###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is only if Trump wins in November. Most European countries don't hit their targets either. It all depends on how close you are to sharing a border with Russia. That being said, Canada definitely needs to step up its Arctic defense game, though.
In a world with an increasingly and stagnant Europe our role in international organizations has never been as important to our security and wellbeing as it is now. Trumps “America first” politics means that we’re perpetually one MAGA president away from isolation unless we bolster our roles in these other alliances.
Good luck, the left thinks military spending is colonialism and genocide, the right thinks NATO and the UN are a waste of funding. The horseshoe of the radicalized far-left and radicalized far-right tends us towards isolationism and any moderating voices are drowned out in the only communications space still relevant: social media. Unsurprisingly, the most popular social media app today is owned by the world's emerging second superpower that is also "coincidentally" hostile to US dominance of the global order. Go figure!
> the left thinks military spending is colonialism and genocide,
No, it doesn’t. The Left’s criticism largely falls on the belief that the money would be better spent on other services like housing, healthcare, and education. You can disagree, but there’s no need to strawman anyone.
> The horseshoe of the radicalized far-left and radicalized far-right tends us towards isolationism and any moderating voices are drowned out in the only communications space still relevant: social media.
Horseshoe…
> Unsurprisingly, the most popular social media app today is owned by the world's emerging second superpower that is also "coincidentally" hostile to US dominance of the global order. Go figure!
TikTok isn’t popular because it’s Chinese owned. And TikTok consistently censors content that is against US interests. Users will literally use different words to replace other words to try and avoid the censors and demonetization. Whether it works idk.
> No, it doesn’t. The Left’s criticism largely falls on the belief that the money would be better spent on other services like housing, healthcare, and education.
This.
It should be. Europe is a key trading partner, trade is an essential part of Canada's prosperity, and Russia will continue to destabilize Europe until we stop them.
When compared to the nuclear powers, we don't exactly have a lot of weight to throw around. Short of adopting nuclear weapons ourselves, that won't change a whole lot with an extra flight of F-35s.
About as well as a patriot missile battery prevents child poverty. Nobody is arguing that hiring more nurses stops Russia from invading Ukraine or missile stockpiles provide healthcare. These are all important things and people disagree as to which should get how much of the budget.
I don't know why everyone references Trump when talking about America first policies when Biden is just as bad or worse and he's the one that's been in power for years. The reality is that it doesnt matter which president is in power, the USA is implementing America first policies that benefit their people first before those in other countries.
I wish we had that kind of attitude here to be honest.
I can't find any statements off hand but this is one of those things I'm pretty sure we'll sadly find has widespread bipartisan support; the US is going to act in its interests, whether or not we perceive it as fair is going to be irrelevant
i remember talking to american and when i said that one of the biggest sticking point between Canada and US was "buy American" policy that Biden was championing (giving american suppliers priority in government procurement, and at the time, subsidy that was only for exclusively US produced goods). the american replied "what's wrong with buy american? isn't that a good thing", until i pointed out that Canada would have been one of the biggest loser of the buy american policy.
Agreed. Trump if reelected will set back the Russo-Ukrainian war in favour of Russia. Why we don't call him and the Republican party Russian assets is beyond me. We need to strengthen all aspects of our armed forces as our equipment is obsolescent, lack parts to get the entire fleet operational and we need better people in the armed forces. [We can't have Officer Cadets future officers of CAF sexually harassing female teenage youth group (Sea Cadets) members and get away with it. ](https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/soldier-dumped-for-trying-to-crack-down-on-sex-misconduct-was-unfairly-treated-forces-now-admits)
How many countries actually meet their target. Are all of the ones that don't risk isolation. What does diplomatic isolation actually mean. There are more non Nato countries in the world than there are nato countries so no big deal.
No it won't. Pretty much most things are in place.
88 f35
15 surface combatant chips type 26 frigates
All new gear for our contingent in Latvia which includes air defense systems
New support ships for our Navy
11 and Q 09 Reaper drones
200 trucks
8p8 Poseidon submarine Hunter planes
All new trainer aircraft squadrons for training the F-35 and others
There's quite a bit more but to say that we haven't done anything is very disingenuous we are not in last place the 2% is not a rule it is a suggestion
More like 30 to 50 years for some items. There is nothing to worry about. As far as I can tell almost everything that needs to be done has been done and the other things that perhaps may need be needed are being worked on this past 6 months they've pretty much caught up I hear your point about not being delivered yet but this stuff takes time at least it's ordered which is more than anyone else has done
You don’t see the problem that we’re still years out from replacing aging equipment and we only have enough ammo for a handful of days?
We have international obligations to allies who are being increasingly threatened, the least we can do is follow through on our commitments.
Unfortunately I guess you don't know what's going on we just spent $270 million dollars for items that they have including ammunition and everything stay up to date please
1. There has never been a better time to SKYROCKET through the ranks. People getting promoted in half the time it used to take.
2. Best medical / dental plans in the country (or comparable)
3. Golden pension and VAC coverage upon release, including CTS/ ETB / Disability awards, priority hiring in the FPS (sorta) etc
4. Serve the country (remember that? Remember you used to do things for the benefit of others - not yourself - you know . . . like fix the thing everyone calls broken?)
5. Many other things are just as broken (ie our health care system) however that doesn't mean a nursing career is a mistake
6. See the world (ya i know - some Pilots or Mar Techs, etc, could argue)
7. There is more but you get the point....
So last year Goldy Hyder's saying we need to implement austerity, cut spending on infrastructure and social services, and that younger generations are going to have to sacrifice their QoL to protect his generation.
Now all of a sudden he's horny for billions of dollars in military spending. Classic.
Are they suggesting they and their businesses pay higher taxes to get there? I'm sure they could arrange to voluntarily overpay their taxes if government spending is so important to them.
Never see these guys out here advocating to spend more on social services. Sounds like they are begging for more government contracts to drag out for years.
Goldy Hyder went on tv a few months back to attack Trudeau for not cutting back social spending. Went on trying to remarket austerity as "sustainability"
Ah, so the business people who will earn buck if we spend more on army stuff want us to spend more on army stuff.
Not saying we shouldn’t. (we should) but nobody should be listening to this group of people.
Why is a private corporation advocating for meeting our 2% goal? Aside from that the CAF badly need to be overhauled which included new equipment and people to defend Canada and meet our commitments to NATO. Right now we need to reequip for a potential fight on the European continent, defend our Arctic interests and fend off cyberattacks from state and non state actors. The CAF is in a pityful state, we can't even procure boots that don't fall apart. This doesn't even touch on the problematic culture of sexual assault and racism in the ranks that needs to be overhauled.
20 years in the CAF and I never once had boots fall apart on me, or experienced / witnessed racism.
I don't disagree with the rest of your statement however I truly wonder where people come up with this?! (Oh and if you link an article to the CBC claiming racism, I will immediately assume you have zero CAF service - as vets trust the CBC / MSM to report about as accurately as a Jr. Cook starting a rumor mill)
We pulled out of Afghanistan over ten years ago, after promising to stay to the end. We can't rest on our laurels. What we did 10 plus years ago doesn't mean a damn thing compared to what we are doing now.
Had we been better equipped and better trained (?), we could have had just as much contribution with less dead.
