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.