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....

 

[dimsum]

You're over expecting for the aboriginal programs. See link:

Programs for Indigenous Peoples | Canadian Armed Forces

Educational programs and entry plans for Indigenous peoples who are interested in working with the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF).

forces.ca

They are 3 week and 6 week programs.

Remember NEP is NCM only.

The ultimate goal, I think, is to get people in and expose them to a life a sea, and provide some adventure. No one is expecting 100% rate of continuation, no one is even hoping for that. We will have kids who wash out and quit before completion and we will have kids who hate it and we will have kids who say thanks and move on and we will have kids who decide to go on to the CA and RCAF. Like I said before I think 20-30 continuing on after a year should be considered a success.

Our recruiting and retention issues wont be solved in 1 FY. This is a generation task, IMHO. And I think the NEP is one excellent approach to that.

Naval Experience Program | Questions and Answers - Canada.ca

www.canada.ca

I'm pretty sure I said this before but the Aussies have a similar thing called the Gap Year program, for all three services.

It's been going for a while so, clearly they think it's worth keeping. It would be an easy thing to turn off otherwise.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I'll side with @FJAG and say that an arbitrary number without considering what that gives in a particular country due to its unique factors means pretty much nothing, except that it's an easy metric for NATO to use. The CAF theoretically could hire a ton more office workers and pad out to 2% GDP, but that's not really what NATO is looking for.

Agreed.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I'm pretty sure I said this before but the Aussies have a similar thing called the Gap Year program, for all three services.

It's been going for a while so, clearly they think it's worth keeping. It would be an easy thing to turn off otherwise.

I like the idea, its probably how I would have joined in '98/'99. Instead I went reserves to dip my toe in the waters, pun intended.

 

[dapaterson]

It's been going for a while so, clearly they think it's worth keeping. It would be an easy thing to turn off otherwise.

Never underestimate the power of inertia and anecdotes masquerading as data in sustaining the status quo.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I'm pretty sure I said this before but the Aussies have a similar thing called the Gap Year program, for all three services.

It's been going for a while so, clearly they think it's worth keeping. It would be an easy thing to turn off otherwise.

In Aus are the services responsible for their own recruiting or its more like us pan CAF ?

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

You're over expecting for the aboriginal programs. See link:

Programs for Indigenous Peoples | Canadian Armed Forces

Educational programs and entry plans for Indigenous peoples who are interested in working with the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF).

forces.ca

They are 3 week and 6 week programs.

ILOY is 1 year in length

Remember NEP is NCM only.

The ultimate goal, I think, is to get people in and expose them to a life a sea, and provide some adventure. No one is expecting 100% rate of continuation, no one is even hoping for that. We will have kids who wash out and quit before completion and we will have kids who hate it and we will have kids who say thanks and move on and we will have kids who decide to go on to the CA and RCAF. Like I said before I think 20-30 continuing on after a year should be considered a success.

Our recruiting and retention issues wont be solved in 1 FY. This is a generation task, IMHO. And I think the NEP is one excellent approach to that.

Naval Experience Program | Questions and Answers - Canada.ca

www.canada.ca

Potentially. It needs to be studied. Remember I said it's "promising". I don't think words like "wildly successful" should be thrown around just yet.

I think a lot of things are good ideas but that doesn't mean they will actually work or stand up to scrutiny when properly tested.

 

[dimsum]

In Aus are the services responsible for their own recruiting or its more like us pan CAF ?

It's actually a public/private partnership called Defence Force Recruiting. So basically, ADF members and contractors.

https://www.defence.gov.au/jobs-careers/recruiting-services-contract

From a quick browse of the Aus Military subreddit, looks like DFR has similar issues to our CFRCs like taking too long to recruit people, etc.

 

[Halifax Tar]

ILOY is 1 year in length

And ILOYs intent is to produce officers. NEP is NCM only. That may change if the program continues on its trend, but as of now its only NCM.

Of which the comparisons in the Aboriginal world are 3 and 6 weeks.

Potentially. It needs to be studied. Remember I said it's "promising". I don't think words like "wildly successful" should be thrown around just yet.

I think a lot of things are good ideas but that doesn't mean they will actually work or stand up to scrutiny when properly tested.

Well we are going to meet our intake expectations and exceed them, by a fair margin. Which no one expected. Sounds wildly successful to me.

The intent is for one year. If we get some lifers, or continuing to serve, great. But 1 year is the goal.

 

[Kirkhill]

I don't know if those are the best comparisons due to country (and AOR) size. I'd say that Australia is the best comparison based on money and size.

Italy and Israel don't have bases that far from each other. If the Italian Air Force needs to get Part X from one base to another, it's likely not going to be the distance between Gagetown and Edmonton.

