Jesse Kline
Oct 02, 2023
When politicians get in a room together, are they overwhelmed by the wafting scent of bulls–t, or do they simply become immune to it after awhile?
In July, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz met with their NATO allies in Vilnius, Lithuania, where they pledged their “enduring commitment to invest at least two per cent of our gross domestic product (GDP) annually on defence,” noting that, “in many cases, expenditure beyond two per cent of GDP will be needed in order to remedy existing shortfalls and meet the requirements across all domains arising from a more contested security order.”
This came a year and a half after Scholz, realizing the increased security threat from Russia following its unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, set up a 100-billion euro defence fund and promised to beat the two per cent target “year after year.”
Yet less than a month after the July NATO summit in Lithuania, Scholz’s government quietly dropped a legal requirement for it to meet the two per cent target on an annual basis from its budget financing law. The government would only commit to spending two per cent on average over a five-year period. And even that might not last: according to an August 2022 report from the German Economic Institute, once Berlin’s defence fund dries up in 2027, spending will once again fall to 1.2 per cent of GDP.
Trudeau also appears to have had no intention of meeting the target — which, to be fair, has been ignored by every Canadian government since it was agreed to in 2006.
A few months before reaffirming his commitment to it at the summit, Trudeau reportedly told NATO members behind closed doors that Canada would never spend two per cent of GDP on defence. And indeed, late last week, we learned that his Liberal government is looking to cut $1 billion from the annual defence budget, which would further reduce the measly 1.3 per cent of GDP this country spent on defence last year.
I should note that I think the two per cent target itself is kind of BS. At the very least, it should be seen as more of a yardstick (metrestick?) than a hard-and-fast rule. We could, after all, reach our spending commitment by purchasing truckloads of $435 hammers and $600 toilet seats, but that would be of little benefit. Far more important is whether we’re spending enough to protect our borders and meet our international obligations. Yet by this measure, as well, we are falling well short.
Speaking in front of a parliamentary committee on Thursday, Defence Minister Bill Blair said that, “The fiscal environment in Canada right now requires that when we are spending Canadian taxpayers dollars … we do it carefully and thoughtfully.”
And he’s absolutely right. But it seems a little rich from a government that can’t seem to go a week without announcing millions in funding for high-speed internet in some remote part of the country or to virtue-signal for the woke cause du jour, and wastes tens of billions on its fruitless quest to forcibly decarbonize the economy.
China and Russia, in particular, are investing heavily in militarizing the Arctic, knowing that the region is not only strategically important, but is home to vast riches that will become more accessible as sea ice continues to melt due to climate change.
Meanwhile, Trudeau’s strategy seems to be to prevent the ice from melting in the first place — a futile endeavour in the face of all the new coal generators being built in China, and of little use if Russia ever sends its fleet of nuclear icebreakers and ice-capable frigates to back up its territorial claims in the North.
Blair said that finding $1 billion in savings “may actually require some of the investments that we know we have to make, (that) we may have to make over a longer period of time.” Which is precisely why it wasn’t until last spring that the government started replacing the pistols that our servicemen were using back when the veteran who recently received a standing ovation in Parliament still had a swastika on his arm.
Having a military that’s capable of defending your country’s sovereignty may not seem to be “creating public value for Canadians,” as Blair suggested government expenditures should be, and may not be a vote-getter like dental or child care, two areas Treasury Board President Anita Anand insinuated the government needs to find savings in order to fund.
But like having adequate stockpiles of unexpired N95 masks at the start of a pandemic, having a military that’s capable of defending your borders is not something you want to be caught without at a time when you need it most.
nationalpost.com
Oct 02, 2023
When politicians get in a room together, are they overwhelmed by the wafting scent of bulls–t, or do they simply become immune to it after awhile?
In July, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz met with their NATO allies in Vilnius, Lithuania, where they pledged their “enduring commitment to invest at least two per cent of our gross domestic product (GDP) annually on defence,” noting that, “in many cases, expenditure beyond two per cent of GDP will be needed in order to remedy existing shortfalls and meet the requirements across all domains arising from a more contested security order.”
This came a year and a half after Scholz, realizing the increased security threat from Russia following its unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, set up a 100-billion euro defence fund and promised to beat the two per cent target “year after year.”
Yet less than a month after the July NATO summit in Lithuania, Scholz’s government quietly dropped a legal requirement for it to meet the two per cent target on an annual basis from its budget financing law. The government would only commit to spending two per cent on average over a five-year period. And even that might not last: according to an August 2022 report from the German Economic Institute, once Berlin’s defence fund dries up in 2027, spending will once again fall to 1.2 per cent of GDP.
Trudeau also appears to have had no intention of meeting the target — which, to be fair, has been ignored by every Canadian government since it was agreed to in 2006.
A few months before reaffirming his commitment to it at the summit, Trudeau reportedly told NATO members behind closed doors that Canada would never spend two per cent of GDP on defence. And indeed, late last week, we learned that his Liberal government is looking to cut $1 billion from the annual defence budget, which would further reduce the measly 1.3 per cent of GDP this country spent on defence last year.
I should note that I think the two per cent target itself is kind of BS. At the very least, it should be seen as more of a yardstick (metrestick?) than a hard-and-fast rule. We could, after all, reach our spending commitment by purchasing truckloads of $435 hammers and $600 toilet seats, but that would be of little benefit. Far more important is whether we’re spending enough to protect our borders and meet our international obligations. Yet by this measure, as well, we are falling well short.
Speaking in front of a parliamentary committee on Thursday, Defence Minister Bill Blair said that, “The fiscal environment in Canada right now requires that when we are spending Canadian taxpayers dollars … we do it carefully and thoughtfully.”
And he’s absolutely right. But it seems a little rich from a government that can’t seem to go a week without announcing millions in funding for high-speed internet in some remote part of the country or to virtue-signal for the woke cause du jour, and wastes tens of billions on its fruitless quest to forcibly decarbonize the economy.
China and Russia, in particular, are investing heavily in militarizing the Arctic, knowing that the region is not only strategically important, but is home to vast riches that will become more accessible as sea ice continues to melt due to climate change.
Meanwhile, Trudeau’s strategy seems to be to prevent the ice from melting in the first place — a futile endeavour in the face of all the new coal generators being built in China, and of little use if Russia ever sends its fleet of nuclear icebreakers and ice-capable frigates to back up its territorial claims in the North.
Blair said that finding $1 billion in savings “may actually require some of the investments that we know we have to make, (that) we may have to make over a longer period of time.” Which is precisely why it wasn’t until last spring that the government started replacing the pistols that our servicemen were using back when the veteran who recently received a standing ovation in Parliament still had a swastika on his arm.
Having a military that’s capable of defending your country’s sovereignty may not seem to be “creating public value for Canadians,” as Blair suggested government expenditures should be, and may not be a vote-getter like dental or child care, two areas Treasury Board President Anita Anand insinuated the government needs to find savings in order to fund.
But like having adequate stockpiles of unexpired N95 masks at the start of a pandemic, having a military that’s capable of defending your borders is not something you want to be caught without at a time when you need it most.
Jesse Kline: Trudeau cuts defence spending to fund socialist pet projects
Having a military capable of defending your borders is not something you want to be caught without when you need it most
nationalpost.com
