Demanding Answers, Avoiding Responsibilty: the Canadian Parliamentarians Always Disappoint

 Canada has a base in Kuwait, a legacy of the counter-ISIS mission and part of a program having spots around the world facilitating potential operations.  It got hit by Iranian missiles, and opposition parliamentarians are outraged that they were not told.  Fun grandstanding, sure.  But what's going on here?

Yes, the government may have chosen to hide the attack because they didn't want criticism of their crappy stance on Iran and that the US risked its allies without notifying/consulting them.  But perhaps there may have been a reason to keep stuff classified--that telling the public about the attack also tells Iran how accurate their targeting was and maybe to try again.

In a mature democracy (or even one that is in rapid decline), there is a way out of this conundrum: that some members of the legislature, let's say the defence committee or the opposition leaders, have security clearances so that they can be informed when secret stuff happens.  No, they can't then release that info to the public, but they can talk about the generalities so that the public can be informed of the basic idea. 

See how Senator Chris Murphy does it:

I was in a 2 hour briefing today on the Iran War. All the briefings are closed, because Trump can't defend this war in public. I obviously can't disclose classified info, but you deserve to know how incoherent and incomplete these war plans are. 1/ Here's what I can share:

— Chris Murphy (@chrismurphyct.bsky.social) March 10, 2026 at 10:03 PM

And even if the stuff is so secret that the legislators can't talk about it, their ability to know can be a key constraint on government.  Dave, Phil, and I wrote a fairly recent book about exactly this stuff.  I initiated the project because I was stunned by the deliberate ignorance of Canadian members of parliament--that they would prefer to know less and talk more than know more and have to be responsible.  Canadian MPs will say that this is way it is done in Westminster governments, and now Dave, Phil, and I have the receipts to say: bushwah.  Nope, the Aussies and Brits have managed to find ways to actually engage in oversight (that is, they know what the military has done, not that they have a say in what they do, for those who interpret the word oversight differently).  

But for MPs, it is more fun to blast the government for covering things up than actually knowing stuff.  A long running story in Canadian politics has been that the opposition leader, Pierre Poilievre, has refused to be cleared.  My bluesky followers suspect that PP has skeletons that a clearance process would reveal, but the answer is more obvious and direct: he does not want the responsibility of knowing stuff.  He'd rather be ignorant and wrong than have to be careful about his criticism of government.  As Murphy shows above and plenty of opposition legislators around the world know quite well, you can be informed and still provide trenchant, on-target, critical criticisms of the government the day and yet not violate secrecy of the info one has received.

So, I have no sympathy for whiny Conservatives on this.  I also think that the Liberals, like all Canadian parties in power, treat the public like kids and not adults.  When pushed on this, Carney said: “I’m not the only spokesperson for the government, but I’ll just confirm that members of the Canadian Forces are all safe and sound,” said Carney.

 Sorry, sir, but, yes, that actually is a key part of the job.  The best way to fight disinformation is to be as transparent as possible.  The best way to de-fang opposition criticisms is to be ahead of the story and tell the public as much as you can.  Don't act like your job does not include informing the public.  You are not a central banker anymore.

I post this because the Canadian public (and others, most democracies have largely ignorant legislatures) should know that the opposition MPs are playing a game, a dumb game that helps to reduce trust in government (abetting the far right populists), as they could know but choose not to.   

 

My Local Politics is National

Coming home to Canada days before the election, and, on the drive from the airport, I saw plenty of Poilievre and Carney signs.  But not because they are their party leaders but because the route went through PP's riding and the riding (district for Americans) that Carney is running in.  I live in the latter and bike through the former (not today as I am a fair weather biker, so the cold rain will deter me).  

The election has stakes nationally, and, locally, who wins my riding really matters not just in terms of one seat more or less but whether the leader of the party gets to sit in parliament and have legitimacy to serve as the Prime Minister.  Right now, Carney has no seat, and that has happened before, as party leadership can shift in between elections, but he couldn't carry on as PM if the Liberals win but he does not (a very unlikely outcome).  

I don't know Carney, never met him.  He does have a heap of credentials, and he has run a very solid campaign.  I have met his Conservative opponent (the NDP candidate is barely visible and has no chance).*  Barbara Bal was knocking on doors last August, and I happened to be home.  I was not impressed. This was at the same time that the Republicans were inciting violence against Haitian immigrants re the supposed missing dogs and cats, so I remember the timing and content of this conversation well.

What did we talk about? She asked me if I would vote for the Conservatives.  Since she didn't know who I was and hadn't read my blog/bluesky posts (nor did I expect her to), she had no reason to expect she was going to get some pesky questions/opinions from, yes, a political scientist.  I responded first by saying that a politician who weaponizes hate against a vulnerable minority, trans people, is not worthy of my vote, like the way the GOP is behaving in the US.  She made a side comment about having spent time in Haiti so she didn't find the GOP hate-mongering to be problematic.  She then talked a bit about parental rights, and I said that was a canard used to appeal to the far right.  

The other topic that came up, although I forget how, is that I also said that I didn't like how her party was undermining the oversight over intelligence by its stances re the relatively new effort to create a hybrid oversight committee.  She had no idea what NSICOP is, which is not that surprising since, yes, my work with Phil Lagassé has focused directly on parliamentarians preferring to know less and speak more than know more and speak less--the original title was "Ignorant Critic or Informed Overseer." So, not really that disqualifying that she didn't know about the role of parliament in intelligence oversight, although since her party was sabotaging that effort, one might think she would have some awareness.

Sidenote: The issue of preferring to be ignorant has come up in this election as Poilievre has refused to get a security clearance.  Party leaders tend to get these, it has become more important lately with foreign election interference, as it has been the position of the government that each party should police the interference within their own party.  PP can't do that without knowing stuff.  But he refuses as he claims this would prevent him from being critical of the government.  This is, of course, bs as there are plenty of Westminster systems where party leaders get access to some info but can still criticize the government.  It would just require him to be, dare I say it, responsible. 

Obviously, I wouldn't vote for a Conservative Party candidate at a time where that party is promising to cut higher education and research funding, but my vote was determined in 2022 when Pierre Poilievre welcomed the far right anti-vax convoy that disrupted live in Ottawa for two months with donuts and smiles.   A more moderate CPC might get my vote after, yes, ten years of Liberals in power (democracy requires alternation in my mind, but the LDP of Japan might disagree), but that was never in the cards given PP's ascendance.  I have also taken to calling him the Ted Cruz of Canada--willing to support many far right causes just to get a bigger crowd, to appeal to those to the right of the traditional Conservative Party.  And just being someone who is easy to hate.

Anyhow, Bal didn't know what she was getting when she knocked on my door, but I do have a good understanding of what would happen if she won--she can't win without the Conservatives getting a sweeping victory--which wouldn't necessarily mean selling the country out to Trump. It would just mean selling the country out to far right causes, and that is a very good reason to vote against her and her party. 

*  Canadians get strategic voting--that because it is a first past the post (whoever gets the most votes in a riding wins) rather than proportional representation or another form of allotting seats, those who would prefer a 3rd or 4th party often will vote for the lesser of two evils.  In this election, the NDP, the Greens, and the Bloc are polling poorly for a number of reasons (the NDP leader is not seen as a good politician, for example), but one of those reasons is that these voters really care that the right wing party does not win at this moment.  This is much to do with Trump but not entirely so as Poilievre is both personally pretty easy to hate and has taken stances that position him much further to the right than his predecessor (including the aforementioned transphobia).  

