Despite being one of the alliance's founding members, Canada has become one of its biggest free riders. Our allies have noticed. Here's how we change course.
Canada has a culture of being a small part of a much bigger entity. First the British Empire and now the American umbrella. We figure the modern equivalent of the Monroe Doctrine will protect us.
The only way Canada will change is if the culture changes from the top, and the only way that will happen is if the Americans turn the screws on Ottawa and our elites. That means visa cancellations, border disruption, tariffs or even the nuclear option, choosing between American dairy access or paying up for defence immediately.
We will pay up when Canadian dairy supply management regime is under the gun, literally. Not before. (To foreigners reading this, I'm not kidding and this isn't hyperbole)
I read, and agree, that Canada’s dairy lobby is our equivalent of the USA’s NRA. Everybody knows it’s wrong, but no politician ever has the backbone to take it on. Even the Conservatives with little support in Quebec do not take it on.
That's right. And only the Americans are stronger than the dairy board.
One reason dairy is so strong in Ottawa is because it is so strong in Quebec. They are literally seen as the bulwark between Quebec leaving Canada or not. The dairy board also has hundreds of full time staff in Ottawa, all paid for by aggressively more expensive dairy paid for by poor single mothers.
Quebec has such a collectivist culture that it requires all farmers to be in a union, so even the farmers in Quebec who don't support supply management have to support it.
I suspect that true fiscal rebalancing, will also require a constitutional rebalancing of the relationship with Quebec - perhaps even some form of sovereignty association, with associated economic rebalancing. Which would dissolve Laurentian dominance of out national experiment.
If our government were to stop throwing money away on pet projects like DIE initiatives or supporting gender diversity in war zones, just maybe we would hit our target, and then some.
Dwarfed by spending on seniors as the population ages. Maybe we can cut OAS, and boomers can make their share of the sacrifice they've always kind of had a complex about not having made compared to previous generations.
Yeah, they really pulled off a scam there, didn’t they! After surviving the depression, fighting the Second War and Korea, building post war Canada and creating the welfare state for successive generations - they really scammed you…
I'm not going to take part in a generational skirmish, but just to be clear, the youngest Boomer would have been, at most, seven, if he had fought in Korea. He would have been negative-one had he helped liberate the Netherlands. Our manpower crunch wasn't quite that bad!
Clearly my comment was not referring to the boomers, but their parents - the greatest generation - that suffered the depression, fought WW II and made sure their children (the boomers) and their successors would not suffer the ignominies they did…
Some sacrifice... The goal of every generation is to leave the future generations better off than the one they came into. For Canadian boomers they have failed that on the big stuff like housing, debt, health care, etc.
The results speak for themselves and the future generations are entitled to a better world.
Excuse me but boomers handed over most things in pretty for shape. The next “very entitled” and not very disciplined generation did not carry on with that attitude at all. Look in the mirror for the problems caused current govts. There are very few boomers left in charge of govts or corporations. Trust the generations that followed the boomers to come up with yet another blame game. Good grief.
Boomers' parents had a higher overall net tax burden despite getting a very good deal on CPP as an individual program. It was a political mistake to make perceived-as-'contributory' programs where people were not actually paying their own way, but at least they had (in both economic and non-economic ways) invested in the prosperity they were sort of getting their cut of.
I’m about to retire and my OAS payment is projected to be around 600 a month. That’s a really huge payout. Combined with CPP, after having made the maximum contributions most of my life will be $1500 a month. Not exactly a living wage. So I am not sure where you are coming from with the comment about getting a full pension while not paying into it.
Meanwhile, our government has increased the bureaucracy by how much in the last 10 years? 30% is one number I’ve heard. They are the people who manage to retire at 55 with full pensions, not those of us in the private sector.
How much do believe it *should* cost to guarantee a living wage for 20 years from a (typical) 40-year working life? People have gotten spoiled by favourable demographics that meant no previous generation paid in what their OAS (or healthcare) really costs. CPP is basically paid for now, but that should give an indication of how expensive benefits are when they are actually sustainably funded. The 10% payroll tax (employer/employee combined) gets about 25% income replacement with CPP - long retirements are expensive.
