Defence Matters in Canada - Final Report

The following article has been provided by external source. The Government of Canada and Royal Military College Saint-Jean are not responsible for the accuracy, reliability or currency of the information supplied by external sources. Users wishing to rely upon this information should consult directly with the source of the information. Content provided by external sources is not subject to official languages, privacy and accessibility requirements.

The Atlantic Council of Canada's Logo

Findings from a cross-Canada discussion

Paul H. Chapin and Col. (ret) Brian S. MacDonald September 2013

PREFACE

In his 2012 annual report, the Secretary General of NATO drew attention to spending trends within the Alliance which he believed could place NATO’s military capacity and political credibility at risk. Declining defence spending among European allies indicated some would find it difficult to acquire the modern and deployable defence capabilities necessary to work together or with their North American allies in an international crisis. This in turn risked weakening political support for NATO in the United States and Canada. Meanwhile, emerging powers were building up their capacity to exert international influence.

In the spring of 2013, the Secretary General launched a research project inviting eight think tanks across NATO to explore the question why defence does or does not "matter" in member countries and to recommend measures to address the issue. The Atlantic Council of Canada agreed to anchor the project in Canada, with Paul Chapin and Col. (ret) Brian MacDonald responsible for preparing the background materials for the discussions, chairing and animating consultations across the country, scanning analytical studies, reviewing data from public opinion polling, documenting the findings, and preparing the report to be submitted to the International Staff at NATO headquarters in Brussels. Findings attempt to capture the views of both "ordinary Canadians" and expert opinion.

Roundtables were held in Calgary, Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal, drawing on the intellectual input and administrative support of an impressive group of Canadian learned institutions. Special thanks are due to:

  • The Atlantic Council of Canada, Toronto
  • The Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute, Calgary
  • The Canadian International Council (Ottawa Chapter)
  • The Conference of Defence Associations Institute, Ottawa
  • The Arthur Kroeger College of Public Affairs, Carleton University, Ottawa
  • Centre interuniversitaire de recherche sur les relations internationales du Canada et du Québec (CIRRICQ), École nationale d'Administration publique, Montréal
  • Centre d'études et de recherches internationales (CÉRIUM), Montréal
  • Royal Military College Saint-Jean, Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Qc

A great many individuals contributed to the discussions representing a broad range of professions including government, diplomacy, business, university, media, and the military. Many younger Canadians also actively participated in the discussions. We are grateful to all those who were so generous of their time and advice during the study, and we are honoured so many have agreed to allow their names to be included among the advisors to the study (back section). Claire-Marie Clozel undertook the translation of the Summary. The source for the chart on page 3 "Canada’s Military Spending Compared" is the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute; the chart was prepared by Tristin Hopper and Richard Johnson of the National Post.

The International Staff at NATO requested that contributors’ reports be brief and include recommendations. This report consists of a summary, sections addressing the "defence matters" issue respectively in Canada and in NATO, and recommendations.

The Canadian Appreciation

Defence matters

In Canada, defence matters when it does and doesn’t matter when it doesn’t. Defence is not uppermost in the minds of Canadians. They live in one of the safest countries on earth and expect to continue to do so, without the fear which afflicts so many other parts of the world. But Canadians do understand the world can be a dangerous place.

Canada borders on the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, with the Arctic to the north and the world’s sole superpower to the south. Because Canada is a very large country – comprising six time zones and 9.98 million square kilometers, compared to 6.57 million for all of Europe – it is not a country Canadians can defend on their own. Historically, they have recognized an obligation to do the best they can and to collaborate with the United States in a continental approach to defence. As the country’s population has grown (35 million today) and international demand has risen for its natural resources (Canada’s proven oil reserves are second only to those of Saudi Arabia), Canada’s ability to assume a greater share of the common North American defence burden has also grown.

Canadians have long appreciated the importance of helping to preserve the freedom and independence of democratic friends and allies. Canadian soldiers deployed to Europe in two world wars at a cost of 110,000 killed in action. During the first 20 years of the Cold War, there were 10,000 Canadian troops based in West Germany and France, including an infantry brigade group of 6,670 troops, an air division of 12 squadrons (up to 300 aircraft) and some forty warships, plus more dedicated as reinforcements. Canadians also fought in Korea, the Balkans, Somalia, Afghanistan, and Libya. Canadian casualties in Afghanistan were exceeded only by those of the United States and Britain. Canadians lived the 9/11 experience in the same time zones as Americans, 24 Canadians were killed that day, the Canadian Forces were mobilized, and 255 international flights carrying almost 45,000 passengers were diverted to Canadian airports.

