[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Grey Fox]

A surprising win especially since the NDP is in power out there.

[crazy canuck]

An piece by Coyne in the Globe commenting on our lack of military spending

Every government minister has a role to play. As Minister of National Defence, Bill Blair's role seems to be to find new and more creative ways to imply that Canada will live up to its NATO commitments without ever actually committing to do so. Or certainly that it would, if only he were Defence Minister.

I was first impressed by his ingenuity in this regard at last year's Halifax International Security Forum, a gathering of hawkish defence and foreign policy types from across the democratic world. Mr. Blair had the unenviable task of hosting them, three months into the job, at a time when Canada's feeble contribution to the collective defence is no longer politely overlooked, but increasingly the subject of pointed criticism.

In his speech to the conference, the minister ran through all the usual hymns to the "international rules-based order" and boasted about all the good things his government has been doing to support it. But then, perhaps sensing the mood of the room, he added: "Let me say and reassure you all, Canada knows it must do more."

STORY CONTINUES BELOW ADVERTISEMENT


Not: Canada will do more. Just that we know we must. So when we don't, be assured, we will feel really guilty about it.

Since that time the minister has performed various inversions on this theme. After the release in April of the government's long-awaited defence policy update, which once again made no commitment to meeting NATO's 2-per-cent-of-GDP target for military spending, Mr. Blair was still at it, assuring a conference on NORAD modernization that while he had been unable to persuade cabinet to meet that "spreadsheet target," Canada would nevertheless get there some day thanks to spending plans that had not yet been costed.

Notably, the minister has suggested that the planned purchase of new submarines for the Royal Canadian Navy would get us over the hump. The government, note, has not yet decided what kind of subs to buy, or how many, or from whom, or at what expense, but golly, that's got to be enough, surely.

Here are the actual facts. The government will spend $41-billion on defence this fiscal year, through National Defence or other departments, equal to 1.39 per cent of GDP. By fiscal 2030, five years from now, the defence-policy update projects spending will have risen to $57.8-billion, or 1.76 per cent of GDP. That figure is already in some jeopardy, however, as GDP projections have been updated.

STORY CONTINUES BELOW ADVERTISEMENT


Canada is one of only a handful of NATO members who have still not reached the target, a decade after the original pledge to "move towards" 2 per cent: As of this year, NATO reports, 23 of its 32 members will have done so. More to the point, we are the only one that has offered no plan to meet the target in future. Indeed, the Prime Minister is reported to have privately told NATO officials Canada would "never" get there.

It was one thing for Canada to rank among the NATO laggards when most of the alliance was similarly derelict. But since then the alliance has done much to pull up its socks, especially after Russia's all-out invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Canada is now publicly singled out for criticism: In a letter to the Prime Minister from a bipartisan group of 23 U.S. senators ("we are concerned and profoundly disappointed ... Canada will fail to meet its obligations to the Alliance, to the detriment of all NATO Allies and the free world, without immediate and meaningful action to increase defense spending"), and in statements by the U.S. ambassador, the NATO secretary-general, and others.

The Business Council of Canada has lately added its voice to the chorus, warning in its own letter to the Prime Minister that Canada faced "diplomatic isolation" at next month's NATO summit in Washington if the government does not unveil a plan to get to 2 per cent before then. "If we, as a country, fail to make this benchmark level of investment in defence, as successive Canadian governments including yours have promised," the letter prophesied, "we will put lives and livelihoods at risk."

Two per cent of GDP, it is true, is an arbitrary target. Countries do not suddenly become vulnerable to attack if they spend less than that amount, nor are they rendered invincible by spending more. The point is rather that it is the figure we agreed upon with our allies.

STORY CONTINUES BELOW ADVERTISEMENT


Canada's defence has never been a matter purely for Canadians – we could not possibly defend our vast terrain by ourselves – nor are Canada's security interests limited to the defence of the homeland. We have always relied on our allies, but we have not always been a responsible ally in return.

That was always discreditable; in the present security environment, it is impossible. Two per cent of GDP is no longer regarded in NATO circles as an aspirational goal, but as a bare minimum. Already there are calls to lift it to 2.5 per cent or 3 per cent.

Mainly it means: more. We need, as an alliance, to spend more to meet the heightened threat from what is fast becoming an alliance of the world's dictatorships, led by Russia, China, Iran and North Korea.

