Introduction
Canada will soon be going to the polls to elect a new government. The choices are going to be, a continuation of the same policies and promises as we have had for the last nine years, a continuation of the same government with promises of new policies and promises or a different government with new policies and promises. No matter which choice is made, a new government is going to have significant difficulties in making improvements, considering the havoc that nine years of Trudeau rule has left us with. In addition, a new President of the United States who is determined to impose crippling tariffs on enemies and friends alike will impose a nearly worldwide challenge to anything resembling normal. But assuming that politics will ameliorate the effect of Trump madness syndrome, I have tried here to present some policies that could significantly improve the remainder of the issues related to Canada. Outside of Trump imposed chaos the primary issues are; jobs, a healthy Canadian economy, personal economic stability, security, sovereignty and defense, including dealing with the 2% GDP NATO target and particularly defense of the north.
Society
First and foremost Canada must deal with the development of a society where all Canadians prosper. Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre has made a cornerstone of his platform giving Canadians back control of their lives, but I am afraid that my first policy proposal is contrary to the conservative vision. I believe that for Canadians to have control of their lives, they. must have a say in those conditions and decisions that affect them.
Canadians get to participate in the way the country’s governments works through elections, but business and service environments are dictatorships. A few at the top make all the decisions and the majority of people involved in the company have no say. This can change, and it can change in a good way.
In the past, unions have been promoted as the solution to greed and corruption in the management of organizations. Unions we are told protect the workers from unfair management practices. But the real effect of unions is that the issues become a clash of titans. Large international unions and large corporate entities battle to see who is bigger and has the power. In reality, neither the company nor the union, have the best interests of the individual in mind. Both have loftier goals and objectives, and neither is interested in the day to day lives of the employees. Unions will negotiate away the jobs of whole segments of their membership in order to win concessions for a more important group. I have experienced cases where a large union , in order to get concessions in negotiations with a large important company has taken strike action which closed a smaller company. The employees of the smaller company were sacrificed for the greater good (better wages for the employees of the larger company. Organizations such as teacher’s unions will trade the number of teachers for more holidays. Companies, school boards and city governments will trade higher wages for the union sacrificing the teachers’ jobs, or the number of support jobs of a number of employees.
In a modern society, the adversarial union, management relationship has no place. The problem with this relationship is that it is intentionally based on both sides promoting mistrust. If on the other hand both the company and the union were working from the same data: the same financial records, the same market data, the same costs, addressing the same problems and the same opportunities; the two could work together to solve problems. They could take steps to mitigate problems and take advantage of opportunities. Of course, this cannot happen if the management team have a direction dictated to them by a higher corporate leadership, and it cannot happen if a larger national union with other, larger strategic motives is instructing the local employee union. Therefore, I propose the following.
That in CANADA, By Law, all organizations with more than five employees must have an employee union. In organizations such as Canada Post, the number of union members will reflect the staff related to the closest municipality. The union must Include all employees except management, but the union cannot be larger than the number of non-management employees in the specific organization.
A specific organization meaning, a specific hospital, school, factory, etc. (If an organization has 25 facilities, each facility must have a union that is no bigger than the number of employees in that facility. I.e. A school with a staff of 20 or a school with a staff of 300 would each have a union no bigger than the number of staff. If a large organization chooses to close a facility, by law, all employees of that facility must be treated equally, regardless of position or title. If the organization is to close a facility and terminate the employees, they must, by law terminate all management as well. If an organization attempts to circumvent this rule, the corporate management would be held criminally liable
Each municipality will have their own public service employee union, comprising only employees of the specific village, town, city. Municipalities will have two union designations: essential services and nonessential services plus a community advisory council. The unions will include: an essential service designation, comprised of municipal workers such as police, fire, ambulance, and health services, as determined by provincial law. A union of all other municipal employees will comprise the second union organization. The two unions will negotiate as one and benefits of negotiations will apply to all. However, the essential services employees are not allowed to take part in strikes or other labour actions.
The union cannot be bigger than the organization and the organization cannot be bigger than the union
Where large organizations must coordinate among numerous individual satellite organizations each satellite organization must be represented by both management and their union, thus the management and employees become equal partners and must rely on each other.
Unions must have access to the organization’s business plan, operational performance and financial status
Unions must have a seat at the organizations or municipality’s meetings, and committees.
Negotiations
Companies and corporations must negotiate contracts with each facility, individually unless the individual unions agree to other methods. If the corporation wants to negotiate with groups of facilities, the memberships of the facility unions must determine what group they will join, thus preserving issues and concerns that apply to specific facilities
Advisory councils for municipalities are made up of citizens of the community and must represent the demographics of the community
Government’s Role
The government’s role is to measure and communicate performance and provide support. The government should reward performance for those organizations that perform well. Ie: increase productivity, grow or expand thus creating jobs, show innovation, or technological advancement.
