Statquo and OOE Club: Canadian Politics

Trump threatens to block opening of US-Canada bridge

President Donald Trump has threatened to block the opening of a bridge connecting the US and Canada until Washington is "fully compensated for everything" it has given to its northern neighbour.

The Gordie Howe International Bridge, connecting the Canadian province of Ontario to the US state of Michigan, would not open until Ottawa "treats the United States with the Fairness and Respect that we deserve", Trump wrote on social media.

According to the project's website, the bridge is being funded by the Canadian government but will be publicly owned by both Canada and Michigan.

Michigan Senator Elissa Slotkin, a Democrat, said closing the "incredibly important infrastructure project" would be "awful for our state's economy".

The move could have "serious repercussions" she said in a post on X: "Higher costs for Michigan businesses, less secure supply chains, and ultimately, fewer jobs."

It is not clear how Trump could block its opening but he said negotiations would begin immediately, without elaborating.

The bridge, which spans the Detroit River and is named after late Canadian hockey legend Gordie Howe, who played for the Detroit Red Wings, is expected to open to traffic pending formal tests and approvals in the early part of this year. Construction began in 2018, but the project has been a point of contention between the countries for more than a decade.

It is estimated to have cost $6.4bn CAD (£3.4bn), according to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC).

In the statement on his Truth Social platform, Trump said that the US should own "at least one half of this asset". He also suggested that Canada owned both the Canadian and US sides of the bridge.

The organisation developing the bridge, the Windsor-Detroit Bridge Authority, is a Canadian federal Crown corporation, an organisation that is wholly owned by the government but operates at arm's length.

Trump wrote: "The Canadian Government expects me, as President of the United States, to PERMIT them to just 'take advantage of America!'"

"I will not allow this bridge to open until the United States is fully compensated for everything we have given them," he added.

He also blamed former President Barack Obama for allowing construction to begin without the use of any US steel.

But Mayor Drew Dilkens of Windsor, Ontario, on the Canadian side of the bridge, told the CBC that this accusation is wrong.

"It's just insane," he said. "I really can't believe what I'm reading."

The Moroun family - the American owners of the neighbouring Ambassador Bridge that also connects Detroit to Canada - appealed to Trump during his first term to stop construction of the new bridge, arguing that it infringed on their exclusive ability to collect tolls.

In response, Trump and then-Prime Minister Justin Trudeau issued a joint statement saying the bridge was a "vital economic link" between the countries.
Click to expand...

We paid for it. He endorsed it. Its publicly owned by Canada and the state of Michigan. US steel and labour was used for the Michigan side. Like he’s blatantly lying.
 
Last edited:
Gun Grape said:
Yea but You took advantage of us because of that horrible trade agreement that he negotiated :unsure:
Click to expand...
Trumps just being Trump, sticking the knife in so he can get a rise from the Canadian government which in turn will give him an excuse to push for 'more' of whatever it is he wants on any particular day.
 
statquo said:
Trump threatens to block opening of US-Canada bridge



We paid for it. He endorsed it. Its publicly owned by Canada and the state of Michigan. US steel and labour was used for the Michigan side. Like he’s blatantly lying.
Click to expand...
I also have heard that with your new China deal she will ban hockey and the Stanley Cup in Canada. Or did someone get hit in the head by a hockey puck via Gordie Howe?

As far as the bridge is concerned all one needs to do is change the name. Works like a charm every single time.
 
Fuel prices blowing up. Trans Mountain and CGL are going to kill it. Too bad we don't have anymore export capacity. What a windwall the country would be reaping in.
 

Unemployment rate up, 84,000 jobs lost in ‘very bad’ February jobs report​

OTTAWA — Statistics Canada reported a sharp drop in employment Friday that caught economists by surprise.

“This was a very bad report on almost every single measure,” said CIBC senior economist Katherine Judge.

StatCan said Friday that Canadian employers collectively shed 84,000 positions in February, driving the unemployment rate up two tenths of a point to 6.7 per cent.

February saw more than 100,000 jobs lost in full-time work, while private sector employment fell by 73,000 positions.

