Categories: Capital Read, Inside the Queensway

Afghan Cost Report Reax: First out of the block …

by kadyomalley on Thursday, October 9, 2008 1:55pm - 12 Comments

… is, unsurprisingly, the Bloc. (With an official statement, that is — I presume it has come up during the other leaders’ scrums.) It’s in French, but maybe one of those enviably bilingual ITQ regulars can provide a rough translation in the comments:

Réaction au rapport sur les coûts de la mission canadienne en Afghanistan

« STEPHEN HARPER A INDUIT LA POPULATION EN ERREUR

Montréal, le jeudi 9 octobre 2008 – Voici la déclaration du chef du Bloc Québécois concernant le rapport sur les coûts de la mission canadienne en Afghanistan :

« En présentant des chiffres grossièrement erronés sur le coût de la mission en Afghanistan, Stephen Harper a induit la population en erreur. Son gouvernement n’a pas été transparent et honnête envers la population. La transparence promise par le gouvernement Harper n’est donc pas au rendez-vous.

Le Directeur du budget nous apprend que l’aide humanitaire ne compte que pour 9 % des coûts totaux de la mission. C’est ce qu’on a toujours dit au Bloc Québécois : cette mission est déséquilibrée, beaucoup trop axée sur l’aspect militaire. Cette guerre ne peut être gagnée avec des moyens militaires comme l’admettent eux-mêmes des généraux de l’OTAN. Il faut arrêter les frais et axer nos efforts sur la diplomatie et l’aide humanitaire.

Si ce n’était que du Bloc Québécois, la mission se serait achevée en février 2009 et on serait passé à autre chose. Le gouvernement Harper est prêt à dépenser une fortune pour des fins militaires : autour de 16 milliards pour la mission en Afghanistan; à cela, il faut ajouter une facture de 490 milliards pour l’armée dans les 20 prochaines années. La mission en Afghanistan va donc avoir coûté 1 500 $ par ménage, tandis que les dépenses totales pour l’armée coûteront 28 000 $ par contribuable. Les Québécois sont en désaccord avec ça.

Le chef conservateur agit comme George W. Bush en augmentant considérablement les dépenses militaires. Ce serait une folie de donner une majorité à Stephen Harper, surtout dans le contexte économique actuel.

Incidemment, la création du poste de Directeur parlementaire du budget est une idée originale du Bloc Québécois et on voit aujourd’hui que c’était nécessaire. D’ailleurs, le Bloc Québécois endosse toutes les recommandations du Directeur parlementaire du budget. »

– 30 –

Tags: afghanistan report, Bloc Québécois, they don't seem pleased

More by kadyomalley

Matt Clements

A rough translation from Google Translate:

“By presenting grossly erroneous figures on the cost of the mission in Afghanistan, Stephen Harper has led the people into error. His government has not been transparent and honest with the people. The transparency promised by the Harper government is not there.

The Director of the Budget tells us that humanitarian assistance accounts for only 9% of total costs of the mission. That is what we always said the Bloc Quebecois: this mission is unbalanced, focusing too much on the military aspect. This war can be won with military means as themselves acknowledge generals of NATO. We must stop the expenses and focus our efforts on diplomacy and humanitarian aid.

If it was only the Bloc Quebecois, the mission would be completed in February 2009 and would be spent on something else. The Harper government is prepared to spend a fortune for military purposes: around 16 billion for the mission in Afghanistan, in addition, there is a bill of 490 billion for the army in the next 20 years. The mission in Afghanistan will have cost $ 1 500 per household, while the total expenditure for the army will cost $ 28 000 per taxpayer. Quebecers are in disagreement with that.

The Conservative leader acts like George W. Bush in increasing military expenditure. It would be folly to give a majority to Stephen Harper, especially in the current economic context.

Incidentally, the post of Director of the parliamentary budget is a brainchild of the Bloc Québécois and today we see that it was necessary. Moreover, the Bloc Québécois endorses all the recommendations of the House Budget Director. “
Rob

I’m as bilingual as the next anglo, but if I may paraphrase:

“Harper isn’t transparent or honest and is focusing too much on the military aspect of Afghanistan. Only 9% of the mission costs are going to humanitarian aid/assistance.

“We would have stopped the mission by next February and spent the money on something else because Quebecers don’t agree with the cost of the war.

“Harper = Bush with respect to the military, so don’t give him a majority.

“And by the way, you wouldn’t know the costs of this war if not for us.”
Torontonian

Why do these revelations not surprise me? And with the election days away, the fallout on Harper & Co. will be significant.

Looks like Kyoto will have a new larger back yard to play in and security guards to toss the frisbee.
Darren Trent

Looks like Kyoto will have a new larger back yard to play in and security guards to toss the frisbee.

One chicken, two chickens..etc.
Bruce

To those willfully blind to the facts;

Chretien/Martin committed troops in first place, sending them over woefully under equipped.

2002-2008 was projected at $8 Billion.

This report projects total costs for the period from 2002-2011 at $18 Billion.

This report also includes capital expenditures on major equipment, CIDA development aid, etc.

The spin being put on this is just more Liberal manipulation and lies.
TinTincognito

Darn, now I wished I hadn’t voted PCP during the advance poll!!
Pingback: » Nanos holds the Cons. lead at 4. Scott’s DiaTribes: My personal opinions on social and political issues from a progressive standpoint.
Ontario Voter

After presenting his report which estimated only “incremental costs”, Kevin Page agreed, in response to a question from a journalist,that if the total cost (including salaries) were to be added up, it would come to $25B. Kevin also stated, several times, that Harper has said that the total cost was $8B. Kevin then agreed with the journalist that on the basis of total costs, it would appear that the actual costs were not double, but three times, what Harper had claimed. Wow !!!

Another journalist had asked Kevin if he was afraid for his job — I thought that it spoke voulumes to the apparent culture of intimidation that Harper appears to foster.

Maybe Harper should ask his mama if she thought he was running an open and transparent government.
Andrew

Cue Cons blaming Liberals for entering the Afghan war (to be clear, I support the mission). The Liberals and MSM forced Harper to make inaccurate statements about the cost of the war. The truth clearly has a well-known liberal bias (to borrow from Colbert).
scanner

To Bruce the Goose
If you think $18 big ones is the total, you’ll love the budget run-through after Harper packs and goes – think McGinty’s take on Ontario’s budget after Earnie Eaves left.
Just adding up the capital expenditures that were outside of the DoD budget takes us into the billions. Oh, and a lot of equipment will have to be replaced – like all the Coyotes and the Leopard I’s and probably the Leopard II’s we bought second hand. Even the Nyla’s are pushing 5 years old. $18b is all Mr. Harper is willing to admit to.
keith by the Bruce

“By presenting grossly erroneous figures ”

John (the teflon Don) Gotti supposedly kept two sets of books and he was a hero to some people ?
keith by the Bruce

Parking coastal patrol vessels because “their” allotment of fuel was used up or advanced bunker buster bombs to ensure Artic terrorists couldn’t hide in hardened igloos is only accounting problems says steve (three fingers ) harper ?