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....

 

[QV]

Scott Moe says moving CBSA to DND would count as defence spending on the NATO 2% formula. Is he correct? Put aside all the reasons why it can’t happen - does the scheme count as recognized defence spending?

If CBSA were to be moved under DND, then it would be defence spending.

But moving the pieces already on the board and achieving no improved result will just get us another 15% added to the tariffs.

 

[dapaterson]

Scott Moe says moving CBSA to DND would count as defence spending on the NATO 2% formula. Is he correct? Put aside all the reasons why it can’t happen - does the scheme count as recognized defence spending?

NATO has a definition, moving deck chairs around doesn't magically make some chairs Defence spending.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Looks like the answer is “yes” and it’s quite possible we already are doing so, at least in part…

https://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/259/290/950/305/Fetzner.pdf

 

[daftandbarmy]

Scott Moe says moving CBSA to DND would count as defence spending on the NATO 2% formula. Is he correct? Put aside all the reasons why it can’t happen - does the scheme count as recognized defence spending?

Why would he want to do that to the CBSA folks?

 

[dapaterson]

I mean, people are living longer, so supports to older Canadians keep them available as future military members, so we should just claim OAS as a military expense and Boom! we're at 5%!

 

[CountDC]

The state of everything right now, courtesy of Canadian Army (today on 401 near Guelph)

View attachment 90928

Gun Tape it!!

 

[Navy_Pete]

Looks like the answer is “yes” and it’s quite possible we already are doing so, at least in part…

https://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/259/290/950/305/Fetzner.pdf

NATO has pretty specific criteria, which is why our CCG doesn't count, (but the USCG does as they deploy, and are better armed than some navies). CBSA doesn't have the training and won't be deployed outside our borders in support of the military so they can't be rolled under it.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_49198.htm

A major component of defence expenditure is payments for Armed Forces financed from within the Ministry of Defence budget. Armed Forces include land, maritime and air forces as well as joint formations, such as Administration and Command, Special Operations Forces, Medical Service, Logistic Command, Space Command, Cyber Command. They might also include parts of other forces such as Ministry of Interior troops, national police forces, coast guards etc. In such cases, expenditure is included only in proportion to the forces that are trained in military tactics, are equipped as a military force, can operate under direct military authority in deployed operations, and can, realistically, be deployed outside national territory in support of a military force. Expenditure on other forces financed through the budgets of ministries other than the Ministry of Defence is also included in defence expenditure.

If the tarriffs beat our GDP down though, and defence spending stays at the same dollar value, it will still increase as a proportion of our GDP though, so silver lining?

 

[Cdn_Merchant_Navy Guy]

There's a history of wider global economic pressure forcing Canada to meet spending obligations.
Good history reminder of this past from the Fraser Institute.

Canada could cut deal with U.S.—increase defence spending, remove tariffs

By the time Justin Trudeau came to power, defence spending was at 1 per cent of GDP.

www.fraserinstitute.org

February 03, 2025

Canada could cut deal with U.S.—increase defence spending, remove tariffs​

 

[QV]

If the tarriffs beat our GDP down though, and defence spending stays at the same dollar value, it will still increase as a proportion of our GDP though, so silver lining?

Though that is how Canada and the CAF typically conduct their mental gymnastics the days of getting away with that kind of thought pattern are over.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

While understanding the desire to stay in the realm of the likely ( I assume you mean in terms of funding and political will etc.) some misc. thoughts for consideration.

What is the rationale for keeping the Army’s contribution to continental defence as light infantry centric?

Is a light infantry force more useful to continental defence than a force shaped around A2AD units with long range air defence and long range anti surface capabilities?

What actual continental defence tasks are better served with light infantry vs an MDTF for example?

What is the continental defence plan and how does Canada plan on defending Canadian territory and how does the Cdn Army contribute effectively to that joint force operation? Is light infantry the correct capability to contribute to that joint fight?

Good questions,.

Light infantry, to include the ARes, would be doing all the DOMOPs that we currently get after. The light brigade group and arctic response battalions would continue to execute the operations that they do now in the north. In periods of of heightened tension the light infantry would be securing key installations such as northern FOLs. There is air defence in the light brigade. I don't see it as trying to make an air defence shield across the north. It would be there to help protect specific locations or be able to go with a light infantry battalion sent somewhere in the world. The non-Mech division has continental defence and the rest of the world less Europe.

The Canadian arctic can indeed be described as a archipelago. That does not automatically mean that it is like the "first island chain", and Churchill Island is not Taiwan. Could our light infantry be configured as "Marine Littoral Regiments?" I suppose, but those are meant to fight against a Chinese push on Taiwan from inside the Chinese A2AD. The Canadian arctic is a different matter. Those Canadian light infantry would also have things like NEO and the missions that we do not envision where being generalist light infantry is more useful that an A2AD force.

Could we add ground-launched anti-ship missiles to the light brigade? Or have a battery held somewhere that could fly out to some desolate island and set up? I suppose. Does that achieve something that F35s or RCN assets could not achieve, or do so in a better way? I think that GBAD at least protects against surprise attack on a FOL which is why I would have some dedicated to our forces not committed to Europe.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Though that is how Canada and the CAF typically conduct their mental gymnastics the days of getting away with that kind of thought pattern are over.

Is it? We spend more in total dollar values compared to Norway or the Netherlands by a lot, but with the difference in GDP they are both over 2% and we aren't.

Trump doesn't follow logic anyway, so doesn't really matter what we're actually spending as nothing would have been good enough, and it was just a pretext to bully us and look strong for his voters.

