# $8 Billion Surplus to be announced



## Scoobie Newbie (13 Oct 2004)

it will likely be put into the national debt that is around $510 Billion


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Oct 2004)

Does it really suprise you? The liberals are always understating what they (as opposed to we) have, to foreshadow doom and gloom, "We haven't got the money for all these programs". Then at the last minute it's "Hey we made a mistake! Look at all the extra cash we found. What a great job we've done" *They do it every year*. Personally, I feel, anyone that can't keep the books straight and give the proper accounting, at any given time, has no business handling the taxpayers money.


----------



## canuck101 (13 Oct 2004)

Paying the debt down is a very good thing.  It means we spends less on interest and can start to spend more on other things or even a tax break.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (13 Oct 2004)

Yeah the news said that they have had a habit of lowballing their figures.   It be nice if they dumped all that into the CF.


----------



## canuck101 (13 Oct 2004)

I almost forgot yes the liberals do lie about how much money the collect which is very bad.  With that amount of money they could buy new subs and destroyers that we need. 8)


----------



## Goober (13 Oct 2004)

I'm all for paying down the debt, but the military is in need of new equipment. I sincerely hope they spend some of this surplus on the military, however I doubt 1 penny will be spent on it.


----------



## canuck101 (13 Oct 2004)

You can say that again.  We really need new airlift fast or we are not going to have anything to transport what little equipment the gov gives the CF


----------



## R031button (13 Oct 2004)

I don't know about any body else, but I really don't think the country should be run like a corporation. We're not making any money, all that 8 billion means is that Canadians spent more then they needed too, or that the govt isn't funding things adaquetly, it's by no means a positive thing. One ther other hand, I do think we need a reserve of money just in case, and we do need to pay down the dept, so I would be content if it was a 2 billion surplus, which would leave us with six billion for other departments of governement, namely health care and the military.


----------



## Gayson (13 Oct 2004)

Agreed, it would be great to see some of that money, but not all of it, other departments could probably use it too (but not as much as the CF).


----------



## Lance Wiebe (13 Oct 2004)

Instead of headlines stating "8 Billion dollar surplus"

The headline should read:

*Liberal Government overtax Canadians by 8 billion dollars!*


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (13 Oct 2004)

R031button said:
			
		

> I don't know about any body else, but I really don't think the country should be run like a corporation. We're not making any money, all that 8 billion means is that Canadians spent more then they needed too, or that the govt isn't funding things adaquetly, it's by no means a positive thing. One ther other hand, I do think we need a reserve of money just in case, and we do need to pay down the dept, so I would be content if it was a 2 billion surplus, which would leave us with six billion for other departments of governement, namely health care and the military.



I disagree completely on increasing spending on anything other than the military.   

To put this into personal context it would be like having a $112,000 in low interest credit cards, a $40,000/year income and you've just paid off $2,000 of the principal so next year your line of credit has been reduced to $110,400.     Additionally, the quick math indicates at that rate it will take you close to 50 years to pay off that debt.

Add to this disturbing (and oft overlooked fact) the reality that as the babyboomers retire our national productivity (and as such taxable revenue) will decline as our healthcare costs continue growing at double-digit rates.

Bottom Line:   If it were me, I'd be cutting all non-military spending wherever I could and hammering the debt as hard as possible.   



Matthew.   

Re:   The overtaxing comment:   Actually regardless of what party is in power, it is Canadian Citizen's Debt they are paying down.


----------



## Danjanou (13 Oct 2004)

Matthew

I'm sorry to disagree with your last comment there. I as a Canadian Citizen didn't rack up that debt. I know how to budget my income and expenses including paying more than my fair share of taxes too. I'm sure that most ( not all though) of my 30+ million countrymen are equally fiscally responsible too.

That debt was run up by years of government neglect and mismanagement a list of example of which would probably use up all the available band width on this site. Also remember that is just the Federal Debt, 9 out of 10 Provinces also have debts some of them massive, as do several large municipalities and for the same reasons.

By the way that 150 billion was racked up in slightly less than 40 years. There was a time when this country was run by responsible grown ups and actually had regular year end surplus and a strong military too come to think of it. Care to guess who was in power for most of that 40 odd year period?

