Canadian Foreign Policy & Affairs II

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

PP could bring our civil service back to the size it was when Trudeau took office. That would be a cool $10 billion without any reduction in actual civil service pay rates. The size of the federal civil service has soared by 40% since Trudeau took office. Anyone here feel gov't services have improved by 40% in the last 9 years?.......ya, I thought not.

As for military spending, it is one of the very few things that I agreed with Trump on. Canada signed on the bottom line to increase military spending to 2% of GDP decades ago and we have been breeching that contract ever since. We have this mentality that we want the security of being a NATO country and then letting everyone else pay for it.

For those who do not want to see an increase in funding to DND or even want a reduction as they feel the money could be better spent elsewhere then that is fine BUT we should hence withdraw from NATO. We can't have it both ways and if we don't live up to our LEGAL obligations of defense spending then Canada should unceremoniously be kicked out.

Actually there should be a really BIG and public shaming Ceremony to throw us out. Too many Canadians feel entitled to NATO security as we are the nice ones in North America yet Dutch School kids know more about our Military History than our own. The Trump Circus ( Thanks Dems, the man behind your curtain has blown it) will probably make thing simple for us next year. 10% Tariffs on all Canadian goods until we grow up. Or just kick us out of NAFTA. Canadians do not care about NATO or Defence but NAFTA puts groceries in a lot of Fridges

[Justanothermember]

Happy to be kicked out of NAFTA, which had destroyed this country's culture, language and identity. Maybe we can restore some of that once we get the boot. It would really help wean us off of our destructive Yankee dependent mindset.

[theman23]

Off topic

[Truenorth00]

Canada launching process to acquire up to 12 conventionally-powered submarines

National Defence

News release
July 10, 2024 – Washington, D.C. – National Defence/Canadian Armed Forces

Canada is the country with the largest coastline in the world – an underwater surveillance capability is crucial to our security and sovereignty.

As outlined in our defence policy update, Our North, Strong and Free, released in April 2024, our Arctic is now warming at four times the global average, making a vast and sensitive region more accessible to foreign actors who have growing capabilities and regional military ambitions. By 2050, the Arctic Ocean could become the most efficient shipping route between Europe and East Asia.

Canada's Northwest Passage and the broader Arctic region are already more accessible, and competitors are seeking access, transportation routes, natural resources, critical minerals, and energy sources through more frequent and regular presence and activity. They are exploring Arctic waters and the sea floor, probing our infrastructure and collecting intelligence. In the maritime domain, Russian submarines are probing widely across the Atlantic, Arctic and Pacific Oceans and China is rapidly expanding its underwater fleet.

In response to these emerging security challenges, in Our North, Strong and Free, the Government of Canada committed to exploring options for renewing and expanding our submarine fleet, in order to allow Canada to detect and deter threats and control our maritime approaches. We made this commitment because Canada’s current fleet of four Victoria-class submarines is becoming increasingly obsolete and expensive to maintain. Canada needs a new fleet of submarines to protect our sovereignty from emerging security threats.

Today, the Honourable Bill Blair, Minister of National Defence, announced that Canada is taking the first step towards the procurement of up to 12 conventionally-powered, under-ice capable submarines – and that Canada is launching the process to formally engage industry on this acquisition. This is an important step in implementing Canada’s renewed vision for defence, Our North, Strong and Free.

Through the Canadian Patrol Submarine Project (CPSP), Canada will acquire a larger, modernized submarine fleet to enable the Royal Canadian Navy to covertly detect and deter maritime threats, control our maritime approaches, project power and striking capability further from our shores, and project a persistent deterrent on all three coasts.

The Department of National Defence is currently in the process of meeting with manufacturers and potential partners, as part of the Canadian Patrol Submarine Project (CPSP). A formal Request for Information will be posted in fall 2024 to gain further information on the procurement, construction, delivery and operational capabilities of potential bidders who can build submarines for Canada. This RFI will also seek to gain information which will enable the establishment of a submarine sustainment capability in Canada. This procurement will enable Canada to develop closer ties with its allies and partners and establish a strategic partnership that not only delivers the submarines themselves, but creates a durable relationship between Canada and its strategic partner(s) to support personnel training and the sharing of information.
.....

