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

[ueo]

What about snowcrete

Umm H20 avail?

 

[GK .Dundas]

It is a proud political tradition practiced by all political parties that everyone promises big and constantly under delivers.
It goes back as far as back as Confederation
I suspect even farther back then that.
It's a sad political truth that while you can not win an election on defense issues you can lose one on them however.
Neglect of our National Defence isn't a Liberal Party thing or Conservative Party thing all who are united in the belief that nothings too good for our troops. 🫩
Mind you that hasn't stopped either political party from using the troops as backdrops for political tub thumping....

 

[KevinB]

Defence spending both is and is not a political issue in Canada. I don’t think it’s fair to get upset at the Liberal Party in isolation as non of Canada’s political parties have ever put money where their mouth is.

I think there has been an awakening in Canada recently as to exactly how volatile the world is, and Canada is woefully unprepared.

 

[Jarnhamar]

What worries me, is that this pivot is just a reaction to DJT and his presidency. And if DJT loses the midterms and then crashes in the next election every things will go back to 2023.

I'm thinking the same. Trump's erratic behavior scared Canadians and the government wisely took advantage of that. Without the boogeyman in place Canadians will get comfortable again with big brother USA protecting us.

I don’t think it’s fair to get upset at the Liberal Party in isolation as non of Canada’s political parties have ever put money where their mouth is.

Definitely not. Once operations in Afghanistan largely ended public support quickly fell away and the Conservative
government began emphasizing fiscal restraint, balanced budgets, and domestic issues instead of major new military reforms, purchases, and making good on stuff we were still waiting on.

I think there has been an awakening in Canada recently as to exactly how volatile the world is, and Canada is woefully unprepared.

Hopefully. I think time and distance is still going to come to play and we're still pretty detached from what's going on on the rest of the world.

Just like Trump scared us into spending money on defence, we might need a few more big scares to really hammer the point home.

Canadians supporting gun confiscation while bragging about kicking Americans ass and making them pay for every inch of ground taken (in an invasion) in blood shows me we're still in la la land.

 

[Underway]

I'm thinking the same. Trump's erratic behavior scared Canadians and the government wisely took advantage of that. Without the boogeyman in place Canadians will get comfortable again with big brother USA protecting us.

The paradigm has shifted and woe to those who don't recognize it. And I'm referring to you directly, not feeling the difference in the zeitgeist but still relying on old interpretations. Canadians won't be going back to sleep anytime soon, something has changed/broken, been rewritten.

Canadians supporting gun confiscation while bragging about kicking Americans ass and making them pay for every inch of ground taken (in an invasion) in blood shows me we're still in la la land.

Internet braggadocio and gun policy are not the same thing. The people talking smack on the internet are by and large not the same people who favour gun control. Those are two entirely different populations.

 

[Furniture]

The paradigm has shifted and woe to those who don't recognize it.

I think it's far too early to be making declarations like that.

Things may have shifted for now, but Canadians are quite adept at ignoring the dangers of the world. We shouldn't pretend past behaviours are not an indicator of future ones.

Acting like this shift is permeant right now comes across as similar to those who declared the handshake dead in the peak of COVID. It went out of fashion for a while, but it's back to being the norm again.

 

[Jarnhamar]

And I'm referring to you directly, not feeling the difference in the zeitgeist but still relying on old interpretations. Canadians won't be going back to sleep anytime soon, something has changed/broken, been rewritten.

I'm very excited to be wrong and witness Canadians taking their national defence and sovereignty seriously in the long term. I think celebrating this national shift is a little premature.

Internet braggadocio and gun policy are not the same thing. The people talking smack on the internet are by and large not the same people who favour gun control. Those are two entirely different populations.

Gun confiscation or gun control?

I personally favor very strong gun control. The Liberals are pushing the former under the guise of the latter and we've already seen the public safety minister say the whole thing is stupid and just happening to shut Quebec up. Real great policy there.

Anyhow I can only base my opinion off what I witness online and what I've seen were many people who supported gun confiscation talking real tough about kicking American ass. The only thing those people would be good for in an invasion is acting like loot bags.

 

[Maxman1]

Defence spending both is and is not a political issue in Canada. I don’t think it’s fair to get upset at the Liberal Party in isolation as non of Canada’s political parties have ever put money where their mouth is.

I think there has been an awakening in Canada recently as to exactly how volatile the world is, and Canada is woefully unprepared.

True, both sides have a poor track record. But one side has been cumulatively in power far longer and made longer lasting cuts and changes, like the Decade of Darkness and selling off kit for no rhyme or reason like the Chinooks, desert uniforms, 60mm mortars, the M109s, and more recently donating tanks and ACSVs without replacement (which is why soon, I'll be driving a Bison in Latvia), and canceling projects like the Sea King replacement and changing the specifications so the Cyclone would win.

 

[ytz]

It is a proud political tradition practiced by all political parties that everyone promises big and constantly under delivers.
It goes back as far as back as Confederation
I suspect even farther back then that.
It's a sad political truth that while you can not win an election on defense issues you can lose one on them however.
Neglect of our National Defence isn't a Liberal Party thing or Conservative Party thing all who are united in the belief that nothings too good for our troops. 🫩
Mind you that hasn't stopped either political party from using the troops as backdrops for political tub thumping....

Worse. Canadians, until recently, saw militarism as an American thing. Basically something "unCanadian" if you will. A really trite attitude from people consciously relying on the US for protection. That is slowly changing as the US appears more fickle.

But also, I have doubts that the public mindset has fully changed. Higher defence spending is largely being supported now, because there's some understanding that defence is tied to trade. If trade rewards don't materialize and we enter a serious recession, I think support for sending billions outside the country, to a country that is actually causing the pain, will be limited.

Defence spending both is and is not a political issue in Canada. I don’t think it’s fair to get upset at the Liberal Party in isolation as non of Canada’s political parties have never put money where their mouth is.

I think there has been an awakening in Canada recently as to exactly how volatile the world is, and Canada is woefully unprepared.

Yes and no. There's a grudging understand we have to do more, particularly to take care of ourselves. To that end, you're seeing tens of billions on any project that is NORAD modernization (radars, fighters, satellites) and homeland defence (ships, maritime patrol, submarines). Spending that is largely seen as power projection is still going to be seen as optional and conditional on geopolitics and trade. Going to be hard selling tens of billions in spending to put heavy brigades in Europe, if the Europeans aren't helping us out with reducing trade dependency on the US. Let's face it, we don't need MLRS and MBT to protect the Canadian homeland. That is entirely something we will field to meet alliance obligations. And there's a difference there between letter of the law and spirit of the law, with where we fall, largely being determined by what the payback is in other areas of the relationship.

A big part of why I like the DIA idea is that at least spending more at home is likely to result in less procurement angst. Manœuvre Division in LAVs. And DoC Division in Roshel Senators is very sellable to politicians.

 

[KevinB]

True, both sides have a poor track record. But one side has been cumulatively in power far longer and made longer lasting cuts and changes, like the Decade of Darkness and selling off kit for no rhyme or reason like the Chinooks.

Blame the CA for not funding that.

, desert uniforms, 60mm mortars, the M109s

CA decisions not the GoC.

, and more recently donating tanks and ACSVs without replacement (which is why soon, I'll be driving a Bison in Latvia),

I’d say Ukraine had a more pressing need that is in Canada’s interest.

and canceling projects like the Sea King replacement and changing the specifications so the Cyclone would win.

Or the conservatives scuttling the Blackhawk buy to buy Griffons which are a vastly inferior product.

 

[ytz]

I'll be driving a Bison in Latvia), and canceling projects like the Sea King replacement and changing the specifications so the Cyclone would win.

Just a reminder, both parties do this. I got to enjoy this problem on the Kingfisher.

 

[ytz]

I would also be a little reticent to criticize the Canadian public too much. Maslow's hierarchy. They know what they need. And in a country with a housing crisis, healthcare shortage, cost of living crisis, etc, to argue that the priority should be high end toys for a fight in Europe or Indo-Pac is always going to be a tough sell. We're not the US. We don't have the same global interests. And the Americans themselves are increasingly deciding that maybe they shouldn't have the same interests either. Anybody who thinks our deficit is bad should look at the American deficit. If none of this is sustainable in the long run, we all need to have discussions about core interests and how we can protect them. The Americans may have choose to between Europe and Indo Pac. Canada might have to decide between more boots on the ground or a large aid package to Ukraine that helps mitigate the primary threat there.

 

[YZT580]

At this moment in time, has there been any money spent on something that we actually don’t need?
Is there any indication that money is about to be spent on something that we actually don’t need?

that would be very hard to do because we need everything. There is an argument to be made however for some very poor choices, i.e. The Kingfisher, some helicopters and some top heavy armoured vehicles with a tendency to roll over.

 

[Jarnhamar]

A big part of why I like the DIA idea

I'm sure Ive missed it. What is DIA?

Just a reminder, both parties do this. I got to enjoy this problem on the Kingfisher.

I can't think of any big C types here arguing that the CPC doesn't do this crap, or are innocent of the maleficence done to our national defence department. If one of us tried it would certainly be very easy to beat us down with facts.

 

[Czech_pivo]

that would be very hard to do because we need everything. There is an argument to be made however for some very poor choices, i.e. The Kingfisher, some helicopters and some top heavy armoured vehicles with a tendency to roll over.

Yes, all of those under the old way of doing business.

The new approach has yet to spend a dime. The first out of the gate very well might be the subs in the next 8-10 weeks. Depending on how successful the future timelines, potential cost overruns and usability of whatever sub we choose, this could be the first 'poor choice' made. But this won't be decided for at least 8-10yrs down the road.

The Germans put out a news story over the weekend that they might be interested in setting up shop here in Canada and have a undefined number of later in the pipeline subs manufactured here in Canada. At the 50,000ft level, this might be a poor choice given the cost overruns and timeline slippages of our current shipyards. I've yet to read a single comment on here of anyone saying, 'build the subs here in Canada, shipyard X would be a logical choice.'

 

[ytz]

At this moment in time, has there been any money spent on something that we actually don’t need?
Is there any indication that money is about to be spent on something that we actually don’t need?

To first assess need, we have to discuss the threat we're trying to counter/defend against and the mission/task being fulfilled.

 

[ytz]

What is DIA?

Defence Investment Agency

Defence Investment Agency - Canada.ca

Modernizing Canada’s defence procurement by centralizing expertise, cutting red tape and streamlining decisions

www.canada.ca

 

[Halifax Tar]

Good point. Very possible. But the fact that we're going to be doing more at home does mitigate some of this risk. We'll get 2%. And probably stay there. The 5% talk is pure fantasy though. Keep in mind that industry wants this as much as the CAF. And also American protectionism doesn't end with Trump.

I'm thinking the same. Trump's erratic behavior scared Canadians and the government wisely took advantage of that. Without the boogeyman in place Canadians will get comfortable again with big brother USA protecting us.


Definitely not. Once operations in Afghanistan largely ended public support quickly fell away and the Conservative
government began emphasizing fiscal restraint, balanced budgets, and domestic issues instead of major new military reforms, purchases, and making good on stuff we were still waiting on.


Hopefully. I think time and distance is still going to come to play and we're still pretty detached from what's going on on the rest of the world.

Just like Trump scared us into spending money on defence, we might need a few more big scares to really hammer the point home.

Canadians supporting gun confiscation while bragging about kicking Americans ass and making them pay for every inch of ground taken (in an invasion) in blood shows me we're still in la la land.

Its polling like this that scares me. And politicians will sacrifice anything to stay in power.

I don't see defence on there anywhere. Maybe the threat of China and Russia, 6% ? Even DJT has dropped to 5th place.

Abacus Data Poll: Liberals and Conservatives Locked in Tight Race as Cost of Living Concerns Surge - Abacus Data

%

abacusdata.ca

Abacus Data Poll: Crime and Safety Rise as Top Issue as Parliament Resumes. Liberals and Conservatives tied. - Abacus Data

%

abacusdata.ca

A New Abacus Data Poll Reveals Canadians Divided and Worried About the Cost of Living

The latest Abacus Data poll on Canadian politics

davidcoletto.substack.com

 

[Maxman1]

Blame the CA for not funding that.

Was it their call, or a government directive? Plus the Chinooks were an RCAF asset, the Army wouldn't be able to sell those off if it wanted to.

I’d say Ukraine had a more pressing need that is in Canada’s interest.

No argument there, but three years should be more than enough time to order replacements. Same with the Chinook that crashed two years ago.

Or the conservatives scuttling the Blackhawk buy to buy Griffons which are a vastly inferior product.

The LSVW was also their fault (although it was my understanding the Griffin was picked by the Chretien government, because it was built in Quebec).

Just a reminder, both parties do this. I got to enjoy this problem on the Kingfisher.

Like I said, both sides have a poor record, although the Kingfisher falls on the current government.

 

[ytz]

Like I said, both sides have a poor record, although the Kingfisher falls on the current government.

I was there when the requirements were being written. All of that was done during the Harper years. Even circulation of draft RFPs. Only the competition itself was held in 2016. Do you really want to argue that new governments should simply restart procurements from scratch when elected?