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....

 

[FSTO]

All this talk of getting us to 2% which will be a massive spending increase, does that mean a rethink of ONSF?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

All this talk of getting us to 2% which will be a massive spending increase, does that mean a rethink of ONSF?

To rethink something, wouldn't that require you to have thought it one time first?

I mean, as far as I am concerned, not much thought went into ONSF.

 

[FSTO]

To rethink something, wouldn't that require you to have thought it one time first?

I mean, as far as I am concerned, not much thought went into ONSF.

Doesn’t help that there hasn’t been a Foreign Policy review since forever.

 

[PuckChaser]

All this talk of getting us to 2% which will be a massive spending increase, does that mean a rethink of ONSF?

There's was thought put into ONSF?

 

[daftandbarmy]

Another thing to add to that order from South Korea

2.5M views · 43K reactions | Absolute Power of South Korean Aircraft Destroyer | #army #military #navy #marines #specialforces | VEXR

Absolute Power of South Korean Aircraft Destroyer | #army #military #navy #marines #specialforces.

www.facebook.com

 

[PPCLI Guy]

I said the same vis a vis being a non smoker.

Both approaches require an assumption that smoking or drinking coffee is undesirable or in some way questionable. The whole "five bucks a day" thing is fraught with social judgement. One could just as easily cast shade based on meat consumption, internet access, having children, driving at the speed limit vice below, remittances to family abroad, saving for education, collecting weapons etc.

 

[RangerRay]

Both approaches require an assumption that smoking or drinking coffee is undesirable or in some way questionable. The whole "five bucks a day" thing is fraught with social judgement. One could just as easily cast shade based on meat consumption, internet access, having children, driving at the speed limit vice below, remittances to family abroad, saving for education, collecting weapons etc.

Hunting, fishing, skiing, vacations, etc.

“If you don’t spend your money on that frivolous stuff, you’d be rich”

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Hunting, fishing, skiing, vacations, etc.

“If you don’t spend your money on that frivolous stuff, you’d be rich”

Unfortunately, economics has turned that on it's head.

While this was true for young folks 50 years ago, wages havent kept up with inflation, real estate has exploded 10 fold, and frivolities have become drastically cheaper due to globalization.

In relation to an average salary, it would be 6 months rent to buy a new TV in the 1970s. Now, a new TV is half a paycheck. A Starbucks coffee is still attainable to most, only going up a modest 6 dollars a latte from where prices were 20 years ago.

Meanwhile, rent has gone from 20-25% of monthly salary to 40-50% depending on market. Home prices have increased 200-300% in some areas and the upfront cost is insurmountable for a down payment. An average couple could tighten the belt for 15 years and come close; but would still require additional support from generational wealth. With that, those are a miserable 15 years of pinching every penny and foregoing even the smallest of luxuries.

So no. Its not the latte, or smokes, or tech that is keeping the young kids from homeownership. Its that the market went inverted and those "luxuries" are now cheaper than necessities.

Its a comical allegory for where we are now with defense spending. We stalwartly refused to buy at the right time, and decided to put our money elsewhere because "we can always spend when we need it." Now, we have a massive undertaking ahead of us and are recoiling at the cost of things.

The only difference now is that inflation, defence inflation, and having to take from elsewhere are now necessary if we wish to face the challenges of tomorrow (because we certainly aren't equipped for facing them today).

 

[FJAG]

Both approaches require an assumption that smoking or drinking coffee is undesirable or in some way questionable. The whole "five bucks a day" thing is fraught with social judgement. One could just as easily cast shade based on meat consumption, internet access, having children, driving at the speed limit vice below, remittances to family abroad, saving for education, collecting weapons etc.

Yeah. It's more based on having a mother who was a two-pack a day smoker and watching her money and health go down the drain - and that was in the glory days when a pack only cost $0.20 but wages were in the low hundreds per month. Once a carton went up to $20.00 it just became unjustifiable. So at $18.00 for a pack nowadays, a two-pack habit comes to $13,140 per year. Several years of that and you have the down payment for a house and a good part of the mortgage covered each year.

Nothing is an absolute. One can cast shade on many things but on a scale running from "utterly useless and harmful" to "unnecessary but harmless indulgence," smoking leads the way on the left flank.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Yeah. It's more based on having a mother who was a two-pack a day smoker and watching her money and health go down the drain - and that was in the glory days when a pack only cost $0.20 but wages were in the low hundreds per month. Once a carton went up to $20.00 it just became unjustifiable. So at $18.00 for a pack nowadays, a two-pack habit comes to $13,140 per year. Several years of that and you have the down payment for a house and a good part of the mortgage covered each year.

Nothing is an absolute. One can cast shade on many things but on a scale running from "utterly useless and harmful" to "unnecessary but harmless indulgence," smoking leads the way on the left flank.

My late mother spent roughly $100 a week on cigarettes, beer, and lottery tickets when I was a young lad growing up in the 1990s.

She was the assistant manager of a branch at a major bank. She knew about investing. She dealt with multiple million dollar accounts. I remember costing out her vices and doing up a portfolio for how much she would be able to a) save and b) see modest returns on even a moderately high savings account, if she quit those things and invested.

"I don't want to."

Addiction is a hell of a thing...

 

[CountDC]

Hunting, fishing, skiing, vacations, etc.

“If you don’t spend your money on that frivolous stuff, you’d be rich”

Damn; wonder where the family is hiding all my riches!!

 

[Kirkhill]

Both approaches require an assumption that smoking or drinking coffee is undesirable or in some way questionable. The whole "five bucks a day" thing is fraught with social judgement. One could just as easily cast shade based on meat consumption, internet access, having children, driving at the speed limit vice below, remittances to family abroad, saving for education, collecting weapons etc.

It need not be undesirable. It can, perhaps, be unnecessary. A simple dispensable luxury.

 

[Remius]

Trump says Canada has asked to join his Golden Dome missile defence program

U.S. President Donald Trump announced Tuesday aspects of his plan for a “Golden Dome” missile defence shield and said “it automatically makes sense” for Canada to be involved.

www.ctvnews.ca

If true this is a big deal.

 

[FSTO]

Trump says Canada has asked to join his Golden Dome missile defence program

U.S. President Donald Trump announced Tuesday aspects of his plan for a “Golden Dome” missile defence shield and said “it automatically makes sense” for Canada to be involved.

www.ctvnews.ca

If true this is a big deal.

 

[MilEME09]

Trump says Canada has asked to join his Golden Dome missile defence program

U.S. President Donald Trump announced Tuesday aspects of his plan for a “Golden Dome” missile defence shield and said “it automatically makes sense” for Canada to be involved.

www.ctvnews.ca

If true this is a big deal.

So 5% gdp spending then with this included?

 

[Czech_pivo]

So 5% gdp spending then with this included?

Back of the napkin, 175$B, I’d argue that we are 10-12% of their pop so we are on the hook for 10-12% of the cost.

 

[Kirkhill]

Back of the napkin, 175$B, I’d argue that we are 10-12% of their pop so we are on the hook for 10-12% of the cost.

175 BUSD?

So about a year's worth of Alberta Oil? Might have to throw in some Natural Gas to top up any shortages.

Alberta Doubles Down on U.S. Oil Exports | OilPrice.com

Alberta’s government is in talks with energy infrastructure majors to construct more oil pipelines to the United States.

oilprice.com

 

[Kirkhill]

Do we get one of these "sand tables" as well?

https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2025/5/20/army-experiment-brings-military-closer-to-joint-alldomain-command-control-goal

The Army first used a rocket launched from a trailer that carried a wire with explosives over a minefield. The detonation blasted a path through the hazardous area for soldiers.

That evolved into a drone that carried the wire more precisely over the field.

However, the war in Ukraine has the Army looking for other solutions. Previous objectives required the Army to clear minefields of about 330 feet. Minefields in Ukraine have expanded to more than 3,000 feet, which is beyond the length of the wire charges.

During Capstone 5, small drones first mapped the field and identified the landmine locations. That data was fed into the common operating picture so everyone knew where each landmine was located.

In the 3D Sandtable rendering, an autonomous vehicle with stacks of small kamikaze drones pulled up and deployed the flying munitions, each on a one-way mission to destroy a mine.

A robotic bulldozer then went into the field to assure the path was 100 percent clear. The new system doesn’t require any soldiers to be anywhere near the landmines, the briefers noted.

 

[Kilted]

Unfortunately, economics has turned that on it's head.

While this was true for young folks 50 years ago, wages havent kept up with inflation, real estate has exploded 10 fold, and frivolities have become drastically cheaper due to globalization.

In relation to an average salary, it would be 6 months rent to buy a new TV in the 1970s. Now, a new TV is half a paycheck. A Starbucks coffee is still attainable to most, only going up a modest 6 dollars a latte from where prices were 20 years ago.

Meanwhile, rent has gone from 20-25% of monthly salary to 40-50% depending on market. Home prices have increased 200-300% in some areas and the upfront cost is insurmountable for a down payment. An average couple could tighten the belt for 15 years and come close; but would still require additional support from generational wealth. With that, those are a miserable 15 years of pinching every penny and foregoing even the smallest of luxuries.

So no. Its not the latte, or smokes, or tech that is keeping the young kids from homeownership. Its that the market went inverted and those "luxuries" are now cheaper than necessities.

Its a comical allegory for where we are now with defense spending. We stalwartly refused to buy at the right time, and decided to put our money elsewhere because "we can always spend when we need it." Now, we have a massive undertaking ahead of us and are recoiling at the cost of things.

The only difference now is that inflation, defence inflation, and having to take from elsewhere are now necessary if we wish to face the challenges of tomorrow (because we certainly aren't equipped for facing them today).

Makes me wish that I was in the line of succession for a house. I'm surprised that we haven't started looking at multigenerational mortgages. I had someone make a comment to me that we should start building war houses again. It's a great idea, but it would never fly with the developers, if they can build a million dollar home on the same piece of property, they are going to do what makes them money.

It's really funny, we have these things called houses, where people are supposed to live, but no one can afford to live in them.

 

[KevinB]

Back of the napkin, 175$B, I’d argue that we are 10-12% of their pop so we are on the hook for 10-12% of the cost.

Except you are over 50% the land mass…