Over 283K have thus far, one of the biggest HoC petitions in history.

https://www.ourcommons.ca/petitions/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-7531

Called Project Crossbow, the plan involves using Hercules aircraft and Chinook helicopters to airlift passive sensor installations, which resemble large shipping containers that stand on metal legs.

The initial deployments could begin as soon as next summer with initial operating capability coming online in 2029, said Royal Canadian Air Force spokesperson Lt.-Cmdr. Melanie Aqiqi.

...

The container stations will run on solar and wind power, according to a series of National Defence documents filed with a Nunavut regulatory board.

More info about Project Crossbow *there is not a lot of info about it, it is a classified project between US and Canada which is a valid line of criticism but we are talking about the details of nuclear ballistic missile defense here.

https://defensescoop.com/2023/02/09/us-canada-developing-secretive-crossbow-sensor-network-as-concerns-mount-over-chinese-balloon-fleet/

https://www.espritdecorps.ca/feature/new-projects-to-help-canadian-forces-protect-the-arctic

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/operations/allies-partners/norad/norad-modernization-project-timelines.html

I am going to hazard a guess and say that Project Crossbow was named as an allusion to Operation Crossbow.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Crossbow

Crossbow was the code name in World War II for Anglo-American operations against the German long range reprisal weapons (V-weapons) programme. The primary V-weapons were the V-1 flying bomb and V-2 rocket, which were launched against Britain from 1944 to 1945 and used against continental European targets as well.[3]

This may suggest this aspect of the defense sensor network is focused on detecting mass flying bomb attacks, but that is a total guess off the name given that this is all classified.

Some more data about how immigrants don't significantly inhibit wage growth.

https://ucalgary.ca/news/nobel-winner-david-card-shows-immigrants-dont-reduce-wages-native-born-workers

While the native of Guelph, Ont., has written too many high-impact papers to mention here, economists often associate his name with two landmark, highly influential studies, which we all learn in graduate school.

The first, which examines the effect of minimum wages on unemployment, has received much attention in the wake of the Nobel announcement. So let’s focus on the second, in which Card combined a clever technique with data generated by a unique historical event to credibly answer how large-scale immigration from a poor country affects the wages of native-born citizens.

More data

https://theconversation.com/nobel-winner-david-card-shows-immigrants-dont-reduce-the-wages-of-native-born-workers-169768

https://cdhowe.org/publication/parisa-mahboubi-no-immigrants-arent-stealing-jobs/

Indeed, a successful immigration policy is not necessarily about increasing the working-age population, but rather ensuring that more people are able to participate in the work force to fill the vacant jobs without negatively affecting the outcomes of the existing work force.

Evidence shows not only that an influx of immigrants has limited or no adverse impact on wages, at least in the medium or long term, but an inflow of highly educated immigrants can reduce wage inequality since these immigrants tend to be competing with highly educated native-born individuals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_of_immigration_to_Canada

In a 2007 study, economists Abdurrahman Aydemir and George Borjas found that a 10% increase in the supply of workers within a specific education–experience group may reduce that group's wages by around 3–4%.[135] However, these results should not be interpreted as a universal 4% drop for all Canadian workers whenever immigration rises by 10%, since Aydemir and Borjas were examining group-specific wage impacts. Statistics Canada has likewise noted that overall wage effects of immigration in Canada tend to be relatively small, with more noticeable impacts confined to particular skill segments or regions.[136]

In part because of the credential issue, many immigrants are forced to find work below their education level and at lower wages. However, even for doing work of the same skill level, immigrants are much less well compensated than their native born counterparts. Immigration scholar Jeffrey Reitz calculated that in 2001 native Canadian employers were benefiting from, and immigrant employees were losing out on, between $2 and 3 billion per year due to this imbalance.[137] A study published by Statistics Canada reviewed data from 1991 to 2010 regarding the convergence of wages between immigrants and native-born Canadians. The study found that there was a convergence of relative earnings for immigrants. Immigrant men's average annual wages were 86% of those of native-born men in 2010, up from 76% in 1991.[138]

There are a number of possible explanations for why newcomers earn less than native Canadians in the same jobs with the same skills. Lower hourly wages might be an indication that the labour productivity of immigrants is lower, and employers thus have reason to pay them less. New workers are also less familiar with the Canadian labour market and will thus not be able to maximize their salaries. Employers will also be less familiar with an immigrant's background and thus less willing to offer the same salary as to a native.[139] Due to lower mobility, they do not access better-paying jobs, such as in Alberta and Saskatchewan.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/economic-impact-immigration-cuts-1.7362448

"If it was not for the population growth that we had last year, the Canadian economy would have been in a recession at the end of 2023," said Charles St-Arnaud, chief economist with credit union group Alberta Central.

With more people coming to Canada, more money is being spent overall, he said — even if each individual has been spending less as they feel the pressures of a more sluggish economy.

This one is about the US but same findings

https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/revisiting-immigrations-effect-us-wages-and-employment

Immigration is not costless. Short-run adjustment costs, local labour market frictions, and non-labour-market margins such as housing and public services remain legitimate concerns. However, our results show that the claim that immigrants depress wages and reduce employment opportunities for natives, especially less-skilled ones, is not supported by the empirical evidence on the impact of immigration over the last two decades. The complementarity between immigrants and natives, and the large inflow of college-educated immigrants, combined to produce positive wage effects for less-educated US-born workers. These suggest that cutting immigration further would not help low-income Americans; rather, it may hurt the economy as a whole, as well as the job and earnings prospects of that group.

https://www.ppic.org/publication/immigrants-and-the-labor-market/

Although debate remains, the vast majority of economic studies find that immigration has little or no effect on the wages of the average American worker. A recent PPIC study estimates that in California, immigration between 1990 and 2004 caused a 4% real wage increase for the average native-born worker. Most agree that low-wage native-born workers face the most competition with immigrants because, on average, these populations have similar skills; yet most studies that focus on the impact of immigration on low-wage workers find zero or very small adverse effects on wages.

https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-labour-market-effects-of-immigration/

https://www.bushcenter.org/catalyst/immigration/collins-immigration-myths

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/06/20/business/economy/immigration-economic-impact.html

NDP leader Avi Lewis has renewed his call for the federal government to nationalize Stelco in the face of the company laying off 500 unionized workers from its Hamilton plant.

Really in depth with a lot of great visual graphics, I don't share this to fearmonger or anything, this is just a thorough analysis of how Canada should think about its defense.

On August 22, the day Washington’s 50 percent tariff on $27.6 billion in Canadian goods took effect and a day after trade talks broke down, Saab chief executive Micael Johansson told reporters in Sweden that an order of at least 40 Gripen E fighters would justify final assembly in Canada. The assembly would involve about 10 major industrial partners and 250 suppliers.

A month earlier, on July 17, Saab and CAE had signed a memorandum under which CAE would carry out classified mission-systems work in Canada, including software development. Saab says this would keep Canadian and NORAD-related information in the country.

Saab wants a Canadian line for its own reasons as well. The company says it needs a third final-assembly line to meet international demand, so a Canadian plant would also build aircraft for other customers. Johansson has said the outcome rests on a political decision in Ottawa.

....

Four public tests would show whether the review has done its work.

The first is an employment concept. The auditor describes Canada’s fighters as on continuous NORAD alert from Cold Lake and Bagotville, with eight other deployment locations. A mixed fleet must say which type stands alert at each base, which deploys to Europe, and which flies from Inuvik and Iqaluit in winter. Those answers set the aircraft, crews, and spares each type needs.

The second is a crew and maintainer plan with numbers, published before the 2030 initial capability date. The RCAF’s January 2026 pilot assurance covered one new type. A second type would take its first instructors from CF-18 squadrons staffed at 70 percent of establishment, just as the first F-35 squadron stands up on interim facilities.

The third is a second-fleet cost on the auditor’s own terms. The auditor recommended that National Defence’s public cost reporting includes every element needed for full operational capability. A second fleet priced that way would carry its own infrastructure, weapons, simulators, and training unit. That cost would be set against the F-35s it displaces and the industrial value Lockheed says Canada would lose below 88 aircraft.

The fourth applies to the jet already flying. National Defence has conceded that the United States controls F-35 software and hardware upgrades. A public account would show what Canada keeps in its own hands if that changes, from spares and mission data to depot work. It would do the same for the Gripen’s engine licence.

Canada is making big strides toward a sovereign space capability.

Ukraine’s Starshield satellite terminals stopped working after a still-unexplained order came from inside the White House, and Canada has spent years quietly building its own military space network like radar satellites, Arctic communications, and its own rocket launch pads. I trace Canada’s RADARSAT constellation, its new Telesat Lightspeed Arctic network, and a government document that literally says the goal is to “augment and replace” America’s WGS system.

This is a great video not just about Canada but about all allies of the US right now needing to rethink space capability in the wake of Elon Musk's bullshit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0mRJCPuInY

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGYs_uw-Cyw

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ca/post/72708108

Link is to article about Canada's great need for firefighting aircraft.

Call me crazy... but 99% of the time wouldn't a shared firefighting aircraft fleet shared between Australia and Canada or perhaps a European nation only be needed in one or the other place at any one given time of year??