2025 Defence Platforms: Promises, Costs, and What?

It has been a tradition here to look at the defence platforms in the run-up to Canadian elections and see what they say (for the intel stuff, see Stephanie Carvin's sharp analyses).  I am late partly because I was on the road last week eating way too much pasta and gelato (not together but one and then the other, lather, rinse, repeat). 

So, what do the parties say about their plan for Canadian defence in these uncertain times, where the very foundation of the US alliance is shaking apart?

First, the Liberals since they are the front-runners, the incumbents, and actually said the most stuff about this.   Carney's team (who will be is Defence Minister?  No idea, but I hope he moves on from Blair) proposes pay raises, better health care, child care, and housing.  This all makes sense both because it helps recruiting and retention, which are central given the personnel shortage, but also the easiest way to spend more money to look good re the 2% expectation.  No cumbersome procurement processes for much of this.

Modernize recruiting.  Yep, was happening under JT but was slow and late, so good to continue that work.   Continue the work recommended by Arbour/Deschamps/Fish/etc.  That is, keep working to make the military inclusive.  A very sharp counter-point to the Conservatives even though it should just be basic stuff--we need more people, we need them to stay, let's make them welcome.  There is not a tradeoff between doing right by the people and effectiveness.

Much discussion of rearming.   Specifically mentioning NATO commitments (as if there will be a NATO in the future).  This reflects a commitment to spend at least the equivalent of 2% of Canada's gross domestic product on defence spending, which gets easier as Trump tanks the Canadian economy (basic math--if the denominator gets smaller, the resulting % gets bigger).  

• Keep the submarine commitment, of course, as it is a key to spending a lot of money AND we can't rely on the US to share its underwater info for much longer.  

• 

  Cover of 2015 Liberal defence
  platform. Notice defence is not
  really the priority here.

  Keeping the commitment to the National Shipbuilding program... even though it is the most expensive, slowest project.  Why?  Jobs in Halifax and Vancouver and now Quebec.  My first
  defence platform review blasted the Liberals for defining shipbuilding as a jobs program, but, well, that is what it is, so points retrospectively for honesty.
• Drones!  Remember when it was controversial to be pro-drone because of how the Americans used them in the Mideast/Pakistan?  Ukraine has changed all of that in a big, big way (also in Germany).
• Buy Canadian-made AWACS planes--this was JT's plan to buy off Bombardier so that the P-8 plan would not face controversy, and Carney is keeping that plan.  Quebec is a votes rich environment...
• Stuff for the army as revealed by Ukraine war--more advanced artillery, more ground-based air defence.  Absolutely.  But this may take time since everyone is watching the same war and learning the same lessons.
• Expand mission for the Coast Guard.  I am not a CG expert so I guess so.
• More money for the Rangers (most parties promise this).  Sure, there is a lot of value added and puts money into northern communities.  
•  A new bureau to do advanced science stuff.  This makes sense at this moment since we can't rely on the US to share its tech or to use its tech on our behalf.
• A New Defence Procurement Agency. This has been promised many times by multiple parties.  Given how many ministries are involved now, I am guessing it won't happen anytime soon.  Is it a good idea?  Maybe, maybe not.  It might increase accountability as only one minister/ministry would be blamed for things not working out.  But again, easier said then done.  
• The next line focuses on being more risk acceptant in making procurement decisions.  Easy to say now, hard to do when one is fearful of question period.

 The Arctic sovereignty section begins with a focus on Arctic and Indigenous leadership--the line here is nothing without you at the table.  [Foreshadowing: not all parties think this way].  A network of deep water ports sounds super expensive and unlikely, but would count towards 2%, so there's that.  Buying over-the-horizon radar with Australia is a good way to avoid dependence on the US, but is already something underway.  More northern infrastructure, with much dual use stuff, again makes sense but is wildly expensive.  

In sum, a pretty reasonable defence platform that is mostly a continuation of what Trudeau was doing, but perhaps maybe spending more money.  But can they do it more quickly?  Some of the stuff is faster than other stuff--can raise salaries a lot faster than buying subs. 

What is most obviously missing?  No mention of whether to re-think the F-35 decision?  The good news about Trump alienating Canada is that it takes the whole participation in ballistic missile defence off of the agenda.

What about the Conservatives?  At this time, they still don't have a costed platform despite promising to have one by now.  Breaking promises before the election is a bad look.  Their original promise to spend money from expanded trade with the US on defence has, um, blown up in their faces given the trade war.   The only statement I could find was this.  Very Arctic focused.  Upgrading the Inuvik facitlity into a full base sounds expensive and impractical and no mention of consultation.  Same promise about AWACS planes as everyone has to pander to Bomdardier.  New Arctic baser in Churchill, a security corridor--all season road, more icebreakers.  Nothing on personnel, although Poilievre has talked about the military being too woke, which means the end of culture change and the end of programs that fund ... me and the CDSN. So, yeah, I might have a bit of a conflict of interest here.  

I guess we will have to wait for the real platform that is supposed to come out tomorrow, several days into early voting.  A very interesting choice since everyone knew this election was coming.  Maybe PP needs a deliverology summit too?

How about the NDP? They really lean into the nationalism, so no more F35.  A promise of 2% by 2032, but on what is not clear.

So, yes, I wrote much about the Liberals, but they actually said a lot.  

I will update if the Conservative say more.

 

 

Regrets, I Have A Few

 Today, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau finally announced he was stepping down.  In that process, he indicated a regret, and I had a quick take on it:

If I were Trudeau, my biggest regrets would be: 1) not finding a way to undermine or at least challenge the premiers who are doing so much to fuck up Canada--the health care system, the educational system, transit, etc. 2) there is no #2 that comes close

[image or embed]

— Steve Saideman (@smsaideman.bsky.social) January 6, 2025 at 11:26 AM

One of two times I was in the proximity of PMJT

Seriously though, looking back at nearly ten years in office, we can think about what Trudeau did well, what he did poorly, and what opportunities he missed.  To be clear, I am neither a Trudeau lover or hater.  He wasn't bad, he blew some opportunities, but he was probably above the replacement level PM.  And, yes, his value above replacement PM (VARPM) declined over time.  And, no, I am not an expert on  Canadian politics, Canadian public policy, or the history of Canadian PM's.  But I do have lots of opinions and this blog is, of course, by definition half-baked.*

So, what did he do well?

1. Child tax benefit--a lot of kids were elevated out of poverty.  That is huge and underrated.
2. He protected Canada from Trump during the first administration--that was no easy task and required a sustained, well-organized effort.  That same kind of effort paid off with the next crisis
3. Canada did pretty well compared to other democracies during the pandemic.  Canadians didn't have to line up at food banks, and the death rate was far lower than its neighbor's.   People mostly vaccinated, at least the first time.  
4. This will contradict one of the regrets but the agreement (I'd say coalition but that is a curse word up here) with the NDP led to dental and pharma policies that help fulfill some of the promises of the, um, overrated national health care system (of course, much of the blame for the decline of that system is in the provinces's hands).
   

What bedeviled Trudeau?

1. Awful leadership at the provincial level across damn near most of the country.  They subverted the pandemic effort.  They took billions of pandemic relief money and didn't spend it on ventilation or testing but on tax cuts.  The far right wing protests that punished Ottawa and elsewhere were mostly a provincial responsibility, so the emergency Trudeau invoked was less about the provinces not being able to handle the problem but not willing to do so.  
2. His arrogance.  Most of the scandals and most of the alienation of his own party was the product of Trudeau's own sense of himself.  The scandals were so incredibly .... dumb.  How does one handle the most corrupt company in Canada as it is going through judicial proceedings?  Stay the fuck away.  
3. The Mideast.  He waffled a great deal in the face of a difficult situation, but he could have stood by the international institutions that have been challenging Israel's war crimes.
4. Pipeline politics--Canada is really a strange country as it has a diverse economy, but oil plays such a dominant role.  So, the country can't make much progress on climate change, and it impedes reconciliation with the Indigenous peoples of Canada. 
    

