The problems with the military go far beyond money, and can't be fixed by spending. When Cameroonian officer recruits are fighting Ivoirian officer recruits about everything other than the absurdity of being led by overweight female officers, we have a problem that can only be fixed by a change of ideology.
The fact that all of these developments are being reduced to "Orange Man Bad" by most Canadians (and certainly by all Elbow Uppers), very few will actually ask the hard questions of what this country needs to really do to solve the underlying problems plaguing the armed forces. So in the end, Carney will just continue to look like the Supreme savior as long as "Orange Man Bad" remains a viable narrative.
> very few will actually ask the hard questions of what this country needs to really do to solve the underlying problems plaguing the armed forces. So in the end, Carney will just continue to look like the Supreme savior as long as "Orange Man Bad" remains a viable narrative.
You don't think the decades of massive underfunding is our underlying problem? Something which Mr. Carney is reversing? And far more quickly than any Prime Minister, (LPC or CPC), ever said was even conceivable?
Because to me it does seem like the massive underfunding was our underlying problem. Sure, there are other problems and increasing the budget isn't the end of the problem, but underneath it all was the very basic fact that we just weren't prepared to spend even remotely close to what was (and is) necessary. At least that's how it seems to me.
We al know underfunding was a critical factor, but pumping more "defense" money into Procurement Canada or re-tasking the Coast Guard are not improving our defenses. Increasing the pay for servicemembers is a great step, but recruiting foreign nationals is a worrying step in the other direction.
I think of it like figuring out the first step to make my failing charter bus company successful.
Advertising is important. So is improving the amenities on the buses, maybe free wifi or snacks. Easier booking etc.
But before all of that, I need to reverse the old policy of only buying enough gasoline to get 15% of the way there, and then telling the passengers to hoof it the rest of the way.
A “buy enough gas” policy won’t save my company all by itself, but it will dramatically improve the service and it’s an essential first step I need to take.
A poorly run military simply ensures that any huge slugs of money (if real and not mere accounting tricks) will be wasted. You need both money and a well run military to be effective. Liberals have always been good at throwing money at things when they want to - that's the easy part. Running a military well, however?
> Liberals have always been good at throwing money at things when they want to - that's the easy part. Running a military well, however?
Are you identifying "Liberals" solely because they're the party in power right now or do you think that the "Conservatives" have been objectively better at running our military?
Exactly correct. This issue of not funding the Canadian military is something that has no specific political enemy. This is something that has been on going for many decades. And now we are paying the consequences.
I would objectively say that during the Afghanistan years, the Conservatives ran the military fairly well. Certainly better than the Liberals before them who by accident or incompetence (both reasons of course) allowed Canada to take one of the hardest nuts to crack during the war with the Kandahar Prov assignment. I will also note that before that, the Liberals made damn sure that the previous injured soldier pension system was changed (much for the worse of course) before a single Canadian combat soldier was deployed into an active theatre. Shows where they had their priorities at the time.
We let our DND down, and for a long time, yes... but things are different.
Here are some observations, without going to any effort to look:
- 2 months after Carney was elected, I met a senior RCN officer on the ferry ride and asked him, "Are you feeling optimistic about the money that will flow?" His reply, "Oh, it's already flowing, fast." That was a year ago.
- I live near the water. There's a navy ship, or ships doing "stuff" every day, now within sight of Victoria. Lots of ops with the black clad, black hurricane assault crews and diver training too. Before Carney, that was once every two weeks, and just one ship. Now it's every day and lots of them. Anyone can see it.
- I ride by the Esquimalt yard regularly... I've never seen so much activity. When, before this government, the place was quiet, sleepy, rusty... today it's swamped with work, noise... 2 cruise ships even.
- There's a huge Japanese Coast guard ship parked a block away; there's a Korean sub arriving this week. Also new activity.
- There's a new CPC MP up island crowing about his success getting the government to commit to a new plan for snowbirds.
- There's a local company, featured in the G&M recently, working on autonomous ocean platforms, and they store one of them nearby. It rolls down the street every day now to the water. I assume for testing.
My point is that anyone who looks can see a huge change.
I'm sure there's lots of resentment about the mistreatment of our forces over the last, lost decade and emotions are hard to wrangle.
I am friends with a man in the armed forces ,and over the last 6 months he has been seeing issue after issue being addressed. He is actually quite excited about the next 5 years as spending heads towards the 3.5 percent target. The Carney government is making a serious effort here and, GASP! it takes a long time to deal with this. This is just Trump bluster and chaos to try to rattle people into giving him more favourable terms. I do like Carney's resolve to not take the bait and to patiently go about our other business and wait this out. Remember, most trade deals he claims to have made have been subject to impulsive changes and tariffs anyways. Signing a deal with him doesn't mean much. Best solution is to grow revenues without him in other places and wait it out. one day the US will be able to make a good deal, and we will be in a great spot because of all the other work this has forced Canada to deal with.
- Live-fire notifications in the local press for Vancouver Island which used to be rare, therefore notable, are announced every week, including everything from tossing grenades to shelling a small island target.
- While riding along the waterfront (possibly egregious humble brag) I saw something never seen before: a frigate appeared on the horizon with a huge wake and rooster tale. People were stopping to film the thing as it boogied to Esquimalt. That takes a lot of fuel.
- Dignitaries from other Nordic countries are visiting our Harry Dewolfe class icebreaking warships in Victoria. Apparently we have the best there is. Who knew?
"I do like Carney's resolve to not take the bait and to patiently go about our other business and wait this out." This is such an important point, and something the whole country has been watching.
Every step the two take describe the contrast:
One side is a capricious narcissist, addicted to tv and social media, tweeting his emotions on a daily basis, utterly self-referential, a tween racist with untreated ADHD spending money, stealing from his own country, killing people, and taking their stuff.
On the other side is Carney. Tell me a central banker isn't a successful strategist, ffs, and real strategic thinkers are not common, btw.
Excellent comment! I have family in the CAF and they too say the investmenta are giving significant boosts in all areas. Our armed forces, despite the underfunding, were still well trained and respected - we are all better served with this investment.
