Thank you, Chair.
I have three messages and a plea. First, we need to rethink how we look at security. It’s been 18 years since we last conducted a national security review, yet the threats to Canada continue to evolve.
Ours is a meaner, messier world. In looking at 2022, UN Secretary-General Guterres warns that the rules-based multilateral systems that Canada helped engineer and sustain are not fit for purpose. Polling confirms what we see and hear. Our citizens have less faith in democracies and democratic institutions. Our democratic allies, especially in Europe, have less confidence in U.S. leadership.
The threats are varied and deadly: climate change, pandemics, terrorism, poverty, and inequality. This devil’s brew accentuates state and inter-state conflicts, resulting in more displaced persons than any time since the Second World War. Conflict itself is changing, with hybrid warfare, untraceable cyber-attacks, disinformation, drones and mercenaries.
The United States, polarized in its politics, is less willing and able to carry the internationalist burden. A rising, aggressive China and a revanchist Russia mean the return of great power rivalry and a revival of the ideological and systemic divide between authoritarianism and democracy.
Second, our approach to addressing defence modernization is taking far too long to produce any useful results.
Our operational readiness relies on maintaining and updating our equipment fleet. Government process requirements too often handicap industry from getting the job done. Given the age and increased operational tempo, are the budgets sufficient? Are we investing enough in the enablers, digitalization and data management, that will deliver and manage an effective force that can win future wars?
Operational readiness of our forces starts with meeting recruitment targets and then ensuring conditions are sufficiently attractive to retain our forces. We’ve prioritized cultural change to address sexual misconduct. We also need to look at the terms and conditions of service. Let’s think creatively how we grow, train and attract the kind of talent that can master the technological challenges of our digital age and address new threats like cyberwarfare and disinformation.
We rely on the Canadian Armed Forces as first responders to deal with floods, fires and ice storms, and to rescue our retirement homes during pandemics. These calls will only increase demands on limited resources. Government should look at creating a corps of volunteers to complement civil defence and disaster relief. The Germans do this well.
The third message is that changing geopolitics and new threats require a new grand strategy that combines purpose, priorities and budget.
Changing geopolitics means that the insurance premiums for national security have gone up. We are going to have to find more money for defence, and also for the civil instruments of national security. This means more investment in diplomacy and development, and in communicating abroad our messages on democracy, multilateralism and a rules-based order. Military power wins battles, but to win wars in today’s world requires both hard power and soft power. In our meaner, messier world, Canada needs more of each.
We took advantage of the end of the Cold War to reduce defence budgets, confident that we could continue to rely on the American security umbrella. The Americans are fed up with carrying the load, and successive presidents have challenged us to do more, especially now that it’s time for NORAD renewal. We claim sovereignty over our Arctic but struggle to exercise it. We need a budgeted blueprint with deadlines. We can learn a lot from Nordic partners like Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland. Is there a role, for example, for NATO, now that the Arctic is part of the geostrategic chessboard?
As a trading nation, we depend on freedom of navigation. As a maritime nation, fronting on three oceans, we need to ask ourselves, do we have the right balance between our army, air force, and navy? We don't necessarily have too much army or air force, but we do need more navy. Our potential adversaries are investing significantly in their navies, and so must we.
The new offshore patrol ships are fine for performing their important but limited roles, but a deployable, combat-capable navy requires destroyers, frigates and submarines with air and logistic support. Investing in operational readiness only when we feel pressed and then doing so on the cheap undermines our national interests. Without an overarching strategy and shared cross-party view of our national interest and how to go about advancing and protecting it, we will continue to be late, unprepared and obliged to follow rather than lead.
To conclude, this is my plea to you as members of Parliament. When it comes to ensuring operational readiness, we need cross-party unity that can endure changes of government. Without cross-party support, it's hard to see how we can successfully address our threats.
Thank you, Chair.