Canada’s defense strategy is more important than increased spending, experts tell the Commission

Canada’s defense spending is in the limelight with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but experts say the problem is more complex than meeting 2% of the GDP NATO benchmark to solve the problem.

For scholars who testify at the Defense Standing Committee on March 21, increasing the budget without defense reviews and clear strategies cannot solve Canada’s military deficiencies.

Professor James Ferguson of the Center for Defense and Security Research at the University of Manitoba said:

“The question is how long, how long, especially what acquisitions to focus on. It’s not related to operations or maintenance, it’s not about hiring issues. This money is used to expand the Canadian Army. If you want to invest or pour money [CAF]Recruiting and maintaining is a big issue and you are probably facing real difficulties. “

Ferguson said defense reviews are needed to address this issue as much as the government wants to avoid it.

Ferguson said in his opening remarks that Canada is less capable of defending against Russian missiles, for the purpose of a committee meeting to address the threats to Canada and the CAF’s ability to respond to those threats. .. NORAD) Warning system.

“It’s very clear that the commitment in 2017 is an important area you want to go to, in the absence of funding for NORAD modernization and North American defense modernization … I think it’s important, if not. The government has made this clear. “

Defense Minister Anita Anand Said At the Ottawa Conference on Security and Defense earlier this month, a “robust package” for NORAD’s modernization will be announced shortly.

Free government too Alluded to Defense spending has increased since Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24. Canada currently spends 1.39% of its GDP on defense spending, well below NATO’s target.

However, panel scholars said the goals were not really relevant.

Robert Hubert, a professor of political science at the University of Calgary, said:

“We need to have more than just say’OK, 2 percent, 1.9′. These are numbers and have no meaning. But if you have strategic knowledge within the highest level of ongoing ability to understand the types of threats we are dealing with and be able to respond agilely, that is a lot of things. In fact, it’s not just about setting artificial numbers, but what you’re doing. “

Anessa Kimball, a professor of political science at Laval University, also said the 2 percent goal was “clearly political.”

“”[It] It cannot be obtained from any kind of quantitative analysis. It did not come from any kind of strategic analysis, “she said, showing that this assessment is based on extensive research on NATO’s share of burden policy.

“As some of my other colleagues said, [the 2 percent] I don’t say much about what you are actually doing. “

Canada’s ability to respond to the crisis and support its allies was recently questioned when Anand said that her department had run out of weapons it could provide to Ukraine after making some military equipment contributions.

Increasing interest in defense was not the purpose of the government until recently.

Defense is not mentioned in Speech from the throne From November, highlighting government priorities after the last election.

The closest theme will appear in the last part of the speech with the following sentence: “In the face of rising authoritarianism and great power competition, Canada must strengthen international peace and security, the rule of law, democracy and respect for human rights.”

Noe Chartier


NoƩ Charter is a Montreal-based Epoch Times reporter.