Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Tories' defence boost comes up short, Senate says

STEVEN CHASE

From Thursday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 1:46 PM EST 06/08/08

Conservatives inflating importance of budget increase, and ‘minimalist funding' will keep military cash-strapped, report says ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Expert Eal from Canada writes: Canada's New Government messed up again??

    no surprise here
  2. Lars Satlana from Victoria, Canada writes: Our Keystone Kops government messed up again.
  3. mike sty - from Canada writes: The Senate Security and Defence committee released a study Wednesday that suggests the Harper government's numbers do not add up
    --------------

    Oh no, did the Harper CONservatives mis-speak again, mis-remember? or just lie??

    Flaherty and Harpers CONservatives creative accounting is used to describe book cookers, liars, little men in little rooms helping rich crooks get richer.
  4. Catherine Medernach from Winnipeg, Canada writes: There were some who anticipated problems with military funding once Flaherty was appointed.
  5. D P from calgary, Canada writes: did the cons promise say it would be an increase of 1.5% or inflation 1.5%?

    i thought it was just 1.5%. so everyone suggesting the cons 'messed up' how do you figure?

    also isnt 1.5% better than nothing? which is what they were getting from the libs.
  6. mike sty - from Canada writes: a study Wednesday that suggests the Harper government's numbers do not add up
    -----------

    Just wait for the budget deficit,.......remember Flaherty's slash-and-burn record as Ontario finance minister under Mike Harris, leaving behind a $6-billion deficit at a time when the economy was doing well.
  7. Louis Riel from Canada writes: Wow this paper is something else, every supposed misstep that Harper's government supposedly makes is blared out in spanking headlines, and although comments could be closed for days on a story, they still keep the story up there at the top or near the top of the national page. What is truly amazing is that no mention is ever made of the Liberal party and all of its woes. And you talk about Harper having a hidden agenda, well the Globe and Mail's is not. I believe it all comes down to the mukky-mukks at the top of BCE who don't believe in objectivity, and only hire former Liberal apologists. How sad for this country, and Canada's national newspaper, pshaw!
  8. J Cox from Vancouver, Canada writes: This is not even a story. This so called problem is easily remedied. All it means is countering for inflation.
  9. Uncle Fester from Canada writes:
    It was much cheaper when we relied on the Americans to take care of our security for us.

    All we did then was give our boys blue helmets and a handgun with the instructions not to shoot.

    We got along just fine with the old liberal defence strategy.
  10. Hail to the Conservatives ! from London, Canada writes: Wow - the intelligence display on the G&M board fails yet again to disappoint. Has anybody bothered to question the source?
  11. J Kay from Canada writes: Louis Riel: Your correct, the Globe's agenda isn't hidden, the were a very partisan cheerleader for Mr. Harper in the 2006 election. There was absolutely NOTHING hidden about it, they were direct, unequivocal and clear that they were supporting Mr. Harper and the Conservatives in the last election.

    It's just a bit ironic and ignorant to be claiming the Globe is steadfastly biased against Mr. Harper when the very same newspaper was putting their support OPENLY behind him only a few years ago.
  12. Oh... Awwwcheee..... from Canada writes: Steve's numbers don't add up? Now there's a suprise!!!! His numbers never have, never will. The loss to the Candain economy on the income trusts? According to Steve, negligible. Every other economist: considerable. The GST cuts that even the most conservative think tanks and economists were against didn't add up either. But Steve knows best. I can hardly wait for the spin on when the feds go into deficit with Steve's fiscal irresponsibility.
  13. John Fedup from Canada writes: No problem. To counter inflation the gov't can eiminate Multiculturism and foreign aid.
  14. Dave Roberts from Toronto, Canada writes: The current military budget is somewhat higher than previous years with the one time purchases of military equipment since 2006. Still dramatically ahead of 2005 budget levels.
  15. diane marie from calgary, Canada writes: The Committee is saying exactly what Bobby Dy expressed on these fora when the original announcement was made.
  16. Bobby Dy from Canada writes: D.P.. if you look at the defense budget, you will find that it was increasing at a rate much higher than that. In the six years prior to the CPC taking power, defense expenditures increased by 43%. As I stated over and over again when the CPC first released their news--this is a commitment to slowly erode the military. The equipment purchases, moreover, will put greater demands on the military budget to deal with training etc...
  17. Uncle Fester from Canada writes:
    Beer and Popcorn from Toronto, Canada writes:
    Uncle Fester - the Liberal$ were too busy setting up elaborate kick back schemes and funnelling taxpayer money back into the party to actually invest in the military.

    I guess that's why their last run at governance has become known as Canada's decade of darkness.
  18. Nathan Weatherdon from Canada writes: I thought the standard response to that kind of stuff was supposed to be something to the effect of: indexing to inflation increases government expenditures too fast because of productivity enhancements and the substitution effect to cheaper alternatives as better stuff comes along. If the logic applies to income supplements it applies to military, right?

