Sundays at 1 p.m. PT, 2 p.m. MT, 3 p.m. CT, 4 p.m. ET, 5 p.m. AT and 5:30 p.m. NT Cross Country In An Hour Mondays at 3 p.m. ET in some markets only.
Sunday, February 24, 2013 | Categories: Episodes
F-35
Guests and Links Mail Download mp3 (right click and choose 'Save Target As')
Good to hear some letter proposing spending on peacebuilding. I'd like to add my comments: if we were to invest more in human needs we'd have a more secure future -globally as well as within Canada. $240 billion is a huge expenditure for Canada - and our investments in the environment, in transit infrastructure, in housing all pale in comparison to this huge spending. Had we invested in the 1990s in building civil society in Afghanistan we might not ever had found ourselves in a ten year long war that has cost billions in spending and hundreds in lives.
We need to ask ourselves if we are investing in jobs that build our future, that address true security. Climate change is a huge threat to us right now, yet what we see is massive cuts to the programs that track these, continued spending on fossil fuel infrastructure, when what we need is investment in clean energy transition. This is what our children will need for their future.
Lyn Adamson
Toronto, Ontario
In my opinion, obviously, it is ideally much better to give priority to jobs and skills creation than to military spending. This question is, to some very great extend, linked to foreign policy of Canada, this is one of the main reasons why the foreign policy of Canada should be re-examined.
Thank you
Payam Azad
Vancouver, British Columbia
Canadian military procurement is a complex issue.
Canada is a member of NATO and, as such, must tailor its procurements to
NATO- compatible equipment both within Canada and globally.
The Canadian government must take into account American perceptions of
certain strategic issues, both within the sphere of NATO and in a
continental context.
Preparedness for Canadian military operation in the far North presents a
conflict between our national needs and those of NATO. For example, a
single engine military aircraft operating in the North which experiences
an engine failure almost certainly means the loss of the aircraft and
its pilot. The F-35 fighter is not ideal for this reason.
Ed Robert
When are we going to comprehend that the the more weapons we manufacture the less safe we are? Armed nations are seen as a potential threat to other nations. In addition, the raw materials and manpower used in their manufacture are taken away from the creation of useful goods and hence are a net loss to the economy in real terms, not a gain. This industry makes a few people wealthy and hands the bill of destruction and impoverishment to the following generations.
Ingrid Style
Mont St Hilaire, Quebec
Recall if you will the answer to McLeans Magazine's contest awhile back which asked readers to fill in this blank. "As Canadian as ___________."
The winner was "As Canadian as possible given the circumstances. And so it is with this query. Of course military purchases should help Canadians and their economy as far as the role for our forces demands. Two glaring problems emerge in this discussion however.The first problem is that with such weak and indecisive leadership, and with such a volatile world, that role is poorly, and often misstakenly defined and not often enough reviewed.
The second, bigger problem is that almost nothing at all is being done on Canadians' behalf to foster the peace and understanding in the world that would belay the need of forces and equipment in the first place. This is the tougher and better of the two fights and the one in which our current leadership seems afraid to engage.
Fight the good fight?...Right!
Thomas Brawn
Orleans, Ontario
Reports state that unemployment or underemployment for young Canadians is high. I suggest everyone who is fit and over the age of 18 up to 24 should be drafted into the Armed Services. This would at a blow resolve this problem and inculcate in our youth the stoic military virtues which made the Romans great. A strong larger military would encourage our leaders to take a more forthright role in the combating of terrorism around the world. We would be able to more vigorously defend our Northern Territories from outsider incursions. Science and industry would be encouraged to construct aerial and submersible drones to patrol our coasts at a far cheaper cost. Military History should be a compulsory subject in Canadian schools to encourage pride in our youth for their storied past and learn how the Great Commanders defeated their foes.
