The three Canadian services are quite probably broken beyond repair in peacetime. They will be repaired following catastrophic defeat in a conflict.
I will point out that generally standards of individual training remain high, so we have good folks in a irreparably broken system.
Leadership standards are atrophied. DEI promotion has become the norm, and therefore the leaders are distrusted. Leadership standards are so low that the CF chief warrant officer publicly called out toxic leadership late 2024 as a major problem. This partly accounts for extremely low retention rates.
The political leadership of both major parties is quite obviously uninterested in defence and this is quite obviously known to the rank and file of the services. The leaders don't know and they don't care. I include Parliament in my denunciation, and by extension the Canadian public.
The procurement system is an obvious joke. Even when we buy things, they are crap. I won't explain, but look up the CC-295 Kingfisher, the TAPV, the AOPS, as examples of huge contracts delivering...no capability.
NDHQ is so incredibly far removed from an appreciation of operational and tactical necessity as to be a running joke. We spend a billion on a new campus for NDHQ when, for example, the entire Canadian Army had no air defence systems. The obvious lack of urgency - total, extreme lack of urgency - following February 2022 is evidence of this disconnect. The CDS recently said that we could only train some small number of recruits each year (if memory serves, under 5,000) and therefore we can't get to our previously required strength until 2032 or so. This is so obviously wrong it is laughable. The services will do what they are told to do, including possibly working more than 35 hours a week and taking sports afternoons each week.
There is no imposition of standards. When was the last general, admiral or executive fired for not achieving their goals? Where are the hard men and women who should be promoted into the leadership roles?
Hi, there. I know you are likely busy setting up armament pitches to the feds, but could we please get some "F*** Those Guys" merch? T-shirts at minimum?
Whichever party forms the next government, I have no reason to believe anyone understands how bad things are in the CF. It was pretty bad when I joined up 40 years ago. We didn't get new rifles until '87 and I still got used boots and used combat fatigues back when I handed in my worn out gear for exchange. Ottawa has known about the housing problem for years and years, nothing done. Troops using the food bank, that's happened. What else, closing Veterans Affairs offices, yeah that was brilliant. Why would anyone join up if they don't take care of you once you're done? For me, I think war is coming.
Flag Day, a hockey game and unveiled anti-Americanism do not morph the post-nation state into a cohesive society. If there was 2 years of compulsory military service, how many of our hyphenated-Canadians would drop our citizenship and bolt? How about 2 months?
We had a crisis long before Mr. Trump imposed tariffs and once the latter is resolved the provinces will revert to their self-serving perspectives. The continued, slow devolution of the Confederation will continue.
So, by all means, fund our military properly, but the underlying national faults remain. What is bred in the bone will come out in the flesh.
Great discussion, I'm very happy that there's finally some traction on these talks. I remember having a discussion maybe ten years ago (as a layman just out of school) with a leftist. I actually think I managed to convince him at the time that a strong armed force was necessary, but that was obviously all in hypothethicals.
One question I had is that I'm a professional with skills that would be useful for a future Canadian rearmament, future Canadian arms industry, etc. What could I, as an individual, be doing? I don't have enough capital to open a new munitions factory, but I'm willing and able to make a career shift. What can I be doing?
It was only an incidental comment, but if you want to know what it's like with no US Department of Education, you only have to look back to 1979 when it was created by the Carter Admin. To understand why they want to scrap it, look at k-12 literacy and numeracy rates before and after the DoE.
