On military spending: this is a symptom of a larger problem of perverse incentives. Governments get elected promising new initiatives, but to pay for these initiatives they need to squeeze money from existing programs (even while raising spending). That means those programs and services whither and stumble (and we fail on deliverology).
That's on us, though, for always going for the shiny new thing. We need to ask the harder question: how will government's improve the efficacy of existing programs (or end them if they aren't having the desired impacts)? Making a lot of programs a few percent more effective might have a pretty significant impact on a lot of people but that doesn't make for a very compelling campaign slogan!
I think we should meet our 2% commitment as that signals to our NATO partners that we are serious -- and a smaller power like Canada benefits from being in NATO as a way of both having an influence on the broader world and being in a grouping with other middle powers who can at least somewhat influence the US. We ignore this benefit at our peril.
On media business models: what I want is access to a range of voices and news at a reasonable price. That's hard now. I'd love a pay by article or pay to access a broader group of reporters/writers, but the closest I've seen so far is the mechanism they've built into Post News, which I like, but am not sure if it will sustain itself.
The VW subsidy is an outcome of a big push by the government and auto unions to get Canada into the battery electric vehicle game. The problem is that it’s just a manufacturing plant, not the R&D work needed to actually make Canada a significant part of the industry. Canada’s not even close to being competitive in development of battery technology, so we’re paying somebody else to bring their technology here to do it. And when the technology changes, we’ll need to pay for the plant to be upgraded to keep it here.
Canada actually is a leader in development of hydrogen technology, with big clusters in Quebec, Ontario, and BC. There’s also a growing hydrogen storage and handling business growing out of the energy sector in Alberta. Fuel cell technology has an edge over battery technology in commercial and heavy duty applications, as well as industries like rail, marine, and aviation.
$13 billion could go a long way towards building out hydrogen infrastructure and hydrogen-powered transportation networks using Canadian technology that’s sought out by China, Europe, and the US. Why are we focusing on playing a “me too” game with batteries instead of building on real strength in hydrogen? I’ve been involved in the fuel cell sector for over 20 years, so I’m not strictly neutral on this. On the other hand, I’ve got a pretty good understanding of where the state of technology is and its capabilities vs. batteries.
Our current splurge in military spending is 100% reactionary. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has brought unwanted attention to the deplorable situation in the CAF, and staffing shortages are just the tip of the iceberg. The Liberals are putting lots of new money into the Ukrainian war effort and sending any hardware we can spare that isn’t rusted out. This is admirable and I support these initiatives, but the general trend of malaise won’t improve until Liberal and NDP politicians stop pretending that the CAF are just a branch of Disaster Assistance. Handy for sand bagging and cleaning up messes but starved for proper fighting and reconnaissance equipment. In fact our soldiers in Poland would starve if they weren’t buying their own rations.
Average Canadians are pretty two faced about the situation. We respect our veterans and decry the lack of supports for veterans who are scarred from their war experiences. We join in solidarity to mourn the lost on Remembrance Day, but refuse to properly recruit, train and retain a fighting force and provide them with modern equipment. This troubling attitude allows scheming politicians to play procurement shell games with lots of announcements that won’t turn into useable assets for a generation, at the earliest.
$13 billion to VW. I give up. That is fiscal insanity. If it was a loan, I could understand it. perhaps, at their next meeting the G20 could agree to end all corporate subsidies of all types in favour of loans at 1% interest......that must be paid back in amounts equal to the company's dividend each year. Perhaps, governments could then resume their job of working for the voters instead of their donors.
Do we even have a functioning military? Irving was told they'd be building 15 destroyers for the RCN in 2011. They haven't laid the keel of the first one yet.
So I'd say Canada is broken. There's no one out there to fix it. I once again ask myself why I had kids.....they don't deserve this. We can't even plant trees....
It's not just the level of military spending, it's also how you spend it. For example, military procurement is too often a pork barrel of goodies for the politician in charge -- or at least their electoral districts. Hence Canada dividing its naval shipbuilding among three different Canadian shipyards, thus losing any possible economies of scale and learning by doing. Of course, we are not alone -- the Americans do it too. But when your defense budget is as small as ours, it hurts.
