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....

 

[MilEME09]

As I understand, it's not just money - it's also specific reductions in travel and in professional services contracts.

cancel that $1 billion dollar expansion to carlington. Boom, found your money

 

[McG]

cancel that $1 billion dollar expansion to carlington. Boom, found your money

And leave CJOC in a rented property? Where the property owner can lock-out CAF if there is some contract dispute? And which happens to sit beside a compressed fuels facility?

 

[KevinB]

Sell Peakes.
Move it to Carling and expand more if necessary

 

[Good2Golf]

And leave CJOC in a rented property? Where the property owner can lock-out CAF if there is some contract dispute? And which happens to sit beside a compressed fuels facility?

At least it hasn’t caught fire…..like an other ‘still rented’ HQ building in the NCR…

 

[MilEME09]

And leave CJOC in a rented property? Where the property owner can lock-out CAF if there is some contract dispute? And which happens to sit beside a compressed fuels facility?

Fair point, but what creates more operational output right now? $1 billion for a hq, or could we invest that into say the armoured school, RCEME school etc where modern facilities can facilitate expanded or more modern training. I know RCEME school alone has been waiting fir funding since 2015 for funding for new facilities

 

[dapaterson]

At least it hasn’t caught fire…..like an other ‘still rented’ HQ building in the NCR…

Not rented any more. It was rent to own, the company went bankrupt, terminating the rent to own, and the new company that bought it out if bankruptcy has the same beneficial ownership as the prior company.

Lease terminated, new/old owner has other plans for the site.

 

[Good2Golf]

Ahhh, perhaps to make it a hotel like it was originally supposed to be?

 

[dapaterson]

Ahhh, perhaps to make it a hotel like it was originally supposed to be?

Bankruptcy and fire were fortuitously timed, to be sure...

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Bankruptcy and fire were fortuitously timed, to be sure...

Huh. Funny old world…

 

[KevinB]

Bankruptcy and fire were fortuitously timed, to be sure...

Financial combustion...

 

[Halifax Tar]

Fair point, but what creates more operational output right now? $1 billion for a hq, or could we invest that into say the armoured school, RCEME school etc where modern facilities can facilitate expanded or more modern training. I know RCEME school alone has been waiting fir funding since 2015 for funding for new facilities

Didn't you guys just get a new school in Borden ? You and the MPs ?

 

[Eye In The Sky]

And leave CJOC in a rented property? Where the property owner can lock-out CAF if there is some contract dispute? And which happens to sit beside a compressed fuels facility?

After suffering enough CJOC-induced stupidity the last decade my first thought was…

 

[Halifax Tar]

After suffering enough CJOC-induced stupidity the last decade my first thought was…

I still maintain CJOC is an example of bloat and not required. But I'm just a simple Storesman.

 

[KevinB]

I still maintain CJOC is an example of bloat and not required. But I'm just a simple Storesman.

In theory no, but I think in practice yes.

CJOC should have cut out a number of other entities when it was created, but I haven’t seen any relay PY savings from it.
But I've not been doggedly following the CAF structure for the past 20 years.

 

[Halifax Tar]

In theory no, but I think in practice yes.

CJOC should have cut out a number of other entities when it was created, but I haven’t seen any relay PY savings from it.
But I've not been doggedly following the CAF structure for the past 20 years.

In theory it would take over all support and control of deployed missions. In practice its only interested in Army things and passes back all responsibility for mission sustainment to the RCN, while adding further layers bureaucracy.

I cant speak to the RCAF.

 

[OldSolduer]

But I've not been doggedly following the CAF structure for the past 20 years.

What is this structure thing you speak of????

 

[Czech_pivo]

You all are only talking about 1/2 the conversation -

Part 1
Is TB telling everyone (except DND/HC....maybe) to cut 15$ billion

Part 2
Is the following - Pharmacare to cost 15$ billion

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mark-holland-health-minister-pharmacare-1.6938470

New health minister says pharmacare legislation is coming this fall​

Liberal agreement with NDP stipulates that pharmacare legislation must be passed by end of 2023​

Program estimated to cost $15B annually​

 

[FSTO]

Former US Navy Admiral joins the chorus of critiques from down south. I'm assuming that nobody in the PMO is listening nor caring if they are listening.

