Vanguard Magazine

T THE LAST WORD 46 AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 2015 www.vanguardcanada.com Steve Daly, C.D. retired from the CAF in 1995 aer serving 15 years in Air Command. For the last several years he has been a frequent contributor to the Canadian American Strategic Review (casr.ca). The simple answer is yes. Canada needs to conduct regular re- views, published publicly and submitted to Parliament, which would allow Canadians to understand just what the state, and di- rection, of the nation's defences are. A Quadrennial Review would also allow for greater flexibility in changing the priorities of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) in times of strategic uncertainty. Canada saw the last major policy directive from govern- ment in the form of the Canada First De- fence Strategy (CFDS) of 2008. Since that time, the geopolitical landscape has shifted and new threats have emerged in the form of ISIS and a resurgent (and aggressive) Russia. The shifting sands of geopolitics must make us wonder if the CFDS adequately addresses the current state of the world and the cur- rent breadth of missions that the CAF might be expected to execute. There have already been questions raised concerning the afford- ability of CFDS; how much worse will it be if a review shows that CFDS was not, quite, the correct path? Canada has a tightly constrained defence budget, not unlike most of our allies. Yet, unlike many of our allies, Canada lags far below NATO's "aspirational" 2 per cent of GDP defence budget- ing. In fact, with Canada's defence budget hovering around 1per cent of GDP, we can ill afford to wander down any blind alleys. We need to know the current path the government wants us to follow, with a justifiable strategy to back it up. One factor that often gets lost when talking about things like CFDS or a defence "White Paper" is that such documents are not simply policy statements, they also function as shopping lists. As shopping lists, they function in both the inclusive and exclusive roles; we are buying this, we are not buying that. Mission > Capability Shortfall > Need is a very straightforward. Where that mission is one found in government directives, it should be easier (though never simple) to get funding and make the required acquisitions. Items not found on the government's list of priorities will face a higher bar — clearly demonstrated need. Governments are made up of people after all, there may have been oversights or changed circumstances. New technology or tactics may force a response in terms of acquiring new capabilities. Regular review is critical in managing such situations; the old- er a directive is, the vaguer it becomes. As technology evolves, threats facing Canada evolve as well. An 8-year-old policy, such as the CFDS, leaves gaping holes where new threats have free- dom to grow. Faced with conflicting understandings of need, the government and DND may find themselves at loggerheads over whether a recommended acquisition is actually essen- tial. A needed purchase may be deferred, or worse, an unneeded purchase made. The predictability of a Quadrennial Re- view would also bring benefits to industry. Industrial stakeholders would be better able to observe the developing defence needs of the country and tailor responses to those perceived needs. Such a response may save Canada money, or even speed up the process of procurement. When industry can best predict market need they can best manage production efficiency. Perhaps the strongest case for a Quadrennial Review is how it would affect the public and political discourse of defence spend- ing in Canada. No government would want to be long-saddled with the defence priorities of its forbearers. We can safely assume that shortly after taking office a new government would want to put its own vision of defence needs in place. As Canada currently enjoys largely predictable election dates courtesy of fixed election date laws, this would mean that a de- fence policy would be formulated before an election. This brings the content of such a policy into public visibility in a manner that has not been common in Canada. Elections are supposed to be in October, and the budget typically comes down in April. That gives a fledgling government six months to finalize a Quadrennial Review and publish it before its measures are enshrined in the budget. Quadrennial Defence Reviews would bring with them predict- ability and transparency, two pillars of "Peace, Order, and Good Government." Update Canada's Defence Strategy With Canada's defence budget hovering around 1% of GDP, we can ill aord to wander down any blind alleys. Does Canada need a system of regular strategic defence review similar to the Quadrennial Review conducted in Great Britain?

• Cover