Canada moves to 2% GDP end of FY25/26 - PMMC

[DBNSG]

The big difference I see is that back in the 80’s when the Mulroney government put out the White Paper, there were huge “peace demonstrations” (funded by Moscow) in every major city and critical editorials in most major news outlets. Opposition to the whiff of increased defence spending was real, which is why much of that White Paper disappeared. Now, I am not seeing anywhere near that level of public opposition, save for the odd Tankie artsy prof at some backwater university. Most editorials I’ve seen the last few years (even before Trump 2.0) called for more defence spending.

I am definitely sensing a change.

I definitely agree. I golf with an old High School buddy and my brother quite often and lets just say they are good little Liberals.
Both now agree that Canada has let defence slide for too long and its time to get serious. Both of them asked me last Summer what the Americans would do if we just refused to up our spend , just keep mooching. I warned them that the Yanks were waking up and the peace dividend was coming to an end. They now get it but see our new commitment as a keep the Yanks at bay sort of effort.

 

[DBNSG]

Non-paywalled version of the article: https://archive.is/1WQBN

Makes sense to me. Get a budget out late in the calendar year, with time for departments and agencies to digest it before the start of the federal fiscal in April. The point about getting a budget out some months before construction season seems reasonable too.

If we’re to have a budget once a year, then publishing it when it makes more sense for planning purposes doesn’t seem to me to be a bad thing.

It might even kill March madness, ... Nah what was I thinking.

 

[Kirkhill]

I was referring to the selection process and lowering the testing standards to allow a noncompliant bid to win, just like the LSVW and CF-5.

Obviously the standards were set too high. You expected too much. You need to be more realistic to encourage more competition.

Or so goes the argument.

On the other hand, many times the 80% solution will get the job done.

 

[ytz]

I warned them that the Yanks were waking up and the peace dividend was coming to an end. They now get it but see our new commitment as a keep the Yanks at bay sort of effort.

I question this narrative. If Trump is going to do something, he'll do it anyway. And I fear that making it so conditional on American approval will see public support tank when Trump (inevitably) refuses to acknowledge our increased spending.

Here's a simple question. Has Trump actually gone easy with trade on any ally that has increased spending? Has he shown renewed commitment to defend allies who spend more?

 

[ytz]

It might even kill March madness, ... Nah what was I thinking.

Read the article. The budget presentation and cycle is changing. Not the fiscal year. This will probably change business planning cycles. But not March madness.

 

[Kirkhill]

Yeah. But what happens when the budgets come out and we have $50b deficits? Balanced budgets, more social spending, more defence spending. Pick two. The next government will have the same choices too.

This is why I think 2% is possible. More is a bridge too far. Up to 2%, there's ways to spend a lot of that in Canada. The more we spend that leaves the country, the harder it is to support.

Thus Roshel Dodges and GM LUVs rather than Leos and CV90s.

I wonder what Carney would have to promise Sweden to get a licence to build 1000 Bandvagns in Canada... and get the spare parts rights.

 

[Maxman1]

Yes, but I would not blame the current government for that one.

Again, not the current government, a Liberal government yes, but not the same government.

The current government is really a continuation of the Trudeau government.

 

[Kirkhill]

The current government is really a continuation of the Trudeau government.

The Establishment is a continuation of The Establishment.

Colours and banners, names and faces are not the issue.

 

[ytz]

I wonder what Carney would have to promise Sweden to get a licence to build 1000 Bandvagns in Canada... and get the spare parts rights.

Nothing? They just have to build in Canada using Canadian steel.

 

[Kirkhill]

Nothing? They just have to build in Canada using Canadian steel.

Maybe. But Sweden has an export driven economy. It keeps its people employed through exports.

I kind of think there would be some kind of quid pro quo.

 

[ytz]

Maybe. But Sweden has an export driven economy. It keeps its people employed through exports.

I kind of think there would be some kind of quid pro quo.

Their prize would be the profits and fees for IP. And if that's not enough, we'll get somebody else to build in Canada.

Why do you think the Koreans and Germans are suddenly promising all kind of work share in Canada for the submarine contract? They are starting to get that specs or price alone won't win.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Because if the requirement is strictly defence of Canada, that can be done for less than 2% and an even smaller full time army.

You figure Canada could defend itself against an invasion with an even smaller full time army than we have now?