As for the future of newspapers, this article reminds me of the evolution of retailing. Once upon a time, we shopped at big bricks-and-mortar department stores. Then the specialty boutiques came and eroded their market. Finally, on-line retailers delivered the final blow. The news business is following, albeit with a twenty year lag. Today, I would no more read a MSM broadsheet than I would go to The Bay -- if it still existed.
I have never understood the thinking behind this 2% of GDP on defence spending. If we just doubled the pay of everyone in the Canadian Armed Forces, we would be much closer to this goal, but would anything be better?
Unfortunately, not meeting this goal will cost the Liberals zero votes, so they don't care.
I know many people who think Canada can defend itself through diplomacy alone. In fact, I believe when push comes to shove, that is what the majority of Canadians think. The problem is that there is a misalignment between that view and other goals. For instance, Canada still wants to view itself as a force in international peacekeeping. In truth, it no longer has the military capability or the will, to support its purported international peacekeeping goals. Most Canadians in any sort of leadership position don't understand the degraded capabilities of the Canadian military and most haven't served in the military. In fact, most don't even have any family members who have served in the military.
Those truly at the top, such as Trudeau, likely understand that the Canadian military is on life support. I suspect that he is fine with that. But he won't be too happy about these intelligence leaks that expose his complete disinterest in the Canadian military.
Not sure where all of this will lead. For a long time, Canada has gotten off easily on defense spending by being able to point an accusing finger at the bellicosity of the United States. It has adhered to a more with less attitude like a religion. When Germany, Turkey and Haiti are complaining about Canada not being able to meet its NATO commitments, it is clear that Trudeau can no longer hide.
How is it that over 50% of those surveyed, supported strike action? Was I the only one who saw how many had their salaries reduced, or had their jobs taken away during the lockdowns, while government workers carried on from the comfort of their home? Maybe we’re the problem, not the out of touch Union.
The Liberals aren't afraid to call our country a genocide state, and they certainly aren't afraid to spend money, but there is no way they are going to make a political case to spend money on the military. It is definitely a problem of leadership, but I agree the Poilievre Conservatives are unlikely to be any better.
If NATO kicked us out, I am sure we could find an aspiring super power to ally ourselves with. They might even pay us to join them, they haven't been reluctant to give us money for other things.
I support the concept of 2% of GDP devoted to defense, but not until:
-government aligns its procurement objectives behind fulfilling military needs, rather than delivering industrial benefits to targeted ridings and companies connected to old money Laurentian families
-the military cleans up what appears to be endemic sexual harassment and corruption (the "old boys" looking our for one another)
-government identifies cuts to fund the 2%. The country is rapidly spiraling into a debt crisis and all new government spending must be funded through re-allocation
On the topic of the VW plant:
-looking forward to a non-partisan analysis of whether $13B is to match the IRA, or exceed it. I am skeptical that the Americans would enable such a horrible detail
-what competitive advantage does Canada offer in battery manufacturing? Its critical minerals are in the ground and unlikely to be produced due to the litany of duties to consult, gender impact studies etc. The US auto states are mostly Right to Work and offer far lower housing and energy costs to retain workers. Increasingly, auto manufacturing will involve supply chains that extend into Mexico, providing further competitive advantage to southern US states
The CPC should trap the Liberals by positioning the deal as a poor investment unless the government removes roadblocks to resource projects.
A suggestion: there are people and institutions whose role is to hold government to account on the issues which Canada is failing to cope with. For example, why not interview someone such as CPC Defence critic James Bezan and the NDP Defence critic Lindsay Mathyssen on the procurement failures and other such issues, pushing for their proposals to resolve them. There similar institutions and individuals whose briefs are to address every short coming I've seen mentioned in your reports. It may not be a sure-fire solution, but at least it will air some of the issues and hopefully get some pickup on social media, etc.
You are absolutely right on the military issue--it is embarrassing and an indictment of how parochial and simply misguided most Canadians are. And, oh but the current Prime Minister is such an appropriate avatar for all of us. "Let the Americans do it" seems to be the operative paradigm for most in this country.
Chalk it up to 70 plus years (since the end of the Korean War) in which three-and-a-half generations have grown up in a prosperous and secure society, with relatively secure borders and a very powerful neighbour (and close friend). That kind of multi-generational complacency will likely be a bitch to turn around.
Even if they build the best battery in the world, we don't have the generating capacity to produce enough power to replace hydrocarbons and even if we did we don't have the distribution capacity. It's madness.