Glad to hear. The problem is time I think. It will take years just to repair damage done since the 1970s. First is repairing what we have, then getting new equipment that is appropriate for our needs - and deciding what our needs are in terms of defence.
Inertia is the most powerful force in the universe, and fear is a great motivator. The ineffective predator to our south gives us a little juice every time he opens his pie hole.
Think of this: we're retooling from a pretty terrible spot, but with paradigm changing research from the Ukraine war that pootin is losing. We're also seeing a U.S. military that sucks 1/3 of every public dollar into it's black hole utterly stymied by Iran.
Yet... another... loss.
All of this happening in real time will save us from being sucked into their terrible military industrial strategy. Results speak for themselves.
And yet just this week every soldier who does not have immediate need of a sleeping bag or backpack has been ordered to hand them in because there are not enough to equip soldiers who are deployed or are about to be.
I am happy, though, that the Japanese and Koreans can seemingly fund and operate a blue-water navy.
It also sets up the Greenland argument: "Because you aren't able to defend the Arctic, which is central to our security, we need to take over your north." (Never forget those maps which have included us as part of America.)
I don't think this is an immediate threat, but given Trump's various wars of conquest, his continued bullying of Denmark over Greenland, and his serious threat to Cuba, I don't think we should ignore it. Apparently one reason the US is hesitating on invading Cuba is that Cuba has drones capable of striking Guantanamo and Florida. I wholeheartedly support us manufacturing drones here.
The Line had a great article about Greenland. Denmark granted Greenland the right to separate after a positive referendum. My take-away from the article is that it wouldn't take much foreign interference or money to take de facto control of Greenland. Certainly less than what has been spent in a certain other Arctic nation.
The U.S. already had carte blanche to do whatever they want militarily on Greenland. What you heard and saw before was pure distraction/psyops and setting the conditions for a much more robust presence at a time of the U.S. choosing. As with everything Trump, do not be distracted by what he says, watch what his government does.
With all the massive social / entitlement programs plus all the money flowing through to FN we simply don’t have the funds necessary to properly fund a functioning military.
For me, we will have to find some money somehow because the next war is going to be fought in the arctic and likely on Canadian soil. We can change now or be changed by someone else.
The next war will not be fought in Arctic, and if anyone tries, it will be brutally short. There will be incursions, overt demonstrations and the odd ‘little green men’ as provocations, but something like what is going on in Ukraine is not possible there. Despite all claims of climate Armageddon, the Arctic persistently remains one of the most challenging and inhospitable places to conduct any kind of military action. Btw, the USA forces in Alaska are probably one of the best equipped and trained Arctic fighting forces in world right now, on par with the Scandinavian nations. Canada is not in the same league, believe it or not.
Matt’s historical knowledge benefits us all but the military bent is welcomed and needed. Trump and his minions are painting a picture as we move into negotiations. Those of us who have personal history with the Canadian military know how far it has fallen. Carney needs to recognize, energize and most importantly not compromise the plan he has laid out for the military’s resuscitation. Canadians need to make hard choices now, like my grandfather and his three brothers did back in January of 1939. All of them signed up to serve their country. All of them returned, but there were costs both mental and physical. It took me awhile but at 62 I appreciate the sacrifices they made and am doing my best to share my pride.
I'm 58. Today's CF bears no resemblance to the CF I signed up for. I was in the infantry at 17 back in 1985. We used to have the best winter warfare soldiers in the world. Privatization of core military services to save a few bucks. We were underfunded but now? It's not even close to how it was. Even now it is not being taken seriously in Ottawa. The 2% GDP defence target has not been reached. Not even close. It is a creative accounting exercise. Why this is not major news in this country - how bad its gotten? How cheap we are and it's time to grow the #$% up.
The best winter warfare soldiers in the world are the Scandinavians, all about even. Canadians come close, but only close. The difference is that the Scandinavians learned and know how to do well with less personal and sustainment equipment in the winter warfare than any other army.
More money and equipment is always welcome. The deficit is in understanding the real role of defence. Those who have never served in the military or who have never had kin with "skin in the game" struggle with the concept of defence and national service. Our current government bureaucracy may claim to defend Canadian values through our institutions but it was previous generations that made the ultimate sacrifice to build them in the first place.
My grandfather served well into the Cold War. His brother's left after the WW2 ended. He retired in 1963, the year I was born. He was only fifty. HIs pension money from serving allowed him to do for his children what his father could not or would not, a choice of serving in another way, through higher education. First he built a house in small town Alberta. Second he financed his children's post-secondary education, two sons and a daughter. My father was the first.
After three years with the RCAF, where he met my mother, my parents became civilians. My Dad went to university and my mother used the skills she had acquired to find work to supplement the income my grandfather provided. My grandfather wanted my father and mother to have the choice he never had. A choice that was denied too many previous generations of men and women. The opportunity to have a family without risking life, limb and lineage. Service without the ultimate sacrifice. Careless politicians and academics have undermined my grandfather and his generation. As someone once said "they know not what they do". But I do.
In particular, it had not occurred to me that the "suspension" of PJBD meetings could have been another way for the Americans to convey their displeasure with Canada's apparent interest in the Gripen aircraft.
Be that as it may, I agree with your thesis about our own culpability. I would add that said culpability is shared in equally by successive Liberal and Conservative governments.
Last weekend I was party to a discussion by supporters of a political party. I shall not name the party, or the individuals. However, I will say that the discussion focused on the need to do more for our society's elderly.
Needless to say, most of the participants were north of 60, so to speak. One clearheaded young man piped up and observed that we needed to rethink the extent of our commitments, given the difficult circumstances his cohort faced.
More fundamentally, I was struck by the unreality of calls for even more money for elder care in this country.
Indeed, I recognize and acknowledge how tough the situation for some older people can be, particularly those who lived, as one might say, a rough life and now find themselves without means, family or a home.
Nonetheless, NOBODY even mentioned the fact that Canada is in the midst of what you and others have (reluctantly) called a "poly crisis". Much less the critical need for a sovereign state like Canada to move quickly to ensure our sovereignty in the face of an erratic and increasingly hostile ally.
I do hope that Mr Carney and the clearest-eyed in his government (and the most hard-headed in our federal public service) really understand how much work is needed to make up for decades of decay in the Canadian military.
