[CaptainCrunch]

Mclean's looks at Canada''s military spending in the budget and follows up on last years, promises by the government.

http://www.macleans.ca/opinion/whats...ence-spending/

You really have to dig into Equality+Growth, the Liberal government’s 2018 budget document, to find any mention of defence spending at all. Only after more than 300 pages, in the Supplementary Information section, can you find a table that shows National Defence is the largest spender amongst government departments. At $25.5 billion, forecasted direct-program expenditures by National Defence will clock in at more than the next two departments—Indigenous Services Canada and the Canada Revenue Agency, which were both forecasted to spend $11.0 billion—combined.


The same table shows that the total for all direct programs spending from the government in 2018 will be $338.5 billion, so the defence part only comprises 7.53 per cent of that total. That seems minuscule until it’s compared with the $26.3 billion the government will pay covering the interest on the federal debt. Or—seen another way—given that the budget shortfall for 2018-19 is projected to be $18.1 billion, knowing what a significant portion of spending defence represents helps explain why it’s always a target for reduction.

So the likely course of action for the military leadership will be to hold their tongues and keep their heads down. But of course, there are problems—lots of them.


What was supposed to be a low-risk, two-year deployment to Afghanistan turned into the longest conflict in Canadian history. The army is broken and worn out. Beyond that, almost all major equipment systems are decades-old and the supporting infrastructure is in a deplorable state of disrepair. There are very great needs for increased defence spending just to rectify the material side of the house.

The human costs of Afghanistan have also been high. Suicide, depression and domestic violence are commonplace in the forces. Shortages of trained and effective members, most recently identified in the 2016 report of the Auditor General, have worsened. Recruitment targets are not being met and voluntary releases have continued to climb. Some military trades are now 20 per cent short of target manning levels. When five per cent short is considered a critical manpower shortage, 20 per cent is a catastrophe.


And most of the spending in this year’s budget is devoted to cybersecurity and cyberdefence; virtually no new spending has been set out for the fundamentals of Canada’s armed forces, including capital procurement.

hen it comes to defence, absent a major threat, new capital program spending is always viewed as discretionary, meaning that Cabinet retains approval of all major programs and could reduce or eliminate them, even if recommended by Treasury Board. That was supposed to change with the Liberal defence policy, Strong, Secure, Engaged, released last year. The claim, made repeatedly by Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan, is that full lifecycle costs for all material needs were built into the new policy. However, the lack of capacity from within the department to administer major programs due to the lack of experienced military and public works program managers has already translated into reduced spending, despite the money carved out for them.

“DND is on track to deliver barely better than half of the intended spending on new equipment and infrastructure,” wrote Dave Perry, vice president and senior analyst with Canadian Global Affairs, in a report in January. While some believe deferred spending will eventually be used as planned, I remain skeptical.

In the short term, the lack of new spending in the new budget means DND will have to make economical choices for interim replacements for worn-out ships, aircraft and vehicles. The air force’s interest in acquiring used fighters from Australia may fit this purpose. But the navy’s leasing of a converted container ship from Federal Fleet Systems for $700 million over five years for operational sustainment is a less convincing effort at economy; it cannot be used for combat missions, so it will also have limited effectiveness.

In otherwords, Canada's policy paper from last year, which bragged about the modernization of the forces s in pretty much danger of being ignored.

I've said that there is a danger of a complete disintegration of the Canadian Forces in the next decade.

1) We're on the verge now of a complete rust out of all key equipment. F-18's, naval ships, submarines, command and control assets are not only dangerously obsolete, but are on the edge of being un usable.

2) Recruiting is down, voluntary separation is up. Why serve in a Military that doesn't take you seriously? The answer is you don't. The Canadian Forces is losing its most experienced members, and the officer core is having its guts ripped out as people leave.

3) Logistics and procurement is a complete shambles, the Canadian Forces is losing its mobility and ability to support itself in the field.

While Cyber-security is nice, I still wonder why is not something that comes out of our intelligence and security budget. The concern is that the bedrock of the Canadian Forces which is based around the formula of capability + experience + survivability is rotten. Our capability is close to gone. Our experience bleeding out, and when you combine those two factors survivibility is decreased.