A Reuters poll of economists heading into Friday’s release expected a slight rise in the unemployment rate but also called for a gain of 10,000 jobs last month.

The labour market added a cumulative 189,000 positions in the final four months of 2025, but 2026 has offset some of those gains with two consecutive months of job losses to start the year. February’s surprise decline follows a loss of 25,000 jobs in January.

StatCan said that, compared to the same month a year ago, total employment was little changed in February.

Speaking to reporters during a media availability in Norway on Friday, Prime Minister Mark Carney pinned the blame for the recent spate of job losses on Canada’s fractious trade relationship with the United States.

“Given the scale of the trade actions, the uncertainty that is associated with the trade actions in the United States, that is causing big adjustments in the economy,” Carney said.

Alberta MP Garnett Genuis, employment critic for the federal Conservatives, said Carney’s policies were failing to improve job prospects for Canadians as the prime minister nears a year in the office. In a media statement, he highlighted a rebound in the youth unemployment rate to above 14 per cent last month as cause for concern.

Young workers aged 15 to 24 faced a loss of 47,000 jobs last month, StatCan said. Men between the ages of 25 and 54 also faced steep job losses in February.

“As employment continues to fall, Liberals have ignored our proposals and failed to put forward any solutions to their jobs crisis,” Genuis said.

The wholesale and retail trade sector led job losses last month, with other industries in the services side of the economy also contracting. Goods-producing industries like construction and manufacturing shed positions, while the transportation and warehousing industry and public administration reported gains.

Judge said that labour market weakness had been largely contained to sectors like manufacturing that are most exposed to U.S. tariffs. But with only three sectors reporting job gains last month, she said those cracks are spreading.

“This is very worrisome for the Bank of Canada,” she said.

The central bank is set for an interest rate decision on Wednesday after holding its key rate at 2.25 per cent in January. Monetary policymakers will get a look at inflation data for February on Monday before making the call.

TD Bank senior economist Andrew Hencic said in a note to clients Friday that the shrinking labour force, a rising unemployment rate and steep job losses make the latest employment data a “decidedly weak report.”

Hencic said the economy is struggling to gain traction in the face of structural changes, such as ongoing trade uncertainty.

He also flagged that the war in the Middle East is a “wildcard” for the economy in terms of how long the conflict will last. An extended disruption will mean a prolonged bout of inflation tied to higher energy costs, which Hencic said will have knock-on effects for consumer spending and growth more broadly.

Judge said that, from the Bank of Canada’s perspective, February’s labour market softness should offset inflationary pressures from the recent oil spike.

She said CIBC’s call is still for the central bank to remain on hold for the rest of the year, though weakness in data like Friday’s report tilt risks toward a further cut.

Financial market odds for next week’s rate decision are 90 per cent in favour of a hold, slightly reduced from before the jobs report, according to LSEG Data & Analytics.

StatCan said Friday that Quebec lost 57,000 jobs in February, which the agency called the first significant loss of employment in the province in over four years. The jobless rate in the province rose 0.7 percentage points to 5.9 per cent last month.

British Columbia meanwhile shed 20,000 positions, and Saskatchewan and Manitoba also.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Brutal jobs report
 

Canada clears NATO's 2% bar — after years of lagging and a last-minute lift​

Canada crossed the politically significant threshold of meeting NATO's defence spending benchmark of two per cent of gross domestic product, according to the Western alliance's annual secretary general's report and compilation of statistics released on Thursday.

It is the first time since the late 1980s — toward the end of the Cold War — that the country has met the target, which has in recent years taken on enormous political and symbolic significance.

The Liberal government achieved the goal with an injection of an additional $9.3 billion into the Department of National Defence's budget last June — bringing the overall defence expenditures to just over $61 billion.

Despite the huge expenditure, the NATO report showed that Canada had crossed the line by the skin of its teeth, registering an estimated two per cent of GDP. It was still in the bottom one-third of the alliance in terms of defence spending, along with Belgium, Spain, Albania and Portugal.

The top spenders in terms of percentage of GDP included Poland (4.3), Lithuania (4.0), Latvia (3.74) Estonia (3.42) and Denmark (3.34). The United States ranked seventh overall (3.19).

