More than a decade ago, the army had a plan to rebuild. It went nowhere.

[Contrarian]

Trending via the CBC

Canada is still standing in line for equipment it planned to buy 12 years ago.

Ottawa is a city of plans. Many plans. Sometimes you find there are plans to have a plan. But as the old Scottish poem says, "The best laid schemes o' mice an' men often go awry."

More than a decade ago, as Canada's war in Afghanistan was grinding to its conclusion, a plan was drawn up to rebuild, refresh and re-equip the army for the future.

It withered and died over several years — a victim of changing defence fashions, budgets, inter-service and inter-departmental bureaucratic warfare and political indifference.

Parts of the plan were resurrected, but in true bureaucratic fashion, those elements have languished somewhere in the dark recesses of the Department of National Defence and Public Services and Procurement Canada.

Several of the key weapons systems in the 2010 plan — ground-based air defence, modern anti-tank systems and long-range artillery — are among the items the Liberal government is now urgently trying to buy, just as other allied nations also scramble to arm themselves against a resurgent Russia.

In November, a senior defence planner told a conference that it could take up to 18 months to land some of the less complex items on Ottawa's wish list. In the meantime, Canadian troops in Latvia staring across the border at a wounded, unpredictable Russian Army will have to make do — or rely on allies.

Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Wayne Eyre arrives to appear before the House of Commons standing committee on National Defence in Ottawa on Oct. 18, 2022. (Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press)

Gen. Wayne Eyre, chief of the defence staff, said in an interview with CBC News broadcast this week that the new equipment "cannot arrive fast enough."

The military is looking for ground-based air defence systems to guard soldiers against attack helicopters, low-flying jets and missiles. It's seeking anti-tank weapons like the U.S.-made Javelin, which the Ukrainians have used to deadly effect against the Russians. It's trying to source better electronic warfare systems and weapons to counter bomb-dropping drones.

The urgency of Eyre's remarks points to the obvious question: If there was a plan to buy some of this equipment, what happened to it?

Former Conservative defence minister Peter MacKay signed off on the proposal to reconstitute the army post-Afghanistan and set in motion a series of plans. He launched procurement projects for medium-sized fighting vehicles — the kind the U.S. is now supplying to Ukraine to beat back the Russian invasion. Also on MacKay's shopping list were ground-based air defence systems, anti-tank weapons and long-range rocket artillery systems such the U.S. HIMAR — another donated weapon Ukrainian troops have used to help stem the onslaught.

Defence Minister Peter MacKay addresses troops at Kandahar Airfield as Canada's combat mission in Afghanistan ended in July 2011. (Murray Brewster/The Canadian Press)

"It was quite a robust, detailed plan with short, medium and long term goals," MacKay told CBC News in an interview. "The close combat vehicle (CCV) was a big part of that … There was obviously a need to replace and complement some of the long-range artillery that we use in Afghanistan."

Former army commander and lieutenant-general Andrew Leslie, who also served as a Liberal MP between 2015 and 2019, was one of the authors of the 2010 rebuilding proposal. He said it was meant to cover gaps the military had seen develop during the counter-insurgency war in Afghanistan.

"This was not something that was dreamt up in isolation. They were planned, programmed and sequenced [for delivery] between the year 2010 up to around 2020," Leslie told CBC News. "I kind of wish that people had followed through."

'The plan seemed to get picked apart'

Within a year of agreeing on the plan, Leslie moved on from the army commander's job and then out of the military. MacKay was shuffled to the justice minister's portfolio. Another champion of the proposal, former chief of the defence staff general Walt Natynczyk, retired around the same time.

After 2013, MacKay said, "the plan seemed to get picked apart, and almost put to one side. So it never came to fruition."

He said that while the current Liberal government, in its 2017 defence policy, resurrected some elements of the proposal, the proposal is mostly "sitting there on a shelf somewhere, unfortunately."

The last major element of the proposal — the purchase of 108 close-combat vehicles — was cancelled by the Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper in late 2013. The chief of the defence staff at the time, the now-retired general Tom Lawson, said that the "Canadian Armed Forces do not procure capabilities unless they're absolutely necessary to the attainment of our mandate."

The attitude of 'we're not going to buy it unless it's absolutely necessary' has been shared by both Liberal and Conservative governments since the end of the Cold War, said MacKay.

