the budget - you be the judge

[bossi]

Just in case you haven‘t heard, here‘s some info on the budget (I don‘t trust myself to comment without using bad words - i.e. why am I not suprised the Bloc was the only party to support this pathetic increase to defence spending, while HRDC and other departments piss away this much in a single year on pork barrel spending - so I will let somebody else do the dispassionate reporting):

No budget relief for overtaxed military
‘It‘s paltry,‘ says Day of proposed increase; ‘Incredible!‘ says angered McDonough
By Graham Fraser
NATIONAL AFFAIRS WRITER

OTTAWA -- Paul Martin offered prayers and $1.2 billion over the next five years for Canada‘s Armed Forces in his budget today.
"Just as we are moving to enhance Canadian security here at home, so too are we joined in the war against terrorism abroad," Martin told the House of Commons. "At this moment, 2,000 men and women of the Canadian Forces are defending freedom on distant shores. They carry our cause and they have our prayers."

However, many military analysts, critics and interest groups had been calling for an increase in the annual base funding for the Canadian Armed Forces of at least $1 billion a year, rather than $1.2 billion over five years.

"I‘m a bit disappointed," said retired Gen. Clive Addy, national vice-chairman of the Conference of Defence Associations. "It‘s not going to resolve the paucity, or shortage of soldiers, the rotations in Bosnia, and it will not solve the problem of capitalization, which is a snowball effect."

The defence spending announcement was greeted with derision by the Opposition - with the exception of the Bloc Québécois, whose leader Gilles Duceppe said that the party had only minor disagreements with Martin about the amount.

New Democratic Party leader Alexa McDonough said that twice as much was needed for the Armed Forces.

"What we have here is essentially $1 billion spread over five years," she said. "Anything less than $2 billion just doesn‘t do what needs to be done. And not a mention of Sea Kings! Unbelievable!"

Canadian Alliance leader Stockwell Day called the allocation for the Armed Forces "a fraction" of what is needed.

"It‘s a paltry amount," he said. "The whole budget is just a wasted opportunity."

Progressive Conservative leader Joe Clark pointed out that it was much less than recommended by commentators, and much less than required.

"At the same time, they are increasing the calls upon the Armed Forces in the country," he said. "So the inconsistency between a high demand for the Armed Forces and a low willingness to pay the price continues with this government."

In the budget, Martin announced that $210 million would be spent on Canada‘s participation in the coalition attack on Afghanistan, dubbed Operation Apollo, and $300 million on military equipment.

The remaining $690 million will be spent on what the budget documents call "the security initiatives"

This includes the doubling of the capacity of Joint Task Force Two (JTF-2), the highly-trained anti-terrorist commando unit that specializes in hijack rescues.

This will cost $119 million over the next five years and, in the words of the Finance Department documents that accompanied Martin‘s speech, "will improve JTF-2‘s ability to respond to incidents at home and abroad."

Canadian Alliance critic Leon Benoit said he disagreed with the decision to double the size of the JTF-2, calling it "very political."

He pointed out that the British equivalent, the SAS, has only 400 members - and argued that what Canada actually needs is a rapid response force, which the Airborne was.

The Chrétien government disbanded the Airborne after embarrassing incidents of extreme hazing and torture in Somalia.

There will also be $513 million spent over the next five years on increasing Canada‘s ability to respond to chemical, biological and nuclear attacks.

This money will be spent on improving Canadian laboratories so that they can identify these threats more quickly, and buying new protective equipment for emergency response teams.

Since Sept. 11, several Toronto public buildings have been evacuated as a result of anthrax scares.

These two initiatives - enhancing the JTF-2 and improving the response to chemical, biological and nuclear attacks - were hinted at by National Defence Minister Art Eggleton when he appeared before the Finance Committee earlier this fall.

Eggleton pointed to the JTF-2 and the Nuclear Biological and Chemical teaching unit at Canadian Forces Base Borden as key pieces in Canada‘s response to Sept. 11.

