Category: Main Page

At the conclusion of Question Period today, Speaker Peter Milliken rose to call for a vote on a motion that called for the Senate to pass the a crime bill that had already been passed by the House. The motion had been declared a confidence motion by Stephen Harper and the Conservatives. The Liberals were having none of this “false crisis” created by Harper. So they walked out, leaving the Bloc Quebecois to vote with the Government and the NDP to vote against. With his caucus standing behind him, Liberal House Leader Ralph Goodale stood at a microphone outside the doors of the House of Commons and explained why they took the dramatic action they did:

Goodale:  Hi everyone.  I just have a, a few short remarks and then be happy to take your questions. 

Liberals are boycotting this current vote on the Conservative message to the Senate on bill C-2.  We said last week that we have no intention of allowing the government to defeat itself on this vote.  Their motion is a trick to provoke an artificial crisis and we're simply not going to play their game.  Liberals have been dealing seriously with crime legislation.  It is a serious subject.  That's why back in 2006, we offered to fast track 70% of the government's justice legislation.  They rejected our offer.  They'd rather have an argument than get the job done. 

In 2007, much of that legislation was well advanced, in fact, a good portion of it in the Senate.  But the government chose then to prorogue, to kill it all and to start all over again.  Why?  Again, to perpetuate the illusion of ongoing parliamentary delay.  Again, they would rather have an argument than get the job done.  Now, with this motion, we're seeing more of the same.  The Senate has had about three weeks to deal with C-2 so far.  They've moved it through second reading.  They put it in their Justice Committee and they've now agreed to extend its sitting hours and additional sitting days.  Clearly, there is no filibuster and no delay. 

But beyond bill C-2, which we supported in the House, Liberals want more action on effective crime fighting.  That's why we have called for more police officers on our streets, better coordination between all governments and law enforcement agencies to fight organized, better police access to new technologies, more Crown attorneys to speed up prosecutions and partnerships with community based organizations to fight the root causes of crime like poverty, illiteracy and addictions.  The Liberal approach is sound and reasonable.  If you want to see bare faced stalling tactics in Parliament, look at this government trying to kill bills in the Senate on foreign aid and on the Kelowna Accord and look at their ongoing filibuster in the House Procedure Committee to block an investigation of Conservative financial violations under the Canada Elections Act. 

A few minutes after Liberal Stephane Dion presented his party’s amendments to the Conservative motion on Afghanistan, Prime Minister Harper convened a press conference in the House of Commons foyer to talk about the Liberal position. Whereas the Opposition Leader’s office allowed reporters to ask Dion at least 16 questions over the better part of 30 minutes, the Prime Minister’s staff limited reporters to just four question, two in English and two in French. Here’s what the PM said in English:

Harper: I welcome the greater clarity in the Liberal position on the mission in Afghanistan.  I think the position, as I understand it today, is very clear and that is that Canada should remain with a military mission in Afghanistan through to 2011.  We will obviously examine all of their proposals in detail before responding to all of them, but I think this is important progress that has been made and I remind all of you that the government established the Manley Panel last fall with the express intention of bringing a bipartisan or non-partisan consensus to this particular mission and I think we've made progress here. 

We have two positions now in the House of Commons.  We have our position and the position of the Liberal Party, which is to essentially support the continued presence of Canada in Afghanistan according to a range of things — our international obligations, our obligations toward the Afghan people, … and obviously our obligations to our men and women in uniform who believe in their mission.  At the same time, we have the position of the NDP and the position of the Bloc, which is to pull Canadian troops out of Afghanistan as early as next year, a position that's fundamentally different. 

We’re going to go through this all in great detail.  There are other differences in the motion but the government's objective is to seek common ground, so we will look at these in great detail with the express intention of trying to find common ground.  But I think this is a positive development and one that I think is moving the debate in the right direction. 

Reporter: Sir, what do you make of the fact that the Liberal motion makes no mention that there be no combat role post-2009.  Is this enough movement in your mind to fashion a compromise and to avoid an election on this issue?