While he said the government's pursuit of a balanced budget at the time was a worthy one, rebuilding military capacity is seldom a government priority in peacetime — even when it makes sense.

It's one of the reasons the Canadian Army went into a desert war in Afghanistan wearing green camouflage fatigues and in unarmoured vehicles.

A cycle of failure

Leslie has become decidedly jaded about politicians' promises to restore the armed forces to fighting strength.

"Liberals and Conservatives both have found a neat trick of telling Canadians that they are increasing defence spending, that the capabilities are on the horizon, but then somehow never getting around to fine-tuning the various procurement systems so that the money gets out the door," he said.

Retired lieutenant-general Andrew Leslie says federal governments have gotten good at deflecting blame for failures in military procurement. (Chris Wattie/Reuters)

When those procurement systems fail to deliver the goods, Leslie said, the politicians say, "'Hey, we told them they could have their money. They just couldn't spend it in time.'"

"And of course," he added, "at the end of the year, the cycle [of handing back unspent money to the federal treasury] starts.

"You know, after 20 to 25 years of this, you begin to suspect that it's deliberate."

Politics aside, MacKay said the system itself is to blame.

"There is a competing and almost intractable attitude between departments like public works that want to somehow design a perfect, impenetrable contract that will stand up against any challenge," MacKay said.

"The Department of Industry Canada wants every nut and bolt and washer made in Canada. And of course, not surprisingly, the Canadian Armed Forces want the very best possible equipment that sometimes isn't there on the shelf, and certainly takes time to build and procure."

And not everyone agrees on what the military really needs — even within the defence establishment itself.

Eyre's recent warnings about the precarious geopolitical climate are "probably a little overstated," said Lawson, who suggested his successor was simply doing his job and advocating for the military.

"There is something else at play here that is really grave and important to Gen. Eyre," Lawson told CBC's Power & Politics this week.

"The main responsibility of every chief of defence is ... to make sure that the Canadian military has enough people, the appropriate numbers of people, that they are equipped to an appropriate level and that they are trained and providing the readiness that the government may need."

Lawson's remarks drew a sharp response from Leslie, who said Russia's invasion of Ukraine is unprecedented and has upended the global order. 

"The world is now much more dangerous than it's been at any other time during my lifetime," he said. "Far more dangerous than the Cold War. So I believe Gen. Eyre's comments are balanced and reasonable, and I think general Lawson is completely and utterly wrong."

What defence expert Dave Perry is struggling to understand is why the equipment the Liberals are scrambling to buy now — the air defence and anti-tank weapons they identified as important in their defence policy five years ago — haven't been purchased already.

"There was a series of projects that were funded and policy approved in [the defence policy document] which was published in the summer of 2017," Perry said.

"So I do find it really curious that versions of those are now being pursued on an urgent operational basis for Latvia, when there's been approved projects, with money attached to them, on the books for five and a half years."

'A lack of urgency'

Senior defence and procurement officials, testifying before Parliament last year, said they were proud of their record of delivering equipment under the current defence policy. 

Perry begs to differ and points to the rising pile of unspent capital in the defence budget.

"There's urgency now," Perry said. "But I think, in part, Canada ended up in the situation as a result of a lack of urgency in the preceding five-plus years."

Leslie takes a more tough-minded view.

"I was the army commander for four years at the height of the Afghan war. So I had a front row seat to the various influencers, and their shenanigans concerning defence procurement," he said.

"Tragically, it wasn't until Canadians started dying in Afghanistan that a great deal of focus and energy was placed on defence procurement. And the bureaucracy was told in no uncertain terms — woe betide any of you who slowed down programs that caused more soldiers to die because they didn't have the equipment they needed."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadian-armed-forces-equipment-procurement-ukraine-latvia-1.6706444

Edited January 8 by Contrarian

[myata]

Has anything in the country gone anywhere? In the say, last three decades? Fix it for a generation? Eliminate child poverty? Provide remote communities with clean water? Army? RCMP "reforms"? Light rail in Ottawa? Please!

One could be worried, with the trend. Which world is going to, that is, into? I would.

P.S. except MP, public CEO etc. compensation packages, those have all been moving in the right direction. Only a matter of perspective, "criteria of success". Just pick one.

