• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Government hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

Status
Not open for further replies.
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....
 
2%
2.5%
3%
....
5%

Trump has just upped the ante.




And he wants Europe to buy more Alberta Oil and Gas.....


After he has got his mark up and resold it through American ports.
The line in the article about complaining that there is a trade deficit in cars going to EU vice from the EU made me laugh.

A huge proportion of Americans don’t even buy American-company cars. What makes anyone think Europeans will when they have BMW, Volvo, Mercedes, Audi, etc?
 
The line in the article about complaining that there is a trade deficit in cars going to EU vice from the EU made me laugh.

A huge proportion of Americans don’t even buy American-company cars. What makes anyone think Europeans will when they have BMW, Volvo, Mercedes, Audi, etc?
many of which are owned and built off-shore.
 
many of which are owned and built off-shore.
Sure - still not American-led companies though.

If those cars are still built somewhere in Europe, and the trade skews towards them, then the point is still valid.
 
Yes, that European component, Stellantis, should definitely pull out of the US market.
 
The line in the article about complaining that there is a trade deficit in cars going to EU vice from the EU made me laugh.

A huge proportion of Americans don’t even buy American-company cars. What makes anyone think Europeans will when they have BMW, Volvo, Mercedes, Audi, etc?
Get the impression that the European market looks to Japanese and Korean automakers (maybe Chinese too, now) if they're after an alternative to domestic, too.

Ditto (though this is even more of an impression) agricultural and construction kit.
 
Negotiating 101: Bracketing and Trump is leading the negotiation by setting the high bracket (5.0%).….and he could double-bracket as well, we shall see.
I suspect his minimal accepted number from anyone is 3.5% at this point.

He is being looped in to NATSEC briefs again, and aware of what Putin is planning and what Xi is capable of, and why NATO needs to have everyone above 3% at this point, and planning on seeing what 4 and 5% would look like as well as war planning for a large scale conflict.


Canada is way down on the backside of the low bracket (2.0%). Those that take defence seriously will probably make national statements of commitment at or slightly above the bracket mid-point (3.5%).
Agreed.
They’ll be rewarded with acknowledgment of team play and a preferred place in Trump’s sphere of influence.

The others may be double-bracketed on the high side of single-bracket mean (above 3.5%…3.75 to 4.25%+/-) and when they don’t or can’t, they will be on the outs with Trump and he’ll beast them until they at least ante up to the original mid-point (3.5%).
I don’t think he will accept anyone under 3% period. It won’t just be on the outs, there will be significant pressure applied to make them course correct from many avenues we have. I suspect that could also mean influence activities by USG assets as well to undermine leaders of nations who don’t step up.
 
I suspect his minimal accepted number from anyone is 3.5% at this point.

He is being looped in to NATSEC briefs again, and aware of what Putin is planning and what Xi is capable of, and why NATO needs to have everyone above 3% at this point, and planning on seeing what 4 and 5% would look like as well as war planning for a large scale conflict.
Noting that he's not known for consistency at the best of times, it would aid his cause if it wasn't coupled with a less-than-straightforward approach to Putin. To say that the US isn't up to/interested in shouldering the entire burden of keeping Europe out of VVP's grabby little hands is legitimate; it would, though, cost him and his country nothing for him to be much, much clearer about telling the Russians to leave Ukraine. "We've got the very best missiles, made by wonderful Americans, and I'm going to give Ukraine and my good friend (listen to him somehow mangle Volodymyr) all of those missiles, and tanks! Did you know how many tanks we have just sitting around? I'm going to give them all to Ukraine so they can recapture their own great country. I don't care about red lines, never trusted any Reds, but I do care about borders... people need to stay on their side of borders... (cue rambling re: Mexico)"

Raytheon, Lockmart, and the rest need to up their schmoozing/bribery game, too.

It would also be an easy way to distinguish himself from the Biden admin's Sullivan-driven dawdling.
 
I’m sure the govt (of any party) will get right on that.

Jimmy Fallon Ok GIF by The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon
 
What I enjoy is that CFHA has been “carefully considering the matter” since 2021 and has managed a net increase of 41 RHQs, nationally.

