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....

 

[ytz]

The basic project approval course is free on DLN and takes maybe an hour to really click through. Half the ignorance here on our process could be solved by the one course.

And when you do that course, you'll realize how low DND's threshold for spending without cabinet approval is. They don't even adjust those limits for inflation every year.

These are all political choices. If any government wants to "solve" procurement tomorrow, they can pass the legislation to do so and give DND all the powers it need. Both blue and red teams refuse to do that because want control of those large sums of money for political benefit. Don't blame Generals or bureaucrats. They do what the politicians let them and/or tell them to do.

 

[FJAG]

First, Mr. Poilievre said he does not want to make a promise that he cannot keep. It is both a simple yet sadly necessary statement, given Mr. Trudeau’s propensity for ethereal plans. Federal finances are “a dumpster fire,” he said, adding that he wants to ensure he has “done all the math” before committing to a plan. The math will be complicated by Mr. Poilievre’s pledge to eliminate the federal budget deficit.

This clearly signals, IMHO, that to Poilievre the defence budget is still a discretionary one and not one tied to a clear commitment by this country which needs to be honoured.

 

[dimsum]

This clearly signals, IMHO, that to Poilievre the defence budget is still a discretionary one and not one tied to a clear commitment by this country which needs to be honoured.

Which shows, again, that the CPC isn’t the “party that supports the troops” that they say they are.

And no, the LPC isn’t either. Nor is the NDP, BQ, Rhino party, or anyone else.

 

[Halifax Tar]

The Globe and Mail editorializes about Pierre Poilievre's dilemma:

----------​

Pierre Poilievre needs to do more than play offence on defence policy​

THE EDITORIAL BOARD

Canada has about a half-decade to rebuild its military to face emerging challenges from Russia and China, including advanced intercontinental missiles, the country’s top soldier told reporters last week.

“I say we have about five years to get us close enough to be ready to counter those long-range type of threats,” General Jennie Carignan said as she formally assumedthe role of Chief of the Defence Staff.

Her predecessor, Gen. Wayne Eyre, had a similar analysis, warning that the “peak threat to the world” is likely to emerge by the end of this decade.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has said the Liberals would boost Canada’s spending on defence to 2 per cent of gross domestic product by 2032, with details to come in 2028, to meet the current minimum agreed upon by members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. (Pressure from the United States on NATO allies to spend more is growing, and will grow even more intense if Donald Trump retakes the White House.)

As this space has previously argued, the Liberals’ strategy is mostly vapourware. But filling the defence gap may not be up to the Liberals. If current polling trends hold, the Conservatives will be in office during those critical five years. So what are the Conservatives proposing?

For the moment, the Tories are heavy on a critique of the failures of the Trudeau Liberals but light on details of what they might do differently. And, for the moment, that’s fair – after all, the job of the Official Opposition is to oppose.

But as next year’s election draws closer, the party will need to spell out its defence policy. It’s clear what that policy should be: a concrete commitment to hit the 2-per-cent mark by the end of its scheduled term in office in 2029. Such a plan would need to come with a strategy both on how to spend additional billions of dollars, and how those expenditures would be funded.

In that context, there are mildly – but only mildly – encouraging signs from the opposition benches.

The Conservatives said earlier this month that they would “make real and credible efforts to work towards meeting our NATO spending commitments” after Mr. Trudeau’s announcement of the 2032 goal.

If that statement was meant to be a contrast to the Liberals’ detail-light promise, it failed. Instead, the Conservatives indulged in the same non-committal word salad as their opponents. (Supporters of the Liberals might like to think that Mr. Trudeau’s 2032 pledge is more substantial. It is not.)

A day later, however, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre was more substantive when pressed by reporters on his plan for NATO.

First, Mr. Poilievre said he does not want to make a promise that he cannot keep. It is both a simple yet sadly necessary statement, given Mr. Trudeau’s propensity for ethereal plans. Federal finances are “a dumpster fire,” he said, adding that he wants to ensure he has “done all the math” before committing to a plan. The math will be complicated by Mr. Poilievre’s pledge to eliminate the federal budget deficit.

Underneath the obvious rhetoric, there is a worthwhile point: a future government needs to ensure it has the fiscal capacity to fund the considerable expense of rebuilding Canada’s military. Mr. Poilievre offered up a limited menu of possibilities: cuts to foreign aid, a crackdown on unspecified “corruption,” reducing “backroom bureaucracy” and dealing with procurement issues.

All of that will come nowhere near to funding the $20-billion (and rising) in additional annual defence spending required. There are, however, possibilities that would be in keeping with Conservative priorities: Reducing the swollen civil service could save billions of dollars a year; and eliminating inefficient subsidies to business could save tens of billions of dollars, as this space has previously said.

Mr. Poilievre, however, has flagged that he will act to speed up procurement, by emphasizing speed of acquisition and value for money over domestic sourcing. Too often, the emphasis on domestic suppliers has devolved into little more than regional pork-barrelling.

