Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Maxman1]

Reminder that the LPC once ran this ad. Maybe they dust it off for the next election.

 

[OldSolduer]

Reminder that the LPC once ran this ad. Maybe they dust it off for the next election.

I was one of those soldiers in the street. 38 CBG ex we conducted in Winnipeg including an airmobile with actual helicopters.
We actually had protestors picket our location, and by gosh they didn't stay long.

 

[Booter]

The 2% includes ALOT of things. It’s even scarier when you think how many different government lines are under it and it’s still not anywhere near 2%

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

 

[RangerRay]

Reminder that the LPC once ran this ad. Maybe they dust it off for the next election.

The way things are going, I wouldn’t put it past them!

 

[ytz]

Maybe the CAF just needs to hit absolute rock bottom before it can be rebuilt. Won’t be in my lifetime.

We're pretty close. Equipment wise, we might actually be worse off than the 90s when a lot of 80s sustained them. We now have ships, fighters and helicopters from the 80s and 90s held together by sweat and duct tape. Personnel wise, have we ever had a gap from mandated strength this large?

He did not say he couldn't reach 2. He said he wouldn't promise to reach that goal because he refused to make promises that he couldn't keep.

This is a distinction without difference. Other countries in particular will not care. They also have voters that they have to listen to. They also have obligations for their welfare state and supports they need to give to businesses. Canada giving out large tax cuts to try steal business from them while underspending on defence is not going to go down well.

The 2% includes ALOT of things. It’s even scarier when you think how many different government lines are under it and it’s still not anywhere near 2%

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

Exactly. Any sincere effort to meet 2% wouldn't just mean a better CAF. It would also mean better civil defence, a better equipped and trained Coast Guard, more R&D, better military housing, even better equipped RCMP forces.

 

[IKnowNothing]

That's puzzling. The country is ready for a bit of tough talk on defence. The CPC has 2% as one of its policy objectives. It's time to signal to other countries that he's a dependable leader and will meet Canada's international obligations.

I know that he's trying to run on the mess that Trudeau has made but Canadians get nervous when a Conservative government tells them that they're going to have to "fix" things. That tells the voting public that services are going down and taxes up. You don't want to say that out loud.

Devils advocate/ benefit of the doubt to Pierre: Maybe he plans to walk the tight tight path of:

• Prioritizing fiscal prudence
• Reframing the defense discussion to be output driven rather than spending
• Aggressively reforming DND to deliver better output per dollar

If F35 and CSC were on their original timelines and the Army was in a position to put a properly equipped, wholly Canadian Bde / Bde(-) in Latvia would the heat be turned up as high right now?

 

[The Bread Guy]

... that sounds awfully like “Canada will find a way to worm out of 2%, regardless of leader” ...

Yup - and pro-Blue-ites are already blaming what-could-soon-be previous Team Read management for it, so the "it's not reeeeeeeeeeeeeeally the incoming government's fault" narrative is being seeded and watered.

Do they have to commit? The writ isn't dropped and they're the opposition ...

Always easier to play opposition, and there are some tiles being revealed on the Blue mosaic that'll be the platform, but that can't last forever.

... Trudeau doesn't even have a plan for 2%, just a promise shamed out of him ...

... versus - right now - another party with no plan for 2%, just a partisan blast as opposition for the ruling party with exactly the same "plan". That's the real irony being pointed out here by some.

One commentator I read this week raised a good point I'm surprised nobody's picked as a political talking point (yet) - also archived here ....

Matt Gurney: The good, and bad, news about Canadian defence spending

America put men on the moon less than seven years after JFK made his famous pledge. We need one year more than that to spend an extra $18 billion on defence.

www.readtheline.ca

If Team Blue wants to poke Red on its defence record (having no "Team Blue to 2%" plan notwithstanding), wonder how an ad pointing to a beat up old shack just being patched up costing a whole ton of money, versus keeping a regular house in good shape AND adding to it? Or is that too complicated for a commercial/narrative?

 

[Fabius]

If F35 and CSC were on their original timelines and the Army was in a position to put a properly equipped, wholly Canadian Bde / Bde(-) in Latvia would the heat be turned up as high right now?

I suspect it would be. The 2% measure is relatively simple to measure despite it being in the PMs words “a crass mathematical measure”. Measurements of capability etc. would be even more difficult to determine in terms of quality specifically.

