Government hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Valid concern but the trust has been broken. No matter who is in the Whitehouse we won't fully trust them again for a long time.

You and I know that. I suspect should the Dems regain government the LPC will be swooning and grovelling back tout suite.

Carney has been pretty blunt about that. And it is looking like some action is being done to start aligning to the new reality. Now that the rest of the world is subjected to what we have been for a few months I suspect we’ll start seeing an acceleration of those things.

The Bulwark article I posted in another thread credits Carney with calling the time of death of the old world reality.

He sure has. Deeds not words.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Deeds not words - spot on. Only 'deeds' will get us through this new reality. Its bloody about time that we start punching/pulling our weight again and actually act like we have earned that 'G7' title.

If Carney wins this election he will need to clean out some of the caretaker Cabinet Ministers that he appointed. A clean plate is required, a Cabinet that backs up their words with deeds - no longer a beautifully constructed word salad.

You and I know that. I suspect should the Dems regain government the LPC will be swooning and grovelling back tout suite.



He sure has. Deeds not words.

 

[QV]

Valid concern but the trust has been broken. No matter who is in the Whitehouse we won't fully trust them again for a long time.

Canada really needs to look at this from both sides. This "we won't trust them" nonsense is a very weak and incorrect victim seeking behavior. Not to mention one dimensional thinking.

Has anyone thought for a moment that the US is looking at us with a "we can't trust them" mindset also? Which would be based on our lackluster defence commitments for years and years that everyone here acknowledges to be true. Are we as Canadians really unable to look in the mirror?

Trust is a two-way street. I am loath to accept any victimhood in this situation. Just like any "divorce" there are always frictions from both sides that lead to it.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Canada really needs to look at this from both sides. This "we won't trust them" nonsense is a very weak and incorrect victim seeking behavior. Not to mention one dimensional thinking.

Has anyone thought for a moment that the US is looking at us with a "we can't trust them" mindset also? Which would be based on our lackluster defence commitments for years and years that everyone here acknowledges to be true. Are we as Canadians really unable to look in the mirror?

Trust is a two-way street. I am loath to accept any victimhood in this situation. Just like any "divorce" there are always frictions from both sides that lead to it.

I think you have a point. Canada has a role to play in the breakdown of this 'friendship' we aren't guilt free.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Not sure if this info has been posted here in the past or discussed here -

"France has set itself an “objective of 3%-3.5%, and we are preparing to reach 3%-3.5%, which is about the level of American defense spending,” French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot said. France was estimated to be spending 2.06% last year."

I don't see how we'll be able to still say that our reaching 2% in 4-5yrs will be good enough with any of our major ally's when clearly they are publicly saying that the 'floor' is now 3%. Both the UK and I believe Germany have said 3% is the floor for them. No word out of Italy and I'm NOT surprised by this at all.

Europe and Canada say they'll spend more on defense, but are cool on US demands

 

[Underway]

Canada really needs to look at this from both sides. This "we won't trust them" nonsense is a very weak and incorrect victim seeking behavior. Not to mention one dimensional thinking.

Not trusting someone and victim seeking behaviour are not even remotely close to the same thing. Do not conflate them.

We have been a good trading partner and worked fairly well to resolve disuptes and issues with the US. On trade we were working within the rules negotiated by all parties.

And the US tore it up with little notice for their own internal political reasons and bad economic understanding. That breaks trust.

Does that absolve us of being bad NATO and continental defence partners? Hell no. But a seperate issue all together.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Canada really needs to look at this from both sides. This "we won't trust them" nonsense is a very weak and incorrect victim seeking behavior. Not to mention one dimensional thinking.

Has anyone thought for a moment that the US is looking at us with a "we can't trust them" mindset also? Which would be based on our lackluster defence commitments for years and years that everyone here acknowledges to be true. Are we as Canadians really unable to look in the mirror?

Trust is a two-way street. I am loath to accept any victimhood in this situation. Just like any "divorce" there are always frictions from both sides that lead to it.

Excuse me, but we reserve the right to be sanctimonious bastards, okay? We’ll pay any price to fight the Americans with dental care, pharmacare, day care and Hamas care even if it impoverishes the country.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Wayne Eyre puts rounds on target here, this time outlining the stunning mess we are in and the complete absurdity of slow walking to 2% by 2030. The wars will be over and will not be on the winning side without a very rapid change. He’s also warning Carney to not burn bridges if we want to live.

Opinion: The urgency is upon us: We need to defend Canada

The time is over for generational apathy in assuring our own defence and for leaders who pass the buck. This election, voters need to make clear that a strong, resourced military is a priority

www.theglobeandmail.com

 

[MilEME09]

Wayne Eyre puts rounds on target here, this time outlining the stunning mess we are in and the complete absurdity of slow walking to 2% by 2030. The wars will be over and will not be on the winning side without a very rapid change. He’s also warning Carney to not burn bridges if we want to live.

Opinion: The urgency is upon us: We need to defend Canada

The time is over for generational apathy in assuring our own defence and for leaders who pass the buck. This election, voters need to make clear that a strong, resourced military is a priority

www.theglobeandmail.com

My concern is we end up suffering the same issue denmark had, they had to cut their defense increase because industry told them they couldnèt deliver everything in the timelines the gov wanted. If we dont fix procurement, even if we hit 2%, can industry deliver? example GDOTS knows theres a market for it, so why haven't they invested to expand production of 155mm in canada? why are so many waiting for government hand outs when they know the orders will come.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Does that absolve us of being bad NATO and continental defence partners? Hell no. But a seperate issue all together.

But still an issue. And a valid point of criticism towards Canada.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

My concern is we end up suffering the same issue denmark had, they had to cut their defense increase because industry told them they couldnèt deliver everything in the timelines the gov wanted. If we dont fix procurement, even if we hit 2%, can industry deliver? example GDOTS knows theres a market for it, so why haven't they invested to expand production of 155mm in canada? why are so many waiting for government hand outs when they know the orders will come.

Habitual lack of risk taking

 

[Cloud Cover]

My concern is we end up suffering the same issue denmark had, they had to cut their defense increase because industry told them they couldnèt deliver everything in the timelines the gov wanted. If we dont fix procurement, even if we hit 2%, can industry deliver? example GDOTS knows theres a market for it, so why haven't they invested to expand production of 155mm in canada? why are so many waiting for government hand outs when they know the orders will come.

The answer to your last question is because the current regime (and all the ones before it) relies on words and not deeds. They cannot be trusted to follow through on a defence commitment.

 

[MilEME09]

The answer to your last question is because the current regime (and all the ones before it) relies on words and not deeds. They cannot be trusted to follow through on a defence commitment.

Only a portion of their canadian output goes to Canada, the rest is sold internationally, so once again why not expand when the orders are there

 

[Cloud Cover]

Defence production is not a government hand out project or an industrial object of exploitable economic opportunity in Canada. What they do is tightly controlled and regulated by the government.
Production and sale of munitions like 155mm are solely the in purview of the federal government. It’s not a free market enterprise. Expanding production requires approval and a book full of orders approved by cabinet whether for Canadian or allied use.
But if you are suggesting we should remove the tight restrictions on production and sale, and let the companies sell free market style to allies then I agree. The Trudeau and so far Carney governments apparently do not.

 

[Blackadder1916]

Only a portion of their canadian output goes to Canada, the rest is sold internationally, so once again why not expand when the orders are there

I expect that, like all American subsidiaries who maintain small (miniscule?) Canadian located operations to service that market, their preference (and the preference of the current, and most past, US political administrations) would be to consolidate manufacturing in the USA. The legally separate (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) companies building a single limited (for all intents and purposes) variants of an armoured vehicle or a basic range of bombs and bullets are not in the competition to win international markets. Most of the other players are likely owned by their masters. Expansion (or innovation) requires investment. Why would an American company invest further in a Canadian plant when the wishes and antics of the US government are still in flux? Especially when past practice suggests that their first reaction would be to ask the Canadian government for funding (free and non-refundable) to cover any improvements.

 

[ytz]

I don't think we'll see double digit unemployment. Last time that happened in Canada was 1994. Hight of COVID it briefly went to 9.6%. Even the financial crisis it didn't hit 9% and that was a full meltdown of the economy. However there will be massive supply chain re-adjustments because the US is hitting everyone.

We're almost at 7% nationally. And do you remember how many hundreds of billions it took to keep unemployment under 10% during COVID. And that had a foreseeable end.

Last time America seriously engaged in a trade war with the world was 1930... I think we all know how that went for everybody.

And 1828 before. No coincidence these are all spaced a century apart. I think you need the people who lived through the aftermath to die off before trying it again.

 

[ytz]

If the US loses focus and ceases to hold Canada to account, does the rest of NATO have enough sway or attention span to hold Canada to 2%?

Will Canada care if a few NATO countries like Poland and Finland complain about Canada not meeting 2%?

I am not sure of the answers. It’s likely 50/50 on whether Canada meets 2% or not if the US loses focus. It’s also likely 50/50 on whether Canada keeps striving for 2% if there is any apparent easing of geopolitical pressures.

I think a huge part of this is being able to buy access for industry. And that will motivate parties to hit 2%. This is really the first time there's been so much consensus in Canada on increasing defence spending, in my lifetime.

 

[ytz]

Does that absolve us of being bad NATO and continental defence partners? Hell no. But a seperate issue all together.

If defence spending would have improved the relationship, Trump wouldn't be threatening to annex Greenland and tariffing a whole bunch of allied countries who spend 2% or more.

The excuses some people make are ridiculous. And it's going to cost us credibility with the public, when they can see the obvious and defence advocates can't.

 

[QV]

I think a huge part of this is being able to buy access for industry. And that will motivate parties to hit 2%. This is really the first time there's been so much consensus in Canada on increasing defence spending, in my lifetime.

Let's all give a warm thank you to #47 for that.

Though many won't admit it, if it wasn't for 47 we wouldn't even be talking about defence.

 

[ytz]

Let's all give a warm thank you to #47 for that.

Though many won't admit it, if it wasn't for 47 we wouldn't even be talking about defence.

If all you care about is defence spending. Sure. Most people, especially outside this forum, aren't that one dimensional.

Quite frankly, if I had to choose between the global economy not getting wrecked and Canada getting to 2%, I am choosing the former, because I don't want to see my friends and family unemployed and broke.