There are less than half as many working age people per senior as there were when someone who is 65 today was starting their working life, which means current revenue benefits like OAS cost much more today. The fact that 7k a year seems like pocket change is just not the reality at a population level given current demographics, and OAS is going to take an extra 30 billion a year of spending within the next 5 years. It's a huge drag on budgets, and certainly not insignificant given that OAS is projected to be nearly 20% of the federal budget by 2028. (To get back on topic, that 30 billion increase would more than fill the defense spending gap.)
Under the Trudeau Liberals, anything that falls under realpolitik, such as hard military power, is simply not within their political messaging paradigm. Financing the military and meeting NATO obligations does not resonate with their favoured base of academics, NGO employees, and public service union members. They know full well they will run afoul of those same voters who would rather not think about that sort of thing. I suspect this tendency goes back at least as far as Pearson and the promise of UN Peacekeeping.
This is in keeping, I think, with Jen Gerson's recent podcast comments, that modern, idealistic, garden variety, left wingers are uncomfortable with the trappings of real power because it forces them to compromise their ideal that the world is best managed solely through a 'rules-based order' with the implication that all issues will eventually be resolved through consensus. They handwave away the true realities of the world. How convenient the talking shops and non-profits are de facto protected behind a wall bristling with American arms. Orwell knew this, “Those who ‘abjure’ violence can do so only because others are committing violence on their behalf.”
Our current government is rife with un-serious people.
Submarines! They want to blow the wad on submarines? Soldiers don't have bullets, ships don't float, aircraft are unsuited for flight, tanks are rusting and the bozos in Ottawa want submarines. Here's what I would bet my house on; if and it's a big if, they are ever built, they'll be 7 years late, cost 4 times the budget, be built by a totally inexperienced Canadian yard, be hopelessly out of date before launch and leak.
I think that while you speak sense you are preaching to what is probably a choir out here. It seems no amount of preaching will cause Trudeau and his PMO to shift policy as long as there are votes to buy with the dollars saved. The only thing that might cause a shift is if the allies, and in particular the US, were to stop talking to Canada on any new initiative and clearly assign Trudeau to the ‘peanut gallery’ at meetings.
It's about Quebec and what Quebec wants. Quebec is a pacifist society that doesn't see the value in spending on defence when that money could be used to expand the welfare state.
The Americans threatening supply management and giving Ottawa an ultimatum is the ticket.
Senior couples making up to 280k a year can get a little OAS, and (unlike welfare for working age people) there is no asset test at all. 96% of people get some OAS and only 8% are affected by the clawback, so the means testing is only a minor factor.
I find it disgusting that we spend more on Indigenous affairs than we do on our military. I would like to see a proper accounting from every first nation receiving the hard earned dollars of Canadian taxpayers and where the money is going. There is no transparency within Indigenous affairs that could even begin to account for the vast sums of money spent on this file. If those that remember their history this is not the $9,000 hammer or the $12,000 toilet, this is much much more and smells of malfeasance to the highest order.
It is shameful enough to be a welfare-bum in one of the most important areas of statehood; it is even more galling to realize that increasing our commitment properly to 2% of GDP spent will be totally wasted until we fix the procurement process in order to get any value for our money. At present the process is a blend of incompetence and possibly even corruption. Witness the handgun replacement program that will have taken 15 years to complete at a cost of about 4X per firearm for what the Brits paid for the same thing. then there is the upcoming frigate program that already looks to be a complete gong-show right out of the gate.
Let me just say: It drives me batshit crazy that our defence spending is ever a political topic of discussion; regardless of the government of the day.
Proper defence readiness and collaboration with allies is a default expectation every citizen has (or should have) of any government; since, after all, it’s the most basic function of any (federal) government’s existence, anywhere in the world — to protect and defend itself.