The argument that well we commit more forces more often even though we only spend 1.4% also I think misses the point. The point being more capacity overall. Saying well we committed more to Latvia than country x despite only spending half of what they did in GDP% ignores the fact that with 2% we could have committed a better equipped larger force which would have enhanced deterrence sooner and better.

Saying we committed more with our 1.4% and we spend more actual dollars than county x , in my mind is basically telling NATO that despite our relatively large economy we don’t see any need to commit more actual forces in terms of size and strength than we are. We don’t want to be a major force insider NATO. We are happy being what we are.

 

[ytz]

Reframing the defense discussion to be output driven rather than spending

Why would allies care about that? When 2% is the standard, nobody else is going to care about "output". Especially when that output doesn't substantially benefit them.

Imagine for a second, what you'd be saying if you heard of others ignoring the spending target and talking about "output".

Aggressively reforming DND to deliver better output per dollar

The fundamental problem with this, is that it massively contradicts their own political interests. There's a reason the shipbuilding contracts went to Irving and Seaspan and Davie. There's a reason GDLS got contracts in London. Are they willing to let the CAF buy equipment overseas without any consideration of industrial benefits?

 

[MilEME09]

Why would allies care about that? When 2% is the standard, nobody else is going to care about "output". Especially when that output doesn't substantially benefit them.

Imagine for a second, what you'd be saying if you heard of others ignoring the spending target and talking about "output".



The fundamental problem with this, is that it massively contradicts their own political interests. There's a reason the shipbuilding contracts went to Irving and Seaspan and Davie. There's a reason GDLS got contracts in London. Are they willing to let the CAF buy equipment overseas without any consideration of industrial benefits?

We need to be rational, we already admitted we will never build submarines. The pistol contract had to be redone because no company would give IP to colt to manufacture the pistol. Made in Canada at any cost is a terrible waste of tax payers dollars. Frankly our industry should also compete against international bidders for contracts. Our ship yards are full for the next 20 years so if we want anything else it needs to be off shore, we can't produce artillery barrels for example but not ones going to build a factory un canada to produce a small production run and close it. That's just bad business

 

[dapaterson]

Is there a role in defence procurement in supporting a Canadian defence industrial base?

If yes, then how much of a premium are we willing to pay to do so?

If no, then how much of a premium are we willing to pay to prioritize our acquisitions from other nations?

 

[dimsum]

Is there a role in defence procurement in supporting a Canadian defence industrial base?

If yes, then how much of a premium are we willing to pay to do so?

If no, then how much of a premium are we willing to pay to prioritize our acquisitions from other nations?

Bingo.

I think Poilievre’s statement of “best value” for procurement will be tested once CPC voters realize that Canadian jobs will likely be lost bc Hanwha, etc can produce cheaper than Irving.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Is there a role in defence procurement in supporting a Canadian defence industrial base?

If yes, then how much of a premium are we willing to pay to do so?

If no, then how much of a premium are we willing to pay to prioritize our acquisitions from other nations?

Outsourcing vaccine production to China enters the chat....

How a failed deal with China to produce a made-in-Canada COVID-19 vaccine wasted months and millions​

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/cansino-deal-canada-nrc-fifth-estate-1.6208241

 

[Maxman1]

Bingo.

I think Poilievre’s statement of “best value” for procurement will be tested once CPC voters realize that Canadian jobs will likely be lost bc Hanwha, etc can produce cheaper than Irving.

We don't have a submarine building industry, so there are no jobs to lose.

This is just like with the SNC-Lavalin scandal, where SNC would be banned from bidding on future government projects, so any contracts would go to a different Canadian company, despite the repeated claims of "Canadian jobs at risk."

 

[dimsum]

We don't have a submarine building industry, so there are no jobs to lose.

This is just like with the SNC-Lavalin scandal, where SNC would be banned from bidding on future government projects, so any contracts would go to a different Canadian company, despite the repeated claims of "Canadian jobs at risk."

I was thinking of the surface fleet, but for an even better example, the Bombardier’s standard argument of “Canadian jobs!” Would effectively be moot under that thinking.

While I dislike Bombardier with the depth of my soul, I also admit that outsourcing everything in the defence industry is a good thing.

 

[ytz]

Bingo.

I think Poilievre’s statement of “best value” for procurement will be tested once CPC voters realize that Canadian jobs will likely be lost bc Hanwha, etc can produce cheaper than Irving.

It can be a question of cost effectiveness in other ways too. A Saab/Bombardier GlobalEye is likely to be cheaper to buy, cheaper to operate and circulate more money into the economy than Boeing/Northrop E-7. Do we refuse to help our industry and take on higher costs because of 20% more capability? Is that actually good value for money? It's not just aircraft. For example, why buy JLTVs when Roshel Senators offer 80% of capability for 80% of the cost with way more of the money recirculated in Canada?

Ironically, if we actually spent more overall, industry would be getting much more by default and they'd be a tad less hostile to contracts that went overseas. But when there isn't enough food on the table, they are going to be mad when the neighbours are allowed to serve themselves first and they will fight for every scrap.

High defence spending is only tolerable if it recirculates money into the economy. Doesn't work when most of it goes abroad.

 

[dimsum]

It can be a question of cost effectiveness in other ways too. A Saab/Bombardier GlobalEye is likely to be cheaper to buy, cheaper to operate and circulate more money into the economy than Boeing/Northrop E-7. Do we refuse to help our industry and take on higher costs because of 20% more capability? Is that actually good value for money? It's not just aircraft. For example, why buy JLTVs when Roshel Senators offer 80% of capability for 80% of the cost with way more of the money recirculated in Canada?

Ironically, if we actually spent more overall, industry would be getting much more by default and they'd be a tad less hostile to contracts that went overseas. But when there isn't enough food on the table, they are going to be mad when the neighbours are allowed to serve themselves first and they will fight for every scrap.

If it was something designed to work independently, I agree with you.

But the whole “orphan fleet” thing rears its ugly head.

 

[PuckChaser]

For example, why buy JLTVs when Roshel Senators offer 80% of capability for 80% of the cost with way more of the money recirculated in Canada?

If by 80% of the capability you mean they both have engines and wheels, you're correct. I personally would like to see us get the vehicle we need, not what Canadian industry wants us to have. Once they figure that out, Canadian industry will start offering what we want to own because there's now a predictable cycle of replacement and funding making investment here actually viable.

 

[MilEME09]

It can be a question of cost effectiveness in other ways too. A Saab/Bombardier GlobalEye is likely to be cheaper to buy, cheaper to operate and circulate more money into the economy than Boeing/Northrop E-7. Do we refuse to help our industry and take on higher costs because of 20% more capability? Is that actually good value for money? It's not just aircraft. For example, why buy JLTVs when Roshel Senators offer 80% of capability for 80% of the cost with way more of the money recirculated in Canada?

Ironically, if we actually spent more overall, industry would be getting much more by default and they'd be a tad less hostile to contracts that went overseas. But when there isn't enough food on the table, they are going to be mad when the neighbours are allowed to serve themselves first and they will fight for every scrap.

High defence spending is only tolerable if it recirculates money into the economy. Doesn't work when most of it goes abroad.

Even before that we are billions in the hole for infrastructure. Want canadian jobs start building homes, hangers, new armouries and training facilities, expand munitions storage, expand munitions production facilities etc we can spend a lot at home creating canadian jobs without even buying any kit.

 

[ytz]

If it was something designed to work independently, I agree with you.

But the whole “orphan fleet” thing rears its ugly head.

Is it an orphan fleet if you convert your VVIP fleet and possibly even your ISR fleet (MAISR) to the same platform over time?

If by 80% of the capability you mean they both have engines and wheels, you're correct. I personally would like to see us get the vehicle we need, not what Canadian industry wants us to have. Once they figure that out, Canadian industry will start offering what we want to own because there's now a predictable cycle of replacement and funding making investment here actually viable.

Yeah. But reality doesn't work like this. Reality is that the government sees what billions of dollars leaving Canada will do to the national balance sheet for no (or even negative) political gain and then decides to spend nothing. Would you rather have a Senator or no vehicle at all, holding out for the chance at a JLTV a decade into the future?

It's no accident that the only big defence items the Harper government approved were those that maximized domestic spending. The few purchases beyond that were all wartime exigencies. With no war underway, we're not even going to get those now.