ON TARGET: Canada Out of Step on Military Parades

Photo: LS Erica Seymour, 4 Wing Imaging

By Scott Taylor

It would seem that US president Donald Trump is pushing ahead with plans to stage a massive military parade on June 14.

That date will mark the 250th anniversary of the establishment of the Continental Army. This military force was established to fight for liberty from British rule and once independence was achieved the Continental Army has evolved into the modern American Armed Forces.

Putting that historical milestone aside, June 14 will also mark Trump's 79th birthday.

According to Pentagon planners, Trump's vision for a military spectacle will involve some 6,600 troops, and over 150 combat vehicles. The logistics for this parade are challenging. The soldiers will be deployed from all over the United States to Washington DC.

There are makeshift plans to house these troops temporarily in government buildings within the capital region. Much of the firepower, vehicles and weaponry on parade will be a demonstration of modern battlefield capability.

However, there is also a Pentagon plan to have soldiers in various period uniforms marching to represent past wars in which American soldiers were victorious. Which I'm guessing will exclude Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Another challenge for the organizers is that of the weight of the larger combat vehicles. Nothing instils awe in onlookers like the rumbling, ground shaking roll-past of a 70 ton Abrams main battle tank. However that sort of heavy traffic plays havoc with urban road surfaces.

This is not a hypothetical as that is exactly what happened when the US Army did just that when they staged a Victory Parade in Washington DC in 1991. That spectacle was to celebrate the liberation of Kuwait from Iraq's Saddam Hussein, otherwise referred to as Operation Desert Storm. Thus the cost of this upcoming parade has to factor in the aftermath repair costs as well. Not including soldiers' salaries and training interruptions, Trump's pending tribute is estimated to cost between $45 million to $91 million. Which, of course, Trump says is "a good investment".

Here is where Trump and I disagree, and I think that his plan might actually backfire. Like the Canadian military, the US Armed Forces have a weight problem. Statistically 40-50 per cent of the US military is overweight with 20 per cent being considered obese. That is a reality.

Sure, parade planners could cherry pick the best candidates but you are still going to fall short of the mark. Real authoritarian dictatorships know how to parade martial prowess. On May 9, Vladimir Putin paraded nearly 10,000 troops and 150 combat vehicles on Red Square honouring the 80th anniversary of the end of WW2. Both China and North Korea sent detachments to march in this parade.

For those who have never seen either a North Korean or Chinese mass military parade I would advise you to check it out. The North Koreans employ a weird bone-shaking goose-step that looks like it would jar hips loose. The Chinese for their part have perfected martial uniformity on a scale that seems unfathomable.

What I I fear is that Trump's planned spectacle will look like amateur hour compared to what Russia, China and North Korea routinely stage for their masses. Trump is virtually handing international viewers a direct apple-to-apple comparison; US Military fitness, drill and deportment against the super well-rehearsed Russian, Chinese and North Korean showboats.

This is not to say that Canada could even hold a candle to what the US are about to stage. We last mounted a little Victory Parade in Ottawa in November 2011.

If few remember that 'spectacle' it is because it involved merely 300 marching troops and a flypast of a handful of aircraft.

The occasion was the recently concluded NATO-led coalition's victory over Libya. The parade cost taxpayers over $850,000 and for the record Canada was the only member state of the 19 nation coalition to stage such a victory lap.

I'm guessing the others realized that their powerful alliance having taken over 200 days to overthrow the leader of Libya was really not such a crowning martial achievement. That NATO left Libya plunged into a violent anarchy which remains in effect to this day, makes Canada's Victory Parade in 2011 all the more ironic.

The last major CAF ceremonial display in Ottawa was the July 2, 2008 Chief of Defence Staff, Change of Command. It was organized by outgoing CDS General Rick Hillier who paraded nearly 1,000 troops from all three service branches, plus the Ceremonial Guard band. To cap off his illustrious career, General Hillier climbed into a Leopard main battle tank and rode off the parade square. 

I honestly do not believe that the CAF could mount a spectacle of that magnitude in 2025. Sad but true.

ON TARGET: NDHQ: Gone to the Birds!