Yet, we see time and again how the Trudeau government is not committed to proper defence of the nation, nor to proper defence of our military alliances; instead, choosing to redesign and repurpose the military while also demonstrating ourselves to be the self-entitled freeloaders that we’ve long been — while also demonstrating an infuriatingly smug and carefree attitude along the way.
The politics of defence has gotten so bad and so concerning that I think we perhaps need to seriously consider a legislative mandate around proper defence funding and readiness as a base expectation in this country — and thereby remove the politics and risks of the changing tides of governments in future from ever tampering with the funding formula and inner-workings of our military. I think such a legislative framework would further allow the military to fund and operate with continued predictability, demonstrate long-term sustainable commitments to our allies, and keep Canadians safer from emerging threats from bad actors; all of which would be gladly welcomed developments among all relevant stakeholders. And I absolutely consider the digital defence of Canadians and our collective institutions to be a necessary part of any defence framework needed in this country.
The Liberal voting universe considers the primary role of government as a subsidized service provider, not a defender of borders and upholding the rule of law.
If the current government didn’t squander so much taxpayers’ money on aid to foreign countries where nothing ever seems to change despite the dollars rolling in, Canada could meet its NATO commitment in the next couple of years. At the same time, Canada’s defences could be bolstered with the goal of protecting our borders and keeping us safe at home. We have recruitment problems. As a parent, would you encourage your son or daughter to join up, knowing they’d be forced to work with obsolete and probably unsafe equipment ? It would not be a career I would choose for a family member. Trudeau burnishes his image at the UN by always being first in line to answer the call for aid money. Didn’t help Canada get a seat on the Security Council ! Do we ever get an accounting from the receiving country or even the UN as to how our money has been spent and what has been achieved through our generosity ? We know our dollars to UNRWA have been used to prop up HAMAS for many years. How much ends up in dictators’ bank accounts ?
As to submarines, hope Trudeau doesn’t plan to follow Jean Chretien’s lead and buy used ones. The British really saw us coming, unloading their obsolete technology, unseaworthy rust buckets on us. And all because of anti-Americanism in Chretien’s caucus ! I was nine years old when WW2 ended and we fought on in Korea. Guys who were in high school with me died in Korea. I would be happy to pay more taxes if I could designate where the money went — and you can bet it wouldn’t Beto foreign aid or the UN !
Agree with this 100%. Defence is a basic, fundemental mandate of our federal government. I would add that the Arctic is quickly becoming an area where defence -- and policing of our soveriegn borders -- is becoming a growing issue. We seem ill-equipped to meet this very basic element of defence -- defending our claims and border rights against a number of players seeking to expand their influence there, including China and Russia. If we want some say as to what happens on our northern border, we better be prepared to back them up. If we rely entirely on the US, we may not entirely agree with their approach or plans.
If Trump gets in, Canada as a functioning independent country comes to an end. We're an easy target, and will quickly cave to any and all demands he makes. An since he's insane, it won't be good for Canada or Canadians. You could argue that we've already been economically annexed; Trump will complete that process.
It's not like Canada is hitting it out of the park being an independent country nowadays anyways. But that's what happens when you live next to a superpower, you acquiesce or you get squashed. Canada only survives at the patronage of the United States anyways. Again, the Laurentian Elite only care about themselves and couldn't care less about the country as a whole.
Economically annexed? We could only wish. Canadians pay dearly for actually willfully choosing to not be totally integrated with the greatest economic power that has ever existed. It's like Brexit 10x.
Quote "Despite being one of the NATO alliance's founding members, Canada has become one of its biggest free riders. Here's how we change course. "
All these volumes of Canadian empty words on this topic for decades on end, yipp yipp yapp yapp.