I say this because I think we need to take a similar move-fast-and-break-things mindset in Canada if we have any hope of getting past the status-quo of stagnant, sclerotic, deadlocked paralysis of our systems of vested interests and bureaucracy, and I think that very much applies to Canadian Defense
You could say the DoE needs reform, but the phrase "The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does" explains the view that the dysfunction of US K-12 is baked into the functioning of the department. I think our procurement process seems to suffer from the same thing, it's purpose seems to be porkbarreling, maximizing costs and timelines
On the subject of the military capabilities that Canada needs: as a layperson, the clearest and most detailed proposal I've seen is an old series of blog posts by Bruce Rolston, arguing for rapid, independent, sustainable infantry deployment. https://vancouverkingsway.ca/remembrance-day-2024
"If one looks back on the primary limiting factor in the last 15 years on Canadian military operations (and hence on foreign policy planners as well), it has been rapid, independent, sustainable deployability. It prevented us from even considering many missions where we could have done some good (Congo, Rwanda, reinforcing our own troops in Yugoslavia when it was still a UN mandate, the most recent Gulf War, etc., etc.) It has also prevented us from doing as much as we could or wanted to in the missions we did accept (Afghanistan, Gulf War 1, Kosovo, East Timor, etc., etc.) In all cases there was a will, but no way: it stands to reason that if the military of the future is to be any better than it is today, if that $3 billion in spending is going to make a difference, then it has to be with this as its focus.
"Of course, the troops that are most often needed were to be ground troops. Not because you need 'boots on the ground,' necessarily, but because ground deployment is basically the only kind that is useful regardless of the level of allied support, and across the spectrum of operational intensity. High, middle or low, with allies or without, soldiers are still useful... combat air power and naval assets less so. A destroyer can't peacekeep. A CF-18 can't defend a no-fire zone. An infantry company can. Yes, other assets can be useful too, but they inevitably must be one piece in larger allied operations. Canada could someday have the best attack helicopters in the world (for instance); it arguably has the best armoured recce unit or the best disaster assistance teams in the world now, but those are capabilities that, if Canada doesn't also provide the foot soldiers, someone else has to for us. It's good to have a few nichey, specialized tasks your country is very very good at... but for flexibility's sake you always want to have that one capability that always comes in handy, for us or any other army, in any circumstance. And that's trained and well-equipped combat soldiers."
That was from 20 years ago. The podcast makes a convincing case that we need to be able to handle the defence of Canada and the Arctic, so that the US doesn't need to do it for us. That means we need capabilities similar to the Americans, e.g. F-35s.
It sounds like there's two dimensions. One is scaling up existing capabilities - recruiting and training more soldiers, buying more artillery pieces and shells.
The other is technology - developing new capabilities. The picture from the podcast is pretty bleak:
"The capacity within the Department of National Defense to acquire the new systems and keep us fighting at the cutting edge of fighting technology, **there isn't anybody there**. The years of these cutbacks, the people who are the rarefied subject matter experts who understand technology in a real intrinsically effective way that's taken decades to develop that expertise, that person doesn't exist. Or they do exist, but there's so few of them. And they're running around from program to program to try to keep things running because there isn't anybody. That's just the reality of DND. It will take years, literally, if not a decade, to actually build up the people and the process and all that in order to allow us to execute on these programs."
Thanks for this. Shimooka explains completely the 'problem' that Canada has with the lack of ability in our armed forces. I can sense his frustration at this but he manages to sound sane and rational nonetheless.
Great episode - I am so glad The Line continues to pay attention to defence and security issues along side Canadian political news.
As the talk turned to what can Canada do right now, not in five years from now, surely a large intellectual property licensing fee could be paid to Ukraine to learn everything they have learned about drone and drone missile production. Ukraine can use the funds to ramp up production and continue to fight for their freedom. Canadian industry can replicate.
Similarly fully support group like fellow Canadian Kevin Leach at Sabre Training Advisory Group and the great work they are doing in training Ukraine armed forces to fight on a modern battlefield.
Get an expanded Canadian Army/Rangers force trained up and equipped for this war, not the last one. Then send them to monitor and patrol the Arctic. It seems to me both of those things would be needed for Canada to point to our American "friends" as tangible actions Canada is taking now to defend Canadian sovereignty.
I feel like Canada's biggest challenge is that far too many Canadians have no appreciation for the need for defense, or the legitimacy of spending money on defense. Canadians have a lot in common with American isolationism in that sense: all that stuff is happening over *there*. We have huge oceans between them and us, and why should we go solve *their* problems? It's facile, betraying a failure to understand how much our prosperity is rooted in trade, and how that trade depends on the peace and prosperity that's been achieved with the rules-based international order. It's also no longer accurate, with the technological advances of the past century and rising capability of threatening nations largely erasing the protection afforded by those oceans.
The other problem is residual brain-dead hippie pacifism that thoroughly infected Canadian popular thought in the '60s and '70s: "What if they held a war and nobody came?" isn't actually a foreign policy; Canadian military interventions abroad have almost always been about *stopping* people from killing babies, not bombing babies. Military spending isn't stealing services from Canadians; it's an insurance policy to make sure we've even got the option of providing those services. A lot of the notion that Canada has no serious threats abroad is symptomatic of a myopic understanding of the world and projecting a utopian fantasy that the rules-based international order is something a lot more concrete than a voluntary arrangement that depends on the acquiescence of its participants.
Eh! The world has gone to crap! According to the media. “Tariffs” Trump says it’s a beautiful word. “Dumb” Trudeau best come back line. No major announcements,no projects,no ideas. Even from my home I wanted to shout “Justin! You are leaving us this mess! To clean up after you! Debt,Crime,Homeless… Have you no shame? You won’t walk away.” Just breaking more furniture. $1.3 Billion to SNC Lavalin,Speed Rail from France to look at a map of where it might go. Ralph Klein said it best “Governments are not in the business of being in business.” Capital sure,know how? No! Can’t even be trusted to inspect,oversee a project. Don’t know what you are looking at
Mostly interesting and well reasoned, good explanation on the importance of industrial might and depth of forces. Again though, there seems to be a lack of understanding across Canada (though I believe Matt alluded to it at one point) that America ending globalization has nothing to do with Trump - it was always going to happen. The Americans no longer have the capability to police the world, they merely kept doing it out of habit after 1989. They don't have the right kind of navy, they don't have the financial resources and they have their own problems.
America doesn't need globalization and never did. It was a bribe to get allies. Yes it made some Americans rich but it's pretty debatable whether it improved their society as a whole. As the US is one of the few economies that will still have consumption they have a future with standard economic models but they absolutely have to reshore their industrial plant as soon as possible, prior to the full Chinese collapse. Trump has been more crude about it, but make no mistake, all of this was always going to happen. Perhaps not as soon as openly, but the sooner the world faces reality the better.
There is an important place for Canada and Mexico in the future but we have beggared ourselves and it's almost unimaginable how we get out of this mess.
The Europeans are mostly a dumpster fire with a questionable future. Their demographic collapse and rather questionable immigration choices (shout out to Canada) have made them likely to face complete economic meltdown and potential societal collapse. Germany's choice to waste $700 billion+ dollars on "green" technology that is completely unsuited to their climate and situation has ruined any chance they have to modernize their industrial plant and country in general.
There is no possible way the US can carry Europe forever, even if they wanted to. And they don't. This is a larger version of the situation Canada, Alberta and Saskatchewan won't be able to carry Quebec, the Atlantic provinces and soon to be Ontario as they collapse demographically. Ontario was essential to the bribery scheme and it's on a long slide into economic weakness. The prairies don't have the wealth or population to pick up the slack. Something drastic has to change to give us a chance, and I suspect we missed our window.
As for competency in the Canadian military, I have my doubts. I spent 10+ years working very closely with Air Force officers (no one higher than a major) and I couldn't have been less impressed. Some enlisted were good.
People I know who have gotten out recently are completely disgusted and demoralized. No competence in the officers, zero accountability for senior officers, and no reason to think that will change.
I think it’s time for Canada to cut its defense coat according to its cloth. The Government has been run or dominated by a component tribe whose attitude to the military is reflected by riots against service in both WWI and WWII. The military was used for domestic population control during the FLQ insurrection, but later it was unable to control a group of Mohawk warriors at Oka leading to payments of “Danegeld” to the First Nations ever since.
With this in mind, I suggest Canada take a leaf from the Mexican constitution and limit the role of its military to population control and palace guarding within its own borders. Mexico has 3 times the population of Canada and seems to be able to afford this role. A suitable payment to the US or a protectorate arrangement where a country remains independent but relies on another country for its defense via a treaty seems appropriate based an a swap of resources for defense similar to that under negotiation with Ukraine.
The three Canadian services are quite probably broken beyond repair in peacetime. They will be repaired following catastrophic defeat in a conflict.