On military spending: this is a symptom of a larger problem of perverse incentives. Governments get elected promising new initiatives, but to pay for these initiatives they need to squeeze money from existing programs (even while raising spending). That means those programs and services whither and stumble (and we fail on deliverology).
That's on us, though, for always going for the shiny new thing. We need to ask the harder question: how will government's improve the efficacy of existing programs (or end them if they aren't having the desired impacts)? Making a lot of programs a few percent more effective might have a pretty significant impact on a lot of people but that doesn't make for a very compelling campaign slogan!
I think we should meet our 2% commitment as that signals to our NATO partners that we are serious -- and a smaller power like Canada benefits from being in NATO as a way of both having an influence on the broader world and being in a grouping with other middle powers who can at least somewhat influence the US. We ignore this benefit at our peril.
On media business models: what I want is access to a range of voices and news at a reasonable price. That's hard now. I'd love a pay by article or pay to access a broader group of reporters/writers, but the closest I've seen so far is the mechanism they've built into Post News, which I like, but am not sure if it will sustain itself.
The VW subsidy is an outcome of a big push by the government and auto unions to get Canada into the battery electric vehicle game. The problem is that it’s just a manufacturing plant, not the R&D work needed to actually make Canada a significant part of the industry. Canada’s not even close to being competitive in development of battery technology, so we’re paying somebody else to bring their technology here to do it. And when the technology changes, we’ll need to pay for the plant to be upgraded to keep it here.
Canada actually is a leader in development of hydrogen technology, with big clusters in Quebec, Ontario, and BC. There’s also a growing hydrogen storage and handling business growing out of the energy sector in Alberta. Fuel cell technology has an edge over battery technology in commercial and heavy duty applications, as well as industries like rail, marine, and aviation.
$13 billion could go a long way towards building out hydrogen infrastructure and hydrogen-powered transportation networks using Canadian technology that’s sought out by China, Europe, and the US. Why are we focusing on playing a “me too” game with batteries instead of building on real strength in hydrogen? I’ve been involved in the fuel cell sector for over 20 years, so I’m not strictly neutral on this. On the other hand, I’ve got a pretty good understanding of where the state of technology is and its capabilities vs. batteries.
Our current splurge in military spending is 100% reactionary. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has brought unwanted attention to the deplorable situation in the CAF, and staffing shortages are just the tip of the iceberg. The Liberals are putting lots of new money into the Ukrainian war effort and sending any hardware we can spare that isn’t rusted out. This is admirable and I support these initiatives, but the general trend of malaise won’t improve until Liberal and NDP politicians stop pretending that the CAF are just a branch of Disaster Assistance. Handy for sand bagging and cleaning up messes but starved for proper fighting and reconnaissance equipment. In fact our soldiers in Poland would starve if they weren’t buying their own rations.
Average Canadians are pretty two faced about the situation. We respect our veterans and decry the lack of supports for veterans who are scarred from their war experiences. We join in solidarity to mourn the lost on Remembrance Day, but refuse to properly recruit, train and retain a fighting force and provide them with modern equipment. This troubling attitude allows scheming politicians to play procurement shell games with lots of announcements that won’t turn into useable assets for a generation, at the earliest.
$13 billion to VW. I give up. That is fiscal insanity. If it was a loan, I could understand it. perhaps, at their next meeting the G20 could agree to end all corporate subsidies of all types in favour of loans at 1% interest......that must be paid back in amounts equal to the company's dividend each year. Perhaps, governments could then resume their job of working for the voters instead of their donors.
Do we even have a functioning military? Irving was told they'd be building 15 destroyers for the RCN in 2011. They haven't laid the keel of the first one yet.
So I'd say Canada is broken. There's no one out there to fix it. I once again ask myself why I had kids.....they don't deserve this. We can't even plant trees....
It's not just the level of military spending, it's also how you spend it. For example, military procurement is too often a pork barrel of goodies for the politician in charge -- or at least their electoral districts. Hence Canada dividing its naval shipbuilding among three different Canadian shipyards, thus losing any possible economies of scale and learning by doing. Of course, we are not alone -- the Americans do it too. But when your defense budget is as small as ours, it hurts.