Oh, and BTW. Shifting CSE and the Coast Guard to DND to help "fatten up" the national defence budget (to make it look like we made the two percent target) was a sterling exercise in bullshit.
I wouldn't count on the government catching up on this. CBC had John McKay saying the US is "foolish" and David McGuinty saying Canada is ready to "come to the table."
I wonder if the Rideau and Welland Canal budgets still count as military spending.
Who is calling for more elder care? I am technically elderly but don't recall calling for more - I still work full time at 75 because I have to support one of my children who is on disability and cannot afford food even with a food bank. I know plenty of elderly people as I go to church (virtually all elderly - I am one of the younger members) and none of them are calling for government help.
It was a semi-public meeting, attended by about 50 people.
As I said, many of the participants were complaining about lack of support afforded to elder care.
I will add, though, that although they aired many complaints about the federal government, much of what they discussed was about things, like long-term health care, mental health supports and so on, that are provincial responsibilities under the Constitution.
Hmmm. Well what was apparently said applies to every age group. I cared for my wife as her health declined while she was in her 50s and 60s. We received 60 hours a month PSW care which was reduced to 13 hours a week. My private insurance provided an hour a day of nursing care. Fortunately I was working from home so I provided the other 21 hours. Nursing homes refused her because her care was too great, except the places which Covid revealed as horror shows. She was not yet elderly. My granddaughter broke her foot two years ago and it was 12 hours in the ER before a doctor saw her...,and.... is 50 people a representative sample?
I was not attempting to justify or approve of the views espoused during the meeting I spoke of.
On the contrary, I was struck by the extent to which the attendees seemed only to have ears for the (often anecdotal) evidence of "insufficient elder care funding" bandied about during the meeting.
As I sought to make clear in my previous comments, I think this is astonishing, given the huge number of priorities other than "more money for the elderly" that the federal government must deal with.
Defence, in particular, strikes me as the top priority, not least because it is the federal government that has sole jurisdiction over the Canadian Armed Forces.
As for whether those 50 people were a "representative example", they most surely were not.
But they were 50 people who potentially represent several hundred votes per riding across Canada focused almost exclusively on "their" pet peeve, to the exclusion of other very important issues.
The US decided that Canada is a weak link due to Chinese interference and also pointed to Mark Carney’s Davos speech that Washington now treats as reality.
I guess, if you are an Alberta separatist, or wanna' be separatist, more fuel for the fire.
Alberta's trade with the US accounts for about 90% of Albertas' trade, something like $130 billion in bilateral trade.
While this 'Carney made' alienation from the US will also hurt the rest of Canada, the rest of Canada can vote the liberals out, but they won't. Alberta can't do anything about that except separate.
If the US is divorcing Canada, it is just another really good reason for Alberta to separate from Canada.
I think we have to negotiate the constitution as well. Canada has changed and almost everyone agrees that the constitution must be changed, but what federal party would change it? Things like not being able to ensure that your province can prosper, and it is not only Alberta, Alberta is just more vocal, is no way to run a federation.
With the current amending formula there is absolutely no substantive change that is possible. None. Therefore, Carole is correct, separation from ROC is Alberta's only real choice. Now, whether sufficient number of voters are clear eyed is a different matter.
Everything is possible. It is the only move that Carney has if separatism grows. Might not work. It isn't working now. What would have to exist for separatists to remain in Canada?
You say that it "is the only move that Carney has" but Carney is but one player in this. Much more important players are the provincial premiers and their legislatures.
I live in Alberta and it is a vast frustration for many of us that Canada appropriates tens of billions of dollars from us and then Parliament passes laws (many in violation of the Constitution) that are deliberately oriented to disadvantage us. Then, some of the provinces decry our "dirty oil" - Quebec, for example - and eagerly take our money while ensuring that their own economy remains dependent by legislating against their own resource industry. Yet other provinces just take monies and give it no thought except that it is their "right". Do you think that any of them will agree to give up that largesse?
There are other frustrations that we have that also disadvantage us and those who are advantaged will not be eager to surrender those advantages, either.
Simply put, there is not a chance that any substantive change to the constitution can occur.
That is the problem Ken. There are so many players and so many 'feelings' involved. Alberta has to fight against being the wedge issue that the federal and provincial governments have used to get votes. Turning those negative feelings against Alberta is just another problem that can't be fixed.
At some point Ottawa will have to convene the provincial premiers. This is not going away. It just isn't.
Everyone and their cat knows that Quebec is doing what Quebec does every day. Smith is pulling a page from Quebec by asking for the same thing. Can you think of any reason why Alberta shouldn't have the same deal as Quebec?
Possible dumb question (though sincerely asked) from an Easterner, but what unconstitutional laws are being passed by Parliament? And are they not worth fighting in court?
What other province is being blackmailed by having to implement a 20 billion dollar unproven carbon capture Brookfield scam and adding additional carbon pricing to our major industry just so we can prosper, and give more money to the rest of Canada. All of Alberta's concerns are well documented.
Keith Wilson, constitutional lawyer, YouTube channel
R & J, I apologize but, well, it's complicated .....
I started to respond but my response got incredibly wordy, with specific examples and such. I just had to delete it because it was, well, as I said, wordy, but was just touching, incredibly lightly touching, on the issue. So, I deleted it.
I will simply say that under the Constitution some areas are exclusively federal jurisdiction, some are exclusively provincial jurisdiction and some are shared jurisdiction.
I will further say that Ottawa takes the approach that it knows best on just about every damned thing and that the provinces are ignorant idiots. You may think that to be hyperbolic but I respond that it is pretty close to the truth.
I will offer one point. On energy policy - which is EXCLUSIVELY provincial jurisdiction - the feds have been trying to eliminate our energy industry for about ten years or so. That is not hyperbole but was pretty much what the previous Prime Minister (I still spit when I say his name so I will, in the interests of good hygiene, simply refer to him that way) actually said in 2017 when he wanted to "phase out" our oil sands plants. Provincially permitted plants that work hard on environmentally sound processing.
