Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[FSTO]

I don’t know. From the highlighted bit I think he’s saying “it is what it is” in more words.

So it’s more like “I’d want to, but currently don’t have the means to.”

Other commonwealth countries are able to do it. There is no reason but apathy not to try harder.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Other commonwealth countries are able to do it. There is no reason but apathy not to try harder.

Agreed.

Defence of our nation and national interests is not something that our politic parties should be that far apart on ideologically.

The fact that all of them share this current ideology evenly is dishearting:

 

[YZT580]

I don’t know. From the highlighted bit I think he’s saying “it is what it is” in more words.

So it’s more like “I’d want to, but currently don’t have the means to.”

have they even tried? His words imply that he didn't even attempt it

 

[Fabius]

I’m not convinced our system can actually support a bipartisan consensus.
The main mechanism to support that; the parliament and its committees are not influential in any meaningful way nor are they actually given bipartisan information by the defence officials whether uniformed or not.
There are a few examples of this;

Support ships; officials have testified that the two on order is sufficient when the Navy’s own documents state 4 is the minimum.

Fighters; the RCAF stated that the current and future fighter fleet of 65 was GTG, then the Cabinet announced there was a fighter gap and we needed 88.

It’s obvious that the Cabinet and the MND have more influence over what the Defence officials; uniformed and civilian; articulate to Parliament than strategic, operational and tactical assessments as professionals.

A feature of the Canadian system is that the balancing of those professional assessments and political priorities is done behind closed doors, and once cabinet decisions are made the professionals don’t publicly discuss the ramifications good or bad with parliament in a transparent bipartisan manner.

Without the parliamentary committee having more influence and more fulsome bipartisan discussion with the professionals, bipartisan consensus would only be the federal cabinet telling the parliament both government and opposition MPs what they had decided and the MPs agreeing without skepticism or questioning.

 

[dimsum]

have they even tried? His words imply that he didn't even attempt it

I’m just going off @FSTO ’s earlier post, but it said that he tried and failed, then clarified with the highlighted part I commented on.

So…yes?

 

[MilEME09]

prefab homes seem to be pretty expensive these days though. Maybe not more expensive for the government?

Quick Google search has the price about 270k per unit before installation. With an installation coat between $50 to $100 per square ft to install. At that price, a half a billion dollars would potentially get us a lot of units.

 

[PuckChaser]

Quick Google search has the price about 270k per unit before installation. With an installation coat between $50 to $100 per square ft to install. At that price, a half a billion dollars would potentially get us a lot of units.

Not after DCC and CFHA get their cut.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Not after DCC and CFHA get their cut.

DCC takes 10% project value as their fee, IIRC.

 

[McG]

Neither European country is an approach to the US. If the US determined that American boots needed to be on Canadian soil to counter an imminent and significant threat, they are more likely to tell us what they are doing than to ask our permission.

That being said, it is difficult to imagine what hypothetical threat might actually trigger such a behaviour so long as we remain a contributing, cooperative partner in NORAD.

The calculus changes under a Trump admin, as Edward mentions above. The MAGA camp has already pontificated about using military force against Canada and about “liberating” Canada. It would possible to see a Trump administration conflating failure to meet the NATO 2% GDP commitment with a failure to meet continental defence obligations (it would not be unreasonable for any administration to connect these two things despite there being technically separate). It would not subsequently be completely improbable to see a Trump administration leap to the conclusion that America must occupy the delinquent Canada to secure itself.

Well that happened quicker than I expected.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Deep inside every Canuck there is an American trying to get out.

 

[Grimey]

Deep inside every Canuck there is an American trying to get out.

It’s all about the duality of man, man.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Deep inside every Canuck there is an American trying to get out.

Ahhh, the classics!

Meanwhile, they're trying, I guess ....

Minister Duclos says it should be 'relatively easy' to sell Trump on icebreaker pact

OTTAWA - Public Services and Procurement Minister Jean-Yves Duclos insists it will be "relatively easy" to convince incoming U.S. president Donald Trump not to scuttle an icebreaker production pact with

www.thecanadianpressnews.ca

 

[McG]

Canada’s new top soldier says ‘absolutely possible’ to accelerate defence spending timeline
Canada’s new top soldier says ‘absolutely possible’ to accelerate defence spending timeline

 

[Good2Golf]

So not yesterday’s number by 2032 any more?