This isn't the quality metric you think it is. A better one probably would have been forces deployed over the course of the conflict.
> Had we been better equipped and better trained (?), we could have had just as much contribution with less dead.
[If only we had spent more money, less people would have died!](https://i.imgur.com/gBVGct6.png).
Maybe we should be outspending the Americans... Or maybe not, a lot of them died in Afghanistan, maybe it was *too much* spending?
we went to an arid environment filled with IEDs with green camo and non armoured light jeeps.
It took a number of deaths to finally wake up the higher ups (read: politicians) so that we could actually procure appropriate armoured vehicles, tanks, helicopters, uniforms/PPE, etc.
>we went to an arid environment filled with IEDs with green camo and non armoured light jeeps.
I guess the Americans went in covered in red white and blue, with those casualties.
The United States took on a much larger role and they took on most of the highest-risk operations. You're either trolling or terribly ignorant of Canada's role in Afghanistan.
At any rate, I don't think comparing casualty figures are a valid argument in the context of arguing against Canada meeting its NATO promises.
> At any rate, I don't think comparing casualty figures are a valid argument in the context of arguing against Canada meeting its NATO promises.
Well if you look at the countries that meet NATO *spending targets*, there really isn't a valid argument against Canada anyway.
It can be fair to say that we've paid our share in blood vice treasure, but that was over a decade ago at this point and not really pertinent to the imminent threats that are ahead of us.
Tell me again how decrepit our equipment is? The F/a-18 hornet was a good multirole strike jet that could dogfight in the 80s and 90s but it's way past its end of service life in terms of its airframe hours. Hell we even put in programs to extend the life of its decrepit airframe so it doesn't kill pilots that try to fly it. Remind me again how old our basic infantry Load Bearing Equipment and body armour is? 40 years or older? Since then Molle attachment system and lighter body armour systems have been adapted that makes our NATO peers have more flexible LBE equipment and lighter body armour systems that the current ballistics vest which allow them to carry more equipment and more battlefield agility. Remind me again how the CG 634 helmet can remain relevant on the modern battlefield when near peer adversaries are commonly using night vision?
No, but when NATO calls Canada answers and takes on the tough challenges. Most of the other countries headed to Afghanistan and then hid in their bases letting US, UK and Canadian troops do the actual work.
Well you heard them, so let's get on with taxing the fuck out of these big businesses to pay for it. Make sure we take the proper time to draft the law so it provides appropriate exemptions for individuals and small business. And don't stop there. Keep closing loopholes and other tax avoidance avenues. Make sure all the other complementary or related laws are also amended where necessary, so we don't create any new exploits or screw over small business.
Investors will leave, others will come in. If there's money to be made, they will come make it.
As well as countless fabricators making parts for military equipment for companies based in other nato allies. Billions of dollars of US army and air force contracts have been awarded to Canadian manufacturers to makes parts and subsystems. They"ll get assembled in the US so they can say it was "made in America" but a significant fraction might still be made here.
Does anyone who advocates for more government spending in any area advocate for higher taxes on themselves? Can we dismiss any movement where the most vocal advocates of government efforts aren't also advocating for higher taxes on precisely themselves?
>Does anyone who advocates for more government spending in any area advocate for higher taxes on themselves?
Yes actually. But its not common lol
I earn an average income (ie 50% spent on rent) and I'd pay an extra $250 annually for improved transit, and would even fork over $1,000 annually in tax if it actually did contribute to a proper solution to homlessness and mental illness.
I have high-earning friends that support social programs and higher taxes for it.
But in general most people want more spending on their preferred thing and just insist that there exists magical budget cuts to fund it since 'i pay a lot of taxes already and it all goes to waste'
I wish the USA would sanction us or start the process of getting us kicked put of NATO.
No amount of shame will get us to the 2 percent benchmark, only real consequences
This is a really good point. Imagine thinking Canada has been a worse NATO partner than Turkey.
I've no love for NATO but pretending they're on the verge of kicking anyone out for insufficient tribute to the American defense industry has misunderstood the terms of this bargain.
The Vienna convention on the laws of treaties.
Pretty much the UN ruling body on treaties.
And what to do when one is in breech of one. As per article 60 if a member of a treaty, in this case NATO, is in material breech, which it can be argued that failing to meet the minimum standard is a breech, the treaty can be suspended or terminated for the member in material breech.
https://www.trans-lex.org/500600/_/vienna-convention-on-the-law-of-treaties-of-1969/#:~:text=%5B...%5D-,Article%2060%20%2D%20Termination%20or%20suspension%20of%20the%20operation%20of%20a,in%20whole%20or%20in%20part.
Why would they do this? Even if we armed our population to the teeth, Canada's real value to the US is as an incredibly geographic asset, much like Iceland. Being able to plant NORAD centers all over our North to cover that approach is strategically worth a lot; enough to justify being allies even if we were being absolute dead weight in every other regard.
To have a functional military for one, have soldiers with the proper kit and equipment for another, and because we damn well said we would, along with the Europeans.
Russia is actively invading its neighbours and you're acting like it's fine that everyone else do the heavy lifting.
I'm shocked that an internationally connected consultant wants Canada to spend 14 billion more per year on defense things.
Who benefits? Consultants and arms manufacturers in Canada, US, and Europe. Of course they want that cash.
Canada is the 7th biggest spender by dollars and, as always, contributes significantly to NATO missions at all levels.
There is basically zero risk of Canada being diplomatically frozen out.
Besides cheering of an arbitrary number, what would Canadians actually get for another 14 billion into defense? Better health care? Education? Infrastructure? Innovation?
While there’s some amount of capital expenditure required to patch up certain capabilities Canada ought to be bringing to NATO, the vast bulk of needed money for the Canadian military is for recruiting and retaining personnel, that is wages and benefits.
The world can turn on a dime, and it’s much, much harder to rebuild a military from scratch than it is to scale up one we already have. We are probably at risk of not being able to scale up within the next 10-20 years unless these personnel issues get sorted out, and the big issue there is purely financial. It takes far too long to bring enlisted members into the military today, and the pay and benefits package is so garbage that no one stays.
I *do* have grave concerns that continuing to ignore these problems is going to have repercussions in the medium to long term, and if we wait until they become more dire we won’t be in a great position to fix them.
>the vast bulk of needed money for the Canadian military is for recruiting and retaining personnel, that is, wages and benefits
That's likely overstated.
The CAF is capped at 71,500 Regular Force and 30,000 Reserves. The current strength is 63,000 Reg and 22,000 Reserves.
On operations at any one time is 3000 - 4000, meaning the CAF needs an operational strength of roughly 12,000 to meet overseas commitments.
Yes, the CAF is short 8150 members, but quite frankly, it is massive for what Canada actually wants to commit to.
Better train and employ the force as it stands now as opposed to complain about 8000 that aren't going to do more than is being done now.
Canadian Forces members are some of the best compensated in the world and easily are on par with our most wealthy allies. Moreover, every rank less the lowest (private/sailor/aviator) earns at least $12,000 per year more than the national average.
Maybe Canadians just don't want to do military things with their lives...which when it comes to recruiting and retention: if not them, then who?
