So our defence budget is too small. Our defence generals and politicians all agree that we need better and more planes, and ships, and other help for our armed forces. When we look south, our neighbour does have a lot bigger defence system, but what all is included in the U.S. defence budget?
Yes, the U.S. has more and newer planes, boats, tanks, and even artillery. But what else is included in their defence budget? Years ago I wondered why the U.S. wanted to use the Mississippi River system to transport Canadian grain to ports rather than use the St. Lawrence Seaway. I discovered that the Mississippi River system was constructed and maintained by the U.S. defence department as part of its defence system, so the fees to use that waterway were considerably lower than what the seaway charged.
A few years later, I noticed that the U.S. interstate highway system seemed to be much better constructed (roadbed, all cement surface instead of pavement, much wider with long straight stretches that you could land a jet plane on, roomier roads and ditches, and much stronger overpasses and bridges that could support heavy war machines. Then I found out that the U.S. army engineers had designed the interstates. They seemed to be much better maintained too.
Then I noticed that many U.S. airports were also overbuilt to easily handle military planes and “flying boxcars” that can hold a tank. There are many U.S. seaports that are built to navy specs, and railroads that you often notice military equipment on!
If the U.S. transferred some of its transportation budget to the defence budget, the defence budget would be much larger. If Canada did that with just a stroke of a pen, how much would our defence budget increase?
Canada has wasted (maybe for political gain) some major money by handing over maintenance of some of Canada’s fighter jets to the provinces by way of the “transfer of payment”. Then different provinces gave contracts to different firms (maybe again because of politics), with the result that the electronic software was not the same in the jets from Alberta as the ones in Newfoundland. If a jet from Alberta landed with a problem in Newfoundland, a mechanic from Alberta would have to be flown to Newfoundland to repair it!
I had an electronic geek friend who could interface to programs on jets from any province. He could often do the work by computer from Ottawa, but sometimes had to fly to wherever the broken jet was. He worked several years past retirement time because no one else had been trained. After he retired, a few weeks later, he was brought back on contract because some of those old jets were still in service and still no one had been trained.
Several years ago, some new jets were ordered and the U.S. seller maintained the sole right to do all maintenance of those new jets. With today’s new administration south of the border, the quality of that deal looks questionable.
Through the past century, many political decisions have been made using too much influence from some very rich companies and people. Too many of those very rich people got richer because of underpaid or slave labour. A lot of the lower price of food (dairy, beef, pork, chicken, fruit, vegetables, and eggs) are due to lower paid foreign workers. Domestic workers are accustomed to a higher wage scale. Much of the North American auto industry has moved to Asia where wages are considerably lower (for plant workers and engineers). Asia has the same access to robotics as North America!
Recently, (and in years gone by) Canada’s supply management system has been under attack by both short-sighted economists and even countries that either never had or did away with supply management for milk, poultry, and eggs. The reason that Canada invented and kept supply management is because marketing with the “supply and demand” system didn’t work! Any production system that involves animals must be planned months or even years before the product goes to market. Poultry and egg production requires a build up of a flock to either produce eggs or meat. That can be from months to years. Before a farmer invests 20 years of profit, he has to convince the lender that he can repay the loan and assure a long-term, profitable market for what he will produce. Dairy production requires even longer-term planning.
Other places like New Zealand, Europe, and even the state of California have used the quota system to control over-production but never used a cost of production to arrive at a price. They relied on what chain stores and milk plants would pay. The farmers never used a country-wide milk board to find the best places to sell milk to or find a different processor if one quit or went into receivership. They had no guarantee of payment if a processor quit or went bankrupt. Most new barns for milk or chicken-egg production cost more than a million dollars to build.
If a farmer buys all the cows to start milking, cows are about $4,000 each! Yes, the milk quota for each cow is about $30,000 for each cow. If a farmer starts milking in the U.S., he doesn’t need quota, but he will need 10 times as many cows to make a living. In the U.S. the farmer has to find his own market for his milk. A five day week is just a myth on animal farms where animals require food, cleaning, milking or egg collection regularly every day. Sick animals require attention whenever! Stress is always a factor on farms, but countries that abandoned their quota system have experienced a drastic increase in mental health and suicides when bankruptcy is inevitable. And their store price of dairy products are about the same, with less food security.
I feel sorry for our American neighbours when their administration tries to correct past mistakes by applying tariffs to countries that didn’t make those mistakes. Let’s not follow them down the same rabbit hole.
Chris Judd is a farmer in Clarendon on land that has been in his family for generations.
