• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Government hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

Status
Not open for further replies.
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....
 
Big difference between growing up in Cold Lake vs being moved there.

Places like cold lake are a hit or miss, it really depends on your interests and personality. A monetary incentive however, would go a long way.
 
I certainly didn’t expect that 😉
spanish fan GIF


Get rid of CJOC and have the Fleets, Wings, and Divisions (2 at max) as the force employers.
Granted, I don’t know enough about CJOC as well as I should (and the folks from the tactical levels seem to hate it), but from an operational/strategic view, not having a joint operations centre for CAF units around the world seems a bit short-sighted.

Also, eliminating CJOC would just push the work to the Division(s), so I’m not sure the numbers of people would change that much aside from the leadership.
 
Some of the issues arise because our force is too small relative to the number of bases we insist on having. Concentrating more functions in fewer bases would reduce movements.
 
If the RCAF wants to consolidate everything into a place so people don’t move when going to a school or another unit (there will always be postings to Ottawa), then where would be the most obvious location…

season 7 simpsons GIF
 
spanish fan GIF



Granted, I don’t know enough about CJOC as well as I should (and the folks from the tactical levels seem to hate it), but from an operational/strategic view, not having a joint operations centre for CAF units around the world seems a bit short-sighted.

Also, eliminating CJOC would just push the work to the Division(s), so I’m not sure the numbers of people would change that much aside from the leadership.
Yeah I suppose fair enough. I suppose we’d have to expand the divisions to actual HQs vs regional force generators. At that point it’s rearranging deck chairs.
 
Inflation from 2014 to 2024 took $100 to $128.59 which would take $17B to be $21.9B. That makes the current budget a real increase of $5B over and above inflation.

🍻
In real terms though they are rolling a lot of money that only goes towards future capabilities for projects that starting in 2008, and have cut actual in service funding by about $1B to maintain the same equipment that was 10 years older than in 2024 where maintenance and repair costs have gone up by far more than inflation.

Funding levels relative to demand/need is lower than it was in 2014.
 
In real terms though they are rolling a lot of money that only goes towards future capabilities for projects that starting in 2008, and have cut actual in service funding by about $1B to maintain the same equipment that was 10 years older than in 2024 where maintenance and repair costs have gone up by far more than inflation.

Funding levels relative to demand/need is lower than it was in 2014.
That's why pure CPI comparisons re: inflation aren't useful.

Defence inflation is way more costly than consumer inflation.
 
That's why pure CPI comparisons re: inflation aren't useful.

Defence inflation is way more costly than consumer inflation.
Some of our parts have gone up about 10 times in price, but it's also the lead time.

But on top of that there are a lot of things that are obsolete and past the end of life that are just insanely LOE and resource intensive to maintain. We are re-engineering things to fabricate replacements because figuring out a new part can take years.
 
That's why pure CPI comparisons re: inflation aren't useful.

Defence inflation is way more costly than consumer inflation.

So stop playing silly buggers and trying to recreate the 19th century economy that supported those 20th century weapons. We don't have foundries. We do have lots of carbon and silicon and things that go bang.

Do the other thing. Figure out how to kill the buggers cheaply with what we have.
 
Inflation from 2014 to 2024 took $100 to $128.59 which would take $17B to be $21.9B. That makes the current budget a real increase of $5B over and above inflation.

🍻
Have to look at spending (actual), not budgets (aspirations). There's usually a couple of years lag before any figures become available, and corrections/adjustments can go on for years.
 
Inflation from 2014 to 2024 took $100 to $128.59 which would take $17B to be $21.9B. That makes the current budget a real increase of $5B over and above inflation.

🍻
Governments have been playing with the inflation and CPI formulas to make inflation not look so bad. It depends on who you believe but some websites are saying actual inflation using legacy formulas is much higher than what is being reported.
 

Anyone who thinks relief is on the way isn't following the trends.

The decline in GFCF in a steadily worsening, dare one say caustic business environment, brings to bear the argument between modest taxation levels on business and modest social support, to increased taxation on business while transferring that tax revenue to extensive/over-modest social spending (which does not directly support the nation’s productivity).

The alarming deterioration in our productivity performance closely tracks the extraordinary relative decline of business investment in Canada.

Until government appreciates that policies that restrict (strangle?) business investment is an analogue of strangling the goose that used to lay golden eggs. The goose isn’t dead *yet, but the golden eggs are getting smaller…and smaller…and smaller…
 
Last edited:
You get what you pay for, which is why our underinvestment in some areas is killing us...

Investment and Productivity​

Why is M&E investment important to labour productivity?​

Key Messages​

  • Historical data for the peer countries reveal a strong positive relationship between investment in machinery and equipment (M&E) and labour productivity.
  • Canada’s investment in M&E as a share of GDP is among the lowest of its peers.
  • The gap in investment in information and communications technology between Canada and the U.S. accounts for a large proportion of the labour productivity gap between the two countries.
Canada’s investment in M&E as a share of GDP remains among the lowest of its peers. In fact, Canada’s average M&E investment as a share of GDP in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s was the second lowest—only France had a poorer investment record.4 In the 2000s, Canada ranked 11th among the 16 countries—a modest improvement that reflects lower investment shares in other countries rather than an increased investment share in Canada.5

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top