Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[dimsum]

These issues usually surface during on-site audits where the Suits tell the Boots they aren’t following policies. When said policies are challenged by units on the premise of usefulness, the Suits don’t budge - because they are the ones who create them.

Im starting to give up trying to fight it, it’s just not worth my energy. Most people with only a few years left are feeling the same thing.

View attachment 88966

Now I won’t say that staff don’t create churn due to being staff, but I’m thinking that the “suits” aren’t explaining the reasons behind the policies very well.

But I suppose “leading change” in the old PER days didn’t mean “leading useful change”.

 

[IKnowNothing]

So then.... Tax and Spend?

That (raising taxes to increase spending) is one option. So is cutting fat from other areas of the budget

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Trump wants Europe to harden up. If the article from the Telegraph I posted is half-ways right he appears to be clearing the way for European troops to enter Ukraine with US blessing. He is apparently happy to supply weapons but not blood or treasure. He does have form in that regard because he did supply Javelins when Obama would not. I think he is planning on a Lend-Lease contract such as that which was sold to the UK in 1916 and 1940.

My guess is that Europe will take him up on the offer, led by the Poles and the Scandinavians. The French will go along for the ride because they don't want to lose influence. Starmer will likely follow suit. The Germans and the Mediterranean will do their best to do nothing.

What happens if the US effectively locks Canada out of its market? Canada will be forced to look East-West instead of North-South and the old Red Line trade route will become necessary. Only now, instead of terminating in London and Sydney it will terminate in Tokyo, Seoul and Warsaw.

View attachment 88945

The Japanese and Koreans, as well as the Europeans, have a demonstrated desire for the things we have to trade, starting with our energy products but also including food, lumber and metals.

The French and the Brits want to sell gucci kit but the Poles and the Easterners are not willing to wait on their timelines or pay their prices. They are more than happy to buy from the South Koreans, Taiwan and Japan as well as Turkey and Israel. And necessity is making a mother of them all.

Canada is not a G7 country. It never was. It was brought into the G7 to balance out the Europeans just as it was brought into NATO.

If the US doesn't want us there and threatens our interests (and doesn't want to buy us out) what is to prevent us re-aligning with the UK and France, Northern Europe, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan? With future growth potential through Turkey and the Stans.

If we are positing counter-factual futures.

Its a fun little The Sun-never-sets-on-the-British-Empire map you have there, but we should look at some facts. Since Confederation our greatest trading partner has been the United States. Canadian trade and transportation links have always been more North-South than they have been East-West. What has shifted is the importance of trans-Pacific trade vs trans-Atlantic trade. But the real deal is still North-South.

Using 2022 figure, 77% of our exports and 50% of our imports are with the United States. That export number has moved up and down over the past twenty years between 75% and 84%, but no other trading partner or block comes close. Our imports are increasingly from Asia. China is 4% of our exports and 12% of our imports. Japan is 2% of our exports and 2.7% of our imports. Great Britain is 2% of our exports and 1.3% of our imports. You get the picture. The economies of Canada and the US are intertwined. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't diversify, but there are huge barriers. There are reasons why the US is such a huge trading partner.

 

[Kirkhill]

Its a fun little The Sun-never-sets-on-the-British-Empire map you have there, but we should look at some facts. Since Confederation our greatest trading partner has been the United States. Canadian trade and transportation links have always been more North-South than they have been East-West. What has shifted is the importance of trans-Pacific trade vs trans-Atlantic trade. But the real deal is still North-South.

Using 2022 figure, 77% of our exports and 50% of our imports are with the United States. That export number has moved up and down over the past twenty years between 75% and 84%, but no other trading partner or block comes close. Our imports are increasingly from Asia. China is 4% of our exports and 12% of our imports. Japan is 2% of our exports and 2.7% of our imports. Great Britain is 2% of our exports and 1.3% of our imports. You get the picture. The economies of Canada and the US are intertwined. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't diversify, but there are huge barriers. There are reasons why the US is such a huge trading partner.

The issue was raised over the question of US tariffs. Tariffs would seem to suggest that Canada-US trade was no longer assured.
Given that, rather than role over and play dead, I suggest we might want to look elsewhere for trade and markets.
If North-South trade is not an option then East-West trade becomes more attractive. Even if it is difficult.

With respect to the Empire. I explicitly proposed Japan and S.Korea as western partners and the EU, more specifically the northerners, as eastern partners. We have been approached by all as potential partners looking for our energy.