But if Canadians do "get" the need for defence, many find it difficult to make a connection between the turbulent world abroad and the requirement for any particular regime of security and defence measures at home. Defence against what specifically, and how? Many today do not perceive any particular external threat to Canada, and among those who do it is not necessarily the same threat everywhere. The general public, but especially younger Canadians, do not readily understand (a) what part the military play in their security, (b) what capabilities the military must have to deal with particular contingencies, and (c) what levels of funding the military require to accomplish certain tasks. What seems to be missing is an appreciation of the role the military plays in society as "first responders of last resort". Citizens understand that police and fire services must be maintained at a certain level to be effective whatever the contingencies. In contrast, they have allowed the sizing and equipping of the military to compete with other public policy priorities for funding. In the final analysis, the critical measure that ought to guide defence thinking is not threats but vulnerabilities – and the main driver of defence policy not protection from assumed threats but reduction of known vulnerabilities.

Canadian interests

Canada is one of the most "globalized" societies in the world and the dependencies created means that Canadian interests are impacted by events and trends almost anywhere. So global awareness and a keen appreciation of what is at stake are vital to Canada’s security. Canadians, however, do not have a strong grasp of their national interests – the defence of Canada and North America, economic wellbeing, a stable world order, and protection and promotion of fundamental values -- and hence of what it takes to secure them. Some place a negative connotation on "interests", preferring to talk about "values". But the fundamental values of Canadians – freedom, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law – are the very foundation of their national interests. Canada is overdue for the articulation of a national security strategy to guide the pursuit of its enduring security interests, as friends and allies have long been doing.

Canada retains strong residual ties to Europe in every field, but Canadian interests are expanding in the Arctic, in the Americas, and above all in the Pacific. Canada now has more immigration and trade across the Pacific than across the Atlantic. Increasingly, the country’s economic future outside of North America (US and Mexico) appears to be tied to those of China, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Southeast Asia, and India. As Canada’s interests shift, so must its security focus. A Pacific Alliance is an idea whose time will soon come.

The problematique for North Americans is how an increasingly Eurocentric NATO fits into their future security and defence plans. NATO’s profile in North America is relatively low and not especially positive. Canadians remember it for the imbalance of military effort in Afghanistan and for European allies’ failure to provide additional combat forces to support the beleaguered Canadian battle group in Kandahar in 2009. NATO today strikes many as very European: the EU is increasingly influential within NATO, 26 of 28 members are European, and all the enlargement in membership has been in Europe. In addition, NATO’s Strategic Concept 2010 advocates "the eventual integration of all European countries that so desire into Euro-Atlantic structures" – a proposition carrying defence obligations which no US or Canadian government could be expected to honour in any circumstance other than World War Three. There is equally little prospect of Europeans accepting a reciprocal obligation to come to the defence of the west coast of North America. Few Europeans have ever given a thought to the defence of North America or have much of an idea what effort the United States and Canada have devoted to it.

Neither the government nor the military have done much to enlighten the public on international security issues, and in general Canadians have been poorly served by their Parliament, media, universities and think tanks. The Department of National Defence recently terminated a 30-year program of financial support for university research and education in security and defence, and it has reduced its public outreach activities. As a rule, Parliamentarians are not well versed in defence matters and struggle to keep government and the military accountable. Unlike Canada’s major allies, there has been little private funding in Canada of university centres and think tanks specializing in defence matters.

With the Cold War over, weary from participating in the numerous conflicts that have arisen over the last twenty years, and disappointed at the results achieved at no small cost in military casualties and public finances, Canadians have little appetite for extended expeditionary operations – particularly those in which the threat to their national interests is not obvious. Some have wondered whether Afghanistan was worth the price Canadians paid. Canadians supported their military in Afghanistan (and Libya), but there is a question how enduring the support will be over time. There is a pattern in Canadian history of success in war being followed by declining interest in and funding for all things military. When a new war comes along (there is always another one), forces have to be sent into harm’s way undersized and under-equipped until the day arrives when Parliament and citizens mobilize in their support. In brief: benign neglect followed by emergency political responses and, after some time under stress, a reasonable national response.