Harper: Let me clear that the government believes that the Afghan mission is important enough, it's important enough in terms of Canada's international reputation and obligations in terms of the obligations we've taken on towards the people of Kandahar and in terms of the obligations we've taken on to the men and women in uniform that we've asked to pursue this mission and to sacrifice and, and for whom, and to whom it is something they believe in very strongly, I think this motion is significant enough that it has to be a confidence matter.  And that's why we said that. 

I don't think we could just abandon this mission and pretend nothing had happened.  That said, I would agree with what the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party said last week.  I don't think it is desirable for the government or for the country to fight an election over this issue.  It is desirable for us to find a bipartisan consensus.  And I don't think in the end it matters whether it's a Conservative motion or a Liberal motion because it can't be a Conservative mission or a Liberal mission.  It must be a Canadian mission that there's some degree of consensus on. 

One of the things I'm encouraged about in this motion is that it backs away from any suggestion that we would dictate operational decisions to military commanders on the ground.  Afghanistan is an extremely dangerous environment and I don't think it is realistic that military commanders would be phoning 24 Sussex every other day to ask whether they could undertake certain operations or not other operations.  So I think the fact that the Liberal Party has backed away from any suggestion of that I think it's a positive development. 

Reporter: Prime Minister, your government has been asking NATO countries for a thousand troops as reinforcements in Kandahar.  Mr. Dion says they have to take over the counter-insurgency operations in Kandahar and suggests there should be more.  Is that doable?  Is it feasible to ask NATO countries for that?

Harper: Well as I say, we're going to look very carefully at the wording in the Liberal motion.  I think what's very clear is that to be successful we do need additional NATO commitment in Kandahar.  And I think NATO needs to understand that for NATO to be successful, NATO needs to be making those additional commitments in Kandahar and elsewhere.  I think NATO really has begun finally to grapple with the seriousness of the challenge in Afghanistan and the necessity of making changes in order to have success. 

I think what's important as we look at specific missions is we obviously want a motion — the Liberal Party agrees with us I think — the upshot of what they're saying is that we do need those additional troops.  They agree with the Manley recommendations in that regard.  I think it's important that we not put other things in the motion that would cause NATO not to come forward with those additional resources.  So I don't want the motion to be internally contradictory in that sense, but we're going to look carefully at what is proposed, that we need to get those troops, we want to get those troops and I think if we phrase this right, we certainly are making it very clear to allies that Canada's looking for a partnership in Afghanistan.  We are not looking to, you know, impose our will on other military countries.  We are looking to have a partnership in Kandahar and I think, I think that's the way to, to frame this particular request. 

And then, a couple of hours later, there was this exchange during Question Period in the House of Commons:

Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, former prime minister Lester Pearson said, “Of all of our dreams today, there is none more important or so hard to realize than that of peace”. It is clear that the Liberal Party has now abandoned that pathway and it is a sad day. It has chosen to follow the government in extending this war for another three years. Will the Prime Minister at least agree that there will be a vote on this matter prior to the budget vote taking place, so we can know where the House stands on the prolongation of war versus the–

The Speaker: The Right Hon. Prime Minister.

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we are working on getting a consensus on a motion that can indeed pass the House of Commons and obviously uphold Canada's obligations and international reputation and support our men and women.

It is not normally my habit to defend the Liberal Party, but the Liberal Party, for example, not only entered us into Afghanistan, but the Liberal Party directed this country through World War II, because the parties that run this country understand that in a dangerous world, we sometimes have to use force to maintain peace.

 

 

Here is the full-text of the Liberal amendment to the Government’s motion on Afghanistan:

That all of the words after the word “That” be deleted and the following substituted therefore:

 

this House recognizes the important contribution and sacrifice of Canadian Forces and Canadian civilian personnel as part of the UN mandated, NATO-led mission deployed in Afghanistan at the request of the democratically elected government of Afghanistan;

 

this House believes that Canada must remain committed to the people of Afghanistan beyond February 2009;

 

this House takes note that in February 2002, the government took a decision to deploy 850 troops to Kandahar to join the international coalition that went to Afghanistan to drive out the Taliban in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and that this deployment lasted for six months at which time the troops rotated out of Afghanistan and returned home;