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-...ubmarines.html

That fact that it's being announced from DC says a lot. Lacks details too. They are desperate.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

PP could bring our civil service back to the size it was when Trudeau took office. That would be a cool $10 billion without any reduction in actual civil service pay rates. The size of the federal civil service has soared by 40% since Trudeau took office. Anyone here feel gov't services have improved by 40% in the last 9 years?.......ya, I thought not.

As for military spending, it is one of the very few things that I agreed with Trump on. Canada signed on the bottom line to increase military spending to 2% of GDP decades ago and we have been breeching that contract ever since. We have this mentality that we want the security of being a NATO country and then letting everyone else pay for it.

For those who do not want to see an increase in funding to DND or even want a reduction as they feel the money could be better spent elsewhere then that is fine BUT we should hence withdraw from NATO. We can't have it both ways and if we don't live up to our LEGAL obligations of defense spending then Canada should unceremoniously be kicked out.

We do not have "legal" obligations to increase our defence spending. We signed on for an aspirational goal that is now interpreted that way by some. Of course actual Climate change committments are easily thrown away by many of the same people. Those mostly aren't legally binding either. And even legally binding committments in internatioal law are moral more than legal in the traditional sense of the word.

Kicking us out of NATO isnt going to happen. We are certainly geographically more important than Iceland who spend nothing on defence.

[shreddog]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-...ubmarines.html

That fact that it's being announced from DC says a lot. Lacks details too. They are desperate.

If it was Anand making this announcement, I think people would think that there was some substance to it. Seeing as it's Blair, this is both sad and embarassing. I don't think people realize how poorly he is regarded, and how that reflects on Canada. So sad

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Kicking us out of NATO isnt going to happen. We are certainly geographically more important than Iceland who spend nothing on defence.

We aren't going to get kicked out of NATO. But we can get excluded from arrangements that could have real economic impacts. AUKUS was the first. There's lots of talk about friendshoring and Canada tends to get preferential treatment on those. I don't think we should assume that would automatically continue. Indeed, the business community isn't. That's why they are calling for more defence spending.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by shreddog

If it was Anand making this announcement, I think people would think that there was some substance to it. Seeing as it's Blair, this is both sad and embarassing. I don't think people realize how poorly he is regarded, and how that reflects on Canada. So sad

Regardless of who made the announcement, it has little credibility. Who announces a major once-in-a-generation procurement for their military from another country? And then does so with the headline that they are "launching the process". They must think the American politicians and bureaucrats they deal with are as dumb as the constituents they have to placate at home.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

We do not have "legal" obligations to increase our defence spending. We signed on for an aspirational goal that is now interpreted that way by some. Of course actual Climate change committments are easily thrown away by many of the same people. Those mostly aren't legally binding either. And even legally binding committments in internatioal law are moral more than legal in the traditional sense of the word.

Kicking us out of NATO isnt going to happen. We are certainly geographically more important than Iceland who spend nothing on defence.

The commitment is political, the consequences of not meeting it would be political and, potentially, practical.

[casper]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

We aren't going to get kicked out of NATO. But we can get excluded from arrangements that could have real economic impacts. AUKUS was the first. There's lots of talk about friendshoring and Canada tends to get preferential treatment on those. I don't think we should assume that would automatically continue. Indeed, the business community isn't. That's why they are calling for more defence spending.

Well, most of NATO is excluded from AUKUS. I don't have much hope for the US remaining in NATO should Trump come back into power. We may well find that NATO evolves into the EU + friends. The UK and US are aligned with Australia.

That said, the current defence minister is underwhelming. The conservatives are going to be adverse to spending money.

[shreddog]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

But we can get excluded from arrangements that could have real economic impacts.

This.