The Conservatives have an opportunity to outflank the Liberals on defence, and to demonstrate that they take security concerns more seriously than their rivals. But criticism is not enough. To fully exploit that opportunity, Mr. Poilievre will need to spell out his battle plan to Canadians.

----------​

The Good Grey Globe is right:

1. Getting Canada's fiscal house in order is an absolutely essential precondition to making Canada's defences shipshape, again. It will also be a painful one and I suspect that a majority of Canadians are going to howl with rage. If M Poilievre acts on the budget the way I and some other conservatives hope then he may well be a one term PM; and

2. That's because getting both a balanced budget and $20 Billion+ more for the military requires. more than just "cuts to foreign aid, a crackdown on unspecified “corruption,” reducing “backroom bureaucracy” and dealing with procurement issues." It requires serious rethinks to both the income (tax) and expenditure envelopes and everything except the carbon tax - every 'entitlement" in other words - needs to be on the table.

The highlighted bit I have been thinking myself. If PP were to do what needs to be done, he would be a 1 term PM.

Immediate component transfer of the excess ones, as it would be completely unfair to just toss them out - Public Service to Canadian Armed Forces.

No thank you.

Which shows, again, that the CPC isn’t the “party that supports the troops” that they say they are.

And no, the LPC isn’t either. Nor is the NDP, BQ, Rhino party, or anyone else.

That's what you want it mean. Once/if PP forms a Gov you will have your chance to be critical. Until then I just see biased speculation.

 

[dapaterson]

The basic project approval course is free on DLN and takes maybe an hour to really click through. Half the ignorance here on our process could be solved by the one course.

And when you do that course, you'll realize how low DND's threshold for spending without cabinet approval is. They don't even adjust those limits for inflation every year.

These are all political choices. If any government wants to "solve" procurement tomorrow, they can pass the legislation to do so and give DND all the powers it need. Both blue and red teams refuse to do that because want control of those large sums of money for political benefit. Don't blame Generals or bureaucrats. They do what the politicians let them and/or tell them to do.

The generals who can't make decisions, who cause lengthy delays through their own inaction and then complain about those delays are worthy targets for some blame.

 

[Good2Golf]

These are all political choices. If any government wants to "solve" procurement tomorrow, they can pass the legislation to do so and give DND all the powers it need. Both blue and red teams refuse to do that because want control of those large sums of money for political benefit. Don't blame Generals or bureaucrats. They do what the politicians let them and/or tell them to do.

The generals who can't make decisions, who cause lengthy delays through their own inaction and then complain about those delays are worthy targets for some blame.

The irony is that both these statements are absolutely true.

Sometimes they (and the defence/security environment of the day) combine and support progress and sometimes notably less so.


The following (Govt/Leadership[CDs/RCAF]/Def Environment) is not primarily intended as any kind of a Blue/Red comparison because that is but one of the selection of but three factors… @dapaterson by all means call BS on me if I’m taking more liberties than warranted…periods when I was (directly in the procurement chain).

• 2008-2009 Harper + Hillier/Watt(RCAF) + ‘at war’ = notable progress (implemented or approved: C-17, C-130, CH-147F) *special note, Harper misplayed the F-35, he should have approved it prior to 2015, I believe even he will say that now.

• 2015-2017 Trudeau + Vance/Hood(RCAF) + ‘at home’ = procurement purgatory or less than frictionless projects: (FWSAR, TCR, AFEC, etc.)

When defence is important (enough), things move. When it isn’t (most of the time, in Canada), it doesn’t.

 

[Gunplumber]

The military should not get a cent of money till it can clean up the mess that it has become. Get rid of all the bureaucracy and make the CDS a Colonel and down grade or fire anyone under that rank. We need a proper fighting force and actual Brigades (with equipment) so get rid of anyone who gets in the way of that. Or just disband the whole thing and start over.

 

[dimsum]

That's what you want it mean. Once/if PP forms a Gov you will have your chance to be critical. Until then I just see biased speculation.

I’m basing it on the Harper govt having it at less than 1% GDP, and other previous CPC govts not funding the CAF either.

By that token, I should also completely toss out my biases against the LPC if JT leaves and someone else takes over. Somehow I don’t think that a Carney (for example) LPC govt will magically push Defence to over 2% either.

Of course it’s all speculation at this point because PP could completely change things. All we have to go on is historical tendencies and trends. If all we’re going to do is talk about what people have done as a govt when they haven’t formed govt, that’s not much for discussion.

 

[Quirky]

The military should not get a cent of money till it can clean up the mess that it has become. Get rid of all the bureaucracy and make the CDS a Colonel and down grade or fire anyone under that rank. We need a proper fighting force and actual Brigades (with equipment) so get rid of anyone who gets in the way of that. Or just disband the whole thing and start over.

Canada needs to decide if we need and Army, Air Force and Navy. Answer yes to any of those, then you can decide what each should do. Air Force and Navy aren't going anywhere, that's a given with all the new equipment coming. That leaves the Army. What shall we do and ask of the Army?

