PM Justin Trudeau's Canada

[lenaitch]

Am military. Our recruiting shortages have nothing to do with this political nonsense (though that impacts people who are already in and isn’t well captured in that article). And everything to do with the end of Afghanistan. Nobody wants to join when it’s not “exciting”. Add to this, the decisions made in the 90s to close all our urban bases and retain the ones in rural shitholes. The Air Force is particularly bad, with new aircrew trained in Moose Jaw, and our largest fighter base and home of all the test pilots in .... Cold Lake, Alberta. This is biting them in the ass as more and more of our national population gets concentrated in a handful of large metros. We’re already at the point where 50% of Canadians live in just 6 large metros (Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Ottawa, Montreal and Toronto).

Try convincing a talented 20 year old from Toronto that they should join the military only to spend years of their 20s sitting in Shilo or Cold Lake. All for no real action and excitement. Heck, I need approval from an associate deputy minister just to attend a NATO conference overseas. That’s how ridiculous the bureaucracy and stinginess is these days. I don’t blame talented young people for choosing tech over military or public service.

Exactly. There has been much chatter on other forums that the government should turn one or two of the arctic Forward Operating Locations into actual bases to address the combat radius of the competing new fighter aircraft.. Not even considering the cost and logistics of maintenance, can you image what that would do to air force recruiting? 'Congratulations - here's your wings; now you and your family are posted to a remote village of a few hundred'. Same with SAR. Yes, it's our territory to service, but that is highly specialized assets expended for maybe a handful of calls a year. Russia seems to be doing it. Perhaps they are less of an urban and more northern populace, less concerned about what their troops think, or the personnel don't care because it's a steady job.

The absence of bases anywhere near most urban areas has removed the military from the consciousness of most of the Canadian population, not that it was high on the list in the first place.

 

[kEiThZ]

Exactly. There has been much chatter on other forums that the government should turn one or two of the arctic Forward Operating Locations into actual bases to address the combat radius of the competing new fighter aircraft..

That chatter is ignorant nonsense from those who haven’t served or haven’t done so in the Air Force. It’s the Wikipedia experts comparing the combat radius of clean jets. These folks are clueless as to what hanging fuel tanks and missiles and bombs off the wings does to range. Meanwhile, an F-35 has bomb bays to carry ordinance internally. There is no additional drag added and its combat radius far exceeds any current western fighter without gas tanks (which it can also carry if required). There’s now reports emerging that the F-35 with a fuel missile load carried internally, flies and fights like a clean F-16 without any ordinance. That is absolutely incredible.

 

[Northern Light]

Am military. Our recruiting shortages have nothing to do with this political nonsense (though that impacts people who are already in and isn’t well captured in that article). And everything to do with the end of Afghanistan. Nobody wants to join when it’s not “exciting”. Add to this, the decisions made in the 90s to close all our urban bases and retain the ones in rural shitholes. The Air Force is particularly bad, with new aircrew trained in Moose Jaw, and our largest fighter base and home of all the test pilots in .... Cold Lake, Alberta. This is biting them in the ass as more and more of our national population gets concentrated in a handful of large metros. We’re already at the point where 50% of Canadians live in just 6 large metros (Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Ottawa, Montreal and Toronto).

Try convincing a talented 20 year old from Toronto that they should join the military only to spend years of their 20s sitting in Shilo or Cold Lake. All for no real action and excitement. Heck, I need approval from an associate deputy minister just to attend a NATO conference overseas. That’s how ridiculous the bureaucracy and stinginess is these days. I don’t blame talented young people for choosing tech over military or public service.

Excellent, insightful commentary.

Question, for the military in general, or the air force in particular, are there any urban/suburban/near-urban bases that already exist, that would be better suited to hold some of these functions and larger personnel counts? If so, could this be done at a reasonable cost; one that would be good value for money by assisting meaningfully w/recruitment and retention?

 

[jje1000]

Am military. Our recruiting shortages have nothing to do with this political nonsense (though that impacts people who are already in and isn’t well captured in that article). And everything to do with the end of Afghanistan. Nobody wants to join when it’s not “exciting”. Add to this, the decisions made in the 90s to close all our urban bases and retain the ones in rural shitholes. The Air Force is particularly bad, with new aircrew trained in Moose Jaw, and our largest fighter base and home of all the test pilots in .... Cold Lake, Alberta. This is biting them in the ass as more and more of our national population gets concentrated in a handful of large metros. We’re already at the point where 50% of Canadians live in just 6 large metros (Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Ottawa, Montreal and Toronto).

