Does Canada face any imminent military threat to its territory?

dre · June 12, 2010

So in other words, it's preferable to have a small tax base supporting an army that has to defend the second largest country in the world?

I can hear the printing presses at the Bank of Canada revving up as I type.

The truth of the matter is, we cannot afford an army capable of defending all Canadian territory with the population and tax base we currently have. If the goal is to expand our military, then we first have to expand our tax base, and that comes via more births or more immigration. Take your pick.

I dont really have a problem with trying to raise the birth rate but WOMB CONTROL isnt a very good way to do it.

Machjo · June 12, 2010

the deficit is shrinking by the day now.

Not if some had their way.

Smallc · June 12, 2010

Not if some had their way.

That's very true. Some people hate spending...unless it's the spending they want. I don't mind any spending...as long as we can afford it.

Machjo · June 12, 2010

I dont really have a problem with trying to raise the birth rate but WOMB CONTROL isnt a very good way to do it.

So how would you bring up the birth rate?

Among some options I could see would be to improve education. For example, let's say schooling for 5 to 15 year olds would extend through the summer and winter holidays, possibly include activities one day each weekend, etc. and include school meals as examples.

Smallc · June 12, 2010

and include school meals as examples.

It seems you like spending money on your own priorities too.

Remiel · June 12, 2010

Exactly! One of the basic definitions of a country's territory is to actually have a presence in a region and be doing something there!

Is it really though? I mean, the United States, one of the only countries that can actually threaten our territory in the North, claims territory in Antartica. And what they do down there is far, FAR less than we do up in the North.

Edited June 12, 2010 by Remiel

Machjo · June 12, 2010

That's very true. Some people hate spending...unless it's the spending they want. I don't mind any spending...as long as we can afford it.

Just because we can afford it doe not mean we must spend it. Spending must always be an investment of some kind. And for the most part, that lies with the private sector. The only area I can see government spending really being an investment is in education, and even then I'm for school vouchers or other incentives for the private sector to get involved, and with public education developing the skills one will need to serve the community, which includes learning a trade or profession before the end of his compulsory education.

Beyond education though, government spending ought to stick to the basics.

Machjo · June 12, 2010

That's very true. Some people hate spending...unless it's the spending they want. I don't mind any spending...as long as we can afford it.

Just because we can afford it doe not mean we must spend it. Spending must always be an investment of some kind. And for the most part, that lies with the private sector. The only area I can see government spending really being an investment is in education, and even then I'm for school vouchers or other incentives for the private sector to get involved, and with public education developing the skills one will need to serve the community, which includes learning a trade or profession before the end of his compulsory education.

Beyond education though, government spending ought to stick to the basics.

Machjo · June 12, 2010

It seems you like spending money on your own priorities too.

This would be more of an investment though. A hungry child, no matter how smart, won't study hard on an empty stomach. If we're spending tax dollars to educate him, then we might as well get a bang for the buck and if that means filling his belly to have him study harder so that he can succeed in life rather than just produce another generation of hungry kids, then that's a small price to pay.

Smallc · June 12, 2010

This would be more of an investment though. A hungry child, no matter how smart, won't study hard on an empty stomach.

Money is already spent to ensure children don't go hungry in Canada. The number that do is probably minuscule. That said, many schools already have breakfast programs.

dre · June 12, 2010

So how would you bring up the birth rate?

Among some options I could see would be to improve education. For example, let's say schooling for 5 to 15 year olds would extend through the summer and winter holidays, possibly include activities one day each weekend, etc. and include school meals as examples.

Yeah your ideas are worth looking at. Theres a whole host of policies that could make it more attractive for Canadians to have children. Proper maternity leave would be nice, and support structures for families. Tax incentives and credits, etc etc.

A decent national daycare system would be really helpfull too. One of the dumbest things thats ever happened in our country is the $100 dollar checks the Harper government sends out to people for daycare. I spend mine on beer every single month... my wife is a stay at home mom! Why the fuck do I need a daycare subsidy???? The program costs a lot and the money COULD have been used for a real daycare solution.

dre · June 12, 2010

Just because we can afford it doe not mean we must spend it. Spending must always be an investment of some kind. And for the most part, that lies with the private sector. The only area I can see government spending really being an investment is in education, and even then I'm for school vouchers or other incentives for the private sector to get involved, and with public education developing the skills one will need to serve the community, which includes learning a trade or profession before the end of his compulsory education.

Beyond education though, government spending ought to stick to the basics.

We oughtta look at the education system in Norway. Its about 50 times as good as ours.

One of the major differences is that in the Norweigan system you can branch into trade and vocational schools after age 15 if you cant hack the academic path. In Norway a 16 yearold that cant handle the acamedic workload gets trained as a plumber, or an electrician. In North America they drop out of school, smoke crack, and commit crime.

