The Guardian Charlottetown - April 28, 2009
The Chronicle-Herald - April 30, 2009
The Journal-Pioneer (Summerside) - May 21, 2009
By Colin Kenny
There is one overwhelmingly existential argument in favour of governments spending money on military readiness. Unfortunately for Canadians, there are three countervailing arguments that keep ganging up on it and slapping it in handcuffs.
Here’s the big argument in favour of military readiness: the primary duty of any national government is to protect its citizens and advance their interests, and no country can do that with its mouth alone. Too bad, but them are just the facts. Countries need muscle – enough muscle to defend, and enough muscle to join with allies to snuff out global threats.
The weaker Canada’s defences, the greater the possibility that Canadians will be damaged physically, economically, culturally and socially. History tells us that. Canada and its allies were ill equipped to go to war against Adolph Hitler in 1939, and his master plan for world domination nearly prevailed as a result.
This is a pretty big, basic argument. It should be enough to ensure adequate funding to the Canadian Forces. But that hasn’t been the case for a long time. Why?
Here are the undermining arguments that keep politicians from doing the right thing in maintaining the military personnel and equipment to enable the Canadian Forces to defend us.
1. Many Canadians see Canada as the peaceable alternative to our southern neighbours, who always seem to be trying to bash someone, somewhere. That’s a good attitude, to a point. We Canadians should be choosy about where we deploy our military. But, when a meaningful mission comes along, we need to be ready. Furthermore, those not fond of the Americans should not be counting on them to defend us and our interests.
2. There is very little political payoff for looking into the future and ensuring that our children and grandchildren will have a military capable of defending them. Liberal Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau ordered up 12 frigates for the Canadian Navy, knowing they were essential for Canada’s future defence. Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, Trudeau’s successor, got to launch them. Sometimes leadership is about doing the right thing for your country, not just buying votes to keep your party in power.
3. The defence budget is a cookie jar that governments raid when they are forced to pare spending. Most federal spending is statutory – the government is legally bound to cough up. Defence spending is discretionary, which is why the Liberals hammered the Canadian Forces so badly during their drive to cut the national debt in the 1990s. Unfortunately, either the Harper government or its successor is going to be faced with trying to find ways to get the country back in the black a few years from now. So there will be plenty of pressure to make the Canadian Forces pay the bill.
These three phenomena swarm the basic, intelligent argument that military readiness is essential to Canada’s present, and Canada’s future. A number of prominent Canadians have argued lately that Canada is having trouble getting listened to on the world stage these days, including Stephen Harper’s former trade and foreign affairs minister, David Emerson.
There are reasons for this, and two of them are that Canada is stingy with both foreign aid and military contributions to solving world problems. Afghanistan is an exception in the latter case, but the head of the Canadian army, Gen. Andrew Leslie, recently testified that the army would probably have to shut down its military assignments after Afghanistan simply to rejuvenate itself. That’s twice in six years!
Historian Jack Granatstein recently commended the fact that Canada’s military spending has doubled over the last decade, but pointed out that because of past pernury, that’s not good enough. He lamented that there is nothing in the pipeline to replace critical naval and air force equipment – stuff like ships and planes that are approaching obsolescence and take many years to plan for, order, and take delivery. According to Dr. Granatstein “Money is going to be tight, the numbers of personnel will continue to be insufficient to do the required tasks and much of the military's equipment, while better in several areas than a few years ago, will continue its long, slow slide into obsolescence.”
In short, things look bleak for the Canadian Forces, which means things look bleak for Canada.
If that bleak outlook is to change, Prime Minister Harper will have to become more of a statesman acting in his country’s interests, and less of a politician chasing votes.
And if he can’t ignore the votes (and I admit it isn’t easy) I have an idea that might win him some. Set up a long-term deal with the Canadian shipbuilding industry to replace all those navy and coast guard ships that are rusting out. That would create jobs on the East Coast, the West Coast, and in Quebec. Jobs mean votes.
In the end, it doesn’t really matter whether he does the right thing for noble reasons, or to win votes. Canada has skimped on its military too many times over its history. We’ve been lucky so far, but luck shouldn’t play a big part in planning for a nation’s survival.
[Colin Kenny is chair of the Senate Committee on National Security and Defence. kennyco@sen.parl.gc.ca]