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....

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Devils Advocate here - are we this because of the fate of geographically - both in terms of what bounties our land holds and based on the fact that we have in essence 1 and only 1 neighbour who has been 'like' us cultural, religiously and ethnically since the very beginning - and NOT based our on ability to achieve anything really remarkably?

I look at a country like Holland - tiny in size, lacking in alot of natural resources, surrounded in the past with many many larger rivals, population about the size of Ontario - and I ask myself, why do they have sooo many internationally recognized business and a standard of living at a minimum on par with ours and we dont' have even more than we do? Why are we Canadians still 'drawers of water and hewers of wood'?

Colonial mindset since our inception.

We were always tending and harvesting our orchard for some other landowner: French, British, and eventually, American.

With that, we had no desire to innovate, increase yield, and relied on someone else to defend the crops.

Until we believe we are an economic powerhouse that is made to compete, we are left to augment others; as we have for centuries

 

[IKnowNothing]

The CPPIB is one of the best run sovereign pension funds in the world. By increasing the salary contribution threshold it takes the lack of planning/foresight out of the hands of those less able to manage their retirement and allows of the better financial situation that they end up being in when they hit 65yrs of age.

Sure it is. But the earners who are making enough to "benefit" from the higher threshold don't need it, and it forcing a higher match on employers would be a drag on the economy. It's a solution looking for a problem.

OAS is 'funded' through the general tax revenue that the Federal Government receives each year. By reducing that payout, it would allow for the Federal Government to reduce the amount of tax required in order to generate the 68$ billion in 2022 it costs to fund it.

Agreed- OAS clawback thresholds (both initial and final) should be lowered significantly. We could save a lot of money by giving welfare to only those retirees that need it.

 

[Kirkhill]

Sure it is. But the earners who are making enough to "benefit" from the higher threshold don't need it, and it forcing a higher match on employers would be a drag on the economy. It's a solution looking for a problem.

Agreed- OAS clawback thresholds (both initial and final) should be lowered significantly. We could save a lot of money by giving welfare to only those retirees that need it.

If we're going to continue nattering about government money can I get my EI contributions back. 50 years worth with no draw plus interest.

And am I really getting value for my money from DND?

 

[dimsum]

If we're going to continue nattering about government money can I get my EI contributions back. 50 years worth with no draw plus interest.

And am I really getting value for my money from DND?

I mean, I don’t like to pay for fire and EMS services, until I need them. Then I’m glad I do.

That’s my take on DND.

 

[Kirkhill]

I mean, I don’t like to pay for fire and EMS services, until I need them. Then I’m glad I do.

That’s my take on DND.

Is the overhead justified?
What is the serviceability rate like?
What is the call out rate like?

I support an armed force. But if we are going to start rejigging finance and social contracts then I want everything on the table.

 

[Kirkhill]

Or we can solve our problems by finding more money from the sale of our resources to willing buyers.

 

[IKnowNothing]

If we're going to continue nattering about government money can I get my EI contributions back. 50 years worth with no draw plus interest.

Completely unrelated- it's quite literally an insurance policy that you were fortunate (though we all influence our own luck) enough to never have to make a claim against.

OAS is welfare.

 

[QV]

Or we can solve our problems by finding more money from the sale of our resources to willing buyers.

Ding ding ding!! We have found the solution!

 

[IKnowNothing]

Ding ding ding!! We have found the solution!

Tax and spend on wasteful social programs? Justin? is that you?

 

[dimsum]

Is the overhead justified?
What is the serviceability rate like?
What is the call out rate like?

I support an armed force. But if we are going to start rejigging finance and social contracts then I want everything on the table.

I don’t follow the “callout rate”. Do you mean how many times we go on operations?

I’m not sure that the CAF should go in operations just to justify its existence in a metric.

And as for serviceability, part of that is the lack of budget for parts, etc. So if you’re saying “less serviceability = less need to fund it” then I think it’s backwards. Less funds = less serviceability.

…and here I thought that the 1980s / 1990s model of treating the CAF like a business was debunked during Afghanistan…

 

[George Wallace]

Agreed- OAS clawback thresholds (both initial and final) should be lowered significantly. We could save a lot of money by giving welfare to only those retirees that need it.

There is no OAS Clawback. It is a cessation of the "Bridge Payment" once you begin OAS. The "Bridge Payment" is a "luxury" that the majority of Canadians are not entitled too. In most cases, when the "Bridge Payment" ends and OAS begins, you are getting slightly more. There are rare cases where someone may get less.

Bridge benefit - Plan information - Retired member - Canadian Armed Forces pensions - Canada.ca

Pension benefits available to members upon retirement.

www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca

 

[IKnowNothing]

There is no OAS Clawback. It is a cessation of the "Bridge Payment" once you begin OAS. The "Bridge Payment" is a "luxury" that the majority of Canadians are not entitled too. In most cases, when the "Bridge Payment" ends and OAS begins, you are getting slightly more. There are rare cases where someone may get less.

Clawback is an accepted colloquial term for the OAS Recovery Tax, which is currently 15% starting at the outrageously high personal (not household) income of $90,997.

 

[Remius]

I mean, I don’t like to pay for fire and EMS services, until I need them. Then I’m glad I do.

That’s my take on DND.

In fairness he asked if he’s getting value for money.

I don’t think we as Canadians get much value for what we spend on the CAF. Most of our budget goes to pay and benefits and not on capabilities…

 

[George Wallace]

Clawback is an accepted colloquial term for the OAS Recovery Tax, which is currently 15% starting at the outrageously high personal (not household) income of $90,997.

AH! You learn something new every day........Damn Taxman!

Old Age Security pension recovery tax - Canada.ca

 

[dimsum]

In fairness he asked if he’s getting value for money.

I don’t think we as Canadians get much value for what we spend on the CAF. Most of our budget goes to pay and benefits and not on capabilities…

Fair.

But that is a bit of a chicken/egg thing. If we don’t pay people enough, they don’t join. We can have all of the gear in the world but it’s pointless if people aren’t there to use them.

So if we have all of the physical (gear) capabilities and not enough people, I’d argue that’s even less value for money. And instead of adding to the budget, we cut bait?

 

[Furniture]

In fairness he asked if he’s getting value for money.

I don’t think we as Canadians get much value for what we spend on the CAF. Most of our budget goes to pay and benefits and not on capabilities…

I've said it many times before, the only reason pay and benefits take up so much budget is because they can't easily be cut.

If we cut pers and benefits, the money wouldn't go to capabilities, it would fo to free daycare for left handed Pastafarians born on a Tuesday, or some other special interest social programme.

 

[Remius]

Fair.

But that is a bit of a chicken/egg thing. If we don’t pay people enough, they don’t join. We can have all of the gear in the world but it’s pointless if people aren’t there to use them.

So if we have all of the physical (gear) capabilities and not enough people, I’d argue that’s even less value for money. And instead of adding to the budget, we cut bait?

We are one of the best paid forces in the world and we can barely deploy 3000 troops consistently without it nearly breaking us. And how many of those are the pointy end guys? How many are being paid to actually do military things? How many can we actually deploy?

Re-role and transfer funds.

 

[Remius]

I've said it many times before, the only reason pay and benefits take up so much budget is because they can't easily be cut.

If we cut pers and benefits, the money wouldn't go to capabilities, it would fo to free daycare for left handed Pastafarians born on a Tuesday, or some other special interest social programme.

Doesn’t change the value for money issue though.

 

[Furniture]

Doesn’t change the value for money issue though.

It doesn't when you need the people... kit can be bought/borrowed, expertise can't.

 

[Remius]

It doesn't when you need the people... kit can be bought/borrowed, expertise can't.

We have people that are in uniform that haven’t fired a live round in years if not decades. Not sure how expert they will be if I give them a new C8.

We are likely bleeding experts because we have poor value.

I’m sure you have noticed we need the people and we haven’t been doing that great on that front.

Serious question. Is the CAF in its current state value for the money we spend on it?