Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Good2Golf]

4 billion ish a year removed from direct resource revenue from Alberta every year.

So Alberta oil and gas sector contributed a massive….ummm…0.74% of Canada’s 535B budget?

So it should have only paid, what…0.5%? Less%

 

[QV]

The federal government collects taxes from all provinces. Some of that money is re-distributed around to provinces less able to support certain services - equalization... Alberta, being a wealthier province in part due to it's resource sector, get's zero back. Some Albertans are resentful of that arrangement. Particularly when the same federal government is taking steps to hinder economic growth. Quebec is an outlier in how taxes are collected, but I think every province should be like that.

 

[Rudburg]

• Since its inception in 1957, the Equalization program has provided benefits at some point in time to every province in Canada.

So AB and BC benefitted from it at some point but now that they don't no longer like it. Does this mean if they were to be in a position to benefit from it again they will still oppose it?

It does have a chart that is also interesting. Apparently ON does not get the enormous amount that is often portrayed. It does show that 3 western provinces does currently lead the way in funds.

You can access the historical data for the equalization payments sent to each province at the following links:

Historical Transfer Tables: 1980 to present - Equalization Entitlements (1957-1980) - Open Government Portal

Historical Transfer Tables: 1980 to present - Equalization Entitlements (1981-2023) - Open Government Portal

Dataset extracted from the federal support to provinces and territories transfer tables from 1980 to present.

open.canada.ca

Alberta's grievance is rooted in the fact that it hasn't received equalization payments since 1967, and over the program's entire history it has only received about $90 million from the program. On the other hand, some provinces have received equalization payments since day one, notably Quebec and Atlantic Canada. In particular, Quebec has received over $300billion in payments.

 

[foresterab]

You can access the historical data for the equalization payments sent to each province at the following links:

Historical Transfer Tables: 1980 to present - Equalization Entitlements (1957-1980) - Open Government Portal

Historical Transfer Tables: 1980 to present - Equalization Entitlements (1981-2023) - Open Government Portal

Dataset extracted from the federal support to provinces and territories transfer tables from 1980 to present.

open.canada.ca

Alberta's grievance is rooted in the fact that it hasn't received equalization payments since 1967, and over the program's entire history it has only received about $90 million from the program. On the other hand, some provinces have received equalization payments since day one, notably Quebec and Atlantic Canada. In particular, Quebec has received over $300billion in payments.

There are also things that sit counter the concept of equalization :

If you have natural resources but don't develop them they are not calculated into the equation as to "fiscal capacity". Hence the arguments when Quebec banned oil and gas exploration but was happy to receive funds.

Renewable resource income - aka hydro power sales - are not included into the equation. So this allows for BC, ON, PQ, NFLD? to calculate different than other provinces.

And there is nothing in the formula/agreement to say if you prevent your neighbor from developing their resources are you penalized. While in BC/AB much of the discussion is on pipelines the eastern Canada discussions over major electricity powerlines are equally strong battles.

If you have a lot of provincial debt vs. your neighbor with less debt the neighbor is viewed to have more fiscal capacity (i.e. take on more debt) and hence would receive less money. This is part of the difference between Ontario vs. Quebec where Quebec has had traditionally higher than average provincial taxes for it's residents and large amounts of its income going towards provincial debt...hence reduced fiscal capacity and equalization.

There is no common benchmarks of how the provincial funds are spent. I don't know how many times in years past folks in AB pointed to Quebec and the $10/day daycare being offered but PQ highlighted they were short of funds....it was viewed as luxury at the time especially when oil prices were a very very low prices out west and they were told to change what they funded. This one topic is good for a few beers to discuss but highlights how different spending can be.

Lastly many folks, especially in Alberta, don't truly understand how much of the federal funding is sent on a per-capita basis. When a significant portion of the federal funding is tied to both per person and the age of the person...and Alberta having a very young population overall....they will receive less funding than other areas missing large numbers of kids/youths/young adults in comparison. Immigration masks some of this effect to a certain point but labour goes to opportunity. It always amazes me talking to family and others out east and they talk about how many people from other countries they work with...or people from Ontario. In Alberta is almost the opposite...huge numbers of folks have come from other provinces, a rare few from other countries...and only a few from Alberta.

I'm sure we can all find flaws and issues within Canada and how the Federal Government assigns dollars. And then we can find similar stories for other countries that are equally as bad or worse. But it does help the nation as a whole move forward and I just wish the political climate was focused on the improvement of ALL CANADIANS and not just upon votes and/or the next election cycle as it seems to have been for the last while.

 

[foresterab]

You can access the historical data for the equalization payments sent to each province at the following links:

Historical Transfer Tables: 1980 to present - Equalization Entitlements (1957-1980) - Open Government Portal

Historical Transfer Tables: 1980 to present - Equalization Entitlements (1981-2023) - Open Government Portal

Dataset extracted from the federal support to provinces and territories transfer tables from 1980 to present.

open.canada.ca

Alberta's grievance is rooted in the fact that it hasn't received equalization payments since 1967, and over the program's entire history it has only received about $90 million from the program. On the other hand, some provinces have received equalization payments since day one, notably Quebec and Atlantic Canada. In particular, Quebec has received over $300billion in payments.

Ran the some numbers based upon your link:
% of payments % of pop. Per wikipidia Equalization return by population % Number of years of payments (45 max)
NL 4.2% 1.38% 307.6% 29
PE 2.3% 0.42% 551.6% 45
NS 11.0% 2.62% 420.2% 45
NB 10.9% 2.09% 519.3% 45
QC 53.8% 22.98% 234.0% 45
ON 3.7% 38.45% 9.6% 12
MB 12.3% 3.63% 338.2% 45
SK 1.3% 3.06% 44.0% 23
AB 0.0% 11.52% 0.0% 0
BC 0.5% 13.52% 3.4% 7



So that just looks at total payments received in the last 45 years for the % of payments, does not account for the changing population percentage within Canada (just grabbed the first google search breakdown), and then compared % of payments received vs. population % for return (showing PEI the big winner).

I also for giggles added up how many years each province has received money out the 45 years listed.

Might better highlight why some of the concerns over the program break down regionally so much.

 

[MilEME09]

It worked down here. After being in the new facility for 20 years now, I can not envision even our oldest dinosaurs poo-pooing the idea. Best move we ever made in support of the Reserves. The old armouries, taken over by the University, is now a downtown gem. Everyone is happy. The template is there, other places just need follow it.

Welcome to SoCA

www.uwindsor.ca

Major FA Tilston VC Armoury - National Inventory of Canadian Military Memorials (NICMM) - Memorials - Remembrance - Veterans Affairs Canada

Remember Canada’s Veterans

www.veterans.gc.ca

Comparing the armouries of my unit Debney vs Currie, its like night and day, ones a modern, purpose built facility that enables a CSS unit to not only function but grow, the other is a relic that wasn't built to be an armoury, repurposed, without the room to grow, or even support proper training.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Not quite, but close.

Of course, that might mean demolishing a large number of Reserve Armouries to rebuild to modern standards and to provide necessary training spaces. And apparently giving modern training facilities to the Army Reserve goes against tradition.

There's lots of infra that needs divestment, not refurbishment.

The local armoury my daughter goes to for cadets has a dirt floor in the basement.

 

[lenaitch]

War Measures Act 1914, 1939, 1970.

The army didn't have to cover the civilian bases. The civilians and the army were put under common authority.

The reason was that war was and is a whole of society endeavour.

National Security, likewise, is a whole of society endeavour. It demands contributions from civilians and uniformed personnel, armed and unarmed, military and civil.

In war time all of those line items come out of one common budget directed to one purpose.

It is only in peacetime that society is afforded the luxury of people creating stovepipes and building empires for personal benefit.

And the longer the peace the more entrenched become the empires.

I'll have to take your word for it, since 1914 and 1939 were a bit before my time, and 1970 was just a tad before I entered law enforcement.

Notwithstanding that the War Measures Act no longer exists, I have no recollection that police, fire an paramedics were placed under military authority during the 1970 crisis. Maybe they were in Quebec. Regardless, your question was:

In a state of war how many of those paramedics, firefighters, police officers and CAF members would be covered under the National Defence budget?

and my question was have the civilian authorities you mention ever been placed under military authority let alone their budget, and what would be the current legislative authority to do that; especially considering most of them are provincial employees?

I am aware that, in Ontario at least, there was some military coordination or involvement in guarding certain critical sites and installations during WWII by the Civil Defence Authority because my former police service assumed what was left of it in, I believe, the 1960s (as far as I know, existing regular police officer did not perform this function). But I'm not sure what the tactical or strategic value would be for the military, during a time of crisis, to care about traffic collisions, thefts and domestics, let alone heart attacks and house fires.

If you are looking to amass folks with guns, you are forgetting Conservation Officers.

 

[Navy_Pete]

@Kirkhill, from NATO, probably none of that would be covered in war; has to be part of the defence budget, and if there is a civi/military split, the military portion has to be estimated (like R&D for example)

Defence expenditures and NATO’s 2% guideline​

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_49198.htm

Project spending already includes public servants from other departments (we 'pay' PSPC to do the contracting for example), and there is pretty basic accounting to transfer funds to OGDs so that should actually roll up fairly easily, but I think NATO has kicked out a lot of fairly hopeful things Canada (and other countries) have tried to put into our defence spending before.

 

[Kirkhill]

For the record I am not looking to add the RCMP and CSIS budgets to the funds that count towards the NATO national defence budget.

I am saying that national security is more than national defence and there are a lot of overlaps.

In my view the NATO 2% is a subset of a national security budget that is justifiably in the 5% range and should be considered as such holistically.

 

[KevinB]

For the record I am not looking to add the RCMP and CSIS budgets to the funds that count towards the NATO national defence budget.

I am saying that national security is more than national defence and there are a lot of overlaps.

In my view the NATO 2% is a subset of a national security budget that is justifiably in the 5% range and should be considered as such holistically.

Okay that is probably a fair point.

But I tend to doubt if spending on National Security is 5% unless you really open the taps on what is National Security.

 

[Kirkhill]

Okay that is probably a fair point.

But I tend to doubt if spending on National Security is 5% unless you really open the taps on what is National Security.

70,000 CAF
70,000 Police Officers in Canada

The Brits spend as much on the Home Office as they do on Defence.

Throw in all the other agencies to which I alluded upthread.

Then start adding all the private security associated with protecting infrastructure...

You get to 5% in a hurry.

 

[Underway]

So Alberta oil and gas sector contributed a massive….ummm…0.74% of Canada’s 535B budget?

So it should have only paid, what…0.5%? Less%

No they are saying that in only 10 more years Alberta will have paid back what it cost to buy and build Trans Mountain (~$38.5-40 billion). Of course that's calculated with no interest. If we were to calculate interest at current rates it would probably be closer to 25-30 years (or more).

I'm not saying we should do that, that's just silly, but just pointing out that transfer payments are not the only way federal dollars are expended to benefit voters in different areas.

 

[lenaitch]

70,000 CAF
70,000 Police Officers in Canada

The Brits spend as much on the Home Office as they do on Defence.

Throw in all the other agencies to which I alluded upthread.

Then start adding all the private security associated with protecting infrastructure...

You get to 5% in a hurry.

Fair enough and now I think I get what you are driving at, but I think you are approaching what Kevin is saying about "opening the taps on what is National Security", particularly with your earlier inclusion of Fire and EMS. Public and emergency services do all sorts of things that try to ensure a civil and safe society and a functioning State (allegedly), but I would hardly put them in the National Security tent. Traffic collisions, domestic disturbances and barking dogs are hardly matters of National Security. Why not highway maintenance crews that plow the highways in the winter? Without them, police, fire and EMS could not get around.

Comparison to the UK Home Office is questionable. The UK has about 170,000 cops that are largely funded directly by the Home Office; i.e. their national government. Even The Met is only about 25% funded by London government.

 

[Good2Golf]

I'm not saying we should do that, that's just silly, but just pointing out that transfer payments are not the only way federal dollars are expended to benefit voters in different areas.

Commerce/trade beneficiaries of the members and families of the CAF in Edmonton and Cold Lake agree…as they do for other parts of the country as well.

 

[Navy_Pete]

70,000 CAF
70,000 Police Officers in Canada

The Brits spend as much on the Home Office as they do on Defence.

Throw in all the other agencies to which I alluded upthread.

Then start adding all the private security associated with protecting infrastructure...

You get to 5% in a hurry.

I think fundamentally NATO doesn't care what you are doing domestically, it's what you can bring to the table for an Article 5, and everything that supports that.

If they added more stuff to be eligible, I'm sure they would just up the %, and Canada would still be laggards and embarassements.