When will they speak for themselves?

Right now, there are only two notable public champions of a stronger, more capable Canadian navy.

The first is Colin Kenny, a Liberal senator with no military experience that I can discern, who has become arguably the most competent and well-informed parliamentarian on the defence file - including the MND.

The second is Jack Granatstein, a former army officer, a historian, an author and a university professor.

In this month's CDFAI article, Dr. Granatstein advocates (pdf) for the ladies and gents wearing our country's navy blue:

The Canadian Navy doesn’t make the headlines very often. Ships at sea are always far over the horizon doing essential tasks, but not in the news—unless there is a disaster or, as is sometimes the case, a botched contract at home or a government plan to build expensive new vessels. But Canada needs a navy, a quietly professional service that projects power abroad, that can respond quickly to a crisis and, just as important, depart silently when the mission is over.

That's just the first paragraph - it gets better from there: he excoriates the Chretien Liberals, explains why we need a continuous-build policy, ties ocean trade to naval capacity, calls for a 60-ship navy (we currently have half that) that can operate in all three of our oceans, throws in a plug for the Coast Guard, and even makes some recommendations regarding specific classes of ship:

Twelve to fifteen of the planned Surface Combatant Ships [to replace destroyers and eventually frigates] on each coast would meet the need for 2025 and beyond. Then Canada needs a credible naval and Coast Guard presence in the melting Arctic where the international scramble for resources is likely to be fierce and where the Northwest Passage has the potential to alter traditional trade routes and pose huge environmental and security challenges. The Conservative government’s Canada First policy is the right one; however, it needs more ships and more sailors to adequately protect the homeland.

But Canada First also means protecting national interests abroad. Our sailors must be able to transport and support Canadian troops operating overseas, sometimes perhaps on a hostile shore. The presently planned three Joint Support Ships can’t do this; four might be able to manage, but six would be better, along with what General Rick Hillier called “a big honking ship” that could transport four to six helicopters and a battalion-sized expeditionary force. Such ships can also do humanitarian work—in tsunami-hit Indonesia, for example—that we can scarcely tackle today. [Babbler's emphasis]

And unlike our politicians, Granatstein's not squeamish about laying out the costs of such a force. To be fair, his job doesn't require having voters agree with his spending priorities...but the candour is still refreshing:

All this will cost. The inflation rate is running high for steel, electronics, weapons, and for skilled labour. The cost of oil for the navy to put to sea has doubled and might double again. But nations have interests, and interests must be protected. Canada needs a navy that can do the job for the next quarter century and more. [my emphasis]

I love that line: nations have interests, and interests must be protected. I'm stealing it, and will be using it frequently. The first time I say it to someone, I'll preface it with "You know, Jack Granatstein says..." The second time, it will be "It's been said that..." And by the third time, my introduction will be "Like I always say..."

Here's one I've already used enough to qualify: like I always say, the navy - in and out of uniform - needs to be making this case on an ongoing basis until the public starts agreeing with them. Just because you have a silent service doesn't mean you need to be a silent service.

When a Liberal senator and a former army officer are your chief advocates in the public sphere, it's time to step up your efforts some.