ON TARGET: CANADA VOTES: No Clear Winner for the CAF

By Scott Taylor

At a Montreal campaign stop on Monday April 14, Prime Minister Mark Carney pledged that if his Liberals are re-elected, they will cut through the bureaucratic Gordian's knot which has long hamstrung all of Canada's military procurement projects.

To achieve this lofty goal, Carney promised to modernize procurement rules and regulations, and to create a stand alone centralized procurement agency for the Canadian Armed Forces.

While not exactly a catchy policy promise to the ears of your average Canadian voter, for those in the defence community, Carney's comments may in fact sound somewhat familiar.

That would be because the Trudeau Liberals made this exact same promise to fix the stalled military procurement process during the 2015 federal election campaign. Once elected, the Trudeau Liberals focussed instead on 'Sunny Ways' and promptly forgot about their promise to streamline the military acquisition process.

Thus, they were able to dust off this neglected policy promise in time for their 2019 federal election platform. This time around the Trudeau Liberals promised to create an agency called Defence Procurement Canada in order to "ensure that Canada's biggest and most complex defence procurement projects are delivered on time and with greater transparency to Parliament."

Six years later the Carney Liberals are able to trot out the same old proposed solution, for a problem which they have failed to actually address for over a decade.

Now before I am accused of being a Conservative Party shill, let me profess that my lifetime experience has taught me that neither the Conservatives or the Liberals are fully invested in supporting a strong military, or providing benefits for veterans.

For many military veterans who wax nostalgic for the good-old-glory-days of the Canadian Armed Forces, the prime villain in the saga is former defence minister Paul Hellyer.

It was Hellyer's initiative to 'unify' the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force into the single entity to be known as the Canadian Armed Forces. That was accomplished in 1968, and Unification was still in full effect when I joined in 1982.

In that era all three service branches wore the same 'rifle green' uniforms.

When Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and his Progressive Conservatives were elected in 1984, the Cold War was still at its zenith. At that juncture it was the policy of US President Ronald Reagan to invest heavily in the arms race in order to bankrupt the Soviet Union.

Mulroney was in lock step with Reagan on this initiative and this was reflected in Canada's 1987 White Paper on Defence. This blueprint called for the acquisition of 12 nuclear powered submarines, a regular force strength of 120,000 personnel and a fleet of 400 brand new main battle tanks.

One morale boosting initiative that was implemented under Mulroney was a return to the three distinctive service branch uniforms.  

However in 1991, the Reagan strategy of outspending the Soviets succeeded and the Soviet Union imploded. With the Commie threat collapsed, so too were Mulroney's promises to build a strong military. The nuclear submarine purchase was cancelled, the main battle tank acquisition was scrubbed and by the time Mulroney stepped down in 1993, the CAF was paying bonuses for personnel to leave the ranks.

Under the Force Reduction Program the regular force was rapidly reduced from 90,000 to 65,000 virtually overnight. Newly elected Prime Minister Jean Chretien had campaigned on the promise to cut even deeper into the budget of the CAF. He kept that promise by cancelling a project to replace the Sea King helicopter fleet and a purchase order to buy replacement utility vehicles for the Army. 

After what has since been dubbed the Decade of Darkness under Chretien’s Liberals, the Stephen Harper Conservatives inherited in 2006 a broken Armed Forces that was already waging a war in Afghanistan. As such, Canadian defence spending rose out of necessity to simply keep our troops alive.

It was largely a case of begging and borrowing equipment and weaponry from our allies, albeit with no foresight for a long term rebuild of our military institution. By the time Harper left office in 2015 Canada’s defence spending was reduced to less than one percent of gross domestic product. Harper also infamously closed a large number of Veterans Affairs outreach offices across Canada.

Under Justin Trudeau the Liberals actually increased defence spending to 1.3 per cent of GDP and they reopened many of the Veterans Affairs outreach offices closed by Harper.

Despite this reality of bipartisan neglect, the generally accepted belief among Canadian voters is that Liberals are weak on national defence whereas the Conservatives are hawkish. The truth is that both governing parties have a decades-long, proven track record of neglecting Canada's national defence and veterans.

Whichever way you cast your vote in the coming election, do not believe the promises made regarding defence investment. Promises made...promises broken.

ON TARGET: TRUMP IS FORCING CANADA'S HAND: Time to Re-Think the Structure of the CAF

By Scott Taylor

For the sake of history, it needs to be remembered that Canada did not start the current spat with the United States. The blame lies entirely with US President Donald J. Trump.

Immediately following his re-election last November, Trump began ramping up his rhetoric in order to cast Canada as a 'nasty' trading partner and weak on border security. When Trump's initial fixation was on illegal fentanyl crossing the US border, Canada and Mexico were tarred with the same brush. This was despite the fact that less than .02 per cent of that drug trade crosses the Canadian border.

However, once Trump's focus shifted to trade deficits and tariffs it became clear that we are entering into an entirely new era globally. On Thursday, March 27, Prime Minister Mark Carney told the media: "Our biggest challenge as a country is becoming the most urgent. Over the coming weeks, months, and years, we must fundamentally reimagine our economy. We will need to ensure that Canada can succeed in a drastically different world. The old relationship we had with the United States—based on deepening integration of our economies and tight security and military cooperation—is over."

Carney made it clear that time is of the essence. "We will need to dramatically reduce our reliance on the United States,” he said. “We will need to pivot our trade relationships elsewhere, and we will need to do things previously thought impossible, at speeds we haven't seen in generations."

For those in Canadian military circles this about-face in relations with our longstanding closest ally is a tough pill to swallow. Canada may not spend the NATO target goal of two per cent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on defence, but over the past 25 years our soldiers have spilled their blood supporting American led interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq. We also helped to bomb the bejeezus out of Yugoslavia in 1999 and Libya in 2010 in support of US and NATO interests albeit those two interventions did not result in a single Canadian casualty.

Of course the immediate knee-jerk reaction from the military brain trust is to spend more on weapon systems but maybe partner with European suppliers instead of our usual US defence contractors.

I suggest that we take a closer look at what role Canada wants for our armed forces moving forward.

One example of a starkly different approach is practically next door to us and happens to be the third neighbour on our shared continent: Mexico. 

The Mexican military is structured almost entirely for internal defence and security. Historically Mexico has remained extremely isolationist in terms of military force. During WW2 they did declare war on Germany and Japan and sent a small force to the Philippines.

In terms of UN Peacekeeping, Mexico has only ever sent a handful of soldiers to the mission in Haiti.

In total there roughly 340,000 personnel in the Mexican armed forces and the defence budget is $8.5 Billion (USD) or roughly 0.7% of Mexico's GDP.

One reason that Mexico gets such a big bang for their buck in terms of defence is that they are equipped for domestic operations as opposed to an expeditionary force. The Mexican Army does not have main battle tanks. They have armoured cars and Humvees.

The modest Mexican navy has five frigates along with roughly 130 smaller, fast coastal defence vessels. They have no submarines.

The Mexican Air Force has just eight really old F-5 fighter jets with one of those fighters dedicated to training. 

In other words, the Mexican armed services are tailored to defeat the actual threat that they face which is that of criminal drug cartels. Since 2006 some 45,000 Mexican military have been deployed alongside federal and state police forces in that ongoing conflict. To date some 750 soldiers and 4,100 police officers have been killed battling the drug cartels. 

If, as Prime Minister Carney stated, the days of "tight security and military cooperation" with the US is over, then we need to seriously rethink the entire structure of our military. What is the point of purchasing 88 F-35 fighter aircraft from the very nation that is threatening to annex Canada into becoming the 51st state? The US Air Force alone has 5,500 combat aircraft.

Are the 82 Leopard II tanks in the Canadian Army's inventory a tangible deterrent to any would-be invader of our nation? 
Thank god that Canada is not battling well armed drug cartels like the Mexican military has to do. However, we can still be creative in re-thinking what constitutes 'defence' spending in Canada.

We could never spend enough to successfully stave off a US invasion.

However we could invest heavily in developing infrastructure in the Arctic as well as vastly expanding the reserves and equipping them for the role of natural disaster responders. Battling forest fires in British Columbia may not be as challenging as fighting a counter insurgency in Afghanistan. However, protecting Canadian natural resources and domestic infrastructure is far more morally noble than battling Afghans into submission in a war that the US Pentagon knew they could never win.

ON TARGET: Toning Down Trump's Imperial Aspirations

By Scott Taylor

Most Canadians are blissfully unaware that from 1973 until June 2022, Canada was locked in a territorial dispute with Denmark.

At stake was the claim that both nations placed on the remote, uninhabited Hans Island in Arctic waters. Sailors from the Royal Canadian Navy were the first to land on Hans island, plant the Maple Leaf flag along with a note of welcome and a bottle of Canadian whisky.

In turn the Royal Danish Navy sent in a landing party to remove the flag and presumably the whisky. Then the Danes left their own red and white national flag, along with a bottle of fine Danish Schnapps.

The conflict was light-heartedly called 'The Whisky War.' On 14 June, 2022 the two sides amicably agreed to a partition of the island wherein 60 per cent remains Danish and Canada was ceded the remainder. No shots were fired, there were no casualties and nary an insult was hurled. That is the way two NATO allies should hash out solutions.

Which brings us to US President Donald Trump's increasingly hostile threats to annex all of Greenland away from Denmark.

For the record the kingdom of Denmark-Norway first sent missionaries to colonize Greenland in 1721. It has been internationally recognized as Danish territory for more than three centuries.