  What did he overpromise and underdeliver?

1. Electoral reform.  This really pissed off those who crossed over from the left.  He could have imposed a system since he had a majority, but having a thin majority (the joy of first past the post turning minorities into majorities) does not really give one much legitimacy to make massive changes to the rules.  I really don't blame him for not making much progress here, as the rules would have been seen as very self-serving.  However, it might have kept the Conservatives from moving too far to the right or punishing them for such moves, so, yeah, not great.
2. UN stuff.  No, Canada was not back at peacekeeping.  One temporary minimal mission didn't make Canada back, and refusing to extend a bit undermined whatever political capital that was gained.  UN Security Council?  Talk about arrogance--Canada was way late to the process and underprepared.  Trudeau should have waited for a different competition.  Oh, and he should have cleaned up Canada's record not just on peacekeeping but aid money.   
3. Reconciliation.  Lots of words, some action (fewer Indigenous communities have water advisories), unmet expectations. 
   

 What are the biggest unforced errors, other than the scandals?

1. Oh my, the India trip.  Pandering to Sihks and dressing up as a bollywood dancer was not great. Canadian-Indian relations were going to suck anyway because a Hindu nationalist party was never going to get along with a country that gave Sikh Canadians prominent positions.
2. Keeping a truly awful Defence Minister around because he was politically important.  Whatever tatters Trudeau had in terms of being a feminist prime minister, favoring some votes and some campaign contributions while keeping a Defence Minister who failed to get rid of one chief of defence staff who engaged in sexual misconduct and abuse of power and who then replaced that guy with another who lasted a month ended any seriousness of Trudeau is a 21st century politician.
3. On the defence file, which is where I have read/heard about the most, the delaying of the defence review and undercommitting to 2% meant that the eventual move got no credit. 

Biggest regrets?

1. The obvious one: lasting too damned long.  He could have left after the 2021 election (which was called at the wrong time), after the pandemic ebbed, declaring victory over the disease and getting the country through the crisis. What did he accomplish over the past four years besides antagonizing many folks who are tired?  He ended up burning out a bunch of good Liberal politicians while perpetuating his rule. The party is now poorly prepared for the next election.
   
2.  The move to cut the federal budget because the Conservatives argued that the spending caused inflation.  No, Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the pandemic caused inflation.  Canada had perhaps the second best economic recovery--inflation is down even if prices have not been reduced to the levels before the pandemic (that would require a nasty recession).  Instead, Trudeau decided to fight on the Conservatives' turf and cut spending, which then hurt the military and the rest of government.  Focusing on delivering good government rather than on Conservative priorities would have been the right stance.  As Harris's loss indicates, incumbents were going to wear inflation no matter how well they performed, so one might as well stay true to oneself.
3. Which leads to the housing crisis.  Again, mostly a provincial problem, but Trudeau allowed it to foster xenophobia--that it was runaway immigration that did, and the way to handle that was to limit student visas?  While the problems of most universities in Canada can be put at the feet of their provincial leaders, the increased dependence on foreign students meant that federal policies on visas have much bigger impacts.  So, this may not be Trudeau's biggest regret, but it may be mine.  

Overall, the Liberals of the past ten years did ok.  Their corruption scandals were modest, their impact on the lives of Canadians were most positive and in some cases very positive.  The Liberals overplayed their hand internationally while accomplishing the most important goal--defending against Trump 1.0.  

Trudeau is not the hero that his fans think he is, but he is also far from the villain that the haters have portrayed him to be.  Ultimately, Trudeau was a pretty good disappointment.   

 

*  I will absolutely miss the Trudeau Administration as I had the best access to those in and near government in my career.  I got an early look at the 2015 Liberal Defence Platform as I trashed an early effort--which led to an ongoing acquaintanceship with a top operative.  I had a mostly twitter friendship with someone who became a Minister, which led to some interesting conversations, including at a party last month in the aftermath of Freeland's departure. I interacted with a defence minister who sought out those who had some civ-mil expertise, which led to her appearing in my class twice and on our podcast. So, yeah, I will miss this government even if I was not really part of a Liberal conspiracy to cancel a retired general.

 

Addressing the Backlash: Houston, There Really Was a Problem

 One of the consistent tendencies of 2024 was that posts here and conversations elsewhere on online about the Canadian Armed Force's command crisis was the claim that it was really a moral panic, a non-controversy as most of the generals and admirals who had been accused in 2021 were exonerated since then.  One thing I wrote in 2021 was that the opponents to culture change, to addressing the abuses of power and sexual misconduct, had few allies since it was hard to ally with these tainted officers. With the various court cases having been played out with one officer pleading guilty and the rest being found not guilty, the fans of the old ways now are aggressively putting forth the idea that this was all blown up out of nothing.  So, first, I'd like to address this concept of exoneration, then go through the three most important cases, and then conclude with what it means for policy and for Canadian civil-military relations.

First, folks have claimed that the various generals and admirals have been exonerated.  This reminds me of a classic meme:

To exonerate does not mean that a jury could not be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.  To exonerate means: that there was new evidence that essentially proves that the accused could not be guilty.  From one legal website: "The difference is that just because you were found not guilty [an acquittal] doesn`t mean you were not guilty; it means that the State was unable to find enough evidence to convict you. Whereas, an exoneration means, the court has overturned, and dismissed all charges, based on new evidence."  In none of the cases and especially the top three was there any new evidence that proved that the generals and admirals could not have committed the crimes of which they had been accused.

Instead, what happened was that either investigators or courts ruled that there was not sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that these individuals (except for one) to convict or further investigate them.  To be clear, that is a high bar and an appropriate one for when one could be jailed.  It should not be the standard for appointment to the highest positions in the military (or the Supreme Court). It also means that if a court can't find someone guilty, that does that mean that there was not sufficient evidence to try to the individual.  In these cases, there were other factors at work that can also cause us to be at least a wary of thinking that these folks were treated unfairly: the well-documented criticisms of the military justice system by a series of reviews including the most recent by former Supreme Court Justice Fish and that it is very hard to try someone decades later.  There is also the canard that women are so willing to make false accusations--when the opposite is true.

Ok, let's get into the three cases, starting with the Mulligan Man--Vice Admiral Hadyn Edmundson.  He had been accused of a variety of forms of sexual misconduct and ultimately rape.  His court case ended with a not guilty verdict.  This was not the clear, decisive vindication that his lawyer suggested, but instead a problem common to many rape cases--of there being no other witnesses or corroborating evidence. This case is important because Edmundson had an established reputation as being problematic on sexual misconduct issues--his nickname of Mulligan Man--when General Jon Vance named him to be the head of personnel.  To put a man with such a tainted past in charge of personnel at a time where the military was supposed to be addressing sexual crisis in the aftermath of the Deschamps Report speaks to Vance's commitment to addressing sexual misconduct.  It also speaks to the failure of then Minister of National Defence Harjit Sajjan who should have been overseeing such important appointments.  Chief of Military Personnel should be integral to any effort to fight sexual misconduct since recruitment, retention, and promotion are just a wee bit central to damn near everything including making sure that sexual misconduct is disincentivized.  Plus there are the optics.  More on that below.