As for the future of newspapers, this article reminds me of the evolution of retailing. Once upon a time, we shopped at big bricks-and-mortar department stores. Then the specialty boutiques came and eroded their market. Finally, on-line retailers delivered the final blow. The news business is following, albeit with a twenty year lag. Today, I would no more read a MSM broadsheet than I would go to The Bay -- if it still existed.
I have never understood the thinking behind this 2% of GDP on defence spending. If we just doubled the pay of everyone in the Canadian Armed Forces, we would be much closer to this goal, but would anything be better?
Unfortunately, not meeting this goal will cost the Liberals zero votes, so they don't care.
I know many people who think Canada can defend itself through diplomacy alone. In fact, I believe when push comes to shove, that is what the majority of Canadians think. The problem is that there is a misalignment between that view and other goals. For instance, Canada still wants to view itself as a force in international peacekeeping. In truth, it no longer has the military capability or the will, to support its purported international peacekeeping goals. Most Canadians in any sort of leadership position don't understand the degraded capabilities of the Canadian military and most haven't served in the military. In fact, most don't even have any family members who have served in the military.
Those truly at the top, such as Trudeau, likely understand that the Canadian military is on life support. I suspect that he is fine with that. But he won't be too happy about these intelligence leaks that expose his complete disinterest in the Canadian military.
Not sure where all of this will lead. For a long time, Canada has gotten off easily on defense spending by being able to point an accusing finger at the bellicosity of the United States. It has adhered to a more with less attitude like a religion. When Germany, Turkey and Haiti are complaining about Canada not being able to meet its NATO commitments, it is clear that Trudeau can no longer hide.
How is it that over 50% of those surveyed, supported strike action? Was I the only one who saw how many had their salaries reduced, or had their jobs taken away during the lockdowns, while government workers carried on from the comfort of their home? Maybe we’re the problem, not the out of touch Union.
The Liberals aren't afraid to call our country a genocide state, and they certainly aren't afraid to spend money, but there is no way they are going to make a political case to spend money on the military. It is definitely a problem of leadership, but I agree the Poilievre Conservatives are unlikely to be any better.
If NATO kicked us out, I am sure we could find an aspiring super power to ally ourselves with. They might even pay us to join them, they haven't been reluctant to give us money for other things.
I support the concept of 2% of GDP devoted to defense, but not until:
-government aligns its procurement objectives behind fulfilling military needs, rather than delivering industrial benefits to targeted ridings and companies connected to old money Laurentian families
-the military cleans up what appears to be endemic sexual harassment and corruption (the "old boys" looking our for one another)
-government identifies cuts to fund the 2%. The country is rapidly spiraling into a debt crisis and all new government spending must be funded through re-allocation
On the topic of the VW plant:
-looking forward to a non-partisan analysis of whether $13B is to match the IRA, or exceed it. I am skeptical that the Americans would enable such a horrible detail
-what competitive advantage does Canada offer in battery manufacturing? Its critical minerals are in the ground and unlikely to be produced due to the litany of duties to consult, gender impact studies etc. The US auto states are mostly Right to Work and offer far lower housing and energy costs to retain workers. Increasingly, auto manufacturing will involve supply chains that extend into Mexico, providing further competitive advantage to southern US states
The CPC should trap the Liberals by positioning the deal as a poor investment unless the government removes roadblocks to resource projects.
A suggestion: there are people and institutions whose role is to hold government to account on the issues which Canada is failing to cope with. For example, why not interview someone such as CPC Defence critic James Bezan and the NDP Defence critic Lindsay Mathyssen on the procurement failures and other such issues, pushing for their proposals to resolve them. There similar institutions and individuals whose briefs are to address every short coming I've seen mentioned in your reports. It may not be a sure-fire solution, but at least it will air some of the issues and hopefully get some pickup on social media, etc.
You are absolutely right on the military issue--it is embarrassing and an indictment of how parochial and simply misguided most Canadians are. And, oh but the current Prime Minister is such an appropriate avatar for all of us. "Let the Americans do it" seems to be the operative paradigm for most in this country.
Chalk it up to 70 plus years (since the end of the Korean War) in which three-and-a-half generations have grown up in a prosperous and secure society, with relatively secure borders and a very powerful neighbour (and close friend). That kind of multi-generational complacency will likely be a bitch to turn around.
Even if they build the best battery in the world, we don't have the generating capacity to produce enough power to replace hydrocarbons and even if we did we don't have the distribution capacity. It's madness.