Government hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I have long said that you could fund the CAF to 4 percent of GDP, but we would still lag behind in NATO and be much the same where we are.

It's never the money, it's politics. It's procedures. It's the pork-barreling in our defence spending that makes us a paper tiger in NATO.

My only hope in all of this for the CAF and the GoC, whatever the political stripe that may be, is that it will rouse them out of the "Peace Dividend" slumber. The world has been unstable since 1945. We have used geography, proximity, and association as a Defence Policy ever since. ICBMs don't care how close to the U.S. or how far from Russia/China we are.

Don't give us a dime more, but let us spend money on defence like it matters. The fact we follow the same rules for purchasing a fighter aircraft as we do for buying office furniture for a Service Canada office is disgraceful. Don't treat defense procurement as a stimulus package for Canadian Industry. There I said it.

We spend so much money, time, and effort trying to get that money to stay in Canada; be it by awarding contracts to companies with no capability to produce items without first "retooling" and"developing the production lines", or by hamstringing perfectly competent and competitive bidders by forcing the project to be made in St. Margaret de Poutain de Champignon, QC because the ruling government either lost the seat in the election, or won it with promises.

We spend so much money and staff hours jumping through TBS regulations that are great for other departments, but are terrible for defence procurement. Some items you have to sole source, because there are technologies and capabilities no one else makes. By doing the bid process, you get companies clamoring for a project they can't deliver on, but because they tick the bright boxes on the score sheet....

I truly and honestly belief we need to split from PSPC and legislate that its not beholden to TBS, only to the PBO/PCO. The guiding principles of this new Defence Procurement department should be "Off the shelf, from somewhere else" if there isn't an industry in Canada.

BOOTFORGEN has demonstrated how well we do when we are able to actually get what we need, instead of lining the pockets of a Canadian company that got lucky.

That, but with tanks, fighters, ships, weapons systems....

 

[OldSolduer]

That’s a lot of carbons for one helicopter just to respond to a call. Our convict environment minister gets off on letting people die as long as we meet our net zero goals.

BUT But But...he was defending the environment!!!

 

[daftandbarmy]

I don't live especially flamboyantly. I have a 12 year old car, and we had to sell my wife's car when we moved into this new house because we needed the money. If we think that this is normal for a mid-ranking NCO with 15 years of service, I'm not sure what to say. At least in the old days when we were really not paid well, people lived closer to base, there was an actual community throughout the units and more broadly into the members' families etc...

So what you're saying is "We were poor, but happy", right?

 

[TacticalTea]

So what you're saying is "We were poor, but happy", right?

And when I got home, our dad would kill us and dance about on our graves!

Always a joy!

 

[Spencer100]

That’s a lot of carbons for one helicopter just to respond to a call. Our convict environment minister gets off on letting people die as long as we meet our net zero goals.

Well not all true. Your Social Credit score will be check first. If you have a good score we can send the helicopter out, then add the CO2 cost to you Lifetime allotment. And when that is used up your MAiD home kit will be delivered to your sleeping cube.

And in the meantime here are some funny Tik Toks.

 

[Spencer100]

Well not all true. Your Social Credit score will be check first. If you have a good score we can send the helicopter out, then add the CO2 cost to you Lifetime allotment. And when that is used up your MAiD home kit will be delivered to your sleeping cube.

And in the meantime here are some funny Tik Toks.

Crap C-11 passed I forgot....The above comment was post by Funiture, or Quirky or somebody......I have been hacked and would never post something like that.

All hail the PM. He has beautiful hair and I long to be just like him. And I have preorder my copy of little red book of Justin Thoughts!

 

[daftandbarmy]

Crap C-11 passed I forgot....The above comment was post by Funiture, or Quirky or somebody......I have been hacked and would never post something like that.

All hail the PM. He has beautiful hair and I long to be just like him. And I have preorder my copy of little red book of Justin Thoughts!

Here it is, with all his thoughts

 

[Dana381]

Trudeau to NATO: Canada Will Never Meet Defence Spending Goal - Canadian Defence Review

It’s been revealed that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has told NATO officials privately that Canada will never meet the military alliance’s defence-spending target. This according to a leaked secret Pentagon assessment that was contained in a Washington Post article by Toronto-based...

www.canadiandefencereview.com

Edit; I just noticed this article is from April 20th and already discussed.

