Should Canada raise defence spending to 2% of GDP?

[Clarkey]

Canada only has 2 real threats to manage against, Muslim terrorists and Russia trying to stake claim over the arctic. I would say that we should not put any more money into flaccid Nato but we need to continue to get real serious real quick about asserting our sovereignty over the North. It's tough because the gov has tried to encourage companies to drill in the past but it requires massive subsidy to make a go of it.

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by squiggs96

I'd rather we spend this money on education.

We already spend 5.6% of our GDP on education according to recent stats. I agree there are other things to spend our money on, but at the same time... do you want our navy/air force gimped with Russia finally comes knocking demanding we cede a couple of islands here and there? Does the potential long term revenue loss from ceded lands and natural resources offset make up for 1% loss of GDP... hard to say...

[TKB]

I vote yes, I would love to see all of our well trained military personal be rewarded with some actual viable military equipment.

[btimbit]

Absolutely. Arctic defense is going to be a pressing issue in the coming decades

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by btimbit

Absolutely. Arctic defense is going to be a pressing issue in the coming decades

I agree, but what would we do against Russia if we didn't have allies who would help? One answer: lose.

If Canada is going to put more money into the military to defend, right now, matters that are peripheral to our interests, we need to have our allies' support that they will do the same when our interests become important.

The bigger question is, will our allies help us in a territorial dispute that right now seems more economic than militaristic, and when our biggest ally, the US, takes a position that is against our own about arctic sovereignty?

I do think our government and military know what they're doing, and will continue to defend Canada's rightful place in the world order.

Its not an issue about spending more or less. Its about what you do with it.

[Harry Lime]

Originally Posted by T@T

We spend about twice as much on foreign aid and about the same on immigrants.

Start there!

Sadly you do have to start somewhere, and tying immigration to the jobless rate and cutting foreign aid by 0.5% would probably make up the difference. It's harsh, but I think that we should look after Canadian soil before we steward the world. We could legislate an increase to current levels of foreign aid as the economy strengthens.

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

We already spend 5.6% of our GDP on education according to recent stats. I agree there are other things to spend our money on, but at the same time... do you want our navy/air force gimped with Russia finally comes knocking demanding we cede a couple of islands here and there? Does the potential long term revenue loss from ceded lands and natural resources offset make up for 1% loss of GDP... hard to say...

I hate it when a joke falls flat. I was trying to make fun of T@T's English. I had high hopes for that one, but I've been drinking and it appears to have been funnier in my head.

[CaptainCrunch]

Short answer absolutely.

The Forces is still in jeopardy of rust out, we have massive need for new equipment and to upgrade our current equipment.

Our readiness is very low right now, and if the forces was needed to handle two natural disasters at the same time I doubt that we have the capability.

We're also woefully understaffed on the combat side of the personal equation.

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by squiggs96

I hate it when a joke falls flat. I was trying to make fun of T@T's English. I had high hopes for that one, but I've been drinking and it appears to have been funnier in my head.

Totally missed the enima and other bad engrish bits. It seems to have just autocorrected in my head when I read them, my bad.

[SebC]

A percentage GDP alliance commitment seems like a fair solution to the freeloader problem, even if we're currently the freeloader.

[Roughneck]

I think they should cut it back.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by Delgar

I agree, but what would we do against Russia if we didn't have allies who would help? One answer: lose.

If Canada is going to put more money into the military to defend, right now, matters that are peripheral to our interests, we need to have our allies' support that they will do the same when our interests become important.

The bigger question is, will our allies help us in a territorial dispute that right now seems more economic than militaristic, and when our biggest ally, the US, takes a position that is against our own about arctic sovereignty?

I do think our government and military know what they're doing, and will continue to defend Canada's rightful place in the world order.

Its not an issue about spending more or less. Its about what you do with it.

Absolutely. It would take more than a few billion dollars to take on Russia on our own, if it came down to it. But right now our Forces are woefully in-equipped. Afghanistan left lots of our equipment in ill repair, it's looking like recruitment is going to be an issue in coming years, and boosting funding could also improve relations with other NATO members and help shed the 'freeloader' moniker.

[Temporary_User]

Originally Posted by Delgar

I agree, but what would we do against Russia if we didn't have allies who would help? One answer: lose.

If Canada is going to put more money into the military to defend, right now, matters that are peripheral to our interests, we need to have our allies' support that they will do the same when our interests become important.

The bigger question is, will our allies help us in a territorial dispute that right now seems more economic than militaristic, and when our biggest ally, the US, takes a position that is against our own about arctic sovereignty?

I do think our government and military know what they're doing, and will continue to defend Canada's rightful place in the world order.

Its not an issue about spending more or less. Its about what you do with it.

I'm confused on what you are trying to get across here. Are you saying we shouldn't increase our defense budget because we would ultimately lose any conflict? Well if that is what you are saying, we should just give up now and take our current ~1% and spend that elsewhere.

Or are you thinking that increasing our defense budget somehow only benefits the U.S. until our Arctic sovereignty is in dispute? Well if that is what you are saying then we may as well just straight up give our money directly to the States for their defense budget. We may as well sign up to become the 51st state because all the other 50 states signed up to become a part of the United States partly for the united defense protection.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by T@T

We spend about twice as much on foreign aid and about the same on immigrants.

Start there!

No we don't, we spend about 5.7 Billion a year on foreign aid, we spend 4 times as much on defence.

[Devils'Advocate]

I think everyone who is saying yes should say how they are going to pay for it. It's easy to say Canada should spend more money, finding that money to spend is far more difficult. Are you going to raise taxes? If not, you are going to shift the money from where?

Someone suggested we cut foreign aid and immigration. First, we aren't meeting the 0.7% of GDP on foreign aid that we promised, so we're not even meeting our obligation there. I think foreign aid is probably THE BEST investment that we can make in terms of reducing violence in the world. But more than that, I think we have a DUTY to help the least fortunate people on the planet.

As for immigration.... What? Why? Do we have enough coloured people and we don't want any more? Or do you want to hurt the economy?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...ticle14711281/

[Thor]

Yes, we need to update our air force, we need to bolster our presence in the arctic and we need to give our forces the equipment to bring them up to speed with the best militaries in the world. We need a small and effective force, with the best (or near the best) equipment.

[Puppet Guy]

with Pamela Wallin and Mike Duffy out of the Senate, isn't the money already freed up?

[IgiTang]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

The majority population of Afghanistan still hates us

what??

Originally Posted by FlameOn

We already spend 5.6% of our GDP on education according to recent stats. I agree there are other things to spend our money on, but at the same time... do you want our navy/air force gimped with Russia finally comes knocking demanding we cede a couple of islands here and there? Does the potential long term revenue loss from ceded lands and natural resources offset make up for 1% loss of GDP... hard to say...

My father in-law was trying to convince me to go the private school route with my kids. i told him its too expensive and he told me no.. A lot of it is subsidized by the feds. I was blown away... Millionaires and such being subsidized for education?? Wtf?

Also. Raise corporate tax. Burger King should be helping buy us new ships if they want to live here!

I vote yes!

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I think everyone who is saying yes should say how they are going to pay for it. It's easy to say Canada should spend more money, finding that money to spend is far more difficult. Are you going to raise taxes? If not, you are going to shift the money from where?

We just need to trim the fat, cut waste, and find efficiencies.

[Frequitude]

I vote yes, with a focus on securing the north. I would happily fund it through a combination of corporate and personal tax rate increases.