Hitting the two per cent benchmark by the end of the fiscal year, on March 31, was a promise Prime Minister Mark Carney made in the face of long-standing pressure from allies, including the United States.

The achievement represents a dramatic turnaround from not quite two years ago when former prime minister Justin Trudeau referred to the two per cent goal as a "crass mathematical calculation," one that he had reportedly told allies Canada would never meet.

The country arrives at the threshold months after NATO leaders vowed to increase defence spending even higher over the next decade to five per cent of GDP (3.5 per cent on direct military spending and 1.5 on defence infrastructure).

Getting to the two per cent goal was never assured because, over many years, the Defence Department has not had the institutional capacity to spend all of its appropriation. It has often had to return unspent billions of dollars to the federal treasury.

The benchmark was partly achieved by an internal reorganization of the federal government, which has seen some agencies, such as the Canadian Coast Guard, moved under the auspices of the Defence Department and therefore counted toward the NATO target. It was also achieved through a substantial pay raise for members of the military and by pouring money into base infrastructure and overhaul.

While the prime minister deserves credit for making defence spending a priority, defence analyst Dave Perry says there's been an emerging agreement across the political spectrum that the investment were necessary.

"It hasn't been just Mr. Carney," said Perry, president of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute. "In the last federal election every party committed to spending two per cent of GDP on defence. It is a completely different political consensus on defence than the one that we had had for the previous decade where they were all in agreement that didn't need to hit."

Perry said that changed a year ago.

Carney is in Halifax Thursday and expected to have more to say about the achievement and face questions on the details of the spending.

Defence spending announcements​

Over the last month, the Liberal government has announced more than $42 billion in defence-related spending — much of it planned for future years and programs, such as Arctic infrastructure.

Among the more immediate spending announcements made last week was the first phase purchasing new rifles for the army. It will cost taxpayers $307 million, but the Defence Department, the Defence Investment Agency and the country's procurement services department all refused to release detailed breakdown of the elements that make up the overall project budget.

The two per cent target has been a political powderkeg in recent years, with U.S. President Donald Trump at one point in his 2024 re-election bid pledging not to protect allies who failed to meet the goal.

The threshold had its political origins in November 2002 as part of the Prague Capabilities Commitment (PCC), so named for the city where NATO leaders agreed to set down a budget benchmark for member states.

The administration of then-U.S. president George W. Bush tried to make the target mandatory, but failed, according to a research paper written for Germany's federal security academy in 2019.

Consequently, the two per cent target was, throughout most of its existence, more of a suggestion than an actual target. Many countries, Canada included, largely ignored it until Russia annexed Crimea in 2014.

Additionally, NATO hasn't always tracked member nations' defence spending as a percentage of their economies. The practice only began in 1974, according to data in the alliance archives.

At that time, Canada's military spending compared to its economic output was at 2.7 per cent of GDP. It declined during the late 1970s as detente took hold — only to reverse in the 1980s as tensions with the former Soviet Union peaked.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Marilyn Gladu crosses the floor from the Cons to the Libs. Carney one seat away from a majority with byelections on Monday. A lot of Conservative voters are calling it corruption. I don’t think they know what the word means.
 
Officer of Engineers said:
GRIPENs are DOA

www.independent.co.uk

US warns it will send fighter jets into Canadian airspace if F-35 deal fails

Cost of F-35 advanced fighter jet program has risen by $8 billion in the last three years
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk
Click to expand...

I was involved in a debate about this subject in regards to your country buying the Gripen instead of the F-35 on a Canadian forum I am a member of.
Speaking from a standpoint of operational readiness, maintenance and lower costs, the Gripen is a superior plane.

I am simply a dumbass farmer, however my father was an aircraft design engineer, and my mother was a draughtswoman in the industry, before they became flower farmers.
It was living through the blitz, the fire bombing of Coventry and the Dam Busters that inspired my father to work in the aircraft industry.
Barnes Wallis was a bit of an inspiration to him.
He gave me a lot of books about planes and aerial warfare.
 
