• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Budget to honour troop commitment

JasonH

Full Member
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Budget to honour troop commitment

Canadian military will grow by 5,000 over 5 years at cost of about $1-billion

By BRIAN LAGHI
OTTAWA BUREAU CHIEF
Thursday, February 10, 2005 - Page A4 

The federal budget is expected to make good on a Liberal pledge to add 5,000 troops to the Canadian military in a multiyear phase-in that sources say could cost about $1-billion when fully in place.

The troop commitment would be met along with pledges for daycare cash in what Liberal insiders say will be an effort to check off a list of election promises. The military expansion was reiterated in the Throne Speech.

Sources told The Globe and Mail that the phase-in period would likely stretch over five years. The sources said the military's infrastructure would be unable to absorb the whole number of new troops in one year.

According to sources, the budget, which Finance Minister Ralph Goodale is to deliver Feb. 23, is intended to send a two-fold message: first, that the government can be trusted to keep its promises and, second, that Canadians can be confident it can manage its finances efficiently, particularly in light of the sponsorship scandal.

The latter theme will be exemplified by a focus on the expenditure-reduction program, headed by Revenue Minister John McCallum.

Mr. McCallum has been charged with stripping $12-billion in spending from departmental programs over the next five years, although it is unclear how much of that will be announced in the first year. The government expects to use the savings for new programs.

On the armed forces side, officials say the military could probably absorb the 5,000 new troops in fewer than five years, but agree that there are legitimate concerns about how quickly they could be integrated. The Liberal plan also would add 3,000 reservists.

The minority Liberals also want to build a budget that could be used in an election campaign in the unlikely event that their government is defeated in the House of Commons. Other items expected in the budget include cash for meeting Ottawa's commitments under the Kyoto accord on climate change, and fuel-tax transfers to the cities.

Late last week, the new Chief of Defence Staff, General Rick Hillier, called for new money for the military in front of Prime Minister Paul Martin and Defence Minister Bill Graham.

"In this country, we could probably not give enough resources to the men and women to do all the things that we ask them to do," he said at the Ottawa ceremony marking the transfer of command from his predecessor, General Ray Henault.

"But we can give them too little, and that is what we are now doing. Remember them in your budgets."

Aside from the military spending, the government is also working on plans to create a trust fund into which it will funnel a portion of the surplus to pay for the five-year daycare program and other government priorities.

In the House of Commons yesterday, Conservative Party finance critic Monte Solberg urged that the government consider tax relief for middle- and low-income Canadians. Mr. Solberg argued that the unexpected size of the surplus should open up lots of room for tax reductions.

"The government said it had a surplus of $1.9-billion that turned out to be $9.1-billion. We were right. The Liberals were wrong. When are we going to get tax relief for Canadians?"

Mr. McCallum would say only that the opposition should wait for the budget.

"[Mr. Solberg] seems to have forgotten this massive tax cut that the Liberal government brought in in the year 2000, the largest in Canadian history," the Revenue Minister said.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050210/TROOP10/TPNational/Canada
 
Late last week, the new Chief of Defence Staff, General Rick Hillier, called for new money for the military in front of Prime Minister Paul Martin and Defence Minister Bill Graham.

"In this country, we could probably not give enough resources to the men and women to do all the things that we ask them to do," he said at the Ottawa ceremony marking the transfer of command from his predecessor, General Ray Henault.


Looks like he won't be CDS for much longer.

P.S.  I'll believe it when I see it.
 
CFL said:
P.S.   I'll believe it when I see it.

Funny, I was going to type exactly the same thing.

In regards to your other comments about the new CDS, I hope he is around for a long time-his saber rattling at his swearing in ceremony sounded heartfelt to me - I hope he sticks to his guns. :salute:
 
I'm convinced the Government has absolutely no idea whatsoever about the poor shape of Canada's military.  We are now offering IPSs to age 60 to anyone breathing (including myself) in the hope that there won't be a rush of retirements.  The assumption is that people will stay in the military for 35 years vice 20 or 25.  In my case I will get out after 25, and a good number of others will as well.

