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....

 

[Czech_pivo]

Nobody in the US Government votes in Canadian elections, so does this matter to the Liberals? No.

Similarly, although Trudeau is still getting bashed in the EU following his speech last month, the Liberals don't care as no members of the EU parliament vote in Canadian elections, either.

True statements.

Here's to hoping the the US, the UK, Germans, Dutch, Danes, Poles and anyone/everyone else calls us out during the June NATO meeting and seats us with Albania, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Hungary, Luxembourg, Iceland and Greece during the discussions and photo ops.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I'm sure that some of you have already read this info

Canada’s defence spending ‘likely wasn’t enough’ for America’s liking

Joe Biden’s ambassador to Canada told the Star the defence spending in the budget likely isn’t enough to satisfy the U.S. government.

www.thestar.com

Canada’s defence spending ‘likely wasn’t enough’ for America’s liking​

Still just RUMINT, but:

1. The amount that the MND/DM put forward was something like 10 to 15 times what the Finance Minister promised in the budget and that ($60-$90B) is what the Americans guess we should be investing in North American defence.

2. It's not all just for NORAD. Despite the fact that the Americans don't accept all of our clams to all of our Arctic waterways they believe that we ~ not they ~ should have bases, ships and so on up there, doing the job as part of a coordinated (combined) continental defence system.

3. The Americans would welcome us into their continental ballistic missile defence system ... at what amount to being fire-sale prices because the system will work better if our airspace is part of it. But even they understand that combined systems ~ like NORAD, like BMD ~ erode our sovereignty because Canada will never be a fully equal partner; we will always be the junior partner. They understand that and they understand that Canadian nationalists don't like that. But, when push comes to shove, they will not hesitate to invoke the diplomatic/strategic equivalent of force majeure.

 

[Kirkhill]

Still just RUMINT, but:

1. The amount that the MND/DM put forward was something like 10 to 15 times what the Finance Minister promised in the budget and that ($60-$90B) is what the Americans guess we should be investing in North American defence.

2. It's not all just for NORAD. Despite the fact that the Americans don't accept all of our clams to all of our Arctic waterways they believe that we ~ not they ~ should have bases, ships and so on up there, doing the job as part of a coordinated (combined) continental defence system.

3. The Americans would welcome us into their continental ballistic missile defence system ... at what amount to being fire-sale prices because the system will work better if our airspace is part of it. But even they understand that combined systems ~ like NORAD, like BMD ~ erode our sovereignty because Canada will never be a fully equal partner; we will always be the junior partner. They understand that and they understand that Canadian nationalists don't like that. But, when push comes to shove, they will not hesitate to invoke the diplomatic/strategic equivalent of force majeure.

when push comes to shove, they will not hesitate to invoke the diplomatic/strategic equivalent of force majeure.

See Also - Prince Rupert, AlCan Highway, Argentia, Goose Bay, Iqaluit, Eureka, Alert, Pine Tree, DEW and North Warning,

 

[Czech_pivo]

Still just RUMINT, but:

1. The amount that the MND/DM put forward was something like 10 to 15 times what the Finance Minister promised in the budget and that ($60-$90B) is what the Americans guess we should be investing in North American defence.

2. It's not all just for NORAD. Despite the fact that the Americans don't accept all of our clams to all of our Arctic waterways they believe that we ~ not they ~ should have bases, ships and so on up there, doing the job as part of a coordinated (combined) continental defence system.

3. The Americans would welcome us into their continental ballistic missile defence system ... at what amount to being fire-sale prices because the system will work better if our airspace is part of it. But even they understand that combined systems ~ like NORAD, like BMD ~ erode our sovereignty because Canada will never be a fully equal partner; we will always be the junior partner. They understand that and they understand that Canadian nationalists don't like that. But, when push comes to shove, they will not hesitate to invoke the diplomatic/strategic equivalent of force majeure.

1) The DM said that she was putting forward 3 funding proposals, what I would label, the 'Porridge' approach. The first being 'too hot', the second being 'just right' and the last being 'too cold'. I have zero way of knowing this, but I suspect you're RUMINT under your #1 is the 'too hot' approach. Put out some WAG for all those hawks that exist here in Canada and say, 'look, this is how much we were looking to spend and to try to make us an actual player once again, but XXXX wouldn't let us.'