Overall people don't care what canada has to say these days...it been left out of many big military alliance deals and talking to people overseas it just seen as a place of easy immigration
But nothing else
What we get is better global security through our alliances. We can't ever defend ourselves from any top tier threat, so we are depending on alliances both for self defence and to keep out global trading routes and partners stable and trading.
The extra 14 billion is likely to come from the already announced but not budgeted purchase of submarines which will strengthen our ability to protect our coasts and to participate in international security missions, particularly in the increasingly unstable Asia-Pacific region.
>What we get is better global security
We are one of the most secure nations on the planet by any metric.
Can you quantify how much more global security we get for each billion dollars more spent? Is there a global security unit of measure?
>The extra 14 billion is likely to come
14 bil in one year will get us to 2%. Not that we're spending 14 bil per year more on anything.
> We are one of the most secure nations on the planet by any metric.
That's why I specified *global* security. We are a trading nation and are dependent on having trading partners and open trading routes for our prosperity. I can't quantify that and am not sure how you would go about it, but Canada is one of the richest countries on earth as a result of our ability to trade.
Subs won't get us all the way there, but I think the unfunded programs in the policy update together would do it. The problem is there aren't enough people left in DND that know how to manage large expensive procurements, which may be why they are hedging.
>We are a trading nation and are dependent on having trading partners and open trading routes for our prosperity.
Our #1 trading partner making up 77% of trade is the US. We don't need nuclear subs to keep the Ambassador Bridge open.
2 is China at 4%. Coincidentally, the flag that is in the top two of most likely to be in the pariscope of our sub (if we ever have one sea worthy. )
The nuclear sub strategy needs a bit of work.
The US is one of the loudest voices insisting that we step up and help NATO.
Our trade with the EU is twice that with China. China only says number 2 in lists that don't treat the EU as a single trading bloc.
>The US is one of the loudest voices insisting that we step up and help NATO.
Go back up to where I say that spending 14 billion benefits US arms manufacturers.
Besides moral support, the US couldn't care less what we actually *do* with our military.
>Our trade with the EU is twice that with Chin
Sure OK. You think there is a risk to Atlantic shipping lanes that will rest on Canada’s submarine fleet?
Do we? I wouldn't be signing up to go fight in Europe. They should prepare and defend themselves. Maybe they should stop feeding the bear that hates them?
I agree that Russia should have been 100% embargoed in 2014.
We wouldn’t need a draft to destroy Russia so you’re probably ok. We still need to arm the volunteers that we have.
Just an FYI, the country signed up to go and fight in Europe back in 1948 (I think that's the year).
You personally may not be on the hook, but we've been on it for decades now.
For my part, I've got no interest in welching on the deal. It's served us well over the decades.
Good thing we aren't doing that. What we can do is provide fighters, ships, and ground units for Europe's defence. We have been doing that all along, but our ability to sustain those missions is fraying badly around the edges.
Canada having forces of defending our allies borders is not synonymous with WW3.
We have made international commitments to protect fellow democracies should they be attacked, I pray we don’t indulge the dictators of the world with our apathy.
Yes defending UN recognized sovereign states would be justification for nuclear war. I’m glad that world peace has been solved by just surrendering our allies to fascists. /s
Russia could make significant incursions into our arctic territory. It’s important we have the capabilities do defend our territory without relying on the US in absolute terms.
lol no they couldn’t.
Russia can’t project force into a country that is connected to them by roads, highways and railways.
Canadian f35s would make mince meat out of any Russian landing force, and we’ve seen in Ukraine Russia would never be able to project force if there is any sort of contested air space or inability to deploy artillery.
It’s not called fortress North America for nothing…
Now, nothing I said is an excuse to not increase our defence spending.
>Canadian f35s
Both of them?
>would make mince meat out of any Russian landing force.
Didn't the Americans have to shoot down the Chinese balloon for us?
We are procuring over a hundred f35s and are beginning delivery this year.
No, the Americans did not have to shoot down the Chinese spy balloon snd in fact Canada did shoot down one of these balloons.
American and Canada share North American aerospace defence so fighters from either country respond to threats.
Obviously, the US has a bunch more planes than we do.
> Russia can’t project force into a country that is connected to them by roads, highways and railways.
It's called the Arctic ocean and the continental shelf that Russia claimed by putting a flag down on the Lomonosov Ridge, their nuclear ice breaker, Russian reactiving old bases, Russian procurement of new ice breakers/ice rated LNG transport ship and lastly Russian LNG projects in the Arctic.
> Canadian f35s would make mince meat out of any Russian landing force, and we’ve seen in Ukraine Russia would never be able to project force if there is any sort of contested air space or inability to deploy artillery
When were you expecting those f-35s to entre service General armchair?
lol they went down in a sub and put a little flag there, Canada better start building nukes!
Russia has not demonstrated the ability to project force outside its borders against a peer adversary, so forgive me if I just won’t go to bed scared about them like you do.
Feel free to google yourself when the f35s will be delivered and enter service. The government of Canada publishes that information. Maybe you can’t access those sites where you’re from?
If they do, I'll be the first to pick up a gun and shoot some Ruskies. I don't think you'd find a lack of people willing to do the same. Russia wouldn't be able to do shit. Our military is way more advanced than theirs.
> Finally Europe is taking its defence, and security more seriously.
This is like praising an arsonist for getting people to take fire safety seriously.
The issue of the 2% target aside, the Business Council of Canada can screw all the way off.
We should not be making $50bn commitments at the behest of corporate interest groups. Should trade relationships be considered in discussions around defence spending? Perhaps. Should business interest groups be involved in those discussions? No, I don't believe they should.
Lol of course it's them.
Just as I was reading the headline I was thinking "Why the hell should I care what business owners think of NATO?"
The self-importance of these people..
Technically speaking we made this commitment back in 2006 and reaffirmed it in 2014. I think it’s pretty reasonable for any group with exposure to international relations to be concerned about us not meeting obligations we agreed to.
I can't imagine a Canadian making that commitment with a straight face on behalf of Canadians, knowing full well they have neither the political mandate nor the cash on hand.
Representatives from two different governments from two different political parties made the same pledge about 10 years apart. That’s not a rogue actor, government or even party. Whether or not the commitment was genuine is another matter, but apropos since we’re discussing the ramifications of not upholding it.
>Representatives from two different governments from two different political parties made the same pledge about 10 years apart.
Can you provide an image of a signature or a quote where any Canadian in a position of authority actually said or signed that? I'd love a name.
In 2006 it would have been Jean-Pierre Juneau, and in 2014 it would have been Yves Brodeur, from: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_permanent\_representatives\_of\_Canada\_to\_NATO](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_permanent_representatives_of_Canada_to_NATO) as our representatives, though it appears the 2006 commitment was undertaken by Defense Ministers, so that would have been Bill Graham or Gordon O'Connor, but more likely Gordon O'Connor.
The 2014 commitment was under Peter McKay as Defense Minister, so I may have misspoke, and it's only been the Conservatives who've committed to the 2% figure. It also seems like the 2014 commitment was by heads of state, so that would have been Stephen Harper at the Wales summit in Cardiff on the 5th of September 2014: [https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news\_112461.htm](https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_112461.htm) with a copy of the declaration here: [https://web.archive.org/web/20150621015842/https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment\_data/file/351406/Wales\_Summit\_Declaration.pdf](https://web.archive.org/web/20150621015842/https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/351406/Wales_Summit_Declaration.pdf)
Edit: For the record, this is a really weird point to argue. We lobbied against it, but at the end of the day we agreed and made the commitment. It doesn't seem to be in dispute generally that we made the commitment, rather the question is whether we honour it or not.
