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....

 

[MilEME09]

And every Canadian over the age of 16 can drive a pickup truck. Four year olds can communicate on cell phones and 2 year olds can operate computers.

Most folks can pick up the basics of point and shoot in an afternoon. And a fair number know how to operate a chain saw. First aid qualifications and CPR certification are a dime a dozen.

Tell me again how much professional training you need to pitch in and have a go when things are dire.

Shop stewards everywhere.

Am I denigrating the place of the "professional"? Aye. Mebbe I am. Given that I have spent 40 years working with the unskilled and uncredentialled, many of them who can't read English, teaching them how to operate the kit that puts the food on your table and supervise them so that they come home safe and you don't die from the Fries they make that get served at MacDonalds.

Would I want those folks fixing my car? No. Not generally. But I have found more than one capable of it. I've trained a fair number of them how to manage a wrench to perform routine sanitation and maintenance.

There is indeed a place for the professional - the person that is paid explicitly for the task they are asked to undertake - as opposed to the amateur - the person that does the same thing for the love of the thing.

So you'll not sell me on the merits of the professional attitude.

It's one thing to be proud of your trade and your accomplishments. Its another entirely to think that others can't perform equally as well without the paper.

The Ukrainians are not waiting around to certify their people or their kit. They are getting the best they can out of what is on hand.

And that includes the small number of professionals they have available to them. They are all organizing themselves and their neighbours.

And once they are finished with this Russian stramash they will return to their civvy street jobs as coders, mechanical engineers, bakers and shop keepers.



I keep hearing the Army doesn't want to do this, that and the other. Well fine. Don't. Do the things you want to do. But stand out the way and let others get on with the things you don't want to do.

You won't by trucks and chainsaws for fear it will cut into the number of Leos and K9s you can buy. And yet you freely acknowledge that you can't operate either without those trucks and chainsaws. Trucks and chainsaws that are going to experience a lot more wear and tear due to actual use than any of the tanks you ever buy.

Your Territorial Battle Groups? Keep the combat arms. Do with them as you will. 10 Combat Engineer Regiments, 10 Field Ambulances, 10 Transport Coys, 10 Signals Squadrons and 10 Command Elements would serve just fine. Add them to the Rangers.

Governments don't hire professionals because they are better than amateurs. They hire professionals because they want the service to ready at a moments notice - and they expect that when the service is provided it will be competently executed.

Given enough time and training anybody can be competent.

Kikhill, Out!

I think we are debating the same side from different perspectives. System is broken and at this point needs to be torn down and rebuilt. No amount of band aid solutions will turn this around into a more capable force. Some of our best influences to deter people from joining are the people in uniform, including us on this site, and if we think it's screwed up, we won't recommend it as a career

 

[Czech_pivo]

New French ambassador calls us out, seems our allies are getting tired of our sh*t

Navel-gazing Canada has neglected its military, new French ambassador says

The problem in part is that Canada has grown too reliant on the U.S. and its massive defence machine, the most costly in the world, he said

nationalpost.com

I absolutely love this line - “You’re very French, you’re riding a first-class carriage with a third-class ticket…. If you want to remain in the first-class seat, you need to train and expand and to go somewhere.”

Calls us out for being the cheap sons of bitches that we so plainly are. Good on him. Now if we can only get the UK Ambassador to say something even more viritol and then have the US rumble about tossing us from the 5 eyes - but keeping in the Kiwi's to rub some salt in the wound - it would be even better.

 

[WLSC]

Great. The CAF is having trouble finding people to fill it's current positions. Same is happening in the USA. Where do you propose we get the people from to not only stabilize the current force but to expand it?

The Government could overnight decide to increase the Defence budget to the NATO 2% of GDP target and yes, that would allow us to upgrade and expand our equipment holdings but how does that help with the fact that we can't actually man the limited equipment we have now?

You deride it as "this sort of thinking" but it is the physical reality on the ground. We don't have the numbers we need for our current force. Is it just wrong thinking that is standing in the way of our being able to man a deployable Army Division, two dozen CSCs and ten subs, and a fighter force of 250 F-35's?

If you have a magical solution to solve the problem of both convincing the Canadian public to provide the funding required for a substantially larger military as well as attracting the 10's of thousands of new recruits required to man that force then I'd love to hear it!

Hopefully the CAF's "Reconstitution" efforts will succeed in stabilizing the manning situation, but that just maintains us where we currently are...which is a generally ineffective military unsuited for a peer conflict. In the absence of an increase in funding AND a sudden desire for more Canadians to join the military then we can either choose the status quo and remain largely irrelevant or we can re-examine how we can make best use of the funding and manpower we currently have available to make us more relevant.

