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....

 

[Fishbone Jones]

419 pages in, it's time to remind everyone.

Justin Trudeau is a pathological liar and doesn't do anything for Canada unless he gets something out of it, including his globalist agenda.

 

[OldSolduer]

You are correct. This is the way.

Very Mandolorian.....

However I beg to differ. If you want to have a seat at the table you put your money where your mouth is. Yes it is a risk, but it needs to be considered.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Very Mandolorian.....

However I beg to differ. If you want to have a seat at the table you put your money where your mouth is. Yes it is a risk, but it needs to be considered.

Respectfully, there is more to having a place at the table than having grunts in holes in far off places.

There were more dangerous jobs than being infantry in WW2 and they were in the air or on or under the sea. And id like to point out that those most dangerous of jobs in WW2 we're dedicated to logistics or destroying logistics.

 

[KevinB]

Respectfully, there is more to having a place at the table than having grunts in holes in far off places.

There were more dangerous jobs than being infantry in WW2 and they were in the air or on or under the sea. And id like to point out that those most dangerous of jobs in WW2 we're dedicated to logistics or destroying logistics.

Boots on the ground however are a concrete example of commitment to a host nation.

That cannot be dismissed or downplayed.

 

[lenaitch]

Funny enough, concentrating on Air forces and Naval forces was the plan of William Lyon Mackenzie King in WWII and it is only the fact that all European powers dissolved before Germany, except the UK, that forced his hand into building up the army too.

I'm not so sure he even wanted that. He was hoping the CATP and material production would safely keep Canadian home and Quebec quiet.

 

[lenaitch]

Probably should have been done years ago.
The whole PET Rips Off Canada should have been a large refinery program as well.

Agree. A drop of crude or a raw log should not leave this country.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Boots on the ground however are a concrete example of commitment to a host nation.

That cannot be dismissed or downplayed.

I simply don't buy that.

 

[Kirkhill]

Agree. A drop of crude or a raw log should not leave this country.

That may be our only option now that Trump has said he doesn't need us.

Good news - we now have lots of cheap energy available. With automation our manufacturing costs should be low and competitive.

 

[Kirkhill]

I simply don't buy that.

Messrs Pitts and Walpole would agree with you.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Boots on the ground however are a concrete example of commitment to a host nation.

That cannot be dismissed or downplayed.

And geopolitically- those boots should be contributed such to get a flag on the map. Those the arguments. Let's accept them- they're good arguments.

And in a time of Corps'- the conventional way to get on the map is a division. But is it the way that most makes sense for Canada?

In Desert Storm 2ACR -a Bde size formation, was right there on the map with 1UK as a prominent part of VII Corps. So were (albeit less prominently) 4x Arty Bde's as corps assets.

 

[PuckChaser]

I simply don't buy that.

Then no one will convince you. The real fact is unless we plan on having a carrier strike group on both coasts, any Naval or Air commitment is a token gesture. Boots on the ground has been the measure of commitment to an area for thousands of years, even after the invention of sail. Those guns only reach so far inland.

 

[Grunt_031]

Trump is now calling for 5% GDP expenditure for NATO members from his speech today at Davos.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Then no one will convince you. The real fact is unless we plan on having a carrier strike group on both coasts, any Naval or Air commitment is a token gesture. Boots on the ground has been the measure of commitment to an area for thousands of years, even after the invention of sail. Those guns only reach so far inland.

If Canada was interested in operating independently of allies, taking on operations and force projecting by ourselves, I could see and perhaps agree with your sentiment.

Reality is the opposite of that.

 

[Furniture]

Trump is now calling for 5% GDP expenditure for NATO members from his speech today at Davos.

Trump may actually convince the rest of the world that it needs to prepare for a world without the US being there to help.

The down side of that is that we lots of historical example of how that world looks. Anyone who thinks a multi-polar world is a peaceful world has never read a history book.

 

[Kirkhill]

Then no one will convince you. The real fact is unless we plan on having a carrier strike group on both coasts, any Naval or Air commitment is a token gesture. Boots on the ground has been the measure of commitment to an area for thousands of years, even after the invention of sail. Those guns only reach so far inland.

Tomahawk - 1700 km
SM6 (SSM) - >500 km
PrSM SSM - 500 to >>1000 km

Kratos Valkyrie MQ-58A - 5600 km

This Containerized Launcher For The XQ-58A Valkyrie Combat Drone Could Be A Game Changer

The system would be air, rail, road, or sea transportable, allowing for long-range, hard-hitting drone swarms to make unpredictable attacks.

www.twz.com

Even an AOPS could reach a long way inland.

 

[Furniture]

If Canada was interested in operating independently of allies, taking on operations and force projecting by ourselves, I could see and perhaps agree with your sentiment.

Reality is the opposite of that.

The problem of commitment is a serious issue.

An RCN TG can just sail away when it gets a bit hot, and fighters can be home in time to tuck the kids in if things go south. Troops on the ground mean Canadians will die if the GoC waffles. That matters to allies, because troops dying pointlessly makes the politicians look bad.

i.e. If the troops are there when the bullets fly, Canada is there for the long haul.

 

[WestIsle]

I'm not so sure he even wanted that. He was hoping the CATP and material production would safely keep Canadian home and Quebec quiet.

If I remember correctly it was all forced but he ironically pushed for an early heavy emphasis on pers going to the air force and navy. The irony was that those who did serve overseas with those two services suffered higher casualties ratios then other ground troops and that later they didnt shift the manpower to the army when it needed it leaving a significant portion of the RCAF for example having never left the country.

 

[Halifax Tar]

The problem of commitment is a serious issue.

An RCN TG can just sail away when it gets a bit hot, and fighters can be home in time to tuck the kids in if things go south. Troops on the ground mean Canadians will die if the GoC waffles. That matters to allies, because troops dying pointlessly makes the politicians look bad.

i.e. If the troops are there when the bullets fly, Canada is there for the long haul.

I would argue having soldiers die for the sake of international clout is having them die pointlessly.

 

[GR66]

I would argue having soldiers die for the sake of international clout is having them die pointlessly.

Why would Canadian soldiers dying beside allied forces in defence of our national interests be any more "pointless" than the lives that would be lost from Canadian ships being sunk or Canadian aircraft being shot down in defence of our national interests?

To my knowledge they have yet to build a plane or ship that can hold territory. I'm fully on board with debating what the relative strengths of the Army, Navy and Air Force should be, and I've made it clear that to my mind the RCAF and RCN should be prioritized. However, to my mind it would be folly to think that you could do without an Army that is capable of expeditionary operations.

As a nation we need to have the capability to project power in ALL domains in defence of our national interests.

 

[Furniture]

I would argue having soldiers die for the sake of international clout is having them die pointlessly.

International clout is what prevents things like tariff wars with trade partners, or overt aggression from despots like Putin.

If NATO had fighting forces in Ukraine back in Jan '22, Ukraine wouldn't be at war with Russia. Sometimes the potential of maybe killing troops is enough to keep the bad guys in check.

I'm not suggesting we throw CAF members in every shithole just to maybe stop fights, but putting ground forces in places we care about(like Europe), means our enemies are less likely to decide to fight.