I'll believe it when I see it.
Arbitrary or "random criteria" or not, we agreed to a rule of the club. Either pony up or leave.
At least he didn't use the 'punching above or weight' line.
The CPC really can't fix defence or foreign policy because the country is addicted social programs, and taking them away or lessening them will be political suicide, because Canadians are aloof, fat and dumb.
Not just a % of GDP for Budget though. One needs to allocate that money efficiently and effectively.As one of the primary functions of the Federal Government is national security and defence, there should be a law that requires the federal government maintains a set % of GDP for defence funding to maintain it's defence capability.
As one of the primary functions of the Federal Government is national security and defence, there should be a law that requires the federal government maintains a set % of GDP for defence funding to maintain it's defence capability.
I’d argue that Canadians don’t want to know how violent and vicious the world is though.Calling voters "aloof, fat and dumb" is not going to win support for more defence spending. Just saying.
Also, a part of the problem here is that nobody wants to entertain tax increases to pay for all the things we want. So that makes it automatically a zero sum game between social programs and defence spending. That is a contest the CAF will lose every single time. If we want more defence spending, we have to explain the threat and convince voters to pay for it, both through some higher taxes and giving up some other benefits.
Calling voters "aloof, fat and dumb" is not going to win support for more defence spending. Just saying.
Also, a part of the problem here is that nobody wants to entertain tax increases to pay for all the things we want. So that makes it automatically a zero sum game between social programs and defence spending. That is a contest the CAF will lose every single time. If we want more defence spending, we have to explain the threat and convince voters to pay for it, both through some higher taxes and giving up some other benefits.
I’d argue that Canadians don’t want to know how violent and vicious the world is though.
There have been many instances since the fall of the Berlin Wall that has shown the ‘Peace Dividend’ wasn’t and yet Canada has enjoyed simply sticking its head deeper into the sand.
All Political parties, the CAF and the population are to blame for that.
Or we let the threat explain it to Canadians.
Not just a % of GDP for Budget though. One needs to allocate that money efficiently and effectively.
Very much this. Kinda hard to even build public support for more defence spending, when the output right now is underwhelming. In no small part because the institution refuses to make hard choices about priorities.
What were our threats for the Boer War, 1914, and 1939? Arguably there was zero direct threat yet Canada jumped in with both feet while the US demurred or delayed.What's the actual threat to Canadians though?
We have threats to our global interests. Sure. But the direct physical threat to Canadians at home is minimal. Not just because the US is next door. But because of geography. So really, we need to do a better job explaining to Canadians that the world going to pot is going to impact things like economic prosperity at home. But I rarely ever hear any senior leadership make that argument coherently. And I've heard only a literal handful of my CAF colleagues even understand this idea in my whole career. Just a whole lot of us wistful thinking about how we wish we had big American booms.
The institution is not permitted to make some hard choices. Are the Skyhawks, Snowbirds and Ceremonial Guard necessary? Could the CAF turn them off if they wanted to?
(To be fair, in other areas the CAF situates the estimates to avoid such choices).
What were our threats for the Boer War, 1914, and 1939? Arguably there was zero direct threat yet Canada jumped in with both feet while the US demurred or delayed.
The big difference, IMHO, is that governments at the time looked beyond their noses and had a more realistic view of Canada's place in the world and fostered a vast media campaign to get the people on board.
No direct threat?
A lot of people will moan and sob and probably even howl should the US impose trade sanctions upon us, or just start buying elsewhere, and start costing jobs.
The US does not have to buy thousands of LAVs/Strykers from GD in London (or send them back for major upgrades), for one.
% GDP is a measure of relative capacity. Just as many other statistics are normalized against population size, the % GDP allows a comparison of effort across nations of differing capacities. If a nation’s GDP takes a drop one year, then this recognizes the nation has less overall capacity and may not be able to spend what it had spent the year before.One major factor in tying defence spending to a % of the GDP is that the GDP itself is not a fixed quantity but fluctuates over the years.
And when you account for defence inflation (which exceeds consumer inflation), I would not be surprised if many NATO nations could be spending more of of GDP but having less buying power over that same time period. But from a level of effort comparison between member nations, that doesn’t matter.at 2022 we were spending a ton more money on defence then we did at 2001 - $8.38 billion to $26.9 billion - yet the GDP% remained roughly stagnant at 1.13% to $1.24%.
The only reason the LPC is trying to "live up to international commitments" is because they had a proverbial gun put to their heads by our allies. The only defense purchase I will give them full credit for is the new transport aircraft.Partly right. But also, military spending, even by the pro-military spending side, is kinda always pitched as optional. Think about it. We always talk about spending more to get respect in the world. Or gain US influence. Etc. Well, if I am waiting for three hours at Emerg, getting respect in the world isn't going to be my priority. And if you want it to be, you better convince me that is more important than the hours I have to wait to get treated.
The other part, like I pointed out earlier, is that nobody is truly sincere about the commitments they sign. The CPC talks a big game about defence spending. Reality was very different. The LPC under Chretien and Martin talked about cutting emissions. Didn't actually put in any real policy to get there. Ironically, today's LPC (whatever your opinion on their politics) is the first government in living memory to actually try to live up to some of these commitments and look at the shit they are getting for it. It doesn't actually pay (politically) in Canada to meet any international obligation. Your own supporters will not reward you. And the other side will hate you for it. This is the reality of our political culture.
% GDP is a measure of relative capacity. Just as many other statistics are normalized against population size, the % GDP allows a comparison of effort across nations of differing capacities. If a nation’s GDP takes a drop one year, then this recognizes the nation has less overall capacity and may not be able to spend what it had spent the year before.
And when you account for defence inflation (which exceeds consumer inflation), I would not be surprised if many NATO nations could be spending more of of GDP but having less buying power over that same time period. But from a level of effort comparison between member nations, that doesn’t matter.
What's the actual threat to Canadians though?
I give them credit for MQ-9B and P-8. Those programs were languishing until Anand’s term as MND.The only reason the LPC is trying to "live up to international commitments" is because they had a proverbial gun put to their heads by our allies. The only defense purchase I will give them full credit for is the new transport aircraft.
I agree, but how does a govt pitch that to a populace that doesn’t see it? Worse, even if they do pitch it, they would be called hawks or “following US imperialism”?War is coming.
It might not mean amphibious landings by Chinese Marines on to the Vic Island shore line.
But it will probably mean large scale cyber, economic warfare; and infrastructure attacks. I would argue the socio economic war is already afoot. This is the direct impact to Canadians.
Canada will again have to pick where it stands in the world.