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....

 

[Remius]

To be fair, I am not sure we have the capacity to spend even the modest increase we just received…

Exactly. I’d be fine if they had a plan to spend what we currently have efficiently

 

[WLSC]

I wish that were the case but in all honesty we probably wouldn't spend another penny. We'd just trust that the US wouldn't allow anyone to touch our territory because it's a risk to them.

Would you do that? I would close the border and let us alone for a while, I would let us be afraid a bit.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

I wish that were the case but in all honesty we probably wouldn't spend another penny. We'd just trust that the US wouldn't allow anyone to touch our territory because it's a risk to them.

Are you kidding? We'd be 1938 Czechoslovakia if it kept the Russians and Chinese from pursuing a larger conflict.

We have seen what happens to folks outside of the NATO umbrella when we have "guarantees" versus "treaty agreements"

 

[WLSC]

Exactly. I’d be fine if they had a plan to spend what we currently have efficiently

We have, PMO/TB won’t let us spend the money.

 

[Navy_Pete]

It really is time for them to insist up or out for us.

What does that have to do with the budget increase?

I agree with @SupersonicMax; They could shovel all the money in the world at us, but unless we get more people, or the processes get cut (so requires less LOE to buy things with the people we already have) won't make a massive difference (unless we buy a lot of really expensive things, instead of all the items we actually need).

If we need 1000 parts and 1 million hours to fix stuff, giving us more money (on it's own) won't do anything, if we don't have the 1000 parts. If a widget is on the critical path, doesn't matter if it costs $0.50 or $50M, if we don't have it we won't have that capability.

I think effective capability is really more important anyway, so really doesn't matter how much we spend if we do F-all with it. I'd be happy if we just did what we already do, except with ships that aren't carrying a huge amount of defects.

 

[Halifax Tar]

What does that have to do with the budget increase?

I agree with @SupersonicMax; They could shovel all the money in the world at us, but unless we get more people, or the processes get cut (so requires less LOE to buy things with the people we already have) won't make a massive difference (unless we buy a lot of really expensive things, instead of all the items we actually need).

If we need 1000 parts and 1 million hours to fix stuff, giving us more money (on it's own) won't do anything, if we don't have the 1000 parts. If a widget is on the critical path, doesn't matter if it costs $0.50 or $50M, if we don't have it we won't have that capability.

I think effective capability is really more important anyway, so really doesn't matter how much we spend if we do F-all with it. I'd be happy if we just did what we already do, except with ships that aren't carrying a huge amount of defects.

You're right of course level of funding is only part of the problem.

The real issue is Canada needs to decide what it wants to be on the world stage.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

You're right of course level of funding is only part of the problem.

The real issue is Canada needs to decide what it wants to be on the world stage.

We are Chorus Line Singer #8, but like to think the production would fail without us.

 

[WLSC]

What does that have to do with the budget increase?

I agree with @SupersonicMax; They could shovel all the money in the world at us, but unless we get more people, or the processes get cut (so requires less LOE to buy things with the people we already have) won't make a massive difference (unless we buy a lot of really expensive things, instead of all the items we actually need).

If we need 1000 parts and 1 million hours to fix stuff, giving us more money (on it's own) won't do anything, if we don't have the 1000 parts. If a widget is on the critical path, doesn't matter if it costs $0.50 or $50M, if we don't have it we won't have that capability.

I think effective capability is really more important anyway, so really doesn't matter how much we spend if we do F-all with it. I'd be happy if we just did what we already do, except with ships that aren't carrying a huge amount of defects.

I agree with you. However if the money is not named for a specific program, it’s lost. SoI would have like to see x amount for CAF reconstitution, x amount for NORAD or at least name generically what’s for. Out of all the option MDN named on Global, I’m sure she’s short.

 

[Czech_pivo]

We are Chorus Line Singer #8, but like to think the production would fail without us.

That’s because we’ve got the nicest legs.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Nothing like a serious increase in budget--graph from p. 153 PDF here:

https://www.budget.gc.ca/2022/pdf/budget-2022-en.pdf

See also p. 132, 134 PDF. Note this at latter--money for North, NORAD not new:

In Budget 2021, the government committed $252.2 million over five years
to sustain existing continental and Arctic defence capabilities, and to lay
the groundwork for NORAD’s future.

