Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Kirkhill]

Written by:
Robert Smol is a retired military intelligence officer who served in the Canadian Armed Forces for more than 20 years. He is completing a PhD in military history.

MSN

www.msn.com

I would argue that every decision to purchase the Frigates, F18s, and CP 140 were brought about because the current gear (Steamers, Starfighters, and Argus's) were so worn out something had to be done and the absolute minimum (after a lot of kicking and screaming) was acquired.

Interesting premise: He wasn't that bad. He may have been the worst at the time but we've had 40 years of worse candidates.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Written by:
Robert Smol is a retired military intelligence officer who served in the Canadian Armed Forces for more than 20 years. He is completing a PhD in military history.

MSN

www.msn.com

I would argue that every decision to purchase the Frigates, F18s, and CP 140 were brought about because the current gear (Steamers, Starfighters, and Argus's) were so worn out something had to be done and the absolute minimum (after a lot of kicking and screaming) was acquired.

I think the Argus had lots of life left in them but they weren’t that modern at the end, and they were becoming severely expensive to fly (fuel cost).

 

[Will M]

I thought my last few years (years ago) were somewhat sad for the forces but I see now they are worse today. Only a new govt. with new leader and ministers can reverse the negatives and produce a robust CAF. I see previously mention of immigrants. Govt has always wanted more immigrants, the more people the more stuff you sell. It's not about our quality of life but how much the rich can become richer with more people to sell to. The average Canadian citizen is mined as a resource. I can complain as well as the next person but for real change we need change in leadership.

 

[Brad Sallows]

If "the more people the more stuff you sell" were true, the nations with the world's largest populations would be outstripping us.

What does generally work, though, is: the freer the people are to apply their ingenuity to their own benefit, the more prosperity. That's why allowing high-aptitude immigrants into Canada produces results.

 

[Navy_Pete]

I thought my last few years (years ago) were somewhat sad for the forces but I see now they are worse today. Only a new govt. with new leader and ministers can reverse the negatives and produce a robust CAF. I see previously mention of immigrants. Govt has always wanted more immigrants, the more people the more stuff you sell. It's not about our quality of life but how much the rich can become richer with more people to sell to. The average Canadian citizen is mined as a resource. I can complain as well as the next person but for real change we need change in leadership.

I've been through two cycles between LPC-Conservative back to LPC, and there was no real difference for the CAF.

For Afg the Harper govt used existing policies to push forward some procurements, which makes perfect sense, but the rest of them were the same old.

I think the colour of the election signs matters a lot less than the populace, and no one wants GoC to cut other projects to spend more on the CAF (nor do we have the capacity to sustainably spend 2% of GDP).

 

[Edward Campbell]

I've been through two cycles between LPC-Conservative back to LPC, and there was no real difference for the CAF.

For Afg the Harper govt used existing policies to push forward some procurements, which makes perfect sense, but the rest of them were the same old.

I think the colour of the election signs matters a lot less than the populace, and no one wants GoC to cut other projects to spend more on the CAF (nor do we have the capacity to sustainably spend 2% of GDP).

I agree with most of what you said, but I disagree, quite vehemently, with the last bit. Even though we were (a year ago) projected to be at the bottom of the OECD heap in economic growth terms for the next decade, we can and can in the future sustain 2% of GDP IF there is enough national will.

There is no will, now, and has not been since the late 1960s. Most Canadians, a rock solid majority, I think, want to spend on almost anything except defence (and symphony orchestras and the PM's official residence).

Can that change? Yes, if the current threat (which I believe is real, especially in East Asia) becomes worrisome to enough Canadians. But no-one is sounding the alarm - what has Pierre Poilievre said, publicly, about the need to rebuild Canada's foreign and defence policy establishments? Nothing. Why? Because no-one wants to hear that and he's not in the business of serving Canada; he wants to gain power for his own sake.

 

[TacticalTea]

I agree with most of what you said, but I disagree, quite vehemently, with the last bit. Even though we were (a year ago) projected to be at the bottom of the OECD heap in economic growth terms for the next decade, we can and can in the future sustain 2% of GDP IF there is enough national will.