Yes, it would be harder than north-south trade with the US. But not impossible. We have been talking about diversifying forever. Trump's tariffs would do us a favour and make the east-west route a little more attractive.

Or we could roll over and wait for our belly to be scratched.

 

[Remius]

The issue was raised over the question of US tariffs. Tariffs would seem to suggest that Canada-US trade was no longer assured.
Given that, rather than role over and play dead, I suggest we might want to look elsewhere for trade and markets.
If North-South trade is not an option then East-West trade becomes more attractive. Even if it is difficult.

With respect to the Empire. I explicitly proposed Japan and S.Korea as western partners and the EU, more specifically the northerners, as eastern partners. We have been approached by all as potential partners looking for our energy.

Yes, it would be harder than north-south trade with the US. But not impossible. We have been talking about diversifying forever. Trump's tariffs would do us a favour and make the east-west route a little more attractive.

Or we could roll over and wait for our belly to be scratched.

And that may be the way other trading partners go as well. Not sure those markets compensate enough though.

 

[Kirkhill]

And that may be the way other trading partners go as well. Not sure those markets compensate enough though.

We might just have to make it enough. Stretch out a bit more to secure more markets.

 

[RangerRay]

Wasn’t diversifying our trade from the USA how we got into our 30+ year love affair with China? That worked out great for us…

 

[Remius]

Wasn’t diversifying our trade from the USA how we got into our 30+ year love affair with China? That worked out great for us…

Yep.

The problem with isolationism is that someone will come in to fill the void. When the UK pulled back at least the US stepped in. I have no doubt that China will step in further than it already is.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

The issue was raised over the question of US tariffs. Tariffs would seem to suggest that Canada-US trade was no longer assured.
Given that, rather than role over and play dead, I suggest we might want to look elsewhere for trade and markets.
If North-South trade is not an option then East-West trade becomes more attractive. Even if it is difficult.

With respect to the Empire. I explicitly proposed Japan and S.Korea as western partners and the EU, more specifically the northerners, as eastern partners. We have been approached by all as potential partners looking for our energy.

Yes, it would be harder than north-south trade with the US. But not impossible. We have been talking about diversifying forever. Trump's tariffs would do us a favour and make the east-west route a little more attractive.

Or we could roll over and wait for our belly to be scratched.

88% of our energy exports go to the US. You don't shift a number that big by rolling up your sleeves and trying harder.

Tariffs on that scale would hurt everyone and would not last very long.

 

[Kirkhill]

Price of Natural Gas in Alberta - 0.54 CAD/GJ

Market Prices

Natural gas rates for Alberta’s consumers are based on gas prices established through the Natural Gas Exchange (NGX) electronic trading platform.

www.gasalberta.com

Price of Natural Gas in US - 2.7 USD/MMBTU or 3.54 CAD/GJ

Natural gas - Price - Chart - Historical Data - News

Natural gas increased 0.34 USD/MMBtu or 14.53% since the beginning of 2024, according to trading on a contract for difference (CFD) that tracks the benchmark market for this commodity. Natural gas - values, historical data, forecasts and news - updated on November of 2024.

tradingeconomics.com

Price of Natural Gas in Japan - 12.91 USD/MMBTU or 16.93 CAD/GJ

Japan Liquefied Natural Gas Import Price Monthly Trends: Commodity Markets Review | YCharts

In depth view into Japan Liquefied Natural Gas Import Price including historical data from 1977 to 2024, charts and stats.

ycharts.com

Price of Natural Gas in UK - 1.07 GBP/therm or 18.17 CAD/GJ

UK Natural Gas - Price - Chart - Historical Data - News

UK Gas increased 27.17 GBp/Thm or 33.67% since the beginning of 2024, according to trading on a contract for difference (CFD) that tracks the benchmark market for this commodity. UK Natural Gas - values, historical data, forecasts and news - updated on November of 2024.

tradingeconomics.com

Buy at 50 cents.
Sell at $18.00

But there is no business case.

....

I'm not saying there wouldn't be pain. I am saying that we should use the pain to our advantage.

 

[Furniture]

We have people that are in uniform that haven’t fired a live round in years if not decades. Not sure how expert they will be if I give them a new C8.

We are likely bleeding experts because we have poor value.

I’m sure you have noticed we need the people and we haven’t been doing that great on that front.

Serious question. Is the CAF in its current state value for the money we spend on it?

