Federal Budget 2003 (canada)

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

bonoman

Refugee
Joined
Jun 6, 2000
Messages
1,398
Location
Edmonton, Canada- Charlestown, Ireland
Well John Manely today layed it out today so here are some of the main facts:

The single largest chunk of new spending is on health, about $1.37 billion in the next fiscal year on top of billions Chr?tien announced after a meeting with premiers earlier this month. Other highlights are:

Immediate increase of $270 million to cover urgent Defence Department needs, such as Operation Apollo in Afghanistan;

$800 million rise in the military's budget starting in 2003;

$500 million increase in National Child Benefit over two years;

$606 million on affordable housing and help for homeless over two years;

Reduction in workers' EI payments by 12 cents to $1.98 per $100 of insurable earnings by 2004;

Faster increase in RRSP contribution limits, reaching $18,000 in 2006;

Drop in security charge on airline tickets to $14 from $24 for round-trips.

Overall program spending up 11.5 per cent in 2002-03, and by an average of four per cent over the next two fiscal years.
Some of the money Manley is spending comes from the adoption of "full accrual accounting," a system of financial records that spreads the full cost of some spending over several years.


So what do you think?

Personally i would have liked to see more defense spending and more healthcare spending but what ever what they did is better then years prevous. I hope we get a man into office who isnt affraid to spend because in my opinion thats what this country needs.
 
Well he has retired...

Here's a good question, what will come first: U2's next album, or Chr?tien's final day in office?

It is a little disheartening to see the disparity in budget spending, where more money is devoted to the military, than to children and the underprivileged. I thought we were a little more socialist than that.
 
why does Canada need a big military? who's gonna invade Canada with the US sitting next door?

you should spend more money on the Senators, or it will end up being another Quebec scenario
 
"are you actually trying to say we should cut military...have you seen our military. It embarrasing to have a country with such a dissmile military."- bonoman

First of all there is a distinction between defense and military build-up. Devoting funds to programs that address threats in foreign countries is well used money. However, distributing capital to a proactive military with no direction is careless. I agree that the Canadian armed forces is not in the greatest shape, but I do not think that budget money should be allocated in such a high sum, when Canada's stance on War is ambiguous. Once our position on the world stage is known, then maybe we should invest our time and budget on the appropriate action. Some money should be afforded to the military and defense programs, but the point I was trying to make earlier was comparing the currency divisions across the board. There is nothing wrong with defense spending as long as it is responsible, but obligations on the home-front should be an equivalent priority.

If my comments seem to be lacking, please enlighten me further bonoman (I am not meaning to be facetious; sometimes my words are taken out of context). All in the spirit of political debate.
 
Well the state that our military is in now is horrible. We cant afford new uniforms, we can par take in one mission a year, we have no new helicopters or tanks. I have many miltary friends, living in Edmonton, and most if not all say that the military is in deperate need for funding only to bring it up to the standards of the last few years. I had three guys once compare the military to a going out of business company, they are only scraping by on old (and when i say old i mean OLD) equipment. They just sold the land here in Edmonton so they could reap the benefits of the monies the housing would bring, they are now moving further out of town.

Canada should either spend accordingly to what other NATO countries spend or they should retract themselves from every org. that requires them to have a military, because as far as i am concerned in 10-15 yrs time there wont be a military.
 
No doubt I am sympathetic to the dilapidated state of our army. I am usually a stubborn cuss when it comes to military funding, but after seeing local barracks close and archaic equipment being issued, there is not much to argue about. Like you said the government should put up or shut up in regards to updating the primitive platform of Canada's army. The mandate laid down yesterday lacked focus, and I think that you'll agree that no one left happy. But, if the budget narrowed its site on one particular issue, there would be even more complaints from lobbyist groups.

Bonoman, I'll agree that funding military expansion is required, but the surplus should have also addressed the poor conditions in agriculture (yes, I'm from Alberta too), health care, and environmental concerns (Kyoto). I am not as well versed in these subjects as I'd like to be, but I cannot entirely enforce military exploits. How can I support an institution that has no idea what it is doing. The money is better spent on strategy and diplomacy, on how Canada fits in the world of NATO and in the role of America's ally. Then, our troops can be satisfied.
 
I dont totally agree with you on the focus. They have pledged 800 million a year for a continuous amount of years. I do agree thought that they should put a plan of action out and show it to the military and the people. There were some great articles in today Edmonton Sun about how needed the money for the military is needed. If you can get your hands on them you'd see.
 
Back
Top Bottom