Notwithstanding that simple fact, during Trump's first term, he had hinted that the US should look seriously at buying Greenland from Denmark. The Danish government had mocked his offer and made it clear that the territory is not for sale.

Since his second term inauguration Trump has more than doubled down on making Greenland a US protectorate. He recently told reporters that the use of military force to achieve that goal is still on the table. 

To start laying the groundwork, US Vice President J.D. Vance and his wife Usha recently visited Greenland. The original plan had been to have the couple rub elbows with local Greenlanders in a show of friendly hospitality. However, when not a single Greenlander proved willing to host the photo-op, VP Vance and his wife instead landed at a US Space Force Base in Pitiffuk, north-west Greenland. 

“Our message to Denmark is very simple: You have not done a good job by the people of Greenland,” VP Vance told the media entourage that had flown in with him. “You have underinvested in the security architecture of this incredible, beautiful landmass and its incredible people.”

Predictably, VP Vance crapping on the Danish government from the confines of a US military base on their own soil drew strong rebukes from the Danish political leadership.

It also drew a harsh rebuttal from the former US Ambassador to Denmark, Rufus Gifford. "I don't know what Vance is talking about,” Gifford blurted in a video post, before noting that Denmark spends 2.4 per cent of their Gross Domestic Product on defence (higher than the NATO goal of 2% GDP), and that Danish soldiers had fought and died alongside American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Almost coincidental with VP Vance's departure from Pitiffuk, US President Trump took to X to tweet out a propaganda video titled 'America Stands with Greenland'. This slick clip tugs at viewers' heartstrings with a romanticized Second World War tale of four US Army chaplains giving up their own lifejackets to allow fellow soldiers to save themselves after their troop ship was torpedoed and sunk. At the time, that troop ship was headed to Greenland, and according to the propaganda spin, they were to protect Greenlanders from "the Nazis".

Of course the primary interest the US had in Greenland at the time was the cryolite mine at Ivigtut. This vital mineral is a key component in aluminum and as such it was a huge boom to the US war machine.

The Nazis did no more than establish a couple of clandestine weather stations on remote areas of Greenland's east coast. The US did not defend Greenland from Hitler. It was never under attack. But I digress.

Fast forwarding to the present, America Stands with Greenland points out that Russia and China pose a clear and present danger to the good people of Greenland. That may seem a stretch of the imagination considering Russia has been battling for over three years to annex a portion of eastern Ukraine and China is still rattling sabres with neighbouring Taiwan.

However rest assured folks that Greenland will not have to fight off China and Russia alone. Denmark is a NATO member and Greenland is Danish territory. Any attack on Greenland would automatically trigger a military response from all 32 NATO member states, including Canada and the US.

Those who follow the affairs of the RCAF closely will know that our service members recently participated in NORAD training exercise Noble Defender which included the US base at Pitiffuk, Greenland. Yes the same one the VP Vance just used as a podium to espouse his negative views of the Danish government and Greenland.

Trump is also threatening to make Canada his 51st state. Thus we cannot simply sit back as the Trump administration bullies Denmark into submission with false claims of neglected defence.

When the US was attacked by terrorists on 9-11 Canada and Denmark pledged to defend our closest ally. Both of our countries have spilled blood alongside American comrades in Iraq and Afghanistan as a result of those pledges. 

Let's get back to exchanging bottles of booze and start treating allies like allies again.

ON TARGET: Retired General Fights Back: Advocates Cancelling the F-35

By Scott Taylor

Late last week, US President Donald Trump posted yet another threat to punish Canada and the European Union (EU) should we dare to lessen the blows of his tariffs through increasing trade with each other.

Of course in the mind of Trump it is the US and himself personally that are under attack. In his post to Truth Social, Trump wrote, “If the European Union works with Canada in order to do economic harm to the USA, large scale Tariffs, far larger than currently planned, will be placed on them both in order to protect the best friend that each of those two countries has ever had!’”

Given that the EU is actually a trading bloc of 29 member states, I'm sure Trump meant to write 'each of those 30 countries' but I digress.
Trump has repeatedly boasted that he will target the EU and Canada in his planned “Liberation Day” reciprocal tariffs rollout on Wednesday, April 2.
Canada faces a far more serious threat than the EU, as Trump remains fixated on annexing Canada into becoming the 51st state. Included in Emperor Trump's list of intended conquests and acquisitions is the territory of Greenland and the Panama Canal. The rationale for the US occupying Greenland is that it is now a vital strategic location necessary to thwart Russian and Chinese aggression.

The claim by Trump is that Denmark has failed to properly secure the vast territory and therefore they are not a reliable NATO ally. Sound familiar?

The fact is that the US have had a military presence on this vitally strategic frozen island since June 1941. This is under an agreement with the Danish authorities.

During the Cold War this was a major airport at USAF Base Thule and recently it was incorporated into the new US Space Force and renamed Base Pituffik.

There would be no need for the US to 'invade' Greenland as they already have the only military presence on the territory.

Trump has also claimed that he does not need military force to annex Canada ad that he will simply accomplish this through economic pressure. No Canadian leader has yet to deliver an "over my dead body" response to Trump's threats, because every one familiar with our defence capability knows that would be the result.

Serving senior military officers are not allowed to make political statements and as such our generals and admirals in uniform have maintained their discipline. However, our large cadre of retired senior brass have been noticeably silent on the current spat with our erstwhile most trusted ally.

One exception to this was retired general Rick Hillier. The former Chief of the Defence Staff took to X (formerly twitter) on Feb. 15, to complain about Canada, admonish Canadians for booing the US anthem at sporting events and to put his support behind Trump-booster Kevin O’Leary’s proposal for a joint US-Canada dollar. This was hardly the response Canadians expected from our hawkish war-time general in recent memory.

Of course Canada's lack of defence spending has been at the forefront of Trump's ire since his first term. It is a fact that Canada currently only spends 1.37 per cent of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on defence, well short of the NATO alliance's target goal of 2 per cent GDP. However, that is still a whopping $41 billion which puts us at  the sixth highest defence expenditure within the 32 nation NATO alliance.

Also the vast majority of the expensive weaponry that Canada purchases comes from US defence companies. Trump badgering Canada into spending more on US defence technology under threat of economic punishment does not sit well with most patriotic Canadians.

One of them spoke out last week in a post on Linkedin which was later reported in the Ottawa Citizen. Former Royal Canadian Air Force Commander (2012-2015), retired Lt-Gen Yvan Blondin stated that Canada should halt the purchase of the F-35 fighter planes from the US. Ironically, it was Blondin himself who first recommended that Canada purchase the F-35.

He now says the deal should not go through because the US has become untrustworthy with Trump re-elected as president. “Reliance on a US defence umbrella, a critical factor since the end of WW2 for so many countries, is no longer guaranteed,” Blondin wrote on Linkedin “No affected country can afford to close its eyes and hope that 2026 or 2028 elections in the US will bring everything back to ‘normal’… and not happen again. The toothpaste cannot go back in the tube.”
A former fighter pilot, as Commander of the RCAF Blondin recommended the F-35 to Prime Minister Stephen Harper's conservative government in 2012. The intent to purchase was announced but later cancelled due to ballooning costs and mechanical teething troubles.

A decade later the Trudeau Liberals announced a project to spend $19 billion to buy 88 F-35's. To date $7 Billion has been contracted to build the first 16 of those aircraft. According to Blondin, given the current state of animosity Canada should not put all of our Air Force's eggs in one F-35 basket. 

Blondin said there was still time before a decision had to be made to purchase the remaining 72 F-35s. The solution, he added, may be a mix of some F-35s and other aircraft from European nations, while at the same time spending money for future aircraft being developed by Europe.

Which brings us full circle to Trump's threat to double down on tariffs if Canada and the EU try to find bilateral solutions to circumvent his trade war.

Hold on folks. And get your elbows up. Lt-Gen Blondin just did.

ON TARGET: CANADIAN SURFACE COMBATANT TO COST A BOATLOAD OF MONEY

By Scott Taylor

On Saturday March 8 a major defence procurement announcement was made by the Department of National Defence, yet it caused barely a ripple through Canadian news media.

There was so little commentary over the announcement that one suspects the timing on the release was deliberate. Given that we are in the midst of a damaging trade war with the United States, and one of President Donald Trump's pet peeve's is Canada's lack of defence spending, one would think the Liberals would have wanted to make the most out of an $8 billion contract to build warships?

Instead DND held a hastily announced, late Friday afternoon technical briefing for select media, prior to the Saturday morning, March 8 official announcement. With parliament prorogued until March 24 and the Liberal Party leadership race winner to be announced the following day, the shipbuilding contract announcement unsurprisingly dropped into a media void.

It shouldn't have, and here's why. What was announced was an initial $8 billion contract for Irving Shipbuilding of Halifax to begin the construction of the first three Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) warships. However, buried in the fine print was the fact that the total cost to build these three warships is expected to be a whopping $22.2 billion.

That equals $7.4 billion per ship. Given that Canada has announced they will be purchasing 15 CSC warships in total, for those doing the math, that amounts to over $108 billion in total for this project.

As most Canadians are not in the habit of shopping for modern warships that staggering cost may seem a little excessive. To be honest, it is obscenely excessive.

To give it some perspective we need to go back to the origins of this major procurement project. The Royal Canadian Navy planners wanted 15 ships to replace the now retired Iroquois Class destroyers and the 12 Halifax Class frigates which continue to toil past their service expectancy date.