Benefits
Improved economy through improved individual organizational performance.
Management and employees have common goals, common problems and are required to find common solutions, without interference from entities with other unrelated objectives.
Employees protect their own interests through helping the organization succeed.
Employers are forced to consider their employees in all decisions.
Neither large organizations nor large unions have power over individuals.
Canada’s Economy
Oil and LNG (Liquified Natural Gas)
The Big Picture
In 2020 Canada produced 712,000 Kt 712 million metric tons of co2. Or 4.9% of China’s 14,498,000 kts and 1.41% of the global total. China, the U.S., the E.U., Russia, India and Brazil account for 62% of global emissions, with China alone accounting for 27%. Suffice it to say, Canada is not the problem, and neither are we the solution. If Canada reduced our total GHG (Green House Gas) emissions to ZERO, China would at their current rate replace our total contribution to greenhouse gases in approximately 1.5 months.
Some might say we should be an example, but to be an example one must be in a position where being an example would have an effect. We have no leverage or influence on China, Brazil, India (the Liberal government sealed that deal), and for the next four years we will have no influence on the U.S., so we are going to be an example to whom? Yes, we can get our own house in order, but better to do that through adopting and improving ideas developed by others or by shipping ethical LNG to customers currently using coal and thus reducing the world’s emissions. But Canada must consider the realities of our position in the world. A position that has deteriorated over the last nine years. It is time for Canada to step up, face reality and start to grow our country, both in world stature and economically.
Another Reality
The worldwide need for oil is not going away any time soon. There are many daily uses for oil where technical solutions for their replacement are still far in the future. Aircraft still need fuel. Electric commercial aircraft are decades in the future. While worldwide shipping is making changes to improve efficiency and to reduce oil use, an alternative to marine diesel power is far off. Also, oil is the basis for lubricants, plastics, road asphalt and other everyday products. Oil is many years from becoming obsolete. For Canada to forgo involvement in that market surpasses foolishness. Should Canada continue to develop technologies to make our oil and gas industries as ecologically responsible as possible, yes, of course.
Nuclear
Develop and build SNRS (Small Nuclear Reactors) and VSNR, (Very Small Nuclear Reactors) for local energy needs for remote communities in the north, for remote mining operations, for refineries, and other facilities with high electricity needs.
Benefits
Create a new industry for Canada, accelerate mining and resource development.
The U.S. Problem
Canada cannot grow a strong economy without taking advantage of our enormous natural resources, and Canada cannot maximize our benefit from those resources so long as we are restricted by trading only with the U.S. Therefore, Canada must open new markets particularly for oil and Natural gas, but also minerals, pulp and paper, potash, wheat and other grains We need new pipelines to both coasts that open markets in both Europe and Asia. If Quebec blocks oil transit to the east coast, then we must develop oil and LNG terminals, as well as refineries in Churchill Manitoba and ship from there. Canada must start refining our own oil in order to capture the enormous benefits of in-house processing. Create the jobs here and sell finished product rather than just raw materials.
Other Resources
Lumber
For the Near future, Canada can use all the lumber we can produce to build houses in our own country. Instead of dealing with American Tariffs, our government should support Canadian use of lumber by making it cheaper for Canadian builders to build homes, including a focused effort to improve housing, hospitals, schools , and other infrastructure in First Nations communities. Eliminating federal and provincial taxes on building materials, including lumber, cement, plumbing and electrical products, home fixtures, appliances, ceramics, and others. Diverting Canadian Lumber to uses at home by massively expanding the market for lumber at home is a better solution than exporting it to create American jobs.
Minerals
Canada should drastically reduce red tape and fast track approvals for ethical and environmentally conscious mining projects. Specifically indigenous rights, treaties and benefits should be established and clarified quickly, amicably and efficiently. It should be established early on who speaks for the Indigenous peoples effected and their involvement must start at the very beginning of a project.
Technology
The government should create a list of burgeoning technologies, and establish, for each technology, a centre of excellence made up of universities, research centers and corporations, tasked with development and national distribution of data and developments. There should be a government entity available for identifying, evaluating and introducing independent third-party innovations into the work of the technology centres.
Benefits
The benefits from the above are jobs, homes, and a strong economy. Plus improved opportunities, and living standards for all Canadians, including indigenous and northern residents. Opening the gates and removing restrictions, will encourage investment and provide opportunities, jobs and an abundance of secondary businesses in Canada. It will create centres of excellence and high level opportunities in Canadian Universities.
Canadian Defence and Sovereignty
Canadians have since the last world war, felt that their geopolitical position made them safe from adversaries. The impassable Arctic to the North and the juggernaut that is the US military to the south, gave us the illusion of safety. This thinking is truly illusionary. The U.S. is and never has been interested in protecting Canada. NORAD, The North American Air Defense alliance is in reality a U.S. Defense strategy with Canada the designated killing ground, or forward defense line for the U.S.