 

this House takes note that in February 2003 the government took a decision that Canada would commit 2000 troops and lead for one year, starting in the summer of 2003, the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Kabul and at the end of the one-year commitment, Canada’s 2000 troop commitment was reduced to a 750-person reconnaissance unit as Canada’s NATO ally, Turkey, rotated into Kabul to replace Canada as the lead nation of the ISAF mission;

 

this House takes note that in August 2005, Canada assumed responsibility of the Provincial Reconstruction Team in Kandahar province which included roughly 300 Canadian Forces personnel;

 

this House takes note that the government took a decision to commit a combat Battle Group of roughly 1200 troops to Kandahar for a period of one year, from February 2006 to February 2007;

 

this House takes note that in January 2006, the government participated in the London Conference on Afghanistan which resulted in the signing of the Afghanistan Compact which set out benchmarks and timelines until the end of 2010 for improving the security, the governance and the economic and social development of Afghanistan;

 

this House takes note that in May 2006, the government took a decision to extend the military deployment in Kandahar for an additional two years so that the mission was then scheduled to end in February 2009;

 

this House takes note that it has long been a guiding principle of Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan that all three components of a comprehensive government strategy – defence, diplomacy and development – must reinforce each other and that the government must strike a balance between these components to be most effective;

 

this House takes note that the ultimate aim of Canadian policy is to leave Afghanistan to Afghans, in a country that is better governed, more peaceful and more secure and to create the necessary space and conditions to allow the Afghans themselves to achieve a political solution to the conflict; and

 

this House takes note that in order to achieve that aim, it is essential to assist the people of Afghanistan to have properly trained, equipped and paid members of the four pillars of their security apparatus: the army, the police, the judicial system and the corrections system;

 

therefore, it is the opinion of this House that Canada should continue a military presence in Kandahar beyond February 2009, to February 1 2011, in a manner fully consistent with the UN mandate on Afghanistan, and that the military mission shall consist of:

 

(a)               training the Afghan National Security Forces so that they can expeditiously take increasing responsibility for security in Kandahar and Afghanistan as a whole;

 

(b)               providing security for reconstruction and development efforts in Kandahar; and

 

(c)                the continuation of Canada’s responsibility for the Kandahar Provincial Reconstruction Team;

 

And it is the opinion of this House that this extension of Canada’s military presence in Afghanistan is approved by this House expressly on the condition that:

 

(a)               NATO secures sufficient troops to rotate into Kandahar (operational no later than February 2009) to allow Canadian troops to be deployed pursuant to the mission priorities of training and reconstruction;

 

(b)               to better ensure the safety and effectiveness of the Canadian contingent, the government secure medium helicopter lift capacity and high performance Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance before February 2009; and

 

(c)                the government of Canada immediately noti
fy NATO that Canada will end its military presence in Kandahar as of February 1, 2011, by which point the time allotted to reach all of the benchmarks set out in the Afghanistan Compact will have expired, and as of that date, the redeployment of the Canadian Forces troops out of Kandahar will start as soon as possible, so that it will have been completed by July 1, 2011;

 

And it is the opinion of this House that the government of Canada, together with our allies and the government of Afghanistan, must set firm targets and timelines for the training, equipping and paying of the Afghan National Army, the Afghan National Police, the members of the judicial system and the members of the correctional system;

 

And it is the opinion of this House that Canada’s contribution to the reconstruction and development of Afghanistan should:

 

(a)                               be revamped and increased to strike a better balance between our military efforts and our development efforts in Afghanistan;

 

(b)                               focus on our traditional strengths as a nation, particularly through the development of sound judicial and correctional systems and strong political institutions on the ground in Afghanistan and the pursuit of a greater role for Canada in addressing the chronic fresh water shortages in the country;

 

(c)                                address the crippling issue of the narco-economy that consistently undermines progress in Afghanistan, through the pursuit of solutions that do not further alienate the goodwill of the local population; and

 

(d)                               be held to a greater level of accountability and scrutiny so that the Canadian people can be sure that our development contributions are being spent effectively in Afghanistan;

 