"Those are all areas that are under consideration and we are currently fleshing out and reviewing plans with respect to them," he said.

Yesterday, those plans were announced.

Gen. Addy said he was pleased by the increase announced for the JTF-2, but pointed out that Auditor-General Sheila Fraser had said that the Armed Forces were $1 billion short in base funding to meet the commitments in a 1994 Defence White Paper.

"All we‘ve seen is $300 million in one shot for military equipment," he said.

National Defence Minister Art Eggleton said that the priorities for buying new equipment with the $300 million in the budget had not yet been decided.

"I couldn‘t tell you at this point in time," he said. "We do have a number of equipment purchase programs, but the $300 million is additional money on top of the money we‘re already spending. We‘ve already brought up the percentage of our budget that is spent on capital, so we are modernizing the Canadian Forces."

A few weeks ago, in a report prepared before Sept. 11, the Conference of Defence Associations made a gloomy assessment of the state of Canada‘s military, pointing out that Canada spent $265 (U.S.) per capita on defence in 2000, as compared with a $589 per capita average among NATO nations and $504 per capita average in G-7 countries.

They called for an additional $1 billion for National Defence in each of the next two fiscal years to stabilize the situation, on top of the $3 billion already added.


More for the military
Highlights of support for the military announced by Finance Minister Paul Martin in his 2001 budget:

$300 million for capital spending over two years.

$210 million over two years for Operation Apollo, the campaign against terrorism.

$119 million over five years to double the capacity of Joint Task Force Two, elite anti-terrorist unit.

$570 million shared with other agencies and departments over five years for emergency preparedness and expanded capacity to deal with nuclear, chemical and biological threats.

No increase in authorized manpower of 60,000.

No major inroads on a capital-spending shortfall which the auditor general says will total $6.5 billion over next five years.
- CP

- 30 -

 

[fortuncookie5084]

Ouch. My hopes for some kind of boost for our team have been dashed (again). You know the Army‘s situation is dire when the NDP is supporting more money to us.

 

[enfield]

So essentially JTF2 becomes the golden boys to patch up any situations that arise while the rest of the military falls apart beneath it. Beautiful. JTF2 has just become it‘s battalion. PPCLI, RCR, and R22R, as well as the Militia, Air Force and Navy may be completley ineffective but they‘ll have this flagship token unit to wheel out on the international stage for the cameras.
Being able to say "we have 200 commandos operating with US special forces" goes a long way in the media. Too bad the rest of the CF is rotting on the vine, except to act as a manpower pool for JTF. Sickening.
Benoit is right, we do need a rapid reaction unit. We need more transport capacity - otherwise even the bloated JTF2 will be unable to reach the theatre.

A very sad day for the CF.

 

[Infanteer]

s.hitheads....
We should adopt the principle of accountability practiced in ancient Athens.
At the end of this term, Eggleton and Cretian would be exiled from Canada.

 

[bossi]

That quisling Marcel Masse must be killing himself laughing at the continuing evisceration of the Canadian Army.
Meanwhile, Maria Minna and Romeo Dallaire are re-inventing the wheel (i.e. it used to be called the Peace Corps in the U.S. eh?)

Long-term peace requires unpalatable commitments, says retired general

STEPHEN THORNE
Canadian Press

Monday, December 10, 2001

OTTAWA (CP) - Bringing lasting peace to war-ravaged regions of the world requires politically unpalatable long-term commitments that are measured in decades, not months or years, retired general Romeo Dallaire said Monday. "To help a nation today come out of its morass, this is not two years in and then we‘re out of there and let them take over," Dallaire said in an interview.

"We‘re talking 10, 20, 50 years where generations can evolve with support. None of this conflict resolution, none of these humanitarian activities are punctual things within the mandate of a government."

Persuading governments to make such commitments is a hard sell, said Dallaire, now Ottawa‘s special adviser on war-affected children.