Try convincing a talented 20 year old from Toronto that they should join the military only to spend years of their 20s sitting in Shilo or Cold Lake. All for no real action and excitement. Heck, I need approval from an associate deputy minister just to attend a NATO conference overseas. That’s how ridiculous the bureaucracy and stinginess is these days. I don’t blame talented young people for choosing tech over military or public service.

This current political equity initiative will likely still turn away prospective recruits in my opinion- if the military is already hurting in numbers, it still makes no sense to intentionally deny personnel choices based on their inherited identities. If this has an impact like what some are saying- I feel like it'll seep out through word-of-mouth into the public and towards potential recruits.

Regardless, it sounds like an unforeseen confluence of prior historical choices and current bureaucratic rigidity that has created a structural problem- one that looks difficult to resolve without dumping significant amounts of money into it. I wonder how this compares to the US? I think they still retain a good number of bases in or close to urban centres (San Diego immediately came to mind).

It'll likely be impossible to relocate any of the current military bases and open new ones closer to cities due to the current political climate, cost, and perhaps the use of the military as an economic driver in those smaller towns. What can be done?

 

[kEiThZ]

Excellent, insightful commentary.

Question, for the military in general, or the air force in particular, are there any urban/suburban/near-urban bases that already exist, that would be better suited to hold some of these functions and larger personnel counts? If so, could this be done at a reasonable cost; one that would be good value for money by assisting meaningfully w/recruitment and retention?

We had urban bases in Calgary and Toronto. We still have major non-jet air bases in suburban Halifax and Edmonton.

And there’s absolutely no issues with jet bases in suburbs. There’s numerous national guard bases or Air Force bases in the US and Europe like this. Heck, the USAF Weapons School (aka “Top Gun”) is located at Nellis, a 20 min Uber from the Vegas Strip. Nellis hosts one of the largest air combat exercises in the world annual (Red Flag). There’s subdivisions outside the front gate. Not all that far from flight line. Which is incredible to me, cause a loaded B-1 taking off is enough to make your teeth rattle on the flight line.

We’d have zero issues if our fighter bases were outside some of our smaller centres or even co-located with their airports. Winnipeg had jets located at their airport. And Ottawa has training support jets operating out of its airport.

The reality here is that sunk cost is high. And the political payback is negative. Replicating the infrastructure at Cold Lake and dismantling the air base itself would be at least a billion. Governments don’t care enough about the quality of life of military personnel to spend that much. I mean I don’t even get discounted child care, spousal employment support or guaranteed physician access as I did for my family when on exchange in the US. All that stuff is several orders of magnitude cheaper to provide and governments of either stripe have never been interested in that. What makes people think they’ll spend money on relocating bases? Especially when the rural communities will vote against them if their cash pump that is the base gets moved.

All these issues get worse by the way when married. Every time I move, my wife takes a hit to her career, and that’s if she’s lucky enough to find professional work in some of these small towns. My family only gets provincial healthcare. So they have to find a doctor willing to take patients in oversubscribed areas like Halifax. We have to find childcare and there is no actual reservation for military personnel even at the private daycares allocated spaces on bases. We get a week off to do all this on each move. And people wonder why attrition is problem or divorces are high for those who stay in. The military still acts as though it’s the 1950s and we’re all white guys who grew up in small towns with wives at home. Cultural ties to one’s community in an urban centre aren’t relevant. Your spouse’s career isn’t important. Your family’s care isn’t important.

The Liberals helped with some of the pension issues. And ignored absolutely all the other complaints that serving members and their families had. I don’t expect better if the Conservatives get elected. We’ll get more procurement but no actual improvement in quality of life.

 

[kEiThZ]

What can be done?

Plenty.

First step is to stop making the problem worse. They keep eyeing urban defence infrastructure as assets they can dispose of. Stop that.

Next, actually help military families. Provide our families with medical care through the military medical system so there is continuity when we move. Provide subsidized daycare and a guaranteed reservation on posting so that my spouse isn’t at home for 3-6 months while waiting to find care. Reserve all public sector and non-public funds employment on military bases for military dependents so that our spouses can get second rate, instead of third rate employment when we move. Alternatively, pay us enough to compensate for the hit our families take on these rural moves. If I were to get posted from Ottawa to Cold Lake tomorrow, my family would easily take a hit of $50 000. And to compensate for that I’d $400/month in a cost of living allowance.

