Military looking for doubling of defence spending by 2025

Richard Foot, CanWest News Service
Published: Thursday, January 18, 2007

The Defence Department is asking the Harper government to more than double its annual funding to $36.6 billion by 2025, and approve a list of about 30 new military rebuilding projects with an emphasis on protecting Canada's Arctic sovereignty.

But the military wish list - detailed in a long-awaited planning document called the Canada First Defence Strategy - faces a tough sell in the federal cabinet and the office of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, according to Liberal Senator Colin Kenny, chairman of the Senate's defence and national security committee.

Kenny, who has reviewed a copy of the plan, says he doubts the government will approve most of its spending requests. Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor has been promising to release the strategy since last fall, yet it remains stalled before the cabinet.

Kenny says Gen. Rick Hillier, the chief of defence staff, needs all the $37 billion outlined in the document to proceed with his bold plans to rebuild the Armed Forces. However, Kenny says that plan is having ''serious problems'' getting political approval.

''A week ago, there was supposed to be a meeting between O'Connor and Harper to discuss the strategy, and Harper cancelled the meeting because he didn't think that the preparation surrounding the document was adequate,'' he says.

O'Connor told the defence community in Halifax during a recent visit that a series of new spending announcements would begin this winter, but it's not clear how closely those will match the strategy proposals.

Kenny, a longtime advocate of strengthening Canada's military, says the strategy outlines three options for increasing annual funding for the Defence Department, which now stands at roughly $15 billion.

The first option is to gradually increase annual funding to $26.9 billion by 2025. The middle option seeks increases up to $35 billion by 2025, and the third option seeks an annual budget of $36.6 billion by 2025. Kenny says while those numbers sound impressive, they are not large when inflation and growth in Canada's gross domestic product are taken into account.

Canada now spends about one per cent of its GDP on defence, making it one of the lowest defence spenders in the NATO alliance.

If Ottawa adopts the cheapest option and boosts spending to only $26.9 billion, military spending would actually fall to less than one per cent of GDP in 2025, according to the document's projections.

If the most expensive option is selected and spending reaches $36.6 billion, defence spending would move to 1.3 per cent of GDP.

In October, the Senate committee on national security and defence issued a report saying Canada needed to boost defence spending to at least two per cent of GDP - or $35 billion in annual funding - by as early as 2012.

''What's frustrating is that you don't see the Canadian Forces actually functioning well under any of the options now before the cabinet,'' says Kenny. ''Even if you had the best-case scenario, it wouldn't give us the defence Canada needs or deserves.

''And I don't think the government is going to go for the 'best-case' option. I think they're going to do it on the cheap.''

Kenny declined to specify what projects the military wants as part of its rebuilding process, but said the strategy places, in his view, ''an inordinate focus on the North.''

There has been debate about whether ensuring Arctic sovereignty should fall to the military or to other agencies, and whether Canada's northern ocean should be patrolled by the navy or by the coast guard operating on new icebreakers.

Kenny says the Defence Department is clearly seeking a military solution and wants the government to purchase a fleet of six new armed Arctic patrol ships.

He also said the strategy calls for the continuation and strengthening of Canada's barely functioning submarine capability and for the building of a fleet of new ''single-class surface'' combat ships to replace the existing fleet of naval frigates, which are now reaching their mid-life stage.

There is no mention in the document, he says, of a replacement for the navy's aging destroyers.

Previous media reports have said the strategy also proposes a fleet of new-generation Leopard tanks, more light-armoured vehicles of the kind being used by Canadian troops in Afghanistan, a new fleet of search-and-rescue airplanes and additional unmanned aerial vehicles.

The Harper government has already announced plans to buy $17 billion worth of new supply ships for the navy, tactical and strategic transport planes and helicopters for the air force, and trucks for the army.

Dan Middlemiss, a defence scholar at Dalhousie University, said no matter how much of the new strategy the government ultimately adopts, it's defence decisions will likely be announced piecemeal over the coming months, or withheld and incorporated into the Conservative campaign platform in the next election.

''Many of us have been waiting to see the document for months, but it's just slipped and slipped and slipped,'' he says. ''I think the policy will either come out in dribs and drabs, or the government might turn it into a plank for the election.''b
© CanWest News Service 2007

O'Connor announces military plane purchase
Canada will jump the queue to get fast delivery of four new transport planes

John Ward, Canadian Press
Published: Saturday, February 03, 2007

OTTAWA (CP) - The American air force is letting Canada jump the assembly-line queue to acquire four giant Boeing transport planes within about 18 months.

"The United States air force, which has a fairly large order in train at the moment, has allowed us to step into the assembly line so we will get the aircraft quickly," Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor said Friday.

The first Canadian C-17 is expected to arrive by the end of August, with a second by the end of the year and the last two coming in the middle of next year. Under normal conditions, it would take years to build the Canadian order.

The $3.4 billion contract - $1.8 billion for the planes and $1.6 billion for 20 years of spares and maintenance - will be a windfall for Canadian industry, said Public Works Minister Michael Fortier and Industry Minister Maxime Bernier .

They said Boeing and Pratt and Whitney, maker of the plane's engines, have agreed to invest the face value of the contract in Canada and the benefits will boost defence and aerospace firms across the country.

Neither minister would offer any regional breakdown of the benefits, saying Boeing will be announcing a number of deals in the coming weeks.

Bernier said Boeing has already worked out $577 million in contracts with Canadian firms, with more to come.

The Bloc Quebecois has demanded that Quebec get the lion's share of the benefits because it has the largest chunk of the country's aerospace industry.

Gen. Rick Hillier, the chief of the defence staff, called it a great day for the Forces, which finally will have the capability to move big loads a long way by air.

O'Connor said the new planes will give the military a vital new capability.

"This marks the beginning of a new era for the Canadian Forces," he said. "Gone are the days when we had to rely solely on our allies or commercial companies for airlift to respond to crisis situations."

For instance, he said, it took two weeks to get the Disaster Assistance Response Team, or DART, into action after the Indian Ocean tsunami. With the C-17s, the team could have responded in two days.

The new planes will be based at CFB Trenton, home to most of the military's transport fleet. O'Connor said there will be "substantial" investment in new infrastructure there - hangars and other buildings - to handle the mammoth aircraft.

The purchase of the heavy-lift planes fulfils a promise the Conservatives made in the last election campaign.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper promised them in December 2005, saying they would give the Canadian Forces the ability to haul heavy loads, including the DART, without having to lease aircraft or beg a ride with allies.

"To put it bluntly, hitchhikers may get to their destination, but they don't get to pick the route or the timing," Harper said at the time.

Opposition politicians complained that the purchase was made without the usual tendering process, but the government countered by saying other firms were given a chance to compete, but none could meet the requirements.

In essence, the C-17 is unique and no other aircraft can match it.

The aircraft, which first flew in 1991, is widely used by the United States, which has 120 and is buying 60 more. Britain's Royal Air Force has four and plans to buy another and Australia took delivery of the first of four planes last December.

The planes are big - 53 metres long with a 52-metre wingspan - and can haul as much as 76 tonnes. They can be refueled in flight, giving them virtually unlimited range.

Despite their size, they can operate from runways as short as 1,100 metres.

The Conservatives are also in the process of replacing the aging fleet of C-130 Hercules transport planes, which have been the workhorse of the air force for decades, but which are rapidly coming to the end of their service lives.

The replacement is the C-130J, a completely revamped aircraft which looks much like a Hercules on the outside, but which has a new airframe, engines and electronics.

O'Connor said the C-130J assembly line is booked up, or he'd have them on delivery right away.

He said the government is still planning to buy new medium-to-heavy lift helicopters, new ships for the navy and new trucks for the army.
© The Canadian Press 2007


http://www.copyright-free-pictures.org.uk/USAF/c-17-globemaster.jpg
http://www.mustangmods.com/ims/u/2081/7276/140211.jpg
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2007/photorelease/q1/MSF07-1694-1.jpg
http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/web/051030-F-0994L-547.jpg
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/c-17iii_060516-f-2034c-018.jpg
http://k43.pbase.com/o4/20/35420/1/60883272.C17_flares_400.jpg



America's fleet.....scary.
http://temp188881.bokee.com/inc/C-17.jpg

About time we got that transportation option! :banana:

Now we can depend less on the Americans when we need to get somwhere quickly (ie. Thailand, Indo for disaster relief...not to mention military operations) thus increasing our soveriegnity. +1 to Harper for accomplishing somthing the Liberals would have hummed and hawwed about for the next decade while ignoring the needs of this great country :)

http://temp188881.bokee.com/inc/C-17.jpg
What the hell...and we're complaining about building FOUR?!

^ The Americans have 120 of those planes and is buying 60 more.....which is about $27 billion.

They're spending 200,000,000,000$ on 2,500 fighter jets. The Americans are. We just going to buy some left overs from Zimbabwe.

They're spending 200,000,000,000$ on 2,500 fighter jets. The Americans are. We just going to buy some left overs from Zimbabwe.

