Government hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[ytz]

So rather than 66% ish of the CAF budget going to salaries…
Insane.

Nothing against pay raises, but there are a lot more pressing issues for the CAF, and not all will be addressed by more individual $.

That ratio is true if the budget doesn't increase. If they are sincere about 2% then even with pay raises, the personnel costs ratio will drop.

 

[Halifax Tar]

So rather than 66% ish of the CAF budget going to salaries…
Insane.

Nothing against pay raises, but there are a lot more pressing issues for the CAF, and not all will be addressed by more individual $.

Can you reference your 66% ? My google up with approx 50% and that encompasses all personnel costs inclusive of benefits and pay.

Google Search

 

[Halifax Tar]

So rather than 66% ish of the CAF budget going to salaries…
Insane.

Nothing against pay raises, but there are a lot more pressing issues for the CAF, and not all will be addressed by more individual $.

And then I have this one:

Defence Budget - Canada.ca

Transition of the Associate Deputy Minister of National Defense – June 12, 2023

www.canada.ca

And it says personnel costs are only 34%.

 

[CountDC]

it's amazing the different percentages you find with a simple search. From 34 to 60% depending on what the writer wanted to include in it.

 

[KevinB]

And then I have this one:

Defence Budget - Canada.ca

Transition of the Associate Deputy Minister of National Defense – June 12, 2023

www.canada.ca

And it says personnel costs are only 34%.

Interesting as some other .ca sites claim much higher. Admittedly I’d be curious in an exact break down of what that site considers personnel costs, versus what the significantly higher ones cost out as personnel costs.

It can often get into the quandary/quibbling of what is a personnel costs. I tend to view salaries, most allowances and any directly tied to payments to personnel to be a personnel cost, except operational deployment pays (so I’d have Assaulter, paratroop, aircrew, sailing etc pay allowance in personnel, but any foreign service allowances under operations.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Interesting as some other .ca sites claim much higher. Admittedly I’d be curious in an exact break down of what that site considers personnel costs, versus what the significantly higher ones cost out as personnel costs.

It can often get into the quandary/quibbling of what is a personnel costs. I tend to view salaries, most allowances and any directly tied to payments to personnel to be a personnel cost, except operational deployment pays (so I’d have Assaulter, paratroop, aircrew, sailing etc pay allowance in personnel, but any foreign service allowances under operations.

Can you reference those sites ?

I could find no ref to 66%.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Given all the border issues these days maybe it's time to copy the Finns, and others, by standing up a Border Guard formation, and add that to the 2%.

We could pull together some existing organizations like CBSA, CCG, Canadian Rangers and SAR, and add of couple of others such as surveillance/radar.

I know a couple of guys who went on an exchange with the 'Border Jaegers' for a couple of months. They learned more than they wanted to about interesting tests like their '75 milers'

Main duties of the Finnish Border Guard:

• Protecting the land borders and territorial waters of Finland from unauthorised encroachment.
• Passport control at border crossing points, airports and ports.
• First line of defence against territorial invasions.
• Rescue operations (mainly at sea and in the remote areas of Lapland).
• Provide aid to other authorities such as the fire department in case of unusual events like wild fires.
• Investigation of crimes pertaining to border security.
• Aiding police forces in civil duties such as crowd control and riot control.
• Military operations pertaining to internal security.
• Customs control in the minor border crossing points without customs authorities.
• Training of conscripts for wartime duty. These include rajajääkäri (border jaegers) and erikoisrajajääkäri (special border jaegers).
• (During wartime) Long range patrols and guerrilla tactics behind enemy lines.

Finnish Border Guard - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[KevinB]

Can you reference those sites ?

I could find no ref to 66%.

looking. There was one referenced on this site a few months ago. I had used it earlier to to talk about how much was going from the 1.3% budget to salaries.

That ratio is true if the budget doesn't increase. If they are sincere about 2% then even with pay raises, the personnel costs ratio will drop.

I’d suggest that is relative. You are at 1.3 ish
Going to 2% and doubling salaries won’t be a net increase, and if the 66% of 1.3% GDP is true then going to a 100% pay raise would just basically bring your budget to 2% on its own (a few million here or there for a rounding error)

Capital Equipment % would drop like a stone though.

 

[Halifax Tar]

looking. There was one referenced on this site a few months ago. I had used it earlier to to talk about how much was going from the 1.3% budget to salaries.

I’d suggest that is relative. You are at 1.3 ish
Going to 2% and doubling salaries won’t be a net increase, and if the 66% of 1.3% GDP is true then going to a 100% pay raise would just basically bring your budget to 2% on its own (a few million here or there for a rounding error)

Capital Equipment % would drop like a stone though.

Its interesting that you keep referencing 66% when the actual defence budget says its 34%. That adds up to 100.

 

[ytz]

If the average Reg force member costs $150k and the average Res is $50k. That's under $10B. It's under 40% in a $27B budget.

Math and logic says 66% being pay is impossible. Provide a credible source and I'll believe it. Otherwise, the actual budget link above at 34% is reasonable.

 

[KevinB]

If the average Reg force member costs $150k and the average Res is $50k. That's under $10B. It's under 40% in a $27B budget.

Math and logic says 66% being pay is impossible. Provide a credible source and I'll believe it. Otherwise, the actual budget link above at 34% is reasonable.

What Spending Two Per Cent of GDP on National Defence Means for Canada - Canadian Global Affairs Institute

This suggests 50%, I am still looking for more. Part of the issue is Canada isn’t transparent at all with its budget.

Note recently Canada has started counting its VA spending (as many others do) in defense spending. I’m curious if the much higher number was an aberration in accounting due to the one time pension payouts? I don’t see that could make a 16% jump, and just maybe I misread the 2/3 of the budget went to personnel costs, but I’m pretty sure I had read a link posted in this exact thread a year or so ago.

 

[ytz]

What Spending Two Per Cent of GDP on National Defence Means for Canada - Canadian Global Affairs Institute This suggests 50%, I am still looking for more. Part of the issue is Canada isn’t transparent at all with its budget.

You missed a keyword in there: "Historically".

Given that defence spending has been really low for decades and dropped below 1%, the 50% ratio makes sense. As defence spending rises that ratio won't hold. You're also conflating pay with personnel costs. The latter includes healthcare, pension contributions, housing allowances, academic grants, family supports, etc. So, a 50% pay increase is not a 50% increase in personnel costs.

 

[McG]

Spending on personnel (which includes but is more than just pay) as percentage of total spending through the last decade is on page 14: https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2024/6/pdf/240617-def-exp-2024-en.pdf

 

[Seyek]

Spending on personnel (which includes but is more than just pay) as percentage of total spending through the last decade is on page 14: https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2024/6/pdf/240617-def-exp-2024-en.pdf

Our own budget gives 34%, you can download .csv files of breakdowns of spending by department off Canada.ca if you want to dig into it. But this NATO doc is probably the best measure to make meaningful comparisons with allied countries, and provides a common baseline to measure each other against since it's the actual NATO estimates,. I'd suggest page 6 rather than 14, as it contain the breakdown by type of spending for each country in a convenient chart.

Canada: 43.5%
US: 25.2%

We're high, particularly relative to the US, but there are 10 countries higher, so while that ratio isn't good it's not an extreme outlier. We're all familiar with poor state of equipment, or lack thereof, we've continued to employ people while consistently underequipping across the board that's skewed things more than anything.

I have the 2023-2024 budget figures csv which show 11.26 billion in personnel costs for DND (which actually lines up with the NATO %). If we go to 2% (or even higher if the rest of NATO settles on a higher figure, but I can't see us ever actually matching it even if we agreed, much like 2% prior to recent events, we'll keep pushing it out further into the future) there's plenty of room to include raises as part of an overall strategy to boost retention and make military service more attractive.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I doubt foreign critics are going to view pay raises as the kinds of capabilities they have in mind.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I doubt foreign critics are going to view pay raises as the kinds of capabilities they have in mind.

Well, it's not like they're part of the PACE process or anything so why care

 

[Seyek]

I doubt foreign critics are going to view pay raises as the kinds of capabilities they have in mind.

Just raises, absolutely - but with retention problems, raises/retention bonuses alongside things like geographic stability, housing, childcare, healthcare, or other benefits are needed to keep critical personnel in. We could double our F-35 order but it means nothing if pilots and techs have gone elsewhere. It would be an issue if we got to 2% and maintained, or worsened our personnel costs. Turkey spends almost the exact same % on personnel as we do, and they're at 2.09% of GDP on defence.

Did some quick calculating looking at the last set of CAF raises relative to inflation. $100 in 2021 is now about $117, our raises come out to around $110, it's roughly a 6% difference. So we've had longstanding recruitment issues, and longstanding retention issues, and we've effectively cut everyone's pay 6% relative to inflation. Hardly the only people in the country in that situation - but again, personnel are needed to man and sustain the equipment if we want to build capabilities. If we get to 2%, that percentage will decline (and it has, if you look at that table on page 14 for the historical numbers on the NATO doc) as we get new equipment, build out infrastructure, boost ammunition stocks.

 

[ytz]

Spending on personnel (which includes but is more than just pay) as percentage of total spending through the last decade is on page 14: https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2024/6/pdf/240617-def-exp-2024-en.pdf

Good find. These are the metrics we should use because this is what our allies are using to discuss our spending. And 43.5% is still below 50% and below anything insane like 66%.

Canada: 43.5%
US: 25.2%

We're high, particularly relative to the US, but there are 10 countries higher, so while that ratio isn't good it's not an extreme outlier.

A function of how math works. Our low defence spending has a higher portion on personnel costs. If we hit 2%, that proportion would fall, even with substantial pay increases and increases in strength. The goal should be to keep it under 35% by having the total budget large enough.

 

[Halifax Tar]

We can buy all the toys we want, but if we can't entice the people to join and stay all the toys and cool explosions are for naught.

People are the single more important part of the CAF. Pretending we can ignore that and new ships, planes and tanks will fix stuff is simply out of touch.

It's not only pay and benefits that needs increasing, we need a leadership and culture change. A simple perusing of social media give you scores of examples of leaders, both commissioned and non, who have no business leading a one man band let alone Canadians who have vowed to makes the ultimate sacrifice.

Leadership, Pay and Benefits. This is where our problem is; and I would put it in that order.

 

[KevinB]

Leadership, Pay and Benefits. This is where our problem is; and I would put it in that order.

Equipment is a major issue.
Anyone who sees the state of equipment across the CAF is probably going to question what/how the Government (and country writ large) values them.

Yes there have been some new items acquired, but anyone taking even a cursory look at recent conflicts will quickly come to the conclusion that the CAF is woefully prepared for a shooting war with anyone except perhaps Liechtenstein.