Would Mandatory National Service make the CF stronger?

[FJAG]

If you can’t find volunteers to defend said society it might deserve to be destroyed. If there isn’t a big enough carrot to offer you aren’t offering the right thing.

The down side of a free and democratic society that has evolved into one where social media posts have replaced accessing real news and where the advancement of one's self tends to lead to one where individuals are no longer prepared to put their lives on the line. They tend to believe the good times will always roll without a major effort or sacrifice on their part.

The measure of the strength of the society as a whole is whether or not it is prepared to force the issue where needed and whether or not it has leaders who will make that happen even at the risk of their political futures.

Mostly I think it's a mute point though because a soldier needs more than a 303 rifle and a tin hat to go to war these days. One needs to have equipment to man and that equipment is expensive and limiting. It is highly unlikely that Canada will produce what it did during WW2:

Canadian industry produced more than 800,000 military transport vehicles, 50,000 tanks, 40,000 field, naval, and anti-aircraft guns, and 1,700,000 small arms.

And though our population has grown form 11 million to 40 million, we won't be raising the number of people we did in WW2:

More than one million Canadians served full-time in the armed forces during the Second World War, approximately 731,000 in the army, 106,000 in the navy, and 250,000 in the air force.

In the 1960s we had a peacetime full-time military of around 125,000 when our population was around 20 million. I'm of the view that you could raise and maintain an all-volunteer army of 40,000 full-timers and another 40-50,000 reservists which would be enough to man four to five fully equipped divisions based on a 3.5% GDP military budget. Will people volunteer after hostilities start - probably, they did for Afghanistan. More importantly, if you set up your legislation and policies right so that all serving personnel are bound to a fixed term of Supp Res service after release, you will have a pool of trained manpower to draw on without the need to conscript.

Conscription for conscriptions sake I am not sure would survive. Just like how the death penalty likely couldn’t survive a court challenge thanks to the right to life liberty and security of the person. Conscription violates all of those, along with the right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment, mobility rights, freedom of association, etc.

I said it a few days ago. The Charter has limitations in section 1 - the Charter "guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." A law providing for compulsory military service required to protect society itself easily falls within that.

Further, section 33 provides "(1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15." The rights you are trying to squeeze in - and I disagree that they are applicable in any event - are all subject to a "notwithstanding" provision.

 

[Kirkhill]

Conscription in Denmark - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Conscription in Denmark (Danish: Værnepligt) is mandatory for all physically fit men and women over the age of 18, according to the Constitution of Denmark, §81 and the Danish Law of Conscription, §2. The service lasts between 4 and 12 months. Under the Danish Realm and protected by the Danish Defence, citizens from Greenland and the Faroe Islands are not required to serve as conscripts.

'Day of Defence'​

Every citizen over the age of 18 will be drafted into the 'Day of Defence' (forsvarets dag), where they will be introduced to the Danish military and have their health tested. Citizens who are not physically fit are not required to participate in the draw. Citizens considered healthy or partially capable have to participate in the draw.

Drawing​

Physically fit people and partially fit people have to draw a number. Citizens deemed partially capable draw a number but do not have to serve their conscription if they choose not to, even if it is a number where a physically fit man would have to serve. Citizens determined to be physically healthy can be forced to fulfil their conscription, depending on which number they draw. The numbers 8,000-36,000 (frinumre) will not lead to conscription in peacetime. The numbers 1–8,000 can lead to conscription — even in peacetime — if there are not enough volunteers.

Service​

Conscripts in the Danish Defence (Army, Navy and Air Force) generally serve 4 months, except:

• Conscripts of the Guard Hussar Regiment Mounted Squadron, who serve 12 months.
• Conscripts with Cyber-conscription, who serve 10 months.
• Conscripts aboard the Royal Yacht Dannebrog, who serve 9 months.
• Conscripts in the Danish Emergency Management Agency, who serve 9 months.
• Conscripts in the Royal Life Guards, who serve 8 months.
• Conscripts of the Army’s Mobilisation Troops, who serve 8 months.

