A dramatic change in the threat situation would leave Canada no time to react

At the Charlevoix G7 Summit in 2018, Canada committed to increasing its defence spending to two per cent of GDP. Admittedly, it was an aspirational goal, drafted so that no nation, including Canada, could be bound to its commitment. Over time, however, failure to meet two per cent has become less and less defensible. Canada has not met that aspirational target, nor is it likely to in the near future. In 2011, it was 1.19 per cent of GDP which dipped to below one per cent in 2014 and has been in an irregular upward trajectory ever since, settling currently at about 1.4 per cent (according to the PBO’s June 9, 2022, report) ever since 2021. NATO's average is approximately 2.5 per cent. Moreover, if geopolitical conditions change, such as they did in the last 15 months, our preparedness is nowhere near where it should be. The Canadian Armed Forces annually reports its percentage of key fleets to meet training and readiness requirements. For the year 2021 the Navy had a 94.1 per cent score on readiness, land fleets about 62.7 per cent, and aerospace about 55 per cent according to the Feb. 1, 2022, readiness report. There are a number of explanations, but should there be a dramatic change in our threat situation we will not have the time to react. Equipment platforms are so complex that even in an efficient procurement environment, we will not be able to build or replace them in a timely manner. The old saying is that an army marches on its stomach. But while well fed, there just aren't enough personnel to meet current commitments. By our best estimates, we have a shortfall of between ten or fourteen thousand personnel. That is a significant shortfall for a relatively small force of approximately 100,000 people. The good news is that according to Chief of Defence Staff Erye there has been an uptick in recruitment recently. Then there are the procurement challenges. Taking a relatively straightforward memorandum of understanding to deployment is a tortuous process. So, what are we to make of a lacklustre commitment to two per cent of GDP, significant personnel shortfalls, a tortuous procurement process, and equipment that is in many instances beyond its useful life. My first observation is that there's plenty of blame to go around. Successive governments and ministers have let the military atrophy to its present status. Second, there is no significant political constituency that supports the military, especially military spending. I doubt that I've ever gotten one vote for my support of Canada's military. Three, the military is not top of mind for Canadians, not even the top ten. Canadians have other concerns and base their responsiveness to candidates based on those concerns. Four, if there is a crisis Canadians want their military to be there front and centre for fires, floods, vaccines, peacekeeping, and expeditionary interventions. Unfortunately, they just don't want to pay for it. Five, Canadians have little or no apprehension of the threat environment, notwithstanding Ukraine and the PRC's aggression, particularly in Taiwan. There's a complacency in the public because those geopolitical tensions are felt to be remote. Six, the U.S. provides a comprehensive security umbrella and expects little of us in return. But that expectation is beginning to change, and beginning to harden. Seven, we are a prosperous nation that enjoys the benefits of our natural abundance, and the complacency that comes with it. The question then becomes, what will shake us from our complacency and indifference. Certainly a new and more dangerous threat environment may bring about a change in attitude. Ukraine may go horribly wrong, and NATO will be dragged into a European war. If NATO is in, we're all in and Canada is at war. The PRC may invade Taiwan, destroy freedom of the seas, and drive Western nations onto a more war-like footing. Both scenarios are within the realm of possibility, whether we like it or not. While we hope these scenarios do not occur, hope is not a strategy. The problem is that while the threat environment may change, we are woefully behind in making a credible response. Undermanned, under-gunned, and under-resourced. Too little, too late. Underlying the foregoing is the reality of climate change. The engineering challenge of building in the North is monumental. The melting of permafrost makes the building of port, runways, warehouses, hangars, and buildings very expensive. China and Russia are aggressively announcing their presence in the Arctic. Asserting our sovereignty is paramount. Use it, or lose it. All of the NORAD surveillance proposals are profoundly complex and expensive, yet they are the bedrock of our sovereignty. Getting equipment in shape is time-consuming. Getting personnel trained is time consuming. Getting projects started is time consuming. Getting resources spent is time consuming. Getting decision makers aligned is time consuming. And we have everything but time. The Canadian public needs to drive this, and the political class needs to respond, educate, and make decisions. Incrementalism, risk aversion, and kicking decisions down the road are the luxuries of another era. Liberal MP John McKay represents Scarborough-Guildwood, Ont. He previously served as parliamentary secretary to the minister of finance from 2003 to 2006 during the government of Paul Martin, then served as an opposition MP and critic until November 2015 during the government of Stephen Harper. The Hill Times