Canadian Politics Thread

[Satchmo]

4 minutes ago, Bure_Pavel said:

You would expect based on the chart that majority of the green dots in the death column would be near the top of the list but that doesn't appear to be the case. 

Why?  There were more factors in play than just money.    The public health services of each nation and the public behavior of each nation's citizens also come into play.

[Warhippy]

20 minutes ago, Bure_Pavel said:

Based on the outcomes chart I would draw the conclusion that the money spend fighting covid did not have much effect on the death totals, the countries with the lowest deaths per 100,000 were the countries that already had strong healthcare systems and a disciplined population. For example Mexico had similar death ratio as the USA despite spending over 36X less money as a percentage of GDP during this time and having a worse medical system. 

 

I would say the western countries way overspent and accumulated large amounts of debt. While BRICS countries benefited greatly and made huge strides to close the power gap on the West. The result if the trend continues could result in weakening of the US dollar and increased global conflict.    

The issue with Mexico and the BRICS nations is that most of the money/power is literally held by families or corrupt government officials in power.

 

In the west, it is small businesses; corporations and individuals holding the money.  The issue with this premise is that it suggests that Canada, the UK, US etc should have/could have spent less.

 

Except there is no word metric or situation in which we have ever seen thousands if not tens of thousands of small businesses go broke in every single province in the nation, or millions lose their homes essentially overnight.

 

Which, is exactly what would have happened in a capitalist society where people are essentially in charge of their own money/debt

 

That's the thing never spoken of when this argument is made regarding the money spent

[DSVII]

29 minutes ago, Bure_Pavel said:

You would expect based on the chart that majority of the green dots in the death column would be near the top of the list but that doesn't appear to be the case. 

 

Quote

Based on the outcomes chart I would draw the conclusion that the money spend fighting covid did not have much effect on the death totals, the countries with the lowest deaths per 100,000 were the countries that already had strong healthcare systems and a disciplined population. For example Mexico had similar death ratio as the USA despite spending over 36X less money as a percentage of GDP during this time and having a worse medical system. 

 

I would say the western countries way overspent and accumulated large amounts of debt.

 

That must also be tempered with the fact that a good chunk of the green dots in the bottom belong to countries that may not be as robust or accurate in gathering and reporting data transparently, especially China. For a comparable, I'd put us up against the G7 nations.

 

And even with the BRICS countries in the dataset, Canada performed better than average.

 

Quote

While BRICS countries benefited greatly and made huge strides to close the power gap on the West. The result if the trend continues could result in weakening of the US dollar and increased global conflict.    

 

That's not the conclusion I would draw from this. In terms of economics and military, the west still has a significant advantage in this regard, especially military. even if the gap has closed. But that's for a world politics thread if anything. But the countries at the bottom of the spending list have their own demographic, structural and institutional issues to address that are much bigger than the hurdles in the west. 

 

They also have their own quagmires, for instance Russia trying to act like the old Russian empire and playing power games with China and US, invading a massive country losing 1k troops a day and most of their equipment, when they are approaching demographic collapse, all with a GDP that is less than half of the state of California.

 

China is ascending sure, but a lot of BRICS countries are pulling down. Russia especially.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 12 by DSVII

[Bure_Pavel]

19 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

The issue with Mexico and the BRICS nations is that most of the money/power is literally held by families or corrupt government officials in power.

 

In the west, it is small businesses; corporations and individuals holding the money.  The issue with this premise is that it suggests that Canada, the UK, US etc should have/could have spent less.

 

Except there is no word metric or situation in which we have ever seen thousands if not tens of thousands of small businesses go broke in every single province in the nation, or millions lose their homes essentially overnight.

 

Which, is exactly what would have happened in a capitalist society where people are essentially in charge of their own money/debt

 

That's the thing never spoken of when this argument is made regarding the money spent

 

Im not sure where you are getting this, most companies outside the entertainment sector made record profits during covid. 

[Warhippy]

12 minutes ago, Bure_Pavel said:

 

Im not sure where you are getting this, most companies outside the entertainment sector made record profits during covid. 