There is no will, now, and has not been since the late 1960s. Most Canadians, a rock solid majority, I think, want to spend on almost anything except defence (and symphony orchestras and the PM's official residence).

Can that change? Yes, if the current threat (which I believe is real, especially in East Asia) becomes worrisome to enough Canadians. But no-one is sounding the alarm - what has Pierre Poilievre said, publicly, about the need to rebuild Canada's foreign and defence policy establishments? Nothing. Why? Because no-one wants to hear that and he's not in the business of serving Canada; he wants to gain power for his own sake.

The Party really missed the mark by rejecting both O'Toole and then Charest. There was potential for some serious, constructive work to be done., not just whatever is politically attractive.

Now, whether the PMO wants to admit it or not, it seems to me all the left has to do to maintain its stranglehold on power is to rotate Prime ministers.

 

[Navy_Pete]

@Edward Campbell, just from an HR perspective, we don't have capacity right now to get up to 2% spending consistently.

That's ballpark around $40B/year, and even with the capitol projects I think we're lucky to get up to $25-30B in surges.

It's a fairly arbitrary target, but unless we can actually recruit up to the 70 odd thousand we're supposed to have, and go beyond that (100k?) plus expand our LCMM/procurement side of things it's just not going to happen.

There are a lot of potential obsolescence projects but all those take bodies in projects to do, and they are in short supply.

To get to 2% we would need a plan to expand first, and a credible track record of recruiting/retaining people, which we don't have either of.

 

[BrianWL]

A couple of points:

First: don't blame Justin Trudeau. He's just doing what most Canadians have wanted done for the past half century.

Political parties, Conservative, Liberal and NDP and all the others poll assiduously, and they ask good questions, too, because they really do want to know what Canadians think. Why do you think that Pierre Poilievre doesn't talk a lot about doubling the defence budget and getting serious abut global peace and security? The answer is because CPC pollsters have heard, loud and clear, from Canadians, that it is NOT an issue. Support for increased national defence is on about the same level as support for more symphony orchestras and ballet companies and increased MPs' pensions.​

​

It doesn't matter why Canadians think that way; the simple fact is that they do ... and they have done since before 1970.​

​

In the last 1940s Louis St Laurent gave a speech at the University of Toronto in which he laid out a plan for Canada to adopt a leadership role - politically, diplomatically, economically and militarily - in the world. It secured broad general public support for a number of reasons -​

​

1. We had just come out of a huge and costly war and most people understood that it could have been prevented by bold action;​

2. Canada was looking forward to a fairly bright economic future; and​

3. Although this was slightly after Kennan's 'long telegram,' St Laurent, himself, and many Canadian opinion makers - including the media - were now worried about Soviet aims and aggression.​

​

The Canadian Political Landscape was different in the late 1940s. Canadians had come out of the Great Depression and the Second World War is remarkably good form. The country was confident. Even though the Liberal Party was old and tired, St Laurent, who became prime minister in 1948, was popular with both the general public and the media and he seemed fresh and very, very able. That's all changed.​

​

It began to change in the mid 1960s. The welfare state was growing, world-wide. St Laurent had been a very cautious fiscal conservative and Canada was actually lagging behind many Western nations, including the USA and especially Scandinavia, in implementing a welfare state. Canadians wanted to spend less on defence and more own themselves.​

​

If you want to blame some it should be Pierre Trudeau, not his son, because he understood what Canadians wanted and he offered it to them, lock, stock and barrel.​

Second: don't blame the media. It, also, is just giving Canadians what they want.

The media is a consumer driven service. The media - print, TV, radio and the Internet - "sell" eyes and ears to advertisers. If the media doesn't give Canadians what they want to see, hear and read then they will look/listen elsewhere and advertisers will follow.​

​

Canadians are uninterested in defence, despite the War in Ukraine and despite the Rise of China and so on for a whole bunch of reasons that others have mentioned but, mainly, because they have been led to believe that they live under the American security umbrella, even though many experts have explained that isn't true.​

If you want to blame someone, it needs to be someone like your spouse or your parents or your siblings or your neighbours. They all expect to have an efficient and effective military force but they don't want to spend any more than they do now - and preferably less - to get it.