Edited January 8 by myata

[Queenmandy85]

The source of the problems rebuilding the military to a functional force is a total lack of commitment by the voters / taxpayers. I hear a lot of people saying we should do it, but they don't mean it. They are too busy whining about carbon taxes. Just listen to them howl when the government has to increase taxes to build a modern military force. Looking at recruitment levels, it is clear we cannot do it without conscription. Do any of you actually beleive a government can survive installing a real defence policy? 

[Aristides]

There needs to be a schedule for renewal of different systems and it needs to be stuck with so equipment spending is spread out and manageable instead of letting everything rust out and have to be replaced at the same time, which is what we always do. Right now we are in a situation where all three services need replacement of major systems. Again. 

[I am Groot]

57 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

The source of the problems rebuilding the military to a functional force is a total lack of commitment by the voters / taxpayers. I hear a lot of people saying we should do it, but they don't mean it. 

They mean it. They just don't put a high priority on it. In other words, it's likely not going to have much effect on who they vote for. They won't protest at the government getting military gear because they accept its required, but they won't reward it either. And our politicians tend to put money where it will do the most good. And by that I mean get them the most votes. This is particularly so of the current administration, which has been fixated on buying votes since Trudeau became leader.

 

[I am Groot]

2 minutes ago, Aristides said:

There needs to be a schedule for renewal of different systems and it needs to be stuck with so equipment spending is spread out and manageable instead of letting everything rust out and have to be replaced at the same time, which is what we always do. Right now we are in a situation where all three services need replacement of major systems. Again. 

"How many votes will that get me?" -- Justin Trudeau.

[Aristides]

3 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

"How many votes will that get me?" -- Justin Trudeau.

I don't think that is peculiar to Trudeau. 

[Queenmandy85]

Canadians are not willing to have a military in peace time. In the late 1930's we had a military force of under 5000. In 1945, we had over a million. To build a functional independent military, we need to raise the Defence budget several fold and bring in conscription. The Swiss model would be my recommendation. We need to design and manufacture all of our equipment because it is too easy for a foreign supplier to install kill switches into tanks and aircraft. Canadians, including those who are in favour of a strong military are also against paying taxes. I spoke to Stockwell Day when he was running for PM and his idea of building the Forces was to free up $9 billion from other departments. That told me he was neither serious or knew what he was talking about.

 

[myata]

51 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

but they won't reward it either. And our politicians tend to put money where it will do the most good. And by that I mean get them the most votes.

You described a system of governance that has no incentives for real improvement (a much cheaper option is to sprinkle a few crumbs before the ritual of election"" to get votes""), and disconnected and detached population that long forgot or never wanted to understand what governments are for in a (real) democracy. And that is a well known and documented scenario that is headed right into... guess, though may take a bit longer due to abundance of resources to sell and remoteness.

[I am Groot]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

I don't think that is peculiar to Trudeau. 

It's not peculiar to Trudeau but he does seem to be the champion of this approach to governing.

Edited January 8 by I am Groot

[Queenmandy85]

Just for fun, looking at the problem of Defence policy from the point of view of the voter / taxpayer, if we build a viable Canadian Armed forces, you are looking at supplying the army with $40 billion worth of tanks and armoured vehicles. We are not looking at the RCAF, the RCN or the infantry, just armour. Each year, there would need to be maintenance, upgrading and replacements. There is a strong likelihood, these units would never see combat. So, the average taxpayer is paying $1000 a year for tanks that probably won't be used. Add to that, the cost of aircraft, ships and the people (mostly conscripts) to crew them and you won't have happy voters. Unhappy voters = unhappy governments.

The problem is, to have an actual military capable of defending the country, you have to be able get the taxpayers to want to make the sacrifices to achieve that.

A cheaper alternative is to develope a nuclear force capable of destroying the enemy. That is unlikely to be supported by voters either because it entails the nuclear destruction of Canada as well.

As the great military historian, Gwynn Dyer said, "If you can't take a joke, you should not have a defence budget."

Edited January 8 by Queenmandy85

[I am Groot]

38 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Canadians are not willing to have a military in peace time. In the late 1930's we had a military force of under 5000. In 1945, we had over a million. To build a functional independent military, we need to raise the Defence budget several fold and bring in conscription. 

There's no evidence Canadians, as opposed to the elites in charge, are not willing to have a strong military. We do have to enlarge the budget, but in terms of procurement we can simply spend money more wisely and that would save a fortune. For example, the cost of the Type 26 frigates as built by Irving will be four times greater than similar ships built by BAE Systems in the UK. If we had let the Brits build them the money saved could have  fully re-equipped the army, including the reserves, plus built and equipped that northern base the government keeps talking about.