It is high time that Canada, and Canadians came to the realization that Canada, like every other nation must be able to defend itself from predictor nations, and current events of 2024 and early 2025 suggest that one of the biggest predators may be our neighbor to the south. We must get serious about Canada’s defence
Canada’s Military
Canada’s military, the RCN, RCAF, and the Canadian army are currently in very rough shape. All services have significant manpower shortages. The navy has old ships, almost useless submarines and significant maintenance issues even with their new ships. The air force has aircraft that are far older than their pilots. Some aircraft are being cannibalized in order to keep a minimal number of aircraft flying. The army’s equipment is less than 50% operational with a significant shortage of spare parts. But we do have an abundance of admirals and generals that we do not need.
What we do need is a modern military, designed to protect Canada and if necessary, fight effectively in any future wars. In the first world war, Canada wasn’t prepared, in the second world war, Canada wasn’t prepared. In the modern world, not being prepared for a future war, simply isn’t an option. Canada needs a modern future focused military that provides opportunities for a career, with opportunities for advancement and opportunities to work with modern technologies. Recommendations for improvement to Canada’s military include:
Navy
Reduce the Nation Shipbuilding Programs planned 15 CSC ships to between 2and 4 River Class ships. At a cost of 84 Billion dollar for the 15 ships that are planned, the cost of each ship will be 5.6 billion dollars. Limiting the quantity to 4 would save $61.6 billion dollars. 2 large icebreakers are estimated to cost $ 8.5 billion dollars, which still leaves a remaining savings of$53.1 billion.
Instead of large, expensive destroyer ships designed to join American Aircraft Carrier battle groups, Canada should focus on small high tech ships designed to protect Canada’s coastlines and sea routes. Such a ship would be the newest upgrade to the Swedish designed Visby, the version 5 currently being developed in Sweden. These ships cost $ 200 million each to build. Canada could build over 200 of these small, fast, high-tech ships for the billions saved in scraping the CSC project. Canada could build as many as 12 of these impressive 75-100 meter combat capable corvettes for half the cost of ONE CSC ship. Canada could build 6 anti-air, anti-ship variants and 6 anti-submarine variants), Canada could also build 12 under ice capable, conventionally powered submarines. New Swedish submarines are expected to cost $400 million to $ 700, million each making the cost of 12 about $7 billion. All of which still leaves a savings from a cancelled CSC program at $40 billion dollars. Corvettes and submarines could be based, 4 on each coast including four at a new northern region naval base at Churchill Manitoba. Ships destined for Churchill could at a reasonable cost increase, have reinforced hulls for work in minimal ice.
Other Benefits: smaller ships have smaller crews, which will spread our manpower further, and affording more opportunity for current sailors to get promotions, and a better variety of opportunities for new recruits. Smaller ships also have lower operating costs, and lower maintenance costs.
Note: The Ukraine war has shown the risks to larger ships in an age of air and sea borne drones. A risk that will increase with underwater drones that are in development. Smaller, faster ships would have improved survival options in this environment. The Visby class corvette has a top speed exceeding 35 knots or over 45 mph.
Benefits
More ships for the same or less money
Smaller ships with just as much firepower, fewer crew, cheaper maintenance and operating costs, and more opportunity for sailors
NOTE: The same firepower is a relative term, These smaller ships may have 12-16 anti aircraft missiles instead of 48, or 8 anti-ship missiles instead of 24 or more, but that leaves two questions; How many of these weapons do you need and how many ships do you need.
Ships that protect Canada not American Aircraft Carriers
Opportunities for more Canadian shipyards
Opportunity for a strong ally that shares our northern focus
Air Force
Canada’s Air Force has committed to the F35 fighter jet. However, I wonder what exactly determined that decision. Was it the best new combat aircraft for Canada, or was it promoted by the U.S and our senior air force leadership as the best. There are two questions that no one has asked or answered. The first question is: Do our senior military leaders have Canada’s best interests in mind or are they unduly influenced by their relations with U.S. military leaders. Every senior Canadian officer has spent time serving as a subordinate to American generals, or admirals. When major Canadian purchases of equipment are being decided, how much influence do those American generals exert? How much do Canadian generals feel they owe to their American bosses? The second question is, how much of procurement decisions are based on direct American government interference? There is no doubt that the government of the U.S. is the primary marketing arm of the American military industrial complex.
