Why Canada Should Fund The Military

As citizens of the United States of America we must pay taxes to the government. The government takes these taxes and distributes them among different areas to fund each are; one of the highest percentages of spending goes to defense. The whopping amount of around 610 billion dollars makes the United States’ military the largest in the world, so large that its funding out-weighs the next seven highest spending countries. The problem with this is that the military does not really solve the large amount of very important domestic affairs; in fact we barely see the fruits of it. There are many reasons why we should cut down on the percentage spent on defense and focus more on other areas.

The Senate plays a key role in tandem with the House of Commons, in the operation of Canada’s government, some people think that the Senate should be abolished; however without the Senate, “The right to bear arms” could become true for Canada. The Senate should be reformed; abolishing or keeping the Senate at its current state would be unjust. The current Senate is not elected, effective, nor equal.

There is a real separation between the outstanding material resource created by the Canadian economy and the increasing monetary weakness of Canadians. we must always create conclusive move to build a certifiable economy that benefits all Canadians over the long-term.

Canada, the most affluent of countries, operates on a depletion economy which leaves destruction in its wake. Your people are driven by a terrible sense of deficiency. When the last tree is cut, the last fish is caught, and the last river is polluted; when to breathe the air is sickening, you will realize, too late, that wealth is not in bank accounts and that you can’t eat money.

implementing strong policies, like the Nordic countries have done (Raphael, 201, pg.397). Supporting parties more interested in programs to reduce poverty can be a start and by supporting and joining them can make a difference. As recommended in Chapter 12, priority should be given to families with children suffering from poverty and steps should be taken to reduce income inequality and improving living standards. Canadians should confront their representatives and ask whether anything is being done to reduce poverty and furthermore raise concerns with agencies, institutions and organizations interested in poverty (Raphael, 2011, pg.458). People should ask their professionals, employers, and unions to raise poverty issues, since they can be

Poverty is a serious issue in Canada needs to be addressed promptly. Poverty is not simply about the lack of money an individual has; it is much more than that. The World Bank Organization defines poverty by stating that, “Poverty is hunger. Poverty is lack of shelter. Poverty is being sick and not being able to see a doctor. Poverty is not having access to school and not knowing how to read. Poverty is not having a job, is fear for the future, living one day at a time”. In Canada, 14.9 percent of Canada’s population has low income as Statistics Canada reports, which is roughly about two million of Canadians in poverty or on the verge of poverty. In addition, according to an UNICEF survey, 13.3 percent of Canadian children live in

Canada’s peacekeeping, the way Canada treats the aboriginal people and Canada’s environment are my bottom three choices that make me proud to be Canadian. I am not highly proud of Canada’s peacekeeping since Canada continues to decrease it. In the past decade, Canada has dismissed an abundant number of requests to join peacekeeping duties thus the UN has stopped asking (Valpy). In 1991, Canada granted more than 10% of all its peacekeeping troops (Valpy). Unfortunately, after 16 years later Canada’s grant is less than 0.1% (Valpy). In fact, there is not even one Canadian officer in the UN’s peacekeeping headquarters (Valpy).Today peacekeepers from other countries have quadruplicated in just a couple of years whereas in Canada they have decreased

Canadians pride themselves on being a “peacekeeping country” and many believe that peacekeeping represents a defining aspect of Canadian identity because it reflects fundamental values, beliefs and interests. Canada has been a leader in peace operations since its development that spearheaded by a Canadian. In fact, Canada’s role as peacekeeper remains the main focus of the Canadian military after its invention around 60 years ago, originally started by a Canadian. Their efforts have gained an international reputation for Canada as a significant contributor to international peace and stability. While Canada has an exemplary history in UN peacekeeping, the current extent of its contribution, both in terms of peacekeeping personnel and percentage of funds to peacekeeping missions, are on a clear decline. The belief that Canada is a peacekeeping country is misguided because recent Canadian commitment shows a sharp decline in Canadian participation in UN peacekeeping. Surprisingly, as of March 2007, Canada ranked 59th out of 114 countries in terms of military and police contributions to UN operations. Despite Canadian declined involvement in peacekeeping during the last decade, it still remains a valuable and important mission that greatly deserves Canadian resources including monetary support, resources and personnel.