Defence spending

This pattern is strongly evident in the rise and fall of Canadian defence spending over the decades. A graphic illustration was the steep and sustained rise in defence spending beginning in the late 1990s as the population realized that earlier draconian cuts risked a "Canada without armed forces". Growth continued throughout the Afghanistan campaign, with little complaint from any quarter in Parliament. Few remarked on the fact that the defence budget effectively doubled between 2000 and 2010 (to $21 billion), a development conventional wisdom had held to be both politically and fiscally impossible. The conclusion to be drawn from this history and from public opinion polling is that Canadians appear willing to spend on defence so long as the cause resonates with them.

Graphic of Canada's Military Spending Compared

As a rule, Canadians consider their military to be an essential organization and they have a very positive impression of those who serve in the Canadian Forces. But their support for Canadian participation in international operations other than humanitarian relief has been declining since CF operations in Afghanistan peaked in 2008-09. Few believe that investing in the military is wasteful, though Canadians no longer believe the military to be underfunded as they did five or ten years ago. According to one recent study, Canadians have remained strongly supportive of defence spending notwithstanding the costs of Afghanistan, the large increase in the defence budget, and the federal government’s return to deficit spending. Recent controversies over defence procurements, however, are expected to have a negative impact. So, undoubtedly, will the declining visibility of the Canadian Forces as international engagements end.

Canadian public opinion on defence matters is not uniform, but it is regional perspectives rather than linguistic or other affiliations which account for the variations. The two poles of public opinion on defence matters in Canada have been Alberta (most supportive) and Quebec (least supportive). Conventional wisdom to the contrary, Quebec opinion is hardly pacifist. Support in Quebec for defence spending has held at around 50 percent throughout the last decade, and a majority of Quebeckers have been prepared to support foreign interventions provided there was a suitable international mandate for the use of force and an operation was not directly in support of American interests.

In pursuit of its objective to eliminate the fiscal deficit by 2015, the federal government reduced the defence budget from $20.219 billion (actual) in FY 2011-12 to $17.985 billion (planned) in FY 2013-14, i.e. by $2.234 billion or about 11.9%. Cuts fell primarily in two areas: (a) defence operations as a consequence of the reduction of the Canadian Forces commitment in Afghanistan, and (b) defence readiness, though this still constitutes by far the largest component (over half) of the defence budget. On the positive side, funding for equipment acquisition increased by 9.3% and the Department of Finance’s most recent projection is for continued growth in future years.

The financial crisis of 2008 hit every NATO member hard, but Canada was one of the few whose defence spending had returned to growth by 2011. At 1.4% of GDP that year, Canadian defence spending was in the middle of the European pack and on a par with Germany and Italy. Absent a war, it is expected the defence budget is likely to be in the range of 1.2% to 1.3% of GDP in the years to come.

The Future of NATO

The strategic outlook

The strategic outlook has changed for NATO countries. In the 21st century, the common defence is no longer about the security of the North Atlantic region but about dealing with problems worldwide.

The Cold War is over, but the old enemy Russia is reverting to a one-party state and is rebuilding its war-making capability. Russia lacks the means today to confront the Alliance and it is not (yet) a big enough player to justify a larger investment in the defence of Europe than is already being made. But Russia has concluded it can take coercive action in the "near abroad" without risk of Western response. Poland and the Baltic states are right to insist their NATO partners keep a watchful eye on Moscow.

China is recovering its historical great power position in Asia and represents more of a problem than Western enthusiasts for trade typically acknowledge. China faces daunting internal problems and its main international preoccupation today is to enhance the security of strategically important trade, energy and raw materials flows. But after three decades of double-digit annual growth in defence spending, China is acquiring military and naval power to assert its interests in at least three theatres. The first of these is the China Sea where it espouses territorial (Taiwan) and maritime claims. In due course, China will also be extending its presence into the Indian Ocean and into the Eastern Pacific. Potential adversaries include not only small states such as Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia and Singapore but also India, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Australia and New Zealand, Russia, and the United States -- and possibly Canada.