I will point out that generally standards of individual training remain high, so we have good folks in a irreparably broken system.
Leadership standards are atrophied. DEI promotion has become the norm, and therefore the leaders are distrusted. Leadership standards are so low that the CF chief warrant officer publicly called out toxic leadership late 2024 as a major problem. This partly accounts for extremely low retention rates.
The political leadership of both major parties is quite obviously uninterested in defence and this is quite obviously known to the rank and file of the services. The leaders don't know and they don't care. I include Parliament in my denunciation, and by extension the Canadian public.
The procurement system is an obvious joke. Even when we buy things, they are crap. I won't explain, but look up the CC-295 Kingfisher, the TAPV, the AOPS, as examples of huge contracts delivering...no capability.
NDHQ is so incredibly far removed from an appreciation of operational and tactical necessity as to be a running joke. We spend a billion on a new campus for NDHQ when, for example, the entire Canadian Army had no air defence systems. The obvious lack of urgency - total, extreme lack of urgency - following February 2022 is evidence of this disconnect. The CDS recently said that we could only train some small number of recruits each year (if memory serves, under 5,000) and therefore we can't get to our previously required strength until 2032 or so. This is so obviously wrong it is laughable. The services will do what they are told to do, including possibly working more than 35 hours a week and taking sports afternoons each week.
There is no imposition of standards. When was the last general, admiral or executive fired for not achieving their goals? Where are the hard men and women who should be promoted into the leadership roles?
I could go on, but won't. It is too depressing
Hi, there. I know you are likely busy setting up armament pitches to the feds, but could we please get some "F*** Those Guys" merch? T-shirts at minimum?
Whichever party forms the next government, I have no reason to believe anyone understands how bad things are in the CF. It was pretty bad when I joined up 40 years ago. We didn't get new rifles until '87 and I still got used boots and used combat fatigues back when I handed in my worn out gear for exchange. Ottawa has known about the housing problem for years and years, nothing done. Troops using the food bank, that's happened. What else, closing Veterans Affairs offices, yeah that was brilliant. Why would anyone join up if they don't take care of you once you're done? For me, I think war is coming.
Flag Day, a hockey game and unveiled anti-Americanism do not morph the post-nation state into a cohesive society. If there was 2 years of compulsory military service, how many of our hyphenated-Canadians would drop our citizenship and bolt? How about 2 months?
We had a crisis long before Mr. Trump imposed tariffs and once the latter is resolved the provinces will revert to their self-serving perspectives. The continued, slow devolution of the Confederation will continue.
So, by all means, fund our military properly, but the underlying national faults remain. What is bred in the bone will come out in the flesh.
Great discussion, I'm very happy that there's finally some traction on these talks. I remember having a discussion maybe ten years ago (as a layman just out of school) with a leftist. I actually think I managed to convince him at the time that a strong armed force was necessary, but that was obviously all in hypothethicals.
One question I had is that I'm a professional with skills that would be useful for a future Canadian rearmament, future Canadian arms industry, etc. What could I, as an individual, be doing? I don't have enough capital to open a new munitions factory, but I'm willing and able to make a career shift. What can I be doing?
It was only an incidental comment, but if you want to know what it's like with no US Department of Education, you only have to look back to 1979 when it was created by the Carter Admin. To understand why they want to scrap it, look at k-12 literacy and numeracy rates before and after the DoE.
I say this because I think we need to take a similar move-fast-and-break-things mindset in Canada if we have any hope of getting past the status-quo of stagnant, sclerotic, deadlocked paralysis of our systems of vested interests and bureaucracy, and I think that very much applies to Canadian Defense
You could say the DoE needs reform, but the phrase "The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does" explains the view that the dysfunction of US K-12 is baked into the functioning of the department. I think our procurement process seems to suffer from the same thing, it's purpose seems to be porkbarreling, maximizing costs and timelines
On the subject of the military capabilities that Canada needs: as a layperson, the clearest and most detailed proposal I've seen is an old series of blog posts by Bruce Rolston, arguing for rapid, independent, sustainable infantry deployment. https://vancouverkingsway.ca/remembrance-day-2024
"If one looks back on the primary limiting factor in the last 15 years on Canadian military operations (and hence on foreign policy planners as well), it has been rapid, independent, sustainable deployability. It prevented us from even considering many missions where we could have done some good (Congo, Rwanda, reinforcing our own troops in Yugoslavia when it was still a UN mandate, the most recent Gulf War, etc., etc.) It has also prevented us from doing as much as we could or wanted to in the missions we did accept (Afghanistan, Gulf War 1, Kosovo, East Timor, etc., etc.) In all cases there was a will, but no way: it stands to reason that if the military of the future is to be any better than it is today, if that $3 billion in spending is going to make a difference, then it has to be with this as its focus.
