Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

The Army does, in fact, secure coasts; just 3000 miles away from it.

Our involvement with our international partners in providing "boots on the ground" demonstrates our commitment to those alliances.

Our willingness to help our international partners meet the threat offshore is, essentially, protecting the coasts from further out. Not every threat is close to water, and not every mission set calls for air or naval assets. In almost all of them, it calls for some form of land based element to contribute.

Frankly, we need all of it: Air power, naval power, and expeditionary land based forces. We have neglected them all because of a lack of political will to do anything.

 

[FJAG]

The Army does, in fact, secure coasts; just 3000 miles away from it.

Our involvement with our international partners in providing "boots on the ground" demonstrates our commitment to those alliances.

Our willingness to help our international partners meet the threat offshore is, essentially, protecting the coasts from further out. Not every threat is close to water, and not every mission set calls for air or naval assets. In almost all of them, it calls for some form of land based element to contribute.

Frankly, we need all of it: Air power, naval power, and expeditionary land based forces. We have neglected them all because of a lack of political will to do anything.

100%.

Folks that do not see the value of an army that combines with our allies who are located closer to the threat, do not understand, or fail to give weight, to the basic principles of deterrence (to make an adversary believe that an act of aggression will likely lead to failure) and the basic concepts of mutual defence (I'll help you keep the wolf from your doors in return for which you help me keep the wolf from mine).

Pure continental defence provided by sea and air forces is an isolationist concept and, in the long run, will be exponentially more expensive as one will have no allies to rely on and share the cost of that defence.

An army, per se, is not a defence cost without a benefit to Canada's national security; its the way Canada's army is structured that results in a force that is not optimal for the costs expended on it.

 

[Kirkhill]

100%.

Folks that do not see the value of an army that combines with our allies who are located closer to the threat, do not understand, or fail to give weight, to the basic principles of deterrence (to make an adversary believe that an act of aggression will likely lead to failure) and the basic concepts of mutual defence (I'll help you keep the wolf from your doors in return for which you help me keep the wolf from mine).

Pure continental defence provided by sea and air forces is an isolationist concept and, in the long run, will be exponentially more expensive as one will have no allies to rely on and share the cost of that defence.

An army, per se, is not a defence cost without a benefit to Canada's national security; its the way Canada's army is structured that results in a force that is not optimal for the costs expended on it.

Every defence needs to be a layered defence with each layer predicated on the notion that all other layers can fail.

One chap with a rapier flailing about in the blue at the behest of Global Affairs does not a defence make.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Every defence needs to be a layered defence with each layer predicated on the notion that all other layers can fail.

One chap with a rapier flailing about in the blue at the behest of Global Affairs does not a defence make.

Especially if the fellow standing in front of the chap flailing about with the rapier is holding a 12 gauge loaded in dimes pointed at him.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Agree. A drop of crude or a raw log should not leave this country.

Comparative advantage always applies.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Oceans count as "territory". If our side can deny the other side use of the seas while pounding their railway nodes and defiles into matchsticks and gravel from the air, anything they try to do by land is going to proceed weakly and slowly.

 

[FJAG]

Agree. A drop of crude or a raw log should not leave this country.

I'm not quite at that point but firmly agree that no petroleum products nor lumber nor minerals should leave this country in any form until our long-term national security needs are secured. Those in excess of that should only leave in domestically processed forms.

I tend to rail against the current governments failure to meet Canada's security needs in the form of national defence and a realistic foreign policy. I'm even more angered by their lack of securing our national security vis a vis domestic industries and natural resource utilization. Leaving critical components of our pipeline infrastructure in the US is one of those. You can only ship so much oil in rail tanker cars.

 

[ArmyRick]

You guys see this one yet? Anybody knew this retired officer?

 

[KevinB]

IMHO the Army doesn’t need to get bigger - it just needs to be structured more efficiently and equipped suitably.
The CA is basically a Corps in theoretical size. It just can’t deploy even a fully equipped Brigade for a LSCO.

The RCAF and RCN need to grow as they are currently not large enough for the tasks at hand in terms of people and equipment. I’d argue that CANSOF needs to grow as well, especially on the capability support side.

