Defence Policy Review (MR-112E)

Like most countries, Canada has been attempting to adjust its defence policy to the new international realities. The speed with which the international strategic situation changed after the end of the Cold War has made the transformation anything but smooth. This paper examines briefly the adjustments to defence policy since 1987 and the options available for further review.

CHANGES IN THE LAST STAGES OF THE COLD WAR

The 1987 White Paper on Defence was prepared during the mid-1980s, when the Cold War still dominated international relations. The White Paper therefore reinforced Canada's commitments to NATO and the defence of North America and proposed various equipment purchases to close what was perceived to be a commitment-capability gap in Canada's military establishment. When, however, the White Paper was finally issued, on 5 June 1987, the international strategic situation was already evolving in a different direction from what had been anticipated.

By early 1989, the trend towards more relaxed relations between the United States and the Soviet Union was firmly established and most NATO countries had started reducing their military forces. Canada took similar measures in its April 1989 federal Budget, which announced the closing of some military bases, a 2,500-cut in military personnel, and the cancellation of some equipment projects, such as the acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines. In all, the Department of National Defence (DND) was to cut $2.7 billion over the next five years. Subsequently, the 1990 federal Budget placed a 5% ceiling on DND's planned expenditures for the next two years and cut an additional 1,500 personnel. The 1991 Budget, however, added extra money for defence because of the costs incurred by operations at Oka and in the Persian Gulf war.

POLICY STATEMENTS

The announced cuts in equipment and personnel led some to claim that the government was setting defence policy only through financial measures. As a result, the government undertook the preparation of a policy statement setting out the course of post-Cold War defence policy.

In September 1991, the Statement on Defence Policy reaffirmed Canada's traditional defence commitments: the defence of Canada, participation in NATO, cooperation with the United States in the defence of North America, and active involvement in United Nations peacekeeping operations. Although the new international context had changed the way many of Canada's military roles would now be performed, it was claimed that geography and historical links argued against any radical changes in commitments.

Thus, while announcing the closure of CFB Baden-Soellingen in 1994 and CFB Lahr in 1995, the 1991 statement confirmed Canada's commitment to NATO and called for the maintenance of a task force of 1,100 personnel in Europe. Furthermore, on the basis of reaffirming this and other commitments, the 1991 statement set out equipment acquisition plans for the next 15 years. However, in recognition of the trend towards reduced defence spending, personnel strength was lowered to about 76,000 and the Minister's Advisory Group on Defence Infrastructure was established to examine the process for closing military bases.

The collapse of the Soviet Union in December 1991 and the emergence of new independent states like Russia and the Ukraine completed the transition from the Cold War to a more normal but still volatile system of international relations. The new situation prompted a new policy statement, Canadian Defence Policy, made public in April 1992 at about the same time as the 1992 federal Budget.

While making a fuller presentation of Canada's place in the new geopolitical situation, the 1992 statement basically reflected the impact of the additional cuts in planned defence spending in the 1992 federal Budget. The statement accelerated the closure of the two bases in Germany by a year, cancelled plans to leave a task force of 1,100 personnel in Europe, and lowered personnel strength to 75,000. The new fiscal reality also made it necessary to abandon or delay some of the announced long-term equipment purchases; thus, the Multi-Role Combat Vehicle (MRCV) aimed at replacing tanks was cancelled barely six months after being announced.

DEMANDS FOR A PUBLIC DEBATE

The Progressive Conservative government adjusted defence policy to the new strategic and economic realities amid growing demands for public debate on the direction that defence policy should take in the post-Cold War era. A number of groups, such as Greenpeace and Project Ploughshares, joined to carry out the Citizens' Inquiry into Peace and Security, which produced a report in March 1992 after a series of public hearings. Prior to the elections, there were also demands in Parliament for public debate on defence policy.

In the fall of 1993, there were basically two schools of thought on the issue of public debate. One school advocated an independent inquiry such as a Royal Commission, while the other favoured a study by a parliamentary committee, perhaps the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs or an expanded version of this. No matter which option is chosen, a number of issues will affect the course of the debate.

One such issue is the process undertaken to close or reduce military bases. In its report of June 1992, the Minister's Advisory Group on Defence Infrastructure (MAGDI) recommended the establishment of a Review Panel on Defence Infrastructure that would hold public hearings on the closing of bases. In the fall of 1993, MAGDI's recommendations were still being studied but, given the growing pressure for more cuts in defence spending, there was little doubt that the closures and reductions would get underway soon after the general election.

While closing bases before the completion of public debate on defence policy might be controversial, delaying the process until after the debate would not produce savings until the late 1990s. It could take two or three years at least to select the bases to be closed or reduced and to complete the process. If, during that time, the equipment and operations segments of the defence budget had to bear the brunt of budget cuts, military capabilities might already be considerably reduced by the time the public debate ended.

There is also the difficulty of carrying out the public debate without taking into consideration possible changes in foreign policy; for example, there would be little point in making the military concentrate on peacekeeping if a revised foreign policy were to greatly reduce Canada's commitment to the United Nations and multilateralism in general. The existing military capabilities were shaped to a large extent by Canada's foreign policy goals. Thus, while there is room for a debate on Canada's military capabilities in the post-Cold War world, such debate must include the implications of any changes in foreign policy.

NEW GOVERNMENT'S POSITION

With this in mind, the new Liberal government announced shortly after taking office in November 1993 that, as promised, there will be a review of both defence and foreign policies. Both policies will be reviewed simultaneously, but the basic tenets of defence policy will be shaped by the priorities established during the review of foreign policy.

One of the first steps in the review of foreign policy will be a conference in March 1994 in Ottawa, the National Forum on Canada's International Relations, which will involve about 100 prominent Canadians interested in international issues. The National Forum will help launch the review of foreign policy by the Standing Committee of the House of Commons on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. At the same time, the Standing Committee of the House of Commons on National Defence and Veterans Affairs will review defence policy. At some point, the two committees may hold joint meetings, possibly producing a joint report.

According to an article by the Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Fall 1993 issue of Canadian Foreign Policy and other statements, the National Forum, debates in the House of Commons, and the studies by Parliamentary Committees will be part of a process which will also include input from departmental officials and various experts. With this process, the government will formulate a policy which in the case of defence policy will possibly be announced in January 1995. The review process, however, is slated to be an annual event. For example, the government currently intends to hold a National Forum on Canada's International Relations every year.

By reviewing every year the basic tenets of defence policy and the international situation which shapes them, the government hopes to establish clear and up-to-date priorities which will then facilitate the allocation of resources and decisions on equipment purchases. The government, however, is faced with the problem of making decisions on equipment purchases and on the defence budget in general before the public review process really gets underway. The decision by the government to close a number of bases in early 1994 is said to be necessary because of the national deficit problem and the new government's commitment to cut $1.6 billion in defence spending over the next four years.

In some statements in the news media, the Minister of National Defence has stated that the public review of defence policy will concentrate on the basic tenets, leaving decisions on details such as the purchase or phasing-out of equipment to the military once these have been established. The credibility of the review, however, might be damaged if there is a perception within the public that the basic tenets of defence policy will be shaped more by cuts in equipment and infrastructure announced in the 1994 Federal Budget than by the foreign and security policies produced by the public process.