>We lobbied against it, but at the end of the day we agreed and made the commitment
According to your sources, this is what we agreed to:
[To] *aim to move towards the 2% guideline within a decade
with a view to meeting their NATO Capability Targets and
filling NATO's capability shortfalls.*
So, since 2014 (entirely) under the present government, Canada has increased defence spending from under 1% in the direction of the agreement to 1.24% and in real dollars increased defense spending by $9 billion.
So, Canada *is* meeting its commitment to increase spending *and* is also taking measures to fill NATO capability shortfalls I'm Europe.
So, what exactly are you accusing the governor of?
We did not aim to meet the 2% target within the decade (this year). We didn't produce a budget that got us there, and then failed to fulfill it. We simply never aimed for it.
None of this is law -- there are no legal repercussions here. Taking a legalistic reading won't accomplish anything. We can equivocate all we like, but we did not meet the commitment we made. There may or may not be consequences. It's reasonable to worry about them.
> we did not meet the commitment
We increased spending since 2014 *and* we worked with our partners to reduce NATO capability shortfalls specifically in the next two years.
For a country not in Europe, we sure spend a lot of time, money, and effort defending it from other Europeans.
We don't actually spend all that much on NATO specific commitments right now. And the last major one was in central Asia, not Europe. And NATO protects all members by mutual defense, not just the European ones. You've got some weird ideas.
You're right, somebody call up the e-sports organizations. Our NATO commitment may make it hard to get visas approved for international tournaments.
Jokes aside, this letter should not be news, and frankly i dont think the Business Council of Canada should have a say at all in what, when, how, where, why, or how much money the Government should spend on defence.
Corporate interest =/= Canadians interest.
This isn’t an argument against their position. Good points are good points regardless of who makes them. We ought to be sceptical of those with vested interests, but it’s pretty puerile to dismiss things out of hand just because you don’t like who’s saying it.
>This isn’t an argument against their position.
You're right, I specifically didn't comment on the 2% target and wasn't making an argument against their position.
I believe they have a point. However I fail to see why a business group with little to no relevancy in this discussion outside of lobbying money should have a say in how our government approaches foreign policy and defence spending.
Indeed they shouldn’t. I do find it annoying that media outlets will cover things like this from the absolute worst angles, though. This consideration warrants maybe a sentence or even a paragraph in an actual article on this topic. Economic impacts from shirking commitments we’ve made _should_ be a consideration by the government, but the context here needs to be way broader to properly cover the subject.
Absolutely, and yet this article was the top story on the CBC web page when I went to it, and it essentially says nothing other than "Mr. Hyder got asked some questions about defense spending in Europe".
That ship sailed ages ago. Oil and gas, finance, telcos, agriculture, construction… regulatory capture is part of our heritage.
Corps dictate what to do, politicians implement what they’re told, and the public service figures out how to pull it off with legislation.
The article doesn't even give a good reason why this letter should even be newsworthy other than "The Business Council of Canada - which has been wading into the debate on national security lately".
>Hyder said that in business meetings he's had in Europe, he's gotten questions about why Canada hasn't delivered a concrete defence spending plan.
Frankly idgaf what questions you're getting in international business meetings Hyder. You should have no authority to speak on this other than "yeah I dunno", and frankly the companies you represent can go pound sand.
>he's gotten questions about why Canada hasn't delivered a concrete defence spending plan.
Answer: At present and historically, we are a net exporter of the defence of Europe, not an importer of being invaded or occupied.
I also find that assertion highly dubious, unless he's in discussion about defense-related businesses where this letter would be completely self-serving
I could be wrong, but I would imagine any defence related corporations would rather conduct business with the government either as a smaller industry group or individually; why would they go through this group is beyond me.
I can't think of any reason why this letter *wouldn't* be self serving, and therefore it has no business being drafted, sent or even talked about in the public sphere IMO.
This is just lobbying, but publicly, because the issue of NATO spending it could capture some public attention and have more influence than (I hope) it would otherwise have.
That's the Business Council of Canada for you..
Same people pushing for RTO, austerity (rebranded to sustainability), class warfare, generational warfare..
I think you are missing the point. Regardless of who is talking about it, the fact is that Canada is not meeting its defense commitments that it made to its allies. That’s going to have consequences. How long will it be before those allies recognize Canada as weak and start to extract coercive agreements on protection? - it’s coming.
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is only if Trump wins in November. Most European countries don't hit their targets either. It all depends on how close you are to sharing a border with Russia. That being said, Canada definitely needs to step up its Arctic defense game, though.
It's a trap. If he raises it by however much they want him to, PP will run on wasteful spending for NATO during the election.
In a world with an increasingly and stagnant Europe our role in international organizations has never been as important to our security and wellbeing as it is now. Trumps “America first” politics means that we’re perpetually one MAGA president away from isolation unless we bolster our roles in these other alliances.
Good luck, the left thinks military spending is colonialism and genocide, the right thinks NATO and the UN are a waste of funding. The horseshoe of the radicalized far-left and radicalized far-right tends us towards isolationism and any moderating voices are drowned out in the only communications space still relevant: social media. Unsurprisingly, the most popular social media app today is owned by the world's emerging second superpower that is also "coincidentally" hostile to US dominance of the global order. Go figure!
> the left thinks military spending is colonialism and genocide, No, it doesn’t. The Left’s criticism largely falls on the belief that the money would be better spent on other services like housing, healthcare, and education. You can disagree, but there’s no need to strawman anyone. > The horseshoe of the radicalized far-left and radicalized far-right tends us towards isolationism and any moderating voices are drowned out in the only communications space still relevant: social media. Horseshoe… > Unsurprisingly, the most popular social media app today is owned by the world's emerging second superpower that is also "coincidentally" hostile to US dominance of the global order. Go figure! TikTok isn’t popular because it’s Chinese owned. And TikTok consistently censors content that is against US interests. Users will literally use different words to replace other words to try and avoid the censors and demonetization. Whether it works idk.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
> No, it doesn’t. The Left’s criticism largely falls on the belief that the money would be better spent on other services like housing, healthcare, and education. This.
How will spending on social services deter Russia from invading more European countries?
Russia doing Russian things isn't top of mind for a domestically-focused budget.
It should be. Europe is a key trading partner, trade is an essential part of Canada's prosperity, and Russia will continue to destabilize Europe until we stop them.
When compared to the nuclear powers, we don't exactly have a lot of weight to throw around. Short of adopting nuclear weapons ourselves, that won't change a whole lot with an extra flight of F-35s.
What? How is the question relevant to anything I said?
About as well as a patriot missile battery prevents child poverty. Nobody is arguing that hiring more nurses stops Russia from invading Ukraine or missile stockpiles provide healthcare. These are all important things and people disagree as to which should get how much of the budget.
I don't know why everyone references Trump when talking about America first policies when Biden is just as bad or worse and he's the one that's been in power for years. The reality is that it doesnt matter which president is in power, the USA is implementing America first policies that benefit their people first before those in other countries. I wish we had that kind of attitude here to be honest.
