Let's talk about the Liberal Platform

The Liberal platform is out and while more of what we already knew, also contains some startling additions

Yesterday, the Liberal Party of Canada officially dropped their election platform Canada Strong on us. The 63 page document is quite extensive, covering a number of defence related topics, from Foreign relations, National defence, infrastructure investments, and the Arctic.

Admittedly, my expectations if the document were low overall. The Liberals have made several very hearty promises this election, and while defence has been a regular topic, it still felt as more of the same.

Same promises that have been given for years, wrapped in the same language on needing to do more. While I have praised the Carney-led Liberals for prioritizing defence in the brief time he has been PM, I couldn't help but feel that we were edging towards a fairly lax platform.

So, imagine my surprise when the Liberals dropped a defence platform that covered perhaps every base imaginable, complete with a herculean commitment to funding.

That isnt to say im in grand support, or a hundred percent committed, but lord is it going for everything you can think of. The platform takes a foundational approach to defence, electing to avoid capability discussion in favour of reform and capacity-building.

This has been a trend this election, where parties are taking a focus on building our ability to respond not through promised systems but in developing our ability to acquire, position and staff as a broader framework.

This is a method ive been in favour of, despite the disappointment of some. I dont believe the federal government should have a voice of capabilities, outside commiting to current projects. Passion projects and desires of the political division have historically worked out little.

They often times result in failure, providing only a waste of time and valuable resources that could be used elsewhere.

Polar Icebreakers for the navy is one such example, a political promise that does not reflect the navies current plans, and exists not in the interest of those tasked with building our capabilities, but on a political elite that have decided that they, through committee and consultant, have decided they know best.

Beyond that, we avoid most of that here, though sadly not entirely. We are still bound by the whims of those in charge, and the message has been clear that the government would step in, at least in the Liberal case, to push procurement choices in a certain direction.

The Liberals full defence platform is somewhat broken up, so I have taken the liberty to compile it together for reading pleasure, incase you don't want to search it out yourself.

The Liberal Party defence platform, compiled here.

I wont write out everything here. It is far easier to post these images here. This covered the total Foreign and Defence policies laid out by the Party. Notably, some things were actually absent from the final platform, but I decided to include them anyways. Until said otherwise, I consider them part of the overall platform.

A substantial amount of the platform are promises we were already aware of, and I've talked about before. So we wont be going over each promise individually, but instead focus on a more general look at the overall.

Let's start with the most notable thing…

The Money

Coming out of the platform, the financial promises have been the thing that have captured people the most.

The current Liberal platform dedicates a staggering $18 billion in new spending over five years to the defence budget, and nearly $30 Billion in addition to defence-related spending.

This is an ~60% increase, at minimum, on the current defence budget, and represents, in current dollars, the 2% of GDP threshold. If we get up towards $60 billion, that puts us at a staggering 2.6% of GDP.

This is not including the Liberal plan to use additional spending on the CCG towards our NATO commitment, nor do I believe does it count for certain projects like Submarines, although sadly we get no breakdown on this funding beyond what is given.

And of course thats a running theme here, very undefined proposals, which I get. This is an election platform. You can't expect detailed breakdowns and planning, but I do believe more could have been done to break down this spending calculation in relation to ongoing projects.

I am happy they mentioned the CCG wasnt included, but thats besides the point. This level of spending, comparative to allies, would put us in line with our major European and Asian partners in dollars allocated.

It would be by far the biggest increase in decades, and put us at a GDP level not seen since the 1960s, assuming we reach the top threshold. It is undoubtedly to say that it is a substantial investment the likes that CAF has never seen in most of our lifetimes.

Of course that kind of spending though comes with a bit of an eyebrow. It is by far a hefty promise, especially when combined with additional measures to speed up and free procurement. There is also a promise to spend at least half of these fund by year four on acquisitions.

I apologize if I seem a bit pessimistic on such promises. There is no one who would love this more than me, no one who would push for this more than me. I have no intent to say this absolutely wont happen.

Yet I am skeptical, highly, in such a fluid environment, one that this platform does not fully explore, that im a worse scenario than projected that defence, which is by far the largest single increase here, will be safe from cuts.

That isnt to say im not happy with the numbers presented. Even at a lower-end $48B, that still puts us over 2% by a little margin for error, before we start trying to squeeze the CCG in. If one wishes to reach two percent by 2030, then they at least need to present a plan similar in terms of financials.

By far, it is the most substantial amount promised, with the NDP stuck in 2032 and the Conservatives also giving a similar 2030 timeline. This could likely get us there in 2028, assuming it sticks through.

Is this the new benchmark? I wouldn't quite say that. I still think the bench is 2030 for 2%, with hopes for before. I think that is the best we can ask, even if I think we need to do better.

