Site Search:
 
Speak Korean Now!
Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Harper Set to Announce $15 Billion in Military Spending
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
igotthisguitar



Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)

PostPosted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 8:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

$450M to Clean Up Contaminated Military Sites

Updated Fri. Jun. 23 2006 11:25 PM ET
Canadian Press

OTTAWA -- The tab for cleaning up military sites tainted by everything from asbestos to toxic chemicals and dud bombs and shells will come to at least $450 million over the next decade.

And although not all this money will come from the Defence budget, the estimate also doesn't count a number of problems still being studied. The contaminated sites are scattered across the country, from Goose Bay in Newfoundland and Labrador, to Valcartier, Que., and the British Columbia interior. As well, there are a number of offshore sites where Second World War ammunition stocks and even chemical weapons were dumped at sea long before the era of environmental awareness.

Many of the problems stem from decades of neglect, or date back to a time when little thought was given to long-term environmental consequences.



Briefing notes for Gordon O'Connor, the new defence minister, obtained through the Access to Information Act, say the military has already recorded environmental liabilities totalling $447 million.

They say environmental problems are a growing concern.

"The convergence of issues related to environmental contamination, past practices in the usage, handling and storage of hazardous materials and their impact on human health is a growing pressure for the department and for the government as a whole," the papers say.

The documents also say that Defence - with its thousands of buildings, vehicles, planes and other equipment - is the federal government's largest single producer of greenhouse gases. This adds another troubling challenge because while the government has pledged to cut greenhouse gases, the military is expanding and adding new people and equipment.

Cleanup problems include an estimated $100 million project at Goose Bay, where old-fashioned methods of handling fuel and wastes have caught up with the air force.

It will take at least 12 years to finish that job.

There are problems at Valcartier, north of Quebec City, where a cleaning and degreasing solvent used for years has been leaching into water both on and off the bases. Some private wells in the adjacent municipality of Shannon were found to be contaminated with the solvent and the military paid to connect the affected homes to the base water supply and to locate a new water source for the community.

Studies are still going on over the use of herbicides at CFB Gagetown in New Brunswick, including the notorious American defoliant
Agent Orange, which was tested there in 1966 and 1967.

"The fact-finding approach to the herbicide spray program at CFB Gagetown is anticipated to be complete by the spring of 2007," say the documents.

A longer-term study is looking at herbicide use at other bases across the country.

There are continuing problems associated with the long-abandoned Mid-Canada Line, a string of 1950s-era radar stations that stretched from Dawson Creek, B.C., to nothern Labrador.

The sites were abandoned in the 1960s. Some of the decaying buildings are insulated with asbestos and coated with paint laced with lead and PCBs. Half-empty fuel barrels and rusting vehicles litter some of the stations.

For years, Defence argued that it had handled the sites according to the standards of the mid-1960s and that was enough. Now it is negotiating with provinces and native groups over meeting more stringent standards.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060623/military_cleanup_060623/20060623?hub=Canada&s_name=

Projects are working on both coasts to evaluate sites where munitions were dumped. Some areas have already been marked on marine charts as danger areas.

Some of these sites may have to be cleaned up if they pose serious risks to human health and the environment. The notes have no estimate for the cost of these efforts.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
Wrench



Joined: 07 Apr 2005

PostPosted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

LOL

Adding new people???? From where? their arse?

Canada's military has grown by a whopping 700 soldiers since 2002.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mindmetoo



Joined: 02 Feb 2004

PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 4:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ddeubel wrote:
Quote:
I know nothing about specific issues, but in general I think the military spending is absolutely necessary if Canada is to remain on the world stage.


That's the problem with military spending, those spending the money know nothing about specifics..........

I prefer Canada remain off the world stage and peel our potatoes in peace and drink our beer with joy (to paraphrase someone...)..

DD


Hrm. And what if Frodo thought that as well? Just stay in the shire and don't let the big world worry him. Why, Sauron would have then taken over all middle earth!

I dunno. If we let something like Sudan slide into chaos, forces hostile to western ways and values set up shop, and then we have another 9-11. I'd rather see Canada take an active part in solving and preventing these kinds of problems.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Octavius Hite



Joined: 28 Jan 2004
Location: Househunting, looking for a new bunker from which to convert the world to homosexuality.

PostPosted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 4:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

For Harper, the price is right

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1151361017232&call_pageid=970599119419

Quote:
One of life's vexing dilemmas is deciding the right price for something that's wanted more than it's needed. For Stephen Harper the answer is, give or take a few millions, $3 billion.

That's about what Ottawa will spend on giant strategic lift aircraft that Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor is buying and both Boeing and the Bush administration worked so hard to sell. Once the C-17 Globemasters arrive, Canada will be delivering troops, equipment and relief supplies to domestic and international emergencies in planes that, truth be told, can be rented as effectively � and more cheaply.

Is $3 billion too much to pay for waving the Maple Leaf flag? Are cargo planes a pressing priority for a country with so many other costly problems on its plate?

Those are self-evidently dumb questions with deceptively difficult answers. What makes them so difficult is that the federal government has reasons to want heavy-lift capacity even if it's relying on myth and misunderstanding to convince taxpayers the military is desperate for the Boeings.

The myth is that the planes are essential to airlift the military where it's needed, when it's needed. Former defence minister John McCallum challenged that notion three years ago and now says the high command couldn't site a single example where the forces were immobilized because they couldn't arrange timely rentals.

The misunderstanding is that proud countries with robust armies own their aircraft. In fact, every significant military, including the U.S. with its huge hauling capacity, at least occasionally leases.

McCallum, a former Royal Bank chief economist, weighed those realities against the military gimme-this-and-that list, crunched the numbers, and reached two conclusions. One was that buying the Globemasters wasn't in the public interest; the other was that adequate substitutes could be rented for less than the cost of servicing the purchase debt.

So why is a new prime minister backing what amounts to a sole-source contract for planes that are too big for any existing hangar and may often sit idle? Well, it makes a lot of people who matter to Harper happy while myth, misunderstanding and the Liberal record make an unusually large and suspect procurement child's play to explain.

Among those Harper is pleasing are O'Connor, the arms industry that until recently paid his lobbying fees, Chief of Defence Staff Rick Hillier, George W. Bush and, of course, Boeing. In buying everything from the Globemasters to helicopters, ships and trucks, Harper ends a nasty dispute between O'Connor and Hillier and sends another strong signal south that, more than a friend, Canada is an ally.

That's important to an increasingly isolated Bush administration. And it's a help to both the Pentagon and Boeing as they try to extend the slowing Globemaster production run as far as possible.

Lump those considerations together and suddenly adding heavy strategic lift to this country's military capabilities isn't quite so puzzling. A defence minister and his top general must make peace to wage war and perhaps $3 billion isn't excessive if it helps Canada continue reaping the much larger benefits of living under the U.S. security umbrella.

Some won't find either the benefit-to-cost ratio compelling or much comfort in such large contracts awarded without the protection of competitive bids. Both are reasonable responses requiring asterisks.

It's easy to argue that those billions could be better spent on, say, health, education, the environment or finally doing something about squalid aboriginal life.

But by squeezing the military for so long, Liberals made it easy for Conservatives to justify the largest military procurement since Canada built new frigates.

That same argument applies to contracts made only more suspect by the minister's defence industry background. Once again, Conservatives can blame Liberal foot-dragging for making it essential to buy fast what's available now.

A few facts run through the controversy. Canada has been under sustained U.S. pressure to foot more of the continental defence bill and the $15 billion now on the table � some say the final tab will rise to $20 billion �satisfies some of that demand while striking a compromise between O'Connor's largely symbolic and Hillier's firmly operational military visions.

Compromise is part of politics and in bridging the difference between wants and needs the Prime Minister is putting wide smiles on many faces. And that's worth every cent of every billion, isn't it?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Travers's national affairs column appears Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. [email protected].
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ddeubel



Joined: 20 Jul 2005

PostPosted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 7:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
But at the same time, if we claim to be a sovereign country we need the capability of defending ourselves.


This is definitely not true. You can be sovereign and still not be capable of defending yourself. You just need to get along with other nations and not create fear and hatred and animosity.

Further, NO country could roll over Canada and occupy it, conquer it. So it is useless to talk about "defending" ourselves. This is a boggie man and the only need of all the armnaments/equipment should be for civilian and humanitarian missions and purposes.

So why don't we trash the military and make a civilian force? That helps Canada, that comes to aid and not to fight? Why? Because of tradition, it is the same old problem of social inertia and nobody with the belly to go against it.

I'm all for the solution of a Ministry of Defense with only a tape recorder playing a message that we are a peaceful nation and wish nobody any harm......

By the way ???? Where do all the decommissioned weapons go??? Come on, take a stab at this one -- all those who believe Canada only does the right thing!!! Please answer.

DD
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Wrench



Joined: 07 Apr 2005

PostPosted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 3:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Octavius Hite wrote:
For Harper, the price is right

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1151361017232&call_pageid=970599119419

Quote:
One of life's vexing dilemmas is deciding the right price for something that's wanted more than it's needed. For Stephen Harper the answer is, give or take a few millions, $3 billion.

That's about what Ottawa will spend on giant strategic lift aircraft that Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor is buying and both Boeing and the Bush administration worked so hard to sell. Once the C-17 Globemasters arrive, Canada will be delivering troops, equipment and relief supplies to domestic and international emergencies in planes that, truth be told, can be rented as effectively � and more cheaply.

Is $3 billion too much to pay for waving the Maple Leaf flag? Are cargo planes a pressing priority for a country with so many other costly problems on its plate?

Those are self-evidently dumb questions with deceptively difficult answers. What makes them so difficult is that the federal government has reasons to want heavy-lift capacity even if it's relying on myth and misunderstanding to convince taxpayers the military is desperate for the Boeings.

The myth is that the planes are essential to airlift the military where it's needed, when it's needed. Former defence minister John McCallum challenged that notion three years ago and now says the high command couldn't site a single example where the forces were immobilized because they couldn't arrange timely rentals.

The misunderstanding is that proud countries with robust armies own their aircraft. In fact, every significant military, including the U.S. with its huge hauling capacity, at least occasionally leases.

McCallum, a former Royal Bank chief economist, weighed those realities against the military gimme-this-and-that list, crunched the numbers, and reached two conclusions. One was that buying the Globemasters wasn't in the public interest; the other was that adequate substitutes could be rented for less than the cost of servicing the purchase debt.

So why is a new prime minister backing what amounts to a sole-source contract for planes that are too big for any existing hangar and may often sit idle? Well, it makes a lot of people who matter to Harper happy while myth, misunderstanding and the Liberal record make an unusually large and suspect procurement child's play to explain.

Among those Harper is pleasing are O'Connor, the arms industry that until recently paid his lobbying fees, Chief of Defence Staff Rick Hillier, George W. Bush and, of course, Boeing. In buying everything from the Globemasters to helicopters, ships and trucks, Harper ends a nasty dispute between O'Connor and Hillier and sends another strong signal south that, more than a friend, Canada is an ally.

That's important to an increasingly isolated Bush administration. And it's a help to both the Pentagon and Boeing as they try to extend the slowing Globemaster production run as far as possible.

Lump those considerations together and suddenly adding heavy strategic lift to this country's military capabilities isn't quite so puzzling. A defence minister and his top general must make peace to wage war and perhaps $3 billion isn't excessive if it helps Canada continue reaping the much larger benefits of living under the U.S. security umbrella.

Some won't find either the benefit-to-cost ratio compelling or much comfort in such large contracts awarded without the protection of competitive bids. Both are reasonable responses requiring asterisks.

It's easy to argue that those billions could be better spent on, say, health, education, the environment or finally doing something about squalid aboriginal life.

But by squeezing the military for so long, Liberals made it easy for Conservatives to justify the largest military procurement since Canada built new frigates.

That same argument applies to contracts made only more suspect by the minister's defence industry background. Once again, Conservatives can blame Liberal foot-dragging for making it essential to buy fast what's available now.

A few facts run through the controversy. Canada has been under sustained U.S. pressure to foot more of the continental defence bill and the $15 billion now on the table � some say the final tab will rise to $20 billion �satisfies some of that demand while striking a compromise between O'Connor's largely symbolic and Hillier's firmly operational military visions.

Compromise is part of politics and in bridging the difference between wants and needs the Prime Minister is putting wide smiles on many faces. And that's worth every cent of every billion, isn't it?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Travers's national affairs column appears Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. [email protected].



HAHAHAH the Star thats a qood one.. What better you are citing a person that was a liberal which is wholy to blame for the shape the canadian military is in now.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International