2) If we had real assets on the ground (or Mukluks in the snow) throughout the Arctic 12 months of the year, it would gain credence and some respect from the US (and UK/Danes/Norwegians - the recent offer by the UK to 'help' us defend/patrol the Arctic is a perfect example). Stationing SAR bases/resources allocated for covering NWT/NT/Yukon thousands of KM in the south doesn't really say that we take that area seriously. And its not just the Far North that these lack of resources hold true or, the over-relying on the US. When I was growing up back in Windsor and would be out fishing/boating/sailing on Lake St. Clair, the Detroit River or the western basin of the Lake Erie, I knew, as did everyone else on those waters, that if help/rescue was needed that 9/10 times it would come from the USCG helo's or Cutters coming from Belle Isle, Toledo, St Clair Shores or Selfridges ANG, it wouldn't be the CCG coming over the horizon or a Griffon coming from Trenton.

3) When have we ever been an equal partner to anyone? It's never occurred.
In the past it was due to tiny population and being significantly poorer than our Allies, while currently it's still a small population (when compared to US/UK/France/Germany/Spain/Italy) and less testicular fortitude to pony up on the costs related to actually being a legitimate 'middle power'. It doesn't help our cause with the Americans when it seems to be fair game for the Federal Liberal party to throw stones at the US's house glass house every single time they get the chance. The exact same can be said about our media. It's a national past time to beat our chests and say how much better we are then them. This totally comes from an inferiority complex that a significant portion of Canadians have had since just after the days of Confederation when the US well and truly started to massively outperform us economically.

Do I have the answers? No, not even close. But reconstituting the CAF, through greater involvement politically, economically and asset backing in NORAD and NATO can only help our case. Its close, very close to the point that continuing to do what we do will be the end of this country's world standing.

My Grandfather used to say to me when I was a small boy, 'It's easy to destroy something, but to try and rebuild it, that takes years and years and in the end, it may never happen.'

 

[Good2Golf]

My Grandfather used to say to me when I was a small boy, 'It's easy to destroy something, but to try and rebuild it, that takes years and years and in the end, it may never happen.'

This may be where we are reputationally…I fear we are at a point where Canada won’t ever be taken as seriously again as we were in the past when we were a true middle power…up until…oh….say 1968….

 

[Brad Sallows]

Thing is: US doesn't need us to contribute more than political spine to missions overseas. We could be a better partner just by doing (spending) more at home.

 

[WLSC]

You guys think that IF one day our PM had no choice but to give is apology to us, he’ll cry, a bit, just a tiny tiny bit ?

 

[KevinB]

Still just RUMINT, but:

1. The amount that the MND/DM put forward was something like 10 to 15 times what the Finance Minister promised in the budget and that ($60-$90B) is what the Americans guess we should be investing in North American defence.

2. It's not all just for NORAD. Despite the fact that the Americans don't accept all of our clams to all of our Arctic waterways they believe that we ~ not they ~ should have bases, ships and so on up there, doing the job as part of a coordinated (combined) continental defence system.

3. The Americans would welcome us into their continental ballistic missile defence system ... at what amount to being fire-sale prices because the system will work better if our airspace is part of it. But even they understand that combined systems ~ like NORAD, like BMD ~ erode our sovereignty because Canada will never be a fully equal partner; we will always be the junior partner. They understand that and they understand that Canadian nationalists don't like that. But, when push comes to shove, they will not hesitate to invoke the diplomatic/strategic equivalent of force majeure.

Partner (junior) or slave -- pick one...

 

[Kirkhill]

See Also - Prince Rupert, AlCan Highway, Argentia, Goose Bay, Iqaluit, Eureka, Alert, Pine Tree, DEW and North Warning,

Forgot one...

Kuujjuaq - another WW2 development by the US. A weather station.

 

[Kirkhill]

The HBC factories and forts for 300 years. The Norwegians and Danes around 1900. The USAF from the 1940s to 1980s.

Have the southern settlers ever shown any interest in the Arctic?

 

[ballz]

It's almost like you're a chartered professional accountant or something

I'm sure you can get hired for $200.00 an hour as a consultant to advise them on the way forward.