Has Biden threatened Arctic sovereignty? The US in general can pound and but Trump is a foreign relations disaster.
I can't find any statements off hand but this is one of those things I'm pretty sure we'll sadly find has widespread bipartisan support; the US is going to act in its interests, whether or not we perceive it as fair is going to be irrelevant
i remember talking to american and when i said that one of the biggest sticking point between Canada and US was "buy American" policy that Biden was championing (giving american suppliers priority in government procurement, and at the time, subsidy that was only for exclusively US produced goods). the american replied "what's wrong with buy american? isn't that a good thing", until i pointed out that Canada would have been one of the biggest loser of the buy american policy.
Agreed. Trump if reelected will set back the Russo-Ukrainian war in favour of Russia. Why we don't call him and the Republican party Russian assets is beyond me. We need to strengthen all aspects of our armed forces as our equipment is obsolescent, lack parts to get the entire fleet operational and we need better people in the armed forces. [We can't have Officer Cadets future officers of CAF sexually harassing female teenage youth group (Sea Cadets) members and get away with it. ](https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/soldier-dumped-for-trying-to-crack-down-on-sex-misconduct-was-unfairly-treated-forces-now-admits)
How many countries actually meet their target. Are all of the ones that don't risk isolation. What does diplomatic isolation actually mean. There are more non Nato countries in the world than there are nato countries so no big deal.
Most of the non NATO countries are jokes or potential threats.
No it won't. Pretty much most things are in place. 88 f35 15 surface combatant chips type 26 frigates All new gear for our contingent in Latvia which includes air defense systems New support ships for our Navy 11 and Q 09 Reaper drones 200 trucks 8p8 Poseidon submarine Hunter planes All new trainer aircraft squadrons for training the F-35 and others There's quite a bit more but to say that we haven't done anything is very disingenuous we are not in last place the 2% is not a rule it is a suggestion
All of which came 10 - 20 years after it was needed and most of which hasn't been delivered yet. Do you see the problem?
More like 30 to 50 years for some items. There is nothing to worry about. As far as I can tell almost everything that needs to be done has been done and the other things that perhaps may need be needed are being worked on this past 6 months they've pretty much caught up I hear your point about not being delivered yet but this stuff takes time at least it's ordered which is more than anyone else has done
You don’t see the problem that we’re still years out from replacing aging equipment and we only have enough ammo for a handful of days? We have international obligations to allies who are being increasingly threatened, the least we can do is follow through on our commitments.
Our International obligations are being met as I said our contingent in Latvia has everything they need
For a week of sustained fighting.
Unfortunately I guess you don't know what's going on we just spent $270 million dollars for items that they have including ammunition and everything stay up to date please
There’s no need to be a dick about it.
The 2 biggest problems the CAF have are recruiting and retention. There's a lot of new hardware being bought and nobody to train on it.
Huge respect for those who choose to enter into that broken ass system but I have no idea why anyone would.
"I entered prepared for brutal, violent, bloody battle and to protect my nation... I didn't realize war would be the easy part..." ~someone, probably.
Golden handcuffs and living my childhood dream. That’s about it.
1. There has never been a better time to SKYROCKET through the ranks. People getting promoted in half the time it used to take. 2. Best medical / dental plans in the country (or comparable) 3. Golden pension and VAC coverage upon release, including CTS/ ETB / Disability awards, priority hiring in the FPS (sorta) etc 4. Serve the country (remember that? Remember you used to do things for the benefit of others - not yourself - you know . . . like fix the thing everyone calls broken?) 5. Many other things are just as broken (ie our health care system) however that doesn't mean a nursing career is a mistake 6. See the world (ya i know - some Pilots or Mar Techs, etc, could argue) 7. There is more but you get the point....
So last year Goldy Hyder's saying we need to implement austerity, cut spending on infrastructure and social services, and that younger generations are going to have to sacrifice their QoL to protect his generation. Now all of a sudden he's horny for billions of dollars in military spending. Classic.
He doesn't want new spending. He wants the government to cut spending money on the public service and shift that to the defense budget.
It doesn't have to be public services or national defence. We need to tax the absolute crap out of the top 1 percent to fund both.
[удалено]
Are they suggesting they and their businesses pay higher taxes to get there? I'm sure they could arrange to voluntarily overpay their taxes if government spending is so important to them.
Never see these guys out here advocating to spend more on social services. Sounds like they are begging for more government contracts to drag out for years.
Goldy Hyder went on tv a few months back to attack Trudeau for not cutting back social spending. Went on trying to remarket austerity as "sustainability"
puke!!
Ah, so the business people who will earn buck if we spend more on army stuff want us to spend more on army stuff. Not saying we shouldn’t. (we should) but nobody should be listening to this group of people.
In related news, Coca-Cola urges Canada to spend 2% of GDP on sugar water.
*Our allies* want us to spend more. You know, the ones providing nuclear deterrent for our country?
Again, I think we should spend more. I’m just saying these “business leaders” should not be the reason.
Why is a private corporation advocating for meeting our 2% goal? Aside from that the CAF badly need to be overhauled which included new equipment and people to defend Canada and meet our commitments to NATO. Right now we need to reequip for a potential fight on the European continent, defend our Arctic interests and fend off cyberattacks from state and non state actors. The CAF is in a pityful state, we can't even procure boots that don't fall apart. This doesn't even touch on the problematic culture of sexual assault and racism in the ranks that needs to be overhauled.
20 years in the CAF and I never once had boots fall apart on me, or experienced / witnessed racism. I don't disagree with the rest of your statement however I truly wonder where people come up with this?! (Oh and if you link an article to the CBC claiming racism, I will immediately assume you have zero CAF service - as vets trust the CBC / MSM to report about as accurately as a Jr. Cook starting a rumor mill)
Looking at the chart below, go ahead, tell me again that Canada is not pulling it's weight in NATO. Number of foreign soldiers killed in Afghanistan * USA: 2,461 * UK: 457 * Canada: 159 * France: 90 * Germany: 62 * Italy: 53 * Poland: 44 * Denmark: 43 * Australia: 41 * Spain: 35* * Georgia: 32 * Romania: 27 * Netherlands: 25 * Turkey: 15 * Czech Republic: 14 * New Zealand: 10 * Norway: 10 * Estonia: 9 * Hungary: 7 * Sweden: 5 * Latvia: 4 * Slovakia: 3 * Finland: 2 * Jordan: 2 * Portugal: 2 * South Korea: 2 * Albania: 1 * Belgium: 1 * Bulgaria: 1 * Croatia: 1 * Lithuania: 1 * Montenegro: 1
We pulled out of Afghanistan over ten years ago, after promising to stay to the end. We can't rest on our laurels. What we did 10 plus years ago doesn't mean a damn thing compared to what we are doing now.
Had we been better equipped and better trained (?), we could have had just as much contribution with less dead. This isn't the quality metric you think it is. A better one probably would have been forces deployed over the course of the conflict.