Anyway, as to court cases. Yes, a provincial government can sue the feds but it cost a lot of money for lawyers and takes many years and in the meantime the feds are administering a law. It is on that basis that Alberta has passed the Alberta Sovereignty within a United Canada Act. The Sovereignty Act now allows us, when a federal law, regulation, etc. intrudes on provincial jurisdiction to formally assert that intrusion and to formally require that the feds NOT proceed with their activities in that respect within Alberta thereby largely making lawsuits on these matters not required.
As noted, the problem with court cases is their cost and their incredible time delay. Further, any lawyer with any skill will always tell you to stay out of court for the first two reasons but also will tell you that whenever you go to court you never know what a judge will decide; you simply don't know if judge A will decide the same as judge B or judge C. I can tell you that the judges appointed over the last ten or so years all have a "particular" ideological approach that accords with federal control over a plain reading of what the Constitution actually says so, well, stay out of court.
And the foregoing is much less detailed than how I started to respond to you; I apologize for not responding with more specificity (a Prime Minister Joe Clark word).
There is more Chinese interference in the US than in Canada, by far. The US does far more trade with China, and is seeking to increase that significantly. Carney lets in a measly 50K EVs to increase Canola sales and gets ripped by conservatives, Trump is seeking a trillion more in trade and the same people eat it up.. I am unclear why people seem to think Canada is an offending party on "China" and the US/Trump are the cool kids.
We are allowing Chinese EVs in for 5 years, but canola etc. agreement ends this year.....and there is that secret agreement between the Chinese security regime and the RCMP ......
Canada is Chinas' primary target because of Canada's smaller economy and government infrastructure.This is known and disinformation campaigns are more effective in specific electoral ridings. Sure, the US has a larger population, so obviously there are more Chinese.
Regardless, what is the point in saying, look at the US. Pay attention to what is happening in Canada.
Canadians including most of the elbows up crowd think this all goes away in 2.5 years when Trump is gone but not only has the world changed but our NATO partners tolerance for Canadian spending on defense changed .
We are going to have to spend and Hard dollars on new equipment. One area I agree with the US on.
Matt talks about missing out on changes in military ops and refers to drones. We are dabbling in drones,but we have totally missed the long running use of missiles. Any reading of ongoing conflicts contains constant reference to missile attacks and anti-missile systems. We have none. The last surface to surface missile deployed by Canada was the Honest John in W. Germany up until Trudeau I redeployed our forces to S. Germany
Simply stated, the CAF needs missiles of every kind. And drones. And tanks and new rifles, uniforms, rucksacks, sleeping bags, boots(!), military utility vehicles of various types, modern electronic warfare systems, GBAD systems for all ranges, etc, etc, etc. You see where this is going. If you gave the CAF the equivalent of the entire U.S. military budget, in about ten years you would start seeing some noticeable changes, outside of organizational moves and more operations being conducted with what is still available and working. This is the sad reality of the enormity of the task ahead of this particular problem set which we shall wrap neatly into a bow and call ‘Canadian military modernization’.
Great article. Just a note - if this symbolic move pushes the elbows up people to spend more on the military, and firm up supportive military relationships with other democracies so that the US is less often doing the only heavy lifting, isn't that what Trump wants? We all know that the over 55 crowd in central Canada is most enamoured with elbows up and also Carney's strongest supporters. Maybe there are no downsides for the Trump administration.
With the government killing the Snowbirds today, things will get worse. An incredibly short-sighted decision. There is a lot more than needs to be told/ admitted. Canada has indeed failed itself.
Those planes are death traps they are so old. What is better PR for Libs? Shutting down the Snowbirds or watching a fiery wreck occur above an air show in front of thousands of onlookers?
"Death Traps" based on what facts? Yes, they're old. The Snowbirds act is not a high-G load performance, and if required, can be adjusted downwards. I have yet to hear any confirmation that the entire fleet is being retired at the end of 2026, either. I am also of the opinion that in the early 2000s, we would have built 150 new Tutors with upgraded avionics. It's a brilliant training platform; we had all the designs, and we had companies that could build them. All that was missing was a government that didn't care about the military. I have more questions than answers. Our national media doesn't know enough to ask the right questions on any transport-related matter. That is a problem.
Based on the very first fact that you stated. That they are old. The airframes are over 50+ years old. I don’t care how much babying and maintenance one does, these are so long past the operational life spans of these planes as to be criminally incompetent.
While I have great respect for our military and its members, and the jobs they've done and do, it has undergone both active purposeful shrinkage and benign neglect since at least Hellyer's time.
Every actual effort to keep up or improve has been out of embarrassment, taken far too long and cost much more than it should have. No federal government thus far has done much more than talk about upkeep and improvements.
There are signs of some momentum here but as you note it's all catch up at the moment.
The only Canadian response to this US action will be to add the cancellation to the Elbows Up crowd's list of Trump greivances. They won't know what the Board does. They have been enjoying their "peace" dividend for decades.
Their kids and grandkids will notice in a couple more decades when Canada's debt interest cost impinges on things they really use; healthcare, education and municipal services (police, roads, transit). They will be paying higher taxes for fewer services and cursing the stupidity and greed of the Elbows Up gang.
The problems with the military go far beyond money, and can't be fixed by spending. When Cameroonian officer recruits are fighting Ivoirian officer recruits about everything other than the absurdity of being led by overweight female officers, we have a problem that can only be fixed by a change of ideology.
Which isn't forthcoming.
And they are shutting down the Snowbirds, maybe, eventually, to replace them - with propeller planes.
I'm sure that will do wonders for recruiting.
The Snowbirds are perfectly fine aircraft for display purposes so long as you have really short pilots. They don't even have to speak French Chalis.
The new, propeller-driven, versions (if they even ever happen) will just be embarrassing. Having nothing would be far better.
The fact that all of these developments are being reduced to "Orange Man Bad" by most Canadians (and certainly by all Elbow Uppers), very few will actually ask the hard questions of what this country needs to really do to solve the underlying problems plaguing the armed forces. So in the end, Carney will just continue to look like the Supreme savior as long as "Orange Man Bad" remains a viable narrative.
