You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Great White North
Canada Budget May Raise Military Spending
2005-02-24
Canada's tenuous minority government pledged to pump $11.2 billion into the military and anti-terrorism efforts, determined in the budget presented Wednesday to burnish the country's credibility as a global peacekeeper and fend off opposition threats of early elections. The 2005 budget has a $7.2 billion surplus. Also promised was $2.7 billion in foreign aid and five years of tax cuts that will cost the government $7.1 billion but save middle-class families an average of $327 each. The biggest winner was Canada's armed forces, hit with budget cuts of about 30 percent between 1988 and 2000. NATO members have long grumbled that Canada spends less on defense than nearly all its partners as a percentage of gross domestic product. Ottawa's opposition to the war in Iraq has only heightened impatience among the alliance's biggest partners, the United States and Britain, for an overhaul of the Canadian military.

Goodale said his pledge of $10.5 billion over the next five years was the largest commitment to the armed forces in two decades. Defense Minister Bill Graham announced last week that Canada would nearly double its troop strength in Afghanistan to about 1,100 by this summer. And Ottawa has pledged up to 30 instructors to train Iraqi troops, mostly likely in Jordan. ``This significant investment in our military means that we will be able to better meet our responsibilities abroad and protect our people at home,'' Goodale said.
It's a start, I'll grant him that.
Canada will spend another $980 million to secure the 4,000-mile border with the United States to prevent terrorist attacks, with money going to air and marine security, border protection, policing and emergency readiness and response.
Posted by:Steve White

#6  Well, the Canadian senate did wake up and say if something happens in the US and they come via our border, we're toast since they're our biggest trading partner.
Posted by: anonymous2u   2005-02-24 11:49:19 AM  

#5  The Canadian military is on the verge of self-extinction. Their equipment is old and constantly breaking down,and their more experienced NCOs are leaving in mass numbers.
After a string of embarrassing incidents involving the military the Pols are pretending to spend some money to try and keep from being thrown out at next election.(Leased junk Brit subs,that resulted in deadly accident;had no way of responding when Denmark sent a ship to claim a disputed island;had a disaster response team that couldn't be sent to help in Tsunami relief because had no way of getting them out of Canada;had only one infantry battalion that was deployable and stated when that batt. came home from Afghanistan it would be 18 months before it could be replaced;had to admit it had no way of patrolling its Northern borders.)
Note that the $11.2 for defence includes antiterrorism,and later defence is only $10.5bil and that prob includes still more antiterrorism funding,which will go to police,fire,rescue,etc. units,which means even less for actual military. Either way,foreign aid $2.7 bil/yr,Defence allegedly @$2.1bil/yr.-that tells us where Canada's priorities are.
Posted by: Stephen   2005-02-24 11:06:31 AM  

#4  Well, it won't be Canada unless they spend at least $20 mil on diversity training for the troops.
Posted by: BH   2005-02-24 10:15:10 AM  

#3  $980 million to secure the 4,000-mile border. $245,000 per mile. That's a lot per mile, even in Canadian dollars. Why am I thinking it will still leak like a sieve? Perhaps it's because of that U.N./EU mentality -- 99% to bureaucrats and 1% for the benefit of the masses.
Posted by: Tom   2005-02-24 9:40:00 AM  

#2  As far as I can tell, the opt-out of BMD is virtually meaningless. The NORAD agreement earlier in the year means we have access to all the radar sites we need in Canada. Had Canada made a financial contribution, it would not have been critical or relatively significant to the US. Instead, Canada starts to rebuild its military, a move that might have garnered opposition had it not been done under the cover of seeming to put Canada's thumb in the eye of the Great Bronze South.

If someone can explain to me the significance of the BMD decision, I'd like to understand it; but at this point it looks like a smokescreen to cover an increase, however minimal, in Canadian defence spending. Maybe we shouldn't militarize the border.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis   2005-02-24 9:21:03 AM  

#1  Hmmm. $41 bil loonies on NHS over 10 years, $11.2 bil for the armed forces.

No to the defense shield, but yes to boots on the ground.
Posted by: anonymous2u   2005-02-24 12:57:18 AM  

00:00