Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

armed forces

Canada used to punch above its weight, but our defence capacity now seems an impossible dream: Richard Fadden

Published

11 months ago

7 minute read

From the MacDonald Laurier Institute

By Richard Fadden

We are now in a period of crisis such that we must step up our efforts to bolster our national security and protect the international order that has served us so well.

“To dream the impossible dream.” These words, sung by Don Quixote in Man of LaMancha, reflect a sentiment often felt about the state of Canada’s national security. For decades, our positions on foreign policy, defence and security could only be evaluated as weak. And this is not a partisan perspective: since at least the end of the Cold War, successive federal governments have done as little as possible in these policy areas. Why does a G7 country – one of the richest in the world – systematically prioritize these sectors below virtually all others? We continue to do this while Canada benefits from the international order, which is now clearly at risk.

It was not always thus. Canada ended the Second World War with the fourth-largest air force among Allied countries and the third-largest navy in the world. At least once during his postwar term, Louis St. Laurent’s government spent 7 per cent of the GDP on national defence. Then, Lester B. Pearson essentially invented modern peacekeeping. In the months after 9/11, Jean Chrétien’s government spent an additional $7.7-billion on security while fundamentally updating our national security legislation. Stephen Harper’s government stepped up during our engagement in Afghanistan. But outside of these moments, often motivated by existential or critical events, national security has not rated much attention by either Liberal or Conservative governments, nor by any of the other parties in Parliament.

Why do Canadian politicians ignore it as much as they can? The simplest reason is that Canadians, generally, are not interested. Most of us are not currently asking our governments to take the rapidly deteriorating international environment as seriously as virtually all of our allies do. Despite living in an entirely globalized world, many Canadians seem to believe that Canada is not facing any particular threat – so why spend money on protecting ourselves?

It’s true that because of our location in North America, we are not about to be invaded. But this is not 1914. The determined efforts of China, Russia and others to alter the international system on which most of our peace and prosperity depend can ultimately harm us as much as the artillery or bombing attacks of previous wars. And this is without taking into account the dangers of cyberattacks against our society and economy. This is not warmongering: democratic governments around the world are strengthening their defence and security establishments while actively pursuing foreign policies that take this new environment into account. For a country that has long preached the value of globalization – and benefitted from it – Canada inexplicably seems to ignore that national security issues are also a consequence of globalization.

While we have promised NATO that we will spend 2 per cent of our GDP on defence, we have also planned to cut our defence spending. We have also failed to deal with systemic personnel and procurement issues besetting our defence establishment. The current government has pointed to a number of significant capital expenses as proof that we are hitting the 2-per-cent target, but most of this spending has merely been to replace aging vital equipment. This does not represent an adequate response to a deteriorating international order, nor does it bolster the capacity of the Canadian Forces.

On the security side, after months of all parties acknowledging the threat of foreign interference, we are finally holding a public inquiry on the matter which may well prove to be useful. But it will almost certainly release its report when it is too late for the current government to act on its recommendations. Indeed, the timing makes it easy to invoke the inquiry as a reason to avoid taking action to develop a foreign-agents registry, to update our national security legislation, or to deal with threats to our democratic institutions, civil society and the private sector.

For years, Canada punched above its weight internationally. We did so because we used the tools of diplomacy, defence, security and development to advance our interests and values. We recognized that, as a middle power, we needed to use every available tool of soft and hard power to effectively advance our interests and those of our allies. And, critically, we backed these efforts with the resources to make our proposals real. Much of the Western world seems to agree that we are now in a period of crisis such that we must step up our efforts to bolster our national security and protect the international order that has served us so well. While it is the duty of governments to act, opposition parties must also share in the responsibility to recognize the threats we face, and to advocate for responsible action. So far, no one gets a passing grade. We have been left, alongside our allies, to dream the impossible dream.

Richard Fadden is an MLI advisory council member, a former national security adviser to the prime minister, former deputy minister of national defence, and former director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS).

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Daily Caller / 20 hours ago

LNG Farce Sums Up Four Years Of Ridiculous Biden Energy Policy

armed forces / 20 hours ago

Canada among NATO members that could face penalties for lack of military spending

National / 20 hours ago

Canadian gov’t budget report targets charitable status of pro-life groups, churches

armed forces

Canada among NATO members that could face penalties for lack of military spending

Published on December 21, 2024

By

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By J.D. Foster

Trump should insist on these measures and order that unless they are carried out the United States will not participate in NATO. If Canada is allowed entry to the Brussels headquarters, then United States representatives would stay out.

Steps Trump Could Take To Get NATO Free Riders Off America’s Back

In thinking about NATO, one has to ask: “How stupid do they think we are?”

The “they,” of course, are many of the other NATO members, and the answer is they think we are as stupid as we have been for the last quarter century. As President-elect Donald Trump observed in his NBC interview, NATO “takes advantage of the U.S.”

