Does Canada face any imminent military threat to its territory?

Peter F · June 13, 2010

Not a very efficient process.

ok. Hows about banning abortions and all resulting kids be shipped up north when they reach the age of 16?

Bonam · June 13, 2010

ok. Hows about banning abortions and all resulting kids be shipped up north when they reach the age of 16?

Nah banning abortions is stupid.

Bonam · June 13, 2010

If the issue is needing more people for the North, there are just two things that can really be done. To get more people, provide financial and social incentives for having kids (more maternal/paternal leave, tax benefits, etc). Of course the other method is immigration but my opinion is that our immigration rates are already too high. To get people up North, again provide benefits, probably do it the same way it was done in the past that led to rapid colonization of other areas. Offer people a free strip of land (to become their property), maybe even subsidize having a house built on it, and no taxes for a decade or two. That'll get people up there quick.

Edited June 13, 2010 by Bonam

Remiel · June 13, 2010

To get people up North, again provide benefits, probably do it the same way it was done in the past that led to rapid colonization of other areas. Offer people a free strip of land (to become their property), maybe even subsidize having a house built on it, and no taxes for a decade or two. That'll get people up there quick.

It certainly worked before. Though I am not sure how it would mesh with the status of Nunavut as a mostly Inuit run territory.

Machjo · June 13, 2010

Why not form press-gangs to gather up folks and ship them up north to work the mines and such?

That'snot population growth, but merely a population shift. We'd still be left with the same tax base.

Machjo · June 13, 2010

Practically everything you just said was completely sdrawkcab ssa, or just wrong. Bonam pointed out the real correlation between education and children. Also, the more a person has, as far as I can see, the more likely they are to want someone else to do the hard work of defending it. Eliminating abortions would probably increase poverty and decrease education as men and women persuing higher education have to drop out of school to take care of children that they did not want... yet.

The problem here is with the kind of education. Why not require all children to learn a martial art for instance. Sure most martial arts are difficult to learn, but there would always be the option of offering simplified tai chi chuan as an option among others, which would still be better than nothing in terms of developing physical fitness and fighting ability at an early age. Gardening, construction and other skills too could count as part of education, some of which involve physical labour too. I'm talking about redefining education to not be limited to academic pursuits only, though still gearing it to children's abilities.

Machjo · June 13, 2010

All the data I've ever seen show that more educated people have less children, not more.

If they learn so little prior to post-compulsory education, then more people must spend more time in post-compulsory education to succeed. If you ensure all have a trade or profession under their belt, at least at an entry level, before the age of 15, then more of them will be ready for the workforce at an earlier age, be able to earn money sooner, and save sooner, and so have more children.

Also, it would be imperative to rid ourselves of LINC:

http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/goc/linc.shtml

And CLIC:

http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/fra/gdc/clic.shtml

Knowing the local language must be an obligation before coming to Canada. After all, immigrants are not likely to integrate if they don't know the local language, and so are also less likely to intermarry and so have more integrated children, thus discouraging a ghettoization of our society. If we want a united country then we also need a common language too.

And if we want people to have a wide range of marriageable options, then clearly a more integrated community will help with that and so increase the birth rate.

Machjo · June 13, 2010

It certainly worked before. Though I am not sure how it would mesh with the status of Nunavut as a mostly Inuit run territory.

Nunavut already has Inuit-medium schools. Children born there would go to the nearest school available and so integrate soon enough.

Remiel · June 13, 2010

Nunavut already has Inuit-medium schools. Children born there would go to the nearest school available and so integrate soon enough.

It is not a question of integration. Is Nunavut not nominally Inuit territory? A drastic change in the demographics would completely destroy that, thus undoing the entire point of making Nunavut seperate from the North West Territories to begin with.

Machjo · June 13, 2010

If the issue is needing more people for the North, there are just two things that can really be done. To get more people, provide financial and social incentives for having kids (more maternal/paternal leave, tax benefits, etc).

We have to be careful with this though. Canada has become very much in favour of small government and balanced budgets. As a result, any increase in government spending would have to go hand in hand with tax increases so as to satisfy the budget-conscious voter, and would have to be temporary in order to attract the big-government-conscious voter. And remember too that a tax increase would discourage more births unless it's countered somehow.

