Carney’s finance minister has been promising to deliver “generational investments” in this budget — but at the same time, Carney has warned that his plan to transform the economy will involve “sacrifices.” These investments and sacrifices are distributed according to a peculiar logic.
For example: Carney has been publicly wringing his hands over the $10 million he claims Canada Post “loses” every day. In their analysis of that framing,The Breach pointed out that this number (an unusually high estimate) is tiny compared to the $169 million the military spends daily. That hasn’t stopped Carney from slashing the postal service’s activities, all while promising an extra $9.3 billion to the country’s armed forces by March.
I can see the appeal, but in my mind, it’s a bad idea. These opportunities of civilian services benefitting from military training for example just take away from the required investments in civilian infrastructure that turn into gaping holes when the military is called to action.
All good, we can agree to disagree. I think your objections are reasonable, but I don’t think they’re unmanageable. I think the line between military and civilian is A line to subdivide things, but I think public vs private is a better one. As well, expanded military spending to hit Trumps new unilateral benchmarks (which is happening) doesn’t necessarily demand a larger instantaiously deployable force. Resources could be earmarked to not leave massive gaps in other civil services. If it has to happen, still fine, dovetailing military out of those roles and backfilling with civilians (even transitioning through reserves) has a shorter turnaround time and more manageable than finding and training more recruits or god forbid a draft.
Anyhow, again, fine to agree to disagree. I hear your stated objections and agree they’re valid… I think where we disagree is on if they’re insurmountable or not.
Not even insurmountable. Just optimal.