1) sideline Laurentian consensus "elites" and do not ever allow them to hold power again. Their pathological anti-Americanism with which they brainwashed too much of the population is destructive to this country., and it's only purpose is to entrench Laurentian consensus "elites" power. 2) dismantle the Laurentian capitalism, it is a cancer suffocating Canadian economy. 3) Ensure Conservatives win solid majorities elections for a generation, to create an adequately long continuity for programs. 4) ensure with a clear and perhaps loud and even rude insistence that the Conservatives create an internal system for vetting and producing capable political leaders, not just one or two but a whole team, to achieve 3). Otherwise we will end up with types like deer-in-headlights Scheer, and weathervane flap-flapper O'Toole. As for Lieberals, deliberate spelling, they are genetically incapable of realizing that their ways and policies are pissing away Canada's sovereignty.
Perhaps JT is waiting for Trump to be elected again. This will ensure that we won’t be bothered again by just “saying” things (about our NATO commitments) rather than “doing” things. Then again maybe Trump will change his mind on NATO and become its best cheerleader…🤔😉
No, he won't. Trump is an open supporter of Putin, to whom NATO is his biggest concern. A Trump dictatorship is far more likely to leave NATO all together. Dictators love dictators.
Canada has a culture of being a small part of a much bigger entity. First the British Empire and now the American umbrella. We figure the modern equivalent of the Monroe Doctrine will protect us.
The only way Canada will change is if the culture changes from the top, and the only way that will happen is if the Americans turn the screws on Ottawa and our elites. That means visa cancellations, border disruption, tariffs or even the nuclear option, choosing between American dairy access or paying up for defence immediately.
We will pay up when Canadian dairy supply management regime is under the gun, literally. Not before. (To foreigners reading this, I'm not kidding and this isn't hyperbole)
I read, and agree, that Canada’s dairy lobby is our equivalent of the USA’s NRA. Everybody knows it’s wrong, but no politician ever has the backbone to take it on. Even the Conservatives with little support in Quebec do not take it on.
That's right. And only the Americans are stronger than the dairy board.
One reason dairy is so strong in Ottawa is because it is so strong in Quebec. They are literally seen as the bulwark between Quebec leaving Canada or not. The dairy board also has hundreds of full time staff in Ottawa, all paid for by aggressively more expensive dairy paid for by poor single mothers.
Quebec has such a collectivist culture that it requires all farmers to be in a union, so even the farmers in Quebec who don't support supply management have to support it.
I suspect that true fiscal rebalancing, will also require a constitutional rebalancing of the relationship with Quebec - perhaps even some form of sovereignty association, with associated economic rebalancing. Which would dissolve Laurentian dominance of out national experiment.
This would most definitely be required.
Listen to this podcast to understand what happens when equalization between regions runs amok among other things.
https://rememberingyugoslavia.com/podcast-dissolution-of-yugoslavia/
This pod gave me chills on how similar Canada is to the former Yugoslavia.
A reasonable observation. Had never considered it before.
If our government were to stop throwing money away on pet projects like DIE initiatives or supporting gender diversity in war zones, just maybe we would hit our target, and then some.
Dwarfed by spending on seniors as the population ages. Maybe we can cut OAS, and boomers can make their share of the sacrifice they've always kind of had a complex about not having made compared to previous generations.
Boomers have made huge sacrifices in growing the national debt for their grandchildren to pay off.
Those age specific welfare state freebies and giveaways don't pay for themselves.
(To be fair with CPP, it's the boomers parents who pulled off the scam of a century, getting full pensions while barely paying into the system)
Yeah, they really pulled off a scam there, didn’t they! After surviving the depression, fighting the Second War and Korea, building post war Canada and creating the welfare state for successive generations - they really scammed you…
I'm not going to take part in a generational skirmish, but just to be clear, the youngest Boomer would have been, at most, seven, if he had fought in Korea. He would have been negative-one had he helped liberate the Netherlands. Our manpower crunch wasn't quite that bad!
Clearly my comment was not referring to the boomers, but their parents - the greatest generation - that suffered the depression, fought WW II and made sure their children (the boomers) and their successors would not suffer the ignominies they did…
Yet they saddled them with a massive Ponzi scheme to keep going. No generation is so virtuous as to be excused for that.
