|
Hon. John McCallum, Minister of National Defence
Speech to the Toronto Board of Trade (Speaking
Notes)
25 October 2002
“Ladies and Gentlemen,
After almost five months on the job, this is my first major speech as Minister of National Defence, and I'd
like to take this opportunity to share some of my thoughts on the role and direction of the Canadian Forces.
Since becoming Minister, my respect for the Canadian military has taken a quantum leap, as has my determination
to do what is right for them and for our country. For me, the turning point came on a visit to Afghanistan last
July, where I witnessed not only the appalling and dangerous conditions under which our people served, but also
the great work they had done and their richly deserved sense of pride in their achievements.
No one should doubt for a minute the quality of our military. I witnessed it firsthand in Afghanistan and in my
travels to Canadian Forces bases throughout the country, and heard glowing praise from three Americans — a
lieutenant-general, a colonel, and a sergeant. NATO Secretary-General Lord Robertson put it well in fine British
style when he told me that the Canadian military does very well ‘when measured by outputs rather than
inputs’. Translated into Canadian, this means that what we do, we do very well, but he'd like us to do more.
What are the central purposes of the military today? I think they are to defend the lives of our citizens and
to preserve and promote our national sovereignty. The military has also played a pivotal role in our history
and in the emergence of Canada as a nation. But what does sovereignty mean in this context? It means that our
government must be able to deploy forces overseas to reflect Canadian priorities and values, to help Canada achieve
its foreign policy objectives and to do our fair share in the struggle for democracy and freedom around the globe.
Sovereignty means that we must be able to defend Canada and participate meaningfully in the defence of North
America. As well, sovereignty means the defence of our territorial claims, not least in the North. Finally,
sovereignty means strengthening our capacity to fight terrorism. What can be more threatening to our sovereignty
than terrorists determined to kill innocent Canadian citizens and destroy Canadian property? Sovereignty means all
of these things, and it doesn't come cheap.
Now, some will say, that terrorism is an American problem, not a Canadian one. To them, I would say, how many
of you would have thought two weeks ago that nearly 100 Australians and even one Canadian would be killed by
terrorists in Bali? I don't know the probability of a terrorist attack on Canada, but I know it is significantly
greater than zero. Notwithstanding talk of a peace dividend after the end of the Cold War, I think that the
world has become a more dangerous and risky place, certainly post-September 11, if not before. So if you ask me
whether we should do more or less than we are currently doing in the defence of our country and our continent,
I would say more. If you ask me whether we should do more or less in deploying our forces to the myriad trouble
s of the world, I would also say more.
Increases in defence spending between fiscal year 2001-02 and 2006-07 will total more than $5 billion. These
increases include the December budget, which allocated $7.7 billion across Departments over five years to fight
terrorism and reinforce public security. Nevertheless, in my own personal view, and notwithstanding these
improvements, we should be spending more than is currently planned. Indeed, the Canadian Forces need more money
simply to continue operating as they are today, in a sustainable way.
Over the past decade, the Canadian Government has been calling on the Canadian Forces more frequently. Between
1948 and 1989, our Forces deployed on 24 missions. Between 1990 and 2002, — a quarter of that time —
the number has risen to 79. At the same time, the number of Canadian Forces members has declined substantially.
Clearly, this is not sustainable. It translates into too much time away from home for too many of our people,
with negative implications for morale, family life, and general well-being. It also translates into personnel
retention problems. This problem is a real one. It is a problem openly acknowledged by the leadership of the
Canadian Forces.
As Minister of Defence, I think it is wrong to continue overstretching our personnel and their families. As an
economist, I know that some of our most valuable Canadian Forces members will simply quit the Forces if this
issue is not addressed. And given the time and resources that go into training our military personnel, we
cannot afford this kind of exodus. Either way, whether I look at the Canadian Forces as the Defence Minister or
as an economist, I know that we must find a way to address the overstretching of our people.
Unfortunately, Defence faces a sustainability challenge in the area of capital as well as people. I give my
predecessor, Art Eggleton, credit for significant improvements to the quality of life of the military. The
problem, however, is that some of these improvements were financed by raiding the capital budget. We cannot
continue to mortgage our future in this way. And to those who say they want money for people but not equipment,
my answer is that when we put our men and women in harm's way, we must equip them so as to minimize the risk of
injury or death. We must also equip them to succeed as a combat capable force.
At one level, it should come as no surprise to anyone that the Minister of National Defence wants more money.
That is always a given. Overnight, when I moved from junior Finance Minister to Defence, I became a spender
rather than a saver.
