Screenshot from Global News video
By Scott Taylor
There is a lot of buzz around Canada's defence budget these days as our nation's lack of military spending drew the personal ire of US President Donald Trump when he launched his tariff war.
Since the 2014 NATO Summit, successive Canadian governments, both Harper's Conservatives and the Trudeau Liberals, had pledged to 'move towards' the Alliance's stated objective of spending 2% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on national defence.
Under the Harper Conservatives defence spending actually dipped below 1% of GDP and while the Trudeau Liberals did boost investment in the military, Canada's defence budget was just 1.3% of GDP in January of this year.
In response to Trump's threats and in an effort to appease the US President, newly elected Prime Minister Mark Carney announced on June 9 that Canada was going to meet the NATO spending objective of 2% GDP within the current fiscal year. Close followers of the Canadian Armed Forces were astounded to hear that Canada would balloon annual defence spending from the current $40 billion to a whopping $62.7 billion, all before March 31, 2026.
Carney noted that while his budget included $9.3 billion in new money, the increase was to include some administrative re-structuring and clever accounting to boost the stats. One of those moves was to bring the Canadian Coast Guard from Fisheries & Oceans to be under the National Defence umbrella. In my opinion this was a long overdue no-brainer decision as many other maritime nations -including the US, consider their Coast Guard as a fourth branch of the military.
I still think Carney can go one step further by re-positioning the RCMP as a Federal Police force similar to the French Gendarme or the Italian Carabinieri. Both of which fall under the national defence ledger on their respective books.
If Canada were to include the long term care and benefits for our veterans through Veterans Affairs Canada we could easily soar past the 2% GDP guide line without adding a tank or a bullet to our military.
However, even with Carney's sudden change of heart and infusion of cash into defence, before we could even get to 2% of GDP, the spending bar was raised again. At the most recent ministers meeting in Brussels, the NATO Secretary-General announced that the alliance will raise the spending objective to 5% by 2032 or 2035.
Either way, given Canada's current GDP that will mean a defence budget of over $150 billion. This may be music to defence company executives and the Colonel Blimps who tub-thump in blind support of all things military.
However we need to focus more on what defence capability we are getting for all that money. In particular we need to study what particular weapon platforms we are acquiring as that will define our military role for the foreseeable future. At the height of the war in Afghanistan the Canadian military made a convincing argument that our troops needed a heavy-lift helicopter capability. The roads were the battlefield of choice and the leading cause of casualties among the Canadian contingent was improvised explosive devices planted roadside.
To solve this shortcoming Canada spent $300 million to purchase 6 old Chinook 'D' model helicopters from the United States Air Force. The Chinooks were already in theatre so the acquisition was made very quickly.
With the RCAF now back in the heavy-lift helicopter business, the Department of National Defence launched a lengthy procurement process to purchase 15 spanking new CH-147F Chinook models. These were delivered after Canada had concluded the mission in Afghanistan and all of our soldiers were safely home.
Two of the six Chinooks used in Afghanistan were damaged beyond repair and the remaining 4 were scrapped due to their advanced age. Those familiar with heliborne combat operations know that heavy-lift helicopters are vulnerable to ground fire and as a result they operate with ground attack helicopters as escorts.
Canada does not have ground attack helicopters (like the US Apaches) so in Afghanistan the RCAF made due with some up-gunned CH-146 Griffon Utility Helicopters. These helicopters were woefully unsuited for the task but as a hockey coach would say, 'you play the team on your bench'.
With the fourteen remaining CH-147F Chinooks
in RCAF service at CFB Petawawa (one was lost in a tragic training exercise) Canada possesses a considerable aviation asset. That is a lot of capability to wage a counter-insurgency against a poorly equipped foe like the Afghan insurgents.
However, Canada, NATO and the US were taught a valuable lesson with the loss to the Taliban in Afghanistan: All the technology and weaponry in the world is useless against suicidal resistance. Therefore it is unlikely that anyone in the west will embark on the fool's errand of trying to wage a counter insurgency in a hostile state within a generation.
For the record, the CH-147F Chinooks are extremely expensive to operate which explains why they are not more widely used in the fight against wild fires.
For those watching the war between Russia and Ukraine it would be obvious that heavy-lift helicopters would be flying death traps near the front-lines in a near-peer conflict wherein the enemy has sophisticated air defence weapons. Thus the RCAF is well stocked (albeit still without ground attack helicopters for escort) to fight in Afghanistan.
However if we truly wish to provide a deterrent to Russian aggression we need to learn from the ongoing war in Europe. Our troops need Low level air defence, boatloads of First Person View (FPV) drones, drone counter measures, self-propelled armoured artillery, and heaps of ammunition. The problem is that every other NATO country has the same needs and the Armed Forces of Ukraine remain at the front of the receiving line for obvious reasons.
Let's hope that Carney's boost to defence is not a hollow promise that comes up a day late, and a buck short. Our troops deserve better.