"Of course, the troops that are most often needed were to be ground troops. Not because you need 'boots on the ground,' necessarily, but because ground deployment is basically the only kind that is useful regardless of the level of allied support, and across the spectrum of operational intensity. High, middle or low, with allies or without, soldiers are still useful... combat air power and naval assets less so. A destroyer can't peacekeep. A CF-18 can't defend a no-fire zone. An infantry company can. Yes, other assets can be useful too, but they inevitably must be one piece in larger allied operations. Canada could someday have the best attack helicopters in the world (for instance); it arguably has the best armoured recce unit or the best disaster assistance teams in the world now, but those are capabilities that, if Canada doesn't also provide the foot soldiers, someone else has to for us. It's good to have a few nichey, specialized tasks your country is very very good at... but for flexibility's sake you always want to have that one capability that always comes in handy, for us or any other army, in any circumstance. And that's trained and well-equipped combat soldiers."
That was from 20 years ago. The podcast makes a convincing case that we need to be able to handle the defence of Canada and the Arctic, so that the US doesn't need to do it for us. That means we need capabilities similar to the Americans, e.g. F-35s.
It sounds like there's two dimensions. One is scaling up existing capabilities - recruiting and training more soldiers, buying more artillery pieces and shells.
The other is technology - developing new capabilities. The picture from the podcast is pretty bleak:
"The capacity within the Department of National Defense to acquire the new systems and keep us fighting at the cutting edge of fighting technology, **there isn't anybody there**. The years of these cutbacks, the people who are the rarefied subject matter experts who understand technology in a real intrinsically effective way that's taken decades to develop that expertise, that person doesn't exist. Or they do exist, but there's so few of them. And they're running around from program to program to try to keep things running because there isn't anybody. That's just the reality of DND. It will take years, literally, if not a decade, to actually build up the people and the process and all that in order to allow us to execute on these programs."
Thank you. No one else seems to be covering this issue.
Thanks for this. Shimooka explains completely the 'problem' that Canada has with the lack of ability in our armed forces. I can sense his frustration at this but he manages to sound sane and rational nonetheless.
Good discussion and important topic.
Really distracting that your guest sounds like he's constantly moving away from the mic.
I had to tap out due to his audio quality.
Great episode - I am so glad The Line continues to pay attention to defence and security issues along side Canadian political news.
As the talk turned to what can Canada do right now, not in five years from now, surely a large intellectual property licensing fee could be paid to Ukraine to learn everything they have learned about drone and drone missile production. Ukraine can use the funds to ramp up production and continue to fight for their freedom. Canadian industry can replicate.
Similarly fully support group like fellow Canadian Kevin Leach at Sabre Training Advisory Group and the great work they are doing in training Ukraine armed forces to fight on a modern battlefield.
Get an expanded Canadian Army/Rangers force trained up and equipped for this war, not the last one. Then send them to monitor and patrol the Arctic. It seems to me both of those things would be needed for Canada to point to our American "friends" as tangible actions Canada is taking now to defend Canadian sovereignty.
I feel like Canada's biggest challenge is that far too many Canadians have no appreciation for the need for defense, or the legitimacy of spending money on defense. Canadians have a lot in common with American isolationism in that sense: all that stuff is happening over *there*. We have huge oceans between them and us, and why should we go solve *their* problems? It's facile, betraying a failure to understand how much our prosperity is rooted in trade, and how that trade depends on the peace and prosperity that's been achieved with the rules-based international order. It's also no longer accurate, with the technological advances of the past century and rising capability of threatening nations largely erasing the protection afforded by those oceans.
