it seems that Canada is now spending more on the military than it did in 52 when it was fighting in Korea and dealing with the cold war. 52 was is now the 2nd highest expenditure year since ww2 raged.
that's indexed for inflation btw.

Ehan, would you know what the eyesight requirements are for the Canadian reserve infantry, or know where to find such info?

Ehran, this is the same garbage spewed by the same character Stephen Staples, formerly of the Polaris Institute.  He tries to present himself as a knowledgeable commentator when in fact his left-wing bent is well known by those who have followed his past pronouncements.  Sadly, the media gobbled up his utterances and sent it over the airwaves, instead of checking in with some really knowledgeable people they can readily contact who could punched all kinds of wholes into his argument.  Such as:

 

1.  The CF was gutted by successive governments over the last 4-decades, and after 30-years of cutbacks, the Chretien Liberals cut the forces budget by 23%, the single largest department cutback in the 1995 budget. 

 

2.  Due to #1, the forces were on the verge of collapse when it came to ancient equipment ranging from trucks rusting out, to aircraft that were older than their crews and having to be cannabalized to keep ever shrinking numbers of aircraft operational.  A good example of this was the fact that out of 32 of the older Hercs, the Air Force had problems keeping 10 operational in the latter stages of the Chretien-Martin Liberal led governments.

 

3.  The Senate Standing Committee on National Security and Defence has suggested a doubling of the estimated $18-billion in funding to make up for decades of allowing equipment to wither away, and huge funding for instrastructure allowed to also deteriorate, need for more troops - CF in credible available numbers of regulars had dropped to the low 50,000 mark once one took off pending retirements, those on pregnancy or other leave not related to holidays, etc.  Huge expenditures are critical to rebuilding the CF and after 40-years of abuse, the cost to replace equipment, upgrade capabilities, etc. is going to be expensive, but essential.

 

4. Staples never talks about the fact that Canada has the longest coastline in the world with coastal waters hitting 3 different oceans, or the fact that Canada has a landmass to defend larger than all of Europe spanning 4-time zones, etc.  when using his economic rationale.  He of course ignores and derides GDP funding percentages, while not acknowledging the immense size of Canada, nor the larger transport requirements one has when travelling to various parts of the world.  You look at our missions to the former Yugoslavia, the middle east, etc. and compare the distance we have to travel to support our troops, versus that of the Euro NATO countries and there is only one NATO country having the same logistical transport needs and that is the USA.  His nonsense about buying equipment without analyzing needs is also a crock!  It is just that he doesn't want the CF buying nasty 'toys' like tanks, or other kit that will allow one to combat one's enemies.  He is part of the crowd that things all would be well if we made the CF a constabulary and just be 'peacekeepers'.

 

This list could go on and on, but I think I made my point.   

yeah they are trying to add more bodies and they are buying a lot of new kit for the guys.  it's a good time to be a canadian soldier after long painful years of neglect.  the adding new people thing isn't going so well i understand for several reasons but a year or so should cure most of the problems.

griffin i certainly would be among the last to argue the dismal state of our forces but it is encouraging that the gov't is spending money on them now.  there's a lot of things i don't like about our faux tory gov't but defense spending is something they are moving on.

Well, you can either raise defense spending or rely on the US to defend your coast from the Danes, Norwegians and Russians

nan it's the usa we'll need to defend the coast from not the others.  international seaway my a**

what i cannot figure out is the american insistance on the northwest passage being an international seaway.  it seems the benefit to us interests in having it be the property of an ally like canada would be self evident to even a dull laddy like george.

1. Right of free navigation always.
2. US right to kick the PRCs and Russians out of the Artic with or without Canadian assent.
3. Monroe Doctrine.

Herald

 

it's hardly likely canada is going to start restricting traffic through the passage civil or military.

if it's an international seaway herald your "right" to kick anyone out of it is stillborn.  if it's canadian property then people can be booted out of it.

 

how would the monroe doctrine apply here?  thought that was about keeping europeans from popping up new colonies in the americas.

I think it has to do solely with oil and gas drilling by US companies and not any other reason.  As soon as a non US/Canadian company + BP wants to drill in the area, the White House will start singing "Oh Canada!".

Republished with permission, here is another critic of the Staples-Robinson crowd.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does Canada Overspend on its Military?