Remember, the goal here is not to kick the younger generation in the financial nuts.
Good comment. The attitude displayed here reeks of ignorance and entitlement by generations who seem not to understand history or sacrifice.
Some sacrifice... The goal of every generation is to leave the future generations better off than the one they came into. For Canadian boomers they have failed that on the big stuff like housing, debt, health care, etc.
The results speak for themselves and the future generations are entitled to a better world.
Excuse me but boomers handed over most things in pretty for shape. The next “very entitled” and not very disciplined generation did not carry on with that attitude at all. Look in the mirror for the problems caused current govts. There are very few boomers left in charge of govts or corporations. Trust the generations that followed the boomers to come up with yet another blame game. Good grief.
Boomers' parents had a higher overall net tax burden despite getting a very good deal on CPP as an individual program. It was a political mistake to make perceived-as-'contributory' programs where people were not actually paying their own way, but at least they had (in both economic and non-economic ways) invested in the prosperity they were sort of getting their cut of.
I’m about to retire and my OAS payment is projected to be around 600 a month. That’s a really huge payout. Combined with CPP, after having made the maximum contributions most of my life will be $1500 a month. Not exactly a living wage. So I am not sure where you are coming from with the comment about getting a full pension while not paying into it.
Meanwhile, our government has increased the bureaucracy by how much in the last 10 years? 30% is one number I’ve heard. They are the people who manage to retire at 55 with full pensions, not those of us in the private sector.
How much do believe it *should* cost to guarantee a living wage for 20 years from a (typical) 40-year working life? People have gotten spoiled by favourable demographics that meant no previous generation paid in what their OAS (or healthcare) really costs. CPP is basically paid for now, but that should give an indication of how expensive benefits are when they are actually sustainably funded. The 10% payroll tax (employer/employee combined) gets about 25% income replacement with CPP - long retirements are expensive.
There are less than half as many working age people per senior as there were when someone who is 65 today was starting their working life, which means current revenue benefits like OAS cost much more today. The fact that 7k a year seems like pocket change is just not the reality at a population level given current demographics, and OAS is going to take an extra 30 billion a year of spending within the next 5 years. It's a huge drag on budgets, and certainly not insignificant given that OAS is projected to be nearly 20% of the federal budget by 2028. (To get back on topic, that 30 billion increase would more than fill the defense spending gap.)
What makes you think 40 years of working is a typical working life? I recently retired after 63 years working.
40 full-time years is both the actual average and the qualifying period for CPP. Your paper route doesn't count, sorry.
Under the Trudeau Liberals, anything that falls under realpolitik, such as hard military power, is simply not within their political messaging paradigm. Financing the military and meeting NATO obligations does not resonate with their favoured base of academics, NGO employees, and public service union members. They know full well they will run afoul of those same voters who would rather not think about that sort of thing. I suspect this tendency goes back at least as far as Pearson and the promise of UN Peacekeeping.
This is in keeping, I think, with Jen Gerson's recent podcast comments, that modern, idealistic, garden variety, left wingers are uncomfortable with the trappings of real power because it forces them to compromise their ideal that the world is best managed solely through a 'rules-based order' with the implication that all issues will eventually be resolved through consensus. They handwave away the true realities of the world. How convenient the talking shops and non-profits are de facto protected behind a wall bristling with American arms. Orwell knew this, “Those who ‘abjure’ violence can do so only because others are committing violence on their behalf.”
Our current government is rife with un-serious people.
Submarines! They want to blow the wad on submarines? Soldiers don't have bullets, ships don't float, aircraft are unsuited for flight, tanks are rusting and the bozos in Ottawa want submarines. Here's what I would bet my house on; if and it's a big if, they are ever built, they'll be 7 years late, cost 4 times the budget, be built by a totally inexperienced Canadian yard, be hopelessly out of date before launch and leak.