The initial construction cost for these 15 ships was an estimated $14 billion. But the Royal Canadian Navy jettisoned that figure and in 2008 the CSC budget was set at $26.2 billion. That price tag included the construction of the vessels, infrastructure, project management, spare parts and some ammunition.

But since then the costs of the CSC has been climbing steadily. Several years ago, the Department of National Defence had put the cost at between $56 billion and $60 billion, and its officials insisted that would not go up. In 2022, the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated the total cost of the Canadian Surface Combatant program, including development and acquisition, to be $84.5 billion.

The design of Canada's CSC is to be based on the BAE Type 26 destroyer which is currently being built for the Britain’s Royal Navy. While the Canadian design will be slightly larger and heavier, the British project is pegged at $15 billion (CDN) to acquire 8 ships.

Again for the amateur mathematician that means Canada would be paying more than double the amount per ship if Blair's estimate was correct. We now know it was not.

Another comparative shipbuilding cost yardstick for the laymen would be the Royal Navy's recent acquisition of two Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers. These behemoths weigh 80,000 tons each and house up to 36 warplanes. The total cost was $12 billion (CDN) or $6 billion per aircraft carrier.

Keep in mind Canada is buying 8,000 ton CSC destroyers for $7.2 billion each. 

For a Canadian comparison, back in the early 1990's Canada acquired the 12 Halifax Class frigates for a total construction cost of $4.3 billion, or $350 million per ship. Allowing for inflation, that would be roughly $700 million per ship in 2025 dollars. That is a far cry from $7.4 billion per CSC warship.

Which is why my friends, the Liberals chose to announce the latest contract for this project in the dead of night. Or in this case, on a mid-March Saturday morning.

ON TARGET: Setting Trump Straight on Canada

By Scott Taylor

Last week I attended the 93rd annual Conference of Defence Associations (CDA) at the landmark Chateau Laurier Hotel in Ottawa.

Having personally attended three dozen of these events, they are predictably a well-worn routine of senior military brass, politicians and military academics convincing each other of the importance of national defence in Canada.

Those allied military delegations that attend are like-minded and the agreed upon mutual threats are Russia, China and Islamic extremists in a rotating order. There is always a presentation from a senior ranking US general, following which their Canadian counter-parts heap praise upon our "closest ally".

During his first term US President Donald Trump verbally denounced NATO member states that failed to spend two per cent of their Gross Domestic Product on defence. Trump repeatedly singled out Canada as being a 'laggard' in this regard and he controversially stated that he would not bring America's military might to defend a NATO member that was not spending their fair share.

As offensive as those remarks may seem, the average attendee at the CDA annual conferences welcomed Trump's threats believing it would help to force Canadian politicians to spend more on the military. That was then.

Things have changed rapidly and dramatically since Trump won re-election last November.

For starters, Trump began his drumbeat rhetoric about annexing Canada into becoming the 51st US State, and repeatedly referred to Prime Minster Justin Trudeau as the 'governor'. Trump explained that unlike the Panama Canal, which he intends to seize through military force, he would bring about the annexation of Canada through 'economic measures'.

In early February, just days after his inauguration, President Trump levied 25 per cent tariffs on all Canadian and Mexican imports. He promptly lifted them then re-imposed them in early March, only to suspend them again until April 2. While it is off to a topsy-turvy start, the trade war has begun.

Then on Friday, Feb. 28, Trump hosted Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the White House. It was supposed to be a pre-arranged deal to exchange US access to Ukraine's rare earth minerals, for a US security guarantee to protect Ukraine. However the photo-op devolved into a public berating of Zelenskyy and his abrupt expulsion from the Oval Office.

Trump subsequently cancelled all US military aid to Ukraine, stopped the provision of military intelligence to Ukraine and called upon the UK to do the same.  

On Sunday, March 2, Trudeau joined European leaders and Zelenskyy at a hastily convened meeting in the UK to try and find a way to keep Ukraine in the fight against Russia, without the aid of the US.

It was against this backdrop of uncertain allegiance among the key NATO allies that the stage was set for some emotional fireworks at this year's CDA conference. None were forthcoming.

In a room packed with self-professed warriors, the collective agreement was seemingly to avoid mentioning the elephant in the room.

Even when US General Gregory Guillot, the Commander of NORAD and North Command took to the CDA stage, the gloves remained in place. General Guillot is the very individual who would lead any armed annexation of Canada, and he was politely spared any question which might prove mildly discomforting.

No mention was made of the logistics of such an annexation and the subsequent absorption of our military forces into the US defence apparatus. Instead the conference's threat focus remained that of Russia and China operating in the Arctic. 

Even as the CDA conference was still in session, Trump once again publicly cast doubt on his willingness to defend Washington’s NATO allies, saying that he would not do so if they are not paying enough for their own defence.
“It’s common sense, right,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. “If they don’t pay, I’m not going to defend them. No, I’m not going to defend them.” This time however, Trump also cast baseless aspersions on NATO's reliability as an alliance.

“You know the biggest problem I have with NATO? I really, I mean, I know the guys very well. They’re friends of mine. But if the United States was in trouble, and we called them, we said, ‘We got a problem, France. We got a problem, couple of others I won’t mention. Do you think they’re going to come and protect us?’ They’re supposed to. I’m not so sure.”

For the record, this is not a hypothetical question. The USA was attacked on 9-11, 2001 and NATO did collectively come to the defence of our American ally. Canada may not spend two per cent of GDP on defence but for more than a decade, we punched above our weight in the war in Afghanistan, which was a direct response to the 9-11 terror attack.

For Trump to question Canada's resolve, or any other NATO member's resolve is an insult to the sacrifices which were made supporting the US. To threaten to annex us out of existence as a country is unconscionable.

ON TARGET: DND: Lowering Entry Standards Again

Canada.ca

On February 19, Major-General Scott Malcolm, Canada's Surgeon General, held a press conference outlining changes which have been made to the Canadian Armed Forces medical screening process for new recruits.

Previously, civilian applicants who had been diagnosed with ADHD, asthma and anxiety were turned away at the recruiting centres. That will no longer be the case. 

"With all medical conditions there's a spectrum," Maj-Gen Malcolm told the media. "So those [recruits] that are on the lower end to medium spectrum are unlikely to have any challenges getting in."

The rationale used by Malcolm was that the previous medical enrolment standards had been too strict. In the past recruits were deemed to be either 'fit' or 'unfit'. There was no bell curve or grey area.

Now Malcolm and the CAF have created a category to be known as 'fit to the task'. On the surface this seems logical enough.

Not all positions within the CAF require the reflexes of a fighter pilot or the physical fortitude of a special forces operative. Some service members, by virtue of their trade, will rarely if ever spend an overnight living rough in the field during their entire career.

What is not clear is why the CAF would want to be enlisting people who are already categorized as merely being 'fit to the task' rather than simply 'fit'?

It is no secret that the CAF are woefully understrength at present with nearly 16,500 vacancies in an authorized combined regular and reserve force strength of 105,000.  

Canada's Defence Minister Bill Blair has referred to the current personnel crisis as that of a 'death spiral' for the CAF.

While often described as a 'recruiting and retention' failure, that term is somewhat mis-leading. It is true that more CAF personnel are taking their release each year than can be fed into the training system. However, according to DND's own statistics, this is not due to the fact that Canadians are not applying to join.

In fiscal year 2022-2023, some 43,934 civilians applied to join the CAF. Of that number only 3,930 were enrolled and entered Basic Training.

The next year DND pulled out all the stops by removing previous restrictions on hairstyles, facial hair, tattoos and piercings. They also opened up recruiting to those with Permanent Resident status instead of full citizenship. As a result, in fiscal year 2023-2024, exactly 70,080 applications were received.

Despite this volume, the CAF could only process 4,301 recruits into the training system. Of the over 20,000 Permanent Residents who applied only some four dozen were admitted to the CAF as a result of complex security checks being required.

Back in 2019-2020 only 36,662 Canadians applied and the CAF managed to get 5,167 of them into uniforms. Thus it would seem that the problem is not stemming from a lack of recruits but rather a backlog within the training system. As more and more trained personnel opt to retire or release without the requisite number of replacements in the pipeline, that backlog will be further exacerbated.

Hence the term 'death spiral'.

Which brings us back to the policy decisions being made to cast a wider net when seeking recruits. One has to believe that prior to this, those would-be recruits with ADHD, asthma or anxiety would have realized that they need not apply.

It is also true that the element of society that express their individualism through expressive hairstyles, piercings and face tattoos are not generally drawn to the previously strict conformism of a military lifestyle.

There is an argument to be made that some of the relaxing of dress and deportment standards was aimed at retaining personnel and improving morale. However I fear that this particular policy backfired spectacularly.

I do fully support the idea of recruiting Permanent Residents, but surely someone in the CAF brain trust foresaw the absence of necessary personnel to conduct background checks on these applicants.

Which brings us back to the question of why the CAF is trying to fix a problem that does not exist (attracting more recruits) and not addressing the problem that clearly exists (the lack of trainers in the system).

They should begin by offering lucrative short term contracts to re-sign recently retired qualified veterans to staff basic and trade training depots, and similar contracts to retired RCMP and CSIS personnel to fast track security checks.

ON TARGET: Trump Derangement Syndrome 2.0

Photo credit: merryjane.com

By Scott Taylor

Last week, as peace talks began in Riyadh Saudi Arabia to end the conflict in Ukraine, it became readily apparent that newly re-instated President Donald Trump has drastically altered the course of US Foreign Policy.