Canada is among the “they.” In November, The Economist reported that Canada spends about 1.3% of GDP on defense. The ridiculously low NATO minimum is 2%. Not to worry, though, Premier Justin Trudeau promises Canada will hit 2% — by 2032.

A quarter of NATO’s 32 members fall short of the 2% minimum. The con goes like this: We are short now, but we will get there eventually. Trust us, wink, wink.

The United States has put up with this nonsense from some members since the collapse of the Soviet Union. That is how stupid we have been.

Trump once threatened to pull the United States out of NATO, then he suggested the United States might not come to the defense of a NATO member like Canada. Naturally, free-riding NATO members grumbled.

In another context, former Army Lt. Gen. Russell Honore famously outlined the first step in how the United States should approach NATO: Don’t get stuck on stupid.

NATO is a coalition of mutual defense. Members who contribute little to the mutual defense are useless. Any country not spending its 2% of GDP on defense by mid-year 2025 should see its membership suspended immediately.

What does suspended mean? Consequences. Its military should not be permitted to participate in any NATO planning or exercises. And its offices at NATO headquarters and all other NATO facilities should be shuttered and its citizens banned until such time as their membership returns to good standing. And, of course, the famous Article V assuring mutual defense would be suspended.

Further, Trump should insist on these measures and order that unless they are carried out the United States will not participate in NATO. If Canada is allowed entry to the Brussels headquarters, then United States representatives would stay out.

Nor should he stop there. The 2% threshold would be fine in a world at peace with no enemies lurking. That does not describe the world today. Trump should declare the threshold for avoiding membership suspension will be 2.5% in 2026 and 3% by 2028 – not 2030 as some suggest.

The purpose is not to destroy NATO, but to force NATO to be relevant. America needs strong defense partners who pull their weight, not defense welfare queens. If NATO’s members cannot abide by these terms, then it is time to move on and let NATO go the way of the League of Nations.

Trump may need to take the lead in creating a new coalition of those willing to defend Western values. As he did in rewriting the former U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement, it may be time to replace a defective arrangement with a much better one.

This still leaves the problem of free riders. Take Belgium, for example, another security free rider. Suppose a new defense coalition arises including the United States and Poland and others bordering Russia. Hiding behind the coalition’s protection, Belgium could just quit all defense spending to focus on making chocolates.

This won’t do. The members of the new defense coalition must also agree to impose a tariff regime on the security free riders to help pay for the defense provided.

The best solution is for NATO to rise to our mutual security challenges. If NATO can’t do this, then other arrangements will be needed. But it is time to move on from stupid.

J.D. Foster is the former chief economist at the Office of Management and Budget and former chief economist and senior vice president at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. He now resides in relative freedom in the hills of Idaho.

Continue Reading

armed forces

You wouldn’t believe how complicated distributing public money can get

Published on December 15, 2024

By

The Audit

 David Clinton

Veteran Affairs: the Big Picture

While researching posts for The Audit, I’ll often confront massive datasets representing the operations of agencies with which I’m not in the least familiar. Getting to the point where all the raw numbers turn into a useful picture can take considerable effort, but it’s a satisfying process.

But my first attempts to understand Veteran Affairs Canada (VAC) felt a bit different. I wasn’t just looking at funding and costs, but at the frustrations and suffering of people who, to a greater or lesser degree, were harmed through their service to the country. Here, I hope, is part of their story.

The Audit is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Veterans Affairs Funding

There are currently more than 460,000 living veterans of the Canadian military. The estimated 2024-25 spending allocation for Veteran Affairs Canada – whose mandate is to serve that population – is around $4.8 billion. The department employs less than four thousand people, which is actually around eight percent fewer than in 2010. Having said that, employment at the distinct Veterans Review and Appeal Board has grown from zero to 161 since 2017.

Besides VAC, the Office of Infrastructure of Canada will spend around $16.5 million on their Veteran Homelessness Program, and Department of National Defence has another $1.6 million budgeted for Community Support for Sexual Misconduct Survivors Program – something for which veterans will also be eligible.

In addition, nearly $2.5 million in grants from various government agencies (including Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation) was given in 2023 to the Homes for Heroes Foundation, which provides housing and support for at-risk veterans.

Non-government agencies also work to support veterans. In 2023, for instance, the War Amps reported spending $2.7 million on “Service Bureau and Advocacy” and around $700,000 on “Veterans Issues – Special”. The Royal Canadian Legion Dominion Command spent around $1.15 million on veterans services in 2022.

The True Patriot Love Foundation is also a big player in this area, channeling nearly $2.7 million in 2024 to other charities working for veterans. At the same time, more than 30 percent of their own budget came from government sources.

One example of such flow-through funding was the $360,000 given by True Patriot Love to Veterans Transition Network in 2024. In 2023, Veterans Transition Network themselves received another $2.2 million from government along with a total of $1.7 million from other charities.

These kinds of ultra-complex relationships are common in Canada’s charitable sector. The complexity may provide benefits that outsiders can’t easily see. At the same time, knowing whether moving funds through multiple organizations leads to unnecessary inefficiencies and waste is something that would probably require a serious forensic audit.

Veterans Affairs Spending

The largest line items in this year’s VAC spending include $1.6 billion for pain and suffering compensation, $1.34 billion for the Income Replacement Benefit, and $990 million for pensions for disability and death.

In 2023, VAC awarded $41.6 million in external contracts. The largest of those was worth $13.8 million and went to 674725 ONTARIO LTD for “Other Business services not Elsewhere Specified”. 674725 Ontario Ltd. appears to be closely associated with a company called Agilec which, in turn, is a part of Excellence Canada. Here’s how Excellence Canada describes itself:

“Founded in 1992 by Industry Canada as the National Quality Institute (NQI), then rebranded as Excellence Canada in 2011, we are an independent, not-for-profit corporation that is dedicated to advancing organizational performance across Canada.”

In that context, it’s interesting that in 2022, VAC awarded a $159 million contract to a joint venture between WCG International Consultants Ltd. and March of Dimes Canada for “Other Health Services not Specified Elsewhere”.

What makes that interesting? Well, WCG also shows up on an Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) page related to compliance with the Investment Canada Act (ICA). The ICA exists to provide transparency relating to foreign investments in the interest of maintaining a fair and competitive marketplace

This particular page identifies a “U.S.” company called Ancora BidCo Pty Ltd as the new owners of a number of businesses under contract with the federal government. Those businesses include 674725 Ontario Ltd. and WCG International Consultants Ltd.

In fact, Ancora isn’t really a U.S. company at all. They’re actually Australian (as the Pty designation suggests). But their parent company – the private equity firm Madison Dearborn Partners, LLC – indeed operates in Chicago.

There’s no direct evidence to suggest there’s anything dark and nefarious happening here. But it is strange that so many discrete contracts turn out to be awarded to what now amounts to a single foreign for-profit company.

External Contracting Patterns

Has VAC been increasing their reliance on external contracts in recent years? Well, as you can see from this graphic, it’s complicated:

I don’t know what policy changes drove those two huge spikes in 2014 ($933 million) and 2021 ($2.25 billion). But I can tell you which specific vendors are responsible for most of the increase.

In 2014, three contracts worth a total of $803 million went to Medavie Inc for “Other Business services not Elsewhere Specified”. That was 86 percent of the sum of all VAC contracts from that year.

An eye-popping 98 percent of 2021’s external spending went to just six contracts worth $2.2 billion. Medavie Inc received one of those contracts – worth $228 million. But the other five (worth a total of $1.99 billion) were all joint ventures involving WCG International Consultants Ltd.

Lifemark Health Corp. (currently owned by Loblaw) partnered with WCG for three of those contracts, and March of Dimes Canada had the other two dance slots.

What Is Medavie?

Medavie Inc. is the owner of:

  • Medavie Blue Cross
  • Medavie EMS Inc.
  • Medavie health Services New Brunswick Inc.
  • Emergency Medical Care Inc.

Between them, those companies provide health insurance, healthcare training, and emergency management services. They also provide public health program administration – which would probably account for the majority of those contract amounts.

What’s not clear to me is why there’s no record of Medavie receiving any federal contracts of any sort since 2021 – despite the fact that the VAC website tells us that they’re still actively engaged in service provision through Partners in Canadian Veterans Rehabilitation Services (PCVRS).

What Is WCG International Consultants Ltd?

As we’ve seen, WCG is now owned by an American private equity firm and is most certainly no longer not-for-profit. Their website tells us that they’re part of the APM Group, which is an Australian company providing “services in early childhood, youth, employment, insurance, justice, veterans, health, disability, and aged care”.

You’re correct to assume the APM Group is more or less synonymous with Ancora BidCo Pty Ltd. More specifically: all of APM’s publicly-traded shares were bought out in the past couple of months on behalf of Madison Dearborn Partners.

Just one more detail: according to WCG’s website, they’re:

“Partners in Canadian Veterans Rehabilitation Services (PCVRS) coordinates and administers the Rehabilitation Services and Vocational Assistance Program on behalf of Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC).”

Curious about PCVRS? Since late 2022, they’ve been tasked with administering all medical, psycho-social and vocational assistance services on behalf of VAC. However, reports suggest that not everyone has been happy with either accessibility or responsiveness under the new system.

None of this is necessarily inappropriate. And if you’re willing to work at it, you’ll be able to use public information sources to uncover a wealth of related relationships and details. But the vast amounts of money involved, along with the operational complexity make abuse possible. Which means external oversight is a good thing.

Besides all that logistical stuff, what really matters is whether veterans themselves are receiving the support and services they deserve. And that’s a question only they can answer.

Give a gift subscription

The Audit is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Continue Reading

Trending

X