 

[QV]

Canada needs to decide if we need and Army, Air Force and Navy. Answer yes to any of those, then you can decide what each should do. Air Force and Navy aren't going anywhere, that's a given with all the new equipment coming. That leaves the Army. What shall we do and ask of the Army?

Air and Navy are critical and should be bolstered (can't be quickly force generated if they don't already exist), along with defensive/offensive sensors/strike capability and uncrewed systems. The army could have a modest full time component, with a much larger and better equipped reserve force. The ground force focus should be on SOF that are supported by the air/naval/uncrewed/sensor systems. Striking a balance on what "big army" you require to have as a base to draw from for SOF while maintaining some level of conventional capability is what needs to be figured out.

 

[Quirky]

Air and Navy are critical and should be bolstered (can't be quickly force generated if they don't already exist), along with defensive/offensive sensors/strike capability and uncrewed systems. The army could have a modest full time component, with a much larger and better equipped reserve force. The ground force focus should be on SOF that are supported by the air/naval/uncrewed/sensor systems. Striking a balance on what "big army" you require to have as a base to draw from for SOF while maintaining some level of conventional capability is what needs to be figured out.

What about domestic ops such as floods and fires? They'll only get worse.

 

[QV]

What about domestic ops such as floods and fires? They'll only get worse.

Reserves

 

[Loachman]

Air and Navy are critical and should be bolstered (can't be quickly force generated if they don't already exist),

Neither can a mechanized brigade group.

 

[QV]

Neither can a mechanized brigade group.

That can be FG'd much faster than a squadron of F35s.

But can't have it all - time to choose. Given our fortress North America situation... the choice seems obvious, to me.

 

[Fabius]

Neither can a mechanized brigade group.

It needs to be determined what timeframe is acceptable to mobilize.
Given a regular army leadership cadre and their equipment depots the US Army during the early/mid 2000s formed new BCTs in 36 months.

How much force do we need on what timelines to win against what foe? Once we know that we can then look at the breakdown between regular and reserve.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I’m basing it on the Harper govt having it at less than 1% GDP, and other previous CPC govts not funding the CAF either.

By that token, I should also completely toss out my biases against the LPC if JT leaves and someone else takes over. Somehow I don’t think that a Carney (for example) LPC govt will magically push Defence to over 2% either.

Of course it’s all speculation at this point because PP could completely change things. All we have to go on is historical tendencies and trends. If all we’re going to do is talk about what people have done as a govt when they haven’t formed govt, that’s not much for discussion.

Cool story bro. I just calls it like I sees it.

You're free to disregard.

 

[Loachman]

That can be FG'd much faster than a squadron of F35s.

But can't have it all - time to choose. Given our fortress North America situation... the choice seems obvious, to me.

Really? How much time have you spent in a mechanized brigade group, which also, by the way, has to function as part of a higher formation?

There are more moving parts - human and mechanical - that have to be co-ordinated in a mechanized brigade group than in an F35 squadron.

I will admit, though, the potential catastrophic results of the hotel running out of smoked salmon at breakfast or the pool water being a degree on the cool side.

 

[Quirky]

I will admit, though, the potential catastrophic results of the hotel running out of smoked salmon at breakfast or the pool water being a degree on the cool side.

Our hotel in Waikiki was out of hard boiled eggs for breakfast once. I almost had to file a grievance.

Really though, all our new Air Force and Navy gear will need some sort of force protection for it's bases, the current WASF model isn't going to cut it for the F-35s and P-8s. Using permeant and dedicated Army folks for airfield and dock(?) domestic security forces seems like a viable option.

 

[Fabius]

Even if the time and effort needed for a F35 wing and a Mech Bde are the exact same, dollars are not infinite. In the Canadian strategic context a F35 Wing can give time and space through the defence of North America for the Mech Bde to mobilize, the reverse is not true.
Given that a regular force F35 wing would be needed on a higher level of readiness than the mech Bde and we would aim to save money by reducing the mech Bde readiness. That money saved can be for more F35s, more mech Bdes, more social programs, basically whatever.

It all comes from a realistic strategic assessment though.

 

[QV]

Really? How much time have you spent in a mechanized brigade group, which also, by the way, has to function as part of a higher formation?

There are more moving parts - human and mechanical - that have to be co-ordinated in a mechanized brigade group than in an F35 squadron.

I will admit, though, the potential catastrophic results of the hotel running out of smoked salmon at breakfast or the pool water being a degree on the cool side.

I only spent 4 years in a mech group, and much of that time was as a lowly #1 C9 gunner in an infantry section. Correct me if I'm wrong, it seems to me the acquisition of warships and advanced fighter aircraft along with training and crewing them would be a longer process than standing up a mech brigade group. But I don't want to get into the weeds on that. The structure I proposed is how a lowly former C9 gunner sees how the CAF could be more effective.