Can Defence Policy create bi-partisan consensus?


by David Bercuson

Frontline Defence
August 18, 2017

It has been just over two months since the Trudeau Government released its Defence Policy and there has been nary a peep from the opposition, the press or the usual talking heads that dominate the airwaves. Part of the silence is due to the fact that Parliament is not in session and the usual nit-picking that goes on in the lobby of the House of Commons has been silenced by the crickets of summer. When the session resumes this fall, no doubt, the opposition will blast away at any of a number evils while at the same time attacking the government for its many defence sins and broken promises.

But does it really have to be that way? The Defence Policy is not a perfect document by any means, but it comes after one of the most exhaustive consultations between the government and the Canadian people in at least a quarter century. It is also a document that, although flawed in many ways, lays down what could be the basis of a bi-partisan defence policy between the Conservative Party of Canada and the Liberal government. If both parties were to take a gamble and open extra-Parliamentary discussions on arriving at a bi-partisan consensus, the best that could happen is that this country could have the two major parties agreeing on the general direction of Canadian defence policy, and the worst that could happen is that they wouldn’t – as they don’t now!

Why does this policy proposal provide the basis of such a discussion? First, because it literally puts people first. The document points out the many problems that have yet to be resolved in gender relations, veterans’ affairs, the return to civilian life after careers in the armed forces, and more. What is there to disagree on about any of these proposals? A military that does not treat all of its members equally and roots out discrimination of all sorts is the only kind of military that Canadian citizens will tolerate.

When the Defence Policy advocates greater emphasis on NATO or NORAD, how can many sensible Canadians disagree? Likewise, who would question when it advocates a modern sea-going navy? The acquisition of more than 80 fighter aircraft, and the building of regular and reserve force strength to an additional 5000 are surely reasonable for a nation the size of Canada – as is an increase of defence expenditures from roughly 0.98% to 1.4% of the GDP.

There is much to argue with in the report, such as the huge holes in procurement planning, no mention of joining the U.S. in an Anti-Ballistic Treaty and so on, but these are details that can be ironed out either going in to the document, or as the years pass by and the problems come to the fore.  But the main thrust of the document – larger fighting forces, a military more consistent with our liberal democratic values, closer cooperation with the United States and even UN operations when feasible and operationally realistic are areas that our two main political parties can agree on.  And if they do agree, at least the nation will know where defence in Canada will be ten years from now and every new idea won’t simply be picked apart for partisan political advantage.  The Australians for the most part have a bi-partisan defence policy and even the United States, as fractured as its domestic policy has become, more or less has one too.  It’s time for Canada to grow up in the matter.  The Liberal policy is a proposal.  Let’s hope the Conservatives take up the challenge and approach the Liberals to begin the discussion.

David Bercuson is Research Director of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute.

Be the first to comment

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.

No events are scheduled at this time.


Passport? What passport?

by Martin C. Barr (feat. Andrew Griffith), Laval News, June 29, 2022

Oil production test looms for OPEC heavyweights Saudi Arabia, UAE

by Editorial Staff (feat. Ellen Wald), S&P Global, June 29, 2022

Eric Nuttall & Amrita Sen - Oil & Energy Update

by Eric Nuttall (feat. Amrita Sen), Nine Point Partners, June 29, 2022

All talk, no traction

by Maura Forest and Andy Blatchford (feat. Robert Huebert), Politico, June 29, 2022

U.S. pushes for Russian oil price ceiling. Feasible?

by Matt Levin (feat. Ellen Wald), MARKETPLACE, June 28, 2022

Russia Ukraine Update

by Susan Bonner (feat. Andrew Rasiulis), CBC Radio One, June 28, 2022

Un sommet de l’OTAN pour tenir tête à la Russie

by Marie Vastel (feat. David Perry), Le Devoir, June 26, 2022

A geopolitical alternative system of co-operation for nations

by Staff Reporter (feat. Swaran Singh), The Zimbabwe Mail, June 26, 2022

Analyst says high oil prices spurs little drilling

by Lee Harding (feat. Kevin Birn), Western Standard, June 26, 2022

It’s time for Canada to get serious about defence

by John Ibbitson (feat. James Fergusson and Rob Huebert), The Globe and Mail, June 25, 2022

Trudeau meets with Rwandan president, expands diplomatic mission in Kigali

by CBC Newsroom Staff (feat. Colin Robertson), CBC Newroom, June 24, 2022

With New Threats Looming, Canada Commits Billions to Air Defense

by News Desk (feat. Andrea Charron), New Express News, June 24, 2022

Drop in oil prices is not a quick fix for global inflation

by Editorial Staff (feat. Amrita Sen), The National, June 24, 2022

Highs and Lows of the Spring Sitting

by Peter Van Dusen (feat. Andrew Griffith), Prime Time Politics, June 24, 2022

Oil Incurs Second Weekly Loss As Analysts Differ On Inflation, Demand

by Ship and Bunker News Team (feat. Amrita Sen), Ship And Bunker, June 24, 2022


Canadian Global Affairs Institute
Suite 1800, 150–9th Avenue SW
Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2P 3H9


Canadian Global Affairs Institute
8 York Street, 2nd Floor
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1N 5S6


Phone: (613) 288-2529
Email: [email protected]


Making sense of our complex world.
Déchiffrer la complexité de notre monde.


© 2002-2022 Canadian Global Affairs Institute
Charitable Registration No. 87982 7913 RR0001


Sign in with Facebook | Sign in with Twitter | Sign in with Email