DND considers axing military research Debate still rages over whether DND grants to universities is valid research or propaganda—but the point may be moot if the budget is pulled. By Carl Meyer Published August 11, 2010

View story Email Comments To the Editor

The Department of National Defence is not ruling out axing a long-established public fund for national security and defence studies as part of the Harper government's spending cuts, setting off another debate about the quality of military research in Canada.

Departmental officials quietly delivered the warning during a June 17 meeting of the Security and Defence Forum, the 43-year-old, $2.5-million DND grant program that funds military research across Canada.

The program has come under funding scrutiny several times before, and has always passed muster. But researchers say this is the first time the funding is up for renewal at the same time that the government is looking to trim the budget of 13 federal organizations, a move they say leaves it particularly vulnerable.

While the Canadian public was treated to some big-budget military promises this July—$16-billion for the Joint Strike Fighters and $2.6-billion for the Joint Support Ships—inside DND the prying fingers of the strategic review paint a different picture, that of a department looking to cut anywhere it reasonably can, including into the traditional military-academic relationship.

"It might just completely disconnect the defence establishment from universities," said Douglas Bland, chair of Defence Management Studies at Queen's University, which received $165,000 in DND funding for that position in the 2008-09 year.

SDF money funds security and defence research centres at 12 universities in Canada. The money also pays for scholarships, internships, aboriginal fellowships, conferences, workshops, battlefield tours, and websites, among other activities.

Directors say the work is relevant and timely for Canadians. Many study the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan. The centres also generate considerable media, producing hundreds of defence and security-focused events and op-eds as well as thousands of media interviews per year.

Not all of this media coverage is favourable of the military. For example, the Gregg Centre at the University of New Brunswick opposed the deployment of Canadian troops to Afghanistan in 2006.

But even so, some critics think of the program as a propaganda arm of the government. Amir Attaran, a law professor at the University of Ottawa who holds the Canada Research Chair in Law, Population Health and Global Development Policy, said it would be an "excellent idea" for the government to axe the SDF funding.

"The SDF scholars should stand on their own two feet like any other scholars, and compete for their funds through [the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council], rather than be handed sinecures through DND," said Mr. Attaran.

SDF researchers say departmental officials stressed to them that the program is not yet being singled out. The strategic review must necessarily examine all direct spending, they were told, and therefore officials were obliged to note that nothing is certain until after the review is completed.

Defence Minister Peter MacKay said that until the strategic review was completed he could not address funding for specific programs.

"This review will determine if DND needs to adjust its spending to ensure that the government's highest priorities are being met," wrote a spokesperson for Mr. MacKay in an email.

But researchers say even though the review is not completed, the warning has already put them in a state of limbo. The funding is up for renewal in March 2011; without a green light from the government this late in the game, they say, long-term projects are already being put on hold, and other sources of funding are less dependable, meaning that centres could begin shutting their doors.

"If the SDF program is cancelled, defence studies will disappear from most of the twelve universities, including those in Francophone Quebec," predicted Terry Copp, director of the Laurier Centre for Military Strategic and Disarmament Studies at Wilfred Laurier University.

Mr. Copp says that after he attended the meeting, he went to shelve all of his centre's projects that would have still been in place next spring.

According to the 2008-09 SDF annual report, the Laurier Centre received $115,000 in base funding, and $10,000 for the special project "2008 Battlefield Tour: Canadian Battlefields in Europe." It also received $8,569 for research to be presented at an international conference and $5,000 for a national conference.

He said that centres like his depend on the "leverage" the SDF provides in order to score other funding. While he hopes to see the strategic review completed by the fall, he said the results probably would not be made public until next winter's budget, unless the government decides to do so voluntarily.

This means that even if the program is renewed or reborn as another program next February or March, it will take a while for new money to come down the pipeline.

Alex Macleod, director of the Centre for Foreign Policy and Security Studies at the Université du Québec à Montréal and Concordia University, which received $110,000 in 2008-09 base funding, said if the SDF were to be cut, his centre would shut down since it is "almost 100 per cent dependent" on the grant money.

Similarly, the York Centre for International and Security Studies at York University, which received $100,000 in 2008-09 base funding, would find itself in "a very precarious status financially, functionally, and substantially" if the SDF funding disappeared, said director Robert Latham.

Liberal Party Defence critic Ujjal Dosanjh attacked the government for "working at cross-purposes." He said he felt the department should not bother killing the program if it came up as a potential move, since the benefit of research far outweighed the cost.

"They're spending $16-billion on these fighter jets that nobody can say are the best suited to meet the future needs of our military. On the other hand, they [could cut] basic research funding that assists us in coming to good decisions. I just think that that's wrong," he said.

Path ahead not certain

Others caution that strategic reviews are generally a good idea, that the SDF has faced extinction several times before and emerged relatively unscathed, and that in any case, the department has plenty of wiggle room before it has to look to killing smaller projects.

Alan Williams, a former assistant deputy minister for materiel in DND, said that if departments have to cut, "everybody should be able to defend the expenditures that they get," and if programs can't show their viability from public money, "perhaps they should be vulnerable."

Mr. Williams said that in hunting for its strategic review cuts, which have been predicted to be in the $500-million to $1-billion range for DND, the department probably has room to cut from its capital budget.

Although the big procurements over this summer have now been promised, "that occupies a very small percentage of their procurement budget." Extended out over a twenty year period, for example, the billions promised this summer would only account for a small percentage of the yearly procurement budget.

Retired colonel Brian MacDonald, now a senior defence analyst with the Conference of Defence Associations, agreed that the money would more likely come from personnel, operations and maintenance.

The funding scramble has showed that not all the security and defence centres would immediately shut down without SDF funding. The Centre of International Relations at the University of British Columbia has now been rolled in with the Liu Institute for Global Issues, which draws funding from other sources.

As such, said centre director Brian Job, "should this funding be ended, the Institute per se would not be affected."

But that being said, he noted specific activities that occurred last year, such as the research of a postdoctoral fellow, undergraduate research and international activities, as well as a conference on climate change and security, would most likely cease.

Marc Milner, director of the Gregg Centre, said that the funding has always been described as "uncertain" during a renewal year, suggesting "the people in the [DND] public policy side are never overtly optimistic about anything when it comes to renewal."

He said he had heard nothing specific that suggested the strategic review has put the existence of the program in peril.

But Mr. Copp said he felt SDF should be able to stand on its merits.

"It seems fairly evident to me, and in terms of relations between the department and the Canadian people, that if there's any kind of public affairs or public outreach, the SDF ought to be it," he said.

cmeyer@embassymag.ca