Carney secures the majority. Up in Terrebonne right now too. Every seat gives him a little extra breathing room/challenging caucus to manage.

I mean what a run. Liberals were about to be taken out to the woodshed with Trudeau, now going on 11 years in power and they're more popular than ever.
 

Federal government to shut down Arctic naval refuelling base​

Ottawa is planning to dismantle the Nanisivik Naval Facility on Baffin Island, Nunavut, says funds will be redirected into other Arctic infrastructure projects

The federal government has decided to shut down a naval facility that was meant to act as a landmark of Canadian sovereignty as well as a refuelling station in the high Arctic.

The Nanisivik Naval Facility, located on Baffin Island in Nunavut, was first endorsed and funded in 2007 by the then-Conservative government of Stephen Harper.

The site was initially seen to be a statement of Canadian sovereignty in the high Arctic, but with a scaled-down final product and advancements in Canada's Arctic naval fleet, the facility is now seen as not fit for purpose.

The initial 2007 plan was for a year-round fuel storage station with an airstrip and permanent accommodation for around 15 staff, which would act as the arctic hub for the then-future arctic patrol ships.

However, due to budget constraints, the plan was scaled back to a shell of the initial plan, and with the realization that the new Arctic patrol ships can remain at sea longer than initially anticipated, the station lost much of its tactical capabilities.

Recent statements regarding the facility also indicated that, even if fully fleshed out, the refuelling station would only be operational for around four weeks per year.

The funds initially earmarked for the naval facility will reportedly be redirected into other Northern infrastructure projects.

According to The Globe and Mail, sources have confirmed the facility will be dismantled and the government will conduct environmental remediation.

With the initial success of the Harry DeWolf-class arctic patrol ships, the plan to purchase up to a dozen under-ice-capable submarines, and the planned procurement of new, near-arctic-capable "Continental Defence Corvettes," the need for a stationary base has been deemed unnecessary.

The navy is also apparently ruminating about the procurement of ice-capable amphibious landing ships to act as mobile bases in the Arctic, giving even less of a reason to repair and maintain the Nanisivik facility.

Sources have told The Globe that it would cost as high as an estimated $250 million to fix the wharf, which would be in addition to the over $107 million that has already been spent on the facility.

The decision to pull the plug on Nanisivik comes amid a planned reinvestment in Canadian Arctic military capabilities, with the facility on Baffin Island seemingly viewed as too much cost for too little return.

—————————————
 
Meanwhile the US is apparently in high level negotiations with Denmark about establishing three new military bases in Greenland. The thing is apparently they're insisting they be sovereign US territory. Anyone know if that's normal when dealing with other NATO Members? Because otherwise ...?
 

Alberta judge tosses out petition for province to separate from Canada​

An Alberta judge has thrown out a petition seeking for the province to separate from Canada, after indigenous First Nations groups argued that an independent Alberta without their consultation would infringe on their land rights.

The 37-page ruling was delivered on Wednesday in an Edmonton court by Justice Shaina Leonard.

It comes after Stay Free Alberta, the group behind a citizen-led petition on Alberta independence, said it had gathered more than 300,000 signatures - enough to trigger a province-wide referendum.

Justice Leonard paused verification of those signatures pending her decision on the First Nations legal challenge.

As part of the decision, Justice Leonard found that the government failed to consult with Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation, Blood Tribe, Piikani Nation, and Siksika Nation.

Jeff Rath, a lawyer representing Stay Free Alberta, said in a statement to the BBC: "We disagree fundamentally with the decision which appears on its face to violate principles of natural justice and contain numerous errors of law.

"We have been instructed to prepare and file the appropriate appellate documents."

A lawyer for the First Nations praised the judge's ruling as "a significant victory for the rule of law and the protection of constitutional rights in Alberta".

"Justice Leonard's decision today makes it clear that it was unlawful to turn away from the findings about the impacts on First Nations and to not consult with them before taking this perilous step of holding a referendum," said Kevin Hille.

On Wednesday, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith told the provincial legislature that she was reviewing the decision.

Anger with Ottawa has been longstanding in the western province, in particular over development of its natural resources, with some Albertans believing that federal government, especially under the Liberals, has stood in the way of the province's oil and gas industry in favour of pro-climate legislation.