The other problem is residual brain-dead hippie pacifism that thoroughly infected Canadian popular thought in the '60s and '70s: "What if they held a war and nobody came?" isn't actually a foreign policy; Canadian military interventions abroad have almost always been about *stopping* people from killing babies, not bombing babies. Military spending isn't stealing services from Canadians; it's an insurance policy to make sure we've even got the option of providing those services. A lot of the notion that Canada has no serious threats abroad is symptomatic of a myopic understanding of the world and projecting a utopian fantasy that the rules-based international order is something a lot more concrete than a voluntary arrangement that depends on the acquiescence of its participants.
Eh! The world has gone to crap! According to the media. “Tariffs” Trump says it’s a beautiful word. “Dumb” Trudeau best come back line. No major announcements,no projects,no ideas. Even from my home I wanted to shout “Justin! You are leaving us this mess! To clean up after you! Debt,Crime,Homeless… Have you no shame? You won’t walk away.” Just breaking more furniture. $1.3 Billion to SNC Lavalin,Speed Rail from France to look at a map of where it might go. Ralph Klein said it best “Governments are not in the business of being in business.” Capital sure,know how? No! Can’t even be trusted to inspect,oversee a project. Don’t know what you are looking at
Mostly interesting and well reasoned, good explanation on the importance of industrial might and depth of forces. Again though, there seems to be a lack of understanding across Canada (though I believe Matt alluded to it at one point) that America ending globalization has nothing to do with Trump - it was always going to happen. The Americans no longer have the capability to police the world, they merely kept doing it out of habit after 1989. They don't have the right kind of navy, they don't have the financial resources and they have their own problems.
America doesn't need globalization and never did. It was a bribe to get allies. Yes it made some Americans rich but it's pretty debatable whether it improved their society as a whole. As the US is one of the few economies that will still have consumption they have a future with standard economic models but they absolutely have to reshore their industrial plant as soon as possible, prior to the full Chinese collapse. Trump has been more crude about it, but make no mistake, all of this was always going to happen. Perhaps not as soon as openly, but the sooner the world faces reality the better.
There is an important place for Canada and Mexico in the future but we have beggared ourselves and it's almost unimaginable how we get out of this mess.
The Europeans are mostly a dumpster fire with a questionable future. Their demographic collapse and rather questionable immigration choices (shout out to Canada) have made them likely to face complete economic meltdown and potential societal collapse. Germany's choice to waste $700 billion+ dollars on "green" technology that is completely unsuited to their climate and situation has ruined any chance they have to modernize their industrial plant and country in general.
There is no possible way the US can carry Europe forever, even if they wanted to. And they don't. This is a larger version of the situation Canada, Alberta and Saskatchewan won't be able to carry Quebec, the Atlantic provinces and soon to be Ontario as they collapse demographically. Ontario was essential to the bribery scheme and it's on a long slide into economic weakness. The prairies don't have the wealth or population to pick up the slack. Something drastic has to change to give us a chance, and I suspect we missed our window.
As for competency in the Canadian military, I have my doubts. I spent 10+ years working very closely with Air Force officers (no one higher than a major) and I couldn't have been less impressed. Some enlisted were good.
People I know who have gotten out recently are completely disgusted and demoralized. No competence in the officers, zero accountability for senior officers, and no reason to think that will change.
Your OntheLine posts are great! Why do I think nothing will be done to fix any of this in any real sense?
I think it’s time for Canada to cut its defense coat according to its cloth. The Government has been run or dominated by a component tribe whose attitude to the military is reflected by riots against service in both WWI and WWII. The military was used for domestic population control during the FLQ insurrection, but later it was unable to control a group of Mohawk warriors at Oka leading to payments of “Danegeld” to the First Nations ever since.
With this in mind, I suggest Canada take a leaf from the Mexican constitution and limit the role of its military to population control and palace guarding within its own borders. Mexico has 3 times the population of Canada and seems to be able to afford this role. A suitable payment to the US or a protectorate arrangement where a country remains independent but relies on another country for its defense via a treaty seems appropriate based an a swap of resources for defense similar to that under negotiation with Ukraine.