I think that while you speak sense you are preaching to what is probably a choir out here. It seems no amount of preaching will cause Trudeau and his PMO to shift policy as long as there are votes to buy with the dollars saved. The only thing that might cause a shift is if the allies, and in particular the US, were to stop talking to Canada on any new initiative and clearly assign Trudeau to the ‘peanut gallery’ at meetings.
It's about Quebec and what Quebec wants. Quebec is a pacifist society that doesn't see the value in spending on defence when that money could be used to expand the welfare state.
The Americans threatening supply management and giving Ottawa an ultimatum is the ticket.
OAS is means tested through taxation clawbacks.
The clawbacks need to start at a much lower income rate. It's insane how high it is now.
OAS should not be available to the top 40% by income of seniors.
Senior couples making up to 280k a year can get a little OAS, and (unlike welfare for working age people) there is no asset test at all. 96% of people get some OAS and only 8% are affected by the clawback, so the means testing is only a minor factor.
Doesn’t work that well for senior singles. No income-splitting.
Yeah poor things making just 140k and not getting welfare!
I find it disgusting that we spend more on Indigenous affairs than we do on our military. I would like to see a proper accounting from every first nation receiving the hard earned dollars of Canadian taxpayers and where the money is going. There is no transparency within Indigenous affairs that could even begin to account for the vast sums of money spent on this file. If those that remember their history this is not the $9,000 hammer or the $12,000 toilet, this is much much more and smells of malfeasance to the highest order.
It is shameful enough to be a welfare-bum in one of the most important areas of statehood; it is even more galling to realize that increasing our commitment properly to 2% of GDP spent will be totally wasted until we fix the procurement process in order to get any value for our money. At present the process is a blend of incompetence and possibly even corruption. Witness the handgun replacement program that will have taken 15 years to complete at a cost of about 4X per firearm for what the Brits paid for the same thing. then there is the upcoming frigate program that already looks to be a complete gong-show right out of the gate.
Let me just say: It drives me batshit crazy that our defence spending is ever a political topic of discussion; regardless of the government of the day.
Proper defence readiness and collaboration with allies is a default expectation every citizen has (or should have) of any government; since, after all, it’s the most basic function of any (federal) government’s existence, anywhere in the world — to protect and defend itself.
Yet, we see time and again how the Trudeau government is not committed to proper defence of the nation, nor to proper defence of our military alliances; instead, choosing to redesign and repurpose the military while also demonstrating ourselves to be the self-entitled freeloaders that we’ve long been — while also demonstrating an infuriatingly smug and carefree attitude along the way.
The politics of defence has gotten so bad and so concerning that I think we perhaps need to seriously consider a legislative mandate around proper defence funding and readiness as a base expectation in this country — and thereby remove the politics and risks of the changing tides of governments in future from ever tampering with the funding formula and inner-workings of our military. I think such a legislative framework would further allow the military to fund and operate with continued predictability, demonstrate long-term sustainable commitments to our allies, and keep Canadians safer from emerging threats from bad actors; all of which would be gladly welcomed developments among all relevant stakeholders. And I absolutely consider the digital defence of Canadians and our collective institutions to be a necessary part of any defence framework needed in this country.
I liked and agree, but both major parties view Defence as the largest discretionary funding pool of $$$ to siphon away for their pet social projects.
The Liberal voting universe considers the primary role of government as a subsidized service provider, not a defender of borders and upholding the rule of law.
If the current government didn’t squander so much taxpayers’ money on aid to foreign countries where nothing ever seems to change despite the dollars rolling in, Canada could meet its NATO commitment in the next couple of years. At the same time, Canada’s defences could be bolstered with the goal of protecting our borders and keeping us safe at home. We have recruitment problems. As a parent, would you encourage your son or daughter to join up, knowing they’d be forced to work with obsolete and probably unsafe equipment ? It would not be a career I would choose for a family member. Trudeau burnishes his image at the UN by always being first in line to answer the call for aid money. Didn’t help Canada get a seat on the Security Council ! Do we ever get an accounting from the receiving country or even the UN as to how our money has been spent and what has been achieved through our generosity ? We know our dollars to UNRWA have been used to prop up HAMAS for many years. How much ends up in dictators’ bank accounts ?