 

[daftandbarmy]

We'll see...

Richard Shimooka: As NATO allies grow impatient, Canada may be quietly planning major increase in defence spending​

There are credible signals that the government is at least considering a major increase in defence spending


The Washington Post recently reported that the latest leak of secret U.S. intelligence documents reveal that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has privately told NATO officials that Canada can never meet its funding commitment to the military alliance.

This is anything but a surprise to seasoned defence observers. The Liberal government has never promised to meet the long-stated (but never-achieved) target of NATO funding—the equivalent of two percent of Canada’s GDP—and it has long been clear that our allies have become privately frustrated with Canada’s reluctance to pull its weight.

These candid intelligence notes pierce through Ottawa’s messaging about Canada being a good ally and global citizen. They make it clear the government’s pronouncements for domestic consumption are unconvincing to our allies and have harmed the country’s credibility in foreign circles.

But here’s the surprising bit: it is not clear whether the situation described in the leaked document accurately captures the current moment in Canadian defence policy. In fact, there have been credible signals that the government is at least considering, if not outright planning, a major increase in defence spending. Perhaps this policy shift is a response to reproaches from allies in closed-door meetings, or it could be a political calculation to deflect criticism on what is traditionally one of the Liberal Party’s weakest files. The government is currently drafting a defence policy update to the 2017 Strong, Secure, Engaged defence policy, which may offer a strategic rationale for launching such a shift.

Whatever the reason, the hints of this shift are just emerging. It is nowhere to be seen in any major announcement, nor was it accounted for in the last budget. Rather, its indications are scattered across a range of signals, including during outlook sessions hosted by the Canadian Association of Security and Defence Industries (CADSI). These annual gatherings of Canada’s largest defence industry association have the chiefs of the Navy, Air Force, and Army speak of their respective priorities. These interactions have recently been accompanied by requests for information from potential vendors, as well as establishing new project staff in DND or other federal departments.

A provisional shopping list includes a wide variety of much-needed replacements for Canada’s defence systems, including for the Victoria Class Submarine. At potentially $60 billion, the Canadian Patrol Submarine Project alone would do much to bridge Canada’s funding shortfall.

However, there are also some surprising and new capabilities being considered, including an advanced airborne early warning aircraft with a powerful radar capacity for surveillance over large swaths of airspace. Other potential systems of note are a long-range rocket artillery system, like HIMARS, and potentially a lightweight mobile artillery platform, like the BAE Systems Archer. The Army is also moving to acquire a new tank to replace the Leopard 2 currently in service.

This scale of modernization program would be a significant step toward restoring Canada’s military to a more capable footing after a decade of neglect. Many of the capabilities being considered are critical for the Canadian Armed Forces to operate in a future combat environment. For example, HIMARS, and highly mobile tube artillery systems like the Archer or NEXTER’s Caesar, have been immensely effective in the war in Ukraine. Some experts claim (perhaps hyperbolically) the former was critical in turning the momentum of the war against the Russian Federation in the spring of 2022.

As NATO allies grow impatient, Canada may be quietly planning major increase in defence spending - The Hub

Canada's military credibility among our allies is declining. We must remedy our internal issues and arrest the country’s further slide towards irrelevance. But recent rumblings of increased defence spending are promising.

thehub.ca

 

[YZT580]

(sigh) I do have 10 acres for sale in Florida. Wouldn't it be nice. Or they are simply creating wooden tanks and inflatable guns. It is just as likely that by initiating the preliminary work they will deflect criticism for another couple of years and punt the whole thing past the next election. History would suggest that this is the most likely scenario

 

[Fabius]

I disagree with the article that the signals are indicating a shift in defence spending.

There are signs that in the next 5-10 years Canada will pursue the purchase of small limited numbers of weapons and equipment to bring NORAD and the aFP Bde elements in Latvia up to modern standards.

However I don’t see signs that the GoC,DND, or CAF are planning a complete upgrade of the CAF. Nor is there a long term plan to maintain such capabilities.

We are at a natural point in Canadian defence spending that we hit every 30-40 year or so where the equipment we bought 30-40 years ago is unworkable and must be replaced. We proceed to replace it with generally pretty decent modern systems then proceed to operate it until it bordering on obsolete and in unmaintainable.