Can we spend all thos money? I've had this thought for a long-time, and speaking around, I can fairly say that we could. While the procurement system provides a natural roadblock to acquisition, there are other areas where we could benefit from incremental injections of funds.

Maintenance, infrastructure, housing, the Halifax alone could likely run you a tab of over a billion with the state they are truely in. There is room to spend significant amounts of money that can be used beyond the traditional equipment process. Dont let people tell you otherwise.

Of course such influences are a great push to reform, and if the Liberals are serious about this, then they need to be serious about procurement reform. While we can certainly spend a lot without it, we can't expect to be spending fifty percent of these new allocated funds on equipment in the current system.

Of course ive spoken on this procurement reform, and my worries, the last time I spoke on the Liberals, so let me quote myself from before:

How does this organization exactly work? Well we dont know, besides a very broad announcement on reform. How does this balance out the many stakeholders, such as PSPC, ADM(MAT), TB and ISED? How will they all be included in the process?

I dont mean to sound rude, but keeping the same system in a place severely limits what the DPA can do, no matter how much power you give them. We can debate if a single agency is the best bet, but if you're going to do it, then you need to go all in.

The same with keeping the current ITB system, something Carneys own government has admitted is ineffective and to easy to game. Will the Carney government, with a renewed focus on Canadian production fall into the same hole under the promise of economic benefit?

These issues still exist with the DPA, and need to be addressed if we want to Rearm ourselves. Money is great, especislly when the chequebooks are out, but if the Liberals truely want to do this, reform needs to come very soon to use it to its maximum benefit.

Overall, lots of money, a metric ton. An amount that likely means the current book of projects are safe and funded in the future, which itself is a major prospect. It also likely means that a number of infrastructure proposals, many sitting on the sideline, are back on the table.

The Yes

Let's move to a positive note next. What did I like? What things stood out?

To start quickly, let me speak on a section I think many have overlooked. On the aide of foreign relations, this platform makes me quite happy. It is extensive, detailed, and builds new, very needed policies.

Commiting to a new Foreign Policy, the first since the International Policy Statement in 2005, has been pushed off for FAR to long, amd accompanying it with a National Security review is a great addition to it, especially when combined with what was set out in ONSF and a new funding plan.

Canada hasn't had a true Foreign Policy review in two decades, since I was in Kindergarten! That is insane given the reality of 2025 compared to the ancient feeling of 2005.

Expanding in that we also have mentions of new Arctic Security aggrements with Europe, building Economic and Defence ties with the Nordics, mentions of both the Commonwealth and La Francophonie.

Im shocked, SHOCKED that CANZUK got zero mention in this document. I surely thought it would be an easy win for the Liberals, anyone to throw it out there even in a blurb to capture some minds.

I also wish there was more mention of our allies in Asia and Africa, both of which having prime opportunity, especially as we develop more closer relations to Korea. We did get ASEAN and MERCOSUR mentioned though, two areas where Canada has been working to develop Free-Trade aggrements with for years. ASEAN should be coming soon though.

There is also continued mention to supporting Ukraine, including through seized Russian assets, something thr Conservatives committed to last week. While peacekeeping makes me curious in what we would provide in this context, I am extremely happy that we are bringing assets back into the conversation properly.

Moving on from Foreign Policy we have a new look at the Liberals Arctic infrastructure plan. We already knew the Liberals were going to take a duel-use route over the larger bases plan thr Tories are presenting.

Sadly, details are still limited to unnamed, generic upgrades and plans. The same roads, highways and rails platform that everyone has put out forever. This though isnt without some good mentions.

We have the Liberals giving mention and support to the Arctic Security Corridor! If you remember fron the Conservative platform, I gave very big praise to them for including this critical piece of infrastructure.

Liberals throwing their support to this vital North-South link, and the Port of Grays Bay, is a massive win in my books and a massive win for the NWT. It is joined by a much broader promise to establish a network of Deep-Water Ports in the Arctic.

What is this network? We dont know! As far as I know, only Grays Bay and Churchill has been mentioned by the Liberal side, while others, like Tuktoyaktuk and Qikiqtarjuaq, both with their own challenges, have not.

Tuk is very shallow and would require a very expensive Dredging, one that isnt garunteed to work given the conditions. Qik requires what is essentially a complete construction, more so than even Nanisivik was. It also wouldn't be very easy.

Expanding Iqaluit remains an option, and seems to be on the Conservative radar. It would be the cheapest and most efficient option, given its strategic location and existing infrastructure. Not cheap, but possible given what's already there.

I also talked about Churchill the other day, and it still stands. If only it was a meter deeper lol. My point still stands as well, while im not sold onna full base, making it a location that is available is still worthwhile.

