🇨🇦 The Real Threats to Canada: Why Military Investment Is Not the Enemy
A recent essay (this one I am responding to) circulating in progressive circles paints a bleak portrait of Canada’s future—one where neoliberalism, corporate capture, and militarism are driving the country toward collapse. The author argues that Prime Minister Mark Carney’s fiscal strategy, particularly his commitment to military investment, is a betrayal of Canadian values and a descent into authoritarianism. But this narrative, while emotionally compelling, is dangerously incomplete.
What it fails to acknowledge is that many of the crises the author highlights—drug addiction, human trafficking, economic insecurity—are not simply the result of domestic policy failures. They are also the product of global forces, particularly the malign influence of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). And far from being a tool of oppression, a well-funded Canadian military is essential to defending our sovereignty, protecting our people, and securing our future.
---
🇨🇳 China’s Role in Canada’s Crises
Let’s begin with the drug crisis. The author rightly laments the tens of thousands of lives lost to toxic drugs, but omits a critical fact: the fentanyl epidemic is being fueled by Chinese chemical manufacturers. Despite international pressure, China remains the primary source of precursor chemicals used to produce fentanyl, which are then trafficked through Mexico and into North America. This is not a conspiracy theory—it’s a well-documented reality acknowledged by law enforcement agencies across the Western world.
Similarly, human trafficking in Canada is not merely a domestic issue. China’s transnational trafficking networks are vast and sophisticated. Women and children are trafficked into and out of China for forced labor and sexual exploitation, and these networks often intersect with Canadian criminal enterprises. Ignoring this global dimension is not just naïve—it’s dangerous.
---
🛡️ Why Military Spending Is a Necessity, Not a Threat
The author characterizes Canada’s defense investments as a “descent into fascism.” This is a gross misrepresentation of both the intent and the reality of our military strategy.
• Canada’s Military Is Underfunded and Overstretched: The Canadian Armed Forces are facing a personnel crisis, aging infrastructure, and outdated procurement systems. We are not preparing for imperial conquest—we are struggling to maintain basic readiness.
• Sovereignty in the Arctic: As climate change opens new shipping routes and resource opportunities in the Arctic, Canada must be prepared to defend its northern territories. China has declared itself a “near-Arctic state” and is actively investing in polar capabilities. If we don’t assert our sovereignty, others will.
• Cybersecurity and Hybrid Warfare: Modern threats don’t always come in the form of tanks and missiles. They come through cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, and economic coercion—tactics China and Russia have mastered. A robust defense strategy must include cyber capabilities and intelligence infrastructure.
• NATO and Global Stability: Canada’s commitment to increasing defense spending is not about appeasing the United States. It’s about fulfilling our obligations to NATO and contributing to global stability in an increasingly volatile world.
---
🏛️ The False Binary: Social Services vs. Security
The author presents a false choice: fund social programs or fund the military. But national security and social well-being are not mutually exclusive—they are interdependent.
• Security Enables Social Progress: Without a secure nation, there can be no stable healthcare system, no reliable education infrastructure, and no safe communities. Defense is not a luxury—it is a prerequisite for prosperity.
• Balanced Investment Is Possible: The government’s fiscal plan includes investments in infrastructure, innovation, and domestic manufacturing alongside defense. These are not contradictory goals—they are complementary pillars of a resilient nation.
---
⚖️ Conclusion: A Clear-Eyed Vision for Canada
The author is right to demand accountability, equity, and compassion in public policy. But blaming Canada’s challenges solely on neoliberalism and corporate influence while ignoring the global forces that shape our reality—especially the destabilizing actions of the Chinese regime—is intellectually dishonest.
Canada must invest in both its people and its protection. That means strengthening our social safety net and modernizing our military. To do otherwise is not progressive—it is perilously shortsighted.
If we truly believe that Canada deserves to exist, then we must be willing to defend it—not just with words, but with the resources and resolve that sovereignty demands.
That’s a fair point on speed—I did use AI to help shape the draft, as using technology to improve understanding is valuable, but every claim is backed by reputable journalism. If you think any of the facts are off, let me know which ones and we can debate it. Otherwise, I’d rather debate the data than the time it took to write.
