Token gestures for our military
National Post
Tuesday, October 01, 2002
Yesterday‘s Speech from the Throne, delivered by Adrienne Clarkson, the Governor-General, was the second in the past 20 months. That in itself was not necessarily a bad thing: Much has changed since January, 2001, and a formal reordering of priorities is in order. The Sept. 11 attacks, the war on terrorism, and hostilities with Iraq should have pushed security to the top of the federal agenda. And given that the need for greater Canadian defence spending has been emphasized by everyone from our own Defence Minister to military watchdogs to the United States ambassador, there is little doubt it should have been made the government‘s first priority.
With that in mind, it was encouraging to hear Ms. Clarkson‘s address lead off with the promise that "The government will continue to work with its allies to ensure the safety and security of Canadians," and that it will "[protect] Canadians from emerging threats, and will work with the United States to address our shared security needs." But, that, unfortunately, was as far as it went.
Canada spends just 1.2% of its GDP on defence -- less than all but one of NATO‘s 19 member countries. The size of our armed forces has dropped from 87,600 in 1990 to just 57,000 today. Sheila Fraser, the auditor-general, has warned that the military could not guarantee its combat readiness because of ageing equipment and a massive budgetary shortfall. Retired Brigadier-General Don Macnamara, president of the Conference of Defence Associations Institute, recently released a report concluding that our potential inability to monitor our own airspace could put our sovereignty at risk. And the U.S. ambassador cautioned earlier this year that our defence system is so inadequate as to imperil North American security.
Yesterday‘s address glossed over these realities. Specific spending promises were made on health care, the environment, aboriginals and cities. Development assistance -- which, given his expressed views on the origins of terrorism, Jean Chrétien apparently considers a substitute for proper defence spending -- will be doubled by 2010. The defence component, on the other hand, appeared almost deliberately vague.
Particularly galling is the suggestion by government officials, reported in recent days, that Ottawa must await a joint review of Canada‘s defence and foreign affairs policies before moving forward with increased spending. The last year has already seen a spate of Blue Ribbon reports -- all lamenting the rusted state of our military. How many more need be written to convince Mr. Chrétien that it is time to act? Why, if it was possible to make health-care pledges months before the release of the long-awaited Romanow report, is it impossible to commit now to increased defence spending? And if a campaign spearheaded by The Toronto Star was enough to illicit major -- and unnecessary -- pledges on urban investment, how can the government possibly ignore virtually every military expert and advocate in the country?
Despite the token gestures on defence, yesterday‘s Throne Speech consisted mostly of expensive commitments to warm-and-fuzzy pet causes, and was clearly intended to allow Mr. Chrétien to appease his supporters by reaffirming "Liberal values." Security protection might not be one of those values -- but it is the federal government‘s first responsibility to Canadians and a prerequisite for being taken seriously on the international stage. If Mr. Chrétien wants to leave his country a legacy worth inheriting, he will ensure that the next budget expands on yesterday‘s token gesture with a real investment in our military.