Messaging is what make that happen and managing results is what make it work. You can’t attract good people if messaging by the GC is that the CAF “doesn’t get it” and not showing the money that tell good people that we have good equipment and proper organisation to welcome them. Keeping people in and attracting them will real ressources should be the driver, not the opposite.

 

[FSTO]

I absolutely love this line - “You’re very French, you’re riding a first-class carriage with a third-class ticket…. If you want to remain in the first-class seat, you need to train and expand and to go somewhere.”

Calls us out for being the cheap sons of bitches that we so plainly are. Good on him. Now if we can only get the UK Ambassador to say something even more viritol and then have the US rumble about tossing us from the 5 eyes - but keeping in the Kiwi's to rub some salt in the wound - it would be even better.

Threating to toss us from the G7 would open some eyes.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Threating to toss us from the G7 would open some eyes.

I think that the US/UK/France will wait and see if either of 2 things happen - Trudeau is deposed by his own party and a new Lib leader starts reading from the script that they put in front of them, or; PP wins the next election and he starts to read from the script put in front of him.

If either of these things don't occur, they will start chattering about a new and improved G6 - no more Canada or Italy and a formally recognised EU representative.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I think that the US/UK/France will wait and see if either of 2 things happen - Trudeau is deposed by his own party and a new Lib leader starts reading from the script that they put in front of them, or; PP wins the next election and he starts to read from the script put in front of him.

If either of these things don't occur, they will start chattering about a new and improved G6 - no more Canada or Italy and a formally recognised EU representative.

My guess is that what's in the mill is a D-10; a group of global democracies:

1. America​

2. India​

3. Japan​

4. Germany​

5. Australia​

6. Sweden​

7. South Korea​

9. Netherlands​

10. United Kingdom​

​

But, and it's a BIG BUT, it's not going to come quickly or easily. The entire G-7 may have to disband itself, first ... and I'm not sure I see a styretgeic driver for that.

There is an emerging Big Two - America and China; I'm not sure the G-20 makes any sense, any more, but it's very hard to actually disband groups. That goes, in spades, for the G-7 because it gives France an outsized voice. But, I think that Boris Johnson's D-10 idea (admittedly a bit different from mine - he kept Canada and France instead of Sweden and Netherlands) struck. chord with the Americans.

 

[Czech_pivo]

My guess is that what's in the mill is a D-10; a group of global democracies:

1. America​

2. India​

3. Japan​

4. Germany​

5. Australia​

6. Sweden​

7. South Korea​

9. Netherlands​

10. United Kingdom​

​

But, and it's a BIG BUT, it's not going to come quickly or easily. The entire G-7 may have to disband itself, first ... and I'm not sure I see a styretgeic driver for that.

There is an emerging Big Two - America and China; I'm not sure the G-20 makes any sense, any more, but it's very hard to actually disband groups. That goes, in spades, for the G-7 because it gives France an outsized voice. But, I think that Boris Johnson's D-10 idea (admittedly a bit different from mine - he kept Canada and France instead of Sweden and Netherlands) struck. chord with the Americans.

I'll play Devil's Advocate here, zero chance of SA being added in loo of Nederlands? Having some sort of African presence will tick off alot of boxes - of course the massive corruption that has become entrenched there and their flirting with the Sino more than likely stops this train of thought dead in its tracks. Also, some lingering love of the old SU still resides among the older cadres of the ANC.

I also don't see India joining in on this - the optics on this goes 100% against their mantra of officially 'non-aligned'. But things can/do change. Lastly, I'd see Sweden, in order to 'share/spread' the risk to themselves, proposing their presence to be in essence a 'pan-nordic' position, including Norway/Finland and Danemark into the mix.

But it is certainly to fun to say 'what if'. I value your thoughts/opinion Mr Campbell.

 

[KevinB]

My guess is that what's in the mill is a D-10; a group of global democracies:

1. America​

2. India​

3. Japan​

4. Germany​

5. Australia​

6. Sweden​

7. South Korea​

9. Netherlands​

10. United Kingdom​

​

But, and it's a BIG BUT, it's not going to come quickly or easily. The entire G-7 may have to disband itself, first ... and I'm not sure I see a styretgeic driver for that.

There is an emerging Big Two - America and China; I'm not sure the G-20 makes any sense, any more, but it's very hard to actually disband groups. That goes, in spades, for the G-7 because it gives France an outsized voice. But, I think that Boris Johnson's D-10 idea (admittedly a bit different from mine - he kept Canada and France instead of Sweden and Netherlands) struck. chord with the Americans.