There is a belief that the province, with its natural resource wealth, also contributes more to the country than it receives, and that the rest of the country often ignores western provinces or don't have their best interest in mind.

Cultural and political differences have further fuelled the divide.

Now, once previously on the political fringes, the possibility of a unity crisis has become increasingly likely in the last year.

While the separatist movement in Alberta doesn't have one unified view, most want to see, at a minimum, more autonomy over the province's resource wealth and political priorities.
-------------------------------------------------------

Colonel, thoughts on Alberta separation? I even hear rumours of some in Quebec talking about a referendum in the near future.
 
statquo said:

Alberta judge tosses out petition for province to separate from Canada​

An Alberta judge has thrown out a petition seeking for the province to separate from Canada, after indigenous First Nations groups argued that an independent Alberta without their consultation would infringe on their land rights.

The 37-page ruling was delivered on Wednesday in an Edmonton court by Justice Shaina Leonard.

It comes after Stay Free Alberta, the group behind a citizen-led petition on Alberta independence, said it had gathered more than 300,000 signatures - enough to trigger a province-wide referendum.

Justice Leonard paused verification of those signatures pending her decision on the First Nations legal challenge.

As part of the decision, Justice Leonard found that the government failed to consult with Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation, Blood Tribe, Piikani Nation, and Siksika Nation.

Jeff Rath, a lawyer representing Stay Free Alberta, said in a statement to the BBC: "We disagree fundamentally with the decision which appears on its face to violate principles of natural justice and contain numerous errors of law.

"We have been instructed to prepare and file the appropriate appellate documents."

A lawyer for the First Nations praised the judge's ruling as "a significant victory for the rule of law and the protection of constitutional rights in Alberta".

"Justice Leonard's decision today makes it clear that it was unlawful to turn away from the findings about the impacts on First Nations and to not consult with them before taking this perilous step of holding a referendum," said Kevin Hille.

On Wednesday, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith told the provincial legislature that she was reviewing the decision.

Anger with Ottawa has been longstanding in the western province, in particular over development of its natural resources, with some Albertans believing that federal government, especially under the Liberals, has stood in the way of the province's oil and gas industry in favour of pro-climate legislation.

There is a belief that the province, with its natural resource wealth, also contributes more to the country than it receives, and that the rest of the country often ignores western provinces or don't have their best interest in mind.

Cultural and political differences have further fuelled the divide.

Now, once previously on the political fringes, the possibility of a unity crisis has become increasingly likely in the last year.

While the separatist movement in Alberta doesn't have one unified view, most want to see, at a minimum, more autonomy over the province's resource wealth and political priorities.
-------------------------------------------------------

Colonel, thoughts on Alberta separation? I even hear rumours of some in Quebec talking about a referendum in the near future.
Click to expand...
I thought the problem with Quebec as that whenever it looked like getting close to a vote people started doing the numbers and they never added up. Secession simply cost too much.
 
Monash said:
I thought the problem with Quebec as that whenever it looked like getting close to a vote people started doing the numbers and they never added up. Secession simply cost too much.
Click to expand...
Usually. Most people just don't have the energy to want to do it. 1980 and 1995 had that energy.

This is a pretty consequential decision though and it affects Quebec separatism as well. This is a pretty big constitutional ruling because it points right to the framework of federalism. Do Treaty territories create constitutional constraints? Can First Nations refuse inclusion in a separating province? Does the Crown's duty to consult start at the beginning or the ending of the process? This won't just affect referendums, but infrastructure, natural resource projects etc.
 
Carney secures the majority. Up in Terrebonne right now too. Every seat gives him a little extra breathing room/challenging caucus to manage.

I mean what a run. Liberals were about to be taken out to the woodshed with Trudeau, now going on 11 years in power and they're more popular than ever.
Click to expand...

Amazing how organizations and companies can turn around after they remove a leader that was a worthless piece of sh*t. :D
 
statquo said:
Usually. Most people just don't have the energy to want to do it. 1980 and 1995 had that energy.