People do not understand that wihle NATO an alliance of 32 nations, many of the interesting "NATO" things are done at the bi-lat/multi-lat sub-alliance level and not the one size fits 32 level. And you normally have to be "invited" to join these (similar to AUKUS), so yeah, we'll still be part of the club, but the club is really animal farm and we are not part of the "more equal than others" cliche.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by casper

Well, most of NATO is excluded from AUKUS. I don't have much hope for the US remaining in NATO should Trump come back into power. We may well find that NATO evolves into the EU + friends. The UK and US are aligned with Australia.

That said, the current defence minister is underwhelming. The conservatives are going to be adverse to spending money.

On defence spending, I think they're going to be in exactly the same pickle as are the Liberals.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by casper

Well, most of NATO is excluded from AUKUS.

Most of NATO is also not as dependent on the American market for both trade and access to technology.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

We aren't going to get kicked out of NATO. But we can get excluded from arrangements that could have real economic impacts. AUKUS was the first. There's lots of talk about friendshoring and Canada tends to get preferential treatment on those. I don't think we should assume that would automatically continue. Indeed, the business community isn't. That's why they are calling for more defence spending.

Yes you've been harping about AUKUS for awhile and I think it is proving to be a new vehicle for defence cooperation more and more the idea spending $15 Billion more tax dollars is going to be a good investment on that front is dubious.

The business community is happy to have us spend more on defence. Now ask them if they agree to increase coroporate taxes by 10% or so it would take to pay for it. Sure they'll suggest we cut non productive spending like OAS or CCB but we are still a democracy. The fact is even our NATO membership is more about helping than benefttiging. New Zealand and Ireland benefit just as much from the international order as we do.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by shreddog

This.

People do not understand that wihle NATO an alliance of 32 nations, many of the interesting "NATO" things are done at the bi-lat/multi-lat sub-alliance level and not the one size fits 32 level. And you normally have to be "invited" to join these (similar to AUKUS), so yeah, we'll still be part of the club, but the club is really animal farm and we are not part of the "more equal than others" cliche.

There's a general principle that the smaller the club the more important it is. Till AUKUS, Five Eyes was a club that was second only to UK-US cooperation. We got massive benefits. Now three of those countries are deprecating Five Eyes in favour of AUKUS.

[casper]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Most of NATO is also not as dependent on the American market for both trade and access to technology.

Agreed. Not saying, we should be spending less.

Just pointing out I think we should expect "the world order" or whatever we want to call the western alliance to be reformed under a new set of international collaborations. While it is in our interest to be part of them not certain we will be wanted or willing to do what it takes to earn our right to be at the table.

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

On defence spending, I think they're going to be in exactly the same pickle as are the Liberals.

We will see. In their policy statement they talk about working towards 2%. Perhaps this is an area of bipartisan consensus.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Yes you've been harping about AUKUS for awhile and I think it is proving to be a new vehicle for defence cooperation more and more the idea spending $15 Billion more tax dollars is going to be a good investment on that front is dubious.

The business community is happy to have us spend more on defence. Now ask them if they agree to increase coroporate taxes by 10% or so it would take to pay for it. Sure they'll suggest we cut non productive spending like OAS or CCB but we are still a democracy. The fact is even our NATO membership is more about helping than benefttiging. New Zealand and Ireland benefit just as much from the international order as we do.

Sure we're a democracy. And no government has to do what the business community wants. But they generally do. Because jobs and tax revenue and prosperity depends on the businesses community being somewhat satisfied and supported.

[kwoldtimer]

Who would be the contenders to build subs for Canada? Germany, France, Japan, South Korea?

[MonctonRad]

So, 12 new submarines.

Would they be stationed equally (six in Esquimalt and six in Halifax), or, if their primary mandate is Arctic patrol, will they primarily be based in Halifax?

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

So, 12 new submarines.

Would they be stationed equally (six in Esquimalt and six in Halifax), or, if their primary mandate is Arctic patrol, will they primarily be based in Halifax?

It will depend where the deep maintenance is located. If Babcock in Esquimalt continues to be Canada's Submarine repair specialists there will be more Boats out west.In the Shop if you will. The East should have at least 3 Boats IF Canada buys 12. Big IF. The announcement yesterday is all part of Trudeau's performative policy habit. Lots af announcements but do things get done, delivered ?