    OK, I'm unconvinced in either case, but do we really want military expenditures to be a leader in advancing inflationary expenditures at this point in time?
  19. Randal Oulton from Toronto, Canada writes: I'm confused. Was the commitment for 1.5-per-cent? Or, for 1.5-per-cent including inflation? Those would be two very different commitments. Can the Globe writer perhaps review for us what the original commitment was actually for?
  20. Typical Toronto Voter from Toronto, Canada writes: As a Toronto Liberal supporter I agree with the editors of the G&M. I am mad at the Conservatives for increasing the military budget, and mad again at the Conservatives for not providing enough money for the military!
  21. Michael B from Canada writes: To all the 'G&M has a hidden agenda' retards, the CONSERATIVES ARE IN POWER, thus they ARE GOVERNING, thus they HAVE ALOT MORE STUFF FOR NEWSPAPERS TO TALK ABOUT, thus NEWSPAPERS TALK ALOT MORE ABOUT THEM THAN THE LIBERALS.

    You guys are all so stupid. When the liberals were in power the newspapers ripped them to shreds constantly. With Jean Chretien and again with Paul Martin the newspapers were largely united AGAINST them. Now that we have Harper and his hateful bullies in power, they screw up alot, so it gets reported on. Also, there is a recurring theme of the Harperites reneging on their most important platforms, so this is in fact an important subject.

    And to the people asking about 1.5 before or after inflation, if the gov't committed 1.5% not including inflation, then it would have been a committment to REDUCE spending on military, not INCREASE, stupid.
  22. L'actualite Conservative from Canada writes: More out of context information for Liberal Party whiners to embarrassses themselves
  23. mike sty - from Canada writes: Another sad day for Harper CONservatives, continually having to cover-up for CONservative incompetence.
  24. Yvonne Wackernagel from Woodville, Canada writes: There is already far too much being thrown at the military at this time of a potential downturn in the economy which is projected to last at least three years.
  25. Dave Roberts from Toronto, Canada writes: The 2008 defence budget is $18.2 billion. The 2005 defence budget was $12.7 billion.

    That represents a 43% (14.3% per year) increase in defence spending since 2005. Allowing for 1.5% increases per year will mean by 2011 we will be spending 47.5% more on national defence than we did in 2005.
  26. Billy Talon from Toronto, Canada writes: Michael Sharp from Victoria, Canada writes:

    Man.

    The Globe just doesn't give up.
    It's not the military that's being questioned.

    It's inflationary pressure that's being questioned.

    The Globe's agenda.
    Not so hidden.

    ***

    What's the National Post/Toronto Sun's agenda, Mike?

    Or do you look the other way when it supports your way of thinking?
  27. Overtaxed and underlaid from Canada writes: How do the numbers not add up? They said 1.5% per year, and that's what they are going to deliver. If that is less than inflation, then that's another matter. But that doesn't mean that 1.5% doesn't equal 1.5%.

    That is beyond 'literary license' - the headline is plain misleading. Shame on the G&M. Where are the editors?
  28. Shawn Bull from Canada writes: The headline doesn't match the story...I am sure it was just a simple mistake.

    Whine, spit fire and say what you will but it aint goin' to change a thing. The average Canadian person is comfortable with this government and nothing on the horizon will knock the Tories out of power.

    Sorry my Liberal friends.
  29. M I from Canada writes: Does this mean the Liberal Senate is going to encourage the Liberal party to run on a platform to increase military spending by even more than the conservative gov't?
  30. Don Adams, The Conservative Centrist from Canada writes: I like John Fedup's post. Just end multiculturalism. Also end bilingualism, except where numbers warrant. The savings from these two failed programs can be split between the military and health. We'd get far more bang for our taxpayer's buck that way! :-)
  31. Mike Z from Saskatoon, Canada writes: Two very important questions arise that the very short article doesn't answer:

    1) Was the funding commitment 'above inflation' or not? That makes a huge difference.

    2) What was the funding rate prior to the Conservatives taking power?

    To those idiots claiming that funding that doesn't match inflation is a cutback -- go to high school and retake your Economics course people. Any additional funding is a funding increase (its not rocket science). If the additional funding is outstripped by inflation then you see a decrease in the spending power of the budget, but you still see an increase in the funding.

    An increase of even a straight 1.5% per year still beats the pants off no increases, or the cutbacks that the Liberals handed out so many times.

    G&M -- what's with the headline? 'Government's military questioned' -- time to check with a copy editor. May I suggest 'Government's military spending questioned' or 'Liberal Senator questions Conservative military spending' for an even more illuminating approach.
  32. I R from White Rock, BC, Canada writes: bob london from Canada writes: ...

