• 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....
 
So looking at the LPC web page, they are definitely aiming to change the mandate of the Coast Guard to orient expenditures as part of the 2% target.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_2821.jpeg
    IMG_2821.jpeg
    630.5 KB · Views: 32
So looking at the LPC web page, they are definitely aiming to change the mandate of the Coast Guard to orient expenditures as part of the 2% target.

Controversial opinion here. But I think it's a good idea. When working on FWSAR, it became obvious to me that there were certain roles and functions better suited for the CCG than the CAF. But because they weren't a paramilitary force, they couldn't take on more. If they were more like the USCG (where our SAR community does exchanges with), they could take on more and free up the CAF to do real military things.

As for counting towards the 2%, NATO has definitions. Countries can't simply claim whatever they want. And if they do, NATO staff just rebaseline numbers.
 
So if they create one or two 'armed' CG icebreakers, or gather some of the CG under the military umbrella to satisfy the NATO guideline, do they get to move the entire CG budget to be included in our 2%?
 
Controversial opinion here. But I think it's a good idea. When working on FWSAR, it became obvious to me that there were certain roles and functions better suited for the CCG than the CAF. But because they weren't a paramilitary force, they couldn't take on more. If they were more like the USCG (where our SAR community does exchanges with), they could take on more and free up the CAF to do real military things.

As for counting towards the 2%, NATO has definitions. Countries can't simply claim whatever they want. And if they do, NATO staff just rebaseline numbers.
Won't likely happen. Either the CG union will walk out or the employees themselves will walk out permanently. There are lots of maritime positions available in Canada to accommodate every single coast guard employee that wants one. For those few occasions where weapons are required a detachment of RCMP can fulfill the role I would suspect.
 
Won't likely happen. Either the CG union will walk out or the employees themselves will walk out permanently. There are lots of maritime positions available in Canada to accommodate every single coast guard employee that wants one. For those few occasions where weapons are required a detachment of RCMP can fulfill the role I would suspect.

Meanwhile, the US Coast Guard....

 
Controversial opinion here. But I think it's a good idea. When working on FWSAR, it became obvious to me that there were certain roles and functions better suited for the CCG than the CAF. But because they weren't a paramilitary force, they couldn't take on more. If they were more like the USCG (where our SAR community does exchanges with), they could take on more and free up the CAF to do real military things.

As for counting towards the 2%, NATO has definitions. Countries can't simply claim whatever they want. And if they do, NATO staff just rebaseline numbers.
I agree. For example if the CCG vessel has a suite of RCN radars and sensors installed, and the data is plugged into the wider defence surveillance networks, why isn’t that a subset of the 2%. And why would they CCG walk off the job over that? It would be a highly contributory piece of the surveillance network without the burden of being a combat platform.

Elbow up and were all in this together, so to speak.
 
I agree. For example if the CCG vessel has a suite of RCN radars and sensors installed, and the data is plugged into the wider defence surveillance networks, why isn’t that a subset of the 2%. And why would they CCG walk off the job over that? It would be a highly contributory piece of the surveillance network without the burden of being a combat platform.

Elbow up and were all in this together, so to speak.

Some people in the CCG just want to tend buoys and drive scientists around.
 
Won't likely happen. Either the CG union will walk out or the employees themselves will walk out permanently. There are lots of maritime positions available in Canada to accommodate every single coast guard employee that wants one. For those few occasions where weapons are required a detachment of RCMP can fulfill the role I would suspect.
Just like when Customs and Revenue turned into CBSA and received pistols, some agents resigned, because that wasn't what they signed up for.
 
Just like when Customs and Revenue turned into CBSA and received pistols, some agents resigned, because that wasn't what they signed up for.
Was that number greater than or less than 10% of those newly required to carry a pistol?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top