Also, Italy and Israel's defence industries have contracts, etc that would make Irving salivate.


But the 2% isn't a bunch of money going to a NATO pot. It's an amount to (presumably) pay for defence in each country, which then contributes to NATO with stuff and/or money.

I'll side with @FJAG and say that an arbitrary number without considering what that gives in a particular country due to its unique factors means pretty much nothing, except that it's an easy metric for NATO to use. The CAF theoretically could hire a ton more office workers and pad out to 2% GDP, but that's not really what NATO is looking for.

You can take the very Canadian, very Clerical, very Legal route of debating number of angels dancing on the head of a pin or continue the practice of debating where the last penny is going to be spent or you can get off the pot and do something.

Listen to the first words of this video

Flyby Technology CEO Jon Parker said: "If you want to win you have to be a step ahead and everybody else is racing ahead and we need to be able to either catch up or overtake. Jackal is the start of that process.

Jackal drone used to launch Martlet missiles for first time during trials

Royal Air Force firing trial breaks new ground with lightweight multi-role missile weapons and the unmanned Jackal drone.

www.forces.net

Or refer to this article

Pentagon asks Congress for right to launch new tech programs before it has a budget - Breaking Defense

"One of the reasons it hasn't happened in the past is because Congress is reluctant to give up even this much authority," Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall said today. "I think it's a minimal amount of authority to give up for a very high return."

breakingdefense.com

Pentagon asks Congress for right to launch new tech programs before it has a budget​

"One of the reasons it hasn't happened in the past is because Congress is reluctant to give up even this much authority," Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall said today. "I think it's a minimal amount of authority to give up for a very high return."​

“We’re in a very aggressive contest for military technology superiority,” which necessitates changing how the department gets its funding, Kendall told reporters in the margins of the Space Foundation’s annual Space Symposium.

He noted that the Department of the Air Force alone has 12 new starts that it’s been waiting to initiate for over a year, a delay caused by the use of continuing resolutions. “That’s a lot to give away, and it’s totally unnecessary,” he said.

We’re in a very aggressive contest for military technology superiority

If you want to win you have to be a step ahead and everybody else is racing ahead

The people that are racing ahead are, first and foremost, the Ukrainians.

They are rapidly being followed by the Taiwanese. And draughting both of them are the Japanese and the South Koreans, the Poles, the Slovakians, Czechs, Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Finns, Swedes, Norwegians and Danes. Also in the race are the Turks and the Israelis.

All of them are looking at the Ukrainians as they face the Alternate WW1 History.

World War I brought you Mills Bombs and Mortars, Machine Guns and Gas Masks, Tanks and Aircraft, Radios and Indirect Fire Support. Your armies still look like they did in 1919.

The Ukrainians haven't had the luxury of playing that game. So they are doing whatever they can, with whatever they have, as quickly as possible, regardless of rules in order to evict the Russians.

Meanwhile - we tie ourselves up in legal ribbons and sealing wax.

 

[Czech_pivo]

No I'm not. I'm saying that there is little sense in spending Nickel One until there is a realistic plan on reform using the right measures.

2% spending is wrong as a measure. A measure of one sustainable armoured brigade in Europe, another flyover mechanized brigade, a fleet of 5 frigates and two submarines, and three fighter/bomber squadrons, all fully sustainable, would be an example of an output based measure that would be far more meaningful than 2%.

That's the problem with taxes. They leave a level of discretion that favours bums in cubicles rather than in turrets or cockpits.

I fully agree that we can and should spend more. I'm just saying not until we get our rotten house in order.

That's just a meaningless tangent. Both programs are necessary. One may argue the ratios but its a mug's game at the best of times.

I've heard many times on here that Canada is 'an island' and that as 'an island' it should focus on maintaining its shipping lanes. If this is correct, how does a fleet of 5 frigates and 2 subs achieve this?

In your suggestion, the RCN gets completely gutted and the Army gets vastly expanded. All this suggests that we will be fighting a land war in Europe again.

 

[Brad Sallows]

That should bother Canadians, but it doesn’t as the majority prefer to have healthcare etc and moan on the sidelines.

That might be reasonable if we actually had the healthcare system we pretend to have.

 

[Kirkhill]

I haven't come across a single person arguing for 2% spending starting TOMORROW.

So I'm curious as to why that's the strawman you chose to dismantle. Everyone understands that the R22P (road to 2 percent) would be incremental and holistic. We all saw what happened when Scholz dramatically announced a 100B euros for the 'Swehr: nothing.

The point of the 2% is that all NATO countries contribute their fair share to our collective security, based on what they can afford. I appreciate FJAG's focus on capabilities output. That said, even if it took less than 2% to produce the output he desires, I don't see that as a reason to stop there.

