Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Pierre P rightly has said there are a lot of places to find money in government and direct it into defence. He’s also said - correctly in my view - that there’s a lot of waste within defence and defence procurement that needs to be cleaned up.
If the CPC wins the election, I highly doubt there will be any difference between him and Harper on defence.

 

[MilEME09]

Pierre P rightly has said there are a lot of places to find money in government and direct it into defence. He’s also said - correctly in my view - that there’s a lot of waste within defence and defence procurement that needs to be cleaned up.
If the CPC wins the election, I highly doubt there will be any difference between him and Harper on defence.

He has been put on a tough spot now, he has on camera said 2% isn't possible right now, and you have the liberals laying out a play. The national security hawks in the CPC will want a plan.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Poilievre says he won't commit to 2%. Hope allies are happy with going from woke to warrior in lieu of actual kit.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poilievre-dumpster-fire-economy-nato-1.7261981

This is, in my opinion, a very astute political position. Mr Poilievre knows that the majority of Canadians are, at best, indifferent to NATO's/the US' demand that we spend 2% of GDP on defence. Equally many, likely most Canadians also know that the country's fiancees are not in good shape and they expect some fiscal "pain" when, not if the CPC takes power. What a solid majority of Canadians will not accept is cuts to their "entitlements" in order too buy "toys for the boys."

 

[ytz]

He’s also said - correctly in my view - that there’s a lot of waste within defence and defence procurement that needs to be cleaned up.

A lot of that "waste" in procurement that parties complain about in Opposition they discover is very useful pork barrel politics in office. It's not going to change unless we develop real defence industrial policy. Something our governments are allergic to.

If the CPC wins the election, I highly doubt there will be any difference between him and Harper on defence.

That would suck. So many of the current equipment shortfalls we have today are because Harper cut defence spending to run on a balanced budget. And those cuts happened exactly as major recapitalization was needed after Afghanistan. We're going to have massive problems if defence spending is cut now. There's no legacy stock left to abuse.

 

[ytz]

This is, in my opinion, a very astute political position. Mr Poilievre knows that the majority of Canadians are, at best, indifferent to NATO's/the US' demand that we spend 2% of GDP on defence. Equally many, likely most Canadians also know that the country's fiancees are not in good shape and they expect some fiscal "pain" when, not if the CPC takes power. What a solid majority of Canadians will not accept is cuts to their "entitlements" in order too buy "toys for the boys."

Good domestic politics. But the world is clearly changing. And increasingly trade is being tied to allyship. If people actually understood why quantum computing is significant they'd be way more bummed out about Canada left out of AUKUS. Getting locked out of deals like that will have economic consequences. Not just less TD for defence scientists. Now imagine what happens if the US takes that to another level on all of their friendshoring policies.

 

[ytz]

He has been put on a tough spot now, he has on camera said 2% isn't possible right now, and you have the liberals laying out a play. The national security hawks in the CPC will want a plan.

Let's be honest. No faction can overrule him. Just the LPC is all about Trudeau, the CPC is all about Poilievre. Unfortunately, our political parties have increasingly become cults built around their leaders. You should expect to see lots of folks who were complaining about Trudeau not meeting 2%, suddenly making lots of excuses for Poilievre. Lots of folks with flexible principles when it comes to politics these days.

 

[dimsum]

That's puzzling. The country is ready for a bit of tough talk on defence. The CPC has 2% as one of its policy objectives. It's time to signal to other countries that he's a dependable leader and will meet Canada's international obligations.

Hold on - you mean a party’s stated political platform may not be what they’re actually going to do?

On a serious-er note though - throwing spears at the LPC’s policy, then saying you’re not going to change that policy (despite it being in the platform) is going to create some great attack ads for the LPC.

 

[Quirky]

We're going to have massive problems if defence spending is cut now.

Maybe the CAF just needs to hit absolute rock bottom before it can be rebuilt. Won’t be in my lifetime.

 

[Brad Sallows]

At least Poilievre has made a plain unambiguous statement. It's difficult to see any wordsmithing in there designed to soothe anyone. That's a start.

 

[The Bread Guy]

... throwing spears at the LPC’s policy, then saying you’re not going to change that policy (despite it being in the platform) is going to create some great attack ads for the LPC.

To political junkies, yes, but it would be a hard sell to Canadians telling them, "hell, he won't even do as much as WE do on defence" if Canadians, as a whole, are willing to let defence take a back seat to economic stuff. Although in these parts, we look at defence pretty closely, the "average" Canadian? Well, not so much ...

 

[YZT580]

Let's be honest. No faction can overrule him. Just the LPC is all about Trudeau, the CPC is all about Poilievre. Unfortunately, our political parties have increasingly become cults built around their leaders. You should expect to see lots of folks who were complaining about Trudeau not meeting 2%, suddenly making lots of excuses for Poilievre. Lots of folks with flexible principles when it comes to politics these days.

He did not say he couldn't reach 2. He said he wouldn't promise to reach that goal because he refused to make promises that he couldn't keep. He also said that he would cut out the miscreants and foreign waste and re-direct those funds to DND. No none on this forum has come out and said that Trudeau will reach that goal in 2032. Most of us have called him a liar over that issue. Our NATO allies are no different from us. They too are calling him a liar under their breath. They just don't believe him. I think Poilievre is striving for acceptance. He needs to be believed so he is taking a pragmatic stand that most can identify with. "OK kids, we will take that trip to Disneyland if daddy gets his raise, otherwise its back to Wasaga

 

[dimsum]

To political junkies, yes, but it would be a hard sell to Canadians telling them, "hell, he won't even do as much as WE do on defence" if Canadians, as a whole, are willing to let defence take a back seat to economic stuff. Although in these parts, we look at defence pretty closely, the "average" Canadian? Well, not so much ...

That is correct.

However, writ large, the attack can be “Poilievre attacked us for years not reaching 2%. Now he won’t commit to it. What other issues will he do the same?”

But going to the way Canada looks on the world (defence) stage - we have someone criticizing the LPC for not spending 2% then not committing to it because it’s not a promise he can keep. If I were from another country, that sounds awfully like “Canada will find a way to worm out of 2%, regardless of leader” and plan economic, diplomatic, etc efforts accordingly.

I found this response on Reddit (not me) that seems to sum up my thoughts:

 

[ytz]

But going to the way Canada looks on the world (defence) stage - we have someone criticizing the LPC for not spending 2% then not committing to it because it’s not a promise he can keep. If I were from another country, that sounds awfully like “Canada will find a way to worm out of 2%, regardless of leader” and plan economic, diplomatic, etc efforts accordingly.

Trudeau literally told a group of world leaders in the past that no Canadian PM would ever commit to 2%. You can bet a lot of pressure from the US Congress was aimed at Poilievre as much as it was aimed at Trudeau. And broadly aimed at the Canadian public too.

At the end of the day Canadians will not spend more on defence unless they perceive actual economic consequences. And for that, people should be more worried about Congress in the US than who is in the White House. Although Trump could well use Canadian defence spending as an excuse to move goalposts.

Not even paying lip service to 2% very likely means this country is done for any serious defence cooperation, research partnerships and probably even friendshoring. Poland is going to be more important to the US two decades from now.

 

[dimsum]

I think Poilievre is striving for acceptance. He needs to be believed so he is taking a pragmatic stand that most can identify with. "OK kids, we will take that trip to Disneyland if daddy gets his raise, otherwise its back to Wasaga

Except that another one of Poilievre’s attacks is that the deficit has ballooned under the LPC. The CPC governing documents say that they plan on bringing the deficit to zero, and deficit is something more Canadians care about than defence.

So whatever savings they get from cuts will go towards reducing the budget, not raising Defence to 2%.

As an aside, I had to double-check whether the CPC governing documents specifically talk about 2%:

 

[Fabius]

“Canada will find a way to worm out of 2%, regardless of leader”

This is likely mostly fact. It’s been fact that Canada has underfunded defence for the entirety of Canada existence as a country outside of two world wars and a small 10-15 year period from 1950-65.
Even that last period of substantial funding was contentious and below the standards expected or desired by the services I believe from what I have read.
The reality is likely that Canada will continue to underfund defence, do the bare minimum to not piss off the Americans, and as soon as they shift focus, shuffle the money elsewhere. To expect any party or leader to do otherwise won’t happen until Canadian society believes that they need to secure their own freedom and peace and security by themselves here in North America.

Until then parties and leaders will continue to support defence funding with words not deeds.

 

[PuckChaser]

Poilievre says he won't commit to 2%. Hope allies are happy with going from woke to warrior in lieu of actual kit.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poilievre-dumpster-fire-economy-nato-1.7261981

You say that like Trudeau actually plans on getting to 2%. PBO has already stated ONSF is over estimated by 0.25% of GDP, so he's got to magically create 0.5% of GDP in the 2 years between ONSF estimates and his new 2032 deadline.

The easy solution is to keep doing what Trudeau has been doing: tank our GDP and marginally increase spending so the % of GDP ratio goes up.

 

[dimsum]

You say that like Trudeau actually plans on getting to 2%. PBO has already stated ONSF is over estimated by 0.25% of GDP, so he's got to magically create 0.5% of GDP in the 2 years between ONSF estimates and his new 2032 deadline.

The easy solution is to keep doing what Trudeau has been doing: tank our GDP and marginally increase spending so the % of GDP ratio goes up.

Whether Trudeau is committing to 2% isn’t even the immediate issue here - it’s that the CPC has been attacking the LPC about not committing, then saying “oh wait we won’t commit either”.

Normally, if someone attacks someone else over not doing something, the usual expectation is that they would do it.

 

[PuckChaser]

Whether Trudeau is committing to 2% isn’t even the immediate issue here - it’s that the CPC has been attacking the LPC about not committing, then saying “oh wait we won’t commit either”.

Normally, if someone attacks someone else over not doing something, the usual expectation is that they would do it.

Do they have to commit? The writ isn't dropped and they're the opposition. Trudeau doesn't even have a plan for 2%, just a promise shamed out of him. Colour me shocked if it's anything other than differed money like ONSF. I personally never thought we'd get more funding even before Trudeau made the 2% pledge years ago with the balance sheets in shambles like they are.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Clearing the deficit is a necessary prerequisite to clearing some of the accumulated deficit (debt), and will ease some of the upward pressure on inflation, making it easier for BoC to reduce their rate, which will help to ease the cost of borrowing. I doubt much of the accumulated deficit will actually be cleared so much as it might be allowed to gradually with relative to GDP, because there's a lot of pressure to maintain and increase spending. Getting to 2% on defence spending is pointless if it just leads to a partial fiscal collapse that necessitates backing away from it again.

What's going to be amusing (if government changes hands) is watching what happens to the fractional new programs the NDP demanded the LPC help to enact. "Pharmacare" could end up being just birth control and diabetic meds for 8 or more years, assuming the CPC doesn't have the stones to just end it. Ditto childcare subsidies continuing to just be a subsidy for the lucky people who have placements.

 

[dimsum]

Do they have to commit? The writ isn't dropped and they're the opposition. Trudeau doesn't even have a plan for 2%, just a promise shamed out of him. Colour me shocked if it's anything other than differed money like ONSF. I personally never thought we'd get more funding even before Trudeau made the 2% pledge years ago with the balance sheets in shambles like they are.

I would suggest that even if the writ hasn’t been dropped, the CPC has been rolling out ads with the theme of “under a CPC govt things would be better”.

It’s pretty natural to ask how they would be better, and if one of the criticisms was the LPC not committing to 2%, then I’d assume that the public would think that the way the CPC corrects that is to commit.