The Business Council suggests the federal government could take a number of steps to get to 2.5 per cent. First, it said, the government could spend “strategically” in hopes of boosting economic growth, which would in turn lead to higher tax revenues. Second, it could “re-target” some funding currently committed to research, infrastructure and promoting the development of critical minerals in order for those funds to also count as defence spending.
Finally, the council suggests, the government can go looking to cut existing spending — maybe a lot of it.
Of course these fuckers would suggest austerity elsewhere. It’s always the same fallacy that’s used to cut programs which are often replaced by more expensive or worse private alternatives. We don’t need to collect revenue before we spend it. We almost never spend just what we collect. If we did, it would be impossible to expand the economy without deflation. We can spend money today and if it’s spent on things that generate economic activity, the economy grows. The effect is often magnified via different multipliers. This is well understood when it comes to infrastructure spending for example. But infrastructure isn’t the only thing that works like this. Defence spending would trigger industrial economic activity that puts money right back into people’s pockets and into the economy. Especially if we avoid doing it via a mostly private corporate industrial complex like they do it in the US, where a lot of that spending is captured by the major shareholders.
Heck even banks don’t wait for deposits in order to lend.
The only non-imaginary thing that could stand in the way of strengthening our defence is our real resources (and prioritization therof). Do we have the labor and materials to mobilize for this, without starving another important part of the economy from it. One might ask whether we have too many people working retail, delivery and finance jobs for example.
We could axe poilievre’s pension.
Tax it out of Royal Bank, TD, BMO, CN Resources, Scotiabank, Suncor. Together they post a yearly profit north of 50 billion USD.
Domestic terrorist spotted, proper authorities have been notified.
Resistance is futile!
Nationalize resource extraction.
Everyone agrees Canada should spend more on defence.
False
I don’t think anyone who disagrees lives in the real world. We need to be spending on defense otherwise we have a very real risk of being ousted from alliances like NATO, and that would leave Canada effectively defenseless.
I don’t even have faith in the USA to do the right thing. We’ve been hit with tariffs from the USA on aluminum and steel before because of ‘reasons for national security’ during the first Trump term. We need to start thinking of defending ourselves without the help of the USA because we shouldn’t be concerned about our defence after the way Michigan votes every 4 years.
Even beyond that, the amount of Russian control over the US administration in the next term may be significant. We may not be able to work with the US in matters of intelligence for fear of some information going to the Russians. The US might not step in and help NATO if Russia decides to test our resolve to defend Finland for instance, and wouldn’t it be good if the rest of the alliance could do their fair share of the work defending the rest of democracy even if the USA won’t?
What does this have to do with what I said in my original comment about Canada needing to increase defense spending to avoid being left in the cold by NATO and other alliances?
…agreeing with your point and expanding on it. Yes, for not spending enough NATO won’t look after us, but also we can’t trust the USA to protect us.
Well that’s true by definition.
I think headlines should also be true, especially taxpayer-funded headlines
Agreed.
Unfortunately, I think the need for defense spending is increasingly clear these days, no?
I think the same could be said about the affordability and housing crisis, or the climate crisis, or preparedness for a potential bird flu pandemic…
Sure, and I agree. Your point?
I’d rather increase funds for the things I suggested, whereas it sounds like you see increased defence spending as a greater priority. We can agree to disagree
Yeah, I don’t think we actually disagree with much - I certainly agree with the priorities you listed.
However, I also think that defense is also a priority - one that is becoming increasingly urgent with the general state of the world and the unreliability of our closest ally, and that has been neglected for decades.
And I’m not sure I buy in to the idea that we have to choose amongst those priorities. That kind of rhetoric is used to justify all kinds of cuts.
Yeah, I don’t think we actually disagree with much
You may be right. I see the things I highlighted as directly and predictably improving the lives of the working class (and hopefully their civic engagement by extension), whereas defence spending directly and predictably improves the earnings of arms manufacturers and the fossil fuel industry and may improve the lives of the working classes. With an objectively false headline like CBC ran, I feel a need to counter some palpable bias
Fair enough - I do think the article makes it clear who the “everyone” is in this case - provincial and federal leadership - but I totally get why you’d bristle at it.
You’ve never been in a war. What would you be spending it on?
Shh, the grownups are talking.
The grownups appear to be fantasizing about killing other people because they’re too lazy or too stupid to deal with their domestic threats like cost of living, opiod proliferation, the permanent loss of many hundreds of thousands of housing units to investment property management groups, and the upcoming trade war with the US and apparently China if the right wing gets more power at the Federal level.
I’ve never been on opiods, so I guess that’s not worth discussing, right?
Off the top of my head?
-Coastal and Arctic defense systems -CAF member pay and benefit increase -Modernizing current equipment -Creation of military production facilities
That alone would likely get us well over 2% spending.
That definitely seems more important than fixing your cost of living crisis or dealing with the two provinces now that are actively rolling back human rights advances.
Did I say it was more important? Or was I answering a question not related to any of what you brought up?
One aspect of the Canadian military I didn’t see discussed in the article is how much more Canada pays per piece of equipment compared to other countries. If i recall correctly, changes there could see a 2-3x increase in quantity of material for the same price and quality (Canada overpaying by 2-3x what other countries [US, EU, Aus] pay for the same type and quality of equipment).
Perun (Australian miltary industry blogger) did a long video about Canada’s military and it’s issues:
Yeah, the article breezes by it, but Canada’s ridiculous procurement efforts have been well-documented elsewhere.