To take education as an example. A policy extending the nine years of education between the ages of five and fifteen to cover the summer months, winter holidays, etc. would certainly cost more money in the short-term and would certainly mean a tax increase. The tax increase might be compensated for to a minor degree at lest by the reduced need on the part of parents to have to hire babysitters. Also, since such an expansion in the number of school days per year could allow children to get their high school diploma at an earlier age, the tax increase would also be temporary since though it would cost more per year to educate a child, the child would graduate earlier, thus involving fewer years of education. On that front, his overall education is likely to be similar in cost to what it is now. And since these children would graduate earlier, it would also mean that they could work earlier and so become independent earlier, thus relieving their parents of the financial burden earlier too. As a result, this tax increase would be temporary, lasting at more fifteen years during the transition phase, after which taxes would go back down again since the new younger workforce would help to expand the tax base

How would parental leave and tax benefits respond to the more budget-conscious and big-government-conscious voters?

Budget-conscious voters would have to wonder how the government would balance its budget by giving more tax breaks and growing government via parental leave benefits, unless you're suggesting raising taxes on others to compensate? If you do that though, then fewer people are likely to marry in the first place since many want to save money before getting married. Sure they might be attracted to the post-marriage benefits, but still some might want to save money before even getting into a relationship and that could postpone marriage and children. So it really is a double-edged sword.

And for those who want smaller government, how would you ensure parental leave benefits be a temporary measure? From what I can see, what you're describing is as a permanent measure with no end in sight.

Of course the other method is immigration but my opinion is that our immigration rates are already too high.

I don't think the issue is too much immigration, but rather integration of immigrants. As mentioned above, we must make it a requirement for immigrants to know the local language so as to ensure integration and an increased chance of intermarriage, etc.

With our current birth rates, immigration really is not an elective.

To get people up North, again provide benefits, probably do it the same way it was done in the past that led to rapid colonization of other areas.

The British Empire was very much about big government, involving a military foce to enforce mercantilism across the colonies. Canada has since become ever more in favour of small governemnt. Sure there is a strong socialist element still, but in the last few years, the direction is clear. The idea of raising taxes to provide financial incentives for people to move north would not go well with many Canadians who'd view this as just more government bureaucracy, bigger government, and another welfare handout for the less educated who can't find work. And again, such a tax increase would be a permanent solution from what I can see unless I missed something?

Offer people a free strip of land (to become their property), maybe even subsidize having a house built on it, and no taxes for a decade or two. That'll get people up there quick.

Very different times. Back then, knowing how to build a house, gardening or even farming were widespread, not to mention the amenities of such houses were much simpler and that land was still relatively South of the Arctic, where foods could be grown of at lest part of the year.

Now you're talking about land that's far North, a population living in an era where house building and agriculture are specialized skills often involving many modern technologies with regards to wiring, etc., and a climate not conducive to agriculture.

Also, seeing that modern weaponry is much more expensive than the muskets of the past, giving so many people a tax break would require raising taxes on those who stay South so as to pay for such weaponry, and that is likely to create Southern resentment of the Northerners if the government just not only give them land tax free and free of charge, but also either teach them how to build their houses and other skills to keep themselves alive, or create work for them (ah make-work jobs), which might also involve teaching them the job, if we consider that those most likely to accept such an offer to be among the less educated who have fewer options.

I doubt the population has the stomach for such long-term tax increases and big government.

Machjo · June 13, 2010

It is not a question of integration. Is Nunavut not nominally Inuit territory? A drastic change in the demographics would completely destroy that, thus undoing the entire point of making Nunavut seperate from the North West Territories to begin with.

Then why does it have to be Nunavut? Don't we have the NWT and Yukon too?

Army Guy · June 14, 2010

It can be hard to separate the realities that provide the cause for the men and women who are fighting and dying in war from the reality that men and women are fighting and dying in war. Any disrespect needs to be carefully aimed at the cause of this mess, never at the result which is men and women fighting and dying in war.

The reality is, that there is military threats to Canada, the US and the rest of North America, The reality is that Canada has a foreign policy as any nation on the planet has, that may require a military force to enforce it. History is full of examples of our country defending this foreign policy across the globe, today with over 120 conflicts raging across the world. How can we say there is no threat to Canada. If there was not any threat why would we sign on to extensive defense alliances and sgreements.

