$8 Billion Surplus to be announced

[OLD F of S]

    Are we sure Trudeau is dead, or is hiding in the  PM office.

 

[Slim]

Well, sure as hell he must have found a way to comunicate from the grave...Either that or John Cretien has found something to blackmail Paul Martin over...

I know we need hospitals, but geez! And  what about this surplus I've heard so much about? ???

Slim
(who's glad he got out when he did :crybaby

 

[Garbageman]

I find it hillarious that McCallum is taking money from a department that he ran less than a year ago.  I hope he's slapping himself on the wrist in his office.

 

[GrimRX]

I find it hillarious that McCallum is taking money from a department that he ran less than a year ago.  I hope he's slapping himself on the wrist in his office.

I'm thinkingit was probably a directive that came down from above, thus, not something he could do too much about.

 

[scm77]

Conservative motion slams Liberals over lack of money for military

Canadian Press

October 21, 2004

OTTAWA -- The Conservatives have introduced a motion in the House of Commons criticizing the federal government's national defence policies as seriously out of date.

The motion, which was to be voted on Thursday, says there isn't enough money given to the military to meet defence commitments.

It calls on the government to commit to maintaining combat capability "to enhance Canada's status and influence as a sovereign nation."

It also criticizes a proposal to raise a peacekeeping brigade at the expense of existing combat-ready forces.

The motion could pass because opposition MPs outnumber government members. But that would not bring down the Liberal minority government because the vote is not considered a matter of confidence.

© The Canadian Press 2004

http://www.canada.com/national/story.html?id=14471787-f884-4ec0-91ca-28b1121e05e2
=========================

 

[dutchie]

It calls on the government to commit to maintaining combat capability "to enhance Canada's status and influence as a sovereign nation." It also criticizes a proposal to raise a peacekeeping brigade at the expense of existing combat-ready forces.

Hmmmmmm....i wonder if Harper has been perusing Army.Ca

"The CBC has learned that Conservative Leader Stephen Harper has been posting messages on the website Army.Ca under the pseudonym Infanteer, and Peter McKay as Brad Sallows. No word if Pm Martin has done the same, but an inside source in Ottawa says that the NDP leader Jack Layton has done so under the name nbk. The CBC attempted to get comments from all parties. The only response was from Harper, who told us to get out of his OODA loop, whatever that is. We will follow this story and keep you updated (read:dig for anti-CF scandal).....back to you Peter."

 

[Jets4Life]

I thought increasing military spending should have been more of an issue in the last election.  It seems to me that the Conservatives are more likely to issue more funds for the Armed Forces.  The Liberals seem to want to keep things at the status quo (...but I could be wrong).  I wanted to know if anyone has more information on this subject.  Thanks

 

[pbi]

30 years of service has taught me to be very skeptical of all Govts when it comes to defence issues: I have been disappointed by the Tories too: remember who cut our Germany forces. However, I wouldn't be so fast to write off Martin's Liberals: there has clearly been a turn in the tide of public and media opinion in this country in the last few years, and defense issues have taken on a profile they never had. The Liberals (consummate wind-testers that they are...) may have sensed this. They have, at least, staked out some ground with the Throne Speech, which included some very clear overtures to the US. Let's give them a chance.

As for the other parties, I imagine that the Conservatives (were they ever to get elected...) would probably send more, but IMHO in the end for a Canadian Govt it all comes down to what the domestic political imperatives of the time are.

Cheers.,

 

[cgyflames01]

I Know which party would spend the least, and that honour is pestowed upon the NDP. If they had it their way I doubt we would even have a military.

 

[Cloud Cover]

As for the other parties, I imagine that the Conservatives (were they ever to get elected...) would probably send more, but IMHO in the end for a Canadian Govt it all comes down to what the domestic political imperatives of the time are.

I don't see a whole lot wrong with that, after all "to govern is to choose." However, that doesn't mean that style of governing is an invitation to dereliction of duty, which, I quite agree, has been the case for 30 years across all political stripes as far as the CF goes. In any event, I don't think the whole argument should be based on spending, that is just one part [a very critical one] of the whole defence and security equation. For example, look at the military "self defence" forces of Japan, which they fund with 1% GDP. [still works out to about 74 billion US $!!!].