I think it would be good if it actually gives the politicians some backbone and give us some more money, but there is a big deficit we're running at to just do in a sustainable way what we're already supposed to be doing, let alone get shiny new toys.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Is it? We spend more in total dollar values compared to Norway or the Netherlands by a lot, but with the difference in GDP they are both over 2% and we aren't.

Trump doesn't follow logic anyway, so doesn't really matter what we're actually spending as nothing would have been good enough, and it was just a pretext to bully us and look strong for his voters.

I think it would be good if it actually gives the politicians some backbone and give us some more money, but there is a big deficit we're running at to just do in a sustainable way what we're already supposed to be doing, let alone get shiny new toys.

Just a reminder about why Uncle Sam might feel a bit let down ....

 

[Navy_Pete]

Sure, but the US spends more than the next 5 or 6 countries combined, so it's not really a reasonable comparison to anyone else on the planet.

 

[KevinB]

Sure, but the US spends more than the next 5 or 6 countries combined, so it's not really a reasonable comparison to anyone else on the planet.

Yes, but as a US citizen and tax payer, when we see the rest of NATO having a lot of perks that we don’t (Medicare etc) it’s really annoying in a period of dramatically increased global tensions that several NATO member countries are still in max relax mode on the couch.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Yes, but as a US citizen and tax payer, when we see the rest of NATO having a lot of perks that we don’t (Medicare etc) it’s really annoying in a period of dramatically increased global tensions that several NATO member countries are still in max relax mode on the couch.

Which is fair, but the US has been outspending the rest of the world for a very long time, and uses the US military to very directly influence world politics, sometimes in pretty negative ways, and there are plenty of lobbyists in the US arms side of things that are really just trying to encourage sales and don't care about politics or stability. There is probably a happy medium somewhere between US military spending and full social safety net spending (but I doubt the US will find it as long as you are getting a billionaire to put his rich friends in charge of departments so they can go oligarch on it and cut and slash things for their own personal benefit or agendas).

Now Trump is talking about banking, food and some other random things so really don't think he particularly cares what the reason is as long as he gets to push countries around and look like the Big Man.

I'm glad we are doing something though, as maybe they will start to step up border inspections to cut down on things like illegal guns from the US, and stolen cars flooding out in containers.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Just a reminder about why Uncle Sam might feel a bit let down ....

View attachment 90990

Are those numbers for Italy correct?
Over 20 million more people than us but only 2 billion more in spending? Something is not right.

 

[suffolkowner]

Are those numbers for Italy correct?
Over 20 million more people than us but only 2 billion more in spending? Something is not right.

dont match us up one for one though

 

[Kirkhill]

Which is fair, but the US has been outspending the rest of the world for a very long time, and uses the US military to very directly influence world politics, sometimes in pretty negative ways, and there are plenty of lobbyists in the US arms side of things that are really just trying to encourage sales and don't care about politics or stability. There is probably a happy medium somewhere between US military spending and full social safety net spending (but I doubt the US will find it as long as you are getting a billionaire to put his rich friends in charge of departments so they can go oligarch on it and cut and slash things for their own personal benefit or agendas).

Now Trump is talking about banking, food and some other random things so really don't think he particularly cares what the reason is as long as he gets to push countries around and look like the Big Man.

I'm glad we are doing something though, as maybe they will start to step up border inspections to cut down on things like illegal guns from the US, and stolen cars flooding out in containers.

Yes. Indeed. The US has been outspending the rest of the world for a very long time.

I rather think that is the point that @KevinB, the 23 bipartisan senators and POTUS47, POTUS46, POTUS45, POTUS44 and POTUS43 (what is the difference between BMD and IAMD anyway?) have been making.

 

[suffolkowner]

Yes. Indeed. The US has been outspending the rest of the world for a very long time.

I rather think that is the point that @KevinB, the 23 bipartisan senators and POTUS47, POTUS46, POTUS45, POTUS44 and POTUS43 (what is the difference between BMD and IAMD anyway?) have been making.

and of all the countries the US is outspending how many are allies? How many have designs on world hegemony?

 

[daftandbarmy]

Yes, but as a US citizen and tax payer, when we see the rest of NATO having a lot of perks that we don’t (Medicare etc) it’s really annoying in a period of dramatically increased global tensions that several NATO member countries are still in max relax mode on the couch.

Or don't really seem to be interested in keeping Russia at bay even though they're a couple of day's drive or so away from their capitals.

Guess what Europe... the USA is not your enemy. But if you keep doing nothing to defend yourselves...

Defending Europe with less America​

• Russia’s war on Ukraine has revealed the sorry state of European militaries and defence industries after decades of peace dividends, as well as their deep reliance on the US.
• A second Trump presidency could drastically reduce US defence support for Europe. But regardless of the outcome of the US presidential election, the degradation of the European security environment and the shifting priorities of the US mean that Europe needs to be prepared to take more responsibility for its own defence.
• Europeans require a sustained plan over the next decade that combines immediate efforts to support Ukraine and rebuild readiness, and longer-term goals to develop a “full force package”, including the combat support capabilities and key enablers that are currently provided primarily by the US.
• Paradoxically, such a deliberate approach to overcoming institutional challenges and strengthening Europe’s defence capabilities may be the best way to preserve a strong transatlantic relationship and a degree of US commitment.

Defending Europe with less America

Shifting US priorities and a degrading security environment – not to mention the possibility of a second Trump presidency – mean Europeans finally have to take more responsibility for their own…

ecfr.eu