Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Good2Golf]

If you tank the GDP by taking away any manufacturing and resource sector jobs in the name of climate change, 2% is a lot more achievable.

PuckChaser: +1 social credit score

 

[KevinB]

Interesting that the plan, both in dollars and as a percentage of target, is trending towards 2%, not decreasing.

You said Plan...

 

[MilEME09]

You said Plan...

No plan ever survives first contact with an election cycle

 

[Kirkhill]

He’s angling for more.
He better watch out his hand doesn’t get bitten. As the rest of NATO may decide that a degraded/defunct Russia no longer needs Turkey especially if Ukraine is onboard…

Careful with that path

If you get rid of Turkey and Hungary then you are creating the same dynamic that Brexit did with the EU. If stops the impression of inevitable growth and reveals the organisation to be just an organism like any other.



Next think you know Germany will be following the British lead and making pacts with neutral nations like Switzerland and Austria - presumably Liechtenstein is included in their Air Defence pact as well.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

No plan ever survives first contact with an election cycle

Or as Mike Tyson is reported to have said, "Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face."

 

[Spencer100]

I will come up from the States and bludgeon anyone who suggests another IVECO piece of crap.

Iveco would have a very hard time with the Canadian IRB (or whatever they are called now) Iveco has next to zero North American footprint now after it was demerged from CNH last year. They would have to team up with somebody else and they would be the prime.

Current truck makers in Canada are PACCAR in heavy truck, HINO is cabovers. Other manufacturers with a footprint are Volvo, with Provost they marketing Mack Defence and Arquus product lines. Oshkosh using their London Mixers as their Canadian footprint. (An aside Oshkosh as put their entire defence division under review after loses of the JTLV and others) Of course GD. And GM but just light vehicles at this time.

But here is the crazy world of defence procurement

GM defence has won the first phase of the US Heavy Tactical Truck program. They teamed with American Rheinmetall that is marketing the HX truck from the MAN division of Traton which itself is the truck company of VW.

 

[Rifleman62]

 

[GK .Dundas]

It has been the one true tradition and fact of Canadian political history probably from the French and Indian war in the1750's. It covers the entire political spectrum Left and Right , Centrist.
There has never been I'm willing to argue a Canadian politician who was never less then miserly when it came to Defence spending, even with open warfare staring them in the face.

 

[Navy_Pete]

To be fair, I think adding cyber and information security spending is actually pretty reasonable, especially as that can be virtually deployed to assist other countries with no problem.

But we still have a massive hole, and even that spending plan includes a lot of one-time capital expenses, so is based entirely on timings of deliverables (which is optimistic anyway).

It's great we are reinvesting in the ships, adding F35s etc but a one time blip of .02% of GDP doesn't do anything to make us consistently meet the target.

I think if we were short of the target, but showed up with small teams of well equipped people in modern equipment that is well maintained no one would be complaining, as we'd be providing a lot more real capability than some of the poorer countries that are spending 3-4% of their GDP. The fact that we have generally rusted out major weapon systems, and logistical challenges makes it harder to argue.

I'd be happier if we reduced our scope to focus on doing the basics better with the people we actually have. It's a lot easier to do things like forward deploy a ship for a year if you aren't trying to keep 11 others floating with 6-7 total crews. That would let us do things like have a warship deploy up to actual combatant requirements (vice falling short of commercial ones). Wouldn't really save us money, as the maintenance deficit is massive, but when $300M won't cover a DWP anymore and we have run out of shipyards to do the work, we are just spreading things thin everywhere.

 

[Rifleman62]

Shows it's all about him. Disrespectful/despicable.

CAUGHT ON CAMERA: Why was Trudeau's seat empty at NATO summit?​

The complete video.

 

[Quirky]

Ukraine can take over Canada's seat, they've earned it.

 

[KevinB]

To be fair, I think adding cyber and information security spending is actually pretty reasonable, especially as that can be virtually deployed to assist other countries with no problem.

So some of it can fall under Defense spending - as it relates to DND, NORAD, and NATO, but you can't use monies spent to other departments and try to roll that under D...

But we still have a massive hole, and even that spending plan includes a lot of one-time capital expenses, so is based entirely on timings of deliverables (which is optimistic anyway).

Ph yeah you guys are F'd

It's great we are reinvesting in the ships, adding F35s etc but a one time blip of .02% of GDP doesn't do anything to make us consistently meet the target.

I think if we were short of the target, but showed up with small teams of well equipped people in modern equipment that is well maintained no one would be complaining, as we'd be providing a lot more real capability than some of the poorer countries that are spending 3-4% of their GDP. The fact that we have generally rusted out major weapon systems, and logistical challenges makes it harder to argue.

Yup.