So the military had better be ready for an intake of not just 5000 over 5, but possibly 20,000 over 5 just to keep numbers stable.
 
I wish they would realize that the military is way more important than sending a kid to daycare.

 
Ghost said:
I wish they would realize that the military is way more important than sending a kid to daycare.

Not if it is your kid.

However, that is besides the point, and as been argued extensively on other threads.
 
Ghost said:
I wish they would realize that the military is way more important than sending a kid to daycare.

Not to the majority of Canadians - and the majority rules.  One of those principles we've pledged to defend.  Don't blame the government, blame the people. 

So what have you done to educate them?

In any event, it will be just our luck to have this come in - and then have the Minority Government blown out of the water and have the Conservatives come in - and promptly renege on the new commitment.
 
\
Michael Dorosh said:
Not to the majority of Canadians - and the majority rules.

How do you know the majority thinks this way? Has there been a referendum on this issue? Nope. Will there be? Nope. Will there be one on any current issue? I doubt it. Just because the Liberals were re-elected doesn't mean the majority of Canadians agree with them on every scheme they come up with. Besides, which even if the majority of Canadians did want the gov't to spend billions of dollars on child care vs natioanl defence since when exactly is the federal gov't responsable for childcare over national defence? And furthermore if that is the case why aren't our leaders leading instead of following. Sorry Michael, I think you are way off on this one.

By the way majority doesn't rule, the charter of rights and freedoms rules. For example I doubt if a majority in Canada agree with gay marriage yet there is little doubt it will happen.
 
Andyboy said:
\
How do you know the majority thinks this way? Has there been a referendum on this issue? Nope. Will there be? Nope. Will there be one on any current issue? I doubt it. Just because the Liberals were re-elected doesn't mean the majority of Canadians agree with them on every scheme they come up with. Besides, which even if the majority of Canadians did want the gov't to spend billions of dollars on child care vs natioanl defence since when exactly is the federal gov't responsable for childcare over national defence?

Since we made them so.

By the way majority doesn't rule, the charter of rights and freedoms rules. For example I doubt if a majority in Canada agree with gay marriage yet there is little doubt it will happen.

www.MarriageReferendum.ca

Put your money where your mouth is - or have you done so?

 
CFL said:
Is there a website if you agree with the decision?

You can email your MP directly to indicate your support.  (Though, isn't this being done by the courts and NOT by the MPs?)  I'm not aware of any website specifically but I should imagine there have to be some.
 
When exactly did we make the federal gov't responsible for child care?
 
Hasn't happened yet Andyboy.  Just ask Alberta and Quebec.

But back to the budget, as much as I am interested to see if the government increases revenues to the CF I am interested to see if they reduce costs by transferring out some of the statutory costs, pensions, environmental and language costs etc as well as moving the cost of operations to general revenues or a dedicated international aid/development fund. 

If I follow some of the discussions at the Senate committee and elsewhere the Gov't could quietly add another 3 billion dollars of purchasing power to the CF by transferring out some of those costs to other departments and gain political points for, for example, bolstering Official Languages, Vets Pensions and cleaning up the environment.  The CF would gain a budget increase of about 25% but the total allocation to the CF would stay the same.

13 Bn - 3 Bn of Statutory Responsibilities means disposable rises from 10 to 13 Bn.  Add another 1 Bn to look good and take budget up to 14 Bn means what was 10 is now 14.  Transfer out cost of Ops means an additional 500 Mn to 1 Bn and readjust the PWGSC formula on Industrial and Regional Benefits and the CF's budget might only go from 13 to 14 Bn but the purchasing power of the department could go from 6 or 7 Bn to 14 Bn  and no nasty headlines in the morning.

So even if the budget comes through with a low number I want to see what the plan and the estimates are before I squawk too loud.

Politicians do funny things with money.

 
 
Back
Top