Radical Islam has replaced communism and fascism as the new ideological threat to democracy. There is scant prospect that it could succeed in democratic countries, though some of these countries have experienced significant growth in their Muslim populations (there will soon be one million in Canada). But the movement possesses a violent streak which has brought great misery to millions including the peaceful populations of Muslim countries. Given its religious roots, amorphous nature, and global character, it will take resilience, ingenuity and another "long war" to defeat it, i.e. a "containment" strategy akin to that which arrested the spread of Soviet communism in Europe.

In 2009, Allied Command Transformation’s Multiple Futures Project concluded that the Alliance is unlikely to have to face a large-scale conventional confrontation in the near future. Instead, it will need to respond to a variety of security challenges that are mainly the consequence of destabilization and the absence of governance. Among these will be "unbridled extremism, uncontrolled and illegal migration, and friction caused by resource scarcity". Adversaries will focus less on external attack and more on "a subversive undermining of what are in essence, the fundamental principles that bind the Alliance. Specifically, adversaries will attack the compact we have with governments, our solidarity, and the values we hold dear – the sanctity of life, individual liberty, and liberal democracy based on the rule of law."

So the strategic outlook for NATO would appear to feature the following:

A Euro-Atlantic theatre where most allies judge the threat to be too low to arrest two decades of decline in defence spending, a condition which in history would have been described as general disarmament. This being so, there is no longer a requirement for North American forces (today, just US forces) to be deployed in Europe as guarantors of European security. This need not require departing from NATO’s original concept of operations which postulated European homeland forces rapidly mobilizing and fighting in place until North American expeditionary forces could deploy to their aid. But it does imply adjustments in the required size, composition, and rates of mobilization of the North American expeditionary forces.

An Indo-Pacific theatre beset by serious disputes, many of them rooted in China’s bid for regional hegemony, with rapid economic growth providing the financial means for parties to these disputes to build new military capabilities. Regional competition is taking on the colouration of a classic arms race. With most European states having limited interest in the region or capacity to intervene militarily, security in this theatre will be the task of the United States and its allies in the Pacific.

A "Greater Islamistan"" theatre in which traditional rivalries between Sunni and Shia have escalated into open warfare, Saudi Arabia and Iran are struggling for supremacy, the Arab democratic awakening has yet to run its course, a "clash of civilizations" is under way in sub-Saharan Africa stoked in part by international competition for resources, and radical Islamic clerics are exploiting migration from Muslim countries to create the conditions for social conflict in Europe and North America. As Europe’s exposure to the region grows and the United States’ energy dependence declines, a rebalancing of their respective levels of engagement appears inevitable.

Burden-sharing

NATO adapted successfully to change in the past, but it is failing to do so today. The Alliance was born in crisis, has weathered more than 60 years of controversy, and survives to this day despite repeated warnings of its imminent demise. It survived because its members shared common interests and values which always trumped their disagreements. NATO prevailed in the Cold War because allies were clear in their purpose -- to protect member states from the USSR and the Warsaw Pact -- and did not entertain proposals which did not contribute directly to achieving the mission.

Unity of purpose fractured when NATO took on new missions after the Cold War ended: managing the peaceful dissolution of the Soviet empire, integrating the captive nations back into Europe, protecting vulnerable populations, fighting the Taliban and restoring government in Afghanistan, fixing failed states, combating pirates, building capacity in other organizations, and "partnering" and "dialoguing" with some 70 countries outside NATO. In retrospect, it is surprising that an alliance of democracies with a constantly changing mix of governments of the left and right should have endured for the past 20 years with so diffuse an agenda.

NATO’s current problems with burden-sharing are not new, but they have been exacerbated by the many tasks NATO has taken on. There have always been gaps in the capabilities of allies, the United States has always been in a league of its own, and great power relationships typically wax and wane over the generations. Nor is it new that Europeans could make a greater financial contribution to the common effort if they wished to. The population of the EU is close to 505 million, that of North America 351 million. The GDP of the EU is approximately $16.7 trillion, only marginally less than the North American total of $17.2 trillion. Yet defence spending within the EU was approximately $286 billion in 2012 compared to $682 billion for the United States (and $21 billion for Canada).