Rather than how much we spend, I think we should measure our defence and security capabilities by how we can respond i.e. what options can we present to foreign affairs policy makers for international considerations, and even more importantly, what sort of risk analysis are we forcing potential enemies to undertake wrt operations within our sovereign AOR.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

I thought increasing military spending should have been more of an issue in the last election.   It seems to me that the Conservatives are more likely to issue more funds for the Armed Forces.   The Liberals seem to want to keep things at the status quo (...but I could be wrong).   I wanted to know if anyone has more information on this subject.   Thanks

Conservatives - because they think it's the right thing to do.

The Liberals as PBI indicated will only increase funding if with public winds are blowing in that direction.  The problem is that even if the Liberals do increase funding there is an ideological gap between what they see is politically correct and what our soldiers, airmen and seaman actually need.

Bottom Line:  With the Liberals if you get really lucky you may get more money, but they'll still limit procurement to items that fit their rather delicate sensibilities and as such if you really want a properly equipped CF, you have one choice - the Conservatives.




Matthew. 

 

[pbi]

I don't see a whole lot wrong with that, after all "to govern is to choose."

I did not mean this as an attack, so much as a statement of the obvious for most democracies. It was Truman (I think...) who said" Foreign policy is just domestic politics with its hat on."

Rather than how much we spend, I think we should measure our defence and security capabilities by how we can respond i.e. what options can we present to foreign affairs policy makers for international considerations, and even more importantly, what sort of risk analysis are we forcing potential enemies to undertake wrt operations within our sovereign AOR.

This is an excellent statement and one which offers a perspective we don't always hear in the clamour for more money. It could lead to questions about just how we spend the money we get. In any event it would raise the level of public discourse to a much more intelligent and productive one, and one tat should underlie our Defense/Foreign Policy Review: what do we want to be able to do, and wgat do we need to do it with?  Care would have to be taken, though, that the Govt was not given an escape hatch to wiggle out of spending that is actually required.

and as such if you really want a properly equipped CF, you have one choice - the Conservatives.

I would argue that you have one choice: an informed electorate. We have only got a short period under our belt of really working to "Connect with Canadians"; some results have been seen (look at the profile of defense issues in the media) but we have much more to do. Years of hiding in the dark cannot be undone overnight.  Cheers.

 

[Infanteer]

I would argue that you have one choice: an informed electorate. We have only got a short period under our belt of really working to "Connect with Canadians"; some results have been seen (look at the profile of defense issues in the media) but we have much more to do. Years of hiding in the dark cannot be undone overnight.  Cheers.

I agree here.  Putting too much stock in a political party - any political party - is bound to lead to disappointment.  Remember that 1986 White Paper?

 

[youravatar]

:-\ So They Have Another 9 Billion Dollar Surplus (Again) Who Should Get The Money. If We Dont Get Any Im Going To Get P1553D!!! :threat:

 

[Brad Sallows]

Retire some debt, and reduce income taxes by an amount commensurate with eliminating the surplus in future.  I want the government to have very little latitude for new or previously uncommitted spending.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

$2 Billion for the Armed Forces
$7 Billion to the Debt (which will finally bring us under the $500 billion mark   )



Matthew.    

 

[pbi]

While I know that we need more investment, I have to agree with Brad in the long term. As I see it, the basis for a nation raising and sustaining an effective, professional military is a sound economic and fiscal situation. The better off and more stable we are, the more likely it will be that our spending needs will be met, as the rats will be fighting over a bigger cheese. Cheers.

 

[McG]

1.    Pay down the debt
2.    Maybe a few capitol projects for the CF (especially it the PM's new brigade is to become a reality)
3.    Increase transfers to the provinces (allow the provinces to invest in healthcare & education or cut their taxes).

 

[Infanteer]

I'm not too sure I like the idea of increasing provincial transfers - it just supports the quasi-feudal system we have.

 

[McG]

I think that the centripital effects of the central government shouldering more of the nation's financial burden would have positive benefits for national unity.   It also gives greater moral authority for the federal government to push for national standards in those programs that Canadians identify with (ie Health Care).