Machjo · June 12, 2010

Yeah your ideas are worth looking at. Theres a whole host of policies that could make it more attractive for Canadians to have children. Proper maternity leave would be nice, and support structures for families. Tax incentives and credits, etc etc.

But again, whatever structure is put in place will cost money, and so any of these proposals must go hand in hand with either tax increases or spending cuts to other areas or some other means of getting revenue. This is one reason I'd proposed year-round schooling for 5-15-year-olds. This way, they could also graduate and enter the workforce sooner. So while it would mean a spending increase initially, tis spending increase would in fact be an investment that would pay itself off in the end owing to people becoming productive taxpayers sooner. Any of this spending must be set up as an investment producing social or economic dividends of some kind.

A decent national daycare system would be really helpfull too. One of the dumbest things thats ever happened in our country is the $100 dollar checks the Harper government sends out to people for daycare. I spend mine on beer every single month... my wife is a stay at home mom! Why the fuck do I need a daycare subsidy???? The program costs a lot and the money COULD have been used for a real daycare solution.

Perhaps. Or another option would be a daycare voucher.

Smallc · June 12, 2010

One of the major differences is that in the Norweigan system you can branch into trade and vocational schools after age 15 if you cant hack the academic path.

You can do that here too....at least in Manitoba.

Machjo · June 12, 2010

We oughtta look at the education system in Norway. Its about 50 times as good as ours.

One of the major differences is that in the Norweigan system you can branch into trade and vocational schools after age 15 if you cant hack the academic path. In Norway a 16 yearold that cant handle the acamedic workload gets trained as a plumber, or an electrician. In North America they drop out of school, smoke crack, and commit crime.

Surprisingly enough, the Swedish system (yeah, that jewel of the socialist movement) has a voucher programme in place and privative schools can participate in it too.

We also need to give schools more freedom too. I agree with your idea of giving students more choices and opportunities to specialize in something they'd be interested in. Not everyone enjoys academic pursuits. Hungary has a good language system too. Each school can teach the second language of its choice, and pupils can take the second-language test of their choice from among at least 20 languages. This also helps to expand world markets for our products. When we force all Canadians to learn French or English as their second language, it creates a closed loop.

All of these ideas I think are worth looking at.

Also, overlapping objectives would be worth looking at too. Education is a provincial matter, whereas the military is a military matter, and so I doubt they communicate with each other much. But why could martial arts not be part of the compulsory curriculum for all? Sure some martial arts might be too difficult for some pupils, but then again, tai chi chuan has both a traditional and a simplified form. So pupils who are not so interested in martial arts or who are out of shape would still have the option of learning the simplified form of tai chi chuan, which would still be better than nothing in terms of health and fitness and making them more valuable should they eventually join the police, the military, etc. or even for personal defense.

As for a professional military force, it's important but I still think we could wait until our debt's paid off before upgrading our ships and fighters. It's not like we have an imminent threat right now, and once our debt's paid off, then we could upgrade with the newest tech of that time.

PIK · June 12, 2010

The threats are already here and flourishing well in canada. Why invade when all you have to do is set up shop in canada and use our very liberal charter to protect themselves,while rasing money and support for terrorist and criminal organizations.

June 12, 2010

You can do that here too....at least in Manitoba.

B.C. is starting those types of programs to.

Remiel · June 12, 2010

One of the major differences is that in the Norweigan system you can branch into trade and vocational schools after age 15 if you cant hack the academic path. In Norway a 16 yearold that cant handle the acamedic workload gets trained as a plumber, or an electrician. In North America they drop out of school, smoke crack, and commit crime.

With such nice phrasing, how could anyone possibly stigmitize people in the trades as dumb? A system that rationalizes one study for " smart " people and one for " dumb " people is bound to create a dysfunctional society. That is not to say that there are not better rationalizations, but which one a student goes to should be based on what they want to do, not just what they are told to do. Not every person is a succesful student when they are young, and many do not continue to be. Any system must be porous; it requires a well developed system for transferring students between streams.

Wild Bill · June 13, 2010

We oughtta look at the education system in Norway. Its about 50 times as good as ours.

One of the major differences is that in the Norweigan system you can branch into trade and vocational schools after age 15 if you cant hack the academic path. In Norway a 16 yearold that cant handle the acamedic workload gets trained as a plumber, or an electrician. In North America they drop out of school, smoke crack, and commit crime.

I don't believe you are accurate when you say that trades are a default path for those who can't handle academic courses. Maybe here but not in Europe. I would say that this impression is one of our society's faults that holds us back!

I've been down the halls of academia. I've also had some exposure to the trades. A good tradesman is often far more intelligent and certainly much more practical than someone with an Arts or Poli-sci degree!

Most trades demand a fair bit of knowledge. Even home renovations constantly demand different solutions to different problems, since every home is different and every situation has its own peculiarities.