8 Billion eh, That should be good for 2 or 3 new weapons registry programs to make us safer (swiss army knives, nail clippers, and/or salad forks perhaps), a dozen odd canoe museums and fountains, a round dozen polar champagne and caviar trips by the champagne socialist set, and a few hundred bribes er excuse me advertising contracts.


----------



## Bograt (13 Oct 2004)

Just a slight correction. The surplus is *9.1 Billion* How many sponsorship JC golf balls can be purchased for that?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20041013.wbudg1013/BNStory/Business/


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Oct 2004)

Voters weren't exactly quick to vote out, and refuse to let back in, deficit spending governments.  It's our debt.  I want it eliminated.  We can fight over whether to spend the former interest charges on health care or defence once they are former interest charges.


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Oct 2004)

Maybe we should blow millions of dollars on another election and with the left overs give the MPs another raise.

I don't think we should put the money into the CF.  
What are the chances of it actually being spent responsibly? What are the chances of it being spent on something cost effective and needed opposed to wasted away on something?
Like yet another study that will cost millions of dollars to perform only to come back and say 'News flash, CF underfunded and in need of whatever' 
I'll never understand why those studies cost so much.

The liberals "Found" 9 billion dollars. It's scary that much money can be misplaced. 
I hope the Liberals are responsible and use the money where it's needed most.


----------



## tabernac (13 Oct 2004)

> I hope the Liberals are responsible and use the money where it's needed most.





> six billion for other departments of governement, namely health care and the military.



Is Healthcare and DND at the top of the list for recieving money?


----------



## loyalcana (13 Oct 2004)

By law budget surpluses are used only to pay down the debt.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 Oct 2004)

In Alberta,perhaps.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (13 Oct 2004)

Will said:
			
		

> By law budget surpluses are used only to pay down the debt.



That is easy to get around - in fact it is done almost every year.  The surplus is *predicted* to be 9.1B.  All you have to do is commit 7B before the end of the fiscal year, and voila, the "surplus" is only 2,1B - and that is what is paid down on the debt.


----------



## Tpr.Orange (13 Oct 2004)

Yeah we all wish that was going to happen in a perfect world...with the liberals, NOT IN POWER :


----------



## Goober (13 Oct 2004)

Wow 9.1 billion surplus... I think that _just_ might be enough to complete the gun registry.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (15 Oct 2004)

Danjanou said:
			
		

> Matthew
> 
> I'm sorry to disagree with your last comment there. I as a Canadian Citizen didn't rack up that debt. I know how to budget my income and expenses including paying more than my fair share of taxes too. I'm sure that most ( not all though) of my 30+ million countrymen are equally fiscally responsible too.
> 
> ...



Sorry to take so long to respond Danjanou, but I missed your reply.

My bottom line is this....
1)   My preference would've been for a balanced budget clause in the constitution so that it would've been impossible to accumulated such a huge debt load in the first place.
2)   I think it's fair to say the debt was accumulated while spending on many frivilous, wasteful and generally corrupt things.
3)   That being said, the government was following the wishes of a stupid electorate that voted them in for the specific purpose of providing them with more services than they were actually paying for in taxes.   Ergo, because of my birthright as a Canadian I inherit this debt whether I want to or not and now have to decide in real terms how I want to deal with it.   I personally hate debt and as previously mentioned would target it aggressively and just to put this in context although $9.1 billion seems like a big number, realize it we only reduced our total debt level by 1.9%.   If that doesn't scare the shiiiit out of you, I don't know what will, because it certainly scares the shit out of me.

Cheers Danjanou....



Matthew.


----------



## Bograt (15 Oct 2004)

Ottawa Citizen
http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=ab2a195c-3d9e-423f-8556-d658ba7bee1d

More bad news for Forces

The federal government is looking to claw back $144 million it gave the Canadian Forces in its latest budget and plans to take another $184 million next year. 


Please contact your member of parliment and let them know how you feel about this.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/people/house/PostalCode.asp?lang=E&source=sm


----------



## Bograt (15 Oct 2004)

This is the letter I sent my MP, and the Liberal Newfoundland Caucus.

Dear Mr. Mathews,

It has come to my attention that your government is planning to claw back 144 million dollars this fiscal year and a further 184 million planned for next fiscal year from the Canadian Forces. This comes a week after the tragedy of HMCS Chicoutimi and just days after your government announced a 9.1 billion dollar surplus. Can you please explain to me your rational for supporting this abhorrent fiscal decision. 

