Canadian Foreign Policy & Affairs II

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Dartguard

Not only that but entitled, absolutely no shame in being the big Mooch at the NATO party. Thank God for the Dedication and professionalism of folks like True North. We would be truly bonked without our dedicated folks.

Appreciate the compliment.

I actually just discussed this today with some of my friends (one of whom is a three ringer on track to get a leaf). The problem in my most humble opinion (having started my career under Chretien and having seen several governments), is that we lack vision. I used to think it was just the military lacking vision. But really, I think it's a larger problem with Canadian society. Not just this government. There's not much of an appetite for participation in the world. Even with a change of government, I don't see that changing much unless there's a really strong personality in cabinet who can make an argument for foreign policy.

We were lucky to have Peter Mackay in both Foreign Affairs and Defence during the Harper years. But even he wasn't able to convince the CPC to expand defence spending. Anand, by all accounts, was an exceptionally strong minister in this government and then they stuck her in the Flaherty building somewhere. Until we get both foreign and defence ministers who can make a real case for our military participation in the world and sell that vision to the cabinet (who has to approve funding) and to the wider public (who has to pay for it with their taxes) it's going to be difficult to change. I really think this is going to be exceptionally difficult for the next government given the fiscal challenges the country faces and the massive outlays projected for various social programs. Particularly OAS (going to reach $100B by end of the decade) and healthcare. Again, Canadians would have to agree to accept cuts to programs like OAS to fund other priorities. I just can't see that.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Appreciate the compliment.

I actually just discussed this today with some of my friends (one of whom is a three ringer on track to get a leaf). The problem in my most humble opinion (having started my career under Chretien and having seen several governments), is that we lack vision. I used to think it was just the military lacking vision. But really, I think it's a larger problem with Canadian society. Not just this government. There's not much of an appetite for participation in the world. Even with a change of government, I don't see that changing much unless there's a really strong personality in cabinet who can make an argument for foreign policy.

We were lucky to have Peter Mackay in both Foreign Affairs and Defence during the Harper years. But even he wasn't able to convince the CPC to expand defence spending. Anand, by all accounts, was an exceptionally strong minister in this government and then they stuck her in the Flaherty building somewhere. Until we get both foreign and defence ministers who can make a real case for our military participation in the world and sell that vision to the cabinet (who has to approve funding) and to the wider public (who has to pay for it with their taxes) it's going to be difficult to change. I really think this is going to be exceptionally difficult for the next government given the fiscal challenges the country faces and the massive outlays projected for various social programs. Particularly OAS (going to reach $100B by end of the decade) and healthcare. Again, Canadians would have to agree to accept cuts to programs like OAS to fund other priorities. I just can't see that.

I suspect that OAS will be reined in after the next election. I notice that nobody ever mentions another fast-growing draw on federal budgets (7.7% of government spending by FY 26-27) that other NATO members do not face.

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

Do nothing: take heat from Conservatives for not doing anything.
Do something: take heat from Conservatives for doing something.

Sure it's late, but would you rather they did nothing?

Yes, better late than never but the issue here is why the gov't is doing it.

Trudeau has had 9 year to reign in foreign interference and has essentially done nothing about it. It is very clear to anyone that there have been foreign agents trying to undermine our democracy and institutions and Trudeau simply didn't see it as an issue. He is only responding now because the heat is on and the last thing his gov't needs is more bad press.

This is exactly the same as how he treats our housing crisis. Just a year ago "housing was a provincial responsibility" but when he started to collapse in the polls with PP making political hay over our housing crisis did Trudeau have an epiphany and decided to spend untold billions on a problem he , a year ago, didn't even acknowledge as existing.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

Do nothing: take heat from Conservatives for not doing anything.
Do something: take heat from Conservatives for doing something.

Sure it's late, but would you rather they did nothing?

"Too little too late" is of course better than doing "nothing, ever", but it's not exactly a ringing endorsement of good leadership either...

If the best thing we can say about this government's record after a decade is that they did something, eventually, and only because they were under pressure then they probably shouldn't be in power anymore.

[casper]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

"Too little too late" is of course better than doing "nothing, ever", but it's not exactly a ringing endorsement of good leadership either...

If the best thing we can say about this government's record after a decade is that they did something, eventually, and only because they were under pressure then they probably shouldn't be in power anymore.