No, most multi national corporations that controlled the inflow and outflow of goods made record profits.  Like grocers in Canada.

 

Take your average business of say 50-75 people or less and not so much.

Edited July 12 by Warhippy

[Bure_Pavel]

9 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

No, most multi national corporations that controlled the inflow and outflow of goods made record profits.  Like grocers in Canada.

 

Take your average business of say 50-75 people or less and not so much.

Sure pal, if it helps you sleep at night.

[Warhippy]

11 minutes ago, Bure_Pavel said:

Sure pal, if it helps you sleep at night.

Waiting for you to show me where I am wrong here without the smug responses.

 

I've a feeling it will be a while

[Warhippy]

From woke to warrior to...we won't even bother

 

Seems NATO is pulling the numbers and Pierre is full of it

 

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre says he won't commit to meeting the two per cent NATO defence spending target if he becomes prime minister.

"I make promises that I can keep and right now we are, our country, is broke," Poilievre said. "I'm inheriting a dumpster fire when it comes to the budget.

"Every time I make a financial commitment, I'm going to make sure I've pulled out my calculator and done all the math. People are sick and tired of politicians just announcing that they're going to spend money without figuring out how they're going to pay for it."

Poilievre made the remarks in Montréal after being asked why he hasn't yet committed to the NATO benchmark of spending two per cent of annual GDP on the military.

Poilievre said that a future Conservative government would "buy equipment based on best value, to make our money go further" and would replace the military's "woke culture with a warrior culture" to boost recruitment. 

"When the previous Conservative government was in office, we weren't hearing these criticisms. Why? Because we were delivering. It wasn't because we were spending more, it's because we were delivering more," he said. 

In fact, between 2012 and 2015 the Conservatives faced substantial criticism for cutting the Department of National Defence budget by $2.7 billion annually in order to reach a balanced budget.

And after the Afghan war, the government of then-prime minister Stephen Harper cancelled or delayed decisions on several high-profile defence programs.

For budgetary reasons, it shelved a decision to buy modern close-combat vehicles for the army and delayed a program to buy replacement anti-aircraft systems for the army. It also put off buying the F-35 stealth fighter after the auditor general and the Parliamentary Budget Office accused the government of not doing enough homework on the purchase.

 

Canada spends about 1.37 per cent of its GDP on the military and the federal government says it plans to reach 1.76 per cent by the end of the decade.

Since coming to power in 2015, the Trudeau government's military spending as a percentage of GDP has ranged from a low of 1.16 per cent in 2016 to a high of 1.44 in 2017, according to NATO figures.

NATO says that under the last Conservative government, military spending in Canada from 2008 to 2014 ranged from 0.99 per cent of GDP in 2013 to 1.39 per cent in 2009.

[Warhippy]

And we're back to this

 

So much for allowing provinces to dictate their own policies.

 

While I 100% agree with locations being paramount for these sites.  I also though that the Conservative platform indicated or dictated that it would allow provinces to do their own thing

 

His comments also indicate that the war on drugs and prohibition are going to be coming back with his government which means we could see a repealing of common sense laws and more criminalization for minor offenses thus clogging the court system again.

 

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre called on the federal government to shut down Montreal's first supervised drug-inhalation centre while stopping in the city Friday, saying the site is a "drug den."

The Maison Benoît Labre drew criticism from residents before it opened in April and in the months following, with some parents saying they were blindsided by the decision to have the centre in a building less than 100 metres from the Victor-Rousselot elementary school.

Located on Greene Avenue near Doré Street, Maison Benoît Labre also contains 36 studio apartments, a kitchen and drop-in centre for people who are transitioning out of homelessness.

At a news conference in a small park that borders both the centre and the school, Poilievre said other federal parties and their supporters in the media "want to make it sound like there's a constitutional obligation" to allow supervised consumption sites to open anywhere.

"Kids should not have to cohabitate with hard drug use and crime." Poilievre said. "Under section 56.1 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the government has the power to accept or refuse a supervised consumption site like Maison Benoît Labre."