They could do so many great things with US$200 billion....and they chose to build fighter jets.

I thought I heard something about us getting new fighters with electro magnetic pulse weapons .

I thought I heard something about us getting new fighters with electro magnetic pulse weapons .

I think I found the perfect weapon Canada should research and develop:



Pentagon attempted to develop 'Gay Sex Bomb'

Wednesday, February 02, 2005

By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos


WASHINGTON — Those who complain the military should make love, not war, may be happy to know that on at least one occasion, military scientists were searching for ways to break down the enemy with aching desire.

Now known as the "sex bomb," or in saucier headlines, the "gay bomb," scientists considered developing a chemical weapon with aphrodisiac qualities that would make enemy soldiers hopelessly, physically attractive to one another so as to paralyze their ranks and destroy morale.

The plan was unearthed by a government watchdog group that said it was just the tip of the iceberg of covert chemical and biological programs in the U.S military.

"They've had some ideas that have been pretty nuts," said Edward Hammond, head of the Sunshine Project, which posts dozens of government documents it has fought to declassify under the Freedom of Information Act. The latest release is called "Harassing, Annoying and ‘Bad Guy' Identifying Chemicals," dated 1994, which details proposals for non-lethal weaponry by Wright Laboratory at Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio.

Aside from the love bomb, other proposals in the declassified document include a chemical that would make the enemy's breath so bad he would stand out in a crowd of civilians, and one that would make the enemy attractive not to other humans, but to angry wasps and other predatory insects.



Before it was cancelled, the Pentagon had already spent $43 million on researching it.

Disgusting.

Would make a great porno, but still, disgusting.

Oh Canada, when will you ever learn how to do things the right way?

Why not take the 4+ billion for 4 new airplanes and spend it on building better subways in Toronto (for example)

Would have more impact long term on Canada then 4 ferry's of the sky.

I like the idea of reducing our dependance on foreign equipment. It will allow for much more flexibility.

^ uh huh...you're comparing national defence and public transit.

rather these monies be spent on equipment we might actually need for the type of wars we fight. Conventional weapons dont work against unconventional armies as the situation in Iraq clearly shows.

Well now the Canadian government is saying it's costing too much for the war in Afghanistan, so my best friend who is in the Naval Reserves is 'kinda' out of a job for now. His ship is docked.
Canada has ceased to impress. If it can't even support it's own SMALL military, and cannot find a way to spend money better, or open up its once powerful factories that manufactured said goods we buy used what's the point in having a military?
Forget it World, you don't need us.

Well now the Canadian government is saying it's costing too much for the war in Afghanistan, so my best friend who is in the Naval Reserves is 'kinda' out of a job for now. His ship is docked.
Canada has ceased to impress. If it can't even support it's own SMALL military, and cannot find a way to spend money better, or open up its once powerful factories that manufactured said goods we buy used what's the point in having a military?
Forget it World, you don't need us.

.. remember that half the money will be going directly to Boeing.

I don't know if this is good value for money.

I'm sorry, but was that last article for real? Right on Vid! lol.

I like the idea of reducing our dependance on foreign equipment. It will allow for much more flexibility.

Agreed. I mean lets look at those British submarines we bought eh :bash:

Agreed. I mean lets look at those British submarines we bought eh :bash:

Well, that was our own stupidity. They *thought* they could fix and refit those subs.

They could do so many great things with US$200 billion....and they chose to build fighter jets.

I'd recommend them to invest it on a time machine.

Agreed. I mean lets look at those British submarines we bought eh :bash:

I meant more in the sense that will no longer have to rent equipment that will not always be available when we need it the most. Also, the country that rents the equipement can place restrictions on its use (where the planes can land etc.). This will allow the Federales to implement their foreign policy with much more flexibility.

If you wanted to compare the planes to the subs, you could say that these planes represent the best that money can buy and fit our military's requirements to a 't' (and will be available quickly - and without much grief).

I have to say though, some navy-types that I know hold a much higher opinion of the subs than the general population does. Maybe they know something that we don't? :gossip:

I'd recommend them to invest it on a time machine.

Now you're thinking...

I meant more in the sense that will no longer have to rent equipment that will not always be available when we need it the most. Also, the country that rents the equipement can place restrictions on its use (where the planes can land etc.). This will allow the Federales to implement their foreign policy with much more flexibility.

If you wanted to compare the planes to the subs, you could say that these planes represent the best that money can buy and fit our military's requirements to a 't' (and will be available quickly - and without much grief).

I have to say though, some navy-types that I know hold a much higher opinion of the subs than the general population does. Maybe they know something that we don't? :gossip:Now you're thinking...

... as I said in another post - why not go in with another 1 or 2 countries and buy these planes if they're so needed???

This is more about rewarding the US, and Harper sending the message "see we're on your side"

I still think the $4 BILLION should be spent on public transit in Canada's urban areas.... far better return on investment..


l

... as I said in another post - why not go in with another 1 or 2 countries and buy these planes if they're so needed???

This is more about rewarding the US, and Harper sending the message "see we're on your side"

I still think the $4 BILLION should be spent on public transit in Canada's urban areas.... far better return on investment..


l


Sounds an awful lot like this:

http://www.nato.int/issues/strategic-lift-air-sac/index.html

Don't you think?

The planes wouldn't be based in Canada, and there is no guarantee that they would be immediately available for use whenever we need them. That's what happens when you share costs with a number of different countries. Each has their own priority.

Canada is already part of a similar program to lease Russian transport planes with other NATO countries:

http://www.nato.int/issues/strategic-lift-air/index.html

This program shares the same problems as the first one - and the airplanes aren't as capable as the C-17.

I'm just wondering, what evidence is there that this is only an expensive attempt to improve relations with the United States? The airplanes have to come from somewhere. If the military was purchasing Airbuses or Russian planes would you accuse Harper of trying to suck up to the Europeans or Russians?

"If the military was purchasing Airbuses or Russian planes would you accuse Harper of trying to suck up to the Europeans or Russians?"

No, he would congratulate Harper for it.

The thing with buying Russian is that maintainence is a huge issue. I can only imagine the headaches involved with parts availability for Russian equipment :bash: That and the planes would more then likely need to undergo a modernization program to get up to par with NATO/North American safety regulations. Also we already have pilots trained to operate the C-17 who have flown missions with the U.S.A.F. so that saves us on training personnel right there. You basically get what you pay for and in this instance it only make sense to pay for the proven reliability and dependability of equipment your are familiar with. Can you imagine the public outcry if we bought Russian planes only to have them grounded most of the time due to maintainence issues? :nuts:

Honestly, sending our troops into war zones on economy-class Air Canada tickets isn't going to work... :ohno:

Honestly, sending our troops into war zones on economy-class Air Canada tickets isn't going to work... :ohno:

... well Canada has seemed to manage to do well before.

Common' these are useless big ticket toys.

God forbid the Disaster Assistance Response Team makes it to it's destination on time without help from Mother Russia.

... well Canada has seemed to manage to do well before.

Common' these are useless big ticket toys.

We often did well because we asked the Americans very nicely for a lift. :)

I gotta agree with Urban, but if you're going to put money like that anywhere, it would be the Navy. Having a cutting edge Navy would really improve our capabilities as a worldly effective miliary force, be it Peace keeping, or Peace making.

However, and Urban said, put the money into the region, so you eventually have more money later, to more with. Infrastructure, should be paramount to the federal goverment, because it makes things move faster, and that's what makes the economy go.

Instead of silly planes, whynot build a ship like the Tarawa class ship, only with the British design of a bubble ended flight deck? It moves more than a few planes would, and have alot more force, what with the planes, helicopters, and landing craft that come with it.

I digress... pardon the ramble, it was a long day at work, and my mind needed to unwind. Put the money where it counts, not where it shows.

That ship can't fly DART to northern Pakistan. :)

I gotta agree with Urban, but if you're going to put money like that anywhere, it would be the Navy. Having a cutting edge Navy would really improve our capabilities as a worldly effective miliary force, be it Peace keeping, or Peace making.

However, and Urban said, put the money into the region, so you eventually have more money later, to more with. Infrastructure, should be paramount to the federal goverment, because it makes things move faster, and that's what makes the economy go.

Instead of silly planes, whynot build a ship like the Tarawa class ship, only with the British design of a bubble ended flight deck? It moves more than a few planes would, and have alot more force, what with the planes, helicopters, and landing craft that come with it.

I digress... pardon the ramble, it was a long day at work, and my mind needed to unwind. Put the money where it counts, not where it shows.


... well if it were me I would put the money into building two military bases, each at the entrance to the North West Passage. As to provide as a gateway to the region.

The bases would be equipped with land based guns, for taking out any non-Canadian ship, without rights to enter our waters.

These 4 planes are a total waste of money.

Army bases in the NWP would be a waste of money too. We should have more navy presence, boat patroling the water, and police to stop misuse of it.

