Canada’s military capabilities are not keeping pace with the fast-changing global situation. A diminished Armed Forces has serious consequences.
Gen. Wayne Eyre, the chief of defence staff, told the Commons’ defence committee last month that looming budget cuts will have an impact.
Look at the troubling events unfolding around the globe and it certainly seems the wrong time to squeeze the defence budget.
Wrong time, especially for a military that is already overstretched and challenged in meeting domestic and international commitments.
Wrong time too for a country that already faces questions about its diminished influence on the world stage.
And yet that is precisely the situation confronting the Department of National Defence, caught in belt-tightening efforts to cut $15 billion across government over five years, a move signaled in the 2023 budget. The defence department expects its share to be about $900 million a year.
Defence Minister Bill Blair’s office insists that defence spending is going up, from $26.5 billion a year now to $39.7 billion in 2026-27. There’s the promise of new warships, F-35 fighter jets and NORAD modernization. And it points to the assurance contained in the budget that spending reductions imposed on the Department of National Defence will not affect the Armed Forces.
Yet it seems that Gen. Wayne Eyre, the chief of defence staff, and deputy minister Bill Matthews didn’t get that memo. Appearing before the Commons’ defence committee last month, they made clear the looming cuts will have an impact.
“There’s no way that you can take almost a billion dollars out of the defence budget and not have an impact, so this is something that we’re wrestling with now,” Eyre told MPs.
“I had a very difficult session this afternoon with the commanders of the various services as we attempt to explain this to our people. Our people see the degrading, declining security situation around the world, so trying to explain this to them is very difficult.”
Dave Perry, president of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, said the earmarked budget cuts will clearly impact frontline capability. “There’s a huge, huge connection between all that activity and what the military actually does,” said Perry. He estimates this cut will cost the defence department $17 billion over 20 years.
This, just months after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau joined other NATO leaders at the annual meeting where they agreed that two per cent of GDP should be the minimum each nation spends on defence, with one-fifth of that earmarked for major equipment and research and development.
As we’ve written, the NATO spending pledge is an artificial guideline. But it’s a useful measure to illustrate for where countries stand. And Canada chronically falls short, spending about 1.3 per cent of GDP on defence.
If Canada had a capable military, with the capacity to sustain multiple deployments, at home and abroad, the spending target would be less relevant. But that’s not case. The Armed Forces are stretched thin.
The most serious shortcoming is a lack of personnel. Over the last three years, more people have left the military than joined, a situation that only now is turning around. “They’re going to be hard pressed to do all kinds of different things just because they’re so short on people,” Perry said.
Other shortcomings speak to systemic underinvestment that has compromised the military. There’s a critical shortage of 155mm shells. The serviceability of army vehicles is “not good,” Eyre told the defence committee, adding, “It goes down to a shortage of spare parts, national procurement funds and technicians.” Aging frigates and CF-18 fighter jets hinder frontline capabilities.
Is the world more peaceful, more benign? Is the military over-equipped? Too many personnel in uniform for the current geopolitical situation?
Far from it. Recent years have seen consequential developments. Russia’s war with Ukraine, China’s aggressive global ambitions, strategic interests in the Indo-Pacific region and just this weekend, the terror attack by Hamas militants on Israel, which threatens to blow up into a wider regional conflict.
At home, the military has increasingly been called on to respond to natural disasters such as floods and wildfires, demands that are certain to increase and which Blair concedes has a “very significant impact on their capabilities and their capacity to respond to other duties.”
Canada’s military capabilities are not keeping pace with this fast-changing global situation. A diminished military has serious consequences, weakening the defence of the nation, its diplomacy, its ability to contribute to security missions like in Haiti, its voice and role in international affairs.
For example, in 2021, Australia, United States and the United Kingdom created AUKUS, a trilateral partnership to support Australia’s purchase of nuclear-powered subs but also to “support security and defence interests.” Observers note that Canada was pointedly left out of an alliance involving three close allies. “They’re not willing to simply invite Canada to be part of a close working arrangement anymore unless we can demonstrate that we have something to offer,” Perry said.
Blair tried to reassure the defence committee that the Armed Forces had the Liberal government’s “unwavering commitment.” A government that truly meant it wouldn’t nickel and dime the military.
Source : Toronto Star
