I'll believe it when I see it.
Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending
- Thread starter Maxman1
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 27,176
- Points
- 1,090
Large projects take time, time that frequently spans multiple governments. We are disingenuous when we credit the government on the day something is completed and do not recognize prior government(s) that started things off.
MilEME09
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,788
- Points
- 1,210
But what about tradition!!
Quebec opted out of the CPP program at the time. There are rules written if a province wants to opt out of the federal pension fund. Those are the rules the Ab gov were using in their calculations. The feds have yet to come back with anything credible to counter it. They are definitely scared if Ab is to pull out of the program
that number has not been actually shown by the federal government. They so far have refused to release the actual dollar values. Just rough estimates. Which were nothing more them scare tactics.
Lol
Like when they lobbied agaisnt pipelines, hired a minister who was an anti oil lobbyists. They told the world they were agaiant oil and gas extraction.
But they based their budget on $150bbl revenues.
Oil price was low when the ndp took over. Production was lower due to demand and the market was trying to get Cdn oil for cheaper then embargo oil.
As demand went up so did the revenues. That did not stop the ndp from letting the world know they were hostile agaisnt the industry. Between them and JT's group drove more investment out of Canada then anyone else has.
That privately owned TMX pipeline both the provincial ndp and federal libs tried to shut down. Only to swoop in and save they day while spending almost 5 times the cost by taking it over to assist after they realized who makes the over time spending money in the country.
We should look into who owns the first tanker of Cdn crude that went through from the west coast to east coast after they took the reigns.
Perhaps. But I think if a project has basically failed and parties are bailing, you generally give credit to the party that comes in, pours in capital and gets it done.
Sure, there's debates over cost-effectiveness and value and all kinds of other factors. That shouldn't take away from the actual accomplishment.
If the Poilievre Conservatives get High Speed Rail built in Canada, nobody would or should credit the Trudeau Liberals for having a project office open for 6 years.
TMC shut down the project and walked away only after the government caused so much uncertainty that it was not financially feasible. Only for the gov to swoop in and save the project once they figured out how to line their on pockets.
The feds publicly cancelled three major pipelines and multiple facilities in Western Canada. Only to turn around and slowly start to over fund a few of these projects. (Trans mountain, northern gateway the other connector to the gateway, energy east along with northern oil connectors . The LNG at Kitimat, Prince Rupert etc,
The Trans Mountain was final approval stages. The fed shut it down with provincial ndp support. Horgan told the international community he feels provincial gov should be able to on a whim shut down any project they feel is not right for the gov of the day. (he tried to shit down the coal industry only to get job at Teck) Then they swooped in and saved the day with approvals and lots of tax payer money.
The XL had no support from the feds or ndp then the US jumped in and put the nail in the coffin for it.
No one government should take full credit for any multi year/decade project. (they can take credit getting the ball rolling and or finalizing the project) { should only take credit if they were not the ones to cause cancellations and major delays/ cost overruns only to turn around and approve once lining their pockets} They should take responsibility for causing purposeful delays and cancellations of large projects that cause extreme damage to industries.
- Reaction score
- 5,963
- Points
- 1,260
The following are some lifts from one of Team Trump's planning documents that should be of interest to those planning Canada's defences:
(There author is Christopher Miller who was Trump's Acting SecDef in 2020/21.)
The Primary Focus:
"By far the most significant danger to Americans’ security, freedoms, and pros- perity is China. China is by any measure the most powerful state in the world other than the United States itself. It apparently aspires to dominate Asia and then, from that position, become globally preeminent. If Beijing could achieve this goal, it could dramatically undermine America’s core interests, including by restricting
U.S. access to the world’s most important market. Preventing this from happening must be the top priority for American foreign and defense policy.
Beijing presents a challenge to American interests across the domains of national power, but the military threat that it poses is especially acute and signif- icant. China is undertaking a historic military buildup that includes increasing capability for power projection not only in its own region, but also far beyond as well as a dramatic expansion of its nuclear forces that could result in a nuclear force that matches or exceeds America’s own nuclear arsenal.
