• 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....
 
It must have been tough for JT to sit there and listen to our Monarch call out to him about all the changes that the new government is doing that is addressing all the mistakes of the last 9yrs.

  • increase defense spending dramatically
  • reduce timelines for Fed Govt review/approval of projects
  • reduce immigration (to rebuilding trust of Canadians in immigration by restoring balance)
  • reduce the cap on international students
  • new fiscal discipline, spend less so Canadians can invest more
  • reduce day to day Government spending (growing at 9% per year)
  • tougher laws for car theft/home invasions by ensuring bail conditions are stricter
  • investing in both conventional and new energy


All of those things (and alot more) are completely different than the approach taken by JT and he had to sit there front row and listen to his 9yrs of power being brick by brick taken down - at least I certainly hope so.
 
Well the King just announced that we'll be a part of the 'ReArm Europe' initiative, so I guess that's official.

If it gets us better funding and kit that's great. I just wish we could get away from Europe.

It must have been tough for JT to sit there and listen to our Monarch call out to him about all the changes that the new government is doing that is addressing all the mistakes of the last 9yrs.

  • increase defense spending dramatically
  • reduce timelines for Fed Govt review/approval of projects
  • reduce immigration (to rebuilding trust of Canadians in immigration by restoring balance)
  • reduce the cap on international students
  • new fiscal discipline, spend less so Canadians can invest more
  • reduce day to day Government spending (growing at 9% per year)
  • tougher laws for car theft/home invasions by ensuring bail conditions are stricter
  • investing in both conventional and new energy


All of those things (and alot more) are completely different than the approach taken by JT and he had to sit there front row and listen to his 9yrs of power being brick by brick taken down - at least I certainly hope so.

So no news on the LPC campaigned on promised pay increase and tax cuts ?

Anything deeper than your headlines or is it the typical LPC delivery of announcements without the actual deliverables ?

I bet JT isn't even paying attention.
 
5% is impossible for basically any NATO country not under current threat. Sure Poland or Estonia or Lithuania can justify it, but it'd be political suicide anywhere else. Healthcare, a social safety net or 5% GDP on defence, pick 2. Frankly, jacking the defence spending in most countries to 5% in peacetime (US included), will be counterproductive and will cause people to revolt. 2.5% - 2.75% across the alliance and amongst our partners like SK or Aus is more than enough to keep Russia and China contained.

I still think we can get to 5% if we add dual function civil-military infrastructure and incorporate some elements of foreign aid into that number.
 
It must have been tough for JT to sit there and listen to our Monarch call out to him about all the changes that the new government is doing that is addressing all the mistakes of the last 9yrs.

  • increase defense spending dramatically
  • reduce timelines for Fed Govt review/approval of projects
  • reduce immigration (to rebuilding trust of Canadians in immigration by restoring balance)
  • reduce the cap on international students
  • new fiscal discipline, spend less so Canadians can invest more
  • reduce day to day Government spending (growing at 9% per year)
  • tougher laws for car theft/home invasions by ensuring bail conditions are stricter
  • investing in both conventional and new energy


All of those things (and alot more) are completely different than the approach taken by JT and he had to sit there front row and listen to his 9yrs of power being brick by brick taken down - at least I certainly hope so.

Well him and his entire cabinet, which many are also the new cabinet....

But what do they care so long as they keep getting elected... I think we'll see a new trend: The LPC will just flip leaders right before an election every time they start to get crushed in the polling.
 
Well him and his entire cabinet, which many are also the new cabinet....

But what do they care so long as they keep getting elected... I think we'll see a new trend: The LPC will just flip leaders right before an election every time they start to get crushed in the polling.
Rarely does that work - failed for Mulroney and JC with Paul Martin.
Carney is the exception, this guy would have been a PC back in 1993 and if he had ran as a PC when Mulroney resigned I think he would have won back then as well.
 
Rarely does that work - failed for Mulroney and JC with Paul Martin.
Carney is the exception, this guy would have been a PC back in 1993 and if he had ran as a PC when Mulroney resigned I think he would have won back then as well.

It would have interfered with his schooling at Oxford (MPhil and DPhil - economics) and the wooing of his British wife (also an Oxford student, and ice hockey player - Oxford has hockey teams :unsure:).

Though he would have been three years more mature at that hypothetical election than the Tweedledum and Tweedledee of opposition leadership (Sheer and Poilievre) when they were elected at age 25 a decade later, without his more than a decade working in the private sector before joining the Bank of Canada (and his career following), Carney would possibly have been just as much an asshole as those two if he had entered electoral politics that young.
 
It would have interfered with his schooling at Oxford (MPhil and DPhil - economics) and the wooing of his British wife (also an Oxford student, and ice hockey player - Oxford has hockey teams :unsure:).

Though he would have been three years more mature at that hypothetical election than the Tweedledum and Tweedledee of opposition leadership (Sheer and Poilievre) when they were elected at age 25 a decade later, without his more than a decade working in the private sector before joining the Bank of Canada (and his career following), Carney would possibly have been just as much an asshole as those two if he had entered electoral politics that young.
Oh I agree about the timelines/age. But if he was 60yrs old in the summer of 1993, I think he would have run for the PC leadership and if he did, he would have won.
 
I would argue that your president is one as well, and is greatly influenced by Carlson.
Yeah that makes total sense. Trying to convince EU to get off of Russian energy and to build up their military to counter Russia are things Russian assets tend to do.
Give your head a shake.
 
Yeah that makes total sense. Trying to convince EU to get off of Russian energy and to build up their military to counter Russia are things Russian assets tend to do.
Give your head a shake.
They do when America is with drawing, he can get europe to spend all they want, but with him pulling back before europe is ready, thats just asking for Putin to attack. Thats like telling your neighbor to get a new security company but also to disable his current alarm till the new ones ready. Who does it really help? Trump has dragged his feet on Russia, and even republicans in the senate wont push forward on the 500% tariff/sanctions package unless Trump gives the okay according to the speaker. Programs targeting russia have been cancelled, russian friendly people are advising the president. He is still pursuing a defacto NATO withdrawal of US forces, and we continue to see that.
 




Maybe not assets. Definitely useful idiots.
 
They do when America is with drawing, he can get europe to spend all they want, but with him pulling back before europe is ready, thats just asking for Putin to attack. Thats like telling your neighbor to get a new security company but also to disable his current alarm till the new ones ready. Who does it really help? Trump has dragged his feet on Russia, and even republicans in the senate wont push forward on the 500% tariff/sanctions package unless Trump gives the okay according to the speaker. Programs targeting russia have been cancelled, russian friendly people are advising the president. He is still pursuing a defacto NATO withdrawal of US forces, and we continue to see that.
Don't try to understand POTUS Trump in that way.
1) He was the original Ukrainian supporter.
2) NATO countries freeloaded off the USA for decades and ignored his concerns about Russia in his first term
3) He and a lot of the US Security/Defense Apparatus is more concerned about China than Russia, believing that we held the wall for years, and now Europe has to ante up
4) He (foolishly IMHO) thought he could reason with Putin and broker a peace deal - I think he realized he got suckered now.
5) Just like Jake Sullivan with President Biden there are a lot of folks here that are more worried about a Russian breakup and what that would mean to their nuclear arsenal - they view that as the #1 issue in the Russian invasion of Ukraine

While I don't agree with a lot of the above reasons, it doesn't make them less valid in the eyes of those who hold them.
 
Hot off the presses from CANSEC. Nee Roshel and Leonardo CUAS collaboration. Maybe a good choice to keep some of that defence money in Canada? I don't know enough about CUAS to comment on the quality of Leonardos tech. Is that some sort of RWS on top?

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top