Canada moves to 2% GDP end of FY25/26 - PMMC

[Maxman1]

So you are ready to assume MAGA cannot survive one man? That the extant system, now demonstrated to be grossly fallible, will magically not put another authoritarian kleptocracy into power?

Nobody in the Republicans can whip up crowds quite like Trump. And remember, even Trump lost an election. They are almost certainly going to lose the midterms. The whole thing is Trump, once he's gone, it'll fizzle out.

 

[lenaitch]

Nobody in the Republicans can whip up crowds quite like Trump. And remember, even Trump lost an election. They are almost certainly going to lose the midterms. The whole thing is Trump, once he's gone, it'll fizzle out.

I'm not so convinced. There is a lot of money in the shadows backing MAGA/Project 2025 movement. There may be a gap of a term only because openly courting and developing a protege in the face of Trump's ego and paranoia likely wouldn't go over well. Maybe to loss of Charlie Kirk was a setback.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

There's a need for ariborne leadership.

There's also a need for institutional sustainment leadership. Institutional long term planning. I have heard of a MGen who thought 90 days out was long term / strategic... when personnel generation & equipment acquisition (two easy examples) are measured in years. If the Army wants ten more majors in 2030, they should have been recruited ten years ago (at least).

I like how you mis-spelled “airborne”.

Chef’s kiss…

 

[Swampbuggy]

Re-tooling a plant is a problem money can solve. But money can't solve security certification. And those are the problems that industry worries about. It's legitimately limiting how fast money can flow to industry in Canada. Prior to 2025, the issue was money. Today? The issue isn't money. It's policy. It's personnel. It's access to technology. Etc. Money will rain down on anybody who has capacity.

But can you get investors to believe the money will continue to rain down? I’m certain many of them are skittish that a change of governments (either here or elsewhere) will interrupt that flow and all their efforts (read investments) will be undone. I’m sure that’s sunk businesses before.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

But can you get investors to believe the money will continue to rain down? I’m certain many of them are skittish that a change of governments (either here or elsewhere) will interrupt that flow and all their efforts (read investments) will be undone. I’m sure that’s sunk businesses before.

EVs and Wind turbines, enter the chat…

 

[ytz]

But can you get investors to believe the money will continue to rain down? I’m certain many of them are skittish that a change of governments (either here or elsewhere) will interrupt that flow and all their efforts (read investments) will be undone. I’m sure that’s sunk businesses before.

What's the chances a Conservative government will make huge cuts to defence spending and incur massive job losses with that too? With a good chunk of those job losses in swing ridings?

 

[QV]

What's the chances a Conservative government will make huge cuts to defence spending and incur massive job losses with that too? With a good chunk of those job losses in swing ridings?

Honestly I think the fear is more legitimate that the US government changes (even a mid-term blowout) and pressure lets up giving the LPC space to reduce defence spending and get back to social spending.

 

[Rifleman62]

French profile is worth 4x the Masters degree.

How does being proficient in French make me better at institutional leadership and policy?

Those two statements are telling. This seems to be a long term problem in the CAF and the Public Service. If you have the Quebecois language profile you jump up in the promotion line ahead of someone who is more qualified.

 

[Rifleman62]

Buy Canadian’ policy comes into effect, changing rules for federal procurement​

Does that include Ferries?

 

[Brad Sallows]

Honestly I think the fear is more legitimate that the US government changes (even a mid-term blowout) and pressure lets up giving the LPC space to reduce defence spending and get back to social spending.

Flipping the House doesn't change enough. If the Senate is still Republican, Democrats in the House will do what they usually do: pass a whole bunch of bills named "The Protect Puppies and Kittens Act" with embedded poison pills Republicans absolutely will not swallow, so that opinion writers can flood the zone with articles about how Republicans don't want to protect puppies and kittens and how Democrats are so much more energetic about doing work in the House.

If the Senate flips too, it's unlikely to flip to a filibuster-proof Democratic majority.

If the Senate flips to a 60-vote Democratic majority or Democrats change the filibuster rule to simple majority, it's unlikely the combined House and Senate can override a presidential veto.

The pressure on Canada comes from the WH, and change there is still a little over 3 years away.

I doubt there will even be serious interest in Democratic held House and Senate to gin up an impeachment that has any prospect of succeeding. It would elevate Vance to the presidency with less than two years to complete Trump's term, which would mean Vance remains eligible for two more full terms.

The thing that would most benefit Canada is some kind of foreign affairs squirrel (or a bunch of them) that draws Trump's attention away from Canada for most of his remaining term.

The pressure to reduce defence spending (from inside the LPC and NDP party establishments and Canadians at large) is strong enough for things to be quietly shelved without fanfare without needing a less belligerent Trump.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Does that include BC Ferries?

There, FTFY

 

[Cloud Cover]

What's the chances a Conservative government will make huge cuts to defence spending and incur massive job losses with that too? With a good chunk of those job losses in swing ridings?