I’ve spent over two decades in this field, so I’m confident I’m already well-informed, certainly more than most. But if you’ve got something concrete to challenge or contribute, I’m happy to hear it. Otherwise, let’s keep the conversation focused on facts.
This is deranged and full of conspiracy. China poses no threat to Canada and indeed it is a conspiracy theory that they are fuelling the opioid crisis. They have been very transparent and responsive to all requests that the US government has made.
If they truly cared about human trafficking, something again that China is not even close to the top the list of offenders, they would be singling out militarism and intervention which is the greatest facilitator of human trafficking.
I appreciate you taking the time to respond. Calling this “deranged” overlooks a wealth of public data—and I’d like to address the specific points you raised.
First, on the fentanyl crisis: Canada’s opioid epidemic didn’t spring from nowhere. The vast majority of fentanyl precursors originate in China. Despite high-profile bans, Chinese chemical firms still export these compounds—often routed through Mexico—where they’re turned into illicit fentanyl and shipped north in staggering volumes. U.S. law-enforcement agencies and investigative outlets like Reuters have traced this supply chain in detail. Labeling it a conspiracy ignores those documented trafficking networks.
On human trafficking: China is ranked Tier 3 by the U.S. State Department, the lowest possible grade. That reflects large-scale forced labor, abusive “poverty alleviation” schemes in Xinjiang, and a booming cross-border trade in trafficked women. Far from being peripheral, China’s domestic and transnational exploitation of labor and sex trafficking victims is among the worst in the world. Saying it “is not even close” to a top offender contradicts those international findings.
Regarding militarism vs. human trafficking: Armed conflict can exacerbate trafficking, but it’s not the root cause in stable democracies. The true enablers are authoritarian regimes, transnational crime syndicates, and lax border controls—precisely the conditions under which China’s trafficking rings thrive. A well-equipped Canadian military, operating under strict civilian oversight, is a deterrent against both state-sponsored coercion and criminal cartels. It doesn’t fuel trafficking; it helps to intercept it.
Dismissing legitimate, data-driven concerns about China’s role in these crises as “full of conspiracy” shuts down a necessary conversation. Canada needs honest debate about external threats—and how we defend our communities—if we’re to solve these social emergencies.
Here’s a couple links to good sources for my info:
1. “How China’s Chemical Traders Evade U.S. Controls to Supply Fentanyl Precursors” — Reuters, Jan 2024
Marcus, I agree with all your points. However, I also agree with your critics that using AI to write your post is inappropriate and unhelpful for making the points you hope to convey. My advice would be to write much less, write it imperfectly but nevertheless have it reflect what I guess is your passion for the subject at hand.
I was in my 20s when Mulroney sold us out with GST and Nafta in 2 consecutive years, and wrecked Canada's economy.
I was in my early 30s when he carried on the work of making us dependent on the US, after we had sold off the crown corporations running our essential infrastructure of rail, air, and shipping /ports for transport of our people and products.
I was in my late 30s when the Reform Party fractured off, and the first hints of bible-thumping extremism as a way to draft government policy started to rear its ugly head.
I was in my early 40s whena liberal finance minister, and later PM Paul Martin, did what Conservatives always claimed they would, but never did: he got our getting our deficit and spending under control.
And I was in my mid to late 40s when Stephen Harper gutted our military, clising bases across the country and shortchanging procurement budgets to the point that it is niw taking dozens of billions if dollars to catch up to where NTO needs us to be.
Harper continued Mulroney’s selling us out to the US in earnest ( something Harper continues to try to do as chair of the so-called International Democracy Union , an organization dedicated to pushing social conservatism and the congruent Western culture war it feeds).
We have 5 decades of learned helplessness and home-grown undermining to fix.
Do not try to tell me the current Canadian government is any worse than those guys. At least Carney and his crowd are still trying to keep us as our own country.
That is some incredible Liberal partisanship you've got there. Carney's gov't isn't any worse than those guys, he's a logical continuation of the neoliberalism eroding our country.
Love everything about this piece...but what I really want to know is: what mark did you get on that public sector finance project, and what was the feedback?
I occasionally trip over right wing posts and have the feeling that the normal rules of logic and argument don’t apply. I had rather the same response to Nora’s article.
