Derek 2.0

As I’ve said in the election thread, and I’ll restate here, I’ve no doubt the current Government will remain in power after next year’s election……. Nobody liked Christy Clark here in BC either, especially Premier Adrian Dix………. None the less, since you feel next year’s election will see a change in Government, are you now suggesting the Trudeau Liberals should run on a promise to increase taxes, so as to fund a dramatic increase in defense spending? How will this fit into their Carbon Tax regime of taxes, and what effect will it have on their plans for National Daycare and whatever else they have (and will) promise?

I agree, on the condition that prior a review is conducted to find efficiencies already within the department, coupled with examining how the Australians are able to field a similar size, deployable force, with in some areas, more effective equipment, on a budget (in actual dollars) similar in size as our own. Only then would I favour any incremental increases.

I'm not making up numbers, I'm using the numbers you provided. So you’d have the Tories campaign on raising the GST to boost funding to the military………..Once the Liberals come to power after the Tories are defeated, then what’s your angle?

What was our GDP a decade ago?

So you only want to roughly double defence spending then? So who's taxes do we raise and what current services do we cut further?

So you're now saying your linked OP is wrong?

Argus's link in the OP.

Your link in the OP Did you read it?

What is Canada's GDP?

Perhaps as a nations ability, but not wiliness nor desire………… From ~22-23 billion (1.4% GDP) a year, to ~60 billion (2% GDP) a year?

Three low yield nukes detonated, ~10km above Geneva, Bern and Zurich and the Swiss are conquered.......

Why is GDP used as a measure? Do you recall any great demand to increase it ~40 billion a year?

How was it intended to make it "too expensive"?

Not in actual dollars…….as was said already, is further defense spending a priority of the Canadian populace?

Agreed 100%. There is nothing cheap about employing a viable, independent, nuclear deterrent………..As a minimum, we would require similar financial commitments as the United Kingdom or France........Hence our mutual defense treaties with nuclear armed allies.

None, the Swiss Citadel model of defense became obsolete on August 6th 1945………….Likewise National Service/Conscription, which greatly reduces the effectiveness of a modern military reliant upon technology....hence why most European nations have forgone it's use. Alas Russia poses no threat to the Swiss..........Swiss banks gladly hold the amassed fortunes of the Russian leadership.

No thanks......... Clearly that is not a simple answer..........Outside of war, the Tories/Liberals/NDP wouldn't raise taxes to fund an increase to our military........ …..And as I said above, simply throwing money at DND will not solve the waste and inefficiency found within the organization, which would have to addressed prior to any increase in funding.........Hopefully, the current ongoing review of defense policy will make some headway in this regard.

Very ironic that the French are selling two large amphibious assault vessels to the Russians, and the French navy is currently training Russian sailors at one of their fleet bases……….I’m sure they’ll prove handy to the Russians once they’ve had their war with the Ukraine, and start “liberating” ethnic Russian populations in Estonia and Lativa…..What did Lenn say about rope dealers again????

Does the National Post and/or the Economist suggest where the Government of Canada is to find the additional 40 billion dollars in funding to achieve 2% defense spending per our GDP? Also, do either the Liberals or NDP agree with such a dramatic increase to defense spending, an increase that will indirectly subsidise European Defense? Of course, nearly every other European NATO member has cut their own militaries to the bone, coupled with the numerous caveats placed on their forces in Afghanistan, which restricted their capacity in a combat role……

How many aren't full time? Also, what size bonus would they get? Let's assume that only half of BCTF members are full-time...........20000 x $5000 = ? $100000000 would sure go quite a ways to BC Education and students........as opposed to teachers that choose to strike, and in turn, loose wages.... A portion is going to fun the $40 dollars a day (as mentioned by Pct)...........as to the rest, I hope it stays in general revenue......it's money collected by BC taxpayers, to pay for public education..........if teachers choose not to work, that's their choice...... I had some level of sympathy for teachers on some of the issues (my sister and brother in-law are teachers), but with a demand for signing bonus??? I now feel the Government should pull a Reagan, fire the lot of them, and offer to rehire teachers as “administrators”, let’s call them Vice-vice principals, with the current Government offer, no seniority, and the ability to select teaching positions on a first come, first serve basis………I would hazard a guess that most positions would be filled rather quick.

This is true in BC........they were just as bad with past Social Credit and NDP Governments.

Heard on the local news tonight that teachers are still sticking to their demand for a $5000 signing bonus, to make-up for the wages lost during their strike………. There are over 40000 members of the BCTF………40000 BCTF members X $5000 signing bonus = teachers won’t be back for some time I also thought it strange that they refused to put the portion pertaining to the court case off.......neither side will budge on this until after October, and all the following appeals.........so why not put it off? The only reasoning I could see for the teachers refusal, is that if they did, the remaining issues will be pertaining to their wages demands, signing bonus, benefits and class size & composition (ie working conditions) etc......

What does it matter what Sweden or Norway spend, per their GDPs? We spend more actual dollars then Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark combined………….. Has the current Government cancelled either/or the AOPS or CCG Icebreaker? "Crappy old LAVs?" Our armies LAV III fleet, on average is 15-20 years newer then the US Army's M2 Bradley fleet, likewise the Marines LAV 25 fleet.........and of course the new TAPV will replace the remaining LAVs in our inventory from the 70s and 80s.........If the Americans can upgrade and continue to operate the Bradley for another decade+, what is wrong with our Army doing likewise? We live in a democracy, not a military Junta…………Would the average Canadian agree to either tax increases or cuts to other programs, so as to nearly double the funding for the military? Also, do you think the Liberals or NDP would nearly double funding to the Forces, so as to reach 2% of GDP? All Federal Government departments faced cuts, and as a percentage, DND and Veterans Affairs were cut the least………With DND, they were given the choice on were the cuts would come from, they chose to cut funding to the operational and training portions of their budget, as opposed to cutting their own bureaucracy in Ottawa and numerous faux commands………. Frankly I think DND was lucky, ultimately the real question that should be asked to DND is where is the money going? The Australians receive a similar amount as a dollar figure, have a smaller military in terms of overall personal, yet a similar size deployable force as us, and in some areas, more capable and modern equipment………….Well also not benefiting from the World’s only Super Power being it’s next door neighbour…. The Question in need of asking is what are our Armed Forces doing wrong, and what are the Australians doing right?

Get newer sources.......The MSVS portion was completed several years ago.....As I said earlier, the remaining portion (SMP armoured trucks) was rebooted with additional requirements added. And instead, went forward with the LAV III upgrade. Industry sources said funding, yet the official response: Meaning our current fleet of BV-206s meet requirements and new (small fleet) ones aren't worth the added cost Of course they're overpriced, they're to be built in Canada...........yet no Canadian government would ever purchase new surface ships for the Canadian navy built overseas....... In terms or procurement, what would a mythical near doubling of our defense budget achieve? Would we have F-35s and new Canadian built destroyers in a faster timeframe? What would you suggest they do different with a doubling of the budget……..and of course, how would you pay for it?

The trucks haven't been cancelled, nor no amount of immediate funding will recreate Canada’s near defunct shipbuilding industry overnight. What would you propose a near doubling of the defense budget would achieve overnight? I don’t discount effects on training and maintenance, but procurement issues wouldn’t be resolved as currently envisioned, namely the Hornet replacement and the “made in Canada” replacements for our AORs and destroyers…….