In what seems to be a weekly occurrence, the Liberals have struck yet another blue-ribbon panel — this time to advise on the future of Canada’s defence policy.

Former Supreme Court justice Louise Arbour, former Liberal minister of foreign affairs and national defence Bill Graham, former chief of the defence staff Ray Henault and former associate deputy minister of national defence Margaret Purdy will, we’re told, help current Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan define Canada’s military role and the necessary support and equipment to sustain it.

According to Sajjan, the review is “long overdue” (the last one was conducted in 1994). Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had this to say: “The fact is, Canada has for many years not put forward a comprehensive vision of what our military should be doing, how best we can have an impact on the world, how best we can keep Canadians safe, what kinds of things we’re expecting our military to be engaged in the coming years, in the coming decades.”

That, of course, is not how the Opposition sees it: The Conservatives are already calling the process a delaying tactic that’s unlikely to change the course the government has already set. The government “has already made clear that its defence strategy will shift Canada away from ‘combat capability’ towards ‘peace operations,’” Tory leader Rona Ambrose said in a press release Tuesday. “They have also clearly signaled they want a ‘leaner’ military, which will undoubtedly result in cuts.”

With the committee due to report back in 2017 — which will lead, no doubt, to further study and consultation before an actual plan is presented, and equipment purchases go to tender — this process will drag on into the 2020s. With the committee due to report back in 2017 — which will lead, no doubt, to further study and consultation before an actual plan is presented, and equipment purchases go to tender — this process will drag on into the 2020s.

Those cuts have already come, in the form of the deferral of $3.7 billion in military spending meant to replace aging equipment. It’s not the first such decision by a Liberal government: Jean Chrétien famously reneged on the replacement for Canada’s Sea King helicopters when he took office in 1993, a decision which cost taxpayers half a billion dollars in penalties. Those helicopters are now 50 years old and still have not been replaced, after another procurement fiasco that embroiled the governments of Paul Martin and then Stephen Harper.

Between the Sea Kings and our CF-18s, Canada’s fleet of military aircraft is ready for the retirement home. Renewing our air force should be a top priority — not only for combat purposes, but for the safety of the pilots who fly them. Of course, if you’re disinclined to deploy them — as Trudeau seems to be, based on his withdrawal of fighter jets from Iraq and Syria — then you can get by, perhaps, while deferring their replacements. This would seem to confirm the Opposition’s theory that the government already knows what it wants to do with its military and is just using its “blue ribbon panel” to rubber-stamp its plans.

It also would confirm the Liberals’ desire to postpone big-ticket spending past the 2019 election horizon, to help them balance the books — or at least to avoid plunging even further into the red. Had they not deferred the $3.7 billion in defence spending, their 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 deficits would have been over $30 billion. But with the committee due to report back in 2017 — which will lead, no doubt, to further study and consultation before an actual plan is presented, and equipment purchases go to tender — this process will drag on into the 2020s.

Without more modern big-ticket equipment, Canada will be consigned to a lesser role — but not one which necessarily means less risk. If anything, sending in more trainers (as is happening in Iraq and Syria) or putting more peacekeepers in conflict zones (where there is often little peace to keep) will expose troops to more danger, and result in more casualties, than contributing at a higher technological level.

In short, the Liberals intend to sell a cheaper version of engagement in the guise of reviving Canada’s “tradition” of peacekeeping — a clever move, perhaps, but one that will diminish our country’s influence on the world stage. You don’t need to carry the biggest stick to have some clout — but you also don’t bring a twig to a firefight. Or another advisory panel.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.