They set priorities. The focused on other things over last 9 years. They are now turning their attention to this.

There have been a few important distractions. Namely climate change, two Canadian being held hostage by China, Trump, pullout from Afghanistan, a global pandemic, Ukraine, etc.

Once area where we may agree is the Canadian government has been far to supportive of trade and exchanges with China and Russia. With the hostages in the case of China and the Ukraine problem in the case of Russia, both these countries have demonstrated they deserve most unfavored trading status.

[le calmar]

Someone on Reddit shared a summary of what AOS involves. It was eye-opening for me.

Is OAS the #1 thing holding Canada back?

* OAS was created at a time when seniors had the highest poverty levels in Canada and there were 7 working-age adults for every retiree. Seniors now have the lowest poverty rates of any age cohort in Canada (in part due to massive real-estate gains, workplace pensions, and CPP/GIS), and there are now only 3 working-age adults for every retiree. In other words, it feels like we are spending all this money to solve a problem that doesn't even exist anymore.
* Maximum benefit for an individual is $8,560/yr, or $17,120 for a couple
* This increases to $9,416/yr for individuals 75+, or $18,832 for a couple
* OAS is not clawed back until individual net income exceeds $90,997/yr. So a couple can earn nearly $182k/yr and still get the full OAS benefit (note the median HH income in Canada is roughly $100k). This high clawback rate results in 96% of seniors receiving at least some OAS benefit.
* Assets or net worth is not taken into account for OAS payments. In other words, multi-millionaires can easily game their net income to make sure they are receiving the full OAS benefit.
* In the 2024 budget, elderly benefits totaled $75.9B, or 15% of our entire budget. OAS is about 75% of that, or $57.8B per year.
* Canada is running a $40B deficit this year, which means OAS reform could single-handedly bring us from deficit to surplus.
* OAS is roughly 3x the amount we spend on the Child Tax Benefit, which is incentivizing behaviour that Canada actually needs, given our low birth rate.
* Unlike CPP which was paid into by today's seniors, OAS comes out of general tax revenue. It is a welfare program.
* OAS spending will only continue to get worse given our aging population. Without any change to the program, the number of beneficiaries will grow by 53% from 2020 to 2035.
* Low-income seniors already benefit from GIS, which could also be enhanced as part of any OAS reform.
* Those aged 65+ are already more likely to have benefited from many things that future generations likely won't have access to, including massive run-ups in real estate value and workplace pensions.
* Canada ranks #8 on the Happiness Index for those 60+, but #58 among those <30. This is likely a reflection of policies like OAS that have transferred wealth from the young to the old.

Sources:

[https://www.canada.ca/en/services/be...it-amount.html)

[https://budget.canada.ca/2024/home-a...il-en.html#pdf)

[https://www.osfi-bsif.gc.ca/en/oca/a...curity-program)

[https://happiness-report.s3.amazonaw...024/WHR+24.pdf)

credit: montross1 via reddit

[VANRIDERFAN]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

Do nothing: take heat from Conservatives for not doing anything.
Do something: take heat from Conservatives for doing something.

Sure it's late, but would you rather they did nothing?

I've wanted the government to do something about national security since 1961 (when I was born).

Why do Canadian governments need to be dragged kicking and screaming instead of being proactive?

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by casper

They set priorities. The focused on other things over last 9 years. They are now turning their attention to this.

There have been a few important distractions. Namely climate change, two Canadian being held hostage by China, Trump, pullout from Afghanistan, a global pandemic, Ukraine, etc.

Once area where we may agree is the Canadian government has been far to supportive of trade and exchanges with China and Russia. With the hostages in the case of China and the Ukraine problem in the case of Russia, both these countries have demonstrated they deserve most unfavored trading status.

Interesting list there from a Liberal perspective. You forgot the Two Canadians that the Islamic terrorists in the Philippines beheaded
early in this mandate and the first act of the Government literally days after taking office and that definitely set their tone.
Everyone forgets that Trudeau pulled our 6 CF-18's out of the anti-ISIS campaign. If you are NOT GOING TO KILL vermin that can teach NAZI's how to be cruel then the Naivete is on full display. This Governments complete focus has been climate, climate climate.
Their complete fumbling of the punitive Carbon tax increase during an affordability crisis has poisoned the well for Fed policy related to climate and has killed the policy for a generation. Dion also tried the Green shift years ago and that sent the Libs into the Wilderness for a decade. Second decade and maybe a permanent walk in the wilderness coming up.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by VANRIDERFAN

I've wanted the government to do something about national security since 1961 (when I was born).