Shooting isn't the kind of expertise I was thinking of. Anyone can be made a passable shot with a few hundred rounds and coaching. That's why we switched to muskets from bows.

The CAF isn't great value, but it isn't because we have too many people or spend too much on benefits. It's not a good value because we cut everything else, meaning the people don't have the tools they need to be effective.

 

[RangerRay]

The CAF isn't great value, but it isn't because we have too many people or spend too much on benefits. It's not a good value because we cut everything else, meaning the people don't have the tools they need to be effective.

With my PS employer, if one party is in power, the pay is better but we don’t get the tools to be effective. When the other party gets in power, they’ll get us the tools to do the job, but don’t want to pay us jack.

 

[Furniture]

With my PS employer, if one party is in power, the pay is better but we don’t get the tools to be effective. When the other party gets in power, they’ll get us the tools to do the job, but don’t want to pay us jack.

We get the same. Our pay is linked to PS pay, so when the PS gets raises so do we.

 

[Remius]

Shooting isn't the kind of expertise I was thinking of. Anyone can be made a passable shot with a few hundred rounds and coaching. That's why we switched to muskets from bows.

Sure, but we don’t even get that either.

The CAF isn't great value, but it isn't because we have too many people or spend too much on benefits. It's not a good value because we cut everything else, meaning the people don't have the tools they need to be effective.

No argument there. But for what we are paying our people we still don’t get the value. We are agreeing on the same thing but from different angles. If you pay a brain surgeon 500k a year but don’t give him the tools to do brain surgery you are not getting any value out of the 500K you are paying him.

 

[OldSolduer]

Shooting isn't the kind of expertise I was thinking of. Anyone can be made a passable shot with a few hundred rounds and coaching. That's why we switched to muskets from bows.

The CAF isn't great value, but it isn't because we have too many people or spend too much on benefits. It's not a good value because we cut everything else, meaning the people don't have the tools they need to be effective.

The CAF doesn't need a sniper-clerk. Or a Sharpshooter Sup Tech. The CAF needs the pers to be experts in their field. Same with Bde Staff - they need to be the experts in Bde stuff - not sniping at insurgents.

 

[Furniture]

Sure, but we don’t even get that either.

True. I just did my PWT 1 here in Ottawa. 60 rounds. Before the government made my practice rifle illegal, I would shoot more than that in a single range session.

No argument there. But for what we are paying our people we still don’t get the value. We are agreeing on the same thing but from different angles. If you pay a brain surgeon 500k a year but don’t give him the tools to do brain surgery you are not getting any value out of the 500K you are paying him.

Fair point. We both agree the CAF is a bad value, and it's mostly down to the lack of tools.

 

[Remius]

True. I just did my PWT 1 here in Ottawa. 60 rounds. Before the government made my practice rifle illegal, I would shoot more than that in a single range session.

It’s sad state of affairs when the people I rely on most for marksmanship are the ones that dedicate that craft on their own time and dime. If we have guys that are really good at shooting, it certainly isn’t because of the CAF, it’s despite it.

 

[Good2Golf]

But there is no business case.

Well, not into some peoples’ pockets from their business interests in China…

 

[ytz]

I don't think anyone is talking about doing away with OAS/GIS- just framing it properly as the tax payer funded welfare that it is and adjusting formulas and caps to align with a justifiable goal.

It's funny how their welfare isn't welfare. "I'm entitled to my entitlements."

Well $30B for defence (by 2030, I think something like $25B today) has to come from somewhere. And there's no way around this when OAS is such a massive part of the federal budget and tax increases are a non-starter.

The 2024 Federal Budget at a Glance - HillNotes

The federal budget outlines the government’s revenue estimates and expenditure priorities for the fiscal year. It is a key component of the parliamentary financial cycle. The outlook for budgetary revenues and expenses can be found in tables A1.6 and A1.7 of Budget 2024.

hillnotes.ca

PS. For those trying to read this chart. A third of those "operating expenses" is the defence budget already.

 

[ytz]

I look at a country like Holland - tiny in size, lacking in alot of natural resources, surrounded in the past with many many larger rivals, population about the size of Ontario - and I ask myself, why do they have sooo many internationally recognized business and a standard of living at a minimum on par with ours and we dont' have even more than we do? Why are we Canadians still 'drawers of water and hewers of wood'?

My favourite comparison is Sweden. How the heck does that company produces so many globally recognized brands for a country of less than 11M? From ABBA to Volvo and IKEA to Saab?