The ongoing peace talks include US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov. Missing from the equation is any representation from the European Union and more shockingly, there is no representative present from Ukraine.

When Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy protested his country's exclusion from the peace talks, things began to get a little personal. "Unfortunately, President Trump -I have great respect for him as a leader of a nation that we have great respect for, the American people who always supported us-unfortunately lives in this disinformation space," Zelenskyy told reporters.

Despite Zelenskyy's genuflecting in his pre-amble, Trump took serious offence to the suggestion that he is incorrect in his assessment of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. Trump ramped up the war of words with Zelenskyy, calling the Ukraine President a "modestly successful comedian" who is currently "unelected", "a dictator", and a leader who has only four per cent popular support among Ukrainians. More disturbingly, Trump has also repeatedly blamed Ukraine for starting a war that could have been avoided. All of Trump's claims about Zelenskyy are of course false. He was a hugely popular comedian in Ukraine who was swept to power in a landslide election victory due to the fact that he was not a politician.

The claim that Zelenskyy is 'unelected' is based open the fact that elections have been suspended during the conflict with Russia. In terms of popular support, Ukrainian statistics put Zelenskyy's favourability rating at 57 per cent which is about 9 per cent higher than what Trump currently garners in US polls.

As for starting the war with Russia, I think the world understands who invaded who.

Just three short years ago, it would have been unthinkable for any world leader (outside of Vladimir Putin), to demonize Zelenskyy in this manner. Following the Feb. 24, 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Zelensky became a household name synonymous with courageous defiance. When the US anticipated Ukraine's defeat in the early days and offered the embattled President safe passage, Zelenskyy famously quipped "I don't need a lift, I need ammunition."

In his trademark green t-shirt Zelenskky became omnipresent around the globe on nightly newscasts as the face of warrior president.

Now, virtually overnight, the Trump administration has labelled him the scapegoat and excluded Ukraine from the negotiations to determine their own future.

Pete Hegseth, the US Secretary of Defense, at his first NATO Summit simply stated that Ukraine cannot hope to reclaim the territory which held prior to the 2014 armed secession of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of eastern Ukraine. Before the US has even begun to horse trade with the Russian delegation, Hegseth signaled that Ukraine will have no option but to concede territory.

Sadly, Ukraine was in a far better position back in March 2022. In those early days of the invasion, the Armed Forces of Ukraine has shocked the world with a battlefield victory over the Russian invaders. Huge Russian armoured columns had been destroyed during their attempted advance to Kyiv. The Russian military had been exposed as a Paper Tiger and the NATO supplied weaponry had made the AFU a far superior force. At that juncture there was peace talks in Turkey with both Ukraine and Russia at the table.

It was President Zelenskyy who advised the people of Ukraine that any ceasefire would require a negotiated settlement, and that would involve making territorial concessions. A 16-point deal was brokered, but the whole plan for an early peace deal fell through when UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson flew to Kyiv to convince Zelensky that a total victory was possible and this outcome would be supported by NATO nations.

Zelenskky took the bait, and the rest is history.

Now, the US under Trump has reversed course and Ukraine does not even warrant a seat at the negotiating table.

Worse yet, Trump has his eyes set on Ukraine's rare earth metal deposits as a means by which the US can recuperate the billions of dollars in military aid which the US has supplied to Ukraine to keep them in the fight.

I do not think that Canada and the other NATO countries who have generously donated money and materiel to the Ukraine war effort did so in order to exploit their resources post conflict. 

The lesson that Canadians need to take from Trump's complete reversal on Ukraine is that we could easily be next. Compared to Ukraine, we have far more rare earth metals which Trump could simply claim as the cost of the US protecting us while we fail to spend two per cent of our Gross Domestic Product on National Defence.

ON TARGET: Pierre Poilievre's Arctic Follies

By Scott Taylor

I am not sure exactly who is providing Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre with his military advice, but whoever it is, needs a better understanding of the current state of the Canadian Armed Forces.

For instance, last month when US President Donald Trump threatened to a 25 per cent tariff on all imports from Canada and Mexico, he claimed it was about border security.

In exchange for a 30-day reprieve on the tariffs, Mexico promised to deploy 10,000 troops to their shared border with the US. When Trump granted Mexico that reprieve, Poilievre suggested that Canada should do the same. Anyone familiar with the map of North America will realize that the length of the US-Mexico border (3,145 Km) is far shorter than the Canada - US border (8,891 Km).

More importantly, the understrength CAF could not deploy 10,000 troops anywhere on a sustained deployment. The Canadian Army is hard pressed to maintain the 900 strong, forward deployed battle group in Latvia, let alone send 10,000 soldiers to the US border.

Last week, Poilievre went one step further when he promised that if elected, he would vastly enhance Canada's military presence in the high Arctic. “The Canadian Arctic is under threat,” Poilievre said in a video statement. “Hostile powers want our resources, our shipping routes and to be within striking distance of our continent. Our safety, territory and trade with the United States requires we take back control of Canada’s North.”

To achieve this aim, the Conservative plan is to double the size of the Canadian Arctic Rangers to 4,000 personnel, to build two armed heavy icebreakers for the Royal Canadian Navy and to build a permanent military base at Iqaluit.

For those not familiar with the term Arctic Rangers, this is a mostly indigenous, very lightly armed para-military force. Their survival skills are legendary, but their combat capability is virtually zero. They do not have automatic weapons, body armour or helmets. Their rudimentary uniform item of clothing is a red hoodie.

Putting another 2,000 of them on the DND payroll will indeed boost Canada's defence spending, but it will hardly serve as a deterrent to those "hostile powers' that Poilievre wishes to thwart.

The idea of two armed heavy icebreakers was first promised by the Harper Conservatives during the 2006 election campaign. However after Harper won that election, the RCN brain trust convinced the Conservatives that such a plan would be too costly and impractical to implement.

The compromise solution was the construction of a fleet of lightly armed, light ice breakers known as the Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships (AOPS). There are currently six AOPS completed and delivered to the RCN with two more still under construction for the Canadian Coast Guard.

Thus I'm not sure why this time around, the RCN will be able to afford and employ two armed heavy icebreakers in the Arctic. But I digress.

Poilievre's greatest folly is the notion of constructing a permanent military base in the high Arctic. At present Iqaluit has both an airport capable of handling the RCAF’s transport planes and a seaport able to seasonally, handle the RCN's ships. In other words, Canada has the ability to rapidly deploy military personnel, with actual combat capability to Iqaluit. What possibly could be gained through having troops stationed there permanently?

There is also a current retention problem for the CAF and I daresay this would only be further exacerbated if personnel faced the prospect of being based in Iqaluit for a year or more long posting. I cannot imagine spouses and children being keen on accompanying the service member posted to this new permanent base. 

I do believe that Canada has failed miserably when it comes to developing our Arctic. However the focus should be on the construction of infrastructure that makes the Arctic more readily accessible. Not simply for deploying troops as a deterrent to hostile powers, but in order to extract rare minerals vital to defence equipment.

The Yukon for instance has vast deposits of tungsten, a rare metal whose density makes it ideal for both armour protection and armoured piercing projectiles. We could start enhancing production at the town which is literally named 'Tungsten' in the Yukon.

Rather than simply pouring money into an unsustainable permanent military base in Iqaluit, let's invest in the infrastructure to mine the tungsten and list it as 'defence spending.' We will get; a return on our investment, supply our NATO allies with copious amounts of this rare metal and cut China, the current largest global supplier of Tungsten, out of the loop. 

ON TARGET: Truth Trumps Trump: Stick to the Facts

By Scott Taylor

In his first few weeks back in the Oval Office, US President Donald Trump has launched a torrent of executive orders in such rapid succession as to be almost impossible for opposition parties and the media to focus on a single topic.

Political strategists note this is a deliberate tactic known as 'flooding the zone'. Therefore I will not get distracted by the chaff in the form of Trump's wild plans to annex Greenland, reclaim the Panama Canal and, perhaps most bonkers of all, Trump's call for the US to own the Gaza Strip and turn it into the 'Riviera of the Middle East'.

Instead I will focus only on those issues which directly affect Canada and Canadians. From the time he won the election and prior to his actual inauguration, Trump repeatedly threatened to impose a 25% tariff on all Canadian and Mexican imports.

At first Trump emphasized the financial necessity for the tariffs, claiming that the trade deficit between the US and Canada amounted to a 'subsidy' to the Canadian economy. In making his argument Trump used his trademark exaggeration to claim that the current US-Mexico-Canada (USMCA) free trade agreement was perhaps 'the worst trade deal in history'.

For the record, that USMCA was negotiated in 2018 by the first Trump administration to replace the NAFTA agreement. When he signed USMCA, Trump boastfully proclaimed it was perhaps 'the best trade agreement in history.' But I digress.

As the tariff deadline loomed, Trump changed his tack and began demonizing Canada for not managing our shared border efficiently. Trump actually claimed that Canadian negligence at policing the border had resulted in the deaths of more than 300,000 American citizens through fentanyl overdoses. Sadly, Trump's statistic of 300,000 fentanyl related deaths since the opioid crisis began in 2010 is accurate. However to blame Canada for the entire tragedy defies all logic. 

Over the past twelve months, a total of 18 kilos of fentanyl was seized by authorities at the US-Canada border. Comparatively, over 9,000 kilos of fentanyl was seized at the US-Mexico border.

In their latest report, the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) lists the three major illegal fentanyl importers into the United States as China, Mexico and India in that descending order. Canada was not even on that list.