On Friday, the Conservative leader said that the concept of cohabitation was "Orwellian terminology" invented by politicians like Plante and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

Asked how he would support people with addiction, Poilievre said a Conservative government would offer "real treatment" to end addiction rather than finance supervised consumption centres, but did not provide details about a potential solution or policy.

"The only solution is not to use hard drugs," he said.

In an exchange with a reporter, Poilievre repeatedly referred to the sites as "drug dens."

"Wacko politicians and the Liberals and the NDP and their supporters in the media want to make it sounds like there's a constitutional obligation that we allow these drug dens anywhere they want to go up. That is not true," he said.

He suggested the federal government has the power to close existing sites under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, under which it grants them an exemption to operate.

Poilievre's office did not divulge specifics when asked how he would go about shuttering sites.

However, he did sit as a member of the Conservative government of Stephen Harper, which passed the Respect for Communities Act in the years following the Supreme Court's decision.

The controversial law required prospective supervised consumption sites to meet a suite of 26 criteria in order to open, such as tracking crime rates and providing medical evidence, along with handing in letters from provincial health ministers, local police and other stakeholders.

[DSVII]

23 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

From woke to warrior to...we won't even bother

 

Seems NATO is pulling the numbers and Pierre is full of it

 

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre says he won't commit to meeting the two per cent NATO defence spending target if he becomes prime minister.

"I make promises that I can keep and right now we are, our country, is broke," Poilievre said. "I'm inheriting a dumpster fire when it comes to the budget.

"Every time I make a financial commitment, I'm going to make sure I've pulled out my calculator and done all the math. People are sick and tired of politicians just announcing that they're going to spend money without figuring out how they're going to pay for it."

Poilievre made the remarks in Montréal after being asked why he hasn't yet committed to the NATO benchmark of spending two per cent of annual GDP on the military.

Poilievre said that a future Conservative government would "buy equipment based on best value, to make our money go further" and would replace the military's "woke culture with a warrior culture" to boost recruitment. 

"When the previous Conservative government was in office, we weren't hearing these criticisms. Why? Because we were delivering. It wasn't because we were spending more, it's because we were delivering more," he said. 

In fact, between 2012 and 2015 the Conservatives faced substantial criticism for cutting the Department of National Defence budget by $2.7 billion annually in order to reach a balanced budget.

And after the Afghan war, the government of then-prime minister Stephen Harper cancelled or delayed decisions on several high-profile defence programs.

For budgetary reasons, it shelved a decision to buy modern close-combat vehicles for the army and delayed a program to buy replacement anti-aircraft systems for the army. It also put off buying the F-35 stealth fighter after the auditor general and the Parliamentary Budget Office accused the government of not doing enough homework on the purchase.

 

Canada spends about 1.37 per cent of its GDP on the military and the federal government says it plans to reach 1.76 per cent by the end of the decade.

Since coming to power in 2015, the Trudeau government's military spending as a percentage of GDP has ranged from a low of 1.16 per cent in 2016 to a high of 1.44 in 2017, according to NATO figures.

NATO says that under the last Conservative government, military spending in Canada from 2008 to 2014 ranged from 0.99 per cent of GDP in 2013 to 1.39 per cent in 2009.

 

This is probably the singular thing I'll agree with Trump on, but it's more essential, especially in today's world that  all NATO members meet that 2% commitment.

 

Probably more for the military thread but we need to start reinvesting in in our navy and airforce if we want to maintain control of our Arctic sovereignty against Russia. Now is the time to do it when they are in Ukraine. Ideally build the ships and aircraft here so you can promote local jobs and industries (unlikely to happen) but a naval strategy as they say is a built strategy, and we gotta start now.

[Bure_Pavel]

47 minutes ago, DSVII said:

 

This is probably the singular thing I'll agree with Trump on, but it's more essential, especially in today's world that  all NATO members meet that 2% commitment.

 

Probably more for the military thread but we need to start reinvesting in in our navy and airforce if we want to maintain control of our Arctic sovereignty against Russia. Now is the time to do it when they are in Ukraine. Ideally build the ships and aircraft here so you can promote local jobs and industries (unlikely to happen) but a naval strategy as they say is a built strategy, and we gotta start now.

