Money for mil­i­tary could be bet­ter spent

Times Colonist - - Comment -

Re: “Fund­ing woes sap mil­i­tary: Sa­j­jan,” May 4. “Ques­tions swirl,” in­deed. Should we agree to our bel­liger­ent south­ern neigh­bour’s de­mand that we spend two per cent of gross do­mes­tic prod­uct on Canada’s mil­i­tary? To counter what threat?

The money would be bet­ter spent ad­dress­ing the fen­tanyl deaths on our streets, or fix­ing the metas­ta­siz­ing hous­ing cri­sis or pro­vid­ing potable wa­ter to our First Na­tions.

Here’s a money-sav­ing sug­ges­tion for the de­fence min­is­ter. Maybe we shouldn’t mount more dis­as­trous at­tacks such as those on Libya or Afghanista­n. Nei­ther should we men­ace Rus­sia (a coun­try of 144 million with a GDP that, at $1.4 tril­lion, is less than Italy’s), on the pre­pos­ter­ous pre­text that it might in­vade NATO na­tions (pop­u­la­tion 604 million, GDP $18.3 tril­lion).

It’s U.S. in­va­sion the world should fear — at least 33 since 1945. And count­ing, ap­par­ently. Lend no sup­port to their ap­par­ent bid for world dom­i­na­tion. Cana­di­ans, in­clud­ing those in uni­form, have higher as­pi­ra­tions.

Vic­to­ri­ans can learn more at the up­com­ing B.C. Pro­vin­cial Peace and Dis­ar­ma­ment Sum­mit May 12-13 at the Univer­sity of Vic­to­ria. Martin Gavin Mem­ber, Van­cou­ver Is­land Peace and Dis­ar­ma­ment Net­work Vic­to­ria

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada

© PressReader. All rights reserved.