However, Trump is the President of the United States of America and he has the powers to punish Canada. As such Canadian leaders began finding creative solutions to solve a problem that does not exist.

With much fanfare and media hoopla, it was announced that the RCMP had acquired two Blackhawk Helicopters which will be used to better secure our border. These military grade utility helicopters were freshly painted with the RCMP logo and reporters filmed RCMP tactical teams loaded into the back.

While this might make for good theatre, these Blackhawks are being leased from, and operated by an Ottawa based company. While these helicopters have the impressive standard range of 590 kilometres, it must be remembered that the Canada-US border is 8890 kilometres long. I also question the role of a tactical team in intercepting would-be migrants attempting to cross our border.

Mexico earned a 30-day tariff reprieve from Trump when they offered to send 10,000 soldiers to patrol their border. Given Canada's woefully understaffed Canadian Armed Forces, such a deployment was not an option. Instead Canada agreed to deploy more drones, police officers and add another $1.3 billion to the border budget.

This was enough of an effort to earn us the same 30-day tariff grace period which Trump afforded to Mexico.

To fully appease Trump we further agreed to appoint a 'Fentanyl Czar' before that 30-day window expires. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith had earlier proposed that Canada name a border Czar in the form of a recently retired general.

For those puzzled by sudden proliferation of made-up sounding Czar titles, you are not alone. The term 'Border Czar' was coined by the Trump election team to demonize Vice President Kamala Harris.

Czars were of course Russian monarchs with absolute powers. The insinuation that Harris had such sweeping powers as a 'Czar' meant she could be blamed for any shortcoming related to the border.

Then Trump got elected and I guess it sounded like a good idea. One of his first acts was to create his own Border Czar and he named Tom Homan to the post. Now it would seem Canada will create our own Czar (or two), all to fix a problem that does not exist.

ON TARGET: CAF: Not a Lean, Mean Fighting Machine?

By Scott Taylor

As a combat formation the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) are woefully understrength.

Due to a lengthy period of recruitment failing to keep pace with the number of personnel releasing from the CAF, there are currently 16,500 vacancies from a combined regular and reserves authorized strength of 105,000 personnel. This phenomenon has been called a 'Death Spiral' for the CAF by none other than Defence Minister Bill Blair.

Now comes word that of those personnel remaining in uniform, those uniforms are getting a little tight. A recent Ottawa Citizen headline read 'Almost three-quarters of Canadian Troops are overweight or obese: documents'. That is a staggering statistic and one which defies logic. One would think that the very nature of the occupation would require a high level of physical fitness.

Yet according to a series of briefings presented to senior military leaders in June 2024, forty-four percent of personnel in the CAF are overweight and another 28 percent are classified as obese.

For those of you thinking that this simply reflects Canadian society, think again. The CAF statistics are actually worse than that of the general population. Roughly 78 percent of military men are considered overweight or obese while only 68 percent of Canadian civilian males are in that category.

Canadian military women did better than their male comrades with 57 percent considered to be overweight or obese. However the national average among Canadian civilian women is only 53 percent in the overweight or obese category.

This was not always the case. Back in 1989, a CAF survey recorded that 22 per cent of military members were considered overweight or obese at a time when over 30 percent of the Canadian public was in that category. However back in that era 22 percent of service personnel being 'overweight and obese' was considered unacceptable. Should any service-member fail to pass an annual fitness test, it would result in a strictly enforced six month stint on remedial physical training (PT). Any subsequent failure to meet the standards could result in administrative action being taken to have the individual released from the CAF.

That is no longer the case. In her response to Ottawa Citizen reporter David Pugliese, DND spokesperson Andrée-Anne Poulin said that the Canadian Forces does not track data “on the number of members who have been subject to administrative action or release in relation to physical fitness issues that may cause medical employment limitations.”

And there in lies the rub. With the current existential threat of the 'death spiral' shortage of personnel, the CAF cannot exacerbate that shortage by releasing, or threatening to release members who have lapsed into obesity. 

For those who want to heap all blame for the CAF's current shortcomings on the 'toxic leadership' and lack of political will, I'm afraid that the state of physical fitness among service members is the responsibility of those service members. Peer support and encouragement would also work better than the threat of career termination.

One could argue that the recent experiment in relaxing the CAF's regulations on hairstyles, facial hair, hair colour, tattoos and piercings may have eroded the Esprit de Corps of the institution. However when it comes to a members' personal fitness, there is no excuse for relaxing standards.

To have a worse fitness record than the general population should be an embarrassment to the CAF.

Unlike the failure of the government to purchase new equipment and weapons, this latest CAF media crap-storm is on the members themselves.

ON TARGET: Countering Trump's Lies, Threats and Exaggerations

By Scott Taylor

There is no denying that we are living in frightening times. From day one of his second term in office, US President Donald J. Trump has been doing his utmost to monger those fears with all kinds of outlandish threats.

Given that Trump holds the reins of the world's greatest super-power, even his most glib and offhand threats therefore need to be addressed with diplomacy and tact. They also need to be addressed with some hard truths.

Namely, the majority of the 'facts' upon which Trump is relying to justify his threats are either exaggerated, misleading or straight up lies.

Last Thursday Trump reiterated his threat to slap a 25 per cent tariff on all Canadian imports, as early as Feb. 1. The justification Trump uses for these steep tariffs is his wild claim that Canada currently enjoys a $200 to $250 billion (USD) trade surplus with the US.

In response to Trump's claim, TD Bank economists released their own study which illustrates that the current US trade deficit is actually only $45 billion(USD). That is still a sizeable difference. But what the TD economists highlight is the fact that all of that deficit is due to the US purchasing of Canadian energy in the form of oil and gas.

If one removes energy purchases from the equation that deficit is reversed. In terms of non-energy trade the US enjoys a nearly $60 billion (USD) trade surplus with Canada.

Following his inauguration, Trump also claimed that Canada "treats the US poorly" through the mismanagement of our shared border. To elaborate on his point Trump directly blamed Canada for the death of 300,000 American citizens. According to Trump those deaths were the result of fentanyl overdoses, due to the drug's illegal importation across the Canadian border.

This would be startling news to most Canadians, and Americans if only it were true. It is not.

To put Trump's exaggerated claim into perspective we can turn to a recent US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) report. According to the DEA regarding the illegal importation of fentanyl, China, Mexico and India (in that descending order) are the primary sources of the fentanyl flow into the US. Canada was not even mentioned in that DEA chart.

Sadly, Trump's statistic of 300,000 fentanyl related deaths since the opioid crisis began in 2010 is accurate. However to blame Canada for the entire tragedy defies all logic. 

Even before he was inaugurated, Trump began threatening to turn Canada into the 51st State and he went so far as to endorse hockey legend Wayne Gretzky to be Canada's next 'Governor'. To achieve this aim Trump told reporters that military force would not be necessary and that instead he will use economic pressure to force Canada into submission.

That must have come as a relief to Canada's Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Jennie Carignan as she would have been hard pressed to come up with a list of options for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in the event that Trump suggested a military invasion. But I digress.

One nation that is facing the reality of a US invasion is Panama. Trump has announced his intention to reclaim the Panama Canal for the US and in direct response to a reporter's question, he did not rule out the use of military force to achieve that goal.

Trump's justification for violating the rules-based-international-order is that the Chinese government is now operating the Panama Canal. The truth is that way back in 1996 Panama contracted a Hong Kong based company - Hutchison-Whampoa - to operate two ports along the canal on behalf of the Panamanian government. 

In 1999 the US State Department responded to Panama's awarding of the contract to Hutchison-Whampoa. The US officials concluded after extensive research that they had “not uncovered any evidence to support a conclusion that the People’s Republic of China (PRC) will be in a position to control canal operations”.

Last Wednesday, in response to Trump's allegation, Mao Ning, the PRC's Foreign Ministry spokesperson, clarified: “China does not participate in the management and operation of the canal and has never interfered in the affairs of the canal.”

For the record, any future Trump invasion of Panama already has a foothold. The US still have over 4,000 military personnel stationed in Panama at a US Navy repair facility on the Pacific coast.

Trump also dramatically claimed that the US should never have given up the Panama canal because "38,000 Americans" died building it. That number is a very bold exaggeration to say the least. The entire death toll during the US construction phase was 5,609 but of these 4290 killed were mostly poorly-paid labourers from the Caribbean islands.  

Trump also says the US needs to obtain Greenland as it is strategically important for the defence of the USA. Trump questioned whether Denmark, a NATO ally, actually has any legal claim to the territory, and he also did not rule out using military force to achieve his goal.

Yet the US already have a military base in Greenland as part of a defence agreement forced upon the Danish dating back to the Second World War. After Germany occupied Denmark in 1940 the Americans pressured Henrik Kauffmann, the Danish Ambassador in Washington DC, to allow the US to station troops in Greenland "in the name of the King". The war-time Danish government in Copenhagen went apoplectic at this news and they tried Kauffmann in absentia, for 'treason'.  After the Second World War Denmark did ratify the Kauffmann agreement.

The Canadian Armed Forces subsequently cooperated with the US Air Force in establishing a High Arctic weather station and airfield in Greenland in 1951. That US base is now called Space Base Pituffik (formerly USAAF Base Thule).

Royal Canadian Air Force cargo planes have routinely used this airbase when re-supplying CFS Alert during the annual Operation BOXTOP.

Perhaps the most effective way to alleviate those fears which Trump is trying to stoke would be to simply provide facts and context to his wild claims.

The US does not need to invade either Panama or Greenland. Their troops are already there.