Robin Reid
St. John's, Newfoundland
Look at the big picture. From coast to coast our provinces are in deficit - even Alberta faces an unprecedented shortfall. Many local municipalities in Ontario where I live are so cash-starved they are forced to consider casinos, with all of their decadent consequences, despite common-sense popular opposition. Our schools are at risk, with regional boards trying to cut costs by closing thriving, effective neighbourhood schools in order to more cheaply warehouse students in larger, under-populated suburban schools - case in point, Peterborough Collegiate last year. Young and old face health challenges; preventative practices are on the backburner as frontline hospitals pay lip-service to patient care while in reality making painful cuts - and pain is one thing sick people do not need more of. Our coast guard is slowly being dismantled; last week's closure of vital Vancouver station comes to mind, while serious maritime emergencies now get scant response, as evidenced by the tragic deaths of five young east coast fishermen this week. Our critical infrastructure, including sewers, bridges, and rail, has fallen into a state of advanced neglect after years of under-funding. Even respected research scientists are being shown the door, in spite of the valuable work they do, for example the shortsighted federal funding cuts made to the P.E.A.R.L., a project that monitors the impact of climate change in the arctic. Anyone old enough to know can see that the CBC is a shadow of its former self, often reduced to headlining sports, celebrities, and business stories instead of real news. After decades of political promises, an affordable daycare system is still non-existent, compared to what is available in most other developed countries, leaving desperate Canadian parents no choice but to turn to unlicensed daycare operations of unknown risk.
With this backdrop, the country's youth face high and rising unemployment. Have we discounted their future? Where did all the good jobs go? Since 2001, our foreign military adventures have been funded with money borrowed from future Canadians. How sustainable is that? Adding insult to injury, our "expert" economists and political ideologues appear to be engaged full-time in wishful thinking, completely out of sync with the different reality that most ordinary people are facing. There is a palpable sense that Canada has peaked and now is in decline. A few years ago Prime Minister Jean Chretien proudly said that Canada was the number one country in the world, and U.N. data backed him up. Today, the same U.N. data places Canada at number 17, and slipping. If you still want to know where those so-called military dollars should go, then why don't you tell me? A better question to ask your listeners might be, "Where has all the money gone?"
Tom Bruce
Kingston, Ontario
Before new toys for the military, Canada needs to address PTSD and mental health in the troops returning home from combat. Next, skills and jobs, preparedness to going back to civilian life and more supports for Vets and military families' assistance. Then and only then, toys for McKay and the generals.
Shelley Comer
New Westminster, British Columbia
I believe that we need to implement a national arms manufacturer in Canada. That way, we can create more skilled work in the country and we can control more with regard to contract deadlines. The commercialization and privatization of arms manufacturers causes too many problems.
As for the "stagnation" of innovation, I don't believe that will happen because each country will compete with each other to have the biggest and best equipment available for their troops. Partially it's an issue of national pride, but moreover it becomes a necessity with the current political environment worldwide. Threats from other nations such as North Korea will lead to innovation simply because those outside threats will be striving to beat our technology so we must then strive to beat that new technology.
James Edwards
Winnipeg, Manitoba
If any country that has the means to invade Canada chose to do so, we could not defend ourselves - even if we spent our entire federal budget on military equipment. Perhaps in this day and age, we should invest in measures to defend ourselves from terrorism, cyber-espionage and cyber-warfare, rather than buying planes and ships to support NATO operations in far away places. We have the brains in this country to build that kind of defensive and security weaponry and to benefit economically from its proliferation.
Don Masters
Ottawa, Ontario
I would argue that military procurement costs are a red herring, they have no intention of spending this type of money. Their goal is to reduce the budget deficit in time for the next election, and DND is the fastest way to do it without creating controversy. They have already slashed benefits. The most valuable aspect of the military is its personnel and their training. However this is where they are directing their cutting.
Dave Podolchuk
winnipeg, Manitoba
This subject needs to be discussed firstly in public (Cross country check up) by military representatives on all levels - not just top brass, but by all those people who wish to speak on the subject. These are the people who know first hand what is needed and what the priorities are. Once we have heard that side of the discussion in detail, then we need to hear how our government will address the needs. Then we can weigh in on how we as taxpayers would like to see expenditures happen. It is so necessary for a change to take place in how policies get made. Full consultation must take place first not after the fact when we are told how it has been decided and how we must ante up. The military offer their lives - surely that has high value and their opinions must come first.