> very few will actually ask the hard questions of what this country needs to really do to solve the underlying problems plaguing the armed forces. So in the end, Carney will just continue to look like the Supreme savior as long as "Orange Man Bad" remains a viable narrative.
You don't think the decades of massive underfunding is our underlying problem? Something which Mr. Carney is reversing? And far more quickly than any Prime Minister, (LPC or CPC), ever said was even conceivable?
Because to me it does seem like the massive underfunding was our underlying problem. Sure, there are other problems and increasing the budget isn't the end of the problem, but underneath it all was the very basic fact that we just weren't prepared to spend even remotely close to what was (and is) necessary. At least that's how it seems to me.
We al know underfunding was a critical factor, but pumping more "defense" money into Procurement Canada or re-tasking the Coast Guard are not improving our defenses. Increasing the pay for servicemembers is a great step, but recruiting foreign nationals is a worrying step in the other direction.
It's bonkers and it screams to CF leadership they have completely lost the plot.
More funding is “necessary, but not sufficient”.
I think of it like figuring out the first step to make my failing charter bus company successful.
Advertising is important. So is improving the amenities on the buses, maybe free wifi or snacks. Easier booking etc.
But before all of that, I need to reverse the old policy of only buying enough gasoline to get 15% of the way there, and then telling the passengers to hoof it the rest of the way.
A “buy enough gas” policy won’t save my company all by itself, but it will dramatically improve the service and it’s an essential first step I need to take.
People who actually run businesses know that you start by fixing structural problems, not by spending more money.
A poorly run military simply ensures that any huge slugs of money (if real and not mere accounting tricks) will be wasted. You need both money and a well run military to be effective. Liberals have always been good at throwing money at things when they want to - that's the easy part. Running a military well, however?
> Liberals have always been good at throwing money at things when they want to - that's the easy part. Running a military well, however?
Are you identifying "Liberals" solely because they're the party in power right now or do you think that the "Conservatives" have been objectively better at running our military?
Exactly correct. This issue of not funding the Canadian military is something that has no specific political enemy. This is something that has been on going for many decades. And now we are paying the consequences.
I would objectively say that during the Afghanistan years, the Conservatives ran the military fairly well. Certainly better than the Liberals before them who by accident or incompetence (both reasons of course) allowed Canada to take one of the hardest nuts to crack during the war with the Kandahar Prov assignment. I will also note that before that, the Liberals made damn sure that the previous injured soldier pension system was changed (much for the worse of course) before a single Canadian combat soldier was deployed into an active theatre. Shows where they had their priorities at the time.
Geopolitical circumstances will give Canada no choice. I don't believe anyone in Ottawa is taking the threat seriously, and as such, the uninformed.
Yeah, who knew that all we needed were a few accounting tricks to magically transform our military into an actual fighting force.
/sarc
They're two separate issues. Trump will always be a disaster, but it's his billionaire backers who are the real cancer.
We let our DND down, and for a long time, yes... but things are different.
Here are some observations, without going to any effort to look:
- 2 months after Carney was elected, I met a senior RCN officer on the ferry ride and asked him, "Are you feeling optimistic about the money that will flow?" His reply, "Oh, it's already flowing, fast." That was a year ago.
- I live near the water. There's a navy ship, or ships doing "stuff" every day, now within sight of Victoria. Lots of ops with the black clad, black hurricane assault crews and diver training too. Before Carney, that was once every two weeks, and just one ship. Now it's every day and lots of them. Anyone can see it.
- I ride by the Esquimalt yard regularly... I've never seen so much activity. When, before this government, the place was quiet, sleepy, rusty... today it's swamped with work, noise... 2 cruise ships even.
- There's a huge Japanese Coast guard ship parked a block away; there's a Korean sub arriving this week. Also new activity.
- There's a new CPC MP up island crowing about his success getting the government to commit to a new plan for snowbirds.
- There's a local company, featured in the G&M recently, working on autonomous ocean platforms, and they store one of them nearby. It rolls down the street every day now to the water. I assume for testing.
My point is that anyone who looks can see a huge change.
I'm sure there's lots of resentment about the mistreatment of our forces over the last, lost decade and emotions are hard to wrangle.
Things have changed.
Thank you for the report. It is encouraging to hear what you are seeing!!
I am friends with a man in the armed forces ,and over the last 6 months he has been seeing issue after issue being addressed. He is actually quite excited about the next 5 years as spending heads towards the 3.5 percent target. The Carney government is making a serious effort here and, GASP! it takes a long time to deal with this. This is just Trump bluster and chaos to try to rattle people into giving him more favourable terms. I do like Carney's resolve to not take the bait and to patiently go about our other business and wait this out. Remember, most trade deals he claims to have made have been subject to impulsive changes and tariffs anyways. Signing a deal with him doesn't mean much. Best solution is to grow revenues without him in other places and wait it out. one day the US will be able to make a good deal, and we will be in a great spot because of all the other work this has forced Canada to deal with.
three more that occurred to me:
- Live-fire notifications in the local press for Vancouver Island which used to be rare, therefore notable, are announced every week, including everything from tossing grenades to shelling a small island target.
- While riding along the waterfront (possibly egregious humble brag) I saw something never seen before: a frigate appeared on the horizon with a huge wake and rooster tale. People were stopping to film the thing as it boogied to Esquimalt. That takes a lot of fuel.
- Dignitaries from other Nordic countries are visiting our Harry Dewolfe class icebreaking warships in Victoria. Apparently we have the best there is. Who knew?
"I do like Carney's resolve to not take the bait and to patiently go about our other business and wait this out." This is such an important point, and something the whole country has been watching.
Every step the two take describe the contrast:
One side is a capricious narcissist, addicted to tv and social media, tweeting his emotions on a daily basis, utterly self-referential, a tween racist with untreated ADHD spending money, stealing from his own country, killing people, and taking their stuff.
On the other side is Carney. Tell me a central banker isn't a successful strategist, ffs, and real strategic thinkers are not common, btw.
Excellent comment! I have family in the CAF and they too say the investmenta are giving significant boosts in all areas. Our armed forces, despite the underfunding, were still well trained and respected - we are all better served with this investment.