I'd be happier if we reduced our scope to focus on doing the basics better with the people we actually have. It's a lot easier to do things like forward deploy a ship for a year if you aren't trying to keep 11 others floating with 6-7 total crews. That would let us do things like have a warship deploy up to actual combatant requirements (vice falling short of commercial ones). Wouldn't really save us money, as the maintenance deficit is massive, but when $300M won't cover a DWP anymore and we have run out of shipyards to do the work, we are just spreading things thin everywhere.

Quite honestly the CPF, CF-18 and other replacements didn't get finalized till way too late, and as a result the CAF is paying for that in multiple ways.

 

[Navy_Pete]

So some of it can fall under Defense spending - as it relates to DND, NORAD, and NATO, but you can't use monies spent to other departments and try to roll that under D...

I could be wrong, but think we include some other departments (like the Coast Guard), because of how our general org chart breaks down compared to other countries, and other things like the procurement side of things the cost for the other departments is rolled into it as well, as there is a weird billing arrangement to 'cover' the SWE (even though regardless of what lower line items say people will still get paycheques from the GoC).

I think if you looked at some things from a functional viewpoint, we have a few agencies outside DND doing similar things to what the US does under the DoD umbrella.

They are definitely reaching though, and trying to tie the Canadarm to defence spending is a bit of a stretch.

It is pretty embarassing though when the PR lines are you are sailing on a modernized warship with all the bells and whistles, and then you pull into a port and go around seeing if anyone has an electric switch to keep your 30 year old black water collection system running so the toilets work (and then Command staff not letting you buy the part off Amazon for next day delivery). Nothing quite like being in Jacksonville getting port-o-potties on the jetty for the weekend (and then waiting for CTG staff to go ashore before sending someone with some goodies to visit the USN ships to get a part on the down low and modifying it).

 

[KevinB]

I could be wrong, but think we include some other departments (like the Coast Guard), because of how our general org chart breaks down compared to other countries, and other things like the procurement side of things the cost for the other departments is rolled into it as well, as there is a weird billing arrangement to 'cover' the SWE (even though regardless of what lower line items say people will still get paycheques from the GoC).

I think if you looked at some things from a functional viewpoint, we have a few agencies outside DND doing similar things to what the US does under the DoD umbrella.

Ah yeah the USCG that has cutters with the same firepower as a CPF, and more MH assets than the RCN...
The CG here is a hybrid part of DoD, whereas in Canada the CCG is most definitely not.
Not saying that I agree with all the spending breakdowns - and the USCG isn't entirely attributed to our DoD budget in NATO calculation terms either though.
Canada for the most part has been so anti military in the last 60 ish years that the way the GOC operates it is hard to stick a lot under DND simply because the Government recoils at the thought.

I thought CSE and its related did fall under DND Budget as far as NATO goes though.

They are definitely reaching though, and trying to tie the Canadarm to defence spending is a bit of a stretch.

Lots a reaching being done there

It is pretty embarassing though when the PR lines are you are sailing on a modernized warship with all the bells and whistles, and then you pull into a port and go around seeing if anyone has an electric switch to keep your 30 year old black water collection system running so the toilets work (and then Command staff not letting you buy the part off Amazon for next day delivery). Nothing quite like being in Jacksonville getting port-o-potties on the jetty for the weekend (and then waiting for CTG staff to go ashore before sending someone with some goodies to visit the USN ships to get a part on the down low and modifying it).

That is quite frankly very very sad to hear.

 

[Spencer100]

So some of it can fall under Defense spending - as it relates to DND, NORAD, and NATO, but you can't use monies spent to other departments and try to roll that under D...

It's a bit of a shell game every country do include non DND funding in there totals. The US with the Army Corp of Engineers is one example of funding in the Defence budget that in this day in age has very little to do with Defence. The Intercoastal bridges in Florida an important military asset today? Then the US also does not include the Energy Dept's Nuclear weapons spending in their totals for different reasons. ltaly includes the Carabinieri in their totals.

 

[Navy_Pete]

@KevinB on the plus side, both the USN and USCG are great to work with, and provide a huge amount of support when we ask. Usually go over looking for a simple part or help machining/fabricating something, come back with a box of other stuff and/or techs to help fix things, and then host them for beers afterwards to say thanks. It's a bit of a form of lower deck/juniour officer diplomacy I guess but do get the feeling that there is some pity and headshaking involved and 'you guys are nuts, lol' kind of reactions.

 

[Kirkhill]

To be fair, I think adding cyber and information security spending is actually pretty reasonable, especially as that can be virtually deployed to assist other countries with no problem.

But we still have a massive hole, and even that spending plan includes a lot of one-time capital expenses, so is based entirely on timings of deliverables (which is optimistic anyway).

It's great we are reinvesting in the ships, adding F35s etc but a one time blip of .02% of GDP doesn't do anything to make us consistently meet the target.

I think if we were short of the target, but showed up with small teams of well equipped people in modern equipment that is well maintained no one would be complaining, as we'd be providing a lot more real capability than some of the poorer countries that are spending 3-4% of their GDP. The fact that we have generally rusted out major weapon systems, and logistical challenges makes it harder to argue.

