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.