Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Navy_Pete]

I believe that I have heard relatively reliable discussions , the main thrust of which is that DND and the CAF were a main driver in the Harper government losing interest in defence due to the institution’s bureaucratic intransigence and refusal to change. Basically Harper gave up on them.
Interesting if true.

The Harper Government created DPS, which is a huge bureaucratic, multidepartmental hurdle that has pushed out additional requirements that have added literal years to the approval gates.

It's less intransigence then bureaucratic trench warfare, where you advance through the GoC processes 3 feet at a time and occasionally have to fall back.

 

[ytz]

The basic project approval course is free on DLN and takes maybe an hour to really click through. Half the ignorance here on our process could be solved by the one course.

And when you do that course, you'll realize how low DND's threshold for spending without cabinet approval is. They don't even adjust those limits for inflation every year.

These are all political choices. If any government wants to "solve" procurement tomorrow, they can pass the legislation to do so and give DND all the powers it need. Both blue and red teams refuse to do that because want control of those large sums of money for political benefit. Don't blame Generals or bureaucrats. They do what the politicians let them and/or tell them to do.

 

[FJAG]

First, Mr. Poilievre said he does not want to make a promise that he cannot keep. It is both a simple yet sadly necessary statement, given Mr. Trudeau’s propensity for ethereal plans. Federal finances are “a dumpster fire,” he said, adding that he wants to ensure he has “done all the math” before committing to a plan. The math will be complicated by Mr. Poilievre’s pledge to eliminate the federal budget deficit.

This clearly signals, IMHO, that to Poilievre the defence budget is still a discretionary one and not one tied to a clear commitment by this country which needs to be honoured.

 

[dimsum]

This clearly signals, IMHO, that to Poilievre the defence budget is still a discretionary one and not one tied to a clear commitment by this country which needs to be honoured.

Which shows, again, that the CPC isn’t the “party that supports the troops” that they say they are.

And no, the LPC isn’t either. Nor is the NDP, BQ, Rhino party, or anyone else.

 

[Halifax Tar]

The Globe and Mail editorializes about Pierre Poilievre's dilemma:

----------​

Pierre Poilievre needs to do more than play offence on defence policy​

THE EDITORIAL BOARD

Canada has about a half-decade to rebuild its military to face emerging challenges from Russia and China, including advanced intercontinental missiles, the country’s top soldier told reporters last week.

“I say we have about five years to get us close enough to be ready to counter those long-range type of threats,” General Jennie Carignan said as she formally assumedthe role of Chief of the Defence Staff.

Her predecessor, Gen. Wayne Eyre, had a similar analysis, warning that the “peak threat to the world” is likely to emerge by the end of this decade.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has said the Liberals would boost Canada’s spending on defence to 2 per cent of gross domestic product by 2032, with details to come in 2028, to meet the current minimum agreed upon by members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. (Pressure from the United States on NATO allies to spend more is growing, and will grow even more intense if Donald Trump retakes the White House.)

As this space has previously argued, the Liberals’ strategy is mostly vapourware. But filling the defence gap may not be up to the Liberals. If current polling trends hold, the Conservatives will be in office during those critical five years. So what are the Conservatives proposing?

For the moment, the Tories are heavy on a critique of the failures of the Trudeau Liberals but light on details of what they might do differently. And, for the moment, that’s fair – after all, the job of the Official Opposition is to oppose.

But as next year’s election draws closer, the party will need to spell out its defence policy. It’s clear what that policy should be: a concrete commitment to hit the 2-per-cent mark by the end of its scheduled term in office in 2029. Such a plan would need to come with a strategy both on how to spend additional billions of dollars, and how those expenditures would be funded.

In that context, there are mildly – but only mildly – encouraging signs from the opposition benches.

The Conservatives said earlier this month that they would “make real and credible efforts to work towards meeting our NATO spending commitments” after Mr. Trudeau’s announcement of the 2032 goal.

If that statement was meant to be a contrast to the Liberals’ detail-light promise, it failed. Instead, the Conservatives indulged in the same non-committal word salad as their opponents. (Supporters of the Liberals might like to think that Mr. Trudeau’s 2032 pledge is more substantial. It is not.)

A day later, however, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre was more substantive when pressed by reporters on his plan for NATO.

First, Mr. Poilievre said he does not want to make a promise that he cannot keep. It is both a simple yet sadly necessary statement, given Mr. Trudeau’s propensity for ethereal plans. Federal finances are “a dumpster fire,” he said, adding that he wants to ensure he has “done all the math” before committing to a plan. The math will be complicated by Mr. Poilievre’s pledge to eliminate the federal budget deficit.