I’m altogether on board with a focus on income inequality as a worldwide scourge. However, the idea that borrowing from banks and other members of the investor class somehow serves the interests of increasing income equality boggles. As is the idea that having a weak and ineffectual military somehow serves the long-term interests of Canada as a distinct, sovereign and more equal polity than the United States.
To me, this is historically illiterate. Rich countries with weak militaries are inevitably annexed. Are there precedents to the contrary?
If you want to argue that I've been historically illiterate, perhaps remind us when Canada has been annexed due to our weak military because I can't think of when that was.
It is pure (and embarssing) folly to imagine that we are going to fight our biggest foreign threat to defend our borders, especially when our PM is looking to get in on a completely insane defense pact with them.
I apologize for being sharp with my comments - rereading them this morning I don't like them as well - but the thrust of the critique stands. The point of military investment isn't to withstand an all-out invasion. It's to raise the cost of that invasion to the point where the invader questions whether it is worth it.
You bring up Canada not being annexed by the US as if it were some kind of dunk. Except - gack - we were invaded. In 1812! The reason we were not annexed is that our military in combination with the UK was strong enough to raise the cost of invading to the point where the Americans thought better of it and changed their minds.
My knowledge of history - which is, granted, limited - is that there are no examples of rich countries with weak militaries where things over time went swimmingly well. Can I think of rich countries that were under the protection of another country with a strong military? Of course. However - I'll throw this challenge out to you, if you can think of exceptions - I'm pretty sure the number of countries as rich, weak and friendless as Canada where things have gone awesome is zero. And I think to argue against reinvesting in our military is the equivalent of suggesting Canada accept annexation or vassalage under the USA.
Knock it off with the black and white thinking. If I say it is unsafe policy for a rich country to have an inadequate military, it does not suggest the position on the far end of the policy spectrum - I.e. spending 100% of GDP on defence - is therefore fantastic. Rich countries need to spend enough on their military to deter aggression. However, spending significantly more than what is necessary to reach this threshold is also a bad idea.
Maybe you’d like to spend a little time talking about how Trump is strong-arming us (and many other countries) to raise our military spending and he is doing so on behalf of the US military manufacturers. You may also wish to talk about military procurement in the US, Canada, and Europe. They are the most corrupt and ill-managed wasters of public funds.
Also, for the sake of transparency you may wish to declare your own personal stake in this issue as a member of the military.
Gloria, I agree with all your points. Military procurement in Canada - as
In much of the western world - is badly broken. Trump, a reflection and exemplar of a deep vacuity in American culture, is pushing the western world to increase military spending and it would be galling to give him any sort of a win.
However, that does not mean it is a good idea to maintain Canada’s military at its current low level. We need to fix procurement and develop a competitive domestic industry, and source where we can from non-American allies, despite the costs associated with this (I.e. Trump will almost certainly try to punish us).
We don’t have the luxury now of indulging in avoidance. The Nordic countries understand at a fundamental level that social democracy doesn’t come for free and must be paid for in part by having a credible military.
Regarding your last comment on my military commitments, I know it’s unusual in Canada to have anyone support military spending who isn’t military themselves or a right wing crank. However, I am neither. I’m a regular guy who is deeply worried about fascism next door and feels like Canadians who argue against military spending now are like Danes who argued against military spending in 1939. Their country became food for Hitler, just as ours may be for the Americans if we don’t get our house in order.
Hi Tim, I agree with your post, minus the first bit. Prior to World War I, Canada was under constant threat of invasion and annexation, and this threat - versus the obvious benefits of economic integration - was the fundamental tension in Canadian politics during those years.
Seeing the US as an ally and friend is a relatively new phenomenon.
I know there were members of congress and the business elite who mused about annexation, but I wasn't sure if there was the constant drumbeat of annexation coming from the White House.
My understanding is that it was a steady drumbeat of aggressive threats, mostly from congress but also directly from some US administrations. Not every administration supported annexation but even those that didn’t were very willing to use economic coercion, very similar to Trump’s use of tariffs, to try to have their way with us.
After World War I this level of threat receded, but it was only after World War II that Canada and the USA considered themselves allies.
Thanks for the performance review. Carney isn't even a politician: he's a career central banker who seemed like he had an electable personality and a wisp of climate concern. He's doing a great job for Cdn capitalism, bien sur.