Our military is made up of Canadians who for the most part share the same ideas ,values and morals of every other Canadian in this nation. That being said we do this job 24 hours a day 7 days a week, and we take that job very seriously, as any Canadian does when doing his or her job, we want what is best for Canada and her people...

We know our military is not going to be some massive organization, bent on policing the world, or have aspirations of world domination. it is not who we are , it is not part of the Canadain character.

Canada has spoken out many times it does not want any part of this... the military respect this, understands this, and fully supports this....

That being said, the military has also warned the Nation that our military with it's current size and make up is totally inadaquate for the defense of our nation, other than provide a rudimentary defense, if given enough warning....And while i will agree it is not very likely that that a direct invasion of our country is likely, that course of action can not be struck of the list as it is still possiable as far fetched as that may sound, we still need to take precautions .Our foreign policy is very robust considering the size of our military and it's current structure...our defense agreements also takes up a good chunk of our military forces meaning we could not do all 3 at once but rather only one and then only in a limited capacity...

SO before Canadians decide 9 bil on aircraft is to much , perhaps Canadains need to sti down and decide what exactly they want for defence, for foreign policy, and what defense agreements we can afford...

We as a nation are extremily lucky to have citizens that are willing to take on that job , to soldier for our nation, to put there lives on the line...i don't think it is to much to ask to provide them with the right training and equipment in order for them to carry out the tasking we as a nation assign them to do...And we if we are not willing to spend funds to do this, then the only ones that can be held responsiable is "US" the people of Canada.

Army Guy · June 14, 2010

you don't provide as security blanket, that's all in your head you believe your own propaganda...Costa Rica located in the volatile Central America abolished it's military in 1948 and it has been invaded how many times since then??? zero...do Costa Ricans lose sleep over their lack of security blanket?

Thats a pretty big statement, care to back it up, what exactly is our military doing 24 hours a day 7 days a week.

you have a job where for decades on end nothing happens you get trained and educated at tax payer expense be grateful...it may sound harsh but I have absolutely no compassion don't confuse that with wishing ill will, you chose a career that has risks like any other job don't expect sympathy or to be idolized...

I don't think you'll find a more greatful bunch than our soldiers. I mean not many Canadians are asked to sign on for unlimited liability in service of thier jobs. And your right we did sign up on the dotted line, knowing the risks....That being said it is a two way street, these soldiers are willing to do that no questions asked, all are volunteers, i don't think it is asking to much to equiped them properly to give them a better chance of coming home upright rather than a casket do you...As for most Canadians are protected under the Canada labor code, and other laws concerning safety in the work place, within DND thier is little of that, and our dept actually depends on our government to purchase equipment with surviabilty, and our safety in mind.....I don't want your sympathy and do not give a shit if you throw a parade or not....what i do want is for you to take your job as a citizen seriously and ensure our soldiers lives are not wasted or cashed in because someone was to cheap....

Consider a lot of factors such as most of the purchases that have been made are meant to last 20 to 25 years at a minimum, well past it's predicted life span, even with upgrades and refits Canada does get every penny worth of usage out of it's purchases. ( how many Canadians hold themselfs to this standard)

With this in mind the equipment must be the best the world has to offer at the time , to help with it being relevent in 20 years...

Keep in mind this equipment is as much about safety as it is about it's ability to do the job, because our Armed forces is Small, there is a is not a whole lot of replacement soldiers to jump in and operate it when cas are taken....We depend on the safety aspect , or providing the max amount of safety to our soldiers to reduce our losses...

Giving our soldiers an edge in combat, when you boil it all down, it is our job to close with and destroy the enemies of Canada, and in combat you need all the help or edge you can get even if it means Calling in an air strike from a multi million dollar aircraft to kill a hord of taliban soldiers armed with 200 dollar AK -47's in the end it saves lifes....can we put a dollar value on a soldiers life...sure we can, but set the bar to low and you'll find it extremely hard to get the next generation of soldiers...

eyeball · June 14, 2010

And while i will agree it is not very likely that that a direct invasion of our country is likely, that course of action can not be struck of the list as it is still possiable as far fetched as that may sound, we still need to take precautions .

