• 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....
 
I had someone make a comment to me that we should start building war houses again. It's a great idea, but it would never fly with the developers, if they can build a million dollar home on the same piece of property, they are going to do what makes them money.
Or build more row houses, narrow three storey houses with connecting walls.

Hypothetically, if four row houses fit in the same plot as a single million dollar detached house, you could sell each for $250,000 and make the same amount.
 

If true this is a big deal.
PMO confirmed it's real.

 
Except you are over 50% the land mass…
If that’s the premise of your argument, then I’d say this is a 50/50 partnership where 50% of the money would be spent within Canada, on CDN companies and the Command structure would be an equal 50% partnership with a rotating US commander followed by a Canadian commander.
 
If that’s the premise of your argument, then I’d say this is a 50/50 partnership where 50% of the money would be spent within Canada, on CDN companies and the Command structure would be an equal 50% partnership with a rotating US commander followed by a Canadian commander.
Hmm, what drugs brought this out?
 
Makes me wish that I was in the line of succession for a house. I'm surprised that we haven't started looking at multigenerational mortgages.
I recall an uncle that lived in an Ontario location back in 80s/90s where the multigenerational was basically the way it worked. Most people had a mortgage they never paid off as they continued to remortgage to fund their lifestyle. When they passed their kids simply did the same thing, took over the house and continued to remortgage it as they wanted things such as boats, cars, vacations, etc. Can't recall where it was other than Ontario and a sister lived with them for a bit.
Well your the flight path to the majority of targeted if you don’t want to be the impact area, you need to accept a reasonable cost burden.
hmmm; let's think about that before deciding. Where would these impact areas be so we can determine if it is worth the cost. I personally have no issue with say a certain location in Ottawa or Toronto as an impact area and saving the money.
 
PMO confirmed it's real.

From the BBC:

 
Man, I thought our traditional defense relationship with the US was dead because Carney is tough on Trump? I guess I've been gaslit again.

You could look at that a few different ways.

Traditional defense relationship could mean as freeloaders... maybe that is now dead and we are going to start contributing more...

Or, the rhetoric was just to fuel the "elbows up" crowd into believing he was going to "stand up" to Trump... and by standing up he really meant ponying up.
 
Man, I thought our traditional defense relationship with the US was dead because Carney is tough on Trump? I guess I've been gaslit again.
In the big picture? I think it is dead.

Focus anything domestic and NA with US. Anything expeditionary etc elsewhere. Likely Europe.

Get enough F35s for NORAD and drop the rest for something else less reliant on their changing whims and moods.
 
The defence relationship with the US will never be dead despite Remius' wishes.

We are in a low period that dipped further thanks to JT and the LPC. We were about to pay a hefty economic price for staying in that low period.

Now, all indications are Canada will bend the knee and kiss the ring to avoid that economic punch by spending more on defence including with US such as Golden Dome.
 
The defence relationship with the US will never be dead despite Remius' wishes.

We are in a low period that dipped further thanks to JT and the LPC. We were about to pay a hefty economic price for staying in that low period.

Now, all indications are Canada will bend the knee and kiss the ring to avoid that economic punch by spending more on defence including with US such as Golden Dome.
The reality goes back to the end of the Mulroney era when the decision was made to scrap the 12 nuc subs in place of another 6 Halifax frigates as was the original plan - then scrap the 12 nuc subs altogether and then elect JC (not our Lord and Savior) and he in turned scrapped the EH101 and costs us a pretty penny and started to enhancement of the bleeding out of the CAF in the late 1990's. Add in a few other PM's who did nothing to staunch the bleeding out and voila, 25yrs later, here we are.

The decision by PM back in 2005 to not enter in the Ballistic Missile defense plan was a dick move that costed us creditability with the US. We now talk about the US no longer being a 'reliable ally', what do you think the US was saying about us in 2005?
 
The reality goes back to the end of the Mulroney era when the decision was made to scrap the 12 nuc subs in place of another 6 Halifax frigates as was the original plan - then scrap the 12 nuc subs altogether and then elect JC (not our Lord and Savior) and he in turned scrapped the EH101 and costs us a pretty penny and started to enhancement of the bleeding out of the CAF in the late 1990's. Add in a few other PM's who did nothing to staunch the bleeding out and voila, 25yrs later, here we are.

The decision by PM back in 2005 to not enter in the Ballistic Missile defense plan was a dick move that costed us creditability with the US. We now talk about the US no longer being a 'reliable ally', what do you think the US was saying about us in 2005?

And I believe it was around 2004 when the 2% GDP was first floated in NATO. Here we are 21 years later at 1.37%.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top