This is a pretty consequential decision though and it affects Quebec separatism as well. This is a pretty big constitutional ruling because it points right to the framework of federalism. Do Treaty territories create constitutional constraints? Can First Nations refuse inclusion in a separating province? Does the Crown's duty to consult start at the beginning or the ending of the process? This won't just affect referendums, but infrastructure, natural resource projects etc.
Click to expand...
From what I've read of the Quebec independence referendum in the past, the First Nations had threats then of "this succeeds we secede from Quebec".

In general though, I've always thought the northern borders of Canadian provinces it's very clear zero thought got put into them back when they were drawn and there's a couple lightly populated provinces that should be created from Quebec as well as all the Western provinces that border the U.S. to their south and Yukon/NWT to their north, or better yet just add the predominantly First Nations land in the northern parts of the provinces to either Yukon or the NW Territories where there's more people similar to them because it's clear their current provincial governments they'd always be marginal side concerns beyond mineral rights. Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, B.C., Quebec even, you could remove almost the northern half of the land territory and lose practically nothing for how the remaining part of the province functions. (Northern Ontario is likewise lightly populated but due to the Hudson Bay you can't really add it anywhere else unless Manitoba got on an expansion kick.)

In the event of a serious independence referendum from one province like Alberta, that's a potential Molotov cocktail that would create future skirmishes similar to what happened when the Soviet Union disintegrated that we're still dealing with where you're taking a border intended to be not real in the sense of it's an intra-state provincial or state border and suddenly making it very hard where you have people long-term residing in an area believing they're part of this group but are on the wrong side of the new border. (If you hypothetically ever had the U.S. disintegrate, you would have the same issue with metro areas located in multiple states. The Indiana/Illinois border is an obvious example, most of southern/eastern Illinois would want to be in Indiana and NW Indiana would want to be in Illinois, each for political reasons).
 
Last edited:
Well guess we’re having a referendum on if we want a referendum. What a disaster for the separatists.
 

Canada negotiating purchase of aerial surveillance system with Swedes instead of American competitor​

OTTAWA – In front of a packed room of Canadian corporate defence and security leaders, Prime Minister Mark Carney announced that Canada has entered negotiations to procure GlobalEye, an advanced aerial surveillance system developed in Sweden that uses Canadian-made jets.

The GlobalEye is an airborne warning and control system (AEW&C) created by Swedish defence and security company Saab. The radar system is integrated into Bombardier’s Global 6500, transforming the corporate jet into a cutting-edge surveillance aircraft.

The federal government is negotiating a deal that would see at least one third of the projected fleet of the GlobalEye aircraft manufactured in Canada over the next 15 years.

Buy Canada Jobs​

Once the contracts are signed, sealed and delivered, Bombardier could be manufacturing at least 40 aircraft in its plants in Montreal and Toronto. The projected number also includes orders from Canada’s allies.

Carney outlined the broad strokes in Ottawa, during a keynote speech at CANSEC, the largest defence and security trade conference in Canada.

In a news release, the government said the deal has the potential to support more than 3,000 jobs in the Canadian aerospace and defence sector from skilled trades to engineering to computing.

The CBC has reported that the Department of National Defence is interested in purchasing six GlobalEye systems at a cost of more than $5 billion. Once built, the GlobalEye will be a key part of bolstering North American security, by detecting and deterring threats in the Arctic.

Meanwhile European media has reported that the NATO Support and Procurement Agency (NSPA) selected the joint Saab-Bombardier GlobalEye to replace its aging fleet of 14 Boeing E-3A Sentries. Other countries such France, Germany, Denmark and Finland are also interested in purchasing the specialized radar planes.

Less U.S. reliance​

The announcement of the negotiations also aligns with the Carney government’s Defence Industrial Strategy of reducing reliance on the United States, while building up the domestic military industrial base.

The DIS aims to double non-U.S. exports over the next ten years and give Canadian companies a 70 per cent share of defence contacts.

In choosing to negotiate with Saab, Canada is shutting the door on the American option of purchasing the Boeing E-7A Wedgetail surveillance aircraft, which the military was also considering.

