Canada's Military Said to be on 'Verge of Collapse'

CNSNEWS.com ^ | 9/18/02 | Alison Appelbe

[kattracks]

CNSNews.com) - Canada's military is on the verge of collapse, according to a recent report released by a coalition of prominent Canadians concerned about security and defense.

The 39-page report from the Council for Canadian Security (CCS) in the 21st Century warns that the country is at risk of being unable to defend its territory, including the world's longest coastline and second-largest land mass and becoming increasingly reliant on the capabilities of the United States.

"Canadian forces are in a crisis-literally on the verge of collapse," military historian and council chairman Jack Granatstein told the media on the release of the report. "To rectify the situation, the Canadian forces need more. More of everything."

Since the 1950s, Canada has reduced its defense spending to just over one per cent of its gross domestic product, placing it 17th among 19 NATO-member countries. From a peak fighting force of 120,000 four decades ago, the country is now reduced to 60,000 members in uniform. Its military equipment-from naval frigates and Arctic icebreakers to military helicopters and transport planes-is widely seen as outdated and insufficient.

Timed for release on the eve of Sept. 11 commemorative events, the report, titled 'The Peoples' Defense Review," calls for an immediate infusion of $1.5 billion Canadian ($950 million U.S.) into Canada's $12 billion military budget, and stepped up co-operation with American forces to improve continental security.

"Nine-eleven indicates the nature of the threat, and the U.S. has reacted by bolstering homeland defense," the report says. "If Canada fails to make equivalent efforts, it will be an easier target. Moreover, given the interconnections in the continent's infrastructure, a major attack on the U.S. will have serious effects in Canada."

On the politically sensitive issue of Canadian sovereignty, the report adds that any decision to allow the U.S. greater responsibility for protecting Canada "would de-facto cede Canadian sovereignty to the U.S."

In a subsequent telephone interview, Granatstein said Canada has historically shunted its military during peacetime.

"In war we have built up forces that become very good and effective, but as soon as the war is over we start throwing it away and we get into a cycle of forgetfulness in which we demolish what has been a very effective military," Granatstein said.

He added that a "cheap" and "rather sad" anti-Americanism, always present in Canada, has reached a "shrill" level since four Canadian soldiers were killed in Afghanistan in April in a friendly fire incident involving American pilots. At the same time, he warned that Americans look upon Canada as "a freeloader nation-a people that prattles about sovereignty and offers nothing but anti-American rhetoric."

Last week, the National Post newspaper and Global television network released a poll that showed 79 per cent of Canadians believe their nation would need American help in the case of an attack yet only 52 per cent support more government spending on the military.

Paul Cellucci, the U.S. ambassador to Canada, is among those who argue that a lack of military strength is the greatest threat to Canadian sovereignty. Cellucci is also a strong proponent of greater integration of continental forces.

"Why would we not co-operate ... it makes no sense not to," he told the media on the eve of Sept. 11 this year. "It's not about sovereignty. It's about security. There is a much greater threat to Canadian sovereignty by not giving the military what it needs to do its job than by allowing the military to continue to cooperate with the United States."

Cellucci has also stated that a lack of Canadian spending on its military is of concern at the highest levels of the Bush administration. Yet Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien has repeatedly said he has no plan to spend more and Defense Minister John McCallum said the CCS report would only become "part of the ongoing defense policy review."

Ironically, Parliament's most left-leaning party, the New Democrats, also criticize the Chretien government for neglecting the military. The NDP is concerned about poor salaries, benefits and living conditions for armed services personnel.

A director of the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary argued that the Canadian government is ignoring popular views.

"Since Sept. 11 (2001), all of the polls have shown that the Canadian public has been unified on a need for increased military spending," said Rob Huebert. "But we have a government that simply refuses to give the opinions of Canadians any adherence. You get the sense they are just waiting, crossing their fingers that there are no further strikes, and hoping they can go back to business as usual, which is, of course, a very ill-conceived attitude."

Granatstein attributes the lack of military spending, in part, to a culture in which the armed forces are not well profiled or highly valued in mainstream culture.

"Canadians don't know much about their military, and they don't know how weak it is," he said. "On the other hand, they think of themselves as being the best friend of the U.S. They don't seem to see that being as weak as we are, we are losing sovereignty, and that the Americans will make the decisions whether we like it or not."

 

 

[MetalHeadConservative35]

Yeah just forget the terrorists lets go invade Canada, that is a more pressing need. Why hasn't Bush proposed this?

eh,,,,we were kidding????