Mounted Squadron - equivalent to UK Household Cavalry
Life Guards - equivalent to Brigade of Guards and Ceremonial Guard
Dannebrog - Royal Yacht

DEMA - alternate service, civil defence
Cyber - new option
Mobilisation Troops - new option

Minimum service is being bumped from 4 months to 11 months
5 months of Basic Training
6 months of Operational Service

Military and non-military duty​

According to the Danish Law of Conscription from 12 December 2003, §2, one must provide conscription for the military (the Danish Defence) or perform a non-military duty, for example in the Danish Emergency Management Agency, as an aid worker in a developing country or, if a conscientious objector (militærnægter), in the civil service. Voluntary service in the armed forces or emergency services can, according to rules set by the Minister of Defence, take the place of military service.

Number of participants​

In 2006, 76% of conscripts were volunteers, a number which rose to 99.1% in 2014. The other 0.9% (19 individuals) were forced to serve in the military.

In 2012, the number of conscripts was lowered from 5,000 participants to 4,200 participants. This is being upheld until 2020.

Since the Russo-Ukrainian war post 2022, many Danish parties have engaged in talks about increasing the number of conscripts up to 15,000 in the upcoming years. This is part of the state's plan which works to improve the Danish army’s capabilities at defence, which have suffered greatly since the end of the Cold War.

Rights​

To protect the rights of the conscripts, the Conscription Council (Danish: Værnepligtsrådet) was created in 1968. It works as an independent trade union and is focused on handling the interests of the conscripts.

 

[Kirkhill]

In Denmark everyone is liable for military service. Not everyone serves. There are enough eligible volunteers. Not everyone who serves does armed service.

Conscription is just another form of taxation. Sweat equity.

 

[FJAG]

For a man to love his society, his society ought to be lovely. If we had a constitution more like the US and actually lived by it, I'd feel Canada was more worth defending than I do now. It's becoming just another self-indulgent welfare state, which are dime-a-dozen, in which strident minorities influence which pastimes are permitted/mandatory and which are forbidden, and too many people are clamouring to essentially live off rents collected from others. There is nothing lovely about an anthill.

But Brad - There's nothing in the Canadian constitution that makes it a welfare state. The constitution is not substantially different from the US constitution on fundamental rights (except that 2nd amendment stuff). There are definite differences but nothing that mandates a welfare state.

What creates Canada's welfare state is your fellow citizens who elect government after government that put these policies in place and who then get re-elected again. It's not the strident minorities, its actually the majority. Effectively you are outnumbered by the left-leaning, socialist-loving crowd (when you aggregate Liberals, NDP and a few fringe parties) who think that public health care is more important than a large standing military or the right to own assault rifles.

Self indulgent welfare states are not a dime a dozen. You'll find those ruled by autocrats and other despots intent on lining their own pockets and those of their cronies - usually a bunch of military guys with all the guns - are much more in vogue.

The answer is quite simple. If your country's character no longer suits you, then vote with your feet.

I'm a bit like you. I think the left-leaners have gone too far and that some correction is needed, but . . . that's the down-side and the strength of a democracy. If you can convince the multitude that you have a better answer for how to bring them prosperity and freedom and can get elected, you'll have the opportunity to change things. Our charter gives every citizen that right

3. Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of the members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.

 

[lenaitch]

. . . I think it's a mute point . . .

I'm shocked.

 

[mariomike]

And though our population has grown form 11 million to 40 million, we won't be raising the number of people we did in WW2:

Even without factoring in the 21st Century population increase, the fatality rates were staggering.

With the 80th anniversary of VJ Day, many more Canadians would have died in the proposed / cancelled Allied plan for the invasion of the Japanese home islands near the end of World War II.

 

[FJAG]

Even without factoring in the 21st Century population increase, the fatality rates were staggering.

For WW1, the population of Canada hovered around 8 million. One fifth of today's.

 

[mariomike]

For WW1, the population of Canada hovered around 8 million. One fifth of today's.

Reported by Global News,

By the time the First World War ended, it had taken the lives of about two per cent of Toronto’s male population

I believe that would include all ages. Not just the 18 to 30 age bracket.

Mapping Canada’s war dead, house by house | Globalnews.ca

Five interactive maps show Canada's war dead at the intimate scale of individual homes.

globalnews.ca

 

[Kirkhill]

On July 1, 1945 the Liberal Government of William Lyon MacKenzie King introduced the Baby Bonus, the Family Allowance.

This was done consciously as an effort to make the Federal Government relevant to the people of Canada in general, and the women of Canada in particular. It guaranteed that once a month every family would get a reminder of the benefits of the Federal Government and the Liberal Party of Canada.

Prior to that most people would be looking at the Feds and the Liberals as being the cause of income tax, rationing and conscription.

The Feds have been looking for relevancy for years. Hence their meddling in Health and Education and other Provincial affairs, like the environment. The piled on the Family Allowance of 1945 with the Canada Pension Plan of 1965 and the Canada Health Act of 1985.
Canada originally dabbled in a pension plan in 1927 but that probably didn't have the broad appeal that it might given that it offered a flat rate pension to anyone over 70 when the average life expectancy was 60.

Keynesian economics says that any money is good money. And the Liberals have been looking for ways to spend money to their advantage for ages.

They have been hampered in this pursuit by their inclinations, their base and the Canadian Constitution.

The Canadian Constitution basically limits the Federal Government to managing External Affairs, defending borders and national sovereignty and resolving disputes between and among Canadians. But much of the Liberal base is opposed to notions such as military action, law and order and restrictions on freedom, what others call governing.

Consequently the Canadian Government has steered well away from issues related to National Defence, National Security, Civil Defence and Emergency Preparedness. All the things that other central governments have exploited to justify their existence and to influence their economies. Our next door neighbour is one of the greatest proponents of that school. Everything there is a National Security issue, including their Energy Policy. Nuclear energy is a national security issue. Oil is a strategic asset. The security of the electric power grid is a national security issue as is the integrity of the cyber environment. Research and Development is all viewed through the prism of National Defence and Security.

But the US is hardly alone in this. We wonder at how countries like Denmark can claim to build ships for 70 million dollars (6000 tonne NoCGV Svalbard) or 300 million dollars (6000 tonne Absolon and Huitfeldt Type 31) when it costs us billions to do the same thing. Or how they can afford hundreds of tanks, thousands of IFV and thousands of guns and radars. They can do it because government resources are applied differently by government policy.

And one big area where we differ from them is in the all-volunteer forces. They tax youngsters with sweat equity freeing up funds for capital acquisition. Some of that money goes into tanks and guns and ships and planes for war.

But some of that money goes into community centres that function in times of emergencies. Some of it goes into subsidizing roads and bridges and ports and ferries and national airlines and communications systems in the name of National Security.

....

Mark Carney may end up being one of the luckiest Prime Ministers Canada has ever seen.

He has had the good fortune to bump into Donald Trump and his upset apple cart.

All of a sudden Carney's pacifist base has decided they want this National Security stuff. Like the US General said of logistics, they don't know what it is but they want more of it.

Carney has been given carte blanche by his base, his peers and the financial institutions to redirect 5% of the Gross Domestic Product of Canada in pursuit of National Security. He can indulge his inner Keynesian and win votes by delivering jobs building roads, ports and ships ---- as well as pipelines and LAVs. And maybe UAVs.

 

[Kirkhill]

Even without factoring in the 21st Century population increase, the fatality rates were staggering.

With the 80th anniversary of VJ Day, many more Canadians would have died in the proposed / cancelled Allied plan for the invasion of the Japanese home islands near the end of World War II.

View attachment 95116

For WW1, the population of Canada hovered around 8 million. One fifth of today's.

40,000,000 in 2025
11,000,000 in 1945
8,000,000 in 1918

66,000 in 1918 is ~330,000 today
47,000 in 1945 is ~180,000 today

 

[Brad Sallows]

But Brad - There's nothing in the Canadian constitution that makes it a welfare state. The constitution is not substantially different from the US constitution on fundamental rights (except that 2nd amendment stuff). There are definite differences but nothing that mandates a welfare state.

The US constitution was designed to thwart majoritarian over-reach and abuse. People who complain about legislative gridlock in the US are complaining about a core feature (and usually revealing their own propensities towards totalitarian behaviours). The US is also the example that even the most well-designed constitution to date can't entirely protect people from their own weaknesses*. The latter doesn't negate the over-riding importance of the former. The first thing is to start strong. If the constitution isn't strong enough, the weaknesses of people manifest more quickly.

The weasel clauses in Canada ("reasonable" and "notwithstanding") and lack of counter-majoritarian institutional design - at which we have utterly failed - make it substantially different. The point of a constitution in a liberal society is to fence in government and set absolute limits on majority impulses, and we failed by leaving gates wide open. The only way to achieve these aims among people is to set institutions in competition, within and between levels of government. The consolidation of authority in the PMO is a glaring failure.

Our constitution doesn't mandate a welfare state, but its weaknesses accelerate the evolution towards one. Welfare state policies aren't uniformly bad, but without limits its difficult to keep the good and lose the bad. Try to watch a full TV newscast now without seeing at least one group appealing for more public spending on their own interests.

*John Adams: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other". The religious requirement could be dropped, despite religion being in most cases a necessary buttress for morality. But character matters, and indulgence weakens character.

 

[Brad Sallows]

They can do it because government resources are applied differently by government policy.

Canada is too culturally mixed to naturally function as a polity capable of getting behind responsible rather than indulgent expenditures, lacks nigh-unbreachable constitutional and legal boundaries to render rent-seeking mostly unprofitable, and aggravates the situation by insufficiently inculcating a public culture of responsibility - the political and moral assimilation which is a necessary alternate for cultural unity. Canada is declining towards a balkanized nation of grifters and public dependents, fighting over money borrowed from future taxpayers who are not all represented in the discussions and proving repeatedly that some are willing to bind the mouths of the kine that tread their grain. The best we have managed is that regionally within Canada people can choose lower or higher degrees of submission to a church-of-the-state.

 

[Kirkhill]

Canada is too culturally mixed to naturally function as a polity capable of getting behind responsible rather than indulgent expenditures, lacks nigh-unbreachable constitutional and legal boundaries to render rent-seeking mostly unprofitable, and aggravates the situation by insufficiently inculcating a public culture of responsibility - the political and moral assimilation which is a necessary alternate for cultural unity. Canada is declining towards a balkanized nation of grifters and public dependents, fighting over money borrowed from future taxpayers who are not all represented in the discussions and proving repeatedly that some are willing to bind the mouths of the kine that tread their grain. The best we have managed is that regionally within Canada people can choose lower or higher degrees of submission to a church-of-the-state.

And thus the function of national myths taught to all in school.

Everybody needs to have a common understanding of how we got here and why people want to continue to come here.

Shared effort also helps.

 

[FJAG]

Canada is too culturally mixed to naturally function as a polity capable of getting behind responsible rather than indulgent expenditures, lacks nigh-unbreachable constitutional and legal boundaries to render rent-seeking mostly unprofitable, and aggravates the situation by insufficiently inculcating a public culture of responsibility - the political and moral assimilation which is a necessary alternate for cultural unity. Canada is declining towards a balkanized nation of grifters and public dependents, fighting over money borrowed from future taxpayers who are not all represented in the discussions and proving repeatedly that some are willing to bind the mouths of the kine that tread their grain. The best we have managed is that regionally within Canada people can choose lower or higher degrees of submission to a church-of-the-state.

I must admit, whenever I was looking for a bad example of how bad things can become in a democracy I looked at Britain. Even before the mass immigration of the unskilled poverty stricken it was a nation that fluctuated between conservatism and labour socialism. It's a pretty country, I'll give it that.

I liked the US. I liked it a lot more in the 60s and 70s despite the race and anti war riots. The middle was solid. Not anymore. Like here, the left is too left and the right is way too far right - especially since the tea party and the religious louts. Polarization is democracy's biggest enemy. Things barely got by when the press was neutral, and the populace adequately educated and informed. Things are changing too rapidly.

I have a nasty feeling that democracy will break down under the strains of social media, fake news (and I mean the really fake news not the MSM which is actually pretty decent) and entrenched opinions and misconceptions which refuse to be swayed by facts and reality. Everyone is developing their own facts and reality and my guess is within short order they will be prepared to fight and die for their opinions rather than compromise. If 70+ million Americans could believe that DJT was their best option then pretty much anything goes after this. I know some folks hate the fascist comparisons, but there are already enough Brownshirts and anti-intellectuals making themselves known down south.

Canada too needs a better government. Whether it deserves one is another question.

 

[Kirkhill]

Going back to the poll at the beginning.

I believe National Service should be mandatory. As should Civics class.

I don't believe military service should be mandatory.

Even in the World Wars the majority of people in uniform did not face the enemy.

