PM Justin Trudeau's Canada

[Northern Light]

They don't "need" our involvement; they want it. Haiti is an ungovernable cesspool. Beyond our capacity to take on the role (which I doubt we can do in any sustained capacity), the optics are bad no matter which way any mission goes. If it has aggressive ROE (which I believe it would have to be at lest in the beginning), the image of dead Haitians in the street at the hands of a foreign military will flood the media and rattle the government's image. If it is not aggressive - more along a peacekeeper line - it won't work and the image of dead Canadians coming home will have the same effect. Think Northern Ireland at the height of the troubles.

They say that Afghanistan is the 'graveyard of empires'. Haiti is the graveyard of interventionists.

In both cases, and a few others; the thing of note is that intervention in a place that is beset by civil strife, conflict and serious structural problems, not only needs to be at-scale, in order to be effective, it needs to be robust, forward-looking, and sustained.

That is not only politically costly, its financially costly.

If you want to re-set a place like this, its not an in-out sort of thing; and you can't do it w/o addressing structural inequities, which isn't just a legislative change, its investments in schools and hospitals and roads and transit etc.

Its entirely do-able, but its a very big undertaking, that is at least generational in scope.

Short-term intervention (ie. lets go in and arrest/kill a few baddies, gang members, warlords etc.) and re-establish some order, train a few cops and leave behind some guns......and then exit, is likely to last about as long as we have boots on the ground and not much longer.

I think it would behoove our government and the U.S. to think carefully before intervening here.........again.

If we do, we ought to commit to doing it properly; and that would certainly require the financial largess of the Americans; as bringing up the living standard and infrastructure for a nation of 11M people is a multi-billon dollar undertaking.

 

[kEiThZ]

I think this is the Americans telling Canada that its time to pony up. If we don't do it on substantial military spending, we'll be expected to do it on humanitarian aid. I'm fairly sure, the US and the rest of our allies are done with our sanctimonious lecturing that routinely accompanies inaction. This looks like the US basically assigning a job that they think we can handle.

Haiti's GDP is ~US$21B. So realistically, we're talking about a few hundred million per year for several years in aid. It's the military commitment that is likely to be complicated. Especially if it doesn't come with substantial American support.

 

[picard102]

Look up where the large Haitian diaspora lives, the refuge.

America, and they have more than enough resources in the area to deal with a problem they want dealt with.

 

[DSC]

I think this is the Americans telling Canada that its time to pony up. If we don't do it on substantial military spending, we'll be expected to do it on humanitarian aid. I'm fairly sure, the US and the rest of our allies are done with our sanctimonious lecturing that routinely accompanies inaction. This looks like the US basically assigning a job that they think we can handle.

Haiti's GDP is ~US$21B. So realistically, we're talking about a few hundred million per year for several years in aid. It's the military commitment that is likely to be complicated. Especially if it doesn't come with substantial American support.

The problem with Haiti is that it has been allowed to become a TOTAL mess and I doubt any country will want to go in unless they have CLEAR support from not only the 'government" (who are not in control) and from a sizable part of the population. Any help would require both 'peace keeping / making" and support from civic society.

 

[lenaitch]

I get that US et al are expecting Canada to up its game in terms of continental and international safety and security, and rightfully so. I just don't think this is our hill to plant our flag. If the logic the US is having to deal with the diaspora, then we should be having Canadian military, CBSA and mounties helping to patrol the US-Mexican border.

Humanitarian aid? Sure - air drop all the Pop Tarts we can (gangs still control the airport as far as I know). We tried the middle-nice-guy role in the former Yugoslavia. Nothing really changed there until NATO started getting aggressive, but at least the other side(s) had a quasi government and military so the world saw a conflict of combatants. Not here. We will look like an invading force and the government (possibly even the US government) doesn't have the stomach for it.

Maybe some should give France a call (oops, Monroe Doctrine).

 

[Richard White]

I think this is the Americans telling Canada that its time to pony up. If we don't do it on substantial military spending, we'll be expected to do it on humanitarian aid. I'm fairly sure, the US and the rest of our allies are done with our sanctimonious lecturing that routinely accompanies inaction. This looks like the US basically assigning a job that they think we can handle.

Haiti's GDP is ~US$21B. So realistically, we're talking about a few hundred million per year for several years in aid. It's the military commitment that is likely to be complicated. Especially if it doesn't come with substantial American support.

