THOMSON: Trudeau's defence plan won't survive first contact with the enemy

This week, Prime Minister Trudeau and Defence Minister Bill Blair announced their new vision for Canada’s defence. Their plan, outlined in a document called, Our North, Strong and Free, addresses the geopolitical changes that have transpired since 2017 when the previous defence policy was released.If you want to read Our North, Strong and Free, you can pick up a copy in the fantasy section of your local library. When you’ve finished, there’s no need to return it, they won’t want it back. If it was a book and subject to review from the Washington Post or the New York Times, that critique might go something like this:“Our North, Strong and Free is a whimsical and implausible tale told poorly. The timeline makes little to no sense as it lacks any bearing to the dramatic series of events it is set against. It is ultimately an incoherent and an intangible experience that leaves both the reader and Canada’s defence in no better state then they were beforehand.”While it’s generally all-around preposterous bluster, it’s singularly bad for the Navy.The new defence policy states: “To maintain the Canadian Armed Forces' ability to contribute to contemporary and future operations, we will improve the sustainment of our naval fleets. This will include extending the life of the Halifax-class frigates…”The Halifax-class Frigates, more commonly known as CPF’s (Canadian Patrol Frigates), are very tired vessels. They’ve done commendable service for Canada and put on millions of hard sea-going miles, but they are now well past their prime.The lower-deck is that their hulls are so thin that if they want to evade enemy radar, all they have to do is turn sideways to the enemy and they’ll disappear.But all joking aside, the government is running the risk of creating the conditions for an unmitigated disaster by keeping these ships in service for too long. Such was the case with HMCS Protecteur which caught fire on 27 Feb 2014.Protecteur was commissioned in 1969 making her 45 years old when, by the sheer grace of God and the bravery of her crew, it survived a conflagration that could have easily killed all 279 souls onboard. While the CPF’s are only 32 years old, they have nonetheless been having more and more frequent fires and mechanical failures.The other bad news for the Navy — there are no new submarines on the horizon for the foreseeable future.“We will explore options for renewing and expanding our submarine fleet to enable the Royal Canadian Navy to project a persistent deterrent on all three coasts, with under-ice capable, conventionally powered submarines.”Not only does that statement give no timeline for much-needed replacements, it also douses any hopes that Canada will ever be part of AUKUS.To refresh your memory AUKUS is the trilateral naval security partnership between the United States, Australia and United Kingdom which will see Australia acquire nuclear submarines and the three nations share advanced maritime tech with one another.Canada’s explicit use of the word “conventionally” limits us to either diesel electric, or possibly air-independent propulsion (AIP) submarines. To be part of AUKUS, you need to be a serious country wanting to run nuclear submarines. Canada is neither.But switching from the navy to more general observations, it’s hard not to notice nearly everything is prefaced by “we will explore options.” This is very much akin to the terminology used by a child promising to eat their vegetables next supper if you’ll just let them have their dessert now.It’s a hollow but beguiling promise that delivers nothing.But the worst part of the whole document is the conflict between the stated need to replenish CAF personnel and the funding set aside to improve CAF housing.By the DND’s own assessment, the organization is short in excess of 16,000 personnel. One significant contributor to why, is the hardships its members face as a consequence of frequent moves, and the struggle to find affordable housing in high-demand markets.The government says they’re committed to working hard to fix that. Except they immediately contradict that position within their own document.In Annex A of Our North, Strong and Free, it outlines the yearly and total budget expenditures for what it sets out to achieve. In regard to improving housing for Canadian Armed Forces personnel, that amount is zero dollars for fiscal year (FY) 24-25. It’s the same for FY25-26. Then in 26-27 there is $1 million bump in funding and after 5 years, a total of $7 million will have been spent.How do they plan to grow the forces without being able to address one of the primary concerns for dismal recruiting and retention, a lack of available housing. Spending no money on it makes no sense.To put this funding allocation in perspective, when the prime minister and a Canadian delegation spent three days in Great Britain for King Charles' Coronation, it cost Canada $534,675. This was a necessary visit. However, in that one exercise, they spent more than half of what has been allocated to improve CAF housing over the next 3 years.It’s a travesty. All of it.They say a bad plan is better than no plan, but that’s not the case here at all. Because Our North, Strong and Free isn’t a plan for the harsh, dangerous, and unstable world around Canada finds itself. Instead, it’s the usual government routine of kicking defence spending as far down the road as possible while trying to make it look like they’re serious about defence.No plan, especially one like this, survives first contact with the enemy.

THOMSON: Trudeau's defence plan won't survive first contact with the enemy

Related Stories