The climate for more money may be good. When the two Axworthy brothers, as opposed to retired generals,
both call for a substantially higher defence budget, that may be significant*. And there
is more good news. As compared to a year ago, there has been a huge jump in support for increased funding for
the Canadian Forces. According to the most recent polling by Pollara, forty-eight percent of Canadians would
support increased funding for the military compared to 17 percent that would favour less spending. A year ago,
only 26 percent favoured increased military spending, while 31 percent favoured less spending.
Anyone who thinks this is only a September 11th blip should look further back to the five-year trend.
Support for the Canadian Forces has been consistently gaining ground, according to the same polling firm. In
fact, no other area of government spending, including health care, has seen such a consistent increase in
support over the past five years. The growth is dramatic — thirty-one percentage points over the past five
years. Having said that, however, the final budget decisions are made by the Government. And the Government
must make choices between important, yet competing priorities — such as health care and education and
paying down the debt. Rest assured though that over the next few months, I will be making the case for defence.
At the same time, I will also be focusing on three other priority areas: restructuring, people, and the
Canada-US connection.
Let's look at restructuring first. Over the past decade, I have worked as Dean of the Faculty of Arts
at McGill University, Chief Economist of Royal Bank, and now Minister of National Defence. And I've observed
that any large organization has silos, bureaucracies and waste. Of course, I recognize that no large
organization can turn on a dime in response to a changing world. And the international security environment
that Defence works within has changed immensely in recent years. Nonetheless, I believe the leaders of such
organizations have a duty to push for continuous change and restructuring.
My predecessors, as well as the military leadership, have brought about tremendous change at Defence in
recent years. But we can't afford to stop now. Change needs to be continuous. It is always a work in progress.
That is why I have been asking awkward questions, such as whether we need certain capabilities, some of which
might be relics of an earlier era. The rapid pace of technological change is fuelling a revolution in military
affairs. And as I've indicated, new types of threats — terrorism being the most notable — have come
to centre stage. Our overall aim will be to redirect resources away from areas that are no longer essential and
towards capabilities that will be needed in the future. By following this course, we can ensure that the
Canadian Forces will emerge from this process as a more modern and sustainable institution. Just as universities,
banks, and government departments have a responsibility to students, shareholders and taxpayers, I am
responsible for ensuring good value for money for the Canadian taxpayer. And I intend to honour that
responsibility. To help me do that, I will be appointing shortly a small number of highly qualified people with
extensive private sector restructuring experience to study administrative efficiencies for the Department. And
I will ask them to report back to me in six months.
The next priority I want to discuss is people. One area I'd like to focus on is education. When it
comes to the importance of education, I have to admit to a slight bias. The educational world is my natural
habitat. Still, while I may have a bias, when it comes to the importance of education, I am backed up by no
less a Canadian hero than General Romeo Dallaire. When General Dallaire served as Special Advisor to the Chief
of the Defence Staff on education and professional development, he became a great advocate of education at all
levels. In large part through the influence of General Dallaire, we are making far-reaching changes to our
system of professional development and education. And we've committed to promoting a learning culture at all
rank levels. We're increasing the number of members with post secondary education. We're developing new courses
and training packages. And we've launched the Canadian Defence Academy to provide a coordinated, long term
strategy for our education system.
In discussing my final priority, I come back full circle to the question of sovereignty. And I want to
focus on sovereignty here at home, more specifically, as it relates to the defence of North America. Working
with our American neighbours for continental security is nothing new. In fact, it dates as far back as the
Ogdensburg Accord, whose text was released by President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Prime Minister Mackenzie King
on August 18, 1940. Currently, together with the Americans, we are looking at how we can better position
ourselves to respond to major crises, such as terrorist attacks or natural disasters.
We are in the final stages of negotiating a joint bi-national planning group that could be used in the event of
a crisis to coordinate a response by either Canadian or American forces, or possibly both. This planning group
will allow Canada and the United States to share intelligence and contingency plans, and clearly identify how
to access the resources necessary to respond quickly to a crisis. We are not suggesting that we create new
command and control structures or assign permanent new forces to these tasks. The negotiations are progressing
well and we expect to reach an agreement very soon.
Far from ceding our sovereignty, as some critics have suggested, our overriding purpose in these
negotiations is to protect Canadian and American lives. Canada now has an opportunity to work as a full partner
in the protection of our continent. Let's be clear. We share a common border. We share geography. We share
infrastructure and commerce. It only makes sense that we plan to defend these shared interests.
As a government, we must be prepared to defend our citizens, our economy, our infrastructure, our
economic systems, and even our very way of life. We owe it to our men and women in uniform and to ourselves as
a country to make the Canadian Forces the best they can be. As Minister of National Defence, I am committed to
doing precisely that.”
|