By Scott Taylor

The headline in the May 1 edition of the Ottawa Citizen was admittedly quite alarming.

It read "DND warns of Spring geese takeover of Carling Campus". This facility is of course the site of the Canadian Armed Forces National Defence Headquarters (NDHQ) in Ottawa and therefore vital to the security of our nation.  

For those of us of a certain age, the term 'Wild Geese' conjures up memories of the 1978 Hollywood blockbuster war-flick of the same name. That movie was based on the real life exploits of British mercenary commander Michael 'Mad Mike' Hoare and his infamous 5 Commando. These elite mercenaries flew wild goose flags and sported shoulder flashes of the same image. Hoare's 'Wild Geese' mercenaries were also the scourge of post -colonial Africa.

However, far from being a copycat combat organization threatening Canada's defence headquarters, it turns out this current threat is from actual Canada geese, of the fowl variety.

Residents of our nation's capital are all too aware of how threatening these geese can be during the spring mating season after they have laid their eggs. It turns out that the military's Carling Campus is smack dab in the centre of Ottawa's Green Belt, which just happens to be a prime nesting area for these particular Canada geese.

The presence of aggressive birds on Carling Campus resulted in the staff at Canadian Forces Support Group issuing a directive to personnel on how to react in the case of a hostile goose encounter. Service members are advised to “remain calm and do not panic. Try to move away slowly and quietly without turning your back to the goose. Maintain eye contact while you back away.”

The directive further stated, “If the goose charges or hisses, raise your arms to appear larger and back away slowly".

The quantity of these wild geese aggressors is unknown, as DND told the Ottawa Citizen that the CAF does not track the number of geese at NDHQ Carling.

There is also no plans for a counter offensive as Canada geese are a protected species that cannot be relocated after they have nested.

It may seem slightly humbling that Canada's military cannot secure its own NDHQ from a flock of angry birds, however this scenario pales in comparison to the embarrassment suffered by the Australian Armed Forces against an even larger feathered foe. I'm referring of course to the Great Emu War of 1932.

For those not familiar with this chapter in Commonwealth history, allow me to recap. Following World War 1, the Australian government had allocated  farm plots to veterans if they resettled in Western Australia. The soil was not that fertile and in the midst of the Great Depression wheat prices had been driven down.

As these former soldiers turned farmers began their harvest in October 1932, they faced a new threat from a massive flock of some 20,000 Emus. These flightless birds stand up to two metres high and weigh around 40 kilos. Naturally these migratory Emus found the farm fresh wheat fields to their liking.

The stricken farmers called for the military to assist them. Sir George Pearce, the Defence Minister of the day agreed. Post-haste a Major Gwynydd Meredith and two sergeants off the 7th Heavy Artillery Regiment were dispatched to Western Australia armed with two Lewis machine guns and 10,000 rounds of ammunition.

What the Australian military thought would be a simple cull, or a 'turkey-shoot', proved to be misguided. It turns out that while flightless, Emus are actually extremely flight of foot.

Once the Lewis guns opened up on them they streaked off in all directions at around 40 kilometres an hour. Major Meredith tried to rectify this by mounting the Lewis guns on a truck to chase the birds. However the primitive automotive suspension of the day precluded a cross-country truck speed which could actually catch the Emus.

After six days of combat, Field Force Meredith had expended all their ammunition with only several hundred Emus claimed as KIA. Back in parliament Sir Pearce was asked if a special medal would be struck for these vaunted warriors of the Emu War.

This caused an opposition member to quip that it was the Emus who deserved the medal as they had in fact won the war. In the end the Emu scourge was countered with the provision to local farmers of 500,000 rounds of ammunition and a paid bounty on each verified Emu kill. 

Given that Canada geese migration and mating is an annual occurrence, perhaps our military planners could avoid a repeat of this year's dilemma by having service dogs on the campus ground to prevent the geese from making nests during that brief spring period.

Or we could deploy an artillery Major and two sergeants armed with machine guns. Just spit balling.

ON TARGET: Canada's Sad Submarine Saga

(DND/MARPAC Imaging Services)

By Scott Taylor

A recent headline in the Ottawa Citizen caught my attention as it had an update on our submarine fleet.