And it is the opinion of this House that Canada should assert a stronger and more disciplined diplomatic position regarding Afghanistan and the regional players including the naming of a special Canadian envoy to the region who could both ensure greater coherence in Canada’s diplomatic initiatives in the region and also press for greater coordination amongst our partners in the UN in the pursuit of common diplomatic goals in the region;

 

And it is the opinion of this House that the Government should provide the public with franker and more frequent reporting on events in Afghanistan, offering more assessments of Canada’s role and giving greater emphasis to the diplomatic and reconstruction efforts as well as those of the military and, for greater clarity, the Government should table in Parliament detailed reports on the progress of the mission in Afghanistan on a quarterly basis;

 

And it is the opinion of this House that the House of Commons should strike a special Parliamentary committee on Afghanistan which would meet regularly with the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, International Cooperation and National Defence and other senior officials and that the House should authorize travel by the special committee to Afghanistan and the surrounding region so that the special committee can make frequent recommendations on the conduct and progress of our efforts in Afghanistan.

 

And it is the opinion of this House that the special Parliamentary Committee on Afghanistan should review the use of operational and national security exceptions for the withholding of information from Parliament, the Courts and the Canadian people to ensure that Canadians are being provided with ample information on the conduct and progress of the mission;

 

And it is the opinion of this House that with respect to the transfer of Afghan detainees to Afghan authorities, the Government must:

 

(a)                                maintain the current suspension on the transfer of Afghan detainees to Afghan authorities until substantive reforms of the prison system in Afghanistan are undertaken so the systemic risk of torture is eliminated;

 

(b)                                pursue a NATO-wide solution to the question of detainees through diplomatic efforts that are rooted in the core Canadian values of respect for human rights and the dignity of all people; and

 

(c)                                commit to a policy of greater transparency with respect to its policy on the taking of and transferring of detainees including a commitment to release the results of any reviews or inspections of Afghan prisons undertaken by Canadian officials; and

 

And it is the opinion of this House that the government must commit to improved interdepartmental coordination to achieve greater cross-government coherence and coordination of the government&r
squo;s domestic management of our commitment to Afghanistan, including the creation of a full-time task force which is responsible directly to the Prime Minister to lead these efforts.

 

The MPs on the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee say RCMP Deputy Commissioner Barbara George is in contempt of Parliament for deliberately misleading the committee in her testimony on the RCMP insurance and pension scandal. This afternoon, George fired back, released this statement:

“During the past year, the Public Accounts Committee have used this forum to cause irreparable damage to me, my family and my friends. The committee process and its procedures are inherently unfair, as they provide complete immunity for members and no protection for witnesses by way of procedural fairness.

Since the Public Accounts Committee first undertook its review of matters arising from the administration of the RCMP pension and insurance plans, I have appeared before it as a witness on four separate occasions. During those appearances, I provided the committee with more than six hours of oral testimony on a range of issues. On many occasions, I tabled internal RCMP documents and correspondence which corroborated my perspective on the events in question and which proved I had done nothing wrong.

In the course of those four appearances, I answered every question honestly, accurately and to the very best of my personal recollection. Early in this process, before all the evidence had been presented, it became clear that certain members of the committee had already reached a different conclusion and would not allow themselves to be convinced otherwise. I was disappointed to learn that the report issued today by the Public Accounts Committee reflects their distorted interpretation of my testimony.

The report tabled today claims that I gave misleading testimony in response to questions about whether I had ordered the removal of Sgt. Mike Frizzell from the Project Probity investigation. Inexplicably, the report then acknowledges that there are still questions about whether or not Sgt. Frizzell was “actually removed‚” and the Committee ultimately concludes that “it is not necessary to determine whether or not he was ‘removed.’” It is unclear how the Committee could have been misled about whether I had a role in removing Sgt. Frizzell, if he was not “actually removed” from the investigation.

A final sign of the unfairness of this process became clear late yesterday when sources within the committee began discussing the confidential report with the media. I had asked to receive an advance briefing on the contents of the report, but was told that the rules of the House of Commons expressly prohibited anyone from disclosing or discussing a confidential report before it was tabled. By leaking the contents of the report, therefore, one or more members of the committee may themselves be in contempt of Parliament.”