I'm not sure anyone wants to play with India these days.
They are about as reliable as Pakistan goes for a "ally", and they are fairly Ru friendly beyond what any other group in there would accept.

 

[Good2Golf]

I also don't see India joining in on this - the optics on this goes 100% against their mantra of officially 'non-aligned'.

CP, I agree with you on this.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Some analysts suggest that India is, geo-strategically, the ONLY viable counter to China. It doesn't really matter what India does or doesn't do, we need them ... or we need to go ugly early, and often.

 

[Good2Golf]

Just so long as there isn’t too much emphasis on the capital-D of democracy.

Some analysts suggest that India is, geo-strategically, the ONLY viable counter to China. It doesn't really matter what India does or doesn't do, we need them ... or we need to go ugly early, and often.

 

[Kirkhill]

If you are going to talk about Sweden these days then you should include Denmark, Norway and Finland in the group.

Their integration is getting tighter and tighter.

Testing the Nordic Combat Uniform (NCU) System - Nordefco

Since the start of December 2019, soldiers in Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Finland, have been testing the offered System for the new Nordic Combat Uniform System.

www.nordefco.org

About NORDEFCO - Nordefco

And for that matter I would suggest you can't mention them without Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

And that brings you to Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Romania, and Bulgaria - Hungary is odd man out in Bucharest.

Then you finally have Ukraine.

That group is only going to get tighter within both the EU and NATO.

I'm intrigued to see if this new mob in London is as strongly pro-JEF as Boris was. I suspect they are more Macronish.

 

[Gunnar]

The expression is "to cut one's suit to suit the cloth".

Why does my suit kinda look like a neon green banana hammock? Is the suit still appropriate for Mess Dinners? It’s the cloth I had...

 

[Edward Campbell]

If you are going to talk about Sweden these days then you should include Denmark, Norway and Finland in the group.

Their integration is getting tighter and tighter.

Testing the Nordic Combat Uniform (NCU) System - Nordefco

Since the start of December 2019, soldiers in Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Finland, have been testing the offered System for the new Nordic Combat Uniform System.

www.nordefco.org

About NORDEFCO - Nordefco

And for that matter I would suggest you can't mention them without Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

And that brings you to Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Romania, and Bulgaria - Hungary is odd man out in Bucharest.

Then you finally have Ukraine.

That group is only going to get tighter within both the EU and NATO.

I'm intrigued to see if this new mob in London is as strongly pro-JEF as Boris was. I suspect they are more Macronish.

I agree; it is part of what they call, in there EU, the New Hanseatic League.

Neither the EU nor NATO is united in any meaningful way. There are three main European divisions:

1. The fiscally conservative Northerners - the New Hanseatic League+;​

2. The fiscally irresponsible Romans - France, Italy, Portugal, Spain and honorary member Greece; and​

3. The Eastern European rest.​

None of the three wants to upset the whole apple-cart ... yet ... but, equally, none of the three is happy with the status quo.

 

[Kirkhill]

All true FJAG - and yet nothing in that speech suggests a sense of strength. If anything it suggests a continuing sense of weakness and inferiority. It suggests a nation with a chip on its shoulder denied its rightful place in history. It also suggests a nation, or at least a leader, who has decided/discovered that there is still a ways to go to match the west in military technology and that military technology is the key.

A couple of days ago I referenced Canada's WW2 Auxilliary Corps as an option for engaging they Canadian civil community in support of militarily relevant objectives.

Here's another one.

Royal Observer Corps - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Corps was stood down on 31 March 1996.

Playstation was introduced on 3 December 1994

PlayStation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Given the popularity of both PlayStations and Multi-Player Games, as well as the broad international interest in following events in Ukraine, offering commentary and active engagement in all sorts of activities to support the Ukrainians on line with resources and intelligence perhaps the Observer Corps was stood down a bit too early.

I understand that one of the arguments against UAVs is the narrow field of vision - the expression I have heard is like looking through a straw. There is a solution to that. Many straws with many eyeballs.

And then I find this

New app lets civilians help shoot down drones and missiles in Ukraine​

The ePPO application is currently available for the Android platform, developers are working on creating a version for iOS, which is expected to ship in a few weeks.​

Ukraine has created an application for mobile devices that will help air defense units supplement radar information about an air target to better the chances of taking it down, according to Ukraine's Strategic Communications Department.


"The Android version of the "ePPO" application is already available to download. Now every citizen of Ukraine can join the anti-missile and anti-aircraft defense of our skies," the Strategic Communications Department of the Office of the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine said.