Glad to hear. The problem is time I think. It will take years just to repair damage done since the 1970s. First is repairing what we have, then getting new equipment that is appropriate for our needs - and deciding what our needs are in terms of defence.
This a generational challenge and I do hope that we are on a trajectory that will improve our armed forces.
Inertia is the most powerful force in the universe, and fear is a great motivator. The ineffective predator to our south gives us a little juice every time he opens his pie hole.
Think of this: we're retooling from a pretty terrible spot, but with paradigm changing research from the Ukraine war that pootin is losing. We're also seeing a U.S. military that sucks 1/3 of every public dollar into it's black hole utterly stymied by Iran.
Yet... another... loss.
All of this happening in real time will save us from being sucked into their terrible military industrial strategy. Results speak for themselves.
And yet just this week every soldier who does not have immediate need of a sleeping bag or backpack has been ordered to hand them in because there are not enough to equip soldiers who are deployed or are about to be.
I am happy, though, that the Japanese and Koreans can seemingly fund and operate a blue-water navy.
It also sets up the Greenland argument: "Because you aren't able to defend the Arctic, which is central to our security, we need to take over your north." (Never forget those maps which have included us as part of America.)
I don't think this is an immediate threat, but given Trump's various wars of conquest, his continued bullying of Denmark over Greenland, and his serious threat to Cuba, I don't think we should ignore it. Apparently one reason the US is hesitating on invading Cuba is that Cuba has drones capable of striking Guantanamo and Florida. I wholeheartedly support us manufacturing drones here.
The Line had a great article about Greenland. Denmark granted Greenland the right to separate after a positive referendum. My take-away from the article is that it wouldn't take much foreign interference or money to take de facto control of Greenland. Certainly less than what has been spent in a certain other Arctic nation.
The U.S. already had carte blanche to do whatever they want militarily on Greenland. What you heard and saw before was pure distraction/psyops and setting the conditions for a much more robust presence at a time of the U.S. choosing. As with everything Trump, do not be distracted by what he says, watch what his government does.
Whatever arrangements the US has with Denmark are out the window if Greenland separates.
That is a very optimistic view. I doubt that would hold up to reality.
With all the massive social / entitlement programs plus all the money flowing through to FN we simply don’t have the funds necessary to properly fund a functioning military.
For me, we will have to find some money somehow because the next war is going to be fought in the arctic and likely on Canadian soil. We can change now or be changed by someone else.
It'll be interesting to see which side we are on. Not that our allegiance will affect the outcome.
Except for us.
The next war will not be fought in Arctic, and if anyone tries, it will be brutally short. There will be incursions, overt demonstrations and the odd ‘little green men’ as provocations, but something like what is going on in Ukraine is not possible there. Despite all claims of climate Armageddon, the Arctic persistently remains one of the most challenging and inhospitable places to conduct any kind of military action. Btw, the USA forces in Alaska are probably one of the best equipped and trained Arctic fighting forces in world right now, on par with the Scandinavian nations. Canada is not in the same league, believe it or not.
The CF needs to end the human resources approach to discipline and deportment.
Matt’s historical knowledge benefits us all but the military bent is welcomed and needed. Trump and his minions are painting a picture as we move into negotiations. Those of us who have personal history with the Canadian military know how far it has fallen. Carney needs to recognize, energize and most importantly not compromise the plan he has laid out for the military’s resuscitation. Canadians need to make hard choices now, like my grandfather and his three brothers did back in January of 1939. All of them signed up to serve their country. All of them returned, but there were costs both mental and physical. It took me awhile but at 62 I appreciate the sacrifices they made and am doing my best to share my pride.
I'm 58. Today's CF bears no resemblance to the CF I signed up for. I was in the infantry at 17 back in 1985. We used to have the best winter warfare soldiers in the world. Privatization of core military services to save a few bucks. We were underfunded but now? It's not even close to how it was. Even now it is not being taken seriously in Ottawa. The 2% GDP defence target has not been reached. Not even close. It is a creative accounting exercise. Why this is not major news in this country - how bad its gotten? How cheap we are and it's time to grow the #$% up.
The best winter warfare soldiers in the world are the Scandinavians, all about even. Canadians come close, but only close. The difference is that the Scandinavians learned and know how to do well with less personal and sustainment equipment in the winter warfare than any other army.
They might well be in 2026. During my time we had the best.
I honour your ancestors' service. If they looked at today's military, would they think that money and equipment were the issue?
More money and equipment is always welcome. The deficit is in understanding the real role of defence. Those who have never served in the military or who have never had kin with "skin in the game" struggle with the concept of defence and national service. Our current government bureaucracy may claim to defend Canadian values through our institutions but it was previous generations that made the ultimate sacrifice to build them in the first place.
My grandfather served well into the Cold War. His brother's left after the WW2 ended. He retired in 1963, the year I was born. He was only fifty. HIs pension money from serving allowed him to do for his children what his father could not or would not, a choice of serving in another way, through higher education. First he built a house in small town Alberta. Second he financed his children's post-secondary education, two sons and a daughter. My father was the first.
After three years with the RCAF, where he met my mother, my parents became civilians. My Dad went to university and my mother used the skills she had acquired to find work to supplement the income my grandfather provided. My grandfather wanted my father and mother to have the choice he never had. A choice that was denied too many previous generations of men and women. The opportunity to have a family without risking life, limb and lineage. Service without the ultimate sacrifice. Careless politicians and academics have undermined my grandfather and his generation. As someone once said "they know not what they do". But I do.
Thank you for writing this analysis, Matt.
In particular, it had not occurred to me that the "suspension" of PJBD meetings could have been another way for the Americans to convey their displeasure with Canada's apparent interest in the Gripen aircraft.
Be that as it may, I agree with your thesis about our own culpability. I would add that said culpability is shared in equally by successive Liberal and Conservative governments.
Last weekend I was party to a discussion by supporters of a political party. I shall not name the party, or the individuals. However, I will say that the discussion focused on the need to do more for our society's elderly.
Needless to say, most of the participants were north of 60, so to speak. One clearheaded young man piped up and observed that we needed to rethink the extent of our commitments, given the difficult circumstances his cohort faced.
More fundamentally, I was struck by the unreality of calls for even more money for elder care in this country.