I'd be happier if we reduced our scope to focus on doing the basics better with the people we actually have. It's a lot easier to do things like forward deploy a ship for a year if you aren't trying to keep 11 others floating with 6-7 total crews. That would let us do things like have a warship deploy up to actual combatant requirements (vice falling short of commercial ones). Wouldn't really save us money, as the maintenance deficit is massive, but when $300M won't cover a DWP anymore and we have run out of shipyards to do the work, we are just spreading things thin everywhere.

The question about that 2-4% of GDP is how much is spent on the internal economy and how much is spent externally.

Buying 10 BCAD of kit from the States is a lot different than building 10 BCAD of kit at home. 10 BCAD spent at home is workfare.

 

[GR66]

The question about that 2-4% of GDP is how much is spent on the internal economy and how much is spent externally.

Buying 10 BCAD of kit from the States is a lot different than building 10 BCAD of kit at home. 10 BCAD spent at home is workfare.

That's only true if the same product can be produced at equal cost in Canada.

For example if you need 100 x tanks. Let's say buying an Abrams from the US is going to cost you $15 million CAD each or $1.5 billion CAD total.

You could instead have equivalent tanks license built in Canada but the cost will be $20 million CAD each or $2.0 billion CAD total.

In this case $2 billion gets you 100 x Canadian-built tanks and nothing else. OR you can get 100 x US-built tanks for $1.5 billion (giving the Army the exact same utility as 100 x Canadian-built tanks) but you still have $0.5 billion you can spend on other things which may have a much greater positive impact on the Canadian economy. For example you could invest that money in infrastructure that makes all commerce in the country more efficient, or in training which makes our workers more productive, or in R&D which spins off new Canadian industries, etc.

The whole concept of globalization of trade is that buying your products where they are most efficiently (and cost effectively) produced leaves you with more money to spend on other things. Of course in the defence industry there are lots of perversions of free market trade that distort those equations and need to be taken into account, but it's not as simple as saying "buying Canadian is better than buying offshore".

 

[Kirkhill]

That's only true if the same product can be produced at equal cost in Canada.

For example if you need 100 x tanks. Let's say buying an Abrams from the US is going to cost you $15 million CAD each or $1.5 billion CAD total.

You could instead have equivalent tanks license built in Canada but the cost will be $20 million CAD each or $2.0 billion CAD total.

In this case $2 billion gets you 100 x Canadian-built tanks and nothing else. OR you can get 100 x US-built tanks for $1.5 billion (giving the Army the exact same utility as 100 x Canadian-built tanks) but you still have $0.5 billion you can spend on other things which may have a much greater positive impact on the Canadian economy. For example you could invest that money in infrastructure that makes all commerce in the country more efficient, or in training which makes our workers more productive, or in R&D which spins off new Canadian industries, etc.

The whole concept of globalization of trade is that buying your products where they are most efficiently (and cost effectively) produced leaves you with more money to spend on other things. Of course in the defence industry there are lots of perversions of free market trade that distort those equations and need to be taken into account, but it's not as simple as saying "buying Canadian is better than buying offshore".

You are correct wrt goods but services are supplied with human capital and hiring 100 taxpayers to make ammunition for inventory, or another thousand to train to react to emergencies also contributes to the defence effort but the money basically comes from the public service and welfare budgets.

That money can be pumped up with little or no effect on the domestic economy. Using those resources leaves foreign exchange in the kitty to buy equipment overseas or to buy licences that would allow more Canadians to be put to work domestically.

Estonia can spend 4% of GDP on defense and have 90% of the funds spent on the domestic economy with 100% of the benefit being domestic.

The 10% (0.4% of GDP) that they spend externally can all be spent on foreign equipment.

And any equipment that they produce domestically, guns, bullets or batteries, can all be sold internationally to offset the costs of the foreign exchange loss.

People focus on the capital sales but as I learned working for a capital equipment supplier the profits all came from the consumables and after sales parts. Services, such as design and training were also profitable.

If I were in power I wouldnt be building tanks or howitzers in Canada. I would be manufacturing bullets and small calibre missiles and rockets. Radios and Optics. Small arms and UAVs and UUVs.

I would also be building fuel cells and selling fuels, Coal, Diesel, LNG and even Hydrogen from whatever source we can get it economically.

 

[Kirkhill]

Shows it's all about him. Disrespectful/despicable.

CAUGHT ON CAMERA: Why was Trudeau's seat empty at NATO summit?​

The complete video.

Accepting the impoliteness of showing up on his own time (I loved the Norwegian Admiral's stare), I have to say that I couldn't find anything to fault in the words Trudeau spoke.

My problem with him is with him. I never know if the words he speaks are his words, or if he believes his words or if he will honour his words. Or his team will honour the words that he mouths.