A short while ago in this space I suggested that defence and security issues would remain firmly in the background as the electoral process moved into high gear. I have little reason to revise my opinion that the party leaders would first seek to beguile us with promises relating to healthcare, taxes, and education, leaving the future of Canada’s defence and foreign policy on the back burner.

Yet I was pleasantly surprised by the brief, albeit spirited, discussion of what the three main national parties would do if asked to form the next government. The range of possible outcomes has been broadened somewhat by the possibility of a Liberal or Conservative-led minority government. A Conservative-BQ or a Liberal-NDP shotgun marriage will delay indefinitely the conclusion of a comprehensive defence/security/foreign policy review. Should the latter be tabled within the lifespan of the coalition government, expect it to be more vague and imprecise in its objectives than would be the case had it come form a single party with a clear parliamentary majority. 

With no disrespect intended towards the thoughtful folks in the Green Party or the regionally-focused Bloc Quebecois, the national defence ‘platforms’ (I will not call them ‘policies’ just yet) of three main national parties provide Canadians with a respectable degree of choice if they wish to make room for defence in their calculus of whom to vote for.

This is not to say that there are no similarities. The Conservative, Liberals, and New Democrats have all pledged to involve parliament to a greater degree when deliberating on whether to dispatch Canadian troops overseas. All have sought to advertise their multilateralist credentials, and all are (rhetorically) committed to providing the armed forces with the necessary equipment to do the jobs assigned to them. Each has made the replacement of the geriatric Sea King helicopter a top priority. All have indicated a willingness to add additional personnel to the roster, although none have as yet costed this out.

In terms of presentation and style, the three parties have sought to portray themeselves as the true guardians of Canada’s much-vaunted peacekeeping heritage. Liberals and New Democrats seem more willing to confine Canada to the ‘softer’ side of the range of military operations, with only the Conservatives holding out the possibility that Canadians may actually have to fight to achieve national or international goals. On the 60th anniversary of the D-Day landings, one can understand why Stephen Harper & Co. would look back to more turbulent times, when the country jettisoned its ‘little Canada’ mind-set and rose to the challenges that history had placed before it. On the other hand, the recent turmoil in the Balkans, Africa, and Afghanistan have prompted the Liberals to acknowledge, however reluctantly, that traditional peacekeeping may not be the antidote to all the world’s troubles.

Other similarities in style are less savoury. Each party has attacked the platforms of the others, employing a combination of obfuscation and fear-mongering to cast doubt on the wisdom or feasibility of party goals. Paul Martin and Jack Layton have dismissed a Conservative ‘plan’ to purchase helicopter support ships for overseas operations, apparently unaware that their own ‘commitment’ to peacekeeping and humanitarian relief would likely necessitate the acquisition of such vessels. (Many European ‘middle powers’ have purchased them for these exact reasons. Australia has followed suit.)

While Mr. Layton has gained some mileage out of demonizing Liberal and Conservative ‘support’ for the US ballistic missile defence effort, neither of the larger parties has in fact given unqualified support to it, let alone pledged any money to aid in its construction or upkeep.

And to nobody’s surprise, the perennial ‘guns versus butter’ argument has surfaced, with the Conservatives weathering Martin’s charge that a Tory government would favour defence renewal over healthcare. There is not much evidence to support this, but in an election year any allegation, however farfetched, that may draw votes away from undecided voters is acceptable.

What Canadians will not find in each of the party platforms is an assessment of the security environment – namely what are the present and likely future threats to Canada’s interests and values. Without this, voters will not be able to judge whether the parties’ policy goals are valid. The Liberals come closest to articulating how they would deal with a complex world – their ‘Peace and Nation-Building Initiative’ prescribes a combination of defence, diplomacy, international development, and debt-reduction/relief to stabilize and rehabilitate ‘failed’ states. But even this enlightened approach to security cannot be considered a reasonable policy choice if Canadians remain to be convinced that it will effectively address the risks the country is facing.  

Stephen Harper had perhaps the best chance to demonstrate his party’s intellectual capacity last week when he released a short document entitled ‘Demand Better Security’. But instead of beginning with a sober look at the challenges to domestic and international peace and security, the Opposition leader jumped right into a partisan attack on Liberal neglect of the defence portfolio. Inexplicably, he reverted to the shallow analysis of the old Canadian Alliance, framing defence policy in terms of what equipment sets were rusting out and in need of replacement.  

Jack Layton did little better. He placed great emphasis on the need to improve the quality of life of Canada’s men and women in uniform, rather than on their operational effectiveness in the field. This indicates a long-held NDP tendency to view the defence budget as a massive social welfare program. In a coalition government, New Democrats would cancel “expensive offensive equipment” programs without specifying what they are, or whether a less robust Canadian Forces would even be capable of upholding its many international obligations.

Identifying the means with which defence and security goals would be achieved without first articulating what those goals are (or should be) illustrates an unfortunate election-time truism. Parties are eager to distinguish themselves from their counterparts; brand recognition is key. But in the process of doing so the party leaders have neglected to help voters understand from whence their policy objectives came. To assume that the public cannot grasp how the complexities of the security landscape are translated into defence and foreign policy shows a degree of intellectual contempt for the governed. This is inexcusable at the best of times, but more so during an election.

It is also political suicide. By not taking up major issues such as terrorism and Canada-US security relations, by not saying how they will enhance the effectiveness of multilateral organizations, the parties reduce the likelihood that undecided voters will look seriously at their platforms.

Image may be everything, but context sure helps. The election is still weeks away. Messrs Harper, Layton, and Martin still have the opportunity to win over voters who are prepared to listen to well-crafted arguments as to what Canada’s vital interests are and how they should be safeguarded. None have been forthcoming. To borrow the Conservative election slogan, Canadians deserve better.

David Rudd is the President and Executive Director of the CISS.

Copyright CISS 2004

PDF Version

Back to Commentary Index

Back To Home