WHERE IS THE FUNDING FOR OUR ARMED FORCES?
Readers interested in our national security will note three significant events which have taken place in the last month, and there is much more to come. The three events were: the deployment of the Disaster Assistance Response Team or DART; the appointment by the Prime Minister of a new Chief of Defence Staff (CDS), General Rick Hillier, and a report released by a group calling itself Canada 25, a group of 20-35 year old Canadians concerned with our security.
The Royal United Services Institute of Nova Scotia (RUSI NS) some 77 years in existence, has a mandate is to keep our politicians and our publics informed with respect to Canada’s, and indeed, Nova Scotia’s security and well-being. To that end, in the last 24 months, the Institute has produced a number of studies on such subjects as Port Security (to include the threat by terrorists using shipping containers); a study on the restructure of Canada’s militia or Army Reserve; the subject of Strategic Lift, both for sea and air for deployments by the Canadian Forces to trouble spots around the world, and finally, a paper entitled “Who is defending Nova Scotia’s Coast?”.
Just recently, the Chair of our Security Affairs Committee had an OpEd published with questions posed to the new CDS.
To continue with our cancers, the subject of a long range deployment capability for Canada is the subject of this article – the lack of a long range deployment capability and the future plans by the new CDS for the shape, scope and role of Canada’s Armed Forces. Canadians must pay closer attention to the indicators which are now public knowledge with respect to the future Foreign and Defence policy. Previous Ministers of National Defence, John McCallum and David Pratt as well as the current minister, Bill Graham, have been supportive of RUSI efforts in bringing to the government’s attention the shortfalls facing Canada’s woefully undermanned, under-equipped and overtasked Armed Forces. So what is our point in this article you may ask?
Our concern is that the government has not hoisted in the fact that the military needs a large infusion of funding to meet the perceived aim of a new, transformed armed forces. The scuttlebutt that the defence budget will only be increased by $750 million does not address the problems facing the Canadian Forces. If the aim is become a “Model Power” rather than a “Middle Power”, the government has a responsibility to listen to what General Hillier is saying with respect to revitalization and spending on new equipment. We do not disagree that the army needs to restructure itself but in turn, it should not be cast as a model peacekeeper trained and prepared for humanitarian relief and peacekeeping. Colonel Pat Strogan, a truly experienced commander of the war in Afghanistan stated the problems facing the CF succinctly at Dalhousie just last week. The role of armies is to defend their country and when necessary, fight wars to do just that. Getting the army to where it has to operate requires airlift and in some cases sealift – capabilities which we currently do not possess. In his outgoing speech in Calgary, Ambassador Celluci re-iterated the same theme. General Hillier has stated that we cannot afford to purchase the needed equipment (read C-17 transports for the Air Force and Joint Support Ships for the Navy). He believes that leasing such equipment is the way to go. RUSI does not agree with this philosophy. It’s time we woke up and demanded that Canada pay its own way in supporting the security tasks the government assigns the CF.
The government has spent literally millions of defence dollars in the last 7 years chartering lift resources from various countries and not without embarrassment to Canada. Witness the MV Katey incident where we had to forcefully get our equipment back to Canada from the Balkans; the fiasco in trying to get three C-130 Hercules to fly to East Timor then finally having to rely on foreign carriers to do the job; the delay in deploying the DART as we negotiated airlift a $4 million one-way airlift from the Ukraine and then arriving two weeks after the event – some rapid response capability that is!
It has become a habit to “cut and paste” when the CF has to deploy on short notice. Perish the thought that should we have to bring anyone home in hurry! Why is this happening? We believe it is because WE DO NOT HAVE the political will nor have a foreign policy on which to base our military planning. The forces have to react to the whim of a government who love to grandstand on the world stage by stating “Canada will be there!” This has happened so often the times are too numerous to count. We cut and paste together a group of what is available so that Canada can be seen as taking a leading role. Other than the Afghanistan commitment, we have not sent formed properly formed units into troubled areas for many years.
Why do we continually underfund the forces and why do we continue to waste millions on deployment assets? The government attempted to convince the Canadian people of a “peace dividend” after the end of the Cold War when really we were slashing the deficit at the expense of the Forces but continuing to insist we have a “core combat capability”. As Allen Fotheringham would say, its obsturfication. The monies spent in the recent past transporting our personnel and equipment could have been spent leasing the needed resources (as the British Royal Air Force has done with their C-17s). There are transport assault ships we could lease from the US Navy – the will has just not been there.
The bottom line to all of this is that we need a government which honestly believes in the mission of the armed forces (once they define it), then fund the forces to do the tasks and give them the proper equipment to do it with! Anything less will not make Canada a “Model Power” but a modern banana republic. We wish General Hillier all the luck in the world.
Murray Lee, Colonel (Retired)
Royal United Services Institute of Nova Scotia
Back to: