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

[Czech_pivo]

New

All of that will be additional housing stock? No reduction of existing housing?

 

[HavokFour]

What about my question? Are these 'net new' houses or just replacing existing housing on a 1 to 1 basis? If it's completely net new housing, adding to the housing stock, then that speaks to an overall desire to grow in size the CAF.

Can only offer a magic 8 ball answer, we'll have to wait and see. But I agree if the goal is a bigger CAF then these would be on top of replacing older housing.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Sorry, you're saying that Carney's government is 'left leaning' and has 'moved further left'. Is that what you meant to say?

Sure, I can understand how one could read "left-leaning parties" and assume that I wasn't writing about NDP and Liberals in general but about Carney's government specifically.

The Liberal party has had two major factions/traditions/streams going back at least five decades. Carney is in the Martin/Turner/Martin stream. That stream will not control the party indefinitely. The other stream is the one that cheerfully announced its intention in 2015 to spend all the hard-earned fiscal improvements of the preceding 30 years of governments, and more. They'll be back.

I predict that the new bottom-line spending number will remain, but gradually money will be shifted out of defence and into other portfolios. Even as that shift happens its engineers will agitate for higher taxes "because of all that defence spending increase".

 

[Czech_pivo]

Sure, I can understand how one could read "left-leaning parties" and assume that I wasn't writing about NDP and Liberals in general but about Carney's government specifically.

The Liberal party has had two major factions/traditions/streams going back at least five decades. Carney is in the Martin/Turner/Martin stream. That stream will not control the party indefinitely. The other stream is the one that cheerfully announced its intention in 2015 to spend all the hard-earned fiscal improvements of the preceding 30 years of governments, and more. They'll be back.

I predict that the new bottom-line spending number will remain, but gradually money will be shifted out of defence and into other portfolios. Even as that shift happens its engineers will agitate for higher taxes "because of all that defence spending increase".

For better or worse, all parties swing left or right based largely on the leader and not so much on the base.

 

[Brad Sallows]

For better or worse, all parties swing left or right based largely on the leader and not so much on the base.

The two streams run deep. The Liberals are the most effective federal political party at hanging together, but even they couldn't contain the damage when Chretien was manoeuvred out by Martin.

 

[ytz]

Sorry, you're saying that Carney's government is 'left leaning' and has 'moved further left'. Is that what you meant to say?

It's partisan nonsense. Apparently right leaning parties are excused when they don't meet targets. Left leaning parties are never excused. And when one does (this one) the goalposts are moved to some foreboding about the future.

This shit has been going on forever:

It's damn nice to have a government trying to meet 2% immediately. And beyond that this government is taking national security more seriously across the board. First time ever I've seen serious discussions and actual staff effort on bigger issues like mobilization, defence of critical infrastructure, building critical stockpiles, identifying strategic gaps (right up to legislation), integrating all of government during escalation, how to mobilize society, industry, etc. I have literally never heard most of this discussed in my career. Let alone staff work and wargaming across government departments.

If Carney delivers on 25% of all the work going on, he'll never have to buy a beer in the vicinity of any base again. That's the level of staff work being pushed through.

 

[Czech_pivo]

It's partisan nonsense. Apparently right leaning parties are excused when they don't meet targets. Left leaning parties are never excused. And when one does (this one) the goalposts are moved to some foreboding about the future.

This shit has been going on forever:

It's damn nice to have a government trying to meet 2% immediately. And beyond that this government is taking national security more seriously across the board. First time ever I've seen serious discussions and actual staff effort on bigger issues like mobilization, defence of critical infrastructure, building critical stockpiles, identifying strategic gaps (right up to legislation), integrating all of government during escalation, how to mobilize society, industry, etc. I have literally never heard most of this discussed in my career. Let alone staff work and wargaming across government departments.

If Carney delivers on 25% of all the work going on, he'll never have to buy a beer in the vicinity of any base again. That's the level of staff work being pushed through.

Awesome!

 

[ytz]

I would suggest looking at the UK Defence Policy. Our work is heading in a similar direction. Mostly a conclusion that war is a "national effort" that must involve all of government, society and industry.

 

[ytz]

This is going to help with meeting quota next fiscal.

Government of Canada reaffirms unwavering support for Ukraine four years into Russia’s full-scale invasion

News release
February 24, 2026 – Ottawa, Canada – National Defence / Canadian Armed Forces

[...]

As partners, we must continue taking necessary steps to strengthen Ukraine’s negotiating position. This requires agile, focused military assistance that responds directly to operational requirements on the battlefield. As such, Minister McGuinty also announced:

• $2 billion in military assistance for fiscal year 2026-27 that builds on Canada’s sustained provision of critical military support and will help ensure the Armed Forces of Ukraine have the equipment and capabilities needed to defend their territory.

• Donation of over 400 armoured vehicles, including 66 Light Armoured Vehicles 6s (General Dynamics) and 383 Senator Armoured Vehicles (Roshel).

The Honourable Anita Anand, Minister of Foreign Affairs, also announced an additional $20 million to the Ukraine Energy Support Fund. This contribution will allow ongoing procurement and delivery of energy equipment to Ukrainian energy companies through a demand-driven, competitive bidding process to repair and rebuild critical energy infrastructure damaged by Russia’s strikes.

Furthermore, Canada will be imposing sanctions on 21 individuals and 53 entities, as well as 100 vessels from Russia’s shadow fleet, under the Special Economic Measures (Russia) Regulations. Canada is also lowering its price cap for Russian crude oil from US$47.60 to US$44.10 per barrel.

[...]

Government of Canada reaffirms unwavering support for Ukraine four years into Russia’s full-scale invasion - Canada.ca

Today marks four years since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. On this day, the Government of Canada reaffirms its steadfast support for Ukraine’s sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity.

www.canada.ca

 

[Czech_pivo]

This is going to help with meeting quota next fiscal.

Government of Canada reaffirms unwavering support for Ukraine four years into Russia’s full-scale invasion - Canada.ca

Today marks four years since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. On this day, the Government of Canada reaffirms its steadfast support for Ukraine’s sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity.

www.canada.ca

That will mark over 2,400 Roshels to Ukraine. That’s a huge number.
It should also put us just over 100 LAV 6’s as well.

 

[brihard]

That will mark over 2,400 Roshels to Ukraine. That’s a huge number.
It should also put us just over 100 LAV 6’s as well.

LAV 6 without turrets, right?

 

[Czech_pivo]

LAV 6 without turrets, right?

Is that correct?

 

[DBNSG]

LAV 6 without turrets, right?

I wonder why the number of 66 . Could that be the 66 former Recce LAV's that are no more?

 

[dapaterson]

I wonder why the number of 66 . Could that be the 66 former Recce LAV's that are no more?

ACSV

 

[ytz]

Very little energy or resources are dedicated to planning how to create that "great host," as General Belzile called it. And let's be clear, before I get hauled up for thinking historically, I don't see Belzile's call being one to recreate Canada's WW2 forces. I see it simply as a call to plan and to take the necessary steps to shape the Canadian military/industrial system to be able to expand rapidly beyond its current regular force construct.

I know that I'm sitting on the outside looking back in, but there is very little about the army's current modernization "experiment" which strikes me as one aimed at addressing the fundamental issues plaguing it. It's yet again another timid deck chair shuffle that creates a bit better position for some but a worse position for others without any demonstrable increase in fighting power. I see the air force and navy a bit more forward leaning.

This is actually the scope of ambition being looked at. It's a genuine, "How would we fight for years?" Question.

And as we go through this there's a realization government wide (not just CAF) of how daunting the task is.

It's all the way from basics (getting the CAL DAL right) to how would we manage strategic comms to mobilize society in the age of AI fakes, to how do we manage the mismatch between weeks to mobilize PRes to months to mobilize Strat/Mob Res to years to mobilize industry. All of this kinda stuff is actually being staff checked with outputs on everything from legislative changes proposed to procurement to changing force design to changing mandates of agencies. CCG moving to DND, for example, is just the first step in looking at underwater infrastructure protection. There's discussions, for example, on what legislative changes might be needed to enable more reserve service as part of creating that mobilization reserve and growing PRes substantially.

But it's like eating an elephant. This is easily a decade long project.

 

[DBNSG]

This is actually the scope of ambition being looked at. It's a genuine, "How would we fight for years?" Question.

And as we go through this there's a realization government wide (not just CAF) of how daunting the task is.

It's all the way from basics (getting the CAL DAL right) to how would we manage strategic comms to mobilize society in the age of AI fakes, to how do we manage the mismatch between weeks to mobilize PRes to months to mobilize Strat/Mob Res to years to mobilize industry. All of this kinda stuff is actually being staff checked with outputs on everything from legislative changes proposed to procurement to changing force design to changing mandates of agencies. CCG moving to DND, for example, is just the first step in looking at underwater infrastructure protection. There's discussions, for example, on what legislative changes might be needed to enable more reserve service as part of creating that mobilization reserve and growing PRes substantially.

But it's like eating an elephant. This is easily a decade long project.

Does official Ottawa have the horsepower for that project?