No there there.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Edward Campbell]

RUMINT: DND (the MND's office) gave Freeland a fairly hefty proposal ~ several (something in excess of 60) Billion dollars ~ mostly for North American/Arctic defence ~ that was late coming in but that wasn't the problem. Very, very senior officials in Finance and TB and the PMO all agree that DND and Procurement and Supply cannot manage anything more than $6.1 Billion, and they are not sure they can even manage that.

The consensus amongst the bureaucratic grownups is that DND, especially, is totally ph_cked in so far as being able to actually put some muscle on to the bare bones of a "plan" is concerned. Procurement and Supply is said to be a) over-burdened, already; b) hide-bound; and c) technologically challenged.

Finance, it is suggested, will be happy to provide more money for defence when/IF both the procurement system and DND's management (civil and military) are reformed.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Be much more helpful to see where money is going than how much it is increasing.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Finance, it is suggested, will be happy to provide more money for defence when/IF both the procurement system and DND's management (civil and military) are reformed.

Trying to imagine...

"We held a competition, and this is what we picked."

"Offsets?"

"No."

 

[McG]

So, how much of that new money can be used to hire civilians as protect managers, supply managers, and contracting officers?

 

[Edward Campbell]

So, how much of that new money can be used to hire civilians as protect managers, supply managers, and contracting officers?

I wonder if that isn't on some minds. I remember, a few years ago, discussing with a then modestly senior civil servant what the old Department of Munitions and Supply looked like and how it established private and semi-private sector agencies got actually execute programmes.

 

[MilEME09]

So, how much of that new money can be used to hire civilians as protect managers, supply managers, and contracting officers?

Hopefully enough to get our procurement sorted out quickly

 

[rmc_wannabe]

RUMINT: DND (the MND's office) gave Freeland a fairly hefty proposal ~ several (something in excess of 60) Billion dollars ~ mostly for North American/Arctic defence ~ that was late coming in but that wasn't the problem. Very, very senior officials in Finance and TB and the PMO all agree that DND and Procurement and Supply cannot manage anything more than $6.1 Billion, and they are not sure they can even manage that.

The consensus amongst the bureaucratic grownups is that DND, especially, is totally ph_cked in so far as being able to actually put some muscle on to the bare bones of a "plan" is concerned. Procurement and Supply is said to be a) over-burdened, already; b) hide-bound; and c) technologically challenged.

Finance, it is suggested, will be happy to provide more money for defence when/IF both the procurement system and DND's management (civil and military) are reformed.

"You'll get more money once you can staff a proper procurement."

"But we don't have the people or resources to do defence procurement like every other department. We need to have exemptions for defence procurement"

"Yes, but rules are rules..."

 

[PuckChaser]

Leslie doesn't pull any punches for his former party of choice..

https://twitter.com/x/status/1512170692942475269

 

[Edward Campbell]

Maybe what's needed are slightly different rules for really big "nationally important" projects when validated operational requirements, politics, industrial strategies and big money all collide.

My sense is that the first validated operational requirements is a HUGE problem. I think that some senior officials in the centre (PMO, Finance and TB) think that our admirals and generals want to buy "toys for the boys" rather than what the country actually needs. My sense, again and it's just that, not a fact, is that Wayne Eyre and Frances Allen and all the rest are, simply, not trusted to act in a responsible, professional manner.

 

[OldSolduer]

Maybe what's needed are slightly different rules for really big "nationally important" projects when validated operational requirements, politics, industrial strategies and big money all collide.

My sense is that the first validated operational requirements is a HUGE problem. I think that some senior officials in the centre (PMO, Finance and TB) think that our admirals and generals want to buy "toys for the boys" rather than what the country actually needs. My sense, again and it's just that, not a fact, is that Wayne Eyre and Frances Allen and all the rest are, simply, not trusted to act in a responsible, professional manner.

I don't know if this is a strictly Canadian issue - it seems the USA has very little difficulty in trusting Generals and Admirals - but politicians seem to not trust our senior uniformed people that actually know what is required.

Plus we all know the Liberal NDP coalition really don't like the CAF.