Defence

One of the critical articles of debate in the coming election surrounds the military. Two major parties have said that they would increase funding to our military, but I want to hear more then that. I want to know what are the future defence policy objectives of the parties. That is one of the essentials to grabbing my support in the coming election. We can go no where until we identify our defensive role at home and abroad.

What is the major threat on the home front? Is it nuclear attack? Is it terrorism? Is it the loss of sovereignty of our coastal waters? Do we stand beholden to American defence initiatives , or global obligations? They all require different approaches and different allocations of a limited degree of funding. Lets examine the key issues.

One of the most tortuous events in Canadian political history transpired last year, when Stephen Harper stood in the House to support the American invasion of Iraq . Even more shocking was Peter MacKay's stand as leader of the PC party. He said on CBC radio at the time that "you have to make an informed and intelligent decision, and I've made mine".

Both turned their backs and deserted 50 years of Canada's obligation to international rule of law. This was always a irrefutable Canadian response, whether it was Lester Pearson, Flora MacDonald or David Lewis, and it had garnered no small measure of respect in the world. I'm not prepared to throw that away. Equipping our forces for the tasks at hand is all important, but it is also important to be honourable with the sons and daughters who pledge to lay it all on the line to defend us as a nation. Their declaration is a contract with Canada, but a contract is a two-way street. We, as a people, are obligated to obey international treaty law, which includes the UN Charter and many multilateral conventions. Honest and legal deployment is the first priority we owe our forces, followed by safe and effective equipment to tackle the task at hand.

The biggest threat to our nation in the coming years is terrorism, yet much of the debate surrounds a strategic missile defence initiative led by the United States. It makes no sense to me that we fund the militarization of space (and let's not fool ourselves, that's what it is), when the West was brought to its knees on Sept. 11, 2001, with utensils that are available on aisle 7 at the local Canadian Tire! An attack on the type of terror that we face today requires a many pronged approach at the multilateral level. We require a response to global criminal activity with justice, we require an expanded investment in our security mechanisms and intelligence community, and require a re-evaluation of western foreign policy that deals with the economic injustice and the growing political fundamentalism that has exploded in our midst. Missile defence has no place in this battle, particularly in the shadow of the American withdrawal from many strategic conventions on warfare over the past three years.

Where do the parties see the military in eight to 10 years, what is our policy in regards to defence, and how do you plan to pay for it?