Unity of purpose fractured when NATO took on new missions after the Cold War ended: managing the peaceful dissolution of the Soviet empire, integrating the captive nations back into Europe, protecting vulnerable populations, fighting the Taliban and restoring government in Afghanistan, fixing failed states, combating pirates, building capacity in other organizations, and "partnering" and "dialoguing" with some 70 countries outside NATO. In retrospect, it is surprising that an alliance of democracies with a constantly changing mix of governments of the left and right should have endured for the past 20 years with so diffuse an agenda.

What’s wrong with this picture is that aggregate European defence spending has been on a consistently downward trajectory for more 20 years. Allies cashed a "peace dividend" at the end of the Cold War, but only in the United States and Canada did defence spending resume growing through the period of 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan. Former US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was right to wonder why the US share of NATO defence spending had been about 50 percent during the Cold War and was now 75 percent.

The solutions proposed to close the burden-sharing gaps are not new either – just less feasible today than at any time since the founding of the Alliance. For years, US administrations have been scolding Europeans (and Canadians) to spend a greater portion of their GDP on defence to little effect. Indeed, it can be argued that using the GDP measure to try to whip governments into spending more on defence has served merely to divert attention from the very considerations which might have induced more spending – the outcomes desired and the means to achieve them.

With the government debt to GDP ratio in the Euro zone at 90 percent, Europeans are considerably less able to contemplate new defence spending today than yesterday. So, for that matter, is the United States whose fiscal situation is no less a problem. The Obama administration has been cutting defence spending, though it is battling a resistant Congress. But even if this were not the case, US defence spending has been trending downward as spending on social programs has grown exponentially. The US defence budget is forecast to decline by $487 billion over the next decade, with an additional $500 billion in sequestration cuts due over the same period. Even without the latter, US defence spending would drop from 4.3% of GDP in FY 2012 to 2.4% in FY 2023. Reductions of such magnitude could not be undertaken without the United States reviewing its global defence posture. One area where both Democrats and Republicans agree US defence spending could be cut is in Europe, where the US has some 88,000 personnel deployed at 25 major bases in ten countries. To realize significant savings, the US would have to disband not just re-base units now in Europe.

The bottom line is that the US should not expect Europeans to close the gaps in their defence spending any more than Europeans should expect the US to continue to provide them a massive defence subsidy.

Refining the Strategic Concept 2010

What is new are the divisions between those who believe NATO’s focus should be the defence of the Euro-Atlantic area and those who see NATO with a broader mandate. This is a disagreement over the very purpose of the Alliance, not just over how to finance it. In resolving this more consequential disagreement lies the solution to the dispute over burden-sharing.

In August this year, Poland’s president declared that future defence spending in Poland would be devoted primarily to modernizing the country’s defences rather than international operations. Poland might take part in future foreign missions, he said, but it had decided to "abandon the overzealous expeditionary policy we incautiously adopted in 2007". Polish troops would no longer be "hastily expedited to the world’s antipodes". It is hard to fault Warsaw’s position, consistent as it is with a plain reading of the Washington Treaty. But it is no less true that dealing with a potential enemy far from home is preferable to having to fight him on your own doorstep. The two positions are not necessarily incompatible if member states could agree not just on what the priorities should be but also on a division of labour which made sense to each member individually.

Defence would "matter" more if national military capabilities and defence budgets were more obviously about defence of the "homeland". One approach might be for allies to agree that "the defence which matters" for NATO is the first of the three tasks identified in the Strategic Concept 2010, i.e. "to defend its members against the full range of threats". The second ("managing even the most challenging crises") and the third ("better able to work with other organizations and nations to promote international stability") would be distinctly subordinate tasks. This would have the effect of focusing the Alliance more on its fundamental purpose -- about which there is no disagreement -- and less on initiatives with limited return on investment.

Allies might also agree on better definition of their individual and collective defence responsibilities, along with their corresponding responsibilities for generating the military capabilities required and for financing them. European members, for instance, could assume primary responsibility for the defence of their region as the North Americans have done for theirs. Henceforth, Europeans would provide the ground and air forces to deter Russia, take the lead in responding to security issues in and around the Mediterranean, and deal with piracy off the Horn of Africa. Allies would continue to share responsibility for the North Atlantic, and would develop protocols to govern NATO support for planning and managing expeditionary operations which members who had special interests at stake and military forces to contribute wished to undertake.

