I'll believe it when I see it.
Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending
- Thread starter Maxman1
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 21,840
- Points
- 1,360
I bet you it’s a pre-agreed Good Cop - Bad Cop script…
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 31,881
- Points
- 1,160
Go Canada!
Nothing says 'we care about Russia destroying Ukraine' than a social media fundraiser.
Can a virtual bottle drive be far behind? I mean, tapping into skills honed over decades of fundraising for minor hockey, and a photgenic Prime Minister who likes to hang around with actors, shouldn't go to waste....
Canada and the European Commission will spearhead an international fundraising campaign to help people fleeing the war in Ukraine.
The fundraising effort, called "Stand Up For Ukraine," will engage politicians, artists and businesses, among others, and is to culminate with an April 9 pledging event to be hosted by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.
They are partnering with the international advocacy organization Global Citizen to raise funds for the humanitarian crisis spawned by the worst fighting in Europe since the Second World War.
A statement from Trudeau's office says Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is inviting musicians, actors, athletes, business leaders, politicians and anybody else so inclined to take part in a large-scale social media rally.
Nothing says 'we care about Russia destroying Ukraine' than a social media fundraiser.
Can a virtual bottle drive be far behind? I mean, tapping into skills honed over decades of fundraising for minor hockey, and a photgenic Prime Minister who likes to hang around with actors, shouldn't go to waste....
Canada, Europe to co-host social media fundraiser for displaced Ukrainians
Canada and the European Commission will spearhead an international fundraising campaign to help people fleeing the war in Ukraine.
The fundraising effort, called "Stand Up For Ukraine," will engage politicians, artists and businesses, among others, and is to culminate with an April 9 pledging event to be hosted by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.
They are partnering with the international advocacy organization Global Citizen to raise funds for the humanitarian crisis spawned by the worst fighting in Europe since the Second World War.
A statement from Trudeau's office says Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is inviting musicians, actors, athletes, business leaders, politicians and anybody else so inclined to take part in a large-scale social media rally.
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,229
- Points
- 1,010
I think the starting point for any decision on defence spending has to begin (and end?) with the informal bargain that was struck with the US at the start of WW2: (I am paraphrasing) By the US: We will not tolerate any invasion of the Canadian territory; By Canada: we will do all that is in our capacity so that Canadian terrritory will never be used to attack the US.
Basically, Canada needs to defend and secure its air and sea approaches to fulfill its end of the bargain.
To me, this means that we have to put defence money immediately here (and almost in that order):
(1) fighter replacement - NOW!
(2) North warning system upgrade - with extensions to both other coasts;
(3) Ballistic missile defence;
(4) Nuclear attack submarines (entering the USAUS deal);
(5) Aircraft carriers (one per coast - West first, then East) Queen Elizabeth class;
(6) build the escorts required for the Carrier Battle Group.
Most this should be done in a hurry and nearly simultaneously.
Then, and only then, if there is room left in the 2%, a sea deployable capability to move Army equipemnt, strategic capability to move troops in large number and high end deployable equipement for the Army so we can quickly deploy battle groups in support of friendly countries up to and inclusive of a full brigade on short notice, ramping up to a full division in six months.
This also means: (1) a rapid increase of full time personnel, probably to around 110k tarined pers; (2) a lowering of ops tempo and operations in the short term to provide for, (3) increased training capability to train up the various trades.
Sorry Army, but you come last in the shoping list.
P.S. With a quick calculation, all of this is feasible on 2% GDP.
Basically, Canada needs to defend and secure its air and sea approaches to fulfill its end of the bargain.
To me, this means that we have to put defence money immediately here (and almost in that order):
(1) fighter replacement - NOW!
(2) North warning system upgrade - with extensions to both other coasts;
(3) Ballistic missile defence;
(4) Nuclear attack submarines (entering the USAUS deal);
(5) Aircraft carriers (one per coast - West first, then East) Queen Elizabeth class;
(6) build the escorts required for the Carrier Battle Group.
Most this should be done in a hurry and nearly simultaneously.
Then, and only then, if there is room left in the 2%, a sea deployable capability to move Army equipemnt, strategic capability to move troops in large number and high end deployable equipement for the Army so we can quickly deploy battle groups in support of friendly countries up to and inclusive of a full brigade on short notice, ramping up to a full division in six months.
This also means: (1) a rapid increase of full time personnel, probably to around 110k tarined pers; (2) a lowering of ops tempo and operations in the short term to provide for, (3) increased training capability to train up the various trades.
Sorry Army, but you come last in the shoping list.
P.S. With a quick calculation, all of this is feasible on 2% GDP.
- Reaction score
- 9,770
- Points
- 1,360
I do like how when SSE was first being produced, the big complaint was that the Canada First Defence Strategy that SSE replaced was criticized for being essentially a "shopping list" rather than a strategy.
SSE was then published and was the exact same shopping list, only this time, it had flashy numbers included and it was "costed" LOL.
Quirky
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,604
- Points
- 1,260
I think the first step is reducing the wait time for recruitment, waiting a year or more is not sustainable. Needs to be cut to 30-60 days max. We are severely short staffed in all areas so all that new equipment will just sit collecting dust.
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 11,159
- Points
- 1,260
The title of the article and the actual written article don't really match up. And I agree your summation.
Where have I heard that before ?