As to submarines, hope Trudeau doesn’t plan to follow Jean Chretien’s lead and buy used ones. The British really saw us coming, unloading their obsolete technology, unseaworthy rust buckets on us. And all because of anti-Americanism in Chretien’s caucus ! I was nine years old when WW2 ended and we fought on in Korea. Guys who were in high school with me died in Korea. I would be happy to pay more taxes if I could designate where the money went — and you can bet it wouldn’t Beto foreign aid or the UN !
Couldn't agree more on every count. We are currently an international embarrassment.
Agree with this 100%. Defence is a basic, fundemental mandate of our federal government. I would add that the Arctic is quickly becoming an area where defence -- and policing of our soveriegn borders -- is becoming a growing issue. We seem ill-equipped to meet this very basic element of defence -- defending our claims and border rights against a number of players seeking to expand their influence there, including China and Russia. If we want some say as to what happens on our northern border, we better be prepared to back them up. If we rely entirely on the US, we may not entirely agree with their approach or plans.
When Trump gets elected Canada will no longer have a place under the US umbrella. Sooner or later all freeloaders get the boot.
That would probably I hate to say it be the best thing to ever happen to Canada from a national competency and even pride perspective.
If Trump gets in, Canada as a functioning independent country comes to an end. We're an easy target, and will quickly cave to any and all demands he makes. An since he's insane, it won't be good for Canada or Canadians. You could argue that we've already been economically annexed; Trump will complete that process.
It's not like Canada is hitting it out of the park being an independent country nowadays anyways. But that's what happens when you live next to a superpower, you acquiesce or you get squashed. Canada only survives at the patronage of the United States anyways. Again, the Laurentian Elite only care about themselves and couldn't care less about the country as a whole.
Economically annexed? We could only wish. Canadians pay dearly for actually willfully choosing to not be totally integrated with the greatest economic power that has ever existed. It's like Brexit 10x.
Quote "Despite being one of the NATO alliance's founding members, Canada has become one of its biggest free riders. Here's how we change course. "
All these volumes of Canadian empty words on this topic for decades on end, yipp yipp yapp yapp.
1) sideline Laurentian consensus "elites" and do not ever allow them to hold power again. Their pathological anti-Americanism with which they brainwashed too much of the population is destructive to this country., and it's only purpose is to entrench Laurentian consensus "elites" power. 2) dismantle the Laurentian capitalism, it is a cancer suffocating Canadian economy. 3) Ensure Conservatives win solid majorities elections for a generation, to create an adequately long continuity for programs. 4) ensure with a clear and perhaps loud and even rude insistence that the Conservatives create an internal system for vetting and producing capable political leaders, not just one or two but a whole team, to achieve 3). Otherwise we will end up with types like deer-in-headlights Scheer, and weathervane flap-flapper O'Toole. As for Lieberals, deliberate spelling, they are genetically incapable of realizing that their ways and policies are pissing away Canada's sovereignty.
I don't think you can talk about Canada meeting NATO spending commitments until you talk about getting the deficit under control:
https://milesmcstylez.substack.com/p/how-to-defuse-canadas-debt-bomb
Perhaps JT is waiting for Trump to be elected again. This will ensure that we won’t be bothered again by just “saying” things (about our NATO commitments) rather than “doing” things. Then again maybe Trump will change his mind on NATO and become its best cheerleader…🤔😉
No, he won't. Trump is an open supporter of Putin, to whom NATO is his biggest concern. A Trump dictatorship is far more likely to leave NATO all together. Dictators love dictators.
Yeah I know. I was just being mildly facetious as I have no faith in JT to do the right thing. I can’t stand Trump. He is a danger to the world.