[mr.x]

Federal government quietly releases $490B military plan

Last Updated: Friday, June 20, 2008 | 4:51 PM ET
CBC News

The Conservative government has quietly released the details of its extensive plan to beef up the military, including spending $490 billion over the next 20 years to ensure Canadian soldiers are well-equipped, well-trained and highly active.

Details of the plan, known as Canada First Defence Strategy, were posted Thursday night without fanfare on the Department of National Defence's website.

The posting comes almost six weeks after Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced at a news conference that his government had a strategy for the military but provided few details about it. Critics at the time said the strategy was nothing more than a speech, since Harper offered no document to back it up.

Speaking in Halifax on Friday, Defence Minister Peter MacKay defended the nighttime posting of the plan, saying the government was simply striving to provide more specifics about the strategy to Canadians.

Military analyst Rob Huebert told CBC News that he can't understand why Harper would release the document so quietly, and why he would do so the day before the House of Commons is expected to adjourn for the summer.

Still, he praised the document's contents, saying the strategy appears to be a well-balanced assessment that juggles the military's commitments at home and overseas.

"I'm hard-pressed right at this point, looking at it, to be really overtly critical," said Huebert, associate director of the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies in Calgary. "I do think they've got a good balance on this particular aspect."

The opposition also questioned the timing and delivery of the announcement in Parliament Thursday.

Liberal MP Rodger Cuzner said posting the information online in the "dead of night" sounded like the actions of "a government with something to hide."

But Laurie Hawn, MacKay's parliamentary secretary, pointed to Harper's previous announcement, saying the information had already been posted on the government website and that Canadians "wanted more details on it."


$60 billion on equipment

The document, which stresses the importance of giving the Canadian Forces predictable and stable funding, says $60 billion must be spent on much-needed military equipment, such as helicopters, patrol ships, planes, destroyers, frigates, land combat vehicles and weapons.

A total of $15 billion of these equipment purchases has already been confirmed and announced publicly.

Other military spending over the next 20 years is to include:

- $250 billion on personnel, with the military's numbers increasing to 70,000 regular members and 30,000 reserve members. (Currently, there are 62,000 regular members and 25,000 reservists.)
- $140 billion on training and maintenance of equipment.
- $40 billion on military buildings and infrastructure.

The document suggests that in the next 20 years, the international community will be coping with failed states, rogue nuclear nations and the increasing threat of terrorism. It also notes that the military needs to enhance its ability to operate alongside U.S. forces.

"The Canada First Defence Strategy will enable the Forces to … address the full range of defence and security challenges facing Canada now and into the future," the document states. "This strengthened military will translate into enhanced security for Canadians at home as well as a stronger voice for Canada on the world stage."


Six core duties for the military

The document says the Canadian Forces will have six core duties over the next 20 years and will often have to juggle more than one duty at once in Canada and overseas.

The duties are:

- Conducting daily domestic and continental operations, including protecting Arctic sovereignty.
- Supporting a major international event in Canada, such as the 2010 Olympics.
- Responding to any major terrorist attacks.
- Providing aid to civilian authorities during natural disasters and other crises in Canada.
- Conducting a major international operation for an extended period, such as the Afghan mission.
- Have enough troops remaining to deploy to other international crises for shorter periods of time.

NDP defence critic Dawn Black questioned why the document does not stress the peacekeeping work of Canadian soldiers.

"The more and more we become meshed with American foreign policy… the less and less ability we have to be independent and have a clear Canadian voice on the international stage."






After this is all done, the jokes about one canoe and one archer being our military force would be a thing of the past.

[matt602]

It's about damned time.

[Boris2k7]

Wow, that's like $24.5 Billion per year. Nearly double the annual Defense budget in recent years.

[MonkeyRonin]

Yay! Frivolous wastes of money made at our expense! :awesome:


Why can't we get a true fiscal conservative government instead of these neocon clowns bent on taxing us to pay for these ridiculous schemes of theirs? Or, if they do plan on spending $490 billion, at least make in the form of an investment - ie. improving transportation infrastructure or education?