Underneath the obvious rhetoric, there is a worthwhile point: a future government needs to ensure it has the fiscal capacity to fund the considerable expense of rebuilding Canada’s military. Mr. Poilievre offered up a limited menu of possibilities: cuts to foreign aid, a crackdown on unspecified “corruption,” reducing “backroom bureaucracy” and dealing with procurement issues.

All of that will come nowhere near to funding the $20-billion (and rising) in additional annual defence spending required. There are, however, possibilities that would be in keeping with Conservative priorities: Reducing the swollen civil service could save billions of dollars a year; and eliminating inefficient subsidies to business could save tens of billions of dollars, as this space has previously said.

Mr. Poilievre, however, has flagged that he will act to speed up procurement, by emphasizing speed of acquisition and value for money over domestic sourcing. Too often, the emphasis on domestic suppliers has devolved into little more than regional pork-barrelling.

The Conservatives have an opportunity to outflank the Liberals on defence, and to demonstrate that they take security concerns more seriously than their rivals. But criticism is not enough. To fully exploit that opportunity, Mr. Poilievre will need to spell out his battle plan to Canadians.

----------​

The Good Grey Globe is right:

1. Getting Canada's fiscal house in order is an absolutely essential precondition to making Canada's defences shipshape, again. It will also be a painful one and I suspect that a majority of Canadians are going to howl with rage. If M Poilievre acts on the budget the way I and some other conservatives hope then he may well be a one term PM; and

2. That's because getting both a balanced budget and $20 Billion+ more for the military requires. more than just "cuts to foreign aid, a crackdown on unspecified “corruption,” reducing “backroom bureaucracy” and dealing with procurement issues." It requires serious rethinks to both the income (tax) and expenditure envelopes and everything except the carbon tax - every 'entitlement" in other words - needs to be on the table.

The highlighted bit I have been thinking myself. If PP were to do what needs to be done, he would be a 1 term PM.

Immediate component transfer of the excess ones, as it would be completely unfair to just toss them out - Public Service to Canadian Armed Forces.

No thank you.

Which shows, again, that the CPC isn’t the “party that supports the troops” that they say they are.

And no, the LPC isn’t either. Nor is the NDP, BQ, Rhino party, or anyone else.

That's what you want it mean. Once/if PP forms a Gov you will have your chance to be critical. Until then I just see biased speculation.

 

[dapaterson]

The basic project approval course is free on DLN and takes maybe an hour to really click through. Half the ignorance here on our process could be solved by the one course.

And when you do that course, you'll realize how low DND's threshold for spending without cabinet approval is. They don't even adjust those limits for inflation every year.

These are all political choices. If any government wants to "solve" procurement tomorrow, they can pass the legislation to do so and give DND all the powers it need. Both blue and red teams refuse to do that because want control of those large sums of money for political benefit. Don't blame Generals or bureaucrats. They do what the politicians let them and/or tell them to do.

The generals who can't make decisions, who cause lengthy delays through their own inaction and then complain about those delays are worthy targets for some blame.

 

[Good2Golf]

These are all political choices. If any government wants to "solve" procurement tomorrow, they can pass the legislation to do so and give DND all the powers it need. Both blue and red teams refuse to do that because want control of those large sums of money for political benefit. Don't blame Generals or bureaucrats. They do what the politicians let them and/or tell them to do.

The generals who can't make decisions, who cause lengthy delays through their own inaction and then complain about those delays are worthy targets for some blame.

The irony is that both these statements are absolutely true.

Sometimes they (and the defence/security environment of the day) combine and support progress and sometimes notably less so.


The following (Govt/Leadership[CDs/RCAF]/Def Environment) is not primarily intended as any kind of a Blue/Red comparison because that is but one of the selection of but three factors… @dapaterson by all means call BS on me if I’m taking more liberties than warranted…periods when I was (directly in the procurement chain).

• 2008-2009 Harper + Hillier/Watt(RCAF) + ‘at war’ = notable progress (implemented or approved: C-17, C-130, CH-147F) *special note, Harper misplayed the F-35, he should have approved it prior to 2015, I believe even he will say that now.

• 2015-2017 Trudeau + Vance/Hood(RCAF) + ‘at home’ = procurement purgatory or less than frictionless projects: (FWSAR, TCR, AFEC, etc.)

When defence is important (enough), things move. When it isn’t (most of the time, in Canada), it doesn’t.

 

[Gunplumber]

The military should not get a cent of money till it can clean up the mess that it has become. Get rid of all the bureaucracy and make the CDS a Colonel and down grade or fire anyone under that rank. We need a proper fighting force and actual Brigades (with equipment) so get rid of anyone who gets in the way of that. Or just disband the whole thing and start over.