The second case is Admiral Art McDonald, who made it to the very top of the Canadian Armed Forces, serving one of the briefest terms as Chief of the Defence Staff.  He was accused of sexual assault at a post-exercise party, and the military investigators essentially said: everyone was too drunk at the time to testify.  Maybe that is what Art McDonald considers to be exoneration, but that ain't exoneration.  Of course, McDonald then demonstrated that he was unfit to serve as CDS since he completely misunderstood civilian control of the military when he sent a letter to all of the Canadian admirals and generals claiming he was coming back to command the CAF.  His replacement, General Wayne Eyre had it exactly right: "We must remember that in a democracy the military is subordinate to our duly elected civilian leadership. This fundamental is paramount to our profession." That Sajjan advised the Prime Minister to appoint a man who clearly out of touch with proper civil-military relations and also having this stain in his past is another strike against Sajjan--that the PM should have turfed him after McDonald was suspended.  Rule #1 of Minister-ness--take the blame for big mistakes on behalf of the PM (who should have also done his homework on McDonald).  

Of course, the case that started the cascade is General Jon Vance's.  In multiple comments on my blog, folks have said that I must be some kind of puritan to be upset by Vance's consensual relationship.  These folks cast many aspersions at the primary (but not only) target of Vance's attention: Major Kellie Brennan.  There are many responses to this, and I will focus on two: first, if there was no problem with this relationship, why did Vance seek to obstruct justice by telling Brennan to lie about their relationship?  Second, relationships between superiors and subordinates are fraught, which is one why norms eventually developed against professors having sexual relationships with their students (which do get violated from time to time).  That Vance preyed upon his subordinates at a time where he was supposed to leading the charge against sexual misconduct showed as much about his judgement and his sense of double standards and abuse of power as his appointment of Edmundson to chief of military personnel.  (Some have said that no one was convicted, but the guilty plea is very much the equivalent of a conviction, even if a judge was willing to ignore years of Vance violating his oath when he slapped him on the wrist)

Over the course of Vance's historically long term as CDS, I talked to multiple CAF officers about Operation Honour--the effort to address sexual misconduct in the aftermath of the Deschamps Report.  I repeatedly heard: "yeah, but that's led by Vance ...."  I never got specifics until Mercedes Stephenson broke the story.  The key is this: Vance's reputation, either from his preying upon subordinates or from his promoting an officer who skated past previous accusations of sexual misconduct, undermined the legitimacy of the effort to deal with sexual misconduct.

So, what should we make of those who argue that this is all overwrought?  What are the policy implications of dismissing the 2021 accusations against an entire command cohort?  It suggests we should toss out the reforms, I guess.  That is, rather than having civilian oversight of promotions and rather than having anonymous reviewers for the 360 degree reviews of senior officers, we should go back to the days where those seeking promotion got to pick their reviewers.  Sure, that's a great recipe for an old boys network, but wheres the harm in that?  Oh, these accusations led to a military that is too woke, too concerned with including Canadians who are not the traditional suppliers of personnel to the CAF: women, LGBTQ, religious minorities, immigrants, etc.  So, in a time of a steep personnel crisis, we should not worry about alienating the 70% of the Canadian population that have generally not been the target of recruiters?

From now on, when I hear folks dismissing the seriousness of the 2021 scandals, I will ask them--what reforms do you want to do away with?  And if they come back with the bullshit that there are quotas limiting white dudes from joining or from being promoted, I can walk away knowing that they don't know what they are talking about.

On to civil-military relations, what can we learn from both the "exonerations" and the backlash?  First, efforts to reform military justice need to continue. If people had more faith in the system, then it might serve as a greater deterrent to those who might abuse their positions and it might also serve to reassure people that they have recourse within the system or a pathway outside the system if they face sexual misconduct. Second, we need to have politicians actually care about their responsibilities as stewards of the military.  That Sajjan messed up his job in so many ways and was kept around in that position for months and months afterwards says a lot about how Trudeau viewed his role as the chief civilian in charge of the CAF.  This leads to a third implication: that civilian oversight of the CAF needs to be the job of more than just one person, more than just the Minister's job.  It should be the job of the Department of National Defence.  DND should not just be a supporter of the CAF but an overseer.  The job is way too big for one person, and, no, the parliamentarians don't think it is their job.  

The 2021 scandals were not just the fault of a handful of senior leaders abusing their power--it was also the fault of a broken system of civil-military relations.  Both civilian and military leadership failed the CAF and failed Canada.  The structures at the time facilitated and incentivized this failure.  Some of the structures within the CAF have changed, but, alas, little has changed on the civilian side.  Denying the problems and wishing for a glorious past where abuse of power and inappropriate relationships were seen as the benefits that came with those positions says much about those making those claims and can only lead to yet more crises down the road.

The State of Canadian Politics

 The drama down south has captivated not just Americans but Canadians.  But the good news is that the shitshow up north is going to grab some of that attention back.  The latest is that the left-wing party, the New Democrats, led by Jagmeet Singh, has ended its deal with the Liberals for no apparent reason and is now, yes, opposing basic climate change policy.  I really don't know how Singh got to lead a party with such poor political instincts.  

The Liberals are just freaking tired.  Nine years of Trudeau--he had ample opportunity to step down gracefully so that someone else could provide new energy to the party.  He is much younger than Joe Biden and far less decisive.  I think he suffers from a similar syndrome.  Just as Biden thought he was the only and best Trump-slayer, Trudeau thinks that he is the best one to defeat Pierre Poilievre.  The current polls suggest otherwise, Justin.  And the big news within the party is for Mark Carney, former bank governor both in Canada and UK (wtf?), is vying to be the next leader?  Yuck.  Not sure who I would favor, but not someone who hasn't really practiced competitive electoral politics.

What is a voter to do?  Damned if I know.  I had a fun conversation last night as the Conservative candidate in my riding seeking to unseat the Liberal incumbent was doing door-to-door campaigning.  She asked if I might vote for her.  Not if Pierre P is her leader.  Why?  I could have gone in many directions and kind of did so, but I focused in part on the incitement of trans hatred, I talked a bit about the Conservatives undermining NSICOP--the effort to provide some oversight over intel services ... about which she knew not, and I talked about Pierre's hugging of the people who blocked downtown Ottawa for weeks abusing the folks in or passing through the neighborhood.  I didn't even get into his platforming far right, resentful retired generals who complain about a woke military.

I really wish the left and the right would provide decent alternatives to the Liberals.  But they don't.  Democracy requires alternation and the threat of alternation so that even long-lasting incumbent parties act as if they are accountable to the public.  

All I know is that we are likely to get a majority Conservative government at this rate, which will test how sincere Poilievre is.  Given that I think he is the Ted Cruz of Canada, I don't think he cares about much except power. But what he does to get there and stay there is probably not going to be good.  In short, we be fucked.

New CDS and then what?

 As I travel from one conference (Humboldt) to another (ERGOMAS), I have some time to think about the belated decision to name Lt. General Jennie Carignan as the next Chief of the Defence Staff, the CHOD as they say (chief of defence) in Canada.  The CDS in Canada has far, far more power relative to their military than the Chairman does in the US for a number of reasons, including many that will eventually be sketched out in our edited volume on Canadian civil-military relations:

• unlike the US Chairman, the CDS has command of the entire military, so Carignan will be able to order all of her subordinates to do what she wants.  Getting them to follow through?  That is a bit more complicated.
• the Minister of Defence traditionally has a light hand except in a crisis.  Indeed, a recent MinDef didn't think it was his job to oversee the CDS.  The current one is a former cop, so I assumed he would largely stay out of things and I haven't heard much to dissuade me.
• there is no parliamentary oversight over the CDS since the parliamentarians don't think that is their job.
• The Department of National Defence thinks its job is to support the military, not oversee it.  

