Context

Mr. Pugliese and his overlords at The Citizen are at it again:

Former prime minister Pierre Trudeau may still be widely reviled in the military community as a "pinko" who slashed the budget of the Canadian Forces in the 1970s, but a new analysis done by Parliament's research branch ranks him as the top spender on defence in the last 37 years.

Thanks to the CDA, via David Akin's eclectic blog, discerning readers get the context Pugliese and the Citizen failed to provide:

We would like to bring to your attention Canadian average defence spending figures, as percentage of GDP (ref: NATO):

1949-1956 (Louis St-Laurent): 6.5%
1957-1962 (John Diefenbaker): 5.4%
1963-1967 (Lester Pearson): 3.8%
1968-1984 (Pierre Trudeau): 2.1%
1984-1993 (Brian Mulroney): 2.0%
1994-2003 (Jean Chretien): 1.3%
2004 - current (Paul Martin, Stephen Harper): around 1.2%

By these figures the drop-off from the Pearson to Trudeau years (1.7% of GDP) is far greater than not only the drop-off between the Chretien and Martin/Harper years (0.1% of GDP), but also a larger percentage drop off than the percentage of GDP we spent in total under Chretien! And at least Harper isn't spending half what Mulroney did (roughly 20 yrs difference), unlike Trudeau's relationship to Diefenbaker (also roughly 20 yrs).

See, I too can twist the figures to make any point I want. Of course, I'm not the one pretending to be an objective journalist.

Update: Oh, and you'll rarely hear me say this, but shame on the Senate's Standing Committee on National Security and Defence for playing politics with this report, and feeding it to the media sharks the way that they did.

One government cut military spending (Trudeau's), and one is increasing it (Harper's). Whether the steps the current government is taking are enough are open for debate, and I'd certainly stand with the Senators asking for more money for the CF. But to lionize Trudeau for funding DND? A grossly misleading slight of hand, that, and completely unworthy of SCOND.