Yeah it doesnt even have to all be sunken costs, the US has built a whole section of their economy off its military capabilities, but obviously they keep all the very best stuff for themselves. If we are manufacturing our our equipment and ammo we can sell off excess portions to other NATO countries to help recovers some costs as well.

[Warhippy]

I don't care who's ass sits in the PMs seat.

 

This is essentially just a company washing its hands of the environmental costs of the issues it caused while enjoying the profits and subsidies given by the territorial and federal governments.

 

Basically saying if we can't keep working we can't afford to clean it up.  These are the endless statements made by mining and energy companies for decades leaving the taxpayers on the hooks for tens of, if not hundreds of billions in remediation costs for the thousands of sites across the nation companies can legally just walk away from having never been forced to have contingency plans or pre pay a potential insurance fund to clean up or mitigate/remediate their messes.

 

The company responsible for the Eagle gold mine near Mayo, Yukon says it might not have the money to remediate the impacts of its heap leach failure.

In a statement from Victoria Gold Corp. issued Friday, the company also said it might never reopen.

"There can be no assurance that the company will receive [the government] authorizations necessary to restart production or that the company will have the financial resources necessary to repair damage to equipment and facilities or remediate impacts caused by the incident or restart production."

The company also detailed the mine infrastructure that has been affected by the failure, including the heap leach embankment itself, piping, pumping, liner, two short lengths of fixed conveyors and some electrical infrastructure.

It also said that with production suspended it will "continue to work to minimize impacts to the environment, with the safety of employees as a foremost priority."

The failure at the mine site last month saw a landslide rip off part of the mine's heap leach pad, used to process ore and extract gold.

According to the company, it cannot reopen without authorization from the Yukon's mineral resources director. 

The statement also included information about its water samples, in which it states that only water samples from Haggart Creek on July 2 contained cyanide. The most recent samples it includes date up until July 4.

"As of July 4, 2024, based on final sampling results … the company has not exceeded its Downstream Water Quality Objectives pursuant to its Water Use License," it reads.

[PureQuickness]

1 hour ago, DSVII said:

 

This is probably the singular thing I'll agree with Trump on, but it's more essential, especially in today's world that  all NATO members meet that 2% commitment.

 

Probably more for the military thread but we need to start reinvesting in in our navy and airforce if we want to maintain control of our Arctic sovereignty against Russia. Now is the time to do it when they are in Ukraine. Ideally build the ships and aircraft here so you can promote local jobs and industries (unlikely to happen) but a naval strategy as they say is a built strategy, and we gotta start now.

 

On the other hand, the funding to the military is a pretty multi-faceted one - and it's not as simple as spending the money. Here are a list of considerations, but not ordered by importance:

 

1) military funding may mean less funding in other areas

 

Canadians generally speaking don't care about the military as much as the American counterpoints. "Investing" in the military ultimately will go to manufacturers who will presumably hire more people for work. This is both good AND bad. We can safely assume that manufacturers will be in business to make money, so they will have the leverage and we'll be reliant on THEM.

 

2) People want a stronger military, but don't want to pay a higher tax. The money could possibly be used for other things within the country.

 

Assuming that we keep everything as it is, raising taxes is probably what will happen if you want a stronger military. We have issues at home that need to be solved that may take more importance than Arctic sovereignty. A key component to the Arctic sovereignty is the gas reserves up there, which is probably not that useful because society as a whole is trying to transition to electric.

 

3) Military manning issues

 

Let's assume also that everyone is happy and we have jobs created; we'd also have to consider people joining the military, which is no small feat in itself. The Canadian military is currently on a brain drain because people are less interested (generally speaking) to join. There are a variety of reasons for this. Money will help with this, but the nature of the job(s) are a factor as well.

 

 

[Sapper]

1 hour ago, DSVII said:

 

This is probably the singular thing I'll agree with Trump on, but it's more essential, especially in today's world that  all NATO members meet that 2% commitment.