"Because all of us are so damn Cartesian and so damn North American short-term," he said. "I suppose the Europeans have gone that way, too.

"You have to have an auditor‘s result in a year. And if you don‘t see all of a sudden a miracle happen, then we tend to downgrade it and leave."

Lasting solutions to problems like those that exist in the Middle East or Afghanistan, or even less visible areas like Sierra Leone, don‘t bring the sustained news coverage or the political payoffs that dramatic gestures do.

But in the annals of nation-building, 40 years and billions of dollars are but drops in a bucket, he said.

Dallaire, who appeared at a Monday fund-raiser for Afghan children sponsored by parliamentary spouses, knows only too well the pitfalls of failed commitment. He commanded a doomed peacekeeping mission in Rwanda in 1994.

Belgium pulled its forces out of the country early on after 12 of its peacekeepers were butchered in the capital, Kigali.

Dallaire was left with a small contingent of Canadian staff officers and a few hundred poorly armed and ill-equipped African troops who watched helplessly as hundreds of thousands of Rwandans were killed.

Dallaire was left with severe emotional problems. His mental scars eventually prompted his early retirement from the military.

The United States ran into a similar problem in Somalia in 1993, pulling out after 18 of its elite troops were killed in a bloody siege in Mogadishu.

"There is all kinds of room for a nation like Canada to take a leadership role," said Dallaire, who just returned from a week in Sierra Leone.

"We‘re still seen as a lead country in our ability to bring humanism to all these things and not necessarily humongous amounts of money or big structures."

Canada should seize on that reputation as "a leader in sensitizing and moving many other countries into the arena of the human coalition versus the military or political coalitions," he said.

The retired general has drawn up a proposal for International Co-operation Minister Maria Minna that would establish a program for Canadian youth to participate in humanitarian efforts in war-ravaged regions.

He said the program would encourage graduates to take a year and use their skills working with non-governmental organizations "just smelling the hurt out there and bring that smell back to influence others.

"I think it would add a great maturing dimension to a nation like ours."
- 30 -

 

[Spanky]

What‘s the bloody point!!!!!!!! This government....damn- I‘m pissed off!They had a golden opportunity to show some balls and they wasted it! They just confirmed that they are nothing but a bunch or arrogant, pompus idiots that have no sense of reality whatsoever! 1.2 billion over 5 years! What a sick joke and slap in the face! We won‘t even see the entire amount. A good portion of it will go to other areas. And they have the balls to make every flag fly at half mast for 14 women killed by 1 sicko, while only the flag on the Peace Tower is mandated to do so on Remembrance Day!
There I feel better now..... NOT

 

[Yard Ape]

Canadian Alliance Leader Stockwell Day quoted in the Globe and Mail:

"The Auditor-General, in terms of just getting the maintenance budget going for the Armed Forces, talked about $1.3-billion per year and [the Liberals] are talking about $300-million per year. It falls so far short,"

 

[Yard Ape]

According to the CBC ther highlights (aside from the 7.7 billion for "security and defence")include:

• 
  
  $2 billion deferral of corporate tax for small business for six months
  $185 million over two years for aboriginal health and education
  $100 million for Canadian Television Fund
  $60 million for CBC
  $75 million additional per year for Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  $200 million for university research
  No change to previously announced $100 billion in tax cuts
  No change to $23 billion in health spending announced last year
  $2 billion Strategic Infrastructure Foundation
  $500 million Africa Fund

 

[Yard Ape]

Our planes will be safer and our border more secure
But we still need manpower, national standards and an anthrax plan, expert says
Tuesday, December 11, 2001 – Page A14
Globe and Mail
By JAN WONG

Canada, we stand on guard for thee! Well, we do, more than we did before.

According to yesterday‘s budget, we‘re going to spend scads of money strengthening aviation security and our borders. We‘re pouring money into intelligence and policing and screening all those immigrants and refugee claimants.