    Bob, your remark is as unkind as it is discourteous. Senator Kenny has served in the Senate since 1984. If you do not like what he has to say, fine - but recourse to verbal abuse is not going to convince anyone of your stance other than that you are ill-mannered.
  33. Dave Roberts from Toronto, Canada writes: From 2005 to 2011 the defence budget will have increased just under 8% per annum, well ahead of inflation.
  34. Overtaxed and underlaid from Canada writes: On another note, the latest Economist issue has a complimentary story on the Canadian military and Gen. Hillier in particular. When was the last time you read something complimentary about our military, particularly from an international publication? Thank you Mr. Martin and Mr. Hillier for bringing some respectability back to the Canadian Forces.
  35. Kevin Desmoulin from TO, Canada writes: Doesn't add up could be the sum comment of this government.
  36. Compos Mentis from in the Rootin', Tootin' West..., Canada writes: For all those Conservative partisan apologists, forget what the Liberals did or didn't do - it is irrelevant. This is a Conservative policy we're talking about. They now have to stand up on their own two feet and be judged (or criticized) on their own merits. The Blame Game no longer works (as if it ever did).

    And all those who are trying to argue over what 1.5% means are missing the bigger picture.

    Which is, the Conservatives appear to be having difficulties in executing any moderately complex policies (e.g. Federal Budgetting, Income Trusts, Nuclear Safety, Accountability, Environment, Election Financing, ... the list goes on).

    And yet, in spite of all the mounting evidence of Conservative incompetence, their cheerleaders post here with retorts such as: 'the Liberals were worse', or 'it's a main stream media conspiracy'?

    Maybe (just maybe) there is valid concern in the criticism being levelled against the Conservatives that can't simply be dismissed as partisan rhetoric.
  37. Jim Q from Halifax, Canada writes: Some of the conservative partisans on this wall, and certainly Peter MacKay, may remember an old legal adage about playing to your arguments strengths:

    'When the facts are against you, pound the law.
    When the law is against you, pound the facts.
    When both the law and the facts are against you, pound the table.'

    Look out, minister, I think your desk is about to break.
  38. Barry Johnstone from Canada writes: I'm sure this is just a minor mix up. They probably just need to get the same accountants who worked on their campaign expenses to help out with this. Or perhaps Steve could threaten to sue somebody, that would probably fix everything.
  39. Yogie Bear from The Forest, Canada writes: Does this include the deep water docking station and the 3 heavy icebreakers Harper promised?
  40. Jim Q from Halifax, Canada writes: Yogie Bear from The Forest, Canada writes: Does this include the deep water docking station and the 3 heavy icebreakers Harper promised?

    Afraid so. The good news is I imagine we will see commitments from both the Liberals and the Conservatives to fix the current discrepancy, now that its out in the open.

    Much of the current government plan is a continuation of commitments made by the Liberals under Martin, with new projects planned for when Martin's time frame expires. Neither party has an interest in decreasing funding for the forces.

    Only the NDP and Bloc will continue to hypocrtically call for less funding and still support dangerous missions. The Greens are honestly, if naively, committed to philosophical pacifism as a party, although May has promised personally that she would not cut the budget.
  41. David Griffith from Canada writes: LOL, this is too rich! The Liberals, the party that decimated the military for so many years criticizing the party that has brought about its renewal. A Liberal Senate committee...hmmm..sure sounds like a neutral bunch to me, LOL! Sorry folks, the forces know who supports them, and guess what? Its not Taliban Jack, and it sure as H3ll isn't the Libranos. Come on Globe: Is THIS the best you can do to assist the Libs in their pre-election campaign? Tsk tsk.
  42. Mike Z from Saskatoon, Canada writes: Compos Mentis... -- What the Liberals did or didn't do is entirely relevant here, as people are complaining about what the Conservatives are billing as a spending increase. One can only say 'increase' by comparing it to what it was before the change, which was necessarily what the Liberals did with it.

    As to your talk about the 'bigger picture' -- the bigger picture appears simply to be sniping by Liberal MPs and Senators who glory in executing drive-by smears. They know that each smear would fall on its own merit, but they hope that by stacking them up and laying them on thick they will pass unexamined.

    They whine that the Conservatives aren't spending enough on the military, yet fail to examine what the Conservatives actually said they would do, failed to examine what the Conservatives are actually doing, and failed to examine how that compared with what there was before the change, a necessary component in evaluating terms like 'increased spending'.

    Either step up and back up your accusations with facts (not ad hominem attacks) or shut up and let the government govern.
  43. David N from Toronto, Canada writes: Oh... Awwwcheee..... from Canada writes: The GST cuts that even the most conservative think tanks and economists were against didn't add up either.

    I agree with everything you said in your post apart from what I've quoted above. Although I think Harper's motivations for cutting the GST were purely political, it is pretty much his only policy to date that I whole-heartedly agree with. The knuckle-dragger think tanks and the armchair economists (who, ironically, are not subject to the market system) are completely out to lunch in denouncing the GST cuts. Sales taxes are horrendously regressive (the GST tax credit does nothing to help a homeless person who doesn't file taxes). Value-added sales taxes are enormously complex and expensive to comply with (which is why the accounting industry loves them and donated considerable $'s to the Tories to help get the GST in the first place) and their complexity makes them highly prone to evasion and fraud. There are many ways to raise taxes. The only rational base for taxation is the ability to pay (which bears little relation to consumption). Any other tax base is politics, usually favoring the well-to-do who, by definition, are the last people who actually need help.
  44. Mike Z from Saskatoon, Canada writes: Compos Mentis -- I want to clarify that I was not making my last statement to you personally, but merely to those people who attack the Conservatives. Attacking without backing up your arguments is a sign of a weak debater and weak arguments.

    I apologize for the appearance of an insult, as that was not intended.
  45. Is there anybody out there? from Nanaimo, Canada writes: The Conservative ship is going down and the rats are staying onboard.
  46. Billy Talon from Toronto, Canada writes: Overtaxed and underlaid from Canada writes: On another note, the latest Economist issue has a complimentary story on the Canadian military and Gen. Hillier in particular. When was the last time you read something complimentary about our military, particularly from an international publication? Thank you Mr. Martin and Mr. Hillier for bringing some respectability back to the Canadian Forces.

    ***

    Hi Overtaxed, I saw the article (more like a blurb) about the Canadian militarly as well. Although brief, it was nice to see something complimentary about the Forces.
  47. James O'Keefe from Toronto, Canada writes: Basically a non-story here. Increases are usually indexed for inflation. At any rate, this is for the operating budget, NOT for capital expenditures (new equipment) or Afghanistan. The cost of Afghanistan USED to come out of the operational budget, which meant that the Navy and Air Force didn't have money to buy gas for the ships and planes. Now that the pricetag for Afg is funded diferently, the operational budget will go a heck of a lot farther than before.
  48. James O'Keefe from Toronto, Canada writes: Basically a non-story here. Increases are usually indexed for inflation. At any rate, this is for the operating budget, NOT for capital expenditures (new equipment) or Afghanistan. The cost of Afghanistan USED to come out of the operational budget, which meant that the Navy and Air Force didn't have money to buy gas for the ships and planes. Now that the pricetag for Afg is funded diferently, the operational budget will go a heck of a lot farther than before.
  49. aging oldtool from Canada writes: Once again the right wingers are tripping over their thoughts attempting to redirect blame, deny there may even be a problem and dredging up historic non-comparisons in an effort to sound knowledgable.

    As another writer noted, Ontario's failed Tory Finance Minister Jim Flaherty in the Harris fiasco, is one of the culprits in this mess, once again proving that issues relevant to day-to-day life just don't get much attention in his portfolio.

    It's been many a year, but I seem to remember that inflation was among the first issues dealt with in my first economics course.

    Maybe Flaherty skipped that for the more meaty economic issues, like getting pigs to fly.
  50. Is there anybody out there? from Nanaimo, Canada writes: Beware site inhabited by Conservative truth droids
  51. Cardinal Richelieu from Toronto, Canada writes: I would like to know why my comment has not been posted. Why is it deemed inappropriate to attack the high church Liberals who destroyed this country. Pierre Trudeau remains the worst thing to have ever happened to our military. That remains an undisputable truth.
  52. WO MG from Halifax, Canada writes: Quote from Liberal Senator Colin Kenny: That's what outrages me,' he said. 'We have men and women in harm's way and the government is trying to do this on the cheap.

    WOW,
    Coming from the same people who sent our men and women to Afghanistan with Iltis jeeps. To refresh you libies memories, the Iltis became infamous in Afghanistan after the deaths of Canadian soldiers Sgt. Robert Alan Short, 42, and Cpl. Robbie Christopher Beerenfenger, 29. They died October 2, 2003 when their Iltis hit an anti-tank mine. The Iltis has no armour and very little was left of the vehicle except the spare tire, which was eerily unharmed. See : http://www.m38a1.ca/iltis.html

    For your information, Liberal idiots, our soldiers now have the best equipment in the world thanks to the conservatives. Stuff that up your you know what.

    To recap:

    Liberal send troops to Afghanistan on the cheap and soldiers died as a result.

    Conservatives have been re-equipping our soldiers ever since they were elected.

    As a former soldier, I will vote conservatives AGAIN.
  53. Catherine Medernach from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Defense Minister McKay refuted the committee's report today. One thing that I was glad to hear is that the cost of the deployment to Afghanistan is not coming out of the regular DND budget. At one point it was suggested that DND would have to cover the costs out of their budget which would have created real problems. After all the years of neglect it is going to take some time to rebuild the military to what it should be.
  54. warron yu from Canada writes: REMEMBER WHEN IT WAS ANNOUNCED TANKS AND THOUSANDS OF TROOPS ARE BUDGETED FOR THE OLYMPICS IN VANCOUVER.

    Steve Watson
    Infowars.net
    Tuesday, August 5, 2008

    Amazing revelations have emerged concerning already existing government plans to overhaul the way the internet functions in order to apply much greater restrictions and control over the web.

    Lawrence Lessig, a respected Law Professor from Stanford University told an audience at this years Fortune’s Brainstorm Tech conference in Half Moon Bay, California, that &8220;There&8217;s going to be an i-9/11 event&8221; which will act as a catalyst for a radical reworking of the law pertaining to the internet.