... well if it were me I would put the money into building two military bases, each at the entrance to the North West Passage. As to provide as a gateway to the region.

The bases would be equipped with land based guns, for taking out any non-Canadian ship, without rights to enter our waters.

These 4 planes are a total waste of money.
This is the dumbest comment so far on this thread.

It is plainly obvious that you don't know anything about military planning or at the very least Strategic Logistics. The simple rule here is that if you don't bring it with you then it ain't out there. Asking the Canadian government to fund a series of coastal batteries is plain stupid...simply because of the measure of difficulty in asking the engineers they train to set up and maintain artillery for only short range shots...anything long range is more of a pot shot on a moving target that you cant even see after 10 miles anyway.

And as for the planes...they are the best thing the Canadian Gov has done yet for long range missions...now we dont have to rely on the Americans for transporting all of our heavy equipment to continue our Nato engagements overseas.

But you, in your infinite anti-American political wisdom, would rather we continue with the status quo...which is to say, that we should continue to rely on the US fr transport to our Nato commitments, and tasks. So that we can be like little welfare nations sucking at the tit that is the military cow.

And you wonder why Americans don't take us seriously on any issue...and why many here also don't take you seriously on any other issues so far.

In fact before you open your mouth it might be best to ensure that both feet fit first...that way the rest of us don't have to do it for you in post responses.

;)

What we need is a permanent armed helo(Cormorant) presence in the village of Resolute(which has an RCMP station, Airport[6500 ft runway, ironically built by the US Army], weather station, health centre, pop. 215). With a special forces trained section(JTF2) that could overtake illegal vessels or provide SAR. A permanent armed ice breaker like the CCGS Sir Wilred Laurier would be sufficient along with the odd patrol from one of the 3 ships coming out of the Joint Support Ship Programme(2012). This would compliment the planned military training centre the government announced last year for the village.

Combine this with a permanent CP-140 surveillance aircraft based at Resolute Airport, Victoria-class sub patrols, long-range aerial drones and Fanny's your aunt!

We should just mine the entire passage, that'll teach 'em!!! :gunz: :nuts:

I gotta agree with Urban, but if you're going to put money like that anywhere, it would be the Navy. Having a cutting edge Navy would really improve our capabilities as a worldly effective miliary force, be it Peace keeping, or Peace making.

However, and Urban said, put the money into the region, so you eventually have more money later, to more with. Infrastructure, should be paramount to the federal goverment, because it makes things move faster, and that's what makes the economy go.

Instead of silly planes, whynot build a ship like the Tarawa class ship, only with the British design of a bubble ended flight deck? It moves more than a few planes would, and have alot more force, what with the planes, helicopters, and landing craft that come with it.

I digress... pardon the ramble, it was a long day at work, and my mind needed to unwind. Put the money where it counts, not where it shows.


I 'd love for the CF to aquire this capability but it's just not feasabile for many reasons. First being manpower. A Tawara class ship carries over 80 officers and 800 enlisted personnel and this is just the numbers that actually run the ship, not the passengers (ie. The landing force). The Canadian Navy is having trouble succesfully crewing our frigates and destroyers as is and if I can recall correctly the largest crew is in the 300 range. Secondly the fighting force it carries is about 1,900. This is just a few hundred short of what we have serving in Afghanistan currentley. Unless the Canadian Forces are able to keep and recruit thousands more in the next few years this will never be feasable. Also there is the question of where does the funding come from for aircraft capable of landing on these ships come from. I doubt the Canadian government, however military friendly they are, would be able to come up with money for Harrier's or attack helicopters. And the last and probably most difficult hurdle is convincing the Canadian public and government opposistion, especially the NDP, that we need this type of aggresive equipment.

We are already in on the next generation Harriers. The JSF Lightening II. For the crewing, it's because we are trying to format our navy so it can go in between any navy (more so US), no real focus on Fleet design. What we should be doing is focusing on our own, and what sort of fleet(s) we're going to have. NATO is great, so long as we don't think it's the UN. We need to work with others like we do now, but make our own, for our own. An airforce is only as good as your army to take out anti air, and your army is only as good as your Navy that gets you there enforce. And with a strong, navy, the Air Wing follows besauce you need to send stuff inland, and protect the ships, and land forces. I'm not saying making all subserviant to the Navy, but the easiest, stongest, way to make yourself a force in the world, is with a strong navy. History is the story of that lesson.

I 'd love for the CF to aquire this capability but it's just not feasabile for many reasons. First being manpower. A Tawara class ship carries over 80 officers and 800 enlisted personnel and this is just the numbers that actually run the ship, not the passengers (ie. The landing force). The Canadian Navy is having trouble succesfully crewing our frigates and destroyers as is and if I can recall correctly the largest crew is in the 300 range. Secondly the fighting force it carries is about 1,900. This is just a few hundred short of what we have serving in Afghanistan currentley. Unless the Canadian Forces are able to keep and recruit thousands more in the next few years this will never be feasable. Also there is the question of where does the funding come from for aircraft capable of landing on these ships come from. I doubt the Canadian government, however military friendly they are, would be able to come up with money for Harrier's or attack helicopters. And the last and probably most difficult hurdle is convincing the Canadian public and government opposistion, especially the NDP, that we need this type of aggresive equipment.

If you are looking for experienced sailors. who not recruit straight from the British Royal Navy, it's been halfed in size at the moment and there will be plenty of experienced crewes who would join the Canadian Navy.

Serve an 8 year term, and be offered Canadian citizenship?

I don't see a need to build up an army. We haven't found a use for one up to this point, and plus we have the U.S. to protect us if we get attacked:banana:

I heard something about that , Imagine an intire division of West African Canadian soldiers or the Canadian Polish infantry .
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40207000/jpg/_40207395_11polandafp203afp.jpghttp://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/540000/images/_543292_kenyan_soldiers150.jpg
http://www.skycontrol.net/UserFiles/Image/MilitaryAviation_img/200608b/200608canadian-forces-SpecialOps-2.jpg

PS : last pict taken in Kamloops BC , my city !

Nah, we wouldn't regimentalize them, give them the idea of what's going on here. Although... it would make naming the regiments pretty easy.

A British news paper salutes Canada . . . this is a good read. It is funny how it took someone in England to put it into words...
Sunday Telegraph Article From today's UK wires: Salute to a brave and modest nation - Kevin Myers, The Sunday Telegraph LONDON -

Until the deaths of Canadian soldiers killed in Afghanistan , probably almost no one outside their home country had been aware that Canadian troops are deployed in the region. And as always, Canada will bury its dead, just as the rest of the world, as always will forget its sacrifice, just as it always forgets nearly everything Canada ever does.

It seems that Canada 's historic mission is to come to the selfless aid both of its friends and of complete strangers, and then, once the crisis is over, to be well and truly ignored.

Canada is the perpetual wallflower that stands on the edge of the hall, waiting for someone to come and ask her for a dance. A fire breaks out, she risks life and limb to rescue her fellow dance-goers, and suffers serious injuries. But when the hall is repaired and the dancing resumes, there is Canada, the wallflower still, while those she once helped
Glamorously cavort across the floor, blithely neglecting her yet again.

That is the price Canada pays for sharing the North American continent with the United States , and for being a selfless friend of Britain in two global conflicts. For much of the 20th century, Canada was torn in two different directions:
It seemed to be a part of the old world, yet had an address in the new one, and that divided identity ensured that it never
fully got the gratitude it deserved. Yet its purely voluntary contribution to the cause of freedom in two world wars was perhaps the greatest of any democracy.

Almost 10% of Canada 's entire population of seven million people served in the armed forces during the First World War, and nearly 60,000 died. The great Allied victories of 1918 were spearheaded by Canadian troops, perhaps the most capable soldiers in the entire British order of battle.

Canada was repaid for its enormous sacrifice by downright neglect, it's unique contribution to victory being absorbed into the popular Memory as somehow or other the work of the "British."

The Second World War provided a re-run. The Canadian navy began the war with a half dozen vessels, and ended up policing nearly half of the Atlantic against U-boat attack. More than 120 Canadian warships participated in the Normandy landings, during which 15,000 Canadian soldiers went ashore on D-Day alone. Canada finished the war with the third-largest navy and
the fourth-largest air force in the world.

The world thanked Canada with the same sublime indifference as it had the previous time. Canadian participation in the war was acknowledged in film only if it was necessary to give an American actor a part in a campaign in which the United States had clearly not participated - a touching scrupulousness which, of course, Hollywood has since abandoned, as it has any notion of a separate Canadian identity.

So it is a general rule that actors and filmmakers arriving in Hollywood keep their nationality - unless, that is, they are Canadian. Thus Mary Pickford, Walter Huston, Donald Sutherland, Michael J. Fox, William Shatner, Norman Jewison, David Cronenberg, Alex Trebek, Art Linkletter and Dan Aykroyd have in the popular perception become American, and Christopher
Plummer, British.