There have been reforms that have reduced some of the CDS's power as promotion of generals and admirals is now much more vetted than in the past by the Minister and by DND.  Still, the CDS has far more influence than a deputy minister at another agency (yes, the military is a government agency, just one with a bigger budget, unlimited liability, and guns), and can and does speak out more. 

To be honest, I was rooting for Carignan to get the job because, well, she was the only candidate that I had interacted with.  Carignan had been on our second podcast although it was Stéfanie von Hlatky who did the interviewing. I did meet her at that time as she had just returned from commanding Canadian ops in Iraq and was speaking at the Kingston Consortium on International Security.  I then bumped into her at various events in Ottawa.  Once she became Chief of Professional Conduct and Culture (more on that below), I had the chance to have a long conversation with her as her former staffer was our Visiting Defence Fellow.  So, I respect her and wish her well.  Of course, I used to respect Jon Vance as I had met him several times and was impressed until... I wasn't.  

Carignan was reportedly headed to be Chief of the Army before the GOFO crisis of 2021 (where generals and admirals were disgraced due to past abuses of power) and then she was charged with setting up a new command with the responsibility for addressing the culture crisis that facilitated so much abuse of power over the years.  It was and is an incredibly tough job, where there is much resistance, no obvious path forward, and no simple metrics for success.  And while she set up this command, she had to cooperate with a competing effort--the review by retired Supreme Court Justice Louise Arbour--AND she had to deal with a new Minister of Defence who had her own ideas for this stuff.  Throughout, Carignan consulted widely (including my sharp friends), built a very good team quickly, and had to contend with stepping on the turf of pretty much every other general and admiral in the CAF.  The jury is still out on whether CPCC has been successful--again, metrics are hard in this area.  But that it didn't fail despite all the pressure is something.  Anyhow, there are at least three things here that matter most about that experience

• Carignan has experience setting up an organization from scratch.
• Carignan is deeply wedded to culture change and knows the file very, very well.  Given all that I have written and what we (a team of scholars) have found about the impact of discrimination scandals on trust in the military, support for defence spending, and support for recruitment, I am glad to see the next CDS committed to such stuff. 
• Because CPCC reaches into every part of the military, I think she has a better background than someone who had served as the head of one service--that a chief of the army might not know as much about the strengths and weaknesses and ways of the Air Force or the Navy.  

Of course, a big question is whether this is a matter of "add woman and stir" approach to fixing the military or looking like one is doing something.  Is she being set up to fail?  Well, I wondered about the same stuff when Anita Anand was appointed Minister of Defence.  In retrospect, she didn't have enough support from the government--neither in budget or in experienced staff for her office--but she was allowed to lead and make a difference.  I wish she had served longer in that spot.  Will Carignan be the same?  Be given the authority to make the decisions?  Probably.  Will she have the budget to do so?  Maybe not.  Will the Minister both support her and oversee her?  Yes and no.  

I am sure her gender mattered in this decision as did her background as a Francophone.  This is a good look for the Liberal government.  That does not mean she isn't qualified.  Carignan is quite qualified--she had operational command, she served very well in a challenging three star position, and she has a well-rounded background.  

Sure, I am rooting for Carignan to be successful.  The Canadian military is in a hard place--underbudgeted, overcommitted, deep in a personnel crisis (something like 15% short of targets), emerging from a series of scandals that involved a multitude of senior officers, a backlash to culture change that is being fed by retired generals who benefited from the permissive environment of the past and by the Conservative Party that seeks to politicize the military with accusations that it is too woke, and more.  Carignan may not be set up to fail, but she will have an incredibly tough job.

As July 1st is near, I am reminded of how new immigrants can be very patriotic, so, yes, I root for Canada to succeed.  As a civil-military relations scholar, I root for better oversight.  I think Carignan will have a better attitude towards civilian control of the CAF, compared those that got the CAF into the mess that required the setting up of the culture and conduct command.  Maybe we can have both a better military and a better controlled military?  I don't think these things are contradictions, but there are those out there who do.  So, let's keep an eye on Carignan, what she tries to do, and who resists. 

Cutting Canada's Defence Budget?

 The announcement that the Trudeau government is cutting the defence budget along with every other budget by a smidge is getting a heap of play.  On the one hand, $1b is not that dramatic of a cut to the largest discretionary part of the budget.  On the other hand, given what is going on the world and given where the commitments the government has made, this has a lot of people shaking their heads.  It does help us understand why there is no defence policy update: it would be very embarassing to indicate how much the world has gotten more threatening and then say "and we are cutting defence."  Now, one could argue that Canada spends enough as the threats are distant and we have some big oceans protecting us.  Yet.... here are the big commitments that need to be funded:

1. NORAD Modernization: the government has repeatedly committed to spending many billions on improving the warning systems and other facilities as part of its commitment to defend Canada and to cooperate with the US on the defence of North America.  The technology is, the infrastructure needs much work in the face of climate change and age.  So, is this the commitment Trudeau is going to break?
2. Sending a brigade to Latvia: the government has committed to sending 2200 to Latvia and remain the Framework (leading) nation for NATO in Latvia.  This is going to cost a lot of money to send troops, have them armed and supplied with ammunition, and also provide resources to the other countries in the Canadian-led brigade.  Is this the promise that Trudeau is going to break?
3. Reversing the personnel crisis.  The CAF is currently at least 16,000 people short for a force of 100,000.  That means lots of jobs are either unfilled or people are working multiple jobs.  This can create a spiral as people leave because they are working too hard and/or are underserved AND it slows down recruitment and training.  Solving this requires culture change, sure, but it also requires $$$$.  We need to pay folks more, find ways to cover child care, provide better facilities, and, in all ways possible, make it more attractive to serve Canada.
4. Keep on saving Canadian lives and property when natural disasters become emergencies. Climate change means more of these events, and crappy provincial politics means that the CAF will be called out again and again--more, not less.  So, will Trudeau cut back on these efforts, despite a basic commitment to have the CAF surge in when Canadians need help?
   
5. Ships and planes.  Yeah, Trudeau promised to build 15 new warships to replace those rusting away, and something like 88 F-35s to replace fighter planes that are twice as old as those joining the RCAF.  As we start to actually buy the planes and build the ships, it will mean more money being spent.  Oh and new equipment costs more to maintain.  Is this the promise Trudeau is going to break?

Sure, I have a minor interest in all of this as the CDSN gets some money from DND via the MINDS program, which is an easy cut to make, just as the old Security and Defence Forum was under Harper.

But the larger point remains: the government has made a number of defence commitments that require more money to be spent, not less.  The Defence Policy Update was supposed to justify those additional expenditures and explain to the public how those funds would help Canada adjust to a more threatening world.   But now we see the budget going down.  It may be good politics since no one votes either way on defence spending, but the polls do indicate that the public supports more defence spending.  These cuts are not due to pressure to spend less on defence.  So, other than not caring about defence, it is not clear what is driving this.

The joy of not being a Conservative is that Liberals don't have to care as much about deficits [and, yes, the Conservatives will cut defence if they get into power as they care more about deficits than most things].  Why not lean into that joy, FFS?

Grading A Weak Op-Ed: Strawpeople Arguments Missing the Point

 I have been wondering whether I should write about Michel Maisonneuve's op-ed, which is entirely about ... me.  As I have long admitted to being a narcissist, I am, of course, flattered by the attention.  But as a professor, when I see bad reading comprehension, ad hominen attacks, and wild analogies, I have a hard time refraining from commenting. 