To use the app, all that is needed is to install the "ePPO" application on your smartphone, pass a quick authorization process, click "Test" to make sure that everything works, and be ready to notify anti-aircraft fighters about perceived threats.

New app lets civilians help shoot down drones and missiles in Ukraine

The ePPO application is currently available for the Android platform, developers are working on creating a version for iOS, which is expected to ship in a few weeks.

www.jpost.com

How the app works​

If you see an air target, for example, a cruise missile or a suicide drone, you need to open "ePPO" on your smartphone, select the type of air target, point your smartphone in the direction of the target and press the big red button.

Air defense specialists will see a mark on the map, it will complement the radar information and the threat will be shot down.

The ePPO application is currently available for the Android platform, developers are working on creating a version for iOS, which is expected to ship in a few weeks.

New app lets civilians help shoot down drones and missiles in Ukraine

The ePPO application is currently available for the Android platform, developers are working on creating a version for iOS, which is expected to ship in a few weeks.

www.jpost.com

 

[Kirkhill]

I agree; it is part of what they call, in there EU, the New Hanseatic League.

Neither the EU nor NATO is united in any meaningful way. There are three main European divisions:

1. The fiscally conservative Northerners - the New Hanseatic League+;​

2. The fiscally irresponsible Romans - France, Italy, Portugal, Spain and honorary member Greece; and​

3. The Eastern European rest.​

None of the three wants to upset the whole apple-cart ... yet ... but, equally, none of the three is happy with the status quo.

Thanks Ted - I hadn't realized that they had come together formally. The presence of Ireland in the mix is intriguing.

Makes me think that if this mob had come out of the closet seven or eight years ago and supported Cameron the Brexit result might have been different. Now they have to fight their own battles inside the EU.

I wonder if they will give Britain credit for helping them outside the EU.

New Hanseatic League - Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands and Sweden February 2018
Joint Expeditionary Force - United Kingdom-led expeditionary force which may consist of, Denmark, Finland, Estonia, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Sweden and Norway. - 2015 with Sweden and Finland joining in 2017

Ireland and Iceland are the odd ones.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

This thread should be called "Liberals Boost Hinting At Becoming a Serious Country"

 

[Edward Campbell]

Another geezer eruption, I'm afraid, but ...

Canada hasn't wanted to be serious country since the late 1960s.

I think that's understandable ... we never were a great power, but, briefly, we were a leader, maybe even the leader of the responsible, Western, 'middle powers.' But leadership came at a price - other middle powers were betiding generous welfare states while Canada, led by a fiscally prudent (downright fiscally conservative) Liberal government was spending on building - national microwave systems, great, world altering seaways, far North radar lines and transcontinental pipelines - was overly cautious about social spending. We, well, not even me, I was only a teenager when John Diefenbaker tossed the Liberals on to the opposition benches and began to restrain the previous government's foreign and defence programmes. I was an adult, a captain, actually, in 2RCR when the government-of-the-day (Pierre Elliot Trudeau's government) decided that we should not be leaders ... we should not, Saint Pierre said, even be good followers; we should be slackers and laggards and freeloaders because we had more serious problems to contend with: National Unity; building a "Just Society;" and maintaining a "harmonious natural environment" - there was a whole booklet about that in his in famous (1970) white paper Foreign Policy for Canadians.

Canadians, by and large, agreed with Pierre Trudeau. Brian Mulroney, Paul Martin Jr and Stephen Harper all wanted to do more but they all knew, with near absolute certainty, that Canadians didn't want an activist, principled foreign policy and Canadians really, really didn't want too pay for the sort of military force that such a policy needs to be effective.

I do not believe that the situation has changed. We can call it whatever we like, but only if we understand that the reason we are not a serious country is because we, most (maybe 85%+ of us) Canadians, are not a serious people who deserve such a country.

/rant

 

[Kat Stevens]

Another geezer eruption, I'm afraid, but ...

Canada hasn't wanted to be serious country since the late 1960s.

I think that's understandable ... we never were a great power, but, briefly, we were a leader, maybe even the leader of the responsible, Western, 'middle powers.' But leadership came at a price - other middle powers were betiding generous welfare states while Canada, led by a fiscally prudent (downright fiscally conservative) Liberal government was spending on building - national microwave systems, great, world altering seaways, far North radar lines and transcontinental pipelines - was overly cautious about social spending. We, well, not even me, I was only a teenager when John Diefenbaker tossed the Liberals on to the opposition benches and began to restrain the previous government's foreign and defence programmes. I was an adult, a captain, actually, in 2RCR when the government-of-the-day (Pierre Elliot Trudeau's government) decided that we should not be leaders ... we should not, Saint Pierre said, even be good followers; we should be slackers and laggards and freeloaders because we had more serious problems to contend with: National Unity; building a "Just Society;" and maintaining a "harmonious natural environment" - there was a whole booklet about that in his in famous (1970) white paper Foreign Policy for Canadians.

