• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Government hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

Status
Not open for further replies.
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....
 
I’m very surprised the boy wonder in Ottawa hasn’t done this (yet):
Denmark is replacing their kit, so a win-win…aid and refresh the military.

Trudeau would be quite happy pretending an aged status quo is enough for home front (less what the U.S. orders him to procure for continental defense) and spend a bit for direct air to UKR without a concomitant liability to replace with new, more expensive equipment.
 
Thank you for citing the Army's vital ground.

You don't want the Infantry to lose out in the race to have your Generals running the show, do you?

I mean, look what happens when the Hussars win that race ;)

200.gif
 
Last edited:
I bet they get creative...

Easy way to get closer to 2% would be to transfer CCG to CAF.....
What did the CCG do to deserve that fate? Oddly enough components of the RCAF marine service were transferred to the newly formed CCG back in 1962. Kitslano CCG base was a RCAF station, station, boats and personal were all turned into the CCG under Transport Canada
 
Fuck no.

Have you met the Coast Guard?

You think we have problems now with ships/crewing….plus most of their mission set has nothing to do with Defence.

A better move would be to transfer military SAR to the Coast Guard…
LOL, how about transferring the Canadian Border Service Agency to the CAF, I mean they do carry personal sidearms.....
 
Hmmm. Isn’t the RCMP a Regiment?
Would they be better off reporting to the Public Safety Minister or Defence Minister (as more than a few other countries that have federal police forces - admittedly paramilitary types - do)? Discuss ...
 
I bet they get creative...

Easy way to get closer to 2% would be to transfer CCG to CAF.....
I've always kind of wondered why they aren't part of the CAF. I know that they have talked about arming them in the past, but given the state of our navy, I'm surprised that their isn't a bigger push for it.
 
I never realised until now that the CCG was not a part of the CAF. Not because I never asked why or looked for it, but for me I thought the CCG was a different branch of the CAF. But yes, this would definately help the 2% objective plus it could be a lot more interesting to folks wanting to join, and a very valuable asset for patrolling the North sea.
 
I never realised until now that the CCG was not a part of the CAF. Not because I never asked why or looked for it, but for me I thought the CCG was a different branch of the CAF. But yes, this would definately help the 2% objective plus it could be a lot more interesting to folks wanting to join, and a very valuable asset for patrolling the North sea.
You can't just shovel trash into a hole and say you paved it.

The Requirements in NATO for things to be consider Defense Spending mean they need to actually have a Defense function - the USCG has more firepower than the RCN* (okay they don't run missiles anymore current, but they have numerous cannon armed Cutters that are CPF sized) , so it qualifies, but the CCG doesn't have even GPMG's on their ships, nor a lot of other enablers.
 
The civilian marine industry (in Canada at least) is struggling to hire sufficient ship's crews. One of the only ways they're staying afloat is that most offer a 1:1 time on/time off work cycle. Assuming that we're talking about bringing the CCG into the RCN model and using a common crewing pool, the resultant personnel crisis from CCG pers quitting would make the RCN's current personnel woes look like a walk in the park.
 
You can't just shovel trash into a hole and say you paved it.

The Requirements in NATO for things to be consider Defense Spending mean they need to actually have a Defense function - the USCG has more firepower than the RCN* (okay they don't run missiles anymore current, but they have numerous cannon armed Cutters that are CPF sized) , so it qualifies, but the CCG doesn't have even GPMG's on their ships, nor a lot of other enablers.
I never said they were combat-ready and effective for mission as of yet. But with Canada's global defense current issue, it wouldn't hurt adding the CCG as an asset to the actual subject. I mean, it can't be that worse as it is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top