The key part is "not his preferred file." As we all know, perception in politics is everything, and the Trudeau's government projected image with respect to defence investments comes almost invariably as something being done "grudgingly," as you describe. But there is another more problematic point reinforcing the negative perception, and it is the general gist of our foreign policy that is now mostly unclear, reactive, and outdated in many aspects. Foreign Affairs, as Marc Garneau notes in his upcoming memoirs, is also a "not preferred file" for Trudeau. In the absence of a clear national strategy and associated assessments and commitments to major international challenges, where defence would play important role, defence investments really look like "just throwing money at a problem." The recent announcement about submarines fits this portrait quite well. In the end, his critiques may be implicitly (or even unconsciously) focusing on Canada not "being a responsible and forward-thinking country in an increasingly dangerous world." If it is the case, the manners of defence investments is just a symptom of a deeper problem.
Couple of points. Trudeau did not announce defence spending would increase to 2% of GDP by 2032, nor did he "promise" this. The published statement from the Minister of National Defence said they "expect" to hit 2% by 2032. Words matter here. I expect Mr. Trudeau to be out of office by 2025, and I suspect my expectation is more realistic than his 2% expectation. This government will be long gone by 2032.
No new funding was announced this week either to meet this "expectation" or to fund the submarine project. If it isn't in the fiscal framework this "expectation" and sub thing is all just made up nonsense and should be treated as such. It is insulting to both one's intelligence and patience.
As for Trudeau feeling frustrated, he might reflect on the fact that both he and his predecessor singed onto the 2% pledge. If he rejects this "crass mathematical calculation" he should not have signed onto it. Btw, math has never been Mr. Trudeau's strong point, just look at the fiscal mess he has created.
Why exactly must Canada (and NATO writ large) spend 2% of their GDP on defence? Is that an arbitrary number? Why wouldn't the West engage in serious diplomacy to lower the temperature with countries like Russia, China and Iran? Wouldn't the be a better way to spend money? The more i hear about NATO, the more anachronistic I believe the organization has become.
Good points Philippe.
The key part is "not his preferred file." As we all know, perception in politics is everything, and the Trudeau's government projected image with respect to defence investments comes almost invariably as something being done "grudgingly," as you describe. But there is another more problematic point reinforcing the negative perception, and it is the general gist of our foreign policy that is now mostly unclear, reactive, and outdated in many aspects. Foreign Affairs, as Marc Garneau notes in his upcoming memoirs, is also a "not preferred file" for Trudeau. In the absence of a clear national strategy and associated assessments and commitments to major international challenges, where defence would play important role, defence investments really look like "just throwing money at a problem." The recent announcement about submarines fits this portrait quite well. In the end, his critiques may be implicitly (or even unconsciously) focusing on Canada not "being a responsible and forward-thinking country in an increasingly dangerous world." If it is the case, the manners of defence investments is just a symptom of a deeper problem.
Couple of points. Trudeau did not announce defence spending would increase to 2% of GDP by 2032, nor did he "promise" this. The published statement from the Minister of National Defence said they "expect" to hit 2% by 2032. Words matter here. I expect Mr. Trudeau to be out of office by 2025, and I suspect my expectation is more realistic than his 2% expectation. This government will be long gone by 2032.
No new funding was announced this week either to meet this "expectation" or to fund the submarine project. If it isn't in the fiscal framework this "expectation" and sub thing is all just made up nonsense and should be treated as such. It is insulting to both one's intelligence and patience.
As for Trudeau feeling frustrated, he might reflect on the fact that both he and his predecessor singed onto the 2% pledge. If he rejects this "crass mathematical calculation" he should not have signed onto it. Btw, math has never been Mr. Trudeau's strong point, just look at the fiscal mess he has created.
Why exactly must Canada (and NATO writ large) spend 2% of their GDP on defence? Is that an arbitrary number? Why wouldn't the West engage in serious diplomacy to lower the temperature with countries like Russia, China and Iran? Wouldn't the be a better way to spend money? The more i hear about NATO, the more anachronistic I believe the organization has become.
The Canadian government hitting the "find out" phase of its habitual lack of transparency.