Why do Canadian governments need to be dragged kicking and screaming instead of being proactive?

Colonial mindset.

When you believe that foreign and military affairs are the purview of the big guys, you won't bother. Canada is rather unique as a G7 country that thinks this way. And it's cultural. Even conservatives in this country don't support the military enough to actually spend money on it. Because at the end of the day, despite the talk they don't see our foreign policy as anything more than being an adjunct to the US. Our leaders during the first half of the 20th century genuinely believed that Canada should have a unique role that is equal to the great powers in some areas. None of our politicians actually believe this today (despite what they say).

I sometimes wonder what would have happened if we had been given Caribbean territories that required us to incorporate Caribbean geopolitics in our discord and field expeditionary capabilities.

[VANRIDERFAN]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I sometimes wonder what would have happened if we had been given Caribbean territories that required us to incorporate Caribbean geopolitics in our discord and field expeditionary capabilities.

Our WWI experience really soured the country on foreign entanglements for a bit, but we still stepped up immensely for WWII. We were a player until the transition from Pearson to Trudeau but its been all downhill since.
Although our leadership still plays on the Myth of Canadian importance, we've been a non entity for most if not all of my adult life.

Being in control of the Caribbean would have made this country more attuned to the importance of Central and South America. But I fear we would have screwed that up as well.

[urbandreamer]

Basically, Scottish/English PM from Ontario/West are pro British Empire types while the past 50 years we've been dominated by Quebec politicians. Once Quebec separates, we'll get back on track, although I hope the US seizes this opportunity to conquer us.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by urbandreamer

Basically, Scottish/English PM from Ontario/West are pro British Empire types while the past 50 years we've been dominated by Quebec politicians. Once Quebec separates, we'll get back on track, although I hope the US seizes this opportunity to conquer us.

I disagree with you categorically. Quebec is unlikely to separate, and it would be a cataclysmic blow to Canada if it ever did.


pro British Empire types? what the hell are you talking about? very few people under the age of 75 have that mindset.

You want the USA to conquer us?

[lio45]

I don't see how or why it would be such a big blow to Anglo-Canada. It wouldn't change much, actually. You wouldn't be able anymore to get your Vancouver trial cancelled because it took place in English, sure, and you also wouldn't be able to complain that Air-Anglo-Canada serves you 7up in English, and you also wouldn't be able to complain about the current GG's linguistic abilities. But all of that is quite minor in the grand scheme of things...

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by lio45

I don't see how or why it would be such a big blow to Anglo-Canada. It wouldn't change much, actually. You wouldn't be able anymore to get your Vancouver trial cancelled because it took place in English, sure, and you also wouldn't be able to complain that Air-Anglo-Canada serves you 7up in English, and you also wouldn't be able to complain about the current GG's linguistic abilities. But all of that is quite minor in the grand scheme of things...

I can always count on you to trivialize important issues and cultural attachments. Thanks so much.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

We often accuse Americans for being insular because they don't know much about the world. In my experience, the average Canuck is about the same or worse. The only difference is that the Canadian believes they are better because they are not American. Which is strange, because we share their utter inability to learn from the rest of the world.

One of the enduring contradictions of Canada that I'll never understand is how we're such an ethnically diverse country with one of the highest foreign born populations of any country ever, in an era when it's easier than ever before for people to maintain connections with people in other countries via the internet & affordable flights.. and yet Canadians remain so insular.

Instead of getting a discourse about all the various global best practices we could be implementing based on everyone's experiences with different countries, we get shitty diaspora politics. Sigh.

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

One of the enduring contradictions of Canada that I'll never understand is how we're such an ethnically diverse country with one of the highest foreign born populations of any country ever, in an era when it's easier than ever before for people to maintain connections with people in other countries via the internet & affordable flights.. and yet Canadians remain so insular.

Instead of getting a discourse about all the various global best practices we could be implementing based on everyone's experiences with different countries, we get shitty diaspora politics. Sigh.

We export our elite to the United States.

As much as there is broad insularity in the United States among the locals, its elite does understand that engaging with the world is actually a good political strategy.

The elite can frame the support to the locals in terms of military spending and spending on the State Department. It also knows that prosperity in the United States is dependent on connections globally and business drives that portion of the conversation.