[mr.x]

^ fact is, this is long overdue. The military needs this overhaul, it has aging and insufficient equipment, land vehicles, ships, and planes. They need this support, and we can't always be counting on the Americans.

[SteelTown]

How nice, we're still waiting for the $6 billion from the feds for MoveOntario 2020.

[Rico Rommheim]

Yay! Frivolous wastes of money made at our expense! :awesome:



hell no, this is about damn time. Any modern nation must have a modern army, if not for the sake of usage, for the sake of appearances and diplomacy.

[MalcolmTucker]

Year on year it is only on average a 2.2% increase. Which depending on inflation will likely be a real amount loss.

Since half the equipment costs will be eaten up by buying next generation fighter planes, it really isn't that much money, and a quarter is in already announced projects: what other areas need replacement in the next 20 years.

Replacing the destroyers will be a $5-8 billion dollar program, so there is 10 billion left over 20 years.

The government should commit to pegging defence spending at 2% GDP as the Liberal dominated Senate committee continues to advise.

[someone123]

Well, that's usually the way these funding announcements work. The federal government probably announces ten times more spending than it has in its budget - the same things are counted many times in different ways and many are quietly forgotten shortly thereafter.

I do believe that the military is a fairly important factor in Canada's global standing and a useful thing in general. How it is deployed is largely a separate issue.

Another factor is that if military personnel are being deployed to dangerous areas like Afghanistan then they should have reasonable equipment. Arguably that is not the case.

[northwest2k]

I hope they use some of that money to towards militarizing our north. I don't want to see us lose whats rightfully ours to Russia.

[Aylmer]

How much money is going to healthcare, education and transportation again?

This has gone out of control.
Have we forgotten what our true values are as Canadians?
Not only have the tories forsaken our peace-keeping missions for costly
war zones, but the government is funding it more than alot of our actualy
IMPORTANT things like, as I said, healthcare, international aid, education,
abolition of pauvrety and the environment!
Harper keeps scaring everyone into beleiving what he says:
Whether for fear for the lives of others, or for our own.

A society run on fear is doomed.

:)

[baggab]

How much money is going to healthcare, education and transportation again?

This has gone out of control.
Have we forgotten what our true values are as Canadians?
Not only have the tories forsaken our peace-keeping missions for costly
war zones, but the government is funding it more than alot of our actualy
IMPORTANT things like, as I said, healthcare, international aid, education,
abolition of pauvrety and the environment!
Harper keeps scaring everyone into beleiving what he says:
Whether for fear for the lives of others, or for our own.

A society run on fear is doomed.

:)

35.5 Billion is the approximate for Health Care Spending in 2004-2005 by Federal Government only. 88 billion total when you include provincial and territorial spending.

Now this figure rises as it's a percentage share on what the province spends. So, in the end it'll be a lot more than this figure in 20 years unlike that static one.

It's kind of silly how people get upset for any military spending, as the growth numbers are probably only going to keep up with the percentage of soldiers relative to the growth in population.

[The Chemist]

Another factor is that if military personnel are being deployed to dangerous areas like Afghanistan then they should have reasonable equipment. Arguably that is not the case.

Really? Aside from a lack of helicopters (which are coming - new Chinooks will be coming soon) the Canadian Army's materiel in Afghanistan is pretty much top of the line - Leopard 2 tanks, South African Nyala armourmed cars, LAV IIIs, M777 howitzers, etc, etc. What isn't reasonable about that?

As a person with family in the army, I have to say I'm pleased with this announcement. A modern armed forces is a good investment for any nation.

[Aylmer]

35.5 Billion is the approximate for Health Care Spending in 2004-2005 by Federal Government only. 88 billion total when you include provincial and territorial spending.

Now this figure rises as it's a percentage share on what the province spends. So, in the end it'll be a lot more than this figure in 20 years unlike that static one.

It's kind of silly how people get upset for any military spending, as the growth numbers are probably only going to keep up with the percentage of soldiers relative to the growth in population.


But we are comparing oxygen and paperclips.

You will most certainly need oxygen but you will only require paperclips if you have paper.
Which you shant always have.
We will always need healthcare and education so we should invest more heavely in that.
We only really need militairy funding if there is a war. That won't always be there.

:)

[Spocket]

^Yeah, I think the Soviets had that same approach during WWII. Wait for the attack , THEN prepare. Canada isn't in any imminent danger of course and unless the US collapses completely, we're not in any danger. However, that being the case, we do still have to pull our weight and defend our interests around the world. That doesn't necessarily mean we have to guard a Canadian-owned factory in the Philippines but it does mean that we can't complain about the world turning a blind eye to the Sudan if we're not prepared to do something about it.

Well of course the CBC and its followers figure this is a waste of money what with children in Africa starving. Maybe it is in that case but until the rest of the world decides to disarm , military spending is going to be a reality and a necessary expense.

On top of the fact that there's nothing particularly gross about this spending , we're also talking about a military that has been underfunded for the past twenty years. Properly funded militaries don't borrow clothes from foreign militaries when deployed to danger zones after all. So we have to make up for two decades of that on top of the fact that we have to keep up with the times and that costs money as well. It's not the USSR we're worried about anymore and we have to spend money to adapt to the new reality. Frankly, this isn't really enough to make us any sort of world leader in terms of how state-of-the-art our military is and we don't need that anyway. Of course, subs with new , water-proof screen doors and real , working engines would be appreciated I'm sure. That reminds me...did we replace those five ton Sea King paper weights yet ? I think we already committed cash to that goal but as I alluded to earlier , it's not like that was the only area of our forces in need of a serious cash infusion. Not that this is that cash infusion anyway but it should be adequate for Canada's needs.

[Doady]

Our Arctic is under threat of attack from not only the Russians, but also the Danes and the Americans. We must not only be vigilant, but also be ready to go on the offensive ourselves.

[canucklehead2]

Is an upgrade needed? Probably. It it still a massive amount of money I'd much rather see spent on rapid transit, affordable housing and alternative energy? You Bet!

Not that it has to be an either/or scenario, but for a short-sighted government like Harper's, it sure seems that way...

[KrisYYC]

It's about damned time. Canada is a resource rich nation, we need to show the world we can defend our interests if need be.

I don't understand how anybody could be upset with this. Our military funding of the past 25 years is an absolute embarrasment. I think it's pretty naive to think that we don't need to modernize and grow our defence. The world is changing whether we like it or not.

[CanadianCentaur]

^ No kidding. We can't rely completely on the US to defend ourselves if terrorists or some other country decides to attack us.

I'd love to see fighters like the F-35 Lightning II and the F-22 Raptor (assuming the US Congress repeals the ban on selling the F-22 to countries outside the US, even its allies, due to the sensitive technology. Australia is reported to be interested in that fighter). The Canadian military is indeed looking for a replacement for the CF-18 Hornet fleet around 2017-2020.

[baggab]

But we are comparing oxygen and paperclips.

You will most certainly need oxygen but you will only require paperclips if you have paper.
Which you shant always have.
We will always need healthcare and education so we should invest more heavely in that.
We only really need militairy funding if there is a war. That won't always be there.

:)

Military Funding isn't only the case for war. As many of the armies have demonstrated over long periods of time.

Armies are very useful in natural disasters. You can't exactly start training them when a disaster happens.

You know that for the transcanada highway to stay open through out the year the army actually sends out engineers and even some artillery to trigger avalanches before they occur?

This is meager spending and even thou I don't like the conservative government I'm not going to knock them for it.

I suppose your solution is not have a army at all?

Unfortunately, you seem to see things in future tense and they're looking at things through current circumstances. Military is needed as you pointed out yourself when there is strife in the world and while there is. We need at least a minimum army which considering the size and vastness of Canada. This is adequate spending in my view.

[shogged]

^ No kidding. We can't rely completely on the US to defend ourselves if terrorists or some other country decides to attack us.

I'd love to see fighters like the F-35 Lightning II and the F-22 Raptor (assuming the US Congress repeals the ban on selling the F-22 to countries outside the US, even its allies, due to the sensitive technology. Australia is reported to be interested in that fighter). The Canadian military is indeed looking for a replacement for the CF-18 Hornet fleet around 2017-2020.

as cool as the F-22 is (and i mean really freaking cool) its actually a pretty shitty jet for what its designed to do. I remember watching a documentary on it where a US air force something or other stated he could take down an F-22 with an F-16 and all his buddies agreed. Coming from the guys who fly em first hand, makes me wonder!

We will see the F-35 here though, or should I say the CF-35!

[CanadianCentaur]

^ Well, let's hope that the (C)F-35 isn't as bad!

[Denscity]

Holy Stephen Bush! Although I do agree with protecting our incredibly long coastline including the arctic.

[MalcolmTucker]

^ No kidding. We can't rely completely on the US to defend ourselves if terrorists or some other country decides to attack us.

I'd love to see fighters like the F-35 Lightning II and the F-22 Raptor (assuming the US Congress repeals the ban on selling the F-22 to countries outside the US, even its allies, due to the sensitive technology. Australia is reported to be interested in that fighter). The Canadian military is indeed looking for a replacement for the CF-18 Hornet fleet around 2017-2020.

Yeah, the plan is to buy 65 Lighting IIs, either the Air Force or Carrier model. The carrier model may win out for Canada since it has more internal fuel capacity, longer range, a bigger wing, hardened landing gear, and a probe/drogue refueling system vs the boom system of the air force model. The generally more rugged carrier version will likely allow a longer service life.

As for the F-22, unless your concentrating on fighter interception, it doesn't provide many operational advantages to the F-35. If Canada purchased F-22s it would still likely buy as large a contingent of F-35s.

[mersar]

We will see the F-35 here though, or should I say the CF-35!

Yep, we've already spent a couple hundred million on the F-35 development and I can't see us not getting some. Let's hope they only mangle the name as much as CF-35, unlike the manging of the C17 which became CC-177's in Canada (can anyone explain where that extra '7' came from?)

[Boris2k7]

as cool as the F-22 is (and i mean really freaking cool) its actually a pretty shitty jet for what its designed to do. I remember watching a documentary on it where a US air force something or other stated he could take down an F-22 with an F-16 and all his buddies agreed. Coming from the guys who fly em first hand, makes me wonder!

We will see the F-35 here though, or should I say the CF-35!

Well, we could always get Eurofighter Typhoons in that case. :)

[Canadian Mind]

^ fact is, this is long overdue. The military needs this overhaul, it has aging and insufficient equipment, land vehicles, ships, and planes. They need this support, and we can't always be counting on the Americans.

The jokes about Duct-tape holding aircraft together aren't a lie. we need new kit. In the case of the seakings, we needed new kit 20 years ago. People have died because of insufficientcies in our kit and its about time it was replaced.
Yep, we've already spent a couple hundred million on the F-35 development and I can't see us not getting some. Let's hope they only mangle the name as much as CF-35, unlike the manging of the C17 which became CC-177's in Canada (can anyone explain where that extra '7' came from?)

to canadianize the designations we also add an extra numerial to the end of the american designations, such as with the CF-188s (F-18s)

Yeah, the plan is to buy 65 Lighting IIs, either the Air Force or Carrier model. The carrier model may win out for Canada since it has more internal fuel capacity, longer range, a bigger wing, hardened landing gear, and a probe/drogue refueling system vs the boom system of the air force model. The generally more rugged carrier version will likely allow a longer service life.

As for the F-22, unless your concentrating on fighter interception, it doesn't provide many operational advantages to the F-35. If Canada purchased F-22s it would still likely buy as large a contingent of F-35s.

No, we wont be going back to a multi-fighter system; and, we wont be getting the F-22, which in virtual engagements has won every battle save for one time when it was shot down by an F-16. Currently the best fighter on the planet.

And currently the question of F-35s, which aren't living up to all the hype themselves, might be put off for simply refurbishing/rebuilding 65 F-18s.

Should design and build our own.

Another factor is that if military personnel are being deployed to dangerous areas like Afghanistan then they should have reasonable equipment. Arguably that is not the case.

Just the opposite, ignoring air elements, we have better kit in A-stan than the Americans do. For instance, LAV III is better than the Stryker in everyway save for power, which really isn't needed in A-stan when all we are doing is advancing towards the enemy. strikers are under-armed and under-armoured compared tot he LAV III, armour being a big thing for the guys on the grund when running over mines.

We also replaced the tin-can Iltus with G-wagons, specifically because of the war. w also bought 75 Nyla's specifically becase of the war.

Only thing that sucked were the Gators, which weren't equipped with Mine and bomb protection, for obvious reasons. While I understand the utility of the things, I don't undestand the concept of taking glorfied lawn-mowers on steoids with a 4x6 foot box on the back into a warzone. atleast give the thing a bigger engine and fuel tank, and put some armour onto it. :P

How much money is going to healthcare, education and transportation again?

This has gone out of control.
Have we forgotten what our true values are as Canadians?
Not only have the tories forsaken our peace-keeping missions for costly
war zones, but the government is funding it more than alot of our actualy
IMPORTANT things like, as I said, healthcare, international aid, education,
abolition of pauvrety and the environment!
Harper keeps scaring everyone into beleiving what he says:
Whether for fear for the lives of others, or for our own.

A society run on fear is doomed.

:)

Mor emoney is going to healthcare, schooling, transportation, etc. ach than the military.

True values as Canadians don't include us standing at a gate in Rwanda and watching thousands of people get slaughtered with nothing we can do. Thats the reality of what peacekeepign as become. Peacekeeping as Person envisioned and applied it in the Suez crisis is steping between two enemies, point your guns at both, and vow to shoot at whomever shoots first, or fire first yourself shoudl they cross into the boundary. This is known today as peacemaking, and was sccesfully applied in Bosnia.

What did we do in Bosina? Rouge militants were preparing to commit Genocide and exterminate civilians in a village, (don't ask me where). Unlike in Rwanda, CF personel got inbetween the civilians and the militants, and started shooting. This was against the Rules of Engagement established at the time for peacekeeping, and against orders. But there are hundreds of men, women, and children alive today because we shot first and made peace. I would give more details about the engagement, but the sgt. who was there told me the story awhile ago now and my memory is a bit foggy.


You can't keep peace when there is no peace, this is why we are at war.

[Canadian Mind]

delete

[Canadian Mind]

delete

[jlousa]

Time to build the Avro Arrow2. :tup: With the hurting auto industry lets convert some of that spare capacity over to something else. We need to spend the money, would be nice if we had the option of doing it at home.

[Canadian Mind]

Time to build the Avro Arrow2. :tup: With the hurting auto industry lets convert some of that spare capacity over to something else. We need to spend the money, would be nice if we had the option of doing it at home.

I'd love to see another Arrow. Public pressure is the key here, enough of it and any government will cave. Remember that it was the LIBERALS who ran the last program.

Even so, it would take atleast a decade to design and build a new bird, even based on the old aerodynamic designs. Based on the old design there is potential to design an aircraft better than the F-22. The old aircraft was stealthy as it was, just make it mores, and make it faster. Hide from most of the enemy, then outrun em if you can't hide. give it top of the line radar and a massive internal weapons bay (like the old at 18 by 8 by 3 feets), and what you would have is a mach 3+, stealthed, air-air and air-ground tactical weapons platform/interceptor. presiely what we need for our expansive north.

[jlousa]

I'd rather see something designed that could be made much cheaper then the existing line of fighters. The prices have become astronomical while the advances have been very modest.
Given the choice between 100 F-22s or 1000 F-16 class fighters I'd rather have the f-16s. It's amazing how much price difference there is. Before someone tells me that a f-22 is so much better then a f-16, ask yourselves if you truly beleive one f-22 can take down 10 f-16 though.

We could probably have Bombardier start up an military division so their commercial division can benefit from the developments.

[theman23]

as cool as the F-22 is (and i mean really freaking cool) its actually a pretty shitty jet for what its designed to do. I remember watching a documentary on it where a US air force something or other stated he could take down an F-22 with an F-16 and all his buddies agreed. Coming from the guys who fly em first hand, makes me wonder!


Oh yes, airforce jet pilots. I don't think there's a bunch out there more known for their modesty.

[MalcolmTucker]

:previous:

For long distance air interception, you don't really need fighters such as these that have limited range, even with external tanks. Fighters/Ground attack are great at doing what they are designed to do, but they aren't designed to patrol huge distances like Canada has.

Canada gets around the difficulties of maritime interception by flying the CP-140 Aurora, which is both a detection and attack platform, with insane range and long endurance (17 hours). (which also need to be replaced in the next ten years, since the tories cancelled the mid life upgrade)

A combination of an Airborne Early Warning and Control aircraft with a long range missile carrier, could fill the gap in Canada's defence. Traditionally, AEW&C planes are used to direct fighters to intercept, but you could go one step further and mount long range air to air missiles on the same platform.

It wouldn't be sexy, but it would provide a theoretical first line of defense before you have a chance to deploy fighters to the affected sectors.

[cornholio]

what a waste of money and resources.
our military is sufficient for our needs, when it comes to peace keeping missions then the combined forces of western nations including us are by far sufficient enough to get the job done. We also dont need to be sticking our noses where they dont belong, aka america.
waste of money, too bad for old timer politicians and ignorant voters....personally I would like to see further cuts in our military funding.
waste of money

[SJTOKO]

Iran has some nice fighters for sale...

http://www.alqamar.info/alqamarnews/tpllib/img.php?im=cat_160/5777.jpg&w=244&h=166

So does China!

http://news.thomasnet.com/IMT/archives/China's%20new%20jet,%20the%20J-10,%20which%20is%20said%20to%20match%20most%20of%20the%20world's%20best%20fighters.jpg

Time to go shopping!!!!!

[e909]

Am I the only one who thinks this funding doesn't even come close to where it should be? This "increase" in spending won't even cover inflation.. If anything the tories are cutting funding to the military.

I agree with the senate when we need to double the military budget immediately.

[MalcolmTucker]

If your looking for a cheap point defense fighter to use as a basis for a modern avionics suite, look no further than the Taiwanese IDF F-CK-1A (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDC_Ching-kuo)

Comparable in many aspects to the F-16, with a unit cost south of $30 million. It was built since the USA did not permit Taiwan to buy new fighter aircraft in the 80s, however the IDF order was slashed in half when Taiwan secured F-16s in the late 90s.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7d/IDF_Pre-production.jpg/800px-IDF_Pre-production.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/IDF_F-CK-1A_Single_Front_View.jpg/792px-IDF_F-CK-1A_Single_Front_View.jpg
Both images from Wikipedia


If Canada were to attempt to develop a 5th generation fighter instead of purchasing it, or licensing it, we would likely see a similar timeline. Project start in 1982, to prototype in '89 and deployment in '94. It would be horribly expensive to develop and would likely be cancelled after a government change.

[mr.x]

http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/1322276.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF1939057D9939C83F1060FEAB7D8AEBC719B5A5397277B4DC33E

http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/1322273.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF1939057D9939C83F106E90E5987A0F1832A5A5397277B4DC33E

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c355/Candor7/f35_14.jpg

http://images.ctv.ca/archives/CTVNews/img2/20071001/450_toronto_071001.jpg

http://www.panoramio.com/photos/original/9190.jpg

http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/mspa_images/gallery/gallery_images/large/HS2002-10188-061.jpg

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/invincible/images/Invincible_new_10.jpg

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/halifax/images/halifax3.jpg

http://www.boatnerd.com/news/newpictures01/hmskingston-pc.jpg

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/ssk_victoria/images/Victoria_1.jpg

http://www.sitnews.us/BobCiminel/100904_HMCS_Chicoutimi.jpg

http://electronicintifada.net/artman2/uploads/1/ei_cantank.jpg

[Boreal]

I hate to start a post with a blanket statement, but perhaps it's noteworthy in this case. I too am a proponent of the military for defensice purposes. It is unrealistic in my opinion to assume our world can exist with smiles and sunshine.

Every strong society needs 3 things to work cohesively to be strong and remain strong: Military power, productive power and financial/economic power. Remove any one from the equation and things crumble. Kind of why the Dutch, the Spanish and the Portuguese had difficulty in what is the most obvious example of this theory at work in world history. Of course, in no way am I mentally plotting Canadian imperial intentions, but simply the fact that the military, although not the feel-good topic for some is a necessary part of Canada's success, strength and survival. This is a fantastic announcement and we should in no way ever settle for providing out men and women who put themselves in harms way with nothing but the best of equipment to perform their many tasks.

NDP defence critic Dawn Black questioned why the document does not stress the peacekeeping work of Canadian soldiers.

"The more and more we become meshed with American foreign policy… the less and less ability we have to be independent and have a clear Canadian voice on the international stage." NDP MP

The above quote is a classic line tossed into the water for effect year after year by so many Canadians, yet it really holds no weight. Only in the feel-good fuzzy terms of a slanted text book will you read of Canada as the great peacekeeping nation. We are not above this world. We are merely a part of this world. In some instances, yes, the actions of the military will be peacekeeping, and in other regards, it will be hot combat for a reasonable cause. To assume the purpose of the military is 100% unilateral to one purpose is absurd and is a mark of a severe lack of understanding of the purposes of our armed forces.

Military spending is great for the economy, so instead of putting a carbon tax on a commodity price that is already escalating to a point where it is determing the everyday conduct of Canadians, we are actual using our high petro-dollar to buy captial products that are not only necessary but will generate wealth and create jobs (although, admittedly I have no idead how many that will be in Canada, besides the raw number of increased forces).

Most importantly in my opinion, as others have also touched on, is perhaps the biggest non environment or fuel crisis topic hitting Canada is our arctic. I love the fact that we are taking an active role in our interests. I suppose a decent cliche to put on all of this, is that I am very glad to see that we are starting to think less like a bunch of people who enjoy the sun shining on us, and more like a bunch of people who are willing to go and make the sun shine for ourselves. To me, it is extremely encouraging.

[Slug]

I heard the Russians are using a lot of the money from natural gas and oil revenues to build a new fleet to assert its own arctic sovereignty right now. If Canada expects to build its fleet in a decade or so I'm afraid they most likely will miss the boat:yuck: (had to do that sorry). Additionally, if we have to rely too much on the Americans to help us out, I can guarantee they will ask for major territorial concessions in exchange.

[the dude]

where the military is concerned we have two choices: expand our forces or contract them.

if we are to expand our forces, as we are currently doing, a larger question must be asked - to what end? if someone where to invade our borders, could we actually defend ourselves? not a chance in hell. this is a vast country with thousands of kms of coastline and a huge unprotected border with the states.

so, do we expand our forces to act in an offensive manner, to be able to invade sovereign nations at a moment's notice? i can't imagine why we'd want to play that role.

so then, do we expand for the purpose of optics just as we're planning to do in the arctic? you know, look tough and hope no one calls our bluff. perhaps that's the best and only reasonable thing we can do.

at the very least we need to make sure our soldiers aren't at risk of being killed by their own out-dated equipment.

regardless, we should be cautious of the direction our military/government wants to go - they want 'action', they want combat, that's what they do. is that what the canadian public wants? more importantly, is that what our soldiers want? these are all questions we must ask ourselves before getting all giddy about a few new fighter jets.

[Aylmer]

Doesn't everyone love to double-post?
Doesn't everyone love to double-post?

:)

[Aylmer]

Our Arctic is under threat of attack from not only the Russians, but also the Danes and the Americans. We must not only be vigilant, but also be ready to go on the offensive ourselves.

Honestly, I think there needs to be something to attack if to be under attack.

if we have to rely too much on the Americans to help us out, I can guarantee they will ask for major territorial concessions in exchange.

:haha:

Name one time in history when that happened!

:)

http://f.screensavers.com/OMS/img/535/happytreebombtoss_215.gif

[jeremy_haak]

Arctic sovereignty is a major issue especially with the retreating ice cap. We already have a territorial dispute with Denmark, Russia has pushed its claimed territory much further and the US has eyes on the north for the oil potential and shipping lanes that may open up. It is important that we can maintain that sovereignty, a need that is currently unattainable due to the fact that we are the only ones who can't reach the territory.

We tend to have a view of the military as a overseas force; however, it plays an important role domestically to, ensuring our own sovereignty.

[e909]

Honestly, I think there needs to be something to attack if to be under attack.



:haha:

Name one time in history when that happened!

:)

http://f.screensavers.com/OMS/img/.535/happytreebombtoss_215.gif
Massive amounts of oil. A cruical shipping lane come to mind... The arctic is more than polar bears.

[The Geographer]

I think the 24 billion a year, or whatever, is in the low to mid-range of the senate committee recommendation. We have a LOT of catching up to do. It is amazing how people jump when you throw huge, multi-year dollar figures at them.

"Canada to spend 2 TRILLION DOLLARS on health care in 20 years. Dave Rutherford craps himself."

[Aylmer]

But that could mean:

IN 2028, we will spend 2 trillion,
Within 2028, we will spend 2 trillion,
Throughout 20 years, we will spend 2 trillion.

:)

[Overground]

The simple fact and reality of the situation is, Canada currently is a founding member of NATO and it has commitments to that membership. If and when Canada may no longer be a member of that organisation who knows?

In the interim it must maintain an acceptable or adequate contribution to it, and understandably when you compare it to it's smaller members. It's currently ranked 6th in defence spending which I feel is satisfactory. You can't really count the US, but after them it's the UK, France, Germany, Italy, and then Canada in spending. These four countries do not have an enormous country like Canada does and coupled with a populaton half the size.

I think Canada is doing better now under the circumstances but it needs to maintain it's equipment and upgrade to new equipment, and invest in it's employees like any properly run business would have to do. This costs money, full stop.

Canada perhaps might not be in this situation if it wasn't for certain successive previous governments that mistakenly corroded Canada's military.

[The Jabroni]

Even though I'm a "leftist," this is sorely needed for our military. Our guys in uniform needs a serious update and makeover with equipment and logistics. Yes, our military are one of the best trained in the world, but if something sudden happened to this country, we're basically left with a highly trained military with very little resources.

[big W]

I see nothing wrong with the spending on military. Lets all remember that when a crisis occurs in this country who are the guys that come to help. The flooding in Manitoba, Toronto snow shovelling, ice storms in Quebec etc. The military plays a role beyond simply defending Canada from outside forces. It also helps deal with emergencies in Canada. I want these guys to not just be best trained but also well equipped. This does not mean we need Nukes to blow the world over 8 times or so like our neighbours, but one that can go anywhere in our country, and be able to fight in it. Plus one that can deal with any issues that might happen in Canada.

[mr.x]

^ don't forget the 2003 B.C. forest fires.....about 5,000 soldiers were sent here to fight the fires and help with evacuations.

[The Geographer]

But that could mean:

IN 2028, we will spend 2 trillion,
Within 2028, we will spend 2 trillion,
Throughout 20 years, we will spend 2 trillion.

:)

All of which mean essentially the same thing to most people who don't have a grasp of the meaning of figures that high. I don't intend that in a patronizing way; most people simply don't pay attention to GDPs, tax revenues, etc. If you didn't know whether Canada's GDP is 100 billion or 1 trillion, then how big is 100 billion a year?

Oh, and I meant throughout 20 years. I am sure it is a low-ball figure as I just pulled it out of a hat. A real figure is that we still don't spend any more than Australia on our military, and they are 2/3 the size.