The Hart House Debates Committee and the Association of Political Science Students (APSS) hosted a debate last Wednesday on the question: “Should Canada and the US deepen defence ties? Do we have a choice?”

Two guests, Steven Staples of the Polaris Institute and Dr Paul Mitchell of the Canadian Forces College, debated the issue and took questions from the audience of about 30 people in the Hart House debates room.

Mitchell focused much of his talk on the inadequate state of the Canadian Forces.

“There was never doubt during the Cold War where Canada stood,” he said. “We were not neutral; we were most definitely on the American side.” Now, however, Canada’s diminished military capacity means that “Canada cannot project influence abroad and we have no say in how the international order is constructed.”

In an interview after the debate with The Varsity, Mitchell described potential threats facing Canadians: “I don’t think we have to worry about [Iranian capital] Tehran targeting Ottawa, but nuclear proliferation is quickly becoming a threat to international peace generally. That said, a nuclear attack on the US would have direct impact on Canada since our economy is so closely integrated with theirs.”

On Canada’s military role overseas, Mitchell spoke of a “disconnect between our military contributions, [which are] significant in places like Bosnia and Afghanistan, and the fact that we don’t seem to gain any diplomatic influence from these efforts at the negotiating table, or even an invitation to the table; Canada has to clarify its strategic goals.”

Staples devoted much of his debate to discussing the effects that further military integration would have on Canadian sovereignty.

“You’ve probably heard that Canadian spending is near the bottom out of all NATO countries,” said Staples. “When people say that, they are referring to spending as a per cent of GDP. But on that scale, the US comes in third among NATO countries.

“After the war on the deficit was over, military spending started rising again, starting in 1999,” Staples continued. “The military is far from being neglected.

“It’s interesting to note,” Staples concluded, “that many of the same people, like [Canadian Council of Chief Executives president] Thomas D’Aquino [who argue for increased military spending], are the same people that argued for free trade. There’s major co-operation between the defence and business lobbies for closer defence ties.”

After the debate, Staples spoke with The Varsity about Canada’s defence priorities: “We don’t need submarines,” he said. “We need to spend money on port security, improving our coast guard and strengthening security at the border… The military often isn’t the right answer to terrorism.”

The audience asked a variety of questions. Dr. Saul Arbess, from the Working Group for a Federal Department of Peace, asked whether or not there should be a minister of peace, combining defence, foreign affairs, trade and aid. Ben Hishom, 22, majoring in Political Science, said, “More defence spending is needed to develop rapid reaction forces, for example. Why didn’t you spend more time discussing missile defence?”