Canada Needs to Take Itself Seriously: A Critique of Canadian Defense Policy

Image By: Politico

Canada needs to take foreign and defence policy seriously. This means proving to our international partners that we are a reliable, trustworthy, and strong ally who can contribute to like-minded global efforts in a positive fashion. Mismanagement and inadequate funding, coupled with poor decision-making, and a rescinding posture on the global stage have weakened Canadian security and alliances.

Having been notably left out of security arrangements with long-time close allies, as was the case with the US, the UK, and Australia’s newly formed AUKUS alliance, it is clear that Canada is, in the eyes of our most depended on allies, “not a ‘significant player’”. As threats emerge to Canadian interests around the globe, maintaining strong partnerships with key allies has never been more imperative. It has become clear that some of our closest friends, such as the US and the UK, have fostered deeper security relationships with one another, but have kept Canada in the dark.

While Canada cannot feasibly meet its NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) spending target in the foreseeable future, it still needs to maintain a strong enough defence posture to take part in peacekeeping missions and home-front security. With the armed forces frequently asked to take on large and complex responsibilities, they need to be supported with adequate funding; that means both quantitative and qualitative spending. Furthermore, competent leadership needs to be seen at the political level. Oftentimes, top-level military decision-making is shaped by politics - and a political blame game - not by the needs of the armed forces. This has to change.

In the later half of the 20th century, the Canadian forces contributed significantly to NATO missions. Beyond NATO, Canada was an active member of the UN; it was Canada that brokered the ceasefire to end the conflict in the Sinai Peninsula in 1956. However, as the Cold War came to an end, Canadian forces began to rescind on the global stage, budgets were cut, and priorities were shifted elsewhere. While this is a natural response to the changing geopolitical climate, it has left Canada in a limited position when it comes to global initiatives. For example, as the recent crisis unfolded in Haiti, the US pushed for Canada to take a leading role in the Security Council-backed intervention force. However, Canada lacked capabilities and supported the UN-led intervention, but was unable to lead it. Operational capability should not be a limit to Canadian peacekeeping missions, especially within our own hemisphere.

With that said, it is important to reemphasize that the Canadian Armed Forces do not need to be large, but should be modern and effective. Delays, spurred by poor and often stagnant decision-making, have led to an aging military. Years of inadequate and misplaced funding have resulted in Canada flying fighter jets that are several years past their expected lifetime,  along with the purchase of old Australian Air Force jets. Canadian troops have no air defence systems at their disposal, leaving them extremely vulnerable in any modern combat situation without allied support. Decision-makers need to listen to army leadership when it comes to what they need, prioritize what is a necessity, and forgo what is not. Additionally, the Canadian Army operated a fleet of Sikorsky CH-124 Sea King helicopters for 55 years. Although they were eventually replaced in 2018, 14 out of the 41 aircrafts in Canada’s inventory were decommissioned as a result of crashes. Eight Canadian service members were killed as a result of these numerous disasters. Years of incompetence during a process that former Defense Minister Peter McKay called “the worst procurement in the history of Canada,” left Canadian personnel operating machines that were accident-prone for decades.

In the Canadian Arctic, the Northwest Passage remains disputed, even amongst our southern neighbour and closest ally, the United States. Russia and China continue to apply pressure in the Arctic region, building up ice-breaker capacity and investing in military bases in the region. Meanwhile, Canada relies on a force of some 5,000 soldiers called the “Canadian Rangers”, who while skilled and knowledgeable of the land,  are lightly equipped and supported by a military that has in the past been forced to consider renting snowmobiles in order to traverse the Arctic frontier.

In short, Canada needs to take its own defence policy seriously if it wants other nations, friends and foes alike, to do the same. Inadequate defence spending, geopolitical errors, and an aging armed forces are hurting Canada’s global reputation, and as a result, its security. With that said, Canada can and should find its own niche on the world stage. NATO defence spending targets are likely unrealistic for Canada to meet, and money is not the only measure of power. While Canada may have missed the boat on the AUKUS pact, it maintains a strong international pedigree that can, with minor policy changes, regain the faith and trust of its closest global partners.