You miss the point altogether. The U.S. is not our enemy because they are telling us to clean up our act here in Canada. Read Sam Cooper, The Bureau for an understanding of Canada’s role in Chinese money laundering, foreign interference, massive drug trade, fentanyl*, weapons, human trafficking. The feds have abandoned their responsibility of checking what comes into Canada at our ports.
Canada has become a spoiled-privileged child who becomes indignant at being told “or else” when finally confronted for bad behaviour. After multiple warnings to meet our military commitments, we are finally being held to account.
Too many Canadians have been blinded by TDS to see we are not victims of U.S. aggression and that we have not held up to our commitments militarily. Our Northern border is vulnerable and Canada depends on others for our defence.
Good grief, Trudeau even had our military training Chinese troops winter tactics here in Canada.
The U.S. is our friend and ally. Let’s get our act together. Russia and China are both very interested in acquiring our Northern frontier and when Canada is vulnerable to their aggression, it’s a little too close to home for the U.S.
The Liberal/NDP government has put us in this vulnerable position with purpose.
* 43lb of fentanyl is enough to kill 9,752,236 people, a quarter of the Canadian population. It’s what was stopped from entering the U.S.; there is no accounting of how much was not seized.
We could do something relatively quickly and easily. For example the Ukraine war showed the importance of having good supplies of basics like ammunition.
Simple to manufacture, we have the raw materials. We have free trade agreement with a large market so can always get rid of excess production. (A % tariff on $0 is still $0). We could be NATO’s ammo factory.
If we put everyone else out of business by giving it away they will depend on us.
You've made a good point about being an ammunition supplier to our NATO friends. I keep telling myself there are surely new things we can be a leader in that don't require too much investment.
Great article Philippe. I agree with the fundamental elements of Canadian Defence policy but would hasten to mention they have always been listed in the reverse order than you have taken. And that they are two imperatives and one choice. Imperative: Defend Canada. Imperative:Defend North America. Choice: contribute to intl peace and security, engaged in the world …..
In defence as in business if you don’t have a plan b, you don’t have a plan at all. Canada is learning that being dependent on one market and one protector means it is not truly sovereign.
Canada needs to seriously take lessons from Ukraine! Divest from US big/expensive tech platforms and invest in small asymmetric autonomous platforms. The US is becoming Russia
If what you write is accurate, we have it backwards from the beginning. The underlying objective of our defence policy should be: 1) defend Canada.
The other two objectives must be seen as enabling objectives - not the primary objective but given certain circumstances so critically important as to be essential to success in achieving the primary objective. Those enabling objectives can be modified or replaced as circumstances change in order to continue to achieve the primary objective - defend Canada. It is ludicrous and shameful if our defence policy has defending Canada as its third place objective as you indicate.
The best defence of Canada is stopping major wars from starting, and we do that by doing our part to keep NATO strong. Massage the language if you like but defending Canada and the other priorities are, in fact, joined at the hip.
If America withdraws from NATO and proposes a strictly North American defence zone, not including Europe, what of the "joined at the hip with NATO" then? Would we continue to divide our highly limited resources among two alliances and thus continue to be laggards in the minds of both the Americans and the Europeans?
And yes, that likely means helping to stop major wars from starting as it is in service of defending Canada but not because it makes us feel proud to be nice little beavers with boy scout caps on. Do we not think other nations are in NATO because it's in their naked self interest in order to protect their country? And what if circumstances change; would they not conceivably leave NATO if it was in their national self interest? There is no permanent "joined at the hip". There are circumstances that bring factors into play in service of an over-arching national objective - defend Canada. Why is standing up with a straight back for the homeland so difficult for this country?
That's an extremely challenging question we have never faced and whose answer I don't know. And I don't think we can know, unfortunately, discussing it in the abstract, as so much would depend on the particulars of the situation.
Dan, thank you for your reply. Unfortunately, with the current US administration there is likely a 50:50 chance we may have to grapple with this issue. I appreciate your thoughtful exchange.
