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....

 

[Halifax Tar]

Well it had to come to this eventually - it’s obviously been done the ‘polite’ way by the US, UK, France and the Secretary General of NATO for the better part of decade and virtually NOTHING has been done. Word salad, lip service, thoughts and prayers that’s the best that we’ve managed in that time frame.
The big Orange Man has dropped the gloves and it calling our bluff. What are we now going to do about it? Whine and bitch in true Canadian style?

I've said the same here. We have a choice.

We have all the potential in the world, and we've been squandering it.

 

[Quirky]

What are we now going to do about it? Whine and bitch in true Canadian style?

I heard there will be a bunch of boomers flying the flag on Saturday in a show of patriotism and sovereignty, ironic because Canada has no ability to defend it. Canadians haven’t taken national defence seriously while bragging about its social programs under the blanket of US military protection. Chickens are coming home to roost.

 

[KevinB]

No one is forcing the Americans to spend 3.65% GDP on Defence. The defence budget is allowed to be cut. Ultimately it's priorities, your government doesn't care about the Poors, simple as.

Do you want to speak Russian or Chinese?

Because the way you treat national defense, you really seem to want to.

That buffoon was elected by 77 million Americans and several tens of millions also didn't vote. Government for the people by the people means it’s their fault when they elect a pseudo-fascist. Booing is pretty tame considering the government they elected is hellbent on destroying and absorbing us.

As I said on election night, no matter the result, the American people lost.

Two spectacularly shitty candidates, and the most obnoxious one won. Mainly because Americans are sick of being blamed for everything. Either we are a bully nation, or we take it in the junk when we don’t act.

Well right, wrong or indifferent, now the rest of the world needs to act as America just abdicated any adult activity.

 

[Czech_pivo]

I heard there will be a bunch of boomers flying the flag on Saturday in a show of patriotism and sovereignty, ironic because Canada has no ability to defend it. Canadians haven’t taken national defence seriously while bragging about its social programs under the blanket of US military protection. Chickens are coming home to roost.

Same folks that love our Health Care system and crow how its better than the American.

Here's a question - which will be 'fixed' first - the CAF or our Health Care system - Answer, neither.

Yes, I completely understand that HC is a Provincial matter and the issues facing the CAF are Federal - but over the last 30+yrs we have watched BOTH of these institutions slowly rot away with NO concerted effort to address correctly either one of them.

Not a single Province has been able to right their sinking HC ship during this time period - all this despite massive, massive Provincial debt being incurred (hint, Ontario is the LARGEST non-sovereign indebted political entity in the world, let that sink in), large external population increases through immigration (which by the way was sold to us as 'adding much younger taxpaying individuals' into the system to help offset our retired, aging population). But what do we do to completely offset those gains? Allowing family 'reunification' to occur where the aging parents/grandparents of said immigrants are allowed to live in Canada and get Provincially covered HC, even though they have not paid a penny into our system - wtf.

So if 10 Provinces, all with their own abilities, revenues, political leanings all cannot 'fix' their own individual HC problems, why the hell should we be surprised that our Federal Government isn't more competent?

I am NOT hopeful for our future. I do not see things changing by our own means or abilities. The ONLY chance for the CAF to improve is if someone (hint: the US), starts to bang us on our head and threaten us, repeatedly, for multiple years, will it occur.

 

[PrairieFella]

Do you want to speak Russian or Chinese?

Because the way you treat national defense, you really seem to want to.

You have to be kidding me Kevin, that's just plain ridiculous and delusional. You could cut that 1 trillion dollar budget by 20% and still spend more than the next five combined. Your government is obviously stepping away from the world police role, perhaps you don't need to keep rolling unwanted MBTs off the line right to storage to keep some important senatorial district happy and employed.

 

[suffolkowner]

We should spend more
We should be capable of more, the two are not the same
Europe should do the same.
Europes biggest gaps are in munitions and will. They should and in my opinion will be able to support Ukraine without the US. They have to overcome German inhibitions, and the slackards in France, Italy and Spain and even the UK. Bit of a problem when the main 5 members of NATO dont walk the talk
The US spends huge amounts on defence because it wants to exert influence and reduce the ability of others to exert theirs. Having learned the lessons of WW1 and WW2 that allowing geopolitical adversaries to grow unrestrained it is harder to restrain them after the fact. I think the present administration is not concerned with that and does not consider Russia and even China in that light
Perhaps the nuclear deterrent or even just demographics precludes this from being the issue that it has for all of history?

 

[KevinB]

You have to be kidding me Kevin, that's just plain ridiculous and delusional. You could cut that 1 trillion dollar budget by 20% and still spend more than the next five combined.

The fact that we spend doesn't mean that Canada doesn't have too, yet Canada acts that way. It is one of the major issues we have with you, and one of the few legitimate issues.

Your government is obviously stepping away from the world police role, perhaps you don't need to keep rolling unwanted MBTs off the line right to storage to keep some important senatorial district happy and employed.

Abrams have been at low rate production for awhile - because Congress knew that the strategic implications of letting a capability evaporate were not palatable. You should be glad that we did.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Abrams have been at low rate production for awhile - because Congress knew that the strategic implications of letting a capability evaporate were not palatable. You should be glad that we did.

We should also be learning from that.

 

[Underway]

Correct me if I’m wrong but one of the primary reasons for building the CPR was to thwart American economic dominance over trade in and out of the west. So, I can see transportation investment is economic defence spending with a side order of railroad military fries.

OMG I’m thinking about defence like a Liberal.

Infrastructure is defence. That's not thinking like a liberal. The national railway was also a Conservative initiative.

The Trent-Severn waterway system (Rideau Canal et al) was a military infrastrucure project to connect upper and lower Canada. The fact it facilitated trade and movement of goods is how it got paid for but its original purpose was for military usage.

The Sault St. Marie Canal is another military project, that came about because we couldn't move our troops west to deal with the NW Rebelion. So Canada created a permanent canal on our side despite the US have a perfect good functional one on their side. They wouldn't let us use it to move troops and weapons.

All that being said putting your finger on the scales and saying an infrastructure project that is clearly single use civilian is not defence spending. Dual use at a minimum should be the starting point for these discussions.

And of course you can have all the infrastructure you want but without the point kinetic bits all that does is help the enemy move in your territory faster.

 

[Underway]

Abrams have been at low rate production for awhile - because Congress knew that the strategic implications of letting a capability evaporate were not palatable. You should be glad that we did.

That's not why. Porkbarrelling it why the Abrams line is still going. Could have built completely different set of tanks (like they do with aircraft) multiple times over the years but kept the Abrams plant going because "votes".

 

[KevinB]

That's not why. Porkbarrelling it why the Abrams line is still going. Could have built completely different set of tanks (like they do with aircraft) multiple times over the years but kept the Abrams plant going because "votes".

We still sell a lot of Abram’s to allies. The plant isn’t pork barreling, the turbine engine is…

Lima is a GOCO facility, so GDLS builds Abram’s there as that is the tank we have. It builds several different versions, and hopefully in short order the M1A3 will be finalized.

 

[Underway]

We should also be learning from that.

We have. GDLS in London. Iriving in Halifx. This is what you get when you have only one supplier of a weapon system.

 

[Halifax Tar]

We have. GDLS in London. Iriving in Halifx. This is what you get when you have only one supplier of a weapon system.

My point is the boom and bust cycles we are trapped in. Constant production and replacement. At an economical rate with the ability to be spooled up if needed.

 

[suffolkowner]

the reality is that porkbarrelling and defence capacity often go together. Witness our own GDLS and the NSS. Buying everything offshore doesnt contribute to self reliance

 

[Underway]

We still sell a lot of Abram’s to allies.

Sure, from the piles of spare ones sitting in the desert. US army has stated many times it doesn't need more tanks and wanted to redirect budget priorities elsewhere. But they were not allowed to. USN had similar problems(their new carriers for example).

 

[suffolkowner]

The fact that we spend doesn't mean that Canada doesn't have too, yet Canada acts that way. It is one of the major issues we have with you, and one of the few legitimate issues.


Abrams have been at low rate production for awhile - because Congress knew that the strategic implications of letting a capability evaporate were not palatable. You should be glad that we did.

I think that some of that is the nature of the relationship and the participants. America is an imperialistic power, we are not. America is large and powerful, we are not. America remains the greatest and only real threat to our existence in the minds of many. If that is an unwinnable battle as many attest to then why waste money on it?

 

[suffolkowner]

Sure, from the piles of spare ones sitting in the desert. US army has stated many times it doesn't need more tanks and wanted to redirect budget priorities elsewhere. But they were not allowed to. USN had similar problems(their new carriers for example).

Just like the RCAF said they only needed 65 fighter jets? Im not sure what to make of these pronouncements or whether they can withstand any scrutiny

 

[Weinie]

No one is forcing the Americans to spend 3.65% GDP on Defence. The defence budget is allowed to be cut. Ultimately it's priorities, your government doesn't care about the Poors, simple as.

Events, dear boy, events.

 

[FJAG]

That's not why. Porkbarrelling it why the Abrams line is still going. Could have built completely different set of tanks (like they do with aircraft) multiple times over the years but kept the Abrams plant going because "votes".

Every defence project in a democratic society has an element of pork barrelling to it; that doesn't mean it can't be a strategic project.

Canada thinks tactically. We need to replace 2,000 logistics vehicles; we give a contract to do that to some foreign country and a small maintenance side contract and we're done. We leave the IP and capability to manufacture elsewhere. Twenty years later we do it again - usually to a different foreigner. That's thinking tactically.

The US thinks strategically. They need an armoured fighting vehicle capability indefinitely; they build a system of plants capable of building AFVs, build a force of tanks and keep the plants going for ongoing factory level maintenance, product improvement, foreign military sales, combat and training loss replacement and a factory level capability to ramp up production in the event of a need for force expansion. That's thinking strategically.

Keeping Lima, and other facilities like it, open is one of the smarter things Congress has done. It's not just a scale of production thing. It's a mindset that favours short-term bean counting over a long-term industrial capability development strategy.

 

[suffolkowner]

Every defence project in a democratic society has an element of pork barrelling to it; that doesn't mean it can't be a strategic project.

Canada thinks tactically. We need to replace 2,000 logistics vehicles; we give a contract to do that to some foreign country and a small maintenance side contract and we're done. We leave the IP and capability to manufacture elsewhere. Twenty years later we do it again - usually to a different foreigner. That's thinking tactically.

The US thinks strategically. They need an armoured fighting vehicle capability indefinitely; they build a system of plants capable of building AFVs, build a force of tanks and keep the plants going for ongoing factory level maintenance, product improvement, foreign military sales, combat and training loss replacement and a factory level capability to ramp up production in the event of a need for force expansion. That's thinking strategically.

Keeping Lima, and other facilities like it, open is one of the smarter things Congress has done. It's not just a scale of production thing. It's a mindset that favours short-term bean counting over long-term industrial capability development strategy.

We could and probably should be able to do the same at least with some things. Look at the logistic trucks

LSVW
MSVW
MSVW-SMP
HSVW
ERC
various other niche vehicles

even leaving the LUVW replacement out of it that is a total of 4506 class 8 heavy trucks we have recently bought or ordered from 4 different manufacturers​