Effort and imagination would be required to work out the modalities of such a division of labour, but the benefits could be considerable. It would take the heat out of the dispute over burden-sharing, enhance understanding in individual member states of why "defence matters" to each of them specifically, encourage establishing baselines for military capabilities and defence budgets which made sense to each country in its respective location, and perhaps generate a more positive attitude towards expeditionary operations pursued in the cause of peace and security. Difficult as it might be, it would be sensible to grasp this nettle now.

Critics will argue that a trans-Atlantic division of labour would mean the end of NATO as a trans-Atlantic alliance. This is a groundless argument. Such an outcome would only come to pass if member states were to abandon the Alliance’s fundamental concept of collective security. What will end NATO is the erosion of the idea of the Alliance’s purpose and the burden-sharing imperative that sustains that purpose. If purpose is confounded by doubts and indecision and burden-sharing collapsed in muddled consultations, then the Alliance in every important sense will surely wither into irrelevance to the great misfortune of its members.

Critics will argue that a trans-Atlantic division of labour would mean the end of NATO as a trans-Atlantic alliance. This is a groundless argument. Such an outcome would only come to pass if member states were to abandon the Alliance’s fundamental concept of collective security. What will end NATO is the erosion of the idea of the Alliance’s purpose and the burden-sharing imperative that sustains that purpose. If purpose is confounded by doubts and indecision and burden-sharing collapsed in muddled consultations, then the Alliance in every important sense will surely wither into irrelevance to the great misfortune of its members.

Recommendations

The Canadian appreciation

  • Defence would "matter" more to Canadians and their support for defence spending might fluctuate less if they had a better understanding of the enduring national security interests of the country. Government and Parliament should begin a dialogue with Canadians on the subject. The products of such a dialogue should include the articulation of a National Security Strategy addressing Canadian vulnerabilities, updated foreign and defence policies, and a coherent long-term plan for defence spending. A priority should be examination of the security implications of Canada’s "shift" to the Pacific.
  • If Canadians are to understand better how defence matters, government and the military need to do a much better job of explaining the defence needs of the country, the specific military capabilities required to address these needs, and the associated price tags.
  • As memories of Afghanistan fade, an active program of civil-military relations will be required to sustain Canadians’ appreciation that defence matters.
  • Defence matters are too important to be left to government alone. Private interests should be encouraged to emulate practice in other allied countries to support independent research and education on defence issues which "matter" to Canadians.

The Future of NATO

  • Allies should declare a ceasefire in their debate over burden-sharing and put a temporary halt to their discussions on the apportionment of capability targets until they have achieved greater clarity among themselves on the mission of the Alliance.
  • Allies should agree that "the defence which matters" for NATO is the first of the three tasks identified in the Strategic Concept 2010, i.e. "to defend its members against the full range of threats".
  • NATO should launch a study on the feasibility of a more defined division of labour among allies in order to fulfill the priority task "to defend its members against the full range of threats".
    • The study should explore the modalities for Europeans to assume primary responsibility for defence in Europe, as Americans and Canadians do for North America, with shared responsibility for the North Atlantic, and plans in place to deal with contingencies requiring the collective effort of all.
    • The study should also look into the development of agreed NATO protocols to support individual allies forming ad hoc coalitions, with or without non-NATO states, for "managing even the most challenging crises" in other theatres.
  • Once the North Atlantic Council has agreed on the new conceptual framework, essentially a refinement of the Strategic Concept 2010, military authorities should be tasked with developing the supporting doctrines and plans.

Authors

Paul Chapin is a director of the Atlantic Council of Canada. During a 30-year career in the Canadian foreign service, he served in Tel Aviv and Moscow, was Canada’s representative on the NATO political committee, and minister-counsellor in charge of the political section of the Canadian Embassy in Washington. At the Department of Foreign Affairs, he was director for political and strategic analysis and director-general for international security. He is a past vice-president (programs) at the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre, and past vice president and director of research at the Conference of Defence Associations Institute. (pchapin@rogers.com)

Colonel (ret) Brian MacDonald is immediate Past President of the Atlantic Council of Canada. A graduate of the Royal Military College of Canada and York University, he consults on international and domestic strategic and business security issues, and is a prominent media commentator on security and defence issues. He has been invited to deliver papers at international conferences across the globe including at several meetings of the Atlantic Treaty Association. He has edited 19 books and is the author of Military Spending in Developing Countries: How Much is Enough? (Carleton University Press, 1997)(brian.strategicinsight@gmail.com)

Advisors to the Study

The following have graciously agreed to be mentioned as collaborators in the study. Readers should note that only the authors are responsible for the contents of the final report.