Unfortunately, the natural end point of the above argument is to “do nothing as this too shall pass”. It is an open question whether any series of Canadian governments could have the focus to maintain a more independent defence policy over two decades. Therefore we would be stuck with humbly submitting to Trump’s (and any like successors) depravations.
This should be intolerable to the Canadian public and government. The first move should be to publicly and irrevocably break with the past and move to a more independent policy position. This will have costs and will have some short term pain. The question is whether we can transfer some of that pain to the US (that is the short term point, isn’t it)?
Canada's defence elite/community need to disabuse themselves of 'rules based international order ' and embrace strategic independence; capabilites; technological capability.
It has the history & potential ; get a bunch of uni of Waterloo engineers to build out defence systems.
I'd be interested in your thoughts on what a Plan B would look like. As the Economist puts it, in the 1930s, the US was "hostile towards immigration, scornful of trade, and sceptical of foreign entanglements."
The dividing line in international politics isn't between good and evil, it's between those countries which support the international status quo (like Canada, which depends on trade and international stability) and those which are opposed to it and seek to overturn it (like China, Russia, and Iran). The balance of material power has shifted towards China, so we can expect trouble, just as during the interwar years, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union together outweighed Britain and France.
If the US is now stepping back, the European powers are going to have to decide whether to continue to confront Russia, or accommodate it. Same thing in East Asia (Japan, South Korea, Australia) with respect to China.
Allying with Europe against Russia seems like the most obvious path for Canada to follow.
(Con’t) It should be noted that the US is definitely moving away from entanglements, so they obviously value these less. Interoperability’s time is passing. Therefore these qualities in arms buys should be of far less (negative?) value to us. What they do value is exporting high value armaments and systems.
Now seems like the best time in several decades to start such a process. Russia is distracted and is relatively weak(er), China is still more a political than a military threat, and we can no longer depend on the US to defend us, indeed they may be shifting to being a military threat.
If nothing else, the current situation should make it obvious that significant change is needed. We need a clear direction (your Plan B) from the government. I believe it can be a rallying point in the current crisis, rather than meekly announcing moving spending goals without an overall framework.
We deserve better government - and better friends.
Not sure how we don’t deserve exactly what we have. It’s not hard to vote or get involved in a political party in Canada. Almost everyone could have their say in the next liberal leader.
But neither our Liberal or Conservative leaders have pushed for a stronger military and so neither do their senior MPs. Are you saying having a lot more new Liberal (ugh) or Conservative members who push for making our military a top priority will turns things around?
To help meet our 2% NATO requirement, we should develop a nuclear weapon program. That would help our NATO friends and given any unstable threatening neighbours pause.
Gerry, if we can’t afford to develop / build our own tanks, artillery, helicopters, fighters, ship-borne weapon systems, etc., you might be surprised at the cost of designing, building, testing, and fielding nuclear weapons.
- signed by a a onetime Nuclear Biological Chemical Defence Senior Officer and Radiological Defence Officer
LOL. No weapons ever held in the bunkers across Canada except for a few small arms. We did invest in Bomarc nuclear tipped air defence missiles many decades ago… On the other hand, investing in something analogous to Israel’s Iron Dome may not be a bad idea should our orange-skinned friend down south decide to cancel NORAD because Canada doesn’t carry its weight - which is true…
A more independent identity for Canada (not just being “not American”), a more independent economy, all supported by a more pragmatic (less self referential) mindset, would also be important ingredients in charting a more effective course for Canadian defence and for Canada.
By adopting a more pragmatic mindset, I suggest we recognize that the “rules based international order” we have helped to construct and uphold since WW2 is an “American-led international order.”
The chronically small scale of our defence forces undermines all three of Canada’s defence policy objectives, and it undermines Canada’s influence with the US. What could we scale-up, to better protect ourselves, and to have any noticeable impact on our relations with the US? Even this question is too narrow, as doing more of what we already do is likely not the best answer in the face of rapidly evolving technology and threats.
Thanks for posing a thought provoking question, Philippe.
We don't know where things are going but if Trump is able to take the US where he says he is, then we will have little choice. It will be expensive and affect our standard of living for quite a while. However, the other alliances we will (hopefully) make will offset some of this and help build a new world order.
If the US isolates itself and becomes a rogue state, many countries will be in a similar boat.
I'm a baby boomer who benefited like no other generation did. We have to accept the good times are over and we need to accept some hardship for the longer term if we consider ourselves truly loyal to Canada.
Many of us have benefited (I think) too much. One of the best examples is the wealth created by speculation on real estate. I just bought a house, waited and grew wealth. No real contribution. Only the extraction of unearned value. Similar to our treatment of natural resources. Extract and sell. The path of least resistance has been a fun ride for those fortunate enough to be born at the right time and place (and the right colour etc.). Perhaps the reconciliation we will have in the coming years/decades is not just with the indigenous people but with multiple larger systems. Fairness and sustainability.
Thx Bill. I never had kids but I've always thought we should leave things in good shape for future generations. Over 10 years ago I read how Japan had a 100 year vision for the country/industry. I don't know if they've kept it up to date and we all know their economy and society now has some challenges. However the Japanese hang in there although they are now opening up to a bit of immigration. What I've never understood is why all economies are needed to grow, grow, grow. When is enough enough?
Geography and our current complacent actions support you observations but if we aspire to be sovereign state, we need to engage in a longer term approach of disengagement from the US founded on significant investment in defense and a renewed armed forces. The US is a threat to our sovereignty particularly with our current fragility.
No I’m not saying that at all. What I’m saying is that there is a possibility that the USA will become an authoritarian regime over the next 4 years and that there will be no election. So Trump family dynasty. Perhaps I overstated the odds, nonetheless Canada needs to get much much better prepared for a world where extreme risk events become real.
A prudent response would be to spend a lot more on national security.
And since we know Trump can be bought, wonder if something as simple as buying $100M of $Trump meme coin would do the job?
At this point, Canadian defence should be returning to its original task: defending Canada against the US.
You miss the point altogether. The U.S. is not our enemy because they are telling us to clean up our act here in Canada. Read Sam Cooper, The Bureau for an understanding of Canada’s role in Chinese money laundering, foreign interference, massive drug trade, fentanyl*, weapons, human trafficking. The feds have abandoned their responsibility of checking what comes into Canada at our ports.
Canada has become a spoiled-privileged child who becomes indignant at being told “or else” when finally confronted for bad behaviour. After multiple warnings to meet our military commitments, we are finally being held to account.
Too many Canadians have been blinded by TDS to see we are not victims of U.S. aggression and that we have not held up to our commitments militarily. Our Northern border is vulnerable and Canada depends on others for our defence.
Good grief, Trudeau even had our military training Chinese troops winter tactics here in Canada.
The U.S. is our friend and ally. Let’s get our act together. Russia and China are both very interested in acquiring our Northern frontier and when Canada is vulnerable to their aggression, it’s a little too close to home for the U.S.
The Liberal/NDP government has put us in this vulnerable position with purpose.
* 43lb of fentanyl is enough to kill 9,752,236 people, a quarter of the Canadian population. It’s what was stopped from entering the U.S.; there is no accounting of how much was not seized.
We could do something relatively quickly and easily. For example the Ukraine war showed the importance of having good supplies of basics like ammunition.
Simple to manufacture, we have the raw materials. We have free trade agreement with a large market so can always get rid of excess production. (A % tariff on $0 is still $0). We could be NATO’s ammo factory.
If we put everyone else out of business by giving it away they will depend on us.
You've made a good point about being an ammunition supplier to our NATO friends. I keep telling myself there are surely new things we can be a leader in that don't require too much investment.
Great article Philippe. I agree with the fundamental elements of Canadian Defence policy but would hasten to mention they have always been listed in the reverse order than you have taken. And that they are two imperatives and one choice. Imperative: Defend Canada. Imperative:Defend North America. Choice: contribute to intl peace and security, engaged in the world …..
In defence as in business if you don’t have a plan b, you don’t have a plan at all. Canada is learning that being dependent on one market and one protector means it is not truly sovereign.
Canada needs to seriously take lessons from Ukraine! Divest from US big/expensive tech platforms and invest in small asymmetric autonomous platforms. The US is becoming Russia
Agree.
If what you write is accurate, we have it backwards from the beginning. The underlying objective of our defence policy should be: 1) defend Canada.
The other two objectives must be seen as enabling objectives - not the primary objective but given certain circumstances so critically important as to be essential to success in achieving the primary objective. Those enabling objectives can be modified or replaced as circumstances change in order to continue to achieve the primary objective - defend Canada. It is ludicrous and shameful if our defence policy has defending Canada as its third place objective as you indicate.
The best defence of Canada is stopping major wars from starting, and we do that by doing our part to keep NATO strong. Massage the language if you like but defending Canada and the other priorities are, in fact, joined at the hip.
If America withdraws from NATO and proposes a strictly North American defence zone, not including Europe, what of the "joined at the hip with NATO" then? Would we continue to divide our highly limited resources among two alliances and thus continue to be laggards in the minds of both the Americans and the Europeans?
And yes, that likely means helping to stop major wars from starting as it is in service of defending Canada but not because it makes us feel proud to be nice little beavers with boy scout caps on. Do we not think other nations are in NATO because it's in their naked self interest in order to protect their country? And what if circumstances change; would they not conceivably leave NATO if it was in their national self interest? There is no permanent "joined at the hip". There are circumstances that bring factors into play in service of an over-arching national objective - defend Canada. Why is standing up with a straight back for the homeland so difficult for this country?
That's an extremely challenging question we have never faced and whose answer I don't know. And I don't think we can know, unfortunately, discussing it in the abstract, as so much would depend on the particulars of the situation.
Dan, thank you for your reply. Unfortunately, with the current US administration there is likely a 50:50 chance we may have to grapple with this issue. I appreciate your thoughtful exchange.
Unfortunately, the natural end point of the above argument is to “do nothing as this too shall pass”. It is an open question whether any series of Canadian governments could have the focus to maintain a more independent defence policy over two decades. Therefore we would be stuck with humbly submitting to Trump’s (and any like successors) depravations.
This should be intolerable to the Canadian public and government. The first move should be to publicly and irrevocably break with the past and move to a more independent policy position. This will have costs and will have some short term pain. The question is whether we can transfer some of that pain to the US (that is the short term point, isn’t it)?
Canada's defence elite/community need to disabuse themselves of 'rules based international order ' and embrace strategic independence; capabilites; technological capability.
It has the history & potential ; get a bunch of uni of Waterloo engineers to build out defence systems.
I'd be interested in your thoughts on what a Plan B would look like. As the Economist puts it, in the 1930s, the US was "hostile towards immigration, scornful of trade, and sceptical of foreign entanglements."
The dividing line in international politics isn't between good and evil, it's between those countries which support the international status quo (like Canada, which depends on trade and international stability) and those which are opposed to it and seek to overturn it (like China, Russia, and Iran). The balance of material power has shifted towards China, so we can expect trouble, just as during the interwar years, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union together outweighed Britain and France.
If the US is now stepping back, the European powers are going to have to decide whether to continue to confront Russia, or accommodate it. Same thing in East Asia (Japan, South Korea, Australia) with respect to China.
Allying with Europe against Russia seems like the most obvious path for Canada to follow.
A democratic alliance, or “coalition of the willing”.
(Con’t) It should be noted that the US is definitely moving away from entanglements, so they obviously value these less. Interoperability’s time is passing. Therefore these qualities in arms buys should be of far less (negative?) value to us. What they do value is exporting high value armaments and systems.
Now seems like the best time in several decades to start such a process. Russia is distracted and is relatively weak(er), China is still more a political than a military threat, and we can no longer depend on the US to defend us, indeed they may be shifting to being a military threat.
If nothing else, the current situation should make it obvious that significant change is needed. We need a clear direction (your Plan B) from the government. I believe it can be a rallying point in the current crisis, rather than meekly announcing moving spending goals without an overall framework.
We deserve better government - and better friends.
Not sure how we don’t deserve exactly what we have. It’s not hard to vote or get involved in a political party in Canada. Almost everyone could have their say in the next liberal leader.