As for Canada being a bad neighbour that 'treats America poorly', we all know that simply isn't true.

ON TARGET: Why Doesn't the RCAF Fight Forest Fires?

By Scott Taylor

For the past couple of weeks, the world has watched while Los Angeles has burned. 
Almost inconceivably, wildfires have eviscerated one of the largest urban areas in the United States. Despite some far right American commentators trying to put the blame on the 'DEI' hiring policies of the L.A. Fire Department, the fact is that the real culprit behind this mammoth blaze is the combined drought and high winds whipped up by Mother Nature. 
Those firefighters battling the flames under these conditions are to be commended. 
In fact one of the sources of pride felt by Canadians is that we have been able to lend our southern neighbours a helping hand in the form of water-bombers to battle the blaze. Even with incoming President Donald Trump threatening to use economic force to make Canada the 51st State of America, the L.A. inferno has demonstrated the good neighbourly vibes that exist between our two countries. 
However, it needs to be pointed out that while Canada and Canadians are proud that our nation is helping the US fight this fire, the truth is that those firefighting assets and personnel are being provided by provincial governments like BC and Quebec. The reason for this is that Canada has no federal agency tasked or equipped to fight forest fires. 
Inexplicably, in a country that possesses 362 million hectares of forest - the third largest in the world -our Air Force is not equipped for nor tasked with fighting fires.
Ironically, one of the shining stars to emerge from this battle against the L.A. flames is the iconic CL-415 aircraft which is Canadian designed and built. Originally built by Canadair, the CL-415 was nicknamed the ‘Super Scooper’ when it first flew in 1993.
A twin-engine propeller plane, the CL-415 was custom designed to allow it to refill with water from lakes near the targeted forest fire, by skimming the surface. This allows the CL-415 far more time on station near the blaze rather than having to return to an actual airfield. 
Following Canadair, Bombardier subsequently built the ‘415’ and then, in turn, it was De Haviland Canada that produced these water bombers.
In October 2016 the CL-415 programme was acquired by the Victoria, BC based Viking Air. Their aim was to modernize the existing design into what has been renamed the DHC-515 Firefighter, which is currently being produced at a plant in Calgary.
A quick glimpse at the Viking Air order book reveals that international users of this ‘DHC-515 Firefighter’ are almost all foreign air forces; Croatia, Greece, Indonesia, Morocco, Portugal and Spain just to name a few.
Which begs the question, why is the RCAF not responsible for fighting forest fires?
Now those familiar with the RCAF's current crippling shortfall in trained pilots and aircrew will groan loudly at the suggestion of adding to the already unsustainable operational workload. The Colonel Blimp traditionalists will wince at the suggestion of the RCAF being employed in a non-combat role. 
However, I think you could easily find civilian pilots to volunteer for an RCAF Air Reserve Squadron whose primary function would be fighting forest fires to save our natural resources and infrastructure. This Fire-fighting Squadron could be  truly 'reserve' in nature with those willing to volunteer in time of need based across the entire country. 
This would be similar to the Disaster Assistance Relief Team (DART) which is not a formed unit but rather a list of serving CAF members at bases all across Canada who are assembled at CFB Trenton prior to deployment. The trade specialties and number of DART personnel are unique to each deployment and based on the specific nature of the disaster assistance they are to provide.
I'm sure recently many released RCAF aircrew would answer the call as the missions are challenging and rewarding in that the results are tangible in that you actually save lives and property.
Dropping loads of water on forest fires may not be as exciting as the prospect of engaging 'Fantasian' mock enemy fighter jets in a dog fight, but it would still be a hell of a lot more exciting than flying a cargo plane for a courier service.
It would also be great public relations for the Canadian military to have water-bombers bedecked in RCAF markings battling fires to save forests and urban communities. 
Just look at the reflected glory Canada is currently receiving from the residents of L.A. despite the fact that the big yellow water bombers helping them have the Quebec logo on their fuselages. They really should be a truly federal asset.

ON TARGET: RETENTION BONUSES: How to Slow-the-Flow out of the CAF

By Scott Taylor

Canada's military, or lack thereof has been in the international spotlight recently due to some flippant comments by US President-Elect Donald Trump. Along with threatening the use of military force against the sovereign states of Panama and Denmark, Trump continues to float the notion of him somehow annexing Canada into becoming America's 51st State through 'economic pressure'.

While it is somewhat insulting to patriotic Canadians that we would happily embrace the loss of our national status to become Americans, it is doubly insulting that Trump would not even threaten Canada with military force.

The truth is, that in its current state of readiness, the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) could offer nothing more than symbolic defiance in the face of a US military occupation.

Those who closely follow the fortunes of the CAF know that successive government neglect by both the Harper Conservatives and the Trudeau Liberals since the end of our commitment in Afghanistan in 2014 have crippled a once proud institution. Due to a combination of stalled recruiting not keeping pace with those service members seeking to release from the CAF there is an existential personnel shortfall. 

The current authorized strength of the Canadian Forces regular ranks is 71,500, but as of November 15, 2024, the total strength of the CAF regular force was actually at only 63,940. According to Defence department statistics, there is no shortage of Canadians willing to enlist in the CAF. The recruiting backlog stems from the fact that due to the personnel shortfall, training establishments can only process a trickle of recruits per year.

With all three branches of the CAF already failing to meet their operational objectives this conundrum will only be exacerbated in the months to come.

Sure, the CAF can streamline the background security checks on would be recruits to get them into the training pipeline on an expedited basis. However, once in uniform, these raw recruits need experienced service members to train them.

To this end the defence department needs to stop the exodus from the ranks. The promise of better housing, fewer postings, improved health care and higher compensation may entice a few veterans to stay on.

However, given the fact that 'toxic leadership' has been cited as one of the primary causes of service-member discontent, there will be a level of doubt as to the veracity of those promised improvements. The answer to stopping short-term retirements is retention bonuses.

The good news is that the senior leadership of the CAF already know this fact. The bad news is that they have thus far failed to implement it. Back in October 2024, Lt-Gen Lise Bourgon, the Chief of Military Personnel, was given a briefing regarding the reconstitution of the CAF. 

Under the heading, “additional resources sought,” is the recommendation to bring in “Retention Bonus (specific occupations).” At present the CAF does not have retention bonuses but in recent years they have offered signing bonuses to recruits with specific professional skill sets.

Both the UK and US militaries, both of whom also face crippling personnel shortages, have implemented retention bonuses for key trades people. The British offer between $54,000 for aircraft engineers to re-enlist for a minimum of three years, to a $14,000 bonus for an infantry private wishing to re-enlist for that same timeframe. The US Airforce is even more generous as they are offering bonuses to 89 key trade qualifications with dollar amounts ranging from $260,000 to $520,000.

For those who might think such bonuses seem exorbitant, it should be remembered that there are large costs associated with the training of military personnel. The estimated cost to train a CF-18 Hornet fighter pilot to just a basic level is about $7.5 million. Offering an experienced pilot $250,000 to re-enlist for 5 years would save the CAF a lot of money in the short term.

If you take the cost of properly training a combat infantry soldier, the average investment is over $100,000. Therefore, a $25,000 re-signing bonus for an additional three years of service in the infantry would keep the expertise and experience in uniform and save the CAF the expense of training a replacement.

Another key point to remember is that those trained personnel in these combat trades have already proven themselves capable of the task. Many would-be recruits will wash out during training thereby costing the taxpayer money without actually providing a tangible asset to the CAF.

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush as the old saying goes. Sometimes a fat retention bonus is the wiser investment.

ON TARGET: NOVEL CONCEPT: A Canadian Foreign Legion

By Scott Taylor

We have entered the year 2025 and that means for the Canadian Army the clock has begun ticking in earnest. Back in July 2023, the Trudeau Liberal government made a promise to the NATO alliance that in 2025 Canada would bolster our forward-based military commitment in Latvia.

Since June 2017 Canada has commanded the multi-national NATO Brigade group in Latvia along with a Canadian contingent of approximately 800 personnel. The promise Trudeau made is that commitment will grow to a full brigade sized contingent of approximately 2300 troops, later this year. Anyone familiar with the Canadian military's current crippling shortfall of trained personnel will realize this will be one hell of a steep challenge to sustain.

The current tour length for troops based in Latvia is six months to one year. These postings are considered operational, so no spouses or dependants accompany Canadian Forces personnel.

That length of separation is a challenge for most couples and families and given the size of the army and the scale of the commitment, this beefed up mission will negatively impact the Army's morale over time. As the Canadian Army consists of just three regular force Combat Arms brigades, our soldiers will soon be in a constant cycle of preparing for Latvia, deploying to Latvia and returning from Latvia. 

There is an answer to this problem which might be considered extreme, but extreme circumstances call for creative solutions.

What I propose is the rapid establishment of a Canadian Foreign Legion.

Based on the successful formula for the French and Spanish Foreign Legions, recruits would sign contracts for a five-year tour of duty. At the successful completion of that contract they would be granted full citizenship.

This Legion could be patterned after the Spanish Legion, in that recruits would need to be 18 years of age and not be older than 29 on the day they enlist. All recruits would be single and enrolled on a priority basis, based upon physical fitness, mental aptitude, with previous military service being a bonus. This would also be true for trade skills such as medical practitioners, mechanics and engineers.

Should a member of this Canadian Legion become injured or wounded prior to the five- year commitment they would follow in the French example and automatically be granted full citizenship. The French call it “Francais par le sang verse’ or ‘French through spilled blood.” 