Dr. David J. Bercuson, Director of the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary, Director of Programs for the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute.

Dr. Douglas L. Bland, Professor Emeritus, Queen’s University at Kingston, Canada; former Chair of the Defence Management Studies Program in the School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University. Author and editor of numerous publications including Canada Without Armed Forces? (Queen’s 2003), Campaigns for International Security: Canada’s Defence Policy at the Turn of the Century (Queen’s-McGill 2004) and Uprising (Blue Butterfly Books 2009).

Major (ret) Philip Bury, The Royal Canadian Regiment, Conference of Defence Associations Roundtable Member.

BGen (ret) James S. Cox, Ph.D. Vice-President, Academic Programs, Canadian Military Intelligence Association; Former Research Analyst, Library of Parliament; Former Deputy Assistant Chief of Staff Intelligence, NATO Supreme Headquarters, Allied Powers Europe

Dr. John Ferris, Professor of History, University of Calgary; Fellow, Centre for Military and Strategic Studies.

BGen (ret) Dr. Bernd Goetze, International Consultant on Euro-Atlantic Security Affairs; Former Secretary of the North Atlantic Council, NATO-Russia Council, NATO-Ukraine Commission; Member of the Board of the Conference of Defence Associations Institute.

J. L. Granatstein, Senior Research Fellow, Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute; Distinguished Research Professor of History Emeritus, York University, Toronto: former Director and CEO of the Canadian War Museum, Ottawa.

David B. Harris, Barrister and Solicitor; Director, International Intelligence Program, INSIGNIS Strategic Research Inc., Ottawa, Canada.

Dr. Hugh Henry Intelligence Assessment Secretariat, Privy Council Office, Government of Canada.

Dr. Marc Imbeault, Dean of Studies and Research, Royal Military College Saint-Jean; Editor-in-Chief of The Blue Knight Review. Author of several books and academic journal articles on philosophy and the geopolitics of Canada and Europe.

Ferry de Kerckhove, Former Director General, International Organizations, Department of Foreign Affairs, Ottawa; Personal Representative of the Prime Minister of Canada for La Francophonie; Canadian Ambassador to Egypt, Ambassador to Indonesia, High Commissioner to Pakistan.

Dr. Janine Krieber, Associate professor, Department of Political Science, Royal Military College of Canada; Professor, Royal Military College Saint-Jean; Member of the Institut québécois des Hautes études internationales.

Julie Lindhout, President, The Atlantic Council of Canada; Bureau Vice President of the Atlantic Treaty Association.

BGen (ret) W. Don Macnamara, Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Royal Military College of Canada; member of the Advisory Council of the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute; past President and founding member of the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies; past President and member of the Board of Directors of the Conference of Defence Associations Institute.

LGen (ret) J.O. Michel Maisonneuve, Academic Director, Royal Military College Saint-Jean; Former Chief of Staff, NATO Supreme Allied Commander Transformation.

Col (ret) John C. McKenna, Vice President, The Atlantic Council of Canada; Past Chairman, Conference of Defence Associations.

Frédéric Mérand, Professeur agrégé de science politique; Directeur du Centre d’études et de recherches internationales de l’Université de Montréal (CERIUM).

Eric S. Morse, Co-Chair of the Security Studies Committee, Royal Canadian Military Institute.

Major (ret) Robert Near, The Royal Canadian Regiment; Conference of Defence Associations Roundtable Member.

John Noble, Former Director General of the United States Bureau, the International Security and Arms Control Bureau, and the International Organizations Bureau of the Department of Foreign Affairs; former Canadian Ambassador to Greece and to Switzerland.

Colin Robertson, Foreign Service Officer (ret); Vice President and Fellow, Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute.

Stéphane Roussel, Professeur titulaire, Directeur du Centre interuniversitaire de recherche sur les relations internationales du Canada et du Québec (CIRRICQ), École nationale d'Administration publique (ENAP).

LCol (ret) Peter A. Vlossak, Director, The Atlantic Council of Canada.

Peter Weltman, Senior Director, Program Costing, Expenditure and Revenue Analysis Division, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Canada.

Date modified: