Senate Committee: More money for CF, join BMD, no Navy icebreakers

Latest report by Senate Committee on National Security and Defence.

Canada should not waste military resources on defending the Arctic, but should sign on to the U.S. ballistic missile defence program and double the amount of money it gives for foreign aid, a Senate defence committee report released Thursday says.

The senators also say the Defence Department should get special treatment, suggesting that its minister be empowered to spend up to $500 million on equipment without having to go through the long process of cabinet approval.

Military spending is far too low, the report concludes, saying the projected budget of $20 billion by 2012 is "at least $5-billion short and more probably $15-billion short."

On missile defence, the report criticizes the decision by former prime minister Paul Martin to reject Canadian participation in the program.

"The government should not make the mistake that the last government made by refusing to support the United States in this project."

The report concludes that an effective anti-missile system has the potential to save "hundreds of thousands of Canadian lives."

It dismisses critics who say the system is unworkable, saying there have been recent tests that show promising results.

The report also argues that the system, which is being developed at no cost to Canadians, offers a defence that will act solely as a deterrent and not lead to an arms race in space.

"If there is the tiniest chance that it could [work], why would we turn up our noses at the opportunity to be a partner in this project?"

No threat in Arctic: report

The report also focuses on the Arctic and rejects the use of the military as the primary tool to defend the area and criticizes the government's plan to build three Canadian Forces icebreakers.

"There is no serious threat to Canada through the Arctic," the report says, adding that the chances of the Arctic itself being a military target are "ridiculously low."

Instead, defence of the Arctic should be handled primarily by other agencies, including the Canadian Coast Guard, which should be armed, suggested the report.

The report also urges Ottawa to abandon military bases which have outlived their usefulness, naming Happy Valley-Goose Bay in Labrador...

Arming the Coast Guard will be very contentious as its members do not want to be armed. But their vessels already act as platforms to carry armed Fishery Officers and RCMP members; that should be sufficient. Besides which civilian government vessels are perfectly capable, in international legal terms, of asserting sovereignty in Arctic straits. Give the CCG new, more Arctic-capable icebreakers--it badly needs new vessels anyway.

Executive Summary here; full text, "MANAGING TURMOIL: The Need to Upgrade Canadian Foreign Aid and Military Strength to Deal with Massive Change", available here.

Disclosure: I worked as a bureaucrat in the CCG.

More in Globe story:

The wide-ranging 323-page report doesn't pull any punches, calling Canada's armed forces a “one-trick pony” that is ill-equipped to deal with multiple threats...

“The blueprint currently laid out by the Government of Canada – while it does give a welcome boost to defence spending after decades of neglect – will not give the Canadian Forces the capacity to deploy ground troops to two major assignments at the same time,” the report states.

“That is why – with 2,500 troops in Afghanistan– the government could not make any kind of substantial commitment to Lebanon or Darfur even if it wished to, and why it would have to turn somersaults to adjust personnel allocation if a major threat to Canada were to emerge at home or somewhere else abroad.”..