But neither our Liberal or Conservative leaders have pushed for a stronger military and so neither do their senior MPs. Are you saying having a lot more new Liberal (ugh) or Conservative members who push for making our military a top priority will turns things around?
To help meet our 2% NATO requirement, we should develop a nuclear weapon program. That would help our NATO friends and given any unstable threatening neighbours pause.
Gerry, if we can’t afford to develop / build our own tanks, artillery, helicopters, fighters, ship-borne weapon systems, etc., you might be surprised at the cost of designing, building, testing, and fielding nuclear weapons.
- signed by a a onetime Nuclear Biological Chemical Defence Senior Officer and Radiological Defence Officer
Can we afford not to? Maybe there's one or two leftovers in the Diefenbunker. Someone should check.
LOL. No weapons ever held in the bunkers across Canada except for a few small arms. We did invest in Bomarc nuclear tipped air defence missiles many decades ago… On the other hand, investing in something analogous to Israel’s Iron Dome may not be a bad idea should our orange-skinned friend down south decide to cancel NORAD because Canada doesn’t carry its weight - which is true…
A more independent identity for Canada (not just being “not American”), a more independent economy, all supported by a more pragmatic (less self referential) mindset, would also be important ingredients in charting a more effective course for Canadian defence and for Canada.
By adopting a more pragmatic mindset, I suggest we recognize that the “rules based international order” we have helped to construct and uphold since WW2 is an “American-led international order.”
The chronically small scale of our defence forces undermines all three of Canada’s defence policy objectives, and it undermines Canada’s influence with the US. What could we scale-up, to better protect ourselves, and to have any noticeable impact on our relations with the US? Even this question is too narrow, as doing more of what we already do is likely not the best answer in the face of rapidly evolving technology and threats.
Thanks for posing a thought provoking question, Philippe.
We don't know where things are going but if Trump is able to take the US where he says he is, then we will have little choice. It will be expensive and affect our standard of living for quite a while. However, the other alliances we will (hopefully) make will offset some of this and help build a new world order.
If the US isolates itself and becomes a rogue state, many countries will be in a similar boat.
I'm a baby boomer who benefited like no other generation did. We have to accept the good times are over and we need to accept some hardship for the longer term if we consider ourselves truly loyal to Canada.
Many of us have benefited (I think) too much. One of the best examples is the wealth created by speculation on real estate. I just bought a house, waited and grew wealth. No real contribution. Only the extraction of unearned value. Similar to our treatment of natural resources. Extract and sell. The path of least resistance has been a fun ride for those fortunate enough to be born at the right time and place (and the right colour etc.). Perhaps the reconciliation we will have in the coming years/decades is not just with the indigenous people but with multiple larger systems. Fairness and sustainability.
Thx Bill. I never had kids but I've always thought we should leave things in good shape for future generations. Over 10 years ago I read how Japan had a 100 year vision for the country/industry. I don't know if they've kept it up to date and we all know their economy and society now has some challenges. However the Japanese hang in there although they are now opening up to a bit of immigration. What I've never understood is why all economies are needed to grow, grow, grow. When is enough enough?
“Never” appears to be the answer. We need more forever more.
Geography and our current complacent actions support you observations but if we aspire to be sovereign state, we need to engage in a longer term approach of disengagement from the US founded on significant investment in defense and a renewed armed forces. The US is a threat to our sovereignty particularly with our current fragility.
There is a 50/50 chance there will be a US election in 4 years. Think about the consequences of that!
Are you saying wait it out until we can go back into our hiding hole and not address how weak our current military is?
No I’m not saying that at all. What I’m saying is that there is a possibility that the USA will become an authoritarian regime over the next 4 years and that there will be no election. So Trump family dynasty. Perhaps I overstated the odds, nonetheless Canada needs to get much much better prepared for a world where extreme risk events become real.
A prudent response would be to spend a lot more on national security.
And since we know Trump can be bought, wonder if something as simple as buying $100M of $Trump meme coin would do the job?
The US is now, by very far, the main threat to Canada. Its no longer a matter of choice, but of survival.