| You are currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and that there are some features you can't use or read. We are an active community of worldwide senior members participating in chat, politics, travel, health, blogging, graphics, computer issues & help, book club, literature & poetry, finance discussions, recipe exchange and much more. Also, as a member you will be able to access member only sections, many features, send personal messages, make new friends, etc. Registration is simple, fast and completely free. Why not register today and become a part of the group. Registration button at the very top left of the page. Thank you for stopping by. Join our community! In case of difficulty, email worldwideseniors.org@gmail.com. If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Canadian Forces face danger pay cuts in Afghanistan | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Apr 11 2013, 01:02 AM (2,263 Views) | |
| Darcie | Apr 11 2013, 01:02 AM Post #1 |
|
Skeptic
|
The federal government is reducing danger pay for Canadian military personnel who are currently serving in Afghanistan on training missions, saying that the country is not as dangerous as it used to be, according to Radio-Canada. Starting in mid-April, the cut in danger pay will result in a loss of about $500 a month. The current tour ends in late summer, meaning this decision is coming half way through their tour. There are currently 930 members of the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan. This decision will also affect a few dozen military personnel in Egypt and Jerusalem http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/04/09/afghanistan-soldiers-danger-pay.html How disrespectful, they could at least wait till this tour is over with. It is not as if they can quit their job. The more I see the more I get a sick feeling in my throat. |
|
|
|
| Replies: | |
|---|---|
| Alli | Apr 25 2013, 09:18 AM Post #31 |
|
Mistress, House of Cats
|
There was supposed to be a second link I forgot to post it I will look it up Yes I know there is a difference I was married to a Soldier LColonel for 18 years.... I went up the ranks with him..... |
|
|
|
| Trotsky | Apr 26 2013, 12:27 AM Post #32 |
|
Big City Boy
|
Where do I sign up to become a Lieutenant General? |
|
|
|
| Dana | Apr 26 2013, 01:08 AM Post #33 |
|
WWS Hummingbird Guru & Wildlife photographer extrordinaire
|
Pay is not the only thing the current gov't reps in Ottawa have wanted to cut in the military. The record seems to rattle some in Ottawa so much that they aren't making sense in their replies. http://www.canada.com/news/MacKay+rattled+questions+about+voting+record+military+funding+while/8290110/story.html But Wednesday the opposition turned the tables on MacKay, pointing out that he, too, voted against increased military spending that was in the previous Liberal government’s budget. “Lo and behold, it turns out he repeatedly voted against the military,” said the NDP’s Nathan Cullen as MPs started shouting at each other. “In 2004, (MacKay) voted against $792 million for military operations in capital (equipment). He voted against $17 million for St. Anne’s (Veteran’s) Hospital, and against $600,000 for war veterans.” MacKay explained that he had voted against the Liberal budget because the Liberals wanted to dismantle the Canadian Forces. “What I voted against, what many Conservatives when we were in opposition voted against, was the unmitigated disaster that was the Liberal Party, the dismantling of the Canadian Forces,” Mackay said. But Cullen replied by pointing out that MacKay also voted against $6.3 million for a Canadian Forces health information system, $2 million to upgrade the airfield at CFB Goose Bay, $22 million for disability pensions, and $49 million for public security. “He must now understand that we can hold government to account, vote against their bad budgets, and support our brave men and women,” Cullen said. |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Rants, Bouquets, Consumer Issues · Next Topic » |