 

[lenaitch]

And none of this, or nothing of any substance, will happen until the politicians get the sense that the military or defence is even in the top 25 issues that affect the vote. Politicians get a patriotic uptick when they announce something but there is no downside to later delaying or cancelling the same initiative. The military is much more ingrained into the US culture; we Canadians only consider the military when we see them on the news filling sandbags or Remembrance Day. Actually spending money is only considered appropriate when every single other issue is satisfied.

 

[jje1000]

Sounds like an issue that the CAF is essentially out of sight and out of mind- there's no major ongoing military engagements that are highly publicized/culturally popular, and the relatively remote location of many bases makes the military invisible to the public consciousness. The current political appetite for a casualty-adversive culture of peace (conveniently ignoring the role of the US umbrella), and a perception that the CAF is a roadbump for any invading force also probably contributes to this as well IMO.

I agree that proper funding of military personnel and their families is likely a good way to fix some of the issues as opposed to building costly urban bases. Also, isn't military readiness decline an ongoing phenomenon in Europe as well?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I agree that proper funding of military personnel and their families is likely a good way to fix some of the issues as opposed to building costly urban bases. Also, isn't military readiness decline an ongoing phenomenon in Europe as well?

The Scandivanians and Baltics are taking it seriously lately, and I think the Poles have been as well (understandably).

And none of this, or nothing of any substance, will happen until the politicians get the sense that the military or defence is even in the top 25 issues that affect the vote. Politicians get a patriotic uptick when they announce something but there is no downside to later delaying or cancelling the same initiative. The military is much more ingrained into the US culture; we Canadians only consider the military when we see them on the news filling sandbags or Remembrance Day. Actually spending money is only considered appropriate when every single other issue is satisfied.

Sad but true - though the global instability of late should be a good reminder not to be complacent. Now is the time to go into deficit to beef up defense spending (if not actually raise taxes for it)? But do you think anyone - including the Cons - are willing to do that?

AoD

 

[Northern Light]

Sad but true - though the global instability of late should be a good reminder not to be complacent. Now is the time to go into deficit to beef up defense spending (if not actually raise taxes for it)? But do you think anyone - including the Cons - are willing to do that?

AoD

I must disagree w/the deficit idea all together. We have a (modestly) growing economy, there is no need to deficit finance, particularly when combined Federal/Provincial debts are reaching record levels pushing towards 90% debt to GDP.

Whatever priorities we have, we should raise sufficient tax to support.

***

While I support intelligent policy choices in respect of the military, and that does mean some new funding........I'd be leery of any massive bulk-up plan.

Contrary to what many believe, Canada' military is ranked somewhere between 20th-26th in the world in terms of its capability.

While that is below our economic size (#10th largest economy) its vastly ahead of our population ranking (#38).

I think we need to be careful to ask what threat is it that would seek to be capable of repelling? Truthfully, omitting weapons of mass destruction or very viscous tactics that are contrary to the rules of war.........I don't think we could come close
to equally those nations we might perceive as a current or prospective threat.

The United States? (not happening); Russia? (not happening), China? (not happening) .........after those three, whom are we worried about?

https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp (note that those 3 are top militaries in the world, and we are #21 according to this listing)

That doesn't mean we shouldn't make some selective investments, notably renewal of combat aircraft, and the need to be able to patrol and enforce sovereignty in arctic waters.

The latter requiring both militarized ice breakers, and, I think, drone subs.

But realistically, that's enforcement against civilians/businesses and countries that likely have neither the interest nor capability to challenge us.

Our Russian deterrent, needed or otherwise, is and will be the Americans for the foreseeable future.

So let's not bankrupt ourselves fighting a threat that is either imaginary or insurmountable.

 

[Videodrome]

If Scheer wins, I wonder if he would consider rolling back stuff like legal pot and transgender rights.

 

[kEiThZ]

If Scheer wins, I wonder if he would consider rolling back stuff like legal pot and transgender rights.

I really doubt it. At least on cannabis. The provinces are now involved. Crapping on them is kind of hard.


He might roll back LGBTQ rights though. There's no real political or legal consequences, depending on what's being rolled back.

Mostly what I see from Scheer:

Oil is his number one priority.

Related to that is rolling back anything and everything to do with climate change. Easy to pitch when the argument is that he's giving the provinces more options.

He'll spend money on tax cuts and some defence procurement (luckily for him the fighter replacement contest has already started). I'm wondering what gets cut to pay for all that. Trudeau didn't increase infrastructure spending by all that much. And the Liberals bug ticket spending items were transfers to families. I'm curious how Scheer chops those.

 

[lenaitch]

I must disagree w/the deficit idea all together. We have a (modestly) growing economy, there is no need to deficit finance, particularly when combined Federal/Provincial debts are reaching record levels pushing towards 90% debt to GDP.