 

[childs56]

All those who think not a drop of oil, piece of soft wood or mineral should leave this country need to think about the use for the product.
Most Coal for example leaves to be used to make steel. Unless we want large steel making plants here again then the finished product is the coal itself.

Raw lumber sent to Japan was due to our sawmill not able to mill the wood in the dimensions they required. No large willingness to do so. Partly because a large enough demand was not there, part because no one was going to tell the big lumber boys here how to do business.

A few smaller mills in BC have some great contracts milling dimensional lumber for the specific markets but nothing that would be considered large scale like the big mills. Their employment is based directly on a specific markets and thus are more violate then the larger markets.

As for refineries and such. Again we need to understand what the product is used for specifically. Many do not know this. Canada is a net exporter of refined product. Even though eastern Canada imports middle eastern oil.

If we want to be competitive on the Refined/finished product we need to understand what that product is and how's its being used.

Are we going to ship pre built houses. After all that's a finished product of lumber and gypsum?

 

[MilEME09]

All those who think not a drop of oil, piece of soft wood or mineral should leave this country need to think about the use for the product.
Most Coal for example leaves to be used to make steel. Unless we want large steel making plants here again then the finished product is the coal itself.

Raw lumber sent to Japan was due to our sawmill not able to mill the wood in the dimensions they required. No large willingness to do so. Partly because a large enough demand was not there, part because no one was going to tell the big lumber boys here how to do business.

A few smaller mills in BC have some great contracts milling dimensional lumber for the specific markets but nothing that would be considered large scale like the big mills. Their employment is based directly on a specific markets and thus are more violate then the larger markets.

As for refineries and such. Again we need to understand what the product is used for specifically. Many do not know this. Canada is a net exporter of refined product. Even though eastern Canada imports middle eastern oil.

If we want to be competitive on the Refined/finished product we need to understand what that product is and how's its being used.

Are we going to ship pre built houses. After all that's a finished product of lumber and gypsum?

yeap we primarily export and buy back the finished product, but if a trade war is what the US wants, then we can cut them off and find new markets. I am sure lots of countries would love to offset russian lumber and coal right now.

 

[NearingZenith]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/defence-spending-two-percent-defence-spending-target-1.7440870

Facing U.S. President Donald Trump's ongoing criticism about military spending, Defence Minister Bill Blair says it's "absolutely achievable" within two years for Canada to meet NATO's military investment benchmark of two per cent of gross domestic product.

That timeline is about six years earlier than what the prime minister announced and told NATO leaders in July.

"My goal is to do it as quickly as possible and I'm increasingly confident we'll be able to," Blair said in response to questions from CBC News.

Apparently we’re going to get to 2% defence spending in 2 years. Everyone get your fantasy shopping lists out…

And yes, the Liberals aren’t likely to be in power over the next 2 years to implement it so it’ll be interesting to see whether the Conservatives honour this pledge. And if Conservatives do honour it, how they intend to honour it while maintaining their commitment that new spending is offset by spending cuts elsewhere along with their promise of tax cuts. That will likely require large cuts in many other government departments and programs which will be politically challenging. The Liberals plan to pay for it would probably involve lots of debt so is hardly better though.

 

[lenaitch]

I'm not quite at that point but firmly agree that no petroleum products nor lumber nor minerals should leave this country in any form until our long-term national security needs are secured. Those in excess of that should only leave in domestically processed forms.

I tend to rail against the current governments failure to meet Canada's security needs in the form of national defence and a realistic foreign policy. I'm even more angered by their lack of securing our national security vis a vis domestic industries and natural resource utilization. Leaving critical components of our pipeline infrastructure in the US is one of those. You can only ship so much oil in rail tanker cars.

To be clear, I'm not advocating we don't export products; I'm just not a fan of exporting non-value-added products.

I don't know the industries. Maybe there are good reasons why we ship raw products, but it just strikes me as part of sitting back on our historic 'hewers of wood and drawers of water' mentality. Adding value to a product is jobs and profit.