 

Probably more for the military thread but we need to start reinvesting in in our navy and airforce if we want to maintain control of our Arctic sovereignty against Russia. Now is the time to do it when they are in Ukraine. Ideally build the ships and aircraft here so you can promote local jobs and industries (unlikely to happen) but a naval strategy as they say is a built strategy, and we gotta start now.

 Canada needs to expand and then use their military at home moch more often. In the USA the corps of engineers not only serve as combat soldiers but are used on Federal infrastructure work. Canada use to do that pre WW2 but since then has stopped. 

 

We could provide free trades training and utilize them when not deployed in building things for the country instead of outsourcing everything.

And where I disagree with Trump is his notion that forcing Ukraine to surrender land and not supporting them is better for NATO.  History has shown us that failure to support stopping tyrants when they start seeking to expand .... Normally leads to a world war that we will have significant losses in.

 

We will be spending the money either way and I'd rather we don't spend our money and our soldiers lives when just the money has a change to prevent boots on the ground 

 

 

[6of1_halfdozenofother]

7 minutes ago, Sapper said:

 Canada needs to expand and then use their military at home moch more often. In the USA the corps of engineers not only serve as combat soldiers but are used on Federal infrastructure work. Canada use to do that pre WW2 but since then has stopped. 

 

We could provide free trades training and utilize them when not deployed in building things for the country instead of outsourcing everything.

And where I disagree with Trump is his notion that forcing Ukraine to surrender land and not supporting them is better for NATO.  History has shown us that failure to support stopping tyrants when they start seeking to expand .... Normally leads to a world war that we will have significant losses in.

 

We will be spending the money either way and I'd rather we don't spend our money and our soldiers lives when just the money has a change to prevent boots on the ground 

 

 

 

Subsidized housing would definitely be a useful tool in the military's toolkit, and who better to build that subsidized housing for the military than newer recruits who will eventually be utilizing that housing (and for future recruits)?

 

There used to be military housing near UBC (the Jericho lands) that appear to have been shut down when (or after) they sold the lands off.  Now, the land value is the primary reason why the government sold it off, but instead of putting those proceeds into general revenue, they should have re-invested most of it (if not all) in the military for recruitment and to build new housing.  A missed opportunity that was the result of short-sighted accounting to make the books look pretty, to the detriment of the Dept of National Defence.

 

[PureQuickness]

3 minutes ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

 

Subsidized housing would definitely be a useful tool in the military's toolkit, and who better to build that subsidized housing for the military than newer recruits who will eventually be utilizing that housing (and for future recruits)?

 

There used to be military housing near UBC (the Jericho lands) that appear to have been shut down when (or after) they sold the lands off.  Now, the land value is the primary reason why the government sold it off, but instead of putting those proceeds into general revenue, they should have re-invested most of it (if not all) in the military for recruitment and to build new housing.  A missed opportunity that was the result of short-sighted accounting to make the books look pretty, to the detriment of the Dept of National Defence.

 

 

Yes, this is an interesting criticism of the usage of land. On the other hand, the military by itself doesn't generate any wealth (that is, unless we invade another country). Everything we sink into it will go towards the soldiers and/or manufacturers. As far as I know, the land near UBC is government owned (leasehold; no one can outright own it), so the revenues are to my knowledge going towards the government.

 

Let's face it: we can't have it both ways. We can't expect to spend like the US does to beef up our military. There's a lot of criticism in how the military complex has taken over that country. For example, the War of Afghanistan/Iraq were very short-sighted operations that led to a transfer of wealth from a corrupt country to the elites of the Americans. They DO NOT trickle down to the average American. On the other hand, if we don't spend anything on the military, we result in a sad state where the military is the laughing stock of the world. It's a difficult balance and anyone who claims to have the 'answer' to this is probably a liar.

Money is finite. If we spend money somewhere else, whether it's the military or somewhere else, we will most likely have less funds to pay for other things.

 

[Gurn]

2 hours ago, DSVII said:

 

This is probably the singular thing I'll agree with Trump on, but it's more essential, especially in today's world that  all NATO members meet that 2% commitment.