It is as if, in the very act of becoming famous, a Canadian ceases to be Canadian, unless she is Margaret Atwood, who is as unshakably Canadian as a moose, or Celine Dion, for whom Canada has proved quite unable to find any takers.

Moreover, Canada is every bit as querulously alert to the achievements of it's sons and daughters as the rest of the world is completely unaware of them. The Canadians proudly say of themselves - and are unheard by anyone else - that 1% of the world's population has provided 10% of the world's peacekeeping forces. Canadian soldiers in the past half century have
been the greatest peacekeepers on Earth - in 39 missions on UN mandates, and six on non-UN peacekeeping duties, from Vietnam to East Timor, from Sinai to Bosnia.

Yet the only foreign engagement that has entered the popular on-Canadian imagination was the sorry affair in Somalia , in which out-of-control paratroopers murdered two Somali infiltrators. Their regiment was then disbanded in disgrace - a uniquely Canadian act of self-abasement for which, naturally, the Canadians received no international credit.

So who today in the United States knows about the stoic and selfless friendship its northern neighbour has given it in Afghanistan? Rather like Cyrano de Bergerac , Canada repeatedly does honourable things for honourable motives, but instead of being thanked for it, it remains something of a figure of fun.

It is the Canadian way, for which Canadians should be proud, yet such honour comes at a high cost. This past year more grieving Canadian families knew that cost all too tragically well.

Plain and simple, we are the lowest spenders per GDP in the NATO, yet we are one of the riches countries. If that doesn't tell you something that forget this topic.

Plain and simple, we are the lowest spenders per GDP in the NATO, yet we are one of the riches countries. If that doesn't tell you something that forget this topic.

... well most NATO countries share borders with several countries in a limited space, it only makes sense that they will have an invested interest in maintaining a larger military.

Maybe our GDP spending is about right, and they are spending too much on the military? There's no point spending lots of money if there's little ever active service for the soldiers - esp. if you have to "create wars" for them to go around the world to fight in (ie make work projects!).

... well most NATO countries share borders with several countries in a limited space, it only makes sense that they will have an invested interest in maintaining a larger military.
!).


And how many others have such a long border? Have so much ocean, skies, and extreme environment conditions? It would be easier if your say a scandinavian nation, with allies beside you, and one enviornment type to defend as oppose to Canada.

... well most NATO countries share borders with several countries in a limited space, it only makes sense that they will have an invested interest in maintaining a larger military.

Maybe our GDP spending is about right, and they are spending too much on the military? There's no point spending lots of money if there's little ever active service for the soldiers - esp. if you have to "create wars" for them to go around the world to fight in (ie make work projects!).

May I remind you that the Afghan government and the Afghan people both support this war.

Need I remind you what happened under the Taliban?

May I remind you that the Afghan government and the Afghan people both support this war.

Need I remind you what happened under the Taliban?

... well it was their people that supported the Taliban too.

How many other countries around the world have equally crazy armed conflicts?? Why can't other countries step up to the plate and do something good for the world for once. It seems like only the Western world does anything, everyone else is all talk. (ie Iraq, the whole middle east bitches about the US, but they don't offer to help in any way).

Well then, fuck helping people. Let's be isolationist cowards like the pre-war Japanese!

Well then, fuck helping people. Let's be isolationist cowards like the pre-war Japanese!

Lol, not to nitpick but how were Japanese isolationists when they were one of the major headaches for the League?

Anyways, nice article. :)

What about the idea of manditory service, if you don't go to University? Get your trade through the military, and then go into the work force with an up to date trade, and some sort of bank roll so you're not poor and trying to make a living. It's just an idea.

What about the idea of manditory service, if you don't go to University? Get your trade through the military, and then go into the work force with an up to date trade, and some sort of bank roll so you're not poor and trying to make a living. It's just an idea.

... why?

What's the need to build up a militaristic society? Shouldn't our ambition be peace? Shouldn't civilization be moving forward and not backwards.

Well then, fuck helping people. Let's be isolationist cowards like the pre-war Japanese!
Or the Pre-war American ideal? also, I don't think that that's a fair use of the word coward.
Canadian troops kill another Afghan civilian
Last Updated: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 | 10:58 AM ET
CBC News
Canadian soldiers killed an Afghan civilian Tuesday morning, the third shooting death of a civilian by Canadian gunfire in little more than a week.

The shooting occurred as a white Toyota approached Canadian troops who had stopped on a Kandahar road to form a security cordon around a broken-down armoured vehicle.

This white Toyota was fired upon after it approached Canadian troops who were formed into a security cordon. The driver was killed and a passenger wounded.
(CBC)
Maj. Dale MacEachern, a spokesman for the Canadian Forces, said the group of Canadians signalled for the approaching vehicle to stop, but troops opened fire when the civilian driver proceeded.

MacEachern said the driver first blew past a checkpoint manned by Afghan national police, ignoring orders to stay away.

"The driver then reportedly accelerated towards Canadian vehicles, prompted the soldiers to fire upon the vehicle, and causing it to swerve into a ditch," he said.

The Afghan driver was killed and a passenger was wounded.

Civilian shootings over the past year have increased tensions between Canadian troops and Afghans, from whom Canadians are trying to win trust in the region.

The Canadian Forces last week sent a message to troops to use more restraint before opening fire to avoid killing civilians.

Military probes shootings

On Feb. 18, Canadian soldiers killed an Afghan civilian and a member of the Afghan national police following an attack on a Canadian convoy. The military said the civilian approached Canadian Forces soldiers while they were engaged in a gun battle with insurgents and did not heed repeated warnings to move away.

A day earlier, Canadian troops also shot and killed an Afghan civilian.

The military is conducting investigations into all the cases.

More than 2,000 Canadian soldiers are serving in Afghanistan's southern Kandahar region. Since the mission started in 2002, 44 Canadian soldiers and one Canadian diplomat have been killed.

I am, however, impressed that canadians have so far managed to not rape anyone.

... why?

What's the need to build up a militaristic society? Shouldn't our ambition be peace? Shouldn't civilization be moving forward and not backwards.

How is fighting an oppresive terrorist group so children can go to school and people can listen to music (Under the Taliban, music was illegal, music listeners would be executed. School girls would be executed for being girls. Women would be executed if they show their face.) make us militaristic?

We're helping people there. There are casualties, it is regrettable, but in the long run, these people are going to have a better country for it. Billions has been invested in Kabul since the Taliban was removed.

If letting a bunch of thugs come back into power and kill women for knowing how to spell their name is moving forward, then I don't want to move forward.

Canadian troops kill another Afghan civilian
Last Updated: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 | 10:58 AM ET
CBC News
Canadian soldiers killed an Afghan civilian Tuesday morning, the third shooting death of a civilian by Canadian gunfire in little more than a week.

The shooting occurred as a white Toyota approached Canadian troops who had stopped on a Kandahar road to form a security cordon around a broken-down armoured vehicle.

This white Toyota was fired upon after it approached Canadian troops who were formed into a security cordon. The driver was killed and a passenger wounded.
(CBC)
Maj. Dale MacEachern, a spokesman for the Canadian Forces, said the group of Canadians signalled for the approaching vehicle to stop, but troops opened fire when the civilian driver proceeded.

MacEachern said the driver first blew past a checkpoint manned by Afghan national police, ignoring orders to stay away.

"The driver then reportedly accelerated towards Canadian vehicles, prompted the soldiers to fire upon the vehicle, and causing it to swerve into a ditch," he said.

The Afghan driver was killed and a passenger was wounded.

Civilian shootings over the past year have increased tensions between Canadian troops and Afghans, from whom Canadians are trying to win trust in the region.

The Canadian Forces last week sent a message to troops to use more restraint before opening fire to avoid killing civilians.

Military probes shootings

On Feb. 18, Canadian soldiers killed an Afghan civilian and a member of the Afghan national police following an attack on a Canadian convoy. The military said the civilian approached Canadian Forces soldiers while they were engaged in a gun battle with insurgents and did not heed repeated warnings to move away.

A day earlier, Canadian troops also shot and killed an Afghan civilian.

The military is conducting investigations into all the cases.

More than 2,000 Canadian soldiers are serving in Afghanistan's southern Kandahar region. Since the mission started in 2002, 44 Canadian soldiers and one Canadian diplomat have been killed.


__________________

I am, however, impressed that canadians have so far managed to not rape anyone.


Gotta love the spin the left wing media have been putting on this story all week. Seriously though, I commend the troops that were only doing their job. Some whacko nut job decided to blow through a Afghan police check point and accelerate rapidly towards Canadian troops. Seriously, wtf did he think would happen??? It's a tragic ending yes, but one that could have been easily prevented by said driver not ignoring warnings to stop by fellow Afghani's and driving straight for our troops in what I can only imagine is a suicide bomber technique. Sorry to say folks but I would much rather see this headline then "4 Canadian soldiers die in suicide bomb attack."

... why?

What's the need to build up a militaristic society? Shouldn't our ambition be peace? Shouldn't civilization be moving forward and not backwards.