I can not adequately articulate my frustration with you and your party regarding its policies toward our military. Our fine men and women are serving their country everyday with substandard equipment while you and your government colleagues spin and cheat the truth. I am ashamed of you as my representative, as a Canadian, and more over as a man. I implore you to ensure that this ridiculous demonstration of leadership is reversed. This is an opportunity for you to demonstrate a quality that our soldiers, sailors, and airmen regularly exude- courage. Is this too much to ask from a politician? I look forward to hearing from you.


----------



## Guardian (15 Oct 2004)

:crybaby: :rage:  :'(  :crybaby:

The hits just keep coming....


----------



## Chewy (15 Oct 2004)

Now, does everybody Know who's government we are going to be voting for when the next election comes around.


----------



## rw4th (15 Oct 2004)

Anoying, but predictable. I don't see why anyone should be surprised.


----------



## Bograt (15 Oct 2004)

This is the response:

Dear Mr. XXXXXXX,

On behalf of the Honourable R. John Efford, I wish to thank you for your correspondence sent via electronic mail today.

Rest assured your comments have been brought to the attention of the Minister.

Again thank you for taking the time to contact our office on this important issue.

Sincerely,
XXXXXX


----------



## winchable (15 Oct 2004)

I'll give out 2-1 odds If I send the same e-mail I'll get the same automated response.

Computers have allowed ministers to actually automate their ignorance of the public at large.


----------



## dutchie (15 Oct 2004)

Didn't the PM, through the GG and the speech from the throne, just state a renewed commitment to the forces? If I recall, investment in the CF was a major theme. 

I posted a 'I'll believe it when I see it' message following the GG's address, because of the Liberal Party's track record of underfunding the CF. 

All those (not necessarily on this site) who thought Martin was the second coming, or even any different than his predecessor were fooling themselves. This guy is a Liberal with a capital 'L'.

The sad thing is that I don't expect an uproar from the pubilc at large.

Shame on them.


----------



## dutchie (15 Oct 2004)

Chewy said:
			
		

> Now, does everybody Know who's government we are going to be voting for when the next election comes around.



Gee, let's see:

Liberals: Look at our last decade's PMs. Cretin and Martin. One's a crook, the other a liar.
Conservatives: racked up huge debt, weren't much more 'CF Friendly' than the Liberals.
NDP:yeah, right. Might as well disband the CF right now.

I'll probably vote Conservative. The lesser of 3 evils, IMHO.


----------



## kruger (15 Oct 2004)

Strange country where citizens critiscize the gov't for having money. Paying down the national debt is a national priority, a multi-generation effort. I believe that is far more important than throwing the money away on artillery shells...But I wouldn't object to a Leopard 2A6 with 120 mm L55 cannon, latest thermal sights and...(drooling caused keyboard to malfunction).


Cheers.


----------



## Goober (15 Oct 2004)

Yes, its very strange when a countries citizens criticises the govt for saying it doesn't have enough money for this program, or not enough for that program, while they tax us through the nose and then announce a 9.1 billion surplus.

The national debt is a priority, but in these times there are far greater priorities. Like artillery shells.


----------



## canuck101 (16 Oct 2004)

They give with one hand and take away with the other sad to say it will always be that way i think under any government.  Tell the people they are giving the military more money and later take away under the cover of darkness.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (16 Oct 2004)

Can someone post the rest of this story please.


----------



## pbi (16 Oct 2004)

I agree with CFL here. What's the rest of it? Cheers.


----------



## Cloud Cover (16 Oct 2004)

Liberals ask for military cuts

STEPHANIE RUBEC, Free Press Parliamentary Bureau    2004-10-16 02:31:55    

OTTAWA -- The Liberal government is set to take an axe to the cash-strapped Canadian Forces' $13.2-billion budget. Revenue Minister John McCallum, who chairs the federal re-allocation committee, said despite its cash crunch the Defence Department must come up with a five-per-cent savings within days -- about $700 million. 

"Defence is no exception, it applies to every department. Even the Governor General has been asked to do this," McCallum said yesterday. 

McCallum said each department must find the savings so the Liberal government can fund priorities such as health care and day care. 