In Canada's case, we need to spend more, not just to meet new challenges, but simply to restore our military to basic functionality. Defence experts are agreed: Canada has too few troops, with too little equipment in good working order, to make more than the most modest contribution to the collective defence.

STORY CONTINUES BELOW ADVERTISEMENT


Of course, part of the problem is that much of what we do spend is squandered: from ships to fighter jets to submarines, the list of procurement disasters – projects that drag on years behind schedule, costing tens of billions of dollars over their initial estimate – is a long one.

Much of this has to do with government insistence on securing "regional benefits" – jobs in politically important locations – from these purchases, or even building domestically, where it would be cheaper and faster to buy them from another country. As much as we need to spend more, then, it's even more important to spend smarter.

It's also true, as the Treasury Board Minister has lately reminded us, that the government would have a hard time getting the money out the door in a timely fashion, even if it did commit to 2 per cent. It simply hasn't the number of staff required to put through all the procurement that would be involved.

But this is hardly a defence. If the government lacks sufficient procurement personnel to make decisions on military spending, that is simply another way in which it has allowed the defence of the country to atrophy.

This is not a criticism only of this government. The decline of the Canadian military has been a bipartisan project, sustained over several decades. It was under Stephen Harper, after all, that defence spending fell to below 1 per cent of GDP. Even today, the Conservatives have made no firmer commitment to the 2-per-cent target than the Liberals.

STORY CONTINUES BELOW ADVERTISEMENT


It's not hard to see why. Meeting our NATO targets isn't just a matter of spending another $15- to $20-billion annually on defence, but of finding the money to fund it. A tax increase of that size isn't in the cards: The public would not stand for it (since, to generate enough revenue, the public at large, rather than the usual "corporations" or "the rich," would have to pay it).

Neither would there be much public support for shifting that much spending to defence from other, more tangible priorities, more obviously connected to people's everyday lives than conflicts in faraway countries "of whom we know nothing." So either the necessary increase in defence spending would have to be financed with borrowed money – at a time when population aging is already straining the country's finances – or it would be left to the next government to take on. And the next, and the next, and the next.

If Canada is to become a responsible ally again – if we are to cleanse ourselves of our growing reputation as a freeloader – it will have to start by educating the public to certain realities: that the world is a far more dangerous place than it was even a decade ago; that Canada can no longer pretend that it is immune to these threats, by virtue of our three oceans; that even the Americans can no longer be relied upon to defend us, and in any case, that it is a base and shameful thing to expect others to defend us without being ready to defend them in our turn.

That will take leadership. If the public is to make defence a priority, political leaders will have to, for once, get out in front of them. It's one thing to let transportation or tourism slip into disrepair: they can always be fixed later. But defence, especially in the nuclear age, is existential. If Europe is lost, it may never be returned to the democratic fold. If military conquest becomes the means by which nations settle their differences, a middle power like Canada will have no place to hide.

There is still time: time for the government to revise its spending targets; time for the parties to agree to take the politics out of defence; time to reform our procurement processes, based on "bang for the buck" and not "jobs for the boys." Otherwise I fear we are headed for national humiliation, or worse.

[Grey Fox]

Yep, the Federal government sucks at doing...well anything.

[crazy canuck]

Yep, the Federal government sucks at doing...well anything.

That can't be the answer, since the military is fundamentally a Federal matter.

[Grey Fox]

That's right but no one is really interesting into revolutionizing our federation, it's all too lucrative for the  right people.

[Barrister]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/naheed-nenshi-elected-new-leader-of-the-alberta-ndp-1.7239118

Naheed Nenshi elected leader of the Alberta NDP over the weekend.

Nenshi wins with 86% of the vote which is certainly an impressive win.  Nenshi was mayor of Calgary for just over a decade before stepping down in 2021.

What Nenshi is not, however, is a long-term member of the NDP.  He only joined to run for the leadership.  As mayor he deliberately used a lot of purple (as in - a mix of Conservative Blue and Liberal red) to show his non-partisanship.  That obviously did not concern NDP voters - or at least those who joined the party to vote for leader.  Apparently party membership went from 16000 to 85000.

So there's obviously a very strong demand out there for someone who can defeat the UCP.

Nenshi might have his own baggage from being Calgary's mayor.  Calgary is currently going through weeks of water restrictions because a main water line broke, and subsequent investigations revealed multiple more points of potential failure.  Nenshi isn't currently mayor, but obviously he was in that job for over a decade.

