The Imperial Canadian Apolyton Party thread

[Zylka]

Well those votes came in well after the polls were closed. There is no tie, Asher is ahead of Dan

Today's a slow one in the house

I need some shuteye

[Asher]

Bill #4, September 18, 2002

Motion to legalize Marijuana.

[Tingkai]

Would that also include hash?

[Asher]

Yes, why not?

[Tingkai]

Okay, then I'll vote yes.

[Skanky Burns]

I'll vote no, just because.

[Jon Miller]

aye*

Jon Miller
*I assume it would be regulated though

[KrazyHorse]

Duh? This is Canada, after all...

PS, Jon: go reply to my physics thread...

[Tingkai]

Time for something a bit more controversial and radical.

Private Member's Bill (Bill 5)

The Canadian government should scrap the Canadian Armed Forces fighter squadrons and related aircraft and put the money saved into upgrading other aspects of the Forces.

Background

1) Traditionally, a military exists to defend a country. However, in Canada's case, the only country capable of launching an invasion is the United States. This is unlikely to happen. If it did, Canada's 122 CF-18 fighter jets (soon to be reduced to 80) would be wiped out quickly. Even if Canadian pilots achieved a high kill-loss ratio, the numerical superiority of the US fighter force would win out at the end of the day (and the air battle might well last only a day.

No other nation has the ability to invade Canada. If any country developed the ability to invade, the Americans would immediately come to our aid out of self-interest. Canada acts as a buffer zone on the US northern border and it would not be in the interest of the US to change that.

2) Canada has relatively small resources for its military. Even if the military budget was doubled, it would still be a fraction of other nations.

3) There was a reason for Canada to have fighter jets during the Cold War. It was part of our contribution to Nato. That reason no longer exists.

4) Maintaining Canadian fighter jets is a poor division of labour with respect to contributing to world security. Maintaining fighter jets is expensive, particularly when there are only a small number of operational squadrons. Canada is trying to do too many things with too little resources. It would be better to let the US take on air combat duties while Canada specializes in other areas.

Canada could get more bangs for its bucks by focusing on areas that are used on a daily basis.

5) Canadian fighter jets have seen combat duty once in the past 40 years. Canadian naval and ground forces are involved in peacekeeping duties on a daily basis.

6) Canada is spending $900 million to upgrade 80 CF-18s.

Therefore:
Canada has no pressing need to maintain fighter squadrons so the government should mothball the jets.

[notyoueither]

PMB 5.

Huh?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
well, if I can vote I would vote Aye on Bill 3

Jon Miller

Of course you can! Your poo no longer stinks. Just remember that everybody else's does though, unless they agree with you on a day when the tides in Fundy came in.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Frogger
You are accepted by acclamation, Guynemer.

Acclaimed.

I was going to do a PM bill on this, but since it doesn't seem necessary...

[Dinner]

Every country which is a member of NATO agrees in the NATO charter to have atleast as many forces as would be reasonablely necissary to defend its national borders. Thus Canada, as a member of NATO, would be treaty bound to maintain an Air Force capable of repelling all forcable threats. Admiteablely, those threats are nearly nonexistent but still Canada would have to maintain at least some Air Force.

Also those CF-18s you want to cut are built in Canada so I'm sure there will be several MPs who don't want to lose high paying manufacturing jobs in their districts. For some odd reason voters dislike politicians who allow their jobs to go up in smoke. Therefor the politicans will be unlikely to cut the CRAF.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Also those CF-18s you want to cut are built in Canada so I'm sure there will be several MPs who don't want to lose high paying manufacturing jobs in their districts. For some odd reason voters dislike politicians who allow their jobs to go up in smoke. Therefor the politicans will be unlikely to cut the CRAF.

Confirmation that those south of the border are all smoking crack and that we should begin to dig the 'big ditch' to seperate ourselves from them.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Every country which is a member of NATO agrees in the NATO charter to have atleast as many forces as would be reasonablely necissary to defend its national borders.

That's not a big problem because the money saved from the CF-18 budget would go into increase Canada's ability to defend itself in other areas. For example, more money could be spend on mobile SAMs which would arguably still provide a defence against enemy fighters.

Originally posted by Oerdin
Also those CF-18s you want to cut are built in Canada so I'm sure there will be several MPs who don't want to lose high paying manufacturing jobs in their districts.

More jobs could be created building other equipment for the CF. Those jobs could be placed in areas that lose jobs from mothballing the CF-18s.