To set this up, last fall, Michel Maisonneuve used his Vimy Gala award speech to rant about a variety of things that upset him--including a woke media and a government that apologizes too much. I wrote about it, which got much attention.  This seemed to lead to Maisonneuve, who complained about cancel culture, getting a regular column or its equivalent at the National Post, and the attention of the Conservative Party of Canada.  They then chose him to have a big platform at their convention. I suggested this was a bad idea in an op-ed as it would be putting the military into partisan fire (and I am not alone) not unlike how platforming Michael Flynn and John Allen in 2016 did so in the US, and it is that op-ed to which Maisonneuve is responding.

The Perils of Politicization With Maple Syrup

 Last night, a friend informed me that my favorite retired Canadian military officer, Lt. General (ret) Michel Maisonneuve is going to speak at the Conservative Party of Canada's convention.  This gave me a case of deja vu, as the 2016 US campaign had dueling generals at the conventions--Michael (how many foreign payrolls am I on?) Flynn for Trump and the Republicans and John Allen for Hillary Clinton and the Democrats.  I have been meaning to write about Michael Robinson's book, Dangerous Instrument, Politicial Polarization and US Civil-Military Relations, for some time,* but the CDSN Summer Institute and a mad dash to finish the Steve/Dave/Phil book got in the way, but this news has pushed Robinson's book to the front of my mind.

* One of my sabbatical goals is to catch up and write about the latest civ-mil work (and some older stuff).  Robinson's book was at the top of the pile.  Now I am working on Jason Dempsey's book about whether the US Army was "Conservative" or partisan in the early 2000s.

Robinson does an amazing job of taking a variety of surveys and survey experiments (where some respondents read or listen to one vignette/treatment and others get exposed to different ones to see what primes people) to assess a variety of dynamics surrounding the US military: what shapes people's views, what shapes their media consumption, what shapes media coverage, and ultimately what shapes the standing of the US military in the public.  Oh, and how thoroughly screwed the US military is.

The basic idea is that there are different ways to politicize a military.  The military can politicize itself by directly getting engaged in politics or by doing things that resonate beyond the military.  But the book is really a story of affective politicization--that how people see the military depends not just on what the military is doing, but what the other actors in the system are doing that makes it appear as if the military is becoming closer or farther politically.  This is all very important because most modern militaries in most democracies seek to be non-partisan institutions--that they were taught the key to both civilian control of the military and relative autonomy was to stay out of politics.  Indeed, because most militaries are not seen as partisan, they tend to have higher popularity ratings--that most other institutions are seen as belonging to one side or another and thus at least a chunk of the political spectrum is pissed off.  I have delighted in our CDSN surveys showing that only academic folks have higher trust ratings than the military.

In the US, there was an arms race between the Democrats and Republicans amassing endorsements from retired generals and admirals, as each sought to be seen as the party of national security.  This was bad for the military, as it may be that the public sees retired officers as the voices of the active service since the latter are largely restricting from speaking in a partisan fashion.  This culminated in Flynn chanting "Lock Her Up" at the 2016 convention, which is more than a smidge ironic or hypocritical given that Flynn was a far greater danger to releasing classified information than Clinton's email.  Anyhow, things got worse once Trump got into office as he kept referring to his generals, kept making partisan statements to and in front of the military (including announcing the Muslim ban at the Pentagon).

Robinson, in his book, shows that views towards the military have become increasingly partisan--that views of the military now go up and down depending on who is president--that Republicans, traditionally strong supporters of the military, are less enthusiastic when a Dem is president. The key dynamic driving much of this is confirmation bias (woot?)--that partisans will notice only that which agrees with their preconceptions and discount that which does not agree.  As Americans become increasingly partisan--with their identities tied to parties, this gets worse, especially for those who consume only from a very biased portion of the media (you know who).  

What I like about this book is that it uses a word I hate, polarization, quite well.  Polarization generally implies that all parties are spinning away from the center, when studies show that the GOP is becoming radicalized, but the Dems are mostly staying where they were, sliding a smidge to the left.  But what is abundantly true is that all sides are increasingly tied to their partisan id.  Robinson goes on to show that that consumption of Fox is not good, and so on.  And the military is utterly screwed because if they push back at, say, charges of wokeness, they only make things worse.  The results also show that despite all the talk of norms of civil-military relations, the public is not really aware of them, nor that concerned about them.  So, it is up to the politicians to refrain and for the military to ... hope (and hope is not a plan).  

So, it is a great book, with terrific social science, important implications for civil-military relations, and, yeah, we are kind of fucked.  

 And now it applies to Canada, damn it.  The Conservatives are bringing Mr. Cancelled to their convention, imitating the GOP, so he can rail against the Liberals and the wokeness of the Canadian Armed Forces.  The Liberals have dipped into this as they had Andrew Leslie, another retired LTG, in a prominent place when they ran in 2015.  The key difference is that they were just trying to use his credibility and stature to buttress their own, they were not using him to attack the military, nor did he speak out that much in any way that was particularly controversial.  Maisonneuve, on the other hand, used  his Vimy speech and then a regular spot at a national paper, to blast the Liberals, the woke media, the military for daring to make itself more inclusive, and pretty much anyone else he felt spurned by [I am still waiting for some media outlet to note that Maisonneuve was part of the military's abuse of power crisis].  

The Conservatives are embracing some of the GOP's efforts to mobilize populist resentment as they now apparently seek to tear down many Canadian institutions.  When I say this will endanger Canadian civil-military relations, I don't mean there will be a coup.  But it will mean that the public and politicians will view the military as a partisan actor, that appointments and decisions will be viewed through partisan lenses, and then the Canadian military will be fucked, because its efforts to defend itself as an inclusive institution, desperately needed during a personnel crisis, will be seen as partisan.  "Hey, we don't discriminate against x" will be seen by CPC partisans as being too woke. Which will make it harder to recruit and retain, deepening the spiral that may make it very hard to send a ship to the Pacific or sustain the commitment to Latvia.  In short, the Conservatives are starting a process that is going to be bad for the military, despite their bad faith assertions that they care more about the CAF than the Liberals do.  [No, Trudeau does not care much about the CAF, but the CPC does not either].

So, here's a song that goes with all of this.

Not All Change is Progressive, Canadian Defence Beat

 So, Anita Anand is out and Bill Blair is in as Minister of National Defence.  This is bad news for my civ-mil classes as Minister Anand zoomed into my class both times I taught the class while she was Minister of National Defence.  I think it is also bad news for Canadian civil-military relations, the Department of National Defence, and, yes, the Canadian Armed Forces.  Let me listicle my way through this:

• the file is not an easy one, and Anand has done a heap of homework and understands the stuff pretty well by this point.  While she has not been able to deliver a defence policy update on time, she has managed the file pretty well given the constraints imposed by the Prime Minister's Office, the world (hey, how about you spend much of your time working to help Ukraine), and resistance within the CAF and maybe within DND itself.  Blair will come in and have to learn from scratch.  Will he have the same determination to read everything (as Anand said on the BattleRhythm podcast)?
  