Canada has been actively involved with the United Nations since its creation in 1945. Since then, Canadian peacekeepers have participated in almost every single peacekeeping mission. The role of Canadian peacekeeping was to bring peace and stability between countries. However, Canada’s role is slowly starting to diminish because of its failure to prevent conflict in peacekeeping missions. Examples of this instance include the mass genocide in Rwanda, the civil war in Somalia and Yugoslavian crisis.

At the end of the Great War, Canada plunged into economic darkness; the once-powerful war industry was no longer needed and factories shut down all over the country, causing unemployment for civilians and veterans alike to skyrocket. This reflected on the military of Canada; vehicles that were destroyed were not replaced; the number of permanent forces and militia barely grew. Canada’s military saw a period of inactivity that would even cause land, sea and air components merged as a singular entity due to the Great Depression’s effect on the military budget. However, the peace was not to last. As Adolf Hitler’s Germany appeared and showed the world its intentions, nations gathered and Canada committed an important act demonstrating its independence as a nation; Canada declared war. Viewed for a long time as a British colony even after Confederation, Canada took a stand against a virtually universally-recognized evil alongside the major powers of the world at the time. Canada’s participation in conflicts in many different operations throughout WWII demonstrated its military effectiveness, but its important role in the D-Day landings defined Canada’s military competency through the crucial Operation Overlord, dubbed by some as the beginning of the end of the Second World War, in Normandy. Canada’s role in Operation Overlord in Normandy solidified the military structure that is our modern military and sculpted the image of an independent nation through Canada’s military

Opposing the belief that a dominating leader is running Canada, Barker brings up several key realities of the Canadian government. He gives examples of several “… instances of other ministers taking action that reveal the limits prime-ministerial power,” (Barker 178). Barker conveys the fact that Canada is not bound by a dictatorial government, “…it seems that the prime minister cannot really control his individual ministers. At times, they will pursue agendas that are inconsistent with the prime minister’s actions,” (Barker 181). Both inside and outside government are a part of Canada and they can remind the prime minister that “…politics is a game of survival for all players,” (Barker 188). Barker refutes the misinterpretation of the Canadian government by acknowledging that a prime-ministerial government existing in Canada is an overstatement.

The source clearly communicates a perspective that is in favour of conscription. The source starts off by portraying their opinion through the key term ‘to maintain the contribution of Canada’s fighting force.’ Conscription was a way to build up a stronger force for Canada because more soldiers became involved this way. This was seen as ‘necessary’ according to the source because as stated in the beginning, “Canada would not back down from the commitment it made to Great Britain.’ The key words in the context ‘in order to protect freedom and democracy,’ are in correlation to Canada’s determination to defeat in battle and to keep their force strong. This term demonstrates that Canada’s morals were for the better of our country and how conscription

Canada is one of the wealthiest countries in the world, however, many citizens are below the blurred poverty line. (251). The poverty line in Canada is measured by the LICO-IAT (boooook) and the MBM (253). The resources for those below the poverty line are very poor; food banks and shelters are unable to uphold the amount of people that are in need of them. (252). Among the poor, many people have paid employment, however, it is not enough.

In this essay, I will demonstrate that the Prime Minister is powerful and can cause many potential dangers by analyzing different elements inside and outside of our government over the period of different Prime Ministers throughout the Canadian political history.

Currently there are many problems and flaws with the way the Canadian government’s policies deal with healthcare, income inequality and poverty. Time to time changes in policies have been made, perhaps to improve these issues, however, the gap between rich and poor keeps increasing and there is very little improvement in healthcare and the economy. In fact, healthcare keeps on becoming costly. Major issues like income inequality and poverty are not being taken care of by the government. According to Dr. Raphael (2002) poverty is caused by several reasons such as inequality in people’s income, weak social services and lack of other social supports (p.VI). He states, “Poverty directly harms the health of those with low incomes while income