Remember this is Army.ca
TacticalTea
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,485
- Points
- 1,160
Yep, this.
Also I don't agree with the notion that our only focus should be self-defense. We get basically no return out of it because, let's face it, no country other than the US would be capable of carrying out a north to south invasion of Canada.
The western approaches are protected geographically by the Alaskan peninsula, the Rockies, and thousands of miles between the coast and Ottawa, and militarily by the Puget Sound naval facilities.
The first three big ticket items are 1. Fix recruitment, as you said. 2. Fix whatever's broken (many, many buildings notably). 3. Fix procurement. Pork barreling is a fool's errand. The government would get more bang for its buck with efficient military spending and separate, but also more efficient economic development. That's not to say we can't consolidate defence production, such as for munitions and ships (NSS), but it needs to happen only where it makes sense.
Now, with that said, my procurement priorities would be pretty similar, given a few changes here and there. I think it's pretty clear to everyone what we're in need of, so as always, devil's in the details.
- Reaction score
- 7,024
- Points
- 1,310
Agreed. We need to find the log jams and clear them. Starting with the "Write a CFAT and see if you're qualified" approach to recruiting. Unless absolutely required for technical trades, wave it. DEO and ROTP already have metrics to show capability. It just becomes another hurdle for no reason.
Last edited:
We should be looking at divesting ourselves of as many buildings as possible. We shouldn’t be in the real estate business. Maintain what’s essential, sell off the rest, lease as required.
- Reaction score
- 27,179
- Points
- 1,090
CFAT is a valid, proven predictor of success. The timeline and process to get to the point of writing the CFAT is the issue, not the test itself.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,757
- Points
- 1,160
The Feds divested many of their buildings here in Vancouver and then got hosed by the Real Estate companies that are twice as smart and cunning as PWGS, the Fed stopped divesting as the cost of maintaining the buildings was cheaper than getting nickled and dimed to death by the companies.
- Reaction score
- 7,024
- Points
- 1,310
Having worked in a technical trade most of my career, especially in a school environment, CFAT scores aren't a solid indicator of success. I still see folks come in at PRB for trg failures and it has little to do with aptitude, mainly performance deficiencies or improper instruction.
Notice I said remove it in cases where it has no relevance: DEOs and ROTP already need to show educational achievement...why make them write another test to prove competency? I also don't see a reason someone coming in for an entry level, non-technical job should have one more hurdle in the way. Have those trades decide if that person is a good fit through assessing performance at the DP1 level. We cull the pool of applicants before they even finish the recruiting process.
Finally, aptitude testing has been treated as quackery in most academic settings for at least 20 years. For us to use it as a metric for assessing employment suitability is a bit ridiculous.
MilEME09
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,788
- Points
- 1,210
Chris Selley: If Ukraine can overhaul its military in eight years, what's stopping Canada?
With Russia on the warpath, neither Canada's 'punching above our weight' myth nor the 'nation of peacekeepers' myth holds water
nationalpost.com
- Reaction score
- 27,179
- Points
- 1,090
Survivorship bias on your part; you only see individuals after selection; you don't see the population that's selected out. That is in fact the point of selection - to increase potential for success by not offering marginal performers employment. Letting in anyone and their dog is neither effective nor efficient use of limited resources.
And there's ample evidence that a degree, in and of itself, is not strongly correlated with some necessary abilities.
ArmyRick
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,329
- Points
- 1,010
Strongly disagree.
carriers are a very expensive nice to have means of force projection which we don't need. As for the rest of your list, I would replace carriers with additional frigates and more aircraft. The ones we have now and are projected to buy won't last long and getting replacements will be impossible in wartime. Also, additional ice breakers so we are able to sail into our own waters in winter
Haggis
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,138
- Points
- 1,140
Self-defence is our reason for being now. We are "conveners".
It's not all on the CAF. Often, the delays in recruitment are the fault of the applicant not being responsive to recruiters, not providing information in a timely fashion or providing incomplete information. We're still far faster than many OGDs, like mine, which has a 2+ year long recruiting program.
The catchphrase is "regional economic benefits".
MilEME09
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,788
- Points
- 1,210
I think most of us hate this, if Canadian companies cannot deliver a quality product, at a competitive price, we should not force our selves to buy Canadian. It should be up to industry to win the contract through innovation, and good economics, not through simply bring Canadian.
Last edited:
GR66
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 4,121
- Points
- 1,160
I get where you're coming from and in broad a broad sense agree with you, but where I disagree is with your apparent narrow focus on of defence of North America to the (more or less) complete exclusion of expeditionary land capability.
What good does it do us if we draw back into a North American island and let the broader "West" fend for themselves? If we are to truly prosper as a nation we need to engage with the rest of the world in not only the exchange of goods, but the exchange of people and ideas. We are lessened as a society if we become insular and strictly inward looking and let out overseas friends and allies be threatened by forces opposed to our basic principles. And sometimes that means we will need to stand side by side (literally) with our allies on the battlefield and pay the price in blood to defend our collective interests.
I am in total agreement with you that as essentially an island nation the bulk of our defense dollars and effort should be in the air and sea realms but I do think that an expeditionary land force is a vital political element of our defence strategy. What form that takes an whether our current Army is fit for task is another story all together.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,690
- Points
- 1,040
Is that because they've disproven the method, or they just don't like the results?
Similar threads
- Article