Canadians, by and large, agreed with Pierre Trudeau. Brian Mulroney, Paul Martin Jr and Stephen Harper all wanted to do more but they all knew, with near absolute certainty, that Canadians didn't want an activist, principled foreign policy and Canadians really, really didn't want too pay for the sort of military force that such a policy needs to be effective.

I do not believe that the situation has changed. We can call it whatever we like, but only if we understand that the reason we are not a serious country is because we, most (maybe 85%+ of us) Canadians, are not a serious people who deserve such a country.

/rant

View attachment 74296

Good for you for still being able to erupt at your age, Pops!

 

[Kirkhill]

Another geezer eruption, I'm afraid, but ...

Canada hasn't wanted to be serious country since the late 1960s.

I think that's understandable ... we never were a great power, but, briefly, we were a leader, maybe even the leader of the responsible, Western, 'middle powers.' But leadership came at a price - other middle powers were betiding generous welfare states while Canada, led by a fiscally prudent (downright fiscally conservative) Liberal government was spending on building - national microwave systems, great, world altering seaways, far North radar lines and transcontinental pipelines - was overly cautious about social spending. We, well, not even me, I was only a teenager when John Diefenbaker tossed the Liberals on to the opposition benches and began to restrain the previous government's foreign and defence programmes. I was an adult, a captain, actually, in 2RCR when the government-of-the-day (Pierre Elliot Trudeau's government) decided that we should not be leaders ... we should not, Saint Pierre said, even be good followers; we should be slackers and laggards and freeloaders because we had more serious problems to contend with: National Unity; building a "Just Society;" and maintaining a "harmonious natural environment" - there was a whole booklet about that in his in famous (1970) white paper Foreign Policy for Canadians.

Canadians, by and large, agreed with Pierre Trudeau. Brian Mulroney, Paul Martin Jr and Stephen Harper all wanted to do more but they all knew, with near absolute certainty, that Canadians didn't want an activist, principled foreign policy and Canadians really, really didn't want too pay for the sort of military force that such a policy needs to be effective.

I do not believe that the situation has changed. We can call it whatever we like, but only if we understand that the reason we are not a serious country is because we, most (maybe 85%+ of us) Canadians, are not a serious people who deserve such a country.

/rant

View attachment 74296

I presume you saw this -

The Canadian government works on two world stages.

In one, a decisive Canada identifies the developing dangers of the globe and acts boldly to deal with them. Unfortunately, that exists only in the imaginary world of Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland’s foreign-policy speeches. In the other one, the real world, Canada vacillates aimlessly on tough choices without much of a foreign policy.

The speech itself was fascinating. The Deputy Prime Minister argued that the era of hoping that democracy and global rules would inexorably spread around the world is over. Now, democratic countries must recognize that their powerful authoritarian nations aren’t about to change, and those democracies will have to take steps to blunt the power and economic leverage of authoritarian rivals.

The implications are vast. This wasn’t just about sanctioning Russia for invading Ukraine. It was about taking steps to reduce economic dependence, not only on Russian energy but Chinese supply chains. Follow the logic, and it means dividing into two trading blocs.

But there’s no sign that bears any relation to Canada’s actual foreign policy. It is not clear that Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly agrees, or Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

In Ottawa, officials have been labouring on a new Indo-Pacific strategy, but the first hiccup was that the drafters couldn’t decide if they should have the audacity to mention China by name. The current draft is said to be too tough on China for Ms. Joly’s liking. At any rate, the Foreign Affairs Minister has indicated she is out to re-establish warmer ties with China. The European Union’s policy declared China a “strategic rival,” but Canada hasn’t said anything like it.

Yet Ms. Freeland is telling the world we have to wake up to the fact that we can’t always have “win-win” relationships with authoritarian states,

Chrystia Freeland issues a clarion call from Canada’s foreign-policy void

If you don’t whether the Deputy Prime Minister’s latest speech is the government’s foreign policy, it could be because in the real world, it hasn’t really got one

www.theglobeandmail.com

Campbell Clark doesn't seem to be holding his breath.

Musing.....


I wonder if the Westminster theatrics have got the good idea fairies fluttering in Ottawa?

It is kind of a piece with the LNG conundrum and Carbon Capture - good enough for Joe, good enough for Justin.