Canada sure looks secure now. At least it does to someone who travels occasionally, reported on the World Trade Center attacks and, ahem, recently carried a box cutter onto an Air Canada flight.

But Michel Riberdy, a counterterrorist consultant, knows better. He sees many holes:

• 
  no national standards for emergency procedures (so a team in Halifax, say, could help out in Quebec City)
  no specific measure to deal with anthrax in the Canadian postal system
  
  no tax breaks for the private sector (such as chemical companies) to develop emergency measures
  
  no central agency to disseminate information in a crisis
  
  no funds for a CIA-type organization to spy on terrorists overseas
  

Mr. Riberdy considers this last omission the most serious. "We cannot ignore that some of the planning for Sept. 11 was done outside the country," he says. "One of the things completely missing is an intelligence agency gathering information outside Canada."

The $7.7-billion in security spending over the next five years amounts to less than 5 per cent of the total budget, he notes.

"Canadians don‘t put a high priority on security. And it‘s reflected all the way through to the government. It‘s the Canadian mentality."

In contrast, his own town of Buckingham, Que., (pop. 11,000), spends 17 per cent of its budget on police and firefighting. Toronto spends 14 per cent, he added.

...

 

[Yard Ape]

Okay, last one . . . but I think it best puts this budget in perspective with all the reports that have come out critisizing defence shortfalls.

Liberals‘ security budget shortchanges military: critics
Even NDP says forces receiving ‘peanuts‘: $1.2B over five years falls far short of what experts say is needed
Sheldon Alberts, with files from Chris Wattie
National Post‘s Budget Coverage
Tuesday, December 11, 2001

OTTAWA - The federal government increased spending on the overstretched military by $1.2-billion in yesterday‘s budget, ignoring calls for more than four times that amount to preserve the Canadian Forces‘ ability to field a fighting force.

Paul Martin, the Minister of Finance, said yesterday he will double the size of the Canadian army‘s elite special forces unit, Joint Task Force 2, as part of an increased five-year spending program.

But the overall figure fell short of recommendations from the defence industry, military analysts and the Liberal-dominated Commons defence committee, which said earlier this year that $1-billion a year was needed to rebuild the Canadian Forces.

Even Alexa McDonough, the NDP leader and not usually among the biggest supporters of defence spending, called it "peanuts" and retired general Clive Addy, who has been pressing for higher spending, said he was disgusted with the figure. "I find this very frustrating," he said.

Yesterday‘s budget includes an immediate $300-million in funding for the purchase of much-needed military hardware to replace ageing equipment that has threatened Canada‘s combat readiness.

Despite the emphasis on security in the budget, the Liberals have decided against a dramatic expansion in the overall size of Canada‘s military forces from its current level of 60,000 personnel.

Instead, the bulk of new military-related spending is earmarked to pay for ongoing operations in the war on terrorism and to strengthen the country‘s ability to protect itself from -- and respond to -- nuclear or biological attacks.

The expansion of the 250-member JTF-2 anti-terrorist team is the only major increase in front-line troops.

The commando unit, which has already deployed members to Afghanistan, will receive an additional $119-million over the next five years, enough money to increase the number of soldiers to 500.

Officials say the money will also enable JTF-2 -- which is specially trained to respond to domestic hostage-taking incidents -- to shift its focus to international anti-terrorist missions.

Critics charged the money is a drop in the bucket compared with what is needed to halt the decline of the Canadian military and warned continued underfunding by Ottawa will further erode its effectiveness.

Bob Morton, a retired Air Force lieutenant-general, said the Forces are running out of ways to make ends meet.

"The military has had to juggle equipment modernization and renewal programs, operations and maintenance budgets, and personnel numbers in order to sustain the defence capacity that still exists," he said.

"However, the trade-offs that have worked thus far are exhausted. The Canadian Forces function now by high levels of dedication and professionalism throughout the force. The nation must begin its rescue plan."