• Speaking of which, DND and CAF aren't very transparent, but Anand did do a fair amount of outreach, including appearing on our podcast. Will Blair?
• Beyond reading/speaking, Anand seemed more determined than most MND's to actually impose civilian control of the military, rather than just sign off on whatever the CAF wanted.  While this might have been tough for the CAF to swallow, the military had proved that it did not handle its autonomy well at all.  
• Which gets back to continuity.  How long does it take it to create new institutions, rules, and norms and have them bite--shape the incentives, outlooks, and then ultimately who leads?  Not sure what the magic number is, but I am guessing it is more than two years.  
• What of that defence policy update?  Will it be scrapped and started again with new leadership?  Will Blair just sign off on the previous work?  🤷.
• I have written repeatedly about the problems of having a former military officer serve in this spot--O'Connor/Sajjan here, Mattis/Austin in the US.  What about an ex-cop?  Lovely.  Not so lovely.  If there is an agency or entity that has a worse record of civilian control than the military, it is Global Affairs the Royal Canadian Mounted Police as well as the other police forces in Canada.  As an ex-cop, Blair almost assuredly had an attitude that the cops knew better than the politicians and that they should have autonomy to avoid being politicized.  The problem, of course, is that all policing is political.  Is Blair likely to accede to whatever the military recommends, or is he going to, yes, engage in management and even micromanagement?  Gasp!  I am guessing the former.  While there are better leaders in the CAF now than a few years ago, decades of behavior and the dynamics in other countries have proven that giving militaries heaps of autonomy is not the way to go.  
• So, that is the substantial stuff, but there is also the symbolic.  No, I am not talking about swapping out a women of colour and putting in an old white guy (although, yeah, that might send some signals).  I am talking about removing a super-competent, engaged person and replacing them with someone who has little clout and has mismanaged his previous files.  The message this sends?  Trudeau doesn't care about defence now that it is not burning as much, so he is sending someone who should have been shuffled out of the cabinet to defence.  This is a damaging message to send to those who have been sticking it out in the CAF and DND, hoping for and fighting for change to happen.  Is Blair going to help or hurt with the personnel crisis?  Now that I think about it, that really would have been the first question I would be asking myself if I were PM.  Sure, few folks condition their votes on defence or foreign policy, but when making this decision, I would use that attitude to do what is necessary for Canada's national interests.  Given the primacy of the personnel crisis, that would shape the decision..... or not.

Maybe they need a sharp, detail-oriented person at Treasury Board.  Ok,  But Blair as Minister of National Defence?  

 

Open Letters, Closed Pockets?

 The Conference of Defence Associations Institute made a splash this week with an open letter "Call for Action: Canada's National Security and Defence in Peril."  It made a heap of news given who signed it: a heap of former ministers of defence, a bunch of ambassadors and high ranking civil servants, and several retired generals and admirals (tis funny to me that the title of the piece omits the squids and skimmers):

I respect the hell out of many of the signers as well as folks at CDAI, which as been a terrific partner of the CDSN.  However, I have quibbles, both minor and major, which I would have shared this morning on the radio had the host not gotten the wrong talking points--he asked me about Elon Musk and the CBC.  While it was fun to rant about bad faith actors engaged in vice-signalling, I did prep for the interview and didn't want to waste it, so here's some thoughts about this piece.  

First, I want to address a few specific gripes before getting to the larger context.

• The letter talks about our military capabilities being woefully inadequate to protect our landmass.  That is not only true, that will ALWAYS be true.  How so?  The primary military threat to Canada are missiles launched by Russia/China/North Korea.  We can't stop those.  No matter how much we spend, we can't because we don't have ballistic missile defenses.  The Americans have been working on such defenses since Reagan's Star Wars speech, and they really haven't made much progress on it.  So, we should be clearer about what are the threats and what we need to defend ourselves from those threats.  The biggest threats to Canadian lives and property are stuff outside the military domain: climate change, pandemics, and cyber attacks (while the military has a cyber role, we should not be spending the scarce commodity of disciplined, trained people in uniform on jobs civilians can and should do).  People can cite Russian investments in the north, but we have to keep in mind that they have a whole lot of north to defend.  I do really worry about a war with China, but that is a China-Taiwan conflict that will spillover, and we will never have a navy big enough to make a dent in that conflict.  I say all this, even as I agree with the basic premise--we need to spend more.  But there are some difficulties with that, as I get to, below.

• "We have also fallen short in meaningful contributions to burden sharing for the collective defence and security of our allies and partners."

 Oh really?  What burden has Canada shirked?  Canada paid the third highest price of any ally in Afghanistan and had far less restrictions until it became a training mission.  Canada is one of four framework nations organizing the defense/deterrence/reassurance missions in the Baltics and Poland.  While our contingent has been smaller than the others, the resulting need to organize many smaller and less respected (sorry) contingents has earned Canada a heap of kudos for stepping up when France refused to do so.  Canada has played a leading role in training Ukrainian forces before the Russian invasion of 2022 and since.  Canada has shipped a comparative level of arms and ammunition and other supplies to Ukraine.  

When people say Canada has not burden-shared enough, they really mean Canada hasn't spent enough on its military.  But that is not "burden-sharing" because spending on our own military really does not lift the burden that much from the others.  Here's a secret: the US would spend as much as it currently does even if Canada doubled its spending.  Indeed, given the domestic political dynamics driving American defense spending, I am pretty sure that if each and every US ally spent the equivalent of 2% of GDP on defense, the US would still spend about the same.  Which branch of the US military will say: hey, our allies have spent more, we don't need to spend as much?  Which defense contractors?  Which Senators and Representatives?  

And, yes, the easiest way to make progress to 2% is to tank the economy since it is all about spending relative to one's economy.  If one's economy grows pretty well, one might find one spending more money absolutely but not relative to that metric.  Canada is spending more on its military than it was a decade ago--more dollars, even if not a greater % of GDP.  More importantly input measures are dumb.  See Anessa Kimball's book for more on the craptastic nature of the 2% conversation.

• Canadian civil-military relations conversations don't really address the challenges posed by having retired senior officers take political stances the same way these are raised in the US.  But perhaps they should.  If JC Boucher and I get funding, we will be studying whether the signals sent by retired officers cause Canadians to think that they are speaking for the active military.  If so, well, damn.  Because then the military is seen, rightly or wrongly, as taking a partisan stance.  And that ain't good. Folks can say this is a bipartisan letter since it has both former Conservative and Liberal politicians signing it, but nope, that doesn't do the trick since this letter is calling on this government, this party, to do better.  It does not call on Parliament to get its house in order even as the role of parliament in Canadian defence is so much weaker than damn near any other democracy.  So, this is critical of this PM and the Liberal party because they are the ones in power.  

• Speaking of the former ministers, how many of them are responsible for the current mess?  How many of them cut spending, pushed back procurement processes, under-invested in procurement expertise, and so on?  Most of them?  All of them?  So much easier for them to criticize this stuff now that they are no longer beholden to parties and no longer running for office.

• 
  Which gets to the part that is most unrealistic: "the Government must radically accelerate timelines for procurement..."  Um, through magic?  A great application of Green Lantern theory.  DND doesn't have enough people to do the procurement stuff to buy the equipment and such.  So, that needs a heap of work to make happen before one can spend the money. If one were to magically allocate $15b more, the current staffing at DND couldn't spend it.

  Ok, the larger context.  The letter is right that the latest budget is disappointing from a defence/security perspective as it had no new money.  In my humble opinion, the gravest threat to the Canadian military is its recruitment and retention crisis.  That being short 16k people means not only that the CAF can't do as much, but that those in the CAF are stressed.  Stressed by having to do multiple jobs, stressed by not being well served by various offices that are understaff, and so on.  These pressures are likely to make it harder to retain people and harder to recruit, which will exacerbate the crisis--a downward spiral.  It would seem to me that while throwing money at the problem won't solve it, it probably could help.  Increase pay, increase benefits, spend more money on recruiting efforts, improve military bases, etc.  I do wonder what is happening to the money that is supposed to be going to the 16k soldiers, sailors, and aviators who aren't in the CAF.  Anyhow, that is one place where the money should be going.  

Another key part of the current context is that the Defence Policy Update is late and has generally been an opaque, underwhelming process.  Canada should have a quadrennial process--to review how well the last four years went and whether goals were attained, why DND/CAF fell short, and plans for improving as well as responding to new developments.  Instead, the DPU was going to be, from what folks have gleaned, a sales pitch for spending more money on NORAD modernization (which is necessary but won't actually lead to us being much safer due to that aforementioned missile defence problemo).  We will only be able to evaluate the DPU after it comes out.  