During April’s Liberal convention, Carney was rewarded with rousing applause when he declared that “the days of our military sending 70 cents of every dollar to the United States are over.”

Other measures announced​

In his breakfast keynote on Wednesday, Carney also announced that the government is implementing a new 90-day approval standard to provide “more predictable decisions.”

He also announced:
  • Incentivizing foreign contractors to subcontract to Canadian firms and invest in the domestic supply chain.
  • A new strategic partnership to enable companies to work more closely with government to build sovereign capability.
  • A Defence Concierge Service to connect small and medium businesses with the right programs, provincial partners and export opportunities.
  • The creation of a Defence Advisory Forum to ensure government and industry goals remain in synch. The advisory forum will be co-chaired by the ministers of National Defence, Industry, and the Secretary of State for Defence Procurement.

European ties, American blowback​

In the past few months, Canada has been successful in being named the new global headquarters for the Defence, Security and Resilience Bank, which comes with 3500 projected jobs.

Canada is also participating in Security Action for Europe (SAFE), an European Union loan program to boost military industrial capability.

Participation in SAFE gives Canadian companies preferential access to European procurement projects.

But while closer ties have been forged with Europe, the U.S. relationship is fraying.

Earlier this month, Elbridge Colby, the U.S. undersecretary for defence announced the suspension of the Permanent Joint Board on Defense.

The advisory board for U.S.-Canada bilateral defence co-operation was established in 1940.

Tensions have also increased over Canada’s decision to review the procurement of F-35s from U.S. based Lockheed Martin, while re-evaluating the merits of the Gripen Fighter, a jet also made by Saab.

----------------------------------------------------------

If I goto a car dealership and get treated like trash, why would I buy from you? I'm going to one of your competitors.
 
The F-35 program is the big one. Withdraw from that and the US will take notice and, under Trump react - badly!

That said as much as I'm an admirer of the Gripen I'm not sure there isn't a better alternative available in the Rafale if only because it's range (1800K) far exceeds the Gripen's at 800K and Canada is a big country with a huge airspace to defend. Given the fact there's such a significant difference in effective range purchasing the Gripen would probably mean committing to buying more units just to get the same coverage provided by the Raphale.

Where the Gripen wins hand's down of course is purchase price & running cost. While the difference in purchase price (about 40% ) makes the Gripen cheaper per unit the need for additional air frames would IMO largely eat up most of the initial difference in contract price. Operating costs is another matter though. If what the AI tells me is true? The annual operating cost of the Raphale is three times that of the Gripen. Of course China would probably give you a very good deal to! No strings attached I'm sure. :)

So over to the Canadians here on WAB. What say you?
 
Last edited:
On a final note the F-35 is midway in range and price per unit between the Gripen and the Rafale so does it make make sense to cancel the contract? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for nations making independent purchasing decisions in the face of external pressure to do otherwise but if the other 'deals' available aren't any better or perhaps even slightly worse that the one your being pressured to take?
 
Last edited:
Officer of Engineers said:
Block 2 is a pure 5th Generation fighter vs the 4.5 Rafale and the Gippen.
Click to expand...
Also true and if any near to medium future enemy is let's say of Asian origin that would likely be an issue. If the enemy is however of Slavic origin? Not so much. Best bet? Be prepared for the worst possible threat.
 
Last edited:
Monash said:
On a final note the F-35 is midway in range and price per unit between the Gripen and the Rafale so does it make make sense to cancel the contract? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for nations making independent purchasing decisions in the face of external pressure to do otherwise but if the other 'deals' available aren't any better or perhaps even slightly worse that the one your being pressured to take?
Click to expand...
The primary benefit Carney is seeking is jobs, not military effectiveness. The SAAB GLOBALEYE is going to be housed on a BORMAC airframe which would be built in Canada. As such, the GRIPEN offers more jobs than the F-35 but then there is this nasty thing called a contract that is not worth the money to get out of. So, the idea is going to be a mixed fleet. How many F-35s and how many GRIPENs (or KF-21s) is open to speculation but there is no doubt the military prefers the F-35s but 10,000 jobs is hard for the military to argue against.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top