Just because Jacob always says he likes it when I break down Alberta politics.  Next election is a long ways away though.

[HVC]

Wouldn't that fall under the minister of infrastructure? Unless mayor was somehiw blocking budgets or something I don't see what they could have done?

[Barrister]

Wouldn't that fall under the minister of infrastructure? Unless mayor was somehow blocking budgets or something I don't see what they could have done?

No - roads, water, sewer is all under the authority of the city.

Now it does sound like the original fault was when this water main was installed back in the 1970s (it was supposed to last for 100 years, only made if half way) but you would think/hope that the city would keep better track on how such a critical piece of infrastructure is doing.

But we'll see what the voters think.  Like I said Nenshi left office 3 years ago, and the next provincial election won't be for another three years, so this might be a big ole nothingburger.

[Jacob]

Just because Jacob always says he likes it when I break down Alberta politics.  Next election is a long ways away though.

I do

[Grey Fox]

I like it too, BB. Too often, I feel that you RoC Canadians only thinks that the federal government matters.

[Barrister]

I like it too, BB. Too often, I feel that you RoC Canadians only thinks that the federal government matters.

So this goes back to law school.

When the Fathers of Confederation were drafting the constitution they thought they were creating a really strong federal government, and the provinces would be pretty weak.  Just as an example - the Constitution gave all powers not specifically named in the constitution to the Federal government.

However... under the BNA Act 1867 (now the Constitution Act 1867) the provinces were given authority over "property and civil rights".

And when you think about it - that's a huge and incredibly vague.  So a lot of what governments do has been interpreted to fall under "property and civil rights".

So yes - if you think only the federal government matters you're just dumb.  The Feds have taxing authority so they have money - but most things you'd want to spend it on fall within provincial jurisdiction.

[Josephus]

How is the water issue affecting you BB? You're in Calgary, right?

[Barrister]

How is the water issue affecting you BB? You're in Calgary, right?

Edmonton.  13 years now.  I mean I was literally just talking about living in Edmonton in the NHL thread.

Talked with my mom yesterday, who does live in Calgary.  She's in a seniors condo and people will nark out each other constantly.  She's collecting water from her showers to be able to use it to water her flowers that are on her balcony - so not even a lawn or anything.

WHat's weird is I see some posts on Twitter from the kind of covid-denialists types who are very much along the lines of "the city screwed up - they can't tell me what to do".  I'm like "guys - if there's no water, there's no water - it's not some big conspiracy"...

[Josephus]

Sorry. I don't read the NHL thread after the Leafs bow out, normally in April😞

I knew you were in Alberta. Not sure why I thought Calgary. Now I know😁

Sucks about your mom and I hope all gets resolved sooner than later

[Jacob]

I like it too, BB. Too often, I feel that you RoC Canadians only thinks that the federal government matters.

Would love some similar summaries from Quebec

In BC, we're heading into a provincial election in October. The current expectation is for the NDP to win another term, but nothing's for certain.

The big story, of course, is that the former BC Liberals (big tent Lib + Con party) rebranded themselves as the BC United Party, only to be challenged by a new party from the right: the BC Conservatives.

There was some chats about a potential merger, to avoid splitting the anti-NDP vote, but so far it hasn't materialized. In general, the BC Cons have taken the place as the main contender with BCUP facing oblivion.

Last month there were some polls that had the new BC Cons close to or even passing the NDP, but 338 still has the NDP at a comfortable chance for victory.

In terms of politics, the BC Con leader John Rustad is aligning the party with the right wing of the Poilievre coalition. He recently highlighted the following elements of their platforms: Tax Cuts, Addiction Treatment, Nuclear Power, fire Dr. Bonnie Henry and let unvaccinated nurses come back to work, "Common Sense", and introducing "the free market" to health care.

Previously, Rustad has spoken about how climate change is nor real, the need to rethink indigenous relations by disregarding UNDRIP (the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples), and has gone pretty hard on supporting anti-trans and anti-sex-ed sentiment. IIRC, he's also spoken about rolling back some of the NDP's policies to encourage municipalities to unblock additional home construction.

Currently the most like outcome of the election is another NDP term, but with the main non-NDP option shifting to becoming much more socially Conservative and anti-science.