Adm. Transport and Supply. Logistics. Health and Sanitation. Comms. Couriers. Civil Defence. Fire. Wardens. Air Observers. Coast Watchers.

Factory workers. Heck, factory workers manning anti-aircraft guns on the factory grounds during air raids.

Many trades were exempt because they were considered critical to the war effort. Engines and cars. Trucks, aircraft and boats. Ammunition and weapons. Farmers. Fishermen. Miners
Cheesemakers (yes, they were a reserved occupation - people have to eat and cheese is durable food).

 

[Colin Parkinson]

. If 70+ million Americans could believe that DJT was their best option then pretty much anything goes after this. I know some folks hate the fascist comparisons, but there are already enough Brownshirts and anti-intellectuals making themselves known down south.

.

Lets be honest, the Dems were attempting to run a candidate that was basically senile, unfit for office and outright lying about, despite everyone knowing. Against a Obama level candidate, that did not try to alienate half the country, DJT would now be a footnote in history. DJT was the least shitty choice for most Americans.

 

[Kirkhill]

I must admit, whenever I was looking for a bad example of how bad things can become in a democracy I looked at Britain. Even before the mass immigration of the unskilled poverty stricken it was a nation that fluctuated between conservatism and labour socialism. It's a pretty country, I'll give it that.

I liked the US. I liked it a lot more in the 60s and 70s despite the race and anti war riots. The middle was solid. Not anymore. Like here, the left is too left and the right is way too far right - especially since the tea party and the religious louts. Polarization is democracy's biggest enemy. Things barely got by when the press was neutral, and the populace adequately educated and informed. Things are changing too rapidly.

I have a nasty feeling that democracy will break down under the strains of social media, fake news (and I mean the really fake news not the MSM which is actually pretty decent) and entrenched opinions and misconceptions which refuse to be swayed by facts and reality. Everyone is developing their own facts and reality and my guess is within short order they will be prepared to fight and die for their opinions rather than compromise. If 70+ million Americans could believe that DJT was their best option then pretty much anything goes after this. I know some folks hate the fascist comparisons, but there are already enough Brownshirts and anti-intellectuals making themselves known down south.

Canada too needs a better government. Whether it deserves one is another question.

Aaaand you lost me at "anti-intellectualism"

That is my personal version of The Channel. The divide between The Continent and Civilisation.

The Continent reveres authority, the expert, the intellectual. Decisions are best left in the hands of the elders and betters.

Civilisation aspired to letting people make their own decisions based on their own understanding of their needs and wants. Society's job was to ensure that every individual got enough education that they could enter into the conversation, draw their own conclusions, argue effectively .... and learn how to lose with good grace.

Absolutes were for the Continent.

And its intellectuals.

 

[FJAG]

Lets be honest, the Dems were attempting to run a candidate that was basically senile, unfit for office and outright lying about, despite everyone knowing. Against a Obama level candidate, that did not try to alienate half the country, DJT would now be a footnote in history. DJT was the least shitty choice for most Americans.

Well. That's true isn't it.

Which says so much about their politics. I'm not quite sure what your point was about the Democrats but I'm certainly of the view that neither the first nor the last candidate was a good choice considering the mood of the country and the issues facing it. It was a weak attempt to catch the centre and they failed miserably.

 

[FJAG]

Aaaand you lost me at "anti-intellectualism"

Aaaand you've gone a lot further than I went.

I meant people in high office who deny basic principles of health and science, economic theories and the like. The Yanks have not only a bunch of folks with no talents or skills in cabinet rolls but folks who revel in the fact that they reject just about anything that needs skill or talent to manage. I'm mostly okay with people making their own decisions, even if they are stupid ones. I'm against government giving them stupid advice or firing the experts needed to advance science and knowledge or telling people that their stupid decisions are wonderful.

 

[Kirkhill]

Aaaand you've gone a lot further than I went.

I meant people in high office who deny basic principles of health and science, economic theories and the like. The Yanks have not only a bunch of folks with no talents or skills in cabinet rolls but folks who revel in the fact that they reject just about anything that needs skill or talent to manage. I'm mostly okay with people making their own decisions, even if they are stupid ones. I'm against government giving them stupid advice or firing the experts needed to advance science and knowledge or telling them that their stupid decisions are wonderful.

Cheers mate.