NDVA Committee Report

As we confront the war against terrorism, the Canadian Forces face a crisis in capability. Decades of neglect have created a situation in which resources are inadequate to meet commitments and defend the security of Canadians.

For nearly nine months, the House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence has heard from witness after witness about glaring deficiencies in military capability. While the men and women of the Canadian Forces have been doing a fantastic job with scarce resources, they have had inadequate support from both Government and Parliament. As the recent report of the Conference of Defence Associations stated:

It is clear that over the past several decades we have badly let down our serving soldiers. It is good that the Majority Report generally acknowledges this failure. Nevertheless, there are at least three aspects of the Report and its drafting with which we must take issue:

1. The Treatment of Parliament:

The report was drafted in secret by a committee of officials working under the direction of the Chairman. The first opposition members learned of the report’s existence was when a Committee meeting was called for November 5 to discuss a report none of them had even heard was being drafted. Committee members were not permitted to see the report until 7 pm on the evening of November 5. They were then given less than an hour to read the report and agree or disagree with specific clauses and recommendations. No consultations were permitted with respective Caucuses and members of the Committee were told that whether they supported the recommendations or not, the report would be immediately adopted and referred to the House of Commons Finance Committee. It was simply impossible for the Official Opposition to unreservedly endorse the Majority Report in the time that we were given.

The defence policy of Canada exists to protect the security of all Canadians. The greatest possible effort must be made to ensure that defence policy reflects a consensus of parties in the House of Commons. This must include adequate consultation between all political parties as well as opportunity for real discussion and debate. Only in this way can we ensure that consistent and credible policies will be adopted which reflect a real and long-term national consensus. Using Parliament simply to rubber stamp decisions that have already been made should not be acceptable in this time of crisis.

2. A Clear and Specific Commitment on Increased Defence Spending:

The Majority Report makes important references to the serious under funding of the Canadian Forces. This reflects what witnesses repeatedly told us about the steady erosion of capability due to consistently scarce resources.

Even so, the Majority Report makes no specific recommendations with regard to increased defence spending. Instead, it alludes to the $750 million to $1.2 billion annual shortfall in the operations and maintenance (O&M) budget described by several witnesses, and an additional $5 to 6 billion deficit in the equipment budget noted by the Auditor General ? but without actually recommending any specific increase in spending.

Unless the necessary resources are provided, the Canadian military commitment to the war against terrorism will not be sustainable ? it may not be anyway beyond the next rotation.

Since the shortfalls in both the O&M as well as the equipment budgets have been clearly spelled out, the need for a minimum and immediate $2 billion increase in the budget base of the Department of National Defence should have been made clear. Indeed, even this modest increase may now be inadequate since representatives of the Conference of Defence Associations have informed the Committee that at least $1 billion in additional money should be added to the defence budget base in each of the next five years.

The crisis confronting the Canadian Forces is now so serious, that we can no longer expect that half-measures will suffice.

3. Addressing the Issue of "Demilitarization":

On May 8, 2001, one of Canada’s foremost soldiers, General Lewis MacKenzie, told the Standing Committee that:

This is a scathing indictment of the consequences of political interference in the Canadian Forces. The Committee has heard from numerous witnesses who have addressed the steady erosion of training standards and the resulting collapse in esprit de corps and morale in the Canadian Forces. Some have referred to this as the "demilitarization" of the Canadian Forces from within. Yet, apart from one vague reference to political correctness, this issue is not seriously addressed in the Majority Report. In the crisis that we now face, we can simply not tolerate unjustified political interference in the military, which is gradually lowering combat effectiveness.

Indeed, one of the principal reasons that we now have an inadequate ability to respond rapidly and effectively to emerging threats, is that crass politics resulted in the disbanding of the Airborne Regiment in 1995. While the Committee has responded by recommending a substantial enhancement in the capability of Joint Task Force (JTF) 2, the political conditions that led to the loss of this capability are ignored in the Majority Report. If they are not addressed, the politicization of the Armed Forces will remain a problem and the Forces may well be unable to rebuild their cohesion and effectiveness.

The present crisis demands a resolute and united response from Parliament. The Majority Report represents a step in the right direction, but if we are to effectively rebuild our national defence, we must be prepared to go still further. This requires both open and honest discussion as well as forthrightly addressing all relevant issues no matter how politically painful they might be.

The Canadian Alliance will be seeking to do just that as we work toward a full Operational Readiness Report early in the new year. We know that the Canadian people will demand no less.