This arrogance among many academics is constantly shown to be unsupported. Most academics are totally lost when confronted with even the simplest carpentry, plumbing or electrical problems. It's a good thing they tend to make good money, 'cuz if they couldn't hire tradespeople they likely would have their homes eventually fall down on them!

"Academics" might be able to tell us we need a bridge. They may also be good at telling us what colour to paint it so it will be "environmentally friendly". However, God help us if we let academics BUILD the bridge!

Some of us naturally prefer to deal with the physical world and enjoy working at practical problems more than more esoteric pursuits. In terms of intelligence they are likely SMARTER than most academics!

Machjo · June 13, 2010

With such nice phrasing, how could anyone possibly stigmitize people in the trades as dumb? A system that rationalizes one study for " smart " people and one for " dumb " people is bound to create a dysfunctional society. That is not to say that there are not better rationalizations, but which one a student goes to should be based on what they want to do, not just what they are told to do. Not every person is a succesful student when they are young, and many do not continue to be. Any system must be porous; it requires a well developed system for transferring students between streams.

Perhaps, but it must ensure they are fully trained in a trade or profession before the age of 15. If a person graduates without a skill, he risks becoming a burden on society by falling through the catch-22 (no job for the money for an education and no education to get a job for the money for an education). Then they become a burden through no fault of their own and if stuck in this catch-22 long enough, they risk becoming bitter and thus a further burden on the criminal justice system.

All of this does in fact relate to military spending because until every citizen feels that there is something worth defending, they won't feel any motivation to defend the country. And add to that that for the second-greatest political landmass in the world, a man without a job won't want kids, leading to population shrinkage, leading to a lack of human resources and tax base to develop the military needed to defend the country.

So until those issues are dealt with, military issues really do take a back burner.

Edited June 13, 2010 by Machjo

Machjo · June 13, 2010

I don't believe you are accurate when you say that trades are a default path for those who can't handle academic courses. Maybe here but not in Europe. I would say that this impression is one of our society's faults that holds us back!

I've been down the halls of academia. I've also had some exposure to the trades. A good tradesman is often far more intelligent and certainly much more practical than someone with an Arts or Poli-sci degree!

Most trades demand a fair bit of knowledge. Even home renovations constantly demand different solutions to different problems, since every home is different and every situation has its own peculiarities.

This arrogance among many academics is constantly shown to be unsupported. Most academics are totally lost when confronted with even the simplest carpentry, plumbing or electrical problems. It's a good thing they tend to make good money, 'cuz if they couldn't hire tradespeople they likely would have their homes eventually fall down on them!

"Academics" might be able to tell us we need a bridge. They may also be good at telling us what colour to paint it so it will be "environmentally friendly". However, God help us if we let academics BUILD the bridge!

Some of us naturally prefer to deal with the physical world and enjoy working at practical problems more than more esoteric pursuits. In terms of intelligence they are likely SMARTER than most academics!

Many truths in this. Add to that that university is also constrained not only by intelligence but money too.

Not everyone can go to university even if they are bright, just because of other financial, family or other obstacles. Thus when the education system teaches all students based on the assumption that they will go on to univeristy, it fails those who do not go on to university in the end. Also, when a school assumes that a pupil with high marks will necessarily go on to university, even if that is his intention at the time, it fails him if for whatever reason he doesn't make it to university owing to whatever obstacle it may be, and he's left a burden on society. All pupils ought to graduate from middle school with a trade or profession under their belt. It does not mean they cannot go on to university, but it does mean that they have something to fall back on if they don't go on to university. In fact, it might even increase their chances of going on to university sicne after graduation they could in fact go into their trade or profession to earn the money necessary to go on to university, whereas if they are simply trained in academics and they come from a poor family, they get out of high school only to fall into the catch-22 referred to above, making them a wasted mind that could have served society if properly developed, all through no fault of his own.

You can't blame a man for not catching fish if he'd never been taught how to fish.

Bonam · June 13, 2010

Many truths in this. Add to that that university is also constrained not only by intelligence but money too.

Not everyone can go to university even if they are bright, just because of other financial, family or other obstacles. Thus when the education system teaches all students based on the assumption that they will go on to univeristy, it fails those who do not go on to university in the end. Also, when a school assumes that a pupil with high marks will necessarily go on to university, even if that is his intention at the time, it fails him if for whatever reason he doesn't make it to university owing to whatever obstacle it may be, and he's left a burden on society. All pupils ought to graduate from middle school with a trade or profession under their belt. It does not mean they cannot go on to university, but it does mean that they have something to fall back on if they don't go on to university. In fact, it might even increase their chances of going on to university sicne after graduation they could in fact go into their trade or profession to earn the money necessary to go on to university, whereas if they are simply trained in academics and they come from a poor family, they get out of high school only to fall into the catch-22 referred to above, making them a wasted mind that could have served society if properly developed, all through no fault of his own.

