The Canadian Forces, like every part of the federal government, is facing stiff budget cuts. Before the hatchet falls, it is worth considering how little, rather than how much, Canada spends on national defence.

Australia may not immediately spring to mind as the country with which to best compare Canada's defence spending, but is not that much of a stretch. They share the same values and allies, have similarly robust resource-based economies, generous welfare nets and military histories from the Boer War through to the war in Afghanistan that usually have dovetailed.

Although Canada's economy is nearly twice the size of Australia's - and has about 40 per cent more people - Canada lags far behind its antipodean cousin in defence spending.

Australia spent $29 billion on its armed forces last year. That is about $7 billion more than Canada did. Given the relative size of the two economies and populations, for the federal government to match Australia on defence spending would require an annual outlay of between $35 and $40 billion, rather than the $22 billion that was spent last year.

There are reasons why Australia spends more. But taken together, they do not account for the staggering gap between the two countries in defence spending.

Support for - or hostility toward - defence spending in Canada follows the usual political fault lines. This is in sharp contrast to Australia, where there is a broad political consensus that adequate funding for the armed forces is vital to the national interest. So much so, in fact, that for Australian parliamentarians and the media, defence spending is not a hugely controversial subject.

This consensus has been partly shaped by the fact that Australia is geographically isolated in the southwest Pacific with regional responsibilities that include bringing stability to places such as Timor. It is also situated near an emerging superpower - China - that has been dramatically ramping up defence spending. Canadians share many of the same security concerns vis-a-vis China, but have long been content to let the United States shoulder most of the defence burden.

T he argument here is not that the Harper government should increase defence spending to anything near Australian levels. There is zero chance of that happening. But a fairer consideration of the looming cuts might be possible if Canada's parliamentarians, media and public had a better understanding of which countries spend what and how cuts made today may harm national interests 20 or 30 years in the future - especially when China is such a wild card, the U.S. is shedding missions and humanitarian crises pop up every few months.

It matters because Australia and Canada are among "a new set of second-tier powers" with additional responsibilities, as Australia's Strategic Policy Institute put it in a paper published last year.

Critics have argued that Canada has doubled defence spending in the past decade. This is true, but from a low starting point. They also have pointed out that the Americans and western Europeans, with the exception of Norway, have been slashing defence budgets. True again, but Canada, Norway and Australia do not confront the dire economic problems that those making steep military cuts, such as Britain, do.

The NATO target is for each member state to spend two per cent of GDP on the military. Although obviously not a member of the North Atlantic alliance, Australia almost meets that target, spending 1.8 per cent of its GDP on defence compared with 1.45 per cent of GDP by Canada.

Canada has about 68,000 men and women in its regular forces to 59,000 for Australia. Considering that there are 10 million more Canadians, Canada would have to have 10,000 more men and women in uniform to achieve relative parity with Australia.

What Australians get for the extra money is a more capable military.

T he two armies are roughly comparable, although the Australians have more tanks and attack helicopters, which are something Canadian commanders could have made great use of in Afghanistan. The air forces are broadly similar, too, although Australia has more of just about everything - from C-17 transports and in-air refuelling aircraft to F-18 fighter jets - and has 24 F-18 Super Hornets, for which Canada has no equivalent. The gap will widen further as the Aussies plan to acquire 100 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters. Canada has ordered 65 of these fifthgeneration jets, although the numbers may shrink, in both cases, because of the daunting costs.

The Canadian and Australian naval forces each have a dozen frigates. Australia has an amphibious landing capability that Canada lacks and newer, better supply ships. But Canada will leapfrog Australia in maritime logistics when vessels recently commissioned by the Harper government enter service as part of a $30-billion, longterm fleet renewal plan.

As for submarines, the few that are now on the books in both countries have serious shortcomings and are hardly ever put to sea. Australia is about to dramatically upgrade its sub-surface capability by building or purchasing a dozen new subs. The arguments here about whether these pricey, technically complex boats should be built at a shipyard in Adelaide or bought off the rack in Europe or elsewhere would be familiar to many Canadians.

There has been considerable speculation in Australia that it might best meet its requirements by acquiring U.S.-built nuclearpowered submarines. Such subs would, by themselves, cost about what Canada intends to spend to upgrade its entire navy.

Aside from the sticker shock that there would be in Canada at the colossal price of such vessels, think of the hollering that would occur if any Canadian government dared to suggest the purchase of anything military with the words "nuclear" and "U.S." attached to it. While it is unlikely that Australia will buy nuclear-powered submarines, that the possibility is being discussed is an example of how Australians are not cowed by the enormous costs associated with defending their country.

Canadians shouldn't be cowed by costs, either. But they still have to first figure out what their defence priorities actually are.

There is no reason to cut something so important unless there is a rationale beyond simply trying to save money.