Other options for smaller ports that can provide some utility include Moosonee, where a project already exists to expand its port capability. Smaller ports might not be able to do much in naval terms, but do provide additional capacity to the supply chain going North.

The Liberals also seem to have moved the Heavy Icebreakers out of the navy category, God I hope so, and while I tend to say I dont care for equipment in platforms, the Liberals keep it small with commitment to new UUV, UAS, GBAD and commitment to IFM. All four are much needed projects that im happy to see get some love and a shoutout. In similarly happy to see ReArm Europe mentioned.

I'll also say I support the DPA concept, and expanding our R&D capabilities, but I have my worries, obviously. I have well documented those as shown above, but thatbdoesnt mean I dont support reform.

I also support personal measures, pay raises, mental health support, new base housing. Of course we can't be against those! But while there is support…

The No (and the worries)

Man its all vague… Really vague… the entire Rebuild category is just little blurbs with no substance, no funds, plan. Nothing. You get a pay raise but how much? No clue! They dont mention it, just like housing.

The security clearance mention is also laughable when the department is basically two people and a tamagachi. That is only a slight exaggeration. It truely is that understaffed, for those that want to know why it takes so long. You can't fix that without hiring on more people and reforming the system to make it faster

Again, im also happy that we acknowledge the thousand whom apply, and often have to wait months, years for responses, but this plan doesnt stop the issues in processing, expanding training capacity.

That's a big issue, we are severely limited. There are CAF initiatives to expand, but the lack of federal mention is disappointing when its such a big issue.

In fact, training, amd the trades get zero mention. Something that is sad to see here. Inreally expected a lot more in the rebuild category but instead we get some basic blurbs.

Another really big issue I have is the AEW mention. I support Canadian industry, and am not against a Global platform. Ive heard the arguments for both, and ive talked to people relatively close to the project who like the idea, but this ain't it.

No government should be forcing CAF to buy because they want them too. Maybe this is seen as an easy win because it has supporters, but it sets a bad precedent that the Feds can jump in and make choices for CAF. That is a bad spot to be in.

Starts with AEW, but then ehat happens when the Federals decide that the navy needs to buy German submarines as a took to voist relations? What about when they force them to cancel or change selections for something like HIMARS?

We have a long history of this… Griffins, LSVW, the entire debacle with Submarines in the eighties. This has always been a black mark on our procurement history, and one I refuse to support in any capacity.

This is one of the worst aspects of my Buy Caandian worries, that we end up in more scenarios forced with things we dont wat to prop up an industry that isnt ready yet. I spoke on this before, over 6000 words on it! So I wont bore here.

I dont want to sound like a broken record, I really dont, but the vagueness on a lot of things just gets to me. Youll equip the Reserves and Rangers. What does that mean? What does that look like? Youll equip our forces at home like they are abroad. Does that mean that we're going to be ordering more RBS-70? SPIKE?

You can throw lots of things in there. Next-Generation Aircraft points to sixth-gen fighters, so why not say that? Is there more? Can you give examples? The platform is full of these vague promises, many of which have zero information or are so vague that we can't even say what they mean.

Yes, we dont expect detailed plans, but if even I, whom does this regularly, can't properly explain to people what these promises mean, than how can we expect people to know? To care?

Its a disservice to your own platform, which I overall give a thumbs up to either way, even if I don't trust the party to do it, I am willing to explore this through a lens where they do commit.

Overall

The best way I can describe this platform is like chewing gum. Ot starts off really sweet, but it gets a bit dull as the flavor dies out. There is legitimately great proposals here, and a historic funding commitment. There are nice things to enjoy here.

But the lack of details, confusing, vague additions, and a pushy government that makes it clear it will intervene on procurement makes me quite worried. It is an improvement on the NDP platform, by a wide margin, at the least.

It gets a thumbs up. Its comprehensive, it has good proposals, its comprehensive amd avoids a lot of issues you would expect to see here, but in doing that, I argue it is overall to vague, to uncommitted to the proposals it presents.

They have the right catagories, the right ingredients, but it doesnt feel like they know how o male a cake, or maybe decided they'll just make a loaf of bread instead. Its ambitious in its foundational and financial commitments, but keeps short of the capacity and capability side, something the Conservatives have been heavily focused on.

Bith parties have taken different paths in that regard, pushing for separate directions in which to put their focus and time in. The Conservatives have focused on infrastructure, capability. They have taken a very direct route here.

The Liberals, in turn have decided to go four the institution, the system that generates and operates those capabilities. There is no route here, although I believe the Liberal methodology is best, thats just me. People know I am a foundational person.

We wait for the Conservative policy before we can compare. A week is left in the election, and I hope they end up releasing one at all by this point.