• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

From our closest ally-Canada's Defence Spending Too Low

John Nayduk

Full Member
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Canada's defence spending too low, U.S. says

Canadian Press

Tuesday, September 3 â “ Online Edition, Posted at 6:26 PM EST

Ottawa â ” Canada's response to the terrorist attacks of last Sept. 11 has been "overwhelming and generous" in every respect but one, says U.S. Ambassador Paul Cellucci.

For the first time, Mr. Cellucci explicitly stated Tuesday that concerns about Canada's anemic military budget reach the highest levels of the Bush administration in Washington.

"We have been saying for quite some time â ” long before Sept. 11 â ” we were concerned that the decline in the percentage of GDP and the percentage of the budget that was going to the nation's defences was a problem," Mr. Cellucci said in an interview with The Canadian Press to mark the first anniversary of the terrorist attacks.

Mr. Cellucci said when he was appointed ambassador in the spring of 2001 his only marching orders from Secretary of State Colin Powell were to work on increasing Canada's defence budget.

"The only specific instruction he gave me â ” the former chief of staff of the United States armed forces â ” he said you have to talk to the Canadians about increasing their military spending."

The Liberal government delivered a security budget last December that boosted defence spending by a modest $1.2-billion over five years. Critics, including an all-party Commons committee and the Auditor-General, have argued the Armed Forces need at least $1-billion more annually on their $11.2-billion budget.

"We think it's important for Canada; we think it's important for North America; we think it's important for the world," Mr. Cellucci said of a larger and better equipped Canadian military.

"So I will continue to respectfully urge the leaders here in Canada ... to put more money into defence."

Mr. Cellucci was effusive, however, in his praise for Canadians who opened their homes to stranded American air travellers on Sept. 11 and for those who gave humanitarian assistance in the aftermath.

He also cited the "extraordinary" level of co-operation between the RCMP, CSIS and U.S. police and intelligence authorities.

And he said work on the smart border initiative â ” which allows faster cross-border access to frequent, low-risk travellers â ” and improvements in screening migrants to North America have also been great successes.

Mr. Cellucci dismissed Canadian complaints about cross-border trade disputes such as softwood lumber, agriculture and cultural industries as the natural by-product of competing industries.

"That should not be interpreted as any lack of respect or lack of gratefulness for what Canada and the people of Canada have done in the wake of Sept. 11," he said.

"It's not as if this is a one-way street. Historically we've had items that we've had disputes about ... so as good friends, good partners, let's roll up our sleeves and get back to the table."

Mr. Cellucci said that from his perspective, the greatest side benefit of Sept. 11 was increased American awareness of Canada.

The former Republican governor of Massachusetts said he knew the country well, just as the vast majority of Canadians who live near the Canada-U.S. border are flooded with American news and culture.

But most U.S. citizens have no window into Canadian life.

"Those [stranded travellers] came from all over the United States and when they went back to their homes they were able to tell friends and family and neighbours and local newspapers how well they were treated," said Mr. Cellucci.
 
Well, How much influence does an ambassador have? I personally have no clue.

Andrew :bullet: :cdn: :bullet:
 
As I sit here and listen to this comment from the U.S. representative, I can‘t help but say to myself, "yeah, like Ottawa is going to increase our defense budget!".

I think it is hard not to be critical on this given the last decade (especially)...but I have been hearing a lot of this kind of criticism coming from the media...and that is pretty new. As forces personnel we have been lobbying for more defense spending for ever...but the media has not publicized it quite as much as this year.

Yeah, I know what your saying.."it‘ll never happen!"...and most of me is saying that too. But I feel public opinion slowly swinging toward a stronger defense. Lets face it, it‘s about being a sovereign Canada.
 
Despite the Ambassadors‘ view that Canada needs to increase its‘ Defense spending, the self-serving autocrat of a PM we have, will never consider it? His attitude towards the military is one of contempt, and while he remains PM don‘t expect any changes to occur. While he remains PM, the Cormorant will never replace, or be regarded as the Sea Kings‘ confirmed replacement, since he cancelled the contract, and now doesn‘t want to admit to the error, by going back and restarting the process!
It wouldn‘t be a surprise that when Jean Cretin does leave office, the Sea King replacement will be more smoothly accomplished..by his successor!
Playing politics, with the lives of the military, will be one of Cretins‘ legacies.
 
I am with you here BillP....150%. Our present PM has done nothing to support the military.

I just hope that public opinion will push this a :) :) h :) le out of office. I am hoping that the media reflects public opinion. And I am hoping to see some support.

In 18 months we get to make that choice....
 
Before everyone gets on the bandwagon and starts pounding the PM to a bloody pulp, how soon people forget Muldoon. Brian Mulroney‘s government is guilty as sin for military cuts. Back in 1989, his government tabled legislation in the federal budget for drastic cuts to National Defence. This resulted in the closure of CFB London, Canadian Forces Recruit School Cornwallis and RRMC (Royal Rhodes Military College in Victoria). For those too young to remember, there were once 3 military colleges. Now there is only RMC in Kingston. It‘s nice to sit back and say that Chretien is a pacifist that does nothing. Mulroney was a two faced person with quite a few "dog in the manger" policies. The Conservatives were just as bad, if not worse when it came to defence.

-the patriot- :cdn:
 
Well reading the local news paper it stated that 63% of winnipegers would like a drastic increase in defence spending and that number is rising slowly, apperently. I don‘t know how that compares to other provinces or cities.

I didn‘t even know at all that Canada had 2 other Military Colleges. Thats unforunate that they are no longer around.

Andrew :bullet: :cdn: :bullet:
Soon to be a Proud member of the CF(3 DAYS!!!)
 
Maybe it‘s just because of the sources I look at, but it seems a lot of Canadians are saying the same thing (stronger defense). Can‘t the people do anything? I mean, can‘t citizens write their MP‘s (or whatever you call your legeslators)? Everyone is in agreement about it being Chretian‘s fault, but does he have complete control over the budget?
 
BTW, I whole-heartedly support a strong Canadian defense. It‘s nice to have an ally you can count on, and even nicer to have one who can really back you up. I know the economic factors were discussed on another thread, but I should think costs could be reduced (at least as far a equipment) by more cooperative joint US-Canadian defense projects. The Stryker (LAV III) would be a good example if the vehicle itself weren‘t such a POS.
:tank:
 
It is true that the issues plaguing the canadian military are more than just the PM. Our politicians have been this way for a long time. It‘s just that North America‘s defense issues took a dramatic shift on Sept. 11th last year, and there has been, at best, an anemic response from our current government, headed by Jean C. Would the response have been the same under Mulroony? Who knows. But as we sit here today, things are different, and the current liberal goverment has proven its failure to support national defense adequately to even fulfill its own foreign policy. Perhaps this is why such schisms are emerging out of Ottawa.

And in response to our American colleague who wrote above...we do have a few lobbyists who support the military ...besides the people here. It‘s just that public support has only started to pick up the pace. i know Esprit de Corps magazine did a few mail-outs to the gov‘t not to long ago...but the Canadian public as a whole has not be "pro-military" for a long time. maybe WWII? Any comments here.....?

Ducimus :cdn: :mg: :eek:
 
I‘m just curious about the LAV III being a "POS!" How so? I thought everyone loved it!
 
Back
Top