Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Kirkhill]

This is, in my opinion, a very astute political position. Mr Poilievre knows that the majority of Canadians are, at best, indifferent to NATO's/the US' demand that we spend 2% of GDP on defence. Equally many, likely most Canadians also know that the country's fiancees are not in good shape and they expect some fiscal "pain" when, not if the CPC takes power. What a solid majority of Canadians will not accept is cuts to their "entitlements" in order too buy "toys for the boys."

Nik Nanos in today's Globe and Mail

Opinion: Data Dive with Nik Nanos: Canadians want a foreign-policy pivot

Canadians believe we need to focus on friends and allies so as to build greater economic and security resilience

www.theglobeandmail.com

The reality is that all governments need political licence to move policy solutions forward. Back in 2015, with the election of a new Liberal government in times when the economy was stable and Canadians were more hopeful for the future, adding a progressive lens to our trade and foreign relationships made more sense.


In 2024, sentiment suggests that Canadians would welcome a pivot in our foreign-policy strategy: first, to focus on key allies such as the U.S., Britain and Europe; second, to renew our defence capability to build credibility within NATO; and finally, to focus on security and trade.

When it comes to security issues between Canada and Europe, 83 per cent want strong co-operation. This parallels a survey for Bloomberg News Canada that suggests that, despite Canadians being worried about inflation, the economy and the rising cost of housing, about six in 10 people support strategies (ranging from cutting spending on social programs to raising taxes) to ensure Canada meets the terms of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) agreement that allies spend 2 per cent of GDP on defence. (Twenty-six per cent do not want defence spending to increase, while 13 per cent of respondents were unsure.)

The imminent threat of warfare is becoming more real.
The secondary threat of being economically disadvantaged is also becoming more real.

It is good to have friends.
It is worth throwing a couple of pennies into the kitty.

 

[ytz]

Even before that we are billions in the hole for infrastructure. Want canadian jobs start building homes, hangers, new armouries and training facilities, expand munitions storage, expand munitions production facilities etc we can spend a lot at home creating canadian jobs without even buying any kit.

It's the obvious place to start for any increase in defence spending. Especially if there's a slowdown in the economy.

 

[Kirkhill]

If by 80% of the capability you mean they both have engines and wheels, you're correct. I personally would like to see us get the vehicle we need, not what Canadian industry wants us to have. Once they figure that out, Canadian industry will start offering what we want to own because there's now a predictable cycle of replacement and funding making investment here actually viable.

Roshel started with an order of 200 vehicles. They are now over 1000 vehicles. Number 1000 does not look the same as Number 1. Roshel has modified the design to suit the needs of the client over time. Did Oshkosk or GDLS do that?

 

[MilEME09]

Roshel started with an order of 200 vehicles. They are now over 1000 vehicles. Number 1000 does not look the same as Number 1. Roshel has modified the design to suit the needs of the client over time. Did Oshkosk or GDLS do that?

They also went from no name to one of the top 100 defense companies in Canada, and are now bidding to replace the G-wagon. A major win for a Canadian company

 

[ytz]

They also went from no name to one of the top 100 defense companies in Canada, and are now bidding to replace the G-wagon. A major win for a Canadian company

And ironically, none of that success is attributable to the CAF itself. Where would they be if it wasn't for the war in Ukraine and other OEMs having full order books? A proper defence industrial strategy would actually deliver more of this with win-win for CAF and industry and not just desperately buying small amounts of kit overseas when our inventory is absolutely rusting out. It's a lot easier for politicians to be more generous with a company that is inside Canada, employing Canadians and sits in/near swing ridings.

 

[dimsum]

Is it an orphan fleet if you convert your VVIP fleet and possibly even your ISR fleet (MAISR) to the same platform over time?

I mean orphan as in “only Canada has it”. We are not big enough that even if all of our Multi-Engine fleet happens to be the same, we won’t have the economy of scale to compete.

interoperability with allies also extends to spare parts, etc. With the P-3 and P-8, we could ask our allies who also operate them to borrow a tire or whatever if we needed one. Not so much if we’re the only country operating a piece of equipment.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Why would allies care about that? When 2% is the standard, nobody else is going to care about "output". Especially when that output doesn't substantially benefit them.

They should certainly care more about committed capabilities than the the expenditures referred to in the below

It's the obvious place to start for any increase in defence spending. Especially if there's a slowdown in the economy.

Imagine for a second, what you'd be saying if you heard of others ignoring the spending target and talking about "output".

Depends on what the output it is. Shoe on the other foot- imagine for a second, what you'd be saying if you heard of others hitting the 2% target while not meaningfully contributing to the alliance? Finding the money aside, it would not be hard to get to 2% without meaningfully or proportionally increasing our contribution (or ability to contribute to) the defense of continental Europe. No doubt that our allies would be talking about "output."

The fundamental problem with this, is that it massively contradicts their own political interests. There's a reason the shipbuilding contracts went to Irving and Seaspan and Davie. There's a reason GDLS got contracts in London. Are they willing to let the CAF buy equipment overseas without any consideration of industrial benefits?

Doesn't have to- there's more to getting more output for our input than cheaper capital procurement- much of it discussed at length on this board- improving fleet/lifecycle management, reserve reform, reversing administrative bloat, process improvement etc.

 

[ytz]

I mean orphan as in “only Canada has it”.

interoperability with allies also extends to spare parts, etc. With the P-3 and P-8, we could ask our allies who also operate them to borrow a tire or whatever if we needed one. Not so much if we’re the only country operating a piece of equipment.

In that case, well there's at least one other NATO member that will be operating the same aircraft. But if we're being honest, commonality with allies hasn't been a substantial driver all the time. Especially in the RCAF. We have a lot of Canadian only fleets.

Aside from the AEW discussion, I want to go back to overarching point though. We won't be able to get more defence spending unless it's built at home. So are you willing to die on the hill of commonality to the point of risking not having something? Because that's the real life alternative COA.

Depends on what the output it is.

In our case the output sucks. We show up to lead a battle group without all kinds of enablers. No air defence. No long range fires. No attack helicopters. No MALE UCAVs. No substantial EW. Etc. Or we offer up an air group of just six fighters. Sometimes without a tanker. And no AEW&C.

Shoe on the other foot- imagine for a second, what you'd be saying if you heard of others hitting the 2% target while not meaningfully contributing to the alliance?

It's practically impossible for a European country to be at 2% and not actually contributing substantially to collective deterrence and defence in Europe. Maybe if they flat out deny NATO principles? But even Orban doesn't do that. Can you give an example of a country that spends 2% and does "not meaningfully contribute to the alliance"? What exactly does this mean in practice for you? I'm trying to understand how you actually envision this happening?

Finding the money aside, it would not be hard to get to 2% without meaningfully or proportionally increasing our contribution (or ability to contribute to) the defense of continental Europe. No doubt that our allies would be talking about "output."

This is the point of the 2%. It gives the capacity to contribute. We're now spending well over 1%. And a lot of that is literally to stop things from falling apart. Our "output" is actually rather poor. At some point investment is needed. If you can't afford a new car, sure you'll spend a ton to keep the clunker running. Doesn't make you a reliable employee, if you need that car for your job.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I am not worried about commonality if we happen to get Globaleye.

There are hundreds of the basic airframe in service as business jets, around the world. Parts for that should not be an issue. With both Sweden and France as NATO users, we would not be alone in the user pool, which is key.

 

[IKnowNothing]

In our case the output sucks. We show up to lead a battle group without all kinds of enablers. No air defence. No long range fires. No attack helicopters. No MALE UCAVs. No substantial EW. Etc. Or we offer up an air group of just six fighters. Sometimes without a tanker. And no AEW&C.

Current output, not the output I proposed that would have us getting less heat from allies, a level which should be attainable at current funding levels

This is the point of the 2%. It gives the capacity to contribute. We're now spending well over 1%. And a lot of that is literally to stop things from falling apart. Our "output" is actually rather poor. At some point investment is needed. If you can't afford a new car, sure you'll spend a ton to keep the clunker running. Doesn't make you a reliable employee, if you need that car for your job.

The basic premise is that the MND and the CAF are not providing good value in outputs relative to the funding inputs. That we're spending what we're spending and getting the bold is a travesty.

PP has a play to take some heat off by rectifying that while buying time to get the financial house in order.

It's practically impossible for a European country to be at 2% and not actually contributing substantially to collective deterrence and defence in Europe. Maybe if they flat out deny NATO principles? But even Orban doesn't do that. Can you give an example of a country that spends 2% and does "not meaningfully contribute to the alliance"? What exactly does this mean in practice for you? I'm trying to understand how you actually envision this happening?

The hypothetical version of Canada that gets to 2% by investing in domestic infrastructure and other non "output" based line items in the formula, and/or non Euro-centric defense outputs (domestic/ Pacific), with continued undue waste and bloat.

 

[brihard]

Russia has broken every agreement so far, from Budapest, to Minsk 2 and the Green corridors during the early months of the war. If you believe Russia wants to negotiate in good faith, I have a house in the Yukon to sell you.

Well, I was just looking for a house in the Yukon. Want to trade it for my steel bridge in Montreal slated for demolition?

I actually owned and sold a house in the Yukon some years back… I can say it was a much more credible and good faith process than anything that would happen at any negotiating table with Trump and/or Putin seated there.

 

[KevinB]

Current output, not the output I proposed that would have us getting less heat from allies, a level which should be attainable at current funding levels.

NATO has a lot more metrics than solely the 2% of GDP and 20% of that on new capital equipment. There are 15 some odd other benchmarks that are internal to the alliance (not public), I’ve seen public references to 11 of those, but some other documentation internal to NATO mention 15.

The basic premise is that the MND and the CAF are not providing good value in outputs relative to the funding inputs. That we're spending what we're spending and getting the bold is a travesty.

Look at the budget you’ve lost ~60% of it on salaries, very few other nations are anywhere close to that.

PP has a play to take some heat off by rectifying that while buying time to get the financial house in order.

I don’t think he actually does, but it does sound nice doesn’t it.

You can bitch and moan all you want about bureaucracy and ineptitude etc of it, but at the end of the day the biggest noose on the CAF/DND budget is salaries.

The hypothetical version of Canada that gets to 2% by investing in domestic infrastructure and other non "output" based line items in the formula, and/or non Euro-centric defense outputs (domestic/ Pacific), with continued undue waste and bloat.

2% isn’t the only public metric. You still are woefully bad at buying new stuff - and a lot of your budget is eaten by attempting to keep old shit running past its best before date.

Waste and Bloat - a lot of CAF waste is due to lack of staff positions, and equally lack of maintenance positions. The fact that there aren’t enough program personnel to run the required number of programs for new equipment is a big issue. Also the CA is ‘bayonet’ centric and doesn’t have enough support positions to do much more than a BattleGroup roto. I’m not sure how the Navy and RCAF are setup on the maintenance and logistics support side, but I tend to doubt it is much better than the CA.

Part of the issue is that the GoC can’t properly define exactly what it wants the CAF to be, and hasn’t resourced it to be successful (working the budget versus the salary bite out of it).

 

[suffolkowner]

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR4189z1.html

recent RAND report on burden sharing in NATO

 

[Underway]

I'm just going to poke at some arguments/facts here.

Equally many, likely most Canadians also know that the country's fiancees are not in good shape

The reason a lot of NATO counties are so irritated with Canada is because are finances are actually in amazing shape compared to most of them. Even better then US fiances in most cases (particularly government debt load by GDP). I've done some reading on Canada from outside sources (UK, US, German etc...) and they all point to our economy, all of government debt load and other indicators as being extremely healthy. So to them we can easily afford to spend more. The countries overall finances (including provincial) are fine from outside unbiased perspectives, despite some dumb expendatures. It's not even close to 1991.

So some Canadians think the finances are not in good shape but really, objectively they are fine. The trend line is not the best though.

Except that another one of Poilievre’s attacks is that the deficit has ballooned under the LPC. The CPC governing documents say that they plan on bringing the deficit to zero, and deficit is something more Canadians care about than defence.

So whatever savings they get from cuts will go towards reducing the budget, not raising Defence to 2%.

Harper said the exact same thing and... spent like crazy. There will be some big ticket cutbacks but I suspect that the Carbon tax removal will poke a massive hole in the budget unless they are smart and increase the sales tax.

increasingly trade is being tied to allyship

YES! Finally someone said it. If we don't try to approach 2% how do we think the renewal negotiation with USMCA in a few years is going to look like? If the US starts tieing economic to security policy we are going to get put over a barrel. And a Trump government are going to say it out loud.

Reminder that the LPC once ran this ad.

They never actually ran the add. It was one of the various scare adds comissioned by them but didn't make the cut to TV as it didn't sell well to the Canadian public (huge surprise). It was leaked to the press though as the Paul Martin Gov't imploded and people started settling scores. And being it was the begining of You tube, well that became pretty damaging.

 

[PuckChaser]

Yeah. But reality doesn't work like this. Reality is that the government sees what billions of dollars leaving Canada will do to the national balance sheet for no (or even negative) political gain and then decides to spend nothing. Would you rather have a Senator or no vehicle at all, holding out for the chance at a JLTV a decade into the future?

We need to fix pork barreling before getting to 2% GDP. Throwing up our hands and just taking what Canadian industry wants to give us would have resulted in Super Hornets vs F35s, some Bombardier paper napkin MPA, etc. Once Cabadian industry figures it out, the investment will roll in after the first "Peerless Garments or GDLS is not a qualified bidder".

I'd personally rather we have no vehicle than a Senator purchased to do the task of a JLTV. That way, someone won't die because they have inadequate kit doing a job it shouldn't or is incapable of doing.

 

[Underway]

We need to fix pork barreling before getting to 2% GDP.

We need to do more pork barreling not less. The term pork barrel politics usually refers to spending intended to benefit a constituents of a politician in return for their political support, either in the form of campaign contributions or votes.

Pork barreling and "good kit" are not mutually exclusive. I want the military industrial complex to work for us and force us into a situation where we constantly have to buy more kit or lose jobs (thus retain capability). NSS is one example. GDLS London is another. CAE is also a great example.

I'd personally rather we have no vehicle than a Senator purchased to do the task of a JLTV. That way, someone won't die because they have inadequate kit doing a job it shouldn't or is incapable of doing.

What's the task of a JLTV?
And then we'll see if a Senator variant can do that task when they do the road/field trials. I'm pretty sure they can build one that will, they are constantly evolving the design using input from Ukrainian feedback. Roschal is a hungry company with a very entrepenurial spirit. We should be encouraging them, not tearing them down. They are a great Canadian success story.

More likely the military will use the JLTV for a task that it wasn't designed for and someone will die, not the other way around.

 

[PuckChaser]

We need to do more pork barreling not less. The term pork barrel politics usually refers to spending intended to benefit a constituents of a politician in return for their political support, either in the form of campaign contributions or votes.

Pork barreling and "good kit" are not mutually exclusive. I want the military industrial complex to work for us and force us into a situation where we constantly have to buy more kit or lose jobs (thus retain capability). NSS is one example. GDLS London is another. CAE is also a great example.

We cannot and should not be hamstrung by "what Canada has to offer". What we should be doing is actively encouraging investment/partnerships in Canadian companies. NSS/GDLS/CAE are great examples. It's very different from looking at the mandatory requirements of a purchase, seeing that a Canadian option is only 80% as good and discarding the better examples. When the Irvings, SNC Lavalins and Bombardiers see that we'll go off shore if their product sucks, they'll adapt as any smart company would.

What's the task of a JLTV?
And then we'll see if a Senator variant can do that task when they do the road/field trials. I'm pretty sure they can build one that will, they are constantly evolving the design using input from Ukrainian feedback. Roschal is a hungry company with a very entrepenurial spirit. We should be encouraging them, not tearing them down. They are a great Canadian success story.

More likely the military will use the JLTV for a task that it wasn't designed for and someone will die, not the other way around.

JLTV is a built for purpose combat vehicle, designed in GWOT era but able to handle high intensity combat tasks. Roshel Senator is a Ford F550 with an armor kit. It's apples to oranges. It's also not used by any credible military force besides the Ukrainians, and they only have them because it was a donation. The Senator is a rear-area taxi cab or for federal police tasks and with a military as small as ours, relatively useless. I don't want to get further into the rabbit hole but the JLTV vs Senator is a bad comparison of Canadian industry offering an alternative to something readily available on the MOTS marketplace. Our best procurements are always items that met the mandatory requirements, made by existing companies with no Canadianizing to the design.

 

[Brad Sallows]

The reason a lot of NATO counties are so irritated with Canada is because are finances are actually in amazing shape compared to most of them.

Being relatively better isn't proof of being OK.

Even better then US fiances in most cases (particularly government debt load by GDP).

Not a high bar to clear. The US is in an exceptionally alarming situation.

So some Canadians think the finances are not in good shape but really, objectively they are fine.

The "objectively" is people who think a certain amount of debt to GDP is fine. Theirs is an unproven hypothesis.

We'd be better off with $50B to spend on programs than spending it on debt. That's "objective".

 

[Cloud Cover]

Good domestic politics. But the world is clearly changing. And increasingly trade is being tied to allyship. If people actually understood why quantum computing is significant they'd be way more bummed out about Canada left out of AUKUS. Getting locked out of deals like that will have economic consequences. Not just less TD for defence scientists. Now imagine what happens if the US takes that to another level on all of their friendshoring policies.

And quantum computing resistant data communications products as well, some of which is developed right in Waterloo.

 

[PuckChaser]

And quantum computing resistant data communications products as well, some of which is developed right in Waterloo.

There is no solely Canadian provider of NSA certified Type 1 radio equipment. The big players have subsidiary offices here, but any "Canadian built" radio would doom us to the absolute shit show the CNR(P) and CNR(E) was/still is. It's over $20M USD to get NSA certified for Type 1 (which requires the chips to be quantum resistant) and no Canadian company is going to do that without a buyer. I'm certain the Waterloo folks are happy to sell their wares to major US/UK players in L3Harris, Thales and Rockwell Collins so lets leave it at that.