Today, the United States’ Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Elbridge Colby, announced that the Department of Defence “is pausing the Permanent Joint Board on Defense to reassess how this forum benefits shared North American defense.” This should be seen as a significant signal to Canada, though what it’s specifically intended to get Canada to do isn’t clear — probably intentionally.
Any commentary that pretends to measure defence by spending as a share of GDP is a fraud from the start. The fact the US pushes this number and NATO countries play along doesn't make it any more sensible. Colby's claim in that context is meaningless but then again, most of what this administration does has no wider meaning.
The announcement via Colby may just catch up- on old news. It may reflect a shift of US attention away from NATO/Canada as it struggles with other issues like Iran and China.
We can continue our military buildup and continue to frustrate American ambitions in the western hemisphere. In other words, we are continuing to defend Canada.
Colby meanwhile has bungled inside a bungling administration rapidly running out of runway. we may the only people paying attention to him.
Totally agree - what should be measured is the outcome of the spending, rather than the amount of spending. IF a nation can provide its an adequate defence with a 1% GDP spend, then there is no reason for spending 2%.
I wasn’t including Hawk In that blanket commentary by the way. This is a pretty decent First blush look at what just happened today.
What I find about Canadian defence discussions – and this is true for decades – is that it never talks about specific Canadian defence interest or foreign policy objectives and relates it clearly to specific force structures or postures.
We should be able to lineup a specific defence outcome with a specific defence capability. Whether that cost 1% of GDP or 10% of GDP is a totally different question. The United States spends an enormous amount of money compared to Canada But what it gets at the end is quite obviously far short of the capability it needs.
I think if we shift Canadian discussions of defence away from these arbitrary and meaningless comparisons or metrics, we’ll collectively be better off. Then, whenever somebody like Colby opens, his mouth we’ll be able to just give it the pfft it deserves.
It wouldn't be wrong to include me, in this case. I agree with you, and have written pieces centred around the same view -- that GDP is a poor measure of contribution to defence.
Despite that, when I needed a quick touchstone to show what Canada is doing that the US is failing to acknowledge, I reached for those exact metrics.
There's probably a lesson in there for me to be more charitable (much as you're being towards me) towards others who lean heavily on those measures from time-to-time.
That was a great analysis on fairly short notice. I'm glad you were able to give some context about what the joint board has been used for in the past, because I hadn't heard of it before, so I didn't really know enough to know how serious to take the news.
Right before the F-35 review was announced, my proposed notion was that Canada should respond to US pressure to spend more on defence by saying, "Happy to oblige", and ordering a bunch of Gripens.
No cancellation of the F-35, or even threat, but still deleverage control of it as a tool the US could use against us. And the knowledge we *could* cancel it and have an alternative would turn into leverage for us.
I've come to conclude that the logistics of that wouldn't work.
But I still think opportunities exist to lean into vague American pressure, make a big deal about how we're doing what they want, but actually do something that gives us more room to maneuver.
It's probably best to see it from a bureaucratic politics perspective. Colby was the leading China hawk, and the recent summit in Beijing is a defeat for him. In an administration of bullies, he chose to pick on a weaker country to play the tough guy and even pointed at Carney's Davos speech in his short thread announcing the suspension.
Really helpful. In reality, it is paused after every meeting as we hold our collective breaths to see if cochairs be announced, will they get a meaningful agenda together (the MCC is far more important) and how much can you accomplish in a one day meeting given the # of security and defence issues that could be discussed. This report shows the cochairs in the past and the "press release" that created the PJBD. See https://umanitoba.ca/arts/sites/arts/files/2022-07/The-Permanent-Joint-Board-on-Defence-final-workshop-report_2020.pdf
Colby, that human carbuncle was responsible for slow walking aids to Ukraine. Well, it's high time we disconnect from US procurement, except when their is no credible alternative. And it's time to stop Canadian deployments with US troops, except when it concerns NORAD or Nato. At this point trying to placate the Americans is like allowing a fox into the henhouse. I never thought I would see this ever in my lifetime.
The future of any and all us aligned activities, whether it be norad or NATO should be reconsidered. Canada needs to be responsible for its own defense from all enemies. If Canada goes ahead with it's fighter purchase from the us, what would that signal.
That was an excellent article, PH. considering that breaking news, I don’t know how you pulled the “rabbit out of the hat” so quickly. For myriad reasons the Trump regime doesn’t care for us northerners. I’m of the opinion that we should proceed quickly what is best in our interests for defence decoupled from any CUSMA negotiations.
Great analysis. It very much seems like the US is operating in bad faith. But it’s also not unreasonable to suggest that the Canadian governments approach to increased defence is unserious as well
You said it yourself, all these procurements are “moving at a pace”. Effectively zero results have been delivered. The most notable of these, CPSP which could be as simple as manufacturing starting this year is still slated for contract award in 2028.
This is very much in form for this government, announce large numbers with delivery on some vague timeline in the future
There is always reason to say there are other considerations. But that is effectively making the US point no? That Canada continues to put jobs and bags of money to liberal insiders over any kind of national defence
Any commentary that pretends to measure defence by spending as a share of GDP is a fraud from the start. The fact the US pushes this number and NATO countries play along doesn't make it any more sensible. Colby's claim in that context is meaningless but then again, most of what this administration does has no wider meaning.
The announcement via Colby may just catch up- on old news. It may reflect a shift of US attention away from NATO/Canada as it struggles with other issues like Iran and China.
We can continue our military buildup and continue to frustrate American ambitions in the western hemisphere. In other words, we are continuing to defend Canada.
Colby meanwhile has bungled inside a bungling administration rapidly running out of runway. we may the only people paying attention to him.
Totally agree - what should be measured is the outcome of the spending, rather than the amount of spending. IF a nation can provide its an adequate defence with a 1% GDP spend, then there is no reason for spending 2%.
I wasn’t including Hawk In that blanket commentary by the way. This is a pretty decent First blush look at what just happened today.
What I find about Canadian defence discussions – and this is true for decades – is that it never talks about specific Canadian defence interest or foreign policy objectives and relates it clearly to specific force structures or postures.
We should be able to lineup a specific defence outcome with a specific defence capability. Whether that cost 1% of GDP or 10% of GDP is a totally different question. The United States spends an enormous amount of money compared to Canada But what it gets at the end is quite obviously far short of the capability it needs.
I think if we shift Canadian discussions of defence away from these arbitrary and meaningless comparisons or metrics, we’ll collectively be better off. Then, whenever somebody like Colby opens, his mouth we’ll be able to just give it the pfft it deserves.
It wouldn't be wrong to include me, in this case. I agree with you, and have written pieces centred around the same view -- that GDP is a poor measure of contribution to defence.
Despite that, when I needed a quick touchstone to show what Canada is doing that the US is failing to acknowledge, I reached for those exact metrics.
There's probably a lesson in there for me to be more charitable (much as you're being towards me) towards others who lean heavily on those measures from time-to-time.
I think you might find an example of the kind of discussion you are looking for in the Naval Association of Canada's "Canada In Extremis" published in May 2024. https://www.navalassoc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/In-Extremis-MR.pdf
Thanks
That was a great analysis on fairly short notice. I'm glad you were able to give some context about what the joint board has been used for in the past, because I hadn't heard of it before, so I didn't really know enough to know how serious to take the news.
Thank you for this quick overview as the story develops.
Always appreciate your analysis.
V insightful. Thank you for sharing your analysis.
We should announce the Gripen fighter purchase immediately to demonstrate our commitment to defence :-)
Right before the F-35 review was announced, my proposed notion was that Canada should respond to US pressure to spend more on defence by saying, "Happy to oblige", and ordering a bunch of Gripens.
No cancellation of the F-35, or even threat, but still deleverage control of it as a tool the US could use against us. And the knowledge we *could* cancel it and have an alternative would turn into leverage for us.
I've come to conclude that the logistics of that wouldn't work.
But I still think opportunities exist to lean into vague American pressure, make a big deal about how we're doing what they want, but actually do something that gives us more room to maneuver.
It's probably best to see it from a bureaucratic politics perspective. Colby was the leading China hawk, and the recent summit in Beijing is a defeat for him. In an administration of bullies, he chose to pick on a weaker country to play the tough guy and even pointed at Carney's Davos speech in his short thread announcing the suspension.
Really helpful. In reality, it is paused after every meeting as we hold our collective breaths to see if cochairs be announced, will they get a meaningful agenda together (the MCC is far more important) and how much can you accomplish in a one day meeting given the # of security and defence issues that could be discussed. This report shows the cochairs in the past and the "press release" that created the PJBD. See https://umanitoba.ca/arts/sites/arts/files/2022-07/The-Permanent-Joint-Board-on-Defence-final-workshop-report_2020.pdf
Hi Andrea. Glad you didn't think it was totally off base.
I found your 2020 report extremely useful as I was writing this.
Colby, that human carbuncle was responsible for slow walking aids to Ukraine. Well, it's high time we disconnect from US procurement, except when their is no credible alternative. And it's time to stop Canadian deployments with US troops, except when it concerns NORAD or Nato. At this point trying to placate the Americans is like allowing a fox into the henhouse. I never thought I would see this ever in my lifetime.
The future of any and all us aligned activities, whether it be norad or NATO should be reconsidered. Canada needs to be responsible for its own defense from all enemies. If Canada goes ahead with it's fighter purchase from the us, what would that signal.
………. “only the best” …….
That was an excellent article, PH. considering that breaking news, I don’t know how you pulled the “rabbit out of the hat” so quickly. For myriad reasons the Trump regime doesn’t care for us northerners. I’m of the opinion that we should proceed quickly what is best in our interests for defence decoupled from any CUSMA negotiations.
I also agree with Mr. Hollett’s comments.
Great analysis. It very much seems like the US is operating in bad faith. But it’s also not unreasonable to suggest that the Canadian governments approach to increased defence is unserious as well
You said it yourself, all these procurements are “moving at a pace”. Effectively zero results have been delivered. The most notable of these, CPSP which could be as simple as manufacturing starting this year is still slated for contract award in 2028.
This is very much in form for this government, announce large numbers with delivery on some vague timeline in the future
There is always reason to say there are other considerations. But that is effectively making the US point no? That Canada continues to put jobs and bags of money to liberal insiders over any kind of national defence
The successful bidder for CPSP will be announced this year.
That would be incredible