"Riding on America's coat tails," eh? Thus US House of Representatives Speaker Mike Johnson, who on Monday accused Canada of doing just that. Sadly, much as patriotic Canadians would love to disagree with him, Prime Minister Trudeau's prissy little speech to Tuesday's NATO summit offers them nothing with which to rebut. Indeed, it is really difficult to say whether it was the prime minister's manner, or the wretchedness of his argument, that makes his remarks more difficult to defend. You may be the judge of his Grade One teacher speaking style: Watch it here.But let's deal with his argument. First, in his view it is not China or Russia that represents the existential threat to western society, it is climate change."Canada and NATO have long recognized an indisputable fact: climate change is not only an existential environmental threat, but one of the defining security issues of our time. Rising sea levels and increasingly frequent and intense natural disasters increasingly frequent and intense natural disasters threaten security infrastructure like ports and military bases that keep our alliance safe."If the unfortunate US president were to say this off the cuff, it would be taken as further evidence of senility. In the case of a man 30 years his junior delivering a prepared speech, it simply means he does not know what he is talking about. As any combat veteran will tell you, a successful defence posture deals first with what is going to kill you first. And long before Esquimalt and Halifax are under water, Canada and our NATO allies can expect a reckoning with China and Russia — or perhaps some other entity that will arise during the next millennium — but Esquimalt and Halifax will still be above water.I'm surprised NATO continues to let this government attend alliance gatherings.Second, the prime minister misrepresents the facts. He is correct that defence expenditure is a bigger number now than it was in 2015, the last year of the Harper administration.However here's the question: what does Mr. Trudeau have to show for it? It hardly contributes to the collective security of the alliance for example, that unlike the Conservatives the Trudeau Liberals now book more than $6 billion of Veterans Affairs expenditures annually under the defence budget. But that's what they're doing, and now the prime minister declares with a straight face that his administration's defence expenditures are higher than Harper's.Come, come. Where are the new ships, the new aircraft, the new tanks to replace what we gave Ukraine, the new drones.... For that matter, where are the new men? Seasoned veterans are quitting. They have discovered that the priorities of the Liberal government are not about recognizing the Canadian Armed Forces as the spear tip of Canada's honour. Rather the priorities are to advance the interests of women, people of uncertain sexuality and absolutely anybody who does not look like a Canadian who fought in the Second World War — or for that matter in Korea, the Balkans or Afghanistan.As a result, the forces are 20,000 short out of a 70,000 establishment and the young men they need are going elsewhere. (And yes, women serve too and with distinction but to send a message to the traditional recruiting base that they're not really wanted will certainly mean that you will get less of them.) .So what about the Harper record that the sneering prime minister so disdains? Let's see.For equipment, C-17 aircraft for strategic airlift, Griffin and Chinook helicopters, and in Afghanistan, UAVs in the sky and new tanks on the ground. Harper established the national shipbuilding strategy in 2012; the new warships now coming out of the yards that Mr. Trudeau boasts of are the product of defence decisions made and money committed by the Harper cabinet in 2011. .But what is even more important, is what was done with that equipment. In the period that Mr. Trudeau sniffily dismisses as though it were a time when Canada was not pulling its weight, this country was engaged in some highly kinetic missions... like the Libya bombing campaign... and in Afghanistan.It is actually of enormous relevance to Canada's standing in NATO today that during the years of Canada's engagement with the NATO effort in Afghanistan, more than 40,000 members of the Canadian Armed Forces served in that intensely dangerous conflict. Indeed, 158 Canadian military personnel, including 4 women, lost their lives there.In other words, what you do, matters more than what you spend.And this was not lost on our alliance partners. There was very little pressure from our allies about the magical two percent when Canadians, Americans and British troops were engaged with the enemy, side by side.Today however, our American hosts are vastly underwhelmed. What does Canada do now?And, it is this prime minister's unique and personal accomplishment that he set up Canada for a stinging rebuke from Johnson, the man who after the President and the Vice President, is third in succession to lead the United States of America:"They (Canadians) have the safety and security of being on our border and not having to worry about that. I think that’s shameful. I think if you’re going to be a member nation and participant, you need to do your part."Under Harper we did.Under Trudeau, we get fun with numbers.Yes, it is indeed 'shameful.'