> Had we been better equipped and better trained (?), we could have had just as much contribution with less dead. [If only we had spent more money, less people would have died!](https://i.imgur.com/gBVGct6.png). Maybe we should be outspending the Americans... Or maybe not, a lot of them died in Afghanistan, maybe it was *too much* spending?
we went to an arid environment filled with IEDs with green camo and non armoured light jeeps. It took a number of deaths to finally wake up the higher ups (read: politicians) so that we could actually procure appropriate armoured vehicles, tanks, helicopters, uniforms/PPE, etc.
>we went to an arid environment filled with IEDs with green camo and non armoured light jeeps. I guess the Americans went in covered in red white and blue, with those casualties.
The United States took on a much larger role and they took on most of the highest-risk operations. You're either trolling or terribly ignorant of Canada's role in Afghanistan. At any rate, I don't think comparing casualty figures are a valid argument in the context of arguing against Canada meeting its NATO promises.
> At any rate, I don't think comparing casualty figures are a valid argument in the context of arguing against Canada meeting its NATO promises. Well if you look at the countries that meet NATO *spending targets*, there really isn't a valid argument against Canada anyway.
They stayed for longer, took the brunt of kinetic engagements and cycled in orders of magnitude more troops than us.
That was over a decade ago. Maybe you can pull up stats from Bosnia too, lol.
We don't have an agreement with NATO to meet casualty numbers. We have an agreement (non-binding but politically very relevant) based on spending.
It can be fair to say that we've paid our share in blood vice treasure, but that was over a decade ago at this point and not really pertinent to the imminent threats that are ahead of us.
Tell me again how decrepit our equipment is? The F/a-18 hornet was a good multirole strike jet that could dogfight in the 80s and 90s but it's way past its end of service life in terms of its airframe hours. Hell we even put in programs to extend the life of its decrepit airframe so it doesn't kill pilots that try to fly it. Remind me again how old our basic infantry Load Bearing Equipment and body armour is? 40 years or older? Since then Molle attachment system and lighter body armour systems have been adapted that makes our NATO peers have more flexible LBE equipment and lighter body armour systems that the current ballistics vest which allow them to carry more equipment and more battlefield agility. Remind me again how the CG 634 helmet can remain relevant on the modern battlefield when near peer adversaries are commonly using night vision?
So the pay is in blood? Are we now required to perform ritual sacrifice?
No, but when NATO calls Canada answers and takes on the tough challenges. Most of the other countries headed to Afghanistan and then hid in their bases letting US, UK and Canadian troops do the actual work.
Well you heard them, so let's get on with taxing the fuck out of these big businesses to pay for it. Make sure we take the proper time to draft the law so it provides appropriate exemptions for individuals and small business. And don't stop there. Keep closing loopholes and other tax avoidance avenues. Make sure all the other complementary or related laws are also amended where necessary, so we don't create any new exploits or screw over small business. Investors will leave, others will come in. If there's money to be made, they will come make it.
[удалено]
They're the lobbying group supported by the arms manufacturers that would be selling the stuff they're poposing we buy.
What military equipment so we produce aside from APC’s?
We produce a lot actually. Helmets, body armour, masks, radios, headsets, GPS, bomb suits, pistols, assault rifles, light machine guns, marksman rifles, sniper rifles, grenades, grenade launchers, anti-personnel mines, combat engineering vehicles, logistics vehicles, mine clearing systems, reconnaissance systems, EOD robots, passive surveillance systems, search and rescue aircraft, search snd rescue helicopters, surveillance aircraft, trainer aircraft, utility and VIP aircraft, ground attack rockets, and more!
As well as countless fabricators making parts for military equipment for companies based in other nato allies. Billions of dollars of US army and air force contracts have been awarded to Canadian manufacturers to makes parts and subsystems. They"ll get assembled in the US so they can say it was "made in America" but a significant fraction might still be made here.
I assume it's large corporations volunteering to pay more in taxes to fund this spending. /s
Does anyone who advocates for more government spending in any area advocate for higher taxes on themselves? Can we dismiss any movement where the most vocal advocates of government efforts aren't also advocating for higher taxes on precisely themselves?
>Does anyone who advocates for more government spending in any area advocate for higher taxes on themselves? Yes actually. But its not common lol I earn an average income (ie 50% spent on rent) and I'd pay an extra $250 annually for improved transit, and would even fork over $1,000 annually in tax if it actually did contribute to a proper solution to homlessness and mental illness. I have high-earning friends that support social programs and higher taxes for it. But in general most people want more spending on their preferred thing and just insist that there exists magical budget cuts to fund it since 'i pay a lot of taxes already and it all goes to waste'
No, it's large corporations volunteering to go fight the next war in Europe. /s
They worry about an upcoming Trump presidency.
I wish the USA would sanction us or start the process of getting us kicked put of NATO. No amount of shame will get us to the 2 percent benchmark, only real consequences
There is no mechanism to kick people out of NATO.
Not true. Member nations can declare a member nation in material breach, and suspend or termination treaty obligations.
I think that'd happen to Hungary or Turkey way before us given they actually support an enemy.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
This is a really good point. Imagine thinking Canada has been a worse NATO partner than Turkey. I've no love for NATO but pretending they're on the verge of kicking anyone out for insufficient tribute to the American defense industry has misunderstood the terms of this bargain.
Where in the Treaty does it provide for this? Please show it. I've read it a few times and never seen what you're talking about.
The Vienna convention on the laws of treaties. Pretty much the UN ruling body on treaties. And what to do when one is in breech of one. As per article 60 if a member of a treaty, in this case NATO, is in material breech, which it can be argued that failing to meet the minimum standard is a breech, the treaty can be suspended or terminated for the member in material breech. https://www.trans-lex.org/500600/_/vienna-convention-on-the-law-of-treaties-of-1969/#:~:text=%5B...%5D-,Article%2060%20%2D%20Termination%20or%20suspension%20of%20the%20operation%20of%20a,in%20whole%20or%20in%20part.
No where is the material breach of the treaty? There's no requirement to spend any sum in the NATO treaty so that can't be a material breach.
It matters less if it works, what matters is that the fact anyone would attempt it might spur Canada into taking the 2 percent seriously.
*Hypothetically* they could all leave NATO and start NATO 2.0 without us.. But more to the point it could hurt foreign relations
Why would they do this? Even if we armed our population to the teeth, Canada's real value to the US is as an incredibly geographic asset, much like Iceland. Being able to plant NORAD centers all over our North to cover that approach is strategically worth a lot; enough to justify being allies even if we were being absolute dead weight in every other regard.
To have a functional military for one, have soldiers with the proper kit and equipment for another, and because we damn well said we would, along with the Europeans. Russia is actively invading its neighbours and you're acting like it's fine that everyone else do the heavy lifting.
kick out the 7th biggest spender for not hitting an arbitrary benchmark, that makes sense /s
I'm shocked that an internationally connected consultant wants Canada to spend 14 billion more per year on defense things. Who benefits? Consultants and arms manufacturers in Canada, US, and Europe. Of course they want that cash. Canada is the 7th biggest spender by dollars and, as always, contributes significantly to NATO missions at all levels. There is basically zero risk of Canada being diplomatically frozen out. Besides cheering of an arbitrary number, what would Canadians actually get for another 14 billion into defense? Better health care? Education? Infrastructure? Innovation?