The previous review was much better than expected.  Maybe people liked it since it didn't make any hard choices as it didn't force any real tradeoffs.  But it did cost out the spending for the various programs and was pretty transparent.  Of course, when rolled out, much was made of putting personnel first in the document to suggestion putting personnel first in reality, but then Trudeau kept around a Defence Minister who kept around a Chief of Defence Staff that was abusing his power and engaged in sexual misconduct.  So, the proof is in the doing, not in the words on the page.

Finally, the political pressures run against most of this.  If we wanted good ships fast and less expensive, we'd buy them from countries that are good at that.  Instead, notice how the ship building is pitched by this government (and by the previous one, just not quite so starkly):

 That graphic is the cover for the 2015 Liberal Defence Platform.  Notice the purpose of naval investments--jobs.  Not ships.  Jobs.  Not defending maritime approaches.  This is one of the primary reasons why Canada doesn't have the equipment the CAF needs--that decisions are made about jobs and votes. Stephen Harper's plan was to capture Halifax and Vancouver via the shipbuilding program, but now all the parties are held hostage by Irving, Seaspan, and now Davie shipyards.  Folks can argue we need this capacity to maintain and upgrade the ships, but the choice to do it this way is incredibly expensive and ... no frigates (the AOPS ships the navy didn't really want are mostly broken).  

When we do import stuff, there is an urge to Canadianize it to make it fit Canadian standards.  So, now we have helicopters that are too heavy.  Oy.  The military always wants to put as much stuff as they can, so that the equipment can operate in all kinds of scenarios since they can only get one type of plane, one type of ship, and so forth.  But that goldplating makes the systems more expensive and less effective.  Again, choices need to be made, which might mean that a ship is good at one thing and not so good at another.  Because you know.... 👉

While this government is not great at delivering, most of this is hard-wired into Canadian politics.  Which party is going to get more votes by spending more money on defense?   "We believe this could be best accomplished on a non-partisan basis and would have broad public support."  Um, no.

Structural problems can't be fixed with just a call to arms and a smidge more political will (whatever that is).  Maybe this letter might impact those writing the Defence Policy Update, but that impact is likely to be on the packaging as the money is already set.  Trudeau has already made the decision for this year, and given the context--the war in Ukraine, the DPU, etc--I doubt that next year will be any different as we get closer to the next election.  

I get the frustration of those signing this letter. I share it.  I write blog posts out of frustration.  Other folks write open letters.  But move the policy needle?  I think not. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anti-Woke as Vice-Signaling

Last week's awful speech set me on edge immediately.  The first words about handouts were a signal, but the thing that confirmed that the talk would be awful was Maisonneuve invocation of "woke."  Whenever I hear anyone tossing around that word contemptuously, I immediately code that person as not worth listening to.  Why?

To be clear, woke refers to folks who have become aware of the historical legacies of discrimination and the present-day implications.  That's pretty much it, that woke people understand that there is and has been significant discrimination.   That's it.  

To be anti-woke, which many folks on the right are now so proud of, means denying that discrimination happened and/or it has made an impact on today.  Of course, it is more complicated than that--it can mean being opposed to the measures used to address the remedial efforts aimed at reducing discrimination and compensating for its impact.  The classic case of this maybe opposing affirmative action as it may be seen as unfair to white men, and the opponents usually say that such measures are unfair as it means that those who are more meritorious are being denied opportunities due to the sins of their fathers.  There is a lot built into that including the notion that today's procedures would be otherwise focused entirely on merit if not for considerations of race, ethnicity, gender, etc.

The reality of today's politics is that when one loudly proclaims that one is anti-woke, one is doing one of two things (or both):

a) one is signaling to one's white, male, "Christian" supporters that one is with them, an enthusiastic supporter of some past status quo (real or imagined) where the woke folks were kept in their place;  folks, including myself, refer to this as vice-signaling. 

b) one is actually one of these folks who are actually an enthusiastic supporter of some past reality (fake or real) where the uppity folks knew better and that one could discriminate, harass and do more without being called out for it.

I tend to think Ted Cruz, for instance, is in the first category--that he does not really believe anything but wants power and signals being anti-woke to appeal to his racist, homophobic, xenophobic, misogynist supporters.  That does not make these folks better even if they don't believe in the hate they are inciting--it makes them just as bad as the genuine article as they are inciting and providing comfort for them.  Vice signaling is dangerous and awful and should be called out.

Is this cancellation?  No, free speech means one has the right to engage in vice-signaling, but it also means that others have the right to call it out for what it is. 

Maisonneuve got more than just a right to speak last week--he got to have a platform to do it.  And he abused it.  And I have the right to call him out as does everyone else who considers his speech to be awful, intolerant, and retrograde. 

 

 

Rooting for the Cops? Well, Yeah

Some say yesterday was a sad day in Ottawa, but I was pretty elated.  After two years of watching cops repress Black Lives Matter protestors, I am now rooting for cops as they arrest far right extremists that have occupied downtown Ottawa.  Does that make me and mine hypocrites?  No, for a couple of reasons focusing on both the conduct of the protests and the content.

First, I don't remember BLM protesters using kids as shields.  I don't remember BLM groups trying to use arson as a tool of mass murder (yes, some BLM protests had fires, but no attempts to lock down and then burn an apartment building).  BLM groups did not harass and assault health care workers, the media, or passersby who were masks.  This has not been a peaceful protest despite the hot tubs and singing.  The far right extremists in town have been bullying storeowners and threatening the residents.  

Second, the content also matters.  BLM protesters were protesting police brutality, and the police kept on providing more evidence that the BLM cause was just.  The far right extremists in Ottawa were opposing ... heaps of stuff as their crazed conspiracy shit metastasized.  They oppose vaccine mandates and mask restrictions at a time where these are two of the best ways to mitigate a pandemic.  Their MOU (a memorandum of understanding because a manifesto would have sounded too commie?) called for the elected government of Canada to be tossed out by those who don't have the power to do so (the Governor General and the Senate).  They are really upset that Trudeau is in power--but that is because the parties they favor and that pander to them lost.  The election was partly over mandates with the Conservatives pandering to the far right and the far right party focusing very much on this.  And they lost.  60% of Canada voted against these two parties.  Yes, Trudeau only got a third of the vote, but the pro-vax mandate, pro-mask restrictions parties won bigly.  Oh, and most of the restrictions are actually set at the provincial level.  

For three weeks, Ottawans were not upset at the cops for being too brutal, but that they didn't do anything at all except seemingly empower the worst of the worst.  We sincerely worried about white supremacists within the police force.  So, when we finally saw the police carefully, slowly, methodically push back and use much less force than the police forces of the US at the various BLM protests, we were and are elated and relieved.  The behavior of these cops has been quite restrained--so far, no one has been beaten.  Yes, windows were broken when folks refused to get out of their vehicles.  But they had been repeatedly warned.  I do wonder if any kids were taken into protective custody, but that is on the parents, who were repeatedly warned.  

While the far right media are trying to make this thing a colder version of Tianamen square, we have to remember that (a) the protesters in China were pro-democracy while those in Ottawa are anti-democracy; and (b) we have no idea how many were killed that day in China, and we know how many were killed in Ottawa (zero).  

Ultimately, it comes down to this: we want the cops to protect and serve the public, not themselves and not far right extremists.  Yesterday and again today, the police in Ottawa are serving the public.  

And, yes, there might be a hint of bias in all of this because: