Fact-based journalism that sparks the Canadian conversation

Articles Business Environment Health Politics Arts & Culture Society

Special Series Hope You’re Well For the Love of the Game Living Rooms In Other Worlds: A Space Exploration Terra Cognita More special series >

For the Love of the Game

In Other Worlds: A Space Exploration

More special series >

Events The Walrus Talks The Walrus Video Room The Walrus Leadership Roundtables The Walrus Leadership Forums Article Club

The Walrus Video Room

The Walrus Leadership Roundtables

The Walrus Leadership Forums

Subscribe Renew your subscription Change your address Magazine Issues Newsletters Podcasts

Renew your subscription

The Walrus Lab Hire The Walrus Lab Amazon First Novel Award

Amazon First Novel Award

Why Is Canada’s Military Still Buying American Weapons?

Our generals swear by US systems. Their claims deserve a harder look

After decades of underinvestment in our military, the Mark Carney government is making amends quickly. Within a year of his taking office, defence spending was pushed over the magic 2 percent of gross domestic product mark, to which Canada had committed in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization decades ago but had never come close to reaching. This is something the Justin Trudeau government also committed to, reluctantly, after much pushing from United States president Donald Trump, but said would take many years to reach. Looking ahead, if we are really going to go to 5 percent for military—and military-related—spending within the decade, hundreds of billions of dollars are at stake.

All of this, in itself, would amount to a sea change in Canadian defence, but the fact it is happening at the moment our long-standing relationship with the US is being called into question makes this moment truly historic.

The Carney government has signalled it is eager to move beyond our traditional reliance on the US for defence equipment. The F-35 and, now, Blackhawk helicopter purchases are on hold, we will be buying an Australian long-range radar for continental defence as opposed to an American one, and a Swedish Canadian surveillance aircraft instead of US options. As Carney said when he took office, it makes no sense that 70 percent of Canadian defence purchases are made in the US when they are putting tariffs on us and violating a free trade agreement they signed. Polling shows the Canadian public strongly supports this stance.

But Canada’s military is not happy with this development. While serving officers are keeping quiet in public, as they should, a number of retired generals and admirals are making their views known. It is reasonable to assume that they are reflecting the opinion of those still on the inside, who are at pains to maintain that defence ties are strong. Anecdotally, however, evidence is surfacing that Canadian officers are turning down opportunities for postings and exchanges with the US military due to the deterioration of overall relations.

Before weighing the case for maintaining a military partnership, particularly through equipment purchases, we need to understand that the Canadian Armed Forces has a set of in-built biases that shape its outlook. This is not a sinister thing; it is how focused institutions work. Whether it is the military, a large corporation, or a cultural organization, a shared mindset takes hold, shaping decisions and defining the culture. People who embrace it are promoted, and those who don’t aren’t.

Over time, these assumptions become so entrenched they pass for common sense. Those who disagree aren’t seen as offering another perspective; they’re seen as failing to understand reality. In extreme cases, dissent itself becomes a direct threat to the organization’s mission.

For Canada’s military, one of these deep-seated biases is that our place is firmly at America’s side. This belief did not happen overnight. Many decades of close co-operation, encouraged by successive governments seeking to stretch modest defence budgets by working with a much larger ally, have left their mark. Today’s senior military leaders have spent their professional lives training to fight alongside the US, attending American staff colleges, and serving on exchanges with the US military.

That outlook has been on full display in recent months, taking the form of three recurring arguments against reducing our military’s........

© The Walrus