If the Canadian Army got into a shooting war, it would largely be out of ammunition after three days.
There is a dire lack of modern planes, ships and armoured vehicles. The army brigade stationed in Latvia as a deterrent to Russia lacks essential gear such as modern anti-aircraft defences, advanced anti-tank weapons and an electronic warfare capability. Even basic ammunition such as artillery shells, hardly an advanced, unproven technology, is in desperately short supply.
That bleak assessment of the state of preparedness of the Canadian Armed Forces comes by way of defence analyst David Perry, president of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, and a long-time observer of the Canadian military.
But one needn’t take Mr. Perry’s word for it: a similarly gloomy picture emerges from the Department of Defence’s departmental plan, issued last month, of a decaying military capacity. In fiscal 2022-23 (the latest year for which there are data), just 61 per cent of CAF elements were ready for operations, down from 71 per cent the previous year, and far below the goal of at least 90 per cent.
There’s a similar trend line of decay for equipment. Just 56 per cent of the army’s “key land fleets” – tanks, armoured cars and other vehicles – were combat ready in 2022-23, down from 65.8 per cent the previous year, and falling far below the goal of at least 70 per cent. The numbers are similar for the navy and air force’s equipment.
This space has repeatedly argued that Canada should meet its commitment to our NATO allies of spending at least 2 per cent of GDP on defence. Most of the alliance, spurred on by Russia’s illegal and brutal invasion of Ukraine, is ramping up spending to hit or exceed that goal.
The Liberals continue to say that Canada will meet that goal, without laying out a timetable that would give a shred of credibility to such statements. Indeed, the Defence Department has been told to bear the brunt of the spending reallocations that will shift billions of dollars into Liberal priorities such as a national dental program.
Forget about the commitments to our allies for a moment (but only for a moment). What about the commitment to our soldiers, sailors and air force personnel? Do those men and women not deserve the best equipment – the best protection – that we can provide?
To be even more blunt: what will this government do if the CAF brigade in Latvia has to fight? Right now, the only answer would be to hope that our allies make up for our neglect, and act to save the lives of our soldiers. Hope is not a strategy. Some of the equipment that the forces in Latvia need are slated to arrive later this year. More needs to be done, sooner.
Those are the facts. In response, the Liberal government has ducked and dodged, rolling out various statistics in an attempt to show that it is not in fact neglecting Canada’s military to the point of dereliction of duty.
As an example, the government is fond of saying it has boosted the percentage of Canada’s GDP spent on defence higher than under the Harper government. True – but about half of that increase is due to accounting changes, allowed under NATO rules. The Liberals also tout plans to double defence spending, in dollar terms, from 2017 to 2027. Again, the claim is not inaccurate, but it ignores the effect of inflation. And the $21.4-billion planned increase looks even less impressive when compared with the $210-billion rise in overall federal spending (excluding debt servicing costs) over that same span.
There are some signs of modest progress. Domestic production of the M107 variant of 155 mm artillery shells, for instance, has risen to 5,000 a month from 3,000 as of December. But Ukraine was shooting up to 7,000 shells a day last summer. The government also recently issued contracts to determine how to further increase output, although any resulting ramp-up in production is years away.
Defence Minister Bill Blair, appearing to recognize some of this reality, is edging away from rhetorical games and acknowledging that there is an “urgent need” to increase Canada’s defence production capability at the Conference of Defence Associations Institute conference last week.
Those are welcome words, but words are not enough. The test for Mr. Blair, and the government, will be whether the billions of dollars siphoned off from the defence budget are restored, and then added to. Anything less will be a betrayal to the men and women in uniform serving this country.
Further reading: The world is growing more dangerous by the day, and Canada’s strategic challenges are multiplying. Making sense of that confusion is a tall order, but there is no better guide than the CDA Institute’s Strategic Outlook 2024, issued earlier this month. The wide-ranging annual assessment, written by retired colonel George Petrolekas and former ambassador Ferry de Kerckhove, walks through recent geo-political developments and how they affect – or at least should affect – Canada’s diplomatic and military thinking.