Canadian Royal Navy Spending Is Disappointing

This article explorse an in-depth perspective on Canada's Royal Navy capabilities and its commitment to NATO. Discover why increasing defense spending is critical for not just meeting NATO guidelines, but for safeguarding Canadian waters, especially with looming threats from Russia and China...

gcaptain.com

By James Stavridis (Bloomberg) Over a long career in the Navy, I sailed into many of Canada’s beautiful ports and commanded a Canadian frigate, HMCS Halifax, as part of a joint operation. Over the years, I saw the quality of Canadian airmen in our dual-nation air defense command, NORAD. Later, during my time as Supreme Allied Commander at NATO, I had thousands of Canadians under my command in combat in Afghanistan, Libya and other hotspots. Whenever I saw that distinctive maple leaf shoulder patch, I knew I was in the presence of a brave professional.


But I continue to be deeply disappointed by Canada’s unwillingness to increase its defense spending to meet a standard it has committed to via its membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization: 2% of gross domestic product. Today, Canada punches well below its weight with less than $40 billion spent on defense, roughly 1.3% of GDP. For a very wealthy Western democracy, this smacks of taking advantage of allies like the US, which spends well over 3% of GDP — or more than $850 billion.


And Canada has defense needs that go well beyond the allied effort to stop Vladimir Putin in Ukraine. Looking toward the Arctic, which the Canadians aptly call the “high north,” Canada faces growing Russian intransigence across the increasingly ice-free Arctic Ocean. To the west, a rising Chinese Navy — now the largest in the world — operates with increasing impunity in the waters of the north Pacific.


Related book: 2034: A Novel of the Next World War by Elliot Ackerman and Admiral James Stavridis


One program where more investment would be powerful and meaningful is nuclear submarines. Although cutting-edge boats cost more than $4 billion each, only nuclear submarines have the range and firepower to meet 21st century needs. And Canada has vast territorial waters to control, extending from its maritime provinces on the Atlantic coast, to the Arctic Ocean, to the Aleutian islands in the Pacific. Yet today, Canada has only a small force of four old, diesel submarines.


In contrast, nuclear subs are lethal, oceangoing apex predators. And entering the nuclear submarine club would offer Canada significant scientific and strategic advantages. By procuring nuclear subs, Canada will bind themselves more tightly to other NATO nations using them: the United States, the United Kingdom and France. More engagement, intelligence and technology would naturally flow toward Ottawa.



This is a particularly propitious time to make the leap, because of an awkward acronym: AUKUS. This is the new partnership between the US, UK, and Australia to help the Australians build a fleet of nuclear submarines. Painstakingly negotiated over the past several years, the agreement will begin with US nuclear Los Angeles-class submarines being stationed in Australia, then transition to US selling the boats to Canberra, then move to the Australian construction and deployment of its own fleet. It’s a canny move on the part of Australia, who — like Canada — has several oceans to defend.


The plan will take most of a decade, but has already begun to unfold with the arrival of Australian naval officers at US schools to learn to operate the submarines, a process that will take each student a year or so. It’s a powerful statement of Australia’s commitment to its own defense and to our long-standing alliance.


If Canada were to join the nuclear AUKUS program, it could easily become CANAUKUS. Admittedly, the acronym gets stranger, but the strategic advantages for our good friends to the north rise exponentially. And adding both Australian and Canadian nuclear boats to the allied fleets — especially in the Pacific — would make the alliance much stronger.


The reality is that both Russia and China have global ambitions in the Pacific, Atlantic and the Arctic — and very capable nuclear submarines. Our cousins up north could seize the moment and join us in a powerful, albeit expensive, defense program to face them together. Spending the money would move them where they should be in terms of overall defense spending. In the end, of course, these are decisions for Canadians — but American policymakers should encourage them to take the leap to nuclear submarines at sea.


James Stavridis is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. A retired U.S. Navy admiral, former supreme allied commander of NATO, and dean emeritus of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, he is vice chairman of global affairs at the Carlyle Group. He is the author most recently of “To Risk It All: Nine Conflicts and the Crucible of Decision.” @stavridisj © 2023 Bloomberg L.P.


Related book: 2034: A Novel of the Next World War by Elliot Ackerman and Admiral James Stavridis

 

[SeaKingTacco]

In theory it would take over all support and control of deployed missions. In practice its only interested in Army things and passes back all responsibility for mission sustainment to the RCN, while adding further layers bureaucracy.

I cant speak to the RCAF.

No real role for CJOC with RCAF deployments, unless you count the JFACC, which is just 1 Cdn Air Div wearing two hats (much like MARLANT wears the MCC hat).