Earlier this year the Commons defence committee called on the government to increase the military‘s capital spending for new equipment to 23% of the budget from the current 19%, and asked for a guarantee that troop levels will not be reduced in order to make ends meet financially.

A report last month, called To Secure a Nation: Canadian Defence and Security in the 21st Century, by the University of Calgary‘s Centre for Military and Strategic Studies called on the government to carry out a "badly needed review" of its defence policies.

It urged Ottawa to immediately increase military spending, saying a dwindling defence budget, which fell by 23% between 1993 and 1998, has translated into exhausted troops, shoddy equipment and institutions with little appeal for new recruits.

"What we see here today is a clear message from this government that they are going to phase out our military as a combat capable force," said Leon Benoit, the Canadian Alliance defence critic. "We are going to lose further stature as a country with our trading partners, with NATO, with the United States."

Much of the increase in the military‘s budget will cover the unexpected costs of Canada‘s participation in the international war on terrorism.

The cost of Operation Apollo is expected to hit $210-million, the budget says. Another 1,000 infantry troops have been promised to an international security force in Afghanistan.

Just last week, Canada‘s auditor-general warned the Forces could not guarantee their combat readiness because of ageing equipment and severe shortages of spare parts and qualified maintenance personnel.

Defence officials said yesterday the $300-million set aside in yesterday‘s budget for capital purchases will be spent on replacing existing equipment.

"It isn‘t what was needed. It isn‘t what was promised. It isn‘t what it seems," said Joe Clark, the Tory leader. "Only half a billion is going to be directed to the Armed Forces as such. The rest goes into new kinds of research and other things which are commendable in themselves, but they are not normally considered to be contributions to national defence."

Beyond the funding pegged to equipment purchases and JTF-2‘s expansion, the budget document is bereft of specific measures. The government has set aside $513-million to spent on improving Canada‘s ability to respond to chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear threats, but has given only a rough outline of where the money will be spent.

...

 

[Donjk]

It is encouraging however to see the unanimity of the media‘s political commentators in condemning the paltry increase in DND funding.

 

[King]

The more things change the more they stay the same...

This was a vanity budget for Paul Martin. He‘s got a reputation among the international finance community as a responsable manager of our money and he doesn‘t want to blow it. More importantly he wants to be the next Prime Minister and being able to say he kept us out of a deficit even in a recession won‘t hurt his chances. Chretien had a hand in drafting this budget and according to a few news reports I have read, he made sure it was "balanced" in the sense that there was something in it for all the potential leadership candidates. Everything this government does for the next few years will revolve around the leadership race &/or Chretien‘s legacy.

As for the CF, they took it up the *** once again. I certainly didn‘t expect the military to get what it required, but I thought they‘d get more then $300 million. They‘ll spend an extra $1 billion on "international assistance." It seems we‘re more concerned with foreign dictators building up their militaries then our own.

I think Enfield hit the nail on the head with the JTF2. As long as the gov‘t thinks we have enough troops for any forseeable peacekeeping operations and a couple of token fighters and ships. It doesn‘t matter if we accomplish anything, just as long as we deploy.

From listening to people comment on the budget things are getting back to normal. Go over to the CBC site and read some of the e-mail sent. All the special intertest groups still are getting in their shots. They still want money for their causes, everything from seniors to health to tax cuts to Canadian culture to the environment. People haven‘t really woken up to the threats that exist. I think the Liberals aren‘t ready to handle the problems within the CF. The budget was meant to get the country off Chretien‘s back with regards to security so we can all resume debating the host of pitiful crap we were so concerned with before Sept. 11.

[ 11 December 2001: Message edited by: King ]

 

[Pikache]

*sigh*

You‘d think that after renewed interested n CF and security of Canada by many of the civilian population, the government would at least make more money available to CF, even if it is to cover their own political interests.

What is the point with increased recruiting and reforms if there aren‘t the money to keep them.

