• 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....
 
Honest question: What will NATO do? Would they kick Canada out when faced with a potential hot war with Russia?
Canada likes to boast that we are a leader in the international community, that our personnel are well above average, and that we fill key roles during multinational efforts. But eventually our allies won’t accept us in these key roles if we cannot actually perform, and all the easy political capital (why govt really sends us) is gone. We could be asked to step-aside as the aFP lead in Latvia, or to not bother sending that next GOFO to whatever major command in the US, NATO, or Korea. Or we could be the nation invited only for the gate guards and a novelty food DFAC.

We have been trimming individual and collective training for over a decade. We are looking at significant usage restrictions on training fleets to avoid buying maintenance parts, so our troops will learn their jobs just before deploying and then maybe get good at the job after they are in the fight.

Our 3 year MRP with 2 year posting cycle means that some brigade commanders have never seen anything larger than a combat team getting exercises at a single time, and some battalion commanders may not have even seen that.

Our preferred operations over the past decade saw us deploy vast quantities of leadership to fill staff and instructing jobs while the majority of troops sat in Canada without adequate mentorship and training.

We pride ourselves on our skill and experience, but inadequately hone these. We cannot expect it to spontaneously appear in senior offices and NCOs. Our allies will notice. They will stop accepting us for the jobs that need this.
 
And does anyone in Government, who matters care ?
I suspect that we already know the answer.
For the past 5 or 6 decades we have been almost joyfully ignoring reality.
The problem is no one in NATO slapped us hard enough when Papa Trudeau pulled this stupidity in the 1970s. It emboldened successive governments to treat NATO benchmarks as a suggestion, and now we're in the fine mess we find outselves in.

Until we get a Pink Slip from NATO saying "thanks, but no thanks.." the cycle continues.
 
The problem is no one in NATO slapped us hard enough when Papa Trudeau pulled this stupidity in the 1970s. It emboldened successive governments to treat NATO benchmarks as a suggestion, and now we're in the fine mess we find outselves in.

Until we get a Pink Slip from NATO saying "thanks, but no thanks.." the cycle continues.
We don't want that. They might think that some time in the wilderness will smarten our government up. In reality, they just might see how small and useless we've really been and maybe not invite us back.
 
For a force employment command, it has a lot of force generation and institutional functions that need another home.
Except the Navy does force generation during force employment, so that balance always causes friction with CJOC.
 
(y)

15% of 1.33% is 0.2% of GDP

Capital acquisitions need to double to meet the minimum standards.
Is that before or after the $800M to in service funding cuts?

We not only got turned down for hundred of millions in O&M demand we also are going to eat a cut, so it's a double whammy
 
Part of the political issue I see as well is NDHQ needs start saying "No" the politicians keep committing us to things like a full brigade it Latvia, etc tell us to make it happen while trying to rebuild, reconstitute etc. We are getting pulled in every direction, not to mention domestic ops, and No one seems to be willing to say "sorry sir we can't actually meet these commitments" to the MND or cabinet.
 
Part of the political issue I see as well is NDHQ needs start saying "No" the politicians keep committing us to things like a full brigade it Latvia, etc tell us to make it happen while trying to rebuild, reconstitute etc. We are getting pulled in every direction, not to mention domestic ops, and No one seems to be willing to say "sorry sir we can't actually meet these commitments" to the MND or cabinet.
As I recall didn't Hiller war people about this just after our first deployment to Afghanistan ?
And I argue we were in probably better shape then.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top