Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Rudburg]

I don't agree with much in that paper. I think you have one looks at it from several points then it adds up, not as a failure in the report, but failure within the bureaucracy to follow through with both the investigative process within the bureaucracy and implementing the final report itself. In short:



4) senior bureaucrats were not about to take a hand in curbing this glut of spending within their own backyard. Bureaucracies do not willingly commit suicide but resort to maintaining the status quo, at least to the tune of how it impacts their own fiefdoms. Consolidating the several dotcoms into CJOC was a positive step but I don't have actual figures as to how much of a net manpower saving this actually created.

I think these issues would crop up if a Minister tried to drive major reforms to the CAF. There would be institutional resistance within the CAF, but also at the Cabinet level. Major equipment purchases or budget increases for defense are never going to be an easy sell. They also come with risk, and politicians know that they are defined by their failures.

He had his hand in some key matters - The Leo 2, the M777 (the first dozen and the last 26), the CCV and LRPF (cancelled after him), the TAPV (even if some folks hate it), and LAV UP. A fair bit of cash flowed for those.

Did he bring in any important policy changes or structural reforms when he was the commander of the Army?

 

[FJAG]

I think these issues would crop up if a Minister tried to drive major reforms to the CAF. There would be institutional resistance within the CAF, but also at the Cabinet level. Major equipment purchases or budget increases for defense are never going to be an easy sell. They also come with risk, and politicians know that they are defined by their failures.

The 2011 Transformation initiative was not about "major equipment purchases or budget increases for defence." It was about cutting waste and inefficiency and costs savings. His recommendations earmarked between 1 and 3 billion in potential savings.

Did he bring in any important policy changes or structural reforms when he was the commander of the Army?

Leslie's tour as CLS ran from mid 2006 until mid 2010. As such he steered the army through the bulk of its time in Afghanistan. Effectively he reversed two major shortsighted equipment decisions that his predecessors Hillier and Caron had brought about. Under them the army was in the process of divesting itself of 155mm calibre howitzers and tanks. He was instrumental in bringing in the M777 (even before he was CLS) and the Leopard 2 tank both of which played critical parts in Afghanistan in saving the lives of Canadian soldiers. He was able to maintain an air defence capability within the army when most were clamouring for its divestiture as an unnecessary capability. IMHO, killing off the "Indirect Fire Unit" concept and subsequently that of the "Optimized Battle Group" that were gaining steam under Hillier and Caron before him were important moves that stopped negative structural changes from taking place. The return to a single operational headquarters - CJOC - was a major structural reform that arose out of his 2011 report.

I think that if you limit "important policy changes or structural changes" to some earth shaking events then you misunderstand wartime leadership. What resulted during Leslie's tour were dozens to hundreds of minor fine tuning actions such as improvements in CMTC's training in preparing troops for deployment and adjustments in the rotation system and the use of reservists that ensured that Canada was able to sustain its deployed force notwithstanding its small size and the duration of the war.

The Canadian Forces as a whole, and not just the army, is resistant to policy changes and reform. Firstly, it receives its marching orders from civilian governments which are by nature resistant to reforms and second, it is internally managed by a committee system that limits resource allocation, the vast bulk of which is tied up in maintaining the status quo structure. The issues that he pointed out in the 2011 report were all ones that came about because of decisions above his paygrade as CLS. Those resource hogs that exist within the DND/CAF organization limit the extent to which "earth shaking" reform can be carried out within the army.

 

[Rudburg]

The 2011 Transformation initiative was not about "major equipment purchases or budget increases for defence." It was about cutting waste and inefficiency and costs savings. His recommendations earmarked between 1 and 3 billion in potential savings.

No, but my initial response was motivated by some discussion upthread about Leslie's potential as an MND. His 2011 initiative went nowhere, and I'm not confident he would have any more success as a minister. Not necessarily because of Leslie, but because the Government of Canada has very little interest in fixing the CAF's issues. It's practically ingrained in the national DNA at this point.

I think that if you limit "important policy changes or structural changes" to some earth shaking events then you misunderstand wartime leadership. What resulted during Leslie's tour were dozens to hundreds of minor fine tuning actions such as improvements in CMTC's training in preparing troops for deployment and adjustments in the rotation system and the use of reservists that ensured that Canada was able to sustain its deployed force notwithstanding its small size and the duration of the war.

Before you give him too much credit, recall that this also took place on his watch. 09/10 Budget Impact on PRes - Unit stand-downs, Class B Freeze, and so on!

The Canadian Forces as a whole, and not just the army, is resistant to policy changes and reform. Firstly, it receives its marching orders from civilian governments which are by nature resistant to reforms and second, it is internally managed by a committee system that limits resource allocation, the vast bulk of which is tied up in maintaining the status quo structure

This gets to my point above about the issues that any MND would face. Disinterest in security has all-party consensus in Canada. Governments are willing to tolerate it as a necessary evil, but they aren't willing to make any major sacrifices for national defence. Historically, almost nobody has improved their political career by an appointment as MND, but it has been a good place to get tied up in trouble or a scandal. That's not an incentive system that leads to bold decision making.

Leslie's grandfather, Andrew McNaughton, is somewhat illustrative of this. He couldn't even get into Parliament. Despite being an MND in wartime, he lost two elections and never sat as an MP.