Here is a strange concept for you tree hugging, pot smoking, Taliban Jack Layton loving hippies. "Peace through force"

Here is a strange concept for you tree hugging, pot smoking, Taliban Jack Layton loving hippies. "Peace through force"
Si Vis Pacem Para Bellum

;)

There are four distinct forms of Peace...Mutual Intimidation, Mutual Exploitation, Submission, and Isolation.

Urban "thinks" that the best solution to create peace is through ignoring the problem and/or appeasment of the enemy...as it seemed to work so well with the Germans in the thirties.

The Taliban spent the greater majority of their time executing people for things that none of use would ever call crimes. Women were routinely held in the lowest of esteems and were left in the dark that is illiteracy. No voting rights for women either...no power whatsoever.

That video circulating around the internet of a woman being executed in a stadium by gunshot, was because she was accused without proof of cheating on her husband...a husband who by law was allowed to cheat at will simply because Sharia Law does not allow for him to be held responsible for his manly urges for sex...another reason why women are forced to cover themselves from head to toe...simply to avoid from turning men on randomly.

But I guess Urban thinks it was all just innocent playfun over there.

And by the way...abject fear of your oppressors is not called "public support"...it is called tyranny. Grab a dictionary already.

I posted this over in Ozscrapers as well. I think this is a great idea to create closer ties with our traditional ally.

Canadian and Australian reservists agree on Foreign Service


March 2, 2007

(BRUSSELS) – Canada and Australia have signed an agreement that allows Reserve Force members from each country to serve in the other country’s military. At NATO Headquarters today, Major-General Herb Petras, Canada’s Chief Reserves and Cadets signed a memorandum of understanding with Australian Major-General Neil Wilson, Assistant Chief of Defence Force (Reserves) and Head Reserve Policy. The document outlines a Reserve Force Foreign Service Arrangement between the two countries.

“It is to our advantage to have Canadian reservists serve both at home and overseas. This new agreement will help us retain members who might otherwise leave the military because of their move to Australia. When they return home, they’ll have current skills and experience, and that’s a significant benefit for our military.” says Maj.-Gen. Petras. His colleague Maj.-Gen. Wilson adds “The chance to serve and train in Canada is going to help us offer a more comprehensive training program for our reservists – and we look forward to having Canadian reservists join our units. This is an efficient way to retain more reservists, and contribute to our countries’ joint security.”

Reservists may become temporary residents in an allied nation because of a job transfer or to attend an educational institution. This new arrangement will allow Canada’s 25,000 part-time soldiers, sailors and aircrew, and Australia’s 20,000 reservists to continue their training and military service during their temporary residence in each other’s lands. A similar agreement was signed between Canada and the United Kingdom in 2005, and Australia and the United Kingdom are working on their own foreign service arrangement.

http://www.news.gc.ca/cfmx/view/en/i...ticleid=280309

Here is the similar agreement with the UK.

Selected Canadian Primary Reservists entitled to serve within UK Reserve Units

http://www.vcds.forces.gc.ca/dres/graphics/memorandum-large.jpg
Selected Canadian and United Kingdom reservists will now have the opportunity to pursue their Reserve training and career while overseas for extended periods for work or school commitments, thanks to a new Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Canadian Department of National Defence and the UK Ministry of Defence. The MOU, allows a reserve member to continue their military development by joining a unit similar to their own in the UK or Canada (as appropriate)..

http://www.vcds.forces.gc.ca/cres_cdt/dres/pubs/compensation/newMOU_e.asp

well the idea is to educate the mass, via trades be it what ever they want to do, they can do it in the army, unless you go to University. It's just giving the tools to people who what to work trades, shoot I'm in a trade, it's be cool to know that if I didn't go to Uni, I could jump out of helicopters, go out to sea, and learn some really interesting, and useful skills, and then have a handful of cash afterwards so that when I kick off life, I won't have to completely struggle... I can know, but make it manditory.

Think of the involvment of the people in the governement? The interest it would create? People would start to care about what our country was doing in the world, because they'd end up being there. I might sound crazy. It would also, give responsiblity and/or skills to people who just aren't sure what they want, or don't want to go to University.

Not that I think we should completely militarize the country, cool as it is. The world friendless fighters. I prefer to choose. It's just a thought.

They could do so many great things with US$200 billion....and they chose to build fighter jets.

We have a lot of Canadians to protect.

Help me out. I am someone who is honest-to-goodness torn between a desire to expand and grow the Armed Forces and a wish to keep them safe and low-profile.

I want to modernise and grow the Armed Forces so that we can project sovereignty in the north, help out desperate peoples around the world, raise our international profile, and have the resources and expertise to provide domestic emergency assistance in times of natural disaster. I want our country to provide a much better income and quality for life for military families and have the depth of reserves to allow regiments to rotate home for longer cycles. I want to modernise and expand the Armed Forces to provide safe and effective equipment and logistical support for whatever the mission calls for, no matter the branch of the service. I want our country's proud and often thankless military history to be honoured by a strong, well equipped and trained, and culturally enlightened modern military.

On the other hand, I do not think that the world needs any country to be building up its military, no matter the rationale. I believe violence begets violence and each and every death and foreign military imposition will yield future violence and strife. To me it begs the question that if throughout human history the force of arms has been so spectacularly unsuccessful in preventing future violence, then why don't we try something else? I believe that while military deterrents can work, economics works better. Trade makes lives better, as does education that opens the possibility to a future unavailable otherwise, violence does not.

So I'm torn. I want a proud and strong military (they sure hit the nail on the head for the new Canadian Forces slogan), but I don't think that violence will solve much of anything in the long run, while economic and social development will. So how is this for a compromise. For every dollar of increased funding to the Canadian Forces, an equal amount will be allocated to our foreign aid budget. Canada falls below its international aid commitments as a percentage of GDP so increases tied to military spending will address this too.

To be serious for a moment, Van, the moment god crapped out the third cave man, a conspiricy was hatched against one of them. A state needs a military, esspecially in this day and age, and with the neighbour we have. A military is also a part of the economic system too. I don't think we need to go and fight wars, but we deffinately need to defend ourselves, and what truely is what's right. Snap that's all Canada has been trying to do since WWI. Until a geo political government, everybody (those with serious economic clout in the world) will have, and need a military. Sad fact of people my friend.

What Canada really needs to do, is start utilizing it's engineering capabilities, like in the late 40's to mid 60's, and buy Canadian developed, and produced, weapons. It would create jobs like crazy, and kick-start/re-start industries, that would kick the economy in arse, and send it running.

We also need to get past the idea of trying to gear our forces to "meld" easily into the USs fleets, and armour. Canadians, realistically should only be going to fight in other countries, if we are attacked, or under UN Mandate.

We should have our Canadian centered fleets, sending our aggressive forces, en mass, while keeping up the home based reserves. At this point, Canada is designed as the colonial military. Those of you against that idea, let me just point out, that our ships are designed to fit in with US fleets. Our military gets 90% of it's equipment via US design. Exactly the same as when we were still "British", in both world wars. We just never got the idea of a focusing our forces our way, we adopted other peoples.

Don't get me wrong, I love our armed forces, I'm joining once I'm out of school. But I'm not all too happy with how we set it up, but those thoughts wouldn't be around once I join, mind you, but afterwards...

:speech:

Well ... I m from Latin America , I live in Brazil ,and I was looking for all these replies here and thinking .... about all these weapons , defending your nations of WHAT ? the misery of world , of our planet ? Why so money wasting with weapons and around world a lot of people hungry ... why don t defend the dignity from developing and poor countries people ...?

pam.



Military looking for doubling of defence spending by 2025

Richard Foot, CanWest News Service
Published: Thursday, January 18, 2007

The Defence Department is asking the Harper government to more than double its annual funding to $36.6 billion by 2025, and approve a list of about 30 new military rebuilding projects with an emphasis on protecting Canada's Arctic sovereignty.

But the military wish list - detailed in a long-awaited planning document called the Canada First Defence Strategy - faces a tough sell in the federal cabinet and the office of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, according to Liberal Senator Colin Kenny, chairman of the Senate's defence and national security committee.

Kenny, who has reviewed a copy of the plan, says he doubts the government will approve most of its spending requests. Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor has been promising to release the strategy since last fall, yet it remains stalled before the cabinet.

Kenny says Gen. Rick Hillier, the chief of defence staff, needs all the $37 billion outlined in the document to proceed with his bold plans to rebuild the Armed Forces. However, Kenny says that plan is having ''serious problems'' getting political approval.

''A week ago, there was supposed to be a meeting between O'Connor and Harper to discuss the strategy, and Harper cancelled the meeting because he didn't think that the preparation surrounding the document was adequate,'' he says.

O'Connor told the defence community in Halifax during a recent visit that a series of new spending announcements would begin this winter, but it's not clear how closely those will match the strategy proposals.

