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

[Seyek]

This little tidbit has the office humming....

Ministers on F-35 Fighter Jet Costs, Defence Spending – June 10, 2025

Ministers speak with reporters on Parliament Hill following the federal cabinet’s weekly meeting. Minister David McGuinty (defence) comments on the newly-tabled report by Auditor General Karen Hogan detailing the cost overruns for the American-made F-35 fighter jets. François-Philippe Champagne...

www.cpac.ca

For those who haven't watched it, he stated a 20% raise.

Which isn't quite what was in the screenshot posted earlier, and I refuse to believe anything until the money is in my account, but I'm excited by all the possibilities.

 

[FJAG]

I'll just do a drive-by posting here.

I don't think that the RCMP, CCG or CBSA are in any way countable under the current NATO definition of what constitutes included forces for the purposes of the 2% guideline.

Canada's constitution makes the keeping of "Peace, Order and good Government," the "Sea Coasts . . .," "Naturalization and Aliens," and "Militia, Military and Naval Service and Defence," a federal responsibility. There is really no question about that. The extent to which the government wants to "militarize" what have, up to now, been federal civilian rather than military agencies is simply a choice of the government. The question for the government to answer is whether or not the 2% guideline is a sufficient ground for changing predominantly civilian agencies into military ones (including the arming and training of them) or whether there are other good and sufficient grounds in the nature of the threats which would dictate that the status quo be abandoned.

I don't for a minute believe that Canada has lost control of its borders and internal security but equally I believe that change is coming and that we should be better prepared to defend our way of life. This is where I take a different course from some posters on this forum. IMHO, Canada, as well as several other western nations, should be taking a harder approach to border and internal security. There are numerous bad actors out there taking advantage of our liberal democratic concepts. On top of that we have imported numerous foreign disputes to have a home within our own borders.

I'm always someone who looks more to the future than the present when considering how things ought to be organized. I think much of our status quo has outlived its usefulness in light of the changing world. Quite frankly I do not care whether there are thousands of managers and operators in these federal civilian agencies who disagree with a militarized federal service. Maybe offer some grandfathering provisions for those who are harmless, maybe just retire the dissenters early, but do start a new regime with new hires. It will take time and it won't be easy. Consider how long it took took to get police forces to recognize that they needed to up their arms and develop SWAT detachments. We must get to a point where these agencies can take military style actions without the need to call in the army. The army should always be a last resort.

All of that said, I think the current actions by the Feds - if I'm reading between the lines properly - is to play a shell game with NATO where we start counting without taking appropriate actions to change the systems. Which minister they report to is of no consequence. It's the systemic changes that matter. The direction that I actually see things going will not increase our defence outputs one whit. And that includes pay raises. Buy extra equipment? By all means. Pay people more for the same service they provide? Not on your life until defence outputs increase. And don't try to tell me that people won't join or are leaving because of pay. (Sure a lot say that but there isn't a worker in the world who will say "stop increasing my pay. I'm getting too much already") There are more than enough applying to get in. Our problem is internal throughput and quality of service life. Those need fixing.

$0.02. Let the pillorying begin.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

For those who haven't watched it, he stated a 20% raise.

Which isn't quite what was in the screenshot posted earlier, and I refuse to believe anything until the money is in my account, but I'm excited by all the possibilities.

20% raise would be see an extra $1800 a month Gross for a Capt 4. That's an extra $1300 for a Cpl 4 Basic.

I would be floored to see that kind of a raise....

 

[PrairieFella]

20% raise would be see an extra $1800 a month Gross for a Capt 4. That's an extra $1300 for a Cpl 4 Basic.

I would be floored to see that kind of a raise....

It'll pay dividends in retention, especially with a global recession looming.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

It'll pay dividends in retention, especially with a global recession looming.

I don't argue that in the slightest, however, it would be a very tough pill for the Canadian Public to see CAF members making bank while they're struggling to make ends meet.

