More troops deployed as Canada braces for worse flooding

[Theinquisition]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/more-troo...173435357.html

Montreal (Canada) (AFP) - With heavy rains persisting and waters still rising over much of waterlogged eastern Canada, the nation's military tripled the number of troops urgently working to evacuate thousands of residents.

Montreal Mayor Denis Coderre declared a state of emergency for his city, allowing authorities to order mandatory evacuations from threatened areas.

"The next 48 hours will be decisive," Coderre told reporters.

Evacuations were ordered in Pierrefonds, on the northwestern shore of the island of Montreal, after three temporary dikes ruptured, sending water levels surging.

A combination of torrential rains and runoff from melting snow has caused rivers to overflow their banks from Ottawa to Montreal, posing critical challenges for people already exhausted by weeks of seemingly unending rainfall.

More than 1,000 people have been evacuated in Quebec province, the largest number coming from Gatineau, near Ottawa, the province's emergency response unit said Sunday.

More than 2,000 homes have been flooded and 140 towns and cities affected, with authorities urging residents to evacuate before it is too late.

In addition to Montreal, eight localities declared states of emergency.

But Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard warned the worst was yet to come.

"The water will continue rising over the next two or three days," he said Saturday after visiting the town of Rigaud, west of Montreal, which has been flooded for more than a week.

Water levels were rising across much of an area of some 500 kilometers (300 miles), from Toronto and Lake Ontario and stretching downstream along the St. Lawrence River.

The Ministry of Public Safety said waters were expected to crest sometime Monday in Quebec province.

Some 450 troops had been dispatched by Saturday to help put sandbags in place and assist with evacuations.

But that number was set to triple by the end of Sunday, including 500 in the immediate Montreal region, 400 in the area between Gatineau and Rigaud to the west, and more than 500 in the Trois-Rivieres region northeast of Montreal, said Lieutenant Colonel Pascal Larose.

Their tasks included evacuating residents, reinforcing dikes and protecting critical infrastructure such as water treatment plants and bridges, the ministry of defense said.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau traveled Sunday to Terrasse-Vaudreuil, about 40 kilometers west of Montreal, to survey damage, a spokesman said.

Environment Canada warned that "the ground, already near saturation, has little ability to absorb further rainfall."

"Even shallow, fast-moving water across a road can sweep a vehicle or a person away," it said. "Don't approach washouts near rivers, creeks and culverts."

- Not seen since 1974 -

Pierrefonds resident Robert Robillard had yet to evacuate by Sunday, despite the 10 to 15 centimeters (four to six inches) of water in his basement.

"I haven't seen anything like this since 1974," he said, adding that the area now is much more crowded and thus vulnerable.

In Rigaud, Mayor Hans Gruenwald ordered the mandatory evacuation of some 100 homes. After three weeks of flooding, "our people no longer have the physical capacity or the morale, so I took the initiative to evacuate them," he told the LCN network.

Floodwaters have made 400 roads impassable, and several schools will be closed Monday.

School gymnasiums and other public buildings throughout the area have opened their doors to evacuees.

"I understand people are reluctant to leave their homes," Couillard said, "but if you're asked, do it for your own safety."

- Flooding out west, too -

Meanwhile, in British Columbia on the opposite side of the country, the same combination of rain and snowmelt has caused flooding and mudslides that left at least two people missing, including the fire chief of the village of Cache Creek who had been out checking water levels.

A 76-year-old man was missing after a mudslide Saturday swept away his home in the community of Tappen, CBC reported.

First responders rushed to the scene but were forced to pull back.

"It sounded like a freight train coming down the mountain," Tappen-Sunnybrae Fire Department Chief Kyle Schneider told the broadcaster

Sounds pretty bad, give us a call if you need a hand.

[Deleted]

Frogs can swim.

[Molis]

Are these Troops military? Turns out lower military spending can be used for more than war.

The loss of ones property and possible loss of life is terrible, but the first thing I thought of when I saw "troops deployed" was how proud Canada was of having the lowest military spending in years, but maybe that was just Tennisace that was proud of that.

[Independent voter]

You'd think in Canada you'd have a lot of volunteers who'd show up to sandbag.

[the game]

Now they're going to wish they had a bigger military budget.

[Theinquisition]

Are these Troops military? Turns out lower military spending can be used for more than war.

The loss of ones property and possible loss of life is terrible, but the first thing I thought of when I saw "troops deployed" was how proud Canada was of having the lowest military spending in years, but maybe that was just Tennisace that was proud of that.

Umm...Not sure what spending has to do with it. Active duty units and NG units in the U.S. routinely help with disaster relief at home and abroad.

[Yvaelle]

Are these Troops military? Turns out lower military spending can be used for more than war.

The loss of ones property and possible loss of life is terrible, but the first thing I thought of when I saw "troops deployed" was how proud Canada was of having the lowest military spending in years, but maybe that was just Tennisace that was proud of that.

It's mostly just Tennisace - who doesn't speak on behalf of Canada (if that needs to be said).

As another Canadian who has critiqued military spending on the forums though before, maybe I can speak to a more common position on Canada's military. I think most Canadians wholeheartedly support our troops, the number of troops we have, and the support they get: if anything, they deserve better pay. If our military leaders feel we need more troops, I'm entirely in favor of that and trust their judgment.

What a lot of Canadians took issue with regarding our military spending under our former Conservative PM, Steven Harper, was where that spending was occurring. While he significantly increased our military spending to up to 7% of GDP at one point, he actually was cutting pay for military personnel the whole time he was in office. As a result, veteran unemployment and homelessness rates were at an all-time high by the time Harper left office: despite his military spending being the highest % of GDP since WW1 (higher than WW2).

Despite that, the money wasn't exactly going to procurement of conventional equipment either. Our infantry had outdated vehicles, our frigates need to be replaced, our tech is getting old (always is, but still), etc. A lot of our spending during the Afghanistan occupation was going to specific contractors and companies - and was very likely legal-bribing between the Conservative party and the military-industrial complex.

It all came to a public head with the proposed purchase of some F-35's. Which back in the 00's were a pretty dicey project to throw money toward. Further, Harper came on TV and told the country he was getting them at price X, and within the week fact-checkers had contacted the Pentagon and confirmed he was full of shit (the US government will not sell F-35's to allied governments cheaper than they sell to their own branches of government, which is what tipped off the fact checkers).
Plus, the program was further criticized because it was symbolic of the mounting discontent with other military spending.

Plus, with no aircraft carriers or overseas bases, and no enemies - it was seen as a shift in Canada's military role: from peacekeepers to an offensive force - right when we were already fatigued from Afghanistan. It became about more than F-35's - were we going to buy aircraft carriers next? Did we need a 1000 rotting tanks parked in the middle of the wilderness that our infantry didn't request and couldn't use? Would all this money not be better spent at home, or on our personnel instead?

@Skroe has convinced me that the role of the F-35 for continental defense in the arctic is valid and probably worthwhile. But if that's the case, we don't have the military bases in the arctic to actually make use of F35's up there - or the people - or the logistics - or etc. So unless we're actually going to expand spending on bases in Baffin Island and etc - not much point in parking a bunch of F-35's in Cold Lake, Alberta (that was the plan) unless we're expecting an insurgency of water fowl. It still involves a lot more than just buying some F-35's and calling it a day: and none of that was included in the original plan, which was deceitful (a reputation Harper cultivated on every topic).

More than anything - Canada's F-35 debacle was less to do with military spending specifically, and more about the country finally calling shenanigans on the Conservatives modus operandi of selling us the used car* (*engine sold separately).

Overall, I would say that Canadians care about military wasteful spending a lot - but we don't generally regard personnel spending as wasteful. Even procurement spending would likely not be seen as wasteful if done correctly - but we saw the budget leap up, while also seeing our gear age and our troops and veterans earn less, which prompted the collective question, "Where the f--k is our money going? Oh, F-35's to guard Harper's summer cabin".

[Theinquisition]

It's mostly just Tennisace - who doesn't speak on behalf of Canada (if that needs to be said).

As a Canadian who has critiqued military spending on the forums though before, maybe I can speak to a more common position on Canada's military. I think most Canadians wholeheartedly support our troops, the number of troops we have, and the support they get: if anything, they deserve better pay. If our military leaders feel we need more troops, I'm entirely in favor of that and trust their judgment.

What a lot of Canadians took issue with regarding our military spending under our former Conservative PM, Steven Harper, was where that spending was occurring. While he significantly increased our military spending to up to 7% of GDP at one point, he actually was cutting pay for military personnel the whole time he was in office. As a result, veteran unemployment and homelessness rates were at an all-time high by the time Harper left office: despite his military spending being the highest % of GDP since WW1 (higher than WW2).

Despite that, the money wasn't exactly going to procurement of conventional equipment either. Our infantry had outdated vehicles, our frigates need to be replaced, our tech is getting old (always is, but still), etc. A lot of our spending during the Afghanistan occupation was going to specific contractors and companies - and was very likely legal-bribing between the Conservative party and the military-industrial complex.

It all came to a public head with the proposed purchase of some F-35's. Which back in the 00's were a pretty dicey project to throw money toward. Further, Harper came on TV and told the country he was getting them at price X, and within the week fact-checkers had contacted the Pentagon and confirmed he was full of shit (the US government will not sell F-35's to allied governments cheaper than they sell to their own branches of government, which is what tipped off the fact checkers).
Plus, the program was further criticized because it was symbolic of the mounting discontent with other military spending.

Plus, with no aircraft carriers or overseas bases, and no enemies - it was seen as a shift in Canada's military role: from peacekeepers to an offensive force - right when we were already fatigued from Afghanistan. It became about more than F-35's - were we going to buy aircraft carriers next? Did we need a 1000 rotting tanks parked in the middle of the wilderness that our infantry didn't request and couldn't use? Would all this money not be better spent at home, or on our personnel instead?

@Skroe has convinced me that the role of the F-35 for continental defense in the arctic is valid and probably worthwhile. But if that's the case, we don't have the military bases in the arctic to actually make use of F35's up there - or the people - or the logistics - or etc. So unless we're actually going to expand spending on bases in Baffin Island and etc - not much point in parking a bunch of F-35's in Cold Lake, Alberta (that was the plan) unless we're expecting an insurgency of water fowl. It still involves a lot more than just buying some F-35's and calling it a day: and none of that was included in the original plan, which was deceitful (a reputation Harper cultivated on every topic).

More than anything - Canada's F-35 debacle was less to do with military spending specifically, and more about the country finally calling shenanigans on the Conservatives modus operandi of selling us the used car* (*engine sold separately).

Overall, I would say that Canadians care about military wasteful spending a lot - but we don't generally regard personnel spending as wasteful. Even procurement spending would likely not be seen as wasteful if done correctly - but we saw the budget leap up, while also seeing our gear age and our troops and veterans earn less, which prompted the collective question, "Where the f--k is our money going? Oh, F-35's to guard Harper's summer cabin".

Good post. Very informative. Would read again.

[Molis]

It's mostly just Tennisace - who doesn't speak on behalf of Canada (if that needs to be said).

~snip~

Appreciate the response. Was worth the read.

[Sills]

Now they're going to wish they had a bigger military budget.

This has nothing to do with it, but leave it to Americans to get a shot in whenever they can.

There was a delay in sending military aid to these affected areas because of the procedures involved, not the amount of funding we give our military. Only the federal government (in this case the Ministry of Public Safety coupled with our Ministry of Defense) can dispatch the military. This is complicating domestic issues because the provinces need to formally request military aid from the federal government in order for a review to be performed by the Ministry to deem whether military aid is necessary and viable (a formality, really as the fed would never deny aid to a province in need) and what forms it should take.

In this case, Quebec was slow in asking for aid and Ontario has yet to file such a request. 1500 troops have now been deployed across affected areas of Quebec with 100 more or so coming along with a few hundred support staff.

...As another Canadian who has critiqued military spending on the forums though before, maybe I can speak to a more common position on Canada's military. I think most Canadians wholeheartedly support our troops, the number of troops we have, and the support they get: if anything, they deserve better pay. If our military leaders feel we need more troops, I'm entirely in favor of that and trust their judgment.

What a lot of Canadians took issue with regarding our military spending under our former Conservative PM, Steven Harper, was where that spending was occurring. While he significantly increased our military spending to up to 7% of GDP at one point, he actually was cutting pay for military personnel the whole time he was in office. As a result, veteran unemployment and homelessness rates were at an all-time high by the time Harper left office: despite his military spending being the highest % of GDP since WW1 (higher than WW2).

This is entirely accurate and one of the many reasons why I enthusiastically voted against the Conservative party in our most recent elections for the first time in my adult life (and I would again). Canadians would rather see our military spending go towards protecting and taking care of our troops and veterans rather than seeing budgets inflated by frivolous spending while there are cuts made to troop and veteran care.

[Berengil]

It's mostly just Tennisace - who doesn't speak on behalf of Canada (if that needs to be said).

Well said, Yv.

More than anything - Canada's F-35 debacle was less to do with military spending specifically, and more about the country finally calling shenanigans on the Conservatives modus operandi of selling us the used car* (*engine sold separately).

Overall, I would say that Canadians care about military wasteful spending a lot - but we don't generally regard personnel spending as wasteful. Even procurement spending would likely not be seen as wasteful if done correctly - but we saw the budget leap up, while also seeing our gear age and our troops and veterans earn less, which prompted the collective question, "Where the f--k is our money going? Oh, F-35's to guard Harper's summer cabin".

Yeah, no kidding. Harper was a dumpster fire of a PM for you guys. I wonder who's the sacrificial lamb the conservatives will be putting up against Trudeau next time?

[Masark]

I wonder who's the sacrificial lamb the conservatives will be putting up against Trudeau next time?

According to the most recent polling, Maxime Bernier appears to be in the lead, followed by Andrew Scheer.