We don't need conscription. The problem of recruitment is that nobody wants to work for a half dead organization with obsolete, rusting out equipment (and not enough of even that). Not to mention we have a government which loudly proclaims Canada as a terrible place full of awful people any chance they get. That doesn't exactly raise the patriotic spirit in those inclined to go fight to defend us.

[Queenmandy85]

10 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

We don't need conscription.

How many people do you think will join the forces without conscription?  We can't even get everyone to accept covid mandates. How will you get enough soldiers, sailors and aviators to defend the country during peacetime? 

 

Edited January 8 by Queenmandy85

[I am Groot]

33 minutes ago, myata said:

You described a system of governance that has no incentives for real improvement (a much cheaper option is to sprinkle a few crumbs before the ritual of election"" to get votes""), and disconnected and detached population that long forgot or never wanted to understand what governments are for in a (real) democracy. And that is a well known and documented scenario that is headed right into... guess, though may take a bit longer due to abundance of resources to sell and remoteness.

Societal breakdown? We're seeing signs of that with the anger and intolerance displayed by so many Canadians against each other - never mind by and against politicians and the political class. Canadians are feeling less like they're part of a greater whole, part of a nation, of a community of like-minded people They're being taught at school to tolerate nothing and no one who offends them in any way. And to complain about those individuals and expect and require punishment for them at every offense. They're being taught there is a whole list of things they cannot say or believe, and that those who do must be shunned and punished. They're being taught that they're either pathetic victims of oppression with no ability to influence their future or evil oppressors who must be silenced and attacked at every opportunity.

They have a prime minister who says they are were not a nation and have no common identity - and that that is a good thing. Ethnic enclaves are growing as hordes of foreigners pour across the border, look at the shit show that the media and politicians flaunt before their eyes, and decide they want no part of integration, or even learning the language.  Housing is becoming an out-of-reach dream for the young, healthcare is a mess, dazed, stoned, violent homeless wander the streets like zombies while the courts shrug. And anything we try to build or make takes years and years and years of discussions, hearings, studies, reports, negotiations and legal maneuvering (not to mention bribes) before anything gets built.

And the media and political class are obsessed not with doing anything about any of that but with pronouns, gender fluidity, diversity, equity, and weeding out any slight, faint trace of racism they can find or invent.

Edited January 8 by I am Groot

[I am Groot]

Just now, Queenmandy85 said:

How many people do you think will join the forces without conscription? Remember what happened in 1944 in Terrace, BC when the government order conscripted soldiers to be deployed overseas. We can't even get everyone to accept covid mandates. How will you get enough soldiers, sailors and aviators to defend the country during peacetime? 

Dunno. But I do know it starts with a government which shows respect for and not contempt for the military, and funds it properly with decent equipment available for everyone involved. It would also help if they did somethin about the shoddy state of housing on military bases. And maybe not locating every base in the middle of nowhere.

[Queenmandy85]

 Placing our bases in Canada to respond to a future invasion, close to invasion routes would tend to have them overrun and destroyed quickly. It is better to disburse them in towns in the middle of nowhere.

If it is Russia who is going to invade, it would be prudent to talk to the Ukrainians, but also keep in mind that the Russians may turn away from tradition and actually learn from their mistakes.

If we are going to take defence strategy seriously, we also have to avoid a two front war. That would likely only occur if it is russia that initiates an invasion over the arctic. That creates a problem of an invasion from the south to "help" us.

Ukraine is paying a terrible price, but by taking on Russia by itself, it won't have the problem of having to evict "allies" after Russia leaves.

[blackbird]

Liberals, who governed Canada most of its history, and their NDP allies, are both pacifists.  An NDP MP said recently opposed Canada building military strength in the Arctic.  The Liberals and NDP are both strong globalists and prefer to send our money to foreign countries for all kinds of programs.  Canadians are getting what they voted for.

[Queenmandy85]

Globalism has its advantages. The reason the Grits are the Natural Governing Party is they reflect the values of enough voters to remain in government. 

Reviewing what I said earlier, the reality is that the best defence for Canada against an invading army is irregular warfare. For that, you don't need aircraft, tanks or ships. You need the weaponry designed to defeat those things. You also need volunteers. If Canada were invaded, recruitment would no longer be a problem. 

