Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Scott Moe says moving CBSA to DND would count as defence spending on the NATO 2% formula. Is he correct? Put aside all the reasons why it can’t happen - does the scheme count as recognized defence spending?

 

[QV]

Scott Moe says moving CBSA to DND would count as defence spending on the NATO 2% formula. Is he correct? Put aside all the reasons why it can’t happen - does the scheme count as recognized defence spending?

If CBSA were to be moved under DND, then it would be defence spending.

But moving the pieces already on the board and achieving no improved result will just get us another 15% added to the tariffs.

 

[dapaterson]

Scott Moe says moving CBSA to DND would count as defence spending on the NATO 2% formula. Is he correct? Put aside all the reasons why it can’t happen - does the scheme count as recognized defence spending?

NATO has a definition, moving deck chairs around doesn't magically make some chairs Defence spending.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Looks like the answer is “yes” and it’s quite possible we already are doing so, at least in part…

https://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/259/290/950/305/Fetzner.pdf

 

[daftandbarmy]

Scott Moe says moving CBSA to DND would count as defence spending on the NATO 2% formula. Is he correct? Put aside all the reasons why it can’t happen - does the scheme count as recognized defence spending?

Why would he want to do that to the CBSA folks?

 

[dapaterson]

I mean, people are living longer, so supports to older Canadians keep them available as future military members, so we should just claim OAS as a military expense and Boom! we're at 5%!

 

[CountDC]

The state of everything right now, courtesy of Canadian Army (today on 401 near Guelph)

View attachment 90928

Gun Tape it!!

 

[Navy_Pete]

Looks like the answer is “yes” and it’s quite possible we already are doing so, at least in part…

https://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/259/290/950/305/Fetzner.pdf

NATO has pretty specific criteria, which is why our CCG doesn't count, (but the USCG does as they deploy, and are better armed than some navies). CBSA doesn't have the training and won't be deployed outside our borders in support of the military so they can't be rolled under it.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_49198.htm

A major component of defence expenditure is payments for Armed Forces financed from within the Ministry of Defence budget. Armed Forces include land, maritime and air forces as well as joint formations, such as Administration and Command, Special Operations Forces, Medical Service, Logistic Command, Space Command, Cyber Command. They might also include parts of other forces such as Ministry of Interior troops, national police forces, coast guards etc. In such cases, expenditure is included only in proportion to the forces that are trained in military tactics, are equipped as a military force, can operate under direct military authority in deployed operations, and can, realistically, be deployed outside national territory in support of a military force. Expenditure on other forces financed through the budgets of ministries other than the Ministry of Defence is also included in defence expenditure.

If the tarriffs beat our GDP down though, and defence spending stays at the same dollar value, it will still increase as a proportion of our GDP though, so silver lining?

 

[Cdn_Merchant_Navy Guy]

There's a history of wider global economic pressure forcing Canada to meet spending obligations.
Good history reminder of this past from the Fraser Institute.

Canada could cut deal with U.S.—increase defence spending, remove tariffs

By the time Justin Trudeau came to power, defence spending was at 1 per cent of GDP.

www.fraserinstitute.org

February 03, 2025

Canada could cut deal with U.S.—increase defence spending, remove tariffs​

 

[QV]

If the tarriffs beat our GDP down though, and defence spending stays at the same dollar value, it will still increase as a proportion of our GDP though, so silver lining?

Though that is how Canada and the CAF typically conduct their mental gymnastics the days of getting away with that kind of thought pattern are over.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

While understanding the desire to stay in the realm of the likely ( I assume you mean in terms of funding and political will etc.) some misc. thoughts for consideration.

What is the rationale for keeping the Army’s contribution to continental defence as light infantry centric?

Is a light infantry force more useful to continental defence than a force shaped around A2AD units with long range air defence and long range anti surface capabilities?

What actual continental defence tasks are better served with light infantry vs an MDTF for example?

What is the continental defence plan and how does Canada plan on defending Canadian territory and how does the Cdn Army contribute effectively to that joint force operation? Is light infantry the correct capability to contribute to that joint fight?

Good questions,.

Light infantry, to include the ARes, would be doing all the DOMOPs that we currently get after. The light brigade group and arctic response battalions would continue to execute the operations that they do now in the north. In periods of of heightened tension the light infantry would be securing key installations such as northern FOLs. There is air defence in the light brigade. I don't see it as trying to make an air defence shield across the north. It would be there to help protect specific locations or be able to go with a light infantry battalion sent somewhere in the world. The non-Mech division has continental defence and the rest of the world less Europe.

The Canadian arctic can indeed be described as a archipelago. That does not automatically mean that it is like the "first island chain", and Churchill Island is not Taiwan. Could our light infantry be configured as "Marine Littoral Regiments?" I suppose, but those are meant to fight against a Chinese push on Taiwan from inside the Chinese A2AD. The Canadian arctic is a different matter. Those Canadian light infantry would also have things like NEO and the missions that we do not envision where being generalist light infantry is more useful that an A2AD force.

Could we add ground-launched anti-ship missiles to the light brigade? Or have a battery held somewhere that could fly out to some desolate island and set up? I suppose. Does that achieve something that F35s or RCN assets could not achieve, or do so in a better way? I think that GBAD at least protects against surprise attack on a FOL which is why I would have some dedicated to our forces not committed to Europe.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Though that is how Canada and the CAF typically conduct their mental gymnastics the days of getting away with that kind of thought pattern are over.

Is it? We spend more in total dollar values compared to Norway or the Netherlands by a lot, but with the difference in GDP they are both over 2% and we aren't.

Trump doesn't follow logic anyway, so doesn't really matter what we're actually spending as nothing would have been good enough, and it was just a pretext to bully us and look strong for his voters.

I think it would be good if it actually gives the politicians some backbone and give us some more money, but there is a big deficit we're running at to just do in a sustainable way what we're already supposed to be doing, let alone get shiny new toys.