    Lessig also revealed that he had learned, during a dinner with former government Counter Terrorism Czar Richard Clarke, that there is already in existence a cyber equivalent of the Patriot Act, an &8220;i-Patriot Act&8221; if you will, and that the Justice Department is waiting for a cyber terrorism event in order to implement its provisions.
  55. gerhard beck from Canada writes: When do you guys who blame the G&M foir reporting facts learn or remember that his paper supported the CRAP (Conservative-Reform-Alliance-Party) and its boss the Harpercrite in the last election expecting a better performance than he produced or will in future?
  56. John Fedup from Canada writes: David Griffith from NS, .....Trudeau was not on my favourite list but I think Pearson and the $hit from Shiwinigan inflicted even more damage to the military.
  57. Compos Mentis from in the Rootin', Tootin' West..., Canada writes: Mike Z from Saskatoon: I was trying to stay away from the points you raise - partisan sniping is tedious and mind numbingly boring. The point I was trying to make was that the Conservatives have been missing LOTS of details with respect to their policies; which then results in hastily arranged communications corrections and talk of 'misspeaking' and post announcement clarifications. Case in point - Income Trusts. I am not talking about who lost money, or reneging on an election campaign promise. I agree that the Income Trust conversion mania needed to be reigned in. But it was the manner in which the policy was implemented that stunned not only myself, but the entire investment/financial community. Now, if you believe ITs were 'tax loopholes', then we have nothing more to discuss. That the Conservatives felt they had to do something is fine with me. But details DO matter. The turning point for me was how Mr. Flaherty utterly failed to justify how he tried to solve the problem before him. We expect our governments to make decisions on our behalf that are open & accountable (national security issues aside). And the IT policy that the Conservatives rolled out was anything but. So, what is more important: doing something, or doing something right? From where I sit, the Conservatives IT policy was simply a matter of doing something. And I see this pattern being repeated over and over again.
  58. C R from Canada writes: um...isn't the Senate primarily Libral...why is this a big surprise to anyone?

    The question is: Are they doing their job to responsibly equip the Armed Forces with the tools and training they need to be effective.
    Political preference has no place in that answer.
  59. Susan Rogan from Canada writes: Gee wow. The Defense Associations do not think the defense budget is going up by enough and neither does the military. Anybody else have an opinion?

    That said, yes, specific operations such as Afghanistan should NOT come out of a regular maintainance budget. Let people see the true cost of such operations, and support them fully to do the job, by providing a side budget for them.

    As far as 'home defense', are we really concerned about a local invasion of tanks and guns? I think the money would be better spent on putting a Canadian stamp on our territories that might someday come into dispute. For instance by promoting a tourist ice palace at the north pole, and/or sending musicians, artists and writers up to document and promote this aspect of Canada's identity. It would be a lot cheaper and a lot more pleasant than sending up troops.

    Get with the new millenium.
  60. John Brown from Maritimes, Canada writes: I really have to laugh every time the Harper Clownservatives are critised in the press for possible lapses in their agenda as it were. Every nutcase conservative has to get on board with their anti liberal rhetoric and the liberals stole and Martin is this and Chretien that; then again the liberal whack jobs are no better with their over jaundiced diatribes. In spite of all their thievery and skull-dugery, the liberals still managed to run a balanced budget and were making headway on paying down the massive debt, sadly at a cost. Chretien did to Martin what the great Conservative leader Murlroney did to Kim Campbell I believe and left when the going got tough. Yes, this government has done a fantastic job of re-equipping our sadly underfunded military but at whose bidding? Had Rick Hillier not stepped up and called this sorry excuse for a government to task and fought for what he wanted for his troops, they would still be waging the war on terror with what amounts to broomsticks and football padding. Do not be fooled for a minute by the grand expenditures garnered our fighting troops in this time of need, it was afterall this governement which fought to extend the forces mandate in Afghanistan and it was our saviour Emerson who was quoted last week committing 200 more troops in the dust. Is there someone in Ottawa knitting a contingent of soldiers we don't know about because Walt is about to lose some 4000 personnel within the next 12 months because of current Forces policy. 1.5% increase or 1.5% after inflation, there is a big difference and still more equipment to be bought.
  61. Greg Van Zandt from Canada writes: But Dion's plan which calls for a 1% cut in most Canadians income tax won't be absorbed by inflation and we will all see savings right?

    Inflation only effects Tory policies
  62. Cardinal Richelieu from Toronto, Canada writes: I restate. The Liberal party of Canada, particularly the government of Pierre Trudeau undertook what many Canadians who love our military to be criminal actions, which border on treason. He moth-balled the Black Watch, removed any vestige of our British military tradition, sold the Bonaventure for razor blades after a refit, and most notably imposed official bilingualism on our officer corps. This resulted in talented English Canadian officers being denied promotion. Louis Mackenzie and Rick Hillier are to be congratulated for navigating that mess. The more typical general officer is Romeo Delaire. He speaks french but has no courage and no sense of leadership. His actions in Rwanda and subsequent elevation to the Senate make him our most decorated coward. The Airborne Regiment, our most battle worthy unit was disbanded in the name of political correctness, largely at the shrill demanding of Sheila Copps (a MP with no knowledge of military or security issues). The appropriate thing was to court martial a couple of officers and NCOs. Pierre Trudeau and Jean Chretien destroyed the morale of our forces and nearly destroyed the opperational ability of our military to perform in theater. They would have been happier to deploy lightly armed social workers handing out free flags. There military policy, and that of their party is a disgrace. We can bandy about numbers about funding formulas. One thing remains indisputable, PM Harper, Minister McKay and the Conservative caucus, and Party have done more to restore morale and ability in our military in a short time than twenty years of Liberal policy.
  63. suss man from Canada writes:

    Michael Sharp from Victoria, Canada writes:

    Man.

    The Globe just doesn't give up.

    ----------------------------------------Micky you dolt its a CP story the G&M just picked it up. Man are you dense or what
  64. David F from Richmond Hill, Canada writes: What the Globe meant to say was that Liberals continue to obstruct progress in rebuilding the Canadian military despite the fact that a war is in progress.

    One more reason to vote for Harper when Liberal leaders Bob Rae and Michael Ignatieff trigger an election.
  65. Derek Holtom from Swan River, Canada writes: seriously. Liberals saying this government is underfunding the military? How can they say that with a straight face. This is the same Liberals that sent the military to Afghanistan in green fatigues?
  66. Barry Johnstone from Canada writes: Cardinal Richelieu from Toronto, Canada writes: A whole bunch of stuff. On behalf of all rational posters, Cardinal, I would like to thank you. That was hilarious! Have you seen Paris Hilton's video? Do you and she work on your comedy together? You seem to have so much in common. Is your hair blond?
  67. Geoffrey May from Canada writes: Fighting on the cheap ? Canada is fighting with technology that the Taliban don't even dream exists .The fact is that no country , even the US, can afford the cost of military occupation of hostile populations on the other side of the World .
  68. David F from Richmond Hill, Canada writes: Liberal partisans shouldn't even be commenting on this post. How do you live with yourselves? You've just proven that your audacity knows no bounds.

    Where do I begin, your party willfully destroyed the Canadian military beacuse a handful of Liberal Quebeckers hated it. You moved bases away from major cities, you disbanded regiments such as the Black Watch and the Canadian Guards for no reason.

    First came unification, then came bilingualism, then came Trudeau's hatchet to free up money for creating a nanny state. Perhaps worst of all was Chretien, who had ten years to do better than an overcautious Mulroney and did nothing.
  69. Thomas D'Arcy McGee from Canada writes:
    Please, can somebody give these idiots a calculator?

    This week alone, their climate change policy has proven to be based on faulty numbers and now their military spending numbers are bogus.

    And today we learn that Harpoon botched another one of his phoney woo-the-ethnics-with-an-apology scams by insulting every Sikh in the country.
    This after years of kissing Sikh butt to pull them away from the Libs.
    What was that other stinker that Jason Kenny let loose last year that insulted the Sikhs?
    Dion is counting those Sikh votes as I write this.

    And Tony 'Hamfist' Clement embarasses himself, Harpoon, and all of Canada in front of the WHO with their antediluvian take on safe injection sites for heroin addicts.

    Another good week for the Tories.
  70. Mike Z from Saskatoon, Canada writes: Compos Mentis -- it sounds like we both agree regarding Income Trusts. I agree that the Conservatives don't handle things with all of the polish that the Liberals did, but I would counter that they handle a lot more things than the Liberals did, and they actually do what they say a lot more than the Liberals did.

    I have a problem with many of the alleged 'scandals' that have been reported in the last year or two. Too many of them get a lot of play for a day or two, then disappear. Nobody examines them critically, nobody questions them, then before we can do either they are forgotten, replaced with another 'scandal' that comes and goes just as quickly and with just as little examination.

    I don't doubt that the Conservatives have done things I wouldn't approve of -- they are politicians after all, and just as prone to the vices of politicians of all times, kinds, and affiliations. I support them because of two reasons: one I think they represent my political views better than any other party and 2) they seem less corrupt then the Liberals were when they were kicked out of office.
  71. Mike Z from Saskatoon, Canada writes: Greg Van Zandt from Canada writes: But Dion's plan which calls for a 1% cut in most Canadians income tax won't be absorbed by inflation and we will all see savings right?