150% chance of that, and the first to go will be the River class ships.

 

[dapaterson]

150% chance of that, and the first to go will be the River class ships.

I think the order of reductions will be Submarines, Fighters not yet under contract, RCD.

Don't worry, though, new buildings for extraneous headquarters will remain a priority.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Honestly I think the fear is more legitimate that the US government changes (even a mid-term blowout) and pressure lets up giving the LPC space to reduce defence spending and get back to social spending.

If Jagmeet was still calling the shots, then yes.

The Conservatives will cut any spending that’s over 2-3 percent. For sure they will axe any of the big expensive 100 billion dollar projects.

 

[Czech_pivo]

150% chance of that, and the first to go will be the River class ships.

IF Carney manages to turn this into a 4-5yr term before the next election is called, what are the chances of the next tranche of funding for the 2nd batch of RCD goes through (3-3.5yrs from now) and we have a paid contract for at least 9 of the slated 15.

 

[Cloud Cover]

This is interesting. The 6 new Global 6500 fleet (+4) will have air 2 air refuelling. Pretty much kicks the E7 in the nuts as far as Canada goes on at least that advantage.

RCAF to acquire six Bombardier Global 6500 multi-role aircraft - Skies Mag

Bombardier and government officials made the announcement at Bombardier’s Global Aircraft Assembly Centre in Toronto, where the Global 6500 aircraft is assembled.

skiesmag.com

 

[MacNav63]

Flipping the House doesn't change enough. If the Senate is still Republican, Democrats in the House will do what they usually do: pass a whole bunch of bills named "The Protect Puppies and Kittens Act" with embedded poison pills Republicans absolutely will not swallow, so that opinion writers can flood the zone with articles about how Republicans don't want to protect puppies and kittens and how Democrats are so much more energetic about doing work in the House.

If the Senate flips too, it's unlikely to flip to a filibuster-proof Democratic majority.

If the Senate flips to a 60-vote Democratic majority or Democrats change the filibuster rule to simple majority, it's unlikely the combined House and Senate can override a presidential veto.

The pressure on Canada comes from the WH, and change there is still a little over 3 years away.

I doubt there will even be serious interest in Democratic held House and Senate to gin up an impeachment that has any prospect of succeeding. It would elevate Vance to the presidency with less than two years to complete Trump's term, which would mean Vance remains eligible for two more full terms.

The thing that would most benefit Canada is some kind of foreign affairs squirrel (or a bunch of them) that draws Trump's attention away from Canada for most of his remaining term.

The pressure to reduce defence spending (from inside the LPC and NDP party establishments and Canadians at large) is strong enough for things to be quietly shelved without fanfare without needing a less belligerent Trump.

Still almost a year to go so not yet willing to call anything on the midterms although it's hard to see how the Democrats don't flip the House (assuming of course Trump doesn't find a way to suspend the election because of, you know, the insurrection....).

Flipping the Senate though is another matter entirely. Around 2 thirds of seats up this cycle are held by Rs in states Trump won in 24. Current polls aren't showing many of them as being likely to flip. Susan Collins in Maine is one but rumours of her defeat have yet to come true. At the same time, there are a couple of the D seats up this cycle that could be shaky, Georgia being one.

As for the WH, I don't know whether to call it optimism or pessimism but the world we live in seems to be a lot less dangerous than it was pre-Covid at least and I don't think that's just down to Trump. Nor was he the first president to suggest we should do more. And with Europe re-arming, and us wanting a piece of that industrial pie, the pressure on us to follow through may well survive any changes south of the border.

 

[GR66]

This is interesting. The 6 new Global 6500 fleet (+4) will have air 2 air refuelling. Pretty much kicks the E7 in the nuts as far as Canada goes on at least that advantage.

RCAF to acquire six Bombardier Global 6500 multi-role aircraft - Skies Mag

Bombardier and government officials made the announcement at Bombardier’s Global Aircraft Assembly Centre in Toronto, where the Global 6500 aircraft is assembled.

skiesmag.com

Well...we WANT them to have air-to-air refueling...

The RCAF will also seek air-to-air refueling to extend the range, a critical capability for missions in the High Arctic. “We’re working with Bombardier to build that in-flight refueling capability onto the Global 6500, because I don’t think we’re the only customer that would be looking for that,” he said.

Hopefully it will work out.

 

[Swampbuggy]

What's the chances a Conservative government will make huge cuts to defence spending and incur massive job losses with that too? With a good chunk of those job losses in swing ridings?

It’s not me that you’ll have to convince, unfortunately. It’ll be risk averse capitalists that’ll have to buy in.

 

[Kirkhill]

What are the odds the other 1.5% of the "Defence" budget being orchestrated by Major Projects become private endeavours funded by tax relief and regulation reductions?

Reduce those government costs and increase tax revenues from the employed so that we can afford the defence budget.