We're descending into a lot of destructive government, but calling it fascism is becoming as meaningless as "Zionism." We need to organize on every level to save our democracy with leadership that rejects the next Mamdani/Jagmeet/Bernie saviour. Such leadership must possess class-struggle politics that are beyond the NDP.
Rember that our Bernie, Tommy Douglas, was just another scrawny Baptist street preacher in the 1930s until he realized that he could outhustle the success of Communist organizers by pitching left. All our welfare state came from movements that kept our rulers scared of crossing us. Whenever workers build and keep growing those movements, then we have a chance. Don't keep wishing for the next Tommy Douglas: join the class-struggle organizers and the socialists. If they're useful, help build'em. If you outgrow'em, go start your own group and keep organizing with comrades who want to smash Carney and his capitalist system, and make sure socialism has answers for everyone who asks.
Carney studied at Oxford University, it would appear he has more in common with the UK Tory MP’s who are a product of the privileged/private Public School system.
🇨🇦 The Real Threats to Canada: Why Military Investment Is Not the Enemy
A recent essay (this one I am responding to) circulating in progressive circles paints a bleak portrait of Canada’s future—one where neoliberalism, corporate capture, and militarism are driving the country toward collapse. The author argues that Prime Minister Mark Carney’s fiscal strategy, particularly his commitment to military investment, is a betrayal of Canadian values and a descent into authoritarianism. But this narrative, while emotionally compelling, is dangerously incomplete.
What it fails to acknowledge is that many of the crises the author highlights—drug addiction, human trafficking, economic insecurity—are not simply the result of domestic policy failures. They are also the product of global forces, particularly the malign influence of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). And far from being a tool of oppression, a well-funded Canadian military is essential to defending our sovereignty, protecting our people, and securing our future.
---
🇨🇳 China’s Role in Canada’s Crises
Let’s begin with the drug crisis. The author rightly laments the tens of thousands of lives lost to toxic drugs, but omits a critical fact: the fentanyl epidemic is being fueled by Chinese chemical manufacturers. Despite international pressure, China remains the primary source of precursor chemicals used to produce fentanyl, which are then trafficked through Mexico and into North America. This is not a conspiracy theory—it’s a well-documented reality acknowledged by law enforcement agencies across the Western world.
Similarly, human trafficking in Canada is not merely a domestic issue. China’s transnational trafficking networks are vast and sophisticated. Women and children are trafficked into and out of China for forced labor and sexual exploitation, and these networks often intersect with Canadian criminal enterprises. Ignoring this global dimension is not just naïve—it’s dangerous.
---
🛡️ Why Military Spending Is a Necessity, Not a Threat
The author characterizes Canada’s defense investments as a “descent into fascism.” This is a gross misrepresentation of both the intent and the reality of our military strategy.
• Canada’s Military Is Underfunded and Overstretched: The Canadian Armed Forces are facing a personnel crisis, aging infrastructure, and outdated procurement systems. We are not preparing for imperial conquest—we are struggling to maintain basic readiness.
• Sovereignty in the Arctic: As climate change opens new shipping routes and resource opportunities in the Arctic, Canada must be prepared to defend its northern territories. China has declared itself a “near-Arctic state” and is actively investing in polar capabilities. If we don’t assert our sovereignty, others will.
• Cybersecurity and Hybrid Warfare: Modern threats don’t always come in the form of tanks and missiles. They come through cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, and economic coercion—tactics China and Russia have mastered. A robust defense strategy must include cyber capabilities and intelligence infrastructure.
• NATO and Global Stability: Canada’s commitment to increasing defense spending is not about appeasing the United States. It’s about fulfilling our obligations to NATO and contributing to global stability in an increasingly volatile world.
---
🏛️ The False Binary: Social Services vs. Security
The author presents a false choice: fund social programs or fund the military. But national security and social well-being are not mutually exclusive—they are interdependent.
• Security Enables Social Progress: Without a secure nation, there can be no stable healthcare system, no reliable education infrastructure, and no safe communities. Defense is not a luxury—it is a prerequisite for prosperity.
• Balanced Investment Is Possible: The government’s fiscal plan includes investments in infrastructure, innovation, and domestic manufacturing alongside defense. These are not contradictory goals—they are complementary pillars of a resilient nation.
---
⚖️ Conclusion: A Clear-Eyed Vision for Canada
The author is right to demand accountability, equity, and compassion in public policy. But blaming Canada’s challenges solely on neoliberalism and corporate influence while ignoring the global forces that shape our reality—especially the destabilizing actions of the Chinese regime—is intellectually dishonest.
Canada must invest in both its people and its protection. That means strengthening our social safety net and modernizing our military. To do otherwise is not progressive—it is perilously shortsighted.
If we truly believe that Canada deserves to exist, then we must be willing to defend it—not just with words, but with the resources and resolve that sovereignty demands.
This is LLM, AI slop. It must've taken you a whole 3 minutes to generate it! Wow, we are all so proud of you.
That’s a fair point on speed—I did use AI to help shape the draft, as using technology to improve understanding is valuable, but every claim is backed by reputable journalism. If you think any of the facts are off, let me know which ones and we can debate it. Otherwise, I’d rather debate the data than the time it took to write.
Deciding to put in the time to write something coherent might convince others to read what you've written.
Right now, I'm only going to put slightly less time into reading your words than you put into "writing" them.
Which is none.
Which part is incoherent? Enlighten me.
Enlighten yourself
I’ve spent over two decades in this field, so I’m confident I’m already well-informed, certainly more than most. But if you’ve got something concrete to challenge or contribute, I’m happy to hear it. Otherwise, let’s keep the conversation focused on facts.
This is deranged and full of conspiracy. China poses no threat to Canada and indeed it is a conspiracy theory that they are fuelling the opioid crisis. They have been very transparent and responsive to all requests that the US government has made.
If they truly cared about human trafficking, something again that China is not even close to the top the list of offenders, they would be singling out militarism and intervention which is the greatest facilitator of human trafficking.
I appreciate you taking the time to respond. Calling this “deranged” overlooks a wealth of public data—and I’d like to address the specific points you raised.
First, on the fentanyl crisis: Canada’s opioid epidemic didn’t spring from nowhere. The vast majority of fentanyl precursors originate in China. Despite high-profile bans, Chinese chemical firms still export these compounds—often routed through Mexico—where they’re turned into illicit fentanyl and shipped north in staggering volumes. U.S. law-enforcement agencies and investigative outlets like Reuters have traced this supply chain in detail. Labeling it a conspiracy ignores those documented trafficking networks.
On human trafficking: China is ranked Tier 3 by the U.S. State Department, the lowest possible grade. That reflects large-scale forced labor, abusive “poverty alleviation” schemes in Xinjiang, and a booming cross-border trade in trafficked women. Far from being peripheral, China’s domestic and transnational exploitation of labor and sex trafficking victims is among the worst in the world. Saying it “is not even close” to a top offender contradicts those international findings.
Regarding militarism vs. human trafficking: Armed conflict can exacerbate trafficking, but it’s not the root cause in stable democracies. The true enablers are authoritarian regimes, transnational crime syndicates, and lax border controls—precisely the conditions under which China’s trafficking rings thrive. A well-equipped Canadian military, operating under strict civilian oversight, is a deterrent against both state-sponsored coercion and criminal cartels. It doesn’t fuel trafficking; it helps to intercept it.
Dismissing legitimate, data-driven concerns about China’s role in these crises as “full of conspiracy” shuts down a necessary conversation. Canada needs honest debate about external threats—and how we defend our communities—if we’re to solve these social emergencies.
Here’s a couple links to good sources for my info:
1. “How China’s Chemical Traders Evade U.S. Controls to Supply Fentanyl Precursors” — Reuters, Jan 2024
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-fentanyl-china/
2. “China’s Sex Industry and the Human Trafficking Crisis: A Deepening Human Rights Emergency” — The Diplomat, May 28 2025
https://thediplomat.com/2025/05/chinas-sex-industry-and-the-human-trafficking-crisis-a-deepening-human-rights-emergency/
"If we truly believe that Canada deserves to exist...." Deserves? Settle much?
Marcus, I agree with all your points. However, I also agree with your critics that using AI to write your post is inappropriate and unhelpful for making the points you hope to convey. My advice would be to write much less, write it imperfectly but nevertheless have it reflect what I guess is your passion for the subject at hand.
