New defence policy “...time and lots of money”

by Len Canfield
Trident Contributor

Defence commentators Dr. Dan Middlemiss and Commander (ret’d) Peter Haydon presented their assessments of the recently released Defence Policy Statement at spring meetings of the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) of Nova Scotia. Both are associated with Dalhousie University’s Centre for Foreign Policy Studies.

Dr. Middlemiss, addressing the May meeting of RUSI on ‘New Directions in Canadian Defence? The 2005 Budget and the Defence Policy Statement,’said “...the new defence policy is far from perfect but it is a good and badly needed starting point to save the Canadian Forces (CF).”

He explained that “...the defence policy is the most coherent of the papers included in ‘Canada’s International Policy Statement.’ It offers a clear vision for the CF, makes sense from a military point of view, offers a realistic assessment of the international situation, and provides a 10 to 15 year focus for the CF.”

Dr. Middlemiss said the new policy outlines the need for an integrated approach across the military (to provide a rapid response capability) and the necessity to mesh defence policy with the broader international policy statement.

“However, the defence paper does not recognize the crisis situation the CF face today... and how the CF can survive for the next several years until the promised budget increases kick in.”

Dr. Middlemiss reiterated that funding is a major concern for the CF in spite of the government’s commitment to an additional $12.8 billion in defence spending over the next five years. The major increases don’t start until 2008-09; in the meantime, a significant part of the increases for the next several years will be subject to clawback as part of the government’s plan to fund higher priorities.

“We really need at least $20 billion to cover what’s outlined in the defence paper,” he explained.

Dr. Middlemiss said there is a need for specifics on major military procurement projects and called on politicians “to take the politics out of procurement.”

He reminded his audience at Cambridge Military Library that “...all these activities will take time and lots of money. However, the Canadian people are now ready to support a sensible plan for defence... and the CF deserve our best support.”

At the April meeting of RUSI, Peter Haydon discussed both the new defence policy statement and the need for submarines.

He said the defence policy “...lacks a bold vision and is a disappointment.”

Haydon explained “...the paper places a heavy emphasis on intervention in failing states... and it does not give sufficient recognition to the global economy and the importance of the free flow of commerce.”

With regard to the Navy, Haydon said, “...although the naval concept outlined in the defence policy statement has a longer term view, it fails to address the all-important requirement of how to get from A to B.”

He said the defence policy envisages “...a very definite and very expensive role for the Navy in the next 25 years. The cost could be enormous ($30 billion) with a requirement for 24 warships (rather than present 19).”

Haydon described as ‘unrealistic’ the plan to recruit and train 5000 regular force and 3000 reserve members in the short term.

‘There is very little change (in the new defence policy) from 1994 (White Paper on Defence) other than a new emphasis on expeditionary operations. Given the current political situation it is unlikely the document will be implemented.”

Turning to submarines, the former submariner outlined the need for submarines and the difficulties the Victoria Class submarine (former Upholder Class submarine) have encountered (including the fire aboard HMCS Chicoutimi).

“Back in the 1980s the Navy identified a requirement to replace the Oberon Class submarine (built in 1960s). Four British Upholders (later generation submarine) were identified as replacements for the Oberons (which were retired in the 1990s). However, a number of events occurred that held up acquisition of the Upholders,” he explained.

The difficulties included a four-year delay by the government in giving the final go-ahead to obtain the submarine (1994-98), the Navy’s increased costs for Operation Apollo (limiting resources for sub training) and the high level of training required to operate the new submarine.

“Were these subs a good deal for Canada? Without a doubt... they are modern and the price was right (a quarter of cost of building new ones),” Haydon said.

He said acquisition of the submarine naturally leads to the question: do we need them?

“Subs provide flexibility, endurance and stealth... and the modern submarine takes those capabilities further by serving as a force multiplier. They are a cost-effective way for the Navy to carry out its mission and tasks, including coastal surveillance and fisheries patrols, drug enforcement, and support for the scientific community.”

Haydon concluded by saying it was essential that “our submariners get back to sea as quickly as possible ...for morale and to preserve the professionalism of the crews.”

The guest speakers program is one of a number of activities carried out by RUSI. The membership includes serving and retired members of the CF, RCMP and other security organizations, and business, community and academic representatives.

 

 

Back to: