Credible deterrents to threats don’t come cheap, and Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland has boxed herself into a corner with prior reckless spending
Is the defence of Canada a national priority for the Liberal government?
We will find out when Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland unveils the 2023 budget in two weeks.
But, despite alarms being sounded by current and former senior military officers, it is extremely likely that defence spending on new equipment will be squeezed out by domestic issues like health and affordability.
Canada’s “way of life is in jeopardy” because successive federal governments have failed to take defence and security issues seriously, Norman said.
We should be. As Canada’s focus turns towards the Arctic and the prevention of Russian and Chinese incursions, more voices are pointing out that only submarines can deny access to northern waters. Singapore has just purchased four German-built submarines for US$1.8 billion — a move Canada should follow, even if it means cancelling some of the expensive frigates being built as part of the surface combatant program that threatens to suck up two-thirds of the defence department’s capital budget over the next three decades.
But even if we don’t buy new subs, AUKUS can’t be dismissed as a glorified procurement deal.
As Bob Auchterlonie, commander of the Canadian Joint Operations Command, told The Canadian Press in January, it is much more than that — it involves technology- and information-sharing that Canada is now excluded from.
“The issue is why are we not included in this? Is it resistance to getting involved? Is it policy restrictions we have? Or are we just not going to invest? It is a significant concern,” said Auchterlonie.
To ask the question is to answer it. Our allies don’t take us seriously because we have not stepped up. Canada’s defence spending reached $28.4 billion this year — the highest level in dollar terms since the 1990s. But that is still a long way from the two per cent of GDP to which Canada is committed, and which the AUKUS partners have surpassed. With the addition of other costs that NATO considers military expenses such as the coast guard and veterans’ benefits, defence spending will reach $36.3 billion this year — 1.33 per cent of GDP, or $18.2 billion short of the two-per-cent target.
Freeland’s budget is likely to be extremely tight. It will include some targeted affordability measures aimed at alleviating the cost-of-living crunch without fuelling inflation; health spending promised in the accord with the provinces; and investments in clean energy to counter President Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act.
The government may be the beneficiary of a $20-billion or so windfall from inflation-driven tax receipts.
But there will be new pressures too — debt-servicing charges will be up, growth is anemic and public sector unions are seeking costly wage settlements.
The Business Council study concluded the government would likely have to increase spending by up to $60 billion over five years to meet existing commitments.
That logic applies to defence spending too. The Liberals have not set aside enough money to fund the acquisition of the F35 fighter jets and the 15 warships it has already agreed to buy.
Production delays, and the politicization of the procurement process to which Norman referred, means that the $108 billion set aside on an accrual basis (which spreads the cost over the lifespan of the asset) will not be enough for the ships and planes on order. The Department of National Defence was supposed to provide a public update on its spending plan last fall, but did not do so. If there is any money for defence in this federal budget, it is likely to be allocated to programs that have already been announced.
Canada has been able to get away with ignoring defence spending under successive governments, but that was before the rise of the new autocrats who would dearly love to implement George Orwell’s vision of totalitarian rule: “Imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever.”
Deterrence relies on having credible deterrents. They don’t come cheap and it is understandable why governments have preferred not to prioritize them. But we have reached a time in our history when rearmament is no longer optional.
Post a Comment