Indeed, I recognize and acknowledge how tough the situation for some older people can be, particularly those who lived, as one might say, a rough life and now find themselves without means, family or a home.
Nonetheless, NOBODY even mentioned the fact that Canada is in the midst of what you and others have (reluctantly) called a "poly crisis". Much less the critical need for a sovereign state like Canada to move quickly to ensure our sovereignty in the face of an erratic and increasingly hostile ally.
I do hope that Mr Carney and the clearest-eyed in his government (and the most hard-headed in our federal public service) really understand how much work is needed to make up for decades of decay in the Canadian military.
Oh, and BTW. Shifting CSE and the Coast Guard to DND to help "fatten up" the national defence budget (to make it look like we made the two percent target) was a sterling exercise in bullshit.
It won't work in the future.
I wouldn't count on the government catching up on this. CBC had John McKay saying the US is "foolish" and David McGuinty saying Canada is ready to "come to the table."
I wonder if the Rideau and Welland Canal budgets still count as military spending.
Who is calling for more elder care? I am technically elderly but don't recall calling for more - I still work full time at 75 because I have to support one of my children who is on disability and cannot afford food even with a food bank. I know plenty of elderly people as I go to church (virtually all elderly - I am one of the younger members) and none of them are calling for government help.
It was a semi-public meeting, attended by about 50 people.
As I said, many of the participants were complaining about lack of support afforded to elder care.
I will add, though, that although they aired many complaints about the federal government, much of what they discussed was about things, like long-term health care, mental health supports and so on, that are provincial responsibilities under the Constitution.
A typical public meeting, in other words
Hmmm. Well what was apparently said applies to every age group. I cared for my wife as her health declined while she was in her 50s and 60s. We received 60 hours a month PSW care which was reduced to 13 hours a week. My private insurance provided an hour a day of nursing care. Fortunately I was working from home so I provided the other 21 hours. Nursing homes refused her because her care was too great, except the places which Covid revealed as horror shows. She was not yet elderly. My granddaughter broke her foot two years ago and it was 12 hours in the ER before a doctor saw her...,and.... is 50 people a representative sample?
You seem not to understand.
I was not attempting to justify or approve of the views espoused during the meeting I spoke of.
On the contrary, I was struck by the extent to which the attendees seemed only to have ears for the (often anecdotal) evidence of "insufficient elder care funding" bandied about during the meeting.
As I sought to make clear in my previous comments, I think this is astonishing, given the huge number of priorities other than "more money for the elderly" that the federal government must deal with.
Defence, in particular, strikes me as the top priority, not least because it is the federal government that has sole jurisdiction over the Canadian Armed Forces.
As for whether those 50 people were a "representative example", they most surely were not.
But they were 50 people who potentially represent several hundred votes per riding across Canada focused almost exclusively on "their" pet peeve, to the exclusion of other very important issues.
The real problem is that, like with Five Eyes, the US will not know if China is privy to the discussions.
The US decided that Canada is a weak link due to Chinese interference and also pointed to Mark Carney’s Davos speech that Washington now treats as reality.
I guess, if you are an Alberta separatist, or wanna' be separatist, more fuel for the fire.
Alberta's trade with the US accounts for about 90% of Albertas' trade, something like $130 billion in bilateral trade.
While this 'Carney made' alienation from the US will also hurt the rest of Canada, the rest of Canada can vote the liberals out, but they won't. Alberta can't do anything about that except separate.
If the US is divorcing Canada, it is just another really good reason for Alberta to separate from Canada.
I think we gotta go back to the table and renegotiate the constitution for the current century.
It will literally be easier to secede province by province and negotiate a new constitution piecemeal.
Could be.
I think we have to negotiate the constitution as well. Canada has changed and almost everyone agrees that the constitution must be changed, but what federal party would change it? Things like not being able to ensure that your province can prosper, and it is not only Alberta, Alberta is just more vocal, is no way to run a federation.
I doubt it will happen as there is no possible agreement other than after years and years of arguing.
With the current amending formula there is absolutely no substantive change that is possible. None. Therefore, Carole is correct, separation from ROC is Alberta's only real choice. Now, whether sufficient number of voters are clear eyed is a different matter.
Everything is possible. It is the only move that Carney has if separatism grows. Might not work. It isn't working now. What would have to exist for separatists to remain in Canada?
You say that it "is the only move that Carney has" but Carney is but one player in this. Much more important players are the provincial premiers and their legislatures.
I live in Alberta and it is a vast frustration for many of us that Canada appropriates tens of billions of dollars from us and then Parliament passes laws (many in violation of the Constitution) that are deliberately oriented to disadvantage us. Then, some of the provinces decry our "dirty oil" - Quebec, for example - and eagerly take our money while ensuring that their own economy remains dependent by legislating against their own resource industry. Yet other provinces just take monies and give it no thought except that it is their "right". Do you think that any of them will agree to give up that largesse?
There are other frustrations that we have that also disadvantage us and those who are advantaged will not be eager to surrender those advantages, either.
Simply put, there is not a chance that any substantive change to the constitution can occur.
That is the problem Ken. There are so many players and so many 'feelings' involved. Alberta has to fight against being the wedge issue that the federal and provincial governments have used to get votes. Turning those negative feelings against Alberta is just another problem that can't be fixed.
".... another problem that can't be fixed."
And that is why many of us are separatists: the problems that can't be fixed.
At some point Ottawa will have to convene the provincial premiers. This is not going away. It just isn't.
Everyone and their cat knows that Quebec is doing what Quebec does every day. Smith is pulling a page from Quebec by asking for the same thing. Can you think of any reason why Alberta shouldn't have the same deal as Quebec?
Possible dumb question (though sincerely asked) from an Easterner, but what unconstitutional laws are being passed by Parliament? And are they not worth fighting in court?
What other province is being blackmailed by having to implement a 20 billion dollar unproven carbon capture Brookfield scam and adding additional carbon pricing to our major industry just so we can prosper, and give more money to the rest of Canada. All of Alberta's concerns are well documented.
Keith Wilson, constitutional lawyer, YouTube channel
R & J, I apologize but, well, it's complicated .....