The most severe immediate threat that Beijing’s military poses, however, is to Taiwan and other U.S. allies along the first island chain in the Western Pacific. If China could subordinate Taiwan or allies like the Philippines, South Korea, and Japan, it could break apart any balancing coalition that is designed to prevent Bei- jing’s hegemony over Asia. Accordingly, the United States must ensure that Chinadoes not succeed. This requires a denial defense: the ability to make the subordi- nation of Taiwan or other U.S. allies in Asia prohibitively difficult. Critically, the United States must be able to do this at a level of cost and risk that Americans are willing to bear given the relative importance of Taiwan to China and to the U.S.
The United States and its allies also face real threats from Russia, as evidenced by Vladimir Putin’s brutal war in Ukraine, as well as from Iran, North Korea, and transnational terrorism at a time when decades of ill-advised military operations in the Greater Middle East, the atrophy of our defense industrial base, the impact of sequestration, and effective disarmament by many U.S. allies have exacted a high toll on America’s military.
This is a grim landscape. The United States needs to deal with these threats forthrightly and with strength, but it also needs to be realistic. It cannot wish away these problems. Rather, it must confront them with a clear-eyed recognition of the need for choice, discipline, and adequate resources for defense.
In this light, U.S. defense strategy must identify China unequivocally as the top priority for U.S. defense planning while modernizing and expanding the U.S. nuclear arsenal and sustaining an efficient and effective counterterrorism enterprise. U.S. allies must also step up, with some joining the United States in taking on China in Asia while others take more of a lead in dealing with threats from Russia in Europe, Iran, the Middle East, and North Korea. The reality is that achieving these goals will require more spending on defense, both by the United States and by its allies, as well as active support for reindustrialization and more support for allies’ productive capacity so that we can scale our free- world efforts together."
Burden Sharing and Procurement:
"Increase allied conventional defense burden-sharing. U.S. allies must take far greater responsibility for their conventional defense. U.S. allies must play their part not only in dealing with China, but also in dealing with threats from Russia, Iran, and North Korea.
"Prioritize the U.S. and allies under the “domestic end product” and “domestic components” requirements of the Build America,
Buy America Act.5 Currently, defense companies are required to manufacture defense items for the U.S. government that are 100 percent domestically produced and at least 50 percent composed of domestically produced components. However, there are loopholes that allow companies to manufacture these items overseas. This can create supply chain and other issues, especially in wartime. Manufacturing components and end products domestically and with allies spurs factory development, increases American jobs, and builds resilience in America’s defense industrial base.
Review the sectors currently prioritized for onshoring or “friendshoring” of manufacturing (kinetic capabilities, castings and forgings, critical materials, microelectronics, space, and electric vehicle batteries); evaluate them according to the strategic landscape; and expand or reprioritize the list as appropriate."
...
"The United States must regain its role as the “Arsenal of Democracy.” In fiscal year (FY) 2021, U.S. government foreign military sales (FMS) nosedived to a low of $34.8 billion from a record high of $55.7 billion in FY 2018.8 This decrease hinders interoperability with partners and allies, decreases defense industrial base capac- ity, and increases the taxpayer burden on the U.S. military’s own procurements. Under previous Administrations, the United States built its reputation as a reliable partner with a strong defense industrial base that could supply military articles and goods in a timely manner. Today’s FMS process is encumbered by byzantine bureaucracy, long contracting times, high costs, and mundane technology.
The United States can change this downward trajectory by improving inter- nal processes that incentivize partners and allies to procure U.S. defense systems, thereby expanding our “defense ecosystem.” We must reverse the recent dip in FMS to ensure both that our partners remain interoperable with the United States and that our defense industrial base regains much-needed capacity in preparation for future challenges."
(There author is Christopher Miller who was Trump's Acting SecDef in 2020/21.)
The Primary Focus:
"By far the most significant danger to Americans’ security, freedoms, and pros- perity is China. China is by any measure the most powerful state in the world other than the United States itself. It apparently aspires to dominate Asia and then, from that position, become globally preeminent. If Beijing could achieve this goal, it could dramatically undermine America’s core interests, including by restricting
U.S. access to the world’s most important market. Preventing this from happening must be the top priority for American foreign and defense policy.
Beijing presents a challenge to American interests across the domains of national power, but the military threat that it poses is especially acute and signif- icant. China is undertaking a historic military buildup that includes increasing capability for power projection not only in its own region, but also far beyond as well as a dramatic expansion of its nuclear forces that could result in a nuclear force that matches or exceeds America’s own nuclear arsenal.
The most severe immediate threat that Beijing’s military poses, however, is to Taiwan and other U.S. allies along the first island chain in the Western Pacific. If China could subordinate Taiwan or allies like the Philippines, South Korea, and Japan, it could break apart any balancing coalition that is designed to prevent Bei- jing’s hegemony over Asia. Accordingly, the United States must ensure that Chinadoes not succeed. This requires a denial defense: the ability to make the subordi- nation of Taiwan or other U.S. allies in Asia prohibitively difficult. Critically, the United States must be able to do this at a level of cost and risk that Americans are willing to bear given the relative importance of Taiwan to China and to the U.S.
The United States and its allies also face real threats from Russia, as evidenced by Vladimir Putin’s brutal war in Ukraine, as well as from Iran, North Korea, and transnational terrorism at a time when decades of ill-advised military operations in the Greater Middle East, the atrophy of our defense industrial base, the impact of sequestration, and effective disarmament by many U.S. allies have exacted a high toll on America’s military.
This is a grim landscape. The United States needs to deal with these threats forthrightly and with strength, but it also needs to be realistic. It cannot wish away these problems. Rather, it must confront them with a clear-eyed recognition of the need for choice, discipline, and adequate resources for defense.
In this light, U.S. defense strategy must identify China unequivocally as the top priority for U.S. defense planning while modernizing and expanding the U.S. nuclear arsenal and sustaining an efficient and effective counterterrorism enterprise. U.S. allies must also step up, with some joining the United States in taking on China in Asia while others take more of a lead in dealing with threats from Russia in Europe, Iran, the Middle East, and North Korea. The reality is that achieving these goals will require more spending on defense, both by the United States and by its allies, as well as active support for reindustrialization and more support for allies’ productive capacity so that we can scale our free- world efforts together."
Burden Sharing and Procurement:
"Increase allied conventional defense burden-sharing. U.S. allies must take far greater responsibility for their conventional defense. U.S. allies must play their part not only in dealing with China, but also in dealing with threats from Russia, Iran, and North Korea.
- Make burden-sharing a central part of U.S. defense strategy with the United States not just helping allies to step up, but strongly encouraging them to do so.
- Support greater spending and collaboration by Taiwan and allies in the Asia–Pacific like Japan and Australia to create a collective defense model.
- Transform NATO so that U.S. allies are capable of fielding the great majority of the conventional forces required to deter Russia while relying on the United States primarily for our nuclear deterrent, and select other capabilities while reducing the U.S. force posture in Europe.
- Sustain support for Israel even as America empowers Gulf partners to take responsibility for their own coastal, air, and missile defenses both individually and working collectively.
- Enable South Korea to take the lead in its conventional defense against North Korea."
"Prioritize the U.S. and allies under the “domestic end product” and “domestic components” requirements of the Build America,
Buy America Act.5 Currently, defense companies are required to manufacture defense items for the U.S. government that are 100 percent domestically produced and at least 50 percent composed of domestically produced components. However, there are loopholes that allow companies to manufacture these items overseas. This can create supply chain and other issues, especially in wartime. Manufacturing components and end products domestically and with allies spurs factory development, increases American jobs, and builds resilience in America’s defense industrial base.
Review the sectors currently prioritized for onshoring or “friendshoring” of manufacturing (kinetic capabilities, castings and forgings, critical materials, microelectronics, space, and electric vehicle batteries); evaluate them according to the strategic landscape; and expand or reprioritize the list as appropriate."
...
"The United States must regain its role as the “Arsenal of Democracy.” In fiscal year (FY) 2021, U.S. government foreign military sales (FMS) nosedived to a low of $34.8 billion from a record high of $55.7 billion in FY 2018.8 This decrease hinders interoperability with partners and allies, decreases defense industrial base capac- ity, and increases the taxpayer burden on the U.S. military’s own procurements. Under previous Administrations, the United States built its reputation as a reliable partner with a strong defense industrial base that could supply military articles and goods in a timely manner. Today’s FMS process is encumbered by byzantine bureaucracy, long contracting times, high costs, and mundane technology.
The United States can change this downward trajectory by improving inter- nal processes that incentivize partners and allies to procure U.S. defense systems, thereby expanding our “defense ecosystem.” We must reverse the recent dip in FMS to ensure both that our partners remain interoperable with the United States and that our defense industrial base regains much-needed capacity in preparation for future challenges."
----------
In short, my guess is: according to Miller, President Trump will want Europe to provide almost all of NATO except for the US nuclear umbrella; he will want Canada to -
1. Increase its defence spending - 2% of GDP will likely be his floor, not his ceiling;
2. Pivot to Asia and join the US in confronting China; and
3. Become part of an (as yet undefined) North American defence industrial base.
1. Increase its defence spending - 2% of GDP will likely be his floor, not his ceiling;
2. Pivot to Asia and join the US in confronting China; and
3. Become part of an (as yet undefined) North American defence industrial base.
QV
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,144
- Points
- 1,010
Makes sense, but... I wonder how the ongoing saga of CCP influence and reach into practically every sector of Canada impacts our level of participation in the above theories? From elections to space agencies, to the Winnipeg lab...etc... Canada is a weak link at the moment.
CountDC
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 449
- Points
- 960
Why do you think the opt out was in there? Quebec wanted self-control and the Liberals were facing an election in Nov 1965 which was a tighter race than they liked. Allowing them to Opt out and run their own was an attempt to maintain support there. How much it helped is debatable but with a large number of their overall seats won in that election in Quebec it certainly didn't hurt. Alberta can withdraw because the opt out was built in although supposedly it requires 3 years notice to allow for the negotiations on amounts and ensure that they have a comparable plan in place. From all reports I have seen Alberta was stating they would be entitled to approx 50% of the CPP fund while experts indicated it would be under 25%. One thing they all agreed on is that Alberta puts more in than any other province.
Now which part is pure nonsense from ignorance?
"Of course the government went in attack mode, they don't want to give up control. "
Are you saying they didn't attack or they do want to give up control?
"Quebec only got it as an attempt to save an election,"
Election Nov 1965 same year CPP was floated and negotiated to include an opt out clause. CPP and Quebec Plan became active in 1966 after the election gave the liberals a minority government with approx 40% of their seats in Quebec which was a big shift. Must have been pure coincidence like everything in politics.
"Alberta doesn't have the power yet to swing an election outcome. "
Alberta does?
"For what Alberta wants the best thing they could do is separate and go it on their own because they will not get it from our federal government."
So you believe the federal government will give it to them even though they indicated they won't?
"Quebec, Maritimes and the GTA usually decide who gets in so by the time the polls open in BC everyone already knows who won."
Pretty sure this has happened in most if not all federal elections and is a major beef that BC has had for a long time. Polls close starting in the east, numbers are posted on the news and by the time BC hits the polls it is basically over and done. I know I didn't even bother voting when we lived in BC as it was already a done deal.
"The attacking people probably just saw it as Alberta attempting to get more than they get themselves. The "how dare they" mentality kicked into overdrive without bothering to look at it, instead they ran with the government. You know, the liberals say this is bad so it is bad. Same thing happens with some people regardless of the party in power."
This could possibly be nonsense as it is just my opinion, but it is not from ignorance. This has and does happen a lot in North America where people tend to vote on party lines and when their party says something is bad they believe it. who knows, maybe just maybe this time people actually looked at it and still decided they were right. Miracles do happen sometimes they claim. Guess it doesn't really matter as it is actually bad having such a large amount removed from the plan.
- Reaction score
- 21,838
- Points
- 1,360
I get that this is the prevailing narrative. But if it was that easy, why didn't the last government build those pipelines to tidewater? Or why didn't industry do it when they had a friendly government in office? The fact that it never got past proposal stage under the Conservatives has me thinking it's more complex than basic narratives let on.
- Reaction score
- 16,908
- Points
- 1,010
Preach, brother.
- Reaction score
- 16,908
- Points
- 1,010
- Reaction score
- 21,838
- Points
- 1,360
Living in Ottawa, I apologized to my cousins in Drayton Valley who have spent their lives supporting Canada’s currently red-headed resource. Mot all Ottawans feel that way, but for those who appreciate things beyond the NCR, some still do.
The TMX debacle is a Master Class example of disingenuous passive-aggressive myopia implementing misguided and at times vindictive virtuosity…shame on those who seek to englamour how it went down.
- Reaction score
- 16,908
- Points
- 1,010
Further to my last, the Liberals under Trudeau also greatly complicated the project approval process and regulatory regime. The ill-defined concept social license meant that virtually anyone could object to any resource project on virtually any grounds and hold things up basically forever.
Investment dried up…
Investment dried up…
- Reaction score
- 21,838
- Points
- 1,360
QV
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,144
- Points
- 1,010
I believe it is several billions worth and counting... anyone know?
QV
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,144
- Points
- 1,010
It is not looking for Canada.
nationalpost.com
“The fundamental principle (of the white paper),” Perrin explains, “was that if you contract out your defence to somebody else (the Americans), you are a protectorate … not a sovereign nation and you have to accept that protection on the terms on which it’s offered.”
....
"....Perrin is collaborating with Carleton University’s Fen Hampson to assemble a cross-country team of senior former officials, business people and academics (Perrin’s “Team Canada”) to look at what we can do as a country to strengthen our bilateral relationship with the U.S. and prepare for the looming renewal of USMCA by July 1, 2026.
“So essentially, we have less than a year to strengthen our relationship with the United States and persuade Americans that we should not pull the threads on USMCA, that it’s in the interest in both of our countries. Otherwise, if the three countries don’t agree to simply rolling it over … (with some tweaking allowed) … we’re then into annual renegotiations of the agreement for the next 10 years and this would be extremely disadvantageous to Canada.”
With a protectionist mood growing in America, Perrin is rightly concerned Canadian trade negotiators will be hammered by their American counterparts."
The world is on the brink. Canada is not ready
Former defence minister Perrin Beatty understands the Russian threat. He says the world is more dangerous than during the Cold War.
nationalpost.com
“The fundamental principle (of the white paper),” Perrin explains, “was that if you contract out your defence to somebody else (the Americans), you are a protectorate … not a sovereign nation and you have to accept that protection on the terms on which it’s offered.”
....
"....Perrin is collaborating with Carleton University’s Fen Hampson to assemble a cross-country team of senior former officials, business people and academics (Perrin’s “Team Canada”) to look at what we can do as a country to strengthen our bilateral relationship with the U.S. and prepare for the looming renewal of USMCA by July 1, 2026.
“So essentially, we have less than a year to strengthen our relationship with the United States and persuade Americans that we should not pull the threads on USMCA, that it’s in the interest in both of our countries. Otherwise, if the three countries don’t agree to simply rolling it over … (with some tweaking allowed) … we’re then into annual renegotiations of the agreement for the next 10 years and this would be extremely disadvantageous to Canada.”
With a protectionist mood growing in America, Perrin is rightly concerned Canadian trade negotiators will be hammered by their American counterparts."
- Reaction score
- 1,800
- Points
- 1,260
Fast tracking a dozen subs, another pair of JSS, increasing our P8 contract to 20, another full squadron of F35's, air-to-air refueling - these are tangible things in protecting NA and allowing the US to shift some assets over-seas. I'm willing to bet that the US would even turn a blind eye to Canada further neglecting the land forces if we pushed the money over to a larger, more robust RCN and RCAF. Any increase in the land forces could be focused on helo's, special forces and an increase in our available sniper force.
QV
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,144
- Points
- 1,010
The author was also on the Shawn Ryan Show... very entertaining to listen to. These are the kinds of people we need.
What influence did they have between 2011 and 2015 when the Conservatives had a majority in Parliament? And it's not like the Conservatives really cared about Opposition concerns over other controversial issues like the Long Form Census, Long gun registry, climate change, etc. So why exactly couldn't they simply ram it through?
I am going to suggest it's not that easy, in no small part because our constitution gives provinces and lately indigenous groups a ton of power over this and industry would have always had to play ball. This is also why I predict the next government is going to find it even more difficult. Rhetoric doesn't change legal rulings. And the notwithstanding clause can't be used to simply overturn provincial authorities. The legal fights coming will be quite entertaining to watch though....
Similar threads
- Article
