel;
– Accelerating the development of an electronic health record platform; and
– Increasing the number of civilian specialists in priority areas to accelerate and improve procurement, recruitment, and infrastructure upgrades.”
There seems to be a lot of words but no firm commitments. I think this will be a cautious wait and see.
One of the things I learned from my time in the civil service is that written plans, procedures, and policy updates are almost always entirely worthless. The only thing that matters in any project is whether there is a person at the heart of it who (a) fully understands the project, its purpose, and the reasons for the choices made and (b) is prepared to stake his career on the project’s success. If the written plan represents that person’s thoughts, and that person remains in his position long enough to carry them out, then the plan will succeed (assuming it is a good plan). Without such a person holding everyone else to account, within a week you will see decisions made to meet the needs of the moment and within a month most people will have forgotten what the plan actually said. Such commitment is rare.
Who is that person here? Bill Blair? Wayne Eyre? Will they be in their jobs next year?
We all know that the CDS will not be in the job by next year as he has said as much. For Bill Blair, he serves at the discretion of the PM, and can be fired any time JT feels the whim. I would suspect he might be gone much before the CDS will!! Too bad though as I believe he has done a decent job for Canada so far as MND.
There was a old pol, name of Blair
Who sililoquized thus to Wayne Eyre:
“Our stance on defence is to sit on the fence
‘Til the cupboard is practically bare.”