"Canadian submarine sidelined for at least a decade will be operational this summer, DND says."

The news article appeared to be a positive one, leading with a quote from the Department of National Defence (DND) and the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) proclaiming that HMCS Corner Brook is now Canada's 'most advanced submarine'.

But following that patriotic sounding claim, the article revealed HMCS Corner Brook only achieved this elevated status after DND spent $715 million in repairs and upgrades into this 34-year old boat.

For casual observers of the Canadian military it is worth recapping the RCN's history of operating submarines, as it was announced last September that Canada intends to buy a new fleet of up to 12 diesel-electric powered submarines at the staggering cost of over $100 billion. The first of those new submarines is not expected to enter service until 2037, but international bidders are already lining up at Canada's doorstep.

According to many a Canadian naval analyst, it is imperative that the RCN does not lose their underwater capability. Their fear is that once lost, it will be forever lost.

The historical record says otherwise. In 1914, at the outbreak of the First World War, the government of British Columbia bought two submarines from a US shipyard that had originally been built for Chile. These two primitive subs patrolled the Pacific until 1917 when they transmitted the Panama Canal and came to be based in Halifax. They were used to train surface ships, and decommissioned at the end of the war. 

During Second World War, the RCN did not operate submarines although Canadian volunteer-submariners served aboard British submarines.

In the 1960's Canada purchased three Oberon Class submarines from Britain for the express purpose of using these boats as training aids for the RCN's anti-submarine warfare vessels. The RCN wanted the more capable US Navy Barbel class submarine but the Canadian government preferred the more economic Oberons.

In the late 1970's, due to the sorry state of the RCN's surface capability, Canada made the decision to upgrade the three Oberons into 'hunter-Killer attack submarines. This Submarine Operational Upgrade Program (SOUP) was complete in 1986 just in time for the end of the Cold War. A fun trivia tidbit is the fact that no Canadian submarine has ever fired a torpedo in anger in the history of the RCN.

In the 1987 White Paper on Defence the Mulroney Conservatives announced an ambitious plan to build between 10 -12 nuclear powered hunter killer attack submarines. With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990 the idea of Canada operating a large fleet of nuclear-powered submarines was thrown on the scrap heap of history.

The old Oberon's were getting older, and at the risk of losing the RCN's underwater capability for good, the Navy brain trust of the day agreed to take on four used British Upholder Class submarines. It was a case of newly elected Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien telling the RCN leadership it was these four used boats or nothing. The RCN should have opted for nothing. There was a good reason why the British Royal Navy would have commissioned these four Upholder Class submarines between 1990 and 1993 only to mothball all four submarines in 1994.

The Canadian acquisition team kicked the tires and pronounced the subs a good deal. A short time later the tires simply fell off. To wit; high-pressure welds had to be replaced and cracks were found in some of the valves on the four submarines. Torpedo tubes had been welded shut, steel piping needed to be replaced as the subs had been put into storage in the United Kingdom with water in their fuel tanks and HMCS Victoria had to undergo repairs after a dent was discovered in her hull.

The most serious, and tragic, incident occurred when HMCS Chicoutimi was damaged by a fire during her transit to Halifax in 2004 that killed one officer.

A May 2009 RCN report that was seemingly written by “Captain Obvious” concluded” “The introduction of the Victoria class has been fraught with many issues and faced a number of setbacks.”

Canada agreed to the Upholder deal in 1994 but the actual transfer of ownership took place between 2000 and 2004. The last Oberon to be decommissioned was HMCS Onondaga and that occurred in July 2000.

HMCS Windsor was the first of the renamed Victoria Class submarines to enter RCN service on June 2005. So for roughly half a decade Canada was without any underwater capability. 

Critics have questioned the value of Canada's submarine fleet, pointing out that they have cost billions of dollars and have not spent that much time at sea.

For the record, HMCS Windsor is the only one of Canada's four Victoria-class submarines that has been to sea since 2021, logging 43 days in 2022 and 14 in 2023.

Which begs the question, can the RCN really lose a capability that they don't  actually possess?

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.