J.L. Granatstein

Does Canada spend enough on the Canadian Forces? Military leaders and pro-defence lobby groups, along with academics and some parliamentarians, for years have said that Canadian governments have shortchanged defence. They point to the numbers: only 63,000 regulars, down from 120,000 at the peak of the Cold War, and a defence budget that is only 1.2 percent of Gross Domestic Product compared to the 2.2 percent that is the NATO average. Even with the defence budget increases pledged by the Martin Liberals and endorsed and expanded by the present Conservative government, Canada has a long way to go to have a well-manned, well-equipped military.

Or does it? On October 22, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives released a report, More than the Cold War: Canada?s Military Spending 2007-08. Written by Stephen Staples, a critic of the Canadian Forces for years, and Bill Robinson, the report argues that Canada is now spending more on defence in inflation-adjusted dollars than it has done at any time since the peak of the Cold War. The only time Canada spent more, the authors say, was during the Second World War. And Staples and Robinson go on, spending as a percentage of GDP is a poor indicator. Using GDP percentage, Robinson points out, Turkey would be near the top of NATO spenders, but ?No one really thinks that Turkey is making one of the greatest contributions to NATO. What really counts in defence spending is the amount of dollars actually being spent and in that area Canada is up there,? standing sixth in NATO.

This argument is nonsense. During the height of the Cold War, Canada spent more than seven percent of Gross Domestic Product on defence. The armed forces were tripled in size in a few years, vast quantities of equipment—ships, aircraft, tanks--were purchased, and Canada deployed troops to fight in the Korean War and to take up defensive positions against a feared Soviet attack in Western Europe.

The sense of urgency to rearm was real, and the best indicator of that was the money spent—and the fact that the government was prepared to devote such a high percentage of GDP to the task. Dollars mattered, of course, but the GDP percentage was the key indicator of urgency.

It still is today. The nation is in the early stages of re-building the Canadian Forces. Expensive equipment is being ordered, and large sums are being allocated to fight the Afghan War. But these dollar figures, however large they are when compared to those from the 1950s, are coming from a much bigger government budget in a much richer nation. Using percentage of Gross Domestic Product in fact is the best measure of assessing the seriousness of Canadian efforts. GDP has the virtue of calculating the productivity of a nation and it is a useful comparative device. The Americans spend an estimated 3.8 percent of their huge GDP on defence, and that $500+ billion dollars is an indication of their priorities—and wealth.

Another indicator is defence spending per capita. The Yanks pay $1756 each for defence, Britons $990, Germans $447, Italians $514—and Canadians only $414. The Australians, for example, each pay 50 percent more than we do.

The Turks, sneered at by Robinson and Staples, spend very close to the Canadian per capita sum, but that amounts to 3 percent of their GDP, a high figure in NATO terms. Why do the Turks have nearly a million men, regulars and reserves, in their military? Why do they spend as much as they do? Bill Robinson ventures no judgments, perhaps because that might oblige him to look at Turkey?s strategic situation on the edge of the Middle East and at the Kurdish terrorist incursions that cross their border with Iraq. That nations might have interests to protect, that they might have rational reasons for spending money on their militaries, never seems to cross the minds of Robinson and Staples.

Canada too has national interests and it needs military resources to protect and advance them. To me, if not to Robinson and Staples, the Afghan War serves our national interests by helping to create a government there that will not support and shelter terrorists who can strike at us. To me, Canada needs a military that can protect our people and our territory, the basic national interest of any nation-state. We need a military that can do our fair share in defending our continent and our hemisphere, something that we have not been doing for decades. We rely on the United States to defend us, and the Americans will—because it is in their national interests not to have a defence vacuum to their north. But as a nationalist, I would much prefer that Canada did more to fill that vacuum, thus ensuring its sovereignty with its own resources. Those are the reasons we have a military; those are the reasons we spend what we do. And those are the reasons, in our own interests, that we must have a Canadian Forces that can do the job of protecting and advancing the nation?s interests.

Studies such as More than the Cold War, produced by New Democratic Party-front organizations, do nothing to advance the necessary debate on defence, nothing at all. Canada needs to examine its national interests calmly and rationally and then set about providing the military resources it needs to protect and advance them. Spurious comparisons that neglect the realities do nothing to this end.

 
(J.L. Granatstein writes on behalf of the Council for Canadian Security in the 21^st Century (link href="http://www.ccs21.org/">www.ccs21.org). Free use may be made of this column providing full credit is given to CCS21.)