Jessica Jarvis
Calgary, Alberta
The military should develop the skills necessary for Canadian climate change emergency response, with no charges being incurred by Canadian citizens. The technology should be steered away from fossil fuel use, whether Canadian developed or already developed.
Susan Eyre
Yahk, British Columbia
Can you spell: R-O-S-S R-I-F-L-E or A-V-R-O A-R-R-O-W?
Canadian defence and technology procurement and subsidization have been a sick joke for lo these many years. Why should we expect miracles?
Eileen Heaslip
Liverpool Nova Scotia
It should be noted, I think, that many of the engineers connected with the Avro Arrow were recruited by NASA to get that agency off the ground, and were instrumental in getting us to the moon. As was noted earlier, Integrated Circuits (computer chips), were one of many spin offs.
Thanks,
Ron Holm
St. Albert, Alberta
Wouldn't we all be better served by a government that focusses on peace-keeping rather than military expansion? There are many ways to create jobs and promote innovation; for example, redirecting the billions being spent on shiny new fighter jets toward alternative energy development to address climate change.
Karyn Woodland
Victoria, British Columbia
Canada has been attempting to do defense on the cheap for decades. Look at the AVGP and the LAV-III compared to contemporary vehicles like the Bradley and the Warrior. We've been able to get away with it because we've never had to fight a war on our own territory.
As a nation we need to make a choice about properly funding our military or giving up on the idea of defense independence whatsoever.
If we are going to invest in Canadian jobs as a part of this process, that shouldn't be hard. Many, many defense companies would rather license produce a product in Canada than watch their competition win the deal. As long as we introduce riders about production at Canadian factories by Canadian workers early in the process we won't see some surprising price increases at the final negotiation phase.
Jeff
Waterloo, Ontario
Political cronyism has guided military procurement for centuries. Canadian first world war troops were sent into combat with the Ross Rifle which proved a terrible weapon for the conditions, and the demands made on it. It had failed in presentation and in testing, but the PM was a close friend and colleague of Sam Ross. Military re-arming has been hobbled and controlled by politicians on such a regular basis that it now is the norm. The proposed replacement for Sea Kings was a combat machine unsuited for maritime rescue operations. The F-35 is still failing even in prototype. It's time to create an all-party and military group to oversee procurement. Nothing else will help.
yours,
Ms. Danna Waldman,
Nanaimo, British Columbia
Spending on the military is not a good way to create jobs. A recent study from the University of Massachusetts shows that if federal money were spent on education, construction, healthcare or clean energy some 27% to 134% more jobs would be created. These sectors are far more effective job creators than military spending.
David Langille
Toronto, Ontario
I haven't heard any mention as of yet on your show about the critical affects of the various Free Trade & International Trade Agreements will most definitely have on any Canadian decision regarding our tax dollar spending via procurement.
Without any doubt, this discussion you're having seems moot to me as it's no longer our own decision how Canadians wish to spend their tax dollars on procurement in almost any industry to get the most value for our dollars! These large, specialist military-industrial complexes and interests would clearly be the FIRST TO SUE the Canadian government if we ever tried to tie our own tax dollars to help our own industries, workers and regions against their foreign profits and interests.
When is someone going to bring this credulous fact up (that our international free trade/trading agreements) will stop us from even trying to build up our own industries be it to our benefit or not!
Lisa Wilson
Toronto, Ontario
We would do better to ask the same question, louder, without limiting the scope to the military.
What kind of a nation do we want? Not solely one which depends on exporting raw materials. Countries that depend only on resource extraction and sale don't need a thriving middle class, but only a military, a government, and enough trained people to extract the resources. Look around the world at such countries -- often they are very bad for their ordinary citizens.
