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....

 

[Booter]

I chuckled at some of the “developing”nations with aircraft on the runways and noted our absence.

I’m sure the usual “we re working with partners to secure flights” is inbound

 

[Kirkhill]

More than a decade ago, the army had a plan to rebuild. It went nowhere​

Murray Brewster · CBC News · Posted: Jan 07, 2023 2:00 AM MST | Last Updated: January 7

Older but still relevant commentary

Canada is still standing in line for equipment it planned to buy 12 years ago​

​

Former Conservative defence minister Peter MacKay signed off on the proposal to reconstitute the army post-Afghanistan and set in motion a series of plans. He launched procurement projects for medium-sized fighting vehicles — the kind the U.S. is now supplying to Ukraine to beat back the Russian invasion. Also on MacKay's shopping list were ground-based air defence systems, anti-tank weapons and long-range rocket artillery systems such the U.S. HIMAR — another donated weapon Ukrainian troops have used to help stem the onslaught.

Former army commander and lieutenant-general Andrew Leslie, who also served as a Liberal MP between 2015 and 2019, was one of the authors of the 2010 rebuilding proposal.

Another champion of the proposal, former chief of the defence staff general Walt Natynczyk, retired around the same time.

Enter the Kraken

The last major element of the proposal — the purchase of 108 close-combat vehicles — was cancelled by the Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper in late 2013. The chief of the defence staff at the time, the now-retired general Tom Lawson, said that the "Canadian Armed Forces do not procure capabilities unless they're absolutely necessary to the attainment of our mandate."

The attitude of 'we're not going to buy it unless it's absolutely necessary' has been shared by both Liberal and Conservative governments since the end of the Cold War, said MacKay.

And to prove that some minds are particularly resistant

Comments dated January 7th 2023

Eyre's recent warnings about the precarious geopolitical climate are "probably a little overstated," said Lawson, who suggested his successor was simply doing his job and advocating for the military.

"There is something else at play here that is really grave and important to Gen. Eyre," Lawson told CBC's Power & Politics this week.

"The main responsibility of every chief of defence is ... to make sure that the Canadian military has enough people, the appropriate numbers of people, that they are equipped to an appropriate level and that they are trained and providing the readiness that the government may need."

Lawson's remarks drew a sharp response from Leslie, who said Russia's invasion of Ukraine is unprecedented and has upended the global order.

Apparently this will all blow over.... Wayne is just looking for more toys to play with.

He probably knows what he is talking about. After all, he is a strategic consultant.

 

[Kirkhill]

Dave Perry differed

What defence expert Dave Perry is struggling to understand is why the equipment the Liberals are scrambling to buy now — the air defence and anti-tank weapons they identified as important in their defence policy five years ago — haven't been purchased already.

"There was a series of projects that were funded and policy approved in [the defence policy document] which was published in the summer of 2017," Perry said.

"So I do find it really curious that versions of those are now being pursued on an urgent operational basis for Latvia, when there's been approved projects, with money attached to them, on the books for five and a half years."

'A lack of urgency'​

Senior defence and procurement officials, testifying before Parliament last year, said they were proud of their record of delivering equipment under the current defence policy.

Perry begs to differ and points to the rising pile of unspent capital in the defence budget.

"There's urgency now," Perry said. "But I think, in part, Canada ended up in the situation as a result of a lack of urgency in the preceding five-plus years."

Leslie takes a more tough-minded view.

"I was the army commander for four years at the height of the Afghan war. So I had a front row seat to the various influencers, and their shenanigans concerning defence procurement," he said.

"Tragically, it wasn't until Canadians started dying in Afghanistan that a great deal of focus and energy was placed on defence procurement. And the bureaucracy was told in no uncertain terms — woe betide any of you who slowed down programs that caused more soldiers to die because they didn't have the equipment they needed."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadian-armed-forces-equipment-procurement-ukraine-latvia-1.6706444

 

[KevinB]

Lawson is a clown.

 

[Booter]

Lawson is a clown.

It’s why it’s so hard to actually communicate change in Canada. Always some dude waiting to say they could do it with less or that you’re exaggerating. Appeasing their political masters.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Procurement is all well and good, but a bunch of the cuts are on the in service side, so fixing things is going to get delayed when the money we were looking for to keep things duct taped together doesn't come in.

And procurement for things to replace obsolete stuff that get delayed means that it will take more resources to try and keep things going (if we even can) so it compounds. This whole thing sucks.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Lawson is a clown.