Tomorrow night in Ottawa, eight Ottawa-area Liberal riding associations will hold a fundraiser. The fundraiser includes an auction, in which attendees can bid on the following:

• A round of golf for four with former PM Paul Martin
• Attend a Senators vs Canadiens hockey game in the company of Ken Dryden
• Tennis with Bob Rae and his brother John
• Lunch with Michael Ignatieff
• Lunch with Justin Trudeau

At the bottom of the flyer advertising this event, there is this paragraph:

“The sky is the limit during this auction! A successful bid is not a political  contribution and is not eligible for a receipt for income tax purposes. Your successful bid will not affect your annual political contribution limit of $1100. As such, individuals, partnerships, corporations, and associations are free to bid as high as they want.”

The Conservatives say the promise in that paragraph is a violation of Canada’s Election Finance laws and today, Ottawa-area Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre sent this letter to Commissioner of Elections:

 Dear Sir,

I have become aware of a Liberal Party of Canada Cocktail Event scheduled for February 13th boasts that “the sky is the limit for this auction. A successful bid is not a political contribution…as such individuals, partnerships, corporations and associations are free to bid as high as they want.”

This event raises serious questions surrounding the legality of the fundraising practices of the Liberal Party of Canada. I respectfully ask that you investigate whether or not this event complies with the sprit of the Federal Accountability Act and other federal political party fundraising legislation.  

If you allow the Liberal Party to use these methods, you will have unilaterally repealed all of the campaign finance legislation passed over the last five years, and you will be reintroducing big money and corporate cash into our political process.  

With the possibly of a federal election happening in the near future I hope that this matter can be dealt with great expediency.

 

The Liberals say they are breaking no laws and that, under the financing laws, they are allowed to sell items so long as they receive fair market value for those items. So, you can’t sell a $100 restaurant meal in a fundraiser for $1,000. You would then be making a $900 donation — the difference between what you paid and the fair market value (FMV). Liberal Party spokesperson Elizabeth Whiting continues:

The interpretation of donations correct and legal. All is being done by the book.

Goods and services provided by parties at Fair Market Value (FMV) are NOT donations. However, some goods purchased at an auction that have some unique value (ie an autograph), the FMV is what someone is willing to pay for it.

In most auctions, FMV is assigned to an item. Anything paid in excess of the FMV is considered a donation (paying 200 for a 100 dollar painting is a donation of 100).

 

 

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty announced in the House of Commons during Question Period this afternoon that his third budget will be tabled in the House at 4 pm on Tuesday, February 26.

Now, it’s a remarkable thing for a minority government to table two budgets — but Flaherty will get to number three. I don’t think even the most optimistic Conservative back in early 2006 would have thought the Government was going to get this far. That might explain why the cupboard is pretty much bare for Flaherty right now. The Conservatives have rolled out all the big-ticket items and spent all the surplus (when I say “spent”, I really mean allocated, as in allocated billions to pay down the national debt) so there reallly isn’t a pile of money for Flaherty to announce a big sweeping go-to-the-polls type of plan.

“Well, there are some initiatives that we propose to have in the budget,” Flaherty told reporters who scrummed him after Question Period.  “But certainly this is our third budget and I'm going to talk about what we've accomplished cumulatively in just over two years with the two budgets which will be two budgets plus the two fall economic statements and the fact that Canada is in the best position really of the G-7 countries to go through what are more difficult economic times.  That's certainly what I heard this weekend in Tokyo from my colleagues in the G-7.  There's some envy of the fact that we have such strong economic fundamentals in Canada.”

The numbers in the House being what they are, the Government needs one and only one Opposition party to support it . All three Opposition parties have to vote against the budget and that would trigger a federal election in April. Flaherty was asked if there will be something in his budget that at least one of the other parties can support.

“It's a good question,” he said. “I've had meetings last week with the three critics.  I must say that the meetings were not terribly productive.  Although there were some ideas put forward that I think are ideas that would help in terms of communities and individuals who are suffering because of industrial slowdown in those particular communities.  So there may be some room for some discussions.  I'm certainly going to go back and have some further discussions.”

My colleague Steven Chase reports in the Globe and Mail this morning that the surplus might be a teensy bit bigger than expected — but not by a whole lot.

