REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE |
TUESDAY, November 12, 2002 |
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence
has the honour to table its
SECOND
REPORT
Your Committee, which was authorized by the
Senate on Wednesday, October 30, 2002, to examine and report on the need for
national security policy for Canada, now tables its interim report entitled For an Extra $130
Bucks…Update on Canada’s Military Financial
Crisis, A View from the Bottom UP.
Respectfully submitted,
COLIN KENNY
Chair
For an Extra $130 Bucks….
Update
On Canada’s Military Financial Crisis
A
VIEW FROM THE BOTTOM UP
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence
Committee Members
Sen. Colin Kenny – Chair
Sen. J. Michael Forrestall – Deputy Chair
Sen. Norman K. AtkinsSen. Tommy Banks
Sen. Jane Cordy
Sen. Joseph A. Day
Sen. Michael A. Meighen
Sen. David P. Smith
Sen. John (Jack) Wiebe
Second Session-Thirty-Seventh Parliament
November 2002
MEMBERSHIP
37th Parliament – 2nd Session
STANDING COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY AND DEFENCE
The
Honourable Colin Kenny, Chair
The Honourable J. Michael Forrestall, Deputy
Chair
And
The
Honourable Senators:
Atkins
Banks
Cordy
Day
Meighen
Smith* (Not a member of the Committee during the period that the evidence was
gathered)
Wiebe
*Carstairs,
P.C. (or Robichaud, P.C.)
*Lynch-Staunton (or Kinsella)
*Ex
Officio Members
MONEY ISN'T EVERYTHING, BUT ...
RECOMMENDATIONS - PART I
CASH INJECTION AS A STARTING POINT
RECOMMENDATIONS - PART II
STRATEGIC RETREAT: ROPE-A-DOPE REVIVAL
A NEW COMMITMENT TO OUR ALLIES;
A NEW COMMITMENT TO THE WORLD
OUR MILITARY LEADERS HAVE PUBLIC RESPONSIBILITIES
CANADIANS SHOULD KNOW WHAT OUR TROOPS KNOW
NAVY, AIR FORCE, WILL TAKE LONGER
FIGHTING A WAR ON THREE FRONTS
I. THE PERSONNEL CRISIS:
Too Few People, Too Little Training
LACK OF TRAINING CAPACITY
BIG PART OF PERSONNEL PROBLEM
WHAT WE HEARD ABOUT
THE PERSONNEL CRISIS AT THE BASES
CANADIAN FORCES BASE ESQUIMALT
II. THE OPERATIONAL CRISIS:
Insufficient Funding for Operations, Maintenance and Infrastructure
2 ELECTRONIC WARFARE SQUADRON, KINGSTON
III. THE CAPITAL EQUIPMENT CRISIS:
Canada's Antique Road Show
THE 1994 WHITE PAPER ON DEFENCE:
PROMISES NOT KEPT
CONSEQUENCES:
A NATION DIMINISHED
APPENDICES
| I | |
|
II. |
RECOMMENDATIONS
FROM FEBRUARY 2002 REPORT |
|
III. |
|
|
IV. |
|
|
V. |
|
|
VI. |
|
|
VII. |
|
|
VIII. |
|
|
IX. |
|
|
X. |
|
|
XI. |
|
|
XII. |
|
|
XIII. |
Introduction
In February 2002, The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence published a report citing severe deficiencies in Canada's military and security preparedness in the wake of 11 September 2002. The Committee stands by the recommendations of that report, including the need to bring the Canadian Forces up to 75,000 trained, effective personnel. This update to that report maintains that we have passed the point when Canada's armed forces can be restored to provide a reasonable level of national defence while continuing to fulfill the manifold missions assigned to it. The Committee is therefore putting forth recommendations that include at least one that might have been unthinkable in more normal times, but which we regard as compelling in the current context of potential world turmoil and Canada's vulnerable position within that context.
|
WORKING FROM THE BOTTOM UP |
This
update is based on the Committee’s analysis of developments since our first
report, plus a wide-ranging series of interviews conducted at 15 military bases
and installations across Canada.
On
our travels we encountered first-hand the agony of committed armed forces
personnel endeavouring to protect their country and fulfill commitments with
levels of personnel, training and resources that make this
mission impossible.
Money
Isn’t Everything, But . . .
The Canadian armed forces represent Canadians’ primary
defence against instability, terrorism, foreign domination, and many of the
other blights that have made life intolerable in so many other lands. Immigrants
have been attracted to Canada for as long as any of us can remember because
Canada has provided a haven from both turmoil and poverty.
The Canadian armed forces are certainly not this
country’s sole defence against turmoil and poverty. But, when push comes to
shove – in an increasingly volatile and uncertain world – a healthy military
is far from the frill that it has largely been treated as by Canadian
governments for some time. When peace and prosperity are two of the most
precious treasures that Canadians share, it is foolhardy to leave them unguarded
and uninsured.
Our government must not close its eyes to the fact that
these treasures were vulnerable during World War II, were vulnerable during the
Cold War, and have become increasingly vulnerable as asymmetrical global threats
have bubbled to the surface in recent years. A country’s defensive military
capacity amounts largely to an insurance policy against the loss of national
sovereignty and national interests that are too precious to take for granted.
The question whether the Government of Canada is
investing sufficiently in the nation’s insurance policy is essential to what
has to be the main question: whether Canadians are being provided with what
reasonable risk analysts would deem to be an adequate amount of collective
security for their lives, their assets, and their way of life. It is the
position of this Committee that they are not.
It is also the
position of this Committee that Canadians
can move from an unacceptable level of security to a reasonable level of
security at a relatively marginal cost.
When Frugal
Isn’t Smart
In spending on military equipment and personnel – as
in most areas of life – there are bargains out there. But the general rule
remains that buyers get what they pay for. Although Canada is not a poor
country, it has gained international notoriety for trying to defend itself –
and what it stands for – on the cheap. Consider these facts:
-
Canada spends approximately $395 per capita on defence.[1]
-
The United Kingdom spends approximately $1,425 per capita on defence.[2]
-
The United States spends approximately $2,000 per capita on defence.[3]
-
Although Canada, in the current context of international terrorism, is clearly much more of a military target than most of the world’s smaller countries, it ranks 153rd in defence spending out of 192 countries based on percentage of GDP.[4]
-
Canada ranked 13th out of 18 NATO nations in per capita defence spending – ahead of Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Turkey and Spain.[5]
-
At approximately 31 million people, Canada has the world’s 34th largest population. It has the 56th-largest regular military forces; the 77th largest military reserves.[6]
-
As of August 31, 2002, Canada ranked 34th in the world in its contribution to world peacekeeping missions, supplying less than 1 per cent of international peacekeepers in action.[7]
Any way you cut it, Canada’s level of military spending would be more appropriate to a nation hidden away from the fray of global finance, global politics, and global influence. But Canada is too big a country – and too important a country – to hide itself away.
| Not only is Canada a player on the world scene, it is a large and vulnerable target. Internationally, it is closely identified with its closest neighbour, the last great superpower. The United States is unquestionably at the bull’s eye of the terrorists’ target, the focus of a global network that is both committed and fanatical. Canada’s affiliation with, and proximity to, the United States locates us on the second inner ring of the target – a hair’s breadth away. |
Beyond its clear commitment to
defending its own territory, Canada has a commitment to sharing in the defence
of a continent, and the defence of its allies – like-minded nations also
targeted by a movement that will find vulnerabilities elsewhere if it cannot
find enough of them on American soil. It also has a commitment to assisting in
the creation a less turbulent world, where vengeance is less likely to lead to
violence.
As John Manley, currently Canada’s
finance minister but recently Canada’s minister of foreign affairs, said on
Oct. 4, 2001, Canada faces a “glaring inadequacy” in its
defence, intelligence-gathering and foreign aid capabilities that is
compromising the country’s ability to live up to its commitments and its
international reputation: "You can't just sit at the G8 table and
then, when the bill comes, go to the washroom," Mr. Manley said,
referring to Canada's membership in the global club of seven rich countries plus
Russia. "If you want to play a role in the world, even as a small
member of the G8, there's a cost to doing that."
The Government of Canada currently
seems unwilling to pay that cost. When Canada was asked to place a battalion of
soldiers into Afghanistan, it could only offer up 800 soldiers. It could not
transport them there or back, and it could not respond to the request to replace
the soldiers when their tour of duty was over. This incident constituted more
than a national embarrassment. This incident was indicative of this country’s
inability to play a reasonable role in defending itself.
|
Are
WE the Isolationists? Thoughtful
citizens everywhere support the idea that responsible nations should work in
harmony to improve international stability and well-being. Many citizens –
including Canadians – have found cause to worry over the years that U.S.
leaders might back away from this team responsibility, bending to the strong
strain of isolationism that has always run through American political thought. It would be more useful if thoughtful Canadians started directing their anxiety at the strong strain of isolationism that has been running through Canadian political practice in recent years. Canada
moved to a position of prominence on the world stage at the beginning of the
Second World War. Now Canada is on the brink of walking away from its role in
the main cast into a secondary role in the chorus. With levels of spending on
foreign aid and military preparedness that fall short of past targets and
current commitments, Canada is fading into irrelevance at the level at which
international problems are solved. |
The Committee’s February 2002
report recommended an immediate increase of $4 billion to bring the Department
of National Defence’s baseline from $11.8 billion to $15.8 billion, with
increases in future years that are realistic, purpose-driven and adjusted for
inflation.
|
The
Committee’s recommendation works out to $130 per Canadian.[8] |
This $ 4 billion figure is in line
with the recommendations of several other institutions and committees that have
studied this issue, including:
A
Nation at Risk – Conference
of Defence Associations, (October 2002)
The
People’s Defence Review,
the Council for Canadian Security in the 21st Century (September,
2002)
Facing
Our Responsibilities: The State of Readiness of the Canadian Forces,
Report of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs (May,
2002)
Caught
in the Middle: an Assessment of the Operational Readiness of the Canadian Forces,Conference
of Defence Associations, (October 2001)
Report
of the Auditor General of Canada 2001,
Chapter 10, “National Defence- In Service Equipment.”
Some of these reports, perhaps hoping
to make their proposals more palatable to those who control the purse strings,
have proposed that this kind of increase be introduced over a number of years.
At the time, the Committee explained that our
experience is that a variety of government exigencies can intervene to constrain
or reverse multi-year commitments. Thus our recommendation for an immediate
increase of $4 billion to the baseline DND budget with future annual increases
that are realistic, purpose-driven, and adjusted for inflation.
With Canada’s progressive fiscal
system, of course, the poor would pay much less than $130 apiece. The rich would
pay more. Both rich and poor – and everyone in between – would benefit out
of all proportion to cost.
Their
contribution would go to a more stable, less-threatened country, in a more
stable, less-threatened world. In the
Committee’s mind, most thoughtful Canadians would find this an even more
attractive bargain than a new dress, a night at an NHL game, or most of other
extras that so many people find the money for in a free and prosperous society.
This thinking is behind the two recommendations we are putting forward in this Update. The first is a reiteration of our earlier conclusions. The second is a result of a deterioration in the capacity of Canada’s armed forces that demands the government’s full and immediate attention if our broken Forces are to be repaired.
[1]
The
DND website gives the DND budget for 2001/02 with final supplements as
$12.313 billion. DND main estimates for 2002/03 reduce the DND budget to
$11.834.
[2]
High
Commission of United Kingdom, Ottawa; based on population of 60 million,
using conversion rate for 23 Sept, 2002.
[3]
Embassy
of the United States, Ottawa, 2003 Defence Appropriation $US 378.6 billion;
population of 288,123 000 using conversion rate for 23 Ept 2002.
[4]
Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies, Strategic Profile: Canada, 2001.
[5]
NATO Review, Spring 2001, Table, “Defence Spending per Capita”.
[6]
Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies, Strategic Profile: Canada, 2001.
[7]
United Nations Peacekeeping: Peacekeeping Operations, “August
2002, Summary of Countries”.http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/Contributors/Aug2002Countrysummary.pfd
[8] Based on an increase of $4 billion and a population of 31 million.
The Committee report is available in PDF format (Portable Document Format). These type of electronic documents retain the original look and feel -- complete with text, graphics, photos and colour -- of their printed versions, and can be disseminated independently of computer platform or distribution media.
Acrobat Readers are freely available and enable Windows, Macintosh, DOS and UNIX users to view, navigate through and print any PDF document.
If you need more information on how to use this format or require a reader for your platform, you may wish to visit Adobe Systems Incorporated.