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Former US Navy Admiral joins the chorus of critiques from down south. I'm assuming that nobody in the PMO is listening nor caring if they are listening.

Canadian Royal Navy Spending Is Disappointing

This article explorse an in-depth perspective on Canada's Royal Navy capabilities and its commitment to NATO. Discover why increasing defense spending is critical for not just meeting NATO guidelines, but for safeguarding Canadian waters, especially with looming threats from Russia and China...

gcaptain.com

By James Stavridis (Bloomberg) Over a long career in the Navy, I sailed into many of Canada’s beautiful ports and commanded a Canadian frigate, HMCS Halifax, as part of a joint operation. Over the years, I saw the quality of Canadian airmen in our dual-nation air defense command, NORAD. Later, during my time as Supreme Allied Commander at NATO, I had thousands of Canadians under my command in combat in Afghanistan, Libya and other hotspots. Whenever I saw that distinctive maple leaf shoulder patch, I knew I was in the presence of a brave professional.


But I continue to be deeply disappointed by Canada’s unwillingness to increase its defense spending to meet a standard it has committed to via its membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization: 2% of gross domestic product. Today, Canada punches well below its weight with less than $40 billion spent on defense, roughly 1.3% of GDP. For a very wealthy Western democracy, this smacks of taking advantage of allies like the US, which spends well over 3% of GDP — or more than $850 billion.


And Canada has defense needs that go well beyond the allied effort to stop Vladimir Putin in Ukraine. Looking toward the Arctic, which the Canadians aptly call the “high north,” Canada faces growing Russian intransigence across the increasingly ice-free Arctic Ocean. To the west, a rising Chinese Navy — now the largest in the world — operates with increasing impunity in the waters of the north Pacific.


Related book: 2034: A Novel of the Next World War by Elliot Ackerman and Admiral James Stavridis


One program where more investment would be powerful and meaningful is nuclear submarines. Although cutting-edge boats cost more than $4 billion each, only nuclear submarines have the range and firepower to meet 21st century needs. And Canada has vast territorial waters to control, extending from its maritime provinces on the Atlantic coast, to the Arctic Ocean, to the Aleutian islands in the Pacific. Yet today, Canada has only a small force of four old, diesel submarines.


In contrast, nuclear subs are lethal, oceangoing apex predators. And entering the nuclear submarine club would offer Canada significant scientific and strategic advantages. By procuring nuclear subs, Canada will bind themselves more tightly to other NATO nations using them: the United States, the United Kingdom and France. More engagement, intelligence and technology would naturally flow toward Ottawa.



This is a particularly propitious time to make the leap, because of an awkward acronym: AUKUS. This is the new partnership between the US, UK, and Australia to help the Australians build a fleet of nuclear submarines. Painstakingly negotiated over the past several years, the agreement will begin with US nuclear Los Angeles-class submarines being stationed in Australia, then transition to US selling the boats to Canberra, then move to the Australian construction and deployment of its own fleet. It’s a canny move on the part of Australia, who — like Canada — has several oceans to defend.


The plan will take most of a decade, but has already begun to unfold with the arrival of Australian naval officers at US schools to learn to operate the submarines, a process that will take each student a year or so. It’s a powerful statement of Australia’s commitment to its own defense and to our long-standing alliance.


If Canada were to join the nuclear AUKUS program, it could easily become CANAUKUS. Admittedly, the acronym gets stranger, but the strategic advantages for our good friends to the north rise exponentially. And adding both Australian and Canadian nuclear boats to the allied fleets — especially in the Pacific — would make the alliance much stronger.


The reality is that both Russia and China have global ambitions in the Pacific, Atlantic and the Arctic — and very capable nuclear submarines. Our cousins up north could seize the moment and join us in a powerful, albeit expensive, defense program to face them together. Spending the money would move them where they should be in terms of overall defense spending. In the end, of course, these are decisions for Canadians — but American policymakers should encourage them to take the leap to nuclear submarines at sea.


James Stavridis is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. A retired U.S. Navy admiral, former supreme allied commander of NATO, and dean emeritus of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, he is vice chairman of global affairs at the Carlyle Group. He is the author most recently of “To Risk It All: Nine Conflicts and the Crucible of Decision.” @stavridisj © 2023 Bloomberg L.P.


Related book: 2034: A Novel of the Next World War by Elliot Ackerman and Admiral James Stavridis

That is a little rich, coming from a USN Admiral. The USN actively blocked us in the 1980s from getting US reactor technology when we wanted nuclear submarines the ….