    Inflation only effects Tory policies

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    An excellent thought Greg.
  72. Cardinal Richelieu from Toronto, Canada writes: No Barry,

    I am not blond. I still have the same haircut that I proudly sported when I proudly wore this countries uniform, despite the socialists, pacifists and fellow travelers that sought to destroy it.
  73. Bobby Dy from Canada writes: The other question is spending priorities. Why are we gearing up for wars that we are not going to fight (conventional weaponry). There was absolutely nothing shortsighted about the degradation of the military during years of deficit fighting. Investments in equipment would have been investments in war games and not actual conflict or defense. The same holds for the foreseeable future. Investments in operating funds for the military and much more limited, targeted, and better justified investments in hardware would be a far wiser use of tax dollars.
  74. Bobby Dy from Canada writes: R. Carriere, if you pay attention to what Kenny has been saying and doing, you will find that he has been a constant advocate for the military. He has been highly critical of the Chretien and Martin governments and has maintained a single-minded focus on the best interests of the military. Whether one agrees with him or not is a separate question but I don't think that one can question where his loyalty lies. That is, with the military and not with either political party that has been in power over the last decade.

    The reviews that I have heard of this committee's work and the work of Mr. Kenny as an advocate for the military have been universally positive. I definitely do not agree with his position on the military or security but that is besides the point. Kenny is an example of how the Senate can excel where Parliament cannot.
  75. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes: Bobby Dy from Canada writes: ...The reviews that I have heard of this committee's work and the work of Mr. Kenny as an advocate for the military have been universally positive. I definitely do not agree with his position on the military or security but that is besides the point.

    Evening Bobby D. Can you expand on why you disagree with his position? What part makes it negative for you concerning ' the military or security?'
    .
  76. M M from SK, Canada writes: First I don't know how you would actually come up with an inflation rate that is appropriate for the military - remember the one that is normally used applies to consumer products. Last time I bought a missle and some machine guns was NEVER!!! Second it is a bit rich for the Liberal senate (remember the Liberals who left the Canadian Armed Forces to scrap together bits and pieces from other countries military leftovers - remember those subs!) to be critizing the government because of some spending estimates. Third is it the G & M mission to run every story where the federal government takes a mis-step. Let's look at the LPC Green Shift which has NO BUDGET attached to it or the fact that the candiates for the Liberal leadership still can't pay off their debts in the time allocated by Elections Canada.
  77. Hairy Wrangellian from Saltspring Island, Canada writes: Bobby Dy has it exactly right: Why are we gearing up for wars that we are not going to fight (conventional weaponry).

    Specifically, why buy tanks and the planes to transport them over oceans when we are fighting insurgencies?

    Harper's foreign policy, and the military spending that follows from it, is based on the idea of Canada being America's sidekick in Afghanistan, and in many more wars into the future.
  78. Polar Bear from Floating Iceberg, Canada writes: Oh take it easy ... its Canada's NEW government. Percentage calculations are a bit advanced for someone with a University degree.
  79. doctor business from vancouver, Canada writes: This is such a waste of our potential as a nation. We are following the same old militaristic nonsense as any other country. Each party tripping over itself to 'support the troops' without any rhyme or reason.

    Even if one were to assume (the absurd) position that our current military exploits overseas are justified and moral for our nation... if one just looks at this problem in terms of selfish needs of the nation... How is a standing army set at the phenomenally enormous 2% GDP helpful? That sort of thing invites trouble and corruption. It invites us to find uses for the army where there was none.

    Normally taxes are unfashionable in our media. But when it comes to guns and killing - the percentages are pulled out to trivialise the expense in complete hypocrisy and inversion of the values of keeping government small that our media supposedly subscribes to.

    War is good for business? Not in the long term. But I guess like the US model our 'leaders' are deciding that having wars all the time is what our economy needs rather than deal with the challenges of a peaceful economy.
  80. Alistair McLaughlin from Canada writes: Dion and his House of Commons buddies must just CRINGE when the Senate issues reports like this. While Dion and Co. are trying desperately to convince Canadians we need less military spending and more social and environmental spending, the Liberal Senate demands the Conservatives up military spending or risk armed forces reductions. While this report will cause some temporary embarrassment for the Conservatives, it serves their long run interests because it essentially supports even MORE military spending. Some days Monsieur Dion must wish he never got out of bed.
  81. Hugh Albert from Canada writes: The Harper & New Con commitment to military funding just disappeared in a sink hole. Lip service is all this Country gets when it comes to providing real money for real development of a secure and combat prepared Armed Military in Canada. The Government is really interested in truly providing us protection. Not the US handout kind. It just proves again that we have to take note of our weaknesses & commit to fix a real problem. However, I suspect that most readers here would follow the Governments policy of non-intervention and let the whole thing go down the increasing large sink hole! Of course the US of A is to blame for all our problems. When will people get real & take real responsibilty for our security & a combat prepared Military?
  82. Michael Sharp from Victoria, Canada writes:

    Hey?

    What happened to my post?

    The one on the changing of headlines?
  83. Rick Drysdale from Canada writes: It's just so funny how the appologists for this band of incompetents keep bringing up what the past government lead by the Liberal party did. They never just take the consequences of the Conservative partys decisions on face value.

    That must be because they can't decide which face to use.
  84. Mike Z from Saskatoon, Canada writes: Wow doctor business, that was some diatribe. You sound like a very angry pacifist -- is that a contradiction, or is your brand of pacifism the kind that allows verbal assaults, just not physical ones?

    My cultural background is pacifist, so don't get the idea that I have no idea what pacifism is or pacifists are about. I just know that my ancestral branch of pacifism was based on the idea that we are all to love and respect one another, and your anger-filled post doesn't jive with that at all.

    Disregarding that interesting aside however, your argument seems weak. Your argument about 'militaristic nonsense' is itself nonsense, unless you believe that Canada should disband its military altogether and just hope that nobody looks at all our wealth and decides they would like to have it.

    I'm sure you would love to believe that wars don't happen anymore, that Canada could never be invaded, but that kind of thinking is without evidence or merit. We are no different then our ancestors in terms of greed and stupidity, and wars will continue to happen so long as there are people around.

    I support our troops because I believe that they serve two very noble purposes: one, to serve as a deterrent and a defense of our nation against aggression both foreign and domestic, and two, they serve an international role in helping those being oppressed in terrible situations (think the Balkans, Afghanistan, etc...).

    Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but accusing our Government of kowtowing to the US simply because we believe in self-defense and international peace-keeping is ludicrous. I would love to see what people are going to accuse Harper of once Obama is in office for a while -- that he is now a puppet of the evil minority liberal Democrat?
  85. Michael Sharp from Victoria, Canada writes: Billy Talon from Toronto, Canada writes: Michael Sharp from Victoria, Canada writes:

    Man.

    The Globe just doesn't give up.
    It's not the military that's being questioned.

    It's inflationary pressure that's being questioned.

    The Globe's agenda.
    Not so hidden.

    ***

    What's the National Post/Toronto Sun's agenda, Mike?

    Or do you look the other way when it supports your way of thinking?
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------

    You know, this one was removed, too.

    Did I struck a chord with somebody?

    Am I not toe-ing the party line?
  86. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    Hairy Wrangellian from Canada writes:... Why are we gearing up for wars that we are not going to fight (conventional weaponry). Specifically, why buy tanks and the planes to transport them over oceans when we are fighting insurgencies?
    Harper's foreign policy, and the military spending that follows from it, is based on the idea of Canada being America's sidekick in Afghanistan, and in many more wars into the future..

    Evening HW: On that point, I will not argue. Afghanistan is WRONG! So is $ 100,000,000 per MONTH spent on this 'War' WRONG! Let's protect Canada First!

    We need to wake up to the realities of 2008-That being protection of both the East and West coasts from the raping of others, (already too late) and also the protection of what we deem is 'ours' in the Arctic in the present and future. One would be naive not to know or understand that will be the next battleground!

    Somehow we'll have to make friends with ' The Borg' down south and hope what we give away will be enough to protect Canada from Russia, China, Denmark......Better the devil you know...
    .
  87. June from Western Canada from Canada writes: For anyone who finds these posts non productive but want to get News and participate...you'll find the NationalNewsWatch covers the headline stories in a variety of media in the Nation...much more balanced veiw, and comments are more of an adult, sane manner reflecting Canadians views, over most of the childish insults here. Goodbye G&M, you're not worth reading.
  88. D. MacKay from Atlantic, Canada writes:

    Did anyone notice if the Senators were wearing socks and shoes or did they just guess at the math?
  89. bob london from Canada writes: IR from white rock. How is pointing the obvious that he was appointed by Trudeau and is disgruntled. The fact the man who appointed him was close friends with Castro, loved China, and North Korea's governments to replicate in Canada (In his memoirs) should not be inflammatory. Liberals have chosen to be far left of center as indicated by policy choices and whether as 'liberals' you choose to admit or deny those items is irrelevant. However, as a generation, those the boomers voted for have destroyed this country and as a greedy lot have ensured that my generation and those to come will paying for you for 50 years. I will assume you are disappointed that I don't like the worst generation and if that is the issue, talk to your kids and explain one good thing you have done and don't try to own what a previous generation implemented.
  90. Hugh Albert from Canada writes: Bill Tweezer from Canada writes: Dont worry we have a lot of proud canadians that can patrol our waters in canoes and protect our arctic with snowmobiles who needs goverment.

    Amen.
  91. Rubbish Binny from Canada writes: R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes: We need to wake up to the realities of 2008-That being protection of both the East and West coasts from the raping of others, (already too late) and also the protection of what we deem is 'ours' in the Arctic in the present and future. One would be naive not to know or understand that will be the next battleground!______________________Speaking of being naive, you would be very naive to belive that the arctic is the next battleground. Sure, there may be disputes, but no soldier on either side is going to want to go and fight and die in the arctic in freezing temps for too long. Expect at that point the soldiers tell the politicians and public to get bent. At least i n Afghanistan they are making a difference, despite the media. What is so great about the arctic area that is worth fighting and dying over? Polar bears? You must be the most naive person alive. And if that is where you think the next battles will be fought, then go start the defensive preparations. The soldiers will be along soon. Dork.
  92. Mike B from Canada writes: The military is begining to sound more and more like the teachers, health care industry and auto workers. There's never enough money....
  93. Beer and Popcorn from Toronto, Canada writes:
    The communications Jihad continues..