Kenny, a longtime advocate of strengthening Canada's military, says the strategy outlines three options for increasing annual funding for the Defence Department, which now stands at roughly $15 billion.

The first option is to gradually increase annual funding to $26.9 billion by 2025. The middle option seeks increases up to $35 billion by 2025, and the third option seeks an annual budget of $36.6 billion by 2025. Kenny says while those numbers sound impressive, they are not large when inflation and growth in Canada's gross domestic product are taken into account.

Canada now spends about one per cent of its GDP on defence, making it one of the lowest defence spenders in the NATO alliance.

If Ottawa adopts the cheapest option and boosts spending to only $26.9 billion, military spending would actually fall to less than one per cent of GDP in 2025, according to the document's projections.

If the most expensive option is selected and spending reaches $36.6 billion, defence spending would move to 1.3 per cent of GDP.

In October, the Senate committee on national security and defence issued a report saying Canada needed to boost defence spending to at least two per cent of GDP - or $35 billion in annual funding - by as early as 2012.

''What's frustrating is that you don't see the Canadian Forces actually functioning well under any of the options now before the cabinet,'' says Kenny. ''Even if you had the best-case scenario, it wouldn't give us the defence Canada needs or deserves.

''And I don't think the government is going to go for the 'best-case' option. I think they're going to do it on the cheap.''

Kenny declined to specify what projects the military wants as part of its rebuilding process, but said the strategy places, in his view, ''an inordinate focus on the North.''

There has been debate about whether ensuring Arctic sovereignty should fall to the military or to other agencies, and whether Canada's northern ocean should be patrolled by the navy or by the coast guard operating on new icebreakers.

Kenny says the Defence Department is clearly seeking a military solution and wants the government to purchase a fleet of six new armed Arctic patrol ships.

He also said the strategy calls for the continuation and strengthening of Canada's barely functioning submarine capability and for the building of a fleet of new ''single-class surface'' combat ships to replace the existing fleet of naval frigates, which are now reaching their mid-life stage.

There is no mention in the document, he says, of a replacement for the navy's aging destroyers.

Previous media reports have said the strategy also proposes a fleet of new-generation Leopard tanks, more light-armoured vehicles of the kind being used by Canadian troops in Afghanistan, a new fleet of search-and-rescue airplanes and additional unmanned aerial vehicles.

The Harper government has already announced plans to buy $17 billion worth of new supply ships for the navy, tactical and strategic transport planes and helicopters for the air force, and trucks for the army.

Dan Middlemiss, a defence scholar at Dalhousie University, said no matter how much of the new strategy the government ultimately adopts, it's defence decisions will likely be announced piecemeal over the coming months, or withheld and incorporated into the Conservative campaign platform in the next election.

''Many of us have been waiting to see the document for months, but it's just slipped and slipped and slipped,'' he says. ''I think the policy will either come out in dribs and drabs, or the government might turn it into a plank for the election.''b
© CanWest News Service 2007

:speech:

Well ... I m from Latin America , I live in Brazil ,and I was looking for all these replies here and thinking .... about all these weapons , defending your nations of WHAT ? the misery of world , of our planet ? Why so money wasting with weapons and around world a lot of people hungry ... why don t defend the dignity from developing and poor countries people ...?

pam.

Canadian PM announces C$200 million for Afghanistan aid

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Canadian_PM_announces_C$200_million_for_Afghanistan_aid

Canadian food aid vital to Afghan drought victims, war refugees

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/War_Terror/2007/03/04/3695165-cp.html

Foreign aid gets $350M boost

http://www.canada.com/finance/rrsp/budget_2005/story.html?id=eecae534-9fc5-4b07-97bb-08565385ca1d

I suggest you focus sorting out Brasil's problems before commenting on what Canada is doing on the global scene.

Oh and btw, in recent years Brasil has been spending more on it's military then Canada.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~jephrean/classweb/In%20Context.html

Why so money wasting with weapons and around world a lot of people hungry ... why don t defend the dignity from developing and poor countries people ...?

Canada does contribute to helping developing countries. But it needs modernised equipment to do the job properly and sometimes they need modernised weapons to help carry that out. These are realistic commitments to how Canada operates as not only a developed nation within the UN but also as a member of NATO.

Some facts on Canada's contribution to assisting developing countries-

-With the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative Canada is actively cancelling the debt owed to it by the world's poorest countries. With the Paris Club, Canada has provided debt treatment to 48 countries(including Brazil). It's also participated in 205 debt treatment agreements with various countries.

-forgiving $1.3 billion in ODA debt to 46 developing countries since 1978. This includes all of its ODA debt to 22 HIPCs at a cost of $900 million (of the HIPCs, only Myanmar still has ODA debt owing to Canada).

-providing approximately $3.1 billion annually in international assistance, primarily through the Canadian International Development Agency.

-pledging to double its international assistance from 2002 levels by 2010.

-Canada in regards to UN Peacekeeping has received the second highest amount of fatalities in that UN programme's history.

Canada does contribute to helping developing countries. But it needs modernised equipment to do the job properly and sometimes they need modernised weapons to help carry that out. These are realistic commitments to how Canada operates as not only a developed nation within the UN but also as a member of NATO.

Some facts on Canada's contribution to assisting developing countries-

-With the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative Canada is actively cancelling the debt owed to it by the world's poorest countries. With the Paris Club, Canada has provided debt treatment to 48 countries(including Brazil). It's also participated in 205 debt treatment agreements with various countries.

-forgiving $1.3 billion in ODA debt to 46 developing countries since 1978. This includes all of its ODA debt to 22 HIPCs at a cost of $900 million (of the HIPCs, only Myanmar still has ODA debt owing to Canada).

-providing approximately $3.1 billion annually in international assistance, primarily through the Canadian International Development Agency.

-pledging to double its international assistance from 2002 levels by 2010.

-Canada in regards to UN Peacekeeping has received the second highest amount of fatalities in that UN programme's history.



The problem with our military is Yes they should be moderinizing their equipment - but they shouldn't go off spending it on new things we don't need.

It's like buying a new fridge when what you needed was a new computer. I don't get the point of spending billions on 4 cargo jets - when our Search and rescue fleet is 30+ years old. Or our helicopters, weapons, facilities etc all need funding. It's like being given a $1,000 to pay for school and buying a car.

Total mismanagement. $4 billion could have finished a subway line in Toronto - yet all we get is 4 jets! - crazy!

The problem with our military is Yes they should be moderinizing their equipment - but they shouldn't go off spending it on new things we don't need.

It's like buying a new fridge when what you needed was a new computer. I don't get the point of spending billions on 4 cargo jets - when our Search and rescue fleet is 30+ years old. Or our helicopters, weapons, facilities etc all need funding. It's like being given a $1,000 to pay for school and buying a car.

Total mismanagement. $4 billion could have finished a subway line in Toronto - yet all we get is 4 jets! - crazy!
You realize that it's 4 jets and 20 years of parts and maintenance right?

Mr Ryan ,
wait for my reply for you , I m just preparing it , because it seems you have to learn more about CORRUPTION ... And about what is going outside your country , oh...inside too because you have problems inside your giant country too ..wait and I m going to show you ... oh.. by the way , be nice because we are just sharing ideas and you seems to be very intolerant ....
pam from brazil - ius sanguinis Italy -
be nice ....





Canadian PM announces C$200 million for Afghanistan aid

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Canadian_PM_announces_C$200_million_for_Afghanistan_aid

Canadian food aid vital to Afghan drought victims, war refugees

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/War_Terror/2007/03/04/3695165-cp.html

Foreign aid gets $350M boost

http://www.canada.com/finance/rrsp/budget_2005/story.html?id=eecae534-9fc5-4b07-97bb-08565385ca1d

I suggest you focus sorting out Brasil's problems before commenting on what Canada is doing on the global scene.

Oh and btw, in recent years Brasil has been spending more on it's military then Canada.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~jephrean/classweb/In%20Context.html

I don't get the point of spending billions on 4 cargo jets -

Actually the four C-17s(C$1.8 billion) are exactly what the Armed Forces need. Until we get those Canada has had to rent Russian Antonovs and American C-17s to strategically airlift anything overseas. This includes Afghanistan, the crisis in Haiti, and the DART team we sent to Sri Lanka for tsunami relief. If Canada wants to participate in helping other countries then it needs its own capable aircraft to do the job properly. This would seem appropriate.

Australia is doing the same as well as the UK. The UK in 2000 leased four C-17s from Boeing for an annual cost C$220m for 7 years with an option to buy at the end. Australia has purchased four C-17s.

Developing and poor countries are not asking for this kind of help actualy , government from developing and poor countries are concern about trades negociations , integralizations between UNIONS ( NAFTA - CAN - ALADI - UE - MERCOSUL ---) AND THE ONLY ONE INSTITUTION between these trades negociations caled world trade organization WTO , AND SO...the rules ans internaional laws have to change , because there are no opportunities to developing countries negociate their goods , comodities , services , ans invest to a SUSTAINABILITY , to protect the enviroment , this is the FOCUS actualy to be concern about , and maybe military from Canada and others .. should "focus" about gas emission from their planes , aircrafts , jets ....
military is a big polutioner . Is there something being change abot GHG ?

pamela lassen .
sorry my english , it is very weak , because I only speak portuguese , italian , ans spanish ...but I can understand you perfectly.