"It may be that some departments will be asked to cut little or anything, it may be that other departments will be asked to review their expenditures by more than five per cent," he said. "This is a starting point to give us a menu of choice." 

Prime Minister Paul Martin launched the expenditure review, looking for $12 billion in savings during the next five years. 

The Liberals have been criticized for slashing the military's budget through the 1990s by $3.5 billion to $9.3 billion. Since then, they have boosted military spending to $13 billion, but some of that is one-time money earmarked for specific equipment or initiatives. 

McCallum said the upcoming budget clawback doesn't preclude handing the military more money in the next time. 

Martin committed in his throne speech this month to boost the size of the military by 5,000 regular force and 3,000 reservists. 

The opposition raked the Liberals in the House yesterday, saying they shortchanged the Forces when buying equipment such as subs. 

***********

JM strikes again...


----------



## canuck101 (16 Oct 2004)

so the 800 million the military got in new money now they have to give back 700 million back and that does not even help the military since they have a 1.2 billion dollar shortfall in funding nice really nice.


----------



## brin11 (16 Oct 2004)

Great, so they are screwing the military to have cheap daycare?  Excellent.


----------



## Infanteer (16 Oct 2004)

Wow, National Defence is being compromised so young girls and boys can make babies and not have to worry about the consequences and the responsibilities involved.  Good job Mr McCallum, I always figured you for a twerp, even when I met you.


----------



## OLD F of S (16 Oct 2004)

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


----------



## Slim (16 Oct 2004)

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 (16 Oct 2004)

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 (19 Oct 2004)

Garbageman said:
			
		

> 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 (21 Oct 2004)

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 (21 Oct 2004)

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 (12 Nov 2004)

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 (12 Nov 2004)

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 (12 Nov 2004)

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 (13 Nov 2004)

pbi said:
			
		

> 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 (14 Nov 2004)

Jets4Life said:
			
		

> 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 (14 Nov 2004)

> 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 (14 Nov 2004)

> 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 (18 Nov 2004)

:-\ 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 (18 Nov 2004)

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 (18 Nov 2004)

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



Matthew.


----------



## pbi (18 Nov 2004)

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 (19 Nov 2004)

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 (19 Nov 2004)

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


----------



## McG (19 Nov 2004)

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).


----------



## a_majoor (19 Nov 2004)

President Bush has shown the way; steep tax cuts revitalize the economy. This will increase the tax revenues in the long run, and reduce unemployment. Put that $8 billion against the debt, and cut taxes (and spending) by $16 Billion next year, and the year after. If you don't like Bush, the same formula has been applied, with the same results in Ireland, Singapore, South Korea, Tiawan, the United States during the Reagan years, the UK in the Thatcher years and so on. 

A strong and vibrant economy will have benefits for us (1.1 percent of a rising GDP still means more money for defense).


----------



## Long in the tooth (19 Nov 2004)

Have to give the Liberals a bit of credit here.  Hard to do, but here's why.  Canada's debt is about half a trillion dollars now, about 50% of GDP.  It was previously up to $60.  If you have a mortgage, you know that it's very difficult to get one when your debt/income hits 40%.  The Liberals official policy goal is a debt ratio of 25%, which seems consistent with steady state social programs, education, health care and retirement.  A sort of life cycle assessment for a nation.  The CPP is on sound footing, although we hate almost 10% going to it.  Other countries have studied it in terms of successful sustainability.  

The catch is that very soon we will have 3 workers/retiree, not the current 5/1.  Although CPP will be stable, health care is covered from pay as you go revenues and will not be going down.  So, although they've lied to us again, the Liberals may actually have an idea that works.  If only they can stay the course.

The people I have problems with are the provinces and lib-left complex thinking that this is their 'mad money'.


----------



## Bograt (19 Nov 2004)

I strongly believe we need to promote the Federal Government in the province of Quebec. I propose that the government use the money to sponsor various events in the province. I think also that this is probably best done with the cooperation and coordination of the private sector- ie marketing companies.

The Gun registry in nearly complete. I am sure that a couple more billion dollars into this program will give law enforcement officials the tools to fight crime.

