Get rid of the military.
Not needed.
We here in BC were very grateful to have the military help out during our summer of hell and I am quite sure that the people back East whose houses are flooded are also thankful for the aid provided by the army.
Get rid of the military.
Not needed.
If an when the "Big One" hits Vancouver, the only way to fly the massive cargos of releif supplies into Vancouver that will be needed will be through Comox,then floated to Van, somehow (Navy, BC Ferries, if they're not decimated by Tsunami). Vancouver airport will be under water, if it hasn't completely sunk under liquified river delta sediment. Langley? Sorry. You'll need a continuous airlift running for weeks out of Trenton just to keep from starving.We here in BC were very grateful to have the military help out during our summer of hell and I am quite sure that the people back East whose houses are flooded are also thankful for the aid provided by the army.
That is a stupid comment even for a retarded 14 year old troll.Get rid of the military.
Not needed.
We here in BC were very grateful to have the military help out during our summer of hell and I am quite sure that the people back East whose houses are flooded are also thankful for the aid provided by the army.
OH Mowich................................
you are MISSING THE POINT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LIE-berals and their lackeys such as HOID are seeking to turn the Cdn military into SOCIAL WORKERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
They want the military to BE DISARMED COMPLETELY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LIE-berals SEE NO REASON for us to have any trained soldiers.................................
because LIE-berals have ALREADY SURRENDERED to Red China and to Radical Islam!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Our idiot Boy Justin is so confident...................................
OR DELUDED ...........................................
that he THINKS he can talk himself into a position of authority if ever either Russia or Iran or North Korea should take over the world!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The ONLY PEOPLE Our idiot Boy and his loser LIE-berals want to actually FIGHT WITH...................................
are Yankees and Brits!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
There's a time-honoured tradition in Ottawa: when things go wrong — horribly wrong — somebody gets thrown under the bus.
The collapse of the criminal case against Vice-Admiral Mark Norman saw that custom accelerated at breakneck speed this week as the Liberal government sought to put as much distance as possible between itself and the failed prosecution.
The most prominent person among those tossed beneath the wheels is the country's top military commander, Gen. Jonathan Vance, who — according to both Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan — was the one who decided to suspend Norman in the first place.
"The chief of defence staff has full responsibility for the administration and command of the Canadian Armed Forces," Trudeau told the Commons during question period this week.
Sajjan, who served under Vance in Afghanistan, also tried to steer blame toward the chief of the defence staff during marathon questioning Wednesday night related to his department's budget.
"When the decision [to suspend Norman] was made, I supported it," the minister said, citing the chief's authority under the National Defence Act. "I have faith in the chief of defence staff to carry out his duties."
Those remarks made it sound as though the minister was an innocent bystander who had no authority to question or challenge Vance's decision.
That's pretty ironic, since senior government officials have for months framed the prosecution of Norman, on allegations of leaking cabinet information, as an effort to reinforce civilian control over the military.
The commander of the navy, they argued, should never be allowed to usurp the will of the elected government of the day by agitating for a leased supply ship.
The notion that military men should be "limited to request[ing] and advising on needs" is seeded throughout the Crown's factum in the Norman case, filed last December.
On Friday, Vance insisted that the decision to suspend Norman was his alone and was made without political direction or interference.
And beyond informing Sajjan and Trudeau of the RCMP investigation, the defence chief said, "I have never, ever spoken to anybody political about this, beyond that, ever. Period."
There are some in Ottawa who will interpret that statement as Vance taking a bullet for the Liberal government — but the law does invest him with the authority to act.
Whether he should have acted so swiftly — whether he should have demanded to see more information from the RCMP in advance — is a question observers have been asking from the outset. But the calls have become louder since the Crown conceded it did not have all of the evidence when it decided to lay a charge of breach-of-trust against Norman.
"The main point to take away from all of this," said retired lieutenant-colonel Rory Fowler, a former military lawyer now in private practice, "is that the CDS was not obliged to do what he did and, quite frankly, the decision had nothing to do with the Code of Service discipline. His decision was administrative in nature."
