picard102
Senior Member
The narrative that somehow the public service is broken, and that it's due to there being too many people.
|
|
|
PM Justin Trudeau's Canada
- Thread starter King of Kensington
- Start date
- Status
Northern Light
Superstar
Says Minister of Defense Blair............we're (Canada) now go to hit our NATO target of 2% of GDP by 2027, in only 2 years, 5 years sooner than was stated in July of last year.
Is ambitious even the word for that? That's another ~15B per year for Defense within 2 budgets.
Is ambitious even the word for that? That's another ~15B per year for Defense within 2 budgets.
DSCToronto
Superstar
Member Bio
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2008
- Messages
- 22,435
- Reaction score
- 37,225
- Location
- St Lawrence Market Area
Though reasoning with Trump is clearly impossible, if he imposes Tariffs and our governments need to spend billions dealing with the fallout, it is very unlikely any government here will spend a cent more on defense as 'the public' would certainly not approve of paying more for the armed forces while the unemployment rolls expand and the EI payments are cut.Says Minister of Defense Blair............we're (Canada) now go to hit our NATO target of 2% of GDP by 2027, in only 2 years, 5 years sooner than was stated in July of last year.
Is ambitious even the word for that? That's another ~15B per year for Defense within 2 budgets.
afransen
Senior Member
Nice of him to commit PP to that.Says Minister of Defense Blair............we're (Canada) now go to hit our NATO target of 2% of GDP by 2027, in only 2 years, 5 years sooner than was stated in July of last year.
Is ambitious even the word for that? That's another ~15B per year for Defense within 2 budgets.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
Recruiting is desperate. The RCN, for what it is cannot go to sea for lack of manpower.Says Minister of Defense Blair............we're (Canada) now go to hit our NATO target of 2% of GDP by 2027, in only 2 years, 5 years sooner than was stated in July of last year.
Is ambitious even the word for that? That's another ~15B per year for Defense within 2 budgets.
picard102
Senior Member
Why would anyone want to go die in a war for the rich?
lenaitch
Senior Member
Been done for generations, either voluntarily or not.
picard102
Senior Member
And we've learned it's not worth our lives on the chance that we die in a pointless war.
lenaitch
Senior Member
Unless someone takes the view that all wars (and therefore all military) are pointless, we can protect our sovereignty or national interests here, or someplace else before it becomes here. Also, if we want formal allies or even like-minded nations to help us in our time of need, we need to be prepared to help them in theirs, or at least look like we are trying.
picard102
Senior Member
Were talking about a generation that grew up watching a war that was based on lies, Iraq, and a war that left things worse than when it started, Afghanistan.
lenaitch
Senior Member
And that same generation fought and died in them - voluntarily.
picard102
Senior Member
Which isn't the same generation that watched those wars while growing up and now wont join the armed forces.
lenaitch
Senior Member
That may well be part of recruitment challenges - but only part.
Richard White
Senior Member
Many years ago I considered joining the Canadian Forces but the rate of pay versus the commitment made it unappealing.
At the time I wouldn't have made any more than in a regular 9 to 5 job while still being isolated from my friends and family for months on end.
Yes I would have had a paid education but at what cost?
All things considered it wasn't worth it for me and I declined to proceed past the aptitude test
I wasn't expecting to be a millionaire but at least provide me with a justifiable wage and viable quality of life.
At the end of the day I feel like I made the right choice by not joining.
I know some people are dedicated military professionals but for me it didn't make sense.
Last edited:
nfitz
Superstar
So if the Liberals want to pass legislation to protect those impacted by tariffs, how does that work with Parliament prorogued another two months?
I assume they can recall Parliament quickly if they want, for a quick emergency throne-speech and pass something. But the opposition has all said they will trigger an election at the next opportunity (presumably the throne speech).
Do they need to do the throne speech vote before they do any other legislation?
Though I expect neither the NDP nor the Tories want the stain of delaying relief to those who need it by two months.
There is a (probably unlikely) scenario here, that the Liberals do try and pass something, the government falls, and we have an election in March before the leadership convention chooses a new leader.
And if there's a sudden surge of support behind the PM (and these things have happened before - Thatcher was in third place in the polls, with about 28% support before the Falklands were invaded. She was over 50% in some polls as the war was taking place, and stayed well over 40% before getting re-elected with an even bigger majority)?
There's an unlikely scenario that, like his father, Justin may get a surprise re-election after announcing his intention to resign. It then took Pierre over 4 years to fulfill his promise.
Edit - looking at the House of Commons website, indeed Parliament can be recalled while prorogued. And they do a very brief Throne speech. Nothing about the vote, but I assume they need one. See last section on "Special sessions" at the end of https://www.ourcommons.ca/marleaumontpetit/DocumentViewer.aspx?DocId=1001&Sec=Ch08&Seq=3&Language=E
It's happened 5 times. Four at times of war or international unrest. And once in 1930 when President Hoover triggered the Great Depression by invoking 20% tariffs on other nations.
I assume they can recall Parliament quickly if they want, for a quick emergency throne-speech and pass something. But the opposition has all said they will trigger an election at the next opportunity (presumably the throne speech).
Do they need to do the throne speech vote before they do any other legislation?
Though I expect neither the NDP nor the Tories want the stain of delaying relief to those who need it by two months.
There is a (probably unlikely) scenario here, that the Liberals do try and pass something, the government falls, and we have an election in March before the leadership convention chooses a new leader.
And if there's a sudden surge of support behind the PM (and these things have happened before - Thatcher was in third place in the polls, with about 28% support before the Falklands were invaded. She was over 50% in some polls as the war was taking place, and stayed well over 40% before getting re-elected with an even bigger majority)?
There's an unlikely scenario that, like his father, Justin may get a surprise re-election after announcing his intention to resign. It then took Pierre over 4 years to fulfill his promise.
Edit - looking at the House of Commons website, indeed Parliament can be recalled while prorogued. And they do a very brief Throne speech. Nothing about the vote, but I assume they need one. See last section on "Special sessions" at the end of https://www.ourcommons.ca/marleaumontpetit/DocumentViewer.aspx?DocId=1001&Sec=Ch08&Seq=3&Language=E
It's happened 5 times. Four at times of war or international unrest. And once in 1930 when President Hoover triggered the Great Depression by invoking 20% tariffs on other nations.
Last edited:
- Status