They won't take your advice and will discard the report as soon as it's produced. Such is life in the GoC

Kinda like they already ignore it even though it's departmental direction? $400/hr is the going rate, minimum charge of $1000. Ironically I'd be telling them exactly what's already written in the FAM on S.34 where it clearly shows finance staff are supposed to manage payables.............. see attachment, 5th column.

I remember when in AP my involvement with supply and contracts was making sure there was a valid contract and all the authorities were in place before paying the invoice.

That's part of it... ensure EIA/S.32 is on the file, ensure a valid contract is in place*, confirm receipt of goods/services is there, and then do the account verification, sign S.34, and pay it. Amongst that is verifying that segregation of duties was exercised.... like I had said, the person doing this should be the SME on the expenditure management process (not contracting itself). That's really it for 99% of transactions.

*This just means checking to see that the person who authorized the contract (signed the contract) has a valid DOA to do so. Not deep diving into the contract file checking for quotes and all that jazz..... that's the G4's job.... although there is arguably a place for a G8-type to do so, it's definitely not for an A/P clerk to do.

I was actually surprised to see in our doctrine that in the Brigade's Fin Pl which owns all the FSAs (oh yeah, where's that at? Instead we farmed out 3x FSAs per unit like the donkeys we are) there is a contracting section and technical oversight of contracting was a task for the Fin Pl. Not really sure what that means or if I agree with it, but I suppose it doesn't matter since we don't have any Finance Pls.

 

[KevinB]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1513675033436164101

 

[WLSC]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1513675033436164101

That would have been awesome if the sentence was completed with; and Canada

 

[ballz]

Well Canada only has about 8 tanks that aren't on the VOR at any point in time, so it would be pretty accurate...

 

[JLB50]

I wonder if the Abrams or other NATO tanks, with or without their reactive armour, would have fared much better than their Russian counterparts. Are they like the battleships today? Sitting ducks for the Russian or Chinese equivalent of an NLAW or Stinger?

 

[Czech_pivo]

Partner (junior) or slave -- pick one...

Junior mints for me.

 

[markppcli]

I wonder if the Abrams or other NATO tanks, with or without their reactive armour, would have fared much better than their Russian counterparts. Are they like the battleships today? Sitting ducks for the Russian or Chinese equivalent of an NLAW or Stinger?

Tough question to answer. There’s design features of T72 and T80 that seem to be making k kills more likely, but there’s also some horrific tactical decisions being made that play into the hands of the Ukranians.

 

[KevinB]

Easy question to answer.
NATO tanks (Abrams, Leo and Challenger current variants) have 1) better armor (composite and extremely dense materials), 2) Insensitivity munitions, so with a significant impact they don’t detonate (unlike the T series turret launching munitions) 3) Have venting ammo storage so even a ammo detonation of the ammo rack won’t K kill the tank
4) Better VAS and FCS to allow targets to be viewed and selected at longer ranges.

 

[MilEME09]

Tough question to answer. There’s design features of T72 and T80 that seem to be making k kills more likely, but there’s also some horrific tactical decisions being made that play into the hands of the Ukranians.

Talking to a few people, it seems the Russian Active protection systems cannot recognize a top attack munition as a threat so they aren't engaging. Meaning weapons like Javelin are scoring kills left, right and center.

Weather also is a big factor, it's still muddy as heck in Ukraine so they are limited to roads, easy pickings for Ukraine.

Third factor is piss poor training, recent videos show when hit by artillery, they are abandoning their vehicles and scattering, and Ukrainian forces are all to happy to make sure there is no vehicle to return to.

 

[Kirkhill]

Amid all the videos of Russian tanks being destroyed and talk of Bayraktars, Javelins and NLAWs there has been occasional reference to Ukrainian artillery and its role in eliminating columns of vehicles. But when looking at the videos and images it has been remarkable to me how little evidence there is of "misses" by the artillery, how few shell holes there are in the engagement area.

Apparently the Ukrainians have their own indigenous laser guided 152mm artillery shells. And may have 122mm shells as well. Laser designators are available for ground units and UAVs.

One Shot, One Kill: Ukrainian Gunners Fire Laser-Guided Shells At Russian Vehicles

It’s not hard to find dramatic videos depicting direct hits by Ukrainian artillery on Russian vehicles. They hint at Ukraine’s integration and deployment of two key technologies—laser-guided artillery shells and laser-equipped drones.

www.forbes.com