Then again, I also have been hit very hard with the Reality stick when it came to dangling the Compensation carrot in hopes of retention (see: ACISS Spec Pay fiasco)

 

[Cloud Cover]

The definition of what qualifies is found here and reads, in part (highlights mine):

"They might also include parts of other forces such as Ministry of Interior troops, national police forces, coast guards etc. In such cases, expenditure is included only in proportion to the forces that are trained in military tactics, are equipped as a military force, can operate under direct military authority in deployed operations, and can, realistically, be deployed outside national territory in support of a military force. Expenditure on other forces financed through the budgets of ministries other than the Ministry of Defence is also included in defence expenditure."

The same argument arose a few months back when Scott Moe suggested that the CBSA fall under DND and be counted in the 2% in response to POTUS47 whining about the border. It was unworkable then and could be unworkable now for the CCG.

All true. The PM has also made clear he doesn’t give a flying frig what “spreadsheet accountants at NATO” think of how calculates 2%. So there’s that.
Let’s be honest, but for the friggery of Donald Trump we wouldn’t even ve trying this. And but for the friggery of NATO, after 75 years Canada still puts in more than we can expect to get out of it. We’re essentially on our own now, so it’s time for Canada to grow up. I’d rather we stayed in NATO but pulled the small set of forces out of Europe while we figure things out.

 

[PrairieFella]

I don't argue that in the slightest, however, it would be a very tough pill for the Canadian Public to see CAF members making bank while they're struggling to make ends meet.

Then again, I also have been hit very hard with the Reality stick when it came to dangling the Compensation carrot in hopes of retention (see: ACISS Spec Pay fiasco)

Perhaps it's time the CAF is a desirable and competitive career in Canadian society. I won't begrudge my reg brothers a raise. That said, infrastructure and procurement need to take priority.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Perhaps it's time the CAF is a desirable and competitive career in Canadian society. I won't begrudge my reg brothers a raise. That said, infrastructure and procurement need to take priority.

I think we both agree on both points. I do not begrudge anyone in the CAF living more comfortably (well, except certain folks at the top who were blissfully unaware (or ignorant) of how bad its gotten on the lower rung). I merely would be gob smacked to see that kind of money coming into my account....

 

[lenaitch]

The National SAR Secretariat belongs to Public Safety Canada.

They coordinate the Interdepartmental Committee on SAR.

The MND owns the JRCCs, which are staffed jointly by CAF and Coast Guard personnel.

SAR response is divided three ways in Canada.

Ground SAR is primarily a Provincial Responsibility.

Marine SAR is primarily a Coast Guard Responsibilty.

Air SAR is primarily a RCAF responsibility.

Depending on the SAR case and who is the closest asset, anybody from that list above could be the first responder.

So, putting Air SAR under the Coast Guard would not be a crazy reach (particularly if the CG was under the MND) , but the devil would be in the details.

So if the shared CAF/CCG SAR responsibility was to be severed and become the exclusive domain of one, either one, would that not require more assets and infrastructure in some cases? I'm thinking of the dual-roled Transport and Rescue Squadrons. If, for example, they became CCG assets, then the CAF uses a transport capability.

 

[Quirky]

20% would still not be enough in the eyes of many. It's almost like the standard has been set where any rank should be able to afford a house at any posting location across the country. In reality, if you built up base infrastructure like single-quarters to satisfy the requirements of members living on base, along with adequate PMQ levels and pricing relative to salary and not market value, the current pay levels won't feel that low.

 

[lenaitch]

I will stipulate that. However a week or so back the discussion was about managing the gray areas, the seems between the military and the civil that are being exploited by the hybrid forces of our enemies.

I noted then that the Europeans with their paramilitary gendarmeries, which do count towards NATO expenses, might be better placed to manage those threats.

Thet seem to be a subset of the nation's soldiers that have constabulary powers as opposed to constables with military capabilities.

I agree there is a significantly different culture but culture shifts have happened before. Even with the Mounties when Sam Steele's force vombined with the Dominion Police Force and likely when the Marine Service split into the Naval Service and Fisheries Officers. I suggest that CBSA is currently in the midst of a transition.

If NATO doesn't like the Canadian accounting then I am sure they will let know where the gaps are and what it will take to fix them. That's kind of the way audits work. Mistakes are identified and corrections are authorised in next year's budget.

If gaps are identified then new money is easier to justify as a requirement and not a supposition.

Other than a history or world governance lesson, I'm not sure what point you are trying to argue. Lots of other nations do things differently than us. Our Constitution is different, our laws are different. Other than wearing uniforms (and I would argue law enforcement these days in Canada is more quasi-military than paramilitary), what role would you envision for some manner of domestic, Euro-like paramilitary service?

All true. The PM has also made clear he doesn’t give a flying frig what “spreadsheet accountants at NATO” think of how calculates 2%. So there’s that.

If he takes that position, he will be little different than Trudeau's view:

“Canada over the past decades has been there to lead in NATO,” he said in Washington. “We continually step up and punch above our weight — something that isn’t always reflected in the crass mathematical calculation that certain people turn to.”

He can call anything he wants 'defence spending', but NATO is a club that we are a member of and it has its rule and the other club members might not be so enamoured.

 

[brihard]

20% would still not be enough in the eyes of many. It's almost like the standard has been set where any rank should be able to afford a house at any posting location across the country. In reality, if you built up base infrastructure like single-quarters to satisfy the requirements of members living on base, along with adequate PMQ levels and pricing relative to salary and not market value, the current pay levels won't feel that low.

I’ll quibble that it would be ‘enough’ at least for each and every individual who joins or stays because of it… But you’re right inasmuch as some are never satisfied and some have unrealistic expectations.

If CAF/DND could break free of the need to provide housing at market rates and was able to subsidize PMQs like they used to, then yeah, that would be a probably pretty cost effective way to help retention.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

20% would still not be enough in the eyes of many. It's almost like the standard has been set where any rank should be able to afford a house at any posting location across the country. In reality, if you built up base infrastructure like single-quarters to satisfy the requirements of members living on base, along with adequate PMQ levels and pricing relative to salary and not market value, the current pay levels won't feel that low.

I tend to agree with this observation. I think the CAF decided Mid-2000s that it paid people well enough that they weren't needed to house or feed a large portion of our ranks. And there were enough people that agreed with this line of reasoning, who signed off on bulldozing infrastructure and not committing to building any new stuff to replace it.

Short term thinking for short term gain... that has screwed us over in the long term.

Now we pay the cost for inaction and a lack of vision.

 

[Kirkhill]

Other than a history or world governance lesson, I'm not sure what point you are trying to argue. Lots of other nations do things differently than us. Our Constitution is different, our laws are different. Other than wearing uniforms (and I would argue law enforcement these days in Canada is more quasi-military than paramilitary), what role would you envision for some manner of domestic, Euro-like paramilitary service?

I don't know that I am trying to argue anything so much as trying to gather my thoughts and get some checks on my assumptions.

I will admit that I have always had a grudging admiration for Europe's Gendarmeries at exactly the same time as being grateful that I have never had to live under that style of regime.

I am glad for the demise of both the Stuarts and Cromwell and was well satisfied with the Whig settlement.

Just trying to figure out where we might be heading from here. I am pretty sure that the status quo isn't what it was and is changing rapidly.

 

[KevinB]

All true. The PM has also made clear he doesn’t give a flying frig what “spreadsheet accountants at NATO” think of how calculates 2%. So there’s that.
Let’s be honest, but for the friggery of Donald Trump we wouldn’t even ve trying this. And but for the friggery of NATO, after 75 years Canada still puts in more than we can expect to get out of it. We’re essentially on our own now, so it’s time for Canada to grow up. I’d rather we stayed in NATO but pulled the small set of forces out of Europe while we figure things out.

Well if one wants to be part of the whole Re-Arm Europe because it just woke up aspect then I would be really careful about the way NATO says 2% or 3.5%...
Or you will be sitting alone, with no allies, and no equipment.

 

[Kirkhill]

It'll pay dividends in retention, especially with a global recession looming.

I’ll quibble that it would be ‘enough’ at least for each and every individual who joins or stays because of it… But you’re right inasmuch as some are never satisfied and some have unrealistic expectations.

If CAF/DND could break free of the need to provide housing at market rates and was able to subsidize PMQs like they used to, then yeah, that would be a probably pretty cost effective way to help retention.

Typically recessions and depressions have improved both recruiting and retention, especially when there is a fairly handsome pension attached.

A 20% rise might be welcome for those already in uniform but

I don't argue that in the slightest, however, it would be a very tough pill for the Canadian Public to see CAF members making bank while they're struggling to make ends meet.

Then again, I also have been hit very hard with the Reality stick when it came to dangling the Compensation carrot in hopes of retention (see: ACISS Spec Pay fiasco)

You want to keep the Canadian Public on side.

....

Perhaps it's time the CAF is a desirable and competitive career in Canadian society. I won't begrudge my reg brothers a raise. That said, infrastructure and procurement need to take priority.

The desirability of the career, I believe, starts with a clear understanding that there is a need, that the problem is clearly defined and that the solution is viable.

One of the reasons, I believe, that people didn't join during the Cold War was they failed to believe that bayonets beat nuclear bombs. There was, in there mind, no point.

Creating an attractive career starts with convincing people that there is a problem and that you have got the answer.

 

[Kirkhill]

I tend to agree with this observation. I think the CAF decided Mid-2000s that it paid people well enough that they weren't needed to house or feed a large portion of our ranks. And there were enough people that agreed with this line of reasoning, who signed off on bulldozing infrastructure and not committing to building any new stuff to replace it.

Short term thinking for short term gain... that has screwed us over in the long term.

Now we pay the cost for inaction and a lack of vision.

Actually we should be looking for more short term gain. I believe. If we were hiring more short-timers and fewer career soldiers then we wouldn't be looking at keeping everybody in a house in downtown wherever. We would be looking at more transient accommodation for unaccompanied singles. More Motel 6 than Rosedale mansion.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Actually we should be looking for more short term gain. I believe. If we were hiring more short-timers and fewer career soldiers then we wouldn't be looking at keeping everybody in a house in downtown wherever. We would be looking at more transient accommodation for unaccompanied singles. More Motel 6 than Rosedale mansion.

We had the facilities for short timers. We fucked off the maintenance of these facilities to the horrid state they are now, or bulldozed them completely.

We owned the property we needed in or around downtown wherever; it was sold off for pennies on the dollar to net a short term windfall. Calgary, Griesbach, Downsview, Uplands, etc.. all had potential to expand and cater to our needs now that we want to grow our force; instead we handed them off to developers and that windfall is long gone and we have nothing to show for it.

We don't need Rosedale mansions, but we certainly had Motel 6s, or at least the vacant lot.

Again, a lack of long term vision, blinded by short term "gains" means we are now paying out the ass to make up the difference.

 

[dapaterson]

The decision to get out of housing was d oven by QoL studies in the late 90s, where people releasing after 20-30+ years complained that they'd spent their career on Qs and never built home equity.

Thus the decision to prioritize and incentivize home ownership.

 

[Castus]

The decision to get out of housing was d oven by QoL studies in the late 90s, where people releasing after 20-30+ years complained that they'd spent their career on Qs and never built home equity.

Thus the decision to prioritize and incentivize home ownership.

Not a good decision. As I understand, though, one that Comd MILPERSCOM openly advocated for in a very recent Town Hall in Petawawa. 'We don't want more people living in PMQs, but buying houses on the market'.

So now we have JNCOs (and frankly many SNCOs, WOs and Jr Officers) who will not earn enough to buy a house in most markets, or will struggle to pay exorbitant rent and also do not have much if any leftover funds for anything other than scraping by, and a massive shortfall in PMQs or other military housing. Priority in military housing was also recently changed to put nearly everyone in the same basket - that is to say, a member with a wife and two children is prioritised the same as a single member looking for a PMQ. This is the worst combination.

The only way to try and get ahead, I think, is a raise, followed by massive construction of military housing which will then be handled outside of market rate - uniformly throughout the country.