CSC, F35,P8, NORAD and aFP will likely drive the budget up some but the political calculus in Ottawa won’t have changed I bet.

 

[CountDC]

( Or they are simply creating wooden tanks and inflatable guns.

Wooden tanks worked in WW2. One of the tricks Allies used.

 

[KevinB]

I disagree with the article that the signals are indicating a shift in defence spending.

There are signs that in the next 5-10 years Canada will pursue the purchase of small limited numbers of weapons and equipment to bring NORAD and the aFP Bde elements in Latvia up to modern standards.

However I don’t see signs that the GoC,DND, or CAF are planning a complete upgrade of the CAF. Nor is there a long term plan to maintain such capabilities.

We are at a natural point in Canadian defence spending that we hit every 30-40 year or so where the equipment we bought 30-40 years ago is unworkable and must be replaced. We proceed to replace it with FEWER pretty decent modern systems then proceed to operate it until it bordering on obsolete and in unmaintainable.

CSC, F35,P8, NORAD and aFP will likely drive the budget up some but the political calculus in Ottawa won’t have changed I bet.

FIFY
Also I suspect Canada will be forced to pony up for the Submarine replacement, and a Bde for the Pacific on top of that.
My guess is there will be some gradual increasing pressure on Canada to join AUKUS, as its the only 5E that operates Subs and doesn't have Nuke boats planned (NZ doesn't have any subs in their "Navy" Ships & watercraft)

 

[Halifax Tar]

FIFY
Also I suspect Canada will be forced to pony up for the Submarine replacement, and a Bde for the Pacific on top of that.
My guess is there will be some gradual increasing pressure on Canada to join AUKUS, as its the only 5E that operates Subs and doesn't have Nuke boats planned (NZ doesn't have any subs in their "Navy" Ships & watercraft)

Or we can slowly stop being invited to the 5 Eyes tree house until they just fold AUKUS into it and tell us we're service no longer required.

 

[KevinB]

Meanwhile

Lithuania readies ammunition buys worth $3.4 billion

Vilnius is also advancing its project to order 120 Boxer infantry fighting vehicles in a deal that could more than double its fleet of armored rides.

www.defensenews.com

 

[Spencer100]

Meanwhile

Lithuania readies ammunition buys worth $3.4 billion

Vilnius is also advancing its project to order 120 Boxer infantry fighting vehicles in a deal that could more than double its fleet of armored rides.

www.defensenews.com

Plus Denmark

Denmark proposes spending extra $5.7 billion for armed forces over 10 years

 

[OldSolduer]

Meanwhile

Lithuania readies ammunition buys worth $3.4 billion

Vilnius is also advancing its project to order 120 Boxer infantry fighting vehicles in a deal that could more than double its fleet of armored rides.

www.defensenews.com

That will not affect the thinking of the current GoC - This government sees no threat from any other nation, despite evidence to the contrary.

Lithuania and Denmark have seen the bear and it ain't friendly. We have seen a tiger - but we continue to deny its very existence.

 

[daftandbarmy]

That will not affect the thinking of the current GoC - This government sees no threat from any other nation, despite evidence to the contrary.

Lithuania and Denmark have seen the bear and it ain't friendly. We have seen a tiger - but we continue to deny its very existence.

Now, now.... I'm sure they're worried about running out of champagne

 

[Kirkhill]

Interesting article from the States

America Spends Less On Its Military Than You Think. Look At The Numbers.

The U.S. spends more on defense than other nations, but relative to the size of its economy military outlays are far from excessive.

www.forbes.com

US Economy	USD/Year	$ 27,000,000,000,000.00	Year/Year	1
	USD/Day	$ 73,921,971,252.57	Day/Year	365
	USD/Hour	$ 3,080,082,135.52	Hour/Year	8,766
	USD/Minute	$ 51,334,702.26	Minute/Year	525,960
	USD/Second	$ 855,578.37	Second/Year	31,557,600
Federal Budget	USD/Year	$ 6,800,000,000,000.00	Year/Year	0.25
	USD/Day	$ 18,617,385,352.50	Day/Year	92
	USD/Hour	$ 775,724,389.69	Hour/Year	2,208
	USD/Minute	$ 12,928,739.83	Minute/Year	132,464
	USD/Second	$ 215,479.00	Second/Year	7,947,840
Defense Budget	USD/Year	$ 886,000,000,000.00	Year/Year	0.033
	USD/Day	$ 2,425,735,797.40	Day/Year	12
	USD/Hour	$ 101,072,324.89	Hour/Year	288
	USD/Minute	$ 1,684,538.75	Minute/Year	17,259
	USD/Second	$ 28,075.65	Second/Year	1,035,557
Defense Research	USD/Year	$ 265,800,000,000.00	Year/Year	0.010
	USD/Day	$ 727,720,739.22	Day/Year	4
	USD/Hour	$ 30,321,697.47	Hour/Year	86
	USD/Minute	$ 505,361.62	Minute/Year	5,178
	USD/Second	$ 8,422.69	Second/Year	310,667
Defense Other	USD/Year	$ 620,200,000,000.00	Year/Year	0.023
	USD/Day	$ 1,698,015,058.18	Day/Year	8
	USD/Hour	$ 70,750,627.42	Hour/Year	201
	USD/Minute	$ 1,179,177.12	Minute/Year	12,081
	USD/Second	$ 19,652.95	Second/Year	724,890
Combat Vehicles	USD/Year	$ 3,800,000,000.00	Year/Year	0.00014
	USD/Day	$ 10,403,832.99	Day/Year	0.051
	USD/Hour	$ 433,493.04	Hour/Year	1
	USD/Minute	$ 7,224.88	Minute/Year	74
	USD/Second	$ 120.41	Second/Year	4,441
USN Carrier	USD/Year	$ 12,400,000,000.00	Year/Year	0.00046
	USD/Day	$ 33,949,349.76	Day/Year	0.17
	USD/Hour	$ 1,414,556.24	Hour/Year	4
	USD/Minute	$ 23,575.94	Minute/Year	242
	USD/Second	$ 392.93	Second/Year	14,493
US Missile Defence	USD/Year	$ 10,000,000,000.00	Year/Year	0.00037
	USD/Day	$ 27,378,507.87	Day/Year	0.14
	USD/Hour	$ 1,140,771.16	Hour/Year	3
	USD/Minute	$ 19,012.85	Minute/Year	195
	USD/Second	$ 316.88	Second/Year	11,688
US Army Aircraft	USD/Year	$ 3,000,000,000.00	Year/Year	0.00011
	USD/Day	$ 8,213,552.36	Day/Year	0.041
	USD/Hour	$ 342,231.35	Hour/Year	1
	USD/Minute	$ 5,703.86	Minute/Year	58
	USD/Second	$ 95.06	Second/Year	3,506
US Army Missiles	USD/Year	$ 7,000,000,000.00	Year/Year	0.00026
	USD/Day	$ 19,164,955.51	Day/Year	0.095
	USD/Hour	$ 798,539.81	Hour/Year	2
	USD/Minute	$ 13,309.00	Minute/Year	136
	USD/Second	$ 221.82	Second/Year	8,182

Doing the same thing with Canada resulted in this

Canadian Economy	CAD/Year	$ 2,200,000,000,000.00	Year/Year	1
	CAD/Day	$ 6,023,271,731.69	Day/Year	365
	CAD/Hour	$ 250,969,655.49	Hour/Year	8,766
	CAD/Minute	$ 4,182,827.59	Minute/Year	525,960
	CAD/Second	$ 69,713.79	Second/Year	31,557,600
Federal Budget	CAD/Year	$ 465,000,000,000.00	Year/Year	0.21
	CAD/Day	$ 1,273,100,616.02	Day/Year	77
	CAD/Hour	$ 53,045,859.00	Hour/Year	1,853
	CAD/Minute	$ 884,097.65	Minute/Year	111,169
	CAD/Second	$ 14,734.96	Second/Year	6,670,129
Defense Budget	CAD/Year	$ 25,000,000,000.00	Year/Year	0.011
	CAD/Day	$ 68,446,269.68	Day/Year	4
	CAD/Hour	$ 2,851,927.90	Hour/Year	100
	CAD/Minute	$ 47,532.13	Minute/Year	5,977
	CAD/Second	$ 792.20	Second/Year	358,609
NATO 2%	CAD/Year	$ 44,000,000,000.00	Year/Year	0.020
	CAD/Day	$ 120,465,434.63	Day/Year	7
	CAD/Hour	$ 5,019,393.11	Hour/Year	175
	CAD/Minute	$ 83,656.55	Minute/Year	10,519
	CAD/Second	$ 1,394.28	Second/Year	631,152
Operations	CAD/Year	$ 824,000,000.00	Year/Year	0.005
	CAD/Day	$ 30,116,358.66	Day/Year	2
	CAD/Hour	$ 1,254,848.28	Hour/Year	44
	CAD/Minute	$ 20,914.14	Minute/Year	2,630
	CAD/Second	$ 348.57	Second/Year	157,788
Ready Forces	CAD/Year	$ 11,000,000,000.00	Year/Year	0.00037
	CAD/Day	$ 2,255,989.05	Day/Year	0.137
	CAD/Hour	$ 93,999.54	Hour/Year	3
	CAD/Minute	$ 1,566.66	Minute/Year	197
	CAD/Second	$ 26.11	Second/Year	11,820
Defence Team	CAD/Year	$ 3,800,000,000.00	Year/Year	0.00173
	CAD/Day	$ 10,403,832.99	Day/Year	0.63
	CAD/Hour	$ 433,493.04	Hour/Year	15
	CAD/Minute	$ 7,224.88	Minute/Year	908
	CAD/Second	$ 120.41	Second/Year	54,509
Future Force Design	CAD/Year	$ 887,000,000.00	Year/Year	0.00040
	CAD/Day	$ 2,428,473.65	Day/Year	0.15
	CAD/Hour	$ 101,186.40	Hour/Year	4
	CAD/Minute	$ 1,686.44	Minute/Year	212
	CAD/Second	$ 28.11	Second/Year	12,723
Procurement of Capabilities	CAD/Year	$ 4,750,000,000.00	Year/Year	0.00216
	CAD/Day	$ 13,004,791.24	Day/Year	0.789
	CAD/Hour	$ 541,866.30	Hour/Year	19
	CAD/Minute	$ 9,031.11	Minute/Year	1,136
	CAD/Second	$ 150.52	Second/Year	68,136
Bases, IT and Infrastructure	CAD/Year	$ 4,530,000,000.00	Year/Year	0.00206
	CAD/Day	$ 12,402,464.07	Day/Year	0.752
	CAD/Hour	$ 516,769.34	Hour/Year	18
	CAD/Minute	$ 8,612.82	Minute/Year	1,083
	CAD/Second	$ 143.55	Second/Year	64,980
Internal Services	CAD/Year	$ 904,000,000.00	Year/Year	0.00041
	CAD/Day	$ 2,475,017.11	Day/Year	0.150
	CAD/Hour	$ 103,125.71	Hour/Year	4
	CAD/Minute	$ 1,718.76	Minute/Year	216
	CAD/Second	$ 28.65	Second/Year	12,967

A Billion Canadian Dollars costs the Canadian Economy about 4 hours of productive labour, communally, per year.

Reference	CAD/Year	$ 1,000,000,000.00	Year/Year	0.00045
	CAD/Day	$ 2,737,850.79	Day/Year	0.166
	CAD/Hour	$ 114,077.12	Hour/Year	4.0
	CAD/Minute	$ 1,901.29	Minute/Year	239
	CAD/Second	$ 31.69	Second/Year	14,344

 

[daftandbarmy]

Aw, so cute.... the new kid is already getting into the NATO tradition of Canada shaming

NATO's 2 per cent military spending benchmark is 'self-evident': Finnish president​

The president of NATO's newest member nation said the military alliance's two per cent defence spending target seems "self-evident" to him — even as a debate rages over the fact that most NATO members, Canada included, are not meeting the target.

In an interview airing Sunday on Rosemary Barton Live, Finnish President Sauli Niinistö said the Nordic country is committed to its current level of defence spending — around two per cent of GDP. NATO members pledged in 2006 to spend two per cent of their national GDP on defence.

"I think that it's self-evident ... To me, as a Finn, we usually do what we agree [to do]," Niinistö told host Rosemary Barton.

"It's an agreement. To follow it is self-evident."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/finald-president-nato-target-1.6832310?cmp=newsletter_Morning%20Headlines%20from%20CBC%20News_1613_1039028

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Well, since whenever Finland comes up with a new social or environmental program, it immediately follows that the Progressives in Canada begin chattering on CBC about how “in Finland, they do X, so we should too..”, this should now be a no-brainer for Canada.