Question is though.. do we have the resources for any size of international commitment at the moment?

My one beef with Canada and in particular the left is ability to talk about things but never act. They always play it safe and it is ruining our reputation globally.

We need to fortify our military, our intelligence and so forth. We need to show we can and will be a major player globally. All we do right now is talk about things and how Canada is committed to send aid to all these nations.

Aid is one thing but we should really be focusing on helping our international partners. Eventually (as we are seeing with AUKUS) these partners will leave us in the dust and not look back. Either we act now or be left behind.

If total strength is an issue then perhaps we need to mandate 2 years military service for all citizens like some other countries do.

 

[lenaitch]

The funding and status of our military is largely the fault of the voter/taxpayer. By and large, Canadians don't care; therefore politicians don't care.

 

[Northern Light]

Question is though.. do we have the resources for any size of international commitment at the moment?

My one beef with Canada and in particular the left is ability to talk about things but never act. They always play it safe and it is ruining our reputation globally.

We need to fortify our military, our intelligence and so forth. We need to show we can and will be a major player globally. All we do right now is talk about things and how Canada is committed to send aid to all these nations.

Aid is one thing but we should really be focusing on helping our international partners. Eventually (as we are seeing with AUKUS) these partners will leave us in the dust and not look back. Either we act now or be left behind.

If total strength is an issue then perhaps we need to mandate 2 years military service for all citizens like some other countries do.

The countries I would seek to emulate are those with the highest standard of living, the least poverty, the lowest crime.

I'm interesting in being North America's Norway, not its Russia, China or the United States.

I don't feel any need to meddle in the affairs of countries 1/2 way round the globe.

All in all, I can't sponsor the above as a package, nor do I view it as a priority.

That's not to suggest I oppose investing in our military to ensure things are in a state-of-good-repair (we had to replace aircraft that are frankly beyond end-of-life), and otherwise provide adequate training, equipment and supplies.

But there is marked distance between that and trying to be a global power for no obvious reason, and to the gain of no one other than the weapons manufacturing industry, primarily in the U.S.

 

[Richard White]

But there is marked distance between that and trying to be a global power for no obvious reason, and to the gain of no one other than the weapons manufacturing industry, primarily in the U.S.

It is not about being a global power for no obvious reason.

As I said, AUKUS left us in the dust. Why? Because we have nothing of value to offer.

Three large global players are leaving us behind because they think we are not able to step up when it counts. The knowledge and expertise they have to offer may not be available to us in the future because we are an insignificant player.

I understand your perspective but at the same time, the saying put up or shut up comes to mind. Put your money where your mouth is so to speak?

 

[Northern Light]

It is not about being a global power for no obvious reason.

As I said, AUKUS left us in the dust. Why? Because we have nothing of value to offer.

Three large global players are leaving us behind because they think we are not able to step up when it counts. The knowledge and expertise they have to offer may not be available to us in the future because we are an insignificant player.

I understand your perspective but at the same time, the saying put up or shut up comes to mind. Put your money where your mouth is so to speak?

I do propose to put my money where my mouth is; I have no desire to see Canada join the U.S. or the U.K, or Australia in meddling in other countries affairs. Zero, Nada and Squat.

I propose we mind our own business as a country, get along with our friends, and concentrate on raising our standard of living.

Life expectancy in the U.S. is a whopping 5 years below Canada's (77 vs 82)

The U.S. is also behind Canada by most quality of life measures for the median citizen.

The U.K. is comparable, with Australia slightly ahead.

But you know, its not the Australian military that makes the difference, its a higher minimum wage (PPP adjusted) and 4 weeks paid vacation minimum.

 

[kEiThZ]

Question is though.. do we have the resources for any size of international commitment at the moment?

The CAF, CIDA, GAC, RCMP will make it happen if ordered to do so. Nobody should have doubts about that. How many people we break and how damage we do to our long term efforts to reconstitute are another matter.

But you know, its not the Australian military that makes the difference, is a higher minimum wage (PPP adjusted) and 4 weeks paid vacation minimum.

Australia developed their resources. Canada chose not to. That pretty much accounts for most of the difference in GDP over the last decade. More leave and higher pay is just more equitable distribution of those gains.

 

[Northern Light]

Australia developed their resources. Canada chose not to. That pretty much accounts for most of the difference in GDP over the last decade. More leave and higher pay is just more equitable distribution of those gains.