He was the popular choice because he wasn't tied at all to Afghanistan. He wouldn't rattle the Sabre at all because he was able to have his head in the clouds for the duration of our time there.

Ofcourse when things went off in Russia and Syria, we ATFed the crap out if things and sent a piecemeal LTF to Poland for "exercises".

I didn't enjoy his tenure as CDS, not many did, and he is one of the few former CDS' that really should have stayed out of Defence matters when they hung up the uniform.

 

[dapaterson]

Lawson is a clown.

That is the understatement of the millenium.

 

[ueo]

He was the popular choice because he wasn't tied at all to Afghanistan. He wouldn't rattle the Sabre at all because he was able to have his head in the clouds for the duration of our time there.

Ofcourse when things went off in Russia and Syria, we ATFed the crap out if things and sent a piecemeal LTF to Poland for "exercises".

I didn't enjoy his tenure as CDS, not many did, and he is one of the few former CDS' that really should have stayed out of Defence matters when they hung up the uniform.

"...head in the clouds..." IMHO more likely in his or some politicians anal oriface>

 

[Kirkhill]

Photo-op photographs intrigue me. Sometimes they capture the moment.

Melanie Joly - Tired and ruffled looking to the military - Help!
Wayne Eyre - Eyes front. Face in neutral. - Now? With what?

 

[RangerRay]

View attachment 80703

Photo-op photographs intrigue me. Sometimes they capture the moment.

Melanie Joly - Tired and ruffled looking to the military - Help!
Wayne Eyre - Eyes front. Face in neutral. - Now? With what?

Looks more like “Talk to the hand, lady.”

 

[KevinB]

Looks more like “Talk to the hand, lady.”

Restraining himself from killing her in front of the cameras.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Caution: Geezer Eruption

I know I'm repeating myself, but ...

The people who plan elections for all the major parties, the folks who write the 'Red Book' and 'Blue Book' platform document KNOW:

1. What Canadians want - both parties poll assiduously and employ focus groups and so on; and​

2. What Canadians are wiling to accept, and at what cost.​

​

Defence doesn't make it to the first list.

Defence might be on the second list IF -

1. We are actually fighting and taking casualties, e.g. during Afghanistan; or​

2. There is a well publicized threat - think the 1950s, if you're old enough.​

Neither situation obtains, today, and after about 2010 we were done with Afghanistan.

PM Trudeau was being honest when he told NATO that Canada would never meet its 2% aspirational goal (Stephen Harper's words, as I recall). I would be deliriously happy if someone can point me to anything that Pierre Poilievre has said the looks even remotely like a promise to spend 2%. Canadians have spoken. Back circa 1970, at the height (depth?) of the Vietnam War, we decided that it was the 1930s again and that OD Skelton was back and that we lived far, far away from any threat and that we didn't want to be involved in dirty foreign wars. Since 1968, with one exception, a majority of Canadians have consistently voted for parties that oppose military engagement and, therefore, see no need for military preparedness and, thus, want to reduce the defence spending burden.

The problem isn't Justin Trudeau ... it's:

 

[Kirkhill]

Caution: Geezer Eruption

I know I'm repeating myself, but ...

The people who plan elections for all the major parties, the folks who write the 'Red Book' and 'Blue Book' platform document KNOW:

1. What Canadians want - both parties poll assiduously and employ focus groups and so on; and​

2. What Canadians are wiling to accept, and at what cost.​

​

Defence doesn't make it to the first list.

Defence might be on the second list IF -

1. We are actually fighting and taking casualties, e.g. during Afghanistan; or​

2. There is a well publicized threat - think the 1950s, if you're old enough.​

Neither situation obtains, today, and after about 2010 we were done with Afghanistan.

PM Trudeau was being honest when he told NATO that Canada would never meet its 2% aspirational goal (Stephen Harper's words, as I recall). I would be deliriously happy if someone can point me to anything that Pierre Poilievre has said the looks even remotely like a promise to spend 2%. Canadians have spoken. Back circa 1970, at the height (depth?) of the Vietnam War, we decided that it was the 1930s again and that OD Skelton was back and that we lived far, far away from any threat and that we didn't want to be involved in dirty foreign wars. Since 1968, with one exception, a majority of Canadians have consistently voted for parties that oppose military engagement and, therefore, see no need for military preparedness and, thus, want to reduce the defence spending burden.

The problem isn't Justin Trudeau ... it's:

About time we heard from the old geezer....

In my opinion a contributing factor is that definition of defence.

In Europe defence starts with the police force, migrates through emergency services, includes paramilitaries, ready forces and reserves. And all of them are focused on preserving the nation's borders. Much of that is included in the 2% calculation.

Expeditionary forces are a small portion of the 2%.

In America they tout their 3.1% but I am willing to bet that 2% of that 3.1% is domestic. It includes the National Guard, which is a major NORAD element and the Army Corps of Engineers among others, along with the Coast Guard which is a paramilitary force that combines military capabilities with emergency response as well as law enforcement.

If Canada spent 2% of its GDP within its borders on an enhanced Coast Guard and a National Guard it would be complying with then NATO 2% standard.

 

[dimsum]

In America they tout their 3.1% but I am willing to bet that 2% of that 3.1% is domestic. It includes the National Guard, which is a major NORAD element and the Army Corps of Engineers among others, along with the Coast Guard which is a paramilitary force that combines military capabilities with emergency response as well as law enforcement.

If Canada spent 2% of its GDP within its borders on an enhanced Coast Guard and a National Guard it would be complying with then NATO 2% standard.

From my understanding, the US National Guard (I’ll lump in the Air National Guard here too) is essentially equivalent to the [insert service] Reserve, but nominally under the State Governor. However, I suspect that the National Guard units that are used for NORAD missions are actually under federal control, not State Control.

It wouldn’t make a lot of sense for the NG fighter sqns tasked with NORAD missions to be re-tasked based on the State Governor’s priorities.

 

[FJAG]

I would be deliriously happy if someone can point me to anything that Pierre Poilievre has said the looks even remotely like a promise to spend 2%.

It's in the CPC's Policy Declaration at item 171:

171. North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The Conservative Party of Canada supports Canada’s membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the principle of collective security. A Conservative Government will work towards spending at least the NATO recommended two (2) percent of our GDP on National Defence

https://cpcassets.conservative.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/03092335/8c9e916528ead5a.pdf

But then so is a lot of other crap that will never see the light of day.

 

[Kirkhill]

From my understanding, the US National Guard (I’ll lump in the Air National Guard here too) is essentially equivalent to the [insert service] Reserve, but nominally under the State Governor. However, I suspect that the National Guard units that are used for NORAD missions are actually under federal control, not State Control.

It wouldn’t make a lot of sense for the NG fighter sqns tasked with NORAD missions to be re-tasked based on the State Governor’s priorities.

The point is not about the command structure so much as the budget and the taskings. In Europe countries may or may not include state costs as part of their 2% argument but they certainly include gendarmeries, coast guards, border guards and firefighting. Domestic intelligence services? I believe they count as well?

All I am saying is that nobody, in my opinion, is dedicating 2% of their national economy to fighting foreign wars.

 

[dimsum]

The point is not about the command structure so much as the budget and the taskings. In Europe countries may or may not include state costs as part of their 2% argument but they certainly include gendarmeries, coast guards, border guards and firefighting. Domestic intelligence services? I believe they count as well?

All I am saying is that nobody, in my opinion, is dedicating 2% of their national economy to fighting foreign wars.

Ah, ok. Yes I agree - the % metric is dumb when NATO doesn’t specify what it’s used for.

We could also get to 2% or more if we just gave everyone a huge pay raise, and do nothing else.

 

[Kirkhill]

From my understanding, the US National Guard (I’ll lump in the Air National Guard here too) is essentially equivalent to the [insert service] Reserve, but nominally under the State Governor. However, I suspect that the National Guard units that are used for NORAD missions are actually under federal control, not State Control.

It wouldn’t make a lot of sense for the NG fighter sqns tasked with NORAD missions to be re-tasked based on the State Governor’s priorities.

I can't accept the National Guard as equivalent to the Canadian Reserves.

The National Guard has a day job. Actually a number of them. It actively deploys locally in support of its primary employer, the State as represented by the Governor. It also co-operates with other States and the Federal Government in ongoing collective defence through NORAD. Its third priority is responding to crises defined by the Federal Government as agreed with their Governor.

The Canadian Reserves are a wholly owned subsidiary of the Canadian Armed Forces.

 

[Kirkhill]

Ah, ok. Yes I agree - the % metric is dumb when NATO doesn’t specify what it’s used for.

We could also get to 2% or more if we just gave everyone a huge pay raise, and do nothing else.

Heck you could sign up the entire welfare community as members of the Reserves and meet the goal.