 

[BrianWL]

until someone rolls over our own borders, this attitude will only continue.......ignorance is bliss in the minds of most of our compatriots.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Remind me again why we bought those Aussie F-18's?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

@Edward Campbell, just from an HR perspective, we don't have capacity right now to get up to 2% spending consistently.

That's ballpark around $40B/year, and even with the capitol projects I think we're lucky to get up to $25-30B in surges.

It's a fairly arbitrary target, but unless we can actually recruit up to the 70 odd thousand we're supposed to have, and go beyond that (100k?) plus expand our LCMM/procurement side of things it's just not going to happen.

There are a lot of potential obsolescence projects but all those take bodies in projects to do, and they are in short supply.

To get to 2% we would need a plan to expand first, and a credible track record of recruiting/retaining people, which we don't have either of.

You need to identify a lot of the small projects where the funds are then set not to expire each year and the buy size stays the same for that contract, regardless of inflation. So if we identify that 2023 we are buying 75 Manpad systems and the procurement office finally gets started on it in March 2024, the funds are not expiring, so they don't have to jump through more hoops and they can focus on the details of the contract and the army knows it's getting 75 AD systems, so it can start planning for it. Let's say the same for a RWS for the Kingstons, you order enough for each ship, spares and training aids. That number does not change, you hope to get them for 2024, but maybe they also get to it March 2025.
Eventually they can work through the pile on the smaller contracts, build experience and then those PW/DND staff support the bigger projects. Bringing in a decent baseline of knowledge.

 

[Czech_pivo]

@Edward Campbell, just from an HR perspective, we don't have capacity right now to get up to 2% spending consistently.

That's ballpark around $40B/year, and even with the capitol projects I think we're lucky to get up to $25-30B in surges.

It's a fairly arbitrary target, but unless we can actually recruit up to the 70 odd thousand we're supposed to have, and go beyond that (100k?) plus expand our LCMM/procurement side of things it's just not going to happen.

There are a lot of potential obsolescence projects but all those take bodies in projects to do, and they are in short supply.

To get to 2% we would need a plan to expand first, and a credible track record of recruiting/retaining people, which we don't have either of.

Understand and agree with your analysis - but I have to say that argument continues to perpetuate the 'paralysis by analysis' situation that we seem to be in.
The substantial numbers of PR's that came forward showing genuine interest in joining the CAF when the restrictions were lifted shocked a lot of people but it certainly looked like nothing was done to prepare for possible large (by Canadian standards, lol) numbers of new recruits coming forward to be selected prior to the restrictions being lifted. Did the CAF do ANYTHING proactively to prepare for this prior to the restrictions being lifted?
Again with the ringing of hands, 'what do we do with all these new recruits', and throwing up of road blocks in terms of the 'burden' of providing background checks on all these people before allowing them in. Having a wife who is a PR (for the last 20yrs), I'm fully aware of all the paperwork and background checks that are done when it comes time to renew the PR card every 5yrs - what sort of extra security screening is necessary for the CAF? I mean, is the RCMP/CSIS/GoC not doing background checks and security checks on these PR's when they submit the required paperwork for a renewed PR card?? If not, why does it currently take 80 days for a renewed PR card to be processed??

 

[daftandbarmy]

Understand and agree with your analysis - but I have to say that argument continues to perpetuate the 'paralysis by analysis' situation that we seem to be in.
The substantial numbers of PR's that came forward showing genuine interest in joining the CAF when the restrictions were lifted shocked a lot of people but it certainly looked like nothing was done to prepare for possible large (by Canadian standards, lol) numbers of new recruits coming forward to be selected prior to the restrictions being lifted. Did the CAF do ANYTHING proactively to prepare for this prior to the restrictions being lifted?
Again with the ringing of hands, 'what do we do with all these new recruits', and throwing up of road blocks in terms of the 'burden' of providing background checks on all these people before allowing them in. Having a wife who is a PR (for the last 20yrs), I'm fully aware of all the paperwork and background checks that are done when it comes time to renew the PR card every 5yrs - what sort of extra security screening is necessary for the CAF? I mean, is the RCMP/CSIS/GoC not doing background checks and security checks on these PR's when they submit the required paperwork for a renewed PR card?? If not, why does it currently take 80 days for a renewed PR card to be processed??

Glass Half Full: Those PAT Platoons probably needed to be bulked up

 

[Booter]

Spending is a nonstarter to me unless the first plan is to set up a training pipeline that can produce trained people. We need to produce people before new sets of kit- produce people that can do the basics well. Ground pounders, sailors (and things to sail), and “aviators” that are proficient in the basics.

Proper footwear and New cold weather tents- and all the shit that actually lets people be the places that fighting can happen and in a state to fight.

Back to basics. Then with a system that can produce people- say what can 80 thousand Canadians reliably contribute to NATO well? If it’s cyber psychos and drone “pilots” we can start specializing that way. But first comes walking hard, sailing into harms way, and screaming towards the horizon.

 

[KevinB]

@Edward Campbell, just from an HR perspective, we don't have capacity right now to get up to 2% spending consistently.

That's ballpark around $40B/year, and even with the capitol projects I think we're lucky to get up to $25-30B in surges.

It's a fairly arbitrary target, but unless we can actually recruit up to the 70 odd thousand we're supposed to have, and go beyond that (100k?) plus expand our LCMM/procurement side of things it's just not going to happen.

There are a lot of potential obsolescence projects but all those take bodies in projects to do, and they are in short supply.

To get to 2% we would need a plan to expand first, and a credible track record of recruiting/retaining people, which we don't have either of.

Honestly a lot of programs on the Army side could be done with very limited project staff -- IF the CAF was to buy systems that are in use with NATO allies.

 

[YZT580]

In 1939 we started with practically nothing. Within two years we had a solid START on a navy, a major training system capable of turning out hundreds of aircrew per year and the airports to fly them from, we had 5000 soldiers preparing to invade Dieppe and 2000 more in Hong Kong. By wars end we had 1.1 million people in uniform so there is absolutely nothing we can't achieve if we are given the leadership and green light to do it.

 

[Kirkhill]

I agree with most of what you said, but I disagree, quite vehemently, with the last bit. Even though we were (a year ago) projected to be at the bottom of the OECD heap in economic growth terms for the next decade, we can and can in the future sustain 2% of GDP IF there is enough national will.

There is no will, now, and has not been since the late 1960s. Most Canadians, a rock solid majority, I think, want to spend on almost anything except defence (and symphony orchestras and the PM's official residence).

Can that change? Yes, if the current threat (which I believe is real, especially in East Asia) becomes worrisome to enough Canadians. But no-one is sounding the alarm - what has Pierre Poilievre said, publicly, about the need to rebuild Canada's foreign and defence policy establishments? Nothing. Why? Because no-one wants to hear that and he's not in the business of serving Canada; he wants to gain power for his own sake.

FTFY.

I don't know Pierre or Justin's mind. I do know that nothing happens without power.

 

[KevinB]

In 1939 we started with practically nothing. Within two years we had a solid START on a navy, a major training system capable of turning out hundreds of aircrew per year and the airports to fly them from, we had 5000 soldiers preparing to invade Dieppe and 2000 more in Hong Kong. By wars end we had 1.1 million people in uniform so there is absolutely nothing we can't achieve if we are given the leadership and green light to do it.

Everything equipment and troops oriented this day and age takes a lot more efforts and time.

Kirkhill likes to remind us what Rummy mentioned about going to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want.

 

[RangerRay]

In 1939 we started with practically nothing. Within two years we had a solid START on a navy, a major training system capable of turning out hundreds of aircrew per year and the airports to fly them from, we had 5000 soldiers preparing to invade Dieppe and 2000 more in Hong Kong. By wars end we had 1.1 million people in uniform so there is absolutely nothing we can't achieve if we are given the leadership and green light to do it.

But Hong Kong and Dieppe were still disasters in large part due to our unpreparedness in 1939. I would rather we be ready for Day 1 and avoid those types of disasters.