You are a complete whack job.
I was in my 20s when Mulroney sold us out with GST and Nafta in 2 consecutive years, and wrecked Canada's economy.
I was in my early 30s when he carried on the work of making us dependent on the US, after we had sold off the crown corporations running our essential infrastructure of rail, air, and shipping /ports for transport of our people and products.
I was in my late 30s when the Reform Party fractured off, and the first hints of bible-thumping extremism as a way to draft government policy started to rear its ugly head.
I was in my early 40s whena liberal finance minister, and later PM Paul Martin, did what Conservatives always claimed they would, but never did: he got our getting our deficit and spending under control.
And I was in my mid to late 40s when Stephen Harper gutted our military, clising bases across the country and shortchanging procurement budgets to the point that it is niw taking dozens of billions if dollars to catch up to where NTO needs us to be.
Harper continued Mulroney’s selling us out to the US in earnest ( something Harper continues to try to do as chair of the so-called International Democracy Union , an organization dedicated to pushing social conservatism and the congruent Western culture war it feeds).
We have 5 decades of learned helplessness and home-grown undermining to fix.
Do not try to tell me the current Canadian government is any worse than those guys. At least Carney and his crowd are still trying to keep us as our own country.
https://www.idu.org/about/history/
That is some incredible Liberal partisanship you've got there. Carney's gov't isn't any worse than those guys, he's a logical continuation of the neoliberalism eroding our country.
Mulroney came to office in 1984 saying NoFreeTrade with USA.
Then he saw them create a
tax-crefit scheme to bring Cdn jobs home to USA.
1988, he tried to get them tied to a TREATY (FTA) so that they would stop cheating us.
1992, Chrétien negotiated NAFTA which added Mexico.
2022, Pres45 forced a revised NAFTA2.
2025, Pres47 has arbitrarily abrogated 45's TREATY !!!
47 has just proven USA is quite Untrustworthy.
Love everything about this piece...but what I really want to know is: what mark did you get on that public sector finance project, and what was the feedback?
Income inequality, can easily solve a multitude of social issues in Canada! Elbow the extremely wealthy!!
I occasionally trip over right wing posts and have the feeling that the normal rules of logic and argument don’t apply. I had rather the same response to Nora’s article.
I’m altogether on board with a focus on income inequality as a worldwide scourge. However, the idea that borrowing from banks and other members of the investor class somehow serves the interests of increasing income equality boggles. As is the idea that having a weak and ineffectual military somehow serves the long-term interests of Canada as a distinct, sovereign and more equal polity than the United States.
To me, this is historically illiterate. Rich countries with weak militaries are inevitably annexed. Are there precedents to the contrary?
If you want to argue that I've been historically illiterate, perhaps remind us when Canada has been annexed due to our weak military because I can't think of when that was.
It is pure (and embarssing) folly to imagine that we are going to fight our biggest foreign threat to defend our borders, especially when our PM is looking to get in on a completely insane defense pact with them.
I apologize for being sharp with my comments - rereading them this morning I don't like them as well - but the thrust of the critique stands. The point of military investment isn't to withstand an all-out invasion. It's to raise the cost of that invasion to the point where the invader questions whether it is worth it.
You bring up Canada not being annexed by the US as if it were some kind of dunk. Except - gack - we were invaded. In 1812! The reason we were not annexed is that our military in combination with the UK was strong enough to raise the cost of invading to the point where the Americans thought better of it and changed their minds.
My knowledge of history - which is, granted, limited - is that there are no examples of rich countries with weak militaries where things over time went swimmingly well. Can I think of rich countries that were under the protection of another country with a strong military? Of course. However - I'll throw this challenge out to you, if you can think of exceptions - I'm pretty sure the number of countries as rich, weak and friendless as Canada where things have gone awesome is zero. And I think to argue against reinvesting in our military is the equivalent of suggesting Canada accept annexation or vassalage under the USA.
Following your logic, the US, with military spending greater than the next ten countries combined, is going ”swimmingly well”. Try again!
Knock it off with the black and white thinking. If I say it is unsafe policy for a rich country to have an inadequate military, it does not suggest the position on the far end of the policy spectrum - I.e. spending 100% of GDP on defence - is therefore fantastic. Rich countries need to spend enough on their military to deter aggression. However, spending significantly more than what is necessary to reach this threshold is also a bad idea.
Maybe you’d like to spend a little time talking about how Trump is strong-arming us (and many other countries) to raise our military spending and he is doing so on behalf of the US military manufacturers. You may also wish to talk about military procurement in the US, Canada, and Europe. They are the most corrupt and ill-managed wasters of public funds.
Also, for the sake of transparency you may wish to declare your own personal stake in this issue as a member of the military.
Gloria, I agree with all your points. Military procurement in Canada - as
In much of the western world - is badly broken. Trump, a reflection and exemplar of a deep vacuity in American culture, is pushing the western world to increase military spending and it would be galling to give him any sort of a win.
However, that does not mean it is a good idea to maintain Canada’s military at its current low level. We need to fix procurement and develop a competitive domestic industry, and source where we can from non-American allies, despite the costs associated with this (I.e. Trump will almost certainly try to punish us).
We don’t have the luxury now of indulging in avoidance. The Nordic countries understand at a fundamental level that social democracy doesn’t come for free and must be paid for in part by having a credible military.
Regarding your last comment on my military commitments, I know it’s unusual in Canada to have anyone support military spending who isn’t military themselves or a right wing crank. However, I am neither. I’m a regular guy who is deeply worried about fascism next door and feels like Canadians who argue against military spending now are like Danes who argued against military spending in 1939. Their country became food for Hitler, just as ours may be for the Americans if we don’t get our house in order.
Since Confederation, Canada's existence has never been threatened by its southern neighbour.
I think PMMC, like any other sane observer, knows that trump's golden dome idea is just more ramblings from a old man who's lost his grip on reality.
Where PMMC has taken concrete steps is in the realignment of our trade and security arrangements with Europe.
Hi Tim, I agree with your post, minus the first bit. Prior to World War I, Canada was under constant threat of invasion and annexation, and this threat - versus the obvious benefits of economic integration - was the fundamental tension in Canadian politics during those years.
Seeing the US as an ally and friend is a relatively new phenomenon.
I know there were members of congress and the business elite who mused about annexation, but I wasn't sure if there was the constant drumbeat of annexation coming from the White House.
My understanding is that it was a steady drumbeat of aggressive threats, mostly from congress but also directly from some US administrations. Not every administration supported annexation but even those that didn’t were very willing to use economic coercion, very similar to Trump’s use of tariffs, to try to have their way with us.
After World War I this level of threat receded, but it was only after World War II that Canada and the USA considered themselves allies.
Thanks for the performance review. Carney isn't even a politician: he's a career central banker who seemed like he had an electable personality and a wisp of climate concern. He's doing a great job for Cdn capitalism, bien sur.
We're descending into a lot of destructive government, but calling it fascism is becoming as meaningless as "Zionism." We need to organize on every level to save our democracy with leadership that rejects the next Mamdani/Jagmeet/Bernie saviour. Such leadership must possess class-struggle politics that are beyond the NDP.
Rember that our Bernie, Tommy Douglas, was just another scrawny Baptist street preacher in the 1930s until he realized that he could outhustle the success of Communist organizers by pitching left. All our welfare state came from movements that kept our rulers scared of crossing us. Whenever workers build and keep growing those movements, then we have a chance. Don't keep wishing for the next Tommy Douglas: join the class-struggle organizers and the socialists. If they're useful, help build'em. If you outgrow'em, go start your own group and keep organizing with comrades who want to smash Carney and his capitalist system, and make sure socialism has answers for everyone who asks.
Well said, Nora!
Absolutely depressing.
And given that I live in Hellberta, this will just make the UCP accelerate their privatization plans.
I just did a fact check on this article... while I get what the message is, but for some reason, I only got 15% factual. Hmmmmmm
The fuck is that supposed to mean? I'd be happy to correct anything that is factually incorrect.
Cut costs OR Hike Taxes
Has anyone ever done a report on how high Taxes must Rise to
- keep programmes
- keep people
- fix healthcare
- quadruple Cdn Armed Forces to 5% of GDP
???!!!!???
Carney studied at Oxford University, it would appear he has more in common with the UK Tory MP’s who are a product of the privileged/private Public School system.
He would have paid for that education via scholarship.