"Riding on America's coat tails," eh? Thus US House of Representatives Speaker Mike Johnson, who on Monday accused Canada of doing just that. Sadly, much as patriotic Canadians would love to disagree with him, Prime Minister Trudeau's prissy little speech to Tuesday's NATO summit offers them nothing with which to rebut. Indeed, it is really difficult to say whether it was the prime minister's manner, or the wretchedness of his argument, that makes his remarks more difficult to defend. You may be the judge of his Grade One teacher speaking style: Watch it here.But let's deal with his argument. First, in his view it is not China or Russia that represents the existential threat to western society, it is climate change."Canada and NATO have long recognized an indisputable fact: climate change is not only an existential environmental threat, but one of the defining security issues of our time. Rising sea levels and increasingly frequent and intense natural disasters increasingly frequent and intense natural disasters threaten security infrastructure like ports and military bases that keep our alliance safe."If the unfortunate US president were to say this off the cuff, it would be taken as further evidence of senility. In the case of a man 30 years his junior delivering a prepared speech, it simply means he does not know what he is talking about. As any combat veteran will tell you, a successful defence posture deals first with what is going to kill you first. And long before Esquimalt and Halifax are under water, Canada and our NATO allies can expect a reckoning with China and Russia — or perhaps some other entity that will arise during the next millennium — but Esquimalt and Halifax will still be above water.I'm surprised NATO continues to let this government attend alliance gatherings.Second, the prime minister misrepresents the facts. He is correct that defence expenditure is a bigger number now than it was in 2015, the last year of the Harper administration.However here's the question: what does Mr. Trudeau have to show for it? It hardly contributes to the collective security of the alliance for example, that unlike the Conservatives the Trudeau Liberals now book more than $6 billion of Veterans Affairs expenditures annually under the defence budget. But that's what they're doing, and now the prime minister declares with a straight face that his administration's defence expenditures are higher than Harper's.Come, come. Where are the new ships, the new aircraft, the new tanks to replace what we gave Ukraine, the new drones.... For that matter, where are the new men? Seasoned veterans are quitting. They have discovered that the priorities of the Liberal government are not about recognizing the Canadian Armed Forces as the spear tip of Canada's honour. Rather the priorities are to advance the interests of women, people of uncertain sexuality and absolutely anybody who does not look like a Canadian who fought in the Second World War — or for that matter in Korea, the Balkans or Afghanistan.As a result, the forces are 20,000 short out of a 70,000 establishment and the young men they need are going elsewhere. (And yes, women serve too and with distinction but to send a message to the traditional recruiting base that they're not really wanted will certainly mean that you will get less of them.) .So what about the Harper record that the sneering prime minister so disdains? Let's see.For equipment, C-17 aircraft for strategic airlift, Griffin and Chinook helicopters, and in Afghanistan, UAVs in the sky and new tanks on the ground. Harper established the national shipbuilding strategy in 2012; the new warships now coming out of the yards that Mr. Trudeau boasts of are the product of defence decisions made and money committed by the Harper cabinet in 2011. .But what is even more important, is what was done with that equipment. In the period that Mr. Trudeau sniffily dismisses as though it were a time when Canada was not pulling its weight, this country was engaged in some highly kinetic missions... like the Libya bombing campaign... and in Afghanistan.It is actually of enormous relevance to Canada's standing in NATO today that during the years of Canada's engagement with the NATO effort in Afghanistan, more than 40,000 members of the Canadian Armed Forces served in that intensely dangerous conflict. Indeed, 158 Canadian military personnel, including 4 women, lost their lives there.In other words, what you do, matters more than what you spend.And this was not lost on our alliance partners. There was very little pressure from our allies about the magical two percent when Canadians, Americans and British troops were engaged with the enemy, side by side.Today however, our American hosts are vastly underwhelmed. What does Canada do now?And, it is this prime minister's unique and personal accomplishment that he set up Canada for a stinging rebuke from Johnson, the man who after the President and the Vice President, is third in succession to lead the United States of America:"They (Canadians) have the safety and security of being on our border and not having to worry about that. I think that’s shameful. I think if you’re going to be a member nation and participant, you need to do your part."Under Harper we did.Under Trudeau, we get fun with numbers.Yes, it is indeed 'shameful.'
