Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[FJAG]

Etc. Well, if I am waiting for three hours at Emerg, getting respect in the world isn't going to be my priority. And if you want it to be, you better convince me that is more important than the hours I have to wait to get treated.

Yeah but remember that the big three - health care, education and infrastructure - are basically provincial responsibilities. The Feds should only be involved to the extent of equalization. The Fed's focus has roved to the more vote gathering initiatives by choice. Was there a need to invest $15 billion in electric batteries? Or did they choose to at a time when the public in Canada is rejecting EVs because of their impracticality and cost.

 

[YZT580]

What's the actual threat to Canadians though?

We have threats to our global interests. Sure. But the direct physical threat to Canadians at home is minimal. Not just because the US is next door. But because of geography. So really, we need to do a better job explaining to Canadians that the world going to pot is going to impact things like economic prosperity at home. But I rarely ever hear any senior leadership make that argument coherently. And I've heard only a literal handful of my CAF colleagues even understand this idea in my whole career. Just a whole lot of wistful thinking about how we wish we had big American booms.

for openers, the threat to us is primarily financial. Our allies will ignore our products to buy from those who are openly supportive. We become an inviting target for tariffs. Companies such as Boeing and Airbus, Ford and GM will pull out their investments and our factories will see military contracts go elsewhere.

 

[Brad Sallows]

US Dept of Commerce is raising softwood duties. There's a regulatory process Canada can use to oppose it, but I suspect we have less political interest to call on than we used to. Canadians who believe we can get a free lunch on defence because of where our country is are mistaken. I doubt they pay any attention to pundits and blog posters who point this out; the message will have to come from the PM and senior ministers.

 

[KevinB]

Threats to Canada are easily explain if someone has the care to research them.
@Halifax Tar mentioned some of the "less direct methods", and others have mentioned the economic losses and tariffs, but long term failure to address rogue nations and hostile competitors will lead to direct impact to Canadian security.

Bullies don't stop until they get punched in the nose (or the snot kicked out of them). Global Interventionism isn't necessarily a bad thing, as long as it is well thought out and carried through.

The modern Axis of Evil (Russia, Iran and North Korea) are actively seeking to harm the West, and China is a hostile competitor that will be opportunistic in its approach.

A well trained and modern CAF gives Canadians both defense of Canadian Sovereignty, but also allows you to project force when needed. Too often the term Might makes Right is used when looking at global events, and if Canada believes itself to be a Moral Force for Good in the World as many politicians like to preach - then it has to have a credible military that can back up the rhetoric.

The Canadian Military is still in a state of rust out - the big fanfare new items are generally late, or barely adequate in terms of numbers to fulfill current missions. Numerous CAF programs have been epic boondoggles, and the Force Structure of the CAF is not sufficient for the state of the world.

Frankly you could spend 3% of your GDP and 40% on Capital Equipment Programs for the next 10 years, and you would about then be able to equip the CAF's current Force Structure properly.

 

[ytz]

But it will probably mean large scale cyber, economic warfare; and infrastructure attacks. I would argue the socio economic war is already afoot. This is the direct impact to Canadians.

Those threats mostly don't require further investment in the CAF. Indeed, they actually mean more investments like this:

Was there a need to invest $15 billion in electric batteries? Or did they choose to at a time when the public in Canada is rejecting EVs because of their impracticality and cost.

We did that to preserve Canadian share of auto manufacturing. It's not at all about servicing the domestic market. Telling Southwestern Ontario they should eat cake on manufacturing jobs is a huge part of the reason why the Tories lost in 2015. The investment in battery manufacturing was also part of a wider US led initiative to reverse the massive marketshare (upwards of 80%) that the Chinese had in global battery supplies.

Yeah but remember that the big three - health care, education and infrastructure - are basically provincial responsibilities. The Feds should only be involved to the extent of equalization. The Fed's focus has roved to the more vote gathering initiatives by choice.

What the feds spend on is a matter of national consensus. Not law. Indeed, the LPC recently tried arguing that housing was a provincial matter. How'd that go for them? And federal governments will never give up paying for items in provincial jurisdiction, because it's the only way they have leverage. Even our next PM is already talking about how he's going to solve all kinds of issues by withholding transfers. If there are no transfers to withhold, he'd have zero leverage.

As the phrase goes, "Hope is not a plan." Simply saying that we wish fed-prov relations were different, isn't going to change reality. At the end of the day, there's only one taxpayer and voter and they get to decide how their money is spent.

 

[dimsum]

Even our next PM is already talking about how he's going to solve all kinds of issues by withholding transfers. If there are no transfers to withhold, he'd have zero leverage.

Everyone loves to hate on Quebec but losing ~29% of your population (incl Maritimes and NL) support because of ending transfers prob won’t go well.

 

[ytz]

@Halifax Tar mentioned some of the "less direct methods", and others have mentioned the economic losses and tariffs, but long term failure to address rogue nations and hostile competitors will lead to direct impact to Canadian security.

As mentioned above, if the message leans into strategic competition with mostly economic threats, it's going to be very hard to make a case for military investment. F-35s don't stop cyber attacks.

Bullies don't stop until they get punched in the nose (or the snot kicked out of them). Global Interventionism isn't necessarily a bad thing, as long as it is well thought out and carried through.

The modern Axis of Evil (Russia, Iran and North Korea) are actively seeking to harm the West, and China is a hostile competitor that will be opportunistic in its approach.

Sure. But the challenge here is explaining how and why Canadians should spend a shitload of money to enable a government to then put Canadian lives at risk. It's not always obvious. Russia destabilizing Europe is much easier to explain than why we should care about Iran, for example. Indeed, petrodictators like Iran and Venezuela being mad lads actually benefits Canada in many ways.

A well trained and modern CAF gives Canadians both defense of Canadian Sovereignty, but also allows you to project force when needed. Too often the term Might makes Right is used when looking at global events, and if Canada believes itself to be a Moral Force for Good in the World as many politicians like to preach - then it has to have a credible military that can back up the rhetoric.

In theory we could produce a well trained and modern CAF for a lot less than 2%. It would just be tiny. If the army was a brigade, the navy just one destroyer squadron and the air force was one fighter wing, they could all be really modern and well trained. Doubt our allies would be happy with that outcome though. So we do need to convince the public to spend.

But, Canadians really don't seem to care about being a "Moral Force for Good in the World" beyond words. So it's going to take a lot more than that. This isn't just on defence either. The same pattern of words with no actions was also true on climate and aid policies, other areas where we made huge commitments and then had no follow-through. We have several generations of voters now who are just fine with their federal government pretending to care about foreign policy and not actually doing anything.

 

[ytz]

Everyone loves to hate on Quebec but losing ~29% of your population (incl Maritimes and NL) support because of ending transfers prob won’t go well.

It's just silly talk. This will never happen. It's a non-starter beyond hypothetical poli sci nerd discussions.

 

[FJAG]

We did that to preserve Canadian share of auto manufacturing. It's not at all about servicing the domestic market. Telling Southwestern Ontario they should eat cake on manufacturing jobs is a huge part of the reason why the Tories lost in 2015. The investment in battery manufacturing was also part of a wider US led initiative to reverse the massive marketshare (upwards of 80%) that the Chinese had in global battery supplies.

I'm not saying that there shouldn't be investment. I'm just saying it's not really a Fed issue. The Feds, however, wish to be involved because of the great ecology hysteria and the fact that it sees them as being seen to be involved. Theoretically they should have been encouraging the provinces to do this.

What the feds spend on is a matter of national consensus. Not law.

No. It's the cabinet's consensus on what they imagine the people want in order to become reelected. The Feds have no problem ignoring concensus when it suits them to.

Indeed, the LPC recently tried arguing that housing was a provincial matter. How'd that go for them? And federal governments will never give up paying for items in provincial jurisdiction, because it's the only way they have leverage. Even our next PM is already talking about how he's going to solve all kinds of issues by withholding transfers. If there are no transfers to withhold, he'd have zero leverage.

Do the Feds need "leverage?" Or is that just a way of imposing their will. There used to be a time when that leverage was used sparingly. Now there has been so much crossing into provincial matters that it has become a routine thing. Two wrongs don't make a right. There was a time that the LPC ranted continuously about how much centralization had gone on under Harper. Harper's actions were miniscule compared to the current governments fetish for trying to control everything. I know this sounds pedantic, but one of the main reasons the communist system failed was its attempt at centralized management of resources and industry which sounds good on paper but simply falls apart in practice. There is a good reason for layers of government with divided responsibilities.

As the phrase goes, "Hope is not a plan." Simply saying that we wish fed-prov relations were different, isn't going to change reality. At the end of the day, there's only one taxpayer and voter and they get to decide how their money is spent.

Do you really think that the taxpayer and voter get to decide how their money is spent? We've long ago lost the plot on true representative government. Spending is now controlled by isolated individuals reacting to polls, special interest group advocates and the best interest of their political party. Within that is a tiny residual consideration of what their voting faction wants and how one may influence the uncommitted. Herds do not decide on anything. They contently chew their cud and expect that the grass will keep growing, regardless.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

I think until you demonstrate that defence is a justifiable existential requirement for Canadians, you're going to keep having this ridiculous discussion across parties, ideologies, and election cycles.

Every program we have in Canada, social or economic, rides on our ability to produce enough to fund it. Anything that threatens that production in turn threatens our way of life.

Those can be anything from a naval blockade in the Black Sea, a cyber attack from China, displaced persons in the ME, or Forest Fires in the Okanagan. There is a discernable impact on our GDP and thus it hits us in our wallets and in our social services.

Being able to field a competent domestic and expeditionary force that meets the needs of Canadians at home and our interests around the world must be a primary focus of our government; never a suggestion that is fluid across the politcal spectrum.

Norway has done such a beautiful job experessing this to its populace and I wish we could have the same adult conversations with Canadians on how DND/CAF is less a money pit than it is an insurance policy.

 

[dapaterson]

Canadians are proud of the CAF, but as with most other areas of public expenditure, are not willing to pay for it.

 

[Edward Campbell]

What's the actual threat to Canadians though?

We have threats to our global interests. Sure. But the direct physical threat to Canadians at home is minimal. Not just because the US is next door. But because of geography. So really, we need to do a better job explaining to Canadians that the world going to pot is going to impact things like economic prosperity at home. But I rarely ever hear any senior leadership make that argument coherently. And I've heard only a literal handful of my CAF colleagues even understand this idea in my whole career. Just a whole lot of wistful thinking about how we wish we had big American booms.

The only real "threat" to Canada's sovereignty is unwelcome "help" from our good neighbour, best friend and protector.

We are one of the four approaches to the USA. The USA has a duty to its own people to defend itself. If we are or become an obstacle then, with all the good will in the world, our friends - and they are our friends, whether we like it or not - will use our territory, coastal water and airspace over both as part of their "battle-space" whether we consent or not.

 

[dimsum]

The only real "threat" to Canada's sovereignty is unwelcome "help" from our good neighbour, best friend and protector.

We are one of the four approaches to the USA. The USA has a duty to its own people to defend itself. If we are or become an obstacle then, with all the good will in the world, our friends - and they are our friends, whether we like it or not - will use our territory, coastal water and airspace over both as part of their "battle-space" whether we consent or not.

Canada is within the USNORTHCOM area of responsibility.

 

[OldSolduer]

The only real "threat" to Canada's sovereignty is unwelcome "help" from our good neighbour, best friend and protector.

We are one of the four approaches to the USA. The USA has a duty to its own people to defend itself. If we are or become an obstacle then, with all the good will in the world, our friends - and they are our friends, whether we like it or not - will use our territory, coastal water and airspace over both as part of their "battle-space" whether we consent or not.

Just like any sane nation would.

Edit to add: And whoever is coming after the continental USA is not friendly to us either.

 

[YZT580]

Norway has done such a beautiful job experessing this to its populace and I wish we could have the same adult conversations with Canadians on how DND/CAF is less a money pit than it is an insurance policy.

We could if we had some adults in Ottawa that were willing to do so.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

We could if we had some adults in Ottawa that were willing to do so.

Therein lies the crux of the problem.

Norway, Poland, the Baltic countries, et al have a long memory about how well soft power is at deterring authoritarian regimes. They also haven't the time nor resources to fuck around with political monkeyshines regarding the defence of their realms.

Canada, and our elected officials, have no sense of it and would rather pretend war is something that can't possibly affect us at home.

 

[daftandbarmy]

We could if we had some adults in Ottawa that were willing to do so.

Care should be used when trying to apply Scandinavian analogies to North America.

They're a 'mono culture' that has been almost wholly and homogenously the same for centuries, with enormous amounts of natural resources derived cash per capita, and have little trouble agreeing on collective policies as compared to the multi-cultural, fractious landscape in NA ...

 

[dimsum]

Care should be used when trying to apply Scandinavian analogies to North America.

They're a 'mono culture' that has been almost wholly and homogenously the same for centuries, with enormous amounts of natural resources derived cash per capita, and have little trouble agreeing on collective policies as compared to the multi-cultural, fractious landscape in NA ...

Absolutely. And also taxed at rates that would make Canadians riot.

Norway was also occupied for years in WWII by the Nazis.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Absolutely. And also taxed at rates that would make Canadians riot.

Norway was also occupied for years in WWII by the Nazis, were enthusiastic converts to Nazism and Hitler's Aryan plans for the world, and still have alot of openly enthusiastic Nazis hanging around ...

There, elaborated on that FY.

The dirty little secret: Quisling - the well known moniker for any backstabbing/turncoat/Nazi stooge - was a Norwegian

It's interesting to watch Norwegians differentiate between those who collaborated with the Nazis, and those who didn't e.g., "The people at that house proudly had three sons serving in the 5th SS Panzer Division - Viking".

Most of those who didn't weren't around for long, of course.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Care should be used when trying to apply Scandinavian analogies to North America.

They're a 'mono culture' that has been almost wholly and homogenously the same for centuries, with enormous amounts of natural resources derived cash per capita, and have little trouble agreeing on collective policies as compared to the multi-cultural, fractious landscape in NA ...

Oh I don't disagree. Their homogeny makes for collective attitudes and beliefs to be very similar across many demographics. I would also add that the same homogeny is part of why they're able to move quickly on things that take our societies decades to come to a collective agreement.

The issue I see within Canada is there is not even a whisper anywhere within our political spectrum about defence or foreign policy issues and its almost by design. Creating a populace that is introverted and isolationist is far more cost effective compared to funding a capable armed forces.

I know we are not Norway, but we certainly can learn a thing or two about positive follow on effects from taking ourselves more seriously whennit comes to speaking softly carrying a large stick.