Canada's relative lack of retained elite does have advantages in terms of egalitarianism. However, egalitarianism only works if the wealth is plentiful enough to flow around equally. We are coming to a point where that's not happening and the egalitarianism is falling apart.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

One of the enduring contradictions of Canada that I'll never understand is how we're such an ethnically diverse country with one of the highest foreign born populations of any country ever, in an era when it's easier than ever before for people to maintain connections with people in other countries via the internet & affordable flights.. and yet Canadians remain so insular.

Instead of getting a discourse about all the various global best practices we could be implementing based on everyone's experiences with different countries, we get shitty diaspora politics. Sigh.

For one, I don’t think most immigrants come from particularly innovative places, or if they do most of them came before their ancestral country became innovative (i.e. they left plastic toy era Korea, not OLED era Korea).

For two, Canadians hate to travel. There is no culture of travelling on a gap year, no culture of going to another province for school, no culture of moving for a better job. Canadians know their closest large city, the closest border city, their closest cottage district, and their cheapest sunwing destination.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Canadians hate to travel. There is no culture of travelling on a gap year, no culture of going to another province for school, no culture of moving for a better job. Canadians know their closest large city, the closest border city, their closest cottage district, and their cheapest sunwing destination.

This is of course a little hyperbolic, but, there is enough truth to this statement to be pretty uncomfortable.

Certainly as far as interregional movement in the country is concerned, Canadians are more parochial than Americans. We are less likely to travel across the country to go to university, or for a new job. Americans don't think twice about moving from Boston to San Francisco. They treat their whole country like their backyard.

Internationally, while I think that Canadians on the whole are a little more knowledgeable about the world than their American counterparts, we are less likely to travel the world. Some of this is because we aren't as wealthy as Americans, making travel relatively more expensive, but, there is also something culturally going on there too.

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

This is of course a little hyperbolic, but, there is enough truth to this statement to be pretty uncomfortable.

Certainly as far as interregional movement in the country is concerned, Canadians are more parochial than Americans. We are less likely to travel across the country to go to university, or for a new job. Americans don't think twice about moving from Boston to San Francisco. They treat their whole country like their backyard.

Internationally, while I think that Canadians on the whole are a little more knowledgeable about the world than their American counterparts, we are less likely to travel the world. Some of this is because we aren't as wealthy as Americans, making travel relatively more expensive, but, there is also something culturally going on there too.

Americans have had real security and business commitments world wide ever since the end of WW 2. The U.S. military used to maintain about 1 Million servicemen and their dependents just in Europe until the early 1990's.There are still over 50,000 troops in Japan and Guam.

American business interests have also given ample opportunity for Americans to see the World while making a living.

A friend of mine from University became completely bilingual spending her Summers in the Saguenay as her plan was to teach French for her Career. Ironically She spent 17 Years in France teaching math to American dependents of Michelin Tire Employees. In English. She used her French to marry a Frenchman and live off the economy and have kids. Her Daughter left France to finish High School in Canada in English while her Son has stayed in France. His English is great but his Dad does not like it.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by VANRIDERFAN

Our WWI experience really soured the country on foreign entanglements for a bit, but we still stepped up immensely for WWII. We were a player until the transition from Pearson to Trudeau but its been all downhill since.
Although our leadership still plays on the Myth of Canadian importance, we've been a non entity for most if not all of my adult life.

Being in control of the Caribbean would have made this country more attuned to the importance of Central and South America. But I fear we would have screwed that up as well.

When you look at all the G7 countries and NATO partners that field expeditionary capabilities like flat tops, the common theme is that they gave territories that require them to field an expeditionary force and have diplomats and intelligence agencies that are capable of creating space for their national interests around those territories. Canada, kind of pretends we have a similarly relevant sphere in the Arctic. But our allocation of resources towards that view shows that we aren't anywhere as serious as we claim.

And it's not the military, where is our investment in a cast guard for the Arctic? Or serious diplomatic efforts at the Arctic Council? Where is our effort to build infrastructure to really connect Arctic communities to reinforce our presence?

Also, forget discussing climate change and Arctic security. Both parties delink them. One doesn't think climate change should drive major security investments. The other doesn't think climate change should inform national security policy. How do you succeed at policy when you can't be honest about the threat and won't match the resources and tasks to the threat?