It is likely that the problems of sovereignty, national security and defense, often footnotes, or even directly ignore federal electoral campaigns, dominate the political landscape over the next five weeks as Canadians march towards the vote on April 28.
The economy, medical attention, social programs and the environment were the proven and true problems of bread and butter that politicians took the browsing for decades. The established political wisdom was that there are no votes in defense, especially the acquisition of defense.
This paradigm established for a long time has been completely overturned by the trade war of US President Donald Trump and repeated threats to attach this country.
In many ways, the elections taken by leaders, political parties and, ultimately, voters could be existential to the country: a notion of Canadians and parts of the political establishment are still wrapping their heads.
“We have never been where we are. Therefore, it is existential, because what is at stake, its single sovereignty, is being challenged,” said Goldie Hyder, president and CEO of the Canada Business Council, which during the last two years has been the alarm on the link between national security and the economy.
“This is the time that Canadians rise to the seriousness of the moment. But the most important thing is the time that our political discourse rises to the seriousness of this moment.”
The Business Council has a long history of influence of federal policy, mainly in the free trade debates of the 1980s. It has become increasingly strident by asking for a greater defense expense to address the gaps in military capacities and complaints of the allies, especially the United States.
Donald Trump threatens tariffs and reduces military support if Canada does not meet the target of two percent of NATO. Canada says that it is now working to reach this goal in two years. Andrew Chang breaks down Trump’s claims and how defense spending could become a negotiation chip in a commercial war. Images provided by Getty Images, Reuters and The Canadian Press.
Canada is struggling to fulfill NATO’s reference point to spend two percent of the country’s gross domestic product (GDP) in the army. The Business Council, Bajo Hyder, the past fall began to advocate for a three percent objective.
“Two percent of NATO is, almost, so yesterday,” said Hyder. “We need to catch up with the place where we are now … maybe Canada. We have to catch up and we have to show that we are serious.”
The NATO spending objective, and the fact that Canada only reached 1.37 percent last year, has been the most easily identifiable defense expenditure metric so that Canadians reach while looking beyond our borders due to the invasion of Russia of Ukraine and Israel against the war against Hamas.
During the recent liberal leadership contest, three of the candidates promised to reach the goal, but tried to overcome each other. The conservatives, generally aggressive in defense spending, have often described their position by saying that the party “would work towards it” by reducing the expenditure of landing foreign help.
The NDP, which previously called the arbitrary objective, recently became a promise to reach the brand.
Roland Paris, professor of international affairs at the University of Ottawa, said the parties will make more than promise and then shrug when they were asked for details during this campaign.
“I want to see a point plan by point to spend much more money so that it makes sense for Canadian security interests. That is really urgent,” said Paris, who also added that he expects the severity of the moment to resonate with Canadians. “We are discussing issues of fundamental importance for the future of the country.”
He said that what has been interesting about Trump’s attacks against Canada is how they have not only galvanized the Canadians, but have “erased” some of the distinctions and political positions of the two main parties: liberals and conservatives.
“Both are asking for rearmament. Both are asking for retaliation sanctions with exit ramps. Both are asking for an emphasis on the Arctic and the diversification of commercial relations,” said Paris.
“I think what is really interesting is how consensus has moved so fast towards these goals.”
Fabrice Pothier, former Director of Planning Planning at NATO, says that the silence of NATO and the EU when it comes to the threats of the president of the United States, Donald Trump, to the sovereignty of Canada and Greenland is more about not wanting to ‘increase in a rhetorical struggle’ than to the lack of solidarity.
However, there will be differences, he added.
The economy and the relationship of Canada-United States almost “will certainly be the centerpiece of the elections” and the parties will be able to forge their own unique positions, said Pais.
The parties that will differentiate themselves are fine, but resist the reflection to create political wedge problems at this time, said Dave Perry, president of Canadian Global Asmiss Institute.
“I think that at this time we are in the most extraordinary set of electoral circumstances, where the place of Canada in the world, where our economic ties go, who are our allies, who our friends are at this time, has never been more in doubt,” said Perry, who pointed out the last election of substantive foreign policy of Canada was the 1988 free trade campaign.
The 1993 and 2015 campaigns saw military hardware used as political fodder.
Prime Minister Jean Chrétien promised to cancel the replacement of the aging of Sea Kings of the Air Force, a defense program that only returned to normal in 2014. Similarly, the liberals in 2015 committed themselves not to buy the stealthy fighter F-35 made by the United States and plow the savings in a recapitized navy.
But after a delay of eight years, the liberal government reversed and ordered 88 F-35, only to suggest last week that, in the light of the deteriorated relationship with the Trump administration, which could reduce the order.
Perry said he hopes that the parties focus on how to strengthen the country’s defenses in reason and responsible. The public said, he will probably have less tolerance for politics as usual at this crucial moment.
“I am not sure that we can trust the United States again in the same way we have, or if we should, and in the absence of that, we will have to discover how much we can do ourselves to strengthen our own sets of relations in our national interest,” Perry said.