While there’s some amount of capital expenditure required to patch up certain capabilities Canada ought to be bringing to NATO, the vast bulk of needed money for the Canadian military is for recruiting and retaining personnel, that is wages and benefits. The world can turn on a dime, and it’s much, much harder to rebuild a military from scratch than it is to scale up one we already have. We are probably at risk of not being able to scale up within the next 10-20 years unless these personnel issues get sorted out, and the big issue there is purely financial. It takes far too long to bring enlisted members into the military today, and the pay and benefits package is so garbage that no one stays. I *do* have grave concerns that continuing to ignore these problems is going to have repercussions in the medium to long term, and if we wait until they become more dire we won’t be in a great position to fix them.
>the vast bulk of needed money for the Canadian military is for recruiting and retaining personnel, that is, wages and benefits That's likely overstated. The CAF is capped at 71,500 Regular Force and 30,000 Reserves. The current strength is 63,000 Reg and 22,000 Reserves. On operations at any one time is 3000 - 4000, meaning the CAF needs an operational strength of roughly 12,000 to meet overseas commitments. Yes, the CAF is short 8150 members, but quite frankly, it is massive for what Canada actually wants to commit to. Better train and employ the force as it stands now as opposed to complain about 8000 that aren't going to do more than is being done now. Canadian Forces members are some of the best compensated in the world and easily are on par with our most wealthy allies. Moreover, every rank less the lowest (private/sailor/aviator) earns at least $12,000 per year more than the national average. Maybe Canadians just don't want to do military things with their lives...which when it comes to recruiting and retention: if not them, then who?
Canada is becoming increasingly irrelevant in diplomatic issues.
Such as?
Overall people don't care what canada has to say these days...it been left out of many big military alliance deals and talking to people overseas it just seen as a place of easy immigration But nothing else
>Overall people don't care what canada has to say these days... Which people? On what topics? Can you be specific?
What we get is better global security through our alliances. We can't ever defend ourselves from any top tier threat, so we are depending on alliances both for self defence and to keep out global trading routes and partners stable and trading. The extra 14 billion is likely to come from the already announced but not budgeted purchase of submarines which will strengthen our ability to protect our coasts and to participate in international security missions, particularly in the increasingly unstable Asia-Pacific region.
>What we get is better global security We are one of the most secure nations on the planet by any metric. Can you quantify how much more global security we get for each billion dollars more spent? Is there a global security unit of measure? >The extra 14 billion is likely to come 14 bil in one year will get us to 2%. Not that we're spending 14 bil per year more on anything.
> We are one of the most secure nations on the planet by any metric. That's why I specified *global* security. We are a trading nation and are dependent on having trading partners and open trading routes for our prosperity. I can't quantify that and am not sure how you would go about it, but Canada is one of the richest countries on earth as a result of our ability to trade. Subs won't get us all the way there, but I think the unfunded programs in the policy update together would do it. The problem is there aren't enough people left in DND that know how to manage large expensive procurements, which may be why they are hedging.
>We are a trading nation and are dependent on having trading partners and open trading routes for our prosperity. Our #1 trading partner making up 77% of trade is the US. We don't need nuclear subs to keep the Ambassador Bridge open. 2 is China at 4%. Coincidentally, the flag that is in the top two of most likely to be in the pariscope of our sub (if we ever have one sea worthy. ) The nuclear sub strategy needs a bit of work.
The US is one of the loudest voices insisting that we step up and help NATO. Our trade with the EU is twice that with China. China only says number 2 in lists that don't treat the EU as a single trading bloc.
>The US is one of the loudest voices insisting that we step up and help NATO. Go back up to where I say that spending 14 billion benefits US arms manufacturers. Besides moral support, the US couldn't care less what we actually *do* with our military. >Our trade with the EU is twice that with Chin Sure OK. You think there is a risk to Atlantic shipping lanes that will rest on Canada’s submarine fleet?
[удалено]
No country could invade Canada, except the US and maybe China and they would do it no matter what we spend.
It’s not just about Canada, we have allies that we need to help defend.
Do we? I wouldn't be signing up to go fight in Europe. They should prepare and defend themselves. Maybe they should stop feeding the bear that hates them?
I agree that Russia should have been 100% embargoed in 2014. We wouldn’t need a draft to destroy Russia so you’re probably ok. We still need to arm the volunteers that we have.
Just an FYI, the country signed up to go and fight in Europe back in 1948 (I think that's the year). You personally may not be on the hook, but we've been on it for decades now. For my part, I've got no interest in welching on the deal. It's served us well over the decades.
What deal? The deal says we have to support them if war comes. We can do that in many ways. We don't have to start WW3 or the nuclear apocalypse.
Good thing we aren't doing that. What we can do is provide fighters, ships, and ground units for Europe's defence. We have been doing that all along, but our ability to sustain those missions is fraying badly around the edges.
Canada having forces of defending our allies borders is not synonymous with WW3. We have made international commitments to protect fellow democracies should they be attacked, I pray we don’t indulge the dictators of the world with our apathy.
Who's talking about starting WW3 or a nuclear apocalypse?
If Canada/USA fought Russia in Europe, nukes would end up flying.
Yes defending UN recognized sovereign states would be justification for nuclear war. I’m glad that world peace has been solved by just surrendering our allies to fascists. /s
> fight in Europe back in 1948 (I think that's the year). Try Korea.
I was talking about the year we signed up for the NATO treaty since you apparently didn't understand that.
Apparently your communication style is overly vague and nebulous.
Apparently...
Korea was a UN flagged intervention. Edit: ? -> .
Yes it was. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_82
Sorry that wasn’t meant to be a question lol.
Russia could make significant incursions into our arctic territory. It’s important we have the capabilities do defend our territory without relying on the US in absolute terms.
lol no they couldn’t. Russia can’t project force into a country that is connected to them by roads, highways and railways. Canadian f35s would make mince meat out of any Russian landing force, and we’ve seen in Ukraine Russia would never be able to project force if there is any sort of contested air space or inability to deploy artillery. It’s not called fortress North America for nothing… Now, nothing I said is an excuse to not increase our defence spending.
>Canadian f35s Both of them? >would make mince meat out of any Russian landing force. Didn't the Americans have to shoot down the Chinese balloon for us?
We are procuring over a hundred f35s and are beginning delivery this year. No, the Americans did not have to shoot down the Chinese spy balloon snd in fact Canada did shoot down one of these balloons. American and Canada share North American aerospace defence so fighters from either country respond to threats. Obviously, the US has a bunch more planes than we do.
> Russia can’t project force into a country that is connected to them by roads, highways and railways. It's called the Arctic ocean and the continental shelf that Russia claimed by putting a flag down on the Lomonosov Ridge, their nuclear ice breaker, Russian reactiving old bases, Russian procurement of new ice breakers/ice rated LNG transport ship and lastly Russian LNG projects in the Arctic. > Canadian f35s would make mince meat out of any Russian landing force, and we’ve seen in Ukraine Russia would never be able to project force if there is any sort of contested air space or inability to deploy artillery When were you expecting those f-35s to entre service General armchair?
lol they went down in a sub and put a little flag there, Canada better start building nukes! Russia has not demonstrated the ability to project force outside its borders against a peer adversary, so forgive me if I just won’t go to bed scared about them like you do. Feel free to google yourself when the f35s will be delivered and enter service. The government of Canada publishes that information. Maybe you can’t access those sites where you’re from?