[Crawdad]

Didn't Clive Cussler do that in one of his books?

[Ditter]

Canadians are not allowed to keep & bear arms? You could have fooled me. Most of our trips to Canada (& there have been a lot) have been hunting trips & the Canadians were just as armed as we were.

[Greg Weston]

I thought you probably were. But with some of these beyond idiotic Canada bashers sometimes it's hard to tell.

[STD]

Other than hockey punks and avant garde socialism, what do these maple syrup soaked surrender monkeys contribute? I remember all those posts about "Princess Light" soldiers and their alleged sniping proficiency. They need to solve their domestic problem before we give them the time of day.

[Publius6961]

Canada still has a military?

[MetalHeadConservative35]

beyond idiotic Canada bashers

is there such a thing?

by the way you saved yourself from a humilating monty-python flaming! :) good morning friend!

[Spottys Spurs]

"From a peak fighting force of 120,000 four decades ago, the country is now reduced to 60,000 members in uniform."

Wow, I didn't realize Bill Clinton also ran Canada back then!

[MetalHeadConservative35]

Other than hockey punks and avant garde socialism...

hey i thank canada everyday for hockey punks such as darren McCarty and Tie Domi :)

[badfreeper]

"What sort of agreements do the Canadians have with the English? Do they share some costs in defending/patrolling the north Atlantic and Artic Ocean?

"Does England have any influence over these canucks at all?"

I'm not even going to dignify a lot of the posters' comments here with a response (the usual Canada haters are out in force) but your questions seem legit.

HRH Queen Elizabeth II is the Queen of Canada and official head of state. Her representative in Canada is the Governor General, who is appointed by the Prime Minister. Other than mostly ceremonial duties, the Governor General's main function is to serve as referee in the event of a non-confidence vote in parliament. The GG must decide if another member of the ruling party can garner enough support to carry the government or if an election must be called. For practical purposes, the Queen has no involvement whatsoever in Canadian political life. At most, she might address parliament once a decade or so during a royal visit to Canada.

With the exception of both being members of NATO, I'm not aware of any ties or agreements between Britian and Canada. NATO members frequently use Canadian bases for training exercises. The British sold Canada some second hand subs, but they leak.

Canada has a huge area, and three oceans worth of coastline. The tax burden of protecting all of that with a population of 30 million or so is huge, so whatever level of funding the military got it was never enough. Add the Liberals, who have been cutting the military ever since they were elected, and you have the makings of a dangerous situation. They haven't learned the lessons of history, or so it seems.

[LibWhacker]

Canada is even worse than California. Used to be great. But they're losing that right fast.

[Greg Weston]

I had a war of words awile back with a would be Canada invader. I've always enjoyed my time up there, the vast majority of people were very nice. For a city it's size Toronto was terrific. Don't understand why some want to try and make an enemy of our neighbors to the north. We got enough to deal with.

[Tijeras_Slim]

Do a Google search under C-68, the Canadian firearms registration act of 1995.

[badfreeper]

"I can't remember the name either but I do recall it's on a dead end."

It's a VERY long dead end street called "Natural Resource Way."

Now play nice or we won't share.

[InvisibleChurch]

why do they need a miltary? the US will bale America Jr. out

[Ditter]

All of our trips were pre 95, I guess thats why we don't go anymore. LOL The Canadian hunting industry must have fallen by the wayside.

[badfreeper]

"...what do these maple syrup soaked surrender monkeys contribute?"

Name one time any Canadian outfit has surrendered. EVER.

I don't have a problem with the maple syrup soaked remark, but the rest was way not cool.

[cynicom]

Send a company of marines at once to invade Canada.

[LibWhacker]

Here are some of the provisions of C-68:

1) all gun owners will need to have a license to own or obtain a gun by 2001

2) safety checks will be made on an applicant before a license is issued

3) spouses and partners of applicants will be notified when a new applicant wishes to acquire a gun

4) new applicants will have to pass a safety course all firearms must be registered by 2003.

5) To register a firearm, applicants must have a license.

6) eventually firearms brought into Canada will be recorded at the point of entry

7) all firearms must be stored unloaded and made inoperable.

The noose is tightening. A few years ago, the socialists pushed through registration of all short-barrelled handguns -- after promising that no confiscation would follow. Of course, that promise was quickly broken. It's a gun rights nightmare up North and getting worse everyday. Kind of like California, where I live. :-(