These Canadian Legion recruits would be trained by Canadian officers and NCO’s at bases across Canada, but they would know in advance that the majority of their five years of service would be spent on overseas missions such as the brigade in Latvia or future UN peacekeeping operations. Domestic Canadian deployments could be tailored to provide assistance to civilians in the wake of natural disasters. To this end the Canadian Foreign Legion could be heavy on the combat engineer component.

The question of retention for these Legionnaires is a simple matter of withholding the bulk of their pay package. For instance, if the base pay rate was $60,000 then $40,000 would be held in trust until the contract is complete. 

At the end of the five-year contract the legionnaire would be released as a full citizen with a starting nest egg of $200,000.

Both the French and Spanish foreign Legions have evolved into highly respected military formations which have earned their respective countries glory on global battlefields. 

The original rationale for France and Spain to create such Legions was to avoid conscripting their own citizens to police the remnants of their far flung empires. 

In Canada’s case, it would be a means of bringing in a high level of immigrant to solve a manpower shortage within our military that has reached a critical tipping point. With the Canadian Foreign Legion deployed, the regular Canadian Combat Arms units could begin the healing process off bringing themselves back to full operational readiness here in Canada.

It would be a win-win for Canada. 

ON TARGET: Canadian Troops Deserve Proper Digs

By Scott Taylor

Over the past few months there has been a trend on social media for serving members of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) to upload their personal photographs which reveal some pretty horrific living conditions in the barracks on CAF bases across Canada.

A compilation of these photos was subsequently published by Esprit de Corps magazine in an effort to publicize the often substandard living conditions in these government owned and managed facilities.
It is not a case of the senior leadership simply being unaware of this situation. In fact, the CAF chaplain service submitted an Oct. 29, 2024 briefing to Chief of the Defence Staff General Jennie Carignan. The briefing outlines a summary of assessments by military chaplains about the current welfare of the Canadian Armed Forces. 

It contains this paragraph: “The poor conditions of many Singles Quarters (SQs) at Bases and Wings have led to significant discomfort and dissatisfaction among personnel. This situation negatively impacts morale, as inadequate living conditions can diminish overall well-being and motivation.” 
Given the fact that the CAF currently face an existential threat due to a recruiting and retention crisis which has resulted in a crippling personnel shortfall, one would think that such issues impacting morale would be priority number one for the military brass. Think again.

This has been an ongoing problem for years and it is not limited to the shoddy state of the Singles Quarters. 

An internal military report from June 2023 acknowledged that CAF personnel were increasingly leaving the ranks rather than moving to a new military base where they couldn’t afford housing. Brig-Gen Virginia Tattersall commented in a briefing note that in some locations the “average cost to purchase or rent housing now exceeds incomes of several CAF working rank levels.”

Just before Christmas 2023, the Chronicle Herald ran a series of stories about CAF members in Halifax either living in tents or couch-surfing due to the lack of available, affordable housing in that city.

The matter was addressed to members of Nova Scotia’s legislative assembly by Erica Fleck, director of emergency management for the municipality of Halifax. Fleck, herself a veteran of the CAF, told MLAs that she has identified an increase in the number of active-duty members who are unhoused or who have only precarious housing.

“We have active serving regular force members who are still couch surfing, that were posted here in the summer, (because) they cannot find a place to live. They’re regularly now going to food banks, said Fleck.

Her comments were echoed by Craig Hood, executive director of the Royal Canadian Legion Nova Scotia/Nunavut Command. He told the MLAs he has heard “startling stories of serving CAF members posted to the Nova Scotia who are living rough in tents, living in their vehicles, couch surfing and even entering into relationships to secure housing that have put them at risk of domestic violence. Hood went so far as to call the military housing crisis in Halifax an “epidemic.”
There is a limited amount of subsidized housing available through the Canadian Forces Housing Agency (CFHA). The rents for these National Defence housing units are generally below the local market value.

However, there is a perpetual shortage of these units and it is usually those who can least afford to pay the higher civilian rents that find themselves on a lengthy wait list for a military housing unit.

While the Liberal government's most recent Defence Policy Update sets aside some money for new housing down the road, there is no builds scheduled in the next 2 years. 

That means that this is actually a leadership crisis rather than a housing crisis for the CAF.

Those serving in uniform in a G-7 country's military should expect no less than affordable, clean, liveable accommodations. This is a no-brainer. While out-going CDS General Wayne Eyre had ample time to address these shortcomings, yet failed to do so, newly minted CDS General Carignan can cut her teeth on this issue.

Shore up the housing situation and you will boost morale. Boost morale and you will attract more recruits. More importantly, no politician or Canadian citizen would raise an objection to constructing better living quarters for our military personnel.

ON TARGET: CANADIAN ARMED FORCES: Missing the Boat on Drones

By Scott Taylor

For anyone who has closely followed the conflict in Ukraine following Russia's invasion in February 2022, you will be aware of the fact that the face of modern warfare has drastically evolved.  

The Russian armoured columns that were meant to overwhelm the Ukrainian defenders were turned into smouldering heaps of junk metal through NATO's provision to Ukraine of sophisticated anti-armour missile systems  like the Javelin.

However it was after the war bogged down into a bloody stalemate that a new Queen of the battlefield emerged. This would be the preponderance of First Person View (FPV) drones which are being employed by both sides. The FPV drone is usually operated by a pilot using a headset which allows the user to gain the drone's perspective in real time. This allows combatants to either pinpoint targets for their artillery or in many cases to engage the enemy directly with a warhead attached to the drone itself. These are known as 'suicide' drones but as these platforms are uninhabited it is more of machine sacrificed by the operator who lives to fight another day.

At a cost of around $500, sacrificing an FPV drone to destroy a multi-million dollar armoured vehicle makes for good battlefield economic sense. These FPV drones have also been successfully employed in the Mideast by both the Israeli Defence Forces and Hamas and Hezbollah fighters.

Which is why I was astonished to read in a recent Ottawa Citizen article that the Canadian Armed Forces currently have no plans in place to purchase these low-cost, extremely efficient aerial vehicles.

When asked why the CAF would not be pursuing FPV technology at this time, the official response to the Citizen stated: "At this time, the Department of National Defence/Canadian Armed Forces does not have any current or planned procurements for First Person View drones for operational use. However, in Our North Strong and Free (policy) we committed to exploring options for acquiring a suite of surveillance and strike drones as well as counter-drone capabilities, sometime in the future."

Well that's that then. For more than two and a half years, FPV drones and their counter measures have dominated modern battlefield across the globe, but the Canadian military procurement team hopes to look into it "sometime in the future."

As for more conventional uninhabited aerial vehicles, it would seem the CAF remains woefully inept when it comes to purchasing deals. According to documents obtained by the Ottawa Citizen, last March the CAF took delivery of some 50 US built Teal 2 drones. These UAV's weigh just 1.25 kilograms, have a range of 5 kilometres and have a flight duration of 30 minutes. The Teal 2 drones can be used for limited surveillance and target acquisition.

So what separates these from the FPV drones being used in Ukraine and Gaza?

Well to begin with, they cost a boatload more. Canada says it paid $4 million for the 50 Teal 2 drones which would put the individual price tag at about $80,000 (CND) per drone. Keen eyed readers will note that commercial Teal 2 drones, complete with chargers and spare parts, retail for $16,000 (US) or roughly $22,000 (CDN).

When you factor in the potential for a volume discount on 50 units, or a Black Friday blowout discount, Canada paid nearly four times the list price for these drones.

When you focus on the larger drone fleet that Canada is in the process of acquiring, well the margin for error is naturally larger. In December 2023 Canada announced that the CAF would be acquiring 11 of General Atomics MQ-9B Reaper strike drones at a cost $2.5 billion. The original delivery timeline was 2025 but that has now been bumped to 2028 as modifications will need to be made to allow the Canadian MQ-9B's to operate in the Arctic. Surely the procurement officials thought of that before they signed a contract for $2.5 billion?

ON TARGET: Canada's Arctic Defence is Solid?

By Scott Taylor

A startling headline and sub-head in a recent National Post story read as follows: "Canada's top sailor says he's sure we could stop Russia or China from trespassing in Arctic: The country’s new Arctic and offshore patrol ships only carry a 25-mm cannon, but Canada's top sailor says that could quickly be supplemented with other weapons." 
My initial reaction was to presume that this was some sort of 'click-bait' gimmick to lure in astounded readers.

However Vice Admiral Angus Topshee, the Commander of the Royal Canadian Navy, did indeed tell the National Post that he is confident the RCN could stop Russia or China from transiting through the Northwest passage without official permission. Topshee is so confident in fact, that he believes Canada could do it solo. “We wouldn’t need the allies to come to our aid. We could deal with it ourselves,” said Topshee. “We have the capacity to deploy our ships up there right now to stop them.”

There is a lot to digest from Topshee's claim and at first glance it would seem ludicrous to think we could deter the Russian or Chinese navies with a 7,000 ton Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ship (AOPS) which mounts a single 25mm cannon.

I believe what Topshee is suggesting is that with the AOPS, Canada could potentially meet 'presence with presence' to confront any Russian or Chinese naval incursion into our waters. If it evolved into a hostile engagement, we would be toast.

It is also needs to be clarified that the AOPS, despite having the word Arctic in their name, have only a limited ice-breaking capability. While the AOPS can operate in ice up to 1.5 metres thick, the heavy Russian and Chinese ice-breakers can handle more than 2 metres of ice.

