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....

 

[FJAG]

The Concorde fallacy is a famous example of sunk costs impacting large-scale decisions.

Whereas the Avro Arrow project was one where the government said, "Nope!"

 

[YZT580]

Worth dwelling on this huge money water for a bit

Government​

The sunk cost fallacy is also prevalent in the political sphere, where it can influence policy decisions and spending. Governments may continue to fund large-scale projects that are no longer effective or relevant, simply because of the significant resources already committed. Politicians might fear the political repercussions of abandoning the project, as it could be perceived as a waste of taxpayer money. However, continuing to invest in ineffective policies or projects because of sunk costs can lead to further inefficiencies and missed opportunities for better solutions.

The Concorde fallacy is a famous example of sunk costs impacting large-scale decisions. In 1956, the Supersonic Transport Aircraft Committee met to discuss building a supersonic airplane, the Concorde. French and British engine manufacturers and their governments were involved in the project, which was estimated to cost almost 100 million dollars. Long before the project was over, it was clear that there were increasing costs and that the financial gains of the plane, once in use, would not offset them. However, the project continued. The manufacturers and governments followed through on the project because they had already made significant financial investments and dedicated a lot of time to the project. Ultimately, this led to millions of dollars wasted, and the Concorde operated for less than 30 years.

The Sunk Cost Fallacy - The Decision Lab

The Sunk Cost Fallacy describes our tendency to follow through on an endeavor if we have already invested time, effort, or money into it, whether or not the current costs outweigh the benefits.

thedecisionlab.com

The A380 was just as much a niche produce and it didn't last much longer. I don't think anyone anticipated the level of resistance encountered. Customers for the concorde, and there were a number of them, found that there would be very few places to which they could operate as the politicians were slamming the doors so they cancelled their orders.

 

[Fabius]

Excuse me but I’ve paid into things like this since I was 18.

Things like this might include CPP and EI, but no one has ever paid into OAS. It’s funded directly and solely by the federal governments general revenue.
By virtue of paying taxes going into general revenue, you ( a generic you) could consider yourself to have supported a OAS system but there is no OAS account that anyone has contributed to in the same sense as CPP.

Removing OAS may be political suicide but lowering the level of allowable income while still drawing OAS is likely less politically damaging.

 

[KevinB]

Worth dwelling on this huge money water for a bit

Government​

The sunk cost fallacy is also prevalent in the political sphere, where it can influence policy decisions and spending. Governments may continue to fund large-scale projects that are no longer effective or relevant, simply because of the significant resources already committed. Politicians might fear the political repercussions of abandoning the project, as it could be perceived as a waste of taxpayer money. However, continuing to invest in ineffective policies or projects because of sunk costs can lead to further inefficiencies and missed opportunities for better solutions.

The Concorde fallacy is a famous example of sunk costs impacting large-scale decisions. In 1956, the Supersonic Transport Aircraft Committee met to discuss building a supersonic airplane, the Concorde. French and British engine manufacturers and their governments were involved in the project, which was estimated to cost almost 100 million dollars. Long before the project was over, it was clear that there were increasing costs and that the financial gains of the plane, once in use, would not offset them. However, the project continued. The manufacturers and governments followed through on the project because they had already made significant financial investments and dedicated a lot of time to the project. Ultimately, this led to millions of dollars wasted, and the Concorde operated for less than 30 years.

The Sunk Cost Fallacy - The Decision Lab

The Sunk Cost Fallacy describes our tendency to follow through on an endeavor if we have already invested time, effort, or money into it, whether or not the current costs outweigh the benefits.

thedecisionlab.com

However sometimes making something simply to make it/do it, is a worthwhile national endeavor.

—> going to the moon for instance.

 

[Kirkhill]

Things like this might include CPP and EI, but no one has ever paid into OAS. It’s funded directly and solely by the federal governments general revenue.
By virtue of paying taxes going into general revenue, you ( a generic you) could consider yourself to have supported a OAS system but there is no OAS account that anyone has contributed to in the same sense as CPP.

Removing OAS may be political suicide but lowering the level of allowable income while still drawing OAS is likely less politically damaging.

Just like nobody has directly contributed to a National Defence fund, or to the pensions drawn on our 2% contribution?

 

[lenaitch]

However sometimes making something simply to make it/do it, is a worthwhile national endeavor.

—> going to the moon for instance.

I think there is a difference between government and commercial funding of undertakings. Governments should fund things like pure or fundamental science; things that advance humanity, knowledge, etc. for their own sakes. For-profit industry won't because there is nothing in it for them. Other than spin-offs (Tang, anyone?) there is no way private money was going to put a man on the moon. Even now, NASA is still primarily focused on science and exploration and industry has taken over the payload/tourist launching earth orbit business that NASA pioneered.

 

[Kirkhill]

I think there is a difference between government and commercial funding of undertakings. Governments should fund things like pure or fundamental science; things that advance humanity, knowledge, etc. for their own sakes. For-profit industry won't because there is nothing in it for them. Other than spin-offs (Tang, anyone?) there is no way private money was going to put a man on the moon. Even now, NASA is still primarily focused on science and exploration and industry has taken over the payload/tourist launching earth orbit business that NASA pioneered.

It was private money that financed the great age of exploration, the agricultural revolution, the industrial revolution, railways and canals and the great shipping lines. Bell was a private company.

It is only since WW2 that government has become the go to investor with the deepest pockets.

 

[quadrapiper]

...the great age of exploration... railways and canals...

The first, not so much, especially at its start: lots of government funding until it became clear there was profit to be made, and even then the RN and some other navies were quite keen on the "poke around and see what's out there" aspect for a good two hundred years.

Space is at the HBC/HEIC stage, more or less, with fewer armed corporate forces and more poorly dressed executives.

Railways and canals have, depending where you're looking at, flip-flopped around every funding model imaginable, from pure taxpayer to pure private, with every conceivable mixture of the two being attempted.

 

[Fabius]

Just like nobody has directly contributed to a National Defence fund, or to the pensions drawn on our 2% contribution?

Indeed. What 2% pension contribution are you talking about? Neither CPP or the CAF pension has contribution rates of 2%.

 

[Underway]

Infrastructure can be defence spending. Halifax Dockyard needs to be storm surge proofed due to climate change sea rise. So does the infrastructure that brings sailors to dockyard, like the roads. I’m sure spending military money to improve housing and infrastructure around the bases could be finangled to count to the 2%. Same thing with strategic transport route. Dual use ports and airfields in the arctic are another good example.

 

[lenaitch]

It was private money that financed the great age of exploration, the agricultural revolution, the industrial revolution, railways and canals and the great shipping lines. Bell was a private company.

It is only since WW2 that government has become the go to investor with the deepest pockets.

Much of the 'age of exploration' was funded or backstopped by the various crowns of Europe and, in some cases, undertaken directly by their navies, certainly in latter years.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Infrastructure can be defence spending. Halifax Dockyard needs to be storm surge proofed due to climate change sea rise. So does the infrastructure that brings sailors to dockyard, like the roads. I’m sure spending military money to improve housing and infrastructure around the bases could be finangled to count to the 2%. Same thing with strategic transport route. Dual use ports and airfields in the arctic are another good example.

Meanwhile, our brick bulwark against the resurgent Chinese Dragon

 

[Underway]

That’s camouflage obviously. There’s a super high tech installation under that dilapidated front.

 

[daftandbarmy]

That’s camouflage obviously. There’s a super high tech installation under that dilapidated front.

Yes, of course ... like the extensive ground defences

 

[Maxman1]

Our cracked four pounders will make an awful din.

 

[McG]

If you need to rebuild an institution, you don’t get there by maybe someday aiming for the money minimum effort to sustain a heathy institution.

Business lobby urges Canada to aim for 3 per cent defence spending

The Business Council is further recommending some of the defence cash is spent on high-risk, high-reward bets that could develop homegrown expertise in technologies from energy to artificial intelligence and aerospace

www.theglobeandmail.com

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The first, not so much, especially at its start: lots of government funding until it became clear there was profit to be made, and even then the RN and some other navies were quite keen on the "poke around and see what's out there" aspect for a good two hundred years.

Space is at the HBC/HEIC stage, more or less, with fewer armed corporate forces and more poorly dressed executives.

Railways and canals have, depending where you're looking at, flip-flopped around every funding model imaginable, from pure taxpayer to pure private, with every conceivable mixture of the two being attempted.

and a huge number of those canals and railways floundered, even before being finished.

 

[Weinie]

and a huge number of those canals and railways floundered, even before being finished.

Ship Railway enters the chat.

Chignecto Marine Transport Railway - Wikipedia

 

[McG]

Defence Minister Bill Blair 'ready to go faster' on NATO spending timeline

Canada has committed to meet the NATO members' pledge to spend at least two per cent of GDP on national defence by 2032.

nationalpost.com

 

[YZT580]

Defence Minister Bill Blair 'ready to go faster' on NATO spending timeline

Canada has committed to meet the NATO members' pledge to spend at least two per cent of GDP on national defence by 2032.

nationalpost.com

pardon my lack of knowledge, but what have we agreed to or planned for to guarantee 2%? AFAICs we have ordered 16 frigates none of which will be in service in 2032, 88 F35s but not all delivered and a few helicopters. There is some infrastructure construction underway but none of them are huge. The airbuses of course and the 16 P8s. Those contracts don't add up to 2. We are talking about subs but there are no bid requests. Is there other stuff on the table with the bill coming due by 2032?