In 1939, during the summer, there were anti war protests in Vancouver. Big ones. In September, the lineups to enlist were too large for the recruiters to handle.

In an invasion scenario, the fight would be against soft targets for the first few years. It would possibly take twenty years to drive an invader out, unlike the previous invasions we have repelled.

[Army Guy]

5 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

The source of the problems rebuilding the military to a functional force is a total lack of commitment by the voters / taxpayers. I hear a lot of people saying we should do it, but they don't mean it. They are too busy whining about carbon taxes. Just listen to them howl when the government has to increase taxes to build a modern military force. Looking at recruitment levels, it is clear we cannot do it without conscription. Do any of you actually beleive a government can survive installing a real defence policy? 

Canadians have a lack of commitment period, and not just on the Military file , but almost all of them...

We just spent an unprecedented 700 plus bil over the pandemic period, many times more than would be needed to reequip our military, has anyone seen a major tax hike...

Build and they will come, right now who really is interested in a career where the fighter jets are 40 plus uears old, ships even older, ground equipment is 4 generations behind, and what new equipment we do have is not really any good, but rather a political purchase that had no requirement. bring in mordern equipment that saves life's and it will attract people, if the government puts in the effort it will produce results...

[Queenmandy85]

When even the CPC government of Prime Minister Harper declined to invest in building the Canadian Forces into a viable independent force, I realized I was beating my head against a wall. It became clear to me that Canadians will not accept the needed investment. 

The thing about Covid is it was here, an immediate emergency. The defence of Canada is one of those hypothetical emergencies that few people actually believe will happen during the lifetime of the equipment purchased. I certainly haven't seen anyone on this forum believe it will happen in our lifetime. I hear speculation about China, but that would be logistically impossible.

If we were to buy something like a ground support combat aircraft, who do we buy it from? I happened to come across a scenario a couple of years ago where the US was engaged with a hypothetical enemy that had been a former ally. The enemy force were attacking with American made armour and aircraft. The Americans transmitted a signal via satellite and the enemy armour ground to a halt and their aircraft dropped out of the sky.

Far-fetched yes, but I think it would be better to design and build our own, like the Israeliis do.

[Aristides]

2 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Globalism has its advantages. The reason the Grits are the Natural Governing Party is they reflect the values of enough voters to remain in government. 

Reviewing what I said earlier, the reality is that the best defence for Canada against an invading army is irregular warfare. For that, you don't need aircraft, tanks or ships. You need the weaponry designed to defeat those things. You also need volunteers. If Canada were invaded, recruitment would no longer be a problem. 

In 1939, during the summer, there were anti war protests in Vancouver. Big ones. In September, the lineups to enlist were too large for the recruiters to handle.

In an invasion scenario, the fight would be against soft targets for the first few years. It would possibly take twenty years to drive an invader out, unlike the previous invasions we have repelled.

Irregular warfare? Are you serious? You would wait until you are occupied before you fight back? With what?

[Army Guy]

4 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Canadians are not willing to have a military in peace time. In the late 1930's we had a military force of under 5000. In 1945, we had over a million. To build a functional independent military, we need to raise the Defence budget several fold and bring in conscription. The Swiss model would be my recommendation. We need to design and manufacture all of our equipment because it is too easy for a foreign supplier to install kill switches into tanks and aircraft. Canadians, including those who are in favour of a strong military are also against paying taxes. I spoke to Stockwell Day when he was running for PM and his idea of building the Forces was to free up $9 billion from other departments. That told me he was neither serious or knew what he was talking about.

 

The world has changed a lot in regards to WWI and WWII, where giving a soldier 12 weeks training and sending him to the battle field is not the case today, not only do we need to give that soldier the basic training he needs but also take the time to train them on high tech weaponry we have today. 

Not to mention we do not have the industrial complex we had back then either, todays weapons' are not made in a couple of days , but weeks months and years to make one copy, and thats if we have a plant with all the tools and equipment needed for production. and since we only do military equipment every 30 40 years those plants are either destroyed or repurposed. So the next conflict is come as you are, and will be long over by the time you ramp up production...And it will cost the lives of our daughters and sons , which don't really have a value or so it would seem. 

Take Ukraine for instance, they and the Russians are firing 6000 rounds of Artillery's ever day...we do not have the capacity to replace those stocks in Canada., not even a 1/10 of the capacity

Designing and manufacturing our own weapons' systems is a very costly endeavor, look at the Avro Arrow as an example. Or any of the other military equipment we designed, most of it was not even comparable to other nations equipment. 

