Defence Minister David McGuinty is clearly getting tired of being asked about the soon-to-be-completed review of Canada’s purchase of F-35 fighters from the United States.
“You’ve heard me on this before,” he told journalists on Tuesday, with uncharacteristic frankness. “The F-35 review is continuing. It’s — I have nothing else to say at this stage.”
The poor man hasn’t been able to poke his head out in public over the last few months without facing questions about the politically charged review in one form or another.
Imagine how exhausted he’ll get when the public and maybe even the opposition truly clue in to the fact that the Lockheed Martin-built stealth fighter — and its $27.7-billion price tag — is simply the leading edge of a long train of U.S. military equipment coming down track over the next several months and years.
In fairness, McGuinty is being badgered in part because the government imposed a deadline on itself to deliver an answer by the end of summer.
Back when this started in the late winter, the F-35 was the easiest and most publicly recognizable political cudgel with which to whack the Trump administration early in the “elbows up” campaign. The Liberal government, senior officials and even the chief of the defence staff have taken pains to downplay the political aspect and emphasize that when a new government takes over it is natural to review big purchases.
Fair enough.
But these kinds of reviews are usually done quietly, behind the scenes and not blasted all over the airwaves, as was done on CBC’s Power & Politics last March, amid a rain of rhetoric from U.S. President Donald Trump about making Canada the 51st state.
The fact that it has irritated the Trump administration — as evidenced by U.S. Ambassador Pete Hoekstra’s reaction — only reinforces the political point and the sensitivities.
And maybe it wouldn’t be so bad, if Prime Minister Mark Carney had not made diversifying where the Canadian military gets its kit a campaign issue that the Canadian public has embraced as much as boycotting American goods.
Regardless of when we see the results of the F-35 review and whatever it says, the Liberal government has likely strapped a “kick me” sign on its behind as each new U.S.-manufactured equipment project emerges and passes important milestones.
A sample of what’s already in the pipeline:
That is not a complete list, but it represents coming deliveries.
McGuinty was recently warned by senior members of the military that the HIMARS purchase, while required to equip the troops deployed in Latvia, presents a political headache.
News of the U.S. approval of the purchase of special forces vehicles was greeted by the Department of National Defence this summer with a swift, curt reminder that no decision had been made to proceed with the actual purchase.
The marketing machinery of government, ever attuned to trumpeting new hardware delivery, may have to be adjusted to avoid repeated self-inflicted political wounds.
F-35 costs skyrocketing, not enough pilots to fly them: AG report
If the government needed reminding how strongly Canadians feel, all it has to do is look at a Pew Research Center survey from July that found a majority of Canadians (55 per cent) name the U.S. as Canada’s top ally, but also the country’s top threat (59 per cent) — for both economic and national security.
“There’s no denying that there are some sensitivities,” said retired vice-admiral Mark Norman, the former vice-chief of the defence staff, who added we should be prepared for the Trump administration to play hardball should Canada try to amend its F-35 order — or shy away from any other planned military purchases.
“I think these conversations are absolutely essential as we go forward and try to stand on our own two feet,” said Norman. “The issue is that we need to be very careful that we don’t inadvertently create some unintended problems here.”
American defence contractors may accept some adjustment, but not a wholesale realignment in Canada’s shopping practices.
They’ll tolerate it, Norman said, as long as they “are not feeling in some way threatened or compromised.”
Norman said there is the “potential to punish Canada” in some other way by playing programs off against one another.
“Every one of those programs that you listed has huge vulnerabilities with respect to our continued dependence on not just U.S. supply chains, but on U.S. access and U.S. technology,” Norman said.
Wendy Gilmour, a Canadian and former assistant secretary general for defence investment at NATO, isn’t quite so gloomy. She said the U.S. tolerance for Canada buying elsewhere is high, as long as the equipment is interoperable with American systems.
In terms of the political price to be paid at home for continuing to shop with the U.S. defence industrial complex, Gilmour said she believed there is some room to explain to the public the urgency of re-equipping the military and the fact that much of what’s coming was ordered before the Trump administration took over.
“If nothing else, Prime Minister Carney has demonstrated that he is willing to be pragmatic and make decisions to move things ahead,” Gilmour said. “I would suspect that they will be looking very clearly at what is needed in the pipeline right now and should not be disturbed, and what are the new capabilities for which there isn’t anything under contract.”
And, as a people, Canadians are generally pragmatic, she added.
“I happen to believe the Canadian public — with perhaps some of the political rhetoric that’s bandied about on social media notwithstanding — can understand a logical argument. And I think that, you know, ‘elbows up’ means we are protecting our interests.”