 

Probably more for the military thread but we need to start reinvesting in in our navy and airforce if we want to maintain control of our Arctic sovereignty against Russia. Now is the time to do it when they are in Ukraine. Ideally build the ships and aircraft here so you can promote local jobs and industries (unlikely to happen) but a naval strategy as they say is a built strategy, and we gotta start now.

7 Arctic Patrol ships- 4 already commissioned--built in Canada

15 Destroyers- the first 1 is under construction-being built in Canada

2 re supply ships- the first is already built, and doing final fitting out.- built/being built in Canada

multiple Coast Guard patrol ships on order- same design as the navy's Arctic Patrol ships-for cost savings and potential conversion to Navy ships.-- being built in Canada

 

77 f35s on order-- from the states

5-7 Transport/refueling jets on order -Airbus, iirc

3-5 surveillance planes on order.- Polaris- U.S. I believe

an aerial drone program was started/announced a few months back as well.-- domestic producers, iirc.

--------------------

and this week's announcement of intent to issue a request for interest on building up to 12 new subs.-to be built in a partnership way-maybe built here, or at least with parts/weapons from here.

------------------------

Biggest issue right now, is not enough people to crew all the ships/planes and subs.

Going to have to do a lot of recruiting and training in the next 10 years and more.

Issue being- where do they get the crew/soldiers/aircrew/pilots?

--------------------------------

All this, plus an upgrade to the Arctic Norad/D.E.W. line of radar/sensors in the north already underway.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Bit of a long post, but I find it quite strange how much grief the Libs are getting- despite spending more than many a previous government did.

I'd suggest politics has a shit tonne to do with the media angst.

 

[Gurn]

1 hour ago, Warhippy said:

I don't care who's ass sits in the PMs seat.

 

This is essentially just a company washing its hands of the environmental costs of the issues it caused while enjoying the profits and subsidies given by the territorial and federal governments.

 

Basically saying if we can't keep working we can't afford to clean it up.  These are the endless statements made by mining and energy companies for decades leaving the taxpayers on the hooks for tens of, if not hundreds of billions in remediation costs for the thousands of sites across the nation companies can legally just walk away from having never been forced to have contingency plans or pre pay a potential insurance fund to clean up or mitigate/remediate their messes.

 

The company responsible for the Eagle gold mine near Mayo, Yukon says it might not have the money to remediate the impacts of its heap leach failure.

In a statement from Victoria Gold Corp. issued Friday, the company also said it might never reopen.

"There can be no assurance that the company will receive [the government] authorizations necessary to restart production or that the company will have the financial resources necessary to repair damage to equipment and facilities or remediate impacts caused by the incident or restart production."

The company also detailed the mine infrastructure that has been affected by the failure, including the heap leach embankment itself, piping, pumping, liner, two short lengths of fixed conveyors and some electrical infrastructure.

It also said that with production suspended it will "continue to work to minimize impacts to the environment, with the safety of employees as a foremost priority."

The failure at the mine site last month saw a landslide rip off part of the mine's heap leach pad, used to process ore and extract gold.

According to the company, it cannot reopen without authorization from the Yukon's mineral resources director. 

The statement also included information about its water samples, in which it states that only water samples from Haggart Creek on July 2 contained cyanide. The most recent samples it includes date up until July 4.

"As of July 4, 2024, based on final sampling results … the company has not exceeded its Downstream Water Quality Objectives pursuant to its Water Use License," it reads.

Nationalize the company, seize all assets, and liquidate, or run the mine to pay for the cleanup.

Rinse and repeat for every company that decides not to pay their own clean up costs.

[Bob Long]

3 hours ago, Warhippy said:

From woke to warrior to...we won't even bother

 

Seems NATO is pulling the numbers and Pierre is full of it

 

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre says he won't commit to meeting the two per cent NATO defence spending target if he becomes prime minister.

"I make promises that I can keep and right now we are, our country, is broke," Poilievre said. "I'm inheriting a dumpster fire when it comes to the budget.

"Every time I make a financial commitment, I'm going to make sure I've pulled out my calculator and done all the math. People are sick and tired of politicians just announcing that they're going to spend money without figuring out how they're going to pay for it."

Poilievre made the remarks in Montréal after being asked why he hasn't yet committed to the NATO benchmark of spending two per cent of annual GDP on the military.