Canadians are not at immediate risk of a headlong dive into such a system, but we can certainly do better in the opposite direction. By investing in the health, education and ingenuity of our people, we could easily become renowned for research, development, creation both technical and artistic, and as suppliers of niche equipment and tools at a high level of competence and reliability.
Some high end equipment is both expensive and supplied by only a few makers worldwide. As an example, look at the largest of the power transformers, which can cost a half million and have a lead time of 18 months or more. Who makes them and who keeps them on the shelf? Yet, when your old 500 kV transformer fails, you can't just hook up some diesel generators -- or rather, you can, at many times the cost per hour of running the original system, while waiting for a new unit to be designed, built, and shipped from Germany or China. Some things are so crucial, we should be in a position to build them ourselves.
Every time you outsource something crucial to another country, you weaken Canada and restrict our scope of action. In a sense, being competent at all essential services within Canada IS a part of national defense, and should be seen as such.
Holly Nelson
Winnipeg
Jenkins said, "There is no question that we have to replace old equipment..." NONSENSE
I suspect that Jenkins would agree that we don't need new tanks or submarines or long-range missles -- any more than we need chariots or calvary.
We should not be equipping our military to re-right the last war...
Given that Canadians do not face any direct military threat, our defence efforts should be directed to common security operations of peacekeeping, peacebuilding, prevention and protection done under the United Nations.
We need a public review of Canada's foreign and defence policies in order to better reflect Canadian values and priorities and advance a vision of sustainable security.
The Martin and Harper Governments sparked a massive increase in military spending.
We need to reverse those increases and direct the savings towards improving the health and well-being of Canadians and people around the world.
David Langille
Toronto, Ontario
Two questions:
1. Why is it acceptable to be discussing purchasing preference for military goods, when it's not similarly acceptable for Canadian food and other products under various free trade agreements?
2. Why is it acceptable to suggest creating a massive dependence on the teat of government, when, under Harper, it's unacceptable for many non-profits to receive gov't funds?
This is just the further growth of the military industrial complex Eisenhower warned of. We go this way and our economy becomes dependent on war, just as the US.
S Brandum
Perth, Ontario
I believe that since the Avro Arrow right up to the recent announcement of the satellites that Canada will be venturing into, that Canadians have proven that we can be leaders in technology and military ventures. I also believe that we could better spend money at home for job creation in these areas. Why would we agree to spend millions and sometimes billions of dollars for some other countries weapons and technologies, and THEN pay a penalty when either us or them cannot follow through? Would it not make more sense to have hard working Canadians who are no longer working because of the economic situation in this country back on the job making money working in Canada, spending money they make in Canada and therefore building the Canadian economy. Is it not the job of the Canadian government to help Canadians? I'm just saying.
Michael Nickerson
To procure something in Canada, you need the industrial base. This base needs to be built, often over many years or a generation or two. Military procurement is historically cyclical and Canada has never been able to sustain this base over the "in between" years. We used to design and build jet fighters; we stopped and the intellectual capability was lost. We used to design and build ships; we stopped and the intellectual capability has been lost. This list goes on but the pattern is the same. We design very little of our equipment and have become catalogue shoppers. Even the simplest Canadian ship design is now being done in Denmark or Germany.
Canada has lost the continuity of purpose that is required to pick the essential equipment to be designed and built here; and then maintain the capability in the "off years". Jenkins report is full of ideals but it will require a government decision to fund the idea requirement and no Canadian government has exhibited this level of longterm comment.
Best regards,
Gary Wiseman, RCN (retired)
Kemptville
The five permanent members of the UN Security Council are the worlds largest manufacturers and sellers of military hardware to the highest bidder. This is why the Global South countries are awash in large and small arms that are mostly used to put down citizen revolts inside of those same countries, many in Africa, the Middle East and parts of Asia. Do we not see the tragedy this brings each day on the evening news as we see Syria torn apart by civil war and other wars in the Congo and Mali for example?
Canada should be a leader in ending this deadly, tragic arms race, not become part of it. Humanity can no longer afford the wars of the 20th century. I belong to Conscience Canada, an organization of Conscientious Objectors to Military Taxation. We want to end spending on war and preparation for war. Another responder here has said it well - arms manufacture is not a long terms job creator. Why don't we follow Jack Layton's suggestion to create jobs by redoing al of our buildings and infrastructure to increase energy efficiency in order to combat the real threat to our security - man made global warming!
Murray Lumley
Toronto, Ontario
Anything that takes two decades to be delivered in today's very fast moving world will undoubtedly be obsolete. The jets (for example) can be bought tomorrow more or less off the shelf from European vendors. We could have new jets in a few years.
We do not need offensive military weapons and we therefore do not need the same jet as the US. Their needs and our needs are NOT the same and buying their jet is madness.
Dave Cunningham
Calgary, Alberta
Canada's child poverty is 15.1 %. Homelessness and food bank useage increases annually. Work-age poeery is 11.1 ( Figures from Conference Board). This is shameful and unacceptable!Canada's defense budget is more than what the fed. gov''t spend on Education, Health Canada, Justice, Human Resouces, Environment, Fisheries and Oceans and International Aid COMBINED! It is equally shameful that the military spending eclipses all the other priorites, including, job creation, affordable housing, skills based training,health care, education, environmental protection, climate change,
It is imperative that military spending is re-directed to meeting human needs, not the advancement of the military industrial complex.
Hannah Hadikin
Nelson, British Columbia
Let us not become a country of bullet makers. Buy a few new pieces of equipment every year - not these huge purchases which are outdated by the time they arrive. We need to invest in people, education and alternative power and not engage in huge "defense"spending which recently seems more offensive.
Fiona Gold
Vancouver, British
Recently, there has been controversy regarding counterfeit parts. Many electronics are made in places with other political philosophies and may be the land of a future enemy. When building/buying military items we need to keep in mind that we need a reliable source of supply of good parts not controlled by those we cannot rely on as allies. This may mean we have to pay a higher price and build closer to home including in Canada because our defence is our security. Being a smaller country by number of people does make this more difficult.
Robert Graham
Courtice ON
Unless limitations are placed on the political involvement in the military procurement process, we should hold off on committing to any large investments in creating a Canadian based supply system. Political meddling has led to poor equipment choices (Sam Hugh's Ross Rifle), the demise of Avro Canada (Diefenbaker's cancellation of the Avro Arrow), and unnecessarily wasted taxpayer money by cancelling contracts based on infantile politcal games (Chretian's EH-101 debacle).
As for the F-35, it was documented on PBS' Nova episode "Battle of the X-Planes" that Lockheed-Martin went over budget by almost $10 million during the evaluation phase of the F-35.
Willie, Warholm
Calgary, Alberta
First of all, thanks for addressing an interesting and challenging topic. As with past episodes, it has been informative and insightful.
On to the topic at hand.
I will be brief and say this: if you or I wanted a car, we would look for the car with the best features given our budget. If we elect someone to do tho for us, I would hope they follow the same principal.
The practice of buying "Canadian only" (or some iteration) help two groups of people at the expense of all others: the politicians who make speeches about job creation, and this individuals who receive this special treatment. All others include the rest of us taxpayers who get either an inferior product or a higher price.
If Canadian companies can compete, that's fantastic. If not, we are not doing ourselves any real service by supporting an uncompetitive industry.
Thanks again and all the best,
David
Toronto, Ontario
The Stephen Harper Junta can't militarize our economy fast enough. You can see the result's of that type society south of the boarder. Mass murder's a regular occurrence home and abroad. The war mongers should be shown in the next elections that the citizens of Canada not not wants militarized society. Love will prevail.."
Mark Doucet
We tend to accept uncritically whatever our political and military leaders tell us. For example, the Sea King helicopter is a death trap. But when I saw a clip of a British Crown Prince flying a Sea King, I checked and found that the Brits plan to retiree them in 2018. Oh!