 

[Czech_pivo]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/defence-spending-two-percent-defence-spending-target-1.7440870


Apparently we’re going to get to 2% defence spending in 2 years. Everyone get your fantasy shopping lists out…

And yes, the Liberals aren’t likely to be in power over the next 2 years to implement it so it’ll be interesting to see whether the Conservatives honour this pledge. And if Conservatives do honour it, how they intend to honour it while maintaining their commitment that new spending is offset by spending cuts elsewhere along with their promise of tax cuts. That will likely require large cuts in many other government departments and programs which will be politically challenging. The Liberals plan to pay for it would probably involve lots of debt so is hardly better though.

Again, PP has gone on record saying that 2% is the goal, which will likely have to be higher.

The next phase of the sub tender closes at the end of Feb, wonder if the Libs will use the month between then and the recall of Parliament towards the end of March to declare a 'sole source' tender and give it to the SK's? An attempt to turn a couple of more seats to the 'red', hamstring the Conservatives into agreeing with the decision or to dare to go against it - it potentially gain the angry of Trump, the Premiers who are for the 2% and the general CDN population.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

You guys see this one yet? Anybody knew this retired officer?

Neverr trust anyone with a moustache that is that well groomed. Officers should be saggy...

 

[MilEME09]

Neverr trust anyone with a moustache that is that well groomed. Officers should be saggy...

Never trust a warrant without a coffee in hand?

 

[dapaterson]

Never trust a warrant without a coffee in hand?

Never trust a Maj without a CD.

 

[NearingZenith]

Again, PP has gone on record saying that 2% is the goal, which will likely have to be higher.

The next phase of the sub tender closes at the end of Feb, wonder if the Libs will use the month between then and the recall of Parliament towards the end of March to declare a 'sole source' tender and give it to the SK's? An attempt to turn a couple of more seats to the 'red', hamstring the Conservatives into agreeing with the decision or to dare to go against it - it potentially gain the angry of Trump, the Premiers who are for the 2% and the general CDN population.

Yes the Conservatives have said that 2% is the goal, but I don’t think PP has articulated his preferred timeline to achieve this other than complain the Liberals have been too slow.

The Liberal’s new pledge might actually be too fast. We’re basically going to need to rush money out the door to get from 1.37% to 2% in 2 years since we’ll have to actually have spent the money not just sign a contract. There might not be enough time to hold full in-depth competitions for big ticket projects like the sub replacement as you point out. So we could end up getting to 2% through paying inflated prices rather than get the most bang for each buck (no pun intended) although I suppose that’s par for the course with Canadian procurement.

As for the Liberals announcing a sole source deal with SK for subs before an election that’s certainly possible. The CBC article reports Minister Blair’s office indicated subs as one big ticket item that can be accelerated so they may be laying the groundwork for an announcement.

 

[suffolkowner]

Yes the Conservatives have said that 2% is the goal, but I don’t think PP has articulated his preferred timeline to achieve this other than complain the Liberals have been too slow.

The Liberal’s new pledge might actually be too fast. We’re basically going to need to rush money out the door to get from 1.37% to 2% in 2 years since we’ll have to actually have spent the money not just sign a contract. There might not be enough time to hold full in-depth competitions for big ticket projects like the sub replacement as you point out. So we could end up getting to 2% through paying inflated prices rather than get the most bang for each buck (no pun intended) although I suppose that’s par for the course with Canadian procurement.

As for the Liberals announcing a sole source deal with SK for subs before an election that’s certainly possible. The CBC article reports Minister Blair’s office indicated subs as one big ticket item that can be accelerated so they may be laying the groundwork for an announcement.

Have we had any competitions where we have gotten anything like bang for the buck? I am including the product being close to the right one in the bang part

 

[Fabius]

Getting to 2% of GDP via large or extremely large one off capital procurements is very different than a 2% of GDP baseline budget; of which the CAF could commit a constant 20% of too capital procurements.

One option gets you an announcement and some political cover but marginal capability. The second gets you a coherent and well rounded capability both in terms of military and industrial capabilities.

I think that the LPC is trying for the first COA. I suspect the CAF is just trying to get whatever it can and doesn’t really have a plan for the second option anyway.