Poilievre said that a future Conservative government would "buy equipment based on best value, to make our money go further" and would replace the military's "woke culture with a warrior culture" to boost recruitment. 

"When the previous Conservative government was in office, we weren't hearing these criticisms. Why? Because we were delivering. It wasn't because we were spending more, it's because we were delivering more," he said. 

In fact, between 2012 and 2015 the Conservatives faced substantial criticism for cutting the Department of National Defence budget by $2.7 billion annually in order to reach a balanced budget.

And after the Afghan war, the government of then-prime minister Stephen Harper cancelled or delayed decisions on several high-profile defence programs.

For budgetary reasons, it shelved a decision to buy modern close-combat vehicles for the army and delayed a program to buy replacement anti-aircraft systems for the army. It also put off buying the F-35 stealth fighter after the auditor general and the Parliamentary Budget Office accused the government of not doing enough homework on the purchase.

 

Canada spends about 1.37 per cent of its GDP on the military and the federal government says it plans to reach 1.76 per cent by the end of the decade.

Since coming to power in 2015, the Trudeau government's military spending as a percentage of GDP has ranged from a low of 1.16 per cent in 2016 to a high of 1.44 in 2017, according to NATO figures.

NATO says that under the last Conservative government, military spending in Canada from 2008 to 2014 ranged from 0.99 per cent of GDP in 2013 to 1.39 per cent in 2009.

 

"I'm inheriting" the arrogant prick says. How about he actually wins something other than his safe seat before speaking like he's the pm.

[Bob Long]

5 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

 

Before I waste my time, please give me a reason why I should care what this guy's opinion is.

[Warhippy]

8 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

"I'm inheriting" the arrogant prick says. How about he actually wins something other than his safe seat before speaking like he's the pm.

What bothers me the most is Pierre spent almost 3 total minutes essentially shitting on canada in that interview.

 

But he did so without mentioning that some of the issues he is speaking of were in fact caused by his former party as they were committed to prior to 2015.

 

Anyone who spends as much time as he does telling the world and constituents that canada is broken, a joke, trash, broke, poor etc is NOT setting a platform worth standing on for themselves as the next leader of the nation.

 

It is basically like asking the wolves to line up at the door for the scraps when he becomes PM because we won't have any bargaining power because we're so poor and broken

[Bob Long]

2 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

What bothers me the most is Pierre spent almost 3 total minutes essentially shitting on canada in that interview.

 

But he did so without mentioning that some of the issues he is speaking of were in fact caused by his former party as they were committed to prior to 2015.

 

Anyone who spends as much time as he does telling the world and constituents that canada is broken, a joke, trash, broke, poor etc is NOT setting a platform worth standing on for themselves as the next leader of the nation.

 

It is basically like asking the wolves to line up at the door for the scraps when he becomes PM because we won't have any bargaining power because we're so poor and broken

 

Oh and his a answer to the drug crisis is apparently "just say no"

 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/poilievre-shut-down-montreal-supervised-drug-inhalation-site-1.7261989

 

 

[Warhippy]

30 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

Oh and his a answer to the drug crisis is apparently "just say no"

 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/poilievre-shut-down-montreal-supervised-drug-inhalation-site-1.7261989

 

 

Prohibition style laws are going to come back.

 

This is the kind of sneaky social politicking we can expect and we all know that

 

I again 100% agree that these facilities have ZERO business being within a km of a school or education centre or where kids might play, but I also 100% agree that these facilities do in fact exist for a purpose and have a beneficial effect

[RWMc1]

58 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

Oh and his a answer to the drug crisis is apparently "just say no"

 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/poilievre-shut-down-montreal-supervised-drug-inhalation-site-1.7261989

 

 

 

The funny thing is that alcohol is a drug. If you drink alcohol you are a drug user; if you drink alcohol every day you are a drug addict. It's just that alcohol is a socially acceptable drug even though it does a lot of societal damage. Every single bar and tavern is a drug den.

 

I do agree that safe sites should be kept far away from schools and playgrounds though.

[bolt]