I'll believe it when I see it.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
@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.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.What the feds spend on is a matter of national consensus. Not law.
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.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 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.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.
The only real "threat" to Canada's sovereignty is unwelcome "help" from our good neighbour, best friend and protector.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.
Canada is within the USNORTHCOM area of responsibility.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, ourfriends - 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.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, ourfriends - 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.
We could if we had some adults in Ottawa that were willing to do so.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.
Therein lies the crux of the problem.We could if we had some adults in Ottawa that were willing to do so.
We could if we had some adults in Ottawa that were willing to do so.
Absolutely. And also taxed at rates that would make Canadians riot.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, were enthusiastic converts to Nazism and Hitler's Aryan plans for the world, and still have alot of openly enthusiastic Nazis hanging around ...
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.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 ...