Others being tossed under the bus this week include harried (and occasionally befuddled) civil servants whose slow, deliberate combing of federal government documents subpoenaed by the defence turned the court process into an extraordinary exercise in frustration.
Buckets of black ink were poured over the various records through redaction, apparently in the interest of preserving cabinet secrecy or solicitor-client privilege.
"The decision to redact information was made by public servants in this case and overseen by the court," said Justice Minister David Lametti. "We met all our obligations."
What the Liberals failed to explain was why Conservative-era cabinet documents — which could have helped to exonerate Norman early on — were not in the hands of either the RCMP or the Crown.
The Conservatives are using that fact, among others, as the foundation for their call for a public inquiry.
Not even the Ontario government escaped the bus this week. In what was one of the more creative deflections, justice officials and (eventually) Liberal MPs argued that it wasn't the federal government that actually prosecuted Norman.
Rather, the director of public prosecutions was acting in the name of the Attorney General of Ontario because the case was grinding through provincial court system.
Given all their verbal and mental gymnastics this week, Liberal MPs have shown little curiosity about how they got into this mess in the first place — and a fierce desire to get far away from it.
Liberal MP Mark Gerretsen insisted asking those questions would not be within the purview of parliamentarians and would amount to "re-litigating" decisions made by the Crown and the RCMP.
Maybe in quieter moments they'll reflect on why the former Conservative government felt compelled to hotwire the military procurement system in an exceptional deal with the Davie Shipyard, in Lévis, Que., to lease a supply ship for the navy.
And why former ministers failed to speak to the RCMP after Norman was charged.
"The deal has literally no comparison," said Dave Perry, a defence analyst at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute. "Procurement regulations were changed to make it go ahead the way it did. A letter of intent signed immediately prior to the election period. Everything about this was atypical."
And perhaps, one day, the Liberals might ask why one of the country's most senior and decorated naval commanders staked his career on that project.
Scott Bryson drove the whole debacle, by the sounds of it. It's hard to discern why Trudeau would want to kill a contract for a single ship modification at a Quebec yard, except, perhaps so that it would leave that hated navy incapable of operating offshore.The best thing about this story is how Trudeau went out of his way to stop a ship building contract in Quebec.
It dovetails nicely with the entire white natty narrative.
Hoid is white natty word for , waste of skin .retard is magic white natty word
like tidewater
No, we face the threat of racist, sexist, genocidal, nazi, communist, hypocritical, globalists like you.the theory that a military makes us strong is simply wrong.
we live in the shadow of the greatest military power on Earth. They are the only threat we face and there is nothing we could ever do to stop them should they decide we needed to be destroyed.
probably long past time we acted on the actuality of our situation
LOL no..that skin keeps that stuff from leakin' out all over the surroundings like toxic slime.Hoid is white natty word for , waste of skin .
That comma is wrongHoid is white natty word for , waste of skin .
Well, you are a admitted Liberal and your not-so-secret agenda is to drop all of our country's defences. I put it to you that disarming this country, giving away the last of our sovereignty in an increasingly dangerous world has been a Liberal Party hidden agenda for the last six decades. You've almost suceeded, too.the theory that a military makes us strong is simply wrong.
we live in the shadow of the greatest military power on Earth. They are the only threat we face and there is nothing we could ever do to stop them should they decide we needed to be destroyed.
probably long past time we acted on the actuality of our situation
Damn, I had you pegged for a root vegetable.I am in fact a Green
Derrrrp. The Fed owns less than 4% of Canada's forested areas. Forests and their maintenance are in the provincial domain. Got a problem with BC forest fires? Bitch to YOUR provincial govt. Maybe your govt should be using the carbon tax to help fund forest fire fighting services in BC instead of paying off a f*cking bridge with it.High River being evacuated as we speak due to wild fire.
If we had one billion dollars we could provide Canada with a national fire fighting service that could deal effectively with these ever increasing emergencies.
But we will never have a billion dollars for fire fighting because we are spending tens of billions on weapons we will and should never use.