Whatever priorities we have, we should raise sufficient tax to support.

***

While I support intelligent policy choices in respect of the military, and that does mean some new funding........I'd be leery of any massive bulk-up plan.

Contrary to what many believe, Canada' military is ranked somewhere between 20th-26th in the world in terms of its capability.

While that is below our economic size (#10th largest economy) its vastly ahead of our population ranking (#38).

I think we need to careful to ask what threat is it that would seek to be capable of repelling? Truthfully, omitting weapons of mass destruction or very viscous tactics that are contrary to the rules of war.........I don't think we could come close
to equally those nations we might perceive as a current or prospective threat.

The United States? (not happening); Russia? (not happening), China? (not happening) .........after those three, whom are we worried about?

https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp (note that those 3 are top militaries in the world, and we are #21 according to this listing)

That doesn't mean we should make some selective investments, notably renewal of combat aircraft, and the need to be able to patrol and enforce sovereignty in arctic waters.

The latter requiring both militarized ice breakers, and, I think, drone subs.

But realistically, that's enforcement against civilians/businesses and countries that likely have neither the interest nor capability to challenge us.

Our Russian deterrent, needed or otherwise, is and will be the Americans for the foreseeable future.

So let's not bankrupt ourselves fighting a threat that is either imaginary or insurmountable.

The usual response is 'but who is going to attack us' or 'the US will protect us'. Both miss the point. No reasonable argument calls for a massive buildup. We are a small middle power. What is reasonably expected is that we have a military that can adequately meet our domestic security and emergency needs, our bilateral obligations and our international commitments. The last point can ebb and flow as politics dictate but not without implications. The first point is simply controlling what you claim to be yours. It might be costly but that's the landmass we have.
This requires equipment that is usefully contemporary. This pattern of keeping assets in service until they are past obsolete, results in price tag that scares the bejeezus out of everybody and further delays and related domestic industries that have long since died.
The policy discussion is appropriate; we're the bill payers. I find the more fine-grained discussions surrounding the what, where, etc. quite tiresome. They are obviously very technical and knowledge-specific, but I find that persons that do not agree with a particular position are dismissed out-of-hand as fools, fanboys or shills.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

The usual response is 'but who is going to attack us' or 'the US will protect us'. Both miss the point. No reasonable argument calls for a massive buildup. We are a small middle power. What is reasonably expected is that we have a military that can adequately meet our domestic security and emergency needs, our bilateral obligations and our international commitments. The last point can ebb and flow as politics dictate but not without implications. The first point is simply controlling what you claim to be yours. It might be costly but that's the landmass we have.
This requires equipment that is usefully contemporary. This pattern of keeping assets in service until they are past obsolete, results in price tag that scares the bejeezus out of everybody and further delays and related domestic industries that have long since died.
The policy discussion is appropriate; we're the bill payers. I find the more fine-grained discussions surrounding the what, where, etc. quite tiresome. They are obviously very technical and knowledge-specific, but I find that persons that do not agree with a particular position are dismissed out-of-hand as fools, fanboys or shills.

I would go a little further than that - reading the geopolitical tea leaves is always a chancy thing, but I would not count on a particularly friendly US in the calculations. It doesn't mean that you have to pull a Second World War kind of military buildup, but I think the experiences for the last little while points to a fundamentally different world than one we have been used to for the better part of the 20th/early 21st c. There is also unconventional (ie. information) warfare to consider as well - and we are ridiculously vulnerable to that - and worse, these attacks by stealth can change the very nature of our polity without firing a shot.

You can't bankrupt a country like ours by adding a few B to defense spending a year.

AoD

 

[syn]

I really doubt it. At least on cannabis. The provinces are now involved. Crapping on them is kind of hard.


He might roll back LGBTQ rights though. There's no real political or legal consequences, depending on what's being rolled back.

Mostly what I see from Scheer:

Oil is his number one priority.

Related to that is rolling back anything and everything to do with climate change. Easy to pitch when the argument is that he's giving the provinces more options.

He'll spend money on tax cuts and some defence procurement (luckily for him the fighter replacement contest has already started). I'm wondering what gets cut to pay for all that. Trudeau didn't increase infrastructure spending by all that much. And the Liberals bug ticket spending items were transfers to families. I'm curious how Scheer chops those.

The Conservative Party voted to end their official opposition to gay marriage three years ago.

Like Harper, I think he'd stay away from such issues, even though he may use them now to appeal to his base.