You can't blame a man for not catching fish if he'd never been taught how to fish.

Academics? Trades? Preparing for university? When the last time you went to "middle school"? They are little more than glorified daycare. A few evenings playing around with flash or html, or a weekend fixing the deck, or a trip to another country with your parents, will teach you far more than all your years of elementary/middle/high schooling.

Machjo · June 13, 2010

Academics? Trades? Preparing for university? When the last time you went to "middle school"? They are little more than glorified daycare. A few evenings playing around with flash or html, or a weekend fixing the deck, or a trip to another country with your parents, will teach you far more than all your years of elementary/middle/high schooling.

I know; it needs to be changed. That's the whole point of what I was writing. Schools must ensure that each pupil has a trade or profession under his belt, even if only entry level, before graduating from middle school, so as to ensure he'll have a skill to offer on the job market or start his own business or whatever.

Bonam · June 13, 2010

I know; it needs to be changed. That's the whole point of what I was writing. Schools must ensure that each pupil has a trade or profession under his belt, even if only entry level, before graduating from middle school, so as to ensure he'll have a skill to offer on the job market or start his own business or whatever.

Schools hold little relevance in preparing people to become productive. They are simply there so the kids are off somewhere, thus allowing the parents to work. Useful skills begin being taught only afterwards, in the case of professions at universities, and for trades at trade schools and community colleges.

I don't think you'll see this trend reversing. More and more emphasis at schools is placed on "not discouraging" students, and making sure that they are nice. Learning, both of academic subjects and of practical skills, is put on the back burner. Scholars in the field continue to advocate for more of the same, as do teachers, with their opposition to tests and standards, unions refusal to properly support extracurricular activities, and the continued loss of facilities at schools such as machine shops where students could actually practice useful skills.

The same is true at the university level. I've met graduates coming out of electrical engineering programs that don't know how to use a soldering iron!

The problem is much deeper and more endemic than you make it seem. It's not a simple matter of revising the curriculum. It's part of the greater issue of the rot of Western civilization.

Machjo · June 13, 2010

Schools hold little relevance in preparing people to become productive. They are simply there so the kids are off somewhere, thus allowing the parents to work. Useful skills begin being taught only afterwards, in the case of professions at universities, and for trades at trade schools and community colleges.

I don't think you'll see this trend reversing. More and more emphasis at schools is placed on "not discouraging" students, and making sure that they are nice. Learning, both of academic subjects and of practical skills, is put on the back burner. Scholars in the field continue to advocate for more of the same, as do teachers, with their opposition to tests and standards, unions refusal to properly support extracurricular activities, and the continued loss of facilities at schools such as machine shops where students could actually practice useful skills.

The same is true at the university level. I've met graduates coming out of electrical engineering programs that don't know how to use a soldering iron!

The problem is much deeper and more endemic than you make it seem. It's not a simple matter of revising the curriculum. It's part of the greater issue of the rot of Western civilization.

I see the point about developing confidence in pupils, granted, but there are plenty of ways of doing this. I'll take some examples:

Handwriting:

Historically in elite British schools, pupils were expected to write in a Copperplate script of a calligraphic standard with a steel-nibbed pen, and those who failed to meet the standard got a good caning. Eventually schools smartened up and shifted to easier scripts such as the Vere Foster script in the UK and Palmer script in the US. The UK has since shifted increasingly to Italic cursive and it's becoming more popular in the US too since it's easier to teach and learn, just as fast to write, legible and still esthetically pleasing. Personally I think this is a step in the write direction. Keep simplifying cursive for the average pupil, leaving Copperplate to those who wish to specialize in art. This way, they can all feel a sense of accomplishment, but each at his own level.

Languages:

Some governments, especially in Europe, allow schools to teach pupils the language of their choice where possible. As a result, a pupil who's not so interested in language learning can choose an easier second language to learn, thus increasing his chances of success, while other pupils looking for a greater challenge can choose a more difficult language to learn. Again, this allows all pupils to succeed, each at their own level.

So why could we not apply the same principle to learning a trade or profession? Of course I agree that there is no point in forcing a pupil to learn something that is beyond his abilities. That said, why could we not expect each pupil to specialize in what they can do well? Those with more limited abilities could narrow their specialization down a little but still be expected to master it. Since it would be narrowed down a little, it would mean less to learn, thus not overburdening the child, yet by ensuring his success the school could still give him a sense of accomplishment which will promote motivation.

Stronger students on the other hand could be expectation to learn a wider range of specializations, but still with an expectation of excellence.

Each child must be expected to succeed on some level or other. Sure the level of success could vary, but the idea of just babysitting them is a waste of money.