What percentage now and by when?

 

[OldSolduer]

So not yesterday’s number by 2032 any more?

What percentage now and by when?

What is the base percentage? is it 2% of GDP?

How many billions is that?

 

[suffolkowner]

I’m not convinced our system can actually support a bipartisan consensus.
The main mechanism to support that; the parliament and its committees are not influential in any meaningful way nor are they actually given bipartisan information by the defence officials whether uniformed or not.
There are a few examples of this;

Support ships; officials have testified that the two on order is sufficient when the Navy’s own documents state 4 is the minimum.

Fighters; the RCAF stated that the current and future fighter fleet of 65 was GTG, then the Cabinet announced there was a fighter gap and we needed 88.

It’s obvious that the Cabinet and the MND have more influence over what the Defence officials; uniformed and civilian; articulate to Parliament than strategic, operational and tactical assessments as professionals.

A feature of the Canadian system is that the balancing of those professional assessments and political priorities is done behind closed doors, and once cabinet decisions are made the professionals don’t publicly discuss the ramifications good or bad with parliament in a transparent bipartisan manner.

Without the parliamentary committee having more influence and more fulsome bipartisan discussion with the professionals, bipartisan consensus would only be the federal cabinet telling the parliament both government and opposition MPs what they had decided and the MPs agreeing without skepticism or questioning.

you think that 65 fighters is a real number? or even 88? Seems pretty low. 65 is the lowest the US would let us get away with not exactly an overwhelming endorsement

 

[KevinB]

you think that 65 fighters is a real number? or even 88? Seems pretty low. 65 is the lowest the US would let us get away with not exactly an overwhelming endorsement

Why do you the number went up. 65 isn’t the number we’d accept…

Canada’s new top soldier says ‘absolutely possible’ to accelerate defence spending timeline
Canada’s new top soldier says ‘absolutely possible’ to accelerate defence spending timeline

She did a shit interview. Lots of talking with no real info.

 

[Kirkhill]

In a recent podcast the Toronto Star’s Althia Raj had wide ranging interviews within the Canadian defence community that ended with a more in depth discussion with Bill Blair. At the 49 minute mark she asked him about getting an all party consensus on military procurements so that the programs would survive a change in government. His answer was that he tried and kinda failed. Althia then pressed him and he then said, “I don’t believe it is possible to compel any future government to any course of action or any particular budgetary expenditure. I think that is the nature of our democracies. We are all a little bit imprisoned by the electoral cycles.”

So you tried, but you don’t believe you should. At least that is my take. Bill Blair has done a pretty good job at defence (I had low expectations) but that comment was a fail for me.

Just got round to reading this posting.

The key word here is "compel". In Westminster tradition Parliament is sovereign. Every Parliament is sovereign. No Parliament can bind over another Parliament. Every Parliament has the right to rewrite the rule book. And that is particularly true when it comes to Standing Armies.

However.

Given that there is a large degree of continuity in parliaments, members sitting in multiple parliaments, it is possible to do with persuasion what compulsion can't do.

That is the nature of the UK House of Commons Defence Committee. It is an all party committee appointed by the House of Commons at large.

It can find itself at odds with the Government.

https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/24/defence-committee/membership/

....

Example - Global Combat Aircraft Programme - UK/Italy/Japan putting an aircraft in the air by 2035 from a standing start in 2018.
Started under the Conservatives. Defence Committee, now dominated by Labour and Liberal Democrats, recommended continuing the programme.

...

If Poilievre is as good as I hope he is I hope he empowers the Canadian version of the Defence Committee in like manner to Westminster.

 

[markppcli]

Likely there are a to many unnecessary requirements, all added by good idea fairies and no one is taking a hard look with the authority to cut things out. Maybe it's time for a Army NEP style program as well?

Requirements like being able to speak and official language and walk? Frankly the requirements aren’t the issue. We should expect a large number of people to not make it through because the online application process allows anyone to apply without much thought. It should be considered normal for some one to have second thoughts after applying.

 

[Maxman1]

Canada’s new top soldier says ‘absolutely possible’ to accelerate defence spending timeline
Canada’s new top soldier says ‘absolutely possible’ to accelerate defence spending timeline

Of course it's possible, there's only one factor: