Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[ytz]

Absolutely. And also taxed at rates that would make Canadians riot.

And nobody in Scandinavia is arguing that social programs and services should be cut to fund defence. They have among the most generous welfare states in the world.

Low taxes, welfare state, good defence. Pick two. We choose the two former. The Scandinavians choose the two latter.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

And nobody in Scandinavia is arguing that social programs and services should be cut to fund defence. They have among the most generous welfare states in the world.

Low taxes, welfare state, good defence. Pick two. We choose the two former. The Scandinavians choose the two latter.

I would also add that the Scandinavians see a lot more value for money having higher taxes/welfare state than we do in North America.

Canada has tried to do low taxes/welfare state/poor defence for the last 60 years and its gone absolutely swimmingly...

 

[ytz]

I'm not saying that there shouldn't be investment. I'm just saying it's not really a Fed issue. The Feds, however, wish to be involved because of the great ecology hysteria and the fact that it sees them as being seen to be involved. Theoretically they should have been encouraging the provinces to do this.

No. It's the cabinet's consensus on what they imagine the people want in order to become reelected. The Feds have no problem ignoring concensus when it suits them to.

Do the Feds need "leverage?" Or is that just a way of imposing their will. There used to be a time when that leverage was used sparingly. Now there has been so much crossing into provincial matters that it has become a routine thing. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Fundamentally, you seem to have a problem with democracy. Federal politicians are doing what they are elected to do. You or I may not agree with it. But they got a democratic mandate to make those spending decisions. What's that Churchill said about democracy?

Do you really think that the taxpayer and voter get to decide how their money is spent? We've long ago lost the plot on true representative government. Spending is now controlled by isolated individuals reacting to polls, special interest group advocates and the best interest of their political party. Within that is a tiny residual consideration of what their voting faction wants and how one may influence the uncommitted. Herds do not decide on anything. They contently chew their cud and expect that the grass will keep growing, regardless.

You can say that. But at the end of the day, the general trend of priorities is going to be determined by the voting public. Not "special interests" (of which those of us here are one). You will not suddenly see massive cuts in healthcare spending because some special interest group demands it.

 

[ytz]

I would also add that the Scandinavians see a lot more value for money having higher taxes/welfare state than we do in North America.

Part of this is practice. We have degraded state capacity so much that government just can't do things anymore. So any new initiative inevitably ends up failing or coming in at an exorbitant cost, etc. But so much of that is just a learning curve. Transit construction is a good example of this. It's half the cost in a lot of Europe despite higher wages. Why? Continuously building has taught them various soft skills and management practices that keep costs low. We only build transit every two decades and then spend half a billion per kilometre of subway.

 

[Loachman]

Not getting favourable terms, is not the same as getting trade sanctions imposed. The US isn't going to suddenly start treating Canada like Iran just because we aren't spending 2% on defence. And hyperbole from pro-military advocates is going to cost us credibility. Yes, the US and the EU are increasingly tying trade to security interests. This needs to be explained to Canadians. But the hyperbole isn't helping. Nor does it help if the examples of threatened exports are some tiny portion of our trade with the US. I don't even think a majority of voters in London itself care about Stryker exports to the US.

There have been trade disputes over several things, despite NAFTA/USMCA, already, over a long period - softwood lumber, seemingly constant and possibly still ongoing, for one. Steel is another point of contention, as we import from China and the previous and next administration did not/will not like that. "Buy American" policy is another available instrument. Dairy disputes also come to mind.

There was a huge outcry in London when EMD (Electro-Motive Diesel) was shutdown and moved to Mexico by its new owner following a strike over wages - it wanted to cut them dramatically, and the union, naturally, would not accept that. General Dynamics, much to everybody's relief, expanded into that half of what was, originally, the General Motors Diesel Division plant before GMD's armoured vehicle and locomotive subdivisions were split and sold off. There are a lot of very-well-paid and highly-skilled jobs there, plus tons of local support jobs, and the income from large US, Saudi, and other contracts brings a lot of money into the area.

 

[KevinB]

Note we have moved Stryker production domestically now.

 

[YZT580]

Trade sanctions are subject to dispute whereas unfavourable terms are simply contract items. Sorry ytz but the results are the same: shuttered assembly lines. I would argue that it is not the Canadian people that are the driving force behind our reticence to invest but rather the Laurentian elites (whoever they may be) that pull the strings. A few weeks of favourable publicity by parliament, some well written TV specials featuring things like Francis Pegahmagabow or 436 squadron coupled with some honest reporting about the threats to our economy and security by both China and Russian and the opinions will change.

 

[Loachman]

Fundamentally, you seem to have a problem with democracy. Federal politicians are doing what they are elected to do. You or I may not agree with it. But they got a democratic mandate to make those spending decisions. What's that Churchill said about democracy?

We do NOT live in a "democracy". We live in a Constitutional Monarchy.

Each level of government has its distinct powers, responsibilities, and limitations.

The federal government should NOT be overstepping its powers, responsibilities, and limitations by interfering with provincial/territorial powers and responsibilities through bribery or coercion. We would be better off if each managed its own affairs and not others'.

Health is NOT a federal responsibility. National Defence most definitely IS.

 

[Loachman]

Note we have moved Stryker production domestically now.

Well, that's sad.

We have less leverage already.

See, ytz?

 

[dimsum]

We do NOT live in a "democracy". We live in a Constitutional Monarchy.

Each level of government has its distinct powers, responsibilities, and limitations.

The federal government should NOT be overstepping its powers, responsibilities, and limitations by interfering with provincial/territorial powers and responsibilities through bribery or coercion. We would be better off if each managed its own affairs and not others'.

Health is NOT a federal responsibility. National Defence most definitely IS.

It’d be nice if someone told the CPC that earlier this year.

 

[CountDC]

Government cost-cutting blows $150M hole in army's equipment maintenance budget​

The Liberal government's recent internal budget cutting exercise at the Department of National Defence (DND) has deprived the army's system for maintaining equipment and vehicles of up to $150 million, CBC News has learned.

And when the preservation of older systems — the kind that might have to be pressed into service during an emergency — is factored in, the funding gap grows to $260 million, the army acknowledged in a written statement.

The latest federal budget, tabled last spring in the House of Commons, tasked DND with cutting internal spending by $810 million in the current fiscal year, and by $908 million per year in 2026–27 and beyond.

Government cost-cutting blows $150M hole in army's equipment maintenance budget

The Liberal government's recent internal budget cutting exercise at the Department of National Defence (DND) has deprived the army's system for maintaining equipment and vehicles of up to $150 million, CBC News has learned.And when the preservation of older systems — the kind that might have to...

ca.news.yahoo.com

So where is that increase he hinted at?

 

[dimsum]

So where is that increase he hinted at?

RCAF and RCN:

 

[rmc_wannabe]

RCAF and RCN:

And thus Mr Heyller's bizarro experiment rears it's ugly head.

The fact all L1s need to go to IRMC and beg like chumps on Dragon's Den means very real Operational needs in one L1 are sacrificed in favour of another's.

 

[dimsum]

And thus Mr Heyller's bizarro experiment rears it's ugly head.

The fact all L1s need to go to IRMC and beg like chumps on Dragon's Den means very real Operational needs in one L1 are sacrificed in favour of another's.

I’m obviously not sure how it worked out before unification, but getting rid of IRMC just pushes the problem right, no?

Each L1 staffs up their needs to…somewhere and they get approved. But at some point, some organization (TB or other) will have to say “we have the $ for this, but not that”. With IRMC, which is presumably DND-internal, the rack-and-stack is at a lower level than having to get to the point of TB, just to essentially be racked-and-stacked at the Govt level.

I could be totally wrong though.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

I’m obviously not sure how it worked out before unification, but getting rid of IRMC just pushes the problem right, no?

Each L1 staffs up their needs to…somewhere and they get approved. But at some point, some organization (TB or other) will have to say “we have the $ for this, but not that”. With IRMC, which is presumably DND-internal, the rack-and-stack is at a lower level than having to get to the point of TB, just to essentially be racked-and-stacked at the Govt level.

I could be totally wrong though.

You're about right. The issue is that the message gets watered down at each layer of bureaucracy, much like H&A. Especially when all paths converge at the same location.

 

[dimsum]

You're about right. The issue is that the message gets watered down at each layer of bureaucracy, much like H&A. Especially when all paths converge at the same location.

I would argue that the US military is bad for this.

Because they don’t have anything like that and Services have full reign, they buy whatever is good for themselves. That’s fine, until they have to work with other US services. Then they complain why the USAF X doesn’t work with the USMC Y, for example.

This touches on US services wanting to retain as much as they can for themselves - e.g. every single service save the USCG has a Space component to it. And each service, minus the USSF, has an aviation component to it, with all of them having fixed and rotary wing assets. The USAF has Black Hawk and Huey sqns (I just learned this recently) to help guard the missile fields in the Midwest, and for transport in the DC region…which are somehow different than the multitude of US Army Black Hawk sqns scattered around the world.

Let that sink in for a bit - the USMC, part of the Department of the Navy, has a space component.

Edited to add: The Space thing blows my mind. There are the 5 separate Space components (one for each service), the US Space Force, and then US Space Command, which are all different things.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I would argue that the US military is bad for this.

Because they don’t have anything like that and Services have full reign, they buy whatever is good for themselves. That’s fine, until they have to work with other US services. Then they complain why the USAF X doesn’t work with the USMC Y, for example.

This touches on US services wanting to retain as much as they can for themselves - e.g. every single service save the USCG has a Space component to it. And each service, minus the USSF, has an aviation component to it, with all of them having fixed and rotary wing assets. The USAF has Black Hawk and Huey sqns (I just learned this recently) to help guard the missile fields in the Midwest, and for transport in the DC region…which are somehow different than the multitude of US Army Black Hawk sqns scattered around the world.

Let that sink in for a bit - the USMC, part of the Department of the Navy, has a space component.

Edited to add: The Space thing blows my mind. There are the 5 separate Space components (one for each service), the US Space Force, and then US Space Command, which are all different things.

I just mapped that out for you

 

[KevinB]

I would argue that the US military is bad for this.

Because they don’t have anything like that and Services have full reign, they buy whatever is good for themselves. That’s fine, until they have to work with other US services. Then they complain why the USAF X doesn’t work with the USMC Y, for example.

I mean are you surprised?

This touches on US services wanting to retain as much as they can for themselves - e.g. every single service save the USCG has a Space component to it. And each service, minus the USSF, has an aviation component to it, with all of them having fixed and rotary wing assets.

Congress is forcing the services to transfer the Space positions to Space Force.

The USAF has Black Hawk and Huey sqns (I just learned this recently) to help guard the missile fields in the Midwest, and for transport in the DC region…which are somehow different than the multitude of US Army Black Hawk sqns scattered around the world.

The USAF has Rescue Squadrons to do CSAR, which admittedly the RCAF doesn’t

The UH-1N’s in the USAF are getting retired as for some godawful idea someone came up with a plan to acquire a shittier bird for that role. Which the MH-139 A Grey Wolf is just an Americanized version of the Augusta-Westland AW-139 (sorry now Leonardo), where Leonardo makes it here, and then Boeing militarizes (word used very very loosely) it. Originally pitched as a cheaper option to fielding more Blackhawks - costs ballooned and while the blade/hr costs are lower it’s just adding another fleet for zero reason.

Let that sink in for a bit - the USMC, part of the Department of the Navy, has a space component.

Edited to add: The Space thing blows my mind. There are the 5 separate Space components (one for each service), the US Space Force, and then US Space Command, which are all different things.

Most of the services have MOU’s to align equipment and such.


But yeah there is a lot of waste.

 

[OldSolduer]

Well Sigourney Weaver was ahead of her time wasn't she?

 

[McG]

And thus Mr Heyller's bizarro experiment rears it's ugly head.

The fact all L1s need to go to IRMC and beg like chumps on Dragon's Den means very real Operational needs in one L1 are sacrificed in favour of another's.

You understand that the department and budget were unified before Hellyer came along, right?

And if you think separating things will magically eliminate financial trade-offs or reduce bureaucracy, you are imagining a fantasy.