• 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....
 
The media doesn’t care.
Current, serving military officers can’t (won’t?) openly speak about the current dire situation because they worry about the repercussions to their careers.
What the US should do is kick us to the curb and force us to shoulder our true burdens, this may wake up the public.
Serving military members cannot speak unless given approval to do so.(unless it is "your job, and your experiences.) Hence, why no serving member can talk about perceived failures of this gov't WRT funding or support. The last military person to do so resigned as he was speaking.

Vice-Admiral Charles Morris Winton Thomas, CMM, CD - Canada.ca
 
You owe us 1.5T

There you go.
Something tells me that we were indeed told by Uncle Sam in no uncertain terms…just that unlike Canada, which can’t shut up about how influential in the world it thinks it is, Uncles Sam just calmly slid a list across the table of stuff Canada is going to buy, and like it…
 
Serving military members cannot speak unless given approval to do so.(unless it is "your job, and your experiences.) Hence, why no serving member can talk about perceived failures of this gov't WRT funding or support. The last military person to do so resigned as he was speaking.

Vice-Admiral Charles Morris Winton Thomas, CMM, CD - Canada.ca

Adm Landymore is better example. Guy fought to the end against unification. Know what ? He was right.

 
  • The Liberals had already channeled their intentions to execute on remaining election pledges (in the order of net new spending of $56 bn by FY27). The new pact—once netting out what the Liberals had planned to do anyway—likely adds another $15–20 bn over the life of the 3-year agreement and potentially $40 bn by FY27. Tack on another $12 bn (at least) for potential defense spending top-ups.
Using the Scotiabank article as a roadmap, I suspect you will see at least a 1 year immediate surge like Germany did and a commitment to 2% or higher for foreseeable years. (Or until attention is taken away from world events).
Even if the CAF got an extra 12B this year it would not fill the holes it has in equipment, an extra 24 wouldn’t either. I doubt it will be 12B additional, but for interest sake that would pop it to 2.24% (ish).

2% is a Maintenance number, it’s not a growth number, so Canada would need more than 2% for several years. 4% for 5 years if used intelligently would mean 2% could keep the CAF in good shape for quite some time - unless it eats it up on salaries.
 
Something tells me that we were indeed told by Uncle Sam in no uncertain terms…just that unlike Canada, which can’t shut up about how influential in the world it thinks it is, Uncles Sam just calmly slid a list across the table of stuff Canada is going to buy, and like it…
I so f&*king hope so.
 
I don't mean to sound like Singh (I really really don't want to sound like Singh) but 2% is arbitrary. The focus should be on identifying and obtaining needed capabilities and personnel. That may be 1.5% or it could be 3% or even 5%. The CAF and the government needs to decide what they need domestically first and then how it needs to contribute internationally . As I've seen in the Reece thread and others similar to it there's still lots of debate as to what that it is.
 
I don't mean to sound like Singh (I really really don't want to sound like Singh) but 2% is arbitrary. The focus should be on identifying and obtaining needed capabilities and personnel. That may be 1.5% or it could be 3% or even 5%. The CAF and the government needs to decide what they need domestically first and then how it needs to contribute internationally . As I've seen in the Reece thread and others similar to it there's still lots of debate as to what that it is.

I actually agree. Throwing money at us with no plan or sustainment it's pissing into the wind.

Canada has to decide what it's wants to be in this world and then it need to tell us how we enact that militarily.
 
The focus should be on identifying and obtaining needed capabilities and personnel.
Good luck getting people through the door based on the “sexual crisis in the CAF” alone. A little bit of research on Reddit where young people hang out will expose all the other issues. The CAF is circling the drain, along with canada, and no amount of money will fix it.
 
2% is the agree to NATO # It isn’t arbitrary and there is a lot of data (not open source) to back it up.

The expectations are that you don’t piss it away.

Singh is a moron, but he like Singh.
Let's not forget that there is a second NATO target being expending 20% of overall defence spending on major equipment. For a long time we've spent half of that and although recent capital commitments have gone up, they still haven't bee up to 20% and more importantly we've underspent the budgeted amounts because of delays.

🍻
 
I would actually prefer US equipment vice European.
I'd prefer equipment...

The USA pays a premium for the best kit out there, Canada has little appetite to pay that premium. I'd rather see Canadians armed with the 90% solution from Europe, than the 0% solution we currently have for many problems.
 
I'd prefer equipment...

The USA pays a premium for the best kit out there, Canada has little appetite to pay that premium. I'd rather see Canadians armed with the 90% solution from Europe, than the 0% solution we currently have for many problems.
You make a good point but the US is just over the border while Europe is a very large nasty ocean away.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top