 

[dapaterson]

Leaders build vision and continuity of effort beyond their tenure.

The Army suffers from continually having commanders, not leaders.

 

[MilEME09]

Leaders build vision and continuity of effort beyond their tenure.

The Army suffers from continually having commanders, not leaders.

plenty of managers to manage managing though. It goes to our risk adversion we don't wanna make the decision so we stand up a position to make it for us.

 

[dapaterson]

Making a decision is easy. Seeing it through beyond your tenure is where leadership is needed. Lots of "the system" problems are more "we failed to have a long term plan to see this through".

 

[Kirkhill]

Making a decision is easy. Seeing it through beyond your tenure is where leadership is needed. Lots of "the system" problems are more "we failed to have a long term plan to see this through".

Too bad there is no mechanism to get the RCN, RCAF, RRCA, RCAC, RCIC all the other Royal Entities all working to the same plan.

 

[WestIsle]

Blair ‘confident’ Canada will meet NATO targets with push for more spending - National | Globalnews.ca

Defence Minister Bill Blair says that he is looking to replace Canada's tanks and purchase new submarines, but he still needs to finalize the "business case."

globalnews.ca

 

[GR66]

Blair ‘confident’ Canada will meet NATO targets with push for more spending - National | Globalnews.ca

Defence Minister Bill Blair says that he is looking to replace Canada's tanks and purchase new submarines, but he still needs to finalize the "business case."

globalnews.ca

He still needs to finalize the "business case"???

Here, let me help:

 

[PrairieFella]

Could probably 200 Abrams tomorrow for real cheap if we asked. I'm team leopard myself but something something gift horse

 

[McG]

Blair ‘confident’ Canada will meet NATO targets with push for more spending - National | Globalnews.ca

Defence Minister Bill Blair says that he is looking to replace Canada's tanks and purchase new submarines, but he still needs to finalize the "business case."

globalnews.ca

We need to more than double our equipment spending to get to the NATO target for equipment. The bureaucracy needs to get a lot more agile if we are going to get there. There are a lot of projects with significant momentum that are funded to a fraction the of their requirement; if he can figure out how to top-up funds to full scope faster than a multi-year pan-CAF capital investment review then he might get CAF on track to 0.4% GDP for equipment.

 

[RangerRay]

Blair ‘confident’ Canada will meet NATO targets with push for more spending - National | Globalnews.ca

Defence Minister Bill Blair says that he is looking to replace Canada's tanks and purchase new submarines, but he still needs to finalize the "business case."

globalnews.ca

By reducing our overall GDP?

 

[Czech_pivo]

Paywall but the headline makes things clear enough.

https://www.wsj.com/arts-culture/books/the-end-of-everything-review-annals-of-total-destruction-c11777cc?mod=Searchresults_pos11&page=1

There is War and then there is whatever that thing is when you try to apply rules to warfare.

I disagree that Constantinople was 'cut down' in its prime. They had been on the decline for a few centuries, the Ottomans merely kicked the whole rotten structure to the ground.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Good point. If we are too lax on immigration control and passports sooner or later "friends" will start demanding visas as well as passports.

I'm waiting for this to occur. I give it a 50/50 chance over the next 5-8yrs from happening.
As someone with both US and Canadian citizenship it won't effect me but it will devastate border cities, tourism and our economy.

 

[PrairieFella]

I'm waiting for this to occur. I give it a 50/50 chance over the next 5-8yrs from happening.
As someone with both US and Canadian citizenship it won't effect me but it will devastate border cities, tourism and our economy.

It'll never happen. Way too much of the US economy relies on easy travel with Canada. It would be political suicide for any president as major major industries and states will lobby the shit outta that one. Canada is the main trading partner for 40% of the US states.

 

[Czech_pivo]

It'll never happen. Way too much of the US economy relies on easy travel with Canada. It would be political suicide for any president as major major industries and states will lobby the shit outta that one. Canada is the main trading partner for 40% of the US states.

Don't be so sure.

 

[PrairieFella]

Don't be so sure.

I can be so sure, it would be economic and political suicide to hamper trade with their major commodity market. A ton of US industry also relies on back and forth supply lines between the countries.

 

[KevinB]

I can be so sure, it would be economic and political suicide to hamper trade with their major commodity market. A ton of US industry also relies on back and forth supply lines between the countries.

Waivers for drivers happened in COVID.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Waivers for drivers happened in COVID.

Same with health care workers

 

[Czech_pivo]

I can be so sure, it would be economic and political suicide to hamper trade with their major commodity market. A ton of US industry also relies on back and forth supply lines between the countries.

Canadians do not have a 'right' to enter the US, just like Americans don't have a 'right' to enter Canada.
When you enter another Country you are in fact a 'guest' in their house and must follow their laws and customs. A person or a country can make a decision at any time to limit the guests or the numbers of guests coming into their house, its their right to do so.
The US could easily decide to do this. Look at what the Europeans within the EU have done to us and the Americans starting next year -

ETIAS

Official EU website on ETIAS, the new travel authorisation for visa-exempt travellers to enter 30 European countries. Applications should be filled in this website from mid-2025.

travel-europe.europa.eu

This could easily, easily be applied here by the Americans to us.