 

General Dynamics Canada announced today that it has added weapons systems maker Raytheon Canada to its team that is aiming to land the $1.1–billion Department of National Defence contract to modernize the combat systems on board the  Canadian Navy’s Halifax Class frigates.

GDCanada is the prime contractor for the bid while Raytheon joins Thales Netherlands, Thales Canada and General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems on the project.

Canada’s twelve HALIFAX-class frigates, which were commissioned between 1992 and 1996, are now at mid-life and require an upgrade to respond to today’s different kind of naval threats.

Two other teams are also trying to win this contract.

Lockheed Martin leads a team that includes IBM Canada, SAAB, and CAE Professional Services. Lockheed’s late add to its team was L3 Electronics System Canada.

Macdonald Dettwiler of Vancouver, B.C. is the third prime contractor hoping to land the deal.

All three teams are right now busy putting their proposals together. The federal government is expected to award the contract late this year.

 

I’m going to start posting up what, sadly, will likely be examples of how Canada’s Access to Information system is grinding slowly but seemingly inexorably to a halt. This is something that all Canadians should be concerned about, not just pesky reporters. In fact, reviewing the 1,800 ATI requests filed to all federal government departments in October of last year (the most recent month for which such data is available) just 184 requests were made by media representatives. The rest came from individuals, businesses, and academics. A broken ATI system is a big problem for a democratic society.

DFAIT now charging for preparation times

One of the routine requests I make each month is for the “House Cards” prepared for the Ministers I cover. For my latest request, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade now says I’ll have to pay $838 for preparation time for three months worth of Minister Bernier’s house cards and $204 for preparation of Minister Emerson’s House Cards. DFAIT (and every other department I’ve ever requested House Cards from) has provided these House cards in the past without assessing fees for preparation. Departments can ding you for ‘search’ time if it’s going to take a while to find what you ask for, but in this case, they have found the records but say that there’s just so many, they’ve now decided to charge for it. They’re doing this, the ATIP officer handling the file says, because they’re so swamped with requests. Not sure why you, me and individual requesters are supposed to being paying because successive federal governments have failed to provide ATIP offices without the proper funds to hire staff. And note: The ATIP system is specifically NOT run on a cost-recovery basis. The Act says ATIP offices may impose fees on certain kinds of requests. If you ask me, these new ‘prep’ fees from DFAIT are nothing more than barriers and obstacles to providing information. 

Still waiting on PCO and DFAIT

On December 1, 2006, I asked Transport Canada for a list of documents submitted by the Department to the Minister. Today — February 11, 2008 — I received a partial list. It’s six pages long and taken more than a year to produce this thing. But it’s still not complete because Transport Canada is still waiting for the results of consultations it was required to do with the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and with the Privy Council Office. When they hear back from DFAIT and PCO, I may get the rest of this information — or not.

A few weeks ago, NATO released its annual scorecard (PDF) on defence spending by member countries as of 2007. It’s taken me a while to find the time to crunch some of the numbers but here are some things that stand out:

• As of 2007, Canada’s total spending on defence was, in current U.S. dollars,  $18.5–billion, good enough for sixth highest among NATO’s 26 members. Italy was number five ahead of Canada, spending more than twice as much as us. Spain ($17.3B), Turkey ($13.4B), and the Netherlands ($11.1B) were right behind Canada. The U.S. was tops, of course, spending more than $545–billion on defence, followed by the U.K., France, and Germany. Canada has been number 6 in NATO for a while, although in 2003, Spain and Canada flipflopped positions.
• NATO member countries spent a collective US$854–billion on defence in 2007 and Canada accounted for 2.16 per cent of that, the highest ratio in over a decade. In 2006, Canada accounted for just 1.87 per cent of all defence spending by NATO members.
• Who showed the biggest year-to-year increases in defence spending? Why, that would be Estonia, whose defence budget shot up by nearly 45 per cent between 2006 and 2007. Canada had the eighth biggest increase in defence spending, up by $3.45–billion year-to-year or about 23 per cent. The U.K., U.S., and Denmark showed the smallest increases in defence spending among NATO members at 6.2 per cent, 3.35 per cent, and 2.62 per cent respectively. The NATO average was 15.82 per cent.
• Conservatives like to say they’ve restored funding to the DND but, in fact, all they’ve really done is continue a trend got started by previous Liberal governments in 2000. According to NATO’s data,  Canadian defence spending increased 2.7% in 2001 compared to 2000; 0.1% in 2002 , 18.4% in 2003;  13.8% in 2004; and 14.9% in 2005. The Conservatives passed their first budget in 2006 (there is some slight overlap here as NATO’s numbers are the calendar year and budgets are for fiscal years that end on March 31) and defence spending rose in 2006 13.9% over the 2005 and then jumped again 22.9% last year.
• Looking at the average change in defence spending for the three years ending in 2007, Canada actually fares better, moving up to number 6 on the list with an average increase of 20.3 per cent or $2.3–billion every year since 2004–05. Latvia remained on top with an average increase of 51.5 per cent increase in defence spending. In fact, it is all former Soviet Bloc countries ahead of Canada in this ranking (not sure what that tells you). After Latvia, it’s Romania (averaging 32.4% per year increase), Estonia (28.8%), Slovak Republic (24.6%), and Poland (23.2%). The bottom three on this list are Germany (3.4%), Italy (3.3%), and Hungary (-0.5%). The NATO average in this category was 10.6 per cent so Canada, over this period — a period of both Liberal and Conservative governments — double the NATO average for increases in defence spending.
• But despite those spending increases, Canada still ranks tied for 6^th lowest spending on defence when defence spending is expressed as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product or GDP. In 2007, Canada spent 1.3 per cent of GDP on defence, compared to the NATO average of 1.8 per cent. Since as far back as 2000, Canadian spending on defence had remained relatively constant at 1.2 per cent of GDP but, in 2007, moved up a touch to 1.3 per cent. Here’s a selected list:
• 1. U.S. (4%)
• 2. Greece (2.8 %)
• 3. Turkey (2.7 %)
• 4. France (2.4 %)
• 5. Bulgaria, The United Kingdom (2.3 %)
• 7. Poland, Romania (1.9 %)
• 9. Italy (1.8 %)
• 10. Latvia, Slovak Republic (1.7%)
• —-
• 18. Canada, Denmark, Germany (1.3%)
• 21. Lithuania, Spain (1.2 %)
• 23. Belgium, Hungary (1.1 %)
• 25. Luxembourg (0.7 %)

The Center for Strategic and International Studies is relatively well-respected Washington-based think tank. A couple of weeks ago, it released a study that takes a look at the future of NATO. It was titled Towards a Grand Strategy for an Uncertain World: Renewing Transatlantic Partnership (PDF) and it was jointly written by some heavy hitters: the former chiefs of the defence staffs in the U.S., Germany, France, the U.K., and the Netherlands. It is 152 pages long. Canada is mentioned all of three times.

You’re probably interested in what way these five-star military men believe Canada will help renew this transatlantic partnership so let me quote the sections where Canada is mentioned in this 152–page report:

If global warming were to allow this to become a viable source of energy, a serious conflict could emerge between Russia and Norway, because the delineation of the continental shelf is still disputed. Such a potential crisis will involve a much larger area of the Arctic Circle, and will see the USA, Russia, Canada and Denmark competing for large and viable energy sources and precious raw materials. (p. 35)

Similarly, what does it mean for shipping and trade with Asia if climate
change allows the northern shore of Canada to be open to shipping all year round? What future military and naval requirements will be needed to protect such new and highly lucrative lines of maritime communication? What will the impact be on American–Canadian relations? (p. 35.) (The reader will be disappointed to learn that these are, alas, rhetorical questions and, though they seem to me to be important issues, they are not really addressed by the authors.)

For the USA to play its role as effectively as possible, the
transatlantic bargain between the European countries, Canada
and their American ally must be renewed. All of America’s
European allies acknowledge that their relationship with the
USA is indispensable. But in order to convince the US to
enter into a renewed bargain, Europe needs, in return, to become
a truly indispensable partner to the US. (p. 119)

Er. That’s it.