Canada does contribute to helping developing countries. But it needs modernised equipment to do the job properly and sometimes they need modernised weapons to help carry that out. These are realistic commitments to how Canada operates as not only a developed nation within the UN but also as a member of NATO.

Some facts on Canada's contribution to assisting developing countries-

-With the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative Canada is actively cancelling the debt owed to it by the world's poorest countries. With the Paris Club, Canada has provided debt treatment to 48 countries(including Brazil). It's also participated in 205 debt treatment agreements with various countries.

-forgiving $1.3 billion in ODA debt to 46 developing countries since 1978. This includes all of its ODA debt to 22 HIPCs at a cost of $900 million (of the HIPCs, only Myanmar still has ODA debt owing to Canada).

-providing approximately $3.1 billion annually in international assistance, primarily through the Canadian International Development Agency.

-pledging to double its international assistance from 2002 levels by 2010.

-Canada in regards to UN Peacekeeping has received the second highest amount of fatalities in that UN programme's history.

about help ... that is ok ..the help son t appear anywhere , because the corruption fro mthe government stop the conclusion for a good help ..
and so all these "help" are not function , because all the victims are at the same indignity life , can you see something changing ? no we see only bad news ....

pamela lassen






Actually the four C-17s(C$1.8 billion) are exactly what the Armed Forces need. Until we get those Canada has had to rent Russian Antonovs and American C-17s to strategically airlift anything overseas. This includes Afghanistan, the crisis in Haiti, and the DART team we sent to Sri Lanka for tsunami relief. If Canada wants to participate in helping other countries then it needs its own capable aircraft to do the job properly. This would seem appropriate.

Australia is doing the same as well as the UK. The UK in 2000 leased four C-17s from Boeing for an annual cost C$220m for 7 years with an option to buy at the end. Australia has purchased four C-17s.

WHAT ABOUT IMPROVE GHG EMISSION ..STOP WARM OUR PLANET AND DAMAGE OUR ENVIROMENTAL .

PAMELA L.

Pamela, I commend you for using English even though it's not a language you normally use.

I think you are probably bringing up a topic that doesn't quite go with this thread, which is on, plans to improve Canada's military. I posted examples how Canada helps developing nations in response to you asking why money is spent on weapons when people are hungry. Perhaps start another thread so you can voice your ideas on world trade, etc.

Pamela, I commend you for using English even though it's not a language you normally use.

I think you are probably bringing up a topic that doesn't quite go with this thread, which is on, plans to improve Canada's military. I posted examples how Canada helps developing nations in response to you asking why money is spent on weapons when people are hungry. Perhaps start another thread so you can voice your ideas on world trade, etc.
I m sorry if you don t concern about :

GHG emission : Planes , aircrafts , jets , are poluting a lot the atmosphere, air around planet , have you seen this point before ? about global warm?actulay , there are good people researching and developing fuels because they concern to , don t damage enviromental ...biodiversitie ...

Corruption : don t you concern about the point ? maybe because you don t care because you cant see outside , others Nations problems and even your NATION problem too , developing and development and poor countries have this sick politicians called corrupts , but there are good projects running to stop this corruption and start a new policies to a new future , because they concern with next generation ... the important is develop and educate people and children , around ALL NATIONS , and about integralization between trades negociations and great SUSTANABILITY for the HUMANITY .... don t you concern about this ? have you seen this point before ? sustanability ?

ok...maybe you are concern about my english...it is disturbing you ?? right , I just share all problems and researchs , and developing around points I m trying to share here ...but seems a kind of discrimination ..
You didn t answer my points...that is ok.. I respect your point of view.

sorry again ..

Grazie , obrigada ,

pamela lassen.

Military spending as % of GDP:

Brazil - 2.6% (2006 estimate)

Canada - 1.1% (2005 estimate)

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/

By the way, Overground was complementing you on your use of English. It is probably much better than our Portuguese. Keep it up!

Mr Ryan ,
wait for my reply for you , I m just preparing it , because it seems you have to learn more about CORRUPTION ... And about what is going outside your country , oh...inside too because you have problems inside your giant country too ..wait and I m going to show you ... oh.. by the way , be nice because we are just sharing ideas and you seems to be very intolerant ....
pam from brazil - ius sanguinis Italy -
be nice ....

Hi Pamela,

I read your private message. Thanks you for the links to that information and sorry for sounding a little aggressive earlier. But trust me in this, I know plenty about corruption. Having lived in Central America and having dealt with the bueracrices in places such as Honduras, Nicaragua and Guatemala, I have dealt with my fair share of it and even did my part to support it from time to time (bribes, propinas etc.) So while I think this is a worthy discussion, I think you should probably create a new thread regarding it and we should leave this current thread to the original topic. Tambien, su ingles es perfecto. Te entiedo todo que tu escribas :)

Military spending as % of GDP:

Brazil - 2.6% (2006 estimate)

Canada - 1.1% (2005 estimate)

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/

By the way, Overground was complementing you on your use of English. It is probably much better than our Portuguese. Keep it up!

... so what if our GDP spending is low? Brazil also has slums controlled by gangs - it needs a strong cival defense. And countries like Brazil often local policing is done by military like organizations - so it distorts the numbers.

If our GDP included police spending it would jump up drastically.

The point is do we need to spend much on a military for one of the most remote countries on Earth?

I'll take a new Toronto subway line over 4 questionably needed jets.

"The point is do we need to spend much on a military for one of the most remote countries on Earth?"

We aren't that remote, you know... It was only a few years ago the American government "accidentally" redrew their maps to include about 40,000sqkm of the Yukon's and NWT's off shore area......

"The point is do we need to spend much on a military for one of the most remote countries on Earth?"

We aren't that remote, you know... It was only a few years ago the American government "accidentally" redrew their maps to include about 40,000sqkm of the Yukon's and NWT's off shore area......

... you think America can be intimidated by a Canadian military?

... you think America can be intimidated by a Canadian military?

If we have nothing to enforce our sovereignty over our own damned territory, the Americans will have a point when they say it's "international territory" because no one is controlling it.

... so what if our GDP spending is low? Brazil also has slums controlled by gangs - it needs a strong cival defense. And countries like Brazil often local policing is done by military like organizations - so it distorts the numbers.

If our GDP included police spending it would jump up drastically.

I posted those figures because somebody living in a glass house is throwing stones.

What percentage of Brazil's defense budget is used on military operations in slums? Are police and paramilitary operations actually included in the defense budget?

I posted those figures because somebody living in a glass house is throwing stones.

What percentage of Brazil's defense budget is used on military operations in slums? Are police and paramilitary operations actually included in the defense budget?

Well I do know that there's a large number of people in the world that love military spending. I come back to my original comment that Canada doesn't need an extensive military.

Brazil has problematic residents and neighbouring countries that pose a risk to it's soverenty. Little is served by Canada spending huge sums on our forces.

If we have nothing to enforce our sovereignty over our own damned territory, the Americans will have a point when they say it's "international territory" because no one is controlling it.

Well I never have had an issue on spending money on our navy or domestic services. I just think we could better spend the $4 billion for 4 jets.

... you think America can be intimidated by a Canadian military?

So we should surrender? "Here, America! Take 3% of our area! And hey, while your at it, why not claim the north west passage as your own as well???? Yay! Here, have Alberta! What the fuck are we going to do? We're afraid of defending ourselves! No one will ever hurt Canada!"

Need I remind you that barely 60 years ago there were UBoats up the St. Lawrence?

Well I never have had an issue on spending money on our navy or domestic services. I just think we could better spend the $4 billion for 4 jets.

Maybe they could just one big jet for $4billion.

Well I do know that there's a large number of people in the world that love military spending. I come back to my original comment that Canada doesn't need an extensive military.

Brazil has problematic residents and neighbouring countries that pose a risk to it's soverenty. Little is served by Canada spending huge sums on our forces.


The original poster (from Brazil) seemed to be concerned with another country's military spending partly because of how many pollutants are released into the air by our military. I pointed out that Brazil is guilty of the same "crimes" (and spends more than double the % of its GDP doing so). I don't know how this turned into a debate about the need to protect our sovereignty. I was only pointing out the hypocracy.

I just think we could better spend the $4 billion for 4 jets.

As I mentioned before the jets do not cost $4 billion they cost $1.8 billion for total procurement costs, which is a big difference. A further $1.6 billion will be spent on long-term, in-service support(over 20 years) which is a normal procedure. Even if you add those two figures it's still not $4b it's $3.4 billion which again is a big difference from the number you gave.

Here's some more info on the JSS - "Joint Support Ship" Project.

Project M2673 will deliver to the Canadian Forces, three multi-role ships that satisfy the following operational deficiencies:

- Underway Support to Naval Task Groups through replacement of the capabilities for task group logistic support as currently provided by the two Protecteur Class Auxiliary Oiler Replenishment (AOR) vessels;

- Sealift by providing an enhanced surge sealift capability for CF equipment;

- Afloat Support to Forces Deployed Ashore

Project Schedule.

Project Definition Contracts Awarded 1 December 2006
Requirements Validation 2007
Industry Working on Implementation Proposals 2007
Effective Project Approval 2008
Award of Implementation and In-Service Support Contracts 2008
Delivery of First Ship 2012
Initial Operating Capability of First Ship 2013
Project Complete 2016

http://i16.tinypic.com/47i4vx2.jpg
http://i17.tinypic.com/3zbz0h5.jpg
http://i17.tinypic.com/2ik8uir.jpg

Crew (crew/air/land) 165 crew/76 air/650 soldiers
Length/Beam/Draft 210 / 28 / 9.5m
Displacement (Deep) 28,000 tonnes (notional)
Speed 21 knots (sustained)
Range 10800nm at 15kts
Self Defence Active & Passive
Hangar (x heli.) 4 x 15t (Cyclone)

This has also been in the news of a while

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061031/canada_tanks_061031/20061031/

Army might buy surplus tanks from Germans, Swiss
Updated Tue. Oct. 31 2006 11:27 PM ET

David Akin, CTV News

OTTAWA -- Canadian army officers are negotiating the purchase of as many as 100 surplus tanks from the German and Swiss armies, CTV News has learned.

The deal may yet fall through but, even if it does, the fact that army officers are contemplating a purchase that could more than double the number of tanks in the Canadian Forces represents a significant strategic shift, military analysts say.

As recently as 2003, military planners were proceeding to sell, dismantle and mothball Canada's tanks. The Liberal government of the day approved a $3-billion plan to replace Canada's fleet of 66 Leopard 1 tanks with lighter, faster and more mobile armoured vehicles.

At that time, Rick Hillier, then a Lt. Gen but now the Chief of Defence Staff, said tanks were "useless for soldiers in ... Kabul," and he characterized tanks as a "millstone that has hamstrung our thinking for years."

But despite available funding, those vehicles have never been purchased and Hillier has become the first Canadian general to send Canadian tanks into combat in five decades.

Hillier was travelling Tuesday and unavailable for comment. A Canadian Forces spokesperson said: "There are no plans to purchase any Leopard tanks at this time."

Five Leopards are already in Afghanistan with another dozen scheduled to arrive over the next month, much to the delight of the infantry who see the presence of the 42-tonne vehicles as a great morale booster.

But that morale boost comes with a hefty price tag. Government sources say it costs $1-million to transport each tank from their base at Wainwright, Alta. to Kandahar.

But despite the high cost, army planners are trying to build the business case to set up another battle group.

Industry and military observers trace the ascendancy of the tanks within the Canadian Forces to the appointment of Lt. General Andrew Leslie as chief of the Canada's Land Forces. Leslie is believed to an unabashed fan of the tank. He would find an ally in Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor's top policy advisor, Col. (Ret'd) Howie Marsh. Marsh, a former tank commander himself, was a critic of earlier plans to mothball Canada's tanks.

Both O'Connor, a former general, and Hillier also started their military careers as tank commanders.

None of those individuals were available for interviews on the subject.

But industry sources say the Canadians are considering the purchase of either or both the A4 and A5 variant of the Leopard 2 from the Germans and the Swiss. The Leopard 2 is an updated and improved version of the Leopard 1s already in operation in the Canadian Forces.

It's not clear if the tanks to be purchased would be put to use in Afghanistan.

The asking price for the tanks may be too good to pass up. While a brand new Leopard 2 can cost up to $6 million each, the Canadians may be able to purchase them for as little as $350,000 each. European armies, who once thought they would need thousands of tanks to counter a possible Russian threat now find themselves with too many tanks as that threat has largely evaporated. Consequently, there are many more vendors of tanks than buyers and surplus tanks can be purchased at fire-sale prices.

The money for the tank purchase could be diverted from the $3-billion project approved by the Liberals to buy lighter, faster armoured vehicles. CTV News has learned that one of those projects -- the Stryker Mobile Gun System -- has effectively been cancelled after problems were identified with the Stryker's gun turret system.

One industry source said the Leopard tanks Canada is looking at from the Germans and the Swiss are nearly new, "only driven by a little old lady on Sunday."

But some military analysts say Hillier's 2003 instinct was correct: That Canada ought to spend its money to make its army more mobile by increasing its inventory of lighter, faster vehicles.

"We haven't used tanks in the past 50 years. Unless you can clearly define a tank threat, why would you want to have tanks that are expensive to acquire, maintain and deploy?," said Col. (Ret'd) Michel Drapeau.

Col. Marsh, though, is already on record defending the tanks. In April, 2005, Marsh, who was working as a consultant at the time, told a House of Commons defence committee that the tank could be assigned a variety of tasks.

"The tank is the only vehicle in Canada that can forge through 1.5 metres of water without preparation. So if you had a major flood in a city and you wanted to ferry people through water over 6 feet, the tank is probably one of the best things going," Marsh said. "It also has a 20-tonne drawbar pull, so it can push and pull 20 tonnes of debris. It is an incredibly flexible vehicle that could be used when you get into extreme national emergencies and disasters, and the fact that it only costs $28 million a year to maintain means it's one of those cheap tools that you really don't want to get rid of."

Opposition politicians say any purchasing decisions ought to wait until the government presents its overdue Defence Capabilities Plan, a policy document that would serve as a blueprint for military planning, mapping out the kinds of missions the Canadian Forces would be likely be assigned over the next several years.

"We know there's need," said Ujjal Dosanjh, the Liberal defence critic. "But how can we judge whether what we're buying is appropriate unless we have the total overall defence capabilities plan."

It's looking more likely we will be leasing the newest Leopard 2. Reports say we are leasing 20 of the 40 available Leopard 2A6M (A6 with additional mine protection kit) from Germany for service in Afghanistan in Spring. These state of the art tanks are comparable to the US M1. Canada also wants to purchase an additional 80 Leopard 2A4. At such a low price to buy these it's probably too good of an option for Canada to pass up. These will provide Canada with extra protection against the every increasing IED attacks that other smaller armoured vehicles cannot.

Spiegel in German - http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/vorab/0,1518,465574,00.html

http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/story.html?id=c8dc6e80-8ff0-4130-9b85-b7c63d07140c&k=80707

Wow $350K for a Leopard 2??? That's a ridiculously low price! :nuts:

The military's foremost mission should always be defending our sovereignty by maintaining the integrity of the nation's borders. It has been rightfully argued that our presence in the North is almost laughable. Foreign countries dispute our claims in the North.

The Arctic waters are becoming navigable longer due to warming. Huge resource wealth is also becoming more economically viable due to warming. It would be a terrible loss to this country if we lost our claim to our North. Use it or lose it, that's the message any Mexican would send us. It's a wise lesson to learn. I doubt any of our allies would help us defend our country since some of them don't respect our claim there.

Canada's #1 priority should be patrolling our frontier, a massive military presence in the North, developing a huge surveillance and detection system, and devising strategies of enforcement.

Only when this mission has been properly funded should military involvement overseas be tackled.

Wishing our troops in Afghanistan successful missions and a safe return home.

Well, that was our own stupidity. They *thought* they could fix and refit those subs.What was wrong with the subs?

LOL

What WASN'T wrong with them? :lol: The short circuited when they were put in water!

LOL

What WASN'T wrong with them? :lol: The short circuited when they were put in water!

That is pretty bad:nuts:

The military's foremost mission should always be defending our sovereignty by maintaining the integrity of the nation's borders. It has been rightfully argued that our presence in the North is almost laughable. Foreign countries dispute our claims in the North.

The Arctic waters are becoming navigable longer due to warming. Huge resource wealth is also becoming more economically viable due to warming. It would be a terrible loss to this country if we lost our claim to our North. Use it or lose it, that's the message any Mexican would send us. It's a wise lesson to learn. I doubt any of our allies would help us defend our country since some of them don't respect our claim there.

Canada's #1 priority should be patrolling our frontier, a massive military presence in the North, developing a huge surveillance and detection system, and devising strategies of enforcement.

Only when this mission has been properly funded should military involvement overseas be tackled.

Wishing our troops in Afghanistan successful missions and a safe return home.

Great post. As much as I believe that non-violence should be the first defense philosophy, ie. negotiating before action....

There comes a point where your national sovereignty must be respected, and this has to be shown to the world. As well, even if we want to show the world a leading role in peacekeeping and negotiations over action when possible, we need to have a more modern and updated army, this is the reality of the world we live in, so I am all for extra spending on our military, and I think we should be only investing in the most modern technology possible. Those new boats to patrol our north are a great example :cheers: