Government hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

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....

 

[markppcli]

Nobody says that any posting has to be permanent. Seasonal campaigns. Two weeks on - Two weeks off. The civilian world uses a variety of solutions to those types of problems. -- Different thread -- overlap.

Well actually the posting instruction kinda does…

 

[Kirkhill]

Well actually the posting instruction kinda does…

In which case there may be an opportunity for some creativity in devising new posting instructions.

Maybe the Cold Lake guys can join the Fort McMurray flights from Montreal and St John's.

 

[markppcli]

In which case there may be an opportunity for some creativity in devising new posting instructions.

Maybe the Cold Lake guys can join the Fort McMurray flights from Montreal and St John's.

Possibly, but then we need double the people to keep up the maintenance.

 

[YZT580]

There are lots of places in which we could establish a well-founded drone facility and remain close to civilization. Centrallia for example in southwestern Ontario. North Bay, although a little remote does offer good hunting, fishing and a reasonably large community so there is no need to maroon people in places like Goose.

 

[Quirky]

Possibly, but then we need double the people to keep up the maintenance.

Or reduce ops to properly reflect manning levels.

 

[Kirkhill]

Where's Waldo? - Go to the link for legible text - You still won't find Waldo.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/defence-spending-pledges-by-nato-members-since-russia-invaded-ukraine/

 

[KevinB]

Where's Waldo? - Go to the link for legible text - You still won't find Waldo.


View attachment 75663

View attachment 75664

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/defence-spending-pledges-by-nato-members-since-russia-invaded-ukraine/

The Estonian Defence page is quite informative.

Defence budget | Kaitseministeerium

As of 2012 the Defence budget or the Ministry of Defence’s governing minimum amount is 2% of the gross domestic product. This supports a military national defence with a balanced and sustainable development as well as meeting NATO ...

kaitseministeerium.ee

2% GDP supports a sustainable and balanced development of national defence​

As of 2012 there has been an agreement between the political parties of the government to support and maintain the defence budget at a 2% GDP expenditure. Military expenditures represent approximately 4.5% of the total state budget. This is one of the smallest items in the budget. This guarantees the defence expenditure to be maintained at 2% of the gross domestic product supporting a sustainable and balanced development of national defence.

 

[Edward Campbell]

In 1960, the year I enrolled in the Army, as a private soldier, Canada spent 4.2% of GDP on defence - that was about $1.7 Billion and it had bought us 18 new, modern destroyers and several smaller ships, the Army had four full or nearly full strength (85%) brigade groups and we flew 130 CF-101 Voodoo jets in Canada and 8 squadrons of CF-104 Starfighters in Europe. There were 120,000 men and women in the regular force.

By the time I was promoted to LCol and took command of my own Regiment (1978) our defence budget was 1.85% of GDP, almost $4 Billion in 1978 dollars. We had about 100,000 men and women in the regular force but "rust out" was a real issue.

I retired in 1997, our defence b budget was 1.25& of GDP but almost $8 Billion. We had about 90,000 regular force members but they had new, modern frigates (only 12 of them) and 135+ new, modern CF-18s. The Army had given a good account of itself in UNPROFOR and IFOR in the Balkans but some senior officers argued it was too small even as a mobilization base for a serious war.

Defence spending in dollar terms is meaningless ... inflation drives numbers up and up and up, but each larger number "buys" fewer mean and women and less and less capable equipment for them to use.

Defence spending as a % of GDP is a fair indicator of national will. Our "national will" had declined sharply after 1952 (when defence spent almost 7% of GDP) because there was less need. The threat, by 1960, was still real but it was contained. Our will remained well above average, for NATO (2.75% to 3%), until 1968 when it took another precipitous fall, down to below 2% by 1973. It stayed above 1.5% until 1982 and it rose only because of threatened trade actions by Germany. It stayed above or near 2% during the Mulroney years but fell again after 1993.

Spending rose sharply, in real dollar terms, from 2002 to 2011 (Afghanistan) but in 2012 Defence Minister Peter MacKay decided, on the advice of his admirals and generals, to disobey a pretty clear directive from Prime Minister Harper to cut the HQ bloat and the PM, in his turn, cut DND's funding sharply. By 2014 Canada spent less than 1% of GDP on defence and that, I think, was a shot aimed directly at Rick Hillier and Walt Natynczyk and so on.

Under pressure from the GOB (Great Orange Buffon in the White House) Prime Minister Trudeau has made the defence budget rise from 1.15% ($18B) to 1,4% ($23B) but that is not even keeping pace with inflation.

The message I get from the numbers is that Canadians are unwilling to spend on defence. 2% may be a red line that Canadians are unwilling to allow any government to cross.

 

[Halifax Tar]

In 1960, the year I enrolled in the Army, as a private soldier, Canada spent 4.2% of GDP on defence - that was about $1.7 Billion and it had bought us 18 new, modern destroyers and several smaller ships, the Army had four full or nearly full strength (85%) brigade groups and we flew 130 CF-101 Voodoo jets in Canada and 8 squadrons of CF-104 Starfighters in Europe. There were 120,000 men and women in the regular force.

By the time I was promoted to LCol and took command of my own Regiment (1978) our defence budget was 1.85% of GDP, almost $4 Billion in 1978 dollars. We had about 100,000 men and women in the regular force but "rust out" was a real issue.

I retired in 1997, our defence b budget was 1.25& of GDP but almost $8 Billion. We had about 90,000 regular force members but they had new, modern frigates (only 12 of them) and 135+ new, modern CF-18s. The Army had given a good account of itself in UNPROFOR and IFOR in the Balkans but some senior officers argued it was too small even as a mobilization base for a serious war.

Defence spending in dollar terms is meaningless ... inflation drives numbers up and up and up, but each larger number "buys" fewer mean and women and less and less capable equipment for them to use.

Defence spending as a % of GDP is a fair indicator of national will. Our "national will" had declined sharply after 1952 (when defence spent almost 7% of GDP) because there was less need. The threat, by 1960, was still real but it was contained. Our will remained well above average, for NATO (2.75% to 3%), until 1968 when it took another precipitous fall, down to below 2% by 1973. It stayed above 1.5% until 1982 and it rose only because of threatened trade actions by Germany. It stayed above or near 2% during the Mulroney years but fell again after 1993.

Spending rose sharply, in real dollar terms, from 2002 to 2011 (Afghanistan) but in 2012 Defence Minister Peter MacKay decided, on the advice of his admirals and generals, to disobey a pretty clear directive from Prime Minister Harper to cut the HQ bloat and the PM, in his turn, cut DND's funding sharply. By 2014 Canada spent less than 1% of GDP on defence and that, I think, was a shot aimed directly at Rick Hillier and Walt Natynczyk and so on.

Under pressure from the GOB (Great Orange Buffon in the White House) Prime Minister Trudeau has made the defence budget rise from 1.15% ($18B) to 1,4% ($23B) but that is not even keeping pace with inflation.

The message I get from the numbers is that Canadians are unwilling to spend on defence. 2% may be a red line that Canadians are unwilling to allow any government to cross.

That's perfectly fine. Canadians then have to be realistic about our place on the world stage and what we are actually capable of.

Both of which I think out of whack at the moment.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

That's perfectly fine. Canadians then have to be realistic about our place on the world stage and what we are actually capable of.

Both of which I think out of whack at the moment.

Canadians are a lot like Germans when it comes to their armed forces:

-a major player in past conflicts with a history of herculean feats, in spite of political incompetence

-Post WWII, developed a massive reliance on American efforts for defense, rusted out their own capabilities and put that money elsewhere (social supports, environmentalism, healthcare), while sticking noses up at America not having the same for their own citizens.

-Post Cold War, believed that token deployments with the UN /NATO would keep their seat at the big kid's table.

-struggled to fully sustain large scale rotations in Afg, while the domestic population was apathetic or hostile to the mission.

Now in 2022, no one wants to pay to rearm, but citizens of both countries want the same clout they once had.

What is the French expression again? You can't have the butter and still keep the money for the butter?

 

[OldSolduer]

That's perfectly fine. Canadians then have to be realistic about our place on the world stage and what we are actually capable of.

Both of which I think out of whack at the moment.

Mark my words the chickens will come home to roost. When or where I can't say BUT it will be a huge scandal with many empty headed people asking "what went wrong? "

 

[Halifax Tar]

Mark my words the chickens will come home to roost. When or where I can't say BUT it will be a huge scandal with many empty headed people asking "what went wrong? "

You're absolutely right and the people of Canada are to blame.

 

[YZT580]

You're absolutely right and the people of Canada are to blame.

Yes and no. The vast majority of Canadians, in fact people in general, are followers. They are also selfish in that they want the things that OW promises them and don't think any further than their own best interests. They are extremely naïve but at the same time afraid to think for themselves in spite of the evidence in front of them. They have also become used to their entitlements as Jean so eloquently said. The guilt lies with the people who are lying to them and in the people who knowingly are profiting from those lies.

In the 30's American businessmen fought to preserve their market in Japan, selling shipload upon shipload of steel plating that was used to build the Japanese airforce and navy. We all know how that turned out, don't we?

 

[dimsum]

There are lots of places in which we could establish a well-founded drone facility and remain close to civilization. Centrallia for example in southwestern Ontario. North Bay, although a little remote does offer good hunting, fishing and a reasonably large community so there is no need to maroon people in places like Goose.

But they've already announced the place(s), and none of them are Goose.

 

[Brad Sallows]

It's impractical to try to determine what the degree of financial commitment to something is without converting for inflation and adjusting for population and prosperity growth. For example, adjusted for inflation, our per capita GDP is about 60% greater than 50 years ago (using figures from 1971 to 2021, which seem to differ a bit between sources, and a simple online inflation adjustment calculator). Our per-person productivity is greater, and we have more people, than at any past time. We can afford "more", but the question is how "more" is composed.

 

[markppcli]

Or reduce ops to properly reflect manning levels.

Also an option. But even if their sat there the plans still need maintenance. If you change to two weeks on two weeks off you need two crews as opposed to one. Not sure it’s much savings. Also you need to administer and support those crews while their “home,” so how does that work?

 

[Quirky]

Also an option. But even if their sat there the plans still need maintenance. If you change to two weeks on two weeks off you need two crews as opposed to one. Not sure it’s much savings. Also you need to administer and support those crews while their “home,” so how does that work?

Two weeks off means just that. Off. No appointments, no “come in to sign X nonsense”, off. Everything is done while you are on your two week rotation.

 

[Kirkhill]

Also an option. But even if their sat there the plans still need maintenance. If you change to two weeks on two weeks off you need two crews as opposed to one. Not sure it’s much savings. Also you need to administer and support those crews while their “home,” so how does that work?

To save money buy equipment that doesn't require people.

Or at least requires fewer people.

Maybe you only need a 6 man security section and a regional maintenance team with a circuit to support.

 

[Quirky]

To save money buy equipment that doesn't require people.

Or at least requires fewer people.

Maybe you only need a 6 man security section and a regional maintenance team with a circuit to support.

Security lol. Just beef up the commissionaire sections.

 

[CBH99]

Security lol. Just beef up the commissionaire sections.

I mean there are more & more seniors looking for part time gigs, and Wal-Mart isn't for everyone...