"The Need for a Defence Advocacy Group"

Jack Granatstein of the Council for Canadian Security in the 21st Century makes the case:

The condition of the Canadian Forces looks to be on the upswing. The previous Liberal government pledged to repair the damage of decades with a five-year plan of equipment purchases and a small increase in personnel strength. The present Harper government accepted those pledges and added its own billions of dollars and thousands of additional regulars and reservists to the recruitment plans. The first C-17 long-range air transport is expected to be in the air force’s hands before the end of 2007, and a host of additional purchases are in train. And, the Canadian Forces say, recruiting is proceeding on track.

So what is there to worry about? Too much, unfortunately. The war in Afghanistan is a major bone of contention in the media and in Parliament, and there are many who call for Canada to get out of Kandahar now, no matter what that might do to Canada’s reputation with its allies (not to mention those Afghanis who might have worked with us and who would be left to the mercies of the Taliban). There is substantial support for the troops as individuals and even as a collectivity, but there is not much enthusiasm for the idea that soldiers sometimes must kill people. To Canadians, the preferred role for their men and women in uniform is as blue beret peacekeepers and agents of social development. Peacekeepers, not war fighters, in other words. Moreover, there is an overriding domestic concern with social programmes—improvements to the environment, medicare and childcare, to name only three, rank much higher on the public and parliamentary agenda than do the equipment needs of the military.

In other words, the political support for the Canadian Forces is tenuous at best and subject to change. Stephen Harper is not a prime minister devoid of principle, far from it, but his present enthusiasm for rebuilding the CF might need to be sacrificed to more palatable policy measures perhaps not today, but possibly tomorrow. And given the attitudes to defence of the single issue Greens, the pacifist Bloc Québécois, the timid New Democrats, and the opportunistic Liberals, all trying to secure power by appealing to anti-Bush, anti-Iraq, anti-Afghan War sentiment, no one can easily assume that a minority Conservative government is secure or certain of re-election.
So what is to be done? How can public opinion be changed enough to understand and accept that Canada will always require a well-equipped, well-trained military able to undertake operations ranging from aid to the civil power in Canada through benign peacekeeping and up to and including participation in war?

First, all those who care about defence issues need to recognize that they are small players in an off-Broadway show. The constituency for defence today is small, spread out, linguistically divided, and hampered by the reality that its ranks are made up mostly of ex-military men and representatives of defence industries. That is not a strength. To get a public hearing and to secure results, those who support defence need to advance their case in the same manner as other interests and groups in the pluralistic reality of present-day Canadian politics. Agricultural groups advocate; industry associations advocate; so too must those who are in favour of the Canadian Forces. Creating an independent, civilian, well-financed advocacy group is the only way to help build a broad national constituency for defence issues. Certainly, advocacy has worked for many issues much less important to the future of our democracy.

Such a group must not become the agent for those who are trying to sell the Canadian Forces a particular aircraft or light armoured vehicle. A proper defence advocacy group will support a strong CF, not one with a particular brand of arms. Only in this way can it become the media’s public sounding board for comment on defence issues. The existence of such a policy-driven body that can harness existing expertise while growing its own internal ability to influence the process has been long overdue and is uniquely absent from the Canadian political landscape.

This new defence advocacy group must begin digging into the political structure of all parties in Parliament, making the case for defence issues and educating M.P.s and Senators about the issues. Only a handful of Members of Parliament have served in the military and the number with genuine expertise in military matters can be counted on two hands. Parliament needs to be educated on defence, and the House and Senate need a defence caucus that cuts across party lines.

The new advocacy group must also build a strong degree of support across Canada in every region and every federal riding to put a human face on the complex issues that it will defend and promote. Its aim must be to create a strong and enduring national network that can reach out, advocate, and educate.

There is much at stake. Canada faces an uncertain future, the challenges to our sovereignty are increasing, and the world is as dangerous as it has ever been. A strong, competent Canadian Forces is desperately needed, and those Canadians concerned with defence and security, and all who believe that their country should play a creditable role in the world, need to be ready to persuade and convince their compatriots. A real defence advocacy organization can play a critical role in this effort.