Excellent breakdown — the supplier map is especially useful. Your closing line captures it: twelve submarines, one message.
What strikes me is that the strategic case and the industrial case point the same way here. Interoperability with Germany and Norway, deeper SAFE participation, and a two-way door into Europe’s defence market — these reinforce each other rather than compete. That’s rare in a procurement this size.
The fair counterpoint, visible even in your comments, is scepticism about the economic promises and about “tying” Canada to any one partner. Worth taking seriously. But an offset package only becomes real through exactly the kind of domestic ecosystem you’ve mapped — which is why the supplier commitments matter more than the headline numbers. Following your work closely; this is the conversation that needs having.
Did you vote? That's when they asked you. If you wanna complain about the unfairness of the first past the post electoral system, you won't get an agruement out of me, but implying that your opinion should be specifically consulted because you pay taxes is a little disingenuous. We all do, to one extent or another, and we mostly have access to the same levers of power. Which can definitely be underwhelming...
I'm going to be so disappointed if I'm engaging with a bot, or even just a troll. Oh well.
I can put you in touch with the team that did the analysis. We pulled it off https://team212cd.ca/ I know economic impact analysis and multipliers can appear misleading!
Thanks for this. I understand multipliers. I've used them and I know they are typically false. It's attribution in a vacuum. Again really appreciate the link. Two more announcements like this with multipliers for ‘ job created” and Canada won't have any unemployment at all. 🙂
Excellent breakdown — the supplier map is especially useful. Your closing line captures it: twelve submarines, one message.
What strikes me is that the strategic case and the industrial case point the same way here. Interoperability with Germany and Norway, deeper SAFE participation, and a two-way door into Europe’s defence market — these reinforce each other rather than compete. That’s rare in a procurement this size.
The fair counterpoint, visible even in your comments, is scepticism about the economic promises and about “tying” Canada to any one partner. Worth taking seriously. But an offset package only becomes real through exactly the kind of domestic ecosystem you’ve mapped — which is why the supplier commitments matter more than the headline numbers. Following your work closely; this is the conversation that needs having.
Thanks Guido - glad this is moving forward regardless of which company was selected as a preferred bidder. The Royal Canadian Navy needs those boats!
I do not want to tied to Europe.
Nobody asked me.
It is my tax dollars.
Did you vote? That's when they asked you. If you wanna complain about the unfairness of the first past the post electoral system, you won't get an agruement out of me, but implying that your opinion should be specifically consulted because you pay taxes is a little disingenuous. We all do, to one extent or another, and we mostly have access to the same levers of power. Which can definitely be underwhelming...
I'm going to be so disappointed if I'm engaging with a bot, or even just a troll. Oh well.
650,000 jobs over the life time. Is 16,250 jobs a year for 40 years. Anyone else wanna call bullshit? Any breakdown available?
Inflation!
On the number of jobs? or are your joking? I love the cheerleading but no job numbers and where is the 75% made in Canada on this spend.?
I can put you in touch with the team that did the analysis. We pulled it off https://team212cd.ca/ I know economic impact analysis and multipliers can appear misleading!
Thanks for this. I understand multipliers. I've used them and I know they are typically false. It's attribution in a vacuum. Again really appreciate the link. Two more announcements like this with multipliers for ‘ job created” and Canada won't have any unemployment at all. 🙂