I started to respond but my response got incredibly wordy, with specific examples and such. I just had to delete it because it was, well, as I said, wordy, but was just touching, incredibly lightly touching, on the issue. So, I deleted it.
I will simply say that under the Constitution some areas are exclusively federal jurisdiction, some are exclusively provincial jurisdiction and some are shared jurisdiction.
I will further say that Ottawa takes the approach that it knows best on just about every damned thing and that the provinces are ignorant idiots. You may think that to be hyperbolic but I respond that it is pretty close to the truth.
I will offer one point. On energy policy - which is EXCLUSIVELY provincial jurisdiction - the feds have been trying to eliminate our energy industry for about ten years or so. That is not hyperbole but was pretty much what the previous Prime Minister (I still spit when I say his name so I will, in the interests of good hygiene, simply refer to him that way) actually said in 2017 when he wanted to "phase out" our oil sands plants. Provincially permitted plants that work hard on environmentally sound processing.
Anyway, as to court cases. Yes, a provincial government can sue the feds but it cost a lot of money for lawyers and takes many years and in the meantime the feds are administering a law. It is on that basis that Alberta has passed the Alberta Sovereignty within a United Canada Act. The Sovereignty Act now allows us, when a federal law, regulation, etc. intrudes on provincial jurisdiction to formally assert that intrusion and to formally require that the feds NOT proceed with their activities in that respect within Alberta thereby largely making lawsuits on these matters not required.
As noted, the problem with court cases is their cost and their incredible time delay. Further, any lawyer with any skill will always tell you to stay out of court for the first two reasons but also will tell you that whenever you go to court you never know what a judge will decide; you simply don't know if judge A will decide the same as judge B or judge C. I can tell you that the judges appointed over the last ten or so years all have a "particular" ideological approach that accords with federal control over a plain reading of what the Constitution actually says so, well, stay out of court.
And the foregoing is much less detailed than how I started to respond to you; I apologize for not responding with more specificity (a Prime Minister Joe Clark word).
There is more Chinese interference in the US than in Canada, by far. The US does far more trade with China, and is seeking to increase that significantly. Carney lets in a measly 50K EVs to increase Canola sales and gets ripped by conservatives, Trump is seeking a trillion more in trade and the same people eat it up.. I am unclear why people seem to think Canada is an offending party on "China" and the US/Trump are the cool kids.
We are allowing Chinese EVs in for 5 years, but canola etc. agreement ends this year.....and there is that secret agreement between the Chinese security regime and the RCMP ......
Canada is Chinas' primary target because of Canada's smaller economy and government infrastructure.This is known and disinformation campaigns are more effective in specific electoral ridings. Sure, the US has a larger population, so obviously there are more Chinese.
Regardless, what is the point in saying, look at the US. Pay attention to what is happening in Canada.
Canadians including most of the elbows up crowd think this all goes away in 2.5 years when Trump is gone but not only has the world changed but our NATO partners tolerance for Canadian spending on defense changed .
We are going to have to spend and Hard dollars on new equipment. One area I agree with the US on.
Matt talks about missing out on changes in military ops and refers to drones. We are dabbling in drones,but we have totally missed the long running use of missiles. Any reading of ongoing conflicts contains constant reference to missile attacks and anti-missile systems. We have none. The last surface to surface missile deployed by Canada was the Honest John in W. Germany up until Trudeau I redeployed our forces to S. Germany
Simply stated, the CAF needs missiles of every kind. And drones. And tanks and new rifles, uniforms, rucksacks, sleeping bags, boots(!), military utility vehicles of various types, modern electronic warfare systems, GBAD systems for all ranges, etc, etc, etc. You see where this is going. If you gave the CAF the equivalent of the entire U.S. military budget, in about ten years you would start seeing some noticeable changes, outside of organizational moves and more operations being conducted with what is still available and working. This is the sad reality of the enormity of the task ahead of this particular problem set which we shall wrap neatly into a bow and call ‘Canadian military modernization’.
Great article. Just a note - if this symbolic move pushes the elbows up people to spend more on the military, and firm up supportive military relationships with other democracies so that the US is less often doing the only heavy lifting, isn't that what Trump wants? We all know that the over 55 crowd in central Canada is most enamoured with elbows up and also Carney's strongest supporters. Maybe there are no downsides for the Trump administration.
With the government killing the Snowbirds today, things will get worse. An incredibly short-sighted decision. There is a lot more than needs to be told/ admitted. Canada has indeed failed itself.
Those planes are death traps they are so old. What is better PR for Libs? Shutting down the Snowbirds or watching a fiery wreck occur above an air show in front of thousands of onlookers?
"Death Traps" based on what facts? Yes, they're old. The Snowbirds act is not a high-G load performance, and if required, can be adjusted downwards. I have yet to hear any confirmation that the entire fleet is being retired at the end of 2026, either. I am also of the opinion that in the early 2000s, we would have built 150 new Tutors with upgraded avionics. It's a brilliant training platform; we had all the designs, and we had companies that could build them. All that was missing was a government that didn't care about the military. I have more questions than answers. Our national media doesn't know enough to ask the right questions on any transport-related matter. That is a problem.
Based on the very first fact that you stated. That they are old. The airframes are over 50+ years old. I don’t care how much babying and maintenance one does, these are so long past the operational life spans of these planes as to be criminally incompetent.
Thanks for the seemingly accurate analysis.
While I have great respect for our military and its members, and the jobs they've done and do, it has undergone both active purposeful shrinkage and benign neglect since at least Hellyer's time.
Every actual effort to keep up or improve has been out of embarrassment, taken far too long and cost much more than it should have. No federal government thus far has done much more than talk about upkeep and improvements.
There are signs of some momentum here but as you note it's all catch up at the moment.
The only Canadian response to this US action will be to add the cancellation to the Elbows Up crowd's list of Trump greivances. They won't know what the Board does. They have been enjoying their "peace" dividend for decades.
Their kids and grandkids will notice in a couple more decades when Canada's debt interest cost impinges on things they really use; healthcare, education and municipal services (police, roads, transit). They will be paying higher taxes for fewer services and cursing the stupidity and greed of the Elbows Up gang.