Well done…
 
What I enjoy is that CFHA has been “carefully considering the matter” since 2021 and has managed a net increase of 41 RHQs, nationally.

Well done…
I bet we could solve this pretty fast with prefab homes, then ship them to bases, drop them on the foundation, hook everything up and finish. Use prefab homes for pmqs, contract tiny homes for single members, and just mass produce
 
I bet we could solve this pretty fast with prefab homes, then ship them to bases, drop them on the foundation, hook everything up and finish. Use prefab homes for pmqs, contract tiny homes for single members, and just mass produce
On what land though? The fed govt is busy trying as hard as it can to divest as much DND property as possible.
 
I bet we could solve this pretty fast with prefab homes, then ship them to bases, drop them on the foundation, hook everything up and finish. Use prefab homes for pmqs, contract tiny homes for single members, and just mass produce
I suggested modular homes to CFHA in 2009.

I got eyerolls…they were looking at divesting housing units, not building more. Or spending $250k to renovate a 50 year old 700sqft A frame, instead of buying a brand new modular home for (at the time) $210k…
 
I bet we could solve this pretty fast with prefab homes, then ship them to bases, drop them on the foundation, hook everything up and finish. Use prefab homes for pmqs, contract tiny homes for single members, and just mass produce
prefab homes seem to be pretty expensive these days though. Maybe not more expensive for the government?
 
I suggested modular homes to CFHA in 2009.

I got eyerolls…they were looking at divesting housing units, not building more. Or spending $250k to renovate a 50 year old 700sqft A frame, instead of buying a brand new modular home for (at the time) $210k…
There was a company we dealt with a number of years ago that was building prefab homes that could be easily modified to barrier-free standards for ill/injured soldiers. Everything was cut and assembled on jigs. In many ways, this meant they were better built than those by local developers. They were moved to site in modules and assembled on a pre-poured slab. I would suspect that there could be an economy of scale if multiple units were purchased.

I also remember many years ago visiting Fort Drum, when they were upgrading their quarters - it was explained that in several US base locations, contracts were given to local home builders, who were responsible to build 'x' number of single, semi, and towns to a set (and seemingly quite nice - even single or two car garages) standard. The builders then had 20 year contracts where they were to be responsible for maintenance/upgrade contracts, but they would collect the rent during that time. Rental rates were set by the US govt. I'm not sure how it ultimately turned out, but it was an interesting idea.

All that to say, there are options, and where there is a will....
 
Prefabricated is less important that just having a few standard designs that can be built at every base. There is plenty of space in many PMQ patches as demonstrated in Chilliwack and Edmonton where developers lifted all the Qs off their foundations, poured new foundations on smaller lots (resulting in more foundations that before), put old Qs and new builds on the new foundations.
 
In a recent podcast the Toronto Star’s Althia Raj had wide ranging interviews within the Canadian defence community that ended with a more in depth discussion with Bill Blair. At the 49 minute mark she asked him about getting an all party consensus on military procurements so that the programs would survive a change in government. His answer was that he tried and kinda failed. Althia then pressed him and he then said, “I don’t believe it is possible to compel any future government to any course of action or any particular budgetary expenditure. I think that is the nature of our democracies. We are all a little bit imprisoned by the electoral cycles.”

So you tried, but you don’t believe you should. At least that is my take. Bill Blair has done a pretty good job at defence (I had low expectations) but that comment was a fail for me.

 
In a recent podcast the Toronto Star’s Althia Raj had wide ranging interviews within the Canadian defence community that ended with a more in depth discussion with Bill Blair. At the 49 minute mark she asked him about getting an all party consensus on military procurements so that the programs would survive a change in government. His answer was that he tried and kinda failed. Althia then pressed him and he then said, “I don’t believe it is possible to compel any future government to any course of action or any particular budgetary expenditure. I think that is the nature of our democracies. We are all a little bit imprisoned by the electoral cycles.”

So you tried, but you don’t believe you should. At least that is my take. Bill Blair has done a pretty good job at defence (I had low expectations) but that comment was a fail for me.

I don’t know. From the highlighted bit I think he’s saying “it is what it is” in more words.

So it’s more like “I’d want to, but currently don’t have the means to.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top