I am a huge fan of advant guard Canadian independent film. I think a half billion bucks supporting Canadian film makers is a great way to elevate the national discourse. More films like "The Milkman"need to be sponsored by the Canadian government and shown on CBC. _"This unique and touching story brings together two unlikely individuals: a middle-aged, obese, gay milkman and a teenaged, skinny, horny boy. Both come to share love at its most basic level; a love that both nourishes and sustains life."_ 
http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:4GEeS_MiTmoJ:www.zed.cbc.ca/go.ZeD%3FCONTENT_ID%3D188%26page%3Dcontent+%22The+Milkman%22+%22ZED+tv%22+CBC+&hl=en

I think we should celebrate and reward some of these artists. Like the performance artist who once lay naked in a shallow grave with a vial of his own blood dribbling out of his anus who won of one of Canada's most prestigious visual arts awards this year.

http://www.cbc.ca/arts/stories/govgenart030304

A couple more billion dollars into a state run child day care system seems like a great initiative. I like the idea of government taking responsibility for my child early development, and I am confident that the bureaucrats in Ottawa/Hull have a handle on implementing this program within its tight budget and scope confinds.

I would like to thank you for this opportunity to share my thoughts. Now, can somebody help me find my medication.


----------



## aesop081 (19 Nov 2004)

Bograt,

Thanks...now i have to spend the day in the nav sim bent in half laughing !!!


----------



## Bograt (19 Nov 2004)

Some kind of posting snafu, don't know how to delete this post.


----------



## teltech (19 Nov 2004)

Bograt said:
			
		

> I would like to thank you for this opportunity to share my thoughts. Now, can somebody help me find my medication.


 :blotto: Whew... Thought you were serious for a moment... Sarcasm detector still in the shop... :dontpanic:


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (19 Nov 2004)

McG said:
			
		

> 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).



I hate to punch a small hole in your premise but Quebec has been getting in excess of $5 billion per year in Equalization alone for the last umpteen years and they keep electing separatists.     

Personally, I'm against equalization in its current form as well as regional subsidies.

My three-pronged solution for national economic development:
1)   Provide federal funds for fiscally responsible provinces who run surpluses and are reducing their debts.   In essence, if a province runs a surplus of $500 million, then the federal government matches it making the actual level of debt repayment $1 billion.   In the long run this will lead to a more fiscal responsibility across the board and will eventually allow for additional tax relief.
2)   Modify our immigration and refugee policies so that immigrants MUST reside for a period of not less than 5 years in the province assigned to them, and that distribution matches current population distribution amongst the provinces.   My premise is that immigration generates population growth with necessitates construction which increases business at lumber/hardware stores/appliance stores/etc which creates more construction at those service support sites which creates additional jobs.   In essence, the addition of 'educated' immigrants to any province will have a multiplier effect upon its economy.   See Newfoundland - negative population growth guarantees economic downturns.   Alberta-Ontario - booming.
3)   Negotiate a Free Trade Agreement with Europe (at least Ireland and the UK).   This would not only reduce our dangerous dependence on the United States but would immediately re-invigorate the East Coast.

Of note, I'm running for office next year, and I expect your votes!!!!



Matthew.      ;D   ;D   ;D


----------



## a_majoor (19 Nov 2004)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> 2)  Modify our immigration and refugee policies so that immigrants MUST reside for a period of not less than 5 years in the province assigned to them, and that distribution matches current population distribution amongst the provinces.  My premise is that immigration generates population growth with necessitates construction which increases business at lumber/hardware stores/appliance stores/etc which creates more construction at those service support sites which creates additional jobs.  In essence, the addition of 'educated' immigrants to any province will have a multiplier effect upon its economy.  See Newfoundland - negative population growth guarantees economic downturns.  Alberta-Ontario - booming.
> 3)  Negotiate a Free Trade Agreement with Europe (at least Ireland and the UK).  This would not only reduce our dangerous dependence on the United States but would immediately re-invigorate the East Coast.
> 
> Of note, I'm running for office next year, and I expect your votes!!!!
> Matthew.    ;D  ;D  ;D



I find point two a bit disturbing; how would you hold a new immigrant to their "assigned residence" for five years? This could also turn into the mother of all pork barrels, encouraging corruption (We'll move you and your family to Toronto/Vancouver/Montreal in return for some tangible support), or huge provincial bun-fights (We want only educated people, and send them to Wawa in order to generate a burst of economic activity prior to the next provincial election).

Point three, on the other hand, is exactly right. Why not extend this to the entire Anglosphere?

BTW, where are you running, what office are you running for and which party will you represent?


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (19 Nov 2004)

> I find point two a bit disturbing; how would you hold a new immigrant to their "assigned residence" for five years? This could also turn into the mother of all pork barrels, encouraging corruption (We'll move you and your family to Toronto/Vancouver/Montreal in return for some tangible support), or huge provincial bun-fights (We want only educated people, and send them to Wawa in order to generate a burst of economic activity prior to the next provincial election).
> 
> Point three, on the other hand, is exactly right. Why not extend this to the entire Anglosphere?
> 
> BTW, where are you running, what office are you running for and which party will you represent?



RE:   Point Two - Assigned Residence:   You introduce a 5-year probationary term.   In that time frame a refugee or immigrant must reside in the province assigned to them, and not get into any problems with the police.   

RE:   Point Two - Porkbarrelling - I think it is a justifiable fear, but no moreso than the current "Are you going to get in, or not and how much is it worth to you?"   

RE:   Point Three - I just believe we have to start somewhere.   I don't care if they're just bilateral agreements but we have to reduce our economic dependence upon the USA.   I'm telling you right now, if the Democrats had won both the Congress and the Senate, we would've been screwed.

RE:   Running for Office - I was only kidding.   Maybe in 20 years, but not now....RE:   Party - I'm a small 'c', secular Conservative.   



Matthew.


----------



## commando_wolf63 (19 Nov 2004)

Makes a person give their head a shake. Although we are known as a"Peace keeping Nation" Some of that surplus could have gone into buying NEW subs Why stop there We can also build our own Ships, Aircraft etc We'd be putting plenty of skilled Canadians to work.   Why is it that Our Gov't thinks they are saving money by buying second hand equipment? in the long run after the over hauls The Gov't has ended up spending more money than if they had bought New equipment ???


----------



## McG (4 Jan 2005)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> I hate to punch a small hole in your premise but Quebec has been getting in excess of $5 billion per year in Equalization alone for the last umpteen years and they keep electing separatists.
> 
> Personally, I'm against equalization in its current form as well as regional subsidies.


I'm not promoting greater equalization payments.   I'm thinking of more of a percapita money transfer along the lines of the CHST (or its predecessors). This would not target regions but instead would universally increase federal money to all provinces.


----------



## a_majoor (4 Jan 2005)

MCG said:
			
		

> I'm not promoting greater equalization payments.  I'm thinking of more of a percapita money transfer along the lines of the CHST (or its predecessors). This would not target regions but instead would universally increase federal money to all provinces.



Cut out the middleman and roll back the $9 billion over taxation!


----------



## McG (4 Jan 2005)

Ah, but by passing the money along, to the provinces, regional needs are addressed with regional solutions (which may or may not be tax reductions) and the federal government re-establishes itself in a position where it can exercise its spending power over the provinces (and being a centralist, I would not mind seeing that little bit more leverage).


----------



## a_majoor (4 Jan 2005)

Unfortunately, the centralist approach has produced things like the "billion dollar boondoggle", Shawinigate, Adscam, the gun registry, unflyable flags and so on. I don't think I want to see any more leverage going to these clowns....


----------



## eliteboris (4 Jan 2005)

If i where in the army or not we badly need a good chunk of coin put into us.


----------



## ArmyRick (4 Jan 2005)

If this one has already been done, please let me know.
I personally feel we are taxed too much (who doesn't?). I think if we had serious governments at federal and provincial level then we should have major tax reforms. The governments responsibility at both of these levels should be (IMO) 
1. Education (Fed and Prov)
2. Health care (Fed and Prov)
3. Defense (Fed)
4. Maint of highways, roads, parks etc (Fed and Prov)
5. Justice system includes courts, corrections, police, etc (Fed and Prov)
6. Both federal and provincial auditors generals that should be well funded to snoop out wasting tax payers money issues (this would be a good deterent IMO) and either enforcing responsibility or embarrasing (public reports with press) said govt rep/dept for poor handling of public $$$.

Thats it. I think crap like cultural promotion, welfare (provincial level), foreign aid (Why help others when we need things sorted out RIGHT here in Canada?), social programs, etc have no place being paid for the by  government.

I also think we should bin welfare at the provincial level completely. I know far too many people (Both new arrivals to Canada and people who are 4-5th generation Canadian) who just love this little gravy train and play it very well. The only people who should be on it are those who are seriously disabled. Everyone else I think should still be able to receive money equal to minimum wage x 40 hours per week however they would be required to work for their county or another level of government performing manual labor or using what job skills they do have for 4 hours a day, five days of the week. The other 4 working hours per day would be mandatory job searching (that would require documentation)..

Why do I babble on about this? I love to think of myself as a proud Canadian serving in the army, etc, etc then I hear horror stories from relatives of so and so milking the system or reading in the news paper complete crap like giving $50,000 of tax cash to some cultural promotion or crap like that.

People who know me, know I hate complacency and I think too many people in this country love the troff called "Tax payers money".
Lets hear some opinions on this one?
Angry Rick Over.


----------



## Meridian (4 Jan 2005)

Social programs should be run at the provincial level, and it will never change or deviate from this.

The constitution so entrenches the federal taxation power that it muddies the water a bit... but realistically, we are only moving to further powers for the provinces..

The constitution originally supports much greater power at the Federal Level.. but thanks to the SCC (supreme court of canada) and more importantly its predecessor (the JCPC in England)  much wider birth was given to the Provinces and the interpretation of the words has been heavily contested.

Actually in Canada's history, the greatest shift to centralize more decisions was during/just after the world wars where everyone "banded together".

All this to say that the closer you get to the people, the more demands you have; the more decentralized, the more diversity you will encounter and have to cater to.

As for foreign aid - I can see what you are saying here, Ive often had the same thoughts...  and perhaps some of the Canadians on this board that have served overseas would have more convincing arguments (either way) regarding this, but as some have said, the best defense is a good offense...  and I think we just have to rethink what we mean by offense, here...  It comes down to evaluating our position on the world stage... we will never be a superpower... but if we want our voices heard (remember, I said if) we need a strong military AND financial presence on the world stage.... one that at least correlates with the station we want to hold in the world.


----------



## ArmyRick (4 Jan 2005)

I have served overseas ( I was CIMIC in Bosnia on my third tour) and there is value to projects in a NEW theater of operations (where we want to win the hearts and mins) however they also come to learn to "Milk the troff".
I must be honest I really don't know much about what the Canadian constitution translate to. Thinks for shedding some light.


----------



## Meridian (4 Jan 2005)

Well, its hard to give a lesson in canadian politics all in one paragraph, especially since Im no expert, but I do study the stuff, so to put it into real terms... basically, Canada focuses a lot on the little stuff.. We are BIG on social programs. We are big on supporting the little guy. Always kind of have been.

The key issue in politics these days tends to be who is paying - the Feds or the Province... and since the feds have the unlimited taxation power....


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Jan 2005)

You might want to consider that 'health' (broadly) and public safety/security (broadly, again) are, primarily, *municipal* responsibilities.

Potable water and good sewers are far, far more important to public health than *all* the scientists and bean-counters in the federal *and* provincial health ministries.   Money for up-to-date water and sewage treatment is every bit as important as money for MRI machines and, even, doctors and nurses.

Local police and fire services keep most Canadians safe and secure, *and* the local police are the _front line_ in the so called war on terrorism because the terrorist are living in our towns and cities, right now â â€œ being watched, mainly, by local police services rather, I think, than CSIS and the RCMP.

Even education is, in many jurisdictions, a local matter â â€œ schools are built and teachers are hired by local (municipal) school boards using money from local property taxes.

If I could redesign the country, from scratch, I would base it on _communities_ each of which would elect councilors and collect taxes.   The _communities_ would then band together and create provinces and/or a national state to which they would send tasks and councilors and money â â€œ contracting out, if you like, those things which are better done on a larger scale, like national defence, foreign policy and fiscal and monetary policy.


----------



## Meridian (4 Jan 2005)

True, I guess, however municipalities only have legislative power because the provinces give it to them.

But I get what you are saying.


----------



## Navalsnpr (4 Jan 2005)

Half to DND and the other half to pay down the debt.

Doubt it would ever happen that way, but it is nice to be able to wish it would.


----------