The Russians are currently conducting sea trials on the newly launched ice-breaker Ivan Papanin which is reportedly capable of carrying cruise missiles. For those not familiar with naval weaponry, a cruise missile easily trumps a 25 mm cannon.
This past September the Peoples' Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) of China deployed three heavy ice-breakers to the Bering Strait Arctic Ocean approaches. For the record, China and Russia recently participated in a joint naval exercise in the Pacific named Operation OCEAN 2024. It involved a combined 400 warships and 120 aircraft.

At last count the RCN has taken delivery of five of a total of six AOPS, with the final ship to be complete next year. However due to a crippling shortage of trained technicians the RCN can only put one AOPS to sea at a time.

There has also been a lot of significant 'teething troubles' with the AOPS. In addition to excessive flooding and contaminated water supplies, the AOPS still cannot deploy with the planned for Cyclone maritime helicopters. “Right now, it’s got a hangar, it’s got a flight deck — that’s the easy part,” VAdm Topshee told the National Post. “The complicated piece is that, in order to be able to land that helicopter on the deck, secure it on the deck and then bring it into the hangar — there’s a couple of changes that have to be made.”

For the record, the AOPS were ordered in 2011. The first of the class, HMCS Harry DeWolf was launched in 2018 and commissioned in 2021. Three years later the RCN can still not operate a helicopter from their flight decks which was an integral part of the ships' design from the outset. However we are to understand from VAdm Topshee that if hostilities were imminent, somehow the dockyard workers in Halifax and Esquimalt could suddenly transform these AOPS into battle worthy vessels. “They’re not intended to be front-line combatants,” VAdm Topshee said of the AOPS. “They have everything they need for the missions that we anticipate that (they’ll) do. Were we to get into a wartime environment where we felt … they could come directly under threat, then there’s the capacity to install other weapons in sort of an ad hoc manner — very similar to how you would defend an army forward operating base.”

It was almost exactly one year ago that VAdm Topshee released a very blunt video commentary entitled  'The State of the Royal Canadian Navy'. VAdm Topshee acknowledged that the chronic shortfall in personnel -over 20 per cent of authorized strength -would lead to the RCN failing to meet its readiness objectives in 2024 and beyond. That message was aimed at his own internal RCN audience but Topshee's commentary gained widespread media attention for his brutal honesty.

Now 12 month's later we are to believe that the RCN stands ready to confront Russia, and China in the Arctic without the assistance of our allies? That is one hell of a comeback. If only it were true.

ON TARGET: Remembering Remembrance the Right way.

By Scott Taylor

It all began with a newsletter circulated on Friday, Nov. 8 to the parents of those students who attend Sackville Heights Elementary School in Nova Scotia. 

The newsletter outlined the school's plans for their Nov. 11 Remembrance Day ceremony the following Monday. Noting that any serving member of the Canadian Armed Forces was welcome to attend, the newsletter added this controversial clarification: "To maintain a welcoming environment for all, we kindly request that service members wear civilian clothing." 

Within hours of that newsletter being delivered, Lower Sackville, NS was on the map of virtually every major Canadian news broadcast. Nova Scotia Premier Tim Houston and all of those opposition party leaders running for his job in the current provincial election, used their pulpits to denounce the school's decision. 

Columnists, pundits and social media commentators nationwide took up their virtual cudgels to slam the decision by Sackville Heights Elementary to ban military uniforms on Remembrance Day. 

In defending her decision to request CAF members wear civilian attire to the ceremony, beleaguered school principal Rachael Webster explained she was concerned for some of her students who have come from countries experiencing conflict. She said that some individuals had  expressed discomfort with images of war including military uniforms.

While Webster's explanation mirrors the current Canada wide 'trauma-informed' approach to teaching the youth of today, the backlash was too much to resist. 

Less than 24 hours after the news storm erupted Webster issued an email in which she apologized and welcomed military family members to attend "in the attire that makes them the most comfortable." As for those students who might be traumatized at the sight of a Canadian military uniform, Sackville Heights Elementary was to make special arrangements to make them feel safe. 

I fully understand that for many new Canadians who have sought refuge in Canada due to the violent unrest in their native land, a military uniform could be triggering. In many of those conflicts, militias wearing military uniforms have committed horrific atrocities against rival ethnic factions. 

In Afghanistan, the military and police forces that Canadian soldiers helped to train openly perpetrated crimes against their own people. Their actions were, in turn, viewed by the locals as being associated and supported by the NATO force that equipped, trained and paid them. That said, we need to give these individuals enough credit to be able to discern the difference between Canada's disciplined, professional military and the ragtag armed criminals that ravage so many global hotspots around the world. 

Exposing these children-of-conflict to a Canadian service member in a dress uniform at a Remembrance Day ceremony paying respect to the fallen, could be a vital first step to helping them understand the safety and peace that we enjoy here in Canada.

This year was also the fifth anniversary of the controversial Remembrance Day firing of iconic hockey broadcaster Don Cherry. The CBC had no option but to fire Cherry after he made racist remarks during a live broadcast of Hockey Night in Canada. The target of his rant was recent immigrants to Toronto and Mississauga for not wearing poppies during Remembrance Week. “You people that come here… whatever it is, you love our way of life, you love our milk and honey, at least you could pay a couple of bucks for a poppy." said Cherry on air. 

While many veterans flocked to support Cherry in the aftermath of his firing by CBC, I firmly believe they were right to fire him. Not only were his comments blatantly racist, the truth is that no one should be told to wear a poppy. It should be explained to recent immigrants the importance of wearing a poppy, followed by the fact that those who fought and died were doing so to ensure that we have the right to choose to wear a poppy. Not because we are ordered to do so. That is my Canada.

ON TARGET: Canadian Defence Braces for Trump Presidency 2.0

Photograph: L.E. Baskow / Reuters/Reuters

By Scott Taylor

With the landslide election of President Donald Trump to a second term in office, it is clearly evident that the Trudeau Liberals, despite their protestations to the contrary, never bothered to draft a plan to deal with the eventuality of a Trump 2.0 presidency.

This is particularly true when it comes to Canada's lack of spending on national defence.

Admittedly Trump can be erratically inconsistent in some of his policies.

However, when it comes to America's NATO allies spending of defence dollars, on this Trump has been crystal clear. During his first term in office, Trump labelled as 'shirkers' any NATO country not spending the alliance's budget goal of two per cent Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on their military.

During his lengthy campaign for re-election, Trump claimed that he would direct the US to ignore article 5 of the NATO Charter (which ensures collective defence of all NATO members), should the attacked party not be compliant with the two per cent of GDP spending guideline. This puts Canada squarely in Trump's gunsights as we currently spend only 1.3 per cent of our GDP on national defence.

While many of the hawkish pundits in Canadian defence circles are self-flagellating in anticipation of facing the wrath of Trump, we need to look at the situation from a detached perspective. Last April Minister of National Defence Bill Blair unveiled the Liberal government's long awaited Defence Policy Update (DPU). Titled 'Our North, Strong and Free' the new policy outlines a significant spending increase and promises to acquire some very specific new capabilities and equipment for the Canadian Armed Forces.

While this current DPU projects a massive increase from Canada's current annual defence budget of $30 billion to a staggering $50 billion by the end of this decade, thanks to Canada's robust economy, that will only put us at the 1.76 per cent GDP mark. In other words, closer but still no cigar from Trump.

In terms of equipment acquisitions, the DPU shopping list includes; early warning aircraft, tactical helicopters and new long range missiles for the Army. 

The government plans to buy specialized maritime sensors to improve ocean surveillance as well as build a new satellite ground station in the Arctic. The DPU blueprint includes plans to establish additional support facilities in the Arctic for military operations. Also referenced, is a new fleet of up to 12 diesel-electric submarines for the Royal Canadian Navy.

There will also be a major investment in domestic ammunition production to replace those stocks of artillery shells which Canada donated to Ukraine. Having learned their lesson from that war, Canada also plans to significantly increase the Army's strategic reserve of ammunition. All of these equipment items will add or modernize actual combat capabilities for the CAF.

However, none of these expenditures addresses the existential threat crippling the CAF at present and that is the personnel shortfall due to the ongoing recruitment and retention problem. Given that the NATO two per cent GDP target is an arbitrary expenditure of money rather than a definition of actual combat capability, the struggling CAF leadership could turn this to their advantage.

To encourage new recruits to join and recently released CAF members to rejoin the ranks why not offer lucrative signing bonuses? I'm sure that a $250K bonus to lure a trained fighter pilot back into the RCAF is more cost efficient than the millions of dollars necessary to train such a pilot from scratch. Likewise, a currently serving member looking to retire early would be tempted by a similar bonus to retain their expertise for an additional three years.

Another short term win-win would be a massive investment in affordable housing for service personnel on an urgent-emergency basis. While the current DPU does mention building such housing, the fact is that at present there are zero dollars in the current fiscal year budget to even begin to alleviate the problem of military housing. This is the situation, despite the fact that there have been numerous reports and studies of soldiers being homeless, couch surfing or living in squalid conditions. 

I'm sure that there are all sorts of real estate developers who would jump at the opportunity to partner with the Canadian military to build such housing and improved barracks. It just is not a priority it seems for DND's senior leadership.

Before investing in modern weapon systems the CAF needs to invest in its greatest asset and that is the men and women who serve. Pay them well and give them decent affordable housing and you might see a boost in morale.

Another upside to such a program is that these defence dollars would be going to Canadian service members in the form of bonuses and to Canadian construction companies in communities all across Canada.

All of it is attributable to our defence budget and pushing us closer to that two per cent of GDP that Trump is demanding that we spend.