The gap can be used to improve working conditions for the troops, or build surplus capability in such domains that are of great benefit to our allies (especially those for whom 2% would not produce sufficient capabilities) such as strategic transport, intelligence gathering, stockpiling, etc.

I'll argue for it.

See my proposal to donate it to NATO to buy ammunition and to reconstruct the Ukraine (houses, hospitals, powerplants, demined fields).

Edit - 0.7% would be a 10 BCAD donation to the cause.

Norway looks to donate $7.3 billion in aid to Ukraine

The government of oil-rich Norway is looking to donate 75 billion kroner ($7.3 billion) in a multiyear support package to Ukraine. The money would make the Scandinavian country one of the world's top donors to war-torn Ukraine.

www.pbs.org

Over 5 years from 5 Million people.

Equal to 50 Billion over 5 years from 35 Million people.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Never underestimate the power of inertia and anecdotes masquerading as data in sustaining the status quo.

The Soviets were masters at this.

 

[Halifax Tar]

In your suggestion, the RCN gets completely gutted and the Army gets vastly expanded. All this suggests that we will be fighting a land war in Europe again.

Which incidentally is the exact opposite of what Canada actually should do.

 

[dimsum]

You can take the very Canadian, very Clerical, very Legal route of debating number of angels dancing on the head of a pin or continue the practice of debating where the last penny is going to be spent or you can get off the pot and do something.

Listen to the first words of this video

Jackal drone used to launch Martlet missiles for first time during trials

Royal Air Force firing trial breaks new ground with lightweight multi-role missile weapons and the unmanned Jackal drone.

www.forces.net

Or refer to this article

Pentagon asks Congress for right to launch new tech programs before it has a budget - Breaking Defense

"One of the reasons it hasn't happened in the past is because Congress is reluctant to give up even this much authority," Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall said today. "I think it's a minimal amount of authority to give up for a very high return."

breakingdefense.com

The people that are racing ahead are, first and foremost, the Ukrainians.

They are rapidly being followed by the Taiwanese. And draughting both of them are the Japanese and the South Koreans, the Poles, the Slovakians, Czechs, Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Finns, Swedes, Norwegians and Danes. Also in the race are the Turks and the Israelis.

All of them are looking at the Ukrainians as they face the Alternate WW1 History.

World War I brought you Mills Bombs and Mortars, Machine Guns and Gas Masks, Tanks and Aircraft, Radios and Indirect Fire Support. Your armies still look like they did in 1919.

The Ukrainians haven't had the luxury of playing that game. So they are doing whatever they can, with whatever they have, as quickly as possible, regardless of rules in order to evict the Russians.

Meanwhile - we tie ourselves up in legal ribbons and sealing wax.

I'm not sure why you think we're disagreeing here. I'm not saying that we shouldn't spend more or change how things are doing. What I'm saying is that just going Leeroy Jenkins with 2% might not be the best way to do it.

Specifically, what can we do with that 2% that packs the most punch, or helps out the alliance the best? It might not be equipment - it may be training staff or whatever.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

I'm not sure why you think we're disagreeing here. I'm not saying that we shouldn't spend more or change how things are doing. What I'm saying is that just going Leeroy Jenkins with 2% might not be the best way to do it.

Specifically, what can we do with that 2% that packs the most punch, or helps out the alliance the best? It might not be equipment - it may be training staff or whatever.

2% is stupid. We could spend 2% GDP and expend the entire sum on committees, studying how to spend 2%.... I wouldn't put it past the current lot.

Talking about Outputs is more useful.

I agree with @FJAG that we get very poor bang for our buck.

 

[Blackadder1916]

What I would really want to know is how the old YTEP did.

Yeah, not exactly current but it is literally what NEP is basing itself on. If YTEP worked, great. If YTEP didn't, why not?

Some Most rate YTEP a success, but there were limitations in the program. To begin with, it wasn't "defence dollars" that footed the bill. YTEP wasn't exclusively a DND program, it was a "youth job experience" program that came out of Human Resources Development Canada (or whatever the department was called back then). While DND may have been one of the biggest users of the funding (along with similar summer job programs), they weren't the only government (and non-public) entities to provide one (maximum) year training and experience to a youth (there was an age limit - early twenties?). Other limitations were that the YTEPs couldn't fill establishment positions (they were supposed to be extra people hired to address the rampant youth unemployment in the 1980s). When the one year Class C was up, the YTEP could only transfer to the Reg Force in the trade he/she had - no remusters, otherwise they had to release and go through recruiting again. And an individual would only be funded for a single one year YTEP, if they wanted to stay they had to enroll in the Reg Force (if there was a vacancy in trade at the time) for whatever was the minimum terms of service back them (I can't remember if we had dropped to three years vice five by then). There were also some limitations in the trades that were available to YTEPs. Mostly it was combat arms and log/adm types (clerks, supply, MSE); there may have been some navy types (I suspect Bosuns may have been able to accommodate some), but I don't recall hearing of any technical trades open to them.

Some (many) good soldiers (sailors and the other guys) came into the CF through the program, so in that aspect it was a success and those who did so would sing its praises. There were some who were unsatisfied with the trade they were in while a YTEP and had hoped to transfer to something else when the Class C was up, they had a less than ideal experience.

And a joke that made the rounds back then. What's the difference between a YTEP and a toilet? When you finish using a toilet, it doesn't want to follow you around.

 

[GR66]

That's a fallacy and leads to a lack of vision. You always need to build a force concurrently. Plan for the equipment and manning you need together. Right now we have equipment for less than one half of the army because the reserve half is unequipped and looked at solely as a manpower pool. And that's not because individual reservists are bad but because the reserve system is designed to underperform.

I'm not suggesting that Canada make additional $ investments on non-equipment items without first coming up with a force structure plan to work toward (or that none of the additional funds be spent on actual new equipment/weapons).

The non-equipment/weapon investments should all be based on being the foundational steps required to achieve the end goal.
Things like:

• additional/improved training facilities, ranges, etc.,
• expansion of CFAD sites to hold more war stocks,
• pre-deployment of equipment to Latvia and improvements/expansion to accommodations/training facilities there,
• replacement of existing outdated equipment (optics, comms, etc.),
• funding for schools to increase capacity (I'd rather have a school with the dedicated staff & facilities to run 100 pers through a course at a time at regular intervals and have it only 1/3 full for a couple of years until we have the ability/need to fill the course for example).
• upgraded/expanded on-base accommodations and services to help with retention,
• etc.

Canada already has more infrastructure (by which I mean bases and buildings and runways) than it needs. More importantly we have much more bureaucratic overhead infrastructure than is necessary.

Infrastructure investment doesn't need to mean more bases, buildings and overhead. I'm personally in favour of consolidation but much of our existing infrastructure needs to be improved. And if you're wanting the Reserves to play a larger role in the CAF then you're going to need better/closer training and range facilities for them to use and improved armouries to handle the equipment they'll eventually need.

I agree on the output but not the input. We definitely need to spend money on and PYs on the training infrastructure. I do not think that this needs to come from deployable units/ships/aircraft. There are other sources that must be addressed and reformed. Deployable units/ships/aircraft are the entities that need to grow.

I agree with the sentiment but the brutal reality is that we don't currently have the trained (and deployable) personnel required to man the units we have. 100% agree that there is significant administrative overhead that can be chopped but you can't just take those people and put them in LAVs, aircraft and ships instead. It will take time to generate personnel with the required skills and training to fill the required positions.

People laugh at "Reconstitution" while at the same time keeping the same operational schedule that we have now. The fact though is that "Reconstitution" IS required. We actually have to follow through though and take the short-term hit to operational capacity in order to fix the problems. Of course though the objective should be to rapidly increase training capacity (as well as recruitment and retention measures) so that we can re-man our existing units/equipment ASAP then work towards expansion of capability.

 

[Kirkhill]

I'm not sure why you think we're disagreeing here. I'm not saying that we shouldn't spend more or change how things are doing. What I'm saying is that just going Leeroy Jenkins with 2% might not be the best way to do it.

Specifically, what can we do with that 2% that packs the most punch, or helps out the alliance the best? It might not be equipment - it may be training staff or whatever.

Sometimes Leeroy has the right of it.

Git 'er done!

 

[Brad Sallows]

The Res F functions somewhat like YTEP, except that it's done part time and people aren't locked into a trade. I would just continue working with that, but ensure a recruiting/training stream exists that can reasonably get a person to basic trade qualification in not more than two summers and one year. (I'd fire every CO and Brigade Commander who fails to achieve that without obvious evidence that they are hamstrung by insufficient support from higher levels, even if it means units are eventually being commanded by their formerly most junior Captains.)

Focus on outputs would have the novel advantage of setting clear targets. Instead of the usual "oh, we can't cut that" in response to every proposal to shave something off of government spending somewhere, the cut-off lines would be clearer.

Not much of it goes anywhere, though, without a class of political leadership willing to risk re-election by treating Canadians as adults and telling us we can't have everything - credible defence capability AND an effective health care system AND subsidized child care for everyone who wants it AND a new dental care benefit AND absurd per-capita expenditures to provide infrastructure and services to Canadians in remote little communities AND low middle class income tax rates AND subsidies to every group that isn't satisfied with the income they make doing what they prefer to do AND perpetual interference in the economy without consequences.