But let us take a moment to see what we are actually buying. In the F35 program there are production issues that are hidden even from American oversight committees. The Americans themselves question the sustainability of the F35. From a Canadian national security standpoint there are also risks. Canada has no access to the software codes that manage the aircrafts systems. There is a legitimate question as to whether the U.S. can remotely monitor or modify that software, giving them the ability to reduce the capabilities of aircraft in Canadian operation. In the age of Trump, to not consider this risk is foolhardy. In addition maintenance work, upgrades, or software changes for the F35, must, per the contract, be conducted in the U.S. Therefore, all manufacturing and upgrade work will benefit the U.S. economy. Canada meanwhile gets all of the operating costs. Considering the current U.S. administrations bullying posture toward Canada, why would we put our own security at risk, to subsidies U.S. companies? Therefore, contrary to both Liberal and past Conservative choices, I suggest the following:
Cancel the F35 fighter deal, and deals for Boeing surveillance aircraft. Replacing them with the purchase of Saab Gripen fighter aircraft, and Saab/Bombardier AEW and ASW aircraft, all to be built in Canada. I.E. contributing to Canada’s economy instead of America’s. Combine such a strategy with a larger military re-equipment alliance with Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, and Greenland. The agreement would include: fighter jets, surveillance aircraft, drones and nano-drones, mobile artillery, specialized arctic Armored Personnel Carriers, missile defense platforms, corvette sized ships, submarines, and small arms, with all equipment for Canada, made in Canada. In return Canada would be a strategic re-supply hub for the military equipment needs for our Nordic partners. This military alliance could be coupled with a trade alliance, benefiting all countries involved. Canada could also contribute through combined Arctic combat training exercises for land, sea and air training.
Encourage Bombardier to design and build a Canadian High altitude, long endurance drone, as well as small kamikaze drones such as the Turkish drones being used in Ukraine, thus moving Canada into a future technological era. This opportunity could be expanded to marine surface and subsurface drones as well.
Benefits
Canadian manufacturing opportunities, good paying jobs, opportunities for technological developments and improvements, and the development of a strong alliance that is not tied to our southern neighbour who just happens at this moment to be threatening Canada’s existence.
Donald J Trump
Army
Develop a true northern command, with army bases in Whitehorse, Yellowknife and Churchill, each with battalion sized units equipped specifically for arctic warfare. Ideally co-locate an air force base at Whitehorse and Yellowknife, and an air force and a Navy base at Churchill. (See Navy section)
Benefits
Expanding Canada’s military presence into the North will give Canada a true northern defence focus, and make it a visible northern power, and a strong northern partner.
Coast Guard
Build a string of Coast Guard stations, with responsibility for development of navigation aids and search and rescue, across the Northwest passage. Maned by Native peoples and managed by the Northwest Territories and Nunavut.
Northern Infrastructure
Build northern strategically important rail. and road infrastructure. Build a chain of Docking facilities at arctic towns ( can be included with Coast Guard infrastructure development). Build airport facilities in additional arctic towns for forward combat aircraft dispersal, and for military and civilian cargo. Generally upgrade living conditions in Northern Communities.
Benefits
Improved arctic sovereignty and defense. Improved access to mineral resources. Improved quality of life for northern inhabitants.
Coast Guard Stations will establish Canadian sovereignty over the NWP (Northwest Passage). Provide good dependable incomes to northern residents. Provide spin off jobs and businesses to northern communities.
Positive Benefits for Southern Canada
If all of the above sound like there is only a northern or arctic focus in this post. This is simply not so.
So, what does the southern half of the country get?
Aside from aircraft factories, ship building, nuclear plant manufacturing, and other military industrial facilities, the south will have to support nearly all of the above strategies. Roads, pipelines, refineries, port facilities, airports, Coast Guard stations etc., all will need equipment, building materials, components and parts and services of every kind.
Providing these supplies and services will create jobs across the country. One specific benefit will be the corvette ship building effort. Because these ships are smaller, there is no need to use only the three largest ship builders I to build them, thus several smaller shipyards on the east coast and in Ontario will be able to participate.
Benefits for all of Canada
All of Canada will benefit from this building and technological boom. Good jobs, and high labour demand will expand the country, bring back industry to rural parts of the country, open up new job opportunities in new industries and create a demand for additional skilled workers, thus growing our population, our GDP and our GDP per capital.
How does all of this get paid for?
A good question. Paying for new ships has already been covered. Pipelines, and gas lines will be built by private money, encouraged by faster, more efficient permitting and approval processes. A Swedish alliance once established will encourage both Swedish and Canadian companies to get involved. After that the additional economic activity will drive additional government revenue which can be reinvested into additional activities on the above list.
The Timeline?
Once we have a new government, the CSC and F35 contracts could be cancelled in a few months. New contracts with Sweden within a year (the Gripen contract information is already available). Pipeline contracts, roads, rail, and military base contracts should take 12-18 months. Northern Alliances could take years, however the initial economic ties could happen within a couple of years. SNRs maybe 4-5 years. The full effect of the other projects to start being seen and felt (3years). Completion – 8-10 years. Benefits – on-going.
