PDA

View Full Version : Budget ignores military, again



EvanL
03-27-2004, 01:59 PM
GET OUT your fiddle, Nero. The Canadian military, unlike ancient Rome, may not be completely in ruins, but considering the scraps thrown to a clearly beleaguered Armed Forces in Tuesday's budget by an apparently unfazed federal government, that day may not be far off.

Ralph Goodale's first effort as finance minister has been dubbed the good management budget, but in the military's case, it looks suspiciously more like a Red Green duct tape repair job.

Ottawa will put $300 million more into the defence budget over the next two years, just to pay for keeping our overextended troops in Afghanistan and Haiti. It's also promised - in a move that surely will be applauded in Greenwood - to add $300 million to next year's budget to speed up the delivery of search and rescue airplanes to replace older Hercules and Buffalo models.

And Mr. Goodale displayed a deft hand in boosting morale by pledging that troops and police officers sent on high-risk missions, like the current one in Kabul, will pay no income taxes while they are deployed. The break is capped at salaries of $6,000 a month and will cost the treasury about $30 million.

But the Liberals say decisions on future spending must await the results of a review expected this fall. The military's dire need, however, has already been amply and repeatedly demonstrated. In the fall of 2002, the Senate concluded in a report that the Armed Forces were poorly equipped, overtaxed with duties and underfunded by $4 billion a year. In December, another study - produced with input from the Conference of Defence Associations - found that the military has been so underfunded for over a decade, even an immediate infusion of cash would not end the downward trend.

New Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper, meanwhile, has pledged to increase military spending by $1.2 billion each year until the defence budget reaches two per cent of GDP, the NATO average. That's about $20 billion, considerably more than the current $12 billion. That's also the rough target our NATO allies have been urging on Canada, which has shirked its international obligations on defence, to embrace.

Sure sounds like an election issue to us.

Falco
03-27-2004, 02:01 PM
I could have told you that before :(

Resevoir Hogs
03-27-2004, 02:17 PM
You guys should definetly elect the Conservatives then. 2% of the GDP is where every NATO member should at least be at.

MEGR
03-27-2004, 03:20 PM
Canadians have a heck of a military. It's really sad that Canada would not give enough funds during these kind of times.

TALOS
03-27-2004, 03:24 PM
New Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper, meanwhile, has pledged to increase military spending by $1.2 billion each year until the defence budget reaches two per cent of GDP, the NATO average. That's about $20 billion, considerably more than the current $12 billion. That's also the rough target our NATO allies have been urging on Canada, which has shirked its international obligations on defence, to embrace.

Sure sounds like an election issue to us.

Did Belinda Stronach not make the same promise? I think she did so now we have to see which of them can also pull the rest of our country outa the dumps. I try to stay neutral but I will be watching intently.

Yard Ape
03-27-2004, 03:27 PM
And Mr. Goodale displayed a deft hand in boosting morale by pledging that troops and police officers sent on high-risk missions, like the current one in Kabul, will pay no income taxes while they are deployed. The break is capped at salaries of $6,000 a month and will cost the treasury about $30 million.

Myself, I would rather a pay increase instead of a tax break that only applies when I leave the country. There are already allowances/incentives that mean I make more when deployed.

Even better, pump some of that money into equipment and training.

Commander Cool
03-27-2004, 07:01 PM
Or here's a really crazy idea:

How bout if the Canadians didn't make so many commitments all over the world? There are Canadians in Africa, the Balkans, Asia, and who knows where else. If Canada kept their troops at home and used them only when their own security was threatened, as opposed to thinking that everything that goes on in the world is their business, then maybe they wouldn't need such a large military budget. Maintaining forces far away is very expensive. Canada's anual military budget is almost $8 billion (US) and it has not much to show for it. For comparisson, Greece spends only $3 billion and has an airforce 3 times larger, and ground forces almost 5 times the size of Canada's, not to mention far more modern. That's because Greece doesn't maintain troops all over the world.

Lone Predator
03-27-2004, 08:25 PM
Or here's a really crazy idea:

How bout if the Canadians didn't make so many commitments all over the world? There are Canadians in Africa, the Balkans, Asia, and who knows where else. If Canada kept their troops at home and used them only when their own security was threatened, as opposed to thinking that everything that goes on in the world is their business, then maybe they wouldn't need such a large military budget. Maintaining forces far away is very expensive. Canada's anual military budget is almost $8 billion (US) and it has not much to show for it. For comparisson, Greece spends only $3 billion and has an airforce 3 times larger, and ground forces almost 5 times the size of Canada's, not to mention far more modern. That's because Greece doesn't maintain troops all over the world.

There has never been a UN peace keeping job Canada hasn't been involved in. But our main forces are in Afghanistan, Bosnia and now a smaller number but still significant in Haiti. The rest of the deployments are not significant numbers wise to my knowledge. It was expected this summer that we'd have all deployed forces hom for a few years though but then Haiti came up, and Afghaninstan asked for continued commitments and things are getting dicey in Kosovo now.