 

[bossi]

Harking back to the pittance given to the military in the budget, I‘d like to offer some perspective: You‘ll recall the much-ballyhoo‘d announcement that Canada‘s armed forces would receive 1.2 billion dollars ... but then there was the fine print (over five years) ...

Okay: 1.2 billion, divided by five, equals only 240 million per year (yes - I‘m glossing over the finer details of how this money was micro-managed ... including the fact that not all of it will be given to the military!)

Oh, yes - perspective - the US Air Force lost a B1 bomber on Wednesday - estimated cost? 280 million US dollars (roughly 420 million on Canadian Tire money).

Another perspective concerns the collective disarmament of the Canadian citizenry. The politically correct whankers are wasting their time and our tax dollars spending approx 800 million to disarm ordinary Canadians (instead of sending terrorists to the crowbar hotel) - it really pisses me off that the Liberals are ensuring we ordinary Canadians will only be able to defend ourselves with nail clippers and Swiss Army knives in the future (unless they start confiscating them too ... oops ... they already have, haven‘t they?)

So, please - don‘t be bamboozled by the spin doctors - the Liberals hooped our military again (look up "quisling" in the dictionary).

On another note - I am, however, glad they gave some money to the RCMP and CSIS (especially in light of the "revelations" that we‘ve got terrorists living in our midst ... and the government has known about it for some time now).

I was always uncomfortable with the "conventional wisdom" of letting terrorists live in Canada, ostensibly so they could be better monitored ... duh! When one‘s house is infested with cockroaches or vermin, we don‘t let them set up shop "so we can watch them" - we call the exterminator. Before we start suffering from any more murderous terrorist attacks, we should clean house - I won‘t shed any tears if a few terrorists are killed resisting arrest, either.

But, that‘s just my personal opinion (which, in Canada, we‘re still entitled to have ... but I wonder for how much longer ...)

M. Bossi, Esquire
Toronto, Ontario (you‘ve got the rest of my address on file - come and get me if you dare, but I‘ve got nail clippers stashed all over the house - I won‘t give up without a good grooming ...)

 

[rceme_rat]

That message is not so tongue-in-cheek!!

I love how they are making a big deal of the money thet are spending when it is far less than the amount they hacked over the past five years. Not to mention the money wasted in doing the hacking, keeping obsolete equipment running, etc.

My gut feel is that when the damage is finally repaired by some future government, the cost of the repairs to our military -- recruiting and training new people, buying new kit at even higher prices, the sum spent on higher repair costs, the losses taken in paying people to leave, and it just goes on ... -- will far outwiegh any savings that might have been claimed.

I don‘t think many of us think that we need a Cadillac when a Chevy will do. But a broken-down Yugo (is that redundant?) is deplorable.

I think it is far past time when the government should have clearly defined what they want the military to do - and then accept that certain costs come with that - including not only money, but limits on roles, responsibilities and tasks. Tell us what you want done, and how well you want it done, and then pay for it.

One of the things they might want to consider is how we can justify such a low percentage of population and GDP being committed to the armed forces.

E.g. -- (1) Why is the reserve disprportionately smaller than the reg force when many countries have the opposite situation.

(2)Why are we operating 30 year old tanks - do they do the job we need them to, or they expensive toys ewe no longer need, or do we need to spend some big bucks to give us what we really need?!

Frustrating as hell, isn‘t it?
All of which begs the question -- is it a good time to get back in, or is the new attention the military is getting really just another illusion which will pass when the press gets bored?

 

[King]

No, it‘s just until the U.S. is finished bombing Muslims. Then it‘ll be back to normal. People still want their little pet projects to be funded. The Shelia Culture Copps got a billion I think, Tobin got $100 million to bring broadband internet to rural areas, $2 billion on an infrastructure projetc which will have a board of directors appointed by and reporting to Chretien. I wonder where all the roads will be built...

