As allies rely on single security umbrella, Canada is positioning inside of a new defence financing system that could reshape military spending, investment, and geopolitical influence for decades.
How are private sources chosen and what influence do they have once engaged? This sounds ominous to me, industry needs to back off power not get finded to create it. Military spending is far outside my wheelhouse but I did once do a tour at Canada s Department of Supply and Services over 40 years ago. Suppporting and funding Canada s suppliers was a fundamental concept but this was just before NAFTA when everything collapsed. I remember wondering if they really thought the Americans would always have our backs but who d listen to a young woman back then. I come from a mix of prefamine Irish and UELs who dug a living out of the soil in the Maritimes in the 1700s. With help from the local First Nations I might add, the legend lingers how they helped them find food and were in turn approached in harsh winters. Mistrust of the US was deeply inbred and Skedaddle Ridge from Maine to New Brunswick is still just a memory away.
Private capital may help build capacity faster, but Canadians should absolutely be asking who chooses those investors, what strings come attached, and how much influence they gain once they’re inside the system.
I don’t think the old assumption that “the Americans will always have our backs” holds anymore.
But replacing one dependency with another wouldn’t be much of a victory either.
Defence, data, supply chains, and sovereignty all have to stay under democratic control.
And while I m thrilled you are raising such questions here, is anyone around who should be?We civil servant officers were expected to raise fll range policy challenges for the higher ups to consider. There was loads of press, even those media that leaned also featured other side arguments in a tame journo whose writings helped me create a fast briefing on something I knew nothing about. Could not do that today. They re just not around now.
Different leash is right. Choke collars might be next.
There are two issues you raise needing further consideration: 1. Who will be the private investors and what influence migh they exercise on the institution? 2. Who will provide the necessary IT services this will require?
As to the first, investors are attracted by stability and return on investment. Those investors attempting to influence the institutions they've invested in are doing so to increase the return on their investment. There are huge numbers of (private) institutional investors who are far more concerned with stability, and a return that meets or exceeds their targeted return on investment. Examples are banks, pension funds, and even businesses with a broad mix of investments. They have no interest in getting involved in the activities that generate that return.
As to the second, it is absolutely critical that the all the IT infrastructure (including, where appropriate, AI) is provided by, and located in, one or more of the members of the Bank. That eliminates Palantir, Microsoft, Apple, Google/Alphabet, and every IT/AI provider based in the U.S. That is not unrealistic. There are numerous efforts already well underway outside of the US to do that.
I agree that the bigger concern isn't necessarily who provides the capital but who controls the systems.
Pension funds and institutional investors are generally looking for stable returns, not operational control.
The IT and data sovereignty question may ultimately prove more important than the financing question.
If allies are building a system designed to reduce dependency, it makes little sense to build the digital backbone on infrastructure controlled outside the partnership.
That's a discussion I suspect we'll be having a lot more often in the years ahead.
As far as I've been able to determine, the proposal involves 19 democratic nations, but I haven't yet seen a finalized public list of all participating countries.
What is clear is that the concept is aimed at allied nations that share security, defence, and democratic governance interests.
I'll be keeping an eye out for more details as the project develops because the membership list will tell us a great deal about where this is headed.
Goodness no, not Palantir!!! We don't want it anywhere near this! I want to see us get rid of the contracts with them that we already have!
I am totally with you on this issue.
Ditto.
While Canada makes deals America makes Algae.
How are private sources chosen and what influence do they have once engaged? This sounds ominous to me, industry needs to back off power not get finded to create it. Military spending is far outside my wheelhouse but I did once do a tour at Canada s Department of Supply and Services over 40 years ago. Suppporting and funding Canada s suppliers was a fundamental concept but this was just before NAFTA when everything collapsed. I remember wondering if they really thought the Americans would always have our backs but who d listen to a young woman back then. I come from a mix of prefamine Irish and UELs who dug a living out of the soil in the Maritimes in the 1700s. With help from the local First Nations I might add, the legend lingers how they helped them find food and were in turn approached in harsh winters. Mistrust of the US was deeply inbred and Skedaddle Ridge from Maine to New Brunswick is still just a memory away.
That’s exactly the right question, Bev.
Private capital may help build capacity faster, but Canadians should absolutely be asking who chooses those investors, what strings come attached, and how much influence they gain once they’re inside the system.
I don’t think the old assumption that “the Americans will always have our backs” holds anymore.
But replacing one dependency with another wouldn’t be much of a victory either.
Defence, data, supply chains, and sovereignty all have to stay under democratic control.
Otherwise we’re not building independence.
We’re just renting a different leash.
And while I m thrilled you are raising such questions here, is anyone around who should be?We civil servant officers were expected to raise fll range policy challenges for the higher ups to consider. There was loads of press, even those media that leaned also featured other side arguments in a tame journo whose writings helped me create a fast briefing on something I knew nothing about. Could not do that today. They re just not around now.
Different leash is right. Choke collars might be next.
There are two issues you raise needing further consideration: 1. Who will be the private investors and what influence migh they exercise on the institution? 2. Who will provide the necessary IT services this will require?
As to the first, investors are attracted by stability and return on investment. Those investors attempting to influence the institutions they've invested in are doing so to increase the return on their investment. There are huge numbers of (private) institutional investors who are far more concerned with stability, and a return that meets or exceeds their targeted return on investment. Examples are banks, pension funds, and even businesses with a broad mix of investments. They have no interest in getting involved in the activities that generate that return.
As to the second, it is absolutely critical that the all the IT infrastructure (including, where appropriate, AI) is provided by, and located in, one or more of the members of the Bank. That eliminates Palantir, Microsoft, Apple, Google/Alphabet, and every IT/AI provider based in the U.S. That is not unrealistic. There are numerous efforts already well underway outside of the US to do that.
Excellent points, Brad.
I agree that the bigger concern isn't necessarily who provides the capital but who controls the systems.
Pension funds and institutional investors are generally looking for stable returns, not operational control.
The IT and data sovereignty question may ultimately prove more important than the financing question.
If allies are building a system designed to reduce dependency, it makes little sense to build the digital backbone on infrastructure controlled outside the partnership.
That's a discussion I suspect we'll be having a lot more often in the years ahead.
Fred, do you know which nations will be involved?
Good question.
As far as I've been able to determine, the proposal involves 19 democratic nations, but I haven't yet seen a finalized public list of all participating countries.
What is clear is that the concept is aimed at allied nations that share security, defence, and democratic governance interests.
I'll be keeping an eye out for more details as the project develops because the membership list will tell us a great deal about where this is headed.
Another great one Fred, thanks :)