We as a nation have hard and fast rules about companies giving back offsets, building equipment in Canada, tech transfers, to penalize foreign companies on the chance we can put Canadians to work or give Canadians companies a chance to bleed our nations coffers dry.. just look at our inept attempt to keep our ship building industry alive here in Canada...

This is how we role, no way there is going to be a compromise in all this...Military funding is used to employ and enrich Canadians companies, and the military will get what ever our politicians decide they will get...when it would be cheaper to outsource those equipment builds, use those funds that we saved to purchase massive parts and equipment and ammo for these systems... soldiers win they get equipment that saves lives, tax payers win it does not cost them bils at the trough,  and companies like Irving, will mange to survive with out the silver spoons or go bankrupt..  

[Army Guy]

4 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

How many people do you think will join the forces without conscription?  We can't even get everyone to accept covid mandates. How will you get enough soldiers, sailors and aviators to defend the country during peacetime? 

 

Do what every other industry is doing adapt and over come, things like mordern high tech equipment, exciting job opportunities, better pay, more benefits like family medical/ dental, free housing, better retirement benefits, looking after veterans.. I could think of a million more but that would be a great start...Most nations have the same problems we are not alone in this boat, there are a million solutions we just need the will to carry them out. It would also be a great start if we could keep politics out of all the processes...

[TreeBeard]

Instead of increasing spending to increase our military, maybe we should scale back the scope of the military to suit its budget.   

[Army Guy]

4 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Just for fun, looking at the problem of Defence policy from the point of view of the voter / taxpayer, if we build a viable Canadian Armed forces, you are looking at supplying the army with $40 billion worth of tanks and armoured vehicles. We are not looking at the RCAF, the RCN or the infantry, just armour. Each year, there would need to be maintenance, upgrading and replacements. There is a strong likelihood, these units would never see combat. So, the average taxpayer is paying $1000 a year for tanks that probably won't be used. Add to that, the cost of aircraft, ships and the people (mostly conscripts) to crew them and you won't have happy voters. Unhappy voters = unhappy governments.

The problem is, to have an actual military capable of defending the country, you have to be able get the taxpayers to want to make the sacrifices to achieve that.

A cheaper alternative is to develope a nuclear force capable of destroying the enemy. That is unlikely to be supported by voters either because it entails the nuclear destruction of Canada as well.

As the great military historian, Gwynn Dyer said, "If you can't take a joke, you should not have a defence budget."

40 billion is a little over kill, for tanks and armoured vehs, we don't need a massive military, 100 to 120 k would be more than enough, and easily afforded by this nation...I won't lie to you it is going to be expensive more in around of 3 to 4 hundred billion,just for the basics  i mean it has been atleast 30 years since we made a major investment into our military, and we have seen dozens of capabilities fall to the way side no longer available, like air defense, we have NO short (manpads)medium, or long range , we have no self propelled Arty, no rocket arty, no attack helos, no tracked IFV, (just lightly armoured wheeled IFV), most of our wheeled logistic fleet is rusted out with replacement coming in ? we have only a few towed arty pieces (M777) our tanks 1/2 of them are training tanks,  and many more examples, and i have not mentioned any of the Airforce or navy yet...But i mean what the heck, it is only our sons and daughters that are going to use this stuff in battle right...  

Despite what most people think this equipment is used constantly, either as a deterrent, giving our enemies pause, keeping the peace, and saving lives, i have not heard any Canadian complain about using military equipment in a time of crises like natural disasters, like flood and ice storms etc, or getting flown out by Chinook from a forest fire, or getting their lives saved by military SAR, not to mention all the other uses our equipment and manpower is used for, fishers patrols , drug interdiction, tracking storms, ice burgs, protection of major events like Olympics, Canada games etc. not to mention the daily task of keeping our airspace safe, patrolling our coastal waters, putting boots on the ground in our artic, plus all the other stuff our government signs us up for, that requires soldiers and their equipment, in dozens of countries around the world. Ya i know not very important stuff to ordinary Canadians, but it all happens around the clock, every day no breaks. and it is all done with old shitty equipment, and some serious patriotic Canadians because they believe in you... time for us to believe in them...and if that cost me a few extra dollars it is worth the price...