The Liberals know that 3 or 4 years from now when the next election roles around it‘ll be about the economy or health care, but certainly not security. That‘s one reason why the "security" budget was so pitiful. They don‘t want to spend too much of the CF because when something else takes priority they would have to go and cut the military again, which would look bad, and because the Liberals have a reputation for staying out of a deficit. The fact that they do both allows them a snappy reply whenever the Alliance bugs them about fiscal responsability or our the **** state of our military. For a while they‘ll be able to say that they have not added to the debt and have increased the DND budget for X years running. Even though the $1.2 B is less then the gov‘t‘s projected rate of inflation for the next 5 years.

 

[IamCDN]

I do know for sure that I will not be voting Liberal next time around. But than that leaves me with the problem of who to vote for.

 

[towhey]

Originally posted by IamCDN:
[qb]I do know for sure that I will not be voting Liberal next time around. But than that leaves me with the problem of who to vote for.[/qb]

Interestingly, one of the reasons the CF has very little political clout is because there is no "military vote".

Regular Force members, who are often posted around the country and overseas many times between federal elections, normally maintain the right to vote in a "designated riding" -- normally the riding in which they lived when they joined up. There is an annual window during which you can change your designated riding, but most members don‘t.

As a result, even though there are thousands of servicemembers and families in, say, Ottawa -- very few of them actually vote for the local MP. Instead, they vote for MPs in Kamloops, Chicoutami, Oromocto, Cape Breton, etc.

So what? So, the Ottawa MP doesn‘t really give a damn about what military personnel or their families think about government policies. Nor do the MPs who represent Edmonton, Valcartier, Borden, Kingston, Gagetown, Esquimalt, etc. etc. etc.

If all military members changed their designated residence to the base on which they lived before the next federal election, we might see some political candidates take note. 10,000 to 20,000 votes, including spouses, in one riding like Ottawa makes a BIG difference. Suddenly, the MP for Ottawa, Edmonton, and other base towns might sit up and listen to what soldiers, sailors, air crew and their families had to say.

But, of course, to suggest doing this might be considered mutiny.

However, until it happens the CF is a non-existent force on the political map.

 

[portcullisguy]

Originally posted by bossi:
[qb]Okay: 1.2 billion, divided by five, equals only 2.4 million per year[/qb]

Actually, it‘s $240 million per year.

[qb]Another perspective concerns the collective disarmament of the Canadian citizenry. The politically correct whankers are wasting their time and our tax dollars spending approx 800 million to disarm ordinary Canadians (instead of sending terrorists to the crowbar hotel) - it really pisses me off that the Liberals are ensuring we ordinary Canadians will only be able to defend ourselves with nail clippers and Swiss Army knives in the future (unless they start confiscating them too ... oops ... they already have, haven‘t they?)[/qb]

And Canadians had their chance to voice their disapproval of this federally mismanaged boondoggle called the Canadian Firearms Centre, during the last elections. It seems Canadians as a whole are quite willing to trade their freedom for security.

[qb]On another note - I am, however, glad they gave some money to the RCMP and CSIS (especially in light of the "revelations" that we‘ve got terrorists living in our midst ... and the government has known about it for some time now).[/qb]

I‘m not. As a customs officer, I am concerned about issues of border security. The RCMP get more money, but that doesn‘t mean any improvement in their use of it to combat border crimes. What‘s that? Oh, the money isn‘t for them to boost border security? I would hazard a guess that if more money were spent on border security, through existing agencies and programs (customs, immigration, coast guard), LESS money would need to be spent on RCMP and CSIS investigations after-the-fact (after terrorists already make it here). Until customs officers are armed at our border crossings, we have only an illusion of border security.

 

[centurion]

Can probably agree with the previous, but that whine is old and made from sour grapes!
It looks like Customs are getting sidearms for prtection on the Windsor / Detroit border, finally, for your job. Come to where the action is!
Illegitimus non carborundum.