Paul Martin admits some responsibility for underfunding in CF

[Northern Touch]

Paul Martin admits share of blame for reduced spending on military
Canadian Press
Monday, November 08, 2004

CFB VALCARTIER, Que. -- Prime Minister Paul Martin took some of the responsibility for the underfunded state of Canada's military on Monday as he visited with troops near Quebec City.

Martin had just finished lunch with a group of soldiers at Canadian Forces Base Valcartier when he said he hopes to invest more money in troops and equipment.

"We have to turn around our dwindling investment which, I admit, I have a certain responsibility for causing,'' Martin said.

"Your superiors here are just too polite to say it,'' he added, causing scattered laughter among the soldiers.

Martin was finance minister in the 1990s when the military suffered deep cuts and reduced troop levels.

© Canadian Press 2004
- 30 -

[Moderator note:  Typographical edit only - white space removed - no content changed]

 

[Michael Dorosh]

I find it hard to hate Mr. Martin.  That said, it's difficult to know what is genuine and what is politics, with regards to what he says.  He strikes me as far more intelligent than Mr. Chretien, and it may be unfortunate that he has such a poor legacy to be saddled with.

Even when he was making big cuts as Finance Minister, I had a good deal of respect for him - one of the few Liberal ministers I could feel that way about.  Hopefully he follows through on what he is saying.

 

[JasonH]

I find it hard to hate Mr. Martin.   That said, it's difficult to know what is genuine and what is politics, with regards to what he says.   He strikes me as far more intelligent than Mr. Chretien, and it may be unfortunate that he has such a poor legacy to be saddled with.

Even when he was making big cuts as Finance Minister, I had a good deal of respect for him - one of the few Liberal ministers I could feel that way about.   Hopefully he follows through on what he is saying.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

What's your point Jay?

 

[JBP]

Why did he make all those nasty cuts back in the 90's? What was the reason? Was it to help recover deficiet? More money for health care+social programs? What was the reason???

???

 

[onecat]

I find hard to believe any martin say as being genuine.  So far his track record isn't much better than that of Chretien.  Although it gets some a few points for coming out and saying he had a hand in reducing the CF to the states its currently; but with a 9 billion surplus he has jumped at fixing that.  But with Bush in office for the next 4 years, he'll have to make some improvements.

But I think there is a saying... never trust a Liberal; and so far I have no reason to doubt the truth of this saying.

 

[bossi]

I believe the Liberal party spin doctors have advised Martin to own up, take a little flack, and move on (so they can focus on "more important issues" that'll buy them more votes in the next election).
Cynical?  Yes.  Correct?  I'll bet you.
All they want to do is eliminate "minor irritations" so they can carry on with their game plan
(i.e. healthcare, daycare, they don't care ... so long as they get re-elected).

 

[HollywoodHitman]

Interestingly enough, Martin (here's the eternal optimist in me, for I KNOW better) may have used that as an opportunity to dump some money into the CF. If something bad happens in Canada or to Canadian interests abroad, and we continue not to have the ability to protect our national interests, then he will be called to task.

The only thing that needs to happen now is some media follow up on his comments and what he intends to do about it. Could it be possible that the media come on board the military cause, even for a few moments?

 

[Michael Dorosh]

The only thing that needs to happen now is some media follow up on his comments and what he intends to do about it. Could it be possible that the media come on board the military cause, even for a few moments?

Try reading the Sun, they've never not been on board.  Come to think of it, what makes you think the TV networks have ever been against the military, either?

 

[Goober]

It takes alot for a politician to own up to anything, especially something like this. I'm confident the CF will get more funding in the future.. but I hope its not some token investment. The govt needs to make a serious increase in the military's budget to turn this ship around.

 

[HollywoodHitman]

Try reading the Sun, they've never not been on board. Come to think of it, what makes you think the TV networks have ever been against the military, either?

I don't specifically think the TV networks or news in general is against the military. I think they have a tendency to either overstate or understate the facts in many cases. Keep in mind I am trying to speak in general terms here and on occasion there is much support by the media on the surface anyway. The thing is though, if you look at what intense media scrutiny has the ability to do (ie. force the gov't to make changes based on public and media outcry) my sincere hope is that the media can hop on board and force the gov't to make some serious financial influx to the CF. I'm generally anti-media because of their sensationalist reporting practices. The need for drama on the news often overshadows and alters the context of the stories being reported on. The media plays a signifcant part in public perception.

[Moderator note:  Edited only for typographical clarity - no content changed]

 

[Michael Dorosh]

The nature of the press is to never get anything 100 percent correct - too little fact checking, and as you point out, too much sensationalism.  The nature of the beast.

For the media to "come onside" though seems a bit hypocritical; I thought that the desired state was for the "news" to simply present the facts of a case.

In recent months, we have benefited from sensationalism - making things seem worse than they are may be to our advantage if it means finally getting money for new equipment and training.  More important would be a coherent defence policy will clearly defined goals, and all the money in the world won't buy that for us.

For what it's worth, I don't see that the media can honestly do any more than they are already doing.  Average Canadians need to get involved with their elected officials in order to effect change (or perhaps we need to find a candidate with military experience and the ability to hold real power in Ottawa).  Either way, I don't see it happening any time soon - though the media may have an important part to play, I think it would mean stepping outside of their mandate in order to do it.

We may be dependent on terrorist organizations to speed along our decision making process.  What an awful thing to wish for and I'm not at that stage...yet...

 

[Kirkhill]

It is probably a good thing that Martin isn't saying to much about how much money.

If he wants to do the job right he will need to spend a lot of money.  We all agree on that.  To sell that investment to the Canadian taxpayer he is going to have to have a very good story to tell.  Better to get that story right rather than just blurting out notions like 5000 peacekeepers deployed by C17s.

Course it could also just mean that he is hoping to get away with pennies.

 

[Bograt]

Micheal,

You and I haven't seen eye to eye on the last few threads. I do however agree with you here. Initially I was put off regarding you comments about the media. My knee jerk response was counter to your proposition- however I realized that it was my own bias I attempting to defend.

Good on you. You take positions that are provoking and articulate- and occasionally correct