I agree, but I fail to see why these precautions need to be so expensive. It is patently clear that we cannot afford to build a conventional armed force to defend Canada. The only realistic option is to deter potential invaders with a weapon that is so terrible as to preclude any thought of provoking its use.

Our foreign policy is very robust considering the size of our military and it's current structure...our defense agreements also takes up a good chunk of our military forces meaning we could not do all 3 at once but rather only one and then only in a limited capacity...

For starters, all of our alliances and agreements need to be deeply and thoroughly reviewed, debated and then voted on by the public. Huge numbers of Canadians are convinced that many of the 120 conflicts raging around the world are due to many of the foreign policies of some of our closest allies and friends.

SO before Canadians decide 9 bil on aircraft is to much , perhaps Canadains need to sti down and decide what exactly they want for defence, for foreign policy, and what defense agreements we can afford...

No, we need to sit down and determine who our friends and enemies really are and why. We might discover we actually have some very good principled reasons to be in rather broad and deep disagreement with them instead.

We as a nation are extremily lucky to have citizens that are willing to take on that job , to soldier for our nation, to put there lives on the line...i don't think it is to much to ask to provide them with the right training and equipment in order for them to carry out the tasking we as a nation assign them to do...And we if we are not willing to spend funds to do this, then the only ones that can be held responsiable is "US" the people of Canada.

It's also a real shame that so many Canadians are unquestioningly willing to go off and potentially put Canada in harms way by getting involved in other people's conflicts and provoking other people's enemies to attack us.

I realize many will argue otherwise and that I'm actually the enemy within. The polarizing affect of militarizing much our foreign policy alone should be reason enough to adopt a very neutral yet devastatingly armed position. We owe it to ourselves to not let other people's conflict tear our communities and circles of friends apart. If we have to harden ourselves at times to other people's suffering then so be it. Sometimes coming to the aid of another put's your own life at such risk that you'd be making a fatal mistake to risk it.

Edited June 14, 2010 by eyeball

bush_cheney2004 · June 14, 2010

.....I realize many will argue otherwise and that I'm actually the enemy within. The polarizing affect of militarizing much our foreign policy alone should be reason enough to adopt a very neutral yet devastatingly armed position. We owe it to ourselves to not let other people's conflict tear our communities and circles of friends apart. If we have to harden ourselves at times to other people's suffering then so be it. Sometimes coming to the aid of another put's your own life at such risk that you'd be making a fatal mistake to risk it.

Wow...such insight into the mind of a pacifist...or worse yet...a coward. I trust that you would at least consider taking such risks for your own life and your "community". There are a host of occupations having nothing to do with militarization that still require such risk taking by individuals with the courage to do so.

eyeball · June 14, 2010

Wow...such insight into the mind of a pacifist...or worse yet...a coward.

No, just a pragmatist.

I trust that you would at least consider taking such risks for your own life and your "community". There are a host of occupations having nothing to do with militarization that still require such risk taking by individuals with the courage to do so.

I do. As a volunteer fire-fighter I was also trained to first and foremost carefully assess a situation before I put myself or my team into harm's way. If I just charged headlong into every one without doing that I'd be a fool and so would anyone who followed. We'd probably be dead too.

I suppose someone like you on the other hand would be chasing your team into harm's way and hollering at them for being cowards for not running faster.

Edited June 14, 2010 by eyeball

dre · June 14, 2010

The reality is, that there is military threats to Canada, the US and the rest of North America, The reality is that Canada has a foreign policy as any nation on the planet has, that may require a military force to enforce it. History is full of examples of our country defending this foreign policy across the globe, today with over 120 conflicts raging across the world. How can we say there is no threat to Canada. If there was not any threat why would we sign on to extensive defense alliances and sgreements.

Our military is made up of Canadians who for the most part share the same ideas ,values and morals of every other Canadian in this nation. That being said we do this job 24 hours a day 7 days a week, and we take that job very seriously, as any Canadian does when doing his or her job, we want what is best for Canada and her people...

We know our military is not going to be some massive organization, bent on policing the world, or have aspirations of world domination. it is not who we are , it is not part of the Canadain character.

Canada has spoken out many times it does not want any part of this... the military respect this, understands this, and fully supports this....

