By Scott Taylor
One of the most often perpetuated myths about the Canadian military is that it is somehow woefully underfunded. The genesis for this false impression is the arbitrary yardstick used by many defence analysts to calculate budgets as a percentage of a nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
The magic number that was seized upon was that of two percent GDP to be spent on national defence.
Canada happens to have the luxury of having a comparatively large GDP.
As a result, we presently spend just 1.3% of our GDP on defence, despite the fact that in terms of actual dollars spent, we rank sixth among the 30-member states of the NATO alliance. It would also shock most Canadians to know that Canada ranks in the top ten percent of countries in the world, in terms of actual dollars spent on defence.
Canada currently attempts to spend $26.5 billion a year and that means that to meet the defence analysts’ measure of two percent of GDP, our defence budget would need to be in excess of $40 billion.
That is a mind-blowing figure.
One of the most vocal advocates of NATO members – including Canada, spending that magical two per cent of GDP on defence, was none other than former, and possibly soon to be future President of the United States, Donald Trump.
He famously referred to those NATO members not meeting the two percent threshold as ‘delinquent’ and ‘freeloaders’.
Missing from Trump’s equation was the fact that countries like Greece and Latvia – who both spend more than two percent - have relatively miniscule GDP’s and as such can offer little capacity to the NATO alliance in terms of actual contribution. In contrast, Canada provided NATO with a full battle group during the decade long occupation of Afghanistan, combat trainers for the mission in Iraq and a forward deployed battle group in Latvia since 2017 as part of Operation REASSURANCE.
In other words, when one factors in actual capability and commitment, Canada could hardly be referred to as either ‘delinquent’ or a ‘freeloader’. It is also true that in the past year, Canada has announced over $30 billion in new defence contracts.
In addition to the $19 billion to purchase 88 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters from Lockheed Martin, on November 30th, the Liberal government also announced a sole source deal worth $8 billion to buy new surveillance aircraft from Boeing.
Just before Christmas, the Liberals announced that Canada was buying $2.5 billion worth of Predator drones from General Atomics.
As there is no point in having an armed drone without arms, Canada also announced the purchase of $400 million worth of Hellfire missiles. Those missiles are made by Lockheed Martin.
While these are large dollar figure acquisitions for the future of the Canadian Armed Forces, Canadians should realize that two of these weapon systems represent a drastic departure from Canada’s historic posture of a peacekeeping nation.
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter’s main asset is its fifth-generation stealth capability. By its very definition this is a ‘day one’ offensive weapon to be used to neutralize a peer or near peer hostile state’s air defences. We are purchasing 88 of these fighter aircraft and Canada has no plans to operate a mixed fleet. I for one cannot fathom a scenario wherein Canada would initiate a first strike against another country all on our own. This means that for the foreseeable future our air force’s combat asset is nothing more than a supplement to the U.S. Airforce.
As for the purchase of 11 MQ-9 Reaper (Predator) drones armed with Hellfire missiles, this puts Canada on the slippery slope of making ourselves a deputy to the world’s self-appointed policeman – the United States of America.
The U.S. uses these hunter-killer drones to carry out extrajudicial execution of their enemies all over the world.
These things are long range deadly killing machines, which again, I cannot foresee any scenario wherein we would employ these drones into any airspace without express permission from our southern cousins.
Contrary to any sales pitch, the Reapers are not going to be used all that often by the RCAF to detect forest fires.
Word to the wise, some of those Canadian defence analysts calling for the “two per cent of GDP spending on defence” receive much of their funding from those same defence contractors benefiting from the additional expenditure.