Umm, the minimum wage/living wage in Australia dates back much, much further than the last decade, in fact, it dates to 1904

Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

From the above:

One of the Court's early awards was the landmark Harvester case (Ex Parte H.V. McKay of 1907), delivered by Justice H.B. Higgins, which introduced the concept of the living wage into Australian industrial relations.[10] Within 25 years, the concept of a living wage had been extended to most of the Australian workforce, and influenced later decisions establishing certain types of paid leave, and equal pay for indigenous Australians and women

On paid leave, Australia's Public Service workers won the right to 4 weeks paid leave in 1974, almost 50 years ago, a right that was extended to most/all workers in Australia in 2009, 14 years ago.

The History of Annual Leave | Peninsula AU

Annual Leave is a right for Australian employees and it is an integral part of workplace relations. Learn about the history of annual leave.

employsure.com.au

****

That is not to dispute the issue of Australia's resource development story; but rather to point out that the equity measures preceded that, rather than followed that.

 

[kEiThZ]

My one beef with Canada and in particular the left is ability to talk about things but never act. They always play it safe and it is ruining our reputation globally

It isn't just the left. The right has its share of hypocrisy too. Look up what Harper did to the defence budget after Afghanistan.

A bigger problem I think is that both sides are really, really naive about Canada's standing in the world and how their own policies might impact that. The issues on either side of the spectrum may be different. But the hypocrisy is the same. The Right seems to think that they can cut all climate policy without global pushback. The left seems to think we can keep sucking on the US teat indefinitely while lecturing them about how bad they are. Policies like Europes border adjustment taxes on carbon and US Inflation Reduction Act making friendshoring official should be a warning sign that the our usual pattern of being all talk will not work going forward. We lack a mature political culture in this country. And it's usually most apparent on foreign policy.

Aid is one thing but we should really be focusing on helping our international partners. Eventually (as we are seeing with AUKUS) these partners will leave us in the dust and not look back. Either we act now or be left behind.

AUKUS is likely out. It's not just a large military budget. Or nuclear subs as the superficial Liberal talking point goes. Australia brings a lot to the table technologically. They've funded niche R&D that the US was light on. They've developed niche capabilities that the Americans themselves are going on to field. For example:

Boeing 737 AEW&C - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Boeing MQ-28 Ghost Bat - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Canada underspends on R&D. And what it does spend is very unfocused. And that's aside from underspending on defence, diplomacy, and foreign aid. I personally don't see any of this changing unless the Americans start threatening to cut off access to their market. Quite honestly, I'm always surprised how nice the Americans are to us, given the leverage that they do have. But that seems to be changing....

If total strength is an issue then perhaps we need to mandate 2 years military service for all citizens like some other countries do.

Nope. Westen militaries aren't really designed for conscripts. Our military would definitely not want them either. You also damage the economy by sticking people in jobs they don't want to do for 2 years. We can attract enough people if we pay them well. And then it becomes a boon to the wider economy when disciplined and well trained young people leave the military and join the workforce. It's no accident, for example, that Silicon Valley is in California, the state home to a third of the nuclear fleet and space force, several flight test ranges, the Navy's Graduate School, etc. A large chunk of the most skilled personnel in the US military spend time in California. And that skills base has helped their economy. It's a better approach than conscription.

 

[kEiThZ]

The U.S. is also behind Canada by most quality of life measures for the median citizen.

Let's see how this holds up in 30 years, given that Canada is forecast to be dead last in the OECD, in economic growth over that time period. And given that a ton of our prosperity over the last two decades was based on an unprecedented housing bubble in Canada and resource extraction that is killing the biosphere. Forget becoming like Scandinavia. We're on track to becoming a PIIGS country at this rate. The likelihood that the median Canadian falls behind the median American is very high if these trends hold:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1612444061368991752

But recency bias and the general Canadian smug superiority complex is hard to get over. So the average Canuck can't admit we have a problem. Add the partisan aspect to it too. I expect Liberals won't see any of these as economic problems till the second day of a Conservative government in office when all blame can be put on them.

 

[kEiThZ]

Read this article about the future for British youth and tell me it doesn't sound exactly like Canada:

Britons in their thirties are stuck in a dark age

Youth is wasted on the young. But wealth is wasted on the old

www.economist.com