That being said, the military has also warned the Nation that our military with it's current size and make up is totally inadaquate for the defense of our nation, other than provide a rudimentary defense, if given enough warning....And while i will agree it is not very likely that that a direct invasion of our country is likely, that course of action can not be struck of the list as it is still possiable as far fetched as that may sound, we still need to take precautions .Our foreign policy is very robust considering the size of our military and it's current structure...our defense agreements also takes up a good chunk of our military forces meaning we could not do all 3 at once but rather only one and then only in a limited capacity...

SO before Canadians decide 9 bil on aircraft is to much , perhaps Canadains need to sti down and decide what exactly they want for defence, for foreign policy, and what defense agreements we can afford...

We as a nation are extremily lucky to have citizens that are willing to take on that job , to soldier for our nation, to put there lives on the line...i don't think it is to much to ask to provide them with the right training and equipment in order for them to carry out the tasking we as a nation assign them to do...And we if we are not willing to spend funds to do this, then the only ones that can be held responsiable is "US" the people of Canada.

SO before Canadians decide 9 bil on aircraft is to much , perhaps Canadains need to sti down and decide what exactly they want for defence, for foreign policy, and what defense agreements we can afford...

That sums it up pretty clearly for me.

I DO think our soldiers should be properly equipped, but I would just like to see more of a national dialogue and a better explanation when the government wants to borrow billions of dollars to buy fancy top of the line hardware.

Also... sometimes these ultra expensive purchases do not necessarily related to the soldiers being properly equipped anyways. Big expenditures in one area of defense can result in shortfalls in other areas. Its nice for the airforce to have expense toys that cost hundreds of millions of dollars each, but we should make sure that your average infantryman has body armour, proper armoured vehicles etc first. The US is a good example of that... they spend trillions on fancy toys and rewarding the military industrial complex, but then they end up sending their troops to war without body armour, and other basic equipment.

bush_cheney2004 · June 14, 2010

....I suppose someone like you on the other hand would be chasing your team into harm's way and hollering at them for being cowards for not running faster.

You suppose a lot of things....including what is appropriate for people besides yourself. I don't care how you parse the risk and response for yourself...that's your business...but you are not always going to be able to hide behind "pragmatism"....even if you so desperately want to.

Edited June 14, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

bush_cheney2004 · June 14, 2010

... The US is a good example of that... they spend trillions on fancy toys and rewarding the military industrial complex, but then they end up sending their troops to war without body armour, and other basic equipment.

OK....but which country asked their troops to deploy to Afghanistan in CADPAT (TW) instead of (AR)? Hmmmmmm?

eyeball · June 14, 2010

...but you are not always going to be able to hide behind "pragmatism"....even if you so desperately want to.

That's why I propose we keep a arsenal of some really bad-assed nasty nukes on hand. Desperation alone certainly isn't going to cut it.

Army Guy · June 14, 2010

I agree, but I fail to see why these precautions need to be so expensive. It is patently clear that we cannot afford to build a conventional armed force to defend Canada. The only realistic option is to deter potential invaders with a weapon that is so terrible as to preclude any thought of provoking its use.

Todays new tech has a heavy price, last time Canada had any major program in which we spent bils on R&D was the aero....It is this research that accounts for the price...

As a nation we can afford to build a modern conventional military, what we have to conclude first is what we want to cut....serveral come to mind, G-8 conference, olympics and many more....

Nuc wpns , when the world is trying so hard to ban them, are the ultimate wpn, once used they mean the end of mankind as we know it...there is no well i'll only use one....todays nuks are as deadly as they come...with no containment, no way of controling who it kills with the radiactive dust ,a gift that keeps killing for generations ....

For starters, all of our alliances and agreements need to be deeply and thoroughly reviewed, debated and then voted on by the public. Huge numbers of Canadians are convinced that many of the 120 conflicts raging around the world are due to many of the foreign policies of some of our closest allies and friends.

I agree they should be reviewed, but not by the public , but rather by parliment and the experts...

It's also a real shame that so many Canadians are unquestioningly willing to go off and potentially put Canada in harms way by getting involved in other people's conflicts and provoking other people's enemies to attack us.

Canadians who have the same education as most citizens, Canadians that believe in what we as a nation are doing,Canadians that share basically the same morals or values as the rest of the country, but believe that sometimes force needs to be met with force....that with the right application it can be used for the better....

Sometimes coming to the aid of another put's your own life at such risk that you'd be making a fatal mistake to risk it.

Sometimes all it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing.....Every crisses i've been in civilians are running away from the scene, while soldiers firemen, police, all are running towards it....it's what we do, and it needs to be done, to save lives....

Army Guy · June 14, 2010

I DO think our soldiers should be properly equipped, but I would just like to see more of a national dialogue and a better explanation when the government wants to borrow billions of dollars to buy fancy top of the line hardware.

Once Canadians decide what thier defense needs should be who holds thier feet to the fire to ensure the troops get equipped properly....

And while i agree with you there should be a massive dialogue on what our defense needs should be, i think all that needs to be approved on a regular basis is HOW much our military can spend on the army ,Navy, Airforce...Let the military decide what it is going to spend it on.....of course there will be exceptions, guidelines and rules....but at the end of the day, politics and outside iterferance should not come into play, as we have seen in the past with other purchases , LSVW,G wagon, Griffon helos, comes to mind, purchases that have cost soldiers lives or effected the mission, so some politician could win some votes...

dre · June 14, 2010

Todays new tech has a heavy price, last time Canada had any major program in which we spent bils on R&D was the aero....It is this research that accounts for the price...

As a nation we can afford to build a modern conventional military, what we have to conclude first is what we want to cut....serveral come to mind, G-8 conference, olympics and many more....

Nuc wpns , when the world is trying so hard to ban them, are the ultimate wpn, once used they mean the end of mankind as we know it...there is no well i'll only use one....todays nuks are as deadly as they come...with no containment, no way of controling who it kills with the radiactive dust ,a gift that keeps killing for generations ....

I agree they should be reviewed, but not by the public , but rather by parliment and the experts...

Canadians who have the same education as most citizens, Canadians that believe in what we as a nation are doing,Canadians that share basically the same morals or values as the rest of the country, but believe that sometimes force needs to be met with force....that with the right application it can be used for the better....

Sometimes all it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing.....Every crisses i've been in civilians are running away from the scene, while soldiers firemen, police, all are running towards it....it's what we do, and it needs to be done, to save lives....

Sometimes all it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing

We need to have a national debate about that. Very few Canadians would argue we dont need the capability to assert our sovereignty over our territories and protect ourselves from attack. But the idea of using our military to police the world, and project our values onto others by force or as you say "fight evil" is harder to define and predict, and those types of "projects" are often counter productive and damage our own security. Im VERY nervous about any multi-national institution being in a position to either impact our military spending, or cause us to enter into a conflict. I think Canada played a more positive role in the world when stayed out of wars unless they were wars of last resort.

Im less than enthusiastic about being a henchmen in anybodies possee, be it the UN, or NATO.

eyeball · June 14, 2010

I agree they should be reviewed, but not by the public , but rather by parliment and the experts...

I'll meet you halfway then...by the public with Parliament and the experts in attendance, with a referendum at the end of it.

Canadians who have the same education as most citizens, Canadians that believe in what we as a nation are doing,Canadians that share basically the same morals or values as the rest of the country, but believe that sometimes force needs to be met with force....that with the right application it can be used for the better....

Fair enough, why are you so fearful of letting these same Canadians have the final word on whether to send you to war in a foreign land?

Sometimes all it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing.....

I hear you and it's why I say we as a truly principled people should be standing up to those allies of ours that have been sowing so much insecurity in the world. We should revoke our military treaties with them, and put them on notice that sanctions on imports and against exports of strategic resources will follow should they persist in destabilizing the conflicted parts of the world.

Every crisses i've been in civilians are running away from the scene, while soldiers firemen, police, all are running towards it....it's what we do, and it needs to be done, to save lives....

Civilians would be well advised to never turn their back on the scene. In my experience as a fireman even your most trusted team-mate and leader can turn out to be a serial arsonist. It was happening right under my nose and when it finally registered and I looked out in the world at all the hero's who were desperate to do their stuff and show it to the world...I paused to consider...

Edited June 14, 2010 by eyeball