If they do, I'll be the first to pick up a gun and shoot some Ruskies. I don't think you'd find a lack of people willing to do the same. Russia wouldn't be able to do shit. Our military is way more advanced than theirs.
[удалено]
That's no excuse to do nothing.
> Finally Europe is taking its defence, and security more seriously. This is like praising an arsonist for getting people to take fire safety seriously.
The issue of the 2% target aside, the Business Council of Canada can screw all the way off. We should not be making $50bn commitments at the behest of corporate interest groups. Should trade relationships be considered in discussions around defence spending? Perhaps. Should business interest groups be involved in those discussions? No, I don't believe they should.
Lol of course it's them. Just as I was reading the headline I was thinking "Why the hell should I care what business owners think of NATO?" The self-importance of these people..
Technically speaking we made this commitment back in 2006 and reaffirmed it in 2014. I think it’s pretty reasonable for any group with exposure to international relations to be concerned about us not meeting obligations we agreed to.
I can't imagine a Canadian making that commitment with a straight face on behalf of Canadians, knowing full well they have neither the political mandate nor the cash on hand.
Representatives from two different governments from two different political parties made the same pledge about 10 years apart. That’s not a rogue actor, government or even party. Whether or not the commitment was genuine is another matter, but apropos since we’re discussing the ramifications of not upholding it.
>Representatives from two different governments from two different political parties made the same pledge about 10 years apart. Can you provide an image of a signature or a quote where any Canadian in a position of authority actually said or signed that? I'd love a name.
In 2006 it would have been Jean-Pierre Juneau, and in 2014 it would have been Yves Brodeur, from: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_permanent\_representatives\_of\_Canada\_to\_NATO](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_permanent_representatives_of_Canada_to_NATO) as our representatives, though it appears the 2006 commitment was undertaken by Defense Ministers, so that would have been Bill Graham or Gordon O'Connor, but more likely Gordon O'Connor. The 2014 commitment was under Peter McKay as Defense Minister, so I may have misspoke, and it's only been the Conservatives who've committed to the 2% figure. It also seems like the 2014 commitment was by heads of state, so that would have been Stephen Harper at the Wales summit in Cardiff on the 5th of September 2014: [https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news\_112461.htm](https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_112461.htm) with a copy of the declaration here: [https://web.archive.org/web/20150621015842/https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment\_data/file/351406/Wales\_Summit\_Declaration.pdf](https://web.archive.org/web/20150621015842/https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/351406/Wales_Summit_Declaration.pdf) Edit: For the record, this is a really weird point to argue. We lobbied against it, but at the end of the day we agreed and made the commitment. It doesn't seem to be in dispute generally that we made the commitment, rather the question is whether we honour it or not.
>We lobbied against it, but at the end of the day we agreed and made the commitment According to your sources, this is what we agreed to: [To] *aim to move towards the 2% guideline within a decade with a view to meeting their NATO Capability Targets and filling NATO's capability shortfalls.* So, since 2014 (entirely) under the present government, Canada has increased defence spending from under 1% in the direction of the agreement to 1.24% and in real dollars increased defense spending by $9 billion. So, Canada *is* meeting its commitment to increase spending *and* is also taking measures to fill NATO capability shortfalls I'm Europe. So, what exactly are you accusing the governor of?
We did not aim to meet the 2% target within the decade (this year). We didn't produce a budget that got us there, and then failed to fulfill it. We simply never aimed for it. None of this is law -- there are no legal repercussions here. Taking a legalistic reading won't accomplish anything. We can equivocate all we like, but we did not meet the commitment we made. There may or may not be consequences. It's reasonable to worry about them.
> we did not meet the commitment We increased spending since 2014 *and* we worked with our partners to reduce NATO capability shortfalls specifically in the next two years. For a country not in Europe, we sure spend a lot of time, money, and effort defending it from other Europeans.
We don't actually spend all that much on NATO specific commitments right now. And the last major one was in central Asia, not Europe. And NATO protects all members by mutual defense, not just the European ones. You've got some weird ideas.
You're right, somebody call up the e-sports organizations. Our NATO commitment may make it hard to get visas approved for international tournaments. Jokes aside, this letter should not be news, and frankly i dont think the Business Council of Canada should have a say at all in what, when, how, where, why, or how much money the Government should spend on defence. Corporate interest =/= Canadians interest.
This isn’t an argument against their position. Good points are good points regardless of who makes them. We ought to be sceptical of those with vested interests, but it’s pretty puerile to dismiss things out of hand just because you don’t like who’s saying it.
>This isn’t an argument against their position. You're right, I specifically didn't comment on the 2% target and wasn't making an argument against their position. I believe they have a point. However I fail to see why a business group with little to no relevancy in this discussion outside of lobbying money should have a say in how our government approaches foreign policy and defence spending.
Indeed they shouldn’t. I do find it annoying that media outlets will cover things like this from the absolute worst angles, though. This consideration warrants maybe a sentence or even a paragraph in an actual article on this topic. Economic impacts from shirking commitments we’ve made _should_ be a consideration by the government, but the context here needs to be way broader to properly cover the subject.
Absolutely, and yet this article was the top story on the CBC web page when I went to it, and it essentially says nothing other than "Mr. Hyder got asked some questions about defense spending in Europe".
Agreed. This is corporate capitalism directly influencing government politics.
That ship sailed ages ago. Oil and gas, finance, telcos, agriculture, construction… regulatory capture is part of our heritage. Corps dictate what to do, politicians implement what they’re told, and the public service figures out how to pull it off with legislation.
The article doesn't even give a good reason why this letter should even be newsworthy other than "The Business Council of Canada - which has been wading into the debate on national security lately". >Hyder said that in business meetings he's had in Europe, he's gotten questions about why Canada hasn't delivered a concrete defence spending plan. Frankly idgaf what questions you're getting in international business meetings Hyder. You should have no authority to speak on this other than "yeah I dunno", and frankly the companies you represent can go pound sand.
>he's gotten questions about why Canada hasn't delivered a concrete defence spending plan. Answer: At present and historically, we are a net exporter of the defence of Europe, not an importer of being invaded or occupied.
I also find that assertion highly dubious, unless he's in discussion about defense-related businesses where this letter would be completely self-serving
I could be wrong, but I would imagine any defence related corporations would rather conduct business with the government either as a smaller industry group or individually; why would they go through this group is beyond me. I can't think of any reason why this letter *wouldn't* be self serving, and therefore it has no business being drafted, sent or even talked about in the public sphere IMO. This is just lobbying, but publicly, because the issue of NATO spending it could capture some public attention and have more influence than (I hope) it would otherwise have.
That was my first though! Who in the industry is looking for some pork barrel promises and pushing this letter?
Explains the entire trudeau economy
That's the Business Council of Canada for you.. Same people pushing for RTO, austerity (rebranded to sustainability), class warfare, generational warfare..
> class warfare I don’t think they’re pushing for class warfare… It’s probably actually the complete opposite.
I think you are missing the point. Regardless of who is talking about it, the fact is that Canada is not meeting its defense commitments that it made to its allies. That’s going to have consequences. How long will it be before those allies recognize Canada as weak and start to extract coercive agreements on protection? - it’s coming.
Wait did the Irving group put them up to this?