As for where to get our equipment, we should surely buy Canadian. The Americans build their own. The Israelis manufacture the most of their needs. The Swedes, the Brits, The Germans, and the French all build at home. Why are so fearful of our capability to build something worthwhile? We have built some wonderful technologically advanced products, and there is no reason why we cannot continue to do so.
It is just plain foolish to spend our wealth buying military material on the world market. To do that will condemn Canada to an endless spiral of escalating cost and anxiety trying to get from someone else just what we need.
We can ensure that we never again experience a Ross Rifle disaster by refusing to buy from the Defense Minister's best friend. Significantly, we can learn from the Arrow debacle that if governments follow through, then Canadians can be the best in the world. So, we can do it ourselves, or we can sell our children's birthright to an exciting future to any weapons dealer with a sweatshop in a low-wage country.
Wayne Valleau
Calgary, Alberta
Canada is one of several members of NATO and several other members are also renewing the aircraft, and looking to buy the F35. The Norwegians, who are intending to buy almost as many as Canada, have over the years built up a pretty significant defence missile manufacturing industry, and they're tying their F35 purchase to a reciprocal sales of this technology to the US and other NATO members. There's actually a lot of this sharing within NATO and Canada should and could be part of it.
Sam Roberts
Toronto, Ontario
Nobody seems to be mentioning, within the context of the proposed "jobs creation roll" of the military in Canada that the country from which we were planning on buying the F-35 from uses the military for precisely this reason.
Everything from velcro to the internet was created out of U.S. military research and development. If job creation through military spending is good enough for the country who is our supplier of military equipment then why isn't it good enough for us?
Michael Irvine
Toronto, Ontario
I think the scope of this discussion has been much too narrow: money and jobs. Not a word has been said about the lunacy of purchasing a product that will use huge amounts of energy--both in its manufacture and its operation--at a time when the cost of energy production is rising and its availability is declining. If the F35s won't be available for fifteen years, shouldn't we be paying some attention to how we're going to fuel ithem when we finally do take delivery?
Another lunatic aspect of this discussion is that it is all about purchasing tools made soley to kill other humans. These planes are designed for offence, not defence against missiles and rockets. Talking about them as if they are going to provide a net benefit to Canadians if only we get to plug in a few components begs the questions of what better things could be done for Canadians with 240 billion dollars.
Kathryn McCourt
Summerland, British Columbia
Being retired from the Canadian Forces and having worked on technical procurement, I understand these issues. What I also want to remind the public is that you can not peace keep or peace make with nothing in your hand, regardless of what our political leaders decide our foreign policy is.
Chris MacPhail
Halifax, Nova Scotia
I'd say that building a domestic talent base should be a high priority in our defence spending wherever possible. It won't be the only priority, for several reasons already clear too many in the audience, but certainly there is a positive value in rebuilding a domestic defence/industrial infrastructure. Also, keeping an eye on Eisenhower's warning about military-industrial complex perils would be of value. There is a legitimate danger in that, just as much as with allowing our defence hardware to be exclusively built outside of Canada.
Dwight Williams
Orleans, Ontario
I used to work in the defense industry. It costs Canada more than 2 billion dollars to cancel the EH 101 Helicopter program. What the Jean Chretien government did not consider, was the 15 years of work performed by all types of companies and government agencies prior to the final purchase. It was a major waist of money and effort to outright cancel that program.
We in Canada tend to squander the money earmarked for military spending in a wide range of ways.
Another thing that Canadians are completely unaware of is that since 9/11 DND is destroying 100's of millions of dollars worth of equipment every single year. Unlike other countries, the only things that DND is willing to sell as surplus these days, are toilets and garbage cans. It's a major waist of taxpayer dollars and renders equipment unusable to other certified countries that may want to purchase used military equipment. There is no longer any respect from DND for the dollars that the average taxpayer sends to them for hardware they purchase.
Mike Marchand
Richmond Hill, Ontario
Sundays at 4:00 p.m. ET, (1:00 PT) Cross Country In An HourMondays at 8 p.m. ET
podcasts 
twitter